The National Register.
London, England, 1822-09-01 00:00:00

T!IR NEW MARIMICE ACT.

;ff

The following is a legal opinion of Dr. Phillimore
upon certain queries bubanittcd to him connected
with this act
I will endeavour to answer the several 'criterions in the order
in which they are put; and to prevent any misapprehension, I
will prefix to each answer my understanding of the purport of
the question.
First, Whether, in ca• es where the publication of bans has
been completed before the Ist of September, but the marriage
has not taken place, the bans must be repubffhtd ?
•• To this I should reply, that I see no necessity for any such
republication. The new law, as far as affects niarriages by
bans, has no effect or operation whatsoever till the tat of Sep. •
tember ; in the case put, therefore, antecedently to that day, the
publication will have been completed weeding to the strictest
provisions of the existint: law; and on proof of their having been
63 completed, the clergyman, I apprehend, will be fully justified
in the performance of the ceremony. Cunstquently, I am of
opinion that a clergyman may surely proceed- to tile solemniza-
tion of matrimony in all cases where the bans have been published-
in exact conformity with the law actually in force on the three
Sundays preceding the Ist of September.
"secondly, ‘vhetlicr, in cases where the publication of bans
has taken place on two Sundays previous to the :It &September.
the clergyman may proceed with the bans. and conclude them
on that day ?
•• Perhaps there is rather more difficulty in answering this
than the former quest on, because, from the abserce of any pre-
cise provision as to this point in the statute, the eergyniaa, to a-
certain exte.it, is called upon to exercise more discretion m one
instance than in the othsr; bur in my judgment he will exercise
that discretion most sousdto, if lie gives effect and validity to all
the publictitions of bans s hich have taken place in conturmity'
with the law as it subsisted on the three several Sundays on
which they were matte. Every such publication must, I think,
be considered as legally made. The two firstipublicahons, there.
fore, would be pro Moto good: but the third, not being made on
the day on which the operation of the new act commences, must
not he proceeded upon till the fa:visite. enjoined by that act
shall have been complied with.
•• I am aware that, technically speaking, all the requisites
cannot by such a course of proceeding have been observed. The
names, for instance, cannot have been *Axed for three Sundays"-
to the church door ; but in cases of this description, in acting
upon the law, we must put a rational construction on it, and ap-
proach. as nearly as we can, ni an adequate execution of it.
•• It may be satafactory, also, both with respect to this and the
precaling question, to observe, that the validity of any marriage
solemnized under such circumstances can never b.., impugned, or
called in question, on either of these grounds, inasmuch as ibe
loth section precludes all inquiry a► to the sufficiency of these
Rims after the annual solemnisation of any marriage.
•• Thirdly, Whether, as the living is within a peculiar jails- -
diction, marriages can still be perform -s1 their by license?
•• I certainly understand the 14th section of the new act, by
restricting the power of granting licenses to 'Archbishops
and Bishops, virtually to have excluded peculiar and exempt
ju isdiction, from issuing such instruments; but the act goes
no further: therefore, I presume, that, in steam parish,
as in all other parishes situated within a peculiar juris-
diction, there can be no doubt but that a license trom the Arch-
bishop &Canterbury mast dispense with the publication of bans.
In the meantiine, it is extremely advisable that any persons who.
since the pa. sing of the act, may hare been married by a •
license, trout the peculiar jurisdiction, should forthwith be re.
married, either by bans or under a license granted by competent •
authority.
•• Finally, In giving this opinion, I beg to explain that I
know uothitig (as seems to be insinuated M the statement of thew
ca,es of the intention of the fremers of any one of the provisions
to which my attention has been directed. The enterpretation I
have pat upon them, arises sanely ifolll the best consideration I
have been able to apply to the statute, and to the general bearing
of the martiage law in this part of the United Kingdom.
••JOSEPH PHILLIMORE.
" Doctors Commons, August, lbZ2.

Opinion of the King's Advocate, Sir Christopher Robinson,
upon the above Act.
Refening to the late Act, Si) Oeorge IV. cap. 75, sec. 16,
and the former Marriage Act, the opinion of their:lmes Advo-
cate is requested, on the following questions honer any
Marriage or Marne. •es, from and after the Ist September neat
ensuing, can be valid, or Minister or Ministers solemnizing the
same, be in legal exercise of his or limit duty, of which Mar-
riage er Marriages all the three publication, of barn , ur two
or one of such publications, which have taken place conform-
ably troll the before »motioned Art of hi* Majesty King George
the Second, " For preventing Clandestine Marriages," pre-
rion>ly to the lst of September .
" Doctors' Commons, Aug. 27, 1822.
" The Clauses of the late Marriage Act, (a. lb. 22.) relat-
ing to bens, containing nothing coutrary to the former Act, our
substantially differing then:hum.
" The names, abode, and age of the parties are required to
be stated in affidavit, and the names and abode are to he aillsed
to the church dour „and remain there during the three Strudel*
on w.idt the bans shall be published ; that is, hsfutere cases
(as I understand ), before legally foisting, shich are not
annulled by any terms in the Act, nut by necessary implication
tin ref rout.

Tar 19th Clause declares, that after the soletunizatioa of
any marriage under a puithentiou by bans, suott marriage shall'
out be avutded for want of, or by reason of Any defect in, any
such affidavit, or on account of the true name or Dames of ciliate
party, not being axed in it.. publication of such bons as afore-
said: There can be nullity or invalidity, thetefure, Itr
Out of the loran* introduced in the abuse Clauses.

" Considering that those Clauses are to be constroed, in con-
junction with the former art, beneficially for the futturraime of
marriage, and so as not to interrupt the ordinary means of r
tractitig lawful marriage, 1 am of opinion that toms published
under the former act beiore the Ist of Septet:ay:r will ensure
and be valid, solely, if comph ted, or as Le cute may be, is
conjunction with bums daily pail .lied after that day, ll!Vief Off
provisions of the late a:t and that the minister suleninmur
mairriage tberL on, will be in the legal eseitl.ls2 of his duty.
(Signed) " Roura.vrt."

RANDAL AND MARV:V.-411e backers and the.
men met on, W, last at Mr..Tacksou's room&
to stake 501. a side, to fight flu. 5001. a side, Mt
Tuesday, the SJ of December. Some dispute oc-
curred relative to the late tiirteit by Itandal's friend•,
and law proceedings having been institwett to get
back the 2001. forfeit, there wcs some hesitation,
unless Handal could stay such peweedings; but as
it was out of his power, the new match was made.
On Friday' morning a man convicted of stealing aegetablee
from Cureui.garrtert market, underwent the sentence of the
law—to be pablielv fLogited round the market. The Hi4o
Constable of Westininriser attended, with a umber of pease-
officer v, to see the sentence enfurced ; w;:ieh was dorm is 40,
presence tit- an istme ac couccarse of imor/e.

. ... • -

lIIIIINIIII