HC Deb 29 July 1869 vol 198 cc893-5
MR. WHITE

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it be the fact that by reason of the late repeal of the Legislative Union of the Churches of England and Ireland, the statutory form of the Coronation Oath, so far as it related to the United Church of England and Ireland is also virtually repealed; and, if so, whether it is intended to submit to Parliament any measure whereby a new form of Oath may be substituted for the same?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Sir, I have to remind my hon. Friend that the words of the Oath taken by Her Majesty on her Coronation are not words prescribed by any Act of Parliament. The only two Acts of Parliament whereby the form of Oath has been prescribed are these—the 1st William and Mary, s. 1, c. 6, the words of which are— Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the due profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed religion established by the 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 and belong to them? That is the form of words prescribed by the 1st William and Mary. Then follows a statute of the 5th Anne, upon the union between England and Scotland. And that Act, after making provision that that Union shall not affect the Established Church of England, proceeds to say— Every King and Queen succeeding shall take and subscribe an Oath "— Observe, not prescribing the particular form, the words of the statute being in general terms— To maintain and preserve inviolate the said settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by Law established, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the Principality of Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the territories thereunto belonging. That is the last statute which has proscribed any form of Oath. Perhaps, I am not correct in saying that this prescribes a form of Oath. It only indicates the general character of the Oath to be taken. The Act of Union made no mention of the Coronation Oath, but it united the two Churches of England and Ireland. Upon the accession of George IV. to the Throne it became a matter of serious consideration whether some alteration of the Oath would not be desirable in order to meet the altered circumstances produced by the Union. It was suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury that some change should be made. The matter was considered by Lord Eldon, who was then Lord Chancellor, and by the Law Officers of the Crown, one of whom was Lord Lyndhurst, and it was agreed by them that it was in the power of the Privy Council to change the words of the Oath, and to adapt it to the altered circumstances of the case; and, accordingly, a change in the form of the Oath was then made by order of the Privy Council, adapting the Oath to the union of the two Churches. Upon the accession of Her Majesty the question of the Coronation Oath was again considered, and the words which constitute the present Oath, and which were taken by the Queen, were then settled by the Privy Council. I believe the persons who settled the form of the Oath were Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister; Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor; Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Russell; and I rather think the Law Officers of the Crown, Lord Campbell j and Lord Cranworth (then Sir John Rolfe) were consulted. It was under the Order of the Privy Council at that time, that the words of the Oath taken by Her Majesty were settled, and those words were these— Will you maintain and preserve inviolately the settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, and government thereof, as by Law established within England and Ireland, and the territories thereunto belonging? Therefore, I say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that if the Privy Council had the power to change the form of the Oath, so as to adapt it to the altered circumstances produced by the union of the two Churches, the Privy Council must have the same power of altering it now, so as to adapt it to the new state of things produced by the separation of the Churches; and, if that it be so, no Act of Parliament will be necessary; and I believe it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Act.