STUBBORN QUEEN

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 258, 21 January 1928, Page 1

STUBBORN QUEEN

HOT-TEMPERED VICTORIA LETTERS CAUSE SENSATION ri published letters of Queen Victoria, in which she assailed Gladstone, have caused a sensation in England. Newspapers criticise the Queen as stubborn and hottempered. By Cable. —Press Association. — Copyright.

Used. 9.5 a.m. LONDON, Friday. “J HAVE a great deal to say. Only one side was given. As regards tbe other side, the time has not arrived for me to speak about ny lather.” This is Viscount Gladstone’s reply to an invitation to comment on the references to Gladstone which were contained in the letters of QHeen Victoria. Sir Almeric Fitzroy, who has been in closest touch with the Ministries since 18S5, says he is surprised at the publication. He was not prepared for such a candid revelation of Victoria's private views. “The Queen’s dislike for Gladstone was never concealed. She showed him no consideration, and hardly courtesy. She was never reconciled to him. ‘‘Gladstones Eastern policy first aroused Victoria’s resentment. It oust be said to Gladstone’s credit that he never commented on the Queen's attitude, but always showed the greatest courtesy and respect toward the monarchy.”

The “Evening Standard,’’ editorially, says: “We knew before that Victoria was hot-tempered and stubborn; but we never knew how hot-tempered and stubborn she was, nor the full extent of her fears and dislikes. It was entirely natural that a woman of Victoria’s character and upbringing should regard the advance of democracy with fear and resentment, and that she should oppose them with all the strength at her command. The most surprising thing of all is that, notwithstanding her determination on prestige, she rarely got her own way. The more one considers this aspect of her reign, the more natural it is for one to admire the statesmen who so stoutly resisted her powerful force. We are impelled to ask whether we have any such statesmen remaining with us.” “The Star” editorially says: “The present monarch is constitutional in fact as well as in theory. We are not satisfied that it is a good thing to bring letters to the limelight which might arouse some future monarch to impossible ideas.”—A. and N.Z.