non. It arose out of the proposition of residence abroad, to which the Queen could not agree, after the charges which had been made against her, and the green bag which had been thrown upon the table, without the concession of something which might secure her motives from all misconstruction. From all that he himself knew-from all that he understood by communication with others -from the known sense of a great part, if not a majority of that House and from the undoubted sense of a majority out of doors, he was warranted in stating, that the surrender of that point by the Crown, would ensure success to the object of his honourable friend. Success would then be certain, and without the shadow of dishonour on the Queen. (Hear, hear.) -This once conceded, all difficulties would be done away. For himself, he could solemnly assure the House, that he was as convinced as he was of his own existence that this was the only remaining obstacle. Let the word Liturgy be but once amicably pronounced, and every impediment would be removed. He did not wish to make this a party question, or throw any peculiar blame on ministers. He believed that deep regret had been expressed for the omission of her Majesty's name in the church service; and by how much the more the act ought not to have been done, so much the easier would it be to un

do it. He did not wish to fatigue the House by a discussion of right, or to lead it through a labyrinth of legal and theological lore. The Liturgy had been established by authority of Parliament, after having been framed and prepared by the convocation. It was only to the due legal authority that a certain power of alteration was given, in cases relating to the Royal Family. It was enacted "that the names of the Royal Family be chan

ged and altered from time to time, as may be fitting to the occasion." What must be understood as the fair intendment of these words? Did they not, upon every principle of ordinary construction, signify, that as George might succeed to Anne, or Caroline to Charlotte, the names of the latter should be substituted for the former? He took his ground upon this simple and obvious interpretation. It was only by over-strained and far-fetched constructions, that any other meaning could be elicited. The including of the Queen under the general term of the Royal Family, might perhaps be defended in point of religion, but not of justice or constitutional propriety. Could it indeed be maintained, that the erasure of her Majesty's name from the prayers of the church cast no stigma, and implied no suspicion? If Queen after Queen had been prayed for-if her present Majesty, whilst Princess of Wales and until the demise of the crown, had herself been prayed for, could such an omission be passed over as a trifling or unimportant matter? But it seemed that the name of George the First had been inserted singly, and this was stated by way of shewing that her Majesty would sustain no dishonour by a similar circumstance. Were he not, however, averse to tread on the ashes of a departed Queen, he could shew that this refer ence contained the greatest possible aggravation of the injury. Then it had been urged that the Duke of York had been prayed for by name; but a Duke of York, as heir-presumptive, had no title; and the rule respecting him, when heir-apparent, was by no means so inflexible as with regard to a Queen-Consort. Queen was not only the consort of a King, but the first subject of his realm. She was subject only to the monarch; she had high and peculiar

privileges-he had almost said prerogatives. The King's, indeed, were not imparted to her, but they shelter ed, covered, and protected her. In other respects she enjoyed privileges above all other women. There was nothing of which the law was more careful, than to guard the honour of the Queen Consort, and of the line which was continued through her. A stigma in this quarter might, in other circumstances, have caused a disputed succession. But he was told that her Majesty ought to waive this point, because an accommodation was desirable. His question, in answer to that observation, was, why should not his Majesty, or rather his Majesty's ministers, waive this point? (Hear.) They were the authors of the act: her Majesty was the only sufferer by it; she had obeyed the law, and there was no charge against her arising out of the transaction. The concession must be degrading to her; it could not be degrading to the other side. On the part of her Majesty, it was to surrender all; on the part of ministers, it was to surrender nothing. If she acquiesced, she must be degraded every Sunday in the eyes of every Christian congregation through out the land. The importance early attached to this point was shewn by expressions of the Princess Sophia, when she was asked, in the reign of Queen Anne, to come over and reside in Britain. She had then evidently considered the being prayed for as equivalent to residence, and as securing her title to the crown. He would not listen for an instant to the argument, that the crown would lower itself by the concession. Ministers had advised the act; let them now advise its revocation. The disgrace, when removed from the Queen, could not attach to the Sovereign; if he thought it could, he should be the dast man to advise it. Who was not

anxious to protect the unsullied honour of the crown of these realms ? On no account whatever, happen what might, would he cast the slightest shade on that pure and spotless diadem. He conceived that the constitution could not recognize the King in his individual capacity, and that all the public acts of the crown must be the acts of ministers. Were they to open their ears to every rumour, or to every vague notion that the King's dignity might be insulted, and lose sight altogether of the Queen's situation? It appeared to him to be an easy mode of extricating themselves from the difficulty, to carry up an humble address to the foot of the throne, representing the sentiments which they could not avoid entertaining on this painful subject. There was no reason why ministers should hesitate to give sound advice on this important subject. Let them not fear lest their Sovereign should discountenance them for it. He was too just and patriotic not to know that it must have been extorted from them by the commanding voice of Parliament. Even if it should lead to a dismissal from their places, let them not dread that by manfully discharging their duty, or yielding to expediency, or complying with the wishes of that House, they would ultimately lose them. (Hear, hear.) He should like to see the man who would step forward to succeed them in such a case. Where could be found the rash and presumptuous factionists, the headstrong and audacious politicians, who would venture to step into places from which others had been removed only for discharging an honest, a conscientious, and an important duty? He trusted they were now near the end of those painful preliminary discussions. Let the House look to the case. They were going on, day af ter day, and something else was go

ing on, day after day, out of doors→→ (hear)-much irritation, great disappointment, and a constant factious meddling with, and perversion of, the case, for the purpose of keeping up that irritation. He would not say that this had taken place: he would say that it was going on every day and every hour. It was time that such a state of things should end; and he believed it was the general opinion, he hoped, a strong one, that these discussions should also terminate. Mr Brougham regretted that on this subject he should differ from any of his political friends. He owed here an imperious duty to the country, and one more sacred still to his illustrious client. If he were capable of being biassed, on such an occasion, by party spirit, or the love of popularity, he would think himself the meanest of traitors to the mistress he served. He would never give her Majesty any other advice than that which appeared to him most conducive to her own honour, and the tranquillity of the country.

Lord Castlereagh declared, that he felt considerable difficulty in rising to address the House, after the powerful impression which had been made by the extraordinary talent and ingenui. ty of the honourable gentleman who had just sat down. Without losing any advantage of his legal character, he had availed himself of his situation as a senator, to excite the strongest feelings in the assembly. He himself had not intended to speak till a later period; but he felt called upon to answer, without delay, some observations of the learned gentleman. He entirely agreed with him as to the harmony with which the conferences had been conducted, though in his speech he had thrown out some insinuations too much in the spirit of an advocate. With regard to the question of the Liturgy, he was ready

to take it on the broadest grounds of ministerial and personal responsibility. Her Majesty's right to the title of Queen, had been from the first unequivocally acknowledged; he had named her in Parliament under that title. Whatever propositions were made to her Majesty when abroad, were laid before her in the character of Queen. Her Majesty had not been called on to surrender any of her legal rights, as Queen, but to forbear from the exercise of certain rights, which ministers were induced to recommend, that, for the sake of peace, she should give up. It was necessary for his argument, on this subject, that he should state so much of the law, with respect to the liturgy, as governed his own judgment, and that of his Majesty's ministers, in the advice they had given. In the first place, he denied that the Act of Parliament was peremptory on this question. The words of the statute, which set forth, "that it would be proper for the lawful authorities to alter the prayer with respect to the King, Queen, and Royal Progeny," did not impose on the Council the necessity of inserting the names of all the persons that came within those words. From the period of passing the act of uniformity down to the present day, a discretion had been exercised by the King in Council, to include or exclude the names of individuals of the Royal Family. It was a fallacy to say that her Majesty was not now prayed for. This could not be contended, unless it could be proved that her Majesty was not a member of the Royal Family. Although he would not disguise that there were considerations, on which the discretion of his Majesty, to include or exclude names, had been exercised in this instance, yet he protested against the conclusion that the manner in which the discretion had been exercised was

a conclusive stigma upon her Majesty. There was no principle of selection; the power was arbitrary. Names were included in the Liturgy or excluded according to circumstances, and as the King was advised by his Council to make the introduction or exclusion. As to the mode of exercising this discretion, the Council did not generally make the necessary alteration, but referred it to the archbishop, who carried the representation made to him to the closet, and altered the Liturgy accordingly, with the approbation of the Sovereign. This discretion had been exercised, not only in more distant connexions, but even in some as near as the present. The Queen of George I. had not been prayed for by name. It was true, there had been documents in the Consistory Court at Hanover which justified this exclusion. But the case shewed the same exercise of discretion which was acted upon in this case, and in this case too that discretion was exercised upon distinct considerations. Prince George of Denmark had not been prayed for by name, although he was the consort of the Queen. This was a case which justified to the full extent the discretion now exercised.

This step had by no means been taken in contemplation of proceedings before Parliament. Every effort had been exhausted to avert that calamity, which only the arrival of the Queen in the country could render inevitable. Information had been given, which attributed to her Majesty charges of the gravest nature. The question was, under the inevitable fact of ministers possessing such information, what course they had to adopt. Under the prospect of proceedings which nothing could prevent but that the Queen should not come to this country, could he have advised to call for the prayers of the country

for the illustrious individual by name

not to call for the prayers of the country for her as one of the Royal Family; but to present the individual for the prayers of the country, when perhaps it might soon afterwards become a duty to bring down information to Parliament which might give a character to her of a different sort. He had no hesitation in saying, that, while influenced by the considerations which he had mentioned, he would, as an honest man, and as a minister of the Crown, have sacrificed his existence rather than have given a different advice, and without any examination into the truth of the information. The Queen's counsel had never till now appeared to attach any importance to this point. They had taken no notice of it in the negociations prior to the Queen's arrival, in which the complaint only related to the want of respect from the King's servants abroad. Lastly, at the opening of the conferences, this point had never been mentioned; but it had been declared, that her Majesty's honour and dignity being satisfied, every other question was secondary, and might be left to arbitration. If it had been brought forward, it would have terminated the negociations at once. It was hard that this cardinal and essential point should have been kept back, and that ministers should thus have been entrapped into a negociation. His Majesty's ministers could not as honest men, or in common sense, act otherwise than they had done till an inquiry took place. There had been no difficulty in point of law. If the law had required the introduction of the name into the Liturgy, it would have been a great relief from the most embarrassing question which ever any government felt. If the Queen now complied with the wishes of Parliament, it would be fair to view her conduet, not as a shrinking from in

quiry, or a withdrawing of the pledge she gave in coming to this country; but as proceeding from a spirit of accommodation, and a desire to save the Parliament and the country from an inquiry most difficult and most perilous in itself, and most alarming in its consequences. Ministers had shewn every disposition to conciliate, short of calling upon the King to retract his deliberate opinion; but if the system of tergiversation, which had recently been adopted, were to be continued; if, when one point was conceded, another point was in consequence of such concession to be more strongly insisted upon, the House might bid adieu to all hopes of any satisfactory negociation. Ministers had been willing to give up every thing, except their own honour, to relieve her Majesty; they had not refused her any point which it was within their power to grant; and whatever might be the result of the present deliberations, he, for one, did not feel inclined to recede a single inch from the counsels which he had given to the Crown upon this very delicate and important subject.

Lord Archibald Hamilton began with expressing his high esteem for the honourable member who had brought forward the present motion; but could not think it had been at all framed in the spirit of conciliation. His honourable friend came to the House, and he could assure his honourable friend, that, in the remarks which he was going to make, he had no intention to disparage his many great and eminent virtues; but his honourable friend came to the House lamenting the unfortunate differences which existed between the two most illustrious personages in the country lamenting the extent to which they had been carried-lamenting the improbability which appeared of bringing them to any amicable

adjustment, and concluded, after all his lamentations, by proposing that the party which had previously been acknowledged to be the injured party should submit to still further injuries, and that the persons who inflicted those injuries, and who, he did not hesitate to say, were his Majesty's ministers, (hear,) should be empowered to ask her Majesty, in the name of Parliament, to give a permanent acquiescence to a scheme, which, supposing it to give her a partial and temporary relief, was certain, at the same time, to entail upon her a permanent and indelible disgrace. He had long meditated a motion upon the subject of the Liturgy, and had only been withheld by representations from the Treasury Bench, on the extreme delicacy of the subject; but all motive for reserve was now over. The Queen, it was said, sustained no injury, because she was prayed for under the words of "all the Royal Family;" but the King was also so prayed for; and for the same reason his name should have been omitted. The honourable mover, he thought, was the last man to have treated this as a mere matter of court etiquette; yet, if he thought otherwise, he was guilty of inconsistency in asking the Queen to give up her right. He trusted the House would rather sanction the principle of undoing what had been unjustly done, than of persevering in acts of similar injustice. He had received letters from different gentlemen, in different parts of the country, and even from some clergymen, stating that the order in council was entirely ineffective, and adding, that in many parts of the kingdom her Majesty was publicly prayed for, even by name. His Majesty's ministers had sent it down to Scotland, where they had no authority to send it-where there was no regular form of church