There are thirty-six of them in all, ranging from WILLIAM I., who
is "severe," to VICTORIA, who is just "good." I first made their
acquaintance in childhood, when my grandmother gave them me with the
laudable object of teaching me history. Each is a little wooden block
signifying a monarch. On one side there is a portrait showing the
face, collar and upper portion of torso of the monarch in question;
on the other side there is written a single word summing up his whole
character.
By means of these royal blocks I was brought up to a sound historical
sense based on religion and morality. At the age of seven I could
and did boast that I knew the innermost souls of all the monarchs
of England. I could say their dates by heart, often doing so during
sermon time on Sundays, with a grace and ease that only lifelong
acquaintance with royalty could have bred. I was even able to triumph
through that tricky period between the death of EDWARD III. and the
accession of ELIZABETH. I wonder if the late Lord ACTON was as learned
at that age: I am sure he could not say his dates backwards. I could.
It has always surprised those who have endeavoured to teach me
history that my youthful brain should be so strongly grounded in
the historical tradition of over half a century ago. Yet all the
historians of modern England could not shake me in my faith. To me
QUEEN VICTORIA was no "panting little German widow," as our latest
searcher after truth has affirmed, but the august lady who listened
entranced to the beautiful poems of Lord TENNYSON and invented
electricity and the tricycle. In consequence I was considered a
counter-revolutionary, if not bourgeois. My essays were deemed
dangerously reactionary. At Oxford I once found my tutor burning one.
This shows the value the authorities attach to my work. It is too
dangerous to live; it is burnt.
I venture to think, however, that my work, based as it is on the
most respectable principles, will survive long after my tutors have
subsided into a permanent state of death in life. Like SHAKSPEARE and
the present Government I am for all time.
It is easy to see how I came to acquire this stability of thought,
owing as I do my early training to the kings and queens of England,
who are nothing if not stable. They are my acknowledged guardians and
to them I turn in all difficulties. Only a year ago they came to my
aid in a most awkward predicament. It was my lot to fill up army
forms; of what variety I cannot remember save that they were of a
jaundicy colour and connected with the men's demobilisation. On these
documents I was expected to enter, besides the usual details as to
religion and connubial felicity, the character of each man in a
single word. I at once marshalled my wooden royalties before me
in chronological order and proceeded to deal with the squadron in
rotation.
The first name on my list was that of the disciplinary sergeant-major.
It was with a glow of pride that I registered him with WILLIAM I.
as "severe." The designation of Tonks, the Mess waiter (whom we had
discovered on the night the bomb fell on the aerodrome making a home
and a house of defence in the cookhouse stove), as "heroic"
was distinctly happy. It was perhaps unfortunate that the
quartermaster-sergeant, an austere man from Renfrew, should have
found, on perusing his demobilisation card, that he was to be handed
down to posterity as "avaricious." I was also sorry to find the padre,
usually so broad-minded, in a nasty temper about the character given
to his batman, who was, he assured me, the only pious man in the
squadron and in private life a dissenting minister. "Dissolute"
certainly was on the face of things inappropriate, but then it was
no fault of mine that the merriest of English monarchs should have
appeared at the moment when I was filling up the papers of a minister
of religion.
The light that my wooden monarchs throw on history is both interesting
and, to a modern, precious. For instance, the designation of the first
Angevin king as "patriotic" will surprise many readers of the late
Bishop STUBBS. "Patriotic" is a wide term and may be applied to almost
anything from after-dinner flag-wagging to successful juggling with
Colonial stocks and shares; yet there are few who would have described
it as the besetting virtue of HENRY I. But it was; his little block
says so.
JOHN, again, was "mean." I am sorry, for, though in some respects
blameworthy, he had many agreeable traits. His views on the honesty of
his baronage are most entertaining. He was something of a wit, a good
judge of food and wine, and would have made an excellent Fellow of an
Oxford college. It is much to be regretted that he was mean.
Poor HENRY VI. is "silly." This is a hard judgment on the pioneer of
the movement against low backs in evening frocks, but doubtless he was
silly in other things.
Some of my monarchs had the most excellent characters. EDWARD I. was
"just," GEORGE IV. "courteous," OLIVER CROMWELL "noble"--a sad blow
for the White Rose Club. Our younger monarchs were particularly
attractive persons, and it is a pity that they did not live long
enough to display their qualities. EDWARD VI. was "amiable," while
EDWARD V., like all with expectations from their uncle, was "hopeful."
Poor child! he had need to be.
I am pained however that CHARLES II. was "dissolute." It was what
HENRY VIII. dissolved the monasteries for being--the impertinent old
polygamist! For my part I love CHARLES for the affection that he bore
little dogs, for the chance saying on Sussex hills that this England
was a country well worth fighting for. Alas! that he should have been
dissolute.
Best of all my friends is GEORGE III. He is portrayed with a jolly red
nose and a mouth that positively yawns for pudding. His character,
which is his chief glory, is "benevolent." Who would not rejoice to
have been the object of his regal philanthropy? SAMUEL JOHNSON himself
did not hesitate to accept the bounty of this kindly monarch, though,
while his predecessor reigned, the great lexicographer had defined a
pensioner as "a state hireling" paid "for treason to his country."
Such are my friends the kings and queens of England. Happy the child
who has such majesty to be his guardian spirit. To him life will be
a pomp, where vulgar democracy can have no part, and death a
trysting-place with old comrades--the child for whom
"The kings of England, lifting up their swords,
Shall gather at the gates of Paradise."
* * * * *
[Illustration: _The Super-Tramp._ "MADAM, IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE OF THAT
PIE YOU GAVE ME THIS MORNING I SHOULD BE PLEASED TO PAY FOR IT."]
* * * * *