The Life of King Edward VII
Declaration.
THE KING'S INCOME AND REVENUES
Another duty which faced the early consideration of Parliament was the
Civil List. Queen Victoria's Civil List had been L385,000, given as a
permanent yearly income for her reign, and in return for the formal
surrender of the revenues of the Crown Lands for the same period. In
this connection, the _Daily News_ of February 14th, pointed out that the
late Sovereign had received during her long reign L24,000,000 from the
people while the revenues of the surrendered Crown Lands had totalled
L20,000,000. Speaking for the Liberals and Radicals this paper declared
that there was "no disposition to deal grudgingly with a Monarch who has
fully borne the share that belongs to him in the country's affairs,"
that it might be well to adhere closely to the late Queen's Civil List,
and that the example of "a moderate and sober Court" would be of the
highest value to the nation. On March 11th Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach moved
the appointment of a House of Commons' Committee to deal with the
question, composed of Mr. Balfour, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Sir F.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir S. Hoare, Mr. W. L. Jackson, with seven other
members and himself, as representatives of the Government party and Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Sir William Harcourt, Sir Henry Fowler, Sir
James Kitson, Mr. H. Labouchere, and three others, as representing the
Opposition. The _Times_ of the following day said that there were two
reasons for somewhat increasing the sum to be voted--the fact of the
King having a Consort of whom the nation was proud, while Queen Victoria
was unmarried at the time of the former vote, and the fact, as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer put it to the House, that the King was now
the head of a world-wide Empire.
As finally decided in the Report of the Select Committee the new Civil
List was placed at L470,000 for the Sovereign--of which L110,000 was to
go to the Privy Purse in place of L60,000 received by Queen Victoria;
the Duke of Cornwall and York was to receive L20,000 annually, and the
Duchess L10,000--in addition, of course, to the L60,000 coming to the
Heir Apparent from the Duchy of Lancaster; the King's children, the
Duchess of Fife, Princess Victoria and Princess Charles of Denmark, were
each to have L6,000 a year for life; while the contingent annuity of
L30,000 provided in the event of Queen Alexandra surviving her husband,
was to be increased to L70,000 and a similar contingent grant of L30,000
arranged for the Duchess of Cornwall and York. The only apparent
opposition in the Committee to these proposals was from Mr. Labouchere,
who suggested certain variations and reductions. There was little
influential criticism of the changes proposed--the _Daily News_, from
which opposition might, perhaps have come, speaking of one special
increase of L50,000, as follows: "The Queen must have a separate
Household if the Monarchy is to be maintained, as most people wish that
it should be maintained, in its ancient splendour; and the gracious
kindness of Queen Alexandra, who has endeared herself to all the
subjects of her husband, will make the tax-payer in her case a cheerful
giver."
On May 9th Resolutions based upon these recommendations were presented
to the Commons by Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach and eventually carried by three
hundred and seven to fifty-eight--the latter being composed of Irish
members and Mr. Labouchere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his
introductory speech, referred to the Monarchy as "the most popular of
all our great institutions" and then proceeded to enlarge upon the
situation as follows: "Throughout the Empire there has grown up a
feeling, and I think a very right and proper feeling, of the enormous
importance of the Crown as the main link of the relations with all the
people of which the Empire is composed. Therefore, I think it happened
that, in the brief debate in which this subject was dealt with at the
commencement of the present Session, there was no sign of any difference
of opinion as to the necessity of making a sufficient and adequate
provision for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the Crown."
He mentioned the fact that the late Sovereign had bequeathed Balmoral
and Osborne House to her successor and that he had to maintain these
residences as well as his old-time home at Sandringham; that King Edward
had no personal fortune and that the late Queen's savings had been
willed to her younger children. He concluded by expressing approval of
the proposals as moderate and fair. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, on
behalf of the Opposition, declared them to be reasonable and added: "I
do not doubt at all that the prevailing desire in this House and in the
country is to see that a provision should be made for maintaining that
state and dignity of the British Crown which shall fittingly represent
the loyal attachment of the people." Mr. J. E. Redmond followed and
declared that not only had the Irish members refused to act upon the
Committee but they would now vote against the Resolutions because of the
unrepealed statute and Declaration regarding Roman Catholicism. Mr.
Labouchere spoke against them at length and was joined in speech and
vote by two Labour members--Messrs. Keir Hardie and Cremer--who, amidst
laughter and interruptions, declared themselves to be republicans and
expressed regret that the working classes liked Royalty.
The next subject discussed in Parliament, as it was also being discussed
throughout British countries generally, was that of the Royal titles. As
they stood when the King ascended the throne the only countries of the
Empire recognized were Great Britain, Ireland and India. It was pointed
out that Queen Mary in the days of Spanish marriage relations and power
possessed, with King Philip, titles which included England, France,
Naples, Jerusalem, Ireland, Spain, Sicily, Austria, Milan &c; that
Emperor Francis Joseph was not only Emperor of Austria but King of
Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Sclavonia, Gallicia, Illyria and
Jerusalem; that the three principal countries of the Empire were now
strong enough and prominent enough to be properly and permanently
represented in this way; that it would enhance the dignity of Great
Britain while placing Canada and Australia in a more equal and national
position within the Empire; that some such recognition had been
supported in 1876 by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli in the House of
Commons; and that it had been proposed by the Colonial Conference of
1887.
ADDITION TO THE KING'S TITLES
Within a short time of the King's accession--on January 29th--a dispatch
was sent by Mr. Chamberlain to the Governors-General of Canada and
Australia saying that the moment was opportune to consider the matter of
the Monarch's titles, so as to recognize the "separate and greatly
increased importance of the Colonies" and suggesting, personally, the
phrase: "King of Great Britain and Ireland and of Greater Britain beyond
the Seas." Mr. Chamberlain also expressed the belief that there were
considerable difficulties in the way of such designations as King of
Canada and King of Australia, owing to the smaller Colonies which would
desire to be also specially mentioned. Lord Minto, in his reply,
expressed his Government's doubt as to the use of the word "Greater
Britain," their preference for the title "King of Canada" and their
willingness, in case of jealousies elsewhere, to propose that of
"Sovereign of all British Dominions beyond the Seas." Lord Hopetoun
stated that his Government preferred the designation of "Sovereign Lord
of the British Realms beyond the Seas." The Colonial Secretary then
communicated with Cape Colony, Newfoundland and New Zealand where the
Governments all favoured some general designation.
On July 27th, Lord Salisbury introduced a measure in the House of Lords
authorizing the Sovereign "to make such addition to the style and title
at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and
its Dependencies as to His Majesty may seem fit." Speaking unofficially,
the Premier intimated that the Royal title would probably be "Edward
VII., by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, and of all the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King,
Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." During a short discussion in
the House, two days later, Lord Rosebery suggested the title of "King of
all the Britains" Lord Salisbury did not consider this admissible,
however, and the measure passed its second reason without opposition.
Eventually the bill became law and was the subject of general approval
at home and in the Colonies. The title was then officially proclaimed in
the terms mentioned by Lord Salisbury. Speaking of this action, Sir
Horace Tozer of Queensland told the _Daily News_ of July 31st that the
Commonwealth Act declared the desire of the Australian people, in its
first words, to unite in one indissoluble Commonwealth "under the Crown"
and he expressed the opinion that this action would "ratify and give
expression" to that deliberate decision.
On May 10th, a Dublin newspaper called _The Irish People_ published an
article about the King which was not only seditious in language but
abominable in its allegations and statements--they could hardly be
dignified with the name of charges. The paper was at once seized, and on
the following day the Irish members precipitated a debate in Parliament
upon the action thus taken. Mr. John Dillon pointed out that this paper
was the recognized organ of the Nationalist movement, claimed that the
action of the Government was grossly illegal, and declared that it was
a blow struck at the freedom of the press. Mr. W. Redmond took much the
same ground. Mr. George Wyndham, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, spoke
of the article as containing "outrageous, scurrilous, gross and coarse
remarks," and as using language more foul than that of certain foreign
papers which had been so complained of during the year. He had ordered
it to be seized because it was guilty of "seditious libel," because it
was his duty to prevent such a nuisance from being inflicted upon the
public, and because similar action had been taken in the past year upon
an article attacking the late Queen Victoria. Mr. John Redmond declared
that the action was taken too late, anyway, and that plenty of copies
had gone through the mail to America and the Continent. Mr. Balfour
supported Mr. Wyndham and asked, if "obscene libel" and "a foul and
poisoned weapon" were necessary aids to Irish agitation. He pointed out
that the Sovereign was incapable of replying to this sort of statement,
and declared that the publication was "a gross offense against public
decency and public law and loyalty." Mr. H. H. Asquith, on behalf of the
Opposition, took the ground that those concerned could appeal to the
Courts, if injured, and that he could not but accept the Government's
description of the article and support them in their action. Messrs.
Bryn-Roberts, Labouchere and John Burns criticised the Government, and
the vote stood two hundred and fifty-two to sixty-four in approval of
their action.
The debate in the Imperial Parliament was, however, not the end of the
matter. A newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, called _The Tocsin_,
republished the article in question, and its proprietor, Mr. E. Findley,
M.L.A., was at once expelled from the Victorian Legislature. The
discussion and vote took place on June 25th, when Mr. Findley disclaimed
responsibility as being publisher and not Editor, but defended the
newspaper's statement that suppression of the Dublin paper was an
illegal act. He expressed regret, however, that the article had appeared
in his journal, in view of its having given offence to the House. The