THE WEALTH OF THE CROWN.
THE question of the wealth of the Royal family has of late years been always turning up in Parliament, and is always settled in one way,—the way the Crown pleases. There is evi- dently, as Baron Stockmar averred, an understanding between the Ministry and the Opposition on the subject, and resistance, or even an attempt at discussion, is entirely useless ; and on the whole, we have always felt it better during the present reign, and while the Electorate remains so ignorant, to support a combination with- out which the Monarchy might be brought into contempt in Europe, might, in fact, suffer under a direct vote of censure from Parliament. The objections brought forward to any Ministerial proposal about Royal property always seems to us very quiet, very sensible, but nevertheless anachronisms. The reason for allow- ing the Sovereign, for instance, the privilege of secrecy of bequest, once so objectionable, because he might bequeath the Crown lands, is palpable. The public, intensely curious as to the details of Royal life, would probably read such wills with avidity, and in its ignorance conceive a violent prejudice against their justice, and in some cases against their authors also. They would ask in a way they do not ask about private persons why such and such bequests were made or omitted to be made, and in a few days per- haps raise the provisions of a private will into a political question of the last importance on the hustings. They would be sure to do this, for instance, about the pensions which must in any country in the world load a Sovereign's will. No European Sovereign is or can be without foreign relatives, foreign dependents, foreign connections of all kinds—in literature, for example, —and all such pensions must be continuous, and all in a will would be misrepresented. Supposing, to put the whole matter in the crudest shape, Baron Stockmar had survived both King Leopold of Belgium and Her Majesty, would it have been possible to leave him to starve? and yet there would have been no book to explain to mankind why the Court physician of Belgium so well deserved reward. There are other possible bequests to poor relations here and there whom the public have quite forgotten to be relations— there are not many hundred persons, for example, aware that Count Gleichen, the Post-Captain, is the Queen's half-brother—which would be violently assailed, under the erroneous idea that they were being paid out of English money, whereas they were being paid out of a fortune which the Queen has as much right to accumu- late as any Mrs. Smith. That certainty of misconception is a fair reason for secrecy, and so also is this,—that without secrecy it would be impossible to obtain appanages for the Royal family. Whatever the wealth of the Sovereign, whether she is really the richest woman in Europe, as the orators say—not an immense assertion, for we doubt the exist- ence of a woman in Europe with £200,000 a year at her dis- posal—or whether she is poorer, as Mr. Gladstone says, than thousands of manufacturers and mine-owners in Great Britain— surely an exaggeration of English fortunes, when the history of the Civil List, of the Nield property, and of other accumulations is re- called—she has equally a right to all she possesses. If an Arch- bishop's son is a vicar, he takes his small tithes even if his father could support him very well. It is absurd to discourage thrift in the Crown, or to talk about the absence of a dignified expenditure. We have a great deal too much of this dignified expenditure, or mad waste, already ; and while a Prince of Wales can hardly manage on £100,000 a year, and subjects give entertainments costing £10,000, or pay £1,000 in a day for cut flowers, it is a most desirable thing that the Sovereign should set an example of simplicity. The Crown must be rich, but if the Monarchy is to stand, it must not be perpetually asking money ; and to allow that, and then use big words about necessary economy, is, except in a Republican, almost ridiculous. Moreover, even if the House of Commons tried to dis- courage such thrift, it could not do it. It might denounce secrecy, or the purchase of land in England, or anything else ; but if the Queen chose to purchase Italian estates yielding ten per cent. instead of three, nobody could prevent her, or take them away, or interfere with her bequest. Sovereigns can find agents who are very faithful, even if they have to find them in brother Kings. No one with an income and beyond arrest can be prohibited from accumulating, or devising, or giving money in any way he or she may choose. The world is a Bourse, and money can, by anyone beyond the action of Courts of Law, be hidden at will, and that in perfect security.
But all this, say the Constitutional theorists, with Mr. Bouverie at their head, constitutes a political danger. Why ? Even Mr. Bouverie would scarcely press the old theory that the money might be used to levy troops without the consent of Ministers. No ex- tent of money would give the Queen ten thousand men to overawe the House of Commons, or defy the Mutiny Act, or pass an Act of Parliament, or do anything else of so violent a kind that the
armed people would be incited to resist. The British Army could scarcely hold down unanimous London, far less the Empire, for with a population like ours, not a tax could be collected till the grievance were removed, while a private army would be extinguished in about two days. The mere suggestion is absurd, belongs to other times and other stages of political education. No doubt a very rich Sovereign might sometimes interfere in the politics of other countries in a very decided way ; a million sterling, for example, might seat Don Carlos, but then, any other millionaire of Carlist opinions might offer the same assistance, and would have infinitely more temptation to do it. As to the accumulation of land in enormous blocks, how is it to be made ? Every acre of England is watched keenly by some intending purchaser, and it is ex- tremely difficult even for a millionaire Duke to get hold of it in enormous blocks. One Duke owns a county, and how much power does that give him over a Rating Bill which might cut him to the bone ? As we read the Bill of Monday and the debate on it, Her Majesty is proposing to herself not a grand accumulation of land, but an ultimate alienation of land for her eldest son's behoof — one of the noblest sacrifices of her reign—but without entering on a subject which may now never arise, we may at least point out this —that it would take two generations of the most rigid carefulness to make the House of Guelph as rich as the House of Grosvenor, and that we are about as likely to have within the next hundred years a series of misers, or even of men of business on the Throne, as to have a series of men of genius, who, we admit, might by conceivable possibility upset a Constitution not particularly well balanced. Even if the dreaded event happened, it is always in the power of Parliament at every new vacancy to take away accumulated lands and make a new agreement. That power has been repeatedly exercised, and there are plenty of men quite ready to bring forward the motion last brought forward by Lord Brougham, but for evident reasons not pressed, that " the wealth of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."
We very much doubt, pace all the Whigs that ever lived, whether the poverty of the Sovereign is the best guarantee for his constitutional action. A poor King has so very little to lose, and so very much to gain. It was the poverty, not the wealth of the Sovereign which produced the Great Rebellion, nor has the country ever been benefited by the want of money, which till this reign has been chronic in the House of Han- over. None of the great Pretenders now seeking their fortunes in Europe are very rich men, and the one little one, whose fortune ranks, say, with that of a great English brewer or bill discounter, is as reluctant to part with it for great enter- prises as other men. Great wealth cools instead of inflaming ambition, while poverty inspires tenacity, and we cannot but think that had they been poor, both Louis Philippe and Isabella of Spain would still have been upon their thrones. Men, and women too, not bothered by debt, or envy of their nobles, or the hunger for power which marks the poor, are after all the men and women best qualified to bear the horrible part constitutional monarchs have to play,—to see the flavoured cup of power always in their hands, and to be always warned by the State physician that it is poisonous to drink.
Previous page
