The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-17 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

The Depots of the 52d Foot, and the Rifle Brigade, have
moved from Gosport to Portsmouth.
The Depot of the 83d Regiment of Infantry has moved
from Portsmouth to Gosport.
The Depot of the 80th Foot has moved from Portsmouth
to Fort Cumberland.

A Detachment belonging to the 40th Regiment of In-
fantry embarked on Friday at Deptford, as a guard, on
board the Lady Harewood, convict ship, for New South
Wales.

A Detachment of the 63d Regiment of Foot marched on
Friday morning from Chatham barracks, on route to Dept-
ford, where it arrived on Saturday, and embarked on
board the America, convict ship, as a guard, for Nevt
South Wales.

A Detachment of the 71st Regiment of Infantry bas re-
ceived orders to be in readiness to embark from Chatham,
to complete the Service Companies in America.
Detachments of Invalids belonging to the 22d, 23d, '77th,
84th, 91st, and Royal Artillery, arrived off Chatham on
the 13th inst. from Jamaica, and disembarked on Friday,
and marched to the Invalid Depot.
Detachments of Invalids belonging to different Regi-
ments, were to march from the Invalid Depot yesterday to
London, for examination . before the Lords Commissioners
of the Chelsea Hospital, where a Board will be held for that
purpose on Wednesday.

The Marquis of SLIGO presented petitions from five
parishes in• Ireland in favour of the Catholic claims.
Loud LORTON presented 10 petitions from pariehea in
the county of Donegal and King's Uounty, all against the
Catholic claims.

Lord SKELIAIERS:D ALE presented two petitions against
the Catholics from parishes in Chester. The NobllVl.nrd
harLgiverr the utmost attention to the measures brought
forward in another place, but could not bring himself to
change the opinion he had entertained upon this question
for a long series of:years.

Lord ROLLE presented a petition from Rothwaite,
against concessions.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from Runcorn, Cheshire, against the Catholic claims.
Lord DACRE presented several petitions from different
parts of Ireland against the Sub-letting Act. The Noble
Lord also presented a petition fivin the Unitarian congre-
gation at Morley, Bolton-le-Moor, praying for the removal
of all religious diabilities.
The Earl of GUILDFORD presented petitions from St.
Marylebone, Southampton, from two places in Hants, from
Thorpe, Essex, from Foots-tray, and from sent-al other
places, all against Emancipation, and begged to remark of
the last petition, that it was signed by all the inhabitants
of the parish except the Rector. He mentioned this be-
cause so much was said of the Clergy; but he believed, if
they had exerted their influence against presenting petitions
to Parliament, they would have been unable to stem the
current of public feeiing.
Lord ARDEN presented three petitions from Protestants
of the county of Cork against concession.
Lord MELVILLE presented a petition from the corpo-
ration of Goldsmiths,' Edinburgh, praying for the removal
of Catholic disabilities.

The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions from
the Archtleaconry of Essex, and several other places,
against concession.

Lord PLUNKETT presented petitions from Bray,
Kilbride, and three other places in the comity of Dublin,
in favour of Emancipation.
Lord ELDON presented petitions front' the county and
diocese of Durham, against further concessions to the
Catholics; from Chepstow, from a congregation in Chelms-
ford, from Merthyr Tydvil, Glamorganshire, from the
Protestant Congregation meeting in Duke-Street, Chelms-
ford, from Coventry, from Sedgiey, Staffordshire, from
Denbigh, from a Dissenting Congregation in Maryle-
bone, from the inhabitants of Shadwell, front the Cor-
poration of Gardeners in Glasgow, from the Clergy
and Dissenting Ministers of several parishes of
Denbigh, from the inhabitants of Cumbertiatild, Dumbar-
tonshire, from Blackburne, from Lismahago; Scotland, from
Penally, Pembrokeshire, from Burton-upon-Treat, from
Bushey, from Bever!ey, from Rothsay, Bute, front Chel-
tenham, from Pollockshaws, Renfrewehire, and numerous
other petitions, all against further concessions to the Ro-
man Catholics.

Lord WICKLOW presented a petition from All Saint.,
Deny, praying for the removal of all Catholic disabilities.
Lord KENYON, in rising to present tt.petition, said
it was alinosttwemr,seven years stiici he hAd had a seatin

that House, and in all that time he had strenuously sup-
ported the measures of Government. There were parti-
cular occasions, however, when duty called on him to de-
viate from that practice. The present time seemed to him
one when every man who was attached to the Constitution
was called on to declare his sentiments. The measures
which his Majesty's Ministers were soon to bring under
their Lordships' notice was at all times of very great im-
portance, but was now, in consequence of the manner in
which his Majesty's Ministers had made use of the Sove-
reign's name, in reference to this measure, of greater im-
portance than ever. The question was to be considered in
reference to the principles which had placed the family of
Brunswick in possession of the Throne of -these realms ;
and when a measure-of such very great importance was to
be proposed, after it had been adopted by the Ministers,
and recommended to their Lordships, it would have been
better if they had at the same time laid before their Lord-
ships the precise grounds en which they recommended the
measure. That question was understood not to be pro-
posed without security that, in granting the claims of the
Catholics, the Constitution and the law established in
16S8 should not be brought into jeopardy. That had
been the public declamation of the Ministers of the Crown,
but such a measure had not been submitted ; and thus the
question was divested of one of the most important subjects
supposed to be connected with it. The measure now pro-
posed was for the removal of all disabilities without any se-
curities, which was not consistent with the declaration
made by the Noble Duke, How far his Majesty was in-
formed of the shape which the measure had at present as-
sumed in Parliament—(Order, order)—
Earl GREY rose to order. To use his Majesty's name
with reference to any subject under discussion in Parlia-
ment, or to mention his supposed opinion with reference
to any such subject, was unparliamentary.

Lord KENYON bowed to the 'decision of the Noble
Earl, and regretted that what lie stated should be thought
out of order by the Noble Earl ; for there was no man
in that House for whom he had a greater respect, after the
Noble and Learned Lord who had made such a noble stand
in that House, who had preserved his honourable character
for consistency, and done himself the more credit by
enabling the world to contrast his conduct with that of
others.---(Hear, hear.)—Even on occasiop of presenting
these petitions, lie was anxious to take the opportuuity of
declaring his conviction that the measure now in progress
would be attended with the greatest mischief to the nation.
He would like to know whether, when the Speech recom-
mending the consideration of the question of the Catholic
Claims came down to Parliament, the nature of the measure
was completely and fully explained to his Majesty, because
lie thought it might be doubted at least whether his agree-
ing to the measure would not be a violation of his Corona-
tion Oath. The measure, might not be considered as
overturning the Church Establishment directly, but
such, lie was persuaded, would be the result; and it
became. their Lordships seriously to consider the con-
sequences. The very best sesurity of the Throne of his
Majesty depended on the affixtions of his Protestant sub-
jects, and there was much danger that. these affections
would be lost-by the success of this measure. It might he
difficult to restrain those persons who called loudly for a
measure of this kind, but it would be much more difficult
to suLdue them after the claims were granted, and they had
the opportunity of pushing these claims still further,
which, however loyal to his Majesty personally, they would
do. When the Catholics attained political power, it Was
not to be expected that they would concur in those .penal
laws that might be necessary to restrain the growth of
Popery. The measure, if carried into effect, would prove
the destruction of the Protestant Constitution as established
in 1688. At least, it was but common justice to the
country that a new Parliament should be called, for the
this particular measure before it was
The Duke of WELLINGTON—I do net mean, note
passed purpose i
n oft into
a considering
ring
withstanding what has fallen from the Noble Lord, to enter
now on the discussion of the measure to which the Noble
Lord has alluded. T understood that it had been agreed
upon and arranged that these discussions should not be
perpetually called up, on the occasion of presenting peti-
tions ; but that the subject should be allowed to rest, till
the matter came kegularly before the House. I have clearly
and distinctly, and openly pledged myself and thereat of his
Majesty's confidential servants, to show that the measure for
the settlement of the Catholic Claims will not be attended
with the mischievous consequepces which its opponents
dread. On thecontrery, I say it"will be attended with the most
rlirient and to the country. The Noble Lord
beneficial consequences ; and for its good effects we are re-
the measure has been explained to Ma-
a.,spkosnswibilieetthoePar
jesty ? I answer- that it has been explained ; and i would
deserve the severest censure of your Lordships and the na-
tion, if I had brought down such a measure to Parliament
without having' explained it to his Majesty. Does the
, Noble Lord imagine that his Majesty would give his con-
fidence to any man who would Yeutore to lay a measure of

such importance, or any measure before Parliament, with-
out explaining it to him. The notion that he would suffer
any servant so to act, is little less than an insult to his Ma-
jesty. I will not now enter upon the discussion of the
question, whether this is or is not a violation of his Ma-
jesty's Coronation Oath ; but I du say that the measure
does nut in the slightest degree touch on the Coronation
Oath, and that I undertake to show when it comes regu-
larly under discussion before your Lordships. I have read
a correspondence, to which an ancestor of a Noble Lord was
a party ; and neither he nor my Learned Friend (Lord
Eldon) on the Cross Bench, nor Lord Liverpool, i:or my
Right Hon. Friend in the other House, thought that the
Coronation Oath had anything to do with the measure of
reasonable concession to the Roman Catholics. In the
letter to his late Majesty, from the late Lord Kenyon, there
was not a word to countenance the idea that in.his opinion
a measure of this kind would be a violation of the Coro-
nation Oath, or that the oath would be in the least affected
by it. This mutd, I thought it right to say, in answer to
• the 'Noble Lord's assertions, although it -is mast inconve-
nient that these topics should be brought.undeediscussion
night after night, on every occasion when petitions are
presented, contrary to the arrangement which I under-
stood to be agreed to, that all discussion on the subject
should.be deferred till • the question came in the regular
form before the House. I repeat that, when it does come,
I will be ready to shbw that the measure of reasonable
concessions to the Catholics will not only not be attended
with any injury to the Protestant EstabliShment and the
Constitution of the country, but that it will tend ma-
terially to strengthen both, and that the greater danger to
the ConstitutiOn and the Notestent Establishment would
be to refuse to settle the question in a manner calculated'
to put an end to - the divisions and dissensions amongst
the population of.the country.—(Hear.)
Lord KENYON—The question which he put to the
Noble Duke was not whether the measure had been ex-
plained to his Majesty when it was submitted to the other
House of Parliament, but whether the measure intended
to be submitted to Parliament had been explained to his
Majesty at or before the time when *his Majesty's Speech
was laid before both Houses at the opening of the
Session?

The Duke of WELLINGTON (in n loud and firm
voice)—lt was.—(A laugh.)
Lord KENYON—From the manner in which the
Noble Duke had answered his question, it might be ima-
gined that the question was irregular and improper. If
sneh was the case he certainly was not aware of it, and
certainly had no intention to violate the order of their
Lordships' House. With respect to the correspondence to
which the Noble Duke had referred, although it was not
directly stated to be the opinion of his ancestor, that, by
settling the Catholic Question on terms of concession to
their claims, the Coronation Oath would be violated ; yet
the inference was, that the concession would be attended
with consequences fatal to the Church and the Constitu-
tion, which, at his Coronation, his Majesty swore to sup-
port; and that therefore, in effect, the concession would
be a violation of the Coronation Oath.

Earl GREY—I am fully sensible of the very great in.
convenience attendant on the practice which has lately
arisen of inakicg speeches on the presentation of petitions,
and thus taking every opportunity of throwing out asse-
tions unaccompanied with the slightest shadow or colour
of argument. It has been asserted that the measure now
in progress will, if it be passed through the House of Par-
liament, and he agreed to by his Majesty, be a violation of
the Coronation Oath. To discuss that question now can
serve no good purpose, nor produce any good effect; and
it is far better to postpone giving any opinion on the sub.
ject till the matter comes regularly before your Lordships,
when opinions may be given with the arguments in sup-
port of them. At present I, can only meet assertion by as-
sertion;and I sty, that the meitsine 'ifetrin `progreis for
settling the Catholic Question will be attended with no
danger to the Constitution in Church and State; but on
the contrary, will have the effect of adding strength and
stability to both, and that his Majesty's assent to it will be
no violation of the Coronation Oath. Such was the opi-
nion of many who were opposed to the Catholic claims;
and the late Lord Liverpool had distinctly stated it as his
opinion that the Coronation Oath had nothing to do with
the matter. As to the letter of the Noble Lord's (Kenyon)
father to his late Majesty, I draw some conclusion from it
as the Noble Duke did ; and, as I read it, I find nothing
whatever in it to justify the notion that it was the opinion
of the Noble Lord's father that the settling of the Catholic
Question in the way of reasonable concession would he
a violation of the Coronation Oath.—(flear, hear, hear.)—
Even the Noble Lord's own application of the letter, and
the construction which he put upon it, showed that, if
his Majestyshould think that the measure, instead of being
injurious, would be beneficial to the Protestant Church and
the Constitution, then an assent to it by his Majesty would
be no violation of the Coronation Oath. If his Majesty
really believed that the measure would be attended with
serious injury to the Protestant Establishment, and agreed
to it with an intention to injure the Establishment—in
that case the late Lord Kenyon did seem to think that it
would be a violation of the Oath. That certainly is a
very different question ; but I do not mean to enter upon
the subject at all at present, and have only to say that I
fully concur with the Noble Duke that the measure now
in progress does not at all touch on the Coronation Oath.
But before I sit down, I cannot help taking the opportunity
of deprecating the continuance of a practice which has
lately sprung up on both sides of the House, of introducing
his Majesty's name in debate.—(Hear, hear.)—As to the
mere recommendation by the Crown of a measure to the
consideration of the Houses of Parliament, that is as old as
the Constitution. That the Ministers were responsible
for the advica they gave to his Majesty was true, and that
they bad a view to the settlement of the question was not
disputed. But they were no further responsible, merely
as Ministers. As to the measures which might be
adopted by the Legislature in consequence of consider-
ing the matter referred to it by his Majesty, the Ministers
were responsible only as Members of Parliament. But
nothing could be more inconsistent with the principles of
the Constitution, and the forms and privileges of Parlia-
ment, than to mention in Parliament, during the progress.
of any measure, what were the private inclinations or
sentiments of his Majesty respecting it. I hope that we
shall hear no more of this on either side, either in favour
of a measure or against it ; or whether it has or has not
the sanction of his Majesty. All we have to do is to con-
sider the matter recommended to our attention by his Ma-
jesty, and beyond that we have nothing whatever to do
with the private inclinations and opinions of his Majesty.
I have only further to say, that I am glad that there is a
prospect of having this great question speedily settled.
Some, out of a mistaken zeal for the Protestant EStablish-
meat, oppose the measure as one pregnant with danger to
the Constitution in Church and State. I think it will he
attended with no danger to either ; but that, instead of
being dangerous, it will support and strengthen both, by
healing the divisions which have too long disturbed the
nation.—(Hear, hear.)

Lord FALMOUTH—He had to trouble their Lordships
with only one word. Whether the arrangement of which
the Nowe Duke had spoken had been subscribed to or nor,
one thing was clear, that for every page littered by the op.-
ponents of the pleasure against it, on presenting petitions,
a folio, volume was on similar occasions uttered by its sup.
porters in its favour. The Noble Duke had read rather
an unfair lecture to such of their Lordships as opposed the
measure. He ought rather to have directed his lecture to
the Noble Lords on the right, who now appeared to be his
principal friends. The Noble Duke had talked boldly
manfully on the aubjeet of 1;4 rpsponsibility. The re-
sponsibility is certainly a perilous one, and in his opinion
the Noble Duke would have reason to repent his having
undertaken it. As to the Coronation Oath, the very ex-
istenco.of a question whether this measure was or was not
a violation of it, was matter for serious consi&roticr, ;a4
reflection, and he honed ti.c tnattev would ifteet with that
attention which it derlerved.. -

•
Lord FARNHAM—The arrangement to which the
Noble Duke had referred might be a very proper one on
ordinary occasions, but was extremely inapplicablc t~ the
present crisis. The earliest period at which he could
Consider the Measure as propounded, was the 6th March ;
and to-morrow, not mote than 12 days after it was intro-
duced, the
principle of the Bill was to be considered and
discussed. •Now he would ask whether twelve days wexo
stqcient to enable the country to undeotand such a mea-
?tire as this, and 'to enable Members of Parliament to come
prepared for its discussion, and to give a sound opinion
upon it?._(hear, bear.)—Nlanv would not have an op-
portunity of saying :Inv thing at all on the subject, unless
they spoke their sentiments on the occasion of presenting
petitions. There mver was a Pleasure with the details of

The Duke of WELLINGTON—I am not aware that I
pledged myself that the securities would be such as to give
satisfaction to all your Lordships, including the Right
Rev. Prelate. I said, in reply to a Right Rev. Prelate,
that when the- measure came under discussion here, I
would prove that it would not be dangerous to the Consti-
tion and the Protestant Establishment; but I did not say
a word about security.. The Right Rev. nelate stated,
that this measure xv ()nil set up Popery on the ruin of Pro-
testantism. I denied the proposition,' and said, that in-
stead of setting up Popery, it would prevent its being set
up. I said so then, and I say so again nos. I-certainly
am very reluctant to trouble your Lordships with these
incidental discussions ; but when the Noble Lord puts
words into my.mouth which I never uttered, I feel it due
to myself to set him right.
Lord FARNHAM—He was not present when the
Noble Duke made the reply to which he alluded, but he
had his information from certain records of the proceed-
bird of Parliament.—(Order, order.)

The Eurl of ELDON would not then enter ou the dis-
cussion of the question as to the Coronation Oath, and
bad hitherto carefully abstained from adverting ;to it. It
was a question of extreme delicacy, and he felt a great dis-
inclination to touch upon it. But whether it might not
be absolutely necessary to consider and discuss the question
in the course of the progress of this Bill, was quite another
matter. But nothing except the opinion that it was a
matter of necessity, would induce him to say any thing on
that topic. He had, however, an opinion on the sulject,
and he would not hesitate to state that opinion. As to the
lecture which the Noble Duke had read to the House, he
agreed that it had better have been addressed to the Noble
Lords on the other side, who now appeared to betbe Noble
Duke's chief friends. But there waa such- a changing of
late, that he himself hardly knew where he It*. '
Lord KENYON then presented petitions from the town
of Pembroke and two or three other places against con-
cession to the Catholics.—They were laid on the table.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented six petitions
from parishes in Ireland, praying for further concessions
to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. The Noble
Marquis presented two petitions from parishes in Ireland,
praying for relief against the Sub-letting Act,.and also two
petitions from parishes in Ireland against the Vestry Act.
The Noble Marquis then presented a petition from Kinsale,
praying that the Government might not continue the pre-
sent system of making grants for public education in Ire-
land. The Noble Marquis presented a petition from the
Faculties of Physicians and Surgeons at Glasgow, praying
that some alteration might be made in the law respecting
the supply of subjects for medical education.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petrons from
Rye and from a parish in Sussex, against any further con-
cession to the Catholics.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions in
favour of Catholic Emancipation, from Ramsgate, and
from Roscovie, and another parish in Cork.
The Marquis of BUTE presented a similar petition
from Myrthyr
Lord FALMOUTH presented petitions of a contrary
nature from a parish in Berkshire, from a parish in Essex,
and from a parish in Bedfordshire, and likewise from Pen-
ryn. The Noble Lord had no connexion with Penryn,
and the petition had been sent to him with an assurance
that it had been ..figneJ.by the inhahiAants-of Penrya, not—
withstanding the landed interest in the neighbourhood was
against it.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti-
tion from the Clergy of Rochester, praying that no further
Concessions might be made to the Catholics.

Ths Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented petitions
of a contrary nature, from Lochreagli awl five parishes in
Ireland.

Lord GORT moved for returns of all persons registered
within the last seven years as Freeholders of Counties, or
as Freemen of Towns in Ireland returning Mem6ers to
Parliament, specifying the value of the Freehold, and
distinguishing whether the persons admitted as Freemen of
Corporations were honorary Freemen, or Freemen in
right of birth, marriage, or servitude.—Ordered to be
produced.
The Mutiny Bill was read a third time, and passed.
At Seven o'clock the Reuse adjourned till to-morrow
(this day).