annual payments to all futurity. The author of the Reply meets these statements with the declaration, in his judgment triumphant and conclusive, (pp. 13, 14,) that "George the Third never possessed these revenues at all, and therefore was in no condition to make a purchase with them." "To George III., this grant (of the hereditary revenues) was never made; but the fixed annual sum, so often referred to, was substituted for it." In strictness of language, the hereditary revenues were not, indeed, formally granted by Parliament to George III., in the manner in which they had been placed at the disposal of the Sovereigns, his predecessors, since the Revolution. Nevertheless, it is certain that the exchange of these revenues for a fixed civil list actually took place, conformably to the representation of the Trustees. George II. had possessed the hereditary revenues during life. In the ordinary course, agreeably to what had taken place in the reigns immediately preceding, the Parliament would, on the accession of George III., have bestowed them upon him, with the customary branches of the civil list. But no such proceeding took place. In its stead, another course was substituted. George III. succeeded to the throne, on the death of his grandfather, in October, 1760. On the 25th of November following, Mr. Legg, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered, by his Majesty's command, a Message to the House of Commons, in which the King states, that, "ever desirous of giving the most substantial proofs of his tender regard to the welfare of his people, he is pleased to signify his consent that whenever the House should enter upon the consideration of making a provision for the support of his household, and the honour and dignity of the Crown, such a disposition may be made of his interest in the hereditary revenues of the Crown, as may best conduce to the utility and satisfaction of the public."* Looking at this official document as matter of history, it is clear that George III. considered that, on ascending the throne of his ancestors, which he did by hereditary right under the new dynasty, he had a vested interest in the ancient hereditary revenues of the Crown, in virtue of which he might calculate upon them as a constituent part of his future income. This Message being a state document, prepared by the Ministers of the Crown, it must be inferred that it was drawn up with care, and conveyed their deliberate view of the King's undoubted claim and actual interest in the hereditary revenues, entitling him to treat with the Parliament concerning the disposal of them. It is, besides, important to remark, that the Parliament, by its proceedings, gave their sanction to this opinion, and, accepting the King's offer to take these revenues under its charge, resolved to grant to him during his life such a revenue as, inclusive of the proceeds of the hereditary revenues, should amount to the clear yearly sum of £800,000, to be payable out of the Consolidated Fund, and providing that, to meet this charge, the produce of the hereditary revenues should be carried to and made a part of the Consolidated Fund. Such is the authentic history of the transfer of the hereditary revenues, as it is called, so often referred to in this controversy, and of that bargain or purchase which the King is represented as having negotiated with the Parliament. * Hansard's Parliamentary History, Vol. XV. p. 935. These proceedings of the House of Commons fully warrant the representations of the Distributors of the cession or "surrender" of the hereditary revenues by George III. for an equivalent civil list. If there were any irregularity in the course now pursued, the author of the Reply must charge it, not on the Distributors, but on the Parliament. Under the arrangement now made in the settlement of the King's revenue, the Royal Bounty to Protestant Dissenting Ministers, the grant to the French Protestant Refugees, and the other Royal Charities, were paid out of the civil list, or of that portion of it which was appropriated to the King's special use, called the Privy Purse. Thus matters remained till 1804, when the alteration in the mode of payment took place which converted the Royal Bounty into a Parliamentary Grant. The history of this alteration has been given by the Distributors in the "Brief Statement," and we fully agree with them, that this change, made for the sole purpose of simplifying the public accounts, has not in the least affected the principle of the grant as a pure Charity of the Sovereign. The arrangements respecting the cession of the hereditary revenues by George the Third were only for his life. On the accession of George IV., the precedent of his father was followed, and the civil list settled for his life in precisely the same way. On this occasion, the Minister, Mr. Perceval, adverted in a particular manner to the Royal Charities which, during the preceding reign, had been taken from the civil list, and provided for by an annual vote. Referring to the "pensions and allowances which his Majesty bestowed on the objects of his bounty," he observed, that "these charges were always, and with propriety, taken out of the Privy Purse; and as the Committee would certainly think it necessary to continue these grants, he imagined there was no necessity for making any difference with respect to the fund out of which they should be satisfied."* The same precedent was followed in the two succeeding reigns. William IV., in his Message to Parliament, November 2, 1830, states that he placed without reserve at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the hereditary revenues, together with the funds that might be derived from his Droits of the Crown or the Admiralty," &c.f On this occasion the Minister stated, that his Majesty had surrendered a greater revenue than Parliament had derived at any former period when the settlement of the civil list was called for, having given up not only the hereditary revenues, then amounting to £800,000 per annum, but also the casual revenues of the Crown, which had before been left to the liar and personal distribution and control of the Crown. pecu On the accession of her present Majesty, the same language was used in the Message to the House of Commons. On November 23rd, 1837, the Queen stated, that she "placed unreservedly at their disposal those hereditary revenues which were transferred to the public by her immediate predecessor." We will only add here, that in all these arrangements the same provision must be understood to have been made for the payment of the Royal Bounty to the Dissenters and the * Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXI. p. 157. Idem, Vol. XXXIX. p. 137. French Refugees, with the other Royal Charities, by an annual vote of Parliament, as were mentioned by Mr. Perceval on the accession of George IV. The provision was not one for a session, but for the reign of each Sovereign, unless any alteration were made by the House of Commons on some revision of the civil list. The Parliament stands pledged to these payments during the reign of her present Majesty. It has been asserted by the Distributors, that the exchange of the hereditary revenues for a fixed civil list was greatly in favour of the nation, the country having received by this arrangement or "bargain" more than an equivalent for what it conferred. This statement is controverted and positively denied by the author of the Reply. The misrepresentation, however, if such it be, is not chargeable on the Distributors, who, in this account, have only followed high official authorities. It is worthy remark, that, on the first occasion, when George III. placed the hereditary revenues at the disposal of the Parliament, he was considered to have conferred a great boon on the nation. Lord Chancellor Hardwick, shortly after this transaction had taken place, speaking on the proposal to make the Judges independent of the Crown, states, that 60 his Majesty had done two acts of such extraordinary goodness and confidence towards his people, that they were sufficient to mark the annals of a long reign with lustre and reputation." The one was that of the tenure of their office by the Judges; the other," the parting with the whole revenues of the Crown." The civil list first granted to George III. was £800,000. Mr. Justice Blackstone asserts, that in 1727, when the civil list was raised to £900,000, the public were gainers by the bargain with the King of no less than £100,000 per annum. Mr. Pitt, in 1804, states that the hereditary revenues which George III. had given up for the civil list then amounted to £1,500,000; so that after the augmentation of the civil list to £960,000, there remained a balance of £540,000 per annum in favour of the public.‡ And again, in 1830, on the accession of William IV., the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that the hereditary revenues then yielded £800,000 per annum, exclusively of the other casual revenues of the Crown, the "peculiar and personal" property of the King, which were of considerable amount. It is quite idle to question, as the writer of the Reply does, the reality or validity of the agreement, or bargain, or exchange-call it by what name he pleases-between the King and the Parliament, forming as it does a part of the history of the proceedings of the Legislature, and sanctioned and confirmed by repeated Acts of Parliament, on the accession of several Sovereigns. Under these arrangements, the Royal Charities, or, in Mr. Perceval's words, "the pensions and allowances which the Sovereign permanently bestowed on the objects of his bounty," are directed and settled to be paid during each reign by an annual vote of Parliament. We have now followed the author of the Reply through the historical facts connected with the hereditary revenues, as far as we have * Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XV. p. 1008. + Commentaries, ut supra, Vol. I. Book i. Chap. viii. pp. 330, 331. deemed them material, by which he has endeavoured to prove his position, that "the Regium Donum is a State contribution to ministers of religion as such."* We shall add a few remarks in further illustration of our view of it as a pure Charity. 66 66 And here we shall direct the reader's attention, first, to the original grant and earliest appropriation of this bounty. Had it been the design of George I. to endow in any sense the chapels or ministers of his Dissenting subjects, some indication of his purpose would appear in the nature of the gift itself, or in the proceedings attending its first application. What, then, are the facts in this case? George I.," Dr. Calamy relates, was pleased in a private way to give the Dissenters a considerable taste of his royal bounty and regard by an annual allowance." Who then, we ask, were the Dissenters who partook of this bounty? Not Dissenting ministers, certainly-not ministers of religion at all, of any class or denomination. The King ordered £500 to be paid out of the Treasury for the use and behoof of the poor WIDOWS of Dissenting ministers." How, then, does it appear that the recipients are "defined," as our author asserts, "by their religious profession," and must be "ministers of religion as such"? The money was first designed and bestowed as a purely eleemosynary contribution to relieve the necessities of the poor widows of Dissenting ministers. True, the benefits of the grant were afterwards extended. Poor ministers, as well as widows, were admitted to taste the royal bounty. But the nature of the grant was determined by its first destination and use-a charity to the poor; and the only change it underwent was the addition of poor ministers to the widows of such. It is indeed to seek a triumph at the expense of truth to attempt to convert a benefaction so conferred into an "endowment," or "a State contribution for the support of religion." A further proof of its purely charitable nature might be drawn from the grants to the French Refugees, which are perfectly analogous. They are equally Royal gifts, contemplating in like manner worthy persons reduced to poverty and suffering distress from their religious profession, and yet there is no pretence that these are endowments, or State contributions for the support of religion, in the sense of the author. The sum of upwards of £8000, bestowed by George I., was continued annually by George II.; the grant was paid annually by George III., and has been continued to the present day among the Royal Charities, though the amount has been lessened as the number of the intended beneficiaries has gradually diminished. But the author contends, further, that the grant is not simply and purely a charity, but is in an equal degree a religious grant, conferred, according to repeated acknowledgment, in reward of political services rendered by Dissenters on behalf of the accession of the House of Hanover. It is impossible to determine at this distance of time whether any consideration of this kind influenced the mind of George I. in bestowing this bounty. But no intimation of it appears in the history of the grant. Nor do we know of any acknowledgments" 66 Since this article was commenced, the Trustees have republished their “Brief Statement," with an Appendix justifying the accuracy of their representation of the Grant. It will be seen that we have freely followed them in their historical illustrations. by persons having access to other sources of information which can warrant the statement. Some, indeed, have conjectured that such considerations might have swayed the King's mind. But surmises are not to be received as proof. But admitting that it was so, we have yet to learn why such a circumstance should in the least affect the nature of the grant, or render it in any degree less a charitable benefaction. Merit in a beneficiary cannot abrogate the claim of indigence, or change the eleemosynary character of a donation bestowed for its alleviation. The author argues further, that the grant being conferred by a King from the Royal revenues-his official income-it cannot be a simple and pure Charity. It necessarily assumes, according to his views, the nature of a State payment, and must be deemed to be given for State purposes. The station of the donor qualifies, it seems, the character of the benefaction. According to this strange doctrine, the Sovereign, on ascending the throne, parts with the attributes of humanity. The properties and affections of the man, the moral qualities which form the grace and ornament of the human heart, are necessarily absorbed or annihilated in the regal attributes of the King. If he bestow an alms on the beggar who supplicates his charity, the gift becomes dignified into a State payment for State purposes, and the pauper is at once elevated into a State pensioner and dependent. We have sometimes heard it said, that to be born a King is a curse. This writer would seem to give his sanction to the maxim; for, surely, there can be no stronger proof of the pitiable condition of the Sovereign of a country than the fact, that, from his position as the occupier of the throne, and from the nature of his revenues, he is incapable of indulging the best sympathies of human life, and cannot taste the sweets of beneficence by administering to the wants of the unfortunate among his people, without converting a boon into a badge of servitude or dishonour. The condition of the fabled Midas was scarcely worse than this, whose very touch robbed him of the means of existence and enjoyment by converting every object into useless gold: Tum verò, sive ille suâ Cerealia dextra OVID, Metam., Lib. xi. Fab. iii. v. 37-40. We have no inclination to engage in a controversy upon the question, whether the Parliament have or have not a moral right to abandon the agreement or contract alleged to have been made with the Sovereign, and to discontinue the payment of this grant to Dissenting Ministers and the other Royal Charities? It were perhaps presumptuous to attempt to place limits upon the power of the Legislature over the revenues of the country. But, taking into consideration the official proceedings in the House of Commons on the accession of George III. respecting the surrender of the hereditary revenues, and the acceptance by the King, in lieu of them, of a fixed civil list; looking also to the formal recognition of this exchange in 1804, when Parliament, in order to relieve the civil list and simplify its payments, undertook to provide for these grants by annual votes; and to the repeated recognition and confirmation of these arrangements in the succeeding reigns of George |