Star.
London, England, 1821-07-06 00:00:00

THE QUEEN'S RIGHT TO BE CROWNED.

PRIVY COUNCIL—(THIS DAY).
At half-past ten o'clock this morning her MA-
JESTY'S Counsel resumed their arguments in support

of the legal right of the QUEEN to enjoy the solemni-
zation of the Coronation, according to the immemo

rial usage of the Queens of England. The Council
was rather fuller than yesterday, the room was

crowded to excess, and many distinguished Mem-
bers of the Council were obliged to stand. There
'were present, the LORD CHANCELLOR,. the Dukes of

WELLINGTON and MONTROsE; the Marquisses CAM-

DEN, HERTFORD, CHOLMONDELEY, and LONDON-
DERRY; the Earls Of HA RROWBY, BA THDRST, LIVER-

POOL, WESTMORELAND, and LAUDERDALE; Lords

SIDMOUTH, MELVILLE. YARMOUTH, MONMOUTH,

ST. HELENS, BINNING, and several others. Among

the Members of the Commons present were, Sir

JAMES MACKINToSII, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. MUGGE
BATHURST, Mr. WELLESLEY POLE, Mr. FltrsicrssoN,
Nfr, ARBUTHW.T, Mr. WYNNE, Sir GEORGE HILL,

&c. The three Chief Judges who attended yester-

day, the King's ATTORNEY and SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
and several King's Counsel, were likewise present,
tlgether with the Gentlemen of her MAJESTY'S
Counsel, not immediately engaged in conducting her

tne,ent case. The rosh, when the doors were opened,
was tremendous, and a strong bar, which was placed

at the end of the room, was nearly overturned by the

pressure.
Mr. BROUGHAM resumed his argument where he
left off yesterday. He said, that he had stated from
the most conclusive authority, namely, the recorded
facts of history, that no King, he being married at

the time of his coronation, had ever been crowned
ithout his Con%ort participating in that ceremony.

Ite latl out of his jeller.il proposition the case of

Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles the First, for

the reasons he gave yeSterday. That case had been,
he (Mr. Brougham) thought, sufficiently explained.
Supposing even that it were the case (which it was
not) that :here haJ occurred some two or three in-

stances in which there was no proof of the Queen

being crowned with the King, he being married at
the time of his Coronation, still he should contend

that, according to all the rules of probability, of
reason, and law.. all judicial tribunals would, in the
absence of that paiticular proof in the few cases, adopt

the general presumption, that the practice had
been observed in the few as in the many, and con-
clude that the want of proof in two cases out of a
hundred, if such they were, did not invalidate the
uniform and general usage. His argument then was,
_ _

that 'there was no instance of the right being claimed
and refused; there had never, if even it could be
proved that the right was refused, been an acquies
cence, or an adjudication by competent authority.—
He as here referring to mere omissions—not
to resignation of use, or not claiming. If he
then could shew, that in ninety-nine cases out of
one hundred the right liad, in fact, been used, it was
then in vain to argue, against his asserted right, that
he had failed to prove it in the whole of the hundred
cases ; for surely everything was to be presumed in
his favour from the great number of instances covered
by his proof. It would be otherwise, indeed, if his
opponents, whoever they may be. could prove one
case of real waiver of the claim, or one case of re-
fusal acquiesced in, or still more, if they could
establish one adjudication to the contrary ; but
when there was not a single exception—when there
was not a single case at the other side, and where
the mere omission, in the one case ont of the hundred,
was one of mere doubt—an admission given for the
sake of an admission, and not as a concession yield-
ing to the test of proof—when all this was the case,
he had a right to assume that the practice for which
he contended had been uniform and undeviating;
and more strong still was his case, when he fully and
satisfactorily explained the reasons for the omission
in the particular instances where this had occurred.
—He must again repeat, and press upon their Lord-
ships' attention, that he had shewn in every instance
where a King was married at the time of his Coro-
nation, both before and since the Revolution, he had
had his Consort crowned with him, except in the
case of the Queen of King Charles the First. That
case, he repeated, he bad abundantly explained.—
He relied then most confidently, that the omissions
came within the limits of the' general propositions
with which he had set out; that they were within
the rules which governed the legal admission of
rights, founded upon usage in the Courts of Law,
and in which Judges and Juries bad from time im-
memorial acquiesced. These rules, in the ordi-
nary practice of law, when brought to bear upon
the two cases to which they were most applied,
namely, right of way, and right founded upon
possession, were only required to be carried as
far as the memory of living witnesses, but in
this case he went further, for he shewed a long
course of exercise of the right he claimed ; he had
shewed that in no instance had it been laid aside. Where
the omissions to use it had occurred, he trusted that
he had clearly explained the reason why they had
been abstained horn ; but even had he not done so,
abstinence from proof of a right in a pat ticular in-
stance, did not go to establish the non-existence of
that ti
,;ht; even a waiver of a right in a particular
il;stance did not affect the general existence of the
i ;Oa, unless where that waiver was repeated and
apparently adopted. There was ao such thing