Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 5, 2025
But again, there is a vast difference between the members of parliament, simply considered in their private capacities, wherein they may be supposed to take an oath to maintain the laws of the land; and that public capacity of a parliament, whereby they are judges of those laws, and may, as I said before, endeavour the removal of such as are found pernicious to the church or state, and make such as will advantage the welfare of others; his majesty being bound by his coronation-oath, to confirm these laws, which the commons shall agree upon and present unto his majesty.
She had already, in presence of twelve Scottish counsellors, taken the coronation-oath for that kingdom; but those who wanted to embroil the affairs of their country, affirmed that this was an irregular way of proceeding, and that the oath ought to have been tendered by persons deputed for that purpose either by the parliament or the privy council of the kingdom.
Did he break through his coronation-oath, then the pledge of loyalty made by the people was considered to be in consequence without any binding force, and his subjects were released from their obedience. In this way, then, also private property was not likely to be deemed equivalent to absolute possession.
It is true that the courts did much to soften the execution of these laws; but the judges, with the best intentions, were sometimes powerless; and all judges did not mean to act fairly by heretics. Slowly, during the lifetime of a generation, the Protestants gained ground. The coronation-oath contained a clause by which the king promised to exterminate heretics.
Meanwhile, the secular enemies of Ireland were not idle. Emancipation that is the political franchise they called a "Utopian dream," which they asserted England could not grant. Was it not directly opposed to the coronation-oath, nay, to the English Constitution? The king himself was, and publicly declared himself to be, of this opinion.
These delegates, meeting at Cognac in June, 1527, formally repudiated the cession, being opposed, they said, to the laws of the kingdom, to the rights of the king, who could not by his sole authority alienate any portion of his dominions, and to his coronation-oath, which superseded his oaths made at Madrid.
Thus the ancient oaths of allegiance and supremacy were abrogated: the declaration of non-resistance in the act of uniformity was repealed: the new oath of allegiance was reduced to its primitive simplicity, and the coronation-oath rendered more explicit.
The new form of the coronation-oath consisted in the following questions and answers: "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?" "I solemnly promise so to do."
But even this plea, weak as it is under such circumstances, is not available; since it is proved that this article was never made a part of the coronation-oath until the accession of Ferdinand I in 1527. The Austrian minister endeavored also to establish the right of his mistress to Galicia and Podolia, as Queen of Hungary, and the duchies of Oswiecim and Zator, as Queen of Bohemia.
No reclamation of it had been made till the present time; it had then been in the undisputed possession of Poland nearly three hundred sixty years. The chief demur which the Austrians now made to the mortgage was that the King of Hungary was restricted by the constitution, as expressed in the coronation-oath, from alienating any portion of the kingdom.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking