Star.
London, England, 1827-06-07 00:00:00

yeets'imprisonment fell yet! shore, indeed,ofthe punish-
ment which ought to follow such a crime. klundreds
of delinquents, much less guilty than he—without the
advantages of education which he possessed—had been
convicted of capital felonies, and had forfeited their
'Owes. The object if the present measure was to preient
the infliction of further injury, ana he did not think the
House would hesitate to make that reparation which
was necessary to clear up the embarrassment with which
:Miss Turner's present situation was surrounded.—The
circumstances of this case were so peculiar, that no
other jurisdiction could properly and adequately afford
redress. The party could not apply to an Ecclesiastical
Court, for by the rules of such a tribunal, the testimony
:at Miss Turner could nit be received as evidence.
Doubtless she was allowed to be examined as a witness
on-the trial of the indictment preferred against Wake-
field{ but here the House would observe, that the pro-
ceeding was of a criminal kind, and instituted at the suit
of the Crown, Were she to come before an Ecclesiastical
Court, she would appear as an ,interested party--;-she
would derive a personal advantage from a particular re-
sult, and, clearly then, this -a ould form a fatal objection
to her evidence. Under such circumstances, then, he felt
persuaded that the House would not hesitate to bestow
that remedy which it was in its power alone to confer. It
was certainly an extraordinary remedy. but, then, the
case was one of extraordinary injury. Here was the case
'of a young Lady, scarcely more than sixteen, who had
suffered one of the most grievous injuries that could
•tie inflicted, of whom it had been alleged that a certain
marriage ceremony had been performed—the legality
of which had been doubted, but which could not be
annulled by an Ecclesiastical Court, on the only exist-
ing evidence. Were they, under such circumstances,
to tan round upon a young Lady so circumstanced,
and say she must go into an Ecclesiastical Court, and
obtain the best remedy it could afford? Even suppose
there were evidence, the delay would be intolerable;
she would have in the first instance to apply to the
Consistory Court—from that, there would lie. an appeal
to the Court of Arches—thence to the Coast of Delegates.
In the whole of the delinquent's conduct he had man,.
fested such a disposition, as left little doubt that he
would do all in his power to create delay, and present
obstruction and difficulty. The proceedings might be
protracted for three years, during which her adversary.
might avail himself of any deficiency of evidence that
accident might create, and if she were to die in the
interim, and that the nullity of the marriage were not
in the end to be established according to the forms of
those Courts, he would become entitled to any property
settled upon her. This, to a man so avaricious, would
be success. Independently, however, of all personal in-
terests, there were some considerations suggested by the
circumstances of this case which he thought not uo-
'worthy of-the attention of the House; he alluded to
the state of the Scotch laws as regarded marriages.
—(Hear, hear!) In the course of the trial, the Sheriff
Depute of the County in which the marriage was said
to have taken place, had been examined, and it was held,
by him that the marriage was valid—notwithstanding
the fraud ....notwithstanding that,if the same proceedings
had taken place in England, they would have amounted
to a capital felony. He held that the marriage was,
good according to the Scotch law—that there, previonsl
circumstances of the nature which had occurred in this'
case, were not taken into account; no fraud, no decep-
tion, invalidating the marriage, unless it related to per-
sonal identity. In that case, and in that only, would a
Scotch Court afford a remedy, though, as in this par-
ticular instance, the grossest fraud had been practised,
and that upon a girl of fifteen years old, who had bees
induced to believe that the act was absolutely nem*.
sary to rescue her father from the hands of bailiffs.
He (the Sheriff Depute) held, that an extorted consent
did by no means nullify the marriage. If that be good
law, it was of the utmost importance 'that a remedy
should be applied to so serious and dangerous a princi-
ple. If a female, by means of intimidation or fraud,
has been induced to contract a marriage, it is a felony
in the party so coercing her on the one side of the Boo*
der—on the other he is rewarded for his delinquency—
by crossing the Border he escapes the consequences of
his crime, and makes his marriage good. Those
considerations, though very material in themselves, be
would press upon 'the attention of the House no far-
ther—any other observations of that nature ought
to be reserved for a different proceeding from that
which he was then bringing under their notice—
as respected that, he trusted the House would be per-
fectly unanimous. It was satisfactory to think, that there
was but one direct precedent bearing upon this case,
and that that was at such a distance of time as 140 years.
It occurred in the year 1690, when the marriage of
Miss Wharton and Mr. Campbell (a relative of the
Duke of Argyle) was annulled. The present Act, as
the House was aware, had originated in the other House,
and had been sent to that House by their Lordships.—
Fifteen months had elapsed since the proceedings com-
menced. The expenses incurred by Mr. Turner were
little less than 10,0001. and he trusted the House would
see the justice and propriety of preventing any further
waste of money—though, certainly, the expense wasl
the lightest part of the evil to which that family had
been exposed—it was as nothing compared to the dread-
ful anxiety *Web they must have undergone. Under such
circumstances, he trusted they would not send him into
an Ecclesiastical Court for 3 years. They would recollect
the situation of the young Lady, scarcely turned of 16,
and he hoped they would prefer an extraordinary mea-
sure rather than that villany should be successful and
triumphant—rather than that Miss Turner and her
family should be tortured by dilatory proceedings, and
perhaps her prospects eventually blasted. The Right
Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first reading
of the Bill.
The Bill was accordingly read a first time. On the
question that it be read a second time,
Mr. PEEL observed, that it would be unnecessary
for that House to go into any evidence. The Bill was
merely declaratory for the purpose of removing doubts.
It would be quite sufficient for them to have a copy of
the evidence taken before the House of Lords.
Mr. Secretary STURGES BOURNE said, that be
hoped the last suggestion would be attended to.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a second time
to-morrow.
Mr. PEEL then moved, that an application be made
to the House of Lords for a copy of the evidence taken
before that House on this subject.—Ordered.•
On the motion of Mr. Pm, the Larceny Laws Con-
solidation Bill—the Malicious Injuries Bill—the Reme-
dies against the Hundred Bill—and the Administration
of Criminal Justice Bill, were severally read a third
time, and pasted.
PENRYN RLECTION—JOAN CARNR,

Mr. MANNING ad•eited to a Petition from J )11,
Carnet who stood committed to Newgate, under at