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 66,8701. a year, while the king's debts exceeded a million.2 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.3 At the Restoration, these latter sales were declared void; and many of the 3 Scobell, part ii. 51, 106, 227, 1 St. John on the Land Revenues of the Crown, 68. 2 Ibid., 79. &c. Their re covery and waste. estates of the crown were recovered. But they were 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 excise 1; 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 crown: but he compensated the Earl with other lands and manors.4 At 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. 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. 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. 6 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. crown lands re strained. Such an abuse of the rights of the crown could no Alienalonger be tolerated; and on the settlement of the civil tions of list of Queen Anne, Parliament at length interposed to restrain it. It was now nearly too late. The sad confession was made, "that the necessary expenses of supporting the crown, or the greater part of them, were formerly defrayed by a land revenue, which had, from time to time, been impaired by the grants of former kings and queens, so that her Majesty's land revenues could then afford very little towards the support of her government." Yet to preserve what was still left, it was now provided that no future lease (except a building lease) should be granted for more than thirty-one years, or three lives; and that a reasonable rent should be reserved. If such a law as this had been passed immediately after the Restoration, the land revenues would probably have provided for the entire charge of the civil list of Queen Anne. But at least the small remnant of crown lands was saved, and in that and the next two reigns, some additions were made to the royal estates, by escheats and forfeitures.2 tional re While this waste of the crown property had been Constituinjurious to the public revenues, it favoured the deve-sults of the lopment of the liberties of the people. Kings with vast improvihereditary revenues,-husbanded and improved,-would kings. have been comparatively independent of Parliament. 11 Anne, c. 7, s. 5. 2 Much curious learning is to be found concerning the land revenues of the crown in Wright's Tenures; Hargrave's Notes to Coke on Lit tleton; Coke's 1st Inst.; Spelman's Works (of Feuds); Lord Hale's History of the Common Law; Gilbert's Hist. of the Exchequer ; dence of Impor tance of a venues of of the crown prior to the Revolution. But their improvidence gradually constrained them to rely upon the liberality of their subjects; until their own necessities, and the increasing expenditure of the state, at length placed them entirely under the control of Parliament. No constitutional change has been more important in settlement securing popular control over the executive governof the re- ment, than the voting of supplies by the House of Comthe crown. mons: nor has any expedient been better calculated to restrain the undue influence of the crown, than a strict Revenues settlement of its revenues by Parliament. In the reign of Charles II., the principle of appropriating supplies to specific services by statute,-which had not been without previous recognition,- was formally established as one of the conditions, under which Parliament granted money for the service of the state. But until the Revolution, no limitation had been imposed upon the personal expenditure of the sovereign. It had been customary for Parliament to grant to the king, at the commencement of each reign, the ordinary revenues of the crown, which were estimated to provide, in time of peace, for the support of His Majesty's dignity and civil government, and for the public defence. To these were added, from time to time, special grants for extraordinary occasions. The ordinary revenues were derived, first, from the hereditary revenues of the crown itself, and, secondly, from the produce of taxes voted to the king for life. The hereditary revenues consisted of the rents of crown lands, of feudal rights, the proceeds of the post-office, and wine licenses; and, after the surrender of feudal tenures by Charles II., in 1660, of part of the excise duties. In the reign of James II. the hereditary revenues, together with the taxes voted for the king's life, amounted on an average to 1,500,9647. a year.1 Whatever remained of this annual income, after the payment of the necessary expenses of the government, was at the king's absolute disposal,-whether for the support of his dignity and influence, or for his pleasures and profusion. Not satisfied with these resources for his personal expenditure, there is no doubt that Charles II. applied to his own privy purse, large sums of money which had been specially appropriated by Parliament, for carrying on the war.2 of the William To prevent such abuses in future, on the accession Settlement of William and Mary, Parliament made a separate "Civil provision for the king's "Civil List," which em- List" of braced the support of the royal household, and the and Mary. personal expenses of the king, as well as the payment of civil offices and pensions. The revenue voted for the support of the crown in time of peace, was 1,200,000l.; of which the civil list amounted to about 700,000l., being derived from the hereditary revenues of the crown, estimated at 400,000l. a year and upwards, and from a part of the excise duties, pro- The civil ducing about 300,000l. The system thus introduced list comprised was continued in succeeding reigns; and the civil list items of still comprised not only the expenses of the sovereign, expendibut a portion of the civil expenditure of the state. national ture. of Queen The civil list of Queen Anne was settled by Parlia- Civil List ment in the same form, and computed at the same Anne. amount as that of William III.4 Her Majesty, while she feared the revenue granted to her would fall 1 Parl. Hist., v. 151; Hallam, Const. Hist., ii. 279. 2 Lord Clarendon's Life, iii. 131; Pepys' Diary, Sept. 23rd, and Dec. 12th, 1666, whence it appears that above 400,000l. had gone into the Privy Purse since the War. Me- 3 Parl. Hist., v. 193; Com. Journ., |