THE CIVIL LIST [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—"
It is unfortunate that though he no longer has public services to perform an equal generosity has not been shown to the Duke of Windsor for whom no provision has been made." The Spectator, May 7th, 1937.
" Nor should controversy be aroused by the omission of any public provision for the Duke of Windsor. It is under- stood that the private means of which he disposes will be augmented by a provision from sources with which the tax- payers has no concern." The Times, May 4th, 1937, in a leading article.
Moreover is it correct to say the grant to the King is generous? The Report says that the provision is " adequate but not more than adequate for the proper maintenance of the dignity of the Crown," and surely there can be no question of " gener- osity " when not a single penny is required from the taxpayers on balance. " The revenue from The Crown Lands for the year ending March 31st, 1936, was £1,982,588, so the profit to the taxpayer is self evident," to quote a letter from John K; Stothert in The Times of May 6th, 1937, and Lord Hugh Cecil in his letter to The Times of the same date says, " It is well that it should be understood that The King is not getting something out of the taxes, but that the taxpayers are getting something out of the Crown Lands."—Yours truly, Phvsgill, inithorn, Wigtownshire. J. M. E. HOPKINS.
Previous page
