Lords Sitting of 6 June 1833

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord LYTTLETON, from a Number of Places, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day—By the Earl of SHREWSBURY, from two Places, for Vote by Ballot.—By the Earl of SHREWSBURY, Lord SUFFIELD, and the Earl of ROSEBERY, from a Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Stirling, against the Bankruptcy Law (Scotland) Bill.—By the Earl of LIMERICK, from Limerick, for Relieving Nonjuring Christians from the Pains and Penalties to which they are now liable from declining to take Oaths.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Marquess Wellesley, as Lord Steward of the Household, stated that he had been commanded to deliver his Majesty's Answer to the Address agreed to in their Lordships' House on the 3rd of June. The Answer was as follows:—
"I have already taken all such measures as appeared to me to be necessary for maintaining the neutrality which I had determined to observe in the contest now carrying on in Portugal."

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES BILL.
The Bishop of Exeter: I have to present to your Lordships a petition from the clergy of the archdeaconry of Barnstaple, in the diocese of Exeter, against certain measures which they understand are likely to be brought to the consideration of this House—measures, my Lords, deeply affecting the temporal and spiritual interests of the United Church of England and Ireland, in Ireland. My Lords, I have pleasure in saying, that these petitioners express themselves as "most ready to concur in any measures for the regulation and improvement of the United Church, which
380
shall be deemed necessary for the interests of true religion, and the spiritual welfare of the community." In this sentiment there is not, I verily believe, a single body of clergy in the whole kingdom, who would not cordially and anxiously concur. And what t say of the clergy in general, I may say with the fullest confidence of the Bishops in particular. There is not one of us, my Lords, who does not regard the temporal possessions of the Church as a means which we should rejoice to see made as efficient as possible for the real and proper end for which those possessions are held—I mean, my Lords, the spiritual instruction of the people, and the advancement of the cause of true religion—of true religion, I say—and I am sure I need not contend before your Lordships that it is true religion only which it is the duty of the State to countenance and protect. And here, my Lords, I would conclude, were it not for one important consideration insisted on by the petitioners, to which I beg leave more particularly to invite your Lordships' attention. I mean the tendency of the measures against which they petition, to contravene some parts of the solemn obligation undertaken by his Majesty at his coronation. The petitioners humbly represent to your Lordships, "that his Majesty, in a solemn and public compact, has sworn before his people, not only to preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them; but to the utmost of his power to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion, as established by law." The petitioners further say, that they are convinced your Lordships "will never deliberately sanction any measures which would be found at variance with so sacred an engagement;" but they entreat your Lordships to consider whether some of the proposed measures "will not be found in their results to be fatally injurious to the security of the Protestant faith, which his Majesty is so solemnly bound to uphold." My Lords, I feel it my duty to address to your Lordships a few words more on the Coronation Oath, in consequence of what has been reported, probably very incorrectly reported, to have been said in another place on this subject. My Lords, it has there been said, that the application of this oath, its bearing on any particular measure

381
which may be proposed, must be left to the conscience of the King. My Lords, if by this it be only meant, that the solution of such a question must be so left to the conscience of the King, that no advice of any of his councillors, no advice of any of his councils—no, ray Lords, not even of the greatest of his councils, the great council of the nation assembled in Parliament—ought to weigh with him against the decision of his own conscience in a matter of so great and awful personal responsibility, I most heartily subscribe to the position. But if it be intended, that the interpretation of the Coronation Oath is so merely and exclusively a matter for the King's consideration, that Parliament has not the right, ay, my Lords, and is not bound in duty to take cognizance of that oath, and to consider most seriously whether any measure proposed for its adoption be of a tendency contrary to it; then, my Lords, I most respectfully, but firmly, controvert the position, as most pernicious, as most unfounded, as most unconstitutional, as little short of treason to the Constitution. My Lords, I need not remind your Lordships, that King James the Second was driven from the throne for violating the original compact between King and people. In the conference between the two Houses on that occasion, Mr. Somers, labouring to convince the majority of your Lordships' ancestors, who had at first refused to concur in the vote of the House of Commons, that the Throne was vacant, in consequence of the violation of that compact—Mr. Somers, my Lords, triumphantly urged that the King "had renounced to be such a King as he swore to be at his coronation, such a King to whom the allegiance of the people is due." My Lords, after this, who will be bold enough to contend, that the agreement or disagreement of any proposed measure with the obligations of the Coronation Oath, is not a fit, ay, a most fit and most important matter for the deliberation of Parliament? My Lords, there cannot be a stronger reason for rejecting any measure, than that it is contrary to the Coronation Oath; for if it be, it is the first and most obvious duty of Parliament, as the council of the King, to refuse to place the Sovereign in a situation so painful as to be bound to reject a measure recommended to him by the authority of Parliament, because it is contrary to the solemn engagements which he contracted before God, and which he invoked
382
God witness and to sanction. My Lords, whether the particular measures understood by these petitioners to be likely soon to be submitted to your Lordships' consideration be indeed at variance with our Sovereign's oath, it would be premature at present to discuss. But it is my duty to the petitioners to contend, that it is not premature for them to address your Lordships on this subject, and to entreat and implore you to reject any bill which they may conceive to be inconsistent with those obligations which his Majesty has bound himself in the most solemn manner to observe. My Lords, there is one clause of the Coronation Oath which I am anxious most especially to press on your Lordships' attention, because it is not commonly regarded—it is not indeed commonly known—for it forms no part of the oath as prescribed by the Statute of William, but was imposed in the reign of Queen Anne, by the Act of Union of England and Scotland. My Lords, that additional clause has a most important bearing, and deserves your Lordships' most deliberate attention. The King, in taking his Coronation Oath was asked: "Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion, established by law?" This, my Lords, I need not state is part of the oath prescribed by the Act of William and Mary; the following clause is imposed by the Statute of Anne:—"And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established within England and Ireland, and the territories thereunto belonging? "This clause, I repeat, was subsequently inserted by the Act of Union with Scotland; and your Lordships will not fail to remark the strong additional force given to the obligation by his Majesty's being called upon to swear, that he" will maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the church. "The oath concludes with the important words prescribed by the Act of William, that his Majesty" will preserve unto the bishops and clergy of England and Ireland, and to the Chinches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them." My Lords, I need not enlarge on the solemn occasion

383
on which this oath was taken. It was taken in the House of God, in the presence of the states of the realm, with ceremonies the most awful. His Majesty then entered into compact with his people; he made a solemn vow to God; he gave a sworn promise to the bishops and clergy; and, to add to the impressive effect upon the royal mind, and to testify most strongly the seriousness with which the obligation was undertaken, his Majesty descended from his chair of state, knelt at the altar of God, and there received the sacrament of the body and blood of his crucified Redeemer. Now, my Lords, let us suppose that, immediately after the Sovereign had retired from this most solemn service to his closet, some minister had entered that closet, with a bill which not only violated in the most important instances the rights of that property of the clergy, which the King had just sworn to preserve, by imposing on them alone a heavy tax to meet a charge which by the common law, by the statute law, by the uninterrupted and unquestioned usage of centuries, belonged to the proprietors of lands—by destroying the tenure of the lands of the Bishops, and degrading them from the rank of proprietors to that of holders of rent-charges on those very lands now made to be the property of others—by even confiscating part of the possessions of the Bishops, and alienating them to any uses, spiritual or temporal, civil or military, Protestant or Papist, which the Parliament should appoint. Let us suppose that this Bill not only thus violated the temporal rights of the Church, but even assailed its spiritual interests, by interfering with a most important part of episcopal superintendence over the churches—by suspending for an indefinite period, at the will of a Commission, consisting mainly of lawyers, the appointment of proper pastors to divers parishes in Ireland—by even suppressing half the hierarchy—let us, I say, suppose, at such a moment as I have described any minister of the Crown entering the royal closet with such a bill, and advising his Majesty to give it his assent, and thus to make it his own act. What, my Lords, must have been the answer of his Majesty? Ay, and what must have been the feelings of the people at seeing the conscience of their Sovereign so dealt with? My Lords, whatever must have been that answer, whatever must have
384
been those feelings then, the same ought to be that answer, the same ought to be those feelings, whenever, if indeed ever, such a bill shall be tendered to his Majesty for his assent.
Earl Greysaid that, however much he might be inclined to offer some remarks upon the topics which had been, he thought, not very regularly introduced to their Lordships' notice, he felt that this was not the time for debating the provisions of the Bill now in the other House of Parliament, and which, he trusted when before their Lordships he should be able to show was of a very different character from that attributed to it by the right rev. Prelate. Of the views and objects with which the right rev. Prelate had upon this occasion thought proper to address their Lordships in such a tone it was not for him to judge. But he must be permitted to say that, whatever might have been intended by the right rev. Prelate, what he had done and said upon that occasion, could by possibility answer no good end. What he had understood from the right rev. Prelate in the first part of his speech was, that all he meant to contend for was, that Parliament was bound to consider, in any measure that might come before it, the obligations which his Majesty had contracted by his Coronation Oath. To this proposition he entirely assented. Undoubtedly it was the duty of Parliament to consider every measure in all its bearings, and there was no bearing of any measure which could be more important than that to which the right rev. Prelate had alluded. He had upon a former occasion explained to their Lordships his construction of the obligations of the Coronation Oath; and the speech of the right rev. Prelate supposed the case of his Majesty, being induced by some adviser, to violate the solemn engagements he had contracted with his people to protect and maintain the Church. He would only say upon this occasion that, as there was not a man in existence more conscientiously and actively alive to the welfare of his people, and of the Protestant Church, to which he knew them to be attached, than the Sovereign now upon the Throne, so the right rev. Prelate must give him leave to say that there were not in that House, or elsewhere, any men living who had more at heart the true interests of the Church and of the people, than those who at the present moment were in the situation to be called upon to give advice to that Sovereign

385
upon the subject in question. He did not like making professions; but, when such insinuations were cast out by the right rev. Prelate, he must be allowed to tell the right rev. Prelate, whatever he might profess, that the right rev. Prelate had not a more sincere attachment to the Protestant religion than was felt by the humble individual who then had the honour to address their Lordships; and that, whatever measure might come from the other House or elsewhere, it should not have his sanction if he did not in his conscience believe that it was calculated, not to impair or weaken, but to strengthen and invigorate, the Establishment by which that religion was taught. With respect to the Coronation Oath he should only now declare his regret at finding that an attempt was to be made to revive the opinions as to its construction, which he thought had been effectually silenced. He formerly maintained, when the question was raised upon another measure, in an argument which he contended was irrefragable and unanswerable, and to which no answer was ever offered in their Lordships' House, that the obligations of the Coronation Oath applied to the Sovereign, not in his legislative, but in his executive capacity. That proposition he should be ready again to maintain when the proper period arrived, and the measure should be before the House; and in the mean time should content himself with declaring any assertion unfounded which should attribute to any thing he could do, or to any measure to which he could lend his sanction or support, the effect of violating the conscience of his Sovereign, or leading to any infraction of his solemn compact with his people. Professing himself to be equally the friend of the Church and of his country, he would say, let those who profess so much extraordinary zeal for the former, take care that under the present circumstances of the country, they were not the cause of more injury to the Church than anything which could be done against it by its professed enemies. He would not now say another word except to repeat his regret that the right reverend Prelate had thought proper to make such a speech at the present moment, and to express his determination not again to be induced to speak upon the question until it was regularly before the House.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he should not have trespassed upon their Lordships again, except for some words which had
386
fallen from the noble Earl, upon two points to which he felt it right briefly to address himself. The noble Earl had imputed to him that he had said of an exalted personage, whose name was too sacred to be mentioned in their Lordships' House, that he would be inclined or induced to break his oath. He begged to state, that he had no apprehension that that royal personage would be so inclined or induced, whatever any Minister might attempt. His opinion was, that whatever view might be taken in that high quarter of the solemn obligations of the Coronation Oath, to that view would the Sovereign conscientiously adhere. And what he desired to impress upon their Lordships was, that whether it proved to be the view he had taken of the construction of the oath, or that adopted by the noble Earl, their Lordships and the country were bound equally to respect the decision to which the conscience of the Sovereign should eventually be led. There was now but another observation with which he had to detain their Lordships. The noble Earl had been pleased to say, that his was a false opinion as to the construction of the oath, and to protest against its being adopted by their Lordships. He, on the other hand, must take leave to say, that he had no doubt whatever of the opinion of the noble Earl being the false one. And when their Lordships heard it so conclusively stated, that the obligations of the oath were only binding upon the Sovereign in his executive and not in his legislative capacity, he must take leave to smile at the confidence of the noble Earl in his own opinion. He should not now go into proofs of his own views, nor say how far those of the noble Earl were open to question; but when the noble Earl asserted, in such a tone, that his own arguments were irrefragable and unanswerable, he must be allowed, with what little strength he had at his command, to repel the assertion by a denial.