rice; and in order to this, have laid difficulties in its way which are infuperable to thoufands, who might otherwife have contributed their portion of increase to the public riches.

I have elsewhere mentioned the late Duke of Bedford's motion for a repeal of the marriage-act-His Grace fpake near three hours upon the fubject, and in the course of his fpeech expatiated much on the preference which is given to private inclination, humour, pride, and caprice, beyond public utility-" The riches of this, as of every country," faid he," are the people.-The grand object, which we are to confider, is this"the law in question, by being restrictive of marriage, must in course be restrictive of population.- -What is the confideration of "this or that individual, where the welfare "of the public, which is chiefly promoted

by the increase of the people, is at stake ? "I have a daughter" (meaning the present amiable Dutchess of Marlborough) "who is "defervedly my delight; any misfortune. "which could happen to her by an impru"dent or unfuitable marriage, would be a "moft fenfible affliction to me; but," faid the noble patriot, "what is this to the "public? What is it to the public whom

the may marry-or whom any body's "daughter or fon may marry? Population is "the grand point to be confidered with re

fpect to the public; therefore an Act, " which makes public utility fubfervient to

"the

"the mere confideration of preventing here "and there a private inconvenience, is an

impolitic, an injurious, a mischievous law; "it ought never to have been made, it ought "now to be repealed."

This is pretty near the fubftance of what was reported to me to have been the conclufion of his Grace's fpeech on the occafion. However, his motion was loft by one fingle voice. He faid, that "he fhould make it

again the next year"-but, before that time, he went out of administration, and he dropped his intention, as perhaps having little hope of fucceeding as a private Lord in oppofition, after having failed while in public office.

Whatever may be the fuppofed ill confequences of clandeftine marriages, however mifchievous or inconvenient to the king"dom" they may, in fome inftances, have been found, yet no mifchief or inconvenience could poffibly arise from them, which might not have been obviated without intrenching on God's prerogative, without attacking the validity of His holy ordinances. The fixtyfecond canon prohibits "minifters from fo

lemnizing matrimony without licence or "banns, or at any other times than between eight and twelve in the forenoon"-the breach of this canon is attended with the fufpenfion of the offending minister for "three years ipfo facto," but it does not offer to affect the validity of the contract between the parties. The 6th and 7th of W. III.

W. III. c. 6. ordains a penalty on the mi nister for marrying without licence or banns, of one hundred pounds, and for the fecond. offence to be fufpended, ab officio et beneficio, for three years. By the 7th and 8th of W. III. c. 35. the penalty of one hundred pounds is extended to every offence of the minifter, likewise ten pounds is laid on every man who is married without banns or licence. The roth of Anne, c. 19. has a clause to prevent clandeftine marriages, and lays one hundred pounds on the minister-and if fuch marriage be folemnized in any gaol, by any minifter who is a prifoner there, one hundred pounds upon him, and one hundred pounds upon the gaoler fuffering the marriage to be folemnized in the prifon without banns or licence.-These were revenue acts, and only attacked clandeftine marriages with a view to the duties payable on licences; but still they keep clear of calling in queftion the validity of the marriage, wherefoever or howsoever folemnized. This was referved for the 26th of Geo. II. c. 33. which, as has been observed, is levelled at the validity of the ordinance itself, if not administered as therein required. To prevent clandeftine marriages by punishing the minifter, either by pecuniary or even corporal punishment, or to lay a fine on the parties fo married, would not have exceeded the authority of the legislature, any more than by interfering in any other matter of outward order and decency; but when they declare-fuch marriage null and void to

all

all intents and purposes whatsoever, fo as utterly to diffolve the contract between the parties, they interfere with GOD's own immediate ordinance, which mortals have

no right to do. Human legiflators may have power over ecclefiaftical perfons, to provide that they difcharge their office, but have no power themselves to interfere in holy things. When King Hezekiah began the reformation of the Jewish church, and brought in the priests and Levites, and gathered them together, and gave them order to execute their office, he did lawfully and rightly. But when King Uzziah himself attempted to burn incenfe before the LORD, thus interfering with the appointed ordinance of GOD, which made it only lawful for the priests the fons of Aaron to burn incenfe, he did wrong, he exceeded his own authority, and ufurped the authority of GoD, and GOD ftruck him with leprofy to the day of his death. Comp. 2 Chr. xxix. 4, 5. with 2 Chr. xxvi. 16, &c.

If the parliament were to lay a duty upon the register of every baptifm, and, in order to fecure it, were to lay a penalty on every minifter registering a baptifm on unftamped parchment, they would have authority fo to do; but if they went on, and faid, that "all baptifm fo registered fhould be null and void to

all intents and purposes whatsoever, fo that "children fo registered fhould be no mem"bers of the Chriftian church," fuch a law would be as abfurd and fhocking as the mar

riage-act is, but not at all a greater infult upon the divine ordinance of baptifm, than this is upon the divine ordinance of marriage.

So with regard to the LORD's fupper, if an act was made that for greater decency and order in the adminiftration thereof, the minister should give notice on the Sunday before, upon a penalty of £5 for every omiffion; no doubt the parliament might make fuch a law; but if the act went on and faid, that "where any perfons fhall receive the facra"ment from the hands of any minifter who "hath neglected to give fuch notice afore"faid, fuch receiving fhall be null and void "to all intents and purposes whatsoever; and "no benefit accrue to the receivers thereby" -how would fuch a law as this be distinguishable, in point of folly and impiety, from the act which we have been confidering? No diftinction in these respects can be fairly made, till it can be proved, that the facrament of the LORD's fupper is an appointed ordinance of Gop, but that the ordinance of marriage is not. In the mean time, I must profess my faith to be, that the parliament of Great Britain had no more a right to pass the marriage-act, in its present form, than it had to pass an act to * repeal the ten commandments.

I don't

* We can hardly read over the impious decree of Darius, the king of Perfia, which is recorded Dan. vi. 7. without fhuddering. To make a ftatute, that-" who• foever fhall afk a petition of any God or man, for

"thirty