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

argued the case, and would support the motion. isio
man would deny that it was mischievous to degrade
the king, by degrading the Queen. Ile repeated;
that the Order in CQuncil, which was illegal, first ,
fixed his opinion as to the treatment Of the Queen
and he considered that a proceeding could not be 11
pure, the initiative of which was founded in gross il-
legality, and monstrous injustice. Ministers, by their
threatening letter, bad established a principle of the
reign of terror, unworthy of Britain, and unparalleled
in Pagan countries. They had dethroned the Queen
abroad, by their secret instructions to foreign Courts,
and they had dethroned her here, by excluding from
the Form of Prayer her name and title. This was
intended to prejudice her in the public mind, while
they were telling her to set her foot on the British
shores if she dared; for if she did, she was ruined.

But she despised that threat, and boldly challenged
her accusers to put her on her trial. For these rea-
sons, he most heartily concurred in the motion made
by the Noble Lord.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose at the same time
with Mr. DODSON, and considerable disturbance en-

sued by cries of the Attorney-General." He, how-

ever, sat down, and .
Mr. DODSON said he would not travel into all
the extraneous arguments of his Hon. and Learned
Friend ; but even he was constrained to allow, that,

at the Reformation the King obtained all the powers
over our Church which were before enjoyed by the
Pope ; and the lion. and Learned Gentleman had
not shewn that, at any subsequent time, those powers
were taken from the Crown. The Bible was translated

by order of the King, and not by the authority of
an Act of Parliament. lie defied his Hon. and

Learned Friend to shew any Statute which had de-
prived the King of these powers, even the regulation
of the Church Service, as far as it concerned the
Royal Family. By the Act of Uniformity it was
evident that the Book of Common Prayer emanated

from the Royal authority alone. If this Act was the
first which gave the power to the Crown to change
names in the Liturgy, how came it, that from the
time of Edward VI. this power was exercised by the
King? His Hon. and Learned Friend had said,
GOD knows, if you leave out the name of the
Queen, but the next thing you may do may be to
leave out the name of the King from the Liturgy."
His Ilon. and Learned Friend, with his high monar-

chical nations, need have no great fear or that, con-
sidering that the power for doing so was vested in
the King himself.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) said, it was last Ses-
sion of Parliament decided by an immense majority,
that her Majesty would be pleased to allow her name
to remain excluded from the Liturgy. To that ma-
jority
he now appealed to get rid of the present mo-
tion. He would put another touchstone to the Gen-
tlemen opposite, and if they did not desire victory
over the King, instead of endeavouring to protect
the Queen, let them pass an Act, that in all time to
come the name of the Queen should be inserted in
the Liturgy. But they would not do that, because
they would dishonour the King—(Cries of Ordri.).—
" Patience, Gentlemen, patience," said he ; and then
sat down. _ _ __ _

Sir JOHN NEWPORT quoted the Irish Act of
Uniformity, as evidence to prove that the right to
exclude the Queen's name from the Liturgy existed
in Parliament alone. The Statute Law was, he
said, as it stood, conclusive.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed his sur-
prise, that those who were dissatisfied with the act
of omitting the Queen's name had not expressed that
dissatisfaction twelve months ago. The reason was,
not that the act was illegal, but that it was income-
nient—(Hear). They had already admitted that it
was strictly legal. The whole argument of those
who advocated the Queen, was built upon the posi-
tion, that the right of her Majesty was immutable;
but they had not shewn how she had any right of the
kind. The Act of Uniformity gave no such right;
and, notwithstanding the appellation of Star Cham-
ber, which had been given to the authority from
which the order had issued, the power that had been
exercised was an existing legal power. The law said
the King had the power of " altering"' the names
in the Form of Prayer, which included " erasing."
But there was no Prayer annexed to the Act for the
Queen or the Royal Family. It remained with the
King to fill up the blank; and if the King had no
power to act, how could he fill up the blank? At
the time of Charles IL there was no Queen Consort:
the blank was then filled up with the name of the
Queen Dowager. Omissions had frequently taken
place. In the reign of George 11. the name of Prince
Frederick, who had been for some time prayed fur,
was struck out, and in that of Philip and Mary, the
King was prayed for, and not the Queen—(Near,
hear! and cries of "She tal3 not Queer Consort!" )
No ; she was Queen Regnant. The form of prayer
was " Pro Rege et Principibus mils." Not only had
Kings inserted names not strictly Royal into the form
of prayer, but actually omitted the names of persons
who had been prayed for. From the year 1714 to
the present, with two solitary exceptions, there had
been one uniform heading to the Oiders in Council.
Did his Honourable and Learned Friend suppose that
the Council had not considered attentively all the
Acts of Parliament on the subject? But it was said
the instance of the wife of Geo. I. was no instance at all.
Did his Honourable and Learned Friend mean to
assert that Gta I. was to all intents and purposes
divorced from his wife? If that was the case, how
happened it that she was always styled the Duchess
of Zell ? He contended that there was no re-
cord of such a divorce ; and he would further add,
that whatever might have been the conduct of the
Consort of George the First, the law was imperative
on the subject. If this was a legal right, the Queen
of George the First was as much entitled to avail
herself of it as the most virtuous Queen that ever ex-
isted in England ; and the Ministers of that period
were as culpable in advising the omission of her name
from the Liturgy as the Ministers of the present day
were in advising the omission of her present Majes-
ty's name. The Honourable and Learned Member
then contended, that there was neither law nor usage
to sanction the right claimed by her Majesty ; and he
was much surprised to hear a Gentleman cf the at-
tainments of his Honourable and Learned Friend,
assert that the Queen was entitled to the special
prayers of those whom he called her subjects. He
never heard that a Queen of this country had any
subjects, nor did he find the term subjects made use
of, except in the Addresses presented to the Queen,