The Sun.
London, England, 1821-01-25 00:00:00

[Nero limes.]

It is now fully Understood that the majorities in both
Houses are decidedly favourable to the line.of conduct which
Ministers have resolved 'tin pursuing. The moderate and
brief mention of the Queen in his Majesty's Speech sufficient
ly refuted all the inipticE.rit fictions of an intention on the pact
of Ministers to institute say nevi' proceeding against. her. It
she can trohilC to live in a contoryl!where her conduct has.
been so publicly expoied and is so jtiS-t lyappret;ated, and where
scarcely a decent Woman will deign to • sit .clown in her eons
pant, let her do so. If the mattufaethred addresses and
mi-
serable processions of deluded mechanics ein console her fur
the loss of !espeet from all the higher orders of the State, let
her spend her bo,oool, n-year On - the miserable norclicrf of a
Cowl by which she is surrounded, but do not let her suppose
that she is ever to hecornet he object of that solemn reverence
which belongs to aen loons Queen. It would seem, that Mr
Wetherell has adventured on the forlorn hope of arguing the
Queen's right to he prayed for by name in the solemn service
of thet;hurch. lA'er shall perhaps be told that it is a cruel-thing
to refuse her our prayers.- Granted ; but we do -not 'tefose
them. We pray for ,her among others. Every thing else is
matter of honour and respect : and has she any title; moral;
or legal, as a-woman, or as a Queen, to such respect, or such
honour ? Can she claim it of the Established Church which
she has so irreverently treated, and so grossly calumniated ?
Can she claim it of her King and Hrishand whom she has s!i
audaciously insulted ? Mr. Weelterell will perhaps contend
for her legal right as Queen Consort to be prayed tor; because
most other Queens Consort have been prayed .for ; but 'o
have QueenOlother,so have Heirs presumptive to the Throne:
and the question is not whether they have been so, but by
what lawfril authority those prayers 'have been ordered. •Now
in all cases the lawful authority which has given or withheld
the order has been the King', and from the time of the Re-
formation it could be no other: for at the Reformation t
King ivas declared, by-Stat. 26; Hen: VIII. c. 1, to be the
head of The Church, awl above 120 years afterward, when
the Act of Uniformity pasked; which -gave permanence to the
great body of the Ritual; as it. now stands, that part of the
Ecclesiastieal power, Which directed the fisting the names
of the King, Queen, or Royal Progeny to the occasions Wh;ch
might arise, was expressly reserved to the lawrPf authority,
namely the King. Universal usage and i-,rectolent spew that
the inserting Or omitting any of those name!, is solely in the
King's discretion. The welds of the. Statute apply just as
much to the Royal Progeny, that is to, the Royal Family, fis.
they do to the Queen. At the present moment, the Heir
Presumptiveis not prayed for by name.• Is this illegal ? Sop--
pose the Queen or the. Heir Vreittorptive ,were to commit
treasan ; must they still he
.prayed for? Snptissr the two
Houses of Parliament- had solemnly pronounce,) the Queen
guilty of Adultery, would the King still he hound to or derns
to pray-for " our gracious Queen Caroline Queen of
George I. was never prayed for by name. 10 matter'whet her
Silt' was an adulteress, or mad, or domiciled abroad, she was
Qrteer! Consort ; and if the Queen Consort has a legal right. •
to insertion in the Liturgy, she had that right : yet itor.,-Kty
is-as ever so foolish as to argue that Ge'orge I. acted either it--
legally or unconstitutionally in declining to give an order for
- the prayer; and no Clergyman was insolent or ignorant enough
to pray for her in spite of the .• lawful authority,” which hod
otherwise "fitted the names in the Liturgy to the otcmioii."
Finally, as we have before oliserve4l, if, hi spit, of all these
manifest proofs of the actual state of the taw, :Any one can
stilt coot-rod that the Queen Consort, as such, has, under
all circumstances. even of crime or infamy, a legal right to
be prayed for by name,, such person so arguing must admit,
that the Parliament, for that very reason, ought not to en
tertain the question, For the violation 'of every legal right
' there is a •judicial remedy;-and where time is a judicial re-
medy the'Legislature never does and never ought to interfere.