Stewart or Bourbon. But there was also, | brassy a kind as the princedom of the alongside of the belief that it was impos- Buonapartes, is a being of another clay, sible for a Buonaparte to rebel, the fur- and entitled to quite another kind of treatther feeling that it was impossible for a ment, from the chief magistrate of a commere republic to be rebelled against. It monwealth and from the State of which he is quite certain that, if the man of Decem- is the head. It would seem that the comber had displaced a king to whom he was monwealth is looked on as possessing no bound by the same ties of allegiance as claim to duty and loyalty on the part of those by which he was bound to the re- its own citizens, and as therefore entitled public, most of those who applauded or to a very scant measure of respect on the accepted his act would have looked upon part of its allies and neighbors among it as a guilty rebellion. This feeling that other nations. a republican government has, so to speak, We may take an example from another no position, that no kind of duty, seem-hemisphere. During the American Civil ingly no kind of courtesy, is owing to it, | War, many people were not a little ofcomes out in the strangest ways. It was fended at the name "rebel" being applied shown in many things at the time of the to the Confederates. I do not mean amazing outburst which just now followed the death of young Buonaparte in South Africa. The adventurer avowedly went out to join in the slaughter of men who had done him no wrong, in order thereby to make political capital which might help him some day to disturb the peace of his own country. We know how the avowal of such motives would have been spoken of in the case of a Communist; in an "imperial prince" it is looked on with other eyes. It was most likely without any purpose of insult, without any thought of the real meaning of the words which he uttered, that one of the conventionally "illustrious" class calmly speculated in public on the possibility of the young conspirator becoming the ruler of France, and on the certainty that he would have been made a good ruler if it had so happened. That is to say, he discussed the possibility of the free government of a friendly country being overthrown and a tyranny being set up in its stead. We should hardly think it civil if the president of the French republic should openly discuss the question which Fenian convict would make the best president of a British republic. We cannot fancy that any English prince would, during the time of the tyranny in France, have openly discussed the claims of any republican exile to be the chief of a future republican government. We cannot now fancy such an one openly discussing the claims of some exiled prince, even of real princely descent, to supplant a friendly sovereign on his throne. In all these cases the discourtesy, the something more than discourtesy, would be seen at once. But it would seem that the discourtesy is not seen when it is only a commonwealth and its chief magistrate which are the objects of it. It is assumed that a prince, even a prince whose princedom is of so

those who defended the right of secession on any intelligible, however fallacious, political theory. I mean those who, just as in the French case, simply could not understand how there could be rebels where there was no king to rebel against. It is certain that many people, irrespective of any view as to the points at issue, thought that it was rather fine to rise up against a republic, especially a federal republic. That the Confederates were themselves as much a republic, and a federal republic, as their Northern enemies, that they were just as far removed as their Northern enemies from loyalty to any king, did not seem to make any dif ference; anyhow it was rather a good thing than not to revolt against a republic, a federal republic, a democratic federal republic. To many minds it seemed an unanswerable proof of the worthlessness of republican, especially of federal, systems, that those who were dissatisfied with the working of the federal republic in which they found themselves at once set up another federal republic on the same model. If they had revolted against a king in order to set up another king, the same minds would have looked on it as an unanswerable proof of the incomparable merits of kingly government.

The unlucky truth is that into a large number of minds the great ideas of the law and the State do not enter at all. Not a few people seem unable to conceive obedience or attachment to anything but a person. The notion of loyalty to a person seems with them to have wholly displaced the notion of duty to the community. One may be inclined to doubt whether a loyalty of this kind would be likely to bear up against any very strong temptations. It may be that, in any hour of trial, a ruler is likely to receive the most really loyal support from

those who support him as the lawful chief | as much her subjects as any other of her of the State, drawing all his powers from people. The archbishop is the first in rank the law of the State. It is quite certain of ordinary mortals, of persons of whom that a great deal that passes for loyalty it is lawful to speak freely and without nowadays, as it is quite different from bated breath, the first of those whose lawful obedience to the State and its chief sayings and doings may be criticized with-legalitas, in short is also quite dif- out disloyalty. Therefore he seemed to ferent from the cavalier loyalty of the the writer to be the "first subject" in the seventeenth century. This last, as I have kingdom. So it is with a crowd of phrases already said, has a taking and ennobling "royal visit," "royal marriage," and the side to it. A great deal of what is now like, when there is no king or queen in the called loyalty is certainly anything but case, but simply a subject who is near of ennobling, and it is hard to conceive the kin to a king or queen. Test such a kind of mind to which it can be taking. phrase as this by the analogies of lanThe strictly civil notion of lawful obe- guage. Take the highest hereditary rank dience to the holder of the highest office among ordinary mortals. No one would in the State-the chivalrous or feudal call a visit from a duke's son or daughter notion of faithfulness to a personal lord a "ducal visit." "Royal family" is per-the religious notion of reverence for fectly good sense; so is "ducal family; the Lord's anointed-seem all alike to that is, in either case, a family which suphave given way to a feeling which cannot plies kings or dukes, a family whose head be distinguished from mere grovelling from the time being is always a king or a worship of rank. It is a cringing feeling; duke. But people talk, not only of "royal it is the feeling of those who cringe a visit" and "royal marriage," but of good deal to a lord and who cringe a good "royal lips," "royal presence," and what deal more to a prince. Not a little lies in not, when they are all the while talking of this last word. People seem utterly to a subject, sometimes of a commoner. have forgotten the difference which, on The phrases are used in a way which is any theory of kingship, exists between quite unconscious and objectless. But it the king himself and any subject, even just because the phrases are so unconthough that subject be his own child. A scious, so objectless, that they are the king's son is not the chief of the State; more worthy of remark. They are the he is not the personal lord of his father's index of a kind of feeling which could subjects; least of all is he the Lord's hardly have existed in any earlier time. Anointed. He is simply a subject of the And they are the index of a feeling which highest rank, who may perhaps some day is surely inconsistent with true loyalty of become all these things, but who is none any type. The feeling with which any of them as yet. Yet we constantly hear form of true loyalty looks on the personal members of the royal family spoken of in sovereign in any of his characters is here, words which any intelligible theory of so far as it can be said to exist at all, loyalty would reserve for the sovereign transferred from the sovereign to a ceronly. Some of the instances are very tain class of his subjects. The truth is curious. I remember, it may be a few that is a wholly different feeling. years back, the Times speaking, quite repeat that the old cavalier loyalty, howcasually and with no thought of proving ever mistaken and misleading we may anything by the expression, of the Arch- hold it to be, was in itself not an abasing bishop of Canterbury as "the first sub- but an ennobling feeling. It did not neject" in the kingdom. What was meant cessarily lead to any habitual tampering of course was that the Archbishop of with truth and morals. But the kind of Canterbury takes precedence of all per- words and deeds which are now called sons not of the royal family.* But the loyal are essentially debasing and not enwriter was so used to think of the royal nobling, and they directly lead to tamperfamily as something altogether different ing with truth and morals. In a governfrom other human beings, that it did not ment like ours it is doubtless necessary come into his head that the queen's chil- that there should be one person, the actual dren, grandchildren, and cousins, are just sovereign, who is placed above the reach of political praise or blame. But this is on the understanding that the public acts of the sovereign are the acts of the minister, and that the minister is open to political praise and blame. It does not seem to follow that this peculiar position need

In theory it is not easy to define the "royal family." Would a person descended from the electress Sophia through ten generations of subjects be a member of it? Practically it is perfectly well defined, because for so long a time there have been no descendants of the chosen stock further off than the near cousins of the actual sovereign.

I

go beyond the actual sovereign. But, if a whole class of persons are to be placed beyond the reach of criticism, they must at least abstain from all those acts which in persons of other classes are open to criticism. They must keep themselves from any share, direct or indirect, in any public matter. They must hold no office or commission; they must give no vote in the only house of Parliament in which they are likely to be found.* Such exclusion is surely not a good training for anybody; but freedom from public criticism can only be had on the condition of abstaining from all public action, direct or indirect, open or secret. It is against common fairness that there should be a class of people who may act, if not directly and openly, at least indirectly and secretly, but whose acts may not be freely spoken of like the acts of other

men.

with another passenger who insisted on smoking against rule. The barrister remonstrated and threatened an appeal to the police. The offender showed him a card by which it appeared that he was a kinsman of the sovereign, though, it is fair to add, not of the nearest kin. The story added, " Of course no further objec tion was made." Most likely the story is false. But, if it be false, it is all the better as an illustration. It shows what a great many people would hold to be the right thing to do in such a case. It is assumed that the "illustrious " person has a right to do what he chooses, to break the law and to annoy others, and that ordinary mortals have nothing to do but to bow down to his whims.

Now all this has really nothing to do with loyalty in any sense. It has nothing to do with reverence for an office, nothing to do with faithfulness to a person. But the main evil is not political, but It is simply a cringing worship of rank social and moral. What is now called which puts on the name of a better feelloyalty, that is, the feeling of abasement ing. The real evil of it all is the unbefore all persons of the highest rank, and avoidable tampering with the moral sense. not only before themselves but before A man is in no way abased by kneeling their very names, has undoubtedly a cor- in a formal ceremony before his liege rupting tendency. It cannot gender to lord, still less if it be his liege lady. He truthfulness or to a high moral tone of is abased if he accustoms himself to any kind, that there should be a class of speak or to think of any person, on the persons who are to be, if not judged, at mere ground of exalted rank, according least spoken of, according to a different to a different standard from that which standard from that by which other people he would use towards the rest of mankind. are judged and spoken of. And it be- The doctrine of utter separation between comes almost worse if the distinction" royal personages " and the rest of manshould rather be that they are to be kind is, in its present shape, a very spoken of in public in a different way from modern one. It has absolutely nothing that in which they are spoken of in pri- in common with that instinctive feeling vate. It cannot be good either to speak in towards illustrious descent against which another way from that in which we think, it is vain to argue, because it is inborn. or to school ourselves to think in a differ- Those who now cringe to a Royal Highent way from that in which our untutored ness do not do it because he has in him conscience bids us to think. It cannot the blood of William and Cerdic. It has be good that we should be expected to nothing in common with the ancient docadmire books which will undoubtedly be trine of the kingliness of the whole kingly of use to antiquaries, and even to histo- house. According to that doctrine the rians, in ages to come, but which now most distant member of the kingly house serve only to gratify a morbid love of gos- was indeed as kingly as the nearest. sip. Least of all can it be good that it But criticism at least was not shut out should be acknowledged that any class of when the nation chose the worthiest of persons has a right to break the law. As the kingly house to be the actual ruler. straws show the way of the wind, a petty It has nothing in common with any of and perhaps untrue story will illustrate my meaning. I once read in a newspaper a tale how a person, described as an eminent barrister, was in a railway carriage

As the law knows no classes but peers and commoners, it would seem that a son of the sovereign who has not been created a peer might be chosen to the

House of Commons as well as another man.

the later doctrines of loyalty, civil, feudal, or religious. In truth it shuts out all special loyalty to the actual sovereign; it shuts out all exclusive reverence to the sovereign's office, all exclusive devotion to the sovereign's person. It puts instead of him a cringing worship of mere rank, which, when it is shown to the

lie thane-like,

His lord hard by.

EDWARD A. FREEMAN.

From Temple Bar.

THE SEALED LETTER.

IN FOUR CHAPTERS.

CHAPTER I.

highest rank of all, can cover itself under common with the devotion of the ancient fairer names than when it is shown to Englishman who deemed it the noblest even the highest rank among ordinary end to human beings. The only thing to be Isaid for this kind of self-abasement is that it is at least disinterested. It sometimes rises to be a kind of unconscious and unrewarded self-devotion. People go to stare at a prince, they like to hear the pettiest details about a prince, withont the least hope that the prince will ever do anything for them or even become aware of their existence. As for those who are brought nearer to the charmed circle, one can understand a man turning courtier in the days when he had a chance of getting the estate of the next beheaded duke. It is at first sight hard to understand why anybody turns courtier now, when the most unwearied drudge seems to rise no higher than a C.B. But the thing does seem to be a kind of self-devotion, and, as such, a kind of virtue; and it is to be supposed that, in this case also, virtue is its own reward. In this sense certainly loyalty can find no place in a commonwealth. It is hard to practice this kind of loyalty even towards a president; it is quite impossible to practice it towards a federal council. But we may be at least allowed to ask whether the commonwealth loses anything by the absence of loyalty of this kind. Some have thought it an advantage of the Swiss system, as distinguished, not only from kings but from presidents, that the Federal Council is never born, never dies, and never marries. There is therefore no place for the wonderful gush of so-called loyalty which takes place whenever a royal personage does any of those things. There may be men in a commonwealth whom every man may deem it an honor to speak to; it is perhaps no loss that there is no one of whom it is officially set down that he "honors" every one whom he speaks to. In a word, loyalty in the etymological sense, legalitas, obedience to law, is man's highest earthly duty. Loyalty in the secondary sense, faithfulness to a personal lord, while inferior to this highest duty, is still a good and ennobling feeling, whenever it is not allowed to clash with the higher duty. But the so-called loyalty which forgets the law, and the personal lord as well, in mere purposeless cringing and self-abasement, has simply no right to the name. It has nothing in common with the devotion of the Greek who gave his life in obedience to the law of his commonwealth. It has nothing in

THE great road from Paris to Belgium is both long and dull, stretching away mile after mile in a perfectly straight line through a hideous country of yellow mud, without trees or hedges, and nearly perfectly flat. Yet in this uninteresting country, when I was on horseback and alone, I met with an adventure which I have never since forgotten. It was as long ago as the year 1815, when the scarcely unexpected return of the great emperor from Elba had led to a plentiful exodus of those who had attached themselves to the fortunes of King Louis XVIII., more especially those who, like myself, had been in attendance upon the person of the king. My horse had cast a shoe, and I had thus fallen a little in the rear of my comrades, whose white cloaks and crimson uniforms were easily discernible through the blinding rain on the horizon in front; whilst behind me the lancers of Bonaparte, with their tricolored pennons, hovered in the rear, following us step by step, with the evident intention of seeing us over the frontier. I was but little more than a lad, but I had a tolerable horse under me, and a plentiful supply of money in my pockets; and although the rain came down without ceasing, and I was wet through and covered with mud, I kept up my spirits by singing one of the popular songs of the day, whilst I watched the rain trickling over my new gold epaulets. At last my horse began to droop his head, and, like him, my spirits sobered down, and I began for the first time to ask myself where I was going. I had not the faintest notion, but I did not trouble myself much on that score, for my squadron was in front, and in following my comrades I was but doing my dutya more than sufficient reason to my not very troublesome conscience. Insensibly, however, I began analyzing this curious feeling of abnegation of self, which is at the bottom of all sense of duty,