Star.
London, England, 1827-05-16 00:00:00

aspaw4t,P,

lENT.

4
%AI •Ah \ HOUSE OF LORDS, MAT 15.
Tie arse Report of the Commisslonen of the Metrepoliten Turn.
pike Rn•A‘ north of London, was presented at the Bar, pumas* to
an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Hone Dau,exoxa, and othertfreen the Comeneen, bonen
up the Bill for regulating the prosecudon of fraudulent Bankrupts
in Scotland, and several Private Bilis.
COIN Laws.
Marquis CAMDEN presented Petitions against may alteration
is the Corn Laws, from the Hundred of Rodsedield, in the county
of Soso, and from some Parishes in Kest.
The Earl of M A LMES BU NY presented Petitions to the same
effect, from parishes in the county of Hants and Southampton;
signore from Banbury, in Oxfordshire, which included in it the
question of won! ; and the Petitioners confirmed the statements
which bad already been made to their Lordships, that they had two
or three Years' stock upon hand.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presented Petitions ■against any
alteration in the Cern Laws, from several parishes to the county of
Norfolk.
Lord TEYNH A M presented a Petition to the same effect from
a Hundred in Norfolk.
The Marquis of BUTE presented a Petition from a Parish in the
county of Becks, against any akeratiors in the Corn Laws. The
Petition stated a curious fact, that the sums paid from the =
rates to labourers out of employ, fee the years 1825 to 181111
sive, were exactly in inverse proportion to the price of core**
same period.
Earl DIGBY presented a Petition from a parish in Neeillith
against any alteration in the Coro Laws.
The Earl of WINCHELSEA presented a Pedtimi temithe
growers of wool in Ashford, Kent, against the impurtedonal fo-
reign wool.
The Earl of BROWNLOW presented a Petition fronds'
breeders of cattle in a parish in Lincolnshire, spinet the lawns-
doe of bulls' hides and tallow.
Earl FITZ W I LLIA presented a Petition from the Seamen
of the Port of Hull, praying for a revision of the Naviption Laws.
THE W AICILTIELD/L
Lord REDESDALE presented a Petition from Wil-
liam Turner, Esq. of Shrigley Park, in the county of
Cheshire, praying that leave might be given to bring in
a Bill to annul and declare void the alleged marriage
between his daughter, Ellen Turner, a maiden, ander
sixteen years of age, and Mr. Edward Gilstom
Wakefield. With respect to the circumstances under
which this mart iage had taken place, it would be ne
cessary for him to observe to their Lordships, throe Mr.
C. Wakefield, and the other persons concerned in bring-
ing it about, had been lately tried and found gu Ity "of
a conspiracy to carry away, by fraud and delusion, from
her patents and friends, Miss E. Turner, being a maiden
under 16 years of age, and afterwards to compel her, by
• fraud and intimidation, to a marriage with E.G. Wake.
field." The case was ao extremely novel one, for it ap-
peared that there had been none such for the last century.
The only one of any thing like a similar nature with
which be was acquainted, was to be found in the Statute-
book in the year 1691. The daughter of a Mr. Whar-
ton, had been run away with, and compelled to marry
a Mr. Campbell. She was subsequently rescued from
him, and a bill was brought into Parliament for the
purpose of dissolving the marriage which she had been
induced to contract. The Bill had been first brought
forward in the House of Commons, when it was deter-
mined that the young Lady was competent to give evi-
dence, upon the principle, that, without here, the body
of evidence must have been necessarily incomplete.
The Noble Lord consluded, by stating, that, he had
recommended the line of conduct which it was Mr.
Turner's intention to pursue, in applying for the disso-
lution of his daughter's marriage. From con-ideration
of the novelty of the case, he had been anxious that a
petition should be, in the first place, laid before their
Lordships, and referred to a Committee of the whole
House; he was convinced that by these means the sub-
ject would be discussed with the most advantage. ;
The Earl of LAUDERDALE thought that the very
first. thing to be proved was, that the marriage alluded '
to in the Petition was a valid marriage. That House
was not the place in wh:ch a divorce could be granted,
unless it had been clearly decided by the Colitis of
Law, which had the proper jurisdiction, that the mar-
riage was valid.
Lord REDESDALE thought that the observations
the Noble Lord had just made proved the propriety of
the course that he had suggested being followed—
namely, that the House should resolve its-if into a Com-
mittee, to see whether a Bill of this kind could be en-
tertained by the House?
Lord ELDON said, that no jueicial opinion had
been pronounced as to the iglidity of the marriage;l
bat the Learned Judge in summing up, put it to the
Jury whether, supposing the marriage to be valid or in.
valid, force had been used? The Noble Lord, under-
stood, that the great difficulty in the way of trying the
validity in the Ecclesiastical Courts was, that ti e evi-
elence of the young Lady could not be received there,
whilst on the other hand their Lordships might think
it admissible ; but if that evidence could be received.
although not in that 0 urt, the question for tl.eir
Lordships would be simply this—whether they "'Quid
or would not in.erfere ? In the case of Wharton v.
Campbell, in which the Lady had been taken away
by force, the Court decided upon the principle of the
statute of Henry VII. and held, that although after the
Lady had been forcibly carried off, a marriage might
have been entered into, with her full consent, that
subsequent consent was not sufficient to quash the
previous force. Such a case as that to which their
Lordships :men ion was then called, he believed bad
never yet been he rd of in a civilized country, or,
at least, in a country so highly civilized as England.
And, provided that their Lordships could satisfy them-
selves that the Lady's evidence, if given in the Eccle-
siastical Court, would be sufficient to satisfy that Court,
that the marriage was not valid—and if they could sa-
tisfy themselves that the Ecclesiastical Court would
decide that there was no marriage—the question for
their Lordships to consider, would be, whether (since, of
necessity, various processes should be carried on in the
Ecclesiastial Court before there could be a deci-
sion there) they would or would not, under all the
circumstances of the case, then think prophr to bestow
more prompt justice? Such was, at least, his view
of the subject. The Noble Lord did not care to ex-
press a decided opinion upon the present cage, but
thought that all the circumstances connected with it
should be well weighed before the Hone adopted any
proceedings upon it.
Lord LAUDERDALE was of opinion that their
Lordships should consider the expediency of passing a
general Act of Parliament, for the purpose of legatsing
the evidence of females circumstanced as Miss Turner
was. In cases of this sort, where the marriage was
produced either by fraud or force, it would be advisable
to leave the question with the Ecclesiastical Court.—
It would be, indeed, a dangerous proceeding in their
Lordships to assume the jurisdiction ef deciding upon
points of law.
Lord REDESDALEthotight the best way to discuss
all these qdestions was in a Committee of the whole