The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-07-07 00:00:00

plaining it, yet be milibt rely upon a decision in his fa-
vour; the legal presumption would be, that if knew ell
the circumstances he should have succeeded in the expla-
nation, and the general rule would be unaffected. That this
was the ground of the practice in all the Courts, he need
not stop to affirm. They all proceeded on it, aedJudges sod
Juries thereby abided. Bat supposing the east of uni-
formity made by this case—supposing the explanation
which be had to give the most unsatisfactory and mead&
.quate to the purpose, still he would have a right to rely
on what be had proved ; every thing ought to be as
in his favour to prevent that one exception from
being of any avail against the general role, to bring it
'within the general rule, and to make it agree with the
uniform current of cases. This was the principle by
which all proceedings in Courts of Justice were regu-
lated. Suppose a question as to the right of way or
common—the two cases would be joined in issue as the
most proper method of determining it. Suppose the evi-
dence to extend as far back as living memory—suppose
that, with the exception of one month or one year, the
right was proved by exercise or enjoyment during the
whole period, the want of proof as to that particular pe-
riod could not be supposed to invade the right. The
party might not be able to prove the exercise of the
right for a particular mouth, as be might not be able to
explain the causes why Henrietta Maria was not crown-
ed. But the Court would hold, if be proved ancient
and continued right and present possession, the excep-
tion to be perfectly explained. But even the abstinence
from enjoyment was no proof of non-existence in the
right. Their Lordships well keew that, in proving
right from immemorial usage, there were three sorts of
cases which the parties might produce :—First, That of
simple usage or enjoyment, which was evidence of so
slight a character, that only a number of cases, bearing
all one way, were of any avail. The second order was of
rights which had been contested and yet were enjoyed;
and any oue instance of this sort was worth a whole crowd
of the 'first. The third class was, that of rights claim-
ed being confiscated or adjudicated, or cases of refusal
without adjudication: and he was ready to admit that
according to law one successful refusal of a right claimed
would be inore fatal to that claim than a number of the
first mentioned cases would benefit it. These bore on the
present question thus:—Agreeably to the first, he bad
'hewn the uniform and uninterrupted enjoyment of the
richt : —second, the absence of an instance under the
third head ;—and third, there being an instance under
the second head of refusal of the right which was after-
wards granted in the case of the wife of Henry 11. which
Fps had quoted yesterday. and where occurred the first in-
terruption—wasthere an acquiescence in that cue ? No;
hut on the contrary, Louis of France, the father of the
Queen, had claimed for his daughter the observance of
the nuiform ceremony, which according to Margaret of
Burgundy, every Queen in England had enjoyed since
the Conquest, and Henry was compelled to acquiesce,
and the Queen was then crowned with great pomp at
Winchester. There was, in fact, no other possible way
of spewing the existence of the right, but the manner in
which he was assuming. proving, and, as, he thought,
establishing it. How else, before the Court of Claims
were rights of service at the ceremony of the
Coronation established ? How else did the Barons
of the Cinque Ports show their right to carry the
canopy OM the King, and to have a part of that
canopy for their service ? Suppose any instance in
which the Barons should for the want of specific proof in
the lapse of ages fail to shew that they had exercised
that privilege—would that countervail the validity of
their claim, founded on repeated usage? Certainly not.
lie would venture to say that there were at least half a
dozen instances in which the Barons could not chew
they had exercised their asserted right ; and would any
of these instances, where that proof failed, shake the
fit su hold of their long and undeniable usage? There
the other day, before the Court of Claims, a right
admitted, which for a long course of years had Fain
dormant, and not been in any way exercised—he al-
lotted to the allowed claim of John Moyn, who, as Lord
four Manors in Essex, claimed to be caterer to the
king's kitchen, and larderer to the King's and Queen's.
'lfni was a claim recognised by the Court—and it could
hit apply to Queen regnants, for it was to be found in
the close roll at the Tower so far hack as the time of
Henry the Fifth, and before there had been a Queen
regnant, so it clearly referred to Queens Consort. Yet
that claim of Moyn's now admitted had not been our-
s ised from the time of Edward V. until after several
subsequent reigns. There was a distinction between the
larderer for the King and Queen, and the caterer for the
King's Kitchen. That distinction, and, in fact, the
whole formula of the ceremony, as laid down in the Re-
cords, shewed that the solemnity of crowning the Queen,
si As not an auxiliary or mere appendage upon that of
the. Kin', but a substantive, independent and principal
ii glut. So essential was it, in point of fact, that the so-
lemnity of crowning the Queen should take place, that
several rights of service and tenure were attached to,
and dependent upon it. lie had to remind their Lord-
ships of the cases which he hail yesterday adduced, of
the Coronation of Queens by themselves singly. There
were nine crowned with the King, or where the King
had been crowned a second time with his Queen when
be married after his own original Coronatiou. In addi-
tion to these were the cases of six Queens, those of Ed-
ward 111, Richard 11, Henries 111, V, and VI, who
were crowned alone, and unattended by their Kings
in the solemnisation of the ceremonies. In all
cases the Coronation of the Queen Consort had
been held so necessary a ceremony as touching
the Crown and the Royal rights as well as those
of the country, that whenever it had been per-
formed in respect to the King alone, it was after-
wards performed again in respect to the Queen, he
hearing no part therein. These circumstances sbewed
that there was something—what it was he should pre-
sently attempt to *hew, and if he did not sncceed, still
the facts would be in his favour—these circumstances
showed that there was something which required that
the Queen should be crowned apart from the King,
having not been crowned with him, and he bearing no
part in the second ceremony. Now, if he were called
upon to chew that the Coronation of a Queen Consort
was not merely accessary to the same solemnity in re-
spect to the King—if he were called upon to chew the
tests to prove the existence of a right—if he was so
called upon—he should answer upon these two grounds.
Firs!, that there was, besides this separate enjoyment,
an appointed ceremonial for that solemnity independent
of any other, which proved a real and substantial right.
—ln the second place there had .risen in the course of
time various rights inseparable from it, and that was
proved by the necessity of having the solemnity per-
formed for the Queen alone. These together, shewed
clear and uninterrupted usage, and upon no other
grounds had they a ngbt to say that the King's coro-
nation was founded. The Queen's right rested upon
the same basis. There was a ceremonial for her,
and necessary rights connected with it. With re-
spect to that ceremonial, be hail already cited pas-
sages from the Saxon history which clearly bore
upon it. It was also described in the Liber
Regalia about which so much bad been said. And
here be must in justice remark to their Lordships, that
there was a statute of Elizabeth, of whose existence be
had been ignorant, imposing a necessity upon the Dean
and Chapter not to give that book out of their hands
without sufficient authority. There was likewise the
Mi. of the reign of Richard the Second, written in the
year 1739, in seltich an account of three different cere-
• monies was ascertained. First, there was the ceremonial

of the solealtuly far the King. is which the Queen was
kept apart. Tim there was another for both—" &


~." '