The Sun.
London, England, 1821-07-06 00:00:00

her re Triage. Henry V. came to the throne in 1413; he was
crowned in the same year, and eight years after, namely, in
1_421, he came over from Prance to attend the Coronation of hiS,
Queen, Catherine, who was in that year crowned alone. The
close roll at the ToWer contained the summonses for the perform-
ance of services upon that occasion. Henry VI. was upon his
accession an infant only a few mont*.s old; he was not crowned
until 1429; he was a second time crowned in 1431, and again
in 1445, on May the 30th, when he was married- to 'Sitar-
garetta, who was herself crowned with the usual pomp and cere-
mony. Ile should now, in farther support of the uniformity of
the practiee of the Coronation of Queens, refer to the law of
Scotland about the period of history at which he was passing.
The Scottish documents upon the subject were by no means as
perfect upon matters of ceremony as other records of antiquity
elsewhere, but they contained enough to establish the fact,
that no King of Scotland who was married at the time of his.
Coronation, was ever crowned without his Consort; or, where
the marriage took place afterwards, was there an instance
in which a Scottish Queen was not crowned as soon as possible
after. she became Queen, He stated this proposition upon
the broadest possible ground, and he had also to adduce a-
remarkable circumstance, which was, that in the Scottish
statute law there was a record having reference to the coro-
nation rights of the Queen-Consort of Scotland. He held in
his hand a small book, yet, small as it was, it contained a digest
of the statute law of Secitland for a period of two hundred
years. It was a compilation made five years after the return of
James 1., and contained words not only binding upon him Out
also his successors at all times. Now he claimed the privilege
of using this digest of the Scottish statute laws as a precedent since
the union of the two kingdoms, upon the authority of an Act
of one of the Houses of Parliament in England; for the House
of • Comnions by its Committee, in the year 1788, upon the
first Regency question, did direct a search for precedents to be
made in the Scottish Records; and they , did report, upon their
(the Scottish) authority, as well as upon the English prece-
dents—they held them alike illustrative. The Learned Counsel
then referred to the Act 1423 in' the Scottish statutes, 109,
passed in the Bth Parliament of James 1., and read the following
aitla to be made to the Qucerebe the Clergie and the Baronnes:2—
" Quo die Dominus rte x, ex deliberatione et consensu totius
concilii, statuit, quod omnes et sine-uli auesessores prelatorurn
regni quorumcunque, =non omnes singuli hmredes futuri co-
mtturn, baronum, ornniunique libere-tenentium Domini Regis ;
tenean tsar facere consimile juramenturn Doming: nostrre Regmm,
Nee, ullus prwlatus de cetero admittatur ad suam temporalita-
tern, ant lizeres cujusvis tenentis Domini Regis ad suas tenen-
clrias, nisi Arius przestet Regia? illud juramentum."
..He contended, that from this authority of the Scottish sta-
tutes, his case respecting the rights of a Queen Consort, so far as
the Coronation ceremony was concerned, was rendered irresisti-
bly strong. Corrine front the precedents of the Scottish law to
,the period of English history at Which he had broken ofF, he
had to call their Lordships' attention to the , time of Edward
IV, That King was crowned in the year 1461, he being then
unmarried ; in the year 1465 he married his Queen, Elizabeth
Woodville, or Grey, as sho had been called, and he was again
crowned with her in the year 1465 ; the " orclo coronationis
Edwardi Quarti" was to be found in the Cotton manuscripts, as
well also as that of " Regina'"—the words were " pro unctione
Reginaa" The whole form for the Queen was separately and
distinctly laid down as one to be observed independently of the
King's, but with equal form, &c. This brought him to the
time of Richard 111. and Queen Anne his consort ; and they
were crowned together iii the year 1483 ; then followed Henry
Vll., upon which period more than one observation arose witn
which lie should have to trouble their Lordships.. It was well
known that he came to the throne with three tides—they were
those of marriage, conquest, and descent ; nevertheless he (the
King) always considered the last as his principal and best right,
and was disposed to consider the ethers as but auxiliaries to it.
In the language of Bacon, the historian of Henry's times, " he
(still speaking of Henry) placed his descent as his main shield,
and marriage and conquest as only the supporters to it." The
King himself thought so, his adherents thought so, and,the
country at large, the best authority perhaps upon such occasions,
acquiesced and concurred in that opinion. The King de facto was
then acknowledged as King de jure by all the constituted
authorities, and his claim had the united assent of the York and
Lancaster factiors. He was crowned, however, before the
Act of Parliament, and immediately after the battle of Bos-
worth-field. He called the Parliament which sat a few days
after his accession, and the Act ofrecognizing him was the conse-
quence ; that Act entailed the crown upon the heirs of his body
generally—no mention was made of those of the Princess Anne ;
she still remained Princess, and it was matter of doubt at the
time whether she would ever become Queen. He had, it was
true, intrusted her with the obligation of an oath that he should
marry her, but it was an oath to which, speaking not morally,
his policy ran rather counter; he did, however, at length
marry her on the 18th June, , 1486. He had himself been
crowned in the previous year ; a very remarkable delay then
took place, the daughter, of Henry IV. had now become Henry
Vllth's wife; she was always treated as Queen Consort, and
notwithstanding the delay, the most scrupulous forms were ob-
served in the arrangements for the Coronation of that Queen.
Bacon, in his history, alluded to tile triumph which attended
her Coronation in the minds of her party of that day, which the
King, to use the words of Bacon, " rather noted than liked."
In fact he put off her Coronation, according to the same his-
torian, until it was no longer safe for him, on account of popu-
lar resentment, to withhold that ceremony to which she was
considered as having a solemn right.—Margaret of Burgundy,
who married the Dake of Burgundy, had used most remark-
able expressions touching the delay in the Coronation of Henry's
Queen. She said, that it was ,seen not without great trouble,
that an universal delay had taken place in the ceremony of
crowning that Queen—an honour, she remarked, of which "no
Queen of England had been ever debarred since the Conquest."
And she added, " that the time bed come, when, at the birth
of her son, every body hoped the King would do her that jus-
tice." . Margaret of eurgtouly was no bad. authority in those
times ; she had been engaged in educating the royal
she was an acute and observing woman, and had studied and
contemplated much ; she must, from her character, have been
well versed in the history and usage of the rights of a- Queen,
and she speaking at the time when the historic incidents were
comparatively fresh, declared that no Queen since the Conquesit
had been so treated.. At last Henry VII. yielded to public opi-
nion, and the Coronation was cerebrated on the 25th of No-
vember, • 1487, when the Queen was crowned alone. Lord.
'Bacon's observation was, that it was "an old christening
which had staid long for a godfather." This Coronation of
the Queen alone was announced in a Proclamation in the
very sairie words in which the King himself had two years
and a month before announced the solemnity of his own
Coronation. She Was of . course recognised by the King in no
other character than that of Queen Consort, when he found
that he could no longer delay the ceremony with safety to him-
self. The form of the Proclamation was to be found in R}
pier's Feedera, 3' Henry Vii., and it • corresponded precisely
with the form used for the King. He would pause here
for a moment, and call their Lordships' attention to the fact,
that from the Conquest up to this period, there had been 19
Kings crowned. Eighteen of these were married either before
or atter the Coronation, and of these eighteen the Queens were
all crowned. Up to that period, fifteen Coronations of Kings
had taken place, the purpose ofthose solemnities being to crown-!
the King ; and fourteen of these solemnities had taken place for
the purpose of crowning the Queens alone, independently and
exclusively of any purpose of crowning' the King ; and ifj
Margaret, the second wife of Edward the First, were included,
-fifteen would have so taken place. For as many precedents,
therefore, as existed, for crowning the Kings of England, up
to this phriod, there was precisely the same number of instances
for performing the same ceremonial, for the purpose of doing
honour to their Queens. Of those ceremonials no less than six
were known to have been Coronations of Queens without the
King-eking crowned a second dine with them. With regard to
Henry VIII., he was crowned with Queen Catharine or Arra-
gon his first wife, and upon, his divorce from that Queen, and
his subsequent marriage, Anne • Boleyn was crowned alone.—
Thus far, the reign of Henry VIII. furnished no exception to
the firstpdopositron which he had laid down, that whenever a
King, being married, was crowned the Queen Consort had.
been uniformly crowned with him. 'When- their Lordships re-
flected upon the peepliar circumstances in which that Monarch
was placed, and particularly upon the state of ecclesiastical af-
fairs during the period of his foer subsequent marriagei, he
was persuaded that, even if it were admitted that none of his
'four other Queens were crowned, they would still be of opinion
that the omission of their Coronation formed no exception to ,
the rule. With regard to his second wife, it should be recol-
lected that hie married Jane Seymour the.yery day after the
death of Anne Boleyn ; and, considering the circumstances in
which he was paced, it was scarcely possible than to celebrate
the Coronation. He had quarreller : with thee Pope, he had
quarrelled with the Emperor, and when he' looked at home he
could place no reliance upon any body, for he was upon the
worst terms with the Church—with the reformed part of tire
kingdom' he vela npon no better terms, having that very day
_done an . act the most odious to that part.of the community
which man's imagination could conceive; by beheading their
Patroness, Anne, and on the same day marrying the pstsun for
the love of whom Ime had committed that atrocity. -Then the
State (tithe Church during the whole subsequent period of his
reign was such that it was hardly possible to say tvnether it was
Catholic or Reformed, or to determine how any ritual could be
perforthed without jars on either, or with comeenon consistency
arid decorum. Had he continued long married to this Queen, he
Might possibly have turned his attention to the subjxt ; but
Jane Seymour was delivered of a son, which had long been the
object of Henry's roost anxious wishes, ariP, died the day after
her delivery. Then, with respect to Anne of Cleves,, her case
formed po exception to the rule, -because it was perfectly weli
known, that from the very day of his marriage with thetPrin-
case; he commenced his 4t.t.zmpts to affect a divorce, which cb-

iect he at length accomplished with her consent. 'it was mate-
rial to recollect that Anne acquiesced entirely in this divorce,
that she waived all claim to the Crown, and never even made
the slightest complaint of the terms to which she appears to
have cneerfully submitted. The state of the Church was suffi-
cient to account for the Coronation of his next Queen, Cathe-
rine Howard, not having taken place. Besides,. the Queen was
discovered to be incontinent very shortly after the naagiege, and
a divorce took place in consequence. In like manner the state
of ecclesiastical affairs might very well account for the alltatice
of a Coronation in the reign of Catherine Pam, ifatt were
found, upon full search, no Coronation did take place.
This, however, he was not prepared to admit, for no man had
a right to assume that there was no Coronation. All he could
say
.was,., that he did not know that any such Coronation took
place, tor no accounts of the solemnity remained upon record.
He would pass over the reigns of Edward 1. Queen Mary, and
IQueen Elizabeth, Edward L never having been married, and
Ithe two latter being Queen's Regnant. For the same reason it
would be unnecessary to dwell upon the reign of James I. who
was himself. crowned shortly after his arrival from Scotland.—
Upon the reign of Charles 1., hay/ever, it would be necessary to
make some observations. The Coronation of that Prince took
place on the 2d of February, 1625, being aconsiderable period
after • his aecession. A Ptochamation in the usual terms, and
with one exception, in the same terms as those used in the Pro-
clamation of his psesent Majesty, was published on the 17th of
Jan. 1623, for the Coronation of the King, and his dearly belov-
ed Conroet the Queen. On the 24th of the same-month another
proclamation was lasaed, appointing the Court of Claims, and
in the recital to that Proclamation the Coronation was mention-
ed as about to take place on the 2d of Feb. and as the Corona-
tion " of ourselves and our dearly beloved Queen Consort," so
that it was proclaimed in two successive Proclamations that the
Queen Consort was to be crowned on the 2d of February. It
was true, that on the 30th of January, three days before the Co-
ronction took place, a third Proclamation was issued for creating
Knights of the Bath to assist at the solemnities of the Corona-
tion, in which Proclamation the words " dearly beloved Con-
sort" were dropped for the first time. It was to be observed,
however, that the Corronation of the Queen Consort had no con-
nection with the creation of Knights of the Bath, which was
_ the subject of that Proclamation. - The King's intention with
regard to the Coronation of his Queen Consort might still have
continued, nor indeed was there any positive evidence that her
Coronation did not actually take place. There was an account
of the ceremonial extant among the Manuscripts in the liar-
leian Collection in.the.British Museum, in which the part of
the ceremonial relating to the Queen was as minutely detailed
as that which relatedno the King. The account was given in
the past tense, as of a ceremonial which had actually taken place;
but supposing that it would not bear_ that construction, and
that it was to be taken rather as a prospective account of what
was to take place, still there was nothing on the face of that
manusciipt, nor indeed was there any other direct evidence to
shew that the Queen was not actually crowned. But suppose
it otherwise, and he would fairly avow his own opinion that
Henrietta Maria was not crowned, for there was certainly a
want of legal evidence to sustain the fact of her having been
crowned ;. and with regard to the question of historical evi-
&zee, he was inclined to think that the scales preponderated
against such a supposition. But let it be admitted that she
was not crowned, and he thoueht he could give so satisfactory
an explanation of that circumstance as would convince any can- •
did and reasonable mind, that the omission in the case of Hen-
rietta Maria did not in the slightest degree interfere with the
principle for which. he was contending. The marriage of
Charles I. with a French Princess, had given very great .um-
braze to the people. .In the treaty of marriage, a provision was
made to quiet the alarms of the people, containing. an express
stipulation that none of the King's subjects, who were Paptsts,
should serve the Queen. No sooner had Henrietta Maria ar-
rived' in this country, than these alarms increased, and upon the
assembling of the first Parliament which was held in his reign,
Charles alluded, in his speech from the Throne, to the malicious
reports which were circulated, that was not likely to-be so
true a keeper anti maintainer of the religion of the country as he
ought to be. He complained of those rumours as malignant
misrepresentations, and assured the Parliament, that as he had
been brought up like Paul at the feet of Garnaliel, so he would
ever preserve the religion in which he had been bred. The state
of religion was immediately afterwards taken into consideration
by Parliament,• and a grand. conference held between the two
Houses on the subject. The result was a joint Petition from
both Houses of Parliament, praying the Crown to enforce the
laws against Popery, and to advance the true religion. In the
fifth article of this Petition' express -mention 'WA made of the
Queen being a Papist, and his Majesty's attention was called to
that clause in the treaty of marriage, by which all Papists, being
natural born subjects, were disqualified froth serving the
Queen. Immediately after the Queen's arrival, the discontents
running very high on the important and delicate question of the
Queen's religion, and her proximity to the King, and the coun-
try being much disquieted on thin subject, Parliament went
every length short of a direct remonstrance, and urged the King
to preserve by all poesitde means the established religion, which
they evidently conceived to be in danger from the religion of the
Queen. After the King had' given. satisfactory answers to all
the articles of this Petition, his Ministers took occasion to men-
tion the next day that the King said he always took it well of
them when they reminded hini to take caresilf the established
religiOn, but nevertheless he should 'have done and granted the
same things if the two Houses had never pefitiOned, and he
'Said, that when his father recommended to him the, person of
his wife, he did not recommend her religion. Ile (Mr. B.)
cited this as another instance of the religion of the Qiietrobeing
a subject of great jealousy and 'suspicion. A Proclamation in
consequence of this was immediately afterwards issued against
Popish recusants. The grand conference was held, the Petition
presented, and the answer returned with the Duke of Bucking-
ham's remarks upon it early in the month of August, and on
the 11th of that month the House of Commons resolved itself
into a Committee of Orievances, the grievance which occupied
their attention being the subject of the Queen's religion. The
usual course was taken of refusing the supplies, unless the
grievances were redresOed ' • the two ,parties came to an open
rupture, which Concluded by the King's suddenly dissolving
the Parliament. After the dissolution, and before another
Parliament was held, the Coronation of the King took place.
Such was the frame of mind in the country, and the two Houses
of Parliament, when the practical question arose whether a
Popish Queen should be crowned or not ? The first determn:
nation of the King clearly was that she should be crowned,
though he might possibly be induced 'to alter it afterwards to
prevent a revival of the animosities of the preceding month.
This was the least favourable supposition for the purposes of
his (Mr. B.'s) explanation; but there was-another way of ac-
counting for the Queen not having been crowned, namely,
that tthe objection arose not from the King, but from
the Queen herself. The peculiar circumstances in which
the Queen was placed, must . have operated most power-
fully upon .her mind, nor was it easy -to see how she,,
Catholic Queen, could be crowned. by the ceremonial
which was used' in a Protestant country. The ceremonial
was performed in a Protestant, cathedral; at, a Protestant
altar, by an heretical Archbishop, as she must have thought
him, and in a most 'heretical place. The very phrases used at
this solemnity, though they might be used by a Catholic when
applied to a Catholic King and a Catholic Queen, yet when ap-
plied to a Protestant King and a 'Catholic Queen, must either
mean one thing in the, one case and another in the other, or 1
they must mean something heretical and abominable in
the eyes of this Catholic Queen. Out of this dilemma it
was impossible.for human ingenuity to escape. To say nothing
of that part of the ceremonial in which the sacrament was re-
.ceived, which at a Protestant altar and hi a Protestant church
no Catholic could receive without abhorrence, she must also re-
ceive a ring from the hands of a Protestant Archbishop, aceoin-
partied with these words, " Accipe annulum fidei, signaculum
sancta. Trinitatis." Now, although a Catholic might, by an
effort of casuistry, apply the-word " fidei" to his own faith, _yet,.
.when it was considered that the word was pronounced by a Pro-
testant Archbishop, and addressed th a Protestant King, it must
be taken to mean the Protestant faith, and then the Queen
would be called upon to receive the ring as a symbol, not of her
own faith, but of the faith which she abhorred. The same ob-
servations applied to the words " Sigoaculum sanctec Trinitatis."
The form went on, " quo possis (mines hereticas abominationes
evitare." So that this ring was to be a charm by which the
parson receiving it would be enabled to avoid all heretical sins,
and as these sirs, denounced by a Protestant Archbishop in a
Protestant Cathednal, could be no other than those of the Ca-
tholic Religion' a Catholic Queen would be called'upon to receive
a charm which was to enable her to avoid the abominations of
her own faith., It went on, " et barbaras rates virtute Dei sub-
jicere, et ad agnitionem verit.a.tisativocare." Such was the vir-
tue of this ring, that it enabled the,possessor, not only to avoid
sin himself, but to work marvels in other men—not only to
escape contamination himself, but to militate with success
against popular heresies, and convert infidels to the Protestant
faith. This would be no doubt a valuable present to a Protestant
Queen ; but it most appear so detestable, so • abominable, so
abhorrent from the principles of a Catholic Queen, and in all
respects so damnable to her, that _lf enrietta Maria might well be
supposedanxions to decline any participation in such a ceremony,
through she had the same right to participate in it as any formes
Queen Consort, and an equal right with the King Regnant him-
self'. Taking these two circumstances together, first, the wish of
avoiding odium and exciting or renewing toe jealousy of the
people against hereelf, and her religion ; and, secondly, the
objection she must have felt to participating in the ceremony
froni religious motives, she might well be supposed to have de-
clined insisting on her right, and their Lar:c,hips were bound
under these circumstances .to infer that objection moved

From the Queen herself. This was the opinion or antiquaries
or'. the subject, and there was .another and a third reason a-isin
frora• a considSration of clates; tertdui greatly to corro-
borate it: 'lt was barely 1?osa;111 Ning might have

,
been compelled to yield to popular clamour, anti, that such re-
presentations were made to him through his councillors, as in-
duced him to forego his determination, and the Queen to waive
her right; but if theirLordsTains considered the dates, thiswould
appear to be highly improbable. , The second Proclamation was
made on the 24th January, only nine days before the Coronation,
and he would put it to 'their Lordships, • whether it was likely
`that any representation was' made to the King in that short in-
terval rich could induce him *forego a solemnity which he
akad solos. y annomicedNen the 'l7th and 24th of theaamontlia
Parliaineil‘ was not sitthagarait did not assemble till after the
Coronation ; papilla eirianes tatarelPhot li Iy BO NA been
called in those days, nor indeed was there sufficient time for
holding therm Public opinion could hardly be better known
on the 25th or 2tith, or on whatever day the alteration was de-
cided upon, than it was 02 the 24th ; there 'was no likelihood,
therefore, in, the supposition that the Queen waived her
right through compulsion, acting upon the King. Their
Lordships were bound, therefore, to conclude, that she lis-
tened herself partly to what she knew to be the public feel-
ing, and partly to the religious scruples which she entertain-
ed •against participating in the ceremony=; and that for these
reasons the omission in her case formed no interruption of the
right of Queens Consort, and no exception to the rule which he
had laid down. The next case to which he begged to call
their Lordships' attention, was that of the Queen Consort of
Charles 11. which was no exception to the rule. . First, because
the same observation applied to this as to the last case, on the
ground of her being a Papist ; and secondly, because the King
was unmarried at the time of his Coronation. This case was
capable of precisely the same explanation as he had given in the
last; and the more so, as the divisions between the Catholic and
,Protestant faith were increased, as they were fast approaching
to the period of the Exclusion Bill ; and as the example of the
great rebellion, and the sufferings which Henrietta Maria had
brought upon herself and her family, in consequenceof her faith,
were not forgotten. The people were never more alive to the '
recollection, that the Princess on -the Throne was a Catholic. In
the twelfth of Charles 11. there was a -debate in the House of
Commons, upon a formal motion, desiring the King to marry a
Protestant; which motion was made at the very time when it
was well known that the King designed to marry a Portuguese
Princess, and when there was consequently abundant reason to
suspect the sincerity of the King's profession of the Protestant
faith. It was said that Queen Catherine, when she came over
to this country, took an objection which was extremely likely
to operate with regard to the Coronation, and which tended to
confirm the view which he had taken of the objection to the
Coronation in the last reign having moved from the Queen her-
self. Queen Catherine refused to be married by a Protestant
Bishop or a Protestant Priest. Henrietta Maria was said to have .
objected to be crowned, unless assisted by a Popish Priest; but
Catherine objected even to be married by a Protestant Priest.—
He knew not how this was to be got over; nor did he know
indeed of any evidence to shew that she was ever married by a
Protestant. if she could object to her marriage by a Protestant,
, still. stronger must have been her objection to the solemnity of
the Coronation, which must be performed by a Protestant Me-
tropolitan, according to the Protestant ritual. Now James the
Second being married at the time of his accession, he and his
Queen were crowned together. It was said, he knew not upon
what authority, that the ceremony of the Sacrament was omit-
ted on that occasion. Flow this was got over he knew not; but
whether it were omitted or not, there was this remarkable dif-
ference between their case, and that of Henrietta Maria and
Queen Catherine, that both the parties were of the same faith.
They were not therefore exposed to that dilemma in which
Henrietta Maria and Catherine must have found themselves
placed, if they had participated. in the ceremony. James 11.
made no secret of his faith ; he went openly to mass, and Parlia-
ment had even entertained a Bill for his exclusion before his ac-
cession. Both the King and his Consort, therefore, professing the
same faith, they would take the same words in the same sense,
and they would not have the same contradictions and in-
consistencies to encounter as in the case of a Protestant
King and a Catholic Queen. - He was glad to have finished
this part of his historical deductions, and to have arrived
at the period of the Revolution, after which, as their
Lordships were aware, all Queens Consort had been regu-
kirly crowned as a matter of course. The Queen of George the
"First, if she could be so called, formed no exception, for she
never came to this country, she was never in any manner recog-
nised or mentioned as Queen, and she was said; indeed, to
have been divorced from the King by the sentence of a
foreign Ecclesiastical Court before his accession, so that her Co-
ronation was utterly impossible. It was legally impossible in
consequence of the divorce, and physically impossible because
she Dever came to this country, so that her case formed no ex-
ception to the principle for which he was contending. It might
be said that some proceedings had lately taken place with re-
gard to her Maje.sty which might affect her claims, but as he was
now upon the mere question of law, he wished to establish her
claims upon the legal positions which he had taken, independ-
ently of any appeal to the facts of her Majesty's case. If au-
thority were of any weight with reference to this view of the case,
he might appeal to that of a Noble and Learned Judge in the case
of the King v. Wolfe, which had lately been argued in the
House of Lorda, some objection having been taken in the course
of the argument to a person who had been found guilty but was
never sentenced. The Learned Judge in that case made use
of the following expressions If a man were found guilty of
ever so gross a charge, and the proceeding failed at any subse-
quent period, he was entitled to be considered as innocent as
any person against whom no charge had been made." This
was undoubtedly the law of England, and he was almost
ashamed of reminding their Lordships that the law knew no
distinction between the absence of complete legal conviction,
and complete innocence. He had now arrived at that part of
the argument in which it became necessary for him to request
their Lordships' permission to withdraw for the purpose of con-
sulting the Liber Regalia.
The Court having granted permission, Mr.
Brougham, Mr. Denman, and Dr. Lushington,
withdrew at about one o'clock.

At half past one o'clock Mr. Brougham re-
turned, and stated that he should be obliged to
ask for leave to withdraw for at least another
hour.

.
Lords ECDON, LiVERPOO t, and SIDAIOUTII
spoke of the uncertainty in which this left the
Court. They also wished to know, whether
further Counsel were to be heard for ber Ma-
jesty, because, otherwise, the Council could ad-
journ four o'clock.

Mr. BROUGHAM replied, that it was essential
to him to consult the Liner Reg'alis fully before
he could proceed with his argument ; but he cal-
culated that he should be able to conclude his
argument at the next hearing, whenever that was
granted. It w;s only desired that her Majesty's
Solicitor-General should be heard in further
support of the Queen's Memorial.

Lord ELDON—If the Council adjourn till to-
morrow, would your arguments be finished in
the course of the day ?
Mr. 13ROCGHAM—I certainly think so.
The Lo.nn CHANCELLOR, after consulting with
the Council for a short time, said, that as there
was business in another place (the House of
Lords), it was deemed most advisable to adjourn
till to-morrow morning at ten o'clock; and if the
arguments of the Queen's Counsel were not con-
cluded by four o'clock, then their Lordships
would adjourn till six o'clock, and resume their
labours in the evening.
The Council adjourned accordingly at a quar-
ter before two o'clock, till ten to-morrow
morning.

' Report says, that through the great interest made
in favour of some Lieutenants, especially those
that are at present re-employed on board the
Rochford, having served eighteen months under
Sir TUOILIAS F'REEMANTLE, and in consequence of
his death were re-appointed under Sir GRAIIAIVI
MoORE, they may look forward to promotion.
On Monday last, at the fair of Ardagh, in this
county'-, a dreadful riot occurred between two
factions. The Police having been called to pre-
serve the peace, a furious attack was made on
tilein by the parties opposed to each other. Tier-
jeant NOEL, of the Police, had. his skull fractur-
ed, and his horse was killed.—This day eight
men, charged with being concerned in the out-
rage, were lodged in gaol.—( Limerick Chronkle,
Juv .)'