The Sun.
London, England, 1821-02-24 00:00:00

muncY QUESTION.

In the course of the debates on the Liturgy
Question, one ef.II ER MAJESTY'S Advocates, with
his accustomed vehemence, asserted that the Act
of linifoNnity " took every iota of Prerogatia'
from TitE .KING,' b-fai as regoaded the slightest
alteration iu the Form of the. Common Prayer."
Now, if no contradiction whatever .had been
offered to this bold assertion of the Learned
Gentleman, the striking want of temper and de-
fect of ,judgment evinced in his Parliamentary
career, particularly in his memorable motion on
the subject of Tice QUEEN,IS Plate, would have,
induced us to receive with caution, and prevented
our attaching much impOrtance to any sentiments
delivered by him. On this occasion, however, we
. are not singular in rejecting an interpretation
which the natural bias of the mind of the Advo-
cate had induced him first to revive and deliver
in language and manner so positive and coil&
dent, A great majority of the }louse a Com-
mons have by their votes declared that interpre-
tation erroneous, and, the omission of lIER MA-
' J ESPY'S namti to have been strictly legal. The
glorious uncertainty imputed to the Law, we
agree with Mr: NVILIIERFORCE, has been' most
happily illustrated in thiS debate.—The Learned
Doctors have indeed differed. Whilst one, as
we have seen, leaves by the Act of Uniformity
not one iota of Prerogative in the` Crown to make
the slightest alteration, another Learned Civilian,
of not less eminence, Dr. DODSON, in a much
more judicious and qualified view of the same
Act, regarded it as intended more to regttlate
the Ministers of the Church than to confine and
restrict the Powers of the Crown. The more we
consider the line ~of argument adopted by Dr.
Donsos, the more we are disposed to .coincide
with him in opinion, and to believe that he is
fully borne out in his statement of there being a
discretionary power vested in the Crown. Now
this discretionary power the Sovereign, as the
Head- of the Church, has uniformly exercised,
not only with the acquiesCence and concurrence,
but at the desire of Parliament. If no
such right and authority had been vested in the
Crown, if no " iota of Prerogative " empowered.
the Monarch to make the slightest alteration intlie.
Liturgy, then the Book of Common Prayer must
have remained unaltered from the time it was
last reviewed, and confirmed by the Act of Uni-
formity. , It musf stand precisely as it then did,
the slightest deviation of general or particular
application could never have been allowed. But
what is the fact Why, scarcely a year has
passed over our heads in which alterations, addi-
tions, and omissions have not been made in the Li-
turgy
_by THE K ING, &c. (often in consequence of
an Address from Parliament) to adapt it.to the
particular events that have occurred. But the
argument does not rest- here. For the truth is,
that by a reference to the schedule of the Ser-
vices contained in. the:Prayer Book at the pass-',
lug of the Act of 'Uniformity,- we shall find that
many, whole Services are not mentioned there,
but which are now a part. of our Liturgy, having
been added .by the Crown. • Whoever will take
the tr"ouble-of,turhing.to the Acts of Parliament
for the observance of lime 29th.of May, sth of
November, ZOth of January, abd TnE KING'S
Inauguration, will observe, and. a remarkable
confirmation of our view of the case it is, that in all
these cases the Acts of Parliament appoint. these-
days to berelig-,iouSly observed ; yet in no instance
do they provide for or establish any office for the
use of the' Chtirchit was left solely to the Crown
to exercise its discretion, and by the order of the
Crown a suitable. Form of Service, of Prayer, of
Praise, or Thanksgiving, was.composed for the
occasion.