The Sun. — London, England, 1821-02-16 00:00:00

had done wrong, and the dOcision ief the Preshytery put an end to all further proceedings. The procedings against the Chaplain of a Yeo manry Corps had nothing to do with those of the Kitk of Session, and 'they wereat different times. The Commander of a Yeomanry Corps in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, considered that the Chaplain of that Corps ought not to pray for the • Queen, as the doing so would have given dis pleasure to the corps; and he had addressed a letter to a certain Clergyman of that Stewartry, desiring to know whether if called t o p er f orm the d u t y of a Chaplain I to the Kirkcudbright Yeomanry, he would or would not pray for the queen ? The Chaplain- did not return an explicit answer. lie readily admitted that the Gentle man in quest i on was a most . respectable in-. . d ividual— he believed him to be a most respect . able and loyal did person ; b ut while lie willingly "°f this every justi ce to the charatiter and principle s Gentleman, he could not but regret that he had not manfully said in his answer whether he -.would pray for the Queen *or not. The Comman der of the Corps was anxious that nothing‘of a po litioal character should he introduced at the meet 'lug of the corps. It was his duty to see that • nothing passed, at such a time, ungrateful to the feelings of those under his command. The Chaplain did not give an explicit answer . . Ile Come there, and he prayed for the Queen nonti ?l`ithn• On hi s return i ng I to his quarters, it was n timated t o hi m b y the commanding officer, that he should consider himself under arrest ; he told itirn he might go where he chose within the coun ty, but that his residence should be limited to the • county ; that he'Should. not only consider him under arrest while the corps was in quar ters, but for three weeks after, till he should' know. what the sentiments of Government were with respect to the matter. The commander made a- communication to • him (the - Lord AdvoCate), and also t o t h e Lord Lieutenant of the county, by the LOrd•Lieutettant communication was mad e to the Home Secretary. The answer re— turned was, tc 'that as the Lord Lieutenant had trot recommended any steps, no steps should be ta ken." The letter of the Lord Lieutenant had neither commended nor discos mended the pro ceedings. When the answer of the Home Secre tary Wits communicated to the commanding Offi cer, he immediately' intimated to the Chaplain, that the arrest was at an end. Government hay ing thus refused to interfere, and allowed the individuals to settle the affair among themselves, there was no Parliamentary 'ground for inquiring , into it. How was the affair settled ? The Cler gyman bad threatened for some time to bring an action against the Commanding Officer; it had been suggested to him, from various quarters, that it would be, better that the affair should be settled by reference. This respectable indivi dual declined making a reference to any one, but th e i ndividual who was now addressing them. Re had sa id to the Clergyman, that he was the last individ ua l to 10 . 10(11 such a reference ought `° b e made. The Clergyman, however, having Persisted, he had accepted the - referenCe. The awar d was not yet pronounced, but the business 1-t a , s , iin ished as f ar as th e pUblic was concerned. -11i1 , 3 alitte °II" dto the House, therefore, that no ha d been stated for bringing the matter before P arliament. - Sir J . MACKINTOSH said, he was relieved from addressing the H ouse on th e su bj ec t of th e genera l Principles of this•case, by the speech of his No ble. Friend (Lord V. ii.) and the 'speech, so full . of promise, of the Noble Lord - (Glenorchy) who seconded the motion with such peculiar pro . Priety ; for his name (Campbell) was connected • N 'ith every st r u gg l e f or th e c i v i l and religious l iberti es of Scotland. It was with peculiar satis - faction that he now saw the two families who had led f ormer l y th e oppos i te part i es . of that I co untry, this night exhibiting the same Constitu .ional j ea l ousy on the subject of the invasion ofthese flibeerties• He would t a k e th e lib er ty, h owever, o f ii:-ng Wo up a pa r t o f th e ou tli ne o f hi s N o bl e F r i end. c uld go n o farther . back than the period s '( )4 th e Revolution. The very first Act of the • yen tion,Parliament declared Prelacy one of the . (i . te " r iceS of the kingdorn ," not from any bigotry anr..disposition Us reflect on th e eccl e si a sti ca l p r 4 tbn4ments of other kingdoms, b u t b ecause f e e e n gh3lt erY was such a form of Ch urc h govern e"' as was conformable to the inclinations of - P e °Ple ; f or w h atever new li g h ts we might cline received, that Parliament considered the in t, Inati ans 'of th e peop l e as w h a t oug h t b y no leatis to be indifferent to them. In proceeding ee thi s I ) r es b e principle, the convention had restored t O ne e e, eTY as th e c h urc h government o f S cot l an d . by „"` tile articl es o f th a t c h urc h so approved of, e ,; et. i • " e convention was, that it had no head on He was not now inquiring whether this b ut. " ; convenient doctrine for a church to hold ; its Co nvention Parliament took a church into euce arin,ce., With such a confession of independ - fie h s est hi' h ri• of the church was con teed a is me • `very the Act of Union; and the first act of Qv ereign on his - accession to. the Throne ee s se s „, tie s een 'Year that he would preserve the Church lefej e ,„ . a nd as by - law established. It was a 4.l raut e en tal law - of Scotland, that the churc h be • lait`e n•ot- to Independent of any temporal head. It di ctiza, 0 much to assert, that any - Act contra bY the- Act g° fund amenta l a l aw, espec i ally as mere Act Uni on S co tl an d was p l ace d at .the sh e , of a maj or ity o f a B r i t i s h Parliament, 1 1• ith " be wat c h e d w i t h t h e utmost ' jealousy. 'Y ee respectt o t h e statute of Queen Anne, he ( shi ti ilf te ` n ot easily b e l e d t o a d o pt a construct i on te at Act, at va r i an c e w i t h t h e A rt i c l es of Re ‘,3l°ll ot the Scotti s h Ch urc h. E ve r y statute 'tell differed from a law fundamentally sacred, a'l'l3ld be examined according to th e s tri c t est b w s of examined c onstruction, sirictissimi juris. lie had ern bred in the p r i nc ipl es o f t h e E p i scopal Lurch o f S cotland, and afterwards belonged to - l v tie sister Church of England ; but he would tell e Learned Lord, that, notwithstanding, he e ,'neW s omet hi ng of the 'history of the Church of ln otland. This very statute of Queen Anne was Passed by a Tory Ministry, with the inten tion of favourin.g the Episcopal Church of Scott land, imposing the same obligation of praying for the King in 'Presbytery that it did iit that Church. - Therb , Were still a. few Members of • i,hn Presbyterian Church, who were what were called Cameroniaus, and who scrupled to pray for an uncovenafited King. The great body of the Church, however, entertained very different opinions. The Act of Queen Anne had struck at Members of that Church, who had long ceased to have any existence. The Act of Queen Anne directed the Queen and the Princess Sophia to be prayed for while living : why then should not that Act be restricted to the Queen and the Prin cess Sophia ? It was, and he was persuaded, that a statute SQ highly penal, and at variance with the fundamental laws of the country, would be held in any Court of this kingdom as of a temporary .nature, because the subject mat ter of it had long ceased to exist. The Learned Lord had told them of a series of decisions, jus tifying the conduct of the Government in issuing this Order, but what did they amount to ? He had produced certain convictions which took place during the four years that passed between two rebellions ; before the ashes of one rebellion were cold, and while a new 'one was kindling— when every thing concurred to disturb the calm administration of justice. Among the convictions quoted by the Learned Lord, were those of a number of non-juring clergymen. They were brought up by scores at a time, like men brought before a revolutionary tribunal ; they were brought before a body of Magistrates of excellent Constitutional principles, no doubt being zealous ly attached to the Protestant succession, but more distinguished for the zeal of their attachment to that succession than their zeal for the impartial administration of justice - . Ile joined in the testi mony which the Learned Lord had borne to thos , who then governed this Country ; they had pre vented the restoration of a family to the Throne of these realms, who claimed it by a title which was now called legitimacy, but which was then called divine right-s-a Most odious principle ; but he should never have selected their conduct any where, and least of all in Scotland,' as precedents in the construction of Acts of Parliament. The whole of these-precedents belonged to a. time when, if they •were to examine the Records, he could point out many proceedings of which no man could now • approve. He was far from saying, that the same moral censure at tached to a Government for such proceedings in times of national danger as in times of se curity ; but the justification of a Government, and the adopting their construction ,of an Act of Parliament as a precedent, were quite distinct. But, granting that they. had fixed the construction' of the act of Parliament, it was only by a laxity of interpretation that the Courts had held that the spirit and analogy of the, Act of Anne required that the reigning King should be prayed for by name. What did this amount to? The whole question before the. House had been waived by the Learned Loso by a piece of dexterity which his natural candour sometimes allowed to be seen through, The question was, not whether they should blame the issue of an order directing_ the King to . be prayed for by name; it was not the ordering the King to be prayed for by name, but the implied omission which gave to this order its questionable charac ter. The Order issued to th© Church of Scot land was in the same terms as that to the Church of England, and it was certainly un derstood by - the whole body of the Church of England, as an O r d e r not to pray for the Queen by name. What then %vas-the natural coustruc tion to be put upon this Order, but that the Church of Scotland were commanded in the same manner to omit the name of the Queen ? But the King was not the head of the Church in Scotland, there was no Act of Uniformity which could ap ply to Scotland, and the statute of the- 10th of Anne gave no authority to order the omission of any name. The Learned Lord admitted, that that_ part of the Order in Council which referred to the 32d Geo. 111. was a gross absurdity. It was neither more nor less than an injunction to the Presbyterian Clergy. to comply with an Act, which was made . for the relief of the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland ; an injunction which, he ap prehended, was not likely to be obeyed by the tamest and most mitigated disciples of John Knox. His Majesty's Ministers had in fact commanded the Presbyterians of Scotland to follow a, formula contained inohe Liturgy of the Church of Eng land, against which Liturgy their ancestors had so long, and at length so successfully struggled. The Learned Lord . had cited a number of Orders in Council from the year 1714, which had been uni formly-acquiesced in by theGeneralAssembly of the Church of Scotland, ;slid it was undoubtedly true that the General Assembly usually advised the Synods and Presbyterians to acquiesce in all reasonable recommendations of his Majesty' re lating to public prayers fcr the Royal Family ; but the very circumstance of such acquiescence being advised and enforced by the proper juris diction,. namely, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Au thority in Scotland, was a proof that there was no legality or binding power in the Order of Coun cil. The Learned Lord' had in fact admitted, that in spite of this Order in Council, every Clergyman in Scotland might, if he thought, fit, pray for the Queen by name ; but no Clergyman in England could venture to pray for the Queen ; what then was to be inferred from this difference but that an order, which was binding in England, had no force whatever in Scotland, and that Mi nisters had advised his Majesty to expose his Royal commands to be set at defiance, and his Royal authority to be insulted and con temned ? It was too much to say that this was en insignificant, question in_itselr, but as a question affecting the rights of .the Church of Scotland it was of the highest importance.— As to any arguments for the interference of the Crown with those rights founded upon usage, he was prepared to treat them with the utmost con tempt, and in so doing he should be justified by the course which had been taken by Courts of Law in this country. Similar arguments had been urged in support of the legality of general war rants, and that gross violation of the Law and Constitution of the country had been defended by a series of precedents for a century and a half in the best periods of our history, when Lord Chatham, the staunch enemy of general war rants, and who was principally instrumental in procuringstheir abolition, was Secretary of State. The Learned Lord had asked whether this usage were not a justification of his Majesty Minis‘ ters ? and certainly if this had beett'a question as to any criminal proceeding against. th,.tn, usage might have'been a sufficient reason lot.' abstliin 7 ing from such a proceeding. Ile should•have been willin to- admit such an -argument, pro vided the rights and independence of the Church ofScotland were secured byan acknow lecip - ,ment On the part of Ministers that theirOrderinCouncil was mere waste paper, that it .was nugatory, impotent, and ridiculous. However such a Concession might affect the characterOf Ministers, - howeverit might convince this house and the public that they were anxious in their endeavours to retain their power, but slovenly in - every thing that regarded the law and constitution, still he should have considered it a sufficient atonement to the insulted indepen dence of the Church of Scotland.' But the Learned Lord considered the issuing of the Order as a legal exercise of authority, and he seemed to rely upon the General Assembly not having opposed it.— There were various modes of evading, a proposi tion without directly opposing it, and the'Oene rat Assembly had in this respect imitated the . conduct of a mare illustrious which was. known frequently •to support measures which they did not conscientiously apprOve. They had not, however, negatived the Resolution con dethning this interference Of the Crown, but they passed this very•Resolutiort without the cen, sure upon his Majesty's Ministers, npOn the ground that the order was issued without any intention hostile to the Church of Scotland. What better proof could there be than the two facts which the Learned 'Lord had alluded to in the latter part of his speech, that•the sole object of .the Order in Council was the omission of the Queen's name ? Were the two persons at the - Kirk Session, a meeting ana'ogous to our parish vestry, ignorant men ? One of th em was th e Sheriff of the County, and the other a Judge of the Consistorial Court of ScOtiand, and - both con curred in putting that construction upon the Or der in Council, which he (Sir James) contended was the only natural construction. There could be no doubt as to the sense in which it was meant to be executed, though there was another sense in which it was meant to be vindicated. The Order was to be executed in one way, and than, in case of objection, it was to be vindicated in another. It was, no doubt, extremely conve nient to keep a meaning in reserve, when a mea sure of doubtful- legality was hazarded.-. The Learned Lord argued, that they who abstained from mentioning the Queen's name were of no party ; so that upon his principles, to be of . . no party, was to be of the party of the Court.— laugh.)—This was surely a singular re cipe for impartiality. He (Sir James) ;was much deceived if there were not a consider able number of Clergymen, even in that chosen seat of political independence—(a laugh)---who might consider the displeasure of the Noble Lord opposite of quite as much importance as the con struction of an Act of Parliament. He doubted whether there Would be more than a few stub born impracticable men who would be unable to overcome their scruples of conscience, and who would prefer the construction of an Act of Par liament to the favour of the Noble Lord. lie was perfectly ready to, bear, tetimony to the character and abilities of the Learned hird op- posite; and for the settlement of any question in which private interests were involved, he believed it would be impossible to find a more judicious and honourable umpire. He begged to remind the nouse, however, that they were not in this case called upon merely to redress a private in jury, but they were bound to inquire whether an act of oppression had not been . corritnittA in con sequence of au Order having.heen issued, which, to say the least of it, was useless and nugatory. Upon these grounds be thought the motion of his Noble Friend was perfectly justifiable. Lord C.TLEREA6II observed, that so little impression had the speech. of the': Honourable and Learned Gentleman who had. just sat down produced upon the argument of his Noble Friend, that he (Lord 'Castlereagh) did not intend to dwell upon it for a moment. lie rose rather for the purpose of calling back the attention of the: House to the real question before it ; but first he should remind the House of the objections which he had made on some former occasions to , those who maintained that the tranquillity of the country depended on the insertion of the Queen's name in the Liturgy.. He stated, on former occa sions, that if such were considered to .be the case, those. Honourable Gentlemen.should have put the question into some shape in .which it could be met directly and fairly, and not :_to endeavour to introdUce it by a .side wind, by declara tions of this or the other act. He did not know *hether those .observations Of his had produced the motion' of the lion. Gentleman (Mr. J. Smith) which the Mouse had disposed of in such a marked manner ;. hut he assured the Noble Lord that the objections he then made did not apply to such a motion As that now before tae House. At the same time, it appeared to him that this motion was by no means called for by the circumstances Which had been mentioned. With respect to the speech of. the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir J. Mackintosh), it cer ainly did appear to him to have been intended or a more recondite subject; and it did not at - - all apply to"the.niotion liZrofe the House. The. lion. and Learned Gentleman seemed as if his object had been to defend (he ChurCh of Scot- land from some supposed inroad upon its rights, and having got the outline of the argument in his mind, had come down and applied it to the mo tion of the Noble Lord (A. Hamilton). What vas really the case which the House had been :ailed upon to consideri—twoinstances.or indi- vidnal injury. And how had the, been answer ed ?—(Hear.)—lie hoped that the answer would not be forgotten, and he trusted the present would be a lesson to Honourable Gentlemen, not to briny down subjects for discus,sion in that House, which Was not, if there were arty ground for trial, the, proper place to try them, but would leave them - to the Courts which cpaild legally take cognizance of them. Snc7b, questions were brought down—the businEss of the Session was delayed in discussing them, and it must be obvious that they could answer ; no ether purpose but that of sending statements abroad c a l cu l a t e d to poison lie public (Hear !)—What, he asked were the cases intro duced ? They were cases already settled :. one of rereireil to the creCisiCUTOf aratiferlor court, Which had been disapproved by and set aside by the SaPeriar Court ; and the Other Nrai the ••6:56 of an individual _to WiliCh . his M.jesty's Govern ment had Eiten no sanction or approval. WhY7 he again -. aSketL, 4-eie, not such matters left for the decWOn of the Law Ciirts, or why was the liotise called. up-;n to waste its time by discuss ing suer cases 1 - 11.!'hopt!ti that what had occurred to-night Would be a lesson to the Noble .Lord •by whotn this motion %vas introduced. When the Noble Lord (Lord Archibald Hamilton) hrad heard his (Lord Castlereagh's) Right liononr able and Learned Friend, the Lord Advocate's, arguments respecting the Act of Queen Anne, he Must have felt his motion fall from -his hand. But it had .been alleged that the liberties of the Church of Scotland .were invaded. lie must be excused for saying that this motion-, like many other motions respecting the Queen, was' made for eny•other purpose than for tranquillizing tbe Country—(Cheets from the Ministerial side ;) and he Would say that the lion.. and Learned Gentleman (Sir J. - Mackintosh) could have more usefully applied his talents for tranquillizing the Country than . by the observations which he had Made on this motion, and by not continuing to awaken alarm, as if the Liberties of the Church of Scotland were invaded. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman might, if -he was not satisfied with the cases which his Right Honourable and Learned Friend had cited, get a Reverend Friend to act in contravention of the Act of Queen Anne; and his Reverend-Friend might . then bring the case before the Court of Session, and the Hon. and -Learned Gentleman might in consequence have a more modern proof of the meaning of the act. The cases cited by his flight Hon. Friend had been said to have oc curred in times of agitation and warmth ; but, if cases occurring in times of warmth could be on that account set aside, he might object to the abolition of general warrants, which the lion. - and Learned Gentleman had justly characterised as a public benefit, for no decision had been pro nounced in warmer times than the times in which general warrants.were decided to be illegal. But he again repeated, that it was perfectly open to the lidn. and Learned Gentleman to provoke of fence for the purpose of amicable discussion. To other minds, certainly „to his (Lord C.'s) unlearn ed understanding, no arguments could be more satisfactory than the arguments of, his Right lion, - and Learn e d Friend. Ilis Right lion. and Learned Friend had in his candour admitted that the 32d of George 111. was not applicable. lie (Lord Castlereagh) did not admit that • it was inapplicable, because separate instru— ments were not to be issued for the sepa- rate bodies in Scotland. He was justified in precedent and common sense in saying that such instruments were sent collectively to the Church of Scotland and the Episcopalian church, and collectively to the Episcopalian Church and the Church of Scotland. As far as the words of the act could show the sense of the framers of that act, respecting prayers for the Queen, by mum, it was vely remarkable.; and he begged to point it out particularly to the at tention of the House. The Episcopalian Church of Stotland, it would be remembered, was bound by the same Liturfry as - the Church of England. This act (the 3L2d of Geo. Ill.) was exclusively for the Episcopal Church of Scotland. He would quote the words to which he alluded :----" pray for his Majesty by name, his heirs and successors, and for the rest of the Royal Family us direct ed by lawful authority."—( Loud and repeat ed cheers from the Opposition benches.)—He Glared to say that " lawful authority" here again would be explained by the Act of Uniformity.— (Repeated cheers from the Opposition.)—But in this act, passed in the year 1702, when a Queen Consort lived in this country, than whom no Queen was ever more entitled to the prayers of her peo ple, no rnention was made of the Queen, and - no allusion to her existence occurred but by an ille gal interpretation of " lawful authority." So in the question of the Liturgy, there is no ground for claiming the insertion of the Queen's name but by what he called an illegal construction of the Act of Uniformity. (During the above ob servations repeated cheers were given by both sides of the_ilouse.) The case, he repeated, was so unexpectedly taken- from under the Noble fiord opposite, that he must view it as quite un tenable, for the Noble Lord could not have come down with a case knowing- it to have such an evi dent and enormous flaw. Mr; , J. P. G a ANT said, that as the Noble Lord had said that his Hon. Friend who had 'spoken before the Noble Lord had made very little im presion on the case, he'must say that the Noble Lord himself bad made no ,impression at all on the - case. This• Order iii Council had been shown to be most absurd and preposterous, and he (Mr. Grant) must add that it was most illegal. The Noble Lord had said, that decisions in very hot times might be very good precedents. lie (Mr. Granftwould say that decisions on cases between the Government and the subjects at a time of raging rebellion were not good precedents.—(Cheers.)—But further than this, he could refer to an Act which passed by the Act of Anne on which the cases cited by his Right Honourable and Learned Friend had been fonnded as of no force. lie meant the Act 5 George I. chapter 29, Sect. 3. This Act had been passed in 1719. The_ last case quoted•by his Right Hon, Friend was in 1718, consequently the Act was later authority than any of the cases cited. His Right Hon'. and Learned Friend said gist the Act of Anne wits still in force. 'Nov the sth of George'lll. prohibited any number of persons, exceeding nine, to assemble in a meet ing-house or Epiecepal place of worship„, who did not pray for the King, the Prince and Prin- cess of %Vales, and their issue, under the pain of imprisonment for sic manths.—(Cries of heari hear, hear this Act 'there was no-reference to the Act of Queen Anne. How then did the case 'stand• The Aet of Anne was either effec- nal, or it was ineffectual. If it was effectual, here was no need of a new Act ; if it• was not effectual ; and a neiv Act was - required ; ihen had . , . " the force of the Act of o,ncen Anne ceased her life.--(lfear, hear.)—But, according to the Noble Lord, the aid of the bete King_applied to the Clitti•ch .13f Scotland, as well as •to th 3 copnlians: We were then in thin situation: the , Act of George I 11. repealed the Act of Anne in favour. of. the suspected o agahiSt whom it had been originally tassed, and left it in hilt force against the tinsusrecter4 _for whose pro6c-; tion it had been pasted.—(Heat:,, hear agreed with the Noble Lord that the Honse ought not to interfere in cases of individuals ; but the Order in Coubcil was au attempt to is troduCe supremacy —he could scarcely call it an attempt to introduce it. He was certain that his Right Ron. Friend the Lord Advocate had* not been consulted, for he would have advised differently: But the interference had taken place first, and the law was found for it afterwards.—(lfeari hear!)—The effects of the order were most in-; jurious to the best interests of religion and, peace. It did often occur that the omission of her Ma jesty's name took place in one-chttrch, and the in= sertion in another ; and the congregations were! convulsed by this badge of distinction ; for party spirit and party division this order had excited and created in every clurch. In England the case was 'quite different. What motive then copld iiEve sug= Bested this order? He could not - imagine. He could imagine no motive but , a desire, impotently and futilely indeed, but most illegally to testify hos tility to the Queen.—(Cheers.)—it was a. grave charge against Ministers that they had co:nmitled his Majesty's name to what was, 'upon t,l - teir owit confession, nugatory. - Mr. MAXWELL said. that if the Noble Lord (A. Hamilton) had brought forward his motion for party purposes, as :insinuated by - the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) opposite, he, for one,. would not support it. But he was satisEed that the motion had no such object. He thought the or der was issued for the purpose of prejudging her Majesty the Queen.—(Cheers.)—They (in Scot-) land) had little to boast of in their country, lcsa in their Constitution, and least of all hi their laws. But still they would struggle fur what their ancestors had valued so dearly—the inde , pendence of their Church.=—(llear.)—The Or der in Council tended to bring the Royal autho-1 rity into contempt. Lord CASTLEREAGH explained. He had mad: no insinuation that the Noble Lord had brought forward his motion for other purposes than those , avowed ; but he remarked upon the impropriety of bringing individual cases before the House. Mr. MAXWELL explained. He bad certainly understood the Noble Lord to have spoken as be had formerly represented ; but he was now hap py to hear the Noble Lord disavow it. Lord ARCIIIBALD_ HAMILTON rpplied t Noble Lord (Castlereagh) said that the Order was nugatory, and yet he said that tits (Lord A. Hamilton's) motion had fallen from under him. If the Act of Queen Anne was in force and suf flC-10t, Ni by issue all Order in Council ? The tar-. gument.of the case was.disposed of; for if it was not,he certainly could conceive nothing to be added to it. If it should go forth that night, and go to Scotland, that the motion was negatived on • the ground that there - existed a right to issue Orders in Council, then the House would have cause to lament their vote. It had been imputed b y; the Noble Lord, not , more to him than to his - Hon. Friends near him; that they were poisoning the public mind by such motions and' discussions. Now he would say, that if - there was one matt in .that House who was poisoning the, public mind—who was d egra di ng R o y a lty— w h o divid ed one part of .the , Royal Family against the other—who poisoned the laws themselveS—(Loud cheers), it was the Noble Lord who had, in that House, introduced the declaration, that the Queen, although technically-acquitted, was mo rally convicted.—(Cheers.)—Ho (Lord A. Ha milton) would rather poison the public mind than be guilty of the subversion of justice. lie saw no possibility of the public mind being tranquil lized as long as the effect of that declaration .was unremoved.—(Cheers.)—Would any man stand up and contend for the right of issuing an order to be scouted and condemned ? A negative on this question would occasion more extensive mischief to the best, feelings of the Country Thal the House was aware of. Lord CASTLEREAGH explained, that he had al: tided only to the introduction of individual cases into that House. Sir J. MACKINTOSH explained, that if he were provoke a reverend friend to neglect to pray 'or the King; the sth of George I. would at once meet the point. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw; and on a division there appeared— For the Motion- .. 35 Against it Majoritya;ainst the Motion IRISH LAW COVICI'S. On the motion of Mr. C. GRANT, after some few observations from Sir John Newport,, Mr. - Bennet, and Mr. Martin, leave was given to bring in a Bill to.regolate the Proceedings of the Civil Side of the Court of King's Bench, the Common Side of the Common Pleas, and the Pleas of the Exchequer. • Mr. C. GRANT gave notice, that on to-roorrow he would move, in a Committee of the whole House, a Resolution that the Salaries of the Offi cers of the said Courts be paid out of the Conso lidated Fund. . On the motion of Sir J. NrWronT, a Return of the Names arid Dates and Sums, given as-re muneration, to the Commissioners - appointed to inquire into the English Courts . 'of Law,.. - kvas or dered to be laid on the -table: Lord Fol:nEs7ONi: moved, .that there be laid before the "House an Account of all Salaries abeve 1501. per annum, increased slate 1793, specifying the amount of the increase ; and whether inadein. lieu of Fees. ' After a few words from Mr. ROBTNNON and Mr. GOIJLII6ItN,VIIO' - state - LI . the A admits would be volumitiOuS, .nnli--thiit a notice was 'desirable, Lord FoL!tpsToßE withdrew his motion, az Li gave notite Of it . fcir to-morro w • CLERK OF• TI-SE SCOTCH AD:4IRALTY On tfie'mofioa'of the LOR:i .iinvocATE, the HOtiivireat:into ii 'Cornmitti.e • on the Rls a? 'granting compensation' to tho.'Cierks of the Scotch