Page images
PDF
EPUB

DOMESTIC.
RELIGIOUS.

INTELLIGENCE.

UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION. Proceedings at a Meeting to consider the Propriety of forming an Associa tion for protecting the Civil Rights of Unitarians.

WE are enabled this month to present our readers with an Account of the Proccedings of a Meeting of Unitarians, held at the London Tavern, on the 13th January, for the purpose of considering the propriety of forming an Association for the Protection of their Civil Rights. Such a Society has, we know, been long anxiously desired by many Unitarians, and we trust that it will now receive their support as a measure which cannot fail to be productive of the most beneficial results.

JOHN CHRISTIE, Esq. being called to the Chair, observed, that all present were acquainted with the object for which they were assembled, and that their friend Mr. Fox had been instrumental in convening them. He would, therefore, not enter at any length into the subject, but should request that gentleman to explain the circumstances out of which the present meeting had arisen.

Mr. Fox.-It would, no doubt, be perfectly understood, that, although his name only appeared, the meeting had not been convened merely at his suggestion. About three months ago, the Committee of the Unitarian Fund was applied to by several gentlemen who were desirous that an Association for the Protection of the Civil Rights of Unitarians should be instituted, and who wished the Committee to co-ope. rate with them. Some cases had arisen which seemed to render the measure expedient, and a general wish had been expressed in favour of it from the country; so much so, that it was probable, if it was not begun in London, something would be attempted elsewhere to meet the general feeling. In consequence of the application made to them, therefore, the Fund appointed a sub-committee to meet and cooperate with the applicants; and, after mature consideration, it was deemed expedient to call a general meeting to con sider the subject. In order to convene this meeting, some line seemed proper to be drawn to regulate the mode of summoning. Public advertisements would only have drawn many persons together, some from idle curiosity, and others, perhaps, to disturb the proceedings: the easiest and simplest way, therefore, was thought to be, to take the lists of the two known bodies of friends to Unitarianism, the Book Society and the Fund, adding to them the names of

the officiating ministers of all congregations which occurred to the Committee's remembrance. The time chosen was thought most proper, as it would enable some country friends to attend. This was the course

adopted; many errors might have, and, no doubt, had arisen in issuing summonses; the lists were found very imperfect in some respects; and some from misdirection had been returned from the Post-office: but it was trusted that every one would give credit for such errors being involuntary. Many, it was feared, had been omitted whom it would have been highly desirable to summon, but he hoped any such omissions

would be excused.

Mr. ASPLAND said, the gentlemen who acted as a Committee to prepare the way for the meeting had done him the honour to request he would explain the object of the proposed Association, and propose the Rules intended to be submitted for consideration. In bringing forward the sub. ject, he wished it fully understood that the utility of such an Association would come fairly into discussion. The conveners of the meeting had but one object, one only desire, to secure themselves in the possession of their Civil Rights; and if it was clear that they were already sufficiently secured by other means,he should be the first to waive further proceedings. There was no novelty in instituting a Society for protecting the Civil Rights of Religious Bodies. Several such societies were in existence. The body of Deputies of the Three Denominations was one, the oldest amongst Dissenters, and a most respectable association. The recently-formed society, called the Protestant Society, was another most useful institution, which arose from the opposition to Lord Sidmouth's bill, embracing chiefly members of Calvinistic communions. The Quakers, it was well known, had their Committee of Sufferings to watch over their Civil Rights; and the Wesleian Methodists had a committee for the like purpose. There was nothing new, therefore, in the proposal; it only remained to consider how far it was expedient to adopt it. It was known to all, that Unitarians were, at least, as much exposed to obloquy as any sect, and that it was but recently that they had been brought within the pale of the law. Till within a few years they had been protected by no law, although they had been shielded, in spite of the law, by public opinion. The legislature bad, however, liberally extended its toleration by the repeal of the excepting clause in the Act of William and Mary: but since that time cases have arisen, which it was well known had created doubts

whether the provisions made in favour of Unitarians sufficiently accomplished that object; and the opinion, he was afraid, of very eminent lawyers was, that the recent law did no more than repeal the penal enactments, and that Unitarians were left to stand exactly as they did at common law. This opinion was fully avowed in the Wolverhampton Case, which is still under discussion, and in which doctrines were attempted to be enforced, very alarming certainly with reference to the rights and properties of Unitarians. It was there contended, that they are not within the protection of the law, that no foundations, none at any rate, prior in time to the passing of the late Act can belong to Unitarians, but to Trinitarians, as the only species of Dissenters legally recognized. If this doctrine should be established, it need not be observed how mischievous and ruinous would be the consequences; and if it should not ultimately, yet if individuals were left to protect themselves, they would be harassed by the innumerable evils arising from the expense and vexation of litigation through a long period of distraction and fear.

It would be recollected that, in the discussion on the case alluded to, a very unfavourable opinion had been expressed by that great man whose loss had lately occasioned such a shock, he meant Sir S. Romilly. He declared this opinion in court; but besides the expression of opinion there, which might have been attributed to the warmth of an advocate, he had in private letters since expressed a strong feeling of the insecurity of the basis on which the civil rights of Unitarians rest. He (Mr. A.) had received a note from him, not many months before his death, stating his deliberate opinion, that they were not protected at law, and that no other course was open to them than an application to Parliament. He offered willingly to assist and support such an application, but observed that he was not very sanguine as to its success. There was, therefore, in the opinion of so great a man, a strong ground for action and exertion; and it appeared highly important to associate, with a view both to resist aggression, and to proceed, if necessary, to obtain security by legislative provisions. Nothing could be worse than uncertainty where liberty and property are concerned. It struck him that Unitarians were in that state, and that therefore some thing should be done, that they might no longer fear the breaking up and destruction of their foundations by any internal division, and that they might be secure from persecution, let whatever change of times happen; and that such a change might take place, no one would say was impossible. The case of Mr. John Wright, of Liverpool, shewed the feeling of many of great weight

[blocks in formation]

in the country to be hostile. He was indicted for promulgating opinions closely connected, at any rate, with those of Unitarians; and the opinion of some persons, well able to judge, was, that, though the doctrine taught had been held by men of learning and piety; though defended by dignitaries in the church, and even by Bishop Law; a jury might very possibly convict the person who maintained it of Blasphemy. This case was withdrawn, but while it was pending great difficulty was experienced; there was no body of persons to step forward, within whose province it lay to de fend Mr. Wright: the Unitarian Fund was applied to, and did something; but they felt that they were going beyond their province, and were not justified in such an application of their funds: they could only pledge themselves as individuals. All would see that in cases of this sort nothing should be left to accident; no person harassed by the bigotry or ignorance of a country ma gistrate, for instance, onght to be left to the chance of individual or friendly assistance. An Association like that now proposed, would give confidence to the expression of opinion, and diminish the probability of persecution, by shewing those inclined to persecute, that there are men of equal weight and knowledge with themselves, ready to protect the objects of their malice.

If such a society were not necessary, Mr. A. allowed, it would be injurious, as appearing to separate our case from that of other Dissenters; but surely it was obvious that there was no society which would do what had been and might again be necessary. In the case of Mr. Wright there was none. The Deputies were appealed to, and, unhappily for their reputation, the appeal was at that time made in vain. The abstract question had been since brought before them, and been decided in favour of liberality and freedom; but it was too much to expect that persons zealously entertaining the opinions which most of them did, should be very solicitous in the cause of persons whom the ir creed must lead them to consider as blas phemers.

There was, too, a class of cases which the Deputies could not take up; he meant disputes between different portions of congregations; and this was one which was becoming of consider able importance. In the Wolverhampton Case, the minister, by setting himself in opposition to the whole congregation, and putting in the most absurd claim, had succeed ed, at any rate, for a time, so far as to drive out the whole body from their meeting -house and their endowments, great part of which had been raised by their own contributions, and to put them to what must be to a small congregation a very heavy expense. Whether the Deputies can or cannot, by their consti

tution, provide for the adjustment of such a case, they certainly were not inclined to do so, and, but for some new association, congregations so circumstanced might be broken up from the mere want of assistance and encouragement in the support of their rights and properties.

A general opinion seemed to prevail among the reputed orthodox Dissenters, that all foundations with which Trinitarians have been at any former period connected, cannot be held by Unitarians; nay, further, that, prior to the passing of the Trinity bill, all must, in the eye of the law, be considered as Trinitarian; and they have shewn every disposition to act upon these principles, however inconsistent with those on which they profess to ground their dissent. Threats had in several places been held out; in some, proceedings had (it was reported) been actually commenced, although they were suffered to sleep, perhaps, on account of the delay and uncertainty of the ultimate decision on the Wolverhampton Case in Chancery. For these reasons it did seem to him (Mr. A.) expedient to have a standing committee, if it were only to give advice on such occasions. They could take legal opinions on emergencies, and such advice, once taken, would remain on their books; each case would guide a succeeding one, and thus considerable difficulty, expense and delay would be prevented. Such an association need not in terfere with any other. No case would properly come within its jurisdiction, which was not strictly Unitarian, or which would be within the scope of the Deputies or the Protestant Society. It could not make any separation between the Unitarians and other Nonconformists; if it would, let the project be abandoned; but the real question was, not whether such cases should be left to other associations, but whether they should be neglected and abandoned.

He was thankful for what the legislature, in compliance with public opinion, had already done; but if he should say he was not contented, he would only repeat Mr. William Smith's opinion, declared to Lord Liverpool, on that nobleman's expressing a hope that Unitarians would be satisfied with the Trinity Bill: "No, my Lord," answered Mr. Smith, we shall not be satisfied while one disqualifying statute in matters of religion remains on the books." This was his (Mr. A.'s) feeling also, and he therefore thought the proposed Association very useful, not only to protect our rights, but to enlarge the m and those of every class of Dissenters; for, in all general measures for that por pose, it would doubtless cheerfully concur with other societies.

There was one subject to which it was difficult to allude, but on which much had been of late sai d, and of which therefore

some notice must be taken. Our adversaries might be jocular upon it, but to us it was a serious grievance. He alluded to the necessity of passing to the marriage state through Trinitarian ordinances. It appeared that the legislature by passing the late bill meant effectually to protect us; if they did not, the act was a delusion and a suare; but if that was their intention, all must see that it was not accomplished, while Unitarians were obliged, against their principles and consciences, to submit to Athanasian worship.

As a Dissenter, on the broadest ground, he should object to such a compulsive conformity, but as Unitarians, they were compelled, in this instance, to violate their dearest opinions, and strongest religious feelings. The moral responsibility rested, no doubt, on the legislature which occasioned the offence, but surely they ought to attempt to throw off the burden.

For this purpose, it was desirable that there should be some body through whom petitions might pass. Small numbers of individuals might indiscreetly commit the whole body. He had himself, petitions in his possession, one of which was couched in terms so unguarded, that any jester in the houses of Parliament might take it as an occasion to convulse all around him with laughter.

Mr. Aspland concluded by saying, that his object was principally to repel the charge of wishing in the remotest degree to divide the body of Dissenters; he only wanted that they should be able to protect their peculiar objects, to which they could not expect the main body to attend. He then read the following preamble and rules, that all might judge of them as a whole, in the first instance, and ended by moving the adoption of the preamble and first rule:

THE LEGISLATURE by passing the Act of the 53d. Geo. III. entitled, "An Act to relieve Persons who impugn the Doctrine of the Trinity from certain Penalties," was understood to extend to Unitarians the privileges possessed by other denominations of Dissenters; but doubts having since arisen whether that object be suffi ciently secured, it is deemed expedient to institute a Society for the purpose of protecting the Civil Rights of Unitarians, under the following regulations:

1. This Society shall be denominated the Unitarian Association for the Protection of the Civil Rights of Unitarians.

2. The Association shall consist of individual Subscribers and of the representatives of congregations making an annual contribution.

3. The qualification of individuals as members of this Association, shall be an annual subscription of not less than 10s. 6d. or a donation of not less than £5, 5s.

4. Every congregation contributing annually not less than one guinea, shall be at liberty to send two representative members: Officiating ministers of congregations shall be eligible as representatives.

5. An Aunnal General Meeting of the Association shall be holden on the Thursday in Whitsun Week.

6. A Committee consisting of ten persons resident in or near London, shall be chosen at the annual meeting, to transact the business of the Association, of whom four, viz. those who shall have given the least attendance at committee meetings, shall be ineligible for one year.

7. A Treasurer and Secretary shall also be chosen at the general meeting, who shall be added to the Committee. The Treasurer shall receive subscriptions, and make all necessary disbursements on account of the Association, and the Secretary record its minutes, conduct its correspondence, and summon committee and general meetings.

8. In all meetings of the committee, the presence of five members shall be necessary for proceeding to business.

9. All subscriptions shall be paid in advance, and be considered as due on the 1st of January in each year, and no person shall be allowed to vote at the annual meeting, until his subscription for the current year be paid.

10. The above Rules shall not be altered except by two-thirds of the members present at a general meeting. Any alteratious intended to be proposed to the Society, must be first notified to the Committee at one of its meetings.

MR. TALFOURD rose to second the motion. He felt sure that much would not be necessary, after the observations they had just heard, to impress on the meeting the necessity of forming the Association which had been proposed to them. He had, indeed, hoped that the time had passed for ever, when Unitarians had to contend, separately from the rest of their dissenting brethren, against the injuries of power; that they were placed by the legislature on the same footing with all others who opposed the established forms, and were only called on to unite with them in the noble effort to remove every vestige of their com mon oppressions. He believed that any candid and impartial mind must conceive that the Act called the Trinity Bill went to this length; that, as it repealed not only the denunciation of penalties, but the clauses by which Anti-trinitarians were excepted from the benefits of the Act of Toleration, it completely tolerated and protected Unitarian worship, and gave to institutions for the adoration of the Father alone, the opportunity of legal aid, should it become requisite. Had, indeed, the repeal of the provisions against Unitarians

been preceded by some prosecution unde them, it might have been regarded as merely removing a punishment too severe, not as testifying the destruction of a principle. But, granted as it was without any circumstance tending to bring odium on the particular statute, it could only be regarded as the abolition of a principle, which the progress of opinion had long rendered merely ludicrous, and on which persecution by the common law, as well as by the statute, depended. Surely it could not be believed that the legislature would have conceded as a boon that which they intended as a snare, or that Unitarians would have earnestly sought the repeal of open and undisguised denunciations which no Attorney-General would have dared to enforce, to encounter mysterious and vague liabilities which Protestant Dissenting Ministers would not blush to revive against them!

[ocr errors]

They had, however, recently heard it contended, that all foundations for Unitarian worship constituted before the passing of the late bill, cannot be supported; or, at least, that in ascertaining the will of the founders for the purpose of carrying it into literal effect, courts will decide that they never designed to support a worship, at the time regarded as illegal. This doctrine must excite greater surprise when advanced under the sanction of Protestant Dissenting Ministers, of high talents, influence and piety, who bave even called on the religious world to bring their charitable contributions to its aid. If such a construction of the will of a founder were to govern dissenting trusts, it would lead to the strange conclusion that while all else might be progressive, while every other institution might be moulded gently to accord with the advances of the species, while acts of the legislature might ameliorate even the established system, the foundations of Dissenters should alone be incapable of change; struck, as it were, by some cold and deadening enchantment, and fixed immoveable, amidst an improved age, the only relics of more barbarous times! And this consequence to follow the interpretation of the will of those who first struggled for free inquiry-in the principles of whose dissent was the germ of all future changes in opinion however extended, and who had given the first impulse to a progress which their endowments only would thus be suffered to oppose!

But we are further told (said Mr. T.) that Unitarians, by the promulgation of their opinions, are still offenders at common law, liable to criminal prosecutions, and that their institutions, even now formed, are beyond the pale of legal protection. This doctrine can only be supported by construing the proposition that "Christianity is part of the law of England," to mean Christianity as established by law. And to what period of time does the proposition refer?

To the period when the common law had its origin, the period when those maxims were established, which, handed down to tradition, and confirmed by authority, are supposed to have formed part of a written code? The present establishment had no existence in those times; and, perhaps, could we penetrate into an antiquity so dark, we might even find that Unitarianism was then the received faith, and that all other creeds are heresies. At all events, there must have been a time, when, under Catholic princes, it must have been an offence at common law to support those forms which it is now an offence at common law to impugn. Had the common law of England, then, silently changed and veered round on every variation of the court religion? If it be so, the evil is not peculiar to Unitarians, but common to every class of Dissenters, and must fall upon those who are now subscibing to support it. For, if any thing more be intended by that Christianity which it is illegal to controvert, than those great principles which all who assume the Christian name recognize as the basis of present moral obligation and the ground of future hope, it must imply all the doctrines, services, rites and ceremonials of the Established Faith. The law can know of no scale whereby to measure the degrees of heresy. They who presume to disbelieve that in Baptism a child is made " an heir of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," are then as really offenders as those who deny the Trinity; and on the ground upon which political interference is exerted, they are more deeply criminal because the contumacy of schism is greater, and is left more entirely, in the eye of persecutors, without excuse, in proportion as its grounds are more trivial. Also on the principle contended for, of those within the church who dispute respecting the meaning of her formularies, one party must be offenders against law, since both cannot be maintaining the true doctrine as she has declared it. Courts of law must decide between the Evangelical and Arminian clergy, and we must add to our law. libraries, already sufficiently extensive, all the volumes of ecclesiastical controversy which have ever been written. If, therefore, it were contended, in consequence of the illegality of Unitarianism, that all foundations even now reared for its support are void, all other Dissenting trusts, even since the Act of Toleration, are in the same condition; and, even were the illegality now confined to the former, all of the latter established before the Revolution, must be liable to be diverted from their purposes, and that very antiquity become the ground of their fall, which seemed to have rendered them more sacred.

But, inconsistent or absurd as the doc. trines referred to might appear, they had

been recently promulgated under the sanc tion of Protestant Dissenting Ministers. It was melancholy, indeed, to view these, the legitimate guardians of religious freedom, thus attempting to destroy its first princi ples;—to find men holding their own stations by free election, and making the propriety of such election, and the right of dismissal, a ground of their dissent, calling on their congregations to support the doctrine that a Dissenting preacher, once chosen, is established in a freehold for life;-looking into dark times, when their own ancestors suffered from persecution, for maxims of persecution against their opponents;-and searching among the ashes of bigotry for some spark, which only the haste of the legislature to extinguish its flames had heedlessly suffered to remain unquenched, from which they might light a torch to consume the institutions of their foes, and which must shortly destroy their own. There was something low and petty in the proceeding, which the furious persecutors of old, would hardly have deigned to employ. They would have acted a bolder part: if they pursued heretics, it would be with a disinterested enthusiasm, not with an eye to their possessions; they might have led them to the fires of Smithfield, but would scarcely have condescended to put them into the Court of Chancery. When it was considered, then, that these men, justly esteemed for all excellences, save when bigotry usurped the place of kind affections and solid judgment, were our opponents, could it be hoped that societies composed, for the most part, of the persons over whom their influence extended, would advocate our cause against them? Even supposing the majority, at last, to be with us, should we endure a preliminary struggle before every step in our defence, and act after it, without that promptitude and decision which alone could give us the slightest probability of succeeding?

For the final result, if this Society acted with wisdom and zeal, he (Mr. T.) had no apprehension. Let the battle only be fairly fought, and whether, in a court of law, it was lost or won, the cause must ultimately triumph. The day when the Board Ministers should succeed in establishing the existence of persecution, they would mark it out for destruction. Let them "drag the struggling monster into light," and in that light it would instantly expire. But we must fairly meet every objection on the ground of its advocates, and must ascertain the fact whether we were tolerated or not, before we either sat down in quiet, or applied to Parliament for a remedy. We must protect our brethren at a distance from petty tyranny, and force it to meet us in the face of the world. Then the contest would be open, and whatever was the im

« PreviousContinue »