THE FLAG.
WHEN Lord Rosebery on Friday week handed over the Union Jacks, presented by the Victoria League, to the Board-schools of Edinburgh he made a speech to the children which was a model for its purpose. It was very simple, and was spoken in such a way that its few points were likely to stick in the mind. It was childlike, but very far from childish. After describing the origin of the Union Jack, he said :—" It stands for the United Kingdom and British Empire ; but if the United Kingdom were like some kingdoms, and if the British Empire were like some Empires, we should not take the trouble to give you the flag to-day. It is because, as we think, it stands for justice, good government, liberty, and Christianity that we honour that flag."
We have often thought that the national flag is in some danger of being made a party emblem. We suppose that if respect were always paid to it in the spirit of Lord Rosebery's words there would be no danger of that; but there are uses of the flag which detract from its representative character, and which Lord Rosebery, with a sound instinct, com- pletely avoided. The flag should not, to begin with, be made the symbol of a particular policy. It is very easy, and even natural, for people to say : "The policy we advocate is a patriotic policy, framed for the honour and advancement of the country, and therefore we have every right to use the Union Jack as the expression of it." This is very well so far as it goes, but unhappily it has the logical effect of putting all the opponents of that particular policy into the position of oppo- nents of the flag. We see something of the working out of this principle—which is wholly regrettable—in the fact that people who are for what is called a Jingo policy are more apt to wave the flag than those who are called by their enemies " Little Englanders." The term "patriotic" unfortunately often begs the question, and we have even heard that one of our greatest Imperialist administrators was recently called a "Little Englander" because he is a Free-trader. It does not pay to run any risks of exclusion. The national flag should be really national,—comprehending the aspirations of all those who wish well to their country. It would be grotesque if it came finally to be regarded as the banner either of an aggres- sive clique or of a pacifist clique. That is too grotesque a thing to happen, of course, but it would be only the logical end of exclusion pressed far enough. For this reason we wish that the Union Jack were never used at elections on posters, unless indeed it were used by both sides, and then, no doubt, it would lose the piquant meanings thrust upon it. Mr. Morley
once said :—"I am for an upright England, and a just. dealingEngland, and the bigger the better. I am not a Little Englander I am for the Ten Commandments." That is the ideal in which the differences of "Imperialists" and "Little Englanders" would lose themselves in union; and it is that ideal for which the national flag should stand.
' There is no need to deny that the flag is often made the Instrument of vulgar bombast; and some sane Imperialists shudder at the blatant use of the word" Empire." Although "Empire" has a deep sanctity for them in their private thought, they employ it in public with a certain constraint. They associate the word only too painfully with a wrong- headed or unintelligent advocacy of doctrines which are dear to them ; it conjures up pictures of men who drag their country behind the chariot of their own notoriety. We all remember the inimitable picture drawn by Mr. Kipling of the blatant flag-waver who made the schoolfellows of "Stalky and Co." shiver and blush for shame at his hideous practisings on their deepest and most sacred emolgons. "This," said one of the trio, "must be the original G-adarene swine." But we are afraid that if this vulgarity has become possible, it is to a large extent the fault of those who have looked on silently. No one has a right to make the flag the emblem of expansion or of military glory—though it may most rightly stand for those things—more than the emblem of the spread of Christianity and the administration of justice and the boons of good government. Those are to blame, we say, who allow the flag to be monopolised; by tabooing it they actually cause it to become a party symbol. The combined virtues of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick may be safely regarded as sanctioning any and every endeavour for the common welfare, provided that it be honestly intended.
It may be said that, in spite of all the considerations above, it is unnecessary to draw the attention of children to the flag at all; that the result, however much care be taken to the contrary. will always be a confusion of the shadow with the substance and end in a kind of idolatry. The only thing to do, it may be argued, is to make Britain more generous, more humane, more righteous, and the flag will be respected in proportion,—you do not need to explain your own virtues. We can only say for ourselves that we do not believe that this process is automatic in the minds of children. We should like to see them taught respect for the flag as they are, or ought to be, taught respect for their parents, which is not by any means a natural instinct. There is an odious absence of respectfulness for everything and everybody to-day, because it appears to be seriously believed that respect is a surrender of self-respect,—a sort of ignoble kow-towing. The facts are just the other way; he who can respect nothing or no one has a very small chance of respecting himself. The perfect school-teacher of our imagination would show the difference between reverence and the loss of independence; he would show that to offer respect is to command it, and that a democracy morally falls to pieces if it does not foster that respect of persons and institutions which is the only philo- sophic basis upon which it stands. Respect for the flag is only one form of civility.—a point in good manners. In the hands of the Victoria League and Lord Rosebery such teaching is safe enough ; we only wish that throughout the kingdom others would secure the flag from a partial or vulgar employment by honouring it in the right way
themselves. You know," said Lord Rosebery, "what inspiration is, though that is a longer word than I meant to nee, something that seems to come from above, higher and better than ourselves, that tends to make you higher and better than you usually are, and I want you when you see this flag waving on your schools to let it be an inspiration to you. If any of you at any time should be tempted, as we all are tempted, to do something mean or base or vile or cowardly, look up to that flag and forbear." That is a precept for conduct which has its higher counterpart in Christianity, to be sure, but it cannot be a wrong, and it might be a very popular, one to associate with the flag.
Previous page
