§ MR. COLLINSdesired to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to a marriage which had recently taken place at the registrar's office, Shrewsbury, between a woman and the brother of her deceased husband. He was not going to waste the time of the House by reviving the controversy with respect to marriages with a deceased wife's sister, although he quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London that if the one marriage were allowed, so ought the other. But the circumstances of the case to which he would refer were peculiar. It appeared that the man and the woman were both living at Bishop's Castle, about twenty miles from Shrewsbury; that they went before the clergyman of the parish, expressing a desire to be married, and were by him told that both by the law of God and the law of man such marriages were forbidden. They then went before the registrar of the district; but he declared the law of the land was 'against marriage with the brother of a deceased husband. Well, not put out by this discourtesy on the part of the clergyman and the registrar, and reckoning, perhaps, that if the marriage took place, one day or other some Member of Parliament would bring in a Bill to legalize it, one of the parties, the man, went to Shrewsbury, where he had never lived an hour nor spent a single night, and gave in his name and that of the person he intended to marry at the registrar's office, stating that there was no bar on the ground of consanguinity or affinity to their marriage, and likewise that they had resided so many days at Shrewsbury, and they were then married. Now, he believed the clergy were bound to ascertain whether the parties desirous of contracting marriage before them did or did not reside in the parish; but the registrar was not bound to make such inquiry. 1724 What he, therefore, wished to know was, whether the attention of the Home Secretary has been called to the marriage of James Bailes and Anne Bailes, which took place on the 17th of December last, and if he is prepared to institute a prosecution for perjury against the parties under the second section of the 19 & 20 Vict., c. 119; and, likewise, whether he intends to take any steps whereby clandestine marriages before the registrar may be more effectually checked.
SIR GEORGE LEWISThe arguments of those hon. Gentlemen who complain of the miscellaneous character of the debate which takes place on Friday evenings on the Motion for adjournment, might derive some confirmation from what has taken place this evening, when a discussion, commencing on the conduct of Lord Elgin and Sir Michael Seymour in the East, goes on next to the mode of proceeding with regard to the French Treaty, next to the earnest and pathetic appeal of my hon. Friend with respect to an approaching pugilistic encounter, and winds up with a question, preceded by a rather diffuse narrative, from the hon. Member for Knares-borough with respect to the fraudulent marriage of a woman with the brother of her deceased husband. I have only to state shortly, in reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, that my attention was called some time ago to the proposed pugilistic encounter for the honours of the championship. The letter was referred to Sir Richard Mayne, who no doubt will take care to obtain information on the subject, and I daresay he will be able to prevent the occurrence of this encounter within the limits of the metropolitan police. Beyond that assurance, I am afraid I cannot venture to give any positive promise to my hon. Friend, because, as I am informed, no day or place has been fixed for this feat of arms; and, under those circumstances, the parties will probably take measures to defeat the vigilance of the police, and thus place it out of their power to prevent a sudden incursion into the country. With regard to the second Question—that of the hon. Member for Knaresborough—I can only say that application was made to me on the subject some time ago; I was asked to institute a prosecution for perjury; but, on a review of all the circumstances of the case, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing to justify my taking it out of the hands of the proper local authorities.