tive is to be rested, it appears to me that all difficulty ceases with respect to the prerogative in Scotland. In Scotland, as well as England, patents of this description have been granted without dispute or contest, for more than two hundred years. These patents have at different periods been made the subject of suits in the courts of Scotland, and particularly in the case of Watson v. Baskett, in the year 1716, or the year 1717, which cases came afterwards by appeal to the house of lords. In another case, that of the King's Printers v. Bell and Bradfute, this patent came under the consideration of the courts of justice in Scotland; and many other cases may be referred to, for the purpose of establishing the same fact: so that we have in Scotland, as well as England, patents granted successively for a period of more than two hundred years. These patents have been the subjects of suits. These cases have come to your lordships' house; and I do not think, that until the doubt was thrown out by the noble and learned lord to whom I have referred, the late Lord Gifford, the prerogative of the crown of Scotland was ever called in question. Certainly it never did occur to the very able counsel who argued the case of Manners and Miller v. Blair, in the court below, seriously to consider or to contest that point.

"In the course of this argument it was assumed, as the basis of a part of an argument, that the prerogative in England depended upon the king's character as supreme head of the church and it was argued, that that principle did not apply to Scotland, for that although the king was the supreme head of the church in England, he was not the supreme

head of the church in Scotland; and therefore the prerogative might well exist in this part of the island, and yet not exist in Scotland. But, I have already stated, that I do not refer the prerogative to the circumstance of the king being, in a spiritual or ecclesiastical sense, the supreme head of the church in England, but to the kingly character-to his being at the head of the church and state, and it being his duty to act as guardian and protector of both, a character which he has equally in Scotland and England. It is perfectly clear, that it is the duty of the king to act this part, as the guardian of the church in Scotland. That is a principle laid down by the authorities in Scotland as much as in England. By the authority of the statute by which the Reformation was established in Scotland, it is declared to be the duty of the magistrates, and the king as supreme magistrate, to be the protector of the church; and in the act of 1690, by which the Presbyterian church was established, when the Episco palian church authority was finally put an end to in Scotland, the same principle is laid down and acknowledged. I think, therefore, that this right and prerogative depends upon the king's character as guardian of the church and guardian of the state, to take care that works of this description are published in a correct and authentic form; and that those arguments upon which the authority rests in this country apply also in Scotland.

"But it was said at the bar, that in England, as far as relates to the translation of the Holy Bible, we have the translation recognized by public authority, introduced into the

service of the church by public authority; and that the prerogative in England will properly apply to this translation, but that the same principle does not apply in Scotland. With respect to the Bible which was translated in the reign of James I., and which indisputably was translated under his sanction, and by virtue of his authority, it does not appear that he contributed anything towards the expense. It does not appear that that translation of the Bible was introduced into the church by the authority of any act of parliament, by the authority of any act of convocation, or by proclamation; but undoubtedly it was introduced under the sanction and authority of the head of the church, under the sanction of the king of that period, in what precise way does not appear by evidence. It is probable, that after it was completed, and the heads of the church were satisfied with it, it was by the authority of the bishops, in their respective dioceses, introduced into general use throughout the kingdom, possibly without any further act for that purpose. But is there any essential difference between the situation of England and Scotland in this respect? I apprehend clearly none; because the same translation has, if not by the actual authority, at least by the sanction of the general assembly of Scotland, been introduced into their church, and used there for a period I believe of one hundred and fifty years; and I understand that use of it in Scotland is as general, and indeed as exclusive and universal as in England. This translation, therefore, has been sanctioned in the country by the church of that country, and by the

proper ecclesiastical authorities; and I apprehend that it stands in the same situation, and is guarded by the same privileges, and is in point of law, unless the general assembly should order otherwise, as compellable to be used in the churches of Scotland as it is in the churches of England. I do not apprehend, therefore, that there is any difficulty in this respect, or that any argument whatever can be founded on the idea, that by some authority in this country that particular translation has been introduced into universal use in our church, and that no corresponding authority exists in Scotland. I have no doubt there is some authority, at least some implied authority, for the introduction of it in England; and I apprehend there is the same implied authority, the same sanction for it by ecclesiastical authorities in Scotland.

"It was in consequence of this circumstance, and some doubts arising out of this particular view of the case, that the noble and learned lord to whom I have referred, was desirous that in this particular view, it should be considered again.

It appears to me, that as far as relates to the translation of the Holy Scriptures, the case with respect to Scotland is precisely the same as it is with respect to England. But in this patent there are other works noticed. There is the Confession of Faith. I find that the Confession of Faith was ratified by the general assembly, in the year 1649; it is therefore a book adopted by the proper ecclesiastical authority in the country. The larger and the shorter Catechisms were also ratified by the general assembly about that same period: and with respect to the me

trical version of the Psalms, which is also contained in that patent, that was, as I am informed, prepared by the authority of the general assembly, and it is used in the churches by authority of that general assembly. It appears to me, therefore, that these works come within the same principle as the Holy Scriptures, and within the same principle as the Book of Common Prayer in this country.

"A question has been raised with respect to the Book of Common Prayer, which is also contained in this patent; and it is said, that at all events, the king could not in Scotland confer the exclusive right of printing this work on his printer in Scotland. The court below entertained some doubt upon this point, and in this particular stage of the cause, they have excepted the Common Prayer from the operation of their interdict, without, however, pronouncing any decision upon it. At one period episcopacy existed in Scotland. During that time, there is no doubt the king's authority applied to the Book of Common Prayer, as well as to the other works to which I have referred. It is true, that by the act of parliament passed in the year 1690, an alteration was made in this respect. By the effect of that act of parliament in 1690, the presbyterian form of worship became the established form in Scotland, and the church of

that persuasion became the established church of Scotland: but, those persons who were members of the church of England, who were in her communion, were still entitled to the protection of the crown; there was nothing in that act of parliament to deprive them of that protection; and if the king possessed the prerogative previous to the passing of the act in 1690, by which he had the exclusive right, by himself or his officers, in Scotland, to publish the Book of Common Prayer, there is nothing in the act of 1690 to deprive him of that prerogative, which he had previously enjoyed.

It does not appear to me, therefore, in this view of the case, that there is any essential difference between that part of the patent which relates to the Book of Common Prayer, and that which relates to the other works. I think, therefore, that with respect to this question, which was not originally mooted in the court below, namely, the general question of the validity of the patent, which was only afterwards argued in the second case, in consequence of the wish intimated by the noble and learned lord to whom I have adverted, that your lordships will have no difficulty in coming to the opinion, that in Scotland, as in England, the king possesses this prerogative, and that he has a right to confer it upon his printer."