Sitting of 3 June 1825

WESTERN SHIP CANAL BILL.
Lord Folkestoneopposed the bringing up of the report of the Western Ship Canal Company bill, on the ground that the standing orders had not been complied with. He maintained, that the list of subscribers was, in effect, a fabricated list; the names of any persons being inserted as holders of one hundred and two hundred shares, who did not hold more than thirty and fifty; and many persons being inserted in the list as shareholders, among whom were several members of that House, who declared that they had nothing whatever to do with the speculation. For a project, requiring a capital of 1,700,000 l., not more than 250,000 l. had actually been subscribed. It was, in his opinion, a fraudulent speculation, and he should give it his determined opposition.
The Speakerobserved, that, in point of form, the report must be received, but that it would be competent to the noble lord to oppose the bill in a future stage.
Lord Folkestonewithdrew his opposition to the receiving of the report, but declared that he should oppose. the bill when it next came before the House.
Mr. Baringtrusted that the House would not be prejudiced by any thing which had fallen from the noble lord. He had never known a committee more regularly attended than that which sat on this bill; and the circumstances adverted to by the noble lord had been fully considered by the committee before they agreed to the report.
Mr. Brogdenthought the measure likely to be beneficial, and that though there might be some mistakes in the list of subscribers, nothing had been shown to sanction the supposition that it was a fabricated list.
Sir T. Lethbridgemaintained, that the standing orders had been complied with.
Sir J. Yorkesaid, than if the names of. persons who had nothing to do with. the transaction were inserted in the list of subscribers, it was, to all intents and purposes, a fabricated list. In his opinion, the whole concern had been got up in a very suspicious manner.
Sir T. Aclandthought there was no ground for the supposition of the noble lord.
Mr. W. Williamsmaintained, that the list of subscribers was got up in a way calculated to mislead the public. It was the duty of the House to discourage speculations of this description, in which petty shopkeepers and others, imagining that they would only be liable to the extent of the deposit of one pound for every hundred, were tempted to embark their little capitals, and expose themselves to utter ruin.
The Speakerthought it right to observe, that there could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that persons embarking in these speculations were liable only to the extent of the deposit of one pound for every hundred pounds. By one of the standing orders it was expressly provided, that all such shareholders should be liable for the whole cent per cent.
The report was then received.

LONDON COLLEGE BILL.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that as, upon consideration, it appeared that the London College bill came within the description of a private bill, he should move for the discharge of the order for the second reading of the bill on Tuesday next, with the intention of taking it up as a private measure. As gross misapprehensions had gone forth on the subject, he would shortly state, what the nature of the intended bill was, and what it was not. The only object of the bill was, to enable a certain number of persons to form a corporate body, with power to sue and to be sued. Its object was not to create a joint-stock company; except in so far as it was proposed to incorporate the individuals in question by law, to enable them to transfer their shares, to sue and be sued, and to purchase lands as a corporation. It would not give power to any individual to withdraw himself from the responsibility of the whole amount of the debts that the corporation might incur. With respect to the institution itself, it was not intended to apply to parliament for any exclusive privileges; it was not intended that degrees should be given, fellowships or scholarships conferred; or, in short, any of those exclusive privileges be required, of which the two universities were at present in possession. The object of the proposed measure was, that whereas in London, there were many hundreds of
1034
persons who had not the means of obtaining for their children an education at the universities; prevented from so doing, some by the distance, others by an indisposition to let their children go from under their own superintendance; and still a greater number by the expense attendant on a university education; they should have an opportunity, on moderate terms, and near home, of securing so desirable an advantage. If he were to say that 200 l. a-year was the smallest sum at which a gentleman's son could be educated at Oxford or Cambridge, he was sure he should be told his estimate was very low, and that the average of the expense was much higher. This evil was accompanied by all the collateral evils usually attendant on the evil of spending money; by idleness and dissipation, which required the most vigilant superintendance, and the most unrelaxed discipline on the part of the university authorities. He spoke from the very highest official authority, when he stated, that the expenses of the students, at the universities, had increased to such a degree, that, if not checked, they bade fair to injure those learned bodies. It was but just to add, that great pains had been taken to remedy the evil, and that sanguine hopes were entertained that the most salutary effects would result. It was also but just to add, that the greatest improvement had of late years been made in other parts of the discipline of both universities. In Cambridge, classical studies had been more attended to; while in Oxford, the severer sciences, which had hitherto been the peculiar object of the sister university, were much more generally pursued. The effect was beneficial in both cases, by the introduction of a more scientific and useful education in both universities, calculated to promote the progress of knowledge, in consequence of the salutary rivalry which it tended to produce. The object of the proposed institution was, to bring home these advantages to the inhabitants of London, and to put them in possession of the means of giving their children a liberal and scientific course of education. The hundreds of tradesmen and other inhabitants of London, who were debarred from sending their children to the universities by considerations of distance and expense, might have them instructed in London at an expense of ten pounds a year, viz. in three classes of three guineas each and a guinea en

1035
trance; whereas, it was utterly impossible that a similar education could be obtained at Oxford or Cambridge, for less than front 180 l. to 200 l. a-year. That was the principle and ground of the proposed establishment; it being intended to secure the assistance of the best professors of the sciences, letters, and the arts, in all their branches. In order that the situations of these professors should, under no circumstances become sinecures, it was intended that they should not have houses at the colleges, and that their salaries should be very moderate, not exceeding 80 l. or 100 l. a-year; leaving them to rely principally for their remuneration on the number of their pupils; with the exception of the professors of some branches of study, such as Oriental literature, whose lectures, it was probable, would not be attended by many students. One great object would be, to lay the foundation of a good medical school; a thing which could be accomplished only in the neighbourhood of a large hospital or hospitals. The good consequences that would thence result not merely to the civil part of the community, but to the naval and military establishments of the country, were too apparent to require comment. Such places as London and Liverpool were those alone in which so desirable an object could be effectually pursued; and it was therefore intended to lay the foundation of a medical school within a quarter of an hour's walk of one of the hospitals. It was well known that schools for mechanics were now establishing in all parts of the kingdom. He had the satisfaction to say, that thirty of these institutions were nearly completed. The result would be the general diffusion, if not of scientific education, properly so called, of scientific reading. It was not likely that respectable tradesmen would be satisfied to see their sons more ignorant than the sons of their carpenters and their bell-hangers; and he, therefore, confidently expected a great deal of zeal and a great deal of anxiety in support of the new college. It was not intended that there should be any hind of test; it was not intended that there should be any exclusion on theological grounds; theology being, indeed, the only branch of learning which it was proposed not to teach.—The government of the college was to be that of a chancellor, a vice-chancellor, and nineteen directors, who were to have the power of suspending or removing the various pro-
1036
fessors, and of otherwise interfering in the discipline of the college. He would now move that the order for the second reading of the bill be discharged; and give notice that on Monday he would present a petition for leave to bring in a private bill on the subject.
After a few words from Mr. M. A. Taylor, the order of the day was discharged.

QUARANTINE LAWS BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading,
Mr. C. Grantsaid, he wished to make a few remarks, in consequence of the many misrepresentations that had gone abroad upon the subject. The present bill was founded upon the report of the committee of Foreign Trade, which sat last session. From what had been circulated abroad, it would seem that the committee had investigated the subject of contagion, and had denounced the established system of guarding against its introduction from abroad. So far from this being true, the bill adopted as a principle, that the present system of Quarantine laws was to be adhered to. The last committee had altogether avoided inquiry into the subject of contagion, but had taken their data from the report of the committee of 1819. That report assumed, as a datum, that a system of caution should be observed, and the recent object of inquiry was, how far the present system could be modified with advantage? The committee had gone against the advice of those medical men, who declared that contagion was not a subject of apprehension. The former punishment for violating the Quarantine laws was death; and it had struck the committee that a milder punishment would tend to the better enforcement of the law. In point of fact, the committee had recommended nothing more than had been advised by the medical gentlemen who had been consulted upon the subject. One medical gentleman was of opinion, that during six months of the year the Quarantine laws might be greatly relaxed; and others went so far as to say, that during three months they might be done away with. altogether. Dr. Granville was of opinion that sixty days, including the voyage, would afford sufficient security against that disorder. But, no matter how the opinions of the medical men varied upon certain points, upon one they were all agreed; namely, that it was right to modify and amend the

1037
Quarantine laws, with a view to the reduction of the number of days during which vessels returning from certain ports were to be detained. In regard to clean bills of health he thought it would be sufficient that. vessels arriving with such bills should be visited by proper officers, who would report to the privy council; and upon favourable answers, which would be received by return of post, such vessels might be admitted. It was the intention of.government to appoint some experienced and able medical inspector, whose duty it would be, to overlook all the reports made to the privy council, and to advise them thereon. It would be desirable, also, that he should inspect all the quarantine stations.
Sir Isaac Coffinsaid, his object in rising was, to do away with the idea that the plague never manifested itself to the northward of Cape Finisterre. Every man acquainted with history must know, that the plague had made its appearance in England four times, and had swept away 116,000 persons. His own apprehensions about the possibility of its re-appearance in these parts of the world had been more than once (as we understood) seriously excited. The gallant admiral read a letter of a physician, in which the writer stated that a friend of his, a strong noncontagionist, had thought proper during his sojourn at Malta to shut himself up in the island of Gozo, when the plague had declared itself there. in a few days his temerity cost him his life. He was surprised that the same fate did not overtake Dr. Maclean, who ventured to reside in the pest-house at Constantinople, among the plague patients confined there.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he was anxious that the House should understand that the doctrine of non-contagion had not received any countenance from his majesty's ministers. The mischief which had been produced by the unreserved declarations that had been made by the disciples of this doctrine, was much greater than gentlemen were aware of. Already at Marseilles, Genoa, and Naples, a much longer quarantine was imposed on British shipping, than on the shipping of other European nations. Under these circumstances, he hoped these gentlemen would keep such opinions a little more to themselves; or, if they would continue their experiments, he trusted they would be made in corpore vili, rather than upon subjects which involved the general welfare of the community.
Mr. Humeagreed that the mischief adverted to had been considerable, and he thought it was but right that ministers should do every thing in their power to contradict the opinion that had gone abroad, that our present Quarantine laws were about to be repealed. But, he had to complain that this declaration was not made when the bill was first introduced. He could not help observing on the lecture which had been read by the right hon. gentleman, to the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) and others who thought with him on the subject of contagion; in respect to whom the right hon. Secretary had expressed a wish that they would keep their opinions to themselves. Now, he was himself by no means satisfied that the principle of contagion did exist, to the degree in which it had been long supposed to exist; at any rate, he believed that the discussion of the question could not be productive of any harm. With regard to the appointment of the medical officer, he thought it ought not to be left to the discretion of any one man to replace, in this respect, that system of examination which had gone on so well for so long a time.
Mr. Huskissonfelt assured, that if the hon. gentleman would only consider the responsibility which attached to the Board of Trade, he would see that it was desirable they should have the assistance of some officer, possessing the advantage of having visited countries where the plague raged; and whose observation and judgment might guide the board in all questions of quarantine. For his own part, he thought this sort of appointment a most important object. He regretted that reports and loose assertions had gone abroad, that government intended to do away with all precautions. He had also read in the newspapers, that a lazaretto was established in Sheerness, in consequence of the contagion having been communicated; when, in point of fact, all the crews were in perfect health. This intelligence spreading to the continent, induced foreign governments to put the Quarantine laws in force against us.
Mr. Denmansaid, he rose merely for the purpose of stating the opinion of an individual on the subject, which might have some weight with the House. He had had the opportunity of looking over the papers of the late Dr. Baillie, and amongst them he found one which showed that he had examined the subject with

1039
great care, and the result of that inquiry was, that it would be unsafe to remove the precautions against infection.
The bill was read a third time.

MAURITIUS TRADE BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Bernalsaid, it was proposed by this bill, to place the Mauritius sugar on the same footing with that of the growth of the West-India colonies. It was contended, that this measure would not injure the West-India planters; first, because the distance of the West Indies from this country was so much less than that of the Mauritius; and next, because the quantity of sugar grown in the latter colony was so inconsiderable. Now, it appeared from the papers laid on the table, that though at that moment the inhabitants of the Mauritius did not carry on an illicit trade in slaves, yet that they had done so up to the year 1821. This being an admitted fact, he could see no reason for granting the benefit at present proposed to those who, long after the legislature had prohibited the traffic, thought proper to indulge in it. Such a measure was very hard towards the colonists of the West-India islands, who had done their utmost to discourage the slave-trade. The island of Mauritius had, in the first instance, requested to be considered as a port within the limits of the East-India Company's charter. For five or six years they enjoyed the advantages of a free port; they then turned round, and stated, that they no longer desired to be entitled to the advantages of a free port, but that they wished to be placed on the same footing as the West-India islands. The fact was, however, that the trade of the Mauritius stood on an entirely different footing from that of the West-India colonies. He could not conceive on what principle the sugars of the Mauritius were to be admitted on the same footing as those of the West-India colonies, while the sugars of the East-Indies were in effect prohibited.
Mr. W. Hortonsaid, that at the time the Mauritius was captured, it was stipulated that they should be placed in the same situation as our other colonies. It was a mere accident that it was contained within the limits of the East-India Company's charter, and that could not take away its right to enjoy the same privileges as the West-India colonies. As to the alleged inconsistency of the inhabitants
1040
having at one time claimed freedom of trade, and subsequently requested relief with respect to their sugars, cogent reasons might be found for their conduct. In consequence of the order in council of 1816, connected with several local circumstances, the inhabitants found it necessary to abandon the free port, and adopt the alternative which was embodied in the measure now before the House. The hon. gentleman had stated, that slaves had been introduced into the Mauritius, and that it would be unjust to show favour to men who supported it. This assertion must be decided by facts; and the hon. gentleman would find, that for years, the trade had not existed; and that even prior to 1821, it was not carried on to any great extent. The quantity of sugar was not so extensive as to give the West Indies any very serious grounds for alarm. Under all the circumstances, he could not see any just reasons for refusing to place the Mauritius on an equality with the West Indies as to the duty on sugars.
Mr. G. R. Elliscontended, that the condition of this island was regulated at the period of the peace, and ought not to be altered, unless special grounds for doing it could be shewn. He contended, on the authority of the African institution, that the slave-trade had been carried on in the Mauritius, and that the inhabitants had taken an active part in it. He gave great credit to sir R. Farquhar, for his meritorious exertions in suppressing that trade; but he attributed his success to his treaties with the native princes, and not to the co-operation of the inhabitants. What, he asked, would be the effect of this measure on the minds of the inhabitants of the West-India islands, when they saw the inhabitants of the Mauritius, who had carried on this trade in spite of the laws, rewarded for it by the government, to the ruin of the West-lndia islands? The moral effect could not be other than injurious.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that in the last session it had been proposed to reduce the duty on Mauritius sugar; but the answer of the West-India interest: had then been, that the Mauritius enjoyed commercial advantages in which the West-India islands did not participate. That plea was now taken away; the restrictions which had operated upon the West-India islands, and which did not affect the Mauritius, had been removed; and both interests being now, as regarded commercial ad-

1041
vantage, on a footing, a new ground of objection was taken to the reduction of the Mauritius duty. Accordingly, it was now alleged, that the colony of the Mauritius had. carried on, and did still carry on, an illicit commerce in slaves. This allegation was not supported by fact. Prior to 1820, some smuggling of slaves had taken place; but that practice continued no longer. The Mauritius, then, must be judged, not according to what it had been, but according to what it was. If it was to be laid down as a general principle, that every colony possessing slaves, and not entirely adapting itself to the wishes of parliament with respect to them, was to be visited with a heavier tax, let that principle be applied universally. He decidedly supported the present measure, and thought that the West-India interest was wrong in opposing it. The whole question as affecting the West-India interest, amounted to this—that some 10,000 or 12,000 hhds. of sugar might come into the English market; but if they did not come here, they would find their way into the European market, and would have the effect of determining the general price of the market. He might be allowed to tell those West-India proprietors, that whenever the consumption of this country should equal the supply from the West-Indies, and should verge towards exceeding it, they would no longer be able to maintain their monopoly.
Mr. Brightcontended, that, at the period of the capture of that colony, it was entirely commercial; now, it had become essentially agricultural; and, in a tropical climate, this great change could only have been effected by an increase of slaves. The produce of the island had, within the last five years, increased three fold; so that there must have been a slave-trade since 1820 to have produced this increase. For the assurances as to the cessation of the practice, we had the same assurances in 1816.
Sir Robert Farquharsaid, that the House would excuse his intruding himself on its attention, as he naturally felt a strong interest in the prosperity of a colony whose affairs he had so long administered. In 1810, he proceeded with the expedition to the capture of the Isle of Bourbon, accompanied by that meritorious officer, captain Willoughby, who had shed his blood so often in the service of the country, who distributed the proclamations which held out to the inhabit-
1042
ants, not only the advantages they had enjoyed under the protection of France, but the pre-eminent advantages of British colonies. The prospects held out were free trade, and the fullest protection to the produce of the colony in the markets of Great Britain. How did the facts stand? They had lost the extensive trade they formerly possessed, and they were met with the severest restrictions in the ports of this country. The order of council issued in 1816, giving to those colonies a free trade, was accompanied with so many restrictions, that., coupled with prohibitions in the ports of France, it was a mere nullity. The fluctuations which followed alterations in the British markets, had destroyed all confidence in the commercial body of the Mauritius as to that system. Being thus frustrated in their speculations as to the free trade, they naturally became an agricultural colony, and in consequence of the successive hurricanes which destroyed the cotton and clove plantations, sugar was the only produce which enabled them to provide for their own subsistence, or to pay their taxes. Bourbon being severed, by the treaty of Paris, from Mauritius, enjoyed all her ancient advantages; and the contrast of such prosperity with the depression of the Mauritius, naturally tended to excite the discontent, and alienate the feelings of the inhabitants of the latter. The consequence was, that Mauritius was placed in this anomalous situation, since her connexion with England, that she was sacrificed to European policy; and, as to her trade, depressed, under some reference to our India system, with which she had no other connexion than her position within some visionary boundary some few degrees east of the Cape of Good Hope. There was France on one side encouraging and protecting the prosperity of Bourbon; with the Netherlands on the other, most assiduous in developing the resources of Java; while the Mauritius was permitted to dwell upon her losses, and such a galling contrast. If hereafter any Anti-English European power should arise in India, what co-operation or attachment could we expect from a people, to whom such pledges were given, and by whom such treatment was received? Its importance was best exemplified in the recollection of those effects which it had already accomplished. It assisted, when under the. government of France, in endangering the security of India, and had at one time

1043
captured Madras. Since its accession to Great Britain, those local resources had been applied to great advantage in the Nepaul war; and, perhaps, were at this moment found to afford effective assistance against the Burmese. Mauritius was surely entitled to share in the benefits extended to other colonies. There was no other ground that he could see for refusing the present grant, except what consisted in the peremptory assertion, "sic volo, sic jubeo." His own experience, corroborated as it was by the despatches of sir Lowry Cole, justified him in pronouncing it as his decided opinion, that at the present moment there was no slave-trade carried on in the island of Mauritius. He would allow that four or five years ago a slave-trade was carried on, not by the respectable inhabitants, but by a set of French renegadoes, concerned in privateering. Every step, however, had been taken by the British government to put an end to the traffic, by treaty and otherwise. Radama, prince of Madagascar, and the Imaum of Muscat, had observed the treaty most religiously by which they had bound themselves; and there was every reason to hope, that through the efficacy of the slave laws, and the vigilance of the police, the benevolent intentions of parliament would continue to acquire strength in that part of the world. The House should also be cautious not to confound the slave-trade of the Mauritius with that of the Isle of Bourbon. In his opinion, the whole of the trade was now confined to the French in the latter island.
Mr. Gordonwould vote for the bill, if it were postponed until 1828.
Mr. Plummeropposed the bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Humewas favourable to the taking off the restrictions from the trade of the Mauritius, but thought that the state of the West-India colonies should be considered also, and the duties unfavourable to those interests remitted.
The House divided: For the second reading 37; Against it 14. Majority 23.

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.