The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-06-13 00:00:00

'nit sot*.

. .
formation upon the 'abject. It was from the wet; oftaPnitii
reformation that the Bill of last year was thrown oat •
dial House. He therefore thought their Lordshipsoeight
to know on what grounds the Bill bad been passed la 0-
other House.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN thought as.
amid be more monstrous than to suppose that the
sees in question should enjoy vested interests in the.
Bieti of office, such as Grand- Juries might choose tt
gent; and if such a law existed, it ought to he repealed.
Be had no objection to agree in the motion for putting,
off the Bill.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Mon-
day. And it was agreed that the parties petitioning
against the Bill might be heard by themselves or Conned.
MARRIAGES.
1 The Marquess of LANSDOWN said be had to pre,
I sent to their Lordships a Dill to give relief to certain
classes of Dissenters in this country, with regard to man-
riages. The object was to enable Protestant and Ca-
tholic Dissenters to celebrate their marriages in their
iwn Chapels, without the intervention of any of the
Msthorities of.the Establishd Church. The coarequenee
( the restrictions which now existed -in regard to Ito.
*an Catholics was, that many parishes in the metropolis
'were overrun with illegitimate children, and thus the
parishes were burdened, and the greatest immorality
prottailed. The Bill lie was then about to propose,
went to correct this disgraceful evil, by bring all Dis-
senters within the pale of the Marriage Law, which he
ted would soon be passed by their Lordships. He
thought that those marriages ought to be accompanied
byreligious' solemnities; but that such solemnities
Wld be most conformable to the religions persuasion
if the parties, and that nothing should be required of
..uss
them which their consciences disapproved of. On these
rounds the Bill was framed, and brought before the
House at the time when their Lordships were discussing
the subject of the Marriage Laws. Dissenters would be
required only to pay the necessary fees to the Established
Church, and then enter into their solemn contracts in
their own way: If the Bill came into a Committee, he
should propose a restriction with regard to the particu-
lar classes of Dissenters that otight to be comprehended
in it, to the exclusion of some particular sects.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that a Bill
making so material an alteration in the law as this
Bill went to make, ought to have been introduced at an
earlier period of the Session, and because it was not, he
should object to the second reading of it. H. was a
friend to rational toleration, add was ready to admit
that there were numerous bodies of respectable Dissent-
ers; but this Bill would extend to all classes of sectari-
ans, and there would be no end to the mischiefs which
it would occasion. It would allow a place for the cele-
bration of marriages, not only in every chapel, in every
house, bat in every street. It would afford facilities to
the marriages of persons denying the troth of Christi-
anity, to the followers of Joanna Southcot, to Jurgen!,
and all other fanaties. Ale asked, therefore, if it was
fit to introduce at the end of • Session a Bill which
went to operate such a mighty change as this? He
would not consent that the Clergy of the Established
Church should be made instrumental in carrying the
Bill into effect with persons belonging to the very
worst congregations. IL: was a friend to toleration,
but not that sort of toleration which knew no limits—lie
should, therefore, oppose the second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said the Bill contained provi-
sions which he could never assent to, but he thought • mea-
sure of this kind was necessary to a certain extent, and he
did not think it an unfit measure to be brought forwent,
even at this late period of the Session, because he thought
it would be desirable to refer it to a Committee. The ob-
ject of the Bill was certainly unanswerable, after what had
already concedtd to Jews and Quakers. Some reef
ought-to be granted to other Dissenters, and he earth::lanli y
wished to grant it to the Roman Catholics. His opinion
was, that the marriages of all Dissenters should be cele-
brated in churches, at the same time he would not have the
Legislature force such a restrictidii on them. He had no
objection to let this, Bill go into a Committee, but there
was one part of it which he would ever object to. That
was the part which related to the marriage of persons of
different persuasions, far then a member of the Established
Church might be married in a Dissenting Chapel. There
was another „difficulty ; it was, that parties should not
pretend to be Dissenters for the mere purpoae of con-
tracting the marriage, but should be Dissenters in reality.
—On the whole, It would be desirable that this subject
shouldnotiergo • full coesideration before their Lordships
in a Committee.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said he felt eons/.
dersble alarm at this measure. lie would give way to no
man in his notions of toleration. He thought that every
man ought to have a power of judging for himself in reli-
gious matters. But there were many instances of sectarians
Oho founded their faith on no other foundation than a pri-
vate and capricious interpretation of certain passages of
Scripture. Toleration became necessary, as being the effect
of human fallibility ; but it must not be carried to such an
extent as to endanger the established religion of the State.
He looked on this Bill, therefore, with infinite alarm, be-
cause it was a first attempt made to alter the Liturgy of the
Church. The professed object was to give relief to scru-
ples of conscience ; but it would extend to persons who had
none at all. It was an invasion of the established Liturgy,
rebirth had existed for two hundred years. He should, there-
' ism, oppose the Bill.
The Bishop of WORCESTER bad no objection to the
von going into a Committee.
Lord REDESDALE said the principle of this Bill was
gothing less then that of converting into a Gretna Green
'every place which any set of sectarians might choose to
sail a place of worship; and Birch a measure would de-
stroy ell the provisions intended to be enacted by the
Bill then before the House. There was no similitude be-
4e/eon-this measure and the Bill for regulating the marriages
of Jews and Quakers ; and he never could give his con-
sent to it.
The Earl of HARROWBY fully concurred in the prin-
ciple of the Bill, and also in the objections made by his
Noble Friend. He wished the Bill had been introduced at
an earlier period oftheSession ; at the same tirne he thought
it would be as well to let it go into a Committee, in order to
weiergo a discussion by their Lordships, after which it
-might stand over till next Session.
The Bishop of CHESTER put it to the Noble Marquess
whether this Bill should be brought forward at this late pe-
riod of the Session, whe mimosaof the Bishops were absent,
and when the Clergy of country could not have time to
send their petitions against it.
, Lord CALTHORPE said he did not look on this measure
with any sort of appreheesion ; because the interests of the
Church did not require Parliament to force opinions on any
sect of men. He wished the Bill in question to be confined
to Unitarians, because they differed fundamentally from the
doctrines of the Established Church.
The Bishop of LAN DAFF had no objection to the Bill
going into a Committee. If this Bill were to pass, it would
be material to know by what description of persona the mar-
riages were to be solemnized, and in what form. The mar-
riage ceremonies of Jews and Quakers were well known :
but it would b most dangerous to Wren the marriages of
the commuatye to unknowe.persons, by whom the most im-
I proper marriages might be solemnized. He wished the Bill
might be withdrawn for the present ; and he would object to
the second reading of it.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH could not bring himself to think
that the morals of the community would in any way be in-
jured by this Bill. The only change proposed to be made
was that of changiug the place and the mender of perform-
ing the ceremony of marriage ; any objection raised ag lost
the Bill, might be removed in the Committee, and he trusted
'the Right Rev. Bench would enter into the discussion of it
to the Committee.
The Earl of CARNARVON urged the necessity of ;m-
-in into a Committee on the Bill ; and after that their
Lordships would be mach better prepared to discuss it
next Session.
Th. Marquess of LANSDOWN, la reply, said it was
the furthest from his inteution to call on their Lordships
to harry this measure through the House ; or evea to pro-
pose that it should be passed la tbe presort Session.—