The Express.
London, England, 1868-02-06 00:00:00

BREAKFAST.-EPPS'S COCOA.

%Me 02EntreWs.

TO 0011LESPONDliNTS.
Idinnillainnatilnintuadod tor "TM Name London Itytelna
=
mu
ns be at Oa Oast. Boavonlo-tiroet. TWO
on the day of publication.

HATYLEINT.
TETa ETENiNG, THE BROICEN-BEARTED i'Ll-D—A WIPE
WELL WON. M.N.o Sothern, Buckstnue. liorre, Kendal,
Rouen, Braid, Westbershy, ; and lIDA Itollertont —Alter
whihh AN ETTF.R PER-VERBION OF THE BRIGAND.

PRINCESS'S
TM, EveEno, THE GALLERY SAWN. Mr. sad Mr. Mon
Roucicsult.— After which Till FRERTS'OF LONDON. Mr.
Vining, Messrs. Murray, Shore, Neville, Forrester, Mellon.
Misc. Lisworthy, Z. Barnett, Rachel Sanger, end 317%. Addis.

STRAND.
TIM Evinrnm. OLD SALT. Mr. Emory awl NIA Nelly Mom.
tier which THE CALIPH OF BAODAD. Mews. Thorne
and James Meadianes Ada Swonboroush, Johnstone, Harland,
Holt, Ac.—And COAL AND CURL

HOLBORN.
Tins Emma, THE FLYING SCUD. Messrs Atkins, Face,
Garden, Arthur, Westland, and Wilantt Madasnas Henrsde,
Goodall. Lennox, sod Manders—enneindo lath YALENTINIt
AND 01F"ON. Mdlle. Montero, Little Rowel* ao.

SEJTAMNLA.
UPSIDE DOWN.—DON QUIXOTI. lira S.
Lane. do )Issas Edwin and Booth ; Panteenhalate Mean. Dean,
Llnlig, Newham, ;113.1TictorelU ; Mdlle. C Stephan and Mho Rose
Buchan.—To conclude with THE PRAIRIE FLOWER.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
MU. DAV —Morning, Oh. Oen— —Alumna.. Oh. 15nL.
11.0-MOlMOW—Marning, Oh. 8i01.. —Afternoon, Ih. 1,5 m.

LONDON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6.

IF there is one point connected with the Law
of Marriage respecting which all persons are
agreed, it is that there should be no doubt whether,
in any given case, a mlrriage exists or not. It is
a good deal the habit of Englishmen to reproach
the law of Scotland with s defect in this
. .

particular. Into that branch of the subject we
shall not enter at present, but a case which has
just occurred in the Divorce Court may suggest
that at least we live in a glass-house, and have
sonic curious anomalies of our own law to correct.

A young medical student fell in love with the 1
nursery-maid in the house in which he was
boarded, seduced her, and on her entreaty
married her. Ho did not apprise his parents of
his intention, but ho put up the banns, and the
ceremony was duly performed by a clergyman in
a church. On discovery of the connection, his

father brought a suit to have the marriage de-
dared invalid. The plea for this was that his full

name RaaJOHANNES J VERE litLL,and that he had

given the name for publication of balms in the
abbreviated form of Jour; HILL. If this had been
done without the privity of the woman to the sup-
pression of the name, it is beyond dispute that the
marriage would have been unimpeachable. Or if
it had been effected by the ordinary license instead
of by banns, the entire alteration of the name
would have been quite insufficient to affect the

validity of tho ceremony, whether the error was
known to the woman or not. But being by banns,
there was authority for saying that if the woman
Mil known of the defect the ceremony in the
church was no marriage. Hero, then, the first
question was whether the woman knew that there
was the second name of DE VERE, and know that
it was suppressed ! Tho second question was

whethur .it;;IANN WM tho same name RS JOFIN,

or a different name 1 The third question was
whether, if the name was inaccurate, and known

to he so, that circumstance ought, in the particular
facts of this case, to he allowed to annul the
solemn ceremony ? The man swore that the

WOltlall knew his full name ; the woman swore
that rho did not. It was proved that ho was
not goicrally addressed in the family as Di; Verne
Hitt, but that letters had come fur him so ad-
dre,sed, which the woman had seen. On the
whole, Sir J.tsit.i, Wimm came to the con-
clusion that thu woman probably knew of
the existence of the second name, and was

nwarc (4 its bailig intentionally suppressed in

order to avoid recognition when the banns were
published. conclusion saved him from the
necesiity of considering the profoundly difficult
iiiiestiun, whether to use the English translation of
a foreign name makes a marriage bad. But then
Caine the still more nice ethical inquiry whether
he should allow that circumstance to have effect
in annulling the marriage. (hi this head he drew
a distinction between a case in which seduction
was effected by the inaccurate marriare, and one
in which the seduction preceded the marriage,
which was only intended to effect secretly some I
late amends. The former case he seemed to con-
sider would be so cruel that abrogation of the
marriage would not be allowed. The lacier
case, ho seemed to think, might be so
hard upon a young man that the law
ought to bo put iu operation to liberate
him from his vows at the altar. And as it was
admitted that in this case seduction had preceded
marriage, he decreed that there had been nu legal
marriage at all.
:Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than a de-
cision electing the most sacred interests in life
thus based on the personal and arbitrary ideas of
the judge. We du not, indeed, blame Sir J.
WILVE for resorting to such a ratio drridrtli.
Many cases of a like nature which have oc-
curred in the English courts have clearly estab-
lished the doctrine that the legality or illegality of
a marriage in which concealment has been at-
tempted will depend upon the conclusions of the
judge respecting the relative social position of the
parties, the extent to which each was guilty of
bringing the event to pass, and the degree in
which a purpose of concealment was the motive of
the inaccuraey. But it is obvious that such a
system makes the validity of a marriage in the
highest degree uncertain. What one judge thinks
objectionable another may think laudable. Sir
James WILDE lays down the principle that, if
there is a difference of social position be-
tween the man and the woman, it is
an impurtant element in the decision. But
another judge of more levelling tendencies
might declare that he would take no count of
such external inequalities. :Nay, it would be a
curious subject of inquiry how far Sir J. WILDE
would carry out his own principle. He declared
a marriage with a nursery maid to be null. If the
woman had been a nursery governess would it
have been good ? If she had been a lady's com-
panion would it have been good or null ? How
far is education to be considered, and what accom-
plishments are to be reckoned as an equivalent to
inequality of birth ? Or is birth to be taken into
account, and how far may good blood atone for
humble station ? These are questions on which
the schoolmen might have debated with gusto for
generations. But it is unfortunate to find theta
introduced as motives of decision in an English
court of law, and on a topic of the unspeakable
importance of marriage.

We must indeed take leave to say that the state
of the law is utterly barbarous when it makes the
validity of a marriage depend on the omission or
addition of a superfluous name, on the spelling of a
foreign name, on the circumstance whether publica-
tion is made by banns or dispensed with by license,
on the purpose of concealment with which any