doubts which have been attempted to be raised, and in shewing that in India a marriage in a Dissenting Chapel is, by the civil and criminal courts, considered as legal, as if celebrated, according to the usual forms, in the Cathedral, we shall perform a service acceptable to many of our readers. We might perhaps with justice complain of some observations upon the subject, which would not have been less forcible had they been advanced with more courtesy, and which have not derived any additional weight from the authoritative manner in which they have been urged. But our object simply is to arrive at a correct conclusion, and in endeavouring to do so we shall therefore avoid whatever might be calculated to give offence.

It were indeed strange, if, after our countrymen have been settled for above two hundred years in this country, the way in which they may legally contract the most important engagement in life were a question still open to dispute. Custom has hitherto sanctioned particular forms within the Presidency, which have been likewise observed at those stations in the interior where the Company have provided a Chaplain. At those stations where there has been no clergyman of the established church, the parties have generally thought it necessary to obtain a licence either from the Supreme Court or from the Bishop's Registrar, and the ceremony has been performed by the magistrate of the district, or by the commanding officer of the station. Few persons have given themselves the trouble of inquir ing by what authority the particular forms were prescribed. They acquiesced in those which they found established. At length, however, a Dissenter took the trouble of inquiring, whether the ceremony might not be as legally performed by his own minister in his own place of worship, as by the Company's Chaplain in the Cathedral. He satisfied himself that it might, and he was married accordingly. We are now told that the ceremony was irregular, and perhaps invalid. We suspect that the parties starting the objection have no duly considered the consequences resulting from it, and that they would have hesitated to raise doubts as to the legality of the late marriage in the Union Chapel, had they been aware, that, if there be any foundation for them, the children of many of the marriages in the interior are illegitimate. This is a startling position, but we maintain, it is strictly true. The statute of the 4 Geo. IV. c. 91, has been referred to as an act passed for India, and as proving that doubts were entertained by the legislature. Where it was discovered that the enactment was made with the particular view of legalizing marriages in this country, we know not. It certainly was not from the act itself, which refers to marriages in Ambassador's Chapels, in foreign countries, and within the lines of a British Army serving abroad. Now, with the exception of those in the Indian cantonments, it is easy to point out doubts which might reasonably have been entertained respecting the validity of such marriages, which before the act, to render them legal, ought to have been celebrated either according to the law of the country where the parties were, or of England as it then existed, i. e. according to the provisions of the Marriage Act. These doubts, as we hope to shew, in no way apply to India since the English law was introduced here in 1726. We do not, however, wish to dispute about this question. We are willing to admit that the act referred to, would have made legal the marriages in the cantonments here, had they not been so before. But where, if that statute were necessary, is the act to declare valid the marriages before magistrates at the civil stations? The forms observed in the Cathedral are those directed by the Marriage Act, the 26 of Geo. II. c. 33; if they cannot be dispensed with in a dissenting chapel, by what authority, we ask, are they neglected at a civil station in the interior? Who in India has the power of authorizing the civil ma

gistrate to perform the marriage service in a private house in the mofussil, if the ceremony cannot be legally celebrated by a dissenting minister in a chapel in Calcutta? The necessity of the case affords no answer to this question.

But the English Marriage Act does not extend to this country. To be satisfied of this, it is not necessary that a lawyer be consulted. Those who will take the trouble of looking at the act will find, that the last words in it are, "provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall extend-to any marriages solemnized beyond the seas." These words are too clear to admit of doubt; the only question is, has the statute, by any subsequent act of the legislature, been extended to India. That this has not been done, we assert, without fear of contradiction. By the charter of Geo. I. in the year 1726, the common and statute law, at that time extant in England, was introduced into the Indian Presidencies, and it has since been generally held by the judges of the King's Courts that no subsequent enactments, unless expressly extended to this country, are here binding. The Marriage Act was not passed until many years after the granting of this Charter. A case which occurred at another Presidency, within the recollection of some who are still in this country, is decisive of this question. In the year 1808, C. Teesdale obtained, from the then Governor of Madras, a licence authorizing his marriage with Barbara Ann Latour, who was at the time under age. The licence was afterwards revoked upon the application of the young lady's brother; and the parties, who were both Protestants, were subsequently married by a Roman Catholic priest, according to the form of the Romish Church. The priest, before he performed the ceremony, informed them, that, unless they were both Roman Catholics, the ceremony was invalid. The parties soon after went to England, where the validity of the Indian marriage being disputed, it was decided, in the year 1816, by Sir Vicary Gibbs, in the court of common pleas, to be a legal marriage; "since it was a marriage between British subjects, celebrated in a British settlement, according to the laws of England, as they existed before the Marriage Act; and which, if it had been celebrated there before that statute, would have been valid."

The law of marriage as it now prevails in India, with the single exception of the Scotch Marriage Act, to which we shall afterwards advert, is the law of England as it stood before the year 1726. The state of the matrimonial law of England at the period we have mentioned, is most fully and clearly laid down by Sir William Scott, in his elaborate judgment in the case of Dalrymple against Dalrymple, which has always since been referred to as a conclusive authority upon this subject. From this it appears that in England before the act of Geo. II. marriages were always governed by the canon law, and that, by that law, a contract of marriage entered into per verba de præsenti, or in words of the present tense, between persons able to contract, was an actual marriage. The law of England, says Blackstone, considered it in no other light than as a civil contract; the holiness of the matrimonial state was left entirely to the Ecclesiastical Courts. No particular ceremony and form of words were prescribed for its celebration; all that was necessary, as in other cases of contract, was, that the parties contracting should distinctly express their intention. The children of such a marriage were legitimate, and the husband and wife were entitled, in the civil courts, to all the rights arising out of the married state, or to be punished for bigamy by the criminal, if they transgressed the law. If however the husband were obliged to have recourse to the Ecclesiastical Court to establish any right, and the validity of the marriage were there questioned, it was necessary to shew that it had been

solemnized by a person in holy orders. The only authority, we believe, for this is a decree of Pope Innocent III.*, before whose time the presence of a priest was not required by the Canon Law. In the reign of Queen Ann, an unfortunate Sabbatarian, named Haydon, happened to trangress this decree by having himself married by a minister of his own persuasion, forgetting that that minister was, in the eye of the law, a mere layman. He was told by the court of delegates, in which he sued after his wife's death, that he could not obtain the right which he demanded, because he could not prove himself to have been married per presbyterum sacris ordinibus constitutum, which had been the constant form of pleading a marriage. We hope it will never be necessary, in order to defeat a husband's rights, to translate this plea, which has not, we believe, yet been used for the purpose, since the pleadings have been in the English language. Should however any of our readers who are husbands, wish to resort to the Ecclesiastical Courts, but be prevented by the Pope's Bull, we can tell them for their consolation, that, while their wives are living, they may at any time, by having the marriage ceremony again performed by a clergyman of the establishment, entitle themselves to all the privileges of suing before those tribunals.

The act of the 58 Geo. III. c. 84, declaring certain marriages solemnized in India by ministers of the church of Scotland to be valid, has in no respect altered the law applicable to this country, except in the particular instances to which it relates. The Ecclesiastical Courts would now be obliged, either to acknowledge the Scotch chaplain as a person in holy orders, or the marriage by him to be as valid as if the ceremony had been performed by a priest. With the exception of this change, it merely declares that to be law which was so before. It is, we think, a most inconsiderate piece of legislation, passed without due inquiry as to its necessity; or, supposing it, which we do not admit, to have been necessary, leaving those cases of marriages by officers and magistrates in the interior totally unprovided for: the act referred to as legalizing the former, not having then been passed.

We believe that the above will upon enquiry be found to be a correct statement of the law upon this subject as it now exists in India.

Much has been said about the mischiefs and irregularities likely to arise from this state of the law; and we have heard them urged as a reason for upholding the present system. We freely admit that much mischief may happen: but we deny the expediency of endeavouring to obviate it by an attempt to continue and enforce restrictions, which are not binding. Instead of this a legislative enactment should be obtained, establishing some legal form for the registration of the marriages of Christians aud British subjects in India. This too is the more necessary, because there is at present no law to regulate the marriages of East Indians and Native Christians residing beyond the Mahratta ditch. There can be no difficulty in providing effectual checks against secret and irregular marriages, and for preventing marriages, without the consent of parents or guardians, when either of the parties happens to be a minor, Further the legislature ought not to interfere, but to leave the religious part of the ceremony to the feelings and belief of the individuals. We trust we shall never have the English Marriage Act extended to this country. The objections to many of its provisions have been often pointed out; they only require to be

The authority of the canons of 1603 cannot be relied upon, since it was decided by Lord Hardwicke, in the year 1736, that as they have not been confirmed by Parliament, they do not bind the laity even when suing in the Ecclesiastical Courts. It is, we believe, under the authority of the 103rd of these canons that the marriage licences are here granted.

stated, in order to be admitted by every unprejudiced mind. For who at the present day will not join in condemning a law, by which the Roman Catholics are compelled, at the altar of a church which they deem heretical, to join in a religious ceremony, performed by a minister, who believes their worship to be idolatrous; and the Unitarian is obliged to be married by the form of joining in a service, the prayer of which, according to his creed, is blasphemous. The sincerest friends of the Established Church are the most anxious to see this blot removed from the statute book.

We are glad to find that this subject is now exciting attention at home. On the 28th of last March, Mr. Patten gave notice in the House of Commons that he should move to bring in a bill to legalize the marriage of Roman Catholics by their own clergymen. On the same evening also a select committee was appointed to consider the general state of the laws relating to the registries of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths and burials in England and Wales. Mr. Wilks, by whom the subject was introduced, stated that his plan would render it imperative for the established clergy to keep the registries: but that he was for rendering them, in this respect, rather civil than religious officers.

JULY.

DOMESTIC OCCURRENCES.

[Where the place is not mentioned, Calcutta to be understood.]

MARRIAGES.

25. At Cawnpore, Mr. J. T. Bony, junior, to Miss Margaret Goldrick.

27. At Ghazeepore, Captain R. Wilcox, 59th Regt. N. I., to Susan, eldest daughter of George Wilson, Esq.

30. Mr. T. Clarke, Branch Pilot, H. C. Marine, to Miss Catherine Harris.

At the Union Chapel, by the Rev. G. Gogerly, the Rev. J. W. Buyers, of Benares, London Missionary Society, to Miss E. A. Walker, of Aberdeen.

AUG.

10. Lieut. W. Tritton, 41st N. I., to Mary Anne, only daughter of the late Captain James of the Bengal Army.

12. George Alexander, Esq. of the Civil Service, to Rebecca, third daughter of W. Molloy, Esq. of Rock Valley in the county of Tipperary.

14. H. R. Alexander, Esq. H. C. China Civil Service, to Elizabeth Charlotte, second daughter of James Young, Esq. of Calcutta.

15. At Cuttack, George Becher, Esq. to Miss Eliza Sturrock.

JULY.

BIRTHS.

25. At Chauleah, Jessore, the lady of V. Jacob, Esq. of a son.

28. Mrs. Henry Cook, of a daughter.

30. At Kamptee, the lady of Captain J. C. Coffin, of a son.

AUG.

At Sultanpore, Oude, the lady of Captain Orr, 58th Regt. N. I., of a son.

4. Mrs. R. Z. Shircore, of a son.

5. The lady of Captain Sewell, of a daughter.

The wife of Mr. Charles Waller, of a daughter.

6. Mrs. N. Alexander, of a daughter.

8. Mrs. V. Rees, of a son.

9. Mrs. W. B. Carbery, of a daughter.

10. Mrs. R. B. Richardson, of a daughter.

The lady of the Hon'ble C. R. Lindsay, Esq. of the Civil Service, of a daughter.

12. At Mynpooree, the lady of Lieut. Alston, of a daughter.

15. The lady of P. Durand, Esq. of Nissendypore Factory, Jessore, of a danghter.

16. The wife of Mr. A. Vallente, of a daughter.

The lady of Capt. Thomas Rees, of the Lady Amherst, of a daughter.

17. At Mynpooree, the wife of Mr. G. J. Scott, of a daughter.

19. At Chinsurah, the lady of Capt. W. Bell, Executive officer, of a daughter.

JULY.

DEATHS.

12. At Neemuch, the infant daughter of G. C. Ponsonby, Esq. 2nd Light Cavalry. 17. At Nagpore, Henry, the third son of Captain W. Warde, 5th Regt. Bengal Light Cavalry, aged 3 years, 8 months, and 15 days.

23. At Delhi, Mrs. M. Bruce, lady of Captain D. Bruce, Commanding Palace Guards. At Cuttack, J. Browne, Esq. 3rd Member of Medical Board, aged 68 years.

25. At Futtyghur, W. T. Garrett, Bengal Artillery, aged 27 years.

26. At Doorgaporean, Kishnagur, A. McDonald, Esq. aged 42 years.

28. Mrs. Ann Frances Breen, the wife of Mr. W. C. Breen, aged 25 years.

30. At Bulliah Indigo Factory, Shahabad, Mr. H. Innis, aged 28 years.

31. R. W. Bruce, Esq. Deputy Post Master, and Assistant Salt Agent, Diamond Harbour, aged 53 years.

AUG.

2. At Kamptee, G. H. S. Coffin, son of Captain and Mrs. J. C. Coffin, aged 3 years. 3. At Futtyghur, Charlotte, youngest daughter of Mr. J. Brierly, aged 2 years.

At the Conductor's Quarters, Baloo Ghaut, Thos. Edward Spencer, eldest son of Mr. Conductor T. Spencer, of the Expense Magazine, Dum-Dum, aged 13 years. 4. Captain André Francois Ballot, Commander of the French Barque Elise, aged 24 years.

Of a brain fever, Mr. T. Champion, Chief Officer of the late H. C. Ship Lord Amherst.

5. Ann Martha, daughter of Mr. R. Wall, H. C. Marine, aged 7 years.

6. At Bowannypore, the wife of Magazine Serjeant H. W. Spier, of Dum-Dum. Mr. Wm. Mandy, Carver and Gilder, aged 46 years.

8. Hannah Maria, the beloved wife of W. Braddon, Esq. C. S. in her 43rd year. At Garden Reach, Caroline Mary, the wife of Henry Paulin, Esq. Solicitor to the Hon'ble Company, in her 37th year.

9. At Madras, T. A. Penman, Esq. late Surgeon, at Calcutta.

10. F. H. Spencer, Esq. Assistant to the Salt Agent, Barripore, aged 34 years. Anne, infant daughter of the Hon'ble C. R. Lindsay, Esq. of the Civil Service.

At Saugor, the daughter of Lieut. John de Fountain, 56th N. I.

13. Vardon Gasper, Esq. late of Madras, aged 85 years.

At Allahabad, Serjt. Alex. McMillan, aged 32 years.

At Kamptee, the infant son of Captain Coffin, aged 14 days.

18. Eliza, youngest daughter of R. Stewart, Esq. aged 11 months and a half. Madame Maria Laplace, aged 36 years.

JULY.

Shipping Entelligence.

ARRIVALS.

30. Ship Emma, from London 29th March.

31. Bark Fanny, H.Sherwood, from London (date not mentioned), Sydney 24th March, and Singapore 2nd July.

Passengers from Sydney :-Captain G. Young, H. M. 38th Regt. ; Monsr. Lunagrasse. From Singapor? :-C. Rennet, Esq.

French Ship Lasiene, L'Marie, from Havre de Grace 6th March, and Pondicherry 24th July.

French Bark Victoire and Lise, J. T. Carteir, from Bourbon 11th June, and Pondicherry 24th July.

Passengers:-Mrs. Filliard; Mrs. Majeste; Dr. Majeste; Miss Filliard ; E. Fresquet; G. Kock, and - Bonaffe, Esquires, Merchants;- Filliard, Esq. Advocate General of Chandernagore; Mr. Detour, Attorney at Law.

Bark Thetis, W. Boothby, from Mauritius 17th June, and Madras 26th July. Passengers from Mauritius:-J.H. Oliver, Esq. Mariner; H. Geoffroy, Esq. From Madras:-J. B. Green, Mariner.

AUG.

Schooner Elizabeth, J. Norris, from Moulmein 15th July.

2. The Bark Penelope, P. Hutchinson, from Mauritius 13th June.

The Bark Merope, A. Pollock, from Hobart Town, 10th March, Swan River, Lomback, Mauritius, and Madras 28th July.

Passenger from Hobart Town :-Č. Whitmore, Esq. C. S. From Mauritius :— Mr. E. W. Page.

5. The American Ship Mount Vernon, Wm. Whitney, from Boston 18th April. The Bark Prince George, W. McCrea, from London 20th February. Passenger :-Miss Gilbert.