Star. — London, England, 1821-01-27 00:00:00

eet, did ictu . ally bring her oxek as any on e mig ht ea ped!d Ministers had not examined !ter m Ma- t.ec ie physicians and Maids of Honour, as to her t • but they list ened to tales and char g es g ot en • J oic. Go knew how. One of the witnesses, on whose lei ) wan! , great stress was laid (he meant Bianchi, at the Inn at Venice) , he kne w to be a man the porter t he most infamous character in Venice. In moving J t r ; Adjournment, the Right Honourable Gentleman red that he knew that Parliamentary tricks were co 'fined to their s i d e of thnerale Housew ishes . Let the lot n else hew attention to the ge of the repl e, as . manifested by the Petitions which now laded their rtb e. itoWETHLRELL took an historical and legal r ise of the question. It was one, he observed, not a ffecting alone the case of the present Queen, but t he cases o f all future Queen s C onsort : it was a ques .tion prospective i n its conse q uences, whether the usual r oom ache land, and the rights by common and rAtute the land, granted to every Queen Con ott* law of , should be set aside at the pleasure of the King's ohinet Council? He charged the Ministers with raking an Order, on the 12th of February last, ehich was grossly illegal—(Hear; hear). The Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) had accused tee Noble Lord with using milk and water language; but he should net complain so of his—(Hear, hear). lie meant nothing offensive to the Right Honourable Gentleman; but he would deliver his opinion in as s trong language as m i g ht be res p ectful to Ministers and to the House. At the Reformation, there was a co mplete alteration in the regulations of the Church. In the reign of Edward VI. the Liturgy became a matt er of civil government ; the Church was made a part o f the State , and t he State of the Church. He then noti;ej the s everal alterations; being made in the Li turgy, and c ontended _eat they seem all established by Act of Pariiament, and not by the King, as suc cessor of the Pope, in being I lead of the Church. Ile admitted that Henry Via. did exert his preroga tive in these instances as Head of the Church; but e as e powers v ere lost to the Crown by the various Acts of Parliament which had made the Legislature a sharer with the king in all modifications of the Liturgy. Since the year 1661, the Liturgy had be come part and parcel of an Act of Parliament, for it was regulated in part by the words of the Statute ; and it was only on account of the length of it, that the whole Liturgy was not inserted in the Act of Par lament, commonly called the Statute of Uniformity. That Act contains not one single clause authorizing the King to alter the Liturgy. The only clause that could at all be quoted in the contrary sense, was that which authorized the altering, from time to time, the names of the Royal Family in the Liturgy ; but there was nothing about expunging, omitting, or erasing a name, though he supposed no one would deny that the copia rerborunt of the English language I was as complete then as now. Besides, this Act was drawn up by Lord Chief Justice Hale and other great men of that day ; and they were not likely to have omitted so important a pelt of the regal power as was now contended for, in omitting the Queen Carson's name from the Liturgy—(Hear, hear). — la the Act of 1661, a bleek was left for the insertion of the title and name of the Queen, Charles 11. hav ing at that time no Queen Consort. Down to the present time, with the exception of the wife of George L they bad the consuetudo regal of three centuries ; and he thought that an Anti-Radical Administration would not have broken through the usage of three ages. What did the powers of that House depend on—the cousuetudo Parliameati ; what the power of the Crown—the jus Corona; what the rights of every man, but upon usage ? \Vas an Anti-Radical, Mo narchical Government, like that of the Noble Lord's, to break through the rights of the Queen, as esta blished fur three centuries? He was as great an ene my to Radicalism as the Noble Lord ; but he chose to be consistent. From the period of the illegal Or der of the 12th of February, his mind was made up to oppose everything brought against the Queen. He repeated, that the Queen of George I. was not known as such in this country, or acknowledged as such in any public document here, so that all argument drawn from that case, was idle and contemptible. The wife of George I. had been divorced eighteen years before he was called to the Crown of this coun try; and therefore no man, who called himself a lawyer, would ever attempt to hang an argument I on such a miserable dirty rag of a precedent as this for excluding the Queen Consort's name from the Liturgy of the Church—(hear, hear, hear). — The rights of the Queen in this country were attached to her as Queen, and not as wife of the King. By the Common Law of the land, she had the rights oi l afen»ne sole, of patronage, of respect and obedience, from all subjects, independent of the gift or pleasure of the King. It was also treason, by the Common Law, to kill the Queen. If these rights were immu table, and unchangeable by the King, how could any man say, that still it depended on the King to omit her name from the Liturgy, where, by the Statute Law, it ought to stand ? It ambiguity did exist, it was set at rest by the Statute. He begged, therefore, as a plain humble man, that he might be permitted to ask the present Monarchical and Anti-Radical Ministers, whether the same power which had left the Queen's name out of the Liturgy, might not have done the same thing with the name of the King ? (Hear, hear, hear).—He contended that, as far as he understood the Act, they could leave out neither the one nor the other legally—(leco, hear). Those who contended that the Queens name could be omitted from the Liturgy, must also assert, that if her Ma jesty's name bad been in the Liturgy, they bad a power to expunge it. Immutability of right charac terized.sl a ll t h e pr i v il eges b e l ong i ng to t h e Q ueen .— . filit I the Noble L or d (C as tlereagh) wished to subject tke Queen to a sort of Censorship, such as never was exercised in this country, but by that odious tribunal the High Commission Court. He wished to punish her without charge or trial, by thus omitting her tame from the prayers of the Chuech and the People. In the deciding of this case, the House would de termine a principle that future Queens, who might be unpopular at Court, could be deprived of their rights at t!:e will cd . the King's Ministers. Some nuglrt say that this was a question of moral demerit ; bat who could decide a hat was moral merit?-- piing it to v.-letterer test they pleased, it would be i t'"nd that it such api inc • iple were established, the Queen must be in future the victim of discretion; "st they all knew the. e were es many factions in eces as in cottages. Upon these greunds he had -- argued the case, and would support the motion. isio man would deny that it was mischievous to degrade the king, by degrading the Queen. Ile repeated; that the Order in CQuncil, which was illegal, first , fixed his opinion as to the treatment Of the Queen and he considered that a proceeding could not be 1 1 pure, the initiative of which was founded in gross il legality, and monstrous injustice. Ministers, by their threatening letter, bad established a principle of the reign of terror, unworthy of Britain, and unparalleled in Pagan countries. They had dethroned the Queen abroad, by their secret instructions to foreign Courts, and they had dethroned her here, by excluding from the Form of Prayer her name and title. This was intended to prejudice her in the public mind, while they were telling her to set her foot on the British shores if she dared; for if she did, she was ruined. But she despised that threat, and boldly challenged her accusers to put her on her trial. For these rea sons, he most heartily concurred in the motion made by the Noble Lord. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose at the same time with Mr. DODSON, and considerable disturbance en- sued by cries of the Attorney-General." He, how- ever, sat down, and . Mr. DODSON said he would not travel into all the extraneous arguments of his Hon. and Learned Friend ; but even he was constrained to allow, that, at the Reformation the King obtained all the powers over our Church which were before enjoyed by the Pope ; and the lion. and Learned Gentleman had not shewn that, at any subsequent time, those powers were taken from the Crown. The Bible was translated by order of the King, and not by the authority of an Act of Parliament. lie defied his Hon. and Learned Friend to shew any Statute which had de prived the King of these powers, even the regulation of the Church Service, as far as it concerned the Royal Family. By the Act of Uniformity it was evident that the Book of Common Prayer emanated from the Royal authority alone. If this Act was the first which gave the power to the Crown to change names in the Liturgy, how came it, that from the time of Edward VI. this power was exercised by the King? His Hon. and Learned Friend had said, GOD knows, if you leave out the name of the Queen, but the next thing you may do may be to leave out the name of the King from the Liturgy." His Ilon. and Learned Friend, with his high monar- chical nations, need have no great fear or that, con sidering that the power for doing so was vested in the King himself. Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) said, it was last Ses sion of Parliament decided by an immense majority, that her Majesty would be pleased to allow her name to remain excluded from the Liturgy. To that ma jority he now appealed to get rid of the present mo tion. He would put another touchstone to the Gen tlemen opposite, and if they did not desire victory over the King, instead of endeavouring to protect the Queen, let them pass an Act, that in all time to come the name of the Queen should be inserted in the Liturgy. But they would not do that, because they would dishonour the King—(Cries of Ordri.).— " Patience, Gentlemen, patience," said he ; and then sat down. _ _ __ _ Sir JOHN NEWPORT quoted the Irish Act of Uniformity, as evidence to prove that the right to exclude the Queen's name from the Liturgy existed in Parliament alone. The Statute Law was, he said, as it stood, conclusive. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed his sur prise, that those who were dissatisfied with the act of omitting the Queen's name had not expressed that dissatisfaction twelve months ago. The reason was, not that the act was illegal, but that it was income nient—(Hear). They had already admitted that it was strictly legal. The whole argument of those who advocated the Queen, was built upon the posi tion, that the right of her Majesty was immutable; but they had not shewn how she had any right of the kind. The Act of Uniformity gave no such right; and, notwithstanding the appellation of Star Cham ber, which had been given to the authority from which the order had issued, the power that had been exercised was an existing legal power. The law said the King had the power of " altering"' the names in the Form of Prayer, which included " erasing." But there was no Prayer annexed to the Act for the Queen or the Royal Family. It remained with the King to fill up the blank; and if the King had no power to act, how could he fill up the blank? At the time of Charles IL there was no Queen Consort: the blank was then filled up with the name of the Queen Dowager. Omissions had frequently taken place. In the reign of George 11. the name of Prince Frederick, who had been for some time prayed fur, was struck out, and in that of Philip and Mary, the King was prayed for, and not the Queen—(Near, hear! and cries of "She tal3 not Queer Consort!" ) No ; she was Queen Regnant. The form of prayer was " Pro Rege et Principibus mils." Not only had Kings inserted names not strictly Royal into the form of prayer, but actually omitted the names of persons who had been prayed for. From the year 1714 to the present, with two solitary exceptions, there had been one uniform heading to the Oiders in Council. Did his Honourable and Learned Friend suppose that the Council had not considered attentively all the Acts of Parliament on the subject? But it was said the instance of the wife of Geo. I. was no instance at all. Did his Honourable and Learned Friend mean to assert that Gta I. was to all intents and purposes divorced from his wife? If that was the case, how happened it that she was always styled the Duchess of Zell ? He contended that there was no re cord of such a divorce ; and he would further add, that whatever might have been the conduct of the Consort of George the First, the law was imperative on the subject. If this was a legal right, the Queen of George the First was as much entitled to avail herself of it as the most virtuous Queen that ever ex isted in England ; and the Ministers of that period were as culpable in advising the omission of her name from the Liturgy as the Ministers of the present day were in advising the omission of her present Majes ty's name. The Honourable and Learned Member then contended, that there was neither law nor usage to sanction the right claimed by her Majesty ; and he was much surprised to hear a Gentleman cf the at tainments of his Honourable and Learned Friend, assert that the Queen was entitled to the special prayers of those whom he called her subjects. He never heard that a Queen of this country had any subjects, nor did he find the term subjects made use of, except in the Addresses presented to the Queen, and the Answers to them. it was quite clear thai by its mere will anki fiat. he inaTotairieci that tli this question was brought forward for party pug- Queen bad no more right to complain Of net havirig poses ; he would ask; if that was net the case, her naeie inserted in ~e Liturgy, than the whop would it ever have been introduced ?—(Hear, leaf - ). body of the " Royal Progeny had of net being It was charged against his Majesty's Ministers, that prayed for roe' : i.rer l irr. NVith respect tv the osrz of they acted in an illegal manner. Now, whet Was the the Doke of Curnaerland, it eppeered that his name fact? They had received information from abroad, was excluded by the King and Council—.end here of the Queen having been guilty of such a degree of was anther instaece ef the elercise of discietiort misconduct as required a solemn investigation ; and upon this subject by tie King and Council: He were they then to be accused of acting illegally, lie- contended that there was no di oiree bete een Queed cause they had resolved upon an inquiry into the Caeoline and King George; she was certainly the charges against her ?—(Lned chcersO—lie was reedy Queen of England, and yct low name WAS also ex.; to confess, that he for one would not have advised the eluded hum the Liturgy by tir same authority.- 7 . omission of her Majesty's name front the Liturcy, It was his opinion, therefore, that the King in Coun; while she continued Princess of Wales, but the case oil had the power to exclude her Majesty's name was entirely altered after she became Queer). As to from the Litargy; end the duly question, therefore; the religious scruples which might be entertained on was, Was this power properly exerciTed in that pan. this subject, he could only say, that this question in- ticular instance? It was hir the House to consider; volved no religious consideration whatever, as the by recurring to the nature of the charge, and the Queen was prayed for under the general term of the evidence•by which it was supoorted, knowing that a " Royal Family." Under all these circumstances, Commission had been employed to look out lot evi- and for the reasons he had given, he should certainly deuce, and had transit - awed the evidence to this couna vote against the motion of the Noble Lord, and sup- try; and knowing, as he did, the high character and port the Amendment. honour of the men who composed the Commission-o Mr. WETHERELL explained. He did not con- knowing all this, he begged to ask, -could it be tend that the Queen Consort was entitled to the al- expected that, as a matter of favour, there being no legiance of the people. What he said was, that from right, her name would he insetted in the Liturgy ? immemorial usage, the Queen was entitled to those From the judgment of the Hon. and Learned Gen external symboL of: respect, or marks of homage, denten, lie would appeal to the sober pint of the paid to the King. Public, and he was satisfied, that when the artificial Sir J. MACKINTOSH then rose, and after a few clamour of the day wa, over, the country would he preliminary observations, said, that the late Order in restored to tranquillity. The Learned Gentleman Council was e violation of all the recognized prat- then -aid, that he conceived it impossible that any ciples of the British Constitution. Alter the able Member should vote for this motioh, and of course and lucid arguments of the Honourable and Learned another which would follow, as a matter of course, Member for Oxford, he felt that to attempt enforcing for an Address, without taking a pert against the them by anything which he could offer,. would be Monarch !—(Order, order—ThZe the words d0:v..0. presumptuous in the extreme. The Honourable and Lord MILTON rose, for tile purpose of calling the Learned Gentleman then commented on several lion. Member to order. The lanouage he had used charges of inconsistency which were brought against was utterly inconsistent with the order of the House, some of his Honourable Friends who had preceded and deserved the animadvenioa of the Chair (Hear). him in the debate. He next animadverted on the The SPEAKER interposed, and stated, that had silence of the AttorneyeGeneral upon the merits of the Hon. Gentleman imputes! the motive of hostility the question for the last eight months. It was the to the Monarchy to any Member,. he would have duty of honest advisers to speak the truth to the been disorderly in the extreme ; but he had only de= Monarch, however unpleasant the truth might be to scribed what he thought would be the effect of a par his ear. Honourable Gentlemen on his side of the ticular motion. Mr. SCARLETT rose at nearly three o'clock, and House were charged with having had recourse to Parliamentary tactics in bringing forward this clues_ observed that the present question was one which tion ; never was there a charge more unfounded. The mainly involved the stability of the present Ministers ; Right Honourable Gentleman on the other side, and and they themselves ;tad made it a question of that those with whom he acted, had not mentioned to nature. At so late an hour, he did not wiso to enter put upon record a single argument which went to deeply into its consideration ; but eve: y man who va refute the serious charge against them, involved in lued principle, who valued the dignity of the Timone, the motion of his Noble Friend—(Loud cheers).— and the maintenance of the Constitution, was now That motion was, in fact, an impeachment of Minis- called upon to make a last stand for their defence— ters--(Continued cheers). As to the case of Philip (Hear, hear). The due administration of justice was and Mary, quoted by the Honourable and Learned concerned in this question, but confident oedema , Attorney-General, it was to him (Sir James Mackin- tion could neither alter its nature, nor detract from tosh) most surprising how he could have cited it. its importance. The present question involved the Philip and Mary were Papists, and as such, not con- fate of Ministers ; but the President of the Boar dof sidered as at the head of the Church. What, then, Trade met the charge against his colleagues by a was the Honourable and Learned Attorney-General vote of aujoianmeet. This was a proof' of the justice to go to the Popish Ritual for precedents to support of their cause, of the manliness with which they his arguments ?—(Loud cheering). His Honourable dared to meet it ! The world, however, would judge, Friend, the Member for Westminster, had very aptly of this :—honest men of the present day could see it illustrated this point then with respect to the wire of as it deserved to lie regarded. Why did not the Mi- Georise I. who was styled Duchess of Zell, all that nisters call on their majority to bear them through could be said was, that she inherited that title from their appeal ? Their confidence bespoke, at least her father, who was Duke of Zell, and her assuming they had some colour of justice or mistaken policy it after she was separated from her husband, proved at their side. In the hour of trial they found neither. that she was held to be divorced, to all intents and They were not as yet charged with corru e tion—why, purposes. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman then, was the Noble Lord .o tender of his majority ? then proceeded to examine in detail all the various It was said on a former occasion, that the time might Statutes enacted in reference to the question, and de- arrive when discussion would come—it was now nied the correctness of the interpretation given to come ; and to the great dissatisfaction, he believed, them by the Attorney. General. He contended that of all sides; the merits of the Government were not the high authority of Lord Clarendon and Sir Matt. wished to be discussed, nor the necessity of their Flak, was against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. measures met by any decisive Measure. The Soli- He feared he trespassed too long on the House— citor-General had spoken very confidently ; but con (Hear, hear)—but he felt that this was a question not lidence was not proof, nor assertion always fact.— concerning one Queen alone, but whether all the fu- The House of Commons was not, perhaps, the best tune Queens of England were to be the slaves of every tribunal to discuss legal topics; but on common future Administration—Weer, hear !)—or whether sense subjects, where good feeling and sound pa they were to enjoy that independence which the Con- triotisin were concerned, he was satisfied their deci stitution intended them to have ?—(Hear,Ocar). The sion would be guarded by a sense of justice. He Honourable and Learned Gentleman then proceeded would venture to say, there were not ten Gentlemen to contend, that the exclusion of Prince George of in the House who would, in a private room, have Denmark from the Liturgy was no precedent in sop- any difference of opinion on this important subject port of the exclusion of her present Majesty, because —(Laughing).—The Solicitor-Ger:cod had appealed the 25th Section of the Act of Uniformity did not to the honourable feelines of the House—he made contemplate the Consort of Queen Regnant. George the same appeal ; and he would add to it, an appeal was the husband of Anne, and he did not come under to their justice; and on that combined appeal he the other part of the description, namely, " the Royal was satisfied no two men would &hot:wee—(Hear).— Progeny.' But the Princess Sophia's name was in- The case of the Queen was simply this—trial before serted, as she was one of" the Royal progeny"—a accusation—punishment before conviction—(Hear, .person towards whom Anne had no friendly feelin g s. hear). The Ministers said, they did not wish to pre. When he first heard of this measure, he supposed that judice her case, or to prejudge it ; what did the whole Ministers were at least secure as to the legality of tenour of their conduct display but the very opaosite what they did. But he was now fully convinced of to that which they bad promised? The alwisters the imbecility of their case. Much was said of hold- alleged that they had charges against the Queen ; ing the scales of justice with an even hand, 'before what, then, should have been their conduct what the trial of her Majesty. And yet, before that trial, was, in point of fact, their duty? The state of par by the omission of her name from the Liturgy, they tics could not have been affected by an honest policy caused it to be proclaimed in twenty thousand pulpits —insincerity brought with it an intricacy and a cru that she was an adultress—(Hcar, hear, hear).— city of proceeding, and with it their defeat. The He was convinced that upon this subject there was, conduct of Ministers was of that nature, that it pre in fact and in truth, no division of opinion in this judiced the administration of justice; they issued forth House—(Hear, hear.) No man could lay his hand opinions of guilt before trial, and a privilege not de on his heart and say that he did not deplore this as vied to the meanest individual was refused to the a most unfortunate measuie, though many, most in- second person in the State !—(hear.) The expe consistently, as he thought, still went on to support diency and policy o f t h e proceedings were altogether au Administration which had committed such an out of the question. His Majesty's Government no error—(Hear, hear.) The opinions of the public longer wished to have their measure; tried by such a were decided, and most ardent against this most test—(llear, hear). On these points they totally unhappy measure. The feeling of the people alone failed ; on the law of the case, the Honourable was sufficient to call on the Throne for the abandon- Member for Oxford left them not a single word. ment of all hostile proceedings against the Queen. It was said in the course of the debate, that Henry They felt that she was degraded bell:ire trial—pro- I VIII. had all the power that he could choose; but secuted without sufficient cause, and endeavoured to surely no man meant to infer from that that a Coll be punished without conviction. The Honourable stitutional Sovereign could either wish for or cxer and Learned Gentleman sat down amid loud cheers. cise such a power? But even in the time of Henry The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not think that VIII. it was urged that his proceedings were in the revival of this question was calculated to allay tended for the peace and tranquiility of the country; the discontents which were said to exist in the coun- it would be for the House now to decide if the mea try—(hear, peer).—Hc referred to the negotiation sures of Ins Majesty's Ministers were calculated for which took place, and contended that at that time the same purpose. But why was the 11,e t .e of her Ma j esty's advisers assented to negociate for an C ommons now talkin g of Henry's i enry's power, e eh equivalent for the omission of her Majesty's name seemed only a parallel to that of the Po p e; ween, from the Liturgy. Some now lights, he supposed, by the Act of t - niformity, all such powers were cone had broken in uaon Gentlemen, since there was a fined eithin die regulations of law. The argument time, and that not very remote, when this omission of the Solicitor-General was this: his Majesty tire was considered as a o trifle light as air." He then King has the power to alter the whole Liturgy, or proceeded to argue that, according to the Act of he has not. But how was that made out? By asset-- Uniformity, and to established usage, it was compe e tion, by an exception to rule cases; the question was tent to the Crown to change the names in the Liturgy not once met distinctly by him. Then the case was Ave r f~ •'-~li>'~~ I ( - T-