The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-04-09 00:00:00

Thant/Oh...ter called in, and examined.

From whence do you come?—From Tipton, in Staffrdshire.
What is your occupation Orr ?—The putting of engines together.
How long have you been so employed ?—From a child.
You understand the work well ?—Yes.
Have you ever been abroad ?—Yes.
Where I—At Paris.
When?—About two years ago I went to Paris.
How long did you stay there /—Twelve months.
What did you do there ?—I was cnxting three engines.
For whom ?—For Mr. Alanby.
Fitting them to what P—To steam boats.
Were they steam boats of English or French construction ?--Of
French construction.
liVhat was the extent of Mr. Manhy's manufactory at rharenton
tear Paris; how many men were employed?—..bout 200 English.
men and boys.
Were you emp'oyed all the time at Paris, fitting those engines
to the heats es; there and Rouen.
You were at Rouen on the same duty I—Yes.
Who worked with you ?-.-A man of the name of Thomas Be-
vans.

as he an Englishmen
had you any French artisans working with you ?—No.
Are there any French artisans working in Mr. Manby's factory ?
—None but labourers. _

Were the hors English al well as the men ?—Yes.
From what putts of England did they go?—Chit fly out of Staf-
fordshire. . _

Were his works confined to the making of steam engines ?.—No;
they make forges and cutings of all deactiptions.
What are the steps of the manufactory which go on there; is
every thing from the pig iron to the finishing, conducted there?—
Ye. ; they get the pig iron from England.
Do they make the engines entirely of pig iron ?—Pig iron and
wrought iron together.
Arc they made entirely of English iron ?—l'es ; while I vu
there.

Have you ever seen any French iron ?—Yes.
Are you able to state, what is ,the &fference of quality between
French and English iron ?—The iron they have there is very bad.
In what respect is it bad ?—lt is brittle; short.
Not tough ?—No.
Whilst you were there, how many steam engines were made?—
There were two, while I was there.
Were they made of mixed iron, or English iron entirely P—They
were all made of English iron.
In what way were they finished, as compared with those made in
Staffordshire; were they as good as those you have seen finished in
StaflOrdshire ?—Every bit.
Do you think the French esteem them as much as the English
ones ?—Vcs. . _ _

If there were no English workmen there, are you aware whether
they could get Frenchmen to furnish the engines ?—No, I think they
cannot ; 1 saw one lying in the river Seine, that they had been
working at live years, and they could not bring it to pertection.
Have you any knowledge of any other factory in France?-1 have
been down along with some of the Englishmen at Chaillot, at Mr.
Edwards's factory.
Were you long at Mr. Edwards's factory ?--Only to go down to
see the men who were at work there. . . _

Do you know how many Englishmen ate at work there ?—No ;
I cannot say.
Did you see any Frenchmen at work there ?—No, not that I
know.
You do not know whether any Frenchmen are employed, in any
part of France, to do the work you were employed in ?-1 never
heard of any.
What wages did you receive there ?—About 21. a week; about
48 francs.

What wages did you receive in Staffordshire, before you went
there?—Thirty shillings.
What induced you to go Abroad ?—Mr. 'Hanby sent me with one
engine from England, the first; a drudging engine.
Did you return after that ?—Yes.
How were you paid, when you went abroad to set up tic engine?
—Three pounds a week.
After you came back from setting up the engine, why did you
return to Paris ?—By Mr. Manhy's wish.
You made an engagement with him ?—Yes ; I made an engage-
mem to go with him with another engine, that went from Stafford-
shire.

.......
Did you come back *second time?—After I had finished the se-
cond engine, he wished to keep me there.
From whence did you go with those two engines ; from Stafford-
shire ?-I'es.

—What sum can you live for in France?—lt cost me about 17 or
18 franca a week for board, and about five francs a month for
lodging.
1 ou boarded there, did you did.
Po you board also in Stafordshire ?—I have got a family in
Staffordshire.

.....
Can you live cheapest in France or in Staffordshire?-11 can live
cheaper in Staffordshire than I can in France.
Are provisions higher, or how do you account for that ?—The
meet was dearer when I was there, than it was in Staffbrdshire. _

no you recollect what meat was at in France?—Sixpence, Gjd.
and 7d. a pound.
At what was bread ?—A bout the same price as in England.
What class of workmen were with you; were they all able
workmen, or ordinary workmen ?—Most of them were able work-
turn, the htst men they could pick out of the country.
What induced you to come back ?—I did not like the country at
all.

four family was here?—Yes.
Did t oil find any difliculty in coming back ?—None at all, for I
kept it y I.WII passport in my pocket.
Do you know whether ail of the other men in the factory wish
to conic hack?—Yes, a marl wi,h to come back, it they can get
back.

What prevents their getting back ?—;Ur. Itlanby has got their
passpceta from them, and they cannot get away unless they had
them to give to the police.
Do you know whether they have applied for tht it passports ?
Yes, there have some, and Sir Charles Stuart signed them, and
when they go to the police to get them signed, they keep them
again.
Do you know whether any applications have been made to Sir
Charles Stuart against Mr. Manby, fur keeping their passports ?
No, I cannot tell.
Did you think you were acting against the English law, when you
went to France ?—Yes; 1 considered that I was not doing the thing
that ass right in stopping to instruct French work people as they
wished. _ _ _ .

Do you think that is the impression on the minds of the work
people there?—Yes, I think it is.
1)o you think that if the laws were entirely removed, and Eng-
lishmen were left to go and come as they please, litany of those that
were there would return ?—1 suppose many of them would.
Have you ever heard many of them say t(tat they would?—Yes,
I have.
Do not you think that many of those in StrifordThire would
choose to go to France, in that case ?--I cannot say, indeed.
You stated, that when you fird went over, the agreement of Mr.
Mar.hy was to give you 31. a week. but you afterwards had only
two?—That was when 1 was working for 3lr. Planby in the
country; he gave me 31. when 1 was engaged on the drudging
engine.
Did you expect the same again 7—No.
There was no breach of agreement then 7—No: if we are sent to
1-rmdon, we have It/v. extra allowance per week for coming out of
the country.
You have stated, that you can live cheaper and mote comfortably
in England, but that wage,' are not so high in England as in
F7411C0 will you state, inking into consideration the higher price
of provisions in France, and the higher rate of wages, and other
circumstances connected with living, on the whole, in which place
workmen will be most comfortable?—ln England.
Even at the reduced wages you have stated 11—Ye:.
Then, if they are more condi/rabic in England, and are employed,
do you conceive they would go to remain in France in any great
numbers, if the laws were entirely repealed ?—Yes ; many :people
would go, merely to see the country.
Do you think they wonld remain there for a series of years, or set
themselves down for life?-1 cannot tell that. 1 know, for my own
part. 1 would not stop there.
Had not you plenty of good beef and ale at Paris ?—No, no ale.
What did you drink ?—Chiefly wine.
Do not you like that better?—No.
Do you think, that if it,. Manby had wanted r.O or 100 more
men, he would have found any difficulty in getting them 7-1 ran-
not tell ; he hes been sending money lately far men, and thel have
been speeding it, keeping still in the country ; sum.: are wiling to
Du you think, from what you know of the werkraen, twenty,

thirty, for forty pounds per man, would rot get as many as he'
wanted ?-1 cannot tell, I am sure.
Dots Mr. Illanbv give any reason for refusing the passports to
the men ?—His object u to keep the men there.
Did he give any reason for doing so P—No ; I never heard any
reason, further than his sisbing to keep the men there.
If those met. returned, would not Mr. Manby be obliged to shut
up his works ?—Yes.
Ile could not get French hands to carry them on ?-11e could not
get French hands to do the same as the English are doing.
Have the English hands instructed the French ? I believe not.
None were instructed in the manufactory where you were? No.
Do you not think there are several men in Staffordshire, who
have not gone away front Staff .rdshire, because they believed there
were laws to prevent their going out of the country ?--Yes.
You think that a good nouny men have not gone away from
Staffordshire because they they thought it was wrong to go?—Yes,
that has kept them back.
Then if those laws were repealed, many men would go, probably ?
—Yes; the would be enticing more men over.
Judging by yourself, you think they would not stay there P—No,
I think they would not stop there long.
As to those men that have gone abroad and have not returned,
what do you think has generally stopped them from returning :
Mr. 3lanby's keeping their passports.
Do you think they have been at all stopped front coining back.
by the fear of being punished by the English laws for having gone ?
No ; they would run all hazards of that, if they could get their
passports.
1)0 you apprehend Mr. Manby has kept hack their passports,
from the circumstance of any of them owing money ?-1 cannot say.
Did you ever hear that :11r. Edwards had kept. back the pass-
ports of men at his manufactory, to prevent their returning ?—No,
1 never heard that he did.
Is not puddling a more laborious occupation in the climate of
Paris than it is in Statfiwilshire?—Yes, a great deal more.
Why so ?-11ecause it is so much hotter.
Do you consider that Paris, altogether, is less favourable for
manufactories than Staffordshire ?--tile, dear ! yes.

Do the men generally complain of that ?—Yes.
Did Mr. 3lanby ask you for your passport when you first went
over?—No.
Are the Englishmen who are there in general sober men?—No,
very much the contrary.
'hey get drunk with the sour wine ?—Yes, they do; and

brandy-.
Very few of them save money ?—Very few of them save money.
Do many of them get into debt ; they take care they will
not let them get into debt.
The wine is very poor stuff?—Yes.
We shall make some further extracts from this Third
Report, the contents of which are extremely interesting,
the tirst opportunity.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, THURSDAY, Aran. 8.

BIGAMY.
11: THE MATTER OF SAUMAIEZ, • LENATTC.
In this case, which was partially heard on Tuesday, Mr. Heald
resumed his application to the Court. Ile had a retition from the
brothers of the lunatic, praying his Lordship to refer to the Master;
to inquire whether C. Taylor, alias Reilly, alias Saumarez, is the
wife of the lunatic, and whether an action ought to be instituted in
the Ecclesiastical Courts to annul the marriage entered into between
the lunatic and this lady ; the claims of the petition rested on the
following facts as detailed in the affidavits of several persons
Charlotte Taylor, now Mrs. Saumares, was alleged to have been
married some years ago to John Reilly, in the vicinity of the town
of Dundalk, county booth, Ireland ; the clergyman who solemn-
ised the marriage was the Rev. John Hamilton Stubbs, acting at
the tints for the Rev. Mr. Thackery, Protestant Minister of Dun-
dalk ; Reilly and his wife removed to England some time after, and
resided at Manchester, where the husband worked as a labourer ;
he disappeared from Manchester, the affidavits did nut state how,
and has not since been heard of or seen. The affidavits then went
on to state, that Charlotte Reilly conducted herself as a person of
light conduct and ill-fame in Manchester after the disappearance of
her husband, and that she was actually residing in a brothel at the
time she was married to the lunatic ; after a short residence with
the lunatic, she was apprehended on a charge of bigamy, set up
against her by the relatives of the lunatic, the present petitioners
before the Court ; the trial took place at the Lancaster Assizes last
summer, when she was acquitted, in consequence of Mr. Justice
Bayley's opinion that her first marriage, viz,that with Reilly, in
Ireland, was not a valid marriage, inasmuch as it had been so-
lemnised, not in a church, but in a private house, in an uncanonical
place and hour. The allegations then proceeded to prove, that the
female who married Reilly in Ireland was the same who was sub.
sequently married to the lunatic, and the same who was tried for
bigamy ; her identity was proved by the concurrent testimony of
many. Having stated these facts to the Court, Mr. Heald urged
that the lady's marriage with the lunatic was illegal, and ought to
be of course dissolved ; it might be objected to him that, as the
lady wasacquitted of bigamy, it followed that this last marriage
was legal ; but it wait well known that the Leained and able Judge
who presided at that trial, subsequently declared, that hie opinion
at the time was erroneous, and his direction to the Jury consequent-
ly incorrect. It may also be said, that it was not usual to refer
such an inquiry as that prayed by the petitioners to the Matter;
but this objection also was invalid, as there was& precedent in point
in the case of Smith ; on the grounds of the facts alleged in
the affidavit, he trusted the Court would direct such inquiry and
suit in the Ecclesiastical Courts to be instituted, as the petition
prayed.
Mr. AGAR, far the lady, contended against the prayer of the
petition on sevetal grounds; it had been on Tuesday asserted that
this lady had married three times; but there was not one single
mention of in the affidavits ; there was no evidence of it before the
Court. It was alleged in the affidavits that she was married in
Ireland, but that allegation was. not sufficient; the certificate of the
marriage ought to have been brought into Court, and proved before
his Lordship. As to the marriage, it was proved to be invalid by
the direction of the Judge, and the verdict of the Jury ; the second
marriage was, of course, legal. As to Mr. Justice Bayley's change
of opinion,lit was but a matter of assertion by the adverse party,
and not sufficient to guide or warrant the decision of the bench ; it
was not usual to refer a point of law to the consideration of the
Master; but even though referred, the Ecclesiastical Court had not
power to reverse a marriage after it had been declared valid by a
Judge and Jury. If the inquiry should be gone into it would be
excessively expensive to the lunatic's estate, and after all would
end in nothing. For these reasons he trusted his Lordship would
not take any measures to disturb the marriage.
The Loan CHAXCELLOR. said the question before the Court
was, whether reference ought to be made to the Master to inquire
whether this lady was the wife of the lunatic, and to consider
whether a suit should be instituted in the Ecclesiastical Courts to
reverse that marriage. It certainly was the practice of the Court to
refer such a case to the Master, as in the matter of Smith, in which
the Master was directed to inquire whether the marriage of that
lunatic was solemnized when he was of sound mind : this latter was
an inquiry into a fact. As to references to the Master for a point
of law, his Lordship was very unwilling to direct them. It would
be a question whether the Ecclesiastical Courts had jurisdiction in
such an affair; what was the extent of that jurisdiction, and how
far it would he for the benefit of the lunatic's estate, to purchase
such a dissolution of marriage from the Ecclesiastical Courts ; his
Lordship remembered the case of a man who married and dissolved
his marriage in Scotlad, according to the established custom of
that country ; he came into England and married again ; he was
tried in Lancaster fur bigamy, and found guilty, and the twelve
Judges declared on the occasion that the first marriage could not
be dissolved except by Act. of Parliament. His Lordship had
reason to think that Mr. Justice Bayley's present opinion was that
a marriage solemnised in Ireland, under uncanonical circumstances,
was valid, but that the clergyman who solemnized it was subject to
ecclesiastical censure from his suneriors. His Lordship thought it
better to declare the law himself than depute the Master to do
it ; a suit before the Ecclesiastical Courts would be very ex-
pensive; he would inquire into the law and report his opinion at
another time.