18 NOVEMBER 1871, Page 9

THE ROYAL HOUSEHOLD,-1788 AND 1871.

SIR CHARLES DILKE'S speech at Newcastle opens up a number of very curious questions, some of the deepest,. some of a comparatively superficial nature. There is probably no element in the national life of England involving so much oD middle-age and even Byzantine archmology as the constitution of what is termed "the Queen's Household." Not a little of phi- lological interest attaches also still, in some cases, to its nomen- clature,—as, for instance, in the use of the word "yeoman," to designate an officer between the " serjeant " and the "assistant" (formerly "groom "), in which case it seems clearly, as in many guild-charters and statutes, to mean simply "young man." Still more precious to the philologist is the term " ewry," as surviving only here, and as representing, with its still current brother-word "ewer," an extinct Norman family of words which have no re- maining near kinship in French beyond the familiar eau ("ewe" in our early statutes), the only modern French word for water- vessel being a South-French form, much more nearly related to aqua,—aiguiere.

We do not go so far as to say that arcbasology and philology .1—nand that the Queen's Household should be kept upon its pre-

sent footing. iikp without a pang the disappearance of the "Hereditary Grand r alconer, aavour of the ages

of romance may cling to the title, and although, Buoy. _ Harlingham pigeon-shooting may appear to us an utterly base and snobbish substitute for the falconer's craft, and, pace Sir Charles Dilke, much less worth the continuance of the Duke of St. Alban's £1,500 a year than his present sinecure. We are strongly inclined to believe that—assuming the pageantry of a Court to be still kept up—a judicious weeding out of superfluous offices from the Household would be practicable, and would pro- bably bring relief in many ways to the Sovereign herself. But there is one element of singular unfairness in Sir Charles Dilke's mode of dealing with the subject. To judge from his speech, one would think that the Household had been hitherto treated as a sacrosanct ark, on which no hand had ever been laid. It is easy to show that this is by no means the case, and that the Sovereign's Household in 1871, however superfluously ample it may yet appear to many, is yet of far scantier dimensions than it wag, say, a century and a half ago.

Take, for instance, the eigthth edition, printed 1738, of that curious book, the Gazetteer and Imperial Calendar, in one of our forefathers', (Chamberlayne's) "Present State of Great Britain and Ireland." We find here the three great divisions or depart- ments of the Household, the same as now,—those of the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Master of the Horse. But if we compare their composition with that given by the "imperial Calendar" for 1871, we shall find great changes. 'The total of 151 persons holding office now in the Lord Steward's department is no doubt considerable. But in 1738 the number seems to have been 198, or between one-third and ono-fourth more. The five "table-deckers," whom Sir Charles Duke falls foul of, were then seven. Whole departments, many officers— some of each with names to make a philologer's mouth water— Lave vanished altogether,—the "Buttery," with its "gentle- man," "yeoman," and three " grooms ;" the " Spicery," with its clerk ; the " Aeatery," with its " serjeant," " sole clerk," and "yeoman of salt stores i" the " Poultery," the " Scalding- house," the " Wood Yard." The 1, Xing'e Privy Kitchen " and the "household Kitchen" are no longer distiuet. Five " turn- broachers " have disappeared from the two ; the " misery man" and the "falser " are gone from the " Pastry ;" " car-takers" and "tail-car-takers" are no more, and with the " bread-bearer " the "cock and crier" has made his exit. The amount of retrench- ment would appear greater still, were it not that seine new officers have been introduced, such as the "steam-apparatus man," un- dreamt of in 1738, or the three gardeners of the Royal gardens of Windsor, Hampton Court, and Buckingham Palace, whose pre- decessors probably figured originally on the staff of the Woods and Forests before this became a public department.

If we turn now to the department of the Lord Chamberlain (which seems to have drawn within itself one or two formerly in- dependent or quasi-independent departments, such as the Chapels Royal, the office of the Master of the Great Wardrobe, the Gentlemen-at-Arms, and Yeomen of the Guard), we find in like manner a considerable diminution of the personnel. As near as the comparison can be made, and including a number of persons who under George II. are included within the Lord Chamberlain's department, but without salaries being affixed to their names, and who may have been mere honorary purveyors, as well as Wardens and Rangers of the Royal Parks, Woodwards, Stewards of Manors, and others who now would form part of a public department, the Corresponding totals appear to be about 575 in 1738 against 430 in 1871, thediminution being almost exactly that of one-fourth. "Cup - bearers," " Carvers," " Gentlemen Sewer's," " Sewers of the Cham- ber," have disiippeared. So have also the " Master of the Revels," with his "yeoman," the "Master of the Tennis-court ;" the "Keeper of the Lions, Lionesses, and Leopards at the Tower ;" and finally, in sharp contrast to the last named, an idyllic personage whose title is redolent of bygone days, the " Strewer of Herbs," with her salary of ,t,21 per annum. One branch of the department, however, has increased by nearly a third,—the Medical branch, over which Sir Charles Diffie made merry. Fifteen persona in all can be viewed as connected with it in 1738, as against the 21 of 1871, including a humble "operator for the teeth," who now figures full-blown as "Surgeon-Dentist." What, however, Sir Charles Dills() did not say, and what ought to be borne in mind, is that thesis appoint- ments are to a great extent viewed as simple acts of recognition by the head of the State of profeesiomd erniuence, so that it is very nearly as absurd to fall foul of the twenty-one physicians, surgeons, &e., to the Queen, as it would be to number the barris- I ters who are "of counsel to Her Majesty," and to ask whatheesqns Queen requires the services of so meny, 01!:e 'eosins. And the same ap.pliee. to the very, metegase recognition by the Crown of Art and Vit'sciatiire. Sir Charles Dilke, it may be observed, does not seem to have ventured to make a butt to his audience of the Poet Laureate- ship, seeing who fills the office, although the Historical Painter to the Queen, the Portrait Painter to the Queen, and the Litho- grapher in Ordinary fell under his ban. For our own part, we should say, if it came to be felt any benefit to art, we should be quite willing to see, not one, but three or four "Sculptors to the Queen," "Engravers to the Queen," "Water-colour Painters to the Queen," "Etchers to the Queen," &c., 8sc. But it may gratify Sir Charles Mike to hear that there was of old a" Serjeant Painter" to the King, as well as a "Painter in Enamel," whose offices have disappeared.

The last department to be noticed is by far the smallest, that of the Master of the Horse. Here, too, in comparing 1738 to 1871, we find considerable retrenchinent,—tweuty-six employee

instead of thirty-four. It is true that the "Royal Hunt," ander the Master of the Buckhouuds (who, under George IL, was under the Lord Chamberlain), is now conjoined with it, bringing an additional contingent of eight, besides the Master and the Heredi- tary Grand Falconer. The details of this sub-department do not appear in the work of 1738, but we do find there another highly- paid officer—implying also probably a separate staff—who has completely vanished, the "Master of the Harriers and Fox Hounds," with his salary of 12,000 a year. Cruel here also towards the philologist have been some of the suppressions of offices, as that of the " Avenar and Clerk Martial," or of the " Clerk of the Avery."

Against these diminutions in the Household there is indeed one set-off. At the head of the list in the Imperial Calendar stands now a small department of 12 persons only, beginning with the name of the "Private Secretary to Her Majesty," and which is emphatically designated " Her Majesty's Household," of which only one or two elements, such as the " Keeper of His Majesty's Library" and the "Keeper of the Privy Purse in Ordinary," are to be found in the lists of 1738, both in the Lord Chamberlain's Departmeut. This is what really represents the personal service required by Her Majesty ; and nothing is more remarkable, as showing the gradual separation which has taken place between the individual Sovereign and the Sovereign's office, than the growth of this distinct personal department of the Household.

On the whole, then, we repeat it, the fair consideration of this subject requires us to bear in mind that a very considerable dimi- nution in the Royal Household, viewed as an apparatus of State pageantry, amounting, we may say roughly, to one-quarter of its personnel, has taken place since the reign of George II. On the other hand, the fact that this diminution (the 'when' and the how' of which we leave to those more learned in such matters than we care to be) has taken place already, affords a strong argument for supposing that further diminution is not impracti- cable ; whilst the separation between the personal and the State departments of the Household, which requires to be more gene- rally known than it is as a fact, and which, as a principle, might probably be carried much further into practice, affords the means of carrying out any well-considered reform of the State depart- ments, without trenching on the rights and comforts, as a lady, of

"the highest lady in the realm." '