This could never be allowed. Why should it be supposed that the faith of the Churchman was not as strong as the Unitarian's? If neither party would give the other the benefit of his or her religious doubts, they ought not to come together. It was clear that the relief could only be extended where both were objects of it. Another material point was, to see that the parties were bonâ fide Dissenters-not merely professing themselves to be so for that purpose. This he knew would be a matter of great difficulty, but he did not despair of finding a means of overcoming it in a Committee. As to the places to be registered for marriages, it was impossible that every room or garret licensed for religious worship could be allowed to be used for this purpose; it was not necessary for the parties themselves that it should be so. On the whole, it was undoubtedly desirable that the Bill should have been brought in earlier : he was aware, however, of the reason why it was not, which was a fair one: but the subject was one that had excited great attention, and even now, at this period of the session, he had rather that it should receive the full consideration of the House, though it might be clear that no measure could absolutely be decided upon this session.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY observed, that there were two modes proposed to them for the relief of the parties complaining. The first, the suggestion of Lord Liverpool as to an alteration in the service of the Church; the second, that they should go on with the present Bill. He could not accede to Lord Liverpool's suggestion. It was the first instance, he believed, of a recommendation being made to the Church to alter its Liturgy in matters of doctrine, to meet the scruples of Dissenters. In matters of discipline, attempts had been made at comprehension, but never, he believed, was any alteration contemplated in doctrinal matters to accommodate those who scrupled at conformity. "I give way to no man, my Lords, in my respect for religious scruples and feelings. The English Church is truly a tolerant Church, for this especially, as well as for other reasons, that she lays no claim to infallibility. Every man is on the momentous questions of religion to judge for himself, and, so judging, he may do well, if diligent in searching, and if the means which he adopts be suitable. But how many, my Lords, do we not know, found their faith on private and unlearned interpretation of particular texts? Am I unfriendly to toleration? No! it is the proper result of the fallibility of human judgment. But the mode and extent of that toleration is a subject for the Legislature to decide upon, not for the Church; and Parliament will, I have no doubt, take care to keep it within such limits, as that sound moral principles shall not be endangered, nor the interests of the Church subverted. I look at the noble Lord's suggestion with infinite alarm, as the first attempt to alter its Liturgy to meet doctrinal objections; and with regard to the Bill before us, I consider the principle of it also objectionable, because it goes further than the point which I am ready to concede, namely, relief to scruples of conscience in matters of doctrine. Forms of discipline, my Lords, can hardly be said to be the subject of scruples of cor

science; yet this Bill goes to meet the case of objectors to discipline, and states the parties to entertain conscientious objections to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.' Confining it to matters of doctrine, I think that relief should be granted, and that some plan may be devised, which may be free from some of the objections which apply to the present Bill."

The Bishop of WORCESTER Conceded that there was just ground of objection, on the part of those who are required at present to join in a service that implies a confession of faith repugnant to their conscientious feelings and opinions. He objected to any man being called upon, on such an occasion, to profess what on no other occasion he was in any way called on to admit. He thought some remedy ought to be applied; the question was, What should be the relief? The Bill was in its present state very imperfect, but it might be altered to meet their views in a Committee. As to the suggestion of Lord Liverpool, he differed from the opinion expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. An omission or abridgement of the service did not appear to him to be, properly speaking, an alteration. Did not they all know that the service was every day in practice abridged?

Lord REDESDALE. The principle of the Bill was, in fact, to repeal the Act of the present session, while it professed not to do so. It was nothing more nor less than to convert all places licensed under the Toleration Act into Gretna Greens, where persons of all persuasions might go and make irregular marriages: two persons of the Established Church might be married under it, if they wished to evade the usual forms. This Bill was totally different in principle from the exception of Jews and Quakers in Lord Hardwicke's Act. They were two known denominations; their ceremonies, creeds, and customs, were known, and the exception only applied to parties being so bonâ fide, and, to bring them within it, it must be proved that they were really Jews or Quakers. If it was enacted, that, in the case of a marriage between two Catholics or Dissenters, they might marry in their own church, the principle would be followed; but, when it was allowed to one of the parties, the principle was deserted. This Bill was nothing more nor less than the repeal of an Act which it pretended not to repeal. It allowed any person to make irregular marriages, as easily as if at Gretna Green. Marriages of Jews and Quakers, too, were not registered in the parish book, as was proposed by this Bill: there again, the principle of their case was deserted. The Bill ought to be founded solely on that principle, if it was sought to establish it on the relief granted in that case.

Lord HARROW BY thought the Bill would require great amendment, but the principle was to relieve persons, who objected to the doctrines of thẹ Church of England, from the difficulty of being compelled to give their assent to them in marriage. He agreed with the Marquis of Lansdowne, that there was no ground for the State's compelling such a conformity. It might be a

question whether the Bill did not go too far: he conceived that it did; and he could not agree to it as it stood. But in the principle he fully concurred, and therefore thought it should go to a Committee, where it might probably be brought even into a state to be approved by the noble and learned Lord (Eldon). He should have been desirous that it should have come earlier; but the reason why it had not, was fair and obvious; and, at any rate, they should be better prepared for consideration of the subject next session, if it passed a Committee in the present. If it had come earlier, there would have been more time; but the discussion must do good. Even with the present discussion, they would come to the subject much better informed than they had been.

The Bishop of CHESTER. The Bill was allowed to be as important as it was novel in principle. Whatever relief had been contemplated and discussed as to Unitarians, he had never before understood that it was meant to be applied to others. It affected deeply the discipline as well as the emoluments of the Church; and he appealed to the House whether it was fit to bring on so important a subject when so many of the bishops were absent, or leaving town, for their important duties. The Bill, while it regarded the scruples of Dissenters, might also affect the scruples and feelings of the clergy; and was it not proper that their sentiments, or their petitions if they pleased, should be first heard? He disavowed all wish to refuse to religious scruples in matters of doctrine, the relief to which they were most justly entitled.

Lord CALTHORPE contended that the Marquis of Lansdowne had laid sufficient grounds for going into a Committee. He confessed he looked to the agitation of these questions without the smallest fear. The more the rights and true interests of the Church were discussed and considered, the more, he was sure, it would appear deserving of the respect and affections of the community. He could not conceive how the interests of religion, or of the Church, could call on them to compel conformity in opinions which the parties considered repugnant to reason or scripture. This argument applied certainly, as he thought, only to one class of the persons seeking relief, whom he considered as clearly distinguished from the rest. He did not feel prepared to carry relief further than to them. He thought the Unitarians stood singly before them, and that their case was different from that of all others. Their objection arose on a fundamental and essential point. In that character, in which Parliament was alone justified in interfering on the subject, (in its parental character as guardian of the moral rights and interests of the people,) it was called upon to afford to scruples of conscience that relief which the present laws denied. He confessed he regarded with apprehension and dislike, any further interference which would seem to militate against that wholesome supremacy which, for the interests of the State, was vested in the Church; but he could not forbear giving the Bill before them this qualified approbation.

с

The Bishop of LLANDAFF. If he could see any probability of modelling the Bill for the better in its details, he would certainly be for going into a Committee; but it seemed so objectionable in the whole principle of its operation, that he despaired of any such result. In his objections, he had been anticipated by two learned and noble Lords (Eldon and Redesdale). If the Bill were to go to a Committee, he certainly contended that the State must be satisfied who and what were the persons who were to be allowed to solemnize marriages, and what were the forms to be used. Without knowing this, there was infinite hazard. As to Jews and Quakers, their Lordships knew their forms, customs, and ceremonies; but he believed there was not even in existence in the country any form of ceremony for other sects. He put it to their Lordships whether it was safe to entrust marriages to persons of whom they knew nothing, without, at any rate, putting Dissenting Ministers under similar restrictions with those imposed on Ministers of the Church, and which they themselves would probably think inconsistent with the liberty they enjoyed. He was a friend to toleration. The Church's glory was, that it was a tolerant Church. This was, he believed, the only point in which there was any compulsive conformity, and it was certainly important to relieve it. If the Bill went only to meet religious scruples, he would cordially agree in it; but the Bill was so loose, that it went to exempt any one who merely conscientiously declined conformity. It was one thing to say that a person could not conscientiously comply, and another to say he conscientiously declined to comply. The man of no religion might say he conscientiously declined to join with the Church. The Bill must define better the persons whom it proposed to relieve. As to Lord Liverpool's suggestion, he felt very reluctant to give a hasty opinion upon it. Though he felt the objections urged by the Right Reverend Archbishop, he was not prepared to say that the plan was impracticable; but the Church could not be expected to decide such a point at a moment. He was sorry to hear it said, that they had only the alternative of going into a Committee on this Bill, or agreeing to the suggestion at once. (No! no!) He was not prepared, certainly, to decide; he joined heartily in wishing the Bill might be withdrawn, as involving an intricate and difficult question: but when he said "not content," he said it merely because it was a matter on which he could not decide in the time allowed.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought it would be a sad thing that this House should divide on such a question as this. The Bill really went to nothing but to relieve religious scruples, which every one admitted should be relieved. It had been discussed again and again, and there was no difference on that point. He could not think that moral or religious principles could be advanced by forcing persons in this way into a conformity with the Church. He could not think a triumph of that kind gratifying to any one's feelings. He was convinced that every thing of that sort only widened the breach. The simple object of the Bill was (after requiring persons dissenting to go through all

the civil forms) to leave them to perform their religious rites in their own way. It changed nothing but the person and place of solemnizing the religious rite. He could not understand how they could hesitate about going into a Committee. No friend to the Church could wish that Dissenters, particularly Unitarians, should be compelled either to profess conformity to doctrines and worship which they disavowed, or be debarred from entering into the most important relation of life. Admitting the principle, as every one did and must, they had to choose between the two plans which had been suggested. He agreed that the details required much consideration, but he was desirous to sift those details; and, if they found the present plan impracticable, they could resort to Lord Liverpool's suggestion; but in that also he saw great difficulty. If they were to alter the Liturgy, so as to banish every thing objected to by any sect, they must make it little more than a civil ceremony, and to this he believed all would object. (Hear!) If they altered, they must alter to meet all, and he wished to find a plan of relief without any such alteration. Their Lordships should consider, that any Dissenter taking advantage of this Bill, would subject himself to much greater difficulty and expense. No person, therefore, but a bona fide Dissenter would take on himself such unnecessary trouble, especially on the day of his life when he was least likely to take on himself more trouble than he could avoid. Certainly the apprehensions of civil irregularity were most ridiculous. Why, in fact, all marriages under this Bill would be invalid, unless every one of the forms required of a Church marriage were gone through! Few things would give him more pain than to see that right reverend bench arrayed in opposition to such a measure as this. Such conduct could do them no good. From them the Bill took little-to the Dissenters it gave much. In the Committee, they could fairly weigh all the clauses, with a view to the security of the State and their Church, but let them not thus throw obstacles in the way of all relief.

Lord CARNARVON saw objections to the Bill as it now stood, but admitted that the grievance was so great, that he should hardly think their Lordships could be brought to overlook it. They might remove, if not the whole, at least part of the evils. They might think it expedient to postpone ultimate decision to a future session, but they would all come to the consideration of the subject next session, with much more information, if they considered it this. Even after the present debate, they could enter on it better than before; and with minds how much better prepared would they come to it, after the discussions of a Committee! He confessed that difficulties existed: the guards and protections which the general Act imposed, might be affected: they would have to consider what relief they should give, which would not give rise to occasional conformity for the purpose of avoiding the operation of the general law: all this required discussion, but the sooner it was entered upon, the better. If there were classes of Dissenters deterred only from conforming willingly to the Church service by a few words of a doctrinal nature, it