The First Year of the New Reign
The first year's reign of a Sovereign must always be important, and when
that Sovereign rules over a third of the earth's surface and a quarter
of its population, it is more than usually so. King Edward VII., when he
came to the Throne, found himself the first of Mohammedan rulers, with
more Moslem subjects than the Sultan of Turkey; the first of Brahmin and
Parsee Sovereigns; the head of various Confucian colonies and the
possessor of the most sacred of Buddhist shrines; the ruler of Christian
sects and idolatries of every conceivable kind and variety. Almost every
race in the world was included in his Empire--English, Scotch and Irish
everywhere, French in the Channel Islands and in Canada, Italians and
Greeks in Malta, Arab, Coptic and Turkish subjects in Egypt, Negroes of
all descriptions in the Soudan and elsewhere, subjects of infinitely
varied Asiatic types in India, Chinese in Hong-Kong and Wei-Hai-Wei,
Malays in Borneo and the Malay Peninsula, Polynesians in the Pacific,
Red Indians in Canada and Maoris in New Zealand, Dutch, Zulus, Basutos
and French Huguenots in South Africa, Eskimos in Northern Canada. The
complicated issues involved in such a Government as that of the British
Empire, with its curiously non-centralized system, were certainly
sufficient to make a Sovereign inheriting the position, the
opportunities, and much of the capacity of Queen Victoria, feel that he
had, indeed, assumed heavy responsibilities.
His first step had been a most wise one, and in direct line with a
policy carried out as Heir Apparent--the cementing of close and cordial
relations with the German Emperor during his long and much-discussed
visit to the dying Queen and mourning family. To this friendship and the
enthusiastic and popular reception given William II. when leaving London
on February 5th, 1901, was undoubtedly due the restraining influence
held over a part of the press of Germany during the succeeding period of
vile abuse of England regarding the South African War. Following this,
on February 24th, was the departure of King Edward on a visit to his
sister, the Empress Frederick, at Frederichshof, near Cronberg, where he
was joined by the Emperor William. The King was accompanied by Sir Frank
Lascelles, Ambassador at Berlin, and by his physician, Sir Francis
Laking. The Empress was found to be very ill, but not dying, and after a
few days her Royal brother and son returned to their respective
capitals.
THE KING'S FIRST PARLIAMENT AND DECLARATION
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 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
Premier of Victoria, Mr. A. J. Peacock, at once declared that no apology
was sufficient unless it included unqualified disavowal and disapproval
of the article in question, and moved the following Resolution: "That
the Honourable member for Melbourne, Mr. Edward Findley, being the
printer and publisher of a newspaper known as _The Tocsin_, in the issue
of which, on the 20th instant, there is published a seditious libel
regarding His Majesty the King, is guilty of disloyalty to His Majesty
and has committed an act discreditable to the honour of Parliament, and
that he, therefore, be expelled from this House."
Mr. Irvine, Leader of the Opposition, endorsed the action of the
Government, and declared that the republication--even to the appearance
of a second edition of the paper--was a deliberate attempt to give
currency to this "foul and scandalous libel" as being a fact. Many
others spoke, and Mr. Findley in another speech said he had no sympathy
whatever with the article, and was extremely sorry that it had appeared.
Orders had come from outside for thousands of copies of the paper and
had not been filled. The House, however, was determined to take action,
and he was expelled by a vote of sixty-four to seventeen. Mr. Findley
ran again as a Labour candidate in East Melbourne and was opposed by Mr.
J. F. Deegan--a man of no particular politics, but known for his
loyalty, and supported on the platform by both party Leaders. The latter
candidate was elected by a substantial majority. A very few other
Australian papers had, meanwhile, republished the article, and perhaps
half a dozen Canadian ones.
The first Parliament of the reign closed on August 17th shortly after
the King had suffered the loss of his distinguished sister, the Empress
Frederick. With this event, which occurred on August 8th, there passed
away what the _Times_ well termed "a life of brilliant promise, of
splendid hopes, of exalted ideals"--overruled with relentless rigour by
a hard fate which brought her liberal principles into conflict with the
iron will of Bismarck, nullified her capacity by the opposition of the
Court of Berlin, and removed her husband by death at the very moment
when the opportunity of power and position seemed to have come. The
King, accompanied by Queen Alexandra and Princess Victoria, at once left
for Frederickshof. They were received at Homburg by the Emperor William
and conducted to the Castle. The funeral took place amid scenes of
stately solemnity on August 13th and the Emperor and the King were
present as chief mourners. While the obsequies were proceeding memorial
services were held in England at the Chapel Royal, St. James's, in St.
Giles's Cathedral, Edinburgh and in various other churches throughout
the country.
PUBLIC INCIDENTS AND FUNCTIONS
Meanwhile, various incidents illustrative of the King's tact and
influence upon public affairs had occurred. His well-known interest in
American affairs was shown on June 1st by an official reception given at
Windsor Castle to the members of the New York Chamber of Commerce who
were visiting England as guests of the London Chamber of Commerce.
Accompanied by Lord Brassey and the Earl of Kintore, some twenty-five
gentlemen were presented to His Majesty and Queen Alexandra. They
included General Horace Porter, Mr. Morris K. Jessup, the Hon. Levi P.
Morton, the Hon. Cornelius N. Bliss and Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. Some of
the American expressions of opinion upon this not unusual courtesy to
distinguished foreigners were extremely amusing. Others, such as that of
the N. Y. _Tribune_ were dignified and appreciative. Immediately upon
hearing of the attempt on President McKinley's life on September 6th,
the King sent a despatch of deepest sympathy and instructed the Foreign
Office to keep him informed as to the President's condition. He was at
the time spending a week with the King of Denmark at Copenhagen and to
that place the bulletins were duly cabled from Washington.
On September 11th His Majesty telegraphed to the American Ambassador at
London: "I rejoice to hear the favourable accounts of the President's
health. God grant that his life may be spared." After Mr. McKinley's
death, three days later, the King immediately cabled the Ambassador:
"Most truly do I sympathize with you and the whole American nation in
the loss of your distinguished and ever-to-be-regretted President." In
his reply Mr. Choate declared that "Your Majesty's constant solicitude
and interest in these trying days have deeply touched the hearts of my
countrymen." The King ordered a week's mourning at Court and soon
afterwards received a message from Mr. Choate voicing Mrs. McKinley's
personal gratitude for the sympathy expressed. In replying, the King
declared that the Queen and himself "feel most deeply for her in the
hour of her great affliction and pray that God may give her strength to
bear her heavy cross." On September 27th the American Ambassador was
granted a special audience by His Majesty in London and presented the
formal thanks of Mrs. McKinley and of the people of the United States
for "the constant sympathy which you have manifested through the darkest
hours of their distress and bereavement."
During these months the King had not forgotten to show his continued
appreciation of many of the interests to which, as Heir Apparent, he had
given so much aid. At a General Council meeting of the Prince of Wales'
Hospital Fund on May 11th, presided over by the Duke of Fife and
attended by Lord Rothschild, Lord Farquhar, Lord Iveagh, Lord Reay, Mr.
Sydney Buxton and others the chairman stated that it was held by His
Majesty's wish in order to announce his resignation of the Presidency
and consent to take the position of Patron. The King's place was to be
taken by the Duke of Cornwall and York. Lord Rothschild spoke at some
length upon the importance of the work initiated in this connection by
the King and of the valuable aid which they had consequently been able
to give the hospitals and suffering poor of London. On June 10th a
letter was made public, written by Sir Dighton Probyn on behalf of the
King, expressing to the Royal Agricultural Society of England his
earnest hope that it would succeed in raising the L30,000 which was
needed for building purposes, subscribing two hundred and fifty guineas
toward this end, and expressing not only His Majesty's interest in its
future welfare but his pleasure at having been associated with it during
twenty two years of progress. On July 3rd the King and Queen Alexandra,
accompanied by Princess Victoria and the Duchess of Argyll, received at
Marlborough House some eight hundred nurses belonging to the Training
Institute inaugurated by the late Queen. Badges were presented by Her
Majesty to a couple of hundred and an address read and graciously
answered. An incident typical of the King's courtesy and thoughtfulness
was seen in his intimation to the Marquess of Dufferin, who, during the
early part of the proceedings was standing bare-headed in the sun, to
put on his hat--the King resuming his in order to create the
opportunity.
His Majesty took great interest during the year in the proposed National
Memorial to his Royal mother. He had early appointed a special Committee
of representatives to deal with the preliminaries and, on March 6th, a
Report was submitted by Lord Esher, as Hon. Secretary, recommending that
a statue of Queen Victoria should be the central feature of such a
Memorial, and the location be either the vicinity of Westminster Abbey
or that of Buckingham Palace. Accompanied by Mr. Balfour, Mr.
Akers-Douglas and Lord Esher, the King visited the suggested sites that
afternoon and finally approved a general position near Westminster
Abbey. Large amounts were subscribed toward the project during the
succeeding months. An interesting incident occurred on July 28th when a
small deputation of ladies, including the Countess of Aberdeen, Lady
Taylor and others connected with the National Council of Women in
Canada, were received at Marlborough House by Queen Alexandra and
tendered an address signed by twenty-five thousand women of the Dominion
expressive of their earnest loyalty to the King and affection for his
Consort. In replying, Her Majesty referred with special pleasure to the
tribute paid the late Queen and spoke of the beauty of the volumes in
which the address was incorporated.
ROYAL CHARITIES AND VISITS
Toward the end of the year it was announced in the _British Medical
Journal_ that a gentleman who did not at present wish his name
disclosed--afterwards understood to be Sir Ernest Cassel--had presented
the King with a donation of L200,000 for some philanthropic purpose to
be selected, and that His Majesty had decided to devote the money to the
erection of a Sanatorium in England for Consumptive patients. On January
22nd, 1902, the first Anniversary of Queen Victoria's death, the _Times_
paid the following well-deserved tribute to the new Sovereign: "During
the year that has gone by he has sedulously and successfully set himself
to fulfill all the duties of a constitutional Sovereign. He has spared
no pains to make himself familiar with his people, to study their needs,
to discover their wishes, to express their instincts and their ideals.
He has been able, in many ways, to promote national objects to a greater
extent than, perhaps, would have been possible even with Queen Victoria.
It is no secret that he is in cordial sympathy with the feelings of the
immense majority of his subjects on the supreme issues which now
dominate international politics. He has a high and keen perception of
the honour of the nation, so closely bound up with that of the Royal
House and with his own."
The succeeding six months were very largely devoted to preparations for
the Coronation, but the King, nevertheless, found time to do some
travelling and visiting in the country and to carry out some very
brilliant Court functions. As an illustration of the way in which he
sought to do every possible honour to his Queen-Consort, there may be
instanced a letter written, by command, in reply to an inquiry from the
Lord Mayor of London as to whether in drinking the second of the loyal
toasts at public gatherings the company should stand or not. Sir Dighton
Probyn observed in his letter that the King had no doubt as to what was
right, and that in his opinion the toast of "Her Majesty, Queen
Alexandra, the Prince and Princess of Wales and the other members of the
Royal family" should be received standing, with a few bars of the
National Anthem and "God bless the Prince of Wales." On February 11th
King Edward held the first Levee since his accession, and it was made
the occasion for a revival of much old-time splendour. The Prince of
Wales who had since his return home from the Colonies merged his title
of Duke of Cornwall and York in the more historic and familiar
designation, was present together with a great and representative
gathering. Bishops in lawn sleeves and scarlet hoods attended by
chaplains in long black gowns and white bands, great lawyers in wigs and
flowing robes, foreign officers and diplomatists in gorgeous and varied
uniforms, British generals and admirals, and the picturesque Windsor
uniforms of the Privy Councillors, lent a brilliant appearance to a
function at which most of the eminent men of the Kingdom were to be
seen.
Ten days afterwards His Majesty visited Lord and Lady Burton at
Rangemore, and while there inspected the famous Bass and Company
brewery and started a special brew to be called "the King's Ale"--only
to be used on special occasions. Early in the year it had been decided
by the King to pay what might be termed a Coronation visit to Ireland,
accompanied by his wife. Unfortunately, unpleasant conditions of local
agitation developed, and then came the outburst of Nationalist sympathy
for the Boers, in the House of Commons, when Lord Methuen's defeat was
announced. The result was that his Ministers advised the King not to
undertake the trip at the time proposed, and its postponement was
announced on March 12th, greatly to the regret of many in Ireland and
out of it. Commencing on March 7th the King and Queen Alexandra paid a
brief visit to the West of England and were loyally welcomed at
Dartmouth, Plymouth, Stonehouse and Davenport, where certain official
functions were performed.
On March 14th, King Edward and Queen Alexandra held their first Court,
and it was expected that the occasion would be the most stately and
splendid in the modern social history of the nation. It fully equalled
these anticipations, and the scene in the ball-room of Buckingham Palace
eclipsed even the traditions of the French Imperial Court in the days of
Napoleon III. It was well managed, it was attended by the greatest and
best representatives of English public and social life, it was unusually
brilliant in jewelry, in dresses and in uniforms, it was stately in its
setting and more animated and brighter in character than any similar
function of the late Sovereign's reign--since its early years at least.
The same success attended succeeding and similar occasions, and it might
be distinctly appropriate to quote here views expressed by the _Daily
News_ of February 15th, 1901, when it spoke of the new reign as opening
with splendid promise for the highest interests of the country and with
component elements in its Court for a period of extraordinary social
brilliancy. "King Edward," observed this Radical organ, "is one of the
most popular of Sovereigns, and his beautiful Queen sheds a lustre upon
his Court for which it would be difficult to find a parallel. Amiable,
tender-hearted, actively philanthropic, and possessing exquisite taste,
the Queen Consort is eminently qualified to be the bright particular
star in the shining galaxy of our Court. The Royal Princesses are most
highly accomplished and amiable ladies, each one of whom has achieved
for herself a high place in the affections of the nation."