[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In common, I feel
sure, with many of your readers, I was much disappointed at the tone of your article of last Saturday on the projected dowry for the Princess Louise. You appear to think
that any opposition to this endowment of one more of the Royal Family must be so " atrociously petty and stupid," that I am almost fearful of sending you these few words in the endeavour to prove the contrary, lest they also should incur a like censure. No one can possibly dispute that the forthcoming marriage will be the most popular union that has taken place among those of our Royal blood during the present century. Wherefore, then, you ask, all this commotion? For myself, I own to seeing in this commotion a most healthy sign for our political future. The classes who were admitted by the Reform Bill of 1867 to the right of suffrage are beginning to make themselves heard, and to show that they have a policy of their own and are thinking for themselves. Their public spirit is much to be admired in thus striving to oppose on principle the promiscuous endowment of every one of Royal blood, however large the family may be, more espe- cially in the particular case which is now before us. It is the first instance of its kind that has occurred since the working-classes- got a fair balance of power, and they would have shown great weakness had they abstained from agitating against this appropria- tion of public moneys on the ground that the intended alliance is suitable and deservedly popular.
This opposition does not imply the slightest disrespect for the Queen. The movers in this matter say that the Queen has such a large income that it is unnecessary for her to apply for a dowry for her daughter. Owing to the admirable and frugal management. of the Prince Consort the income of the Sovereign has vastly increased. Both nation and monarch have, however, benefited by his business habits, and it might seem unfair to say that bebause the Queen has reaped the benefit of her husband's carefulness, that therefore she should forego the asking for moneys to which. by precedent she might seem fairly entitled.
But precedent must come to an end some day or another, or we• should never get rid of any abuses, and I cannot conceive any better time for making a stand than the present. For seven years- the Queen has been in almost absolute retirement, and has rigor- ously abstained from all costly ceremonials. Now, a certain state• and magnificence is what we expect from our monarchs, and when. that has not been carried out by the Sovereign herself or by her heir, we have a perfect right, as citizens, to remember that during those years her income has been precisely the same, and that therefore the yearly surplus must have been very large.
It is all very well to say that such a sum as the proposed' endowment to the Princess Louise is the merest trifle to each• individual subject, but where can the line be drawn, and what. Bum when thus apportioned does not seem relatively small ? Only last session a sum of about £700 was voted for a Garter for Prince Arthur, and yet, ridiculous as the sum appears when compared with our national expenses, I still think it was the duty of all. Liberal Members to vote against such a grant.
Much more might be said on this matter, but I will pause, for I only wished to try and say sufficient to show that, from a certain stand-point, this opposition to the dowry cannot in fairness be regarded as either " petty or stupid."—I am, Sir, &c.,
Hazelwood, Belper, February 2, 1871. J. CHARLES Cox..
Previous page
