The Express.
London, England, 1864-07-29 00:00:00

the •i in

Atherliarseota taiiktal lee ..1117;iiiii• Imam I,u
per. must be al lir MI" 14, Dawarlimilnirk. by Tire
o'clock on Sao dal et pablimaks.

PRINCIIIII 8..

Tan ITEMS, BORN TO 000D—L17CIL Mr. D. Murry.
—And THIS MONASTERY OF ST. JDST. Mann. Yining,
Manton. Nelson, Ray, and Mellon ; MdDs. Nana Colas and
Mrs. Marston.

TET Zroinsa, THZliiaVi OF MIMI.- Blnglng by
Madame* Lom:ink Constance, end Mr. H. Baker.—Dancing by
Wile. C. Stephen.-And THY TALLYMAN.

Mel WAIN' AT LONDON DAIDOIL
TEI9 DST Mambo& 106. Um.. 6llmese. 116.1046
To-moiutow —Morning, 116. 45a3 Allenens, OS.

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 29.

AT length the great YrxvEarox cue is closed.
By a majority of three to one the House of Lords
has determined that Major Yuvartrori and Miss
LONOWORTH are not man and wife, and Mrs.
FORBES may now be regarded as the only lawful
and Honourable Mrs. li-raysitrox. This case
suppliesanother instance of the glorious uncertainty
of the law. The original decision of the single
judge who beard the case in Scotland was against
Miss LONOWOETH. That decision was reversed by
a majority of the judges of the Court of Session.
And now Lords WENSLEYDALE, CHELMSFORD, and
KINGSLX3WN, against the opinion of the Loan
CHANCELLOR, have reversed the judgment of the
Court of Session, and have once more pronounced
against Miss LOW/WORTH. Amidst such a con-
flict of opinions it may seem difficult to determine
which is correct. But it is not to be denied that
even before the House met yesterday there
was a general expectation that the result would be
such as it is.

The particular form in which the question came
before the Court is important. If Major Yetvrac-
TON had been sued for goods supplied to Mies
lA)Nt.:WORTH as his wife, it would of course have
been necessary to determine the question
as to the validity of their marriage.
But, whatever might have been the decision,
it would only have applied to the parti-
cular case. It would not have been conclusive in
any other action brought by any other tradesman.
The effect of the present proceedings in the Scotch
Courts will be very different. Their scope was
much wider. It was, in fact, to deter-
mine the status of Major YELVERTON and Miss
LoNGWOßTH—whether they were man and wife.
For this purpose Major Yin.vratrow brought an
action "of declaration of freedom and putting to
" silence ;" whilst Mils LoNowororn brought an
action of "declaration of marriage." In other
words, the Major sought to have it declared that
be was "free" of any marriage with the lady, and
that she ought to be" put to perpetual silence there
" anent ;" whilst the lady sought to have it de. I
dared that she was the Major's " lawful wife."
Henceforward, therefore, it will no longer be pos-
sible for Miss LONGWORTH to maintain in any
Court that she is the wife of Major Yr.xviutroN.
It may be assumed that the marriage, if there
was one, was a marriage according to Scotch law ;
for the marriage which was alleged to have
taken place in Ireland was abandoned in the
Court of Session. Besides, both Lord KiNcscows
and Lord WENSLEYDALE pronounced the Irish mar
riage to be invalid. Now in Scotland marriage is
a contract constituted by the consent of both par-
ties ; and that consent must be proved in order to
establish the matrimonial contract, as it must be
proved in order to establish any other contract.
In ordinary cases express consent is given by a
solemn vow of the parties, uttered before a clergy-
man, in the presence of witnesses. This is a
regular marriage. But consent may be proved
otherwise, and the marriage is then termed irregu-
lar. This was Miss LONoWORTH'S Gab

According to Scotch law there is a marriage,
first, if two parties promise that thenceforth
they shall be man and wife—in other words, if
consent is mutually exchanged ; secondly, if two
parties promise that at some future time they will
be man and wife, provided such promise is fol-
lowed by cohabitation in Scotland, and such coha-
bitation takes place in pursuance of the previous
promise. It is obvious that these two cases are
quite distinct, and in some sort inconsistent with
each other. A promise to marry now cannot be
reconciled with a promise to marry at a future
time. A promise to marry now constitutes mar-
riage ; a promise to marry at some future time
requires cohabitation to complete the matrimonial
contract. It seems very difficult, therefore,
to understand how a person can, as it
were, retain both strings to his bow.
And yet this was the course pursued by Miss
Los,;wonrn. The burden of proving the mar-
riage lay upon her. Accordingly she undertook
to prove that on Sunday, the 12th of April, 1857,
she and the Major read over the English marriage
service in her lodgings at Edinburgh, after which
the Major said, " Now this makes us man and
" wife." If this was the fact there was an end
of the matter. They were man and wife.
There was no need of anything further.
But all the Law Lords, with the exception of the
Lou) CHANCELLOR, ware unanimous in rejecting
this statement ; nor is this surprising when we find
that in the July which followed the 12th of April
Miss LONGWORTH wrote to Major YELVERTON,
saying—" You know you are—you always have

" been—free." At all events it was considered that

the proof of the statement made u to reading the
marriage service was not sufficiently strong to sup-
port a contract of marriage. Probably the minds of

Miss LONOWORTIe. advisers were haunted by •
similar suspicion, for they practically abandoned
the idea of • present promise, and maintained that
Major YELVERTON promised only to marry at some
future time. But they insisted that the cohabits,-
tion,which undoubtedly took place both in Ireland
and in Scotland, was connected with this promise,
and that thus the parties became man and wife.