Lords Sitting of 2 April 1824

SILK TRADE BILL.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to move the second reading of this bill. The measure, he observed, was one of great importance; but, the more he considered the subject, the more he was satisfied that the effect of the proposed change would be advantageous to the country. He had been one of those who formerly entertained doubts of the propriety of permitting a competition in certain manufactures, but more mature consideration had convinced him of the impolicy of any restriction whatever. If it were possible for their lordships now to have any apprehension of injury from allowing the importation of foreign silk manufactures, that apprehension would, he trusted, be removed on learning, that in consequence of the change in the law proposed to be made by this bill, new silk manufactures were likely to be established in different parts of the country. Arrangements, he understood, were making at Manchester for the introduction of this manufacture, which would give employment to 30,000 or 40,000 persons. Indeed, there could be no doubt of the manufacturers of this country being able to compete with foreigners, without the protection derived from prohibitory laws. The principle of free trade, on which the bill was formed, would put the silk-manufacture on a fair footing; it was that of the quid pro quo; for the object of the bill was to reduce the price of the raw material, while it did away with the prohibitory system, and admitted the foreign-manufacture article under a protecting duty. The impolicy of prohibitions was now too obvious to be questioned. It was to be expected that foreigners would always obtain a superiority in some branch of manufacture or other, and this was not to be regretted. It was not desirable that other countries should not improve as we improved; for such reciprocal improvement was advantageous to all parties. Looking, however, at the silk manufacture on the extensive scale in which it was prosecuted in this country, in all its branches, he saw no reason to think that the competition of the English manufacturer would not be successful. In-
68
deed, after the inquiries which had been made, he was perfectly satisfied, that the present bill would have a beneficial effect on the trade of the country. When the measure was first introduced, it was intended that the prohibition on importation should cease at the same period that the reduction of the duty on the raw material commenced; but it had since been thought reasonable, that the manufacturer should have the start, by being allowed the reduction earlier. Such were the principal grounds on which the present bill had been brought forward. His majesty's government might have easily introduced measures more generally popular; but what they looked to in this was, the establishment of sound principles, and the laying the foundation of a just commercial system. He concluded by moving, that the bill be now read a second time.
The Marquis of Lansdownconcurred most completely in the views which the noble earl at the head of the Treasury had expressed. They were, indeed, the same as those which he had himself long entertained on the subject. As to the last point on which the noble earl had touched, namely, the removal of the prohibition against the introduction of foreign silks, nothing could be more politic, or calculated to be more advantageous to the country. The principle of prohibition being once removed by this bill, he earnestly hoped it would never be permitted again to have a place in the British code. As to the effect of this bill, he retained the same sanguine opinion which he had formerly expressed. Whatever apprehensions some individuals might entertain, he had not the least doubt that, aided by the improvement of machinery, and the reduction of the duties on the raw material, the manufacturer of this country would be able to maintain his place against any foreign competition, The only question on which there could be any doubt was, that of the time to be allowed to the manufacturer. As the change was great, it was certainly but fair that a sufficient period for preparation should be granted.

IRISH TITHES COMMUTATION BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he had some petitions to present on the subject of the Irish Tithe Commutation Act, to which he wished to draw the particular attention of their lordships. In the last

69
session of parliament, he had felt it his duty to support the principle of the measure introduced for the commutation of tithes, as such a measure had been long sought for in Ireland; but it was necessary that it should be impartial, in order to produce even a partial restoration of tranquillity in that country. In giving his support to the measure, he had thought it right to qualify that support with some exceptions; and if he now found it necessary to recal the attention of their lordships to the objections he had formerly stated, he should not advert to any one, of the justice of which he was not convinced he could satisfy the House and the J noble earl opposite. He should first remind their lordships, that he had stated, that the bill exhibited a prima facie inequality in its operation on the parties to whom it applied; in consequence of which many were disinclined to assist in carrying it into effect. A power was given by the bill of last session to increase the provision for the clergy, beyond what had been received for the last seven years. This he thought was fair; because it was but just that a clergyman should be allowed an increase, if he had received less than was due during the seven years; but instances might occur in which it would be equally just to give him less; and it would have been proper to have inserted a clause in the act, allowing the parishioners to state their reasons for reducing the provision. This reciprocity, however, was not allowed. Had such a clause existed, it would have taken away a plausible argument or just objection, which was seldom omitted to be urged against the measure; namely, that the parishioners, if they agreed to act under this bill, might have to pay more, but it was impossible they could 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 attributed to them, that they could not find out the justice of this regulation. They felt, however, that they were shut out from making a fair bargain, and thought that they perceived a design to make the arrangement unfavourable to them.—The clause which related to the machinery of the bill was equally objectionable. It was impossible for any one to foresee to what extent the expense of executing the bill might go; but, as the measure was altogether for the benefit of the church, it
70
was reasonable to expect that the clergy would pay a share of that expense. On the contrary, the whole of the burthen was thrown on the other party. It was therefore by no means surprising, that this part of the arrangement should be regarded as unjust, both by the country gentlemen and farmers, who suffered by it.—Another ground of complaint arose from an obscurity in the bill, which it would perhaps be in the power of the noble earl opposite to remove. The noble earl must be aware, that nearly all the arrangements which had taken place under the bill, had been made under a clause introduced by a member of his majesty's government in the other House of parliament, the effect of which was, to give a power of altering the arrangement made, on the meeting of the vestry. It was understood, that the arrangement settled at the meeting should be final; but the result was, that a further proceeding was forced upon unwilling parties. Meaning only to come to a final settlement at the vestry meeting, they found that they were obliged to go on to something else; that having agreed to one arrangement, they were understood to have given their assent to any subsequent one which might take place. This provision, which was called the trap clause, had given great offence. It was therefore most desirable that the matter should be made clear, and all appearance of unfairness removed. That the act containing these objectionable clauses would be amended in the present session, he was encouraged to hope. By the votes of the other House of Parliament, which were before their lordships, he had, however, become acquainted with a bill introduced into chat House of a very extraordinary nature. If that bill should pass the other House, there would be proposed for their lordships' adoption a measure, which he did not hesitate to say was more subversive of the rights of property than any measure ever introduced into parliament. It was a bill which he must believe never could pass that House, or any assembly exercising a sound judgment. In the course of the last session, he had adverted to the three parties subject to the operation of the bill. One consisted of the holders of the existing tithes; and he supposed it was natural in them to wish to receive more than they had previously done. The tithe-payers constituted another party; and it was to be presumed that

71
they would wish to pay less. The third party was formed of those who possessed land tithe-free, and who were not legally bound to pay any thing. It certainly did occur to him, that there lurked under the bill, a design to conciliate two of these parties, the receivers and the payers, at the expense of the weaker party who had hitherto not been bound to pay any thing. He had stated his suspicion, and had felt it to be his duty to point out the injustice of the course which appeared to be contemplated. What answer did the noble earl opposite then give? He said, that no compulsion was meditated against those who were hot bound to pay tithes; that, in fact, compulsion with respect to them was impossible, as they were empowered to vote, and no less than six votes were given them for their protection. He had no interest in this question; but he could not express to their lordships his astonishment at finding, that a clause was introduced into the bill before the other House, which went to deprive the persons to whom he had alluded, of the six votes to which they were at present entitled, and to place the largest holder of property in the country on the same footing with the smallest. If this bill passed into a law, the small proprietors would be able to out-vote the proprietors who possessed the greater part of the land in each parish, contrary to all the principles on which parliament had ever acted in cases of property; as, in the making of roads, canals, and so forth, the possessors of one tenth of the property of a parish would be enabled to control those who possessed the other nine-tenths. Could any thing be more unreasonable than this?—Another clause which he found in the bill now before the Commons was not less reprehensible. It empowered any person who might be appointed a commissioner, to order to be brought before him the title deeds of the estates, which any noble lord or any other person might have in Ireland. Was it possible that their lordships House, which had always manifested such a delicate regard to property, could sanction such a clause as this? Was it to be endured' that their lordships should be thus called upon to produce every title deed, every scrap of paper, connected with their property? It was impossible the noble lord opposite could give his assent to such a measure. It was impossible the learned lord on the woolsack, who paid
72
so much attention to questions of property, could permit it to proceed.
The Lord Chancellorrose to order. It was, he said, the first time he had ever heard the clauses of a bill in progress through the other House of parliament made the subject of discussion in their lordships' House.
The Marquis of Lansdownconsidered that he was strictly in order, as he was speaking on a bill against which the petition he had to present was addressed. He was entitled to state—and he thought it but fair to call the attention of their lordships thus early to the subject—that the measure which was in progress in the other House of parliament, so far from being calculated to relieve the parties complaining of the act, would aggravate the evil under which they laboured. But, to avoid all dispute on the question of order, he would put the case hypothetically, and say he understood that so and so had been proposed elsewhere, which would come precisely to the same thing. He would state, that last year the average taken on the last seven years, had been considered too high, and it was thought right to correct it by giving the opportunity of an alteration at the end of three years. Notwithstanding this arrangement, it had been proposed, that when the average of the seven years should once be determined on, it should be irrevocable, and could not be altered at the end of the first three years. Such an enactment as that he had described, their lordships must perceive; would be no relief from the hardship complained of last session. He could assure their lordships, that in stating these objections to the measure, he was actuated by no opposition to the principle of the measure. He was most desirous of seeing it carried into effect, but wished the objectionable clauses of the bill to undergo amendment. In particular, he thought it due to the proprietors not liable to pay tithes, that they should be relieved from compulsion, and that whatever they did towards the execution of the measure, they should be permitted to do of their own free will. While the lay-holders and impropriators of tithes were not subject to compulsion in coming to an arrangement, he trusted their lordships would not be so unjust as to impose compulsion on those who hitherto had not been bound to pay tithes, and who surely were entitled to remain as free as the other party who received the tithes. He concluded by pre-

73
renting a petition against the Tithe Commutation bill, from a parish in the county of Tipperary.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he would not be induced by any thing the noble marquis had stated, to anticipate the discussion which would probably regularly come on, as to what alterations it might be proper to make in a measure now before the other House. Whenever that bill came before their lordships, it would be time to consider in what respect the bill of last session was defective, and what amendments it might require. What he wished now to explain was, the real state of the case with respect to the bill which was said to have failed. When he proposed the second reading last year, he had observed to their lordships, that neither he nor any person could expect the measure to be otherwise than imperfect, and that nothing more could then be expected than to establish the principle. It was under this impression that he stated his opinion of the effect which was to be expected from the bill last session; but that opinion was now completely changed. Many amendments were made with a view to compulsion, because it was supposed that without compulsion there would be no success. But, he was now prepared to say, that the measure had succeeded beyond the most sanguine expectation which any person had ever formed respecting it. He found that it had succeeded in more than one-tenth of the parishes. It had been carried into execution in 279 cases. It had besides been carried into effect in twenty-three cases since the meeting of that House, and fresh applications had been made for thirty-nine arrangements. With regard to what the noble marquis had stated on the subject of the clause, according to which, in some cases, the clergyman might receive more than had been paid on an average of seven years, he must observe, that the objection was far from being well founded. The reason of the provision obviously was, because the clergyman could not have received more than his right. There could therefore, be no reason for inserting a power to give him less than his due; but he might have received so much less than what he was entitled to, that in common justice it would be necessary to give an increase. Hence the necessity for the power which the noble marquis regarded as a mark of partiality. The measure had been carried into operation in a most li-
74
beral manner in ten dioceses, and the amount per acre received by the clergyman in some of them he would state. In the diocess of Cashel, he received 1s. 3d. per acre; in Clonfert, 6d.; in Elfin, 11 d.; in Meath 11 d. In short, he could assure their lordships, that the measure had succeeded far beyond any expectation he had at first thought himself warranted in encouraging.
The Earl of Kingstonstated the fact, that in one parish there was no protestant church erected, the rector having objected to the expense of 75 l. a year for the salary of the curate; and the consequence was, that many Protestants went to mass, rather than go to no place of worship at all.
Lord Kingsaid, that after the many grants of public money for the erection of churches and glebe-houses, it must be very mortifying to the House to find their intention frustrated by those who ought to promote them. He had heard of a mercantile Hibernian reciprocity, but here was a clerical Hibernian reciprocity. Was the cure of souls a sinecure in Ireland, or would the Irish clergy content themselves with a mere salvage? Would they take the fee, and leave the sinner to work his own way to heaven as he could? The fact with respect to the clergy was as notorious as the sun at noon day.
The Earl of Clareinferred from certain facts which had taken place in his own county, that, in some instances, the composition had been taken too high, but, generally, he maintained the right of the clergy to church property to be as valid as that by which their lordships held their estate, and the measure against which the petitioners remonstrated to be necessary to the salvation of the Church.
The Earl of Darnleycontended, that, though the clergy might be legally entitled to claim the full amount of their tithe, the right could not easily be insisted on after the statements of his noble friend, which remained uncontroverted.—His noble friend had made out a charge of gross neglect Was the unwillingness of a rector to pay a curate 75 l. a year, a sufficient reason to prevent the building of a church and thereby compel the parishioners to charge their religion for want of a Protestant place of worship?
The Earl of Kingstonsaid, there was not a single statement in the petitions relative to the non-residence and neglect of the clergy, which he could not esta-

75
blish by evidence at their lordships' bar.
Ordered to lie on the table.

UNITARIAN MARRIAGE RELIEF BILLS.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he should not have thought it necessary to have called their lordships' attention to this subject at any length, if it had not been intimated to him, that an opposition was intended to be made to the measure now before the House. The present bill originated in petitions which had been presented from the Dissenters in the last session of parliament, in which they complained 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 conscience assent. It was the first duty of the legislature, on civil grounds, to provide against the celebration of clandestine marriages; but, that being provided for, it was most important that marriage should be contracted with that solemnity which should give to it, in the eyes of the parties, the most lasting and binding obligation; When if it was the duty of the legislature to provide against clandestine marriages, it was equally their duty to give every facility which was possible, and to avoid every thing that had even the appearance of a violation of conscience; and on this ground, their lordships would find it necessary to adopt the proposition which he had now to submit to them. It had been said, that the present measure would include an alteration of the Liturgy. This was not the time to discuss whether such an alteration were desirable, as his proposition left that part of our church service entirely untouched. Their lordships, he was persuaded, would not think that persons who were tolerated by the law, ought in the ceremony of marriage, to be compelled to violate their consciences, and be brought into our churches, and appear to signify their assent to doctrines, which the law did not, in any other instance, call upon them to do. It was most important that marriage contracts should be entered into under all the circumstances most binding to the parties; and the object of the state being secured by publicity and solemnity being given thereto, that publicity and solemnity should take place in the manner which the parties thought proper. He there fore proposed, in the bill now before the House, that the class of Dissenters,
76
commonly called Unitarians might, under certain regulations, be married in their own chapels, they having previously given security for their publicity, the publication of bans and the payment of fees due to the established church. He should have been pleased to have brought in a bill of a more comprehensive nature, including all dissenters from the Church, who could not reconcile it to their consciences to concur in the marriage ceremony. With a view, however, to practical benefit he had thought it best to limit the measure; for when this subject was formerly before the House, it was said by those for whose authority he had the highest respect, that there might be trivial objections taken, which the legislature was not bound to attend to; and it was also said, that it would afford facilities to clandestine marriages. It was then said, let us see the case of the individuals who have most reason to object to the law, and provide for that. The bill before their lordships attended to the case of the parties who, by the admission of some of the right reverend prelates, were acknowledged to have most reason, in foro conscientiæ to complain of the marriage ceremony. It was stated, with a spirit honourable to the church, that the moment a case appeared, in which the parties had conscientious objections, there would be a disposition to afford it relief. The bill went on to provide, that the chapels of the Protestant dissenters commonly called Unitarians might be registered, and after being so registered for not less than a year, their marriages might be celebrated in them. It was also provided, that ministers should be punishable, if they celebrated any marriage contrary to the act; and he should have no objection that transportation should be the punishment assigned for it. Although the publication of bans was perhaps the best security against clandestine marriages; yet, if any other should be thought preferable, such as registering the intended marriage, he should not object to it. Though the parties to be relieved by the bill were the furthest removed of any Protestant dissenters from the doctrines of the Church of England, yet that was no reason for the House to refuse indulging them; they being, in common with all dissenters, tolerated by the law, and unquestionably that class, who had most reason to object to the marriage ceremony as it now stood. It was on this allegation on their part, that

77
the legislature was called upon to extend to them the required indulgence, and unless any noble lord could contend, that the Unitarian ought to be cast without the pale of society, or that he should not be allowed to marry, or, if he should have that permission, that the occasion of the marriage ceremony should be taken to subject him to what he esteemed a violation of his conscience—unless any noble lord was bold enough to maintain these propositions, he could not conceive any objection to the Unitarians being married in the way proposed by the present bill.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that if the relief sought for, was to be obtained by removing the scruples from one description of men to lay them on another —from the smaller number to the larger— from the Unitarian dissenter to the members of the established church—he should certainly have objected to it. At the close of the last session of parliament, a bill was submitted to their lordships, proceeding on a very different principle; for whatever other faults it had, it was not charged with transferring to others the grievances which it assumed to redress. To that bill he had been adverse; and it was also opposed by others of their lordships, and was ultimately rejected. At that time there appeared a disposition in the House to give, in some form, relief to the Unitarians. That relief could only be given in one of two ways—either by enabling the Unitarians, under certain regulations, to intermarry in their own places of worship, or by an alteration of the form of the marriage ceremony in the church of England service. To the last he objected, and still did object; deprecating as he did any alterations of that kind. It might be said that it was only certain prayers that were to be omitted; but it would hardly be argued that as great alterations might not be brought about by omissions as by substitutions: besides, the omission was avowed to be in favour of persons who disbelieved the doctrine of the Trinity. If that measure had been carried, the Unitarians were to have made use of that form so mutilated; but it was rejected by the House, and he rejoiced that it was. The only mode of relief; then, was by this bill; the two-fold object of which was the ease of the Unitarian and the security of the church. The latter would be attended to in the committee, if their lordships should agree to the bill going to that stage. It had been said that it was extraordinary
78
that this favour should be granted to the Unitarian dissenters, and yet be refused to others; but the ground on which the legislature proceeded was not favour, but a regard to conscientious scruples; and where such scruples existed they certainly were entitled to relief. There did appear some danger of clandestine marriages; but the consideration which was due to conscientious scruples outweighed that objection. The publication of bans in the parish church, when the usual place of worship of the Unitarian might be ten miles off, would leave a door open to evasion, which it would be desirable to avoid. As to the claim of the Dissenters generally, it was not rested on conscience; but objections stated as essential, were taken to the forms of ceremonies, few as they were, in our church, and inoffensive as they were in principle. He was friendly to the second reading of the bill; trusting that they might be able in the committee, to make such restraints and restrictions as would make it a measure which, while, in the first instance it consulted the conscientious scruples of the Unitarians, should, in the second instance, give the necessary security to the Protestant church at large.
The Lord Chancellordeclared, that no respect could be more sincere than that which he entertained for the most reverend prelate who had just addressed their lordships, although, on the present occasion, he felt that he could not conscientiously concur with the most reverend prelate on the important subject under their consideration. On the provisions of the bill he should not touch. They would be fit matter for the consideration of the committee, should the bill reach that stage of its progress. His present business was with the principle of the measure. In the first place, if he understood the principle of Unitarianism at all, it went to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. And here he begged leave to say, that he had nothing to do, on the present occasion, with the merits of the doctrines of the church of England. The church of England he was bound to support, without examining whether the doctrine of the Trinity was or was not a part of its doctrines. He belonged to that church: he always had supported it, and he trusted he always should support it. The first question that he had to ask, was, whether the measure should be preceded by some declaration to remove any doubts which might be entertained, and which he cer-

79
tainly did entertain, whether to deny the doctrine of the Trinity was not at present penal? The repeal of the 9th and 10th of William had, in that respect, been much misunderstood. It was supposed, that the repeal of those acts made it legal to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. He did not believe that it did so. He did not believe that the repeal of those acts operated at all upon the common law. At any rate, the friends of the measure ought to endeavour to remove all doubt on this subject. That the acts in question were of a nature which rendered it extremely proper they should be repealed, no man living would deny; but he still doubted, whether their repeal affected the common law, by which it was a penal offence to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. The great objection which he had to the bill was, that it proposed a marriage between a member of the church of England and a Unitarian, to consult the conscience of the latter in preference to that of the former. It was evidently impossible to reconcile the religious opinions of the two parties. They were as different as light from darkness. Now, as to the existing legislative provisions with respect to Jews and Quakers, it must be recollected, that, in the cases for which those provisions were enacted, both parties must be Jews or Quakers. If, however, the present principle of granting this relief where only one of the parties dissented from the church, was to be allowed, where would it stop? If it were granted to the Unitarians could it be denied to the Roman Catholics? Why should such a privilege be granted exclusively to the Unitarians, who, of all classes of dissenters, dissented the most widely from the doctrines of the church of England? Nor had he less objection to allow the marriages made under such circumstances to be registered by ministers of the church of England. It was to make the church of England the servant and hand-maid of those who denied her first doctrines. The noble marquis had stated, that the repeal of the acts of William had given Unitarians the benefit of toleration. So it had. But what was given was only a repeal of certain pains and penalties to which they were before subject; and he believed it would be extremely difficult for any one to say, that the common law was at all affected by it.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he should vote for the second reading of the bill; but if it should come out of the committee
80
in its present shape, he should certainly feel it his duty to oppose it. He was prepared to give relief to the Unitarians quoad Unitarians; but he was not preparen to give that relief in such a way as should affect the rights and interests and security of the established church. That church had a right to expect that those who belonged to it should be married according to its ceremonial. Where both parties dissented from the established church, as the Jews and Quakers, he saw no objection to allow a different ceremonial; but not otherwise. How was it at present, when a Catholic married a protestant? The marriage was only valid when it was performed by a clergyman belonging to the religion of the state; although, in most cases, it was performed a second time by a Catholic priest. He could not therefore agree to a marriage being valid when performed by a Unitarian minister, unless both parties were Unitarians: nor could he allow the simple declaration of the individuals themselves, when they applied for the license, to be sufficient. He thought it was requisite that they should have a certificate from the Unitarian minister, that they were bona fide Unitarians, and did not assume the character for a temporary purpose. If the bill were so qualified, he should be ready to agree to it; but not otherwise.
The Bishop of Chesterexpressed his dissent from the bill, though he believed no noble lord was more decidedly friendly than he was to the principle of religious toleration. He agreed, that in the intercourse between the creature and the Creator, no restriction should prevail, but that it should be free as the air we breathed. But, this appeared to him not a question of religious scruples, but of civil jurisprudence; not of church doctrine, but of church discipline. It would be only to waste their lordships' time, were he to endeavour to shew the advantages of a national and established religion. Those advantages had been proved by many excellent writers; and among others by the excellent author of "Moral and Political Philosophy"—an author who required no praise of his, and to whom he was sure the noble lord opposite would be ready to pay the just tribute of his admiration. But, if it was clear that the establishment of a national religion was advantageous, it was equally clear, that that establishment must be upheld and

81
protected by peculiar rights and privileges. That marriages should be celebrated in the churches of the establishment was one of the privileges which had been conceded to it; and, having been so conceded as a peculiar right and privilege, it ought not to be taken away without the assignment of valid reasons. The fair way of considering the subject was, to see what it was, according to the marriage ceremony of the church of England, that the Unitarian was called upon to subscribe, to declare, or to deny. In the first place, the Unitarian was called upon to subscribe his belief of the Scripture. He could find no difficulty in doing that. But, besides this, he was bound, in the progress of the ceremony, to say, "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But, were not these the words of Scripture? If the Unitarian believed in Scripture, what reasonable objection could he have to repeat those words? He might affix to them what meaning he pleased. Every one was at perfect liberty to do that. But, how could those words be considered as objectionable by the Unitarians, when the following words were used by the Unitarians themselves in the baptismal part of their form of prayer;—."I baptise thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It seemed to him, therefore, to be impossible that they could object to words in the marriage ceremony of the Church of England, which they themselves pronounced in their own forms. So far, therefore, their lordships would agree, that the Unitarians had no just cause for complaint. He wished, however, to treat this important subject fairly and without reserve; and he would therefore observe, that the marriage service of the Church added a blessing by the minister, in the following words: "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, bless," &c. But, would not the Unitarian be benefitted rather than injured by the blessing of the minister of the established church? He could have no objection to its being given in the terms which, in the apprehension of the minister of the church, adequately described the Being whom he adored. The Unitarian was not bound to assent to the accuracy of those terms: he might affix to them what meaning he pleased. There was no force or compulsion upon him to induce
82
him to acquiesce in them. He (the bishop of Chester) would deal with a Unitarian as he should himself wish to be dealt with, under similar circumstances. Were he in a foreign country—in a country of Jews, of Catholics, or Mussulmen, —and it were necessary for him to marry, no consideration on earth should induce him to subscribe to any form of words, or to assent to any doctrines, contrary to his own conviction. But, in things indifferent in themselves, he should consider any objection as ridiculous, and should hold himself bound to comply with the established laws and ceremonies of the country. Now really, the objection of the Unitarians to conform to the marriage ceremony of the established church, seemed to be of the latter description. It did not appear to him, that by acquiescing in the terms of that ceremony, they could consider themselves, in foro conscientiæ, as sinning against any law, either of God or of man. As to the machinery of the bill, the present was not the fit opportunity to discuss it; but he would just observe, that in the bill which regulated the marriages of Jews and Quakers, it was provided, that both parties must be either Jews or Quakers. If the present bill passed into a law, let not the House lay the flattering unction to their souls, that the same privileges and immunities would not be required by all other sects of dissenters. Now, although he was far from wishing to say any thing against the Unitarians, he really did not think that they ought to be considered as a favourite sect. If, therefore, the other sects of dissenters were to be invested with the same privileges, let their lordships consider what a falling-off there would be in the number of marriages celebrated by ministers of the established church, and what a diminution of their emoluments. He certainly did not mean to lay any great stress on this last argument. If the dissenters were entitled to this indulgence, let it be granted to them—"fiat justitia ruat cœlum." But, unquestionably, the effect of such a measure would be—and especially in large manufacturing towns, such as those within his own diocese—to make little livings still less. Now, really, it seemed hardly fair to deprive the possessors of those little livings of a portion of that stipend which was already sufficiently scanty. Marriage fees formed a large part of the stipend of those clergy who always resided on their livings, faithfully discharging all their sacred

83
functions, and from whom, therefore, it would be very hard to deduct so important a portion of their income. Such was the view which he took of the question. Whatever effect the arguments which he had urged might have on their lordships' minds, he could assure them that they had produced conviction in his own. He should be extremely sorry if the opinions which he had expressed should give offence to any person. It was far from his wish to give any such offence. But he was not so unobservant of the signs of the times, as not to remark, that those who were most clamorous for religious toleration for themselves, were the least inclined to grant even a little toleration to others. If, also, he had the misfortune to differ from any of those with whom it was his pride and pleasure to agree, that would be to him a source of still deeper regret; but every such circumstance was comparatively unimportant, when put in competition with duty. "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas." He trusted, that On all questions in which the interests and the stability of the church of England were concerned, their lordships would never show any thing like apathy or indifference; and that they would, on the present occasion, exclaim, if not in the exact words, at least in the spirit and feeling, of the ancient barons—"Nolumus leges Ecclesiæ mutari."
The Earl of Harrowbydeclared, that if he thought the bill before their lordships would, in the slightest degree, affect the interests of the church of England, it would not meet with a more determined opponent than himself. Nothing he had heard, however, satisfied him that such was the case. With respect to the first passage in the marriage ceremony, in which the bridegroom took the bride to wife in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it certainly did seem strange that the Unitarian should object to words which were introduced into his own form of prayer; although he understood that there was some slight difference, such as the substitution of "into the name" for "in the name." That, however, did not appear to be a rational objection on the part of the Unitarian. But he could easily conceive that a serious and, in his opinion, it well-founded objection might arise in the mind of the Unitarian to the expression "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost;" because the Unitarian conceived that the attribute of
84
divinity was not attributable to two of those persons. The Unitarian gave an implied assent to the propriety of those expressions, however, if he allowed them to be pronounced over him in one of the most important acts of his life. He really did think that this might be considered a bona fide and conscientious objection. He would ask their lordships whether they would be satisfied with a marriage ceremony for themselves, in which the name of Mahomet was adjured. Marriage was a civil contract, to which it had been wisely determined to give a religious sanction. Of course that sanction was to be binding on the conscience. But, where was the propriety of involving in the marriage ceremony itself a violation of that conscientious feeling which it was expressly ordained to cherish? While he said this, he was as anxious as any man, that the security of the Protestant church generally should not be endangered, nor its authority diminished. With respect to the publication of the bans, he did not see why they should not be published in the Unitarian chapels. He was certainly not surprised at, indeed he could not regret, the existence of a jealousy on all matters which threatened to weaken the security of the church of England. But it did not on that account follow, that he should raise scruples "light as air" into matters of importance. He should vote for the bill going into the committee, in the hope that the objections to it might there be entirely obviated.
Lord Calthorpecould not help feeling that the degree of relief which this bill afforded ought to be granted to the Unitarians, as offering them an opportunity of being married without any violation of their principles; for he thought the strength of the Church did not, and could not, arise from persecution. She loved to relieve the honest scruples of men, if, at the same time, she could satisfy herself, that the measure of relief was consistent with the interests of those great and important truths which those men denied. Considering the remarkable observance of the decencies and proprieties of life by the sect of Unitarian dissenters, and considering their regular and exemplary discharge of the duties of their situations, which afforded the church a sufficient guarantee for the due and proper performance of this solemn rite by their ministers, the church ought not to press her forms upon them too strictly. At the same

85
time, he could not help thinking, that she ought to do something which would effectually prevent them from being identified with her. Feeling, as he did, that the doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed by the English church; that it formed the base of her structure; and that it was infused into all her articles—he could not help thinking, that she was bound to shew to those individuals who differed from her in that essential point, however respectable they might be, that she could encourage no ecclesiastical communion with them. He wished to do justice to the merits of the Unitarians, and he should do them great injustice if he did not recognize the excellence of those patriotic virtues which had often placed them in the foremost ranks of the friends of humanity and truth; but while he said this, he could not refrain from broadly and decidedly expressing his dissent from the lamentable doctrines in which they believed. He called those doctrines lamentable, for they appeared to him to strip the christian religion of all that made her the grace, the hope, and the consolation of her followers. While, therefore, he respected the merits of the Unitarians, he could not help remembering that they held opinions at variance with what the English church considered as constituting the very essence of Christianity. The church of England had, indeed, marked that doctrine in a distinct and authoritative manner; and she considered those truths, not merely in the light of speculative doctrine, but as an active and fruitful spring of action. But though he spoke of the Unitarian doctrine with pain, he did not wish to speak of its professors with harshness; for that was not consistent with the true christian mildness on which all the articles and institutions of the church of England were founded. It did seem to him, that the church owed it to herself, to her supremacy, and to the high and important truths which she taught, to mark in this bill, her total dissent from the opinion of the Unitarian dissenters. He had no apprehension, that such a step as the passing of the present bill would lead to an injurious degree of indulgence, nor to a rash and indiscreet spirit of surrendering the privileges of the church. But, at the same time that he said this, he could not refrain from applauding the conduct of those prelates, who, fearing such a danger, had deprecated any alteration whatever. He could nut but rejoice,
86
that the bench of bishops had refrained from setting a precedent so full of danger. He admired the service of the church of England; he particularly venerated the Liturgy, which he looked upon with an affection almost equal to that with which he viewed Holy writ itself, and he thought the bench of bishops deserved the thanks of every supporter of the church of England, for having offered their fair and open opposition to the principles of this bill, although at the same time, he differed from the members of that bench, as to the danger which they supposed likely to ensue. He did not think this would afford a means for the further extension of Unitarian doctrines; for, in his opinion, human nature required something more consoling, more heart-sustaining, than their cold and precise doctrines. He did not think that such of the bishops as supported this bill could be accused of inconsistency, because they had spoken and voted against granting any further concessions to the Catholics. On the contrary, he could easily conceive, that they might oppose one, and conscientiously vote in favour of the other. He thought this to be a measure not only of justice to the Unitarian dissenters, but to the church itself. He should give his vote for its being committed, though, with the view he had of the question, he should have thought it better for the church to have asked for the relief which this bill would give them, than thus to have accorded it as a boon to the dissenters. He called it a relief to the church, for the clergy must have felt uneasy in doing that which nearly amounted to profaneness; namely, calling on the Unitarian dissenter, when appearing at the altar, to do violence to his conscience, by professing sentiments which he positively disavowed, or by using expressions which obliged him to screen himself under mental equivocation and reservation.
The Earl of Westmorlandfelt it his duty to state the reasons on which he should be induced to vote against the bill. The first ground of his opposition was, that he absolutely and distinctly objected to the principle of the measure. When he said this, he did not wish it to be supposed that he was an enemy to toleration generally, when about to be extended to any man or set of men of any particular sect; but he objected to this measure because he considered it a complete alteration of the law of the land and of the church establishment. By the law of the land,

87
for the purpose of protecting families in the possession of their property, and preventing frauds, the solemnization of the marriage contract was required to be in the church of England. To this general Jaw there were only two exceptions, in the instances of Jews and Quakers. On the policy of those exceptions he should not now stay to argue; it was sufficient that they existed and were recognized by the law; but, if they were to be extended— if other exceptions to the general law were to be created—he wished to know why the alteration should be special and not general? He saw no reason why the Unitarian should be put forward in preference to other dissenters. His next objection was, that by this bill the church was made a mere handmaid, an assistant, to this particular description of dissenters, in preference to all others. He could not conceive why, if the principle of extension of right were to be allowed, it should not be rendered general, if not universal. He did not see why the Unitarians should form the only exception to the general law of the land. On these grounds, he should feel himself bound to give his negative to a measure, which, he conceived, would, if passed, form a considerable alteration of the ecclesiastical law, and of the common law of the land.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that at so late an hour of the night he would not take up much of their lordships' time, but would succinctly state what were the grounds upon which he intended to vote for this bill going into a committee. He thought the policy which had induced the legislature to place the solemnization of marriage in the hands of the church was a very wise one. It contributed to that publicity which was so desirable in its celebration; and thereby had a tendency to protect parties from having their ignorance or their credulity practised upon by the designing and the vicious. It secured the decent and solemn performance of that which the law held to have been, in its origin, a civil more than a religious contract. This might not be, indeed, a primary view of the subject; but it went to shew the wisdom of the policy which the legislature had pursued, in conferring upon it a certain distinction, by confiding it to the care of the church. It was in this view of the matter, that he thought no alteration ought to take place in the law, except upon very weighty reasons indeed.
88
Now it appeared to him, that no general dissent from the doctrine of the church of England was a sufficient ground for effecting such alteration in favour of a particular class of persons. With respect to the class in question, if there was any entire and essential difference between their tenets and any doctrine recognized in our marriage-service itself, he was willing to admit, that that might constitute some ground for the sort of alteration he spoke of; but, in the present case, the fact was not so. Their lordships would remember, that some time since, there was brought into that House 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 particular doctrines. No sect or class was named in it. To that bill he ventured to offer objections as to the principle; but he supported the proposition for its going into a committee. In the present instance, the case was very different. In this bill, a particular class of persons was named, and their particular scruples were recited; and their lordships were told, that while the parties felt all this difficulty as to the solemnization of marriage, they were very much agreed in other points with the church. He could not agree with a noble earl in his view of such an application. It had been said, at the same time, that the Unitarians had made no particular profession of faith. Now, if any noble lord were to say to a Unitarian, that because he had married according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England, he had therefore given up his own peculiar doctrine, and had recognized that of the Holy Trinity, the Unitarian would smile at the inference, as a calumny upon him. No Unitarian, he apprehended, had ever scrupled to be married in the church upon any such grounds. The measure before their lordships was not one which ought to override every other consideration; but, on the contrary, the House ought to take sufficient security that it should not, in any event, be abused by individuals for the purpose of clandestine marriage, or other improper purposes; that marriages to be solemnized under it should be solemnized with decency; and that, as far as possible, every fraud that it might be attempted to practise in consequence of such an act should be obviated. As the bill was at present worded, bans might be

89
falsely and unduly published, and marriage licences might be forged; and yet no parties were named as responsible, and no punishment was assigned as the penalty for such offences. The exceptions in favour of Jews and Quakers had been adverted to, in the course of this discussion. He would be very willing to grant all that had been granted by the legislature to them, in these respects; but nothing more. As to the Jews, it allowed them an exemption from the operation of the marriage law, where both the parties were Jews. But, what was it that the dissenters asked? A similar exemption, where one only of the parties was a Unitarian. The Jews, again, married according to a very ancient and established form of their religion: but the dissenters prayed, that parties might be married according to their religious principles. What was meant by so vague and so extensive an application as this? Among the Jews and Quakers, the parties were liable, before the solemnization of their marriage, under the permitted exemptions, to be called upon for the proof of their connexion with those persuasions. Let their lordships observe, too, what securities there existed against clandestine marriages, both among Quakers and Jews. In the case of the latter, they were derived from his prejudices, his habits, his religion, the usages of the people, and even the authority of the synagogue. There had once been a case decided, by the learned and noble judge (lord Stowell) who now sat in that House, and who had formerly presided, with so much honour to himself and benefit to the country, in the consistorial court, upon the fact only, that one of the parties to a Jewish marriage was proved to have entertained opinions that were not consonant with the religious prejudices of the Jews. The Quakers, again, were another class, among whom the same securities would always exist to a great degree. The members of any branch of this society coming from one part of the kingdom were obliged to produce testimonials and certificates before they could be received or admitted into another body of the same connexion in a different portion of the empire. Without troubling their lordships with any further detail, he believed he might say, that courts of justice had never been called on to try a single case, in which the indulgence of the legislature to the marriage of Jews or Quakers had
90
been to be regretted. With regard to the Unitarians, if they could give the same securities, possibly no harm might result from extending the same indulgence to them, but no such securities' did they offer. For these reasons he should feel bound to vote against the bill after it came out of the committee; although he should not oppose its being committed. He wished to add one remark as to the fees of the clergy, which, indeed, was a subject that he had viewed with considerable attention, and at the same time with no small degree of pain and uneasiness. It was certainly true, that many of the clergy were inadequately paid, and it was no less true, that a considerable part of their income arose from their fees on marriages. He was unwilling to deprive them of any part of their revenue, but at the same time he felt, that though that was important, it did not equal in importance the loss which the church would sustain by being deprived of the exclusive rights and privileges of solemnizing the marriage ceremony. According to the present system, the clergyman received a pleasure in uniting together the earthly destinies of two individuals attached to each other, and they remembered with satisfaction the person who had performed the ceremony of their union, and in offering him his fee they were influenced by no cold or repulsive feelings, and frequently added if not at the time, at least afterwards, a gratuity, offered with the purest and warmest benevolence. By the operation of this bill, the clergyman would be reduced to the character of the tax-gatherer; all the gracious part of his office being abstracted. On this ground, he felt a great difficulty in acceding to the clause which secured their fees to the clergy; though, at the same time, he felt very unwilling to offer a premium to the increase of dissenting ministers.
Lord Hollandsaid, the principle on which this bill proceeded had been so well developed by the noble marquis who had proposed it, that he did not think it necessary to enter into any further discussion on that point. He considered it as a proof that the church of England deserved the praise for liberality which had been bestowed upon it, when he heard the head of the English church express himself as he had done, in such a liberal and truly christian manner. There had been but few objections urged to the

91
bill, and these had been so ably answered by the noble president of the council, that he should abstain from entering generally into the subject. He must, however, call on the noble lord on the woolsack, and on the right rev. prelate (the bishop of Chester), for a little further explanation. As to the latter, indeed, he could not but remark the truth of the maxim, that when a man was about to attack or destroy a principle, he first felt it necessary to express his loud and anxious praise of that principle which he was about to violate. The right rev. prelate had began his speech by dealing with plain truths in such a manner, as to excite suspicion by the extravagant praise which he had bestowed upon them. He had expressed his love for toleration in the most positive terms; but, unluckily, he did not appear to have much affection for the particular application of that general doctrine to which he seemed to be so much attached. He boldly avowed, indeed, that the scruples of the Unitarians ought not to be so much respected; and he had entered into a long and ingenious argument to shew that they were not entitled to much weight with the House. But surely the only true judge of the conscientiousness of those scruples was the man who entertained them; who was not to be judged by the reasoning of others as to their fitness or propriety. It was said, that the Unitarian, by the act of marriage, did not conform to the doctrines of the church of England, and that on other occasions he used the expression—"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;" but, with respect to that, there was this distinction, that he only used that expression as it had been used by the holy founder of the Christian religion, and when he was enabled to annex to it the particular sense which he thought it properly bore. It had been asked, what could the Unitarian hear in the performance of the marriage ceremony which was disagreeable to him? To that might be answered—the very doctrine, which he believed to be contrary to Scripture. That question had been followed up by another—"Does it do him any harm?" Why, could the right rev. prelate recollect the oath taken at the table of the House, and say that certain things contained in it were indifferent? Would he venture to declare, that, in his opinion, the invocation of the Virgin Mary, in the Romish church,
92
would be a matter of indifference to a Protestant? If he could not, then let him judge the cause of others, and their feelings, by his own. It had been said by the learned lord on the wool-sack, that these objections had not been found out till the statute of William had been repealed. It ought to have been said, that until the repeal of that statute, the grievance had never been complained of. And why? because, when that statute was in force, a Unitarian could not avow himself; for if a man had declared himself a Unitarian he might almost as well have avowed himself a traitor. The same learned lord had asked, what was the common law with respect to Unitarians? Surely such a question from him must be unnecessary, for if he did not know, who could be expected to answer? If, on the other hand, he was satisfied on that point, why did he put the question so as to raise doubts and create alarms in the minds of those sectarians? Why did he go about —"Spargere voces in vulgum ambiguas?" Why did he insinuate, that the Unitarian doctrine was forbidden by the law of this country? He had asked, whether denying the Trinity was not an offence at common law. When he (lord H.) recollected the debates which had taken place in that House on the subject of religious liberty (for, with Locke, he should reject the word "toleration"), and the part which the learned lord took in those debates, it did seem strange that he should have chosen such a path on the present occasion. Surely the opinions of Locke, of Tillotson, and of Hoadley, must have been sufficient to satisfy his conscience; and it did seem very wonderful, that he should venture to differ from such authorities. If he referred to them, he would find that Locke had expressly disapproved of the Toleration act, because it did not extend specially to Unitarians. What could the learned lord, who had so deeply studied, and so warmly admired Locke—what could he say, when the opinions of that great man were found different to those which he now entertained? Could any man read the correspondence of that great writer, and not be convinced that in the passage, beginning "Cæteri tui similes", he had referred particularly to the Unitarians, who were also mentioned in his other writings? Surely not, and if they had any respect for that celebrated author, or for his opinions, they would pause before they

93
ventured to disclaim and deny the principles for which he had contended. Christianity had been called "part and parcel of the law of the land." It was lord Hale. He believed, who first said this of Christianity; but the doctrine was afterwards more sensibly and emphatically laid down by lord Raymond. This happened in the famous case of the King v. Woolston. On that occasion the learned judge had said he would not allow it to be debated, whether Christianity was authentic, because it was in fact a part of the law of the land; but he begged it to be observed, that by this he meant Christianity generally, and not the tenets of any particular sect of Christians. Why, then, he must ask here, what was Christianity? Was it a belief in the Holy Scriptures, or was it a belief in certain expositions 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 Unitarians were Christians in every sense; for they held the Scriptures to be as sacred as any of their lordships. They held them to contain the rule of right, and the rule of faith, and by them alone they stood. If it were said, on the other hand, that those persons only were Christians who believed the Holy Scriptures as they were expounded by the church, then, if the noble and learned lord held that, it followed, that he must be prepared to hold also, that before the reign of Henry 8th, the Roman Catholics were the only Christians in England; for until 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 proposed measure 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 handmaid? He did not believe it did. He suspected that, until the passing of lord Hardwick'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 period, were celebrated aocording 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 the pathetic part of the speech of the learned prelate, in which he had deplored the hard fate of the clergy-
94
man, who, by this bill, would be deprived of his fees, all he had to say in reply was, that the bill provided they should have their fees. "But," said the learned prelate "those for which the bill provides are only the actual dues, and beyond these dues it is usual for parties to give a small gratuity on the solemnization of marriages which forms a considerable source of emolument to the officiating clergyman." Well! it might be so; but was it not at least as likely that an Unitarian would be willing to bestow as large a gratuity when he had his marriage solemnized and registered in such a manner as should satisfy the scruple of his conscience, as when it was performed in a manner irksome and painful to his feelings? It was said, 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 question by the noble president of the council; he would not take up the time of the House any more than by saying—merely because the others did not ask for it, and they, the Unitarians, did. He could not help thinking that the Unitarians were very hardly dealt with. If general relief was sought for them, up jumped the noble and learned lord from the woolsack, and complained that it was too general. He said, that it did not appear what sort of dissenters they were— whether they were the disciples of Joanna Southcote, or Jumpers, or Shakers; and feared, if the relief were given in this shape they would not be able to make head nor tail of it. He therefore proposed that it should be postponed until the next session and then that the points should be discussed one by one. Then, when the next session came, the noble and learned lord said, why should we give relief to one? He (lord H.) 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 him to be the most strange, unparliamentary, and illogical reasoning that could be imagined, to say "We will not 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 all, but it could be no reason for withholding it from any. Highly as he held private judgment, he held religious liberty still higher, and he would not, therefore, have the member of

95
any one church call on another for conformity to his opinion; but those who thought conformity absolutely necessary in other cases, must waive it here, for the marriage ceremony was merely a ministerial office of the clergy; and, if he might express his opinion on that point, he must say, that he should be equally well pleased to see that part of the office which consisted in registering the marriage, performed by a magistrate as by a clergyman. That however was not the Jaw, and on that subject he should observe no further. He should have been pleased if the clause relating to marriages by license had been left out, and the parties had been permitted to marry by bans in their own church. The right rev. prelate who spoke last, had said, that he felt more hurt at the loss of the exclusive privilege of marrying, than at the loss of the fees, for that the clergyman who performed the ceremony felt a pleasure in its performance. That was undoubtedly a good feeling; but if the clergyman felt any pleasure in solemnising the marriage according to forms obnoxious to the parties married, he must at least feel equal pleasure in confirming, by signing the certificate and registry of that marriage, the happiness of those parties who had been united to each other in a way which did not shock their conscientious scruples. If, as had been somewhat awkwardly expressed, Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, and Christianity was founded on the Holy Scriptures, as the rule of faith, then was the Unitarian a Christian, and then could he say, that in no manner did he offend against those laws which allowed him the full liberty of extending his opinion, and diffusing the principles of his sect. If he was no enemy he should be treated as a friend, and allowed that liberty in the point of marriage, which the Jaw did not refuse him in any other respect.
The House divided: For the second reading 35. Against it 31. Majority 4.