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

w.

.1•1 - Y•Ir^"I!M"

~. ./

...

!~"

---r-

4w ;- , .

~--

e,

,

• - • /1 • "--- .e.-Arr--..4":7."
.-..:_-...4—, • e t:, ...•-•
....
~ S
) • .
( Alb
le.
. //
jam' .
,
..#'l
t '
. ,
' C441/4 414 .
twirl 11k,N.%
1.4.11111 PF-7
'
ihn
C iii •
/ 42-47. :t 4.--
mo#cl.ft,,/-.lf is '•%-
ajr4r.2#
.......—_...--

PRICE SEVEN-P 1 NCE•

here. He world therefore again ask, could such a
solemnity, which had been performed with so little
interruption, be a matter so indifferent as to render
it of no consequence whether it was enjoyed or not ?
Those who denied the existence of such a right, were
bound to :hew how it had existed at all. It it were

optional with the King whether the right should be
enjoyed or not, it meant nothing. This he would
lay down with the greatest confidence, as a principle
of Constitutional law. There was. he maintained,

no usage of any magnitude that existed at the Sove-
reign's pleasure. To assert the contrary would be to
say that the King reigned .not for the realm's benefit,
but for his own private en•is. The 14w held that such
important ceremonies were for the realm's benefit;
and every solemnity. the oriBin of which was lost iu
antiquity, and the observance of which occupied a
' grrat share in the annals of the country, mist on
that account be cot,si.tered a right of the realm, and
not an appanage of the King. He held that a coro-
nation was of this nature. Long before the Act of
William and Mary, regarding the Coronation Oath,
&c. it WAS taken to be a high and ancient ceremony,
with which the King could not dispense. It. was a
right not of the. person but of the Sovereign,•to be
I exercised for the benefit of the realm, and as a So-

vereign on!), he was kwt:•wn in that solemnity.—
The Sovereign was the mere creature of the law, as
those solemnities were the creatures of the creatures

of the law ; and the Sovereign had only' to execute
these solemnities of the realm for the benefit of the

realm.

Those who said that the Queen's coronation

depended upon the King's pleasure, must be prepated
to go another step, and say of the King's coronation
that it also depended upon his will, and that it was
a mere vain and empty ceremony-1n insignificant,
an unmeaning, pageant ; for it must be so, if it
depended upon his will whether it should be or•not.
He was at a loss to know how this ceremony could

be considered as the mere personal right, as belong-
ing to the man and not to the Sovereign. flow could
it be said that he was not there in his political capa-
city, when perhaps, of all other occasions, it was then
that his political capacity stood most forward, and
that his personal existence was most deeply merged ?
The coronation of the Queen rested precisely upon
the same feeling; it was a right as ancient, and as
constantly exercised as that of the King. With' re-
spect to the principle itself, though not bound to
shew it, still he would deal a little with that part of
the question, because he thought that the reasoning
would throw much light upon the subject. It was,
he said, likely that, in ancient times, the coronation
was much more than a ceremony—it was an acknow-
ledgment, or probably the election of the Monarch—
at which the King and Queen were shewn •to the
people for their approbation : when the King was
held up for the approbation of the people, every one
would discover a good reason for holding up the
Queen also, on account of her place, her natural con-
nection with the King. The necessary connection
with the*rest of the Royal Family, made her an im-
portant and necessary figure in the Royal ceremony.
He then referred to a Charter of the fifth year of the
reign of John, in which there was a grant of dower
to his daughter Isabella ; referring to the coronation
of his Queen, it stated that she had been crowned
with the common consent of the Barons, Clergy, and
the People. He proceeded to shew the importance
of acknowledging in every public manner the rights
of the Queen of kngland—the necessity of holding
her up not only as pure, but with conduct above sus-
picion. It was from her that the rightful successors
of the Crown were to issue ; an.: it was above all
things necessary that the legitimacy of that issue
should be without taint or suspicion, in order to pre-
vent the greatest domestic calamity—a disputed Suc-
cession : upon an undisputed Succeaion, the peace
and prosperity of the Crown depended. It was with
that view that the Law of Treason, as far as related
to the conduct of the Queen, depended. The law
made no' istinction between a young Queen and a
Queen advanced in life—between a Qu: en of eighteen
and of eighty years of age—the law guarded with
equal anxiety the Royal bed to the List hour of the
Queen's existence. The Learned Gentleman then
next proceeded to combat the argument that the co-
ronation of the Queen del:ended entirely npon the
Proclamation of the King—the right of the subject
depended upon the Crown issuing a writ of right in
some cases, a Royal Proclamation in others. • Here
he referred to the usual summons issued to an Earl's
eldest son, to the issuing of a Proclamation in the
case of prizes, and lastly, to the issuing of a Procla-
mation for the calling of Parliaments. These differ-
ent rights depended upon the Crown issuing its Pro-
clamation ; they could not be exercised or enjoyed
without that Proclamation or summons ; but then
tic question was, was the Crovin bound to issue Pro-
clamations in the one case, or its writ or its summons
in the other? He contended that it would be mon-
strous to say that the Cwown was not bound,•strictly
bound, to issue such writ, summons, or Proclamation.
In case the Crown delayed, or refused to do so, he
was not bound to say what diode was to be taken by
the aggrieved subjects. Possibly impeachment would
be the remedy. It was enough tor him to say that
the Crown was bound—that it could not refuse to
issue its Writ or its Proclamation ; and that w ith re-
spect to the coronation of her Majesty, the right was
equally clear and the necessity equally obvious and
imperative.. Put the Queen's claims upon the same
grounds as the rights of the People, alio he was shti,_
tied. He had heard it said that the Queen was no
Corporation, and had no right of preset iption. She
was as much a Corporation as the King. And he would
say, that'she could prescribe as a functi,-nary, and by
virtue of the dignity and authority of her < slice. Chief
Baron Comyn laid it down that Officeis could pre-
scribe, and-instanced the right of a Chancellor so ,o do.
In 2o Roll, p. 264, it was laid down that a Se:jeant-
Attnrney and Under-Sheiiff are all presumiaive, as
hol,iing those places not merely for themselves, but
with reference to the rights of all those who may suc-
ceed them in such offices. The gist of Henry 11.