The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-05-25 00:00:00

HERN TIMES.--

' functionary lives within his means. This is
prud, nt, but it is nothing more than his duty,
and what the public at large expect of him.
Shoul.l he be, however, a man of a different
stamp, and live at the rate of 1,0001. a year,
we will venture to say that no person in the
entire community would be readier to denounce
him as a prodigal, a scamp, and a spendthrift,
than the said Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Tier most gracious Majesty has acted as the
prudent and economic Secretary—lived within
her means, For this she is to be commended,
But is it a just claim to put forward on behalf
of a grant to her daughter to say that because
she did not steer the reprehensible and extrava-
gant career of her illustrious grandfather, that
her offspring is to be pensioned and paid off
at the nation's expence, As to the amount
itself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us
that Her Majesty's Civil List is now 385,0001.
per annum, whilst that of GEORG& 111. was
447.436/. The latter was squandered in a
period of extreme extravagance, and such is
the nature of the times in which we live, that
we could easily demonstrate that 100,000/.
now would go nearly as far as double the
amount did in the reign of that monarch.

But, forsooth, remarks the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the Queen Consort of GEORGE HI.
had an allowance of 68,0004, while Prince
ALBERT has only 30,0001. It was not the fault
of the very party now in power that he did not
get 50,000/. Prince ALBERT is not a king. The
wife of GEORGE TH. was a Queen. Unlike
the Prince of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha, her
Majesty was not in the receipt of a• Field-
Marshal's pay—although, by the way, she may
have conferred greater military servie s on the
country than his Royal Highness ever per-
formed. Se did not obtain the pay and
allowances of a Colonel of two of the fist
regiments of the sovereign. She was not the
salaried ranger of this and that royal, park, nor
did she derive profit and gains from an extensive
farm belonging to the national domains, held'
free of rents and taxes. Of the two; Prince
ALBERT has enjoyed the most lucrative situation
about the court, and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was most unfortunate in selecting
his case, and comparing it with that of the
Queen of GEORGE 111. as a reason for the- grant
which he proposed.
Another equally fallacious reason advanced
by the Chancellor of the Exehequer in support
of the royal dowry, was the fact of her Majesty
visiting Louis NAPOLEON. This, he had the
temerity to tell the House, was not a visit for
personal pleasure, but for state purposes ! How
will the mighty Emperor of France and his
esteemed Empress relish this statement ? The
tokens of affection and regard whieh passed
between the two families on the occasion' of
these royal visits to and from France were,
according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
political and. state shows—diplomatic dust
thrown into the people's eyes, to induce them
to believe that the union between the two

sovereigns was complete and entire. It was a
wonder that Sir GEORGE LEWIS did not allude
to her Majesty's visit to Louse• PHILIPPE, and
of the evoking of France to this country, and
designate them as mere journeys of pleasure ?
Then, again, we are also told that she visits
Scotland, and called in Ireland, all at her
own expence. Truly such a line of
argument is preposterous, and justly merited
the indignant rebuke of the semi-official and
aristocratic Morning Post of Saturday, which
declared that " the Chancellor Of the Exchequer
did not plaee the subject before the House
in a manner either calculated to attract its
attention, or to engage its good will." As to
the voluntary payment of the Income-tax,
we admit that in that one particular her Majesty
set a praiseworthy example. Had sh©, however,
invested the sum every year, as suggested by us
on Saturday, she would not have cause to go
a begging to Parliament for a, " marriage
portion" to her eldest daughter. She would
have exemplified to the mothers of England a
bright and a glorious example—one which, if
carried out with earnestness among all classes of
the people, would confer benefits of incalculable
magnitude upon the country at large.

Such were the arguments adduced by, the
Ministry in support of this fresh piece of
national robbery. Lord JOHN Russzia,, the
hero of Reform, aided and abetted the proposal
by reminding us that the junior branches of the
Royal family, as a rule, are not so liberally
provided for as the eldest son or daughter. We
care not for the suggestion. It is no justifica-
tion for the proposal. The principle upon
which the grant is founded is to us equally if
not more objectionable than the amount; and
sorry are we to see that a rabble of professed
Liberals hung their heads and dare neither speak
nor vote They beheld the Tories crawl at the foot
of the Throne, whilst the Whigs, spaniel-like,
and with the spirit of political sycophants,
kissed the sceptre. Loyalty to a Sovereign
consists not in providing for the luxurious wants
and desires of his or her offspring. It forms no
part of our allegiance to the Queen of England
to sanction an extravagant expenditure, or an
unreasonable demand up'rn the financial
resources of the country. True fealty to the
Crown is that which strives to induce the
Sovereign to practice all those virtues which go
to make up the character of the Christian and
the philanthropist, preserving to him or her all
the rights and privileges which the Constitution
sanctions, and diseountenaucing any and every