¹ Kemp, Betty, King and Commons, 1660–1832 (London, 1959)Google Scholar gives a good general analysis of the tensions inherent in a constitution of divided powers.

² Thomson, Mark, A Constitutional History of England, 1642–1801 (London, 1938), pp. 94–5.Google Scholar See also English Historical Documents: VIII, 1660–1714, ed. Browning, Andrew (New York, 1953), pp. 273–4.Google Scholar

³ In 1663 Charles II's proposal that the Revenue be increased was rejected, although Parliament voted a supply. Clarendon and Southampton successfully opposed the suggestion that Parliament make specific appropriations of the Revenue. Witcombe, D.T., Charles II and the Cavalier House of Commons, 1663–1674 (New York, 1966), pp. 15, 17.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. pp. 52–3, 76. No other investigation of this kind was undertaken prior to 1689.

⁵ Ibid. pp. 104, 125. Danby's memoranda frequently mention the importance of maintaining the fiscal independence of the Crown by improving the Revenue and keeping ordinary expenditure within bounds. Browning, Andrew, Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds, 1632–1712 (3 vols. Glasgow, 1944), II, 62–72.Google Scholar In 1678 the Crown attempted to obtain an increase of the Revenue, but without success. William Sacheverell commented: ‘The States of France gave the King power to raise money upon extraordinary occasions till their next meeting: and they never met more.’ Ibid. 1, 281–2.

⁶ James II issued a proclamation continuing the collection of the Revenue. English Historical Documents, pp. 274–5, 296–7. Two commissioners of the customs were dismissed for raising scruples concerning collection of the customs and temporary excise without their being voted by Parliament. The judges were divided on this point. Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs (6 vols. Oxford, 1857), I, 329,Google Scholar 330. Evelyn wrote: ‘Most of the Judges likewise having given their opinions that his Majestie might still take the Costomes, which to foure Judges ([esteemed] the best Lawyers) seemed against the Act of Parliament which determines it with the Kings life.’ Diary of John Evelyn, ed. DeBeer, E.S. (London, 1959), p. 794.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. p. 809.

⁸ 1 James II, c. 1, 3, 4, 5. The post office income, which Charles II had granted to James in 1663, was vested fully in the Crown. 1 James II, c. 12. Burnet complained of the generosity and haste with which Parliament had voted the Revenue. James II effectively prevented a motion ‘which was a little talked of abroad, but none would venture on it within doors, that it was safest to grant the revenue only for a term of years’. Bishop Burnet's History of His Own Time (London, 1857), p. 409.Google Scholar

⁹ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 37–8.Google ScholarEnglish Historical Documents, p. 335

¹⁰ The Parliamentary History of England (36 vols. London, 1806–1820), V, 23.Google Scholar

¹¹ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 7.Google Scholar

¹² Luttrell, Brief Relation, 1, 493–5. Baxter, Stephen, The Development of the Treasury, 1660–1702 (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), pp. 92–3.Google Scholar

¹³ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 12.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Parliamentary History, V, 55, 57–8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The major constitutional question of the Convention—the question of continuity or vacancy of the Crown—involved the Revenue indirectly. The advocates of regency argued that this approach would preserve the continuity of the Revenue. Horwitz, Henry, ‘Revolution Politicks’: The Career of Daniel Finch, Second Earl of Nottingham, 1647–1730 (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 75–7.Google Scholar A very full statement of this view, implausibly attributed to Burnet, is published in Diary of the Times of Charles the Second by the Honourable Henry Sidney, ed. Blencowe, R.W. (2 vols. Scarborough, 1900), pp. 288–90.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 46.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Foxcroft, H.C., The Life and Letters of Sir George Savile, Bart., First Marquis of Halifax (2 vols. London, 1898), II, 207.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 200.Google Scholar

¹⁹ I Will. & Mary, c. 14.

²⁰ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 258.Google Scholar

²¹ Foxcroft, Halifax, II, 228.

²² History of His Own Time, p. 544.

²³ Stephen Baxter observes that William III overestimated the power of the more radical leaders, and thus gave them more power than was warranted. Monmouth (Charles Mordaunt) was made first lord of the Treasury, and Delamere (Henry Booth) chancellor of the Exchequer. Richard Hampden was a member of the Treasury board. Stephen Baxter, B., William III (London, 1966), p. 250.Google Scholar

²⁴ Browning, Danby, pp. 449–50.

²⁵ Firth, C.H., ‘The Memoirs of the First Lord Lonsdale’, English Historical Review, XXX (1915), 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Parliamentary History, V, 135–7.Google ScholarJournals of the House of Commons, X, 36.Google Scholar

²⁷ Parliamentary History, pp. 138–45. The question was not purely abstract, for those who held pensions or other claims on the Revenue, such as the bankers' debt, might find their claims invalid if the Revenue had lapsed. The bankers' debt, which was paid out of the hereditary excise, added complications to the settlement of the Revenue. Ibid. pp. 148–9.

²⁸ Ibid. p. 146.

²⁹ Ibid. p. 143.

³⁰ Ibid. p. 147. ‘Now we have a monarch’, Seymour declared, ‘we must support him. I was sorry to hear what I did yesterday (from Birch), as if the king was like a single person, to call him to account when we will, and that we should so soon change our respect to him.’ When you settle the Revenue, Seymour added, grant it so that ‘the whole Revenue granted may be at one time certain, and not a part temporary’.

³¹ Ibid. p. 146. In this debate Clarges was reported as advocating a Revenue for three years, but in subsequent debates he consistently upheld the view that the Revenue, when voted, should be for life.

³² He also advocated reform of the Book of Rates prior to voting the Revenue. Ibid. pp. 136, 172, 177, 370.

³³ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 44–5.Google Scholar

³⁴ Parliamentary History, V, 171–5.Google Scholar See especially the statements of Lee, Clarges, Littleton, and Capel. The judges (Pollexfen, Holt), whose salaries were paid out of the hereditary excise, maintained that the Revenue had not lapsed and that an extension was not necessary.

³⁵ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 46.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. p. 55. The principal difference between the expenditure of Charles II and James II was that the latter had increased expenditure for the army from £300,000 p.a. to slightly over £600,000 p.a.

³⁷ Parliamentary History, V, 191–2.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. p. 193.

³⁹ Ibid. pp. 191–2.

⁴⁰ Ibid. pp. 192–3.

⁴¹ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 56.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. p. 104. The House also received a detailed account of the perpetuities and pensions charged on the Revenue, and went on to specify certain salaries, perpetuities, and pensions which were to be included in the Civil List. Ibid. p. 106.

⁴³ Ibid. p. 80. The committee report stated that £736,930 p.a. would be needed for the peacetime establishment of the navy, army, and ordnance, but the Commons rejected some of the committee's figures and settled on a total of £588,680 p.a.

⁴⁴ The Revenue of James II, which William III was still collecting, was reported as £1,916,436 in the previous year. Ibid. pp. 37–8. This sum should be reduced by approximately £200,000 for the hearth money, which William III had surrendered. The Treasury, however, estimated that the Revenue would produce in 1689 only £1,550,000. Public Record Office, ‘King William's Chest’ (S.P. 8), 5/33–

⁴⁵ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 200.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. p. 215.

⁴⁷ Ibid. p. 220. I have been unable to discover the provisions of this bill. The stages of its passage are recorded ibid. pp. 220–58 passim. The proposal to reform the Book of Rates was rejected. Ibid. p. 239.

⁴⁸ The bankers' debt and the arrears of household servants of Charles II were among the concerns of the petitions. Ibid. pp. 225–234.

⁴⁹ Ibid. p. 258.

⁵⁰ Ibid. p. 271.

⁵¹ Ibid. p. 271.

⁵² Ibid. pp. 272–3. On 1 November Sir Henry Capel presented accounts of the income and expenditure of the Revenue from 28 December 1688 to 29 September 1689. Ibid. p. 278.

⁵³ Ibid. p. 279.

⁵⁴ History of His Own Time, p. 544.

⁵⁵ Clarges consistently expounded this view. On 16 November he suggested that the Civil List should be reduced from £600,000p.a. and the money applied to public uses. Parliamentary History, v, 436.

⁵⁶ Feiling, Keith, A History of the Tory Party, 1640–1714 (Oxford, repr. 1965)Google Scholar gives a good account of Tory politics at this time, but does not recognize the importance of ‘Country Tories’, especially Seymour and Clarges, in delaying a settlement of the Revenue.

⁵⁷ Journals of the House of Commons, x, 309. This was the first of the series of Commissions of Accounts, which played such an important role in establishing parliamentary control of finance.

⁵⁸ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 300–18Google Scholarpassim.

⁵⁹ For Anne's point of view see Memoirs of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, ed. King, William (London, 1930), pp. 21–4.Google Scholar For Mary's point of view see Chapman, Hester W., Mary II, Queen of England (London, 1953), pp. 177–81.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Parliamentary History, v, 492–500.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Journals of the House of Commons, x, 312,Google Scholar 316, 319. Calendar of Treasury Books, IX, pt. I, cix.

⁶² Browning, Danby, I, 468–9. See also Firth, ‘Memoirs of the First Lord Lonsdale’, 94–5.

⁶³ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 349.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Parliamentary History, V, 553.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid. p. 560.

⁶⁶ Ibid. pp. 558–9.

⁶⁷ Ibid. pp. 563, 573. See also similar statements by Clarges. Ibid. pp. 565–6.

⁶⁸ Commons Journals, X, 359.Google Scholar The text of the bill is in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Series 17 (Lords), 13th Rep., App. v, 81–7. William III was very sensitive about his independent right to the hereditary revenues, and complained to Halifax about this clause. Foxcroft, Halifax, II, 248.

⁶⁹ 2 Will. & Mary, c. 3, 4. Another reason for voting the customs for a term of years was to make a better fund for a loan.

⁷⁰ Journals of the House of Commons, X, 357,Google Scholar 362, 364. The Crown was authorized to borrow £250,000 on the temporary excise and £500,000 on the customs. Another £250,000 was authorized on the hereditary excise, but since William III rejected the bill he lost this authorization.

⁷¹ Historical Manuscripts Commission, Series 29 (Portland), 14th Rep., App. II, 446.

⁷² The Navy complained that they were entitled to receive from the Revenue the money allocated for ordinary expenditure (£496,080 p.a.), plus the supplies voted by Parliament, but to no avail. This dispute can be followed in House of Lords Papers (New Series), I, 12–29.Google Scholar The Commissioners of Accounts supported the navy view.

⁷³ Public Record Office, ‘King William's Chest’ (S.P. 8), 12/71, 95. See also Godolphin to Blathwayt, British Museum, Add. MSS 9,735, fos. 57, 59.

⁷⁴ ‘King William's Chest’, 14/13, 18.

⁷⁵ Ibid. 15/69. I have been unable to identify the author of this letter, which is written with unusual assurance, vigour, and knowledge of politics and finance. It is printed in Calendar of State Papers (Domestic Series) of the Reign of William and Mary, 1689–1702, ed.Hardy, W.J. and Bateson, Edward (II vols. London, 1895–1937), V, 362–6.Google Scholar The letter was first printed by Dalrymple, Sir John in Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland (3 vols. London, 1790), II, Part ii, 31–9Google Scholar, where it is attributed to Godolphin. Although the ideas expressed correspond to the ideas expressed by Godolphin at that time, the handwriting and spelling, which are very distinctive, are not those of Godolphin.

⁷⁶ Journals of the House of Commons, XI, 224.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid. p. 339.

⁷⁸ 7 & 8 Will. III, c. 30. This act took £312,000 p.a. from the hereditary and temporary excise, and £31,200 p.a. from the post office. It marks the first parliamentary incursion into the hereditary revenues.

⁷⁹ Journals of the House of Commons, 550–1, 558–9.

⁸⁰ Ibid., XI, 566, 712.

⁸¹ Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III…by J. Vemon, ed.James, G.P.R.(3 vols. London, 1841), I, 221.Google Scholar

⁸² 8 & 9 Will. III, c. 22.

⁸³ For the development of a Court Party see Browning, Danby and Kenyon, J.P., Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, 1641–1702 (London, 1958).Google Scholar Feiling, First Tory Party is still the best guide to the Country Party. See also Rubini, Dennis, Court and Country, 1688–1702 (London, 1967).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Parliamentary History, V, 562–3,Google Scholar where the speech is dated as 31 March, 1690. It is reprinted in English Historical Documents, p. 107, where it is dated, correctly, in my opinion, as 1691. A reply was made in Remarques upon a Late Printed Speech under the Name of Sir Charles Sedley (London, 1691).Google Scholar British Museum Broadsides.

⁸⁵ No good study of the Commission of Accounts exists, although materials are available. The minute books and papers of the Commission are in the British Museum, Harleian MSS 1,488–95, 5,010, 7,494. The comments of W. S. Shaw in the introductions to the Calendar of Treasury Books give a distorted picture of the work of the Commission.

⁸⁶ 2 Will. & Mary, sess. 2, c. 11. The report is printed in Historical Manuscript Commission, Series 17 (Lords), 13th Rep., App. V, pp. 356–401, and their ‘Observations’ Ibid. pp. 4O4–34–

⁸⁷ Parliamentary History, V, 666–72, 681–2.Google ScholarJournals of the House of Commons, X, 583–632.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Historical Manuscripts Commission, Series 17 (Lords), 14th Rep., App. VI, pp. 130–78.

⁸⁹ Parliamentary History, V, 744–52.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Journals of the House of Commons, XI, 25.Google Scholar The reports are in House of Lords Papers (New Series), 1, 60–92 and Journals of the House of Commons, XI, 88–90.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Parliamentary History, V, 807–9, 839–41.Google Scholar

⁹² Journals of the House of Commons, XI, 204–9, 240–1.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid. pp. 242–3. Mark Thomson pointed out the ephemeral character of these actions: ‘But these resolutions were not embodied in a bill, and the Commons appear to have given up all thought of regulating the ordinary expenditure as a whole. To let the King do what he pleased with his own was traditional.’ Constitutional History, p. 202

⁹⁴ Journals of the House of Commons, XII, 1.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Kenyon, Sunderland, 293–8. Sunderland attempted to resign on 12 December, but did not actually resign until 26 December. For the Country Party in this situation see Feiling, Tory Party, pp. 326–7.

⁹⁶ Journals of the House of Commons, XI, 14.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ James Sloane to Sir Joseph Williamson (21 December 1697), Calendar of State Papers (Domestic Series), VIII, 522–3.Google Scholar In the debate Charles Montagu made it clear that the Civil List would not include any standing military force. Another account ibid. pp. 523–4. Journals of the House of Commons, XII, 14.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ 9 Will. III, c. 23. If these incomes exceeded £700,000 p.a. the surplus was not to be spent without consent of Parliament.

⁹⁹ Letters of William III and Louis XIV. Ed. Grimbolt, Paul (2 vols. London, 1848), I, 143.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III, II, 90.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Kenyon, Sunderland, p. 320.

¹⁰² Journals of the House of Commons, XIII, 419–21.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ibid. pp. 513, 562, 592. 12 & 13 Will. III, c. 12. This statute also included a settlement of the bankers' debt, which, in effect, was settled at 50 per cent of value. In his last two years William III's Civil List income again reached £700,000p.a., but at his death he left Civil List debts stated to the Treasury as £813,379, most of which were never paid. Calendar of Treasury Books, ed. Shaw, W.A. (32 vols. London, 1904–1958),Google Scholar X, xli; XVIII, vi.

¹⁰⁴ 12 & 13 Will. III, c. 2.

¹⁰⁵ Journals of the House of Commons, XIII, 770.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ 1 Anne, c. 1.

¹⁰⁷ The text of the bill is in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Series 17 (Lords), 14th Rep., App. VI, pp. 76–9.

¹⁰⁸ 12 & 13 Will. III, c. 2.

¹⁰⁹ 1 Anne, c. 1. The voting of the Civil list is briefly reported in Parliamentary History, VI, 8–13.Google Scholar Queen Anne revealed her English heart and Tory proclivities by making a voluntary reduction of the Civil List. When her Civil List was voted she granted £100,000 from the Civil List to be applied to the war, and these contributions continued on a diminishing scale for several years thereafter.

¹¹⁰ Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (7th ed., 4 vols. Oxford, 1775), I, 335.Google Scholar