The Bishop of Chester, in justice to his own feelings, and the importance of the question, thought necessary to say, that after giving his most anxious attention to the subject of this bill, he was only the more confirmed in his opinion that the unitarians had no reasonable grounds for their objections to the marriage ceremony. The words in question were the words of scripture, the words of our blessed Lord himself, and could not be altered without compromising the doctrines and the dignity of the established church. That the unitarians had no ground for objecting to the words used in the marriage ceremony was evident from this circumstance that they themselves adopted the same words in their baptismal ceremony. If any noble lord would show him any just reason for the objection of the unitarians, he would give his consent to the bill. In his opinion, the retaining the words was indispensable, for the church of England would be wanting in what was due to her dig

opportunity to declare what her faith in Christ was. The character of the church of England had always been that of a tolerant church, and he admitted that their lordships were called upon to grant liberty of worship to all sects; but the church was not therefore to be required to give up her doctrines and discipline. If the marriage ceremony was to be altered, it was not easy to see what might be the consequence of such encroachments. If one stone was to be removed after another, what would become of the building? He trusted that their lordships would not agree to any infringement of the doctrines and discipline of the church of England-of a church the interests of which were so closely and inseparably interwoven with the best interests of the state. Convinced that the liberty of conscience was not violated with respect to the unitarian by the law as it at present existed, he should oppose the motion for now committing the bill, and move that it be committed this day three months.

The Bishop of Exeter was of opinion that persons who did not believe in certain doctrines ought not

to

to be compelled to join in ceremonies depending on those doctrines, and would therefore vote for going into the committee forthwith. In the committee he should wish to propose some amendments, the object of which would be to assimilate the bill as much as possible to the act for amending the marriage act which passed last session, with respect to the prevention of clandestine marriages, by imposing certain penalties.

He would also propose anamendment on the subject of registration of marriages. He thought that the unitarians ought to be allowed to keep their own registers.

The Bishop of St. David's supported the amendment moved by the bishop of Chester. He observed, that the doctrines to which the unitarians objected were those of the majority of christians, and what all members of the church of England must consider to be essential to christianity. He could not consent to the giving up of a point of so much importance which involved the denial of the doctrine of the trinity. The scriptures themselves might as well be objected to as the marriage service of the church of England.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said, it was certainly true, as had been observed, that the unitarians denied the doctrine of the trinity; but he wished those who opposed the bill to consider well what it was for which they contended. Was it their wish to enforce a seeming acquiescence in doctrines against the consciences of men? The consequences of maintaining such a practice must be, that ceremonies would be administered in one sense, and received in another. What was this but a system of the grossest prevarication For these reasons, he was

desirous of seeing this bill in the committee, where it might receive such corrections as it was susceptible of.

The Bishop of St. David's and the Archbishop of Canterbury interchanged a few words in explanation.

The Marquis of Lansdowne could not suffer the bill to go into the committee without alluding to certain opinions which had received some degree of currency on this subject, but which appeared to him as inconsistent with the law of England, as they were absurd in themselves. When he had heard it stated, and seen it printed in some publications, that the law of marriage as it existed in the reign of king William should be restored, he could not help being greatly surprised, because if the law were so, there would be no reason for this or any other application of the kind. It was merely owing to an incidental consequence of the operation of the act of lord Hardwicke, the 26th of George II., that any dissenters were placed under the necessity of coming forward and asking any relief with respect to the law of marriage. In passing that act, it was far from being the intention of the legislature to produce a simulated assent to the doctrines of the church of England. So far from being a bill for such a purpose, its sole objectwas, that which according to its title it purported to be-namely, a bill for preventing clandestine marriages. Those who applied for that relief proposed to be given by the present bill, never entertained the idea that the church of England was to be called upon to give up any of her doctrines. No such concession was expected. What the unitarians asked was, relief from a part of a ceremony in which they could not conscientiously join; and he never could sup

pose

pose that any prelate of the church of England would wish to impose upon them an assent to doctrines, which it was well known they came to the church prepared to reject. The rejection of those doctrines could not be treated as illegal. They were allowed by law; and, indeed, in modern times, when any question as to blasphemy came to be discussed before a court, a distinction had always been taken between that of fence, and those opinions which arose out of an interpretation of the scriptures different from that adhered to by the established church. The vague assertion that the church was in danger had often been productive of mischief, of which the Birmingham riots, when Dr. Priestley became the victim of a mob, afforded a remarkable instance; but it was to be expected that those who made this assertion would state what was the nature of the danger which they apprehended. Was it danger to the authority, or danger to the revenue of the church? It was said that the bill attacked the doctrines and the discipline of the church of England. Now the same doctrines and discipline were to be found in the church of Ireland, and yet a law on marriage existed there, similar in principle to the present bill, but much more sweeping in its provisions. In 1781, a bill passed the Irish parliament, confirming an act of Geo. II., by which all the marriages of dissenters were made valid; and it was worth while to refer to the proceedings which took place on that occasion. The whole of the opposition made to the act was founded on an objection raised by some right reverend prelates in the house of peers, and which was in effect, that the measure was not such as that proposed by the bill now before their lordships. That the opinion of the Irish bishops, and

the peers who concurred with them, was very different from that entertained by the noble and learned lord, and those who with him opposed the present bill, would appear from the protest entered on the journals of the parliament of Ireland. The bill, having passed the commons, experienced considerable opposition in the house of lords. The prelates and peers who opposed the bill entered into a protest, in which they objected that it did not provide sufficiently against clandestine marriages and facility to divorce. But what he wished more particularly to press on their lordships' attention was, the clause of the protest which was signed by all the prelates, and in which the ground of dissent expressed was, that those who opposed the bill had repeatedly declared that they were willing to vote for another bill which would make the marriages of dissenters good and valid, provided they were solemnized under the sanction of the clergy of the established church. In fact, all he objected to was, that the bill did not sufficiently conciliate the rights of the marriages of dissenters with the authority of the church. This, however, was completely done by the present bill, in which the authority of the church was fully maintained. If unitarians were to be permitted to exist at all, they must be allowed to contract marriage. On that ground merely this bill ought to pass. It was full time for the chuch to get rid of the practice of enforcing a simulated assent to her doctrines. In proportion as marriage was regarded as an institution of importance to society, it was to be wished that it should be entered into with due solemnity, and that the contracting party should not be compelled to submit to a eeremony which they could not respect. If, indeed, there were persons who

viewed all religious establishments with indifference, who regarded them as mere engines of government and state police, such persons would entertain little scruple as to any ceremony they might be required to perform; but the case was very different with the sincere dissenter, who could not conscientiously avail himself of the subterfuges which the state of the law presented. The noble marquis concluded by intimating that he would not oppose the amendments suggested by the right reverend prelate (the bishop of Exeter) opposite. He begged their lordships to recollect, that the regulations proposed by the bill were not only for the case of the dissenters, but for the general security.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the respect which he bore for the noble lord who had just sat down, as well as the high respect which he entertained for the right reverend prelate who had spoken in favour of this bill, made it impossible for him, after what had passed that evening, not to address their lordships, and to state the grounds on which he could never give his consent to this bill going into a committee. He would not say that it was impossible to frame a bill for the relief of the class of persons who were the objects of the present measure, but this bill had principles to which, consistent with the protection of the established church of the country, he could not consent. He did not wish to press his opinion on their lordships; but it was his duty, having spent the greater part of a long life in the service of the public, to state his opinion, that if ever this country should have the misfortune to lose the protection of the church of England, we should lose the best protection for toleration (hear, hear); and on account

of the dissenters themselves, he should feel it necessary to protest against every thing which would tend to degrade the established church. Religious toleration could not be liberally and extensively enjoyed, unless the church established was of liberal and enlarged principles; and such, in his opinion, was the character of the church of England. The noble marquis had found fault with him for raising some doubts as to the legality of the tenets of the unitarians; but what were the facts? In the toleration act, persons denying the trinity were deprived of the benefit of that act, and so it stood till the repeal of the 9th William. No man was more averse than himself to the severity of the punishments which might have been inflicted before that act was repealed; but the matter was perfectly understood at the time; and though certain learned ecclesiastics had thought that that repeal let loose all the law, common law and all, as to denying the doctrine of the trinity, yet of this he was assured, that the respectable person who brought that bill into the other house of parliament had no such notion; and in a case which came before him (the lord chancellor) the title of which was "the attorney-general v. Pearson," that learned and distinguished lawyer, sir S. Romilly, held an opinion similar to that which he (the ford chancellor) entertained. was an information to carry into effect certain charitable purposes which were formed before the time of king William. Sir S. Romilly insisted that the common law remained as it was before; and though with respect to other dissenters it might be different, yet as to the unitarians it was as much out of the power of the lord chancellor to establish a provision for them as for judaism. He (the

It

lord

lord chancellor) did not think that he did wrong in refusing to decide that point, coming as it did incidentally before him, and his judgment being founded on the ground that the charity was instituted before the 9th William, and that statute had decided that the doctrines of those who denied the trinity was contrary to the christian religion.

What he now stated was only to vindicate himself from the imputation of having thrown a doubt on a subject on which no doubt could reasonably have been entertained. With respect to the bill itself, it had been clearly stated that on the principles on which the house were called upon to pass it as to the unitarians, they might be called upon to pass a bill with respect to all dissenters. The noble marquis had disclaimed it, but he (the lord chancellor) would go farther and say, if their lordships passed this bill, they could not refuse it to any other dissenters. The present measure was justified on the ground of what had been done for the jews and quakers; but what was it that had been done for them? In the act of the 56th of George III. there was a provision that that bill should not apply to them. But this bill was nothing like that. And even as to jews and quakers, it was probable that their lordships might be called upon soon to pass some bill with respect to them, as he had for the last eighteen days been employed in hearing the arguments of counsel on the subject. Certainly the exception in the act of 56 Geo. III. could only mean that those mar riages should be just as valid as if that act had not passed, but what made them valid it was not so easy to say; and as reference had been made to the subject of torture, he would say that he supposed their

lordships would rather bear all the tortures of the inquisition than hear all the arguments adduced on the subject. (A laugh.)

It was certainly a curious subject, and it was very desirable that some act should pass to set the matter at rest. If he were to go into the detail of this bill, he could tear to pieces every sentence of it; but the details were matters for a committee. It was said, that the persons calling themselves unitarians had real scruples of conscience on the doctrine of the trinity; and so had deists, atheists, and others. If he understood the doctrines of the church of England at all, it was impossible that there could be a greater repugnance between any doctrines than between the doctrine of the church of England and the unitarians. The unitarians must think the church of England idolatry. What, therefore, would be the sort of comprehension that it would effect? If they chose, indeed, to put themselves on the same footing as jews and quakers, let them ask for such a bill; but do not let the house make the church of England the handmaid of the unitarians. He could not to this policy consent to sacrifice the great, the paramount policy of holding up the church of England as the church of England had hitherto been maintained. On these grounds he could not consent to go into a committee on a bill which must, in his opinion, tend to dishonour and degrade the church of England. Their lordships might pass the bill, but he had discharged his duty in giving his opinion on it, and he thought a worse bill never was entertained.

Lord Holland said, that after the former long discussion which took place on this subject, he did not expect to hear so much warmth and

anxiety