The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

At this crisis of discussion at debate, on
the subject of Catholic emancipation, •trid the
repeal of the Test and CQI-poratitt Acts, there
are published some very itYieresting documents,
the nature of which will be best explained by,
their title, which we therefore here insert

LETTERS 3'z0,.1 HIS LATE MAJESTY TO THE LATE LORD
KENYON., ON THE CORONATION OATH, WITH HIS LORD-
line& ANSWERS: AND LETTERS OF THE RIGHT HON.

- - -
Vt. PIT:X r 0 HIS LATE MAJESTY, WITH HIS LATE MA.
JE:reS ANSWERS, PREVIOUS TO THE DISSOLUTION OF
.LFHE MINISTRY IN 1801."

It is superfluous, perhaps, to ald to this, the
information that this correspondence has been
communicated to the editor (Dr. Phil' tt ) by
po s
the present Lord Kenyon
_; .attd it would be an
insult to the dignity of the documents them-
selves, to say that they are authentic ; they re-
quire no attestation—they are above all suspi-
cion. The t
'.:pinion of the late King on the im-
portant gr.estion of Catholic Emancipation was
well known, but his subjects were probably not
awrie of the pains which he had taken, and the
Conscientious anxiety which he had felt, to come
to a right conclusion. Whether he were success-
ful or not in the attainment of that object, is a
distinct consideration ; but most unquestionably
one result of the publieation of the letters now
before the British people will he, to prove to them,
if such proof were now wanting, that their late
Sovereign was what the poet calls " the noblest
work of God—an honest man."—The Editor
has not improperly inserted the passage of the
Coronation Oath, by which his late Majesty con-
ceived, that as one of the estates of the realm,
he was separately and personally prohibited from
granting any further privileges to Roman Catho-
lics, called Papists, and even to Protestant Dis-
centers, though the two other estates had passed
a bill for that purpose. It is worth the while
to observe, that his Majesty places Protestant
Dissenters and Papists in exactly the same situ-
ation, as to the incapacity in which they stood,
of receiving any further privileges from the Con-
stitution. And Mr. Pitt also, in his letters, avows it
to have been a maxim of his policy to free both
from their disabilities, which, of course., he thought
might be done without detriment to the Consti-
tution. For our own parts, we are of opinion
that a man who should rote for Catholic Eman-
ciption is not necessarily concluded (as the
lawyers speak) to promote the views of the Pro-
testant DissP.:nters ; and, vice versa, that a friend
to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
ma`,,' be sternly opposed to making any further
"concessions to the Catholics. Nay, indeed, the
fact itself supersedes all reasoning on the sub-
ject ; for there are many Dissenters who would
forego their ow-• pretensions of complete admis-
sion to the benefits of the Constitution, rather
than that the Catholics should be admitted with
them; and from the contemptuous and revolting
manner in which Roman Catholic writers uni-
versally speak of Protestant conventicles and con-
venticlers, we shrewdly suspect that if persons of
the Catholic persuasion enjoyed seats in the two
Houses of Parliament, Protestant Dissenters
would find them their firmest opponents. The
.King's inquiry of Lord Kenyon is thus
sketched :—" It seems to require very serious
investigation
how far the King can give his ss-
•ent to a repeal of any one of those acts (Acts of
Supremacy and Uniformity, the Test Act, and the
Bill of Rights), without a breath of his Corona-
ion Oath, and of the articles of union with Scot-
land :" and farther, " If the oath was under-
stood to bind the Crown not to assent to the re-
peal of the Act of Uniformity in favour of Pro-
m:alit 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." His Majesty
seems to labour under some misapprehension as
to the respective object of these several Acts :
but it is clear that he held himself equally'
restricted by his Coronation Oath from grant-
ing indulgences to any class of dissidents
from the established church, whether Protestant
or Catholic. Lord Kenyon's reply to these
queries is able and cautious ; but it is still deci-
sive in favour of the liberty of the Crown to remit
penal or disqualifying statutes ; for, says his
Lordship, it has so remitted them. " The sta-
tute of 22 Car. 11. c. 1, for preventing conven-
ticles, and other statutes of like tendency, existed
at the time when the Coronation Oath was
framed and enacted by 1 William and Mary,
yet in the same Session of Parliament the law
called the Toleration Act was made. Several
indulgences, both in England and Ireland, have
been since granted to several denominations of
persons, dissenting from the Church of Eng-
land. Those regulations have been supposed
by the makers of them not to be hostile to the
Church of England as by law established, but
merely to repeal or lessen the rigour of penal
statutes, which, though thought necessary at
one season, were deemed inexpedient at another
time and under different circumstances." Lord
Kenyon's opinion, therefore, on the legality of
the question, is all that is contended for by the
advocates for emancipation. In answer to
another unhappy and wild inquiry of the King's,
his Lordship thus writes :—" It should seem
that the Chancellor of Great Britain would incur
great risk in affixing the Great Seal to a Bill,
giving the Pope a concurrent ecclesiastical juris-
diction with the King !" In Lord Kenyon's
reply to the King's second application, his Lord-
ship certainly seems a little inclined to grant
somewhat more of indulgence to the Royal
scruples, but without deserting the great prin-
ciples of the Constitution, according to which
the King could not be bound up from grant-
ing his consent to any Act proposed to
him by his co-estates of the realm. His
Lordship's letter commences with this sentence,
" It is a general maxim that the supreme
Power of a State cannot limit itself." The con-
clusion of the same letter divests the question of
all its stiffness, and puts it on the common and
rational footing on which all men place it. If a
King thinks he cannot, by his Coronation Oath,
grant further indulgences to Catholics, it would
be hard to force him. But the prohibition in
the Oath is not so obvious that every King must
necessarily think himself restrained or controlled.
" It seems to me," says his Lordship, " that the
judgment of the person who takes the Corona-
tion Oath must determine whether any particular
Statute does destroy the government of the
Established Church. It seems that the Oath,
couched in the general terms in which it is found,
does NOT preclude the party sworn from exer-
cising a judgment, whether that which he is
bound to maintain will be essentially, or in any
great degree, aFected by the proposed measures.
And, we will add, should the affirmative seem to
him to be the case, then he is bound to resist
the measure., without any reference to his Coro-
nation Oath whatever ;. aye, even before he has
taken that Oath, the'eeremong itself of corona-
tion, being often stispenaeci for a .
long time. and
not being necessary to mark, out the succession,
or confer the Regal power. The correspondence

between Mr. Pitt and his late Majesty, which
took plc in the year 1801, immediately after
the Irish Union, is extremely interesting, and
highly honourable to both parties. It sterns that
the Premier was detertnine•i, not only upon the
measure of Catholic Emancipation, but also upon
the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Upon
these points he thus expresses himself.—" Under
the impression of that opinion, he has concurred in
what appeared to be the prevailing sentiments of
the majority of the Cabinet,—that the admission of
Catht;lie:s and Dissenters to offices, and of the Ca-
tholics to Parliament, (frim which latter the Dis-
senters are not now exClUded,) would, under certain
ccnditious ió be specified, be highly advisable, with
a view to the tranquillity o 7 Ireland, and to the ge-
neral interest of the United Kingdom." It was as
a martyr to these principles that Mr. Pitt then re-
tired from office. In the full maintenance of them,
and the firm conviction of their utility, he returned
to office again, but with an understanding that the
mind of the King should not be agitated by their
immediate discussion ; and adhering still to those
principles, Mr. Pitt died in 1806. The King re-
tained his conviction also, whilst reason retained pos-
session of his mind. If we are asked whether the
'publication of this correspondence will prove favoura-
able or injurious to emancipation, we answer, that
death levels the accidental distinctions of rank. The
King,and Lord Kenyon, and Mr. Pitt, are all equally
sincere ; but inasmuch as the two latter are superior
to the former in understanding, by so much ought
their opinion to prevail over his throughout the
country. From the Lord Chief Justice we learn the
legality of the measure of Catholic Emancipation,
and that the objections to it, on the score of the Co-
ronation Oath, are frivolous and unfounded. By
the great Minister we are informed of its expediency,
and " that it would" (in his opinion, of course)" be
attended with no danger to the Established Church,
or to the Protestant interest, in Great Britain and
Ireland." If we appeal to authority, it is evident on
which side the authority of mind and intellect rests.
—Times.

SECOND EDITI",IN.
SUN OFF, GE, Seven o'clock.

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT