and threatening to destroy her father's settlements, which were in his possession. Could it be said, that there was here a fair and deliberate consent to marry, especially when, the parties having returned to Dr. M'Neil's house, the pursuer, instead of demanding the privileges of a husband, slunk into his solitary bed, like a menial servant of the family, and allowed his spouse to pine alone on the nuptial couch? The pursuer's subsequent conduct was totally at variance with the idea of marriage. He knew of Jolly's marriage, accepted of gloves, and was present at numerous parties with the defender, where he drank to her as Mrs. Jolly.

Lord Balgray concurred in opinion with lord Hermand. He said that by the law of Scotland, consensus, non concubitus, facit matrimonium; that the consent must be genuine and deliberate, whether the marriage took place in facie ecclesiæ, or otherwise. The ceremony was a mere civil order introduced by positive law, and did not infringe on this essential requisite. The consent, too, must be mutual, and exchanged without force or fraud. Were these prin ciples borne out by the facts of the present case? Besides, there was no regular proclamation of bans. The certificate presented to Robertson was dated 21st May, and the marriage took place on the 23rd. The dictum of the law was, that the bans should be proclaimed in the parishes where the parties reside, three consecutive Sundays. This was not done heretwo days only intervened between the granting of the certificate and the marriage. It was for the want of regular proclamation, that he viewed the marriage as clandestine, and as on that account subject to

all the exceptions, which the law permits against that mode of union. One of these exceptions was, that it was requisite for the pursuer to have proved directly and unequivocally, that the defender said to him, "I accept of you as my husband."

Lord Gillies was clearly of opinion, that the marriage between the pursuer and defender was regular, and must be sustained. If the contrary doctrine were to be held, the marriages, which had taken place in Scotland for half a century, might be annulled. The clergy had deviated from the rigour of the law in performing the ceremony without inquiring into the actual proclamation of bans; yet no one had said, that this relaxation destroyed the efficacy of the nuptial benedictions; and for a very good reason, because the ceremony itself was only meant to express the consent of the contracting parties. Here the persons were of mature age-the defender was 26 years of age, and the pursuer somewhat older. Both knew what they were about; still no objection was made. The defender, as appears from the proof, expressed not one word of dissent. He must interpret this conduct to be indicative of a serious intention and a deliberate purpose. therefore appeared to him, that the actual celebration without objection, validated the marriage. He would however decline giving any final opinion, until the commissaries had brought forward every person, whose testimony might throw light on this extraordinary cause.

It

Lord Succoth and the Lord President concurred in the views of lord Gillies.

The decision of the Court was, to remit back the whole cause to

the commissaries, with instructions to adduce further proof on the various parts of the case.

28. PARIS TRIBUNAL OF CORRECTIONAL POLICE.-This was the day fixed for hearing the cause of the duke of San Lorenzo against Messrs. Ouvrard and Rougemont, on the subject of the projected loan in favour of the regency of Spain. M. Bellot, as soon as the cause was called, presented a requisition expressed in these terms:"Messieurs-The citation, which you have heard read at a preceding hearing, informed you, that the Sieurs d'Ouvrard and Rouge mont had been cited before this tribunal, for being guilty of an outrage towards the person of his majesty the king of Spain, by publishing a prospectus announcing the opening of a loan for the regency of Urgel.

"This process, gentlemen, calls upon you to judge of questions, which, if not of difficult solution, are at least of great importance. Independently of the scheme which Messieurs d'Ouvrard and Rouge mont have announced in the jour nals, you will have to examine, whether the law of 1819 does not require that outrages against the persons of sovereigns should be prosecuted only at the request of sovereigns; and, in consequence, whether the duke of San Lorenzo ought not to produce an especial authority from his majesty, Ferdinand VII, himself.

"In fact, the question to be decided is, whether to publish the existence of a regency which declares itself established during the captivity of the king of Spain, is an outrage against a captive king; or on the supposition of injury, whether it is not rather committed against subjects, who hold their king in captivity.

"However this may be, gentle men, these questions disappear with the process which has given rise to them. We are informed, and we are authorised to announce to you, that all political relations have ceased between the govern ment of his majesty and that of Madrid. Not only has his majesty Louis XVIII recalled his ambassador from Madrid, but the duke of San Lorenzo has ceased to be accredited to the French government in the quality of ambassador of the king of Spain.

"In the mean time, the process, as you know, was instituted at the request, as it was said, of the king of Spain, and the proceedings originated on the part of his ambassador, the duke of San Lorenzo, At the bottom of this citation it was attested by the minister of foreign affairs, that the duke of San Lorenzo was accredited in this capacity to the French government.

"From what we have now had the honour to announce to the Court, it results, that, since the citation was served, M. de San Lorenzo has lost the quality in which he was then recognized hence the citation must be considered as of none effect, and it is no longer incumbent upon us to take. cognizance of this affair. Under these circumstances, we require that the Court will be pleased to annul the record."

M. Mauguin said, "It appears to me that the king's advocate takes upon himself a serious responsibility; he has just declared war against Spain."

The King's Advocate.—“ I have announced a fact, because I have in my possession documents which authenticate what we have averred. I shall read to the Court a letter, which I have just re

ceived from the keeper of the seals:

"M. the King's Advocate.-I hasten to announce to you, that M. the duke de San Lorenzo has ceased to be recognized in France in the quality of minister plenipotentiary of his Catholic majesty the king of Spain.

"The Keeper of the Seals,
(Signed)

"PEYRONNET." M. Mauguin. I suppose the king's-advocate conceives his responsibility secure under the signature of the keeper of the seals ; but there are present several persons of the embassy, who have no knowledge of the fact, and even this morning the ambassador had not received his passports.

The King's Advocate.-That may be.

M. Mauguin commenced to argue the merits of the question, when he was opposed by the king's advocate, who observed that, after what he had announced on the part of the government, it was for the Court to decide, whether it could proceed with the suit. In this view M. Mauguin concurred.

The Court, after a few minutes' deliberation, gave the following judgment:

"Inasmuch as it results from the letter of the keeper of the seals to the king's advocate, that the duke of San Lorenzo has ceased to be accredited as ambassador of his Catholic majesty the king of Spain to his majesty the king of France, the Court consequently cannot recognize him in the quality in which he is represented in the indictment. The Court, therefore, declares, that it cannot take cognizance of the suit, and orders it to be erased from the

records of the tribunal."

31. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. INTIMATION TO THE BAR.-Soon after the sitting of the Court, the lord-chief-justice said, that, as it was of high importance to the public and to the suitors in the particular causes in which rules nisi for new trials had been granted, that those rules should be disposed of during the term, or as soon after as possible, the Court would wish to hear only one counsel on each side. They therefore requested, that the juniors would not offer to address them after their leader had been heard, unless they felt that he had omitted to notice some important fact or some material argument. They did not mean to lay down a rigid rule, that they would hear only one counsel on each side, which might be productive of inconvenience, but they trusted to the discretion of the bar not to occupy their time by going severally through the whole case, where it was not absolutely necessary to the interest of their clients.

The case of Hollis v. Goldfinch, which stood next in the new trial paper, and was an action of trespass for breaking and entering a close, being then called on,

Mr. Gaselee showed cause against the rule for a new trial, in a speech which lasted nearly three hours. As soon as he had concluded, Mr. Selwyn rose and said, "I am on the same side with Mr. Gaselee; and in conformity with that rule which your lordships have this day. laid down, I refrain from adding any observations to those which you have already heard. But in the peculiar situation in which I stand, as the first victim of this regulation, 'I feel it due to myself and to those who surround me to say, that I trust this regulation will cease with the occasion which has

The Lord Chief Justice. "I am very much surprised, that such an observation should be made. The Court has laid down no regulation, nor has it placed any one in the situation of a victim: it has only thrown out an intimation, which the great press of business and the public interests seem absolutely to require."

Mr. Selwyn." I felt it my duty to make the remark which I have made, because I will never have it said, that I surrendered the rights of my profession."

The Lord Chief Justice (attempting to interpose)." There are no rights in question."

Mr. Selwyn (continuing)." It shall never be said, that I, situated as I am to-day, expressed no dissent from a regulation, which, if permanently adopted, would make a desert of these benches, and would deprive the juniors of the bar of those opportunities of addressing the Court, which may give them experience and a just confidence in their powers, and may qualify them in due time to become leaders of causes."

The Lord Chief Justice." I am very much concerned that such a remark should be made; and I am sure it is not called for by any act on the part of the judges. The intimation is not new. Long before the time when I had first the honour to sit here, a similar notice was more strongly given, and was acted on without objection. I am always most anxious to hear all that can be urged by the gentlemen of the bar: I know that their observations are not only calculated to benefit themselves, but to serve

their clients and inform the judg ment of the Court; and it is with great pain that I refrain from hearing them at length. We do not mean to say, that we will hear only one counsel even now, but we put it to the gentlemen of the bar, whether, in the present state of public business, they will occupy the time of the Court with a repetition of arguments already presented to its attention."

Mr. Selwyn." I trust that I have made the remark which I felt bound to offer, with all the respect which is due to the Court."

The Lord Chief Justice." Why, the word "victim" might have been omitted."

to

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-An interesting illustration of the votes of the members of the House of Commons, during the last session of parliament, has been published under the title of " An Alphabetical List of the Members of the Commons House of Parliament, &c." It illustrates their votes both for and against ministers on 14 great questions, and gives the minorities on 36 questions; distinguishing 89 members who hold places, the emoluments of which in the aggregate, amount 183,3721. 8s. 111⁄2d. per annum, according to a return made to the House during last session; distinguishing also about 40 other members such as the sons, brothers, or dependents of the Lord President of the Council, of the Secretary of State for the colonies, &c. who receive about 20,000l. per annum out of the taxes, not included in the before-mentioned sum of 183,372l. 8s. 114d. The following analysis and summary is deduced from the w..ole, viz.