tracted in England, as at this day in Scotland, by persons entering into an agreement immediately to become husband and wife; or by an engagement to become husband and wife at a future time, if that promise was followed by consummamation. In 1754, it was enacted by the stat. 26 Geo. 2. c. 33. that marriage should be lawfully solemnised only in a church, after publication of banns, or with a license; but by this act it is provided that it is not to extend to the marriage of the royal family, or to marriages solemnized beyond the seas. The royal family were thus placed in a singular predicament. Whilst the solemnities of the church were requisite to the marriages of the people, the members of the royal family might contract matrimony by the informal means which the ancient law allowed generally. Then came the Royal Marriage Act (12 Geo. 3. c. 11.) which, as the preamble declares, was "to supply the defect of the laws then in being," and, as the reader will find on looking back, directs the consent to be set out in the license and register of marriage.

This act being therefore passed" to supply the defect of the laws then in being," and those laws being limited to this kingdom, it follows that the act itself must be limited in its operation to the same extent--for a statute enacted merely to remedy defects in laws, cannot, without an expressly declared intention, be more comprehensive in its objects than those laws. It is also, to say the least, a fair inference from the act's requiring the royal consent to be "set forth in the licence and register of marriage" that a marriage in this country alone was contemplated-for the license and register are forms not necessarily attendant on marriages elsewhere, but in a great measure peculiar to our own municipal regulations,—and indeed, were any other construction to be put upon the act, the members of the royal family would be precluded from marrying abroad altogether, a predicament never contemplated by the legislature.

This is only a rough outline, but we are mooting, not setling, the points. Others occur in the subjoined opinion, recently taken on nearly the above statements of facts :

"Under these circumstances, your opinion is requested.

1st. Whether the royal marriage act extends to marriages by any descendants of George II. contracted and solemnized bona fide

out of Great Britain, and beyond the limits of British jurisdiction: and whether, under the circumstances sustainable by the evidence above stated, and not before the Court of Arches in 1794, you conceive the marriage of his royal highness at Rome, to have been a marriage impeachable under that statute?

"1. We are of opinion, after great consideration, that the royal marriage act does not extend to any marriages, by any descendants of George the 2nd, contracted and solemnized boná fide out of Great Britain, and beyond the limits of British jurisdiction: and we think that the marriage of His Royal Highness at Rome, was not a marriage impeachable under that statute. '

1

"2nd. Whether, if the matter were now originally brought forward, the marriage at Rome would not be capable of being sustained?

"2nd. If the marriage which took place, was sanctioned and permitted by the laws then existing in the Roman states, we are of opinion that the marriage was a valid, and good marriage in England. Assuming, however, that by the laws then existing in the Roman states, it was not competent to British subjects, being protestants, to contract any valid marriage at all: we are of opinion, that in England the marriage would be considered good and valid; for we think, that British subjects, being in a country where marriage is prohibited to them, may legally marry, according to the law of England, as it existed before the marriage act. Ex necessitate such marriage must be good, otherwise parties so circumstanced could never marry at all. See upon this subject, The King v. The Inhabitants of Brampton, 10 East, 282. Lautour v. Teesdale, 2 Marshall's Reports, 248. Reeding v. Smith, 2 Haylon's Rep. 370. discussed before Lord Stowell. In Lord Cloncurry's Case-Lord Cloncurry was married at Rome, by a protestant clergyman; to Miss Morgan-Lord Cloncurry brought an action against Sir Thomas Piers for adultery with Lady Cloncurry, and recovered damages, and afterwards procured a divorce in parliament. Lord Cloncurry could not have recovered damages in the action, or procured a divorce in parliament, unless the marriage, so celebrated between him and Miss Morgan, had been good and valid in England. We are therefore of opinion, assuming the royal marriage act not to extend to marriages abroad, that if the matter was originally brought forward, the marriage at Rome would be sustained.

"3rd. If you are of opinion that the marriage at Rome was not affected by the royal marriage act, was it necessary by the law of

1 We request attention to this, as it has been stated in The Times, that the questions and answers are equivocal.

England, that any other witness besides the officiating minister should have been present at the ceremony?

"3rd. We are of opinion that it was not essential to the validity of the marriage, by the law of England, that any other witness besides the officiating minister should have been present at the ceremony.

"4th. Whether the certificate, or declarations, or statements of the protestant minister, by whom the marriage was solemnized at Rome, would be receivable as evidence in the courts of England; or whether it be expedient to file a bill in chancery, for the purpose of obtaining and perpetuating his testimony on oath, as well as of other persons whose evidence might be material?

"4th. We are of opinion, that the certificate, or declarations, or statements of the protestant minister, by whom the marriage was solemnized at Rome, would not be receivable as evidence in the courts of law or equity in England; and we are of opinion, that it would be expedient to file a bill in chancery against all proper parties for the purpose of obtaining and perpetuating the clergyman's testimony on oath, as well as of other persons, whose evidence may be material. We think, considering the great age of the clergyman, a bill should be filed immediately for the purposes above mentioned.

"5th. Whether Sir Augustus d'Este, or his sister, can contract marriage themselves under the circumstances, and without complying with the requisition of the royal marriage act, with full security that their own marriages may not be questioned hereafter, and their own issue declared incapable of succeeding to any property they may themselves acquire or possess?

"5th. Our opinions being as above stated, we think that under all the circumstances of this case it would be very dangerous for Sir Augustus d'Este, or his sister, to contract marriage, without complying with the requisitions of the royal marriage act, or without giving previous notice of their intention so to be married, to the crown. We are of opinion, that no marriage could be contracted, without the liability of the marriage being questioned hereafter, and the risque of the issue being declared incapable of inheriting property."

"STEPHEN LUSHINGTON, "GRIFFITH RICHARDS.

"Doctors' Commons, 13th July, 1831."

In pursuance of this opinion, a bill to perpetuate testimony was filed, under which Mr. John Shapter and Mr. Charles Edward Jerningham (of the chancery bar) and Messrs.

Clowes and Worship (solicitors of Yarmouth) were appointed and have since acted as commissioners.

Now is this a case for the immediate consideration of the legislature or no? Attempts, we hear, have been made to smother it up by a compromise; but this has been found impracticable, and, were it not impracticable, would be wrong. There are now only two scions of royalty, the Princess Victoria and Prince George of Cumberland, virtually intervening between Sir Augustus D'Este (if the legitimate son of his father) and the crown 1; and with a people split into factions and a time of trouble most probably at hand, one almost trembles at the consequences an unsettled state of this question may produce. Neither do we see at present any reasonable objection to a bill declaring the marriage legal. The private character of Sir Augustus D'Este will reflect no dishonour on his connexions or the crown, and his mother's family is amongst the noblest of the land; being lineally descended from the kings of Scotland and England, and (through Charlotte de la Tremouille, the friend of the Peverils) of France.

It would be strikingly unjust to conclude, without bearing testimony to the diligence and ability shewn by Sir J. Dillon in preparing the statements of the case, for which the public are largely indebted to him. The motto of his pamphlet is: "In pueros animus Nerones."-What does it mean? H.

1 He is still nearer to the electoral Crown of Hanover, as the Salic law prevails there; but quære, whether the electoral family can intermarry with subjects at all, so as to produce heirs to the electorate.

DIGEST OF CASES.

COMMON LAW.

[Including 2 Barnewall & Adolphus, Part 1; 8 Bingham, Part 1; 1 Tyrwhitt, Part 3. (some of the cases were included in our last); 1 Crompton & Jervis, Part 4; 2 Crompton & Jervis, Part 1. The common-law cases in 4 Bligh, Parts 1 & 2 ; and in 2 Dow & Clark, Part 3: and some cases, not formerly reported by Bingham nor included in former Digests, in 4 Moore and Payne, Part 3, and 5 Moore & Payne, Part 1. 4 Manning & Ryland, Part 4, contains no case not included in former Digests.]

AGENT.

1. (Commission.) The plaintiff agreed to pay his agent a commission on all goods sold or orders executed through the London markets, the plaintiff to be responsible for all bad debts contracted in his name. Held that, though contrary to the custom of the trade, the agent was entitled to a commission on bad debts.— Bower v. Jones, 8 Bing. 65.

2. The plaintiff, a salesman, remitted to the defendant the price of some hay sold for him before the money was paid by the purchaser. The servant whom the defendant sent with the hay, was defrauded of it on the way, and the purchaser refused to pay the price. Held, that the defendant was liable to refund.-Gingell v. Glasscock, 8 Bing. 86. And see TRover.

AGREEMENT.

1. The plaintiffs contracted to purchase "about 300 quarters (more or less,) of foreign rye shipped on board the Anne of Hamburgh, &c." The ship arriving with 345 quarters, the plaintiffs declined accepting the snrplus quantity, and on the defendants refusing to deliver 300 quarters, rescinded the contract. Held, that they were entitled so to do. The Court said it might be difficult to say what was the precise meaning of about and more or less, but that 45 quarters was clearly an