CORONATION OATH.—QUESTION.

HL Deb 19 April 1869 vol 195 cc1059-69

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 a state of things should exist, without any notice being taken of it in Parliament, and it was desirable that the Government should have an opportunity of showing, either that the provisions of 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. that to consent to the removal of those Roman Catholic disabilities would affect the Oath he had taken to maintain the Protestant religion, as by law established, to the utmost of his power; and what was occurring at the present day raised the question in the mind of many, whether His Majesty was not more correct in his opinion of the consequences of that concession than those who were disposed to give him other advice. Still, people were justified at that time 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 Belief 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 only security against that danger was in the King, by imposing on him an Oath to be taken at his Coronation, which should bind him and his successors for ever to refuse their assent to any Bill that might be presented to them for altering the laws then in existence 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 i must be looked at. It was originally referred to a Committee to inspect the Coronation Oath, and consider what alterations and amendments were it fit to make therein, but the Committee, after several sittings, being unable to agree, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House. In the Committee Sir Thomas Clarges proposed an addition to the Oath—"That to the utmost of his power he will maintain the Protestant religion established by law." Thereupon Mr. Garroway moved—"That the King in the Oath swear 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— 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 gives his consent to take away does not maintain them. Put in 'is, or shall be.' and that takes in 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 capacity? Sir Thomas Clarges remarked— I think those words will make the world believe we are about to alter the whole religion, the true Protestant religion established by law. Perhaps the words may be plainer, but seeing so much weight laid upon them, makes me apprehend something lies hid, that the Presbyterian party, the lean deer, will take it from us both. On a division the original Motion was carried by 188 to 149. Now it was obvious that the effect of the Amendment 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— Provided always, and be it hereby declared, that no clause in this Act shall be understood 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: Part. History, vol. v.] 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 pending in the other House. They 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 Protestant 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 bishoprics, rectories, and other corporations sole. Now, on the Union with Scotland the same jealousy of Presbyterian-ism 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 established by law in the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof shall be effectually and unalterably secured. It then proceeded to enact that certain Acts of Elizabeth and Charles II., and all other existing Acts for the establishment and preservation of the Church of England and the doctrines, worship, discipline, and government thereof, should remain and be in force for ever. There was evidently the fullest intention on the part of Parliament to bind the Sovereign. The next section of the Article was as follows:— 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 doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof as by law established within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-on-Tweed, and the territories thereunto belonging. The Sovereign was to swear to maintain the settlement of the Church in England and Ireland. And it was further enacted— 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. The Churches of England and Ireland had since been united; but this Article 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 Cottenham, then Lord Chancellor, Lord Melbourne, then Prime Minister, the Marquess of Lansdowne, then President of the Council, and Lord Russell. Homo Secretary, settled its precise terms. the Oath submitted to and taken by Her Majesty was this—every word of it being taken from the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland— Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, and govern- merit thereof as by law established, within Eng- land and Ireland, and the territories thereunto belonging? He could not understand how any one could hold that the disestablishment of the Irish branch of the United Church was consistent with the obligation imposed on the Sovereign by that Oath, nor how anybody could say that the Oath was not binding legislatively? He begged their Lordships to remember the terms of the Act of Settlement, which 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 de- barred from refusing assent to any mea-sure 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 Roman Catholics to any political privileges was that it was supposed they could always take any oath with a reservation. Owing to this belief the Oath of Allegigiance passed in the same reign, and taken, till within the last few years, by all the Members of both Houses, showed in what manner Parliament held every Christian should take an oath. It prescribed that it was taken according to the express words spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever. It was unquestionably the intention of Parliament that the Coronation Oath should be taken in the same spirit. It must be borne in mind that the taking of the. Oath was not the Sovereign's voluntary act, but was imposed upon her by the law, and that she could not avoid it, and, having taken it, was bound by it in the manner it prescribed. Considering, therefore, how the public mind was agitated on the subject, and the distinct opinion of many that Her Majesty was bound on the issue about to be tried in a particular manner, it was incumbent on the Government to remove, if possible, any impression unfavourable to Her Majesty which such a feeling might be creating with regard to any manner in which she might be called upon to act. His own feeling was that if he had sworn to maintain to the utmost of his power the settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to preserve to the Bishops and clergy of England and Ireland, and to the United Church committed to their care, all such rights and privileges as by law appertained to them, he could not consent to the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish branch of that Church. Such being his own feeling, he had felt bound to call on the Government for an explanation of the view they took of the Oath, and how they considered the provisions of the measure they had introduced consistent with, its obligations, and to ask their intentions with regard to it—a question which seemed to him both pertinent and important.

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 in thinking it desirable constantly to discuss subjects of such delicacy as the present, yet, considering the earnestness with which he has addressed the House, and the strong feeling that he states to exist among many others, I wish to give him full information on the subject; but I hope he will not think me disrespectful if I do so very briefly. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject is exactly that which my noble Friend deprecates. We believe that this Oath is imposed on the Sovereign in her executive, and not in her legislative, capacity. We believe, that, to give it the sense ascribed to it by my noble Friend, is to go against all that we can gather from history, against the spirit of the Oath itself, and against the very essence of the Constitution. Remembering the circumstances under which the Oath was imposed by Act of Parliament at the very beginning of the reign of William and Mary, it is almost impossible to believe that the object of those who imposed it was such as my noble Friend describes. It is impossible they should have intended that all our ecclesiastical laws should be, as it were, stereotyped, and that, whatever the wishes of the nation might be under different circumstance, the Sovereign should be obliged to maintain all existing arrangements. So far, indeed, from being shaken in that view by the extracts quoted by my noble Friend as to the debates in the House of Commons at that time, it seems obvious to me that the House objected to Mr. Pelham's proviso because they wished to leave full liberty of action to Parliament and the Crown with regard to legislation in the future. Moreover, taking a constitutional view, it appears to me a monstrous doctrine to maintain that, when a Sovereign has appealed to Divine Providence with regard to a compact made between herself and her subjects, if those subjects declare, through the votes of both Houses of Parliament, their wish to depart from that compact, the Sovereign can, under no circumstances, be relieved from her compact. To hold that she could not would be to place the Crown in a position which, under possible circumstances, would lead to nothing but anarchy and revolution. If the noble Lord's interpretation be taken as sound, the Sovereigns of this country, during the last forty years, have repeatedly violated their Oath. For nearly half-a-century, however, the great majority of educated persons have regarded this matter as settled in the sense in which I have described it. My noble Friend wishes us to pass an Act to relieve Her Majesty's conscience. [Lord REDESDALE said, he had merely inquired the intentions of the Government, leaving them to judge of what was required.] It is decidedly not our intention to propose such a measure. I cannot conceive any reason for making such a proposition, either on the principles I have laid down or on the principles of the noble Lord himself. The words of the Oath taken by Her Majesty have never been imposed by any Act of Parliament. [Lord REDESDALE dissented.] They differ from the words of the Oath taken by George III., and also from those in the section of the Act of William and Mary. I could not at first myself account for the discrepancy; but only a few days ago my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack explained it to me. A great alteration was made in the state of the Church, of England at the beginning of this century, it being then united with the Church of Ireland. Some of your Lordships may think that that was an advantage for the Church of England; but I have always been of opinion that it has never done the Church of England any good, and that at this moment it is doing it much harm. That alteration was made, notwithstanding the Oath which George ILL had taken; and when George IV. was crowned the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested a change in the terms of the Oath. Lord Eldon being then Chancellor, it was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, of whom Lord Lyndhurst was one, to know whether the Privy Council was competent to alter the words? They gave an opinion in the affirmative; and accordingly the additional words required to introduce the Church of Ireland were inserted, not by legislative enactment, but by an Order in Council. Thus, as far as precedent, the form of Oath has followed legislation, and not legislation the form of Oath. The noble Lord does not wish us to legislate; and it would be perfectly unnecessary, for it would be competent for Her Majesty's successor, by an Order in Council, to restore the words relating to the Church of England as they stood before the two Churches were united. Whether, therefore, the noble Lord's principle be taken or mine, legislation on the subject, I must say, would be a perfect farce. If I am right in thinking that the Sovereign is released by the voice of her people, as shown by the votes of both Houses of Parliament, nothing can be plainer than that it is sufficient to present a Bill on the particular point "which they wish to be changed; but if, as the noble Lord thinks, there is some abstract obligation on the Sovereign—something between her and her God—which no arrangement between her and her subjects can alter, it is quite clear that any Bill altering the Oath would be uttterly inefficacious. It is certainly not our intention to introduce any measure on the subject.

LORD REDESDALE

remarked that the Church in Ireland was included in the Act of Anne.

EARL GEANVILLE

thought the Act of Anne referred to the Churches of England and Scotland.

LORD REDESDALE

said, the Act incorporated in the Treaty of Union distinctly referred to the settlement of the Church in England and Ireland. He had asked the Government whether they intended to legislate on the subject, because it was the opinion of some that an obligation could be removed by the same party that imposed it, and possibly Sovereigns might consider themselves thus released from an Oath: though he did not know that he himself should take this view. It was, however, a very different thing to say that, because a Bill was passed by both Houses on a particular subject, the obligation of the Oath in the matter was removed.