ancient sovereigns.* But King George III., using the experience of his late predecessors, agreed to relinquish a much larger proportion of his varied revenues in consideration of parliament stipulating to pay him a fixed sum yearly as his permanent civil-list, 'for the support of his household, and the honour and dignity of the Crown.'t Be it observed, besides, that not merely do these royal surrenders henceforth comprise the supervision of all the surrendered revenue-surrendered Crown lands included—but likewise their primary management and usufruct. King George III. started, then, with a civil-list of 800,000l. a-year, giving up all claim to surplus profit. Whatever the former attempts of parliament, in behoof of the English nation, to control the expenditure of its sovereign, and whatever the income delivered over to the state by King Charles II., this act of about a century ago is the earliest royal act distinctly acknowledging the long-urged national right. For all which it must be remembered that the new civil-list was not divested of every onerous charge, the king having, as before, to defray the whole cost of administering justice and to maintain his embassies and ministries of state. On the other hand, irrespective of his general civil-list, and of a separate civil-list for Ireland, King George III. reserved to himself the Crown lands of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, the royalties of Scotland in their entirety, the four-per-cent duties of England, the Admiralty droits of the three kingdoms, with other minor casualties. But, great as was this revenue, the burdens on it were vastly greater.§ The king found, in his capacity of contractor to the nation, that, so to speak, it could not be done for the money. Wherefore, in 1769, in 1777, and in 1782, parliament, notwithstanding an immense deal of grumbling, paid off large arrears into which the civil-list had fallen, and raised it besides to 900,000l. a year. But so alarmingly on the increase did its illregulated expenditure seem to be, that first Mr. Burke, and then Lord Rockingham, essayed to pass bills intended definitively to * Journals of the House of Commons, 1689, 1690; Macaulay's Hist. vol. iii. c. xv. Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxvii. p. 28. The previous bad management of the estates of the Crown is absurdly but clearly evidenced by the fact that they produced during the first twenty-five years of King George III. on an average less than 8000l. annually (Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue, under Act 26 Geo. III. c. 87); whilst their productive capacity was as triumphantly demonstrated by the valuation which government was enabled to make of them at 201,2501. a year, twenty years after the passing of Lord Rockingham's Civil-List Act (Report of Surveyor-General, Journals of the House of Commons, vol. liii. p. 187). In 1860, that is, just at the expiry of a century, the net revenue from all the Crown estates was returned as 416,5301. a year (Finance Accounts, 1860). § Erskine May's Hist. vol. i. c. iv.; Walpole's Memoirs, vol. i. pp. 25, 159. See the old London Magazine of 1737, p. 348, and that of 1738, p. 135, for interesting essays on the Crown lands and civil-list, showing at what an early date the subject had begun to be systematically and vigorously discussed even out of parliament. restrain it. The minister in some degree succeeded. By his Civil-List Act of 1782 many useless offices were abolished, outlays for secret-service were limited, pensions were lessened, and securities provided for the better management of the Crown lands, while the civil - list itself was divided into eight clearly-marked classes. Arrears accumulated again, however, and to such extent, that all through the reign of King George III. the civil-list appears never to have been able to ease itself of the incubus of debt. The enormous extravagance which the Princes of Wales of those days so ignobly threw upon the nation augmented the abnormal payments it was obliged continually to make, although its ordinary administration did not cease on that account to be conscientiously and efficiently conducted. By slow degrees the Crown came to be less and less loaded with burdens wholly distinct from the personal dignity or comfort of the sovereign. But it was not till he sank into the grave, who had tired-out the national patience as heir-apparent, and who, through the determined opposition of his ministers, had failed as king to fix his surcharge of taxes upon the English people,* that a more equitable settlement was arrived at, by King William IV. resigning all the royal revenues other than the two Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall; whilst parliament accepted the liability of paying the judges, ambassadors, and ministers of state, with numerous miscellaneous expenses superadded. His majesty only protested against the Commons scrutinising the details of his household too closely. If,' he said, the House of Commons is to decide upon the salaries I am to give to my servants, then the prerogatives of the Crown will in reality pass to the people, and the monarchy cannot exist.' Parliament so far complied; whilst, at one and the same time, the principle was firmly established that the voice of the nation has a right to be heard regarding the personalty of its sovereign, and the substantial right of the royal family to its own landed property, as well as to its royalties when reigning, was more fully than ever admitted. The great wisdom of this arrangement is palpable from the circumstance that, for forty years, there has been no demand on behalf of the throne beside the vote at the commencement of their reigns to each of the two sovereigns who have reigned since then. Here it is not amiss to anticipate another mistaken criticism which a superficial or too prejudiced reader of history might incline to pass. From the first years to the last of the long reign of King George III., the various arrears discharged by Parliament, in respect of the civil-list, amounted to nothing less than 3,698,0001. Possibly the present reigning family, or their immediate forefathers, *Twiss's Life of Eldon, vol. ii. p. 363; Hansard, second series, vol. i. p. 11; Grenville's Letter to Lord Buckingham, May 4, 1820. ↑ Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministries, vol. ii. p. 159. may on that account be deemed much beholden to the nation, considered as their bankers. The case, however, is almost exactly reversed. For not only did no real loss fall upon the country from the large and constant demands of that king, but, if counterweighted by all he had resigned, they positively brought us gain, the produce of his surrendered hereditary revenues having exceeded by full 6,000,000l. the entire outgoings of the civil-list from 1760 up to 1815, payment of all its debts inclusive. It is therefore clear, from this aspect also, that whatever may be said of other tolerances to royalty in an age gone by, no pecuniary obligations to the taxpayers of England were inherited by the existent royal family. Queen Victoria's settlement with Parliament is based upon the same principles as the settlement of King William IV. Its differences of detail are, that the old pension-list of 75,000l., which united the three pension-lists of England, Ireland, and Scotland, is now carried over to the Consolidated Fund, the Queen retaining her privilege to pension to the extent of 12001. yearly; which sum she is empowered, on the advice of the premier, to grant to meritorious literary or scientific personages, and that consequently the royal allowance is now reduced by 135,000l., her Majesty at her accession having consented to the reduction. Thus it eventuated, only within living memory, that the civil-list finally disencumbered itself, and that the Crown of England became restricted to one definite annuity, which is given to it for the sole purpose of upholding its dignity, and ministering to the personal wants of the sovereign, a discretion for providing and apportioning the incomes of the rest of the royal family being intrusted to the honour of Parliament.† Whence, four points are assumable-1. that the settlement of the civil-list at the beginning of each reign, although not of the essence of the British constitution, is consonant with it, and has grown by usage into a constitutional practice; 2. that the settlement being of its nature a compact between the reigning sovereign and Parliament, neither party can break through it without the other's agreement; 3. that our future kings or queens are not bound to accept those terms or any terms at all, full power resting with the successors of our present sovereign to take back the royal revenues into their hands or not as they may think proper; 4. that the members of our royal family, receiving from us less than they give us, and receiving what they do receive not upon the score of duty done, but by way of commutation for their lands and legal rights surrendered, are improperly said to be salaried. In reality, and in true justice, they stand well aloof from any position of the kind. On the suppo Still some distinction does need to be drawn. * Parliamentary Report on the Civil-list, A.D. 1815, p. 4. sition of our present royal family losing the crown, it is certain. that they would not therefore lose their substance. Yet to say so looks somewhat paradoxical. For in one sense, the right to the British Crown lands, albeit indefeasible, is not of one whit stronger tenure than the right to the British Crown itself. The tenures, if unidentical, are to all intents as inseparably linked together in the gross as hundreds of other properties and titles. throughout the kingdom. At the same time, supposing from any cause the avoidance of the throne by its present possessor or her heirs, it cannot be disputed that, though the absolute dominion over the Crown lands would then go from the family (not, as is sometimes advanced, because the property was acquired when their ancestors held the kingly office, but because only retainable by those who actually hold it), they would still retain a substantial interest in those lands as an entailed appanage. Made plainer, a retiring royal family of England would forfeit by their retirement all formal and casual rights, as well to the royal domains as to the secondary droits of an English sovereign; but they still would legally have the usufruct and productive substance of the Crown lands, and even keep a quasi-dominion over them. This, which seems to be the unanimous opinion of jurists, is deducible by converse of reasoning from the terms of well-known statutes, such as that of Queen Anne, restraining all farther alienation of the land-tenures of the Crown, for a power to restrain an occupier presumes a valid title in that occupier to perpetual possession. The fact, either, of a pretender to the throne existing when those statutes passed militates but little, if at all, against such an opinion; the question not being between two individual claimants, but between the one rightful owner and no particular claimant, or between a corporation sole and an aggregate of claimants as owners in reversion—that is, the nation. * Besides this indisputable right of substance in the original and acquired land, though a right restricted in view of eventualities, our royal family possesses a legality to acquire other property by purchase, gift, devise, or descent, provided it does not come to them from the reigning sovereign, and to use or dispose of property so acquired like any subject of the realm.† It remains to recite the operation of our Queen-regnant's settlement. Parliament, on her present Majesty acceding, granted her an annuity of 385,000l., whilst it likewise covenanted to make suitable provision for her husband to be, and for each of her royal offspring, as the sons should come of age or the daughters should marry. The Lords of the Treasury are appointed paymasters-in-chief of the an * 1 Anne, c. 7, s. 5. † 39, 40 Geo. III. c. 88; 4 Geo. IV. c. 18; Hansard, second series, vol. viii. pp. 509, 651. nuity, and its application is limited by specialties. 172,500l. goes to defray the expenses of the royal housekeeping; 131,2601. pays respectively the salaries or the wages of the royal household, with retiring allowances; 13,200l. provides for royal bounty, alms, and particular services; leaving 60,000l. to the Queen's privy-purse, and a sum of 8,040l. over. The Treasury is furthermore authorised to direct that, at the end of each year, when the accounts are audited, the savings in any one of these classes may be devoted to assisting deficiencies in any of the others. And, with the object of warding-off debt, it is enacted, that if perchance the civil-list charges should ever exceed a total of 400,000l., a detailed report of the excess shall be laid before Parliament not later than thirty days after the audit.* The foregoing will have tended to show how truly, through the simple working of a free constitution and the sympathetic action of a good sovereign, it has been possible at once to keep the civil-list within bounds, and to help in placing the Crown beyond the reach of calumny and misconception. The present Queen, being able to reject the unwholesome side-channels of influence so wantonly used in antecedent reigns, sees herself correspondingly released from all reproach of corruption. The perpetually- augmenting burdens upon government, in the days when it was worked with less responsibility and with much more complexity, furnished endless grounds for murmur against the royal family. In our day the House of Commons, otherwise the nation, alone bears the brunt of complaint. As the last crisis drew near, statesmen may have feared lest they should trespass unduly on the ancient province of royalty;† but the fear proved not less unfounded, with regard to this especial act of progression, than similar fears have proved regarding all other steps of genuine constitutional development. Competent hands having at length adjusted the coping-stone to a part of our political edifice of such prolonged and such puzzling construction, the result has been to add to the stability of the throne, and to enlist for it, in a higher degree than heretofore, the respect, confidence, and affection of the people. Independently of the items summarised in Queen Victoria's settlement, other claims were pressing, which the summary could not satisfactorily embody. Until her present Majesty acceded, the British monarch had enjoyed for a century and upwards the revenues of the electorate or kingdom of Hanover; also those of the rich bishopric of Osnaburg. The operation of the Salic law caused her Majesty to lose them. Again, her predecessors on the throne of Great Britain and Ireland had every one inherited some private wealth apart from the Crown lands, whereas she was heiress to com * 1 & 2 Vic. c. 2. See the resignation of the Wellington cabinet, Hansard, third series, i. 429, 526. SECOND SERIES, VOL. II. F.S. VOL. XII. N |