MARRIAGE
1. With the exceptions mentioned in §7 below, the incumbent or minister
of the church of an ancient or new ecclesiastical parish, or of a church
or chapel specially authorised for the publication of banns and
solemnisation of marriages, is bound, in the case of persons who are
legally competent to be married in that church or chapel, to publish or
permit the publication of banns and solemnise or permit the
solemnisation of marriage, either after due publication of banns or
under a licence from the bishop or the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he
may consent to the solemnisation of the marriage upon a proper
registrar's certificate. If he improperly refuses publication of banns
or solemnisation of marriage, it is an ecclesiastical offence for which
he is liable to be punished under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1840, but
it is a question whether he would be liable to a civil action or an
indictment for the refusal.[213] On the other hand, a clergyman who
knowingly and wilfully solemnises a marriage in an unauthorised building
or outside the lawful hours (unless under special licence from the
Archbishop of Canterbury), or without due publication of banns (unless
under licence from him or from the bishop, or upon a proper registrar's
certificate), will be guilty of felony; and a marriage solemnised with
the knowledge of the parties thereto elsewhere than in an authorised
building or without publication of banns or the registrar's certificate,
unless with a sufficient licence, will be void.[214]
2. The ancient parish churches were the original places for the
publication of banns and solemnisation of marriages;[215] but the
churches of new ecclesiastical parishes now stand upon the same footing
in that respect as those of ancient parishes; and where a portion of an
ancient parish has been formed into a new ecclesiastical parish,
residents in the new parish are not deemed for those purposes to be
within the old parish.[216] Moreover, if, besides the church, there is a
public chapel in a parish, and the bishop thinks it necessary so to do
for the convenience of the inhabitants, he may grant a licence, with
such qualifications as he may deem fit, for banns and marriages in the
chapel, in the case of residence within a district specified in the
licence; subject to an appeal on the part of either patron or incumbent
to the archbishop of the province, who may confirm, revoke, or vary the
licence. But the licence will not preclude residents in the district
from having their banns published and marriages solemnised in the parish
church, if they prefer this course.[217] In the case of parishes having
no parish church in which Divine service is usually performed every
Sunday, and in the case of extra-parochial places, the church or chapel
of an adjoining parish or chapel may be resorted to for banns and
marriages.[218] But the bishop may license for banns and marriages in
extra-parochial places and chapelries any church or chapel situate
within their limits.[219] Where the church of a parish is pulled down or
disused for Divine service owing to being rebuilt or repaired, the
publication of banns and solemnisation of marriages may take place in
any building within the parish licensed by the bishop for the
performance of Divine service during the rebuilding or repair of the
church, or if there is no such building, then in the church of an
adjoining parish; or, if there is a consecrated chapel within the
parish, the bishop may direct that they shall take place within that
chapel, and may, with the consent of the incumbent, give directions
respecting the fees. Licences for marriages in the church of the parish
are to be construed as licences for marriages in the building, church,
or chapel in which they may be temporarily solemnised.[220] Where a
church has been rebuilt, repaired, or enlarged, and the position of the
Holy Table altered, the validity of marriages and other ceremonies is
not affected by the fact, if such is the case, of there having been no
re-consecration.[221]
3. Persons are legally competent to intermarry who (_a_) are of a legal
age to contract marriage, (_b_) are of sound mind, (_c_) have not at the
time a wife or husband living with whom they have contracted a marriage
which is recognised by English law and has not been declared void or
been dissolved by a divorce a _vinculo_ recognised by English law, and
(_d_) are not within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or
affinity. A Christian and a non-Christian may be married in church, as
well as Christians of different denominations; and a clergyman cannot
make religion or absence of religion a ground for refusing to perform
the ceremony.[222]
4. The _minimum_ legal age for contracting marriage is fourteen for the
husband and twelve for the wife. In the case of minors the consent of
parents or guardians is necessary to their marriage after banns. In the
case of the marriage by licence of a minor who is not a widower or
widow, the consent to the marriage must be obtained from the father if
living, and if he is dead, from some one guardian of the minor (if any).
The mother, whether still a widow or remarried, is by law a guardian of
the minor unless she has been removed from the office by the High Court
of Justice. If she has been so removed and she remains a widow, and
there is no guardian in existence, her consent to the marriage is
necessary. Where no requisite consenting party is in existence, the
marriage may be solemnised without consent. If the father, mother, or
other guardian is of unsound mind, or abroad, or unreasonably withholds
consent, the Lord Chancellor or some other Chancery judge may on
petition make declaration that the marriage is proper, which will
supersede the necessity for the consent.[223] This consent of parents is
not required in the case of a minor who is illegitimate.[224] A
clergyman is not punishable who, without notice of the fact, solemnises
the marriage of a party under the lawful age, or the marriage of a minor
without the consent of parent or guardian; and the marriage of a minor
above the marriageable age without such consent, if it actually takes
place, is valid, and cannot be made void.[225] But the marriage of a
person under the lawful age can be declared void by him or her on
attaining that age. If, however, he or she then consents to the union,
no remarriage is necessary.[226]
5. The marriage of a person who is a lunatic or of unsound mind is void,
since such a person is not capable of consenting to the ceremony.[227]
On the same principle, if a person is forced to go through the ceremony
against his or her will, it is no marriage and void.[228]
6. Where a married person is absent and unheard of for seven years, a
presumption of death arises, and the other party marrying again after
the lapse of that time is not punishable for bigamy.[229] But the
remarriage will of course be void if it subsequently appears that the
absent party was actually alive at the time when it was solemnised.
7. A divorce decreed by a competent Christian tribunal between persons
domiciled in the country where it is obtained is regarded as valid in
England, if valid according to the law of that country.[230] But if a
person domiciled in England obtains a divorce in another country to
which he has gone for the purpose, that divorce will not be recognised
as legal here.[231] If persons obtain a dissolution of marriage by a
judicial decree in England, the Divorce Act, 1857, authorises them to
marry again after the time for appealing against the decree has expired,
or after the marriage has, on appeal, been declared to be dissolved, in
like manner as if the marriage had been dissolved by death. A person
divorced in England has, therefore, a legal right to require his or her
banns to be published and marriage to be solemnised in church in like
manner as if he or she were a widower or widow, with the exception that
no clergyman is by law bound to marry a person whose marriage has been
dissolved on account of the person's own adultery; but in case of his
refusal to do so he must permit any other clergyman willing to perform
the ceremony to use his church for the purpose.[232] In the banns in
such cases the person has to be described, if at all (see § 10), as
"unmarried." In the case of a person whose divorce elsewhere than in
England is valid according to English law, it would seem that although
he or she can legally remarry in England, yet a clergyman is under no
legal obligation to publish the banns or perform the ceremony or permit
it to be performed in his church. The practice as to granting marriage
licences in the case of divorced persons varies in different
dioceses.[233]
8. Although marriages duly solemnised in England according to English
law between foreigners, or between a foreigner and a British subject,
are valid throughout the British Empire, these marriages will not
necessarily be valid in countries to which the foreigners belong, unless
the legal requirements of these countries are complied with. Under
arrangements made with France and Belgium, the French Consul and the
Belgian Minister respectively will, on application, ascertain in any
particular case that the legal requirements of their country have been
complied with, and will furnish a certificate to that effect. No similar
arrangement has as yet been made with any other foreign State. The
following instructions have therefore been issued in the diocese of
London, and may, with advantage, be observed elsewhere, namely:--(_a_)
Where both parties to an intended marriage are foreigners, or one of
them is a foreigner of any nationality except French or Belgian, or is a
foreigner without a permanent residence in England, the marriage should
in all cases be by licence, which will only be granted if the chancellor
of the diocese is satisfied that the law of the country, to which the
foreigners concerned belong, is complied with.[234] (_b_) Where a
foreigner of French or Belgian nationality, whose permanent residence is
in England, is a party to an intended marriage after banns with an
English subject, the incumbent of the parish should require before
solemnising it the production of a certificate from the French Consul or
Belgian Minister, as the case may be, that all the legal requirements
necessary to the recognition of the marriage as valid in France or
Belgium have been complied with.
9. Marriages of persons within the prohibited degrees of kindred and
affinity specified in the Table set forth by the authority of Archbishop
Parker in the year 1563 are unlawful and void.[235] The degrees include
illegitimate as well as legitimate relatives and connections; but an
illegitimate _liaison_ with a woman or a man does not make her or him a
wife or a husband within the meaning of the Table. Thus a man cannot
marry his wife's illegitimate daughter or her half-sister, whether
legitimate or illegitimate; but he can marry the daughter or sister of a
woman with whom he has had unlawful connection.[236]
10. Under the Marriage Act, 1823, which slightly differs in language
from Canon 62 and the rubrics in the Prayer Book, banns must be
published on three Sundays (without an alternative of holy-days), and
after the second lesson (instead of after the Nicene Creed) in morning
service or in evening service if there is no morning service,[237]
according to the form of words prescribed by the rubric. A slight
deviation from this form will not invalidate the publication. A
clergyman is not obliged to publish banns, unless the parties, at least
seven days before the time required for the first publication, deliver
or cause to be delivered to him a notice in writing bearing the date of
the delivery, and setting forth their true Christian names and surnames,
and the house or houses of their respective abodes within the parish or
other district over which his authority as to banns and marriages
extends, and the time during which they have respectively dwelt or
lodged therein.[238] It is not imperative upon him to require this seven
days' notice, nor is he punishable for publishing the banns without it,
or previously to its expiration. But he is liable to ecclesiastical
censure if he dispenses with it, and, without due inquiry, publishes
banns between persons not entitled to have their banns published, and
then proceeds to marry such persons, even though his action was not
knowing and wilful.[239] Where the parties dwell in different parishes
or other definite districts for banns and marriages, the banns must be
published in the church or chapel of both parishes or districts.[240] If
one of the parties resides in Scotland, his or her banns may be
published there according to Scottish law or custom, in contemplation of
a marriage in England, after publication of the banns of the other party
here.[241] And if one of the parties resides in England and the other in
Ireland, the banns may be published in each country according to the law
or custom prevailing there, although it may differ from the manner
required in that part of the United Kingdom in which the marriage is to
be solemnised.[242] A person dwells where he eats, drinks, and sleeps.
He can only be said to dwell at the place where he temporarily sojourns
if he has no permanent abode. But he may dwell in more than one place,
if he has a permanent abode in each.[243] The true Christian names and
surnames, in which the banns are to be published, mean the full
Christian name and surname of each party, and the omission of part of
the Christian name, no less than the substitution of a wrong name, by
the fraud of both parties, will render the marriage void. But where a
party has abandoned his baptismal and family names and is known by
repute by different names, his banns ought to be published in his
acquired names; and publication in his original names, if intended to
deceive, will be improper, and will invalidate the marriage.[244] There
is no legal requirement that the status of the parties should be
published, and the description of the woman as a widow, when she was, in
fact, a spinster, is not an undue publication.[245] The banns must be
published from a book and not from loose papers, and after publication
must be signed by the officiating minister or some person under his
direction.[246] If, in the case of a minor, a parent or guardian openly
forbids the banns at the time of their publication by declaring or
causing to be declared his or her dissent to the marriage, the
publication will be void, and no marriage can be lawfully solemnised
upon it.[247] No other forbidding of the banns will render the
publication void. It can, at the utmost, only furnish a ground for
caution and inquiry as to further proceeding with the matter.
11. On the production and delivery of a certificate of the
superintendent registrar of births, deaths, and marriages of the
district in which a church or chapel is situate, that due notice of an
intended marriage in that church or chapel has been given, and also, if
one of the parties resides in another district, of a similar certificate
of the superintendent registrar of that district, the marriage may be
solemnised in such church or chapel, with the consent of the minister
thereof, but not otherwise, in like manner as after due publication of
banns. But a superintendent registrar cannot grant a licence for a
marriage in a church or chapel of the Church of England.[248]
12. A marriage may be solemnised, without banns or registrar's
certificate, under a licence of the bishop of the diocese or the
Archbishop of Canterbury for that purpose. A bishop's licence is granted
by the chancellor of the diocese, through the diocesan registry, for the
marriage of the parties in the church or chapelry of the parish in which
one of the parties has dwelt for fifteen days immediately preceding. The
licence, and also the form of affidavit leading to it, together with all
information on the subject, can be obtained either direct from the
diocesan registry or through a clergyman who is a chancellor's
surrogate. Before it is issued, an affidavit must be made before a
surrogate by one of the parties to the intended marriage that there is
no legal impediment to it, and that one of the parties has for fifteen
days immediately preceding the issue of the licence had his or her usual
place of abode in the parish or other district for banns and marriages,
in the church or chapel of which the marriage is to be solemnised.[249]
An ordinary or special licence can also be granted by the Archbishop of
Canterbury. His ordinary licence is issued under the same conditions and
has the same effect as a bishop's licence. But his special licence may
authorise the parties to be married in any church and at any time,
irrespectively of their places of residence and of the canonical hours.
On production of a licence for a marriage in a specified church, it is
the duty of the incumbent to perform the ceremony, unless he knows that
the licence has been fraudulently obtained; and it is not his business
to ascertain that one of the parties has actually resided within the
parish.[250] The requirement as to correctness of the names of the
parties is not so strict in the case of a licence as in the case of
banns; and the suppression in the affidavit leading to the licence of
part of the name of one of the parties for the purpose of concealment
has been held not to invalidate the marriage.[251] The grant of a
marriage licence is a matter of favour and not of right.[252]
13. The marriage must be solemnised in the church or chapel, or one of
the churches or chapels, in which the banns have been published, or in
the church or chapel named in the registrar's certificate or in the
marriage licence, within due time after the requisite preliminary
formalities have been gone through. It should not be solemnised on the
same day as the last publication of the banns; but if it does not take
place within three months after the complete publication of banns or
grant of the licence (as the case may be), it is not to be solemnised
until after the banns have been duly republished on three Sundays, or a
new licence has been duly obtained.[253] Similarly if a marriage
intended to be sanctioned by a registrar's certificate does not take
place within three calendar months after notice has been entered by the
superintendent registrar, it is not to be solemnised until a new notice
has been given and the entry duly made, and a certificate thereof given,
as required by the Marriage Act, 1836.[254] Except under the authority
of a special licence, it must be solemnised between the hours of eight
in the forenoon and three in the afternoon, but the incumbent may
appoint his own time for it within those hours.[255] It may be
solemnised by either a priest or a deacon,[256] but a clergyman cannot
solemnise his own marriage.[257] By canon and statute it must not take
place in a private place, but in a church or chapel, and in time of
Divine service, and before at least two witnesses. But the canonical
regulation as to marriages being solemnised during Divine service is
now, by custom, universally disregarded; and even a marriage celebrated
in the vestry of a church and in the presence of one witness only has
been held to be valid, though such a precedent ought not to be
followed.[258] A clergyman who knowingly and wilfully solemnises a
marriage elsewhere than in a church or chapel where banns may be
lawfully published, or at any other time than between eight in the
forenoon and three in the afternoon (unless by special licence from the
Archbishop of Canterbury), or without due publication of banns, unless
under a marriage licence or on a registrar's certificate, is guilty of
felony and punishable accordingly.[259]
14. On production of a certificate of marriage at a registry office, and
payment of the customary fees (if any), a clergyman may, if he sees fit,
read or celebrate the marriage service over the parties in his church;
but this is not to invalidate the previous marriage, nor is the reading
or celebration to be entered as a marriage in the parish register.[260]
There have, however, been cases of a subsequent marriage in church, not
only after a marriage before a registrar, but also after a marriage out
of England, the wife's maiden name being used on the occasion.[261]
15. The right to fees for publication of banns, giving a certificate of
banns where the marriage takes place in the other church in which they
were published, and the marriage itself, can only depend in ancient
parishes upon custom, presumed to date from time immemorial. A claim to
a marriage fee of 13s. (10s. for the rector and 3s. for the clerk) was
disallowed on the ground that the amount was unreasonably large and
could not have been paid in the time of Richard I.[262] In new
ecclesiastical parishes a claim for these fees can only be enforced if
they have been set out in a table of fees settled by the Church Building
Commissioners or their successors, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
under the Church Building Act, 1819, or by the chancellor of the diocese
under the new Parishes Acts, 1843 and 1856.[263]
16. Marriage register books in duplicate are furnished by the
Registrar-General to the incumbent of every church or chapel in which
marriages may be solemnised; and it is the duty of every clergyman who
solemnises a marriage to enter immediately afterwards in duplicate in
two of the books the prescribed particulars of the marriage; and the
entry is to be signed by him and by the parties married and by two
witnesses. An incumbent is to allow searches in all marriage register
books in his custody at a fee of 1s. for one year and 6d. for every
additional year to which the search extends, and 2s. 6d. for a
certificate (besides 1d. for the stamp). In every January and succeeding
third month he must send in to the superintendent registrar of births,
deaths, and marriages for the district, either directly or through a
subordinate registrar, a certified copy of all the entries made by him
since his last return, and will receive 6d. for every such entry. And
whenever a register book is filled, he is to send one copy to the same
registrar and keep the other copy with the registers of baptisms and
burials of his parish or chapelry.[264]
17. If persons residing in the parish present themselves for Holy
Communion as married, a clergyman has no right, (_a_) in the absence of
any ground for suspicion to the contrary, to demand proof of their
marriage before admitting them, or (_b_) to refuse to admit them on a
mere suspicion that they are not married and therefore living in sin. If
he refuses them Communion, he must be prepared to show either (_a_) that
they actually are not married, or (_b_) that he had good grounds for
believing this to be the case. He is bound to recognise as man and wife
persons who have been duly married according to the law affecting them
at the time of the marriage, whether ecclesiastically or civilly, and
whether in this country or elsewhere; provided that the law was
Christian and monogamous; for a marriage according to a law, custom, or
rite which contemplates polygamous unions is void in our law.[265] If
there is any doubt as to the validity of their marriage, he will always
be on the safe side in adopting the affirmative view and acting upon the
assumption of their being validly married. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, the law will presume a valid marriage from the fact of
long reputation and cohabitation as man and wife, without actual proof
of the ceremony having taken place.[266] A marriage is legally valid if
performed according to the mode and with the formalities required by the
law of the place where it is solemnised.[267] But the capacity of the
parties to contract marriage is governed by the law of their domicile;
and therefore persons domiciled in this country between whom a marriage
would be illegal here, cannot contract a lawful marriage by going for
the purpose into another country where such a marriage is legal, and
there going through the ceremony.[268] Under the English common law a
marriage between British subjects in a foreign country or on board ship,
where no statute law binding upon them imposes any further formalities,
is recognised as valid in this country if solemnised without banns or
licence in the presence of a clergyman of the Church of England, whether
priest or deacon (not being one of the parties to it).[269] A marriage
between British subjects may also be solemnised outside the United
Kingdom in accordance with the regulations of the Foreign Marriage Act,
1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 23), before a person authorised thereunder to act
as a marriage officer, as it might have been before that Act under the
Acts thereby repealed.
Footnotes
[213] Davis _v._ Black (1841) 1 Q. B. 900; Reg. _v._ James (1850) 3 C. &
K. 167.
[214] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, ss. 21, 22.
[215] _Ib._ s. 2.
[216] (1818) 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, ss. 27-29; (1819) 59 Geo. 3, c. 134, ss.
6, 16, 17; (1830) 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 18, s. 3; (1843) 6 & 7 Vict.
c. 37, s. 15; (1844) 7 & 8 Vict. c. 56; (1845) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70, s. 10;
(1856) 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, s. 11; Tuckniss _v._ Alexander (1863) 32 L.
J. Ch. 794; 11 W. R. 938; Fuller _v._ Alford (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 418.
[217] (1836) 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, ss. 26-34; (1837) 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict.
c. 22, ss. 33, 34; _Re_ St. George's Proprietary Chapel (1890) Tristr.
Cons. Judg. 134.
[218] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 23.
[219] _Ib._ ss. 3-5; (1857) 20 Vict. c. 19, s. 9; (1860) 23 & 24 Vict.
c. 24.
[220] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 13; (1824) 5 Geo. 4, c. 32; (1830) 11
Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 18, s. 2.
[221] (1867) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 133, s. 12.
[222] Jones _v._ Robinson (1815) 2 Phill. 285; Reg. _v._ James (1850) 3
C. & K. 167.
[223] Canons 62, 100, 104; (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, ss. 8, 16, 17, read
with (1886) 49 & 50 Vict. c. 27, ss. 2, 4, 6, 7.
[224] Horner _v._ Liddiard (1799) 1 Hag. Cons. 337.
[225] (1826) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, ss. 8, 23.
[226] Co. Litt. 79 a. b. n. (1).
[227] (1811) 51 Geo. 3, c. 37. A lunatic cannot marry until he has been
judicially declared sane; _Ib._
[228] Scott _v._ Sebright (1886) 12 P. D. 21; Geary, 23-27.
[229] (1861) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 57.
[230] Harvey _v._ Farnie (1882) 8 App. Ca. 43.
[231] Dolphin _v._ Robins (1859) 7 H. L. C. 390; Briggs _v._ Briggs
(1880) 5 P. D. 163.
[232] (1857) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, ss. 57, 58; (1868) 31 & 32 Vict. c.
77. s. 4.
[233] As to marriage licences, see § 12 below.
[234] For an epitome of the foreign requirements for the validity of
marriages in Europe and North and South America, see A Summary of
Foreign Marriage Law, by Canon Glendinning Nash, 1903, published by the
S.P.C.K., price 6d.
[235] (1540) 32 Hen. 8, c. 38; Canon 99; (1835) 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 54. As
to the Table, see Co. Litt. 235 a. n. (1); 2 Co. Inst. 683; Gibs. Cod.
411-415; 2 Burn, 439-50; Cardwell's Documentary Annals of the Church of
England, vol. i. pp. 316-20 (no. lxiv); Sherwood _v._ Ray (1837) 1 Moo.
P. C. 353, note on pp. 355-9.
[236] R. _v._ Brighton (1861) 1 B. & Sm. 447; Wing _v._ Taylor (1861) 2
Sw. & Tr. 278.
[237] 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 2; Wynn _v._ Davies (1835) 1 Curt. 69, at p.
81.
[238] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 7.
[239] Canon 62; (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 21; Priestley _v._ Lamb
(1801) 6 Ves. 421; Nicholson _v._ Squire (1809) 16 Ves. 259; Warter _v._
Yorke (1815) 19 Ves. 451; Wynn _v._ Davies (1835) 1 Curt. 69, at pp. 83,
84.
[240] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 2; (1837) 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 22, s.
34; (1860) 23 & 24 Vict. c. 24.
[241] (1886) 49 & 50 Vict. c. 3.
[242] (1899) 62 & 63 Vict. c. 27.
[243] Macdougall _v._ Paterson (1851) 11 C. B. 755; 21 L. J. C. P. 27;
Att.-Gen. _v._ McLean (1863) 1 H. & C. 750; Alexander _v._ Jones (1866)
L. R. 1 Ex. 133; 35 L. J. Ex. 78.
[244] Tongue _v._ Allen (1835) 1 Curt. 38; (1836) 1 Moo. P. C. 90;
Midgley _v._ Wood (1860) 30 L. J. P. M. & A. 57; R. _v._ Billingshurst
(1814) 3 M. & S. 250. Where the woman was an illegitimate child, and had
the banns published in the name of her mother, which she had never in
fact borne, Sir John Dodson, in adjudging the marriage void, said that
he had some doubt whether, in the case of an illegitimate child, the
publication of the banns in the name of its mother, instead of the name
of notoriety and repute, would necessarily be such an undue publication
as would nullify the marriage. No doubt the name which a person under
such circumstances had fully acquired was that in which the publication
of banns should take place; but there might be a case in which, without
fraudulent intent, and from an innocent misapprehension of what was
correct, the name of the mother might be used instead of that
subsequently acquired; Tooth _v._ Barrow (1854) 1 Eccl. & Adm. 371, at
p. 374.
[245] Mayhew _v._ Mayhew (1812) 3 M. & S. 266.
[246] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 6.
[247] _Ib._ s. 8.
[248] (1836) 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, ss. 1, 11, 15, 16; (1837) 7 Will. 4 &
1 Vict. c. 22, s. 36; (1856) 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119, s. 11.
[249] Canons 101-104; (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 14.
[250] Tuckness _v._ Alexander (1863) 2 Dr. & Sm. 614; 32 L. J. Ch. 794.
[251] Bevan _v._ M'Mahon (1861) 30 L. J. P. M. & A. 61.
[252] Prince of Capua _v._ Count de Ludolf (1836) 30 L. J. P. M. & A. 71
(n.).
[253] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, ss. 9, 19. It is safest to construe this
period as lunar months, _i.e._ twelve weeks; see 2 Bl. Comm. 141; Lacon
_v._ Hooper (1795) 6 T. R. 224.
[254] 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 15.
[255] (1886) 49 & 50 Vict. c. 14; Canons of 1888.
[256] Wats. ch. xiv. p. 146; Reg. _v._ Millis (1844) 10 Cl. & F. 534,
859, 860.
[257] Beamish _v._ Beamish (1861) 9 H. L. C. 274.
[258] Canon 62; (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 28; Wing _v._ Taylor (1861) 2
Sw. & Tr. 278; 7 Jur. N. S. 737.
[259] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 21.
[260] (1856) 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119, s. 12.
[261] Phill. Eccl. Law. 629; Piers _v._ Piers (1849) 2 H. L. C. 331; 13
Jur. 569.
[262] Bryant _v._ Foot (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 161; aff. (1868) 3 _Ib._
497.
[263] 59 Geo. 3, c. 134, s. 11; 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, s. 15; 19 & 20 Vict.
c. 104, ss. 14, 15.
[264] (1836) 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 86, ss. 30, 31, 33, 35, 40-44, sch. (C);
(1837) 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 22, ss. 25-29.
[265] Hyde _v._ Hyde (1866) L. R. 1 P. & D. 130; _Re_ Bethell (1888) 38
Ch. D. 220.
[266] Goodman _v._ Goodman (1859) 28 L. J. Ch. 745; The Breadalbane Case
(1867) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 182; Geary, 140-142.
[267] Ruding _v._ Smith (1821) 2 Hag. Cons. 371, at pp. 390, 391.
[268] Brook _v._ Brook (1861) 9 H. L. C. 193; 4 L. T. N. S. 93.
[269] Reg. _v._ Millis (1844) 10 Cl. & F. 534; 8 Jur. 917; Culling _v._
Culling (1896) P. 116.