Star.
London, England, 1824-05-05 00:00:00

pressed, he knew that at the time of repealing that Act
no such view of the operation of that repeal was con-
templated by the person who brought forward the Bill
by which it was repealed in the other House; but that
the intention of that person was to leave the holders of
such doctrines on the same footing on which they stood
under the Common Law previous to the passing of the
Act of the 9th of Williafn lit. Those doctrines were
described in that Act as opposed to Christianity, and
were therefore criminal at Common Law ; and what-
ever might be the state of the law repealing the punish-
ments affixed by that Act to the entertaining of such
doctrines, it did not go to legalise those doctrines. The
Noble Marquis, in the arguments which he had drawn
from the state of the law in Ireland upon this subject, had
laid down principles which, if admitted, would go to esta-
blish the necessity of passing this Bill not only in favour
of the Unitarians, but of every other class of Dissenters.
It was said that they ought to be put upon the same
footing as Jews and Quakers. Bat what had been done
for Jews and Quakers? They were excepted from the
operations of the Act of 17.56, which provided that
the marriages of Jews and Quakers should be as valid
after the passing of that Act as they were before. But
what it was that made these marriages valid before the
passing of that Act, although he had been occupied
for eighteen days in hearing arguments and authorities
on both sides in a case involving a question of legiti-
macy arising out of the effect of a marria,,,,e of that
desc►iption of law, he did not know how to decide, and
he believed their Lordships would rather undergo the
tortures of the Inquisition, than be condemned to hear
the arguments which he had been obliged to listen to
on the subject. If he had understood the docti ines of
the Church of England at all, which perhaps lie did
not—and really, after what he had heard on this occa-
sion, he was some•xhat afraid that he might he mi.,-
taken on that head—it was impossible that a greater
repugnance could exist between those doctrines and
any other doctrines whatever than that which did exist
between the doctrines of the Church of England and
those of the Unitarians ; and he for one felt, and must
ever continue to feel, the most decided objeztion to the
Church of England being made the handmaid on a
Church so decidedly opposed to it in doctrine as the
Unitarians, which, he must say, appeared to him to be
the whole scope of this Bill. Rather let them be en-
tirely separated—let them take the same benefit of ex-
emption from the provisions of the Act of 1756, as the
Jews and Qurakers, and leave it to themselves to

tend with and clear up the difficulties of their own
situation. But he could not, to the policy of preventing
clandestine marriages, sacrifice the great and paramount
policy of upholding the dignity and authority of the
Church of England • and he would not be accessary
to the degradation, in which that Church would be in.
volved by the adoption of the principle of this Bill.—
Having said this much in explanation of the grounds
on which he never could consent to this Bill going into
the Committee, he felt that he had discharged his duty,
and he should conclude by expressing his sincere be-
lief that a worse Bill had never been introduced into
that house.

Lord HOLLAND said be had been reading a witty
and humorous Work, written by Mr. Cooper, in which

he found the following story:—" Sam bum., a
cele-
brated lawyer of his day, was observed walking on the
beach at Ramsgate in deep meditation. His friend
asked what absorbed his attention? lam thinking,''
said Core, ' how it is possible a small sprat can come
from this great ocean!'" The Noble Lot d was surprised
on this occasion, how a miserable spat, which he con-
sidered the Bill, could make so much splashing in that
grave assembly. lle was astonished to hear a Noble
and Learned Lord cry 66 Wolf" on the appearance of,
so small an animal. Any stranger would suppose the
State was endangered by the Bill under consideration,
when the fact was, the only object was to put Unita-
rians, with tespect to their marriages, on the same foot-
ing as they stood in Ireland. The Noble Baron sup-
ported the measure, and contended that it ought to be
considered in a Committee.

After some observations fi am the Bishop of CIiESTF.It
and Lord LIVERPOOL, a division took place, when
there appeared,

For the Amendment - 55 I Against it -
Proxies -50 I Proxies

- 41

- '2j

105 I
Majority against the Bill - 39
The MI is tbetefore

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Colonel TALBOT presented a Petition from certain Tradesmen
and Fishermen of Skerries, in the County of Dublin, against the
repeal of the Fish Bounties.
Mr. AIUN DAY presented a Petition from the Licensed Victu-
allers of Derby, against the Beer Duties Bill.
Mr. D. GILBERT presented a Petition front Penzance, in fa-
vour of the County Courts Bill.
Mr. DENMAN presented a Petition front the Barristers of the
Palace Court, against the County Courts fill, and praying that some
compensation may be made to them in case it be passed into a law.
Sir R. 1-IL RON presented a l'etition from certain Journeymen
at Newark, against the Combination Laws.—lieferred to the Com-
mittee upon Artisans.
Petitions were presented in favour of the Hides and Skins 13111,
from the Butchers of Wolverhampton, Cupar in Fife, Peterbo-
rough, Carlisle, Br.c. and against it, irom the Tanners of Liverpool,
Norwich, and some other places.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS prestlited a Petition from the Commission-
en of Supply and the Land-owners of the County of Dumfries,
relative to the state of the spirit Duties in Scotland.
Dlr. id YNG presented a Petition from certain Landholders of
Middlesex, againstthc turthercontinuance of the Sal' Duties.

Mr. LEYCliz..aEll complained of the unequal operation of these
Duties, which pressed with great severity upon the agricultural la.
bourers.—The Petition was laid on the table.

'.‘11.. C. ELLISON presented a Petition from the ship-owners of
South Shields, praying that sea-borne coals should not be subjected
to a greater duty than was levied on coals conveyed by any other
species of carriage.—Laid on the table.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a Petition front the tanners and
cnrriers in the neighbourhood of Oxford, against the Hides and
Skins Bill.—Referred to the Committee on the said um.
Mr. LITTLFION moved for a return of the Duties received,
and the drawbacks vaid, on glass imported into, and exported front
Great Britain, from the year 1818 to the year 1824, distinguishing
the amount in each year.—Ordered.
Mr. J. BROWNE presented a Petition front the Land-owners
and Linen-manufacturers of the county of Mayo, against the repeal
of the bounties on coarse linens.—Laid on the table.

Mr. HUSKISSON presented :a Petition from the Common
Brewers of Liverpool against the new Beer Duties Bill, and a Pe-
tition from the Tanners against the Hides and Skins Bill, and front
the Butchers in favour of it; also a Petition front the Stocking-
makers of Glasgow against the Combination Laws.
Sir T. LETHBR I DGE presented a Petition from Castlecary
against the Assessed Taxes.
Mr. MA BERL Y presented a Petition from the Tanners of Can-
terbury, another from the Tanners of Abingdon, and another from
the Tanners of Brighton, against the Hides and Skins Bill; also a Pe-
tition from the Inhabitants of Dartford, against the Assessed Taxes.
Lord BELGRA VE &notated a Petition from the Tanners of
Chester, against the Hides and Skins BilL
Mr. A BEIiCROMBY presented a Petition, signed by 4.500
Mechanics of Edinburgh, against the Combination Laws. The
Honourable Gentleman also presented a Petition from Yougball,
in Ireland, against allowing Corn to be taken out of Bond for the
purpose of making Flour; and prayitg that the Average Prices of
Corn might be more correctly taken.