William IV. reminds Earl Grey, that the Chancellor of the Duchy is sworn to do all things "for the weal and profit of the King's Highness. And his Majesty has fair reason to expect that a pledge so solemnly taken will be fulfilled, and that he will be supported in his assertion of these _private_ rights, not only of himself, but of his heirs and successors, as they have devolved upon him, _separate_ from all other of his possessions _jure coronæ_, and consequently, as his separate personal and private estate, vested in his Majesty, by descent from Henry VII. in his body _natural_, and not in his body _politic_ as King." Earl Grey naturally promised to prevent Radical financial reformers from becoming too annoying to Royalty. The Whigs love to talk of economy out of office, and to avoid it when in place. Daniel O'Connell appears to have much troubled the King. Directly after the Dublin meeting in December, 1830, Sir Henry Taylor says: "The King observed, that he would have been better pleased if this assembly of people had not dispersed quietly _at his bidding_, as the control which he has successfully exercised upon various occasions in this way, appears to his Majesty the most striking proof of the influence he has acquired over a portion of the lower classes in Ireland." It is pretended in the _Cabinet Register_ for 1831, and was stated by Lord Althorp in Parliament, "that his Majesty most nobly and patriotically declined to add to the burdens of his people by accepting an outfit for his royal consort, though £54,000 had been granted by Parliament to the Queen of George III., as an outfit to purchase jewels, etc." This is so little true, that it appears from the correspondence between the King and Earl Grey, that a grant for the Queen's outfit had been agreed to by the outgoing Tories, and would have been proposed by the new Whig Government, had not one of the Cabinet (probably Lord Brougham) decidedly objected, on the ground "that proposing a grant for this purpose would have a bad effect on the House of Commons, and on public opinion;" and by a letter dated February 4th, 1831, from the King, it is clear that he only abandoned the claim when he found he could not get it. There is not a word about "the burdens of the people," although many at that time were in a starving condition. On the contrary, the secretary of the King says on the 6th of February, that "the disinclination shown in the House of Commons" to grant the outfit had "produced a very painful impression on his Majesty."