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

IRISH TITHES.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, he held in his hand
some Petitions on an important subject relating to the Bill
which had passed last Sessiorifer the CoinpaSition of Tithes
Ili Ireland. Ile:Telt• it- necessary, on this occasion, to Make a
• few observations, eas be had last Session supported the prin-
ciple
of 'a measure which had been long sought for, and. the
practical operatian of which; it was hoped,. would have been
• productive of general tranquillity in a country which had
.so much heed, of it. But in su,ppereing the principle of the
measure, he had qualified his support, by, making objection
'to softie of the details, and if he now found it' necessary to
call their Lordships- attention to any of those objections, he
could' assure them that he, would not_ refer to one of them,
• without showing that they were the grand operating cause
- 'of preventing the -parties from coming to that compromise,
Which' was in every ..eespecteo desirable. He had stated to their
Jeordehip on a former occasion., that in. presenting • a prima
'frite appearanceof inequality in 'the Measure, they would pre-
.rrent many from adopting•it, and this turned out to be the tact.
Lordships would recollect, diet under the Bill of last
• 'se.ssiorl a power was given, to increase, the provision of,the
Clergy to an amount beyond that of the last seven years._
:Now, he had •not contended that the Clergy ought not to have
been entitled to receive more than they had received within
`that time, but 'he did contend that. there might be peculiar
cases- in-which they ought to receive lass. He had, alivays
Maintained that it was desirable there. should be a perfect
..equality. on both sides as to the operation of., the act, It
*Air.' for this reason 'that he wished to take away from the
iippbnente- of the measure the plausible- pretence of sayine.
to• the peasantry of Ireland—" Under this Bill'you may be
Called upon to pay to the .Clergy more than you -now pay,
but it is impossible- you can be- cali.d upon to' pay less."
• When such laeguage was held out to them they felt that itiias
-not a fair transaction, and that the .arrangement was unfavour-
able to them, but favourable to the Clergy. Another objec-
tion he had to the Bill of last year was, the clause -which re-
ferred to the expenee under the machinery of the Commission.
The whole weight of the expellee fell oteihose who paid tithes,
While'the Clergy stood exempt, and this led the gentry and
-farmers 'to believe thatinipartial justice was not done them.-_
Another objection.lie had to Make was, as the obscurity of the
clause relating to composition. The ,Noble. Earl Earl, of
Liverpool) must be aware-that the whole arrangements with
fle4iect to the. `separation of the -Bin, had been under the di-
rection of his 3illieetey,'s Government, but under a clause intro-
duced by the other, House of Parliament, the effect. of, which
wits that the ""Clergy and Gentry might some to whatever
-agreement :they thought proper,. without being clogged with
any of the.; pthereleuses of. the Tithe Composition Act. This
arrangement which had been finally adopted, was equally
obscure and 'lntricate. The' elfe,et of 'it' was frequently to
oblige Unwilling-parties to assent to- alteratiOns; which might
be extremely. prejudicial, for when once they had• agreed to
an arrangement in the first instance they could not afterwards
retract, though convinced of the loss they must stiffer. In-
deed, a'circumstance had' occurred in a' certain --part of
Ireland, which gave to this arrangement a name ,whiell
it did not' deserve from' the intention of the Le' islatnre:
.ft was called the " Trap Clanee." lie had wished that the
Bill -might 'he improved in the course of the present Session ;
but having become acquainted, as he presumed their Lordships
were; with the proceedings in the'other House of Parliament;
ate liad•rui hesitatioh in sayitik that lie 'considered it more clan
gerous in its consequences, and more subversiie of the princi:
pies of property than, any Measure ever yet introduced in that
TionSe. A' Bill 'which lie could hat bilieee had conic Under
this consideration of the Nahle Eatte:A Bill, Vvhieli- it was im-
possible could..paes that, or any other.lleuee, was brougeht in
without the slightest regard to the interests of those who post
eeesed pioperty: had last year- referred to the situation of
the holders of ejectment- tithes in Ireland. He had said that
those who received tithes were, desirous .of getting more than
th:•.y tot, and thin those who paid them were desirous of
paid. But there was a third part
wp4layicin less.
hg
steads. tilbtiuineateha d.trem spy ,payment at all. For hisy

own part he had no personal interest whatever in the case ;
but he felt that great injustice had been done others, which
ought to be corrected. What was the answer of the Noble
, Earl in reference to the case of the third party, to which he
(the Marquis of Lansdown)had adverted ? The Noble Earl had
said it was impossible any compulsion could take place with
respect to them. However, six months had not elapsed , since
he found a clause had been. introduced for the purpose of de-
priving the holder •of agistment tithe of his six votes, and
placing the largest on a level with the smallest proprietor in the
parish. What leas . the effect of such measure, but totally to
• destroy the legitimate influence of property, to destroy that
principle upon which their Lordships agreed to Bills for mak-
ing and repairing roads, and other objects of a similar-nature.-
A few persons might thus easily out-vote all the men of pro-
perty in the parish. One-tenth part of the property might thus
force an arrangement in opposition to nine-tenths. Another
clause to which he objected, was one by which any person -who
,happened to be a
.C.ottunissioner, whesher.an. attorney or. not,
was empowered under the Act to call fo- and have before him
all the title deeds of . all the propertysldoni.,oing to the parties.
This was giving him an inquisitorial power -of the most obnox-,
ious nature. Was it possible that that House, which had .al-
ways shown so scrupulous a regard. for the rights of property;
Could stiffer andlinperativelY to demand the title deeds of an-
other man's property ? -
The LORD CHANCELLOR here called the Noble Mar-
quis to order, and said that this was the first, time he had heard
a debate commenced on a Bill which was in progress through
the other House.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said he felt himself justi-
fied in stating the reasons.why he thought. the,petitions were
entitled to the serions atteotion of their Lordships, and he was
I of necessity obliged to advert to the measure in question.......
Having gone thus far in .the subject, he would now say that
if the contemplated measure should pass into a law, it would
!be an aggravation of the evil,, and, not a relief. But to bring
his arguments on the subject within the strict line of order,_ he
would! say that he had..beard, it somewhere. stated that such a
measure was in coritsmplation%rninn
and that
et.
iztt
had
dt wbeiethn tsbeettalei
pt,
probation of his Majesty's Government.
by the Bill of last year, that by taking the averages of tithes
for the last seven years, an opportunity, would . be afforded at
the ead of, three years of correcting any
_errors that might be
found to exist : but according to the measure now- proposed, no
alteration could take place fbr seven years. He maintained that
such enactments as those could never remedy the evils which
the Bill of last year had produced ; on the contrary they mate-
rially aggravated. them. He assured their Lordships that in
thus stating his objections to the measure, he was only anxious
to see the Bill of last year carried into full and fair effect. Even
though he felt himself called upon to plead the cause of those
who were exemptedfrom the payment of tithes, it would still
be his advice to them to take the patriotic side, and forego cer-
tain private advantages for the public
_good. He thought it,
hOwever, only due to them, that it should be not the result of
constraint,. but of their own free will. While there was no
compulsionon the clergy, or on the lay impropriators of tithes
to come to an agreement, their Lordships ought not to enforce
Compulsion on a party who were as much entitled to pay no
tithes as the clergy were to,receive them. The Noble Marquis
concluded
.by moving, that a petition against the Tithe-Bill
from a certain parish in the county of Tipperary be read, which
was accordingly done.
The .11, rl of LIVERPOOL then rose, and said that in the
few Observations he should have to submit to their Lordships he
would not anticipate a discussiOn on the alteration which it might
he expedient to make in the Tithe Composition Act. When the
subject came fully under the eonsideration.of their Lordships,
he would then offer his opinion on the merits and defects
of the Bill. All that he wished at present was, that their
Lordships should exactly know how the case stood, should see
how far the measure bad succeeded, and how far it failed. This
was material to the clear understanding of the question. He
had stated on a former occasion that every great change must
be an imperfect measure in the ,first instance, and he would
. now repeat the assertion. All that could be done at first
was to establish the princiPle of the measure—more could
not reasonably be expected. 'lt was with that view he had
stated his opinion of the Bill .of last Session.—The supporters
of the Bill contended, !that it would not be just as a compul-
sory measure,- and they were fully borne out in maintaining
that opinion. Their Lordships would recollect, that the compul-
sory clause was the main point at issue between the supportets
and opponents of the Bill. In looking, in the first instance, at
the probable success' of the measure, be should have said,
that if it. succeeded in twenty—nay, fifty cases—he should
consider it as.likely to succeed on the whole with the; im-
p}
eo yer
coulde now
n tawhsiacy, which
upon experiencethe bestwould
a ustilTowr tty, tto
b ehantectries a rmy e" -
sure had succeeded beyond the most sanguine expecta-
tions of those who had supported it. It had been carried
into execution in more than one-tenth of the parishes of Ire-
land.—(The Marquis of- Lanstiown here intimidated his die-
sent.)—He maintained that it had been carried into execution
in the s oportion of 279 cases, and was now in active operation.
Since the 3d of February, when the Papers on the subject
were laid on their Lordships' table, 29 new applications had
been made, and 39 new agreements concluded. The Clergy
very often agreed to receive less than their right, but more
than their right they could not receive under the Bill. He
would ask their Lordships'whether, on loOking at the whole
course of the: transaction, there was any reason to think that
the tithe-payers were :not fairly dealt with"? He had been
furnished with the agreements made in ten dioceses, some of
which would show how! very far the measure was from being
either oppressive or. severe on the parties. In the diocese of-
Cashel,
btifiebwas
compositionthe
was Is. 3d. English per acre. In Clon-
pasture country, the whole wag done for
6d. per acre. Elphin it was 11d., and in Meath the same.
lie stated these particulars, to show how reasonable the arrange-
ment was under all the circumstances of the case. It was prov-
ed on the face of the transaction, that it had succeeded to a de-
gree far beyond what could be any man's expectation, however
aanguine.The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
NEGLECT OF THE CLERGY.

The Earl of KINGSTON was surprised to hear some of the
statements made by-the Noble Earl who had just sat down. He
himself knew a gentleman of large property, who offered Ss. -an
acre for tithes in the diocese of Cloyne, but the Clergyman
would not accept the -offer, and insisted in getting ss.
The Noble Earl then presented a petition from the parish
of Templetown, in the County of Cork, complaining of the
want of instruction; and Stating that the Rector refused to
employ a Curate, because it would put him to the expence of
751. a year. The Noble Earl further observed that in the parish
in question, his ancestors had portioned out a certain. number
of acres for the maintenance' of their Protestant freeholders,
but in consequence of their being no Protestant place of wor-
ship in the neighbourhood, they had all gone to Mass, and he
thought very properly, for it was better they should be Ro-
man Catholics than of no religion at all. In the part of the
.country where ho lived there..were only four Clergymen for
.nine teen parishes.
Lord hING felt persuaded that the House must regret the
necessity 'Which had called for this petition, as they could not
forget the .munificent: grants that had been voted for-building
new churches andglebe-houses. But it appeared that the Clergy
were alWays'fond of . receiving money without giving any thing
in return for it. ' Their Lordships had heard of mercantile
Hibernian reciprocity. Every thing came from one side--
nothing from the other.. Was it to be understood that the cure
of souls was nothing, or that the person charged with the duty
was only to encurnr-hirriself with salvage, and leave the com-
modity stranded ?. He thought it, however, hard to single out
this individual Rector for reprehension, when there. were so
many others to blarrie. lkit he could not go into the subject,
Without adverting to the proceedings of the other House, and
did not wish, after what had so, lately occurred, to be, called to
order from the woolsack.

The Petition was then Ordered: to lie on the table.
The .Earl of KINGSTON presented a Petition from the
Parish of Kilkenny„,in the County of,Cork, containing.sintilar
allegations to the last and
,Prayingthat the Tithe Commission
Act might be repealed.—,Laid on the table.
The ,Earl 'al. KI N GSTON presented, another Petition to the
same effect from a Parislt in the; County of- Cork.—His :Lord-
shift !kit-Presented a:Petition' frOm another Parish in the same
County, in which the Petitioners complained of there being no
Protestant Church or service in the parish; and. declared that
many
_protestant* had on that account been obliged to change
their
On the thotion being read,
The Earl of KINGSTQN said that if it were necessary, he
could bring many Protestant inhabitants of parishes in Ireland
to the Bar of that House, to swear that they had been obliged
to embrace the Catholic religion on account of having no church
to attend. . ‘.

The Earl of CLARE presented several petitions from pa-
rishes in Ireland against the, Tithe Rill; and
,tools occasion to
notice one farm on his estate, Which consisted of no more than
44 acres, antiof which .the .tythe.exacted by the Clergyman
amounted to 24/. . . .
The Earl of DARNLEY presented'five Iletitions from pa-'
rislies in the County of Tipperary, and one from Rathcormick,
in the County of Cork, against the provisions of the Tithe Bill
of last year. lie said it. was. a.l7ievous hardship on the Catho-
lic cultivators of parishas to be obliged to give one-tenth of their
-produce to Clergy from whom:they received em instruction.
HC differed widely from, those who maintained that the property j
in those tithes was as sacred as the property, which Noblemen:.
had in their estates ; and on Monday next, when he intended to
king forward his motion on the state of Ireland, he'sliould be '
4.ble to prove that an immediate change of the tithe system- in
that country was absolutelY necessary.
The Earl of RINI/STUN thought that Commissioners
aught to. he appointed:to inquire into the stateof the Protestant
in wister. , There weis alrnuch greater, necessity
.A)r

doing so, than appointing Commissioners to inquire into the
customs of Ireland, which was a much inferior object.
STATE OF. IRELAND.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL wished to inquire of the Noble
Earl opposite (Darnley) who had given notice of a motion on
the State of Ireland for next Monday, whether he would have
any objection to postpone it to another day. To him (the
Earl of Liverpool), it would be a great personal inconveni-
ence to attend. If, however, the motion had been of a nature
to suffer from delay, he would not have preferred any re.
quest upon the subject, but it appeared to him to be one which
could not be affected by being brought on one day sooner
or later.
-Earl DARNLEY, however anxious to draw the attention of
the House to the state of Ireland, should not hesitate to post.
pone his motion, when he found that attendance on Monday
might be prejudicial to the health of the Noble Earl. As there
were many Noble Lords, however, who intended to be in town
to be present at the discussion, it would be inconvenient that it
should be postponed beyond Thursday next. He should there-
fore renew his notice for that day. The Noble Earl then al-
luded to the numerous trials which were taking place for mur-
der in Ireland, and was understood to move that the,Clerk of
the peace for the King's County should produce the records of
such trials in that county.
The Earl of HARROWBY recommended to the Noble
Earl, for his aecommodation-and that of the House, as all the
papers relative to Ireland had not yet been produced, to post_
pone his motion till an early day after Easter.
Earl _DA RNLE Y could not accede to the suggestion of the
Noble Earl, as' some of the returns could, not possibly be
made for a month. •He preferred therefore bringing on the
question with the information already laid on their. Lordships'
table.

The motion for the returns from the King's County was
then agreed to. •
The Earl of KINGSTON moved that returns should be
produced from the Irish Court of .Exchequer to, shew, whe-
ther Mr. Thomas MoStyn, Sub-Sheriff of the. County of
Sligo, had, in. the years 1818, 1819,. 1820, 1821, 1822, and.
1823, taken the necessary oaths to qualify him for holding such
an office.
After a short conversation, in which the LORD CIiANCEL-
LOR, Lord HOLLAND 4 and the Earl of HARROWEY, took
part, the Noble Earl withdrew his motion, in order to bring it
in a different shape on Thursday next..
UN ITARIA NS.

The Order of the Day. for the second reading of the Unita-
rian Marriage Bill having been read, • •
The Marquis of 143NSDOWN said, that he should not
have thought it necessary to call the attention of the House in
a particular manner to the present Bill, if he had not 'under-
stood that itewas to be ,opposed, although it was one of relief;
and of relief on the ground of scruples of conscience.' That
Bill, as well as another introducedlast Sessione-had- originated
in consequence of a Petition referred last year to their Lord-
ships' Committee, •in which 'the Dissenters prayed to be re-
lieved from the necessity of submitting in their marriages to
the forms of the Church of England. The Committee had not
discussed the subject, but there was a general feeling amongst
its Members that some relief should be extended to the Peti-
tioners. In matters of this kind he considered the Legislature
to have two duties to perform ; one of -'a civil; and the other of
a civil and religious nature. The first was to .provide effectual
checks to prevent the possibility of clandestine marriages ; the
second, to take care that a =duet involving such important
consequences to society should be entered into with a de-
gree of solemnity and publicity calculated to make it most
binding and lasting in the eyes of the world. He should be the
last man to propose any thing tending to shake the security
necessary in the -one- case, or the solidity of the engagement
contracted in the other. But when the Legislature had done
what was requisite to secure those two points, it had done all
that public duty required, and it became incumbent upon it to
give all members of the community every facility of contract-
ing marriage with as little hindrance as possible from scruples
of conscience. On that ground lie trusted • their Lordships
would feel it necessary to adopt the proposition which lie was
about to make. He should explain its nature distinctly; be:
cause it had been much misunderstood out of doors. Far from
making any alteration in the Liturgy, it would leave the mar-
riage- ceremony untouched for all persons of the
hope of any benefit a
cCahlluortwcielehlfm
alai ail this with no view and no ot_f
England, or all who should avail themselves of the forms of
that Church. But that was not a case in which the .Legisla-
turecould with persons tolerated by law to be compelled to
Chnrch of
violate their consciences,wita.octlibilee.
krie broughtiintdasubunit
Ee
vnegrl. a n t
oa nw in
The s
allowing the Unitarians to be married under eertainwreasstricntionors
in their own chapels, having previously given publicity
to.
their intention by banns and the payment of fees in the parish-
church. It might be asked why he had not brought forward'
a Bill of a more eneral nature, embracing all classes of leis-s- ,
senters? had felt that a course would be attended with
much greater difficulties. It had, besides, been stated last
year, from an authority to which lie was always•disposed to
bow, that all those classes of Dissenters entertained objections
to mere forms which the Legislature- could not
,take into con-
sideratiQn, and that to include them all iuto one measure would
require a laxity in the provisions of that measure.which would
to
embrace more than were meant, and afford undue. facilities. to'
instances did o the
clandestine marriages. On those grounds he had confined the
present Bill to the relief of that party, who by the admission
of the House and of the Right Rev. Prelates themselves, had
most reason, in foro conscientix, to complain of the marriage
ceremony. And it was not a little to the honour of some of
those Right Reverend Prelates, iliac when they were shewn
that a conscientious feeling existed in a particular class against
being compelled' to submit to the marriage ceremony of the .•
Church of England, ,they had instantly admitted the propriety,
of relieving that feeling. The Bill now before the House pro-
vided that the Chapels of Unitarians should be registered, and
that in those where Divine Service had not been performed
less than one year the marriages of . Dissenters of that denomi-
nation might be solemnized, after due notice should, have been
given by banns and payment of fees he the Church of England.
It also provided that any Minister solemnizing , marriage' in
those Chapels against the regulations of the , should be
punishable; and he meant to propose in-the 'Committee that
the punishment for such offence should_ be transportation.
Should also the publication of banns not be deemed a sufficient
security against. clandestine marriages, he should have no ob-
jection to propose another regulation to cause the marriages of
Unitarians, and the places where they were solemnized, to be
registered. He did not see what objection their - Lerdships
could make to such a Bill, unless any of them should be dis-
posed to contend that Unitarians were out of the pale of society,
or that if within it they would not marry, or else that the cere-
mony of the Church oflngland was to be imposed as .a penalty
upon them. • • - . .
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY believed the scruples
entertained by the Unitarians to be founded. on religious prin-
ciple, and consequently to.be entitled to relief. •The only dif-
ficulty waeis to the fitness of the mode of granting relief: The
Bill introduced last year went on a very different principle
from the present. but though not free from objections, was. not
liable to the charge of transferring to others the hardship from
which one party was to be relieved. That Bill had been sup.
ported by some of" .their Lordships, of whom lie (the Archbishop
of Canterbury) was one, but having been opposed by.greater
' numbers was rejected. There appeared however a.general dis-
position to give relief. Now relief could only -be given in
two ways : either by' allowing Unitarians to marry in their
own places, or to alter the Liturgy so as to remove their objec-
tions. To the last lie had objected and still objected, depre-
cating any alteration of the Liturgy for such a purpose. He
might be told that the Liturgy would not be altered ;. that some
prayers might be omitted, but that nothing would be substi-
tuted in their stead.. But he need not remind their Lordships
that alterations could bees easily effected by omissions as.by sub-
stitutions.—Besides, would it become the Church of England to
put aside the doctrine of the Trinity, that doctrine on which
it was founded, to enable the Unitarians to use its services, so
mutilated and unhallowed for the purpose, and to make' that-
Church itself a hand-maid td dissent,? The only mode of
granting. relief, therefore, was by some Act of 'Parliament
like that which 'he, 'now held ,in his hands; in which effective j
provisions should be made so satisfy the consciences .of the
Unitarians, and to give security to the public against clan-
destine . marriages. -In the present Bill, •-the -first of those'
conditions was fulfilled : the second lie trusted, . would be at-
tained in the Committee. Let it not be said that, by passing-
that measure, an extraordinary favour was done to the,
Unitarians, which was withholden • from .• other.. Dissenters.
Favour was not in' the view
,of the... Legislature. Scruples. of
conscience were the grounds of the measure : if they existed,'
and he-belie.ved they did really exist, they Were entitled to,
relief., The Right Rev. Prelate then objected to some.of the
details of the Bill. The banns. were to •be published in the
Parish Church,, but the marriage might take plaed: in a
Chapel ten miles distant, and by this facilities might be
opened to clandestime • marriages, which: ought not: to be
given. As tq the claims of ether. Dissenters, they. did not
arise from scruples of conscience; they 'were merely founded
on, fanciful objections to the. forms of the Church of England.
They were not entitled therefore to the same
.attention as. those
of the Unitarians. In the Committee he had no doubt:
such restrictions and restraints would:- be provided, as would.
give security to those whom it was intended to'relieve, and to
the, public at large.. . •. . •
The LORD CIIANCELLOR entertained the highest re-
spect for the Itiglit Reverend Prelate who had just sat down,
but when he looked at the provisiors of the Bill, or at the
principle on which it -was. founded, he. could
.not 'view the

immure in a similar light. it appeared to 'him extremely
imperfect. When the Preamble spoke of persons entertztin-
Mg,seruples,' what'did it' Mean,'but persons. denying tliTdair7..

trine of the Trinity, that doctrine which was the foundation
stone of the Church of England. Whether it was to be
found in the Holy Scriptures or not, he should not at pre-
sent inquire : it was sufficient for his own belief that it formed
one of the articles of that Church to which he belonged.
The question was, whether the first step taken ought not to
be, that to deny the Trinity was or was not legal. He must
state to their Lordships, that a great misunderstanding pre-
vailed respecting the repeal of the Act of King William : for
many supposed, when that statute was repealed by the 53d
of the late King, that the denying of the Trinity was legal.
It was no such thing. The Act of William was not passed
against blasphemy or prophaneness ; but went to inflict on
those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, an excess of
punishment, which no man could approve of; and when that
Statute was repealed some years ago, no idea was entertained
that they were repealing the common law of the land re-
specting the doctrine of the Trinity. Those who denied that
doctrine were directly hostile to the- Church of England.
The Unitarians dissented more than any others from that
Church ; and why, he asked, should not they be separated
from the• Church as much as others ? Jews and Quakers had
their own forms of marriage ; but they were separated from
the Church. The present was said to be a measure of relief ;
but if their Lordships granted it, he wished to know where they
would stop. Were they to be compelled to make the Church
of England a handmaid to all those who denied its doctrines?
He would never consent to any Bill that went to make the
Church the servant of Unitarians. The Act of King William
did not aired the law as it previously stood. • The Common
Law of the land was as much in force against those who denied
the Trinity, before, as after the Passing of that Act ; and the re-
peal of it did not alter the Common Law. He would not, there-
fore, consent to any measure that went to make the Established
Church subservient to sectarians, and particularly those that
dissented most from it.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL only wished to explain the
grounds on which he shOuld give his vote for the second read-
ing and for going into a Committee, and to say that if the Bill
were to come out of the Committee, such as it now was, he
should oppose its passing into a law. He was• willing to give
full relief to Unitarians when both parties were Unitarians;
but if one of them belonged to the :establishment, he wished
them to be married according to the establishment. There might
then be two separate ceremonies in the respective churches of
the parties, as in the case of Jews, Quakers and Roman Cathos
lies intermarrying with persons of a different persuasion: He
also thought that the license to marry should not depend simply
on the declaration of individuals, that they did dissent in respect
to the Trinity from the Church of England, but that they
should produce a certificate from a Minister of their own Church
to prove that they had been in the habit of attending it, and were
real Unitarians. If those alterations were made, he should
accede to the Bill, and in order that-they should be made he
should vote for going into a Committee.
The Bishop of CHESTER, notwithstanding what he had
heard, rose to eipreis his dissent from the pinitiple of the
Bill, though no Rev. Prelate or Noble Lord present was more
friendly than himself to every principle of civil and religious
toleration. He had been bred in those principles, and trusted
that lie should retain them to the end of his days. He thought
that the commerce between the creature and Creator should
be as free as the air we breathed, for we were bound to
obey God, not man. It had been thought proper that one
sect should be selected out of the rest, and that there
should be a national establishment. If it was intended that'
establishment should exist, it Must be upholders by pecu-
liar rights and privileges. The rights of marriage being ce-
lebrated only in Churches and Chapels, was one of those
privileges. That right ought not to be taken away except
on valid grounds, and he trusted he should be able to prove
to their Lordships' satisfaction, that the Unitarians did net
object to it out of real scruples of conscience. What was
it that the Unitarian was called upon to subscribe,. to declare,
or to hear ? He was called upon to subscribe his own 'name.
He was besides bound to repeat, " I thee wed, (e.g.," " in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Were not those
the words of Scripture ? were they not those of our Saviour hint-
self ? The Unitarian had no right to object to them. Ile might
affix to the idea of Father and Son whatinteapretation he pleas-
ed, for nothing was fequired of him on that head. But what
would their Lordships say when he should state that that very
appeal to which Unitarians objected in the Marriage ceremony,
was used•in the Form of Prayer adopted by themselves ? In
their baptismal service they said, 44,1 baptize thee in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." How then
could they conscientiously complain at having to say in Our
Churches what they were in the habit of-saying in their own ?
'What then had an Unitarian to hear ? He had to bear a bents-
diction pronounced upon himself in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But if he did not think himself
the better for the blessing of our Church, he could not possibly
be the worse for it. He might affix any meaning which lie
pleased to it, but he had no just ground of complaint. He
(the Bishop of Chester) should wish to deal by the Unitarians,
as he should wish to be dealt by himself. Had he been in
any country where different persuasions prevailed, nothing
could have induced him to subscribe any form of words against
the Holy Scriptures, but of things of less importance he shotild
have thought his duty to obey the laws of the land. With 're-
spect to the maintenance of her doctrine, • the Church-of Eng-
land would be wanting to herself, if she did not declare the
Faith ofJesus Christ on all proper occasions. ''He would say
nothing- about the machinery of the Bill; but let not their
Lordships lay the flatterir6s unction to their souls that if it passed
into a law the same privileges would not be given to every other
sect. From the falling off of marriages, in the Churches, coos
sequent upon their celebration in Chapels, the income of many
parishes would be greatly reduced; particularly in populous
towns where the duties of the Clergyman were most severe,and
his stipend comparatively smallo He did not,' however, mean
to urge this argument against those of principle, he would
rather say flat justitia real ; The operations of the Bill,
it should be at the ,came time remembered, wotild be to render
the incomes of livings already trifling still less ; and their
.Lordships slimild recollect that as the hO/ders of those livings
had- entered• upon- them with the understandings that the
revenues were not to be diminished -by any such measure.
as the present, they might be considered to have a sort of veit-
ed, right to all the marriage fees. It was also to be obSerVed
that in recent cases the feel exceeded -the mere dues, and that
a considerable part of the emolument arose from complimen-
tary offerings made at the conclusion of-the ceremony: -He
did notavish to give 'offence to any one; but persons 'who were
not inattentive to the manners of mankind, -must have ob-
served, ' that those most clamorous for toleration for them-
selves, were seldom disposed to grant much-- of its to others.
In conclusion, he could not help axpressing his regret; lhat,
on this occasion, he differed from those with' whom he gene-
rally acted ; lindens Plato :al magic arnica Veritas, and he
would leave the question to their isordships with' hope and con-
fidence in the result. When Ate: interests of the Church of
England were at stake, he was certain that House would als
ways hear in-mind the example of the Barons of old, andin
their spirit declare Nolumus le,ges Eccksice inutare;
The Earl of HARROWBY perfectlssagreed with the Right
Rev. Prelate who liad just sat down, in the importance of pros
tecting the interests of the Xstablished Church.' If, therefore,
he saw -any thing in'the Present mettsure'ealculated in-the least.
to injure those interests, a more determined opponent of the
Bill could not be found than the humble individual who novi,
addressed their Lordships. ; He, hoWever,' saw nothing-of that
tendency in the measure before the House.-(Hear, heaf !)
The Right Reverend Prelate Mentioned the objections
of the Unitarians to the existing 'law. :If those objections
were to the mere subscription' of ._the marriage ceremony,,
no one would think them 'of less value than he should.' It
would be a strange 'sort of casuistry to r abject to .the,use of
the expressions—" In the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost," in-one instance and not in another,
and he believed the only difference between the Worth em-
ployed on the two occasions was the changing of in to into.—
But when the objection was as to the mode of pronouncing the
blessing at the conclusion of the ceremonyhe thought it not
unreasonable for persons who were called td invoke
" God the Father, God the Son, and -God the Holy Ghost,"
to conceive that by doing 'so, they gave a Sort of intplied dm- ,
sent to terms which' were opposed to their partitillar belief,
on one of the most interesting- occasions of life. Nor did' he
think that their Lordships should inquire whether those scruples
had rational grounds: The question was, whether the scruples
were bona fide felt by those who alleged them; fordo that princi.
pie the subject ought to be considered. He would not have those
things deemed indifferent. Would their'Lordships; for instance.
pronounce a blessing-in the name of Mahornet?—[The Lord
Chancellor here asked 'if his Lordship would permit the mar-
riage of a Maliometan.]--The Noble and Learned,Lord (conti-
nued the Earl of Harrowby) asks if he would- permit the mar-
riage of a Mahometan ; he answered; why not, as well as of a
Jew ?—(Hear, hear !)—What was marriage in this country but
a civil contract, to which a' religious sanction Was 'given, 'in
order that it might be binding upon the consciences of the par-
ties. And how was, a ceremony to be binding on men's clan-
sciences, which, in its performance, violated their consciences ?
—He should not, however, wish any concession'to be made in
such a manner as ton-act the security of property, or• open a
door for clandestine marriages'. --Hissobject wOuld be'to render
marriage both safe and respectable. But' the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack said that this bill would- make
the Established Church auxiliary to Unitarianism. He did not
think it would be so ecclesiastically. Banns were published
in churches because the greatest number of persons acquainted
with the parties were present. For similar reasomi mar-
riages were registered in the Church; and 'he therefore thought
there certainly was *eight in the observation that by having
the banns of Unitarian marriages published, When so fewasf
their friends were assembled; the object of the law would not

be illtaini_ll. For th%.ie reasons he saw no grounds whf.Daniis