Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-05-11
COST OF ROYALTY.


Inc allowance OF &OO,OUO year Tor
the privy purse is the carrying out of
commendable generosity with which a
great nation treats its sovereign. Every
want of the sovereign is already provided
for She has houses to live in, horses to
ride, food and wine provided in album.
dance, servants all paid, e13. 900 year
set aside for her dispensations in charity,
and small balance of over &, 900 year
left for contingencies.
1t will not appear clear to the ordinary
mind what channels of expenditure the
Queen finds for this ego, 900 allotted for
the privY purse, nor would it in some
circumstances be any business for the
ordinary mind to trouble itself with the
problem. But t question is thrust
upon the public by the repeated demand
for fresh supplies made on account of
the royal family, and as Mr.. Fox, neither
whose craftsmanship nor whose loyalty
can be called IN question, has put it, 1.-THE
question is, is the civil list Inadequate to
the purposes of fully maintaining and
supporting the children of the crown?'
We have seen that every possible want
of the household is literally provided for
with triflng sum of IS, 900 in supple
ment of 100000 for the privy purse.
But that by no means represents the pri-
vate income of the lady on behalf of
whose children fresh demand is now
made on the taxpayer. On the accession
of Her Majesty the civil list was arranged
on the basis described. There was add
ed as a sort of bonus the revenues of the
Duchy of Lancaster This of course is
a national estate, the property of the
people. But with generosity not here
or elsewhere, as far as | know, called in
question. it was bestowed upon the
Queen for her private use and benefit.
Since its appropriation the revenues of
the estate have more than doubled. |
have not at hand the figures of 1887, but
ten years later, in 1847, the net revenues
of the Duchy were 600, 600. In 1878
they had reached to e63, 600; and on the
31st of December, 1880, the last date on
which the accounts were published. the
net receipts from this were 978 III, all
of which goes to the Queen for her pri-
vate use. In addition to these items.
there is capital sum of quarter of a
million which just thirty years ago a
person named Neild bequeathed to the
Queen for her personal use.
If from these data we attempt to ascer
the means at the disposal of Her Majesty
for family expenses, we reach this CON
clusion: Civil list, 100000; Duchy of
Lancaster, e78 900; interest at three per
cent. on the Neild bequest, $1,000. This
gives total of e145, 900 year, for the
spending of which anxious thought fails
to discover any possibility on the part OF
a lady living in the manner adopted by
the Queen.
In endeavoring to answer the question
put by MI. Fox, am careful to elimi-
nate anything in the form of conjecture.
The three items from which this total of
the Queens personal and private income
is derived are set forth either as Parlia-
meutary estimates or in official docu-
ments. The 100000 from the PRIV
purse is the most familiar sum. Minis
tiers of the Crown and others, who from
their point of duty very properly endeav-
or to minimize facts, are accustomed to
keep this figure in the forefront, as if it
were the only source of the private in
come of the Queen. quote the figures
of the revenues Of the Duchy of Lancas-
ter from the balance-sheet issued on the
authority of the right honorable gentle
man the Chancellor of the Duchy. AS
for the Neild bequest, the will of that
eccentric legatee was proved in Doctors
Commons by the Keeper of Her Males
tvs Privy Purse and other executors on
October "a, 1862, and the estate was
sworn under $3.50, 600.
But it would be an insult to common
sense to suppose that these items com.
pose the full tale of the private income
of the Queen. 1t is clear that the amount
allotted by Parliament in 1887 for the
maintenance of the royal household can
not be spent in the circumstances of the
semi-retiremeut in which it pleases the
sovereign to live. There must needs be,
year after year, great savings in the
various departments, for which, as we
have seen, special provision is made,
with the object of appropriating them to
other accounts. This has been going on
for twenty years, and within that period
the accumulated savings of the privy
purse must have reached enormous pro-
portions.
1t would be idle to indulge in wild
guesses as to what the Queens income
may be when we add the interests of &C
cumulated savings to the ordinary
sources. Figures are supplied that indi-
cate the true state of affairs, and any one
accustomed to the miracles of compound
interest may form his own estimate.
am content to take my stand on the
e145, 000which Her Majesty now receives
over and above all possible and conceiva-
BILE charges for household expenses, and
submit that, with this in view, we must
answer Mr.. Fox's question in the aff1rma-
tive.
By happy coincidence the sum avail
able for appropriation in this natural
ri fIo
gencies of the case. The Princess Royal
draws e8 600 year; the Prince and
Princess of Wales have between them
$50 600; the Duke of Edinburgh, e25, 900;
the Duke of Connaught, e25, 900; Prin-
cess Helena, $4,000; Princess Louise
similar sum; and Prince Leopold, SIS
600. These make a total of e135, 600 per
year. 1t is now proposed to add to
Prince Leopold's G15 900 an additional
10000, which would bring the total de-
mand upon the head of the family to
e145 000-a sum so near that available
that there could be no difficulty in
amicably adjusting the small balance in
such family council. 1t will be seen that
an arrangement could In no measure in
commode Her Majesty. She would still
have 1895, 900 year to spend, putting
entirely out of account any interest from
accumulated savings.
This is, however, an Off-hand arrange
ment which it does not come within
reasonable probability to suppose would
be adopted, or even seriously discussed.
1t would be said that it is none of our
business, and that we have no more
right to interfere with the family ar
rangements of Queen Victoria than with
those of our next-door neighbor This
is quite true; but it is equally true,
when the British taxpayer is asked for a
fresh subsidy in relief of family ar
rangements, that he has the melancholy
right to look into the matter in the same
way as he might examine any other pro-
posed business transaction.
A New York Herald special, from
Dublin ON the 9TH gives a very praDhic