out of the room. In a few minutes the committee returned with the address, and Mr. Byrne, a king's counsel, rose to move an amendment. That gentleman, after a strong declaration of loyal attachment to the throne, went on to lay a ground for the amendment which he meant to propose, by condemning the conduct of ministers. The sheriff interrupted him immediately, saying, that these topics were irrelevant: Mr. Byrne asserted, that he was strictly in order; and the sheriff declared, that if he did not desist, he would call in the military. The sheriff then proceeded to put the question on the original address; but even this question he put in the affirmative only, and hearing a few voices exclaim "ay," he gave it as his opinion, that the address was carried unanimously. The sheriff having then left the chair, a large majority of the freeholders present, thinking that the address was not legally carried, voted lord Cloncurry, a magistrate of the county, into the chair, in order to effect the object for which they had been convoked. That noble lord having taken the chair, the sheriff declared the assembly to be illegal, and quitting the room, commanded all who were loyal men to follow him; and while the meeting was proceeding to vote a loyal address to the king, a body of troops, with an officer at their head, armed with loaded muskets, and some of them with drawn bayonets, entered by all the avenues leading to the court-room, and by threats and personal force applied to lord Cloncurry, compelled him to retire from the chair, and dispersed the assembly. A petition stating these circum

stances, on the 22nd of February, was presented to the House of Commons by lord John Russell, who moved that it should be referred to a select committee.

On the part of the sheriff it was positively denied, that the committee for preparing the address was named in any other than the usual manner; that the military were called in before their presence was necessary; that their muskets were loaded or their bayonets fixed; or that any violence was offered to lord Cloncurry. The ministers who took a share in the discussion of the subject, particularly Mr. Peel, expressed the irregret, that resort had been had to a military force. At the same time they maintained, that it would have been injudicious in the Irish government to have reprimanded the sheriff, and that, amid such contradictory statements, an investigation in that House would be useless and impolitic. The motion for a committee was lost, 90 voting for it, and 124 against it.

Lord Folkestone, in the debate on the speech from the throne, had expressed his disapprobation of the language of some of the ministerial addresses which had been opposed to those in favour of the Queen, and had alluded more especially to one from some of the clergy of the church of Scotland. The address was one to the king from the presbytery of Langholme, in the county of Dumfries, and was published in the London Gazette of the 2nd of January last; it had been voted on the 19th of December in the preceding year, and was signed "W. B. Shaw, Moderator:"

"We have witnessed, with much concern, and we strongly

deprecate, the spirit of disaffection lately become so prevalent, from what we would term the violent and unconstitutional speeches of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, and the infamous scurrility and misrepresentation of a licentious press.

"As teachers of religion, we deplore the infidel sentiments that are sedulously disseminated, and that have contributed, more than any other cause, to excite the feelings which have of late been but too openly manifested; for it must be evident, that when men renounce their allegiance to God, they will also betray their king and country: and would not those to whom we allude rejoice to overturn the altar, the throne, and the constitution, when they scoff at religion, insult their king, and bring such railing accusations against the men, who under an all-wise and over-ruling Providence, and supported by your majesty, have saved their country, and in whom, we will venture to say, the good sense of the nation still confides?

"With every good citizen and loyal subject, we reprobate the address and petition of the common council of the city of London, than which a greater insult could not be offered to majesty, and which, it behoves all who wish well to their king and country publicly to condemn; nor can we refrain from reprehending severely, the insolence of certain members of the Opposition upon the late prorogation of parliament; for if such conduct in the representatives of the people pass unnoticed, what may be expected from the people themselves?"

On the 1st of February, sir John Newport moved, that this

address contained passages in ma nifest breach of the privileges of parliament, which were the more deserving of notice, because it was said in the Gazette to have been graciously received by his majesty. Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Bragge Bathurst stated, that it had been published by mere inadvertence; that they regretted its publication; and that, had their attention been called to it, it should never have found its way into print. They admitted that it was an infringement of the privilege of the Commons, but suggested, that under the circumstances of the case, the House would do well to abstain from exerting its undoubted authority. Accordingly sir J. Newport, after the motion, which declared the address to be a breach of privilege, had been agreed to without opposition, moved, "That a communication having been officially made to this House, that the insertion in the London Gazette of the aforementioned address from the presbytery of Langholme proceeded from inadvertence to the reprehensible and offensive expressions justly complained of, this House does not feel itself called upon to take further notice of the same.' This resolution was also agreed to. It must be observed, that this address had said nothing of parliament as a body. It merely alleged, that the speeches of the Opposition were violent and unconstitutional, and that some of the members had acted with insolence on a particular occasion. It attacked neither the House of Commons as a whole, nor any members in particular.

Amid these attempts to extol or deprecate the addresses to the

king on the one hand, or those which were presented to his consort on the other, as infallible criteria of public feeling, the sense of the House of Commons, with respect to her majesty's affairs, was pronounced in a very decided manner, as often as the subject was brought before them. On the 25th of January, lord Archibald Hamilton brought forward the motion of which he had given notice on the first day of the session. It was couched in these words. "That the order in council, dated the 12th Feb., 1820, in which the name of her majesty queen Caroline, consort of this realm, was directed to be omitted in the Liturgy, appears to this House to be a measure illadvised and inexpedient." After stating that matters could not rest in their present situation, and that her majesty could not remain satisfied merely with the allowance of a large income, which the ministers had declared to be all that they meant to do for her, the noble mover, in support of his resolution, argued that the ministers had no power to erase her name from the Liturgy; that it was unfair to imprint this stigma upon her, before she had been convicted or even accused of any offence; that the prayers of the church were accorded to the royal family, not in respect of their private merits or qualifications, but on account of the situation in which they stood; and that nothing could be more unwise, than, by contrasting the merits or demerits of different individuals of the royal blood with each other, to invite an inquiry throughout the nation, whether this or that prince were fit to be prayed for. The voice of the

country had protested against the treatment which her majesty had met with; and while ministers persevered in their exclusion of her name from the ritual of the church, confusion and disorder must prevail. His lordship observed, that the order of council authorizing that exclusion was signed among others by Mr. Canning: yet that right hon. gentleman had subsequently, in his place in parliament, made a most ardent declaration of undiminished regard and affection for her majesty. He had protested, that under no circumstances would he be her accuser, and, rather than concur in the proceedings of his colleagues, he had resigned his office. How then could he give his assent to an act, which branded with disgrace the object of his admiration, and operated as a punishment of her, who in his opinion ought not even to be accused? Mr. Ellis having spoken in vindication of Mr. Canning, Mr. F. Robinson replied to lord Archibald Hamilton. After arguing for the legality of what had been done, he contended that ministers, in the situation in which matters had stood, could have followed no other course. Their majesties had been long separated: that separation had been sanctioned by the late king, and in some measure recognised by the legislature. An arrangement suggested by the other party had been, at the date of the order, under the consideration of ministers, by which her majesty was to remain abroad, and was to cease to assume the style and title of queen. If, therefore, with the prospect of such an arrangement being concluded, they had inserted her name in the Liturgy,

they would have been guilty of an absurdity, since they would have been binding themselves to designate her always by that royal title, which, according to the negotiation then pending, she was no longer to take. If they had done that, they must have gone a great deal farther, and must have advised the king to place his consort, in all respects, in the same situation as if there had been no imputation against her. This the ministers could not do, knowing as they did, that she laboured under charges of the gravest nature, supported by a formidable array of evidence, and aware that circumstances might arise to force them to commence proceedings against her. He contended also, that the noble mover, with the opinions which he professed, ought to have taken a more decided course, and should have brought forward a motion for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, instead of proposing a mere abstract resolution. Without therefore putting a direct negative upon the resolution, he thought it sufficient to meet it by moving an adjourn ment of the House.

Though the words of the motion related only to the impolicy of the exclusion of the Queen's name from the prayers of the church, the debate turned chiefly on its legality, and of course it was managed principally by the lawyers. Mr. Wetherell and sir James Macintosh maintained, that the council had, in the present case, assumed a power which the law did not allow them: the law officers of the crown asserted the contrary. Mr. Wetherell's argument was the most elaborate. Prior to the Reformation, the direction and

management of ecclesiastical affairs lay entirely with the court of Rome. This authority was, in the reign of Henry VIII., transferred to the sovereign; and, for a short time, the Crown had the power of regulating the service of the church as it pleased. This power the Crown lost in the subsequent reigns; when the whole ecclesiastical system was altered, and became intermingled and identified with the civil ordinances of the state. A Liturgy was established by act of parliament, and varied from time to time by the legislature; and these parliamentary regulations and enactments, with all others made in furtherance of the same object, were of equal validity and effect, as any other statutes of the realm, and incapable of being altered or modified by any exercise of the royal prerogative. The act of Uniformity of 1661 settled and established the Liturgy of the church; and that Liturgy, being annexed to the act of Uniformity, and authenticated under the great seal, was, to all intents and purposes, part and parcel of the act, as much as if it had been written in the parliament-roll, and thence transcribed into the Statute book. Therefore, it was not competent to the king or his council to make an alteration in the Liturgy, except so far as the words of the act of Uniformity gave them the power. The words of the act were these: "Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in all those prayers, litanies, and collects, which do in any way relate to the king, queen, or royal progeny, the names be altered and changed from time to time, and fitted to the present occa

sion, according to the direction of lawful authority." Now it was singular, if more was intended than to change the name to George or Frederick, to Anne or Caroline, that the framers of the act should not have thought of inserting the word "omit," or something to that effect. The vocabulary of the English language was nearly as full and perfect at that time, as at the present day; and yet how happened it, that sir Matthew Hale, lord Clarendon, and the other learned men who had drawn up the act, with all the copia verborum which the language presented, should not have hit upon a word which would bear the construction of " expunge, or omit, or leave out?" But they had done no such thing. They merely left it "to be altered and changed." At the time of passing this act Charles II. was not married, and a blank was left in one collect for the name of the Queen; leaving it perfectly to be understood, that it was to stand for the insertion of the queen consort's name, when the king should marry; and not only was the blank left for the name, but also for the titles; and, in fact, after the marriage of the king, some copies of the book of Common Prayer had the blank filled up, and the name of her majesty the queen consort inserted. We had one uninterrupted course of precedents from this time down to the reign of Geo. I.; and in this period would any one attempt to say, that it was not the consuetudo regni? We had the proof of the constant practice of three centuries; and a constant custom for three centuries, was fully sufficient to establish a prescriptive right. And who were

they who disputed this usage? Who were they who denied this presumptive right? They were those from whom no man would have thought, that the infraction of a long-established usage would have come. Who could have expected from the present anti-radical monarchical administrationthey who in and out of doors were so loud in combating every thing like reform or change, who trembled at the bare idea of the least deviation from any and every long-established custom-who could have expected that such a violation of the constant practice of three centuries would have come from them? If the name of the Queen might be left out by the order of the privy council, might not the name of the king be also omitted by the same authority? Might not this monarchical administration by the same authority leave out the head of the church-him who would lose the throne, if he married a papist? Would they not be justified in leaving out of the Liturgy, the bishops, the privy council, and the other public authorities, who were there mentioned, as directed by the act? If no one would contend, that the king, the privy council, the bishops, and others, could be omitted;-why was the name of the Queen alone to be at the mercy of a faction? Henrietta, the queen of Charles I., was highly unpopular, and the Commons impeached her: yet they never thought of such an expedient, as the erasure of her name from the Liturgy.

Would the ministers attempt to defend themselves by the omission of the name of the consort of George I. That monarch ascended the throne in 1714.