guinity; and by sect. 2, all marriages celebrated after that time between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity, are made absolutely void. This act, however, does not extend to Scotland (y).

It has been held under this statute, that if a man marry his deceased wife's sister, and in the latter's lifetime marry another woman, he cannot be indicted for bigamy, inasmuch as the marriage with his deceased wife's sister was void (2); and that the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister in a foreign country where such a marriage according to the lex loci was valid, both the parties being British subjects, and resorting to such country for the avowed purpose of evading the statute, was void (a).

Heretofore marriages could have been solemnized, except by special licence, only in parish churches or chapels, according to the rites of the church of England; but now, by stat. 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, which took effect on 1st July, 1837, and was explained and amended by stat. 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 22, marriages may be solemnized in any certified place of religious worship duly registered, or at the office of the superintendent registrar, according to any form and ceremony the parties may see fit to adopt; provided they pay strict attention in conforming to the regulations prescribed by the act; of which the following are most deserving of remark:-1st, The notice of marriage to the superintendent registrar (b). As this notice is to be read at the meeting of guardians (c); or suspended in the superintendent registrar's office (d), it has an effect similar to the publication of banns (e). 2ndly, The certificate (ƒ), which S. R. is empowered to issue, if there be no lawful impediment shown. By stat. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 72, s. 1, no certificate can be granted for a marriage out of the district in which one of the parties dwells, unless the party make, by indorsement on the notice, the declaration required by the second section, the form of which is given by the schedule to this act. 3rdly, Where the marriage is by licence, which S. R. is empowered to grant, care must be taken as to the consent (g); for the like consent is required to marriages solemnized by licence under this act as before (h). The 12th section directs what acts are required before licence can be granted. The licences by archbishop of Canterbury, proper officers and surrogates are left untouched (i). 4thly, Time.-Twenty-one days (k) must elapse after day of entry of notice, if no licence; if licence, seven days (k) before marriage can be solemnized. If three months (1) are suffered to elapse after notice, without marriage, a new notice must be given. The old hours are

(y) Sect. 3.

(z) R. v. Chadwick, 11 Q. B. 173; S. C., 17 L. J., M. C. 33.

(a) Brook v. Brook, 27 L. J., Ch. 401. (b) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, s. 4.

(c) Ibid. s. 6.

(d) 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 22, s. 24.

(e) 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 22, s. 36.
(ƒ) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, s. 7.
(g) Ibid. s. 11.
(h) Ibid. s. 10.
(i) Ibid. s. 1.
(k) Sect. 14.
(1) Sect. 15.

to be observed, during which the marriage can be solemnized, viz. between eight and twelve in the forenoon. 5thly, The marriage must be solemnized as the act directs (m); 1, with open doors; 2, between the stated hours; 3, in presence of registrar and witnesses; if at office, presence of S. R. also is required; 4, in some part of the ceremony the declaration before the witnesses in the form prescribed; lastly, there must be no lawful impediment. If these particulars be not duly observed, the marriage is made void (n); but if they are strictly attended to, the marriage is as good and cognizable in like manner as a marriage, before this act, according to the rites of the Church of England (o). In the case of a fraudulent marriage, the guilty party forfeits all property accruing from the marriage, under a provision similar to that contained in the 4 Geo. IV. c. 76, s. 23 (p). But the new law extends only to England (9); and does not extend to the marriage of any of the royal family. Quakers and Jews (r) may contract and solemnize marriages according to usage as before, provided both parties are Quakers or Jews, and the notice to registrar has been given and his certificate issued. As to the registers of marriages, the reader should be apprized that so much of the stat. 52 Geo. III. c. 146, and 4 Geo. IV. c. 76, as relates to the registration of marriages, has been repealed by stat. 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86 (s), which took effect on the same day as the preceding marriage act, (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85,) and which is to be taken as part of it, as fully as if incorporated with it (s). Where the marriage is solemnized under this act, the certificate therein mentioned, coupled with evidence of the identity of the parties, is sufficient primâ facie proof of the marriage (t). By the statute 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119, which came into operation on the 1st of January, 1857, and which recites the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, the 1 Vict. c. 82, and the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 72, and alters and amends the provisions of these statutes, it is enacted by s. 17, that "after any marriage shall have been solemnized under the authority of any of the recited acts or of this act, it shall not be necessary, in support of such marriage, to give any proof of the actual dwelling, or of the period of dwelling, of either of the parties previous to the marriage within the district stated in any notice of marriage to be that of his or her residence, or of the consent to any marriage having been given by any person whose consent thereto is required by law, or that the registered building in which any marriage may have been solemnized had been certified according to law as a place of religious worship, or that such building was the usual place of worship of either of the parties; nor shall any evidence be given to prove the contrary in any suit or legal proceedings touching the validity of such marriage; and all marriages which hereto

(s) Explained and amended by stat. 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 22.

(s) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, s. 44.
(t) R. v. Hawes, 1 Den. C. C. R. 270.

fore have been, or which heretofore may be had or solemnized under the authority of any of the said recited acts, or of this act, in any building or place of worship which has been registered pursuant to the provisions of the said act passed in the sixth and seventh years of his late majesty king William the Fourth, chapter eighty-five, but which may not have been certified as required by law, shall be as valid in all respects as if such place of worship had been so certified."

It seems that to prove a Jewish marriage, it is not sufficient to produce witnesses who were present at the ceremony in the synagogue; because that is merely a ratification of a previous written contract-such contract, therefore, must be adduced and proved (u). A Jewess may give parol evidence of her own divorce in a foreign country, according to the ceremony and customs of the Jews there (x). In Moss v. Smith, 1 Man. & Gr. 232, 3; 1 Scott's N. R. 25, to prove a Jewish divorce in England, it was held necessary, by Erskine, J., that the written document of divorce delivered by the husband to the wife should be produced. According to the evidence of the high priest of the German Jews in England, this document is the operative part of the ceremony, which must, however, take place in the presence of the high priest and ten other persons. Where plaintiff and his wife were Quakers, proof of a marriage according to the forms of that society was received, without objection (y).

Marriages Abroad.-A soldier on service with the British army in St. Domingo, in 1796, being desirous to marry the widow of another soldier, who had died there in the service, and both parties wishing to celebrate their marriage with effect, they went to a chapel in a town where they were, and there the ceremony was performed by a person appearing there as a priest, and officiating as such; the service being in French, but interpreted into English by one who officiated as clerk; and which the woman understood at the time to be the marriage service of the Church of England. After this they cohabited together as man and wife for eleven years, until the death of the husband. On a question as to the settlement of the woman, a doubt was raised whether the marriage was valid. The Court of B. R. (≈) were clearly of opinion that it was a valid marriage, whether it was to be considered as a marriage celebrated in a place where the law of England prevailed, or as a marriage according to the law of St. Domingo, whatever that might be. Upon the former ground, inasmuch as there was a contract per verba de præsenti, which contracts were binding on the parties

(u) Horn v. Noel, 1 Campb. 61. But see the elaborate judgment of Sir W. Scott in Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. (C.) 227. See also Goldsmid v. Bromer, 1 Hagg, (C.) 324; and stat. 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, ss. 2. 4, 16, 39.

(x) Ganer V. Lady Lanesborough, Peake's N. P. C. 17, Lord Kenyon, C. J. (y) Deane v. Thomas, M. & Malk. 361, Tenterden, C. J.

(z) R. v. Brampton, 10 East, 282.

before Lord Hardwicke's act, which did not affect the present case, this being a marriage beyond seas, and because the marriage was celebrated by a person who publicly assumed the office of a priest, and appeared habited as such; upon the latter ground, because, upon the facts stated, every presumption must be made in favour of its validity, according to the law of the country where it was celebrated; the marriage ceremony having been performed there in a proper place, and by a person officiating as one competent to perform that function, and more especially as it had been followed by a cohabitation between the parties, as man and wife, for eleven

years.

The canon law is the general law throughout Europe as marriages, except where that has been altered by the municipal law of any particular place. Before Lord Hardwicke's act, marriages in this country were always governed by the canon law. That statute did not follow British subjects to our foreign settlements; hence, it has been held, that a marriage between two British subjects, solemnized by a Catholic priest at Madras, according to the rites of the Catholic Church, followed by cohabitation, is valid, although without the licence of the governor, which it had been uniformly the practice to obtain: for that does not alter the law, which the parties carried with them (a). Marriages in Scotland (b), and beyond sea (c), by the law of England, remained in the same state as if the marriage act had not been passed. But now by the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 96, s. 2, after the 31st December, 1856, "no irregular marriage contracted in Scotland by declaration, acknowledgment or ceremony shall be valid, unless one of the parties had at the date thereof his or her usual place of residence there, or had lived in Scotland for twenty-one days next preceding such marriage, any law, custom or usage notwithstanding." So a marriage in Ireland by a clergyman of the Church of England in a private house, was held valid, although no evidence was given that any licence had been granted to the parties (d).

By stat. 4 Geo. IV. c. 91, s. 1, after reciting, that it is expedient to relieve the minds of his Majesty's subjects from any doubt concerning the validity of marriages solemnized by a minister of the Church of England in the chapel or house of any British ambassador or minister residing within the country to the court of which he is accredited, or in the chapel belonging to any British factory abroad, or in the house of any British subject residing at such factory, as well as from any possibility of doubt concerning the validity of marriages solemnized within the British lines by any chaplain or officer, or other person officiating under the orders of a commanding officer of a British army serving abroad, it is declared

(a) Lautour v. Teesdale, 8 Taunt. 830. See Catherwood v. Caslon, ante, p. 12. (b) Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Con. R. 54.

(c) Harford v. Morris, 2 Hagg. Con. R. 429.

(d) Smith v. Maxwell, Ry. & Moody, N. P. C. 80.

and enacted, "that all such marriages shall be deemed to be as valid in law as if the same had been solemnized within his Majesty's dominions with a due observance of all forms required by law."

The marriage of an officer celebrated by a chaplain of the British army within the lines of the army, when serving abroad, is valid under this statute, though such army is not serving in a country in a state of actual hostility; and though no authority for the marriage was previously obtained from the officer's superior in command (e). And this statute gives validity to the marriage of a British subject in the chapel of the British ambassador abroad, whether the other party to the marriage is a British subject or not (ƒ).

On the claim of Sir Augustus D'Este to the Dukedom of Sussex, the following question was submitted to the judges:-" Evidence having been offered of a marriage solemnized at Rome, in the year 1793, by an English priest, according to the rites of the Church of England, between A. B., a son of his majesty George the Third, and C. D., a British subject, without the previous consent of his said majesty; assuming such evidence to have been sufficient to establish the validity of the marriage between A. B. to C. D., independently of the provisions of the stat. 12 Geo. III. c. 11, would it be sufficient, having regard to that statute, to establish a valid marriage in a suit, in which the eldest son of A. B. claims an estate in England as the son of A. B., by virtue of such marriage? Answer: All the judges are unanimously of opinion that it would not; for the effect of the act is not limited to any particular country or district, but it applies to contracts matrimonial in general and in the abstract, and declares an incapacity to contract, attaching to the person of A. B. wherever he goes. D. P. 1844. A sentence declaratory of the nullity of the marriage had been pronounced 14th July, 1794, by Sir W. Wynne, dean of the Arches. Heseltine v. Murray, 2 Addams, Eccles. Rep. 400, note.

For the law relating to marriages in Ireland, see stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81; and ante, p. 12.

Proofs of adultery must in many cases be in some degree presumptive; real and direct proof of the fact is not always to be expected; therefore the question in these cases will be, whether there is evidence of such near, such approximate acts, that there must be a legal presumption of the adultery (g). The confession of the wife is not evidence against the defendant; but conversations between her and the defendant may be given in evidence (h). So

(e) Waldegrave Peerage, 4 Cl. & Fi. 649.

(f) In re Wright, 25 L. J., Chanc. 621. (g) See Wood v. Wood, 4 Hagg. Ecc. R. 138, n.

(h) Biker v. Morley, M. D., London Sittings, 30 June, 1741, Lee, Ch. J., special jury. Verdict for defendant. Bull, N. P. 28, S. C.