Star.
London, England, 1821-01-12 00:00:00

Benceinduced IhThe tt
thebut
tect a. cerise
attacks
of the most powerful splendid,
in the;
innocence,bib a necio ufladceh at; i
world?—(Cheers). What but the sense of inno-
cence, would have induced her Majesty to face the
charges that had been brought against her, opposed,
as she was, by the Monarch, and by Ministers who
were' ever ready to comply with the caprice of ;
power ?—(Cheers). The trial proceeded ;
.and such
was the nature of-the evidence, that no English Jury;
would find a verdict of guilty upon it—(llear, hear).
The Ministers had much to answer for—their power,
indeed, was great, but they depended too much
upon it ; before they had brought forward the
charges against her Majesty, they must hare known
that the evidence was rotten—(Hear, hear). It had
been said,that the Court petitioned too often, but the
fault was not theirs ; they petitioned because they
had wrongs to redress—they remonstrated, because
they had reason to complain—(Cheers). It was their
duty, and their right, to lay their complaints before
the Throne and the Parliament. The objection that
had been made, that the Petition would anticipate
Parliament, was absurd ; it would go as an argu-
ment against petitioning altogether—(Hear, hear).
If grievances were redressed, so many Petitions
"would not have been presented. There was another
cause for those Petitions—it arose out of the defec-
tive state of the Representation.
Mr. A. Brtowse spoke to order. It was irregular
to g.o into the question of Reform—(Loud cries of j
'" Order ! Go, on, go on").
Mr. TAYLOR-1f the People were satisfied with
the representation in the House of.. Commons, they
would neither petition nor remonstrate ; they would
rest secure that their Representatives, feeling a com-
mon cause with the People, and sympathising with
them, would consult their wishes, promote their inte-
rests, and guard the liberties of the country—(Hear).
Mr. EICKE thought that the conduct of Ministers
deserted impeachment—(Hear, hear). They had
done all in their power to overturn the liberties of
the country, and to destroy its morals. Their conduct
towards her Majesty, a woman and a Queen, must
have excited the abhorrence of every honest man !
A MeatnEn-of the Court said, that the proceedings
of the Court tended to excite the spirit of disaffection
—(Loud laughter). He was a friend to her Majesty,
he thought her injured, and he rejoiced at her acquit-
tal—(Hear, &far). Anxious to see her restored to her
rights, he would yet oppose the Resolutions.
Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN said, that the oppo-
sition of Gentlemen lay in a very narrow compass—
it was confined to two or three points. One Gentle-
man lamented that the Court petitioned so frequently.
He (Alderman Waithman) regretted that they had
so much cause for frequent Petitions. Another Gen-
tleman condemned, in the strongest manner, the con-
duct of Ministers, but he contrived to oppose the
Resolutions on a technical point. He said that the
Gentleman who had brought those Resolutions for-
ward had not proved the abstract rights of the
Queen; but he should have recollected that the case
of the Queen had no analogy to the case of the lady
of any private man. But even the lady of any pri-
vate man, if cruelly treated—if oppressed and in-
jured, would have her remedy at law—(Hear, hear)
—no husband could deprive her of her rights—
(hear, hear)—the law would be her protection—
the People were the protection of her Majesty. The
Gentleman altogether forgot that it was not a ques.
tion between the King and the Queen—but the ques-
tion was, whether the Ministers of the King had the
right to degrade her Majesty, even after she had
been acquitted by that tribunal before whom, against
her wishes, she was unconstitutionally dragged by
those Ministers?—(Hear, hear).—But the Gentleman
said that enough had been done, and that now the
country should remain quiet; but would Ministers
remain quiet ; were they disposed to conciliate? Did
the Gentleman not know that attempts were making
to degrade and vilify the Peoples merely because
they threw themselves between the Queen and her
oppressors ?—( Hear ).—Did he not know that Mi-
nisters still hoped to do further acts of oppression
against her Majesty?—(Hear, hear).—Did he not
know that they were endeavouring, by setting their
secret tools and engines at work, to vilify and de-
grade—not the Queen ?—No, they dare not pub-
licly declare that, but to vilify and degrade the Cor-
poration of London and the whole country— (Hear).
He (Alderman Waithman) lamented that the People
were driven so often to petition ; the frequency of
petition marked the times of peril and oppression. It
was their every day business to petition, so long as
acts of oppression were carried on ; it was their duty
to approach the Parliament—to approach the Throne,
and to tell his Majesty that he was deceived by flat-
terers—(Hear, hear).—They petitioned the House of
Commons not merely to state their wrongs, but also
to aid the honest and independent part of the House
—that House which, from the beginning, discounte-
nanced the prosecution of her Majesty, and who,
-finally, were grossly insulted by the advisers of the
Crown—(Hear, hear).—Her Majesty had been ac-
quitted—she stood innocent in the eyes of the great
majority of the People of England and of Ireland ; it
was a matter of fact, and therefore the Court could
not hesitate to declare it—( Hear, hear).— The worthy
Alderman next alluded to what are called Loyal Ad-
dresses. One Address, which was passed in a Church
in the City, accused the Corporation of London of
designs hostile to the institutions and peace of the
country. Was there ever anything so atrocious ?
Was there ever a more scandalous falsehood ? Ile
was extremely sorry to say that a Clergyman was at
the head of that affair, and, he supposed, the author
of the calumny. Indeed, it was a notorious fact, that
the meetings of persons secretly and clandestinely
brought togtther, to make hollow professions, to ca-
lumniate the People, and to deceive the King, were,
in many cases, headed by Churchmen ! Those Gen-
tlemen, it was true, considered the right of petition
an invaluable right; but they only considered it in-
valuable when exercised in favour of Ministers. The
Abhorrers in the time of Charles the Second followed
the same course, but the House of Commons of that
day, not being so completely under the influence of
power, passed Resolutions in favour of the right of
petition, and even expelled some of their Members
-who had attempted to obstruct that right. It was for
exercising that sacred-right that the Corporation was
stripped of its Charter in a year or two after, and it
was that act of violence that ultimately led to tlr
expulsion of the House of Stewart—(Hear, hear).—
, At that time, the Ltd of Anglesea, a Nolskman who

had received favours from Charles the Second, aa4
was sincerely attached to his interest, wrote a letter ,
to his Majesty, in which he complained of the intern.
perate interference of the Clergy—(Hear,
which he charged the Clergy with having shamefully
' neglected their duties—(blear, hear)—in which he •
,‘
charged that body with having always promotedthe
evils and misfortunes of the Nation !—(Chee„.)
Istead of attending to the awful duties (II their
' they had inflamed the country, and forwarded the
worst measures of the Court!—(Cheers.) lie (Alder. -
man Waitliman) feared that the country, in that re.
spect, stood in pretty nearly the same situation
the present day ; he feared that the same complain.
might be but too justly made—(Hear, hear). Let
the country consider who were the accusers of the !
People: men who looked up for the
favours
Power—Churchmen, who looked for elevation,—
, (Hear, hear) Woo acted with the People? 'rhea,'
cient Nobility—men who were alarmed for thci
estates, who dreaded Revolutionists, and who
those Revolutionists in the persons of his 111.,,,5t.;,
Ministers—not in the PeoPle, who stocd by 1a,,., 44 •
defended Royalty in the person of their in"ired
Queen !—(Applause.)
Mr. SLADE said, that the act which expungedthe
name of her Majesty from the Liturgy was geml,
illegal. By the Statute of Edward the Sixth, the
King and Queen and other Members of the Royal
Family were ordered, to be prayed for, and not ens,
I the officiating Clergyman, but the congregation were
jeCt to severe penalties in ease of noo.-compliance,
The officiating Clergyman was subject, for the first
offence, to a tine; for the second, to degradation front
office ; for the third, to imprisonment. He comended
that those men who expunged the came of her 31a.
jesty•from the Liturgy, violated the law of the land,
and subjected therre,elves to its penalties. The Minis.
ters of the Crown were guilty of a violation of the
law, and he hoped that upon broad constitutional
grounds, every man, no matter of what party, •xould
Join with him in condemning their conduct. Thew).
constitutional act which they had thus committed,
might lead to the most alarming consequences—it
was a blow aimed against the Throne. If dating and
unconstitutional men might one day expunge the
name of the Queen, the same faction on another day
might expunge the name of the King himself—(Hem)
Mr. N. WILLIAMS denied the legal conclusions d
the preVious speaker, and contended, that the King
in Council had the right to alter the Liturgy. The
worthy Alderman (Waithman) alluded to a Sea
Paper ; he (Mr. Williams) would also allude to a
ancient document. He had read in the books el •
1680, that divers noisy, boisterous, and ignorant •
persons—(llere loud laughter interrupted at:damned
the speaker ).—Ele resumed—noisy and boisterce
persons travelled from place to place and forced
themselves into Corporations—(Loud
considered the Resolutions not so much in favour ef
the Queen as against Ministers. He deprecated the
clamour that had been raised to drown the voiced '
men of wealth and respectability. An Au&
been handed to him, signed by 205 Gentlemen, tee
of whom had more property than all the pets=
who formed the Queen's Procession were possessed
of—(Laughter, and cries of Order).
The LORD MAYOR said, if the Gentleman had beat •
out of order, he would have interrupted him; he did
not exceed the fair liberty of speech.
Mr. N.Wt WARS thanked his Loriship, and would -
go on. What he stated was true ;he also knew it to :
be a fact, that several maid-servants had gone up is •:;,
the processions, and the wives of tradesmen of the
lower orders!—( Loud expressions of indignation.)
Mr. TAvLoa explained.
Mr. GRIFFITHS supported the original Resolltions,
Mr. Sheriff WILLIAMS regretted that the liesolti•
tions mixed up questions of general politics with the
case of the Queen.

Mr. OLDHAM strongly supported the original Re.
solutions, and dwelt with much force and eloquence
on the case of her Majesty; the conduct of the Go.
vernment Press towards her was most disqraceful—it
was scandalous, infamous, and unmanly, to insult
and abuse Ladies of rank, virtue, and consideration,
merely because they paid their respects to the Queen
of England—(Hear, hear). Nothing could be more
unfeeling, more infanious, than the conduct of the
Government Press; lie knew of no language
ciently strong to express the abhorrence which an
honourable mind must feel at its base and unmanly
calumnies, but they would do the Queen no harm,
and the high, and pure, and honourable females, that
were dragged by that ruffian Press before the Pub
lic, might look down with scorn upon the hireling
who, as a matter of course, attacked everything that
was manly and independent in public, and insulted
all that was amiable in private life—(Appirzuse).
Mr. FAVELL, after complimenting the last speaker
for the feeling and eloquence he displayed, feeling
that did honour to.his nature, said he would notate.,
ble the Court with a single word in reply at that late
hour.—The Amendment was then pat. and but few
hands were held up in its favour, For the original
Resolutions a vast majority of hands appeared, and
they were carried without a division.

OLD BAILEY SESSlONS.—Yesterday the following
prisoners were capitally convicted:—Joseph and
James Palmer, for stealing in the dwelling-house of
Samuel Hart, a desk, eight books, &c. James Ryellf
for burglariouslv breaking and entering the dwelling-
house of John Finch, and stealing a remnant of print;
John Popkins, for stealing a watch, &c. the propertf
of Margaret Tydeman, in her dwelling-house; Jolts
Murphy alias Gale, for returning from trinsporta•
tion before the expiration of the term of his natural
life, for which he had been ordered to be transported.:
' and Thomas Elliott, for assaulting Anthony Gaged
on the King's highway, and taking from him a watch.
knightly, capitally ino:cted for fcrging.a
cheque, for the sum of A..:120, was acquitted, the will
nesses against hiM not appearing, when called OIL

MAILk DAY:—.-AR DM
1 1
Waterford 2 0
Guernsey and Jersey 0
Holland 0 0
Flanders 1 0
Malta 0 0

ass. so&
Lisbon 0 21
France 0 0 i
ffarnburgb 0 1
Gor.tcramrgh
0 1
licelv4rd lblands 0 °I

HIGH- ATER at LON OON 1111 I OGE Tamoitoit.
Nkrnint; - 13 mit:wee after g
Afttrcam

1.0 DUN irinterl and publighed by Lire's. Kens Mtla
Place, Ternfle-11