Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:51:30.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Royal Declaration Against Transubstantiation and the Struggle Against Religious Discrimination in the Early Twentieth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

Joseph M. Fewster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historians have paid little attention to the controversy provoked when Edward VII, in conformity with the Bill of Rights (1689) and Act of Settlement (1701) made the ‘Declaration against Transubstantiation’ which grossly insulted the Roman Catholic faith. Angry protests by Catholics in England were replicated even more strongly throughout the empire and issues of constitutional importance were raised which remain alive to the present day. The records of the lengthy parliamentary debates on this matter between 1901 and 1910 show that despite lingering suspicion of the Roman Catholic Church, and determination that no one professing that faith should ever occupy the throne, most members of both houses regarded Catholics as loyal citizens who should no longer be affronted at the beginning of the sovereign's reign by language born of a bygone age. Even so, to devise a formula which while removing what gave offence could satisfy the diverse interests involved when the religious and political spheres impinged on each other proved extremely difficult. The difficulty was increased because a large proportion of the general public regarded the declaration as a vital safeguard to the Protestant succession to the throne which made politicians hesitant to tamper with what had become ‘woven into the very texture of religious belief and adhesion’ in the country. It is worthwhile, therefore, to examine the various attempts to deal with this ‘thorny and difficult question’, which finally led to a revised declaration being forced in great haste through the House of Commons amid loud protests at what was considered unprecedented procedure.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 555 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 2011

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 J.A. Clyde, opposing revision of the declaration, 28 July 1910, PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, cols 2414–8.

2 Lord Salisbury on stating that a bill to deal with the declaration would be introduced, 8 July 1901, PD, 4th series, vol. 96, col. 1108.

3 According to Swift MacNeill, MP, Lord Herries, who was close to the King when he made the declaration, said he never saw anyone so embarrassed and confused as he was, as if the language hurt not only his own feelings but those of all around him, PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, col. 2213. Herries, one of the Roman Catholic peers, said ‘I could not but admire the tact which His Majesty showed in the manner in which he read the declaration, the low tone being evidently intended to make the words as little as possible offensive to the ears of the Roman Catholics who were present’, 19 March 1901, PD, 4th series, vol. 91, cols 367–74.

4 Augustine Birrell, Chief Secretary for Ireland, described the declaration as ‘a thing of shreds and patches’. He traced the words about transubstantiation to an ordinance of the Long Parliament of 1643, repeated in the Test Acts of 1673 and 1678, and what he termed ‘the long rigmarole’ at the end of the declaration to an oath of abjuration composed by Archbishop Bancroft and a renegade Jesuit under James I, PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, col. 2232. It is strange that the denial of transubstantiation is applied to ‘the Lord's Supper’, a non-Catholic communion service, and reference to the consecration of the bread and wine is mentioned apart from the Roman Catholic Mass in which the consecration takes place.

5 Sir Sidney, Lee, King Edward VII, A Biography (2 volumes, London, 1927), 2, p. 23.Google Scholar The quotation is from the Irish national paper The Freeman's Journal, 9 July 1901.

6 Edward VII to Lord Salisbury, 17 February 1901, quoted Lee, King Edward VII, vol. 2, p. 23.

7 Some Public Protests against the Royal Declaration from Distant Parts of the Empire, copy in EGP, 4th Earl, 245/9. As we shall see below, Albert 4th Earl Grey was keenly interested in this subject. There is a file of papers concerning it under the above reference.

8 PD, 4th series, vol. 89, cols 241, 255, 320–21, 392, 554, 872–3, 950; PD, vol. 90, cols 1186–8; PD, vol. 91, cols 255–6; PD, vol. 92, cols 473–5.

9 22 February 1901, PD, 4th series, vol. 89, cols 816–7; 19 March 1901, PD, vol. 91, cols 378–80.

10 PD, 4th series, vol. 89, cols 818–19.

11 Lords Salisbury and Herries, 22 February 1901, PD, 4th series, vol. 89, cols 816–17, 819–20; 19 March 1901, Herries, Braye and Salisbury, PD, 4th series, vol. 91, cols 369–80; 14 May 1901, Herries, PD vol. 94, col. 569; Salisbury, 21 May, PD vol. 94, col. 754.

12 Lord Salisbury agreed with Herries that it would be best if the Roman Catholic peers stood aside, PD, 4th series, vol. 91, cols 778–80. The Archbishop of York later stated that application for membership of the committee had been made to a leading member of the government but the reply discouraged further endeavour, 8 July 1901, PD, 4th series, vol. 96, col. 1125.

13 Memorandum from the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic Church in England on the Royal Declaration, June 1901, copy in EGP, 4th Earl, 245/9. The reference to ‘the majority of Christians’ presumably included those of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Several opponents of the declaration observed that it insulted the faith of relatives of the royal family who had recently attended the funeral of Queen Victoria.

14 Statement presented to the Select Committee on the King's declaration by the Imperial Protestant Federation, 21 June 1901, copy in EGP, 4th Earl, 245/9.

15 Reportfrom the Select Committee of the House of Lords, 25 June 1901.

16 The Roman Catholic peers concurred that they should not sit on the committee, but ‘they had not the slightest idea that all efforts would be avoided which could bring to the intelligence of the committee what it was we objected to in the declaration or in what direction our hopes for a change pointed’, Duke of Norfolk, 1 August 1901, PD, 4th series, vol. 98, cols 811–12. He later repeated that they had expected to be consulted, 1 July 1904, PD, 4th series, vol. 137, col. 268.

17 Lee, Edward VII, vol. 2, pp. 23–4.

18 Grey (1851–1917), a friend of Cecil Rhodes, had been Administrator of Rhodesia 1896–7 and was a director of the British South Africa Company. He was Governor General of Canada 1904–11. He had an attractive personality and, despite some dubious associates, maintained a reputation for fair play and integrity which made his name desirable on company prospectuses. Towards the end of his life he promoted a scheme to house the offices of all the self-governing dominions in a prestigious building in the heart of London to be known as ‘Dominion House’, but the project came to nought.

19 Order for the Day, 1 July 1901, but Halsbury declared ‘I must repudiate the responsibility of moving that the Report be now considered’. For this and the discussion that followed the Arch-bishop's intervention and Grey's speech see PD, 4th series, vol. 96, cols 1103–33.

20 Crewe's statement, 1 July 1904, PD, 4th series, vol. 137, col. 293.

21 Glasgow Herald, 9 July 1901. The Scotsman, 9 July, reported that Halsbury ‘took Grey to task in a long series of biting sentences’.

22 Press cuttings and other printed material in EGP, 4th Earl, 245/9.

23 PD, 4th series, vol. 97, cols 966–70.

24 Ibid., cols 1264–8.

25 PD, 5th series, Commons, 19, col. 2375. The time at which the declaration was to be taken was laid down in section 10 of the Bill of Rights. See also below, note 38.

26 PD, 4th series, vol. 97, cols 1264–94.

27 Committee and report stages, 1 August 1901, PD, 4th series, vol. 98, cols 792–831; debate on the 3rd reading, ibid., 1226–37.

28 PD, 4th series, vol. 98, cols 1232–5. This exchange between Lords Salisbury and Llandaff sounded the death knell of the measure.

29 The bill was ordered to be printed on 18 June 1903. There is much material on this attempted revision in EGP, 4th Earl, 245/9.

30 PD, 4th series, vol. 124, cols 494–528.

31 Norfolk to Grey, 25 June 1903, EGP, 4th Earl, 245/9.

32 1 July 1904, PD, 4th series, vol. 137, col. 275.

33 Debate on the motion, ibid. cols 277–313.

34 10 July 1905, PD, 4th series, vol. 149

35 24 November 1908, PD, 4th series, vol. 197, cols 134–140; 233–48.

36 9 December 1908, ibid., cols 510–11.

37 PD, 5th series, Lords, vol. 1, cols 663–5.

38 5 August 1909, PD,5th series, Lords, vol. 2, cols 957–61. Braye queried whether the parliament at which the declaration was taken was the first 'next after' the king's accession, as the Bill of Rights required, or whether it was in fact the second session of the last parliament of the late queen.

39 1 August 1910, PD,5th series, Lords, vol. 6, cols 604-6.

40 Roy, Jenkins, Asquith (London, 1964), p. 213.Google Scholar Lee, Edward VII, vol.2, p. 25 incorrectly states that ‘the king's successor took the oath in the old form’. Philip Magus repeats this error in King Edward the Seventh(London, 1964), p. 293.

41 PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 18, cols 845–53.

42 Ibid., cols 853–83.

43 PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, cols 20–21; 2133–4.

44 Ibid., cols 1229–41.

45 Ibid., col. 1241. On Nonconformist opposition as stated by Mr. Moore, see ibid., col. 2162.

46 The long debate is reported in PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, cols 1241–2250.

47 Ibid., col. 2356.

48 Ibid., cols 2367–8. Another protester, Walter Long, spoke of the change being ‘forced on Parliament at the end of the session and in a few hours by a process of debate without precedent making debate a farce’, and the alteration being made in ‘a violent and exceptional manner’. ibid., cols 2356–8.

49 Ibid., cols 2374–5.

50 Ibid., cols 2425–8, 2443–6, 2452–6.

51 Asquith, ibid., cols 2413–4. C. Craig (Antrim South) declared that ‘faithful Protestant’ was impossible to define and was ‘not worth the breath with which it is spoken’, ibid., cols 2425–8.

52 Ibid., cols 2485–7, 2490.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 PD,

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 Earl of Meath, ibid., cols 659–60.

64 Asquith, PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, col. 2573.

65 Ibid., cols. 2546–8.

66 Lord Braye, PD, 5th series, Lords, vol. 6, cols 604–6. The Duke of Norfolk also thanked the leader of the opposition, the Archbishop of Canterbury and all others concerned for the very generous treatment the matter had received, ibid., cols 623–4.

67 The Earl of Crewe made this point strongly, ibid., cols 606–12.

68 Crewe, ibid., cols 657–8; the Archbishop of Canterbury also mentioned the ‘luxuriant flood of literature’ poured on them, ibid., cols 612–18. A.J. Balfour spoke of being ‘overwhelmed’ like everyone else by letters on this subject, PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, col. 2179, and F.B. Mildmay referred to the large number of printed postcards which led him to think that the senders had not ‘gone thoroughly into the matter’ ibid., cols 2197–99.

69 Lord Balfour of Burleigh, PD, 5th series, Lords, vol. 6, cols 631–4.

70 Archbishop of Canterbury, ibid., cols 612–18.

71 Viscount Halifax, ibid., cols 626–9.

72 Archbishop of Canterbury, ibid., cols 612–18.

73 Quotation, the Earl of Crewe, ibid., cols 606–12. The Archbishop of Canterbury declared that much of the misunderstanding engendered might have been avoided if it had been remembered that even the most doctrinal words in the declaration were political rather than religious in intent and effect, ibid., cols 612–18.

74 James Hope, PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, cols 2422–4.

75 Walter Runciman, ibid., col. 2568. In 1901 Lord Stanmore pointed out that the powers of the monarch had been diminished, PD, 4th series, vol. 98, cols 799–800.

76 ‘The new words as a religious test are wholly illusory and as a political expression entirely unmeaning’, Mitchell-Thomson, PD, 5th series, Commons, vol. 19, cols 2149–57.

77 Laurence Hardy did not think the proposal would be accepted as a good solution to ‘a very difficult constitutional point’ when the people see that ‘this declaration is not a real one because the government do not believe any declaration is necessary, but merely one put forward to satisfy what they regard as the perfectly unnecessary fears of a certain number of people’, ibid. col. 2360.