Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-04-27
WHAT ROYALTY COSTS.
English Taxpayer Pouring Millions
Yearly into the Laps Of their Princes.

Yearly Into the Laps Of their Princes.
From the Gennemen's Magazine.
The allowance of 100000 a year for the privy
purse Is the carrying out Of q commendable gen.
erosity with which great nation treats its SOW
ereign. Every want of the sovereign is already
provided for. She has houses to live In, horses
to ride, food and wine provided In abundance,
servants all paid, ELS, 900 q year set aside for
her dlspensations in charity, and over $4,000
year left for contingencies.
1t win not appear clear to the ordinary mind
what channels of expenditure the Queen finds
for this 100000 allotted to the privy purse. nor
would 1t in some circumstances be any business
for the ordinary mind to trouble itself with the
problem. But the question is thrust upon the
public by the repeated demands for fresh sup
plies on account OF the royal family; and rs Mr..
Fox. neither whose craftsmanship nor whose
Loyalty can be called In question. has put It:
" The question is. is the civil list inadequate to
the purposes Of fully maintaining and support
ing the children of the CROWN"
We have seen that every possible want Of the
household is literally provided for with a trin-
ing sum Of $4,000 in supplement Of ESQ 600 for
the prvy purse. But that by no means rep
resents the private income of the lady on behalf
OF whose children fresh demand il now being
made on the taxpayer. On the accession Of her
majesty the civil list was arranged on the basis
the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster This.
OF course, is national estate, the property of
the people But, with q 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 1S47, the net revenues of the
Duchy were f29, 600. In 1873 they had reached
f63 900. and the 31st of December, 1880, the last
a IN yphi bad
receipts from this were E7S177, all Of which
goes to the Queen for her private use. In addi-
ton to these items there is a capital sum of
f25o0oO, which just thirty years ago person
named Neild bequeathed to the Queen for her
personal use.
If from these data we attempt to ascertain
the means at the disposal of her majesty for
| family objects we reach this conclusion: Civil
list 46O,0 Duchy of Lancaster, 97S,000; in
terest at per cent on the Neild bequest.
800. This gives total Of f14500O q year,
for the spending of which thought fails to
discover any possibility on the part Of lady
living in the manner adopted by the Queen.
In endeavoring to answer the question put
by Mr.. Fox am careful to eliminate anything
In the form of conjecture. The three items
from which this total of the Queens per-
sOnal and private income is derived are set
forth either as parliamentary estimates or
IN, IN Official documents: The 1900 from the
listers Of the crown and others, who from
their point OF duty very properly endeavor to
minimize facts, are accustomed to keep this
figure in the forefront, as If 1t were the only
source of the private income Of the queen. 1
quote the figures Of the revenues of the Duchy
of Lancaster from the balance sheet issued on
the authority of the right honorable gentleman
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 majesty's privy purse and other executors
On October "a. 1882 and the estate was sworn
under E250 OOO
But it would be an insult to common sense to
suppose that these items compose the full tale
OF the private income of the Queen. 1t is clear
that the amount allotted by Parliament i'm 1887
Tor the maintenance of the royal household can.
not be spent in the circumstances of the semi
retirement in which it pleases the sovereign to
i've. There must needs be, year after year.
great savings in the various departments for
which, as we have seen, special provision 10
made, with the object OF apprOprating them to
other accounts. This has been going on for
twenty years, and within that period the accu-
mulated savings of the privy purse must have
reached enormous proportions.
1t would be idle to indulge in wild guesses as
to what the Queens income may be when we
add the interest of accumulated savings to the
ordinary sources. Figures are supplied that
indicate the true state Of affairs, and any one
accustomed to the miracles Of compound interest
may form his own estimate. I am content to
take my stand on the E145 600 which her
Majesty now receives over and above all pos
sibie and conceivable charges for household
expenses, and submit that, with this i'm view,
we must answer Mr.. FOx's question In the
affirmative.
By happy coincidence, the sum available for
appropriation in this natural manner would
very nearly meet the eXigences of the case. The
Princess Royal draws $4,000 year; the Prince
and Princess Of Wales have between them ESQ.,
600; the Duke of Edinburgh, E25, 600; the Duke
of C0nnaught, EDS, 600; Princess Helena. E6, 900;
Princess LOuise a similar sum, and Prince Leo
pOld, f15, 0OO These make total of e135, 900
per year. 1t is now proposed to add to Prince
LeOpOlds ELS, 900 an additional e1O, OO0 which
would bring the total demand upon the head of
the family to f145 0O0-asum 80 near that avail
able that there could be no difficulty In amicably
adjusting the small balance in a family council.
1t will be seen that such an arrangement could
in no measure incOmmOde her Majesty. She would
still have fS25, 600 year to spend. putting en-
tirely out of account any interest from accumu-
lated savings.
This. however, is an off-hand arrangement,
which 1t does not come within reasonable prob
ability 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 arrangements
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 fresh subsidy in relief of family arrange
ments. that he has the melancholy right to look
into the matter in the same way as he might ex-
anime any other proposed business transaction.
THERE Is BUT ONE GENUINE