A RECORD CELEBRATION.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XVIII, Issue 25, 19 June 1897, Page 1

A RECORD CELEBRATION.

HIS is an age of records. Men strain every nerve and muscle to excel all other men in the performance of feats I j of physical skill and endurance ; com'5l WfiAy* petitive examinations rule in the I school and university, and furnish '3- Ith e means of access to the professions p P u hlic service ; business acumen is directed towards the creation of s' * record fortunes, which the possessors can neither use wisely nor manage well ; social struggles for an empty supremacy involve the world of fashion in acts of progressive folly and extravagance. To attain something which shall give pre-eminence among their fellows seems to have become the dominant aim of the most capable minds brought under the influence of Western civilisation.

Much of this record-making and record-breaking, which wins the plaudits of the multitude, is puerile beyond description when weighed in the balances of Time or sounded by the plumb-line of Eternity, but this ardent emulation has not been wholly mischievous. The ideals after which individuals and nations have striven were not all unworthy ; and the forward movement has swept the world along at a pace that must astonish the departed generations of mankind if they are ever permitted to revisit this earth. When the student compares for a moment the British Empire of to-day with that which existed on that eventful morning when, at Kensington Palace, the Archbishop of Canterbury’ and the Lord Chamberlain saluted the youthful princess as Queen of England, he is confronted with such amazing signs of progress as were never witnessed in a similar period of time in anypreceding age. The British Empire now embraces nearly 12,000,000 square miles, more than a fifth of the land-surface of the globe, and its government exercises jurisdiction over 375,330,262 human beings, or one - fourth of the entire population of the earth. Its ships plough the waters of every sea, and its energetic sons are found in positions of responsibility and authority in every land beneath the sun. The world’s records furnish no parallel to this amazing activity. In magnitude, the British Empire is without a peer among the great Empires of the past. When we consider the marvellous advance in art and science and every branch of human industry, it seems as if centuries of progress had been compressed into one single reign. The realm over which the Queen reigns

in this year of grace, 1897, is like a different sphere from that over which she swayed the sceptre in 1837. The Empire of to - day does not speak the same words or think the same thoughts as when the Queen appeared

before her first parliament and charmed the Lords and Commons with her melodious intonation. The power of the England of that day was chiefly vested in the aristocratic classes; it is now rapidly passing into the hands of the people. Legislation was at that time

chiefly directed to secure the privileges of a favoured few ; now it is being employed to ameliorate the condition of the masses. The English world at Victoria's ascension took it for granted that thousands of persons had no mission in life but to pass it in elegant idleness. Now the doctrine is being received that polished loafers have no proper place in society, but that every man has a right to the fruits of his own toil.

The thought of this intrepid people, united in sympathy and aim, though widely scattered over farstretching continents and sea-girt isles, beneath torrid suns and in frigid zones, rejoicing together in splendid national festival, fires the imagination and quickens the

pulse. Truly, this is a celebration which breaks the world’s record. Nor is the occasion an unworthy one, for it should be a cause of heartfelt thankfulness to every earnest man and woman throughout the Empire that God has spared the life of Queen Victoria beyond the years allotted to all other English sovereigns, that, under her wise rule, the nation's greatness and the freedom of the Empire might liecome consolidated. No doubt great constitutional changes would have taken place whether Her Majesty had or had not been a good ruler. Under a Constitutional Government, the political idiosyncracies or personal character of the sovereign may impede, but cannot ultimately arrest progress. Macaulay informs us that during the wretched reign of the last two Stuarts the material prosperity of the nation nevertheless steadily advanced, while colonisation went on unchecked in the infant American States. If the Queen had been as obstinate as George 111., or as obtuse as William IV., we do not suppose that the Catholic Emancipation Bill, the Repeal of the Corn Laws, the Reform Bill, and other great works that distinguish her reign would not have been accomplished. We do not suppose that any moral delinquencies on the part of the sovereign would have prevented the mighty advance the last sixty years has seen in Australasia, where a few convict stations have expanded into what is rapidly shaping itself into a great and mighty nation.

But. at the same time, it would be a mistake to suppose that the sovereign is a mere figure-head to the Government without influence or authority in directing the aflairs of the State. Such is far from being the case. Her Majesty shows excellent sense in falling in, as far as possible, with the advice of her ministers, but in making appointments to Church and State, and in forming opinions on great public measures, she by no means loses her own individuality. Her personal interposition to prevent her ministers from pursuing a hasty and unwise course of action—as in the case of the serious difference

between England and America over the “ Trent ” affair—i has on more than one occasion been of signal service toft the nation. Lord Beaconsfield said that the reports of Cabinet Councils by the Minister to the Sovereign “often called from her critical remarks requiring considerable attention,” and he added, “ I will say that no person likely to administer the affairs of this country would be likely to treat the suggestions of Her Majesty with indifference, for at this moment there is probably no person living who has such complete control over the political condition of England as the Sovereign herself.” It is not, however, with the Queen as a political figure that the majority of her subjects feel most interested. They rather admire in her those womanlyqualities that have made her a model mother and wife, and which have preserved an atmosphere of purity around her court. When we consider the condition of some foreign courts in modern times, or compare that of Victoria with that of her immediate predecessors, we cannot but admit that with the sovereign there lies a tremendous power for good or evil. It has alw-ays been found that w-here a sovereign is loose in morals the court is more or less affected with licentiousness, and the evil spreads through all classes of society. It is to the honour of the Queen that she has passed the allotted span of human life without a shadow of suspicion on her high moral character. She was called to the throne under exceptionally trying circumstances. A girl of eighteen, she was suddenly placed on an elevation calculated to turn the heads of even more experienced people, and placed there practically without being under control ; but during sixty years, when “the fierce light ” has been beating upon her, she has passed through the stages of maiden, wife and widow with unsullied name. Even the Queen’s fiercest opponents and those who have blamed her somewhat morbid withdrawal from society since the death of the Prince Consort, have always paid the highest tribute to her character as a woman. It is no light thing to reflect that the Queen’s name is associated in the minds of her subjects with matronly virtue, and a deep interest in the simple lives and fortunes of the humblest of her subjects. Her journal of “ Life in the Highlands ” brought these traits of character home to the hearts of the people in a way that no panegyric could ever have done. She has also always manifested a genuine sympathy for the suffering, and an active interest in every philanthropic movement. It is often said that the English display a great partiality for female sovereigns, and this supposed trait in the national character has furnished material for the criticisms of foreigners. The French, true to the spirit of the Salic Law, used to indulge in delicate sarcasms about sovereigns exchanging the sword for the distaff, and modern Americans sometimes find scope for an expression of republican sentiments by affecting to ridicule

the devotion with which “ Mrs. Guelph ’ ’ is regarded by timeserving “Britishers.” But, after all that has been said, we are by no means sure that the love of female government is inherent in the English nature, for many centuries after the Norman Conquest no Queenregnant sat on the British throne, although cases occurred in which, according to the present recognised order of succession, the claims of a princess were indefeasible. In a warlike age, when the important function of a sovereign was to personally conduct military operations, no abstract doctrine of hereditary right could reconcile the English people to a sceptre swayed by a lady’s hand. In the twelfth century the empress Matilda vainly endeavoured to secure the throne, left vacant by her father’s death, and to oust the usurper, Stephen, who, according to modern notions, had not a shadow of claim to the crown. Three hundred years later the aversion of the nation to submit to female rule had not by any means diminished, and when the boy princes were murdered in the Tower no one seems to have thought of proposing that their eldest sister was the natural successor. The nation

submitted to the abhorred yoke of the murderous “Crookback,” and left the daughters of the late King to their fate. It was not until the sixteenth century, when the failure of direct male heirs of the Royal line and the dread of a disputed succession outweighed all other considerations, that the consent of the nation was obtained for a woman to mount the British throne. If, however. English politicans in former times have felt considerable diffidence in placing the sceptre in female hands the results have fully iustified the experi" ment. * Some of the brightest epochs in the history of the Empire are marked by the reigns of female sovereigns, and the student will ever associate the names of Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria with eras of national development and prosperity. The constitutional safeguards by which an English monarch is surrounded must always be taken into account, and a full meed of praise should be given to those statesmen who have shaped the national policy. But admitting all this, it cannot be denied that the individuality of the person who occupies the throne counts as a very important political factor. This is especially notable in the case of Queen Elizabeth and of Her present Majesty the Queen, whose reigns cover such important periods in the nation’s history. In the case of Queen Elizabeth, admitting her foibles and womanly vanity, it must be allowed that in the midst of unexampled difficulties she pursued a policy that placed England in the first rank of European nations. Her intuitive perception of character enabled her to surround the throne with statesmen of the highest ability, and her own brilliant intellectual abilities and diplomatic powers were taxed unsparingly for the benefit of her country. That during her reign the triumph of Protestantism in Europe was assured, the Armada defeated, and a new era of national progress instituted, may be attributed to the working of a combination of circumstances, but foremost among these was the personal influence wielded by the remarkable woman who so long ruled an enthusiastic and devoted people. If the triumphs of Queen Victoria’s reign differ from those of her great predecessor they are not less remarkable. We live in a changed world, and the problems that agitated the minds of good Queen Bess and her statesmen have long been solved. In this age of railways, telegraphs, and scientific advancement, the questions that concerned our ancestors have faded into insignificance, but the pulse of the nation is throbbing'with a new life.

It is now sixty years since the Queen undertook the onerous task of presiding over tlje fortunes of a great and progressive nation, and it is but simple justice to admit that during that long period she has discharged that trust with an earnestness and untiring devotion alike creditable to herself and conducive to the welfare of her people. The nation has not been ungrateful, and it is no mere rhetorical flourish to say that the estimate of the Queen’s worth has steadily increased as her reign advanced, and that her personal popularity amongst all classes of her subjects was never greater than at the present moment. The conduct of her immediate predecessors had gone far to alienate the sympathy of the masses from the throne. The profligacy of the “ first gentleman in Europe,” and the pigheadedness of William IV. had disgusted many of the lower classes with monarchy, and they had freely imbibed the revolutionary ideas so prevalent at that time on the Continent. When the Queen was called upon to preside over the destinies of the nation a sullen spirit of discontent was abroad. Throughout the country trade was in a languishing condition, and the industrial classes were suffering acute distress. In these days, when men and women of the highest rank are foremost in taking an active part in schemes of social reform, it is difficult lor us to realise the indifference with which the aristocracy regarded the downtrodden condition of their poorer neighbours sixty years ago. There was no provision for a national system of education, and the upper classes, who ruled parliament, were chiefly concerned in securing the maintenance of their own privileges, and devoted little attention to such subjects as the sanitary condition of the dwellings in the slums of large cities, where the poor were packed like sardines in a box, or to the low rate of wages which condemned agricultural labourers, after a long life of toil, to end their days as paupers. The wealthy manufacturers were equally indifferent to the well being of the workmen by whose labour their fortunes were amassed. Under these circumstances, it is not wonderful that amongst thousands of hopeless toilers there was little enthusiasm about the accession of a sovereign who was regarded by them as the representative of a system which secured every privilege for the rich and nothing for the poor. In our days every appearance of Her Majesty in public is greeted with the acclamations of the crowd, but in December, 1837, when she prorogued parliament, the chronicler of that period wrote : “ The Queen went to the House yesterday without producing any sensation, there was the usual crowd to look at the finery of carriages, horse guards, etc., but not a hat raised nor a voice heard. The people of England seem inclined to hurrah no more.” If we contrast the scene of 60 years ago, when men and women gazed upon the royal cortege with sullen mien and lowering brow, with the enthusiasm displayed upon every public appearance of the Royal Family in recent years, and the unparalleled preparations which are now

going on all over the Empire for the celebration of Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee, we realise what a wonderful change has come over the spirit of thi uafioh.anfl how strong is the hold Queen Victoria has gained upon the affections of her people. The spirit of loyalty has always been strong on this side of the line,*and is fully reciprocated by Her Majesty who has, says'LoyTCrotner, a more extensive knowledge of the Coloflies'* Alan any other woman in England. The rapid growth' of the Australasian colonies, and the important part'* they play on the world’s stage would alone render QueetrVictoria’s reign remarkable. It is gratifying to. all'loyal subjects to reflect that the sovereign whose naine is inseparably associated with the nineteenth century progress through the British dominions has, during her long career proved herself worthy of her high destiny. Of late the infirmities of age have told upon the physical powers of the Queen, but it is said that to" State business she stftl gives the same careful attention that has distinguished her discharge of public duties since the commencement of her reign. We rejoice to think of her in the evening of a long and worthy life—one which has known its full share of human sorrow—blessed in her home by the of her children and grandchildren, and rewarded bjrthe acclamations of the people she has faithfully seryeS. It is a fitting close of a career that is uniqfie in pistorv J and as the time draws near when she must give jjlace to another we earnestly pray that her successor may prove as worthy of his exalted station and leave behind good a record.