Royal Expenditure.-Some Figures for the People.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 414, 26 October 1889, Page 6

Royal Expenditure.- Some Figures for the People.

iKan admirable article in the 'Contemporary Review' Mr Henry Dunckley puts some points concerning the Civil List and the grants to the Royal Family which should not be allowed to escape the public eye. M r Dunckley points out that the Committee ot 1887, which settled the Civil List on its present basis of £385,000 distributed botweon five great classes, actually tookas their basts of calculation the sum spent by William IV. in the last year of his reign. Now William IV. was an extremely extravagant monarch. His household, under the treble control of the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Master of the Horse, and arranged on an absolutely absurd basis, was of the looaost possible char acter. There was no check pf any kind upon his own extravagance and that of his family. He had a largo number of illegitimate sons, who were allowed the run of the Royal palaces, and took what they liked. He was a great drinker, and thousands of pounds were spent every year [ in intoxicating " liquors. There was no system of control the nominal heads of the household being officials who wont in and out with the Ministers, and had no real knowledge of the working of their departments. Shortly after the Queen married the Prince Consort an entirely different regime came in to force. ThePrincewasan able man and he took the affairs of tho Queen's household in charge, cutdown romoreelessly, abolished the most foolish and out-of date arrangements, and took caro that they were held up to scorn in tho German papers, which made fun of our extravagance. Tho moat absurd clashing of functions was discovered; for instance tho Lord Chamberlain could clean the insides of windows, bub not tho outsides ; the housekeeper, pages, and housemaids were under hU authority ; the footmen, liveried porters and under-butlora were under that of the Master of the Horse ; while the clerk of the kitchen, the cooks, and porters wore under the jurisdiction of the Lord Steward. The Lord Steward laid the fires, the Lord Chamberlain lighted them ; the Lord Chamberlain bought) the lumps, the Lord Steward cleaned them, and so on and so on. The footmen got drunk, and tmoked and made merry in the dormitories, and there was a chaos of confusion and extravagance. In 1836, the year on which the Ciril List was calculated, the corps of Gentlemen-at-Arm 8 was set down at £5,129 : the corps of Yeoman of the Guard for £7,500 ; gentlemen usherg.groome, pages, <fee, for £7,576 ; domestic servants in tho ewry, wine, and beer cellars, clerks of the kitchen's otii.ee, kitchens, confectionery, pastry, table deckers, etc., were counted at £9,938 ; coachmen, postilions, helpers, groome, porters, footmen, and other domestic servants cost £12,563. Yet all these expenses were calculated precisely on the same basis as in the household of William IV. and tho sum of £131,260, which formed the grand total of Class 11., was bodily transferred to the now Civil List. As wich the household salaries in Class 11., so with Clas3 111., which included the tradesmen's bills, and out expenses of the household. This total was £172,300 in 1836, and it is £172,500 today. Yet it brifetlcs with the most ridiculous and extravagant items. The upholsterers and cabinet makers of 1836 filmed foi £11,381 ; soap cost £479 ; surgeons apothecaries and chemists, £11,154 ; £9,472 was paid for butcher's meat ; £3,633 on poultry ; £4,850 on wine ; £1,843 for liqueurs, and £2,811 for ale and beer ; a total of £9,504 expended on intoxicating liquors. Now, what reason is there for continuing this monstrous expenditure ? The Court of William IV., no longer exists ; Buckingham Palace is in the hands of the caretakers ; tho Quoen varies between Osborno, Balmoral, and Windsor, the two former of which are, as Mr Dunckley points out, not Royal Palaces, but private country houses. There is not the slightest need for a tithe of the expense which a drunken King and an extravagant Court incurred, and, as wo know, the wholo household was rigidly cut down under the severe and economical management of tho Prince Consort. What, therefore, is done with the money ? Thore is no occasion for gponding it, no means of spending it. Mr Gladstone failed to show in hie \ery vague and inconclusive speech that there was any means of making away with « sum so large and t»o out of proportion to all modern ideas of great households. We are paying in 1889 not for a modest and thrifty establishment of a lady whose personal habits are, if universal report speaks true, of the same character as that of the people of the country where she loves to dwell, but for the riot and wassail of the earlier years of the century. Riot and waseail are gone ; why do we go on spending the money? Why do we go on paying for three generations of Royalty, when Royalty does not spend — cannot spend — half fcho money wo givo it ? Does £8*24,000 really represont tlio total sa vine's on the Royal Household expenses since 1844?— " Star ."