DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT RELATIVE TO THE CHURCH. HOUSE OF LORDS. April 2, 1824. UNITARIAN MARRIAGES. THE order of the day for the second reading of the Unitarian marriage relief Bill being read, The Marquis of Lansdowne rose and said, This Bill originated in petitions which had been presented from the Dissenters in the last session of Parliament, in which they complained of the necessity they were under, as the law now stood, of taking a share in the celebration of the marriage ceremony, to which they could not in conscience assent. He therefore proposed in the Bill, now before the house, that the Dissenters, commonly called Unitarians, might, under certain regulations, be married in their own chapels, having previously given security to the Church for the publication of banns, and the payment of fees due to the Church. The Bill went on to provide, that the Protestant Dissenters, commonly called Unitarians, might be registered, and after being so registered, for not less than a year, their marriage might be celebrated in their own chapels. It was also provided, that ministers should be punishable if they celebrated any marriage contrary to the act, and he should have no objection that transportation should be the punishment assigned for it. Although the publication of banns was perhaps the best security against clandestine marriages, yet, if any other should be thought preferable, such as registering the intended marriage, he should not object to it. The noble Marquis concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, if the relief sought was to be obtained by removing the scruples from one description of men to lay them on another-from the smaller number to the larger-from the Unitarian Dissenter to the members of the Established Church-he should certainly have objected to it. It had been urged that it was extraordinary that this favour should be proposed to be granted to Unitarian dissenters, and yet refused to others: but the ground on which the Legislature was to proceed was not favour, but a regard to conscientious scruples; and where they existed, there was certainly a claim to relief. The claim of Dissenters in general was not rested on conscience, but on objections taken to certain forms and ceremonies. He hoped that security would be given to the public at large, and with this expectation he would support the Bill. The Lord Chancellor expressed his regret in differing from the opinion of the most reverend prelate, for whom he had the highest respect. The great objection which he had to the Bill was, that the doctrine of the Trinity was that of the Church of England, and those who denied it must have a system as different as light and dark. Without entering into a consideration of the particular clauses, he would observe that it was a Bill to make the Church of England servants of those who denied its first doctrines. He would again repeat, that his objection to the Bill was this-that if one doctrine was more essential to the Church of England than another, it was the doctrine of the Trinity; and in what a situation would it stand, if it were to be subservient to that which was stated to be the greatest heresy against it? The Earl of Harrowby said, there was one ground upon which he felt a considerable objection to the Bill, and that was the proposition for granting licences by the authorityTM of the Church, for the marriages of Dissenters, and the payment of fees. He would, however, vote for the committee, but if it should be proposed to pass the Bill as it now stood, he, for one, would oppose it. Lord Calthorpe thought the Church owed it to herself to shew that her strength and security were not derived from doing violence to the consciences of Dissenters, and voted for the second reading of the Bill. Lord Liverpool said he should vote for the Bill going into a committee, but that he had no hesitation in saying, if it came out of the committee in the shape it now was, he should oppose it. He was prepared to give relief where both the parties were Unitarians, but not where one was of the National Church. If it were so amended he should give his consent to it. The Bishop of Chester [now Bath and Wells].opposed the Bill at considerable length, and argued that the present question was not one of religious toleration, but of civil jurisdiction. As to the objections of the Unitarians to the marriage service on the score of conscience, were not the words, " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," an expression of Scripture? They might affix what meaning to them they pleased. But how could those words be considered as objectionable by the Unitarians, when the following words were used by the Unitarians themselves in the baptismal part of their Form of Prayer, of which he (the Bishop of Chester) had obtained the last edition:-" I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It seemed to him, therefore, to be impossible that they could object to words in the mar-2 riage ceremony of the Church of England, which they themselves pronounced in their own forms. So far, therefore, their lordships would agree, that the Unitarians had at present no just cause for complaint. If the present Bill passed into a law, let not the house lay the flattering unction to their souls that the same privileges and immunities would not be required by the other sects of dissenters. Now although he was far from wishing to say any thing against the Unitarians, he really did not think that they ought to be considered as a favourite sect. If, therefore, the other sects of dissenters were to be invested with the same privileges, let their lordships consider what a falling off there would be in the number of marriages celebrated by ministers of the Established Church, and what a diminution of their emoluments. Unquestionably the effect of such a measure would be, and especially in large manufacturing towns, such as those within his own diocese, to make little livings still less. Now really it seemed hardly fair to deprive the possessors of those little livings of a portion of that stipend which was already sufficiently scanty. Marriage fees formed a large part of the stipend of those clergy who always resided on their livings, faithfully discharging all their sacred functions, and from whom, therefore, it would be very hard to deduct so important a portion of their income. Such was the view which he took of the question. The Earl of Westmoreland said he should vote against the Bill, for, unquestionably, if the privilege were given to one sect, it ought to be extended to all. The Bishop of London would examine the merits of the question with regard to the particular case of the Unitarians. He had objected to the Bill which proposed to give relief to Dissenters of all denominations, as to the principle of it, because no sect or class was named in it, though he supported the proposition for its going into a committee. But in the present instance there was this difference, a particular class of persons was named, and their particular scruples were recited. The favourable exceptions of Jews and Quakers had been adverted to in the course of this discussion. He would be very willing to grant all that had been granted by the legislature to them in these respects; but nothing more. Let their lordships observe, too, what securities there existed against clandestine marriages, both among Quakers and Jews. In the case of the latter, they were derived from his prejudices, his habits, his religion, the usages of the people, and even the authority of the synagogue. The Quakers, again, were another class, among whom the same securities would always exist to.a great degree. The members of any branch of this society coming from one part of the kingdom, were obliged to produce testimo ril: and certificates before they could be received or admitted into another body Pp VOL. I. NO. 11. of the same connection in a different portion of the empire. Without troubling their lordships with any further detail, he believed he might say that courts of justice had never been called on to try a single case, in which the indulgence of the legislature to the marriage of Jews or Quakers had been to be regretted. With regard to these Dissenters, (the Unitarians) if they could give the same securities, possibly no great harm might result from extending the same indulgence to them; but no such securities did they offer. He should, however, vote for the Bill going into a committee. Lord Holland, after complimenting the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London upon the liberality of their sentiments, supported the Bill, and addressed himself to the speech of the Bishop of Chester at some length, contending that the right rev. Prelate had no more right to erect himself into a judge of the conscience of the Unitarians, than the Unitarians had upon the conscience of the right rev. Prelate. The house then divided upon the question of the second reading, when the numbers were, Proxies 14 = 35 Content Proxies 13 = 33 Majority 2 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, April 9. BUILDING OF CHURCHES ACTS. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the house resolving itself into a committee on the above Acts. The Speaker having left the chair, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after making some observations on the general expediency of the Act, stated that it would be found upon inspecting the papers before the house, that in 179 places, containing 3,548,000 inhabitants, there was only church accommodation for 500,000 persons, which was for about one individual in seven, upon the bulk of the population. He admitted that there must be deductions from this estimate of 3,548,000 souls; some would be sick, or old, or infants, and so persons not attending church; but still the amount of accommodation fell far below what was required. And what was it that left it so below? Why, the increase in population in some parishes, to a degree which, as regarded providing places of worship, overpowered all their means. It appeared, upon reference to the Report of the Commissioners for building churches, that one million already granted had done incalculable good. It had been supposed that it might build 85 churches, and find church accommodation for 145,000 people; and instead of that, it had sufficed to build 98 churches, and to provide accommodation for 153,000 people. In fact, the example set by parliament had excited the zeal and the emulation of the professors of the established church; and we had already had more than 200,0007. subscribed for building places of worship, and further subscriptions might be expected. Other parties contended for the inutility of the present grant, and said that the Government was building churches into which no one would go when they were finished; but this was a heavy mistake indeed; for, according to the papers before the house, all the new churches which had been built so far, were attended by overflowing congregations. The right hon. gent. then proceeded to read a variety of reports respecting the state of those parishes in which new erections had taken place. At Blackburn, in Lancashire, half the pews in the new church were let, and the remainder would be let but for the great convenience of the "free seats." This convenience he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was well pleased to be informed of; the "free seats" were the main point of consideration; he wished the letting of pews to go only so far as might pay the clergyman and the current expenses of the building. At Nottingham, the new church had absolutely been taken by storm; it was very much attended by females in an evening. In a wilder part of the country, at Ringwood, in Hampshire, among a population consisting almost entirely of smugglers and poachers, the endeavours of an excellent clergyman and his highly accomplished wife had produced results which could scarcely have been hoped for. Now, under such circumstances, could it be contended that the 1,000,000l. already given was ill bestowed? He thought that no sum of money ever granted by the house had been bestowed with more advantage; and it would be a strange conclusion, after having given 1,000,000. under circumstances when we were comparatively poor, to say that we should refuse 500,000%. more, at a time when we could comparatively so much better afford it. The right hon. gent. after observing that he asked only in his vote for 500,000%. but, upon that principle, if the country were in a state to afford more, he should by no means think it misapplied, sat down by moving, "That his Majesty should be authorised to direct Exchequer bills to the amount of 500,000% to be paid to the Commissioners for promoting the building of churches, under the regulations and restrictions of all Acts passed, or to be passed, for that purpose." Mr. Hobhouse thought that there were possessions in the hands of the Church which might by degrees be applied to the purpose in question. He admitted that a moral improvement had taken place in the country of late years, but maintained that this was an argument against the measure, as the fact shewed that improvement might advance without such an application of the public money. The honourable gentleman then went into some statements to prove, that several chapels of ease in the parishes of Westminster had numerous seats unoccupied, while dissenting chapels were thronged, and concluded by proposing an amendment, the substance of which was intended to set forth, that it was inexpedient to make any farther parliamentary grant for the building of churches. Mr. Peel rebutted the last speaker's arguments, and explained that the principal object of parliament was to provide accommodation in churches for the poor. The right hon. gentleman drew a beautiful picture of the benefit, which frequently resulted to a whole family, from a single individual being drawn to attendance on religious worship, and contended, that if they could succeed in inviting one member only out of every family in 800,000, to celebrate the public services of the Church, they would effect a greater good than they could achieve by any other application of the same sum of money. Mr. J. Smith thought that the building of churches was of less importance than promoting the education of the lower classes of the people. Dr. Lushington was of opinion that the grant was demanded of the house by the necessities of the people, and was no less a matter of justice than expediency, and more particularly at a time when a society, called the Home Missionary Society, was almost exclusively employed in sending agents to every part of the kingdom, for the purpose of increasing the number of those who no longer adhered to the Established Church. To the proposition which he had heard thrown out for vesting in the inhabitants the right of electing the clergymen of the new churches, he decidedly objected. He had seen enough of the mischief of such a system. In one case within his knowledge it had occasioned a litigation which lasted five whole years. The necessary canvass was degrading to the dignity of the establishment, and did not tend to place in the pulpit the clergyman fit for the function. He concluded by expressing his cordial approbation of the vote. Mr. Hume opposed the grant, and thought with another honourable gentleman that there were funds belonging to the Church itself, out of which 500,000. might very properly and fairly be provided. He would recommend the house to examine into the income of the bishopric of Durham, and suggested that if a bill were introduced to authorize the erection of new churches by voluntary contributions, conceding to the subscribers the privilege of electing their own clergymen, there would be no want of new churches, By returns made in 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, and 1814, relative to the Church of England, it appeared, that of 10,600 parsons, 6,804 incumbents were non-residents; 3,798 were residents. Parliament had heard a good deal about the absentees and non-residents in the Church of Ireland; but they bore no proportion to the Church of England. In Ireland the proportion was about 800 residents to 400 absentees. In England, according to the return of 1814, which was similar to that of 1817, almost to a fraction, the nonresidents were thus stated (Hear, hear.) The honourable and learned gentleman who was so anxious for fair play for the church of England, had better turn his attention to this statement. If he wished to serve the Church of England, let him get rid of pluralists and non-residents. Mr. Bankes, junior, rose to give his support to the motion, as did Lord Palmerston and Mr. Gordon. The Marquis of Lansdowne moved the order of the day for the house to go into a committee on this act. The Bishop of Chester (now Bath and Wells) rose and opposed the resolution with arguments similar to those which he used upon the second reading, and concluded by moving that their lordships resolve themselves into a committee on that day three months. The Bishop of Exeter voted for going into the committee forthwith, but wished to propose some amendments on the subject of registration of marriages. The Bishop of St Davids.-My Lords, The benefit which is proposed by the Bill before the house for persons calling themselves Unitarians, and proposed for them, as dissenters from the Church of England, and on a plea of conscience, they are not entitled to, in my humble opinion, on either account. Dissenters from an established Church are persons holding the fundamental doctrines of the established religion, and differing from it chiefly on questions of discipline. But Unitarians deny altogether the distinguishing doctrines of the Church of England, and are therefore not dissenters from the established religion, but aliens from it. The benefit is proposed for them as a plea of conscience. My lords, conscience, as well as zeal, may be without knowledge; and though want of knowledge may be entitled to compassion, it has no claim to privilege. That want of knowledge is the ground of the Unitarian objections to the established religion, may be presumed from this, that the doctrines to which Unitarians object are held, even in this liberal and enlightened age, by an infinite majority of Christians,' to be essential to Christianity. And this, my lords, may not only be presumed, but proved, by laws of language, as strict as any law of legal evidence. So pernicious to society were the opinions of Unitarians once declared to be by the Legislature, that persons professing them were not, till within these very few years, even a tolerated party in the State. But, being tolerated, their conscience is now made a plea for privilege. And yet we are told by a very high authority, that dissent seeking for more than toleration, is not conscience, but ambition. If conscience had any share in the objections which Unitarians make to the language of the Marriage Service, they might equally object to the Scriptures themselves, for the obnoxious terms are the express words of the New Testament, and are retained by the Unitarians in their translation of that Testament; and, incredible as such inconsistency may appear, they are the very words of their own baptisinal office, and are there introduced as the foundation of the Christian faith. Whatever meaning, therefore, they may be accustomed to attach to the words in one service, they may equally retain in the other. For the words which the Marriage Service requires them to use, contain no declaration of faith, but are simply the conclusion of a mutual contract, by which the contracting parties engage to fulfil their promise, as Christians-on that faith of a Christian into which they were introduced by Baptism. But, my Lords, the objections which Unitarians make to the doctrine of the Trinity, are objections to doctrines which are essential to Christianity. They deny the divinity of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit; and therefore they hold no other belief of the Deity than is professed by Deists and Mahometans. Your lordships, therefore, cannot consent to the proposed indulgence to conscientious scruples respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, without being prepared to grant the same, or any other indulgence, to conscientious scruples respecting the truth of Christianity. If Unitarians would at once |