The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-12 00:00:00

spect to his sentiments on this subject. Mr. Pitt I
was aware of an indisposition on the part of his ti
Majesty to a change in the Laws against Ca- c
tholics and Dissenters ; but he had only learned, fi
he says, ct from some of his colleagues, and from bt'
other quarters, within these few days, the ex-
tent to which. his Majesty entertained, and had tj
declared that sentiment." To the distinguished ti

individual responsible for the government of this
great Empire during a period more pregnant
with danger than any perhaps in our history, he
was reserved, while he appears to have been in
unreserved communication with Right Reverend
Prelates. One consequence of this ignorance in
which Mr. Pitt was kept respecting the extent of
the King's prejudices, was the deception prac-
tised on the Irish Catholics at the period of the
Union. The conscientious scruples of any man
are entitled to respect, and that his late Majesty's
objections to farther concessions to Catholics
and Dissenters, originated in a conscientious be-
lief that such concessions would amount to a
violation of his Coronation Oath, is a point as
to which there cannot be a doubt. But the re-
spect which we are compelled to entertain for
the man, cannot blind usto the danger to which a
country may be exposed from them. The Co-
ronation Oath seems to we assumed a fearful
magnitude in the eyes of his late Majesty. He
inferred from an extract from the Commons
Journal, 28th March, 1689, when on the third
reading of the Coronation Oath Bill, a proviso,
declaring ,‘ that no clause in this Act shall be
understood so• to bind the Kings and Queens of
this Realm, as to prevent their giving their
Royal Assent to any Bill which shall at any time
be offered by the Lords or Commons assembled
in Parliament, for the taking away of altering
any form or ceremony in the Established Church, so
as the doctrines of the said Church, a public Liturgy,
and the Episcopal government of it be preserved,"
was twice negatived; that " the Coronation Oath
Was understood, at the Revolution, to bind the
Crown not to assent to any repeal of any of the
existing laws at the Revolution, or which were then
enacted for the maintenance and defence of the Pro-
testant religion, as by law established ;" and that if
the oath was understood to bind the Crown not to
assent to the repeal of the Act of Uniformity in fa-
vour of Protestant Dissenters, it would seem to bind
the Crown full as strongly not to assent to the re-
peal of the Act of Supremacy, or the Test Act, in
favour of Roman Catholics." Lord Kenyon showed
him that nothing could be more strained than this
inference; for though " the Statute of 22 Car. 11.
c. 1. for preventing conventicles, and other statutes
of like tendency, existed at the time when the Co-
ronation Oath was framed and enacted by 1 W. and
M. c. 6., yet in the same Session of Parliament the
law called the Toleration Act was made." Every
Act passed since the Revolution, with a view to
the relief of Catholics or Dissenters, would, accord-
ing to the construction of his late Majesty, amount
to a violation of the Coronation Oath. In fact, in
his very first letter to Lord Kenyon, he does not he-
Sitate to condemn the Act of the Irish Legislature in
favour of the Catholics—" The question that has
been so improperly patronised by the LOT d Lieutenant
'of Ireland, in favour' of the Papists, though certainly
very properly silenced here." Lord Kenyon did all he
could to tranquillize his Majesty, and to give him
more rational and constitutional views on the sub-
ject ; but it was impossible to make any impression
on him. Mr. Pitt's letter to his Majesty Is a sen-
sible and vigorous composition ; we recommend it
to the especial consideration of the Pitt Clubs.—lb.

That part of the Press which may be said to
consti'ute the forlorn hope of Mr. Canning's
Ministry, are making a mighty fuss about the
speech attributed to Sir James Mackintosh in
Friday night's debate. To us,we confess, it ap-
pearedtobe a very dull affair; and might be com-
pared, we think, to one of those heavy concertos,
which performers, who have a better opinion of
themselves than the world have of them, now
and then profess to ind-ilge an audience with be-
tween the play and the entertainment. As a
voluntary, it possessed but little merit—as a set
piece, still less. On the Portuguese question,
which was that before the House, it threw but
little light ; and as an apology for the tergiver-
sation of Whigism, it left the matter where it
found it—viz., involved in a conviction that the
Whigs of the present day are ready to say and
do, or say and undo, any thing for the sake of
place. It is this total want of principle among
so many public men which has rendered the pre-
sent era at once so remarkable and so disgusting.
We do not mean to contend that opinions are so
immutable that no junction can ever take place
between men who differ on certain points from
each other ; but the difference between the rem-
nant of the late Ministry and the Whigs, if
either of them are entitled to credit for sincerity,
was not of this slight description, but was on
points so essential as to render any union im-
possible without one party or the other surren-
dering all claim to honour and consistency. The
Whigs, having all to gain, have readily made the
sacrifice, and have thrown overboard at once all their
boasted zeal for Parliamentary Reform, the Catholic
question, the repeal of the Test Act, the Liberty of
the Press, &c., as if they were so much lumber
which only impeded the sailing of the vessel. And
are we to he told, that Sir James Mackintosh pro-
nouncing an epilogue to such a farce as this can
make it palatable after the whole performance itself
has been condemned by all dispassionate judges ?
Is it any plausible, set oratioi, which can persuade
the world to think that whi- 2 which they know and
see to be black ?—lmpossible. Let us hear no more,
then, of such sophistry. Let the Whigs console
themselves, if they will, in the possession of place—
let them despise, if they please, the revilings of the
people, but let them not attempt to defend that
which is wholly indefensible, or mistake the cheers
of each other for the sanction and approbation of the
public.—Morning Herald.
The Report of the :East Retford Committee
was laid on the table of the House of Commons
last night. The Report was unanimously re-
ceived, and a Bill to disfranchise that borough,
and to transfer the right of election to Birming-
ham, was brought in and read a first time, and,
from the apparent feelings of the House on the
subject, it will probably pass the Commons with
little or no opposition. In a plan of reform so
moderate and restricted as that pursued by the
House in the case of Grampound, and more re-
cently in the case of Penryn, and now in progress
in the case of East Retford, it is difficult for the
most timid to discover even a shadow of occasion
for alarm. There is no display of universal
medicines, no empiricism used, but a distinct
and definite case of corruption is made out, and
a distinct and definite remedy is applied. To
the argument which we remember to have been
used by Sir F. Burdett, in the case of Sir
Manasseh Lopez, and which was brought for-
ward by Sir Charles Forbes in the case of
Penryn, and again in the case of East Retford,
last night, namely, that a greater or smaller
degree of corrupt influence is used in every
election, and that, therefore, it is unfair to select
one case for punis.'-iment—we think the answer
is extremely simple. We are to proceed to
judgment against those that are indicted and
found guilty, not against those that are not
before the Court. There is not a thief . that
appears at the Old Bailey, who might not be ee-
pitted by the argument of the two Honourable