The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-07-06 00:00:00

rtww'r"..

,

,77711,

. • •
.-.. • , .72:,1 ' ' - ' 4t. ~ . . ,•. " - -,--vm,r,
~ 131% • • • `4.'
~. 0 • tir '' '. . ..
lt, 4 .r.". r ... .
A. ' .
0. ...
.01- ,1
....
• • :=:.

,

~~..

•i

the kiln in which the coronation of the Queen
was to be celebrated. and contained these vary re-
markable words
Hem isi►ies egotist motto is corooalioam Regis. ai sit
toromatio regiel neve solo covesato."

Henry IV. was clowned 14th October, 1399.
He was twice married. Ills first wife, Mary, died
• —lame he -come. to-.-the teen., liifeQteeee JohMae
was crowned with hint. Newry V. in 1419, the
eighth year of his reign, came from France
--is-Asieod • the talmudism if his Qoeen Cat&rime.
. 11. Close Roll of .the Tower proved that she was
-crowned alone, and that 'suit end service were
.pesformed for her es Queen Consort. in the same
oamitter as had been done for the King,. On .the
Accession of Henry VI. he was en infant he was
„pain
crowned; once in England, in
.1449, and
„ • spin in France, in 1491. He was married after
„both coronation., and his Queen, Margaret,
was crowned alone in 1445. Here he would,
with their Lordships' permission, step aside to con-
• eider what lied been the role and precedent of
• Scotland in these matters, where_ the seine custom

with that which he had been describing had uniformly
taken place, though the documents for the proof
' of it were by no means so clear or perfect. But
ilia he was prepared to maintain, that there was
nn instance iii the history of Scotland in which a
Queen Consort had not been crowned with or with-
, • .out her husband. He stated this iu the hrisedest
.terms, and he pat it on those who smutted the
• '.coutrery, to disprove him. The reason sod
• principle on which he grounded this assertion
..tataluty. was a very remarkable circumstance in the
' *salute laws of Scotland, with regard to the right
• alf 411:ieens Consort to coronation. He held in
his hand the book which contained the «hole:
statute law of the kingdom, as it had remained
• for one particular period of two centuries. The
statute in question preicribed an oath of elle-
gisuce to be taken to the Queen Consort ; and
it was passed in the nth Parliament o( James I.
of Scotland in the year 1429, and was to be
found in chap. 109 in the enactments of that year
of his reign. In the folio edition of the Statutes.,
the terms of the oath were to be Resumed as terms
of succession, and were held to tipple to heirs
and successors throughout all time. Ile. found
. f..m Murray's Digs. tof Ike Moieties, with the.'
Conownriaries upon them, that' the oath
held to he of the same force and importance.
in .all re.pecto es the Oath of Allegiance taken
'ta the King. That he had a right to• refer to
• Seoich precedents he was fully prepared to
sueintain--since the Act of Scottish. Union
made the interests of the kingdoms the
same. aesides which, he had only .to refer
their .Lardshii.s, many of whom must here been
personaly engaged in them, to the debate/A on the
first Regency. iu the lust reign, in the report on
. which- Scotch precedents were mentioned and,.rea-
soared upon' the same as English precedents..
'Edward IV. was mowued in 1461 • and .in 1463,
bs'ing then married to .Elisabeth Woodville, wee;
.crowned with her immediately after the marsiage.:,
The Cotton manuscripts contain the. orders; issued
for 'the coronation of Edward IV. and h 6 consort;,
that which referred to the Queen required thist the;
.• same order should be taken " younedo oohs yore..
eats." The ceremonial for. the Ring's coronation
was there laid down, and, then
,separately that
which • was to be observed for ihe Queen.-- .
Richard. 111. and his Queen were crowned . loge.
titer in lOU. And this brought him down to the
period of Henry VII. upon whose reign ond coro-
natant it would be necessary for him to teedur:
snore than one observation. It was well .known,
that that Prince held the throne by the threefold
claim of marriage, conquest, and descent. Lord-
• Bocon remarked, that he (Henry VII.) always.cost-:
rodered descent as the principal claim, and that he,
considered the other two as only casualties compared i
with that of descent. He had, as the same writer
-observed, always placed descent es his shield, and
conquest and marriage as his supporters. All his
adherents of the Lancaster party upheld his pro.
'elisions on the claim of descent. The King's claim •
ifeferio was conatitnied by Act of Parliament to be
de Jere ever after, Not only Henry and. his adluia
rents, but that which was the only legitimate organ tb
whit-it their Lordships could attend, the Perfumers*, .
• held the claim of descent to be the highest. of -the •
three. • Henry caused himself to .be.croword,,hosa.:
ever, before; ffe made any. application to Parini. ,
' in • 1485. Parliament Set • few dela niter.
• •The 'Act was...passed .which entailed the crewel.
'limiting the succeisiou to Henry VII.. and..elip
direct. heirs of 'hi! body:, He was declared to.
'a full end perfect right to, the crown, and-no eats.
• tiorr was Made of the Princess Elizabeth; and it
was kept as f matter of doubt. whether she was to
•be Queen or not, his policy being to avoid-that
marriage., if it.were possible.. Jt was even said that
be was in peaty for soother Princess, . slid still he
cdtkinued to defer celebrating the marriage as long
as he could: He was not married till 1486. A
very remarkable delay then took place in the
at the Queen, who was, it was to be
Princess. and the daughter of Ed-
;relit doubts were entertained, and
eat was excited by this delay. belie
and treated in all respects. as Quetta
Aim the more jealous Henry had .beep .
pretensions being mingled with his own, the.
- he was to ovoid meeting- Parharnenri
confirmed his own claim, the more'
had been to defer the marriage, the
he was to avoid doing any thing after
. seem to imply even a notice of the
ights• with respect to the crown. She
—treated as the Queen Consort, and
had remarked that Henry's marriage
occasioned mach .more triumph and
hie own entry or commotion, which,
further remarked, the Rang rather
liked:: The delay of hercoronation
give great umbrage. And here he
what were the feelioge of the country,
.Iv of ilie.Oueente party, on the occa-
referting to., a theft- firing authority.
f York, aunt to Elisabeth, afterwards
the Duke of Burgundy, had these re-
, the reflections which she made upon
those blues. •' She could not," she
without trouble that Henry refused to
th be crowne4 (so honour which no
_ England had . been debarred of since'
ellelleell1), and 4,at the birth of a eon
-`-miniand bin ite all more indulgest er knit
*•4l. I. •

trim

"!!!INF!0M!"--;

in his conduct towards her." He could not appeal
to a better authority thau that den aged end Royal
women, the aunt of the reigning Queen, the last
fortress'and prop of the Lancasters, jealous of the
rights which belonged to her family, and fearful of-
any tbing.-:which appeared to slight their claims.
She had passed the less active moments of her fife

only,. conscious of all which had transpired in the
course of that history. and especially of the facts
which connected her family with the crown. There
could. be no better witness to *hew what had been
the sense of former times—what understanding had
existed respecting the rights and usages of these
times in reference to Queens of England. She
maintained that Elizabeth ought to be crowned, as
every other Queen Consort had been before her.
Henry VII. at length yielded to public feeling, and
the Queen was crowned 26th Nov. 1487. Lord Hu.
con said that it was an old christening which had
stood long for godfathers, and his Lordship gave his
readers to understand that it went much against the
King's stomach. The coronation was ordered in
the very tense form and words in which two years
and eight months before the King's own coro-
nation had been. Up to this period from the Con-
quest there hint been nineteen King. crowned.*
Of these eighteen were Harried before or after
coronation, and of these inertia*, 'the eighteen
Queens were all crowned. ,Asseunilligthat Margo-
ret, second wife of Edward #lllS'ereeirteed (of
which, fir reasons before givetraffitikeetuld be no
' doubt)--independent of that theiOsulif Itl Queens
• crowned. or these coronations Id 'bad been 101em-
nixed for Queens alone. About the same number
had been solemnized altogether for Kings alone.
"The state of the Church during the whole, of the
eabeeqeent period of that reign was such as made
it hardly possible to say whether it was Reformed
or Catholic, or to know how any ritual could have
.lieugoes' through without occasioning jars either
sm the one side or the other. Besides which the
,Quern's pregnancy shortly after the marriage,
•labouring as he always did under the most anxious
.desire of the birth of a son, would naturally tuna
Aside the King's thoughts-from any other subject.
arid she died the day after the delivery, within a
year and a few months after the death of Queen
• Anna Boleyn. Then with regard to Ann of Cleves,
her case was no exception to hie arguments, be-
cause it was well known that from the very day of
his marriage with her he began his -iattemptai to
effect her divorce, which he cositiuwed till he ac-
complished his purpose with .her colleens, •which
consent of hers was a most material feature in-the
case. She consented to the divorce, and waived
all claim to the crown. The state of the Crunch
during his union with Catharine Howard was again
a material objection to her being crowned ; besides .
which, very soon after their marriage she was disco.
tweed to be incontinent, end a divorce took place.
Again, in the tione.uf Catherine Parr, the state of
eccleaiastictil affairs would. eery well account fur
there being no constant:Po—if it Omelet be found, ,
on full 'torch being madeohet• no such coronation
did take place. That, however, he bud no right
to admit ; man had any right to assume that it
did .not take place; although he believed it was
highly probable abet it did not; as there were no
remains of...the solemnity. There wan an necessity
for pursuing the inquiry in the reigns of Edward VI.
Mary. cud Elizabeth, as Edward was never mar-
sied,,autl Mary and Elizabeth •were Queens reg.
nett. With regard to the reign of Jemes 1. he was
crowned shortly after his arrived from Scotland.
Upon the reign of Charles I. it would be•necessary,
undoubtedly, for hien to make several observations. •
On the id February. 16;6, he was crowiretk, that
being a considerable period after his accession,
which occurred on the 27th March preceding, or
about a year before. A• proclamation issued in the
usual term., .and almost in the same terms as the
.praclametion of bit present Majesty, on the 17th
January,-16;6, for .the "icorortation or the Kiug,
.and his dearly-beloved Consort, the Queen." On
the 24th pf the same month end year another
proclamation issued, appending a Court of Claims,
sad is the recital of that pet:whim:lton the corona-
tion was mentioned rte being to take place on
February the second, "of ourselves and our dearly-
beloved Consort." So • that on the 24th January,
only nine days before the ceremony, as well us on the
17th, it was clearly intended that the Queen should
he crowned on tbe second of theensuing month.
It was true that ou the 30th January another pro-
clamation, was issued,
,the third in" the slime month,
and only three days before the errecnony took 'place,
for the purpose of creating Kinglos of the Bath,
to assist at the solemnity of the coronation, in
which, for the first time, the words, " our dearly
beloved Consort," were dropped. -The Intention,
however, as regarded her, 'night not have been.
dropped ; our was there any positive evidence io
'thew that her coronation did not take place, which
had been announced in the proclamation of the
17th, and solemnly recognised iu that of the 24th.
There was extant an account of the ceremonial,
among the manuscripts in the Hai Irian collection
iu the British Museum, in which the ceremonial
for the Queeis was laid down as well us for -the
king. That account ,was loon in the past tense,
as if the coronation had actually taken place.
Admitting, however, that et was only a prospective
account of. what was to take place, still there was
tio evidence on the face of that manutcript, to
skew that it did not afterwards actually take place.
,For his own part, he was ready fairly to avow his
owe opiuiou to be, that she was not crowned.
There certainly was not sufficient legal evidence to
chew that she was, and. with regard to historical
evidence, he thought the smile preponderated against
it. Be it so, therefore. Ile could, however, give
such an explanation as must satisfy, as could leave
no doubt on the amid of any caridid or reason-
able man. that the, omission imagist be imply ac-
counted for. The projected marriage of Charles I.
to a French Princess gave great umbrage to the
people ; in so much so, that iu the treaty for the,
marriage a provisiou was made to quiet the cla- •
moms of the people,.contaming au express stipule-
turns that none of the King's subjects who were
Papists should be allowed to serve the Queen.—
No sitotser had Henrietta Maria entered the king-
dom than dame alarms increased ; and in the very
first Parliament, and in his very first speech room
the throne, the King expressly referred to "
malt-
Nosy • persons who had spread filbert* that he was
not s good a keeper and maintainer of the religion
of the evuutry,eit bo ought tabs; sad be coo-
-1.4 ..•• •I 1 .

~

:~:-

1
i

~,, ,

plained of those ramonn ss malignant misrepresen-
tations, assuring the. Parliament, that "as he was
brought spat the feet of Gamaliel".—meaning there-
by
James au would lie zealously preserve the
religion of the country." PerliaMeat immediately
took the subject into its eisuirderation, and a grand
cour•rence wisa held bottom) the two Houses on the
subject of religious; thinestitt of which was • pen.'
tion to the King from both Houses of Parliament,
prayinehim to enforce the laws against Popery,
and urging him to advance the religion of the
country; in the fifth article of which mention was
made of the Queen's being a Papist, and reference
also was made to the article in the treaty of mar-
riage, preventing Papists, the natural horn sub.
jeets of the King, from being introduced into the
Queen's service. Immediately' after the Queen's
arrival, the discontents running very high on the
very delicate question of the Queen's religion and
her proximity to the King, sod the country bring
unquiet oil the subject, the Parliament went to
,every length short of remonstrance, and adjured
the kiug to preserve the established religion, which
they undoubtedly conceived to, be in danger, on
account of the religion of the Queen. Alter the
King had given satisfactory answers to all the arti.
cies of thus petition on the subject of religion, his
:Ministers took occasion to mention the next day,
'that the King took it very well their putting him
in mind to take care of the religtosi of the country ;
but that nevertheless he would have done and
granted precisely the same things if the two Houses
had never petitioned; and that the King hail sea
that his father, when he recommended the.person of
his wife, had not recommended her , religion. He
cited stria as another instance of the religion of the
Queen being a subject of very great jealousy and
suspicion with .the Parliament and the country.
In consequence of that petition, a proclamation.
was almost immediately issued against Popish Re-
cusants. The result of these heats in the country
operated not so reuch on the mind of Charles I.
as of his Queen, Henrietta Maria. On the 11th of
August, the House of Commons resolved itself into
• Committee of Grievances; the grievance which
occupied their.attention bring the subject of the
Catholic religion. 'the usual course was. taken
of refuting to grant the supplies unless the griev-
ances were remedied; the two parties came to an
open rupture, and the King di.ialveil the Parlia-
ment. After that dissolution, and before another
Parliament" was holden, the coronation of the King
took place. Such was the frame of mind of the
country and the two Houses of Parliament
when the practical question arose, whether she,
being a Popish Queen, should be crowned or not
The first determination of the King clearly was,.
that she should ; though possibly he might after-
wards have found that it would not be safe to re-
vive the animosities of the month of August pre-
ceding. That was the least favourable supposition
for the purpose of. his (Mr. Brougham's) explana-
tion; but he rOuld give another account of it,
namely>. that the objection moved not from the
King, but from the Queen herself. The Queen
_mast have been aware of the peculiar circumstances
and difficulties under which she was placed,
and those circumstances must have operated.on the
mind of the Qu.:eti, as well as on that of the King.
Indeed he (Mr. Brougham) did not well see how it
was possible that she should •be- crowned by the
ceremonial used in this country ; by a ceremonial
performed in • Protestant cathedral,itt a Protestaut
altar, and by, as she must' have supposed, an here-
tical Archbishop; by those very phrases which were
used by the Catholic., which applied to a Catholic
King and a Catholic Queen equally and on the
same sense, but when applied to a Protestant King-
and a Catholic Queen, must either mean one thing
in the one case and something else iu the other,
or something heretical and abominable iu the eyed,
of that Catholic Queen. Out of that dilemnE4
there was no way for human ingenuity to escapa.s
That Fart of the ceremony which related tote'
receiving of the Sacrament at u Protestant altar,
in a Protestant Church, and from the hands of a
Protestant Prelate, no Catholic could view without
abhorrence; but even putting that part of the
ceremonial aside, there was another winch could not
have been got over. She would have to receive a
ring from the hands oft Protestant Archbishop with
these words : " Accipe ormolus?: fidei, signaculusst
&Meter Trimitatis"—" Receive the ring of fAtl4.,the •
sign of the Holy Trinity." The word fidei, " faiths,"
here, as applied to a Protestant ceremonial, meant the
Protestant faith ; and being so understood by the
Archbishop, being himself a Protestant, she roust
have taken the ring as the symbol of the Protestant
faith, and not of her own. she being a Catholic.
No good Catholic, therefore, could receive the ring
without abhorrence, and iu consequence that Queen
must have felt a similar sentiment on that occasion.
The form proceeded further, in these words: " Quo
possis ontaes keereficas---evieare ;" she was to
receive it as achami by which she would be enabled
to avoid all heretical sins; words which, noel by a Pro-
lesion{ Archbishop, iu u Protestant t .bunch, must be
understood as • charm to event all the abomina-
tions of the Cetholic religion, that religion being
her ow,n—." inter harboras goats aquiSioweue seri-
talis convert infidels and barbarous
people to the knowledge of the true faith," mean-
ing again, of course, the Protestant faith. This,
therefore, was a species of gift which might • have
appeared so abominable, so abhorrent to her princi-
ples, and so disiL noble to her, that she might well be
supposed to be ready to forego her part in that cere-
mony to which she had the some right as all preceding
Queens Consort, and the same right as the King
Regnant. under all the peculiar circumstances of the
case. He thought it was barely possible to grant
that the change might have been made by the
King himself—that he allowed was barely possible;
but he thought their Lordships,olb weighing the case,
would find that it was next ho impossible that it
should not have proceeded from theQueeti. 'they saw
that its the proclamation on the 17th, and itgaiti on
the 44th of January, the intention was cleanly en•
tertained of crowning the Queen, the latter being
only nine days before the ceremony; and he would
vat it to. their Lordships, whether it was probable
that within to short a period as that which elapsed
between the date of the 24th and the day on which
the ceremony took place, any should have occurred
to induce the King to alter that intention which he
bad solemnly and publicly declared. The Paths-
went was not then sitting, mud no popular meetings
were likely to take place at that time, so that it
was not likely that the p' tiblic opinion could have
•

- . .

•

1

been made more clearly known to him on 2d of
February then it was on the 24th of January. gtill,
if he allowed that it might arise out of the hosti-
lity of the country to the religiose priisciples of the
Queen, that was sufficient to account for the ease
as an exception ; but when they reflected that the
opinion of the country could not be unknown to
the Queen, and wbenlhey considered' the light in
which it was natural for her to view the ceremony
itself, their Lordships would, uo doubt. find
grounds to suppose that it was the Queen herself
who first started the objection. Having then done
with the case of Charles the First's Queen, and shewn,
as he hoped, that no argument was to be drawn
from her absence, as that was not occasioned by •
want of right, but a waiver of the exercise of that
right, he was now come to the neat case, which
was that of Charles 11. And if in that caw it ap-
peared that the Queen had not been crowned with
the King, the oiniiision could be accounted for on
reasons which left that case no analogy with the
present. When the coronation of Charles took
place he was unmarried, and it was true that
his wife was never crowned after marriage. But
the wifeof Charles was the daughter of Portugal,
and therefore being a Papist the same objections
arose to her as prevailed against Henrietta Maris.
ludeed these objections were much more aggravated
from the circumstance of religious animosities be-
ing carried at that time to a greeter height. In the
case of the first Charles the suspicion was not to
strong that the King was inclined to the Roman
Catholic religion, and though religious jealousy ran
high in that reign against the Popish Queen, yet it
then wanted that determined characterof animosity
which it had since assumed. The reigning Monarch
was now more than suspected of being favourable
to the Papists, and the period was fast approaching
when party spirit wrist so far as to bring a Bill of
. Exclusion into Parliament. The people hud not yet
forgotten the grand rebellion, or the sufferings
which the uncompromising attachment of Henrietta
Maria to her religion had brought upon herself and
others. These recollections celled all their reli-
gious jealousies into action, and a determined dis-
like to a Popish consort to the King prevailed
in and out of Parliament. Was it, therefore, un-
likely that the King should so far give way to
these feelings as not to call for the coronation
of the Queen? And that such • measure would be
extremely disagreeable was evident, even from
what was plowing in Parlianient ; for in the 14th of
Charles the Second, the very year of his restora-
tion, a motion was made in the House of Commons,
and a warm debate took place upon the propriety
of addressing the King, recommending hint to
marry a Protestant wife. At the same time the
House could not be ignorant that the King was
about to marry a Portuguese Princess ; but this
consideration perhaps it was that induced the House
to take the steps which they took. Charles, however,
was not influenced by this conduct of the Parliament ;
he married the Princess, but he was obliged, in
his subtequeat conduct, to be very guarded, that he
Should not increase tie misunderstanding between
hint and his people. He would not, therefore, pro-
pose so bold a measure as the coronation of his
Roman Catholic Queen. a measure in which his
father encountered great difficulties, and which
were exaggerated in his case by a suspicion thin lie
himself was, under the rose. o professor, or at
least a warm 'favourer of thin religion. But it
would appear that the second Charles was extri-
cated from his difficulties by the same means as
his father. Ca thasine feeling the seine scruples as
Henrietta Maria, declined initiating at the ever-
nanny of the coronation, and this refusal, without
taking into account any interkrence on the port
of. the King, was sulAcient
.to prevent that •erre-
mony from taking place. It was, beyond a doubt,
that the absence•of Catharine from the eorotsatisn
of Charles the Second was tuiribatable to the same
cause Oast excluded Henrietta Maria from that of
his pretieNsor —namely her religious scruples as
to the :.ropriety of assisting et a ceremony perform-
ed with the rites of • teligiou different front her
own:' • But Catherine seetnesl to have been more
big,:„jed to her religion than even Henrietta Maria,
for efie even refused to recognize smother ceremony
of tits most serious kind, to which, it appeared, her
predeeessor made no Objection. /ii the first article
of impeachment ii;;einst Lord Clarendon, it was
charged, :hat he had ,connected the King with
a Princess. who carried her hos‘ility to the
Church of England so far, that she refused
to be married by flue of its ministers. I► was
cerlaiidy a fact that the Princess of Portugal
did make such an objection, mud indeed she
persevered ih it so far, that she took the chance oit
not being married at all, rather thee have the cere-
mony performed by a clergyman whom she could
not respect. She was tinned to Charles according
to the forms of her own communion, but it was at
this day doubtful whether the marriage was ce'e-
brated afterwards by • elergyman of the Church of
Eriglaotl, or, in other words, whether they were
legally married at all or not. Thus it appeared
that in this respect Catharine was more bigotted
to her faith than Henrietta Maria—the latter had
recognised a ceremony which the former denied,
and it was consequently more likely that Cathariee's
objection. to a coronstion which was to be perform.
ed by a Protestant Prelate, were equally strong in
that care as they were in that of her marriage. It
was the opinion of some antiquaries that Henrietta
Maria would convent to be crowned if Popish Priests
were suffered to assist at the ceremony, but Cadre-
, rine flatly and unqualifiedly refused to take any
part iii a ceremony at which a Minister of the Ns-
bread Church officiated. The case of the Queen of
Charles 11. was therefore in all respects like that of
Charley 1. Both were Peplos— both were either for-
bid any participation in the ceremony by their hus-
bands from fear of disobliging the people, or they
themselves feeling the weight of odium which was ex-
cited against them, declined from religious scruples
or delicacy to avail themselves of their right. In
neither cases had the right of being crowned been
brought to issue, and in neither case, therefore,
was it compromised. Thus, it appeared, no
ar-
gument could be drawn from this Queen's case, as
applying to the claim of her present Majesty. The
next case was that of James If. Here it appeared
that the King being married at the time of his
accessions his Queen was crowned with him.—
They were both Papists—profesisedly an, and it
was said that on that occasion the sacrament was
omitted. Here the other ceremonies were got over.
He (Mr. B.) could out now say, but it was evident

....••••••••••••••

from history, that the Queen of James the Sec,..),
though • Papiit, did assist at a Protestant niers..
bon. Now, it might be said, that this fret
enough to overturn the reasoning which he (Mr. %;)
had been using in accounting for the absenceif
the former Queens on account at their religio,
since here was • Queen who, Ihnngb profesalic
the same religion as the, former Queens, yet f 6
no scruple at bring present at the ceremony.
But it should be observed that there was this
difference in the caws in that of James sod
his Queen both were Roman Catholics--in the
others, one was a Protestant, the other • Papist.
When both were of the same religion both could
interpret the words io the same way—they could
apply the word " faith," fur instance, to that re-
ligion of which they were followers, and there was
not that inconsistency in two persons—mini and
wife taking the same words in two different reuse,.
The 'con, of James's Queen, therefore, did not
overturit the argumeirts which he used as to the
religion. of the Queens of the two Charles?' for it
should be remembered that the wife of James.
though the ceremony was performed accordirig
to the forms of the English Church, was
yet crowned with a Room) Catholic King.
He wss happy that he had terminated linehistorical
deduction, and arrived at a period where alt mos
clear before him. He carne rsow to the time of the
Revolution, since whirl), their Lordships were
aware, that all Queens Consort had been regularly
crowned as a mutter of course. There was at feast
bet one exception, which could not bear .at all o.
the general argimsent—he meant that of George 1.
The wife of George I. never came to this country ;
she was also said to hare been divorced previous;
to his accession to the sovereignty of this
country by the sentence of the Ecclesiastical
Court of the country where she was married.
Her coronation, therefore, was wholly impossible.
It was legally impossible, iu the first place, if she
was divorced ; and it WIN in the next place, physi-
cally impossible, because she never came to this
• country, and, consequently, could not be crowned.
Having teferred to the supposed divorce of George 1.
as en impediment to the coronation of his wife, he
also recollected that certain proceeding had been
instituted against her present Majestrfor the same
purpose, hot those proceedings having terminated
without a decision against her Majesty, could lint
be taken us gruuud for depriving her of .stiy legit
right which could be established as appertsiiung to
her in her quality of Queen Consort. A Learned
Judge, in a recent case, that of the King tr., Woolf,
had dechrred, on so allusion being made •to the
effect of a ciiininal proceeding on the legit rights
of is party accused, that if proceeding's of X eriatioal
nature were commenced and alterwardo stayed in
any subsequent siege; the party was to be held as.
completely innocent, as far as his legal rights were
concerned. se, if be had never been put upon
trial. This was a doctrine so clear, w d the
principle on which it was founded so well
known, that he should be ashamed to offer a
single further observance) upon it. The Learn-.
ed Gentletnati then stated to their Lordship.
that he had applied to the- Demi and Chapter
of Westminster for permission to consult the Li-
her Regalia, and he had received answer that leave
could not be grouted without the sometime of the
highest authority.
The Dean then
,appeared in Cone, and having
produced the book, permission was granted to Mr.
Brougham, . who, -with his Learned Corfesgues,
Mr. Denman 'sod Dr. Lushington' withdrew to
consult it.
After en absence of shoot half an hour, Mr.
BROUGHAM returned, arid stated to their Lord-
ships, that lie was extremely sorry to inform theta
lie was afraid he should require an hour longer to
consult the Liber keg-alas, and even then he could
not answer with certainty at to his being prepared.
Lord LIVERPOOL then said, that, this being the
ease, the Court had no aneroid-ire, but either to
adjourn for an hour or until to-morrow Morning.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked tca. Brougham.
whether he could not proceed with, t part of his
orpiment which did not rents rsiths assistance of
the Liter Argolis?
Mr. BRocansm said be hld, eta ht tithe had
gone, bees liroublieg their Lordsl/100114 the his-
torical part of his argument, and itAel necessary
this should he concluded before he same to the
general Part of U.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then stated, that his
duties in the Hou'e of Lords prevented his attend-
suee on the Council longer than half-pan three
or four o'clock ; 'but that he had no objection to
intend from tau o'clock until four to-morrow, and.
if it was necessary, the Council could again meet
in two horns after.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, he should have concluded
his argument by four o'clock.
The Council then adjourued at two o'clock tw
tea o'clock to-morrow.

IMPERIAL PARLIAautiT.

•
HOUSE OF. LORDS, Tnuosuaw, JULY S.
fn a Committee of Privileged the claims of the Marquis
of Donegal. lied soother Peer were admitted to vote at the
election of en Irish Representative Peer.
Mr. Mao* from the East India House, brought up an
Account of Pensions, Gratuities, dm
Lord CA LTHORPE presented • Petition In favour of the
Bill fu► Preventing Cruelty in Animals.
The Irish Silk Hill, the Hop Exportation Drawhork
the Isle of Man Trade Bill, and the hick Custom Cu 0. •
Bill, were read a third time.

The Assessed Taxes Conspositios Bill, the Audit of Ac-
couple Bill, mad the Husbandry Hone Tax BA went
through a Cotomiitee.—Ordered to be read a third time on
Monday next.

DUKE OF CLARENCE.

The Order of the Day having been read for
going *tato a Committee on the Duke of Compeer
Annuity Bill—
The Earl of LAUDERDALE me, not, lie said, for
the 'impose of apposing the Bill, nor to criticise
the principle upon which the arrears had been
granted ; on the contrary, he thought the Parka-
meat had done themselves immortal honour in
granting the arrests, it chewed that they
procteued upon suuniScriciples. His chief ob-
ject in rising Iglu call thci Lordships' attention
to the sitantion af anothilbranch of the Royal
Family—he meant the Dube of Cumberland. Et
was nothing to him whether a Prince were a fa-
vourite or not, in considering such I subject, but
whether the mile, were required for the mints.

. .
as he could: He wai
very remarkable del
ciesostios of the Qui
observed; a 'Princess,
11. ward IVA "qiesit do
mucb..cliscontent wss
was atiendrd asIA tri
Consort. Now the n
.of her.pretensions he'll
more suitors§ he was
until be bad confrrrno
solicitous he bsid heel
mine likely-44 was I
• winch might seem to
Queries rights' with
Well always -treated
Lord Baron had rei
to her had occasion
fliVlCinw than hie Owl
his Lordship funher
.
suffered than Irked:
was found to give gr
would sbew what wei
and especially of the
glen, by referring
IMpreurt of York, al
.Warned to the Duki
samkt %song the ref
thee vents of those tri
wig ", gee without I
ietAissbeth be crol
(jogger; of. England
the Cestueo), and
had Ostierisilirmi buil
. • •• vio 4.. ,