The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-07 00:00:00

MISS TURNER.

Mr. PEEL said, he begged leave to move the first read.
ing of a Bill, which had been brought down from the House
oeLords, the object of which was to provide what was cer-
tainly, an unusual remedy for a case which was of a nature
wholly unparalleled. The object of the Bill was to
declare null and void an alleged marriage between a per-
son of the name of Wakefield and a young lady—Miss
Turner. The circumstances of the case were too noto-
rious, in consequence of the recent trial that had taken
place respecting it, to render it necessary for him to dilate
upon one of the most infamous combinations of fraud, for-
gery, and villainy, which the history of human crime had
ever presented.—(Loud cries of Hear, hear.)—The result
of this atrocious act had been to destroy, for a time, the
peace of a most respectable family; and to destroy it, not
for the gratification of passion, but for the basest purposes,
sought to be accomplished by the basest means.—(Hear.)
The individual who bad been the chief agent in this abo-
minable transaction was now undergoing the well-me-
rited punishment of the law. He (Mr. Peel) could not,
however, refrain from observing that the sentence inflicted
upon -the person in question was a proof of the occa-
sional insufficiency of the law to meet offences which
came under its cognizance with adequate severity. Impri-
sonment for three years was a punishment which fell infi-
nitely short of sufficiently visiting a degree of moral tur-
pitude much greater than that which had been evinced
by many persons who had forfeited their lives as the just
penalty for their crimes.—(Hear.)—The object of the
measure which had been sent down by the other House,
was to prevent further injury from being sustained by
that family which had already so cruelly suffered ; and
he (Mr. Peel) was persuaded there would not be the
s,l,rlitest hesitation on the part of that House (the House
of co.,:omons) in assisting to make the only repara-
tion which the injured parties could receive, by
clearing up all doubts on the subject at issue.—
In point of fact, tiii circumstances of the case were
such that no jurisdiction but ..q. Legislative proceeding alone
could fully reach them. Miss Turner could not appear in
an Ecclesiastical Court, because she could not be allowed
to give the evidence necessary for the establishment of her
suit. On the trial of this Wakefield her evidence was ad-
missible, because that trial was a criminal proceeding on
the part of the Crown. But in an application for a di-
vorce, Miss Turner would be considered as a witness who
had an important interest in the result of the trial, and the
Court would not receive her evidence. Under these cir-
cumstances, the House would not hesitate in giving her
that relief which a Court of Law could not give. But he
would own, that if Miss Turner were not competent, after
the injury she bad sustained, be, for one, would not hesi-
tate to supply this extraordinary remedy to such a case of
extraordinary injustice. He begged the House to consider
that the young lady bad attained only the age of sixteen,
and he would ask, what man would turn round and bid
her apply to the Ecclesiastical Courts for that assistance for
which she now applied to the House of Commons? If that
were to be the answer, she would find herself, in the first
instance, compelled to apply to the Consistory Court.
From this an appeal would lie to the Court of Arches, and
from which the applicant might be obliged to resort to the
Court of Delegates. The conduct of Wakefield was aasuf-
tieient proof that the detestable avarice which had induced
him to perpetrate his crime would now prompt bins to
avail himself of these dilatory proceedings, in order to post-
pone to the utmost the ultimate termination of the tran-
saction. He might be able to do this for three years. In
the interim be would take advantage of any loss or de-
ficiency of testimony, or of any accident that might arise,
in order to harass the suitor, or to benefit himself. The
circumstances of the case were in every respect so extra-
ordinary, that it would be unjust in the House to expose
the party to any risk or possibility of having the most per-
fect justice denied or delayed. Independent of the per-
sonal interests of the party immediately connected with
the Bill, there were circumstances which were well
worthy the consideration of the Legislature. He allud-
ed, particularly, to the state of the law of Scotland with
respect t 9 the contracting of marriages—(Hear, hear.)—
in the courseofthe trial of Wakefield, it was held by a gen-
tleman of great respectability, who filled the situation of
Sheriff Depute, that notwithstanding the gross fraud prac-
tised upon Miss Turner—notwithstanding the facts of the
case, which, if the marriage had been completed in Eng-
land, would have exposed the party to capita! punishment,
still the contract would have been valid according to the
Scotch law. That witness went so far as to say, that in
Scotland no fraud, in either of the contracting parties
would warrant the Scotch Courts to set a aside a marriage.
The only exception, at least, was a fraud or deception as
to personal identity. Not even the cruel and atrocious
fraud practised by Wakefield upon a child of fifteen—his
persuading her that a marriage at Gretna Green was ne-
cessary to rescue her father from the horrors of a prison—
would justify the Scotch Court in setting aside the mar-
riage. If this were good law in Scotland,' it did appear to
him that some effectual remedy should be speedily pro-
vided.—(Hear, hear.)--But that was a matter of consi-
deration .to be reserved to a future opportunity. He trust-
ed that the unanimous feeling of the House would be in
favour of "giving to the injured party the remedy she asked
for.__(Hear, hear.)—There was a direct precedent for
such an Act. He was happy to say it was nearly of one
hundred and forty years' standing ; for crimes of this
atrocious nature were of very rare occurrence. In the year
1690, there was a precedent of an Act of Parliament,
which dissolved the marriage of Misr Wharton and the
brother of the Duke of Argyle, under circumatancea not
altogether dissimilar to those which accompanied the
conduct of Wakefield. In the precedent alluded to,
the Act of Parliament had originated in the House
of Comm_ ons ; and being passed by the Lords, the
marriag e was set aside. It was nearly fifteen
months since the crime of Wakefield had been perpe-
trated, and it was desirable that the
.anxiety and sufferings
of the injured parties should be reiieved. Tha expenses
of Mr. Turner, in bringing to trial the parties who bad
committed the injury, were little short of 10,0001. He
ought rot, therefore, to be exposed to any further expense
in procuring redress, and in setting aside the validity of
the marriage of his daughter. The expense, however,
was the lightest part of Alva consideration ; the dreadful
anxiety to which he had been .expe.se4, -s as more to be
cosarnisserated. The House would bear these things in
mind, and would reflect how much the evils would be
aggravated, if, has a refusal of relief, they sent the case to
be argued for three years in a Court of Law. They would
surely give this young lady redrese, rather than the villainy
of Wakefield should triumph, in keeping her in uncestainty
and suspense during the protracted proceedings of the
Ecclesiastical Cousts. He should move the first reading
of the Bill for declaring Nall as.d Void the Marriage of
E. G. Wakefield and Miss E. Turner.
The question being put from the Chair,
Mr. PEEL observed, that in general a Divorce Bill pro-
' ceeded ppon the presumption, that the marriage which it
was to set aside had been good and legal. In the present
instance, it was his opinion that the marriage never was
valid ; it was at all events a matter of doubt, and the ob-

ject of the Bill he brought in was to clear atvay tbat doubt.
After the conviction of Wakefield in a Court of Law, and
after the sentence passed upon him of' three years' impri-
sonment, he (Mr. Peel) trusted that the House would not
require any evidence to be given at their Bar, but would
be satisfied with that which had been taken before the House
of Lords. _ _

Mr. W. STURGES BOURNE assented to the last
proposal.
The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be
printed.
It was then ordered that application should be made to
the House of Lords for the evidence taken at their Lord-
ships' Bar, on the Bill for dissolving the marriage of E. G.
Wakefield and Miss E. Turner.

• Mr. PEEL then moved the Order of the Day for the
third reading of the Larceny Law Cosolidation Bill ; the
Malicious Injury Bill ; Remedies against the Hundred Bill ;
the Criminal Justice Bill ; all of which were read the third
time, and passed.