THE ANNUITY TO PRINCE ARTHUR.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE ..SPECT4TOR.1 noticed in your article of the 15th inst., on the proposed allowance to Prince Arthur, the statement that it would be mean to deprive him of his promised allowance.
A careful study of the lengthy Parliamentary debates with 'respect to the Civil List on the accession of Queen Victoria, fails to give me any idea of a promise being made by the House to give grants to an indefinite number of Royal children. On the contrary, much opposition appears to have been avoided by shadowy sugges- tions on the part of both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing of the sort would be done. I shall be glad therefore to know when, and by whom, this promise was made ?
I would further ask whether it can be right for a Reformed House of Commons to continue to sanction the payment from the Civil List of such sinecure appointments as the following :—Here- ditary Grand Falconer (Duke of St. Albans), £[,200; Lord Chamberlain (Viscount Sydney), 2,2,000 ; Vice-Chamberlain (Viscount Caatlerosse), £904; Keeper of Her Majesty's Privy Purse, £2,000; Mistress of the Robes (Duchess of Sutherland), £500; Groom of the Robes, £800; a Clerk of the Kitchen who receives £700; and a Chief Cook paid at a similar rate, &a., &c., making the grand total of salaried retainers nine hundred and twenty-one.
If it can be proved that Prince Arthur requires £15,000 a year from the public moneys, surely some of these sinecures might be suppressed. England has now no falcons, and monarchy could run no danger even if it was unprovided with an Hereditary Grand
Previous page
