- a dangerous repetition of that precedent. But there were other dangers which ought to be averted. It was easy, before the demise of the Crown, to appoint a regent who might never be called upon to exercise his power; but to appoint,-possibly from amongst many claimants, a regent who would at once assume all the authority of the Crown, might be difficult and embarrassing. Still greater would be the embarrassment, if the right of succession should be rendered doubtful, by the prospective claims of an unborn child. An attempt was made, in the Commons, to represent to the king the importance of making immediate provision for a regency; but the ministers successfully resisted it; and the question was reserved for the consideration of the new Parliament.1 gency Bill, Happily, these dreaded evils were not encountered; The Reand on the meeting of the new Parliament, a well-con- 1830-1831' sidered Regency Bill was introduced. By this bill the Duchess of Kent was appointed sole regent, until her Majesty should attain the age of eighteen. Departing from former precedents, it was not proposed that the regent should be controlled by a council. It was said that a regent, for the maintenance of the royal authority, needed the free exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown, even more than a king himself. Cases might, indeed, arise in which it would be necessary to control the ambition and influence of a regent, by such a council: but here the regent could never succeed to the throne her interests were identified with those of the future sovereign, to whom she was united by the tenderest ties; and she could have no object but to uphold, in good faith, the authority of the infant queen. Her Royal Highness would, therefore, be left to administer the government of the country, by means of 1 Hansard's Debates, 2nd Ser., xxv. 771—828. the responsible ministers of the Crown, and to act upon their advice alone. Another question of great constitutional delicacy was also wisely dealt with. No precedent was to be found, since the Norman Conquest, of any provision having been made for the exercise of the royal prerogatives, between the demise of the Crown, and the birth of a posthumous child. The law upon this important question was not settled; but reasoning from the analogy of the law of real property, as well as according to the dictates of common sense, it was clear that an unborn child could not be seised of the Crown. There could be no abeyance or vacancy of the Crown. The king never dies. The crown must, therefore, devolve at once upon the heir presumptive; and be resigned, if a child should be born, entitled to inherit it. If Parliament interposed, and appointed a regent to administer the government until the birth of a posthumous child, such a regent would not be governing in the name and on behalf of the sovereign, but would be a parliamentary sovereign, created for the occasion, under the title of regent. And, in the meantime, if no child should be born, the heir presumptive would have been unlawfully deprived of her right to the throne. Upon these sound principles the regency was now to be established. If the king should die during the minority of the Princess Victoria, she was to be proclaimed queen, subject to the rights of any issue of his Majesty, which might afterwards be born of his consort. Duchess of Kent would at once assume the regency in the name of the Infant Queen, and on her behalf; and should a posthumous child be born, her Majesty Queen Adelaide would forthwith assume the regency, on behalf of her own child. These principles were accepted by statesmen and lawyers of every party; and The the Regency Bill, which had been prepared by the government of the Duke of Wellington, was adopted and passed by the government of Lord Grey. It was a wise provision for contingencies, which fortunately never arose. When King William IV. died, in 1837, after a short but eventful reign, her most gracious Majesty had, less than a month before, completed her eighteenth year; and ascended the throne, surrounded by happy auguries, which have since been fully accomplished. gency Act Victoria. 1840. On the accession of her Majesty, the King of Hanover First Rebecame heir presumptive to the throne; and as he of Queen would probably be resident abroad, it was thought necessary to provide that, in the event of her Majesty's decease, while her successor was out of the realm, the administration of the government should be carried on in his name by lords justices, until his arrival.2 But Second Rethe queen's marriage, in 1840, required provision to be geney Act, made for another contingency, which, though more 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.3 1 Act 1 Will. IV. c. 2; Hansard's Debates, 3rd Ser., i. 499, 764, 954, &c. 27 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 72. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 52; Hansard's Debates, 3rd Ser., lv. 754, 850, 1074. 188 CHAP. IV. Vast possessions of the Crown in early times. Extensive forfeitures. ANCIENT REVENUES OF THE CROWN.-SETTLEMENT OF THE CIVIL LIST ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC:- CIVIL LIST PENSIONS. PREROGA- 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. By means of escheats and forfeitures, there was even a danger of the Crown becoming the absolute proprietor of all the lands of the realm. But vast as were aliena the king's possessions, they were not vast enough to satisfy the rapacity of his followers; and in every succeeding reign, the grants and alienations of crown lands Grants and exceeded the escheats and forfeitures. The estates of the tions. 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 |