Title:
PP/GC/LE/96 Letter from Sir G.C.Lewis to Henry John Temple, third Viscount Palmerston, regarding the allocation of an allowance to the Princess Royal, 25 May [1857]
Date:
25/05/1857
Content:
Letter from Sir George Cornewall Lewis, second Baronet, [Chancellor of the Exchequer], Downing Street, [Whitehall, London], to Henry John Temple, third Viscount Palmerston: [Transcript] "I am much obliged to you for sending me the Queen's letter, which shews that she and the Prince are satisfied with what passed. I confess that, since I have held my present [f.1v] office, I have never so failed in estimating the temper of the House, and in judging what it was prudent to state, and what they were disposed to hear, as on Friday last [22 May]. Nevertheless, with reference to the future, it may be desirable that the nature [f.2r] of the Queen's case should be laid before the public. I enclose the Prince's memorandum, together with copies of the papers which you wished to have." 25 May [1857] Enclosed are: (i) a memorandum, probably in the hand of a secretary, from Victoria, Queen of England, to Henry John Temple, third Viscount Palmerston: [Transcript] [f.3r] "The Queen and Prince are much pleased to see the very satisfactory manner in which the dowery and provision for their daughter have been carried [f.3v] in the House of Commons, which we must consider as very important for the future, as well as for the effect if will have abroad. Even Mr Roebuck recognised the right the Princess had to a `generous' provision [f.4r] being made for her. The Queen is much satisfied by the kind and loyal expressions towards herself made use of on the occasion as well as towards our daughter." 23 May 1857 (ii) A memorandum from Prince Albert concerning the civil list: [Transcript] [f.5r] "The necessity of applying to Parliament for a dowry for the Princess Royal on her approaching marriage renders it desirable to consider the financial position of the Queen and her family compared with that of her predecessors and the former royal family, as these questions are generally judged according to precedents. Fully impressed with the fact, that there is no question coming before Parliament, the discussion of which tends so much to weaken the attatchment to the sovereign [f.5v] and the monarchical institutions, and to lower the dignity of the Crown, as that of voting money for the sovereign and the members of her family, the Queen, unlike her predecessors, has always shunned the idea of asking for any, the smallest grant, until an absolute necessity should impel her to do so. For, the country is apt to forget that, in settling the civil list it in fact gives to the sovereign no more than it takes from her, in making her surrender her hereditary revenues; and the abuse of royalty as a burthen upon the tax paying nation will always remain a popular topic with a certain class of politicians. This conduct on the part of the Queen has been appreciated by [f.6r] the country and forms one element of her general popularity; but it has also the disadvantage of making the country look upon it as the natural and proper course, and to believe that the Queen must live in great superfluity and in fact wants nothing, while it is merely the result of the strictest order and economy on her part achieved not without great exertion. It is difficult to compare the income of former sovereigns with that of the Queen as the civil list was so much larger than the present, but on the other hand various expenses now otherwise borne by the state were thrown upon it. (George III received during the 52 years of his reign 62,011,819 pounds, 8 shillings, 8 pence.) However, this has been fully [f.6v] considered, at the time when the Queen's civil list was settled, and must now be looked upon as a closed transaction. What becomes more important to inquire into is the change in the Queen's financial position which has arisen since that time. On the Queen's marriage instead of her husband receiving 50,000 pounds a year as every previous Consort of the sovereign had done, he received only 30,000 pounds. This diminuation by 20,000 pounds was defended by those who carried it in Parliament on the grounds that the husband of the Queen had no ladies to pay like a Queen Consort and had therefore fewer expenses. 17 years' experience has shown however, what might have been expected, that a Queen's husband [f.7r] has in fact much greater expenses than a Queen Consort; for besides his court and household of gentleman and domestic servants and his stable, he has all the expenses of every English gentleman connected with field sports, which contribute to the entertainments and hospitality of the sovereign at Windsor Castle and which are not provided for by a Queen Regent. He has besides the calls of charity and religion, which he shares with a Queen Consort, the claims of agriculture, science and art upon him, which he ought not to neglect with a view to the public welfare. By the birth of the Prince of Wales the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, amounting to about 30,000 pounds a year, which [f.7v] George IV and William IV enjoyed, have been taken from the Queen. Unlike George III, who during the Prince of Wales's minority carried these revenues to his general income, defraying merely the expenses of the Prince's education out of them, the Queen consigns to trustees for the Prince the whole residue after deducting those expenses. She has 8 children to bring up besides the Prince of Wales for whom she has up to this time received nothing, while Queen Charlotte in the year 1814 was in receipt of 68,000 pounds a year for herself, and 46,000 pounds a year for the princesses - the King being then confined at Windsor in her charge for whose expenses 170,000 pounds a year were set [f.8r] apart besides 148,000 pounds a year granted to the Prince Regent (compare debate on the civil list and Royal expenditure of that year) and whilst George IV when Prince of Wales received a special grant of 6,000 pounds a year for the education of his only daughter, the Princess Charlotte, and the Duchess of Kent 12,000 pounds a year for that of the Princess Victoria (the present Queen). On coming to the throne the Queen undertook by the advice of her then government (Lord Melbourne's) on her privy purse and pension list of 23,000 pounds including the allowances to the illegitimate children of the late King. Since then many pensions have dropped but others arising out of services rendered to the Queen herself have become necessary and on the death of the Queen Dowager Lord John Russell's government [f.8v] advised the Queen's taking upon her the pensioning of the whole of her servants who would otherwise have remained penniless and for whom the government did not wish to appeal to Parliament. The Queen undertook to pay her late father's, the Duke of Kent's debts which amounted to 60,000 pounds and were finally discharged through the seal of the late Sir Henry Wheatley and Sir John Kirkland. Sir Robert Peel's government advised the Queen to subject her income to the income tax which it has since regularly paid. Leaving out of the calculation those branches of the civil list which provide for salaries, pensions or in which the income tax has again been deducted from the recepients, the Queen [f.9r] has paid from 1842 - 54 at 7 pence = 77, 834 pounds from 1854 - 55 at 14 pence = 11, 480 pounds from 1855 - 57 at 11 pence = 29, 821 pounds [Total] 119, 135 pounds a free gift on her part to the country. When the extension of Buckingham Palace had become necessary by the increase of the Queen's family, the government of Sir Robert Peel advised the sale of the Pavilion at Brighton to contribute towards the expense of this extension. While the country was thus relieved in the charge for this new building and of the very heavy annual expense of keeping up the Pavilion, the Queen has been left to provide a marine residence for herself out of her own pocket and has the permanent heavy charge of its maintenence on her privy purse. [f.9v] New palaces or additions to old ones have invariably been handed over to the sovereign properly finished before he has taken them over for his use, as the enormous sums voted by Parliament for Windsor Castle, Carlton House, Buckingham House, St James' Palace etc. etc., will show. In the Queen's case there have not been voted a single shilling for the fitting up and rendering inhabitable the additions to Buckingham Palace. The Queen has had to decorate and furnish the whole of them out of her civil list, which after absorbing the whole of the Brighton furniture amounted in only the two items of the apartment fitted up for the reception of the Emperor [f.10r] and Empress of the French and the new ball and supper room to 10,396 pounds and 14,773 pounds respectively, the government not wishing to go to Parliament for it. On former visits of royal sovereigns and allies, Parliament has always made a grant for the expenses of their entertainment. When the allies were in England in 1814 the sum voted for that purpose was 100,000 pounds besides an excess of 118,000 pounds on the civil list repaid by Parliament. In the Queen's case, when the King of Prussia came in 1842 the Emperor of Russia and King of the French in 1844 and the Emperor and Empress of the French and the King of Sardinia in 1855 (the latter an entirely analogous case with that of 1814) the country was most anxious that their [ms `there'] reception [f.10v] and entertainment should be on the most magnificent scale, but the Queen has been left to defray the whole out of her ordinary income without Parliament contributing a shilling. Even the ordinary expenses attending the visits of members of foreign royal families, such as travelling expenses etc., etc. which used always to be voted out of the civil contingencies and amounting to an average to from 2-3,000 [pounds] a year have since 1848 by the advice of the government which justly thought that the debates arising upon them were calculated to lower us in the eyes of foreign countries, been thrown upon the Queen's civil list. The same course has been pursued in the case of the Queen's [f.11r] visits to the great towns of her country or to foreign courts. George III and William IV never travelled, George IV went in state to Ireland, to Scotland and to Hanover and received for these journeys 58,261 pounds, 21,489 pounds and 13,206 pounds respectively. The Queen has been travelling through all parts of the 3 kingdoms, has been in state to Ireland and Scotland and since * then * \ more privately / several times, has been three times in France, once in Germany and three times in Belgium. All these journeys and particularly the last to Paris, in the political interests of the country, and Parliament has never been asked to vote a shilling. Notwithstanding the assistance however, which has thus been readily granted to former sovereigns [f.11v] on extraordinary occasions and not claimed by the Queen, George III has had arrears on his civil list paid in the years 1769, [17]77, [17]84, [17]86, 1802, [18]04, [18]05, [18]15 and [18]16 amounting in the gross to 3,398,061 pounds and this irrespective of a sum of 295,817 pounds granted by Act of Parliament in 1782 to pay the King's debts, and George IV received as Prince of Wales at different times from Parliament the sum of 650,000 pounds to pay his debts. If the Queen should ask for a grant to assist the education of her large family it will not, it is hoped, be considered unreasonable and the very fact of her economical anxiety to spare the country any expenditure on her acount will not be [f.12r] used against her as a proof that she can do without it. With regard to the allowances granted to the royal family, a great disproportion is also manifest between former times and the present. Since the Queen's marriage in 1840 the following annuities held by members of the Royal family have dropped in: Princess Elizabeth (Landgravine of Hesse Hamburg) 13,000 [pounds] Princess Augusta 16,000 [pounds] Princess Sophia Mathilda of Gloucester 7,000 [pounds] Duke of Sussex 21,000 [pounds] Princess Sophia 16,000 [pounds] The Queen Dowager 100,000 [pounds] Duke of Cambridge 27,000 [pounds] King of Hanover 21,000 [pounds] Total 221,000 [pounds] Deducting therefrom the [f.12v] allowances since granted to the present Duke of Cambridge 12,000 pounds, the Queen Dowager 6,000 pounds and 3,000 pounds to each of the daughters together 24,000 pounds, it results that by the death of 8 members of the royal family 197,000 pounds a year have reverted to the country, whilst 9 other members have been born during this time for whom no provision whatever has been made. The present annuities to members of the royal family amount to 70,000 a year of which true 21,000 pounds, the Duke of Gloucester, and 30,000 pounds the Duke of Kent, are held by lives of 81 and 71 respectively. It is to be hoped that the country will not object to making a suitable provision for the new royal family, when such shall be asked for." n.d. [May 1857] (iii) Memorandum from Prince Albert regarding the expenditure of the Royal Household: [Transcript] [f.13r] "Reference has occasionally been made to the expenditure at Osborne, the building of that place and to the fact of there accruing yearly surpluses by large savings on the civil list, and it has been said, that now that Osborne is finished the Queen must have the money hitherto devoted to those works in hand, to defray the expenses of the education of her children. It has also been hinted that the attaining of surpluses and carrying them to the use of the privy purse, was, [f.13v] if not contrary to law, at least contrary to the intention of Parliament when settling the civil list. It may not be undesirable to investigate this question. The Queen's civil list varies from that of her predecessors in this particular amongst others, that in order to guard against the exceedings and debts contracted in former reigns an unappropriated class of 8,000 pounds a year has been created, which is to be touched only at the close of the year, when the whole amounts are finally cost up and all savings in one department are to be carried to make up the deficiencies in others. In the debate on my annuity, \ 1830, / the fact [f.14r] of 10,000 pounds becoming thus available for the Queen, which her predecessors had not, as all money was set aside for specific charges and salaries was adduced by the opposition as a reason for diminishing my income. After the Queen's accession Mr Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, advised the formation by degrees of a reserved fund of 15,000 pounds to meet sudden and unforeseen expenses, and further to protect Parliament against a sudden demand on the part of the Queen. The Queen has with the concurrence of Lord Melbourne's government further charged the 8, 000 pounds a year with a yearly addition of 100 pounds to the salaries of each of her maids of honor and bedchamber women whose salaries she considered [f.14v] insufficient as settled by Parliament. This payment, called toilette money, amounts to 1,700 pounds a year is charged to the Privy Purse, but pre levied on the inappropriated money and paid over by the Treasury to the Privy Purse for that purpose. In the years from 1837 to 1844 not only was there no surplus upon the 5 classes of the civil list, but with the exception of contributions towards the formation of Lord Mount Eagle's fund, the whole of the 6th class was absorbed by the Household Department about that time, seeing with apprehension each department spending the full amount of its income and determined not to have a margin from the knowledge [f.15r] that, if it did so, another department would run into excess and thus carry to its advantage the result of this economy, and there existing much jealousy amongst the departments and disorder in all of them, the Queen extended the controul of the Master of the Household (till then confined to that of the Lord Steward) over them all and made them feel, that what they saved during the year would be saved to the Queen, who ought to be left to judge, how it would be most advantageously spent. The Queen caused many unprofitable servants to be removed and a through system of order to be introduced, following the principle, that instead of living [f.15v] from hand to mouth, spending everything during the year, the departments should endeavour to leave a margin, which together with the unappropriated money of the 6th class would enable the Queen to undertake those items of expenditure conducive to economy for which the departments never had any funds, nor were empowered under the civil list act to accumulate or spend them. Thus a yearly surplus, varying in amount, has been created in later years, which went to a reserved fund in the Privy Purse, but not for the purpose of constituting a saving. The Queen was thereby enabled to furnish completely Windsor [f.16r] Castle and Buckingham Palace and to separate the administrative supervision and accounts of the two residences, \ the confusion of / which together with that of Brighton, had been the cause of most of the disorder in the Lord Chamberlain's Department; she enabled to build a laundry with steam engine etc., etc., at Kew at an expense of 12,200 pounds and thereby to consolidate the washing establishments of the departments, the dispersion of which had been another source of disorder and waste; she was further enabled to provide state liveries for the whole Household which had not been renewed since the coronation of George IV (when Parliament had paid for them) from want of funds to meet so large a sum in one year, and by the establishment of Osborne [f.16v] to obtain a residence where besides the occasional quiet and retirement so much wanted by the Queen and children, a style of life could be carried on during a portion of the year, which did not necessarily entail so enormous an expense as is inseparable from keeping open house at Windsor and Buckingham Palace. (The Queen's predecessors had Kew for that purpose, which is no longer available for the Queen.) Thus Osborne has been not only the result but particularly the chief source of economy further aided by the times of the Queen's confinements by which 8 weeks or nearly two months of the full expenditure of the court in those [f.17r] years was suspended. Without this relief the Queen must have long been in debt and would not have been able to meet those other heavy expenses to which I have alluded in another paper. But the increasing wants of the increasing royal family have been by degrees rendered it necessary to extend Osborne far beyond the original intention and the altered style of living there arising partly from the visits which many foreign princes etc. have wished to pay to the Queen of England at her marine residence have assimilated the Household expenses at Osborne more to those of the other royal residences. This together with the increase in [f.17v] the price of every commodity of life during late years, have by degrees not only absorbed the surpluses; but in the last two years instead of savings, there have been excesses of expenditure which rendered it necessary after absorbing, the 6th class to take the whole of Lord Mount Eagle's reserved fund of 15,000 pounds and the floating balances at the private bankers of the departments to the amount of 19,637 pounds to supply the deficiency in the civil list and even to forestall the income of the present year by 3,327 pounds. To show what an amount the claims on the Queen's Household expenses have increased of late years I annex [f.18r] a statistical table of the gross number of persons listed in Her Majesty's household for the last 10 years: 1847 94,466 [pounds] [18]48 91,604 [pounds] [18]49 91,616 [pounds] [18]50 91,696 [pounds] [18]51 106,689 [pounds] [18]52 101,327 [pounds] [18]53 105,544 [pounds] [18]54 103,101 [pounds] [18]55 106,453 [pounds] [18]56 110,298 [pounds]." n.d. [May 1857] (iv) Attached papers listing "Allowances for the Queen and children of George III" and "Annuities to the royal family which have ceased since the Queen's accession": [Transcript] [f.19r] "Allowances for the Queen and children of George III: The grants for the civil list in the reign of George III included provision for the royal family, who received from it the following annuities: The Queen 58,000 pounds Additional during the King's illness 10,000 [pounds] [Total] 68,000 pounds The Prince of Wales 60,000 pounds For the Princess Charlotte 6,000 [pounds] During the King's illness 10,000 [pounds] [Total] 76,000 [pounds] The Duke of York 12,000 [pounds] The Duke of Clarence 2,500 [pounds] The Princess Augusta 4,000 [pounds] The Princess Elizabeth 4,000 [pounds] The Princess Sophia 4,000 [pounds] The Princess Amelia 4,000 [pounds] [Total] 174,000 [pounds] [f.19v] The two last annuities, amounting to 36,000 pounds, were transferred in 1815 to the consolidated fund, as has already been observed. In addition to the allowances from the civil list, the following annuities were charged on funds at the disposal of Parliament during the reign of George III: In 1778 a grant was made for the sons of the King 60,000 pounds for the daughters 30,000 [pounds} (with benefit of survivorship, but no son to receive more than 15,000 pounds a year, and no daughter more than 12,000 pounds a year.) Special annual grants amounting to the following sums were charged on the consolidated fund: [f.20r] The Prince of Wales [1] 65,000 pounds \ [1] An annuity of 60,000 pounds a year was granted to the Prince of Wales in 1803, in lieu of an annual payment of 13,000 pound from the Duchy of Cornwall. / (a sum of 100,000 pounds was voted in supply for HRH in 1812 on his becoming Prince Regent.) The Princess Charlotte of Wales 7,000 pounds increased on her marriage to 60,000 [pounds] The Duke of York 13,000 [pounds] The Duchess of York 4,000 [pounds] The Duke of Clarence, including 3,000 pounds for the Duchess 23,500 [pounds] (An additional annuity of 6,000 pounds and 3,000 pounds for the Duchess were granted to HRH on his marriage in 1822.) The Duke of Kent 24,000 [pounds] The Duke of Cumberland 21,000 [pounds] (6,000 pounds additional in 1826 for the education of Prince George.) The Duchess of Cumberland 6,000 [pounds] The Duke of Cambridge 21,000 [pounds] (6,000 pounds additional in 1820 on the marriage of HRH.) [f.20v] The Duchess of Cambridge 6,000 pounds The Princess Augusta 12,000 [pounds] (in addition to the annuity of 4,000 pounds formerly charged on the civil list.) The Princess Elizabeth 9,000 [pounds] (in addition to 4,000 pounds formerly on civil list.) The Duchess of Gloucester 12,000 [pounds] (in addition to 4,000 pounds formerly on civil list.) The Princess Sophia 12,000 [pounds] (in addition to 4,000 pounds formerly on civil list.) The Duke of Gloucester 14,000 [pounds] The Princess Sophia of Gloucester 7,000 [pounds] The Prince of Mecklenburg Strelitz (nephew of Queen Charlotte) from the consolidated fund of Ireland 1,788 [pounds] The Princess Royal, Duchess of Wurtemburg, received in 1797 a grant of 80,000 pounds for the marriage portion of Her Royal Highness and an annuity of 5,000 pounds from the consolidated fund of Ireland" n.d. [1857] [f.21r] "Annuities to the royal family which have ceased since the Queen's accession: "Annuities dropped: 1839 Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria 22,000 pounds 1840 Princess Elizabeth 13,000 [pounds] Princess Augusta 13,000 [pounds] 1843 HRH the Duke of Sussex 21,000 [pounds] 1845 HRH the Princess Sophia of Gloucester 7,000 [pounds] 1848 HRH the Princess Sophia 16,000 [pounds] 1849 Queen Adelaide 100,000 [pounds] 1850 HRH the Duke of Cambridge 27,000 [pounds] 1852 HRH the Duke of Cumberland (late King of Hanover) 21,000 [pounds] 1857 HRH the Duchess of Gloucester 16,000 [pounds] [Total] 256,000 pounds Annuities granted or increased: 1839 The Duchess of Kent 30,000 pounds 1840 Princess Sophia 3,000 [pounds] Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester 3,000 [pounds] HRH Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha 30,000 [pounds] 1850 HRH the Duke of Cambridge 12,000 [pounds] HRH the Princess Mary of Cambridge 3,000 [pounds] HRH the Princess Augusta (now Duchess of Mecklenburg Strelitz) 3,000 [pounds] The Duchess of Cambridge 6,000 [pounds] Granted 90,000 [pounds] Saving 166,000 [pounds] [Total] 256,000 pounds Diminution of charge 166,000 pounds." n.d. 1857
Related:
See HANSARD third series vol CXLV p. 720 - 723, (22 May 1857), for Roebuck's comments on financial provision for the children of the royal family
Extent:
Twelve papers
License:
All images are copyright. Please contact Archives@soton.ac.uk if you wish to reproduce this material
Subject:
Victoria, Queen of England
Victoria, Queen of England: hostess on visits to Great Britain by foreign royalty
Victoria, Queen of England: marriage to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, later Prince Consort
Prince Albert, later Prince Consort
Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa, Princess Royal of Great Britain, later Queen of Prussia
Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa, Princess Royal of Great Britain, later Queen of Prussia: impending marriage to Frederick III, King of Prussia
Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, King of England
Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh, later Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, son of Queen Victoria
Arthur, Duke of Connaught, son of Queen Victoria
Leopold, Duke of Albany, son of Queen Victoria
Princess Alice Maud Mary, later Grand Duchess of Hesse, daughter of Queen Victoria
Princess Helena Augusta Victoria, later Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, daughter of Queen Victoria
Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, later Duchess of Argyll, daughter of Queen Victoria
Princess Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore, later Princess Henry of Battenberg, daughter of Queen Victoria
George III, King of England, deceased
George III, King of England: reign #Bdate=25/10/1760
George III, King of England: finance
Sophia Charlotte, Queen Consort to George III, deceased
George IV, King of England, deceased
George, Prince of Wales, later George IV, King of England #Bdate=17/08/1762
George, Prince of Wales, Prince Regent, later George IV, King of England #Bdate=00/00/1811
Frederick, Duke of York, deceased, son of George III
William IV, King of England, formerly Duke of Clarence, deceased, son of George III
Edward, Duke of Kent, deceased, son of George III
Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, deceased, son of George III
Adolphus Frederick, Duke of Cambridge, deceased, son of George III
Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, formerly Duke of Cumberland, deceased, son of George III
Charlotte Augusta, Princess Royal of Great Britain, later Queen of Wurtemberg: marriage to Frederick I, King of Wurtemberg
Princess Elizabeth, Langravine of Hesse-Homberg, deceased, daughter of George III
Princess Augusta Sophia, deceased, daughter of George III
Princess Sophia, deceased, daughter of George III
Princess Amelia, deceased, daughter of George III
Princess Sophia Matilda of Gloucester, deceased
William Frederick, second Duke of Gloucester, nephew of George III, deceased
Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester, deceased, daughter of George III
Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester, daughter of George III
Princess Charlotte, deceased, daughter of George IV
Princess Charlotte: marriage to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, later Leopold I, King of the Belgians
Adelaide Louisa, Queen Dowager, formerly Queen Consort of William IV and Duchess of Clarence, deceased
Maria Victoria Louisa, Duchess of Kent
Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherine, Duchess of York, deceased
Frederike Caroline Sophie Alexandrine, Queen of Hanover, formerly Duchess of Cumberland, deceased
George V, King of Hanover, formerly Prince George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Augustus, second Duke of Cumberland: education
Augusta Wilhelmina Louisa, dowager Duchess of Cambridge
Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, later Princess of Teck
Princess Augusta of Cambridge, Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, later Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
Adolf Friedrich IV, Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, deceased, or Karl, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, deceased [?]
John Arthur Roebuck, Member of Parliament for Sheffield
William Lamb, second Viscount Melbourne, former Prime Minister, deceased
John Russell, later first Earl Russell
Major General Sir Henry Wheatley, master of ceremonies in the Queen's Household
Sir John Kirkland
Sir Robert Peel, second Baronet, former Prime Minister, deceased
Thomas Spring Rice, first Baron Monteagle, Comptroller General of the Exchequer
Louis Napoleon III, Emperor of the French: visit to Great Britain
Eugenie, Empress of the French: visit to Great Britain
Frederick William IV, King of Prussia: visit to Great Britain
Tsar Nicholas I, Emperor of Russia: visit to Great Britain
Louis Phillipe I, King of the French: visit to Great Britain
Victor Emmanuel III, King of Sardinia-Piedmont: visit to Great Britain
Osborne House, Isle of Wight
Windsor Castle, Berkshire
Brighton Pavilion, Brighton, Sussex
Buckingham Palace, London
Carlton House, London
St James' Palace, London
Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Delicious Digg RSS