The Sun.
London, England, 1821-02-16 00:00:00

authority. The Act of Geo. applies, not to
the Church of Scotland, but to Episcopalians.—
Could any thing be more absurd, than setting up
such an Act as the ground of authority over the
Church of Scotland ? - The Church of Scotland
disdains any -authority such as was recently as-
sumed over the General Aisembly ;• if orders
were adopted in that Church, it was always on
the recommendation of the General Assembly.—
Such wits the case:no the marriage_of,the present
King, hen the'name co-11, the Princess of Wales
was added to the prit-ers of the Church. He
really did not apprehend that the Learned Lord
would be able to give an answer to the facts he
stated ; he did not think that any answer could
be given ; all he would wish to know; were the
grounds on which the condUct he complained of
was to be defended. With respectlo the arrest,
it. was a case of oppression calculated to excite
the sympathy of the House. The person placed
under arrest for calling on God to bless tier Ma-
jesty, after having previously prayed for the
King, was a Clergyman of the utmost respecta-
bility, a Gentleman by no means disposed to • let
party feelings,of any kind interfere with the con-
scientious discharge of his duties. And here he
would -beg that the House would reflect for a
moment on the situation in which that unwise
and illegal Order placed the Clergy of Scot-
land. If a man resisted that Order he was
to be placed under military arrest ; under arrest,
because he would not pray according to the
word of command. Either the Clergyman
should altogether neglect the Order of , Conn,
cil, or he was exposed to the disrespect of his
fellow countrymen, to public odium, and the
loss of diameter. The. Noble Lord next, stated,
that the,second object of his motion was, the pro-
duction of the Copy of a Letter from Lord Sid-
mouth, written' in consequence of the arrest ; on
that occasion a correspondence was opened with
Lord Sidmouth, which was subsequently trans,
(erred to the Lord Advocate. As his ohjs!ct was
to go to the fountain head, lie naturally asked
for the letter of Lord Sidmouth. The letter of
Lord Sidmouth must either justify the arrest or
condemn it; if the letter justified the arrest, then
did it do a great injustice to the Church of Sl:ot-
land ; and if it, condemned the arrest, that would
distinctly amount to a condemnation of the order
itself. The Noble Lord said, that there were
otherpoints, to 'which, however, he would not at
present allude. He felt it his duty to' bring for-
ward-the subject; nor could he see how any dis-
grace could follow. He thought the assertion,
that the notice. of his motion was a disgrace to the
papers of that House, was most unfair-and unjust ;
the more so when he (Lord A. Hamilton) could
not say a ward in answer. The Noble Lord
concluded by Moving for a copy of the order in
'Council, directed to the general assembly of the
Church of Scotland, relating to the erasure of
the Queen's name from the Liturgy ; and for
the copy of a letter written by Lord Sidmouth to
Colonel Gordon resrcting the arrest.
Lord GLENORCIIY said that the question was
so•fully and so clearly brought before the House,
that little was left for him to say. The Order
in Council appeared to him to be a breach of the
fundamental principles of the Church of Scotland.
—(Hear, hear o—The Church of Scotlan4
ad-
mits of no temporal head ; it disclaims all at\ttlto-
rity in its diScipline, or in the internal regulOop
of its affairs. Every man acquainted with the
history of that country, knew the Woggles that
we re made—how long the people contended, by
word and act, until at length they established
that right which they thought worthy to fight and
bleed for.—(Hear, hear !)—This right -was at
length.secured for Scotland, and was guaranteed
at the Union. The Order in Council, so loudly
'and so justly condemned in Scotland, affected
internal considerations of religion, and he might
add, principles of justice, as well as of policy.
Ile was afraid that no good reason or motive
could be assigned for issuing such order. Was
it to promote the welfare of the Country ?
(Hear, hear !)—Was it to uphold the dignity of
the Crown ?—(Hear !)—Was it to. promote the
purity of religion?—(Hear!)--He endeavoured
to weigh it by those tests, and he could find no
motive to justify the measure—he could find no
motive, save the ;ratification. of uncharitable feel-
ings, and the workings of a vindictive and odious
spirit against her Majesty.
The LORD ADVOCATE said, that he could not
think that motion relleCted the least discredit
upon the Noble Lord, far from
,it; on the con-
trarY, it originated "from that praise-worthy zeal
which prompted the Noble Lord on all occasions
to watch over the interests of Scotland. The No-
ble Lord must have Miseiniceived what fell from
a Noble Lord next him ; he was not aware that
any expression felt from the Noble Lord of the
nature alluded to. With' respect to the Church
of Scotland, he did not dispute its rights or in-.
dependence, always maintaining that it was under
authority to the Law. Perhaps it would be
enough for him on the Otseot
,question-; to say,
that the Order in Council was consistent with the
uniform practice of one hundred years; that
would be a fair defence, but he did not Mean to
rest there. He. contended that the Order in
Council was grounded upon and upheld by law.
He grounded the legality of the measure on the
10th of Anne, chap. 7, sec. 10. by which it was
enacted, that 'Queen Anne and the Princess So-
phia should be expressly prayed for by name.'
The legal question before the House was, whe-
ther that Act applied not merely to Queen
Anne and the Princess Sophia, or whether it ex-
tended to every future Sovereign and Heir Ap-
parent ? The legality might in some degree be
judged by the Orders in Council which were
issued in the life time of Queen Anne. The
Princess Sophia, after
.the passing of the Act of
the 10th of Anne, and during the life time
of her Majesty, died, upon which an Order in
Council was issued without any amendment of
the Act, or without the passing of any new law
upon the subject, substituting the name of
Elector of Brunswick ; that motion was dated
the 21s1. of June, 1714. On the death of Anne
a new Order in Council was issued; acid the name
of George the First, without any new law on the
subject, was prayed for in place of the deceased
Queen, and so the practice went on during the
succeeding reigns.---1u January 11.5, Robert

Ansfrnther and Cleorge Hay were indicted ott
the Statute of Queen Anne. The Court found.
the fact stated in the indictment relevant to infer
the punishment imposed by the Act. The pro,
secu dolt. however, wasnot followed out to punish-
merit. But, passing. over 9ese .cases, he would
Mention that of William' Guthrie, in July
1715 was indicted for omitting topkiay for King
Geave and the Prince .and Princes of. Wales.
The ju7 found him guilty, aid subjected hirn
to the penalty of 21: sterling, imposed by tho
Act of Anne. In Ilowell''3 State Trials, yol. 17,
p. 752, would be found the case of George Rob-
son, indicted under the Statute-of Queeil Anne,
.for having failed to pray for King George the
First. In this case written informations were
drawn up for both parties: The defence was,
that the panel could not be convicted under
the Act of Queen Anne. King George and the
Prince of %Vales were not by that Act desired
to be prayed for, and the panel. had prayed for
all the Royal Family, and all that was re-
quired by the Act was, that the Clergyman should
pray for all the Royal Family. . But the defence
was found unavailing. The next case .was that
of Daniel Taylor, who, ie 1716, was, along .with
20 other Clergymen, indicted for the same offence.
This would ,be found in the I,Bth Volume of.
Howell's State Trials. The Court found, that
the panels having omitted to pray for his :Majesty-
King George, and the Prince of .Wales in their
respective congregations. relevant to infer the pe-
nalty of 20/. sterling against each.--Thf, Learned
Lord then proceeded to explain the nature of a
Scots indictment, and the particUlars in which it
differed from an English one. Iu the Scotaludict-
meta the crime charged was first staled, and then
the facts and circumstances intended to be prov-
ed, and the
.Court pronounced whether the facts
stated were sufficient to infer tire, crime charged.
The 21 Clergymen were all found guiLy, aud
subjected to thepenalty, one half to the infor-
mer, and the other to the poor of the pariah, con-
formably to the Act of Queen Anne. In Match
1717, 22 Episcopal Clergym6n were indicted
under the aggravated circumstances of havite;
been previmay convicted and found guilty. On
the '2oth of Jan. 1718, several Clergymen were
indicted 'for ha ving pray ed• for all Christie o
Princes,- without naming George the First, and
the Prince of Wales, and convicted, and found
liable in the penalty of 2J!. Since that time the
Church of Scotland had uu!formly compiled with
the Act of Parliament, and_ prayed for the reign-
ing King by name. Whether the /louse might
think these decisions right or wrong, they were
the decisions .of the Supreme Criminal Court ;
and he would say, if the Judges could have found.
that the Act of Queen Anne did not apply to
their cases, they would proi-tounce in favour of
the individuals indicted. That was but a fade
omit:fusion, when they looked at the respectable
individuals who then filled the Bench. That
being 'found' to be the case,they had next to observe
the practice which had;been followed with respect
to Scotland, by the Government of the.country.
He had observed, that by an Order in Council,
Queen Anne and the Princess Sophia were
dkected to be prayed for. On the death of So-
phist, George the First was directed to be prayed
for. From that time down to the present dad
with two solitary exceptions; whe!temcia-,b Oder
in Council, any alteration was made in the /Attire
gy of the Church of England, another order was
sent down to the Church of Scotland. The Order
in this case directed merely- the general act of
praying for King George the Fourth,and Royal
Family ; and they would find the, Government
completely justified in point of law, in issuitl
this order. The order was to pray for the King
—but it did not bear in what terms the King wolf
to be prayed for—if there was a bciza fide prayer
for the King, that was a due compliance with the
act. Ile was ready to admit farther, if any Clef'
gyman prayed for King George,. he was not es'
chided from also praying for any bfanch of the
Royal Fatnily by naive—if he chose ,to do so, he
mighis ht pray f v
ouldnoo the
not be
beil Queen eto tinf itniam,.,tint.
Noble e
Lsoaritl
ti
said that this was the general practice of thi•
Ministers of the Church of Scotland, he was pre..
pared to deny ,that it was so. Instead of nine-
tenths of the Clergy of Scotland praying for the:
Queen by name, he would say the calculation
was diretly the reverse. Ile certainly approval
of the conduct of those who did not pray for del
Queen ; if they did not do so, they gave tits.
opinion of their own, they made themselves
parties in the political question that agitated
the country; but when an individual wept
beyond this and prayed for the Queen by
name, he pronounced an opinion' of his own--
he intruded his own political opinion on his con-
gregation, in a place whence political sentior n.
ought to be excluded. That, he submitted, wa4
a fair construction of the order. The Clerg.vrra3-
might 'pray for whom he chose—for the Itoat
Family by name—for any Nobleman by.flaante--
for any individual in the country by name, if the
congregation would submit to it. hut he would-
say, that by the Act of Queen .Anne, if the
Clergyman failed to pray.for the Kid!, nominiit!::,
then he became subject to the penalty of that ,r
Act ; and he would say farther, that if ao.'
Clergyman refused to pray for Kin Preorge the ; •
Fourth by name, he should find his duty to it:-
dirt him under the Act of Queen Anon„ ftna Cat
he had little doubt that he, ei-tou/d obtain a con'
victim by a Jury ,of Scotland. Even if the,
were disposed to inly the decisions were un'
founded, would they blame the Government far
acting on these decisions ? They would find a
course of_liniforrn precedents for issuing such or-
ders to
.the Church of Scotland from 1711 to the

present day. lie would shortly pllude to cer-
tain proceedings in the. Stewartry of Kirkcud"
bright. The proceedings of the Kirk- Session
u ere quite distinct from the other case alluded
to by the Noble Lord. lie thouAt the proceed-
ings of the Kirk Session unwise, foolish, and
il-
legal'; but what had happened ? The Presbyterf,
a higher trlbunal than the Kirk Session, not only

.rescinde4 its proceedings as illegal, Lut or'
dered them to be erased from the Session'

book, The individuals who w ere person-
ally arinwera ble were suinroorn,d iO _appear he-
fore _ the Pres by tery:--t hey had ; appeared ,be-
fore the Pres bi,rerythey acknowledgv4