The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-06 00:00:00

UNITARLINS.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN rose to present a petitiOn
most respectably signed, praying that their Lordships would
institute an inquiry into the state-of -the law relating to Uni-
tarians. He expressed- his astonishment that it should still be
wished to exclude the petitioners from the benefite of the con-
stitution, without there being on record any case in which their
competence to discharge the duties of good subjects could be
questioned ; and the more so, as the objection to them was
founded on inferences drawn from scattered jadgments and the
words of old Acts' of •Parliament, without any proof that the
opinions of those persons were of a nature to sanction such ex.
'elusion—without its being even pretended that they did not
believe in those principles which formed the foundation of all
morality—namely,.the belief in the future state and the system
of rewards and punishments. It was scarcely credible that while
it was not pretended that the petitioners held any opinion incon-
sistent with the safety of the state, they should now, several
years after an Act of Parliament had been passed for their
protection, be wild that they were still liable to the penalties
which it was the'object of that statute to repeal. Yet the Lord
Chancellor had expressed a doubt whether those persons for the
relief of whom the statute was passed were now protected by it.
Deubes such as he had described having been entertained, the
Unitarians now approached their Lordships with a petition, to
which not only every indulgence was due, but to which their
Lierdthips were bound to devote the most serious attention.—.
They prayed that they might be informed what their situation
really was, that they might know on what conditions they owed
allegiance as subjects of the realm. They requested to know
whether their interests were not to be protected, and their safety
ensured, in the same manner as if they' were members of any
other religion. If he were asked whether he would in another
session originate any Bill to remove the doubts to which he had
alluded, he should say, that looking to the necessity of relieving
those persons from the practical grievances of which they had
to complain, and more particularly from those they experienced
under the Marriage Act, and to the necessity also of relieving
the Church of England from a disagreeable • duty—looking,
likewise, to the disposition of Parliament, if not to pass a !form
the same form as the-Bill of the present session, yet one which
might accomplish the same object, he should be disposed on the
part of the petitioners to accept the passing-of such an act as an
'assurance of the removal of those doubts : but the petitioners
sought not to be left under the obscure cloud which now hung
over them, .and which he, hoped next session would be com-
pletely removed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR made a few observations,
which were not altogether audible.' He -said; that if the law
turned out as it was supposed 'to be, he would then rather pass
a law for the benefit of those persons than otherwise. 'When the
question of what the law was came to be regularly discussed,
he would state the grounds of his opinion respecting it.
Lord HOLLAND observed, that the Noble and Learned
Lord seemed to have forgotten that he had already twice spoken
upon this subject in the course-of the present session:`-He would
not venture .to say that the -Noble and Learned Lord stated
what the law was, but he did state that it was such as ought to
induce the House to pease before they paiied an Act for the
relief of the Unitarians on the subject of marriage. The peti-
tioners had taken the only manly course which' they could
adopt; and if the Noble and Learned 'Lord:had followed the
same example when he had doubts, he would have stated what
really was the law, and not left it to be understOOd that he still
believed them liable to be punished under tee -eonimon law.—
This was a subject which called for inquiry, as it involved the
interests of that great portion of the ceinmunity which consist-
ed of dissenters ; for the doubts thrown out did-not affect the
Unitarians alone, nor even other persienfi'who might impugn
the doctrines of the Trinity, but every dei&iiition of persons
who did not belong to the established church. It appeared
from the opinion of Lord Chief Justke Foster and Lord
Mansfield—an opinion to which 'Blackstone also seemed to
assent—that the whole dissenting body in this country existed
by sufferance—Abet they were all liable to be indicted-411k '
their institutions, for the purposes of charity or education, all
stood on a sandy foundation, and might be swept away by the
law. Howevereon the'late discussion of the Catholic Question,
those who approved most of this interpretation of the law,
were in the habit of using 'many kind expressions towards ,
the Dissenters. These persons were then called " our Pr 0...!
testant Brethren," in the same way as Hotspur had been
called
s" Gentle Harty Percy 'and kind cousin." He durst
not go so far, and perhaps the petitioners would not, as to'
say, 0, the devil take such cozeners." But the spirit
of liminess with which our Protestant brethren, the Dis-
senters, were to be treated, was plainly shown a few days •
after, when -a.pait of that body came forward to ask of
Parliament a small 'boon, which many of' the dignitaries of
the church, to. their honour; declared was not merely a boon
to the petitioners., but 'to the clergY of the Establishment' also.
As soon as the bill came to be discussed, up jumped a-person
and maul, "Who are you ? I have found out an Act of Par-
liament by which you are punishable—an Act which I own is
a disgrace to the Statute-book, but which proclaims you to be
guilty of a deteStable Crime." This supposed application of- t
the laW to Unitarians was founded on the maxim, let, that I
Christianity is part and parcel Of the law of England, and, I
next, that to deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity. On the
first of these points lie should say little, for it. formed no part I
of the present question ; but as his attention had been drawn
to it during these debates; he could not help being surprised
to find upon what slender grounds it was founded. But what.i
was the meaning of this maxim ? If Lord Rayniond and Mr.
Justice Holt said that Christianity was part and parcel of the
law of the land, and if Lord Mansfield said, in language
more precise, that revealed religion was not to be reviled,
and that to revile it was punishable, it followed that if these
phrases were legal terms, they must have a legal meaning at-
tached to them. 'Was it the Holy Scriptures which constituted
the Christianity which was said to 'he part and parcel of the
law ? If so, them no persons who built their faith on those I
Scriptures could be sail to deny Christianity. But per,
haps the Christianity meant was that which' existed at the
time to which the origin of this law maxim referred. If so,
their Lordships were placed inn curious dilemma, for they
ought now to believe in that transubstantiation -which every
person wax called upon to abjure before he could sit in that
House. He wished the House and the public 'to see the conse-
quences of extending the application of this maxim. He remined
their Lordships of the important decisiorein the remarkable case I
of Mr. Evans, who being fined for not accepting an office, re-
fused to nay the fine on the ground that he, in taking office,
would be requiretlact conform to the Church of England, which
as a Dissenter, he would not do. He was answered that his
very non-conformity was itself a crime, and therefore could
afford no ground for his not paying the fine. After the cause
had gone through the Courts; below, it Caine by appeal before
their Lordships, and the House decided that Mr. Evans was
not obliged to pay the fine. The ground of this decision was,
that the. Toleration Act gave a right of protection io all Pis-
senters. Since the passing of the late Act relative to Unitarians, '
those persons stood in the same situation as all other Protestant
Dissenters, and if the Toleration • Act did not protect them, it
afforded not security to any members of any sect whatever.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, -on the occasions alluded to
he had given no opinion of his own on the subject of the law as
it applied to the Unitarians. He had merely stated what had
actually passed in the Courts of Law* hi Westminster-hall.
Mr. SF RING RecE and others from the House of Commons
brought the Irish Church-rates Bill, the 'Apothecaries Bill, the
Scotch Copartnership Bill, the Combination Laws' Amend-
ment Bill, and the Marine Insurance Bill, with their Lord-
ships' Amendments agreed to. Adjourned at half-past seven
o'clock.