Modernising the Constitution: Crown Estate & Sovereign’s Private Estate

This article considers the Crown estate. In Anglo-Saxon times, it seems, kings were given Crown estate while king to use the revenues (only) to operate government. This Crown estate was inalienable and distinct from any private estate they had. Under William I (1066-87), the distinction was merged. It was not until 1322 (or, possibly, before) that kings accepted, once more, that the Crown estate was inalienable. And, not until 1800 that the Crown Private Estate Act 1800 allowed kings to have a private estate (real and personal). Today, Crown land, the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, royal palaces and collections etc are owned by the Crown (that is, by Parliament) on behalf of the nation. This should be modernized in a Crown Act.


INTRODUCTION
Our constitution needs to be modernised. Eight prior articles have looked at this 1 -including the placing of some of this material in a Constitution Act of c.100 sections. 2 These articles did not consider two other matters relating to the constitution, the: Yet, this statement is open to mis-interpretation:  True, up to the passing of an Act of 1800, there was no express legal distinction between what the king owned in a personal capacity and what he owned qua king. However, at the Norman Conquest, William did not claim title to all England -as well as to the Anglo-Saxon ancient demesne -in his natural capacity (e.g. by grant or will). Rather, he claimed it in a public capacity -qua king, the lawful successor to the crown (throne) of England, deriving from Edward the Confessor (1042-66);  And, ever since, every sovereign has held Crown land only so long as sovereign. Thus, sovereigns had no legal right to grant away Crown lands (i.e. 4(a) and 4(b)) -even though they frequently did so, to raise money which they spent (indeed, usually, dissipated) for their personal benefit. In so acting, such dissipation was, strictly, illegal -albeit, it would have been dangerous to directly challenge a king on that prior to Edward II (1307-27). Thus, various sovereigns plundered Crown land because might was right. And, the legal position was not effectively enforced since judges were the 'king's judges' and keen not to oppose the wishes of the Crown.

REIGN OF HENRY III (1216-72)
Change came in the reign of Henry III (1216-72). 30 The sovereign was becoming greatly impoverished, through mis-management of government by the royal household. The result was that revenue from Crown land was insufficient to support the apparatus of government. Solutions (unsuccessfully) applied by Henry III were:  selling off Crown land (i.e. 4(a) and 4(b));  taking land from the great barons;  levying taxes -by way of tallage or auxilia (aids, a polite word for forced gifts).
This was opposed by the barons, as expected, since it contradicted the, then, prevailing view that the sovereign must 'live off his Crown estate' (i.e. 4(a) and 4(b)) -as opposed to imposing oppression. In the reign of Henry III, also, there are came the first indications of the concept of the 'Crown' as a political body (i.e. a juristic body).
One which was superior to the sovereign. This derived from the fervent intellectual environment of the time in which clerics (ecclesiastics) were seeking to divine the optimal architecture (structure) of the (catholic) church by reference to scripture and to the older Roman law. This influenced lawyers to seek to formulate the optimal government structure. One which paralleled the church -since many judges and members of government (the royal household) were clerics.
In particular, the conceptualisation of the sovereign as having two bodies in one, similar to that of Christ whom the theologians conceptualised as having a natural body and a divine body conjoined. However, it might have been better (that is, more accurate) to refer to the 'The King's Three Bodies'-as noted in an earlier article, 32 since -in the thirteenth century -there arose the concept of the sovereign as having: (i) a natural body (with all its frailties); (ii) a divine body (without them); and (iii) being (qua sovereign) head of the nation (represented by the Great Council (magnum concilium)).
This tri-partite architecture (structure) went back to the oldest Christian conceptualisation of God and man's likeness to him. Thus, three in one: For jurists (especially clerical ones) the issue was to optimise the legal structure of human government by replicating that of divine government (where all was presumed to be in harmony and at peace). Thus, in the time of chaotic rule by Henry III (and on the continent), there arose a growing conception -not to be realised in legislation until 1533 (see 12), of the 'Commonwealth' (realm) 33 being ruled over by the sovereign and his subjects the king was a trustee of Crown land (i.e. that Crown land was the patrimony of the nation, as in Anglo-Saxon times) was only enforced upon sovereigns slowly. 30 Henry III came to the throne as a child and exercised poor control over government throughout his reign. 31 32 McBain, n 2. 33 There have been many synonyms employed which adds to the confusion. Thus, the Commonwealth (the unity of persons for the common good) was also called, in English writings, the patria (country), nation, realm, empire, state, republic (presumably, from the latin res publica, which referred to things not owned by the emperor or individuals but which belonged to the commonality (i.e. the public or general public)).
conjoined. A body superior to the sovereign himself. Thus, in parallel with the ecclesiastical logic, 34 the jurists developed the following government structure as a legal model: Church 35 Realm Body Aggregate (Crown) 36 C h r i s t K i n g B o d y S o l e ( rex regnans) 37 F a i t h f u l S u b j e c t s B o d y N a t u r a l As with the ecclesiastical architecture, two parts of the secular architecture to optimise government comprised legal (that is, artificial) devices (fictions) 38 viz. the body aggregate and the body sole. These were invisible. In this the sovereign was viewed both as sovereign and subject -being subject to the 'law' promulgated by the legislature which he, as sovereign, presided over.

(b) Benefit of Juristic (Political) Bodies
The great benefit of political (juristic) bodies was that they could be accorded legal natures (as well as rights and obligations) which were not possessed in the natural body. Thus, the sovereign (legally) could be paralleled (assimilated) with Christ (the archetype of the perfect king) and accorded:  legal capacity (to overcome nonage);  legal perfection (to overcome failure and misconduct as a ruler);  legal immortality (to overcome death), as previously discussed 39 and as agreed by the lawyers much later in the Duchy of Lancaster Case (1561): the king has in him two bodies, viz a body natural, and a body politic. His body natural…is a body mortal, subject to all infirmities that come by nature or accident, to the imbecility of infancy or old age, and to the like defects that happen to the natural bodies of other people. But his body politic is a body that cannot be seen or handled, consisting of policy and government, and constituted for the direction of the people, and the management of the public weal [good], and this body is utterly void of infancy, and old age, and other natural defects and imbecilities… 40

(c) Legal Fiction of the 'Crown'
More particularly, the legal concept (fiction) of the 'Crown' -the sovereign in the body aggregate -was developed. Indeed, by c. 1285 it had become a physical reality. The sovereign sitting in Parliament with the representatives of his people (nobles and commoners). Such was a body aggregate (a corporate assembly). A body with the sovereign as head and the subjects as members. 41 34 In parallel, because Christ was the head of the mystical body -the church. And, the sovereign was head of the mystical body -the commonwealth (the realm). 'Mystical' body (corpus mysticum) because this was ordained by God, a sort of marriage. See also Kantorowicz, n 31, pp 208, 212 (bishop's ring, coronation ring). Also, Lucas de Penna (14 th c. Neopolitan jurist) 'just as men are joined together spiritually in the spiritual body, the head of which is Christ…so are men joined together morally and politically in the respublica [nation, kingdom, realm, state], which is a body the head of which is Christ'. Ibid, p 216. The fisc [treasury], then, was the 'dowry' given to the sovereign when, at the coronation, he entered into the secular (mystical) marriage and received the crown (national assets) in order to govern the nation. These were not alienable, Ibid, p 217. Other mystical symbols at the marriage (coronation) were: (a) the spurs and sword (to defend the realm); (b) the sword of state, to impose justice; (c) the curtana, the sword to exercise mercy; (d) the staff ('take nothing but a staff' i.e. you have nothing, these things are given to you, see Bible, Mark, ch 6, v 8). See also GS McBain, Abolishing Obsolete Offices (2012) Coventry LJ, vol 17, no 2, p 48-9. 35 See also the papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302) issued by pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) which states: 'Urged by faith we are bound to believe in one…church …which represents one mystical body, the head of which is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.' Quoted by Kantorowicz,n 31,p 194. Thus -in a secular context -one realm, which represents one body aggregate, the head of which is the sovereign. And the head of the sovereign [i.e. the superior to the sovereign] is the Crown. See also Bible, St Paul, 1 Corinthians 12:27 'Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you [i.e. of the faithful] is part of it.' 36 The head of the Church was the pope; the head of the realm was the sovereign. Also, as noted, see McBain, n 2, p 273, in the ecclesiastical sphere, the apostles were treated as alter egos of Christ. Thus, bishops and priests were treated as corporations sole under English law, as prevails at present in the Church of England. The secular equivalent to bishops were the 'great men' of the realm (earls, judges etc). 37 'Corporation' is another word for 'body'. 38 That is developed by the art (skill, polity) of lawyers (and clerics). Maitland  and 'semi-religious terminology'. One would agree. Willion v Berkley (1559) Plowden, p 238 'because the body natural and the body politic are consolidated into one, and the body politic wipes away every imperfection of the other, with which it is consolidated, and makes it to be another degree than it should be if it were alone by itself…' 41 Kantorowicz, n 31, p 21 referring to medallions struck in 1642 of the king in Parliament 'He is clearly the king [in the] body politic and head of the political body of the realm: the king in Parliament whose task it was to stand together with the Lords and Commons, and if need be, even against the body natural.' ilr.ccsenet.org International Law Research Vol. 12, No. 1; 2023 Why the need for such a body politic was urgent, both in church and state, was the absence of the accountability of medieval popes (and sovereigns) for their misconduct -including their alienation of the property of the church (and of the nation). In England, although the terms -such as the 'realm' or the 'country' (patria) -were used generally, the legal term became that of the 'Crown'. Borrowed from theology, the 'Crown' symbolised the 'head'. And the head of Christ (the church) 42 tended to be symbolised as 'God' the source and unity (assembly) of all things. Thus, the 'Crown' in legal terminology referred to the situation when the sovereign acted -not as king per se -but as head of the nation. More particularly, as head of the representative body called Parliament. That is, as legislator. And, as legislator (the sovereign in the body politic) could control and punish the sovereign:  in the body natural; 43 and  as a corporation sole. 44 In conclusion, in the legal fiction of the Crown, lawyers and theologians found the rationale -and legal meansto punish popes, bishops and kings who acted outside the law but who (technically) could not be punished because they had been given immunity from judicial process (or they were too powerful to be subject to such).

(d) Nebulous concept of the 'Crown'
The concept of the 'Crown' was developed in the early 14 th century. Being a common law concept it was slow and hesitant to evolve. Especially, during the reigns of more powerful sovereigns. Why the 'Crown'?
 Quite possibly, it derived from the time of William I (1066-87) when he had crown wearing assemblies at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost to which all the important personages of the realm attended. In these assemblies of the Great Council (magnum concilium) great affairs of state were discussed and decisions taken; 45  Thus, the Crown symbolised (i.e. referred to) the king and council promulgating legislation, not dissimilar to the Anglo-Saxon witan gemote. The 'Crown', also, had the merit of symbolising kingship -as opposed to referring to the actual reigning king (rex regnans) at the time. Thus, it symbolised the power and continuity of the office -not the person. In effect, the sovereign was guardian of the Crown (kingship, the throne). 46 Further, the 'Crown' was the appropriate juncture for lawyers and judges to commence distinguishing between those assets (i.e. real and personal property) which:  related to the office (kingship); and  those which related to the individual qua king (the sovereign).
As to this, there seems to have developed a fairly clear categorisation by 1322. Thus, art 4 of the Revocation of the Ordinances 1322 (still extant) which revoked those of 1311, stated that: all ordinances…concerning the royal power (poair real) of our lord the king or of his heirs, or against the estate (lestat) of our said lord the king or of heirs, or against the estate of the Crown (lestat de la coronne), shall be void and of no avail or force whatsoever; [this refers to Ordinances in 1311 and a commission in 1308] but the matters which are to be established for the estate of our lord the king and of his heirs, and of the estate (lestat) of the realm and of the people, shall be treated, accorded and established in Parliaments [assemblies], by our lord the king, and by the assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and the commonality of the realm; according as it hath been accustomed (wording divided for ease of reference) 47 This pivotal article has been the subject of much historical speculation (including as to its continued worth). 48 Doubtless, at the time, it was regarded as of great consequence. Assuming the draftsman chose his words carefully, a distinction was made between 3 things -legal powers of the sovereign, the prerogatives of the king in person and the prerogatives of kingship of which the king was only the guardian (including Crown lands). Thus, art 4 referred to the: 42 Thus, on earth, the head of the catholic (worldwide) church was the pope (deriving from saint Peter, a bishop). And each bishop was head of his local (territorial) church. And each individual church was headed by a priest. A sort of Russian doll. 43 By deposing the sovereign for example, see Edward II (see 9), Richard II (see 10) and James II (see 14(b)). 44 By restricting, or removing, his privileges (prerogatives) such as the right of the sovereign to impose military tenures or to collect tax. 45 Kantorowicz, n 31, p 337 'There was a visible, material, exterior gold circle or diadem with which the prince was vested and adorned at his coronation; and there was an invisible and immaterial Crown -encompassing all royal rights and privileges indispensible for the government of the body politic -which was perpetual and descended either from God directly or by the dynastic right of inheritance.' 46  Further, it seems clear that -in the case of (b) and (c) -the sovereign recognised that it was for Parliament to decide such matters 'as it hath been accustomed'. As to the meaning of 'estate' this was (probably) used in a general sense, to refer to real and personal estate (assets). Thus, it seems, art 4 recognised a clear division between: (i) estate (assets) the revenues of which belonged to the sovereign; and (ii) estate (assets) that belonged to his kingship (that is, the Crown, the permanent office of king).
If so, by 1322, it was recognised that Parliament (of which the sovereign was part) was the arbitrator on what was what. As to this, one would suggest:  Sovereign (Private) Estate. This would (possibly) be real and personal property acquired by the sovereign prior to becoming king. Also, certain prerogatives (called 'flowers of the Crown'). 52 These were prerogatives (privileges) in which Parliament (the Crown in Parliament, to give it the longer title) permitted the revenues to be franchised (that is, alienated, or farmed out) to third parties. 53 Such as the right to hold a market or a fair, the right to wreck, to waif, to estray, to treasure trove etc. 54 These were alienable. And, if these franchised prerogatives were mis-used or lapsed, these 'flowers' reverted to the Crown (Parliament);  Crown Estate. This was inalienable because held by the Crown. It comprised (it seems, although this was a major source of contention) all the ancient demesne (including royal palaces located on it). It also included the Treasury (including jewels, later, called Crown jewels -presumably to emphasise that they belonged to the nation). Also, (one presumes) things such as the highways, bridges, ports, warships, State regalia (the throne, swords) etc. These were inalienable. These rights -often called 'fiscal' rights -as opposed to the 'flowers of the Crown' -belonged to the nation -'fiscal' meaning 'bona publica' (public property). 55 Any revenue streams from these could not be farmed out to third parties. For example, when Henry VI (1422-71) pledged the Crown jewels in 1461 and the pledge was enforced on default, the courts set it aside (to the loss of the pledgee). 56 As to who held the ownership of the Crown estate -since this expression meant the 'Crown in Parliament' and the legal fiction of the 'Crown' was closely allied to the realm (patria, the nation) -it seems clear that the ownership of Crown lands were held by what -today -we call Parliament, on behalf the nation.

PROOF AS TO THE RISE OF THE BODY AGGREGATE -THE CROWN
It is one thing to assert that the Ordinances of 1322 were a sort of 'blast to the past' and another to prove it, which is why the concept of the 'Crown' meaning 'kingship' and 'the people, the nation' has proved to be so nebulous and elusive. 49 This is not further dealt with. However, one suspects that it relates to the power of the king to impose justice (including to appoint judges), to wage war, to exercise mercy, to choose his council etc. 50 These included the 'flowers of the crown' -revenues from tolls, estray, treasure trove etc which went to the privy purse for the operation of government. They could be alienated. 51  The revenues to the latter three assets became part of those hereditarily surrendered as from 1760 (see 17). Thus, this early text shows the commencement to a legal process identifying what prerogatives belonged to the king in person -without any mention of those of the Crown (representing the nation). These prerogatives could, and were, franchised (that is, alienated, farmed out) by the sovereign for money. The first mentioned jurisdictional right referred to above -'appropriation of the king's land and treasure' -suggests that -at this time -the king (the powerful Henry I, similar to William I) was asserting that he, in person, owned the ancient demesne, as well as the contents of the treasury -something not unexpected. There is also a text called The Laws of Edward the Confessor which was probably written long after c 1140. 60 (Nelson, 1965). Hall (the editor), p xi, 'It is the first textbook of the common law, and its two great themes are the king's court at the Exchequer and writs'. 63 Ibid, p 1 'Not only must royal power be furnished with arms against rebels and nations which rise up against the king and the realm, but it is fitting that it should be adorned with laws for the governance of subject and peaceful peoples…'. Although the laws of England are not written, it does not seem absurd to call them laws -those, that is, which are known to have been promulgated about problems settled in council on the advice of the magnates and with the supporting authority of the prince [king] -for this also is a law, that 'what pleases the prince has the force of law'. 64 Glanvill went on to refer criminal pleas, some of which (the more serious) belonged to the 'crown of the lord king' (ad coronam domini regis) and others to the sheriffs of counties. As for civil pleas, he noted that some were to be determined in the court of the lord king (in curia domini regis). 65 The text also held that bishops and abbots could not alienate their demesne (estate) without the consent of the king, since they held from the same. 66  The reference to the 'Crown of the lord king' may, possibly, be expressed as a reference to the king's 'Great Council' (magnum concilium), the precursor to Parliament;  Thus, there is the hint of a distinction between orders (commands) given by the king in person and those emanating from the Great Council (the Crown) -the supreme legislative body. However, little more can be said since this text only deals with civil and criminal procedure.
In conclusion, the legal text, Glanvill (c. 1189 Thus, Bracton -following Glanvill -was referring (in essence) to laws being made by the precursor of Parliament, the king's Great Council. More especially, as to the meaning of 'res publica' it is suggested it refers to the 'nation' (patria) 71 with the implication this refers to its representative -the king's Great Council [magnum concilium] 72 the assembly which embodies the nation and which speaks for it -the whole nation not being able to physically attend. Bracton also stated that: The king himself must …be…under the law, because the law makes the king… 73 This proposition 'lex facit regem' (the law makes the king) implicitly accepts that the law could, also, unmake the king. Also, that the office of 'king' -as well as any prerogatives (i.e. powers and privileges) of the same -are dictated by the law, the same being determined by the Great Council (the legislature).

(ii) Who Owns What -the Crown
Bracton asserted that certain things were not alienable because they belong to God viz.
 sacred (holy) things (such as temples, cemeteries etc). 74 There were, also, things that belonged to the Crown viz.
 quasi-sacred things (res quae sacrae, such as walls and gates of a city, free men etc). 75 These quasi-sacred things (which Roman law called 'res publicae, public things) 76 included the 'peace' of the king (i.e. legal jurisdiction, justice, the system of law enforcement). Thus, Bracton stated; There are also other quasi-sacred things, which touch the person of the king and may not be transferred to anyone except as [i.e. to] a justice of the lord king [judge], 77 [such] as the view of frankpledge…the trial of thieves, all of which pertain to the peace [i.e. the enforcement of the law] and consequently to the Crown… 78 A thing belonging to the fisc [i.e. the nation, general public] is also quasi sacred and cannot be given or sold or transferred to another by the prince or reigning king; such things constitute the crown [nation] itself and concern the common welfare, [such] as peace and justice, which have many forms… 79 Also, alms… 80 Thus, 'quasi-sacred' things -the 'fisc', 'public property' and the 'Crown' -are treated as synonyms. It is suggested these refer to the 'nation' (commonwealth, realm, patria, country). 81 The sovereign cannot, by law, alienate these. As Kantorowicz noted -these things (rights) which pertained to the Crown became known as 'Crown prerogatives.' 82 86 Thus, the sovereign could recover fines for breach of these assizes, and franchise the same. 87 For example, the sovereign could franchise the right (prerogative) to manors to hold a court (called a court leet) dealing with minor criminal matters and to impose fines for breach. 88 Confiscation of the property of thieves. 89  All five, actually meant -and mean -the same thing. That is, the sovereign in the body aggregate, sitting as head of a body of members -originally the Great Council and, now, Parliament. In short, the sovereign as legislator.
As to Parliament, it is the representative of the folk (the nation, country, patria) who had become so large that they could not meet in person -even in Anglo-Saxon times. Thus, all assets held by Parliament were national assets. Not those of the king in person.

(vi) Conclusion -Meaning of the 'Crown' by 1250
By 1250 -when Bracton wrote -there was an increasing legal recognition that all rights (prerogatives) give to the sovereign derived from the Crown (the nation) of which the sovereign was part. They were not inherent to the reigning king, but to kingship (the unbroken line of succession). By 1322, there was a 3 fold categorisation:  royal power of the sovereign (poair real);  the estate (lestat) of the king;  the estate of the Crown (lestat de la coronne).
As to the second of these, by the time of Bracton (1250), this clearly included things like estray, treasure trove etc. Things which, later, became part of the hereditary revenues and which were (post 1760, see 17) surrendered at the outset of each reign (and which are of little value today). As for Crown land:  it was not wholly clear, in 1250, whether -legally -this was part of the sovereign's estate or part of the Crown's (nation's) estate. However, by 1322 (see 6(d)), it seems clear that Edward II (1272-1307) accepted that it fell within the latter); also, that it was for Parliament to determine such matters.
As it is, after Bracton's death (his writing was posthumous), Kantorowicz noted what he considered to be the first official document against the alienation of Crown land: In England…the first official document stating clearly and succinctly that the royal demesne was inalienable, was relatively late: the councillor's oath, containing the clause 'Item, I will consent to the alienation of none of those things which belong to the ancient demesne of the Crown' falls in the year 1257, that is, in the time of Bracton. 101 For present purposes it is enough to note that:  opposition to the alienation of Crown land becomes more publicly apparent in the reign of Henry III (1216-72) as part of a power struggle between the sovereign and the barons (the great men of the realm) in which the latter focused on his financial mis-management -including the mis-management of Crown land. 102 99 Technically, the Crown always sits in Parliament, as evidenced by the throne (and the mace) as opposed to a Crown as such. Today, the attendance of the sovereign -other than to open Parliament -no longer occurs. Also, the assent of the sovereign is now formal. 100 Here, the presumption is that the sovereign is present, to head the body aggregate. The same applies in respect of cabinet which is the smaller assembly of that which was once the king's Curia Regis (later, the privy council, then, the cabinet). 101   the legal rationale also came from Roman law which held that a quasi-sacred thing (res quae sacrae) was inalienable. 104 It was a res publica (public property) 105 which included the imperial estates. 106 That is, property held on behalf of the nation.

REIGN OF EDWARD I (1272-1307)
The struggle between the barons and the sovereign continued in the autocratic reign of Edward I (1272-1307). In this power game, the power of the barons was strengthened by the formation of a Parliament c. 1285 in which the commons were present. Throughout the reign of Edward, there was increasing Parliamentary impediments placed on the sovereign's right to tax. 107 Much of the power struggle centred on two simple things:  The sovereign had foreign possessions which he wanted to defend. However, the barons and the shire militias did not want to fight abroad; 108  The sovereign wanted to expand his sovereign power at the expense of the great barons (in the house of lords) and the common people (now represented in Parliament). Neither wanted this.
The struggle between the king and Parliament was to continue up until the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Further, it became clear that the Crown lands (demesne) started to be treated in law (as in Anglo-Saxon times) as being held in the body politic and not in the body natural. This is evidenced in 3 especial ways; if the sovereign:  abdicated -or was forced from the throne -he lost it all; 109  was dis-inherited by legislation -he lost it all;  died, it did not pass by his will. 110

(a) Statute of Westminster 1275
As it is, Edward I (1272-1307) accepted, it seems, from the outset of his reign, that there was a legal distinction between the sovereign and the Crown.

(b) Britton (c. 1290)
A legal text, Britton, written 1290, referred to 'franchises' (that is, prerogatives of the king given to others in return for money, also called liberties or royalties). Thus, he referred to the: franchise of…fairs, or markets, or…to have wreck of the sea…or toll, or estray, or murage, or pontage or cheminage… 115 This followed on from the Laws of Henry I (c. 1113) (see 7(a)) and Bracton (c. 1250) (see 7(c)(iii)) suggesting that the fact that these comprised 'flowers of the Crown' was uncontroversial among lawyers and statesmen at that time. Britton also stated: Kings…may not so alien the rights of their crown or of their royalty [sovereignty] [dreitz de lour coroune ne de lour reaute] so as not to be revocable by their successors…It is nevertheless allowable for kings to grant franchises [see above]. 116 Maitland was inclined to be rather dismissive of Britton's statement -perceiving it to be no more than an intimation (rather than a firm legal proposition); one which relied on an antique rule of family law. 117 However, it is suggested the position is much clearer than that. And, that the source is ecclesiastical law. 118 The same dismissal by Maitland applied to treasure; he argued that such belonged to the sovereign and that he could do what he wanted with it. 119 However, it seems clear that -at least, by the time of Edward II (1307-27) -the sovereign could not alienate the same. 120 Thus, Maitland's statements should be limited to the situation in c. 1250 and not later.

REIGN AND DEPOSITION OF EDWARD II (1307-27)
The reign of Edward II was hugely unsuccessful. By all accounts he was unsuited to the role of sovereign and the country abounded in mis-management and corruption. As early as 1308, the barons sought to fetter his power (or, as they would likely argue, control his incompetence) by means of a commission. More importantly, in October 1311, Edward II had forced on him certain New Ordinances. 121 These legal restrictions on him as sovereign directly resulted from his mis-government of the royal household and the realm. In particular, in his dissipating the wealth of the nation -including giving land, money and jewels to his favourite Piers Gaveston (d.1312). Thus, clause 7 (of the 41 clauses into which the New Ordinances tend to be divided) stated that: all the gifts which have been given to the damage of the king and the diminution of the Crown since the commission [of 1308] made to us, of castles, towns, lands and tenements, and balliwicks, wardships and marriages, escheats and releases, whatsoever they be, as well in Gascony, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, as in England, be repealed. 122 (italics supplied) Thus -at least, from 1311 -the barons were asserting that Edward could not alienate Crown land. True, Edward II had these Ordinances repealed in 1322. However, as noted in 6(d), Edward accepted at the same time (or was forced to accept) that: Murage, pontage and cheminage were different types of toll which the king could franchise. They comprised a toll to repair town walls, a toll to repair bridges and cheminage (also, called chimmage) a toll for passing through a forest. 116 Ibid, p 182. The legal text, Fleta (1290) put this more clearly, see HG Richardson & GO Sayles, Fleta (Selden Society, 1955) m vol 2, p 17 'It is not lawful to the king to alienate the ancient manors or rights annexed to the Crown (antiqua maneria, vel iura corone annexa), and every king is bound to resume those things alienated from his Crown.' Also, p 15 'a king is created by law (per legem factus est rex). Ibid, p 35 'the Crown is a symbol (et ideo corona insignitur) that he [the king] will rule the people subject to him by a process of law (per indicia populum regat sibi subiectum.).' Ibid, pp 37. Also, Ibid, pp 38-9, judges, sheriffs and other ministers to swear that 'they will not consent to the alienation of such things as belong to the ancient demesne of the Crown.' Ibid, p 39 'Counsellors …shall swear…that they will not…ask any of the council, or any in attendance on the king, to procure that the king shall give them anything that belongs to the Crown in such wise that they may retain it for themselves'. Fleta may have been a judge. 117 P & M, n 26, vol 1, p 518 'The main import of this distinction is to be found in the strong sentiment -it is rather a sentiment than a rule of law -that the ancient demesne should not be given away, and that, if it be given away, some future king might resume it…The king, who asserts a right to revoke the improvident grants of his ancestors, is relying on an antique rule of family law, rather than upon any such doctrine as that kings are trustees for the nation. The idea that a man may hold land or goods in to different capacities is not easily formed. shall be treated, accorded and established in parliaments [assemblies], by our lord the king, and by the assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and the commonality of the realm; according as it hath been accustomed (wording divided for ease of reference) 123 Therefore, it seems clear that -by 1322 at the latest -there was a clear distinction between: (a) the estate of the sovereign; and (b) the estate of the Crown. Also, that it was legally accepted that Crown land belonged to the nation (the Crown in Parliament). And, that it could not be alienated. Further, 'the proof was in the pudding' since, in 1327, when Edward II abdicated (under duress) -he retained no rights to the same 124 and all Crown revenues and possessions (royal jewels etc) passed to this son (Edward III). Edward II died impoverished. 125 The same was to happen to Richard II in 1399 (see below).

REIGN AND DEPOSITION OF RICHARD II (1377-99)
The same as happened on the deposition of Edward II (see 9), applied in the case of the forced abdication (deposition) of Richard II (1377-99) in 1399. Thereupon, he lost all rights to any Crown land which passed to his successor, Henry IV (1399-1413 Thus, here, the older Anglo-Saxon conception of Crown land prevailed once more. Crown land was not held in the body natural but in the body politic aggregate. It was, therefore, patrimony of the Crown and it could not be dissipated; although the sovereign was entitled, while he reigned, to use the revenues of the same to fund government and the royal household -including 'pocket money' for himself.

TRAVERSING THE CENTURIES: 1322-1533
Looking post-1322, up to the Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533), the following quotations tend to summarise things as to the development of the legal concept of the sovereign as the head of a body aggregate, the 'Crown.'

ACT IN RESTRAINT OF APPEALS (1533)
The concept of the sovereign as head of a corporation aggregate was given impetus by the Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533). 133 The preamble to it stated: This wording nicely conjures up the sovereign as the head of a nation, both the same being represented by the sovereign in his assembly (Parliament). Further, reference to it was given in the following legal texts:  136 governed by one man as head…just as the head of the physical body is unable to change its sinews, or to deny its members proper strength and due nourishment of blood, so a king who is head of the body politic is unable to change the laws of that body, or to deprive the same people of their own substance uninvited or against their wills.'; 137  Smith -1562-5. Queen Elizabeth's ambassador to France 'the prince (king) is…the head, and the authority of all things that be done in this realm of England', 138 which he also described as a 'Commonwealth'.
Also, in Willion v Berkley (1559), Southcote (counsel) stated: the king has two capacities, for he has two bodies, the one whereof is a body natural…the other is a body politic, and the members thereof are his subjects, and he and his subjects together compose the corporation [body]…and he is incorporated with them, and they with him, and he is the head, and they are the members, and he has sole government of them… 139 All these statements comprise legal recognition that the sovereign (a corporation sole) could exist in a corporation aggregate. Thus, the legal conceptualisation and categorisation of the Act of 1533 was longstanding, stretching back to Henry III (1216-72, see 6). The Crown governed the nation (the realm). The Crown comprised a corporation aggregate with the sovereign as head and all subjects as its body (members). However, since the nation could never physically assemble together -too many people, unlike the open air meetings of the tribal folk of olden times -the nation was represented by means of a more limited political assembly (a parliament) 140 comprising the:  (1937), pp 305-6. The preamble to the Act stated that it was 'An Act that the appeals in such cases as have been used to be pursued to the see of Rome shall not be from henceforth be had nor used but within this realm.' 134 It continued: 'He being also institute and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary, whole and entire power and pre-eminence, authority, prerogative and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk, residents or subjects, within his realm, in all causes, matters, debates, contentions, happening to occur, insurge or begin within the limits thereof, without restraint, or provocation to any foreign princes or potentates of the world.' 135  This was the Crown in Parliament -as opposed to the Crown in other bodies, such as the Crown (the nation) acting in the Church of England. Or, the Crown (the nation) acting in the privy council (or the smaller version, the cabinet). Thus, it seems clear that the Crown land was owned by the Crown -or, to put it more technically, the Crown acting in Parliament. Thus, Crown land (i.e. national or public land) was not owned by the sovereign in person (in the body natural). Nor by the sovereign in the body sole (i.e. as a corporation sole). 141 However, as noted by Maitland: The notion that the king was in any sense a trustee for the nation of these lands grew up but very slowly. 142 Thus, it is not suggested that it was -in the time of the Tudors -legally (or popularly) accepted that Crown land (estate) was held on behalf of (i.e. in trust for) the nation. Indeed, the longstanding notion that the sovereign could deal with (use) Crown land as he liked while sovereign prevailed and -in respect of any alienation of it -while (strictly) this land was inalienable, it was unwise to challenge kings such as Henry VIII (1509-47) who had seized vast amounts of church land, on that point. That said, the legal rationale for Crown land being held in trust for the nation was latent, to become apparent in legislation relating to Crown land in 1623 and 1702 (see 15 and 16).

REIGN AND DEPOSITION OF CHARLES I (1625-49)
After the deposition of Richard II (1377-99) Crown lands -and revenues -continued to be dissipated (plundered).

(a) Duchy of Lancaster -No Different to Crown Land
Further, an attempt was made by Henry IV (1399-1413) to separate his private estate -owned by him prior to becoming sovereign -from Crown land.
 Thus, when, as Duke of Lancaster, Henry succeeded to the realm in 1399 in place of Richard II -uncertain whether he would manage to hold on to his sovereignty -he sought to legally ensure that the duchy was held by him in the body natural, as opposed to being held by him qua sovereign; 143  While the fiction of this still exists, the reality did not since the duchy was, thereafter, financed by Crown revenues which Henry IV received as sovereign. Further, legal problems arising from this became apparent. A sovereign holding qua duke did not have any prerogatives relating to the former. Especially those of: (a) never being a minor (nonage); (b) being perfect (incapable of error); (c) being immortal. 144 As it is, any pretension of holding the duchy of Lancaster in a personal capacity ended with the Case of the Duchy of Lancaster (1561). In this case, the court held that sovereignty overreached any natural capacity -including nonage. Thus, the duchy land was, by the common law, treated as being held qua sovereign even though, once, it had been held in the body natural. 145 The same logic applies to the duchy of Cornwall, when held by the sovereign (as opposed to the heir apparent). Further, this case of 1561, effectively, ended any legal argument that title to Crown land could be held by the sovereign in the body natural at common law. That is privately. It could not, since -thereby -it failed to receive the benefit of (a)-(c) above. As a result, it had to be held in the body politic to enable the sovereign not to be subject to human frailties. 146

(b) Further Dissipation of Crown Land
It is unnecessary -for present purposes -to go through all the history of the dissipation of Crown land from the time of Richard II (see 10) and the attempts at resumption. Suffice to say that the dissipation of the Crown land (i.e. 4(a) and 4 (b)) continued until the execution of Charles I (1625-49). Thus, there were numerous attempts by Parliament to overturn ruinous grants to royal favourites and others. Yet, even when these Acts of Resumption were made, 147 dissipation of the revenues of these lands continued unabated. The reason for all this seems clear.
Since the sovereign governed the country -if his government was poor and financially inept -the only means of avoid bankruptcy was to secure funds from Parliament (by grants, the same acquired by increasing taxation) or to deplete Crown land (later, called the Crown lands or Crown estate 3. Excise & Customs Duties. However, 1 & 2 being insufficient to meet the ordinary expenditure of a rapidly expanding government, Charles II, also, received (more importantly) a large amount of excise and customs duties.

(b) Further Dissipation of Crown Land Revenues
One would have thought that such income would be enough. Yet, the lessons of history had not been learned. Charles II was hugely dishonest, dissipated and not at all bright (something of a trait in English sovereigns) and the dissipation of the newly re-allocated Crown land (and their revenues) continued. Thus, Plucknett after noting the example of his father (Charles I) (see 13(b)), continued:  , it was found by Parliament that the Crown lands had been so reduced that the net income from them scarcely exceeded the rent roll of a squire. 154 The above sovereigns were (well) aware of the legal position. They did not own Crown land. They only had the use of it while sovereign. However, the problem lay with Parliament not doing anything when sovereigns treated Crown land as their own. The reason lay with the reality that Parliament -during the above reigns -was both corrupt and heavily influenced by the sovereign (in the Lords).
 That is, he lost all and became penniless. There was no question of private land (or revenues) being mixed with Crown land (or revenues). All Crown land belonged to the Crown; that is, held by the sovereign in the body politic. 155 Lose sovereignty, therefore, and lose all.

CROWN LANDS ACT 1623
There are two pieces of legislation still extant which deal with Crown land. The Crown Lands Act 1623 and the Crown Lands 1702 (for which see 16). Both have been dealt with in detail in a prior article. 156 It argued that both should be repealed as unnecessary. However, for present purposes, the following may be noted in respect of this 1623 Act:  At common law -when the Crown leased land and made it a condition of such that the lease was voided on nonpayment of rent -it could re-enter without demand. This 1623 Act (ss 1 & 2 extant) clarified that -where a tenant of Crown land defaulted in the payment of rent (or services) but remedied such prior to the forfeiture of the land -the Crown (or any grantee) could not take any advantage (i.e. go ahead and forfeit the land). It is unclear whether this Act could be applied to the modern Crown Estate. However, it is asserted that this Act is not needed in any case and it should be repealed, leaving the general law to apply;  The title to this 1623 Act refers to 'Crown Lands'. 157 And, s 2 also refers to where the sovereign grants lands where the reversion, remainder or estate is (or shall be) in 'the King's Majesty, or his successors, in the right of the Crown';  Since the above refers to Crown land it seems a clear statutory acceptance in 1623 that the ownership of the same was that of the Crown (not the sovereign in the body natural nor the sovereign in the body sole). Further, according to the Act of 1533 (see 12), the reference to the same means the sovereign as head of a body aggregate comprising the nation (all subjects). That is, Parliament held title to all Crown land.

CROWN LANDS ACT 1702
This Act does not apply to the Crown Estate (nor to the private estate of the sovereign nor to the Duchy of Lancaster). It was designed to prevent dissipation of the royal demesne. 158 It voided any grant (or lease) of Crown land which was longer than 31 years (or 3 lives) (save for houses, where the term was 50 years). It has been asserted, in any case, that this Act is unnecessary and should be repealed. One other thing should be noted. This Act, s 5 recites that: Finally, the 1702 Act was fairly revolutionary in its way. It was the first time that Parliament by legislation limited (considerably) the ability of the sovereign to manage Crown land. Prior to this, the sovereign had been given a free hand (although not owing the Crown estate). Now, Parliament was actively involving itself in the management of Crown land.
 Also, looking to finance the sovereign and the royal household by way of a fixed sum of money (a civil list as we know it) while progressively taking away all the functions (and cost) of government from the same;


As it is, when George I (1714-27) no longer attended cabinet (from 1717) -since he recognised that his ministers were no longer responsible to him but to Parliament 160 -a further big step was taken viz. recognition that the sovereign no longer, in practice, ran government. It was inevitable, therefore, that the civil list would (in time) shrink, to only cover the sovereign and the royal household.

SURRENDER OF CROWN LAND REVENUES IN 1760 (a) Accession of George III in 1760 -Surrender of Most Hereditary Revenues
The events of 1760 are, often, mis-stated. This has been productive of confusion.
 From 1660-1760, Parliament was constantly having to financially bail out (in many cases) improvident sovereigns. However, it was not wholly their fault. Government was expanding. So too, the royal household. Thus, more money was needed. Both, also, were -often -mis-managed since -in those times -ministers and servants of the Crown were not appointed for their financial acumen. Indeed, Crown offices (including ministerial appointments) contained a huge number of sinecures -as well as appointments secured by bribery etc.;  Thus, there began -from the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 with Charles II (1660-85) -a system of Parliament financing the monarchy by handing over an annual, fixed sum of money (a civil list) -although the expression 'civil list' is, usually, only applied post-1760. For this, see Appendix A.  As it is, George III (1760-1820) -when he came to the throne -found that the sums produced from the revenues of Crown land -as supplemented by further monies supplied by Parliament -were (as usual) insufficient to finance the operation of the royal household, which still included a large amount of government (paying the wages of judges, ambassadors, the civil service, the secret service etc What the sovereign did not surrender was the Crown land itself. This, for the obvious reason that he did not own it (although this is, invariably, overlooked). There was an element of farce in this surrender of hereditary Crown revenue in return for a fixed payment, since it was simply a case of the Parliament substituting a: (a) fixed sum of £800k pa (which could not be exceeded); for (b) money paid to George arising from hereditary revenues which had been allocated to the sovereign to maintain government -and the royal household -since the restoration of the monarchy in1660. 163 In short, things were simplified and the sovereign got a one-off 'up front' fixed annual payment (as opposed to intermittent revenues). As it is, the sum of [£800k pa] 164 given to George III was still not enough to finance government and the royal household (in goodly part, because of all the corruption -to which George was happy to contribute). 165  The result is that all governmental functions had been stripped from Crown by the reign of Edward VIII (1901-10), so that he was paid a sum of £470k pa to maintain himself and his royal household only. For this, see Appendix A.

(b) 1760 Act did not separate Crown and Private Estate
When the 1760 Act took away from the sovereign the revenues arising from the operation of the Crown land, it would have been (very) useful if it had, then, allowed the sovereign to own land privately. This would have been to return to the Anglo-Saxon position under which there was a separation between: (i) Crown land; and (ii) private land held by the sovereign (see 3). As it was, the Act did not. This had to await until 1800 (see 18). As to the ownership of Crown land, it seems clear that Blackstone in his work, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1 st ed, 1765-9), stated the true position (which had been latent since 1322, see 6(d)). Thus, he stated: The next branch of the king's ordinary revenue… consists in the rents and profits of the demesne lands of the Crown.

CROWN PRIVATE ESTATE ACT 1800
This Act is dealt with in more detail in 31. However, its effect was important. At last, it enabled sovereigns to own land privately. Such was useful since, thereafter, it provided a clear indication as to what land comprised Crown land. Thus, it was definitive that the sovereign had no claim on the same. It is noteworthy, for example, no sovereign has, since this 1800 Act, ever sought to claim that Crown land (i.e. the royal palaces, parks, the foreshore, tidal waters, public rivers etc) are owned by the sovereign privately (if so, they would be governed by the 1800 Act and held by trustees). The same also applies to the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Hearn noted (in 1880): The same century witnessed, by a singular revolution in policy, a recurrence to the ancient practice of the Anglo-Saxons respecting the property of the king. The Crown lands were virtually restored to the public [nation]; and the king obtained [by the Act of 1800], the right of acquiring landed property by purchase, and of devising it like a private person. 168 One would agree. However, it is a pity that this Act of 1800 did not (in a schedule) set out what comprised Crown land at that time. Nor, expressly stated that Crown land was owned by the nation. By not doing, confusion crept in.
In conclusion, this 1800 Act clearly separated Crown land from land privately owned by the sovereignsomething which had been latent since 1322 but never firmly stated in legislation before.

RISE OF OBSCURITY RE OWNERSHIP OF CROWN LAND -HALSBURY (1909)
Despite

RISE OF OBSCURITY RE OWNERSHIP OF CROWN LAND -CROWN ESTATES ACT 1961
The While it is clear they accepted that Crown land was not owned by the sovereign in the body natural, the wording 'hereditary possessions of the sovereign in right of the Crown' is little more than legal gobbledegook since the issue is ownership -not possession. Also, to refer to 'the sovereign in right of the Crown' is the same as simply stating 'the Crown'. Even so, to call Crown land a 'hereditary possession of the Crown' is inaccurate. Parliament does not own it as such. It is not 'hereditary' since it never not owned it.

In conclusion, the Crown Estate (Crown land) is owned by the Crown. This means it is held by Parliament (a body aggregate with the sovereign as head) on behalf of the nation.
the sovereign himself could ever grant away (i.e. franchise) alluvion, diluvion or foreshore. That said -as with Crown land -sovereigns may have franchised foreshore illegally. In respect of the Duchy of Cornwall the position at common law as to whether it held the foreshore in the duchy was unclear.

CONCLUSION -MODERNISING THE LAW
This review of the history of the Crown land indicates that:  Crown Land never owned Privately. Crown land was never owned by the sovereign in the body natural (although some sovereigns post-Conquest 1066 sought to treat it so). The proof of this is that -when a sovereign abdicated (forcibly or otherwise) -Crown land never went with him as his privately owned land. Crown land was inalienable;  No Sovereign has asserted so, post-1800. Since the Crown Private Estate Act 1800, no sovereign has sought to treat Crown land as part of their private estate.
Today, it is appropriate -not least to enable the Crown Estate to play a pivotal role in holding the nation's assets -that modern legislation states the true legal position viz. Crown land is owned by the Crown, but managed by the Crown Estate.
 Indeed, it was a pity, perhaps, that, in 1660, when Parliament restored the revenues of Crown land to Charles II (1660-85) the latter was not called the 'National Estate' -to emphasise that it was, simply, land owned by the nation (as from Anglo-Saxon times) the revenues of which were granted to the sovereign (while such) to enable him to finance the apparatus of government;  The failure to do so, probably, helped to found a myth, post-1800 that -in some way -Crown land was, at one time, the private estate of the sovereign. However, there is no evidence of such.
Thus, perhaps -since Crown land is a national asset -it would seem more appropriate that there be a statutory corporation aggregate established called the 'National Estate'. Then, everyone will know where they stand. For possible modern legislation, see Appendix B. Bearing the above in mind, legislation concerning the Crown Estate is now discussed. and by that name shall and may have perpetual succession, and use a common seal, to be by them from time to time altered as they shall think fit, for the purpose of taking and holding all the lands, tenements, and hereditaments whatsoever, of every tenure, by this Act vested in them, or hereafter to be vested in or purchased by them under or by virtue of the provisions of this Act, and of conveying, assigning, leasing, underleasing, or otherwise disposing of the same lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and of entering into any covenants or agreements respecting any such hereditaments vested or to be purchased, taken, or disposed of as aforesaid, but not for any other purpose. S 2 (CoW may purchase lands for public service, and may sell the same etc). It shall be lawful for the [CoW] to purchase, take, or accept any hereditaments, of what tenure so ever, necessary for the public service, and to sell or exchange the same, and give a good discharge for the purchase money thereof to any purchaser or other person, and to grant any lease or leases, underlease or underleases of any such hereditaments so taken as aforesaid, and to enter into any agreements for such sale, exchange, lease, or underlease; so nevertheless that all such hereditaments shall be purchased, taken, exchanged, sold, or leased, and the produce and income thereof applied with the consent of the Treasury which may be given either generally for any class of case, or for any particular transaction, and so as every conveyance of any freehold hereditaments in England,

(b) Modernisation
This Act, which is linked to the 1851 Act (see 23) should be repealed. In respect of s 4, this should pass to the Scottish Parliament (if still required).

WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT 1874
This Act is entitled 'An Act to regulate the incorporation of the S 3 (Duties of continuing corporation) The continuing corporation shall perform all the duties, and be subject to and bear and discharge all the existing liabilities of all the dissolved corporations out of the funds applicable to the same respectively, and shall have the benefit of all covenants and agreements entered into with any of the dissolved corporations. This Act, which is linked to the 1851 Act (see 23) should be repealed. In respect of s 5, this should pass to the Scottish Parliament (if still required).

COMMISSIONERS OF WORKS ACT 1894
This Act provides: This Act, which is linked to the 1852 Act (see 24) should be wholly repealed (s 3 is spent anyway).

CROWN LANDS ACTS 1894, 1906, 1927 & 1936 (a) Content of these Acts
The 1894 Act contains one section extant viz.

(b) Modernisation
These Acts are effectively redundant. All sections should be repealed. It may, also, be noted -at this juncturethat the revenue from the Crown land (Crown Estate) paid to the aggregate fund, by 1939, was very small. 182

CROWN ESTATE ACT 1961
This Act was designed to modernise the Crown Estate. It provided that it was an:  and about the activities of the Commissioners, and with such estimates of future receipts and expenditure, as the Treasury may from time to time require. (4) In their accounts the Commissioners shall distinguish between capital and income, and shall make any proper adjustments between capital account and income account (including provision, where appropriate, for recouping capital expenditure out of income), but so that -(a) any sum received by way of premium on the grant of a lease shall be carried to income account if the lease is for a term of [30] years or less, and to capital account, if the lease is for a term exceeding [30] years; and (b) the gross annual income received, and the expenses incurred, from or in connection with mining leases or the working of mines or minerals shall be carried or charged as to one half to capital account and as to one half to income account. (5) The Commissioners shall prepare for each financial year statements of account in such form as the Treasury may direct, and shall transmit them to the Comptroller and Auditor-General not later than the end of November in the following financial year. (6) The Comptroller and Auditor-General shall examine and certify the accounts transmitted to him under this section, and shall lay before each House of Parliament copies of the accounts, together with his report thereon. (7) The Commissioners' financial year shall begin with the first day of April, and references to a financial year in relation to the Commissioners shall be construed accordingly. shall not apply to a contract under which the consideration to be received by the Commissioners for the conveyance or creation of the estate or interest, or of the right or privilege, is to be determined at the time it is conveyed or created, and is to be determined in such manner as, in their opinion, is calculated to secure to them the best consideration in money or money's worth which can at that date reasonably be obtained. signified under the royal sign manual may dispose of land, or of a right or privilege over or in relation to land, without consideration or for such consideration as they think fit, where the land is to be used and occupied, or the right or privilege is to be enjoyed -(a) for the purposes of any public or local authority, or for the purposes of any authority or person exercising powers conferred by or under any enactment for the supply of water; or (b) for the construction, enlargement, improvement or maintenance of any road, dock, sea-wall, embankment, drain, water-course or reservoir; or (c) for providing, enlarging or improving a place of religious worship, residence for a minister of religion, school, library, reading room or literary or scientific institution, or any communal facilities for recreation, or the amenities of or means of access to any land or building falling within this paragraph; or (d) for any other public or charitable purpose in connection with any land of the [CE], or tending to the welfare of persons residing or employed on any such land. (1) to (3) above shall not apply in relation to any security for the principal or interest of money so borrowed (with or without any expenses of the lender or other incidental sums). (6) [ss] (1) above shall not restrict the discretion of the Commissioners as to the parcels in which any land is to be disposed of, or as to the apportionment of the consideration for any disposition or of any part of that consideration between different parts of the land disposed of, nor their discretion to reserve any right or privilege over or in relation to any land disposed of, or to dispose of land subject to any convenants, conditions or restrictions; and in determining for the purposes of this section whether the consideration to be given by a person for any disposition is the best that can reasonably be obtained, the Commissioners (where it is appropriate to do so) may take into account as part of that consideration any benefit conferred on the [CE] by improvements or works executed on the land in question by him or another without cost to the [CE]. (7) [ss] (1) and (2)  Much of this Act is effectively redundant. Any powers still needed should be set out in a SI.

CONCLUSION -CROWN ESTATE ACTS
All the above Acts -which are very antiquated -should be repealed. In particular:  Royal Parks. All those which the Crown Estate still holds title to should be listed in a Crown Act (and, later, a Constitution Act). All powers in respect of the management of royal parks -and who by -should be set out in a SI and not in legislation, to enable easier amendment. That said, the Crown Estate should divest itself of management of all parks to the Ministry of Culture or relevant London borough;  Crown Estate. The constitution, reports, accounts, course of management, ability to pass regulations and powers of the Crown Estate in respect of all assets to which they hold title presently, should be set out in a SI and not in legislation, to enable easier amendment.
Thus, legislation on the Crown Estate should be repealed and re-stated in a Crown Act (and, later, a Constitution Act) with most material being in a SI. Further, the role and purpose of the Crown Estate should be revamped. Basically, the Crown Estate (perhaps, now, called the National Estate) should have the role of a 'holding company.' That is, it should hold title to all assets that belong to the nation. Further, its purpose should be to maximise their tourist and environmental potential. In particular, the following is suggested (see also Appendix B): (g) UK foreshore (seashore); (h) UK tidal waters (including the riverbed, the fundus); (i) UK public rivers (including the river bed, the fundus); (j) Other assets (woods, forests, parks, mountains, hills, rivers, lochs, buildings etc) as set out in a SI; (k) Royal yacht. 192  Maintenance & Lease of Crown Estate assets. Provision for the operation and maintenance of the above -and the lease of land or buildings etc -should be put in a SI. It would seem economically efficient if all are maintained by the same ministry -to cut costs, achieve cross-benefits etc;  Transfer. The Crown Estate should have power to transfer (by way of sale, grant, exchange) title to any of (b), (c), (f) and (j) with Treasury consent -including devolution of the same. Also, in the case of (b), to the National Trust;  Obligations of Crown Estate. The constitution and obligations of Crown Estate with respect to all the above should be set out in a SI -including reports and accounts, the making of regulations, the management philosophy, the power to lease etc.;  Duty to Acquire (g)-(j). In times past, the Crown gave away rights to others in respect of (g)-(j) albeit -whether the sovereign had the power to franchise -is dubious. 193 The Crown Estate should have the obligation (with the consent of the Treasury) from profits (as well as monies paid to it from time to time by Parliament and from public subscription) to re-acquire any all of (g)-(i) presently in private hands -so that they can be enjoyed by the general public, tourists and future generations. Also, a title register should be established for all of (g)-(j). And, all private owners should be required, as part of registration, to prove legal title -with an obligation on the Attorney-General to contest the title if it is not thought to be certain in law (one would suspect this is so in many cases);  Optimising Environmental Quality. In the case of (d)-(j), the Crown Estate should have the obligation to optimise their environmental potential from profits (as well as monies paid to it from time to time by Parliament and from public subscription). That is, to adopt 'best' environmental practices, including things such as: (a) placing pylons underground; (b) removing mining slag, waste (including plastic waste) and other eye sores; (c) providing public access; (d) planting trees and shrubs; (e) banning the use of chemicals on farm land; (f) practising eco-farming; (g) using land for the preservation of species (endangered animals and plants, as well as seed banks, reintroducing animals, plants, bees, butterflies etc; (h) re-building ruined castles, houses, bringing buildings back into use etc.  Commercial Activities. These should be sold off (shopping malls etc) since the purpose of the Crown Estate is not (and can never be) the same as a commercial business. Not least, because the Crown Estate cannot go bankrupt and is handling national assets. Certainly, a higher rate of return would be gained if commercial assets were in the hands of commercial business. 194 The acquisition of commercial properties in the 1970's 195 should now be reversed, to improve national assets the Crown Estate will have title to.  Devolve. The Crown Estate should be devolved (to the extent this has not been effected) in respect of any estate in Scotland, Wales or NI. Such being in respect of royal parks, palaces, tidal waters and public rivers -but not in respect of royal collections, crown jewels, foreshore etc which are better operated as one unit by the Crown Estate.
By having all the above national assets in one body, considerable benefits and synergies might be achieved. Such could be an inspiration to other countries.
In short, there should be a statutory body corporate (perhaps, called the 'National Estate') which holds national assets and adopts the world's best environmental practice. 192 When the same has been built. 193 See n 169. These were not 'flowers of the Crown'. Thus, any right to franchise needs clear authorisation from the Crown (i.e. proof of some ordinance from the Great Council (magnum concilium) or Parliament). 194 The Crown Estate, generally, makes a return on capital (ROC) of c. 7% pa. However, when wages are stripped out (since the state is paying them) -coupled with the fact that commercial entities would develop the assets more (and pay more corporation tax, as well as there being more income tax payable by more employees) -means that the benefit to the government (vis-à-vis taxable revenue) of the Crown Estate is poor, as compared to commercial entities (also, since the Crown Estate cannot go bust, it is less commercially oriented and lacks the acumen and drive of a business). 195 See report of 1978, n 174, when this process commenced. Selling off such assets (many being of considerable value) would bring in much needed money to the government.

PRIVATE ESTATE OF THE SOVEREIGN
The 1760 Act (see 17) helped re-establish the Anglo-Saxon system of Crown land that could not be alienated. However, it only went part of the way since it did not express whether the sovereign could hold property (real or personal) privately and dispose of it, the same as any subject. The problem was the word 'some'. It should have been that no private estates held by the sovereign in the body natural had prerogatives, save where legislation expressly provided otherwise. For example, nonage should have applied to them -as well as death -which should be the position today (these can be cancelled out by legislation, anyway). However, criminal and civil immunity should, also, not apply (although this is a more moot point).
Halsbury, also, noted: Lands purchased before accession, or descending from collateral ancestors before or after accession, 197 vest in the sovereign in his natural capacity; but if not granted away or devised, they descend with the Crown upon the demise of the sovereign and become vested in his successors in right of the Crown. 198 The 1800 Act sought to cover the wording in italics, which is -really -a rule of construction (i.e. the intention must have been to give to the successor). Yet, lands descending after accession going to the body natural (and not the body politic) created another anomaly. Today, this anomalous common law position can be 'ironed' out by legislation. 199 However, what should be noted is that the 1800 Act never got to grips with the problems latent in the common law position. As a result, it left things uncertain. It would have been better to have indicated in the 1800 Act that 'private estate' meant the estates referred to in a schedule. This would have cut out all uncertainty and fixed the position pre-1800. However, this was not done. It was a (great) pity, since later legislation simply compounded the confusion. That confusion can (and should) be remedied today by repealing the 1800 Act (and related additional legislation) and stating in a schedule to a Crown Act (and, later, in a Constitution Act) what comprises royal palaces and land and what not. And, if not royal palaces then, ipso facto, the same is (truly) private estate. For the reason given in (c) below, both Sandringham and Balmoral should be treated as royal palaces. 201 In this fashion, the uncertainty in the 1800 Act is reversed; the position is fixed.

(c) What is the Privy Purse?
There was another problem with the 1800 Act. The 'Privy Purse' (PP) did not in 1800 -and still does notcomprise only the salary paid to the sovereign. Instead (as occurs today, even though the position has improved somewhat) other things were mixed in with it (see Appendix A). The problem with this was public money -which was not part of the salary of the sovereign (i.e. truly, her private money) -was (possibly) being used to buy property which became part of the sovereign's 'private estate. ' 202 In effect, a back door way of 'enhancing' the salary of the sovereign. However, this was unfair to the taxpayer and simply created (and creates) confusion. The position may be seen from the perspective of the Civil List of Edward VII (1901-10) as stated by Halsbury in 1909 (see, also, Appendix A). 203 An annual sum of £470k was paid to be applied as follows: To the extent any money other than the PP (see nos 2-6) was applied to buy any private estate for the sovereign, this was public money (not the salary of the sovereign).
 Thus, today, any such property so acquired should not be treated as the 'private estate' of the sovereign in a Crown Act (and, later, a Constitution Act). Such should be treated as owned by the Crown Estate on behalf of the nation;  However, the PP sum (see no 1) was, also, opaque since it covered sums paid by the taxpayer for things other than the salary of the sovereign. 205 Thus, to the extent money used was not the latter, the same should apply.
As stated in (b), the confusion can (and should) be remedied today by repealing the 1800 Act (and related additional legislation) and stating in a schedule to a Crown Act (and, later, in a Constitution Act) what comprise royal palaces and what do not. And, if not royal palaces, then, ipso facto, the same is (truly) private estate.
 Both Sandringham and Balmoral appear may have been acquired by PP money not part of the actual salary of the sovereign. And, today, they are not maintained out of the actual salary of the sovereign (it seems). At least, in respect of running costs);  Thus, on the demise of the same, they should become part of the Crown Estate. There may be other properties said to be part of the 'private estate' in a similar condition ('private estate' can be easily identified since it is invariably held by trustees for the sovereign).

(d) Tax position of Private Estates
This was, also, not wholly clear. Halsbury (in 1909) summarised the position: Crown private estates are subject to all rates, taxes, duties, assessments, and impositions, parliamentary or parochial, in like manner as the property of any subject, and (whilst the private estates are vested in the sovereign or in any person in trust for the sovereign) such rates, taxes, and other charges are to be ascertained, rated, assessed, or imposed as in the case of the property of a subject. Accounts of the rates, taxes, and charges are directed to be returned to the person exercising the office of privy purse, and are to be paid out of the privy purse and in no other manner. 206 The intent of the 1800 Act (ss 6 & 7, see 31) -as well as ss 7 & 8 of the 1862 Act -see 33) was clear. In the case of the 'private estate' the sovereign must pay the same taxes as if a subject. However, the 'weasel wording' lay in the reference to the PP. There should have been no such reference in order to prevent public money being used to pay these rates and taxes. Or, it should have been made clear that payment of the same was to be made from the 'salary' element of the PP only. Thus, given this loophole -in the past -the intent of the 1800 Act was (possibly) avoided by using PP money to pay rates and taxes on the private estate when the PP money used was not the personal salary of the sovereign. 207 That is, public money was used to pay the same. As it is, the real intent of the 1800 Act -including the payment of inheritance tax by the sovereign on her private estate -should prevail. The above sections of the 1862 Act, also, seems to have been re-interpreted in rather extraordinary fashion. Thus, Sunkin & Payne noted in 1999: Barlett, in his extensive analysis of royal tax, argued that the Inland Revenue [the 'IR'] is extraordinarily generous to the Crown in its apparent interpretation of the [Crown Private Estates] legislation. This interpretation appears to be that ss 8 and 9 of the 1862 Crown Private Estates Act are not regarded as imposing on the Crown any burden of central taxation and that the only tax which falls to be paid is rates…The key to the [IR's] argument was that the 1862 Act (like the 1800 Act before it) did not seek to make the Queen subject to tax: rather, it sought to make the private estates subject to tax… 208 If so, such suggests a degree of dishonesty in the IR since it would seem manifest that the whole point of the 1800 Act (and thereafter) was to view the private estate of the sovereign to be land held by her in a wholly private capacity. That is, in the body natural (as Elizabeth Windsor) and not in the body politic (i.e. qua sovereign). Otherwise, all the legislation was pointless. 209 Further, it seems clear (as glass) that 'rates' and 'taxes' in the 1800 and 1862 Acts refer to different things.

(e) Later Crown Private Estates Act
As will be seen, later Acts were passed to and cure problems with the 1800 Act.
 Thus, the Act of 1862 was designed to end doubts as to the application of the 1702 Act re alienation (see 16) in respect of the private estate. Both Acts are, now, not required and should be repealed;  The 1862 Act was, also, designed to provide that private estates undisposed of at the death of sovereign were to be treated as Crown Estate (in effect, upholding the common law position, see 30);  The 1873 Act was designed to cover private estate transferred by the sovereign to a person who later became sovereign. Thus, this extended the 1800 Act -but only where the 1862 and 1873 Acts applied. 210 This made the situation more complex.

CROWN PRIVATE ESTATE ACT 1800
This Act is entitled 'An Act concerning the disposition of certain real and personal property of [ , his heirs or successors as aforesaid, freed and discharged from the provisions and restrictions in the said recited Acts respectively, all taxes, rates, duties, assessments, impositions, rents and other annual payments, fines and other outgoings, which shall from time to time be charged and chargeable upon or be or become due and payable in respect of all such manors, messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments respectively, shall be paid and discharged out of the privy purse of [HM], his heirs and successors respectively, from time to time to be respectively named or appointed by instrument in writing under the sign manual of [HM], his heirs and successors respectively; and the said James Earl of Cardigan and such other trustee or trustees as aforesaid shall be duly admitted to such copyhold or customary lands, tenements or hereditaments as aforesaid by the lords or ladies of the manor or manors of which the same shall be holden, according to the nature of the estate therein, on payment of such fines and subject to such rents, services and customs as of right shall be due and accustomed in respect thereof; and the said James Earl of Cardigan and such other trustee or trustees as aforesaid shall be deemed, as in respect of the lords or ladies of such manors respectively, and all other persons whatsoever, to be the true and only tenants of such copyhold or customary lands, tenements and hereditaments respectively, so that no lord or lady of any manor nor any other person or persons shall be prejudiced thereby. 212 And notwithstanding any thing in the said recited Acts contained, or any other statute, law, custom or usage to the contrary, it shall be lawful for [HM], his heirs and successors, from time to time, by any instrument under his and their royal sign manual attested by two or more witnesses, or by his and their last will and testament in writing, or any writing in the nature of a last will or testament, to be signed and published by [HM], his heirs and successors respectively, in the presence of and to be attested by three or more witnesses, at his and their free will and pleasure, to grant, sell, give or devise all and every or any of the manors, messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments, so purchased or to be purchased by or which have or shall so come to [ In respect of s 1 it may also be noted that -prior to this Act -it was unclear whether the Act of 1702 (see 16) which prohibited the alienation of Crown land prevented the sovereign from granting to others property which was part of his own pocket money (i.e. that part of the privy purse which constituted his own salary One would agree.

CROWN LANDS ACT 1823
This Act is entitled 'An Act concerning the disposition of certain property of [HM] his heirs and successors.' It extended the 1800 Act to the manors in possession of the sovereign (George IV, 1820-30) at the time of his accession to the Crown. 213 Section 8 is spent. 214 'And it shall be lawful for any Queen for the time being of this realm, being the consort of [HM] or any of his successors, in like manner, at any time or times during the joint lives of the King and such Queen consort for the time being, by deed under her hand and seal, or by her last will and testament in writing, to be respectively executed, signed, published and attested as aforesaid, to grant, convey, alien, dispose of, give or devise any manors, messuages, lands, tenements and hereditaments, which shall be purchased by or in trust for her, or which shall come to or devolve upon or vest in her or any person or persons in trust for her, for any estate of inheritance or freehold or any copyhold or customary estate, under and by virtue of any deed, gift, will or otherwise, for all or any part of such estate, right and interest as she or such person or persons in trust for her shall have in any such manors, messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments, and also by her last will and testament in writing to give and bequeath all such her chattels, whether real or personal, and personal estate whatsoever, to any person or persons and for any intents and purposes she shall think fit, as fully and effectually in all respects as if she were sole and unmarried: Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall extend to enable [HM] or any Queen consort of this realm to make any grant, conveyance or disposition of any palace or capital mansion house, gardens, lands or hereditaments, belonging to his Majesty or any of his successors in right of the crown, which now are or hereafter shall be vested in [HM] or in any such Queen consort for her life, as and for her jointure or otherwise, under any letters patent of [HM] or any of his successors or by Act of Parliament, or to make any grant, conveyance or disposition, which [HM] and such Queen consort could not make, if sole and unmarried. 215 Maitland, n 29, p 432-3.
or general, granted either mortis causa or inter vivos; and all dispositions, conveyances, deeds of appointment, commissions, powers of attorney, wills, deeds of settlement, and other deeds or instruments to be made or granted by [HM], her heirs or successors, of or relating to the private estates of [HM], her heirs or successors, situate or arising in Scotland, shall be valid and effectual, although not executed according to the forms of the law of Scotland, if the same shall be under the sign manual attested by two or more witnesses; and every such disposition or conveyance, if granted mortis causa, shall be valid and effectual, whether the same shall be under the sign manual as aforesaid, or shall be signed by some other person in the presence of the granter, and by his or her direction in the presence of two or more witnesses, who shall attest the same, although the same shall not be executed according to the forms of the law of Scotland. , her heirs or successors as aforesaid, freed and discharged from the provisions and restrictions aforesaid, all taxes, rates, duties, assessments, impositions, rents, and other annual payments, fines, and other outgoings, which shall from time to time be charged and chargeable upon or be or become due and payable in respect of all or any of such private estates, shall be paid and discharged out of the privy purse of [HM], her heirs or successors; and accounts thereof shall from time to time be returned to the person or persons for the time being executing the office of privy purse of [HM], her heirs or successors, or to his or their deputy, who shall by and out of any monies in his or their hands applicable for the use of [HM], her heirs or successors, pay and discharge the same. , her heirs or successors, shall at all times be entitled to require any trustee or trustees who may be vested in or possessed of any of the private estates of [HM], her heirs and successors, in Scotland, to convey and dispone the same to [HM], her heirs or successors, or to any new trustee or trustees to be named or appointed by [HM], her heirs or successors, by writing under the sign manual; and in the event of the failure, delay, or inability of any such trustee or trustees so to convey or dispone the same, or in the event of the said trustee or trustees having died, it shall be competent for any person or persons authorized in that behalf by [HM], her heirs or successors, by writing under the sign manual, to apply by petition to the Court of Session to declare that the trust conveyance subsists for the benefit of [HM], her heirs and successors, and that [HM], her heirs and successors, are entitled to have the same transferred, and further to adjudge such private estates in Scotland which shall be specified and described in the petition from such trustee or trustees, or his or their heirs or heir, and to decern and declare the same to belong to [HM], her heirs or successors, or to such new trustee or trustees as may be so named and appointed, as the case may be; and the Court of Session shall pronounce decreet in terms of the prayer of such petition; and such decreet shall be held to be and shall have the effect of a valid conveyance and disposition in due and usual form of such private estates as shall be specified and described in the decreet in favour of [HM], her heirs and successors, or of such trustee or trustees, as the case may be; and it shall be competent to register such decreet in the general…register of sasines in terms of and to the effect authorized by the Titles to Lands (Scotland) Act 1858 and the Titles to Lands (Scotland) Act 1860. [rep] S 12. (Saving of the Rights and Remedies of the Sovereign). Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall take away or interfere with any right or remedy by any law or statute competent to Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, in regard to the private estates of [HM], her heirs or successors, or in regard to any trusts of such estates, or against any trustee or trustees, his or their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns.

CROWN PRIVATE ESTATES ACT 1873
This Act is entitled 'An Act to explain and amend the Crown Private Estates Act 1862.' It contains the following sections: required. And for the Treasury to pay those for royal palaces still required. These parties should submit annual accounts for the review of Parliament. Such will simplify things greatly.  Crown Prerogatives (CPs). All obsolete CPs in respect of the sovereign (and any franchise) should be abolished and any still required should be expressly provided for in legislation. This will enable all common law CPs to be abolished, so that clarity is wholly obtained. An essential CP for the sovereign to be retained is criminal and civil immunity. However, as the corollary to the same, the sovereign -when acting in a public capacity should: (a) employ no one; (b) take all actions under advice; (c) not commit misconduct; (d) have no personal legislative privileges -save for essential ones.  Politics & Religion. The sovereign should be above politics 220 and religion. 221 Also bear the titular military rank of C-in-C (if at all);  Royal Family (RF). The extended RF was a source of scandal in Victorian times (and before) as well as today. It should be wholly slimmed down to embrace only the direct line of descent 222  As it is, one would suggest that the modernisation of the monarchy in legal terms should have occurred, at least, 35-40 years ago. This would have avoided many problems and scandals. More particularly, the issue of a royal salary is essential to this. Such is now considered.

ROYAL SALARY & SLIMMING DOWN THE ROYAL FAMILY (a) Royal Salary
Queen Victoria (and her successors) came in for much scandal which could have been avoided. 223 In part, this has been remedied. Thus, specifying a fixed royal salary does work and there is precedent.  Today, the only people who should receive a royal salary should be: (a) the sovereign; and (b) the Duke of Cornwall and no one else. Further, all taxes (including IHT) should be paid by the same. Thus, the tax position should be no different to any subject (even though the sovereign is not a subject) including the payment of IHT;  As to how much the royal salary should be, Parliament should fix this. Once it is properly informed of the true wealth of the sovereign and the Duke of Cornwall. Obviously, there is a massive difference between the true wealth of the sovereign being, say, £1bn or more or it being a more modest (say) £30m). 225 So too, in the case of the Duke of Cornwall.

(b) Royal Family
Since the time of Queen Victoria (1837-1901) there have been attempts to slim down the RF and reduce the payment of annuities. In the time of Edward VIII (1903-11), for example, payments were made to: (g) UK foreshore (seashore); (h) UK tidal waters (including the riverbed, the fundus); (i) UK public rivers (including the river bed, the fundus); (j) Other assets (woods, forests, parks, mountains, hills, rivers, lochs, buildings etc) as set out in a SI; (k) Royal yacht.

Schedule 2 -Civil List
(a) The following only shall receive an annual royal salary for the performance of their royal duties, the: (ii) Duke (or Duchess) of Cornwall, when not (a) -£ [ ].
(b) The salary in (a) may be amended by a SI.