House Of Lords, Friday, A...
The Times, 1824-04-03T00:00:00

0tveuar petitions aj~atnsr vy'est irrjra slavery were prestnwe.. Petitions agatinst with'drawi'ng thlehui.iea boun?ties were preseitted;. by-the llarquis of LAXSD`NJvs5frtothe Otand Jury of 1Tipperilry; and by the rL of CL -% z f romi tlhe time rick Coun ty Assocrat;on. iIL111K.DUTIES lLt. *The Earl of LIVB9tP06L Tose to move the second: reading of this bill. The measure, he obsevvtd,, wa one of great importance but the miore he considcred. the subject, toe - i6re he wias satistied that the effect of the proposed change- wouldl be.ailiantageots 6-tire country. Ile had once been one of -tiose wvho ektekiaired dou6ts.of- the propriety of.pernmittsng a etibipAtiton 1n certatinamnuvoctute,q5ber more mature consideration hiad cnicdhim of tbeirnipolicy.of any restriction whatever. If it were possible for their lordahips -now to .have anv apprehension of injury.-from allowing the importation-IRf foreign ~ilk manafaCture; that apprehension iedifla be removed, on leanin, tat n cnsquece f te ~rtgo iii tIl lit* propo'sed tobe madeby hisbil,-nw sikmaruf~ctirewerelikeIyto be sta-ihfshe1l in. iffeent.pain ofthe ounty. .rrageinents~ be. undex-itioa, wer maingat irmnghm fr te itroductjon of-dris-manufsac Cur,: dith wuldgiv enplomen to30,000 or 40,000-persons. Inded, her coud b nodoabof he atnufactarersof this country beingable ~ comete itlh foreigners withlout tlie. protectioa derived fromprohbitry lws. The, priniciPle of free trade, on which the bl a bmd would put. thie- silk-manufactutre on a fai footig i asta of qxid pro quoqr 'for the olet --thebl w as to reduce the price of, the raw mlaterial, Whil it- diil -away with the prohiibitorv sy-tem,,and admitted the foreign nisiufhatuteil article undler a protecting tlaty. - The imlsihiohy of prohibitions was now too obvious to be questioned. It wa-e.to be expectea. that fo- reigners woiuld always obtain a superiority in-somne branch of manu- fact~ureor othier, andl tills wvas not to be- regretted. It was not tie- sirable that other countries'should not inmprove as ive improved ;'for suchi reciprocal inmorovernent was; advantageous to -all. Looking, however-, at thir silk-manufacture in the extecisive scale in which it was prosecutedl in this countryi in all its branch es- hemsw no reason, to think- that the competitioruiof the English inanuKaturer would-not be successful. Indeed, after the inquiiriesi snitch hgd been madic, he was perfectly satisfied that the operation - of the present bill wvould have a beneficial eff'ect on the trade of the country. When the measure was first introduced, it was-intended that the prohibition on importation should cease itt the saute period that the reduction of the dluty on the raw material commlenced; .but it had since beadi thought reasonabtathit the'rrian ditim~jrr should havA the start, by being allowed else reduction earlier. Such.were the prineipal groands on wihich the present bill had beeh brought forward. His MA2jestv's Govermuruent, might have easily introduced mneasures more -generally popular ; but what they looked to in this was the estabslihment of oudpicples, andl the 1aying the foundatsDrs of a Just commer- cilsse,lie concluded by moving that the bill be now read a secondl time.' The Marquis of LANSDOWN conicurred MOStcomlpleteIT inthe views which the noble lord at the head of the Treasury liad ex ess- ed. They were, indeed, Elise same as the views twhic- hie h-id long entertained on the suhject. As to tite last point on which the noble earl had totuched, namely, the removal of the .prohibition against the introduction of foreign -silks, nothing could be inore politic, or was calculated to be more advantageous to the country. Thec principle of proliibition being once remo6ved by this bill, he~ earnestly hoped it never would he permitted aertin to have a placs in the llritish code. -As to the efFect of -thlTi bill, he retained the same sanguine opinion -which he' had heretofore ex- pressed. Whatever appyrehiensions some individuals mnight enter- tain, he had not the least doubt that, sid(ed by' the improve- ment of machinery, and the recitictien of tire duties on the raw mateelal, the manufactutrer of this country woiuld be well able to mnatntain his place against any- foreign comipetition. The only question on whiich there could he any doubt was, tirat.of the timp to he allowved to the manufactu-rer. As the clhange was great, it was certainly but fair that a sufficient jreriod for preparation should he granted. The Earl of LIVERPOOL wishedI to correct a mistake he had made in Iiis speecli. Manchester, not Birminghams, was the place whiere he understood nmanufactories of silk were about to be esat- blisled. . The hill was then read a second time, and ordered to be commit- ted on Monday. LI) R AT . Lor-d HOLLAN D wished to ask the noble earl opposite, wire. ther the absurd and unconstictutional comnmission for WVindsor Cattle was abandoned. The Ercd of LIVERtNOOL was nnr pren1a-red'ito atnswer the noble lo d's question ; btit if any comnmission shosald be issued,it would be by his Majesty's comnmandl. IRISH TTTHES~ COMMI-1TTEE. The Maruis ofLANSDOVN hadsome peditions to prsent on thesubectottheIrih tth comuttin act, to which h~ewlshned to daw he artculr atenton f-teirlordships, In the lastt ses- sionof Prliment hehad eltit hs dty to supiport the principle of the masur intoduce forhecomutaion ofteitlres, as suceh amnis- sure had benlg soght for in Ireland ; bat it was ne- cessary tat i hudb impartial, inodrt rdce even a partial res orto ftaqillityinta,cury In giving hiis support to h esr,h had thogti rgtt uality that support withi some excepitions; anld ihenwoudt ecessary to recal the attention of their lortiships to the objections he had ?or- mcnrlt stated,he should not advert to any one ,of the justice of which hie was not convinced he could satisfy the Irouse andl the noble earl Opposite. i shotild first remind theii iordships, that he had stated that tlite billl exhibited a primna falic inequality in its operation on the parties to whouri it applied; in consetquence of which many were disinclined toa=ssist incairvin)g trlnrTeeseer As. owerwas giveriby the bill of last session to increase tire provision for the clergy be- yond wlirt anyhatl received for Itei lastseven years. T-his he thought was fair; because it was but jus.t-tliatae-leryiman shouild beullowied an increase, if he had received Iless than was due during the seven years; batint,q might occur in which it woirid be equally just to give him le,as; anT 'it: would lhave been proper to have inserted a clauise in the act allowing tire parishioners to state their reasons for reducing the provision. This reciprocity, however, was niot allowed. Hatt such a clause existed it Vould'have raken away a plausible argument or just objection, winch was seldom omnitted to be urged against the measure-namnely, that the parishioners, if they agreed to act under this bill, might have to pay more, hut it was im- possible they couild have to pay less. He did not know whether it was owing to any dulness of' apprehension on the part of the Irish peasantry, or from that confusion of ideas which was by some atm. trihuted to thzem, that they couild nor find out thiejustice of this re. gulation. They felt, lhowever, that they were shut out from isnking a fair bargain, and thought tirat they, perceived a design to miake the arrar.gemeist unfavotir-able to them. TheClauSe whichirelated to the machlinery of the bill was equally objectionable. It was impossible for any one to Ioresee to what extent the expense of executing the - billimight go, but as the ineasuire was altoget~her for the benefit-of the church, it was reasonlable, to expect that ehe clergy wvould 'pay a share. On the contrary, the wholeof thieburden was tirrown on the other party.lt was thereforeby nioimeans surprisingthattlris-patttofthe arrangemenjt slrould hr regardedas ui just, bothbytlhecountrvgentle- men and farmers, who suffTered by it.' Another ground ofc6nimplaint arose from an obscurity in the bill, which it wvould perhaps hein the pow.%er of tienoble ea,rl opposite to rensiore. The noble earl must be aware tat nearly all the arrangements whichl had taken place un- der the bill, had been made tinder a clause.- introduiced by a mem- be ofhsIhaesty's Govermnentits the otirerbrouseof Parliatrentthie effehct of which was to give a power of altering the arraugementmnade on the mneeting of the vewtry. It was understood that the arrange- men t settled at the mneeting should he final ; but the resultwas,that a farther proceeding was forced upon unwvillingpart'ies. l Menn only to rome to a fnalsaettlcnrent at thevestry meeting, theyvfound that tliey were obliged togo on tosomethiing else; thatbhavf'ngagreed to onie arrangement, they were understood to irave Riven their assent to any subsequent one which might take place. This provision, which wa.s called the trap clanic, had given great offence, and-it was nmost desirable that the- matter shiould be mnade clear, soid all appeararnce of unfair-rioes remioved. That theact contaiining these objectionable clauscswould beameiided in thepresentscssion,be wasittill encouraged tolhope. By the votesof tle otherhiouiceof-Parliament,which were before their lordships,bheliAd, however, becoineacqusainted with abill introduced into thisthouse of a very extraordinary nature.~ If that bill shiould pass tire other house, there wvould be proposed for their lordsiips' adoption a measure, which he did not hesitate to, say -was more subversive of the righits of propertytlirani any me,asre tver introduced inito Parliament. It was a billrwhith ire mutit believe ne- ver could pass that house, or any assemibly =xrciing sond judg- men t. In the couirse of the last session, he a re to the three parties suibject to the operation of the bill. One consisted -of the holders of the existing tithes,-and hosuppoied it was natural inthiem to vyishi to receive nixore than they had previously done. The tithe- payers constituted another party,and it wyas to be presumedl that they would wish-to par lerss Tire thiird part was - formed of those who possessed land tithe-free, and -who were not legally :~T50ttll to par anly tliing. - Jt certainly did occur to him, that there lurked unde'r tire bill, a design to conciliate two of tisese parties, the receivers and he payers, at thve expense of ttire weaker party', h tiod hadIitherul not been-bound topayvany-thing. He s;tated-hiis stisicion, a%nd fdt it tobhohis duty to poiintout-thie iniusti-ce of the course wiich sjs. peared to becontemplatedl. What answer did -the noble earl oppo- site then give? He said that no compulsion Was meditated against those who were riot bousna to pay tithesr-that, infhlct,: compulsion ivith respret- to themi was impossible, as they were empowerea to vote, AndS no less thant six votes were given them for their protectiois. le hail no interest in-this question,- buthe could not express to their loruhships his astonishrment at finding, that a clause was introduced into tire bill before the other liousti, to deprive the persons to -whom he had alluded of the six votes to which thecy were atpresent enti- tled, and to place tire largest propertv in the country on the same footing with the smallest. - f - this bill ~Assed into a-law, -the smallp- poprietors - -would -he able to owt-vote- the large proprietors, -who- pissessed the greater iiart of the land in each parish, contrary to -all the principles on? Which- Parliament had -ever acted in all cases of property ,a; in thmilt:mikiig of roads, canals, arid so -forth; the possessors of one tenth- of telseproperty of a parish would-ire enabled to control those -who possessed the other nirne;tenths. Could - any thing -be -more -um`re61s1)nabfl[i-ea this ? Anotber clause which hetfound in the billnuow before-the -Commons was notbless-reprehensible. It empowveredanly person-*hm-dsg.htbe appointed a comnmissioner, tco order to be brought before him -tire title deeds of tire estates, which any noble lord ebr drsY' ther r erson m-ight have in Ireland.- - Was it-possible that thjeiri-lordiuhips' houlse, which hbad irlwiys, manifested- such -a delicate-gstipoer, couldl sanction such-a clause-es this ? stra it:to b,enddrea that their lordships should be thus called- don to produce eve-r:title deed, every scrap-of paper connected -wsth their property ? -It'ws-im. possible the noble lord ouposite could give his assent tb 'such a-men. sure. Itwars impossiblerthe noble and learned lord'on the-woolsack, who paid somuch attention to-questions of property, could pernit it to proceed _ . : - - Trhe LORD CHANCELLOR rose to order. It was the- first time he had ever-heard the clauses of a bill- in progress in the other House of Parliament made the subject of discussion in tMtirilord- hips' house ' - : TIie llc rsrauiL of-LANSDOWN-considertd that- he -was strictly in order, 'as he was speaking on a bill against which the petition he had to presentas asddressed. He was entitlea to- state-ana-he thoui~t it butfair'to call the attention -oftheirlordships thes ecrly to the tubject-tlrat- tbie measure whichl waR-in pfogres i thb oth'er house -of Parliament, rio far-fron being calculated to relietthe paT- ties complaining of the act,-wotltl uggravate the evil'underwhiclhtbe6y laboured. But to wave- aldispute-on thc qucstion of-oirer, -.Fesoutld pitt the case hvpothetically4 and say- he undekstod :dtha t M and so had been proposed elsewhere - which: would com' precisely to the samT'hhting. - e--would stite; 'thAt -last Veal the avsera. tucaken op the last ven years had bcwrt coqn;idred too hlgs ~and it.was ihDught ric1st io correct it by giving the opp-or- ftanstyofartalterotiotn at tl4e endi. .thrce jeais.'Ntihannj cl!Asarrang'ement,ic lhd.beenp.rtiposfid,. that when the-average of'the seven years should once 'be determi(ned on,it sho~uld bfirrevocalile,~nil could not be alteredI at tba.end of- the first thire yeari. 'Suchan enaci- metat s that be had described, 'their lordships must perceive;would be no relieqf from the, hardlship. cosnplained of last sesion. Ilecousld assure theirliordship.s, that in stating these obj'ections to the measure, lhe was- actuate:k byno oppositioin to the principle. He was mrost de-. sirous-ofseefpg it-earriced into efi~ect, but wished the obkjctionablc clausses-of tie bill-to undergo,arnenament. In.particuilar, he thought it duei to thec proprietors not liable'to pay tithes, thiat they. should be relieved 'from compuilsion, and thiat whiatever they d'id? to- :wards the execution of the meassure, thriv shoald be hper-. mitted. to -do of. their ow-n free will. While 'the lay hlolders and impropriators- di tithes were not subject to comipulsion in coining -to an arrangement, he trusted their lordships would maot be -so unjust as to impose compulsion on those who h,Ithlerto ha~d tiot been bownid to:psytithes, arid.who surely were entitle to remaiii as froemtestf ot-her party 'who received the tithies. Ile ecmicluded by presenting a petitions aguiinst the tithe commuttation bill,f rom a parish in the county of ~Tipirs The Earl of rI,VtliERYO L would rtat b'e ipnduced by any thing which -the -noble marquis hiad stated,. to anticipate the diccssion which woalcl probably regularly come on, ai to what alterations it might be proper to imakc in a mneasuTe now before the other house. -Whenever-that bill came before their lordships.. it would be time to eansider in what 'respect the bill of last' sessioti was; defective, and what-g-aeniehnenl-s it.nmight requiire. What he wishedI now to ex- plain was, thei re-Al state of the case with.respect to the bill wbich was staid to haye failed, When hie proposed the second readinig last year, he- observcd to their Ior.lship,thtnier enoay person could expect the meaSure to be otherwise thani im- pierfect, and that nothing mlore could then be expcted t;han to establish the principle. It was under this inmpression that he stated hiis opinion of the effect which, was to be expected fromi the bill. last Session, but -that opinion was now Compyletely changed. Many amendmnents were made with a vievv to coan- ptilsiq,n, because it wips supposed that without. compulsion there would be-no success. But the measure b-d been eniinentlv su,ccess--I ful- He was now prepaTea to say that the n'.easure hsadtiucceede I -=eynd the most sanguine expectationi whicis anyv nerson ever had fome respecting it. He found that it hail uccee&di,n more thanI ons_tenth of the-parishes. It had been carnlaluto eicution in 279 ces; (Hr Lord Lans,iown appeared to intimatw some 41i,ssent.) He could assure the nable marquis that sucha appeared.to bethe fuct,I accoding to the retuirns be hiad received. It had besides. beenI carreie inito effect in-23 cases sinuce the mneeting of that house, and fresh applications hail been made for 39 arrangements. WihregardI to what the noble marquis hali stated.on the subject Mof the clause, seconding to which, in somne cases, the clergyman might receive more than had been paid on an average of seven Years, he~ must oh- se--ve that else objection was far from being well founded. The rear-on of the provision obviously was, because lite clerzyman could not have recedved more than hiis right. There couila thierefore be ne rea- son for insertina~ a' power to give him less than his due; but he mhight have received so mdtch less than whiat he was entitled to, that in common justice it w ould be necesary to give an increase. Henc-e the necessity .for the power which the noble marRuis regarded as a mark of paitiality. Thie measusre had been carrnedl into operation in a most itberal mnanner in ten dioceses, snd the amount per ar.re re-. ceived by~ the clergyman in somne of theni he wouild scare. In the dioces of Carlo*, he received-Is. 3d. pera?cre'; in Clozst'ert, 6Sd.: in Elfin, Ild., in Meath, Ild. In sliorc, be could- assu7c their lord- ships that the measure had suceeeded far beyornd any expecta- tion hie had at first tlso,sght himself w-arranted in encoufaging. TheEarlof KINGSTO)N presenteda-petitionfrom thie inhabitants ofTemele O-arrick, intchecontay ofCorl,,agains;t the tithe compo'cnioa bill. hiis lordship stat-d-the fact, that in on,eplac.e (whichh lie mn- tiond) her wasno rotstan chrcherected, the rector having objcte totheexpnseof 51.a yarfor the salary of the curate; and he cnseqenceas. hat ll te ihabitants were Roman Catliso- lies en tohis wn nowedgee culdassure the house that man s- Proestntswet t mas,athr tango to no place of worship liord KING said, that after thc imany grants of' pu blic money for theerection of churches, aind glebe-bouses, itmust be very mortifying to the houise to find their intentions frusatrated. by those who ought to promote them, but who rather seemed to tisink tlse cure of souls oucht to be the sinLceure of souls. The Earl of KINGSTO.N pre'senled two other petitions from the inhabitants of Kilbeggin, and arother parish in the county of Cork, against thie tithe coinmuciatiorn bilL The Earl of 4J bARE thought the bill necessary for the salvation of tbe churych, if it couild be zendered practicable, of which bhe muchi doubted. The Earl of DARNLEY presented a petition from the couinty of Cork against the tithe commutation bill:. he thought the statement of the noble lordl (Lordl Kingston) furnished a stronger argumenlt for in=r into the state of I'reland than any which lie should have the hoorto adduce on Monday next, when he shiould bring the The etitons ereseveall rea, ad ordlered to lie on the table. The EgI ofLIVEROOL wshed,if not inconvenient to the nobe erl thesrlofD~rley, tat itwould delay for a few days the otin wich ie ailelve noiceottthe general state of Ireland. The Earl of I)A-R'NLEUY had noojcinto imeet tIme wishes of the noble earl, and woutld po-st p neitllTsdyne- The Earl of HARROWB itogh tl"ltrca would. be more convenient to the house. - The EAr bf, DARNLEY cauld not acquiesce in the stggestion 6 f thefinuble ea.rl foraiw-loneer delay'. - The Earlof KINGSTON movedl for a retdm,to ascertain wvaether Thomas MTostyn, Esq., the sub-slieriff'of Sligo bad taken the oathLs of qualification, pursuant to act of Pairliament.- TbeLORD)-CH-ANCELLORobjeciedto it.as unparcliamentary,I if it were intended to fnund any proceeding on the return agaiwst the individual : -n which a short discussion enisued, in wI ch Liord IfOLLANXD, the LOan CZANCE:LLORt. and the Earl of IHARROW- ar took part- The Earlof K I NGSTON conlsented to withdraw his motion UIN'ITARIAN MARRIAGES. The order of the day for the second reading of' the Unitarian mar- riasge relief bIll bairLLe read, The Maquis f LA SDOWNsaid, he should not have thouht i neessay t hav caled hei lordships' attention to this subjct t ay lngc~itit ad ot eenintimiated to him that an op~ Is siton as~ntededto e mde o te measure now before ctle lous. Tis ill rignatd inpettios wvhichi had beets presented fro th Diseter inthelat sssin f Parliament, in which they comuplaiuied of the necessity they were under, as the law now stood, of taking a share in the celebration of the marriage ceremony, to which they could not in conicice assent.'- It was the first dluty of the legislature, on civil grounds, to provide against the celebration of clandestine marriages, but thiat bEing provided for, it was most important that marriage should he contriLeted. withi that so.. lemiity hichshold gve t it n t e-ee of the parties the meaost lastng nd bsdig - bliatio. Wen e stated that it was the dut ofthelegslaureto rotde gaist clandestine marriages, it posibl, ad t avid vey tingtha ba evst heappearance - of a iolaton ofconscence ndon his gound heirlor ips wouldi fnd it necessary to adopt th rpstion nhesh a ow to sub- mit to dliem. It ha beensadtt the ineasure lee-should propose would inclule an alteration oftbe litulrgy. This was not thietime to oisc,lss whether such an alteration were desirable, as his -proposi-. tion lert tliatpart of ourchurch service entirely untouched. Their i lordshipms, he was persuaded, -would not think that personsi- who were tolerated by tlsa law should, in the ceremony of marz ag,be coment-Iled to violate their consciences, and be brou6ht stot our-churches, and appear to signifv th-eir assent to doctrines whtich the law did not, in any other instance, call upon thaem to do. It was monst important that marriatge conirc-mts should be entered into with' all the Circumstances moat binding to the par- ties, and the object of the s.tre being secured by publicity and so- leminity b'eing given, that- publicity an~d solemnity' should z,ake phlac in the mannerwlliich the parties thought proper. He thereford-isro- posed in the bill n-ow belbre the house, that the Dissenters commnon.; ly called U7nitarians mnight, uinder certain regulations, be nmarried in their oa-i chapels, having Dreviously given securitv to theChurch for the pu'blicationi of bans -and the payment of i'ees -due to tbd - .Church. He should lisave been plmease to hatve brought in a bill of'a snior'comprehensive nature,i.ncluding all dissenters from the Church, who could naot reconcile it to their consclaienes to coficur int the miar- riagecereony;but wthli a view to practical beniefit, be had I thouht i bet tolimt th mesureasie hoAd; for- wvhen this suib- jec wa fonerlybefre hehoue, t as said by thiose for whose authrityhe hd th higest espet, tat tere ight be trivial ob- jectins tken-bjecionsas t mer fors, wich the Legislature was ot oun toattnd o; nd t ws aso aidthat it would afford fcltes to clandeStine marriages. it was then said, let us see the inds4uadswho have mostreason to object to thelaw-let us see their ease and profvide for that. The bill before their lordships atltended to the cae of the parties who, by the admission of soine of the right reverend prelatesi were acknowledg,ed to have most reason, in foroconcu'ttn,to complain of the marriage ceremony. It was 9tated ~vt prthononiraLble to the church, tisat the moment a- case aperd nwhich the parties hiad conscientious objections teewudbe a disposition to affoird it relief. The bill went on to provide, that the Protestant Dissenters comdioiilv called Unitarians mnight he registered , and after being soD regisierehl for not less than a YeAr, their -marriage might be celebrated in their ownl ChaplstI. Tt wsas also provided, that miinisters shiould be pu- nishable if they celebrated nov marriauge cotayt b Lt u he shousld have no objection that tr2nsoortation sho'tld be thei punish- ment assigned for it. Although thei publication of bans was per- hans the best scurTity againsi clandestine usarziages, vet, if any other should be tlhouight preferable, such as registering thec intended marrige he should not object to it. Thotugh the parties to be re- lieved by tLcbl eetefrhs eoved of arnyProtestant Dissen-- tees-from thte doctrines of the Church of England, yet thazt was no, reason for the house to-refuse indtil,ing them,being,in -common 'with all Dissenters, tolerated by the law, - and' being unquestionhblg chat class who had. most reason to object to the nmarriage ceremo- ny a? it now stooa. It was on this allegation on thieir part thlat tshe legislature was called uponn to extn heidlene n ulss any noble lord couldl contendl that the Vinitarian ought to be -caset without the pale of society, or that he should -.ot be allowed to marry, or, if he should have that permission, yet the occasion-of the marriage, ceremony should bh taken to subject him to what he csteemed a violation of his conscicnce ;._unless -any noble lord was bold enough tomaintainay of these proposiions, he (the 5Aar. quls of Lansdows) could not conceive any objection to the Unitarian Dissenters being married in the ay the presetbill proposed. The noble Narquis concuded- by moving that the bill ba read- a second The Archbishop ofGANTERBURY sad,aifthetelie?soughtwas to-be obtairiedby removing the scruples from one description of men to lay therm on another-from the smaller number to the larger- from the Unitarian Dissenter to the -rnemberg of the EStablished Cbhirch-he shoulk certainly have-objected to it. -At the close of the last session of Parliameeit,abill-was .ubmitted to theirlordships, pro-ceeding on a very diftPrebt principle; for whatever other faults it btd, it was not chxrged' ith transferring to others tke grievances whbichai assuted to-redregs. To lthat bill he (the Archbishop of (C:aoktbury) 'Was ad'pet.e e:and it was also opposed by others of their 4ordships, andlwas ultimatelyrejected. At thattime tic-re appear- d a' disposition in the house to give, in some forrn,relief to the Uni- tariane.- That relief could-only be given in one of two wvavs-_either by enabling the Uinitatians, under certain regulations to intermrary ins th'dr ovn-places of' oishio,-oi Win nlteration'of the fbriniof the marriage ceremony ill the Church ofBEngland service, To thelast lie objQd, and still did objeet; dcprec ting,as he did,auy Alteratiqns of thitt kcind. it miii 1e that Trere'td be o,nittedu ~?i-~rI ,l~ teratiokTh mighIt sob-rI flmsn ~esides; thv so jsv,4lla4.r fAw n bce en aried; tlwtiaanLeet rnutilat~dq iutitwits rectec by' 1 t~tiA ~ was~ :Irhe'otiW o'rolief, thti wsby bi'hgt.~l objec of whic~v~e'ih aseofthe l)iaiaa -aid theseut-il Churh~ 'he tte'wuld,boatitended 's6: 'lthe' mse,!htt [ordhip shuld agee'to the-bill koin-io-'that stage-iahey laidthatit ws exraor y~tthis-faomir'snould, be yTrnited; et5 thcThjtaran 'Dsserter8, andyt6 reflnsed.citeodsrs,-'buttheg~routnd', on,which theggislaturd -p e wAs'.not favowr,4%'bnt~z regat4ei to conscientos sruples'; -aandvIheie they. exuiti,tedtheyr.'ertcau1iy.7 were entild torelef.' TherefAiid '~ei osdigtoelre,~ tinenarrsge; bu theconidTEistin wich"was ducim-cornciczentiouce- scrple ouweihedtht.' 'Tle ublcatonof bdns"'sp 'fbe;parials, l0iileolV wold eavndor oen'to"vason~which it zoaii.dbe lesiabl to voi. Aso te-clinrf' t Diseusrs enecally; it waaanot vested 'on' conscience ; but objetos t das -essentialf . were taken' to the foinsc of teremtonies,'fe i'ite ee~n our'- -hurc'h, and innffinsivd as thecy were in princile Heopd in the cnmmittee, suchi restrictions would be agreed oa ol ,v secu- rity to:r-he )iesenter.4 and to the public -lit lttrge The LORD CHANCELLOR. exprdssed Ihis regret in differ- inzg firom the opinion of-thiemost reve,read'prelate,,lor whons.helhad the hiFhetr respect. The bill (which appearea to lirnne.-Aremely imiper-. fect) wras on behalf of persons denymng the doctriaie of the'Trinity. Speakir.g,' not ats an, individual, bat as a mnembe'- of that houes~ hie dlid not inquire whether thtra was wedoctrine'lfounded ou-Scriptuiea. it was a doctrine of the chutrch of England, and he *pprtherded it was his ;duty to support that church.as it stood.- ltapprared-tobhhn that some o'thier nmeasure was neces'ary as a first' step;; -foritwas st miistake to suppose thait the repeal of heho9h Ded Will of William had made the denying the doctrine of the 'J'riniry perfectly legal that was -not the case : the comnmoni law on thc siubject W'ss not-re- p-ealed. The great objection whiich lie hea to the bill was, ihat the- dioctrine of the Trinitywas that of the Church of England,'and those who denied it must hiave a system as ctlifTreht as light and- dark. Jews anid Quakers were at present m-arried, not . accordling - tv' the church of England(I; and by this; bill that iwa extetsitIe to those who hadi religious scruples, and where, he vould ask,weasir, to stop? Withouit entern into a consideration of the particular' clauses of the biil, he would observe that it was a bill to mnake the Church of England servdn,s ef thbse ivho denied its' first doctrines. Thertoalof he ctof iliamdidno alerthe lawv, exeePt that jecionto he illwasthi-tht i on dotrie was imore' essential to he'hurh o'~i'1ad tan noter,it was. the doctrine of the Tiliity nd i w~t ~ stuaton wuldit stand, if it' -wera to be nhsivint o tatwbl',hwasstaed o.be the g'reatest heresy again St it? The Earl of LlV OQL'Podligr'4 that ltthe qtestiort canie-ta'o, V, votc, be should vota for th-e bill being im-,d-a'serond' tinme ~and goink to a committee ; but lie had no hesitation in stating, if ic-came ourt of the committee in the shape it now wL.s, he sh',uld opluose i, He' was prepared to give relief where 'both the parti-es were (rJiitaTiauis or eren in the cases of the marriages of Jewvs, both th-b partieV natilS be Jevs ; anid in Quaker' marri.ages, both - ainitisbe Quakers.lie wis therefore for confininrg the IrZelie to the cdses where byoth - t-he parties were Unitarizan' 'Ind not whtre one-was of. the isation&j churchi. The security siotld be in the declaration bf the individual! Wdely; hut' some ctri~ficate thould be ha .d front tbe4lerymU*I, Thlat he ttsbimftr aUniaran,and nt fr tatpurpose enly. ~Ifit were so amended, he should, give hiis consent to Lt.. , The Bishop of CHESTER, eipressed 'his dissent' fromi the .iill, thiu'gh'le believedtrb6re was no nioble lord that was inore decidedly'- frenl than he waLs to thec priociple of' religious. tolerations. BTe aegir, that in the inteicourse betw-ear the ciL-atre end &ihdCrentbr, n-ot a resitiction shotuld prevail, but tlhatit should be free a? :rhd nir we brcathed' But this 6tppeared (Ito im not'a' questiOn', of rTligioos scrules,butof cviljuripruerer'fi*e iioutld 'not wiste, Tlhetimne of t~ htuse'by tteriptn~ t prve ti~tthere maust be sn natio~a es- othes bythe xcelent utho of MomPh`130osohb' lf.then-elere wasto e anoionl curh.,t tna bepoece yparticular rig'hte anda privileges. That ma-riages .shoul-e rom& i.t-cuches and chapel', was odie of the privileges tPc a eocn'ddr it fo lnt of thne, and being a religious as9 well as civil ceremomy thet State had done winsely in so.ordering it.. As the. 'Sate hadl conr- eezded it, it ought notr' o bo taken. aiay ut-en-valirl considtrationrs; ancl he considered thast thze 'chseOn the tlaitatians fumrhis'hea'el6 gtucli ground, and that thecy bad'no reason..sozcomplaifi' bf'ilie l~W" "'But as hecould not experethe bouse'wousld'take his wordfrtlhilt,hei Nretrul endeavour to pro've i.hose scnidwhitWdeatbat thVeUiii t trian wascalled uponto subscTibe or,declareint thesnitri" !CetetOonV. fle was bound only to uscieh nm;adthafh(Nibe siiop ~,f Chester) belIieved no one vwould consider a ground'of' cosnlaN't- Hei was b~ound to repeat, and say, "W'ith this ripg 1- thie-e wed &.' &c." concluding with, "ip'- the nam-e of' thie Father,. So' ao Moly Ghost." But these were the words of Scriorure; aLnd the, airri clesbof our l-iturgy were, like, the articles Of.'nUt&chuiclu,' ZTtieleSdi' peace, allowIng individuals the libcrty to' fix the ideas which tliek' conceiveclwere signifie'dbythe wd6rdsLisedl. No bbjeedton,tb'eieforec, ought to hr felt by the uiltarians on account of theisawod,'hc thyi fac ade! use of themselves. Their Aiinisteis, in baptism, did 'baptize in) the namoe of ihe 10atheri Sob, afid Holy Spirit., So, far the UTnitarian had no juist reason.to cimplaiin - the Olidrah,'it -tv~s' true, dlid ade her benediction in the name of' Goa the PAther',' -'Son., anti Holv Ghost ; but if the Unitariati 'did. not-'think himself. tfie bettcr for it, he. was not call'td.1-4pon so assent to'it'1 but might ffx to those words what he thought proper. He (the: Bishopo?f Cheater) would de.al withz the Unitaiians' as he would himsnelf wish to be dealt whith; ard were hie i.s a foreien country, though 'roiocluin shtiuld induce-hinm to subscribe to qny' tbuuig conitrary to the'wofti-of God, but in things, unirnportnt bd shiould' thlink himself oblge!'to comply with thie establishied -lawrs of thd country~- Th`eere We atub- thier cons-ideration,tbou~htdnetowhiich he did niot ittach M-ucleWvd fi thev must not lay. theu flatie'tin~ unctlon to thaTr ,otl tha tos privileges most not be~~ 5ed~Orii*'ethhr 5e'cts-, `!I,nn-ti5sone quene wuld e agrea fnliui.of"inthe numrber of niai4qi~esi fi' Btstga te fcs wee ~op1imnear, agreat proportin-i o6f rtse' in- come ofthe lery inhisdibcss as erived froth lthiitsadrite; ~nd if not in the wod,Q h barons o l-ounstg.B- clensi ,nattar. ''''"- Thei Earl of HARROWBY said, that no ~n' would' he a ninure determnined 'oppouent than himself to any thing which 'would' affect the real interests of 'the chiurch ; but hie cou4I not, find ini the measure befbre the hotise any thiing -of thiat naturc. - (H'eaL.) f-fe woultd fairly iconfess, that he could easisil~ conceive how, 'seriousi objections uigim'it arise in the mind. of a partS', whio ent'ert4n'td Wi'Ofi-* scientious coniviction t4at the appellatiobs and attribxut&es of. Oodthae' Father, God th.e Son, an'd God the Holy (xhost wdre imp`itpefly a,.. pliedl anid invoked in sIt ceremonay to wvhifh'thie -bill JeIAtitXd. SisiOh objections might occur, for instance, to a part, who, dilyerin jbruT.. jig ous- opinions from thie Chiurch of Englanci, might'tiik be was. .4vfing a sort of imiplied consent to this part of her doctrine-the'lic-. knowledginent of the.HIoly Ttinity-by aJl'dwing s'uch words to' be, pronounced over hm uon one. of tbef mos*t solemn-and mrosit' "i'llo- rable occasions of hslfe Tequstion. for their 'lordships upon.. this part ofthecs iutb, wehrth dule"s net4ined. as'` itwas alleged, by a at fti e asion4 ove r.vhomsta a -eremoy oforcuc a ob efrmed, was or ivano 4as~ 5oeuafsd4yand one thtwsncetosly and seliousiy. enteitaidhd He (Lord Hazrowby> did: not conceive 'that 'shlje fropoiiitlpns b&e- Fore their. lordships were intenided to apply to'the.cates d( pei-sozis' who might be dlisposed to, raise scruples in -thieiseIves.'perTactlV ali- -urtd, or in their own. minds matters of ufter-itdifferefice:;', 6uitKt6. that.general- species of repuignanace' iviich armi i1i6iii -Inssen- d~aIs, -as irsll as in form, from die ritual accordin'g'Ib hichf it was' Prpose to 4olemnixe the marriage, mnight be stupposeauTii.~oi Iewud Put the case o-their lordlsbip a ervenall'y-would u~ 6~ their lcrdslitps, supposing that he -Were aboat to_he niiartied, permsit himself, in the progresis of the miarriage ccremony,3)tO be addxess~dd j ' thec namie of AtLhaimet, for instance ?'Iea) -- The LORD CHANCELLOR hereiisked.the.noble Er,a'te.. tion; whichl we couild not diistinctly, catchi below ifhe.bax. W'e asridr- stood him to say-in the case of the mnarriag of a Alahomztan, qyerx in this country, would he not be lermlitted to invoke the narnii of Mlahomet ?-or, in the ease of a Jew's marriage, would.-It: not be" permitted himn to use the invocations peculiar so his faith'? -' The Earl of HARROW-BI, in answer to the questioj ropquop..- ed by his noble and learned friend, couild not undertake to 's4y *rhe. tIter the ANlahlomectan or Jew would be legalvy permittea totnak, eachi of themi, hiis peculiar 'invocation : but he couldl not co'nceive that this was a consideration whtichi would at all interfoee vith rho view he took of' the-general qi:estio.n bef.orethe-ir lordshi1is.-; and that regarded thle 'acceptation of- a particulari ceremony by, a particular class of English 'l)ti-enters. AlMarriage in iflt. ~counltry hiad ~lway& been ,considered as -in- itself a civil contract ; butt it. wns a contract to tsiich.the legislature had very properly-thou,~ht flt.tc6add2 reli- giu'anction; and whiat wgs the objector st,pera4cling such aaane- gion? . Clearly' to bn thie consciences of prist h heiac of the contra~ct, by tendering it a religious as w.ell. as'a civil Zgt. But while, in the case of Unitarians, the law. required. them - to. acquiesce in certain"-observances urkder';the' authonr!W:.if.Ilar -. ticular articles, of faith, to 'which articles they diar-not. sub~- scribe,- the lawv was~ compelling them to viMate chat vcry..- r.eli- gius act which it had ittelf prescribed. Wffth respect tothe 'ut te whoowere to beconsidlered in.this bill, he was-,anx7ious t.40x .gtd .to them every indulgence, by, -which neither' tile. security.aod'a4rho_-. rity of the chutrch, nut thesecurity of the publie againsit jclaunteNtine Mnarriages, wasq likely to be endangered. -Aud first, as:ti. Ih6 secUitr i~ of-tlhe 'churchi he would by no mneans desire to evidingir:any-potrr tion of: its authiority, nor set up any dinuiinution ofits preieat'prmncir-' pleaand octine n rspec ot mariags-; aind here he- wiis;Lluad to'; consdertheobjctins uethadbec taeuiby-bis sioble-and lqAfnecl fried (te Lod Chncelor.)Ther wasone ground- upon 'wut4vja himslP(ordilarouby)fel a onsderble' W)ljection:.'to,theblMll.;"' and tha was .tts propsition oe~graninuc'li:nc he'b sie'uiho.; nt,'of he hurh fo 'te mrrigesof, Tsetr ad -the: pay-, ment of fees.' The-clause'he .alldetd to, was:perfectly op.esl, be rhou:ght,.to objectiont bu4thetasttt the sanreimalserve,tbantbo chureh,.in'ber ecclesiasticAl.capaeityt teas in no way plijudiedl by it;. she could be prejudicediby.it only in herdcivil-cspaK'1ly. :;Thusi.- with regard tO the publication.of bans. theo.biectt of- this :procegdd_ ing heconceived to be merely, p ublication before a large'nun'brsof- persons-- civil rather than a religiou.s ceremony-; 'atid.of the.same character were a wreat many-of the acts done insthe' readingdesek: such as parochial and other notices, whicn, -it was:cuastownaty *to:de- liver from that-place. Again, the registers efoharriages-r4ght just as well bekept bylaymen ssby clergymen; butAthat. marriagce having received the sanction of rel-gion, it was -ery p,operly -re-, quired that-its registers3sbould.bedeposated'*ith thero. O..Qn theprc-.- sent occasion hewould only'add, thatuponthe.second obd ct thc prevention ofclandestinity-he should' feel most ahxsous -.hatevery security 'should' be providedin 'this. measur.- Peswcver.; dis. posed 'he' felt to treat the ~onsCienrious; mcruples, of patties with- indulgence, hebadno disposition to sanctionathem0 inmaenifyirg' such as were '" tnrifes lightas airP' into scrupI& of, importance. Hewould therefore vote for the-committee; but'iPt shoult} bepra~.- Posed* to' pass the Rill as it-how stood, 'e, fot one, would oppoeeit4- (Hear. . . ... . .. .. (.. 'l,: . Lord CALT'HORPE thought thatthe. dereeiof-relief wbith-'tbi principle-of this bill involvedaought to begranted to the;Unitaiari; - inasmuch as it would affbrd them th e opportunitvof marrying, -itb.. Out violatng their conscientious scrtplesand-reliiiousfeelings-' Bit he also th'ought thlat the. C3urclt of England owed Lit to herself, to prove to-the *votld7 that lis strengtb'and securitywetcin ti.de. gree owuing.to the violence wvhich' 'che' mwight. laiveit-in herpe'wrXr. to. do to the cos.ne.fohr.uSeoe-i abre?f'riecwz scrupler of rcsjocctable'anteoudentiousindividusls, if:she toWitd atisfy herself-thutitbSeas~urtore'iief 'she pdposud:minthe'i paiti- culat case -mnight bee?teisded' -.consistehrlS' ;witlu'tberenral"austho.-. rity ofthpse great essentisl5.;ndsinalterable.pridples.;of religloup . faitlt that those lndiviius rejred~. T'he sract~ (hey had e%%P maitaineci iln&ed, their geeral benevolence andl propriety, seem. adn ffcintguasmntee for thb roper and respectftul solemnization of marrage amoitlern thmHe pefectlyconcurred with the noble and Ieared lordl on the wooltaci*, in thinking that the doctrine of the Triitywasthev"yessnci6fthe Churchi of England; but the mor~e eenforceadthisdoctrine -in her practice and articles-. the more. she held t'hse great and vita trulths, which she re- cognized and congidered in the substratum of her faith, not letsstlan ofher power and influence-.thnemoreshe wds bound to show -that it was in somtthing more thin itn mere form or ceremony that the could not conscientloitsly commune with the individuals in quxes. riom. He was moatanxious that justice should he done to the ITni- tar ang, and readily acknowledged that they had ong been foand in the foresnost ranks of those' who hadl contended for the interests of humanity and of liberty; buit he could not help regeetting9 the pecu- ]lalyunfurtusnate nature of their teinets,whilehe considered that they sutipped religion of all that constituted its dignity, all that imparted to it its grace, and all that supplied its hope. (Hear, hear.) 'While be paid due homage to thieir mnorals, their virtues, aLnd their talents, he. must be allowed to express the sentimenit of regret, that their doctrine, should ito essentially vary from those up)on which the 'vr prlnciVle of the Church of England wasi founded, In hat he sd,he wished to be understood as seaking not so much ofthe rofesmors of thiese opinions, as of h estimation in which the Uhurch of England held those opinions them. selvem The prwcice of the Church of England, he was sure, would al ways be consistent with her faith atid pr.inciples as they ap- peared in her Liturgy nd Ritual. He dii,atthiesamnetime,tbhink that the Church of England owed it to herself to pass this bill, in order to show her utter dis;sent fromithe tenets of those per.Aons- He heartily concurred with the rig-ht rev, prelate, who had expresed his decidedl objection to altering the Liturgy a-nd Service to meet the scruples of the class In question. Such was his exalted opinion of that Liturgy that be thought the right rev, bench entitled to the thanks of- al the friends oft te establishmoent for that refusal. At th ae ie he did not apprehend that any danger weuld accom- pany thisbill, asregarded a tendency to disseminate the principles or to establish the faith oe the Unitarians. Happily the weakness of human natu re carried with it a perpetual antidote to their general or very extensive influer.ce; becatuse inL sickness, or in sorrow, or mnental ditress, they would not supply that consolation to the afflict.. ed bosom which on such occasions it naturally sought. Believ- ing, however, that this bill was not only a measure ot'justice to the Uniti.rians, buit of justice to the Church itself, he should vote for its going into the committee. The Earl of WESTM1ORliAND was decidledly opposed to the hill not because it was founded on a principle of toleration, but because it went, by a partial enactment, to alter the general law of the land, and the doctrine and practice of the church. The Bishop of LONDONsaid, at so late an hoiur of the night he would not take up much of their lordships' time, but succinctly' state what were the grounds upon whiclh he would vote for this bil goingT into a comnmitte. He thought the policy which hadl induced rhe legislaiture to plsce the solemnization of marriage in the hands of the church waLs a vary- wise one. It conerihuted to that publicity 'which was so desirable in its celebration ; and thereby had a tendency to protect parties, from having their ignorance or credulity practised upon by the designing and the vicious. It secured the decent and soen performance of that which the law held to have been, in its origin, a civil more than a religious con- tract. This might nor be, uindeert, a primary view of the subject; )oc it went to s-how the wisom of the policy which the-legislature hiad pursed, in confering upo it a certain distinction by confiding it to the cart of the church. It was in this viewr of the niiatter that he theeght no alteration ought to take place in the law, except upon v ery 'weighty reasons indeed. Now it appeareil to him that no gene- l'al dlissent from the doctrine of the Church of England was a sulli. 'cent ground for effecting such alteration in faLvour of a particular class of persons. With respect to the class in question, if there 'was aosy entire and essential difference between their tenets and any doctrine recognized in our marriage service itself, he was willing to admnit that thvat might constitute some ground for the sort of alteration 'he spo'ke of; but in the present -cas,e the fact was htot so Their lordships would remember, that some time since there was brought into that houise a bill which proposed to give relief to Dissenters of all denominations, who entertained opinions that differed from those of the Church of England upon Isartettlaridoctrines. No sect or classwas named in it. To that bfll he ventured to off'er objections as to the principle; but he supported the proposition for Its going into committee. in the present instance, thecase was very different. In this bill a particular class of persons wsa named, and their particular scruple-s were recited;, and their ~lblsrdhips were told that while the parties felt all this difficulty as to 'the solemnization of mnarriage, they were very much agreed ini other .pointu with the church. 1Re (the Bishop of London.) could not agree with the nioble earl (Harrowby) in his view of such an appli- cation. It had been said, atthe same time,that theUnitarians had rmade no ptrticular profession of faith. Nowr if any itoble lord were to eayto anUnitarian, that because he had marrted according to the rites and ceremonies of the Chuarch of England, he had there-. fore'gven up hi,; own peculiar doctrine, and had recognized that of the Hfoly Trinity, the Unitarian would smile at the inference as a calumnyr upon htim. No Unitarian, he apprehensded, htad ever scrupled to be married In the church upon any siuch grounds. The imeasure before their lordships was not one which ought to override every other consideration ; but, on the contrary, the house ought to ralce sufficient security that it should not in any event be abused by individsals for the purpose of clandestine marriage or other impro- per purposes ; that marriages to he soleminized unaer it, shouxld be solemnized with decency; and that, as far possible, every fraud thatit might be iattempted to practice in consequence of such an act, s'hould be obviated. As the bWl was at present worded it was to be observed, that bans mnighit be fhlgely and unduily publisbed, and marriage licences might be forged ; and yet no parties were siamed as responsible, and no punishment assigned as the penalty for such offences. The favoutrable exceptions of Jews and Quakers had been adverted to in the course of this discussion. He woutld be very willing to granit al that had been granted by the legislature to them in these respects - but nothing more. As to the Jews, it al- lo;;ed them an exemtption from the operation of the marriage law, 'wher both the parie wre Je. But what was it that the Dissen-' ues asked ? A nimilr exemption, where even one only of the parties was an Unitariam. 'The JewS, again1 Married ac- cording to a very ancient and established form of their religon h. ut the Disenters prayed that parties might be married according to their religious principles. Whait wasrmeant byso vague andso extensiveI an application as this ? Among the Jews and Quakers, the paries, 'were liable, before the solemnization of their manria udr h perittd eeintios,to be called upon for the rooi6 gthercn limnwith toeper-suasions. Let their l bseve,too wbtsecurities ther exitted against clandestinemarae,bt among Quakers and Jews. In the case ofthe lattrthywed- rived frrom lI a prejudices, his habits, his relgion,thusgsote peole and even the authority of the Synagogue. Teehdoc been a ease decided (by the learned and noble judge (Lord Stowell) who now sat in that house, and had formerly presided with so mauch honour to himself and to the country In the Consistory Court of London) upon the fact only, that one of the parties to a Jewish sonmagt was prre to by netie inions that ware not con- ortwihthe religioust prejudices of t"ie Jews. The Quakers again, were aLnother class, among whom the same securities would always exist to agreat degree The members of any branch of this socety coming from one part of the kingdom were obliged to pro- duce testimontials anid certificates before they could be raceived or admitted into another body, of the same oDnnexion in a differ- ent portion of the empire. Without troubling their lordships 'withi any' further detail, he believed he miight say that coarts of justice had never been called on to try a single-case, ini wh ich the indulgencea of the legislature to the marriage of Jews or Quakers had been to be regretttd. With regard to thes Diasenters (tke Unitarians, if thecolgie te same secrities, pssibly no great humn mgt result from extending the same indculgence to them ; biutno such seurties did theyd0er- As to the fees to be receved, that was a subject that be spoke orf with some regret. it w'as very true, that in large towns a considertable part of the emolu- maents of teheclegy arose froem marriag fres; andi he was most un- willing to take from them any portion of those fees, or any other partrnf tbeirincomne. Still e had objections to their receiv,ing them on those-riarriages which he billcontemplated. On the otherbhand, it wa, well known, that 'where a marriage tunmed. out happily, the offciain clrgyanwasfreuetlyreembered with miuchi bene- volece y te prtie. Nw, s uderthis' bil, fees of such a kind Lord HOLLAND, after theltn*.'ti of discussion to-whichthissub- bet ad =lsa~ gone, and the eluctdxtixor which the principles of the 12hudrecdyfrom the noble Presidentof'the Councul,and especially would add, as proved that the Church of England deserved much of -the credit aittrbuted to it by a noble lord (Calthorpe)-...would say but little on the quostion. Some objections however, had been urged to the bill by a right rev, prelate, and, by l1e noble'and leamned esri on the woolszck, to which he would shortly address himself; and he did hope that the noble and learned lord would not leave the house without enterinF a little into some explanations of the opinions he Wa offered to-night. And first, as to the right rev, p relate (the Bishop of Chester): there was a tigre-of hetoric which they had all heard used but too often in tbhathouse, and on this sort of occcasion, that whent a man was about to violate any important and received prnciple, he th0u4?ht it necessry to anticipate its effect by very loud ad axious prase of it, meaning in thae end to violate it. Rhetoricians of this description deailt with such principles as liber. bertines slid wit wekgrs hm the-y thought that the moat cer- taLin wav to wint hi run,can to lutre to destruction, was the apillcation fetaaatpas and compliment. The rev. prelakte' ~hdbgnhssec yosrig htnvr was man more deel imrse it h rnipe ftlraintabimself. Hie (LordHollndbeivdhm uthe was sorry to observe that the rihre.prelat.w oulgnine sentiments in his breast,should not on this, andoote ocsios have afforded so-me roof and maanifestation of ?Indaigwtth question before l~e hou'se. The right rev, peaecnirdththe scruples of certain indivi- duas wre ot uchas ugh tobe espcted by noble lords ; and hiaentrednto deaild ad igenous argumaent to show that ther wee n grond fo suh srupes.Now, in the first place, evey mn ws hmsef te bst udg ofhisown scruples. If a man tol hi tht h fet tem,he Lor Holan) kew not what right he had o dubt~ snceity.Theindvidal ustbe judged by hisI ever Leatrned the prnage might b_. The right rev. prelate bad mid, that the niitjarian, in the marriage service, was not re- girid to rbscrnbeor re et nthin cotayohicncec. , e nobalelord thenbaadreaedhimnself to the speech of the Bishop f Chreser abt tome length ; contendiag that the right rev, prelate had no more right to erec himnself into a judige of the conscience of the 'Unitarian, than the Unitarian bad, upon the conscience of theright rev prelate. The noble and aIrned lord remarked, tihat there were serples wbich the Parties had niever found ont before ;-and why ? The statute of 52 Geo. IIl., he asked-had they never found out that before ? But did they never complain? (Hear, hear.) The noble and learned lord, in the number of svars he had held nis pre- sentplace, must have known of the exisience of the statute in the se',cs: and he must know, too. that an Unitarian could not, before that act passed, have appeared at their bar and said-" I aum an Unitarian, and wish to be exempted from the opration of the mar- Tigeat." A public avowal of this kind would have been in the narty a criminal act by law. But the noble and learned lord express- da wish to know what the crininal law was? (Hear.) Could any one tell him, if he himself did not know it? What did the roble earl, then, mean by this tortofambiguous question ? Why was he ths disposed Spargere voc ' In vulgum ambiguas et quwrere consdus arma." HIe had cited theauthorityof Locke; but it was vWell known that the mnoat competent judges, and the best evidence, testified that Locke considerei the tolerating act which had been alluded to im. perfect, becuse it did not include the Unitarians. As to the sug- MM oi thrown CJt to the noble earl, the President of the Council, y the nobl,and leamned lord, he (Lord Holland) always under. ieood that it wa held umon the highest authority, (though the terms seemed not very hapnily selected), that Ch rTit tianity was part and parcel of the law of the land. It was Lord Hale, he believed, who first said this of ChTistianity but the doctrine was afterwards more sensibly and emphaticallylaid down by Lord Raymond. This happened in the famous cse of the King and Woolston, in the Ist and 2d Gco. II;; he believed it was this case, but he had not had an opportunity of referring to it. On that occasion -the learned judge said; he would not allow it to be debated whether Christiarity was authentic, because it was in fact a part of the law of the lana; but he begged it to be observed, that by this he umeant Christianity generally, and not the tenets of any particular sect of Chtistians. Why, then, he (Lord Hollandl) must ask here, what was Christianity? Was it a belief in the Holy Scriptures, or was it a belief in certain expo. sitions of those Scriptures by human beings? He would leave the noble and learned lord on the woolsack to choose, in the dilemma to which he must be reduced. If the first point were held, then the Unitar;ans were Christians in every sense; for they held the Scdptures to be as sacred as any of their lordships. They held them to contain the rule of right, and the rule of faith, andb them alone they stood. If it were said, on the other hand, that those persons onJy were Christians who believed the Holy Scriptures as they were expounded by the Church, then, if the noble and learned lord held that, it foUowed that he m.tt be prepared to hold alao, that before the reign of Henry VIIL the Roman Catholics were the onilv Christians in England, for tlll that period the Roman Catholic religion was part of the law of the land. Another of the objections which had been raised was, that the pro- pOsed measare would make the Church of England ancillary to the Unitarian Dissenters. He did not see the force of this objection. Did the Church of Ireland consider itself in the light of a handmaold ? He did not believe it did. He suspected that, until the passing of Lord flardwicke's marriage act, the church had never exercised that right which it was contended she could not forego without derogating from her dignity. All foreign marriages previous to that perioi were celebrated according to the lex loci; and all marriages duly celebrated by a priest, whether of the Church of England or of Rome, were binding. As to that pathetic part of the speech of the noble prelate, in which he had deplored the hard fate of the cleruyman who b.- this bill would be depnved of his tees, all he (Lord tiolland) had to say in reply was, that the bill pro- vided they should have their fees. But, said the noble prelate, those for which the bill provided are onlv the actual dues, and that beyond these dues it was usual for partnes to give a smaU trratuity on the soleanrization of marriages, which formed a considerable source of emolument to the officiating clergvman. lIrell, it night be. so; but was it not at least as likely thatan Unitarian would be wiling to best ow as large a gratuitywhenhe had his marriage solemn- nized and registered in such a manner as should satisfy the scruple of his consciensccas when it was performed in a manner irksome and painful to his feelings ? Itwassaid,too,by a noble lord, why should we grant this favour to Unitarians alone-why was it not granted to every other sect? After the answer which had been given to this by the noble President of the Council,he (Lord Holland) would not take up the time of thc house alny more than by saying, merelv because the others did not ask for it, and they, the Utnitarians, did. He could not help thinking the Unitarians were very hardly dealt with. It' general relief was sought for them, up jumped the noble and learned lord from the woolsack, and cosplained that it was too general. He said that it did not appear what sort of dissenters they were-whether they were the disciples of Joaina Southeote, or Jumpers or Shakers; and feared if the relief were givenin thisshape, they would not be able to make head nor tall of it. He therefore proposed that it should be postponed until thenext session, and hen that the points should be discassed one by one. Then when the next session came, the noble and learned lord said, why should we give relief to one? He (Lord Holland) said it was the plainest and best way to give relief to them as they came to ask for it. If no danger should appear in doing so, he would grant it to all; but it did appear to hiim to be the most atrange, unparliamentarv, and illogical reasoning that could be imagined, to sav" we won't give you the relief you ask for, because there are others who want it as much as you, and they do not ask for it." It might be a very good reason for granting the relief to al, but it could be no reason for withholding itfromany. He cocurred entirelv in the princi- ples and statements of the noble and rev. Aletropolitan, and he thought it bitt justice to him, and totthe church of which he was an ornament, to say, that.he thoughthis objection to altering the form of the Liturgy was well founded. He (Lord Hollanidywould not shrink from saying that he thought certain parts of the Liturgy might be omitted* there were parts of it which, if it weTe tn his power to makean alteration, he would willingly alter. But high as he held the principles of religious liberty, he did not think the members of ane church had a right to call upon those of another to make any such omissions: that would indeed be making the functions of the Church ancillary to the Dissenters. But the measure proposed to the house was one purely ministerial and of a cvil character. The law had made the solemnization and registration of marriages a part of the clergynan's duty, but it was no part of his ecclesiastical function, and the Church could therefore be in no sense called ancilltry. The noble lord concluded by saying, that the Uni- tarians, believing as they did in the Holy Scriptures, might say they tvere as much Christians as any other persons could be. If their Christianity was, as the noble and learned lord said (the phrase he thought was something irreverent), part and parcel of the law of the land there could be no reason why this class of Christian Dissenters should be caUed upoil to do violence to their consciences uponi one of the most interesting and solemn occa. ions of their lives. The LorD C1ANCELLOR and Lord HOLLAND mutually explained. The Mlarquis of LANSDOWN replied. The house then divided uporn the question of the second reading, when the numbers were- Content, 21 1 Proxies . 1435 Not Content, . 201 Proxies . 13--33 Majority forthe second reading - 2 The bill was then ordered to be committed on Mlonday next, and the house adjourned at IHALF PAST TEN O'CLOCK. I . HOUSE w LOR.D3, ,AY1 APi -, -. :