The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-14


the court is quite aware, but that is certainly
not shared by the people who hurl these ques-
tions at representatives who are half-ashamed
to offer reply. If the noise had been con-
fined to London we should have said it was
q mere expression of temporary irrita-
ton against the sovereign, of very
little political or even social import
ance There is no doubt that in her capital
Queen Victoria has at last exhausted her
long-enduring popularity with the masses.
They think it her Majesty's duty to live in
her capital to be the visible chief of her
realm; and they resent her preference for re-
mote wildernesses, and her adherence of city
life, as q dereliction of duty. That feeling,
however, is confined to London, and
it is out of London that the OPP
position to the Princess dowry is tiercest and
most loud.
Is it possible that the real cause of the fuss
was explained at Brighton, that q consider
able section of the electors really do object,
as one man objected there, to giving away
such quantity of money to a lady who is
marrying great noble, and therefore can
not need it? Here we are, says the orator, in
utter distress, and here is the Queen taking
sum of that kind out of the pockets of the
taxpayers! We are greatly afraid that this
is the true explanation, and we cannot con-
ceive one which should inspire less
confidence in the future. The one
hope for Great Britain is that its
electorate will prove in the long run
sensible one, that it will not be hopelessy
vulgar in sentiment, and that it will take
some trouble to obtain accurate information.
Yet what is to be hoped from men who en-
dorse a speech of this kind, who cannot see
that grants to the children of the Sovereign
are the conditions of that stateliness of cere-
monial life without which a throne in
England would be a meaningless nui-
H. Nc Ah,1
sort into grave public questions, who
object to appanages because they injure the
poor man, and in the same breath object to
dockyard reductions, because they also inju jure
the poor man, who above all, will never
recollect or attend to the simplest matters of
fact?
1t is of no use, we suppose, for us to re-
state those facts, for we cannot reach the
class which ignores them; but we will try
once more. There are grave reasons for
questioning the utility of monarchy in Eng
land, for doubling whether its existence does
not wider the chasm between the national
aspirations and the national power of realiz-
ing them, for suspecting that as all real
power has passed to sovereign assembly all
responsibility should be transferred there too.
But there is no reason, or justice, or common
decency in attacking the monarchy on the
ground of its expense, or for haggling with
the royal family about allowances which are
necessities of their position, and, so long as
| the people deliberately prefer monarchy, of
public dignity. The British throne is the
cheapest in Europe, costing, with all allow
ances, appendages, and expenses for symbols,
less than half as much as any first.class
| throne supported out of revenue
It's whole expenditure, even if it
came out of taxes, would not be
equal to ten farthings in the pound, or per
cent. upon the gross collections-an indeh-
nitely small amount, if the monarchy really
secure the order, permanence, and habit of
obedience supposed to be ensured by its ex-
istence, and as it accidentally happens, little
more than the sum which any republican
change would of necessity add to our
direct expenditure in the shape of pay
ment to members. Lacking the throne
and the system it supports, we must
pay our representatives as the Union
does, and the sum required would of itself
exceed the Queens share of the money voted
for the Civil List. Nor is this all. The
Grown lands were undoubtedly the property
of the Sovereign, SO much SO that he could
give them away; and Parliament, when il
interfered to prevent waste, did so on the dis
tinct plea that it had the right in all cases OF
entail to make laws to prohibit wastry.
The life interest is surrendered by every
new sovereign on conditions, one of
which is certain payments, which are
specified, and another is, certain possible al
lowances as to dowries, etc., which are un-
specified, and are, in fact governed by an
unwritten etiquette varying with the temper
of Parliament and other circumstances.
These lands produce more than the Queens
allowance, or 935O, 900 year, and If decently
managed, managed like [any mobiles pro-
perty, would produce e100, 900 more than the
sum-total of all the moneys drawn by all
members of the Royal Family. The
mismanagement is not the fault
of the Court, but of the people.
Under these circumstances, to refuse a
customary grant, always hitherto made, very
moderate in itself, and essential to the dignity
England desires its princesses to maintain,
would be little less than dishonorable. We
entirely admit that Parliament reserved q
right to place practical veto on any royal
marriage, by refusing dowry; but it must be
on the ground that the marriage is inimical tc
the national wellbeing, ground which in this
instance is not pleaded.
We are rather ashamed to discuss the mat
ter thus, when we know that the simple sen
tence ''The Princess is a daughter of Eng
land, and must have such dowry as belts
England to give, will seem to most of oul
readers the all-sufficient reply, but it is
great mistake in English politicians to disre
gard the prejudices which every now and
then seem to tester in the common mind
Those who entertain them are now the cleo
tors, and they ought to be informed
by speakers who can reach them much more
readily than we can. 1t is a melan
choly confession to make, but We
believe the statement could be confirmed b,
thousands of squires, clergymen, and schoo
teachers, that the greatest danger of tn,
throne in the country districts where loyalt,
is religion, or, to speak more accurately