The coronation of George IV took place in 1821; and it was already evident to rational men, two hundred years ago, that such a ceremony was ludicrous—a relic of “barbarous ages”, entirely unworthy of a civilised people. James Mill, the Scottish-born radical, in a letter to his intimate friend, David Ricardo, the economist, argued that the spectacle would injure the reputation of monarchy, and was therefore unlikely to be repeated. What would these gentlemen have said, if they could have witnessed the grandeur of the coronation of Charles III, in the year 2023, two centuries after them! What disappointment and shame would afflict them, if they knew that even to this hour, we failed to throw off the shackles of barbarism! The march of Progress seems always to be slower than enlightened minds would wish. I give the comments of Mill and Ricardo below:
James Mill:
‘I hear various accounts about the “august ceremony” … In fact the people seem to understand the nature of the “imposing spectacle”; and … can see nothing in it but a subject of laughter and contempt. The thing might be endured, because it is old; but to attempt in the present day to puff it up into a matter of importance, and instead of performing it with the utmost simplicity, as a thing the day for which had gone by, to make it a draw for the public money, is only to compell people to consider how little it accords with the spirit of the times, how unworthy it is of the people of a civilised age, and how much more properly it would have been extinguished with the barbarous ages which gave it birth. The folly of it, by the ostentation of the present performance, will become so apparent, as probably to prevent a repetition. The effect of it seems likely to be, according to all I see and hear, to render monarchy more contemptible; by making it appear the principal piece of a harliquinade.’1
Ricardo’s reply:
‘I see by Denman’s speech that he does not attach so little importance to the “August ceremony” as you do. He says I think a great deal too much of the importance of adhering to old customs. According to him Institutions are not to be preserved or given up as they may be really beneficial or otherwise, but we must enquire what have been their date, and how long they have had the sanction of custom and usage, and in proportion to their antiquity they are entitled to our respect and veneration. I think there is some respect due to old customs; as much as to induce one to preserve them until their inutility is most manifest, but that once established, I can see no reason for adhering to them merely because they were venerable in the eyes of our fathers.—’2
Notes in the Margins of the Days 