Star.
London, England, 1821-02-06 00:00:00

sion from them, that " it had not before been
iti-
i eluded by name among the heads to be discussed."-L-.
Even then so little earnestness was expressed upon the
I subject, that in the very same conference, almost in.
the same breath, they suggested something else as a
substitute in the event of its refusal. And two days
afterwards, her negotiators being desired to state dis-
tinctly whether the insertion in the Liturgy was a
sine qua non, answered, that either the restoration of
her name, or an equivalent, was a sine qua non. So
that this sine qua non of restoration to the Liturgy,
which was supposed to have been throughout so ton.:
deviatingly insisted on for the Queen, which was re-
presented as the one original continuing cause of all,'
• and which was made the pretence for distracting this
great country, turned out at last to be a sine qua non,
beginning in an afterthought, and ending in an alter-
native : in all probability the first instance ever re-
corded of an alternative sine qua non—(/fear).—He
would impute nothing to any party within the House;
but out of it he was sure they would have seen, staring
as the main item in every inflammatory list of sine-
cures and pensions, the annuity which the apathy of
Ministers could then have been charged with sad-
dling Ca the country without a due investigation into
the deserts of the Royal annuitant—(linch cheering).
The very language of the Address shewed that the
Proceedings were regarded by the House as necessary,
unless prevented by the Queen's compliances for the
words of the request to her were, to spare the House
the painful necessity of those discussions. The 'louse
would hardly bear to be told, that when they pre-
sented the alternative of compromise on her part, or
discussion on their's, they meant merely to hold out
a threat, which, if she possessed the fortitude to dis-
regard, they would want the spirit to enforce. Then;
what had happened since that Address to change the
principle on which the House had acted in voting it?
.Take the acquittal in the amplest sense, surely it did
not follow that the prosecutor must be guilty when-
ever the defendant is not ? If so, the danger of com-
mitting offences would be speedily outweighed by
the much greater danger of attempting to punish or
prevent then' ; and the next question for the House
would be rather a difficult one—how they should
constitutionally deal with that Committee of the other
House, which, on the same evidence, had recom-
mended the same prosecution ? That man only could
consistently hold that Ministers ought never to have
prosecuted, who would take upon him to say, that
had he seen the evidence fot the prosecution before it
was contradicted, that is, in the only shape in which
any prosecutor could ever see it, he could have pro-
nounced the charges, on that ex parte view, to be wholly
unfounded ; for, alter the Address to the Queen, which
intimated that her compliance alone could save the ne.
cessity of the inquiry, it is too late to argue that no
grounds whatever could have justified so agitating an
inquiry. A ud as to the Queen herself, the casewas mate-
rially changed by her refusal to comply with the pro-
posal of the House, and by her demand of a trial.
She then became the challenging party.; and though
it was just to give .lier credit for magnanimity and
bravery in facing accusation, it was not just at the
same time to inflame the passions off' the country
against her accusers, by denouncing them as oppres-.
sors who had barbarously dragged a helpless and re-
luctant victim to the stake. The honourable Gen-
tleman then proceeded to argue from authorities
that this was not a case in which Impeachment could
have been preferred, that process being, he said,
confined to the two cases of persons guilty of a
breach of allegiance to the Crown, or of a political
abuse of any public employment, trust, or fran-
chise, and their accessories ; and that a Bill was,
therefore, necessary, because the only course.—
He concluded by contending, with respect to the
tranquillization of the country, that the best remedy
would be for Gentlemen opposite to discontinue such
attempts as the present; since he was convinced that •
the middling classes, who were mostly hostile to the
late proceeding, were equally adverse to this renewal
of the heats which that proceeding had engendered--
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, at the conclusion
qf his speech was loudly cheered).
Sir HOBERT WILSON then rose, amidst loud qpi.e. of
,1 Question, questien!--Adjourn, adjourn!"—which lasted for
sonic time. .fit last,

Mr. (HWY ISENNT:I7 rose, and moved that the further
consideration of thin question be adjourned till this day.
Lord CASTLEIih;AGII said, that if there were any object
to be obtained by finishing the debate that night, the hour was
not so late as to prevent it ; but if the intention really were to
adjourn, he must say, that the House had already sat much
longer than it usually did on such occasions.
The SPEAK V.ll. then put the question of AdjournMent;
when the House seemed equally divided.
Cries of " Withdraw, withdraw!" were heard. upon which
Lord CASTLEREAG II observ►d, that as it appeared to be
the wish of several Members to adjourn, he should Out press the
Hons.! to a division.

The SPEAKER then declared that he thought the Aycs bad
it, and the Ilouslimmediately adjourned, at One o'Clock.

THE EVEN I NO STA

LONDON.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1821.
THE FUNDS.

PRICZ OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O.CLOCK
Bank Stock 2231 229-3 per Cent. Reduced 731 1
3 per Cent. Cow. 721 i 1-31 per Cent. $2l
4 per Cent. 91f 1-3 per Cent. Navy 1061
Long Annuities 191 15-16--India Stock tt2911 230
India Bonds 415. 421. pre.—Uscheiluer Bilis 51. tis. pre.
Cons. for Account 721 73 721.

. The Marquis of Tsvisvoces Motion of Censure
against his MAJESTY'S Ministers, for their conduct
respecting the prosecution of the QUEEN, came on
last night in the House of Commons; and, -afters
long debate, was adjourned till this evening. Though•
the motion was couched almost in the words em-
ployed by Mr. WiLsEnvoucr., when this business
was first qffired to 'the House of Commons—namely,
that the conduct of Ministers in these proceedings
“ was derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and
injurious to the best interests of the country;" yet
Mr. BA NILES, one of Mr. WILBER7IO9CE'S friends,
could find masons to oppose the motion, avid that
too, though he declared himself contented neither
with the beginning, the continuation, nor the end of
that transaction r—This reminds us of what occurred
on a similar occasinu a few years ago, when it was
remarked, by a Member of the House, that Ms. Wm-