The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-23 00:00:00

1X33 , 1.833

- .
assumed a tone oNefiance us as were wholly unknowt;
amongst them a few ?ears ago. TNionian Catholic "church''
was now spoken or, although no long period had elapsed sinca
its heads were content to describe themselves as " prelates of
the Roman Catholic communion in Ireland." The Roman
Catholic bishops so designated themselves when they approached
the throne to return thanks to the father of his present
for a measure of kindness and liberality, which might be con-
sidered as involving a complete tolerance of persons of that
persuasion. But all that was now very much changed, and not
only was the Roman Catholic religion described as "the Ro-
man Catholic church in Ireland ;" but Dr. Doyle spoke
of it
as " the church" in Ireland, and of the Protestant bishops as.
being no bishops at all, or bishops merely in name. A •work
by Dr. Doyle, which was used as a class-book in the study of
canon law in the college of Maynooth (a seminary maintained
st the expense of a Protestant state) was dedicated--to whom
did their lordships think ?—to "the Most Rev. Father in Goa
Patrick Curtis, Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ire-
land." A class-book in the science of logic, also used in the
same seminary, spoke of the illustrious Bishop Berkley as "
Hibernia pact° episcopus." Here were sufficient evidences ofas-
sumption and denunciation on the part of the Roman Catholics.
He would now say one word as to the commissioners who were
to be appointed under this bill. Three of these might be lay!
men, and most probably would be so; but, whoever they might
he, they were to have the, power of nomination to the cure of
souls. This was not only without example, but was contrary to
ail principle. If he were dispoied to take a lower view of it, he
might ask whether there was an instance of forming
a corpora-
m], eight out of eleven of whose members were removable at
pleasure ? This, however, was so trifling a part of the bill, com-
pared with those other parts to which he had referred, that he
did not feel it necessary to waste their lordships' time by dwell-
ing further on it. By the way, in alluding to the revenues
of Irish church, it was now put beyond any question Of
Udoubt that the most egregiously erroneous statements had been
made as -to the amount of those revenues. Could those re-

venues be considered enormous which did not give an averago
income of EU) a-year to every clergyman of the Irish church?
What was the oath. which Catholics were called on to take by'
the Relief Bill before they could take a seat in Parliament'
It had these woods—"and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and
solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present church
establishment, as settled by law, within these realms; and I do
solemnly, swear that I never will never exercise any privilege
to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken
the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the United
Kingdom; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess,
testify, and declare that I do make this declaration and every
part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words oft his
oath, without any evasion, equivocation,_ or mental reservation
whatsoever." Now, any man who took such an oath as that,
and who was honest and meant to observe what he swore,
would studiously abstain from doing that which would subvert
or tend to subvert or injure the Protestant establishment. Yet,
after such a solemn test, he would beg their lordships to consir
der what had been the estimate made of its obligation by many
of those who bad taken it. He would not refer more particu-
larly to the language used in another place; but their lordships
must have observed, through the ordinary channels of commu-
nication, how lightly some individuals seemed to think of the
obligation which they had undertaken by the oath he had read,
and how strongly disposed they seemed to set that oath at
nought. It seemed to be the opinion of those individuals,
that as long as they did not interfere with the articles of
the Protestant faith, they kept their oath, though they could
not be ignorant that it was intended by those who drew up
that oath,s that it should not only prevent those who took it
from acting injuriously to the established church, but that
it also bound them to act with kindness towards that church.
This consideration brought him to a topic of a very grave cha-
racter,—he meant the duty incumbent upon each of their lord-
ships to uphold the Protestant religion, and more especially the
duty incumbent them, as legislators in a Protestant state, to
consider the obligation which their Sovereign contracted at his
coronation. If, unhappily, the illustrious individual who would
on this occasion have to decide this point for himself, and who,
their lordships were bound to believe, as he unfeignedly did
believe, would decide it on the purest principles according to
the dictates of his own conscience, should decide it differently
from his opinion, it would be his duty to submit in silence ; but
at present he thought that it was incumbent upon them, as
legislators and peers of parliament, to bear in mind what it
was their duty to do in respect to that oath in tendering to his
Majesty the present bill. He felt that it was his own duty—he
felt also that it was the duty of all their lordships, to abstain
most entirely from pressing on his Majesty, or, indeed, from
offering to his acceptance, any measure which was imagined not
to be in accordance with the obligations which his Majesty
contracted at his coronation. (hear, hear.) If their lord-
ships should think that the tendency of any measure was to
shake the security of the Protestant church establishment and
to weaken the influence of the Protestant religion in this coun-
try,—it they should think that the tendency of any measure
before them was to violate that which his Majesty had sworn
to preserve inviolate,—namely, the present settlement of the
church of Ireland, with the doctrine, discipline, and go-
vernment thereof,—he was certain that there was not one of
them but would join with him in saying that it was their com-
mon duty to abstain from voting in favour of such a measure.
Let them for a moment consider the nature of the distinction
which had been attempted to be drawn between the King in his
legislative and his executive capacity, on which was founded
the untenable assumption, that the coronation oath bound him
not in his former, but in his latter capacity. Now, he held that
the constitution did not recognize this double capacity of the
kingly office. He held that the notion of a monarchy—that is,
an absolute monarchy—as contra-distinguished from the limited
monarchy ofEngland, implied that the whole government of
the country was vested in the King; and that the notions of a
limited monarchy implied that the King could exercise no royal
functions unless with the advice of his Parliament and responsi-
ble councillors. This, he need not tell them, was the usage of
the British government. In the exercise of his higher duties,
as a branch of the legislature, the King is aided by both houses
of Parliament in establishing and settling the law of the land,
just as the privy council were his advisers in the case of pro-
clamations, and so on with the other royal functions, placing it
beyond doubt that it was absurd to believe that the corona-
tion oath bound the King in one capacity while it loosed him in
another. That such was not the case he thought was evident

from a consideration of the origin and tendencir of the corona-
tion oath. It was perhaps hardly necessary. for him to remind
them of the remarkable tact that the coronation oath of Edward
the Confessor was in force till the reign of William III; and
that it was mentioned, eo nomine, in the coronation oath of
James 11. The oath was contained in the Leges Edouardi, c. 1,
entitled, De Regis officio et de Jure et appendicibus Corona Regni
Britannia. Now, those laws distinctly showed the duty and
office of the King, enjoining him to fear God and honour him
above all things ; that he should reverence the holy church and
defend it against its enemies ; that he make good laws and pre-
serve approved customs (hear;) that he ought to distribute
justice, and to take the counsel of his nobles prelates, and wise
men. (Hear.) If words had any meaning, did it not follow that
that part of the oath which bound the King to make " good laws
and preserve approved customs" applied to the King in his legis-
lative capacity ? and if so, was it not absurd to assert that the oath
bound him in his executive, but loosed him in his legislative cape-
city. The ith of Edward 1., c. 1, called the' statute of St. Alban's,
a.ter confirming the charter of forests and magna charta, states,
that the King should not give his assent to any laws "contrary
to his coronation oath ;" that is, that he was bound by his oath
in his legislative capacity. Then, in the next reign, they would
find in the 15th of Edward IL, this principle most explicitly
asserted. That statute was a repeal of other statutes which-
Edward had passed in favour of the Despensers; and it stated,
that these acts should be repealed because, among other rea-
sons, it was contrary to his Majesty's coronation-oath, that
hound him, at the risk of his soul, to make good laws, (juntas
leyes,) and to extirpate bad ones. (Hear.) The same principle
was also asserted in the reign of that illustrious prince Edward
111. But, without fatiguing them with more instances, from the
statute-book, he would briefly refer them to the proceedings of
the legislature at the time of the union with Scotland. He need
not remind them that great apprehensions were, at the time,
entertained by the people of Scotland, lest the measure should
prove detrimental to the interests of the church of Scotland,
the legislature of England being "essentially of the prelatic.
persuasion." The assembly of the church of Scotland accord-
ingly petitioned that the rights of that church might be pre-,
served entire ' • and in obedience to that petition, an act was
passed, which did insure the integrity, of those rights. But the
Assembly was not satisfied, for they requested the security of
—what? Why, a coronation oath, (hear!) and that security
was conferred on them. (Hear!) But this was not all, for the
members of the "prelatic persuasion," in their manner, also
entertained apprehensions for the integrity of the established
Church; new that Presbyterian peers and commoners were likely
to become members of the united legislature; and they, in their
turn, demanded the security of the coronation oath for the in-
terests of the church of England, and that security—
Lord PLUNKETT,—The church of England and Ireland,
" The Bishop of EXETER thanked the learned lord. The church
of Ireland was included. He was not surprised at the friendly
remonstrance, knowing that that learned lord agreed with hint,
that the coronation oath applied to the King in his legislative
capacity. ("No, no," from Lord Plunkett.) No ! he was in-
deed astonished by the denial. Unless the learned lord was
most grossly misrepresented, he (on the 10th June, 1820,) Uls
referring to Lord Kenyon's letter to George 111., in reference
to the coronation oath, in. which that eminent judge told hiS
sovereign that that oath was merely meant to protect the Pro-
testant constitution of this country from the designs of Popery'
jest as the declaration of Charles 11. bound both houses of Par-
liament, stated " that be considered this opinion of Lord Ken-
yon as that of a sound lawyer and, honest counsellor i but that.
he conceived that cases might arise in which the King might
feel himself bound by his coronation oath to refuse his assent
to the nets of his Pailiamente for example, were that Parlia-
ment to demand his assent to a bill for abolishing the hierarchy
of the established church (loud cries of " hear, hear," from the
opposition) ;' that in such cases his coronation oath would pre-
elude his assent in his legislative capacity, as it was binding 0-
tween his conscience and his God. (Cheers from the same
quarter.) It was this emphatic language made him believe that
the learned lord like himself conceived the coronation oath to
bind the King in his legislative no less than his executive cepa'
city. if he was wrong, the learned lord would, of course, set
him right. The
.right rev. prelate concluded with thanking
lordships for the attention 1 ith which they had heard hieati
He was ashamed at having detained them at such length, ell
could only say that he should not trespass on their forbearance
at such length.. in future. •
Lord PLUNKETT said that he would not attempt to follow the
right rev. prelate through the wide range of argumEnt which he
hail taken. The right rev. prelate had certainly introduced jet°
the discussion a vast quantity of matter of a very subduing rile t;
tore, in every, sense of the word, (" Hear," and alaugh.)
right rev. prelate said that the predictions which had been tee";
of the good consequences that would result from Catholic ceeni
cipaiiou had not been verified. Their lordships Would do wed
to recollect the period at which those predictions were made,
the manner in which the, eneasuie of relief had been delayeir
and thence they might deduce a lesson of experience. Ihei,
lordships might. learn from that example the folly of delaeit
a measure the efficiency of which depended upon its being.viclar
tingly- and timeously granted, and he hoped that they would D
re.
that circumstance in mind in considering the present naeas,e,er
It would appear from the statements of the right rev. prel:',,o,
and of a noble lord who spoke last night, that there was a ci,t.'.ol
sniracy at work in Ireland against the church. He belie be
there were persons who would be delighted to pull down ,
Protestant church in that country. (" Hear," from the ease
sition.) He would make a present of that declaration to Oleo,
who cheered him. In his opinion it Was essential to the seiciii'y
of the Protestant church that some measure should be sPeeroof
adopted for the purpose of strengthening it, and making it Pow
against the machinations of its enemies. Last night a noble
of
lord who generally supposed himself to be the represents, trot
the Protestants'of Ireland in that house, but whom he did fle
then ate in his place—(`s Hear,' from the. Earl of Boden•)io.
was glad,that the 'noble lord knew himself by his deseeiPt er-
(A laugh.) Ii Wire the truth that the noble lord sometimes rl.ea
suaded himself that an. (he Protestantism of Ireland was CCU lest
in his own person. (A laugh.) The noble lord stitteerriot
night that there was a conspiracy existing in Ireland an that
the Protestant church, and he even went so far as -to saYO.O)
, government were parties to it. (The Earl of Rodent 'f
The noble lord certainly said that it was the intention
o.
L estment to overthrow the Protestant afiero
The Earl of Roeuer.—l said that the tendency of this rag
, was to overthrow the Protestant