able here was, that the legislature, when it intended that certain marriages should be altogether void, had used the very words which were not applied to the present case. The 3d section of the act declared the publication of bans, where parents gave notice of their dissent, altogether void. The 8th annulled all marriages celebrated in any place but a church or public chapel, where bans of marriage have been usually published (except by special license): and the the 11th declared the marriages of minors null and void. But the present case did not come within the range of either of these enact ments. This was still more manifest, for by the 1st section marriages by bans were to be celebrated in the parish church of the parties; and by the 4th, those by license in the place where the parties resided. But all this was directory only. The 8th section was still necesary to render the marriage void, and that section did not apply to the present case. By former statutes, 6 and 7 Wm. c. 6. many directions were given as to the mode of celebrating marriages, and penalties imposed upon the parties not complying with them, but the marriages themselves still continued valid. The present act seemed to proceed upon the same principle, and, therefore, the marriage in question, though perhaps in some degree irregular, yet not being declared null, was still to be considered as valid, as it would have been, had the act never passed. Upon these grounds, it was submitted that the libel must be rejected

as insufficient, though proved to sustain the suit, and the party be dismissed.

not so

It was contended in support of the admissibility of the libel, that the act, besides being directtory, was prohibitory: it directed where a marriage should be had, and prohibited where it should not, and this prohibition would be without effect unless the marriage were null and void. The sections were in different forms, and it was not necessary that all of them should contain the words "null and void," as they would, in construction, follow to all the clauses after the first without being so specified, There were various causes of nullity, which, though not specified, would equally render a marriage void, such as the omission of any material parts of the marriage ceremony, &c. The first part of the 1st clause was strong as the latter, which expressly directed that the marriage should be solemnized in the church or chapel where the bans had been published, and in no other place whatever; whereas the 10th section declared that as to bans published, it was not necessary to prove a residence, so that the parties in this case were perfectly at liberty to have the bans published in another church, whilst their own was under repair, but not afterwards to marry in any other than that where the publication had passed. Upon these grounds it appeared that the marriage was contrary to the directions, and within the prohibitions of the act, and, therefore, under the proper and legal interpretation of that act, null and void.

there was no divine service performed in the church. It could not be the intention of the law, that persons in this parish should not be married whilst the church was under repair; and they could not be married any where they pleased, the act specifying the particular places. What, then, was to be done? The Court was of opinion just what had been been done, for it was provided by the act that the bans, as to extraparochial places, should be published in the church or chapel adjoining to them; and under the particular situation of the church at this time, St. Mary, Newington, was to be considered as an extra - parochial place, and St. George's church in consequence the proper place for publishing its bans. The publication in question was, therefore, a publication in Newington to all intents and purposes, and not in St. George's. It was so intended to be; it was entered in the bans'-book of St. Mary, Newington, signed as such, and an entry made explanatory of the cause of the publication being in St. George's church. The parties throughout held it as a publication of bans in Newington, and the Court held it as such. If so, then Newington church became the proper place for the celebration of the marriage, for which it was not in an unfit state, though it was for the publication of bans, and the extra-parochiality (if the term might be allowed) did not extend beyond the publication. Under these circumstances, he was clearly of opinion that the marriage was not invalid, that neither the spirit nor the letter of the law had been violated; that the act had, in fact, provided

for such a case as the present; and that the publication of bans was sufficient, as, though done at St. George's, it was to be considered as done at Newington.Looking to the consequences that would result from an opposite construction of the law, they confirmed him in this opinion, though they were not the grounds of it. He therefore rejected the libel, and dismissed the party cited from the suit.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Roseberry v. the Countess of Roseberry. This was a proceeding for a divorce, on the ground of adultery, committed by the Countess of Roseberry, with Sir Henry St. John Mildmay, Bart.

1808,

On the 20th of May, Lord Roseberry (then Viscount Primrose) was married to Harriett, his present Countess, a daughter of the Hon. Mr. Bouverie. In 1809, Sir Henry Mildmay married the elder sister of Lady Roseberry; and his younger brother, Mr. Paulet Mildmay, subsequently married another sister. This family connection necessarily produced a great intimacy between Sir Henry Mildmay and Lord Roseberry's family; and on the death of lady Mildmay, in 1810, he remained with them for some time, daily receiving from them those affectionate attentions best calculated to alleviate his grief for the loss he had sustained. They had the desired effect; and Sir Henry returned to society from a retirement which has unhappily since proved a source of the greatest unhappiness to this noble family. Lord and lady Roseberry were then living in the most uninterrupted state of domestic hap-

piness;

piness; her conduct, until that period, and for some time afterwards, being represented as uniformly correct in the discharge of her duties as a wife and mother. An alteration in this conduct was first noticed by the Dowager Coun. tess of Roseberry, towards the end of the year 1813, when she observed her daughter-in-law disposed to advocate principles inconsistent with her domestic duties and previous behaviour. In March, 1814, Lord Roseberry left town for Scotland, upon the occasion of his father's illness, whose death, which was then hourly expected, shortly afterwards took place. He then returned to town, and remained about three months. It was at this time that several letters passed between Sir Henry Mildmay and lady Roseberry, which were produced in the cause, and evidently showed an undue intimacy between them. They were couched in terms of the warmest affection, and pourtrayed the feelings of Sir Henry Mildmay in the strongest language.Lady Roseberry, too, at this time, was in the habit of often walking in Kensington - gardens, where she was met by Sir Henry, and the progress of this intimacy produced in her a great indifference of behaviour towards her husband. He remonstrated with her, and subsequently forbad Sir Henry his house; but finding they had still many opportunities of meeting, he determined to withdraw from London. Sir Henry's letters to lady Roseberry about this time expressed the greatest uneasiness at this determination, conjured her, if possible, to avert it, and expressed his determination to follow them in disguise. They

repaired to the Earl's seat in Norfolk, and afterwards to another seat in Scotland; and it was here, in October, 1814, that those acts took place which formed the foundation of the present proceeding. Lady Roseberry adopted a practice hitherto very unusual with her, that of taking lonely walks by herself, rejecting the company of the Dowager Countess. The latter was rather alarmed at this, and though not suspecting that any criminality had as yet passed, she determined to watch her motions. Sir Henry, under the assumed name of Colonel De Grey, had repaired to Scotland, and taken up his abode at an inn in the neighbourhood of Lord Roseberry's, where he suffered his beard and whiskers to grow, and otherwise disguised his appearance. His lordship's family at this time consisted of himself, the Countess, the Dowager Countess, and his brother, the honourable Mr. Primrose, besides occasional visitors. They usually dined at six o'clock. The ladies retired about seven, and were joined by the gentlemen about nine. Lady Roseberry usually made some excuse for leaving her mother-inlaw, and retired to a suit of rooms on the ground floor of one of the wings of the building. They con sisted of a library, anti-room, a bed-room, called the red bedroom, dressing-room, and some others, all of them communicating with each other, and with the windows looking out upon a terrace; just below which there was a leaden cistern, by means of which it was not difficult to ascend the terrace,and enter these rooms by any of the windows. The Dowager Countess, in the course of her watching,

watching, had observed a man descend from the window and walk off by this way. This she communicated to the Hon. Mr. Primrose; and one afternoon, about ten minutes after lady Roseberry had retired as usual, he repaired, with some of the servants, to the doors of the bedroom, which he found fastened. They endeavoured to force one of them open, when it was opened by lady Roseberry; Sir Henry was then discovered by the side of the bed, dressed in a large blue jacket and trowsers, and a red waistcoat, covered with a profusion of pearl buttons, and armed with a brace of pistols.His beard and whiskers were much grown, and his appearance altogether so much altered, that Mr. Primrose did not at first recognise him. The handkerchief which lady Roseberry had worn round her neck at dinner was off, and her gown unpinned, though not so as to expose her bosom indecently. The bed was indented in the centre, as if pressed by an extraordinary weight, or by persons leaning against it; and the carpet, which had been nailed down, was stretched and forced up near the bed, and was much dirtied, as if pushed with muddy feet. Lady Roseberry seemed to express contrition, and endeavoured to prevent any contest between Mr. Primrose and Sir Henry, who, after some conversation, was prevailed upon to retire through the window by which he entered.Lord Roseberry did not see his lady afterwards. He delivered her writing desk into Mr. Primrose's possession, who took from it the letters exhibited in the

Court. Lady Roseberry remained in the house that night, but the next morning took her departure. She had been recommended to return to her father; but being joined by Sir Henry Mildmay, they were traced to London, having slept together at an inn on the road. They then took up their residence at Sir Henry's house, in Lower Brookstreet, but have subsequently repaired together to the continent. An action was brought by Lord Roseberry against Sir H. Mildmay, who suffered judgment by default, and a verdict with 15,000l. damages was returned against him, on the execution of the writ of enquiry.

Upon this evidence Lord Roseberry's counsel submitted that the necessary facts were fully substantiated to entitle his lordship to the remedy he prayed.

The counsel for lady Roseberry admitted that it was impossible for them to offer any observations to resist the effect of this evidence, which they therefore left to the impartial consideration of the Court.

Sir Wm. Scott recapitulated the circumstances of the case. The letters were without date, but from some passages in them, it was easy to assign dates to them. They appeared to have been written about March and April, 1814, and alluded to a former correspondence, so that the origin of the connection did not appear. At whatever time it may have commenced, it was, however, sufficiently manifest that at this time the connection subsisted in a high degree of criminal intimacy, and it was impossible not to assent to

the