ROYAL PERQUISITES. CURIOUS RIGHTS OF KING GEORGE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 94, 22 April 1911, Page 10

ROYAL PERQUISITES. CURIOUS RIGHTS OF KING GEORGE.

The ancient privileges of the Crown have been surrendered during the King's reign, or rather will be allowed to remain in abeyance so long as theCivil Listi is sanctioned, but while they are merged in the national income in accordance with a mutual arrangement by which the Sovereign receives a definite amount from the State annually for his personal expenditure, it is beyond dispute that the Statute by which the compact is arrived at carefully confines the surrender of rights to the lifetime of the Monarch. Hence, if the King elected to prefer the casual and uncertain progress of replenishing the Crown coffeis by the operation of Royal perquisites instead ot troubling Parliament, he could constitutionally command a myriad of ancient customs for the purpose of supplying his financial necessities which would make the versatility of a modern Chancellor of the Exchequer appear commonplace. Excepting during periods of unusually heavy calls on the Royal purse, King George would nob deem it really necessary to go beyond the immemorial right claiming all gold and silver mines, not only on his own land, but upon any of his subjects' lands within his dominions. This special privilege is traceable to an apprehensive ancestor, whose imagination triumphed over his logic. He contended that there was a considerable element of danger in permitting a subject to become too formidable by vesting in him so immense a treasure as a. mine of gold or silver. Moreover, ifi mines containing baser metals also contained gold and silver, the entire mine belonged to the King, because gold and silver, being the nobler and more valuable metals, necessarily attracted the less refined elements, and as the subject cannot hold property jointly with the King the Royal right was unassailabiy correct. As the British Empire last year produced about £80,000,000 in gold and silver, the exercise of the ancient right would psrhaps suffice, but if any doubt should creep into the calculation there are other contributory sources which might be tapped. Every tenant of a "Knight's fee" is required to attend the King for forty days each year, but the obligation became irksome, and pecuniary satisfaction was substituted. Hence the Royal household becam© a repository for almost every kind of merchandise contributed by obedient subjects. All ships which carried wine to England had to yield up two tons to the King's butler for replenishing the royal wine cellar. Although these- gifts have long since been compounded, a few still survive. Incidentally, the King is entitled to I receive a pair of white doves, a pound of cummin seed, a pair of scarlet hose, and a. silver needle from his tailor, and on the principle that every little helps they might not be deemed less unworthy than half a whale, a whole sturgeon, or a swan "with two nicies." A DIVIDED WHALE. The whale and' the sturgeon in bygone ages were regarded with royal favour. The perquisite, seems originally to have belonged to the Kings ot Denmark and the Dukes of Normandy, from whom the right- has descended, and found recognition in recent times. The sturgeon can be claimed as the exclusive property of the Monarch, and one of them, caught in the .Thames 'graced the bbard 'at Queen Victoria's r wedding banquet, while only a few days ago a Welsh captain who caught a Royal sturgeon in Pwllheli Harbour complied with the dictates ol' duty by offering it to King George. The whale, -now, has a split liability when caught in, British waters. Its tail belongs to Queen Mary, while its head goes to King George. It is generally assumed that the partition was decided upon in order that the Queen should always be supplied with whalebone, but the founder of this act of beneficence seems to have committed the initial' mistake of giving the Queen the wrong half. The swan has always, been a royal favourite, and "no person other than the son of a King could have a mark or game of swans excepting he held freehold land to the value of ,five shillings. And if any person not having lands of the said value shall have any such swans, it shall be lawful for any of the King's; subjects, having land of the said value, -to seize the swans as forfeit, whereby the King shall have half, and he that shall seize, the other." Another ancient right which might be exercised by a sovereign in quest of funds applies to the appropriation of "waifs and strays." Waifs in strictly legal definition mean "such stolen goods as. are thrown away by the thief in his flight for fear of being apprehended.'' These "are due to the King as a punishment upon the holder for not himself pursuing the felon and taking the goods away from him. Wherefore, if a person, being robbed, is diligent and' immediately follows, and bring the thief ( which is called fresh suit), or do prosecute him to conviction he shall have his goods again. Also, ii the person robbed can retake the goods before they are seized for the Crown, if at a distance of twenty yards the Crown shall not have them." The sale of "estrays" i 9 said to have been a profitable perquisite at one time. "Estrays mean' all kinds of animals except dogs, cats, bears, and wolves which may be found wandering on the King's -highway. Such estrays must be proclaimed in a church and in two market towns close adjoining the place where they were found, and then if they have no claimants they become the property of the King or his grantee at the end of a year and a day." QUAINT FORFEITURES. The "deodand" is another form of forfeiture which, would open up distinct possibilities. Its origin is buried in I)he superstitious past, but for hundreds of years it was hard worked as a fruitful means of restoring health 'to a sickly exchequer. "Any article which is tiie immediate and accidental occasion of the death of any reasonable creature is a deodand or a thing which should be given to God as a sort of expiation for an unwilling offence." Wherever a thing not in motion caused a man's death, that part only which was the direct cause of death was forfeited. Bub whenever a thing in motion, not only that part which immediately gave the wound, but all things that moved with it and helped to make the wound more dangerous" were included in the forfeiture. it matters not that th© owner was not concerned in the killing. If A killed B with a sword belonging to C it was considered as "an accursed' thing" and sold to the highest bidder. If a mau were killed by being run over, the horse, cart, and luggage as well became King's perquisite; but if a man fell from the wheel of a cart not in motionand .sustained fatal injuries, the wheel only was subject to forfeiture. If, on the other hand, a. man tumbled out of a cart, dropped into the river and was drowned by the violence of the stream, the cart was considered blameless, but if the horse was suspected of having assisted in the man's flight the owner had to pay the penalty. A ship at sea wa-s permitted to escape without a stain on its character, no matter how many people were drowned, but a boat in fresh water was .made, to answer for all its.

untoward incidents by prompt confiscation. Originally the Queen Consorts of England derived 1 their revenue from certain Tents exclusively appropriated to them out of. demesne lands of the Crown, and the contributors were required to pay for specific Boyal needs. Thus, ib was the 'duty of one taxpayer to pay for Her Majesty's wool, another purchased oil for her lamp, a third bought attire for her head and feet — an almost penal obligation — and so on right throughfc the whole gamut of Queenly requisites. Queen-gold formed another phase of tribute to His Majesty's Consort, and "was derived from a percentage of all moneys paid to the King in respect of any privilege, grant, license, pardon, or other Royal favour."— Observer, London.