The Sun. — London, England, 1825-06-04 00:00:00

I ( a r;•• •\ '?1 , 1 ) 4 \ ~ l~~~ j• '~W~. 4. 1 • -.A • Or; -IA f ~ , ~ 9 i ~~.~; N~N fr Ntrlrßl•;K 10,212. ft ac . iv li ain f t E th S e E ,,, l 7 b. E li T t , T G E a t has d t t h . e i, h ie o n n d o , u in r g t e o neral, that his CONCERT will take place on MONDAY EVENING, June 13t11, 1825, by the permission of WIL LIAM CURTIS, Esq. at his residence, No. 61, Portland place.—Leader of the Band, Mr. KIESEWETTER. At the Piano Forte, Sir GEORGE SMART. The Concert will com mence at half-past Nine o'Clock. Full particulars will be duly announced. Tickets, One Guinea each, to be had of Mr. Kiesewetter, No. 43, Gerard -street, Soho. ST. MARY, NEWINGTON, SURREY. ON WEDNESDAY NHXT, the Bth June, a ORAND SELECTION of SACRED MUSIC will he performed at the NEW CHURCH of ST. PETER 4 WA ',WORTH, for the BENEFIT of the PAROCHIAL SHOOLS. Principal Vocal Performers-- Miss Stephens • } Mr. Vaughan Miss Travis • Mr. Bellamy - The Organ by Mr. Putkis. Books of the Performance to be had at the Church. Tickets; Seven Shillings each, to be had of the Rev. A. C. Onslovr, Rectory, Newington ; Mr. John Clutton, Treasurer, 2, Cotiuty-terrace; of the Members of the Committee ; and of THOMAS ENGLAND, Secretary, 1.5, Surrey-square. COUNTRY RESIDENTS , who may be de sirous of taking in a London Weekly Newspaper, are respectfully intbrmed that the SUNDAY TIMES may be received by post on Sunday Morning at any distance within 150 miles from London, free of expence, by giving an order to any Newsman, Bookseller, or Postmaster in their neighbour hood. This Journ a l m a y be recommended with confidence to the attention of the public, being conducted on liberal Consti tutional Principles, and containing a most accurate and concise Summary of all the interesting events of the week (including the latest intelligence up to the moment of publication), and. also numerous Original Articles on Domestic and Foreign Politics, Manners, Literature, Commerce, &c. The unexampled sale of this Paper (it having obtained the greatest circulation of any Journal published on Sunday) is the best proof of the esteem in which it is held.—Published in London every Sunday morn-. ing by J. Chapman (price 7d.) at the Office, No. 72, Fleet street, where Communications and Advertisements (with an order for payment in town) are received. ~/ /7 f. itfi . 'or Gg-e- • ~, i & -V-A;*! - :c) , 1 vo cavil / 0 -- :--- ,- .4:,•_ Ai:A tee)'t.r)Lf 40 , ' h,w_ -, ~..or ~...j „ .,,A _ _ ~..t . ,,,,,, -,/,,,-; , ,:,, ,,, P 4,_ /4 , i I**-• ARMY CONTRACTS. Commissariat Department, Treasury Chambers, May '26, 1825. N OTICE is hereby given to:all Persons de sirous of contracting to supply BEEF and .MUTTON, to his Maje4ty's Land Forces in Cantonrnebts,=Rnarters, and Barracks, in the ondermen- tinned Counties:— Cornwall, Devlin, Lancaster, Monmouth; and in the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and Alierney 7 . That the Deliveries are to commence on and for the 25th , daf of July next; that Proposals in writing, sealed up, „ ina married "Tender for Army Supplies," will be received -at this Office on or before Tuesday, the Ysth dal of June, but none will hr received after Twelve o'Clock on that Day. Proposals must bel made separately for each County, and thu Islands, of Guernsey, Jersey; and Alderney, must Ire in cluded in one Tender, and each Proposal must have the Letter which" is annexed to the Tender properly filled up, by Two Per sons of known property, engaging to become bound with the Party-tendering, in the amount stated in the printed Part icu_ lars, for the due performance of the Contract ; and no Prop°. sat will be noticed unless made on a printed Tender, and the Prices expressed in Wards at length ; and should it so happen that during the continuance of the Contract no Troops should be supplied by virtue of t he same, the amoun of the Stamps for the Contract and Bond, ►aid in the firs instance by the Contractor, shall he refunded to him. Particulars of the Contracts may be had upon applicatior at these thambers between the hours of Ten and Four. cuTTiNG TICKETS for the THIRD DAY of DRAW IN the SECOND Lori'Env fur the Year 1823. LOTTERY-OFFICE, SOMERSET-PLACE, May 31, 1825. ' 1- i MANAGERS and DIRECTORS of the'LOTTERIES do hereby give Notice, That Nuni 7 'hers of Tickets and Shares thereof may..he registered for the Imrpose of receiving information of their fates after the drawing, and may be examined at this Office every day (Sun rltt.yoiieetatcl), with their Registers .of Benefits and Blanks. • And'the said Managers and Directors do- hereby give fort her Notice, that they.*ill cut off the Tickets to he put into .the Wheels before the Third Day of. Drawing the Second Lot tery for the ye,tr 1823, into their respective Boxes, A and 11, the Bth day of July next, at Eleven o'Clock in the Porenr;on:, - at this Office, heginning• first with - the Benefit Tickets, which are to he cut into Box 13, and continn. tag Until all. the said Tickets for each of the said Boxes are completely euttherein. 4 - 11111 the said Managers and Directors do hereby give .fur :T;l: that they will att e nd an d o v e rsee the Drawi n g o f " 1 ickets of the said Third Day of the said Second Lottery for tke ,Year 1823, on Friday, the 15th dayof July next, Li ` :p n P er s'inßasingliall-street, witAin the City of • - rir;r WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY. :': OU,R T of DIRECTORS of the lice, that s '; is ' I NDIA DOCK COMPANY do hereby . g;" No. b, sittj.,' TRANSFER - BOOKS of the said LOMPANY II SATURDAY, agaiu a ' r "n SATURDAY, the llth Instant, and OPEN the 9th of July next. , West Ind• " H. LONGLANDS, Sec. -- 14 "°c ii Rouse, June 3, 1625.- „ Y ° " ll,- EXCEIANGE ASSURANCE OFFICE • T May 18, RE COURT of DIRECTORS 0f 1825. the ..,,,.. EXCHANGE. ASSURANCE do hereby give Notice, jhat their TRANSFER BOOKS will he shut, from TUESDAY, th e 1-ttli of June next, to THURSDAY, the 12th of July following, and that a GENERAL COURT of the said CORPORATION, will iie holden at their - Office on WEDNESDAY. the 22d of June next, at Eleven o'clock in the Forenoon, to Consider of a Dividend. N.B. SAMUEL FENNING, Jun. Secretary. Attendance is given, daily,- at the said Office, and at t beirOftice - iti Pall-Mall, for the Assurance of Buildings, .4l(loods, Merchandise, and Ships, in Harbour, in Dock , or lie Putilding, from. Loss or Damage by Fire • and also for e Atiiii•ante or, 'and granting Annuities on, ' Lites. Chair will be taken at Twelve. o'Clock precisely. This Day was published. In 2 vols. Octavo, price 30s. boards, JOURNEY into various parts of EUROPE; doA. and_ ,a Residence in them, during the Years 1818, 1819, a m; 1821 ; with Notes Historical and Classical, and Me. r s of the Grand Dukes of the House of Medici ; of the bYeptaties of the Kings of Naples ; and of the Dukes of Milan. Le r lea ted, by permission to the Queen Dowager of Wirtem. Lo; and inscribed, with ' permission, to William, Lord Bishop °I Lond on . li ect RY the R ev . TH OMAS PENNINGTON, A.M. or of Thorley, Herts ; late Fellow of Clare Hall, Cam jbridge and Chaplin to tee late Countess of Bath. ' _____ ) rinLejit____George a B. Whittaker, Ave Maria-lane. Just published, I. Post Ovo. price 7s. 6d., boards, a New Edition, OUR VILLAGE ; Sketches of Rural Cha racter and Scenery. " BY MARY RUSSEL MITFORD. e Sketches of Country SFenery, in ,which 'this volume .filit e ,7 B , have such a convincing air of locah hu u m tp a .i n . ter710;,,, Int erspersed among them are touFbed in such a . ia t „l et llnngeh.lig good-humoured spirit of caricature, innocen y /blio of tribes withal, that we scarcely known a more agreeable port- Itevi e r) ; tr,..ifles for the amusement of an idle hour."—(Quarterly 2. TA , ` 4 0,. 61.) (.;on ic n e t ikia'LliS.,,Ably ALEXANDER WILSON, containing : 1 Y Aunt's Arm Chair—Poor Parents—The 43 ". 87. p " •., ' "' l1 —Fa• nny West—lntroduction to London. Post 3. 140 . 8 8 :''''ES of ARDENNES. By Dement Conway. Post lIIC t !fide ` I WAYS and BY-WAYS or Tales of the peckedßoad tlen.;ani. up in the French Provinces. By a Walking Gen 6. -6.11,,,,41_,u„rth Edition. 2 vols. post Bvo. I4s. t 6. Th e ;'" and THOUGHTS. Post Bvo. 6(1. - IN '5 . .3. -late tiCURRATIONS of H UM PH REY RA% E P o - s lr n in thes ' • • Regiment of Lawry. Second Lti e - 'ri v l ° l.E B S - Eind LYRICAL FANCIES, including . 1-4 - I t 7 B. — ;, S IAD, a Mock Heroic, and the WREATH of p Charles Dibdin Esq. Small 3vo. r4lto for Geo. B. 'Whittaker, Ave Maria-lane. l ii r -- GR,"---------iv7.l-----L IND STONE, LUMBAGO. &c. l it k iCKIVIAIN'S'.I3. ILLS are allowed to be the 41 , 1 pr most successful PreparatiMi for effectually .. r ... e . n s ni_v t i e i i ig s \ ich " : en ting the future recurrence of those V o l ~. ., ... , ,s, ,a urazreanfdroni an imperfect action of tl h ie e Ui.i Backna Urinary Loins, t.. i l Plices,i l t "t?e, Lumbago, Pains in t l l 'gcedi (If ur,„„&e. Composed of the most innocent kg ~,,Fents, this truly valuable Medicine relieves the . su , ~,s N vith efui in from the excruciating tortures of those disea. re. sui r. uyt any violence or injury to the Constitution, and t , 0;: * _ 11° confinement or restraint of diet daring its use. .1 iia,,;!"rof the oldest Public Medicines extant : and its yec , u- t l'e Ptita t T es and efticicy hare uniformly maintained the bights , K old 'ri l e i'ea l , : a - — „ ° "es, at os• 9d. and I Is. by Butler, Chemist, 4, i "ondi:, - " e, ,t• Paul's; * Savory and Co. I3 o i, New Bontl.3treet, si ',! Unit ; ,„, i 4n t `, l . by the ;Savory ii Medicine Venders throughout Of ~, -- ningdom. ..L -boc, nom may he had BUTLER'S CAJEPUT (MODE I pdi e Astfir%°tZ.ly recomniended in Chronic Rlientuatisn,Spta.)se faun, s . .toos, Palsy. Stiffness, and Enlargement of I ' 4 . sd,' 'Pillos, Bruises, &c. In Bottles, at is. lid. and / 4#/e StT N \_'-~ SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 4, 1825. PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, JUNE 3. • The Marquis of HASTINGS appeared in the House for the first time since he obtained his present rank in the Peerage, and took the Oaths and his seat. He was introduced by the Alar quia of Thomand and the Marquis of Ailesburv. The Duke of Norfolk officiated on this occasion as Earl Marshal. • .The Earl of DERBY presented a petition front Ashton under-Line, praying for a reversion of the law regulating the hours of labour in cotton-factories. The Earl of LIVERPOOL laid on the table the first report of the Commissioners on Irish education. He also introduced a Bill relative to the law of Merchant and Factor, which was read a Qrst- time, and ordered to be read a second tiiiie.Oh:TtieS dar next. The LORD CHANCELLOR - alluded to the Bill for regu lating the striking of Juries, which is now before the /louse ; and stated, that as soon as the Bill was printed, he would fix such a day for the second reading as might be most convenient for their Lordships. Lord Eer.Exuottouou and Lord KENYON presented peti tions from certain individuals, praying for compensation in case the County Courts Bill should pass into a law. The Earl of KINGSTON presented a petition from 1 oug hall, in favour of the Irish Joint Stock Companies EX PLA NA TION. The Bishop o f CHESTER wished, by-way of explanation, to state that .he had received a letter from Manchester, from one of, the persona who called the meeting for presenting a pe tition to the House in favour of the Roman Catholics, com plaining of certain erroneous statements in the report of (the Bishop's) speech relative to that petition. lie wished, however,'to observe, that the allegations which he had laid be fore their Lordships were made by him on the authority of a respectable individual ; but he was now desirous of doing .jus tice by a more correct statement of the facts. The first point related to the mode of :adjournment. There had on this sub ject been some misunderstanding. It appeared that on the motion being put, some persons thinking it was carried by a show of hands, went away; but all the respectable part of the meeting did not, as had been said, go away, and the motion was afterwards . negatived. He had in his speech stated, that the petition was signed by 16.000 persons, but that 12,000 were of the lowest description. He was, however, now informed that a very great number of the signatures were by the most re spectable part of the inhabitants. What he had said about the insertion of Irish names appeared also to be founded in mistake. All he could say was,- that he had oialy stated p rec i se l y w h at had been stated to hi m , an d h e had never intended to state any thing which was not - perfectly correct. The Earl of DERBY entered into more minute details of the. circumstances of the : meeting, and more particularly of what took place. on the motion of - adjournment, which had been so grossly misrepresented. • The Bishop of CHESTER said, he had, from this occnr.. rence, learned a lesson not to make assertions on the autho rity of others. In future lie certainly should not repeat, in that House, the' statements Of interested parties, without due inquiry. Lord SUFFIELD was assured, on the best authority, that none of the names to the. Manchester petition had been canvass ed for, and that all the signatures had been Voluntary. UNITARIAN MARRIAGE BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWN rose to move the' second reading of this Bill. He reminded their Lordships, that last year be had the honour to propoSe to them a Bill to the same effect as the present, which had this Session been brought up from the Commons. That Bill had been thrown out - on the second reading ; but now a- Bill for the same object had not only been agreed to by the other House of Parliament, but had passed that House without a division on any of its stages. The present Bill differed in some respects from that-which he had introduced last Session. Much pains had been taken to improve it. Ministers of the Established Church had given their ad vice,• and lent their assistance in framing it. He did not state 'this fact with the view of thereby obtaining any improper in fluence over the mind s o f th e i r Lordships, but to induce those who were disposed to object to it to consider the subject well before they opposed a measure which came before them under such a sanction, and which was fOrtified by the approbation of the House of Commons. The. Bill related to a grievance not very difficult of remedy, but not the less felt by those whom it affected. The object of the measure was to remove the diffiCalties which stood in the way of the ferforimmee of the marriage ceremony with regard to certain, . That should - be op en t o persons of all opinions; bi h t a fi - re o c i e ntt riy mariner in which it had been treated, it would appear that giving the means - of marriage was regarded as boon. Every individual, however, whatever his opi nions might be, - was entitled to have all obstacles removed . which tended to prevent him - from celelirathg, in what he considered the must solemn manner, that 'ceremony which formed the most sacred Of all ties. EverY unnecessary restriction and regulation which affected particular classes of persons in regard to such an object as marriage, ought surely to be done away without d e l ay ; and on this subject it was their Lordships' duty to give every relief which was consistent with the safety of the state. O n l y t h ose regulations which appeared to be called for by necessity ought to-be maintained. The dif ferent regulations adopted in this and other countries resolved themselves into two kinds —namely, civil and religious. With regard to the former, in as far as related to matters of police, the object of the Pill was to maintain every civil right. The persons for whose benefit it was introduced were ready to sub mit to any civil regulation on the subject of marriage which .their Lordships might think fit to impose. The religious part of the question, their L or d s hi ps would perceive, wastotally i ll s . tinct from the civil; a nd a ll t h at the Bill prop ose d to d o, was to provide against the depreciation of the sacred ceremony of marriage by regulations to which Unitarians could not consci entiously submiL To Make the legality of so solemn a tie as marriage depend upon declaring what the parties did riot be lieve to be truth, .was to invite them to do that which their Lord ships, who were sensible of the sacredness of the obligation I entered into, must regard as highly i mproper. According to the-former Bill, the marriage ceremony was to be celebrated b3r. the Clergy of the Established Church. That mode had, how ever, been thought objectionable, anti it was th ere f ore p r ov i ded by the present Bill that the ceremony should be carried into 'effect by the Unitarian Ministers in their own congregations. When it was considered that the ceremony of marriage wasin-: . tended for the benefit of the whole community, it would be proper to perform it, as far as - possible, in the same manlier for all classes ; but as conscientious scruples about performing the ceremony to Unitarians were known to exist in the minds of many Ministers of the Church, this mode had been abandoned. In the same way some of the Ministers of the Established Church had objected to registering the marriages of persons who were united by a ceremony inconsistent with the principles of the church ; and to obviate this difficulty, the Unitarians also took upon themselves the trouble of registerin g their own marriages. In f act , t h e Bill professed to do, and did notliing more than a ff or d re li e f f rom regulations inconsistent with the eonsciencious scrup l es o f i ndi viduals: None of th e i r Lordships would say th a t t h e op i n i ons of the persons whom the bill proposed to relieve were not tolerated by holy ; ant i b e i ng so, the law ought to protect them, and facilitat e to them, the means of duly forming the most sacred of all the relations of society. It would, perhaps, be asked, why were the persons for whose benefit the bill was framed so scrupulous? Some, he was - aware, might make a compromise with conscience, and he able to -satisfy themselves of the propriety of every opinion that was consistent with their temporal interests ; but their Lordships surely would not encourage a species of reaSuning which led to a disregard of the mull of the most solemn declarations. Their Lordships ought not to discountenance or despise scruples which were opposed to a practice inconsistent with morality and reli gion. Persons ought notto be forced to enter the temple or God second they ought to be met half-way, With equivocation on their - tongues, nor made to subscribe to to their Lordships the what they did not believe to be true. Wherever sincere anti es of the Unita readine- of this bill. NTERBURY bad voted for the bill The Archbishop of C. (hi th conscientiousesegrousnczhlees proposedexistetl , of last session, and intended to give his support to the present, because its tendency was equally to relieve Utilitarians anti Al i hiefl anxious he believed to he sincere; but lie was c anxiou s to remove, by this bill or some other, the difficulties in which Mi. nisters of the Established Church. The scruples nisters of the church were involved by i'nitiarian marriages.— The bill, he thought, might be amendet , ; au for th at purpose he would propose some c C chances in the ommittee. By thi s or some other measure, he wished to do await/ with that midallow_ ed equivocation which, s anctioned by law, now took place at the altar. The Bishop of BATII and ha . ving stated his sen- timents at some length upon this subject when it was before the - House last year, would trouble their Lordships with very few observations upon it at present. lie felt himself bound, however, to state as briefly as possible the reasons which ins. pelled bins to-oppose this BM. His objection lay to the prin ciple of the measure. He did not see on what grounds mar riage, according to the rites of_ the Church of England, was to be considered a grievance to the Unitarians. First, what were they called, upon to subscribe ? Merely the parties' names. He admitted, however, that they were obliged to make a decla ration " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy.Gliost ;" hut these very words were used in their oWu printed form of prayer. The words used by the Unitarians in their ceremony of baptism were these—" 1 baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and thily -Ghost." They therefore could. not justly object to their own form of prayer. He also admitted that the. clergyman who performed the ceremony of marriage gave to the parties benediction, by. prdying to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, to bless them. Now, if they (lid not think that they were tile better for this, surely they could not feel themselves' the worse for it. Ile 'de fended the Ministers of the Church of England from the charge of equivocation in the performance of this ceremony for the Uni tarians. There was no ground whatever for such a charge, for the word equivocation implied saying one thing and meaning another, for the purpose ofdeception. Now there was no decep tion here, because the Minister knew beforehand the opinions of the Unitarian, and the Unitarian knew those of the Minister, so that neither party was deceiving or deceived. He therefore re pelled with indignation the charge brought against the Mini sters of the Church ; they were neither guilty of equivocation nor pious fraud. Ile denied that the Unitarians had any just grounds for saying that their con sciences were violated.- Occasions were continually occurring when points of doctrine laid down by Ministers of the - Church were disapproved of by some indi viduals, who said - that they would not again go to-Church to hear them ; but that was no reason why the Church of England should not lay down the pure doctrines of Christianity. If the Minister of the Gospel did not propound the true principles of faith in Christ Jesus how else was the gainsayer to b e con verted ? - He contended that if this privilege were ceded to the Unitarians, it must also be granted to every other sect and cons munity, however erroneous their opinions might be. The doe_ trine of the Unitarians gave them no right to be looked upon as a favoured sect; yet this concession would be calculated to give it Spread to the opinions of that sect ; although by denying the divinity of Christ, they laid the axe to th e root o f t h e tree of Christianity itself. For these reasons he moved, as an, amend ment, that the BilVbe read a second time that day three months. The Bishop,of•M i cif FIELD and - COVENTRY considered the opinions of the- Unitarians as utterly destitute of any thun dation ; and grossly erroneous as they were, he must believe them to affect their conduct ; but still he looked uon their pre sent complaint-as fo u nd e d on f a i r groun d s, and hie conceived the Bill entitled -to their Lordships' support, as being calcu lated to. deliver the Church of England from the scandalous protanation...of a compromise at the altar. He was a general friend to toleration ; although he did not wish to give any en couragement to those sectaries; but he did not conceive that the present Bill would operate as any encouragement to them. His Lordship concluded by supporting the original mo ti o n. The LORD CHANCELLOR would be very glad if a ny Noble. Lord would inform him what he meant by the word " Unitarian ;" for if a Unitarian were a person who denied tile divinity of Christ, their. Lordships, before they could pass this bill; must first pass an act rendering it lawful for him so to do. His. Lordship then referred to Act of William to shew that the denial of the divinity of our Saviour was declared to be a heinous crime, which subjected - the party guilty of it to a severe punishment. • The Act of Toleration did not repeal the law as it had stood before ;- it only excepted the parties in some eases from the consequences of those crimes which were crimes at Common law before the passing of that act. No man who should propose to repeal that law, could feel as an Englishman or.a Christian ; but if it was a crime at common law to deny the divinity of Christ, their Lordships must begin with the common law, and not with an Act of Parliament in the teeth of it. The Jews and the Quakers had marriage ceremonies of their own, and he should not be sorry to- see a bill introd'uced declaring their marriages to be valid ; for although they were excepted in Lord Hardwicke's Act, yet in a case which had lately come before him, considerable doubts had been raised as to the validity of the Quakers' marriages, He considered the doctrines Of the Unitarians as calculated' to work an essential mischief in this country, and he called upon the House not to - sanction that which the Judges of Westminster-hall must deny in judgment. . The Earl of LIVERPOOL felt great pain in differing from. his Noble and Learned Friend on the \Voolsack, particularly on o s n u c o l a question i s esubec as h es should b no u t t e b , e i t s i t i e s r e t l a m in rg in in g a a strong opinion ty if h e did not state the grounds of that opinion. Ins - Noble and Learned Friend had stated at some length the principles of the . common law as respected this s ubject, an d said, that notwith.' standing the Act of Tole ra ti on : th e common law was still in force. But the NOble and Learned Lord, towards the Conclu sion of his speech, furnished an argument against himself; for what did he admit ? An understanding that JeWs and Quakers might lawfully marry according to the rites of their own com munions, for they were - excepted i n L or d H ardwicke ' s Act. Now could any man assert that the doctrines of the Unitarians were more at variance with the • principles of Christianity than those of the Jews were? The Unitarians denied the Divinity. of Christ ; but the Jews denied the truth o f Ch r i st i an i ty alto gether—they blasphemed and crucified him whom we adored. The same argument would apply to Mahometans and various other persuasions, if the members of them were sufficiently nu merous in this country. But how did the law stand at present ? In some cases marriage according to the rites of the Church of Content Proxies Not Content Proxies England was not necessary, even amongst members of the Church of England itself; for they might go to France and be married by a Roman Catholic, or to Scotland and be married by a Presbyterian, and in both cases the marriage was good and • binding. He believed that if, in a country where a priest could not be had, a marriage was performed by a civil person, that marriage was also valid by law ; and the reason was, that every possible facility might be given to marriage, in order to prevent immorality. He would now adVert to the ground of expediency. The strongeSt argument which he had heard against - the Bill was that which had been urged . by . a Right Rev. Prelate, who said, if the concession were to be made to the Unitarian, why not extend it to every other sect ? The answer was, because it was impracticable. When a bill had been brought in for that purpose by a Noble Lord, he (Lord Liverpool) voted for it : but he afterwards stated, that he could not give it his support in the Committee, having been convinced, by the speech of a Noble Friend of his, that it would be impossible to frame a:general Ant to meet the object in view. They had an example for the present measure in the case of th e Q ua k ers ._ He thought, That where there was a sincere and consc i ent i ous objection entertained, it ought to be respected. A J ew c o uld not, a Quaker could not, a Unitarian could not, sub m i t to have the ceremony performed by the Church of En g l an d , or, if he s c a a w sti i n n g th a e sl p u a r p o er n s tshtaatte(n-llhetnirteshot protests, ; fbr their . could, , pt constantly swasoil which must have filled them with disgust. Th e Ch urch had a right, and it was hey duty, to compel marria ges according to only y her own rites, amongst her own members ; but as she did not asianne to be an infallible Chinch, he did not see why she should lock with any jealousy on the doctrines of those who were of a different communion. lie therefore saw no objec tion lo the present Bill, and on . these grounds he would give it his support. The Bishop of CHESTER would trouble the House with a very few observations. There could be no question as to the importance of this subject to the Unitarians. If they were Sincere in their belief (as he had no doubt they were) against the Divinity of the Trinity, and if they really considered that by submitting to the ceremony of marriage in the Church of England. they were brought to worship th e T rinity, he cer tainly thought them entitled to relief. While the Noble Mar !Pis opposite defended the sincerity of the Unit ar ia ns, he had tnougnt proper to cast an unmerited imputation on the body of the English Clergy.—(,, No. front Lord Lanstiown.) .11e certainly understood his Lordship to allude to:them.. - The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, he had not made any such allusion; ly to • • . The Bishop of CHESTER was rem admit the sincerity of the Unitarians, but they were spurred on to their present complaint by the sneers of a - sect who call theniseives Free • Thinking Christians. Here his Lordship read an extract from the Free-thinking Christian's Magaz•inc, in' which the writer animadverted upon the marriages of` the Unitarian s by Minis ters of the Established Church. As, however, there was no very great grievance imposed upon the consciences-of the Uni tarians, he thought that, after having submitted so long, they might submit for one year longer to the privation of what 6 he considered a right. fie agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate • (the Bishop of Lichfield) that the present measure Cvould afford not only relief to the Unitarians, but also to the Clergy of the PRICE. SEVENPr,NCP,. ! Church of England ; and he would therefore put the former on the same footin g with the Quakers, and .all the other . Dis : centers, before the passing of the Marriage Act. Ile was not . . for imposing. the doctrine or the discipline of. the Church of England upon those • who could not 'conscientiously entertain them ; but the U n it ar i ans were not prepare d at present td give the necessary securities against clandestineness, and, conse quently, he was inipelled to oppose the Bill. He had no ob jection to give the Unitarians the same privilege which was en joyed by Jews and Quakers, but nothing further; at the sante time, that he would provide effectual barriers against clandes tine marriages. Lord REDESDALE opposed the Bill. Lord CALTHORPE supporte d the Bill, on the ground that it was a measure of relief •to the church rather than to the Unitarians. He also contended, that it was unfair to place the Unitariani on the same footing as any other Dissenters, be cause, to other Dissenters who did not, like the Unitarians, deonlyiatrhdeshlpoctbriunte itof% the as Trinity, the marriage J ,e i r a f e gr c e e a r t ent on on e. y was no Unitarians lle would - not attempt to impue the legal argument of the Noble and Learned Lord on the I% oolsack, but the present law, ad mitting it to be correctly stated by the Noble and Learned Lord, afforded, in his mind, a strong reason for passing the Bill. The church could not better promote her tru e i n t eres t s than by conf orm i ng h erse lf to 'the increasing knowledge and genius of the age. Nothing could be more injurious to her than to place her in opposition to liberal ideas. The church was able to. rely on her own strength, and might, without fear, appeal to the augmented learning and assiduity of her clergy, to the increased number of her churches, and to the two great Universities, which year after year sent forth distinguished champions to uph e ld h er ran k a nd maintain her security. In conclusion he supported the measure, because he believed that it would add to the dignity and character of the Church of England. After a few words from the Marquis of LANsnowN. in which his Lordship denied., that the sect of- Free-thinking Christians had any part in bringing forward the present Bill, the House divided. The numbers appeared, for the second reading— -52 31 25 -56 Majority again s t the„Bill - 4 The second reading of the County Courts Bill was post poned to Th urs d a y next.—The House then adj ourne d at Eight o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. WESTERN SHIP CANAL BILL. Lord FOLKESTONE objected to the bringing up the re port of this Bill, on the ground that the standing orders of the house had not been complied with. He maintained that the list of subscribers presented was altogether fictitious ; there were persons names down for two hundred and three hundred shares each who were not holders of 311; and many names down of persons who had no share or interest at all. The SPEAKER said that, by the forms of the House, the report must he received ; but it would be open to the Noble Lord to take his objection on an after stage. Mr. A. BARING hoped that this objection taken would not prejudice the House against the bill ; the Committee which had-agreed to the report had ,4en remarki.bly well attended. • Mr. BROUDEN said, that the object of the Bill Was a bene ficial one, and contended that, though there might be error+ . in the .list of subscribers, it could not be considered as a fabri, cation. Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE contended, that the stand.' ing orders of the House had been complied with. Sir JOSEPH YORKE thought that the list was altogether fabricated. There were contained in it the names of member% of that House, who had declared they had nothing to do with, the concerts. At least, he considered the transaction as very suspicious. fir THOMAS ACLA ND supported the Bill, and trusted that the Noble Lord opposite would withdraw his objection. Mr. W. WILLIAMS had not the slightest faith in the con— tents of the list of subscribers. Ile thought the scheme entire ly a delusion, and would not lend his support to it. In tact, it was avowed that the subscribers, as they were called, did not hold themselveS liable for the amount of their shares, bqt merely for a deposit of one per cent. The SPEAKER said, that whatever might be the view of those subscribers, by the Standing Orders of the House their pledge must be given for the whole. Mr. B. GORDON wished , to know what course Gentle men should take whose names were put down without their consent? The SPEAKER said, that of course such persons would not be subscribers. The Report was then received. Mr. HOME DRUMMOND moved the further considera tion of the Repart on tire Edinburgh Water -works Rill. Mr. P. GRANT moved that it be taken into further conSi deration this day six months. The House divided, after a discussion,•in which Sir R. Fer gusson, Sir J. Majorihanks, Mr. J. Smith, Sir J. Yorke; Mr. Sykes, Mr. Calcraft, and Sir G. Warrender, took part, when the numbers were—.. For the Bill, 49 I . Against it, 54 Majority against it, 5. Mr. CURTEIS presented several petitions from the inhabi tants of Brighton, in favour of the Brighton Improvement Bill; and others from the builders and public bodies connected with the town, against it. The further :--onsideration of the report on this Bill was postponed until Monday next. The Irish Mining Joint Stock Company Bill was read a third time, and passed. Lord BINNING presented the 22d Report of the Commis, sioners of the Caledonian Canal. LUNATIC ASYLUMS.. On the motion of Lord BINNING, an humble Address was framed to his Majesty, praying for accounts of the number and names of all houses licensed for the reception of lunatics, to: gether with a statement of the number and dates of confinement of patients, from the year 1815 to 1824, inclitsiye. And similar accounts of unlicensed places for'the reception of lunatics. ' Mr. KENNEDY presented the report of the Salmon Fishery Committee. Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY presented a petition from ninety farmers of great respectability' in the vicinity of Wolver hampton, complaining of the late sacrifice of the interests of the growers of barley to the West India trade, by the regula_ tions admitting the rectifying of rum, tinder undue advanta geous terms for those engaged in that trade. After a few words from Mr'. BERNAL. and Mr. CURTEIS, the petition was laid on the table. COM BINA TION LAWS. Mr. HUME presented three petitions, from the woolstaplers of London , the tin-plate w or ke rs , an d t h e operat i ve cotton spinners ofGlasgow—the last petition signed by the heads of the trades, and only acceptable as the prayer of imploring the House not to re-enact the - old combination - laws. " He begged to take the opportunity of presenting those petitions, to declare that he understood there was no intention of reviving the combination laws, and therefore the prevailing alarm of the workmen was groundless. He understood the Committee, now sitting, only meant to render more effective the intentions of the Legislature in passing the Act of last Session. Mr. HUSKISSON' rose to confirm what was said by the Hon. Member opposite respecting the intentions of the Cont mittee now sitting. They h a d no i n t en ti on o f reviving the com bination laws ; but to render more effective, and practicably applicable, for master and man, the resolutions of the Com mittee last Session, upon which the Hou s e had subseNuently founded a Bill. All they desired was to repair the practical de. fects of last year's Bill. • The petitions were laid on the table. LONDON COLLEGE BILL. Mr. BROUGHAM, in moving for leave to withdraW:his Bill, which stood for a second reading on Monday, and subti tuting in its stead a notice, that he would on Tuesday presont a petition for leave to bring in a private Bill for the foundation "of a London College on a comprehensive plan of education. begged to explain the reasons which influenced him in .raking this course of proceeding. The alterations from a pnt)liktt6. a private Bill had become necessary, owing to some regulations -- of the .House which affected such matters, and the alteration would'have also the recommendation of diminishing the nedes , tsity of discussion upon the Bill. The greatest misappreqn sious had gone forth respecting the measure, and it was ine'Um_ bent upon him to explain both what it was - not and what, it really was. In the first place, the terms of the Bill we rp to incorporate a Company, with power to sue and be sued as Am - . porate body, and not to be a joint stock concern in any.affier quality than as having the power to hold lands anti issueahares, and make such. exectitive'arrangements as the case-required.— FOR THE SUN. On the LAWFULNESS of WAR, in opposition to Mr. THRUSH, on the UNLAWFULNESS of the SAME. AI 11. Enyrott—ln the Observer of Sunday last I rend a paragraph, which stated that a singular pamphlet had appeared, by a Mr. Tuttusu, on the unlawfulness of war. Now, allow me, through the medium of your paper, to offer a few remarks for the' considera tion of Mr. TIiRUSIL It seems he has come to the extraordinary conclusion, " that, as a Christian, he cannot pull a trigger, or draw a sword, with the intent to shed human blood:;" therefore, as a Christian, permit me to make a' few observations. 'flie Divine Founder of our holy religion has said,—" Blessed are the peace-makers;" itgain,n " Love your enemies." I have selected these two.passages to shew, that there must be causes for peacmaking, or there could be nO" such people as peace-ma kers ; and therefore they could not be blessed; and that we must have enemies is also clear, or ►why are we commanded to love them ? " Think not," continues our Saviour, " that I am come to send peace; I came not to send peace, but a sword." It is true that this was spoken relatively to the feuds that ►would. be created by men disbelieving the truths of the Gospel ; nevertheless it is a proof there must be war. And though Christ is characterized atirthe Prince of Peace, it is in a very different sense, consequently these two apparently coatradictory statements are not such in reality, for the former shew•s that there shall be wars, by the sword; and the latter, true believers in the Gospel, whether warriors or civilians, are at peace, that is 'to say, as regards the future condi tion of their own souls. Again," Ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that ye be not •troubled ; for all these things must come to pass ; but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom."— Again, Jesus soffit," My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this world, THEN WOULD•MY SERVANTS FIGHT, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." Is it possible for lan 'guage to be plainer than this ? that if Jesus had •been of this world, his servants -would have fought, that he might not have been unjustly .'delivered up to the Jews. This very evi dently shews, that the subjects of the rulers of this world must fight ; that their legal governors 'may remain such, if worthy. 46 For," says St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, " rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the power ?. Do that which is good, and . thou - shalt have praise of the !same ; for_he is the Minister of God to thee for ;good. But• if thou do that which is evil, he afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is a Minister of God, a revenger, to exe cute wrath upon him that doeth.evil." Can fan-, gpage point.out more distinctly that our Rulers beer the sword to chastise evil doers. Again, St. . Paul, in his Epistle to Titus, says—" Put them hi. mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work." But how can we be subject to'' ()dud" polities and powers," if we defend not our Prince ? or, how can we be subject to principali ties, if we do not wage war against those who ob struct our commerce,or take any other means to in jure our country, or stigmatize our King ? By defending our King, we defend also ourselves; and who can say that self-defence is unjustifiable? I do not recollect one passage in the New Testa ment which declares war to he unlawful or for the children of Is ra el aga i nst the un christian ; and in• the O ld Testament, did not Did he not overth row their ell e - G E g o y d p fi t ? mies in the Red Sea Did lie not command them to spoil the Egyptians? And what God doeth cannot be unlawful. Thus much, as ar ,uint, from the Sacred Volume ; which method 1 have adopted, b eca use Mr. Tunt.p.it says, th a t as . a Christian he cannot shed human bl ood. P . V. K. Ramsgate, May 31.