THRONES THAT ARE STABLE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14531, 19 November 1910, Page 1 (Supplement)

THRONES THAT ARE STABLE

BY HISTORIOT3.

There would seem to come periods in the history of the world during which the nations, influenced by many and often differing causes, pass through a process of evolutionary change, and when such changes have occurred in the past they have rarely been confined to one nation onb , but have spread, as if by the force of example, first to their nearest neighbours and, later, as the news of occurrences has permeated through, to the most distant parts of the earth. The growth of Republican or Monarchical or Imperialistic aspirations has thus often had to be traced back to the force of example, or at least to the unconscious presence of similar operating causes and among the nations of Europe there are scarcely any which have not at some time or other in their history been governed both under tho Monarchical and the Republican systems, and not a few which, like France and Spain, have experienced numerous changes back and forward of different systems of government, each of which was claimed as perfect by its promulgators, but none of which aroused sufficiant enthusiasm to justify one in considering it as possessing stability. And in the generally disturbed state in which the nations of the world, almost without exception, stand politically to-day, it is not without interest to consider for a moment how many of the existing thrones can now be looked upon, if not as permanently established (for nothing is permanent, least of all a throne), anyhow as stable in the sense of being unattacked for the present and, as far as one can foresee, unlikely to be attacked in the immediate future. It is notable that, from the earliest times recorded by ancient history, the comparative status of the nations has always been either the existence of one world-dominating power and the rest nowhere, or the absence of any one dominating power and a number of approximately equal States. Thus we can recall the overwhelming superiority of . Persia in world politics prior to her defeat by Miltiades at Marathon, 24 centuries ago, and how the victory of the Athenians led to the jealousy of Sparta and the other Greek States almost on an equality with them, and so weakened them that they in their turn were beaten by the Romans; and how the rise of Macedonia and the personality of Alexander the Great made him, after his defeat of Darius at Arbela, almost the master of the world. And yet even Alexander could not found a throne which could last, and for hundreds of years in the world's history we find that it is only the ego of a great personality,

generally also a great captain, which counts, and then only in his own lifetime. Hannibal, - Hasdrubal, Arminius of Cherusci, Trajan, Constantino, the mighty Attila, and Charlemagne were all pre-eminent rulers over men, and all at one time or another had cut large slices off the known world; but none of their kingdoms lasted, and some of them did not even survive their creators. It is true that we have gone through a longer. evolution, a more extended period of "settling down," but are the conditions to-day any different, or have we arrived at another period of instability? Of the present-day great nations of the earth one may count upon the fingers of one. hand those who have even the same form of government as they had, say; a hundred years ago, and even to such as have the prestige of a long list of monarchs behind them to point to, it is very doubtful whether one can honestly consider them as stable just now. In fact, as far as Europe is concerned, it is probable that the only throne which can be acclaimed as stable, as far as the will! of its own people is concerned, is that of Denmark; and even this throne may sooner or later have to be sacrificed to the ruthlessness or the necessity of rival and stronger Powers. In the course of one' century France has experienced three Republics, two Empires, and three Kings, so that her people must be considered as unstable as they have proved to be changeable; modern Germany has only existed 40 years, and even in that short time has on several occasions had to support the stability of the throne by a reliance on the armed attachment of the great military machine, whose allegiance may not always be given to the Crown; Austria is in such a state of unsettled dis-

turbance as to make her throne one of the most dangerous and most uncomfortable places in Europe for any other than the aged monarch who at present occupies it; Portugal has already shown a disregard of her traditions, which may easily be followed by Spain in the near future; and Italy has not yet forgotten v.he tragic end of King Humbert, whose successor probably looks upon his throne as anything but a stable one. What, then, have we left in Europe"? A few minor principalities, a few small kingdoms like Holland and Belgium, whose history has already included Republicanism, and whose existence depends on the continued goodwill or continued jealousy of other outside Powers, and two semi-barbarous Powers in Russia and Turkey in Europe'. As regards both the latter one may say that each seethes with discontent and

disaffection, and both have been the subjects of i evolutionary movements, and as regards their thrones it may be doubted whether either the Tsar or the Sultan would venture to take an unattended walk in the streets of his capital. ' The great thrones outside of Europe are few in number, but relatively great in importance; curiously enough one may class them also as comparatively great in stability. They are England, China, Japan, and Persia, and of the four, as, indeed, of all the existing thrones of the world, England takes pride of place. It is true it has not always been so—it is true we have passed through two revolutions, including a republic—but we have learned our lessons by experience, and the Crown has adapted itself to the times. England's Sovereign rules by virtue of the affection of the people, who place him above party, and whose loyalty is so unquestioned and unquestionable that his throne may be looked upon as being at least as stable as any throne has ever been in the course of the ages and the very strength of the Crown in England is a demonstration in itself of the superiority of a constitutional monarchy over a mere military autocracy. As regards the other three extra European Powers they all share, though in varying degrees, the almost fanatical adherence of the Asiatic to the "anointed of heaven," and though from time to time an internal movement causes the transference of the Crown from one individual to another, the throne itself remains stable. Neither Japan nor China nor Persia have ever yet, in the course of their long history, known the Republican form of government, and it is certainly a notable commentary on the immutability . of Oriental thought that the Eastern Empires are still governed to-day almost in unchanged fashion and under a system almost identical to that which prevailed 3000 years ago; whilst the Occident, which for so long has affected to be alike the possessor of all civilisation and the arbiter of . all political movement, has not only shown, from the beginning of her history, rapid and contradictory changes of government, of thought, and of ideals, but has scarcely ever, by after events, been able to demonstrate that, in her chpics of change; she -was rishtii ~Y~ .