History of the Union Jack and Flags of the Empire. Barlow Cumberland

      5. The Hawaiian Ensign.

      The British did not accept the proffered transfer of the islands, but returned the sovereignty to the native government, which was thereafter to continue as an independent monarchy under the protection of Great Britain; and by an accompanying treaty all British manufactures and produce were to be admitted duty free. On July 31st, 1843, the British flag was lowered and the new Hawaiian ensign raised in its place.[11] It was in recognition of this event that the Union Jack was placed in the Hawaiian ensign.

      In the same year France and England agreed never to take possession of the islands either by protectorate or in any other form.

      The natives steadily decreased in number and in power, and the trade and commerce of the islands had passed almost entirely into American hands.

      Dissensions had afterwards arisen under the subsequent native sovereigns, and in 1893 the Queen, Liliuokalani, was deposed by a revolution, and a republican government formed under President Dole, an American citizen.

      Cession of the islands was offered in 1896 to the American Government and was refused, but in 1898 the islands were finally annexed to the United States and the American ensign raised; but the Hawaiian flag, with its Union Jack in the upper corner, continued as a local flag, and was so displayed on June 14th, 1900, at the inauguration of President Dole as Governor of the new-formed "Territory of Hawaii," among the Territories of the United States.

      These instances of the origin of some of the national flags of other nations show how history is interwoven in their folds, and how they perpetuate the memories of past days or of the men who have dominated vital occasions. A singularly similar origin is associated with the creation of the Stars and Stripes, the ensign of the United States of North America (Pl. VI. , fig. 3), which is treated of in Chapter XVI.

CHAPTER III.

       Table of Contents

      THE ORIGIN OF THE JACKS.

      It is quite evident, then, that national flags are not merely a haphazard patchwork of coloured bunting, nor by any means "meaningless things." Their combinations have a history, and, in many cases, tell a story; but of all the national flags there is none that bears upon its folds so interesting a story, nor has its history so plainly written in its parts and colourings, as has our British "Union Jack."

      Our present enterprise is to search out whence it got its name, how it was built up into its present form, and what is the meaning of each of its several parts. This is not only an enquiry of deepest interest, but is of practical and educational value, for to trace the story of the successive combinations of our national flags is to follow the history of the British race.

      The flags of other nations have mostly derived their origin from association with some dominant personage, or with a particular epoch. They are, as a rule, the signal of a dynasty or the record of some revolution; but our British Union Jack records in its folds the steady and continuous growth of a great nation, and traces, by the changes made in it during centuries of adventure and progress, and by the flags in which it has been successively combined, the gradual extension of its union and methods of Constitutional Government over a world-wide Empire.

      The origin of the name "Union Jack" has given rise to considerable conjecture and much interesting surmise; in the proclamation of Charles I., 1634, it is called the "Union Flagge"; in the treaty of peace made with the Dutch in 1674, in the reign of Charles II., it is mentioned as "His Majesty of Great Britain's flag or Jack," and in the proclamation of Queen Anne, in 1707, as "Our Jack, commonly called the Union Jack."

      The most generally quoted suggestion given for the origin of the name is that it was acquired from the fact that the first proclamation which authorized a flag, in which the national crosses of England and Scotland were for the first time combined, was issued by James VI. of Scotland, after he had become James I. of England, and that as King James frequently signed his name in the French manner as "Jacques," this was abbreviated into "Jac," and thus his new flag came to be called a "Jack."

      The derivation suggested is ingenious and interesting, but cannot be accepted as correct, for the simple reason that there were "Jacks" long before the time and reign of James I., and that their prior origin may be clearly traced.

      In the earliest days of chivalry, long before the time of the Norman conquest of England, both the knights on horseback and the men on foot of the armies in the field wore a surcoat or "Jacque" (whence our word "Jacket"), extending over the body from the neck to the thighs, bearing upon it the blazon or sign either of their lord or of their nationality. Numberless examples of these are to be seen in early illuminated manuscripts, or on monuments erected in many cathedrals and sanctuaries.

      In the time of the Crusaders, during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when the Christian nations of Europe were combined together to rescue Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the rule of the Mohammedan, the warrior pilgrims, recruited from the different countries, wore crosses of different shapes and colours upon their surcoats, to indicate the nationalities to which they belonged, and to evidence the holy cause in which they were engaged. It was from wearing these crosses that they gained their name of "Crusaders," or cross-bearers.

      The cross worn by each of the nationalities was of a different colour—that of France being red; Flanders, green; Germany, black, and Italy, yellow.

      In the earlier crusades the cross worn by the English was white, but in later expeditions the red cross of St. George was adopted and worn upon the Jacque as the sign of the English, in the same way as shown in the accompanying knightly figure (6).

      The continuing use of this St. George cross, and the reason for wearing it as an identification of English forces is well shown in the following extracts from the "Ordnaunces," issued to the army with which Richard II. of England invaded Scotland in 1386:

" … Also that everi man of what estate, condicion or nation thei be of, so that he be of oure partie, bere a signe of the[Pg 35][Pg 36] armes of Saint George, large, bothe before and behynde upon parell, that yf he be slayne or wounded to deth, he that has so doon to hym shall not be putte to deth for defaulte of the crosse that he lacketh, and that non enemy do here the same token or crosse of Saint George, notwithstanding yf he be prisoner upon payne of deth."[12]