here rigidly to the Liturgy; and that it had been declared that no alteration could be made--and they, therefore, only asked relief in a mode which would subject them to additional trouble and expense, but would, it that cost, liberate them from the practice of admit

ting the doctrines of a Church which they are prepared to deny, and which, in the free exercise of their opinion, they were entitled to deny. The Noble Marquis said he had, on a former occasion, taken some trouble to elicit from the Noble and Learned Lord his opinion as to the legal situation of these parties, and he could not discover that that Noble Lord had any ground for considering the opinions of the Unitarians illegal. In the courts of justice in this kingdom it had been long and cheerfully acknowledged, that there was a wide distinction between those blasphemous opinions which were entertained by persons who had no other object than to subvert religion, and those which grew out of free discussion, which were conscientiously formed, and which might legally exist. But the present Bill had been represented as a blow aimed against the Church, not intentionally by those who had brought in the

Bill, but by the Bill itself, in its necessary operation. It was easy to make assertions of this nature, and he could not help recollecting that some of the most mischievous delusions which had ever disgraced a country, had originated in the unfounded assertion, that the Church was in danger. The most disgraceful acts recorded in our history were excited by erroneous clamours of this sort. The mob, who had carried the torch to the house of one of the greatest magistrates who had ever presided in England, had been led on to that act of violence and barbarism, under the influence of such an absurd belief. When, therefore, an opinion respecting the danger of the Church Establishment was thrown out by such an authority as the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, it was to be wished and expected that he would condescend to state in what the danger consisted. He would take leave to direct their Lordships' attention to what had been done in Ireland, where the Church was the same as the Church of England, except so far as the measure to which he was about to allude had altered and liberalized the spirit of church government. An Act was then passed in 1781, declaring all

marriages of all Dissenters to be valid, and without any of the regulations which this Bill proposed; and he would ask the Prelates of the Church Establishment in Ireland, to state in what instance this regulation had been found injurious to the Church? That Act had passed in Ireland, not only with the approbation of the Right Reverend Bench and of the Lord Lieutenant, but of the Privy Council, acting at that time under the influence of Lord Thurlow, a man not likely to disregard the interests of the Church. Some of the Bishops, who had taken a part in that proceeding, had left their opinions recorded in a protest; and those opinions were so dif ferent from those avowed by the Noble and Learned Earl, that he could not help alluding to them. The Bill for allowing the marriages of Dissenters in Ireland, passed the Commons without any opposition. In the House of Lords it was objected to; but when some of the Prelates came to form a protest against the measure, after it had passed into an Act, they stated their objections to be, not against the principle, of which, on the contrary, they approved, but because it gave the Dissenters greater

privileges than the members of the Church, (they being willing to give them as much,) and because it did not contain in its enactments a provision against clandestine marriages, nor a provision to facilitate divorces in the ordinary cases. They expressed themselves most willing to concur in the principle of the Bill, which they would not have done if they thought it likely to be attended with danger to the Church. He could not conceive that any objection could be made to the principle of the present Bill, except by persons who held that Unitarians were unfit to be recognized in civil society. What difference there might be in point of doctrine between them and the Established Church, it was not his business to inquire; but if Unitarians had been tolerated, and were still considered worthy to be tolerated in this country, and to contract marriages-it followed, that they ought to be relieved from a form which imposed upon them a simulation of conformity and an acquiescence which the Church ought to disdain to accept, unless it came freely and from the heart. He could say with truth, that in proportion as he attached importance to the doctrines of the Church

of England, he would be anxious that no other as sent should be required on their behalf, but that which flowed from the conviction of the heart. If there were any persons in this country who felt a complete indifference on matters of religion, who regarded it only as a trick of State, intended to secure obedience to Government, and respect for law, those were the very persons who, he expected, would be the first to compel others to wear that mask which they were content to wear themselves. But such a proceeding was nnworthy of a Christian and Protestant teacher, unworthy of the Church of England, and unworthy of that Assembly: they had no right to ask from others any submission which was not essential; and, after obtaining what was necessary to secure against clandestine marriages, they would not, he was persuaded, consent to vex the consciences of individuals, by obtaining a false assent to doctrines, in which they could not sincerelyacquiesce. With respect to the amendments suggested, he should have no objection, if the Bill went into Committee, to meet the views of the Right Reverend Prelates, preserving the principle of the Bill. But with respect

to the proposition for obliging the Dissenters to keep a separate registry of their own, he doubted whether the general registry would not be more effectual; at the same time that he was willing to agree to any regulations which were considered necessary. The Bill was not intended for the benefit of Unitarians, but for the general benefit, by giving to marriage the greatest solemnity of which it was capable ;-the

best way to insure that solemnity was, to connect it with the religious belief of the parties, whether they might consider it mistaken or not; and the most certain way to weaken and destroy it was, to call them into the bosom of the Church, and, as it were, into the presence of their Creator, for the purpose of affecting opinions which they did not believe, though certain Right Reverend Prelates were good enough to point out the way in which the evasion might be reconciled to their consciences. He knew that in times which ought never to be referred to for precedents, during the ascendancy of the Romish Church, instruments of torture had been resorted

to, for the purpose of compelling an acquiescence in doctrines which its professors had resolved to pro

pagate; but such cases could only be referred to for the purpose of disgusting them with the example. With regard to the amendments suggested, he would willingly discuss them in the Committee. As to the objection of Lord Liverpool to the Bill's applying to cases where only one of the parties was an Unitarian, he was still of opinion that it ought, but was not disposed to be pertinacious on that point. The East-India Act gave the relief where either of the parties dissented.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the respect he had always felt for the Noble Lord who advocated this measure, for the other Noble Lords and Prelates who differed from him in opinion, and (though in a much smaller degree) for himself, compelled him to state to their Lordships the grounds upon which he felt that he never could conscientiously vote for sending this Bill to a Committee. He did not mean to say that it was impossible to frame a Bill which should give relief to those who were supposed to be entitled to it; but the present Bill contained principles irreconcilable with the security of the Established Church. He begged the House would not suppose

upon

he wished to press his opi nions upon any one; but feeling it to be his duty, and he was sure it was his inclination, to support the interests of the Chu.ch; feeling also, after having devoted a great portion of a long life to the consideration of the subject, that if ever that moment should arrive when this country should be deprived of her Established Church, she would lose the best security that any that any country ever had or could have, for the continuance of religious toleration; that principle he felt it his duty, for the sake of the Dissenters themselves, to object to any change which was calculated to degrade that Church. It was not for the benefit of the Church alone, but for the security of the great principle of religious toleration, that he should oppose this Bill, and any other which he conceived to be liable to the same objections. No one more than himself wished for a liberal and large toleration, but it could never be enjoyed securely without they had a Church established on the principles of a liberal and large toleration. A Noble Lord, in allusion to what had passed on a former occasion, had found fault with him, as if he had raised doubts

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 William 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 whom his Lordship pro'nounced 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