The Sun. — London, England, 1821-01-27 00:00:00

t ce, )11t • lo 'resign the general argument to one or personal consideration, and which certainly could- 'not have been left to one who could give greater weight to what he had to state. With regard to the speech of the Noble Lord, he entirely con curred with him in one of the sentiments;he had expressed. That sentiment he had, indeed; qua lified before he came to his conclUsion ; hut he , did agree with him, that Ministers, and Ministers • alone, were responsible for the advice given, and the course pursued with regard to this question. WhateVer were the consequences, it was -their advice which caused them, and•they must stand or fall upon it, without involving in the slightest degree any superior influence that might be sup posed, or any other authority in the state.( Hear !) —lie felt it the more incumbent on him to make this declaration, after the charges ill which the iNoble - Lord had indulged ; after he had accused them of insulting the Crown, of outraging the Country, of committing what was illegal ; after, indeed, he had alleged against them offences for which he could find no milder terms than revolu tionary.—(Heae,hear ! from the Ministerial side.) —After such accusations, he repeated, it would be cowardice in them (Ministers) not to avow ,their share and - entire responsibility in the mea sure. And he would shortly advert to the cir curnstances which led them to give that advice. 'The Noble Lord, in all the width of his sub- Pa r had not gone much into the point of the leg a lit y o f t h e procee di ng, though no doubt other Gentlemen, of legal habits, would not fail to take up that view' of the case. Nei ther would lie pretend to investigate it in this light ;—all he should say was, that neither then "" "w, did Ministers entertain - the slightest t o u bt of the propriety and legality of the Act.. if the clause in the Act of Uniformity must, tin der all circumstances, include . the name of the Queen in the Liturgy, it Must by the same con struction include all the Royal progeny, . for no word s separated the one from the other in the enactnaerit. Yet it was clear that it never had Been considered imperative to include all ; and as any Part might be, and had been omitted, he Con tended th a t the Crown was privileged, if 0c easion required, - not to insert the name of the Queen. if then the whole was - a question of dis cretion, he must look at the situation of the par ties which gave this advice.. The House would re- Inember that the Queen had been long separated frorn her husband, that the late King had recog nised this,'and that Parliament had not only sane tic"led it, but by Making a corresponding provi sion, had recognised the principle of the -expe diency of her Majesty's leaVing the country, and ceasing to have the name or title of Queen, and Claimed those rights which might helong to her station. Ministers had full reason to wish for the adoption of this course, as it would have been ridiculous in thorn to have put the Queen's rtaMe in the Liturgy. With the facts they had before them it would have been most absurd in them to advise his Majesty to put that mark of personal respect upon the- Queen ; and though it would have been infinitely -more agreeable to them to - find 'the Act imperative, ' yet, when they found it discretionary, they had but one I °. 91se to pursue,, that of straight forward jus lie did not mean, as the Noble Lord had c o s t • fioat it, to ,e•t‘t..ar upon--the discussion of the nleans through which they became possess ect, of the charges against the Queen ; no doubt other opportunities would arise in which they m 3usttfy ight • they were their conduct, and to show that 'e indisputably bound to act on the con viction Which had operated upon them. -All he contended for was, that with the charges in view, they ought not,to have given a contra.ryadvice to the Crown. For if this were not so, they ought to have gone .much farther ; they ought not merely - to have inserted the Queen's name in the Liturgy, they :ought to have put her in every respect in the situation of Queen Consort.-___(Shouts 'of hear, hear from both sides.)- -- There might be Gentlemen who held that even to this extent they should have gone, --, but others were of a different-opinion.--(hear !) —.There wer e many not belonging to the former class, who in their policy said, put her natte in the Liturgy, and give her a Palace,"but treat her 'with coldness, and let her sink into oblivion.— ( Hear DL—Ministers would not do so. It would, in his opinion, have been miserable and coutemp 'tible conduct, and unworthy of their country and station.--(Hear:!)--No, they met the matter lairlv, and. they acted upon their conscientious •But the Noble -Lord for this de .no,unced them as guilty of the most heinous crimes-, of insulting the throne, of breaking the liws, - and even of stirring up .rebellionl And • -4ftey all these heavy charges, what was it 'that the Noble LOrd proposed to do—what • . l i'as his motion ? If they had done what he ac, cas e d them of, they deserved the severest jjanishment ;_ if they had done what he - assert ted, their escape with, impunity would be one of the worst and most fatal omens against the liberty °f the people.—(Cheers.)—But if the Noble Lord was sincere if he meant welt to the Queen, meant to - do his duty, he ought to- have another course; - he ought not to have -\ b rought forward this milk and water motion-, with / 43 resiowation of something to come.---(Hear.)- - -- Rouse of Commons ought to have been put in .P°sSeiSien of all his views, and of the punishment ` ,l• 'hich 'he 'proposed for such flagrant cranes.l-- Pear, hear, 'hear.)—ln short, he ought not to _(dear, Constrncied.a Resolution merely to catch stray votes.-- 2 (l'ear.)-11 it was his intention to ' l njustice to, the'Queen ) why did not he do it at onc e ? his object was to drive . Ministers rOrrr thei? offices, why did he take up an isolated 'Toi:rt, and not wait for the motion of another ' : °We LOrd (Tavistock), which distinctly looked et 9 that end ?The only reason was, that he - de- Sired so to soften down his proposition, as - to • e i,'itch all the mitigated shades of opinion in that = louse, and, instead of a bold, open course, to "o.wh a t was posslble•by a slicer Parliamentary . Itl anceuvre. The Noble Lord, too, had laid great stres3 1,11011 the Petitions. What did these Peti tions pray 'for ? Every one of them' for the resto ration of her - Majesty's name to the Liturgy. -And how ,could this be done but by an Ad.: dress to. the King. Yet the Noble Lord took no such course he was content with throwin; out a hint on the matter, as if the House - of Commons was to proceed by inuenilo, and:had note character enough to go -plainly tb what it wished.—(lfeart)---lle would that the House 'would never adopt such a course. If nisters had offended, as. they were. charged, it would proceed .against them. •honoarably, and. di rectly, and not by a.straiagem. But tl&e Noble Lord had another argumenthe )contended that it would conciliate the Queen and the people.— For his part, he' was entirely-of an opposite: opi nion. He maintained• that they ought to speak plainly, or that they ought not to speak at all.— Thus thinking, he viewed the motion as not being of the plain, direct, and simple nature which it ought to be (like that of the. Noble Lord'., for a future day) ; he was not, • however, disposed to Meet it with a direct negative ; nor would he, as the Noble Lord said, -take his. tactics from the other side of the House, -butt under all the cir cumstances of the case, move—That the House do now adjourn. Lord A. IlAmn:rox explained. It was the 'whole conduct of Ministers he charged '11.•, being of a revolutionary tendency. • The SPEATMI: put the amended ;question. Mr. Hourrousif observed, that If the Right Hon. Gentleman who preceded him deemed: it necessary to make 'an apology for troubling the. House, he, without his authority as a Cabinet Minister or character, stood more in need of in dulgence. With respect to the Right Hon. Gen tleman who spoke first (Mr. Ellis,) he would re frain from all remark; as it might be left.to the Right Hon. Gentleman•whom he rose to defend, and to the eloquence he always displayed, to jus tify himself, on his return, from any charg3 that .might be brought against him. But ..theHouse I had something - better to do than to enter ) into the justification of any individual what-I ever ; rind he could not help . considering this turn of the question as something of a Parliamen tarp manceuvre in giving a cue to the friends of the Riot Hon. Gentleman to •shoW by their .votes that they approved of the reasons which induced him to withdraw from the Administration. The Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had. not endeavoured to excuse his Colleagues on the ground of the legitimacy of their proceedings. What then had- he done, if he had not shown that they had acted Consistently with the Statute Law and the Constitution of the-Country ? It was not with those who charged them that the proof lay ; they had done the thing, •and the onus probandi of its propriety lay - with them. Since the Reformation (prior to which period there was no law affecting this question) ; since the year 1546, there was no instance of any omission on any . occasion. He saw the Attorney ,General taking a Pete, as if thiS'were a slip : he was aware of : the . precedent of the -Queen of George the First, bathe maintained thatit did not bear on the present case. The wife of George I. had never been known to the British: nation ;she had never been prayed for as Princess of Wales ; she never belonged - to the Rbyal Family of -Eng land. If they looked at the Act of Uniformity. ; the 13th and 14th of Charles the Second, he con ceived it to be impossible to get over the fact. By that law the -King Was authorized to,change and alter naives from time to time in the Litur gy; ,and he contended -that to change or alter could by no construction be - made to imply to omit. When the Liturgy was formed previous to the marriage of Charles - the Second, a blank prayer was inserted ; and so soon as he married, it was filled up with the name of his Queen. This was an evidence of the purport of the Sta tute. But whether there were a legal excuse or not for departing from this construction, it be hoVed Ministers to produce their ground for excluding the nanie of the Queen. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that if they had ntit done this, she Might have come and claimed her rights as Queen Consort ; and why not ; why might she r not do so ? Insulted as she was by this measure, she had no alternative' 'she was forced to throw herself into this Country, and demand her trial. The lion. Gentleman then accused Ministers of having taken a different course with respect to -her Majesty from that which they took in 1806. In the latter case, in, stead of presuming on her innocence, they had proceeded on charges -against the Queen as if guilty ; and by whom -were these charges sup ported?' They did not gb to her private physi cian ; they did not go to her Ladies who attend ed her after she left this country ; they did not any where gd to the best proof. But they rested on lobse -papers; and on such testimony they-were induced to commit this act. On surh testimony, and on 'the report of witnesses like Bianchi, whose character he knew during his residence at Venice as that of a person no more to be -trusted than the most depraved individual in the streets ; Upon all these views, he insisted that Ministers ought to be able to state a necessity for what they had done. The country wtyz at -the period deeply distressed, and they ought not to have added to it by the causeless introduction of this discordant subject. With regard to the question, the Right Honourable Gentleman had shown that Parliamentary- tactic was not confined to this (the Opposition) side of the-House, but that he also had his method 'of catching a few' stray votes. But: he in trateil thef House to look at the unani mous prayer of the country, and 'even as a point of honour, to reinstate the Queen's name in the Book of Prayer.' 'Mr. WETHERELL said, the Right - Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) had criticised the form of the Noble, Lord's motion. - In his . (Mr. Wetherell's) opinion, that form' was extremely proper; some might think the proceeding of the Ministers - not illegal, who might yet think it in expedient.ind ill-ad Vised. Those who thought it illegal could not fail also to think it ill-advised andluexpedient. He had now to state- his own opinion, and if he..was in error, it was an error of some maturity. When he moved for informa tion, nut to satisfy his own mind, 'but to submit facts in an authentic shape to thelionse, the Noble Lord Met his motion by the previous ques tion ; now the Right lion. Gentleman met the - Noble ',Ord's' motion by ,a motion of adjourn- Ment. Tire MinisterS should not •imagine- that by these indirect modes they could eVmle a great constitiitional question (Hear !),.affecting not only the present Queen' Consort;- but all Queens Con sort who might Hereafter succeed, in this real::!. Though. they could. not consider the question without some. refe.reteze,to present circumstances, it was a fallacy.to suppose that they could.decide this question without establi,liing.a general rule. , They. had to determine, accordin; to the law.and the con,sucludo r:, , gn . 4,.ttet. on the case, but whethev the Queep Consort Should have her nameinserted or net in the Liturgy, at the pre.: carious will of the King's Ministers..-- 7 (llet:r, hear l) —They, had to. .deteimine -Whether the law or custom, call it what they would, whiCh had prevailed for three centuries . , should be over turned, and whether a precedent should be sanc tioned which, would govern the rights,.of all.fit ture.Queens,Consort ? He had stated. on a fornier occasion that there was not to _ be found in the History of .England, since -the Reformation,, single. instance, in which the ,Queen Consort had been excluded front the special Prayers of ,the Church, and they had .fa decide ‘vhetheil.; not the personal, but the political character of the Queen Consort of the Realm should, be de:- pendent •on the Privy Council ? In other words; whether the. Queen Consort, should be elevated or degraded, at the ‘6ll of the King's Ministers' for :the time-being.—(llear, hear !)--7.11e would ' say again, aid he charged his Majesty's Ministers with having made on the I'2th of Feb. last,a grgssly illegal order. If the Right llon. Gentler - Ilan (Mr. Robinson), whose manly avowal: of respon sibility he applauded, found. fault with the Noble Mover on account.of his " milk and water" lan guage, he should not clu ,him-(Mr. with a fault of the same kind { Without:meaning any personal disrespect, lie would charge the sters with having acted illegally, in .-as strong a manner as the forms of the house would allow: He should state and argue the,qttestion solely on the ground.of legality. The, Hen. and Learned Member then took a brief historical. survey of the various statutes by which the forms of prayer were settled subsequently to the Reformatieu, down to: the Act of. Uniformity. ; The pecu liarity of this- statute was, that ,ttle,_.C)turch and the State were incorporated and inter mingled ; the Church was 11. • part of . the State, as the State might be said to be part, of the Church.; the King was - the Head of the Church, as he was also the Head of the State ;, so that the formularies of the Church. were not regu lated, as in Catholic times, by the. Pope, bit by - Act of Parliament. Al! the Liturgies were esta- Wished by Acts of Parliament, width were to be conformed to, obeyed, and carried into ef fect as any other statutes. Ile had thus stated, not unfairly or uncandidly, he hoed, the nature of ,the _laws as . to Church ru Goveinent, Pissed since the Reformation, and especially of the Act of Uniformity, The Liturgy,ystabli-hod in the year 16-61 - wars framed with a view of conciliating as much as possible all parties. in Church and State. The principle of the.. Act of Uniformity was not,only to secure a recognition of the doc trines of the church,:but to secure a recognition of the civil establishments infaqie,ccelesice. There was now. - riteron this subject who (lid notacrree,nor was there any gentleman who had consikared it, who would not admit that the great principle of. that Act was to-incorporate Church and State, and,to interiniiva with the i iiaireVs.,4ltiit i l3tirclr a rectig; nition of allegiance to the State. Its object wits to heal all divisions in Church and State, and' to put an end to the religious and civil rebellionswhich had existed during the ciyilwars. A ccordingl v there was to be found in the Liturgy a recognition of the authority of the. Kin g -, of the Prelates, of the Privy Council, of the Magistracy, and every other component part of the civil Constitution of the country. He would now call . the at tention of the House to the effect of that Act, . The Liturgy H of the Church • being thus settled and established, was annexed to the Aci; and authenticated under the Great Seal, was, to all intents and purposes, part and parcel of the 'Act of Uniformity. It was as much a part of the : Act; as if it had been ly ri t ten in the Parlia ment Roll, and transcribed from that Roll into the Statute Book. This was a point which, he apprehended, neither the Attorney-General nor any gentleman conversant with, the, law of the question, could dispute. The Liturgy.,then, was to be considered as virtually and: substantially part of the Act of,Parliameni, and it was indeed only in coasequenceof its length, that the whole of the Church Service was not enrolled and printed among the Statutes, The Act directed that the Liturgy thuS identified with it should be printed,. and carried into effect, and that twenty one copies should, b.e..deposited in the Tower of London, and vitriops other depositories of public documents. The -Litnrgythus established could undergo no change, unless there were- some change in the Act of• Uniformity, reserving a power, to make such. alteration. It - was clear that the Crown had no power to alter.or add, to any part of the :Liturgy, .alit related to faith and doctrine; not_ a comma, or a,, word could he altered in any prayer or collect. Now far then did the power:of alteration extend The clause,' upon: the, construction of which the question be fore the House mainly .dcpended, 'provided, that -in all prayersOitanies and,eoflects, *which in any manner_Jelated to t e :King, • Queen, and the Royal progeny, the names should be altered and changed. from . time. time, and suited to the pre= sent occasion, according- to legal authority., ,'root he apprehended-that, the vocabulary of the Ong- lisp language was nearly- the-same at the time of passing, the Act of Uniformity as at the. present d a y, aw l, it was a litae,,ex.-traordinary, that if the Legislature had meant to give. a.power of ex puncging • or,omitting the names, it should have ;nerely used the words c changed and altered:77- _How happened : it that Chief Justic,es Keeling And Hale, and all the eminent men who revised .the Liturgy, should-have laboured under• such a Nyant of the,copitc verbootin ,as, to have found no other ,expressions for .conveying. the ideas of ex 7 ' punaingor omitting,but those of altering and chang ing the names ?—(lfear, hear 1),----.Was it credible, .that in an Act of Parliament which had undergone more elaborate, scrutiny and revision than airy .law passed in the reign of ,Charles 11. an erasing power should have..-been created, without ,any --direct words convg,ying the ideas of -erasure or oinissiou! Was the nuble,4ord prepared. to .ccuti tend, that at-the period of the Restoration, when the Throne 411. S to be restored to all its dignity and; spiebdoUr, .it - could be in the contemplation of the Legidature to pass an Act . in which a power was to be, ozulti3 , 4 td degrade the - Q.tteen ? From the . Reformation, dOwn, td the period of passing' the .pct of eniformity; the name; of . 01teens Goa , ' sort, !lad WeaLiniforioly inserted' in the Catherine. the .Queen Consort - of Henry the Eightli,,was in the Littirgy, the Quepn Con.S.Ort of:Chi-16 . the Fi;st Was in the LitUrgy, and the' tirineipte of, rel.instatettlent and redintegratiOn beeo constantly `acted upon through, the whole . period of time which intervened between tioi Reformation and the - reign of Charles the Second.. There. wa..t another argument •whiCli operated vet;:y foreibly upon 'his Mind, though ise did not. know; how it might strike Other Gentlemen. •At :the time - of passing , the Act, cite .King was not married, andr.ccordingly there was a blank Collect in the Liturgy; 'Which: he had shewn to be a part of the Act, and a space left for the name and title of the,Queen -Consort, tie be afterwards filled up. - This waS, iii his 'opi nion, a most decisive and satisfactory . argument to Show that it Was the intention of the Lecrisla tore to make the Liturgy. a fee simile of that s in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. and to in sert the names of the Royal Family in it in pre cisely the same manner as in those two reigns.— After that Act of Parliament was pased, the gteenS Coesort of Charles IL -and James were introduced into the Liturgy, and so were nail •the. Queens ConsOrt down to the present time, -except the Queen Consort of George 1. as she was called, though:he was not disposed to con= cede that this last person had anv claim to that . title. Here then was the usage of three centu:. ries to establish the rights of the Queen COnsort", and, it was somewhat extraordinary that an :Ad- ministration wiich all 4 i,cted to Oppose - every thin; in the shape of innovation,that an anti-redieal Ad: ministration. 'should disregard the unbroken, - Un doubted usage of upwards of 3 centuries.--(Hear !) Upon what i he should 'be glad to know, were the Laps and Constitution of the Country found ed _lint - On usage ? _What was the foundation of the privileges of that House; but the consuetztdo paqi.wienti What was the foundation of the rights of the Crown, but usage ? What, in short, bat usage, was the foundation of all individual or collective interests, Oran public or private rights ? Vet the l's;)ble Lord and his coadjutors were ready to subvert this great foundation of all our iuslitatiOos—(ll - ear, hear, hear !)—this Mo narchical AdministratiOn—(Hear, hear, hear!) — this Anti-Radical Administration—(hear, hear, hear !)—this Administration which shuddered at all innovation, which became nervous at the very name of change, was ready to trample the rights of both .King and Queen, and to deSpise the unvaried, unbroken, constitutional usage of up wards of three eenturies.—(ilear, hear, hear !) lle assure the Noble Lord, that lie de tested Radicalism, in the bad sense' of that word, as much as himself ; humble as: his •SitnatiOn in life was, he was ready- to evince as firm a spirit' in upholding the institutions of o,e:country, as' the Noble Lord ; but he liked :to be consistent.—(Loud cheers froni the Ministerial' Benches, and, connter-che'?rs f:•01-.; Oppositiou side of 'the was not to he deterred by the cheers of the No ble Lord anti his friends; and he maintained, that the• whole course of proceedings pursued by his Majesty's :Miuisters, from the first introduction of the Bill of Pains -anti -Penalties, had been a se ries of moostroas and unjustifiable innovations on the Constitution.—(llear, hear, hear!)—lf the Noble Lord had not been guilty of those ag gressions on the Constitution ; if he had not en dangeeed the peace of the Country and 'the . security of the Monarchy, he (Mr. W.) should still have -given -him his,.. support; and not have stood there his determined• enemy in .every thing which respected the measures against the Queen. From the moment that the Queen's name was illegally and unjustiliablyleft out of the ,Liturgy, front the motnent. that the illegal and fatal O l der of the 1 2th of February took away all chance of a fair trial, he declared his intention of countenancing none of their proceedings. (Hear, hear !)—Of the illegality of that act, no man, who was acquainted with the laws Or history of the country, could .eutertain the slightest doubt. He could not presumeto guess what new field of research might be opened, or, what uaex pected powers of eloquence might be displayed by the distinguished. persons who formed the Pre sent Alniinistration (Laughter, and cries.Of hear !) ; but there was one topic which he might venture to anticipate as likely to be urged on this occasion, he alluded to the'omission of the naine of the Consortof George 1., That Monarch ac ceded to the Throne in 171-1, and, for 18 Years previous to that period, the Princess of Zell had . been a prisoner in .Hanover she . breathed her last in the same _dungeon in winch she had been confined for eighteen years. She was . never mentioned in any public document,. or upon any . public occasion, as the Queen of George . 1., and even her name . was not 'to be found in the Index to Tindal's History. She was never, in any way, recognised as tatteen, nor did . her natne,ever,appear in any State,Paper or Ad dress to . the King,oe in any document' public or prlrate. But this was not all ; George 1.. was actually divorced from hiS . Queen, arid this was sufficieotly . established in. ,C.axe's Memoirs 'of Sir it. `4''a.lpele, ho was. Minister .a.t, the, ,time. I t was idle and contemptible, therefore, to adduce as a precent tbe.caseof an absentee and a. pri soner, who was not only never- recognised, as Queell e but between whom End the King the con jogai relation was, dissolved by decree of a Court of:Judicatur?. If an r one had a right to be considered: as the. Queen: tonsort of George, tile 'first, it:wps theDuchessof - Kenda,l e and not the ,Princess of. Zell fora left-handed marriage, 'as it was termed liy . the, German SurisConsults, had been solemnized between the Duchess and that Monarch. - . He . did not pretend to be deeply skilled in Gentian law, but he'believe ed. that a left=handed narriage: did not differ essentially froM _a legal marriage ;—it was a mere salvo to save the dignity. of those WhO married persons beneath their own rank. Hehad taken the liberty of analysing this tremendous precedent, and he believed the House would cdtt cgr.witti hirn; that it - did - nOt deserVe the - name.— (llear, - hear, hear'!)-z4t was, indeed, *a wretched cOntemptilite-, miserable" tag of- - zilprecedent--- (Hear; hear, hear !)—for • vthiCli ncl.Thei• the tint lic or thunicipal law of the coniktry alftariccd tto slightest foundation; 'rile zind -- IJea.etreAlf aent: next adverted to tha pruliar• .rigtits mitt privileges of the Cliiteh Colisort, - as recogiiisezt 1):y the t:oria:on law, and the toneurrentauthorl= ty of Liratton; Fleta, and the be . st text writers. -These - tights and privileges 'Were, ai far as they • . . e' i xtended, rigilts . and 1,,g - es . of 'the King, and rested iwee.-csely stirs tlic same: fatiTiciation. She . was 4.4idoWed with alt the' privileges of a ji.trone sore ; she 'poise.ssect extensive patroliage in the appointinoit of let' own'orticerA, and alt the3e- prhileges syere not confctrred upon her by the N;nr ,- 'but . . were inst•parably aflneed to her political charat tfr by the 'law 'of the land. She hadlursundonlit ed rigla: and title, as far as her const.ituLional privileges extendi-d, to exact all phose marks of submission and allegiance, which' were Paid to. the Scivereign'himself—(Dear,' hear !)—a right which was wholly independent of the disretidu or controul of the King, and which belonged to her • as an indelible, • inmrutable attribute of her i;Oriticial character as Queen:•Consort.: .Were not all these distinguished attributes of the Queer' Consort Perfectly irtecOncileabl.:. with the sup pOsition'that th Legislature meant to confer a powzr of striking her,narne out of the Liturgy There could he nt) doubt as to the construction of the Act-of Parliament.• lie had consulted many experienced Clergytwn 'on the subject, Many persous who were conversant with the his toil of Ecclesiastical law, and all 'concurred that the' text .of the statute Was snfliciently Lut that ,coupled with the -uniform, and unbroken usage it left not a shadow of athhigaiity ou the sUbject;— . --(llear, hear, heart)-11e should like to be informed. by this anti-radical _tho-• ttarchical Administration, whether if the Act of Parliament gave a power to leave out the Queen's name, it might not equally give a power .to leave oat the King's name—(llear,!lear!)—lf .the Minister could degrade the Queen Consort, • : by excluding her name from the. Liturgy, what, should be glad to know, was to prevent him ,from degrading the King from his.rights Head of theChurch,who, by the Act of Seltlement, be a Member of the'Church, and who would loiY: his Throne, if he were not—(llear hti shown that the principle or' the Act of Uniformity was to consolidate Church and State—to merge one in-the other ; and if that Act gave a power to degrade thu Queen, a power was equally ,7iven , to - degrade every other component 'part of ' the Civil State—to degrade the Privy Council, to degrade the Magistracy=--to degrade the Sove ,reign-hhoself—(llear, hear!)—Were the inser tion or omission of the Queen's name in. the Liturgy to. depend upon - discretion, an unpopular Queen Consort might be left to the mercy of faction, and the King might be corn - - pelled by Addresses to degrade her. This,Ter in stance, might have been the case in the reign of CharleS . l., for it was well known that Henrietta was obnoxious both to Parliament and the people, and that she had actually been impeached in that House, He must take the liberty of observing; that that. Noble Lord had taken a Very, different , 'course from that pursued by Mr. Pitt, in the case of the Regency. At that timeaCommittee was ap pointed to search for precedeuts.otra the' House' put .poss - ession of all the dcanimentary evidence, instead of the evidence being reluctantly laid on the table of the House. The Noble Lord, he con tended, had attetnpted to establish a tribunal nn knoW'n to the lawsand constitution of the country, by erecting the Privy Council into a species Of High Commission Ceurt, to pronounce an arbitrary sentence upon the • conduct , of the Queen. The same scandalous injustice which had rendered the name of a High Commission odiouti to the ears of Englishm-n, had.characterised every part of the Noble Lord's proceedings. The Privy Council assumed the right of striking . out her name they heard nd evidence ; there was not even - the form or semblance of a trial. They began by depriving the Queen of her rights, and having so deprived her, they declared that the thing being once done was. irretrievable; that the injury having' been once inflicted was not to be•retracted. —(Hear, hear,.hear!)---Such was the manner in which the rights of a Queen were to be Main tained or abrogated at the 'arbitrary will and discretion of a Minister. ' She was' to be made the viCtim of discretioui and the rights which the constitution had conferred' upon her were to depend, either upon. the degree' of popn lathy she might .poSsesS 'with Parliament or the people, Or upon a -capricious Court fac tion, for he believed the House would agree with him,:that there Were 'factions at Corirt as Well as. among the people.---(Hearl)--The Learned Ci-entlernan animadverted. 4i'kh peculia - r point - upon the manner in which the Queen had been treated, froth the moment the Milan Com mission was instituted, Up 'to the propositionand abandonment of the Bill of Pains i and Penalties. Before . the' Milan Cornmissinn her Majesty was accused without being 'confronted with her ac cusers. She was, indeed, by that faMed tribunal, tried in her abSenCe and, open. the proposition of the. Bill offains and Penalties - , she )vas brotight before judicial - accusers • Artd 'accusatbilaf Judges. (Crieg 'of hear; hear!)--4The conduct of the' Itli lan Commission- was indeed, peculiarly -objec tionable, 'in inStittiting the trial of 'a party . who Was 'not convened before it—in laiitatink the exarriple of the Star -Chimber—iit pursiiing •the course oraninquisitOriat'Court..Such wasalecided ly ' his 'sentiment of tat Comthission, and he -was ' there to -Sper.)t his unbiassed k , deperident opinion. Ont'frem the- opinion who he enter 'taitied• of the' Commission. with which -the4ro ceedings.against the Queen originated, he Could not feel any' surprise - at What followed; •fOr he. 'cOuld not e expert any thinglike justice in - .the proseatithes in objet oriLrinatingin "gros.i le gality sand monstrous injuStice.---(Hear„ hear, hear !)- 1 .-4t eras n6t,:therefore, in his mind, stir , Prising that the Ministers, who 'appointed :and sanctioned • condtict of that Conitnis'sion, should, by erasing' the Queen's naafi' fiorn the haVe• dethroned her Alaloty before' she 4