The Life of King Edward VII / with a sketch of the career of King George V

by J. Castell Hopkins

The first Parliament of the new reign was opened by the King in brilliant state and with much dignified ceremonial on February 14th. The pageantry of the occasion was picturesque and splendid. The staircase in Parliament House, up which the Royal pair passed in their progress, was lined with a living hedge of men in blue and silver uniforms, topped with red plumes and shining with the burnished steel accoutrements of the Horse Guards. Before them were stately, robed officials, such as Lord Salisbury and the Duke of Devonshire and some of the brilliant colours of the Court. The King wore a short ermine cape over his Field Marshal's uniform, and beneath the cape a sweeping cloak and train of Royal purple. Queen Alexandra, beautiful always, was more than usually sweet and dignified in her garb of mingled black and purple. In the House of Lords the evidences of mourning for the late Queen were very apparent. The ladies were dressed in black though they were permitted to blaze with jewels. The Peers' robes of red and ermine, gave a little colour to the scene, helped by those of the judges in black and gold, or red and white, and the bright uniforms of the Ambassadors in a distant corner. Hand-in-hand the King and Queen entered the Chamber and took their places upon the chairs of state. The Commons were called in, and their the Lord Chancellor presented and the King repeated and signed the somewhat famous Declaration against the Mass and other Roman doctrines, or observances, as provided by the Bill of Rights. It was as follows:

"I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous, and I do solemnly in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do make this Declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this Declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annull the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning."

The next proceeding was the reading of the King's speech to his Parliament in strong, full tones which impressively and clearly filled the Chamber. This part of the ceremony was rendered unusually interesting, in view of the fact that the King was understood to have had more to do with the wording of his speech than had been customary, and to have changed the conditions by which it had become usual to give an advance summary of its contents to the press. Reference was made to the death of the Queen and to his own accession, to the progress of the South African War, the Chinese troubles, the establishment of the Australian Commonwealth, the sending of additional Contingents from the Colonies to the front, the famine in India, the relief of the Coomassie garrison, and to his intention to carry out the late Sovereign's wish regarding the Imperial tour of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York. The whole function was of a solemn and impressive and splendid character, in keeping with the traditions of the Crown and in harmony with the known intentions of the King to assume the full ceremonial and dignity of his position. The Times, on the following morning, referred to the enthusiastic reception of the King and Queen as they drove to Westminster and to the inspiring and exhilarating character of the scene in the House of Lords. "The present generation has seen hardly anything, not even excepting the processions of 1887 and 1897, at all comparable in splendour and solemnity with the pageant yesterday at Westminster."

The session of Parliament which followed was closely and continuously associated with subjects arising out of the King's accession. An early and prominent topic was the Declaration taken against Roman Catholicism. Under date of February 20th, Cardinal Vaughan issued a letter to his Diocese declaring that "patriotism and loyalty to the Sovereign are characteristic of the Catholics of this country and are to be counted on, quite independently of passing emotions of pain or pleasure, because they are rooted in a permanent dictate and principle of religion;" that Catholics had, however, been made unhappy by the "recent renewal of the national act of apostacy" in the Sovereign's branding by solemn Declaration their religious doctrines as superstitious and idolatrous; that the Catholic Peers had done well in protesting to the Lord Chancellor against the continued use of this Declaration; that British legislators in all parts of the Empire and the twelve million Catholic subjects of the Crown throughout the world should take further measures of constitutional protest; that the evil so greatly deplored was the result of an anachronism and of a barbaric law which had remained accidentally unrepealed; and that there was reason to hope that "this remnant of a hateful fanaticism" would soon be removed from the statute-book.

In Canada and Australia protests were prepared and presented through the Cardinal—that from the Dominion being signed by all the members of the Hierarchy. In the House of Lords a Committee was appointed, on motion of Lord Salisbury, to deal with the matter although no Catholic Peers would serve upon it. They reported early in July that a modification of the Declaration might be made so as to omit the adjectives and objectionable phraseology without affecting the strength of the pledge itself. A Government measure was prepared along these lines and submitted to the House. It was opposed by Lord Rosebery on August 1st, on the ground that nothing could really bind conscientious convictions, that the King might change his views and not be bound by this Declaration in future, and, that it did not repudiate the temporal or spiritual supremacy of the Pope. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not like the changes, the Duke of Norfolk did not care for the new form and the Roman Catholics generally, in and out of the House, objected to the compromise as useless. The result was that Lord Salisbury eventually withdrew his measure and the matter dropped out of public discussion for the time—although the Canadian House of Commons and other public bodies in the Empire had meanwhile protested against the continued maintenance of the 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 £385,000, 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 £24,000,000 from the people while the revenues of the surrendered Crown Lands had totalled £20,000,000. 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 £470,000 for the Sovereign—of which £110,000 was to go to the Privy Purse in place of £60,000 received by Queen Victoria; the Duke of Cornwall and York was to receive £20,000 annually, and the Duchess £10,000—in addition, of course, to the £60,000 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 £6,000 a year for life; while the contingent annuity of £30,000 provided in the event of Queen Alexandra surviving her husband, was to be increased to £70,000 and a similar contingent grant of £30,000 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 £50,000, 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.