ON ROYAL TITLES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10425, 24 April 1897, Page 1 (Supplement)

ON ROYAL TITLES.

[BY COLONUS.] The question of titular distinctions conferred by the hand of the Queen, and whether the acceptance of one by a democrat is consistent with the principles of democracy, is often presented to the public mind in these colonies.

Ib is particularly so just now when Mr. Seddon, who may be regarded as the representative head of the democratic party in New Zealand, is on ilia way to England to take part in an Imperial celebration, which is sure to be accompanied by a very liberal distribution of such royal favours, as die expression of Her Majesty's good will and pride in her colonies. That the New Zealand Premier, in common with other prominent representative men on the occasion will be offered a knighthood is of course a foregone conclusion. Will he accept it ? can ho accept it ? or should he accept it ? is the question of the hour?

That the human mind intuiivoly yearns for distinction is as evident as daylight. It has been so from the beginning, is now, and ever will be, world without end.

Even in Heaven distinctions are known and loved. There have been archangels and angels, so far as we know, from the first institution of angelic orders, and among saints boatified we know that they will differ among themselves, as one star differeth from another star in glory. Indeed, so far as we can gather from the brief hints in the Bible, and from the traditions of all time, it was Lucifer's jealous objections to the order of the celestial hierarchy that hurled him as the Devil down to holl.

Even there distinctions reign, and though little is told us in detail of the social economy of the infernal world, we are clearly led to believe, from references and hints, that there are princedoms and orders and distinctions among tho outcast angels in their rebellious and lost estate. From hell to the United States is a long hark-away, but in the great modern and model Republic, where, as a fundamental constitutional principle, all men are equal, and in practice one man is as good as another, and sometimes a great deal better, we find the yearnings of human nature make themselves heard, even amongst the most matured and developed democracy ; and a man that is not a general or a judge or a colonel, or at least a captain, is to be classed among tho abandoned pariahs of society. In fact there is something in human nature that prompts it in a crowd to try to scramble up on a log or a stool, or a support of some kind so that its head may be above the dead sea level of the crowd of heads around it, and in a conn try. like England where they have had established orders of nobility for aues, there is not onetenth of the rabid hunger among the masses for something to distinguish one another from the throng, that there is among a crowd of rampant democrats, who cry "down with the nobility." Even in our own happy country it is so. We are probably the simplest-mindod, most unassuming, modest people on the face of the earth, yet we are in the constant practice of organising all sorts of bodies, tho principal object of which undoubtedly seems to be the distinction to bo borne by the principal promoters. We have an order, I don't remember the name of it, but its proceedings were reported recently in the„papers, and its members are all Sir this and Sir that, Sir Thomas and Sir William and Sir James and the rest, playing with titles for the sweet zest of it, just as children play at ladies and gentlemen. And all the Right Worshipful?, and Most Noble Grands and the rest, what are they but the instinctive craving of the human nature within us, which the good Creator implanted there at once for the gratification and the elevation of his creatures.

And look at tho Justice? of the Peaceship, the only titular distinction whioh we are enabled legally and constitutionally to confer in a Democratic community. _ See the eagerness with which the wildest Democrat will intrigue and fawn and humour Ministers that he may be enabled to put tho magic letters J.P. after his name, and the funniost thing in tho world is to see the maddest Radical flourishing the title on all occasions when he can find the merest oxcttse to flaunt it before the faces of the crowd, as marking the eminence on which he stands above them. And this is the sort of people that disclaim against titular distinctions from the hands of the Queen as subversive of the principles of democracy. In all the history of the colony there has been no other period at which there has been such an eager rush for the titular distinction of a J.P., or an " Honourable" with the appendix of " M.L.C.," as in this epoch of a rampant democracy ; and it is aspired to by people without the slightest pretensions to educational, or any other fitnoss or merit, and to many a one of them the honour is about as congruous as a jewel of gold in a swine's snout. It is human nature; and the ambition for such distinction is no more to be condemned than the natural affections, or the will, or the memory, or any other quality which the Creator for beneficent ends has conferred on His creatures. And when it is well won and worthily worn the holding of it is meritorious, and to be commended by all rightthinking men. But when it is won without merit, and worn without the honour that rightly pertains to distinction, it is only a degradation of honour, and the incongruity of the connection is enough to make a cat laugh. . But the only point about it to be noticed here is the extraordinary craving for there titular distinctions by Democrats, who loudly protest about the equality of men, and rail at titular distinctions.

But let us come to consider these titular distinctions that are commonly conferred by the hand of the Queen on colonists for their services to the State.

And here let it be understood that the question is not raised about those higher dignities of hereditary peerages. There a principle is involved that is not to be tested by the principles of democracy. The principle by which a man succeeds to the right to make laws for the country, not in virtue of his personal merit, but merely because he is the son of his father, is not con' sonant with the principles of democracy. There a principle is really at stake, and a Democrat, who would' accept a peerage conveying to him and his descendants after him, the right - to make laws for the country, would violate the. first principle* on which democracy is based.', /■ f; s " -. '■' But to' accept a life honour conferred by any competent authority u a reward for

excellence, or for work done, or services rendered to the State, differs in no way in principle from the acceptance of a J. P.ship for work or services, or an M.LC.-ship, or a Degree or an honorary distinction from a university. When Sir Maurice O'Rorke went home to Ireland, and was received with honour by his own University, Trinity College, and the honorary degree of LL.D was conferred on him, was it an an improper thing for him to accept it? _ Ho had done high honour to the University itself by the eminence he had won in the land of his adoption in having, through a Ions; series of Parliaments, been esteemed worthy to occupy the most honourable position in Parliament and in the country. For these and other public services he was deemed worthy of the high titular distinction conferred on him by his University. Was it contrary to the principle of Democracy that he should accept this honour? And when some yean before Her Majesty conferred on the same gentleman a titular distinction in recognition of his services to the State, in fact on Mie very same grounds as those on which he was honoured by the University, was his acceptance of knighthood in any way more contrary to the principles of democracy ? Anyone who would say so must be a rebel ir. his heart, unless we are to hold that democracy itself is subversive of loyalty to the Sovereign. The University which conferred the honour derived its authority from Royal Charters, and if democracy repudiates royalty or denies to it the power or the right to confer honours, it strikes away the basis on which any University confers a degree of M.U., or A.M., or LL.D., and by a parity of reason, destroys the ground on which Her Majesty's commission is held by a Justice of the Peace or by a member of the Legislative Council. When the Order of St. Michael and St. George was modified and adapted to modern purposes, it was with the express object of conferring honours on men rendering valuable services to the State, and principally in the colonial Empire. ' Are we to suppose that such services are not deserving of being recognised ? or is it because that recognition comes direct from the hand of our beloved Queen that thoy ought to be rejected ? We can easily understand a man who is a rebel or an Anarchist) repudiating the pro. priety of such honours being accepted. There is logic and consistency in his doing so; but for a man who professes to be a loya I subject of the Queen to repudiate such an honour on the grounds of its being contrary to his Democratic principles, would show him to be either a fool or a charlatan.

That a man might decline such an honour on other grounds is intelligible and reasonable. A man may be of such a simple unassuming disposition as to prefer having no distinctions, but to remain plain " Mr." to the end of his life.

There are many such, and they are to be honoured for their feelings, neither is there the slightest disrespect to Her Majesty in their doing so. Again a man's name may be so honoured in itself, that no titular honour could add to its distinction.

Mr. Gladstone might have had any titular distinction he dosired from the Queen. By usage and by merit he was entitled to such an honour. But the highest title in the gift of Her Majesty to bestow would merely dim the glory ot the name of " William Ewart Gladstoneand apart from this, the grandaur of his nature doubtless disinclines him to accept honour for its own sake.

But that his principles of Liberalism or Democracy, his noble battle for the liberties of the people, and for equal rights to all found nothing inconsistent in the principlo of royal honours and distinctions, is shown in the fact that he has boon the medium in conferring of such honours upon scores of others while he has remained untitled himself.

It is not, therefore, for a moment contended that a loyal subject of Her Majesty may not be fully warranted in declining such an honour. But when it is dono in a cowardly deferenco to the assumption that the acceptance of such a titular distinction would be inconsistent with Democracy, then the conduct becomes merely con-

temptible. No intelligent if loyal Democrat can hold such a view unless he holds that all titular distinctions are reprehensible, and that the Master of Arts and the Justice of tho Pence, tho Doctor of Laws and the Legislative honourable, the colonel and the corporal, are all violators ot the equality of man and the principles of Domocracy. Of course there is a very large section of tho community that in sentiment and feeling, however it may be in principle, is opposed to honours being held by anybody. They aro those chiefly who have not the slightest chance of ever receiving any such honours themselves.

There are thousands of people who are disposed to speak with contempt of knighthoods, who would jump at the chance of accepting one to-morrow, if they were in the position and had the means to keep it up. There are so many of these that they give the conventional tone to colonial sentiment which thus has the appearance of being unfavourable to the acceptance of honours.

They cannot) "see tho good of them," they don't see " how anybody is the better of them," but wouldn't they smack their lips and swallow them if they only got tho chance.

This is distinct dishonesty, but it is so frequent and so frequently expressed that it passes as gospel. It is found among intelligent and sensible peoplo, who ought to know better.

A knighthood is a good thing, and a man's position is distinctly bettered by it, and as for a woman's position it is elevation to the seventh heavens to be "my lady." It gives a moral force and a social influence, and it is the veriest cant, or mere spleen and envy for any body to say the contrary. Bub it ie chiefly among the non-intelli-gent, tho ignorant, and the unreflecting that the prejudice against Queen's honours exists.

These it is who chiefly hold that titular distinctions of this sort are undemocratic.

To begin with, the sphere of such honours is so utterly beyond them that they hate them for that reason, and with luch there is no use reasoning, for it is prejudice and not reason that governs their sentiments. To these belong the most ignorant of the working classes, who nob only see in titular honours a something in which they never can have any share, but have an instinctive dislike to anyone who can so far soar away from them as to be honoured or distinguished in any way. Of course there is a spice of anarchy and distinct disloyalty in many of these, and their hatred for those who rise above the ruck is accentuated by their hatred of the Queen and of all authority, and of law itself.

It is unnecessary to say that this is not descriptive of the intelligent portion of the working classes, who are as capable of taking a rational view of questions as anybody. All the same, it is to be admitted that the labour unions have a tendency to drag down anybody that attempts to rise from among them or their party, a fact which is the weak joint in the armour of the Labour party, and will apparently always be the source of its weakness

This irrepressible spirit of jealousy and envy towards people of their own ranks is not found among any of the other classes of society. But as a eequenco of it, the general sentiment of the working classes, and more particularly of the leas intelligent of them, must be distinctly against titular distinctions from the hands of the Queen.

It. would be idle to conceal the fact that if Mr, Seddon accepts such an honour, be will have to reckon with this element which forms such a considerable part of his following. . The more intelligent portion of the working classes know well enough that there is nothing inconsistent with the spirit of democracy in their chief accepting honours from the hand of the Queen. But the; know their mates of the ignorant and brutal class well enough to know that their unreasoning prejudices will be aroused, and that it would prove fatal to bis standing with a section of,his followers that otherwise would be unworthy of being considered. '(I If' Mr. Seddon 4 belonged to any other clam of the community it would be proud to' 1 see-its' chief' laden with the highest honours. And wort it not for this ignorant

and brutalised stratum of his followers, his standing as a Minister, and bis influence in the colony and elsewhere as a. leader of Democrats, would be made more beneficial to his party by his standing up to his opponents as 11 Sir Richard." As it is, he will likely bow to the inevitable, and indeed on prudential grounds, probably his wisest friends will advise him to do so.

It is regrettable that it should be so. Mr. Seddon, however people may differ from his policy and principles, has won distinction in public life, that ought to be recognised in the usual way, and in his being honoured, the colony would have been gratified as sharing in the honour. But he will have to pay the penalty of having to reckon with the ignorant prejudices of the basest of the people, and it would require more courage and more risk than we are warranted in expecting, for him to return as "Sir Richard."