religious service of the Church was to compel its use by those who disbelieved the doctrine it expressed. In opposition to the other objection, he maintained that the clergy must fulfil the duties imposed on them by the Legislature, for the Establishment was simply the creature of civil policy.-Owing to the advanced period of the session, the Bill was not carried beyond the second reading. Nor was the measure more fortunate on its introduction a second and a third time. Dr. Stoddart, an eminent civilian, suggested another mode of relief; and, in conformity with his advice, a Bill was offered to the House of Lords, in 1823, by which the liberty of solemnizing marriages according to their own religious forms was conceded to Dissenters, provided they complied with the preliminary forms in use by the Church, and subsequently registered the marriage in the parish books. This plan was evidently an improvement on that first suggested. On June 12, the measure was debated in the House of Lords, on the motion of the Marquess of Lansdowne for the second reading of the Bill. Lord Chancellor Eldon energetically opposed it on two grounds: first, that it would open the door to irregular marriages; and next, that it was intolerable that the clergy of the Established Church should be made parties to the acts of Dissenters, and compelled to sanction those of "the worst sects of congregationists." Lord Liverpool confessed that the object and argument of the Bill were unanswerable, but objected to some of its details. The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed infinite alarm at any attempt to alter the Liturgy of the Church to meet doctrinal objections, but said no man exceeded him in respect for religious scruples and feelings. He added that the Church of England was a tolerant Church, and disclaimed all pretension to infallibility. Although the Archbishop and the Premier voted for the Bill going into Committee, the Chancellor's opposition prevailed, and the Bill was lost by a majority of six votes. In the session of 1824, it was resolved to limit the application for relief to Unitarians. There seemed to be a better prospect of success for a Bill framed on this principle than for a more comprehensive measure. Notwithstanding the previous efforts of the Unitarian Association in behalf of all classes of Dissenters, little or no assistance had been rendered by other Nonconformist societies. The Bill founded on Dr. Stoddart's suggestion, but narrowed in its application to Unitarian Dissenters, was twice keenly debated in the House of Lords. On the first occasion it passed the second reading by the narrow majority of 2, but on the second the Bill was lost by a majority of 39 votes. Each debate was adorned by a speech from Lord Holland in his finest style. The closeness of argument, the keenness of satire, the brilliancy of wit, the accurate and extensive knowledge of these noble addresses, are set off by a simplicity and vigour of style that remind us of his distinguished relative, Charles James Fox. Amongst the episcopal opponents of the Bill, the foremost was Dr. Law, the Bishop of Chester, who affected to question the reality of Unitarian scruples against the marriage service of the Church of England. Numerous as, in the course of his parliamentary life, were the rebukes which Lord Holland gave to members of the episcopal bench, not one was better deserved or more unanswerable than that given by him on this occasion to Bishop Law. Alluding to the strange contrast which his sentiments exhibited to those of his distinguished father (the liberal

Bishop of Carlisle), Lord Holland said he should certainly wonder at his conduct if he looked less at ex quo natus than quibuscum vixit.*

In 1825, a new Bill was introduced by Mr. W. Smith into the House of Commons, the provisions of which secured a registration of Unitarian marriages independently of the clergy of the Established Church. This Bill passed through every stage in the Lower House without a division, but was lost in the Lords by a majority of 4. The Lord Chancellor, in this debate, laid down his favourite doctrine, that the Trinity Bill did not protect Unitarians from the operation of the common law. Dr. Blomfield, then newly created Bishop of Chester, assisted the Lord Chancellor in destroying the Bill.

In 1827, when the matter was again introduced into Parliament, Mr. Canning, the Premier, and Lord Lyndhurst, the Chancellor, were both favourable to the relief of Unitarians from a Trinitarian form of marriage service. The Bill passed the Commons, and in the Lords forced itself (notwithstanding renewed opposition from Lord Eldon) into Committee by a majority of 7 votes-the numbers being, for going into Committee, 61; against, 54.

In Committee the opposition were sufficiently powerful to mutilate and disfigure the Bill, and to such a degree, that its promoters felt little anxiety to carry it forward, and it was never proposed for a third reading. It now became evident that without the active assistance of the Government, there was little probability of any measure, granting effectual relief, being passed. This conviction led to a series of anxious, and at first unproductive, conferences with the successive heads of the Administration.

Soon after his accession to office, the Duke of Wellington promised a favourable consideration to the claims of the Unitarian body; but so large a portion of the session was occupied with the debates on the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, that it was not thought expedient to attempt, during the session of 1828, any alteration in the marriage law. In 1829, the Catholic Relief Bill occupied almost exclusive attention. Then followed a series of excited sessions consequent on the dissolution of the Tory Ministry and the struggles for reform in Parliament.

In 1834, the general subject of the grievances of Dissenters was extensively agitated throughout the country. In the "Case of the Protestant Dissenters" put forth by the United Committee, one of the grievances alleged was "compulsory conformity to the rites and ceremonies of the Established Church in the celebration of marriage." But, except as to the general statement of the grievance, the Dissenters were far from being united in sentiment. The Deputies passed a resolution, and forwarded it to the Government, demanding a recognition of the principle that marriage was simply a civil contract. When the United Committee, however, debated the subject, and saw the conse

Very full reports of these two admirable speeches will be found in the Monthly Repository, Vol. XIX. pp. 249 and 309.

+ In consequence of this, a long and most ably argued petition was immediately drawn up (it is believed by Mr. Aspland), and presented to both Houses of Parliament, on the legal position of Unitarians, and praying that a full and efficient inquiry might take place into the law as affecting Unitarians, and that, if necessary, further protection might be given them. See Monthly Repository, XX. 382.

quences of this principle, they declined to sanction the resolution of the Deputies.

If Dissenters were perplexed by the difficulties of the subject, not less so was Lord Grey's Government. On the meeting of Parliament, Lord John Russell intimated that the other demands of the Dissenters were under consideration, but that it was his purpose to introduce a Bill for the regulation of Dissenters' marriages. The Marriage Bill which redeemed this promise was designed for the benefit of all classes of Nonconformists, but was cumbrous and generally unsatisfactory to Dissenters. It left in the hands of the clergy the publication of banns, but threw upon Dissenting ministers the entire responsibility of registering the marriage. Dissenting ministers, previous to solemnizing marriages, were, according to the provisions of this Bill, to procure a licence; but the granting such licence was not made obligatory on the Bishop. It is scarcely necessary to say, that no denomination of Dissenters shewed any anxiety for the passing of a measure the beneficial designs of which might be obstructed in any diocese by a Bishop hostile to the religious liberty of Dissenters; and the session closed without relief from the grievance of Church marriages.

The session of 1835 found Sir Robert Peel the leader of the Administration in the Lower House of Parliament. He, too, proposed a Marriage Bill. It was, in fact, a revival of the Bill of 1827, as it left the Lords' Committee. That Bill was professedly for the relief of Unitarians alone-this was offered as a boon to all classes of Dissenters. It provided for the marriage of Dissenters (the fact of both parties being such to be previously declared on oath) by the civil magistrate, after fourteen days' notice. The magistrate was to give certificates of the contract, one of which he was to send to the clergyman of the parish, for entry in a parochial register. The magistrate was authorized to receive a fee from the contracting parties, five-sevenths of which he was to hand over to the parish clergyman. This measure was received with considerable favour in the House of Commons, but it found little or none out of doors.*

Sir Robert Peel's enforced resignation of office caused this Bill to share the fate of its numerous predecessors.

In 1836, the long-agitated question was brought to a successful termination by two Bills, introduced by the Government of Lord Melbourne, for securing a general registration of births, deaths and marriages, and for legalizing the marriages of Protestant Dissenters, either in their own licensed meeting-houses, or in the office of a superintendent registrar. These wise and important measures were passed with little difficulty, although some clauses were inserted by the Lords into the Marriage Bill, which made that measure less convenient and less acceptable to the Dissenters. The new Marriage Act was certainly a bold, though

Immediately after its proposal by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Aspland expressed his opinion of it, in a letter to his son, thus:-"Were it to pass in its present shape, it would fix the brand of a caste upon the Dissenters, and would divide them into two new sects, the church-married and the justice-married. What do you think of our genteel lasses going up to Worship Street or Bow Street, and being sworn before his worship, in the presence of a crowd of disorderlies, as to their taking a certain gentleman for a husband, after a fortnight's publicity, according to the meeting-house fashion!"

not a perfect measure. It retained the old principle of marriage being a civil contract, yet it facilitated the addition, by all who desired it, of a religious service, and thus removed from the body of Protestant Dissenters the stigma of slighting religion in the marriage contract. It greatly surpassed all preceding attempts at legislation, and not least in this, that it provided no compensation to the clergy for the fees of which it was the means of depriving them. In all the proceedings, from first to last, connected with this great reform, Mr. Aspland took a large share. What labour, what anxiety, what sickness of heart springing from hope deferred, they involved, is now known but to few. Firmness, patience and courageous perseverance were qualities absolutely necessary in those who sought reforms, whether civil or ecclesiastical, during the first thirty years of this century. But Mr. Aspland and his fellowlabourers had the wisdom to perceive, that, though often defeated, their cause was gaining ground; that repeated discussion was lowering the pretensions of ecclesiastical domination, and instructing the mind, both of Parliament and the public, in the principles of religious liberty. To the Unitarians these discussions proved eminently serviceable, and there can be little doubt that they laid the foundation, in the mind of Sir Robert Peel and other statesmen, of those just and liberal sentiments which led to the passing of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. If the Unitarians* bore the heat and burthen of this struggle, the immediate fruits of which were shared by many who entered the field only at the eleventh hour, the former afterwards were benefited, independently and in spite of the opposition of the eleventh-hour men.

The highest praise in the conduct of the Marriage Bill is unquestionably due to the late Mr. Edgar Taylor, whose legal knowledge and acuteness, whose great personal influence and untiring zeal, contributed greatly to the success of the efforts of the Unitarian Association. Previous mention has been made of the services in the same cause of Mr. Christopher Richmond.

Mr. Aspland, as Secretary of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, issued a circular Address of advice to the Unitarian Ministers of England and Wales, on the requirements of the Marriage and Registration Acts, and subsequently submitted to the Presbyterian ministers of London a Form of Service for contracting marriage, which was approved by that body, and has since been in general use amongst the Unitarians. Its peculiar merit is, that it retains the best portions of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer, the solemn beauty of which has impressed the minds of many successive generations, and that its additions to that service are solemn, dignified and tender.

It is now proper to record the circumstances preceding and attending the dissolution of the Three Denominations, which had from the time of the Revolution of 1688 acted together with tolerable, if not unbroken unanimity. Already in this Memoir there have been intimations of outbreaks of angry bigotry against Unitarians, when acting as members and for the benefit of the general body of Dissenters. These outbreaks were at first confined chiefly to the illiterate and fanatical members of the Independent and Baptist denominations, but more parti

* Including in this term the Freethinking Christians and the General Baptists.

cularly of the former. In private intercourse with their Presbyterian brethren, these attacks were disowned and censured by many of the leading "orthodox" ministers. The Wolverhampton and the Hewley suits, having for their object to dispossess Trustees on the ground of their Unitarianism, increased the feelings of distrust on the part of the English Presbyterians of the fair dealing of their orthodox coadjutors, and inflamed the doctrinal antipathy of the other two denominations against the Unitarians. The institutions conducted jointly by the Three Denominations became agitated by the symptoms of an approaching struggle. In the Widows' Fund, as early as 1830, the rise of bigotry was seen in a proposal to remove the annual sermon from the chapel in Jewin Street. In the affairs of the Orphan Working School, orthodox bigotry enjoyed a full triumph. That excellent institution had from the first been supported by the joint contributions of the Three Denominations. A religious service, for the benefit of the children, had been conducted from 1760 to 1834, in the chapel of the institution, amicably and usefully, by the ministers of the Three Denominations. It was now, however, resolved to exclude from this religious service the Unitarian members of the body. To effect this, it was at first proposed to dismantle the chapel, in order to enlarge the establishment, and convert it into a dormitory. But eventually the measure was carried, against the votes and protest of a third of the Governors, upon the avowed plea that there could be no union with, no toleration of, services which the "majority regarded as destructive to salvation.”*

But the crowning act of exclusion was one effected by the Body of Ministers. For seven years Dr. Thomas Rees had filled the office of Secretary to the United Body, and had discharged the duties of his office with such propriety and ability as to receive again and again the thanks of the body. He was now set aside; and there was no attempt made to conceal the fact that this was done solely on religious grounds, and that the "orthodox" majority did not choose to be represented by a Secretary whose doctrinal views were not consonant with their own. This proceeding was regarded as a violation of the principle of equal religious liberty on which the union of the Three Denominations had been originally based. The engagement and understanding on the formation of the union was, that the bodies should not call in question, or interfere with, each other's religious opinions and doctrines. To have passed over the conduct of the majority in this case, would have been to invite further insult, and eventually the proscription of the Unitarian members of the body. Further union with men who had thus betrayed the first principles of religious liberty was, if practicable, highly inexpedient. The Presbyterian Ministers of London and its vicinity met on March 4, 1836, at Dr. Williams's Library, to consider the course which it behoved them to adopt. A strong feeling pervaded the body that the crisis demanded prompt and decisive measures, for the assertion of its independence and the preservation of its rights and privileges. It was resolved by the votes of a very large majority to dissolve the union, so far as they, the Presbyterians, were concerned, and to

*At the meeting at which the decision was come to, Mr. Aspland expressed his deep regret at the division that prevailed in the charity, which he pronounced to be "discreditable to them as Christians, and most hurtful to them as Protestant Dissenters."