Star.
London, England, 1825-06-04 00:00:00

their Don, with no other airmition domain of subscribing to that
aloe width tber believed tea W true; On thesepostads he should
mew the erased readies it the BM, and trusted that these who
* • to any parts of it, would at least allow it to go into
•
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY approved of
the principle of the Bill : not only because it gave re-
lief to the Unitarians, but to the Ministers of the
Established Church. He believed the scruples enter-
tained by the Unitarians to be sincere, and there'ore
entitled to great consideration. But the point on which
be felt meat aosiety, was the removal of that enballowed equivocal.
dm with was now consmitted at the akar under the direction of
the law. With these views of the subject, be should vote he the
mend reading, reserving to hinseelf. bewever, the right ergs.:
Vein and discuseing classes in the Committee.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS objected to the
principle of the measure, and did not see how the pre-
amble to the Bill could be proved. He contended that,
all an Unitari an was called upon to do, was to sign lasi
own name to what were the parties who had bees
married. The words " I thee wed, in the name of the
Falser, the Son, aid the Holy Ghost," were exactly
the same as those used by the Unitarians in the cere-
mony of baptism. Why, then, should they object to
their introduction into a d fermi part ? It had been
said that prevarication and equivocation at the altar
Were the tesult of the law as it now stood. If so, he
should hold it'in as great abhorrence as any other nran,
but he contended that there was no deception. Both
parties knew the sentiments of each other when they
came to the altar, whereas prevarication consis•ed in
saying words apd giving them another senses He repelled that
charge with indignation. He trusted the Church would hoc be
edged upon to resign a right which she had so long possessed. Be-
sides, lithe concession were made to the Unitarians, how could it
'be in justice refused to every other sectarian? The Unitarians had
no right to be looked upon as a favoured sect. Su:h an impression
might tend to spread their opinions, which undermined the founds-
dons of Christianity. l)n all those grounds he should move that
the Bill be read this day three months.
The Bishop of untiI:JELL) expressed his abhor-1
rence of the religious doctrines of the Unitarians, which
were not only destit.ite of foundation, but were sup-
ported by gross perversions and mutilations of the
Holy Scriptures. But as their religious opinions did
not affect th it conduct, be was willing to concede the
relict for which they applied. He also thought that
the high character of the Established Church meld be best sup-
ported by delivering her from the scandal and prehmation of the
compromise made at the altar. Although an advocate for full tole.
radon, he was not an advocate for giving encouragement to dissent.
He did not think the present measure calculated to give such en-
couragement, and should therefore vote in favour of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to be told
what Noble Llrds meant by the word Unitarian? If
they meant persons who deny the divinity of our
wove, they must enact first that it was lawful •so to'
do. For by an Act of King William, such a denial was
made a detestable crime," and liable to condign pu-
nishment. It was true that the Statute Laws inlicting
penalties for religious aberrations had been repealed-,,
but the Common Law remained in force. Before Bills
were passed to relieve Unitarians, let the profession of
Unitarianism be permitted, if that was considered a fit
permission to give. The Noble and Learned Earl then
shewed how the Jews and Quakers had been exempted
from the operation of the late Marriage Act. If such
a privilege as that claimicti by the Unitarians, who had
nothing of Christianity in their doctrines were granted
to them, haw could it be possibly denied to the Roman
(*hulks and other Dissenters, who held the common prindpiker
Christianity ? He feared that the laxity of the Chur ch of Engles*
respecting its doctrines, was working a species of revolution in chid
country leading to dissent. Let their Lordships repeal the Common.
Lair if they thought proper, at let them ant give their satiable
by a side wind, to a doctrine which asserted that the doctrine tit
the Church of England was lilaiettolling. -
The Earl of LIVERPOOL differed (mat hii Noble
and Learned Friend. The House would infer, &on'
the state of his voice, that he was not able to say much,
but he entertained too strong an opinion on the subject
to remain silent. He contended, that though the Coal-
man Law was still in force, yet the general practice
was to be considered as the chief guide for promeding.
The legality of the marriages of the Jews was recog-
nized, and was there anything, more hostile to Chris-
tianity in the Unitarians than in the Jews ? Did not
the Jews blaspheme Him whom we adored ? Nay, had
they not crucified Hiu whom we adored? Did they
not live amongst us as a distinct nation? and yet their
marriages were valid I He did not disapprove of this.
If their numbers were sufficient in this eropolis,
should say the same of the Mahomedans, or of the pro.
fessors of any other religion. He saw no reason why'
their rights should not be as sacred as those a others.
It was known that the marriages of persons going to
France or Scotland, and married according to the rites
of the Catholic or Presbyterian Churches, were considered pen
featly valid, as if they had bees married bete. He believed *At it
was generally acknowledged that in any country where marries
could net be had by a Minister, if it were oontracted before a civil
person, it was equally valid, because the greatest facilities should
be given to the fulfilment of se important a duty. A Jew, a
Quaker, or an Unitarian, could not be married in our Churches
without combating himself in a way to east a slur on the service.
Did not the Public Papers teem with accounts, skewing that the
esednet of an Unitarian at the altar of the Established Chunk
was as of the meet digesting things which it was possible to see?
A great scandal would be rethaved if this Bill were passed, for the
relief both of the Unitarians and the Mirth.
The Bishop of CHESTER considered the Unitarians
entitled to claim relief, and to have no doubt of their
sincerity entertained; but be thought that they had
'been pressed to do it, more throi the writings and
vituperations of small sects of persons calling themselves
" Free-thinking Christians," (from whose publications
the Reverend Prelate read some passages) - than from
their own sense of the alleged grievance. As they
had been patient so long, there email be se great hardship in
their wattles one Seeds, lager. lie was willing to pet shwa en
she halm' of all Dlesentera balm the. Marriage Act was
ha was compdlefito witibeldbit mean boa die present passed,
cause a view of fig ran tbnegb the wings of it.
Lord REDESDALE opposed the 818.
Lord CALTHORPE supported the Bill. He looked
upon it as a measure calculated to benefit the Church in
a far greater degree thank the Unitarians. It wits not a
fair argument to say that the Unitarians were not worse
elf than other Dissenters; for' the marriage ceremony
was no hardship to any but those whose religious scru;.
ples would not allow them to admit the doctrine of the
Trinity. The Established Church could not better con-
sult her interests than by conforming to the enlightened
principles of the age. The sentiment of toleration was
priscipleset the age.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN denied that the Pree.thinking
Christians bad any hand in the production of the present measure.
• After a few words in explanation from the Bishop of Cuestas,
Abe Hesse divided...44r the Second Reading.
Contents -
Proxies

40
31
11$

Not Contests
Pries
Majority against the MU
Ms Sneed Reading of the County Courts Mal was pastpoued
to Tbasimy sett.
, Adimmed at bait-past Bight to Monday.

-