The Sun.
London, England, 1821-02-21 00:00:00

THE QUEEN.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL, on moving the second
reading of the Queen's Annuity Bill, observed,
that he did pot- think it necessary to enter into
any detail respecting it, and he should merely
therefore state, that the Annuity of 50,0001. per
annum granted. by the Bill to the Queen was
fixed upon, because by the original treaty of
marriage, when her Majesty first came to this
country, it was stipulated that the late King
should grant her 50,0001. per annum, in case of
her surviving his Majesty, then Prince of Wales.
Though, therefore, under the circumstances, her
Majesty -tot a strictly legal claim to ,V4OOO/.
per annum in case of the decease of his -Majesiy,
yet he admitted that it was undoubtedly an
equitable claim, and it was upon that ground
that it was determined to fix at once the amount
of her Majesty's income at the sum specified in
the

The Earl of DARNLEY did not mean to oppose
the Bill,respeCtink which he for once agreed with
the Noble Earl who had moved its second read-
ing ;• nor was this the proper time to enter at
length into the question relative to the re-inser-
tion of her Majesty's name in the Liturgy. He.
must say, however, that he did not agree with the
-House-of Commons in their vote that his Majesty's
Ministers did not deserve censure for striking
out the name of the Queen from the Liturgy.
And though, from various circumstances, he did
not think itTexpedient to press at the present mo-
ment any motion for addressing the King, to pray
his. Majesty to give orders for the re-insertion of
the Queen's name in the Liturgy, still he wished
not to be considered as having finally given up
the point, as he was desirous of reserving to him-
self the privilege of bringing forward the question
at a future period, if he should deem it advisa-
ble. He was satisfied in his own mind that on
the grounds,of legality, justice, and expediency,
the name of the Queen ought to he re-inserted in
the Liturgy. With regard to the question of
legality, it was well known that many high legal
authorities were of opinion that it was illegal to
omit her Majesty's name : and though undoubted-
ly there was a difference of opinion upon the
subject, still he believed the majority of legal
authorities s of any weight were of opinion that
the omission of her Majesty's name was decided-
ly illegal, in which opinion lie certainly concurred.
On the ground of justice, he thought there could
be no doubt that as it was most unjust to condemn
her Majesty. before trial, by striking her name
out of the Liturgy,' it was decidedly most unjust
after the prosecution against her Majesty had
been abandosied by the prosecutors themselves,
to continue that, condemnation of her conduct.
The Noble Lords on the other side having aban-
cloned the Bill of Pains and PeUalties, because
they had not sufficient evidence to support its al-
legations, the Queen became entitled to be re-
stored to all her rights, amongst which was,
he contended, the re-insertion of her name in the
Liturgy. As to the question of expediency, it was
too large a field' and embraced too many points
for him to go over at that moment, but he had
no hesitation in stating, that every consideration
of expediency_had called upon his Majesty's Mi-
nisters to replace the name of the Queen in the
Liturgy. Surely it could not be considered as
tending to allay the popular irritation upon this
subject, that every Sunday, when assembled to
worship their Creator, and when every question
of party and politics ought, for the time, to be.
forgotten, that this omission of the Queen's name
in the Liturgy should bring to the minds of every
congregation of the. Church all the persecution
that the Queen had 'endured, and-all the painful
investigation that had taken place in that House.
Was not a perseverance in this conduct but too•
likely to keep up and increase the irritation of the
public ? It had already indeed, if he was well-
informed, produced consequences greatly to be
deplored, he meant a considerable secession from
the Church of England, and he put it to the Re-
verend Lords on the other side, whether it-was
fitting to per Severe in excluding the Queen front
the prayers of the people at the .risk-of produc-
ing such lamentable consequences ? - He was of
opinion, that upon all the grounds he had urged,
the name of the Queen ought, without delay,
to be restored to .the Liturgy, and that to conti-
nue the exclusion would be degrading to- the
Crown, and injurious to the . best interests of the
Country, in keeping up that irritation which ought
by every means to be allayed.
The LORD CnitszcuoLon said, it was not his
intention to enter int) any consideration of the
present Bill, or to enter at all into the question
of eipedieney, but of the question of legality be
had no doubt whatever. Had he any, doubt as
to the legality of not inserting the name of her •
Majesty in the Liturgy, .he would be the first to
move an Address to the King, to pray his Ma-
jesty to restore the name of the Queen to the
Liturgy. It • was a question, however, upon
whiCh he, had obtained every information that
could be acquired, and to which he had applied
the deepest research, and the result was, that he
had no doubt whatever of the legality of omitting
her Majesty's name in the' Liturgy ; an opinion
which, in his mind, the construction of the Acts
of .Parliatnent, and the consideration of what had
been been under the authority of those Acts,
during time whole period sieoe their passing, corn-
pletely confirmed. He repeated, without at., al!
entering into the quegion of expedien4, that

were he' riot completely satiitied as to the lega-
lity of Omitting her Majesty's name in The Litur-
gy (her Majesty being still prayed for as a part
of the Royal Family) he would be the iirgt to
move an AddiesS to the. King4.praying his Ma-.
jesty to restor' her Majesty's name.
The Archbishop of CANTERIULTRY felt, himself'
called upon, in Consequence Of what had been.
said by the Noble Lord (Darnley)of a consider-
able secession froth the Church of England, to
say a few words. If:thcre was any stiCh seces=.
sion, he (the Archbishop) was entirely ignorant
of it ; he knew not what inforinition the Noble
Loid had received upon such a subject, but cer-
tainly, he had received none. As to the qucs-:
(ion respecting praying for the Queen, ' the,fact
was, that her Majesty was praYed for as a Mem.;
ber of the Royal Family in the Litarq, and in a
Collect devoted to that purpose ; her Majesty's
claim, therefore, was not to prayer, but to distinc-:
(ion in-prap,x,,-flite distinction of-lla.vi.ng hser...,wte
expressly mentioned ; a claim which, of course,
let in the consideration as to how far the colt=
duct. of her. Majesty was deserving of that dis 7
tinction. GOd forbid
.that her Majesty should
not be prayed for; every individual, however
mean his .rank,. or low in character, being prayed
for in the service of the Church of England. But
her Majesty's claim to distinction in prayer-Wasi
he maintained, founded upon no ground of Jega=
lity. her Majesty, as he had stated, was already.
prayed for in the service of the Church, nor vias
any individual, however mean in rank or low
in character, , deprived of the prayers of ,the
Church,.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH •objected: to the large'
amount of the Grant to the Queen, but it was net
his intention to oppose the Bill. He could not,
however, agree with the House of Commons in
the propriety of giving so large an allowance td
the Queen—an allowance which he feared, from
the previous•conduct of the Queen, would not be
expended in a way that would •• tend to support
the honour of the Crown, or to sustain that dig-
nity of station which appertained to the Queen.
There was too much reason to apprehend, wite
ther her Majesty' remained in this country or
went abroad, that the money would be expended
in 'a
way that would tend still further to dis-
parage her high station and Character: Ile re-
gretted that the House of Commons should have
been induced, upon this occasion, to depart from
that principle of economy which, in the present
distressed state_of the country, should be strictly
maintained. Every saving that could be made
had been at different times called for, sttch as the
abolition of 'the of of the Third Secretary of
State, of Two Lords of the Admiralty, and of
one of the Paymasters ; and yet, in this Bill re-
lating to the Queen,, the addition made. to the al-
lowance to the Queen, above what her Majesty
had previously enjoyed, would amount to as much
as could have been saved by the abolition of all
the offices he had mentioned. On alortner occa-
sion, the House of Commons had net hesitated to
refuse a proposed provision for one of the branches
of the Royal Family, on the ground, not of evi-
dence upon oath, but upon unauthenticated ru-
mours, and there was no doubt that in that re-
fusal the people went along with them, and ap-
plauded the act. He was induced to believe, that
however public opinion might for the moment
operate, the people would very speedily recover
their good judgment and their good sense, and
that then the _House of Commons would be gene-
rally condemned for having consented, lit tire
present distressed state of the country, to so large
a grant to the Queen. The people were now
fast returning to their, good sense and•Stldgment,
and he thought the best way to prevent any con-
tinuation of that irritation which had of late so
unhappily prevailed, was to continue the exclu-
sion of the Queen's name from the Liturgy, as
the insertion of it could only tend to revive and
keep in mind all those disgraceful scenes of which
they had unfortunately had too much evidence.
It was high time„ in
_the present distressed state
of the country, that all the attention of Parlia-
ment should be 'turned to the consideration of
every remedy that could . be found for that "dis-
tress ; and he rejoiced still. more in the .vote he
gave against the Bill of Pains and Penalties, from
the consideration, that had not that Bill been.
withdrawn, the House of Commons would not*
have been occupied with all the disgusting de-
tails.to which the investigation .of it must have
giVen rise, and a continual irritation would have
been kept' up in the public mind ; the attention
of Parliament would have thus been completely
occupied .to the exclusion of every question, the-
consideration of•which could really tend to, the
benefit of the country.—The best course he could
now recommend was an oblivion of. all that had
passed, and he trusted the Queen would feel the
propriety of no ronger erdeavouring to raqlte her-
self a, Prominent object of attention, but of pur-
suing that line•of conduct which pudenee dic-
tated. He re,yetted much, that the Queen should
hay.e,been so ill advised as to send ,a Message to
.the other House, declining to accept any -allow-
ance from Parliament till her Majesty's..neme
should be restored to the Liturgy, as this was
therety anbther attempt to keep alive "the fast
decreasing irritation of the public mind.
trusted, however, that her Majesty would 'speed i -
ly be convinced, that it was infinitely better for
her to receive an allowance granted by the libe-
rality of Parliament, than to 'become the pen-
"sioner of a party. `Pie .feason why, he. did not
• t •
move to reduce the allonce grahted ay' this
Bill to her Majesty wasothat it ;was not the .cus-
Wm for that House to interfere with treats of
money which the Comatons. considered their et
clusi-ve Privilege,•and therefore he did net ish to

move an amendment, which it would be undesira-
ble to have carried.
The Earl of LisicarcK agreed with the Noble
- Lord,that the grant was too large, and with much
of what had been said by the Noble Lord respect
•ing the conduct of the Queen ; nor should he,
perhaps, have risen, had it not been for an illu-
sion made by the Noble Lord very unnecessarily,
as it seemed to him, to what took place some
time since in the house of Commons with rela-
tion to a proposed allowance to a branch of the
Royal Family.- He could not 'at'all agree with
the Noble Lord in his opi4io6 upon that subject ;
so far IPorn there having been any.evidence what-
ever, to justify the vote. alluded, to, there was
nothing,alleged but Mere
.ruMours, which were
-wholly
.Ainfounded-Land so far from that vote,
which. was only carried- by a majority of one,
meeting with the general approbation of the public,
he did not believe that there was any opinion of that
destcripticin. lie should feel himself guiltyof
great baseness, if lie not stood up in defence of
• the Illustrinus Individual, Who, at one- time talc. 7
ing an active part in' that llotise,. had, he firmly
believed; acted to the best of his jodgment, and
had used,all his exertions to bring in those in-
dividuals as Ministers whose measures he (Lord
Litrierick) believed to be the best calculated to
promote the interests of the country.
The' Earl of BLESINTON begged leave to differ
llith the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack, and the Most Reverend Metropolitan, as
to the legality of excluding her Majesty's name
from the Liturgy ; and, though he only gave an
illegal opinion—he meant an opinion not founded
upon legal knhwledge—still he must give it as
his decided opinion, that the Queen .was entitled'
to have her name inserted in the Liturgy. As to
what had been said by the Noble Earl (Limerick)
on the Cross Bench, respecting a former case of
an Illustrious Individual in the House of Com-
mons, he did not see that their Lordships had any
thing to do with it, as it applied solely and en-
tirely to the House of Commons. With regard
to the Queen, he must repeat his opinion, that
her Majesty -was entitled to have her name re-
stored to the Liturgy ; and this he considered to
be the best means of allaying all the irritation
• that existed. amongst the people.
Lord CALTHORPE was precluded from oppos-
ing the grant by the recollection that before quit-
• ting England, her Majesty had refused the sum
now proposed. He thought that it would be un-
fair to take advantage of her liberality.
The Marquess of LANSOOWN said he was one
of those who thought that, under the present cif-
curnstances, it would not be advantageous either
. to the cause Of her Majesty or to the country.
..to disetiss the general question on the second
'reading of this Bill. He could not, however,
refrain from saying, that although he certainly
did- not approve of every part of her Majesty's
• conduct since her arrival in this country ; al-
though he did not approve of the Letter which
. her Majesty. had been advised to write to the
King, or of parts of 'several of, her Majesty's An-.
swers to Addresses (although he had no means
-of judging- of the- accuracy with which those
Answers had been reported), he yet thought that,
placed in the anomalous situation in which her
Majesty had been placed—placed in a situation
of utter abandonment, in which no Queen of
England had ever before found herself, he should
consider it the height of cruelty to render her
Majesty strictly responsible for all the proceed-
ings which had taken place in her name.---(Hear,
hear, hear!)—With respect to the allowance
granted by- the present Bill to her Majesty, he
had no hesitationfin saying, that he did not feel
that any circumstances which arose out of the
omission of her Majesty's name- in the Liturgy,
should induce her Majesty to decline receiving
the money voted to her by Parliament ; and he
trusted that she would yet consent to accept it.
The Bill was then read a second time, and
ordered to be committed to-morrow.—Adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEn. 20.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS

Sir W. LEMON presented a petition from Truro
and other parts otCumberland, complaining of
the great extent of • Agricultural DistreSs.—Sir
W. a-uISE presented. a similar petition from
Gloucestershire.—Mr. LAWLEY presented eight
petitions of a similar nature from.the holders of
Land in Warwickshire.—Lord E. SOM ERSET pre-
sented a similar petition from Agriculturists in
the-neighbourhood of e helt.:nham, and a similar
petition from North Leach, in Gloucestershire.
Mr. S. WOIITLEY presented a
.similar petition
from Doncaster.—Mr. MUNDY-presented a simi-
ler petition from Occupiers,of Land in Derby-
shire.

Sir Is t.tc COFFIN said that farmers were very
loud in their cutnplaints, but one cause of dis-
tress was, that farmers turned Gentlemen, and
indulged in expence ; the best thing to be done
vias, for the country-to return to its original. ha-
bit 4, and for Gentlemen Farmers to resu:ne their

frocks.
Mr. C. SMITH assured the Honourable Men-i-
-tPr who had just sat down, that he need not be
under any •a.pprehens!ons respecting the habits of
brniers ; -their great and incteasing-distress had
most of them to resume the frock, and to
deny themselves comforts to which they had been
accustomed.

The several petitions were read, and ordered
to be printed.

IRISH COURTS OF LAW.

Mr. C. GRANT brought in a Bill to regulate
the Civil Proceedings in. Courts of Justice in L•e-
land.—Ordered to be read a second time the 2d
of March. -