soever, will upset the whole system. We do trust, therefore, that our legislators will not sacrifice so extravagantly to the spurious liberality of the age, as to repeal the provisions to which the country owes so much of its greatness. We are not addressing ourselves to the natural protectors of the Church, or to its more attached and dutiful children. To them we might probably use other arguments, and endeavour to rouse them to exertion, by more peculiar considerations. But if the security of the Church establishment is an unpopular topic, if our friends consider it useless, or worse than useless, to insist upon the propriety of preserving one bond of union among a divided people, of retaining one little relic of the supremacy of the Church, we may still expect them to ward off the danger with such weapons as are allowed in modern warfare. Let them shew, and they can easily shew, the political value of the present system. Let them advert to the respectability of the officers whom it entrusts with the exclusive solemnization of marriage; and to the fact, that in the course of the last century, we have hardly heard of a forged entry in the registers. Let them point out the impossibility of securing such advantages from teachers of every variety of denomination, rank, and character. Let them ask respectable men of all classes, sects, and parties, whether they are willing to expose their sons and daughters to the dangers which the Marriage Act was intended to remove. If they are, let the Act be repealed; if they are not, let it be preserved both in spirit and in letter, and not silently repealed by a toleration-bill.

Should any thing more be wanting to produce a conviction of the inexpediency of Mr. Wilkes's measure, the unconvinced may turn to the details of his plan, and will be furnished with a subject of more comment and more condemnation than we have leisure at the present moment to bestow. From first to last, from preamble to postscript, the substance and the language of this curious document are different from any thing that we ever heard of before. The preamble informs us that,

"Whereas many of his Majesty's good and faithful subjects, who conscientiously decline conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as by law established, regard the necessity of solemnizing matrimony in a parish church or chapel, and according to the rules prescribed by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer as a grievance, repugnant to their religious feelings, and have at various times petitioned Parliament to be relieved therefrom, and whereas it is expedient to grant ease to scrupulous consciences in this respect, without infringing upon the general policy of the law relative to clandestine marriages, be it therefore enacted, &c."

We hardly know what to make of this precious piece of

ses.

kery. Mr. Wilkes, as all the world knows, is an eloquent man, and speaketh an annual speech to ladies and gentlemen fond of religion and liberty. But how could he be so absurd as to introduce one of his pathetic appeals into the preamble of an Act of Parliament? His idea of legislating upon the repugnancy of a religious feeling, beats any thing we remember in Tristram Shandy; and the naiveté with which he reminds us of the law relative to clandestine marriages, at the very moment when he is doing it away, is a proof that the very cunning are not always the very discreet. The lawmaker proceeds to enact that any place registered for religious worship, may be registered in the Ecclesiastical Court as a place for the solemnization of marriage, and twelve months after such second registry, marriages shall be lawfully solemnized there, in such form, and with such rites and ceremonies as shall accord with the religious feelings of the parties to be married, provided the marriage be solemnized with open doors, between eight and twelve o'clock, and in the presence of two or more creditable witnesWe wonder how Mr. Wilkes reconciles it to his feelings, to ordain that the second registry of any place in which he may be disposed to solemnize matrimony should be filed in the Ecclesiastical Court. Is he not aware, that "many of his Majesty's good and faithful subjects" conscientiously decline the acknowledgment of episcopal authority, and consider Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries,' as relations of the Babylonish woman? Does he not perceive that his doubly registered, and doubly licensed place of worship will not suffice" to grant ease to scrupulous consciences, as long as there are men who reject all religion and all worship?" And, what is a more serious consideration, can be produce any shadow of reason or argument for subjecting his sufferers from repugnant religious feeling to our ordinary matrimonial courts? Their marriages being contracted without the sanction of the Church, ought never to be submitted to its jurisdiction. And, unless we institute a Prerogative Court of Jewin Street and Salter's Hall, and appoint Mr. Fearon or Mr. Wilkes to preside in it, Dissenters must be for ever debarred from commencing a matrimonial law-suit with any ease or satisfaction.

The next clause refers to the publication of banns; and provides that after banns have been duly published in the parish church, &c. any couple, who may be non-conformists, or one of whom may be a non-conformist, and desirous of being married at some place under this Act, shall be permitted to make a written declaration to this effect "(which declaration shall be deemed and accepted as conclusive evidence of

such non-conformity)" and shall be entitled to receive a certificate of the due publication of banns. And, because this arrangement is not sufficiently outrageous, the following paragraph tells us, that licenses to marry, under this Act, may be granted by the same persons, and on the same conditions as are in force with respect to marriages in the Church!! The object of both these manoeuvres is sufficiently obvious. Our Dissenters of good degree and quality do not relish the notion of being married in any place" in accordance with their religious feelings," but are disposed to go through the same ceremonial as others in the same rank of life,—so well disposed, that in spite of their non-ease and scruples, most of them will continue to solemnize matrimony in the Church, unless Mr. Wilkes makes the new recipe pleasant and palatable. His followers therefore, are not to have their banns published as the banns of conscientious non-conformists. But their names are to be well mixed up with the rest of the parishioners; and, after the publication, any of them who take a fancy to be married in a cellar or a garret, are to state that fact, and the fact is to be accepted as conclusive evidence of non-conformity. This is a sop for the middling and lower orders of the dissenting community. The grandees are to ease their scrupulous consciences by procuring an episcopal license, and walking off to the dissenting chapel with his convincing proof of nonconformity in their pockets. Nobody can be so weak as to believe that an enactment thus worded is really intended for the removal of grievances. If any alteration were to be made at the suggestion of Mr. Wilkes, the first thing for the legislature to secure, would be the restriction of such alteration to bonâ fide Dissenters. The bill before us applies obviously to the whole body of the people, and puts a new and foolish option into the hands of every individual who has a pique against his Clergyman, or who is of a fanciful and capricious temper. We have heard great complaints of occasional conformity-but this bill affords facilities for occasional conformity, which it might puzzle the most ingenious to surpass.

The remaining clauses provide for the registration of marriages thus contracted, in the parish register of the parish wherein the banns, &c. were published. To secure the present fees to the Minister of the Church, and enable the registration to be made within six months of the marriage, upon an order from the Court of King's Bench; declare that it shall not be necessary, in support of a marriage under this act, to give any proof of the nonconformity of the parties, nor that the place wherein such_marriage was solemnized was duly registered for the solemni

zation of marriage-nor that the same was situate within ten miles of the Church in which the banns were published. The concluding clause enacts that two copies of the statute should be deposited with every parish priest, for the purpose, as we suppose, of convincing them how highly their services are valued by the King, Lords, and Commons.

We shall make but one remark upon this famous bill. It is better calculated to promote fictitious and invalid marriages, than any thing we could have ventured to predict, even of Mr. Wilkes' attempts at legislation. We say nothing of the desecration of matrimony which it will obviously produce-we say nothing of the laboured yet inefficient and impracticable details of the measure. We advert to the cireumstance of the registration not taking place at the marriage, and we affirm that it would be the cause of more null marriages among the inconsiderate, and more horrible seduction among the profligate, than the worst interpretation of the 33d of George II. could by any possibility have introduced.

The irregular publication of banns, i. e. out of the parish in which parties really reside, is one of the most pressing evils of the present system; and Mr. Wilkes will multiply it a hundred-fold. A couple whose banns have been published where their parents cannot be present to forbid them, will present a declaration of their nonconformity, and repair forthwith to the licensed and registered tinker, who is in accordance with their religious feelings. The ceremony performed, they will be and will consider themselves man and wife, and if they are idle or careless, if they wish to conceal their marriage, if one of them intends hereafter to set it aside, they will never think of returning ten miles to the parish priest and parish register, to make their entry and pay their fees. They will believe, or at least say, that the form may be delayed; that by the interposition of the King's Bench it may be performed at any time before the expiration of six months; that at all events it is a measure of security rather than necessity; and the consequence will be, that it will never take place, and the marriage will be dubious and voidable.

In the case of license-weddings the facility for fraud is still more glaring. The parties are not required to have any communication with the parish clergyman. If they please they may give him notice to get his register ready, and wait their pleasure and arrival. But provided they have obtained the Episcopal licence they may repair to any place which they happen to prefer, indulge their religious feelings by a solemnization of matrimony, and persuade themselves to

postpone, or dispense with the registering. What will then become of the evidence or the validity of their marriage? Mr. Wilkes may have contrived a scheme by which his Majesty's good and faithful dissenters can solemnize lawful and binding matrimony without repugning their religious feelings-but, in nine cases out of ten, they will dispense with his complicated machinery, and, consequently, their marriages will last just as long as they are convenient and agreeable. Every body who chooses to say that he is a Nonconformist may take advantage of this sweeping indulgence, and the consciences' of those whom it has turned into husbands and wives, may be eased' at their own discretion by a dissolution of the knot.

The Clergy will, of course, be duly grateful to the Author of this Bill for the regard which he has shewn for their pecuniary welfare. Will they thank him, however, for supposing that, provided their fees be secure, they will sacrifice the interest both of the Church and the Community? Or will they believe that so desperate an innovator would give them their fees for a single twelvemonth after his measure had obtained the sanction of Parliament? This plausible suggestion has, at least, one merit-the merit of being easily seen through :-it will not impose upon the most childish credulity.

We trust that the same remark may hereafter be applied to the whole of Mr. Wilkes's scheme. Our imperfect and hasty strictures have shewn that it is calculated to subvert the entire fabric of the Marriage Law. Its defects are not accidental, but inherent and inevitable. Unless the Marriage Register is kept by the Clergyman, there can be no adequate security against falsification and fraud and unless the Clergyman solemnizes the marriage he will never be able to keep the register with accuracy. This is the difficulty, and more ingenious men than Mr. Wilkes will fail in their endeavours to surmount it. If clandestine and voidable marriages are to be prevented, our countrymen must marry as they have always done. There is no pretence for calling upon the Church to frame some measure of relief—to say what relief she will concede, or what recompense she will accept-because she knows, and will prove that no practicable measure can be devised upon the subject, that no concession can be safely made; and no compromise or indemnity be arranged or adhered to.

Our governors, beset with applications from such bustling folk's as Mr. Wilkes, threatened with long parliamentary debates, afraid of Mr. Hume or Mr. Bennett, or my Lord Ellenborough, have given undue encouragement to these wild