-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/13f81322efb5ef82706171ef2a41c194.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=r85%7E%7Eok0WYAnvCs-721166u--WEAbHUYn9k%7Ee3ru%7EyCTtltbcfqAM-2kfxETzzvrg9u2hqoMJ4EMqwwobbpcv-AMPEUbWz2cWyT7cOm%7E3ZuAX6KTWbXbRwLHVSMtrF3VknXD%7EJuAZM4o39gtENl6GLpug8IyjlvtceTQrp%7EwpT0Cr7s0OA9BiNSMxhayy-ym6yKIsvapdmC20qOTIFtQjlm9ghw6wlWcVEqiy43-nQBowTfv5PFFUDL6CQtsmYD%7EtjSlr1Z-BMOTwowVhheXMblepHiLsJqLUjkQzYG4pNolSJ8A22wt8O4GU1jLqgcjOGvPdwB%7EZVpqpEyTuyGTKw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d26b300a4f6f12489e8692dd5fff1835
PDF Text
Text
THE ENGLISH MONARCHY
AND
AMERICAN REPUBLICANISM.
Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli by
CHARLES
WATTS,
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON REPUBLICAN CLUB.
On April 3rd, 1872, the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli delivered
a political manifesto in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester. His
statements On the occasion were endorsed generally by the Tory
press throughout the country, and accepted by them as indicat
ing the programme of that “ enlightened ” party. Whatever is
publicly uttered by the hon. gentleman is deemed of more than
ordinary importance in consequence of the prominent position
he occupies as chief of English Conservatism. The principal
topic chosen by Mr. Disraeli for his speech was English Monarchy
and the American Republic ; his object being to show that the
form of Government in this country has certain advantages that
the American Republic does not possess. The reason for the se
lection of this subject maybe given in the speaker’s own words:—
“ The fundamental principles of the [English] Constitution have
been recently impugned and assailed. The flag of the Republic
has been raised, and therefore, gentlemen, I think it is not in
appropriate to the present hour and situation if I make to you
one or two brief remarks on the character of those institutions.”
It is evident that Mr. Disraeli had not only become conscious
of the rapid growth of Republican principles in England, but
that he had made up his mind to do his best to prevent their
further extension. Now there can be no objection to a person
stating why he differs from the Republican programme, supposing
he considers that programme wrong ; but no man has a right to
misrepresent facts, and utter statements before a public audience
which have no authority, and that are unsupported by statistics
or records of history. To show that Mr. Disraeli did this in his
Manchester speech is the object of the present reply.
�2
Before noticing the hon. gentleman’s fallacies, it may conduce
to the better understanding of the question under consideration
to inquire briefly into the nature of Monarchy. Generally
speaking, there are four kinds—absolute, constitutional, heredi
tary, and elective. In addition to these, we have in England an
imported Monarchy, that is, when the throne, being vacant, and
no one of native growth was found to occupy it,we sent to Holland
and Germany, andimported an occupant. True, these importations
have proved expensive, but then that is an “ advantage” shared
principally by the “ people,” and therefore it has commanded
official silence. The present Monarchy in England is supposed
to be a limited, constitutional, and hereditary one. Strictly speak
ing, however, it is not hereditary, because on several occasions that
principle has been set aside in the history of England, and some
of the best writers upon constitutional government agree that,
whenever the people pronounce in favour of an elective Monarchy,
they can have one in strict accordance with the law under which
they live. The hereditary principle is unwise, inasmuch as it pre
supposes that good and intelligent parents must necessarily have
good and intelligent children. This, however, is not so. The late
Prince Albert possessed some excellent qualities that the Prince
of Wales shows no inclination to emulate. Thus,as Dr. Vaughan
observes : “ In a hereditary Monarchy the worst men may come
into the place of the best.” To guard against such an evil is the
duty of every Republican. Moreover, the principle is unjust.
We are not justified in urging that because one generation
prefers a King or Queen, therefore succeeding generations
should do likewise. Each age should be at liberty to elect that
kind of Government which it finds most in accordance with the
genius of the time, and the aspirations of the people who have
to be ruled. There is some truth in designating the English
Monarchy limited. In one particular its limitation is very
perceptible. This, of course, is no reproach to the Queen, who,
from the best of motives, has for some years lived a life of seclu
sion. Her Majesty is a far-seeing woman, and can discern that
in the future of England a Republican form of Government will
obtain; and as a thoughtful sovereign, she absents herself, so that
her subjects may get initiated into the art of self-government,
that when they come to fulfil the duties thereof, they shall not be
taken unawares, but shall be able to perform such duties with
credit to themselves and with a benefit to the commonwealth.
Whilst opposed to all Monarchies, that form certainly may be
pronounced the best which recognises the right of election.
Kings and Queens should win their position by their ability, and
not rule because they have descended from royal parents, whose
only claim to Royalty was that of birth.
To prove the superiority of the English Monarchy over the
American Republic, Mr. Disraeli said that for two centuries
Monarchical governments had prevented a revolution in this
country, and had established order, public liberty, and political
rights. Now, accepting the term revolution in the limited sense
�3
used by Macaulay, it is true that in this country for nearly two
hundred years it has been unknown. But taking revolution, in
its comprehensive signification, as embodying the elements of
public discontent at, and rebellion against, official artifices and
governmental opposition to the people’s rights, England has
experienced many such outbreaks since 1688. What was the
American rebellion but a revolt against the wicked and unjust
obstinacy and oppression of the English Monarchy ? If it had
not been attempted to enforce taxation without representation
upon the inhabitants of America, they might still have been
bound to us by national ties, and then England would have been
saved the disgrace of an expensive and unnecessary war. The
numerous uprisings and manifestations against injustice in India,
in Jamaica, and in Ireland were so many revolutionary pro
tests against the cruel and tyrannical acts of Monarchical mis
rule. And if in England during the last two centuries revolution
has not broken out in its worst forms, it has not been in conse
quence of an enlightened and amicable policy adopted by our
Governments, but ’ rather the result of the forbearance of the
people, who desired to advance their cause by peaceable means.
The Monarchical policy has too often provoked anarchy and
public discord, by withholding reforms from the nation until it
was driven to despair, by insults and procrastination. Where is
the proof that Monarchical Governments have established order
and promoted public liberty, as stated by Mr. Disraeli? Not
in the history of the Derbyshire outbreak and Snow Hill riots of
1816 and 1817 ; not at the Peterloo massacre of 1819 ; not at the
riots of Bristol, Nottingham, and other towns in ^832; not
during the struggles for Free Trade, Catholic Emancipation, the
admission of Jews into the Legislature, and for Parliamentary
Reform. In connection with these movements, the conduct of
the Governments was such as to produce the very opposite of
order. They refused to grant what the people required until
there was “ no alternative but concession, or the horrors of civil
war.” At the close of the last, and in the early part of the present,
century, great efforts were made to obtain Parliamentary Reform
and an improvement of the land laws. And how were these
efforts met by the “ powers that be ?” Public petitions were
unheeded, supplications were disregarded, and traps were laid
by the Government to catch within the clutches of the law the
leading agitators of the time. Dr. Vaughan says the Govern
ment “ instituted a spy system, which was made to spread itself
everywhere; and miscreants, who could not detect treason to
satisfy their employers, were careful to stimulate and sometimes
to invent it. Hence came a long series of State prosecutions, in
which law was so perverted, or so openly violated, that each one
of them, in place of removing disaffection, multiplied it mani
fold........ Men of the most worthless character were accepted as
witnesses ; and juries who wanted evidence managed to pro
nounce the verdict of ‘ guilty ’ in the absence of it.” Even Sir
Samuel Romilly declared that “he believed in his conscience
�4
the whole of the Derbyshire insurrection was the work of persons
sent by Government.”
The State prosecutions that took place a little more than half
a century since will prove how reliable Mr. Disraeli’s statement
is, that Monarchical rule has favoured political rights and public
liberty. The trials of Muir and Palmer in Scotland, and Hardy,
Tooke, Thelwall, Cobbett, and Leigh Hunt in England, reveal
to us the fact that when Monarchical influence was paramount,
the solitude of a prison and heavy fines were the rewards of
those who sought to advance the social and political condition
of society. When and where has the throne of England ever
pleaded for the liberty of the people ? When has it attempted
to vindicate the rights of man ? or to extend that national freedom
which is the birth-right of every citizen ? Upon what page of
history is it recorded that modern progress has sprung from
Monarchy ? The liberties we now have were dearly bought by
the energies and self-sacrifice of those brave men whose aspira
tions and labours were sought to be crushed by royalist intrigues
and aristocratic exclusiveness. The lever that impelled forward
political and social freedom was found among the masses, apart
altogether from the occupants of the throne. For, as recorded
by Cassell, in his “ History of England,” “ whilst Royalty sat in
emblematic darkness, the people were breaking into light and
power by the efforts of genius born amongst them.”
The right hon. gentleman, in order to prove that Monarchy is
a national benefit, referred to the reign of George III. Now,
it is only reasonable to suppose that in Mr. Disraeli’s opinion
this sovereign was the best that could be cited as illustrative of
the alleged advantages of Royalty. A glance, therefore, at the
condition of society under George III. will enable us fully to
appreciate the value pf Monarchical “influence” on the progress
and well-being of the country. The following facts are taken
from pages 570, 571, and 572, vol. vi., of Cassell’s “ History of
England —-“George III. could not comprehend the right of
America to resist arbitrary taxation; he could as little comprehend
the right of his subjects to have full freedom of conscience, but
opposed doggedly the emancipation of the Catholics on account
of their creed. To all other reforms he was equally hostile, and his
Government and his son had, to the hour of his death, rigidly main
tained the same principles of rule. They had, as we have seen,
done their best to destroy the freedom of the press, the freedom
of speech, and the right to assemble and petition for the redress
of grievances. They had turned loose the soldiery on the people
exercising this right, and had armed the magistracy with full
powers to seize any person whom they pleased to suspect of free
ideas ; and having shut them up in prison had suspended the
Habeas Corpus Act, to keep them there without a hearing during
their pleasure. Never in the history of England, since the days
of the Stuarts, had there been so determined an attempt to
crush the national liberties as toward the end of this reign.......
The same reluctance had always marked the mind of George
�5
III. to reform the penal code as to reform political abuses.
During his period of sanity he continued to behold unmoved
the frightful ferocity of the criminal code, and to sign, unshudderingly, death-warrants for men and women, some of the
latter with children in their arms, for the theft of a sheep, or of
a few yards of calico.......The same darkness and apathy existed
on the subject of education. The great bulk of the people during
the Georgian period were almost wholly unable to read.” This
monarch’s “ influence,” no doubt, was great on the religion of
the time, for the same historian records that “ the Christianity
of the reign of George III. was a bloody farce, and an abomina
tion.” If this is the state of society to result from the influence of
Royalty, England will do well to get rid of it as speedily as
possible. For a full and correct account of what George III.
did for this nation, the reader is referred to Mr. C. Bradlaugh’s
“ Impeachment of the House of Brunswick,” where the deeds of
that worthy monarch are faithfully recorded.
Mr. Disraeli’s next statement in favour of Monarchy was that
this country “ is properly represented by a Royal Family.” This
sentence is the very opposite of truth. When has Royalty re
presented the intelligence, the industry, or the poverty of the
people ? What great literary or scientific production has ever
emanated from the wearer of the English Crown ? Indolence
and luxurious wealth have too often surrounded the throne, while
those who have been compelled to support it have had to “ toil
night and day ” amidst penury and squalid wretchedness. As
a nation we boast, among our characteristics, virtue, honour,
domestic purity, and benevolence. But in what Royal Family,
within the two hundred years mentioned by Mr. Disraeli, have
these characteristics found their representative ? Was virtue
represented by Charles II., who kept so many mistresses, and
had such a host of illegitimate children that no historian has
committed himself by naming the number of either? “No
man,” says Cassell, “ ever saddled the country with such a troop
of bastards ” as did Charles 11. Among the numerous progeny
resulting from his licentiousness may be mentioned the Dukes
of Monmouth, Southampton, Grafton, Northumberland, St.
Albans, and Richmond. Truly, these aristocratic families had
a noble origin ! Writing of this king, Buckle says : “ With the
exception of the needy profligates who thronged his Court, all
classes of men soon learned to despise a king who was a
drunkard, a libertine, and a hypocrite ; who had neither shame
nor sensibility ; and who in point of honour was unworthy to
enter the presence of the meanest of his subjects.” Did James
II. represent the honour of the country when he made secret
arrangements with Louis of France, whereby he sacrificed
England’s prestige and integrity for so many bribes, one alone
amounting to 500,000 crowns, which was followed by a second
remittance of two million livres ? His dishonour was only
equalled by his hypocrisy, for when he wanted sums of money
voted him by Parliament, he declared that he had “ a true
�6
English heart;” and when soliciting bribes from the French’
monarch, he proclaimed that his “ heart was French.” James 11,
represented nothing that was noble and true. “ He hoped to
turn a free Government into an absolute Monarchy,” but in this
he failed; and having disregarded the rights of the people, and
defied their wishes, he was driven from the throne. His fate
should be a warning to future would-be monarchs. Were the
wishes of the country represented by William III., in whose reign
commenced an extensive warfare, a reckless expenditure, and
the official inauguration of our National Debt ? In the twelve
years Queen Anne occupied the throne, she not only sided with
the Tories in their frequent quarrels with the Whigs, but she
raised the funded debt in that period from ^12,600,000 to
^36,000,000. Was this the Royal mode of illustrating the progress
and economy of the country ? Of domestic purity, as exhibited
within the domain of Royalty, but one instance shall be given,
and that from Mr. Disraeli’s king par excellence, George III.,
of whom Washington Wilkes, on pages 130—1 of his history of
the first half of the present century, writes :—“ It is generally
supposed that he was a model of domestic morality ; whereas he
was either a seducer or a bigamist........ It is not common for
virtuous parents to bring up a whole family of licentious profli
gates ; and yet what family ever exhibited such a troop of the
most shameless and sensual ones as that of George III. ? He
saw his sons seduce and abandon one woman after another, and
he could not reprimand them ; for he knew his own story better
than they who now act the historian seem to do.” No doubt,
by some, Queen Victoria is supposed to be a true representative
of benevolence. Well, if to give away portions of the money
that has been annually voted by Parliament for that purpose,
constitutes benevolence, then Her Majesty may be entitled to
that honour. But the record of sums given from the Queen’s
private .purse for benevolent purposes is difficult to find. View
ing, apart from class interest, the characteristics of the country,
and the conduct of Monarchy, it will require a Conservative
genius to discover how the former have been represented by the
latter.
Mr. Disraeli’s attempt to prove that the English Monarchy
was less expensive than the American Republic was a perversion
of facts, and a misrepresentation of figures. He said that her
Majesty had a considerable estate in the country which she had
given up, and the revenues from them had gone into the public
exchequer. The hon. gentleman did not inform us what estates he
alluded to. At the present moment the Queen is in possession of
large estates at Balmoral, at Osborne, and in the West of London,
the revenues of which the country does not receive. Did Mr.
Disraeli refer to the Crown lands ? If so, they never belonged to
the Queen, and, therefore, she could not have given them up.
Is it, however, correct to allege that the revenues derived from
the Crown lands are equal to the annual sum we pay to the Royal
Family ? That sum, according to the Blue Book and other
�official'documents, amounts to £692,373. This does not, it should
be observed, include the entire cost of Monarchy, but simply
represents the net cash paid in one year to and for the Royal
Family. Now, towards this £692,373, what is obtained fromthe
Crown lands? There was paid into the Exchequer in 1847,
.£68,000; in 1854, £272,000; in 1855—6, .£260,000 ; in 1870—1,
£385,000 ; and for the present financial year the amount named
is £375,000. Thus it will be seen that until the last few years,
the Crown land receipts were exceedingly low, and even now
they do not equal half the cost of the Queen and her family.
Mr. Disraeli said : “ I will deal with the cost of sovereignty in
the United States of America. Gentlemen, there is no analogy
between the position of Queen Victoria and the President of the
United States.” There is much truth in this remark; there is no
analogy between the two. The President of the United States
has to work; and the Queen as the right hon. gentleman re
marked on a former occasion, had become “physically and morally
incapacitated from performing her duties.” A man who aspires
to the Presidential chair must possess political ability, while a
knowledge of politics has not been deemed a necessary qualifica
tion in the occupant of the English throne. Besides, the Queen’s
salary is £385,000 a year, and the President’s is but £3,750.
In dealing with the relative costs of the two forms of Govern
ment, Mr. Disraeli did not put the case fairly. He was careful
to speak of the cost of the American Cabineg, but he never men
tioned the cost of our English Cabinet. The English Cabinet is
composed of sixteen members, who receive annually between
them in salaries £66,000. The American Administrative Depart
ment is composed of seven members, who receive among them
£8,400. In England some members get £5,000, others £7,500,
and one as much as £10,000 per year. In America no member
gets more than £1,200. Then we have the entire administration,
for which we pay, in salaries alone, £176,718, which, with the
£45,023 for expenses of the House of Lords, and £49,806 for the
House of Commons, together with £692,373 paid to the Royal
Family, make the cost of the English Government to be
.£963,920, while, as admitted by Mr. Disraeli himself, the
Republic in America costs only between £700,000 and
£800,000. And out of this sum the Americans pay their
representatives, an advantage we should do well to emulate ;
for if men are sent to Parliament to do our work, they ought to
be paid for it. If that were done, we should not find so many
empty benches as we do when the money of the country is being
voted away. In America, moreover, the sovereignty is the people.
There the people pay to rule themselves, while here we pay
Royalty to rule us. In America the sovereignty supports itself; in
this country it is supported by something outside of itself. Surely
then that which is self-supporting is more economical than that
which depends on something extraneous for its existence.
In
America its £700,000 or £800,000 are distributed among nearly
five hundred persons, but in England the £963,920 are given to
�8
less than one hundred individuals. So that in this country about
one hundred Government officials cost over £ 163,000 more than
five times that number in America.
There is a striking contrast also in the expenditure for diplo
macy in the two countries. As shown by Mr. Bradlaugh, in his
recent letter to Mr. Disraeli, America pays her Ambassador in
London a yearly salary of £3,215, and the total cost of the
American Embassy here is £4,336. Our Ambassador at New
York receives the sum of £5,000 per year, and an annual allow
ance of £1,000 for house rent, and the total cost of our Embassy
in America is ,£8,150, or nearly double. The Americans pay their
Ambassador at Paris £3,670, and the total cost of the Embassy
is ,£4,146. We give our Parisian Ambassador £10,000, and the
total cost of our Embassy is £13,595. Thus diplomacy in France
costs America less than one-third of our expenditure. In Eng
land the Lord Chief-Justice receives an annual salary of £8,000,
while the same functionary in America is paid £1,700 a year.
Many other instances could be given to show that Mr.
Disraeli was decidedly inaccurate in his comparisons of the ex
penses of the two countries. But, leaving particular departments,
what is the total cost of each nation ? The general cost of the
Governmentof Americafor 1871 was£s8,012,584,while the general
cost of England was £69,698,539 12s. 2d. The advantage to
America will appear the greater when we remember that last year
her population was 38,555,983 persons ; Great Britain and Ire
land 31,817,108. Territory of Great Britain and Ireland is about
119,924 square miles ; United States, 2,933,588 square miles.
Notwithstanding the much larger population, and the greater
extent of territory, the Republic has a much less expenditure
than the Monarchy.
Too much importance is not here attached to what has been
termed the “ cheap argument.” Because an article is cheap, it
does not therefore follow that it is preferable to that which is
more expensive. And the present examination of the relative
costs of the American and English forms of Government has
been to show, that in his speech the Right Hon. Benjamin Dis
raeli stated the very opposite of facts. True economy consists
in the usefulness of that which is purchased. Monarchy is dear
at any price, because it lacks the elements of good government.
The basis of all sound legislation is the public will, made known
through a fair and comprehensive system of representation; and
as this advantage is recognised and enforced by Republicanism,
its claims are established as superior to Royalty, even if it were
not less expensive.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London : Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s
Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The English monarchy and American republicanism. Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. B. Disraeli
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Disraeli, Benjamin [1804-1881]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: [Disraeli's speech delivered April 3rd, 1872 in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4944
Subject
The topic of the resource
Monarchy
Republicanism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The English monarchy and American republicanism. Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. B. Disraeli), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Monarchy
Republicanism