§ MR. CHARLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the subject of the Coronation Oath; and to ask a Question in relation thereto, which the Attorney General had really not answered. The answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman had already given was only to the effect that it was not necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to alter the Coronation Oath, as that might be done by the Privy Council. What he (Mr. Charley) wanted to ask for was some authoritative declaration of the moaning of the Coronation Oath. The Legislature, in removing a sentimental grievance from the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, had created another in the minds of the Protestants of Ireland. The Royal Assent to the Irish Church Bill had given a great shock to the consciences and loyalty of the Irish Protestants. They believed that the Coronation Oath would place an insuperable barrier in the way of the success of the Prime Minister's policy with regard to the Irish Church, and he was not ashamed to say that he himself had held that view, when he held it in common with such statesmen as Lord Derby and Lord Redesdale. The sanctions of the Coronation Oath were legal, moral, and religious. Parliament 907 might relieve the Sovereign from the legal obligation, and public opinion from the moral obligation; but he had held that the religious obligation was still binding upon the conscience of the Sovereign; and that was certainly the view held by Lord Derby when he called upon the House of Lords to stand between the Sovereign and her conscience. Other views had been expressed to the effect that the Coronation Oath only bound the conscience of the Sovereign in her executive, and not in her legislative capacity, and that the Legislature could release Her Majesty's conscience from the obligation of the Oath with regard to such a measure as the Irish Church Bill. The question he wished to ask was, whether the Government were prepared to introduce a short Bill this Session, declaring the true meaning of the Coronation Oath? In the next Parliament, if not in this, there would no doubt be a fierce attack made upon the Church of England, and it was important that English Churchmen should know what they had to rely upon. They had relied upon the Coronation Oath and upon the House of Lords, but both had proved broken reeds, and had pierced the hands that had leant upon them. It was important that they should know what were and what were not the bulwarks of the Constitution.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not suppose him guilty of any disrespect if he declined to enter into a discussion of the Coronation Oath. If there was any subject which had been thoroughly discussed and expounded in discussion it was the Coronation Oath. It had been discussed many times, both in that and the other House of Parliament. He believed that the result of the discussion to which he referred was to leave a very clear impression on the minds of most persons that the Coronation Oath bound the Sovereign in an executive and not in a legislative capacity. It bound the Sovereign to maintain the laws till they were altered by the three Estates of the Realm; but it did not bind her to withhold her Assent from Bills sent to her by the two other Estates of the Realm. There being no difficulty about the construction of the Coronation Oath, he answered the Question by saying simply that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce this Session any 908 Bill for the purpose of explaining that Oath.
§ MR. CHARLEYIs it their intention to introduce such a Bill next Session?
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charley) had no reason to be alarmed about the position of the Church of England because an act of justice had been done to Ireland by the passing of the Irish Church Bill. The Church of England stood secure on its own basis, and he thought there was not the slightest ground for the apprehensions entertained by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.