Star.
London, England, 1819-06-17 00:00:00

foes, to prevent the marriage frrth talcfng nhee
churches as was now the practice, nor to make Ow
least alteration that could affect the descent elrirrt..
petty. .11re Dissenters,. whose cause he reidsented,
complained. that they weie obliged to sit tq
a ceremony, a Ott of which was repugnant M their
religious scruples, ond that they were so obliged to
submit, without thefering attty benefit on the `zi=te,
or inducing them to think the mare of the obligation
which they incurred. Ip.Scothuid the marriage et.
remony was merely considered' as n eyed contract;
in the greater part of the Protestant States of Pm*
it was considered in the same light; and it was only
within a period of seventy years, namely, since ti-e
26th of George H. that it was looked upon differently
in England. Tile principal objection of the Diner-
tens to the ceremony consisted in this, that theywere
obliged to believe' in the Trinity, contrary to their
conscientious conviction of its impmprietv. About
five years ago, an Act' was certainly passed to relieve
them from penalties for not believing it; bat still
they were subjected to the unpleasant operations of
their consciences, without the atttinnment to society,
to religion, or the country, of any one advantage.
Quakers and Jews were exempted from the marriage
ceremony, as practised in the Church of England,
by a clause in the Act c,e the 2!ith cf Clerrge IL but
he believed they were so, because of their having
petitioned to be so exempted, and also becinise th.v
were more easily defined and designated than tau
Dissenters, who then more or less acquiesced in the
measure, but had now felt differently on the suhject.
In former times the marriage ceremony was consi-
dered in England as a civil contract, as would evi-
dently appear from the 12th of Charles H. and as
Act of King William, by which it was held neces-
sary that a certain ceremony should be performed;
but then its object was directed rr.oi e to the raising
of a revenue, than to any kind of feeling of religion.
The whole of the marriage ceremony was not even
now required to make a marriage valid ; and the re-
medy he proposed to ease the consciences of the Oh.
seaters would be, to omit certain words after these—
" I pledge thee my troth," together with the whole
of the preceptory or monitory part, a:id the leseons.
This omission only to take place at the request of Ow
parties to be married, and signified in writing to the
regularly-offioiating Clergyman. Ile did not %rids
to detain unnecessarily the time of the House by
entering further into the question, and after a few
observations, tending to shew that less breaches of
the marriage vows occurred in States, wherimar-
riage was merely regarded as a civil contract, Ulan
as a religious ceremony and a sacrament, concluded
by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and
amend the Marriage Act, relative to Protestant Dis-
senters—(Hear, hear.)
Lord CASTLEREAGH wished that his not oppo-
sing the motion of the Honourable Member might
not be construed into any acquiescence with the pro-
visions it was intended to include. Of these provisions
he of course knew nothing, but would take an oppor-
tunity of declaring his opinion upon them, when they
came regularly before the House.
Mr.WILBERFORCE had no itNectitm to the Bill
being brought in, but hoped 'at they brae time that
nothing would'be done upon the 'object that, could
lessen the respect due to the cerenury. He
considered it as a religions knoititittion, and an insti-
tution to which Eutope was entirely indebted Ember
superiority over Asii and other otiartielo tithe Wqrid.
He should be gladie ease the sent any cofisCi•
entious individuals; het he could not do so at the
risk of lessening the influence of that ceremony Which
held society together.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.