gratulated. Well, can you or cantion to leave out this clause of his Bill. you not? The right hon. Gentleman He says he will not do it, because it does not deny that if the other clauses secures that freedom which is the preof his Bill are carried his policy would rogative of every body of Christians in be effected. He has never for a this country. But, if that be the case, moment maintained, with any appear- why is your policy not more comprehenance of conviction, that it is neces- sive? You who are so learned in the stasary to his policy that this clause should tutes of Scotland; why do you not come pass, which at the same time violates forward at once and secure that freedom, the Act of Union and wounds the con- which is the prerogative of every body of scientious feelings of the whole body Christians in this country, to that body of the Episcopalian Church of Ireland. of Christians, the minority of the Scottish I, also, in making that appeal to the people who do not enjoy it? Why does Roman Catholic Gentlemen, asserted, the right hon. Gentleman who to-night and I assert again, notwithstanding some has announced this policy, which he observations that have been made, that never announced so distinctly before-a the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, policy which is to secure the freedom and in every other country where it ap- which is the prerogative of every body pears, is an established Church. I say of Christians in the country-why does that without the slightest hesitation. I he not extend it to the people of Engmaintain as a political truth, as a point land? Sir, a prudent statesman might not to be controverted, that when a say-"Whatever may be my ulterior Church is instituted by a foreign Power designs, you have no right to judge me -a Church without influence over its except by the public propositions that I own doctrines, discipline, worship, or have made-you have no right to impute government-it is an established Church, to me a future policy, which on your part and can be no other than an estab- may be a rash and unfounded inference lished Church. It is as much and as com- from my present propositions." That pletely organized and regulated, with- would be the position of a prudent out the slightest influence and power statesman; but we have a frank statesof its own, as any Church which can man who does not condescend to be be established by Act of Parliament, prudent. I say, on the part of the Proand I say, therefore, that not only theo-testants of Ireland that, when we are retically-which some may question, but told that a new policy is now to be init would only be a criticism of words-augurated, when we have from the but practically, the Roman Catholic Prime Minister a definition of that new Church is an established Church; and policy-namely, that it is to secure to all I say, if that be the case, how can you, that freedom in religious matters which in the name of ecclesiastical equality in is the prerogative of every body of ChrisIreland, permit the Roman Catholic tians in the country-the Protestants of Church to have all the advantage of es- Ireland have a right to say-"Carry your tablishment-that is, of having a sove- policy into effect completely, or at least reign control over it which secures all postpone our fate till there is one verdict these advantages of discipline and doc- of general ruin and an entire dissolution trine, and deny that to the Protestant of the bonds of society." Episcopal Church in Ireland? It is im- MR. GLADSTONË: Sir, I am not possible to contend that under these about to make a speech, or to abuse the circumstances you are establishing a po- indulgence of the Committee; and I could licy of ecclesiastical equality. Why, not find it in my heart to weaken the Sir, it is impossible-whatever the vote effect of the animated peroration to may be to divert and distract the minds which we have just listened, but, now of intelligent men, on whatever side that it is over, I am bound to tell the they may sit, by entering into contro- right hon. Gentleman that I think he versies about Scotch Acts of Parliament laboured under a delusion as to the regarding the supremacy of the Crown words used by me, which was not shared in the time of Charles II. and William with him by any other Gentleman in III. No, Sir, we know to-night what the House, with reference to the freethe right hon. Gentleman is aiming at- dom, the absolute freedom, or any what is his real defence of his policy-freedom, which was the title or right or what is his real answer to my proposi- prerogative of "every body of Christians VOL. CXCV. [THIRD SERIES.] 2 M [Committee-Clause 2, men.' Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided:-Ayes 344; Noes 221: Majority 123. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next. House adjourned at One o'clock, HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 19th April, 1869. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First ReadingPark Gate Chapel Marriages (59); Govern. ment of India Act Amendment (62). Committee Report - Colonial Prisoners Re in the country." I say "of every body | a state of things should exist, without of Christians subsisting upon its own any notice being taken of it in Parliaresources." I therefore, Sir, am greatly ment, and it was desirable that the Gorejoiced to think that I may still, per- vernment should have an opportunity haps, be included in the right hon. Gen- of showing, either that the provisions of tleman's category of "prudent states- the Bill were not touched by the terms of the Oath, or that there was something in the conditions under which the Oath was imposed which did not render it binding on Her Majesty with regard to giving her assent to any measures presented to her by Parliament. It appeared to him very difficult to show that the terms of the Oath did not directly condemn many of the proposals of the Bill; but, at the same time, it was possible that Her Majesty's servants might be able to offer satisfactory explanations. The conditions, moreover, under which the Oath was originally imposed were worthy of consideration, in order that the House might understand what its obligations were. As to the Sovereign not being bound by the Oath in her legislative capacity, many persons appeared to think that any measure which had passed both Houses must necessarily receive the Royal Assent; in fact, that, from the lapse of time and the change of circumstances, the power of the Crown to exercise its veto has become a thing of the past, and that there was no power in the Crown to resist the acts of the two Houses of Parliament. He could not, however, suppose that this opinion was shared by any of their Lordships, for this important Prerogative had been preserved in the United States under one of the most democratic constitutions in the world, and he believed that the more our institutions were extended in that direction. the more important it was to retain the Prerogative of the Crown. What, then, were the obligations of the Oath? Those who imposed the Oath were obviously the parties to judge of the extent of its obligation; and, to consider, therefore, what that obligation was, it was necessary to refer to the proceedings of Parliament at the time it was enacted. The question was raised in the reign of George III., in relation to a measure for granting to Roman Catholics political privileges, but a disadvantage, he thought, had resulted from its having been considered mainly in connection with that question. There was nothing in the Oath which directly applied to any measure of that kind; but it was the belief of George III. moval (55); Merchant Shipping (Colonial), Third Reading-Governor General of India CORONATION OATH.-QUESTION. LORD REDESDALE, in putting to the Government the Question of which he had given notice-Whether there is any intention on their part to propose any alteration of the Coronation Oath, or any legislation in relation thereto ? said he thought it desirable to bring the subject before the House, on account of the feeling that prevailed among great numbers of persons in the country that some of the provisions of the Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Irish Church were inconsistent with the obligations of that Oath. That opinion had been strongly expressed by many persons in England, while he believed that in Ireland it was held by nine-tenths of the members of the Established Church. Now he thought it very undesirable that such to maintain the Protestant religion as it is, or shall be, established by law." Objection was taken to this, by Mr. Finch and others, as implying that there was another Protestant religion to be established by law-a new doctrine as well as a new discipline. There was no one then in the House whose opinion as to the extent of the obligation imposed by the Oath is entitled to more attention, no one who could speak with more weight and force than Mr. Somers, afterwards Lord Somers, and what he said was this 6 that to consent to the removal of those | Coronation Oath, and consider what alRoman Catholic disabilities would affect terations and amendments were it fit to the Oath he had taken to maintain the make therein, but the Committee, after Protestant religion, as by law estab- several sittings, being unable to agree, lished, to the utmost of his power; and the House resolved itself into a Comwhat was occurring at the present day mittee of the Whole House. In the raised the question in the mind of many, Committee Sir Thomas Clarges proposed whether His Majesty was not more cor- an addition to the Oath-That to the rect in his opinion of the consequences utmost of his power he will maintain of that concession than those who were the Protestant religion established by disposed to give him other advice. law." Thereupon Mr. Garroway moved Still, people were justified at that time "That the King in the Oath swear in saying that the obligations of the Oath did not necessarily bind the Crown to resist Roman Catholic emancipation, there being no words in it directly requiring such a refusal. The question was therefore treated as one on which the Crown was not bound, except by what some termed the extravagant opinion of the Sovereign, as to the consequences that might ensue. In the debate on the Relief Bill, in 1829, the late Earl Grey referred to what took place with respect to the Coronation Oath on the accession of William and Mary, and argued upon, however, as he (Lord Redesdale) thought, a partial statement of the facts-that it was not intended that the Crown should be bound by that Oath in its legislative capacity. He said he believed that it could be shown with the most conclusive evidence that it never entered into the minds of those who framed the Oath to impose on the King any such restraint. Was it possible, he asked, to imagine that Lord Somers and the patriots of the Revolution could have conceived the idea of binding future legislators in the manner contended for? That they thought the danger most to be guarded against was any proposal of the Lords and Commons that might endanger the great work just accomplished, and the lieve we are about to alter the whole religion, only security against that danger was Perhaps the words may be plainer, but seeing so the true Protestant religion established by law. in the King, by imposing on him an much weight laid upon them, makes me appreOath to be taken at his Coronation, hend something lies hid, that the Presbyterian which should bind him and his succes-party, the lean deer, will take it from us both." sors for ever to refuse their assent to On a division the original Motion was any Bill that might be presented to carried by 188 to 149. Now it was obthem for altering the laws then in ex-vious that the effect of the Amendment istence against the Roman Catholics? [2 Hansard, xxi. 327.] Lord Grey then referred to the discussion on the third reading of the Bill in the House of Commons; but to consider the matter fairly the entire preceedings of the House must be looked at. It was originally referred to a Committee to inspect the "The Question is to add the words shall be established by law;' I desire the addition for great regard to the Legislature. In the former paragraph it is statutes, and laws, and customs in being;' in the other, Establishment.' He that them. Put in is, or shall be,' and that takes in gives his consent to take away does not maintain every man's consent. It is said that by this we are going to alter the government of the Church. Though the constitution be as good as possible for the present time, none can be good at all times. Therefore I am for the word may,' and that will be a remedy at all times." Can any one doubt that in desiring qualifying words "for great regard to the Legislature" he considered that the Oath would bind the King in his legislative Sir Thomas Clarges recapacity? marked "I think those words will make the world be was to widen the discretion of the Crown, and that the objection to it was mainly founded on its being a Presbyterian movement. On the third reading of the Bill Mr. Pelham proposed this proviso that no clause in this Act shall be understood "Provided always, and be it hereby declared, so to bind the Kings or Queens of this realm as to prevent their giving their Royal Assent to any Bill which shall be at any time offered by the Lords and Commons, assembled in Parliament, for the taking away or 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.' The object of that proviso was plainly to get rid of the objection that it was a Presbyterian movement; but it was objected to on the ground that when a special permission was given on a particular point other points were tied up, and, on the suggestion of Sir Thomas Lee, the Amendment was withdrawn. Sir Thomas Lee, in objecting to it, said "I was the other day of opinion that the Oath might have been plainer by the other words offered; and now here is a proviso to explain it. I am afraid the words as penned in the Oath do too much bind up the Legislature.' The Oath obliges the King to maintain the religion established by law. The proviso says the King shall be always at liberty, and, by Act of Parliament, ceremonies may be altered at any time. All oaths are taken in the sense of the imposer, which restriction is not to be exercised but in certain cases. It will, I fear, creep in that other laws cannot be made without such a proviso. Therefore I would lay it aside."-[Hansard: Parl. History, vol. v.] bishoprics, rectories, and other corporations sole. Now, on the Union with Scotland the same jealousy of Presbyterianism was evinced by Parliament; and accordingly an Act of 1706 for securing the Church of England as by law established was made part of the Act of Union, it being the 25th Article. The Preamble of that Act was in these terms "And whereas it is reasonable and necessary that the true Protestant religion professed and It then proceeded to enact that certain "And be it further enacted, that every King or Queen succeeding and coming to the Royal Government of the kingdom of Great Britain, at his or her Coronation shall take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the said settlement of the Church of England, and the thereof as by law established within the kingdoms doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-on-Tweed, and the territories thereunto belonging." Sir Thomas Lee's opinion clearly was that the Oath was legislatively binding. It does not appear that in the House of Lords there was any discussion. Now the conclusion he (Lord Redesdale) felt compelled to draw from these debates was that Parliament intended that the Oath should bind the Sovereign in his legislative capacity, but not one iota beyond the express words contained in it, and should not bind him in regard to matters which he conscientiously believed might be granted consistently with the main point and object of the Oath. He (Lord Redesdale) would now turn to those words in the Oath which were supposed to touch the measure now The Churches of England and Ireland pending in the other House. They had since been united; but this Articlo were these "Will you to the utmost of your power"-in other words, will you do everything that a Sovereign can-"maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the l'rotestant reformed religion established by law; and will you preserve unto the Bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the Churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them?" Their Lordships would observe that the Church was not spoken of in the singular as an Establishment, but that the Oath referred to "Churches," a distinct proof that it alluded to all the separate The Sovereign was to swear to maintain And it was further "That this Act and all the matters and things therein contained be, and shall for ever be, holden and adjudged to be a fundamental and essential part of the Treaty of Union between the two kingdoms." was still an essential part of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland. Their Lordships would have observed that the Act of Anne, unlike that of William III., did not distinctly specify the form of oath, but simply enacted that "an" Oath of a particular nature should be taken; and at the Coronation of George IV. the terms of the Oath that had been taken by his predecessors was modified to accord with the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland; and on the Coronation of Her present Majesty the terms of the Oath were decided by the Privy Council, and Lord | Roman Catholics to any political priviCottenham, then Lord Chancellor, Lord leges was that it was supposed they could Melbourne, then Prime Minister, the always take any oath with a reservation. Marquess of Lansdowne, then President Owing to this belief the Oath of Allegiof the Council, and Lord Russell, Home giance passed in the same reign, and Secretary, settled its precise terms. The taken, till within the last few years, Oath submitted to and taken by Her by all the Members of both Houses, Majesty was this-every word of it being showed in what manner Parliament held taken from the Acts of Union with Scot- every Christian should take an oath. It land and Irelandprescribed that it was taken "Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the United Church of England and according to the plain and common sense and un"according to the express words spoken, and Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, and govern-derstanding of the same words, without any equiment thereof as by law established, within Eng- vocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation land and Ireland, and the territories thereunto belonging?" whatsoever." He could not understand how any one It was unquestionably the intention could hold that the disestablishment of of Parliament that the Coronation the Irish branch of the United Church Oath should be taken in the same was consistent with the obligation im- spirit. It must be borne in mind that posed on the Sovereign by that Oath, nor the taking of the Oath was not the how anybody could say that the Oath Sovereign's voluntary act, but was imwas not binding legislatively? He posed upon her by the law, and that she begged their Lordships to remember the could not avoid it, and, having taken terms of the Act of Settlement, which it, was bound by it in the manner it were such as had never been imposed on a Sovereign before, for they provided that if the Sovereign became or married a Roman Catholic, every subject was absolved from his allegiance, and the Crown passed to the next heir as if the Sovereign so acting was dead. At a time when Parliament was in a temper to pass such an Act as that it was not likely to have considered very cautiously its own privileges at some future period. The Preamble to the Act of William III. threw further light on the matter, it stated Whereas, by the law and ancient usage of this realm, the Kings and Queens thereof have taken solemn Oath upon the Evangelists at their respective Coronations, to maintain the statutes, laws, and customs of the said realm, and all the people and inhabitants thereof in their spiritual and civil rights and properties; but, forasmuch as the Oath itself, on such occasions administered, hath heretofore been framed in doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws and constitutions at this time unknown." The spirit in which the Oath was framed was that there should be no "doubtful words and expressions," and the words "to the utmost of your power" would have no meaning if the Crown were debarred from refusing assent to any measure which it believed to be contrary to the obligations of the Oath. The feeling which existed at that time with reference to the obligation of oaths should also be considered, for it was notorious that one of the great objections to admitting prescribed. Considering, therefore, how EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, this is the third time within the last twelve months that my noble Friend has invited me to discuss this question; but although I entirely disagree with my noble Friend |