The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-05 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1824.

PAItLIANIENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAT 4.

riaSgeevßerialll—pevitzit.i,obnys
twheerenpisrhesoepnot against the Unitarian Mar-
of New Sarum; fedSALISIIITRY, from the Clergy
By the Bishop of CHESTER, from the Clergy
of the City and County of Chester; from the Clergy of Borough-
bridge, in Yorkshire ; from the Clergy of Bolton-le-moors ;
from the Clergy of Rochester; and from the Archdeacon and
Clergy of the diocese of Bath and Wells. A petition in favour
of the Bill was presented by Lord DacnE, from a place in the
county of Cambridge.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the
Churchwardens, Overseers, and other inhabitants of the parish
of Clerkenwell, praying for the Abolition of Slavery.
The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from a
number of Inhabitant Householders of Hampshire, against the
Assessed Taxes.
. The Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition from the
Judges, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Mayo,
against the Repeal of the Bountles'on the Exportation of Linen
and the Transit Duties onForeignllinen.

SILK LAWS.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose to call their Lordship's
attention to a bill which he meant to introduce for the repeal of
certain laws relative to the Silk-trade. The bill he would sub-
mit to their consideration was the same as that which last ses-
sion of Parliament had passed the Commons, and come before
their Lordships from that House, with the, exception of the
manner in which the Irish acts were recited. The present mo-
ment was most favourable for proposing the present measure,
as those persons who were last year the principal supporters of
the restrictions on manufactures and trade had now abandoned
their opinions. Ile might, therefore, have proposed this bill
without saying a word on the subject, were it not that he
thought it right to account for his own- conduct in introducing
it at this moment, by adverting to the change of opinion which
had so generally taken place. If he was at all rightly informed
with respect to the sentiments of the journeymen of Spitalfields,
they would rather see all the laws on the subject of the silk
trade repealed, than experience the operation of an act which
relieved the master from the necessity of employing the whole
of his capital. He certainly did not share the opinion of those
persons who thought that the bill passed this session would pro-
duce the total destruction of the silk manufactures, but he
agreed with those who would prefer the repeal of the whole re-
strictions at once to allowing the period fixed by the bill. The
little knowledge he had of the silk-manufactures was sufficient
to convince him of this. He knew that the manufacturers
looked up to the demand of the months of February, March,
and April, as conclusive of the state of trade. Hence it fol-
lowed that the first experiment which was to take place under
the new act in 11126, would be made at the same time as the
. French importations.
The Earl of HARROWBY said a few words relative to
the proceedings with respect to the former bill which had
passed on the report of a-committee : lie also questioned the
extent of the alteration in the opinions of the Spitalfields
journeymen.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE observed, that the report of
the committee was in favour of the bill of last session. A§ to
whether the opinions of the journeymen had changed.or not, it
would be sufficient for him to refer to the appearances of the
neighbourhood of that House, He would ask their Lordships
whether they had that day seen army thing like the assem-
blage of persons which the proceedings of last year, or even
of the commencement of the present session, had occasioned.
It was certain, that the opinions of the friends of restric-
tions out of doors, as well as of their supporters in Parlia-
ment, had undergone an alteration:—The bill was then read a
first time.
Lord CA RBERY presented a petition from the High Sheriff
and inhabitants of the County of Cork, -against the repeal of the
Linen Bounties.
UNITARIAN MARRIAGE BILL.
The 'Marquis of LANSDOWN moved that this bill be now
committed.
The Bishop of CHESTER, in justice to his own feelings
and the importance of the question, thought it necessary to say,
that after giving his most anxious attention to the subject of
this hill, lie was only the more confirmed in his opinion that
the Unitarians had no reasonable grounds for their objections
to the marriage ceremony. The words in question were the
words of Scripture, the words of our blessed Lord himself, and
could not he altered without compromising the doctrines and
the dignity of the-Establiahed Church. That the Unitarians
had objecting to the words-used in the marriage
ceremony
from this circumstance--that they them-
selves adopted the same words in their baptismal ceremony. If
t n o
wars
evident for .
any Noble bord would simew him any just reason for the objec-
tion of the Unitarians, lie wottld give his consent to the bill.—
wniorligattill.vbew-owrdanstiwngasin what was due to
then
Iris
Church opinion,
o f indispensable, for
ha dignity if she did not take every proper opportunity to de-
ainysG been hrist The character of the. Church
that of a tolerant church, and he
admitted that their Lordships
oclfa England
woliaantdh ielrodfa always
wi
were called upon to grant liberty
of worship to all sects; hut the Church was not therefore to be
required to give up her doctrines and discipline. If the mar-
riage ceremony was to be altered, it was not easy to see what
might be the consequence of such encroachments. If one stone
was to be removed after another, what would become of the
building ? lie trusted that their Lordships would not agree to
any infringement of the doctrines and discipline of the Church
of England—of a church time interests of which were so closely
and inseparably interwoven with the best interests of the State.
Convinced that the liberty or.conscience was not violated with
respect to the Unitarian-by the law as it at present existed, he
should oppose the motion for now committing the bill, and
move that it be committed this day three months.
The Bishop of EXETER was of opinion that persons who
did not believe in certain doctrines ought not to be compelled to
join in ceremonies depending on those doctrines, and would
therefore vote for going into the Committee forthwith. In the
Committee he should wish to propose some amendments, the
object of which would be to assimilate the Bill as much as pos-
sible to the act for-amending the Marriage Act which passed
last session, with respect to the prevention of clandestine mar-
riages, by imposing certain penalties. He would also propose
an amendment on time subject of registration of marriages.—
He thought that the Unitarians ought to be allowed to keep
their own registers. •
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S supported the amendment
moved by the Bishop_ of Chester, but spoke in so low a tone of
voice that it was difficult to - collect even a sentence or two of
what he said. He observed, that the doctrines to which the
Unitarians objected were those of the majority of Christians,
and what all members of the Church of England must consider
to be essential to Christianity. He could not consent to the giv-
ing up of a point of so much importance, which involved the
denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures them-
selves might as well be objected to as the marriage-service of
the Church of England.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said it was certainly
true, as had been observed, that the Unitarians denied the
doctrine of the Trinity ; but he wished those who opposed the
Bill to consider -well what it was foA which they contended.—
Was it their wish to enforce a seeming acquiescence in doctrines
against the consciences of men ? The consequence of main-
taining such a practice must be, that ceremonies would be ad-
ministered-in one sense, and received in another. What was
this but a system of the grossest prevarication ? For these rea-
sons he was desirous ofseeing this Bill in the Committee, where
it might receive such' corrections as it was susceptible of.
The Bishop of ST.•DAvtD's and the Archbishop of CAN.
E un HY interchanged a few words in explanation. .
The Marquis of LANSDOWN stated, that a complete mis-
apprehension prevailed out ofthe House of the purpose of .the
Bill, and of time law of the country. It had been said, that
• the law should be allowed to remain in the same state as it was
in the reign of King William ; but it should he known that, if
it had remained in that state, there would have been no occa-
sion for the Dissenters to ask or obtain relief. It was only
through an innovation in that law. by the Act of Lord Hard-
wieke, commonly called time 26th of Geo. 11., that the Dissenters
were placed under the-difficulties which now forced them to
come forward. That Bill, instead of being a measure to pro-
cure religious assent, had for its object to prevent clandestine
marriages, and it was the provisions enacted for that purpose
which had subjected Dissenters to -the necessity of giving an
implied ascent to doctrines which they did not hold. It was
now proposed to relieve, -them, not by altering the Liturgy,
• not by any concession on the part :of the Church ,of England,

but by a mode which put them to all the trouble and.expence
of the measure. He had listened in vain on a former occasion
to the Noble and Learned Lord on the WoolsaCk to hear
whether the Unitarians were offenders against the laiss"; but
he knew that in Courts of Justice a clear distinction had always
been made between them and those who manifested a-blasphe-
mous intention to destroy Christianity. Ni-hat Would their
Lordships think when he should state.that what had been repre-
sented as a blow to the Established Church, had existed for
ears in the Church of Ireland, which was the same as that of
'ngland, only that the privileges enjoyed by Dissenters in that
country were much more extensive. For by the A cts of 1781, con-
firming one of Geo. 11. all marriages celebrated by Dissepters
in Ireland were valid. At the time that Act had been-pasiezi
by the Irish Parliament there was indeed a Protest, signed by
several Bishops, but it was on a principle exactly the reverse
of the opposition offered to the present Bill ; for its ground of
objection was that the Act -did not sufficiently assimilate Jae
amoadr r ie
sat
ag ebsl
so
hi
their isse nr
itge rhst
st. o
Ft hroosme the
the
em Churchomeot it ofw a
s England,
granted
that Unitarians might marry, he could see no difficulty in grant-
ing the relief which they claimed, and the Church of England
ought to disdain exacting a simulated admission of her tibc-
trines. To encourage equivocation was unworthy of a Chris-
tian and of a Protestant Christian. The Noble Marquis then
expressed himself disposed to agree to the amendments which
the Noble-Earl opposite (Liverpool) had suggested on a former
occasion and made the condition of his support, and to that-
announced by a Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) that
very evening.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not agree to the motion
for going into a Committee. He did not mean to say that it
was impossible to frame a Bill for the relief of the Unitarians,
but that the present Bill was founded on a principle which he,
as the protector of the Established Church, could not possibly
sanction. Should this country ever lose its Established
Church, toleration would lose its best protection. It was for
the interest of the Dissenters themselves, therefore, that he
protested against any thing which might have a tendency to
degrade the Church of England. The Noble and Learned
Earl then referred to the Bth of King William and the Scotch
Act, the severities of which against Unitarians were abhor-
rent to him, to !thew that their repeal had not entirely let
loose the professors of that doctrine, as it had been ima-
gined. He averred on his honour, that the individuals who
had introduced the repealing Bill had no such views. He then
alluded to a case which had come before him, in which Sir S.
Romilly had pleaded that the repeal only extended to those
persons who dissented from the Church, anti that the Statute of
King William, representing the Unitarian doctrine as contrary
to the Christian religion, its professorsstood on a different ground
from Dissenters, and were not rescued like them from the
operation of the law. On this point he trusted he had been
justified in refusing to decide. From the allusion made to
what had passed in Ireland it was pretty clear to do the same for
all Dissenters in this country. Indeed if the present Bill were
passed in behalf of the Unitarians, their Lordships could not re-
fuse a similar favour to other Dissenters. This was said to have
been done for the Jews and Quakers ; but what was the real case?
What had been done for them in 1756 ? A clause had merely
been introduced to say that the Bills then passed did not apply
to them. Would the Unitarians be content with such a Bill ?
If so, let them have it. But the effect of the state in which
the marriages of Jews and Quakers were left tended to create
doubts respecting legitimacy, and he had been so constantly
occupied for the last eighteen days in investigating a case
of that nature, and listening to arguments which their Lord-
ships would undergo half the tortures of the Inquisition rather
than to hear, that he thought it would be proper to introduce
a Bill to provide expedient regulations, and to settle the ques-
tion. If lie understood the doctrines of the Established Church,
it was impossible that a greater difference should prevail on
any point than that which existed between it and the Uni-
tartans. They must consider its professors to be idolaters ;
and was an lfnitarian to go to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and to tell him, " You hold the doctrine of the Trinity, which
Ae
ampleN t
would
thatsls ocdcoionitsirssitititp!riei.
uxoaayfinenti eadit
soienaxdattki
istemnfichgo:alni:on:::elticrtllihhty;
tilaeentiddliigtsee attaadii
to
deeply
as I say is idolatrous, give me your authority to contract mar-
riage?" The whole Bill tended to enlist the Church of Eng-
land in the service of the Unitarians. If they chose to place
themselves in the situation of Jews and Quakers, let it be
done ; but let not the Church of England be mule their hand-
maid. He had now done his duty, and discharged himself of
all personal responsibility. If their Lordships chose to pass
the measure, let them do so ; but he had no hesitation in say-
ing that it would be the worst Bill that they would have ever
passed.
iaiofpOteerLned on his way to the House a volume of that
hdebate,eloiard
lagwßamoiwainirni
ycea
iebt:orgl nteaohtaateen.
ti,fhrdol
at Lordshipsr former
tieeigu
ir sauntering
tgwl l
whom
with the question before them. It was this :—Cowper being at
hale coanllgedthSeasi
as he walked on the sand. He wished to know the object of his
meditations, accosted him, and asked him what lie was thinking
of ? when the other replied, that he was considering how so dimi-
nutive a production as a sprat could come from so great and
unwieldy an element. He (Lord H.) took the converse of the
proposition, and wondered how the present miserable Bill,
that sprat in legislation, could have excited so much attention,
so much alarm, as even to bring the powerful mind of the Noble
and Learned Earl on the Woolsack into action. He should
recommend to that Noble and Learned Lord in point of policy
not to ery " wolf" at every mouse. Any stranger entering
their walls would be surprised to hear that the only question
after all was, whether the Unitarians should be allowed to
marry as they did before 1756, or as they did now in Ireland !
The Noble Lord then complained that some Right Rev. Pre-
lates, taking upon themselves to explain the scruples of others,
had asserted that the Unitarians could feel none on that occa-
sion. He knew no better way of judging of the feelings and
scruples of other men than their own professions. He con-
tended that if the Unitarians employed the same words as the
Liturgy, they employed them in another sense, and only on
the occasion in which they had been used by our Lord Jesus
Christ. To say that they need not take them in the sense in
which they were uttered at the altar was to encourage the worst
kind of preyarication. The Noble and beamed Earl had said
that the Church of England would be turned into the hand-
maid of Dissenters if she registered their marriages. What
was she when she not only registered their marriages but per-
formed the ceremony ? Was she not more than their handmaid ?
did she not prostitute herself to their service ? Yet this was
her office as the law now stood. The Noble Baron then alluded
to the refusal of the Noble and Learned Earl on two former
occasions (the discussion on the Alien Bill, and that on the
Bill forsonfining Napoleon Buonaparte) to explain who were
aliens, and whether Napoleon was a prisoner of war. Rut
now when the question was to pass a little act of indulgence,
he had no hesitation in crying out " Stop !" and not'stiffering
one step in indulgence to be taken. lie (Lord II.) supported
the Bill, not only because it would give the Unitarians the, re-
lief to which they were entitled, but because it did not take
one privilege from, or add one burden to,
,the Church of
England.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL could not conceive one scintilla
of ground op which the present Bill could be injurious to the
Church of England. It would only replace the Unitarians in
the situation in which they stood antecedently to Lord Hard-
wicke's Act. He agreed with the Noble Baron opposite that
the scruples of others were to be judged accordins to their
feelings. Those which the Unitarians entertained with respect
to the BePediction he perfectly understood,' by considering
how he would like to receive a blessing in the name of Jupiter,
111ahomet, or any other god or prophet in whom he did not be-
lieve. Provided it could be done with proper securities against
clandestine marriages and fraud, he should see in principle no
objection to letting Dissenters be married according to their
own rites, provided both parties should be Dissenters, for it
was there that he wished to draw the line of distinction. As
to the Act of 1812, it was passed by Parliament to relieve the
Unitarians from the difficulties and dangers to which they were
subjected by the state of the law up to that period, and had
been hitherto so understood. If any doubt had since arisen,
in justice to them it ought to be immediately corrected.—
His Noble and Learned Friend said, put the Unitarians on the
same footing as the Jews and Quakers ; this was a question
for the Committee, as well respecting the registry of marriage.
He did not think it a wise policy in those who wished, to sup-
port the Church of England to strain every measure into a
question of danger. Ile believed on the contrary, that ht grant-
ing all that it was just to grant, her security would best e foonn-
suited,. and considering the present measure to be (0413dea
sound principles, it should have his support. r •
epelled the
The Bishop of CHESTER explained,
charge of equivocation brought against the .Candlinrch
in the act
of performing-the Marriage Service to Dissenter
a t the Church
Idord' 1301.414 A ND explained, and state

PRICE SEvENPIMCg.

forced others to equivocate, in. requiring them-to-assent to dec.:
trines which they were aware they did not believe.
The House then divided on the amenchnent of the Btsi,d?
of Chester—
Contents—present, 55 ; Proxies, 50 Bks
Non.:contents.;--present, 41; Proxies, 2C - 66
• Majority for the amendment. - • ---43 g
The Bill wits in consequence lest.—Adjourned at
PAST EIGHT.