New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-07-30
Mp MORLEY'S MOTION LOST
,,vr1,y SPEECHES IN THE COMMONS OVER
THE ROYAL GRANTS.
A., CHAMBERLAIN pUBs THE OPPOSITION THE
.x,u,,,srs OF ENGLISH POLITICS.
IABouoIIERE CALLED TO ORDER
THE VOTE 355 TO 134.

THE VOTE 355 TO 1884,
London. July 29.-The House OF Commons sit
=, Committee of the Whole, resumed the
debate on the Royal Grants Dill To-Day oonh
~ ,noved an amendment declaring that the
W. = ,nuilIinc TO increase the burdens of the
a.~,,,s without assurance that no further claims
,,:1i y. made Tor Younger members of the Royal
s.,.;,ns He denied that ne opposed the grants
t...nso he dare not openly attack the Crown
IL .nnosed Them he said, because Parliament had
=. M degree failed TO comply with any provision
- the Act of 1887 The Government had not
ode ont their case either in the select committee
~ IN the House Parliament had already literally
nroyided for all the children OF the Queen. III
had not been shown that retrenchments might
not be made in expenditures upon Royalty without
causing the Queen any anxiety lie especially
obiected TO the assertion of the claim to grants
of the grandchildren Of the Queen. Lord Hartng-
toms speech ON Friday clearly indicated an mten-
tion 10 preserve that right for future use 1t was
proposed not TO restrict these claims TO the
children of the heir-apparent, but to open them
10 grandchildren of the sovereign generally. lie
moved the amendment In order to prevent re-
assertion and reaffirmation OF a claim the justice
Of which he denied.
Mr.. Cham berlain said that Mr. Morley objected
TO the grants because no Dnallty was prouiIeeu,
but as regarded the present reign the proposed
grants were absolutely final lie dld mol uniIH
that after the Queens promise any Minister Wo9Iu u
advise any sovereign 10 ask further grants Ior
,ther grandchildren Of Her Majesty. IL was argun
that there was no security against such grants
In the event of O new reign but general oecIara-
ton against them would be worthless as the whole
question must be decided when the civil LlSt
was discussed. .
Mr. Chamberlain denied that Mr. Labouchere
and his colleagues represented the people; lhey
only represented a small minority. 1hey dlu blelr
utmost to stimulate the popular preludlcee 10
which they truclxled. IL was shameful 10 lawn
upon a monarch, but il was still more sndmeI vi
TO trucSle TO the multitude. The members VINO VINO
we're dong So we're nothing less than tfe NlhlIlStS
of English politics. Loud CONSERVATIVE cneerS
and Radical grOans.)
Sir. Labouehere said he hailed Mr.. MOrley's
amendment as practical refusal of further grants
during the present reign. With future refgls he
would not trouble himself Sufficient tor tMs
reign were the Grandchildren thereof PuDnc
opinion making strides toward 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 ana
out of season had vilfed Mr. Gladstone, were now
ready TO fall down and worship hlm because on
the question of the grants he had turned their
way. They would worship the devil hmseu
uIHer similar circumstances Cfles OF Ordef'" )
In conclusion he said that he and his colleagues
would be heaten on the DIVISION but he intended
TO oppose the grants at every stage as a moral
protest against the Crowns claim.
Mr. MoRley's amendment was defeated by o vote
Of 355 TO lS4. Mr.. Gladstone, the HsafnelhCeS
and the bulk of the dissidents again voted with
the, Government.