The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-20 00:00:00

Zln .--'7:)ttn+

LONDON.
FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 20, 1835.

The Dissenters' Marriage Bill has evidently been
drawn up in a friendly spirit towards those for whose
relief it is intended. That it is liable to some ob-
jections may be admitted, but if a measure of this
kind, surrounded as the subject is with difficulties, be
postponed until all objections can be obviated, we
must wait till the arrival of the Millcnium before it
can be effectually accomplished. The main objection
to Sir ROBERT PEEL'S plan (if we are to judge of
the sentiments of the Dissenters from Mr. WlLKs's
speech) is, that it places the Dissenting community in
a situation of inferiority, as compared with Members of
the Established Church. Now, we really do not see
that this is either a natural or a fair inference, as it
proceeds on the assumption that an ecclesiastical
functionary is more respectable than a civil one—an
assumption which we are not by any means disposed
to allow, and in which we think the Dissenters at
large will not acquiesce.

We admit that it would be much better to have
but one mode of celebrating marriage for every class and
denomination of persons, but there are feelings too
strong, and prejudices too stubborn in the way of any
uniform plan at present, although we do not despair
of seeing a much nearer approach to uniformity than
the new law proposes. We hold marriage to be essen-
tially a civil contract. lt has-always been so held by
the law of every country in Christendom, not except
ing England down to the year 1754. At the same
time the general—almost the universal—practice has
been, to superadd a religious ceremony. to the civil one ;
and whoever considers how much the interests of
morality, and the happiness of social life, are bound
up with the marriage tie, cannot but approve of this
effectual means of rendering so important a transaction
solemn and impressive. Since the passing of Lord
HARDWICKE'S Act in 1754, marriage (except
among the Jews and Quakers), has been cele-
brated exclusively by the ministers of the Church
of England. This has produced the very natural
effect of investing the rite with a character
purely religious,in the minds of the great bulk of those
who belong to the Church. Many, of the Dissenters
hold the same opinion. Now to compel those who
conscientiously believe marriage to be a religious
to submit to its being celebrated as a civil one, would
be to inflict a violent wrong upon both Churchmen and
Dissenters, without any corresponding benefit. It
would be a far better plan to leave it,optional with ,the
Churchman, as well as with the Dissenter, to havebis
marriage celebrated either according to the present or
the proposed form. If Sir ROBERT PEEL WOOl
concede this point we think it would
,do more than
a thousand assertions to convince the Dissenters that
it is not intended to draw an invidious distinction be-
tween the two great classes of the community, This
simple, and, as it appears to us, highly expedient
al-
teration, would also enable the Right Hon. Baronet to
get rid of a difficulty with which his Bill is now en-
cumbered. It is intended that the parties who are to be
married according to the new form shall swear that they
are Dissenters. This renders it necessary to_ define
precisely what constitutes a Dissenter--a matter which •
may not perhaps be quite so easy as is at first ima-
gined. It may be asked how many doctrines or cere—
monies of the Church must one reject to give him A)
claim to be considered a Dissenter ? If he differ in
ever so slight a degree from the opinions or form►-of
the Establishment, he may think himself warranted in