ROYALTY AND REPUBLICANISM.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1100, 6 February 1872, Page 2

ROYALTY AND REPUBLICANISM.

The London correspondent of thepMel-bourne.-ij'^ts writes :-r „ Royalty has been the one main topic pi the month; Sir Charles Dilke's attack bn , the Queen and the illness of the Princeof Wales have stirred the thoughts, of men to the consideration of an institution of monarchy to an unusual degree. It is not that' the thforie : is in any! great danger because the Chelsea baronet assailed it. - It is rather stronger by that attack. The universal sentiment of. the people always, „ except the extreuYePsect of patriots who abide in the hW Hole-in4he-P»tf! H««L. : ■■ follow Odger, has been roused to indig^k tion» at the unmanly way Ay ,wh4cJ^,SSF! Charles Bilke-4he of all meri-rhas raJßed the question of monarchy or republic The question itself as an abstract on£ is, of course a fair one, which all f|«e Englishmen are at liberty to discusa. , . What tho, publia cannot helg feeling, ; V however, is that the attack on Rpyal^r has been made in a way most unchivalrous and ungenerous. To pitch into the Queen because of the expense of monarchy is a course neither logical. nor dignified. Nothing is easier, of course, than to criti* cisc the composition of the ; Royal household, to find fault with the too. maihy cooks in the Royal kitchen, and' to be severe upon clerks of the'ewry, gentler men of the bed-chamber, and things of that sort. That is not why the public are angry with Sir Charles, Dilke. In the first place, if he seriously contemplated a republic, this t is but a shabby way of bringing about that blessed corisummation. If there is no ' better argument against monarchy than that it l^eeps tp^» niany under-cooics and entertauied V 4oo large a staff of flunkeys, the institution}!* justified indeed. The answer to all this ineffably - mean criticism is, that if the expenditure, is r too Ja?ge» it should be brought to the notice of:Fatliament and corrected in the usual way. Nothing could be more petty, than the manner or the spirit of this Newcastle .speech. Granted that all his facta were true, what did they prove but T ,that P«p; liament had failed in its, duty, of controlling and regulating the R^yal household? As an argument in favor of;a republic, the Dilkean utterance was in the last degree frivbloiis and absurd. Tlfe matter stands thus : In exchange for the surrender by the Crown of certain ancestral properties— properties as legitimately belonging- to the Wit; of 'tiie house of Brunswick as Coyentgarde,n belongs to, the '- Duke of Bedford— the Parliament 1 •agreed tqgrantt|ie Sovereign' acivil:lLrti ' in; which were' included aU the charges necessary to the maintenance of , the ' dignity of the Crown. It was a contract te ; which the honor of the nation was pledged, and which was made iri the nations own interest and for the nations <„ benefit. Nothing can be more false v or more absurd than to charge the Queen_ herseK v with being . responsible for the items in the civS list, %H in 'any respect they are ex|ra^gant;it is ■ Parliament that is to blame; and" Sir Charles Dilke, aY a member of Parliament/ought to have known that, and ought, to bear his share of /the respdnaibility. To quote the items themselves ? aa an argument that a monarchyhas failed in its duties, and that;it must bereplaoed by a republic, is a miserable way of promoting that end, and especially unworthy of Sir Charles Dilke. AU that we knbw of this young baronet is that he is the son of his father, who rose from Vcbraparktively obscure social position' to be the proprietor of the Atheiimim,^- who in'thit capacity enjoyed a certain prominence in the public eye which brought; him- under the notice of .the late Printe Albert— who cultivated the favor of the late Prince Consort with singular fceal t and assiduty. and who, as a reward for his patieut^and much-suffering i flunkeyisuy v? as created a baronet at the time.of the GreatExhibitioa of 1851. If the court chronicles do not lie, there never was, even among Radicals, so. consummate a courtier, with bo clastic a backbone as the L»te Sir Wont*

worth Dilke. That it should be his son to stir up this agitation against royalty is what amazes most people. Rumor accounts- for the phenomenon in a way not creditable to the young baronet's sense of impartiality. It is said that on the death of the first baronet, his son aspired to hold the same place about the royal household, that he expected to step intosthe place of ami de maison and confidential adviser of the highest personage in the land,/and that' it is because he was disapDointed in that modest ambition that he has sworn deadly war aga'nat the line of Brunswick. I do not believe the republic is any nearer by this speech or Sir Charles Dilke's, whicH has been, with one b "cord, repudiated by all the leaden of his party.