joined hands between hers, while she stooped her head so as almost to bend over mine, and I repeated slowly and solemnly the very impressive words of the oath which constitutes the Act of Homage.' "Life of Archbishop Tait," vol. i., p. 206.

Nor was it a mere formal ceremony. The Prince Consort, who was then at the mature age of twenty-six, defined his notion of the position and duties of the Bishops. in the House of Lords in a memorandum which he presented to Dr. Wilberforce, then Dean of Windsor. The memorandum might, perhaps, with advantage, be printed in an appendix to the Prayer Book. Here are some of its salient features:

"A Bishop ought to abstain completely from mixing himself up with the politics of the day, and beyond giving a general support to the Queen's Government, and occasionally voting for it, should take no part in the discussion of State affairs (for instance, Corn Laws, Game Laws, Trade or Financial questions); but he should come forward whenever the interests of humanity are at stake, and give boldly and manfully his advice to the House and country (I mean questions like Negro emancipation, education of the people, improvement of the health of towns, measures for the recreation of the poor, against cruelty to animals, for regulating factory labour, &c., &c.).

As to religious affairs, he cannot but take an active part in them, but let that always be the part of a Christian, not of a mere Churchman. Let him never forget the insufficiency of human knowledge and wisdom, and the impossibility for any man, or even Church, to say, I am right; I alone am right.' Let him, therefore, be meek, and liberal, and tolerant to other confessions, but let him never forget that he is a representative of the Church of the Land, the maintenance of which is as important to the country as that of its Constitution or its Throne. Let him here always be conscious that the Church has duties to fulfil, that it does not exist for itself, but for the people, for the country, and that it ought to have no higher aim than to be the Church of the People. Let there be, therefore, no calling for new rights, privileges, grants, &c., but show the zeal and eagerness of the Church to stretch her powers and capabilities to the utmost for the fulfilment of her sacred duties to the people in ministering and teaching.

"A Bishop ought to be uniformly a peacemaker, and when he can, it is his duty to lessen political or other animosities, and remind the Peers of their duties as Christians. He ought to be a guardian of public morality, not, like the press, by tediously interfering with every man's private affairs, speaking for applause, or trampling on those that are fallen, but by watching over the morality of the State in acts which expediency or hope for profit may tempt it to commit, as well in Home and Colonial as in Foreign affairs. He should likewise boldly admonish the public even against its predominant feeling, if this be contrary to the purest standard of morality (reproving, for instance, the recklessness and wickedness of the proprietors of railway schemes, who, having no funds themselves, acquire riches at the expense of others, their dupes). Here the nation is in the greatest danger, as every individual gets corrupted and every sense of shame is lost.

"In this way the Bishops would become a powerful force in the Lords, and the country would feel that their presence there supplies a great want, and is a great protection to the people."'-"Prince Consort's Life," Part II., p. 23.

No doubt, no doubt. But the interesting and curious thing is that in this exposition of the duties of a Bishop, the Prince Consort unconsciously defined the standard of obligation which the Queen herself as Supreme Governor of the Church has always endeavoured to fulfil.

II. AS HEAD OF THE CIVIC CHURCH.

Whatever may be thought of Her Majesty as the Supreme Head of the Anglican Church, there can be no two opinions upon the excellence of the fashion in which she discharges her functions as Head of the Civic Church. This phrase of mine, often misunderstood, is nevertheless very simple. What is the Church? The Church was the machinery Christ devised for saving the world by self-sacrificing love. It is the Union of all who Love in the Service of all who Suffer. It is wider than all sects, broader than all dogmas; its inspiration is the example of Christ, its ethics are outlined in ideal in the Sermon on the Mount; its standard of judgment is defined in the parting made at the last day between the sheep and the goats, between the Blessed of our Father and the Accursed. It is undenominational and catholic, and upon its order of the day these words are inscribed:-"Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsover things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise-think on these things."

For seven years and more I have been constantly proclaiming, in the pages of my

Review, and on numberless platforms in the Old World and the New, that the one great need of the world just now is an organisation that will enable all good men to unite their forces in working for such ideal of good as is common to them all to pool their information and their experience, and to concentrate their attack upon those things which are universally admitted to be bad. Without disparaging the efforts of the sects, there is still need for a rallying-point, a headquarters staff, and a representative centre, which would be recognised by all who are trying to do good as the source from which they would never fail to obtain sympathy, encouragement, and help. In the words of the circular issued on the founding of the Civic Federation of Chicago, "The object of

this organisaand in general concentration tential, nonsectarian cenforces that are to advance philanthropic, religious inaccomplish all towards enering effect to

conscience." and more been me of late nearest existmation to the here defined spects, to be English Momit that it is lacking in

tions.

But

all the Queen been for many nearest aphave to a Sebishop of all Humanitarian British Em

ble head of all

(Photographed by Hughes and Mullins, Ryde, Isle of Wight.)

tion, briefly terms, is the into one popolitical, nontre of all the now labouring our municipal, industrial, and terests, and to that is possible gising and givthe public It has more borne in upon years that the ing approxiorganisation

is, in many refound in our narch. I adimperfect and many directake it all in is, and has years, the proach we cular ArchBritain-a lay Pontiff of the

pire, the visiassociations

and individuals who are striving to attain those great ideals of human welfare and social progress on which general agreement exists among the people.

A lady of much intensity of spiritual vision, and exquisitely sensitive to the moral movements of the time, wrote me when I asked her about the Queen :

"My feeling about her has always been a conflicting one. I love her for the warmth of her heart, for the fundamental simplicity of her womanly, motherly nature, for the genuineness and depth of her ever-ready sympathy. But I always find myself wishing that she-and Royalties generally had more of the reforming spirit-in moral and social questions, not political ones, of course. I sigh when I think of the incalculable influence the Queen might have wielded if she had had some of the instincts and aspirations of her whom I have called the Best Woman, if she could have cared as much about the C. D. question as Josephine Butler, about purity in men as Sarah Grand, about justice to her nigger subjects as Olive Schreiner, and so on and so on."

I quote this as expressing a natural, although I take it a mistaken, estimate of the functions of the Head of the Civic Church, in which is embodied, as I will presently

point out, a not less mistaken impression of the Queen's position on two at least of the questions referred to.

What is wanted in a Commander-in-Chief is that he should be in communication with the whole Army, rather than that he should head dashing charges of the van or scout with the Uhlans far ahead of the main body. And what is wanted in the Head of the Civic Church is that she should be the defender and exponent of the body of doctrine universally received by the heart and conscience of all her subjects. To occupy such a position precludes any very active participation in the promotion of ideas or of doctrines which are in advance of the moral standard of the mass of the community. My correspondent would have had the Queen to be more of a Peter the Great than the modest marker of the general average.

There is a fine homage to the principle of Democracy and of popular sovereignty in the rule which Royaly has laid down for itself in relation to all movements of moral, industrial, and religious progress. It is a rule, for instance, that no Prince of the Blood shall preside over a meeting at which there is likely to be opposition. They only intervene when all are agreed. So far, indeed, is carried the right of popular veto that even the minority is allowed to prevent Royal action. Hence the action of Royalty is a kind of accepted register of national or local unanimity. When causes are in their fighting stage, however keenly the Queen may personally sympathise and wish them success, it his held to be unseemly for her to identify herself with any movement to which even a minority of her subjects are conscientiously opposed. Take, for instance, the cause of medical women. On this subject, although there can be little doubt as to the side on which the Queen must naturally stand, if only from her keen sympathy with the women of India, it is sometimes made a subject of complaint by the pioneers that Her Majesty has not given their cause a helping hand. But this was natural, owing to the fact that, in these early days of storm and struggle, the Queen would have had to take sides against a large section of her subjects, who, however mistaken they might be, could not be said to be condemned by the conscience of the nation. There is no such difference of opinion as to the training of women for nursing, and here the support of the Queen and all the Royal Family has been continuously afforded. Take another instance. There were two societies founded in London within a few years of each other-the National Vigilance Association and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The objects of both are in the highest degree worthy of the support of every humane man and woman. But the National Vigilance Association had to contend from the first against a strong prejudice existing in the minds of many repecting any attempt to increase the severity with which the law and public opinion punish criminal vice. Hence, although there is probably not a member of the Vigilance Society but feels convinced that its operations have the hearty sympathy of the Queen, no one dreamed of asking her to take the Association officially under her patronage. It is otherwise with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Not even the man about town or the worst Judges on the Bench disapprove of the punishment of child-torturers. Hence the Queen can be and is the patron of this excellent Society, as she is the patron of that other excellent Society for the Protection of Animals from Cruelty. Take a third instance. No one can read the passages in which the Queen has referred to the consolation of her widowhood without feeling that Her Majesty not only believes but knows the truth of the doctrine of Spirit return. For instance, she writes:-"The only sort of consolation she experiences is in the constant sense of his unseen presence, and the blessed thought of the eternal union hereafter which will make the anguish of the present appear as nought." But no one, on the strength of the Queen's own personal experiences, would have had her scandalise the prejudices of her subjects by becoming, let us say, a patron of the Spiritualist Alliance. On the other hand, in taking part in a General Thanksgiving either for the recovery of the Prince

of Wales or for the Jubilee of her Reign, the Queen is able to discharge the natural and proper role of her central position, for she then acts in accord with the unanimous sentiment of all her subjects.

But because the Queen is by her position precluded from heading forlorn hopes, or commanding in person those adventurous associations of pioneers who play the John Baptist part of preparing the way for the main body, it must not be supposed that Her Majesty's conception of the functions of the Crown confine her utterances to a mere colourless expression of truths which have become so commonplace as to be obvious to everybody. On the contrary, no Pope could be more vigorous and outspoken when the time for excommunication or fulmination has arrived. There are some occasions upon which the supreme prayer of the devout heart is to hear some one say "Damn " as if they meant it. The Queen does not hesitate to say "Damn " with emphasis when the need arises. Such a case undoubtedly was that when General Gordon perished at his post at Khartoum owing to the delay in the dispatch of the

relieving expedition. the whole world, by the self-abnegadon, was outraged by The Queen, acting as national sentiment, Ministers which, in English, told them. them and of their and then, rememberrow of the bereaved wrote to Miss Gorletter, which is worthy lasting remembrance the sympathy of the of the Queen, and the with which our Lady can on occasion proexcommunication::

"Dear Miss Gordon, or how shall I attempt to think of your dear, noble, his country and his Queen with a self-sacrifice so deihaving been rescued. port were not fulfilled

GENERAL GORDON.

The moral sense of roused and inspired tion of General Gorthe news of his death. the mouthpiece of the sent a telegram to her good, sound, plain what she thought of policy of Too Late; ing the personal sorsister, Her Majesty don the following of being held in everas an illustration of woman, the freedom vigorous vehemence Primate of All Britain nounce the major

"Osborne,

"February 17th, 1885. How shall I write to you, express what I feel? To heroic brother, who served so truly, so heroically, fying to the world, not That the promises of supwhich I so frequently and

constantly pressed on those who asked him to go-is to me grief inexpressible!-indeed, it has made me ill. My heart bleeds for you, his sister, who have gone through so many anxieties on his account, and who loved the dear brother as he deserved to be. You are all so good and trustful and have such strong faith, that you will be sustained even now, when real absolute evidence of your dear brother's death does not exist but I fear there cannot be much doubt of it. Some day I hope to see you again to tell you all I cannot express. My daughter Beatrice, who has felt quite as I do, wishes me to express her deepest sympathy from abroad; from my eldest daughter, the Crown Princess, and from my cousin, the King of the Belgians, the very warmest. Would you express to your other sisters and your elder brother my true sympathy, and what I do so keenly feel-the stain left upon England for your dear brother's cruel, though heroic, fate! "Ever, dear Miss Gordon, yours sincerely and sympathisingly,

"V.R.I."

My Quaker correspondent, from whom I have quoted, sighed that the Queen did not care as much about justice to her "nigger" subjects as Olive Schreiner. I do not think that, much as I love and admire Olive Schreiner, the author of " Trooper Halket of Mashonaland " has any right to be regarded as caring more for justice to blacks

than Her Majesty. The two South African statesmen whom Her Majesty supported as far as she constitutionally could against the opinion of her Ministers, Sir GeorgeGrey and Sir Bartle Frere, were pre-eminently men who cared for justice. To this day millions of her "nigger" subjects believe more in the Queen than in any other being, whether God or man.

The one occasion of all others in which the national passion was roused, and we were in imminent peril of doing cruel injustice to our coloured fellow-subjects, occurred during the Indian Mutiny. The savage atrocities of the mutineers roused a spirit both in India and in this country which, if it had not been checked, might have left an indelible stain upon our name. How was it checked? It was stemmed by Lord Canning, who was supported vigorously by Her Majesty, against the ferocious out-cries of a vindictive press. "There is a rabid and indiscriminate vindictiveness abroad," Lord Canning wrote privately to the Queen on September 25th, 1857, "even amongst many who ought to set a better example, which it is impossible not to contemplatewithout a feeling of shame for one's countrymen." To this the Qeeen replied in language which, although not so rhetorical as Olive Schreiner's, anticipated the novelist's. appeal by nearly forty years, and in much more practical fashion. She wrote:

"Lord Canning will easily believe how entirely the Queen shares his feelings of sorrow and indignation at the unchristian spirit shown, alas! also to a great extent here by the public towards Indians in general, and towards Sepoys without discrimination! It is, however, not likely to last, and comes from the horror produced by the unspeakable atrocities perpetrated upon the innocent women and children, which make one's blood run cold and one's heart bleed! For the perpetrators of these awful horrors. no punishment can be severe enough, and, sad as it is, stern justice must be dealt out to all the guilty. But to the nation at large-to the peaceable inhabitants-to the many kind and friendly natives who have assisted us, sheltered the fugitives, and been faithful and true-there should be shown the greatest kindness. They should know that there is no hatred to a brown skin-none; but the greatest wish on their Queen's part to see them happy, contented, and flourishing.”

When the Mutiny was suppressed, and in the summer of the following year (1858). the time came for announcing the new policy and the new Government to the peopleof India, Her Majesty again intervened on behalf of justice to the native. The Queen was abroad when the first draft of the proclamation reached her. It was a miserable, jejune document, without heart in it or religion, and withal it had the incredible illtaste to allude to the power the Government possessed of undermining native religions. and customs. The Queen was revolted at the threat. The proclamation would never do :

"Her Majesty disapproves of the expression which declares that she has the power of undermining the Indian religions.' Her Majesty would prefer that the subject should be introduced in a declaration in the sense that the deep attachment which Her Majesty feels to her own religion, and the comfort and happiness which she derives from its consolation, will preclude her from any attempt to interfere with the native religions, and that her servants will be directed to act scrupulously in accordance with her directions."

But she was not satisfied with merely indicating objections in detail; she had thewhole proclamation re-written. She wrote:

"The Queen would be glad if Lord Derby would write it himself in his excellent language, bearing in mind that it is a female Sovereign who speaks to more than a hundred millions of Eastern people on assuming the direct government of them, and after a bloody civil war giving them pledges which her future reign is to redeem, and explaining the principles of her government. Such a document should breathe feelings of generosity, benevolence, and religious toleration, and point out the privileges which the Indians will receive on being placed on an equality with the subjects of the British Crown, and the prosperity following in the train of civilisation."

The proclamation was re-written "entirely in the spirit of your Majesty's observations." But still the Queen was not quite satisfied, so she added in her own hand to the last sentence these words::

"May the God of all power grant to us and those in authority under us strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people!"

That is a record that ought not to be forgotten even by those who admiration at Olive Schreiner's variant on the Sermon on the Mount.

are lost in

Her Majesty