preferred certainly to have brought in a more general measure, but he felt, after the experience he had gained on the subject, that great practical difficulty would arise from its extension to other Dissenters. Many persons might raise such objections to forms as the Legislature could not anticipate, and a laxity might possibly arise which would favour the evil of clandestine marriages. Upon these grounds, he thought it best to limit the present Bill to the persons who had most reason, in foro conscientiæ, to object to the ceremony of the Church of England. It had been stated liberally in that House, and from the Right Reverend Bench, on a former occasion, that some provision ought to be made to save the consciences of those who differed so widely from the Church of England, the moment such a case was fairly brought forward. He therefore proposed, in this Bill, that af ter the publication of banns. in the usual form in the parish church, persons of the Unitarian persuasion should be allowed to have marriages solemnized in solemnized in their own places of worship, (these places having been registered as such for a year at least,) and by a minister of their own denomination. The parties who brought

forward the measure were desirous to give every civil security, and therefore, if it were thought advisable that ministers should be specially licensed or registered also, he did not see any objection. It might also be thought expedient to add, as in the case of the ministers of the Church, that the punishment of transportation should be visited upon any minister presuming to offend against these regulations. Though, in their petitions, the Unitarians considered the publication of banns as the best security that could be given against clandestine marriages, and though the Bill itself was founded upon that principle, he should not object, in case any better security could be devised, to give the public the advantage. Though, amongst all the Dissenters, the class selected for the operation of the present measure was the one which had differed most widely from the Church of England, he did not see that on that ground the Legislature should refuse them this privilege. If it was an indulgence, it was an indulgence in the shape of a burden, for these individuals only brought upon themselves double trouble and expense. He was not, he would confess, prepared to hear from any Noble

Lord, in the present enlightend state of the world, that the Unitarians were a sect standing without the pale of society, that it was expedient that marriages should be prohibited amongst them, or solemnized in the manner least calculated to become binding upon their consciences: and unless they were disposed to argue either that Unitarians were out of the pale of society, or, being within that pale, ought not to marry at all, or, doing so, to pay the penalty of violated conscience, he could not conceive how the present Bill could be resisted.-The Noble Marquis concluded by moving that the Bill should be read a second time.

The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY." I have always expressed myself extremely desirous of paying every respect to the feelings of religious conscience. I believe, my Lords, that the scruples of the Unitarians are so founded on religious faith and conscience; and seeing that, I conceive them to be entitled to the consideration of the House; and the question then only arises how the relief can be best afforded. Some little time ago it was proposed to alter the Liturgy of the Church in this respect; and to this plan I thought it my

duty, in common with ma ny others, decidedly to object. If relief is to be sought only by transferring the grievance; by removing the scruple from the few to the many; by altering the religous ordinances of one church to meet the objections of another; to such a plan I should always object. But this plan was abandoned, and last session a Bill was submitted of a very different character; and whatever objections applied to it, it certainly was not chargeable with attempting to transfer the grievances from the smaller to the larger portion of the community. That Bill, my Lords, was supported by several, and by me among the rest it was opposed by others, and those others formed on that occasion a majority which rejected the Bill. At that time, however, there appeared a disposition on all sides to give the relief desired under some form. My Lords, that relief can only be afforded in one of two ways; either by allowing these parties to celebrate marriages in their own places, and according to their own forms, or by submitting the Liturgy of the Church of England to some alterations calculated to remove the objections of Unitarian Dissenters. My Lords, to this last plan I

objected in the last session; to it I still object; and deprecating, as I do, any alteration of our excellent Liturgy, I trust I always shall object to it. I was then told that no alteration was intended; that to be sure some portions of the service were omitted, but that no part of it was submitted to substitution or alteration. But surely it cannot be contended, that as marked and decided an alteration may not be effected by omission as by any substitution. Was it not asked by this omission, to put aside the recognition of one of the most essential articles of our faith --the doctrine of the Trinity? If we were, at the request of objectors to our doctrines, to put them away from our service, to present our formularies thus mutilated and unhallowed to their purposes, would not this be to make the Church the handmaid to Dissent? Such a proposition, my Lords, was not, could not, and, I trust, never will be listened to. The only plan then, that remains for adoption is that which I have before noticed; and I now come to consider the provisions of this Bill. It is very true, my Lords, that in this Bill it is proposed to provide for relief of conscience and also for the preservation of civil conve

nience. The first, undoubtedly, it accomplishes; the second, I do not think that it does in its present form, and considerable alterations will therefore be necessary in the Committee. The Noble Mover has stated that it was his wish to have introduced a measure comprehending all classes of Dissenters, and supposes that it may be thought extraordinary that this favour should be granted only to this particular sect. My Lords, favour is not the ground on which we are to proceed. Scruple of conscience is the ground on which we are to entertain this Bill as a matter of justice. If such scruple exists, (and in the case of the Unitarians I feel that it does exist,) they are entitled to relief at our hands. I am aware, my Lords, that this cannot be done, after all our care, without some hazard of civil insecurity; but scruples of conscience outweigh that hazard; and ought to do so. The banns will be published in a place to which Unitarians do not resort; and the marriage may take place ten miles off; and there may be hazard in this, no doubt. As to the supposed claim of the general body of Dissenters, it is founded on a different principle. It is not founded as here in conscien

tious scruple of doctrines, important and essential, but on objections, for the most part fond and fanciful, to our forms and discipline, scanty and inoffensive as they are." On these grounds, the Archbishop concluded by saying, he was friendly to the general principle of the Bill, and would readily vote for its going into a Committee, where the points in which it was deficient could receive every attention.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that his strong regard for the interests of the Church must be his apology for presuming to differ very materially from the Rt. Rev. Prelate. He should, for the present, lay out of view the particular provisions of the Bill, and make a few observations on its general principle. And, first, it appeared to him extremely material to have all doubt removed as to the legal character in which this sect appeared to ask their relief. The preamble stated, that certain persons scrupled the doctrine of the Trinity. He apprehended they meant to say that they were deniers of that doctrine. He hoped their Lordships would do him the justice to believe that, when he was speaking of the law on this subject, he was referring only to the question how that law

actually stood, and not entering into what it might be expedient or proper it should be. When he spoke of doctrines, too, he spoke only of doctrines as supported by the Church, not entering into the speculative discussions which individuals might entertain, as to the grounds on which they might be supposed to rest. That Church, and the doctrines it professed, it was his duty to support; to that Church he belonged, and trusted he should be always found to maintain it to the best of his ability. Then on this Bill the first question was, whether it was not necessary that the first step they took should be some declaration, whether the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity be or be not legal at common law. On this subject he could not help saying great misapprehension had prevailed as to the supposed effect of the late Act. The Toleration Act excluded from its benefit deniers of the doctrine of the Trinity. And then came the 9 and 10 of William and Mary, the repeal of which had been extremely misunderstood, when it was supposed that the repeal of the Act made that legal which was not so before. He meant, that that Act had not altered the common

law, whatever it was. He was not saying what that common law was; he was only contending that the doubt which existed ought to be removed. The Act of William and Mary did not create the offence, it only prescribed a new punishment. In his view it declared what was then conceived to be an offence before; but it gave a punishment which no man living could wish should continue, and which they therefore repealed; but no one, he was sure, had the least idea of affecting the common law by such repeal. He was not entering on the question what that common law was, or whether it ought to be so or not; he only said, that before the Bill proceeded, it ought to be determined how it stood. The great objection he made to the Bill was, that it recognized a system as different from the system of Christianity of the Church as light from darkness. Nothing could be more opposed to each other than the Church and these Unitarians. He did not there enter into the question which was right in doctrine and which was wrong; but they ought to understand on what footing they were to stand, and to what extent they were to go. They had already excepted Jews and Quakers,

and if they were to listen to these religious scruples, where was this to stop? Could they say to any one, to the Catholics for instance, that theirs were not religious scruples? If these parties, who of all the Dissenters were diametrically opposed to the most essential doctrines of the Church, were, because they came there to avow their denial of such doctrines, (and, by the bye, they never thought of these scurples till the Acts against them had been repealed,) to have relief, why not separate them entirely, as they had done the Jews and Quakers? Why was the Church to be the handmaid to the scruples of these parties? Was a man to come to the Bishop and say, I deny your doctrines, therefore give me your li cence to do so; and to go to the minister and say, I deny your doctrines, give me your certificate of my banns, and for the same denial register my marriage? Was he to go to those persons who reverence these doctrines and avow the denial, for which it is not clear he may not be punishable at common law; and are they to be bound and compelled, under pains and penalties, to be aiding and abetting to this his dissent ? Was not this to make the Church the handmaid to her