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 Act, 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 points of doctrine), to conform in that particular to the 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 present 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 shall ever pray, &c. '

If this bill passes, (and we 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.

This we consider to be a far better arrangement than any reVOL. XXXV. No. 69.

E

6

quest to omit parts of the service. To say, Don't pray with us at all, we do not require your spiritual assistance," may not be unreasonable language from Dissenters to the Church; but to say, We will tell you which of your prayers you may omit, and which you may use,' is bad taste, and not suitable to the state of the parties.

This law, if it passes, will leave the fees of the clergy just as they were; and no financial objections can be made against it.

It leaves also all the salutary precautions of the Marriage Act just as they have always existed. There will be publication of banns, consent of parents, registration, the same conditions for granting licenses, and special licences; every thing but the ecital of the marriage service.

It is certainly a little extraordinary, that the indulgence in question should be granted to Jews, and denied to any description of Christians; that a total disbelief in every thing you teach should secure to infidels the enjoyment of their own ceremonies; and a partial agreement in the truths of Christianity expose men to this violation of their conscientious opinions. Nor is there any reason we know of, why Quakers are to be exempted more than any other description of Christians, from these compulsory nuptials, except that it would be impossible to make them conform to such rules. Obadiah would rather bastardize his issue, and permit the law to consider his wife as a concubine, before you could bend him to the marriage ceremonies of the English Church. This has been his constant policy. He has been flogged till there were no more rods-shut up till there were no more empty jails-fined till his umbrageous beaver has been sold over his head;-still he remained the same as in the beginning, and ready to undergo it all over again. Accordingly, his religious prejudices have been respected; and he is left to celebrate his nuptials as he pleases. But it is either right that all sects should marry as the Church of England marries, or it is not. If it is right, the application of the law, or the exemption from it, ought not to depend upon the obstinacy of one man, or the facility of another. In justice and in reason, the Quaker should be brought back to the altar, or the Dissenter let loose from it; for we value the Church of England too highly to suppose that it abridges the liberty only of those who are too timid to cry out, and that it looses its hold of others who roar lustily, and show fight.

We cannot at all understand why it is so wrong to abolish a law, which it would not only be enormous, but almost impossible, to enact. Suppose all Dissenters to have been excepted from the operation of the Marriage Act, and some zealous or

thogamist was, at this time of day, to propose its extension to heterodox love: The uproar, the rage, the activity of Dissenters, it is not difficult to conceive, nor the contempt with which such a proposition would be received by every man of common sense; and the instant and disgraceful defeat of such a measure could not be at all doubtful. Why then may not a law be suffered to die, which no human being would now think of bringing into the world? why is it perilous to repeal what it would be so unjust to enact?

Men of the world must not undervalue the conscientious scruples of Dissenters, or suppose that they proceed from querulous faction, or hostility to the Church. The Madeira moiety of mankind, the fish, soup, and Pattie part of the public, know little or nothing of the feelings of the serious part of the world. Laws are made by men of fashion, who may turn this application of marrying Dissenters into joke; but this would be a great mistake. Those who make it are deeply in earnest,-take the restraint imposed upon them intimately to heart as a very serious grievance, and earnestly and ardently look to the Legislature for relief. The most superficial glance over the volume now before us would convince any person that very grave and earnest men believe their best interests are at stake in such sort of questions.

The following is the account which Mr Dillon, an Unitarian minister, gives of his own marriage.

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 polite. ness, 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 pausedand, 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 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 ours 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 unpright and conscientious feelings, the marriage state is so capable of conferring; remaining, &c.

JOHN DILLON.'

These scenes are very indecent, and fully as painful to every respectable Clergyman who witnesses 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 publickly disown his own creed? Would he condescend to repeat, after a Dissenting minister, doctrines utterly subversive of, and contradictory to, his own religious faith? It is in vain to say that the Dissenter is wrong-he has tried to be right-his opinion is conscientiously taken up-he stakes his eternal safety upon it,—and it is impossible he can yield it up to the arm of temporal power.