Star.
London, England, 1820-06-23 00:00:00

done, het honour and dignity being then secured anct
vindicated, the deemed ail other points Of so little
importance, that she was content to refer the whole
to arbitration. The question of residence had been
brought on early in the negotiations. Had the Queen.
left the country without the matter of charge being
inquired into—without bringing forward evidence to
rebut the accusations -urged against her, of which
she had plenty to produce, her conduct might have
been misconstrued. This being the case, the first
question was, on the propriety- of restoring her
mane to the Liturgy ? He trusted the House would
allew him to do his duty as a Member of Parlia-
?Titor while speaking on this subject, and in that
character he would say, that be saw features of the
greatest importance connected with the Liturgy.—
An arrangement on this subject might avert the im-
pending inquiry ; for he might venture to say, speak-
from his own private knowledge--from the corn-
-.iunications that he had had with others—from what
..c knew to be the sense of a great part of the House,
-uld froth what was the )ease of a great, and he might
sal of an overwhelming majority out of doors, that
concession on this point would make the success of
the negotiations in almost every other absolutely
certain. Were this only conceded, all other differ-'
ences would be done away. He felt justified in as-
suring the House, as far as he could assure them of
anything on his own private authority, that that one
word, the Liturgy, pronounced in an amicable tone
on the other side of the House, no difficulties would
cA ist, no obstacle would remain in the way of the
:accommodation of all that now agitated the country.
Of this he had no more hesitation in affirming, than
I.t had in declaring that he at that moment was
s:anding there. Wishing to excite no party feelings,
trash n to depress all factious spirit on this occasion,
Ire would throw no blame on any one, not even on
those Ministers to whom he was, he might say, ha-
Mtually opposed; but he could not refrain from ex-
pressing his deep regret at the omission of her Ma-
jcstv's 'same in the Liturgy. He would endeavour
to shew that this course might not to have been
taken: and, :hewing that this ought not to have been
done-, he thought he should in effect shew that it
might easily be undone. The step which had been
thought expedient with respect to the Liturgy was a
slip. Its legality might be questioned, and, without
impeaching the Crown, it might be well for those
who had advised the Crown on that occasion, to undo
as act so hastily and uti*arily adopted. He would
nJw state why he thought the step which had been
taken was illegal. Some very learned men (among
them Dr. Johnson) contended tharno change could
be legally made in the Litany, without the consent
of that body called the Convocation, who were only
known to the country by their name, and by their
constant adjouroments, rather than by any acts
hich they lore in the habit of performing.—
The Prayer-book, however, which regulated the Ca-
nons of the Church, had been established by Act of
Parliament. The Act stated, " That with respect to
a;1 Prayer-books, Litanies, and Collects, which in any
way related to the King, Queen, or Royal Progeny,
the proper Authorities were," to do what ? To use
their own discretion in altering them ? To chop and
change and twist about as they should think fit ?
No, but " to alter the names from time to time, and
change them so as to fit the present occasion." What
would this seem to mean to a plain understanding ?
hy, it would seem to mean, that if George should
s'tcceed to Ann, or Caroline to Charlotte, that the
sl woe of Caroline should be substituted for that of
Charlotte, that of George for Ann. If the House
were content with-the difficulties into which they had
Veen brought--if they wished to perpetuate them,
eacn, in Ctoo's name, let them criticise the wording
this Act, and, by patting on it some far-fetched
overstrained construction, , twist its words from that
plain meaning which he supposed to belong to them.
He held it to be no answer whatever to the objection
of 112 r Majesty, to say that the Queen was prayed for
girder the name of " the rest of the Royal Family."
Ir. .1 conscientious or spiritual view this might be
enough, but this did not remove the difficulty.—
Though he was far from undervaluing the prayers of
the Church in any form, he did not think this ought
in sitisfy her Majesty. Supposing (for argument's sake)
the Act which had taken place, from the strained in-
terpretation given to the law, should be proved not
to :he legal, it would follow as a matter of course
t!. Ht the Crown had not been right in performing it.
With the personal feelings of the Sovereign he had
nothing to do--he could not have on this occasion.
Woe to the man who should bring them into this de-
bate. They only knew the King as King, they knew
nothing of him as a man—they only knew him as a
king acting by the advice of his Ministers. Saying
this, he spoke the language of the Constitution ; and
supposing that what had been done was not right, he
only supposed his Majesty's Ministers to have been
wrong. He was afraid that it would not do to use
the healing language of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
who had said, that however the step taken with re-
!Fect to the Liturgy might operate prospectively, it
could have no effect retrospectively, so as to throw
a stigma on the Queen. He, however, must contend
that it could not fail of having this effect. Every
thing went to degrade her Majesty that tended to re-
move herfrom that station to which she was entitled,
contrary to the old established constitutional practice
hear).• Be it legal or not that the Queen
should be prayed for by name, as had been usual in
the cast of former Queens, and as bad been done. in
the case of Princess, till by the late demise of the
Crown she had become Queen, the removal or omis-
sion of her name then could only be viewed as a
stigma, and looked upon4as a degradation. But the
precedent estAblibhed in the time of George L'was,
it seemed, to be brought forward to satisfy her Ma-
;"AY that she was not degraded by the omission of
~er name, and to bolster up the flimsy argument, that
;: was of no importance whether she was prayed
I.r tinder the name of " The Queen," or under that
" (sr the rest of the Royal Family "—(Hear, hear).—
Ctuid nothing but this be suggested to soothe the
ve.ent queen ? Without wishing to rake up the
:!.2i of a departed Princess, he would say that this
!he greatest degradation that could possibly be
to her present Majesty. But the Duke of
it was said, was not prayed for by name. In
• • ' •;r..t place, it was tun so very usual for •the heir
iiTtive to be prayed for by name. But if in •
beiag the' heir presumptive, the Duke of
II.; was apparent, still the cases would be
different. 'Thequeen vets the Consort olthe