The Sun. — London, England, 1824-04-03 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, ROUSE OF LORDS, A NUL 2. Mr. BROGDEN, Lord LOWTHICR, Mr. Lesurrox, Lord STANLEY, and others, brought up the Board of Works in Ire land Bill, the Judges Accommodation Bill, and several Private Bills, which were read a first time. Mr. TOISLYNS, from the Treasury, presented Returns re lative to the office of Clerk of the Pells in Ireland.—Laid on the table. SILK TRADE- The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose to move the second reading of the Silk Duties Abolition Bill. The more he considered that important measure, the more was he convinced that it was faunded'on a just principle, and would prove beneficial to the Silk trade. He . waa one of.those who .had once .regarded that ", 'trade in this country as an artificial one - existing on prehi bitions • but his opinion been changed- by the evidence of facts. :When h_:..saw an ; immense estab,liAnent formed at Manchester fOi'tlie manufacturing ofsilks, which Occupied up wards of jai , Or thousand persons, without any partictilar protection, he was:confirmed in his . belief that our manufac turers would be able.to withstatxl foreign competition, and had nothing to dread from the principle Of a free trade. It was one in which we had quid pro quo. We'rernitted the duty upon the raw material, and we imposed one of sufficient amount to protect against excessive importation. There might certainly" lee various branches of the manufacture of silks in which other ... --gauntries would have the advainage of us, but.thannust he the case in other articles, and it would be childish to expect that in sortie point or, other we should not be surpassed s but look.. ing - at the silk manufactory on an extended scale, he - was satis fied that if the present measure were adopted, it must .have a most .beneficial effect towards its increase and, prosperity. He adMitted at the same time the propriety of rendering the: Atli' as palatable to the manufacturers as possible. It had, been at .first intended that the prohibition of foreign silks should cease at the same time as the duty; but it had been asked, and - it was a reasonable deinand on the part of the manufacturers, , that they shoukl hate 'a longer time to prepare •themselves ,to meet .the opening of the trade. . An additional twelve month was to he granted for that purpose; so that the ditiy wind(' cease a year in advance of the Prohibition. The 'Noble Earl then stated, that he should be happy in all cases to get rid of prohibitions, and to substitute duties in their ' . .places,. as by so doing a great deal of smuggling would be' prevented, flir prohibitions created smuggling of the most objectionable kind, that of the highest orders. He had no doubt, that if his Majesty's . Government bad looked merely to popularity, ':hey would have obtained a. greater share of it - by repealing other - taxes' but 'he conceived that they had discharged their duty better by looking at the establish ment of a sound principle, that of a free intercourse, be tween all countries, and by thus consulting the best interests of this. On those ground's he should move that the Bill be read a second time. The Marquis of LANSDOWN concurred in all the views - 'entertained by the Noble Earl on that subject, as they had long been his own. -But there was no part of the measure which he valued more than, the removal of every species of prohibition. He trusted that the time would conic when all prohibitions should be abolished, and should never again find a place in our commercial. .regulations. Whatever apprehensions the Silk Manufacturers might ent er t a i n f rom th e present measure, he , was contrinced ' that the capital and industry of this country,. aided by the free- ithportation of the raw material, and the free improvement of machinery,. would enable them to support foreign. competition. The only question which could have been raised, was 'as to time, and hi s Majesty's' Government had acted. properly in, enlarging it to the exten t which they had now. done. 'The Bill was then read a second time,, and ordered to be committed on Monday. NEGRO SLAVERY. The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from Man chester, prayin g from the gradual abolition of Negro Slavery. on-the table. The Earl 'of DARN LEY presented a similar petition from the inhabitants of the Isle of Thenet.-Laid on the table. The Rar'l of SHA FTESBURY presented a petition to the same effect, trim the inhabitanti of Esher in Stirrey.Laid on the table. . . . COM.IIiISSION FOR IMPROVING WINDSOR CASTLE. Lord HOLLAND 'wished to know from the Noble Earl op posite (the Earl of Liverpool), whether that strange anomalous, and unconstitutional . measure, a ..C.-mmission „tor improving Windsor Castle; had been abandoned. - • • The Earl of LIVERPOOL said - that the point had been submitted to • his Majesty. He was not at. present pre pared to give any definite answer to the question of the Noble IRISH LINEN TRADE. The Marquis of LANSDOWN• presented a Petition from the Grand Jury of the County of Tipperary, praying that the Bounty on Coarse Linen manufactured in Ireland might not ; be taken off.—Laid on the table. The Earl of CLARE, presented a similar Petition from the County of Litheriek AsociatiOn.—Laid on the table. The Marquis of LANSDOWN.; on - the part of a Noble Lord who was .absent, presented a Petition. from the Inhabi tants of Tenbury, in 'Worcestershire, praying for the mitigation of Slavery in the West Indies.—Laid on'the - FREEMASONB. • Lord WICKLOW presented.afetition from .the Freema sons of Ireland, praying that they might be exempted from the operation of the Ac for suppress►n* Secret Societies in that country.—Laid on the table. IRISH TITHES. The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, he held in his hand some Petitions on an important subject relating to the Bill which had passed last Sessiorifer the CoinpaSition of Tithes Ili Ireland. Ile:Telt• it- necessary, on this occasion, to Make a • few observations, e as be had last Session supported the prin ciple of 'a measure which had been long sought for, and. the practical operatian of which; it was hoped,. would have been • productive of general tranquillity in a country which had .so much heed, of it. But in su,ppereing the principle of the measure, he had qualified his support, by, making objection 'to softie of the details, and if he now found it' necessary to call their Lordships- attention to any of those objections, he could' assure them that he, would not_ refer to one of them, • without showing that they were the gr and operating cause - 'of preventing the -parties from coming to that compromise, Which' was in every ..eespecteo desirable. He had stated to their Jeordehip on a former occasion., that in. presenting • a prima 'frite appearanceof inequality in 'the Measure, they would pre .rrent many from adopting•it, and this turned out to be the tact. Lordships would recollect, diet under the Bill of last • 'se . ssiorl a power was given, to increase, the provision of,the Clergy to an amount beyond that of the last seven years._ :Now, he had •not contended that the Clergy ought not to have been entitled to receive more than they had received within `that time, but 'he did contend that. there might be peculiar cases - in - which they ought to receive lass. He had, alivays Maintained that it was desirable there. should be a perfect . .equality. on both sides as to the operation o f . , the act, It *Air.' for this reason 'that he wished to take away from the iippbnente - of the measure the plausible - pretence of sayine. to• the peasantry of Ireland—" Under this Bill'you may be Called upon to pay to the .Clergy more than you - now pay, but it is impossible- you can be - cali.d upon to' pay less." • When such laeguage was held out to them they felt that itiias -not a fair transaction, and that the .arrangement was unfavour able to them, but favourable to the Clergy. Another objec tion he had to the Bill of last year was, the clause - which re ferred to the expenee under the machinery of the Commission. The whole weight of the expellee fell oteihose who paid tithes, While'the Clergy stood exempt, and this led the gentry and - farmers 'to believe thatinipartial justice was not done them.-_ Another objection.lie had to Make was, as the obscurity of the clause relating to composition. The ,Noble. Earl Earl, of Liverpool) must be aware - that the whole arrangement s with fle4iect to the. `separation of the - Bin, had been under the di rection of his 3illieetey,'s Government, but under a clause intro duced by the other, House of Parliament, the effect. of, which wits that the ""Clergy and Gentry might some to whatev er - agreement :they thought proper,. without being clogged with any of the.; pthereleuses of. the Tithe Composition Act. This arrangement which had been finally adopted, was equally obscure and 'lntricate. The' elfe,et of 'it' was frequently to oblige Unwilling - parties to assent to - alteratiOns; which might be extremely. prejudicial, for when once they had• agreed to an arrangement in the first instance they could not afterwards retract, though convinced of the loss they must stiffer. In deed, a'circumstance had' occurred in a' certain --part of Ireland, which gave to this arrangement a name ,whiell it did not' deserve from' the intention of the Le' islatnre: . ft was called the " Trap Clanee." lie had wished that the Bill - might 'he improved in the course of the present Session ; but having become acquainted, as he presumed their Lordships were; with the proceedings in the'other House of Parliament; ate liad•rui hesitatioh in sayitik that lie 'considered it more clan gerous in its consequences, and more subversiie of the princi: pies of property than, any Measure ever yet introduced in that TionSe. A' Bill 'which lie could hat bilieee had conic Under this consideration of the Nahle Eatte:A Bill, Vvhieli- it was im possible could..paes that, or any other.lleu e e, was brougeht in without the slightest regard to the interests of those who post eee se d pioperty: had last year - referred to the situation of the holders of ejectment- tithes in Ireland. H e h a d said that those who received tithes were, desirous .of getting more than th:•.y tot, and thin those who paid them were desiro us o f paid. But there was a third p art w p 4l ay ic in less. h g stead s. t il b t i ui n ea t e h a d . t re m spy ,payment at a ll. For hisy own part he had no personal interest whatever in the case ; but he felt that great injustice had been done others, which ought to be corrected. What was the answer of the Noble , Earl in reference to the case of the third party, to which he (the Marquis of Lansdown)had adverted ? The Noble Earl had said it was impossible any compulsion could take place with respect to them. However, six months had not elapsed , since he found a clause had been. introduced for the purpose of de priving the holder •of agistment tithe of his six votes, and placing the largest on a level with the smallest proprietor in the parish. What leas . the effect of such measu re , but totally to • destroy the legitimate influence of property, to destroy that principle upon which their Lordships agreed to Bills for mak ing and repairing roads, and other objects of a similar-nature. - A few persons might thus easily out-vote all the men of pro perty in the parish. One-tenth part of the property might thus force an arrangement in opposition to nine-tenths. Another clause to which he objected, was one by which any person -who ,happened to be a .C.ottunissioner, whesher.an. attorney or. not, was empowered under the Act to call fo- and have before him all the title deeds of . all the property s ldon i .,oing to the parties. This was giving him a n i nqu i s it or i a l p ower - of the most obnox-, ious nature. Was it possible that that House, which had .al ways shown so scrupulous a regard. for the rights of property; Could stiffer andlinperativelY to demand the title deeds of an other man's property ? - The LORD CHANCELLOR here called the Noble Mar quis to order, and said that this was the first, time he had heard a debate commenced on a Bill which was in progress through the other House. The Marquis of LANSDOWN said he felt himself justi fied in stating the reasons.why he thought. the,petitions were entitled to the serions atteotion of their Lordships, and he was I of necessity obliged to advert to the measure in question....... Having gone thus far in .the subject, he would now say that if the contemplated measure should pass into a law, it would !be an aggravation of the evil,, and, not a relief. But to bring his arguments on the subject within the strict line of order,_ he would! say that he had..beard, it somewhere . stated th a t such a measure was in coritsmplation%rninn and that et. iztt had d t w be i e th n t s b e e tt a le i p t , probation of his Majesty's Government. by the Bill of last year, that by taking the averages of tithes for the last seven years, an opportunity, would . be afforded at the ead of, three years of correcting any _errors that might be found to exist : but according to the measure now- proposed, no alteration could take place fbr seven years. He maintained that such enactments as those could never remedy the evils which the Bill of last year had produced ; on the contrary they mate rially aggravated. them. He assured their Lordships that in thus stating his objections to the m easure, h e was only anxious to see the Bill of last year carried into full and fair effect. Even though he felt himself called upon to plead the cause of those who were exemptedfrom the payment of tithes, it would still be his advice to them to take the patriotic side, and forego cer tain private advantages for the public _good. He thought it, hOwever, only du e t o th em, t h at it should be not the result of constraint,. but of their own free will. While there was no compulsionon the clergy, or on the lay impropriators of tithes to come to an agreement, their Lordships ought not to enforce Compulsion on a party who were as much entitled to pay no tithes as the clergy were to,receive them. The Noble Marquis concluded . by moving, that a petition against the Tithe-Bill from a certain parish in the county of Tipperary be read, which was accordingly done. The .11, rl of LIVERPOOL then rose, and said that in the few Observations he should have to submit to their Lordships he would not anticipate a discussiOn on the alteration which it might he expedient to make in the Tithe Composition Act. When the subject came fully under the eonsideration.of their Lordships, he would then offer his opinion on the merits and d e f ec t s of the Bill. All that he wished at present was, that their Lordships should exactly know how the case stood, should see how far the measure bad succeeded, and how far it failed. This was material to the clear understanding of the question. He had stated on a former occasion that every great change must be an imperfect measure in the ,first instance, and he would . now repeat the assertion. All that could be done at first was to establish the princiPle of the measure—more could not reasonably be expected. 'lt was with that view he had stated his opinion of the Bill .of last Session.—The supporters of the Bill contended, ! that it would not be just as a compul sory measure, - and they were fully borne out in maintaining that opinion. Their Lordships would recollect, that the compul sory clause was the main point at issue between the supportets and opponents of the Bill. In looking, in the first instance, at the probable success' of the measure, be should have said, that if it. succeeded in twenty—n a y, fifty cases —he shoul d consider it as.likely to succeed on the whole with the; im p} e o yer could e now n tawh s i a c y, which upon exper i encethe bestwou l d a u s t i lTo w r t t y, tto b e ha n t ec trie s a r m y e " - sure had succeeded beyond the most sanguine expecta tions of those who had supported it. It had been carried into execution in more than one-tenth of the parishes of Ire land.—(The Marquis of- Lanstiown here intimidated his die sent.)—He maintained that it had been carried into execution in the s oportion of 279 cases, an d was now i n act i ve operat i on. Since the 3d of February, when the Papers on the subject were laid on their Lordships' table, 29 new applications had been made, and 39 new agreements concluded. The Clergy very often agreed to receive less than their right, but more than their right they could not receive under the Bill. He would ask their Lordships'whether, on loOking at the whole course of the: transaction, there was any reason to think that the tithe-payers were : not fairly dealt with"? He had been furnished with the agreements made in ten dioceses, some of which would show how! very far the measure was from being either oppressive or. severe on the parties. In the diocese of- Cashel, btifiebwas compositionthe was Is. 3d. Engli s h p er acre. I n Clon pasture country, the whole wag done for 6d. per acre. Elphin it was 11d., and in Meath the same. lie stated these particulars, to show how reasonable the arrange ment was under all the circumstances of the case. It was prov ed on the face of the transaction, that it had succeeded to a de gree far beyond what could be any man's expectation, however aanguine.The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. NEGLECT OF THE CLERGY. The Earl of KINGSTON was surprised to hear some of the statements made by-the Noble Earl who had just sat down. He himself knew a gentleman of large property, who offered Ss. -an acre for tithes in the diocese of Cloyne, but the Clergyman would not accept the - offer, and insisted in getting ss. The Noble Earl then presented a petition from the parish of Templetown, in the County of Cork, complaining of the want of instruction; and Stating that the Rector refused to employ a Curate, because it would put him to the expence of 751. a year. The Noble Earl further observed that in the parish in question, his ancestors had portioned out a certain. number of acres for the maintenance' of their Protestant freeholders, but in consequence of their being no Protestant place of wor ship in the neighbourhood, they had all gone to Mass, and he thought very properly, for it was better they should be Ro man Catholics than of no religion at all. In the part of the .country where ho lived there..were only four Clergymen for .nine teen parishes. Lord hING felt persuaded that the House must regret the necessity 'Which had called for this petition, as they could not forget the .munificent: grants that had been voted for - building new churches andglebe-houses. But it appeared that the Clergy were alWays'fond of . receiving money without giving any thing in return for it. ' Their Lordships had heard of mercantile Hibernian reciprocity. Every thing came from one side-- nothing from the other.. Was it to be understood that the cure of souls was nothing, or that the person charged with the duty was only to encurnr-hirriself with salvage, and leave the com modity stranded ?. He thought it, however, hard to single out this individual Rector for reprehension, when there. were so many others to blarrie. lkit he could not go into the subject, Without adverting to the proceedings of the other House, and did not wish, after what had so, lately occurred, to be, called to order from the woolsack. The Petition was then Ordered: to lie on the table. The .Earl of KINGSTON presented a Petition from the Parish of Kilkenny„ , in the County of,Cork, containing.sintilar allegations to the last and ,Prayingthat the Tithe Commission Act might be repeale d.— , Laid on the table. The ,Earl 'al. KI N GSTON presented, another Petition to the same effect from a Parislt in the ; County of- Cork.—His :Lord shift !kit - Presented a:Petition' frOm another Parish in the same County, in which the Petitioners complained of there being no Protestant Church or service in the parish; and. declared that many _protestant* had on that account been obli ge d to change their On the thotion being read, The Earl of KINGSTQN said that if it were necessary, he could bring many Protestant inhabitants of parishes in Ireland to the Bar of that House, to swear that they h a d been obliged to embrace the C a tholic religion on account of having no church to attend. . ‘. The Earl of CLARE presented several petitions from pa rishes in Ireland against the, Tithe Rill; and ,tools occasion to notice one farm on his estate, Which consisted of no more than 44 acres , antiof which .the .tythe.exacted by the Clergyman amounted to 24/. . . . The Earl of DARNLEY presented'five Iletitions from pa-' rislies in the County of Tipperary, and one from Rathcormick, in the County of Cork, against the provisions of the Tithe Bill of last year. lie said it. was. a.l7ievous hardship on the Catho lic cultivators of parishas to be obliged to give one-tenth of their -produce to Clergy from whom:they received em instruction. HC differed widely from, those who maintained that the property j in those tithes was as sacred as the property, which Noblemen:. had in their estates ; and on Monday next, when he intended to king forward his motion on the state of Ireland, he'sliould be ' 4.ble to prove that an immediate change of the tithe system - in that country was absolutelY necessary. The Earl of RINI/STUN thought that Commissioners aught t o . h e appointed:to inquire into the stateof the Protestant in wister. , There weis a l rnuch greater , necessity .A)r doing so, than appointing Commissioners to inquire into the customs of Ireland, which was a much inferior object. STATE OF . IRELAND. The Earl of LIVERPOOL wished to inquire of the Noble Earl opposite (Darnley) who had given notice of a motion on the State of Ireland for next Monday, whether he would have any objection to postpone it to another day. To him (the Earl of Liverpool), it would be a great personal inconveni ence to attend. If, however, the motion had been of a nature to suffer from delay, he would not have preferred any re. quest upon the subject, but it appeared to him to be one which could not be affected by being brought on one day sooner or later. -Earl DARNLEY, however anxious to draw the attention of the House to the state of Ireland, should not hesitate to post. pone his motion, when he found that attendance on Monday might be prejudicial to the health of the Noble Earl. As there were many Noble Lords, however, who intended to be in town to be present at the discussion, it would be inconvenient that it should be postponed beyond Thursday next. He should there fore renew his notice for that day. The Noble Earl then al luded to the numerous trials which were taking place for mur der in Ireland, and was understood to move that the,Clerk of the peace for the King's County should produce the records of such trials in that county. The Earl of HARROWBY recommended to the Noble Earl, for his aecommodation-and that of the House, as all the papers relative to Ireland had not yet been produced, to post_ pone his motion till an early day after Easter. Earl _DA RNLE Y could not accede to the suggestion of the Noble Earl, as' some of the returns could, not possibly be made for a month. •He preferred therefore bringing on the question with the information already laid on their. Lordships' table. The motion for the returns from the King's County was then agreed to. • The Earl of KINGSTON moved that returns s hould be produced from the Irish Court of .Exchequer to, shew, whe ther Mr. Thomas MoStyn, Sub-Sheriff of the. County of Sligo, had, in. the years 1818, 1819,. 1820, 1821, 1822, and. 1823, taken the necessary oaths to qualify him for holding such an office. After a short conversation, in which the LORD CIiANCEL LOR, Lord HOLLAND 4 and the Earl of HARROWEY, took part, the Noble Earl withdrew his motion, in order to bring it in a different shape on Thursday next.. UN ITARIA NS. The Order of the Day. for the second reading of the Unita rian Marriage Bill having been read, • • The Marquis of 143NSDOWN said, that he should not have thought it necessary to call the attention of the House in a particular manner to the present Bill, if he had not 'under stood that itewas to be ,opposed, although it was one of relief; and of relief on the ground of scruples of conscience.' That Bill, as well as another introducedlast Sessione - had - originated in consequence of a Petition referred last year to their Lord ships' Committee, •in which 'the Dissenters prayed to be re lieved from the necessity of submitting in their marriages to the forms of the Church of England. The Committee had not discussed the subject, but there was a general feeling amongst its Members that some relief should be extended to the Peti tioners. In matters of this kind he considered the Legislature to have two duties to perform ; one of -'a civil; and the other of a civil and religious nature. The first was to .provide effectual checks to prevent the possibility of clandestine marriages ; the second, to take care that a =duet involving such important consequences to society should be entered into with a de gree of solemnity and publicity calculated to make it most binding and lasting in the eyes of the world. He should be the last man to propose any thing tending to shake the security necessary in the -one- case, or the solidity of the engagement contracted in the other. But when the Legislature had done what was requisite to secure those two points, it had done all that public duty required, and it became incumbent upon it to give all members of the community every facility of contract ing marriage with as little hindrance as possible from scruples of conscience. On that ground lie trusted • their Lordships would feel it necessary to adopt the proposition which lie was about to make. He should explain its nature distinctly; be: cause it had been much misunderstood out of doors. Far from making any alteration in the Liturgy, it would leave the mar riage- ceremony untouched for all persons of the hope of any benefit a c C a h ll u o r tw c iele h lfm alai ail this with no view and no ot_f England, or all who sho u ld a va il th emse l ves o f th e f orm s of that Church. But that was not a case in whi c h th e .Legisla turecould with persons tolerated by law to be comp e ll e d t o Chnrch of violate their consciences, wi t a. o ctli b ile e . krie broughtiintda su bunit E e v n e g r l . a n t o a n w in The s allowing the Unitarians t o b e marr i e d under eertain w re a s s tric n tion or s in their own ch a p e l s , h av i ng prev i ously given publicity to. their intention by banns and the payment o f f ees i n the parish church. It mi g ht b e as k e d w h y he h a d not brought forward' a Bill of a more eneral nature, embracing a ll c l asses o f leis-s- , senters? had felt that a c ourse would be attended with much greater difficulti es . I t h a d , b es id es , be e n stated l as t year, from an au th or i ty to w hi ch lie was always•disposed to bow, th a t a ll th ose c l asses o f Di ssenters enterta i ne d o bj ec ti ons to mere f orms w hi c h t h e L eg i s l ature- could not ,take into con sideratiQn, a n d th a t to include th em a ll i uto one measure wou ld require a l ax it y i n th e provisi ons o f t h at measure.wh i c h wou ld to embrace more than were meant, and afford undue. facilities. to' instances d id o the clandestine marriages. On those grounds he had confined the present Bill to the relief of that party, who by the admission of the House and of the Right Rev. Prelates themselves, had most reason, in foro conscientix, to complain of the marriage ceremony. And it was not a little to the honour of some of those Right Reverend Prelates, iliac when they were shewn that a conscientious feeling existed in a particular class against being compelled' to submit to the marriage ceremony of the .• Church of England, ,they h a d i nstant l y a d m itt e d the propriety, of relieving that feeling. The Bill now before the House pro vided that the Chapels of Unitarians should be registered, and that in those where Divine Service had not been performed less than one year the marriages of . Dissenters of that denomi nation might be solemnized, after due notice should , have been given by banns and payment of fees he the Church of England. It also provided that any Minister solemnizing , marriage' in those Chapels against the regulations of the , should be punishable; and he meant to propose in-the 'Committee that the punishment for such offence should_ be transportation. Should also the publication of banns not be deemed a sufficient security against. clandestine marriages, he should have no ob jection to propose another regulation to cause the marriages of Unitarians, and the places where they were solemnized, to be registered. He did not see what objection their - Lerdships could make to such a Bill, unless any of them should be dis posed to contend that Unitarians were out of the pale of society, or that if within it they would not marry, or else that the cere mony of the Church oflngland was to be imposed as .a penalty upon them. • • - . . The Archbishop of CANTERBURY believed the scruples entertained by the Unitarians to be founded. on religious prin ciple, and consequently to.be entitled to relief. •The only dif ficulty waeis to the fitness of the mode of granting relief: The Bill introduced last year went on a ver y diff e rent principle from the present. but though not free from objections, was. not liable to the charge of transferring to others the hardship from which one party was t o be relieved. That Bill had been sup. ported by some of" .their Lordships, of whom lie (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was one, but having been opposed by.greater ' numbers was rejected. There appeared however a.general dis position to give relief. Now relief could only -be given in two ways : either by' allowing Unitarians to marry in their own places, or to alter the Liturgy so as to remove their objec tions. To the last lie had objected and still objected, depre cating any alteration of the Liturgy for such a purpose. He might be told that the Liturgy would not be altered ;. that some prayers might be omitted, but that nothing would be substi tuted in their stead.. But he need not remind their Lordships that alterations could bees easily effected by omissions as.by sub stitutions.—Besides, would it become the Church of England to put aside the doctrine of the Trinity, that doctrine on which it was founded, to enable the Unitarians to use its services, so mutilated and unhallowed for the purpose, and to make' t h at - Church itself a hand-maid td dissent,? The only mode of granting. relief, therefore, was by some Act of 'Parliament like that which 'he, 'now held ,in his hands; in which effective j provisions should be made so satisfy the consciences .of the Unitarians, and to give security to the public against clan destine . marriages. -In the present Bill, • - the -first of those' conditions was fulfilled : the second lie trusted, . would be at tained in the Committee. Let it not be said that, by passing that measure, an extraordinary favour was done to the, Unitarians, which was withholden • from .• other . . Dissenters. Favour was not in' th e view ,of the... Legislature. Scruples. of conscience were the grounds of the measure : if they existed,' and he-belie.ved they did really exist, they Were entitled to, relief., The Right Rev. Prelate then objected to some.of the details of the Bill. The banns. were to •be published in the Parish Church,, but the marriage might take plaed: in a Chapel ten miles distant, and by this facilities might be opened to clandestime • marriages, which: ought not: to be given. As tq the claims of ether . Dissenters, they. did not arise from scruples of conscience; they 'were merely founded on, fanciful objections to the. forms of the Church of England. They were not entitled therefore to the same .attention as. those of the Unitarians. In the Committee he had no doubt: such restrictions and restraints would : - be provided, as would. give security to those whom it was intended to'relieve, and to the, public at large.. . •. . • The LORD CIIANCELLOR entertained the highest re spect for the Itiglit Reverend Prelate who had just sat down, but when he looked at the provisiors of the Bill, or at the principle on which it -was. founded, he. could . not 'view the immure in a similar light. it appeared to 'him extremely imperfect. When the Preamble spoke of persons entertztin- Mg,seruples,' what'did it' Mean,'but persons. denying tliTdair7.. trine of the Trinity, that doctrine which was the foundation stone of the Church of England. Whether it was to be found in the Holy Scriptures or not, he should not at pre sent inquire : it was sufficient for his own belief that it formed one of the articles of that Church to which he belonged. The question was, whether the first step taken ought not to be, that to deny the Trinity was or was not legal. He must state to their Lordships, that a great misunderstanding pre vailed respecting the repeal of the Act of King William : for many supposed, when that statute was repealed by the 53d of the late King, that the denying of the Trinity was legal. It was no such thing. The Act of William was not passed against blasphemy or prophaneness ; but went to inflict on those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, an excess of punishment, which no man could approve of; and when that Statute was repealed some years ago, no idea was entertained that they were repealing the common law of the land re specting the doctrine of the Trinity. Those who denied that doctrine were directly hostile to the - Church of England. The Unitarians dissented more than any others from that Church ; and why, he asked, sho u ld not t h ey b e separate d from the• Church as much as others ? Jews and Quakers had their own forms of marriage ; but they were separated from the Church. The present was said to be a measure of relief ; but if their Lordships granted it, he wished to know where they would stop. Were they to be compelled to make the Church of England a handmaid to all those who denied its doctrines? He would never consent to any Bill that went to make the Church the servant of Unitarians. The Act of King William did not aired the law as it previously stood. • The Common Law of the land was as much in force against those who denied the Trinity, before, as after the Passing of that Act ; and the re peal of it did not alter the Common Law. He would not, there fore, consent to any measure that went to make the Established Church subservient to sectarians, and particularly those that dissented most from it. The Earl of LIVERPOOL only wished to explain the grounds on which he shOuld give his vote for the second read ing and for going into a Committee, and to say that if the Bill were to come out of the Committee, such as it now was, he should oppose its passing into a law. He was• willing to give full relief to Unitarians when both parties were Unitarians; but if one of them belonged to the :establishment, he wished them to be married according to the establishment. There might then be two separate ceremonies in the respective churches of the parties, as in the case of Jews, Quakers and Roman Cathos lies intermarrying with persons of a different persuasion: He also thought that the license to marry should not depend simply on the declaration of individuals, that they did dissent in respect to the Trinity from the Church of England, but that they should produce a certificate from a Minister of their own Church to prove that they had been in the habit of attending it, and were real Unitarians. If those alterations were made, he should accede to the Bill, and in order that - they should be made he should vote for going into a Committee. The Bishop of CHESTER, notwithstanding what he had heard, rose to eipreis his dissent from the pinitiple of the Bill, though no Rev. Prelate or Noble Lord present was more friendly than himself to every principle of civil and religious toleration. He had been bred in those principles, and trusted that lie should retain them to the end of his days. He thought that the commerce between the creature and Creator should be as free as the air we breathed, for we were bound to obey God, not man. It had been thought proper that one sect should be selected out of the rest, and that there should be a national establishment. If it was intended that' establishment should exist, it Must be upholders by pecu liar rights and privileges. The rights of marriage being ce lebrated only in Churches and Chapels, was one of those privileges. That right ought not to be taken away except on valid grounds, and he trusted he should be able to prove to their Lordships' satisfaction, that the Unitarians did net object to it out of real scruples of conscience. What was it that the Unitarian was called upon to subscribe,. to declare, or to hear ? He was called upon to subscribe his own 'name. He was besides bound to repeat, " I thee wed, (e.g.," " in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Were not those the words of Scripture ? were they not those of our Saviour hint self ? The Unitarian had no right to object to them. Ile might affix to the idea of Father and Son whatinteapretation he pleas ed, for nothing was fequired of him on that head. But what would their Lordships say when he should state that that very appeal to which Unitarians objected in the Marriage ceremony, was used•in the Form of Prayer adopted by themselves ? In their baptismal service they said, 44 ,1 baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." How then could they conscientiously complain at having to say in Our Churches what they were in the habit of - saying in their own ? 'What then had an Unitarian to hear ? He had to bear a bents diction pronounced upon himself in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But if he did not think himself the better for the blessing of our Church, he could not possibly be the worse for it. He might affix any meaning which lie pleased to it, but he had no just ground of complaint. He (the Bishop of Chester) should wish to deal by the Unitarians, as he should wish to be dealt by himself. Had he been in any country where different persuasions prevailed, nothing could have induced him to subscribe any form of words against the Holy Scriptures, but of thi ngs o f l e s s i mportance he shotild have thought his duty to obey the laws of the land. With 're spect to the maintenance of her doctrine, • the Church-of Eng land would be wanting to herself, if she did not declare the Faith ofJesus Christ on all proper occasions. ''He would say nothing- about the machinery of the Bill; but let not their Lordships lay the flatterir 6 s unction to their souls that if it passed into a law the same privil eges would not be given to every other sect. From the falling off of marriages , in the Churches, coos sequent upon their celebration in Chapels, the income of many parishes would be greatly reduced; particularly in populous towns where the duties of the Clergyman were most severe,and his stipend comparatively smallo He did not,' however, mean to urge this argument against those of principle, he would rather say flat justitia real ; The operations of the Bill, it should be at the ,came time remembered, wotild be to render the incomes of livings already trifling still less ; and their .Lordships slimild recollect that as the hO/ders of those livings had- entered• upon- them with the understandings that the revenues were not to be diminished -by any such measure. as the present, they might be considered to have a sort of veit ed, right to all the marriage fees. It was also to be obSerVed that in recent cases the feel exceeded - the mere dues, and that a considerable part of the emolument arose from complimen tary offerings made at the conclusion of - the ceremony: -He did notavish to give 'offence to any one; but persons 'who were not inattentive to the manners of mankind, -must have ob served, ' that those most clamorous for toleration for them selves, were seldom disposed to grant much-- of its to others. In conclusion, he could not help axpressing his regret; lhat, on this occasion, he differed from those with' whom he gene rally acted ; lindens Plato :al magic arnica Veritas, and he would leave the question to their isordships with' hope and con fidence in the result. When Ate: interests of the Church of England were at stake, he was certain that House would als ways hear in-mind the example of the Barons of old, andin their spirit declare Nolumus le,ges Eccksice inutare; The Earl of HARROWBY perfectlssagreed with the Right Rev. Prel a t e w h o liad just sat down, in the importance of pros tecting the interests of the Xstablished Church.' If, therefore, he saw -any thing in'the Present mettsure'ealculated in - the least. to injure those interests, a more determined opponent of the Bill could not be found than the humble individual who novi, addressed their Lordships. ; He, hoWever,' saw nothing - of that tendency in the measure before the House.-(Hear, heaf !) The Right Reverend Prelate Mentioned the objections of the Unitarians to the existing 'law. :If those objections were to the mere subscription' of ._the marriage ceremony,, no one would think them 'of less value than he should.' It would be a strange 'sort of casuistry to r abject to .the , use of the expressions—" In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," in-one instance and not in another, and he believed the only difference between the Worth em ployed on the two occasions was the changing of in to into.— But when the objection was as to the mode of pronouncing the blessing at the conclusion of the ceremonyhe thought it not unreasonable for persons who were called td invoke " God the Father, God the Son, and - God the Holy Ghost," to conceive that by doing 'so, they gave a Sort of intplied dm- , sent to terms which' were opposed to their partitillar belief, on one of the most interesting - occasions of life. Nor did' he think that their Lordships should inquire whether those scruples had rational grounds: The question was, whether the scruples were bona fide felt by those who alleged them; fordo that princi. pie the subject ought to be considered. He would not have those things deemed indifferent. Would their'Lordships; for instance. pronounce a blessing-in the name of Mahornet?—[The Lord Chancellor here asked 'if his Lordship would permit the mar riage of a Maliometan.]--The Noble and Learned , Lord (conti nued the Earl of Harrowby) asks if he would- permit the mar riage of a Mahometan ; he answered; why not, as well as of a Jew ?—(Hear, hear !)—What was marriage in this country but a civil contract, to which a' religious sanction Was 'given, 'in order that it might be binding upon the consciences of the par ties. And how was , a ceremony to be binding on men's clan sciences, which, in its performance, violated their consciences ? —He should not, however, wish any concession'to be made in such a manner as ton - act the security of property, or• open a door for clandestine marriages'. - -Hissobject wOuld be'to render marriage both safe and respectable. But' the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack said that this bill would- make the Established Church auxiliary to Unitarianism. He did not think it would be so ecclesiastically. Banns were published in churches because the greatest number of persons acquainted with the parties were present. For similar reasomi mar riages were registered in the Church; and 'he therefore thought there certainly was *eight in the observation that by having the banns of Unitarian marriages published, When so fewasf their friends were assembled; the object of the law would not be illtaini_ll. For th%.ie reasons he saw no grounds whf.Daniis ' might not be published in chapels, provided it did not detract from the dignity and authority of the Establishment. If t e e bill were to go through the C omm itt ee i n i ts presen t s hape, should undoubtedl object to it ; but he wi s h e d t o have it COl' mitted, and should ' therefore vote for the second reading. Lord CALTORPE vas anxions to declare the gr ounds on which he should give hi s vote for the Bill. He thought the de c i gree of relief which this Bill proposed ought to be granted, a n that the Church of England owed it to its own strength not to e offer violence to the con sc i ousness o f ot h ers. Considering t high respectability of th e p ersons w h o pro f esse d Unitary doctrines the Church o ug ht no t i n hi s m i n d to press on thent l ". e rite of marriage. In a hi g h er sense too , namely, that ,indivi duals so oppos e d t o hi m as t h e part i es in question, should !lie be forced into an a lli ance , an d t hi nk i ng the doctrine of the Trinity essentially interwoven with the Church of England; 111 ' the same time that no real or cordial eccleisastical ag ent could take pl ace w ith persons profess i ng Unitaria rnsin7!'":i Church of England - Might to support th e present ineasul The doctrine of th e T r i n it y s h e h e ld not as a speculation, b u t as a principle, and it was due to herself to mark by , the n tat: turn tof this Bill th e t ota l di ssent t o t h e opinions of t h ose. ! e denied that doct r in e . H e t h ere f ore gave his th a n k s to int Right Rev. Prelate opposite, for objecting to any omisStS, in the' Liturgy, and rejoiced that the Right Reverend Ben _ abstained from making a precedent which would rendei t" Liturgy dependant on human opinion. He did not think, .how' ever, that the present m easure wou ld i ncrease the diffusi ir o 0 „ Unitarian sentiments, which found an antidote in theirs coldness and want of consolation. He should indeed have been more pleased if the Church herself, for her own relief, had ir/ a i troduced the Bill • for it must be rep ugnan t to h er enligh,ten„c principles and mild spirit to do viol ence to t h e consc ie n ces others, or encourage any thing like mental reservation in forcing conformity to her opinions. The Eatl of WESTMORLAND should not presume , late an hour to detain their Lordships for any length of 1 . ." but should merely state the reason why he voted again Bill. His objection, h o W ever , was to its ' principle, and • , from any indisposition on his part to religious toleration, give ease to the con s ci ences o f i n di v id ua l s. This measure lit't to alter the law of the land, and the establi s h ments o f w e Church. By the former, all marriages were solemnized in th e Church, except those of Jews and Quakers ; and his objectioa to the present Bill w as , th at i t was not general, but special' it went to relieve one portion of Dissenters, and not another' According to it, the Church of England was to be merely an advertiser of marriages in one case, while in all others it solely' nixed the ceremony. He therefore considered that there we a legal as well as an eeclesiastical objection to the measnie, an should oppose it in principle: The Bishop of LONDON wished to state, very briefly, . I d l/ reasons for voting that the Bill should go into a Committe e ' He was deeply convinced of the wisdom of that law, which r% quired that marria ge s s h ou ld b e so l emn i zed i n churches. at gave publicity, security, a nd au th or i ty to th e ceremony, an d _, 16 the same time conferred dignity on the Ch urc h. If th er e ir" any particular dogma of the - Church objected to in the cerefneby, it would be imprudent to make any alteration, but mere b e ' neral groundi of dissent ought not to be a ground of objec t ; -don. Here the scruples were fully st a t e d, an d at t h e tor°, time the Unitarians expressed their willingness to confolti tn. the laws'of the land in all other. respects. He could not r e ! with the Rt. Rev. Prel a t e (th e Bi s h op o f Ch ester ) , t h at t he tarians had a right to understand the words of the ceremony Oft" Chureh in any sense they pleased. The argument of particular words was by no means a strong ground of objection; but them were other and better gro u nd s . He wished, however, for 'goo and sufficient security from the Unitarians, that their cere; mony of marriage sho u ld b e p er f orme d wit h decency,. an,'" without any fraud. As t o th e c ase o f J ews an d Q ua k er s, did not object to what they already had received, thouo. o " did not wish to grant them any thing more. , The Unitarian s asked nothing furth er , an d were willing to give the - inure cOrity. Whenever cases occurred where the Jews did not a' actly conform to the practices and beliefs of their own Church' the Ecclesiastical Courts -had not refused to set such mar riages aside. An instance of , this had lately occcurred the Consistorial Court.' He did not believe that many 'stances of abuse or fraud could be cited, as the Consequence . O the indulgence granted to the. Jews and Quakers. If . the Ott' tarians gave the same securities,, he could not think that all injury Would restilt. In voting- for the Bill being sent 9 e Committee, he did not pl e d ge hi mse lf t o vote f or i t afterwaru: As to the fees of the . Clergy, he had paid th e su bj ec t gr eat a , tention. In large towns, it was true, the Clergy were verf in adequately paid ; but , this was a point of Comparative unite-, portance, compared with what was due to the character of the r Church itself. He did not wish to diminish their fees, but z . gt ra l th t e enjoyment d i c j d o O mll t ; m e eo - ewron, of the t i A k . f e t h p a a r n e t a y gr t g b u r ul e i a g ert h i Dissenters t c s e o r n fgay t v h e . o —.4 ur i o i f ea tl r le l) measure ; .and ground d d o b f e a a d eb iffi arr in t io ir p °7 o LORD CDANCELLOR explained. The Marquis of Laiq'SnoWN briefly replied. The House then divided; when the numbers were - Contents - 21 Not Contenti Proxies - - 141 Proxies - , . 20 -. 13 33 Majority for th , The Bill was accordingly mat be committed on Monday selrini ; The House adjourned at HAL le 2d reading 2. d a second time, and ordered t ° ight. - X -PAST TEN O'CLOCK. .HOUSE OF COMMONS. Lord STANLEY moved the third reading of the Jude Lodgings (in Lancaster) Bill: „ General GASCOYNE wi s h e d the parties interested Bill to have time to e?tpresi their opinion to the House, oa t. `moved the postponement o f t h e t hi r d rea di ng to Tuesd a y, After some conversation in which Lord Stanley, Mr. Java:' Mr: Bootle Wilhtaha m , M r : C urte i s, M r. Gladstone, and Oth er Members participat e d, th e House divided upon the cp4estw „ for the third reading. For the third Reading - 41 ' Against it' - - • Majority - -17 Mr. S. RICE presented a petition, _praying for leave to Pr. e ; sent a petiti on f or t h e i ncorporat i on of an Insurance Comp% in -Ireland. --Leave was given, aid the petition presented 3 F COrdingly. • ILL. Mr. Sheriff WHIT TAX ALIEN R appe ß ared at the Bar of the Mus e ' with a petition from the Lord ,Mayor, Aldermen; and COI: mons of the City of Londo n i n C ommon Council iiiisemble° praying that the Alien Bill might not be renewed. • • Mr. Ald e rm an WOOD h av i ng move d the reading of the etition, assured the House that it h a d b een vo t e d b y a 14,0` 1 1. e .. body of .the Corporation, who con s id ere d t h a t as than ancestors had come from foreign countries, and procured Oen wealth and fortune by bringing their art, science , and kno t " ledge to this countr_y, aliens ought not to be subjected to the law now b e fore the How!.e. Mr. Alderman HEYGATE thought that the powers of the Bill had been exercised with the greatest mnderation by 'th e GoVernnient, and that those aliens who:benefitted the country by the exercise of their skill and knowledge did ~not feel ug, grieved at its provisions. Without it he was convinced the; this country would become the focus of conspiracy, which woul d not only be directed to foreign Governments, but becOur •dangbrous•to her own ConStitution. • After a 'few words from Mr. C. SMITH the petition w ordered to be printed. as SUSPENSION BRIDGE, The Sheriffs appeared at the Bar with a petition from , same bndy„ objecting to, and praying inquiry upon the for erecting 'a New Bridge, at St. Catharine's. Upon the motion of Mr. Alderman Wow), the petition , We read, and Mr. Alderman SMITH made a few inaudible remarks. Sir J. YORKE knew nothing of the parties concerned the Bill, but he had to request of the Commons of England r! to allow the vicinity of the metropolis to be disgraced by " dis-sightly an object as a bridge of tension banging up in air-like a great umbrella, covering acres of water.--(A laug , Mr. H. SUMNER supported the Bill, and said he could help thinking that the petition had been got - up by intew , persons. Mr. C. CALVERT knew nothing about the intended.britlg c ' but as it Would interfere with the property of some of his ee l ' - stituents, he was instructed to oppose it. Mr. J. SMITH thought the measure ought to be fully c QI/- sidered before it was objected to. Mr. HUME was surprised to hear the Hon. Baronet object to the bridge on account of the principle of Vuspension, wiieh i t was known to have succeeded so well. 'Sir I. COFFIN declared his opinion to be, that any bridge made in any river was an impediment to navigatimi.—(A laugh.) Upon the motion of Alderman WooD, the petition ivM - 19 t' dered to be printed. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from Wm. Pontefax against the removal of Fleet-tparket.—baid on the table. • ' ' ST. CATHERINES' DOCK BILL. Mr. Alderman WOOD said that he liAd several petitions to present to the House against the St. Catherines' Dock Bill. Morning Paper had stated that he was the author of the bill, an he wished it to be known that he was riot aware of its existence until after it was in the House.. The HOn: Member then pre' sented"petitions from 1,100 poor mere who would . be thrown out of employment by the bill ; from the Commissioners of Sewers; from 'the Leaseholders and Ocetipiers of IlouSes upon the spot, and from the Proprietors 'of the same;' and from the Owners and Occupiers of Warehouses,—all praying that the Bill might not pass'into a Law. • • Similar jaetitions Were pi6sened from Mr. Hoge by 3X,