The Sun. — London, England, 1821-01-27 00:00:00

was tried; should have .condemned her character, and cashiered . her from her rights, without adequate inquiry, -without affording her an op portunity' a ... answering the accusations against her, anti lt of' being confrbnied with her . ac cusers;. With' 'this ' course - it was quite con sistent `tio 'Circulate official' calumnies against her A l lajesty' upon . the Continent—to send her a threatening message to Saint Orner's—to ten der hei: a bribe if ihe would - remain out of the Country, accompanied with the 'menace of,au impea6hment IT she should attempt to come hoine, and enter into . her defence.—(llear, hear, hear !) --Bnt : the •4 hole of the, proceedings against the QUecU were More chttract:jriStic of the'CaP)4ions despoi - istn of a Pagan'.State than of the equitable principles.- of any Civilized community. After having , been slandered by the official agents .of the British Government, at every Foreign Court, She - was fold iht if she presumed to - touch British' soil, she must calculate Upon total rain. —(Hear!)-The prosecution, then, of the Queen, having Comme:iced in _rottennes, he had made Up his mind how to act upon it, and all that followed served to pistify his resolution, as the whole series -of measures which followed were quite in, accordance with the commence ment. -He was aware that he could not regularly advert to all that had passed in the other house of Pai:liament, but he would say, that if a Bill of Pains anal Penalties to dethrone the Queen had been introduced into that House, he would have asked . ifs authors " what is the necessity of a Bill tb . dethrone the Queen, as you have de, throned' her already ; what can be your motive for proposing to Parliament to degrade her Ma jesty, as you have, by your own acts, so much degraded her already ?” - --(llear !)---The, whole, indeed, of the conduct of Ministers *against the Queen forfned a - tissue of prejudication ; and upon this, as as' upon the other grounds which he had.' tated, he felt it his duty to support - the Noble . Lord's motion. lie deprecated the course pursued against the Queen, upon the same ground that it waS universally condemned by the people, who did not look so much to the question of guilty or not guilty; as to the illegal measures adopted towards her-Majesty, as to the institution of a Tribunal tO try the Queen, which might, on the same principle, he' "called upon to try the King— , (Hear, hearl)—The Learned Gentleman, after recapitulating and enforcing some of the main pnints of his speech, concluded 'with ex pressing hIS conviction,' that, according to law and -usage, it was the undoubted, indisputable .ri,ght of th . e Queen to have her name inserted in the Liturgy. Dr: DonsoN and the ArrpaxEY-GENERAL rose at the same time. The latter was loudly called for by the opposition side of the house, but Dr. Dodson continued, on his, legs, and was at length heard. He commented on some parts of the speech of Mr. etherell f .,professibg at the same time that he would not travel' into the extrane ous matter which his Hon. and Learned Friend had introduced. The Hon. and Learned Doctor then ran over the history of the prerogative ek erciseddver the Liturgy by 'the different Sove reigns of England since the 'Reformation, con tending- that the Kink . had greater pow - Pr to alter and omit than his Honourable and Learn ed Friend who spoke last was disposed to al low'. His Honourable and Learned Friend had contended, that if the name 9tihe;,Queen was omitted, there was no. reason why the'name of the King might not be so likewise. • On. this subject his lion. and Learned Friend had expressed alarm; but he might allay his fears with the reflection, that as it was the King in Council who made, the order,-his Majesty vvould always takecare not to exclude himself. He was-thus so great - an enemy to the " meitarchical 'principle," that he would not intrust the King with a discretion regarding his own name. His lion. Friend had merely al lowed too limhecl a. powdr to the King in Council over the Liturgy, when he remembered that whole forms of•prayr were frequently prescribed-,as in the case of'the last King's malady - , and on his re covery.., Prayers were framed for various other occasions, as thatksgivings for the birth of a Prince; for a victory, and other - occasions.— (Itear i)=-He did not intend to address the liouse at any great length when he rose, and he would now sit down, thanking them fOr r the indulgence with which he was heard. • • - ' Mr. MARTIN, of Galway, pnt'it to the iin mense majority which voted last Sessions; in sup port of the Resolution brought forward. by the Hon.. Member for Bramher, stating, that it would be right in her Majesty to acquiesce in the Omis sion of her name in the Liturgy, from whiCh Re, solution - he would take leave to say the _Queen bad the pertinacity to dissent, whether they could consistently vote for the motion- . of the NOble Lord ? He also put it as a touchstone - of sincerity to the Gentlemen on the other .side of the House, whether, instead of the motion before the House, it would not better answer their pur pose; to bring in a Bill to enact, that the' .names of all Queens, including the present, should here after beinserted in the Liturgy. Such a measure would certainly he more suitahle.,if the object were to gratify the desire of 'the Queen on thispoint, without obtaining- a victory over the King, but such a measure would not serve the purpose 'of dishonouring the King.---(Cries of order, order !) The SU:A.I'CFR observej, that it certainly was not in order to introduce the name of the King so pointedly in debate. Mr. MARTIN begzed a thousand pardon. He would say, then, that if it were not the purpose of the Honourable Gentlemen opposite rather to c,.usare and to torn out the Ministers in order to occupy their places, than to seek the insertion of the Queen's name in the Liturgy, the proposition which he called upon theai to substitute for the mothm before the House, would be immediately adopted by them. Sir".i. NEWPORT remarked, that the House had just witnessed a very striking exemplification or the propriety of the order forhidding_the intro duction of the King's name into its.debates ; and, Is* observed, that nothing could be more inad missible than an appeal to the feelings of any set of Gentlemen, upon a question which was to be decided by legal argument. The Right lion.' Baronet then referred to the terms of the Act of Uniformity in Ireland ) which, after mentioning: the King, the Queen, and the loyal Family, Ste.' prescribed that no alteration should be made in the Liturgy, but according to lawful authority. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, amidst a ge 7 ' neral call for his speech. If the law was so clear and incontrovertible as the Hon. Baronet had stated, he might ask the Noble Lord who pro posed the motion, how it happened that, knowing the proceeding to be illegal, they had slumbered over it . not less than twelve months—Why did they not come forward to declare it illegal They said, the law as it stood was in favour of her Majesty, yet they had taken no steps to re medy the illegal act that was done by Order in Council, in February, 1820. How had they slumbered to that moment ; and how was it the Noble Lord made the motion, calling it an amendment upon the motion of the Member for I Bramber, to which, however, it bore no rela tion ? The speech of the Hon. Alderman under ' the Gallery had altered the character of the motion. The 'Noble Lord should have come boldly forward if he had no doubt of the illegality of the proceeding in June last year. He should have submitted to the House that his Majesty could do no less than restore the Queen's name to the Liturgy. But they admitted the legality of the Act.—(Hear, hear !)—Feeling that the law on the case was clear and indisputable, they only came to declare the Act unWise. If the Act was illegal, would they discuss whether it was wise ? If illegal, all question respecting wisdom was at an end. It was not worth discussion. If the law had been against the transaction, it could not stand. They, however, knew it was legal, land.twelve months after they arraigned his Ma jesty's Ministers on the expediency of the mea sure. He knew how difficult and tedious it was to .argue a dry question of law, but, with the permission of the House, he should follow his - Hon. and Learned Friend through his argument, which went to support what was termed the un alienable right of the Queen Consort to have her name in the Liturgy. His Learned Friend had failed in his endeavour to shew that right. The Act of Uniformity gave no such right. The transaction bore no resemblance to the power assumed by the Star Chamber, and so far from setting up any new tribunal, he should prove to the satisfaction of the House, that, before the Act of Uniformity, the power to alter the Prayer was exercised by the Sovereigns of this country. After the Reformation, Harry. the Eighth ordered the Form of Prayer. The 4th and sth of Edward, and the 4th of Eliz., were the first Acts of Uniformity. From the passing of those Acts to the 13th and 14th of Charles the Second, the Crown had the power to. alter the Form of Prayer. If his Learned Friend's argument had been right, that power would have been taken away. His Learned Friend (the Member for Oxford) said the Prayer in the Act of Charles the Second remained in blank, but the Crown exercised the right of filling it up. There were instances where names were put in the prayers, and others omitted. Frede rick, Prince of Wales, father of our late King, was prayed for a short time, and his name was struck out. It was said, that from 1546 there was no instance of the name of a Queen Consort being struck out of the Liturgy. In the reign of Philip and Mary the Queen was not prayed for —the prayer was only— - " Pro Rege Principus Sims." It was so mentioned in the document in the Bri tish Museum. His Learned- Friend further etc gned, that the Act of Uniformity conferred a privilege on the Queen, and put her name' by law in the Liqtrgy. What proof was there of that—was there any prayer for the Queen ?, 10. There - was a prayer in blank which was lined up by Charles 11. with the name of the Queen Dowager. It was qu it e c l ear th a t th e words Royal Family, used in some instances, embraced all the Royal Progeny, and the adoption of these words also proved the power and right to omit the name. of Queen. He referred to what had been done with respect to- the Liturgy by George 111. on the death of George 11., and showed that the striking out of the names of the Royal Dukes, which had been there before, might as reason. ably be called illegal as that which had caused the present question to be raised. There, names had been struck out ; here, all that was done (though he did not wish to quibble on words), amounted to this, that no order had been made that the Queen should be prayed for. The Li turgy was not altered for the King (his name being the same as that of his predecessor), and no change had been thought necessary, on ac -1 count of the Queen. He sheaved the 'Council in determining on the course to be pursued on this occasion, had regulated their conduct by the precedent which had obtained from 171-1. 'lt had been said on the other side, that the instance of the wife of George the First, was no instance at •all. He was astonished to hear this. 'Was it said there was a divorce ? Why, on 'her death'; she was, 'gazetted as the Duchess Dowager of Hanover!! This would not have been had there been a divorce, that dissolved the marriage. All the records of the time went to prove that the marriage bad never been abrogated. He, there. fore, maintained' that the wife of George the First had as good a right to be named in the Li turgy as the present Queen could have ; and Isis Ministers were as culpable for leaving it out as the present Ministers could be in omit ting that of Queen Caroline. He was surprised to hear from his Learned Friend—from a Lawyer--that the Queen was as much entitled to the homage and allegiance of• the people as the King could be. Where did the Learned Gentleman meet with this law ? He bad always thought—perhaps his • Learned Friend would teach him better—that the Queen, with all the privileges attached to her high rank, was herself but a subject. He had ever understood this till he saw a different language on this subject emanating from the Queen her self. He had seen a doctrine of this nature as serted in papers circulating out of doors, and he had with pain heard her Majesty addressing the people as her subjects, but this was the first time that he had heard such language in that House. Where were the proofs of the existence of this immutable right ? Where was the immemorial , custom that entitled a Queen of England to the allegiance of the people ? Would his Learned Friend prove that she derived it from the corn mots law of the land ? if he did not, he defied him to produce any statute in support of that which he advanced. His Honourable Friend had been pleased to declaim against what he branded as an illegal commission, without know ing (he must take leave to say) very exactly what it was. He would not follow his Learned Friend into this question now, but he should be perfectly ready to meet him upon it at the proper time. When the expediency of the advice given with respect to the omission of her Majesty's name was called in question, he would put it to the House, whether the evidence which had since been produced had not justified it.--(Hear, hear !) —lie did not go so far as to say, that if her Ma jesty had remained Princess of Wales, he (had his humble advice been asked) would have re commended the striking out of her mane. It was another thing when being Queen to de termine on rendering her that respect and ho nour which belonged to a Queen Consort Who was free from all reproach. When the ques tion was forced on them, they could only act as they did. Had they inserted her name iu the Liturgy, with what face could they the next day have preferred that charge which they had felt it their duty to prefer ?—(Hear, hear!) —lt would then have been said, what do you, who have told the Ministers of Religion to treat her with the respect due to the Queen Consort —you who have ordered her to be prayed fo'r by name as_Queen Consort, `do you now come down to prefer a charge against her, which, if establish ed, must prove her unworthy of the honours you havesbestowed ? The House , had now to consider whether, after what had passed, they would de cide on addressing the King to restore her Majes ty's name in the Liturgy.—(Hear !)—This was the real question then before the House. It had been formerly argued by the Member for Bram ber (and assented to by every one), that the question was 'not a religious one, but pure ly one as to the degree of respect to which the Queen was entitled. lie was happy that it was not a religious question. In point of fact, the law was not infringed, by no order having been made. The idea that it was a question on a point of religion had been explained away ; and now that on which they had to decide was, whether they were satisfied with , the advice Mi nisters had given on that occasion, and if they were, whether they would now address the Crown to restore her Majesty's name to the Liturgy. For his part, considering the advice then offered to have been rightly given, he should vote against the motion of the Noble Lord, and for that of his Right Hon. Friend. Mr. WETHERELL explained. _ _ _ _ _ Sir J. MACKINTOSH ihen rose, and after a few preliminary observations, said,. that the late Or der in Council was a violation of all the recog nized principles of the British constitution. After the able and lucid arguments of the llonourable and Learned Member for Oxford, he felt that to attempt enforcing them by any thing which he could offer, would be presumptuous in the ex treme. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then commented on several charges of inconsistency which were brought agailst some of his Honour abie Friends who had preceded him in the de bate. He next animadverted on the silence of the Attorney-General upon the merits of the tinesgon for the last eight months. It was the duty of honest advisers to speak the truth to the Monarch, however unpleasant the truth might be to his ear. Honourable Gentlemen on his side of the House were charged with having had recourse to Parliamentary tactics in bringing forward this question ; never was there a charge more unfounded. The Right. Hon. Gentleman on the other side, and'those with whom he acted, had not ventured to put upon record a single argument which went to refute, the serious charge against them, involved in the motion of his Noble Friend.—(Cheers !)—That motion was, in fact, 'an impeachment of Ministers.--(Continued cheers !)—As to the case of Phillip and Mary, quoted by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-Gene ral, it was to him (Sir James Mackintosh) most surprising how he could have cited it. Philip and Mary were Papists, and as such, not considered as at the head of the church. What, then, was the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General to go to the Popish Ritual for precedents to support his ar guments ?---(Loud cheering.)---His lion. Friend, the Member for Westminster, had very aptly illustrated this point then with respect to the wife of George I. Who was styled Duchess of Zell ; all that could be said was, that she inhe rited that title from her father, who was Duke of Zell, and her assuming it after she was sepa rated from her husband, proved tha,,t shewas held to be divorced to all intents and purposes. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, then proceeded to examine in detail all the various statutes enacted, in 'reference to the question, and denied the correctness of the interpretation given to them: by the Attorney-General. He contended that the high authority of Lord Clarendon and Sir Mathew Hale, was against the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. He feared he trespassed too long or, the House (Hear,•hetrr !) -but he felt that this was a question not concerning one Queen alone, but whether all the future Queens of Eng land were to be the slaves of every future Admi nistration—(Hear, hear !)—or whether they were to enjoy that independence which the Con stitution int:mded them to have.—(Hear, hear !) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then pro ceeded to contend, that the exclusion of Prince George of Denmark from the Liturgy was no precedent in support of the exclusion of her present Majesty, because the 25th Section of the Act of Uniformity did not con template the Consort of the Queen regnant. — George was the husband of Anne, and he did not come under the other part of the description, namely, " the Royal Progeny." But the Princess Sophia's name was inserted, as she w as one of ' 4 the Royal progeny" a person towards whom Anne had no friendly feelings. When be first heard of this Measure, he sup posed that Ministers were at least secure as to the legality of what they did. But he was now fully convinced of the imbecility of their case. Much was said dr holdin g the scales- of justice with an even hand before the trial of her Ma jesty. And yet before that trial, by the omis sion of her name from the Liturgy, they caused it to be proclaimed, in twenty thousand pulpits, that she was an adultress. (Hear !)—He was con vinced that upon this subject there, was in fact and in truth no division of opinion in this House— (Hear !)—No man could lay his hand on his heart and say that he did not deplore this as a most unfortunate measure, though many, most hi consistently, as he thought, still went on to sup port an administration which had committed such an error.—(Hear, hear!)—The opinions of the public were decided, and most ardent against this most unhappy measure. The feeling of the people alone was sufficient to call on the Throne for the abandonment of all hostile proceedings against the Queen. They felt that She was de graded before trial, pro,secuted without sufficient cause, and endeavoured to be punished without conviction.—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman sat down amid lOud cheers. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended, that whatever might be the shape of the motion of the Noble Lord, there could be but one under standing as to its intended effect. The Noble Lord pretended to deplore the consequences of the agitation of this question on the Country. What then did he expect to be the effect of its renewal now ?—(Hear, hear, hear !)—lle con gratulated the House on the new light which had burst upon them of late, Formerly this question of the omission of the Queen's name had been .treated on the urgent ground of ex pediency ; now, however, it was treated on legal grounds. With regard to the legal objection now started, he was ready to answer, that the ancient Constitution of this count, y invested in the power of the Crown the omission and in sertion of names of individulils in the LiturEY. The Act of Uniformiiy recognized and strength ened that power; and that new authority was backed by the ancient Constitution and ancient practice, so as to make the exercise of that power at this day perfectly legal.. A great deal had been said about the interpretation of the Act of Uniformity. It was contended, that under this Act of Parliament, no name that had once been inserted, could be legally left out. Why, ac cording to those very periods of the , history or this country, which by their - Learned Friend opposite were esteemed the most unconstitu tional periods, this assertion was completely re futed by facts. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman here entered into a most luminous and elaborate examination of the history of this_ country, marking all the facts bearing on the question under discussion. He was not afraid of popular clamour out of doors ; for he knew that what might excite the clamour of 'a day, if it appeared eventually to be consistent with the justice and constitution of the country, would be esteemed in its proper light. He warned all those who might be induced to join in the mo tion of the Noble Lord that night, that they were pursuing a course directly tending to make war upon the Monarch and the Monarchy ! • Lord MILTON rose to order, and' contended, that when any Member presumed to state that the Members of -that House; who supported a proposition submitted to the consideration of 'Par liament, took a part against the Monarch and Monarchy, he deserved the direct animadver sion of the= Speaker.—(Cries of hear I.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained his mean ing to be, that the effect of the imoti - on conse quent on the success of the present one, would be to take a part against the Monarch and Monarchy. Lord MILTON said the explanation did not ex onerate the Learned Gentleman. 'l'lle SPEAKER said, that from some conversa tion behind the chair, he did not hear the ori ginal worth. To attribute motives was disorderly, but there was a areat distinction. The SOLICITOR GENERAL appealed to the knowledge of his life, to prove, that he would be the last man to attribute improper motives to any Mr. SCARLETT contended, that if the. power contended for was hi the King, it was also in his power to alter the whole of the Liturgy. But even had he the power, it was contrary to ail principles of justice to exercise it and degrade the Queen, who was then about to be put up on her trial. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that great as bad been his experience of Parliamentary tactics, he never remembered to have witnessed so real a specimen of inconsistency, and so rare an exam ple of the tactics of the Gentlemen of the Op position, as had been displayed in that night's debate. Much as Learned Gentlemen on the other side talked about delicacy, he was sorry to say, he could give them no credit for the posses sion of the smallest particle of that virtue, so long as he saw through the object of their conduct that night. He could give them no credit for any delicacy, except when perhaps the convenience of their friends was concerned, and the catching a few votes the temptation. The Noble Lord and his Friends by this motion were sacrificing_ the Queen—they threw her overboard in their struggle to keep down the Government as it at present existed.. In order to swell their division that evening, they had used their utmost skill to frame a motion which might not appear to be a censure upon the Government, to pledge the Hokise to a sort of milk and water Resolution. But, he trusted, and with confidence, that . the House would not suffer itself to be made the in strument to force the Monarch, or the Liturgy—if they took one step, they were pledged to the whole. There was a party working, most delibe rately and zealously, for the destruction of the Empire, to which he regretted to say the Queen had suffered herself to be connected. She had been made the instrument of reviling the Crown, the Parliament, and she had become the vehicle of the most dangerous principles with respect to Government by her answers. lie should not on this account advise any harsh measures with. respect to her Majesty, but he would be tray the best interests of his country if be voted for this motion. This was only intended to be the first of a series. It had been clearly es tahlilhed in the debate that evening ) that it was no; prerogative of her s.iUniesty to have her name inserted in the Liturgy ; 'whereas the power 'of placing it there was a legal prerogative of the CrOVlilli It appeared then that her - Majesty had no right to -demand, or at leaSt ndne which his Majesty's Government were not'abotit to grant to her ; what Were,' demanded as her rights *ere what could only be obtained by grace and favour from the Crown, and to grant all these demands was tantamount to invading the Constitution, and infringing the preroga. tives of the Crown. The condtiet of Gentlemen on the other side, -on the present occasion, could not but appear strange, when it was contrasted , with their former declarations. Before the Queen's trial, they were the first to uplift their voices as to the evil consequences of the ap. proaching inquiry —during its continuance, they were ready and . anxious to• extinguish it to. . tally at a moment's notice ; - and now, ;that it was all over,• they :were the very persons to re. new it: again, professing all the while to deplore the conseqnenees ofrene wing it, and deprecating the authors. Mr. BROUGHAM would not have trespassed on the indulgence of the House at that hour in the morning, had it not been fOr the speech of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, than which speech he conceived, nothing could i have been wished for, acc or di ng t o t h e Noble. Lord's own taste, better calculated to keep up that, ani mosity and that spirit of discord which existed throughout the Country. Having, however, beet dragged forth, how reluctantly soever, he would beg permission to make a few observations,. He denied that the question came' before the House as a party question, and contended. that all the trial had been conducted with the most decid ed party influence against ~ her Majesty. lie then defended the investigation of 1806, and de clared it to be pure and• witless in comparison to "the late proceedings. After defending his own • conduct, and remarking upon that of Mr. Al derman Heygate, he concluded by a .review of the distressed state of the country, and , con. , tended that a decision in 'favour of the motion of his ;Noble-Friend, would tend more than anv thing else. to. allay the irritation Which prevailed.) Mr. Alderman HEYGATE had never heard the Hon. and Learned GeAtleman address, the House with more ingenuity - or less peksuasion than on the present, occa!jion.-:-Afier, defending himself against the attack of the Hon: and Learned Member, he called upon the House to do its duty and to show by its vote of that night that riot even the highest sUbj?ct in the realm should in sult the Majesty of the Throne with impunity. Lord A. HAMILTON replied shortly amidst confusion and cries of " Question."—The House then'divided, when the numbers were declared— , For the Adjoui : nnieut 3lO Againstll4ajo i r t ity in favour of Ministeris- The lionse then adjourned, at SEVEN O'CLOCM• in the MORNING,' till Wednesday next. - - FIEBDOMEDARY. . . :SpNDAY 28, 4th Sunday after Epiphany.—Stin' rises' 24 rri. . after 7 ; sets 28 111. after 4.--31ouir rises 13 M. after 3 • morning. NiomnaY 2.l.—George IV. Accession.—Stm rises 32 m.. after -.74 sets 2S in. after 4.-I%nm rises 2,9 in. after 4 morning. TorAnnv.3o.—li. Char.l. Martyrdom.—Sun rises 31M. after 7: sets 29 nt. after 4.—Mont: rises 314 in. after 5 mor:,ing. Wvn.tr,itAY :31.-Ic. George !V. Proelairned.—y.,., a i... 951 m. otter 7; sets 31 In. after 4.--Moort rises 32 rn. after 8 morn. Tittinsnav, Feb I.—Sun rises 27 tn. after 7; sets 33 m. after 4.—Moon rises 12 m. after 7 mornitig:—Dnrution of Tv,i , light, 1 h._57 n r ) FitT;AY2.-Prrif. Can. I).—.Son rises 26 M. after 7 ; los 44 m. after'4.---New Moon ti h. 3 tn. afternoon. SA run Day 3.-11 for. Par. 3 r—Siits rises 94 tn. after 7; s:•ts .-.36 us after 4.—Moon rises 41 in. after 5 afternoon. PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT TWELVE O'CLOCK. - _ •• •• Bank Stnek pe, Cent. Red 7 141 India Bonds 3 i.er Cent Cons; 711 72 I Ex. Bills, 2d 4 per Cents.... DOI t Cons. for February HIGH WATER AT LONDON, BRIDGE TO-MORROW. Nionsing, 5K minutes alter G. 1 Evcning, 23 tinnutts afttr THE SUN. !OLIO! GUIS DICERIT,F-ALSU.II:-.4-I:DEAT LONDON, . SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 1821. We received this roornin , , Paris Journals of Tuesday and Wednesday last. We can only give the mere heads of their contents. A Vienna article, dated the 13th instant, says, that all the Courts of Italy will send•Plenipotentiarivs to the Congress. The King of NAPLES arrived at Lay— bach on the Bth. " Nimes,jaN. s.—Count Blacas, the French Ambassador at 'tome, repaired to Florence and delivered a letter from the , King of France to the King of Naples, who immediatelytrans milted a copy of it to the'Viec-Roy Of Naples, to be commu nicated to the Parliarnew.—(See our Paper of yesterday.) FitaNtientur, JAN. 18.—Several Papers contradict in the most positive manner that one of the Great Northern Powers would lake possession of all Island in the Medi'erranean, and assert that the integrity s.f the Kingdont.of the •Two Siciless will be ilialuttiqed." The great length of the Debate in the House of Commons, last night, prevents us from entering into any observations on the subject, and obliges us to defer many interesting articiea, THE KING'S LEVEE.- 7 —Yesterday his MAJESTIC held his first Levee this year. it was very nu merously attended. The Address of the City of Dublin was presented by the LORD'MAYOR, Se veral Aldermen, and a much larger Deputation than has been usual on similar occasions., The Hon. GEORGE CANNING arrived at Paris on Sunday last. . it is expected that Sir FRANCIS BURDETT will be brought up for judgment on Monday. The Derby Radicals have had a meeting, and as none but Radicals attended, they, of course, carried every thing without opposition. . . BIRTH. January 17th, at Chatham, the Lady of Lienten'ant and Quarter-Master Payne, of the Royal Marines, of two boy,, making their eighth child, four boys and four girls, all living• LONDON: Printed by 3. B. CAR.STAIRS, of No. 49, Great Ormond-street, Queen-square; and published by W. A. SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South 14.1t0n-street, at THE SUN Office, N0..112, Strand ; where Acire4tisements, Order' s. L !ten, &c. (post-paid) must be addressed.