THE PROPOSED GRANT TO PRINCE EDWARD.
rTo THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Is there not an omission in your argument ? Of course, an average elector of Hackney does not maintain his sons when they are of an age to gain their own livelihood. But a first-class noble—and such, you rightly say, is the posi- tion assigned to the Prince of Wales—does so maintain his children out of his own income. Is not the following point needed to complete your argument ? The incomes assigned to the Sovereign and the Prince were calculated upon an esti- mate of what would be necessary to maintain their proper state, and to bring up a young family, but not at all with a view of their being able out of such incomes to provide appan- ages for their grown-up sons. It was clearly implied and understood that in such cases the established precedents would be followed,—of a separate maintenance being provided by Par- liament. That being so, it is surely an ungracious breach of faith to refuse to vote such appanages. The time to moot ques- tions of this kind, at any rate by Parliamentary opposition, would be on the occasion of a fresh succession, and the settling of a new Civil List.
With regard to Professor Stuart, if his promise to vote against the grant represents his real conviction and intention, I think that, when he came forward as a candidate for such a constituency as the University of Cambridge, he was bound to have told us of it. If he has swallowed the pledge to gain votes at Hackney, I can only say for my own self that, when I voted for him at Cambridge, I thought I was voting for a stronger man.
Previous page
