probable, has, happily not arisen. Following the precedent of 1831, Parliament now provided, that in the event of any child of her Majesty succeeding to the throne before the age of eighteen, Prince Albert, as the surviving parent, should be regent, without any council of regency, or any limitation upon the exercise of the royal prerogatives,-except an incapacity to assent to any bill for altering the succession to the throne, or affecting the uniformity of worship in the Church of England, or the rights of the Church of Scotland. And, founded upon these principles, the bill was passed with the approval of all parties.1 1 3 & 4 Vict. c. 52; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lv. 754, 850, 1074. 191 CHAP. IV. ANCIENT REVENUES OF THE CROWN. CIVIL LIST OF WILLIAM AND MARY:- CIVIL LIST OF QUEEN ANNE, OF GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. CIVIL LIST, EXPENDITURE, AND DEBTS OF GEORGE III.: — CIVIL LIST OF THE REGENCY, AND OF THE REIGNS OF GEORGE IV., WILLIAM IV., AND HER MAJESTY: DUCHIES OF LANCASTER AND CORNWALL: - PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE CROWN. PROVISION FOR PREROGATIVES THE history of the land revenues of the crown presents as many vicissitudes, and varied fortunes, as are to be found in the domestic annals of any family in the kingdom. The entire lands of the realm were originally held of the crown, by various feudal tenures; and the royal revenues were derived from fines, fees, first-fruits and tenths, and other profits arising from these lands, and from the rents of the ancient demesnes of the crown. To support the barbarous magnificence of his household, -his numerous retainers, and rude hospitality,—was nearly the sole expense of the king; for, as feudal superior, he commanded the services of his tenants in the field, who fought by his side with an array of men and horses, equipped and maintained at their own expense. Vast posthe Crown sessions of in early times. forfeitures. By means of escheats and forfeitures, there was even Extensive a danger of the crown becoming the absolute proprietor of all the lands of the realm. But vast as were alienations. the king's possessions, they were not vast enough to satisfy the rapacity of his followers; and in every sucGrants and ceeding reign, the grants and alienations of crown lands exceeded the escheats and forfeitures. The estates of the crown were further diminished by wrongful appropriations, and encroachments. Repenting their liberality, kings frequently resumed their former grants; and alienations improvidently made, were unjustly and violently revoked. Yet such had been the waste of the once ample revenues of the crown, that Henry III. complained that they had become too scanty to furnish his royal table; and the needy monarch was reduced to the necessity of giving tallies for the supply of beeves and grain for his household. An extensive resumption of grants, however, and the forfeiture of the estates of rebel barons, retrieved his fallen fortunes. Such was the liberality of Edward II. that an ordinance was passed by Parliament prohibiting the alienation of crown lands,—which was repealed, however, by a Parliament at York, in the 15th year of his reign. But the profusion of this king was supplied by prodigious forfeitures. Richard II. again, was not less profuse in his grants, nor less prodigal in his confiscations. The Wars of the Roses were so fruitful of forfeitures, that a large proportion of the land of the realm became the property of the crown. Had it been retained, there would have been no monarchy in Europe so absolute as that of England: but the spoils of one faction were eagerly grasped by the other; and the crown gained little by the lands which it won upon the field of battle, or wrested from their owners on the scaffold. In the reign of Henry V. the estates of the crown were considerably augmented by the appropriation of the Alien Priories, one hundred and ten in number. Yet the income of Henry VI. was reduced so low as 5,000l. a year; and in his reign, several general resumptions of grants were authorised by Parliament, in order to supply his necessities. land re venues by and VIII. The rapacity of Henry VII. was needed to retrieve Increase of the revenues of the crown; and his exactions and thrift repaired the waste of former reigns. His acqui- Henry VII. sitions, however, were as nothing compared with the wholesale plunder of the monasteries, and other religious and charitable foundations, by Henry VIII., which has been valued at upwards of 30,000,000l. sterling. Yet such were the magnificence and prodigality of this king, that at his death, his treasury was found to be entirely empty. The crown was as poor as ever: but the great nobles, who were enriched by grants of the church lands-more provident than their royal masterheld them fast for their descendants. In the seventh year of the reign of James I. the entire land revenues of the crown and Duchy of Lancaster amounted to no more than 66,870%. a year, while the king's debts exceeded a million. During his reign he sold lands to the extent of 775,000l., and left debts of about an equal amount. tion of land revenues the Com But more evil days were at hand for the land reve- Destrucnues. Charles I., unable to obtain supplies from Parliament, and gaining little from his illegal exactions, during was forced to sell and mortgage the property of the monwealth. crown. The Parliament, after his death, completed the spoliation, of which he had set them the example; and sold nearly all the royal estates, in order to pay the arrears due to the Parliamentary forces, and discharge the debts of the new government. At the Restoration, these latter sales were declared void; and many of the covery and waste. estates of the crown were recovered. But they were Their re-recovered,—to be again squandered and dispersed. In subsequent three years, Charles II. had reduced the income of the crown lands from 217,900l. to 100,000l. a year. In the first year of his reign he surrendered the court of wards and liveries, and the military tenures, in exchange for a settlement of certain duties of excise1; being the first instance of a surrender by the crown, of its interest in any part of the hereditary revenues. During this reign, a large proportion of the fee-farm rents belonging to the crown, was sold by act of Parliament 2; and further grants of these rents were made during the reigns of William III. and Queen Anne. The liberality of William III. to his followers, provoked remonstrances from Parliament. He was even obliged to recall an enormous grant to the Earl of Portland, which conveyed to that nobleman four-fifths of the county of Denbigh, with a reserved rent of 6s. 8d., payable to the crown3: but he compensated the Earl with other lands and manors.4 So jealous were the Commons, at this period, of the continual diminution of the hereditary revenues of the crown, that several bills were brought in to resume all grants made by Charles II., James II., and William 5 ; and to prevent further alienations of crown lands.6 At the end of William's reign, Parliament having obtained accounts of the state of the land revenues, found that they had been reduced by grants, alienations, incumbrances, reversions, and pensions, until they scarcely exceeded the rent-roll of a squire.7 1 12 Car. II. c. 24. 2 22 Car. II. c. 6; 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 24. 3 1695 Parl. Hist., v. 978; Com. Journ., xi. 391, 395, 409. 4 Com. Journ., xi. 608. 1703: Com. Journ., xii. 90; Ibid., xiii. 208, 350; Ibid., xiv. 95, 269, 305, &c.; Macaulay's Hist., v. 32. In 1697 and 1699, Com. Journ., xii. 90; Ibid., xiii. 62. 7 Com. Journ., xiii. 478, 498: 5 In 1697, 1699, 1700, 1702, and St. John on the Land Revenues, 99. |