PRINCELY LIBERALITY.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 14, Issue 697, 5 July 1869, Page 4

PRINCELY LIBERALITY.

(From the Melbourne Leader, 12tli June.) Hitherto it has been customary to characterise any unusually generous action as priucely. We. talk of princely gifts, of princely demeanor, of princely behaviour. The simple adjective is accepted as comprehensive enough to cover and include all other less emphatic methods of expressing what is lofty, unselfish, and noble. In seeking a term to express the exact converse of mean, we would probably select the term princely. We fear it will be necessary to re-write our dictionaries. Experience is teaching us, amongst other things, that to be princely and to be mean may, under certain conditions, be convertible terms. There may be in effect no violent conflict between the two, even if applied to the same person. The Hon. Eliot Yorke expressed an opinion that Aus tralian culonists were deficient in their knowledge of the English language, but —we are learning. Seldom has there been expressed in Melbourne such universal disgust and annoyance as at the application of his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to the British Parliament for a sum of money to compensate him for the gifts he bad bestowed during his visit to the Cape of Good Hope and Australia. That his Royal Highness made such an application, the presumptive evi dence is sufficiently strong. If it had been originally intended that H.R.H. was to disburse on behalf of the British people complimentary dole during his tour abroad, such would surely have been provided for in previous estimates. But in this case it is sufficiently obvious that our royal guest kept careful account of his givings whilst amongst us, for there are even odd shillings (but strange to say, no pence) in the money claim he has preferred against the peo pie of Great Britain. And really, as his Royal Highness has been thus commendably precise in his book-keeping, and has, no doubt, furnished the Home Government with an exact schedule of bis bestowings, it would be a matter of profound interest to learn the names of the recipients. It would enhance the value of each mark of royal favor that the receivers thereof should no f , be permitted to languish unknown from natural distaste to appear boastful of having been thus signalised. The happy participators in the bounty of H.R.H. have with a very few excep tions, kept themselves carefully in the background. It is not altogether unknown that some scarf pins were presented to a few gentlemen whose offi cial position had thrown them into contact with H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh. But it is equally true that, in at least one instance, the jeweller's bill was defrayed by the Reception Committee. W T e think it is due to the people of Australia that the de tailed accounts of the cost of enter* tainmeut of the Queen's son should be made public, here and in England. As H.R.H. has chosen to advertise, for the information of the world, the great expense to which he has been subjected here, it would be only just to exhibit the other side of \Uq account, If

princes can thus look back regretfully upon a species of outlay which is generally regarded as spontaneous there need be little hesitation in peoples doing likewise. Let us have the opportunity of putting the per contra fairly. And let there be carefully omitted all reference to those offerings to HR.H. which from a portmanteau upwards he was always too gracious to refuse. It may, perhaps, be urged that it is really no concern of ours that the Bii tish Parliament should, if it chooses. recoup the Duke of Edinburgh the £3 37 J= 14s which it is alleged was distributed in gratuities. Some may suggest that if the British taxpayer likes to submit to that kind of thing we colonists have no right to be critical. But the matter, it is generally felt, wears another aspect. We stand in the position of hosts who have apparently mulcted an honored guest in penalties for his graciousness. It looks as though H.R.H. had been sponged upon by those who were bound by all the claims of hospitality and loyalty to use him differently. Whether he meant it or not, his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has affixed a stigma to the Colonies. The Australian people are better givers than receivers. They feel that the bounty of the Bri tish Parliament, even through an august channel, would have been more fiily bestowed upon British paupers than upon ourselves who needed it not This latest princely development has provoked much plain speaking. Hitherto there has been a con siderate and guarded silence with respect to the moral influences which the visit of a member of the reigning family had exerci ed. Before H.R,H the Duke of Edinburgh had arrived, it was felt that her Majesty the Queen had happily conceived a graciou? method of showing her loyal and loving Australian subjects that, although distant, they were not forgotten. And, so far as our Queen is concerned, that feeling reraaius. There was also the further opinion that the Duke's visit would tend to draw closer those loving links which bind us to the Throne—that in the son we would find the reflex of those virtues which have illuminated the mother's that gracious consideration for others which was looked for as an inherited virtue would exercise a wholesome conservative influence upon a community somewhat disposed to be guided by its own will only. We fear that the effect, (if any) of the visit of H.R.H. has been diametrically opposite. The prestige of Royalty has been lowered in the minds of the people. Devoted to selfish pleasures-slacking that consideration for the Queen's subjects in which his august mother never failed —associating almost openly with persons of vile character —H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh caused the deepest pain to all vho looked upon his visit in any other than a superficial light. In their enthusiasm the Australian Colonies gave way to extravagances ; but they were the extravagances of loyalty and generosity. And in marked con trast with all this is now brought an example of Royal thrift which should not be lost upon us when any similar occasion may present itself. It is just possible that the resources of H.R.H. have been misrepresented, and that his poverty and not his will con sented to his ad miserecordiam appeal to the people of England to become the sponsors of his impetuous liberality. It is popularly supposed that the Prince's income is J£15,000 per annum besides his naval pay*and allowances. If this (Joes not suffice for the gratification of his liberal impulses, let the British Parliament so provide for the Queen's son that he may not be driven to so painful a necessity as a special Parliamentary vote which from its very nature degrades the Australian Colonies, and .outrages the feeliDgs of the Queen's loyal subjects abroad.