Royalty in England.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 79, 13 December 1887, Page 4

Royalty in England.

[rau, SULL GAZETTE.]

How much longer will it all last, we wonder ? The splendour and the pomp of the great pageant, and all the gorgeous glories with which the ceremon'al was embroidered by the deft stage-managing Chamberlains, these were conspieious enough, no doubt. Invisiole, but hardly less palpable, were the traditions, the associations, the memories, which linked the central figure on the throne with our ancient kings. The institution is old, no doubt, stately, and ornamental beyond question—but will it last ? Aa long as the Queen lasts, yes; but after the Queen® Who knows? The fat little bald man in red who cut bo poor a figure beside his magnificent brother-in-law in white, will he ever reign over us, and for how long? It is true that the present moment seems a strange one to harbour such haunting doubts, when all England but lately was ablaze with exultant loyalty. But other' monarchies, not less ancient and quite as imposing in their outer framework, have vanished, leaving as little trace behind as the frosted silver with which last winter filigreed our window-panes. That also was as beautiful and lovely in outward show as was the monarchy in France. As it has gone, so may perish all the fair and stately splendour of our throne. What prospect has it of stability, what chance of permance, in our shifting age? The Dail-clad warriors who Tong centuries since sat on the stone of Scone were the real rulers of the nation. It was impossible not to be impressed by the contrast between the Queen, in the centre of her glittering troop of princes and princesses, and the real ruler of the empire, Lord Salisbury, who sat in plain black coat among the throng of peers. In France, long time ago, a dynasty which exhibited the same contrast between the Rio faineant and the Mayor of the Palace passed away the moment the real ruler ventured to ask who should sit on the throne, the man who ruled the realm or the man who wore the crown. So far as the pomp and state of courtly ceremonial are truly symbolic they ought to be employed to glorify Lord Salisbury, not to glorify the Queen. When symbolism becomes false to facts its ultimate disappearance is only a question of time. Kings were in their origin as utilitarian as parliamentary Whips. “We will have a king over us,” said the people of Israel, " that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.” Our kings do none of these things. The German kings discharge their functions, and with them the kingship is still a living power, instead of being, as with us, a mere social convenience and graceful ornament. Our monarchy bears the same relation to the institution after which it is called as the bejewelled little bonnet which the Queen wore on jubilee day bears to the fighting helm of William the Conqueror. It may be very useful in its way, and very pretty to look upon, but it is no longer a vital necessity of the national existence, the living embodiment of the force and power of the Government of the realm. It is apart from all that—so much apart that if all the princes and princesses who assembled round the Queen in the Abbey had suddenly been blotted out of existence it would not make any appreciable change in the balance of power in the State. A couple of dozen or more very elegant, ana many of them most gracious supernumeraries would have ceased to exist, but neither in politics nor in administration, nor even in the social and moral development of our people, would there be felt any appreciable shock, such as would be occasioned by the death of Mr Gladstone, or Lord Hartington, or Lord Salisbury. Each of these three statesmen is a force and factor in the government of the empire. As for these pretty princes and princesses, they have their uses, no doubt, and their graceful functions, but the work of government is not for them.