on the contrary, there are canons which show that no such prohibitory law existed in the Church previously to the table of Archbishop Parker's, which table is acknowledged in the canons of 1603; but those canons are not held binding on the laity.

Wightman, J.-Not proprio vigore. I do not think you need to trouble yourself by referring to former canons, because the question will turn upon this. It is said this canon does not bind proprio vigore; but the question is, whether these are the prohibited degrees to which the statute 5 and 6 William IV. refers?

Mr. Foster. If the laity are only bound by the statute law, I submit there is no statute referring to this subject save the 32nd Henry VIII., chap. 38. That statute is now in force and valid. Unless this marriage be within the statute 32nd Henry VIII., and be declared voidable by that statute, it is not rendered void by the statute of William IV. The 32nd Henry VIII. says, that all marriages which be not within the Levitical degrees shall be lawful; and no marriage without them shall be concluded to be contrary to God's law. I will now draw your lordship's attention to the statute the 1st Mary, session 2, chap. 1. That statute is not alluded to in the decision in " Hill v. Good," which is the only decision of a court of law adverse to my argument on this question. shall submit to your lordship, that the decision in that case was founded in mistake. It was founded partly upon the statute law, and partly upon the canon law. The canon law, proprio vigore, is not binding upon the laity; and the statute 1st Mary, session 2, chap. 1, was mentioned neither in the arguments nor in the judgment in "Hill v.

I

Good." This statute, 1st Mary, expressly declares the marriage in question, by implication, to be a valid marriage. The decision in "Hill v. Good was, therefore, founded on mistake, and your lordship is not bound by it. The 1st Mary was passed for the purpose of rendering legitimate Queen Mary, upon her accession to the throne. It terms the marriage of Henry VIII. and Queen Catherine of Arragon "a lawful marriage." That marriage, your lordship remembers, was a marriage with a deceased brother's widow - the marriage forbidden in the Levitical degrees, and the marriage upon. which, by implication, depends the prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. If, therefore, there is a valid statute in force and existing, declaring a marriage with a deceased brother's widow binding; if your lordship finds that the Queen sat upon the throne under that statute, and that under it laws were made which now affect our properties; I apprehend your lordship will hold that legislative declaration of what are the prohibited degrees to be valid. This statute takes marriages with a deceased brother's widow out of the prohibited degree, and upon that, as I have said, depends, by implication, the present case.

Wightman, J.-It raises this inference, that but for this statute the marriage would be bad. The act was passed to make it good. Mr. Foster. True, my lord, but

it

Wightman, J.-It is a strong circumstance.

Mr. Foster proceeded to read passages from this act, some of which were very curious; and, in continuation of his argument, he referred the learned Judge to the case of "Hill v. Harris," reported

in Selkeld, and referred to in Burn's Ecclesiastical Law," p. 501, in which the court of law prohibited the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court from taking effect, except as to the assumed incest.

The Court again interrupted the argument of counsel, doubting the propriety of entertaining a question of such a nature in a trial of this kind.

Mr. Monk begged to say, that he did not assent to the proposition of his learned friend as to the repeal of the statute 25 Henry VIII. He submitted, confidently, that statute was still in existence; and, that statute being in existence, there was a legislative exposition of what were the prohibited degrees of the Levitical law. If the 25th Henry VIII. were repealed by the 32nd Henry VIII., the 32nd Henry VIII. was repealed in its turn; and the repeal of that immediately worked a re-enacting of the 25th Henry VIII. It was, therefore, revived. But, assuming it was not revived, there was in the 28th Henry VIII. that which his learned friend had not stated—a re-enacting and a restatement of the prohibited degrees which were previously contained in the 25th IIenry VIII.; so that, for the purpose of his lordship's decision now, it was wholly immaterial whether the 25th Henry VIII. were repealed or not.

Mr. Justice Wightman (stopping Mr. Monk) then retired and consulted Mr. Baron Rolfe. On his return

The following special verdict was then taken and recorded: "The Jurors, &c., do say, that on the 14th of September, A. D. 1845, the said James Chadwick was married to one Anne Fisher, spinster, at the collegiate and parish church in the parish of Manchester, in the county of Lancaster, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Established Church; and that afterwards, that is to say, on the 23rd of March, A. D. 1846, the said James Chadwick was married, at St. John's Church, in the parish of Manchester, in the county of Lancaster, to one Eliza Bostock, spinster, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Established Church, she, the said Anne Fisher, then being still alive. And the Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath, do further say, that the said Anu Fisher, to whom the said James Chadwick was so married, as aforesaid, on the 14th of September, 1845, was the lawful sister of one Hannah Fisher, to whom the said James Chadwick had been lawfully married on the 27th of June, 1825, and which said Hannah Fisher departed this life before the said time when the said James Chadwick was married to the said Ann Fisher as aforesaid; but whether or not, upon the whole matter, so as aforesaid, by the Jurors aforesaid, in form aforesaid found, the said James Chadwick is guilty of the felony and bigamy within specified, the Jurors aforesaid are altogether ignorant, and therefore they pray the advice of the Court of our said Lady the Queen, &c."

Mr. Monk prayed the Court to order the prisoner to be discharged. The prisoner bore a good character, and had taken some precautions previous to his marriage with Ann Fisher. Having heard some doubts expressed as to the legality of that marriage, he waited upon a clergyman, to whom he stated his doubts, and from that gentleman he obtained a statement most positively asserting that the marriage was utterly null and void. He therefore contracted a subsequent marriage, under the impression that he could not longer remain with Ann Fisher. He therefore separated from her, and voluntarily appeared in court to abide the issue of this trial.

Wightman, J. ordered the special verdict, and the judgment of the Court, quod eat sine die, to be recorded.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
February 15.

(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.) BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. MARY ELIZABETH SMITH . WASH

INGTON, EARL FERRERS.

This remarkable case, as extraordinary as any that has ever come before a legal tribunal, occupied the Court four days. It is impossible to give more than its outline, and such a sketch will convey a very faint idea of the romantic inventions by which the plaintiff, the step-daughter of a gentleman of moderate circumstances, sought to establish her moral claim to the hand and dignities of the possessor of one of the oldest peerages in England; nor of the minute and circumstantial discrepancies by which the imposition was detected.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. M.

Chambers, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Symons, conducted the case of the plaintiff; and the Attorney-General, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Humfrey, and Mr. Barstow, that of the defendant.

From the opening of the pleadings it appeared that the plaintiff was Miss Mary Elizabeth Smith, and the defendant was Washington, Earl Ferrers. The action was brought to recover compensation in damages for a breach of promise of marriage, and it was alleged that since the promise the defendant had married one Isabella Chichester. To this the defendant had pleaded that he had not made any such promise, and that, if he had, he was under age at the time he had made it. The plaintiff replied to this plea that the promise had been renewed since the defendant had come of age.

The Solicitor-General, said it was hardly necessary to tell the jury that the case involved all that was dear in life to the plaintiff: it was a case to her of the deepest interest and importance; and he was sure that, when he asked for their most anxious attention to the details he should place before them, he should not make such solicitation in vain. The plaintiff, Miss Mary Elizabeth Smith, was a young lady who had at this time only just attained her 21st year, though it was at the early age of 16 or 17 that she had first become acquainted with the defendant. Earl Ferrers was а nobleman of very ancient family, having vast landed possessions in the counties of Leicester and Stafford. He was himself young, having only attained 21 early in the year 1843. His grandfather had died in October 1842. The father of the present earl never became a peer, as he died many years before

rers.

his father, who was the grandfather of the defendant. This young man, before the death of his grandfather, was placed under the care of a gentleman in Warwickshire, and he continued under his care, prosecuting his studies, till 1840, when he went abroad, and remained there till 1842. Miss Smith, the young lady who appeared as plaintiff in this case, was the step-daughter of Mr. Smith, who resided at Austrey, in Warwickshire; he was a gentleman of high character and respectability; he had married the mother of the plaintiff, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the plaintiff resided at Austrey during the whole time that the defendant, as Lord Tamworth, and afterwards Earl Ferrers, lived in that neighbourhood. As long ago as 1839, this young lady had attracted the attention of Lord FerThey occasionally spoke to each other, and this kind of occasional conversation continued till the time that Earl Ferrers went abroad. Miss Smith was a young lady of great personal attractions, and she engaged the affections of Earl Ferrers, who had made to her the most unequivocal promises of marriage. A young woman so much inferior in life had, perhaps, too readily lent herself to his attentions, and she had become most sincerely attached to him. This attachment, which he would hope was sincere on both sides, commenced before the defendant went abroad, and he prevailed upon her to pledge to him her inviolable affection. This sort of intercourse between these two young people, after it had existed for some time, reached the ears of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who spoke to their daughter upon the subject. They felt that the attentions of one so much

above their daughter in rank and station was to be looked upon with some suspicion. They dreaded what had since happened, and were desirous of preventing the continuance of an attachment which they feared might terminate in an unhappy manner, and they therefore sent her to London, and afterwards to France, to finish her education. Earl Ferrers returned to this country in 1842, and from that time a correspondence continued between them, and the marriage was fixed to take place on a certain day, and the defendant had sought every opportunity of continuing to bind the affections of Miss Smith, which he had already gained. He lived at some distance from Austrey, but he frequently went over there, and he continued to give Miss Smith every assurance of his attachment, and in the early part of 1844 it was agreed that the union should take place in the month of May, but it was afterwards postponed till July or August. Every preparation made, the dresses were prepared, the bridecake was ordered, and everything was done that was usual on such occasions, and it was only at the end of July that this unhappy young lady was apprised of the fact that the defendant could not marry her, by reading in the newspapers the marriage of Earl Ferrers to Miss Chichester. From the correspondence they would be able to appreciate her feelings, and would sympathize with this young lady, whose hopes were for ever blasted by the conduct of the defendant. With regard to any communications that had taken place prior to 1843, he was unable to produce the letters. The defendant was in the habit of writing upon scraps of paper, and

was

99.66

sometimes in a hand scarcely legible and the letters were much crossed; they would find the letters he should put in evidence were of this character. The learned gentleman then read a series of letters signed "Washington Ferrers,' W. Ferrers," "Ferrers," and addressed to Miss Smith: they commenced "Dearest Mary," "My own Love," " Mary, dearest and ever beloved,' 'Mary, my own that is to be." It is impossible to convey by description any idea of these letters-they breathed the most devoted, the most romantic affection, and were filled with the kindest solicitude, and ardent anticipations of future happiness-they, moreover, contained allusions to the domestic circumstances of Earl Ferrers's family the kindness of his cousin Evelyn, the ill health of his sister, his shame and repentance at having lost 3,000l. at play, his love of his brother Devereux-they drew a picture of a young man of high family and great fortune, of considerable powers of mind, looking forward with all the ardour of youth to his union with the object of all his thoughts and wishes.

The Solicitor-General proceeded: There had been an allusion to Earl Ferrers having lost 3,000l., and he had mentioned that the young lady was not dressed as suited his taste; but as he stated he was rather in want of money, he desired her to purchase some articles, and to consider them as presents from him. She had accordingly done so, and expected that he would furnish her with the money to pay for them. The money, however, was not forthcoming. Unhappily, from a sense of shame, she did not like to tell her parents that her wealthy lover had not money at the moment to

pay for the articles which she was wearing. Some persons, from whom she had purchased goods to the amount of 100l., pressed for payment. She had written to Earl Ferrers, and he had desired her to calm her fears as to the bills, as he would come down and settle them. He, however, did not come down, and the result was that she was tormented by persons who had claims against her. At length, however, she was compelled to tell the whole truth to her father, and to say I have bought a number of things; they are presents from Lord Ferrers, and he is to furnish the money. Her father was extremely angry when he found that, instead of coming forward properly, as a nobleman ought, he had neglected to send the money. The defendant was therefore written to, and he had sent this answer.

Earl Ferrers did not send the money, and, the people being pressing in their demands, the money was obliged to be borrowed to pay their bills. He would now state something connected with these bills, which he could not look upon but with great regret, but it would ill become Earl Ferrers, who had led her into the scrape, to make it a matter of reproach against her. It turned out that a Mrs. Wyman had supplied Miss Smith with a bonnet, which had not been included in the list of bills