297 C6 L3 ♦, N -y-r^J i'?S -■.^' .X >^ <..---^ ' J' I ^^. ^v*-^V U V*v ^^^^^ ./^ "V -- ^'. --^ /' V '^r' - ,v; 'l^/ -•-s^ •^ .^ U3RARV ■oHtvtRsrrf OP C^UFORNIA £^r -u y)^///'// ■ I r, //////'/^/,'. A- >^r >^^ THE CORONATION OATH, CONSIDERED, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REVOLUTION OF 1688. BY CHARLES THOMAS LANE, Esq. OF THE INNER TEMPLE. '* This Corouation Oatb is the very touclistonc and symbol of your goverii- raoiit!" — Mr. Hampden, junior, Debate on the Coronation Oath, 1688. SECOND EDITION. LONDON: ,1. HATCHARD AND SON, IS7. PICCADILLY. IMDrCi'XXVlJI. ADVERTISEMENT. The Author of this Treatise is encouraged by the flattering reception with which the former impression met from many eminent persons, to lay a Second Edition of it before the Public. The positions originally advanced, have been strengthened by the addition of many (it is hoped) interesting and important proofs ; and the objections which have been brought for- ward, either expressly with reference to this work, or generally to such views of the ques- tion as are supported in it, have been deli- berately and candidly considered. Above all things, the Author has been anxious to pro- serve to this work in its present shape, the character which (whatever might be its defects) he believes it acquired on its first appearance ; — that of having been written not with the narrow view of supporting a political party, Imt in VI order to elucidate a matter interesting in itself as a constitutional and historical question, and far more so, as involving considerations which *' come home to all men's business and bosoms." For the rest, the writer is content to trust to the candour of his readers, and the soundness of that cause, for the support of which, the Coronation Oath was principally (as he con- ceives) established. As to the latter, he will not attempt to express his own sentiments, otherwise than in the glowing language of a distinguished living writer ; language, re- specting which the Author has the peculiar gratification of reflecting, that it was called forth by the perusal of the first edition of this work; and which, he is sure cannot fail to interest the reader, both on account of its intrinsic force, and of its having come from the pen of Dr. Southey. " The Protestant Cause is one which will always bear out its advocates, if they feel and understand its strength. It is a question on which we have with us the Law and the Gospel ; right feelings and right rea- son ; the best actions of our forefathers ; and the best hopes of our posterity !" CONTENTS, Page Section 1. The Po))iiiar View of the Subject examined 1 II. The Design of this ^^'ork ... <» III. The Intention of the Legislature in eslal)- lishing the Oath is the Rule by whirli it is to be construed and performed S IV. The Intention shown in Ihe Public Declar- ations of (he Revolution ... 14 y. The Acts of the Legislature "20 VI. The Nature of the Compact of the Revolution . . -io VII. The Reason of the Establish- ment of the Oath .11 A^III. The Construction of the Oath .j4 IX. The Proceedings in Parlia- ment respecting it. . 6() X. Objections to the Conclusion, that the Oath is an obstacle to the Cottression of the Roman Catholic Claims, examined. That it is inconsistent irifh the Lc^n's- fative Poicer 71 XI. That the Oath is not now hindiny in its original sense 7(> XII. That ///(' King would be ahsolvrtl front his Oath b\i the passing of a Bill for the ConcessitUt of Ihe Claims S.'> XIII. Mr. Butler's Authorities from History in support of the last Objection. examined !>.'* XIV. Recajjitulation and Conclusion . . 104 THE CORONATION OATH, Sfc. SECTION I. THE POPULAR VIEW OF THE SUBJECT CONSIDERED. The notion vulgarly entertained with respect to the Coronation Oath is, that it is a form, composed in some remote age, used in com- pliance with ancient custom, and designed, in conjunction with various other ceremonies and observances, merely to heighten the solemnity of a Coronation. As a formal investiture of the Crown is not necessary to establish the title of the successor to it, no political importance it is imagined can attach to any part of a ceremony which may be altogether dispensed with. The Oath may indeed throw a religious character around the moral obligation to govern rightly, incidental to the taking of the kingly office ; but the terms of it are thought to be no more worthy of notice in the discussion of any con- stitutional question, than any of the particulars of the " Pomp and feast and antique pageantry" of the splendid ceremonial of which it forms a part. We see how little in matters that most vitally concern them, men in general examine either the grounds or the consequences of their opi- nions. We need not therefore be surprised at the existence of a notion which testifies much ignorance to be prevalent of what it becomes every man living under the British Constitution to know. The Roman Catholic question in- volves unhappily many points which more strongly force themselves upon the attention, and affect the passions of men ; which more effectually touch the springs of human conduct than this. Hence it has not been sufficiently considered under what circumstances the pre- sent Coronation Oath originated ; by whom it was framed ; by what authority it was insti- tuted; how deeply connected is its history with that of the liberties of England ; with events the most interesting to us; the most remarkable that the page of history presents ! For the grounds of the notion we have adverted to, it would be idle indeed to inquire, but the consequences deducible from it are absolutely certain, and are of that nature that they require but to be seen, in order to satisfy every rational mind how far removed from truth must be the source from which they flow. He that thus treats the Coronation Oath, does in effect affirm that the legislative proceedings of the Revolution exhibit an instance of un- paralleled and unaccountable folly. He affirms that they whose duty it was to fix upon its base the tottering Constitution of England, they to whom devolved the care of interests the most important with which we can conceive account- able beings to be charged, turned from the glorious work before them to consider — nay, " Sat ill the Council House Early and late, debating to and fro" a matter beneath the notice of statesmen at any time — the composition of an idle form ! He affirms that, in that awful hour, upon the due employment of which rested the immediate safety of the State, and its security in after- times against the dangers from which it had just been rescued, they who repeatedly declared that their whole thoughts were bent, and their whole proceedings designed to secure the Reli- gion and Liberties of their country ; so belied their professions, so trifled with their sacred charge, as for the first time to employ the Legislative Power in the establishment of what is of no political importance — an oath wliicii B 2 means no more than the oaths in use before it was established, and above all, which has no- thing to do with the consideration of matters that the lawgivers who framed it declared to be to them objects of the greatest solicitude ! Can any rational person think it probable that this is a correct view of the matter ? It must surely bear upon its face demonstrative evidence of its falsity and absurdity to every mind which long-indulged prejudice, and the misrepresent- ations of faction, have not rendered " proof and bulwark against sense !" There is another view of the subject taken by many persons, which is entitled to more respect. It is not denied by them that the Oath may be in itself an obligation imposed by the State upon its chief functionary, to maintain that line of policy in the distribution of political power which has hitherto characterized our Constitu- tion. But whether it be so or not they hold to be a matter of no importance ; the only question being, they think, the ex'pediency of departing from that line of policy. That all political questions are to be determined by their expe- diency, may be a sound rule if the doctrine of expediency be understood and acted upon in the most extended sense of which it is capable. If, however, it be taken in the narrow sense which men generally put upon it, in considering the advantages to be derived from any given line of conduct, it leads to false and perilous conclusions. How far the doctrine of expe- diency is applicable to the present case, may- appear from this consideration. When a rule of action has once been prescribed by a com- petent authority, and the agent whose conduct is the subject of that rule, has bound himself to a strict observance of it, the proper subject of inquiry is, its nature and extent. If a specific course of action be proposed to that agent, the first consideration with him must be, whether it come within the rule ; for should it appear morally certain that the thing which the rule was designed to restrain him from doing, is that proposed to be done, it is unnecessary, it is wrong to go further. While that rule exists no principle of action which is adverse to it can be adopted — no act destructive of the object of its institution can be done, without a fiagitious violation of those principles by which alone governments can be supported, and human society holden together. No political measure, we may be sure, which would be attended by such a consequence can be expedient. These preliminary observations will not per- haps bo deemed irrelevant, when it is recollected that this question of the Coronation Oath has usually been treated as unnecessary to be con- sidered. It would therefore have been a futile task to go into evidence in sui)port of the posi- tions here advanced without previously suggest- ing some reasons to doubt whether the sneers by which the Coronation Oath has been " dis- posed of" in Parliament, and elsewhere, have so irrefragably proved, as some appear to ima- gine, that there is no room left for argument upon the subject. SECTION II. THE DESIGN OF THIS WORK. The object attempted in the following pages is, to suggest a mode of interpreting the Coronation Oath, which seems to be the only one consistent with the principles laid down for the investiga- tion of truth in similar cases ; and to demon- , strate, by reference to indisputable authorities, the nature and extent of the obligation which it imposes upon the Sovereign. This object we shall endeavour to effectuate by the esta- blishment of the following positions : That the intention of the Legislature in establishing the Coronation Oath at the Revo- lution, is the criterion by which we are to judge of the nature and extent of that obligation. That it appears from the public declarations of the several branches of the Legislature at that time, that one principal object they had in view in all their proceedings, was to secure the country in future from the danger of having the Established Religion undermined or overturned by Roman Catholic influence. That the Legislature, by its acts and pro- ceedings in carrying that object into effect, extended and permanently established the prin- ciple, that it is necessary to the preservation of the Constitution in Church and State, that the Government of this country be in the hands of Protestants exclusively. That the Coronation Oath was at the same time remodelled and established by law, prin- cipally as a means of binding the Sovereign to maintain, in the exercise of all his political functions, the same principle of Government. That the Coronation Oath is a barrier to the concession of the demands of the Roman Ca- tholics, is at present, it is conceived, the whole subject of dispute respecting it. To that point therefore only will it be necessary to require the attention of the reader. Tlie question how it might be removed — that is, whether by an act of the Legislature operating immediately or prospectively, is one which it is obvious does not at present arise ; because it pre-supposes the admission of the proposition in dispute. However unsuccessful this attempt may aji- pear to the candid reader, let it not be forgotten, 8 that as truth is in its nature wholly independent of the means by which it is sought to be eluci- dated, aproposition may really be consonant with truth and justice, though the reasons adduced in its support be not so, and though the propo- ser prove incompetent to his undertaking, SECTION III. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN ESTABLISH- ING THE OATH, IS THE RULE BY WHICH IT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AND PERFORMED. It may seem superfluous to refer to the defini- tions which have been given of an oath, — but as it is impossible to arrive at a right conclusion, without a clear understanding of the premises from which it is to be deduced, it may not be amiss to remind the reader, that ethical writers have distributed oaths into two classes, promissory and assertory. Their use is either to confirm a promise, or to establish a doubtful fact ; and it is necessary to be observed, that they do not of themselves produce a new and peculiar obli- gation, but are only applied as an additional bond to an obligation, in its nature valid before, though the principal obligation, and the additional bond of the oath, are often comprehended in one form of speech.* An oath is, in short, " a religious asseveration,"t — it is " the calling upon God to witness, and it is invoking his vengeance, or re- nouncing his favour, if what we say be false, or what we promise be not performed.^ We have, at present, to consider more particularly the na- ture of a promissory oath. With regard to a bare promise, (apart from the sanction of an oath,) the most comprehensive rule perhaps is, that '' Where the terms of a promise admit of more senses than one, the promise is to be performed in that sense in which the promiser apprehended at the time that the promisee re- ceived it."<^ When to a promise or assertion is superadded the obligation of an oath, the rule of interpretation is plain, and ought to be ever inviolable. In the present instance it deserves particular attention. It is, that though the mode of invocation of the Divine name must be ad- justed according to the religious persuasion of the person who swears, yet the whole proposi- tion shall bear " that sense in which the impose)' understood it, and which he intended it to bcar."|| The reason is obvious, that an oath h framed by the imposer, so that it may answer his design, * PuffendorfdeJur. Nat. ci Gent lib. 4. cup. 2. t Ibid. sec. 2. J Paley's Moral Philosophy, Book ;3. part 1. sec. 16. 5i Ibid. sec. 5. II PuHeiidorf, ill). 4. cap. '2. sec. k'>. 10 and ** oaths being designed for the security of theimposer, it is manifest that they must be in- terpreted and performed in the sense in which the imposer intends them, otherwise they afford no security to him."* The principle is, of course, the same, whether the oath be imposed by an in- dividual, or by the supreme authority of the State. An oath, therefore, we may conclude, must be construed in that sense alone in which it was framed, and strictly performed according to the intention of the imposer. Who then, it will be asked, imposed the Co- ronation Oath ? and adhere are we to look for evidence of the imposer's intention ? The Oath was imposed by the Legislature, — which, after the Revolution of 1688, put into its present form the obligation that it thought fit to impose upon the Sovereigns of this realm ; and " to the in- tent that one uniform Oath might be, in all times to come, taken," established it by law. By virtue of the Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath| (confirmed by the Articles of Union of the United Kingdoms) has the obligation in- volved in the Oath been incurred by His pre- sent Majesty. With respect to the mode of ascertaining the intention of the Legislature, our course is very * Paley's Moral Philosophy, Book 3. part 1. sec. 16. \ 1 William and Mary, cap. 6. 11 clear. We have only to obsene the same prin- ciples by which we are bound to interpret any other rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Su- preme Authority of the State. *' The question" (observes a Roman Catholic writer*) " which arises upon the Coronation Oath, is one ichick relates to the exposition of an Act of Parliament, and to be decided by the same rules usually adopted in the construction of Statutes" The Oath either has or has not the same operation now, that it was intended to have at the time of its enactment. They who admit that it has, will, of course, form their conclusions respecting the intention of its institution, from those contempo- raneous memorials by which alone that intention can be ascertained. They, on the contrary, who contend that it has not the same operation, must be prepared to show that its original sense has been altered, modified, or destroyed, bi/ the same authority bt/ which it teas instituted, for that which has been established by Legislative Authority, can by nothing less be impaired or annulled. •' Time alone, that weakens most things, will not of itself affect an Act of Parliament."] A propo- sition which obviously implies, that the languai^e employed by the Legislature is to be taken in the sense in which it icas used, for otherwise the Law • Dillon on ihc Coronation Oath. -)- Euiionius, vol. '2. p, 101. 12 itself would be perpetually varying with the mu- tations of language. A rule of civil conduct must in its nature be invariable ; consequently, to obey it truly we must construe the terms in which it is expressed in that sense alone in which they were employed at its promulgation. " In the exposition of statutes" (it has been often said from the Bench) " we must make such a con- struction as to advance, and not to frustrate the intention of the makers T* Now, from the hour in which the Coronation Oath was established, to that in which it was taken by His present Majesty, no alteration (which can affect this ques- tion) had been made in it. Whatever were the objects of the Legislature in establishing it, no subsequent Act, declarative of an alteration of the Legislative Will, can bepi^oduced! Not to resort, therefore, to evidence of the intention of the Le- gislature at the time of establishing the Coro- nation Oath, (having no proof of any other to oppose to it,) is to neglect the plainest principles of juridical construction. To deny that that in- tention is binding upon us in the construction of the Oath, — (the most important part of the Act establishing it,) — to contend that it can have any other operation noio than it originally had, is to set those principles at defiance ! It is to assert that which is inconsistent with the notion * Per Wood, Baron, 3. Bligh, 397. 13 of what the Coronation Oath has been declared to be by the authority tliat imposed it — "one uni- form Oath in all times "/ Would that be uniform ofwliich the substance and essential qualities were susceptible of change ? that which might be moulded to suit the views of eapedienci/ en- tertained by opposite ])arties as they succes- sively attained power ? Are we to be told that an iiniformitii of sound w^ould satisfy the inten- tion of the imposer? That would, indeed, be to '* palter with us in a double sense, — To keep the word of promise to our ear. And break it to our hope!'' Having premised that the intention of the impo- ser is the only standard by which the extent of the obligation that an oath involves is to be measured ; that the imposer in the present in- stance was the Legislature ; and that of its in- tentions in imposing the Coronation Oath wc have no other evidence than its proceedings at the time of establishing it in the first year of William and Mary; — the conclusion appears to be obvious and irresistible — 7'/iat the Coronation Oath must he interpreted uf/d perjonued according to the intention of the Legislature r/lGSS. That profoundly wise and ])atriotic body, " whose proceedings" (says one of its brightest orna- ments, Lord Somers) "were so fair, so pru- dent, and so advantageous to the nation, to the 14 Protestant interest in general, and in particular to the Church of England, that all true English- men must acknowledge they owe to the then representatives of the nation, their privileges, their liberties, their lives, their religion, their present and/w/wre security from Popery, slavery, and arbitrary power."* SECTION IV. THE INTENTION SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC DECLARATIONS OF THE REVOLUTION. The next inquiry, " What were the intentions of the Legislature ?" presents matter for consi- deration deeply interesting, and most impor- tant, both to the question of the Coronation Oath, and to the great question with which that is intimately connected. The first thing in the records of the Revo- lution, which must strike even the most care- less observer, is the frequent, one might say the constant, expression of this sentiment, that there is an intimate, an indissoluble union between the Protestant religion, and the civil freedom of ♦ a " A Vindication of the Proceedings of the late Parlia- ment, by John Lord Somers." Somers's Tracts, 1 Col. vol. ii.p. 341. this country, and that uj)on the maintenance oi" this union hang the vital interests of the State. We know that all men, of the slightest political consideration, of different parties in politics and religion, joined in the transactions of the Revolution. But whether we refer to the acts of the Legislature at large, or of the different branches of it, to the public declarations of the political associations of the time, or of the lead- ing individuals engaged in the Revolution, we find that upon this fundamental principle, all parties (except of course the adherents of James) were united. Every act and expression evinced their anxious desire, " that," (to use the forcible language of the Prince of Orange,) " the Protestant religion, and the peace, ho- nour, and happiness of these realms, might be established upon lasting foundations T * and that they had ** no other design than to procure a settlement of the religion and of the liberties and jiropcrties of the subjects, upon so sure a foundation, that there might be no danger of the nation's relapsing into the like miseries at any time after.'']' The nobility and gentry who signed the fa- mous " Association," (which was commenced at Exeter, on the landing of tlie Prince of * First Declaration, lOlh of October, ITiSS. Journal of llic House of Commons. t Second DocUiratiun, 24th of October, 1688. Journal. 16 Orange, and afterwards subscribed by most persons of note,) declared, that " they would never depart from it, until their religion, their laws, and their liberties, were so far secured to them in a free Parliament, that they should be in no danger of falling again under Popery and slavery."* They therefore addressed the Prince of Orange, urging the propriety of calling together a free Parliament, " as the best means tending to such an establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, might not be in danger of beins asain subverted y In accordance with these views, many of the iLords, spiritual and temporal, and the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, having met in conference, stated, in their joint declaration, *' That they would assist in obtaining such a Parliament, wherein their laws, their liberties, and properties, might be secured, and the Church of England in par- ticular, with a due liberty to Protestant Dis- senters ; and in general, that the Protestant religion and interest over the whole world might be supported and encouraged." This was followed by an address from the city of London, in which, " Taking into con- sideration his Highness's fervent zeal for the Protestant religion, they humbly thanked him for appearing in arms in this kingdom, to carry * State Tracts, 1. page 78. vid. 2. Rapin. 777. 17 on and perfect his glorious designs,— to rescue three kingdoms from slavery and Popery ; — and, in a free Parliament, to tatablisk the reli- oion, and the laws, and liberties of these king- doms upon a sure and lading foundation.'" In the speech of the Prince of Orange, at a great council of the Lords, spiritual and tem- poral, holden at St. James's, on the 2ist of December, the same objects are expressed ; — *' I have desired you," said he, " to meet here to advise the best means how to pursue the ends of my declaration, in calling a free Par- liament, for the preservation of the Protestant religion, the restoring the rights and liberties of the kingdom, and sdtiuig the same, tliat they may not he In danger of being again sub- verted.'^ Such were the measures, such the line of conduct which the nation required of that Le- gislature, whose intentions, in what was done in consequence, we are now investigating. That it fulfilled the trust reposed in it, by strictly acting in accordance with the desires of the people, so unequivocally expressed, we have every reason to acknowledge with grati- tude. " A new settlement was then made of the whole Constitution ; and we have ever since enjoyed, if not the best system of go- vernment, at least, the most entire system of c 18 liberty that ever was known among man- kind."* The first measure of the Convention Par- liament, (after resolving that James the Second had violated the contract with his people, and had abdicated the throne,) was to draw up that memorable Declaration of Rights, in the preamble to which, for the justification of their conduct to the world, and to posterity, they set forth the most flagrant violations of law and justice perpetrated by the late King. The in- troductory words, and the whole construction of this preamble, evince, in the most forcible manner in which language can express ideas, the conviction of the framers of it, that there is an inseparable connexion between the na- tional, or Protestant religion, and national li- berty ; and that the same acts which endanger the one, must necessarily, in the same propor- tion, endanger the other. — " Whereas, the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers, employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom ; — "By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with, and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of Par- liament. * Hume's History of England. Conclusion. 19 *' By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates, for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power," Sec. On a comparison of this preamble with the history of the reign of this base and bigoted prince, it will be found, that all the illegal ])ro- ceedings mentioned in it, had immediate rela- tion to his design of re-establishing the Roman Catholic religion. Of these, the dispensing with laws was the most dangerous, as tlie ex- ercise of such a power would, of course, at once render the monarch absolutely despotic. Odious as such a power, however employed, must be to a free people, it was rendered still more so in this case, (as an impartial and en- lightened commentator on our Constitution has remarked,) by being made the instrument of the subversion of the Protestant religion. ** James the Second not only usurped to him- self a right to dispense with the laws, but, moreover, sought to convert that destructive pretension to the destruction of t//o.sc very Unrs wluck urrc Jicld most dear hy the nalio/i, by en- deavouring to abolish a religion, for v^'hich ihey had suffered the greatest calamities, in order to establish on its ruins a mode of faith, which repeated acts of the Legislature had proscribed, and ]')roscribcd, unt bccmisic it tended tn establisli ni KngliDid lln dnctr'nns of traiistd'slantiation 'jnd c 2 20 purgatory, doctrines in themselves of no poli- tical moment, but because the unlimited power of the Sovereign had always been made one of its principal tenets."* Having thus, in the preamble to the Decla- ration of Rights, specified the acts by which James the Second had violated his contract with his people ; the convention next de- clared,']" that they had assembled, " in order to such an establishment, that their religion, laws, and liberties, might not again be in dan- ger of being subverted." So powerful were the motives by which the legislators of 1688 declared themselves to be actuated, and which induced them, in order to give durability to the peculiar institutions of their country, to have recourse to what we are told, by certain legislators of our day, were " temporary expedients !" SECTION V. THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE. We have hitherto referred to the Declarations of the Legislators of the Revolution. We will * De Lolme on the Constitution. Book I. chap. 3. t Section i. •21 now brieHy consider their Acts, so far as they relate to the present question ; — Whether or not any discrepancy appear between tliese, the candid inquirer will have no dithculty in de- ciding for himself. In the transactions of the Revolution, will, it is conceived, be found ample grounds upon which the Legislature of that day may be vindicated from the imputa- tion of having been guided, with respect to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from power, by a narrow and vindictive policy. An impu- tation, which (to serve a present purpose) has been both openly and impliedly cast upon it by those who, on this occasion, " desire to be thought to understand the principles of the Revolution of 1G88 better than those by whom it was brought about,"* though on other occa- sions, they are in the habit of appealing, in support of their own notions, to the provisions of that Legislature, as manifesting the highest degree of wisdom, moderation, and foresight. The princijial acts of this Legislature were the confirmation of those laws which James the Second had violated, for the purpose of re- establishing the Romish religion ; — the exclu- sion of Roman Catholics from the Crown, the re-modelling of the oaths to be taken as qua- lifications for ofHce, the Toleration Act, and the Act for establishing the Coronation Oath. * Burko oil llic Frciicli Kevolulioii. 22 The circumstance of all these important mea- sures having been carried into effect almost simultaneously, renders it necessary to pay some regard to all, in order to form a correct judgment of the legislative intention of any. This is particularly necessary in considering how the duty imposed by the Coronation Oath upon the Sovereign, vs^ith respect to the national religion, is to be discharged ; that duty being, as will hereafter be shewn, to maintain and act up to the principles of the Revolution, as laid down in these several provisions. Though dis- tinct in their office, they were all passed in the same spirit, and were, doubtless, intended to conduce to the same grand and permanent object, — the security of the British Constitu- tion, and the preservation of the peace of the country in future times on the subject of reli- gion. '* The Revolution," says De Lolme, " was terminated by a series of public acts, in which no interests, but those of the people at large, were considered and provided for ; — no clause, even the most indirect, was inserted, either to gratify the present ambition, or favour the future views of those who were personally concerned in bringing those acts to a conclu- sion."* To do this subject justice, an able pen is required, and a greater scope than the present occasion affords; but the sources of * De L^lmc on the Constitiilioii. Book II. chap. 15. 23 information are open to all. The first position to which it is conceived an investigation of the acts of the Revolution would lead, is, that — the pr'uiciplt of cvcluduig Roman Catholics from the. executive and legislative departments of the State, did not originate in the exigencies of that period, nor were the restrictions upon the injluence of their religion designed to have a temporary operation. The exclusion of Roman Catholics from the throne, could then, as now, only be justified with any consistency upon one principle. The Bill of Rights,* in asserting, " that it had been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with the safety of this Protestant kingdom, to be go- verned by a Popish Prince, or by any King or (^uecn marrying a Papist," perfectly accords with that prophetic address of the House of Commons, to Charles the Second, | in which they declared, ** as the issue of their most de- liberate thoughts and consultations, that for the Papists to have their hopes continued, that a })rince of that religion should succeed to the throne of these kingdoms, was utterly incon- sistent with tiic preservation of the Protestant religion, and the prosperity, peace, and wel- fare of the Protestant subjects.' The em- phatic language employed by Lord Shaftesbury, • First of William luitl Mary. Sial. J. cap. J. t '20lh of Dccciiilxr, HLSO. vide 'J. Ka|)iii. 718. 24 when contemplating the state of the country,* carries with it remarkable force, when we con- sider how fully his prognostication of the mis- chief, which would ensue from the accession of a Papist to the Crown, were realized on the occurrence of that event which he laboured to prevent. " Popery," (he exclaimed,) '' and slavery, like two sisters, go hand in hand, and sometimes one goes first, sometimes the other, but wheresoever the one enters, the other is always following close at hand ! " A philoso- pher of later date, (who, like that extraordinary man, regarded religion only as a politician,) assigns, as the result of his observation, a reason for not recalling the Stuarts to the throne, si- milar to that urged for their exclusion from it. *' The disadvantages of recalling the abdicated family, consist chiefly in their religion, which affords no toleration, or peace, or security, to any other communion." -f To profess himself a Protestant, however, is not all that the Settlement of 1688 requires from the sovereign. He must publicly declare his conviction, that the worship of the Church of Rome is " superstitious and idolatrous ;" J * Debate on the State of the Nation, March 25, 1678. t Hume's " Essay on the Protestant Succession." Essays, vol. 1. part 2. I Bill of Rights. 1 William and Mary. Stat. 2. cap. 2. sec. 10. 25 and that, be it observed, not before his privy council, but either when he first appears in parliament, as a branch of the kg'iHlaiurCy or at the same time, and on the solemn occasion on which he is to pledge himself in the face of the people at large, to " maintain the Pro- testant reformed religion established by law. " The views of the Legislature are again strongly expressed in the *' Act of Settlement/'* By that Act, (after confirming the law for exclud- ing Papists from the throne,) it is enacted, that every King and Queen, who shall succeed to the Crown by virtue thereof, " shall have the Coronation Oath administered to him, lur, or them, at their respective coronations, accord- inir to the Act for cstablishinLif the Coronation Oath, and shall make, subscribe, and repeat the Declaration (against Popery) in the Bill of Rights mentioned or referred to, in the manner and form thereby prescribed. ' In thus coupling the Coronation Oath, with the Declaration against Popery, is it possible to doubt tiiat they were intended to rei'er to the same objects, and were designed to have, in one important particular, the same operation, namely, to rai- der the Crown a barrier ai^ain.st the encroachments of Poperij ? -j" The nature of the alterations made at this • i'2ai.(l 1.! WiUiam III. cap. J. \ Vide Note A. 26 period, in the oaths to be taken as qualifications for office, (particularly the oath of supremacy,) demonstrates that, as regarded Roman Catho- lics, the Legislature merely corroborated a principle, coeval with the establishment of the re- formed religion. By the Statute of the twenty- eighth of Henry VIII. cap. 10, " An Act to extinguish the authority of the Bishop of Home," an oath was prescribed to be taken by all officers and ministers, spiritual and lay, by which the taker renounced the Pope, and all his authority and jurisdiction ; and it was made high treason to refuse this oath, when it was re- quired to be taken.* This statute having been repealed on the accession of Mary, another oath of supremacy was prescribed by the First of Elizabeth, cap. 1. It comprised, — 1. A de- claration, that the Queen was the only su- preme governor of the realm, as well in all spiritual, or ecclesiastical, as temporal things. — 2. That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, had, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. And, lastly, an utter renunciation of all such foreign jurisdic- tion or authority. The refusal to take the oath, by any person preferred to any ecclesiastical or lay office, created in such person simply, a disability to retain or exercise any office, or ' Reeves's History ol' ilie English Law, vol. iv. page 276. 27 other promotion, which he, at the time of such refusal, had either solely, or jointly, or in common with any other j)erson or persons.* When we reflect upon the sanguinary transac- tions of the last reign, (in palliation of which, no political delinquences on the ])art of the sufferers can be assigned, f) the moderation here displayed, in the re-establishment of our Protestant church, must, in every unprejudiced mind, excite admiration. No penalties were imposed, but on such as should, by writing, teaching, or preaching, express words, deed, or act, set forth and defend the authority of the Pope, in opposition to that of the sove- reign.']: It was not till the Fifth of Elizabeth, § when the inveterate hostility of the Roman Ca- tliolics (at that time, as the Act expresses, ** grown to marvellous outrage, and licentious boldness") rendered severer measures neces- sary, that all i)crsons were rendered liable to have the oath administered to them. It is evident, that the primary intention of Eliza- beth, in her measures for re-establishing the reformed church, was to restrain iVom power, and not to pursue with penalties, such as were inimical to it, till tluir enmity should endanger • 1 Eli/.abeUi, cap. 1. sec. 20 and 21. + Vido Book of the Ronuin Catliolic Cliuuii. I.fUir 1-1. I Sections '2S, 29, and M). S -5 Eli/abclli, ctp. I. vide Picunblc. 28 its existence. *' Her Majesty" (says Lord Bacon, in his able justification of the measures of Elizabeth towards the Roman Catholics) ** not liking to make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts, except the abundance of them did overflow into overt and express acts and affirmations, tempered her law so as it restraineth only manifest disobedience in im- pugning and impeaching" the royal supremacy ' " as for the oath, it was altered by Her Majesty into a more grateful form, — the harshness of the name and appellation of Su- preme Head v/as removed, and the penalty of the refusal thereof, turned into a disablement to take any promotio7i, or to e.vercise any charge.''* That the intentions of the Legislature of the First of Elizabeth, were rendered, in some de- gree, nugatory, by the evasions and connivance which the weak and vacillating policy of her successor, and the turbulent occurrences in the following reign occasioned, we may judge from finding it a subject of frequent charge against the government, that the laws for restraining the influence of Papists were not enforced. General declarations (however obvious the intention of the framers of them may be) sometimes admit of equivocation. It was found, therefore, that * Observations of a Libel, &c. Lord Bacon's Works, vol. iv. page 363 ; and see Sir Francis Walsingliam's Letter in Bur- net's Histuiy of the Reformation. Book iv. Conclusion. 29 to require ii disavowal of the most essential dogmata of the llomish eluirch, was to api)ly a more efficacious test. The Corporation and Test Acts, therefore, of Charles the Second, in requiring the declaration against transubstan- tiation to be made in the same cases, antl at the same times, that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance were before required to be taken, were intended not to supersede, but to be sul)- sidiary to those provisions. Tiic belief in the proposition denied in the declaration against transubstantiation, carries with it an adherence to all that the oath of supremacy renounces.* Can it be doubted, therefore, that the test laws of Charles the Second introduced no novel prui- ciple of legislation, but merely carried into more complete operation the rule, that every person " shall be disabled to retain or exercise any office, or other promotion," in " this Protestant kingdom," who will not acknowledge, that " no foreign jirince, person, prelate, state, or poten- tate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, or authority, within this realm? After the Revolution, the Convention Par- liament resolved upon repealing the oaths of supremacy niul aliegiiince then in force, aiul • As to llic dangerous influence which accrues to the priest- hood from tliis tenet, see the Rev. Blanco White's " Practical and Internnl F.vichncc •■iT.iin'it ("atliolicism," p. Si. Secontl Edition. 30 substituting others in their room, to be taken in all cases prescribed by the laws enacting the former. This was accordingly done, by the Bill of Rights, and by the First of William and Mary, cap. 8. It is unnecessary here to touch upon the oath of allegiance ; * but the nature of the change in the oath of supremacy deserves particular notice. The first clause, containing the acknowledgment of the King's ecclesiastical supremacy, and thus affecting Protestant Dis- senters, was omitted ; but the second, re- nouncing all foreign jurisdiction and authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, and thus affecting Roman Catholics e.vclusively , was retained unal- tered.-\ The oath of supremacy, therefore, in its new form became (as Judge Blackstone ob- serves) " principally calculated as a renunciation of the Pope's pretended authority." This oath, re-enacted by the First of George the First, stat. 2. cap. 10, with a form of abjuration pre- fixed, is that now sought to be repealed ; because, (to borrow the courteous language of the Bill of 1825,) though the Roman Catholics have been, at all times, ready and desirous to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, they " entertain scruples with respect to taking the oath of supremacy, inasmuch as they appre- hend that the same might be construed to import * Vide 1 Blac. Com. p. 368. t Vide Note B. 31 -.1 disclaimer of llu' spiritual autliority of tin Pope, or Church of Rome, in matters of religious belief." Here is an admission of the efficacy ' of this oath, taken vcrbutim from that enacted in the first ijcar of FJizahdh, and exclusively aticcting Roman Catholics; yet, in defiance of this, and of the plainest historical facts, how constantly has the assertion been reiterated, that till the end of the reign of Charles the Second, the principle of excluding Roman Catholics from power was unknown to the Constitution ! Another conclusion may be deduced from the alteration in the oath of supremacy; — that the Legislature iras not actuated hif a spirit 'f indiscrimiuating hostiliti/ to opinious adverse to the Established Church. The same Act that cot firmed the principle of cTcluding Roman Catholics, relieved the tvhole hodij of Protestant Dissenters. Were other proofs wanting, this would suffice to de- monstrate, that, however artfully or inconsider- ately, the two cases are oiUn cont'oundrd, the Legislature of 1G8S viewed and tri-ated them as totally distinct. The recommendation given by the King to the Parliament, sets this matter in a strong point of view. After recommending that no time should be lost in settling the oaths to be taken by all persons to be admitted to offices and ])laees of trust, \\v added, " >\s I doubt not that yi»u will sufficiently provide 32 against Papists, so I hope that you will leave room for the admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve."* This advice was consonant with the private sentiments of the King and Queen, as expressed some time before the Revolution, to James the Second. -j' From the proceedings immediately consequent upon the Revolution, it is evident that past ex- perience had satisfied the Protestants, that, as regarded Roman Catholic influence, they had, in the main, one common interest. It was by insidiously *' sowing divisions between those of the Church of England and Dissenters," J that James the Second had endeavoured to weaken the Protestant interest — by oppressing the former for opposing his violations of the laws, and, at the same time, cajoling the latter into a sanction of his measures, by a hypocritical affectation of anxiety to promote general liberty of conscience. § The eyes of all parties, how- ever, were very shortly opened to the common danger ; and after the Revolution, the Legisla- ture proceeded upon the principle, that the extension of religious freedom to all classes of Protestants, tended to the consolidation of the * Com. Journ. IGth March, 1688. t Fagel's Letter. Somers's Tracts. 1 Col. v. 2. p. 542. Vide Note D. J First Declaration of the Prince of Orange. § Vide Note C. 33 Protestant interest. Hence the Toleration Act.* Wliile tills measure was passinii^ throuL;li the Legislature, the King referred to it in his address to the Parliament,! in terms, upon which it is unnecessary to make any comment. He was well pleased, he said, with every oj)|)ortnnity of repeating his promises of " ina'uitaini)i<^ the Chunk of En o land as hij law established. It is," he added, ** a great satisfaction to me, that by the success God has given me, I am in a station of defending this Church, which has etlectually shown her zeal against Popery, and shall al- ways be my peculiar care. And I do hope, the ease j'ou design to Dissenters, will con- tribute very much to the establishment of this Church." It is not necessary to discuss the grounds upon which this distinction was observed in the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, and of Ho- man Catholics. But as it is sometimes asserted, that the Legislature of IGS8, in its measures to- wards the latter, merely sought the rejiressicn of the political faction to which these adhered ; we may observe, that, however true this may be with respect to many of the penal lairs, c\v.\c\v(\ at that |)eriod, it is, with respect to the laws dis "J 36 as a permanent principle of the Constitution. The answer to this objection must be, that the maintenance of this principle, of excluding Ro- man Catholics from power, was an article of the express contract o/" 1688, one oithe conditions upon which the Crown was settled in the Protestant, to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic line of succession. For the terms of this contract, we can, it is conceived, alone refer to those legis- lative enactments, by which the settlement of the Crown was made ; namely, the Bill of Rights, as incorporated with the Act for settling the succession of the Crown, ^ and the several Acts passed, as circumstances required, in cor- roboration of the principle there laid down. " If any thing," observes De Lolme, " is capa- ble of conveying to us an adequate idea of the soundness, as well as peculiarity of the prin- ciples on which the English Government is founded, it is the attentive perusal of the sys- tem of public compacts to which the Revolution gave rise, — of the Bill of Rights, with all its different clauses, and of the several Acts which, under two subsequent reigns, till the accession of the House of Hanover, were made, in order to strengthen it.''^ The Bill of Rights may be termed the head-stone of the Constitution, as * First of William and Mary, Stat. 2. cap. 2. t De Lolme on the Constitution, Book 2. chapter 15. 37 settled in 1G88; — all the important Acts of the Legislature were founded upon, and are in- timately connected with it. That this public compact involved the conditions uj)on which the settlement of the Crown was made, and that every article and clause contained in it, was intended to be equally binding and per- manent, there is no pretence to deny. The Declaration of Rights consists of three parts, distinct in their othce, but joint in their opera- tion, each stamped with the same authority, and so necessary to give efficacy to the rest, that without any one, the whole work would have been imperfect. The preamble contains (as has before been observed) an enumeration of the Acts by which James "did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom ;" and also, a declaration, that the object of the Convention Parliament in as- sembling was, ** in order to such an establish- ment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, might not again be in danger of being subverted." *'Taking,"continues the Declaration, "into their most serious consideration, the hcst incuns for attaining the ends aforesaid," they did, in the first place, declare what were the undoubted rights and lil)ertics of this pcojdo.* Her*.' we • Vide Note D. 38 may observe, that in the series of propositions in which these rights and liberties are expressed, there is nothing which had not been as distinctly laid down in the existing laws, defining the au- thority of the sovereign, and the rights of the people. Had the Convention confined themselves to an assertion of rights, which had been often acknowledged, and often violated, without, at the same time, strengthening and extending the fences by which alone the important interests confided to them could be ever after defended from the dangers which had immediately before threatened their destruction, their work would indeed have been imperfect. Their conduct would then have been strangely inconsistent with their professions, and have merited the charge sought to be established against them, of having been guided by a short-sighted policy. The fact, how- ever, is, that at the same time they insisted upon these rights and liberties, they declared what were those ** best means of attaining the ends aforesaid." This part of the Declaration of Rights is most important to the present question. They " resolved,'' that the succession of the Crown should be limited exclusively to Protestants, and that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, therein set forth, should in future be taken by all persons of whom the former oaths of supremacy and allegiance might be required by law. This new oath of supremacy, we have observed, was 31) framed by retaining so much of the old oath as cd'diisivclij affected Roman Catholics. Thus the Parhament of 1G88, at the same time, and by the same Act, that they extended to the throne the principle of exckision, deliberately confirmed the existing laws, disqualifying from the Legis- lature, and other places of influence, all who ** entertain scruples" of renouncing obedience to the jurisdiction or authority of ** a foreign prince, prelate, state, or ])otentate, within this realm." By incorporating, in one and the same resolu- tion, these important provisions, affecting the sovereign and the subject, they stam])cd them both witli tlie same authority. By declaring that this resolution was the result of " their most serious consideration, as to the best means of attainiuii: such an establishment as that their religion, laws, and liberties, might not again be in danger of being subverted," they gave it the iiighest sanction in their })ower. Finally, by an- nexing this resolution to the solemn instrument to be tendered to the Prince and Princess of Orange, as comprising the conditions upon vvhicli the new settlement of the Crown was to be made, they rendered the maintenance of the provisions they had resolved uj)on necessary to the performance of those conditions, and a fun- damental article of the C()mj)act. The Declaration of Kiglits was tendered, with the Crown, ius wc tind it recorded in ihc Act 40 by which it became law,) to the Prince and Princess of Orange, on the 13th of February, 1688, — " Upon which their said Majesties did accept the Crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons, contained in the said Declaration.'.' The Declaration was accordingly passed into a law, under the title of "An Act, declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the Crown,"* commonly called, " Tlie Bill of Rights,^' in the preamble to which it is entirely recited. By the first enactment of this Act,'!' the Legislature confirmed the Declar- ation of Rights in every part, in terms so abso- lute and clear, that it appears inconceivable how any person succeeding to the Crown, by virtue of that settlement, can be supposed not to be bound as much by one clause or provision of it as another. " Now, in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Com- mons, in Parliament assembled, for the ratify- ing, confirming and establishing the said Declara- tion, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the force of a law, made in due form, by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted, &c.. That * First of William and Mary. Sess. 2. cap. 2. t Section 6. 41 all and singulur, tiic rii^^lits and liberties asserted and claimed, in the said Declaration, are the true undoubted rights and liberties; and, That all and every the particulars aforesaid,'' (not mere- ly, be it observed, the said rights and liberties,) " shall ho, Jirmly and strict li/ liolden and observed, as they are expressed in the said Declaration; and all officers and ministers, whatsoever, shall serve their Majesties, and their successors, ac- cording to the same in all ti))ies to cujiw." Thus far the Bill of Rights regards t/ie Sub- ject, respecting whom it has a twofold opera- tion — it defines his civil rights, and it prescril)es on behalf of the State the terms upon which he shall be admitted to political power: Which terms are, that with an acknowledgment of tem- poral allegiance to his natural Sovereign, must be joined an absolute denial of ecclesiastical or s])iritual alle^-iance to any foreign power or au- thority. 'I'lie Bill of Rights next (sec. 1)' re- gards the Sovereis^n, and institutes those provi- sions to which we have already adverted, for securing an exclusively Protestant succession to the throne. The whole is summed up in llie enacting clause (sec. 11) in these remarkable terms : — " All which their Majesties arc con- tented and pleased sliall be declared, enacted, and established, by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, rcinaiii, and be the law of this realm for ever : And the: same are, by 42 their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same declared, enacted, and esta- blished accordingly y Not contented with confirming ** all and every the particulars" of the Declaration of Rights, the Legislature proceeded, by distinct and special enactments, to carry into complete effect the resolutions expressed in it, in order ** to make" (such is the language of the Act) *' effectual provision for the settlement of the re- ligion, laws, and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same, for the future, might not be in danger again of being subverted." In the Act by which the Crown was happily settled upon the House of Hanover,* the same anxiety is evinced to bind every future sovereign to maintain the established Constitution, in Church and State, by the preservation of the '' effectual provision" made for that purpose. Li the confirmatory clause with which this impor- tant statute concludes, it is solemnly declared, " That all the laws and statutes of this realm, for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, are, by his Majesty, by and with the advice and * Twelfth and Thirteenth of WilUain HI. cap. 2. 43 consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and ccmjirmedy To this brief notice of the compact of the Re- volution, it will be sufficient to add one obser- vation. The stron<2;- terms used in the establish- ment of these provisions with reference to the permanency of them, afford no ground to charge the Legislators of 1688 with entertaining the absurd design of attempting to give by words an immutability to their institutions, of which, in the nature of things, those institutions were not susceptible. Their language is to be taken with reference to the remarkable circumstances under which it was used, and to the subject to which it was aj)plicd. They well knew tiiat they could not, indeed, by the employment oi the most solemn and emphatic terms, stay the hand of innovation in after times. But they could, and they did, thereby render the enact- ments com[)rised, expressly or by implication, within the articles of that compact, fa fidaf/unta/ Laws of the Constitution. Future Legislators might adopt principles opposed to those upon which thci/ acted ; luture Sovereigns might reign by another teimre than that which thcii insti- tuted ; but it was for them to mark in indelible characters upon the records of the Revolution, a warning which should go down witli then- institutions to posterity: — that, should aiiv ol 44 those fundamental laws be abolished, the cha- racter of the Constitution would be changed, and the compact of the Revolution be at an end! SECTION VII. THE REASON OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OATH. However indisputable it might have been, that every prince succeeding to the Crown by- virtue of these Acts of Settlement^ would be bound, by the conditions upon which they were made, the wisdom of the Legislature of 1688 was evinced, in not resting the maintenance of the Constitution upon an implied obligation. It was on all hands admitted, that James the Second had violated his contract with his people ; — but the precise nature and extent of that contract we know to have been a matter of great dispute at the Revolution. The most obvious course, therefore, was to reduce the contract of the King with his people to certain terms, sufficiently comprehensive to express the principles upon which every future sove- reign should exercise the powers vested in him by the Constitution.* * Vide Nolo E. 45 Previous to tliis period, no one form of oath had been uniformly used at the Coronation of the sovereign, nor had the Coronation Oaths received the sanction of the Legislature. The terms, liowever, of all, were very similar, and as neither the prerogatives nor the duties of the sovereign had been well defined or understood, no inconvenience was probably experienced from the general terms in which they were ex- pressed. There is no doubt, however, that the oath was regarded centuries before the Revo- lution, as more than a matter of ceremony. In the Fortieth of Edward the Third, it was agreed in Parliament, that King John's dona- tion of his kingdom to the Pope, was null and void, being without the concurrence of Par- liament, and contrary to his Coroiiathm Oath* Bracton (who wrote in the time of Henry the Third) says of the King, " Debet in coronationc sua in nomine Jesu Christi praestito sacramento ha3C tria promitterc populo sibi subdito. Im- primis se esse pra3CC})tnriiin et ]u*o viribus opem impensurum ut ecclcsiaj Dei ct omni populo Christiano vera pax omni suo tempore obscr- vetur. Sccundo, ut rapacitatcs et omnes ini- quitates omnibus gradibus interdicat. Tertio, ut in omnibus judiciis a-quitatem pra'cipiat et misericordiam, ut indulgeat ei suam misericor- diam, clemens et misericors Deus, ct ut pir * 1 ni.icksfono's Coniinoiitaiic«. 111. 46 justitiam suam firma gaudeant pace universi."* The following form is stated, in a modern pub- lication,f to be taken from an old manuscript account of the coronation. It nearly corre- sponds with that of Richard the Second, given by Prynne,J from the Liber Regalis, for some notice of which the reader is referred to the Note. Archbishop. " Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the laws and customs of ancient times, granted from God by just and devout princes, unto the English nation, by oath, unto the said people, especially the laws, customs, and liber- ties, granted unto the clergy and laity, by the famous King Edward ?" " The King answering, that he will perform and observe all the premises ; then shall the Archbishop read unto him the articles where- unto he shall swear ; thus saying ; — *' Thou shalt procure unto the church of God, and unto the clergy and people, firm peace, and unity in God, according to thy power." *' He shall answer;" — ■" I will perform it." ** Art thou pleased to be administered in all * Bracton de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Anglise, lib. 3. cap. 9. t Banks's Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Nature of the Kingly Office. X Prvnne's Sjo^nal Lovalty. Vide Note F. 47 thy judgments, indifferent and upright justice, and to use discreti<;n with mercy and verity?" " He shall answer;"—" 1 will do it," '* Art thou pleased that our ujjrigiit laws and customs be observed, and dost thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained ])y thee to the honour of Gud, according to thy strength V ** He shall answer;" — " I grant and pro- mise." Whatever opinion may be formed as to the extent of thi^- obligation, no doubt, it is con- ceived, can be entertained, that it applied ex- pressly to (at least) the King's cwccidive cha- racter. If, therefore, the use of the Coronation Oath be simply to bind the sovereign to ob- serve and execute the laws to be from time to time enacted ; if to preserve to the church its rights and property, be all that is necessary to maintain the established religion, what iuhmI could there be, at the Revolution, of a new Coronation Oath ? or how could the duties of the sovereign be more distinctly expressed, than in the sim])le language of the ancient oath? We will p^o farther. iVot only would a mw oath, affecting the Kinir in his executive cha- racter merely, have no greater effect than the ancient, and be therefore nui^atory; but it woidd have a less extensive operation, and ho 48 therefore destructive of the object of its insti- tution — the binding of the sovereign more effectually. Without wearying the reader with the full recital of quaint and obsolete forms, we will notice so much of several ancient oaths as will completely establish this position. That they did e.vpressly affect the sovereig7i in the eivercise of all his functions, legislative as well as cveciitive. In the laws ascribed to Edward the Con- fessor, is given the substance of the Oath to be taken by the sovereign at his Coronation. In which he was to swear, " bonas leges et consue- tudlnes approbatas erigere ; pravas autem clelere, et omnes a i^egno deponere."* William the Conqueror swore to " defend Holy Church and the rulers of the same ; to govern the people committed to his care in justice, and with royal providence; to ordain righteous laws, and keep the same "If Richard the First swore to " abolish bad laivs and customs if any existed in his kingdom, and observe good laws.":]: John swore to " destroy bad laws, and substi- tute good laivsy^ Henry the Third swore to " destroy bad laws and unjust customs, if any existed in the king- dom." || * Lambard. f Roocr de Tlovedcn. 1 MaU. raris. ^ Ibid. 11 Ibid. 4!) The following Oath may be considered more interesting, as being of comparatively modern date; — and especially as being that taken by Edward the Sixth. Archbishop. " Will ye grant to keep to the people of England, and other your realms and dominions, the laws and liberties of this realm, and other your realms and dominions V King. " 1 grant and promise." Archbishop. " You shall keep to your strength and power, to the church of God, ;ind to all people, holy peace and concord." King. " 1 shall keep." Archbishop. " You shall make to be done, after your strength and power, ec[ual and right- ful justice in all your dooms and judgments, with mercy and truth." Ki/ig. " I shall do." Archbishop. " Do ye grant to Diakc no /iciv laws, but such as shall be to the honour and glory of God, and to the good of the common- wealth, and that the same shall be made by the consent of your people, as hath been ac- customed ?" King. " 1 grant and i)r()niise."* Other forms there are which were used. some intermediately and some subsequently to those above cited, in which the legislative func- tion is not expressly mentioned. IK net- we ' Piynnc's Si^jnal Loyally. y. 50 must conclude that the primary object always sought in framing the oaths, was to express the ends which the King was to have in vieiu in the exercise of all his functions ; and that the mention of those several functions was merely incidental to the mode of expression sometimes adopted for that purpose. There is no reason to suppose, because in the various modes of expression employed at different times, we find in some the legislative function of the sove- reign distinctly alluded to or expressed, that there was any intention of giving the oath in those particular cases an operation of unusual extent. Neither by a parity of reasoning does the omission of any allusion or reference to that function in other cases, afford any just in- ference, that in them a narrower extent of ope- ration was designed. After the change pro- duced by the Reformation in the ecclesiatical state, the general form of the oath, however variously modified, was defective in one mate- rial respect. Thus with regard to the oath taken by Edward the Sixth, though there can be no question that this obligation affected the King in the exercise of all his political functions, the objects towards which they were to be exercised, do not appear to be all expressed in terms sufficiently definite. The nation, subse- quently, learned how vain are injunctions to peace, should those, whose sense of their tern- 51 poral and eternal interests nuist render llieni adverse to the established order of things, gain adniittanee to the couneils of the sovereign. It became obvious how they would interpret the paramount obligation, to bring concord to the church of God; how they would exert the powerful influence of their station, in the mak- ing of such " new laws," as, by tending to " the utter subduing of that pestilent heresy,"* with which our institutions are so intimately connected, would alone " be to the honour and glory of God, and to the good of the common- wealth/' After the Revolution, therefore, it was deemed necessary by the Convention Parliament, to deliberate upon the terms of the Coronation Oath. This could not have been from any doubt that James the Second had violated the oath taken by him ; indeed, we know that to have been one of the charges brought against him. The noblemen and gentlemen who sub- scribed " the jN'ottingham Paper," on the land- ing of the Prince of Orange, declared, " they assured themselves, that no rational and un- biassed person would judge it rebellion, to de- fend their laws and religion, which all English princes had sworn, at their coronation, to de- fend, wliich ();ith, how well it had been ob- * Coleman's LetUr to Father le Chcse. Commons Journal. Vide Note C. E 2 52 served (^i late, tliey desired a free parliament might have the consideration of." The first declaration of the Prince of Orange is yet more explicit upon this subject. It is there declared to be " notorious, that James the Second did promise, and solemnly swear, at his coronation, that he would maintain his subjects in the free enjoyment of their laws, rights, and liberties ; and, in particular, that he would maintain the Church of England, as it was established by laiv. Also, that at sundry times, several laws had been enacted for the preservation of those rights and liberties, and of the Protestant religion ; and among other securities, it had been enacted, that all persons advanced to any ecclesiastical dignity, or to bear office in either University, as like all others that should be put in any employment, civil or military, should declare that they were not Papists, but were of the Protestant religion ; and that, by the'w tsking the oaths of allegiance and supremacij, and the test ; yet these evil coun- sellors had in effect annulled and abolished all these laws, both with relation to ecclesiastical and civil employments." Had we no express memorial to guide our judgment, it would be difficult to conceive, that, in taking the subject of the Coronation Oath into consideration at this important pe- riod, the Legislature had not some particular ,33 object ill view, and lliut thai (object couKl bt- any other tluui to remedy tlie defect in tlie ancient forms ; namely, the indefinite mode of designating the Ecclesiastical Establishimnt : leaving the Oath to have in all respects the same operation as before. After stating the facts in the order in wliich they occurred, tlie inferences to be drawn from them will readily suggest themselves. It was referred by the House of the Com- mons, to a committee, to revise the Coronation Oath, and see what alterations were proper to be made therein.* That committee did not treat the matter, it appears, as of little import- ance, and readily agree upon tlu' best mode of effectuating their object ; for, on the twenty- hfth of March, tlu- lloiisi' was informed, " that the committee to whom it was referred to in- spect the Coronation Oath, and consider what alterations and amendments were tit to make therein, and to report the same to the House, had sat several times, but couhl not eome to a determination of what was so referred to them." 'i'lie. House, thereloir, resolvc-d ilscH ir.lo a committee ol' the whole House, to take the same matter into their consideration. t The result was, that having inspected the former Coronation Oaths, and considered what altera- ' (nniuioiis .loiiiiiil. Maivli, 168S. t I bill, '25 Marcli. 1(^88. 54 tions and amendments were fit to be made therein, they reported that they had agreed upon a form of a Coronation Oath. It was then resolved, that a Bill should be brought in, to establish the Coronation Oath, and a com- mittee was appointed to prepare the Bill. In this committee we find the names of some of the most distinguished characters of the Revo- lution. A Bill was accordingly framed, and passed into a law, under the title of, " An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath," being the first of William and Mary, cap. 6. SECTION VIII. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OATH. The following is the form of the Oath thus established : — The Archbishop or Bishop shall say, — *' Will you solemnly promise, and swear to govern, the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same ?" The King or Queen shall say, — " I solemnly promise so to do." 55 Ardihishop or Bishop. " Will you, to yuur power, cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?" King or Queen. " I will.'" Archbishop or Bishop. " Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of (iod, the true profession of the gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion, established by law ? And will you preserve unto the bishops and cleri^^y of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law, do or shall apjicrtain unto them, or any of them?" King or Queen. " All this I promise to do." " After this, the King or Queen, laifwg his or her hand upon the holy gospel, shall suj/, — The things which 1 have here before promised. I will perform and keep : — So help me God. And then shall kiss the book.''' On comparing this Oath with those formerly in use, the only material difference appears to be in the terms of the third clause, respecting the national religion. The first and second clauses distinctly refer to the King's executive power. The former is worded in terms so comjirehensive, as to apjily to every case in which his executive functions can be exercised, and to affect liiin m his government of every class of his subjects. The sul)ject of the 56 second clause might at first seem to be in- cluded in the first, but it may be observed, that a principle is here enforced, with peculiar propriety, which is not to be found among those express rules of government, by which the conduct of the sovereign is to be regulated. " It is enthroned in the hearts of kings." Upon the construction of the third clause, mainly depends the question now under consi- deration. The circumstance, that here alone we find any material difi'erence between the present and the ancient oaths, must (if we sup- pose the framers of the oath to have had any reason for what they did) lead us to these con- clusions, — That, from the necessity of inserting the matters comprised in this clause, the mea- sure of re-modelling and establishing by law the Coronation Oath originated. And that, in so doing, the Legislature had in view the pre- vention of a recurrence of those dangers from which the important subjects of it had imme- diately before been rescued. To this portion of the Oath, we have reason to know, (as will presently be shown,) that the particular atten- tion of parliament was directed. Deeply con- nected indeed, as the subjects of it were, with the events of the Revolution, it is natural to conclude, that it was framed with the most anxious deliberation. 57 Tlic ullicr clauses ol" the Oatli have, unques- tionably, each a distinct and definite office. — Is it rational to consider this less definite, be- cause more comprehensive? or, justifia])le to attempt to fix such a construction upon it, as would reduce it to surplusage ? In no case, more strongly than the present, can those ca- nons of interpretation apply, that each part must be rendered consistent with the rest, and the whole made efi^'ective, rather than nugatory. In more particularly examining this clause ol" the Oath, the intention of the imposer is pri- marily to be sought in the language made use of, and wherever that appears to have admitted of dispute, the " coiitcmporauea cxpnsit'w''^ will be acknowledged to be the fairest and safest mode of interpretation.* Taking the words ot this clause in the order in which they stand, — the first thing observable, is, the terms in which the King engages to perform the duties ])re- scribed. Tliere is no restriction as lo the mode, no distinction as to the functions to be employed. He is bound, to " the utmost of his powa\'' (terms the most forcible and compre- hensive,) to fulfil the intentions of the imposer. There is a modification of this expression in the preceding clause, and in the ancient oaths, which, though it may seem to imply as nuich, is not so emphatic ; and wiu n the uiuniiis by • Cuke. *2. Iiisi. II. 58 which the words were dictated, is the subject of inquiry, the comparative strength of the lan- guage employed is not immaterial. More, however, is to be gathered from these words, — ** The King is the Head of the Church, but he cannot alter the established religion."* The Leaislature which established the Coronation Oath had just before taken effectual measures to deprive the Crown of the power of inter- fering with the established institutions of the country, or the possessions, rights, or privileges of any class of persons or individuals in the State, " without the consent of 'parliameiit ^ If, therefore, the Legislature did not intend the Coronation Oath to affect the King in that ca- pacity in which alone he has power to alter what is " established by law," how could the Protestant religion, and the Established Church, be rendered more secure from innovation and subversion by this Oath, than they would have been without it ? What would the Oath itself be, — " But a mere ceremony and a breach Of nothing but a form of speech. And go for no more when 'tis took, Than mere saluting of the book ?" It is moreover obvious, that as the ancient Oaths did (as we have seen) affect the sovereign in the exercise of all his functions, without * De Lohne. Book I. cap, 8. 59 rcstrictiun, wc must, if we entertain tlic above supposition, conclude, that the Legislature at the same time that it more particularly de- signated the object of its care, designed to render it less secure by the new Oath, than it would have been by the old, which is an absurd supposition. At the next word, " ?)iai?itaiii" it will not be necessary to show what conduct is a compli- ance with, but what an infraction of the obliga- tion expressed by it, which will be found on re- ference to that first declaration of the Prince of Orange before referred to. A document, which will be acknowledged to have been, in fact, the manifesto of the leaders of the Revolution. James the Second is thei;e declared to have violated his oath, taken at his coronation, to " maintabi the Church of England, as it vas established by law." Not by interfering iritli the doctrines or discipline of the Church, not by in- fringing the Acts of Uniforjniti/, but in abolishing those "securities,'' " by which it was required, that all persons, advanced to ecclesiastical and civil employments, should declare that they were not Papists, but vcrc of the Protestant reli- gion, and that, by their taking the oaths of alle- giance, andsuprewaci/, and the testS' The Prince, it is to be observed, here insists not u])on the breach of the King's engagement (under the first part of his oath) to observe and execute 60 the laws ; not upon the mode, but upon the end and effect of his proceedings ; and points out that the latter having been to endanger the Church Establishment, he had therein violated a distinct article of his Coronation Oath. The oath of supremacy, and the test, here spoken of are, it will be remembered, the " securities," the '* bulwarks" (as Blackstone terms the Test Acts) " of the Estabhshed Church," which were sought to be " absolutely repealed" by the Bill of 1825. If the *' virtual abolition" of these securities by James the Second, were deemed, in 1688, a violation of his oath, to maintain the Protestant religion, and the Established Church, by what casuistry can the actual abolition of them now be held to be a compliance with the oath framed in consequence of that proceeding ? or in accordance with the principles of those statesmen, by whom the abolition of them was thus reprobated? Further comment is unne- cessary, and might, unhappily, induce the sup- position, that there is some analogy between the measure (though not the mode of proceeding) proposed in our day, and that of the " evil counsellors" of 1688. Probably, no one, ignorant of the discussions which have taken place on this subject, would suppose, that, by the following words, ** the Protestant refiyrmed religion, established hi/ law,"^ the Legislature could have meant any other 61 than the religion then cstahiislud. The difference between this and the following passage is very observable. ** Will you preserve unto the bishops, kc. all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto tlicmV The following explication of the whole clause has been put forth by the learned author of *' Tlie Book of the Roman Catholic Church," in a recent publication. " This could only mean the Protestant reformed religion, the churches, the rights, and the privileges which, from time to time, shoukl, under the actual or any future legislation of parliament, form the church esta- blishment of the realm."* The coupling these distinct objects in one prospective mode of ex- pression, is not (it is humbly conceived) ao-ree- able to the form and grammatical construction of the clause. iMoreover, if by any interpreta- tion, the passage under consideration be ren- dered nugatory, that interpretation must (upon an acknowledged legal principle) be rejected, " ut res ?fia^is valeat quam pcreatS' That by this interpretation, the first part of the third chuiso (upon which the question mainly depends) would be rendered inoperative, whether we consider it with reference to the King's legisla- tive or executive power, or both, may appear from these considerations. If, to his legishitive • Letter on lli(> Coroiintion Oatli. hv C. RiilK-r. Ks,. 62 power, it is difficult to conceive what could be meant by an obligation to maintain, (that is, preserve from change,) what was not intended to have permanent subsistence, and which the maintainer was to be at liberty to concur in altering from time to time, or changing altogether y for other establishments. If the clause be sup- posed to refer (as the above interpretation im- plies) merely to the King's executive power, the engagement to maintain the religion established by law, must be considered to mean that the King is to observe and execute the laws to be from time to time enacted relative to the national religion. This would be to express nothing more than is involved in the engagement in the first clause, to govern " according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on," and therefore would render this part of the third clause void, and of no effect, for *' E.vpressio eorum quce tacite insunt nihil o'peratiirr * It may be further observed, that the exposi- tion of the Oath, given by this writer, appears to involve a contradiction. It is argued, that ** all the discussion on the Coronation Oath, so far as Ireland is concerned, is absolutely super- fluous," because " it is most clear, that the Coronation Oath can only refer to the system of law which was in force when the Act that prescribed * Co. Lit. 210. Bac. Princip. 63 it was passed. Now, all the Irish laws meant to be repealed are subsequent to that Act. To those laws, therefore, or to any similar law, the Coronation Oath cannot, with a semblance of propriety, be referred." How, may it not be asked, can the Coronation Oath be applicable to what may, from time to time, be established, not only under the " actual, but any future Icgk- lation of parliament," and yet ** only refer to the system of laic u'liich was iufuree wheu the Act that prescribed it teas passed?" * That the Oath was framed with relation ex- clusively to the Constitution in Church and State, then being established, and the laws designed for its preservation, may be strictly inferred from the preamble to the Act. After reciting, that by the ancient usage of this realm, the sovereigns thereof had taken a solemn oath at their coronation, it proceeds: " But, foras- much as the Oath itself, on such occasions administered, hath heretofore been framed in doubtful words and ex])ressions, with relation to aucieut laws and constitutions at this time un- known. To the Q\\(\\ therefore, that one uniform oath may be, in all times to come, taken by the Kings and Queens of this realm, and to them respectively administered, at the times of their, and every of their coronation; be it enacted," * N'ltle Note G. G4 &c. The supposition that the object of the Oath was not to bind the sovereign, *' in all times to come," to the observance of definite principles of legislation, with respect to the national reli- oion, is as irrreconcileabie with the tenour of this preamble, as with the whole policy of the Legislature. With respect to the duty of maintaining the Church Establishment, as regards Protestant Dissenters, it is irrelevant to the design of this work to consider whether the granting to them the absolute repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts would be consistent with that obligation or not. We know that some of the ablest ad- vocates the Roman Catholics have had in Par- liament have considered that to be a distinct question ; and we know also how they have expressed themselves upon it. Mr. Pitt's opi- nion was, that " toleration could by no means be considered as an equality ; for it only con- sisted in a free exercise of religious tenets, and in the enjoyment of the protection of the laws. ..... The indispensable necessity of a cer- tain permanent Church Establishment for the good of the State, required that toleration should 7iot be e.vtended to an equality ; for that would in- evitably endanger such an establishment." As however the laws relieving Dissenters from all impediments to the full enjoyment of their reli- gious rights (the Toleration Act, and the Act 05 for altering the Oath of Supremacy) have been sometimes triumphantly referred to as proofs that the oath cannot be maintained to be an obstacle to the concession of the Roman Ca- tholic claims, we have briefly noticed the enact- ment of those laws. It has, it is hoped, been shown, that whether we consider their intrinsic nature, or the expressed intention of the Legis- lature in enacting them, the}^ affect not in the slightest degree the position, that the Roman Catholic claims cannot be conceded consistently with the Coronation Oath. If it could be esta- blished that every man has as much right to the unrestricted exercise of political power, as to that of his religious worship, it might be fair to reason from the removal of restrictions upon the latter, to the concession of the former. If it could be disproved that at the time of establish- ing the Coronation Oath the case of the Roman Catholics and that of the Dissenters were, and ever since have been treated by the Legislature as distinct, the topic we have adverted to would not perhaps so entirely, as it seems to do under actual circumstances, pass by the question " as the idle wind which we regard not." 66 SECTION IX. THE PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT RESPECTING THE OATH. By way of conclusion to these observations, the following statement of the sentiments expressed by the fraraers of the Coronation Oath, in the debates on the subject, will not, it is hoped, be considered irrelevant. How far those senti- ments accord with the principles here attributed to the Legislature of 1688, and with the pro- posed measure of arming the Roman Catholic interest with political power, the reader will best determine for himself. It will be recollected, that at the period the Coronation Oath was passing under the consi- deration of Parliament, a Bill of Comprehension (which, by altering some of the ceremonials of the Established Church, might extend its pale, so as to include many then Dissenters) was in contemplation. The measures also, shortly after carried into effect, for the relief of Protestant Dissenters, were in a state of progress. Hence a doubt occurred to several members of the lower House, whether the words in the Oath, " by law established," were not of too binding 67 a nature, and might not raise a scruple in the royal mind, which would stand in the way of an object generally desired. To obviate this difficulty, it was proposed that the words, *' shall be established by law," should be adopted. In the debates* which ensued, nothing can be more clear than that upon the essential points which are material to the present ques- tion, no difference of sentiment existed. That the amendment was proposed with reference to any thing else, than the measures then in con- templation, for consolidating the Protestant interest, cannot be inferred with any justice, as those who proposed it were strenuous upon the necessity of supporting the Established Church, by the exclusion of Popery, as a means of pre- serving the Protestant religion. Mr. Howe first objected to the words, ** Protestant rcliijion established by the law," in the following terms ; ** I think this is in opposition to Popc?y, but not that the King shall defend no part of the Pro- testant religion, but what is established by law." Mr. Hampden, junior, (the principal supporter of the amendment,) stated his opinion of the objects of the Oath in the most forcible manner. *' The King," said he, " swears positively to Dihatos in the House ofComiiKnis. O.'.ili ;uk1 '2S(h of March, U)88. J 2 6S the true profession of the gospel, that is, the Christian religion, — no latitude in that; — and then comes to the Christian religion, as it is against Popery, and this is the stress of all your oath. Protestant is looked upon as a word honourable, and not the word only, but the thing to the last drop of blood ! It is every body's endeavour to keep up the Reformation, and avoid returning to Popery. '' The terms in M^hich he urged upon the House the importance of the subject under consideration tend distinctly to show, that the principle upon which this Go- vernment is constituted is the same with that of which he declared the maintenance to be " the stress of all the Oath." '* This Coronation Oath (said he) is the very touchstone and symbol of your Government /" The amendment was rejected. Mr. Finch, the principal speaker in opposition to it, con- curring with the other side entirely, in their general views, strongly objected to the amend- ment, as loose and indefinite. He urged that it was unnecessary, as of course, the Legislature would not be precluded from carrying into effect the objects of the Oath, by any additional pro- visions it might deem expedient for that pur- pose ; and, moreover, he considered the terms of the amendment liable to be misconstrued, and to raise more scruples than it; would allay. ** No man," he said, " can have any colour. 69 but that still a liberty is to consent to ani) other laws to preserve religion, and those are accordino- to the Oath established by law ; — but this is as if there were another Protestant rcUyion to be established by law. All men," he concluded, " agreed, that all Protestants ought to be united." Subsequent events have demonstrated the wisdom of rejecting the indefinite and dan- gerous expression proposed to be introduced into the Oath. Could those honourable gentle- men, who, with the best intentions, proposed the amendment, have foreseen that its adoption would, probably, have been made instrumental to the bare possibility of bringing about that which it was their object in this very measure to i)revent ;— can we doubt that they would have shrunk Irom the idea with dismay ? Still anxious that the Oath should not be lound too exclusive, as against Protestants, the following proviso was, by Mr. Pelham, ^o\\ the debate on the third reading,) proposed to be added to the Bill: — 'That no clause therein should be understood so to bind the Kings and Queens of these realms, as to prevent their giving their assent to any Bill, which should, at any time, be offered by the Lords and Commons, for taking away or altering any form or ceremony in the Established Church, so as the doctrines oi' the said church, or public liturgy, and the 70 episcopal government of it be preserved." This proviso was also rejected, on the same grounds as the amendment, — that the extension of relief to Dissenters, or making alterations in the cere- monial of the church, was not contrary to the principles of the Oath. From these circum- stances we may deduce these certain conclu- sions : — That (as the exception proves the rule) they who proposed the alterations certainly con- sidered that the Oath would affect the King in his legislative capacity. It would otherwise have been absurd to have proposed any excep- tions to the operation of the Oath. And that the opposite party tacitly admitted that the Oath would have that operation, in grounding their objections upon the intrinsic nature of those exceptions, instead of contending that there was no rule to which they could apply. After having (it is hoped dispassionately) considered the circumstances under which the Coronation Oath was framed, little doubt can surely be entertained of the absolute identity of the objects sought by the Legislature in framing it, with those expressed in the public compacts, by which, at the same time, the Con- stitution in Church and State was established. That the principles upon which the Legislature acted were the same in both cases, — and that all which is expressed in the latter is implied in the former. *' The Oath" (says De Lolme) 71 " which the King takes at his coronation, is a compact, which, if it cannot have the same pre- cision as the laws, or rather conventions between King and people, yet, in a manner, comprehends t/icm all, and has the further advantage of being declared with more solemnity."* SECTION X. itUJECTIONS TO THE COXt'LLSION THAT TllK OATH 1:> AN OBSTACLK TO THE CONCESSION Ol THE ROMAN ( \- THOMC CLAIMS EXAMINED FIIIST, THAT IT IS IN- CONSISTENT WITH THE l,E(;iSLATIVE rOWEU. Ir will now be proper to consider what argu- ments have been adduced in support of the assertion so often and so confidently made, that the Coronation Oath affords no impediment to the concession of the Roman Catholic claims. That deserves first to be considered which, if well founded, would of course render it unne- cessary to consider either the origin, or (so far as the present question is concerned) the mean- ing of the Oath. It is contended | that ihc ( )alh C(unwt be restrictive upon the King in his kgis- * l)e Lolinc on the Constitution. Book Leap. 8. Note C. Bluckstone's Commentaries, vol. I. page '229. t Mr. liutler'cs Letter on llic Curonation Oath. 72 lative capacity, because '' it is a constitutional maxim, and a fundamental principle of law, that acts against the power of Parliament bind notT The doctrine of the omnipotence of Parliament, its " uncontrollable power in making, restrain- ing, abrogating, and repealing laws concerning matters of all possible denomination, ecclesias- tical or temporal," is advanced as of itself deci- sive of the question. There is, it is conceived, in this argument, the fallacy of taking for granted in the proof that which is really the point in dispute — namely, that the proposition denied is opposed to the power of Parliament. Abstract propositions respecting the constitution and properties of political bodies can only be received as axioms so far as they accord with the real nature of the things respecting which they have been advanced. The theory has been deduced by philosophers and jurists from the practical system, (considered in its sound and legitimate state,) and not the system framed according to the theory. The maxim referred to means, it is conceived, this, and no more : that, whatever laws the Legislature may esta- blish, must be as to itself simple resolutions. Does it then follow, because the Supreme Power of a state cannot (when considered as one body) directly bind itself as to its future proceedings, that therefore it can in no way be restrained ? if such were the consequence, it would be un- 73 fortunate for the state, for (as is laid down by a profound inquirer into the British Constitution*) ** in order to insure stability to the Constitution of a state, it is indispensably necessarij to restrain the Legislative Authoriti^."^ In truth, however, *' a division of the Legislature does render it possible for it to be restrained, since each of those parts into which it is divided can then serve as a bar to the motions of the others." The proposition disputed with respect to the Coronation Oath is in effect, that by virtue of a rule of conduct prescribed by the whole Legislature, one branch of it is restricted in the exercise of its legislative functions, with respect to the admission of a certain class of the community to political power. It is not distinctly shown how the maxim re- ferred to is intended to be applied to this case, therefore, as in all other cases in which objec- tions are raised by way of inference, it will be proper to put this objection in the strongest conceivable point of view, and then show its futility. It is so obvious that the King not being the Supreme Power, a restriction upon him does not come within the primary meaning of the axiom that " the Supreme Power cannot limit itself,'^ that we must suppose the mode in which the objection we arc considering was intended to be understood to be this — That if • Dc I.olmc. Book 2. cap. 3. 74 an express obligation or restriction, with refer- ence to a specific object, could be imposed upon one branch of the Legislature, that (as it would prevent the enactment of a law inconsistent with that object) would operate indirectly during the existence of it, as a restriction upon the Legislature itself, and thus the case proposed would come within the axiom above mentioned. Now if this be really an impossible case, as being irreconcileable with the power of Parlia- ment, of course no other case agreeing with it in principle can exist. If, however, such other cases, or one such, do exist, of course this may exist also ; and it becomes evident that they who have deduced from the doctrine referred to the opposite conclusion, have understood it in a sense which is inconsistent with the actual constitution of Parliament. It will be sufficient for the present purpose to refer to a clause of that memorable statute which has been so fre- quently mentioned in the foregoing pages — the Act of Settlement, and to some subsequent enactments made in corroboration of it. By that statute it is declared, that " no person born out of these kingdoms, although naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents, shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place ot trust, cither civil or military." The legislative 75 will is here as distinctly expressed as in any provision relating to Roman Catholies. According to the construction we are consi- dering of the doctrine of the power of Parlia- ment, consonantly with the assertion that the notion is absurd of the Legislature's attenijiting to perpetuate any enactment or the principle involved in it by restricting one ui" its branches from lending itself to the repeal of that enact- ment, nothing further could have been done. But what is the fact? By the 1st Geo. I. stat. 2. c. 4. s. 2. " For the better preserving the said recited clause entire and inviolable,'' it is enacted, ** That no person shall thereafter be naturalized unless in the Bill exhibited lor that purpose there be a clause, or particular words inserted to the same effect, and that no Bill of naturalization shall be received in either House of ParHaiuent, unless such clause or words be first inserted or contained therein." Upon what jirinciple can it be contended that the notion ol' the Kings being restrained from assenting to a particular measure is at variance with the doctrine that " Acts against the power of Parliament bind not," and this provision for jirercnting either Jluiise (f Farliau/ent from ins/ituti//g another specific measure, not so f The effect of this restrictive provision is, durinix its subsist- ence, to prevent (he enactment of any law con- flicting with the object (•()ntcni])hih d m ihr 76 imposition of the restriction — namely, the ad- mittance of a certain class of subjects to poli- tical power. The effect ascribed to the Coro- nation Oath is the same. It is obvious therefore that the notion of that Oath's having such an effect, is not inconsistent with the actual con- stitution of Parliament — which is the proposition denied in the objection we have here con- sidered. If it be said that the Legislature may repeal the restriction, the answer obviously is, that the point in dispute respecting the Coronation Oath is not how the difficulty may be removed, but whether any such exists. The repealing power of the Legislature cannot indeed be urged with- out a tacit admission of the existence and of the efficacy of the restriction. SECTION XI. SECOND OBJECTION, THAT THE OATH IS NOT NOW BINDING IN ITS ORIGINAL SENSE, EXAMINED- In considering in a former part of this work* the question, where are we to look for the in- tention of the Legislature in imposing the Co- ronation Oath ? the grounds were stated, upon * Vide ante page 10. 77 which it is conceived we must look for tlmt intention to the Records of 1G88. It will ncnv be proper to notice the reasoning, by which the only conclusion dcducible from these sources of information has been attempted to be got rid of. Reasoning indeed has been but little re- sorted to ; a witless jest, or an irrelevant asser- tion, dogmatically advanced, has generally been employed to dispose of " that idle objection" the Coronation Oath. To descant with flippancy upon the folly of being guided by " antiquated notions," has been found easier than to discri- minate between such institutions of former times as were primajily founded in error, or merely designed for temporary purposes, and such as, having their foundations on immutable principles, remain unshaken by the circum- stances which agitate and change the surface of society. In a review of this publication in the '* Christian Remembrancer,"* a poj)ular no- tion on the subject of the Coronation Oath is put into the shape of an argument, by which (as the Reviewer is pleased to say) "the author's whole pamphlet of fifty-six elaborate and learned pages is disposed of. The Legislature of the 1 William and ^lary we have no doubt did intend the ejveliision of Popery bi/ virtue of the Coronation Oath, and the perpetual qkc\v\s\o\\ too, if they were simple enough to suppose that * S.^ptemhn, I8'2(>. 78 they were legislating for all future generations. That they were indeed so foolish we have too much respect for them altogether to admit, but neither do we deny it." There is here a sin- gular degree of caution evinced, in declining either to admit or deny that a provision was in- tended by its framers to be permanent, which was declared* on the face of it to be instituted *' to the end that one uniform Oath might be, in all times to come, taken by the Kings and Queens of this realm." The reviewer, in thus acting up to his resolution of offering " no other reply to the author's reasoning" than such as his ''' calm judgment might suggest," exhibits much of that independence of sentiment which charac- terises the answer of Costard (in Love's Labours Lost) to Biron's startling proposition that 'Hhree times thrice is nine.''- — • " Not so. Sir ; under correction, Sir ; I hope it is not so ; You cannot beg us. Sir; I can assure you we know what we know." As no one, of v/hose perceptive faculty pre- judice has not produced a total eclipse, can doubt that the Legislature of 1688 did intend this provision for "the exclusion of Popery" to operate in future times, we have only to consider what foundation there is for the charge, that, **in that case they most egre- giously overrated their own authority and im- "^ Vide Preamble ante [>. 56. 70 portancc in llic world.'" Making every allow- ancc ibr the disadvantage which "the great lawyers and great statesmen " (as Burke has designated them) of the Revolution laboured under, in living at a period so much anterior to this enlightened age, it still seems strange that theji should in this solitary instance have mis- taken egregiously the nature and extent of the Legislative power, and still more that they should have put their mistake so distinctly upon record. A little consideration however will, it is conceived, make it evident that whatever they were so " simple and foolish" as to sup- pose, the provision was in its own miture perpe- tual. If enactments of the Legislature, derived their authority from the persons wdio for the time compose the Legislative Body, it might indeed be contended that they would lose their force upon the decease or secession of those to whom they owed their being. So, if the quality of permanent subsistence no more attached to a civil community than to a fortuitous congre- gation of persons in a state of nature, there might be reason for asserting that a law im- posed upon that community would expire with those composing the community at the time of the promulgation of the law. These notions are evidently absurd w^hen stated abstractedly, yet upon them does the heavy charge we arc considering entirely lest. Thus, we are told 80 that though an Oath is binding in the sense of the imposer, " the Legislature of 1688 was the imposer upon William and Mary, and not upon Geo. 4th," because "No man can impose an oath or any thing else, except upon those over whom he has authority; and he has no more authority over the future and the unborn, than over the past and the dead." The sophistry of this argument is evident. We are speaking not of an obligation imposed by a natural person, but of laws established by the supreme power of the state. To pretend to argue, therefore, from the nature of the power of the former, to that of the latter, evinces an extraordinary con- fusion of ideas with respect to the difference of natural and political existences. From such premises, we need not be surprised to see the following conclusion deduced. "When there- fore William and Mary died, and the legislature who imposed the oath upon them, died also, the Oath became a dead lette?\ until the next gene- ration was pleased to revive it, and then a new imposee succeeded in the person of Queen Anne, and a new imposer in the Legislature which com- posed her government." If we can bring our- selves to conceive of a dead legislature, we can have no difficulty in supposing, but indeed must conclude, that not only the Coronation Oath, but that every law, every political and civil in- stitution, must become defunct also with the 81 power by whose will it was established, or main- tained. Very little consideration is necessary to see how fallacious is this reasoning, how in- consistent with the nature both of the legisla- ture and of civil society. We cannot conceive of any thing becoming defunct, and being re- vived, without conceiving of an interval in which it did not exist; consequently, to this theory of the defunction and resuscitation of the legisla- ture, and of its institutions, the supposition is necessary of a state being without any supreme power, of " a government without laws — a mys- tery in politics, inconceivable to human capa- city, and inconsistent with human society."* A municipal law is defined to be " a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme autho- rity of the state." "I" To this authority the idea of perpetual subsistence is essential ; reject it, and that of anarchy immediately presents itself. " It is in their legislative (says Locke J) that the members of a Commonwealth are united and combined tosrether into one ^coherent livino- body." That body, underour political Constitu- tion, is indeed composed of a number of natural persons, but the principle by which they move, and from which their acts derive their force — the Legislative will, is not the u-'ill of those pcr- • Locke on Government. Book '2. chap. 19. ■j- 1 Blac. Com. InUod. sec. '2. X Government RodU. -2. eli. 19. 82 sons, (considered as an assemblage of individu- als,) consequently the authority, the meaning, or the duration of the enactments of that " per- manent body," of which they are but ** the tran- sitory parts," cannot be effected by their decease or secession. "This (the Legislative) is the soul that gives form, life, and unity to the Com- monwealth. The essence and union of the so- ciety consisting in having one will, the Legisla- tive, when once established by the majority, has the declaring, and, as it were, keeping of that will.'''' From these considerations, it will be evident how groundless is this cavil of the Re- viewer: '^Nothing can be so absurd as the no- tion of an irrevocable law, and of a lawgiver whose authority is binding upon all future law- givers." Do we affirm that a law is irrevocable, in contending, that imtil revoked it retains its ori- ginal force and import ? Nothing is more clearly laid down by our Jurists, than that '*a law, when its duration is not (expressly) limited, is in its nature perpetual y * This implies, not that it is irrevocable, but that it has a capacity to be perpetual — that unless the obligation be dissolved by the same power by which it was established, it will remain continually in force, having the same operation as in the first hour of its enactment. But it is objected : "When one generation of mortals is removed from the * 2 Eunomus. 201. 83 earth, their influence in human affairs is at an end ; and if their institutions survive, it is only because their successors choose voluntarily to adopt them." If the duration of the authority of laws were commensurate only with the ex- istence of the members, of which at the mo- ment of their enactment the community was composed, they would be obligatory upon no one born afterwards, without his individual consent. But as it cannot be denied (however loosely some writers have expressed themselves on the subject) that every man is immediately bound by the laws of the society of which he is born a member, whether he subsequently ap- prove of them or not, it is merely an abuse of terms, to say that the Legislature has "no more authority over the future and the unborn, than over the past and the dead." To be commanded (says Hooker*) we do consent, luJien that socicti/ whereof we be a part, hath at any time before consent- ed, without revoking- the same by the like universal agreement." This society is "« moral person,^' ^ capable of perpetual existence, by the continual but imperceptible accession of new members, maintaining the institutions of former ages, not by successive adoptions, but by retaii\ing one uniform will respecting them. " l-*opuluse#tex corpurum gencre, quod ex distantibus constat, * Eccles. Polity. 1.1. sec. 10, t Puffendorf. b. 4. c. 2. s. 17. o 2 84 unique nomini subjectum est ; quod habet spi- ritum unumT* The notion, therefore, of a Legislative institution becoming- *' a dead letter" on the departure of one generation, until re- vived by the succeeding, is totally irrecon- cileable with the nature of human society, ** w^herein, by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom moulding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole at one time is never old, or middle aged, or young; but in a condition of unchangeable constancy, moves on through the varied tenor of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression."! Having considered so much of the Reviewer's " reply," as bears upon what the author of this work had advanced, it only remains to observe^ that there are sundry other positions which the Reviewer has taken the opportunity, with some vehemence, to lay down — prove them indeed he could not, inasmuch as there is nothing in nature more evident. Whence any contradic- tion to those propositions could have arisen, ** like a phantasma or a hideous dream," to scare the imagination of the Reviewer, it is difficult to conceive. This only the author may undertake to say, that could his censor have pre^^ailed upon himself to give one glance * Grotius, 1. 3. c. 9. s. 3. f Burke on the French Revolution, 85 tliroiigh the vvuik. before liini, notliing of the kind would have there presented itself. " O proper stuff! This is the very painting of your fear !" It will now, it is hoped, be manifest, that this objection of the independence of the Le- gislature, like that of its omnipotence, impairs not, but rather (in the consideration of it) strengthens the position before taken, that an Oath, of which the terms were dictated, and the taking enjoined by the Legislature, must be ■ construed and performed according to the intention with which it was instituted. SECTION XIL I TUIllD OBJECTION, THAT THE KING WOOLD BE ABSOLVED FROM HIS OATH BY THE PASSING OF A BILL FOR THE CONCESSION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, EXAMINED. However demonstrable may be the futility of the last objection, it certainly avails little, if the King can be released by the following ex- pedient. ** Promises are not binding which are released by the promisee — in the case of the Coronation Oath, the people, by their re- 86 presentatives, are the promisees, and the King, at their desire, promises to maintain certain and established laws for their benefit, and for that alone. If afterwards the people call upon the King to alter or repeal those laws, it follows that the King is immediately released from his promise."^ This is more neatly expressed in the original.! After stating, that in every ease it is competent to the person to whom, or in whose favour an oath has been taken, to re- lease the person taking it from the obligation — Mr. Butler says : ** The Coronation Oath is ynade to the people as represented by parliament, therefore (upon the supposition that the Coro- nation Oath really extends to the present case) the people, represented by the parliament, beino- the only persons entitled to the benefit of the Oath, have full power and authority to release the monarch who took the Oath, and all his successors from its obligation." There is no sophism more commonly resorted to, or which more frequently escapes detection, than that which consists in the use of the same term or phrase in a different sense in one part of the argument, from that in which it is em- ployed in another. If that be not the case in the present instance, we must admit the con- clusion to have been rightly deduced, but if it * Christian Remembrancer. t Butler's Letter on the Coronation Oath. 87 be, we shall be able to form no conclusion from such false premises — except, perhaps, as to the degree of ingenuousness displayed in stating them. The Coronation Oath, we are told, is made " to the people as represented by jmrlia- ment^'' " to the people by their representatives.''' Were these expressions intended to be taken literally ? We must suppose not ; because if so taken, they would express that which is not the fact. The Oath can in no sense be said to be taken to the people representatively. Allow- ing, however, that nothing more was meant to be conveyed by these expressions, than that the Oath is taken to the people, not by their repre- sentatives, there can be no doubt that where the people are spoken of in the conclusion, as " represented by the parliament," as " calling upon the King to alter or repeal laws," they are spoken of as acting by their j^presentatives . Here then the phrases, ** the people as repre- sented by parliament," '' by their represen- tatives," do not stand for the same idea in the premises which we must infer them to signify in the conclusion, namely, the House of Com- mons, or at most, the two Houses of Parlia- ment. But it will, perhaps, be said, this is merely a verbal difference — that " the people," and ** the representatives of the people," are (as far as this question is concerned) equipotent and convertible terms. If this be so clear, 88 why, ill speaking ot" "the moral person" to whom, or for whose benefit the Oath is taken — the people, add words which, taken absolutely, render the assertion false, and which, if not so taken, are surplusage ? *' The why's as plain as way to parish church." It is to produce a seeming consonance between the premises and the conclusion. The Oath is asserted to have been taken to the people in that manner, in order to support the inference, that at the expression of the will of the " representatives of the people," the obligation of the Coronation Oath (which, for the purpose of this argument, is supposed to have " extended to the present case") is dissolved 1 Is this doctrine constitu- tional ? If the expression of the opinion of *' the representatives of the people" be suffi- cient to reduce the Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath to " a dead letter," may it not be found equally efficacious in other cases ? if we are to resort to first principles, let us at least be consistent in the application of them. Was that oath peculiarly established for the public good ? Are not all laws presumed to be enacted with the same view ? And if the peo- ple, by their representatives, declare that the longer maintaining of any of them would be detrimental, is not that upon the same prin- ciple a virtual abolition of them ?* Salus populi^ * See Milton's Iconoclustes. suprtma lev est. Presuming tliat *' tlie Corin- thian capital of society" should not j^rove a stumbling block in the way of the will of the people, shall the King, with that constitutional veto, which exists but for the public good, exercise it to the prevention of that which the people have declared would be for their good ? That surely would be an absurd constitution, of which it should be a fundamental principle, that the sovereign should have an independent, uncontrollable power, which could never be exercised without producing a collision between King and people ; — without the sovereign's de- liberately inflicting (in their opinion) an injury upon his subjects. Such is the Constitution of England, according to the doctrine that the Houses of Parliament express the will of the peo[)le, not merely when acting conjunctively with the other branch of the Legislature in the awful " Tria Juncta in iino,"' but in their sepa- rate inchoate acts and proceedings ! The Commons once passed a vote, " that whatever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in Parliament assembled, hath the force of law, and all the people of this na- tion are concluded thereby, although the con- sent or concurrence of the King or House of Peers be not had thereto."* In what respect does the principle of this resolution differ from the * Com. Juuiii. 4 Jan. 1648. 90 doctrine we are considering ? ** In laws, as in private contracts, nothing less than the power that creates the obligation is sufficient to dissolve it."* What is that power in the present case? The Reviewer, in using this objection, has him- self declared, that '* the Legislative from time to time is the imposing authority " To contend, then, that on the expression of the will of the represen- tatives of the people, the King is " immediately released " from an obligation imposed by Legis- lative authority, is, in fact, to declare that the resolution of the Commons in Parliament as- sembled, hath the fotxe of law ! The addition of the House of Lords does not add any force to the argument, or render it less unconstitu- tional. To " affirm that both, or either of the Houses of Parliament have any legislative autho- rity without the King," is a high crime against the Constitution, t Surely the doctrine that they may annul, though they cannot repeal, what has been established by the Legislature, is not consonant with, but directly opposed to, the spirit of this provision. It is opposed to that undoubted principle of our Constitution, that ** to what is enacted for law by one or two only of the three branches of the Legis- ture, no regard is due, unless in matters relating to their oivn privileges .""^ * 2 Eunom. 82. f 13 Chas. 2. chap. 1. I 1 Blac. Com. 155. 91 The end for which the people send represen- tatives to Parliament bein<^, iu join ui act.'i of legisiatio/f, it seems necessarily to follow, that in those acts only can the will of the ])eople at large be expressed, and that such proceedings of their representatives, as have not the legisla- tive sanction, must be regarded as declarative of the proper will of that representative body only. To ascribe to the substantive proceed- ings of one of the branches of the Legislature a higher quality than this, seems to be destruc- tive of that perfect equality in the business of legislation, that independence of the several branches on each other, which has been so anxiously sought to be established in our con- stitutional government, which "is so admi- rably tempered and compounded, that nothing can endanger or hurt it but destroying the equilibrium of power between one branch of the Legislature and the rest. For if ever it should happen that the independence of any one of the three should be lost, or that it shoukl become subservient to the views of the other two, there would soon be an end of our Con- stitution."* Assuming, then, the ground upon wiiich this argument of the dispensing eH'ect of a mere Bill in Parliament is i)rofessed to Ix- toundcd. it seems to atibrd no suji|Kut to such an argu- • I Bliic. Com. .'")1. 92 nieiit. The Coronation Oath was taken in the face of the people at large. There is one, and one only, recognized and legitimate mode in which (in matters of legislative cognizance) the public voice can be so expressed, as to bind or release the people. The right conclusion then must surely be, that an obligation so imposed and so incurred as the Coronation Oath has been, cannot be annulled by that which has not the essential quality of affecting the people; that which, in the eye of the Constitution, is merely the act of the assembly in which a ma- jority concurs to it ; and which, in the estima- tion of the people themselves, expresses the sentiments only of the individuals who vote for it. It seems so palpable, that what by an Act of the Legislature has been established, cannot without an Act of the Legislature be either di- rectly or indirectly annulled, that the possi- bility suggests itself of this doctrine of the dispensing power of the representatives of the people having been intended to be thus under- stood. Though the passing of a Bill in Par- liament for an object opposed to that for which the Oath was established would be not of itself sufficient to annul the Oath, yet as the con- currence of the King would then alone be want- ing to give the Bill the requisite efficacy, he would, in yielding that concurrence, give it a 93 force equal to that by wliicli the obligation was imposed ; and thus annul all previous legis- lative provisions inconsistent with the new. To this the answer is simple. The King hav- m^ incurred a specific obligation, cannot, until released fro))i that o(j/i<^atioff, do any thing incon- sistent with it. That release cannot be eftected in the manner proposed, without the Kino's individually doing that (during the subsistence of the obligation) which the obligation forbids to be done. The doctrine that any body, po- litic or natural, may in any case release itself from an obligation, Ojt/ the breach of it, is abhor- rent from every principle of good morals, and what is inseparable from them — sound policy. There is another test by which the sound- ness of this doctrine of the releasing effect of a Bill passed in the two Houses of Parliament may be tried. Should a legislator, desirous of providing against what he might consider a public evil, propose a jirovision of such a nature, that it would be nullified by the occur- rence of the mischief against which it was de- signed to provide, his jjrojmsition would, of course, be rejected as utterly absurd. In the argument we have just considered, it is ne- cessarily assumed that the Coronation Oath "does really extend to the present rase." in other words, that it is (as iar a«^ reirards the subject matter^ an impediment to tli(> con- 94 cession of the Roman Catholic Claims. This it would not be, if it did not affect the King in his legislative character ; for as there is no other way than through the Legislature by which the Roman Catholics can attain the ob- jects sought by them, if the Oath afford no im- pediment there, in no other way can it be con- ceived to " extend to the present case." If the passing a Bill for the admission of Roman Catholics would have the effect ascribed to it, it would, upon the same principle, have had the same effect in the hour in which it was taken by William and Mary, as at the present time. That effect would be to reduce the Oath to a nullity upon the occurrence of that event, against which this dispensing argument pre- supposes it to have been intended as a pro- vision, namely, the King's being required to concur to the admission of Roman Catholics. The barrier would fall when, and when only, it could have been designed to be of any use whatever ! That any single lawgiver should propose an expedient so futile, is scarcely con- ceivable ; but to contend that the Coronation Oath is such an one, is to stultify the Legis- lature of 1688, and of every succeeding time — it is to stigmatize the Act for Establishing the Oath and the Acts of Union (so far as the latter enjoin the taking of the Oath, and render it a fundamental article of those compacts) as so many monuments of legislative folly ! 9.J SECTION XIII. MR. BUTLER"'s AUTHORITIKS FROM HISTORY, IX SUPPORT OF THE LAST OBJECTION, EXAMINED. In support of the position^ that the Coronation Oath offers no obstacle to the King's assenting, if he think proper, to any Bill which may be passed by a majority in Parliament, the learned author of the ** Letter on the Coronation Oath," produces several examples of " the conduct of His Majesty's august predecessors." In matters of such notoriety, the writer fears not to be charged with presumption in noticing what appear to him to be discrepancies and errors in that statement. In material points it is surely the honcster part not to refrain from expressing dissent from the conclusions, even of those for whose capacity and erudition we entertain the highest respect, if we feel that we have just grounds for considering tliose conclusions erroneous. Should we be wrong in our views, it is probable that men of real liberality of sentiment will entertain more re- spect for our errors, than for the admissions and acknowledgments of that numerous class of persons, w^ith wlioin *' Black's not S'l hlark : nnr white so ^'rri/ white." 96 Wlio bid for a title to liberality at the cheap rate of giving up what they are (at least) indifferent about, and pique themselves upon their magnanimity, in fearlessly allowing posi- tions to be advanced without opposition, the bearings of which upon their own side of the question they do not perceive. Mr. Butler says: 1. "Each of the three founders of the Protestant Church of England, Henry VIII., Edwa?Yl VI., and Elizabeth, swore at their Coronation to support the Catholic Re- ligion as it was then established. Each pro- scribed that religion and established another. Can anything be alleged in defence of these alterations of the national religion by the mo- narchs who had sworn to preserve it, except that their parliaments consented to the change, and that their consent freed the monarchs from the obligations of their Coronation Oaths ?" It would not surely, at the outset, fail to strike any thinking person, (however unin- formed of the facts,) as very strange, that after Henry VIII. had founded the Protestant Church of England, the Protestant Edward immediately succeeding him should have sworn *• to support the Catholic Religion as it was then established !" The truth is, as the reader has seen,* that he swore simply to support " the Church of God." This, every Roman * Vide ant. p. 42. 97 Catholic, of course, understands to mean ex- clusively "the Holy Roman Church;" but Mr. Butler has not enabled his readers to dis- criminate between the simj)le fact and his in- ference from it. Even with this explanation his statement is erroneous, for what Mr. Butler means by " the Catholic Reliij^ion,"" was not then the established reli^^non — but let that pass. Mr. Butler has coujjled the case of EUzabtth with that of the others, from which we are to infer that he considers they are to be judged pari rationc, and must stand or fall together. Mis proposition then amounts to this, that those Sovereigns having been so absolved from their Oaths by the consent of their parliaments to the changes they effected, cannot be charged with having broken those Oaths ; and the con- clusion thus obtained, he applies to the present case, for " if this defence was available in those cases, why is it not" (he concludes) " equally available in the present V^ Grant it to be so, and then let Mr. Butler testify how far he himself thinks that this defence is available. He observes in his Letter (in the Book of the Roman Catholic Church) on the reign of Elizabeth,* that " the Roman Catholic Bishops all (except the Bishoj) of Carlisle, by wlmin she was crowned) refused to assist at the cere- monv of her Coronation. They considered it ' 1. tiler \V. patre '2-9. Socnnd Fxlition. II 98 to be certain either that she would not take, or would not observe, the Oath which the Kings of England took at their Coronation — 'to maintain the laws, honour, peace, and privi- leges of the Church, as in the time or grant of King Edward the Confessor.' But the Bishops did not make the smallest opposition to her Coronation," (what more effectual opposition could they have made than they did?) " they immediately did homage to her, and acknow- ledged her title to the crown. They afterwards saw her -break her Coronation Oath, and establish the Protestant Church on the ruins of the national religion !" To enter into an exculpa- tion of Elizabeth, there is here neither room nor occasion ;* it is sufficient to know what Mr. Butler thinks of the obligation she in- curred, and what was the effect with respect to that, of the conduct she pursued. As to that obligation, however, we may observe, by the way, that in putting together in one sentence the substance of several distinct clauses of the ancient Oaths, some difference in the effect seems to be produced. The reader has seen by one form')' (what will be found in all the ver- sions of the old Oaths) that the engagement was to " confirm and observe the laws, cus- * See Rev. G. Townsend's Accusations of History against the Church of Rome. Letter XV. + Vide ant. p. 46. 99 toms, a»i(I liberties granted unto the c/erai/ and laity Inj the famous King Edicard T and, in a distinct clause, to *' procure unto the Church, clergy, and people,"' simply '* peace and unity," without reference to any standard according to which the doctrinal character of the Church, or its connexion with the Roman See, was to be maintained or regulated. If, however, the reference to the constitutions of the Confessor did not apply merely to the personal rights and privileges of the hierarchy, it follows that in that case she swore (as Mr. Butler considers she did) as distinctly as if it had been so ex- pressed in words, to maintain the Roman Ca- tholic Religion established by law. Allowing then that to have been the case, to what con- clusion does the above-cited passage infallibly lead? That as Mr. Butler ch.arges Elizabeth with breaking her Coronation Oath, in assent- ing to the acts by which the national religion was changed, he must be of opinion that she was affected by the Oath in the exercise of her legislative functions ; that the consent of her parliament did not absolve her from the Oath ; and, that such consent, therefore, aftbrds equally in that case and in the present, )h> available defence against the dreadful charge of jyerjury I 2. Mr. Butler affirms, that King William the Third liaving taken the Coronation Oath in its present form, his immediately after assenting n 2 100 to a Bill for altering the Oath of Supremacy, from a positive affirmation of the Crown's eccle- siastical supremacy to a negative assertion that this supremacy was not possessed by any foreign power, whereby a numerous class of persons before excluded were admitted into power, place, " and all other civil rights of subjects/' must be considered a breach of his Coronation Oath, unless his (Mr. Butler's) interpretation be admitted. That this consequence by no means follows appears from these facts : — Firstly, At the time this measure was carried into effect, it was declared that the ease designed for Protestant Dissenters did not at all conflict with the King's duty of maintaining the Protestant Church — though it was at the same time declared to be necessary to provide sufficiently against P^pi*^*.* Secondly, The alteration in the Oath of Su- premacy was made by the Convention, the new form was inserted in the Declaration of Rights, and tendered and agreed to with all the other provisions therein contained, before William and Mary became King and Queen t — the settlement of the Crown upon them and the Protestant line of succession being consequent upon their acceptance of the terms of that declaration. Moreover, by the very first legislative act of * Vide ante page 32. t Vide ante page 38. 10 the reign of William and Mary, and therefore previously to the establishment of the Corona- tion Oath, the new oaths of allegiance and supremacy were established as to members of Parliament. By the act therefore mentioned by Mr. Butler to have been passed immediately after the Coronation Oath, establishing the new oaths as to all other persons, the Legislature only formally established a provision in effect made by the Convention and the actual Sove- reign, previous to the accession of the new dynasty to the throne. 3. " William the Third," he says, " took an oath to maintain the Church of Scotland, which was, at that time, episcopalian ; but he soon afterwards made a new settlement of the Scot- tish Church, in the presbyterian form. This was a total alteration of the Church of Scotland, and only justifiable, in respect to the Coronation Oath, by our (the Catholic) interpretation of it." In answer to this statement, it may, most re- spectfully, be observed, that it is not supported by fads, at least, as they are recorded by Bishop Burnet, the principal historian of the period, who gives a very minute account of the whole proceeding.* The resolution for a change in the Church Establishment of Scotland, from the Episcopal to the Presbyterian form, was ^ liuiiK-t's liistoiy <•• Ills' Own 'rime. vol. ii. |>|>. 23, 24, 25. 102 passed in the Scotch Convention Parliament, on the abdication of James the Second. Judg- ment of " forfeiture," as they termed it, " was passed on him, on the 11th of April, 1689," the same day on which William and Mary were crowned in England. " As they ordered/' says the historian, " the Coronation Oath to be ten- dered to them, so they drew up a claim of rights. By one of these, it was declared, that the Reformation having been begun by a parity among the clergy, prelacy was an insupportable grievance. The abolishing episcopacy in Scot- land was made a necessary article of the neio settlement. Bijthis, episcopaci/ was abolished.'^* Before William became King, he declared, in answer to an application from the episcopal clergy, that he would not interfere in support of the episcopal form, should a majority in the Scotch Parliament be against it, and should that clergy not conform to the new settlement of the government. Notwithstanding this warn- ing, the episcopal clergy adhered to James the Second, in opposition to William, and the reso- lution of the Convention was confirmed. Three commissioners having been deputed to tender the Crown of Scotland, and also the Coronation Oath, and claim of rights, the King's acceptance of the latter at the same time, and from the * Marginal Note, page 24. 103 same hands that he received the former, ren- dered his Coronation Oath an engagement to maintain the new Church Establishment of Scotland. How erroneous, therefore, must be the inference, which the passage referred to conveys, that he swore to maintain the episcopal form of church government, and afterwards (not being bound by the oath in his legislative capacity) changed it for another ! By way of opposition to this statement, it may be added, that Charles the First certainly considered himself bound by his oath not to abolish episcopacy in England. The circum- stance is alluded to by Dr. Southey, in his " Book of the Church." It was stated, more- over, and not disputed in the debate on the Co- ronation Oath,* a circumstance not unimpor- tant to the present question, — " No man," said Sir George Treby,'|" *' ever doubted that the King was bound by any oath not to alter the church government. King Charles the First thought himself bound not to alter the episcopacy." As the King cannot alter the episcopacy, but by giving his concurrence in his Legislative capaci- ty, the inference to be drawn from this pro])0- sition of Sir George Treby's, is sufficiently ob- vious. The same monarch, when urged to de- prive the Bishops of their seat in Parliament, * Second reading-, 25th of March, 1688. t Afterwards Attorney-General, and Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas. 104 replied, " I am bound to maintain them in it, as one of the fundamental constitutions of this kingdom/'* t SECTION XIV. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION. It now remains to us to retrace the principal features of the foregoing induction, comprising as it does particulars so various and so impor- tant, each bearing in some way upon the others, and the whole exhibiting a striking consonance and harmony of design. It has been shown by reference to records, the authority of which cannot be disputed, nor the sense perverted, that the leading principle upon which the Legislature of 1688 acted, was to establish the Protestant religion, and the ci- vil liberties of the country, on so firm a basis, that they might never be in danger of being again subverted. That these objects were deemed inseparable, that it was considered they would afford each other reciprocal sup- port, would, in the same proportion, flourish and decay, be threatened by the same dangers, '*' Speech to Parliament, January 25, 1640. Vide Rapin's " History of Charles the First." -j- Vide Note H. 105 and be preserved by the same securities. On the other hand, it has been shown that the Roman Catholic religion was an object of ap- prehension, because it had ever been found, from its essential qualities, politically dangerous to those interests which were most dear to the nation. We have briefly considered that series of pub- lic compacts which we designate the Constitu- tion of 1688, as originating from a deep attach- ment to the principles of genuine freedom, and a determination to restrain the influence of prin- ciples, always opposed, and always more or less dangerous to them. These compacts, it has been seen, comprise (consistently with the motives which gave them birth) two objects, each equally necessary to give efficacy to the other. In the first place, they declare that the Protestant religion, and the rights and liberties specifically mentioned, must be maintained ; and in the next place, they prescribe the "best means" to be perpetually used for their preservation. Those means, by which an end so important to the community, that every other political consideration is trivial in comparison with it, is to be attained, estab- lished the principle, that the British Constitution is e.vclusively Protestant. The strict observance of this compact, was the condition upon which the succession to the 106 Crown was settled at the Revolution. The compact itself is incorporated with the Act for the Settlement of the Crown, that so the grant and the condition being ever presented to view at the same time, the possibility of infringement or neglect might be prevented. Finally, the Legislature, in establishing the Coronation Oath, bound every sovereign, on coming to the Crown, by the most solemn obli- ofation which can affect the conscience of an accountable being, to " maintain, to the utmost of his power, the Protestant reformed religion, established by law," "in opposition' (as the framers of the Oath expressly declared) " to Popery.'' Can any one, who has given all these cir- cumstances their due consideration, seriously and sincerely doubt that one great principle upon which the Constitution was established in 1688, was that it should be exclusively Pro- testa?it? That, in establishing the Coronation Oath, the Legislature intended to set a seal to the Constitution, which should give it a more solemn sanction, should prevent the possibility of a removal of its principal '' securities," or an infringement of the provisions of the public compact of the Revolution, and render the pre- servation of those securities, and the observance of that compact (both in terms and spirit) an obligation of the most binding and sacred character ? 107 Whoever can, then, (be his opinion what it may of the. e.vpcdiency of taking away these securities, or in other words, of destroying the essential character of the British Constitution,) deliberately assert, that the admission of Ro- man Catholics to the Legislature, the Cabinet, the Privy Council, and high political offices, would not be a deviation from the line of policy, and an abolition of the principle upon which the Legislature that established our Constitution acted, and consequently, a violation of the Coro- nation Oath ; will be best answered in the lan- guage of a Whig of 1688 :*— " If, after all this, any one can be backward in doing his utmost to make good what was done in this Revolution, or be willing that we should fall back into that gulph of misery and confusion, whence we are escaped ; I confess I have no more to say to such a man." -j" * Hampden. t Vide Note I. NOTES. Note A, page 25. The. following" is the t'onn of the Declaration against Popery required by the Bill of Rights to be made by the King upon his accession, in the manner mentioned in the text. It is that required by the 30 Charles II. stat. 2. of members of the other branches of the Legislature, and which (as to the latter) is now sought to be repealed. " I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of Cod. profess, testify, and declare. That 1 do believe, that in the Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper there is not any trausubsfantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever. And that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as thei/ are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitions and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, That I do make this declaration, aiid every pait thereof, in the plain and oidinary sense of the words read imto me, as they are commonly understood by KnoJish Pro- testants, without any evasion, equivocation, or nuiilal reserva- tion whatsoever, ami without any dispensation already granted 110 NOTES. me for this purpose by the Pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or vvithout thinkino- that 1 am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning." It may here occur to the reader, that in none of the claims yet made by the Roman Catholics for " unlimited concession," has the exclusion of jiersons of that communion from the Throne, on account of their religious tenets, been touched upon as a grievance ; and that it has been frequently declared by the advocates of those claims in Parliament, that the con- cession of them would in no degree aifect the provisions for securing the Protestant succession. But let us suppose mem- bers of Parliament to be exempted from this and other tests against Popery ; how long does any rational person suppose that this declaration would remain in force as regards the Sovereign? Would it not then be urged with great force, that when this Royal Test was required to be taken before the two Houses of Parliament, it was contemplated that it would be taken in an assembly of Protestants only, and that it is not to be endured that men should be subjected in this liberal age to the pain of having their religion thus stigmatized in their presence ? an annoyance to which the Legislature of 1688 obviously never intended Roman Catholics to be sub- jected. Before the next accession, doubtless this remaining barrier, — the " issue of the deliberate thoughts and consulta- tions" of former Parliaments, and established at the Revolution as absolutely essential to the peace and security of " this Pro- testant kingdom," would be removed ! To save appearances, some other form, " with many holiday and lady terms," as efficacious as the tests in use before this declaration was framed, would perhaps be subsiituted ; and the principle of a VOTES. Ill Protestant succession he left (as the Church of Kiifrland would have been left by the Bill proposed in 1825) U> the seruriiy of the preamble of the Art of Parliament, in the body of which the existing security woidd be repealed ! Note B, page 30. Ill order that the nature of the alteration made at the Revo- lution in the form of th. Oath of Supremacy may more dis- tinctly appear, the old and the new forms are subjoined. The Oath of Supremacy prescribed by the 1st Eliz. o. 1. " I, A. B. do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, ami of all olher her Highness s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, supe- riority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, &c. and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Hiirhness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privi- leges and authnrilits granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of (his nalm. So help me Cod. and by the contents of this book." The form enacted at the Revolutitm in lieu of tlu- above, with a form of abjuration prefixed in lieii of llu- Oath of Obedience prescribed by Ihc '.\n\ Jann s I. c I. " I, A. B. do swear, That I do Irom my heart abhor, detist. and abjure, as inipions ami Inn tiral. that damnable doctrim- 112 NOTES. and position, That princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the see ot Romc^ may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And 1 do declare, That ho foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, poicer, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, unthiti this realm. So help me God." Note C, page 32. The exultation of the Dissenters, on the publication of James the Second's declaration for a general liberty of con- science, atibrds a melancholy proof of the blindness with which men, of good intentions, will often, in seeking to advance the interests of their party, neglect and even lend themselves to the destruction of those general interests, with which their own welfare, in common with that of the rest of tlie community, is intimately connected. That declaration, it will be remembered, was grounded on the suspension, by the King's " sovereign authority, prerogative royal, and absolute power," of all the laws relating to qualification for office in the State, and was accompanied by the most arbitrary and oppres- sive measures towards both individuals and public bodies. Yet could men, professing themselves the enemies of arbitrary power, thus express themselves on the occasion : — " We shall not cease to bow our knees to God, beseeching him to confer length of days, uninterrupted health, felicity in your royal relations, success in your great councils and affairs, and finally, crying, as with one voice. Let the King live for ever /" The able remonstrance which this conduct called forth from the Marquis of Halifax, in his " Letter to a Dissenter, on occasion of the Declaration of Indulgence," * contains much that will be perpetually applicable to the subject before us. " You * Somers's Tracts. 1st Coll. vol. 2. pa^e 365. NOTES. 113 cannot Hatter yourselves," lie observes, " that tlierc is any inclination to you. They never pretended to allow you any quarter, but to usher in liberty for themselves under that shelter. This alliance between liberty and infallibility, is bringing- together the two most contrary things there can be in the world. The Church of Rome doth not only dislike the allowing liberty, but, by ifs principles, it cannot do it. Wine is not more expressly forbidden to the Mahommetans, tiian giving heretics liberty, is to Papists. You are therefore to be hugged now, only that you may be better squeezed at another time. Tliose," he concludes, " who believe in modern miracles, have more right, or at least more excuse, to neglect all secular cautions ; but for us, it is as jnstifiable to have no religion at all, as rviljulhj to throw aicay the human mea)is of preserving it.'' James's correspondence (by the agency of his secretary Coleman) with the enemies of his country, aflbrds an admirable commentary upon his declaration for liberty of conscience. In the letter of the 29tli of September, 1675, to the Jesuit Le Chese,* (the confidential agent of Louis the Fourteenth,) Coleman says, " We have two great designs to attempt the next sessions ; — First, to put the Parliament upon making it their humble request to the King, that the Fleet may be put into His Royal Highnesses care. And, secondly, to get an Act for general liberty of conscience. If we carry these two, or either of than, we shall, in cilect, do what tee list after- nrtrds. If His Most Catholic Majesty could stand by us in this conjuncture, and help us with such a sum as twenty thousand pounds sterling, (which is no very great matter to venture upon such an undertaking as this,) I would be content to be sacrificed to the utmost malice of my enemies, if I did not succeed. Our prevailing in these things, will give the greatest blow to the Protestant religion here, that e\er it received since its birth." No sophistry can explain away this real Popish plot, in which l)ribery and treason were the means * Cjminous' Journal. .'JO diaries II. ICJS. I 114 NOTES. employed ; — the establishment of Popery and despotism the end in view. With resi>ect to James the Second's determina- tion to re-establisit the Romish religion,— see the Rev. Blanco White's " Practical and Internal Evidence against Catho- licism," pp. 42, 43. 45. Note D, page 37. It is vsrorthy of notice, that in this declaration, in which the rights of the subject axe so carefully and explicitly set forth, that " indefeasible right" as it is now termed, of every member of the community to be admitted to political power, is not so much as hinted at. It is obviously very distinguish- able from civil liberty, being defined to be, " a power to make laws, and annex such penalties to them, as may tend to the preservation of the whole." * It never seems to have occurred to the legislators of that day, that there can be any natural and inherent right to that power, which, having " its original only from compact ami agreement, and the mutual consent of those who make up the community," f is simply withholden by the only authority competent to confer it. The following passage expresses tlie sentiments of a great states- man, than whom no one better understood the principles of civil liberty, or more consistently maintained them. "As to the share of power, authority, and direction which each individual ought to have in the management of the State, that (says Burket) / must deny to he amongst the direct original rights of man in civil society , for I have in my contemplation, the civil social man, and no other. // is a tiling to be settled by convention." IMr. Pitt also was of opinion that " the idea of right to civil offices was highly absurd and ridiculous." § * Locke on Goverimicnt, chapter 15. f ^^d. I On the French Revolution. § Debate on the Corpuratiun and Tobt Luw.s. 2. Mar. 1790, NOTES. 115 The lollowing observations occur ou tliis subject, in the letter, written by the pensionary I'^agel, (by the desire ot the Prince an«( Piinccss of" ()ran<;e,) in answrr to an application of J;unes the Second, tor their consent to the repeal ot" the Test and [>«nal laws.* " No Christian ou^lit to be prosecuted for his con science, or be ill used because he differs troin the public or established religion." " They were ready, if recjuired by the King, to give their concurrence to the repeal of the -penal Ifurs, provided always that those laws remain still in their full vigour, by which the Roman Catholics are shut out of both houses of parliament, and out of all public employments, ecclesiastical, civil, and military; as likewise all those other laws which confirm the Protestant religion, and which secure it against the attempts of the Roman Catholics. Jt is certain that there is no king- dom, commonwealth, or any constituted body or asscnd)ly whatsoever, in which there are not laws made for the safety thereof; and that to provide against all attempts whatsoever to disturb their peace; -AmX \\\?i.i prescribe the condUions ami fjua'ities tiiat tliey may judge necessary for all that shall bear cmploynients in that kingdom, state, or corporation, " They declare, therefore, that they could not give their consent to the abrogation of *' those laws, which have no other tendency, but the security of tiie reformed religion, and to the restrain- ing of the Roman Catholics from a capacity of orerturning it." As these sentiments were expressed previously to the occur- rence of the circumstances which more immediately led to the Revolution, they were evidently cntertaiiu'd by \\ illiani as maxims of government proper to be permanently maintained in this i'rotestant state. Upon his accession to the throne his conduct was |>erfectly in unison with these sentiments'. It is not loo much to sav that the character and conduct ot this Prince have not ncciverl full justice at the hands of postirit\ Mis view of toleration doul)tless was tiiat no man ought to be • Lord Suincfb'tt Tracb. I (Oil. vul. 2. pagr ."j1» I -J 116 NOTES. subjected to suttiering in any shape or in any degree, on account of religious error as such. And that with this view does not conflict the duty of the Statesman to observe and to provide against tbe influence of the religious and other prin- ciples which any individuals may entertain prejudicial in their tendency to the institutions which the community has established. Had all with whom his name is " familiar in their mouths as household words," applied themselves to ascertain and vindicate the golden mean which he observed between the extremes of faction, they would have paid a better tribute to " the glorious memory of William the Third " than by employing his name as a brand to kindle on all sides the worst passions of our nature ! Note E, page 44. Among the papers of an eminent legal writer and antiquary (Mr. Hargrave) * is a note upon an objection to the utility of the Coronation Oath, which objection, as it may have occurred to others, it will be proper here to notice. " It is objected, that our Kings succeeding by inheritance, are Kings, and legally exercise the royal authority, before their taking the Coronation Oath." This it is shown in that paper was not originally the case, the King not being invested with the rights of Sovereignty until his Coronation, Considering however the matter with reference to our present Constitution, it is strictly true that when the King dies his successor being instantly King, is necessarily so without passing through the ceremony of a Coronation, and that therefore the forms attendant upon that ceremony are unessential to his title. So with respect to his duties: "■ When any prince succeeds, he must necessarily succeed only in the right and upon the terms of his prede- * Ilaisr. 3Iss. No. 19. art. o. British Museum NO'IF.S. 1 17 cessors, a)iil his takintr Ujx'n hint the roval ;\uthoiit\ is ijjro facto a vii-tiial obliging liimself to perlorm all the duties and promises which were the grounds of its being conferred on his predecessors ; just as sul)jects by claiming and enjoying protection are obliged to pay allegiance to their princes, even before they have engaged themselves bv oath so to do."* We cannot however allow this argument to render futile all the precautions which the great men of 1688 took to give stability to the Constitution In defining more accurately than had yet been done the royal prerogatives and duties, they regarded tlw office. Hut had they stopped at the t/ieory of the Kingly character, and regarded merely the political person, without taking- measures to affect t/te inrni, (he main end thev h;\d in view would have been frustrated. The King in law indeed never dies, but the man w ho succeeds to the office of King is bound by the usages of the realm (which with us are a specij^s of law) personally in the fare of his people to acknowledge the duties which he has to perform, and to call upon the Supreme Being (to \\ lioin alone he is accountable) to w ituess the due performance of them. This was an occasion which it was ob- vious might be rendered of great practical utility in being made conducive to the strict observance of those duties whis. and insincere in professing that he had always entertained them.* The lirst article of this charge is sufiicioutly disproved by the evidence of which we are now in possession, that he diligently sought counsel, and in relying afterwaids upon his own judgment, acted consonantly with the advice he rLceivrd. The charge of insincerity arises out of the alleged incon- sistency of his conduct, in refusing, after having as.sented to the rej)eal of so many laws aflecting Roman ('atholics, to lend his concurrence to the repeal of the remainder. It is here boldly assimu'd, not only that there is no distinction in prin ciple between the laws rej)eale(l and (iiose which k niiiin. hiil th(d file Ki)if^ did nut tirl njititi //ir hilicf of the exis/airc of • KtliiilMiri;li Ucvu'U, N«i, <»l. 124 NOTES, such a distinction — for it" lie did so act, he could not be in- sincere. Whatever may be thought (by some) of the correct- ness of his views, it requires not much sagacity to perceive, (from the manner in which he characterizes the remaining laws,) nor much candour to acknowledge, the grounds upon which that benevolent and upright Prince acted, under whose auspices commenced, and whose hand completed, the demoli- tion of the penal fabric. He doubtless considered that the Penal Laws were neither primarily designed to be, nor were in themselves, securities to the Ecclesiastical State. When, therefore, the Civil State no longer needed them, he thought himself bound to concur in their repeal. On the contrary, those legislative provisions, which were declared at the time of the establishment of the Oath he had taken, and of that settlement which give him his title to the crown, to be the securities of the " Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law," he thought himself (certainly not without reason) bound by his Oath to maintain. Wise and good men on both sides of the Roman Catholic Question will see and respect his motives ; they will turn with disgust from every ettbrt to hold him up to contempt for his scrupulous regard to his Oath, from every unseemly allusion to his dreadful affliction, or to the differences which may have embittered some of his hours of reason. LONDON : IBOTSON AND PALMER, PRINTERS, bAVOY STREET, STRAKD. UC SOUTHERN R[ AA 000 949 201