★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
m Protected "JB/097/174/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/097/174/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/097/174/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p><!-- pencil -->9 Feb. 1812<lb/> | |||
<!-- pencil --><head>Evidence</head></p> | |||
<p>Morning Chronicle 1 Feb<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 1812.</p> | |||
<p>The Earl of Buckinghamshire ..... entered<lb/> | |||
upon the subject of the Coronation Oath which<lb/> | |||
he maintained for the wisest reasons restrained<lb/> | |||
the Crown from acceding to the Catholic<lb/> | |||
Emancipation. – He put it to the House<lb/> | |||
whether they would take advantage of the<lb/> | |||
continued indisposition of the King, to do an<lb/> | |||
act, which they knew, from the commencement, had<lb/> | |||
refusal.</p> | |||
<p>Lord Grey said ..... The Noble Earl<lb/> | |||
who spoke last, had received an argument if argument<lb/> | |||
it could be called, which it might have been<lb/> | |||
expected would by this time have sunk from obloquy<lb/> | |||
into oblivion. – The Coronation Oath was again brought<lb/> | |||
before them. – Did the Noble Lord mean to say that<lb/> | |||
that Oath was taken by the King in a legislative<lb/> | |||
capacity? – And if he did not would he be bold enough<lb/> | |||
to contend that the oath taken by the Monarch<lb/> | |||
in his Executive capacity, limited qualified or debased<lb/> | |||
the supreme and paramount power of the Legislature.<lb/> | |||
(<hi rend="underline">Hear, Hear</hi>!) If he did, he asked when did this<lb/> | |||
new light first burst upon the Noble Lord? Was the<lb/> | |||
Noble Earl illuminated with this great constitutional<lb/> | |||
discovery, at the time when he himself, as Lord Lieutenant<lb/> | |||
of Ireland, recommended to the Irish Parliament the repeal<lb/> | |||
of certain disqualifying statutes. (Hear, Hear.) The<lb/> | |||
repeal of these were as much as as directly in violation<lb/> | |||
of these as the full Grant of Emancipation could be supposed<lb/> | |||
to be. If the Coronation Oath bound the King to a<lb/> | |||
strict adherence legislatively to the system as it stood at the<lb/> | |||
time of taking the oath, then was the repeal of every penal statute<lb/> | |||
a violation of that oath: – but it was a waste of time to pursue it<hi rend="superscript">⊞1</hi> <note><hi rend="superscript">⊞1</hi> further – the oath<lb/> | |||
had never been so<lb/> | |||
understood – it was<lb/> | |||
originally designed not<lb/> | |||
to shackle the Legislative<lb/> | |||
Powers of the<lb/> | |||
Three Estates, but to<lb/> | |||
secure them against<lb/> | |||
any abuse of power<lb/> | |||
on the part of the<lb/> | |||
Executive, – it was<lb/> | |||
to defend the subject<lb/> | |||
against the King<lb/> | |||
and not to furnish<lb/> | |||
the King with a<lb/> | |||
negative instrument<lb/> | |||
against the happiness<lb/> | |||
of the people.</note></p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}} |
9 Feb. 1812
Evidence
Morning Chronicle 1 Feby 1812.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire ..... entered
upon the subject of the Coronation Oath which
he maintained for the wisest reasons restrained
the Crown from acceding to the Catholic
Emancipation. – He put it to the House
whether they would take advantage of the
continued indisposition of the King, to do an
act, which they knew, from the commencement, had
refusal.
Lord Grey said ..... The Noble Earl
who spoke last, had received an argument if argument
it could be called, which it might have been
expected would by this time have sunk from obloquy
into oblivion. – The Coronation Oath was again brought
before them. – Did the Noble Lord mean to say that
that Oath was taken by the King in a legislative
capacity? – And if he did not would he be bold enough
to contend that the oath taken by the Monarch
in his Executive capacity, limited qualified or debased
the supreme and paramount power of the Legislature.
(Hear, Hear!) If he did, he asked when did this
new light first burst upon the Noble Lord? Was the
Noble Earl illuminated with this great constitutional
discovery, at the time when he himself, as Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland, recommended to the Irish Parliament the repeal
of certain disqualifying statutes. (Hear, Hear.) The
repeal of these were as much as as directly in violation
of these as the full Grant of Emancipation could be supposed
to be. If the Coronation Oath bound the King to a
strict adherence legislatively to the system as it stood at the
time of taking the oath, then was the repeal of every penal statute
a violation of that oath: – but it was a waste of time to pursue it⊞1 ⊞1 further – the oath
had never been so
understood – it was
originally designed not
to shackle the Legislative
Powers of the
Three Estates, but to
secure them against
any abuse of power
on the part of the
Executive, – it was
to defend the subject
against the King
and not to furnish
the King with a
negative instrument
against the happiness
of the people.
Identifier: | JB/097/174/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 97. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1812-02-09 |
|||
097 |
evidence |
||
174 |
evidence |
||
001 |
morning chronicle 1 feb 1812 |
||
collectanea |
1 |
||
recto |
[[page_numbering::f15[?]]] |
||
31558 |
|||