KING EDWARD VII.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 130, 10 September 1910, Page 10

KING EDWARD VII.

A SUPPRESSED ARTICLE. The May number of the Contemporary Review was recalled by the proprietors immediately after publication, the reason being that they wished to suppress an anonymous article criticising, before his death, the part played by King Edward in the constitutional crisis which disturbed the closing months of his reign. Some of the copies, however, must have gone into circulation, since extracts from the article in question appear in the obituary notice of his Majesty in the June North American Review. From these extracts the article would not seem to have been of a libellous or even unkindly character, but, as its publication occurred just when the King was ill and suffering, the reason for its suppression can easily be understood. Yet the questions raised in it will have to be discussed by historians of the late reign. King Edward was so

successful in diplomacy abroad, so popular among the masses of his own people, that his failure to avert the conflict between Lords and Commons demands explanation. The writer in the North American Review declares that the Contemporary article went some distance towards solving the mystery, and he quotes the following passages as an indicatioin of the tone and bearing of the article:—

"Xo dispassionate observer will deny that in failing) to avert this collision—i.e., the collision between the Lords and the Commons over the Budget—the King, whether through misfortune or by fault, disappointed the expectations of the nation. . . . The confidence in the

Crown, as the honest broker between parties, received a rude shock when it was evident that the King was unable to prevent the rejection of the Budget. It was openly said that if the late Queen had still been on the throne the catastrophe would not have overtaken, us. . . . . It is possible that the King, like his advisers, lacked the high quality of imagination necessary to enable him to grasp all that was implied in the beginning of the reactionary revolution. .... That the King did perceive the danger in a dim sort of way is admitted, and ho used what influence he had in his own fashion to induce the leaders of the Opposition to desist ere it was too late from challenging so serious a combat. But at this point we lay our finger upon the most serious element of weakness in the whole case. The King has many great qualities. No one is more tactful; no one is more kind-hearted. He is a capital sportsman, and-in foreign affairs he possesses a fine instinct, which seldom leads him wrong. His very geniality and good-fellowship deprive him of much the awe with which the late Queen was regarded. The divinity that doth hedge a King wears somewhat thin in the atmosphere of dinner-parties and racecoursesi . His Majesty is a man of the world, going freely into society, But not even the most servile courtier would say that he has ever, whether as Prince or' King, surrounded himself with men who are influential in either House of Parliament. Those who have shared his valuable counsels may be the wisest of men, as they are often among the pleasantest; but to the great political world they are unknown. With the doubtful exception of Lord Esher, who has one of the sanest heads in Europe, none of those who constitute the 'entourage' of the King count for anything in politics. Of the chiefs of our old nobility it is comparatively rare to find only among those whom his Majesty delights to honor. Nor is it libellous to assert that his Ministers, whether Liberal or Tory, have never foflnd in him that garnered store of rich experience reaped by a lifetime of unremitting industry, which made the late Queen the adviser of all the servants of the realm. The King, in short, has neither the strong character, the firm, resolute determination, nor the keen interest in political men and poli tical measures which would have added to the influence always appertaining to the throne the- immense undefinable weight of a commanding personality."

In these views the North American contributor concurs, adding that the late King's social preferences were not of a kind that the English aristocracy relished, and that "a state of quiescent estrangement" existed between the Crown and the old nobility, to the serious impairing of the Sovereign's influence in the crisis. Though his Majesty was always ready to give up purely personal wishes if he saw their fulfilment to be a i likely cause of public controversy or illfeeling, yet the fact that his "friends" were not, as a rule, to be found among the real leaders of the nation, it is alleged to have lessened his authority as a political referee. As an illustration of his Majesty's personal predilections, a story is told in connection with the coronation honor list. There were, it is said, two gentlemen who confidently expected peerages. They were both warm personal friends of the King, who, "for reasons on which the gossip of the day ! had a good deal to say," was anxious to gratify their ambitions. Lord -Salisbury was usually the most complacent of Ministers on all such matters. He is reported to have said, in his cynical way, on one occasion, when his private secretary t came to him with the annual batch of I new dignities, " Oh, don't bother me I about it. Settle it your own way. Make anybody anything yon like." But in this case even he was provoked to protest. The House of Lords would not have found the two would-be peers at all acceptable, and Lord .Salisbury put his foot down (irmly on the proposal. In the end, and after some feeling having been aroused, the King gave; way. Whether true or mere "ben trovato," the story suggests that there was something very like antagonism between the King's "set" and the rest of "society."