The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1910. THEORIES OF KINGSHIP.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 912, 3 September 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1910. THEORIES OF KINGSHIP.

The Kaiser's extraordinary speech at Kbnig'sberg, an outline of which was published. in The Dominion a few, days ago, taken in connection with other remarkable sayings and doings of a similar character, would seem to indicate"that he/wishes it to be understood that modern Germany is the heir , in the twentieth" century of the dignity and privilege of the Holy Roman Empire. His conception of- kingship takes us back to the days of Impe^'iaL-!Rome v and recalls the subsequent development in.European history of the doctrine of the divine right of'kings. From Augustus to Diocletian, the Roman Empire was the undivided dominion of one ruler over the,.civilised world, and CoNSTANTiNE arid Theodosius also exercised undivided sway., Later on the Empire was split in two and governed: by Eastern and Western Emperors. _In 476 A.p. the barbarians practically extinguished the Western line, and as new kingdoms arose the power of the Eastern Em--perors gradually Vanished in the West until the Empire '.was revived at the.. coronation of' Ohahles the Ghijat in SUO A.'i). The .successors of. Charles, hov/ever, were not strong, enough to'■■maintain; the position ho had'attained, but. Otto the Great about, tlie middle of the. tenth century refounded the Empire as a Gornian Power. The Holy llomah Empire, as the great rival of the Papacy for supremacy in Europe, maintained its position till the general upheaval caused by: the /Reformation', and e'ven .then it lingered on till, in the words of' Mr. Beyce, it..became a piece of hardly more venerable than ridiculous— till, as Voltaire said; all that could be said about it was that it was neither.holy, nor Roman, nor au Empire. "This continued life" was owing partly to the belief, still unshaken, that it was. a necessary part of the world's order, yet chiefly, to its connection, which was. by this time indissoluble, with the German Kingdom. Another modern writer carries the. connection with modern Germany a step further by • stating that the aspirations of the new German Empire cannot be understood "apart from the traditions of the medieval Empire, in spite of the qbyious contrasts between the t.wo institutions."

'^The, 'audacious assertion of the Kaiser that his crown waa conferred by the grace of God alone,' and not by Parliament or popular decisions, and that he is the chosen instrument of Heaven, is but an echo of , the claims made for the.Emperor in the great medieval struggle with the Papacy. Dante, for instance, contended that the power of the Emperor was derived immediately from God, , and'that "the authority of the temporal monarchy came down with no intermediate will from the fountain of universal authority." It was contended, on the other hand, by the supporters of the Papacy that the Pope gave the Empire to the Germans in the person of Charlemagne, and that the spiritual power must be regarded as supremo. In this connection it is interesting to note that the doctrine of the divine-right of kings was not in_ its origin the assertion of the unlimited authority of the monarch as against the righte' of the people; but the reply of Empire to the claim to supremacy made by the spiritual power. Dr. Pigois tells us that tho doctrine of the divine right of kings is in its'origin an assertion of the rights of l.lie lay as against the ecclesiastical power. The supporters of divine right wcro thinking first and forcinost of tho secular independence of foreign or internal ecclesiastical power, only secondarily of tho rights of the King or the Stat* against tho individual. ■ Later on, 'h<;>vevcr, with tho failure of the Empire to become a supreme intorntitiqiiiil powfli , , and when

vigoroiis monarchies had arisen. in Europe on distinct national lines, the so-called ideal "godly prince"— who, like the "economic man" of tho nineteenth century, probably never really existed—came to the fore. Ho claimed the right to determine the religion of. his subjects, and to be. invested with divine authority to reign supreme in both the civil and religious In this,way the conflict arose between the powers of the monarch and the rights of the people which has occupied so prominent a place in modern history. The Kaiser',- in referring to the fact that the Emperor William I placed. the crown on his own head, evidently regards this method of coronation 'as -an indication of immediate divine , authority. Such a claim is higher than that made by the Roman Emperors whose authority was doltfgated by the people, the Senate, and the Army, the symbol of sovranty being the diadem. Theoretically it was recognised that the crown should be imposed ,by a representative of those from whom the authority, it symbolised was derived, but some hesitation was felt by the Emperors at being crowned by any civil official for fear lest it should' give.riso to feelings- of rivalry, enmity, or jealousy. But when the Empire became Christian the difficulty was got over by assigning the duty of coronation to the Patriarch of Constantinople,; whose "ecclesiastical position," as Me. Bury; the well-known historian, states, "relieved the Emperor from all embarrassment in receiving the diadem from a subject." In England it is the Archbishop of 'Canterbury who. crowns' the King, but in doing so. he should be regarded not as representing the Church alone, or', even primarily, but as the representative of the State and the delegate of the people. It did not mean in the'case of the Koman Emperors, and lit does not mean in the case of: the English Kings, ■ that the- • : consent of. the Church is necessary for the inauguration of the monarch , . The coronation of the King by an ecclesiastic has really little or nothing to do with the doctrine of . divine ,right, but this .theory of kingship 1 does receive symbolic expression in; the' an-, cient custom of unction, which forms .part of the English ceremony. Mr. Bury states that \; in crowning the Emperor the' Patriarch 'expressed the will of the State; in anointr ing, the will.of the Deity. This theory . . . . enhanced, the Emperor's authority by'representing that 'authority..as a divine.gift, and perhaps it sometimes enhanced his sense ,of responsibility.... But although calculated to place the sovran above criticism',-this theory of divine right did not affect the actual working of the constitutional tradition, which determined tho appointment of Emperors : and 'the limitations of their power- . " ; .'- These words the constitutional limitations; of the monarch's power, apply with even greater .force, to the position of. English kings. Before, proceeding.with" the. coronation. the Archbishop expressly! asks for the consent of the people, which is given by acclamation and' cries of "God save the King," and throughout his reign"the -action-of.-tho*..King: is restricted not, only by statutory limits, but also by umyr.itten- constitutional usage. In , any :case, with monarch's like Queen Victoria, Edward VII, and Geoeqe V, the people of England are not accustomed to hear Royal speeches like'thqse with wjiich the Kaiser'.from time .to time startlos the world, nor are they likely to be called upon to assert'their: rights against claims to autocracy only limited' by the authority of God Almighty .Himself.' These Im-* porial' outbursts can, hardly 'encourage the British peoples to hanker after the name of Emperor for their ruler.,- We arc quite content that he . should be Emperor., of India, but: King of the British. We in New Zealand cling with affection to.the. ancient - title which; from the .beginnings of our history.has been borne by our rulers, and we readily make tho. words of Shakespeare our own when ie says :':■■■ : • • .' There a divinity doth hedge our kins; ...-. That treason' can but peep .to what it ■', would/ ■ ' '..''■■ ' ; ...'■.-'' Our monarchs ..have been known a3 Kings of England from time immemorial, and the title has become a witness to the continuity of the race from the days of our AngloSaxon ' forefathers. For these and many other reasons it is to be hoped that the latest proposal to abandon it for the high-sounding title of Emperor of the British will not be seriously entertained. Let. the Germans, the' Austvians, the"■' Russians, and the Abyssinian's havetheir.Emperors if they will, but for the' Bri-. ti'sh peoples no title could be more honoured or , honourable than that of King. 1 '■...-■.•■ ;