The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-04-18 00:00:00

MARRIAGES OF

Mr. ROBIRTS presented a Petition from the
Unitarian Dissenters of Maidstone. praying for an
alteration in the laws respecting Marriages.
Mr. BROCIGHANI presented a Petition from the
Unitarian Dissenters, of Kendal in Westmoretand.
praying to be relieved from certain ports of the
marrisge ce►emony which were at variance with
their religious opinions, and to be placed on the
s•►me footing in respect of marriages as the Jrr`s
sod Quakers in England, and the Dissenters in
Scotland and Ireland.

Mr. BANILAS thought the same observatioa which
had been made by the Right Hon. Gentlemen wear
Imo (Mr. Tierney) on the former Petition, would
also apply to the Petition just presented.
Mr. Baouotien observed, that no lecture had
been read by these Petitioners on the restore of
partieelar notice; they only prayed that some mea-
sure should he iiitioduceil consonant to the notice
given by his Hon. Frirtid (Ur. Wm. Smith).
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Wet. SMITH said, before he opened the mo-
tion of which he had given notice, he wished to
present a few Petitions to the House which related,
to the subject. The Hon. Member then presented
three Petitions, one froth Portsmouth, another from
Sheffield, and another from Stockton, in Durham,
all praying sum amendment in the Act relating to the
Marriages of Dissenters.—These Penitent were
ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH then said he should now
submit a few observations to the Howie on the sub-
ject of the motion of which he bad given notice
before the holidays. That notice originated front
various Petitions which had been presented to the
House, and he should now simply state the griev-
once, of which they complained. The Petitioners
complained that by the 26th George 11. they were
placed in a more difficult situation than if such an
Act had never been passed. It was the opinion of
the Petitioners, mid of himself us one them, and in-
deed it appeared to him an incontrovertible fact. that
marriage was essentially • civil contract; it was con-
sidered as such by the common law of the land as
well as by the canon law, and every marriage wry
considered valid until the passing of the 26 Geo. 11.
Amongst other provisions, that Act ordained th-t
any marriage, its order to be valid, should be soleme
nized in church, and according to the ritual of the
church. He could see no reason why Dissenters
should be compelled to adhere to these forms.
They were not convicted—nay, they were we.
arraigned for any crime against the laws, and they
should stand reed in curia. By the law of reason
they had as good a right to worship God in thei.
own sway, as any member of the church of Eng-
lend had to follow his own prohssion. It was un..
necessary to say that marriage was the natural right
of the specie.; but the Marriage Act rays to th-
Dissenter, " You'must 'alter conform to the condi-
tions of this law, or forego your right." Now, that
that was a piece of injiestice no man could deny.
In the reign of Louis XIV. tire sate stern s
resorted to in France evilest all Protest..., ; 1,,.•
there they could plead more consistency than her. ;
for then the law of Frolic/ did Hot allow the tut,-
position that there was any man is France 1111!
Catholic. Therefore, although the practice
have been unjust, it could not be considered incon-
sistent. At that nine the Unitarians were vet), few
in number, and lie believed lie might say thil-
had not one single place of worship, tool
consequently happened that they celebrated their
marriages in the Protestant churches without
scruple. When the Act or George 11. was .boor
to be payed, the Jeos and Quakers petinoo.
ed to be exempted from the Bill, and they weir
exempted. Now. with respect to the Quaker.,.
they were notoriously 11 sect of English Dissenter.,
and yet to them the exceptions were extended a hid:
are denied to the Unitarians. In the mode of relief
he should propose, tie should adopt that course
which would be considered least objectionable, fin
the Unitarians bad no wish whatever to come in col-
lision with the Protestant church, or to give the
slightest offence to say member of that Comma,
num. The Quakers followed the same rule as tic