Star.
London, England, 1827-05-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OP LORDS, MAT 17.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the
Woolsack at four o'clock.
111 WAICITILLD'S PRTITION.

The Earl of ELDON presented a Peddon from Edward Gibbon
Wakefield, stating, that be had heard a Petition had been pre-
sented to tilde Lordships from William Turner, Esq. praying for
leave to bring in a Bill to annul the marriage of the said Edward
Gibbon Wakolleld with the daughter of the said William Turner,
Eon. and that be had reason to believe that the said Petition con-
tained Beeted untruths; he therefore prayed their Lordships to. be
pandded reappear at their Lordships Bar la person, to reply to
she of the said Petition. The Petitioner, Mr. WakeSeld,
abs staled, that be was then a prisoner under a sentence of the
tenet of King's Bench, and that he could not appear at their Lord-
ships' Bar wens they were pleased to make an order fur that pur-
pose; he therefore prayed their Lordships to be pleased to order
him to be brought to their Lordships' Bar, and to make any other
order which might be necessary to enable him to be heard ageism
the Petition of Mr. Turner.--The Petition was, on the motion of
the Earl of Elden, referred to the Committee lb which Mr. Tur-
ner's Petition had been referred.

CORN LAWS.
The Duke of BEAUFORT presented a Petition from the Own-
• and Occupiers of Land in the county of Gloucester, and a se-
cond Petition from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the county
of Worcester, against any alteration of the Corn Laws.
The Earl of EL DON presented a sinvilarPetkion from the Owners
and Occupiers of land in the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire; the
Petition also prayed, generally, that their Lordships would not sanc-
tion principles of free trade.
The Earl of ABINGDON presented a similar Petition from
several Parishes in Buckinghamshire.
Lord REDESDALR presented a similar Petition from several
Parishes and Townships in Yorkshire.

CATHOLICS.
The Earl of ELDON presented Petitions against granting any
further concessions to the Catholics from fbe Inhabitants of Taun-
ton, from the Inhabitants of the Isle of Portland, and from the Vi.
car Curate, Churchwardens, and Inhabitants of St. Martin's, in the
Borough of Leicester.
Mr. Casa's, from the Treasury, presented an Account of the
quantity of Indian Corn imported into this country since I 820,with
other Papers.

's Drroac s.

ON the motion of the Eul of SnarrassuaY, and in pursuance of
the Order of the Day, their Lordships resolved themselves into a
Committee, to take into consideration the Petition of Mr. Turner.
The Earl of SIIAPTUBUILY in the Chair.

The Petition of Mr. Turner, setting fonh all the circumstances
of his daughter's case, and praying for leave to bring in a Bill to de-
clare her marriage with Mr. E. G. Wakefield null and void, was
read ; as was also the Petition of Mr. E. G. Wakefield.
Earl GROSVENOR said, he wished to say a few
words to their Lordships oa the subject of the Petitions.
He felt himself much indebted, he might almost say,
personally indebted, to the Noble and Learned Lord
who had introduced the subject to their Lordships' no-
tice but, although he lived in the same county with
Mr. Turner, he was not personally acquainted with
him, yet he had always heard that he bore the highest
character (s-at man of integrity and honour. His case
was one in which their Lordships were bound to do the
promptest justice possible, and every moment was lost
that was devo ed to delay. It was impossible to de.
scribe:the distress and agony under which Mr. Turner
Was suffering. Under his ♦iew of the case, he was
anxious that their Lordships should not hesitate what,
course to adopt, and he would rather they sbou'd go
out of their way to make a precedent to meet this ex.
traordinary case, than delay their proceeding.. There
wit, however, he understood, a precedent to warrant
their Lordships in proceeding according to the prayer
of the' Par:ion ; that precedent was in the ea-e of Camp-
bell and Wharton, 1691. There might be some cit.
carostances, perhaps, in that case; which made it not,'
legally speaking, the same as this. There, force was
first used, and subsequently pet tuasion brought about al
marriage. In the present case there was no violence,
but there WAS what he might call moral force used'
to abstract the Lady from under the care of those
who had her in charge to educ ite her ; and anxious
as he W 45 to rslieve the thifortun ite family of Mr. 'fur.
ner, he was glad on a lot mer evening to heir the N)ble
and Learned Lord, the late Lord High Chancellor of
England, whose opinion was deservedly of the first con-
siderati in with t' eir Lordships—he was happy, he said,
to heat that Niible and Learned Lord declare, that,
according to th law, fraud was equivalent to force ;

The Earl of LAUDERDALE assured their Lord-
ships that no man could feel more strongly than he did
the peculiar atrocity of the case, or that nobody could
be more anxious than he would be, as a private indivi-
dual, to see the Lady released from the peculiarly dis-
tressing and unfortunate circumstances under which
she had been placed, but he also felt that, as a Member
of their Lordships House, he had a high duty to per-
form, and one with which he ought n'nt to suffer pri-
vate feelings to interfere. The duty he alluded to was,
that of guarding the laws of England, and the proceed-
ings of that House, from precedeuts which might be
prejudical to the interests of the country. lie wished
to impress strongly upon their Lordships that prece
dents should be always founded upon reason, and neves
simply upon reeling ; and he, in the first place, begged
, to say, drat there was no precedent for a line of conduct,
such as that which had been recommended to their
Lordships. He said this boldly, and he thought that a
,•Noble Lord who had lately sat upon the woolsack,
would not differ from him. The case of Wharton v.
Campbell, had been alluded to, but he contended that
it did not afford a precedent. There was a material dif-
ference between the two cases, and the difference was
this, that the moment after the crime had been cnmuat-
ted, Campbell absconded, andwas not, therefore, amena-
ble to any Court in this country. Under these circum-
stances a Divorct Bill had been very properlybrought into
Parliament, since Parliament was boundto remedy by its
interference,what could not be remedied by law. He said
what could not be remedied by law,becattae, in this coun-
try, there was no power in the law to release the parties ex
vinculo matrimonii. In Scotland, however, this was not
the case, although the petitioner alleged that it was.—
And this misstatement induced him to look with some
degree of doubt upon another allegation contained in
that, petition, which was, that the Ecclesiastical Courts
would not receive Miss Turner's evidence. He would
like to have some legal authority for this, and wished
their Lordships would call for some assistance, through
which they might be satisfied whether the real state of
the law upon the subject was such as it had been stated
to be in the allegation he had alluded to? If it was, be
thought the direct course for their Lordships to pursue
would be, to pass a law, giving to the Judge a discre-
tionary power of examining all the parties concerned in
eases of alleged fraud. He said discretionary, because,
unless it was discretionary, fraud would be alleged in
all cases of abduction, and the consequences would be
embarrassing in the extreme. He wished again to im-
press upon their Lordships' minds the proposed course,
of introducing a Bill to Parliament that was unusual in
the country. They had heard an allegation, for which,
as he before stated, he wished to have different and
better authority than that of the petitioner. They had
heard it stated in the petition which had been read,
that, under the law of Scotland, the marriage could
not be dissolved. In mimeo to that, he would take up
a book, which was called, Hutchinson 's Treatise upon
Me Qffice of Justice of the Peace, and, under the article,
" Husband and Wife," he would find in it a case which,
he considered, bore precisely upon the question—that
of " Allan v. Young"—which occurred in the year
1773. Anne Young was a girl under age, who had
been placed under the care of Allan, a schoolmaster, in
Edinburgh. No force had been made use of to compel
hes to a marriage with Allan—consummation had not
taken place. The ceremony was • regularly performed
by a Clergyman; yet it was decided, that there had
been undue and unlawful influence, and the marriage
was dissolved. Now, when he looked to this case, and
remembered that it had been positively stated in the,
petition, that, under the Scotch law, the marriage could
not be dissolved, it naturally created a doubt in his
mind, as to the correctness of the other allegations
which it contained, and to which he bad before referred.
The Noble Lord concluded by again impressing upon..
their Lordships, that, in his opinion, it would be better,
if necessary, to legalise evidence such as Miss Turner's,
by passing a law which should give a discretionary
power to the Judge of taking the evidence of all parties
concerned in cases of alleged fraud, than to pass a Bill
such as that which was prayed for in the Petition then
under the consideration of their Lordships. By the line
of conduct which he recommended, they would keep
the jurisdiction which they already had, and would not
commit what he conceived to be the indiscretion of ex-
tending it.
Lord REDESDALE said, the case was one of very
considerable importance. Their Lordships most be
aware that a considerable space cf time would be occu
pied in the construction of such an Act of Parliament
as that recommended by the Noble Earl (Lauderdale).
If he were to say three or four years, he would not, he
believed, be saying too much. Elias Lordship bete al-
' luded, in exemplification, to the ease of the Banbury
Peerage, and also to the Cafe of Wharton v. Campbellj.
His Lordship went on to say, that he did not agree
, with the concluoveness of the argument used in re.peet
to that case. Although Mr. Campbell was an officer
in the French service, and absent from the kingdom, he
might, notwithstanding, have been cited before the Ec-
clesiastical Cou t, and condemned. Ili, season for not
appearing was evident, for one of the conspirators was
tiled and executed. Campbell and the other escaped, and

siisted by persons of the
The ptoceedings on thr
but to him (Lord R.) it
such proceedings should
who were accustomed to deciding destions
law, and who were, moreover, assisted by the Judge;.
The remedy that had been suggested he(L'rd R.) con-
tended, could not be adopted; for their Lordships must
perceive that this was a case of hardship altogether pe- '
culler, for whielt there was no provision in any ,existiog
law. The Noble and Learned Lord concluded, after
some more observations, by recommending to,their
Lordships, to allow of the introduction of a Bill founded
on the Petition, in which he thought they were fully
warranted by the precedent of 1691.
Lord TENTERDEN was of opinion, that their
Lordships ought to assume as true), the facts stated in
the Petition; which the Noble and Learned Lord pro-
eeeded to enumerate, as they had come out upon the
trial at Lancaster. It was evident, from the trial
(Lord Tenterden proceeded to say), that fraud, Igo force,
had been employed in this case; but there were cases
even in the municipal law, in which fraud and [ogee
were considered equivalent. And, in the eve of tl.e
moral law, he beliesed that the fraud of Walt field
was more hateful—more abominable--;and more de.
serving of punishment—tha,n Nice would have been.
The common law does, in some particular instances,
look on fraud and force in the same light. ( Here
his Lordship cited the case of a servant found gat'',
though the only charge made out was leaving a
open, by which the other culprits were admitted.) He
then proceeded to contend, in contradiction to what had
fallen from a Noble Earl (Lauderdale) that the prece.
.dent of 1691 was strictly in point. That the Noble
Earl had said, that, immediately after the commission
of the crime, in that case the husband had Red ; And no
doubt he did ; but that circumstance did not influence
those who passed this Act. His Lordship, after repeating
end enforcing Lord Redesdale's arguments, concluded
by contending, that public justice called for their Lord-
ships' interference. The coarse of law could punish the
offender, but could do no more. He thought not a day
ought to be allowed to pass by without endeavouring
to restore this unhappy young woman to her former
situation in society. It required an extraordinary inter-
position, in order to shew to Wakefield, and to thew to
all persons, that if, for the sake of lucre, they chose to
commit such crimes, they would not only expose them-
selves to such punishments as the law would inflict, but
also that there was a power beyond the Ordinary law,
which would deprive them of all possibility of d.rifiag
benefit from their misdeeds.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE explained. His Lord-
ship said, he expected the Learned Lord (Retlesdak)
would have concluded with some motion.

Lord REDESDALE.—There is a motion already
before your Lordships.
The Earl of ELDON said, that he had, that day,
presented a Petition from Mr. Wakefield ; and, in his
opinion, leave ought to be given to him (Mr. Wakefield)
to be heard at the Bar against the Bill.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY then put the question,
on the motion that their Lordships would allow the Bill
prayed for to be introduced; which was agreed tn.-
The House resumed at half-past five.
MIN AAAAAA

The Earl of MA LMESBURY, in presenting a Petition from a
Hundred in the county of Norfolk, against any alteration in the
Corn Laws, asked his Noble Friend (Viscount Godericli), whether
the Bill to be introduced in another place to regulate the Average*,
would any ways affect that which stood for a second reading to-
morrow?

Viscount GODERICH said, that the Bill alluded to would
have no practical operation whatever on that which was to be read

to-morrow. Its only objects were to give additional facilities for
the detection of fraud., and for inquiries in case doubts shoald
arise as to the Averages being fairly taken, and to place the right of
appointing the tropector for London, sat of the hands orthe Corn
Dealers in Mark-lane, into those of the Lord Mayor and Court of
Aldermen, as in country towns.
The Earl of M A LMICSBUfa, after what bad fallen from the
Noble Lord, believed that their Lordships would agree with Wm iu
thinking that there was no reason for postponing the second reading
of the Corn Bill to-morrow.

The Marquis of SALISBURY presented several Petitions from
Land Owners is the county of Hertford, against any alteration iu
the Corn Lawn

The Dukes of NXWCASTLZ and %ammo's presented similar Peti-
tion from Hundreds in the counties of Norfolk, Nottingham, and
Lineoln.—Laid on the table.

Lord EARN H A M presented a Petition, signed by 20,000 of the
Protestant inhabitants of the county of Armagh, against any further
concessions to the Catholics; and praying for relief from the illegal
acts of an assembly calling themselves the Catholic Association.

THL MINISTRY.

Earl MANVERS hoped he might be permitted to
'trespass for a few moments on their Lotchhips' time,
whilst be stated the motives by which he was actuated,
—the motives which had induced him to refuse his
confidence to the present Administration. Of the diffi-
culties which the Right Hon. Gentleman at the bead of
his Majesty's Councils had experienced in forming the
new Government, he knew nothing but from News-
paper authority ; and of the difficulties or motives which
inJuced the late Cabinet to resign, he was equally un-
informed, except from the same immaculate source ;
but surely it could not be denied that the basis on which
the present Administration rested must be Catholic
emancipation—(Order, order).
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in rising to order,
observed, that as there was no motion before the House,
the Noble Earl was out of order.

Earl MANVERS.—AmTt; understand that I am
in order or not?

The LORD CHANCELLOR understood that the
question on the Petition last presented was disposed of.
Earl MANVERS resumed. He understood that a
final change in the Constitution was the object of the
present Government; and with that impression on his
mind, having resisted by his vote, it not by his voice,
that important question in every shape and form 111
which it had been brought forward for the last 23 ye. r,,,
lie trusted he should not be stigmatized as acting from
any factious motives if he felt it impossible to afford his
feeble suppett to the Administration cf the Crown.—