On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
of many other classes of Dissenters . Re would here ? say a few words as to some observations , which had been made with respect to conscientious scruples . He agreed with the Noble Baron opposite , ( Lord Holland , ) , that they ought to estimate conscientious scruples not by their
own opinious , but by the opinions of those who entertained such scruples . The conscientious scruple , with respect to the benediction , was , in his opinion , a just and well-founded scruple . He came to this conclusion , by putting the question to himself and feeling that he could never consent to receive a benediction in the
iiauie of Jupiter or . Mahomet , or of any religion which he did hot acknowledge ; lie could not but acquiesce in the justice of the conscientious scruples entertained by the Unitarians , however he might condemn or disapprove of the doctrines of that sect . If the question were put
to him whether he would apply the principle of this Bill to other classes of D 5 asenters , he would repeat the opinion which . he had given ou a former occasion . When the Noble Marquis opposite ( Lord Lansdowne ) brought in a Bill , in the last Session , to extend relief
generally to Dissenters , he ( Lord Liverpool ) voted for the second reading of that Bill , stating , however , at the same time * that it was extremely doubtful whether so general a Bill could be adopted in a shape which he could ultimately approve . The more he reflected on this subject ,
the more strongly he was convinced that it would be extremely difficult , if not impossible , to apply the principle of this Bill generally to all classes of Dissenters . If , however , proper securities against clandestine marriages were preserved , he must confess that he saw no objection in principle to conceding to Dissenters the
right of being married according to their own religious forms , provided both parties were Dissenters . Here he should draw his distinction ; for he thought it was not only the right but the duty of | he Church of England to take care that its members should be married according to the established forms . This Bill did
not introduce any new principle , it merely recognized the principle which was alaeady admitted in the case of Jews and Quakers . It had been said that very serious doubts might be raised as to the legal situation or * these parties , and the effect of the ! repeal of the Act of William
a » d Mary . As far as he had experience he would not deny that doubts might be raised on any subject , and , certainly , as to matters of law , he felt himself incompetent to decide . AU he would observe , was , that that Act was introduced to relieve Unitarians from their difficulties
Untitled Article
as to toleration , and to place fheiri ot * the same footing as other Dissenters ; in short * ta give them substantial protection and relief . That was quite sufficient For him . If technical doubts and difficulties arose on the construction of the Act ,
when the case arose they ought , as a matter of right , to be removed , but , in the mean time , he stood on the general acknowledged understanding of the intentiou of the law . In the same way as to
marriages of Jews and Quakers , they were told there were doubts and difficulties as to their legality , but there could be no doubt , that ever since the passing of Lord Hardwicke ' s Marriage Act , marriages between Jewa and Quakers had been
recognized by the practice of the country , and property to an immense amount had passed in consequence of those marriages . This was enough to satisfy him ; if doubts arose , it would be but justice to the parties interested that those doubts should
be cleared by an Act of the Legislature ; but unless such doubts appeared in some tangible shape , he should assume that the recognized practice of the country was the law of the land . As to the Unitarians , he
must repeat that he thought them fairly and conscientiously entitled to the relief ; that their scruples were on the face of them fair and just . But the Noble and Learned Lord said if the Unitarians
were to be placed on the same footing as Jews and Quakers , then put them on the same footing as Jews aud Quakers in every respect , and let them not be married in any degree through the instrumentality of the Church of England . —This , he apprehended , was entirely a question for the Committee on the Bill ; it would be for the Committee to decide
whether it would be proper that the Unitarians should keep their own registers or not . The inclination of his mind , oh civil grounds , was the other way ; he thought that their marriages ought to be registered in the Established Churches ;
and that opinion was founded , not upon a religious , but a civil ground ; because such a regulation would most effectually prevent clandestine marriages . Whatever might be the merits or defects of the Bill , he could not understand how it could
in any way operate injuriously to the Church of England . He concurred with the Noble Baron opposite ( Lord Holland ) on this point , and he was the more ready to express that concurrence , because he differed from the Noble Baron most
essentially and fundamentally on many important questions connected with the security of the Church of England . He agreed also with the Noble Baron , that it was not the wi 3 est policy to stretch every little measure of concession into a
Untitled Article
Intell ^ ence ^ PurUa vhentary t UmtartansMa ^ rhigv BHL &V
Untitled Article
VOL ,. XIX . 2 S
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1824, page 313, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2524/page/57/
-