-
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