The British Monarchy in the 20th Century
By the early 20th Century it might have seemed to some as though Carlyle's proposal for a "cast-metal king" would fit the British Constitution. The King was the mouthpiece of his Ministers. Except on the rarest occasions, he was bound to accept the advice tendered to him by his constitutional advisors.
Hearn pointed out, in his admirable work entitled 'The Government of England,' that, in spite of the progress toward democracy of the 19th century, the British Constitution remained, in a very real sense, a monarchy. Not only was it still true that, as regarded all foreign communities, the empire was represented by the monarch alone, and that it would be a gross breach of political etiquette for any person or body to attempt to open up any other channel of official communication with a foreign community, but it was equally true, that every internal act of State — legislative, executive, or judicial — both in the United Kingdom and in the dominions beyond the narrow seas, was done in the name of the monarch, and that no such act can be ultra vires. It was of the essence of the British conception of State sovereignty that the monarch is incapable of committing legal wrong. But the executive official who breaks the law is liable to an action in the ordinary courts by the humblest citizen whom he has injured.
Though politics are an important side of public life in the British Empire, they did not by any means exhaust its interests. And the occupant of the throne was by no means confined to the sphere of politics. As the head of society, as the patron of religious, charitable, agricultural and scientific enterprises, as the encourager of art and sport, as the focus of that spectacular world which, even to the phlegmatic Briton, was no small share of his existence, the opportunities of the monarch were unlimited, and his personal discretion unfettered. To secure the presence of the King at any function, was to place success beyond the range of doubt. For the King to take a personal interest in the prosperity of a public enterprise, was the surest guarantee of its popularity. And with all these matters the Cabinet had no concern. But, even in the realm of politics, the King was very far from being the mere figure-head which superficial observers sometimes supposed. It was true that the splendid service which the King rendered to the State as the embodiment and symbol of the unity and permanence of a world-wide empire was, perhaps, the greatest of all the functions of the Crown; and, it may be added, there can hardly be any position more truly splendid, more worthy of the highest powers, more capable of being used as an instrument of good. Its singular value was that, while it afforded scope for the powers of genius, the position was capable of being reasonably well filled by any man or woman of moderate ability and first-rate training, while even an unworthy holder cannot do very much harm in it. In other words, it is a position singularly well suited to an hereditary monarch. And it would be a great mistake to assume that, even in the realm of politics, the function of the monarch was confined to the outward show of things, and had no place behind the scenes, where the real fates of nations are decided. Bagehot summarized, with his usual justice, the political rights to which a constitutional monarch, in a system like the British, was entitled. He had "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn." And, as the same writer very truly remarked, such rights, in the hands of a monarch of sense and sagacity, and it may be added, of experience, were though to be singularly effective. By the early 20th Century, the air of a court was by no means so fatal to width of outlook and knowledge of the world as in the days before the popular press and facile traveling. Queen Victoria, for example, was learning politics by instinct when many of her future Ministers were absorbed in the sports of youth or the narrow cares of professional life. Words of warning or encouragement must have fallen with singular force from her lips upon the ears of men upon whom rested the tremendous responsibilities of empire; while the completeness with which she could enforce her undoubted constitutional rights was shown in the famous letter in which she consigned Lord Palmerston to temporary oblivion in 1850. On that occasion Her Majesty simply insisted upon her undoubted right to be distinctly informed of every event, in contemplation or progress, which might result in an act of the Crown, "in order that she may as distinctly know to what she is giving her royal sanction." Suggestions had from time to time been made to the effect that the occupant of the throne should take a more personal and ostentatious part of the details of government These suggestions not only savored of the political backwater, but they were singularly ill-advised in the interests of the monarchy. Britons felt so keenly upon political matters, that anyone, however exalted, who took part in controversial or debatable matters, inevitably met with hostile criticism and periods of unpopularity. From such untoward accidents the Crown was entirely saved by virtue of its unique position. Even where, as during the eventful years of the Balfour Ministry, the policy of the government was unpopular with the majority of the community, no one dreamed of blaming the King, for everyone assumed that he had nothing to do with it. "The King has no politics, and no one knows to which party be belongs." How different was the attitude of the country to George III during the long period in which he strove to restore the older type of monarchy. But perhaps the most complete testimony to the success of the later system, so far as the Crown was concerned, was the fact that republicanism, even as an academic ideal, has practically ceased to exist in the British Empire. Among all the schemes of political reform which were from time to time mooted, no one ever contemplated the disappearance or modification of the powers of the Crown; for the very good reason that the Crown, so far from being a stumbling-block in the way of reform, was seen to be capable of being employed as a valuable instrument to secure it. The working of the Cabinet system made the Crown a splendid fixed sun, surrounded by a constellation of rolling planets destined, from time to time, to disappear from sight. No one became tired of the sun, because the desire for occasional change, planted in every human breast, was satisfied by the appearance and disappearance of the planets. The Cabinet system may be open to severe criticism; but its defects would not be amended by any change which would reduce the monarch from his proud position as head of a united nation, to the leadership of a faction of irresponsible politicians, opposition to whom would mean opposition to the avowed personal wishes of the Crown.|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
