OF

CURRENT HISTORY

VOL. 7.

JANUARY 1-MARCH 31, 1897.

NO. 1.

VICTORIA, QUEEN AND EMPRESS.

A REIGN which may be ranked as one of the most memorable in human history is advancing toward the close of its sixtieth year on June 20, 1897. Its length, unprecedented in British annals, has never been equalled in the case of any European sovereign except one. Remarkable for its continuance through nearly two generations, this reign draws the attentive gaze of all civilized nations to the character and career of the woman who is throned over the greatest empire of modern centuries. The maiden of eighteen years, now the venerable widow of seventy-seven, has seen her realms extend until nearly one-fourth of the people on the globe, occupying one-fourth of its land-surface, give her their allegiance.

ALEXANDRINA VICTORIA GUELPH was born at Kensington Palace, London, May 24, 1819, the only child of Field-Marshal the Duke of Kent and of his wife Mary Louisa Victoria, who was sister of Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and widow of the Heredetary Prince of Leinin gen. Victoria's father, the Duke of Kent, was the fourth son of King George III., and thus held the fourth place as successor to the throne. The death of his eldest brother, King George IV., followed by the death of the next eldest, the Duke of York, in 1827, left next in the succession the Duke of Clarence, who became King William IV. The Duke of Kent had died many years previously (January 23, 1820); and, as the children of his elder brothers also had all died before 1828, his child, the little Victoria, came, before reaching the age of ten, to be the next in succession to her uncle King William IV., except as the unexpected might occur in the birth to him of another child.

The royal line in which the little maiden stood the thirty-seventh, is traced for more than a thousand years from the time of Egbert (A. D. 827). At intervals in her ancestry along the centuries appear the names of Alfred the Great; Matilda (or Maud), Empress of Germany; Edward III.; Henry VII.; James IV. of Scotland; Mary Queen of Scots; James I. of England (VI. of Scotland); George I. of England (Elector of Hanover).

Whatever may have been the virtues or the faults of some noted names in this long ancestral line, it is certain that the queen was Copyright, 1897, by Garretson, Cox & Co,

Vol. 7-1.

wonderfully fortunate in her parentage. Her father, the Duke of Kent, was of a character far different from that of some of the sons of George III. His sincerity, his uprightness, and his belief in popular rights, did not greatly commend him to the favor of his royal father, or of his brother, the graceful and disgraceful George IV. For many years he served with distinction in military command, in Germany, the West Indies, British America, and at Gibraltar. The duke's position at court involved heavy expenditures, for which parliament failed to make the customary provision; the result was that he gradually became overwhelmed with debts, and in 1815, four years before his marriage, decided to dismiss his retinue of servants and to quit England for a residence in Brussels, where his expenses could be greatly reduced. His situation was that most trying one-" exalted poverty." The death in 1817 of Princess Charlotte, only child of George IV. and heiress to the throne, together with the duke's marriage the following year, seems to have aroused parliament to some consideration for one who was no longer remote in his possible succession to the throne; and an annual sum was voted him. Lord Castlereagh and Lord Brougham testified in parliament to his guiltlessness of improvidence and his personal nobility of character-the latter declaring that "no man had set a brighter example of public virtue."

To us Americans-with whom George III. is not a blessed memory, and who find it requisite to help our charity in judging him for his intolerant toryism and his obstinate oppression of the American colonies by reminding ourselves that his nature was of that sort in which prejudice takes the place of reason, and that he honestly supposed it his duty to keep the empire entire it is interesting to observe whence his granddaughter may have derived that tolerance of liberal principles, or rather that sympathy with the common humanity, which has actually restored the ancient grace of royalty even in our critical republican eyes. In one of her father's speeches far back in this century, we read:

"I am an enemy to all religious tests. I am a supporter of a general system of education. All men are my brethren; and I hold that power is delegated only for the benefit of the people."

Do we not trace also his daughter's independence of judgment and straightforward utterance?-for he adds:

"These are the principles of myself and of my beloved brother, the Duke of Sussex. They are not popular principles just now-that is, they do not conduct to place or office. All the members of the royal family do not hold the same principles. For this I do not blame them; but we claim for ourselves the right of thinking and acting as we think best."

Eight months after the birth of Victoria, the estimable Duke of Kent died suddenly. The character of the man and the tone of his thought concerning his child are evinced by his words to an intimate friend a few months before:

* but pray

"Don't pray simply that hers may be a brilliant career, * that in all her coming years she may be guided and guarded by God."

This seems a good kind of prayer, one of the kind that have answers. However this may be, such an aspiration shows a character in strong contrast with the frivolous and dissolute court of threequarters of a century ago.

The death of the Duke of Kent left the now twice widowed German princess, with her infant daughter Victoria, in what was practically a strange land, and in straightened finances, for the belated provision by parliament two years previously had not yet availed to clear the duke's debts. The king never had a liking for her. brother, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who in after years became

Her

King of the Belgians, came promptly to her help with an annual allowance of £3,000, and with what was at least equally welcome in the strangely mingled responsibility and uncertainty of her lonely situation, his watchful affection and wise counsel. The prince made this pecuniary allowance out of the provision which parliament had made for him as the husband of Princess Charlotte, only child of George IV. and, till her death in 1817, the heiress to the throne. Fortunate was it for the little Victoria that in her lack of a father's care she had that of such a mother and such an uncle. Prince Leopold had become a naturalized Englishman, and was-as his rule in Belgium afterward showed a firm believer in a constitutional monarchy administered in the interest of all the people. The queen has written that she "adored her uncle." Her affection for another uncle also is not to be left without record, the Duke of York, who from 1817 to 1827 was heir to the throne, and who showed his little niece much consideration. He was commander-in-chief of the army, and seems to have been an able and hearty British soldier, and an honestly bigoted tory in his political principles. There was also Queen Adelaide, consort of King William IV., early bereaved of her own little ones, and turn ing with sorrowful tenderness toward the little girl who had come into their place. Without venturing assertion beyond knowledge, we may say that aside from the Duke of York and Queen Adelaide, Victoria, until she had begun to leave her childhood behind, seems to have received small consideration from the court and its circle. The king, however, desired occasional visits from her, but was absurdly jealous of her mother. In view of what the court then wasso contrasted with the court as the present generation knows it-the British empire and other nations with it may rejoice that the future queen had little to do with the court until within a few years of the time when, with character soundly based and wisely formed, she took her place as its central and controlling figure.

To the wisdom of the Duchess of Kent her little daughter owed this well-guarded, well-ordered, peaceful, and happy childhood. The duchess and her brother Leopold had been brought up in one of the few German courts of that time in which the standard moral vir tues were held to have right and place even in kings' palaces. At the premature death of her husband, the duchess seems to have devoted her whole strength of heart and intellect to molding the char acter and preparing the mind of her child to meet the great responsibility at first possible, then probable, at last certain-involved in her accession to the throne. Through all her earlier years the exaltation that the future might bring was never allowed to be mentioned before her. There was diligent work in the formation of character, fortunately on the basis of the child's own natural sincerity. It was thought best that she should have but a small allowance of money and should never be permitted to exceed it. To buy anything on credit was forbidden. Ferquently she had to cultivate patience in waiting for some much desired toy or other little article until the next instalment of her small allowance.

The mother was admirably supplemented in her care and effort by the governess, Baroness Lehzen, daughter of a Hanoverian clergyman, who took general charge of Victoria's education from the age of five years. The Rev. George Davys, afterward bishop of Peterbor ough, was also her regular instructor, and specialists were employed in certain branches She became proficient in music and in drawing. Of an earlier period it is recorded that at the age of eleven she could speak French, Italian, and German, and had made a good beginning in Latin and Greek. At this age, too, she was started on the sys

tematic study of the English constitution. She was directed also into an unusually thorough study of general history. Meanwhile, she had plenty of play and exercise, and became an admirable rider. Her mother's wise theory was to prolong her childhood.

All accounts of those years-such as those of the Earl of Albemarle, Jane Porter, and Charles Knight-agree that she was a pretty child, brilliantly fair, blue-eyed, with manners natural, simple, and vivacious. British prejudice may have biassed these judges in favor of the royal child. But when she was of the age of sixteen, N. P. Willis of New York, who saw her on a public occasion, pronounced the opinion that for the heir to such a crown as that of England, she is unnecessarily pretty and interesting.' She showed in girlhood the possession of a will of her own, as she has happily showed on several occasions in later years; but she showed also a disposition affectionate to her friends and thoughtfully kind toward the distressed.

In the year 1831, when Victoria was of the age of twelve, it was deemed necessary that she should be definitely informed of the fact that she was the heir-presumptive to the throne. Accordingly the genealogical table of the royal family was placed between the leaves of her book of history; and after Mr. Davys had gone, she opened the book as usual and found it.

"I never saw that before," was her remark.

"It was not thought necessary you should, Princess," replied Baroness Lehzen.

"I see I am nearer the throne than I thought." "So it is, Madame," the baroness said.

After a period of silence, the princess said, "Now, many a child would boast, but they don't know the difficulty. There is much splendor, but there is more responsibility"-lifting up the forefinger of her right hand. Then, giving that little hand to the baroness

"I will be good. I understand now why you urged me so much to learn even Latin. My aunts Augusta and Mary never did, but you told me Latin is the foundation of English grammar and of all the elegant expressions, and I learned it as you wished it; but I understand all better now;" then, again giving her hand, "I will be good."

Victoria, being not the heir-apparent but the heir-presumptive, was then reminded by the baroness of the possibility that her aunt the queen might yet have children who would succeed their father on the throne; to which the princess replied. "And if it was so. I should never feel disappointed, for I know by the love Aunt Adelaide bears me how fond she is of children."

This incident-reported in a letter of the baroness many years later, which was published by authority-is here given as showing in a childlike guise some elements of character which can be easily traced as reappearing at critical periods in this sovereign's long reign. The considerateness for the interests of others, the affectionateness, as also the purpose to "be good "-these might be ascribed to the frequently generous impulses of childhood whose dewy freshness and whose pure deeps of sky are easily lost in the dust and the heat of the world's broad life. But not pausing on these points, we cannot fail to notice in this earliest Queen's speech" two elements that are in their nature abiding: there is a decisive simplicity and directness of mental movement instantly selecting and touching the central point, the main issue, when a dozen minor points might have attracted an indecisive mind. also there is a curious self-poise; the little damsel was not elated, not even surprised, by great news, nor dashed by the suggestion that the news might after all be a mistake, nor did she drift into dreams of the great things or the little things which she as queen would do or have. These two elements do not make a perfect character; very few perfect characters are made in this world. But they make a character whose defects for instance, such a defect as self will-become excellencies in comparison with the pulpy