The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-26 00:00:00

certain portion in the marriage sr remolt which in their conecieneee
they could not subscribe to.. The lh rariare sere willing to have
any alteration made in the 11111 that would patient clandestine
marriages, or that would render it less obj.etionable to the oppo-
ser of it. Aker a fete other obeereatians the Hon. Member cots-
twirled by miming the Id reading of the rm.
Mr. ROBERTSON in opposing the measure, remarked that the
Unitarians were not Christians, for they stripped the SaVioOr of his
divinity, and that putt an end to (,rtstianity. The Unitarians
were rather Mahonietine, who contended that Gluist was nee Gent
but a Prophet. In Poland this sect no sooner got • footing than
they interfered with the established religion of the cottutry to
such an. rettit, that it was found necessary to banish them. That
however did not succeed in wholly extinguiehing this dangerous
sett, and a dctree was at last promulgated, making it a capital
crime to tceeh their doctrines. That should be a lesson to this
country how it gave encouragement to that dangerons religion.
Before they conceded such a 'manure as this. they should recollect
what pulled down the Government and sited up Cromwell. Thew
should remember their conduct in the times of the French Heroin'.
tire). and not allow a parcel of fanatics now to set themselves for.
ward. became it was a time of liberal feelittg in commerce and in
legielstion. In all countries. Heathen or Pagan, where toleration
was allowed, they had bayonets to keep it down when it became
troublepome, and without something of that kind it would be dee-
genius mallow it here. Ile hoped, hewevto. they did not think he
wan intolerant. (Hear, and a laugh.) lie hoped there was nothing
in his language to Support such an optnion. (Hear.) In Aalefiql,
where Jew, Unitarian, Jumper, and "taker, had freedom of re 9.
emus opinions, did the Howie euppose there was toleration ? Wee
there was the vilest fanaticism ; and he could 'motet. that if log
one moved from his village where one religion prevailed, to a village
where there was • different religion, the person an removing was
put in I;ogentry if he did not immediately adopt the new religion.
(Loud laughter.) Were the morels of Americane improved by this
pretended toleration ? No ; for if ant one heard a statement in
aey country on earth, and wee told diet statement came them the
'lips of an American. he would not consider what Was told him to
be true; and a elember of the Congress had aseertod„ he meant the
Member for Carolina. that the press was so depraved in principle
that no depetidenee could be pieced upon it--a charge which had
been answered by the Mess with the assertion that Congrem set
them the example. The Honourable Member, after alluding to
the conduct of the Puritans in the time of Charles; and crinueeding
that it was the principle of Puritanism which lel the :scotch to sell
tluir King t Hear, and a laugh). expensed his determination
to oppose any attempt to enlarge their privilems.
Dr. LUSH INGTON said, the measure was not wresnel from
the Church of England, as the Unit. Gentlemen "denied to sup-
pose, but conceded be it to the conscientibus scruples of the Dis-
senters. As he understood the nature or the case, and as it had
been considered b the Bishops of Liandaffof Exeter, and of Lon-
don. it wan this --he would use even the language of those Divine-a—
-" We will not say whether your scruples are well or ill founded,
it iv not a matter for us to determine, but we know that on all
rem:inns conscience is ihs beat guide as to the opinions enter-
tained of what is calculated to reconcile the creature to the Creator."
This was no new doctrine risirg up with free trade or commerce,
as the Hon. (leatleman had strae.gely imagined, but had prevailed
lung since; the very wane sentiments were enetained in a Protest
of three Archbishops and right Bishops of Ireland, in the year
1782, on • Bill to permit Diesenters marriages. Two way. had
been proposed to effect the measure in contemplation ; one
to alter the Liturgy of the Church of England, and the
other to pc•mit a marriage by Dissenting Ministers. There was
an imporant objection to the first—that it was repugnant to the
feelings of the Protestant Church, and he hod themfore thought ft
good policy tt prefer the second. It had been raid that o•bets,
whose religious opinions differed from the Entablieheil Chunk,
might thick themselves entitled to claim an equal privilee,e; he
had nn doubt they would. stud he thought them intuit:l to do SM.
He was not prepared to mince& to them more than he would to
others. Ile was aware of the itnportaime of the subject ; he hnd
given it a good deal of attention. In curly stages of Christianity
Ile knew there had been no marriage ceremony at air, arta
he believed that from the time of Pone Innocent the Third,
When the first was ordained, down to Lord liardwitkee Mar-
riage Act, the whole ceremony of this country bad been Po-
pish. In various Popish countries of the Contineot too the
ceremony was not even now necessary in the Church. He did
not therefore see why they should entertain any scruples in
granting to the Dissenters what had been pmposed. He WAS
convinced it would do good, end put an end to these disgraceful
scenes which had so remittently been exhibited at the altar of God.
He could mention five or six cases in which clergymen bed been
told at that altar, that they cotnpelled those who obtained the cere-
mony of marriage to sacrifice their consciences for the sake of pro-
curing a civil right. What had been said with regard to the
Roman Catholics had no reference to the question ; but he could
assure the House that before his Hon. Friend iir. J. Smith)
brought in his Bull for permitting the marriage of Roman Catholics
under certain circumstances, the parishes had been overrun with
illegitimate children front the parents refusing to submit to the
ex: tieig regulations. The relief which can at any time be afforded
by a trip to Gretna-green, and a visit to the blacksmith or the
tobacconist, shows that the principle of the law of England is
hostile to such compulsinn. Although, however, he approved of
the principle of this Bill, he by no means was prepered to support
all Its density-. The marriage by license, unless with considerable
modifiesitions;) might lead to the increase of clandestine marriages.
lo ceedlisioe he warned the House not to slight this 'subject, as
the time would very epeedily arrive when they would be called upon
to devote their attention tattle state of the marriage law in Ireland.
That law was most unjust as it stood at present ; and he felt it his
duty to say, that they must soon come to the time when marriage
would be made a civil contract, solemnised by any religious ols.
servisnees the parties thought proper to adopt ; for it was beyond
the poses of any man to ascertain what was the religions belief of
any man before marriage, so as to tie him down by an Act appli-
cable to his peculiar belief.
Mr. PEEL, although he differed with great deference from the
high ecclesiastical authorities mentioned by the Learned Gentle-
man (Dr. Lushington), would not object to the second reading of
the Bill, that he might give the If et. Muer an opportunity of
solving in the Committee some d.fficulties which at present sp.
peered to hint very important. It was not, however, without pain
that he had seen the Dissenters, alter an acquiescence of sixty years,
adraoce claims which might lead to a disruption of that bond of
union a 'deb hail hitherto existed between them and the Established
Church. The Learned eientleroan (Doctor Lushington) had
told them that be uses prepared to go much further than this
Bill, and it would have been satisfactory to him (Mr. Peel
if they had been told to what extent it was the intention to push this
prirciple. The Bill applied only to one particular clam, although
many had been mentioeed who were similarly circumstanced, and
he thought they ought, in consistency, to extend the measure to all.
If the principle was once admitted, it should be followed up to the
extent of the-claims from others standing on the same ground. If
every individual, however, was to select who might-marry him, be
apprehended the law would bring considerable difficulties. Tim
Bill did not put the dissenters even on the sante foxing with the
Jews and Quakers, who were enabled to marry without any inter-
vening assent of the Church of Englarol. It still proposes the
publication of banns in the church, and by that means opens a
method of evading the law by clandestine marriages, for it was not
taken into consideration that all parties had not access to the church
In the ease of a Jew or • Quaker, the difference was apparent.—
Quod nequeo mowers ri. But in the case of two persons of different
dissenting persumions, he need rot say it was not apparent,
and therefore very likely to create an evasion of the law,
by affording no valid check to clandestine contrects. It
was proposed by this Bill, that the par its might celebrate mm-
riage by whatever 11(0 they pleased ; yet it was further proposed
t
hat an injunction should be issued to the clergyman of the estab-
lished church to resister the marriage in the registration•book of
the palish. NOW, it should be remembered that marriage in Eng-
lad was not only a civil but • religious contract. In the Book cif
Common Prayer, marriage was termed holy, and it was a union
considered symbolical of the mystic union between Christ and the
Church. In England the pariah registry of the marriage tan the
hese evidence of the marriage of parties ; but according to the pro.
posed Bill, the copy ofthecontraet by which the parties were united,
was to be entered in the registry. It would be better that a copy
of it should be sent to some office appointed to receive it. However
this might form subject for conaiderationin Committee, be thought
some practical relief might be afforded; he would not, therefore,
oppose the committal of the Bill. He wished, however, that they
should proceed upon some distinct principle of legislation of gene-
ral applirition, end that no individual sect might afterwards apply
fee a particular enactment for itself. Quakers might have a scruple
teeny taxes marry on a war; other veers infect entertain scruples
equally imperious stud hostile to the policy of the country. which it
was the duty of the Legislature to discountenance. He antici-
pated, however, that although the subject was one surrounded by
difficulties, some measure of relief and utility might be effected.
Lord 0. CAVENDISH supported the Bill. In these days of
inertaied enlightenment. he thought that the ditiqualificatiens which
affected the marriages of Dissenters ought to be abolished. After
the satisfactory sentiments which had fallen from the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Peel), he would suggest the propriety ot commit-
ting the Bill without further diecusston.—The till! was then read •
second time, and committed fOf Monday next.
WINE DUTIES 1111:1..
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the third
reading of the Nine Duties BilL
Mr. T. IV I IiSON moved all amendment to the clause of the
Bill which proposed the duty of 9s. a gallon on Cape wine. He
would move that it be altered to Is. 6.1. The great advantage en-
joyed by the proprietors of this wine was, that it was at a consider.
ably lower duty than other wises. The wine was of • very Inferior
quality, and the low rate of duty was what shone promoted the
consumption of it. A great quantity of it was shortly expected in
this country, and it would be greatly diminished in value if a
greater inequality did not exist between the duty on this and other
wines than was proposed by the Chancellor of the Eithequ.r.
Mr. HUBKISSON said, that the amount of the duty proposed to
be altered by the HlOll. Member was not one penny per bottle, and
even this would only be an increased profit to the merchant, and no
advantage to the consumer ; the consumption would continue, and
Cape would, as heretofore, be subsututed for Sherry and Madeira.
The present promised rate of duty would male no difference either
to the revenue or to the consumer; but it would be of service if tt
discouraged the spurious substitution of this wine for wines of •
higher quality.
Alr. HUAI E thought that further delay should take place before
the proposed change of duty was introduced, as many persons took
large quantities of this wine on the assurance that the late rate t
duty would continue.
l'heCHA NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that no such
assurance had been given, nor had any patties a right to assume
The real cause of the present rate of duty which lie proposed was to
prevent (what was well known hitherto to be the ease) the imams