St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-27
Bradlaugh Rakes the Royal
Family Fore and Aft in
Parliament.
He Makes a Vigorous Kiek
Against Premiums for
Extravaganza.
Lord Randy Churchill Puts in
Good Word for Queen
Vie.
Tories, Aided by Gladstone,
Will Be Able to Weather
the Storm.

LONDON. July 26.-When the debate
on the royal grants was resumed in the
house of commons to-day Mr.. Bradlaugh
said he found difficulty in discussing
the question calmly when Mr.. BalfouI
outside of the house denounced the OBJ
jectiOns as disgusting and Sordid. The
opponents of the grant meant nothing
personally discourteous to the members
of the royal family, but were simply
acting within their rights when they
met the demands of the crown on a
question of finance with direct mega,
tive. Much of the argument in favor OF
the grants was based on the erroneous
idea that the crown, under the civil list
acts from George 1. OnWardS. surren-
dered its private property in exchange
for a civil list. Neither George
1. nor his successors, Mr.. Brad
laugh declared. surrendered any
thing. The present royal family never
surrendered anything of a farthing
value to the country. The committee
of inquiry had elected the fact that
during the present reign the savings
upon certain classes under the civil list
act, instead of being applied to defray
the charges of other classes, had been
handed to the queen without the author
.ty of parliament and in breach OF the
statute. Cries of Hear! hearm Right
Hon. w. Fl. Smith, the government
leader, denied that the alleged savings
of the queen were over &3,000.00O, but
he declined to show how much money
had either been saved by the queen or
drawn by the other members of the
royal family from all sources. Mr..
Bradlaugh said there ought to be
nothing to conceal. The fact of the
cOncealing led to exaggerated ideas.
The refusal of the government to dis
close the
WEALTH AMAsSED BY ROYALTIES
justified the aversian of the country to
royal grants. Cheers. Lord Randolph
Churchill argued that the original de-
mandS of the government were just, be-
sides being in conformity with prece-
dent. If burdens were thrown upon the
crown not intended under the civil list.
it would impair the credit of the crown
and of parliament. Mr.. Bradlaugh had
questioned the title of the crown to its
estates; but successive parliamentS had
recognized, and none of the greatest
lawyers had ever yet challenged, the
crowns titles. He reminded the house
that Sir Henry f. POnSOnby, her majeS-
ty'S private secretary, few years ago
denied reports that the queen was max
ing immense investments in ground
rents. and stated that she had not
e1,00O,000 to invest in anything. Lord
Randolph said that the Radicals over
estimate of the queens wealth was de-
signed to excite popular feeling against
royalty. He objected to the adoption OF
methods the purpose of which was to
foment a clamOr against the throne,
which, in spite of them, would remain
steadfast in the affections of the people.
Mr.. Labouchere's motion to adopt his
substitute for the report of the royal
grants committee was rejected by vote
of 298 to 116. Mr.. Morley will Monday
move an amendment, declaring that the
house is unwilling to increase the bur-
dens Of the people without assurance
that no further grants will be made.
Lord Harrington complained of Mr..
'Bradlaugh'S pedagOgic and minatOrv
air. He said if it was true that the law
was contravened in allowing civil list
surpluSeS to accrue to the crown. it was
almost case for impeaching the pres
ent and former ministries. IL was i'm
possible, he cOntended, to lay down
A HARD AND FAST RULE.
lie ClOu2QI JIldJ Gl6 QUEEN WdlYlHg
the claims of the younger children met
the present case, and that the future
might be left to a future parliament.
In any case the queens mes
sage was worthy of respectful
etention. Sir Wilfred Lawson tWit-
ted the Conservatives for re-
fusing a grant to the prince consort,
and evoked laughter by recalling GER
tain uncOmplimentary references made
by Mr.. Chamberlain to royalty. Mr..
Goschen. chancellor of the exehequer,
after refuting in detail the contentious
of Messrs. Labouchere and Bradlaugh,
contraSted Mr. GladStOne'S dignified at
terances with those heard tonight, and
said that there was little need to fear
the result of the debate. Mr.. Glad
stone, Mr.. Morley, Sir William Vernon
Hartcourt, Mr.. Parnell. Mr.. O'Brien.
and the bulk of the Liberals and Par
nellites voted with the majority. The
Radical minority included Sir George
Otto Trevelyan, Richard ChamberlaiD
and T. P. O'COnnor.