in the marriage service, was not required to subscribe or repeat any thing contrary to his conscience, and that on other occasions he repeats the very words he here objects to; that is to say, he repeats them on an occasion and in a sense in which he thinks them used in scripture, in the sense which he affixes to them, and which is known and understood in his (the Unitarian's) church. But really this was a most cruel requisition. The Unitarian was to be required to repeat words to which it was avowed the priest annexed one meaning and he another. Could it be wondered at that the Unitarian objected to the repetition of words in this way? But then came the Benediction; and the Learned Prelate slipt over this very ingeniously. It does the Unitarian no good, to be sure, he said : but did it do him any harm? Good God! was this the language they were to hear, and from a prelate too ?

Was this the way such matters

were to be disposed ? Why then did he renounce the Virgin Mary and the invocation of saints? Would it be painful to him to join in such worship? And why then did he erect himself into a judge of the Unitarian's conscience? It was quite

clear that such matters must be painful and revolting, “ Oh! but,” (said the Lord Chancellor, “they never found it out till the Act against them was repealed." Why, he asked, had they never found out that before? Why did they never complain? The Noble and Learned Lord, in the number of years he had held his present place, must have known of the existence of the Statute in the books ; and he must know, too, that an Unitarian could not; before that Act of repeal passed, have appeared at their bar and said, “I am an Unitarian, and wish to be exempted from the operation of the Marriage Act.” A public avowal of this kind would have made the party a criminal by law.

Aye,” added the Noble Lord, “ and are ye sure he is not so now ?" And the Noble and Learned Lord expressed a wish to know what the criminal law was. Could any one tell him, if he himself did not know it? What did the Noble Earl, then, mean by this sort of ambiguous question? Why did he throw out these hints ? And if he did not choose to do so, why did he go

about thus Spargere voces in vul

gum ambiguas”? Why did he suffer these persons to go away deluded


by the idea that they had he quite sure that many obtained protection ? Why other great and eminent did he go about talking of

persons did not also hold these moral, virtuous, and it? But to return to the valuable members of society point :--It was a doubt, the as hanging on a doubt Learned Lord said, whether which he could not or would these persons were not ofnot solve ?-as persons who fenders at common law. might be tried and punish- And on what did this ed, “ for aught he knows”? common-law doctrine of He (Lord Holland had offences against religion been trying to conjecture rest? Why, on its having what the Learned Lord been said not very happily could mean when he talked nor reverently, as it seemof this as an offence at ed to him that Christianicommon law. There were ty was part and parcel of only two grounds; the first the law of the land. It was of which would not apply Lord Hale, he believed, to these parties; the second who first said this of Chris(if he meant that) was so

tianity ; but the doctrine contrary to all justice, so was afterwards more diintolerant and persecuting, rectly and emphatically that it never could for a laid down by Lord Raymoment be listened to. He mond. This happened in had said, “ Let us first the famous case of the know whether denying the King and Woolston (he Trinity be not an offence at believed it was this case, common law.” It was con- but he had not had an opyenient to the Noble and portunity of referring to Learned Lords to talk it). On that occasion, the sometimes of Locke, of learned judge said be would Hoadley, and Tillotson. Let not allow Christianity to be him act by those authorities. attacked, because it was, Why should he leave thein in fact, a part of the law on these occasions ? Did he of the land ; but he begnot know that Locke ged it to be observed, that thought the Toleration Act by thiş he meant Christidefective in this very re

anity generally, and not spect? for it was plain the tenets of any particular from his Correspondence sect of Christians. Why with Limborch, that it was

then he (Lord Holland) to the Unitarians he refer- must ask here, what was red. Was he quite sure

Christianity in the legal that Locke himself did not sense? Was it a belief in hold that opinion ? Was the Holy Scriptures-a re


ception of them as the rule Dissenters. He did not of life, faith, and conduct see the force of this objec-or was it a belief in cer- tion. Did the Church of tain expositions of those Ireland consider itself in Scriptures by human be- this light of a waiting-maid? įngs? He would leave the He did not believe it did; Noble and Learned Lord yet it either registered all on the woolsack to choose, marriages, or left the parin the dilemma to which he ties to celebrate them for must be reduced. If the themselves. But it first point were held, then said, that the Church was the Unitarians were in po to be deprived of privileges sense affected by this com- she held by long usage. He mon-law doctrine; for they suspected, however, that, held the Scriptures as sa- until the passing of Lord credly as any of their Lord- Hardwicke's Marriage Act, ships. They held them to

the Church had never excontain the rule of right, ercised that right which it and rule of faith, and by was contended she could them alone they stood. If not forego without derogatit were said, on the other ing from her dignity. All hand, that the Christianity foreign marriages, previintended by the law was ous to that period, were the Holy Scriptures as they celebrated according to the were expounded by the lex loci; and all marriages Church, then, if the Noble

duly celebrated by a priest, and Learned Lord held whether of the Church of that, it followed that he

England or of Rome, were must be prepared to hold binding. As to that paalso, that, before the reign thetic part of the speech of of Henry VIII., the Roman the Noble Prelate, in Catholics were the only which he had deplored the Christains in England,(for, hard fate of the clergymen, till that period, the Roman who by this Bill would be Catholic religion was part deprived of their fees, all of the law of the land,) and he (Lord · Hoiland) had to that, when that King chan- say in reply, was, that the ged the sort of Christiani- Bill provided they should ty, he changed the common have their fees. But, said law. Another of the ob- the Noble Prelate, those jections which had been for which the Bill provided, raised was, that the propo- are only the actual dues, sed measure would make and, beyond these dues, it the Church of England is usual for parties to give ancillary to the Unitarian a small gratuity on the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

solemnization of marriages, fears, if the relief were which form à considerable given in this shape, they source of emolument to the would not be able to make officiating clergyman. Well head or tail of it. Then he it might be so, but was it was in a great hurry that not at least likely that an it should be postponed unUnitarian would be willing til the next session, in orto bestow as large a gra- der that the points should be tuity when he had his mar- discussed one by one : but, riage solemnized and re- when the next session came, gistered in such a manner the Noble and Learned as should satisfy the scru- Lord says, “Why do you ple of his conscience, as come alone? Why do not when it was performed in a all come?There was no manner irksome and pain- | pleasing him this way. . ful to his feelings? It was Surely it was the plainest said too by a Noble Lord, and best way to give relief Why should we grant this

to those who came to ask favour to Unitarians alone? for it. If no danger should --why is it not to be gran- appear in doing so, he would ted to every other sect? grant it to all; but it did *After the answer which had appear

to him to be the most been given to this by the strange, unparliamentary, Noble President of the and illogical reasoning that Council, he (Lord Holland) could be imagined, to say, would not take


the time “ We won't give you the of the House any more

relief you ask for, because than by saying, because it there are others who want was not favour they were it as much as you, and they to grant but justice, and do not ask for it.” It might because the others did not be a very good reason for ask for it, and they, the granting the relief to all, but Unitarians, did. He could it could be no reason for not help thinking the Uni- withholding it from any. tarians, very hardly dealt He concurred entirely in with. If general relief was the principles and statesought for them, up jumps

ments of the Noble and the Noble and Learned Reverend Metropolitan, and Lord from the woolsack, he thought it but justice and complains that it was to him, and to the Church too general. He cries out,

of which he was an orna6. Who and what are you ? ment, to say that he thought Are you Jumpers, Shakers, his objection to altering the Southcotians, or what, for form of the Liturgy was God's sake, are you?" and well founded. He (Lord


as any


Holland) would not shrink might feel the pleasure in from saying that he thought signing them, which he certain parts of the Litur- was grieving at losing in gy might be omitted; there another form. The Noble were parts of it which, if Lord concluded by saying; it were in his power to that the Unitarians, believmake alteration, he ing' as they did in the Holy would willingly alter. But

Scriptures, were as much high as he held the princi- Christians

other ples of religious liberty, persons could be. If the he did not think the mem- saw did hold deniers of rebers of one church had a velation, in general, to be right to call upon those of

blasphemers (and even another to make any such that point he should be omissions : that would, in- inclined to


further than deed, be making the func- many of their Lordships) tions of the Church ancil- and punishable, it would lary to the Dissenters. But not affect persons who adthe measure proposed to mitted that revelation as the House was one purely the rule of their faith. The ministerial and of a civil Church admitted, and, incharacter. The law had deed, the only distinction made the solemnization and between Popery and Proregistration of marriages a testantismi was, the right of part of the clergy man's all to judge and interpret duty, but it was no part of for themselves. If Divine his ecclesiastical functions, Revelation could, with deand the Church could, there

cency or propriety, he said fore, be in no sense called to be part and parcel of a ancillary to the objects of code of laws, it could only Dissenters. He, for one, be in the sense in which should be for leaving out the Unitarians held it as the licence, as that was the well as the Church; and if only thing which the Church

their Christianity was, as was called on to grant; the Noble and Learned but there, he was afraid, Lord said, (the phrase he the little doctrine of fees

thought was something irwould come across them.

reverent,) part and parcel One good-natured Prelate, of the law of the land, too, had felt the loss of 'there could be no reason the pleasure of uniting why this class of Christian fond couples more than of Dissenters should be called the fees, and it would per

upon to do violence to their haps therefore be well to consciences upon one of retain the licences, that he the most interesting and

« ElőzőTovább »