WHAT DOES THE CROWN COST THE COUNTRY.

Southland Times, Issue 21430, 26 June 1931, Page 3

WHAT DOES THE CROWN COST THE COUNTRY.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Would you please publish the enclosed article entitled "What Does the Crown Cost the Country,” by Sir Frederick Ponsonby, which I clipped from the Daily Express of September 24, 1929, and allow me to add a few comments.

The article, by an authority on constitutional law, is as follows: — When William of Normandy conquered England he took into his personal possession every square inch of land. He had his vast possessions by conquest surveyed and registered in the Domesday Book. That was the legal origin of what are even to-day called the Crown Lands. They had a long and very chequered history. Thrifty sovereigns like Henry VII. added to them, but for the most part the kings and queens of England have been an improvidently generous set of people who gave away recklessly to courtiers and to subjects deserving of reward. Some political events added to the Crown lands, such as forfeitures after rebellions. If a subject died heirless his land escheated to the Crown. But to save the remnants of the once mighty estate of the Conqueror from complete dissipation by his successors it was arranged on the accession of George 111., that the Crown lands should be surrendered to parliamentary administration in return for a fixed income, called a Civil List. Turning to the finance accounts of the United Kingdom for the financial year 1928, laid before Parliament on July 2 last by Mr Pethick-Lawrence, M.P., we find on page twenty-three a detailed account of what these Crown lands are now worth to the country. The exact figures are: Total receipts £l,697,337, balance paid into the Exchequer £1,210,000. The difference is represented by the cost of administration and certain donations. Thus, from the former legal estate of William the Conqueror the nation is obtaining an income of nearly a million and a quarter pounds. What does the Crown cost the country? Referring again to the same finance accounts, we find on page forty-two the following schedule: — Their Majesties’ Privy Purse £llO,OOO Salaries of H.M. Household and Retired Allowances 125,800 Expenses of H.M. Household 193,000 Works 20,000 . Royal Bounty, Alms, and Special Services 13,200 Unappropriated 8,000 Total Civil List £470,000 In other words, after providing for their suitable board, lodging and a relatively small emergency fund, we obtain the public services of our King and Queen for a personal joint salary at which a film star might scoff —£110,000 per year. This, too, after having virtually impounded the ancient private estate of the monarch which now brings us in £1,210,000 per annum. Subtracting £470,000 from £1,210,000 leaves £740,000. To put it bluntly, the nation makes £740,000 out of the King and Queen, and gets the work free. Not a bad bargain on the whole.

The above arrangement had a redeeming feature from the point of view of the King, for it enabled him to buy property which should be personally his own- —just like a subject’s—and which he could freely leave by will to whomsoever he would. This would apply to estates like Balmoral, Sandringham, or Osborne. Prior to the arrangement with George HI. such acquisitions would have devolved with other Crown Lands.

The financial history of the monarchy is full of interest. Until the Revolution of 1689, Parliament used to grant each monarch at the beginning of his or her reign first the hereditary rents of the above-mentioned Crown Lands; the feudal rights; the proceeds of the Post Office and wine licences; and then also vote to the king certain taxes for life. Out of this the Crown was expected to maintain the royal dignity, pay for the whole of the civil government of the country, and provide all defence and warlike expenditure. That was the th,eory.

In practice it seldom, if ever, could be done, and the Crown had to ask Parliament for more money over and over again. The sovereign who believed most fervently in getting results by diplomacy, not war, was Elizabeth, who managed the country so economically that she rarely either borrowed or came to Parliament for loans; and repaid her debts so rapidly that she could always borrow at the lowest interest paid by any sovereign in Europe. Nevertheless the system of mixing public and personal expenditure was an indefensible one. At its worst it could lead to such a situation as Charles 11. squandering lavishly upon his mistresses while the Dutch fleet sailed up the undefended Thames. Read Pepy’s Diary if you would see the system at its worst. Again, George 111 regarded as part of his governmental expenditure the wholesale purchase of votes in the Commons. The result was he had to be assisted by Parliament with an extra total sum (for his whole reign) of no less than £3,398,000. The separation of the public expenditure of the realm from the sovereign’s Civil List has had the result of freeing the Crown from just or unjust suspicion of using influence improperly. It has also protected the crown from all those imputations of mad finance which would inevitably arise from the constant growth of the cost of running the country. ) It is not the Crown which keeps us poor. It is a House of Commons, which (unless the hew Parliament shows improvement in conduct) has long forgotten the meaning of the word thrift. Contrast the £740,000 we gain from bur bargain over” the Crown Lands and the really free service we get from the King and Queen with page seventy-four of the Financial Report 1928-9: — Total debt on March 31. 1929 l7/6. Perhaps next year they will pay off the 17/6! There is always hope. I was in London during the period of the King’s serious illness and I also had the pleasure of attending -the Thanksgiving Ser-

vice held in Westminster Abbey to return thanks for his restoration to health. Being about number 50 in the queue I was privileged to occupy a front seat facing the main aisle. On the opposite side of the aisle the seating was reserved for the “invited” and in the front row sat “Old Kate,” the noted seller of race cards at Epsom, whom the King always patronized. The old lady, whose face, though lined and weather beaten, suggested the contented mind of one who enjoyed good health and who had met and overcome trouble so often that she had no fear of the future, sat quite unconcerned amongst the distinguished company clad in her dark coloured dress and bonnet with a dark plaid shawl over her shoulders and wearing high-legged boots such as are favoured by milkmaids. The attire seemed to suit the personality of the wearer admirably and one felt that she had no need to envy any of the more stylishly dressed sisters, though, on this auspicious occasion I did not notice any evidence of a fashion parade. At the appointed minute the King and Queen, followed by . the other members of the Royal Familj’, entered the Abbey and passed slowly up the aisle which was flanked by the standing assemblage. While still some distance away her Majesty recognized "Old Kate” and whispered to the King. As they drew near both nodded to the old lady who courtsied briskly without perceptible embarrassment, though she was the only one, at least in that part of the Abbey, who received any sign of recognition from the Royal couple. I shall not attempt to describe my impression of the people’s regard for, their Sovereign during his illness other than to state that it seemed to me as if they felt that some irreplaceable, living treasure was being slowly dragged away from them and they were powerless to help except by hoping and praying that what at one stage appeared to be inevitable would by some means be prevented. The British Empire without the Royal Family’ would, to my way of thinking, be like a mountain without a peak—Mount Tarawera furnishes an illustration of what I mean. My object in writing this letter is not merely to foster sentiment and a better appreciation of the Motherland, but to illustrate the relationship between her prosperity and ours. What has the Royal Family to do with the prosperity of New Zealand? London, “The Greatest Show on Earth,” without the functions attended by Royalty, would fail to attract many of the distinguished and very wealthy foreign visitors who spend so lavishly. They entertain and are entertained, they meet with Britain’s financiers and loans and insurances are arranged; developmental business' ventures in distant lands are decided upon, financed with British capital, usually carried out by British engineers and thus the interests of the Empire are peacefully and profitably extended. These distinguished visitors, maybe from Abyssinia, India, Japan, Patagonia etc., contribute incalculably to the wealth of Britain each year and return to their far off dominions accompanied by recollections of kind hospitality dispensed by Royalty and costly souvenirs of their visits which include such things as famous pictures and antiques, British motor cars, motor boats, aeroplanes, jewellery and fine linen .etc. Every capable business man knows that if he can attract suitable customers to his place of business he can command success and, while we know and are pleased that the Royal Family is not retained or maintained for pecuniary benefits, we must realize that it is a very powerful factor in drawing people (who would not otherwise go) to London from all parts of the earth and that it also assists very materially to foster cordial relationships between the British and foreign governments and to smoothe the workings of the British Houses of Parliament as well. I was in London when their last general election took place and the City business-men, although ardent supporters of either the Liberals or Conservatives, accepted the accession of the Labour Party quite philosophically and Ramsay MacDonald was received by the King as courteously as would Mr Baldwin or Mr Lloyd George had either of them been the successful political leader. Not having a vote the King is strictly nonparty and can and does discharge his privileges and duties as head of the Nation without partiality and with becoming tact and dignity. In my opinion, quite apart from the inestimable value of the diplomatic influence wielded by the Royal Family and the pleasure afforded the people of Britain and overseas visitors who are privileged to witness state functions, such as the opening of Parliament, at which Royalty takes a conspicuous part and if, quite apart also from the revenue derived from the erstwhile Royal Estates, it were to cost Britain £1,000,000 per annum to maintain the Royal Family, such expenditure would be a wise investment from the commercial though sordid point of'view as most of this money would circulate again in Britain and probably £10,000,000 worth of business is directly or indirectly attracted to Britain annually thereby. If there were no Royal Family in Britain, London, our best market, would lose much of its attractiveness and become infinitely poorer. Anything, not otherwise harmful, which contributes to the wealth and purchasing power of Britain helps us in New Zealand as suppliers of primary products.—l am, etc., G. V. EDGE. Bluff.