HC Deb 21 March 1887 vol 312 cc821-3
MR. T. BLAKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has been able to obtain more detailed information as to the re-marriage of William Frederick Jaine with his wife, Fanny Jaine, at the parish church of Kimbolton on 16th February, after they had already been married at the Primitive Methodist Chapel in Leominster; whether such re-marriage was performed by the Rev. Augustus Garthwaite, Curate of Kimbolton, and with full knowledge that the parties were already married; whether, with such knowledge, he proceeded to enter the ceremony as a marriage in the Parish Register, and in the entry (No. 211) described the parties as being "bachelor" and "spinster," married after banns; whether the wilful insertion of such an entry is made a felony by the Statute 24 & 25 Vict., c. 98, s. 36; whether this re-marriage was actually celebrated without either banns or licence, in contravention both of Ecclesiastical Law and of the Statute 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 21; and, if any banns were proclaimed, on what Sundays, and at whoso request, they were proclaimed, and what written record exists of the proclamation; and, whether he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take any action in the matter?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I have received a further letter from the Vicar of Kimbolton Parish, and have also heard from Mr. Squires, the Primitive Methodist minister at Leominster, as to the re-marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Jaine. The Vicar repeats that his curate was not aware until the following day that a religious ceremony had been performed; but believed that the parties had been married before the Registrar only. The ceremony was entered as a marriage in the Parish Register, the parties being described as stated in the Question. The Act of 24 & 25 Vict., c. 98, which makes it a felony to knowingly and unlawfully insert in any Register any false entry of any matter relating to any marriage, appears rather to be aimed at a different state of facts from that which I have mentioned. The marriage was solemnized without publication of banns, properly so-called; but there had been notice of the marriage throe times given through the Registrar's Office as provided by statute, in lieu of banns. I am led to think from the correspondence that the curate believed that he was entitled to solemnize the marriage in church without banns under 19 & 20 Vict., c. 119, s. 12, although no doubt he ought not in such a case to have entered the marriage in the Parish Register. Under all the circumstances of the case, the curate scorns to me to have acted without full knowledge of the facts, and rather per incuriam than with any fraudulent intent; and, accordingly, I am not prepared to advise the Public Prosecutor to interfere.

MR. T. BLAKE

inquired, whether a marriage could be solemnized in a church without any other notice than that given at a Registrar's Office?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he would like Notice of the Question; but, so far as he was aware, the production of the Registrar's certificate was sufficient to entitle parties to be so married.

MR. T. BLAKE

stated that the Secretary to the Registrar General informed him to the contrary.