THRONE VERSUS REPUBLIC. T HE speeches on the third readin g of
the Prince of Wales's Children Bill were the most Republican that have been made during the progress of the measure. The distinction drawn in them between the Crown and its present wearer is really fatal to the principle of hereditary Monarchy. Mr. Labouchere was profuse in his expressions of respect and devotion for the Queen. Mr. Robertson described her as "the best and probably the greatest Sovereign that this country has ever seen." Professions of this kind will not be enough to main- tain a. Monarchy in times like the present. The character of a particular Sovereign is always a matter of chance. If the case for Monarchy is to be made out satisfactorily, it must be by arguments which have a better foundation than a personal accident. Mr. Labouchere spoke of the Queen as the First Magistrate, —a sort of reference which recalls the short-lived loyalty of the Revolution of 1789. If the Sovereign is only the First Magistrate, it will be but a short step to the considera- tion whether hereditary succession is the best method of appointing a First Magistrate. As the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link, so the strength of an institution is the strength it can command under un- favourable conditions. Any institution may be held in esteem so long as it works well; the test of its vitality is the extent to which people will put up with it when it is working ill. It is impossible that under a hereditary Monarch, the reigning Sovereign should always be the best of his House ; it is not likely that he will always come up even to the average standard of that House. Supposing that the reigning Sovereign had been George IV. or George there would have been no room for compliments in the former case to his private, or in the latter to his con- stitutional virtues, and it is easy to imagine what the tenor of Monday's speeches would then have been. It may seem discouraging to have, at the end of the nineteenth century, to find a fresh argumentative basis for positions which have long been supposed to be established beyond the need of demonstration. But it is a discourage- ment which we shall have to face in relation to a variety of subjects. The day of appeal to formulas is over. It is no longer possible to dispose of a doctrine by giving it a bad name. Socialism is found to be quite a popular trade-mark for economical theories that will not bear the ordeal of examination, and. Republicanism is held to imply a resolute preference for the higher over the lower ideal of political sovereignty. We shall be forced, there- fore, in the future to deal much more with fundamentals than has been the case in the past. Speculations on the best forms of government will cease to be mere academical exercises, and will once more become useful contributions to practical politics. It will be a new and not pleasing experience to speakers, whether in Parliament or on the platform, to have to describe the advantages of here- ditary succession; but if they wish .to hold their own against Republican oratory, they will be driven to do it. The public seems coming to that agreeable state of mind in which it is prepared to reconsider everything, and it will certainly not allow the divinity that has been supposed to hedge a King to go long unquestioned. It will be very necessary, therefore, for our younger poli- ticians to get a stronger grasp of their subject than they can do by merely praising Queen Victoria. That is a game which Republicans can equally play at, and one, too, which they will be very willing to play at, because, as we have said, it makes the Crown the creature of an accident. Modern defenders of Monarchy have one great advan- tage over earlier combatants in the same field. They can bring the argument from experience to strengthen any defects in the argument from theory. We call this a great advantage, because the argument from theory is undoubtedly not a strong one. The merits of the hereditary principle are by no means self-evident. A good tree is known by its fruits, but a good parent is not known by his children. The qualities which go to the making of a great Sovereign seem to be those which can least be counted on in his successor. Mere personal traits—the form of a feature, the outline of a head—will be reproduced from generation to generation; but the wisdom, the sense of justice, the consideration for others, the high standard of personal or social conduct, which are characteristic of a good King, seem to come and go independently of any rule. Natural selection does little or nothing for Sovereigns. Compare with this the process of election at each vacancy, and the apparent superiority of the latter process is striking. There may be differences of opinion as to the machinery which will best enable the nation to find out its greatest man; but when this preliminary has been settled, must it not be conceded that an intelligent nation is a better arbiter of its own fate than mere chance? It is here that the argument from experience comes in with so much force. This generation has watched nations at work in the choice of their Chief Magistrate, and it has seen what a. poor business they have made of it. Forty years ago, the Republican principle seemed starting on its tour round the world, and it was on the cards that it might end by making converts everywhere. Has it done so as a matter of fact? Spain has tried a Republic and given it up, and though an infant King and a long Regency are not favourable to Monarchy, the Spaniards are in no hurry to repeat the experiment. It was the great grief of Mazzini's closing days that France had again got the start of Italy, and had set up her third Republic while her neighbour was still a Monarchy. If he were alive now, he would be forced to confess that there is more chance of France ceasing to be a Republic than of Italy becoming one. The great successes of modern history—the unifica- tion of Italy and the creation of the German Empire—have been won under a Monarchy, and could not possibly have been won except under a Monarchy. Against this what has Franc3 to set, except a rapid and continuous decline in most of the essentials of national greatness? The United States may be claimed asanexception, and in many respects no doubt they are one. But though circumstances have practically left them without a choice as regards their form of government, they can hardly be quoted as an example of the good working of the Republican principle. The strongest point, perhaps, about the American Constitution is the high degree of independence it gives to the Executive. It is this that has enabled the United States to put up with so many inferior Presidents and so many unwise majorities in Congress. But executive independence is not a note of Republics,—that is rather furnished by the supposed ability of Republican government to ensure that the Executive shall be always qualified to make a good use of its independence. Whenever the best place falls vacant, the best man is chosen to fill it. We have only to look at America to see that this is precisely what does not happen. There were some eminent Presi- dents in the earlier days of the United. States, when the Republic was young enough to feel the need of a protector, and chance gave them an eminent President in Abraham Lincoln. But with these exceptions, eminence has always been the one feature which is held to exclude a man from the post. The Condition of election is that a candidate shall have offended no one and made no one envious; and, unfortunately, envy and irritation are precisely the quali- ties which dog the footsteps of eminence. The party managers, therefore, are careful to look out a man about whom as little as possible is known. The last election of a President in France, though it was made by the two Chambers instead of by the whole electorate, showed the same forces in operation. The Republican maj ority were dis- posed to agree upon a nominee because he was personally unknown to them. The Opportunists were allowed to elect a candidate from among themselves, but only on condition that they should pass over the one man who had any real claim to the honour. Upon Republican principles, the President should have been M. Ferry; Republican practice gave France M. Camot.
Previous page
