Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:41:58.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Exclusion of Catholics from the Lord Chancellorship, 1673–1954

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

F. J. Grady
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The composition and policies of Charles Il’s Cabal ministry in the years 1667-73 provoked a vigorous reaction from the Pension Parliament. It forced the king to cancel his Declaration of Indulgence in March 1672 as being both unconstitutional and dangerous to the Church, for it implied a prerogative power to suspend Acts of Parliament and it facilitated the already alarming growth of Popery under the patronage of Louis XIV. In the following year, in order to make another Cabal impossible, Parliament passed an “Act for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish recusants”, commonly called the Test Act. By it, all Catholics holding office under the Crown were deprived by the simple device of demanding that they should take the oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance of Elizabeth and James I respectively; receive the Sacrament according to the usage of the Church of England, and make this Declaration :

“I, A.B., do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord,s Supper, or in the elements of bread and wine at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever”.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , October 1965 , pp. 166 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Tanner, J. R.: English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century (1948), 229–32Google Scholar. Grant, Robertson, C.: Select Statutes, Cases and Documents (1922), 74–80.Google Scholar

2. 25 Car. II.c.2.

3. 30 Car., II.stat.2.c.1. Grant, Robertson: op. cit. 86–92 Google Scholar. Cf. also, for oaths and the common law obligation of allegiance, Stephen, J.: Laws of England (1874), vol. 2, 402–4Google Scholar, and McDonagh, M.: Parliament (1902), 209.Google Scholar

4. In the Tablet:. May 15, 1909, 762-6, and August 13, 1910, 242-3, Fr. Thurston, S.J., argues to Oates’ probable share in drafting the text of the Declaration. Grant, Robertson, op. cit., 86 Google Scholar, nevertheless speaks of a “carefully-worded Declaration”. Dr. Johnson's observation to Boswell is apposite: “Sir, there is no idolatry in the Mass. They believe God to be there and they adore Him”.

5. 1 Gul. & Mar.c.18.

6. 1 Gul. & Mar.st.2.c.2. — confirmed by the Act of Settlement, 1701, 12 & 13 Gul.III.c.2.

7. 10 Geo.IV.c.7. Grant, Robertson, op. cit., 317–27.Google Scholar

8. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 148, 1112-13 H.C.

9. 9 Geo.IV.c.7.

10. Grant, Robertson: op. cit., 318 Google Scholar, for the text of the oath.

11. 10 Geo.IV.c.7.s.l2. For the offices of Lord Keeper and Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal, Anson, cf.: Law and Custom of the Constitution (1907), Vol. 2, Part I, 154–5.Google Scholar

12. 13 Gul.III.c.6. Grant, Robertson: op. cit., 160–1.Google Scholar

13. Campbell-Bannerman, in the Commons debate, February 4th, 1891; cf. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 349, 1734 H.C.

14. Ibid.

15. 21 & 22 Vict. c.48.

16. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 181, 453-9, H.C.

17. 29 & 30 Vict.c.l9.st.6.

18. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 181, 1721, H.C.

19. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 182, 641, H.C.

20. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 184, 87, H.C; cf. also the complaint of Lord Kimberley, quoted in the Tablet, May 28th, 1910.

21. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 185, 113.

22. Ibid., 1094 cf. also, vol. 349, 1745 ft, H.C., for Mr. Asquith's remarks on the connection between the office of the Chancellor and the Keeper of the King's Conscience.

23. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 185, 1120-1, and vol. 349, 1749, H.C.

24. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 349, 1745, H.C.

25. 30 & 31 Vict.c.62. 30 & 31 Vict.c.75 (1867), admitted Roman Catholics to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

26. Lilly, W. & Wallis, J.: Manual of Law Specially Affecting Catholics (1893), 38–43, for various interpretations; cf. also, Appendix C.Google Scholar

27. 31 & 32 Vict.c.72; 34 & 35 Vict.c.48.

28. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 349, 1735, H.C.

29. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 349, 1749, H.C.

30. Hansard: 3rd Series, vol. 211, 280-3, H.C, May 6th, 1872.

31. Mr. Asquith in the Commons debate.

32. Cf. note 6 supra.

33. Lee, S.: Edward VII, vol. II, 22–3.Google Scholar

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid., 24.

36. Tablet, May 28th, 1910, 874.

37. Tablet, May 22nd, 1909, 801: “The speech of the Prime Minister was everything we could desire — only he ended by running away from his own conclusions.”

38. 10 Edw.VII & 1 Geo.V.c.29 (Accession Declaration Act).

39. Cf. supra, 170-1.

40. Lilly, W. & Wallis, J.: op. cit., 182.Google Scholar

41. Constitutional History of England (1948 reprint), 521.

42. Stephen, J.: Laws of England, vol. 2, 709.Google Scholar

43. Keir, D.: Constitutional History of Modern Britain (1950 ed.), 526.Google Scholar

44. “… it seems hardly possible that any person other than a Protestant would be appointed Lord Chancellor without clarifying legislation.”— Simonds (ed.): Laws of England, 3rd. ed. 1954, vol. 7, 367, note q.Google Scholar