The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-02-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF

LT, Fs*. O.

The Earl of MALBIESBURT took the oaths and
Its seat.

The Malt, Ste. Duties Bill was rem/ a second time.
• THE QURFaIt.
;MU Katt of LIVIIRPOOL-ear !aeriag ate mead
medieg el the Queen's Annoity Rill, observed, that
be did not think it necessary to enter into any detail
respecting it, and be should mere): 3)l.rd-ore state,
that the annuity of 50,0001. per annum granted by
the Bill to the Queen was fixed upon because by the
original treaty of marriage, when her Majesty first
some to this country, it was stipulated that the late
King should gra•it her 50,900 L per annum, in case of
her surviving his Majesty, then Prince of {Vales.
Though, therefore, under the circumstances, her Ma-
jesty bad not strictly a legal claim to 50,090/. per
annum in case of the decease of his Majesty. yet he
admitted that it was undoubtedly an equitable
and it was upon that ground that it was determined
t• fix at once the amount of her Majesty's income at
the sent specified in the Rill.
The Earl of DARN LEY did not mean to oppose the
Bill, respecting which he for once agreed with the
INoble Earl who had moved its second reading ; nor
was this the proper time to enter at length into the
question relative to the Re-insertion of her Majesty's
name in the Liturgy. He must say, however, that he
did not agree with the House of Commons in their vote
that his Majesty's Ministers did not deseive censure
for striking out the: name of the Queen from the Li-
turgy. And though from various circumstances, he
did not think it expedient to pre:, at the present mo-
ment any motion fur addressing the King, to pray his
Majesty to give orders for the re insertion of the Queen's
name in the Liturgy, still he wished not to be consi-
dered as having finally given np the point, as lie was
desirous of reserving to himself the privilege of bring-
ing forward the question at a future period, if he should
deem it adviseable. With regard to the question of
legality, it was well known that many high legal an-
thorities were of opinion that it was illegal to omit
her Majesty's name; and as it was most unjust to toff
dais her Majesty before trial, by striking her maw
of the Warty, it was decidedly most unjust, after
the prosecution against her Majesty had been abandon-
ed by the prosecutors themselves, to continue that
condemnation of her conduct. As to the question of
expediency, it was too large a field, and embraced too
many points for him to go over at that moment,. but
be had no hesitation in stating, that every considera-
tion of expediency called upon his Majesty's Ministers
to replace the name of the Queeu in the Liturgy. It
had already indeed, if he was well informed, produced
consetrences greatly to be deploriol, he meant a con-
siderable secession from the Church of England, and
he put it to the Reverend Lords on the other side,
whether it was fitting to persevere in excluding the
Queen from the prayers of the people at the risk
of producing such lamentable consequences? Ile was
of opinion, that upon all the grounds he had urged, the
name of the Queen ought, without delay, to be restored
to time Litorgyotne that to continue the exclusion world
he degrading to the Crown, and injurious to the
beat interests of the country, in keeping up that
irritation which ought by every means to be allayed.

The 1.011. D CHANCELLOR said, had he any
doubt as to the legality of not inserting tl none of
her Majesty in the Liturgy, he would be the first to
move an address to the King, to pray his Nlajesty to
restore the name of the Queen to the Liturgy. It was
a question, however, upon which he had obtained
every information that could be acquired, and the re-
sult was, that be had no doubt whatever of the legality
of omitting her Majesty's name in the Liturgy. lic
repeated, without at all entering into the question of
expediency, that were he not completely satisfied as
to the legality of omitting her Majesty's name in the
Liv-rgy (her Majesty being still prayed for as a part
of the 'loyal Family), be would be the first to move
an Address to the King, praying his Majesty to restore
her Majesty's name.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY felt himself
called upon, in consequence of what hid been said by
the Noble Lord (Darnley) of a considerable secession
front the Church of England, to say a few words. If
there was any *Tessier'', he (the Archbishop) was In-
tirely ignorant of it. As to the question respecting
praying for the Queen, her Majesty's claim was not to
prayer, but to distinction in prayer, the distinction of
having her name expressly mentioned; a claim which,
of course, let in the consideration as to how far the
conduct of her Majesty was deserving of that distinc-
tion. Uod forbid that her Majesty should not be
prayed tor; every individual, however mean :n rank,
or low in character, being prayed for in the service of
the Chur,h of England. But her Majesty's claim to
distinction in prayer was, he maintained, founded upon
no ground of legality.
Lord ELLENIIOIIOIIIII objected to the large
amount of the grant to the Queen, but it was not his
intention to oppose the Bill. He could not, however,
agree with the House of Coalitions in the propriety of
giving so large an allowance to the Queen—an al-
lowance which he feared, from the previous conduct
of she Queen, would not be expended in • way that
would tend to support the honour of the Crown, or to
sustain that dignity of station which appertained
to the Queen. He regretted that the House of Com-
mons should have been induced, upon this occasion,
to depart from that principle of economy which, in
the present distressed state of the country, should be
strictly maintained. Every saving that could he made
had been at ditferen► times called for, such as the abo-
lition of the offices of the Third Secretary of State,.