our nature is, this condition of our calling is, as to our relation with society, a hardship; and it is one which we are made to feel in a great variety of ways. It is not only for our failings that we are called to account; it is not only that the errors of a peccant individual are charged upon the whole body of his brethren; but even in the conscientious discharge of our ministry we are assailed with calumny and reproach. If in any age of the Church, surely in our own, may it with truth be said, being defamed, we intreat.' The Deist aims his poisoned arrow at the Gospel, through the side of its ministers; and proclaims to the people, who are disposed to regard their spiritual teachers with respect and affection, that Christianity is the profitable invention of men, who have planted the vineyard, that they may eat the fruit thereof. In the vocabulary of the Freethinker and the Leveller, priesthood and priestcraft are convertible terms. The Papist tells our flock, that by adopting a false rule of religion, thinking Protestants are reduced to the cruel extremity of palpable contradiction;' that 'the established clergy have been reduced to sophistry and casuistry*;' that our mission and ordination are defective; and that both we who lead, and they who follow, are treading the paths of eternal death. The Socinian reproaches us as idolaters; and, pretending to that knowledge which belongs only to the Searcher of hearts, he pronounces, without exception or reserve, that our faith is mercenary and insincere; while the Fanatic, of whatever denomination he may be, cries out upon us, as the patrons of heathen morality, and the teachers of a false philosophy; because at the same time that we deliver, as the ambassadors of Christ, the gracious message of reconciliation to mankind, we strongly enforce the practical observance of the conditions upon which it will become available to them: and declare that the end of the Gospel is to 'stablish them unblamable in holiness before God,' and 'in every good word and work.'+" Sermon, p. 16.

We need not follow the learned Author through the remainder of his Discourse. It refers principally to those temporal difficulties by which so many Clergymen are borne down, and which led to the institution of various Charities for the maintenance of their widows and orphans.

But is impossible to rise from the perusal of this the third, and not the least able work, which has appeared in so short a space of time from the same pen, without rejoicing that such talents and diligence as those of their excellent Author, are devoted to the best of causes, and are sanctified not less by the direction than by the manner in which they are employed. A sound judgment, and a pious heart, are not less conspicuous throughout these publications than the rare, and in vulgar estimation, more precious qualities which Archdeacon Blomfield is universally known to possess.

Milner's End of Religious Controversy, Part I. p. 100,"

"+ 1 Thess. iii. 13. 2 Thess. ii, 17,"

ART. XVII. Substance of the Speech of Joseph Phillimore, LL.D. in the House of Commons, on Wednesday, March 27, 1822, on Moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Marriage Act. pp. 80. Murray. 1822.

ART. XVIII. A concise View of the Doctrine and Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Doctors' Commons, on various Points relative to the Subject of Marriage and Divorce. By Thomas Poynter, Proctor in Doctors' Commons. pp. 162. 162. Clarke. 1822.

ART. XIX. Supplement to a concise View of the Doctrine and Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Doctors' Commons, on various Points relative to the Subject of Marriage and Divorce, occasioned by the Repeal of the 11th Section of the 26th Geo. II. c. 33. by the 3d. Geo. IV. c.75. intituled, "An Act to amend certain Provisions of the 26 Geo. II. for the better Prevention of Clandestine Marriages;" with an Appendix of Forms. By Thomas Poynter, Proctor in Doctors' Commons. pp. 2 . 24. Clarke. 1822.

THE recent parliamentary discussions respecting marriage, have produced fewer pamphlets than might have been expected. We are not aware of any publication upon the subject of greater authority, interest, or novelty, than those which we propose to review. And they not only all take the same side of the question, but all refer to the bills of a former session, omit the consideration of Dissenters Marriages, and are more remarkable for plain common sense than for profound learning, or original investigation. In doors and out of doors, we hear enough about the Marriage Bills: but the press refuses to bear her share of the burden,-and the question upon which ministers and prelates, and parliaments disagree, is not refreshed by one drop of that plentiful shower which descends upon other portions of the political field.-It is left to the scanty limits, and not less scanty leisure of reviewers, to discuss this important and extensive question; and it is undertaken with a full sense of its general difficulty, and of our own peculiar disadvantages for the performance of the task. We shall endeavour to give an outline of the various points in dispute, and to form a rough estimate of the arguments upon which the question turns. A more detailed consideration of particular parts, will probably be forced upon us hereafter: for the present it is our object and intention to state general views, and reply to general difficulties and objections.

The Marriage Act, 26 George II. c. 33. was passed for the prevention of clandestine marriages-and its principal enactments have stood the test of time. One clause was less fortunate. The rapid increase of cases in which marriage by license was pronounced void, from non-compliance with the requisitions of the statute, made it necessary to amend part of the law, and the whole, as a natural consequence, was brought under revision. The legislature was led astray by the charms of improvement and novelty, and a measure, of which every one perceived the manifold faults, was carried through parliament by large majorities. It was repealed, six months afterwards, without a dissentient voice, and a committee of the house of lords has been subsequently employed in framing a more palatable bill. The Dissenters not being specially mentioned in the proposed enactment, take the opportunity of preparing a separate law for themselves-and the debates upon both measures have been of so extraordinary a nature, that we are compelled to turn aside from our usual course, and animadvert upon the speeches and proceedings of the most august body in the kingdom.

The original complaint of Dr. Phillimore was confined to the nullity clause in the act of George II. He proved that its consequences were unjust and intolerable-and charged it with inefficiency into the bargain. He contended that clandestine marriages could be easily and safely celebrated by banns; that the practice, in point of fact, had become very common, and that it was worse than useless to retain a clause which did not prevent the mischief against which it was directed and produced a host of unanticipated evils. By establishing these facts, Dr. Phillimore opened a wide field for investigation. It would have been difficult, at any time, to assign a reason for the difference between marriages by license and marriages by banns. A fraudulent acquisition of the first, and a fraudulent publication of the second, afford equal facilities to clandestine marriages; and the parental rights are as much invaded in the one case, as in the other. The nullity, therefore, of the marriage of minors, when celebrated without the actual or virtual consent of their parents, ought to be extended to all cases, or taken away from all; and the parliament and the people hurried at once into the latter alternative, without giving Dr. Phillimore's proposal the consideration which it deserved.

The Doctor proposed that marriages by license, when soJemnized under the age of twenty-one years, without the previous consent of the parent or guardian, might be annulled by the Ecclesiastical courts, at the suit of such parent or guardian-provided the suit were instituted before the expi

ration of the minority. A provision to the same effect was contained in the original draft of the bill now before Parliament. It obtained the sanction, or rather was inserted at the instance of the most distinguished law lords-it was accepted by more than one of our ablest Prelates, and whatever be its merits or demerits, it is innocent of all the mischief which has been laid to its charge. It was not contrary to the law of God-it did not afford encouragement to the seducer-it did not derogate from the sanctity of marriage, or the dignity of the priesthood. The misrepresentations which have gone abroad on this subject induce us to enter into a more particular consideration of it.

In the first place, then, it must be remembered that the hardship and injustice of the nullity clause were much greater in one class of cases than in another. When a license was obtained by perjury, and parties under the age of twenty-one were married by a law which was not intended to apply to them, the results, however melancholy, were the results of imprudence and crime. A minor who swears that he is of age, a married man who swears that he is single or widowed, and a man who procures marriage to be solemnized by a fraudulent publication of banns, involve themselves and their families in troubles, which might have been avoided by caution upon one side and integrity on the other. No legisla tive care can compensate for the want of these qualities, and if the ancient marriage act had pronounced no other marriages void, the present feeling upon the subject of nullity would never have prevailed. But the provisions of that act extended to cases in which there was no fraud and no indiscretion. The consent of the parent or guardian de facto was declared insufficient to legalise the marriage of a minor by license. Parties were called upon to prove the legitimate birth of their grandfathers and grandmothers-and illegitimacy was discovered where no one could expect to find it. The horrible consequences of such a system were no sooner understood, than it was condemned and annulled by acclamation; and the acclaimants forgot the difference between sufferers from a subtle construction and unforeseen application of the nullity clause, and sufferers from wanton or careless violation of the law. The commiseration justly due to the former was bestowed upon the latter, with more generosity than justice. Our senators in their eagerness to rectify the errors of the act of George II., adopted provisions which were incompatible with the prevention of clandestine marriage; or at least were so considered by the most eminent U u VOL. XIX, JUNE, 1823.

lawyers who are familiar with matrimonial suits. These lawyers, and more especially Lord Eldon and Lord Stowell, recommended a recurrence to the original measure of Dr. Phillimore. That measure, slightly amended, was adopted by the Lords' committee, but overruled by the house, after a very remarkable debate.

The real question, as Lord Liverpool justly stated, was a question of expediency. On the one hand it was thought dangerous to confirm a fraudulent and illegal marriage; on the other it was thought more dangerous to separate parties who were bound to one another in conscience, and were living together as man and wife, For our own parts, we are not sorry that the latter apprehension prevailed, and we are inclined upon the whole to consider it the most just. Parents and guardians, knowing that marriage is irrevocable, must prevent improper connections by a more careful discharge of their duty-by a proper cultivation of the infant mind, and a proper vigilance against artifice and folly. It was not wise to make so great a distinction between marriage by license and banns, as that the one should be voidable and the other not. The instances in which minors have been entrapped into matrimony are not so numerous or so painful as to call for a stretch of power to prevent their recurrence. In most of these instances a sentence of nullity may punish the guilty, but cannot effectually deliver the innocent. And while we are legislating in order to prevent mercenary marriages, we should remember that there are such persons as mercenary parents and relations, who have a direct interest in opposing the marriage of a minor, and may be tempted to set it aside for their own private advantage. For these and other reasons we are not sorry that the House of Lords was guided by Lord Liverpool in preference to Lord Eldon.

But the grounds upon which many persons defended their support of the former are unsubstantial and unsatisfactory. The arguments from Scripture rested upon an extraordinary misapplication of our Saviour's words,-Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder. They refer to the institution of the marriage state, and not to the celebration of the marriage ceremony. At least, if they do not, they prohibit us from annulling any marriage vow, and lead to the conclusion that neither licences, or banns, or altar, or priest, can be required as indispensable to a valid contract. The promise, in the sight of God, is irrevocable and irreversible, and our laws are a monstrous system of impiety and injustice. Even supposing that God joineth those, and those only, who are married by a Priest, what right has the Church or