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

the Church of England had enjoyed; seas the celebra-
tion of marriage by her Ministers in Churches and in
Chapels of Ease. If, however, this edifice were per-
mitted to be undermined—if stone after stone were to
bi taken up—and if, beyond all value, the corner-stone
♦were also to be destroyed, what must be expected at
last? He would appeal to their Lordships once more,
as to persons who had been educated under the shelter
of the Established Church—who were not, who could
not be indifferent to that Church—not unguardedly to
relinquish that systemwhich their ancestors had defended
-so long, and which, happily, was interwoven with the
very beit interests of the State. He begged their Lord-
ships for these reasons not to suffer the present 13111
to go into a Committee; and he should accordingly
mi.ve that, instead of now, the Bill be committed for
this day three months.
The Bishop of EXETER spoke rather in favour of
the Bill, but admitted that it ought so far to be aisimi-
lated to that passed last Session as to provide for the
prevention of clandestine marriages. He also thought
that Unitarian marriage registers had better be kept by
themselves. He wished to see the Bill amended, but
not abandoned ; and therefore he was for proceeding to
a Committee at once.

The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S objected to the pretence
by which the Unitarians were anxious to press the Bill,
for he certainly did not conceive that even in this en-
lightened age the majority of the people were disposed
to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. If the objection
went to affect the solemnization of Matrimony in the
Church, it must also tend to weaken the authority of
the Scriptures. The words complained of contained no
declaration on the part of the Unitarians at all offensive
to conscientious minds; and if their Lordships were con-
ceding now, they might presently be asked to concede
to the conscientious scruples of those who denied the
truth of Christianity altogether.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said it was per-
fectly true that the Unitarians denied the doctrine of
the Divine Trinity ; for they questioned both the Divi-
nity of JESUS Curtiss and the personality of the Holy
Ghost ; and it was because they denied these religious
points that they now asked relief from their Lordships.
Did the House wish, under such circumstances, to obtain
a simulating or seeming acquiescence in the doctrines
of the Established Church from persons who so far dis-
sented from them ? It would, he believed, be as much
a relief to the Ministers of the Establishment not to be
under the obligation of marrying such persons, as lot
the Unitarians not to be so united in marriage.
Explanations took place between the Bishop of ST.
DAVID'S and the Archbishop of CANTERBURY.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN now observed, that he
should be sorry, after what he had heard respecting the
present Bill in and out of the House, and after what lie
had read in print, to allow the question for going into a
Committee to be finally put without just adverting to
the statements he referred te. It had been asserted, for
instance, that the Marriage Law should be suffered to
rest upon the foundation it assumed at the time of Wil-
liam HI. hut, if that were allowed, there would have;
occurred no necessity for the present Bill. The real fact
happened to be, that the law in agitation had under
gone some retrogradation since the time of that Mo-
narch by the introduction, in 1756, of the Act called
Lord Hardwicke's, the object of which was, certainly
not to ',moire a simulant consent in marriage, but
merely to pl event the celebration of clandestine mar-
riages. 11, therefore, in order to prevent such mar-
it r as necessary to inv,olve the Dissenters in the
provisions of that particular Act, they were upon that
account now entitled to the relief sought by the present
Bill ; for no alteration was asked, as the Right Reve-
rend Prelate who opened the debate thought, in the
Liturgy of the Church of England. But the Unitarian
Dissenters did ask not to be subjected to an expense
from which no advantage could accrue to them, and
also to be exempted from the necessity of admitting doc-
trines which they were prepared both to deny and reject ;
and unless they held blasphemous and seditious opinions,
and offended against the law s, they were entitled to in-
dulgence. lie was told, 1p )v ever, that the present Bill
was a stroke aimed at the Establishment of the Church
of England, not indeed by the patrons of the Bill sitting
in that House, but by the contrivers of the measure out
of it; and therefore he called on the Noble and Learned
Lord upon the Woolsack to point out whether the Bili
aimed at the doctrines or at the revenues of the Church.
The system had long been general in Ireland. It met
with the itpprobation of the Privy Council at one time,
and with the concurrence of Lord Thurlow, and there-
fore their Lordships would be surprised to find that the
only one objection was to its not going far enough. It
passed the Irish Commons without opposition; but in
the Lords it was objected to upon the grounds of clan-
destine marriages and want of facility in cases of di-
vorce. He should have expected no opposition to the
present Bill, except from those who held that Unitarians
were unfitted for living in civil society; for if society
must continue to exist, then, he would contend, all Uni-
tarians ought to be admitted to contract marriage in
the way their consciences might direct the solemniza-
tion of it; far in proportion as importance was attached
to marriage at all, in that same proportion he wished
for no conviction hut that springing from the heart.
Did it become the Established Church of England to
countenance a subterfuge at her altars—a subtet fuge
unworthy of a Christian community, unworthy of a Pi o-
testant Legislature, and most unworthy of the toles ant
Church of England, which wished for tio subjection
that was not vital to her support, no inhibition not neces-
sary to her existence? It was upon these grounds,
therefore; the present Bill came recommended to their
Lordship; but he wa,, ready to amend it in part, and
would be happy to give lull cousideration to the sug-
gestions of their Lordships. As to the objection taken
by one Right Reverend Prelate with regard to the regis-
tration of marriages of. Dissenters by Alinisters of the
Establishment, it might or might not be considered as
offensive in certain quarters; but he was persuaded that
there would be no objection on the part of Unita-
rians to register their own marriages when empowered
to marry in their own places of worship.

The LORD Cll ANCELLOR said,. the Noble Lord
who had just sat down had on a foimer occa,ion been
pleased to find fault with hi •ii for expressing some
doubts respecting the legality of tolerating the doctrines
of the Unitarians. Their Lordships knew very well that
per9ous holding those doctrines were excluded the bene-
fit of the Toleration Act, passed in the 9th of William
the Third; and he knew that it had been as►crted in the
writings of some great and eminent ecclesiastics, that
the repeal of that Act removed all the restrictions, not
only of that Act, but those which existed previously
to the pas►ing of it, and even those which were imposed
by the Cosamon Law upon the bold4rs of such doctrines.
ootyithstanding the opinion which bid been so ex-