LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our "News of the Week" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompamed by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.] Sin,—Mr. E. M. Forster has taught us all so much that whatever be writes is sure to be read with respect. Just now he is disturbed about the Coronation. Granted, he says, the Kingship, could not the ritual be "more moderate " ? Could not the King be "crowned quietly " ? A-little-less- noise-please, would surely be a " seemly " injunction in the present "appalling state of mankind." And could not the business be done more cheaply ? "All this ponderous and fictitious gaiety" is out of place. It is offensive, too, because, in Mr. Forster's opinion, its mainspring is trade and profit. The Coronation has been commercialised ; it cannot be " spiritualised " : look at the Recall to Religion, to which Mr. Forster accords the amenity of an irrelevant kick. Con- stitutionally, the Coronation is " redundant " ; "for the documents which the King signs crownless are just as valid as those which he signs crowned." Thus, besides being fussy, expensive, and commercialised, the Coronation is also useless. Worse still, perhaps, it alarms Mr. Forster ; for he fears that the Coronation Year may "become the vehicle for unconstitutional nonsense." That would be a pity, because, he tells us rather unexpectedly, the monarchy has a "peculiar value" just now, since it serves as "a safety valve for emotions which might otherwise turn towards dictatorship." This tribute to the negative merits of the British Monarchy is the more welcome because it is, I think, the only cheerful remark in Mr. Forster's jeremiad.
Such is Mr. Forster's distress. Many no doubt will sympathise outright ; others, such as myself, will have their reserves. I certainly have no wish to deny either that the chatter and fuss, which accompany big functions, are tiresome and often overdone, or that exploitation is always unpleasing. It is true also that "joy in widest commonalty spread" is by no means always a joy to the elect. But Mr. Forster, as the Editor has observed, is only stating a view ; he is not "covering the whole ground." So perhaps it may not be indecent to glance at some of the ground which Mr. Forster has been too busy with his misgivings to notice.
Mr. Forster is horrified by the state of mankind. So are other sensible people, and devoutly do they wish that they knew what to do about it. Mr. Forster, however, sees how to begin : he would punish the Coronation. Not cancel or postpone it : only the compulsion of dire events could do that. But Mr. Forster would be less unhappy if its rites had been maimed, and its scale cut down. I cannot see the sense of this. The Coronation is not simply a great occasion in the domestic life of the British peoples : it is an occasion altogether exceptional. I am sure that to multitudes the Coronation means much more than Mr. Forster seems to think. Its appeal is threefold. First, it is a ceremony without a rival in its traditional and historic interest ; secondly, it is humble, reverent, and solemn ; and, thirdly, it is inspiring and joyful. For myself, 1' can respect no notion of a great polity which does not set a high value upon these things. I think that the American who witnessed the Coronation of Edward VII, and then said that, if he were an Englishman, he would not part with a scrap of its noble and moving ritual, was no sentimental fool but a very sagacious man. Of course, political institutions must be useful ; but if they are useful and nothing else, heaven help the State and its people. Mr. Forster once wrote a memorable novel in which he showed that "personal relations are the important thing for ever and ever." In this great State of ours, functioning so largely in impersonal ways, what institution does more than the monarahy, lifted to a new plane of worth and gentleness by Victoria and her successors, to sweeten and humanise relations between government and subjects ?
When Edward VII died, I happened to be in Canada. I told a farmer how impressed I was, even surprised, by the evidences of universal sorrow. He shook his head. "You do not understand," he said quietly. "The King is to us as a personal friend." And, surely, at no point in the sovereign's career does he come nearer to the hearts of his peoples than when he stands forth to pledge himself before God to do his
best, and to be crowned and hallowed. If, indeed, the official control of the ceremonial were to give way to wanton ostentation and extravagance, as happened at the Coronation of George IV, there would be just cause of complaint. I am, not aware that any such charge can be sustained on the present occasion. Certainly, no ceremony of State could be more free froin militant swagger than the Coronation. It is neither provocative nor menacing ; on the contrary, it is strong and impressive because its foundations are so visibly laid in fellowship and loyal understanding ; and it affords an opportunity for inter- national courtesies and goodwill. So long as these are its characteristics, the function must be worthy ; and few, indeed, are those who would wish it to be scamped. And could there be anything less palatable to a high-spirited people, anything more likely to be interpreted at home and abroad as a panicky attack of " nerves " at a season when steadiness and common sense are all-important, than an announcement that because the world is in a parlous state, and because dictators will keep on talking through their hats, the British peoples are not to be permitted to celebrate this most lawful occasion in their customary hearty and thoroughgoing fashion ?
The Coronation needs no apology. Perhaps the attitude towards it of a part of the public may. If so, blame these offenders, not the Coronation. Remember, too, that we cannot live in an age of scientific marvels for nothing. We cannot expect that the new resources in transport, communications, publicity, and organisation will not be used to the maximum in celebrating so popular a function of State. We cannot expect our very audible newspapers to become tongue-tied. The idea of a " quiet " Coronation is idle : the crowning of kings anti queens cannot be done in a corner. Chatter and bustle, , carried to infinity, are a nuisance : but the government of men today abounds in nuisances much worse than this one. And our mechanical miracles achieve more than noise. Thanks to wireless, millions will participate in the Abbey ceremonial as never before. If wireless can be the tool of dictators, it can also deepen and enrich the sense of partnership in a free commonwealth.
The Coronation gives pleasure, and more than pleasure, to British people throughout the world. It costs money ; but those who cannot endure this reflection may be tendered the sordid assurance that, as a national "investment ", the Coronation is sound. Mr. Forster labours the constitutional point that coronation is not essential to the validity of kingship. Happy thought ! The Coronation, then, is useless : cut it out, or cut it down. But this is no place in which to comment upon a "mechanic philosophy" of politics which Burke exploded a century and a half ago.
The value of the Coronation depends greatly upon what we make of it and bring to it. Bring to it some reverence for the long pilgrimage of our people ; some faith that all authority and power, whether of kings, or county councillors, or village constables, is a trust held of God and the community ; and some conviction that in a free commonwealth government must be founded upon a true and lively partnership ; and, then, in spite of Mr. Forster's nightmare of roundabouts and masked faces, we may make much of it, and feel all the better, and
even escape hysteria.—Yours faithfully, W. M. CHILDS. Grimsbury Bank, Hermitage, Berks.
Previous page
