[1423] Rex v. Northfield (1781), 2 Douglas, 658; Geary, loc. cit.; Burn, op. cit., 32 n. 2.
[1424] 21 Geo. III., c. 53: Statutes at Large, VIII, 83. In the debate on the bill for this act Mr. Charles James Fox, "who appears," says Burn, "to have possessed an hereditary opposition to the Marriage Act of 1753," declared "that all persons who had solemnized marriages in any of these new chapels were at present liable to transportation. Under danger of that penalty stood ... a vast number of clergymen, and some prelates in the Upper House; but as America would not receive them, they must go to the Justitia Hulk, which to be sure would be a terrible thing, and he hoped the house would interfere to save these reverend, and right reverend gentlemen from so horrible a fate. It was an absolute fact that several, if not all, of the Bishops had transgressed in this way; and by the bye, the House might have the mortification to see Bishops in their lawn sleeves, instead of preaching the word, heaving ballast on the Thames."—Burn, op. cit., 32, 33, note.
[1425] 44 Geo. III., c. 77; 48 Geo. III., c. 127; 11 Geo. IV. (1830), c. 18. The statute of 6 Geo. IV., unlike all the preceding, validated future marriages in churches or chapels erected since 26 Geo. II., c. 33: Geary, op. cit., 61.
[1426] Hammick, Marriage Law, 14, note, citing Sir John Stoddart's Letter to Lord Brougham on the Irish Marriage Cases (1844), who says, referring to the facts mentioned in the text, "that was in the case of Hewett v. Bratcher (1809), in which I was counsel before the High Court of Delegates; and that court decided that agreeably to the Act of 1753, then in force, a marriage must, under such circumstances, be annulled." Compare also the similar case of Johnson v. Parker (1819), 3 Phillim., 39, where "the husband obtained a declaration of nullity because he was about six weeks under age at the date of the marriage, although he had himself sworn on applying for the licence that he was of age."—Geary, op. cit., 15. Other cases are mentioned in Hansard, Par. Debates, XXXIX, 1466; XLI, 1445 (1st series).
[1427] Hayes v. Watts (1819), 3 Phillim., 43.
[1428] Geary, op. cit., 14, 15.
[1429] Reddall v. Leddiard (1820), 3 Phillim., 256. This case and others are discussed by Phillimore, Speech on the Marriage Act, 23-45, an able exposition of the evils arising under the Hardwicke act.
[1430] Geary, op. cit., 15, note.
[1431] Compare Geary, op. cit., 15.
[1432] In the preceding year, by 3 Geo. IV., c. 75, the provision of the Hardwicke act invalidating marriage of minors by license without consent, and some other defects, were remedied; but the eighth and following sections of the law prescribing more "stringent regulations to prevent clandestine marriage by licence," were repealed by 4 Geo. IV., c. 17, which enacted that "licences should be granted in the case of minors as under Lord Hardwicke's act": cf. Hammick, Marriage Law, 15, note; Hansard, Debates, 2d series, VII, 702, 1635 (Commons); 1128, 1143, 1198, 1373, 1452 (Lords); and Phillimore, Speech on the Marriage Act, 45 ff.