day, 4 June, she witnessed at Eton for the first time the annual procession of boats which celebrated George Ill's birthday.
In the summer came difficulties which tried her tact and temper. She turned to consider the pecuniary prospects of her numerous grandchildren. Provision had already been made by parliament for every one of The queen and her grand-children. her nine children and for her three first cousins, the Duke of Cambridge and his sisters ; and children. although the deaths of Princess Alice and Prince Leopold had caused a net reduction of 20,000l., the sum annually assigned to members of the royal family, apart from the queen, amounted to 152,000l. No responsibility for providing for the German royal family, the offspring of her eldest daughter, the Empress Frederick, or for the family of the Princess Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt, attached to her ; but she had twenty-two other grandchildren domiciled in England for whom she regarded it as her duty to make provision. In July 1889 events seemed to her to render an appeal to parliament in behalf of the third generation of her family appropriate. The elder son of the prince of Wales was coming of age, while his eldest daughter was about to marry with the queen's assent the Earl (afterwards Duke) of Fife. She therefore sent two messages to the House of Commons requesting due provision for the two elder children of her eldest son. The manner in which her request was approached was not all she could have wished. New life was given to the old cry against the expenses of monarchy.
The queen's financial position still from time to time excited jealous comments, not only among her subjects, but in foreign countries. Exaggerated reports of the extent of her fortune were widely current, and small heed was paid to her efforts to correct the false impression. In 1 885 it was stated with some show of authority that she had lately invested a million pounds sterling in ground False reports of her wealth. rents in the city of London, of her Through Sir Henry Ponsonby she denied that she had any such sum at her disposal. At Berlin, Bismarck often joked coarsely over her reputed affluence, to which he attributed the power she exerted over the Crown Prince Frederick and his household. But while the best friends of the crown deprecated such kind of criticism, they deemed it inexpedient for the country to undertake the maintenance indefinitely of the queen's family beyond the second generation. Both the extreme and the moderate opinions found free expression in the House of Commons, and calm observers like Lord Selborne perceived in the discussion ominous signs of a recrudescence of republican sentiment. To the government's proposal to appoint a committee representative of all sections of the house to determine the principles which should govern the reply to the queen's messages, a hostile amendment to refer the whole question of the revenues of the crown to the committee was moved by Mr. Bradlaugh. He argued that the queen's savings on the civil list enabled her unaided to provide for her grandchildren, and that the royal grants were an intolerable burden on the people. The amendment was rejected by a majority of 188, but 125 votes were cast in its favour.
On the due appointment of the committee the government recommended, with the queen's approval, the prospective allocation to the prince of Wales s children of annuities amounting on their marriages to 49,000l., besides a sum of 30,000l. by way of dowries. But the grant immediately payable was to be 21,000l. annually and 10,000l. for the dowry of the Princess Louise. Precedent, it was shown, justified public provision for all the children of the sovereign's sons. The daughters of former sovereigns had invariably married foreign reigning princes, and their children, not being British subjects, were outside the purview of the British parliament. The question whether the children of the sovereign's daughters who were not married to foreign reigning princes were entitled to public provision had not previously arisen. The queen and the government perceived that public opinion was not in the mood to permit lavish or unconditional grants, and it was soon apparent that a compromise would be needful. The queen disliked the debate, but showed a wish to be conciliatory. She at once agreed to forego any demand on behalf of her daughters' children ; but although she demurred to a formal withdrawal of her claim on behalf of her younger son's children, she stated that she would not press it. Gladstone, whose faith in the monarchy was strong, and who respected the royal family as its symbol, was anxious to ward off agitation, and he induced the government to modify their original proposal by granting to the* prince of Wales a fixed ami mil sum of 36.000l., to be paid quarterly, for his children's support. This proposal was accepted by a majority of the committee ; but Grants to prince of Wales's children, 1889. when it was presented to parliament although Gladstone induced Parnell and the Irish nationalists to support it, it met with opposition from the radical side of the house. Mr. Labouchere invited the house to re-
