Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/177

 150

THE death of the queen and the accession of Edward VII, have been the occasion of several interesting notes in the English law journals. For example, the Law Times points out that, in strict accuracy, there was a distinction between the right by which the queen ruled in England, and that by which she ruled in Ireland. She "ruled in England by parliamentary right by vir tue of 6 Anne, c. 7. In Ireland, by a statute passed in 1542, the king of England was de clared king of Ireland. This inseparable de pendence of the crown of Ireland upon that of England, was generally expressed by the maxim that whoever was king de facto in England was king de jure in Ireland." At all events, what ever authority could rightfully dispose of the English crown disposed also of the Irish crown. When the English parliament, in 1702, by the act of settlement, excluded from the succession the elder branches of the line of Charles I, and settled the crown upon the descendants of the Princess Sophia, no corresponding statute was passed by the Irish parliament. The Irish par liament in this instance distinctly recognized the right of English authority to dispose of the Irish crown. An act was passed reciting the English act of succession, and visiting with the penalties of high treason any one who opposed the suc cession as directed by that act. It was admitted that the English parliament had the right todispose of the crown of England, and, in exercising that right, disposed of necessity of the Irish crown." The same journal, citing " Blackstone's Com mentaries," fifteenth edition, p. 223, that "The heir apparent to the crown, is usually made Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester by special creation or investiture, but, being the king's eldest son, he is by inheritance Duke of Corn wall without any new creation," adds : " Ac cording to the notes to that edition by Mr. Christian, the principality of Wales has not been confined to the heir apparent, as Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, when in turn heiresses presumptive to the throne, had the title conferred on them. The same learned note informs us that it was solemnly determined in 1613, upon the death of James I's eldest son, Prince Henry, that Prince Charles (afterwards Charles I) was Duke of Cornwall by inheritance. On the other hand, if the eldest son died, leaving issue, the Duchy of Cornwall could not then go to the sec

ond son, but would revert to the crown, as the Duke of Cornwall must be not only the king's eldest son, but also heir to the crown. So strange is this mode of descent that, according to the same authority, if it had not been created by an act of the legislature, it would have been void, as the king's charter could not alter the rules of descent." On the re-settlement of the civil list, one of the first questions with which the new parlia ment will have to deal, the Law Journal says : "Down to the time of the Revolution, at the end of the seventeenth century, the sovereign con ducted the financial business of the country on revenues derived from the crown lands and from taxes, which at the commencement of each reign were settled for life on every successive sover eign. If the amount was more than sufficient for the purpose, the sovereign appropriated the balance. If there was a deficiency, he looked to his faithful Commons to make it good. On the Revolution, however, a different system was introduced. Parliament took into its own hands the entire naval and military expenditure, for which annual provision was made, and settled on the sovereign an annual sum for his per sonal use and to defray the expenses of the civil service. The charges which were to be paid out of this fund were included in a list — called the civil list, so as to distinguish it from the naval and military estimates. George III, on his accession to the throne, surrendered to the public the hereditary revenues arising from the crown lands, the excise, and the post office, in exchange for an income of .£800,000 a year, and a similar surrender has been made by each of his successors. It was held by the House of Lords in the case of The Lord Advocate v. Doug las, in 1842, that this surrender does not oper ate beyond the life of the sovereign making it. From the time of George III, the charges that had to be defrayed out of the civil list were steadily diminished. William IV was relieved of all strictly public charges, except a sum of about .£23,000 for secret service money. The charges in the civil list at the end of the reign of Queen Victoria embraced the following items : Privy purse, £60,000; salaries of the household, about ¿£131,000; household expenses, about £13,000; royal bounty, about £13,000; pen sions, about £25,000; unappropriated, .£8,000."