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, antilt of' being confrbnied with her. ac-
cusers;. With' 'this ' course -it was quite con-
sistent `tio 'Circulate official' calumnies against
her Allajesty' 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. etherellf.,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 fOrrthe 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 ge7'
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
IBramber, 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 quite clear that the
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 holding 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 couldihave
been wished for, according to the 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
irtity 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.,.,ai... 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 nr)

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 7141 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.