The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1901-01-30

legendary King Alfred has borne, or
earned, the distinction of The Great2
But England has had some famous
Kings. There was Richard, he of the
Lion Heart, and there were the Hen
rys-the earliest members of the line,
who at Potter and Agincourt won an
enduring title to fame for their mar
tial prowess, and there was the last of
the name, the Eighth, more distin
guished for much marrying, for the
spectacular affair of the "Field of the
Cloth of Gold" and for the good fell
lowship that earned for him the famil-
lar distinction of King Hal, than for
any more inspiring or substantial title
to place in history. Side by side
with the Sixth of the house Of the
Royal Henrys, in the drama if not in
history, stands that merry rascal, Jack
Falstaff, rather eclipsing his royal chum
in popular remembrance and favor.
For centuries mediocrity has been
the distinguishing characteristic of the
English sovereigns, and to mediocrity
has often been added woful decrepitude
in morals and character. The con-
flicts and devastating wars between
rival lines, the intrigues and murders
to dspossess the occupant of the
throne and seat "pretender' or other
claimant, form dismal chapters in Eng
fish history. But through all these
hardening processes the English people
have come safely. The gristle Of i'm
mature and developing nationality has
been converted into national Drawn,
unity-or practical unity-has succeed
ed division. England has become great
and powerful-and it may be has come
to the elimination of her power and
greatness. Unity in Germany has
created powerful rival on the CONT
nent, Russia is no longer the raw and
haf-civilized empire of the times Of
Peter the Great, and the United States
of America is competitor in geograph-
! ical extent, in military, naval and in
dustrial power, with whom the former
mistress of the seas and the markets of
the world must henceforth reckon.
The real sovereigns of England from
the time of Runnymede and Magma
Charta, have been her people, not her
Kings and Queens. If England has
produced in modern times no crowned
monarch who was born to be great, the
number of her uncrowned kings is
legion. A Cromwell in the regal line
would have borne the suffix few only
of the kings of the earth have earned
by their achievements. At Runny-
mede the barons forced the hand of
royalty, and the common people in
turn broke the letters of the feudal sys-
tenn that supplanted regal greed and
tyranny. The Wolseys, the Warwicks,
the Cromwells, the Hampdens, in the
middle period of English history, the
Pitts, the Peels, the Broughams, the
Nelson's, the Wellingtons the Beacon
| U6lub, UlHu5tOu6o huu odlleDuIye VI Io-
cent or present times, have been the
kings of England, in Parliament, the
Cabinet, on the sea and the land. The
man or woman on the throne has been
chiefly the symbol of the power WELD
ed by other hands. In later times at
least that symbol for the most part has
been the subservient creature of the
sovereigns of the Cabinet or the House
of Commons.
In spite of royal clogs, the people,
beginning with the extortion of Magma
Charta from King John in the early
part of the thirteenth century and end
ing with the wiping out of all re-
strictions on the suffrage by the Peel
Reform Bill and its supplemental
measures in the nineteenth century,
have worked their way to the surface,
and today England has a government
OF the people, by the people and for the
people," as truly as do the descendants
of the rebellious American subjects oil