Star.
London, England, 1821-01-27 00:00:00

eet, did ictu.
ally bring her oxek as any one might
eaped!d
Ministers had not examined !ter
m Ma-
t.ecie physicians and Maids of Honour, as to her
t • but they listened to tales and charges got
en•Joic.
Go knew how. One of the witnesses, on whose
lei) wan!, great stress was laid (he meant Bianchi,
at the Inn at Venice), he knew to be a man
the porter
the most infamous
character in Venice. In moving
J
tr; Adjournment, the Right Honourable Gentleman
red that he knew that Parliamentary tricks were
co 'fined to their side of thnerale Housewishes . Let the
lot n
else hew attention to the ge of the
reple, as .
manifested by the Petitions which now
laded their rtb e.
itoWETHLRELL took an historical and legal
rise of the question. It was one, he observed, not
affecting alone the case of the present Queen, but
the cases of all future Queens Consort : it was a ques-
.tion prospective in its consequences, whether the usual
room ache land, and the rights by common and
rAtute
the land, granted to every Queen Con-
ott* law of ,
should be set aside at the pleasure of the King's
ohinet Council? He charged the Ministers with
raking an Order, on the 12th of February last,
ehich was grossly illegal—(Hear; hear). The Right
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) had accused
tee Noble Lord with using milk and water language;
but he should net complain so of his—(Hear, hear).
lie meant nothing offensive to the Right Honourable
Gentleman; but he would deliver his opinion in as
strong language as might be respectful to Ministers
and to the House. At the Reformation, there was a
complete alteration in the regulations of the Church.
In the reign of Edward VI. the Liturgy became a
matter of civil government ; the Church was made a
part of the State, and the State of the Church. He then
noti;ej the several alterations; being made in the Li-
turgy, and contended _eat they seem all established
by Act of Pariiament, and not by the King, as suc-
cessor of the Pope, in being I lead of the Church.
Ile admitted that Henry Via. did exert his preroga-
tive in these instances as Head of the Church; but
ease powers v ere lost to the Crown by the various
Acts of Parliament which had made the Legislature
a sharer with the king in all modifications of the
Liturgy. Since the year 1661, the Liturgy had be-
come part and parcel of an Act of Parliament, for it
was regulated in part by the words of the Statute ;
and it was only on account of the length of it, that
the whole Liturgy was not inserted in the Act of Par-
lament, commonly called the Statute of Uniformity.
That Act contains not one single clause authorizing
the King to alter the Liturgy. The only clause that
could at all be quoted in the contrary sense, was that
which authorized the altering, from time to time, the
names of the Royal Family in the Liturgy ; but there
was nothing about expunging, omitting, or erasing
a name, though he supposed no one would deny
that the copia rerborunt of the English language I
was as complete then as now. Besides, this Act
was drawn up by Lord Chief Justice Hale and other
great men of that day ; and they were not likely to
have omitted so important a pelt of the regal power
as was now contended for, in omitting the Queen
Carson's name from the Liturgy—(Hear, hear).—
la the Act of 1661, a bleek was left for the insertion
of the title and name of the Queen, Charles 11. hav-
ing at that time no Queen Consort. Down to the
present time, with the exception of the wife of George
L they bad the consuetudo regal of three centuries ;
and he thought that an Anti-Radical Administration
would not have broken through the usage of three
ages. What did the powers of that House depend
on—the cousuetudo Parliameati ; what the power of
the Crown—the jus Corona; what the rights of every
man, but upon usage ? \Vas an Anti-Radical, Mo-
narchical Government, like that of the Noble Lord's,
to break through the rights of the Queen, as esta-
blished fur three centuries? He was as great an ene-
my to Radicalism as the Noble Lord ; but he chose
to be consistent. From the period of the illegal Or-
der of the 12th of February, his mind was made up
to oppose everything brought against the Queen. He
repeated, that the Queen of George I. was not known
as such in this country, or acknowledged as such in
any public document here, so that all argument
drawn from that case, was idle and contemptible.
The wife of George I. had been divorced eighteen
years before he was called to the Crown of this coun-
try; and therefore no man, who called himself a
lawyer, would ever attempt to hang an argument I
on such a miserable dirty rag of a precedent as
this for excluding the Queen Consort's name from
the Liturgy of the Church—(hear, hear, hear).—
The rights of the Queen in this country were attached
to her as Queen, and not as wife of the King. By
the Common Law of the land, she had the rights oil
afen»ne sole, of patronage, of respect and obedience,
from all subjects, independent of the gift or pleasure
of the King. It was also treason, by the Common
Law, to kill the Queen. If these rights were immu-
table, and unchangeable by the King, how could any
man say, that still it depended on the King to omit
her name from the Liturgy, where, by the Statute
Law, it ought to stand ? It ambiguity did exist, it
was set at rest by the Statute. He begged, therefore,
as a plain humble man, that he might be permitted
to ask the present Monarchical and Anti-Radical
Ministers, whether the same power which had left
the Queen's name out of the Liturgy, might not have
done the same thing with the name of the King ?
(Hear, hear, hear).—He contended that, as far as he
understood the Act, they could leave out neither the
one nor the other legally—(leco, hear). Those who
contended that the Queens name could be omitted
from the Liturgy, must also assert, that if her Ma-
jesty's name bad been in the Liturgy, they bad a
power to expunge it. Immutability of right charac-
terized.sl all the privileges belonging to the Queen.—
.filit I the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) wished to subject
tke Queen to a sort of Censorship, such as never was
exercised in this country, but by that odious tribunal
the High Commission Court. He wished to punish
her without charge or trial, by thus omitting her
tame from the prayers of the Chuech and the People.
In the deciding of this case, the House would de-
termine a principle that future Queens, who might
be unpopular at Court, could be deprived of their
rights at t!:e will cd. the King's Ministers. Some
nuglrt say that this was a question of moral demerit ;
bat who could decide a hat was moral merit?--
piing it to v.-letterer test they pleased, it would be
it'"nd that it such api inc • iple were established, the
Queen must be in future the victim of discretion;
"st they all knew the. e were es many factions in
eces as in cottages. Upon these greunds he had

--