The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-27 00:00:00

THE DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE BILL.

The Marquess of LANSDOWN, in moving that
the House should go into a Committee on the Dis-
senters' Marriage Bill, wished to avail himself of
that opportunity to make some observations• on the
Bill. Before he entered upon these observations, he
must remark upon, the irregular discussion which had
just gone by, not for the purpose of adding anything
to what had been already said upon that subject,
but as an illustration of the inconvenience of enter-
ing upon the discussion of subjects of which notice
had not been previously given. He adverted
to this inconvenience, es it had deprived him of
the advantage of the support of the Right Rev.
Prelate at the head of the Bench of Bishops,
who had attended that evening for the . ex-
press purpose of supporting the DisSenters' Mar-
riage Bill, but who was prevented from remaining
in the House by the state of his health. Their
Lordships, who had remembered the sentiments of
that Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canter-
bury) on a former occasion, must bear testimony to
the spirit of toleration, which he hoped would always
characterize the Clergy of the Established Church,
and by which he was particularly anxious to see the
Heads of that Church distinguished. He was in-
structed by that Right Reverend 'Prelate, on his
leaving the House, to say, that his sentiments re-
mained unaltered upon this subject. Bills contain-
ing provision 'for the relief of the Dissenters, had
been two or three times sent up to that House from
the House of Commons, and rejected by their Lord-
ships ; but he was happy to say that a very general
feeling prevailed Amongst many of those who had
formerly opposed those Bills to give some relief , to
the Dissenters ' • and he believed he might even say
that the Right Reverend Prelates had expressed an
anxiety to adopt some measure by which the Dissen-
ters might be freed from the necessity of giving ut-
terance, as a mere matter of form, to sentiments
which they entertehied not at heart; and, at the same
time, to avoid that scandal to the Church which re-
sulted from having its creed and its ceremonies pros-
titeted in the- calling upon Dissentrs, for temporary
purposes, to give a false and feigned assent to doc-
trines which they declared they did not believe.—
That was the situation of the Church, and the evil
from which the Right Reverend Prelate and other
,biembers • of the -Reeleeierstipal Body* wished Lb
be relieved. A Noble Earl, lately at the
head of his Maje§ty's Government (Lord Liver-
,
pool), and who, he was authorised in saying,
felt deeply the inconvenience which resulted
from the state of the laws affecting the Dissenters,
had expressed an opinion that the dif,ficelty might be
best met by allowing some alteration to be made in
the service of the Church of England, but the Right
Reverend Prelates thought otherwise upon that sub-
ject, and no attempt was made to carry that sugges-
tion into execution. Different plans had been sub-
mitted to their Lordships and rejected. The Bill
which he had now to bring ender their conaideratipn
attempted to reconcile as far as possible the jarring
opinions which prevailed, and proposed to meet the
objections made at various times to the measures
which came under their Lordships' attention. Its
object was to unite two objects—that of making the
ceremony of marriage a civil security, combined with
the strongest attention to those religious ceremonies
by which it was sanctioned. In this country, up to
the times of the 26th of George the Second, those
objects had been very imperfectly provided for; but
an innovation upon the existing law, commonly
called Lord Hardwicke's Act, then received the
sanction of the Legislature. At the time when
Lord Hardwicke introduced that measure to their
Lordships, it became necessary, however, to exempt
two classes of religious believers from its operation
the Jews and the Quakers; but he apprehended
that no man could rise up in that House and con-
tend that this exemption was intended to fix any
slur upon the marriage .of those persoPs? ox to de-
clare that they )were not perfectly legal. Some in-
sinuations had, he knew, been thrown out from au-I
thority of great importance, that the marriage of
those opulent, industrious people, the Quakers—a
people remarkable for the purity of their lives, and
the extent of their good works, could not be legally
recognised; but he apprehended that there could be ,
no doubt upon the subject;; and some of the greatest
and most learned Lawyers of which this country
could boast, had distinctly declared their opinion that
the marriage of Quakers was perfectly legal. Sir M.
Hale had distinctly given his sanction to the lega-
lity of the marriage of Quakers. Burnet, in allu-
ding to the circumstance, gives this account of the
conduct and expressions of that eminent perion on
the oeca.siou :---" In a trial that was before him,
when a Quaker was sued for some debts owing by
his wife befOre he married her, and the Quaker's
Counsel pretended that it was no marriage that had
past between them, since it was not solemnized ac-;
I cortling to .the rules of the Church of Bngland ; Sir
Math.aty Hale declared that he was not willing, on
his own opigion, to make their children bastards, I
and gave directions to the Jury to find it special;
which they did!' the Noble Marquis, after some
observations upon the legality of the marriage of the
Quakers, proceeded to contend that he: was entitled
to claim the sa,rne right for the Unitarians. Advert-.
ing to the clauses of the Bill, the Noble Marquisl
! declared that he did not hoitil himself responsible fc?:
their perfection ; but he knew that those who
framed them had the assistance of some d those
whose experience and information best qualified 1
them for the task. • In the first place, the'
banns were to be published for to ,security of the
, public, and then the parties are to go befmy .21 Ma-
gistrate and procure a certificate that they have com-
plied with certain forms specified in the Act; that
certificate is then to be carried to the clergyman for,
the purpose of being registered. . Some objections,
lie understood, were made to the imposition of this
duty upon the clergyman ; ,but lie,, for one, thought
it was one of those inconveniences which could net
be avoided. The Registry Act had been passed in
1
the rime of William 111. as a tax, for the purpose'
of raising money to carry on the war then waged
against „Louis XIV. lA,- so beneficial had it since
been found for the interests of the public, that, if
the' Bill now before the House did 'not contain a
clause to make that registry imperative, he .could
'not possibli COUsient to give it his' support. The i
registration of one of. the ,en.est important acts of our
lives was, in every point of view, t nplic or private,
of such infinite importance; that 'he thought the

Bill must prove altogether inefficient, unless the
clergyman was called upon to register the certificate.
—The Noble Marquis concluded by imploring their
Lordships to relieve the Church of England from the
effect of a state of things which was calculated, not
to attract, but to repel all converts to its doctrines.
The Earl of ELDON regretted the absence of the
Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury)
on this occasion, because it was his misfortune to be
compelled to say, that he differed with him very
much in the view he took of this subject. He wished
in the first place, to separate tram the consideration
of the question every thing which had been said with
regard to the state of the Jews and the Quakers.—
In his opinion the state of the Jews had no possible
connection with the subject before their Lordships.
It might, perhaps, be. different with regard to the
Quakers; and he would here take leave to make an
observation or two upon what had fallen from the
Noble Marquis when he spoke of a doubt having
been thrown out respecting the validity of a Quaker's
marriage. If that doubt related to any thing which
had fallen from him, he desired to say that he must
have been completely misunderstood ; for he had
distinctly given it as his opinion, that the marriage
was perfectly valid according to law. He was the
more anxious to say this, because he was aware that
doubts might have been raised from the nature of the
law on that subject. In 1661, they would find that
the result of a proceeding at law admitted the vali-
dity of'such marriages ; but in 1730, in another pro-
ceeding at common law, a doubt was cast upon the
legality of a Quaker marriage, although its validity
was afterwards confirmed upon a rehearing of the
cause. The 7th and Bth of William and Mary con-
tain,however, a clause which decides the question,and
by which for the purposes of taxation, all persons living
together'are declared to be held as married persons,
whether they haire been married or not married ac-
cording to the established forms. With respect to the
marriages of Jews, a question arose in the Court of
Chancery as to their validity so lately as the time when
Lord Roszlyn was Chancellor. A man claimed a legacy
as due to him on the ground of its having been left to a
person whom he called his wife. The persons were
a Jew and a 'Jewess, and the question in this case
was, whether the legatee was his wife. The Lord
Chancellor directed this question to be tried by the
Ecclesiastical Court, and the case came on before
the present Lord Stowell. Lord Stowell, and also
Sir W. Wynn, who afterwards affirmed the judg-
ment of Lord Stowell, expressed their surprise that
this case should have been sent to the Court of
Chancery, inasmuch as the Lord Chancellor had just
as much right as an Ecclesiastical. Court to decide
incidentally on the validity of a Jewish marriage, as
on that of a foreign marriage. They decided, how-
ever, that a marriage of Jews was to be considered
as a marriage of foreigners out of the country. Now
the validity of a foreign marriage must be. decided
by the lex loci; but it is a.maxim of law, that the
Jews, who are every where, are, in effect, no where.
As the Jews, therefore, have no place in this coun-
try, as they have no locality, no lex loci can apply
to their case, but the validity of their marriages
must be determined by their conformity with their
own peculiar laws. Whatever the Legislature had
done with regard to the marriages of Jews and
Quakers, whatever it might be disposed to-do with
regard to the marriages of Dissenters, he trusted it
would never assent to any measure, the effect of
which would be to degrade the Church of England
in the public estimation. With respect to the
marriages of Quakers, he was certainly of opinion
that their marriages might be considered legal, under
the exception of the 26th George 11. But let their
Lordships consider at what period of the Session
it .was that they were discussing, and were
called upon to decide this most important question.
He (Lord Eldon) had given the greatest attention
to this Bill ; he had weighed every sentence and
line in it, but he found it utterly impossible to assent
to the passing of this Bill without a great number of
alterations. Now, if, labouring as he (Lord E.) had
done, with a view to make this Bill better than it
was, he had been unable to accomplish his object,
lam, aid 4.1111.1, that -no --vim. crcirclnrciroar -t-Vrc-Vr-lE.,nrcitsletirer

could bestow upon it would enable them to execute
their work as, in his judgment, it ought to be exe-
cuted. Besides, if their Lordships introduced amend-
ments, the amendments of this most important Bill
would go down to the House of Commons on Fri-
day, and on that very evening the other House of
Parliament must decide upon the propriety of all of
them, for their Lordships were perfectly aware that
no other opportunity would be afforded for consider-
ing them. The time, therefore, at which this mea-
sure was brought under the consideration of their
Lordships, was a sufficient ground for not passing it,
even if the objections to it were less strong than he
believed he should be able to satisfy the House they
were. It had been argued that it was but just to do
for Dissenters of this description what the Legisla-
ture had done for Jews and Quakers. But,admitting
that the marriages of Jews and Quakers were valid un-
der the exception in the Marriage Act, he begged
to ask their Lordships whether the Church of Eng-
land had ever been called in to assist iry those mar-
riages ? In the time of the Commonwealth, when
men were married, as it was now proposed,
before Justices of the Peace—a measure adopted
for the express purpose of degrading the Clergy
—the Clergy were called upon to aid and assist
in their own degradation. If their Lordships should
think it right NI do that for Dissenters generally which
had been done for Quakers, let them do so, but then
they must do more than was proposed to be done
.by this Bill. He begged to call their Lordships'
attention a little to what this Bill did, and to what
it did not. In the first place, he should be glad to
know who the persons were whom this Bill pro-
posed to relieve ? What an Unitarian was had
never vet been explained. He had taken occasion
last year to ask a Right Reverend Prelate, who was
now unfortunately absent, what was an Unitarian,
and he could get no answer. Since that time he
had been present at a sermon, preached by a Minis-
ter, before an Unitarian congregation, and the first
words he heard from the lips of the preacher were—
" The Lord Chancellor asks what is an Unitarian 1"
This was, certainly, rather a singular commencement
of a sermon; it wag, however, a very good sermon,
as far as he could understand subjects of that kind.
The sole reason which led him (Lord Eldon) to ask
the question—and if their Lordships, should.go into
the Committee, he Should ask it again--was, that it
might be recorded upon the face of this Bill what
an Unitarian Was. Was an Unitarian a person who
denied the divinity of our Saviour ? He should be
exceedingly glad to get a definition of an Unitarian.
He did not know what distinetion there was be-
tween Unitarians and the Free-thinking Christians
who entertained these scruples about marriages.
He begged their Lordships to 400 k at the language
of these petitioners, that they might judge of their
, claims to the special interposition of the legisla-
ture. The Noble Earl proceeded to read some pas-
sages from the petitions of the Free-thinking Chris-
tians, in
.whigi the petitioners stated that the religion
of thekstablishedelniichlia4 no higher date than that
of Popery,and that itslaWs had no nig erinthurity than
that of Acts of Parliament. What was the complaint
of these Free-thinking Christians? Their children were
baptisoaccor4iing to the forms of the Established
Church; they were baptised ip the name of the Fa-
ther, the Son, and the Holy Glidst, and he did not
keg that these Dissenters made any objection to the
baptismal ceremony. Wish respect to the mar-
riage ceremony, 1,7))41 was objected to was, he under-
stood, the mention '6e die Godhea4 under the
name of the Father, the Son, and the 'Hely Ghost,
when the Clergyman at the end of the ceremony
prayed the blessing o God upon the man and his
wife. The calling upon God to bless them under the
terms of the Father, the Song and the Holy Ghost—
(and every Christian of common honesty
when he said God bless you, meant the Godhead
in its Christian acceptation)—was what these per-
sons deemed so great a hardship. It was on such
grounds 414 their Lordships were called upon to
make a law, not for the benefit of all Dissenters of
bUt for this particular class of
D
according to all the evidence of
ahliisistseodryenlit,ciernrhsei:llda wtiliesh
doctrines of a more offensive descrip-

tion than any otter class. In his opinion, the best
security for a religious establishment was a religion
of the purest form, with a large, and liberal tolera-
tion. Such was the spirit- of the toleration granted
in the Act of the 53d of the late King; and he was
perfectly ready to admit, that the Acts of the 7th
and Bth enacted penalties on account of religious opi-
nions which ought never to have been thought of. By
the provisions of the Bill now before their Lordships,
the Clergy of the Church of England were called upon
topublish the bann s on the declaration of the parties that
they were Dissenters of this description. The Clergy-
man was to certify that he had published the banns to a
Justice of the Peace, and the Justice of the Peace
was to appoint some time and place where the mar-
riage ceremony, such as it was, was to be performed:
A question had been raised whether it might not be
necessary to substitute the words "reputed Justice'l
for Justice ; and, in point of fact, when the Nobki
Lord who held the Great Seal had had as much ex;
perience as he (Lord E.) had had—and he trusted
that he would hold it as long, and much longer than
he had done—he would find that cases might fre-
quently arise where, in consequence of certain infor-
malities, it was questionable who was or was not
a Justice of the Peace. The banns having been pub-
fished, the Justice of the Peace was to give a certi-
ficate that the parties had gone through certain
forms before him, and upon this certificate the
clergyman was to be called upon to register the mar=
riage. Now, he would put it to their Lordships,
whether a clergyman of the Church of England wall
not degraded and dishonoured, by being compelled
to act as a sort of clerk to a Justice of the Peace;
and whether the Lay Magistrate of the Church of
England was not also dishonoured, by being con-,
cerned in such a transaction. Suppose the clergyman,
as must frequently be the case, to be himself a Jus-
tice of the Peace; was lie to go through the species
of marriage ceremony, as a Justice of the Peace,
which, he could not possibly perform without 4
gross violation of his duties as a conscientiou4,
clergyman ? Was it contended that the scruples
of those Dissenters wlth denied the Divinity of oue
Saviour were to be respected, because. they could,
not in their consciences allow a Clergyman of the
Church of England to say to them, at the end oh`
,
the marriage ceremony, " God bless you, in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;" and
that they might then turn round upon the Clergy
man, and say, " You have published our banns
but you are also a Justice of Peace; and we choose!
you, in despite of any thing you may urge on the
score of your conscience, to perform our marriage
ceremony in that capacity ?" He was perfectly sa-
tisfied that their Lordships would not suffer the
.Clergy of the Church of England to be so degraded
and dishonoured. Did the Act contain any clause
which required the, observance of what was neces-
sary to be observed with respect to Licenses, and
with respect to the Canon Law ? Was there any
clause with reference to felony, without benefit of
Clergy; he meant the clause which related to
forging registers, making false entries, and similar
offences ? It would be necessary to guard against
clandestine marriages, and yet all which this Bill did
for that purpose was to call upon the Parish Cler-
gyman to publish the banns. Quakers and Jews
were generally married in full assemblies of their
connexion and friends; but by the proposed Bill,
the greatest door was opened to frauds. A. person
had nothing to do but to pretend to be a Unitarian,
to have his banns published, and then proceed to the
private room of any Justice of the Peace, who will
give him his certificate. He might put this
certificate in his pocket, if he chose to run the
risk of a penalty of. 20/., which a Justice might re-
duce to five pounds. Nobody could then prove
the marriage under the Act, because the party
was not in fact a Unitarian, but had only pretended
to be one. He not only objected to the Bill because it
was intended to put the Unitarians on the same
footing as Quakers, but he would go further, and say,
that if the House did intend to adopt the principles
of the Bill, its enactments were not calculated to
carry those principles into' effect. If the House

to its passing in the present Session. It would
want so many amendments, so many serious ahem-
tions, to make it a Bill such as it ought to be, that
it would be impossible to get through with it in the
present Session, and he should feel himself bound to
move, that it be read this day three months. He
thought it was a material objection to the Bill, that
it imposed upon men the necessity of giving direct
evidence to a fact which they did not know to be
true. At present the register of a marriage was
taken as evidence in a Court of Justice, because the
Marriage Act required the • Clergyman who cele-
brated the marriage to sign the registry. This we.
making the Clergyman certify what he knew to be
true. The same principle applied to baptism.. But
by the present Bill, a person might put the marriage
certificate in his pocket, and, defying proof, might
tell the female that he was not married, and that
her children were not legitimate. It was not neces-
sary for him to give any opinion updn the principles
of the Bill; the only thing to consider was, the tie.;
cessity of having time to consider how to make the
Bill upon its own principles effective. He trusted
that their Lordships would feel in favour of the old,
law of the land, and let the present Bill stand over
till next Session. If it were said that the parties
aggrieved by the present law ought not to be
allowed to continue so long under the injury they
suffered, he would ask, whose fault was that ? Year
after year this Bill was proposed to the House—the
same objections had been urged against it, and yet
its authors. continued to press the measure. Those
who did press it in its old form were alone to blame
if the relief they sought was deferred. The same
might be said of the repeal of the Test and Corpo-
ration Acts, Parliamentary Reform, the Corn Bill,
and various other Bills, which were yearly brought
forward in forms to which Parliament was known
to be averse. He entreated the House to let the
Bill stand till the next Session, and then he would
do his best to make it complete, upon the principles
which the House should think proper to impose.
Lord CALTHORPI said, that the chief reason
for his supporting the Bill was not exactly that
which had been given by the Noble Lord who had
proposed going into a CoMmittee. He (Lord Cal-
thorpe) was.inclined to think that the great practical
grievance was what the Church itself laboured under
as long as the law continued in its existing state.
With reference to the arguments urged by the
Noble and Learned Lord about the Bill being a
measure of partiality to the Unitarians, as a sect
distinguished from all other Dissenters, he had over,-
looked that no distinction existed between the Uni-
tarians and all other religionists whatsoever, except,
perhaps, the Jews. Upon this ground alone the
Unitarians might not have any plan upon the.eonsi-
deration of Parliament; but the:public had strong
claims that the Legislature should relieVe the Estab-
lished Church of the blasphemy committed lg its
Ministers in being called upon to pronounce, In the
most solemn manner' the doctrine of the Trinity, to
persons who did not believe in it, and to exact from
such persons an assurance of faith which they did
not possess. lie 'did not imagine that human inge-
nuity could have conceived a more Certain means, in
the present state Of society, which rejected coarse
and vulgar blasphemy, to make 'the Church degrade
and pollute itself, by mixing profaneness )7.00 its
Most sacred and' solemn 'setviee. tholight the
House owed it to the bonOur and dignity of the
Church not to allow.the present law to continue an-
otherand Learned Lord to be asking of politinint what was
year. The Unitarians were stated bythe Noble
not granted to Jews or Quakers; hat the fact was
that neither of the two litter sects are obliged to
submit to tbe marriage ceremony of the Church of
England, The Church was, therefore, bound to carry
on the iinpsition with respect to, Unitarians, whilst
it was relieved from thj degrading duty With respect
to JerN.
and Quakers'. Was it a proof of the high
reverence of the Church for her sacred doctrines, of
the Trinity, which was the vital principle of her faith,
that' she should call
upon her. Ministßla to declare
them, who were knoWn not to entertain any such
tenets ? It 'would be moit' disadvahtageous to the
her doctrines, and to oblige individuals to repeat

Church itself to suffer another Session to pass without
putting an end to the existing state of things with
respect to Unitarian Marriages. No one had a deeper
sense than he had of the religious errors of the Uni-
tarians; but, in the practice of the moral precepts of
Christianity, lie believed, they might well bear a
comparison with the most orthodox Christians; and;
for the sake of the Church Establishment itself, as
well as for their sakes, the grievance of which they
complained ought to be redressed.
Lord FARNHAM was willing to grant relief to
the Unitarians, as far as was consistent with safety
to our own religion. •
The LORD CHANCELLOR—My Lords, I
rise to address your Lordships with much reluctance,
and at a great disadvantage, after the most able and
effective speech'of my Noble and Learned Friend;
who lately, presided over your LOrdships' debates ;
but I feel myself called -on to remind Noble Lords,
that the objections so ably urged by my Noble and
Learned Friend -are not intended to disapprove off'
the principle of the Bill; but to oppose some of its
details, and that the present stage of the Bill, namely,
the motion for sending it to a Committee, was un-
derstood to be the occasion on which that discussion
of its principle was to take place, which, in correct
practice, might have occurred on the second reading:
If the result of this discussion of the principle should
terminate in your Lordships agreeing to the com-
mitment of the Bill, the' next duty of your Lordships
will be, to take the several details into your consi-
deration, and, if it be practicable at this period of the
Session, to amend the defective clauses. For my
part, approving, as I do, the principle of the mea-
sure, I am decidedly of opinion, that the Bill ought
to be now committed; but I assure your Lordships that
if I could be convinced that, by the passing of thisßill,
a degradation would be inflicted on the Clergy of the
Church of England, or a blow struck at her doctrines,
I should be the last man to support such a measure.
But when I see *the principle of the Bill approved by
a Rev. Prelate, not less distinguished for his eminent,
virtues than for his high ecclesiastical dignity—when;
I see also, not only its principle approved, but some of
its details prepared by another Right Rev. Prelate,
pre-eminent for his piety, his erudition, and general'
talent—can I, for a moment, believe,.that a measure,
countenanced by such high authorities, can be either
dangerous to the interests of the Church or degrading
to its ceremonial solemnities ? From such groundless,
apprehensions, allow me to turn your Lordships' at-'
tention to a brief account of the Law of Marriage.
It cleaily appears from the history of civil law, that
religious ceremonies were not necessary to consti-
tute the marriage contract in any country of Europe
before the Acts of the Council of Trent; and even
that after that period, marriage was held a civil con-
tract ,in those countries where the decrees of the
Council of Trent were not acknowledged. In this
country, among others, the matrimonial engagementi
was considered perfect without the supperadditionl
of any religious solemnity before the passing of the
Marriage Act. This proposition I hold, not merely
on my own conviction, but on the high authority of
one of the ablest and most learned characters that;
ever graced the seat of Judgment—l mean Chief
Justice Holt, who decided that a matrimonial en-
gagement, consisting of verba de presenti, was a
valid and binding contract—a decision, in which he
was supported, after due and solemn deliberation,
by the unanimous opinion of the whole Court oil
King's Bench; to the same effect, I have the au--
thority of a Noble and Learned Lord, lately at.the
head of the Ecclesiastical Court; himself, a light
and ornament of this House ; as eminent for the so-
lidity of his judgment, and his extensive knowledge,
of civil law, as he is for the classical purity of his?
taste, and his familiarity with elegant literature ; that'
Noble and Learned Lord also, when acting
•3n his'
high office of Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, set
forth those principles in the celebrated case of
" Dalrymple v. Dalrymple," adopted them as his
own, and sanctioned them by his decision—in the
case, I think it was, of Lord Fitzmorris, in which a
commission of review was sued out, of a marriage
contracted under the form called verbs de presenti;

valid. This was what was termed by Brackstone an
innovation of the Marriage Law of thecountry. I am
sure if that Noble and Learned Lord considered the
present Bill calculated to bring danger to the in-
fluence or disgrace on the solemnities of the Esta-
blished Church, he would have come forward to
meet it with the most decided and prompt opposi,
tion ; and I may be allowed to take his absence on
this occasion, as a proof that he entertains no such
apprehensions—that he expects no such conse-
quences from its enactment. As to the sect of
Quakers, the Marriage Laws affecting them remain
to this day, in the same state as that in which they,
were before the passing of the Marriage Act; and
the reason for which they were excepted from its
provisions had a reference to their conscience, arose
from the idea that they could not conscientiously
take any part in the ceremonies of the Church of
England—a fact that constituted an additional argu-
ment against the profanation of the ceremonials of
religion by the compelled declaration of belief in
doctrines which those declaring such acquiescence
are known not to entertain—(Hear)—or in the
mole eloquent expressions, " unhallowed equivoca-
tions," the abolition of which the Right Reverend
Prelate has declared to be his motive for sup-
porting the present Bill ; but I may be here
asked, why, then, were the Unitarians excluded
from the exceptive provisions of the Marriage Act ?
My answer is this, because the religion of the
tarians was, at the passing of that Act, held to be
(whether rightly or wrongly I will not now say)illegal.
As a proof of this, in the reign of William and Mary,
the Unitarians were excepted from the benefits of
the Toleration Act ; nay, more, nine years after that,
that exclusion was followed pp by the enactment of
penalties against them; this hostility to the Unita,
rians, then, clearly accounts for their exclusion•from
the exceptions of the Marriage Act. In the course
of time, however, the opposition to them consider-
ably diminished; and in the 19th Geo, 111. an Act
was passed to relieve them from several of their
civil disabilities and this was.followed by a subse.
quent Act, which went to repeal the remainder of
their political grievances. What, then, are we to
do now ? To consummate the work, I say, and
give back to them those benefits from which they
were excluded by the provisions of the Marriage
both here and elsewhere, on the
Unitarians, both
arguments have been raised against
Athfet.o
ground that the objections which they make are of
nq weight—for instance, to the baptismal ceremony.
Now, the Unitarians I consider a sect of Chris-
tians, believing in the New Testament, and dif-
fering from certain doctrines of Christianity, on
reasons derived from other parts of the New Tee
tament—they do, not object to that part of the
baptismal ceremony
which are introduced the
words, in the named the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost—nor have the b. ction to thg
• Ave y any o je
use of the words in the marriage service. They only
object to one word, but that word invOlves the es-
sence of their faith—rOod the Son—they do not be-
lieve in the Divinity of the Saviour or the Holy Spi-
rit—this is the foundation of their belief. Now then
can they be required to declare with truth, that theybelieve in a doctrine, which, as •Upitarians, they can-
not believe—bnt it 11,aS 1101 said, in a spirit of dis-
tinction, too snbole for my comprehension, that they
are not called on to declare their belief in the doc-
trines of the Church of England—they are cal) re-
quired to indicate their acquiescence in them by their
presence—if OfY Tcfuse to observe this form, they
are subjected to temporal disabilities.—if they attend,
and indicate by their presence an acquiescence in
doctrines which they do not really hold, is not that,
as the Right Rev. Prelate has eloquently described
` unjpilowed equivocation and'mockery. It is
it then, my Lerds;that the Legislature must do
something for the removal of this grievance and this
fanation—
pro a Bill passed the Commons last year,
but was lost in yew Lordships' House—another has
been brought up this year, in an amended form, the
other House of Parliament has twice
sanctioned the
principle of the present Bill. No objection has
been made to the principle by. your Lordships.
The objections urged by the Noble and Learned

Lord, apply partly or partially to the principle,
but mainly to its clauses—but these objections he
has interwoven so dexterously, that it would be a
task of no little difficulty to separate, and classify them
under their distinct heads. As to the objections to
the objectionable clauses, your Lordships will be
best able to discuss them, and meet the objections
to them in detail in the Committee, to which, 1
hope, your Lordships will send the Bill by your
vote of this evening. As to the principle of relief,
I support it on the law of marriage as it stood be-
fore the Marriage Act, and on the exceptive provi-
sions of the Marriage Act in favour of other sects,
on both which considerations I hold the Unitarians
to be entitled to relieffrom all those disabilities impoi-
ed on them by the Marriage Act, and the partial repeal
.of which has placed them in' a new situation in re-
ference to the enjoyment of political privileges.
One word on the details—as to the objection said
to be entertained to the publication of .the lawS of
marriage of Dissenters by the Clergy of the Esta-
blished Church; surely your Lordships will,not see
much offensive matter to the Clergy in that circum-
stance, when you remember that several trifling
matters of temporal interest, even the parochial
rates, are published by the Clergy from the altar-
Surely then it can be considered neither an offence
nor degradation to the Clergy to give public notice
of the marriages of a sect comprising a respectable
portion of society, of unexceptionable morality of
conduct, and high character, and whose members
have seats in the other Rouse of Parliainent, arta
are allowed to make laws for the Government of
the country. As to the objection against 'the
obligation. of the clergy of the Established Church,
how it can be said to degrade the clergy I cannot
see. The difficulty of the clergyman's registering °
marriage ceremony, the performance of which be
has not witnessed, I admit to be entitled.to all the
contideration which my Noble and Learned Friend,
who urged it, could desire, but I hold it to be
question peculiarly fitted for that active and deli-
' berate discussion which can only be obtained by
going into Committee; I submit, then, that your
Lordships ought to send the Bill into the Commit'
tee, where alone we can ascertain whether my
Noble and Learned Friends are or are net inset'
mountable. In that Committee I shall, in conjunc-
tion with the Noble and Learned Lord at the table
(Lord Tenterden) `.contribute my exertions to the
removal of those difficulties. If it should appear to
the Committee that we cannot get over the dif-
ficulties in the short space between this and the close
of the Session, I shall have no objection to consent
to a postponement of it to the next; but I would
respectfully impress upon your Lordships, taking
into consideration the feelings of the respectable
body interested in the fate of the Bill---a Bill whose
principle has been twice admitted by the other HoUie
of Parliament, the propriety of allowing this Bill to
pass to a stage expressive of your sanction to it°
principle. As to its details, if we cannot man-age
them in the present Session, we .shall be able CO
return to theni the following, with renewed vigour,
and calmer judgment.—(Loud cheers.)
The Earl of ELDON, in explanation, stated, that
his Noble Relative, Lord Stowell, was disabled otilf
by illness from attending the discussion of that
evening. Inadvertence . alone had prevented his
Noble Relative attending by proxy againet the wee"
sure, so strong did he know to be 'his Noble Rela-
tive's aversion to the Bill. As to the feeling of the
Clergy on the subject, he had the authority of
letter from a Dignitary of .Middlesex, for. saying;
that the Clergy considered the duties that wool
be imposed on them by the Bill, degrading and ir
sulting to the altar.
The Bishop of CHESTER felt himself bound t°
support the Bill, though he considered some of the
clauses to require amendment. Their errors, how-
ever, were such as might be rectified in Committee,.
through the assistance of the Noble and Learne°
Lord on the Woolsack. But even though their
Lordships should not be able to effect that purpo'
in the short remaining portion of the Session, the,
(-•
,flew,irc
tsht aant c
theires
Lordsir ghoiipnsg
wienrteo
.Cootmdmi
siitnteelei
nvie,donti:
grant them relief as far as was consistent with the
terms of the Church of England. The contract of mar
riage was a matter of natural necessity ; and ever'
in some cases, a Christian duty. The solemnivatl°:
of it, by religious ceremonies, was founded upon on,.
or other of two principles; -either on consideratioa!
of public policy, or with a view to attach greotsej
importance to it, and enforcing the more strict Oir_:
servance of it, by constituting it an act of religions
duty. The Church had nothing to do with the fit
principle, and as to the second, those who denic;
that religious solemnity was not necessary to.tt
validity of the contract, were borne out by that Par;
of the twenty-fifth of our articles, which states, st
matrimony, though an act of religious observance'
was not designated by any visible sign, form, or cere-
mony. It was also held, by Swinburne, that the
essence of marriage was the consent of the 'Artie:,
contracting, and that a Christian State ought not to
force on its subjects the observance of religious Ticere-
monies of marriage. His Lordship concluded
giving his support to the motion for the seco7
reading, but stated his intention to propose certall
amendments in a future state of the Bill. lioed
The Marquis ofLANSDOWNE was not ine
at that moment to oppose the principles of any
de-
tailed amendments which Noble Lords mightt Ott.
it
the Bill required. He was only
words in expl-
den the motion for
Lord CARBENY also aunP° might
g obs he
nugl d
broughtnbt eo committed
a forward.
Committee. when those amendments
.nxi
the bar.
nation, which were n
dvided when
Their Lordships t..en , there vver
idb lae few
below
• • •. 61 I Against it.... 54 I Majority•••
For the motion..
The Bill then passed through a Committee, seve-
ral verbal amendments were
The Earl of ELDOorausadi
agreed to, and the Re-
port was ordered to be received on Thursday next.
The Irish Butter Trade Act passed. through 9
Committee. Their Lordships resumed, and the
Report was' ordered to be received tomorrow-

SALE OR GAME BILL.
Lord The DO:: rRoEf the Day for their Lordships _re-
solving themselves into a Committee on the Sale 0
Game Bill, having been read,
but expressed his determination
again in the next Session of Parliament.
The Lordships were the'l
The other Bills before! . .
he.
forwarded in their re. speettve stage,,, after which t
iniennteadtiotonai:liNtavomitbherdiiiirtia.gw.ittfloler!irlj
Lordships adjourned

Ghoa os DEr r
beeno uc H ,
Lordship to the Archdeaconry of Carlisle, t°
which is attached the living of Great Salkeld, i"
Cumberland.
Bishop of Carlisle,presentedson byf 179

siideSr.alibli,EbeOin
the
auction of hops took place at the Three T
HOPS IN THE BOEQUGH.
~.is.ltli
t:vrhaeYniQlgasilsttuthoeetahtameteestal4tleiethmthe mil, Tuns Tavern, ,
Borough, yesterday. The quantity sold was not c°ll.,
only 81 pockets, and 45 bags ; but, see°
denting L
etn:auercrektieo:glnyeseeitit-e, Cooper, said, .10,
duty was estimated at 55,4001. ; it was now said tO,l,
only 50,0001. What was then the conjecture as t°„„;,,te
r3iddiaerys.ertvhreees attention.l
state of the bins atd the devastation of the fly wa,,";,-et
confirmed by the most recent accounts from Kent, woes
Sussex, Worcester, and, indeed, nearly all the hop Ply ~
tions. The newspapers had said a great deal about spec,le
lation ; but they were now convinced of the truth of ,
accounts of the blues, paragraphs having appeared in 1115
weeks) tb:tjel;
of ths papers confirmatory of them. The sale then Prof.
ce6ded, and notwithstanding the melancholy prologue 4
Mr. Cooper, very little disposition was evinced to b' ",1,1
for the lots. Teo, pockets Sussex hops, Barton, 109,1,70
for 355. per cwt., after a great struggle to obtain ti_i_j,
price ; 29 pockets Sussex, which had been re-packed, PA
in the auctioneer's phrase, were anonymous (the growd
name not being known), sold for 40s. In consequent,: ty,
there being no excise mark on this lot, the hops canns°, 1111
exported ; but the purchaser was guaranteed a ,
gnati,nlSo'
penalty on the score of duty. Fifteen bags 4)215. °
only 16s. ; 12 ditto, Hawkhurst, Kent, 1819, ; A,
ditto, Staplehurst, Kent,
1819, and' 18 pockets, Wel
or
church, Kent, 1819, brought 218. per cwt. ;
and 30
Headcorn, Kent, 1819, were sold for 150. per cwt,

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.

FRENCH PAPERS,.

(From the .Etoile, dated Monday, June 24.) , ,
PARIS, JUNE 24.—Accounts from Trieste say, that
letters from Syra, of the 23d of May, state that General
Church bad been able to collect four thousand men
in the Pirxus, where he has entrenched himself; he
besides, sent five thousand men to the defiles, to
'ntercept the supplies of provisions which cam,: to the
~,
4ttrits from,Negropont. Lord Cochrane was ready to set
840 from. Poros, with the Hellas frigate, and' other vessels.
Thesteam-boat had taken five Turkish vessels, laden with
r'uviSions and ammunition, and sunk a corvette.

The crew, composed of Europeans of different nations,
demanded at Poros its share of the booty, according to the
!Ireernent made at Marseilles with Lord Cochrane, but lie
having refused it them, they quitted the service of Greece, ,
and were landed at Svra. Ibrahim Pacha continues his
ravages along the coasts of Arcadia ; 8,000 persons have
taken refuge in the Castle of Chiarenza, and have refused
the proposals of capitulation which.have been made.
We learn also. that the English Consul at Tripoli has
lent a vessel to Malta, to announce his misunderstanding
With the Dey.
The Marquis de Lafayette has been proclaimed Deputy
for the Arrondissement of Meaux, by a majority of 141
votes out of 281. M. Trouchon obtained 189 votes.
AL de Castelbajac, 'son of the Director-General of
,the
Customs, has died lately. He was a young man of great
Promise.

LIES OF THE DAY.
The Quotidienne.—A celebrated banker of Paris has
prevailed on the Ministry to defer the censorship till after
the settlement for the month, and this desire has been sup-
Potted by the Syndicate.
The Same.—The Etoile confirms to-day, in an adver-
ttsenrent,• that it is going to be changed into a Morning
Per.
The Same.—The Etoile has several times announced
the dissOlution of the Army of Observation of his Majesty
the King of Spain."'
The Constitutionnel.—The Etoile has declared it to be
false that reforms were to take place in the School ci Arts
at Clialons.f - •

(From the Constitutionnel of Monday.)
MADRID, ,Jusrr 14. —(Private Letter.)—The disease
which mauifeated i;self 'among the Army of Observation,,
appears to have made rapid progress. Five physiciansieft,
this since the 11th, for the head-quarters of General San!-
field,z.who is going to. march the greater part of his army'
to the mountains of Montauches, the most airy situation of
tstremadura.
Letters from that pro Vince mention, that already many
tents have arrived from Badajos, for the formation of a
hospital in the open air.
It appears that there was lately some apprehension of
disturbances at Aranjuez, because the police of Madrid has
sent a great number of its agents to the latter town, who
have already seized many pasquinades, or libels. The fol-
lowing is a specimen :
Mas queremos a Fernando bruto
Que a' Carlos as' tuto."
" We prefer Ferdinand the. brute,
To Don Carlos the astute. 7
The e Ministers, tired of 'acting as mere clerks to Colo-
,-Lar'e,' Who alone approaches the King's person,' and.
through whose intervention they were obliged to send their ,
reports to his Majesty, have jointly addressed a petition to
e Sovereign, to request him to consent that each of them
"'Add submit the affairs of his department to him. This
turn
gee, with which Mr. Lamb is not altogether uneon-
-teted, renders a change of Administration probable.,
(From the Journal des Debats of Monday.)
4.4-snatn, JUNE 14.-It seems that Mr. Lamb has not
"nsideted the distemper, which has manifested itself in our
1..4114Y of observation, a sufficient motive for arresting their
ade'movement; for he strongly urged the execution
of
t.,..t'te treaty on this subject; and accordingly, this day or
''"'lnorrow, at farthest, new orders will be sent to General
field to effect his retreat. It is, •. however, believed
--"`' he will not be obliged to resume his former canton-
Inellts, but that he will be at liberty to take such steps as
heh 41aY choose, provided that on all points the army shall
e three Spanish leagues distant from the frontiers.
of a change of Ministry, and,
AT TeY are again speaking
Offalia and Recacho are to form
,the new. one, the
(sealer for Foreign Affairs, and the latter for the 'lnterior.
i
do not guarantee to you such a change immediately; still
i,sn assure you that Mr. Lamb is doing every thing in
m's power to bring it about, and receives very powerful
484istance in his endeavours, from some influential Members
13f the Camarilla.

(From the Journal des Debats)
PA R 1:, Jc ?3.—Yesterday the Electoral College of,
7 Meaux continued its deliberations. The number of voters,
'I"
280 ; absolute majority, 141. On the first ballot the
If/v° opposition candidates, M. Tronchon and General La..
lrette, obtained, the one 138, the other 132 votes. The
resident of the College, General Courtier, had only
'ig},t votes.
roue of the candidates having obtained an absoiute
41 4j°rity, a new ballot took place. The number of elec-
tot' Was 281 ; absolute majority, 141. General Lafayette
at/tined 141 votes ; M. Trouchon 139. Consequently,'
e-eral Lafayette was proclaimed Deputy.
\l'rc'tn the 3foniteur of Monday, June 25.—Official Part. )

" ORDINANCES OF THE KING.
" I. Charles, by the Grace of. God, &c.
c` Seing article 4 of the law of March 17, 1822, •
``
We have ordained, and ordain as follows :
h``laws of the 81st of March, 1820, and
th of July, 1821, are again in force, dating from thit
ay.

Art. 2. Our Minister Secretary of State of the In-
7r, is charged with the execution of the present or-
11e.e.

' Given at St. Cloud, June 24, 1827, the third year
our
• reign.

" By the King, " CHARLES.
" The Minister 'Secretary of State for the Home
Department, " CORBIERE.
4` The Minister Secretary of State for the Finances, Pre-
sident of the Council, TH. DE VILLELE.
" The Keeper of the Seale, Miditter of Justice,
" DE PEYRONNET.

, " 11. Charles, &c.
lord Seeing our ordinances of this day concerning the en-
-I,',ng of the laws of March 31, 1820, and July
'es, 26,
relative to the publication of journals and pe-
Writings,
" WA e have ordained,
11‘ Art' 1. There shall be at Paris, in the office of out'
:Inister of the Interior, a bureau, charged with the pre-:
eitarnination of all journals and periodical writings.
an," 2„,* This bureau shall be composed of six censors,
hY us on the recommendation of our Minister of the
Interior.
4c 3. Every
number of •
journal
or periodical writing
must, before it is printed, be furnished with the visa of this
I)ureau, which shall authorise the publication of it, accord-'
'ng. to article 5 of the law of the 31st March, 1820.
" 4. The operations of this bureau shall be directed by
the Sieur Lourdoueix, Chief of the Division of Sciences,
rent Arts, and Belles Lettres, in the Department of the
Interior.

6. The visa of the bureau shall be given by the Sieur
beliege, whom we appoint for this purpose Secretary of the
la4reattx and Censorship.
" 6..1n the departments, the Prefects shall nominate,
according as
may be necessary, one or more Censors
charged with the previous examination of the journals
Which shall be published in them.
" '7. A council of
members
I: appointed Ly us on
the reeommendation of our , pp-eeper of the Seals, Minister
awl Secretary of State for the Department of Justice, shall
be charged with the superintendence of the censorship.
8. The Bureau of Censorship at Peri* shall address.
S"Pe ti week, a report of its operations to the Council of
erilltewiince. The Censors in the departments shall
atild in all account once a month.
e
" 9. When there shall be reason, on execution of the
l' re
LW of the Slat of March, 1820, for the.Previaional sup-
no "jull of a journal or periodical writing, it shall be pr
sere qt o-
ep
illui, by us, on the report of our Keeper of the salip
all have taken the opinion of the Council of g, perallmldenee. The same shall be done, when theie shall
be
reaB", according to Art. 7 of the said law, to pronounce
the suspension mg
Writin or suppression of a journal, or periodical
g, after judgment.
4.10. Our Minister the Secretary of State for the De-
141110ent of the Interior, and our Keeper of the Seals,
11aister of Justice, are charged each in what concerns
'"ra with the execution of the present ordinance.
t,"i `` Give at St. Cloud, the 24th of June, 182'7, the
yearn of our reign,
(By,the King) " CHARLES.
" The Alictistel: Secretary of State for the Interior,
" 111. This ordinance a " COBBIERE.
ppoints, conformably to article '7

The Etoile, in its number of Friday, the 3d instant,
%h. said—,, Our letters from Madrid say, that there is a
Z.ung report of either the dissolution of the army of the
:41'14 or of a retrograde movement which is shore to
Co), Place." Is this to announce several times the disayl
t °f the Army of Observation? °
the 8411'Ponstitutionnel has announced the dissolution of
false. (44. la Chalons. It was this that .we declared to be

,tbe i'eceding,, the ,following members of the Council of
Soperintendence

.‘.‘ The Sieurs--.Viscount de; Bonald, Minister of State,
Peer. of France, President of the
_Council of SUperin-
tendence.
",Marquis d'Herbonville, Peer of France, Vice-President.
" Count de 'Breteu'il, Peer of France, Honorary Master
`of Requests.
" De Frtnilly, Member of the Chamber of Deputies,
and-Councillor of State.

" Olivier (of the Seine), Member of the Chamber of
Deputies:• . •
" De Maquille, Member of the Chamber of Deputies.
" Baron. Cuvier, Councillor of State.
" De. Guilbermy, President of the Court of Accounts,
and Councillor of State.

" De Broe, Master of Requests in the Council' of State,
and Advocate-Ceneral in the Royal Court of Paris.
" IV. This ordinance appoints the following of the
Bureau of Censorship
'" The Sieurs.—Levacher Duplessis, Ancient Advocate
in our Councils.
" Fouquet, Keeper of the Archives of the Crown.
" Couvret de Beauregard, formerly Sub-prefect.
" Pain (Joseph), Somme de Lettres.,
".Rio, Professor of History,
" Caix, Ditto."
Except the above, there is no intelligence of any im-
.
portanc,e in the Paris journals.