" TILE ALLOWANCE TO PRINCE ARTHUR." (To THE EDITOR OF
THE "SPECTATOR.")
Siu,—The arguments of the Birmingham working-men may go too far, but I question whether an opposition to the allowance to Prince Arthur necessarily implies Republicanism.
I have heard many "good old "—possibly inconsistent—Tories oppose the grant. Their idea seems to be that the handsome maintenance of the Sovereign, and a provision for the Heir Apparent who may have to fill the position, is the limit of the duty of a people, and that younger sons of Royal houses might be safely left to shift for themselves, like the younger sons of most other—even noble—people.
The notion that Royalty would be degraded if it had any poor
relations is not a very lofty one. It savours of the respectability that keeps a gig. if monarchy has no deeper hold than it would imply on the people, the sooner monarchy is quietly put on one side the better.
When the Queen has nine children, and the Prince of Wales
at the age of twenty-nine has five, the thought of providing by additional allowance for all the Princes and Princesses of the Blood that are, or may be, is likely to distress the imagination of the taxpayer. Even you, I presume, would draw the line somewhere; say, on a venture, at cousins, or nephews, or nieces of the monarch ; but the course of providing only for those who have regal duties to perform, if the provision be made in a generous spirit, seems simpler, more logical, and not at all republican.
The comparative misery or privation entailed on all classes of society on those who choose to have unduly large families has a -wholesome effect, and is a useful cheek on population. It would be beneficial if even Sovereigns had a little of this foreboding, and occasion to exercise a slight forethought for the future of their offspring. To put them above this natural law is rather a stretch of respect for monarchical institutions.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
