Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

pagate; but such cases could he wished to press his opionly be referred to for the nions upon any one;

but purpose cf disgusting them feeling it to be his duty, with the example. With and he was sure it was his regard to the amendments inclination, to support the suggested, he would wil- | interests of the Cha.ch ; lingly discuss them in the feeling also, after having Committee. As to the ob- devoted a great portion of a jection of Lord Liverpool long life to the considerato the Bill's applying to tion of the subject, that cases where only one of the if

ever

that moment should parties was an Unitarian, arrive when this country he was still of opinion that should be deprived of it ought, but was not dis- her {Established Church, posed to be pertinacious on she would lose the best that point. The East-India security that any counAct gave the relief where try ever had or could have, either of the parties dis- for the continuance of resented.

ligious toleration ;

upon The LORD CHANCELLOR that principle he felt it his observed, that the respect duty, for the sake of the he had always felt for the Dissenters themselves, to Noble Lord who advocated object to any change which this measure, for the other was calculated to degrade Noble Lords and Prelates that Church. It was not for who differed from him in the benefit of the Church opinion, and (though in alone, but for the security much smaller degree) for of the great principle of himself, compelled him to religious toleration, that he state to their Lordships the should oppose this Bill, and grounds upon which he felt

any

other which he conthat he never could con- ceived to be liable to the scientiously vote for send

same objections. No one ing this Bill to a Commit- more than himself wished tee. He did not mean to for a liberal and large say that it was impossible toleration, but it could never to frame a Bill which should be enjoyed securely without give relief to those who they had a Church estabwere supposed to be en- lished on the principles of titled to it; but the present a liberal and large toleraBill contained principles ir- tion. A Noble Lord, in reconcilable with the secu- allusion to what had passrity of the Established

a former occasion, Church. He begged the had found fault with him, House would not suppose as if he had raised doubte

ed on

which he himself did not entertain 'as to the legal situation of these parties. He would, in vindication of himself, repeat and explain what he had stated. In the first place, then, he wished to remind the House, that those who denied the Trinity were excepted from the Toleration Act. No man living could disapprove more than he did of the rigorous Act passed in the time of William, and the still more severe enactments of the Scottish Parliament against Dissenters : it could only excite horror in

every man who had his heart in his right place, that speculative opinions should be visited by such punishment. But still it must be remembered, that the 9th of William spoke of the denial of the Trini. ty not as a dissent; but a denial of the Christian religion. When that Act, which had imposed particular punishments upon the offence which it so described, came to be repealed, it was perfectly understood, (though he knew that the writings of some · ecclesiastics had introduced an opinion, that the act of repeal let loose the common law, and all on the subject, and he could confidently appeal to that respectable member who brought it into the other House, that there was

no intention to affect the common law, whatever it was. And as to that he could only repeat, that the Act of Williart and Mary spoke of these opinions as being contrary to the Christian religion. In the Court of Chancery, in the case of Attorney General and Pearson, (the object of which was to carry into effect a charitable foundation, being a meeting-house, founded after the Act of William and Mary, and before its repeal, and which was sought to be appropriated by Unitarians,) Sir S. Romilly (on whóm his Lordship pronounced a high eulogium) argued, that as the Act of William had declared the denial of the Trinity to be contrary to the Christian religion, it was as much out of his (the Lord Chancellor's) power, even at this moment, to establish a provision for Unitarian worship, as it had been decided to be with

respect to foundations for teaching the Jewish law. Sitting in a court of equity, he had declined to decide any such question, as to the present legal condition of these parties, and he had, therefore, rested his decision on the principle, that the trust having been founded at a time when Unitarian doctrines were illegal, it could

[ocr errors]

more

not now be appropriated difficulties it was entangled,

he

leave them be supposed to have been to judge when he told out of

the contempla- them he had been engaged tion of the founder. He fifteen days hearing counsaid this to clear him

sel on the point, on a quesself from the imputa- tion of legitimacy. Their tion of having launched a Lordships would as soon doubt where none could be wish to pass through the fairly entertained. What

Inquisition as to hear all had been said as to Ireland, the arguments connected induced him still

with that investigation ; and strongly to believe that the it seemed clear to him that principle on which

this

they must soon be called to Bill was put, was to be ex- make some legislative protended to all Dissenters. vision on the subject. To He denied the possibility of look a little in detail at refusing it to any if it were some parts of this Bill, (for granted to the Unitarians. he could tear in pieces alBut it had been said, that

most every sentence of it,) the same was already done the persons called Unitariin the case of Jews and

ans are described as having Quakers. What had they conscientious scruples to done for Jews and Quakers ? the doctrine of the Trinity. Merely exempted them

How many persons,

he from the operation of Lord would ask, had the same Hardwicke's Act. Let them, scruples? Deists, and he if they wished, bring in knew not what, might rank a Bill to place them on the under so vague a descripsame footing with those tion as this. If he underpeople, and the Bill would

stood any thing of the be considered on its own Church of England, (though, grounds; but then it would after all he heard, he almost be a very different Bill from

fancied he did not,) it was the present, and would impossible that there could

place the parties on a dif- be a greater repugnance ferent footing ; for he could between any sets of docnot undertake to say dis- trines than between those tinctly how the law stood of that Church and the

to the Jews and Unitarians, so far so, that Quakers.--Their marriages they must, to be consisstood upon

the law as it tent, hold that Church to existed before Lord Hard- be idolatrous. Whom then wicke's Act; but what that did they propose to bring was, or with how many together by this Bill ?. Are

as

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

persons to go to an Arch- that after the discussion bishop and say, “ You which had taken place behold and reverence the doc- fore, and the decision to trine of the Trinity as an which their Lordships had essential of Christianity, come in favour of the prinbut I consider you an ciple of the Bill, he could idolater, therefore give me hardly have expected to facilities which no legisla- find much warmth, ture ever gave !" So, he anxiety, and opposition, as contended, the whole ma- was now manifested against chinery of the Bill went to the question for going into make the Church subservi- the Committee. So strongent to the cause of dissent. ly was he impressed with If the Jews and Quakers the opinion that no such were to be taken as a pre- difficulty could have arisen, cedent, let them take the

that instead of considering proposition as broadly, and this subject, he amused let the Unitarians struggle himself, on his way down with the same legal diffi- to the House, with reading culties. To the State's po- a publication of one of the licy as to clandestine mar- purest and most elegant riages, he never would

writers which this country sacrifice the greater policy had produced-he meant of maintaining the dignity Mr. Cowper, the poet. In of the Church. He, for that publication he met with one, would never be acces- a story, which he little sary to its degradation. In thought, at the time, could stating what he had, he admit of any application was influenced only by a to the proceedings of their wish to discharge his own Lordships' House. It appersonal duty; it was far peared that the writer, from his wish, even if he walking one day in Ramshad the power, to controul gate, had met an eminent the opinion of others; he lawyer whom, in familiar had discharged his con- language, he called “Sam science and relieved himself Cox," buried in profound of his responsibility; if meditation on the beach. the House chose to

pass Being curious to ascertain that bill, he would leave it the subject on which his in their hands; but for mind was occupied, he askhimself, he must declare, ed what he was thinking that a worse Bill than the of. The lawyer replied, that present had never been

wondering why submitted to Parliament. such an expansive element

LORD HOLLAND said, as the ocean should pro

he was

may use

duce such an insignificant animal as a sprat. In the same way, though reversing the application, he (Lord Holland) was disposed to pause and wonder how such a miserable sprat of a Bill could produce such a commotion in the element of this grave and sedate House. He would say to the Noble and Learned Lord, with all his anxiety for the Church, that it was not the best

way either to consult its dignity or to maintain its

its power, to cry out “Wolf” at every little mouse that made its appearance ; he ought not to be so ready “to rin and chase wi' murdrin' battle” such a

wee, sleekit, cowring, tim'rous beastie.” How would a stranger be surprised to hear that, after all this rout, the whole question was whether the Unitarians should be allowed to marry here as they did always till the year 1756, and as they did now in Ireland. One Right Reverend Prelate (as to whose conduct he should certainly wonder if he did not look less at“ ex quo natus” then "quibuscum vixit") had taken upon himself to explain away, not his own scruples, but the scruples entertained by other people. He knew no way of ascertaining the scruples of other men but by their own

66

professions ; he knew no way of judging of these scruples but as he would wish to be judged. If he said that any doctrine or opinion was contrary to his conscience, no man had a right to say that it was not. It was contended that the words employed in the Church ceremony

had been made use of by our Saviour himself. The Unitarians admitted this, but contended that they were used under different circumstances, and in a different sense. Oh! but then it was said, • You

them still in your sense, and we'll put ours upon them for ourselves." What could this be but, as the Most Reverend Metropolitan had stated, to recommend equivocation ---to bring a man to the altar of God to use words in an equivocating way? Then came the objection to making the Church, as it had been elegantly expressed, a' handmaid to dissent. And the Noble and Learned Lord, in a very eloquent part of his speech, had at least hinted at a great distinction between mere dissent and this Unitarianism.---But surely one would suppose,

from all these arguments, that this Bill was totally the reverse of what it was--that it was a Bill to bring these parties, so opposite in religious

« ElőzőTovább »