The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-30 00:00:00

and at the enclosure got his !lead in front, and won in a
canter by two lengths; a bad third.
A Handicap Plate of 100 sous, for 3-yr-olds and upwards.
Craven Course. _ _

Mr. York's The Principal, 4 yrs, let 131 b (G. Fordham) 1
Lord Uxbridge's Microscope, 3 yrs, Est 71b (car. Est 81b)
(T. French) 2
Mr. Savile's Buckenham, 4 yrs, Bst 101 b ....(J. Goater) 3
Black Prince and Kingswood also ran.
Betting--5 to 4on Buckenham, sto 2 agst Kingswood
6 to 1 agst Black Prince, and 10 to 1 agst the Principal.
Immediately the flag was lowered Kingwood rushed to
the front, and came on with a commanding lead, followed
by The Principal, the favourite, Microscope, at whose girths
was Black Prince. On reaching the turn into the straight,
the former bolted towards the T.Y.C. starting post, leaving
The Principal in command, who was joined at the distance
t,y Buekenham, the latter in a few strides having a slight
lead, which he retained to the enclosure, when Fordham, in
company ci h Microscope, headed him, and finished a fine
race home ; The Principal winning rather cl_verly at last
by a length, twice that aistance separating the second and
third, bad fourth.

The St, Briavers Re• Marriage Case.

In 1855, the Rev. A. Lush, curate of Greywell, Hants,
prevailed upon a couple, who had been married at an Inde-
pendent chapel fourteen months before, to be re-married by
him ; the parties being described in the banns, and in the
register, as a bachelor and a spinster respectively.
For this offence against the law he was committed for
trial at the Winchester assizes ; but, in th• interim he
thought it proper to confess his error, and the prosecution
was abandoned. I❑ his apology, he acknowledged the
validity of marriages performed either in dissenting chapels
or before Superintendant Registrars, and also that they
were " binding in the sight of the Church."
Another clergyman, who has either forgotten these facts,
or who is determined to brave the penalties of the law, has,

it would seem, just committed a similar offence.
On the 21st of June, a young couple were married at the
Independent chapel, Monmouth, the man being an Episco-
palian, and the woman a Baptist. Eight day after, the
vicar of St. Briavel's, Coleford, the Rev. R. Walmesley,
re-married them ; describing the man in the register as a
bachelor, and the woman as a spinster, and entering the
woman's maidea name.
The Government having been questioned by Sir Morton
Peto, whether they intended to prosecute the offender under
the 4th of Geo. IV. a. 76, s. 29, Mr. Bruce, the Under Se-
cretary of State, has replied that--
" He did not think that the conduot of the vicar in ques-
tion was such as to make him liable to prosecution for
telony under the Act 4 George IV. c. 76. Either the first
marriage was valid or it was not. If it was valid, then all
that ws.s done was superfluous, and could not be the subject
of prosecution. If the first marriage was invalid, then
everything was properly done. It was clear the conduct of
the vicar was not aiL offence against the law. It might be
an offence against good taste and good feeling, and as such
to be condemned."
In this answer Mr. Bruce has either avoided the question
put to him—which was, whether Mr, Walmesley would be
prosecuted for the false entries made in the register—or he
is wrong in his view of the law. For Mr. Walmesley has
clearly violated the 29th section of the act referred to,
which adjudges any one to be guilty of felony who know-
ingly makes a false entry in a parish register; seeing that
he has registered the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Hulin as
that of a bachelor and spinster, he at the time knowing that
they wire legally man and wife.
He cannot even shelter himself behind the provision of an
act of Parliament passed since the occurrence of the Grey-
well case, and passed for the purpose of meeting the views
of High Church clergymen, who are shocked at the idea of
contracting a marriage without any religious service. For
the 12th section of the Marriage Act passed on the 29th of
July, 1856, provides, that if the parties to any marriage
contracted at a registry office shall desire to add the reli-
gious ceremony of the body to which they belong, they may
present themselves to a minister of that body for the pur-
pose. But it is expressly provided, that the Superinten-
dent Registrar's certificate of marriage must be produced,
and " nothing in the reading or celebration of suoh service
shall be held to supersede or invalidate any marriage so pre-
viously conlracted, nor shall such reading or celebration be
enterd as a marriage among the marriages in the parish