colony of degraded ecclesiastics, who earned
their livelihood by celebrating clandestine
marriages for fees smaller than those legally taken
in the parish church. Already," he continues,
"incarcerated for debt or delinquencies, the
reverend delinquents were beyond the reach of
episcopal jurisdiction."

And a very thriving trade these reverend
reprobates found it, as we may infer from the
fact that six thousand couples were married by
one of them in one year: whilst in the
neighbouring parish church of St. Andrew's, Holborn,
the legitimate parson married but fifty-three.
We don't say much as to the morality of the
proceeding, as witness the sad story (one out of
a thousand) of Miss Ann Leigh:

"Miss Ann Leigh," the Weekly Journal for
the 26th September, 1719, informed its readers,
"an heiress of 200l. a year and 6000l. ready
cash, hath been carried away from her friends
in Buckinghamshire by Captain Peaty, a half-
pay officer, and married at the Fleet against her
consent, the authors of the plot having so used
her that she now lieth speechless."

Happily the weekly journals of to-day are
not called upon to record any such summary
journeys to the hymeneal altar as that undertaken
by the avaricious Captain Pealy, nor are
the broad principles of the marriage law very
difficult to understand. What these broad
principles are may be stated shortly thus:

A marriage must be celebrated by a person in
holy orders. It must take place (except in the case
of special license) before twelve o'clock at noon.
It must be solemnised (except as above
mentioned) in a church or chapel consecrated for
the purpose. The contracting parties (this is the
way in which the law speaks of a bride and
bridegroom) must not be related to each other in
any degree prohibited by the table of consanguinity.
They must be of age, or have obtained
the consent of their parents or guardians. One
of the parties must have resided for fourteen
days in the parish where the marriage is
celebrated.

The first and third of these principles do not
apply to marriage by the Registrar.

Clear as these broad principles may appear,
however, there are some points upon which the
public will persist in going astray.

It is a popular error, for example (founded,
we have little doubt, upon the dictum of
Lord Stowell, "that a foreign marriage, valid
according to the law of the place where
celebrated, is good everywhere else"), to suppose
that a marriage with a deceased wife's sister,
celebrated abroad, will be recognised as legal in this
country. This is not the case; and Sir C. Cresswell
and Vice-Chancellor Stuart have already
decided, in the case of Brook v. Brook, that the
children of a marriage celebrated at Altona
between an Englishman and his deceased wife's
sister, were illegitimate. What is true of Altona
is equally applicable to any part of the world.

The fact is, that Lord Stowell's rule applies only
to the formalities of marriage, and merely
intimates that the service which commences with
"Dearly beloved," and ends in "amazement,"
is not a sine qua non for tying English couples
together, all over the world. If two persons
between whom marriage is possible by English law,
are married according to the rites and ceremonies
of any foreign country which observes what
is called the comity of nations with our tight
little island, then the marriage is perfectly valid.
But, for all this, a man may not marry his grandmother
during a continental tour with any hope
of ever having the marriage recognised as legal
in England. Nor can he, in any country in the
world, effect such an alliance with his deceased
wife's sister as shall legitimatise the offspring of
the marriage.

Another popular fallacy is, that a marriage
celebrated after twelve o'clock at noon is void.
This is not the case: the marriage being good
enough, though the clergyman who so officiates
subjects himself to severe penalties for his
infringement of the law.

That this error is not confined to the
unlearned laity we may gather from the following
anecdote, which we have heard from very good
authority, and believe to be true:

A couple having appeared before the curate
of a large metropolitan parish, for the purpose
of being married, it was discovered that the
bridegroom had forgotten the license. Posting
off in hot haste to procure this important document,
he was not able to reach the church on his
return before the clock had chimed twelve. The
curate, however, good-naturedly went on with
the ceremony, and the happy couple were, as
they fondly imagined, married. In the midst
of the wedding breakfast, and shortly after the
bride and bridegroom had taken their departure,
the guests were startled by the abrupt appearance
of the rector in whose parish the marriage had
taken place. " No marriage, no marriage!"
said that gentleman, to the consternation of the
company, and demanded that the couple should
be recaptured, and brought before him next
morning, to go through the ceremony once
more. This was done, to the satisfaction of the
rector and the annoyance, we may suppose, of
the rest of the party.

Now this worthy rector (he is at the present
writing a member of the Episcopal Bench), had
he been conversant with the law, might have
saved both himself and others a great deal of
annoyance. The parties were legally married
in the first instance, but the unhappy curate
had committed a felony, and might have been
transported for fourteen years.

One additional word as to the age at which
matrimony becomes a legal act, and we must
leave any further condensation of the legal incidents
of Mr. Blank's marriage for our next
chapter.

It has been already mentioned that a young
gentleman of fourteen can marry, and it only
remains to say that a young lady of twelve is
considered capable of consenting to be a
bride. If the young lady be under sixteen, however,
the husband may possibly be "wanted"
for abduction; but, having paid the penalty