s--when one
thinks--if _she_ thinks!--of all that has been suffered from successive
mistresses and favourites of royalty a thousand times more easily than
she can be forgiven for (grant it!) a weak and selfish grief for a noble
husband--it is enough to make one wonder if nations are not like
dogs--better for beating. If the Queen could cut off a few more heads,
and subscribed to a few less charities, if she were a little less
virtuous, and a little more tyrannical, if she borrowed her subjects'
plate and repudiated her debts, instead of reducing her household
expenses, and regulating court mournings by the interests of trade, I am
very much afraid we should be a more loyal people! If we had a
slender-limbed Stuart who insisted upon travelling with his temporary
favourite when the lives and livelihoods of the best blood of Britain
were being staked for his throne whilst he amused himself, I suppose we
should wear white favours, and believe in the divine right of Kings. It
must be impossible for her to forget that the Prince, whom death has
proved to be worthy of the praise most people now accord him, was far
from popular in his lifetime, and the pet gibe and sport of _Punch_. I
suppose when she is dead or abdicated we shall discover that England has
had few better sovereigns--and one can only hope that the reflection may
not be additionally stimulated by the recurrence of her successor to
some of the more popular--if not beneficial--peculiarities of former
reigns. It is true that then we might kick royalty overboard altogether,
but, judging by the United States, I don't know that we should benefit
even on the points where one might most expect to do so. In truth, I
believe that the virtue of loyalty is extinct and must be--except under
one or two conditions. Either more royal prerogative than we have--or in
the substitution of a loyal affection that shall in each member of the
commonwealth cover and be silent over the weak points which the
publicity of the present day exposes to vulgar criticism--for the spirit
which used to give the blood and possessions which are not exacted of
us. This is why the Queen's books do not trouble _my_ feelings about
her. She is no great writer certainly, and has perhaps made a mistake in
thinking that they would do good. I think they will do good with a
certain class, perhaps they lower her in the eyes of others. I do think
myself that the virtues she (and even her books incidentally) displa