At

tending to affect his Majesty's public acts. acts. In those acts it was never at any time possible for the King of England to maintain a course systematically and constantly opposed to the will of Parliament: he might, indeed, in frequent instances oppose the wishes of his people, either in resisting their caprices or in indulging his own; but to maintain such opposition, in a systematic line of conduct, is what no King has successfully attempted since the first opening of our constitutional liberty. any time then, at any previous period of our history, the religious opinions of the King, if opposed to the resolute will of Parliament, could have exerted but little influence on his public conduct. At present the case is very much stronger, as will readily be acknowledged by all who have watched the recent progress of events; and more especially those of May, 1832. On the 17th of that month in particular, a scene took place in the House of Lords, in which we are furnished with a very vivid and forcible proof of the dependence of His present Majesty on the will of his Parliament.

In the debate on that night, as reported in the Mirror of Parliament, the following words are attributed to Lord Lyndhurst.

"When I was introduced to his Majesty he was pleased to say, he was wholly unprepared for the situation in which he found himself placed, that he had sent to his former chancellor, to consult and advise with me as to the course he should pursue. His Majesty was desirous that I should collect

information and communicate it to him, with respect to the state of the country and the state of parties, in order that he might have materials to guide him in the difficult situation in which he was placed."

This subject is further elucidated by the Duke of Wellington, as follows:

"Your Lordships will recollect that in the course of the last week, I think it was Wednesday, his Majesty's ministers informed your Lordships that they had offered certain advice to his Majesty, in reference to the important subject of the Reform Bill; and as his Majesty had not thought proper to follow that advice, they had considered it their duty to tender their resignations to his Majesty, which resignations his Majesty was pleased to accept. His Majesty was graciously pleased on that occasion, on which he was left so entirely alone by his ministers, to send for a noble friend of mine, to enquire whether, in his opinion, there were any means of forming a government for his Majesty **** My noble friend came to me and informed me of the difficulty of his Majesty's situation **** and I stated that I was ready to serve his Majesty in any or no capacity, so as best to assist him in carrying on a Government to resist the advice that had been given him by his late ministers *** The only course of proceeding at this eventful crisis, worthy of the men with whom I have the honour to be connected, was to counsel his Majesty to resist the advice that had been given him, IF HE COULD FIND MEANS OF CARRYING

I feel that if I had been capable of saying to his Majesty, I cannot assist you in this affair,' I do not think I could have shewn my face in the streets for shame at having done so for shame at having abandoned my Sovereign under such distressing circumstances **** It was impossible that I should shrink from his Majesty in the distressing circumstances in which he was placed *** But, my Lords, when I found that in consequence of the discussions on Monday in ANOTHER PLACE, when I found from these discussions that it was impossible to form a Government from that House of such a nature as to secure the confidence of the country, I felt it my duty to inform his Majesty that I could not fulfil the commission with which he was pleased to honour me, and his Majesty informed me that he would renew his communications with his former ministers.”

From this declaration of the Duke of Wellington we learn, at the first glance, that in a case where his Majesty has a strong opinion, and is prepared to maintain it, without flinching from the most "difficult" and " distressing" circumstances; when moreover, he is "assisted" in maintaining it, with no ordinary zeal, and by no ordinary person, still the discussions of one night in the House of Commons may compel him to abandon it; may prove to a very firm man that it is "impossible to form a Government from that House," without acceding

to the terms it requires, and therefore impossible for himself to "assist" his Majesty in "resisting." This much we learn at a first glance-farther examination will teach us more. The terms which the House of Commons required of the King, and to which he was compelled to accede, were of a kind peculiarly relevant to the subject now under consideration and his Majesty's submitting to them proves, not only that in some cases he may be compelled to submit against his conscience, but that he may be so compelled in spite of the most sacred religious obligations.

Every one knows that the advice tendered to his Majesty on the above occasion was, to create a sufficient number of Peers to force the Reform Bill through the House of Lords. It is also well known that this Bill was opposed by the Bishop of Exeter, on the ground that it must "extinguish the Protestant power which was retained in the then existing Corporations in Ireland," and that for this reason it was contrary to the Coronation Oath. Also that Lord Grey answered this objection by stating, that the King, in consenting to this Bill, would be acting only in his Legislative capacity, whereas the Coronation Oath bound him only in his Executive; admitting thereby, that if the Coronation Oath bound his Majesty in both capacities, he could not consent, i. e. that the Bill was contrary to the principles to which his Majesty was pledged in his Executive capacity. It appears then that on this memorable occasion, Lord Grey in the

first instance, reconciled his Master's conscience to passing this Bill, because in passing it he should have to act only Legislatively; then, finding that this would not do, advised him to act Executively, which, by his own showing, was a violation of the Coronation Oath; and when his Majesty shrunk from this, forced the advice [upon him] by the threats of the House of Commons. "Voila les hommes de qui vous consentiriez à recevoir vos premiers Pasteurs.”

Such is the Supreme Head of the Church. I shall not myself presume to decide whether it is safe or wise for us to trust our most valued interests in such hands, relying on the difference which subsists between his Majesty's own religious opinions and those of his Parliament. Yet this I would remark, that to the Coronation Oath at least we cannot look with any reasonable confidence.

§ 4. [State Interference considered on the principles of Former Times.]

In speaking of the incompetence of our present Governors to interfere in the spiritual concerns of the Church, I may appear to some persons to be speaking evil of the powers that be.

That impression may perhaps be counteracted by the following considerations.

(1.) Although by "the Powers that be" we generally understand our Civil Governors, and though it is quite evident St. Paul was alluding to those