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

' might not be published in chapels, provided it did not detract
from the dignity and authority of the Establishment. If tee
bill were to go through the Committee in its present shape,
should undoubtedl object to it ; but he wished to have it COl'
mitted, and should' therefore vote for the second reading.
Lord CALTORPE vas anxions to declare the grounds on
which he should give his vote for the Bill. He thought the deci
gree of relief which this Bill proposed ought to be granted, an
that the Church of England owed it to its own strength not toe
offer violence to the consciousness of others. Considering t
high respectability of the persons who professed Unitary
doctrines the Church ought not in his mind to press on thentl".e
rite of marriage. In a higher sense too, namely, that
,indivi-
duals so opposed to him as the parties in question, should !lie
be forced into an alliance, and thinking the doctrine of the
Trinity essentially interwoven with the Church of England; 111'
the same time that no real or cordial eccleisastical agent
could take place with persons professing Unitariarnsin7!'":i
Church of England -Might to support the present ineasul
The doctrine of the Trinity she held not as a speculation, but
as a principle, and it was due to herself to mark by, then tat:
turn tof this Bill the total dissent to the opinions of those. !e
denied that doctrine. He therefore gave his thanks to
int
Right Rev. Prelate opposite, for objecting to any omisStS,
in the' Liturgy, and rejoiced that the Right Reverend Ben_
abstained from making a precedent which would rendei t"
Liturgy dependant on human opinion. He did not think, .how'
ever, that the present measure would increase the diffusiir
o 0 „
Unitarian sentiments, which found an antidote in theirs
coldness and want of consolation. He should indeed have been
more pleased if the Church herself, for her own relief, had ir/ai
troduced the Bill • for it must be repugnant to her enligh,ten„c
principles and mild spirit to do violence to the consciences
others, or encourage any thing like mental reservation in
forcing conformity to her opinions.
The Eatl of WESTMORLAND should not presume ,
late an hour to detain their Lordships for any length of 1.."
but should merely state the reason why he voted again
Bill. His objection, hoWever, was to its' principle, and • ,
from any indisposition on his part to religious toleration, give ease to the consciences of individuals. This measure lit't
to alter the law of the land, and the establishments of we
Church. By the former, all marriages were solemnized in the
Church, except those of Jews and Quakers ; and his objectioa
to the present Bill was, that it was not general, but special'
it went to relieve one portion of Dissenters, and not another'
According to it, the Church of England was to be merely an
advertiser of marriages in one case, while in all others it solely'
nixed the ceremony. He therefore considered that there we a
legal as well as an eeclesiastical objection to the measnie, an
should oppose it in principle:
The Bishop of LONDON wished to state, very briefly, .Idl/
reasons for voting that the Bill should go into a Committee'
He was deeply convinced of the wisdom of that law, which r%
quired that marriages should be solemnized in churches. at
gave publicity, security, and authority to the ceremony, and
_,16
the same time conferred dignity on the Church. If there ir"
any particular dogma of the-Church objected to in the cerefneby,
it would be imprudent to make any alteration, but mere be'
neral groundi of dissent ought not to be a ground of object;
-don. Here the scruples were fully stated, and at the tor°,
time the Unitarians expressed their willingness to confolti tn.
the laws'of the land in all other. respects. He could not re!
with the Rt. Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Chester), that the
tarians had a right to understand the words of the ceremony Oft"
Chureh in any sense they pleased. The argument of particular
words was by no means a strong ground of objection; but them
were other and better grounds. He wished, however, for 'goo
and sufficient security from the Unitarians, that their cere;
mony of marriage should be performed with decency,. an,'"
without any fraud. As to the case of Jews and Quakers,
did not object to what they already had received, thouo.o"
did not wish to grant them any thing more. , The Unitarians
asked nothing further, and were willing to give the-inure
cOrity. Whenever cases occurred where the Jews did not a'
actly conform to the practices and beliefs of their own Church'
the Ecclesiastical Courts -had not refused to set such mar
riages aside. An instance of, this had lately occcurred
the Consistorial Court.' He did not believe that many
'stances of abuse or fraud could be cited, as the Consequence. O
the indulgence granted to the. Jews and Quakers. If.the Ott'
tarians gave the same securities,, he could not think that all
injury Would restilt. In voting- for the Bill being sent 9
e
Committee, he did not pledge himself to vote for it afterwaru:
As to the fees of the. Clergy, he had paid the subject great a,
tention. In large towns, it was true, the Clergy were verf in-
adequately paid ; but, this was a point of Comparative unite-,
portance, compared with what was due to the character of the
r
Church itself. He did not wish to diminish their fees, butz.gtral
thte enjoyment
dicjdoOmllt; meeo- ewron,
of the
tiAk
.fet hpaarnetaygrt
gburuleiagerthi Dissenters
tcseornfgaytvh e
.o—.4urioifeatlrlel)measure ;
.and
ground
dd
obfeaadebiffiarrintioirp°7o
LORD CDANCELLOR explained.
The Marquis of Laiq'SnoWN briefly replied.
The House then divided; when the numbers were-
- Contents - 21 Not Contenti
Proxies - - 141 Proxies

- , . 20

-.13

33

Majority for th,
The Bill was accordingly mat
be committed on Monday selrini;
The House adjourned at HAL

le 2d reading 2.
d a second time, and ordered t°
ight.

-X
-PAST TEN O'CLOCK.

.HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Lord STANLEY moved the third reading of the Jude
Lodgings (in Lancaster) Bill: „
General GASCOYNE wished the parties interested
Bill to have time to e?tpresi their opinion to the House, oat.
`moved the postponement of the third reading to Tuesday,
After some conversation in which Lord Stanley, Mr. Java:'
Mr: Bootle Wilhtaham, Mr: Curteis, Mr. Gladstone, and Other
Members participated, the House divided upon the cp4estw„
for the third reading.
For the third Reading - 41
' Against it' - -
• Majority - -17
Mr. S. RICE presented a petition,
_praying for leave to Pr.e;
sent a petition for the incorporation of an Insurance Comp%
in-Ireland.--Leave was given, aid the petitionpresented 3F
COrdingly.
•

ILL.
Mr. Sheriff WHIT TAX ALIENR
appeßared at the Bar of the Muse'
with a petition from the Lord ,Mayor, Aldermen; and COI:
mons of the City of London in Common Council iiiisemble°
praying that the Alien Bill might not be renewed.
• •
Mr. Alderman WOOD having moved the reading of the
etition, assured the House that it had been voted by a 14,0`
11. e
..
body of .the Corporation, who considered that as than
ancestors had come from foreign countries, and procured Oen
wealth and fortune by bringing their art, science, and knot"
ledge to this countr_y, aliens ought not to be subjected to the
law now before the How!.e.

Mr. Alderman HEYGATE thought that the powers of the
Bill had been exercised with the greatest mnderation by 'the
GoVernnient, and that those aliens who:benefitted the country
by the exercise of their skill and knowledge did
~not feel ug,
grieved at its provisions. Without it he was convinced the;
this country would become the focus of conspiracy, which would
not only be directed to foreign Governments, but becOur
•dangbrous•to her own ConStitution.
• After a 'few words from Mr. C. SMITH the petition w
ordered to be printed. as
SUSPENSION BRIDGE,
The Sheriffs appeared at the Bar with a petition from,
same bndy„ objecting to, and praying inquiry upon the
for erecting 'a New Bridge, at St. Catharine's.
Upon the motion of Mr. Alderman Wow), the petition, We
read, and
Mr. Alderman SMITH made a few inaudible remarks.
Sir J. YORKE knew nothing of the parties concerned
the Bill, but he had to request of the Commons of England r!
to allow the vicinity of the metropolis to be disgraced by "
dis-sightly an object as a bridge of tension banging up in
air-like a great umbrella, covering acres of water.--(A laug,
Mr. H. SUMNER supported the Bill, and said he could
help thinking that the petition had been got-up by intew ,
persons.

Mr. C. CALVERT knew nothing about the intended.britlgc'
but as it Would interfere with the property of some of his eel'-
stituents, he was instructed to oppose it.
Mr. J. SMITH thought the measure ought to be fully cQI/-
sidered before it was objected to.
Mr. HUME was surprised to hear the Hon. Baronet object
to the bridge on account of the principle of Vuspension, wiieh it
was known to have succeeded so well.
'Sir I. COFFIN declared his opinion to be, that any bridge
made in any river was an impediment to navigatimi.—(A laugh.)
Upon the motion of Alderman WooD, the petition ivM- 19t'
dered to be printed.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from
Wm. Pontefax against the removal of Fleet-tparket.—baid on
the table. • ' '

ST. CATHERINES' DOCK BILL.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said that he liAd several petitions to
present to the House against the St. Catherines' Dock Bill.
Morning Paper had stated that he was the author of the bill, an
he wished it to be known that he was riot aware of its existence
until after it was in the House.. The HOn: Member then pre'
sented"petitions from 1,100 poor mere who would. be thrown out
of employment by the bill ; from the Commissioners of Sewers;
from 'the Leaseholders and Ocetipiers of IlouSes upon the
spot, and from the Proprietors 'of the same;' and from the
Owners and Occupiers of Warehouses,—all praying that the
Bill might not pass'into a Law. • •
Similar jaetitions Were pi6sened from Mr. Hoge by 3X,