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

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, Fin. 15. .Mr. ALcocK, from the Treasury, presented the Accounts of all sums of money paid on ac count of the Russian Loan during the last year. Also, the Amount of all Pefisions paid out of the Scotch Civil List in the same period. THE QUEEN'S ANNUITY BILL. Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Queen's An mAity Bill from the House,of Commons. torsi LivEttrooL. moved .the first reading of the Bill, and proposed that it should be read a -~secomt time cm MOnday' next. - lie was' severe . that other business stood for that day, and_ if it would give rise to inconvenience to any Noble . Lords,. he would willingly alter. the time fixed ,or the second reading to Tuesday. The Report of the. Longitude Bill was broUght . :Up, and the - third reading - ordered for to-mor row.---AdOurned.. • . 110 USE OF COMMONS. BogToN ELECTION PETITION,;. At four o'clock the House proceeded to bal lot for a Committee, to take into consideration tke Petition' complaining of an undue return for th-e Borolgh of Boston. Soon after, Mr. Dyson, - 0e Clerk, appeared at the Bar with the reduced 'si4t, whit h was as follows : ilun. J. Son,rg (4 , 6,5, Sir .W. 11. Pringle, Sir Ilvsses iltag, Honour - o,k. .1-letteage Legge, Honourable Christo pher Hely Hutchincon, Jonathan Raine, Esq., Char:es Cal s,rt, Esq. Honourable J. NI. Clement; Sir J. Kynaston Powell, P. Corbett, Esq., Lord John Fitzroy,. W. 1,. ( E-q, NV. E. B. Boughton, Esq., Isaac Clascoyne, Esq. and Sir It: I.l4fron. BIr.CCRIVEN brought in a Bill to enable the Trustees under the Church Itailding Act to issue 20,000/. to the Parish of Marv-le-bene, for the purpose of building four Chapels in that, parish.—Read a first, and ordered to be read a second time. On the motion of Mr. MATARLY, an Account v - vas ordered to be laid before the House of the quantity of .flax Seed imported into Great Bri tain in the years 1819, 1820, and 1821, .distin grishing the countries whence exported, and the ports into which imported. Also an Account of the Amount of the Duties on Windows i❑ Great I.lritain and Ireland. The Malt Duties Bill, and the Transfer of Grants' Bill, went thronzh Committees ; the Reports of which were ordered to be received to-morro w. COURT nF SESSMNS'SCOTLAND.) - On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE Of SCOTLAND. the House resolved itself into a Com mittee on the Court of Sessions Acts. The Lon() ADVOCATE, after a few prefatory • observations on the expediency of carrying into Affect the recommendation of the Parliamentary . Commission on this subject, and after stating that the principal object in view was, that the present mode of paying the salaries of the clerks find officers of that Court should cease for the purpose of substituting a fee fund, out of which those salaries should be.paid,. and the deficiency of which, if any, should be made good by Go vernment, moved a Resolution, that it was ex pellient thit further regulations should be ma e with respect to the proceedings in the Court of Sessions in Scotland. ' TO a few words from Mr. J. P. GRANT, and Mr. BENNET, the latter of whom declared, that if it were intended to make the salaries in ques tion higher than at present, he would take the sense of .the Committee on the Resolution, The Lunn AnvocATE replied, that so far from being higher, they would be rather diminished by the proposed arrangement ; and that they would be barely adequate to the due reward of the services performed.—The Resolution was then agreed to. The Loan ADVOCATE moved a second Reso lution respecting the Salaries of the Clerks. The principal to have 0001. a-year, the others in a specified proportion. Mr. CREEVEY objected to the introduction of this question at that time ;_ Thursday was a day on which it was fixed that notices should pre cede orders, instead of which the House were now in a Committee on an Order of the Day, which was likely to cause some discussion, while a Noble Friend of his was waiting, who had gOee notice of a very interesting motion. He knew that several Honourable Members who in tende.d to oppose these Resolutions were nest yet in the House. After a short conversation, in which the Lord Advocate,-Sir R. Wilson, Mr. Brogden (the Chairman of the,Cormnittee), Sir J - . Newport, and Lord Castlereagh participated, it appeared, that the present Committee was mistaken for one (the Committee on the Court of Admiralty in Scotland), to the Resolutions to be proposed, in which much objection was expected. Mr. Cree vey, in consequence, withdrew his opposition to the Resolution, which, as well as several others, etaiptehendin g sdine minor regulationS, was agreed. to-; and the House having resumed; the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow. Sir Jour Newporei gave notice, that he would' to-marrow wove a Resolution, that the House ca'itsidered it essential, that as guardians of the public purse they should be put in possession of the Estimates for the Navy, Army, and Ordnance within a week after the' commencement of ever: , Session of Parliament. THE BOWDITCFIEq. Mr. WAaRE said, that when he had given no tice of his intention to bring forward a motion on the subject of the Family of the Bowditches, he bad stated that he should be happy if any in for :nation were afforded him and the House by any Gentleman on the other side, in order that his motion might be framed in a proper and regular manner. -Tile subject.of the motion he was about to make was matter of notoriety all over the coun try. It alluded to an extraordinary trial which had occurred in Dorsetshire two years ago ; the subjects of his present motion, the family of the Bowditches, being charged with the forcible ab duction of a Miss Glenn. Upon the evidence of this Lady and her servant, the Defendants, four yin number, were condemned to suffer imprison ment for different periods. But since that time, by a subsequent trial, the most monstrous ini quitous system of perjury had been detected to have been 'curled on by Miss Glenn and her maid-servant, and it appeared that the fatir indi viduals belonging to this family had suffered im properly. A professional Gentleman had pre sented a petition to the Borne Department, stat ing these circumstances, in October last, ;in -con sequence of which Mrs. Mulraine, the 'mother, aged nearly BQ, Was . released from prison., Three others had Peen esentented, one. of whom had suffered his termiof imprisonment, and was at large at that pertod_of_thne;_but_the.. other two Bowditches were allowed to remain out their term of imprisonment, without any interference on the 'part of the'Government. It was this which he thought - demanded some explanation. 'Th e peculiar hardship of the mother suffering this sentence at her advanced age, and her son having been ruined entirely by the expences of. the pro secution, as well as of another application to the Court of King's Bench for a new trial, which was refused, rendered it a case which he thought called for -the extension of. mercy from the Crown. He was aware of the extreme inconve nience attending the interference of that House with Courts ofJustice ; but he was sure it would feel that this was a case in which a Jury had been sounfortunately misled by perjury, that any compensation that could be made to the parties by the interposition of that House, would not be misplaced; He moved that there be laid before the House a copyof the Petition presented to the Home Department in October last in behalf of the Bowditches. Mr. CLIVE highly applauded the motives of the Ilon. Gentleman iu bringing forward this matter, .He was willing to afford him every in formation on the subject in his power, froth which he believed he would find that the Peti tion had not been neglected by his Majesty's Government. In the subsequent trial alluded to by the llOti;Gentleinan, the - case of perjury against the prosecutors of the Bowditches was o clearly made out, that the Lord Chief Justice,. who presided at the trial, drew up a Memorial to the Horne Department on the subject. This Memorial was presented in October last, the ori- ginal trial and sentence of the 13owditAes, hay ing taken place itt 1819. In consequence of the representation'of the Lord Chief Justice, Mrs. Mulraine was released from prison, upon the Royal pardon being extended to her. One of the Bowditch e s had already suffered his term, and the sentence of the other two then in jail did not appeac to be at all affected by what trans pired at the subsequent trial in question. It did not therefore appear necessary or proper to inter fere with their punishment. The evidence was still strong against them as having forcibly carried away Miss Glenn. He had, he believed, given every satisfactory information on the subject ; and he did not see that there would be any ne cessity for laying the Petition before the House. Mr. WARRE 'maintained that the public re garded the matter in a very different light from the lion. Gentleman who hadjust spoke. - For his own part, he could not see how any dis-tinc tion could be drawn between' the different Mem-, bers of the family. He certainly could not ex pect to meet opposition to his motion under that point of view. Lord CAiTLEREAGIi said, the question at' issue Eppeared to be with - respect to the three remain ing prisoners. One woman had been released at the instance or the Lord Chief Justice ; but he did not see, that because the Lord Chief Justice had• made application in behalf of that one, that it at all affected the other prisoners. He trusted the Hon. Member would see the propriety of, withdrawing his motion, upon the understanding that the application he alluded to, addressed to the Home Department in October last, did not tend to exculpate the other two Bowditches then in jail. Mr.- BENNETT said, that the two Bowditches in question had been branded as conspirators, and convicted as such by the most gross systematic perjury ever exposed in a Court of Justice. The fact was, that the whole of the Bowditches were innocent of the whole of the crimes charged upon them, and did not deserve any of the punishment they had suffered, and he thought it necessary the House should know why they had not been discharged, when a representation of this was made to the home Department. After a few words from Mr. BANtrs, tho no tion was withdrawn. On the motion of Mr. CURTEIS, an Account: was ordered to be laid before the House of the Quantity of Grain, Flour, &c. warehoused under the 55th of George if 1., remaining in the Ware houses ou the sth of January, 1821. ORDER IN COUNCIL FOR ERAsING HER MAJESTY'S ; the other the 32d Geo. 111. With the help of others, he believed, and he could only believe, from the imperfect manner in' which those Acts were recited in the Order in Council, he was enabled to discover the chapters in those Acts supposed to bear on the case. After reading. those Acts of Parliirment, he 'really 'thought that the Church of Scotland would be right in 'sup posing that the Order hi Council was issued un der errors, and though sent to Scotland it never bave._ been. int e nd e d to b e .enforced; The Order was_ impotent with respect to Scotland, or if attempted to be enkirced, it was Illegal ; it was nugatory in the one instance, or illegal in the other. If the. Order intended any thing, it was illegal ; .if it did not intend any, thing, it was- nu gatory, and it subjected the Council, from which it issued, to general derision. He could not help saying, that that Order was more likely to prove a disgrace to the Books of the Privy Council, than the notice of the present .motion to the Papers, of .the House—(Hear, hear be came his duty to state two knstariees, in which it was attempted . to enforce that Order:-7-the first was, in the case of the Sheriff of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, who, on receiv ing that order,' called a Kirk Session, con sisting of himself, his son, who was a Colonel of the County Yeomanry, and the Clergy , man, when it was carried, that the Queen should not be prayed for ; but the Clergyman, greatly to his credit, dissented from the other two. The result was, that the Order in Council was subsequently taken into consideration by the Presbytery.; they approved of the dissent of the Clergyman, and they disapproved of the Order in Council ; they ordered that it should be erased from the books, and that the order for its erasure should be read in the churches. He (Lord Archibald) could scarcely conceive how any body of men could throw more obloquy, or, in deed, contempt, upon the Order of his Majesty in Council—(Hear, hear!)--The son of the Sheriff of the County, Colonel Gordon, was Colonel of the Yeomanry Corps ; it appeared that he took occasion ,to ask the Clergyman what were the in- tention and feelings of the Corps as to praying for the Queen ? The Clergyman replied,. that he did• not know what • were the intentions of the Corps, but that for himself he would follow the dictates of his own conscience and the la'ws of/his church. The Clergyman preached a sermon to the Corps remarkable for its propriety ; the Cler- gyrnan concluded by offering up a prayer for the King, and at the close of .that prayer it appeared that he was guilty of the great offence of saying, " bless likewise the Queen ;" for that offence the NAME FROM THE LITURGY. Clergyman was that very evening placed under arrest—(Loud cries of hear, hear !)—Hy arrest .he wished to be understood to say, that the indi vidual was restrained from going out of the county ; and that restraint was continued until the Corps were disembodied. Could the Noble Lord think that such a subject was not fit to bring before the consideration of Parliatnent—(Hear, hear!) ?—For his own part, whether sitting at one side or the other of that House,, he could not suffer an attack on the religion of Scotland to pass unnoticed—(Cheers !)—ln spite of the language of the Noble Lord opposite, he would wish to treat the subject with temper and calmness, but also with firmness; he would be anxious to hear the answer of the Learned Lord—he would be glad to know, whether an act of the kind he stated was to be defended, or how it was to be explained ? lie had heard of precedents—prece dents, which were invariably wrong, were enti tled to little consideration, and in the state of the public mind, agitated as it was by the strongest feelings, to have issued such an order on the faith of bad precedents, hastily and without due con sideration, retkcted little credit on the parties who signed it. Indeed those very parties seemed not to understand on what authority they signed that order. When an Ilonourable and Learned Gentleman (the Member for Oxford) had moved some nights since for some Papers in that House, it appeared that Ministers were by no means cer tain upon what authority they issued their own orders. • Both orders were ill-advised—the order as respected England was unjust and impolitic— the order with respect to Scotland was illegal as well as unjust. The Order, which he had read in a Scotch Newspaper, was accompanied by a let ter, signed James Buller, which stated, " You have sent an Order of his 'Majesty in Council, for an alteratiOn in the prayers for the Royal Family so far as relates to Scotland." Now, it was worthy of observation, that there were no prayers to make an alteration in —(Dear, hear, hear :).—There was no Book of Common Prayer—no Liturgy in the Church of Scotland—(Bear, hear !).--Due obedience was required to an alteration in pray- Lord A. Hamm - roe . , in rising to bring forward ers where no prayers existed. Obedience was his promised motion, said that he understood the required,--from whom ?—from the general As- Noble Lord opposite had said that the notice of seenbly of Scotland, over whom the King and his motion was a disgrace to the papers of that Council had no more authority than they had in House. He only noticed that assertion to give Constantinople—(Hear, hear !)—There was only the Noble Lord an opportunity, if he codid, oft one variation betwesen the Order issued for Scot disclaiming it ; or, it' he could not, that the land and that for England, and that was, that in Noble Lord might state the reason` why he made the Order for Scotland, Bishops were not directed such an assertion. lie hoped that Members to put it into execution. If it were not for that would guard themselves against an impression single variation, the, Order sent to the General which a.declaration of that kind was so well cal- Assembly of Scotland would have been the most culated to make. Th e o bj ec t of his motion was complete piece of absurdity that was ever at for the production of a very extraordinary docu- tempted to be palmed on mankied.—(Hear meat, the Order in Council directed to the Ge • With respect to the Acts of Parliament, the 10th of neral Assembly of the Clerk of Scotland. He Anne ordered, that the Queen should be expressly should observe in the first place, that the religion prayed for by name, and also the Princess Sophia. established in Scotland was 'independent of the The reason for that strictness was, that the pre power of the Crown, independent of the Privy tender, under the general name of Majesty, was Council, and of every other power save the Ge- prayed forby many persons publicly in the Church. neral Assembly—(Hear, hear !)—The Order in The application of that Act had long since Council to the General Assembly of Scotland was ceased, for if it were to be now enforced, the signed by the same Privy Councillors, the Arch- people of the present day would be obliged to bishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and pray for Queen Anne and the Princess Sophia. others, whe' signed the Order to the Clergy of The Act referred expressly and exclusively to the Church of England. Due obedience was re- them, and no power of provision was made for quire& to be paid to that order ; but without altering it. It was quite clear, that the Privy meaning any sarcasm, he would say, that the best Council, of itself, had no power on the subject. obedience that could be paid to it was by not If such a power-was vested in the Council, why obeying it at all. lie would ask the Learned was the Act of Anne ever made ? Or why was Lord opposite whether the General Assembly the same Act quoted in the recent Order in could pay obedience to such an Order, without Council ? With respect to the 32d of Geo. 111., subjecting...thems e lves to public derision ? That he really could not see what application it had to Order, it 'appeared, was issued on the supposed the point at issue. He did not think that it was authority of two Acts of Parliament, the one the one bit more applicable than a chapter in the 10th of A.nne, the .chapter and section not quot- Koran would have been, if gravely urged as an authority. The Act of Geo. applies, not to the Church of Scotland, but to Episcopalians.— Could any thing be more absurd, than setting up such an Act as the ground of authority over the Church of Scotland ? - The Church of Scotland disdains any -authority such as was recently as sumed over the General Aisembly ;• if orders were adopted in that Church, it was always on the recommendation of the General Assembly.— Such wits the case:no the marriage_of,the present King, hen the'name co - 11 , the Princess of Wales was added to the prit - ers of the Church. H e really did no t a pp re h en d that the Learned Lord would be able to give an answer to the facts he stated ; he did not think that any answer could be given ; all he would wish to know; were the grounds on which the condUct he complained of was to be defended. With respectlo the arrest, it. was a case of oppression calculated to excite the sympathy of the House. The person placed under arrest for calling on God to bless tier Ma jesty, after having previously prayed for the King, was a Clergyman of the utmost respecta bility, a Gentleman by no means disposed to • let party feelings,of any kind interfere with the con scientious discharge of his duties. And here he would -beg that the House would reflect for a moment on the situation in which that unwise and illegal Order placed the Clergy of Scot land. If a man resisted that Order he was to be placed under military arrest ; under arrest, because he would not pray according to the word of command. Either the Clergyman should altogether neglect the Order of , Conn , cil, or he was exposed to the disrespect of his fellow countrymen, to public odium, and the loss of diameter. The . Noble Lord next, stated, that the,second object of his motion was, the pro duction of the Copy of a Letter from Lord Sid mouth, written' in consequence of the arrest ; on that occasion a correspondence was opened with Lord Sidmouth, which was subsequently trans, (erred to the Lord Advocate. As his ohjs!ct was to go to the fountain head, lie naturally asked for the letter of Lord Sidmouth. The letter of Lord Sidmouth must either justify the arrest or condemn it; if the letter justified the arrest, then did it do a great injustice to the Church of Sl:ot land ; and if it, condemned the arrest, that would distinctly amount to a condemnation of the order itself. The Noble Lord said, that there were otherpoints, to 'which, however, he would not at present allude. He felt it his duty to' bring for ward-the subject; nor could he see how any dis grace could follow. He thought the assertion, that the notice. of his motion was a disgrace to the papers of that House, was most unfair-and unjust ; the more so when he (Lord A. Hamilton) could not say a ward in answer. The Noble Lord concluded by Moving for a copy of the order in 'Council, directed to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, relating to the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy ; and for the copy of a letter written by Lord Sidmouth to Colonel Gordon resrcting the arrest. Lord GLENORCIIY said that the question was so•fully and so clearly brought before the House, that little was left for him to say. The Order in Council appeared to him to be a breach of the fundamental principles of the Church of Scotland. —(Hear, hear o—The Church of Scotlan4 ad mits of no temporal head ; it disclaims all at\ttlto rity in its diScipline, or in the internal regulOop of its affairs. Every man acquainted with the history of that country, knew the Woggles that we re made—how long the people contended, by word and act, until at length they established that right which they thought worthy to fight and bleed for.—(Hear, hear !)—This right - was at length.secured for Scotland, and was guaranteed at the Union. The Order in Council, so loudly 'and so justly condemned in Scotland, affected internal considerations of religion, and he might add, principles of justice, as well as of policy. Ile was afraid that no good reason or motive could be assigned for issuing such order. Was it to promote the welfare of the Country ? (Hear, hear !)—Was it to uphold the dignity of the Crown ?—(Hear !)—Was it to . promote the purity of religion?—(Hear!)--He endeavoured to weigh it by those tests, and he could find no motive to justify the measure—he could find no motive, save the ;ratification. of uncharitable feel ings, and the workings of a vindictive and odious spirit against her Majesty. The LORD ADVOCATE said, that he could not think that motion relleCted the least discredit upon the Noble Lord, far from ,it; on the con trarY, it originated "from that praise-worthy zeal which prompted the Noble Lord on all occasions to watch over the interests of Scotland. The No ble Lord must have Miseiniceived what fell from a Noble Lord next him ; he was not aware that any expression felt from the Noble Lord of the nature alluded to. With' respect to the Church of Scotland, he did not dispute its rights or i n - . dependence, always maintaining that it was under authority to the Law. Perhaps it would be enough for him on the Otseot ,question - ; to say, that the Order in Council was consistent with the uniform practice of one hundred years; that would be a fair defence, but he did not Mean to rest there. He . contended that the Order in Council was grounded upon and upheld by law. He grounded the legality of the measure on the 10th of Anne, chap. 7, sec. 10. by which it was enacted, that 'Queen Anne and the Princess So phia should be expressly prayed for by name.' The legal question before the House was, whe ther that Act applied not merely to Queen Anne and the Princess Sophia, or whether it ex tended to every future Sovereign and Heir Ap parent ? The legality might in some degree be judged by the Orders in Council which were issued in the life time of Queen Anne. The Princess Sophia, after . the passing of the Act of the 10th of Anne, and during the life time of her Majesty, died, upon which an Order in Council was issued without any amendment of the Act, or without the passing of any new law upon the subject, substituting the name of Elector of Brunswick ; that motion was dated the 21s1. of June, 1714. On the death of Anne a new Order in Council was issued; acid the name of George the First, without any new law on the subject, was prayed for in place of the deceased Queen, and so the practice went on during the succeeding reigns.---1u January 11.5, Robert Ansfrnther and Cleorge Hay were indicted ott the Statute of Queen Anne. The Court found . the fact stated in the indictment relevant to infer the punishment imposed by the Act. The pro, secu dolt. however, wasnot followed out to punish merit. But, passing. over 9ese .cases, he would Mention that of William' Guthrie, in July 1715 was indicted for omitting topkiay for King Geave and the Prince .and Princes of. Wales. The ju7 found him guilty, aid subjected hirn to the penalty of 21: sterling, imposed by tho Act of Anne. In Ilowell''3 State Trials, yol. 17, p. 752, would be found the case of George Rob son, indicted under the Statute-of Queeil Anne, .for having failed to pray for King George the First. In this case written informations were drawn up for both parties: The defence was, that the panel could not be convicted under the Act of Queen Anne. King George and the Prince of %Vales were not by that Act desired to be prayed for, and the panel. had prayed for all the Royal Family, and all that was re quired by the Act was, that the Clergyman should pray for all the Royal Family. . But the defence was found unavailing. The next case .was that of Daniel Taylor, who, ie 1716, was, along .with 20 other Clergymen, indicted for the same offence. This would , be found in the I,Bth Volume of. Howell's State Trials. The Court found, that the panels having omitted to pray f or hi s :Majesty- King Georg e , and the Prince of .Wales in their respective congregations. relevant to infer the pe nalty of 20/. sterling against each.--Thf, Learned Lord then proceeded to explain the nature of a Scots indictment, and the particUlars in which it differed from an English one. Iu the Scotaludict- meta the crime charged was first staled, and then the facts and circumstances intended to be prov ed, and the . Court pronounced w h et h e r th e f acts stated were sufficient to infer tire, crime charged. The 21 Clergymen were all found guiLy, aud subjected to thepenalty, one half to the infor mer, and the other to the poor of the pariah, con formably to the Act of Queen Anne. In Match 1717, 22 Episcopal Clergym6n were indicted under the aggravated circumstances of havite; been previmay convicted and found guilty. On the '2oth of Jan. 1718, several Clergymen were indicted 'for ha ving pray ed• for all Christie o Princes,- without naming George the First, and the Prince of Wales, and convicted, and found liable in the penalty of 2J!. Since that time the Church of Scotland had uu!formly compiled with the Act of Parliament, and_ prayed for the reign ing King by name. Whether the /louse might think these decisions right or wrong, they were the decisions .of the Supreme Criminal Court ; and he would say, if the Judges could have found. that the Act of Queen Anne did not apply to their cases, they would proi - t ounce in favour of the individuals indicted. That was but a fade omit:fusion, when they looked at the respectable individuals who then filled the Bench. That being 'found' to be the case,they had next to observe the practice which had;been followed with respect to Scotland, by the Government of the.country. He had observed, that by an Order in Council, Queen Anne and the Princess Sophia were dkected to be prayed for. On the death of So phist, George the First was directed to be prayed for. From that time down to the present dad with two solitary exceptions; whe!temcia-,b Od e r in Council, any alteration was made in the /Attire gy of the Church of England, another order was sent down to the Church of Scotland. The Order in this case directed merely - the general act of praying for King George the Fourth,and Royal Family ; and they would find the, Government completely justified in point of law, in issuitl this order. The order was to pray for the King —but it did not bear in what terms the King wolf to be prayed for—if there was a bciza fide prayer for the King, that was a due compliance with the act. Ile was ready to admit farther, if any Clef' gyman prayed for King George,. he was not es' chided from also praying for any bfanch of the Royal Fatnily by naive—if he chose ,to do so, he mighis ht pray f v ouldno o the not be beil Quee n e t o t i n f itniam,.,tint. Noble e L s o a r itl ti said that this was the general practice of thi• Ministers of the Church of Scotland, he was pre.. pared to deny ,that it was so. Inst ea d o f nine tenths of the Clergy of Scotland praying for the: Queen by name, he would say the calculation was diretly the reverse. Ile certainly approval of the conduct of those who did not pray f o r del Queen ; if they did not do so, they gave tits . opinion of their own, they made themselves parties in the political question that agitated the country; but when an individual wept beyond this and prayed for the Queen by name, he pronounced an opinion' of his own-- he intruded his own political opinion on his con gregation, in a place whence political sentior n. ought to be excluded. That, he submitted, wa 4 a fair construction of the order. The Clerg . vrra 3- might 'pray for whom he chose—for the Itoat F am ily by name—for any Nobleman by.flaante- - for any individual in the country by name, if the congregation would submit to it. hut he would say, that by the Act of Queen .Anne, if the Clergyman failed to pray.for the Kid!, nominiit!::, then he became subject to the penalty of that ,r Act ; and he would say farther, that if ao.' Clergyman refused to pray for Kin Preorge the ; • Fourth by name, he should find his duty to it:- dirt him under the Act of Queen Anon„ ftna Cat he had little doubt that he, ei - tou/d obtain a con' victim by a Jury ,of Scotland. Even if the, were disposed to inly the decisions were un' founded, would they blame the Government far acting on these decisions ? They would find a course of_liniforrn precedents for issuing such or ders to .the Church of Scotland from 1711 to the present day. lie would shortly pllude to cer tain proceedings in the. Stewartry of Kirkcud" bright. The proceedings of the Kirk- Session u ere quite distinct from the other case alluded to by the Noble Lord. lie thouAt the proceed ings of the Kirk Session unwise, foolish, and il legal'; but what had happened ? The Presbyterf, a higher trlbunal than the Kirk Session, not only .rescinde4 its proceedings as illegal, Lut or' dered them to be erased from the Session' book, The individuals who w ere person ally arinwera ble were suinroorn , d iO _appear he fore _ the Pres by tery:--t hey had ; appeared ,be fore the Pres b i ,rerythey acknowledgv4 , 1