The Sun.
London, England, 1829-02-13 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

Josiah Merrick and Benjamin Brayshaw, Little Wood-
house,.Leeds, eudbear-manufacturers.

Ann Stocken and John Jalland, veterinary surgeons.
John Merricks and Henry Coussins, Hastings, Sussex,
painters.

John Clarke and Robert Mathews, Upton-upon-Severn,
common-brewers.

Wm. Walker and Francis Dowling, Macclesfield, silk-
manufacturere.

James Warly Smith and Richard Bacon, Fenchurch.
street, tea-brokers.
. Joseph Reddish, of Northen, miller, and Joseph Reddish,
of Qigleton, Chester, Silk-throwters.
William Henry Radon, William Jessup, Samuel For,
George Eadon, jun., and Thomas Brownell Eadon, Shef-
field, merchants.

Hulsey Janson, Thomas Horne Janson, and Joseph Co-
ventry, Wood-street, Cheapside, warehousemen.
Joseph Austin Butler, and Francis Spilsbury Bueler,
Birmingham, jewellers.
john Jackson and Robert Dewes, Bromley, chemists.
Thomas Manwaring, Richard Cooper, and Jas. Phillips,
Charing-cross, drapers.
Charles Dutton, and Thomas Buckley, Clayhills, Staf-
fordshire, canal-contractors.

DIPERIAL PARLIAMENT

THIS EVENING.

IIOUSE OF COMMONS.

General GA SCOIGNE brought in a Bill for the esta-
blishment of au Institution at Liverpool, to be called
" The School for the Indigent Blind."
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition against the Ca-
tholic Claims, from Ashburv, Berks.
Mr. BANKES presented similar petitions from Poole,
Dorsetshire, and a parish in Gloucester.
Mr. WHITMORE presented a similar petition from
Bridgenorth, county of Salop.
General KING presented a similar petition from Car-
berry, county of Cork, and other places in the same county.
Mr. ELLIS presented a petition from the Unitarians
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in favour of the Catholics.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the Arch-
dean and Clergy of the Diocese of Chester, against the Ca-
tholic Claims.

Id. DAVIS presented a oiniilar petition front the

parish of St. Augustine, Bristol, and said that at a great
public meeting a few days ago, since his Majesty's speech
had been published, there were at least one hundred to one
in faVour of refusing further concessions.
Mr. BRIGHT would oppose any further concessions to
the Catholics. •
Mr. PROTHEROEmis fearful that if CathOlio Mem-
bers were admitted into the House, it would lose its Pro.
'testant character; he also feared thaethe'discussions which
would follow would excite a greater opposition between•the
two religions, and prevent the debates being carried on
with proper temper.
Mi. -DAVIS also presented a similar petition from the
parish of St. Thomas, Bristol.
Admiral EVANS presented a similar petition km
Chiudeville County, Cork.
Admiral SOTHERON presented four, similar petitions
from Botherstall and other places in the county of Not-
tingham.

LLOYD presented a petition against the Subletting
Act, from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Newcastle,
Limerick and another against the Vestry Bill, and one
in favour of the Catholics.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL presented a petition
from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Ely, against the
Catholic Claims.

Mr. MAXWELL presented five !petitions against the
Catholics, from several places in the county of Tyrone.
Mr. BOYLE preseutt,tl a petition in favour of the
Catholic Claims.

Sir T. LETILBRIDGE presented five petitions against
any further concessions to the Roman Catholics.

Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the
University of Oxford, against any further concessions to the
Catholics. The petitioners had on a former occasion pe-
titioned against the, Catholics ; they had expressed them-
selves plainly and strictly on the subject, and it was not
now their intention to enter in a protracted statement:--
They felt bound, however, to state that they were still
strongly opposed to any concessions being granted to the
Roman Catholics. That sentiment was evinced a few
days ago at a more than usually numerous assembly, and
by a very large majority. Those voting for the petition
amounting to 163, and those opposing it to 48. It had
fallen to his duty to present the petition in the absence of
his Hon. Colleague, who had recently met with a severe
domestic affliction.

Mr. BRANSBY COOPER, in presenting a petition
against emancipation, begged to offer a few remarks of
his own on its importmce. Ile felt much disappointed at
the opening of the Session to hear the change of opinion
in Ministers. Every one seas taken by surprise, and it was
with regret they beard the change of their Friend the Rt. •
lion. Seerettny. From the corespondence that passed be-
tween them on that subject, he certainly was led to think
that no change had taken place in that gentleman's opinion.
He did not wish to blame him, but be must lament the cir-
cumstance. It had paralized . the efforts of those
disposed to rely,with confidence under the conviction that
the cause wotfld not be injured in his hands. He bad
listened with patience to the explanatory speech of the
Right Honourable Gentleman, in hopes of hearing
some cause assigned for that change, but he must say
he (lid not think any reason bad been brought forward to
justify his change of mind on this most important of
all questions. He had said nothing but what had been
said many times before. (Hear, hear.) The disturbance
in Ireland might have been put down without Eman-
cipation. He could see no efficient cause at the pre-
sent time why a measure infringing the vital principle
of the Bristish Contstitution both in Church and
State should now he granted. A Protestant king
ought to he surrounded by a Protestant Administration,
and he was sure whatever had been said to the contrary
such a one might now be found composed of teen who
would conduct the business of the country with safety,
(Pear, hear, and cries of " Order.")—With respect to
securities, that was a most serious subject. It was first
creating an evil, and then taking great pains to find a
security for it.—(A laugh.)—Do what you will, take off
the muzzle, and the wojfe will S9Oll show himself. The
only security was total exclusion. He thought the matter had
been finaflysettled at the Revolution. Popery had not changed
neither could it change: it remained immutable. What
reason then was there for us to change? The Hot,se WES
hound to protect the Protestant Church, and if they
introduced into Parliament, men adverse to that
Church, they would naturally seek to undermine it,
a danger which it was our bounden duty to guard against.
He was convinced no security could be obtained from the
Catholics, and should therefore oppose concession.
Lord NUGENT, before the petition was read, begged
leave to say a few words about what had fallen from
the Hon. Member for Gloucester. He seemed to think
that no true Protestant could support Emancipation.
He begged to be allowed to say that no man what-
ever 'might be his opinion respecting Emancipation,
whether it was right or wrong, ought to assume to
the one differing from him that he was no tree Protestant.
The could assure the House with all the sincerity and
warmth of his Hon. Friend, that he himself and the other
Members on that sida the House, who agreed with him in
thinking that Emancipation should be granted, were as
Protestant as his Hon. Friend. He considered true Pro-
testantism consisted in liberty of conscience, and it was to
that we must look for securities to the Protestant Church.
Its best interest were advanced in allowing liberty of
opinion. Ile should not have made these remarks, but he
never could sit to hear true Protestantism applied exclu-
sively to those who opposed Catholic Emancipation.
Mr. BRANSBY COOPER explained.

Mr. DUNCOMBE wished to know what those persons
had to propose who were opposed to the measure about to
he introduced by his Majesty's Government, for surely they
could not contemplate putting down the Catholics by the
sword. (Hear, hear.) If they could look to such a means,
he felt assured they would never be supported by the people
of England.
Mr. C. W. WYNNE wan opposed to the sentiments
expressed by the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. B.
Cooper.) He also condemned various publications
which he had recently read upon the subject of con-
cessions. Indeed, one of them, a Morning Paper,
had said that " it was only the childless possessor
of a throne, w!;:o could consent to impair the title which
belonged to his family." Now it was the undoubted right
of Parliament to limit the succession to the Throne, and
it was by this very right that the House ef Brunswick held
the crown of these realms. (Hear.) He therefore de-
precated these observations as much as he felt disposed to
give unqualified praise to the measures which his Ma-
jesty's Government hail resolved to pursue, and to which
measures he would lend all the support in his power.
[LYI,T SITTING.]