unwilling to interfere in marriages, where either party was of the Established Church; and in the case now before the Court, an application was actually made to the clergyman of the parish, to perform the ceremony before the Presbyterian Minister consented to officiate.

The Attorney-General then referred to the following M.S.S. reports of four trials for bigamy :

Enniskillen where

The King v. H. Marshall, tried at Spring Assizes, 1828, cor. M'Cleland, B., the first marriage was by a Presbyterian clergyman, the prisoner being a member of the Established Church. Doherty, for the prisoner, objected that under the 32 Geo. III. c. 21, dissenting ministers and others therein named are allowed to marry on publication of banns only. M'Cleland, B.-Those regulations go to the ecclesiastical discipline. If the clergy err against the Statute, the Bishop or the Synod censures them; but the marriage is good; and I have great doubts whether under the law of Ireland it is at all requisite that the marriage should be celebrated by a person in holy orders. If it be contracted by words de præsenti in the presence of any third person it will be sufficient. The prisoner was convicted.

The King v. Wilson, tried at Armagh Summer Assizes, 1828, cor. Torrens, J. The first marriage was unquestioned. The second was celebrated by a Presbyterian clergyman, the prisoner being a member of the Established Church, and the woman a Presbyterian. Torrens, J., put it to the counsel for the Crown to shew that the second marriage was valid under the subsisting law of marriage. He referred to Lathropp's case, where, according to his recollection, Dr. Black, who proved the second marriage,

Р

gave some evidence that the prisoner, as well as the lady, had occasionally frequented his meeting-house(a).

Doherty, for the prisoner, referred to the statute, as in the former case; but Torrens, J., did not consider that banns were necessary.

The officiating Presbyterian clergyman was examined. He said it was considered in his Church that if the woman was of their communion they had a right to celebrate the marriage. The prisoner was convicted.

The Queen v. Halliday, tried at Donegal Spring Assizes, 1838, cor. Pennefather, B. The prisoner was indicted for bigamy. A Presbyterian minister was produced on the part of the Crown to prove the celebration of the first marriage by himself. The prisoner was a member of the Established Church, the woman a Presbyterian.

(a) The following account is given of this case in Hans. Parl. Deb. 30 vol. p. 464:—

1815, April 10th.

On this day Sir S. Romilly presented a petition to the House of Commons from Captain Lathropp, (who appears at this date to have taken the name of Murray,) complaining of the illegality of his conviction, on the ground that his first marriage was void, he having been then a member of the Established Church, and married to a Presbyterian, by a person named Robert Black, a dissenting preacher, who had never been ordained; that he had been entrapped into the marriage; that the lady was twice his age; that no banns had been published or license obtained; the marriage celebrated in a private room in the house of the lady's family. Sir S. Romilly stated that Dr. Black in his evidence had stated that he had seen Mr. Lathropp Murray but once at a dissenting congregation.

The Solicitor-General (Sir S. Sheppard) said that in his opinion and that of his learned friend, the Attorney-General, after having examined every Act of Parliament in Ireland respecting the validity of the marriage ceremony, the first marriage of the petitioner (Murray) was a legal one. That certain very eminent civilians in Ireland had been consulted several years before respecting that marriage, all of whom declared it was a legal marriage, and that no Ecclesiastical Court in Ireland would venture to set it aside; and that he had no doubt as to the legality of the conviction.

Macklyn, on behalf of the prisoner, contended that such a marriage was invalid; but Pennefather, B., said he considered such a marriage in Ireland to be perfectly good, and directed the jury accordingly. The prisoner was acquitted, but the reason appears to have been that the witnesses to one marriage did not sufficiently identify him.

The Queen v. Robinson, tried at Cavan Spring Assizes, cor. Foster, B. The prisoner was indicted for bigamy. It was proved for the Crown that the prisoner and both wives were Protestants; that the first marriage was solemnised by a Seceding clergyman; that the prisoner cohabited with his first wife, who was then living; that the second marriage was solemnised by a person who had been duly ordained by the Synod of Ulster, and had a congregation, but was removed from it, and ceased to be a member of the Presbyterian Church before this marriage. This person swore he performed the ceremony according to the form prescribed by the Presbyterian Church, but could not say whether by the discipline of that Church the orders continue after the congregation is taken away. He proved the form of marriage used on this and similar occasionsviz., after a lecture, each party holds up his or her hand, and makes a solemn declaration of fidelity, &c., adjuring God. Cohabitation with the second wife was proved.

Doherty, for the prisoner, submitted there was not legal evidence of the second marriage, the person who performed the ceremony not being qualified, inasmuch as he had withdrawn from the Presbyterian congregation and Synod, and should therefore be considered as a layman.

Schoales, for the Crown, contended that even if the ceremony were performed by a layman that it would be valid, and cited the King v. Marshall.

At the desire of the Court an old and respectable minister of the Presbyterian Church and Synod of Ulster was examined, and proved the mode of ordination: that after

P 2

going through certain forms the candidate becomes a licentiate; that he preaches before the presbytery; then, if approved, is ordained by imposition of hands; then he may marry. The witness further swore:-" If degraded, "he is no longer under our jurisdiction. I cannot say "whether or not a marriage by a degraded clergyman is "valid, but I am of opinion the functions of such a person cease. I think that a person who resigns his charge of a congregation before sentence passed on him is capable "of performing the marriage ceremony, and that such a "marriage should be looked upon as good."

66

66

Foster, B., after conferring with Baron Pennefather, held that the marriage in question was good. The prisoner was found guilty.

Sir Thomas Staples refers to R. v. M'Laughlin, 1 Cr. & Dix. C.C. 170.

CUR. ADV. VULT.

The Lord Chief Justice having been absent from Court during Easter Term, and having had no opportunity of hearing the arguments in the foregoing case, it was determined that for the purpose of obtaining his Lordships' opinion upon the questions involved in it, the points should be reargued upon a similar case tried at the Armagh Spring Assizes, 1842, before Crampton J., where the jury under his Lordships direction had also found a special verdict. Accordingly the case came on for hearing in Trinity Term. The special verdict was as follows:

66

The Queen against James Carroll.

"The jurors upon their oaths say that on the 6th of May, "1841, the Rev. Joseph Kelso, performed a marriage ceremony, according to the form of the Presbyterian "Church at his house near Lisburn, between the said James "Carroll and Sarah Robinson, and that they were seen "next morning both sitting on the bed side, and that both "the said James Carroll, and Sarah Robinson, were mem"bers of the Church of England, and that the said Sarah "Robinson, is now alive."

"And the jurors aforesaid upon their Oaths aforesaid "further say that the Rev. Joseph Kelso, was a Presbyterian "Minister; that in the year 1809, he had been ordained "to the Maharageel Congregation, and gave it up about "ten years ago, and that for twenty years he had acted as "Minister of the said congregation; that he did not consider "himself by resigning his charge as having ceased to be a "Presbyterian Minister; that he is now a Presbyterian