New-York tribune., 1901-03-03
THE ENGLISH COURT.
UTILITY OF ORNAMENTS OF STATE
MORE GILT ON THE GINGERBREAD
london EehruarN %

House OF Commons during the last fifty years
has revealed any passion for general economy
While the Civil List has remained unaltered i'm /
srOss amount the expenditures OF the nation
have risen higher and higher in the annual
budgets The vast increases OF revenue have
been absorbed by military and naval arma-
nents while the only additional outlay for the
maintenance OF the Monarchy has been the
sInuities voted from time to time to princes
ard princesses on their marriages. The burdens
OF The Royal Establishment have not been ex-
ohsslFe, and there has always been in the crown
4Shos special resource in reserve for meeting
the expenses OF Monarchy and the income from
II has been materially augmented under good
management II is, however. a singular phe-
nomenon in English politics that while there has
been no lack Of loyalty 10 the Monarchy nor any
trend whatsoever toward Republicanism. Tories
and Liberals alike invariably become suspicious
and unmanageable whenever any question is
raised relating TO financial allowances or grants
To members OF the Royal Family
burlng the Victorian reign grants OF this kind
were never refused, but were always voted with
great maJorities; Yet one Cabinet after another
considered them serious annoyance and there
vas an undercurrent OF dissatisfaction in the
House OF Commons over the fact that som,
automatic system for providing for the Roval
House had not been established at the outset
The Civil List had been settled nominallv AT a
lower rate, on the same principles as in the reign
OF William ~; Yet when Lord Melbourne rro-
posed grant OF 100000 to the mother OF the
Queen, the Duchess of Kent Lord BrouSharr de-
h"lAe~d The amount as eNorbitant and extraya-
giant There was another acrid debate over the |
\ annuity Tor the Duke Of Sussex; and when the !
A2uren married there was unpleas ant discIssi N
CoFer the Prince Consort's allowance and pension
ana Increased grants to the Royal Household |
When the queens children cau,a Of age and 1
married there Was one Gisagreeable debate after
another over annGities paid TO members 4 the |
p Roy al Family. who not likely TO reign and
could not be regarded as servants OF the State. |
but merely as ornamental figures kept aloft on |
u"F pedestals f'r the sake Of providing a |
proper background for the Throne some of the /
b-t;erest speeches were made 10y so-callad Re /
pubiicans, but even among the most loyal sun
porters OF Monarchy there We're signs of fmpa- |
bence and acerbity whenever any question was |
preached relating 70 the maintenance OF the
NRoyal Family. II there be- no renewal Of this |
forn OF Parliamentary heckling over Royalty
when the Civil Lis; is proposed and new ar |
Judgements ara made for the Queen and the |
heir 70 the Throne, il will be an exception 10 the
Parliamentary habits of half century
Nj Gladstone leader OF the Advanced
Liberals and not a favorite with Royalty-the
King when he was Prince Of Wales being almost
alone in admiration and friendly feeling for
him-but he never encouraged querulous criti-
c!Sin Of this kind lie repeatedly defended the
Royal grants on the broad principle that Parlia-
ment must provide for the Sovereign and her
family on liberal scale, commensurate with the
grandeur Of Monarchy. He used to argue that
members OF the Royal Family could not earn a
living for themselves; that the Civil List did
rot permit the Queen TO provide adequately for
the future of her children; and that inasmuch
as their position, traditions or public
opinion would not allow them 10 become self
supporting, Parliament must judg.. Of tn. exi-
gencies OF each case and be sufficiently generous
10 enable those close to the Throne to live in the
same style as those Of equal rank in Europe
were accustomed 20 assume II was in this
- lrit that he answered Sir Charles Dke's OBJ
t:ons TO The grants to the Duke of Connaught
condemned democratic parsimony when dis
;son OF Prince LeOpald's appanage came on
d Radicals like Mr.. Broadhurst and MI
'orey maintained that luxury did not impart
lstre 10 Royal prestige and that profigate
waste was unjust to princes. who were merely
ornamental personages and could put up with
small allowances Mr.. Gladstone virtually es-
tablished the principle that if Monarchy is 10 be
maintained, il must be- made a digniaed institu-
tiOn without any semblance OF being shabby
genteel half run down.
The humOr inspiring the story OF the three
Kings who met bV chance a mood