The noble and touching words of the last sentence fitly recall the child of eleven years old who, on first learning that she was next in the succession, lifted her little hand and said, “I will be good.”

The Duke of York, Prince George of Wales, occupies, by the death of his elder brother, the next place in the succession after his father. The union, in 1893, of the young Prince with Princess Victoria Mary of Teck (Princess May, as she was generally called) resulted in the birth of a son in May, 1894. This baby, who bears the fine historic title of Prince Edward of York, is now the third in the direct line of the succession. Pictures of the four generations, the Queen, her son, grandson, and great-grandson, have ornamented all the illustrated papers, and have been looked at with loyal interest by millions of English men and women all over the world who have mingled with their good wishes to the Royal House a heartfelt prayer that it may yet be many a long year before the Crown of England passes to another head.

[33] Times, January 26th, 1892.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE QUEEN AND THE EMPIRE.

Reference was made in the last chapter to the celebration of the Queen’s Jubilee in 1887. It was kept with all kinds of appropriate festivals in every part of the British Empire. But the centre and kernel of the whole celebration was the beautiful and touching national ceremony in Westminster Abbey on June 21st. On the same spot where as a young girl the Queen had knelt and had sworn fidelity to the constitution of her kingdom, and to govern according to law, justice, and mercy, the aged Queen again appeared, followed by a troop of children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, to return thanks to the Almighty for the blessings of her reign and the augmenting power, prosperity, and numbers of her people. In 1837 her people had looked to her with the enthusiasm of hope; in 1887 they looked upon her with the enthusiasm of gratitude, with the memory of fifty wonderful years behind them, griefs and joys in common, common pride in the greatness and glories of England, common shame for her shortcomings; but in spite of these a common faith that earth’s best hopes rest with England, and that her growing greatness promotes the happiness and well-being of mankind. In this national festival the Queen was felt to be the emblem of national unity, the one political power in the nation that is dissociated from party, with its petty squabbles and ignoble sacrifices. While statesmen too often stand merely for their party, and may be willing to sacrifice the true and obvious interests of the whole nation to gain a party majority, the Queen is more and more felt to stand for the nation that is above and beyond all party. That was the real meaning of the Jubilee, compared to which personal congratulations to a lady who had filled an important position with credit for fifty years held only a very secondary place.

It may be claimed for the Queen that she has realized, as no other modern Sovereign of this country has done, and as only a section of the public dimly appreciate, the true value of the Crown as a power which is above party, and therefore representative of the whole nation. Her function has been to check Ministers who have been ready to make national sacrifices to promote party ends; constantly, for instance, to keep before the heads of successive Governments the importance of maintaining the efficiency of the national defences. How many Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer may have been tempted to procure a surplus, and thus obtain for their party the popularity of a remission of taxation, by neglecting to build ships and keep up our naval supremacy, but for the unwearying attention given by the Queen to all matters connected with internal and external defence. When the records of the later years of this reign come to be fully written, innumerable proofs will be given to the public that when statesmen have from time to time disdained to seize a party triumph which would bring with it a national disaster, they have either been inspired by the direct counsels of the Queen, or have received from her, after the event, immediate proof that she has watched their course of conduct with sympathy and appreciation. All government, including party government, only exists for the welfare of the governed; that is, the whole nation. It is quite natural that party leaders should often forget this; it is the function of the Crown never to forget it, and to exert all its influence to prevent the interests of the nation being sacrificed for the supposed benefit of a section of it.

The Queen fully realized, and has over and over again expressed, in the most definite way, the truth that in England the real ultimate power is the will of the people. They may decide wrong, but their decision is the ultimate authority. Her own private opinions on various political questions have no weight in opposition to the will of the people. A large number of her Ministers have left on record their experience of the Queen’s complete loyalty to this fundamental principle. She will never let her private feelings or opinions stand in the way of her duty as a constitutional Sovereign. This being so, an impression has gained ground in some quarters that a Constitutional Monarch is only a sort of Chinese mandarin, mechanically nodding assent to whatever is proposed by the Ministers. This is very far from being true. All the executive officers of the Crown are directly responsible to the Queen, and she keeps a watchful eye over their departments, requiring constant reports, and to have proofs of their efficiency submitted to her. Then in matters involving conflict between parties, she exercises a moderating influence, inducing the “outs” to use their position with a due sense of responsibility to national interests, and not to think that these may be sacrificed for the mere purpose of defeating the “ins.” In matters involving conflict between the Lords and Commons, the present Sovereign has again and again prevented matters coming to a deadlock, reminding the leaders of the House of Lords of the fundamental fact that the will of the people is the ultimate source of authority, and inducing the leaders of the House of Commons to act in a spirit of statesmanlike conciliation and moderation. Two examples will suffice to show how invaluable the exercise of these functions may be, and how they serve to oil the rather cumbrous machinery of the constitution. After the election of 1859, Lord Palmerston was again returned to power, but with considerably reduced majority compared to that of 1857. The Conservatives had fought the election with immense vigor. Their leader, the Earl of Derby, had given £20,000 to the war-chest for the elections. When the new Parliament met, Lord Derby’s Government was only beaten on an amendment to the Address by thirteen, so the parties were very nearly balanced. The Conservatives had expected to win, and had made immense efforts, and were proportionately disappointed. The slashing vigor of Lord Derby’s eloquence had gained for him the title of the Rupert of Debate. The expectation was that he would lead repeated sallies against the Government; but, contrary to expectation, he was unusually moderate and pacific. The reason came out when the last volume of the Greville Memoirs was published, in 1887. The Queen sent for Lord Derby, when he had left office in 1859, and entreated him not to use the power he had, from the nearly balanced state of parties, to upset Lord Palmerston’s Government. She urged the great objections there were to constant changes, and that in the critical state of foreign politics nothing ought to be done to weaken the Government. Lord Derby entirely concurred, and promised to act in conformity with her wishes. Greville says, “He has entirely done so. Nothing could be more temperate and harmless than the few remarks he made on Tuesday night.” The circumstance brings out the value of having at the head of the State an officer who is neither nominated by, nor responsible to, party. It also gives a good illustration of the Queen’s power of subordinating her own private inclinations to the national welfare; because, although her feelings were softened towards Lord Palmerston, they were hardly cordial, and she strongly dissented from the view which he represented with so much vigor on the questions then at issue between Italy and Austria.

An example of the success of the Queen’s efforts to prevent conflict between the two Houses of Parliament is given in full detail in the Life of Archbishop Tait. It will be within the recollection of many readers that the election of 1868 was fought mainly on the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, and that an enormous majority was returned to the House of Commons favorable to its disestablishment. The House of Lords, by a large majority, were in favor of the Establishment. Here, then, was a fine field for a battle between the two Houses. The new Parliament was opened on February 16th, 1869. On that morning the Archbishop of Canterbury received an autograph letter from the Queen, expressing her anxiety on the subject of the proposed measure, and adding:—

“The Queen has seen Mr. Gladstone, who shows the most conciliatory disposition. He seems to be really moderate in his views, and anxious, so far as he can properly and consistently do so, to meet the objections of those who would maintain the Irish Church.”