The BISHOP of SALISBURY,in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said it was not a new measure, but had formed part of a Bill of a comprehensive nature, introduced in 1845 by the noble and learned Lord who then filled the office of Lord Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst), and also of a measure on the same subject afterwards introduced by the noble and learned Lord who succeeded him (Lord Cottenham). One of these measures passed their Lordships' House, and therefore the Bill which he had now the honour to present, had, in 681 fact, already obtained their Lordships' approval. At all events, a measure coming before their Lordships, which had successively obtained the sanction of those two most eminent lawyers, could hardly fail to approve itself to their Lordships. The object of the Bill was simply this: At the time when toleration was first extended to the worship of Protestants dissenting from the Church of England in this country, in the first year of King William III., by the Act of Toleration it was provided that any congregation wishing to take advantage of that privilege, then for the first time conceded to them, should register their place of meeting either in the court of the archdeacon or bishop of the diocese in which the meeting was held, or before the clerk of the peace for the county. The reason why that registration was required to be made in the ecclesiastical courts of the diocese, he conceived to be this—that inasmuch as, by the operation of the measure then passed, Protestant Dissenters were for the first time relieved from the penalties of various statutes, amongst others of the Act of Uniformity, of which those ecclesiastical courts and the bishops might naturally be considered the more especial guardians, therefore it was thought fitting that due notice should be given to those officers, in order that the congregations might not be subjected to the penalties which would still attach to such as neglected to make that registration. He conceived that the lapse of time and change of circumstances made it no longer necessary or desirable that regulations of that kind, however proper they might once have been, should now be continued. He conceived it was not now the desire of any person to subject Protestant Dissenters meeting peaceably to worship God according to their own consciences, to penalties to be inflicted by any court. Much as the members of the Established Church might regret that any portion of their fellow-subjects should be separated from them by religious differences, and refuse to conform to that which they deemed the more excellent way, they did not wish that on that ground they should be subjected to any penalties either in the civil or ecclesiastical courts. His right reverend Friends near him, therefore, did not desire that that registration should continue to be made in their ecclesiastical courts. They conceived that they acted more entirely in the spirit of that enlightened toleration of which the recited Act was the first beginning, in 682 providing that that right of meeting for the worship of God which Dissenters enjoyed as a civil privilege, should be the subject of registration, not in the ecclesiastical but the civil courts. He proposed therefore that these places of worship should in future be so registered by the clerks of the peace, which would be in unison with the principles of the most complete toleration, and, as he presumed, agreeable to the feelings and wishes of the persons concerned. Such a Bill could not fail to be, on these grounds, acceptable to the Dissenters themselves; but it was also desired by himself and his right rev. Friends, that they should be relieved from functions which they did not believe properly attached to them, and which gave rise to misapprehensions, which it was desirable to remove. The provision of the law was, as he had stated, simply a registration, which the parties concerned were entitled to make, and also to require a certificate of this having been done to be given them. But in common parlance places of worship so registered were spoken of as "licensed," and the certificate of registration, which runs in the bishop's name, was called "the licence." From this many persons supposed, especially among the rural population, that the preachers in these places of worship were licensed for their office by the bishop. He believed that an undue use was not unfrequently made of this mistake among ignorant people. At all events, while they {the bishops) did not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the exercise of a privilege which the law allowed, they did not, on the other hand, desire to appear to be responsible for erroneous teaching. And this feeling was further strengthened by the very indefinite sense in which the words "Protestant Dissenters" were used. The Socialists registered the places in which they disseminated their doctrine of infidelity and immorality under the title of "Protestant Dissenters." The strange and impious fanaticism of the Mormonites was designated in the same manner. He had himself lately, in two instances, in different parts of his diocese, found himself to be the subject of reproach, under the idea that he had "licensed" persons as Mormonite teachers. He was very anxious to get rid of confusions and misapprehensions of this kind; and on the two grounds he had thus stated, he asked their Lordships to agree to this Bill.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY683 said, that the inconveniences of the present system were so evident, and the remedy now proposed was clearly so suitable, that nothing was wanting in confirmation of what his right rev. Friend had stated; and he would, therefore, content himself with merely supporting the Motion before their Lordships.
§ Bill read 2a.
§ House adjourned till To-morrow.