The Marquis of Lansdownrose to present a petition most respectably signed, praying, that their lordships would institute an inquiry into the state of the law relating to Unitarians. He expressed his astonishment, that it should still be wished to exclude the petitioners from the benefits of the constitution, 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 judgments and the words of old acts of parliament, without any proof that the opinions of those persons were of a nature to sanction such exclusion—without its being even pretended that they did not believe in a future state and the doctrine of rewards and punishments. It was scarcely credible that, while it was not pretended that the petitioners held any opinion inconsistent with the safety of the state, they should, now, several years after an act had been passed for their protection, be told that they were still liable to the penalties which it was the object of that, statute to repeal. Yet the lord chancellor had ex- 1481 pressed a doubt whether those persons, for the relief of whom the statute was passed, were now protected by it. Doubts such as he had described having been entertained, the Unitarians now approached their lordships with a petition, to which their lordships were bound to give their 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 law in 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.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the law turned out to be as it was supposed to be, he would 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 Hollandobserved, that the 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 learned lord had stated what the law was; but he had stated, that it was such as ought to induce the House to pause before they passed an act for the relief of the Unitarians on the subject of marriage. The petitioners had taken the only manly course which they could adopt; and if the learned lord had followed the same example, 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 the common law. This was a subject 1482 which called for inquiry, as it involved the interests of that great portion of the community which consisted of Dissenters; for the doubts thrown out did not affect. the Unitarians alone, but every description of persons who did not belong to the established church. It appeared, from the opinion of chief justice Foster and lord Mansfield—an opinion to which Blackstone seemed to assent—that the whole dissenting body in this country existed by sufferance—that they were all liable to be indicted—that their institutions, for the purposes of charity or education, all stood on a sandy foundation, and might be swept away by a process at law. However, on 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 Protestant brethren," in the same way as Hotspur had been called "Gentle Harry Percy," and "kind cousin." He durst not follow up the quotation and say "the devil take such cozeners." But, the spirit of kindness with which the Dissenters were to be treated, was plainly shown a few days after, when a part 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 said, "Who are you? I have found out an act of parliament which proclaims you to be guilty of a detestable crime." This supposed application of the law to Unitarians was founded on the maxim; 1st, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of England; and next, that to deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity. As to the first of these points, he could not help being surprised to find upon what slender grounds it was founded. What was the meaning of this maxim? If lord Raymond and 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 attached to them. Was it the holy scriptures which constituted the Christianity which was said to be part and parcel of the law? If so, then no persons who built their faith 1483 on those scriptures could be said to deny Christianity. But, perhaps 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 in a curious dilemma; for they ought now to believe in that transubstantiation, which every person was called upon to abjure before he could sit in that House. He wished the House to see the consequences of extending the application of this maxim. He reminded their lordships of the important decision in the remarkable case of Mr. Evans, who, being fined for not accepting an office, refused to pay the fine, on the ground that he, in taking office, would be required to 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 came, 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 to all Dissenters. 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 no security to any members of any sect whatever.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, 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 in West-minster-hall.
Ordered to lie on the table.