TKANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 673 



bishop Lanfranc, at a Council held at Winchester, a.d. 1076, ' that no marriage is 

 lield valid, unless by an express statute, without the benediction of a priest in holy 

 orders.' The late eminent and sagacious Premier, Sir Robert Peel, soon corrected 

 this anomaly, aft'ecting the validity of Presbyterian marriages in Ireland, by three 

 statutes immediately enacted by the Legislature : 



(1) 5 & 6 Vict, c, 113. 



(2) G & 7 Vict. c. 39, A.D. 1843. 



(3) 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81, A.D. 1844. 



2. Beamish v. Beamish. 



This was a case of an episcopally ordained clergyman in Ireland, who himself 

 e.xclusivel}' officiated at the marriage of himself to a lady, and consequently such 

 maiTiage was rendered invalid, as the House of Lords decreed that the presence of 

 another person or priest was requisite, according to law, in the case of the clergy 

 as well as the laity, to receive the mutual consent of the contracting parties, 

 and declare them to have become man and wife, these being the essential conditions 

 of legal marriage. 



3. Yelverton v. Yelverton or Long^-orth. 



This case is the greatest blot upon our jurisprudence in modern times. A 

 gentleman in Scotland went through a ceremony with a lady, which the Court of 

 Session declared to be a valid marriage. Subsequently, the same affianced parties 

 went through a ceremony before a Romish priest in Ireland, which, in the opinion 

 of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench, constituted a valid marriage in that kingdom 

 of Ireland. But on an appeal to the House of Lords, by a conflict of legal opinion 

 (Lords Brougham and Westbury holding the parties legally married), the House of 

 Lords decreed both marriage ceremonies (the one in Scotland and the other in Ire- 

 land) to be null and void. 



Such samples of the conflict of marriage laws in the three Idngdoms must be 

 productive of an immense amount of practical hardship, patent injustice, and wanton 

 cruelty. These sad judicial results led to the institution of a Royal Commission to 

 make public inquiry whether the marringe laws could be assimilated. For three 

 years, from 1865 to 1868, the Royal Commissioners pursued their in^'estigations, 

 and examined some very learned persons. At length they made their report, with 

 diAers recommendations. Since that period nothing has been done to remedy the 

 crying grievances inflicted by a conflict of national laws ; and it must be a matter of 

 regret, if not of reproach, that no action has been taken by the responsible advisers of 

 the Crown that the holy estate of matrimony may be rescued from flagrant injustice. 

 The gist of various recommendations contained in the said report of the Commis- 

 sioners invoh'es the following considerations : — 



That the whole of the enactments respecting marriages be consolidated in a 

 single statute ; that all existing statutes and ordinances of the United Kingdom on 

 marriages (involving as a sequitur the repeal of the odious Irish Marriage Act, the 

 19 Geo. II. c. 13, and other penal Acts) should absolutely be repealed. The author 

 of this paper would venture to add, ' all canons relating to marriage resting on the 

 authority of statute law, by the 25 Henry VIII. c. 19 ; ' gi-eat care being observed 

 that by such repeal no canon on marriage expressly or virtually repealed by former 

 legislation be thereby re\'ived. Also, it is recommended that all stamp duties on 

 matrimonial documents be abolished ; and further, that marriage fees, so far as 

 practicable, should no longer be exacted. 



Again, inter alia, it is also recommended that all licences and banns for marriage 

 should be superseded by a statutory declaration, made before an authorised and 

 legally recognised minister of religion, by whom the affianced parties desire their 

 marriage to be recognised ; and that such a minister or official should be empowered 

 legally to receive such a declaration, and to exact its correctness, with the same 

 penalty annexed for falsehood and fraud as that of the penalty for perjury ; also, 

 that the certainty of mamage should be legally rendered unequivocal. But reason- 

 able time and effective means should be supplied to interested parties to prevent 

 clandestine, hasty, and improvident marriages. 



Moreover, parties of matiu'e age, of reputation and of status, well known to the 

 respective minister of religion or civil officer, desiring to facilitate their prospective 



1880. X X 



