Sir Charles Dilke made another speech at Leeds on Thursday,
which was reported by telegraph in the Tintes. A row had been expected, but he was, on the whole, patiently heard by an enor- mous crowd, part only of thousands who could not obtain admis- sion. He repeated his assertion that the Court cost one million a year, declared—on the authority of Mr. Robertson Gladstone and the Financial Reformer, and in opposition to Mr. Manning, Coroner of the Queen's Household, who had denied his state- ments—that the Queen paid no income-tax on the Privy Purse, and denied that any agreement had been made with the Queen as to the equivalent to be paid for the Crown Lands. The grand mischief of the Court expenditure was that the sinecures were held by members of the Upper and Lower Houses, who were used as pawns to defeat the independent members. As to the charge of rnalversation, he repeated that the grants were made under classes and heads, that it was intended all savings should be returned to the Treasury, and that they were not returned. Where did the money go? "He had never attacked Royalty," but only its excessive expenditure. Altogether the speech was a much more moderate one than the last, but still it does deal before an ignorant audience with precisely that side of the question which in an ignorant audience excites most prejudice.
In the House of Commons the same speech could have been met promptly by men as well informed as Sir Charles.
Previous page
