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 him 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 itself; 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. He would now advert to the ground of expediency. The strongest ar gument which he had heard against the bill, was that which had been urged by a Right Reverend Prelate, who said if the concession were to be made to the Unitarians, why not extend it to every other sect? The answer was, because it was impracticable. When a bill had been brought in for that purpose by a Noble Lord, he (Lord Liverpool) voted for it; but he afterwards stated, that he could not give it his support in the committee, having been convinced, by the speech of a Noble Friend of his, that 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, and it was her duty, 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 ou the doctrines of those who were of a different communion. He therefore saw no objection to the

present bill, and on these grounds he would give it his support.

The Bishop of CHESTER would trouble the House with a very few observations. There could be no question as to the importance of this subject to the Unitarians. If they were sincere in their belief (as he had no doubt they were) against the divinity of the Trinity, and if they really considered that by submitting to the ceremony of marriage in the Church of En. gland, they were brought to worship the Trinity, he certainly thought them entitled to relief. While the Noble Marquis opposite defended the sincerity of the Unitarians, he had thought proper to cast an unmerited imputation on the body of the English clergy. ("No," from Lord Lansdown.) He certainly understood his Lordship to allude to them.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, he had not made any such allusion.

The Bishop of CHESTER was ready to admit the sincerity of the Unitarians, but they were spurred on to their present complaint by the sueers of a sect who called themselves Free-thinking Christians. Here his Lordship read an extract from the Free-thinking Christians' Magazine, in which the writer animadverted upon the marriages of the Unitarians by ministers of the Established Church. As, however, there was no very great grievance imposed upon the consciences of the Unitarians, he thought that, after having submitted so long, they. might submit for one year longer to the privation of what he considered a right. He agreed with the Right Reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Lichfield) that the present measure would afford not only relief to the Unitarians, but also 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 clandestineness, and, consequently, he was impelled to oppose this bill. He had no objection to give the Unitariaus the same privilege which was enjoyed by Jews and Quakers, but nothing further; at the same time, that he would provide effectual barriers against clandestine marriages.

Lord REDESDALE opposed the bill.

Lord CALTHORPE supported the bill, on the ground that it was a measure of relief to the Church rather than to the Unitarians. He also contended, that it was unfair to place the Unitarians on the

be ready to state the grounds of his opi nion. The Noble Lord was much mis taken if he supposed, that when the state of the law was ascertained, it was his (the Lord Chancellor's) wish to introduce any measure to the prejudice of the sect in question.

Lord HOLLAND said, the Noble and Learned Lord seemed to have forgotten that he not very long ago addressed their Lordships on this subject, and though he did not state what the law was, he stated there were doubts concerning it, and these doubts were sufficient to raise doubts in the minds of others. To have them set at rest, the petitioners had taken, he thought, the only straight-forward, manly course. If the Noble and Learned Lord had these doubts as to the state of the law, it would have been more fair, more honourable, and more generous, to have come forward and stated them openly, and more worthy of him to have applied his powerful mind to rectify and amend the law. It was impossible, as his Noble Friend had stated, to propose any proceedings on the petition during this session. There was some difficulty also in taking any direct step. The petitioners were not to be blamed for not having petitioned earlier; the existence of the doubts on which the petition was founded had not been long known, and till those doubts were expressed they did not suppose they were liable to any pu nishment at common law. The opinion that they were, coming from so high an authority-an authority also which had described as uncharitable the preamble to that old law which stigmatized the opinions of the Dissenters as a detestable crime-had raised doubts and fears which runst be set at rest. He approved of the petition, not only on account of the Dissenters, but on account of the community at large. All the Dissenters of England and Ireland were deeply interested on this question, and the petitioners de. served, he thought, the thanks of their countrymen. The doctrines laid down as to the law did not affect their interest alone, but the interest of all the Dissenters of the kingdom. It was, he knew, the opinion of Mr. Justice Foster-an opinion espoused and enforced by Lord Chief-Justice Mansfield, by Mr. Justice Willis, and half embraced by Mr. Justice Blackstone-that all the Dissenters of England existed only by sufferance, and that the whole of their charitable institutions rested on a sandy foundation, and might all be destroyed by a process at law. Their Lordships had seen during the session, particularly when the measure for releasing the Catholics from their disabilities, and for knocking off the fetters of this part of our population,

was under consideration, that then every sort of kind expression had been used to the Protestant Dissenters. "They were our Protestant brethren"-reminding him of the words, "Gentle Harry Percy, kind cousin." He would not, however, go on with the quotation and say, "The devil take such cousins;" but according to that sentiment were the Dissenters treated. A few days after that measure was thrown out, one body of the Dissenters came to ask for a measure of relief, in which they were supported by some of the most enlightened members and greatest ornaments of the Church, who, with a proper regard to their own dignity, supported it, because it would be not only a boon to the Dissenters, but remove a burden from the Church; then, how. ever, up jumps, said his Lordship, our cousin yonder in all his panoply of state, and asks, "Who are you? I know пothing of you; you have no existence ;" and he finds ont some Act of Parliament, in which persons holding the opinions of our Protestant brethren are described as guilty of a detestable crime. The Noble and Learned Lord held this opinion, he believed, on the ground that Christianity was part and parcel of the common law, and that those who denied the Trinity, denied Christianity, and thus became amenable to the common law. With respect to Christianity being part of the common law, he did not mean to say much; it was no part of the case of the petitioners, and the state of his own health would not allow him to enter into it at length. [His Lordship came into the House on crutches, and looked unwell; he was suffering, we understood, from an attack of the gout.] He must, however, say, that he had lately had his attention much drawn to the subject, and he was surprised to find on what slender foundations this assumption of Christianity being part and parcel of the law of the land rested. He did not mean to oppose this principle, but he was surprised, and he believed their Lordships would be surprised, at the fearful rapidity with which laws had been made or revived out of Parliament when this subject came under discussion. If Justice Raymond and Lord Chief-Justice Holt had declared it to be part and parcel of the law-if the former had been careful to say the general principles of Christianity-if Lord Mansfield, using more correct language, had stated that the principles of revealed religion were a part of the law, and that to revile it was punishable, then Christianity was part of the law, and it must have a legal meaning. But what, he would ask, was that legal meaning? If by it was meant a belief in the Scriptures only, then every person who believed in them

could not, constitutionally and legally, be held to deny Christianity. If they were to adopt the old common law, and say, that was Christianity which was then recognised, in that case to deny Transubstantiation would be as great an offence as denying the Trinity. The Noble and Learned Lord, in his zeal to prop up the Church, was thus calling on their Lordships, before they took their seats in that House, to do that which was au offence at common law. The Christianity, however, he believed, which was to be made a part and parcel of the law, was the Established Church-that was the doctrine the Noble and Learned Lord meant to enforce, though he did not shew it in all its hideous features. Against the consequences of this doctrine he wished to warn the country. He knew that this was the doctrine held by Mr. Justice Willis in the case of Evans. No decision had ever done Lord Mansfield more honour than the one in that case. It ought to be read at least once a year by every man. The case was referred to in the petition, and it was this-Mr. Evans had refused to pay a fine for not taking on himself an office in the city. He pleaded as an exemption that he was a Dissenter; but it was replied that he could not plead that as an exemption, which was held by the law to be a crime; but it was finally decided that the Toleration Act not only protected but established Protestant Dis. senters. The petition was to obtain for the Protestant Dissenters of England, the full benefit of the Toleration Act. While those doubts existed which had been at tempted to be thrown on the state of the Unitarians, they could not be secure in leaving their property for the benefit of their own charitable institutions, or for the instruction of children whose parents believed as they believed. The petition called on the House to put this question at rest for ever, and place the petitioners on the same footing as the rest of their fellow subjects.

The LORD CHANCELLOR reminded the Noble Lord, that the doubts he had stated were not his own opinion, but what had actually occurred in the Courts at Westminster Hall. The petition was then laid on the Table.

by the present state of the existing laws affecting the profession of certain religious opinions. He had heard that it had been stated from a very high quarter in another house, in respect to the laws affecting the Unitariaus, that before any act could be passed for relieving them from the operation of particular statutes, it would be well that some bill should be passed previously, to protect them from the penalties to which they were still subject at common law. (Hear.) At the same moment, and from the same high and learned quarter, there proceeded an appeal which it was impossible not to perceive to be directed and addressed to him (Mr. Smith) personally, and which went to remind him, that at the time a bill which he had been instrumental in carrying through Parliament was passed, such bill having for its object to protect Unitariaus in certain cases from the legal consequences that might attach to the impuguing of the doctrine of the Trinity,

he (Mr. Smith) had made a declaration to the noble and eminent person in question, whereby he agreed, as to all cases not provided for by such statutes, to leave the Unitarians liable to all the visitations that they might be still exposed to from the common law. Now, most unquestionably, he had never made such a declaration. On a former occasion, when he was preparing a measure for the further relief of the Unitarians from the obligation of taking certain oaths, he had had au interview with that most Rev. and distinguished Prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the pur pose of explaining to his grace the prin ciple of the bill he was then about to bring into the House. The Archbishop of Canterbury, at that time, told him, that if his object was only to remove such penal liabilities as operated to preveut, perhaps, the fair and friendly and candid discussion of the doctrinal points to which the Unitarians excepted, he, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was willing to consent to the repeal of those statutes that might be thought to stand in the way of such a discussion; but, of course, not extending this understanding to any denial of Christianity in general, or to blasphemy; both of which he (Mr. Smith) himself proposed to except out of the operation of his bill. The object of bis bill, the Act of 3d Geo. IV., was simply this-to put Unitarian Dissenters on the same footing, as to the consequences of professing certain peculiar tenets, as all other Protestant Dissenters had been placed by the Act of Toleration. Now it had been clearly stated by Lord Mausfield, that unconformity, simply and as such, was no offence at common law. Why then it was very desirable that these