§ The Church Temporalities' (Ireland) Bill having been brought up from the Commons,
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, seeing the noble Earl at the head of the Administration in his place, and having observed that a Bill materially affecting the rights of the Church of Ireland had just been brought up from the Commons he begged to ask the noble Earl when he meant to move the first reading of that Bill.
§ Earl Greysaid, that he meant to follow the usual custom on such occasions, and move the first reading forthwith. It was not usual to make any objection to the first reading of a bill, because the House had an ample opportunity, in the after stages, of considering it. If their Lordships had no objection, he would therefore move, that the Church Temporalities' Bill be read a first time.
The Duke of Buckinghamwished to know from the noble Earl, as the Bill involved the Prerogative of the Crown, whether he was authorized by his Majesty to introduce it? According to the Orders of the House, such Bills only could be introduced on a direct Message from his Majesty.
§ Earl Grey, as one of his Majesty's responsible servants, was prepared with his Majesty's consent to the introduction of the measure before them. It had always been the custom to communicate his Majesty's consent by one of his responsible servants.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that as his Majesty's sanction to this measure was necessary, it was requisite that their Lordships should know upon what evidence his Majesty had been induced to surrender such an important part of his prerogative. It was not enough for the noble Earl to say that his Majesty had given his consent. It was the duty of the noble Earl to bring down to their Lordships' House a Special Message to that effect from his Majesty.
§ Earl Greybelieved, that the usual course was to communicate his Majesty's consent to their Lordships by some one of his confidential servants, and he saw no reason to deviate from that course on the present occasion. Besides which, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that his Majesty had recommended the consideration of this subject, in his Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the Session. 304 The usual course was to bring down a Message from his Majesty at the second reading.
The Duke of Buckinghamstill thought, that it would be better to bring down a Message conveying his, Majesty's consent before the Bill was read a first time.
§ Earl Greysaid, that a Minister was authorized to convey his Majesty's consent. A direct Message had, in many cases, not been brought down, till the Bill was in Committee. He would persevere in his Motion, that the Bill should be read a first time.
The Duke of Buckinghamwould appeal to their Lordships whether they ought to receive this Bill without knowing whether it was introduced with consent of the head of the Church. They were entitled to know whether the head of the Church had consented to what he must call the spoliation of the Church.
§ Earl Greysaid, that if the House would wait a little they would have an opportunity of seeing whether or not the noble Duke had just cause to call that measure spoliation. He would (as had formerly been done by the responsible servants of the Crown) take the responsibility of the introduction of this measure on himself; and further than that, he did not think it was necessary for him to say.
Bill read a first time.
The Archbishop of Dublinrose to present a Petition from Dublin relative to the Church Temporalities' Bill, which their Lordships had just read a first time. On a former night he presented the same petition, but withdrew it on account of its informality. He stated then, that he would not say whether the petition was for or against the proposed measure. It was either for or against the measure, according to the alterations that might be made in it; that was to say, if certain alterations were made, it would be in favour of the Bill; if they were not, it would be against it. He would not enter into the details of the petition, further than to state, that some of its objections were taken away by the removal of certain clauses of the Bill, against which it seemed especially directed. Lie wished, however, briefly to call the attention of their Lordships to the present petition, as well as to others that had already been presented. A certain charge virtually lay against those petitioners, since they said that the clergy were ready to assent to the measure, provided certain alterations were made in it. As it had been asserted before, 305 that the Coronation Oath hound his Majesty not to make any alterations in the Church, therefore a charge was brought against those petitioners who said, that they would consent to the measure, if it were altered in certain parts. Those petitioners thought, as he did, that the Coronation Oath affected his Majesty in his executive, and not in his legislative capacity, and that it could not prevent the King from assenting to any Bill that might have been passed by both Houses of Parliament. If one branch of the Legislature were to be restricted by an oath, Parliament should also be bound by one; and if it was the intention of our ancestors that the Oath should have the construction put upon it by some, they would have been more watchful to impose such a restriction on both Houses of Parliament, than to impose it on the King, Restrictions should have been placed rather on the two other branches of the Legislature than upon one alone. He used the words two branches of the Legislature designedly; because, if the Coronation Oath could be interpreted as some would interpret it, there would be, as it were, a fourth branch of the Legislature. And, although the King, Lords, and Commons might agree to a measure, still it would be impossible to pass it, on account of this fourth branch—the Coronation Oath. Certainly the King was bound to be tender and careful as to the measures he consented to, yet he was not prevented by any Oath, from assenting to measures which had passed through Parliament, and which he thought fit and proper measures. For his own part, he was no partisan of innovation; but all that was said to be innovation was not; and it should be left to fair argument to prove what was innovation and what was not. But if the Coronation Oath was to have the power some said it had, it would be impossible to know what was innovation or what was not—what measures were necessary or useful, or the contrary—since there would be no room left for discussion. The petitioners considered the matter as left to the discretion of the King, Lords, and Commons; and they considered the Oath was intended to prevent the King from encroaching upon the laws, or from acting against them.
§ The Earl of Eldonwould not at present enter into a discussion as to the object of the Coronation Oath; but certainly it was for the first time that he had heard from an Archbishop of the Established Church that they all—King, Lords, and Commons 306 —had taken the oath. [A noble Lord said: The right reverend Prelate said no such thing.]He would be ready at a fitting opportunity to discuss the question with the first dignitary of the Irish Church; and then, if the right reverend Prelate would reconcile what he said now on the Oath with the arguments that would he then adduced, all he would say was, it seemed to him that no oath was of any use.
§ Earl Greythought, it would be better to discuss the subject on a fitter occasion, and he should at that moment no further engage in it than say, that he was ready to adhere to the opinion on that matter of his right reverend friend. The best authorities in the country were of opinion, that the Coronation Oath related to the executive and not the, legislative functions of the King. He rose chiefly to correct an error the noble and learned Lord had fallen into when be said, that be understood his right reverend friend to say, that not only the King, but both Houses of Parliament, had taken the oath. The noble and learned Lord had misinterpreted the words of his right reverend friend. What his right reverend friend said was, that the oath was binding in the King's executive capacity, but not in his legislative capacity; for if it was, it was singular that Parliament should not he bound by it also. So far, therefore, from stating that both Houses of Parliament were bound by it—that they were not, the right reverend Prelate adduced as an argument that the oath related only to the King in his executive capacity. The matter might be better discussed when the Bill was before the House.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that if the most reverend Prelate had met with persons who were of opinion that the Coronation Oath was not binding on the King in his legislative capacity, the most reverend Prelate had met with persons whom he (the Bishop of Exeter) had never met with. He would discuss the matter under debate on a future opportunity, and would then only say, that he entirely differed from the views of the noble Earl and most reverend Prelate; and as the noble Earl had appointed a time for the discussion of the point, namely, when the Bill should be discussed, he should reserve his arguments on the point until then.
§ Earl Greyhad not appointed a particular time for discussing the point. What he said was, that when the point should he 307 discussed, he should be ready to maintain his former arguments on the subject. He begged to state distinctly, that it was his opinion that the present Bill did not in the least affect the Coronation Oath, and therefore he thought it wholly unnecessary to discuss what was or what was not the interpretation that should be put upon that oath.
The Bishop of Exclerbegged to explain. He did not allude to what the noble Earl had just then said, but to what he had said on a former night, when he observed that he should be on a future occasion ready to adduce arguments that he considered would be irrefragable and unanswerable. The announcement of those arguments was not given as a pledge; but he understood that the noble Earl promised to adduce those arguments when the Bill should be discussed.
§ Earl Greyif noble Lords insisted that the point should be argued, he should be ready to repeat arguments which he considered perfectly unanswerable.
The Duke of Cumberlandasked the noble Earl whether he was to understand that the Coronation Oath had nothing to do with the present Bill? For himself, he never saw an occasion when the Coronation Oath was more nearly touched, nor did he ever see anything it had more to do with than with the present Bill.
§ Earl Greyhoped that the illustrious Duke would favour the House with his arguments upon the subject, and not con-fine himself to mere assertion.
The Duke of Cumberlandwould refer the noble Earl to the fifth article of the Union. Had the noble Earl read it? And if he had, could he say that the Coronation Oath was not binding, and that the present Bill had no collection with it?
§ Earl Greyhad looked to the article of the Union alluded to—he had examined it as carefully as the illustrious Duke could have done, and he challenged the illustrious Duke to prove by argument that his Majesty would be violating his oath if he assented to the present Bill in case it should pass that House; and he sincerely hoped that it would pass, as he was sure that it would be beneficial to the country.
§ Petition laid on the Table.