The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-10-10 00:00:00

Oct. 10,1848.

THE LIVERPOOL FINANCIAL REFORMERS'

(From the London Times.)
The Financial Reform Association has put out a WI
No. 1. In other days Tract No. 1 carries the mind rapidly
forward to Tract 150, or the 100 tons of tracts or there-
abouts circulated by the League. Still a tract is a tract,
and stands upon its own grounds. The tract before us is
about the least respectable, both in argument, subject:
and tone, that we have ever seen ; and if any
change is effected by the forthcoming series, it will
very gresb
be owing to a marked improvement on No. 1, or it will be
very discreditible to the taste and good sense of this
country. In the first place, the tract is not original. At!note modestly insinuated at the foot of the third Page tel,
us what we already knew, that " for the greater Part
the following details, the Association are indebted to
useful little work entitled Sketches of her Majesty st
Household,' which contains, in addition, a great deal "i
very curious information. The facts themselves, however
—that is to say, the appropriations of this expenditure--
are based upon official documents, which received the
sanction of the House of Commons at the time of her_
Majesty's accession to the throne." The little work lu
question certainly is a " very curious" little work, and t°
those who have a taste for low gossip we dare say it is in'
teresting enough. It is written apparently by some went-
ber of the household exceedingly low in the multitudinous,
and miscellaneous list, and who so far from thinking hina.
self overpaid, or otherwise favoured by the State, believe!
that his merits and his services are vastly underrated, and
feels that Castle service, like most other service is no in'
heritance. Such is the book republished almost bodily
Tract No. lof a great financial reform agitation. either
But why should the present allowance to the Sovereign'
be the very first subject selected ? Is it that the royal s,y.
lowance contributes materially to the present increasing
rate of national expenditure ? The tract itself shall an'
swer that question. It tells us in the first page that tb!"
" annual governmental expenditure," which in 1835 l'"'"
been reduced to £15,884,649, is now increased by one'
half, amounting this present year to £24,280,804 ; and n,
turning over the leaf we find that the present royal al
lowance, against which the whole twenty pages of th e'
tract are directed, has not increased at all, but was set-
tled at its present amount by act of Parliament in 1837.
The total expenditure of the country has enormously in'
creased ; so the Liverpool gentlemen Reformers cons'
mence operations by throwing all the odium on just that
particular part of it which has been perfectly statiotiarg
all the time. Nor is that the only reason why the Oyu.
List should not be thrust foremost into the quarrel. It
was settled in 1837 as a definitive arrangement for her
Majesty's life. It was a considerable reduction upon the
greatly reduced Civil List of William IV. That reduction
was made under circumstances which aggravated its forcer
it being notorious that, without any fault on her P 55
no Sovereign ever stepped to a throne with less property
her own than the present Queen. Last, as was fully ar"
gued and entirely admitted in the debates in both houses
in 1837, the Civil List is not a pure grant to the Crown,
but a very inadequate compromise for hereditary revel:ill°
to a much greater amount voluntarily relinquished by
George 111. As Lord Melbourne intimated on introduc-
ing the bill into the Lords, if the Sovereign were now 091'.
ter of the hereditary revenues, he night follow the
ple of Henry VII., and so economise his expenditurere
to save money enough for the corruption and ruin of w
public liberties.
But nothing can be more disingenuous and equiveeni
than the mode in which these gentlemen treat the subject'
They first give, or profess to give, all the offices, salaries;
duties, and items in the Civil List, and then professing tti
leave the details of economy to the Legisl'tture, coolly el';
down the Civil List to half its present amount. Instet
of £385,000. their proposed future allowance to. Queen
Victoria is £200,000, and to future Sovereigns £150,'"
The project will of course be exceedingly captivating.
catalogue of several hundred offices and department
some with large salaries and antiquated titles, can cal
be proved a ridiculous superfluity. If there is one Pe
which people can't understand, it is what' occasion the ..
betters have for so many servants Everybody wants es
t
servant more, but thinks a few more a wicked waste 0'
labour. The master of one servant-of-all-work looks
with indignation on an establishment of three maid-se.:
vants and an outdoor man, whose master in return s'
disgusted at the sight of a coachman, a page, and a gran
The scale of odium goes on till nearly all classes are un'tu„'.
is reprobation of the few who sport " masters of ts:
horse," and half-a-dozen separate tables. Analyze a%
wealthy nobleman's establishment, and it will be for!:
quite as much above the common intelligence as the Olt_
List. But very few Englishmen wish, or at least profess
to wish, the degradation of our nobility and other wealthy
men. Very few would set bounds to private accumulation.
Yet it is a public and a patriotic object to secure that the
Sovereign of the people shall tower above all the nobility
and wealth of the land. She has hardly that
nence that we should desire to see ; for there are amore
a dozen men in this country with more money n
virtual patronage at their disposal than the Sovereign:
Cut the Civil List down to £200,000 a-year, and you will
forthwith find your Sovereign reduced to a second-class,
• le and, most
noble, and royalty swamped in an irresponsible
country
probatly, factious aristocracy. How long the coun
would endure its new tyrants it is not our present purpose
to inquire.
What is the use or motive of parading details when n
detailed proposition is ventured ? What is intended, for
example, by the following coresecutive notices? pre- milt!,
" Ladies of the Bedchamber—eight, at .e5OO per annum
each
" Services honorary. Required to keep her Majesty
company, upon the averaee for a fortnight, three
dance they dine at her Majesty's table.
" Maids of Honour—eight, at £3OO per annum each ..
" Services also honorary, being regarded as compa-
nions to her Majesty, with whom they reside by
turns, two at a time, each being in attendance
about three times in the course of the year, for
four weeks at a time. They also dine at the
Queen's table when at the Palace.
" Bedchamber Women—eight. at .t'3oo each i2,4o°
" May be considered as the above—perfect sin
their duty being to associate with her Maj
14 days at a time, each of the eight taken
turn. They also dine at the royal table. Since
1845 there has been an extra bedchamber woman
appointed."
We are wholly at a loss to know what is hinted, or de;
sired, by the writer. Does he think that ladies in actual
attendance upon her Majesty should have no remunern-
tion for their necessary expenses ? We will venture
say there is not one of the whole twenty-four who is n%
out of pocket by her office. Any west-end milliner 1c!..."
say that a maid of honour might spend £3OO a-year on her
dress alone. But the writer insinuates more than once
that the nobility are wealthy enough to discharge these
offices gratis. There could not be a more foolish or mi
chievous suggestion. It would deliver royalty boon
hand and foot to the power of the aristocracy, the aristtie
cracy of rank and of wealth. Merit would soon be onto i
the question. Nobody would be qualified for her lq."'
jesty s service or society unless he possessed a good in:
come. We are sure that neither the Sovereign, nor tb
moderately wealthy, nor unendowed excellence, nor the
people at large, would tolerate such a principle. But lc,
are at a loss to know what else is insinuated in the woreS
we have quoted. If they have any other import we show"'
like to hear it.

4,000

£2,400