The Sun. — London, England, 1827-06-27 00:00:00

Lord to say, whose services were most valuable, in proportion to the remuneration which they had re- ce ived.—(Cheers and laughter.) • The Marquis of LONDONDERRY hoped that he should be excused in again trespassing upon their Lordships, after the extraordinary mode of answer ing his observations adopted by the Noble Lord. He (Lord Londonderry) had alluded to the amourit of certain sums of public expenditure, as appeared upon the face of the, papers which had been ,laio upon their Lordships' table; and in reply to this, the Noble Lord hid thought proper to go into a de fence of a personal accusation, with 'respect to a transaction with which it had nothing to do. 'Singe the Noble Lord, however, had thought proper do mention that transaction, he should not have con tented himself with stating only a part of it. He (Lord Londonderry) called upon him to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; instead of which, he had only given their Lordships a partial and garbled statement. Now hn(Lori Londonderry) would . not take up the time of the House upon this -subject, further than to read to their Lordships one letter that he had written to the Noble Lord, which would shoW what the real facts of the case were, and which it was necessary ' be should read in explanation of his conduct upon this occasion. The Noble Marquis here read the following letter ,t-- " Holdernesse House, May 14; 1827. " My dear Lord—Having just read in the old Times newspaper of to-day, ' a libel on my character, in which it is stated, that upon an application of mine for a pension, out of the prescribed form, Lord Liverpool had himself indorsed these words ;--.' This is too bad.' I feel per suaded that you will inform me whether, in your opinion, - ,t. be possible that, accidentally or otherwise, the office over which von preside can have been accessary to such a state ment. If the fact he true, it will show that confidential or official documents are communicated for indirect pur pot:es of personal attack, not where they can be met and answered, but by throwing them into anonymous channel. Whatever may be the character given of my proceedings in Parliament, I disclaim any , thing but being direct and open against public men and public measures, and I despise any other mode too much to have recourse to it. " I request therefore, before I take any farther steps,, that you will have the goodness to favour me with an answer to the Tiers I have made; and that you will for ward me as soon as possible, copies of all the correspon dence relating to my application for the pension, together with Mr. Canning's letter as to my services, on my resig nation of th? Vienna Embassy. (Signed) " VANE LONDONDERRY," The answer which he bad received from the Noble Viscount was a complete denial of his knowledge of t i a i f a ct. In consequence he (the -Marquis of Lon donderry) thought the whole matter was at an end. Their Lordships therefore might imagine his sur prise when seven or eight days afterward s he re ceived a letter from the Noble Viscount, stating that he had omitted to mention that the correspondenee in question was in the office. As soon as circum stances would permit, after receiving that letter, he wrote to the Noble Viscount the following answer :-= " Holdernesse House, May 23. " My LORD--My absence at Chiswick, until a late hour last night, prevented my answering your Lordship's letter sooner. As it now appears, that a private and con fidential remark of Lord Liverpool's, arising out of my private communication to M. Planta, on my resignation , of the Vienna Embassy (of the existence of which, or Ally ' thing like it, I never could have the least intimation), has, after a lapse of six Or seven years, 'been anonymous!) , con veyed to the public from the' Foreign Office, and has now been, for the first time, officially communicated to me, I think it necessary fOr me to place all indirect attacks at de fiance, and to show-=let. From the Records in the Foreign Office, that all the diplosetatie servants of the Crown re ceived pensions, with the exception of myself, who gave up to Lord Liverpool's nomination a military government of 600/. a-year for life, without any equivalent, in MI, the year preceding my retirement from the Vienna Etn hasty. 2d. To show the estimation in which my humble services, Military and Diplomatic, were held by My Sovereign and superiors, during thirty years' service, aril especially during the period I held the situation of his Mi. •Seety's Ambassador at Vienna. i (Signed) " VANE LONDONDERRY>" ; - What he complained of was, that after ,tile—lape; l e , . of five or six years, if such a note as ha,d been der clibed had been written, it should have been co m an unicated to anonymous assailant , for the pu - pose of impugning his conduit in Parliament. This was treatment sah as no individual had' ever befok expe'ienced. He should have purposely avoided this subject, if what, had fallensfrom the Noble Vie count had not rendered it necessary for him to touch upon it. He was much obliged to the' Noble Via count for the kindness which he had manifested ; but all that he desired was, that the whole of the corres pondence should be published ; for there was 4 transaction of his public life of which he felt that he sa sglit to be ashamed. VisCOnnt DUDLEY and the Marquis of LoNno4- DERRY mutually explained. Lord}:_LLENBOROUGH begged to be allowed l to' say one -Word. He was not aware that it had been his Noble Friend's intention to make any oll sensations upon tlis subject; and he certainly did n ' think, that, on the face of t he p a pe rs which had bee produced, the Right H o nourable Gentleman at t/ head of his Majesty's Government was justly charge able with public profusion or extravagance. There was one observation, however, which had fallen from the Noble Viscount, in comparing the remuneration which the Right Honourable Gentleman, and the remuneration which the Noble Lord, had receivell for their respective political servicee, on 'which he wished to make a single remark. The Noble Vi s cou nt knew that, right or wrong, it was the p racti not to e ve a high rerauneration to those who het high o fficial situations in the government at hornet; it being presumed that the power, the dignity, an the patronage of such situations, exceed any peat niary emolument. The case was, however, entirely different with reference to Ambassadorial situations ,broad. To such situations it was essential that the re n 7inneration should be considerable; and it was a well-,,snown fact that, however considerable, they were s S,lclom equivalent to the expenses into which the poi sees sien of such situations threw the posseS sor. As an Oustratiour of his statement, he beggild to call to t h e 'recollection of the Nohie,Viscounit,' that, at the timww:ben the Right Hon. Gentlemin held for a shoct,perios.l the situation similar to thit -which had b e e n : 144 for so long a period by is Noble Friend; the remuneration which he received from the public 'purse ( w h en -:i . t Lisbon) was at a considerably higher rate than that :hich had at sly time been received by his Noble Friend. i Here the conversation dropp e d. . CORN BILL, The Dui of LAUDERDALE presented a petition from the o wners and occupiera of land in some parimb in the count] of Suffolk, against the . Corn Bill. • FOREIGN Earl STANHOPE presented three petitions, pravinv foe the iraposititya of a duty on Forel:1 1 Wool. The first; w as from, the owners and oc, _ piers of 472,000 acres of land, pasturing 59 , 000 sheep, in the ne i g hbourhood of Marlborough; the second from-the' owners and occupiers of land at ! Hadleigh, in Suffolk ; and the third fro the owners and occupiers of land at Waldstone, in Suffolk. MESNE PROCESS BILL. I Lord TENTERDEN, after a few observations, which, in consequence of the situation in which the Noble ansl Learned Lord stood, were wholly inaudi ble below tize Bar, moved the second reading of the Mesne Process Bill. Lord REDESDALE disapproved of that part ; Of the Bill which provide.d that arrest should not IR permitted until the debt rea s *d 201. instead of 101., as at present was the case- There were runny per sons who had property on .which executi on co uld not be laid—those , for initance, who had propely in the tunas. They w ent about from place to pl ace An d the effect of this Bill contracting small debts, would be to protect them from arrest. f fisis pro tection to debtors would raise Ole price of conimo dities on the public. At his time of life, he might be excused for saying any thing that might not ap -pear quite courteous to the ladies. It was very well known, however; that when ladies of a certain 'character went to a mercees; and ordered an urticle, if other ladies came afterwards to purchase a similar article, they would be charged considerably more, as the mercer would endeavour to make amends for a debt of four or five years standing to 'which he would be subjected. Under these circumstances, and others which he might enumerate, he doubted the policy of not allowing arrests for sums under 201. The Earl of ELDOICI said, that if the freedom from arrest was limited to resident householders for debts under 201., as they were persons in a situation to be applied to from time to time, it might be very proper to grant such an exemption to them. Per haps a limitation to that effect might be proposed in the Committee. Lord TENTERDEN briefly replied. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. THE NEW CORN BILL. Lord GODERICH, in proposing the Committee on the New Corn Bill, observed, that, from what happened last night, much discussion was not now expected upon It ; any objection that there might be to it; there would be an opportunity of making on the bringing up of the Report. The Noble Lord moved the introduction of a New Clause, " That there be published Monthly Returns of the Quantity of -Corn on hand, in Bond, and the Quantity taken out ; distinguishing the • Corn Imported from our own Possessions, and that Imported from Foreign Countries." Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished that Weekly Accounts might be published of the pantity taken out of ►warehouse. ' Lord GODERICH said that directions might be given to that effect by Government, and the wishes of the Noble Lord should be attended to. The Bill then passed through a Committee, and the Re port was ordered to be received to-morrow. THE DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE BILL. The Marquess of LANSDOWN, in moving that the House should go into a Committee on the Dis senters' Marriage Bill, wished to avail himself of that opportunity to make some observations• on the Bill. Before he entered upon these observations, he must remark upon, the irregular discussion which had just gone by, not for the purpose of adding anything to what had been already said upon that subject, but as an illustration of the inconvenience of enter ing upon the discussion of subjects of which notice had not been previously given. He adverted to this inconvenience, es it had deprived him of the advantage of the support of the Right Rev. Prelate at the head of the Bench of Bishops, who had attended that evening for the . ex press purpose of supporting the DisSenters' Mar riage Bill, but who was prevented from remaining in the House by the state of his health. Their Lordships, who had remembered the sentiments of that Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canter bury) on a former occasion, must bear testimony to the spirit of toleration, which he hoped would always characterize the Clergy of the Established Church, and by which he was particularly anxious to see the Heads of that Church distinguished. He was in structed by that Right Reverend 'Prelate, on his leaving the House, to say, that his sentiments re mained unaltered upon this subject. Bills contain ing provision 'for the relief of the Dissenters, had been two or three times sent up to that House from the House of Commons, and rejected by their Lord ships ; but he was happy to say that a very general feeling prevailed Amongst many of those who had formerly opposed those Bills to give some relief , to the Dissenters ' • and he believed he might even say that the Right Reverend Prelates had expressed an anxiety to adopt some measure by which the Dissen ters might be freed from the necessity of giving ut terance, as a mere matter of form, to sentiments which they entertehied not at heart; and, at the same time, to avoid that scandal to the Church which re sulted from having its creed and its ceremonies pros titeted in the - calling upon Dissentrs, for temporary purposes, to give a false and feigned assent to doc trines which they declared they did not believe.— That was the situation of the Church, and the evil from which the Right Reverend Prelate and other , biembers • of the -Reeleeierstipal Body* wished Lb be relieved. A Noble Earl, lately at the head of his Maje§ty's Government (Lord Liver , pool), and who, he was authorised in saying, felt deeply the inconvenience which resulted from the state of the laws affecting the Dissenters, had expressed an opinion that the dif,ficelty might be best met by allowing some alteration to be made in the service of the Church of England, but the Right Reverend Prelates thought otherwise upon that sub ject, and no attempt was made to carry that sugges tion into execution. Different plans had been sub mitted to their Lordships and rejected. The Bill which he had now to bring ender their conaideratipn attempted to reconcile as far as possible the jarring opinions which prevailed, and proposed to meet the objections made at various times to the measures which came under their Lordships' attention. Its object was to unite two objects—that of making the ceremony of marriage a civil security, combined with the strongest attention to those religious ceremonies by which it was sanctioned. In this country, up to the times of the 26th of George the Second, those objects had been very imperfectly provided for; but an innovation upon the existing law, commonly called Lord Hardwicke's Act, then received the sanction of the Legislature. At the time when Lord Hardwicke introduced that measure to their Lordships, it became necessary, however, to exempt two classes of religious believers from its operation the Jews and the Quakers; but he apprehended that no man could rise up in that House and con tend that this exemption was intended to fix any slur upon the marriage .of those persoPs ? ox to de clare that they )were not perfectly legal. Some in sinuations had, he knew, been thrown out from au-I thority of great importance, that the marriage of those opulent, industrious people, the Quakers—a people remarkable for the purity of their lives, and the extent of their good works, could not be legally recognised; but he apprehended that there could be , no doubt upon the subject ; ; and some of the greatest and most learned Lawyers of which this country could boast, had distinctly declared their opinion that the marriage of Quakers was perfectly legal. Sir M. Hale had distinctly given his sanction to the lega lity of the marriage of Quakers. Burnet, in allu ding to the circumstance, gives this account of the conduct and expressions of that eminent perion on the oeca.siou :---" In a trial that was before him, w hen a Quaker was sued for some debts owing by his wife befOre he married her, and the Quaker's Counsel pretended that it was no marriage that had past between them, since it was not solemnized ac-; I cort ling to .the rules of the Church of Bngland ; Sir Math.aty Hale declared that he was not willing, on his own opigion, to make their children bastards, I and gave directions to the Jury to find it special ; which they did!' the Noble Marquis, after some observations upon the legality of the marriage of the Quakers, proceeded to contend that he: was entitled to claim the sa,rne right for the Unitarians. Advert-. ing to the clauses of the Bill, the Noble Marquisl ! declared that he did not hoitil himself responsible fc?: their perfection ; but he knew that those who framed them had the assistance of some d those whose experience and information best qualified 1 them for the task. • In the first place, the' banns were to be published for to ,security of the , public, and then the parties are to go befmy . 21 Ma gistrate and procure a certificate that they have com plied with certain forms specified in the Act; that certificate is then to be carried to the clergyman for, the purpose of being registered. . Some objections, lie understood, were made to the imposition of this duty upon the clergyman ; ,but lie , , for one, thought it was one of those inconveniences which could net be avoided. The Registry Act had been passed in 1 t h e rime of William 111. as a tax, for the purpose' of raising money to carry on the war then waged aga i ns t „Louis XIV. lA, - so beneficial had it since been found for the interests of the public, that, if the' Bill now before the House did 'not contain a clause to make that registry imperative, he .could 'not possibli COUsient to give it his' support. The i registration of one of. the ,en.est important acts of our lives was, in every point of view, t nplic or private, of such infinite importance; that 'he thought the Bill must prove altogether inefficient, unless the clergyman was called upon to register the certificate. —The Noble Marquis concluded by imploring their Lordships to relieve the Church of England from the effect of a state of things which was calculated, not to attract, but to repel all converts to its doctrines. The Earl of ELDON regretted the absence of the Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) on this occasion, because it was his misfortune to be compelled to say, that he differed with him very much in the view he took of this subject. He wished in the first place, to separate tram the consideration of the question every thing which had been said with regard to the state of the Jews and the Quakers. — In his opinion the state of the Jews had no possible connection with the subject before their Lordships. It might, perhaps, be . different with regard to the Quakers; and he would here take leave to make an observation or two upon what had fallen from the Noble Marquis when he spoke of a doubt having been thrown out respecting the validity of a Quaker's marriage. If that doubt related to any thing which had fallen from him, he desired to say that he must have been completely misunderstood ; for he had distinctly given it as his opinion, that the marriage was perfectly valid according to law. He was the more anxious to say this, because he was aware that doubts might have been raised from the nature of the law on that subject. In 1661, they would find that the result of a proceeding at law admitted the vali dity of'such marriages ; but in 1730, in another pro ceeding at common law, a doubt was cast upon the legality of a Quaker marriage, although its validity was afterwards confirmed upon a rehearing of the cause. The 7th and Bth of William and Mary con tain,however, a clause which decides the question,and by which for the purposes of taxation, all persons living together'are declared to be held as married persons, whether they haire been married or not married ac cording to the established forms. With respect to the marriages of Jews, a question aro s e in the Court of Chancery as to their validity so lately as the time when Lord Roszlyn was Chancellor. A man claimed a legacy as due to him on the ground of its having been left to a person whom he called his wife. The persons were a Jew and a 'Jewess, and the question in this case was, whether the legatee was his wife. The Lord Chancellor directed this question to be tried by the Ecclesiastical Court, and the case came on before the present Lord Stowell. Lord Stowell, and also Sir W. Wynn, who afterwards affirmed the judg ment of Lord Stowell, expressed their surprise that this case should have been sent to the Court of Chancery, inasmuch as the Lord Chancellor had just as much right as an Ecclesiastical. Court to decide incidentally on the validity of a Jewish marriage, as on that of a foreign marriage. They decided, how ever, that a marriage of Jews was to be considered as a marriage of foreigners out of the country. Now the validity of a foreign marriage must be. decided by the lex loci; but it is a.maxim of law, that the Jews, who are every where, are, in effect, no where. As the Jews, therefore, have no place in this coun try, as they have no locality, no lex loci can apply to their case, but the validity of their marriages must be determined by their conformity with their own peculiar laws. Whatever the Legislature had done with regard to the marriages of Jews and Quakers, whatever it might be disposed to - do with regard to the marriages of Dissenters, he trusted it would never assent to any measure, the effect of which would be to degrade the Church of England in the public estimation. With respect to the marriages of Quakers, he was certainly of opinion that their marriages might be considered legal, under the exception of the 26th George 11. But let their Lordships consider at what period of the Session it .was that they were discussing, and were called upon to decide this most important question. He (Lord Eldon) had given the greatest attention to this Bill ; he had weighed every sentence and line in it, but he found it utterly impossible to assent to the passing of this Bill without a great number of alterations. Now, if, labouring as he (Lord E.) had done, with a view to make this Bill better than it was, he had been unable to accomplish his object, lam , aid 4.1111.1, that - no --vim. crcirclnrciroar -t-Vrc-Vr-lE.,nrcitsletirer could bestow upon it would enable them to execute their work as, in his judgment, it ought to be exe cuted. Besides, if their Lordships introduced amend ments, the amendments of this most important Bill would go down to the House of Commons on Fri day, and on that very evening the other House of Parliament must decide upon the propriety of all of them, for their Lordships were perfectly aware that no other opportunity would be afforded for consider ing them. The time, therefore, at which this mea sure was brought under the consideration of their Lordships, was a sufficient ground for not passing it, even if the objections to it were less strong than he believed he should be able to satisfy the House they were. It had been argued that it was but just to do for Dissenters of this description what the Legisla ture had done for Jews and Quakers. But,admitting that the marriages of Jews and Quakers were valid un der the exception in the Marriage Act, he begged to ask their Lordships whether the Church of Eng land had ever been called in to assist iry those mar riages ? In the time of the Commonwealth, when men were married, as it was now proposed, before Justices of the Peace—a measure adopted for the express purpose of degrading the Clergy —the Clergy were called upon to aid and assist in their own degradation. If their Lordships should think it right NI do that for Dissenters generally which had been done for Quakers, let them do so, but then they must do more than was proposed to be done .by this Bill. He begged to call their Lordships' attention a little to what this Bill did, and to what it did not. In the first place, he should be glad to know who the persons were whom this Bill pro posed to relieve ? What an Unitarian was had never vet been explained. He had taken occasion last year to ask a Right Reverend Prelate, who was now unfortunately absent, what was an Unitarian, and he could get no answer. Since that time he had been present at a sermon, preached by a Minis ter, before an Unitarian congregation, and the first words he heard from the lips of the preacher were— " The Lord Chancellor asks what is an Unitarian 1" This was, certainly, rather a singular commencement of a sermon; it wag, however, a very good sermon, as far as he could understand subjects of that kind. The sole reason which led him (Lord Eldon) to ask the question—and if their Lordships , should . go into the Committee, he Should ask it again--was, that it might be recorded upon the face of this Bill what an Unitarian Was. Was an Unitarian a person who denied the divinity of our Saviour ? He should be exceedingly glad to get a definition of an Unitarian. He did not know what distinetion there was be tween Unitarians and the Free-thinking Ch r i s tians who entertained these scruples about marriages. He begged their Lordships to 400 k at the language of these petitioners, that they might judge of their , claims to the special interposition of the legisla ture. The Noble Earl proceeded to read some pas sages from the petitions of the Free-thinkin g Chris tians, in . whigi the petitioners st at ed that the religion of thekstablishedelniichlia4 no higher date than that of Popery,and that itslaWs had no n i g erinthurity than that of Acts of Parliament. What was the comp l a i n t of these Free-thinking Christians? Their children were baptisoaccor4iing to the forms of the Established Church; they were baptised ip the name of the Fa ther, the Son, and the Holy Glidst, and he did not keg that these Dissenters made any objection to the baptismal ceremony. Wish respect to the mar riage ceremony, 1 , 7))41 was objected to was, he under stood, the mention '6e die Godhea4 under the name of the Father, the Son, and the 'Hely Ghost, when the Clergyman at the end of the ceremony prayed the blessing o God upon the man and his wife. The calling upon God to bless them under the term s of the Father, the Song and the Holy Ghost — (and every Christian of common honesty when he said God bless you, meant the Godhead in its Christian acceptation)—was what these per sons deemed so great a hardship. It was on such grounds 414 their Lordships were called upon to make a law, not for the benefit of all Dissenters of bUt for this particular class of D according t o a ll the evidence of a h l i i s is t se o d ry enlit , ciernr h s e i:l ld a wtiliesh doctrines of a more offensive descrip tion than any otter class. In his opinion, the best security for a religious establishment was a religion of the purest form, with a large , and liberal tolera tion. Such was the spirit - of the toleration granted in the Act of the 53d of the late King; and he was perfectly ready to admit, that the Acts of the 7th and Bth enacted penalties on account of religious opi nions which ought never to have been thought of. By the provisions of the Bill now before their Lordships, the Clergy of the Church of England were called upon topublish the bann s on the declaration of the parties that they were Dissenters of this description. The Clergy man was to certify that he had published the banns to a Justice of the Peace, and the Justice of the Peace was to appoint some time and place where the mar riage ceremony, such as it was, was to be performed: A question had been raised whether it might not be necessary to substitute the words "reputed Justice'l for Justice ; and, in point of fact, when the Nobki Lord who held the Great Seal had had as much ex; perience as he (Lord E.) had had—and he trusted that he would hold it as long, and much longer than he had done—he would find that cases might fre quently arise where, in consequence of certain infor malities, it was questionable who was or was not a Justice of the Peace. The banns having been pub fished, the Justice of the Peace was to give a certi ficate that the parties had gone through certain forms before him, and upon this certificate the clergyman was to be called upon to register the mar= riage. Now, he would put it to their Lordships, whether a clergyman of the Church of England wall not degraded and dishonoured, by being compelled to act as a sort of clerk to a Justice of the Peace; and whether the Lay Magistrate of the Church of England was not also dishonoured, by being con-, cerned in such a transaction. Suppose the clergym an , as must frequently be the case, to be himself a Jus tice of the Peace; was lie to go through the species of marriage ceremony, as a Justice of the Peace, which, he could not possibly perform without 4 gross violation of his duties as a conscientiou4 , clergyman ? Was it contended that the scruples of those Dissenters wlth denied the Divinity of oue Saviour were to be respected, because . they could, not in their consciences allow a Clergyman of the Church of England to say to them, at the end oh` , the marriage ceremony, " God bless you, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;" and that they might then turn round upon the Clergy man, and say, " You have published our banns but you are also a Justice of Peace; and we choose! you, in despite of any thing you may urge on the score of your conscience, to perform our marriage ceremony in that capacity ?" He was perfectly sa tisfied that their Lordships would not suffer the .Clergy of the Church of England to be so degraded and dishonoured. Did the Act contain any clause which required the, observance of what was neces sary to be observed with respect to Licenses, and with respect to the Canon Law ? Was there any clause with reference to felony, without benefit of Clergy; he meant the clause which related to forging registers, making false entries, and similar offences ? It would be necessary to guard against clandestine marriages, and yet all which this Bill did for that purpose was to call upon the Parish Cler gyman to publish the banns. Quakers and Jews were generally married in full assemblies of their connexion and friends; but by the proposed Bill, the greatest door was opened to frauds. A. person had nothing to do but to pretend to be a Unitarian, to have his banns published, and then proceed to the private room of any Justice of the Peace, who will give him his certificate. He might put this certificate in his pocket, if he chose to run the risk of a penalty of. 20/., which a Justice might re duce to five pounds. Nobody could then prove the marriage under the Act, because the party was not in fact a Unitarian, but had only pretended to be one. He not only objected to the Bill because it was intended to put the Unitarians on the same footing as Quakers, but he would go further, and say, that if the House did intend to adopt the principles of the Bill, its enactments were not calculated to carry those principles into' effect. If the House to its passing in the present Session. It would want so many amendments, so many serious ahem tions, to make it a Bill such as it ought to be, that it would be impossible to get through with it in the present Session, and he should feel himself bound to move, that it be read this day three months. He thought it was a material objection to the Bill, that it imposed upon men the necessity of giving direct evidence to a fact which they did not know to be true. At present the register of a marriage was taken as evidence in a Court of Justice, because the Marriage Act required the • Clergyman who cele brated the marriage to sign the registry. This we. making the Clergyman certify what he knew to be true. The same principle applied to baptism.. But by the present Bill, a person might put the marriage certificate in his pocket, and, defying proof, might tell the female that he was not married, and that her children were not legitimate. It was not neces sary for him to give any opinion updn the principles of the Bill; the only thing to consider was, the tie.; cessity of having time to consider how to make the Bill upon its own principles effective. He trusted that their Lordships would feel in favour of the old, law of the land, and let the present Bill stand over till next Session. If it were said that the parties aggrieved by the present law ought not to be allowed to continue so long under the injury they suffered, he would ask, whose fault was that ? Year after year this Bill was proposed to the House—the same objections had been urged against it, and yet its authors. continued to press the measure. Those who did press it in its old form were alone to blame if the relief they sought was deferred. The same might be said of the repeal of the Test and Corpo ration Acts, Parliamentary Reform, the Corn Bill, and various other Bills, which were yearly brought forward in forms to which Parliament was known to be averse. He entreated the House to let the Bill stand till the next Session, and then he would do his best to make it complete, upon the principles which the House should think proper to impose. Lord CALTHORPI said, that the chief reason for his supporting the Bill was not exactly that which had been given by the Noble Lord who had proposed going into a CoMmittee. He (Lord Cal thorpe) was.inclined to think that the great practical grievance was what the Church itself laboured under as long as the law continued in its existing state. With reference to the arguments urged by the Noble and Learned Lord about the Bill being a measure of partiality to the Unitarians, as a sect distinguished from all other Dissenters, he had over,- looked that no distinction existed between the Uni tarians and all other religionists whatsoever, except, perhaps, the Jews. Upon this ground alone the Unitarians might not have any plan upon the.eonsi deration of Parliament; but the:public had strong claims that the Legislature should relieVe the Estab lished Church of the blasphemy committed lg its Ministers in being called upon to pronounce, In the most solemn manner ' the doctrine of the Trinity , to persons who did not believe in it, and to exact from such persons an assurance of faith which they did not possess. lie 'did not imagine that human inge nuity could have conceived a more Certain means, in the present state Of society, which rejected coarse and vulgar blasphemy, to make 'the Church degrade and pollute itself, by mixing profaneness )7 . 00 its Most sacred and' solemn 'setviee. tho l ight the House owed it to the bonOur and dignity of the Church not to allow . the present law to continue an otherand Learned Lord to be asking of politinint what was year. The Unit ar i ans were stated bythe Noble not granted to Jews or Quakers; hat the fact was that neither of the two litter sects are obliged to submit to tbe marriage ceremony of the Church of England, The Church was, therefore, bound to carry on the iinpsition with respect to, Unitarians, whilst it was relieved from thj degrading duty With respect to JerN. and Quakers'. Was it a proof of the high re verence of th e Ch urc h f or h er sacre d doctrines, of the Trinity, which was the vital principle of her fait h, that' she should call upon her. Ministßla to declare them, who were knoWn not to e ntertain any such t en ets ? It 'would be moit' disadvahtageous to the h e r doctrines, an d to o bli ge i n dividuals to repeat Church itself to suffer another Session to pass without putting an end to the existing state of things with respect to Unitarian Marriages. No one had a deeper sense than he had of the religious errors of the Uni tarians; but, in the practice of the moral precepts of Christianity, lie believed, they might well bear a comparison with the most orthodox Christians; and; for the sake of the Church Establishment itself, as well as for their sakes, the grievance of which they complained ought to be redressed. Lord FARNHAM was willing to grant relief to the Unitarians, as far as was consistent with safety to our own religion. • The LORD CHANCELLOR—My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships with much reluctance, and at a great disadvantage, after the most able and effective speech'of my Noble and Learned Friend; who lately, presided over your LOrdships' debates ; but I feel myself called - on to remind Noble Lords, that the objections so ably urged by my Noble and Learned Friend -are not intended to disapprove off' the principle of the Bill; but to oppose some of its details, and that the present stage of the Bill, namely, the motion for sending it to a Committee, was un derstood to be the occasion on which that discussion of its principle was to take place, which, in correct practice, might have occurred on the second reading: If the result of this discussion of the principle should terminate in your Lordships agreeing to the com mitment of the Bill, the' next duty of your Lordships will be, to take the several details into your consi deration, and, if it be practicable at this period of the Session, to amend the defective clauses. For my part, approving, as I do, the principle of the mea sure, I am decidedly of opinion, that the Bill ought to be now committed; but I assure your Lordships that if I could be convinced that, by the passing of thisßill, a degradation would be inflicted on the Clergy of the Church of England, or a blow struck at her doctrines, I should be the last man to support such a measure. But when I see *the principle of the Bill approved by a Rev. Prelate, not less distinguished for his eminent, virtues than for his high ecclesiastical dignity—when; I see also, not only its principle approved, but some of its details prepared by another Right Rev. Prelate, pre-eminent for his piety, his erudition, and general' talent—can I, for a moment, believe,.that a measure, countenanced by such high authorities, can be either dangerous to the interests of the Church or degrading to its ceremonial solemnities ? From such groundless, apprehensions, allow me to turn your Lordships' at-' tention to a brief account of the Law of Marriage. It cleaily appears from the history of civil law, that religious ceremonies were not necessary to consti tute the marriage contract in any country of Europe before the Acts of the Council of Trent; and even that after that period, marriage was held a civil con tract ,in those countries where the decrees of the Council of Trent were not acknowledged. In this country, among others, the matrimonial engagementi was considered perfect without the supperadditionl of any religious solemnity before the passing of the Marriage Act. This proposition I hold, not merely on my own conviction, but on the high authority of one of the ablest and most learned characters that; ever graced the seat of Judgment—l mean Chief Justice Holt, who decided that a matrimonial en gagement, consisting of verba de presenti, was a valid and binding contract—a decision, in which he was supported, after due and solemn deliberation, by the unanimous opinion of the whole Court oi l King's Bench; to the same effect, I have the au-- thority of a Noble and Learned Lord, lately at.the head of the Ecclesiastical Court; himself, a light and ornament of this House ; as eminent for the so lidity of his judgment, and his extensive knowledge, of civil law, as he is for the classical purity of his? taste, and his familiarity with elegant literature ; that' Noble and Learned Lord also, when acting • 3n his' high office of Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, set forth those principles in the celebrated case of " Dalrymple v. Dalrymple," adopted them as his own, and sanctioned them by his decision—in the case, I think it was, of Lord Fitzmorris, in which a commission of review was sued out, of a marriage contracted under the form called ver b s de presenti ; valid. This was what was termed by Brackstone an innovation of the Marriage Law of thecountry. I am sure if that Noble and Learned Lord considered the present Bill calculated to bring danger to the in fluence or disgrace on the solemnities of the Esta blished Church, he would have come forward to meet it with the most decided and prompt opposi, tion ; and I may be allowed to take his absence on this occasion, as a proof that he entertains no such apprehensions—that he expects no such conse quences from its enactment. As to the sect of Quakers, the Marriage Laws affecting them remain to this day, in the same state as that in which they, were before the passing of the Marriage Act; and the reason for which they were excepted from its provisions had a reference to their conscience, arose from the idea that they could not conscientiously take any part in the ceremonies of the Church of England—a fact that constituted an additional argu ment against the profanation of the ceremonials of religion by the compelled declaration of belief in doctrines which those declaring such acquiescence are known not to entertain—(Hear) —or in the mole eloquent expressions, " unhallowed equivoca tions," the abolition of which the Right Reverend Prelate has declared to be his motive for sup porting the present Bill ; but I may be here asked, why, then, were the Unitarians excluded from the exceptive provisions of the Marriage Act ? My answer is this, because the religion of the tarians was, at the passing of that Act, held to be (whether rightly or wrongly I will not now say)illegal. As a proof of this, in the reign of William and Mary, the Unitarians were excepted from the benefits of the Toleration Act ; nay, more, nine years after that, that exclusion was followed pp by the enactment of penalties against them; this hostility to the Unita, rians, then, clearly accounts for their exclusion•from the exceptions of the Marriage Act. In the course of time, however, the opposition to them consider ably diminished; and in the 19th Geo, 111. an Act was passed to relieve them from several of their civil disabilities and this was.followed by a subse. quent Act, which went to repeal the remainder of their political grievances. What, then, are we to do now ? To consummate the work, I say, and give back to them those benefits from which they were excluded by the provisions of the Marriage both here and elsewhere, on the Unitarians, both arguments have been raised against A th f e t. o ground that the objections which they make are of nq weight—for instance, to the baptismal ceremony. Now, the Unitarians I consider a sect of Chris tians, believing in the New Testament, and dif fering from certain doctrines of Christianity, on reasons derived from other parts of the New Tee tament—they do, not object to that part of the baptismal ceremony which are introduced the words, in the named the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost —nor have the b . ction to thg • Ave y any o je use of the words in the marriage service. They only object to one word, but that word invOlves the es sence of their faith— r Ood the Son —they do not be lieve in the Divinity of the Saviour or the Holy Spi rit—this is the foundation of their belief. Now then can they be required to declare with truth, that they believe in a doctrine, which, as • Upitarians, they can not believe—bnt it 1 1 ,aS 110 1 said, in a spirit of dis tinction, too snbole for my comprehension, that they are not called on to declare their belief in the doc trines of the Church of England—they are cal) re quired to indicate their acquiescence in them by their presence—if OfY Tcfuse to observe this form, they are subjected t o tem p oral disabilities.—if they attend, and indicate by their presence an acquiescence in doctrines which they do not really hold, is not that, as the Right Rev. Prelate has eloquently described ` un jpilowed equi vocat i o n and ' mockery. It is it then, my Lerds;that the Legislature must do something for the removal of this grievance and this fanation— pro a Bill passed the Commons last year, but was lost in yew Lordships' House—another has been brought up this year, in an amended form, the other House of Parliament has twice sanctioned the principle of the present Bill. No objection has been made to the principle by. your Lordships. The objections urged by the Noble and Learned Lord, apply partly or partially to the principle, but mainly to its clauses—but these objections he has interwoven so dexterously, that it would be a task of no little difficulty to separate, and classify them under their distinct heads. As to the objections to the objectionable clauses, your Lordships will be best able to discuss them, and meet the objections to them in detail in the Committee, to which, 1 hope, your Lordships will send the Bill by y o ur vote of this evening. As to the principle of relief, I support it on the law of marriage as it stood be fore the Marriage Act, and on the exceptive provi sions of the Marriage Act in favour of other sects, on both which considerations I hold the Unitarians to be entitled to relieffrom all those disabilities impoi ed on them by the Marriage Act, and the partial repeal . of which has placed them in' a new situation in re ference to the enjoyment of political privileges. One word on the details—as to the objection said to be entertained to the publication of .the lawS of marriage of Dissenters by the Clergy of the Esta blished Church; surely your Lordships will,not see much offensive matter to the Clergy in that circum stance, when you remember that several trifling matters of temporal interest, even the parochial rates, are published by the Clergy from the altar- Surely then it can be considered neither an offence nor degradation to the Clergy to give public n otice of the marriages of a sect comprising a respectable portion of society, of unexceptionable morality of conduct, and high character, and whose members have seats in the other Rouse of Parliainent, arta are allowed to make laws for the Government of the country. As to the objection against 'the obligation. of the clergy of the Established Church , how it can be said to degrade the clergy I cannot see. The difficulty of the clergyman's registerin g ° marriage ceremony, the perform ance o f w hi c h be has not witnessed, I admit to be entitled.to all the contideration which my Noble and Learned Friend , who urged it, could desire, but I hold it to be question peculiarly fitted for that active and deli ' berate discussion which can only be obtained by going into Committee; I submit, then, that you r Lordships ought to send the Bill into the Commit' tee, where alone we can ascertain whether my Noble and Learned Friends are or are net inset' mountable. In that Committee I shall, in conjunc tion with the Noble and Learned Lord at the table (Lord Tenterden) ` . contribute my exertions to the removal of those difficulties. If it should appear to the Committee that we cannot get over the dif ficulties in the short space between this and the close of the Session, I shall have no objection to consent to a postponement of it to the next; but I would respectfully impress upon your Lordships, t a king into consideration the feelings of the respectabl e body interested in the fate of the Bill---a Bill w hose principle has been twice admitted by the other HoUie of Parliament, the propriety of allowing this Bill to pass to a stage expressive of your sanction to it° principle. As to its details, if we cannot man - age them in the present Session, we .shall be able CO return to theni the following, with renewed vigour , and calmer judgment.—(Loud cheers.) The Earl of ELDON, in explanation, stated, that his Noble Relative, Lord Stowell, was disabled otilf by illness from attending the discussion of that evening. Inadvertence . alone had prevented his Noble Relative attending by proxy againet the wee" sure, so strong did he know to be 'his Noble Rela tive's aversion to the Bill. As to the feeling of the Clergy on the subject, he had the authority of letter from a Dignitary of .Middlesex, for. saying; that the Clergy considered the duties that wool be imposed on them by the Bill, degrading and ir sulting to the altar. The Bishop of CHESTER felt himself bound t° support the Bill, though he considered some of th e clauses to require amendment. Their errors, how ever, were such as might be rectified in C omm ittee , . through the assistance of the Noble and Learne ° Lord on the Woolsack. But even though thei r Lordships should not be able to effect that purpo' in the short remaining portion of the Session, the, (-• ,flew,irc t s h t a a n t c their es Lordsir g h o i i p n s g w i e n r t e o . C o o t m d m i s i i t n t e e l e i n vi e , d on t i: grant them relief as far as was consistent with the terms of the Church of England. The contract of mar riage was a matter of natural necessity ; and ever' in some cases, a Christian duty. The solemnivat l °: of it, by religious ceremonies, was founded upon on,. or other of two principles; -either on consideratioa! of public policy, or with a view to attach greot s ej importance to it, and enforcing the mor e strict Oir _ : servance of it, by constituting it an act of religions duty. The Church had nothing to do with the fit principle, and as to the second, th ose w h o denic; that religious solemnity was not necessary to.t t validity of the contract, were borne out by that Pa r ; of the twenty-fifth of our articles, which states, st matrimony, though an act of religious observan ce ' was not designated by any v i s ibl e sign, form, or cere mony. It was also held, by S w i n b urne , that t he essence of marriage was the consent of the 'Ar tie :, contracting, and that a Christian State ought not t o force on its subjects the observance of religious Ticere monies of marriage. His L or d s hip concluded giving his support to the motion for the seco7 reading, but stated his intenti on t o p ro pose certal l amendments in a future state of the Bill. lioed The Marquis ofLANSDOWNE was not ine at that moment to oppose the principles of any de tailed amendments which Noble Lords might t Ott. it the Bill required. He was only words in expl den the motion for Lord CARBENY also aunP° might g ob s h e n u g l d broughtnbt e o committed a forward. Committee. when those am e n dme nts . nxi the bar. nation, which were n dvided w h en Their Lordships t..en , t here vver i d b l a e few below • • • . 61 I Against it.... 54 I Majority••• For the mot i on.. The Bill then passed through a Committee, seve ral verbal amendments were The Earl of ELDOorausadi agreed to, and the Re port was ordered to be received on Thursday next. The Irish Butter Trade A c t passe d . t h ro ugh 9 Committee. Their Lordships resumed, and the Report was' ordered to be received tomorrow- SALE OR GAME BILL. Lord The D O:: r R o E f the Day for their Lordships _re solving themselves into a Committee on the Sale 0 Game Bill, having been read, but expressed his determination again in the next Session of Parli a men t . The Lordships were the' l The other Bills before! . . he. forwarded in their re . speettv e stage,,, after wh ich t ini en n te a d tio to nai:li N ta v om it b h er d iiii r ti a .g w. it t f l o le r ! i r l j Lordships adjourned G h o a o s DEr r beeno uc H , Lordship to the Archdeaconry of Carlisle, t ° which is attached the living of Great Salkeld, i" Cumberland. Bishop of Carlisle,presented son byf 179 s i ide S r . a li bl i , E be O in the auction of hops took place at the Three T HOPS IN THE BOEQUGH. ~.is .l t l i t :v r h a e Y n iQ l g as ilst t ut h oe e tahta m ete e s t al4 tl e ie th m the mil, Tuns T av ern , , Borough, y esterday. The quantity sold was not c° ll ., only 81 pockets, and 45 bags ; but, see° denting L e t n :au er c r e k ti e o: gl n yes ee i t i t- e , Cooper, said, . 10 , duty was estimated at 55,4001. ; it was now s aid t O , l , only 50,0001. What was then the conjecture as t ° „„;,,t e r3id d ia e ry s . er t v hree es attention.l state of the bins atd the devastation of the fly wa,,";, - e t confirmed by the most recent accounts from Kent, wo es Sussex, Worcester, and, indeed, nearly all the hop Pl y ~ tions. The newspapers had said a great deal about spec,le lation ; but they were now convinced of the truth of , accounts of the blues, paragraphs having appeared in 1115 weeks) tb : tje l; of ths papers c onfirmatory of them. The sale then P r of . ce6ded, and notwithstanding the melancholy prologue 4 Mr. Cooper, very little disposition was evinced to b' ",1,1 for the lots. Teo, pockets Sussex hops, Barton, 109,1,70 for 355. per cwt., a ft er a great struggle to obtain ti_ i _ j, price ; 29 pockets Sussex, which had been re-packed, PA in the auctioneer's phrase, were anonymous (the growd name not being known), sold for 40s. In consequent,: ty, there being no excise mark on this lot, the hops cann s ° , 11 11 exported ; but the purchaser was guaranteed a , g n a t i , n lS o ' penalty on the score of duty. Fi ft een bags 4) 215. ° only 16s. ; 12 ditto, Hawkhurst, Kent, 18 19, ; A , ditto, Staplehurst, Kent, 1 819, and' 18 p ockets, Wel or church, Kent, 1819, brought 218. p er cwt. ; and 30 Headcorn, Kent, 181 9 , were so ld f o r 150. per cwt,