appanage. It is the Tories, the Radicals, and _a good many of our own
people_.' I pressed his hand in approbation of his remarkable frankness.
I said, 'There's an honest man! I hope you will yourself say that to the
Prince.'" [Footnote: Lord Melbourne and Baron Stockmar were always on
excellent terms. At the same time the English Prime Minister was not
without a little jealousy of any suspicion of his Government being dictated
to by King Leopold.]

Umbrage was taken by the Duke of Wellington at no mention being made of
Prince Albert's Protestantism on the notification of the marriage. With
regard to the income and position to be secured to the Prince, the nearest
precedent which could be found to guide the discussion was that of Prince
George of Denmark, husband to Queen Anne. It was halting in many respects,
such as the fact that he had married the Princess long before she was
Queen, nay, while her succession to the throne was problematical. Besides,
his character and position in the country were only respectable for their
harmlessness, and did not recommend him by way of example of any kind,
either to Queen or people. Statesmen turned rather to the settlement and
dignity accorded to Prince Leopold, when he married Princess Charlotte; but
neither was that quite a case in point. The fittest reference, so far as
income was concerned, seemed to be to the private purses allowed to the
Queen Consorts of the reigning sovereigns of England. To the three last
Queens--Caroline, Charlotte, and Adelaide, the sum of fifty thousand
pounds a year had been granted. This also was the annuity settled on
Prince Leopold. Therefore fifty thousand was the amount confidently asked
by the Government.

After a good deal of wrangling and angry debate, in which, however, the
Queen's name was studiously respected, she and the Prince had the
mortification to learn that the country, by its representatives, had