Lords Sitting of 3 June 1825

UNITARIAN MARRIAGE BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdownrose, to move the second reading of this bill. He reminded their lordships, that last year he had proposed to them a bill to the same effect as the present, which had been brought up from the Commons. That bill had been thrown out on the second reading; but now a bill for the some object had passed that House without: a division in any of its stages. The present bill differed in some respects from that of last session. Much pains had been taken to improve it. Ministers of the established church had
1026
lent their assistance in framing it. He did not state this fact with the view of obtaining any improper influence over the minds of their lordships, but to induce those who were disposed to object to it, to consider the subject well before they opposed a measure which came before them under such a sanction. The object of the measure was, to remove the difficulties which stood in the way of the performance of the marriage ceremony, with regard to certain individuals. Every individual, whatever his religious opinions might be, was entitled to have all obstacles removed which tended to prevent him from celebrating, in what he considered the most solemn manner, that ceremony which formed the most sacred of all ties. Every unnecessary restriction which affected particular classes of persons, in regard to such an object as marriage, ought surely to be done away; and on this subject it was their lordships' duty to give every relief which was consistent with the safety of the state. Only those regulations which were called for by necessity ought to be maintained. The different regulations adopted, in this and other countries, resolved themselves into two kinds, civil and religious. With regard to the former, in as far as related to matters of police, the object of the bill was, to maintain every civil right. The persons for whose benefit it was introduced were ready to submit to any civil regulation on the subject of marriage, which their lordships might think fit to impose. The religious part of the question was totally distinct from the civil; and all that the bill proposed to do, was to provide against the depreciation of the sacred ceremony of marriage, by regulations to which the Unitarians could not conscientiously submit. To make the legality of so solemn a tie as marriage depend upon declaring what the parties did not believe to be truth, was to invite them to do that which their lordships must regard as highly improper. According to the former bill, the marriage ceremony was to be celebrated by the clergy of the established church. That mode had, however, been thought Objectionable, and it was therefore provided by the present bill, that the ceremony should be carried into effect by the Unitarian ministers, in their own congregations. As the ceremony of marriage was intended for the benefit of the whole community, it would be proper to perform it, as far as possible, in the same manner for all

1027
classes; but as conscientious scruples about performing the ceremony to Unitarians existed in, the minds of many ministers of the established church, this mode had been abandoned. In the same way, some of the ministers of the established church had objected to registering the marriages of persons who were united by a ceremony inconsistent with the principles of the church; and to obviate this difficulty, the Unitarians were willing to take upon themselves the trouble of registering their own marriages. In fact, the bill did nothing more than afford relief from regulations inconsistent with the conscientious scruples of individuals. None of their lordships would say, that the opinions of the persons whom the bill proposed to relieve were not tolerated by law; and being so, the law ought to protect them, and facilitate to them the means of duly performing the most sacred of all the relations of society. It would, perhaps, be asked, why the persons for whose benefit the bill was framed were so scrupulous? Some, he was aware, might make a compromise with conscience, and be able to satisfy themselves of the propriety of every opinion that was consistent with their temporal interests: but their lordships, surely, would not encourage a species of reasoning which led to a disregard of the truth of the most solemn declarations. Persons ought not to be forced to enter the temple of God with equivocation on their tongues, nor be made to subscribe to what they did not believe to be true. Wherever sincere and conscientious scruples existed, they ought to be met half-way. On these grounds, he proposed the second reading of this bill.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, he had voted for the bill of last session, and would give his support to the present, because its tendency was equally to relieve Unitarians and ministers of the established church. The scruples of the Unitarians he believed to be sincere; but he was chiefly anxious to remove the difficulties in which ministers of the church were involved by Unitarian marriages. By this, or some other measure, he wished to do away with that unhallowed equivocation which, sanctioned by law, now took place at the foot of the altar.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, that having stated his sentiments at some length upon this subject when it was before the House last year, he would trouble
1028
their lordships with very few observations upon it at preesnt. He felt himself bound, however, to state, as briefly as possible, the reasons which impelled him to oppose this bill. His objection lay to the principle of the measure. He did not see on what grounds marriage, according to the rites of the church of England, could be considered a grievance to the Unitarians. What were they called upon to subscribe? Merely the parties' names. They were obliged to make a declaration "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" but these very words were used in their own printed form. of prayer. The words used by the Unitarians in their ceremony of baptism were these.—"I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." They could not, therefore, justly object to their own form of prayer. He also admitted, that the clergyman who performed the ceremony of marriage gave to the parties benediction, by praying to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, to bless them. Now, if they did not think that they were the better for this, surely they could not feel themselves the worse for it., He defended the ministers of the church of England from the charge of equivocation in the performance of this ceremony for the Unitarians. There was no ground for such a charge; for the word equivocation implied the saying one thing and meaning another, for the purpose of deception. Now, there was no deception here; because the minister knew beforehand the opinions of the Unitarian, and the Unitarian knew those of the minister, so that neither party was deceiving or deceived. The ministers of the church were therefore neither guilty of equivocation, nor pious fraud. He denied that the Unitarians had any just grounds for saying, that their consciences were violated. Occasions were continually occurring, when points of doctrine laid down by ministers of the church were disapproved of by some individuals, who said that they would not again go to church to hear them; but, that was no reason why the church of England should not lay down the pure doctrines of Christianity. If the minister of the gospel did not propound the true principles of faith in Christ Jesus, how else was the gainsayer to be converted? If this privilege were ceded to the Unitarians, it must also be granted to every other sect and community, however erroneous their opinions might be, The doctrine of

1029
the Unitarians gave them no claim to be looked upon as a favoured sect; yet this concession was calculated to give a spread to the opinions of' that sect; although by denying the divinity of Christ, they laid the axe to the root of the tree of Christianity itself. For these reasons he would move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
The Bishop of Lichfieldconsidered the opinions of the Unitarians as utterly destitute of any foundation in the word of God; but still he looked upon their present complaint as well founded, and considered the bill entitled to their lordships' support, as calculated to deliver the church of England from the scandalous profanation of such a compromise at the altar. He was a friend to toleration; but he did not conceive that the present bill would operate as any encouragement to sectaries.
The Lord Chancellorwould be glad if any one would inform him what was meant by the word Unitarian; for, if a Unitarian was a person who denied the divinity of Christ, their;lordships, before they passed this bill, must first pass an act rendering it lawful for him so to do. His lordship referred to the act of William, to show that the denial of the divinity of our Saviour was declared to be a crime, which subjected the party guilty of it to a severe punishment. The act of toleration did not repeal the law as it stood before. It only excepted the parties, in some cases, from the consequences of that which was a crime at common law before the passing of that act..lf it was a crime at common law to deny the divinity of Christ, their lordships should begin with repealing the common law, and not with passing an act of parliament in the teeth of it. The Jews and Quakers. had marriage ceremonies of their own, and he should not be sorry to see a bill introduced, declaring their marriages to be valid; for, although they were excepted in lord Hardwicke's act, yet in a case which had lately come before him,, considerable doubts had been raised as to the validity of Quakers' marriages. He considered the doctrines of. the Unitarians as calculated to work essential mischief, and therefore called upon the House not to sanction that which the judges of Westminster-hall must deny in judgment.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that his noble and learned friend had said, that, notwithstanding the act of toleration, the
1030
common law was still in force. But his noble and learned friend towards the conclusion of his speech, had furnished an argument against himself; for, what did he admit? That Jews and Quakers might lawfully marry according to the rites of their own communions; for they were excepted in lord Hardwicke's act. Now, could any man assert that the doctrines of the Unitarians were more at variance with the principles of Christianity than those of the Jews were? The Unitarians denied the divinity of Christ; but the Jews denied the truth of Christianity altogether—they blasphemed and crucified the Saviour, whom we adored. The same argument would apply to Mahometans and various other persuasions, if the members of them were sufficiently numerous in this country. But, how did the law stand at present? In some cases, marriage according to the rites of the church of England was not necessary even amongst members of the church of England; for they might go to France and be married by a Roman Catholic, or to Scotland and be married by a Presbyterian; and in both cases the marriage was good and binding. He believed that if, in a country where a priest could not be had, a marriage was performed by a civil person, that marriage was also valid by law; and the reason was, that every possible facility might be given to marriage, in order to prevent immorality. The strongest argument against. the bill, was that which had been urged by a right reverend prelate, who had said if the concession be made to the Unitarians, why not extend it to every other sect? The answer was, because it would be impossible to frame a general act to meet the object in view. They had an example for the present measure in the case of the Quakers. He thought, that where there was a sincere and conscientious objection entertained, it ought to be respected. A Jew could not, a Quaker could not, a Unitarian could not, submit to have the ceremony performed by the church of England; or, if he could, it was only by casting a slur on that church; for their lordships constantly saw in the papers statements of' protests which must have filled them with disgust. The church had a right to compel marriage according to her own rites, amongst her own members; but, as she did not assume to be an infallible church, he did not see why she should look with any jealousy on the doctrines of

1031
those who were of a different communion. He therefore saw no objection to the bill.
The Bishop of Chestersaid, there could be no question as to the importance of this subject to the Unitarians. If they really considered that by submitting to the ceremony of marriage in the church of England, they were brought to worship the Trinity, he certainly thought them entitled to relief. He was ready to admit their sincerity; but they were spurred on to their present complaint by a sect who called themselves "Free-thinking Christians." As, however, there was no very great grievance imposed upon their consciences, he thought they might submit for one year longer to the privation of what he considered a right. He agreed that the present measure would afford not only relief to the Unitarians, but to the clergy of the church of England; and he would therefore put the former on the same footing with the Quakers, and all the other Dissenters, before the passing of the marriage act. He was not for imposing the doctrine or the discipline of the church of England upon those who could not conscientiously entertain them; but the Unitarians were not prepared at present to give the necessary securities against clandestinity, and therefore he was impelled to oppose this bill.
Lord Redesdaleopposed the bill.
Lord Calthorpecontended, that it was unfair to place the Unitarians on the same footing as any other Dissenters. To other Dissenters who did not deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the marriage ceremony was no hardship, but it was to Unitarians a very great one. He would not impugn the legal argument of the learned lord on the woolsack; but the present law, admitting it to be correct, afforded, in his mind, a strong reason for passing the bill. The church could not promote her true interests better than by conforming herself to the increasing knowledge of the age. Nothing could be more injurious to her than to place her in opposition to liberal ideas. The church was able to rely on her own strength, and might, without fear, appeal to the augmented learning and assiduity of her clergy, to the increased number of her churches, and to the two great Universities, which year after year sent forth distinguished champions to uphold her rank and maintain her security. He supported the measure, because it would add to the dignity and character of the church of England.
1032
The House divided: For the second reading, Content 32; Proxies 20–52; Not Content 31; Proxies 25–56 Majority against the bill 4.