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

called Cameroniaus, and who scrupled to pray
for an uncovenafited King. The great body of
the Church, however, entertained very different
opinions. The Act of Queen Anne had struck
at Members of that Church, who had long ceased
to have any existence. The Act of Queen Anne
directed the Queen and the Princess Sophia to
be prayed for while living : why then should not
that Act be restricted to the Queen and the Prin-
cess Sophia ? It was, and he was persuaded, that
a statute SQ highly penal, and at variance with
the fundamental laws of the country, would
be held in any Court of this kingdom as of
a temporary .nature, because the subject mat-
ter of it had long ceased to exist. The Learned
Lord had told them of a series of decisions, jus-
tifying the conduct of the Government in issuing
this Order, but what did they amount to ? He
had produced certain convictions which took
place during the four years that passed between
two rebellions ; before the ashes of one rebellion
were cold, and while a new 'one was kindling—
when every thing concurred to disturb the calm
administration of justice. Among the convictions
quoted by the Learned Lord, were those of a
number of non-juring clergymen. They were
brought up by scores at a time, like men brought
before a revolutionary tribunal ; they were
brought before a body of Magistrates of excellent
Constitutional principles, no doubt being zealous-
ly attached to the Protestant succession, but
more distinguished for the zeal of their attachment
to that succession than their zeal for the impartial
administration of justice-. Ile joined in the testi-
mony which the Learned Lord had borne to thos,
who then governed this Country ; they had pre-
vented the restoration of a family to the Throne
of these realms, who claimed it by a title which
was now called legitimacy, but which was then
called divine right-s-a Most odious principle ; but
he should never have selected their conduct any
where, and least of all in Scotland,' as precedents
in the construction of Acts of Parliament. The
whole of these-precedents belonged to a. time
when, if they •were to examine the Records,
he could point out many proceedings of which
no man could now • approve. He was far
from saying, that the same moral censure at-
tached to a Government for such proceedings
in times of national danger as in times of se-
curity ; but the justification of a Government,
and the adopting their construction ,of an
Act of Parliament as a precedent, were quite
distinct. But, granting that they. had fixed the
construction' of the act of Parliament, it was only
by a laxity of interpretation that the Courts had
held that the spirit and analogy of the, Act of
Anne required that the reigning King should be
prayed for by name. What did this amount to?
The whole question before the. House had been
waived by the Learned Loso by a piece of
dexterity which his natural candour sometimes
allowed to be seen through, The question was,
not whether they should blame the issue of an
order directing_ the King to. be prayed for by
name; it was not the ordering the King to be
prayed for by name, but the implied omission
which gave to this order its questionable charac-
ter. The Order issued to th© Church of Scot-
land was in the same terms as that to the
Church of England, and it was certainly un-
derstood by- the whole body of the Church of
England, as an Order not to pray for the Queen
by name. What then %vas-the natural coustruc-
tion to be put upon this Order, but that the
Church of Scotland were commanded in the same
manner to omit the name of the Queen ? But the
King was not the head of the Church in Scotland,
there was no Act of Uniformity which could ap-
ply to Scotland, and the statute of the- 10th of
Anne gave no authority to order the omission
of any name. The Learned Lord admitted, that
that_ part of the Order in Council which referred
to the 32d Geo. 111. was a gross absurdity. It
was neither more nor less than an injunction to
the Presbyterian Clergy. to comply with an Act,
which was made .for the relief of the Episcopal
Clergy of Scotland ; an injunction which, he ap-
prehended, was not likely to be obeyed by the
tamest and most mitigated disciples of John Knox.
His Majesty's Ministers had in fact commanded
the Presbyterians of Scotland to follow a, formula
contained inohe Liturgy of the Church of Eng-
land, against which Liturgy their ancestors had
so long, and at length so successfully struggled.
The Learned Lord. had cited a number of Orders
in Council from the year 1714, which had been uni-
formly-acquiesced in by theGeneralAssembly of the
Church of Scotland, ;slid it was undoubtedly
true that the General Assembly usually advised
the Synods and Presbyterians to acquiesce in all
reasonable recommendations of his Majesty' re-
lating to public prayers fcr the Royal Family ;
but the very circumstance of such acquiescence
being advised and enforced by the proper juris-
diction,. namely, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Au-
thority in Scotland, was a proof that there was no
legality or binding power in the Order of Coun-
cil. The Learned Lord' had in fact admitted,
that in spite of this Order in Council, every
Clergyman in Scotland might, if he thought, fit,
pray for the Queen by name ; but no Clergyman
in England could venture to pray for the Queen ;
what then was to be inferred from this difference
but that an order, which was binding in England,
had no force whatever in Scotland, and that Mi-
nisters had advised his Majesty to expose his
Royal commands to be set at defiance, and
his Royal authority to be insulted and con-
temned ? It was too much to say that this
was en insignificant, question in_itselr, but as a
question affecting the rights of
.the Church of
Scotland it was of the highest importance.—
As to any arguments for the interference of the
Crown with those rights founded upon usage, he
was prepared to treat them with the utmost con-
tempt, and in so doing he should be justified by
the course which had been taken by Courts of Law
in this country. Similar arguments had been
urged in support of the legality of general war-
rants, and that gross violation of the Law and
Constitution of the country had been defended
by a series of precedents for a century and a half
in the best periods of our history, when Lord
Chatham, the staunch enemy of general war-
rants, and who was principally instrumental in
procuringstheir abolition, was Secretary of State.
The Learned Lord had asked whether this usage

were not a justification of his Majesty Minis‘
ters ? and certainly if this had beett'a question as
to any criminal proceeding against. th,.tn, usage
might have'been a sufficient reason lot.' abstliin7
ing from such a proceeding. Ile should•have
been willin to- admit such an -argument, pro-
vided the rights and independence of the Church
ofScotland were secured byan acknow lecip-,ment On
the part of Ministers that theirOrderinCouncil was
mere waste paper, that it .was nugatory, impotent,
and ridiculous. However such a Concession might
affect the characterOf Ministers,-howeverit might
convince this house and the public that they were
anxious in their endeavours to retain their power,
but slovenly in- every thing that regarded the law
and constitution, still he should have considered
it a sufficient atonement to the insulted indepen-
dence of the Church of Scotland.' But the Learned
Lord considered the issuing of the Order as a legal
exercise of authority, and he seemed to rely upon
the General Assembly not having opposed it.—
There were various modes of evading, a proposi-
tion without directly opposing it, and the'Oene-
rat Assembly had in this respect imitated the.
conduct of a mare illustrious which was.
known frequently •to support measures which
they did not conscientiously apprOve. They
had not, however, negatived the Resolution con-
dethning this interference Of the Crown, but
they passed this very•Resolutiort without the cen,
sure upon his Majesty's Ministers, npOn the
ground that the order was issued without any
intention hostile to the Church of Scotland.
What better proof could there be than the two
facts which the Learned 'Lord had alluded to in
the latter part of his speech, that•the sole object
of
.the Order in Council was the omission of the
Queen's name ? Were the two persons at the
-Kirk Session, a meeting ana'ogous to our parish
vestry, ignorant men ? One of them was the
Sheriff of the County, and the other a Judge of
the Consistorial Court of ScOtiand, and- both con-
curred in putting that construction upon the Or-
der in Council, which he (Sir James) contended
was the only natural construction. There could
be no doubt as to the sense in which it was meant
to be executed, though there was another sense
in which it was meant to be vindicated. The
Order was to be executed in one way, and than,
in case of objection, it was to be vindicated in
another. It was, no doubt, extremely conve-
nient to keep a meaning in reserve, when a mea-
sure of doubtful- legality was hazarded.-. The
Learned Lord argued, that they who abstained
from mentioning the Queen's name were of no
party ; so that upon his principles, to be of

. .
no party, was to be of the party of the Court.—
laugh.)—This was surely a singular re-
cipe for impartiality. He (Sir James) ;was
much deceived if there were not a consider-
able number of Clergymen, even in that chosen
seat of political independence—(a laugh)---who
might consider the displeasure of the Noble Lord
opposite of quite as much importance as the con-
struction of an Act of Parliament. He doubted
whether there Would be more than a few stub-
born impracticable men who would be unable to
overcome their scruples of conscience, and who
would prefer the construction of an Act of Par-
liament to the favour of the Noble Lord. lie
was perfectly ready to, bear, tetimony to the
character and abilities of the Learned hird op-
posite; and for the settlement of any question in
which private interests were involved, he believed
it would be impossible to find a more judicious
and honourable umpire. He begged to remind
the nouse, however, that they were not in this
case called upon merely to redress a private in-
jury, but they were bound to inquire whether an
act of oppression had not been.corritnittA in con-
sequence of au Order having.heen issued, which,
to say the least of it, was useless and nugatory.
Upon these grounds be thought the motion of his
Noble Friend was perfectly justifiable.
Lord C.TLEREA6II observed, that so little
impression had the speech. of the': Honourable
and Learned Gentleman who had. just sat down
produced upon the argument of his Noble Friend,
that he (Lord 'Castlereagh) did not intend to
dwell upon it for a moment. lie rose rather for
the purpose of calling back the attention of the:
House to the real question before it ; but first
he should remind the House of the objections
which he had made on some former occasions to ,

those who maintained that the tranquillity of the
country depended on the insertion of the Queen's
name in the Liturgy.. He stated, on former occa-
sions, that if such were considered to .be the case,
those. Honourable Gentlemen.should have put the
question into some shape in .which it could be
met directly and fairly, and not :_to endeavour
to introdUce it by a .side wind, by declara-
tions of this or the other act. He did not
know *hether those
.observations Of his had

produced the motion' of the lion. Gentleman

(Mr. J. Smith) which the Mouse had disposed of
in such a marked manner ;. hut he assured the
Noble Lord that the objections he then made did

not apply to such a motion As that now before
tae House. At the same time, it appeared to
him that this motion was by no means called for

by the circumstances Which had been mentioned.
With respect to the speech of. the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (Sir J. Mackintosh), it cer-
ainly did appear to him to have been intended

or a more recondite subject; and it did not at

- -
all apply to"the.niotion liZrofe the House. The.
lion. and Learned Gentleman seemed as if his
object had been to defend (he ChurCh of Scot-

land from some supposed inroad upon its rights,
and having got the outline of the argument in his
mind, had come down and applied it to the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord (A. Hamilton). What

vas really the case which the House had been
:ailed upon to consideri—twoinstances.or indi-

vidnal injury. And how had the, been answer-
ed ?—(Hear.)—lie hoped that the answer would
not be forgotten, and he trusted the present
would be a lesson to Honourable Gentlemen,
not to briny down subjects for discus,sion in that
House, which Was not, if there were arty
ground for trial, the, proper place to try
them, but would leave them-to the Courts which

cpaild legally take cognizance of them. Snc7b,
questions were brought down—the businEss of

the Session was delayed in discussing them, and
it must be obvious that they could answer; no
ether purpose but that of sending statements

abroad calculated to poison lie public
(Hear !)—What, he asked were the cases intro-
duced ? They were cases already settled :. one of
rereireil to the creCisiCUTOf aratiferlor court,
Which had been disapproved by and set aside by
the SaPeriar Court ; and the Other Nrai the ••6:56
of an individual
_to WiliCh.his M.jesty's Govern-
ment had Eiten no sanction or approval. WhY7
he again-. aSketL, 4-eie, not such matters left for
the decWOn of the Law Ciirts, or why was the
liotise called. up-;n to waste its time by discuss-
ing suer cases 1-11.!'hopt!ti that what had occurred
to-night Would be a lesson to the Noble .Lord
•by whotn this motion %vas introduced. When
the Noble Lord (Lord Archibald Hamilton) hrad
heard his (Lord Castlereagh's) Right liononr-
able and Learned Friend, the Lord Advocate's,
arguments respecting the Act of Queen Anne,
he Must have felt his motion fall from -his hand.
But it had .been alleged that the liberties of the
Church of Scotland .were invaded. lie must be
excused for saying that this motion-, like many
other motions respecting the Queen, was' made
for eny•other purpose than for tranquillizing tbe
Country—(Cheets from the Ministerial side ;)
and he Would say that the lion.. and Learned
Gentleman (Sir J.-Mackintosh) could have more
usefully applied his talents for tranquillizing the
Country than. by the observations which he had
Made on this motion, and by not continuing to
awaken alarm, as if the Liberties of the Church
of Scotland were invaded. The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman might, if -he was not
satisfied with the cases which his Right
Honourable and Learned Friend had cited, get a
Reverend Friend to act in contravention of the
Act of Queen Anne; and his Reverend-Friend
might. then bring the case before the Court of
Session, and the Hon. and -Learned Gentleman
might in consequence have a more modern proof
of the meaning of the act. The cases cited by
his flight Hon. Friend had been said to have oc-
curred in times of agitation and warmth ; but,
if cases occurring in times of warmth could be on

that account set aside, he might object to the
abolition of general warrants, which the lion.-and
Learned Gentleman had justly characterised as a
public benefit, for no decision had been pro-
nounced in warmer times than the times in which
general warrants.were decided to be illegal. But
he again repeated, that it was perfectly open to
the lidn. and Learned Gentleman to provoke of-
fence for the purpose of amicable discussion. To
other minds, certainly „to his (Lord C.'s) unlearn-
ed understanding, no arguments could be more
satisfactory than the arguments of, his Right
lion,- and Learned Friend. Ilis Right lion. and
Learned Friend had in his candour admitted
that the 32d of George 111. was not applicable.
lie (Lord Castlereagh) did not admit that •
it was inapplicable, because separate instru—
ments were not to be issued for the sepa-

rate bodies in Scotland. He was justified in
precedent and common sense in saying that
such instruments were sent collectively to the
Church of Scotland and the Episcopalian
church, and collectively to the Episcopalian
Church and the Church of Scotland. As far as
the words of the act could show the sense of the
framers of that act, respecting prayers for the
Queen, by mum, it was vely remarkable.; and
he begged to point it out particularly to the at-
tention of the House. The Episcopalian Church
of Stotland, it would be remembered, was bound
by the same Liturfry as-the Church of England.
This act (the 3L2d of Geo. Ill.) was exclusively
for the Episcopal Church of Scotland. He would
quote the words to which he alluded :----" pray
for his Majesty by name, his heirs and successors,
and for the rest of the Royal Family us direct-
ed by lawful authority."—( Loud and repeat-
ed cheers from the Opposition benches.)—He
Glared to say that " lawful authority" here again
would be explained by the Act of Uniformity.—
(Repeated cheers from the Opposition.)—But in
this act, passed in the year 1702, when a Queen
Consort lived in this country, than whom no Queen
was ever more entitled to the prayers of her peo-
ple, no rnention was made of the Queen, and-no
allusion to her existence occurred but by an ille-
gal interpretation of " lawful authority." So in
the question of the Liturgy, there is no ground
for claiming the insertion of the Queen's name
but by what he called an illegal construction of

the Act of Uniformity. (During the above ob-
servations repeated cheers were given by both
sides of the_ilouse.) The case, he repeated, was
so unexpectedly taken- from under the Noble

fiord opposite, that he must view it as quite un-
tenable, for the Noble Lord could not have come
down with a case knowing- it to have such an evi-
dent and enormous flaw.

Mr; ,J. P. G a ANT said, that as the Noble Lord
had said that his Hon. Friend who had 'spoken
before the Noble Lord had made very little im-
presion on the case, he'must say that the Noble
Lord himself bad made no ,impression at all on
the- case. This• Order iii Council had been

shown to be most absurd and preposterous, and
he (Mr. Grant) must add that it was most illegal.
The Noble Lord had said, that decisions in very
hot times might be very good precedents. lie
(Mr. Granftwould say that decisions on cases
between the Government and the subjects at

a time of raging rebellion were not good
precedents.—(Cheers.)—But further than this,
he could refer to an Act which passed by
the Act of Anne on which the cases cited by his
Right Honourable and Learned Friend had been
fonnded as of no force. lie meant the Act

5 George I. chapter 29, Sect. 3.

This Act had

been passed in 1719. The_ last case quoted•by
his Right Hon, Friend was in 1718, consequently
the Act was later authority than any of the cases
cited. His Right Hon'. and Learned Friend said

gist the Act of Anne wits still in force. 'Nov

the sth of George'lll. prohibited any number of
persons, exceeding nine, to assemble in a meet-
ing-house or Epiecepal place of worship„, who
did not pray for the King, the Prince and Prin-

cess of %Vales, and their issue, under the pain of
imprisonment for sic manths.—(Cries of heari
hear, hear this Act 'there was no-reference

to the Act of Queen Anne. How then did the
case 'stand• The Aet of Anne was either effec-

nal, or it was ineffectual. If it was effectual,
here was no need of a new Act ; if it• was not

effectual; and a neiv Act was-required;ihen had

. , .
" the force of the Act of o,ncen Anne ceased
her life.--(lfear, hear.)—But, according to the
Noble Lord, the aid of the bete King_applied to
the Clitti•ch .13f Scotland, as well as •to th 3
copnlians: We were then in thin situation: the
,Act of George I 11. repealed the Act of Anne in
favour. of. the suspectedo agahiSt whom it had
been originally tassed, and left it in hilt force
against the tinsusrecter4
_for whose pro6c-;
tion it had been pasted.—(Heat:,, hear
agreed with the Noble Lord that the Honse ought
not to interfere in cases of individuals ; but the
Order in Coubcil was au attempt to is troduCe
supremacy—he could scarcely call it an attempt
to introduce it. He was certain that his Right
Ron. Friend the Lord Advocate had* not been
consulted, for he would have advised differently:
But the interference had taken place first, and
the law was found for it afterwards.—(lfeari
hear!)—The effects of the order were most in-;
jurious to the best interests of religion and, peace.
It did often occur that the omission of her Ma-
jesty's name took place in one-chttrch, and the in=
sertion in another ; and the congregations were!
convulsed by this badge of distinction ; for party
spirit and party division this order had excited and
created in every clurch. In England the case was
'quite different. What motive then copld iiEve sug=
Bested this order? He could not-imagine. He could
imagine no motive but, a desire, impotently and
futilely indeed, but most illegally to testify hos-
tility to the Queen.—(Cheers.)—it was a. grave
charge against Ministers that they had co:nmitled
his Majesty's name to what was, 'upon t,l-teir owit
confession, nugatory. -
Mr. MAXWELL said. that if the Noble Lord
(A. Hamilton) had brought forward his motion
for party purposes, as :insinuated by- the Noble
Lord (Castlereagh) opposite, he, for one,. would
not support it. But he was satisEed that the

motion had no such object. He thought the or-
der was issued for the purpose of prejudging her
Majesty the Queen.—(Cheers.)—They (in Scot-)
land) had little to boast of in their country, lcsa
in their Constitution, and least of all hi their
laws. But still they would struggle fur what
their ancestors had valued so dearly—the inde,
pendence of their Church.=—(llear.)—The Or-
der in Council tended to bring the Royal autho-1
rity into contempt.
Lord CASTLEREAGH explained. He had mad:

no insinuation that the Noble Lord had brought
forward his motion for other purposes than those,
avowed ; but he remarked upon the impropriety
of bringing individual cases before the House.

Mr. MAXWELL explained. He bad certainly
understood the Noble Lord to have spoken as be
had formerly represented ; but he was now hap-
py to hear the Noble Lord disavow it.

Lord ARCIIIBALD_ HAMILTON rppliedt
Noble Lord (Castlereagh) said that the Order
was nugatory, and yet he said that tits (Lord A.
Hamilton's) motion had fallen from under him.
If the Act of Queen Anne was in force and suf-
flC-10t, Ni by issue all Order in Council ? The tar-.
gument.of the case was.disposed of; for if it was
not,he certainly could conceive nothing to be added
to it. If it should go forth that night, and go to
Scotland, that the motion was negatived on • the
ground that there -existed a right to issue Orders
in Council, then the House would have cause to
lament their vote. It had been imputed by; the
Noble Lord, not , more to him than to his -Hon.
Friends near him; that they were poisoning the
public mind by such motions and' discussions.
Now he would say, that if - there was one matt
in .that House who was poisoning the, public
mind—who was degrading Royalty—who divid-
ed one part of .the , Royal Family against the
other—who poisoned the laws themselveS—(Loud
cheers), it was the Noble Lord who had, in that
House, introduced the declaration, that the
Queen, although technically-acquitted, was mo-
rally convicted.—(Cheers.)—Ho (Lord A. Ha-
milton) would rather poison the public mind than
be guilty of the subversion of justice. lie saw
no possibility of the public mind being tranquil-
lized as long as the effect of that declaration
.was
unremoved.—(Cheers.)—Would any man stand
up and contend for the right of issuing an order
to be scouted and condemned ? A negative on
this question would occasion more extensive
mischief to the best, feelings of the Country Thal
the House was aware of.

Lord CASTLEREAGH explained, that he had al:
tided only to the introduction of individual cases

into that House.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH explained, that if he were
provoke a reverend friend to neglect to pray
'or the King; the sth of George I. would at once

meet the point.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw; and
on a division there appeared—

For the Motion- .. 35
Against it

Majoritya;ainst the Motion
IRISH LAW COVICI'S.
On the motion of Mr. C. GRANT, after some
few observations from Sir John Newport,, Mr.-
Bennet, and Mr. Martin, leave was given to
bring in a Bill to.regolate the Proceedings of the
Civil Side of the Court of King's Bench, the
Common Side of the Common Pleas, and the
Pleas of the Exchequer. •
Mr. C. GRANT gave notice, that on to-roorrow
he would move, in a Committee of the whole
House, a Resolution that the Salaries of the Offi-
cers of the said Courts be paid out of the Conso-
lidated Fund.
. On the motion of Sir J. NrWronT, a Return
of the Names arid Dates and Sums, given as-re-
muneration, to the Commissioners -appointed to
inquire into the English Courts.'of Law,..-kvas or-
dered to be laid on the -table:
Lord Fol:nEs7ONi: moved, .that there be laid
before the "House an Account of all Salaries abeve
1501. per annum, increased slate 1793, specifying
the amount of the increase; and whether inadein.
lieu of Fees. '
After a few words from Mr. ROBTNNON and
Mr. GOIJLII6ItN,VIIO' -state-LI .the A admits would
be volumitiOuS, .nnli--thiit a notice was 'desirable,
Lord FoL!tpsToßE withdrew his motion, az Li
gave notite Of it .fcir to-morrow
• CLERK OF• TI-SE SCOTCH AD:4IRALTY
On tfie'mofioa'of the LOR:i .iinvocATE, the
HOtiivireat:into ii 'Cornmitti.e • on the Rls a?
'granting compensation' to tho.'Cierks of the Scotch