Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Chris Bryant (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 1 July 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Act of Settlement.


Act of Settlement

We move from a matter of modern, enormous significance to one of historic significance. None the less, it matters to today's society, particularly, I would suggest, to many Roman Catholics in this country, as well as to people of other faiths. I am talking about the Act of Settlement, which makes a series of provisions. I will not deal with them all, because some have been dealt with in previous legislation. I shall instead focus on those that state, first, that the throne was to pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant successors; secondly, that the monarch""shall join in communion with the Church of England";" thirdly, that anyone who is married to a Catholic should be barred from the line of succession; and fourthly, that the monarch should make a series of oaths and declarations when they accede to the throne or are crowned. The provisions of the Act of Settlement built on the Bill of Rights of 1688, particularly where it reads that""whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfaire of this protestant kingdome to be governed by a popish prince or by any King or Queene marrying a papist the said lords spirituall and temporall and commons doe further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome or shall professe the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the crowne and government of this realme"." In addition, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 provided that the new monarch would have to take an oath upon their coronation that they would""maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law…and…preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them."" One further provision springs from common law and means that the succession in the United Kingdom falls to a male, rather than a female, which is known as male preference primogeniture—another element that many people now would think to be rather outdated. Subsequent Acts have amended elements of the Act of Settlement. The Scottish and English Acts of Union in 1707 ensured that there would be no alteration to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, that the new monarch, when monarch of both kingdoms, would ratify the confession of faith, and that a new oath would be undertaken by the monarch in relation to the Church of Scotland stating that the monarch""shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the True Protestant Religion"—" I note that "True Protestant Religion" always comes with a capital T, capital P and capital R—""with the Government Worship Discipline Right and Privileges of this Church as above established by the Laws of this Kingdom."" Subsequent reforms also included the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which provided that the monarch could determine who any member of the Royal family or anybody in the line of succession could marry. Today, still, the Lord Chancellor has to issue certificates for anyone in the line of succession stating whether they have married a Catholic or someone who has now renounced their Catholic faith. Not the most recent—there was an instance last June when the Lord Chancellor had to do this—but the better known recent case is probably that from 9 April 2008, when the marriage of Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly had to be signed off by the Lord Chancellor. In 1801, when the Parliaments of Ireland, England and Scotland were joined together, there was further reform of the Act of Settlement, which meant that the Irish agreed to the provisions in the Act. Later, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 specified that on accession, the monarch would have to declare:""I am a faithful Protestant"—" capital P again—""and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."" The Statute of Westminster 1931 further determined that if there were to be any changes to those or many other provisions, they ought to be consulted on around the Commonwealth so that, on a particular day, one could not have a different monarch for Australia from the monarch for Canada and the United Kingdom. However, it is worth pointing out that, because we had to perform another piece of legal jiggery-pokery over the abdication of Edward VIII, there was one day when Ireland had a different monarch from the United Kingdom. There was one further, tiny, Church of England measure that affected the position, which was the Admission to Holy Communion Measure 1972. That meant that any person in good standing with their Church—in other words, not necessarily a member of the Church of England—was able to receive communion in the Church of England. In theory, that could mean that a monarch who was not an Anglican—or, for that matter, a Presbyterian member of the Church of Scotland—but was, for instance, a Methodist, would be able to enter into communion with the Church of England without being a member. All those different provisions have meant that, in sum and in total, there is a complete bar on any Catholic—and probably also any member of various other religions—sitting in the line of succession or becoming the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, by extension therefore, of her further territories and the Commonwealth. I believe that this is now wholly inappropriate. The legislation that was written in 1688 and 1701 was, in one sense, deliberately offensive to those whom it termed "papists" or "followers of the popish religion", because it was believed to be against the secure interests of the people of this land. Notwithstanding the fact that anti-Catholicism is, unfortunately, still a vibrant part of many sections of the British media and British society, I do not believe that there are many in this country who believe, in all honesty, that the Roman Catholic faith undermines our national security.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
512 c1105-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Church of England Catholicism Church and state Monarchy Succession Roman Catholic Church
Legislation
Coronation Oath Act 1688
Royal Marriages Act 1772
Act of Settlement 1700
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk