The great flag on the Victoria Tower, flapping heavily in the southern breeze, reminded me this morning that on this day twelve months (May 6th) I had seen the same flag half-mast high proclaiming the death of King Edward. King George, therefore, who will be crowned on June 21st, has occupied the throne for exactly one year. This set me a-thinking. What of the first year of the new reign? What light has it thrown upon the character of the Sovereign? What material has it afforded us for our speculation as to the future of the reign? When George V. is crowned with due pomp and circumstance in the Abbey, which of his predecessors will he resemble? In other words, what kind of a King is the man whom all round the world hundreds of millions of loyal subjects will acclaim on his crowning day as their liege Lord and lawful Sovereign?

Twelve months is, it must be admitted, but a short period from which to draw any far-reaching conclusions. But as the saltness and temperature of the ocean can be ascertained by dipping a pint pot in the sea, so we may, without precipitate hastiness, draw pretty safe inferences as to the character of the new reign from the sample of its first year. The King has already given us a taste of his quality, sufficient taste, indeed, for us to know what it is like, and to appraise it according to our individual liking.

Short though the reign has been, it has sufficed to dispel the dark clouds which overcast the horizon and obscured the brilliance of the rising sun twelve months agone. For it is no treason to admit frankly now, that at the time of his accession calumny and Islander had been so busy that there was, to say the least, uneasiness

among many of the King's most loyal subjects as to the personal character of their new Sovereign. The reign of his father had suddenly set while his sun was in its meridian splendor, and the trailing clouds of glory which irradiated the close of King Edward's reign afforded a striking contrast to the sombre gray and depressing gloom of the opening of that of his successor. But if it could not be said of King George, "far off the promise of his coming shone," it must now be gratefully and gladly admitted that the mist and clouds which obscured the sunrise were speedily dissipated into thin air. All the fantastic fables which had been so widely circulated and so reluctantly credited, were no sooner touched by the Ithuriel spear of Truth than they speedily melted away, And, like the baseless fabric of a vision, Left not a wrack behind.

No longer concealed behind the shrouding mist of the poisonous breath of calumny, the personality of the King was revealed in its gracious and attractive reality. Those who knew him from his childhood had no fear. But an intimate personal acquaintance with princes is the privilege of the few. To-day what was then known only to the few is accepted by all. Whatever the future may hold within its urn of destiny, the nation and the Empire know that as to the past,

Whatever record leap to light He never shall be shamed. That in itself, and by itself, and for itself, must be reckoned as the greatest boon brought by the first year of the new reign. Whatever the verdict of history may be upon the new reign when George V. has been gathered to his fathers, we know now be

yond a peradventure or the shadow of a doubt, that the man whom we crown in June as our King brought to the throne a physique which no excess had weakened, a judgment ripened by wide experience, a character strengthened by disciplined self-control, and enriched by the faithful discharge of the duties and responsibilities of son, husband, and father. The new reign has started well.

All that is common ground. But it is sometimes worth saying things which everyone now takes for granted. Especially is this the case when the general impression of to-day so radically differs from that which prevailed so lately as the preceding year.

Let us now advance to attack the main problem. Admitted that the man is good, what manner of King will he be? Some good men have been very bad rulers. Of the third George, Byron said:

A better farmer ne'er brushed dew from lawn

Nor a worse monarch left a realm undone.

Will some future Byron have to paraphrase these lines about the fifth of the same name?

The history of one brief year affords us material for forming a tolerably safe estimate as to the ideas which dominate the mind of our new ruler. Hardly a day, certainly not a week, has passed since he came to the throne, in which George V. has not been summoned to stand and deliver a reply of some kind to the addresses of one or another section of his subjects, or to make public utterance on some subject of national or imperial concern. In the case of some kings it would be idle to look for any expression of individual conviction in the conventional commonplaces put into their mouths by their constitutional advisers or by private secretaries, inspired and limited by precedent. But with this King it is

different. Although not so flamboyant a rhetorician as the Kaiser, the public utterances of George V. are no less instinct with a clearly cut personality, expressing itself through the medium of a language which he handles as a master. Even when the block of his speeches has been rough hewn for him by his advisers, the King is ever particular, even punctilious, in shaping them to accord with his own instincts as to what is the right form, his own convictions as to the right spirit.

Anyone who takes the trouble to read consecutively the speeches and addresses, and replies to addresses of the first year of the reign, cannot help being impressed by the constant recurrence of one keynote, which has never been sounded with such consistent and persistent emphasis by any ruler of England since the days when the Lord Protector

Made his simple oaken chair More terrible and grandly beautifulMore full of majesty than any throneBefore or after of an English King.

The first time the King addressed his Council, on the morning after his accession, he was still crushed by the blow which, as he said, had bereaved him "not only of a father's love," but also of "the affectionate and intimate relations of a dear friend and adviser." In that first speech he referred to his confidence that he could rely upon the prayers of his subjects "that God will grant me strength and guidance." But it was not until May 22nd, when he addressed his first letter to his people, that the dominant keynote was clearly audible. After acknowledging the tribute paid to his father's memory, the King wrote:

With such thoughts, I take courage, and hopefully look into the future; strong in my faith in God, trusting my people, and cherishing the Laws and Constitution of my beloved country.

"Strong in my faith in God" is a phrase which is not merely a phrase in the King's mouth. In his letter to his People beyond the Seas, he declares his reliance upon "the good guidance of the Ruler of all men." The same idea runs like a thread of gold through all his speeches. There is no arrogance of self-assertion such as sometimes causes us to wonder whether some mortal monarchs regard the Almighty as their lieutenant, but ever a humble consciousness of his inability to do anything without "God's help." In his reply to the address of the Society of Friends, the King said:

I echo with all my heart your prayers that God may ever guide myself and my advisers in grace and wisdom through the difficulties and perils of our course.

If ever he promises anything, it is always conditioned by the proviso,

With the help of Almighty God. There is a natural simplicity about this which distinguishes it both from conventionality and from cant. The King lives ever in his Taskmaster's eye, accepting his duties as from his Master, and endeavoring from day to day to fulfil his responsibilities and discharge his obligations as one who must answer to his Maker who called him to his throne and will require from him the faithful account of his stewardship.

There is no affectation of philosophy about the King's religion. It is a sailor's faith, simple as that of a little child. Nor is there any need to seek far afield for the source of its inspiration. In his reply to the address of the Bible Society, on the centenary of the publication of the authorized version, the King expressed his sense of his own and his people's indebtedness to the Bible:

During three hundred years the multiplying millions of the English-speaking races, spreading ever more widely over the surface of the globe have turned in their need to the grand sim

plicity of the Authorized Version, and

have drawn upon its inexhaustible springs of wisdom and courage and joy. It is my confident hope, confirmed by the widespread interest your movement has aroused, that my subjects may never cease to cherish the noble inheritance in the English Bible which, in a secular aspect, is the first of national treasures, and is, as you truly say, in its spiritual significance, the most valuable thing that this world affords.

This, it may be said, is all very well, but it may be very dangerous. The Monarch who is convinced that he reigns by Divine right has often played a very evil part in history. The sense of responsibility to God has sometimes as its correlative a sense of irresponsibility to man, which harmonizes ill with the position of a Constitutional Monarch. Hence it is satisfactory to find that in all the King's utterances, the doctrine of his responsibility to his people is as clearly and as strongly accentuated as the doctrine of his dependence upon God.

If "strong in my faith in God" is the first note of the King's thought, the second is the expression immediately preceding it in his letter to his people. "I do not stand alone." He ever expresses and emphasizes his conviction that it is in the community of sentiment which makes him one with his subjects that his real strength lies. Mazzini's famous watchword for the democracy, "God and the People," is the King's also. If he is highly placed it is that he may be the servant of the lowly. His supreme responsibility to God is to "promote the welfare of His people."

Next to this constant recognition of the two great entities, God and the