1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/608de521cb5991c71bd97c8d6b0a49c6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tFXTsXq0umoL4TmrLdIcCSvzn5k257yVPr4HapMnV7ESsVRc9eomxbyoL5oIJD%7EfUsd8OWTSlDcj4vNlj8nGOyRuygJ8m54iDbw53VKPdR9YN45MmXMX7-oWShSGAh4F9uhJd9NJxILkRWPeC61377XS3pIL8tnhr2o9sBQgZegaTOpCSypYKDbNI49-ouK5f46xn8KlKjSJsf1spiNg-mXD8xTew2lfD%7Egyy1c1TkN-uvOsqrZlu8JBw9pGSew0Y%7EGyfF1piviZ1r28Qbrwqeq26GP-RCBRDb60nyBa%7EB4iZK8iN4FH8IPRoiazvik0eDp4FvAedQBg8KOwk6R8zg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
be99d0910501fa37475a11c54633344b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ROYAL PAUPERS
A Radical’s Contribution
TO
THE
JUBILEE.
SHOWING
What Royalty does for the People
AND
What the People do for Royalty.
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
-------- ---------------
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
'•
■•
4
4
4
4
4
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1887.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�ROYAL PAUPERS.
-----------♦-----------
“ Our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Vic
toria,” as the Prayer Book styles her, has occupied
the throne for nearly half a century, and as she is
blessed with good health and a sound constitution,
she may enjoy that exalted position for another
fifteen or twenty years, and perhaps prevent her
bald-headed eldest son from acceding to the illus
trious dignity of King of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, and Emperor of India.
Whether she does or does not linger on this mortal
stage, and whether the Prince of Wales will or will
not live long enough to succeed her, is a matter of
trifling importance to anyone but themselves and
their families. The nation will have to support “ the
honor and dignity of the throne,” whoever fills it,
without the least abatement of expense; unless,
indeed, the democratic spirit of the age should ques
tion the utility of all “ the pride, pomp, and circum
stance ” of royalty, and either abolish it altogether or
seriously diminish its cost.
This being the fiftieth year of Her Majesty's reign,
the hearts of all the flunkeys in the nation are stirred
to their depths. There is quite an epidemic of
loyalty. Preparations are being made on all sides
�4
to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Busybodies
are meeting, discussing, and projecting. All
sorts of schemes are mooted, but the vital essence of
every one is—Cash ! The arts of beggary are devel
oped on the most magnificent scale, without regard
to the Vagrancy Act; and titled ladies, parsons’
wives, and Primrose Dames, condescend to solicit
pennies from sempstresses and charwomen. The
Prince of Wales, meanwhile, is devoting his genius
and energies to floating the Imperial Institute, which
promises to be a signal failure, unless the Chancellor
of the Exchequer comes to its assistance, because the
royal whim of fixing it in a fashionable quarter, in
stead of in the commercial centre of London, is a
barrier to its success.
How much of the money drained from British
pockets by such means will be spent on really useful
objects ? It may be safely predicted that a consider
able portion will flow into the pockets of the wire
pullers, but will any appreciable amount go to benefit
all classes of the community ? Will there, in parti
cular, be any advantage to the masses of the working
people, whose laborious lives contribute more to the
greatness and prosperity of the state than all the
titled idlers, whether scions of royalty or members of
the aristocracy, who live like gilded flies “basking in
the sunshine of a Court ” ? Time will prove, but
unless we are very much mistaken, the Jubilee will
be just as advantageous to the people as loyal move
ments have ever been.
It is a sign of the wholesome democratic spirit
which is beginning1 to animate the nation, that a few
�5
towns have absolutely refused to trouble their heads,
and still less to tax their pockets, with regard to the
Jubilee. But the most cheerful indication comes
from Wexford. The municipal council of that his
toric Irish city has ventured to make the following
sensible suggestion:
“ If the ministers of the Crown wanted to govern this
country in a quiet and peaceable manner, and not by fire and
sword, they would advise her Majesty to send to the starving
poor of this country, to relieve their distress, the half of that
eight millions which she has lying in the Funds, and which she
has received from the ratepayers. By this means they would
require no Coercion measure, but would make this one of the
most happy, peaceable, and law-abiding countries in the
world.”
This spirited though courteous suggestion implies
that Royalty has done less for the People than the
People have done for Royalty, that the balance of
profit is not on the national side of the account, and
that gratitude is not due by those who confer bene
fits, but by those who receive them.
During the present reign, the Royal family has
obtained from the nation nearly twenty-four million
pounds. What has the nation received in exchange
for that enormous sum ? I do not propose to reckon
in this place the value of the normal functions of
Royalty, as I intend to estimate it when I have calcu
lated the annual cost of the institution. I simply
inquire, at present, what special advantage has
accrued to us from her Majesty, and not another per
son, having worn the crown for the last fifty years.
Ireland may be dismissed from the inquiry at
once. She has no opportunity of gazing on the
Queen’s classical features, or even of being splashed
�6
with the mud of her carriage wheels; and, on the
other hand, the statistics of Ireland’s fifty years’ his
tory show that 1,225,000 of her children have died of
famine, while 3,650,000 have been evicted by the
landlords, and 4,186,000 have emigrated to foreign
lands.
There has, however, been considerable progress in
Great Britain. Our national wealth has immensely
increased, but Royalty has only assisted in spending
it. Science has advanced by gigantic strides, but
Royalty has not enriched it by any brilliant disco
veries ; for since George the Fourth devised a shoe
buckle, the inventive genius of the House of Bruns
wick has lain exhausted and fallow. Our commerce
has extended to every coast, and our ships cover
every sea; but the Prince of Wales’s trip to India,
at our expense, is the only nautical achievement of
his distinguished family, unless we reckon the Duke
of Edinburgh’s quarter-deck performances, and Prince
Lieningen’s exploit in sinking the Mistletoe. Our
people are better educated, but Royalty has not
instructed them. Our newspapers have multiplied
tenfold, but Royalty is only concerned with the Oourt
Circular. The development of the printing press has
placed cheap books in the poorest hands, and our
literature may hold its own against the world. But
what contributions do we owe to Royalty ? Her
Majesty has published two volumes of Leaves from
her j ournal, which had an immense sale, and are now
forgotten. They chronicle the smallest talk, and
express the most commonplace sentiments, the prin
cipal objects on which the Royal author loved to
�7
expatiate being the greatness and goodness of Prince
Albert and the legs and fidelity of John Brown.
Thousands of ladies, and probably thousands of
school-girls, could have turned out a better book.
And when we recollect that the Queers diary was
prepared for the press by the skilful hand of Sir
Arthur Helps, we may be pardoned for wondering
into what depths of inanity he cast his lines to fish
up such miraculous dulness. The only son her
Majesty has lost, and whose expenses the nation has
saved, was “ studious,” as that word is understood
in royal circles; but his speeches, although they were
furbished up by older and abler hands, will never
figure in any collections of eloquence, and it is
doubtful whether a lengthy life would have enabled
him to shine at Penny Readings without the advan
tage of his name. The Prince of Wales’s sons have
also put two big volumes on Mudie’s shelves (it
would be too much to say into circulation), yet their
travelling tutor acted as their literary showman; and
what parts of the exhibition were his and what theirs,
God alone knoweth except themselves.
It is not one of the stipulated functions of a
Queen, but it is reasonably expected, that she should
produce an heir to the throne. Her Majesty, in
obedience to the primal commandment, “Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth,” which is
seldom neglected in royal families, has borne the
desired heir, and many other children to take his
place if he or his offspring should come to an untimely
end. Her progeny is, indeed, remarkably numerous,
if we reckon all the branches, and if they breed like
�8
wise it will ultimately become a serious question
whether they or we shall inhabit England. As it is,
everyone of them is kept by the nation, for Her
Majesty, although fabulously rich, or as Johnson said,
“ wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice,” is never
theless too poor to maintain her own children. We
support them, and in the most extravagant fashion.
Yet they have absolutely no public duties to perform.
The Queen's duties are not onerous, and still less
necessary, but they are real however light. Her
offspring and relatives, however, do nothing for their
pensions. They never did anything, and never expect
to do anything. They are the recipients of public
charity, which does not change its essence because it
is administered by special Acts of Parliament. Dr.
Findlater defines a pauper as “ a poor person : one
supported by charity or some public provision.” Does
not this exactly apply to all our Royal pensioners ? Am
I not strictly justified in calling them Royal Paupers ?
There are paupers in palaces as well as in workhouses,
and in many, if not most cases, the latter are the
more honorable. Thousands of men who have worked
hard in their younger days far scanty wages, hundreds
who have paid rates and taxes to support the state
burdens, have eked out the sombre end of their lives
in the Union, and have been buried in a parish egg
box. They were called paupers, and so they were,
for there is no disputing the fact. But are not they
worse paupers who have never worked at all, who live
on other people from the cradle to the grave, who add
impudence to their dependence, and glory in their
degradation ?
�9
Why should the people fling up their caps and
rend the air with their shouts ? They owe Royalty
nothing, and they have no particular occasion for
gladness. It is, however, perfectly natural that the
Queen and her family should rejoice over her Jubilee.
Fifty years of unearned prosperity is something to
be grateful for, and if the members and dependents
of the House of Brunswick wish to join in a chorus of
thanksgiving, by all means let them do so; but let
them also, out of their well-filled purses, defray the
expenses of the concert.
Let us now estimate the annual cost of these Royal
Paupers, and of the Royal Mother of most of the
brood; in other words, let us reckon the yearly
amount which John Bull pays for the political luxury
of a throne.
When Her Majesty came to the throne, in June,
1837, it was ordered by the House of Commons
ee that the accounts of income and expenditure of the
Civil List from the 1st January to the 31st December,
1836, with an estimate of the probable future charges
of the Civil List of her Majesty, be referred to a
Select Committee of 21 members/'’ Those gentlemen
went to work with great simplicity. They ascer
tained what it cost King William to support “ the
honor and dignity of the Crown” during the last,
year of his reign, and they recommended that Queen
Victoria should be enabled to spend as much money
and a little more, for they put the cost of the various
branches of the Civil List into round figures, and
always to her advantage. One ’of King William/s
bills was £11,381 for “ upholsterers and cabinet-
�1G
makers/'’ but they surely could not have imagined
that her Majesty could require nearly twelve thou
sand pounds* worth of furniture every year. Nor
could they really have thought that she would spend
£3,345 a year on horses, or £4,825 a year on carriages.
Probably they felt that the subject was too sacred for
criticism. At any rate, they speedily produced an
estimate of £385,000 per annum as the amount
necessary “ for the support of her Majesty's house
hold, and of the honor and dignity of the Crown of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.”
The Civil List was settled at this figure by an Act of
Parliament, which received the Royal Assent on
December 23, 1837. No doubt Her Majesty signed
that precious document with the most cordial
satisfaction.
In February, 1840, Her Majesty married. Her
husband, of course, was imported from Germany.
The Queen was anxious that he should be hand
somely supported by Englishmen, Irishmen, and
Scotchmen. A desperate effort was made to procure
him an allowance of £50,000 a-year; but through
the patriotic exertions of a band of Radicals, headed
by Joseph Hume, the sum was reduced to £30,000.
On that paltry income Prince Albert had to live. It
was a severe lesson in economy, but his German
training enabled him to pass through the ordeal, and
in time he increased his scanty income by other
emoluments. He took £6,000 a-year as FieldMarshal; £2,695 a-year as Colonel of the Grenadier
Guards ; £238 a-year as Colonel-in-Chief of the Rifle
Brigade; £1,000 a-year or so in the shape of per-
�11
quisites as Grand Ranger of Windsor Great Park;
£500 a-year or so as Grand Ranger of the Home
Park; and £1,120 a-year as Governor and Constable
of Windsor Castle. Besides these posts, he filled
some which were honorary, and some whose value
was a secret to common mortals. When the lucky
German prince died he left a very large fortune, but
how much he contrived to amass is unknown, for his
will has never been proved.
Returning to the Civil List, we find it divided up
as follows :—Her Majesty's Privy Purse, £60,000;
Household Salaries, £131,260; Tradesmen's Bills,
£172,500; Royal Bounty and Special Services,
£9,000 ; Alms and Charity, £4,200 ; Unappropriated
Money, £8,040—Total, £385,000.
The £60,000 of Privy Purse money the Queen
spends as she pleases. She can say like Shylock,
“'Tis mine, and I will have it." The £8,040 of
Unappropriated Money appears to have been thrown
in to make up a round rum, or perhaps to provide the
Queen with pin-money, so that she might not go abroad
without small change in her pocket. The £13,200
for Bounty and Alms is supposed to be spent on
deserving objects of charity. How much of it is
spent we know not. But the fact that the sum is
voted for that purpose is calculated to lessen our
appreciation of Royal benevolence. When the ladies
get hold of the morning papers, and see by the Daily
Telegraph, or some other loyal newspaper, that Her
Majesty has sent so much to this charity, and so much
to that, they exclaim, “ What a dear good lady the
Queen is to be sure." They never suspect that her
�12
Majesty’s charity is exercised with other people’s
money. The poorest and the most penurious might
be charitable on the same easy conditions.
According to the Civil List Act, the other sums
were to be rigorously spent in maintaining the Royal
dignity; indeed, a clause was inserted to prevent
savings, except of trifling amount, from being carried
from one category to another. Yet it is well-known
that many sinecure offices in the Royal Household
have been abolished, while large reductions have been
made in the Household expenditure. Who benefits
by these savings ? Can any person do so but the
Queen ? Would she allow them to be appropriated
by others ? But if she “ pockets the difference ” it
is in violation of the Act. Whatever reductions are
made, so much less is admitted to be necessary for
the purposes specified by law, and it is the sovereign
who makes the admission.
Surely, then, these
savings, these reductions in the expenditure on
maintaining “ the honor and dignity of the Crown,”
should accrue to the State, and not swell the private
income of a fabulously rich old lady.
We shall peep into the Royal Household presently.
Before doing so, however, we must see the full extent
of the Queen’s resources. Besides what she derives
from the Prince Consort’s will, she has the income
accruing from the Nield legacy. Mr. J. C. Yield
died in 1852, and not knowing a more proper object
of charity, he left his poor Queen the sum of £250,000,
in addition to real estate. Her Majesty is reported
to have invested heavily in the Funds. She has also
private estates in England and Scotland, to say
�13
nothing of her estates in Germany. They are
returned as 37,643 acres, at an annual rental of
£27,995. Finally, there is the splendid revenue of
the Duchy of Lancaster, which, in 1886, amounted
to £45,000.
Being so enormously wealthy, her Majesty might,
taste the luxury of contributing, however slightly,
to the expenses of government. She voluntarily
undertook to do so in 1842, but never appears to
have kept her word. When Sir Robert Peel intro
duced his Income Tax Bill, in August of that year,
he made the following announcement:
“ I may take this opportunity of making a communication
which, I am confident, will be received by the House with
great satisfaction. When in an interview with her Majesty,
a short time since, I intimated that her Majesty’s servants
thought that the financial difficulties of the country were
such that it was desirable, for the public interest, to submit,
all the income of this country to a charge of £3 per cent.,
her Majesty, prompted by those feelings of deep and affec
tionate interest which she has always shown for the welfare
and happiness of her people, observed to me that if the
necessities of the country were such that, in time of peace,
it was necessary to impose a charge of £3 per cent, on income,
it was her own voluntary determination that her own
income should be subject to a similar deduction.”
There is no positive proof, but there is negative
proof, that this “ voluntary determination” was not
carried out. Mr. C. E. Macqueen, secretary of the
Financial Reform Association, wrote to Mr. J.
Wilson, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on
December 1, 1855, inquiring “ whether her Majesty
and the Royal Consort contribute their respective
quotas to the income and property tax.’'’ Mr. Wilson
replied that it was contrary to practice to answer
�14
such inquiries. He was technically right, but his
official reserve would scarcely have prevented his
making the statement, if it could be made, that Her
Majesty had paid the tax in accordance with her
promise. So much for the Queen’s “ deep and affec
tionate interest in the welfare and happiness of her
people.”
It should be added that the Royal estates escape
all Probate Duty, and that none of the Royal Family
have to pay Legacy and Succession Duties. Every
thing is arranged by a loyal nation for their comfort
and profit.
But, strange as it may sound, we have not yet done
with the cost of a Queen. There is a long list of
further expenses which, for the sake of convenience,
and that the reader may get a bird’s-eye view of
them, I print in a tabular form. The figures given
are for the year 1884-5.
Pensions granted by hei’ Majesty
.............. £24,072
Royal Palaces, occupied wholly or partially by
her Majesty ..............................................
15,466
Royal Palaces, not occupied by her Majesty ...
19,783
Royal Yachts, etc.................................................
39,732
Royal Escort (Household Troops, etc.)..............
31,150
£130,203
Here we have £130,203 expended by or on the
Sovereign, in addition to the Civil List of £385,000
and the revenue of £45,000 from the Duchy of Lan
caster. This makes a grand total of £560,203.
What a sum to lavish on the pride and luxury of
one person ! The President of the United States
only receives £10,000 a year. It is evident, there
�15
fore, unless there is no truth in Cocker, that the
people of this old country fancy a Queen is worth
fifty-six Presidents. The Yankees, however, have
a very different opinion: they laugh at John Bull for
lavishing so much wealth on a single human being,
and facetiously ask him why he complains of bad
trade and hard times when he can afford to fool away
his money in that fashion.
Now, let us turn our profane gaze into the sacred
arcana of the Boyal Household, ft is a pity that
such a glorious Flunkey's Paradise cannot be accu
rately and graphically described by a master hand.
What a wonderful picture of sinecure sloth and
corruption it would be to posterity ! Some writer,
with the pen of a Dickens steeped in the gall of a
Carlyle, should have a carte blanche commission for
the task. He should have unlimited opportunity to
study the ins and outs of the establishment, and the
lives of its officers and servants; and he should be
free to write exactly what he saw and heard, as well
as his own reflections on the matter. Were that
done, there would be at least one imperishable
monument of “ low ambition and the pride of kings."
There is no accessible account of the detailed ex
penditure in this Flunkey's Paradise at present, but
we have a full account of the expenditure in 1836,
on which the amount necessary for Tradesmen's
Bills was calculated. In the Lord Chamberlain's
department there is a bill of £11,381 for “uphols
terers and cabinetmakers," and another of £4,119
for “ locksmiths, ironmongers, and armorers." £284
is paid to sempstresses, so there must be a deal of
�16
shirt-making and mending. The washing bill is
£3,014, and £479 is paid for soap. Doctors and
chemists receive £1,951 for attending and physicing
the flunkeys. Turning to the Lord Steward’s De
partment, we find £2,050 worth of bread consumed,
and £4,976 worth of butter, bacon, eggs, and cheese.
The butcher’s bill comes to £9,472, and the amount
is so great that one wonders there is not a royal
slaughter-house. The flunkeys and the cats con
sumed £1,478 worth of milk and cream, and perhaps
the cats helped the flunkeys to devour the £1,979
Worth of fish. Groceries come to £4,644, fruit and
confectionery to £1,741, wines to £4,850, liqueurs,
etc., to £1,843, and ale and beer to £2,811. Ifthere
is as much boozing now in the Royal Household, it
is high time that Sir Wilfrid Lawson turned his
attention to the subject. The New River Water
Company would supply Buckingham Palace, at least,
with a sufficiency of guzzle at a much cheaper rate.
The nation would gain by the change, and if the
superior flunkeys’ noses were compulsorily toned
down, it might not be very much to their disadvan
tage either.
The Household Salaries are allotted to hundreds
of flunkeys, from the Lord Chamberlain to the
lowest groom or porter. All the chief officials are
lords and ladies. These have to be in immediate
attendance, and Royalty could not tolerate the con
tiguity of plebeians. Pah I an ounce of civet, good
apothecary !
Chief of the flunkeys is the Lord Chamberlain.
This nobleman’s salary is £2,000 a year. He is the
�17
master of the ceremonies, and has to be perfect in
the punctilios of etiquette. Besides looking after
the other flunkeys, he oversees the removal of beds
and wardrobes, and superintends the revels, corona
tions, marriages, and funerals. Lest these onerous
duties should impair his health, he has a Vice
Chamberlain, who is also a nobleman, to assist him at
a salary of £924 a year. Undei’ these gentlemen
there is an Examiner of Plays. This person is paid
£400 a year, besides fees, to decide what plays shall
be placed on the stage. He is also authorised to
strike out from the plays he condescends to license
everything likely to contaminate the public morals,
or bring the Church and State into disrespect. This
official is almighty and irresponsible. There is no
appeal against his fiat. Thirty-five millions of people
have to be satisfied with what he permits them. He
is the despot of the drama; they are his slaves; and
they pay him "several hundreds a year by way of gild
ing their fetters. The result is precisely what might
be expected. While the most vulgar farces and the
most suggestive opera, bouffe are licensed for the pub
lic delectation, some of the noblest masterpieces of
continental dramatic literature are tabooed, because
they deal with profound problems of life and thought
in a manner that might affront the susceptibilities of
Bumble and Mrs. Grundy. Even Shelley's Cenci was
prohibited, and the Shelley Society was obliged to
circumvent the Examiner of Plays by resorting to a
“ private performance." No matter that the loftiest
names in current English literature were associated
with the production of this magnificent play; the
�18
authority of Robert Browning and Algernon Swin
burne was overshadowed by that of the autocrat of
the Lord Chamberlain’s office, who has no standing
in the republic of letters, whose very name is un
known to the multitude of playgoers, who belongs to
the ranks of what Shelley called “ the illustrious
obscure.”
Among the female flunkeys, if I may be allowed
the appellation, are the Mistress of the Robes, with
£500 a year, and eight Ladies of the Bedchamber,
with the same salary. They are required to keep
Her Majesty company for a fortnight, three times in
the course of each year, and when in attendance they
dine at the Royal table. There are also eight Bed
chamber women, at £300 a year each, to serve in
rotation; and eight Maids of Honor, at the same
salary, who reside with Her Majesty in couples, for
four weeks at a time. It was remarked, in the days
of Swift, that Maids of Honor was a queer title, as
they were neither the one nor the other. But let us
hope that a great improvement has taken place since
then.
There is a large Ecclesiastical staff attached to
the Royal Household, but it only costs £1,236 a year.
The smallness of the sum does not imply that clergy
men are cheap, but that many will gladly officiate for
little or nothing at Court, as such appointments are
always considered stepping-stones to valuable pre
ferments.
More than twice as much is expended on the
mortal bodies of the Royal Household as on their
immortal souls. £2,700 a year is paid to Court
�19
physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, and chiropodists,
some receiving salaries, and others fees when in
attendance.
The salaries of the Kitchen Department amount to
no less than £9,983 a year, enough to excite the
wonder of Lucullus. We have no space to recite the
interminable list of menials. Suffice it to say that
the wine-taster has a salary of £500, the chief con
fectioner £300, the chief cook £700, and three
master cooks £350 each. There are also three
well-paid yeomen in charge of the Royal plate,
the value of which is reckoned at two millions
sterling.
Lowest of all in the scale of payment is the Poet
Laureate. His post is a survival of Feudalism. The
Court used to keep a dwarf and a jester, but these
have been discarded, and only the versifier is retained.
His duty is to grind out loyal odes whenever a
member of the Royal family is born, marries, or dies.
A more wretched office could scarcely be conceived.
Yet it is held by Lord Tennyson, who bestows the ex
crements of his genius on the Court. His latest Jubilee
Ode might have been composed by a printer’s devil,
whose brains were muddled by two poems of Walt
Whitman and Martin Tupper set in alternate lines.
The salary of the Laureateship is £100 a year. Seven
hundred a year to the chief cook, and one hundred a
year to the poet! Such are the respective values of
cooking and poetry in the Royal estimation. When
Gibbon presented the second volume of his immortal
histoiy to George the Third, the farmer-king could
only exclaim, “ What, another big book, Mr.
�20
Gibbon ? ” The House of Brunswick has thus been
consistent in its appreciation of literature.
Having taken a rapid look at the Court Flunkeys,
let us come to the great brood of Royal Paupers.
Such a poverty-stricken woman as the Queen cannot
be expected to maintain her children; they are there
fore supported by the State on a scale commensurate
with the Civil List.
The Princess Royal, who is the wife of the Crown
Prince of Germany, receives £8,000 a year. When
she married the nation voted her a dowry of £40,000,
and £5,000 was devoted to fitting up the Chapel
Royal for the wedding.
The Prince of Wales has a pension of £40,000 a
year. He takes £1,350 for the colonelcy of the Tenth
Hussars, a purely sinecure office. Probably the regi
ment would not recognise him if they saw him in
uniform. He lives rent free in Marlborough House,
on which £2,120 was spent in repairs in 1884-5, and
there is a somewhat similar bill every year. The
revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall swell the Prince’s
income by £64,641. Those were the figures in the
year just referred to. During his minority the
revenues of the Duchy accumulated to the amount of
£601,721. A third of this sum was invested in the
purchase of his Sandringham estate, and the rest in
other ways. Returns show that the Prince has
8,079 acres in Norfolk, and 6,810 in Aberdeenshire,
the rental being given at the extremely low figure of
£9,727.
When the Prince of Wales married, the nation
voted him an extra grant of £23,455, and as he was
�21
too poor to support a wife £10,000 a year was secured
to her from the national purse, with a further pro
mise of its being made £30,000 if she survives her
husband. When the Prince visited India, in 1875,
he was allowed £142,000 for the expenses of the
trip, £60,000 being pocket money, for the exercise of
generosity. The presents he gave we paid for; the
presents he received are his. Evidently the Prince
of Wales has much to be thankful for, and he may
celebrate the Jubilee with the utmost cordiality.
Even if he never becomes king, he will have had a
fine old time, and his appearance shows how well it
agrees with him.
The Duke of Edinburgh was voted £15,000 a-year
on attaining his majority in 1866. When he married,
in 1874, the amount was increased to £25,000,
although a few brave and honest Radicals opposed
the additional grant to the Prince “ for marrying
the richest heiress in Europe
His wife is the Czar’s
daughter; she brought him a private fortune of
£90,000, a marriage portion of £300,000, and a life
annuity of £11,250. Being a royal pauper, the
Duke does nothing for his pension. He takes
£3,102 for his post in the navy. They give him
command of the Mediterranean Fleet in time of
peace, but in time of war his fiddling tunes might
be preferable to his shouting orders. Let us, however,
be fair. There are some who say that he handles a
fleet splendidly; yet there are others who believe
that if the Peers took a trip round the world in one
of our ironclads, under the actual command of the
Duke of Edinburgh, there would be no need to
�22
agitate for their abolition. We may add that the
Duke has a yearly allowance of £1,800 from SaxeCobourg, and on the death of his uncle, the reigning
Duke, he will inherit a fortune of £30,000 a year.
AVhen he comes into that windfall he will, perhaps,
resign the pension of £25,000 a year he draws from
us. It would be a graceful act. But, alas! the House
of Brunswick has never been noted for grace.
The Princess Christian receives £6,000 a year,
and £30,000 was voted to her on her mam'a,go, The
Princess Louise had a similar dowry, and her pension
is also £6,000 a year. The Duchess of Albany,
widow of Prince Leopold, has £6,000, the Princess
Mary £5,000, and the Princess Augusta £3,000.
The Duke of Connaught's pension is £25,000. His
military reputation was achieved in Egypt, where
Lord Wolseley officiated as his wet-nurse. He was
kept out of danger, and specially mentioned in a des
patch from the field of battle. At present he is
Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, a post whose
abolition was recommended by the Military Com
mission. He draws pay at the rate of £6,000 a year.
Sir John Gorst will ask Parliament to pass a Bill
authorising the Duke to come home to celebrate the
Jubilee without forfeiting his office. Of course the .
Bill will pass, but the cream of the joke is that we
shall have to pay the cost of his journey. The move
ments of princes are expensive. The national
exchequer trembles when they blow their noses.
Another Royal Paupei’ of the warrior caste is the
Duke of Cambridge, This Prince is the Queen’s
uncle. His pension is £12,000 a year. His salary
�23
and perquisites as Banger of St. James’s, Green, Hyde,
and Richmond Parks are estimated at over £2,000 a
year. As Field Marshal Commander-in-Chief he
takes £4,500 a year. He is also Colonel of the
Grenadier Guards at £2,132 a year. His military /
genius is renowned throughout the world, and
his noble brow is circled with the deathless laurels
he won in the Crimea. His corpulence makes him
a commanding figure, and although his sword is
not famous, his umbrella is the terror of our enemies.
It only remains to add that poverty prevents him
from maintaining a wife. The Duchess of Cambridge,
therefore, enjoys a separate pension of £6,000 a year.
Besides the Royal pensioners, there are a few of
the Queen’s relatives (Germans, of course) who
sponge on the British taxpayer. Prince Edward of
Saxe-Weimar draws £3,384 a year from the Army,
and his Dublin residence is worth another thousand.
Prince Deiningen takes £593 a year as a half-pay
Vice-Admiral. Count Gleichen receives £740 as a
retired Vice-Admiral, and £1,120 as Governor of
Windsor Castle.
There is always a make-weight, even in accounts.
Accordingly we find a lot of extra expense in the
£4,881 paid in pensions to various surviving friends
and servants of George III., George IV., William IV.,
and Queen Charlotte.
Directly and indirectly the Royal Family costs the
nation the stupendous sum of £808,316 a year. The
vastness of such an amount is difficult for ordinary
minds to realise. Let us, therefore, analyse it, and
see what it makes in detail. It would maintain
�24
10,365 families at £1 10s. a week. It represents
£2,215 every day, £92 an hour, and £1 10s. 6d. every
minute. We frequently hear it said that the payment
of Members of Parliament would be too expensive.
But £300 a year is the outside salary proposed by
Radicals; and the annual cost of the Royal Family
would suffice to pay every member of the House of
Commons that salary four times over.
Thick-and-thin loyalists sometimes urge that we
have no right to grumble at the expense of Royalty.
The sovereign, they say, accepts a Civil List in lieu
of the Royal Revenues, and the nation gains by the
contract. But this argument is unconstitutional.
The Crown Revenues are not private property; they
belong to the monarch, just as the crown does, by
virtue of Acts of Parliament, and all Acts of Parlia
ment can be modified or repealed. If the Crown
Lands, for instance, were personal estate, they could
not be alienated from the present possessor. Should
the Queen, however, turn Roman Catholic, she could
not continue to occupy the throne. The Prince of
Wales would succeed her at once, and if Tie turned
Roman Catholic, the next heir would immediately
succeed him. In each case the Crown Revenues
would change hands. It is obvious, therefore, that
those Revenues are the appanage of the Crown solely
by virtue of law ; and it necessarily follows that the
nation has the legal as well as the moral right to
settle the Civil List as it pleases.
Other Loyalists urge the spendthrift objection that
the cost of the Royal Family- is trifling when distri
buted over the entire population. Why make a fuss,
r
�25
they ask, about fivepence half-penny each ? It is less
than the price of a quart of beer, or two ounces of cheap
tobacco. True, but many mickles make a muckle. The
lavish expenditure on Royalty corrupts our national
'economy. The cost of government, the expenses of the
Army and Navy, rise higher and higher every year.
Since the Queen’s accession, indeed, they have nearly
quadrupled. A nation cannot waste its money on titled
idlers without lavishing it shamefully in other
directions.
There is another way of replying to this foolish
objection.
What good might be done with that
£808,316 a year if it were otherwise expended ! It
would maintain museums, art galleries, and public
libraries throughout the country on the most munifi
cent scale, as the following table very clearly shows.
Towns.
Per Year.
Total.
5 at £20,000 = £100,000
10,000 = 100,000
10 „
5,000 =
20 „
100,000
2,500 =
40 „
100,000
100 „
1,000 =
100,000
616 „
500 =
308,000
£808,000
This is only one illustration. The ingenious reader
will think of many more, and he can work out the
figures himself.
Now let us glance at the functions of Royalty. We
have seen its cost, and we must try to ascertain its
worth.
�26
“ The King reigns but does not govern," and
therefore “the King can do no wrong.’' These
maxims of constitutional monarchy imply that the
sovereign exercises no direct power.
Even Lord
Salisbury, who is a thorough-paced courtier, would
shrink from publicly maintaining “ the right divine
of Kings to govern wrong." The Queen rules through
her Ministers. What they resolve on is executed in
her name. But she herself has no choice in the
matter. She is nominally able to refuse her assent
to an Act which has passed both branches of the
Legislature, but the first time she ventured to exert
that cc right ” the Crown would be brought into^dangerous collision with the people. Nor can* her
Ministers act without the Consent of Parliament. The
monarchy has been gradually shorn of its perogatives,
until it has become a political fiction. We are
really living under a veiled Republic, and the sooner
the mischievous and costly disguise-is flung aside the
better for the welfare and integrity of the nation.
Calling one of her “ subjects ” to form a Ministry
is the Queen’s first function. But this involves no
wisdom or decision, for there is no choice. It is not
Her Majesty,‘but the electorate, that decides who
shall be Premier. The Queen simply summons the
acknowledged leader of whichever party triumphs at
the ballot. If the Conservatives win she calls Lord
Salisbury, if the Liberals win she calls Mr. Gladstone.
Her personal wishes count for less than those of the
humblest ratepayer, for he has a vote and she has none.
Her next business is to open and close Parliament.
This duty, however, is seldom performed. Her
�Majesty rarely emerges from her widowed seclusion,
except to give a fillip to a Tory government. For
many years after Prince Albert’s death she felt
unequal to the exertion, although she had strength
enough to participate in ghillie balls. If a washer
woman complained that she was so cut up by the
death of her husband that it was impossible to work,
and expected regular payment without sending home
any clean linen, she would quickly weary her patrons,
and find it prudent to return to the tub. Yet a
Queen can indulge in the luxury of woe for twenty
years, and her flatterers will account it a virtue.
Thomas Carlyle wrote a significant little sentence on
this subject. Acknowledging a presentation copy of
Gilchrist’s Life of William Blake, which Mrs. Gilchrist
bravely saw through the press after her husband’s
death, Carlyle wrote : “ Your own little Preface is all
that is proper—could but the Queen of these realms
have been as Queen-like in her widowhood I ”
As for the Queen’s Speech, it is a ridiculous farce.
The document is drawn up by the Ministry, and its
sentiments differ with the succession of parties.
Generally, too. it is read by proxy. Her Majesty,
therefore, neither reads it nor writes it.
It is no
more hers than mine.
When Parliament is opened or prorogued in the
Queen’s absence, the royal robes are thrown over the
royal chair, and the Lords bow in passing them,
precisely as though the sovereign sat there. The
garments do as well as the wearer. Why, then, go
to the expense of filling them out ? With all rever
ence, I make the following suggestion. Let half-a-
�dozen of our finest artists be commissioned to carve
and chase a Phidean statue in ivory and gold, tn
occupy the royal chair instead of the Queen. The
expense would be incurred once for all, and we
should know the full extent of our liability. The
present monarchical idol could then be discarded for
the cheaper substitute, which would probably be quite
as useful, and certainly quite as handsome.
Next, her Majesty signs Acts of Parliament. I
would undertake to sign them all for £50 a year, and
my handwriting is as good as the Queen’s. As a
matter of fact, it is not the Royal signature that gives
validity to statutes. During one of George the Third’s,
fits of insanity, it is said that Lord Eldon used acounterfeit of the King’s signature, which was
engraved for the purpose; yet the Acts of Parliament
thus ratified were no less operative than those which
bore the King’s autograph. Under the Common
wealth the Great Seal was broken up, and a new one
substituted. On one side was a map of England
and Ireland; on the other, the device, “ In the first
year of freedom, by God’s blessing restored.” AIL
resolutions and orders of the House were signed by
the Speaker as nominal Chief of the State. “ Mr..
Speaker ” is still the First Commoner, and why can
not his signature be attached to Acts of Parliament
instead of an hereditary official’s ? The laws of a freecountry are the expression of the people’s will, and
they depend on no individual’s concurrence for theirvalidity and force.
These are absolutely all the“ functions” of Royalty,,
though there are other reasons adduced in its favor..
�29
While we retain a throne, filled by hereditary right,
it is urged that we avoid an undignified scramble for
the highest position in the State. But what scramble
is there for the Presidency in France ? Or what
particular scramble is there for it in the United
States, where the President is elected by a kind of
plebiscite ? Whatever scramble there is, some very
good men manage to win. From Washington to
Cleveland there have been many illustrious names.
Have we had a single sovereign who could be men
tioned in the same breath with the best of them ?'
What is our boast ? George the Third, the madman
George the Fourth, the profligate; William the
Fourth, the ninny; and Victoria, whose loftiest virtue
is that, being a Queen, she has lived like an honest
woman. The single name of Lincoln outweighs a
thousand such; nay, compared with his greatness,
they are but dust in the balance.
We are further told that Society (with a capital S)
must have a head. But what' is this Society ? Does
it include the great thinkers and workers, th ez poets,
artists, philosophers, and scientists ? No; it com
prises the lazy, pampered classes, whose wealth and
titles are their only passports to esteem, whose highest
ambition is to be presented at Court and invited to
royal levees. These people are not a sign of national
health, but a sign of national disease. Let them, if
they must, pursue their idle round of foolish pleasure,
but let them elect and support their own “ head ”
without expecting the nation to countenance their
frivolity by maintaining the Head of the State as the
master or mista\ ss of their foppish ceremonies.
�Lastly, the monarchy is defended on the ground
that a State must have a figure-head. But this is a
fatal plea. When monarchy was a reality the King
stood at the helm. If the sovereign is to be an orna
mental figure under the bowsprit, why should he cost
us an admiral’s salary for painting and gilding ?
Besides, figure-heads become very expensive when
they beget little figure-heads, whose maintenance in
a proper state of decoration is a first charge on the
freightage.
There is one function which her Majesty, ever
since Prince Albert’s death, has been unconsciously
performing. She has been teaching the people that
the monarchy is not indispensable. By habituating
them to dispense with its forms and pageants, she
has shown them how unessential it is to our political
life. Without the least intention, she has been pre
paring the way for a Republic. A few timid Radi
cals, and many Liberals, may stand aghast at the
prospect, but they cannot escape the result of cen
turies of historic tendency. From the day when the
Long Parliament condemned to death ie the man
Charles Stuart,” and established a Commonwealth,
“without King or House of Lords,” the fire of
Republicanism has never been extinguished in the
heart of England. It was allayed by Cromwell, and
it almost expired under Charles the Second, but it
faintly revived under his successor, and it has
gradually strengthened ever since. It gleamed
in many an epigram of Pope, it shone in the
eloquence of Bolingbroke, it quivered in many a
line of Cowper, it kindled the young muse of Words-
�31
worth, it glowed in the songs of Burns, it coruscated
in the satire .of Byron, it flamed in the lyrics of
Shelley, it burned with a steady light in the prose of
Thomas Paine. Nor was the noble tradition lost in
the reaction after the French Revolution. For two
generations it survived in the genius of Landor, and
since his death it has inspired the genius of Swinburne.
Royalty is now moribund, and democracy is striding
to the throne. After centuries of slumber the
People are at length awake, and the noble words
of John Milton may be re-echoed in a later age.
“ Methinks 1 see in my mind a noble and puissant
nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep,
and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I
see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth,
and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full
midday beam, purging and unsealing her longabused sight at the fountain itself of heavenly
radiance/'’ While she was asleep the privileged
classes, from the monarch to the meanest aristocrat,
battened upon her like vampires. But their night is
over. They lurk and wait in vain for her relapse.
They fancy the daylight an illusion, yet they are~
deceived. Democracy is like the grave, it yields
nothing back; and a nation once awakened does not
sleep again until she dies. The day of her freedom
is the day of her life. For as';the dull sense of the
brute grows into full consciousness in man, s® the
rude instincts of the multitude grow into the con
scious life of a people, widening and clearing for
evermore.
�THE
Shadow of the Sword.
SECOND EDITION,
REVISED
AND
ENLARGED.
BY
Gm Wm FOOTE.
PRICE
TWOPKWOE.
PRESS OPINIONS.
“ An ably-written pamphlet, exposing the horrors of war and
the burdens imposed upon the people by the war systems of
Europe. . . . The author deserves thanks for this timely publi
cation.”—Echo.
“ A trenchant exposure of the folly of war, which everyone
should read.”—Weekly Times.
“ A wonderfully eloquent denunciation of the war fever.”—
Birmingham Owl.
“ This pamphlet presents us with some startling truths that are
well worth preserving.”—The People (Wexford).
“ Should be in the hands of all advocates of peace.”—Our
Corner.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
f
r.
V
jk
f
F
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N262
Subject
The topic of the resource
Monarchy
Republicanism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Monarchy-Great Britain
NSS
Queen Victoria
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c52086dca71b0ed83cb53d75bda3a8ea.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nWpD9%7EU1UAS3IOo86RCYWIV32Msdw4rHnKNLmCzPoLGS0TXKmwGdqhFveh8T%7EqRerMzzZtyJqfbrDjikvFXKBTDQo1qek4URIOqrceLQql86C8MZ5ImsouGoKClj7lhmDJnuutBSsBywlgiSK2UVlf5EBzkGMSqUwG7scm3XewtMgf2aA3GoGm6ws%7EhApSMlaAEaRwqR2o2XWUCZkwbo3-NCt8eqwVRE%7Elf-hW8P0rhOo4Vm8A%7EnwYKOjARHUjaYE0bWu%7EXU8XYl0mOIliTWd0RDe%7EzHUDfxP5vPFb7wUkGon7-ed6aV6vPUnkVDsbL8zJbXx2MKv20i6KU-dhwZAw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ad9e85b989a0c13b0084e223c3073d02
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
grfte Atheistic platform.
X.
DOES
ROYALTY
PAY?
GEORGE STANDRING,
Editor
of
“The Republican.”
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 884.
PRICE
ONE PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Under this title is being issued a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which consists of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethought advocate. Any
question may be selected, provided that it has formed the
subject of a lecture delivered from the platform by an
Atheist. It is desired to show that the Atheistic platform
is used for the service of humanity, and that Atheists war
against tyranny of every kind, tyranny of king and god,
political, social, and theological.
Each issue consists of sixteen pages, and is published at
one penny. Each writer is responsible only for his or her
own views.
1. —“ What is the use of Prayer ? ” By Annie Besant.
2. —“ Mind considered as a Bodily Function. By Alice
Bradlaugh.
3. —“ The Gospel of Evolution.” By Edward Aveljng,
D.Sc.
4. —“ England’s Balance-Sheet.” By Charles Bradlaugh.
5. —“ The Story of the Soudan.” By Annie Besant.
G.—“ Nature and the Gods.” By Arthur B. Moss.
These Six, in Wrapper, Sixpence.
7. —“ Some Objections to Socialism.” By Charles Brad
laugh.
8. —“Is Darwinism Atheistic?” By Charles Cockbill
Cattell.
9. —“ The Myth of the Resurrection.” By Annie Besant.
�DOES ROYALTY PAY?
TFriends,—Napoleon I. is said to have described the
English as a “nation of shopkeepers,” that is, a people
whose minds were “cribb’d, cabin’d, and confin’d” by the
sordid considerations of commerce, and were unable to
rise to the grandeur of the occasion when wars of conquest
and schemes of European domination were in question.
It is to you as shopkeepers or as commercial men that I
now wish to propound this question: 11 Does Royalty
Pay<n Is it a profitable investment to the nation? Is
?'
our servant paid too high a wage? Is it necessary, or
even prudent, to retain his “ services ” any longer ?
No employer of labor would fail to ask himself such a
question as regards the men in his employ. A large mill
owner, paying an overseer £1000 per annum to superin
tend his business, would find it necessary to make some
alteration in his arrangements if he were to find that, for
several months during the year his servant’s coat, thrown
over an empty chair, alone represented the individual
whom he employed! Such a system of business surely
would not “ pay.”
The national balance-sheet in regard to royalty would
stand thus :
Expenditure.
Receipts.
£
s. d.
£ s. fd.
To Guelph & Co., one
year’s salaries and
expenses .. .. 1,000,000 0 0
By services ren
dered per con
tra ................... 0 0 0
Surely this is a most unsatisfactory item in the accounts
of the nation! Let us see in what fashion this expensive
encumbrance of a useless monarchy has come down to us.
�148
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
By tracing the history of royalty in England through a
few of its most important phases, we shall be able to arrive
at a true estimate of its position and character in these latter
days. We shall see monarchy gradually dwindling from
a position of absolute dominance to its present degraded
and anomalous condition. Together with an oppressed
and uncivilised people we find a powerful sovereign; with
a free and enlightened nation monarchy exists but as a
mere costly sham. From this I think we may fairly infer
that the system we are discussing is fit only for a crude
and barbarous stage of society; and that with the growth
of popular intelligence and patriotism the old dominance
becomes less and less possible.
When William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, assisted
by a select band of continental cut-throats, invaded Eng
land and vanquished the Saxons, he established the feudal
system in its most rigorous form. The barons to whom he
allotted the land were responsible to him, and to him alone,
for their actions. The people were simply serfs or villeins,
without rights or duties as citizens. They were mere
chattels appertaining to the estates of their lords and
owners, and politically were of no account whatever. Thus
the centralised power of the Crown was originally domi
nant ; the nobles existed as dependents of the Crown, and
the people, as a political power, were practically non
existent. Thus was the “ State ” constituted towards the
end of the eleventh century.
It would be a most interesting study,'but it is absolutely
impossible to pursue it within the limits of a lecture, to
trace the gradual development of popular liberty; to see
the quarrels between the Crown and the nobles ; to observe
the first struggles of the populace in the direction of
freedom and independence. It will, however, be possible
to glance at certain epochs of our history in which the
gradual decay of the monarchical institution may be
traced.
First, then, let us turn to the period when the principle
of “Divine Bight ” was eliminated from English royalty.
Charles I. appears to have conscientiously held the view
that the Almighty had selected the Stuart family as “fit
and proper persons” to hold absolute and irresponsible
sway over the British people. With the courage of his
convictions, he sought to enforce his views, even to the
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
149
-desperate length of a resort to arms. God upon that occa
sion did not support his chosen one; and when the head of
Charles fell upon the scaffold at Whitehall it may be said
the doctrine of divine right fell with it, for it has never
been seriously maintained, as a political principle, in Eng
land since that time.
If we turn now to the end of the seventeenth century,
we shall note a further advance in the direction of popular
freedom. James II. had become so obnoxious to the
■country that he wisely fled and abandoned the throne.
William, Prince of Orange, was therefore invited by the
Lords and Commons to assume the Crown. An attempt
was made, however, to limit William’s authority, and to
this the Dutch prince would not agree. He told the English representatives that he was perfectly contented with
his position in Holland; a crown was no great thing, and
he had no wish for it; the English had sought him and
not he the English; and if they wished for his services
“they must agree to his terms. Ultimately the Dutchman
ascended the throne of Great Britain as William TTT.
upon a distinct contract with the [nominal] representatives
•of the people. “The Constitution,” says Hume, in his
History of England, “had now assumed a new aspect.
The maxim of hereditary indefeasible right was at length
venounced by a free Parhament. The power of the Crown
was acknowledged to flow from no other fountain than
that of a contract with the people. Allegiance and pro
tection were declared reciprocal ties depending upon each
other. The representatives of the nation made a regular
claim of rights on behalf of their constituents ; and Wil
liam III. ascended the throne in consequence of an express
capitulation with the people.”
Here, then, is a great advance. The people and the
'Crown are the two parties to a contract. Such a contract
may be determined by either of the parties ; and the con
stitutional Republican agitation of to-day is a movement
directed towards the lawful, peaceful termination of such
contract, as being no longer useful or necessary. The
object is a purely legal and justifiable object; and when
our opponents describe the Republican agitation as “sedi
tious” they merely expose their malice and ignorance.
It would be at once interesting and instructive to trace
-the history of English monarchy from the commencement
�150
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of the eighteenth century down to the present time. We
should see how the importation of a disreputable German
family brought the Crown into contempt—how the German
mistresses of George I. and his successor had “ exploited”
the British—and how the people had been estranged from
their rulers. We should see the pious but stupid and pre
judiced George III. exercising his authority upon the side
of privilege and oppression, and retarding, to the full ex
tent of his power, every movement in the direction of
popular progress and freedom. The foes of liberty were
the “King’s friends,” and, necessarily, the friends of the
people were the “King’s enemies.” The student of his
tory will be aware that the influence thus exercised by
George III. was a very real and weighty factor in political
affairs. That estimable monarch died sixty-four years ago;
and it will be instructive to note the vast change in the
power and status of the Crown that this comparatively
brief period has brought about.
Queen Victoria ascended the throne of England seyenteen years after the death of George III. • and in the year
1840 was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. This
gentleman came from a small German court, and the pro
spect of wielding a certain degree of influence over the
affairs of a mighty nation was very attractive to his mind.
His position in this country was somewhat anomalous ; the
Queen took precedence of her Consort, and politically
Albert was a fifth wheel in the coach. w It was taken for
granted by the people that the Prince would not meddle in
political business, and time after time he was publicly com
plimented on the supposed fact that, recognising his posi
tion in this country, he had abstained from interference in
the national affairs. Albert, however, had been so inter
fering in a secret and underhand fashion; and when the
fact became known, public indignation was aroused. The
Queen and her Consort thereupon wrote to Baron Stockmar, asking for his advice and assistance. Stockmar, it may
be explained, had been a long-life friend and counsellor
of the Queen, and his direction would naturally have much
weight with her. In reply to the Queen’s appeal, Stockmar wrote a long and tedious letter (given at length in Sir
Theodore Martin’s “Life of the Prince Consort”) from
which one or two passages may be given. He pointed out
that, “in our time, since Reform .... and the growth
�DOES ROYALTY DAY?
151
of those politicians .... who treat the existing Consti
tution merely as a bridge to a Republic, it is of extreme
importance that this fiction should be countenanced only pro
visionally, and that no opportunity should be let slip of vindicat
ing the. legitimate position of the Crown.11 Stockmar then
discusses the imaginary situation of a stupid or unscrupu
lous Minister pursuing a foolish or mischievous policy, to
the detriment of the public welfare. The only punishment
that could be inflicted in such a case is “the removal or
resignation ” of the offender. But the divine system of a
properly-constituted monarchy would, Baron Stockmar
alleged, provide an efficient safeguard against such dis
astrous mismanagement. Who, he asks, “could have
averted the danger, either wholly or in part ? Assuredly
he [the Sovereign], and he alone, who, being free from
party passion, has listened to the voice of an independent
judgment [i.e., his own]. To exercise this judgment is,
both in a moral and constitutional point of view, a matter
of right, nay, a positive duty. The Sovereign may even
take a part in the initiation and the maturing of the Gov
ernment measures ; for it would be unreasonable to expect
that a King, himself as able, as accomplished, as patriotic (
as the best of his Ministers, should be prevented from
making use of these qualities at the deliberations of his
Council.”
Writing thus to a member of the House of Hanover,
Stockmar must have been singularly ignorant or strangely
oblivious of the history of that family. Where, since the
Guelphs first landed upon our shores, shall we find the
sovereign “as able, as accomplished, as patriotic as the
best of his ministers ” ? Can we so describe George I.,
ignorant of the English tongue, absolutely indifferent to
the national welfare, contented to pass his time carousing
with his fat German mistresses ? Is it possible thus to re
gard his scarcely more estimable successor, George II.;
the ignorant, bigoted, obstinate madman, George III.; the
profligate and unprincipled George IV. ; or his successor,
William IV., who, as Greville declared, would make a
good king if he did not go mad? And, looking to the
future, can we dare to anticipate that the Prince of Wales,
if he ever ascend the throne, will display either ability o
patriotism in a very eminent degree ? Baron Stockmar
urged the Queen to avail herself of every opportunity to
�152
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
vindicate the “legitimate position of the Crown.” This clear
and decided advice, it must be remembered, was given by
the Queen’s most trusted counsellor in response to a direct
appeal for such aid; but can it be pretended that Her
Majesty has ever followed it? Is it under the reign of
Victoria that the dwindling prerogatives of the monarch
have been strengthened and extended ? On the contrary,
the forty-seven years of the present reign have seen the
almost absolute self-effacement of the sovereign as a politi
cal and social factor. Parliament is opened by “commis
sion ” in the absence of the Queen; drawing-rooms are
held by the Princess of Wales, in the absence of the Queen.
Whilst the political machine is running, and the wheels of
society are swiftly revolving in their appointed fashion, the
nominal head alike of the State and of Society is buried in
the remote fastnesses of Balmoral, the solemn glories of
Windsor, or the sylvan glades of Osborne. Privacy of the
most complete nature is all that is apparently sought. In
short, Her Majesty is teaching the English how easily and
comfortably they may exist without a Queen!
Politically, the Sovereign now only operates as a machine
for affixing the sign-manual. The responsibility for every
measure, for every action, rests upon the official advisers
of the Crown. Without their aid there could be nothing
to sign; but—according to the glorious principles of our
constitution—the result of their labor and genius would be
null and void, minus the signature of the Sovereign. The
sole object, then, for which monarchy now exists, politi
cally, would be equally well served by an india-rubber
stamp, an impression of which could be affixed to any
document or measure that had received the sanction of
both Houses of Parliament. And the cost of this need not
exceed the moderate sum of one shilling.
With reference to the functions of the Sovereign, I am,
however, bound to admit that the view I have just endea
vored to state is not universally accepted as correct. There
can be no possible doubt that the principle that “ the Sove
reign reigns but does not govern ” is the only one upon which
the majority of Englishmen would tolerate the existence of
royalty. The spirit of democracy has so deeply permeated
English political life that the exercise of an irresponsible
unrepresentative power in public affairs would not long be
permitted to exist. Supposing, for instance, that a Fran-
�DOES ROYALTY I’AY ?
153
•chise Bill, after being passed by the Commons and Lords,
should be vetoed by the Crown, such use of the royal pre
rogative—although legally perfectly justifiable—would be
the death-warrant of the monarchy. But, judging from
■certain statements that have been made public, and which
have emanated from responsible sources, it seems probable
that, in truth, the Queen does exercise a very real influence
over public affairs, but it is an influence of which the
public officially knows nothing. Several years ago Mr. Dis
raeli stated in a public speech, at Hughenden, that the duties
performed by the Queen were “weighty,” “unceasing,”
and “laborious.” “There is not,” he said, “ a dispatch re
ceived from abroad, nor one sent from this country, which
is not submitted to the Queen. ... Of our present SoveTeign it may be said that her signature has never been
placed to any public document of which she did not know
the purport, and of which she did not approve.” Now Mr.
Disraeli was on many occasions extremely parsimonious of
the truth; and it is quite possible that the startling statement
there made was merely a vivid flash of the imagination.
Dor what does it amount to ? If the Queen signs no
document of which “she does not approve,” then her
influence in the State is paramount, and if any difference
of opinion arise between the Sovereign and the Ministry
it is the latter that must accommodate itself to the former
before anything can be done. If all that Mr. Disraeli
said at Hughenden on thjs subject be true, it is difficult
to detect the essential difference between the “ constitu
tional rule” of Victoria and the “autocratic sway” of
Alexander III. of Russia! I for one cannot believe it.
If the judgment of the Prime Minister and the Govern
ment is to be on occasion subjugated to the conflicting
judgment of a doubtless honest and well-meaning, but
very commonplace old lady, the sooner the people under
stand this the better for us all. But, I repeat, I cannot
believe it. Shrewdness is a prominent trait in the Queen’s
character; and I cannot conceive it possible that she
should dare to follow the course of action indicated by the
words of Mr. Disraeli. Certain it is that the people
officially know nothing of it; and, judging from the facts
as they are displayed before us, we are justified in re
garding the monarchy as simply useless—not worse than
useless.
�154
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
At present our india-rubber stamp costs us at least a
million sterling per annum. The Civil List of £385,000'
represents but a portion of the outlay which the mainten
ance of royalty involves. The pensions and allowances to
members of the Queen’s family; the cost of maintaining
and repairing the numerous palaces required for their
accommodation ; and innumerable indirect expenses which
are carefully dispersed amongst various branches of the
public accounts, fully make up the enormous total given.
Sir Charles Dilke, for instance, whilst investigating this
matter some years ago, found that a certain number of
men were continually employed in painting the ornamental
fire-buckets on board one of the royal yachts. Year in
and year out their sole duty was to paint these buckets.
As soon as they were finished the work was begun over
again.
What advantage does the nation derive from the exer
tions of its most expensive “servant”? The Daily Tele
graph and other pious and loyal journals sometimes urge
that the Queen furnishes us with a noble example of a
sovereign and mother. But how ? Officially she has for
over twenty years almost entirely neglected the public duties
of her high position. And where is the nobility of her ex
ample as a mother ? Many a poor widow toils incessantly
in order to maintain her young family, denying herself
proper rest and food, so that her children may be decently
clothed, fed, and educated, and obtain a fair start in life.
Such cases of devotion and self-denial are frequent amongst
the poorest classes of society. Is not this a nobler example
than that of a lady in possession of immense wealth, who
is perfectly well able to support the whole of her numerous
family, but who yet permits the burden of their mainten
ance to be thrown upon the nation ? The private wealth
of the royal family must be enormous, and abundantly
adequate for their needs; and yet how many appeals for
charitable grants have been made upon their behalf I
Prince after prince, and princess after princess, have thusbeen quartered upon the nation as out-door paupers, re
cipients of a charity that is disgraceful, and would be de
grading to any family save the Guelphs.
Let us glance at the long roll of pauper princes, and
see what advantage the nation derives in return for their
generous allowances. The Prince of Wales receives an
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
155-
income of more than £150,000 a year, including his wife’s
allowance, but not including the accumulations of the
Duchy of Cornwall, or various sums that have been voted
for exceptional purposes. His Royal Highness is a Field
marshal of the British army, and honorary colonel of
several regiments. Now, what is the work that H.R.H.
performs in return for his ample wage of £3,000 per week?
Upon this point I will cite the evidence of the Daily News,
a Liberal, pious, and respectable authority: “The Prince
of Wales had a hard day’s work on Saturday. In tho
afternoon, besides holding a levee, he unveiled a statue of
Sir Rowland Hill at Cornhill, and in the evening he dined
with the Lord Mayor and the provincial mayors at the
Mansion House, afterwards witnessing part of the per
formance of ‘ The Marriage of Figaro ’ at the Covent
Garden Theatre.” And this, O ye Gods ! was a hard day’a
work! Not one of the simple rounds of daily toil, but
over-time - into the bargain ! Cannot such labor be per
formed at a cheaper rate ? Cannot some patriotic indi
vidual be induced to expend his energies in the service of
the State at a more reasonable rate of remuneration than
£3,000 per week? Surely if the contract were submitted
to public competition the Prince’s post could be filled, his
arduous labors performed, more economically than is now
the case.
Take, again, the Prince’s oratory. He opens bazaars,
lays foundation stones, and performs similar ornamental
if not useful functions. At Norwich, opening the Agri
cultural Hall in that city, Albert Edward eloquently re
marked: “Mr. Birkbeck and Gentlemen,—I have the
greatest pleasure iu declaring this hall to be now open.
It is worthy of the County of Norfolk and the City of
Norwich. (Loud cheers.)” Is this the oratory of our
£3,000 per week Demosthenes? Without any desire to
over-estimate my own ability, I could venture to under
take to make a much better speech than that at a mere
fraction of the cost.
As to the Prince’s military worth I am not in a position
to offer any facts or opinion. His uniforms are covered
with medals, and it therefore follows that the Prince must,
during some portions of his career, have earned those
decorations by many acts of bravery and devotion. I have
searched the pages of contemporary history for the records
�156
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of these deeds of heroism, but, alas! I have found them
not. It is difficult to account for the remissness of histori
ans in this matter. * In none of their works do we find a
line or a sentence referring to the Prince’s exploits on the
battle-field, to the deeds of valor which bear their outward
and visible signs in the Prince’s medals. I do not, how
ever, despair of obtaining the information some day.
Take another Guelphic hero and warrior, the Duke of
■Connaught. This young man is a major-general in the
British army, and in due course—if the monarchy survive
long enough—will doubtless be appointed commander-inchief when the Duke of Cambridge shall have passed
away, and his umbrella alone shall remain as a memento
of his glorious career. The Duke of Connaught has taken
a more or less active part in the military service, and it is
clearly to his ability alone that his rapid promotion is to
be traced. Unlike the heir-apparent, our major-general
can point to the records of history in proof of his achieve
ments. When the English troops were sent to Egypt to
crush the national movement organised and directed in
that country by Arabi, it was deemed advisable that a
prince of the blood should accompany the expedition. The
flagging popularity of the Crown needed a stimulant, and
it was hoped that the participation of a member of the
royal family in the noble work of suppressing Egyptian
freedom would bring about this result. Statements were
circulated to the effect that the Prince of Wales, inflamed
with military ardor, desired to take part in the war, but
that, “in deference to the highest authority,” he had
decided to remain at home. His younger brother, how
ever, was nominated to an important command, and his
departure from our shores was the signal for the most
fulsome and ridiculous panegyrics from “loyal” journa
lists. The Daily Telegraph in bombastic and inflated
language described the satisfaction that every Englishmen
must feel at the sight of one of the princes placing himself
at the head of British troops and leading them to glory on
the battlefield. A special general was sent out to see that
the duke got into no danger; a special doctor accompanied
him, and every precaution was taken for his comfort and
safety. Soon after his arrival the battle of Kassassin was
fought, and telegrams reached this country extolling the
bravery of the duke during the combat. It subsequently
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
157
became known that while the battle of Kassassin was
taking place the Duke of Connaught was ten miles in the
rear! It is not a difficult matter to display the most reck
less heroism when one is ten miles from any danger.
Artemus Ward escaped a fatal wound at Sebasto
pol by not being there, and our major-general owes
his preservation to a similar piece of good fortune.
I believe the only privation to which the Duke was sub
jected during the campaign was a temporary scarcity of
soda and brandy. At the conclusion of the war many of
the troops returned to England, and were enthusiasti
cally received by their countrymen. A certain number of
picked men were summoned to Windsor, when the Queen
affixed a medal to the breast of every soldier who had
distinguished himself. And, as a grand climax, the Duke
of Connaught came forward, his royal mother fastened
a decoration upon his already overloaded uniform, and affec
tionately imprinted a kiss upon his martial brow I Could
any more ridiculous farce be imagined ? The carpet
warrior who had merely accompanied the expedition as an
ornamental appendage, who was never in real danger—to
him was vouchsafed the same reward as to the men who
had risked their lives in the discharge of their duty.
However little we may admire the trade of the soldier, it
is matter of credit to him when he bravely performs the duty
imposed upon him, and the decoration earned by devotion
and heroism is an honor to him. But as for the rows of
medals and ribands that are so thickly strewn upon the
uniforms of princely toy«soldiers, they might just as well
be fixed upon a German sausage for any relevance that
they bear to the object upon which they appear.
The sham heroes of English royalty are in perfect keep
ing with the system to which they belong. They form
part of an institution that was once terrible and powerful,
but which is now as weak as it is contemptible and ridicu
lous. The political aspect of monarchy has entirely dis
appeared ; it is not merely useless, but an actual clog and
nuisance in the work of the State. Its social duties are
frivolous and unimportant, and its “services” could be
dispensed with, not only without detriment, but with
actual advantage to the nation. We are sometimes told
that England is a wealthy country and can afford to
bear the expense entailed by royalty. I deny the state
�158
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
ment absolutely and in all earnestness. Whilst we find
large numbers of people dying from starvation in our
midst; whilst we see so many thousands of our country
men barely able, by the most arduous exertions, to keep
the wolf at bay; whilst we find that misery and want are
rife among the laboring classes of the community, I say
that it is criminal extravagance to maintain in idleness
and luxury a family that perform no service to the country,
and whose position is based upon a barbarous and obso
lete form of government.
I should be performing but a portion of the task which
I have undertaken, if I failed to point out one considera
tion that is too often overlooked. The huge sum of money
appropriated to the maintenance of royalty does not go
into the pockets of the royal family, and by far the greater
portion of it is absolutely outside of their control. The
institution of monarchy is in this country the means of
supporting that huge crowd of lazy aristocrats who have
been irreverently but not inaptly termed “Court Flun
keys.” If the British tax-payer were to take the trouble
to enquire what is done with the money which he grum
bles so loudly at paying, he would find that it filters in
many ways into the pockets of the Crown’s most devoted
adherents. The royal family are bound by the iron fetters
of custom and precedent, and many huge establishments
have to be supported, at enormous expense to the country,
for their accommodation. A glance at the composition of
the royal household would show “about one thousand
unselected, vested-interest, hungry, hereditary bondsmen
dancing round the Crown like Red Indians round a stake,
and scrambling for £325,000 of the £385,000 that is
thrown to them every year by a liberal and unenquiring
country.” Royalty requires a whole army of attendants,
and all of them have to be highly paid. Many of the
superior officials do absolutely nothing. Their offices are
sinecures; and, in many cases, even when certain duties
have to be performed, the country, while paying A. a
handsome salary for occupying the office, obligingly pays
B. to do the work. It would be instructive to repro
duce the mere list of officials and servants employed in the
service of royalty. It comprises offices that are obsolete,
offices that are ridiculous, and offices that are unnecessary.
We have an aristocratic Master of the Tennis Court, with
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
159
a large salary but no Tennis Court; a barge-master with
two men to help him, but no barge—only the salary;
there are chamberlains of various kinds, chief clerks, ordi
nary clerks and assistant-clerks; lords in waiting, grooms
in waiting; gentlemen ushers and ushers who presumably
are not gentlemen ; masters of the ceremonies, assistants,
and people to assist the assistants; state pages, pages of
the back-stairs, a page of the chambers, pages of the
presence, and pages’ men to wait upon the pages, of whom
—reckoning all varieties—there are sufficient to make a
large volume ; several kinds of serj eants-at-arms, kings-ofarms, heralds, chaplains, dentists, painters, librarians;
gold sticks, silver sticks, copper sticks and sugar sticks;
secretaries to everybody and under-secretaries to the secre
taries; inspectors, equerries, footmen, “three necessary
women,” priests, painters, organists, composers, etc., ad
infinitum.
These officials pass their lives comfortably and luxu
riously, subsisting upon the public money. If any one of
them has any work to do it will be found that three or
four others are provided and paid to help him; and their
assistance is sometimes afforded when there is actually
nothing to be done. To these men and to their relations
royalty is the best possible form of government, and
they will defend to the last gasp the institution which
enables them to live in idleness upon the fruits of honest
industry.
I should like to suggest a possible way in which many
of these tax-eaters could be got rid of. A short Act might
be passed ordaining that the salaries of “Court Flunkeys”
should in future be collected direct from the people by the
holders of the offices in person. The “bargemaster” and
his two “watermen,” who so efficiently help him to do
nothing, might possibly be able to gather in the £400 per
annum that they receive for their valuable services; but I
am rather doubtful whether, after deducting wear and
tear of clothing (damaged in frequent kickings-out),
doctors’ bills, time, trouble, etc., they would find the
pecuniary results to be worth consideration. There would
be fair ground for hoping that in a very few years the
greater part of these useless offices would fall into
desuetude.
We may venture to trust that, in time, the English
x
�160
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
people will open their eyes to the anomaly of their position.
With a political system in which the Republican spirit is
the very breath of life, we foolishly continue the ex
pensive luxury of a useless monarchy. The only terma
upon which we consent to retain and maintain the mon
archical element is, that it shall do nothing to logically
justify its existence. The misfortune is that the nation
has not the courage of its convictions. The facts of our
political existence are democratic; the fictions—and most
expensive fictions—are monarchical. But the day is not
far distant when the scales of prejudice and ignorance will
fall from the eyes of our people; when they will be
aroused to the dignity and independence of their man
hood ; when, being no longer children, they will put’ aside
childish things, dismiss the useless representatives of a
bygone system, and transfer their allegiance from the
Crown to the Commcnwealth.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugii,
63, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Does royalty pay?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Standring, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [147]-160 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 10
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Publisher's series list on p. [146]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N621
Subject
The topic of the resource
Republicanism
Monarchy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Does royalty pay?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Monarchy-Great Britain
NSS