encroachments upon the Crown have but added to its true dignity, and conciliated, more than ever, the confidence and affections of the people. Until the accession of her Majesty, every previous soverRevenues of eign of her royal house had also enjoyed the revHanover. enue of the Kingdom of Hanover, which was now detached from the Crown of England. Former sovereigns had also inherited considerable personal property from their predecessors: but her Majesty succeeded to none whatever. Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The Crown, however, still retains the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The former are the property of the reigning sovereign; the latter the independent inheritance of the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall. The estates of both these duchies have been largely augmented by judicious management, and by vigilant attention to the interests of the Crown. Revenue of At the commencement of her Majesty's reign, the gross revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster amounted to the Duchy of 23,0387., and the charges to 14,1267., leaving a Lancaster. net revenue of no more than 8,9127. In 1859 the gross revenue had increased to 45,3497., and the net revenue to 31,3497., of which 25,000l. were paid to her Majesty's Privy Purse.1 Revenue of When George, Prince of Wales, came of age in 1783, the income of the Duchy of Cornwall was less than the Duchy of 13,000l. a year. On the accession of her Majesty Cornwall. the gross income was 28,4567., and the payments were 12,670., leaving a net income of 15,7867. In 1859, the gross income had increased to 63,7047., and the net revenue to 50,7771.; of which no less than 40,7851. were paid over to the trustees and treasurer of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. And out of this ample revenue, accumulations exceeding half a million, are said to have been invested for the future benefit of his Royal Highness. 1 Parl. Papers, 1837-8, (665); 1860, (98). In addition to these public revenues, the rights of the Crown to its own private property have been se- Private prop Sovereigns. cured. The alienation of the land revenues of erty of the the Crown having been restrained by the 1st Anne, a doubt subsequently arose, whether the restrictions of that Act extended to the private property of the sovereign, acquired by purchase, gift, or devise, or by descent, from persons not being kings or queens of the realm. But such restrictions being without any color of justice, an Act was passed, in 1800, declaring that property so acquired, could be disposed of like the property of subjects. On the acces sion of George IV., however, doubts were suggested whether this Act applied to property acquired, by the reigning sovereign, before he had succeeded to the throne, which were set at rest by statute in 1823.2 ily. While the Civil List has been ample for the support of the personal dignity of the Crown, Parliament has Provision for also provided liberally for the maintenance of the the royal famvarious members of the royal family. A separate annuity to the Queen Consort, with a large dowry in case of the death of the king, annuities to the brothers, sisters, and other relatives of his Majesty, establishments for each of his children on coming of age, and even allowances for their education and maintenance, - marriage portions for princesses of the royal house, such are the claims which have been made upon the liberality of Parliament, in addition to the Civil List. To these must be added, in the reign of George III., the debts of the Prince of Wales. Wales. The prince came of age in 1783, - a time ill-suited for heavy demands upon the public purse. The peo- Debts of the ple were still suffering under the accumulated bur- Prince of dens of the American War; and the abuses of the Civil List had recently undergone a rude exposure. But the prince's Whig friends in the Coalition Ministry, overlook 1 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 88. 2 4 Geo. IV. c. 18; Hansard's Debates, 2d Ser., viii. 509, 651. ing these considerations, proposed a settlement of 100,000l. a year. They were glad to have this opportunity of strengthening their political connection with the heir-apparent. But the king was more sensible than they, of the objections to such a proposal at that time; and being tenacious of his own power, loving his son but little, and hating his ministers very much, he declined an arrangement which would have secured the independence of the prince, and drawn him still more closely to the party most obnoxious to himself. He agreed, therefore, to make the prince an allowance of 50,0007. a year out of his Civil List, which had already proved unequal to his own expenditure, and limited his demand upon Parliament to an outfit of 60,000l. To a prudent prince such an allowance would have been ample; to the spendthrift and the gamester it was a pittance. The prince was soon in difficulties; and his "debts of honor" to the blacklegs of Newmarket, and the sharpers of St. James's, left little for the payment of the royal tradesmen. On the revision of the Civil List in 1786, another effort was made by the prince's friends to obtain for him a more liberal settlement; but Mr. Pitt was cold, and the king inexorable. The prince broke up his establishment, yet failed to pay his debts. In 1787 his affairs had become desperate, when the heirapparent was saved from ruin by the friendly intervention of a London alderman. Mr. Alderman Newnham having given notice, in the House of Commons, of an address to the king on the subject of the prince's debts, and being supported by the friends of his Royal Highness, the king thought it better to arrange a compromise. This resulted in the addition of 10,000l. a year to the income of the prince out of the Civil List; and the voting of 161,000l. for the payment of his debts, and 20,000l. for the buildings at Carlton House. No 1 25th June, 1783; Parl. Hist. xxiii. 1030; Lord J. Russell's Life and Times of Fox, ii. 8; Lord Auckland's Cor. i. 54. 2 Parl. Hist. xxvi. 1010, 1048, 1064, 1207; Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 260; Lord Auckland's Cor. i. 415, 417. less than 63,700l. were afterwards granted by Parliament, at different times, for the completion of this costly palace,1 which, after being the scene of tinsel splendor and bad taste for little more than twenty-five years, was razed to the ground to make room for metropolitan improvements. The king assured the House of Commons that the prince had promised to confine his future expenses within his income; yet so little were these good intentions carried out, that in 1792 his Royal Highness confessed to Lord Malmesbury that his debts then amounted to 370,0001.2 In 1795 they had increased to the extraordinary sum of 650,000l.; when he was extricated from these embarrassments, by his ill-fated marriage with Caroline of Brunswick. To propose a grant for the payment of these debts, was out of the question; but an additional annuity of 65,000l. was settled upon him, of which nearly the whole was appropriated, for many years, to the gradual discharge of his incumbrances. These were ultimately paid off; and the spendthrift prince, though still fond of building and enlarging palaces at the public expense, learned, in his old age, to husband his own resources, with the caution of a miser. Parliament has since cheerfully granted every suitable provision for members of the royal family: but its liberality has not been discredited by any further application for the payment of their debts. land revenues We have seen that the income arising from the land revenues of the Crown was surrendered to the state, Mismanageby George III. in exchange for a Civil List; but ment of the for a long time the state was deprived, by mis- on behalf of the public. management, of the greater part of the benefit to which it was entitled. Leases were improvidently, if not corruptly, granted, often without any survey of the prop 1 Viz., 35,000l. in 1789, 3,500l. in 1791, and 27,500l. in 1795. 2 Lord Malmesbury's Cor. ii. 415, 418. 3 King's Message, April 27th, 1795; Parl. Hist. xxxi. 1464, 1496; lbid. xxxii. 90, 135; 35 Geo. III. c. 129. erty, and even without a copy or counterpart of the lease being retained by the Surveyor-General, on behalf of the Crown renewals were conceded at the pleasure of the tenants; while extravagant fees, payable at public offices, instead of being charged to the tenants, were deducted from the fines, and became a grievous burden upon the revenues of the Crown. At least seven eighths of the value of the land were received in the shape of fines, and one eighth only in rent ; and these fines, again, were computed at high rates of interest, by which the payments to the Crown were further diminished. Encroachments and waste were permitted upon the royal demesnes, with scarcely a check. Such mismanagement, however, was not due to any want of officers, appointed to guard the public interests. On the contrary, their very number served to facilitate frauds and evasions. Instead of being a check upon one another, these officers acted independently; and their ignorance, incapacity, and neglect went far to ruin the property under their charge. As an illustration of the system it may be stated, that the land-tax was frequently allowed twice over to lessees; from which error alone, a loss was sustained of upwards of fifteen hundred pounds a year. Even without mismanagement, the wide. dispersion of the estates of the Crown multiplied the charges of superintendence and administration. From these various causes the noble estates of the Crown, for the first twenty-five years of the reign of George III. produced an average net revenue little exceeding six thousand pounds a year. Some of these abuses were exposed by Mr. Burke in 1780, who suggested as a remedy, a general sale of the Crown lands.2 In 1786 the king sent a message to Parliament, by the advice of Mr. Pitt, recommending an inquiry into the condition of the woods, forests, and land revenues of the Crown; and a commission was ac 1 Reports of Commissioners of Inquiry into the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, under Act 26 Geo. III. c. 87. 2 Parl. Hist. xxi. 26. |