Loyalty--—To What?

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20422, 12 February 1938, Page 13 (Supplement)

Loyalty--—To What?

, Authority Justice : : Duty of Fidelity (J. S. Braithwaite in Christian Science Monitor)

ONE OF THE MOST impressive moments in the Coronation services of King George VI was when, after the actual crowning, the lords spiritual and temporal advanced to render homage to the enthroned figure. There was difference in the actual form that this homage was to take. With the spiritual lords, the Bishops, it was fealty that was promised, i.e., that they would bear faith and truth to their Sovereign Lord. The temporal lords came with a more unconditional vow of homage, promising in addition to ‘‘become your liege man of life and limb and of earthly worship.” This declaration of loyalty is a very significant thing because it Implies a Recognition by all parties that the occupant of the throne himself, as well as the institution which he represents, as deeply concerned w-ith these promises of allegiance. Hence the very prominent place given to this particular act of homage. The King now for the first time in the ceremony learns that he is not alone, but that there are those around him in his position and to defend him from all attempts at undermining his authority. What, then, is the true substance of this promise of allegiance? Whereof is it made? In the days of feudalism the substance of all allegiance lay in the ownership of land, which was the basis of society. This fact survives in the oath of the Bishops, who promise to perform the service of the lands which they claim to hold of the King “as in right of the Church.” In modern times, however, allegiance is not concerned alone with ownership of land, but with the share that each has in all those rights and privileges which are common to all. It is based on the fact that the liberties of the subject are bound up in the authority of the Crown, and that allegiance to the King, as the official head of the state and the symbol of the reign of law, is the best guarantee that these liberties will be protected and maintained. No oath of allegiance is required of the ordinary citizen nowadays, but citizenship Implies an Obligation. from which it is impossible to “contractout,” that the individual owes fidelity towards the principal authority and the laws of the state under which he is born. In the United States, for instance, the paramount allegiance of a citizen is due to the Federal Government, whose form and sphere of activity is prescribed by the written Constitution, and in a lesser degree to the particular state in which he is domiciled, the government of which operates only \ ithin the sphere of that state. In the British Commonwealth of Nations, where there is no written constitution, the paramount allegiance of each citizen is due to the King, as the symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth and of the reign of law. who is represented in each part of the Commonwealth by Governors acting as deputies for the King. This duty of fidelity is one which every citizen needs to examine carefully. The easiest way, perhaps, may bo that of nailing one’s colours to the mast with a declaration such as “My country* right or wrong,” or, my ruler is right whatever he docs, whereby one may desist from the

uneasy process of further thought on the subject, and obey blindly «very dictate from those in authority. But in democratic countries it has come to be recognised that every citizen must actively discriminate between policies and persons, and choose which he wishes to prevail, and that minorities have their just rights. Accordingly, the citizen of a democracy who finds himself, by reason of his conscience or deep political conviction, completely opposed to the measures promulgated by his country’s government, has No Right of Rebellion. For when he can bring a majority to his view he can change the policy and the law. He must, therefore, bide his time. When the forces of public opinion become divided and tumultuous, it is because the time is ripe for a re-shaping of views, and new loyalties are beginning to take form. In a democracy these conflicting views can be resolved by a general election. Under a dictatorial system they can be resolved only by a revolution ending often in bloodshed. That is why Oliver Cromwell is so great a character. His opposition to Charles I’s claim to arbitrary and personal rule led to a colossal conflict ultimating in the public execution of the King himself. Through it all Cromwell never thought of himself as a leader or a King, but simply as a “constable keeping the peace in his little parish.” This was because he believed himself to be called of God to save his country from that which endangered civil and religious liberty. Cromwell’s work has been described as a “triumphant but temporary explosion of a minority,” whose use of force in the service of liberty left behind it certain unhappy legacies, which later had to be expunged. The European scene of to-day affords no parallel to Cromwell’s day, because it has no constitutional unity. Stronger law is its greatest need, and the only solution to its problems. Of one thing we may be sure, that if the loyalty tof the individual citizen is fairly and squarely based on Respect for Principle, and its consequence, individual liberty, no such explosion ought ever to occur. “ The pent-up elements of mortal mind,” wrote wrote Mary Baker Eddy, “need no terrible detonation to free them. Envy, rivalry, bate need no temporary indulgence that they be destroyed through suffering; they should be stifled from lack of air and freedom.” From these plain words emerges the tremendous fact that there is laid upon every citizen who has sense enough to perceive it the obligation to do his part in refusing “air and freedom” to the forces of evil. This he can do by refusing to entertain them himself and by maintaining untarnished his loyalty to good as the one supreme governing factor in all human affairs, whose representatives alone can fill the office of government. When the Master told his disciples not to swear by Jerusalem, which to them represented the seat of authority, he added, “for it is the city of the great King ” —to whom is all ultimate loyalty. The capacity for this kind of greater loyalty, however, is acquired through the process of fidelity in the lesser loyalties—in the crucible from which emerges the shining metal of pure faith.