Evening journal., 1889-07-27
ROYAL GRANTS DEBATED
Gladstone Pours Oil Upon the
Troubled Waters.
MR.. BRADLAUGH's WARM SPEECH.

He Protests vigorously Against Increas-
Ing the Prince Of Wales Allowance.
Labouchere Voted Down-cost of the
Royal Family Per Year to England.
LONDON, July a7.-Mr Gladstones brill
liant speech in the house Of commons in sup
port OF the governments proposals 70 increase
the allowance to the Prince Of Wales has
done much to blunt the edge OF popular OPP
position TO the grants, and has served TO re-
move the bitterness OF the debate on the
subject. The political ties which bind the
members, whose opposition TO the grants is
most pronounced, to their leader are not 10
be lightly thrust aside, and as they cannot
say anything very bitter against the movers
of the grant without conflicting, to a greater
or less extent, with those who support them,
they must. out Of regard for Mr.. Gladstone,
put bride upon their criticism The result |
is that the debate gives less promise OF causuc |
criticism the was expected day or two ago. |
Mn Bradiaugh's Speech.
Mr.. Bradlaugh spoke in the house of COM
mons against the proposal TO increase the al
lowance to the Prince Of Wales The veteran
Radical spoke with more than his accustomed
vigor, and was listened to with rapt attention
throughout
He began by saying that this was a subject
which ought 10 be discussed clearly and dis
passionately, and it was his earnest desire to
discard all personal or party feeling or preju-
dice.
No Discourtesy TO the Royal Family.
The opponents of the grants we're greatly
misunderstood If they were credited with
personal discourtssy to the members Of the
royal family. They certainly meant no such
thing. They had the undoubted right to OPP
pose the demands Of the crown on financial
questions, and If ever there came the day
when members were prepared TO abrogate
those rights and were content 10 merely re-
cord the wishes of the sovereign, he hoped, at
least, they would be left some last vestige of
sense with which to recognize their own use
lessness and disband at once.
An Old Statement Denied.
, He denied the statements, so often dinned
into their ears, that the English monarchs
had surrendered their private property in
exchange for the civil list Neither George
nor his successors ever surrendered any
thing. The present royal family had never
surrendered farthing to the country.
! parliamentary committee Of inquiry had
; found that the savings Of the present reign
under certain clauses of the civil act, instead
OF being applied to defray the charges under
other clauses, as the act provided, have been
stisiaor 49, SIel44. ae,as's.e eA-es.tatiios
ity Of parliament and in direct violation Of
the statutes.
The first lord Of the treasury, continued
Mr. Bradlaugh, denied that the savings OF
the queen were over e3,00O,0O0, as was
claimed but be declined to tell the house
what the figures really were More than this,
the honorable gentleman declines to let us
knowwhat sum the income of the royal family
amounts to from all sources, evidently deem
ing an inquiry into the subject impertinent
curiosity.
Nothing Should BE Concealed.
In all fairness, he said, is it not our right
{ when our royal dependents come 10 us for
more money on the plea that to maintain
their dignity, more is needed, to be given the
facts to enable US to judge whether it is needed
or noti There ough. to be nothing concealed
The secrecy heretofore observed may have
led to eKaggerations, but this Is natural and
ought TO have been expected. The refusal Of
the government TO disclose the proportions OF
wealth amassed by the royal family alone
justified the aversion of the country TO in
creas.ng the allowances they now enjoy.
Lord Churchill speaks.
Lord Randolph Churchill followed Mr.
I Bradlaugh and defended the governments
demands Mr.. Bradiaugh, he said, had ques-
toned the title Of the crown 10 lands which
had been given up in exchange for the civil
list but successive parliaments had recog-
nzed this title and no great lawyer bad ever
challenged it, He reminded the house that
they were not without an official denial OF
the wild statements which had been made
about the queens fortune II was only a
few years ago that the queens private score
tary Sir Henry Frederick PonsonbY had
denied, over his own signature, the reports
of the queens immense investments in ground
rents, saying that her majesty had not a
million TO invest In anything.
He was convinced that the Radicals over
estimated the queens wealth with purpose.
It was their design to excite popular feeling
against the members Of the royal family.
Labouchere's Amendment Lost.
After considerable further debate Mr.
Labouchere's amendment was put to a vote
and was rejected by vote OF 39S to ll6.
Gladstone. Morley, Harcourt, Parnell
O'Brien and the bulk Of the Liberals and
Parneiites voted with the majority against
the amendment The minority included Mr.
7. p OConnor, Richard Chamberlain and
Sir George Trevelyan, besides all the Radi-
Gala The majority consisted Of 252 Conser-
vatives, "a Liberal Unionists and % Glad
stonian Liberals and Parnellites.
{ BIZ. siorisy's Proposed Amendment
Mr.. Morley has formulated the amend
E ment which he proposes to offer on MoDdSy
Z Ii is to the effect that the houss is unwilling
to increase the burdens Of the people by
voting additional sums to the royal family,
without some assurance that no further
claims will be made for the younger mem
4 bers.
Roynlty's Cost Per Year.
The following is a tabular statement Of
the royal allowance for a single year;
Her Majesty the Queen 81 sOi, ,0i5
: H. r. r. the Prince Of Wales. ......... 59O,550
II Il. H. Prince Alfred. d.......-.......... 1880
H. r. H. Prince Arthur. r..............-... 1900
. H. r. H. Princess Royal ................ 1870
H. r. II. Princess Helena. ................ 30OA
II Il H. Princess Louise ..... .......... 10000