THE PEOPLE AND THE PRINCESS, [SBEUTATOR.]

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 869, 10 May 1871, Page 2

THE PEOPLE AND THE PRINCESS, [SBEUTATOR.]

There is something very perplexing, and to us at least not a little irritating, in the sudden outbreak of popular feeling against the marriage of the Princess Louise, an outbreak so bitter that it may yet provoke' a discreditable scene in the House of Commons. In every great borough the first question asked of a representative is whether he intends to vote against the grant of a dowry to the Princess, and a reply in the negative very often evokes an unmistakable hiss. Mr Forster at Bradford turned the subject with the happy mot that he could not fine the Princess for marrying a Scotchman, but at Halifax Mr Stansfeld was pestered with the question, at Chelsea the members nearly lost the usual vote because they would not clear themselves ' upon the matter, and in every metropolitan constituency the subject is as embarrassing as the Permissive Bill, or fche Contagions Diseases' Act, or any other topic upon which there is a misunderstanding between the electorate a.n.d the polibical classes. What in the world does it all mean? What has the clever Princess done, or what is sne about to do, that she should be treated with this I exceeding discourtesy, her name bandied about by all manner of lips, and her settlement criticized as if he she were a pauper applying for 2s. a week and a loaf a day, and suspected of hoarding money? Of course the taxpayers have a right, to disr cuss any grant submitted to Parliamentsnobody questions that-^but it is.|>ossible to exercise any right in an atrociously petty and stupid way, and that, with all respect for them, is the way in which they are exercising this one. Possibly that may be the fault <i local orators, who know that they are giving expression to a latent and indefinite discontent, but do not know how to put their case on any intelligible grounds ; but it is most perplexing and annoying to see how readily the householders, just invested with power, join in an insulting and unreasonable, and above all, a trumpery complaint. They do not tva-i take the trouble to make the grounds of their ill feeling clear. Are jir members to resist the dowry because the electors dislike the marriage ? That would be intelligible and just, the electors having a distinct interest in the marriage of anp one within the the line of the

•tSTifccession, but there is no trace of any feeling of the kind. The German Princes^ it is believed, with the Kaiser at their head, condemn the alliance aa derogatory to the Royal caste, and declare that they will not receive the Marquis of Lome any more than the Marquis Rapallo, but the English electors certainly do not sympathise with the Hohenzollern pride. As little are they in accord with the feeling of the Peers, who see a new order of nobles introduced between them and the Throne ; or with the philosophic conatitutionalists, who feel that monarchy is weakened whenever the Brahimrilike sanctity of the Royal caste suffers a derogation. That notion is'mnch more widely diffused than the Court is quite aware, but that is certainly not shared by the people who hurl these questions ai; representatives who are half-ashamed to offer a reply. If the noise had been confined to London we should have said it was a mere expression of a temporary initiation against the Sovereign, of very little political or even social importance. There is no doubt that in her capital Queen Victoria has at last exhausted her long -enduring popularity with the masses. They think it Her Majesty's duty to live in her capital, to be the visible chief of her realm ; and tiny resent her preference for remote wildernesses, and her abhorrerce of city life as a derilection of duty. That feeling, however, is confined to London, and it is out of London that the opposition to the Princess's Fdowry is fiercest and most loud. Is it possible that the real cause of the fuss was explained at Brighton, that a considerable section of the electors really do object, as one man objected there, to giving away such a quantity of money to a lady who is marrying a great noble, and therefore cannot need it ? Here we are, says the orator, in utter distress, and here is the Queen taking a sum of that Tcind out of the pockets of the taxpayers ? We are greatly afraid that this is the true explanation, and Aye cannot conceive one which should inspfre less confidence in the future. The only hope for Great Britain is that its electorate will prove, in the long rim a sensible one, that it will not be hopelessly vulgar in sentiment, and that it will take some trouble to obtain any accurate information. There are grave reasons for doubting whether its existence doe 3 not widen the chasm between the national aspirations and the national power of realising them, fur suspecting that as all real power has passed to a Sovereign Assembly all responsibility should be transferred there too. But there is no reason, or justice, or common decency in attacking the Monarchy on the ground of its expense, or for haggling with the Royal Family about allowances which are necessities of their position, and so long as the people deliberately prefer monarchy, of public dignity. The British Throne is the cheapest in Europe, costing, with all allowances, appanages, and expenses for symbols, less than half as much as any first-class throne supported out of revenue. Its whole expenditure, even it came out of taxes, would not be equal to ten farthings in the pound, or 1 per cont. upon the gross collections — an indefinitely small amount, if the Monarchy really secures the order, permanence, and habit of obedience supposed to be ensured by its existence, and as it accidentally happens, little more than the . &\\m which any Republican change would of necessity add to our direct expenditure in the shape of payment to members. Lacking the Throne and the system it supports, we must pay our representatives as the Union does, and the sum required would of itself exceed the Queen's share of the money voted for the Civil List. Nor is this all. The Crown lands were undoubtedly the property of the Soyereign, so much so that he could give them away ; and Parliament, when it interfered to prevent waste, did so on the distinct plea that it had the right in all cases of entail to make laws to prohibit wastry. The life interest is surrendered by every new Sovereign on conditions, one of which is certain payments, which are specified, and another is, certain possible allowances as to dowries, &c, which are unspecified, and are, in fact, governed by an unwritten etiquette varying with the temper of Parliament and other circumstances. These lauds produce more than the Queen's allowance, or L 350,000 a-year, and if decently managed, managed like any noble's,property, would produce Lloo,ooo more than the sum-total of all the moneys drawn by all members of the Royal Family. The mismanagement is not the fault of the Court, but of the people. Under those circumstances, to refuse a customary grant, always hitherto made, very moderate in itself, and essential to the dignity England desires its Princesses to maintain, would be little less than dishonorable. We entirely admit that Parliament reserved a right to place a practical veto on any Royal marriage, by refusing dowry ; but it must be on the ground that the marriage is inimical to the national well-being, ground which, in this instance, is not pleaded. We are rathtr ashamed to discuss the matter thus, when we know thai the simple sentence "the Princesti is a daughter of England, and must have such dowry as befits England to give," will seem to most of our readers the all-suffi-cient reply, but it is a great mistake in English politicians to disregard the prejudices which every now and then seem to fester in the common mind. Those who entertain them are now the electors, and they ought to be informed by speakers who can reach them much more readily than we can. It is a melancholy confession to make, but we believe the statement co\ild be confirmed by thousands of squires, clergymen, and school teachers, that the greatest danger of the Throne iD the country districts where loyalty is a religion, or to speak more accurately, where " Queen, Lords, and Commons" are supposed to be self-existent, is the belief that the " Queen's taxes " are levied by the Queen herself, and spent at her Majesty's discretion, which just now is to give some of the money to a Scottish noble who does not want it, but who is to be made fat.