The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-04-11 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Petitions were ptew ntedagai the Pav Bill, from the
Borough of 8 iuthwark, from the parishes of St. Luke, St. Mar.
tin-in-the-fields, St. Wry-le-bonne, and various other parishes
in Landon.

Mr. WROTTESLEY presented a Petition from Mr. Hacket,
praying that the time might be enlarged for entering into the
rectsgoisances in the matter, of the Downpatrick Election.
Mt. Hatchet appeared at the Bar, nod stated that the period
would expire on the 17th of this month.
After he withdrew, the tinfe Was further extended, upon the
motion of Mr. W ROT I ESLEY, till the 11th of May.
The Copyhold BiU was read a first time, and ordered to be
rend a second time on Thursday.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR brought in his Bill for Abolishing the
punishment of the Pillory, which was read n first time and or-
dered to be read a second time on Friday se'noight.
Mr. ROBINSON postponed the Committee on the Slave
Trade Abolition Act, from to-morrow until Monday next.
The False Measures Bill was read a third time and passed, as
were also the Liberty of the Subject, and the Poor and High.
way Return Bills.
Mr. BENNaTT moved that the Committee appointed to en-
quire into the state of the King's Bench, Marahalsen, and Fleet
Primus, should have power to examine into the new Prison
building in the city, of London for the reception of Debtors.—
Ordered.
M!. LATHROP MURRAY,
Sir S. ROMILLY had lately presented a Petition
from this gentleman, and was informed by the Secre-
tary of State that his case, was under consideration.
He had been since informed that the Secretary did
not think it a proper case to recommend the mitiga-
tion of the sentence. The Petitioner was a total
Istranger to him, but as he had applied to him to pre-
' sent his Petition, he conceived it his duty to do ins. I
He did not mean to throw the slightest censure on
the Learned Judge who tried him, or against the'
Noble Lord (Lord Sidmouth) who had afterwards
taken this case into consideration. Whatever he
might :think of the criminal laws of this coun..
try as they stood in the statute book,
.the eser-
cise of those laws was generally in the
,aPirit
of mercy and moderation. This case, however, ap-
peared to be one of peculiar severity. The Petitioner
had served as an officer in all the campaigns in the Pe-
ninsula, under the Duke of Wellington. Shortly after
his return, a •charge was brought against him for
bigamy, not by any relation of either of the wives,
but by a total stranger. The facts of the case were
staled in the Petition as follows :—The Petitioner In
the year 1797, when he nits with his regiment in Ire-
land, had been entrapped into a marriage with a wo-
man nearly double his age, he being then only 18
:yore of age. This marriage was performed by a
Dissenting Minister in a privete room, without any
licence or hens, or any of thkceremonies of the ChUrch
of England. He himself was a member of the Church of
'England, and had been educated at the Universiry.of:
Cambridge. The second marriage that was alleged
to have taken place,was in the year 1801. This mar-.
&get less,Payer, was not proved by any one pre-..

sent at,it, but only by a register and by a witaess in
prove that he had admitted it. He had utiderstorid
from his Counsel, that the Judge had reserved two
points for further consideration : the first wish respect
to the validity of the former marriage, and the se-
cond as to the proof of the second marriage. Supposing
the points of law to be against him, still it appeared
to him that this was a case of great severity. The
Petitioner stated that he had the opinions of, two-
eminent civilians, that the marriage in Ireland, wits
not valid. At ull events this art of bigamy, if 'such
it was, took place about 14 years ago, and,tlinsicoins
plaint came from no relation of the second wife's, .
but from a total stranger. There was an affidavit
from the second wife, declariug, that she had beets
previously informed of all the circumstances tat gal.
first marriage. This circumstance deprived lb* cable I'.'. ,
of the greatest part of its aggravation, as the moat /4
aggravating part of the offence of bigamy, was the i
misery and ruin it occasioned to •the seenttentife.--s•
The punishment was peculiarly severe when it fell :
upotx a person of fortune, family; and good educa-
tion, for it appeared the Petitioner was educated -at •
Cambridge, and had estates in Shropshire. Was he
.la ,
to be severely punished for this offence nil' the 5ug....„.4.
gooks,' of immoral conduct in other instances? No. 2 .
thing could be more illegal or unjust. The PeAtjellir,
denies that any cha:ge can be truly made ajainat hilp*., ..,
and declares his anxiety for suchno enquiry into hip
i conduct as will ascertain the truth. Why not snake '
such au enquiry before this sentence is'ettecuted ? lie .
i?
(Sir S. R.) would wish to have the Recorder's Report .
to the Secretary of State, hut should not press i .1
Motion on the subject. He besought the House a( `
.
least to make some enquiries into the fact.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said- that it wils.
referred to him and his ilbn. and Learned Friend
(the Attorney-General), to give their opinion whether
the conviction was legal or not. They had direfully
examined all the Irish Acts, and were clearly of °pi.;
..:'
nion that the first marriage was legal. As to the
opinions of two Learned Civilians to the contrary, ~ .
he had not seen those opinions, and he itred thatethii ..',
6.7
was a mere assertion of the Petitio i. The pilot';::
of the second marriage also appeared to theM cont.; ::::
4
plete. In actions a crim. con. .there were Ariany ',:l
cases, where it had not been considerecVnecesse r'y'to"*.°
have witnesses that were actually present /Oho; eaar- .
riage. He did not consider that the chargellilefrici'
brought by a.stranger should diminish the 0015. h. .•4
ment. Bigamy was a profanation of a 'sacred core- •"t
moray, a crime against society and .morals, as welt '•
as an injury to the female that eas•porstiaded into IS?'
marriage that the law did not recognise.- HA, there=* °
fore, saw no reason for the House interfering with
the discretion necessarily vested ithestge_yrtsp, :
tried the case. ,e_.;. t .
Sir S. itoMittir aiimitti;ti iWilfri,l-4.;y ,":4-0.--:•`
ways a profanation of a sacred ceremorty,'isur-•
thought that the crime was much aggravated %her. it
produced the misery and ruin of the second is if;...-- *b
If in a case that was not aggravated by this circum.. :4
stance, the severest measure of punishment was (la..'"
Bided, how would they deal with au aggravated '
case? In this instance, the Petitioner, who oak a .
Gentleman by education and profession, was,tteateer*
like a common felon, and had the severest.punisk.
ment inflicted that it was possible to pronounce. ~*."
Mr. H. ADDINGTON said, that the ease' had
been most maturely' and impartially considered bst
the Noble Secretary of Stele (Lord Sidavouth). Ti.i' .
law part of the case was submitted to the law Oificer, .
and the merits of the case referred to the respectable
Judge who tried it. . ~ .
Sir SAMUEL. ROM ILLY asked. whethen there'
was any objection to producing the Report of the
Recorder? . . . • : „
No answer was give% and the petition was or-
dered
to lie on the table. • .
LORD W. BENTINCK.
Mr. PONSONBY gave notice, tliat on Thursday
next he would move for a Copy of the Itistiectlont
under which Lord W. Bentinck had acted, for the •
purpose of considering not,merely his eonduet-with- t.
regard to Genoa, but also his conduct with respect. . •
to Sicily. . . .
RETURN TO THE ADDlitk”. . •
Mr. WHITBREAD, - adverting .to ' the Papers
which had been laid on the table Al retort, to the -
Address of the House of Mardi the Wth, for ihfor.. ,
mation relative to the progrest of the Congrese, otos '
served, that the communications which had been
made were most meagre and insuificient. He could
i, not butsuppose that it was impossible but that its
the course of the proceedings of einigress other
.transfers and annexations must have take,, place, be.
'sides that of Genoa. , Indeed the No:);e 1...“ aNA
himself spoken the other night, of the transfer of's':
part o( Saxony, and had talked of the transfer if a ,
whole of it in a letter puhlishod •in the Landon *
Printsof Ihieidaysi-s letter which; a hether-witk yes '1
' (Greece to the tone assumed by the Noble •LeetPtis .
the punisher of Kings, whether with reference *VW 4
facility with which he spike of the de-triiction of eisa.
independence of Saxony, whether with refi.vince.t6i.
the moderation with which he characteiizA the cow-
duct of the Emperor of ltus,ia, whetter with refer.
cure to the otter contempt with which he tre.inNl the
rights of all nations, or whether with reference
to the quality of the composition itself, was match-
less. , Ai a diploniatic prodoction it absolutely
stood withoOt competition. 7--" None hut itself could
be its parallel." lie should he glad to 'magi wise--
ther the ingenious paper to which he had tiliciedwas•
authentic? . .
Lord CAtTLEREA.6I; observed, that really the
nature of 'the Hon. Gent's questions, their number,
and ' ;Ode of proposing' thi.ni, were without any
psi . 'this was not thu time for justifying the
rti
trantaclioas in which he had been recently engaged,
but **Air the letter 'which bad been mentioned by'
. .

~