St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-30
ENGLISH NIHILIsTS.
Labouchere and His Friends
Scored by Chamberlain.

LONDON, July 29.-The house of COM
mons, sitting in committee of the whole,
resumed the debate ON the royal grants
bill to-day. John Morey moved an
amendment declaring that the house is
unwilling to increase the burdens of the
people without assurance that no fur
Their claims will be made for young
members of the royal family. He de-
MED that he opposed the grants because
he dare not openly attack the crown.
He opposed them, he said, because par
lament had in no degree failed to COM
ply with any provision of the act of
1887. The government had not made
out their case either in the select COM
mittee or in the house. Parlia-
ment had already literally provided
for all the children of the queen. 1t
had not been shown that retrenchments
might not be made in expenditures upon
royalty without causing the queen any
anxiety. He especially objected to the
assertion of the claim to grants of the
grandchildren of the queen. Lord
Hartlngton's speech Friday clearly in
Dictated an intention to preserve that
right for future use. 1t was proposed
not to restrict these claims to the chill
dren of the heir apparent, but to open
them to the grandchildren of the SOW
ereign generally. He moved the
amendment in order to prevent reas-
SertiOn and
REAFFlRMATIoN OF A CLAIM
the justice of which he denied. Mr.. Cham
berlain said that Mr.. Morley objected
to the grants because no finality was
promised, but as regarded the present
tho Y1rnnncn6 utC ahcO-
lutely final. He did not think that after
the queens promise any minister would
advise any sovereign to ask further
grants for other grandchildren of her
majesty. 1t was argued that
there was no security against
such grants in the event of new
reign, but general declaration
against them would be worthless, as the
whole question must be decided when
the civil list was discussed. Mr.. Cham
berlain denied that Mr.. LabOuchere and
his colleagues represented the people.
They only represented a small minor
ity. They did their utmost to stimu-
late the popular prejudiceS to which
they truckled. 1t was shameful to
fawn upon a monarch, but it was. still
more shameful to truckle to the multi
tude. The members who were doing
so were nothing less than the nihilists
of English politics. Loud Conserva-
tive cheers and Radical groans.
Mr.. Labouchere said he hailed Mr..
Morley's amendment as practical re-
fusal of further grants during the pres
ent reign. With future reigns he would
not trouble himself. Sufficient for this
reign were the grandchildren thereof.
Public opinion was making strides to-
ward a universal acceptance of the
principle that the sovereign, like any
other head of a family. ought to provide
for her children. The Conservatives,
who in and out of season had villified
MIR. Gladstone, were ready to fall down
and worship him, because on the ques
tions of the grants he had turned their
way. They would worship the devil
himself under similar circumstances.
[Cries of order. In conclusion, he said
that he and his colleagues would be
beaten on the division, but he intended
to oppose the grants at every stage as
moral protest against the crowns claim.
Mr.. Morley's amendment was defeated
by vote of 355 to 134. Mr.. Gladstone,
the Parnellites and the bulk of the
dissidentS again voted with the govern
ment.
The minority included Sir William
Vernon Harc0urt,O Or george y. 1reVel-
van, Rt. Hon. Hugh G. Childers, Rt.
Hon. George Shaw-Lefevre and Rt.
Hon. A. J. Mundella. Sir William Yer
non Harcourt said ne would vote against
the grants, because the accompanying
declarations of principle were altogether
unsound. The queen, according to the
governments declaration. waived fur
Their claims for her grandchildren, vet
the government persisted in keeping
alive those claims and tried to perpetu-
ate them