the gallery was cleared for a division, to which, however, Mr Sumner did not press his amendment; and the original motion was carried without a division.

Sir J. Newport now called the attention of the House to a breach of their privileges, in the address presented by the presbytery of Langholm, on the late proceedings. He observed on the right which was fully secured to the members of parliament, to debate all matters consistent with public affairs, without liability to injurious comment. This right had been violated in the present instance. He did not, however, so much regard it, on account of the petition itself, as of the notice taken of it by government. An answer had been returned, that it had been graciously received by his Majesty; and it had appeared in the Gazette, where, according to the late confession of one of the ministers, it was usual to insert only a selection of the addresses. That in question contained the following passages :-

"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.

"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?"

VOL. XIV. PART I.

The honourable member concluded with moving that this address was a breach of the privileges of the House.

Lord Castlereagh and Mr Bathurst stated, that the address had been admitted by inadvertence, amid a crowd of others, which there had not been time to peruse attentively. Its insertion had been a subject of particular regret to the minister of the home department. Lord C. conceived, however, that the subject having been thus mentioned and explained, no farther proceedings ought to be held. No man could feel more strongly than he did for the privileges of the House; but if they were to notice every writing that could be construed into a breach of the privileges, their whole time would be occupied in such proceedings. If it were laid down that all publications of this nature were to be brought under the notice of the House, he would by tomorrow select three or four specimens from addresses in which he, and those with whom he had the honour to act, were charged with motives the most base, with corruptions the most disgraceful, with the abandonment of duty, and with the commission of the most flagrant crimes. Now, he was persuaded that the honourable baronet was influenced too much by the spirit of justice, to think of throwing his broad shield over his own friends, without allowing him (Lord C.) to produce what he might call his contre-projet, in defence of himself and of his colleagues.

Mr Scarlett, however, insisted that it was not so much the circumstance of the presentation of the address, as thatof its sanction by ministers, which called for animadversion. It was finally agreed, that there should be an entry on the journals, purporting, that this publication contained gross

C

breaches of the privileges of Parliament; but that a communication having been officially made, that their insertion in the Gazette had taken place through inadvertence, the House did not feel themselves called upon to take any farther measures.

On the 25th of February, another grand effort was made by the opponents of ministers. A motion of censure, for their conduct in the case of the Queen, was brought forward by the Marquis of Tavistock. The noble mover conceived, that the opinion of the public on this subject was so express and decided, that the vote of the House might be considered as a test how far the wishes of the people were represented in Parliament. Anticipating an unfavourable result, he hailed these proceedings, rash, unjust, and illegal as they were, as the bright omen of reform, for which he trusted the people would now pour in petitions from every quarter. After taking a view of the series of proceedings, all of which he condemned, the noble marquis concluded by moving, "That the proceedings instituted against the Queen were not justified by the political expediency, or necessity of the case, and that they were derogatory to the dignity of the crown, and injurious to the best interests of the people."

A long debate ensued, and was continued for two days, in which Mr Lambton, Mr Whitmore, Sir James Mackintosh, Lord Nugent, Lord Milton, Sir F. Burdett, Mr Tierney, and Mr Brougham, supported the motion, which was opposed by Mr B. Bathurst, Mr Bankes, Mr Peel, Mr Horace Twiss, Mr Huskisson, Mr Wellesley Pole, and Lord Castlereagh. The subject, however, had already been discussed so repeatedly, and in such multiplied shapes, that an analysis of the debate could no longer

possess any novelty. Mr Wilberforce's sentiments were expected with some anxiety, but though he voted in favour of ministers, he did not speak. Lord Castlereagh felt indebted to the noble member, for the candid and straightforward way in which he had brought forward his motion, by which he had rescued his party from the milk-and-water system with which they had so long been dealing. He might have rested upon repeated parliamentary decisions, which would have made the vote of censure operate as severely against the House as against ministers. He would wave this ground, however, and consider the question on its own merits. He then went over the whole train of the proceedings, justifying at once their legality and expediency. Mr Brougham, as it had been industriously circulated, that he had formed a private opinion of the Queen different from his public one, solemnly declared, that if he had been one of the Queen's judges, he would have conscientiously given a verdict of Not Guilty.

On the vote being called, there appeared for the motion, 178, against it, 324; making the majority of 146 in favour of ministers.

On the 13th, the last effort was made by Mr J. Smith, who had announced his intention of moving an address to the throne, for the restoration of her Majesty's name to the Liturgy. He altered his motion, however, to a mere resolution, "That the House was of opinion that her Majesty's name should be inserted in the collects, prayers, and litanies," &c. &c. The interest of the House was exhausted, and none of the great political combatants came down into the arena. The motion was supported by Mr Tennyson, Mr Lennard, Mr Marryatt, Lord Milton, Sir J. Newport, and Mr Lamb; while it

was opposed by Mr Legge, Mr C. Wynn, Mr Stuart Wortley, Mr Wilmot, Sir T. Acland, and Sir J. Marjoribanks. Mr Wilberforce, on this occasion, delivered his sentiments. Looking to the whole conduct of his Majesty's ministers, he saw nothing which called for the condemnation of the House and the country. He felt doubtful as to the legal question of the right to omit her Majesty's name in the Liturgy. He viewed with strong disapprobation the Queen's answers to the addresses, though he was ready to make allowance for the treatment experienced by her. At the same time, he thought that the restoration of her name in the Liturgy, was a point to which no objection could be made, and which might be yielded to the people, in order to allay their ir ritation.

In consequence of the view thus taken by Mr Wilberforce, and some of his friends, the majority in favour of ministers was not so great in this question as in the former. It was only 120, (298 to 178.)

Although the general question in the Lower House was thus closed, a debate of some interest was moved by Lord Archibald Hamilton, on the Order in Council, directed to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, for the omission of the Queen's name in the prayers of that church. His lordship began with alluding to the extraordinary declaration of Lord Castlereagh, that this motion was a disgrace to the order book of the House. (Cries of no! no!) The words had not passed from his memory, and he was anxious to justify himself. This Order in Council purported to be one to which obedience was lawfully due. It was issued on the same day with the English Order in Council, by virtue of which the Queen's name was omitted in the Liturgy; it was drawn up in exactly

the same terms, and signed by the same names, the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c. It had, however, received a different fate from that issu ed in England. And he meant to state, and without using a sarcasm, that due and proper obedience had been paid to the order sent to Scotland, by not obeying it at all. In his opinion the order was either impotent or illegal ;-impotent, if they knew it would not be obeyed-illegal, if it were to be obeyed without any proper authority. So that, in either case, he must beg leave to say that such an order reflected far greater disgrace upon the book of the Privy Council which issued it, than his motion could possibly do upon the order-book, according to the opinion of the noble lord opposite. The first case in Scotland to which he meant to call the attention of the House, as following the arrival of the Order in Council in that part of the empire, was that of the County Sheriff acting at the Sessions of Kirkcudbright; and here he particularly begged their attention to the parties who were called upon to give efficacy to the order. At the sessions to which he alluded, there met, the Sheriff, his son, a colonel of the Yeomanry, and the clergyman. At that meeting the Sheriff, his son, and the colonel, agreed, that in compliance with the Order in Council, they should prevent the Queen from being prayed for. The clergyman, however, dissented from their opinion, and refused to omit her Majesty's name. The matter was then referred to the Presbytery, who approved of the conduct of the clergyman, disapproved of the Order in Council, ordered the minute of the Sheriff's approval to be erased, and the parties to appear before them for reprimand, and the whole decision to be read in the church. Surely this was throwing great obloquy upon the Order in

Council, and which, if that order were legal, must be attended with some penalty. The second case to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that of another Sheriff of a Scotch county, who was also a colonel of Yeomanry. The colonel asked the clergyman of his district, whether he was a party to any agreement not to omit the prayer for the Queen in the church service. The clergyman replied very properly, that he would act in obedience to the law of the land. The same clergyman, at the end of a sermon which he preached-one which was, as the learned lord opposite (the Lord Advocate) must admit, remarkable for nothing but the propriety of its language and sentiments-at the end of that sermon the clergyman, after praying for the King, said, " and bless likewise the Queen." For that conclusion the clergyman was on the same day (the Sunday) put under arrest. He begged to be understood as not meaning that he was put under actual personal restraint; but merely that he was desired to consider himself as arrested, and the arrest was continued for that day. The order was made to alter the prayers of a church which had no Liturgy, and was addressed to a body over which it had no more authority than it would have at Constantinople. It might, perhaps, be shown that Orders in Council had formerly been addressed to the clergy of Scotland; but of this he was sure that whenever such an order had produced any effect on the church, it had only been through the recommendation of the General Assembly, and not from any force in the edict itself; and this, in fact, had been the case on the marriage of the present King. The case of arrest was one which particularly called for the sympathy of the House; for the clergyman on whom that outrage had

been committed was an individual of the utmost respectability of character, who, so far from allowing his zeal in political matters to carry him too far, was one of the most moderate and temperate members in all the church. But was a clergyman to be put under arrest, because he refused to pray, as he expressed it himself, "by word of command?" Let the House only reflect on the situation in which the Church of Scotland was placed by this order a situation which left the clergy no alternative, but either to disregard an order of the King in Council, or to forfeit the respect of a great portion of their parishioners.

The motion was seconded by Lord Glenorchy, who considered the order as a breach of the fundamental principles of the Church of Scotland.

The Lord Advocate conceived, that the motion did the noble lord no discredit, and was only consistent with his principle of watching over the interests of Scotland. The speaker, however, was prepared to defend ministers for advising this Order in Council. He rested this defence, not merely on usage, though it had subsisted for upwards of a hundred years, but also on law. He founded the right on the act of the 10th of Anne, chap. 7. sect. 10. By this enactment, he conceived that the Order in Council was fully warranted. He did not say this on his own authority, but on such authority as, he believed, would be convincing to the whole House-he meant the Decisions of the Supreme Court in Scotland, by which individuals had been punished for refusing to pray, not for Queen Anne or the Princess Sophia, but for George I. He contended then, that the act applied to every future sovereign and heir apparent. An Order in Council, dated the 21st of June,

1714, was sent down, ordering every minister to pray for Queen Anne and the Elector of Brunswick; (Hear, hear,) and a few months after, on the death of Anne, and the succession of George L., a similar Order in Council was sent to Scotland, enjoining the clergy to pray for his Majesty George I. The origin of the act of Queen Anne was this: the clergy in Scotland had been in the habit of praying for the King, but not by name; and as it was well understood that many of them meant the Pretender, this act was introduced for the purpose of tying them down, in express terms, to the name of the Sovereign. It had been held that that act of Queen Anne applied to King George, or the existing monarch, notwithstanding the limitation of its terms; and those persons were indicted before the Supreme Court of Justiciary in Scotland, for that offence. By the various decisions of that Court, it was held that the statute of Anne was "not limited to Queen Anne alone, but was to apply to the reigning Sovereign of the day." The learned lord then went over a number of trials, which had been decided upon this principle, Whether the House should consider these decisions right or wrong-such as they were, they were the decisions of the Supreme Criminal Court of Scotland, and found under circumstances in which, if the Court had entertained any doubts upon their cases, those doubts would have availed the panels. From the year 1714 down to this moment, whenever any alterations of the Liturgy of the Church of England took place, by virtue of an Order of the King in Council, a like order had been sent down to the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, directing him to take the necessary measures for adopting a similar step there. The proceeding of the present government then, was

one which had been universally prac tised, for a long period of time, by their predecessors, and it was complied with by the Church of Scotland in these cases as an act of due respect and consideration for the authorities of England. The present order merely enjoined to pray "for his sacred Majesty King George IV., and all the Royal Family." He was ready to admit, that though the order thus required that the clergy should pray for King George and all the Royal Family, they were not excluded from praying for any particular branch besides of the Royal Family that they chose. And he was also free to confess, that if a clergyman might think proper to pray for the Queen also, nominatim, he did not see anything illegal in it. But when it was asserted that such a prayer for the Queen was the universal custom of the Church of Scotland, he must deny it. When it was said that nine-tenths of the Scottish clergy so prayed, he would venture to observe, that he believed the ratio to be just the reverse. As to what the noble lord had said relative to a letter sent from the Secretary of State, that was quite a different question, and one into which he was not bound to enter. The two subjects of the motion had no sort of connexion whatever. They related to different circumstances occurring at different times. The facts of that case to which the noble lord alluded, had been fairly stated by the noble lord. In the kirk session, it appeared that two members voted against the opinion of the third, "that during the vacancy, it was highly inexpedient that the clergy should pray for the Queen." He was not going to defend this proceeding; on the contrary, he thought it unwise, foolish, and illegal. But what happened afterwards? The presbytery, on receiving intelligence of the matter, saw