sin against God?" Such was part of the language of these petitioners, and the remainder was, if possible, still more offen. sive. Let them see what particular case was made out by these Dissenters, whom he took to be persons denying the divinity of our Saviour, or if not he hoped the Right Reverend Bench would favour the House with some other definition. They had no objection to baptize their children according to the form of the Established Church; they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and he did not hear that these Dissenters made any objection to this baptismal ceremony. With respect to the marriage ceremony, what was objected to was, he understood, that the husband was called on to say that he married his wife in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and also the mention of the Godhead under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, when the Clergyman, at the end of the cere mony, prayed the blessing of God upon the man and his wife. The calling upon God to bless them under the terms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (and every minister of the Church of England of common honesty and integrity, when he said "God bless you," meant the Godhead in that acceptation of the word which was according to the views of Christianity held by his Church so constituted) -was what these persons deemed so great a hardship. It was on such grounds, and this address was so great offence to these persous, that their Lordships were called upon to make a law, not for the benefit of all Dissenters of all denominations, but for this particular class of Dissenters, which, according to all the evidence of history, had been almost deemed the most offensive of all the sects. In his opinion, the best security for a religious establishment was a religion of the purest form, with a large and liberal toleration. Such was the spirit of the toleration granted in the Act of the 53d of the late King; and he was perfectly ready to admit, that the Act of William and Mary enacted penalties on account of religious opinions which ought never to have been thought of. But till the repeal of that Act these persons were under especial penalties, and yet their Lordships were called on to do for them what they never thought of doing for any others. Why, at any rate, were not all to have the benefit of this provision, if it was to be couceded to these? He would proceed, from these observations, on the principle of the Bill to consider some of its enactments.

By the provisions of the Bill now before their Lordships, the Clergy of the Church of England were called upon to publish the banns on the declaration of the parties that they were Dissenters of this description, of which fact there was to be no proof before hand, and no disproof af. terwards. The clergyman was to certify that he had published the banns to a justice of the peace, and the justice of the peace was to appoint some time and place (at his office or any where else that suited) where the marriage ceremony, such as it was, was to be performed. Here again arose difficulties, and to avoid them in the Commonwealth Act, they were pleased to use the words, "justice, or reputed justice." In point of fact, when the Noble Lord who held the Great Seal had had as much experience as he (Lord E.) had had-and he trusted that he would hold it as long, and longer than he had done, namely, as long as he lived-he would find that cases might frequently arise where, in consequence of certain inforınalities, it was questionable who was or was not a justice of the peace. There were practices which he had put an end to, by which magistrates were made, by what was called "the Cold Seal," and these were thought to be justices and as good justices as these Unitarians could wish to have and be married by, and yet, for all that, were no justices at all. The banns having been published, the justice of the peace (if he be a justice) was to give a certificate that the parties had gone through certain forms before him, and upon this certificate the clergyman was to be called upon to register the marriage. Now, he would put it to their Lordships, whether a clergyman of the Church of Eu gland was not degraded and dishonoured by being compelled to act as a sort of clerk to a justice of the peace; and whether even the Lay Magistrate of the Church of England was not also disho noured, by being concerned in such a transaction. Suppose the clergymanas must frequently be the case-to be himself a justice of the peace; was he to go through this species of marriage ceremony, as a justice of the peace, which he could not possibly perform without a gross violation of his duties as a conscientious clergyman? Was it contended that the scruples of those Dissenters who denied the divinity of our Saviour were to be respected, because they could not in their consciences allow a clergyman of the Church of England to say to them, at the end of the marriage ceremony, "God bless you, in the name of the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;" and yet that they were to be allowed to turn round upon the clergyman, and say, "You have published our banns in deference to our scruples, but you are also a justice of peace; and your conscience shall be so dealt with that we choose you, in despite of any thing you may urge on the score of your conscience, to perform our marriage ceremony in that capacity?" He was perfectly satisfied that their Lordships would not suffer the clergy of the Church of England to be so degraded and dishonoured, and there must therefore be an amendment there. Did the Act contain any clauses which sufficiently secured the ob servance of what was necessary to be observed with respect to licenses, &c. There must also be amendments, and how could such amendments be properly considered now? Was there any sufficient precision (considering that they were dealing with a felony without benefit of clergy) in the clauses which related to forging registers, making false entries, and similar offences? It would be necessary to guard against clandestine marriages, and yet all which this Bill did for that purpose was to call upon the parish clergyman to publish the banns. Quakers and Jews were generally married in full assemblies of their connexions and friends; the publicity and regularity of these bodies gave a protection against fraud; but by the proposed Bill, the greatest door was open to frauds. A person had nothing to do but to pretend to be a Unitarian, to have his banns published in a Church to which he never goes, and then proceed to the private room of any justice of the peace, who will give him his certificate. He might put this certificate in his pocket, if he chose to run the risk of a penalty of 207., which this very justice might reduce to five pounds, with the privilege also of putting the informer by an appeal to an expense, perhaps, of 100%; and then he might turn round and say to the woman, "You cannot prove the marriage if you are a Uuitarian; and if you are not the whole is an imposition." He not only objected to the Bill because it was intended to put the Unitarians on the same footing as Quakers, but he would go further, and say, that if the House did intend to adopt the principles of the Bill, its enactments were not calculated to carry those principles into effect. He would not object to give to these persons the same sort of exemption as Jews and Quakers; but the House should recollect that these very Quakers were not so tolerated originally except on

their making a declaration of their belief in all which these persons, for whom they were asked to do so much more, disbelieved. If the House thought that the Bill ought to pass, he still objected to its passing in the present session. It would want so many amendments, so many serious alterations, to make it a bill such as it ought to be, that it would be impossible to get through with it in the present session, and he should feel himself bound to move that it be read this day three months. Having no inclination to do more than his duty, if the House consented to the principle, he would give his best assistance in the details; but he still objected to being placed in a situation where the House could not do its duty by such a bill; and if they could, the Commons certainly could not do theirs. There was another point on which he anticipated that the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, and the other Learned Lord near him, would support him, namely, that this Bill sought to make that evidence, which the clergyman was to certify without actual knowledge that it was true. At present the register of a marriage was taken as evidence in a court of justice, because the Marriage Act required the clergyman who celebrated the marriage to sign the registry. This was making the clergyman certify what he knew to be true. The same principle applied to baptism. The entry was received because the clergyman certified what he had actually done, but (unless this was altered by a late act) if the clergyman went on to state the date of the birth, this was not evidence of that fact, because he did not know it. It was not necessary for him to give any opinion upon the principle of the Bill; the only thing to consider was, the necessity of having time to consider how to make the Bill, upon its own principles, effective. He trusted that their Lordships would feel in favour of the old law of the land, and let the present Bill stand over till next session. If it were said, that the parties aggrieved by the present law ought not to be allowed to continue so long under the injury they suffered, he would ask, whose fault was that? Why did they not come earlier? Year after year, this Bill had been proposed to the House, and always at this inconvenient period. They who so delayed were alone to blame if the relief they sought was deferred. All the great questions, the Test and Corporation Acts, Parliamentary Reform, the Corn Bill, and various other important matters, by common consent stood over; he must entreat them

to add this to them, and to "bond and warehouse" this bill too for the present; and he assured the House that next session, let who will be minister, he would, if they determined that it should be done, do his best to make the Bill what it should be, on the principle which they might please to lay dawn. He moved that instead of "now," the Bill be committed" that day three months." Lord CALTHORPE said, that the chief reason for his supporting the Bill was not exactly that which had been given by the Noble Lord who had proposed going into a Committee. He (Lord Calthorpe) was inclined to think that the great practical grievance was what the Church itself laboured under as long as the law continued in its existing state. With reference to the arguments urged by the Noble and Learned Lord about the Bill being a measure of partiality to the Unitarians, as a sect distinguished from all other Dissenters, he had overlooked the fundamental difference which existed between the Unitarians and all other religionists whatsoever, except, perhaps, the Jews. Upon this ground alone, the Unitarians might not have any claim upon the cousideration of Parliament; but the public had strong claims that the Legislature should relieve the Established Church from what he might call the species of blasphemy or profaneness committed by its ministers in being called upon to pronounce, in the most solemn manner, services founded on the doctrine of the Trinity, to persons who did not believe in it, and to exact from such persons an implied assent to a faith which they did not entertain. He did not imagine that human ingenuity could have conceived a more certain means, in the present state of society, which rejected coarse and vulgar blasphemy, to make the Church degrade and pollute itself by mixing profaneness with its most sacred and solemn service. He thought the House owed it to the honour and dignity of the Church itself, not to allow the present law to continue another year. The Unitarians were stated by the Noble and Learned Lord, to be asking of Parliament what was not granted to Jews or Quakers; but the fact was, that neither of the two latter sects were obliged to submit to the marriage ceremony of the Church of England. The Church was, therefore, bound at present to carry on the imposition with respect to Unitarians, whilst it was relieved from the degrading duty with respect to Jews and Quakers. Was it a proof of the high reverence of the Church for that sacred

doctrine, which was the vital principle of her faith, that she should call upon her ministers to declare her doctrines, and to oblige individuals to repeat them, who were known not to entertain any such tenets? It would be most disadvantageous to the Church itself to suffer another session to pass without putting an end to the existing state of things with respect to Unitarian® Marriages, He begged in what he said not to be misunderstood,-no one had a deeper sense than he had of the religious errors of the Unitarians; but, speaking of them as individuals, (and he spoke from per sonal knowledge of many,) he must say that in feelings of humanity, liberality, and justice, in all social and moral virtues, they would not suffer in comparison with those whose religious opinions were, as he believed, purer; and, for the sake of the Church Establishment itself, as well as for their sakes, the grievance of which they complained ought to be redressed. Several amendments in points of detail might be necessary, but he had much rather pass the Bill at once in an imperfect state and correct it next session, than leave a matter of so much importance to the Church as well as to the parties, unredressed to another session.

Lord FARNHAM was willing to grant relief to the Unitarians as far as was consistent with religious propriety. He fully agreed that the law was in a most inconvenient state. He thought that the Unitarians might be allowed to marry before their own ministers; but he wished that all marriages should have a religious sanction, and a Bill of that kind he would support. This was the first time that it had been proposed to divest marriage altogether of its religious character, and as to this he felt great difficulties. He felt also considerable objection to forcing a magistrate, who was a clergyman, to perform the ceremony according to this Bill. He regretted that bills of this kind were frequently hurried on at the close of a session, when it was impossible to give them due consideration. On such sub. jects their Lordships ought to legislate with the greatest circumspection.

The Lord CHANCELLOR observed, that it was with considerable diffidence he addressed the House, after the very able speech of his Noble and Learned Friend Lord Eldon, a speech, indeed, one of the most able and efficient perhaps that had ever been delivered in that House-for the object which the Noble Earl had in view. But he was apprehensive that it might be thought that he did not do his

proper measure.

'duty if he remained wholly silent on this question. But if he understood his Noble and Learned Friend correctly, the whole of his objections applied, not to the principle, but to the clauses of the Bill, and it was his duty to remind their Lordships that they were, by common consent and arrangement, now considering the principle, and not the details on which the Noble Earl had bestowed the greater part of his observations. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would allow the Bill to go into the committee, and then, if in considering the Bill clause by clause, the objections should appear to be insuperable, he would subscribe to the course proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, and agree to the postponement of the measure till next session. But their Lordships ought not, in his opinion, to abandon the Bill in its present stage, on account of any supposed difficulty in its details, when the only question was, whether in principle it was a If he thought that the measure would degrade the clergy, or injure the Church Establishment, no person would be more zealous against it; but when he saw a Right Reverend Prelate, who had been alluded to, appearing there, as on former occasions, to support this very Bill; when he knew that another Prelate of distinguished learning and talents had even lent his assistance and advice in the formation of the Bill; he could not for a moment believe that such a measure was one in the slightest degree calculated either to degrade the clergy or injure the Church. In order that they might proceed to consider the question before them fairly, he would, with their Lordships' permission, advert briefly to the history of the law of marriage. When he heard Noble Lords gravely talking of a religious ceremony as essential to marriage, he could not help reminding them, that every one knew that throughout the whole of Christendom there was no religious ceremony necessarily connected with marriage till the time of the Council of Trent; and that still, in the countries which did not acknowledge the authority of that Council, no religious ceremony was essential to marriage. Every one again knew that none was essential in this country till the Marriage Act of 1754. He stated this not on his own authority, but on the authority of a most eminent Judge-he meant C. J. Lord Holt, who had held in two cases that a marriage was valid and effectual without any religious ceremony. He might refer to another Noble and

Learned Lord, (Stowell,) who was a light and an ornament to that House, and whose profound erudition was graced by his elegant and classical taste. That Noble and Learned Lord had proceeded on the ground which he had stated in his judgment in the case of Dalrymple and Dalrymple, in which he had set out the authorities, and mentioned the case of Lord Fitzmaurice in 1730, where a marriage per verba de presenti was held to be valid without any religious sanction, and that the parties could not even by their own consent render it of no effect. Such then was the law here before the Marriage Act, which, as Judge Blackstone had said, was so far an innovation on the law of England. And here, in adverting to that Noble and Learned Lord (Stowell) to whom he alluded, he might observe, that if he had thought that this Bill had any tendency to degrade the clergy or injure the Church, he would have been here to oppose it, and his absence was an argument that, at least in his opinion, it had not that tendency. He would now advert to the exceptions contained in the Marriage Act. By an especial clause, the Quakers were excepted from the operation of the Marriage Act, and their marriages were therefore left to stand upon the same footing as all other marriages of Dissenters did before the passing of that Act, receiving, however, the additional sanction and confirmation which the very exception gave them. Was it possible to conceive that if the Unitarians had then existed in the same way as that in which they now existed, they would not also have been excepted? The principle of the exemption was, that this was a matter of conscience, and that to force the Quakers to go through the ceremony as appointed by the Act, would be a constraint upon their religious liberty; and upon the same principle the Unitarians should be exempted. There was probably another reason no less cogent for the exception given to the Quakers; that it was not thought right or decent that the ceremonials of the Church should, for its own sake, be applied to persons who did not conform to its doctrines. A Right Reverend Prelate had most justly, on a former occasion in this view of the subject, said, that it was a solemn mockery, to make the Unitarians perform the Marriage Ceremony according to the rites of the Church of England; and would they not then have been exempted from the Marriage Act if they had existed in a legal form as they did now? He contended that if this class

of Dissenters had then existed in the pōsition in which they now stand, they must have been excepted on the same principle as the Quakers were. He should, perhaps, be asked why they were not so excepted, and he would proceed briefly to state the reason. They had not, at the time of passing the Marriage Act, a legal existence. The profession of their tenets was then in the highest degree illegal. Rightly or wrongly, it was not for him there to discuss, they were at that time in a state of proscription. They were specially excluded from the benefit of the Toleration Act. Nine years afterwards even this was not thought sufficient, and it was considered wise and expedient to accumulate penalties upon their heads. Thus, then, they remained up to the time of the passing of the Marriage Act, and it surely was not extraordinary that they had not the benefit of the exception, when they were marked out by law as objects of punishment. But mark the progress of the history! In the 19th of the late King, the laws against them had been softened to a certain extent, and, in 1813, they were entirely exempted from the penalties to which they had before been subjected. They ought now, therefore, to have the benefit of exemption from the Marriage Act. It was a necessary consequence of the principle then adopted. It never could be right to have been acted on then, if it was not equally right, wise, and expedient to do the same as to the parties then before the House. But something had been said as to the opinions of these persons, and it had been suggested out of doors, and glanced at there, that they raised scruples and objections which were not entitled to any weight. It was asked then, and had been asked before, who and what they were? They were persons who believed in and received the same Scriptures, the same word of God as their Lordships, who used and drew their rules of faith from the same source; but they did not come to the same conclu sions that their Lordships arrived at. They did not, it was said, even object to the ceremony of baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, using in that respect words which they found in the New Testament. But they did object when they found, as in the Marriage Ceremony, those words connected with another, which was of the very essence of the points in difference; they did object to the blessing in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. That with them was no trifling objection, but

one which goes to the very essence of their faith. They say this is the most direct admission of what they disbelieve, the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Their Lordships were not there discussing the propriety of their reasonings or conclusions. The only question was, were such opinions held conscientiously and in sincerity. He believed they were, and if that were so, how could it be treat ed as a trifle that they objected to words on which the whole question, and one of so much importance, turned? It had been said, that they were not called upon to repeat these words; but then they were present when they were pronounced, and were supposed to assent to them; and they could not protest against them, without being guilty of an infraction of the law. This solemn mockery, this unhallowed equivocation, as the Right Reverend Prelate called it, ought to be got rid of, for the sake both of the Dissenters and of the Church. But then came the question, in what way could this best be done? More than one Bill had already been brought in aud thrown out, not so much on objection to principle as to details, though every attempt had been made to meet and obviate such objections. A new Bill was brought up, and that again opposed; not, indeed, avowedly on the principle so much as on details; though the Noble and Learned Lord had contrived so to mix up principle and details, that it was hardly possible to know whether his opposition was directed to the one or the other. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) did press upon the House to decide the principle by going into a Committee: he contended that the Bill was founded upon the principle of a law now in existence he meant the Marriage Act. Since the year 1813, when, by Act of Parliament, these Dissenters became a tolerated body, and were exempted from the penalties to which, by law, they had before been liable, they might be considered as forming a new class in the country. He was of opinion that their Lordships were bound to follow up the principle of that Act, which they might now do in a very necessary and important point, by going into a Committee on the Bill then under their consideration. Although he had said that it was not his intention to go into the details of the Bill, he trusted the House would allow him to say a few words upon some of the matters which might now be considered, as they had, in fact, been used as matters of argument on the principle of the measure. The subjects to which he wished to allude related to the publication of banns, and the entry