clouded. Not only was the war in South Africa still in progress, but the alienation of foreign public opinion, which was a fruit of the conflict, continued to embarrass England's foreign relations. Neither in France nor Germany had scurrilous caricature of the king ceased. The king had always shown the liveliest sympathy with the British army in the field, and he did not conceal his resentment at the attacks made in England by members of the liberal party during 1901 on the methods of the military operations. On 12 June he presented medals to South African soldiers, and then conferred the same distinction on both Lord Roberts and Lord Milner, who was on leave in England discussing the situation. The king, though he did not interfere with the negotiations, was frank in his expressions of anxiety for peace. It was therefore with immense relief that he received the news that the pacification was signed in South Africa on 31 May 1902. He at once sent messages of thanks to the English plenipotentiaries, Lord Milner, high commissioner for South Africa, and Lord Kitchener, who had lately been in chief military command, and to all the forces who had been actively engaged in the war. On 8 June the king and queen attended a thanksgiving service in St. Paul's.
X
The peace seemed an auspicious prelude to the solemn function of the coronation, which had been appointed for 26 June 1902. The king warmly approved proposals to give the formality exceptional magnificence. Since the last coronation sixty-four years ago the conception of the monarchy had broadened with the growth of the colonial empire. The strength of the crown now lay in its symbolic representation of the idea of imperial unity. There were anachronisms in the ritual, but the central purpose well served the present and the future. Representatives were invited not only from all the colonies but, for the first time, from all manner of administrative institutions—county councils, borough councils, learned societies, friendly societies, and railway companies. The king desired to render the event memorable for the poor no less than for the well-to-do. He gave the sum of 30,000l. for a commemorative dinner to 500,000 poor persons of London, while the queen undertook to entertain the humble class of general servants in the metropolis. Two other episodes lent fresh grace to the ceremony. The king announced his gift of Osborne House to the nation, and he instituted a new order of merit to be bestowed on men of high distinction in the army, navy, science, literature, and art. The order was fashioned on the lines of the Prussian 'pour le mérite' and was a more comprehensive recognition of ability than was known officially in England before. The total official cost of the coronation amounted to the large sum of 359,289l., a sum greatly in excess of the 200,000l. voted by parliament for Queen Victoria's coronation (cf. Blue Book (382), 1909).
A few days before the date appointed for the great ceremony rumours of the
king's ill-health gained currency, and were denied. But on 21 June, two days before Coronation Day, it was announced, to the public consternation, that the king was suffering from perityphlitis. An operation was performed the same morning with happy results, and during the next few weeks the king made a steady recovery.
While still convalescent he had his first experience of a change of ministry. Lord Salisbury, whose failing health. counselled retirement from the office of prime minister, had long since decided to resign as soon as peace in South Africa was proclaimed. But when that happy incident arrived he looked forward to retaining his post for the six weeks which intervened before the coronation. The somewhat indefinite postponement of the ceremony led him to carry out his original purpose on 11 July 1902. On his recommendation his place was taken by Lord Salisbury's nephew, Mr. Balfour, who was already leader of the House of Commons. There was no immediate change in the complexion or the policy of the government, and no call for the sovereign's exertion. Although there was little in common between the temperament and training of the king and his first prime minister, the king was sensible of the value of Lord Salisbury's experience and wisdom, and the minister, whose faith in the monarchical principle was strong, showed him on his part a personal deference which he appreciated. The intellectual brillance of Lord Salisbury's successor often dazzled the king, but a thoroughly constitutional conception on each side of their respective responsibilities kept a good understanding alive between them.
