On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
impediments , but every one might do what was right in his own eyes , who should get himself admitted of a Dissenting- congregation . " The first of the foregoing cases is nearly coeval with the statute to
which I have already referred , and by which the marriages of Nonconformists were recognized for the purpose of taxation . Although the Court of Common Pleas granted a prohibition , in the first instance ,
against the scandalous proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court , which eagerly clung to this last remnant of power over the souls and bodies of heretics , yet it is manifest that doubts were then entertained how far that
prohibition ought to be perpetuated •—in other words , how far the alleged marriage was legally valid . "Wfe hear no more of the case , and it is to be lamented that the Dissenters did not at once make common cause with the
persecuted parties , instead of permitting them to compromise the matter with their tormentor , who , most probably , withdrew bis proceedings from the fear of an unfavourable decision .
I n Wigmore ' s case , which came before the Court of King ' s Bench upon a suit for alimony , it will be seen that Lord C . J . Holt expresses an unhesitating opinion in favour of the marriage , without referring to any decision or judicial opinion to the contrary : bat by this time , it is likely that the mass of Dissenters had
acquired the habit of conformity to the marriage rites of the establishment . The licence stated to have been obtained from the Bishop , was probably granted under the Stat . 6 and 7 William III ., which provided against
the celebration of marriage at any place pretending to be exempt from the visitation of the bishop of the diocese , without such licence or banns duly certified . It is , however , evident that the irregular and clandestine
marriages , contemplated by the frarners of the statute , were solemnized by persons in Church orders . The case of Hay don v . Gould , exhibits the determination of the
Ecclesiastical Courts to ann 6 y , to the utmost of their power , those who Exercised , to th 6 full fcxtettt , the privileges of the Toleration Act , and illustrates the absurdity of entrusting
Untitled Article
a religious tribunal with any dominion over the property of individuals * It \ Vill be observed , that the decision was by an Ecclesiastical Court , though of appellate jurisdiction , and yet there
it was admitted that the wife , or the issue of the marriage , might entitle themselves to temporal rights , whilst the husband was disabled to take any thing through the medium of a law whose requisitions he had contemned .
The mischief and inconveuience of clandestine marriages , had risen to a great height when Lord Hardwicke framed his celebrated Marriage Act . Of its beneficial policy , in a merely civil point of view , there can be little doubt , notwithstanding the clamorous opposition with which it was originally
assailed $ nor does there appear to be the slightest ground for accusing the legislature of an intolerant disposition towards Dissenters upon that occasion , inasmuch as the exception in the Act includes the only two sects who seem to have interested themselves to procure an exemption from its provisions .
To conscientious Antitrinitarians , who have at length been permitted to step across the threshold of legal toleration , some relaxation of the law is justly an object of solicitude ; and their views may be accomplished either , first , by an act allowing them to
celebrate their marriages before ministers of their own persuasion in places duly registered , ( as a preliminary to which , the publication of banns , both there and in the parish church , or a special licence from a surrogate might be made necessary , ) or , secondly , by au
enactment empowering and requiring the ministers of the establishment , upon "the written request of the parties , to omit the obnoxious passages in the Liturgy , without prejudice to the marriage . The latter plan would , probably , meet with a more ready sanction from Parliament , as it would
not infringe upon the existing policy of the law , though it is to be feared that some portion of the clergy may feel , or affect great horror , in being called upon to accommodate the religious feelings of Unitarian * ' miscreants , ' by waving one iota of their " sotind form of words , " which , never *
thetess * to impartial persons , presents not merely doctrinal grounds of objection , and is . far inferior in sublimity and pathos to other parts of the Book
Untitled Article
178 History and Present State vfthe Law relating to Marriage .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1819, page 178, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1770/page/42/
-