now Members of Parliament, learned professors,
and ladies of title openly avowed the most subversive views. The
monarchy was attacked both in theory and in practice. And it was
attacked at a vital point: it was declared to be too expensive. What
benefits, it was asked, did the nation reap to counterbalance the
enormous sums which were expended upon the Sovereign? Victoria's
retirement gave an unpleasant handle to the argument. It was pointed out
that the ceremonial functions of the Crown had virtually lapsed; and the
awkward question remained whether any of the other functions which it
did continue to perform were really worth L385,000 per annum. The royal
balance-sheet was curiously examined. An anonymous pamphlet entitled
"What does she do with it?" appeared, setting forth the financial
position with malicious clarity. The Queen, it stated, was granted by
the Civil List L60,000 a year for her private use; but the rest of her
vast annuity was given, as the Act declared, to enable her "to defray
the expenses of her royal household and to support the honour and
dignity of the Crown." Now it was obvious that, since the death of the
Prince, the expenditure for both these purposes must have been very
considerably diminished, and it was difficult to resist the conclusion
that a large sum of money was diverted annually from the uses for which
it had been designed by Parliament, to swell the private fortune of
Victoria. The precise amount of that private fortune it was impossible
to discover; but there was reason to suppose that it was gigantic;
perhaps it reached a total of five million pounds. The pamphlet
protested against such a state of affairs, and its protests were
repeated vigorously in newspapers and at public meetings. Though it is
certain that the estimate of Victoria's riches was much exaggerated,
it is equally certain that she was an exceedingly wealthy woman. She
probably saved L20,000 a year from the Civil List, the revenues of
the Duchy of Lancaster were steadily increasing, she had inherited a
considerable property from the Prince Consort, and she had been left, in
1852, an estate of half a million by Mr. John Neild, an eccentric
miser. In these circumstances it was not surprising that when, in 1871,
Parliament was asked to vote a dowry of L30,000 to the Princess Louise
on her marriage with the eldest son of the Duke of Argyle, together with
an annuity of L6,000, there should have been a serious outcry(*).