ful of their civil rights then, as they are now, they probably would have been included in the exception."

It is falsely asserted that in the marriage service the doctrine of the Trinity is very frequently introduced; the fact is otherwise, it is only necessarily once introduced, namely, in the short benediction in which of course the parties concerned do not join as in the other parts of the service. It is true, indeed, the words in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are made use of; but does not the Dissenter himself admit the correctness of this form; is it not the Unitarian form of baptism in what is termed the Reformed Essexstreet Liturgy? The officiating clergyman does indeed apply to these words a very different meaning from the Unitarian dissenter; but may not the latter conscientiously join in the adopted terms of his own sect. In fact, they are terms which every man who calls himself a Christian must admit, as they are commanded to be used by the Holy author of our religion. The Unitarian dissenter doubtless, as we have observed, admits them, and in this "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," that is, into the profession of that faith of which the Father is the author, the Son the medium, and the gifts or energy of the Spirit the conforming testimony. As to the parties kneeling down and receiving the benediction, in which the doctrine of the Trinity is unequivocally expressed, we confess we cannot see what great objection there can be to that; it reminds us of the reply of the Pope to a young man who refused to accept his proffered benediction, "Fear not, the blessing of an old man will not hurt you." The following is the Petition presented by the Unitarian dissenters to the House of Commons:

sense;

"That your petitioners are Protestant dissenters, differing from the Established Church with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, [and resident at or near ] or [usually assembling at for the purpose of religious worship]. That the marriage service required by the existing law is inconsistent in several points with the religious belief which your petitioners conscientiously entertain. That by the municipal laws of many

Christian states, as well as of this kingdom prior to the act of 26 Geo. II. c. 33, commonly called the Marriage Act, the matrimonial contract has been considered as essentially of a civil nature, although usually consecrated by some religious ceremony. That accordingly the marriages of dissenters celebrated in the face of their own congregations, after the date of the Toleration Aet, were considered valid by our courts of law, although some attempts, made to disturb such marriages in the ecclesiastical courts, served to dispose the majority of dissenters (between whom and the established church there was then no essential difference in point of doctrine) to conform in that particular ritual of the church. That whilst your petitioners are far from wishing to impugn the policy of the marriage act, considered as a measure of civil regulation, they beg leave to suggest, that in its operation, in connexion with the present church service, it imposes a burthen on conscience, which they humbly conceive, was not intended by the legislature, as may be fairly inferred from the exemption in the act of the two classes of persons, against whose religious feelings and discipline, it seemed particularly to militate. That the just and liberal disposition of the legislature manifested towards your petitioners, by the act passed in the 53d year of the reign of his late Majesty, c. 160, has encouraged them to hope, that their religious opinions present no sufficient objection to the extension in their favour of the recognised principles of toleration; but they humbly submit, that such toleration is in their case necessarily incomplete, while they are obliged, by the marriage law, to join in a service repugnant in many parts to their religious feelings and principles.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your (Right) Honourable House will take their case into your serious consideration, and afford them such relief in the premises, as in your wisdom shall seem meet.-And your petitioners will ever pray, &c."

This petition is we understand again shortly to be brought before Påliament; it becomes therefore a matter of interest, to view fairly the grievances they suffer. We have no objection to the petition itself, or to the full extension of religious liberty. That many

however are actuated rather by a feeling of hostility to the Church of England, than by any actual suffering of their religious conscience, we think the case brought forward by the Edinburgh Review most strongly proves. Far be it from us to speak with acrimony of any class of dissenters, and we maintain that if there be bigotry abroad, it is not in the Established Church. We do not wish to see any man have a creed forced down his throat, but we have undoubtedly a right to see that contempt, an insult to the Church of England be not allowed. A more gross case than that of Mr. Dillon, the Unitarian minister, cannot be conceived, or conduct more unlike a Christian; in which censure we are well assured, the respectable part of his brethren will join us. This however passes without a comment from the Reviewer. The extract from Mr. Dillon's case need only be read to excite the disgust it deserves.

"Not to appear to take any undue advantage, I previously waited on the parson who was to perform the ceremony. You will see that this was a matter of some delicacy. The line of conduct I pursued was, to behave towards him with every mark of attention and politeness, and this not from any respect for the man or his station, but because it is the law, or, at least the practice of the country, and not the individual, which imposes upon us the hardship in question. I stated the case, and asked his advice how I should act. He was thus placed in a dilemma. For advising me to submit to the law, I pointed out to him that this was counselling me to act against my conscience; advice which no honest or honourable man could give. I then stated, that in former cases much of the most obnoxious part of the ceremony had been omitted; but that if, at any rate, he compelled me to go through a ceremony obnoxious to my conscience, I must submit indeed, but that I should deliver a protest against it, to mark that my mind was no party to the degradation.

"At the time appointed, a protest, such as you have seen, having been drawn out, and signed by my intended wife and myself, just before what is called the service began, I put it into his hands, saying, "We deliver this as our protest against the religious part of the marriage ceremony," or to that effect. He took it, and, requesting

:

that no further interruption might be made, went on but little difficulty arose, till I was bid to repeat the words In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here of course I paused; and after a moment, told him that, as conscientiously disbelieving the doctrine of the Trinity, I could not repeat these last words.— He expostulated-said he was only the servant of the law, and that we must say these words, or the marriage would be incomplete. I appealed to him, as one professing religion, and standing in what he thought a sacred place, whether he ought to call upon us to join in what, to us, was falsehood or blasphemy. The same answer as before. At length finding resistance here vain (though the point had been conceded to one of my friends by another parson) I spoke to this effect: "In the name of the Father and (but protesting against it) of the Son, and (but protesting against it) of the Holy Ghost." When the priest afterwards repeated the same words ("In the name of, the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") the whole party turned away from the altar. The minister, in this instance, did not press us to kneel, and waived most of the prayers which follow. Indeed we contend, that, after he has "pronounced the parties to be man and wife," the marriage must be, to all intents and purposes, complete, and every thing which follows may and should be omitted.Thus much for my own case. I should say, however, that having been present at five or six marriages of my friends (all of whom have acted a similar part) we have found great difference in the manner in which the minister has behaved, and the line of conduct he has adopted. Some have appeared really shocked at what they called our impiety. Some were afraid of incurring censure from their superiors, if the matter were known. Some have omitted, at our request, nearly all the ceremony; whilst in one instance, the whole long ceremony, as it is called, was insisted upon, together with the kneeling, &c. ; but this experience has now convinced me, never need be done by an individual, acting with the spirit and manliness which honest and conscientious intentions ought to give us. I have only now generally to add some remarks upon the difficulties you are likely to encounter. We considered it of great importance, as really called Z z

for, to pay no disrespect to the minister, as an individual: it is the system, and not the man we object to: he would tell us that his situation was a painful one; our reply was, that we knew it was such, and that we felt for him; but that our's was more painful, to be called upon to go through a ceremony contrary to our belief and our consciences. We constantly kept up the distinction referred to in the protest, that we were willing to submit to him as the civil officer appointed by the law to register marriages; we only objected to him in his religious capacity. On the subject of the law of marriage, (with which, probably, you are better acquainted than myself) it may be well to bear in mind, that the object of what is called the Marriage Act, was not to compel people to go to the Church of England for religious purposes, but to ensure publicity, and prevent illicit marriages; an object which, we contend, would equally be gained, (even as the law now stands) by presenting ourselves to the priest, and being registered by him, without our approaching his idolatrous altar at all. On one or two occasions, the priest was, or professed to be, so shocked at our proceedings, that he threatened not to go on with the ceremony; this, we took leave to show him, must be at his own peril, as, while by law we were obliged to present ourselves there to be married, he, by the same law, was compelled to do his part. And, as to any protest we might deliver, or objections we might verbally raise, the law had made no provision against them, to justify his therefore refusing to complete the marriage. By these means, acting with openness and firmness, avoiding personal offence where it was possible, but even at the hazard of personal offence, maintaining the rights of conscience, myself and friends have, in various instances, succeeded in bearing all the testimony in our power against the base and iniquitous system which now exists. Too many, and particularly too many of the Unitarian body, have submitted to the yoke in silence. I am happy to hear of one more individual honest enough to act upon the dictates of conscience; and I must conclude with wishing you all that happiness which, entered into with upright and conscientious feelings, the marriage state is so capable of conferring; remaining, &e.

"JOHN DILLON."

This Mr. John Dillon, it will be observed, has very little notion indeed of what should be the conduct of a gentleman, though he calls it a matter of some delicacy, especially as he entertained no respect for the man or his station; consequently he thinks, he is satisfying his Christian conscience, by committing the most flagrant outrage upon the clergyman (parson, as he calls him) and attempts to bully him in his own church; and impudently tells him, that if he does not proceed, though the grossest insults were offered to him, it would be at his peril. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in saying, a clergyman would not only be justified, but that it is his duty to desist from performing the ceremony, and not suffer the church, of which he is the minister, to be thus sacrilegously assaulted. And we think, under such circumstances, it would at all times show great forbearance not to punish the parties for their gross insolence and interruption. Surely the law provides against such outrages, which are here, it is to be observed, recommended as a systematic attack upon the officiating ministers; who, however willing to make every allowance in the case of dissenters, are tied down to a line of conduct from which they cannot deviate. We know it is the practice to omit many parts of this service; but must not a clergyman be particularly on his guard, when he is thus bullied to his face, and every advantage might perhaps be taken of any omissions, to his own prejudice? These scenes are, as the Reviewer admits, very indecent, and by no means likely to end; but his wisdom in proposing his provisions for the bill to be brought into Parliament are worthy remark.

"If this bill passes and we (Reviewer) sincerely hope it may pass, the provisions of the bill should be to this effect. The dissenter should lodge his petition with the clergyman of the parish, stating his dissent from the doctrines of the church; his desire to be excused from assisting at the marriage service, and his intention to appear at the altar, on the hour pointed out by the clergyman, with the documents and sureties required by the act, in order to the registration of his marriage; which petition shall be read in church, and alluded to in the register as the cause of the omission of the marriage service; and dissenters' marriages so performed shall be good in law."

All this is very tender to the conscience of the Unitarian; but let us see how this liberality is to affect the minister of the Church of England.

"These scenes are very indecent and fully as painful to every respectable clergyman who witnesses (should have said suffers) them, as they must be to every respectable dissenter by whom they are occasioned. Once begun, they will become more common; and every dissenter's marriage will be a squabble between the minister and the bridegroom; a theological controversy in the face of the church, at the celebration of a ceremony, where every thing should be harmony, peace and happiness. A congregation of Christians assembled in the house of God, where the people protest against the prayers, and disown the minister-can it be any injury to the cause of religion to avoid a ceremony carried on under circumstances so indecent, and so revolting? Can any conscientious clergyman blame a dissenter for the freedom and boldness of such a protest? Would he himself submit to be married, and listen to doctrines utterly subversive of the doctrines of the English Church, without protesting against them? Would he publicly disown his creed? Would he condescend to repeat, after a dissenting minister, doctrines utterly subversive of, and contradictory to, his own religious faith?" Now here is a fine piece of contradiction, scarcely to be credited from the pen of any serious writer. He recommends that the officiating minister of the Church of England should (not hear the protest of dissent) but read it in the church; that is to do (what in the Unitarian's case is iniquitously hard) proclaim the arguments against his own faith, in his own church. And yet this clear-sighted Reviewer asks him, if he would condescend to repeat after a dissenting minister, doctrines utterly subversive of his faith. The clergyman then (who is not to submit to this) is to stand up and be the mouthpiece of the dissenter, and thus impugn the doctrine of the Trinity, in the very face perhaps of that congregation, whom he had been endeavouring to confirm in the belief of its truth. How well shall we be governed when Scotch Philosophers are our law-givers!!!

We do maintain, however, that

without wounding their consciences, Unitarians may acquiesce in the ceremony as appointed by law, inasmuch as they do not themselves object to the form of the " Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and it is false, therefore, to assert, that the doctrine of the Trinity is frequently inculcated in it; where it is inculcated, it is only in the shape of a blessing, which, of course, the parties themselves do not repeat.

But really it is too much for Parliament to provide forms for all and for no religions. We mean no offence whatever to the Unitarians; but supposing any other sect or sects, who are neither Trinitarians nor Unitarians, should start up, and we do not see why they should not, what is to be done? We know very well, there are some, whose notions of religion and morality are so strange, that they have not undeservedly obtained the appellation of Satanists. Suppose these should start up and cry out their grievances, that they cannot attend an idolatrous altar, where his infernal majesty (the object of their worship and obedience) is continually under malediction; we ask, should not the country pause, before it would sanction a ceremony suited to their ideas of a form of worship conformable to their belief? We should rather think it better to let them go without marriage than to make a law so subversive of the very first principles of religion, and sanctity of the marriage contract.

We are, very much inclined to think, the petition which has been presented to parliament, has not originated so much from objections on the score of religious conscience, as from a sectarian antipathy to the church of England, and an acrimonious desire to strip her of every rite, service, and protection. If there be grievances within remedy, let them by all means be remedied; but let us be careful how we join the Sectarian hue and cry against our venerable church, and acquiesce in the flimsy dreams of second-sighted Scotch philosophers, who call her hard names, and abuse her for an intolerance in a point, where no real grievance has hitherto been felt, and no redress required of her.

A GUARDIAN OF THE CHURCH.

Music can either sooth or irritate the passions. The Irish are a musical nation. Customs produce extraordinary effects on the human character. Time immemorial has fixed the Sabbath day as a day of amusement among the lower orders of the Irish. As soon as their devotions are concluded, (which seldom occupies more than one hour), the residue of the day is devoted to pleasure. The bagpipe, the dance, the song, cards, and liquor, are then the objects of their pursuit. Jig houses in the cities and villages, and a cross (i. e. where four roads meet) in the country, are the established rendezvous for this weekly jubilee. In summer the cross-road assembly, called a Pattereen, frequently attracts its votaries from a distance of five or six miles, and often the accumulation amounts to four or five hundred persons. Long bowls, feats of activity, politics, news with all its diversities, the exhibition of a new ribbon, have here as much influence on this assemblage as the most exquisite and expensive entertainments can possibly produce in the higher orders. Old folks settle the affairs of the nation, while young ones settle the plans of their future matrimonial alliances. This unrestrained weekly intercourse, from an early age to puberty between the sexes, gives them a perfect knowledge of their respective dispositions. Dread of poverty never strikes their imaginations; accustomed to very simple fare, their wants are few, a little contents them. Example reconciles them to a bare subsistence, and they see their neighbours, half naked, surrounded by a numerous offspring enjoying in a hut content and happiness often absent from the splendid mansion. Poverty and wealth are relative terms!

sees a hovel incapable of keeping out the weather, every way inferior to many stables, and thinks the inhabitants must be wretched, half clad, and apparently without food or fuel. This appearance shocks the feelings of the person who enjoys the comforts and luxuries of fashionable life; but let us look deeper than the surface! This picture of poverty has some shades, than a first glance would lead one to which makes the groupe less pitiable suspect. Though the rain may penetrate a part of this mud hovel, yet the inmates are secured from wet, they enjoy health and activity. The barefooted nymph and the ragged garsoon (i. e. a stripling of thirteen) would surpass in strength and agility their equals in size and years, in almost any other sphere of life. An entire year's stock of provision is covered up in an adjacent pit; a contiguous bog and the hedges afford their daily fuel; a few hens supply them weekly with some pence from the next town; (from the warmth of this hovel a greater number of eggs will be there produced than from the poultry yard of the squire; indeed the squire's house is often supplied from them); a sheep or two are fed on the road side; and if a pig is added to their stock, they are and think themselves independent. Their straw pallet refreshes their weary limbs, and sun-rise rouses them to a renewal of their daily labours, while the thought of the ensuing Sunday counterbalances their weekly toil.

But this life of poverty and rural innocence is now changed: blood, fire, and rebellion stalk through the land; not only the hovel on the road side, the more comfortable cottage, nay, the substantial farm-house itself, now supplies a hardy rustic to encrease the ranks of ruthless murderers. The sound is gone abroad, and the wild imaginations of thoughtless youth are worked upon by the cunning craft of designing villany! No stratagem is left untried which can provoke passion or rouse resentment ;-first, comparisons between the wealthy landlord's ease and the poor tenant's hard labour; then an idea is insinuated that the property of the whole kingdom is the rightful inheritance of those who now turn up the soil;-that this right is withheld from them only by power; that those, who at this moment have that power in their own hands, are all