The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-23 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, SATURDAY MORNING.
THE IRISH VICEROYALTY.
The worshippers of an Irish. Court were cast
down last week into the very depths of despair by
the prevalence of a rumour to the effect that the
abolition of the Viceroyalty
was likely ere long to
form the subject of Cabinet contemplation.
for the alarmed, the occasion of the Lord Mayor's
inaugural banquet furnished an opportunity of dis-
perstug the cloud which lowered over the viceregal
horizon, and Cork-hill and the Castle again look
bright and cheerful. Lord Carlisle himself was the
herald of the gladsome tidings that the reported
dissolution of the Court was without any solid
basis. Here are his ipsissinva mixt :
"There is (said his Excellency) one other motive
Slightly more personal to myself which causes me eagerly
to appreciate the kindness with which you have received
me this evening, for I perceive that there are quarters
from which I, in common, indeed, with all the future
Lords-Lieutenant of Ireland, have been threatened with
a deposition from my present viceregal seat. I certainly
have received no official intimation on that subject.
(Rear, hear, and cheers.) Oar gracious Sovereign has
not made me privy to any intention of depriving me of
that delsgated authority which I so untvorthily wield in
her name=(cries- of *so,- no)—and I—cannot' pretend
to say that I read my doom in the countenances or de-
meanour of the Irish people—(loud cheers)—or even-:in
that of this brilliant assembly ; and therefore we will
only conclude that the question, in Parliamentary par-
lance, has been indefinitely adjourned." (Cheers and
laughter.)
EXTRAORDINARY MARRIAGE CASE.

The remarkable case of "Bcatria7.—Beamish,"
involving the question "Can a clergyman marry
himself?" was called on for judgment yesterday
before 11 of the 12 judges sitting in error. Baron
Pennefather was absent. Subjoined is an outline
of the matter at issuo

" The appeal proceedings were instituted by the de-
fendant to set aside the unanimous decision of the
Court below (consisting of Judges Crampton, Perrin,
and Moore), by which a marriage solemnised under
such circumstances was held to be valid in law. It ap-
peared that this case came before the Court below upon
a special verdict finding that the plaintiff, Albert S.
Beamish, a minor, brought an ejectment upon tne title
to recover certain lands in the county of Cork, of
considerable value, which he &aimed to be entitled to as
grandson and heir-at-law of the late Dr. John S. Beamish,
of Cork. The defendant denied the legitimacy of the
plaintiff, and also claimed as heir-at-law of Dr. Beamish,
his father. The special verdict stated that the late Dr.
John S. Beamish was in his lifetime seised of considerable
estates in fee simple, and died so seised on the 16th Dec.,
1852 ; that he had several sons, and that the eldest was
the Rev. Samuel S. Beamish, the defendant being that
rev. gentleman's next brother. The Rev. Mr. Beamish
was duly ordained a clergyman of the united churches of
England and Ireland, and it appeared that on the 27th
Nov., 1831, being then in holy orders, he went to the
house of a milliner named Anne Lyons, in the city of
Cork, and there performed a ceremony of marriage be-
tween himself and a young woman named Isabella Frazer,
the mother of the minor plaintiff. The special verdict
then set out the manner in which the ceremony of mar
riage took place, and alleged that the general form for
the solemnisation of that ceremony prescribed by the
Book of Common Prayer of the united churches of Eng-
land and Ireland was used, the Rev. Mr. Beamish de-
claring that he took the sail Isabella Frazer to be his
wedded wife, and she declaring that she took him to be
her wedded husband. It further appeared that a wedding-
ring was paced upon the finger of Isabella Frazer by
the Rev. Mr. Beamish, and the usual blessing pronounced;
that after the ceremony the marriage was consutumCed
between the contracting parties. No clergyman was pre-
sent at the performance of the ceremony except the Rev.
Mr. Beamish himself, nor was there, in fact, any one
present as a formal witness in the room where this cere-
mony took place ; but, as the special verdict alleged, the
performance of the ceremony was witnessed by a woman
named Catherine Coffey, who, without the knowledge
of the contracting parties, and solely from curiosity,
saw it going on through a window from an adjoining
back yard, but did not hear what was said by either party.
Isabella Frazer was admittedly a member of the Church
of England. It farther appeared that the Rev. Mr. Bea-
mish, who thus celebrated this marriage between himself
and Isabella Frazer, died intestate on the Bth of April,
1844 ; and that the minor plaintiff was his eldst son,
and the iimie of that marriage, born on the 4th of Jan.,
1841. Upon the foregoing very peculiar state of facts,
the questions raised were—let. Had there been at the
ceremony in question words of present contract by which
the Rev. S. S. Beamish and Isabella Frazer engaged to
become husband and wife? 2d. Had there been a marriage
ceremony performed according to the forms prescribed
by the Book of Common Prayer ? SI. Was the mar-
riage so solemnised consummated between the parties ?
4th. What was the effect of the marriage ceremony,
there being no other clergyman present ? And, lastly,
rr
whether, although there was no witness regularly pre-
sent, the facts stated in reference to Catherine Coffey
constituted her a witness ? As previously stated, the
Court of Queen's Bench (in the absence of the Lord
Chief Justice from indisposition),
after a very full argu-
ment of the case, held that a valid, although an irregu-
lar and clandestine, marriage had been solemnised be-
tween the parties upon the authority of the caso of
Maxwell v. Maxwell,' and various otber cases decided
both in England and Ireland. -Upon the argument in
the court below it was contended, on the part of the de-
fendant, that no Court should uphold such a marriage,
and that if marriages in the absence of witnesses were
to be upheld as legal great injury to the public would
arise ; while, on the part of the minor, it was argued
that it would be a gross injustice to him to set aside the
marriage and thereby pronounce him ill.gitimate, and
deprive him of a large property to
which he would other-
wise be entitled, as the eldest eon of his father.
"As the judges differed in opinion, they necessarily
pronounced separate judgments, Mr. Justice Keogh (the
judge) commencing, as usual in such cases."
Judge Keogh, Baron Greene, Judge Jackson,
and J udge Ball gave judgment against the mar-
riage. Baron Richards, Judge Perrin, Judge
Moore, and Judge Crampton were in favour of sus-
taining the judgment of the Court below. The
Court then adjourned to this morning, when the
Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron will de-
liver their opinions. It is rumoured that two of
their Lordships are for confirming the judgment of
the Court below, and one against it. Should this
be the case there will be six judges in favour of the
marriage and five against it, EC, that the decision of
the Court of Queen's Bench will be confirmed by a
majority of ono,