committed a blunder which operates vexatiously, if not disastrously, in both direc tions. his repeated promises, the thought must have been present to the first lord of the treasury when he read the messages to the House. It was a concession unwill- It cannot be denied that the grants ingly made at the last moment, and made which Parliament has been called upon to under pressure, heightened, we may char- make to the children of the queen have itably conclude, by a reconsideration of been viewed with disfavor from the bethe moral weight attaching to previous ginning, and with growing impatience at pledges. But the appointment came too every fresh demand. There is some evilate for a free and unbiassed discussion of dence that ministers have been apprehenthe question. It was overshadowed by sive of these feelings, if they have not the royal messages, which assumed that shared them. We have it on the authority the main point-namely, whether the of Sir Theodore Martin* that at the com. House was prepared to make such grants mencement of the series, when a dowry to her Majesty's grandchildren had and an annuity were asked for the princess been already decided, whereas it was royal on her marriage with Prince Fredupon this that doubt rested. It may be erick William of Prussia, the prince conheld to savor of some disrespect to the sort was anxious that the occasion should queen to send her messages to be sat be taken to settle once for all what proupon by a committee. The responsible vision should be made for the royal chiladvisers of the crown should be actuated dren. We are told that "the ministry by a more delicate regard for her Maj. were averse to this course, and seem inesty's position. They are the proper deed to have been under some misgiving guardians of her credit, and they cannot as to how Parliament might be disposed show their loyalty better than by declining to deal with the special case which they to sanction demands upon the liberality were now called upon to meet." It turned of the nation which are likely to meet with out that their fears were misplaced. Mr. a hesitating and qualified assent, or to Roebuck strove to lead an opposition, but provoke a blank refusal. If any wise rule" was able to do nothing," The proposals has been broken in this respect the government alone are to blame. As for the House, and the independent politicians in the House, they have the strongest possible grounds for complaint. On the last occasion of a royal grant many votes were given in assent on a distinct pledge that a committee should be appointed to take into consideration the subject of future grants. Mr. Gladstone, who gave the pledge, was not able to redeem it. If it should be said that he might have done so there and then, the reply is that he probably foresaw the storm which wrecked his ministry a month later. But the pledge was adopted by his successors. Six times over since 1887 has Mr. W. H. Smith recognized the obligation, and promised that it should soon be discharged. The sixth time he ventured upon an excuse for delay. He pleaded that there was no urgency. He cannot be blamed for not foreseeing the nuptials of the Earl of Fife, but at any rate he knew the age of Prince Albert Victor, and might have guessed, if he did not know, what were the expectations of the Prince of Wales. If he had fulfilled his promise last session, or at the beginning of this, he would have enabled the committee to enter upon its task uninfluenced by special or personal considerations, and have rendered a dutiful service to the queen. As it is, he has of the government were carried by a ma- * Life of the Prince Consort, vol. iv., p. 43. itself felt. Those who are and those who | men like himself to defray the cost of a hope soon to be its servants have a com- prince's annuity. He has a family of mon interest in avoiding any course which girls, perhaps, who have their matrimowould wound the susceptibility of the nial expectations. What careful saving sovereign. It must always be so, but in is requisite by way of preparation! Peran especial degree when the sovereign is haps less sordid thoughts come in. It is a queen and a mother, and when the ques- a blessed thing, after all, to plod and strive tion in hand relates to the making of a and deny oneself for those we can call provision for her children. It is impos- our own. Affection exacts it, and turns sible to impute it as blame to ministers, toil and privation into enjoyment. And actual or expectant, that they should be then it may occur as a matter of surprise influenced by such feelings, but it explains that the queen can so easily forego such the result in a way which warrants no pleasures. Her sole privilege, it will be conclusion as to the sentiments of the said, is to have children; the further privpeople. When the bonds of party disci-ilege of maintaining them and providing pline are unrelaxed the leaders carry their followers with them, and party loyalty lends itself to the wishes of the crown. If from the lobbies of the House of Commons, just after a victorious vote of perhaps twenty or thirty to one has been declared, we could pass into some work. shop or factory, or into some quiet family, which might serve as a sample of hundreds of thousands throughout the land, we should probably find no such near approach to unanimity. We should hear nothing disloyal, but we should catch many a dissonant note. Men of plain speech would say, perhaps, that the queen should provide for her children like other people; that she is rich enough to do it, and ought to be made to do it, instead of being permitted to throw them one after another on the nation. It is likely that arithmetic would be called in to illus trate the argument. The queen's children would be counted up, and it would be reckoned how much had been paid to each in lump sums and yearly allowances, and how much the whole amounted to. To working men, earning their twenty or thirty shillings a week, the aggregate may well seem fabulous. Their labor would not produce it in the course of centuries. Then would follow the reflection that it all comes out of the taxes to which they contribute when they drink a glass of ale or buy an ounce of tobacco or sit down with their wives to a cup of tea, and ingenious heads will do their best to compute how much they must drink and smoke before the enormous total will be covered. Such comments will justly be voted crude and perhaps too vulgar for repetition, but we have to remember that the people who make them may be counted by the million. It is to be feared that in many a family of the humbler middle class the case for the crown does not come off much better. The father winces at his income-tax, and he reflects that it will take five hundred for them is thrown upon the public. Such reflections are no doubt very one-sided, very narrow, and very wrong; but if they could all find vocal utterance, and be combined in one chorus, they would drown the cheers of the courtly majority at St. Stephen's. Much of the growing irritation that has been felt on the subject of these royal grants has arisen from circumstances which have no logical connection with them, though they, nevertheless, exert a powerful influence on the public mind. For more than a quarter of a century the queen has given herself up to a life of seclusion. We know the cause and can respect it, but there are limits beyond which condonation cannot be carried. Nothing has happened to the queen which is not written down in the unalterable fate of men and women. Of every married couple one must be the survivor, and in one-half of all such separations it is the stay of the household, the counsellor, the protector, the bread-winner, that is taken away. Such severed unions, could we look into their history, would for the most part be found as full of tender recollections and of the romance of early love as any that derive more of splendor, but not more of sanctity and nobleness, from their nearness to a throne. Thousands of women are doomed by one great loss to a life of penury and privation. They take up the struggle, the world knows nothing of their sorrows, and God helps them through. It is useless to make comparisons, but public duty must be held to weigh for something in the scales of private grief. The queen has not abandoned her position. Much to the satisfaction of her people, she has retained her place on the throne, but she has combined with a retention of its honors and emoluments the privileges of a recluse. We have it on the authority of some who have been her ministers that the queen is sedulous But in the discharge of one part of her duties. I would be invidious to descend to particShe reads the diplomatic despatches before they are sent out, she examines the draft of every important bill, she lends to her advisers the aid of her large political experience, and probably of her matured opinions. Of the value of the latter her Majesty's published works do not permit us to entertain an exaggerated estimate, but it is one thing to write a book and another to sit in council. The important fact is that these duties are done in private. The public know nothing of them. So far as outside observation goes, the life of the queen is one to which an epithet might be attached which, though true and not severely condemnatory, might sound harsh. Enough to say that it does not seem to be inspired by any keen instinct for the duties of her position. Parliament is never opened by the queen in person. The commissioners who appear on her behalf, were their attire a little more modern, would pass very well for so many republican deputies. The queen's social duties and State functions are discharged, and admirably discharged, by the Prince of Wales and her other children. Buckingham Palace is seldom tenanted. The year is spent in periodical transitions from Windsor to Osborne, and from Osborne to Balmoral. The people learn through the newspapers that the royal train swept through the country while they were asleep, and that the blinds were drawn up at Perth. Only on one point has her Majesty displayed unfailing vigilance. Her children have always been marched at the proper time to the trysting tree, and most gracious messages have been sent to Parliament. The queen has never ceased to be alive to the duties of her people, and never for a moment entertained the suspicion that they might possibly remain unfulfilled. Something must be said respecting the character of these royal marriages, since it has a distinct bearing on the question which has been raised in Parliament. With one exception they have been all un-English. Across the Border we may be reminded that the exception is Scotch. That correction breaks no bones. Union or no union, we are all one people from Land's End to John o' Groats. But with that exception all the queen's children have married foreigners. Of course we must not be unreasonable. England be longs to the family of nations, and intermarriages among members of the ruling houses may be permitted, and in some cases welcomed, on grounds of amity. It ulars, but there is one royal lady amongst We now come to what is the principal | she was, or what she may have done with source of hostility to these royal grants. her money. The same secrecy is thrown They are believed to be unnecessary. over the expenditure of the Civil List. The queen is supposed to be extremely The accounts, we have learned from the rich. Her income is set down at £385,000 recent debate, are made up annually to a year, the total which figures in the Civil the end of the year, while the rest of the List, amounting to more than a thousand public accounts are made up to the 31st pounds a day. It is seen to be impossible of March. The result is that the exthat the queen should spend anything like penditure on the Civil List can never be this enormous sum. Her Majesty has the checked, only the first quarter figures in reputation of being excessively econom- the returns, and the accounts for that ical, not to say penurious. Tales to this smal! portion of the year may be so maneffect, which are afloat in the Highlands, aged as to be perfectly accurate, and at come like small icebergs into these south- the same time misleading. This secrecy ern latitudes, and create the belief that has been vindicated in connection with she has a passion for hoarding. This is the appointment of the Committee on one of the reasons assigned for her pre- Grants to the Crown. The "militant" ferring the secluded life she leads, and section of the House were most anxious the first conclusion reached is one sug- that the accounts of the Civil List should gestive of injustice. The queen, it is be open to investigation, but the governsaid, enjoys all the emoluments of her ment stood firm, and the demand was for high position, while she shirks its duties. some time refused. What is the justificaThe Prince of Wales is liberally, but not tion, what the motive for all this secrecy? extravagantly, provided for by a Parlia- It is naturally assumed that there must mentary grant and the income from his be something which it would be interestCornish duchy. But this provision is ing to discover where so much pains is made for him as heir apparent to the taken to conceal. throne, and not as its occupant. The income of the prince must be heavily taxed in discharging duties for which his royal mother receives the pecuniary equivalent. It is not known that the queen has made any contribution to her son's purse in consideration of his taking so much of the burden of royalty upon his shoulders. If this has been done it would be well that it were known. It would go far towards removing presumable discredit. The general impression is that the queen finds a more profitable use for her money, that she puts it out to the exchangers, buys consols or invests in land. The belief is that she is building up a colossal fortune, and is already one of the wealthiest women in Europe. The mysteriousness which has been allowed to gather round the proprietary interests of the queen gives strength to this belief. An act of Parliament ensures her personal rights as regards all estates that have been purchased with money accruing from the privy purse, and provides that, however they may hereafter be disposed of, they shall never be merged in the revenues of the crown. Another act of Parliament secures the privacy of her Majesty's testamentary dispositions. The wills of all her subjects when they become operative are open to inspection. Any one may read them for a shilling. But the will of the queen is never to see daylight. Her subjects are never to know how rich VOL. LXVII. 3476 LIVING AGE. The discussions which have taken place in Parliament in connection with the more recent grants have made us acquainted with the suspicions entertained as regards the Civil List. Whether those suspicions are well founded, or whether, if clearly verified, they point to any practice which is wrong or illegal, are questions which we need not at present discuss. The point is to see how they arise, and what room there is for them within the facts of the case. The Civil List of the queen was settled in accordance with the report of select committee of the House of Commons, which sat in December, 1837, the year of her Majesty's accession. It consisted of twenty-one members, among whom were Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Mr. Hume, Mr. Grote, Mr. Strutt, Viscount Ebrington, and Mr. Goulburn. The order of reference appears to have been extremely simple. Two sets of papers were referred to them, the first containing the accounts of the income and expenditure of the Civil List of William IV. from January 1, 1831, to December 31, 1836; the second an estimate prepared at the Treasury of the probable future charge of the Civil List of her Majesty. They were required to take these papers into their consideration and report thereon. They say, in the course of their Since the above was written the report has been reprinted. report, that, "not having the power of sending for papers or examining witnesses, the information on which they proceeded was necessarily limited to the papers before them, and "to the explanations given by the official servants of her Majesty (ie., the members of the government) who were members of the committee." They add that not only had this information been given them to the extent afforded in 1830, when a similar committee was appointed on the accession of William IV., but that more detailed explanations were added in order to assist them in their deliberations. Contrary to a gen eral impression, they state that it had not been found necessary during the two last reigns to apply to Parliament for the means of defraying any increased expenditure beyond the amount originally fixed as the income of the Civil List. It would therefore appear that, in the matter of keeping within their incomes, George IV. and William IV. are entitled to share in what has sometimes been regarded as the peculiar credit of the present reign. The changes made in the Civil List, in order to adapt it to the requirements of the new reign, did not extend much further than certain rearrangements. The Civil List of William IV. amounted to £510,000. From this sum was subtracted, first, the annuity of £50,000 paid to Queen Adelaide. A further sum of £75,000 for pensions was transferred to the Consolidated Fund, subject to an inquiry then about to be instituted by the House of Commons. A similar transfer was made of £10,000 which had stood under the head of Secret Service Money. Deducting these sums from the old Civil List, the aggregate is brought down to £375,000, which is £10,ooo less than the amount at which the committee agreed to fix her Majesty's Civil List. This sum of £10,000 is made up of £8,000, which was left unappropriated, apparently as a margin to "go upon," and a small balance of increase in the charges, after certain economies and personal changes had been made. Thus, the salaries of the lord steward and the lord chamberlain were reduced to £2,000, a saving in round figures of £1,500; the salary of the master of the horse was reduced from £3.350 to £2,500. These reductions had been recommended by the committee of 1831, but were not carried into effect. This was now to be done, while the office of groom of the stole, with a salary of £2,163, was to be abolished. As regards inferior officers and "menial servants," the committee abstained from making any inquiry, concurring in the opinion expressed by the committee in 1831, that "it was not consistent with the respect due to her Majesty to scrutinize the details of her domestic household." The committee agreed with the proposal made by the Treasury to reduce the number of lords-in-waiting from twelve to eight, and the number of grooms-in-waiting from thirteen to eight. On the other hand, as the ladies in attendance on the late queen consort had been provided for out of the annuity of £50,000, which was to be omitted from the new Civil List, it was held necessary to make some provision for the ladies of her Majesty's household. After making these changes, the committee reported that the Civil List of her Majesty should be fixed according to the following estimate: Class I., Privy purse, £60,000; Class II., Retired allowances, salaries, and wages, £131,260; Class III., Expense of household, £172,500; Class IV., Royal bounty, alms, and special services, £13,200; Class V., Pensions (her Majesty to be empowered to grant pensions in every year to the extent of £1,200 per annum). Unappropriated moneys, £8,040. The sum for pensions, which the committee enclose in brackets, is not usually reckoned in the Civil List. Omitting that sum, the other items amount to £385,000. It may be interesting at this point to go a little further back in our inquiries concerning the Civil List than was thought necessary by the committee of 1837, or than, indeed, fell within the limited scope of the terms of reference. The Civil List is the offspring of the Revolution. The customs and excise were granted to Charles II. for life. They went to defray the whole of the cost of government, to be supplemented, when needful, by the subsidies of the House of Commons. On the accession of William III. the House changed its system. It kept in its own hands the bulk of the revenues, applicable, among other purposes, to the maintenance of the army, preferring to vote them year by year, and they granted to the king a life income of £600,000, to maintain his household and to defray those charges, set forth in a list or catalogue, which belonged to the service of the crown. The same system was adopted with Anne, George 1., and George II., but the allowances were larger. The sum assigned to the Civil List during those reigns was not paid wholly or chiefly in money. Certain sources of revenue were made over to the crown, which were estimated to yield a |