THE DECAY OF THE MONARCHICAL PRINCIPLE. N OTHING is more remarkable
in the history of the past year than the evidence it affords of the decay of the Monarchical principle in Europe. That the principle of Legiti- macy, of a divine right to govern inherent in the person of a legal King, has died away in the West from the minds of all but a limited class, has long been reckoned among the facts of politics. Statesmen speak of Legitimists as some Scotchmen speak of Jacobites,—with a kindly regret that an old party, with some fine qualities and much poetry about it, should have passed away. No great people west of the Vistula now holds the doctrines which under James II. were once preached in England, which were professed as a religion by the courtiers of Louis XIV., and which were once supposed by Protestants, quite erroneously, to be part of the creed of all Catholic populations. There was nothing in the idea of Legitimacy, as we have often observed before, repulsive to the human mind, or in any way inherently absurd. Millions believe that the distribution of the " means of grace " has been confided by Providence to a limited caste, renewed by incessant co-optation, and there is no impossibility in a similar delegation of the right to rule. If God built the throne of a Founder, He might also endow the Founder's children with a preferen- tial claim to govern ; and if He suffers calamities to occur bringing misery upon nations, He may also, for some unseen end, suffer bad Kings to rule them. Nevertheless, as the multitude grew in knowledge and self-consciousness the faith in Divine Right died away, until it would be bard to find a million of men in Europe outside Russia who would make any sacrifice even of money to preserve it in its purity. A few nobles, a few scores of thousands of Bretons, Basques, Branden- burghers, and Bavarians, and we have the entire congregation of that ancient cult. The faith, however, in another and less reasonable idea,—the moral claim of hereditary monarchy above all other systems of government, was still supposed to be intact. The Royal Caste, it was imagined, held it strongly. Most prominent statesmen were, for one reason or another, believed to be devoted to it. The masses had been accus- tomed to it for ages, were, in fact, in all countries outside Switzerland, less than ten years ago, universally acquiescent in it. It was believed to enjoy the favour of all established Churches, to be held essential by all armies, to be the most jealously-guarded dogma of all Conservative parties. When a rebellion occurred anywhere, society divided itself into Mon- archists and Republicans, and the Monarchists were usually, in all but numbers, decidedly the stronger. If the State were small, " Europe " usually settled that it must have a King, and diplomatists only quarrelled as to who the King and the King's wife should be. The establishment of a Republic or the elevation of a mere statesman to the Kingship was never seriously discussed. The outbreaks of the Communists in Paris and Carthagena were assumed to have settled the ques- tion, and the establishment of a Republic anywhere would have been regarded as a menace to order throughout the European world.
Nevertheless, the year has been marked by a bitter struggle, conducted in public in the most visible and interesting of all countries, between Monarchy and Republicanism, and the entire West, from its Kings downwards through all classes of society, has been upon the whole hostile to the Monarchical solution. In Germany, the last home of the old loyalty, where Princes are still powers, and society is cloven in twain by the line of birth, and the Army maintains the monarchical idea as a sacred prin- ciple, none but Ultramontane voices were raised for the authors of the 16th of May. In France itself, where all rural persons were supposed to be Monarchists, a grand majority of the pea- santry pronounced for the Republic. In England, where society is still not only Conservative, but semi-feudal in organisation and ideas, not an audible voice was raised for the Reactionaries, and the regular organs of Conservatism condemned them un- reservedly. In Austria, the Court and aristocracy rejected the monarchy unless entrusted to the Legitimate Prince, while the people did not give even sympathy to the cause. In Italy, king, statesmen, and multitude were alike profoundly hostile to the Monarchists, and even in Russia the Monarchical side met with no effective sympathy. The unanimity of the Con- tinent was amazing, and in spite of many deductions to be made, indicates a profound change in public feeling. It may be alleged, and alleged truly, that each country had a reason for distrust- ing a French monarchy, apart from its sympathy with especial institutions. Germany expected war, Italy feared the loss of Rome, England hated the Ultramontanes, Austria dreaded change while the East was in commotion, France was irritated by disturbance, and even Russia had no wish for the task of recementing her alliances. All these motives were in opera- tion, but twenty years ago none of them would have so com- pletely governed the Royal Caste, or have so overriden aris- tocratic feeling, or have so dominated and extinguished party divisions. It may be argued that Conservatism, finding the Republic in existence, held on Conservative principles that it ought to continue to exist ; and that is no doubt the fact, but then what a change of sentiment is re- vealed in that proposition Religions do not become false to their devotees because they are momentarily suppressed. The Republic in France is scarce seven years old, it has been threatened throughout its duration, and it is even now believed by thoughtful observers to be not beyond attack. If a ricketty existence of seven years can consecrate a Republic in Conser- vative minds, the horror of Republicanism cannot be very deep, and the reverence for kingship must be very alight, and have been changed from a faith into a reasoning opinion, held as other political opinions are held, mainly from a conviction of its expediency. And it is extremely difficult to doubt that this is the case, that the old faith has died away, and has been replaced by a theory that the form of government matters little, provided that social order and the security of property are reasonably well secured, and the political ostracism of any class entirely forbidden. That is the idea which is dominating Conservatives, although, of course, great sections of them are unaware that they have advanced so far beyond their ancient landmarks, and the change may yet prove one of the greatest which ever occurred in general political thought. Without exaggerating its importance, and without forgetting for a moment the share which local and temporary influences have had in the alteration, this much at least may be stated with great confidence,—the solidariti of the Monarchists of Europe can no longer be relied on, while the solidariti of the Republicans can.
We do not know that this change will in any immediate way menace the stability of the remaining thrones of Europe.
We rather think that it will not. A certain indifference to forms of government is, on the whole, rather favourable to the form which exists, which is endurable, and which, by the necessity of the case, ceases to persecute. Republicanism be- comes much less hot when Republicans are treated as reason- able beings, rather too viewy, but not very dangerous to the good-order or durability of society. The mere feeling that a monarchy, if too troublesome, might be made to pass away, takes away much of that bitterness arising from a sense of outraged human dignity which merywhere on the Continent, and among particular classes in England, is a main factor of Republican opinion. A good deal of Republican senti- ment exhales under free discussion, while the growth of material interests tends more and more to check the desire for change. A disposition to watch, too, a great experiment in action springs up unconsciously, and there are evils in Republics which, when watched, tend to disenchant minds with great influence on the multitude. Unless we are greatly mistaken, the drawback of Republi- canism will be a certain sordidness, a want of elevation, an absence of self-sacrifice, and institutions in which those defects are patent do not greatly attract. The arming of the ignorant, too, which is the special feature of the modern system of war, may for a time prove greatly in favour of all visible, long-continued, and customary figures. But that the change, though it may not overthrow the monarchies, will profoundly modify them, we cannot doubt. The heavier atmosphere in which they will move will restrain the Kings. Already they see the necessity of being popular. Already they listen carefully for the opinion of the numerical majority. Already they tend to accept, not, indeed, Con- stitutionalism in the English sense, which demands a self-effacement too severe for men so varied, but towards Constitutional modes of action, the discovery of Ministers acceptable to both King and country, the management rather than the defiance of Parliaments, the relinquishment in a final sort of way of the control of the national purse. There is not only no Royal financier left in the world, but we look round in vain for a man of the caste who assumes to be one. A genuine conviction that their peoples must manage that matter and do manage it better than they can—that the popular instrument is stronger for the extraction of taxes than the Royal instrument—has mastered the minds of the caste, and is producing great effects. With this disposition is coming a new fearlessness. Everywhere political riot is stopped with less severity than it was. Everywhere opposition is treated more as erroneous than as wicked action. The Kings, in fact, are becoming more statesmanlike, more cautious, more like Presidents whose reserved rights it is convenient to keep well out of sight. The total effect of all this is to reduce individualism, to make Kings pivots of Councils rather than monarchs of the old type, and therefore to make monarchies more restful, more considerate, and less wilful in their modes of action, a process heightened greatly by another change. No unrestrained small monarch can be said to survive. The four little independent Kings of Sweden, Holland, Belgium, and Greece are all fettered by their subjects, and the big monarchs are heavily weighted both by the change in feeling of which we have spoken, and which they must perceive, and by the endless consequences which follow their every action. A modern king can hardly be a man of levity, and in his new considerateness, his perception that he is not inevit- able, his conviction that he must take trouble and not merely be, is a great addition to popular security. The King is still in many countries a great factor in affairs, but he no longer feels himself the head of a party ; he no longer believes in divine right, and he no longer thinks that Republicanism is as the sin of witchcraft, to be stamped out. That is a great change, for the monarchies, as well as for the people who live under them.
Previous page
