« 이전계속 »
It was admitted upon all hands that it performed no part whatever in the practical work of government, and for what else should the nation be called upon to pay it an annual sum far exceeding in amount the aggregate salaries of the entire executive? The story of its life from day to day and year to year was to be found in the columns of the Court Circular, and to a common understanding it was hard to see how anything recorded of it there could be construed as being of service to the community at large. To men looking at it in this utilitarian spirit the whole thing appeared an all too costly fetish, the extinguishment of which would be a blessing. Even in the overwhelming numerical defeat of the parliamentary opposition to the dowry the Republicans hold that there was a comparative moral victory for them. They point to Mr. Gladstone's labored justification of the demand, and to the noticeably large number of liberal M.P.'s who were conspicuous by their absence on the night of the division with the purpose, it is reasonable to conclude (from the evasive answers given by some of them when questioned by their constituents as to how they would vote over the dowry), of being able to say that they did not vote for the dowry; though that plea will avail them but little when the time for another election arrives. In discussing the anti-dowry agitation, the Saturday Review—which, though strongly monarchical, did not descend to the pitiful twaddling of the other papers on the same side—observed that there was no room in England for a semi-royal caste. This was a remark that went very much to the heart of the business. In the existing state of public opinion there is not room for such a caste, and the working classes have instinctively seen this all along. To persevere in forcing that caste upon them beyond the point at which they showed their patience was exhausted was a mistake—in the interests of royalty. Monarchy centred in the Sovereign alone and guided by a policy of non-intrusion might have passed without serious challenge for many years to come; but royalty becoming a caste and constantly asking for money on behalf of its members was a thing which the "responsible advisers" of the Crown might have known would lead to the whole institution being brought into question, and critically examined in regard to the proportion between its cost and its utility to the country. That it could successfully bear examination on that ground its most enthusiastic admirers would not, we suppose, attempt to maintain; and its advisers are therefore responsible for thrusting it into a false and dangerous position. It is on this ground that the working classes have weighed it, and they believe they have found it utterly wanting. Their unanimous verdict is that its cost to the nation is very great, its usefulness nil. Further they are of opinion that it is worse than merely negatively useless. As they read certain facts, it seems to them that the nominal constitution and policy of the State are prostituted to give still more of the public money to royalty than is avowedly voted to it. In the House of Commons the Minister for War gravely defends the maintenance of sinecure colonelcies on the ground that they are reserved as prizes and rewards for specially meritorious and distinguished officers; and yet they are bestowed upon the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, and other more or less close connections of royalty simply because they are such connections, since it would puzzle even a courtly minister to point out their special merits or distinguished services as soldiers. A government calling itself liberal, and taking office with retrenchment and economy as their watchwords, answers unemployed and starving workmen who apply for aid to emigrate, that they have no money for such a purpose, while at the same time they give thousands to fit up royal yachts and pay the travelling expenses of royalty's relations
In proof of the argumentative strength of their case, the Republicans refer to the manner in which those who profess to answer them evade the point really at issue. The advocates of monarchy do not say that royalty is useful, or is not costly. What they say is, that practically we have the best Republic in the world; that, even with the expense of our royalty, the total cost of our government is probably less than that of America, since, under the system of the latter, every member of the legislature is paid; and that, even if the cost of royalty was abolished to-morrow, it would not relieve the taxation of the country to any appreciable extent. Or else they ask: "Would you, by attempting to subvert monarchy, bring about such a state of affairs as that we have lately seen in France?" To this the Republicans reply, that though, as compared with other monarchical governments, ours may be considered as of a Republican character —that though the sinecurism which is fostered by it may perhaps be less costly and injurious to the country than the extensive jobbery perpetrated by political wire-pullers in America, and though under it there is as great liberty of the subject as in any country—that though all this may be, it is altogether beside the question if brought forward as a justification for continuing to burden the country with the expense of a royalty whose part in the work of government is a legal fiction. If the fact of our members of Parliament serving for nothing brings the entire cost of our government within that of the great Transatlantic Republic, the English Republicans reply, that it is only to money being paid to non-workers that they object. If our present scale of expenditure, or even a greater, were necessary to secure efficient Prime Ministers, Chancellors, etc., they would not have a word to say against it. As to the non-payment of our members, many of the Republicans are of opinion that it would perhaps be better for the nation if we did pay them. Some of our present class of members treat their office as an honorary one, valuing it only as giving them a handle to their name; while it is quite an understood thing that others use their position to promote some sectional " interest," rather than—and if need be at the cost of—the interests of the nation. And for such neglect or dereliction of duty, a conscience-salving excuse is, that members are not paid. That the remission of the money-cost of royalty would not afford any sensible relief to the individual tax-payer is, say the Republicans, no answer to the economical argument for its suppression. That plea, if admitted, would put an end to all attempts at economy in State management. Because you cannot cut down expenditure by millions at a stroke, that is no reason why you should not retrench upon a smaller scale if there is an opening for doing so. Besides, the Republicans further argue on this point: if the money now paid to royalty were applied to organize Stateassisted emigration, or some other scheme of that kind, thousands of the poor might be immediately, sensibly, and permanently benefited; our colonies or waste lands made more valuable; and tax payers ultimately relieved to an extent that would be worth considering individually. To the question, ,; Do you want to bring about a revolution in this country?" the Republicans generally would reply: "Only a political revolution led up to and carried through by political pressure and agitation." This would in substance be the answer of the grand majority, but there are some within the body who would probably give a more extreme reply. Here and there among the working classes will be found men whose political ideas are summed up in the exclamation that a "thundering good revolution is what is wanted in this country," and that if "there was one to-morrow they would throw down their tools and join it." But these are simply ignorant, self-willed, violent tempered men, who would talk in the same fashion on any other subject on which they happened to feel strongly. Though they talk explosively, it is exceedingly doubtful whether, if it came to a practical question, they would be found to have even the will to make a revolution; and it is abundantly certain that in any case they have neither the knowledge nor the power necessary for doing so. They have not the slightest idea of warlike organization; they are too hot-tempered and open-mouthed to be members of secret societies; and as they generally manage to exhibit their violent and intolerant character in connection with workshop or trade or benefit club affairs, their class know them too well to let them become leaders. Then there are the stagey, fanfaronnading Republicans who hoist red flags, address each other as "Citizen," and indulge in high-sounding revolutionary talk. Taking advantage of the spread of Republicanism among the working classes, this melodramatic clique has of late obtruded itself before the public rather conspicuously, and by many has been taken to be the whole instead of a very small part of the Republican movement. If asked whether they aimed at a revolution, these theatric Republicans would likely enough answer that they did, but their doing so would be of no material consequence. If they really have any revolutionary aspirations, they are impotent to carry them out. They are few in number, uninfluential, have no man of mark among them, and, so far as any idea of revolution is concerned, stand alone and out of sympathy. The Republicanism existing among the general body of the working classes—and it is only that we have had in view in all we have been saying- -is not of a revolutionary character in the warlike sense of the term. It is not of an ultra order even politically. Indeed Republicanism is scarcely the proper name for it. Utilitarianism would be more accurately expressive of its meaning. The best informed among the working class Republicans, those best qualified to form a judgment, and whose opinion and example will have the greatest weight in influencing the action of their fellows, are not inclined to cavil about a word. They know that in many respects our constitution is as beneficial to the country as any Republic could be, and they would not care what the government was called provided it was purged of the (costly) fictional and hereditary elements. That, however, if by any exertion or pressure upon their part the thing can be effected, those elements shall be eradicated, they are firmly resolved. Until they see some fair prospect of their removal they will be thoroughly dissatisfied, and their discontent will be increased, and their Republicanism made less and less moderate in tone, by delay. Before the dowry agitation many of those who are now laboring to establish Republican organizations among their fellow-workmen took no personal interest in politics, while the few who were actively political had no notion of being anything stronger than Radicals. The conduct of Ministers and the press over the Princess Louise dowry brought a wide-spread Republicanism to life as if by magic; and should monarchical Ministers insist upon quartering the semi-royal caste upon the public purse to the bitter end, it would be hard to say to what it might not lead. This matter of semi-royalty is the sorest point of all with the Republicans. It alarms as well as irritates them. They see how prolific are the children of the Sovereign, they know that their offspring stand in closer relation to the throne than some who are pensioned solely on the ground of such relationship, and they ask themselves, Will it not be an intolerable burden upon the country to be forced to provide incomes for such a number? And, to judge by New Series.— Vol. XIV., No. 2. late proceedings, they argue that only by completely disestablishing royalty can the nation hope to escape from being saddled with such a weight. At present the more moderate Republicans would be quite agreeable to disestablishment being coupled with equitable pecuniary compensation, but under another turn or two of the dowry screw they would probably incline to some more high-handed mode of procedure. Though English Republicanism exists chiefly among the working classes, and is only openly avowed within those classes, traces of it are to be found in the middle classes, and the direction of the spread of its doctrine is upward. That some of the ablest writers and thinkers of the day are essentially Republicans is well known. In short, all the elements of a great Republican party lie ready; and were a Von Moltke in political organization to arise among the Republicans, he could make them the most powerful section in the State. Even without the aid of a supreme directing genius there is every probability of their speedily becoming a political party that will enforce consideration from others, if only on account of its strengthStung by the tone of their opponents upon the dowry question, the Republicans spoke out with what many of their number now consider an unwise bluntness. "Let us," say these, "have some of the wisdom of the serpent in our proceedings. Let us not talk of a Republic, though we aim at the thing. Let us, if we can, make royalty as an old man of the sea around the neck of Ministers. Let us chop, and lop, and pare at its branches, and soweaken even if we cannot cut down the stem. Let us strain every nerve to return to Parliament a clique sufficiently numerous to form a 'balance of power' between the two parties who now make a see-saw of government, and therefore also sufficiently strong to wring concessions from either of them by threatening to join the others on any closely-fought partyquestion. Let us do in a political Rome as political Romans do. Let us be trimmers and intriguers. Let us aid the Liberals of the period so far as their ultimatum is a step in our direction; let us join with the Radicals as far as they will gowith us, and carry ourselves as much farther as we can force a way single-handed." This is the counsel that is being
given. As, under existing circumstances, it is the most practical, the line of action indicated in it will, in all probability, be adopted in substance. Whether, however, such a comparatively "mild" policy will be adhered to for any considerable length of time is another question, since, so far as may be judged from "precedent," Ministers will soon be making further requisitions upon behalf of royalty. That among those whose political cry is now Republicanism there are some who have wrong and foolish ideas upon the subject—who think that under a Republic all things are necessarily pure, and every man sure of constant work and a comfortable living—that there are English Republicans holding such ideas as these, no candid person having a knowledge of the opinions existing among the working classes will for a moment attempt to deny. Nor would one with such a knowledge deny, either, that others, though calling themselves Republicans, are really levellers—men who, if they had their own way, would not be content with merely stopping the granting of State pensions to non-workers, but would likewise try to annex portions of self-earned incomes; who profess to be at a loss to understand why any other man should have more than them, and to consider it a perversion of the laws of nature that other men do have more than them. It is equally true, too, that the weekly newspaper which is the chief "organ" of Republicanism is often blatant and scurrilous, and habitually shows even a greater disregard than newspapers generally for the courtesy that should characterize honest political discussion. In short, English Republicanism, while having its good points, has also its blots, of which these are the chief. But they are only its blots; they do not, as many people suppose, constitute the thing itself. Among the working classes Republicanism has superseded Radicalism. Those who form the bulk of the Republicans do not expect impossibilities from a Republic, and are not so foolish as to hold levelling doctrines, while the better educated among them, even when agreeing with the arguments of the newspaper referred to, deplore and condemn its bad taste—not only as bad taste, but also as being an injury to the cause of Republicanism, since there can be little doubt that the coarse personality, violent invec
tive, and bombastic tone of Republican journals and orators hitherto, have been instrumental in causing the higher class of Republican writers and thinkers to hold aloof from any movement for practical organization. Even with all its present imperfections on its head, however, English Republicanism is not a thing to be contemptuously "daft aside." On the contrary, any one acquainted with the real facts of the case, and at all skilled in reading the signs of the times, will understand that it is a thing that it will be dangerous to treat with either real or affected contempt. In so far as Republicanism means Utilitarianism in Government, the spirit of the age in this country tends towards it. In time it tnusi become the predominating opinion practically, even if not nominally. Any danger to the State that there may be in it would lie in its being goaded into premature attempts to assert its supremacy. It has great thinkers in its ranks, and hosts willing to serve its principles disinterestedly; but as yet it has not statesmen capable of carrying on the practical work of Government, and until it has them it would be a disaster for it as well as for the nation at large if by any coup or fluke it was able to seize the reins of power. Acting statesmen are bound in the interests of all concerned to resist the too rapid advance of Republicanism, but they are equally bound not to oppose it in a manner that is calculated to urge it to extreme courses. The rate and manner of its progress is in a great measure in their hands. The Republicans do not expect any great or sudden concessions. They have no notion of anything in the shape of dethronement. They do not aim at taking away or reducing the present payment to royalty. What they seek—looking at matters practically, and having regard to the spirit of compromise that so largely enters into English politics—is to prevent the cost of monarchy being increased; to keep it strictly within its openly and directly avowed limits; and generally to pave the way to such a state of affairs and opinion that when another than the now reigning Sovereign came to be dealt with, a materially different arrangement—possibly an amicably settled abdication—could be effected. If they find themselves making reasonable advances in this direction, all will be well. If they find that they are defied, and theii
views set at nought, there will be a repetition of such work as there was before the repeal of the com laws—perhaps worse. In conclusion we repeat that to believe that the anti-royalists in England are "rare exceptions" is a dangerous error. Republicanism is now practically the uni
versal political creed of the working classes—the classes who, when they had not a tithe of the political power they have now, forced free trade and reform from the obstructives who stood in the way of those measures as long as they dared. Temple Bar. HERSCHEL AS MUSIC-MASTER. FROM THE GERMAN OF " ELISE POLKO."
It would be difficult to recognize in the busy and flourishing town of Leeds, situated on the river Aire, and capital of the West Riding of Yorkshire, with its hundred thousand inhabitants, the Leeds of a hundred years ago, containing some sixteen thousand people. The Leeds citizens thought that a more beautiful spot could not be found. The Yorkshire hills towered above them, the breeze blew fresh in the valley, and many a one sighed as he turned his face homewards to the narrow streets, where even in the warm glowing summer days it was dark and gloomy. Those houses always looked gloomy, gray, and mouldy, the windows always carried a dejected air. Not a morsel of green was to be seen at windows or on window sills. Indeed, no one ever thought of having plants or flowers in the dark rooms of those gloomy streets. The good people of Leeds were only too happy to be able to get a look at trees and flowers in the green valley of the Aire; or, when by chance they had an opportunity of visiting the gardens of the nobility and gentry in the neighborhood. But there was one exception, for in one of those narrow streets, and in one of those gloomy houses, flowers were to be seen, on a very neat temporary window sill. There were pots of flourishing mignonette, rosemary, and some very pretty evergreens. These flowers belonged to a foreigner who lodged there in the year 1758. Every morning his neighbors saw him bending over his dear flowers, tending them with gentle reverence. The young man—as was the fashion of those days—wore his hair powdered and tied up behind. He had an intellectual brow, bright eyes, and a mouth speaking of genuine happiness; his tout ensemble was particularly pleasing and striking, and his color was bright as that of any Highlander. By his neighbors he was called the "Foreigner," but for the Leeds folk he was "the handsome music master;" at least, his pupils had given him this flattering title. But his true name was Friedrich Wilhelm Herschcl. It was not an easy name for English lips, and they therefore ignored it. Herschel was the son of a musical composer in Hanover; he had come to London for the sake of increasing his musical knowledge. He had then been engaged by the Earl of Darlington, to train the choir at Durham. When his engagement there ceased, he came to Leeds, highly recommended by the Earl, and for the present settled himself in that town, as music-master, with the hope of hereafter removing to Halifax, and becoming organist of the church there, its organist being old and infinn.
In Leeds, Herschel had every chance of success, for its only music-master was aged, and becoming deafer every day, and more and more addicted to the snuff-box. There could be no doubt, that the lovely hands and fingers of the fair young ladies of Leeds required better supervision than their poor old music-master could now give them, and they soon took advantage of their opportunity. Indeed, they could not get a better master than the blue-eyed foreigner, who spoke such charming broken English. Never had there been heard in Leeds so many spinets, or so few false notes, as in the time of the foreign musicmaster.
When Herschel played the organ in the great church in Leeds, the House of God was like a beautiful flower garden, so crowded was it with youth and beauty. Still, notwithstanding this, Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel was only a poor music