APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 
there was no divine service per- 
formedin the church. It could 
not be the intention of the law, 
that persons in this parish should 
not be married whilst the church 
was under repair ; and they could 
not be married any where they 
pleased, the act specifying the 
particular places. What, then, 
was tobe dene? The Court was 
of opinion just what had been 
done ; for it was provided by the 
act that the bans, as to extra- 
parochial places, should be pub- 
lished in the church or chapei ad- 
joining to them; and under the 
particular situation of the church 
at this time, St. Mary, Newing- 
ton, was to be considered as an 
extra-parochial place, and St, 
George’s church in consequence 
the proper place for publishing 
its bans. The publication in ques- 
tion was, therefore, a publication 
in Newington to all intents and 
purposes, and not in St. George’s, 
It was so intended to be ; it was 
entered in the bans’-book of St. 
Mary, Newington, signed as such, 
and an entry made explanatory of 
the cause of the publication being 
in St. George’s church. The par- 
ties throughout held it as a pub- 
lication of bans in Newington, 
and the Court held it assuch. If 
so, then Newington church be- 
came the proper place for the ce- 
lebration of the marriage, for 
which it was not in an unfit state, 
though it was for the publication 
of bans, and the extra-parochial- 
ity (if the term might be allowed ) 
did not extend beyond the publi- 
cation. Under these circumstances, 
he was clearly of opinion that the 
marriage was not invalid, that 
neither the spirit nor the letter of 
the law had been violated; that 
the act had, in fact, provided 
283 
for such a case as the present; 
and that the publication of bans 
was sufficient, as, though done at 
St George’s, it was to be consi- 
dered as done at Newington.— 
Looking to the consequences that 
would result from an opposite 
construction of the law, they con- 
firmed him in this opinion, though 
they were not the grounds of it, 
He therefore rejected the libel, 
and dismissed the party cited from 
the suit. 
The Right Hon. the Earl of 
Roseberry v.the Countess of Itose- 
berry. This was a proceeding for a 
divorce, onthe groundof adultery, 
committed by the Countess of 
Roseberry, with Sir Henry St. 
John Mildmay, Bart. 
On the 20th of May, 1808, 
Lord Roseberry (then Viscount 
Primrose) was married to Har- 
riett, his present Countess, a 
daughter of the Hon. Mr. Bouve- 
rie. In 1809, Sir Henry Mild; 
may married the elder sister of 
Lady Roseberry ; and his younger 
brother, Mr. Paulet Mildmay, sub- 
sequently married another sister. 
This family connection necessa- 
rily produced a great intimacy be- 
tween Sir Henry Mildmay aad 
Lord Roseberry’s family ; and on 
the death of lady Mildmay, in 
1810, he remained with them for 
some time, daily receiving from 
them those affectionate attentions 
best calculated to alleviate his 
grief for the loss he had sustained. 
They had the desired effect; and 
Sir Henry returnedto society from 
a retirement which has unhappily 
since proved a source of the great- 
est unhappiness to this noble fa- 
mily. Lord and lady Roseberry 
were then living in the most un- 
interrupted state of damestic haps 
