EDWARD VII AND THE “GUILD OF KINGS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 212, 26 November 1927, Page 26 (Supplement)

EDWARD VII AND THE “GUILD OF KINGS”

Sir Sidney Lee's Biography of Edward the Peacemaker.

DWARD VII., that King o{ the people who enjoyed such wonderful ii(>i popularity, was not merely the easy-going, jovial monarch; despite j '■ri'nracv J what many outsiders thought, he was a power upon the throne, as is revealed in Sir Sidney Lee’s intensely interesting “Life of King Edward VII. The story of the reign is told in sufficient detail, and is documented throughout from the Koval archives and other sources. Edward’s personality stands out clear and strong, as it will live in history. » “In Her Footsteps’’ Announcing the death of Queen V ictoria to the Privy Council on January, 23, 1901, he said his endeavour would be “always to walk in her footsteps.” This vow he kept to the end. Though their lives were so different, the likeness of character and outlook of loyalties and prejudices, even sometimes of verbal expression, is remarkable. So much had been said about \ ictoria’s long refusal to admit Edward to full confidence in high affairs of State that his training for sovereignty was in some quarters undervalued. For nearly 15 years before he came to the Throne all important foreign dispatches were communicated to him; for nine years he regularly received the reports of Cabinet Councils. Honours lists, whatever their origin, the King jealously watched. He often made suggestions, often also pressed objections with a stubbornness embarrassing to the Ministers concerned. Sometimes names were withdrawn in deference to the Royal objection; but he knew r that responsibility rested with his advisers, and when they, too, were obstinate they could have their way. Relations With Ministers Edward’s relations with his Ministers were little affected by considerations of party. It happened that some of his oldest and most intimate friends w-ere Liberals. He did not share their political views, but that rarely made any difference to friendship, and they were often very useful in smoothing over difficulties that arose with others. One of these intimates, the Marquis of Lincolnshire, was always “My dear Charlie.”

Campbell Bannerman’s outspokenness in the Boer War controversies prejudiced the King against him, but they afterwards became close friends. When the Liberal Premier’s wife died, his Majesty personally arranged the details of the funeral services at Martenbad, and himself attended it. “C. 8.” was a sturdy Liberal committed to policies which he distrusted and disliked; but when, early in 1908, it w-as rumoured that “C.B.’s” health was not so good as it might be, the King told Lord Knollys that “it would be a bad day for the country if anything happened to Campbell Bannerman.” The feeling between them had become almost affection. There was no such bond with “C.B.’s” successor, Mr. Asquith, though the King “appreciated the legal acumen, classical oratory and social courage of the last of the great Gladstonians.” Temperamental differences, no doubt, explain why, as the biographer says, their relations were never cordial:

“Asquith always appeared to the King to be reticent, secretive, reserved. He was always assuring the King that he did not want to trouble him about difficult matters, and the King

thought he was deliberately withhold- i ing information.”

Many others, not excluding “C. 8.." came under the same suspicion. But it ; i was members of the Salisbury and Bal- j | four Administrations from 1901 till the end of 1905 who suffered most in ' j this way, for the King was then more . | robust and active, and gave fuller at- , j tention to affairs than he was able to Ido later. “LL. G" and Churchill i Of the Liberal Ministers from 1906 j onward Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. I Churchill oftenest incurred the | King’s blame. This was not because j of any administrative neglect. Mr. ! Lloyd George was the chief spokesman ; of the Radicals, and for several years j Mr. Churchill worked in close agree- I ment with him. The King frequently ] complained to “C. 8.” or to Mr. As- j quith about the younger men’s plat- j form speeches. This was nothing new. j of course. The letters recall Victoria's \ protest against the utterances of i earlier aggressive Liberals —John | Bright, Gladstone, and (for a time) | Joseph Chamberlain. The closing sentence of a letter from i the King to Mr. Churchill in 1906 might j have been written by Victoria to a | young Whig half a century before;

“His Majesty is glad to see that you are becoming a reliable Minister and, above all. a serious politician, which can only be attained by putting country before party.” The Lloyd George speeches which the King found most fault with were those in which he spoke his mind about the peers and their rejection of Liberal Bills. Decisive clash on that issue Edward was most anxious to prevent. He sought to restrain both sides, but with little effect, and in the last months of his reign the limitation of the Peers’ Veto was imminent. It was King George who gave Mr. Asquith the “guarantees”—that is, the undertaking to appoint (if necessary) enough new peers to carry the reform through, but there is no reason to

doubt that, however, reluctantly, Edward would have done the same. But he had his own scheme for the House of Lords. As explained to Lord Crewe, this was that the House should remain as it is for all purposes except voting. Only 100 peers should be able to vote, those nominated in equal numbers by the tw-o party leaders—then Lord Lansdow-ne and Lord Crewe. Some of the obvious objections tq the plan were pointed out to him, but he thought they could be overcome. Nothing came of it. A Constitutionalist Through all the changes of his time the King was a strict constitutionalist. However frankly he might withstand his Ministers in private, he supported them when decisions had been taken. That was the dominant loyalty; private friendships and even family connections were subordinated to it.

In Service matters the King received much informal advice from friends, and was never entirely dependent on official information. Know-ledge of this was not likely to lessen the stubborn-

Leopold of Belgium Gets the “Cold Shoulder" From England's Monarch,

ness with which Ministers held to their own views. Often they saw Lord Esher or other eminent persons in the extremely well informed letters received from his Majesty.

Lord Esher's influence was continuous. and lie wrote to the King on a great variety of subjects. He had control of the archives at Windsor and if the Royal prerogative were in question he was ready with precedents against encroachment. But it was on Army affairs that most attention was paid to him. especially after the Boer War.

At one time the King was contemptuous of the War Office. He used to tell this story of an officer who was trepanned by Sir Frederick Treves: “Treves did not conceal his fears that the patient would have difficulties in his profession, since the greater part of his brain had been removed. “It is very kind of you. Sir Frederick,” replied the officer, “to take so much interest in my welfare, but. thank God, my brain is no longer wanted —I have just been transferred to the War Office.” The Guild of Kings The detailed accounts of the King’s European journeyings and of his intercourse with other European Courts contain much of permanent historic value. Special attention is given, of course, to our relations with Germany and France, and to the King's troubles with his nephew, the Kaiser. Their tiffs were innumerable and mischiefmongers were always ready to magnify differences. Edward, who suffered much from the trickery and treacherous Wilhelm, did his best, under continual provocation, to turn him from his reckless follies. He had little pleasure in his few visits to Berlin, and was much happier in Paris. Any gross breach of honour by Royal personages, he keenly resented. For long he refused to meet the late King of the Belgians because of the Congo infamies and other trarsgressions. They were an affront to kingship. A danger also; and whether he was showing his contempt for Leopold or trying to check development, of the domestic controversy about hereditary legislators, or advising the Tsar to extend liberty in Russia. Edward was always anxious to safeguard the monarchical order.

When he was being urged to resume diplomatic relations with Serbia after the assassination of King Alexander and Queen Draga, he said: “Mon metier a moi est d’etre Roi. King Alexander was also by his metier 'un Roi.’ As you see, we belonged to the same guild as labourers or professional men. I cannot be indifferent to the assassination of a member of my profession or, if you like, a member of my guild. We should be obliged to shut up our business if we, the kings, were to consider the assassination of kings as of no consequence at all.”

Edward knew that kings are dependent on public confidence and support, and he endeavoured so to reign as to win and hold both. He was very human and made mistakes, but he was a great king, and left the monarchy more strongly entrenched in the favour of the people. In his later years, when health was failing, he suffered often from depression, and sometimes talked of abdication. But he had great courage, and crises stiffened his will. Even on his dying day, when coma was about to fall on him, he could gasp, “No, I shall not give in: I shall go on; I shall work to the end.”