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

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-
Par had not gone much into the point of
the legality of the proceeding, 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
toubt 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
words 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
Contended that 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
cost •
fioat it, to ,e•t‘t..ar upon--the discussionof
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 were 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
• .li'as his motion ? If they had done what he ac,
cased 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
-\brought 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
'lnjustice to, the'Queen) why did not he do it at
once ? 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
•ei,'itch all the mitigated shades of opinion in that
=louse, and, instead of a bold, open course, to
"o.what was posslble•by a slicer Parliamentary.
Itlanceuvre. 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 shernot 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 iiiaireVs.,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. King-, 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 Hof 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
day, awl, it was alitae,,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 thats 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 all4i,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 whati 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
Older 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
Queelle 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,leand 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'ixtended, 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 note 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