WHAT THE PRINCE OF WALES HAS TO LIVE ON.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 564, 8 April 1876, Page 3

WHAT THE PRINCE OF WALES HAS TO LIVE ON.

(Leeds Times,') As the Prince of Wales now engages all thoughts, and a rather narrow view of the question of the expenses, allowance, &o, of the heir to the throne is likely to be raised, I have been making some little explorings with a view to anticipating such drawcansirs and carpers. It will be seen that a very good case can be made out for his Royal High ness. Precedents, of course, will be the first thought, and'a measure found in the treatment and allowances of previous princes. It will bo seen that there was no finality, as it were, in the matter, but as the situation of a Prince became altered, the scale of allowance was submitted afresh and revised. Thus when he came of age, there was the question of what was called ‘ the establishment,’ or providing him with a suitable household and the means of keeping it up. On his marriage a fresh and more ample settlement was made ; and finally, in the case of debt or embarrassment, the same friendly control was invoked. Nay, the King himself wai sometimes overtaken by pecuniary pressure, and, as did the excellent George 111., came to his subjects for relief. Queen Caroline was equally relieved from difficulty in the same matter-of-course way. Some royal dukes have been assisted in similar straits. In fact, what is incident to the ordinary household, and to the relatives of the parent and his lavish heir, has occurred again and again between the nation and its royal sons and daughters. The most notorious instance of such revision is the case of the Prince whose doings have been so uuilatteringly pourtrayed by Mr Greville, and which had to be repeated at inconveniently frequent intervals. It is now close on twelve years since the “establishment” of the present Prince took place, on his marriage in 1863. As is well known, the Parliament added £40,000 a year to the inherited £60,010 from the Duchy of Cornwall, making together an annual sum of £IOO,OOO. The Princess received an annuity of £IO,OOO ; and there were besides the abundant sayings from the duchy during the minority, which reached the handsome sum of £510,000. Of this amount £220,U00 was laid out in the purchase of an estate in Sandringham ; £IOO,OOO ou a suitable outfit ; £60,000 on a house, &c, for the estate ; while £IOO,OOO more, it was stated, would be absorbed by repairs to farm houses and improvement of farms as they dropped out of lease, which would leave a balance of about £60,000 on hand; Lord Palmerston, indeed, declared at the time that the working balance would be scarcely appreciable. The figures, however, seem loose enough, and allow the widest margin, especially in the case of the £IOO,OOO for repairs to farm buildings, &c, which would be held over till the occasion served. lu a recent semi-official expose in which the Prince's affairs were set out, it was said that large additional sums had been sunk in the estate, but which had brought no return. This probably refers to the sum set apart for the keeping of farm houses in repair and the general improvement of the estate. Till it was thus used, however, it must have borne interest. So that the whole income from all sources, including the Princess’s jointure, would thus have amounted to about £ 115,000 a year. On this slate of facts the question arises, would such a sum be sufficient for one in the particular position of heir to the throne? The test so often applied, and supposed to (dispose of the matter, that many English noblemen are in the the enjoyment of far larger incomes, seems rather idle and irrelevant; for many English noblemen are in the enjoyment of incomes out of all proportion to a private person’s wants and position. Such vast wealth has come to them either by the discovery of coal, by the rise in the value of building ground, or by other fortunate

chances. They do nob enjoy it by long inheritance, by gift, or privilege. More, however, to the point is the fact that a member of the Prince’s family will by-aad-bye be in the possession of a larger annual income as the Coburg succession and the wealthy Russian connection will put the Duke of Edinburgh in possession of a fortune greater than that of his older brother’s. This is not the result of accident, but of inheritance ; and the question will naturally occur, if one brother bo deemed worthy of such advantages, why should the other, whose position is so much more splendid and important, be placed in an inferior position ? A more satisfactory test will belong to the kind which the English people has always loved, viz, one drawn from precedents. No one grumbles when a fair indisputable precedent is produced to regulate the difficulty. A short review of the treatment of preceding princes will help us to a conclusion. One hundred and sixty years ago the great-grandfather of George IV received an allowance from the public purse of no less than £115,000 a year—a sum equivalent, at the lowest computation, to about £IBO,OOO in our own day. Thirty years later, another Prince of Wales, grandfather to George IV, received £IOO,OOO a year, certainly equivalent, to £150,000 in the money value of our days, George 111 also received the same sum. His extravagant son, George IV. when Prince of Wales, was granted a sum of nearly £70,000 a year, on his first “establishment” in 18110 ; but this smaller amount was fixed because of the exhaus ion of the naim from wars, and of the penurious and severe habits of the king. It was thought amply sufficient for a young and unmarried man, who was, indeed, little more. It was, howsv;r, felt at the time that the smallness of the allowance would inevitably lead to debts and embarrassment, and four years later, the King was obliged to add £IO,OOO a year to the moderate rum. Eight years were sufficient to overwhelm him with debt. At the time of his marriage he seemed inextricably involved, and his debts amor nted to the enormous sum of £600,000. To discharge these, Parliament increased his income to £140,000 a year, of which £25,000 was sequestered for paying off claims, leaving him a sum of about £120,000 a year. It should be remembered that this vast amount of debt, did not represent money actually received and spent, but usurious charges for money lent, long credit, &c.; so it might bo urged that, had he enj >yed a sufficient income, it might have cov?rcd even his extravagant outlay, which would have been thus distributed over a course of years. Finally, in 1811, when the Prince was appointed Regent, the handsome allowance of £400,000 a-year was at once granted to him. This was granted to enable him to perform the more ornamental duties of royalty ; not, it will bo at once seen, to maintain the regular kingly functions, for which a sum af about double this is given at the present moment. From the old king’s civil list was defrayed the usual charges of State, &c.; while the sum allotted to the Prince was destined for suitable entertainments at Carlton, reception of foreign guests, and all that went to support the dignity and magnificence of the Crown. This important division is worth bearing in mind, as there is a curious analogy between the state of things in the year 1811 and 1875. Then the Sovereign was entirely withdrawn from Royal state, and the heir apparent peforming all the ornamental duties ; and, to enable him to do so, this large sum was considered necessary. The Prince does not, indeed, perform official Royal acts, which, since the days of George 111, have been enormously reduced in amount and value ; but it would bo difficult to distinguish his duties of State and regal representation from those performed by the Regent in 1811. The Sovereign now lies in permanent retirement, wearied or disgusted with the duties of Royalty, The motives of such withdrawal, inscrutable as they may be, are assumed to be sufficient, and worthy of all respect due to so amiable and respected a personage. But the result is the same as in 1811—anonrepresentation of the office. The moral is, that though merely heir to the throne the Prince has now the expenses and outlay of being on the throne;