Lords Sitting of 4 May 1824

SILK-TRADE.
The Earl of Lauderdalerose to call their lordships' attention to a bill which he meant to introduce for the repeal of certain laws relative to the Silk-trade. The bill he was about to submit to their consideration was the same as that which last session had passed the Commons, and come before their lordships from that House, with the exception of the manner in which the Irish acts were recited. The present moment was most favourable for proposing the measure, as those persons who were last year the principal supporters of the restrictions on manufactures and trade had materially changed their opinion. He might, therefore, have proposed this bill without saying a word on the subject, were it not that he thought it right to account for his own conduct in introducing it at this moment, by adverting to the change of opinion which had so generally taken place. If he was at all rightly informed with respect to the sentiments of the journeymen of Spitalfields, they would rather see all the laws on the subject of the silk-trade repealed, than experience the operation of an act, which relieved the master from the necessity of employing the whole of his capital. He certainly did not share the opinion of those persons who thought that the bill passed this session would produce the total destruction of the silk manufactures; but he agreed with those who would prefer the repeal of the whole restrictions at once to allowing the period fixed by the bill. The little knowledge he had of the silk-manufacturers was sufficient to convince him of this. He knew that the manufacturers looked up to the demand of the months of February, March, and April, as conclusive of the state of the trade. Hence it followed, that the first experiment which was to take place under the new act in 1826, would be made at the same time as the French importations.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid a few words relative to the proceedings with respect to the former bill which had passed on the report of a committee. He also questioned the extent of the alteration in the opinions of the Spitalfields journeymen.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that the report of the committee was in fa-
434
our of the bill of last session. As to whether the opinions of the journeymen had changed or not, it would be sufficient for him to refer to the appearance of the neighbourhood of that House. He would ask their lordships, whether they had that day seen any thing like the assemblage of persons which the proceedings of last year, or even of the commencement of the present session, had occasioned? It was certain, that the opinions of the friends of restrictions out of doors, as well as of their supporters in parliament had undergone an alteration.
The bill was then read a first time.

UNITARIAN MARRIAGE-BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdown moved that this bill be committed.
The Bishop of Chester, in justice to his own feelings and the importance of the question, thought it necessary to say, that after giving his most anxious attention to the subject of this bill, he was only the more confirmed in his opinion, that the Unitarians had no reasonable grounds for their objections to the marriage-ceremony of the Church of England. The words in question were the words of Scripture, the words of our blessed Lord himself, and could not be altered without compromising the doctrines and the dignity of the established church. That the Unitarians had no ground for objecting to the words used in the marriage ceremony was evident from this circumstance, that they themselves adopted the same words in their baptismal ceremony. If any noble lord would show him any just reason for the objection of the Unitarians, he would give his consent to the bill. In his opinion, the retaining the words was indispensable; for the church of England would be wanting in what was due to her dignity, if she did not take every proper opportunity to declare what her faith in Christ was. The character of the church of England had always been that of a tolerant church, and he admitted that their lordships were called upon to grant liberty of worship to all sects; but the church was not therefore to be required to give up her doctrines and discipline. If the marriage-ceremony was to be altered, it was not easy to see what might be the consequence of such encroachments. If one stone was to be removed after another, what would become of the building? He trusted that their lordships would not

435
agree to any infringement of the doctrines and discipline of the church of England—of a church, the interests of which were so inseparably interwoven with the best interests of the state. Convinced that the liberty of conscience was not violated with respect to the Unitarian by the law as it at present existed, he should oppose the motion for now committing the bill, and move, that it be committed that day three months.
The Bishop of Exeterwas of opinion, that persons who did not believe in certain doctrines ought not to be compelled to join in ceremonies depending on those doctrines, and would therefore vote for going into the committee forthwith. In that committee he should propose some amendments, the object of which would be to assimilate the bill as much as possible to the act for amending the marriag-act which passed last session, with respect to the prevention of clandestine marriages, by imposing certain penalties. He would also propose an amendment on the subject of registration of marriages. He thought that the Unitarians ought to be allowed to keep their own registers.
The Bishop of St. David'ssupported the amendment. He observed, that the doctrines to which the Unitarians objected were those of the majority of Christians, and what all members of the church of England must consider to be essential to Christianity. He could not consent to the giving up of a point of so much importance, which involved the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures themselves might as well be objected to, as the marriage-service of the church of England.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, it was certainly true, that the Unitarians denied the doctrine of the Trinity; but he wished those who opposed the bill to consider well what it was for which they contended. Was it their wish to enforce a seeming acquiescence in doctrines against the consciences of men? The consequence of maintaining such apractice must be, that ceremonies would be administered in one sense, and received in another. And what was this but a system of the grossest prevarication? For these reasons he was desirous of seeing the bill in the committee, where it might receive. such corrections as it was susceptible of.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he could not, suffer the bill to go into the
436
committee without alluding to certain opinions which had received some degree of currency on this subject, but which appeared to him as inconsistent with the law of England, as they were absurd in themselves. When he had heard it stated, and seen it printed in some publications, that the law of marriage, as it existed in the reign of king William, should be restored, he could not help being greatly surprised; because if the law were so restored, there would be no reason for this or any other application of the kind. It was merely owing to an incidental consequence of the operation of the act of lord Hardwicke, the 26th of George 2nd, that dissenters were placed under the necessity of coming forward and asking relief with respect to the law of marriage. In passing that act, it was far from being the intention of the legislature to produce a simulated assent to the doctrines of the church of England. So far from being a bill for such a purpose, its sole object was that which, according to its title, it purported to be; namely, a bill for preventing clandestine marriages. Those who applied for the relief proposed to be given by the present bill, never entertained the idea that the church of England was to be called upon to give up any of her doctrines. No such concession was expected. What the Unitarians asked for, was, relief from a part of a ceremony in which they could not conscientiously join; and he never could suppose that any prelate of the church of England would wish to impose upon them an assent to doctrines, which it was well known they came to the church prepared to reject. The rejection of those doctrines could not be treated as illegal. They were allowed by law. And indeed, in modern times, when any question as to blasphemy came to be discussed before a court, a distinction had always been taken between that offence, and those opinions which arose out of an interpretation of the Scriptures different from that adhered to by the established church. The vague assertion, that the church was in danger, had often been productive of mischief, of which the Birmingham riots, when Dr. Priestley became the victim of a mob, afforded a remarkable instance; but it was to be expected that those who made this assertion would state what was the nature of the danger which they apprehended. Was it danger to the authority, or danger to the revenues of the church? It was said, that

437
the bill attacked the doctrines and the discipline of the church of England. Now, the same doctrines and discipline were to be found in the church of Ireland, and yet a marriage law existed there, similar in principle to the present bill, but much more sweeping in its provisions. In 1781, a bill had passed the Irish parliament, confirming an act of George 2nd, by which all the marriages of dissenters were made valid. And it was worth while to refer to the proceedings which had taken place on that occasion. The whole of the opposition made to the act was founded on an objection raised by some right reverend prelates in the House of peers, and which was in effect, that the measure was not such as that proposed by the bill now before their lordships. That the opinion of the Irish bishops, and the peers who concurred with them, was very different from that entertained by the noble and learned lord, and those who with him opposed the present bill, would appear from the protest entered on the Journals of the parliament of Ireland. The bill having passed the Commons, experienced considerable opposition in the House of Lords. The prelates and peers who opposed the bill entered into a protest, in which they objected, that it did not provide sufficiently against clandestine marriages and facility to divorce. But, what he wished more particularly to press on their lordships' attention was, the clause of the protest which was signed by all the prelates, and in which the ground of dissent expressed was, that those who opposed the bill had repeatedly declared, that they were willing to vote for another bill which would make the marriages of dissenters good and valid, provided they were solemnized under the sanction of the clergy of the established church. In fact, all that he objected to was, that the bill did not sufficiently conciliate the rites of the marriages of dissenters with the authority of the church. This, however, was completely done by the present bill, in which the authority of the church was fully maintained. If Unitarians were to be permitted to exist at all, they must be allowed to contract marriage. On that ground merely this bill ought to pass. It was full time for the church to get rid of the practice of enforcing a simulated assent to her doctrines. In proportion as marriage was regarded as an institution of importance to society, it was to be wished that it should be entered into with due
438
solemnity, and that the contracting parties should not be compelled to submit to a ceremony which they could not respect. If, indeed, there were persons who viewed all religious establishments with indifference—who regarded them as mere engines of government and state police— such persons would entertain little scruple as to any ceremony they might be required to perform. But the case was very different with the sincere dissenter, who could not conscientiously avail himself of the subterfuges which the state of the law presented. The noble marquis concluded by intimating, that he would not oppose the amendments suggested by the right rev. prelate opposite. He begged their lordships to recollect, that the regulations proposed by the bill were not only for the case of the dissenters, but for the general security.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the respect which he bore for the noble lord who had just sat down, as well as the high regard which he entertained for the right reverend prelate who had spoken in favour of this bill, made it impossible for him, after what had passed that evening, not to address their lordships, and to state the grounds on which he could never give his consent to this bill going into a committee. He would not say that it was impossible to frame a bill for the relief of the class of persons who were the objects of the present measure, but this bill contained principles to which, consistently with the protection of the established church, he could not consent. He did not wish to press his opinion on their lordships; but it was his duty, having spent the greater part of a long life in the service of the public, to state his conviction, that if ever this country should have the misfortune to lose the protection of the church of England, she would lose the best protection for toleration. On account of the dissenters themselves, therefore, he should feel it necessary to protest against every thing which would tend to degrade the established church. Religious toleration could not be liberally and extensively enjoyed, unless the church established was of liberal and enlarged principles; and such, in his opinion, was the character of the church of England. The noble marquis had found fault with him for raising some doubts as to the legality of the tenets of the Unitarians. But, what were the facts? By the Toleration act, persons denying the Trinity were deprived of the benefit of

439
that act; and so it stood until the repeal of the 9th of William. No man was more averse than himself to the severity of the punishments which might have been inflicted before that act was repealed; but the matter was perfectly understood at the time; and though certain learned ecclesiastics had thought that that repeal let loose all the law, as to denying the doctrine of the Trinity, yet of this he was assured, that the respectable person who brought that bill into the other House of parliament had no such notion; and in a case which had come before him (the lord chancellor), the title of which was "the Attorney-General v. Pearson," that learned and distinguished lawyer, sir S. Romilly, held an opinion similar to that which he entertained. It was an application to carry into effect certain charitable purposes which were formed before the time of king William. Sir S. Romilly insisted, that the common law remained as it was before; and though with respect to other dissenters it might be different, yet as to the Unitarians it was as much out of the power of the lord chancellor to establish a provision for them as for Judaism. He (the lord chancellor) did not think that he did wrong in refusing to decide that point, coming as it did incidentally before him, and his judgment being founded on the fact, that the charity was instituted before the 9th of William, and that that statute had decided that the doctrines of those who denied the Trinity were contrary to the christian religion. What he now stated was only to vindicate himself from the imputation of having thrown a doubt on a subject, on which no doubt could reasonably be entertained. With respect to the bill itself, it had been clearly stated, that on the principles on which the House were called upon to pass it as to the Unitarians, they might be called upon to pass a bill with respect to all dissenters. The noble marquis had disclaimed it, but he (the lord chancellor) would go further and say, that if their lordships passed this bill, they could not refuse it to any other dissenters. The present measure was justified on the ground of what had been done for the Jews and Quakers. Now, what was it that had been done for them? In the act of the 56th of George 3rd, there was a provision that that bill should not apply to them. But this bill was nothing like that. And even as to Jews and Quakers, it was probable that their
440
lordships might be called upon soon to pass some bill with respect to them, as he had, for the last eighteen days, been employed in hearing the arguments of counsel on the subject. Certainly, the exception in the act of 56 of Geo. 3rd could only mean, that those marriages should be just as valid as if that act had not passed: but what made them valid it was not so easy to say; and as reference had been made to the subject of torture, he would say that he supposed their lordships would rather bear all the tortures of the Inquisition than hear all the arguments adduced on the subject. It was certainly a curious subject; and it was very desirable that some act should pass to set the matter at rest. If he were to go into the detail of this bill, he could tear to pieces every sentence of it; but the details were matters for a committee. It was said, that the persons calling themselves Unitarians had real scruples of conscience on the doctrine of the Trinity. So had deists, atheists, and others. If he understood the doctrines of the church of England at all, it was impossible that there could be a greater repugnance between any doctrines than there was between the doctrine of the church of England and the Unitarians. The Unitarians must think the church of England idolatry. What, therefore, would be the sort of comprehension that it would effect? If they chose, indeed, to put themselves on the same footing as Jews and Quakers, let them ask for such a bill; but let not the House make the church of England the handmaid of the Unitarians. He could not to this policy consent to sacrifice the great the paramount policy of holding up the church of England as that church had hitherto been maintained. On these grounds, he could not consent to go into a committee on a bill, which must, in his opinion, tend to dishonour and degrade the church of England. Their lordships might pass the bill, but he had discharged his duty in giving his opinion on it; and he thought a worse bill had never been submitted to parliament.
Lord Hollandsaid, that after the former long discussion which took place on this subject, he did not expect to hear so much warmth and anxiety expressed on the motion for going into the committee. On coining down to the House, instead of employing himself in considering the important bill before them, he had taken up a publication of the correspondence of

441
that amiable man Mr. Cowper, and he had met with a story which he would relate, though probably it might be thought but little to the purpose. Cowper related that he was walking along the coast when he met with a great lawyer, whom, in language somewhat familiar, he called Sam Cox, who appeared meditating deeply on the vast expanse of waters before him. Cowper asked him what he was musing on; when he replied, that he was considering how strange it was that the vast element he was contemplating should produce so contemptible a creature as a sprat. What he (lord H.) felt, was the converse of what was felt by this great lawyer; for he could not conceive how this sprat in legislation, this miserable bill, could have produced so great a commotion in the House, and should be thought by the reverend bench calculated to disturb the security of the church establishment. He was equally at a loss to know, how the learned lord on the woolsack could think that his abstruse refinements and latent doubts were called into action by this little bill. He would recommend the noble and learned lord not to cry "wolf!" at every little mouse on the floor. A stranger who had heard what had passed in the House, would be surprised to learn that the whole question involved in this bill was, whether persons of the Unitarian religion should be allowed to marry as they were before the year 1756, and as they still were in Ireland, in consideration of the feelings of conscience which they professed. Some reverend prelates had taken upon themselves to explain, not the scruples of their own consciences, but of other persons, and to assert that the Unitarian could feel no scruples on this occasion. He knew no way of ascertaining scruples of conscience, either of communities or individuals, but by the declarations of the parties themselves; and he had still to learn, that when he declared a thing was contrary to his conscience, any other person might tell him it was not so. It was said that the words objected to were the words of our Saviour, and employed by the Unitarians themselves. The Unitarians said, "We do employ the words, but in another sense, and in the way our Saviour did employ them; but when you take the words from that place, and employ them in another way, we say it is hard upon us to be called upon to put another sense on these words." On this
442
invitation to tergiversation the right reverend metropolitan had observed in a Christian like manner; and though he (lord H.) might be thought to be more popishly inclined than others of their lordships, he should be sorry that such should be his opinion of the church of England. The noble and learned lord said, that this bill made the church of England the handmaid to the dissenters, and he had dwelt much upon the broad distinction between the Unitarians and the church of England. Now, from that, any man would suppose the bill was the reverse of what it was. It would be imagined, that it was a bill to join the members of the church of England and the Unitarians, which was precisely the thing the bill was to get rid of. The noble and learned lord had conceived, that the registration of the marriage would make the church of England the handmaid of the dissenters. What should be said of it, then, when she married them, but that she made something worse than a handmaiden of herself, even a prostitute? The noble and learned lord asked, if they wished to be put in the situation of the Jews and Quakers, and said, "bring a bill forward:" but, would he support the bill if it were brought forward? The greater part of the noble and learned lord's speech consisted of statements, that the common law as to Unitarians had not been touched; but, what was that to the purpose? There was an important bill which would soon come under discussion, namely, the Alien bill. In the former debates on which, he had taken an active part, and had once stated, that he had great doubts as to who were aliens and who were not. He had called upon the noble and learned lord to state who aliens were; but he got no satisfactory answer. He had moved seven questions to be referred to the judges on the subject, and the noble and learned lord had thereupon said, he cared not who aliens might be, but where they were they must be subject to this law. Again, on the bill which he should ever consider a disgrace to this country, for the detention of Napoleon Buonaparte, he had asked, if he were a prisoner of war or not? Had we a right to call upon him for local allegiance or not; and had he a right to call upon us for protection? Would an action lie if brought in his name? The noble and learned lord replied, either that he did not know

443
or he would not tell. This was what had been said on that occasion, when the liberty of that individual was to be restrained; but, when a single step was to be taken in the way of charity and indulgence, no advance must be made till every doubt was removed. It was said, that this bill would be derogatory to the established church. He had always thought, that the characteristics of the Christian church were lowliness and humility; and it seemed to him, that the feelings of the learned metropolitan were in unison with the genuine dictates of Christianity. He (lord H.) felt that the measure would not only be a relief to dissenters, but to the church of England itself; for it must, to say the least, be a painful duty to be using that name which the conscientious churchman never could use without the most solemn impressions, towards persons who listened to it only in conformity to an act of parliament. It could not be proper that they should be placed in the situation of saying to the dissenter, "We fare sumptuously every day, and hold the opinions of kings and princes, whilst you are poor, proscribed, and pick up the crumbs which fall from our table." This was exciting that spirit of Pharisaical pride which every man who understood the spirit of the Christian religion, and loved the established church, would be willing to see thrown far from it. As to the noble and learned lord speaking of this bill, as if it were a stone cast at the church of England, he recollected reading lately an elegant invective against exaggeration, which he wished the noble and learned lord had read. Surely the noble and learned lord had been guilty of exaggeration when he spoke of this bill as a great blow to the church, and had told the reverend bench, that they must disregard the minor question of dues, tithes &c, since, if bills of this sort were allowed to pass, there was an end of the church altogether. He had before learnt from the noble and learned lord, that until lord Hardwicke's time there was no law in England; and he now learnt that there was no church of England in Ireland, for Unitarians might marry there. Amidst all the grievances which afflicted that country, this, the greatest of grievances, had escaped observation—that the Unitarian dissenters could marry there, without being forced into the body of the church. The noble and learned lord apprehended the greatest danger to the
444
church, and had expressed his great devotion to her cause; but he had all along left out of his argument, how this bill was to effect this dreadful catastrophe. He (lord H.) would give the bill his support, because it was for the relief of a moral and religious class of persons, who stated the law at present to be against them; because he thought the relief could be granted without infringing on the protection which had been given against clandestine marriages; and because it deprived the clergy of nothing. The registration was not a religious duty, but merely a civil regulation, the performance of which was imposed by parliament; and for the alteration they were not without precedent, as the law would only then be as it was before lord Hardwicke's time, and as it was at present in Scotland and Ireland.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he would support the principle of the bill, though he was convinced that no person who had attended to his public conduct could doubt his sincere attachment to the church establishment to which it was alleged, by some of their lordships, to be hostile. He could not conceive the possibility of danger or of injury to the established church from the provisions of this bill. What did they do? They merely placed a certain class of dissenters on the footing on which they were prior to the passing of lord Hardwicke's act. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack had contended, that the bill should apply to all dissenters as well as to Unitarians; but he had not attended to the fact, that the Unitarians in respect to the article from which they were to be relieved by the bill, stood in a different situation from other dissenters. It had been said in the course of the debate, that the compliance required by the church to the obnoxious parts of the marriage ceremony could scarcely be called a hardship; but of this the Unitarians were, as had been truly observed by the noble baron opposite, the best judges. They thought it a hardship; and he respected their religious scruples. He could not form a decided opinion with respect to the propriety of altering the law as it regarded other dissenters. A bill for general relief had been brought in some time ago. He had agreed to the second reading of that bill, on the prospect that it could be amended in a committee, though he agreed in some of

445
the objections to a general measure, and had stated at the time, that he thought it less difficult and less hazardous to apply a specific remedy to each particular case, than to pass a general measure embracing all dissenters. He thought still, that if proper securities were given against fraud and clandestine marriages, there could be no objection to allow dissenters of all denominations to marry according to their own rites, provided both the parties to the marriage contract were without the pale of the church. The noble earl then delivered his opinion with respect to the effect of the act for the relief of Unitarians in 1812. Difficulties and doubts might be stated as to the legal effect of that act, as difficulties and doubts might be stated on the meaning and construction of every other law; but it was universally understood to have afforded substantial protection and relief. In the same manner, doubts were started with respect to the marriages of Jews and Quakers; but every one knew, that since the act by which they were exempted, the marriages of those sects had been considered legal. The bill was intended to place Unitarians in the same situation in this respect as Jews and Quakers. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack had asked, why the Unitarians did not place themselves in the same situation? This might be a subject for deliberation in the committee to which it was now proposed to send the bill. Whatever might be the merits or defects of the bill, he could not understand how it could in any way operate injuriously to the church of England. He concurred with the noble baron opposite on this point, and he was the more ready to express that concurrence, because he differed from the noble baron most essentially and fundamentally on many important questions connected with the security of the church of England. He agreed also with the noble baron that it was not the wisest policy to stretch every little measure of concession into a question of alarming magnitude; and that such a course was ill calculated to secure the safety of the church, in cases where danger really existed. Believing as he did, that this measure was founded on principles of sound policy; that it was in no degree opposed to the law and constitution of the country; and that it was calculated to afford relief to a class of dissenters who were entitled to relief on
446
the score of fair, conscientious, scruples, he should certainly vote for the bill going into the committee,
The House proceeded to divide on the Amendment. Contents, present, 55; Proxies 50–105. Not-Contents, present, 41; Proxies, 25–66. Majority in favour of the Amendment, 39 The bill was consequently lost.