been decorated with the order of the Legion of Honour. In the discharge of his duties, whilst in the service of the civil list, he had been constantly remarked for his zeal and good conduct. He had resigned his functions because he had considered himself aggrieved. His resentment alone had blinded him, and, as he declared himself, he had not been influenced by bad advisers or accomplices. Lecomte had never belonged to any particular political party. The owner of the circulating library which he frequented declared that the only journal he read was the Petites Affiches, and the motive of his preference for that journal was, that he expected to find in it a situation.

He saw

that, in order to obtain an honourable situation, a certain sum was required as a security, and this had been his reason for demanding the capitalization of his pension. M. Duvergier then undertook to prove that Lecomte could not have contemplated the murder of the King as far back as May 1844, or October 1845; and, to substantiate his opinion, he read the letters he had written to His Majesty since that period, and which were full of expressions of respect and affection. Reverting to his military career, he read a number of documents describing him as a good and brave soldier. The colonel of the regiment of Chasseurs of the Royal Guard, in which he had served, had addressed to him (M. Duvergier) a certificate highly honourable to his client. At the battle of Carolina, Lecomte had so distinguished himself, taking prisoner a superior officer of the Spanish cavalry, that having been allowed five crosses of the Legion of Honour for his regiment, he did not hesitate to bestow one on Lecomte. In Greece he

had similarly distinguished himself. On one occasion, the corps to which he belonged having been obliged to retrograde, Lecomte, then aide-decamp of General Church, being stationed in the rear-guard, saw a young English officer on the point of falling into the hands of the Turks. He gave spur to his horse, charged the enemy, and was fortunate enough to rescue the officer from their hands. Lecomte had fought several duels, in every one of which he had behaved with the greatest generosity, receiving the fire of his opponent and discharging his pistol in the air. When in the service of the administration of the civil list, he had deported himself with zeal, honour, and irreproachable probity, according to the statement of all his superiors. M. Duvergier then read a letter which Lecomte wrote, in January 1835, to his sister, on the occasion of the death of his mother, and which breathed the utmost tenderness for his parent. (The accused appeared greatly affected whilst his counsel was reading that letter.) M. Duvergier contended that Lecomte was to the present hour fully convinced of having been the victim of an unpardonable injustice. It was a real monomania, a mental aberration, a fixed idea. Borrowing an expression of Sir Robert Peel, he declared Lecomte to labour under a morbid vanity. He then explained what would be the course pursued in England with respect to his client; and stated, that when an attempt directed against the person of the Sovereign was not inspired by political passions, the culprit was only sentenced to transportation. Of the three individuals lately tried in England for a similar crime, not one had been convicted of high

wife. A very large number of families are placed in a state of doubt and difficulty, from the alleged uncertainty of the law upon this point, such marriages being by no means uncommon among the upper, and very frequent among the lower classes."

John Chadwick was indicted for having, on the 23rd of March last, at Manchester, feloniously and unlawfully married one Eliza Bostock, his former wife, Ann Fisher, being then and still alive. The prisoner pleaded, "Not Guilty." Mr. T. Campbell Foster stated the case. The prisoner stands charged with having married upon the 14th September, 1845, one Ann Fisher, and with having, during the life of the said Ann Fisher, subsequently married, on the 23rd of March in the present year, another wife, one Eliza Bostock. I will call before the jury witnesses who will prove the fact of these two marriages; and that the first wife, Ann Fisher, is still alive. Were these the only points likely to arise in this case, I should sit down content with simply calling evidence to substantiate the facts I have opened; but I am informed that there is another point of considerable importance which will arise-a point which has not arisen for nearly two centuries-a point which has been conceived to be law, but which I shall submit to his lordship is not law. It is, I am told, to be argued in defence to-day, that the prisoner, when he married his first wife, Ann Fisher, had previously married that he was then a widower; and that in his first marriage he had married the sister of the first wife as charged in the indictment. For clearness' sake, I shall put it thus: -He married some years ago one Hannah Fisher, who died; at his

second marriage, he married Ann Fisher, the deceased wife's sister. The third marriage (which is the second marriage in the indictment) constitutes the bigamy. The case which is to be made out on the part of the defence to-day is this:

Under these circumstances, I understand it is to be contended before you, that the first marriage charged in the indictment was void under a recent statute passed in the reign of William IV. In order to explain clearly the effect of that statute, I will read the binding clause:- "That all marriages which shall hereafter be celebrated between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity shall be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

Now, I understand that it is to be contended for the defence, that this first marriage was within the prohibited degrees of affinity. It will be for my learned friend to show that that is so; I shall contend it is not so. Mark what are the words of this statute; they are simply these: "All marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity shall be null and void. In order to make out the case for the defence, it is to be assumed that this marriage was a marriage voidable before the statute of William IV.; and that, being voidable before the statute of William IV., that statute applies, and renders the marriage absolutely void. Now, in order to render marriages voidable, previous to the statute of William IV., it was necessary to prove they were within the prohibited degrees of affinity, as set out in the Levitical law. There are three ways of showing that such a marriage was void: first, by the statute law; secondly, by the cannon law; and, thirdly, by the Levitical law

1.

sentence of the Emerica promosi inzing the lifethe parties thereto; anita mea cable that the State and erodno of the 20Dinam A berveen the ambibited degrees of All en vented so unga pemod; and it is TES hich may bereafter he celebrated been pers as within the prohibited afy 4all be frau für vold, and it merely wailable” Your keklip entitzed the learned sunsel will remember the state of the law prior to the passing of this Art.

Wightman, J.—I do not think you need go into that. What says the act of Parliament ?

Mr. Moak.-The act of Parla ment says, my lord, All marriages hereafter celebrated within the pr roes of consanguinit. be absolutety

W. J.-West &
to that, Mr. Foster ?

Mr. Faster.-I shall entend, my kind, that this is not within the prohibited degrees.

Wishman, J.—Not

sister!

Mr. Foster.—Yes, my lord; not a wife's sister.

Witzan, J.-Is it not named

there?

Mr. Foster.-Yes, my lord; but I shall show your lordship, that the canon, under which that table is inserted in the Book of Commoc Prayer, is not binding upon the laity of this country, because it has never been sanctioned by aet of Parliament.

Wightman. J.-Then what is the meaning of this phrase of the act-"The prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity??

Mr. Foster.-If your lordship will permit me, I will state my argument consecutively; and—

Wightman, J.-I shall be very happy to hear you, Mr. Foster;

but it seems to me the point in this case is very short. If you can tell me who are the persons to whom this second section applies, and what are the degrees of consanguinity or affinity to which it applies, it would materially shorten the case.

Mr. Foster. I shall show your lordship the point is far from being a short one. The case of "Middleton v. Croft" (to which I draw your lordship's attention), reported in 2 Atkins, has decided that the canons of 1603, which adopt Archbishop Parker's table, passed in the sixteenth century, which is the table inserted in the Prayer Book, are not binding upon the laity of this country, because they have not been sanctioned by Parliament.

Wightman, J.-But I suppose this second section (5th and 6th William IV.) alludes to somebody "All marriages celebrated between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity shall be absolutely null and void, and so on?

Mr. Foster. No doubt, my lord; but I contend

Wightman, J.-Where do you say are the prohibited degrees?

Mr. Foster. The prohibited degrees, my lord, are set out in the 32nd Henry III., chap. 38.

Wightman, J.-Let me see that act. If you satisfy me it does not apply to a deceased wife's sisters, very well.

Mr. Foster. I hope to do so, my lord. Your lordship will find there are certain degrees there called "the Levitical degrees," without which no marriage shall be prohibited. All marriages within the Levitical degrees are there expressed to be contrary to God's law. The Levitical degrees are the test which your lordship

must take, as to the prohibited degree of affinity.

Mr. Monk. Your lordship will find that these degrees are themselves selves declared by a previous statute.

Mr. Foster. Having now convinced your lordship there is a point in the case of some importance, and a point well worthy of consideration, I will endeavour to go consecutively through my argument. The 5 and 6 William IV. sets out that all degrees within the prohibited degrees of affinity shall be void after the passing of that statute. Therefore, my lord, if there be any degrees which were voidable previously to that statute, and this marriage is included in those degrees, the statute 5 and 6 William IV. applies to that class of voidable marriages, and the marriage becomes ipso facto void. The first question to be determined, then, is-Is this marriage within the prohibited degrees, voidable by any means? There are three modes, my lord, by which a marriage of this kind may be agreed to be voidable. First, it may be argued it is voidable by the statute law of this country; secondly, by the canon laws, which, if valid, are held to be binding; and, thirdly, by the Levitical degrees, which are named in the 32nd Henry VIII., chap. 38, and of which your lordship must be the expounder. I will take the statutory law first; and I will take it in the order of time, in order to make the argument more clear. I will then first draw your lordship's attention to the act 25 Henry VIII., chap. 22. That statute was the first statute which contained any list whatever of the prohibited degrees of affinity. It will be found in page 439 of Burn's