consequence was, that a husband, to whom the publication of banns was usually entrusted, might, by his own fraud, render the marriage void. To prevent that, a new provision was introduced into the 4 G. 4. c. 76, which by sec. 22. enacts, that if any persons shall knowingly and wilfully intermarry without due publication of banns, or licence, the marriages of such persons shall be null and void to all intents and purposes. Now the words

any persons," in the plural number, prima facie import both parties, and if that be so, then, to render the marriage void, both parties should be cognizant of the undue publication of banns. When the statute is meant to apply to either of the parties separately, it is so expressed; as in sections 7, and 14. In Wiltshire v. Prince otherwise Wiltshire, Dr. Lushington forbore to decide the present question. This, being an act in restriction of the liberty of marriage, must be construed strictly, Hodgkinson v. Wilkie; and so construing the words "wilfully and knowingly," they denote acts done with a consciousness that the party is doing wrong. That construction was put on similar words in the statute 9 Anne, c. 10, which imposes a penalty upon a postmaster wittingly, willingly, and knowingly detaining letters, and which was held not to apply to a case where the postmaster delivered letters to an assignee addressed to the bankrupt, bona fide believing that the assignee was entitled to have them. (Meirelles v. Banning.) Now here, the pauper, one of the parties to the marriage, did not know, until after she left the church, that the banns had been published in a wrong name. Besides, the legislature seems to have assumed in sec. 23., that there may be a valid marriage where one of the parties to it knew that the banns had not been duly published; for it enacts, "if any valid marriage shall be procured by a party thereto to be solemnized by banns between persons one or both of whom shall be under the age of twenty-one years, not being a widower or widow, such party know ing that such person under the age of twenty-one years had a parent or guardian then living, and that

such marriage was had without the consent of such parent or guardian, and knowing that banns had not been duly published according to the provisions of this act, and having knowingly caused and procured the undue publication of banns, then it shall be lawful for the Attorney-General to sue for a forfeiture of all estate, &c. which hath accrued or shall accrue to the party so offending by force of such marriage." Dwarris and Humfrey contrà.

The question undoubtedly turns on the 4 G. 4. c. 76. s. 22. which, in order to invalidate a marriage, requires two things:-1st, a want of due publication of banns, and 2dly, that the parties should intermarry with a knowledge of that fact; for that is a fraud on the marriage act. Now the decisions on the statute 26 G. 4. c. 33., establish that the publication by banns must be in the proper names of the parties acquired by baptism or by reputation. The word due, in the statute 4 Geo. 4, if it makes any difference, renders the case stronger. Section 7 explains the intention of the legislature, for it requires the parties seven days at least before the time required for the publication of the banns respectively to deliver notice in writing of their true christian names and surnames. All the authorities on the construction of the statute 26 G. 2. c. 33. are collected in Rex v. Billinghurst, and are classified by Lord Tenterden in Rex v. Tibshelf, and they shew that where the banns are published in a name or names totally different from those which the parties, or one of them, ever used, or by which they were ever known, the marriage in consequence of that publication is invalid; but where there is a partial variation of name only, as the alteration of a letter or letters, or the addition or suppression of one christian name, the publication may or may not be void; the supposed mis-description may be explained, and it becomes the subject of inquiry, whether it was consistent with honesty of purpose or arose from a fraudulent intention. That being the state of the law before the late statute, the enactment contained in it, that marriages knowingly and wilfully had without due publication

of banns should be void, was wholly unnecessary with reference to cases in which there had been only a partial mis-description, and must have been intended therefore to apply to cases where there had been a total misdescription, and, in such cases, to let in the same inquiry as to the motives of the parties which might, previously to that statute, have taken place where there had been a partial mis-description.

Then it becomes a question on the facts of this case, whether the parties did knowingly and wilfully intermarry without due publication of banns? Now, that must be inferred from the conduct of each at the time of the marriage. The object of the man clearly was to elude the statute: he said his motive was to save expense; and as to the woman, as soon as the clergyman addressed her by the name of Agnes, she must have known that there had been a false description of her, and yet she afterwards put her mark to the register. She, therefore, assented to the false description, knowing at the time of the marriage that it was so. The 23d sec. of the 4 G. 4. c. 76. has no bearing in this case; the object of the legislature there was, in a case, where the woman had been deceived throughout, to deprive the husband of her fortune.

Cur. adv. vult. DENMAN C. J. in the course of the term, delivered the judgment of the Court.

In this case, the sessions confirmed an order for the removal of Susannah Carpenter, as the wife of James Carpenter. The question was whether she was his wife, and turned upon the 22d sec. of the 4 G. 4. c. 76., the marriage act in force in 1829, when the ceremony was performed.

The case stated that James Carpenter prevailed upon Susannah Spencer to marry him, and told her he would see the banns properly published, and afterwards that they had been published. She took no steps in the matter. He, however, procured the banns to be published in the names of James Carpenter and Agnes Watts, which latter name the pauper had never borne. In

performing the service, the clergyman applied to her the name of Agnes, till which time she believed that she was about to be married by her own name, and she did not know, until after the marriage, that the banns had been published in a wrong name.

The facts above recited are the only material ones in the case. To shew the marriage void, the case of Rex v. Tibshelf, decided in this Court in Trinity term, 1830, was relied upon. This case was decided under the 26 G. 2, c. 33. commonly called The Marriage Act, which by sect. 8. provides that all marriages that shall be solemnized without publication of banns, or licence, shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever; and in a series of decisions on that statute, founded on a reference to the second section, it was held that the banns were to be published in the true names of the parties, otherwise it was no publication at all.

The words of the present act are wholly, and we must presume, advisedly different. The only clause avoiding a marriage for want of banns is the 22d, which enacts, that if any persons shall knowingly and wilfully intermarry without due publication of banns, or a licence first had and obtained, the marriages of such persons shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

We are of opinion, that in order to invalidate a marriage under this enactment, it must be contracted by both parties with a knowledge that no due publication of the banns had taken place. Now, the sessions have here negatived such knowledge on the part of the pauper.

The only decision which is reported on the effect of this section, is that of the case of Wiltshire v. Prince otherwise Wiltshire, in which Dr. Lushington expressly founded his judgment of nullity on the fact, that both the man and the woman were aware that the banns had been published in a manner calculated to conceal the identity of one of the parties. We therefore think the marriage valid, and confirm the orders.

Order of sessions confirmed.

St. David's College.

WE extract the following from the Calendar for the present year, as giving a concise and gratifying account of St. David's College:

It is pretty generally known, that the value of Church preferment in the diocese of St. David's being much less than in England, a great proportion of its Clergy till of late years were educated at Grammar Schools, licensed for that purpose by the Bishop of the diocese, the expense of which was very trifling compared with that of a residence at the English universities. This system, though attended with some advantages, was found to be productive of very serious evils, to remedy which was long the anxious desire of the friends of the Establishment. The idea first suggested itself to the venerable Bishop Burgess, then Bishop of St. David's, of founding a college which should unite the advantage of a sound education and strict academical discipline, with such a limited scale of expense as would meet the exigencies of the country. At a meeting of the Rural Deans of the diocese, on the 2d of July, 1806, it had been proposed to build a few lodging rooms at Ystradmeurig. Cardiganshire, for the accommodation of the exhibitioners supported by the "Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and Church Union in the Diocese of St. David's." Upon inquiry, it appeared that there were some local difficulties which made the situation less desirable than had been originally conceived. These difficulties induced the Society to think Llanddewi Brefi, in the same county, a preferable situation, and in the place of the projected lodging rooms, it was determined to found a permanent establishment for the purpose of clerical education, which should embrace a regular course of professional study.

The choice of a situation was, however, still left open, till a sufficient sum of money should be obtained to allow of the actual commencement of the work. With this end in view, his lordship collected subscriptions for nearly twenty years, to which the Clergy of the diocese contributed with the utmost zeal and liberality, and in the year 1822, before he quitted the diocese, had the satisfaction of laying the foundation of St. David's College, at Lampeter, in Cardiganshire, on a site granted by the Lord of the Manor, J. S. Harford, Esq. of Blaise Castle, near Bristol, for the accomplishment of the objects he had so long had at heart. The building was finally completed and opened for the reception of students on the 1st of March, 1827, the cost of the structure having been about 20,000l. Of this sum, 5,000l. were contributed by government,during the administration of Lord Liverpool; and one of the last acts of Mr. Canning's life was the grant of an additional 1,000l. for the same purpose. A munificent donation of 1,000l. was graciously presented by his late Majesty, King George the Fourth, who accompanied the present with a letter addressed to Bishop Burgess, in which his Majesty was pleased to express the highest commendation of this "most laudable effort of the Bishop of St. David's" for "the benefit of those who should in future constitute the great body of the Welsh Clergy." In addition to this mark of the royal bounty, a charter of incorporation was also granted to the college, the corporate body to consist of a principal and four professors; and his Majesty was enabled, by Act of Parliament, to transfer to the college the patronage of six benefices, three of them sinecures, to be annexed in future to the professorships, and held in trust by the professors during their continuance in their