The Sun.
London, England, 1821-07-09 00:00:00

SIIIP NEWS'.

1 4C1,..
f(4). 1:,..1. 91i OITT II .Tur.v B.—lrind N. E.— arrived yestber-
v-oh, '‘,.•.reliti trans'port from St.. Kitts,' 0n.t..„1-1 days ; and Ru i-
Nt•„ 2°,lberry, from Havannali, out a/ days; the latter is
Arri-. 4 enarantin-, Ciqiit Wien having died on the p...ssa, .
kti(fA.,",(l t ..aa, fl'a 7-',lale'gty's ship Doris from the eastward ;
..A,,.• '''-i4ii-,/.1.e.-.5‘'2", from Dantzze. Passed up Channel-the
li-'4',."IY• -Ileazle-- -fidrn Antigua; Pass;sl .by the Princess
ill% 1-i `t? of ‘-‘11.:42's Ileden, for Bengal... Remain at Spithead
1t,„,-,:rties.-:'ft grlip'..-`..t.01, .Yctive, Aurora, Nijmen, Tyne,
pil', Iltiron, -Hound arid Doris.
'''c't° tr l'li, JULY 7.—Wind N.—Arrived his. IN...T.aje:ltoym's
l!•'lofiarlectuin from a cruize Harriet, Cununing?,r
ofi
Piym's ; 4141' Bret' rs.- . Fvrni, front, Dundalk. Arrived I:to-,011th the pam! owe.r.;, from Oporto ; and Ann, Sughnie
l'i.,%ti'l jarui,"`jan, in‘-‘ 60 days ' both fur London. Sailed the
; .rd's ''''llt for Teneriire.' . - .
AblAni._,°(.l.l.ll,' .; ei y 6.---Wind N. N. W.—Arrived the
n't -1-`ti., 5
fond'7;,.; -n, from ' Drain. S-filed the. Du re
the
Ap.:l,itePri..4:_cilv.t .-kili&O.n; and
.Lord Sitimorith, ditto, far
li a cn,with Mali,.
pith,llWlClii jII Ly 7.—Arrived the Henry .. packet,
Freelin',,
tii,,rll- from Holland. Sailed the Prince of Oran,,e. packet
'll.;ie °,s'a-front
; Lord Nelsen, ditto, for- Cuxhaven ; and Jane,
.1.14 :f.er nettenburgh eel with a Mail.
ktil,,,\''t, JULY 9.---%Vind N. E.—Arrived yesterday
_and.
11'1h,•.4.,',11-Cir., toe River tie Robert Edwards, Sherburne, from
,s,'ll,lla • Jale Whitney, from. Genoa; George
(IV.,
'' ' ''', •f- ' ..) '. ' Harriet, Taylor, from Aloga ore.
1•""e .e
' -•'°;" 'a'as ; and
giika„e7tl f-zoln Cie River and sailed the
b s..pina - „s-).-ctater, Harrison ; and oiAmelia,- Storey, for
lltte et:.. I- - 7
44;
.11'''.4'"e d3wr*
freni
- ' T -rtheri for St.
the River to-day and sailed the
011te . -•toggart, for Calcutta ; Alaria,- re.g. ~ 1
ile 1;' and 6ussex, for Sierra Leone. Arrivedr,_ ....ndremain
1.'41 rPnied.ary, S. 'S. froth Port Jackson ;Al lir , Gumho,
talk
; and Maria, LoWe, from palermoi.am'Saile
.411 r; 4'.„4,,'11-ilKi'und for the River. The -Borneo, Ross, for the
...,'"u --ii.,,taiTi,..,., is preparing to sail.
,d (•_,, • • - _—....-
, s'art..-7, -,...1 - -, ed its proceedings at Portsmouth
1.
..uwa ..i. aia.. commenced .
tzkla.„,..y,'oarthe alleged charges against Captain. Re-
nt -i . - '-acut•,-,rt-Fletcher, of the Tees., of oppression to the
..,, l 4, ....• •
N 4ftil ',out f,:,r`,-,y witnesses were examined on that and the
t:tl-1'40710g days, when the prosecution closed. Friday and
1,14*0 •-•,•le Court rnzt, pro forma, and adjourned to this day,
li'llat. ' to pr.paro his detence.
1':,,,"43.4..?4-.l_%sTY'Al'is"-petrilsnoen.l..... yacht, the Royal George, will be
4:,,,ikit"trry respect for his I.II.AJEsTiL
14.7tfti,' - ortsmouth harbour on Thurs..ay
's reception, and will
-' next. The Royal
,s,,'"N 'et and Prince Regent yachts, commanded by Sir Ed-
cF`thki. (2,- Owen and Sit M. Seyniour, are daily expected at
4;?litio(ll6frorn Deptford, to, join the Royal squadron under
3,4 el te the Hon. Sir Charies Paget. The three yachts
"41'..r: 4„'atoslisave a Lielitenant app_ointed. Lieutenant IL Min-
It' .I),,4tn.essrs. Griffiths and Boyle, Queen_ Charlotte,. and
1-)Y3-11,i QII) dilbion (Midshipmen), are appointed to the
14b4tii:!)rge.
the at ';1210111iPg the John trap ort, Lieut. Church, agent,
•.I,l.ihllth•ot,o4r.itsinouth from St. Kitts,
.which island she left on
there the' Salisbury (Admiral Fahie),
Aotit,i,i,e' ~e, leaving Esk sl . of war had gone to
Nlli c,s‘a.to b 'Palmou ; the' , oop
valtis ~... eh
i, "::te _ hove down, and the Sapphire was cyraising. The
and navy in-
Iti,4 t., came hove• y
.healthy.
o.,,,krit 1.0 oble in the johnl.4i llitiirrn.A.deane, Master, Salisbury,
f ~stis. ba..r es, 11..31 came pass.eugers.
ellee 1 ' 'e beenissued to stop the
..
proceeding of the De-
bo , ritn2 •..1
4... K Wlleli' and another transport, with the 6th
.regiment,On
411 ori 'V embarked at Hull for St. lielena—they wa, to
• ()0 "orsday.
ArliVed nay the Aurora, 46, Captain Henry Prescott, C. B.
24nesr. at Portsmouth from Woolwich, fitted for the South
crti ti,all...tation; and the DiSpatch 18, Captain Jervoise,
gittrr--e "owns : she proceeded. on 'Wednesday for the Mc-
b Thf-tie.kari•
, rill,- A-ho
1, Bu, Captain Henry Bourchicr, went out of
bth",lP°"th Harbour on Tuesday - and remains at Spithead,
tloili'l.e zi..etive, Aurora, Niemen, Tyne, Rosario, Heron, and
Sr rida •
~,,-,. afternoon the Dromedary store-ship, Mr. RICHARD
'4elll',l, Commander, anchored at Spithcad, from New
Vika.,"' /.1(1 New South Wales,. fir a few hours. She landed
teport"knolis.§ioner Bigg, who is
_charged with an important
tkv, to.. Government of the present state of the colony, and
pro 1..4.1 other passer ens. At ten o'clock on Friday night she
11.1.,eetleel for the river,. to land her c.argo of masts and spars
till l'll, shipped at New Zealand. She left New South Wales
ik4.tO,e 14th of b'ebruary.Two convicts escaped from their
kildll'onee t at New South Wzdcs, 'on board- - the Dromedary,
too ','72re -not discovered to be in her till she had been mote than
4.48 `,t 0._1,13 ;at tea : they are now in custody. The Dromcdary
..03.1.?r,0.1ght nomea large and va1w.,112 collection nf plants and •
.1, :it ocalaly preserration.—On the 13th May, in let. 2. 10.
if.
.:Zrilg,, 2.2. 13. W. the Drcmedary spoke the Themes whaler,
h, -,.5. trorn London ; •on the I,sth Al ay, lat, 5. 26.. kng. 22. 53.
,-,,-Pf.,l!t.)tlea, froom Philidelphia fni Canton ; 2fith l'ilay, lat.
11 .02, lonz. 40. 5. the Bristol, from rfengid and Sr. Helem :
rwnse,tis jat. ;it.. 41. long. 33. 52. Visconte Monte Alegre Rio
1,,,j , ...Or Ly•bon ; 2-ith .Tune„ lat. 48. 9.. long. 16. . tit(
•,,,ttift,:-t.7., 5r.9.41 Llyerpool for Quebec. The Dromedary sailed
tmrsaay Moining for PerfSMO;ith• -- -

Lord HARROWBY.-Mr. Attorney. General,
have you any observations to offer on what Coun-
sel have stated to their Lordships ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose or the
purpose of offering such observations as had oc-
curred to him in consequence of what had fallen
from the Queen's Counsel, in support of her Ma-
jesty's Claim to .be Crowned. He, perhaps,
should best discharge his cility by stating that the
claim, as one of right, which , had been so stre-
nuously asserted, and attempted to be proved by
the Queen's Attorney-General, that her Majesty,
as queen, Consort, had a legal right to enjoy the
ceremony of the Coronation, was not a legal
right, but one altogether derivative and permis-
sive. The claim, he was prepared to contend,
was altogether unfounded. He could- find no
traces of it extant, as a legal right, in any of
the recognized authorities, where it doubtless
would be found if it had the legal foundation
ascribed to it. He 'could not find it mentioned
in the works of the legal or constitutional writers
.who had set forth or touched upon the privileges
of the Queen Consort. The grounds (or rather
the single ground) upon which her Majesty's
claim has been put, was that of usage ; and it
was said .by the Queen's Attorney General, that
long-continued usage established both legal and
constitutional right. But if he proved that here
the usage was not original, but derivative, then
there was an end at once to the claim set up on
the ground of wage. His Learned Friends had.
by way of illustration of their argument, in-.
stanced the case of a right of way, and followed
it up by asking, whether, if at common law, a
right of way had been proved to have been used
by any person throughout a long tract of time,
that right would not be deemed to be legally es-
tablished ?_ If the right of way were,an.original
right, inherent in, or uniformly exercised by the
party using it, then he admitted the force of the
Illustration ; but if, on the contrary, it were a
right of way permitted to the party by the Lord
Of the Manor, or any other primitive owner, then
the long usage availed. nothing to the party
exercising it, the permissive .right being clearly
resumable by the original owner. If the li-
CenCe nod permissinn

an end of the right. By that proof, all the
inferences drawn from the use were at an end
—they were at mice destroyed. How important
then was it to consider the circumstances.accom-
panying the alleged right ; how essential to
learn in what manner the right, if right. mere usage
could be called, had .been exercised. They
must inquire how it had originated—howit had
been exercised; and for what purposes; he
would shew the crowning ola Queen Consort to
be an honour and a ceremony that proceeded
from, and depended on, the King's will. As to
the supposed uninterrupted enjoyment of the
ceremony, (even if there had been no interrup-
tion from the Norman Conquest), he should here-
after advert to the argument founded on it. In
reply to the main ground of his opponents, he
should have to speak of the nature of a Corona-
tion. Having considered the nature of the cere-
mony as applying to Kings and Queens,' where
the Sovereign at the time of the Coronation was
married, he should then examine, perhaps at some
length, the. supposed- usage, and the cases ad-
duced to maintain the alledged right founded on
usage. Witli respect to the probable origin and
nature of the Coronation of a Monarch, it origi-
nated perhaps in the fact of the Monarchs of this
country, as well as that of others, having been
elected. Though the mode of succession to the
Throne was subsequently altered, then, as now,
the Coronation was for the purpose of the Mo-
narch's recognition by the people, and on the
part of the King to enter into the solemn com-
pact to preserve the laws. The- Coronation of a
Queen was a mere ceremony ; but that of the
King was accompanied by important political
acts—the recognition by the people, and on the
other hand, the •solemn compact entered into by
the Sovereign to preserve and maintain the laws
of the realm. Still, however, as far even as the
King was concerned, it was but a ceremony; it
was not necessary to the Sovereign's possession
of the Crown—it was that which proceeded
from his will, and might be dispensed with.' But
the. Queen Consort, who filled no political cha-
racter in the State, had only enjoyed tile privi-
lege because she was the King's Consort. With
respect to a Queen Consort, when she was
crowned, there was no recognition of her by the
people, no compact towards the people. There
was no engagement between her and the subjects
of the realm. That fact was established, that with.
respect to a Queen Consort, a Coronation was a
Mere ceremony. It was an honorary ceremony,
unaccompanied by any acts; and be it alWays
remembered, that the Coronation of a King, ac-
companied as it was by. political acts, the recog-
nition, the compact, &c. was a ceremony which
the Sovereign was not obliged to perform. It
proceeded froth the -Monarch's will ; it was not
essential- to his legq! possession and enjoyment of
the CrOwn. This was clearly laid down in their
law books. Lord Coke, for instance, in Calvin's
case, stated, that by Queen Elizabeth's death, the
Crown dezzeOded to James ; that by snail-death,
he thereb3i—becat;;;e, and was absolutely King,

without the ceremony of a Coronation; that a
Coronation was. but a Royal ornament, and
an outward solemnizationit formed no part of
the Ring's title. to the Crown. Such were the
principles held by Lord Coke ; and that the
Coronation neither was nor had been considered
to be essential to ,the possession of the Crown,
was proved by the fact of Considerable delays
having taken place between the accession of the
Monarch and his Coronation. Henry the Sixth,
for instance, was not crowned till the Sth.year of,
his reign, yet several persons were attained for'
high .treason before his coronation took place.—
Again, in the " Pleas of the. Crown," it was held
that the King was fully invested with the Crown
the moment it descended to him ; that he was
absolutely King, although there should have
been no Coronation ; and that the Coronation
was only a magnificent ceremonye which settled,
what the law had previously arranged and made
absolute. Though the Coronation was but a cc,
retnony, yet it.was.so important a ceremony, that
no King could be advised to dispense with it, on,
account of the important political acts with
which it was connected. If the Coronation of a
King, important as he held it to be, proceeded
from the sovereign will, a fortiori, it must be so
with that of a Queen Consort. In her instance it
was a mere ceremony, and must depend on the
will and favour of the Sovereign. The rights of
the Queen Consort. did not-proceed from any.
Coronation ; they.flowed from her relationship to
the Sovereign. _Nor was it essential to the peo-
ple, for the Queen Consort occupied no political
statiom This view of the right was strengthened
by the important preamble of William and Mary,
which settled the Coronation Oaths . which set
forth, that " 'Whereas by the law and ancient
usage of this Realme, the' Kings and Queens
thereof have taken a solemn oath upon the Evan-
gelists, at their respective Coronations, to main-
tain the Statutes, Laws, and Customs of the said
Realme, and all the people and inhabitants
thereof it their Spiritual and Civil Rights and
properties. . But forasmuch as the oath itselfe on
such occasion administered hath heretofore beetle
framed- in doubtful words and expressions with
relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at
this time unknowne. To the end therefore-that
one uniform, oath may be in all times to conic
taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme,
and to them respectively administered at the
times of their and every. of their Coronation—
May it please your Majesties, &c." The Act
then went on. to state what the oath should be.
The language of the Act applied to Queens
Regnant, not to Queens Consort, for to the latter
no oath was administered. The Act referred to
szes MfItIZ r (Sr
nation performed by ttie reigning `Monara,
whether a King or Queen were on the throne.'
—lndeed the whole of the ceremony of the
Queen's Coronation was an adjunct to the
King's, and not a distinct solemnity recog-
nizing any right to enjoy it on the part of
the Queen Consort. It was in vain to plead
that there were tenures and rights held by per-
sons which were dependent upon the Coronation
of the Queen Consort ; so -there were upon the
King's. But nobody would assert that if there
were no coronation those rights would be forfeited;
they were only to be performed if the coronation
took•place ; if it did-not, and the King refrained
from the coronation, then of course there could
be no forfeiture of the rights or tenures ; so the
argument founded upon- them went for nothing.
The longest passage respecting the• ceremony of
a Coronation was to be found in Selden : it was
the most elaborate detail of all the matters con-
nected with the ceremony. Mr. Selden referred,
in his chapter of " Honours," to the time of the
Roman Emperors; and his tirgument, so far as it
bore upon the question of a Queen Consort, was
entirely with his (the Attorney-General's) view
of the, present case. He particularly alluded to
the remarks upon the title of Augusta being-
conferred upon the wives of the Roman Empe- I
rors, but clearly and uniformly showing. that I
that, as well as all other honours assigned the I
Empresses, were conferred by the will and plea- I
sure of their imperial husbands. The same
author referred to the ordering of the ceremony
in the pontifical writings, from which it appeared
that in all that related to the Queen the demands
of the King were the sole ground for perform-
ing it. If their Lordships would consult them, or
any other of the ancient authorities and manu-
scripts contained in the Museum or elsewhere,
they _would find that in no instance were there
any reasons given for the coronation of a Queen,
or" for any forms connected with it beyond the
pleasure and demands of the King her husband.
Amongst other things, Selden, speaking of the
ceremonial of asCoronation, expressly said, that
the "anointing, &c. of the Queen Consort. were
dignities communicated by the King." Sodden
further stated, that the anointing of the Queen,
as well as her consecration—it was in fact a con-
secration rather- than a Coronation—proceeded
‘` demand" of the King,
ftom .1 the re-quest" and
after he had been crowned, made to the Metro-
politan, who- had performed
.such ceremony:
Whoever looked through Selden, must admit him
to hold that. a Queen Consort could no, more
claim her Coronation, than she could demand
that of the King. lie should now come to the
Scottish Act of Parliament of James I. which had,.
beets quoted by the Queen's Attorney Ceneral.
Now, upon reference to that act, it was clef:
that James I. owing to the troubled state of the
times, and being about to leave Seotland, was
most anxious to confer.npon his Queen the teres
mony of the coronation. These were the words
of the, statute, and he would assert from the very
words themselves, that they. authenticated

general right. 'The Attorney-General then re-;
furred to the act 1.425 in the Scottish statutes,
109, paSsed in the -Bth Parliament of James I.
.and read the 'following• '.aith to be- made 'to.the.
Queen; be the Clergy and the Baronnes
." Quo die Dominus -Rex, ex• deliberatione et
cousensu .totius. concilii, statuit, good! omnes et
singuli successores
.prelatortim regni quorum,
cunque, neenon omnes singuli • hwredes futuri
comitum, baronum, ornnidmque libere tenentium
Domini Regis,: teneantur facere cousin-file .jura-
mentum Dominw nostrae. Regina. Nec ullus
prxlatug de cetero admittatur ad seam temporali-
tatem, act hmrescujusvis tenentis Domini Regis
ad suas tenendrias, nisi pries praestet iteginw
illuci juramentum."—Did not the words, "Donal-
.
na• nostra regime," bear out his-interpretation of
the meaning of the Statute, and skew that'it had
reference, not to any general right of the Queen's
but to a particular ceremony which he wished to
. have performed for his own Queen. The whole
order emanated. from the. desire of the King him-
self. It was from him the letters of fidelity were
.ordered to be " prometted" to the Queen. He
again asserted that, according to the' construction
of the ceremony in Selden and Pinkerton, no
claim of right could be made out for the Queen.
Among the old law writers, Bracton was, per-
haps, the most copious upon the prerogatives of
the Queen; but he did not, in the-slightest de-
gree, hint to 'her having any right to the Corona-
. tion ; he did not enumerate any one part of that
ceremony as appertaining to her legal. rights.
Bracton had stated her being in law " a femme
sole ;" he bad stated her claims to be " aura re-
gime;" but he was wholly silent about Corona-
tion prerogatives. He had a long chapter, " De
Corauationa Regis," but not a word as a matter
of right, " De Coronationa Regime." The Chief
Baron Cummins spoke of the ceremony only in
regard to the King. He treated separately of
the Queen, mentions all her privileges, but is
wholly silent with respect to her Coronation.
Not one word of such right, either as a personal
or public right, nor of the rights of those persons
claiming to perform services. Blackstone has a
chapter on the Queen, but not a word about
Coronation. Her Majesty's Attorney and So-
licitor-General had taken- a review of the diffe-
rent Coronations. They had begun with
William the Conqueror. The -reasons why
his Queen was not crowned, Were satisfactory.
William Rufus was not married. No argument
in that case was furnished either way. Henry I.
was not married. He then followed Mr. Brougham
through his series of historical precedents. He
would first advert to the case of William the First,
whose wife was not crowned at the time; why
to order it, though he did subsequently.— Did
not that clearly skew the right, to be in the King?
Rufus, not being married,. furnished no case.—
The reign of Stephen he was surprised to hear
so lightly pasSed over by his Learned Friends ;
there was no reason assigned for his Queen not
having been crowned, though married atthe time
of his Coronation. It was true that she was sub-
sequently crowned, but if her right was impera-
tive,,why was she not crowned when she came
over The reason assigned for the Consort of
John not being crowned was, that he meditated)
a divorce—now this 'determination of his could
not have affected her right to, be crowned if that
right actually existed,; and
_'as far as fact •went,
there was an argument against the usage.
Mr. DENMAN here interrupted the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL, to explain some misconception on the
part of the latter. -
The ATTORNEY-GESTERA proCeeded ; he allowed that
she was afterwards 'crowned ; but the delay originating with the •
King clearly proved. that the honour was solely- derivable from
lum. It had been asserted that the wife of Edward the First
had been crowned ; it was true that historians said so, but there
*as no record extant which pioved her Coronation to have taken
place. From' the circumstance of the son of Henry 11. having.
been crowned, it was surely not meant to he inferred that either
son or wife had such a right. -With regard to Henry VII. that
Monarch, as represented by Lord Bacon, determined on being
crowned, he contracted a marriage. He was afterwards
desirous of avoiding to confer the honour of a Coronation on his
Consort. There was a strong party in the country anxious to
put forward and support the 'York interest, through which
Henry was considered to derive his best tide to the throne ;
and even under such strong circumstances in favour of his
Queen being crowned, he refused it for a considerable time.—
Now Bacon's words on that subject should be looked to with
the closest attention, inasmuch as they clearly shewed that the
Coronation was nothing more 'a mere cerernoey. That
great lawyer hail ien
expressed himself on thiS subject in a manner
that was most striking and . conclusive. His words were these :
" The -King was greene in his estate; and, contrary to
his owne opinion, and desert both, was not without much
hatfed throughout the Realme. The root of all, was the dis-
countenancing of the House of Yorke, which the general"
flody of the Realme still affected. This did alieniate the hearts,.
of the Subjects from him dayly more and more, especially when
they saw, that after his Marriage, and after a Sonne.borne, use
King did rieverthelesse not so much as proceed to the Coro-
nation of the Queene, not vouchsafing her the honour of a Ma-
. trimotiial Crowne ; for the Coronation of her was not till almost
two yeares after, when Danger had taught him what to d0e."...._
Now he asked, if the Queen had a unlit to be crowned, would
the word " Vouchsafe haVe been 'used? Most decidedly not.
If the right existed, he would have been bound to have her
crowned. Bacon continued to hive the reasons why Henry
." vouchsafed' a Coronation—"but for the extirpating of the
routes and causes of tile like con emotions • in time to come, tne
Km began to find where his shone did wring him, and that it
was his depressing of the House of Yorke that did rankle and
fester the affections of his peolle. And therefore being now
too wise to disdaine perils any longer, and willing to give
some: contentment its that: kind (at east in cerernonio, he
resolved at last to proceed to the Coronation of his Queene."— •
There again their 'Lordships would findthe Coronation called
nothing more than a et reenony, and they would also see, that
its being granted pr not, depended altogether on
.the Will and
pleasure of the Sovereign. Bacon was not merely an historian,
but it was remembered that he was a great lawyer living
.East
• after the events which he recorded; and if the Queen had a eight
to be crowned, it was pretty manifest that he would pot altoge-
ther have omitted to notiee it. Had Bacon considered that
she had a eieht to he-clowned, would be have failedso insist on
it? • Ile wanted no merles Oars' he had got to prove what was tee
opinion of Lord Bacon on that sahject. All tne attempts which
were rondo at the other side to explain this circumstance, had
totally filed; while in support of his argument, he required
no ce,er authcirity to chew those two leading points ; first, that
the 3ueen rigor no right to tic crawned ; and secondly, that her
Coronation Was merely a matter of ceremony. Henry VIM
had only two wives crosvaed, and four who were not crowned—.
and as far as that eel-se went- what was to be said of uniform
sasage ? and the snore so when it was considered bow often the

.practice was, interruPtod from time to time. Ms first Queen.'
.and Ann Boleyn were Ole only two of Henry's consorts who
• were crowned. Indy Jone'Snymour, who was the mother of •
iris son, (for whicit he was so anxious),-:-she who was Ole of Ida
. greatest favourites, was. not crowned; and -if the cerethony of
a Corsnation were necas"sary es a public recognition of din • -
Queen, what ran Was there in that (we, of all others, thar it.
:should not haviebnen performed ? It was either a right or not a-
right :if it were a right, it could net be abstain-J1 from •if it
were not a right, it was nothing more than a ceremony, and de-
pended on the will of the..Soyereign. If it were a tight, and -
connected, as it was said to be, With the rights of the.
people, it could not be waived as it had been on so many
different occasions. Some reasons were advanced by his
Learridd Friends, as explanatory of the causes that prevented • -
four of Henry's Queens from being crowned, • such is.
the disturbed statt of the Church, and other matters ; but
if the Coronation of a • Queen were a right in hir, and not
.a - ceremony, the disturbed state of the Church was no •
sufficient - reason. He could well apprehend how the din- • -
turbed state of the Church, and attachment to Ann Boleyn,
would operate on the mind of the Sovereign to.prevent the -Con'
ronation of his favourite wife, Lady Jane Seymour ; but it
could only nave been done so, in consequence of its depenciinie
on hi.cfree strata- have it performed or not. If it were a right,
he contended that no motives of expediency or state • policy
could have prevented it. Now as to Charles I. though Rush-
worth gave a very precise account of the solemnity of his Coro-h
nation, he was totally silent as to the Queen, and no writer had
sinceestated that she as crowned. There was, it, was true, in
the Harleien Collection, an account of her Coronation ; but it
was evidently, drawn up proipectively—for a something to be
done—but not respecting any thing which was passed and had -
been done. Irstated that " Two thrones were to be erected,
one higher tor the King, and one-lower for the Queen--ttent
• two chairs were to be provided—that the Regalia were to '
delivered—that the Ic.ing was to go under a canopy—that the -
Queen was to appear irra gown," &c. Reading this, no Irian' •
would doubt the fact that it had been written prospectively, ilfW
scribing how the ceremonial was to take place before the actual
ignseddedi forna pub-ver '
celebration. That the Queen had not been crowned on that oc.-
seemed clear
duncelnearf which Dr. Birch romapassag whicherch had 'aR
ip ccasuriiols esp curious
licatiton but was prevented by death from giving to the world. -
In one iSt.' these letters it-was stated, that "on Thursday 'die -
Coronation of the King took place. The King wet-into West-
minster Church by water ; but that the Queen was not crowned." -
On the contrary, the letters went on to say, that she stood' at a
window, in the neighbourhood, looking on, while her La&ies
were frisking and dancing in the room. Taking all the sea
counts together, there could be no doubt that the wife of CharleS • '•
the First was never crowned. If it were in the breast of the '
King to say whether the coronation should or - should not take
place, cadet questio, the question fell at once to the ground.—
It was probable enough, that she objected to certain parts of
the ceremony ; but if she had the independent right which was
now contended for, she could not have waived it ; and that ;
especially, because it would be involving the-right> of others.—
The ground of waiver could not exist as to a public right ;
and if it were so, it was decisive against the claim- which was -
now put forward. With respect.. to the _uniformity on which
such force was laid, it proved nothing, if the being crowned was
not a right, while the deviations did every thing to put an end •
to the question of right; and the coronation of a Quen
sorrbecathe mere matter of discretion in the 'Monarch. Charles
11. was not married till after his own coronation. Some doubt
was thrown upon the fact of his having been ever 'married in :
England by aProtestant:Bishop but though the historians of
the times were silent as to the transaction, he found in a n6ws-
paper, entitled " The . Kingdom's Intelligence," and in " The
Mercurius Politicus;" both published in May, Pit;?..,.tliatit was
stated the King was married to the infanta of Portunal;by -
beet,- Bishop of Loialon, at Portsmouth. If this were the case,
then, there was an end to the Queen's objections to Share-his cos • .
reflation ; 'for if she had no scruple at being married by a Pro-
testant, she could have no objection to be crownsd by a Pro-
testant. There were in her case peculiar circumstances, which
rendered it very necessary she should be crowned .; and if it
of a coronation performed for her. V Ile called en the Council to
look how the case stood as to precedents sincethe time. of Henry
VII. In the time of Henry VIII. two Queens had been crowned
and foyer had not. The Queen of James I: was crowned. Ilene
then were five who hail not received the honours of a corona- -
tion, and three who had. Tile Queen of Charles the Second was .
not crowned. The Queen of dames the Second was crowned
with him. . The reign of William and Mary furniahed no
stance, as as Masy was to be regarded as Queen Regnant: Ann
also was Queen Regnant. The Queen of George the First (he
had no wish to dwell on this case) had not teen crowned.
Queens of George. the Second and George-the Third had lb-en
crowned. .In all, from the time of Henry the Seventh, six
Queens had been crowned, and seven Intl not ;' so that the ma-
jority was against the present • claim, . which it had been at-.
tempted to support on the plea of ancient untnternipted usake.
Such devird'ees evidently made against the 'right which his
-Learned Friends conteniled for, and get rid of the inference ,
arising from usage, on which alone the right was founded. The
fntms used in the coronation clad shelved, that the ciarilninet of
Queens Consort was entirely at the 'discretion of their :Rayed
husbands. The esise of Edward the Second, ae relnted in Rymer, .
was referred-to, as a strong one in favour of the nresent claim.
Edward the Second was crowned with his Quern, * arid ids)
Learned Friends had, therefore, referred to the paper " De -
Cot-onetime Regis et Regime' Celebeanda,", as that
went directly to establish their chitin This paper requirtd
Wilhelm°, and others, to whom it wes addresses:ft, to tie at.
Wemtniinster, . because on such a • they, intendimus, Den
propitio, aptul Westmonasterium coroneria. Ilobisananthithinse
rooantes quatinus von et consors vestra hone modi coromenionit
nestwe solemniis, dietis die et loco celEbrandhe art comitivam
nobis et earissirme consorti- nestrai Ise.bellas Reginre Angl ie,
ob nostrum ipsius consortis restree honorern, fatiendam person
naliter, -moths omnibus. intersistis : et hoc sicut nos•
nullatenus-omittatis." But in this instance the parties -sum.
rrionect to attend at Westrnineter.were so called upon _merely on
account of the coronation of the King. This he supported by
referring to the form set forth. in Rymer, end by other (locus
ments. He shewed from theSe that the Coronhtion had always
been arranged by corninand of the King in nearly thesame terms
a.s.in modern times. The proclamations used from the time of
Charles the First,' always ran-n" 1-We have resolved." This
proved that the Coronation proceeded from the King as well as
the manner of the Coronation,- in which, after the oath had
been tendered, the acciarnetiorts of the people-acknowledged
him King, and the Oath and the acclamations were confined to
him alone, and no recognition of the QUeen by the people took
place on such occasions. The right of determining all that apa
pertained to a Coronation was clear from the course taktn
with respect to the form of prayer used on •the occasion. This
was prepared by the Arclitisnop of Canterbury, and submitted
by him to the-King and Privy Council, and not finally adopted
till-the will of the Crown had been made known. Tho Liter
Regalia was considered by his Learned Friend as a very va-
luable instrument to thew the ceremonies of the Coronation;
hut he asked him, did he therefore mean to contend there Was
any fixed-or settled ceremonial for cell Ceronationa ? The law
knew no fixed ceremony-n-it was woltieet to the revision of
the Heed of the Church, directed by an Order of Council--
A strong argument had been built by his Learned Friend en
the fact that certain lands Were held by stertnin parsons on con-
dition of their per forming osrtetin services to the Queen at her
Coronation. From this feet, his HMI. Friend inferred, that the
ceremony of the Queen's 'Corotlation eves imperative, in older '
to ensure the rights of the holders of these lands. Surely, this
was net i'.'vanced as a serions enegnanent. It must have peen:rad
to his Learned Friends, that according to the feudal law, then!
services were burthens on the landS, rend not rights conferring n
title, by which those lends were hefil. Although the perfot
ante of them'mightbe esteemed as honours in thepresent Le,
they were imposed and felt as hnzthens at the tine of their
eriginal ieetitution. Reeiclea, these tethints were held in watit
was celled Grand ger:Kant:7., anst .7:•;o, from the Quesen,trot ceem
the King, on condition of performing certain seriicc:e us the
event of the Coronation of the Qtren• It was to the. King there-
fore. that they were reeponsille fee due nrefotmarene,- -and.
was in his power to dispense -with them oltonethee, in the anten-
wast as he had impoaedthem. Pet, ahove all., it was plain thnt
die Sie vices net' the COtO,tarten of the Qnee:
if thanceremoniaid not take place the title of the tenants coe I- t
not be at acted by non=performance; and, therefore, tt
went of his Learned Friends fell to els;! ground. The man
• renght be said of the Offices witiatinned :us contingent to the Cc-
ronetiou of the Queen. If that ceremony did not take pia.. e
these perwris could not he celled -on. :if it sint, the King ronedit.
dispense with their. attenelooce. Thus tt.e deem of the Chen,.
herlain to the Queen could crib- exist in the event of her beirne
crowned. Ile might adduce the service of the Champien
coming within this description. The Lord of the klanor sf

24crivelsby held hislands on the condition of finding a Champion '
on the King's Coronation. But could the Lord cf this =not'
demand the Coronation of his Majesty, in other that he might
perform theservice of finding the Champion ? Undoubtedly
not ; because if there was no Coronation, the condition on
which the lands were held had not taken effect. To show that
this was aright in a Queen, although enforced only by Pro-
clamation, her Counsel had put the case of prizes during the
time of war, which prizes were enjoyed by the captors, only
by the medium of the Proclamation; A moment's examina-
tion would shew that the analogy was forced. The case of a
captor was that of -a vested interest; air interest actually
-vested by the same Act of Parliament, which directed the
Proclamation. Let the Queen's Counsel shew the vested in-
terest in this supposed right ; and the analogy would be ad-
missible ; but the right itself was the very question in issue. A
strong inference against the claim might be drawn from the
uniform language of the Coronation Proclamation. Abundant
proof might be drawn from that source, that the right of having
a Coronation existed only in the Soverc.ign. It WM also to be
observed,-that the Queen in the present case not only claimed a
Tight. to be crowned ; but also claimed the right of fixing the
particular time. The circumstance of the claim being made in
that Shape, furnished fresh arguments against it ;
.but he felt
that there was no necessity to avail himself of them. He was
content to meet his Hon. Friends on the broad question. The
circumstance, however, of fixing the particular day rendered it
evident that the prize act, which had been quoted by his Hon.
Friend, was not analogous to the present-case. He had argued
against the existence of the right at any time, and he hoped he
had by this time satisfied their Lordships that no such right ex-
isted- He feared he had not done the case the
_justice its im-
portance required. He really assured their Lordships that the
-principal difficulty in this case was, the clearness of the position
he had to establish. Every Gentleman at the Bar knew that
an advocate feared a clear case more than an obscure one ; as
he couli not assist the former, and lie might explain the latter.
He admitted the great ability which had been displayed .by her
:Majesty's Counsel in arguing the case. His Learned Friend the
Attorney-General for the Queen, had certainlydelivered to their
Loniships, a most able historical detail. He had avoided going
fully into that part of hiS Learned Friend's case, because he ad-
mitted the main facts, but-denied the inferences drawn frOni those
facts, and,this was the qUestion for their Lordships' decision.—
He had no doubt that this impcirtant subject would receive their
LerJahipa' mast grave consideration. Before he quitted the.
subject, he begged leave particularly to draw their Lordships'
egeention to the fact, that this was d claim which, in legal lan-
guage, Was called " of first
.impression,"-imposing upon the
cisirnant the necessity of proving the right with great strict--.
reess. Such a right was never known to be-claimed before, and,
if it were, as his Honourable Friends-contended, of such im-
portatee to the people, and to the Queen, how did it happen
that no one historian or laW-writer had ever treated it as a right?
Notrace was to be found of any such. opinion being held by
any writer—no hint even was ever thrown out to that effect.—
Alehiatory was a blank on the subject of such a right ; it was
rot supported by statutory enachnents—by any dictum of law
—by any passage in an able text writer ; it depended entirely
fcc :rapport upon usage, and usage he thought he had sfiewn
was -against the claim. The amount of' the facts appeared to be
that Queens Consort had occasionally, usually if his Honour-
able Friend preferred that word, been crowned. But allowing
his Learned Friends the utmost latitute of argument that could
be derived from that deduction, he did not see how they could
establish that the Coronation of a Queen Consort was demand-
able as a right. With respect to the distinction endeavoured to
be established between the circumstances of a Queen being mar-
riad at the time of the Coronation, or afterwards,. he had only
to say that he denied that any such distinction existed either in
principle or in practice. Though the Queen was high both in
dignity and in privilege, it should not be forgotten that she was
neiniore than a subject. Yet she claimed a political character
approaching to sovereignty. She had no political character
wrach required that she should be known or recognized at the
Coronation. She might be honoured by the King with this
mark of favour and attention, but he confidently submitted
that tier Counsel had failed in producing a shadow of authori-
ty in support of her claim as a right.
The SOLICITOR-G-ENER.II. assured their Lord-
ships, that, in being called upon to address them
on this subject, he felt himself in a situation of
peculiar difficulty, coinciding, as he did, with all
the opinions just delivered by his Learned, Friend.
Having given their opinions together upon the
subject before, having consulted the same docu-
rsrents, and in all respects pursued the same
course of inquiry, it would be impossiblei after
his Learned Friend's able arguments, to throw
pv..r'tdltinnul light on a subject so clear in
sible, without meaning any disrespict to me
elaborate historical arguments and details of the
Learned Attorney-General for the Queen. The
question divested of that, resolved itself into the
narrowest possible compass. His Learned Friend
opposite had adduced but one argument in sup.
port of this claim : he alluded to that of uninter-
rupted, use and enjoyment; and upon this they
must stand or fall. When looking to the right
claimed., their Lordships should be satisfied of
the circumstances under which the use and enjoy-
ment were said to give it. The Learned Coun-
sel for the Queen should have strewn when this
right was claimed, and exercillsed as such ; and
also, that it was not conferred by the grace and
favonr of the Crown. The case of right of way and
common which was introduced, rather made against
than.for the claim now asserted, because it might
have been a hostile right, or an act of usurpation.
If evidence were offered of the enjoyment of a
right of way, it would be competent in those who
opposed it as a right, to shew that the enjoyment in
question was hostile, permissive, or even manda-
tory, but all with the assent of the owner of the
seil. Even a case might arise out of the very
ceremonial, which rested on the same principle
as the present claim—he alluded to the case of
persons summoned to attend the Coronation.
But would it be said, because certain persons
usually were summoned, it was absolutely neces-
sary they should now be called ? If this claim
sseTe admitted, these persons mast be called ; if
it were not necessary they should be so called,
this claim must then of necessity be refused.
Beside this, the language of the Proclamations,
which scarcely varied since the time of Charles
the First, all tended to shew that the right of
having a Coronation performed, was altogether
at the will and-discretion of the king. " We
have decreed" is the language which they
used—and how this could be reconciled with
the substantive, independent right of the Queen,
be was- totally at a loss to imagine. 'Were the
Privy. Council to take the usage by itself to
support the right, or to draw the inference
of right from usage in connection with the
circumstances compounded . with it ? The
ter appeared to him to be the course which
their Lordships ought to pursue ; and in do-
iug so, then they would have to consider whe-
ther it was a right enjoyed by licence and
authority from the Crown or an adverse right
claimed independently. 0r the Crowd.' In the
very outset of the case,. there was'-'one
stance which afforded strong evidence that nega-
tived the right in respect of usage : lie alluded
to the necessity of a .Royal Proclamation. The
force .of this was felt by his Ldarned Friend Mr.
Brougham, who endeavoured' to' evade it with
great dexterity, and at the same time to misapply
it in favour of his own. argument; for he said
that when once the right 'svas established, the
proclamation must issue as. a matter of course.
This was a complete. fallacy. His Learned
Friend the Attorney-Getrerad and himself re-
verted to this circumstance, merely for the pur-
pose of chewing in what manner the right was
enjoyed, namely—by permission, by consent, by

authority, and by the command of the Sovereign ;'
and for the purpose of stewing that the Procla-
mation was, to be taken, in connection with
the usage, to establish the right. It really ap-
peared to him that- the case, when considered,
resolved itself into a dry, technical point of
law (though surrounded _by circumstances of
great splendour and pomp,) and must be
treated as all Courts of Justice treated such
questions. The claim, in this case, was founded
upon uniform usage, and unless it was clearly
established that such an usage existed, the ,claim
must fall to the ground. Their Lordships had
heard the authority of Lord Coke quoted on this
subject. The authority of Lord Bacon, already
referred to—a great and learned lawyer, a
cotemporary historian of the times of which
he wrote, and perfectly conversant with
the subject of which he treated, was decisive, to
shew that the Queens_ Consort had no right, as
matter of usage, to be crowned ; but that when
she was crowned, it was a matter of grace and
favour conceded to her by her Royal husband.
Speaking of the delay which had taken place in
fixing the Coronation of the Queen of Henry the
Seventh, he said, " It was long before Henry
would condescend to allow the Queen the honour
of a Coronation." Was it possible that any thing
could be stronger than this ? Nor was there any
trace in his writings, or in those of any other
writer, that this delay was any infringement of
a right. All that could be found on the subject,
on the contrary, went to shew that it was matter
of grace and favour. In another part of the
writings of Lord Bacon, he said, " the King not
yielding to her wishes to give her the honour of a
matrimonial Crown." Again, in a subsequent
passage, " having resolved at last to proceed to
the Coronation of the Queen." Another concur-
rent authority to the same point, was Leland's
Collectanea, in the Cotton Manuscripts of the
British MuSeum. His Learned Friend, after all
his industry and research upon the historical part
of the casq, completely failed in making out the
uniform usage on which he relied. Under the
Saxon line, the privilege of Coronation had long
existed before it was communicated to the
Queens: Consort. According to the authority 1
of Selden,. it did not take place till after the
tenth century, and then proceeded entirely from
the King as matter of grace and favour—the
King soliciting the Archbishop's benediction, &c.
This was perfectly manifest from reference to
every instance from the time of the Norman.
Conquest. William the Conqueror was married
at the time he came to the throne. The Queen
of Stephen was not crowned with him ; but it
was said by his Learned Friends, that there was
a necessity and a convenience why Stephen
should be crowned,alone. Why this very asser-
tion was an argument in favour of the view he
took of the case, for, if this was an inherent right
in Matilda, no necessity or convenience could de-
prive her of it. Henry 11. was married when he
came to the Throne, and he was not crowned
until a very considerable period after his acces-
sion, because he considered that he held by so
strong a title, that there was no necessity for
hastening his Coronation. Their Lordships
I.e„mutaltzl,y,s. keen_irr_ visw, that this claim was
The fact was, that Henry Meanie to the Throne
in December, 1154, and he was not crowned
until 1158, and his Queen was not crowned until
1159. The argument founded upon immemorial
usage, i n, this instance, therefore, completely
failed. Then as to the instance of Prince Henry,
the Coronation of his Princess took place in con-
sequence of the remonstrance of Lewis, who
thought that the abstaining to crown his daugh-
ter with her husband, was a reflection upon his
own Royal dignity, and therefore the ceremony
took place, but only in time light of favour and
grace. So much then as to that historical fact.
Richard the First was twice crowned. Ile was
not married when he was first crowned, and he was
not in the country when he was crowned a se-
cond time. He chose to be crowned a second
time after his return from captivity in Germany.
This was a new proof of the Coronation being
at the will and pleasure of the Sovereign.—
As to the case of John, lie was married at the
time of his Coronation, but his wife, Elizabeth
of Gloucester, was not crowned with him. it was
said, however, that the reason why she was not
crowned, was because John was then seeking the
hand of Isabella of Angouleme in marriage. That
was not the fact, because the thoughts of his
courtship with that Princess were not entertained
until a whole year after his Coronation. •He was
crowned in the month of May, 1199, and it was
not until the month of May, I'2oo, that his attach-
ment for Isabella began. It was said that there
were some, doubts as to the validity of John's
marriage with his first wife, but history proved
that he lived with her nine years afterwards.—
From the period of the Conquest, therefore,
there were four Kings who were married at
the time of their respective Coronation, and
not one of their four Queens was crowned
with her Consort. These were facts too stub-
born, even for his Learned Friend's ingenuity,
great as it was, to grapple with. He should add
nothing more to what had been said by the At-
torney-General as to the case of Henry the
Seventh. It was quite clear that that Monarch
delayed his marriage as long as policy and ex-
pedienCy would suggest. That brought him to
the reign of Henry VIII. and the Learned Soli-
citor repeated all the observations made by his
Learned Coadjutor upon the different marriages
of that Monarch, to show that the argument in
support of the right in respect of uninterrupted
usage was not bottomed in fact. It was no suf.
ficient reason why Henry VIII. did not crown
Lady Jane Seymour, his favourite wife, as it had
been said, that the Church was then in a dis-
turbed and distracted state ; for never were the
Clergy of this country in so abject a state of
tyranny and thraldom as at that time, when the
Monarch took upon himself, with his own hand,
to alter the Mass-book ; and nothing could have
been more easy . for him than to command the
performance of the august ceremony. The solu-
tion of time difficulty, therefore, resorted to by
his Learned Friends, availed them nothing. Ca-
therine Howard was charged with the of-
fence, of which she was found guilty six-

teen months after her marriage t and it was k
curious fact, that but-a short time before she was
so charged, the King lived so happily with her
that he ordered the Archbishop of Canterbury to
prepare a form of thanksgiving to the A knight
for having blessed him with such a wife. Ye
he had no thought of having her crowned. „With
Catherine Parr, who was one of the most import-
ant instances, he lived in the most perfect union
for five years. Next, as to the case of Charles 1.,
it was perfectly certain that his wife Henrietta
was not crowned with him. If that Queen was
entitled to be crowned, as a matter of right, she
could not have waived it ; but being a matter in
the pleasure of the King, it was quite easy to
assign a sufficient reason for her not being
crowned. But what was to be said of the Con-
sort of Charles the Second ? His Hon. Friends
here said that the objection to be crowned in
her case, was the Catholic Religion. The same
argument they used with respect to James the
Second, and were at last driven to the ingenious
argument that the objections must be stronger in
the case of a Catholic and Protestant, than in the
case of two Catholics. This then was the course of
uniform, uninterrupted usage upon which the case
of his Learned Friend rested. From the time
of the Norman Conquest six Queens had enjoyed
the honour of Coronation—seven had not been
crowned. This was proof that the uninterrupted
usage even was not made out. But when their
Lordships considered that the usage operated a 11 one
way, and that against the claim, what would their
Lordships say of the right ? In his historical
argument his Learned Friend left England, and
stated that there was no instance of Scottish Queens
not being crowned. lie must inform his Learned
Friend, however, that he was not to make
assertions, and leave him to prove the negative.
If he rested his case upon the law of the case, he
must shew that precedent existed in favour of
his argument. It was for him to make out the
affirmative first, and not for those whose business
was only to prove the negative. With respect to
the case of the Queen of James of Scotland, it
was very natural that he should desire that she
should be crowned in the troubled state of his
Kingdom. He had a young family, was at war
with his Barons, .and in case of his being killed,
he thought it prudent to cause the oaths of
fealty and allegiancelo be taken to his Queen,
as well as himself. His Honourable Friends had
shewn great anxiety to get possession of a book
called Libel- Regalis ; but what he had made
of it to benefit his case he knew not. It ap-
peared from his Learned Friend's statement,
,that sometimes when the King was crowned he
had a Queen ; that sometimes he had not.—
Sometimes the Queen was crowned at the same
time as the King, sometimes afterwards. Thus,
therefore, it was not a matter of course ; for
it was changed from time to time, and every
part of the ceremonial was under the controul of
the Kilo.. Their Lordships' attention had been
particularly directed to the circumstance of this
being a claim 44 of first impression." No such
right had before been urged; and it there-
fore became necessary to adduce all that bore
the stamp of authority on the subject. Black-
stone, ,who was one of the law advisers of the
po efh eatif nihi? t -
ed ? It had also been argued that this right was the
more imperative in the case of the Queen, as the
rights of others depended upon it, in the shape
of certain tenures of lands which were held con-
tingent to the performance of certain offices at
the Coronation of the Queen. But these services
were done to the King, in honour of the Queen.
—Of this description was that which imposed„
upon a certain' person the duty of carrying
a banner before the King in time of war.
—Was it therefore to be claimed as a
right that the King should be compelled to
make war, in order that this person might per-
form his duty of bearing the banner ? The en-
joyment of this honour was claimed by his Hon.
Friends as a right. They contended, on the
contrary, that the enjoyment and exercise of the
privilege was at the sufferance, subject to the
will, and the sole right of the Crown. If their
Lordships were satisfied that it was so, his
Learned Coadjutor and himself had not failed in
the course they had taken. They had in fact
done more than was incumbent on them. They
had not only disproved the case of their oppo-
nents, but shown that no other case could have
been made out.

Mr. BRouGn.km, after retiring for a few mi-
nutes, with the permission of the Council, then
replied to the arguments of the Attorney and
Solicitor-General. his Learned Friends were
mistaken in supposing that he relied upon the
necessity of a proclamation issuing, as evidence
of the Queen's right to be crowned. Ile'had
merely mentioned it by way of anticipating the
argument which might be drawn from it on
the other side, and of rebutting the presamp,
tion which would probably be raised, upon it.'
He contended that the
,language of the -usual
proclamation on such occasions, was merely the
mode of allowing the ,right, which was to be con-
sidered as cx_debitunr. justitio, and not ex gratin.
The like language was used in writs of error and
other writs, which of right belonged to the sub-
ject. In this point of view the proclamation was
to be considered merely, as a writ of Coronation,
conferring no favour on the Queen, but giving her
that which she had a right to demand. The Coro-,
nation proclamation was analogous to the writs
issued by the Crown in the event of the decease of a
Peer. His son inherited his rights without the writ,
which conferred no new title or privilege upon
him ; but still. he could not exercise his rights
without. His Hon. Friends relied much upon
the language of the Proclamations. They seem-
ed to think cc We have resolved"—" His Majesty
has determined," &c. proved that the existence
of what his -Majesty resolved on was contingent
• on his will. But be did not see that it was incon-
sistent with the existence of a right, that the writ
by which it -was enjoyed should say that the
party was resolved upon issuing that writ, in or-
der that • it might be enjoyed. An Executive
might be willing that justice should lie done
without diminishing the right of those concerned
to-that-justice. AYith respect to. the word "Pos.;
lulanius," if it proved any thing, it proved too

much ; for, if the word were any thing more
than a matter of course, it shewed that it was op-
tional in the Archbishop to grant the favour
asked of him, or not. Then his Inn. Friends
said, that the Coronation of the Queen was no-
thin," hitt a. mere pageant, possessing no political
importtace. "The very words .41;:h*N1 had been
'quoted as proof of this, however, refuted the
position ; for it was called a " Royal ornament,"
au " outward solemnization." Now, he asked,
of what was it a solemnization, if not' of the mar-
riage of the Queen with the King, and there-
fore, as affecting the descent, of public impor-
tance. It was an outward public acknowledg-
ment of the legitimacy of the marriage, to put it
beyond question that there was any flaw in the
descent. His Honourable Friends said he had no
right to separate the cases of a King married
when he was crowned, and of one married after-
wards. There-was this distinction, that it became
more necessary for a King to make this public
acknowledgment of a marriage contracted whilst
only heir apparent, than when he was in posses-
sion of the Crown, and his acts therefore'more
open to public view, and resting upon responsible
advisers. This was, no doubt, the original inten-
tion in crowning Queen. Consorts. He applied
himself to the four exceptions to his general
proposition, and concluded that they were all
to be explained by the circumstances under
hich they occurred. He then went into a
detail of the historical facts connected with the
cases of exception adduced by his Learned Friend,
and shewed that in the cases of William the Con-
queror, Henry 1., Stephen, and Henry 11., it
was physically impossible that the Queens of
those Monarchs should have been crowned with
them, they not being present in the country at
the occurrence of those solemnities. In all
those cases a separate solemnity was, however,
fixed and performed as soon as the first op-
portunity occurred. With regard to the in-
stance' of the Queen of Charles the First, the
answer of his Learned Friend the Solicitor-Ge-
neral did not appear to be so triumphant as
he seemed to imagine. The arguments which
he (Mr. Brougham) had used with regard to the
circumstances under which that exception oc-
curred, so far from being inconsistent with each
other—so far from being incompatible, in his
opinion they went to fortify each other. Ile
then alluded to the treaty entered into with re-
gard to the marriage of Prince Charles and Hen-
rietta Maria, as it was set forth in Aymer's
Fcc-
dera. In this treaty the ceremony was appointed,
and on account of the differences in religion,
great pains were taken to prevent umbrage being
given to the various religions of the parties af-
fected by the contract. Now, if this was ne-
cessary with regard -to a marriage ceremony,
would not the same views be taken in considera-
tion upon the solemnity of a Coronation ?
Upon these grounds it was perfectly consist-
ent for the Queen not to wish to be crowned, for
the fear of bringing odium upon herself, and for
the King to consent, for the sake of preventing
discontent among the subjects. It had been con-
tended by his Learned Friends, that a public
right could not have been waived by the Queen ;
but he never contended that it had. She only
NI v anCIL tillelUy an In-
jury was done to the realm. But that waiver
could not destroy —it only suspended the right,
which suspension could not weigh against the
general usage and the original existence of the
right. Ile had yesterday illustrated this by the
practice of the Courts of Law, with regard to rights
of common,where exceptions or suspensions of right
had occurred. He then argued upon the distinction
to be taken betwixt services to be performed at aCo-
ronation of a Queen Consort,and the on orousor ho-
norary offices about the person of the King, such as
following him to the wars, or carrying a ban-
ner before him. To follow Lim in time of war
was originally onorous upon those who held cer-
tain manors and lands, and in consequence of their
services in the wars, they were elevated to the
honorary office of• carrying a banner before him.
Of exactly such a nature was the office of
sword-bearer to the King ; the reward of some
onorons duty which had been performed with zeal
and distinction. Undoubtedly the appointments
to do similar services to the Queen must have
been made under similar circumstances. The case
of the Chamberlain, which he mentioned yes-
terday.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed, that there was no
mention of that claim or right upon the records.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that it was contained in the Red
Book of the Exchequer, -and he read, the passage to their Lord-
ships the day before.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, that the claim had
been disallowed at the Coronation of James 11. and two others ;
and be did not believe that it was panted at that of Richard H.
Mr. BROUGHAM had found it in the Testa de Neville, and
in the Roll of the Knights' Fees, and there was no doubt but the
claim had been allowed. The right of the Queen to be crowned
must be substantial and independent, or how could such rights
as he had shewn to exist ever have derived their origin. They
must have grown out of her.right, and were as much connected
with it as others were with the Coronation of the King. lle
contended that the nature of Grand. Sergeantry did not,confine
it to mere personal services done about the body of the King,
but to any offices done in his parks or elsewhere. It must, then,
likewise extend to all his family connexions, and unquestion-
ably all services rendered to his Consort at the time of her Co-
rom:tion must be Grand Sergeantry, as well as any other duty
performed whatsoever. As to the allusion to the Scottish Act
of Parliament, there was no weight whatever to be attached to
that. His Learned Friends said that the words, Domine nostrw
Regime were peculiar to the particular Act in which they were
contained, and they rested upon the pronoun as referring to-that
Queen alone. 'Whereas it was evident that nostrce was only used_
as an expression of form. if his Learned Friends would turn to
the head of the very chapter in which this passage occurred,they
would find, as in all other places, that the Sovereign was men-
tioned in the same manner. The words used were " Domine
nostio Rege." With respect to Lord Bacon's remarks upon the
omission of crowning Elizabeth, the Consort of Henry VII. for
some considerable time, lie only spoke as an historian, not- as a
lawyer. He merely stated what the. facts were, without giving
any opinion upon the question of right or legal power in the
Monarch to delay the ceremony. It was clear that the York
faction held it to be the, Queen's right; as the head i)f. that
faction, Margaret of Burgundy, expressed herself, because it
had been the practice with all Queens from the Conquest
downwards. With regard to the Queens of Henry VIII., his
Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, only stated that four
of them were not crowned, without bringing forward one Scin-
tilla of evidence in proof of his assertion. He then proceeded to
explain 'the probable causes why the Consorts of Henry VIII.
were not crowned. But let his Learned Friend shew one case
where the claim was made, and the right refused. This, he con-
tended, they were utterly unable to do. He had now concluded,
his arguments, and his, observations upon that which had been
adduced against them by his Darned Friends. He beseeched
their Lordships-to'bear in mind the propositions, which, he was
confident, he had satisfactorily made out. if so, it was con-.
trary to all analogy in the constitutional law, or in the impe-
rial law of these realms, to say that the rights of the Queen to
partake of the- solemnity of a coronation, only existed at the
will or,pleasure of any individual. • Howsoever; their Lord,
ships shvuld decide upon the strict legal right.; when all the

circumstances of the Queen's claim to be crcivtpd, and et die
high and ancient rights connected, and so inseparably'
woven with it, were taken into view, even upon the groun I of
expediency and propriety, it would be almost a criminal ad in
any Council to advise the Sovereign to set the first xample of
the omission of that high solemnity.
Shortly before four o'clock Mr. 13fiotrmiAst cone ed, apck
strangers wew ordered to withdraw. The Plilir\ccintil. after-%
wards adjouriteti to. Tdesday next.,, .1111 k
A