House Of Lords, Tuesday, ...
The Times, 1824-05-05T00:00:00

I'ARLIAMILA'2ARY 7ZV ?L , . beverat petitions were presented against the Unitarian marriage bill-vie., by the Bishop of SA L I S n u R Y, f'rom the clergy of New Sa um; by the Bishop ot C},ESTER, from the clergy ot the city and countv of Chester; from the clergy of I3oroughbridgc, in York, shire . from the clergy of Bolton-le-moors; from the clergy of Ro- cester; *and from the Archdeacon and clergy of the diocess of Bath and W,rells. A petition in favour of the bill was presented by Lord DACOBE, trotn a place in the county of Cambridge. The Bishop ola LONDON presented a petition from the church- wa-dens, overseers, and other inhabitants ot the parish of Clerken- well, praying for the ;bolition of slavery. Thie Earl of CA RNA 5VX1N presented a petition from a number of inhabitant householders ,4f Hampshire, against the assessed taxes. 'l'he Earl of IEM ERICK presented a petition from the jutdges, clergy, and freeholdersof the counim. of 31ayo, against the repeal of the bounties on the exportation of !inen and the transit dtuties on foreisgi linen. SILK LAWS. The E.5rl of LAUDERDALE rose to call their lordships' atten- tion to a b. I wihich he mcant to introduce for the repeal of certain laws relative to the silk-trade. The bill he would submit to their consideration vyas the same as that wlhich last session of Parliament had passed the CoztitTons, and come before their lordiships from that holuse, with the exception of the manner in which the Irish acts were recited. The present momcnt was most favourable for proposing the present measure, as those persons eho were last year the prin- cipal supporters of the restrictions on manufactures and trade had now abandoned their opinions. Hc might, therefore, have proposed this bill without saying a word on the subect, were it not that he thought it right to account for his own conduct in introducithg it at this moment, by adverting to the change of opinion which had so generally taken'place. If he was at all rightly informed with re- spect to the sentiments of the journevmen of Spitalfields, they would rather see all the laws on the subject of the sIlk- trade repealed, than experience the operation of an act which re- lieved the master from the lnecessity of employing the whole of his capital. He certainly did not share the o9inion of those persons who thought that the bill passed this session would produce the total destruction of the silk manufactures, but he agreed with those who would prefer the repeal of the whole restrictions at once to allowing die penod fixed by the bill. The little knowledge he had of the sik-manufactures was sufficient to convince him of this. He knew that the manufactuxers looked up to the demand of the months of February, iMiarch, and April, as conclusive of the state of trade. lence it fbllowed that the tirst experimnent which was to take place under the new act in 1826, would be made at the same time as the French importations. The Earl of HARROlVBY said a few words re!ative to the pro- ceedings with respect to the former bill which had passed on the re- port of a committee: he also questioned the extent of the alteration sn the opinions of the Spitalfieldsjourneyrnen. The Earl ofLAUDERDALE observed,that the report ofthe com- mittee was in tavour of the bill of last session. As to whether the opinions of the journeymen had clanged or not, it would be suffi- cient for him to refer to the appearance of the neighbourhood of that house. He would ask their lordships whether they had that day- seen any thing like the assemblage of persons which the proceedings of lastyear, or even of the conimencement ef the present session, had o,-asioned. It was certain, that the opinions of the friends of re- strittions out of doors, as well as of their supporters in Parliament, had undergone an alteration.-The bill was then read a first time. Lord CARBERY presented a petition from the high sheriffand inhabitants of the county of Cork, against the repeal oi the linen- bounties. UNITARIAN 1'ARRIAGE-BILL. The MIarquis of LANSDO WN moved that this bill be now com- mitted. The Bishop of CHESTER, in 4ustice to his own feelings and the importance of the question, tnought necessary to say, that after giving his most anxious -attention to the subject of this ball he wa, only the more confirmed in lus opi- nion that the Unitarians had no reasonable grounds for their ob- jections to the marriage ceremony. 'l'he words in question were the wordls of Scripture, the words of our blessedI Lord himself, and could not be altered without compromising the doctrines and the dignity of the Established Church. That the Unitarians had no ground for objecting to the words used in the marriage-ceremony was evident from this circumnstance-that they thetnselves adopted the same words in their baptismal ceremony. If any noble lord would show him any just reason for the objection of the Unitarians he would g.ve his consent to the bill. In his opinion, the retaining the words was indispensable, for the Church of England would be wanting in what was due to her dignity if she did niot take every proper opportanity to declare what her faith in Christ was. Tne character of the Church of England had always been that of a tolerant church, and he ad mitted that their lordships were called upon to grant liberty of worship to al ,ects,; but the Church was not therefore to be required to give up her doctrines and disdipline. If the marriage-ceremony was to be alter. ed, it was not easy to see what might be the consequence of such en- c oachments- If one stone was to be removed after another, what would become of the building? He trusted that their Lordships -would not agree to anv infringement of the doctrines and discipline of the Church of E:ngand-of a church the interests of which were iso closely and inseparably interwoven with the best interests of the state. Conviraced that the liberty of conscience was not violated with respect to the Unitarian by the law as it at present existed, be should oppose the motion for now committing the bill, and move that it be conmmitted this day three months. The Bishop of EXETER was of opinion that persons who did not believe in certain doctrines ought not to be compaled to join in ceremonies depending on those doctrines, and would therefore vote for going into the committee forthwith. In the conianittee he should wish to propose some amendments, the object of which would be to assimilate the bill as much as possible to the atch for amending the marriage act which passed last sesaion, witi respect to the preventionof claudestine marsiages, by inposing irtain penalties. Hle would also Propose an A1116deIrt oleht t ib et o if reristration of marriagces. He thought that tle Unrtiarn 8 Li'tiht to be allowed to kee theitr own registers. ovedb TheBishop of' St. DAViD'S supported the amendmient m eb he Bishop of Chester, but spoke in so low a tone of voice tsiat it: 7as difficult to collect even a sentence or two of what he said- He ,bservcd, that the doctrines to which the Unitatians objectedl were hose oa the iajority of Chris'iaas, and what all members Of the Ehurch of England mnust consider to be essential to Christianity- He ,onlil oat consent to the giving ulp of a POinlt Ofsomc pOtCe which involved the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Seriptuires themselves might as well be objected to as the marriage- service hf the Church of England. Thee Archibishop of cANTERBURY said it was ceTtaslY true, as had kieen observed, that the UTnit5airis denied the doCtrine of the Trinity; but he wished those whcl opposed tie hill to consider well what it was for which they contended. Was it their wih to enforce a seeming acquiescence in doc- trines against theiconsciences of men?? The consequence of man- taining such a practice miust be, that ceremaofies would be administered in one sense, andl received in another. What was this but a svstem of the grossest prevariio t w n? For tleyecea- sons he was deed rous of seoing this bilerin tn woulittee whete it might receive such corrections as it was susctieof The Bishop of r.DVVID'S and the Arhc? h ? fTE7URY interchalged a few words in ex- Itanation. .1, "illo ro ne, garqis of Wanac of N could not suiaer the Tisentr v;ereli mad eai bin twsvrh lle to refe into the committee wicthout-aluding to certain opinions which had received some degree of currency o d this subjeci, but which ap- peared to 1icm as inconsistent with tie law of Engeand, as they were absurd in themselves. WAhen he had heardi it st'ated, and seen it printed in some publications that the law of marriage as it existed in the reign of ing IVilliaisns,aulnd rhe stors whecotud help being greatly surprised, because if the law were so, there would be no reasotn for thisor any otlier apolicatioi of the kind. Itasmnerely owing to pean incidental consequened of the operation of the act of Lord Hard- wicke, the 26th of George 11., that any dissenters were placed un- der the necessity of coming forward and asking any relief with re- spect to the law ot marriae- in passing that act, it was far tiom Ibeing the intention of the legisl[atuco to Produlce a simiulatedl assent Ito the dioctiines of the Church of England. so far from being a bill fur such a purpose, its soleobjzct wsthlat whiicli 5~~ac!iug .to its title it purport to be-naymely, a binh for preventing 1u~l inarriag,es. Those who applied for that rclicif d7pu to be given by the preg8nt bill, niever entertained the idea that the M o England wvas to be called uponi to give up any.otf her dloctrines. N such concession was expectedl. What the UnitariaDs asked wha, re lief from- a part of a ceremony in which they could not coscen-, tiously join ;and he never could suppose that any prelate of the Church of Englandl would wish to inipOse upon themi an assent to doctrines, which it was well kniown they camne to the ch4rh pr- pared to reject. fh e rejection of those doctrines couldI not be treated as illegal. Theywere allo wed by law; and indeedi in modern tinmes,when any question as to blasphemy cameto be, discussed before a court,a dis- tnction had alwavs been talen betwee htogne n toeoi nions which arose- out of an interpretation of the Scriptures different f romn that adhered to by the Established Church. 'The v~guc asser- tion that tile church wats in danger had often been productve of mis- chief, of' which the Birmiingham riots, wheni Dr. Priestley becamne the victimi of a mcob, afforded aL remnarkable instance ; but it was to be expected that those who made this assertion would state what was the nature of the danger which they apprpbcndedL. Wvlas it danger to the authority, or danger to the revenuei, of the church?9 It was said that the billH attack-ed the doctrines and thee disdipline of the Chlurch) of England. Now the same doctrines and discipline were to be found in the Churchi of Irelandl, and yet a law on marriage ex- isted there, simiilar in. principle to the present bill, but much more sweeping in its provisions. I n 1781, a bill passed the Irish Parlia- ment, confirming an act of Gco. II:, by which all the marriages of dissenters were mrade valid ; aLnd it was worth while to refer to the proceedlings which took place on that oc 5siot. The whole of thle opposition mnade to the act was founded. p7 an objection raised by some right reverend prelatest in the iouise of Peern, and whichiwas in efflact that the measure was not such as that proposed by the bill now 'before their lordships. That the opinion of the Irish bisbops,and the peers whio concurred with them wasvey iferntfrom that entertained by the noble and learnedi lord an thse ho ithhin opose th prsent bill, would ap- pea frm te rotst nteedon he oumlsof the Parliauent of Irelad. Th bill havig pased th Comons exerenced consi- ilerbleoppoitin i theHoue ofLors. he prelates and peers who onosedthe ill eteredintoa proest,in! which they~ objected. that it did not provide sufficiently against esanesune3lult: G- facility to divorce. But what he wished more particularly to ptess on their lordships' attention was, the clause of the protest which was signed by all the prelates, and in which the ground of dissent ex- pressed was, that those who opposed the bill had repeatedly declared that they were willing to vote for another bill which would make the marriages of dissenters good and valid, provided they were solem. nizel under the sanctien of the clergy of the Estabhshedl Church. In t ,ct, all that he ob jected to was, that the bill did not sufficiently con- ciliate the rites of the marriages of dissenters with the autisority of the clhurch. This, however, w?s completely done by the present bill, ir which the authority of the chuzch was fully maintained. if Unitarians were to be pernitted to exist at all, they must be allowed to contract marriage. On that ground merely this bill ought to ass. It was full time for the church to get rid of the practice of enorcing a simulalted assent to her dotie,In proportion as mar- riage was regarded as an institution of importtance to society, it was to be wished that it should be entered into with due soleinity, adi that the contracting parties should not be ienipeuled to submit to a ceremony which they could not respeet. If, indeed, there were personis who viewed 2all religious establishments with indif'erence- w iho regarded them as mere engines of Government and state police, such persons would entertain little scruple as to any ceremony they miglt be requireD to perform but the case was very dif chrent with the sincere dissenter, who could not conscientiously avail himself of the subterfuges whieh the state of the law presented. The noble marquis concluded by intibnmatind ihat he would not oftse the amendments suggested by the drigt teCV prelate (the ansho of fbf1Y*Q'9b,i'?or tV,rvw &I'1 security The LOAD CHANCELLOR saivd, that thce spect which he bore for the noble lorti who lad just sat down, as well as the high respect whiich he eotertained for the rfght reverend prelate wjo had spoken in favour of this bill, iade it impossible for hii, after what hsd passed that evening, not to address their lordships, and to state the grounds on wrich he could never give iis consent to this bill go- ing into a committee, lHe would iot say that it was impossible to ramenabill for the relief of th classof persons who were the objects oflttic, resentmeasure, but this bill haol principles to wehich, con- sistenuwine the protection of the Establishled Church of the couintry, he could not consent. He did not wish to press his o'pinion on their lordships; but it was his dutty, having setthe greater part of a long life inq the service of'the pub- lic, llto state his opinion, that if ever this country should have the misfortune to lose tkc protection of thea Church ofEIngland,weshould lose the best protection for toleration (hear, hear); and on account of the dissenters themselves, he should teel it necessary to protest against every thing which would tend to degrade the Established Church. Rcligious toleration could not be liberally and extensively enjoyed, unless the church established was of liberal and enlarged principles; and such. in his opinion, was the character of the Church ef England. The noble marquis had found fault with kim for raising som dov.bts as to the legality of the tenets of the Unitarians; but hat ere thefacts ? In the toleration act, persons denying the Trinity weredeprived of thebenefitof tiatact, andso itstooti till the repeal of the 9th William. No man was more averse than hbmself to the severitv of the punishments which might have been inflicted be- fore that act was repealed; but the matter was perfectly utiderstood at the tinme ; and though certain learned ecclesiastics had thought. that that repeal let loose all the law, common law and all, as to de- nying the doctrine of the Trinity, yet of this he was assured, that the respectable person who brought that bill into the other House of Parliamenthad no such notion; anid in a case which came before him (the Lord Chancellor) the title of which was - the Attorney-General v. Pearson," that learned and distinguished lawver Sir S. Romilly held an opinimr. similar to that which he (the lord Chancellor), en- tertaieied. It was an information to carry into effect certain charitable purposes which were formed before the time of King William. Sir S. RomiUy insisted that the common law remained as it was before; and though witlh respect to other dissenters it might be diffierent, vet as to the Unitarians it was as much out of the power of the Lard Chancellor to establish a provision for them as for Judaism. 'He (the Lord Chancellor) did not think that he did wrotng in ret'usinc to decide that point, cominig as it did incidentally before him, and his judgment being founded on the ground that the charity was in- stituted before the 9th W\'illiam, and that statute had decided that the doctrines of those who dcnied the Trinity was contrary to the Christian religion, What he now stated was only to vindicatehim- self from the imputation of having thrown a doubt on a subject on which no doubt could reasonably be entertained. WVith respect to the bill itself, it had been clearly stated that on the principles on wbich the house were calledt upon to pass it as to the Unitarians, they might be called upon to pass a bill with respect to aU dissenters. The noble marquis had disclaimed it, but he (the Lord Chancellor) would go farther and say if their lordships passed this bill, they could not refuse it to any other dissenters. The pree sent measure was justified on the ground of what had been done for the Jews and Quakers ; but what was it that had been done for them ? In the act of the 56th of George III. there was a provi3ion that that bill should not apply to them. 'But this bill was nothing like that. And even as to Jews and Qoakers, it was probable that their lordships might be called upon soon to pass some bill with re- spect to them, as he had for the last 1l days been employed in hear- ing the argusnents of counsel on the subject. Certainly the exception in the act of 56 of Geo. III. could only mean that those marrtages should be just as valid as if that act had not passed, but what made them vali:l it was not so easy to say; and as reference had been made to the subject of torture, he would say that he supposed their lord- ships would rather bear all the tortures of the Inquisition than hear all the arguments adduced on the subject. (A laugh.) It was cer- tainly a curious subject, and it was very desirable that some act should pass to set the matter at rest. If he were to go into the de- tail of this bill, hc could tear to piecesevery sentence of it; but the details were matters Cor a committee. It was said thtat the perwons calling themselves Unitarians had real scruples oftconscience on the doctrine of the Trinity; and so had deists,atheists, and others. lfheun- derstood the doctrines oftheClhurch ofEnglandatall,it was impossible that there could be a greater repugnance between any doctrlnes than between the doctrine of the Church of England and the Unitarians. The Unitarians must think the Church of England idolatry. What, therefore, would be the sort of comprehension that it would effect ? If they chose, indeed, to put themselves on the same footing as Jews and Quakers, let them ask for such a bill; but do not let the house make the Church of England the hadndmaid of the Unitarians. He could not to this policy consent to sacrifice the great, the paramount policy of holding up the ilhurch of England as the Church of Eng- land had hitherto been maintained. On these grounds, he could not consent to go into a committee on a bill which inust, in his opinion, tend to dishonour and degrade the Church of England, Their lord_ ships might pass the bfll, but he had discharged his duty in giving his opinon on it, and he thought a worse bill never was entertained. Lord HOLLAND said, that after the former long discussion which took place on this subject, he did not expect to bear so much warmth and anxiety expressed on the motion for going into the committee. On coming down to the house instead of employing himself in considering the important bill before them, he ha; taken up a publication of the correspondence of that amiable man AIr. Cowper, and he met with a story which he would relate, tbough probably it might be thought but little to the purpose. Cowper re- lated, that he was walking along the coast, when he met with a great lawyer, whom, in language somewhat familiar, he called Sam Cox, who appeared meditating deeply on the vast expanse of waters before him. Cowper asked him what he was musing on, when he replied he was considering how strange it was that the yast ele- ment he was contemplating should produce socontemptible a creature as a sprat. What be (Lord Holland) felt,as s the converse of what was fielt by this great lawyer; for he coulidnot oonceive how this sprat in legislation, this miserable bill, could have produced so gpeat a commoton in the house, and that t should be thought by the seVer. end Bench to disturb the ChuTch-. Rle wit equally at a 1oss to khiow how the learned lord on the woolsack could think that his abstruse refinements and latent dloubts shotid be brought into quetion by this little bill. iJe (Liord HoUand woul- recommen tenobe and learned lord not to cry "1Wolf !1 at every-little mouse on the floor. ,He should not be so ready "1To rnf and chiase2 wi' rtsurdl'rin pattle;" the " wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastre." A stran- ger whio had hoard what bhad passed ini thehouse, would be surprised to learn that the whole question involved in this bill was whether persons of the Uniitarian religion ishould be allowct to marry as they were before' the year 1756, and as they still were in Irelandl, in consideration of the feelings of' conscience which they professed. Some reverend prelates had takecn upon themselves to explain, not the scruples of their own consciences, but of otlier persons, and to assert before their lordships that the Unitarian could feel no scruples on this occasion. 1He (Lord Hol- land) knewv no way of ascertaining scruples of conscdence either of conimunities or inidividuals, but by the declarations of the pasties thiemselves ; and he was still to learn, that whien he declared a thing was contrary to his conscience, any other person might tell him it was not so. It was said the words objected to were the words of our Savour an emloyd b th Untarans themselves. The Uni- tarins sid," Wedo eplo thewors, hut in another sense, and in he ay urSavourdos eplo tem ; but when you tAke the words frm that lace, ~ employthe inaoher wvay, we sy i is arduponus o becaled uon o pt another sens onthee wrds" O thi initaionto ergveration the learned metropolia had observed in a hita-iemner; and though he (Lord Holland) might he thoutght to be more Popishily inclined than. others of their lnrdshbips, he should be sorry that such should be his opinion of the Church of England. The noble and learned, lord saidthis bill maLde the Chiurch of England the haind- maid to the dissenters, and he dwelt muchupon the broad distinction between the Unitarians and the Church of England. Now from thatt any mar) would suppose the bill was the reverse of what it vras: it would be imqagined. that i; was a bill to join the members of the Church of England atnd the Unitarians, which was precisely the thing the bill was to get rid of, The noble and learned lord had con- ceived that the registration of the miarriage would make the church of Bnglancl the handmaid of the dissenters. What should he said of it, then, whien she married theis, but that shemnade something worse than ahandmaiden of herself, even aprostitute. ThenoblceandIlemw, lord asked if they wished to he put in the pituation of the jev;.l ~~id ql~QIJAM anld mid bring gi bil ftiMgard; but would lip supor te bllifit er bougt orar? But then he came for- wardwithhis egaldoubs andi~des, whigh h;%d already emn CHANCELOR rse tosay that he hadl stated that he ad eenempoye tat imein warng heaTguments. Lord HLLAND esume. He toughtit sounded a little odd bu frm wat he obl au lerne lod hd sid,it would teem e hadno lw hefce LodHarwicli's tie, Te greater. tha th cmiiii laasf tiisrin~ adnot been touched; but whatwasthatto he prpoe? Terewas an'itnportant bill which woul soo coe uner dscusionthealien bill-in the debates on which he (ILordlHolland)bhadtaken an active part; and he once stated, on the opinion of emninent lawyers, that he had gi eat doubts as to who were aliensanid who were not; and he called upon the noble and learned loril to state who qllens were, but he got n'o satisfac'tory an. wr.He mioved seven questions to he referr-d to the judges, on the subject, and the noble and'learned lordl then said, he cared not who aliens mighit be, but where they were they must be subject t this law. Again, on the bill which he should ever consider a dis- grae t ths ounry,forth deentonof Napoleon Buonaparte, if h ~'re~rsonrofwar r nt? ad we a right to call upon allginceornotan ha harihto all upon us lbr rotctisi Wold n adonlieI rouht n hisnme ? The nobl an lernedlor relied eiherhe dd nt kow,or he wvould not tll. his ws wht wassaidon tat occasion when the liberty of that individual was to be restrained; but when a single step was to be taken in charity and indulgence, no advance must be made till every doubt is removed. It was said that this bill wptsld be de- rogjatory to rtse Estabhi.she4 Church. Hle (i4ord Holland) had al- ways thought tEai the chl,vatrdifstics of th'e Christian Church were lowliness and huiriility; andit seemned to hlm that the feelings of the learned metropolitan were truly in unison with the genuine dictates of Christianity. He (Lord Holland) felt that the mneasure would not only he a relief to dissenters, but also to the Church of England; for it muist, to say the least, be a painfuil duty to be using that nname wliichthe cqnscieptious Churc'hmani ntver could use without the most solemn imrpressions, to per~ons who he itavAlisten toit only in con- forinity to onactof Parliament. Itcould jotbe proper that they should be placed in the situationof sayiig to the dissenter, "Ne fare sumnp- tuously every day, ancl hold the opinions of kings and princes, fhils myo tatle.?or, proscribed, and pick up the crumbs whiich faill frommy abl. 'This was exciting that spirit of Pharisaical pride which eryman who understood te spirit of the Christian religion, and I.rpd the Eestablished Churchi, would be willing to see thrown far from f.' As to th~e noble an4 learned lord speaking; of this bill as if it were a'stone cast at~ the Chuich of Engglan, he (Lior-d Hol- land) recollected reading lately an elegant inivective agains,t exa.gge- ration, whiich he wished the noble and learned lord had read. Surely the noble aiid learned lord had been guilty of exaggeration when he spoke of this bill as a great blow to the Church, and told the rev, benchi that they must disregard the minor question of dues, tithes, &C., sin6te' if bills of 'this sort were allowed to pass, thiere was an end of the Church altogether. He had bef ore learnt from the noble and learned lord, that till Lord Hardwicke's time there was no law in England ; and he nowv learnt that there was no Church of' England in Ireland, for Unitarians married there. Amidst all the grievances of that country, this the greatest of grievances had escape-d observation-that the Unitarian dissenters could marry thiere without being forced into the body of the churchi, Thenfoble and learn& lord apprehended the greatest danger to the church, and he expressed his great devotion to her ceause; but he had all alotig left out of hia argumaent hiow this bill was to effect this dreadful catastrophe. He (Lord Holland) would givec the bil his support, because he knew, judging from the fruit, that it was for the relief of a mnoral and religious class of personsB who stated the law at eetwb gibfm 92A eenOven(wKether wisely or not be would not contend) against clandestine marriages; andI becuse it'deprived the clergy of nothing. The registration was not a religious duty, but merely a civil act, the performance of which was imiposed by Parliamsent, and for the al- teration they were not without precedent, as the lawv would only then be as it.was beforelLord 1Hartdwicke's time, and as it was at pre- senit in Scotland and Ireland. The Earlof LI VERPOOLsaid, he would support tbe principle of the bill though he, was convinced that no persion who attended to his public conduct' could doubt his sincere attachment to the chiurch establishment, to whiuhit was alleged by somie of their lordships to be bostile. Ile could not conceive the possibility of danger or of in- jury to the Established Clhurch from the provisions of this bill. WVhat did they do ? They merely placed a certain class of dissen- ters on the footing on which they were prior to the passing of Lord Hardwickc's act. His (Lord Liverpool's) noble friend on the wool- sack hadi contended that the bill shiould apply to all dissenters as well as Unitarians; but lie had not attended to the fact, that the Unitarians, in respeCt to the asticle from whichi they were to be relieved by the bill, stood in adifl'erent situation fromi other dissenters. It had been said in thea debate, that the comhpliance required by the church to the obnoxious parts of' the marriage ceremony could scarcely be c-alled a hardship ; hut of this they w-ere, accordLing to the observation of the noble baron opposite (liord Ifohland), the beat judges. They thoughit it a hardship; anti lie (Lord Liverpool) re- spected their religious feelin)gs. He could not forns a decided ojd nion with respect to the propiriety of hltering the law as it rgre other dissenters. A bill was brought in for general relief soetm ag.o. lie (Lord Liverpool) had agreed to the second reading of that bill, on the prospect that it could be amended in a commnittee, tliough he agreed in sonic of the objections to a general meca- sure, and stated at the tinie that be thought it less difficult and less hazardous to apply a specific remnedy to each parti- cuar cue,tan to pass a getteral nieasure einbracing all. . He thought s~till tat if' proper securities were given against fraud an~d clandestine arriages, there could be no objection to allow dissenters of all denominations to marry according to their own rites, provided both the parties to the r.darrriae contract were wihu Zh ae of the church. The nobleal thn delivered his opinion wit respect to the effect of the act for the relief of Unita- rians in 1812. Diffi culties and dfoubts might he stated as to the legal effect Of that aet, as diffculties and doubts miighit be stat- ed on the meaning and cont atiction of every other law ; but it was universally' understood to afford substantial protection and relief. In the same inanner doubts were started with respect to the miarriages of Jews and Qtuakers; but every one knew that since the art by which they were exemptedi, the marriages of those sects had be-en considered legal, and property had followed unquestioned. The bill was intended to place Ulnitarians in the same situation in this respect as Jews and Quakers. His (Lord Liverpool's) nble friend on the woolsack had imsked,why the UnitariaLns dsd not pnloace themselves in the samne situation ? This might be the subject for deliberation in the comnmittee to which it was now proposed to send the bill, If the diss6riters kept their own register, it nljghit h~e allowed theti'to'-tisarry according to their con- science. Apprenensions had been expressed with respect to the se- cuiyOf the Church Establislhipqt if this bill passed- Nothing coldbe more unfounded. Though differimng with the noble baron OgPpsite (LOrd Holland) on many essential points respecting the c urch, he agreed with him in not Conbtruing a mneasure like this in- to a source of danger; and could not 3ound the alarm whore he feli perfect security. TheI3ihop-ofCHSTER explained, and repelled the charge of equvoctio bougt aaint he isueh n he ct f prfrming the LordYIOJLANDexplined an staed tat te chrchforced othes t equvocte, n rquiing hemto asen todoctrines Contents.-.present, 55; proxies, 50 .105 Nou-colntents...present, 41; proxies, 25 .66 Mlajority for the amendment . . -.-.-39 The bill was in consequence lost.-Adjourned at hlfdpast eight. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tl;ESDAY, MAY 4.