The estimate of the value of the land-revenues does not include the royal forests. In some of these are intermingling rights, and the Crown has no property in the soil. Such are New Forest and the forests of Epping, Sherwood, and Dean Forest; all the right possessed by the Crown consists of the right of herbage for the deer, although in the great forest of Sherwood, comprising a sheet of land of 95,000 acres, not a single deer is kept. In the New Forest, out of 90,000 acres, the Crown has the right to enclose periodically 6,000 acres, which may be dissevered from the pasturage for the growth of timber. valuable property undoubtedly consists of the estates and leaseholds alone worth upwards of twenty millions sterling. These might be sold without encroaching on any possession in the least conducive to the dignity and enjoyment of the sovereign. What dignity, indeed, can there be in the king or his servants being jobbers in land, or hucksters in the sale of houses, leases, and ground-rents?

The most

It is not, however, the dignity nor the comfort of the king, but the patronage of his ministers, that is at stake. The preceding narrative has shown what an endless source of jobbing the crown-lands have been for centuries; of jobbing the most foul, rapacious, and iniquitous. Not only have the commons, but the distinguished names of the peerage— the great historical cognomens-been implicated in these peculating transactions. This description is not limited to the times of the Edwards and Henries, when there was no law to contravene the sovereign's pleasure, or the sordid practices of his servants, but applies to the period subsequent to the Revolution, when the constitution is supposed to have been purified and perfected. Acts of parliament, indeed, were passed prescribing the minimum of rent (relatively to the full value) at which the crown-farms should be let,-namely one-third before the reign of George III. and one-eighth after the accession of the said king, stating, too, that, under the former regulation, two-thirds of the valued rack-rent, and, under the latter, seven-eighths should be paid in the shape of fine. But what of these statutery restraints? They were all set at nought; the“ creatures were at their dirty work" again; and, in most cases, the rents reserved and the fines exacted were merely nominal. May it not be said, after this, that ministerial responsibility is a farce, and that it is sheer fatuity to expect justice will be enforced against public defaulters, when the accused and his judges are alike participant in the delinquency?

The sale of the crown-lands would not only cut off a dangerous source of ministerial influence, but render them more conducive to national wealth, and effect a saving in the public expenditure. That costly establishment, the Board of Woods and Forests, might be abolished. Mr. Huskisson long depastured in this retreat, and retained to the last a singular partiality for the existing mode of administering the crown property. In the debate on Mr. Harvey's motion, he observed that the House had no right to dispose of the hereditary revenues of the Crown without its consent. No one could gainsay this constitutional truism. No doubt an act of parliament would be requisite, and every one knows

an act of parliament is not law till it receives the royal assent. In this, then, there is nothing peculiar. But the importance ascribed by the honourable member to the fact, that the royal forests formed a valuable nursery for the growth of timber, seemed a little inconsistent with his favourite principles of free trade. England depends much more on the the produce of her looms and steam-engines than of her woods and forests. Agreeably with the dogmas of the school of which Mr. Huskisson had long been a distinguished ornament, our supply of timber would be most advantageously obtained from the wastes of Canada or Norway, where it can be cheapest produced; while our own acres are best appropriated to the growth of cheap bread for the artizan and manufacturer.

DROITS OF THE CROWN AND ADMIRALTY.

The next and most important branch of the hereditary revenues of the Crown are the droits of admiralty. These droits, or rights, are received by the king, in his capacity of lord high admiral; the duties of which office are discharged by seven lords commissioners. The principal sources whence the droits are derived are the following:-all sums arising from wreck and goods of pirates; all ships detained previously to a declaration of war; all coming into port, either from distress of weather, or ignorant of the commencement of hostilities; all taken before the issuing of proclamation; and those taken by non-commissioned captors are sold, and the proceeds form droits of admiralty.

From this description of the sources whence the droit-fund is constituted, it evidently appears little better than buccaneer or piratical plunder, obtained under circumstances little creditable to any government to sanction. Ships detained previously to a declaration of war, coming into port ignorant of hostilities, or taken before the issuing of a proclamation, are all considered lawful prizes: the sufferers, in these cases, violate a law of which they are ignorant, and of which it is impossible they should have any knowledge. They are caught in a spider's web impervious to the sight. An ex post facto law, or the laws of the Roman tyrant, who placed them so high that they were illegible to the beholder, were not more unjust and tyrannical. In the course of the late war-in the attack on the Danes, and the seizure of the Spanish ships-we had two memorable instances to what base purposes this principle may be applied. In the attack upon Copenhagen, government might be actuated by its fears as well as its cupidity; they might dread the Danish ships of war falling into the hands of Bonaparte; though, in either case, it was equally disgraceful to a great nation to be excited to an act of flagrant injustice and violation of international law. But what can be urged in defence of the attack on the Spanish ships in 1805? The object, in this case, unquestionably, was plunder for the droit-fund. There could be no fear of the Spanish ships joining the enemy, because they were merchantmen, and not ships of war. We were at peace; the Spanish envoy, in London, and the English ambassador, at Madrid, were carrying on a negotiation, and yet, under these circumstances, a squadron of ships of war was fitted out; the homeward-bound Spanish fleet,

from South America, loaded with treasure, attacked, the crews massacred, the ships burnt, and the proceeds of this unhallowed enterprise condemned as rights of the Crown!

Posterity, in looking to the foreign and domestic policy of England for the last forty years, will be at a loss which most to condemn-the encroachments on the liberties of the people, or the atrocious attacks on the right of other states. The balance of iniquity seems nearly equal. At home, the liberty and property of the people have been assailed by the Bank-Restriction-Act, Seditious Meeting Bills, new Treason Acts, and acts for the curtailment of the liberty of the press. Abroad, we may reckon among the catalogue of offences, the attacks upon Copenhagen and the Spanish fleet and the affair of Terceira: to which may be added, our slow and reluctant recognition of the independence of the new States of South America-our suspicious neutrality, when the liberties of Italy and Spain were subverted by the interference of foreign armies-and the promptitude with which we have availed ourselves of every pretext for either openly supporting or covertly aiding all the old European despotisms in their machinations against popular rights.

To return, however, to the Droits of Admiralty. The monies accruing from the droits, as well as the crown-lands, and other branches of the hereditary revenue, were ostensibly conceded to the public, in lieu of the grant of a fixed sum for the civil list. But, instead of being made available to the national service, they have always been kept in the back ground, and indirectly expended, without either the people or their representatives having any control over them, further than an occasional return of the objects on which they had been lavished. The management of the fund is not more extraordinary than its application. It is not paid into the Exchequer, like the taxes, but remains in the hands of the registrar of the high court of Admiralty, the receivergeneral of droits, the commissioners of prizes, and the Bank of England. There is no responsibility attaches to the persons receiving or issuing this money. No account is kept of the receipts and outgoings at the Treasury. It is drawn out of the Bank of England, not on the authority of the privy-seal, but of a warrant under the sign manual only. In short, it is a fund wholly out of the control of parliament; and it is entirely at the disposal of the ministers of the Crown: it may be expended on the hirelings of the press, in rewarding spies and informers, in purchasing votes of members of parliament, in bribery at elections, in minions or mistresses, or any other purpose of royal or ministerial corruption.

The specific objects for which the admiralty droits were granted to the Crown were for "guarding and maintaining the rights and privileges of the seas;" so that the whole of the fund, agreeably to its original destination, ought to have been expended on the ships, officers, and men of the English navy. How differently it has been

* Mr. Brougham, Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxi. 245.

applied we shall proceed to illustrate; instead of being devoted to maritime objects, it has been dissipated in rewarding the questionable services of individuals-in discharging the arrears of the civil list-in payments to Sir William Knighton, for the use of the privy purse-in advances to different branches of the royal family-paying tradesmen's and physicians' bills-defraying the expense of visits from foreign princes, and of royal visits to Ireland, Scotland, and Hanover-and, in general, in discharging any casual debt or expense which the caprice or extravagance of royalty and its servants might incur.

In looking over the returns to parliament of the disbursements to individuals, the first that struck us as singular were two payments to the editor of a ministerial newspaper, namely, to Dr. Stoddart, now Sir John Stoddart, and a judge in the island of Malta. Next we came to a grant to Sir Home Popham, to indemnify him for losses he had sustained in his famous smuggling voyage. This gallant officer, it seems, had entered various investments outwards, in a ship called Etrusco, commanded by Sir Home, and bound from one of the ports of Italy to the East Indies. Captain Robinson, appointed on that station for the prevention of smuggling, seized the vessel and her cargo, value £25,000; being contraband or smuggled goods, was condemned as good and lawful prize. Dr. Lushington having moved for various papers relative to this transaction, it appeared, by a warrant of the Treasury, signed Charles Long and others, as lords of the Treasury, that the loss of £25,000 sustained by Captain Popham, in smuggling, was made up to him by a grant of the same sum out of the Droits of Admiralty. When all the documents relative to the affair were upon the table of the house, and Mr. C. Long and Sir Home Popham, being both members, were present, Dr. Lushington moved "That Sir Home Popham, in being detected in knowingly carrying on an illegal traffic, had acted in contempt of the laws of his country, contrary to the duty of a British subject, and to the disgrace of the character of a British officer; and, further, that the grant of £25,000 by Mr. Long to him out of the Droits of Admiralty, had been a gross misapplication of the public money." After solemn debate on this question, not a single fact being denied or disputed, ‘the Guardians of the Public Purse' fully acquitted Sir Home Popham and Mr. Long of all blame, by a majority of 126 to 57! When one member of parliament can thus give to another such a sum of money as £25,000 out of the Droits of Admiralty, it accounts for that loyal clamour which has been so often heard in Parliament, of this fund being the private property of the king.

The way in which the Reverend W. B. Daniels, the author of a work on "Rural Sports," became entitled to £5077 out of the fund for the maintainence of maritime rights, is worth describing.

A Mr. Jacob, the owner of the privateer Daphne, captured, in 1799 or 1800, the French vessel Circe, worth £30,000, which was condemned as lawful prize, and all claim to the contrary disregarded. The year and day for appeal having transpired, the condemnation became final, and £15,000 was shared among the captors. Ten thousand pounds more lay ready to be distributed. At this point of time, infor

mation was laid against Mr. Jacob, for having disregarded the 33d of Geo. III. by which the muster of the crew of a privateer before sailing is enacted. On the letter of this law they were convicted; the £10,000 stopped; and the £15,000 recovered; all of which became Droits of Admiralty. The mere ignorance of the law was admitted as no excuse for Mr. Jacob, and the result to him was, besides the loss of his prize, costs to the amount of £1700, and utter ruin. From having been in a respectable trade, he was thrown into gaol, and reduced to beggary. But on whose authority does the reader imagine Mr. Jacob and his family were reduced to beggary? Here it will be necessary to introduce the Rev. Mr. Daniels. This gentleman, after publishing his work on "Rural Sports," had been confined for debt, and reduced, as Mr. Brougham says, to the rank of a primitive Christian. After all other attempts to patch up his broken fortune had failed, he, at last, turned a broker in evidence, and procured two men, of the names of Thatcher and Guzman, one of whom had been convicted of perjury, and the other had been flogged at the cart's tail, to swear as much as was necessary to convict Mr. Jacob. For this signal service, the Reverend Mr. Daniels ceived £5077 out of the Admiralty Droits, and the first of his witnesses £87:13:7, as a gratuity for evidence given!

re

Besides the payments to Sir Home Popham, and Messrs. Stoddart and Daniels, there are others quite as extraordinary and unaccountable. There is a sum of £2250 granted to Sir George Young, on the 20th of September, 1803, being one-third of the Dutch ship Frederick, taken at the Cape. This item is remarkable, because at the time Sir George is represented capturing ships at the Cape, he was serving in parliament as member for Honiton, filled a lucrative situation, and, on failing in a subsequent election, was appointed governor of that Colony. The Earl of Dunmore is also down for the sum of £2792, under similar circumstances. Lord Stowell is inserted for £932, "for services in deciding upon cases relative to American captures.' There are two grants to Lord Keith of £20,521 and £1800, to make up losses he had sustained from an action brought against him for wrongfully detaining an American ship at the Cape of Good Hope. There is a grant of £700 to one Captain Temple, to defray the expenses of a prosecution for the alleged murder of a seaman, of which crime he had been acquitted; and another grant of £219 to a Turk, for some losses he had sustained at Constantinople.

The objects for which all these grants have been made appear very questionable and mysterious. Let us now come to the larger sums. Το that pious nobleman, Lord Gambier, the great patron of Bible Societies, and to Lord Cathcart, is the enormous sum of £348,621, as their share of the prize-money at the memorable expedition to Copenhagen. There is another enormous payment to one John Alcock, " to be by him paid over to the merchants, &c. trading to Spain, whose property had been sequestered in 1796 and 1797." Another singular item of £54,921 is entered as an "indemnification to sundry commanders of his Majesty's ships for condemnations, by a Court of Vice-Admiralty, at Cape Nicola Mole, afterwards found not to have jurisdiction." A sum of £887 to Captain Spencer, in the year 1807, pursuant to his Majesty's war