Star.
London, England, 1824-04-03 00:00:00

DISSENTERS' MA RRIACIE BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN ' moved the second
reading of this Bill; and, in doing so, would not have
troubled them at any length, had it not been that lie an-
ticipated some opposition to it. This Bill had its rise
in Petitions from the Protestant Dissenters, which were
referred to the. Committee on the General Marriage Act;
and alrhougliihe Committee did not think it proper to
report on the Petitions, yet the Members of it were ge-
nerally favourable to the prayer of them. It was of the
utmost importance, that such a contract as that of mar-
riage should be celebrated with as much publicity and
solemnity as would make it lasting and binding. But
after that, it was their duty to give to all within the pale
of Cluistianity the facility of being bound according
to their own feelings and religious belief. The pro-
position which he had to make in no way altered or
interfered with the Liturgy of the Church of England,
in the mode of celebrating marriages according to
it. He only called on them to sanction the entering
into that important contract in their own way, by
those whose religious beliefs and ceremonies in every
thing else was tolerated by the law of the land. All
that was necessary was, to give publicity to the con-
tract; and he proposed now, that Unitarians should be
allowed to celebrate marriages in their own Chapels,
upon the payment of fees to the Church :of England.
But it was objected that such a facility would open a
door to clandestine marriages ; but that could not be the
case, as they would marry none- but members of their
own persuasion and congregations. The Bill proposed
that any Minister should be punishable, if-he presumed
to act contrary to the provisions of this Bill ; and in the
Committee he should propose the punishment to be
transportatiOn. 'though the security of banns being
published had been thought sufficient, yet he had no
objection to the registry of these marriages in the Parish
Church. It Was impossible that Unitarians could give
a direct assent to the marriage ceremony of the Church
of England without a violation of their own consciences.
If they granted this, it' would be soon attended by a
burden, in consequence of the additional expense to
which it would subject them. Unless some Noble Lord
was of opinion that Unitarians should be. put out of the
pale of society;' he kite* not what objection could be
made to this Bill, the second reading of which he moved.
The Archbishop Of CANTEIMUSY said, last Ses-
sion a Bill of a different coniplexion was brought into
the House. There appeared then a disposition in their
Lordships to give relief to the Unitarians, which could
only be done by allowing them to intermarry in their
own places of worship, only altering the Church of
England Liturgy to meet their views and tenets. To
the latter of these expedients he totally objected. He
was friendly to the second 'reading of the Bill, trusting
that in the Committee they would be able to devi,e
measures to give security to the Unitarians, and nextto
the Public at latge.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he spoke as
a member of the Church of England ; and it was his
dUty to support it, and the principles upon which it had
been established. When the Act of Toleration, in King
William's reign, passed, it gave no toleration to those
who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. That Act
punished the denial as blasphemy and profaneness, and
that severity of punishment was the cause of its repeal,
as well as that of the Scotch Act on the same subject.
They had Jews and Quaker-,whose marriage ceremonies
were not according to the Church of England. If this
Act were passed, could they refuse the same sanction to
them, and above all, to the Roman Catholics, who did
not dissent from the doctrine of the Trinity ; and were
they to grant it U.) the *Unitarians, who were to go to the
Archbishop of .Cariterbury, and say to him, " We deny
the truth of the ftinity, and therefore you must grant
me a marriage licenie r He could nut agree to make
the Church of England -subservient to these people,
whose belief was blasphemy by the Common Law. His
objection to this Bill was, that if there was one doctrine
more essential to the existence of the Church of England
than another, it was the belief in the Trinity, and there-
fore he should vote against the Bill.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, he should vote for
the second reading of the Bill, and for its going into. the
Committee; but it must come out of it very different
from what it now was before he could consent to it.
The relief should be given wherehoth were Unitarians ;
but if one was of the Church of England, as in other
cases, then they should be married by the forms of the
Church of England. That was the case where one party
was a -Jew, or a Catholic.
The Bishop of CHESTER heaven bred" in the prin-
ciples of religious toleration; but this was a mere civil

- ,

~_~

Tr'

ii•idai