case more versus more April come before the court on petition SC barn Charles  Rep several person appear to answer the contempt in marry miss more a ware of  this court to one John peck Mr Charles a clergyman of harrow on the hill who  marry miss Sophia more a ware of this court without leave to one John peck and  Mr Ubank and other who be present when she be marry appear also to answer the  contempt of this court Lord chancellor these be mischief that want the  correction and reformation of the legislature as much as any case whatever and  I believe it will very short come under the consideration of parliament see  stat Geo c atkins John Ubank must in the first place stand commit who assist  in conduct miss more out of her guardian house and give her away at the  wedding the give away a woman at the time of her marriage as the father though  it be hot a essential thing yet it be a custom or ceremony which clergyman  always require and consequent call for at the time indeed it be not bare have  some hand in the transaction of the marriage which will make person liable to  the censure of the court but they must appear to have be concern in the  original contrivance of the marriage and to have be apprise of the infant be a  ware of this court which Mr Ubank be prove to have be and not deny by  affidavit on his part Mr Charles the clergyman who marry miss more to peck  come next under consideration it be very surprise when canon with respect to  marriage have lie down direction so plain for the conduct of ecclesiastical  officer and clergyman which though they have not the authority of a act of  parliament and consequent be not bind upon layman et certain be prescription  to the ecclesiastical court and likewise to clergyman that there shouldbe such  frequent instance of their depart from they and introduce a practice entire  repugnant to they v can in all of they extreme plain in their direction to  ecclesiastical officer and clergyman one will think no body ever read they  neither the officer of the spiritual court nor clergyman or they can not act  so diametrical opposite to they proctor sometime stand at the door of the  commons and solicit person to take out licence just in the same manner as the  runner to fleet parson do which be not a very reputable behaviour in they  three parish be put into the licence by the officer of the spiritual court I  shall imagine that this be do in order to comply with the canon by mention the  parish where the man and woman inhabit and probable name the three may be only  upon a supposition that the person may have a house both in town and country  and therefore leave to their option to marry in either atkins No  ecclesiastical person can dispense with a canon for they be oblige to pursue  the direction in they with the utmost exactness and it be in the power of the  crown to do it only what Mr Charles swear I believe be true that it be very  frequent for surrogates to fill up the blank in licence with the name of any  other parish and this in some measure may justify he as it be the common  method among clergyman but then this will not excuse with regard to penalty in  the canon which express direct that no atkins er p clergyman shall presume to  marry a person out of the parish in which the man and woman reside upon the  whole as I say in the case of the other person Mr Charles do not seem to I to  have be at all concern in the contrivance or design of do this wrongful act  and therefore be not guilty of a contempt of the court but I will recommend it  to he to be more cautious for the future however I will not part with the  licence but will order it to be leave in the register hand that if there shall  be occasion the petitioner may apply to he for it