Star. — London, England, 1830-04-07 00:00:00

infer that some difference bad previously arisen which led to the separation of beds ; and also to the natural conclusion that Lord E. had caused the separation, and not his Lady ? Why, he would ask. should the party now come complaining to that House of the deprivations of those rights and comforts which he had voluntarily given up?—( hear ). The Hon. timber proceeded to read further extracts of the same letter, to show that the agreement to • se parate was mutual ; and contended thit Lord Ellenborough had no grounds for making the complaint contained in the preamble to the bill. Lady E. expressed in the same letter that she was perfectly satisfied with the settlement • and allowance made to her during her separation ; and he ( Sir. H.) thought that there could be but one Inference as to the cause that had given rise to this state of things— naintly. ore of those unpleasant differences that occur sotnet tm es between man and wife ; and this, he would remind the house, all took place before Lord • Ellenbo rough had, as appears from the evi dence, any reason to believe he had been injured by the improper conduct of Lady Ellenborough. He would ask what would have been the course if any other individual had come forward, and asked T o have his marriage dissolved, and leave to marry again ? Would ere not be obliged to go in the first instance to a court of law, and convince the consciences of twelve men that his own conduct had :nen correct—that be came into court with clean hands, and proved that he had been deprived of his matrimonial enjoyments from the !Jul passions of his wife This was the course prescribed in almost every case. But in the present instance, however, the house was deprived-of the advantages arising from the previous investigation io another court, where evidence would be requ red of the fullest decription. He would assert that that house was not a tti. before which evidence like the present ought to 4 ) e r rvesti. gated. The nature of its proceedings did not admit of that ' perfect inquiry which the importance of the question required. He would repeat that he considered that house as a very unfit place for such an inquiry. It was usual, in most bills for divorce, for the evidence to have previously passed through the consistorik court, where the rigid forms of the court required that the patty suing for a divorce had conducted himself or herself in a way that entitled them to the mild' prayed. But was there any shadow of similar evidence before the house in the present case ? Might not the husband have brought 0.. his own disgrace, and be therefore unentitled to relief ?—(hear, hear, hear)--Deprived as the house was of any such evidence, still they were called Upon to decide so important a question—a question of such vital importance to Lady Ellenborough. Unfortu ,,ately, the custom of the country visited the error of the female with irretrievable disgrace, and exclusion from society ; whilst the se. ducer, and greatest offender ' in most instances, was received into society again, as if nothing had happened, or rather, with some per sons, with an additional degree of dishonourable eclat. This was, unfortunately, the custom of the country, and gross injustice to the female it certainly was. But the laws were not to be evaded, and they very properly prescribed that the suitors should come into court with clean hands, and that the fullest proof should be given that they had done nothing wrong on their part, so as to pro mote, by neglect or otherwise, the evil of which they complained. He would call the attention of the house to the situation in which the noble lord in question stood at the time of his marriage. He was then a man aged 42 years, whilst the lady to whom he was allied was but 17--a mere child he might call her, for she had never left her father's door. She was undoubtedly pure and un. sophisticated, and possessing all those inestimable qualities to form a good and excellent wife. What, therefore, could be expected from the husband but that he should guard and protect, by every possible means in his power, the rich and invaluable treasure he received in charge ? Was there any evidence brought forward to show that he had done so ? Not a tittle ; but, on the contrary, the evidence he should presently point out went to prove the reverse. Who was the only person brought forward to prove the terms upon which they lived ? Lord Ellenborough's own brother, an officer in the army or navy, he (Mr. Hume) knew not which, who, on his arrival from abroad, deposed to their living comfortably together in March, 1827. But this was all; there was nothing to show how they passed the following two years; not a single person was called to speak as to their conduct during this long space of time,—no servants, no atten. donut were called to state the cause of theirsleeping in separate beds, and that for many months. There was no acquaintance of the noble lord called to fill up this formidable gap in the evidence. No eel. dome was adduced of Lord Ellenborough's passing months to. bother at Brighton, separated from his wife—(hear, hear, hear); nor was there the least ground for forming a just conclusion as to the cause of the separation. There was in fact, nothing to show to the contrary but that Lady Ellenborough might have been induced to withdraw herself, perhaps, from Lord Ellenbo. rough's bad conduct to her. Miss Steele states her belief that it was b 1 Lady Ellenborough's own desire that the separation took place. Now he (Mr. Hume) contended that the party suing was bound to show that there was nothing on the part of Lord Ellenborough to. wander' his wife to have produced that separation. It seemed ex tremely strange to him (Mr. Hume) that there was no one but this soldier put into the box—brought before the house, he should have said—to speak to the footing on which the parties lived. The evi dence on this point was extremely deficient, and left unrefuted other parts of it, which led to the conclusion that the noble lord had shown such great disregard for a young and beautiful wife asdid not entitle him to the redress be sought. So far from protecting the young lady from falling into snares, he appeared to have cared very little into what society she mixed. His lordship's official duties; might require him to be absent a good deal from home; but were it possible that, the noble lord could be ignorant of the persons with whom Lady Ellenborough associated? The only act of indiscre tion attempted to be brought against Lady Ellenborough in 1828 was that mentioned by that Mentor, Miss Steele, that LWy Ellen borough had gone out alone, unattended by a servant. Now, in his (Mr. Hume's opinion, this was no indiscretion at all. Was it to be supposed a young lady of her years should be shut up in the house alone during whatever length of time her husband chose to absent himself ?—(The honourable member proceeded to cons. went on the testimony of Miss Steele, and her opinion of Lady Ellenborough's bad associates in the "fashionabk" society in which she mixed.) In continuation, he would ask what was his lordship's conduct upon being cautioned on this subject and the danger which his young and inexperienced wife ran being pointed out to him by Miss Steel? Would an man, having a proper af fection for his wife, have disregarded th is suggestion ? Certainly he could not. But what was Miss Steele's statement ?—u His lord ship merely laughedn—(hear, hear.) He thought her unworthy his notice—his young and tender wife he allowed to run headlong to ruin ; and was it to be permitted that such a man should now step forth and be allowed to marry again, when he had shown himself so unworthy, he (Mr. Hume) would say, of having a wife ?—(hear, bear, hear.) With respect to the act of adultery, he (Mr. Hume) must differ in opinion from others, and would declare that he did not consider it had been proved, or satisfactor made out. There might be a combination of circumstances to l ento the conclusion that such act had been committed; but he must maintain that there was a great deal more assumed than was at all probable, er supported by the evidence. She might be blamed by many per. sons ; but who had the least occasion to complain, after the husband had been cautioned not to allow her to associate in society where their actions were the talk of all the servants ? And even the servant boy's evidence proved that the intimacy subsisting between Prince Swartsenburg and Lady Ellenborough excited the notice and was the conversation of all. He (Mr. Hume) considered the husband ought to have guarded his wife against these bad associates ; and if he did not, he had no right to come forward, and now complain of the consequences of his own neglect. (Hear, hear.) He therefore considered that the evidence was most disjointed and incomplete to show what was really the conduct of the husband from the year 1827 to the end of 1838. The non. member proceeded to comment on the various points of the evidence by which the counsel had asserted ticy should clearly make out the fact of adultery having been com mitted. On the occasion it was stated that Lady Ellenborough went, accompanied by Prince Swartrenburg, to Wimbledon, to dine at the Countess St. Antonio's ; and that they travelled in a close carriage; and this was all adduced in support of the aller esu lfence. Now watas it all reasonable to suppose that a lady, to attend a dinner party and travelling in that manner, could be believed guilty of the offence laid to her charge ? (hear, end a laugh.) Then another alleged proof was, that whilst living alone at Roehampton she had received a letter front Prince Swarmenburg. Did that, he would ask, show adultery to have been committed ? Then at High. gate and Richmond, where the offence had also been alleged to have been committed, there was not a shadow of evidence to prove the fact; no servants or attendants had been called who could depose to more than mere suspicious circumstances. Had her Ladyship thOught proper to have appeared against the Bill, he (Mr. Hume) felt satisfied that the Bill would not have advanced to the stage it had. What bad Mr. Freahfield said upon being asked if he had atbrised Lord Ellenborough to proceed against Prince Swartsenberg ? That he had not advised him to proceed, because he was afraid of a Sir CIE6ROS CLIIRKiand other Members—" No, no." Mr. HUME--ff Mr. Freshiltdd had no said exactly that, it wa's to be inferred from Lord Ellenharough not. suing trim, as he might have done, previously Whitslea** the mutiny. If there was not some ground for recrintlhallon why did her Ladyship withdraw herself from her husband's lied ?—(hear). He would ask the House whether it was at all probable that a lady would withdraw herself from her husband's bed without Foam gust use of aggrivranee ? would occur were 0001. was al, Witned.fg )I,So j p c Was such a circumstance at ail COitaisreiTiiwith what they knew females generally ?—(lou4aad long condekedlaughter.) He wot In*" generally, 'because nighcity= otances might, and did inn in some fashissable Soot. and were.,overbaed, but they w unknown in geesnd life. TheHonottroMil Memberprocteded to co meat on other ports o il ip aktence, and particularly as to What was lards, hassaudion It 78, Harley t. pile of the vitals olso00 1 ! ru i l i t t lativrered mclieW than In ki n d of nektienleffi regoet nothing, that „was at osolorial iedbo okorkikiabwl the s. He Qlr. Hume) bad or .memo OVSIIIIIII, Ariaktool.. " Ai in th e . evidence of. Li jiHmlapostoji I at 'N0.1 4 4, the InOt" and footman tie eprodie *be to lwOritohinii up stal • instead of minding their duties below) deposed to seeing Lady EL lenborough go into Prince Swartsenburg's house a dozen times on foot, whilst Ann Lewis, des servant to the Prince, said that she (Lady Ellenborough)) never carne but once on foot, and at all other times cams in d m a,Wolet, accompanied by Prince Swartzenburg. These were some amongst the numinous contradictory points in ed. 'dence. The coachman stated that - the boy first communicated his 'suspicions to Carpenter ; but did the boy's evidence confirm that ? On the contrary, he denied it. Me was asked whether he did not tell the servants what he had seen ? His answer was, that he did not ; but, in the same breath, he admitted that the intercourse be tween Lady Ellenborough and Prince Swarteenburg was a matter of notoriety—a subject of jeering amongst the servants in the hall. In short, the evidence of these two witnesses was throughout so contradictory, that no reliance could be placed upon it. When he was asked what answer he gave to the coachman, in explanation of keeping out the bones so long, he answered, that he said they sometimes took a long ride; sometimes that Lady Ellenborough had been to Prince Swanzenburg's, but, when pressed afterwards upon the subject, he denied that the name of the Prince was ever mentioned. So that the boy Carpenter's evidence fell to the ground. The nest witness was Anne Lewis. Her testimony was in direct contradiction of that of some others, and ten d to any thing but the proof of Lady E.'s identity. The coachman is stated never to have seen them together—hut the boy says that he often saw them riding out together in the Park. Hers was a flat contradiction of each other. But, Sir, to go further into this evidence, contradictory and unlikely as it is, would be but wasting the time of the house. I say that there is no legal evidence that the lady seen in those situations was Lady El. lenborough all that is shown is, that she was attended by a scream in the same livery. All these collateral facts accruing to strengthen each other, but substantially nothin , are but cheats and frauds in. vented to hide the adultery. Therefore, so far as the Harley.stnet part of the affair is concerned, there is nothing satisfactory proved respecting the adultery. I come, therefore, to the Brighton affair. But could any thing be more clumsy than the at. tempt which was made to prove the act of adultery ? Hep ple, the principal witness, and Walton, contradicted each other flatly. No man breathing would believe a word from either.— What I that a waiter at an inn should come to a lady like Lady Ellenborough, and say " I know what you have been doing; I shall tell; I'll expose you if you don't give me 201;" and, therefore, she gives him 201. It was monstrous and incredible. Well, then, he is asked " What did you do with the money—this hush.money ?" He says he gave 101. of it to his accomplice upon the 10th of October—quite sure it was the 10th of October. But what says Hepple ? Why, that he got five pounds the very day after the lady left, for his attendance—not an unreasonable compen. sation for his attendance, for the boy had been staying at the hotel for some considerable time. He says he had no conversation rids Walton about the money. If these witnesses are disposed of, then (and who would rely upon such witnesses ?) there remains only one more, which is Miss Steele. Now, Sir, the evidence of this witness, if true, is the most condemnatory of all of Lord Ellen. borough, and upon it I ask the house to reject this till. If Miss Steele is to be believed, Lord Ellenborough does not come to this house guiltless, to require the relief which he seeks. Here is a witness, the confidante of both parties, complaining to the husband of the dangers which surrounded his wife. " Lady Ellenborough,'• she said, " is young, and surrounded by certain associates. Your lordship is much out, but you might to take care at least to remove her from those snares to vice. You ought to re move from her the profligate associates by whom she is surrounded." What says Lord Ellenborough ? He laughs, as much as to say, " Oh, it answers my purpose very well, let it go on." Well, it does go on ; an act of adultery takes place. Why, is he nothing to blame for his want of attention, for the absence of that protection which it was his duty to afford under the circumstances ? And, if so, what claim has he to come here ? We sit to do justice, not to Lord and Lady Ellenborough, but to the public. This cause is of public interest ; I say that the morals of the country are much interested in it. Are we to be told, that when a husband, after warning given him, suffers his wife to go abroad alone, and to continue the so ciety of improper persons, young and inexperienced though she might be, that he was an object for relief by this House ? I say not. I say that it would be an act of justice to the whole community not to give to Lord E. this relief which he seeks, but to read this salutary lesson, " that no man, whatever his rank or station, can expect relief here, who does not seek it with clean hands." For when a husband fails to fulfil those obligations which he took upon him in entering into matrimony, and withholds that comfort, pro. tection and assistance which a wife has a right to demand at his hands leaving her, inexperienced, and of tender years, expo se d to all the allurements of such society as I am told is too in the highest ranks of this country, this House must general or other of two things; either by passing such a measure as this, to sanction such proceedings, or to reject it altogether as im. proper to be passed. The morality of this country is of great im portance ; and shall the Commons of England say to the higher classes of society, " Oh, go on as you please; be as regardless, as reckless of consequences as you u r t o a c y e zo i thave in our house a safe resource ? " Shall we suffer such p • to go or., till the contend nation extends itself to the middling classes of society ? I hope and trust not. It is our duty to show the country the high estima tion in which we bold the duties of man and wife, and that if a Divorce Bill is to be passed, it must be supported by different evi. dense from this now produced. Let us stamp such conduct as this with its proper name. I do not call it collusion, because I have no means of broving collusion, but we have not had such a satisfactory mega. tion of such an insinuation as would warrant us in passing this bill. If it is intended to offer any supplementary evidence in support of this bill, I should like to see the bill postponed. If Lord Ellenborough can come to this house with clean hands, let us enter. lain his claim ; but as he does not, I call upon the h ouse to reject the bill, and thus let the noble lord, and all the fashionable classes, know what fate they may expect from this house, if they do not come in a peeper way to clam relief. I therefore oppose the third reading of this bill. Sir H. HARDINGE--Under any other circumstances I would allow any hon. member to take upon himself the task of answering the hon. member who has just sat down, but I thank him for the op. portunity which he has given me of answering, with fr e edo m , t h e observations which he has just made. I never heard a more clumsy perversion of evidence, or a greater exaggeration of facts ; and, if the hon. member pretends, in his judicial capacity here, to help mem. ben to come to a fair conclusion by summing up the case, it could not be done In a more perverse or unfair manner. I complain of the way in which the witnesses have been treated, and the whole case misrepresented ; but 1 am glad of it for the sake of ray noble friend, and the house generally, foi I am sure that, being men of honour, when the honour, character, and happiness of other men are concerned, they will be considered upon their own merits, free from personal or party feeling, and decided upon by the merits of the case. (Hear.) With respect to this evidence, the hon. member says that it is disjointed end defective, and he blames us, the sup. porters of the bill, because there have been prevaricadons and con. tradictions among the witnesses. But what Is the fact always with such cases ? Why, that the parties are obliged to bring persons in the interest of the guilty parties forward as witnesses to their case. I could prove this by alluding to the evidence of Carpenter, whom the honourable member calls a bus witness. But Mr. Freshfield says that he is an unwilling witness, for he was more particularly the tenant of Lady Ellenborough herself. He it was who had charge of the pony phaeton, and when Lord and Lady Ellenborough first separated, he was immediately dismissed Lord Ellenborough's service. From that time to this he had been un. willing to come forward, and undoubtedly the promoters of the bill take him with all his disadvantages. But what does he prove ? Only that he drove her to the neighbourhood of Harley. stmt; and if the prevarications and untruths of the boy was ten times greater than they are, it is otherwise proved that also in the livery of Lord Lllenborough was seen to drive die lady to Harley-street, and to attend upon her at other times : hot • the honourable member is dissatisfied with the evidence et the waiters at Brighton. He says there is, upon the wt of those witnesses, the greatest prevarication, and that their widened is not to be relied upon. But these waiters were parties to the transaction too. One of them saw the Prince go to the Lady's apartment at the hotel, and it seems they extort money, and cheat each other. Nnw, was it very unnatural that a man who cold extort money, under such circumstances, front a patty in his power would stickle at cheating his accomplice of a fair moiety of that spoil ? I think not. But is the fact of the Prince be ing seen going to Lady Ellenborough's bed-room affected by this discrepancy ? Not at all. Let us see how far this part of the evidence Ir confirmed by other parts. Miss Steele says that Lad y Ellenborough confessed to her, after the separation, that she bad spent the 24th of May at Brighton, and that the waiters came and demanded money of her. This date there foes Confirms the evidence of one of the witnesses, and it is put beyond all doubt by the evidence of the post-boys as to the'day they drove to• Brighton. I say, then, that if any min has the sense to undersumitevidence (the hon. member I think has not), he must be sathified that the act of adultery, alleged to have tar= place at Brighton, is proved ; and he is sure of that, and that there remains ne doubt of the identity of the guilty parties, what diffi culty can there be in paw I v this Bill ? I agree with those hoc. members who say that if Lad Ellenborough had been guilty of soy other act, and had not extended a proper protection to his a wife, be is not entitled to the relief which be claims. But what parts the evidence show that he had been negligent in this respect? I say. that the whole of the evidence proves the contrary, for all the wit. masts agree in deposing to the affection and good un which subsisted betwas Lord Ellenborough and his wife unwilling, in a case of this sort, to trespass at any length o the house, et, whew my noble friend is assailed in so nod asosselie, I trust I shall be permitted to be a me ws bib hear.) lhave made a not e of th e soh desoloridoh eholi itoso • and which I hope will be wok the wradleilemisteidesiaileiletio; which the muniments of the wagi ~,~,.,,.y ,~ con t all never a L n otky of 58.411, have been exposed to. The first witness Is Mr. Law, who saw thus parties upon his return from the Coolimit He speaks of the geast affection which Lord and Lady Ellsahoweigh showed Ise inch other. Now, this gentleman might cans to the bar with a Haab rayon of his brother; but who are so cempiest to speak to the bilselsor of meo towards their wives as near Wallies P Mi. Posh, hi ploefifi, says that they lived happily tpletkeri mg Sae NM Mss Or hr days at a time with them. pto the oratumi of says, 14 be was invariably kind to bet." She is asked 38), a le " Did you consider Lard Billiebespoth se an t hus band I , —Very much so, laded Did you nosider Lard Ellenbo. rough to be neglectful elks in any respect in paying all those atten. tions which a husband ought to pa j to his wife ?—Quite the con trary. You do not recollect seeing Lord E. ever treat her with any thing like harshness, either in wo rd s or in manner 1 0 —He was always remarkably kind and attentive to her." Now, air, Ido maintain that this evidence of a woman of education, high family, and great respectability, is entitled to the belief of this house. Be It remem. bered, too, that she comes here from Lady Andover, a friend of the wife's family ; but still she says that from 1824 to 1828, Lord E. invariably treated his wife with affection. But, sir, if any doubt still remains upon this point, I have only to repeat now what I stated when the witnesses were before the house upon the first occasion, that not only would the coachman be produced, but every mem. ber of the family, male and female. It will be found further stated that Lord Ellen ugh had as much kindness in his manner, or more, than had been ever seen. I would next request bon. members to read.the letter from Lady Ellenborough to her husband ' dated Brighton, Feb. 6, to be found in p. 47, and which ends with " good night, dearest." It is in these tams: " Brighton, Friday Night. " Dearest Oussey—l am just arrived, and will only write you one line, as I'm tied to death with my journey, the roads were so very heavy. I found Arthur looking really pretty ; you may believe it if I say so, and appears to me much improved in strength, but he grated me with such a howl li We shall improve upon acquaint. ante. If you go to Mrs. Hope's to.night, have the thought to make my BOOM% to save me the trouble of writing them ! The post is ringing Good night dearest JANET. The Lord Ellenborough,Connaught.place, London,Eleven o'closk " 1 This shows that as late as February the parties corresponded twins I can further prove, if it be the pWasure of the House to require it, that the tams upon which these parties lived together were admitted by Lady El enborough's own family : for I hold in my hand a let. ter front Lord Ellenborough to Admiral Digby, and his answer, which I will read if it be the pleasure of the house.--(cries of " No.") This letter of Admiral Digby admits that the conduct of Lwd Ellenborough to his daughter was kind, liberal, and honourable. The next thing to which I will advert is the imputed criminality of Lord Ellenborough, who, by permitting bad associates to be about his wife, was dte cause of his own wrong. But never was a mom unjust accusation, as will appear upon reading the evidence of Miss Steele. This lady, very properly, as she says, beintalekt in prix. ciple and scrupulous in idea, conceived a noel.. that Land rough did not take pains to prevent certain 011161111dib asessitie from being:about his wife. But, with great respect for Miss Seek, and with every disposition to give her credit tie the best intentions, I should submit that, from the circumatanse of her moving k a different sphere of life, she was not a geed judge of the am: nen of those with whom Lord and Lady Elenborough Mad, and amongst whom a certain ease of manner, sanctioned by habit, might pass for ax apparent licentiousness. But did Mho Steele caution Lord Ellenborough in the way the hoer member hes stated ? 1 say not; but he has perverted the evidence, and in his ju dicial capacity has not done justice to this bill. I shall call the at. melon to that part of the evidence which he has perverted. In page *Miss Steele was asked, " Were these associates of Lady Elks besough or Lord Ellenborough ? They were latterly of hers.' , 44 They were profligate men 1-1 heard so; I cannot say further." " Yoe believe that their characters were such, and therefore you can tina Loed Ellenborough ?—I can hardly say I cautioned him ; I wished to do so." " Did you do that more than once ?—No, I did not." "Can you recollect what LoedEllenborough said ? He laughed, be thought, probably, that I was too scrupulous." Now, I ask, In all this examination, whether there is any thing to Lad to an inference that the noble lord had any bad Inten. doss, or that he bad any wish to leave her exposed to the dangers of bad company ? She is again asked," At what time did you dent bear Lady E.'s family object to the society to which their dongrtes was introduced ? I do not recollect ever having heard a =t made against Lord Ellenborough till after the separa. Therefore, for five years that they lived together, there was so complaints, and it is only when she has done wrong, and driven her hus b and to unpleasant measures, that any complaint is made upon this subject. Looking. then, at the whole of this evidence, I say that the inevitable conclusion to which the house must come to, that though Miss Steele disapproved of the society which was introduced to Lady Ellenborough at Roehampton, yet she does not accuse him of an improper or dishonourable connivance at his wife's indiscret s. The next point of the honourable member's speech to which 1 shall advert is the weeder which be expresses that Lord Ellenborough did not know what was going on, when it was notorious to all the world besides. But this " world" of the hen. member turns out to be a very small circle indeed. Not a single pawn has been produced to speak with any distinctness to it, and bliss Steele knows nothing of it till after the separation, when she learned the fact of her guilt not from this " world," but the confessions of the lady herself. Sir if it was nos away to disprove l such an insinuation as this, could Abe more than half a dozen members of this house who had seen Lord and Lady Ellenborough in society with Prince Swartsen. burg, and who could testify that, however intimate this gm. deman and the lady were in private, they seemed scarcely to know each other in public. And when the coachman states that Lady Ellenborough was frequently handed to her c at the Opera, by Prince Swartzenbutg, this was always Lord Ellenborough was absent; never when he was prow& The truth Is, that Lord Ellenborough was the dupe of the artifims and arts which had been resorted to to blind and mislead hiss. What could he do ? Was he to be a spy upon his wife ? He was too confiding and unsuspicious to play so contemptible a part. He had proved that when he heard a well-substantiated report he was ready to act upon it. These reports, then, which were, in the Hon. Member's opinion, so notorious to the world, were known but to very few. Miss Steele knew nothing of them, though she had been a great deal in their society ; but the disguises were too artfully adopted to be easily seen through. In page 41, Miss Steel is askoC " Did you ever caution Lord Ellenborough against permig Lady Elknborough to associate with Prince Swartzenburg 1 1 —IT never did. You spoke of Lord Ellen h's having laaghst when you gave advice respecting Lady Ellen 's associates; did you understand that laugh to imply scorn for such proper advice, or an unlimited confidence in Lady El. lenboroue ? Unlimited confidence in Lady Ellenborough certainly. ' And, at 42, she is asked - Was Prince Swartzenburg one of the persons against whose attentions to Lady Ellenborough Lord Ellenborough was cautioned by you ? C=ainly not." Mr. Freshfleld, in his evidence, declares that Lord E. did not know him. And at page 49 Mark Watkinsom was asked " Did you ever see him at your master's house ? No, I never did." And at b 0 Thos. Kane is asked " Do you know that Lord Ellen attended her to evening parties ? I know in the country t hey psis out a pod deal together; in town his lordship was very meek taken up with business. And at page 37 Bliss Steele is asked, "Had y to that, put any questions to Lady Ellenborowidi ? th'iseoL i ssa l artainly , I had not an ides that she was guilty." The. fore is it not natural to suppose that the husband was ignorant of all that was passing ? and, in fact, husbands are the last 4 bow these things. Miss Steele confessed herself ignorant ups. the subject, as were many others. There is another point to ski* tats has. member has alluded, and which I cannot pass over within. mdse. What I allude to is the fact of the non-cohabitation betwests 'Shies parties. I have taken a note of the evidence upon that past, whisk I shall state to the house. The time to which this now cohabitation refers is three months ago, or, at most, four. JIM this bowel was not in the habit of requiring proof of cohabitatioa in eases of this nature, as a necessary part of the case, in support "It arellef bill. I would refer the house to a case which was bare us last year, of Cazellete, where the ?arty, after being cab. sent in India, did not cohabit with his wife for a year after his return, during which time she managed matters so well, that he never suspected ben But when this woman was re. rMawith avoiding her husband's bed, she exclaimed, " No, cell i t d net do it; It is too unnatural; I have been guilty, and I could sae add to my guilt !" And will the house say that, bus amiss a man and his wife do not cohabit for two or three mead* such s fast shall vitiate a relief bill of this nature ? A principle ec OMAN= weld only be broached by the honourable member kr Aberdeen, and deserves to be stated only to be scouted arm the house with the contempt which it deserves. I therefore, bops the house will not be turned aside from passing this bill. But, before I sit down, it may be as well that I explain why I have been thus forward in promoting this bill. I am con nected with the noble lord in question by a former Marriage. I have haws him for fifteen years, and always found him a man of honour, integrity, and kind heart. Had there been any wish to he ostentatious of his good qualities and bon hommis. I should myself have insisted upon being examined as a wit. sem at the bar, where I could have deposed, if it was neva. soy, upon oath, that his moduetduring his first marriage into ax le and virtuous family was such as to secure the eitallle sf mai member of Lord 's family; and having boss fat in or four maithosgsber mks his roof, I au say that a Weir, ' woe heetor biased sever masted. I caw alma le Isom. stsilast imputWeaus thase _ami Sad shall YheT3 l o ge wag up er/da lar spitomo Mwth er eiWil L se isxy 111 ip 1: Lady Andoer, magratulanng low spas box dasissar buisasalai to bsmago v a tbat Dolga lord; Is. she, 64 In lye yaw doe he Wu bia 'tarried to Ply daughter, MO conduct so bee was PIOUS exemplary." Sir, I hope these observations will neutralize the serrations of the hon. member. He has made some observattur.. upon not morality of women, so coarse that 1 do not know where be Ins picked them up. His observations about the conduct art ladies refusing tbs attentions of their lords are too coarse t., be alluded to. AB that 1 shall say is, that I protest against II:. description which be has given of English women : I say they at , not fairly described by him. The Hon. Member for Brecon L ad stated that be could speak to the same facts as he (Sir Hest) Hardinge) did. He should further add, that, from 1824 to 1823, he (Sir H. If.) hadrepeatedly visited Roehampton, and be never sae treatment more kind than was that of these parties to each otl.er . If such were the facts—and be contended these were facts which were well known to the family, and to all who had attended careful. ly to the proceedings from ab more begh T s3toende-he must say that L ord Ellenborough had been snore calumniated, and mo re unjustly treated, than any indi whose case had come before that House. It is very may, when a lady is seduced by au artful man to say that he has been a dupe, or has been negligent, or ha% contributed, by his carelessness, to the unfortunate result ; but every impartial observer must be satisfied that such state. meats are to be received with great caution and reserve. Fat my tart, continued the Honourable member, I would pre. fa the misfortune of being a dupe to that of being • spy. And I appeal to the house, whether there are any grounds for supp os i ng that Lord Ellenbor ough could possibly be charged with conniving at the disgrace of his wife ? To suppose that one of his tank— one who had so long mixed in the first society, and who, cone. quently, had a character at stake—would connive, or enter into an) collusion, to bring about the ruin of an unfortunate female, the only child of a respectable family, was too monstrous for bcliei, and, in fact, was contradicted by the whole tenour of the evidence. Lord Ellenborough had been before the public for the last twenty years; there never had, during all that time, been brought ag a i nst him, either in public or priv a te, an y c h arge for want of hollow or principle--(hear, hear;) and was it at all likely, th.. l at this period he should connive or collude with any hu. man being to bring disgrace on himself and family ? The charge was monstrous and inconsistent, and as such I cast it back on t!,. authors of it. If there was collusion, it might be supposed rattle' that it applied to Lady Ellenborough, who had confessed her gu il t , and who was willing to adopt any featiible course for the purpose art not perpetuating the wrong against her husband But could that even be called collusion on the part of a woman of good feeling ? And who knows but at this moment she sincerely repents of her conduct, and of havinf me a r e l ted in any way which could lead to th, belief that there had any collusion an her part. Besides ail this, if Lord E ll enbtwough had been guilty of any such co;.. duct as that imputed to him— if he had connived at the con. duct of his Lady, or had, by introducing certain company t, his house, as was alleged, contributed in any way to the un. fortunate result, was it to be supposed that Admiral Digby, a man of the highest honour and integrity, would not come forward in be. half and in defence of his daughter? The gallant Admiral, how. ever, will put no bar to throccedings; but, on the contrary, do es justice to Lord Eilenboro u , a nd will do nothing which can in any way impede the measure. But we have been told by the honourable member for Aberdeen, that it was the duty of the husband to look better after his wife. Is it, however, the part of Englishmen to spy for information against his consort? And I will appeal to many whom I see here whether, in the multiplicity of business, even if they had the inclination, they could, as the hon. member says, look after the conduct of their wives ? I see many members bete who ate absent, and who must be absent, from morning to evening, at this house. Is it possible, therefore, that they could at the same time attend to their duty here and watch over the conduct of their wives at home ? I say the hon. member, who is so regular in his attendance, ought to be the last person to bring such a charge—(a laugh). I say, also, how can a lawyer, a merchant, or any man ex. tensivelyengaged in business, attend to the injunction of the hon. member ? The idea is so absurd that It only requires to be shown to the house to be scouted as it deserves. The hon. gentleman seems to think that jealousy is a proper and necessary connubial virtue. I have no such sentiment. 1 say if, by stealing from your daily occu. patton to watch the conduct of your wife, or in any other way to act as a spy on her conduct, you convert an English family into a Turkish harem. (Hear.) 1 can neva agree to watching the actions and general conduct of a wife, because I am convinced that to gain the affections of her heart—to inspire her with a belief o: our confidence and protection, is the only way in which an gentleman can secure he virtue of his wife. (Hear.) — If have expressed myself strongly on the subject, behalf the house, will pardon me, because I feel strongly in man who is comparatively left in an unprotected state. I feel strongly, not because I am connected with him by marriage, but because an individual, for whom I have great regard is thus exposed to unjust reproach and calumny, and seeing he has been assailed in the house and out of the house, but more particularly cut of the house ; and it is quite impossible for a deliberative assembly to grapple with all the various statements, or bring forward any evidence to repel such a number of unjust and un. founded charges. But I say he has been before the public for twenty years. For no one act of his life has any charge been made against him ; the evidence before the house has proved the adul terous connection. Nothing had been brought forward that could, in any way, disprove affectionate and kind treatment on the part of the husband ; and, taking all these circumstances into account, he was justified in calling upon the house to pass the bill and grant relief. The hon member concluded by saying, as was understood, that the discussion had been carried on with a good deal of personal, he would not say party, feeling ; but hoped that the decision they would come to would be consistentwith that deliberate consideration and justice which the importance of the case required. Dr. PHILLIMORE said he looked at this matter merely as judicial question. He said that right or wrong an impression had gone abroad that the lords had not done their duty, and therefore it doubly became the duty of this house to be careful in their inquiry. There ware public considerations involved in this bill which were highly worthy of the best consideration. This bill was one of pains and penalties against Lady Ellenborough, and one that gave extensive benefits to Lord Ellenborough. The case of Lord Roos (in the time of Charles II.) was the only one at all similar to the present. In 1092 the Duke of Norfolk made an application for a divorce, which was refused, and the Counsel for the Duchess stated that for rte SOO antecedent years there were only three cases of aissolution of marriage, although since then they had increased. In the last 130 years preceding the year 1800, the number of divorces were :—ln the first 45 years, 45 ; in the next 50 years, 60; in the next 76 years only 25; and from 1820 to 1830, 26. In 1800 Lord Grenville said he was well aware of the connivance so often practised in divorce cases. In fact, the whole system was one which decidedly required revision. Then came the question, wit , there any thing in this case to distinguish it from others? First it was clear that the adultery must be fully proved, and also that the party applying for this relief had not been guilty of adultery himself, and had taken due care of his wife. The conviction upon his mind was, that the adultery was made out—(Hear, hear)— both in the conduct of Lady Ellenborough at Brighton and at Harley.street. There was also the confession, which of itselt would certainly not be evidence, but coupled with other evidence it was properly received. The next great point was, as to the due care and attention to the behaviour of his wife, particularly when she was placed in a dangerous situation ; that de already said was the next point for consideration. (Here the hon. member read an extract from a judgment of Lord Stowell on this subject.) There were only two witnesses examined as to the conduct of Lord Ellen. borough towards his wife. The first was Mr. Law, who had not seen them from May 1827 till 1829, so that he could see little of his &Action towards his lady at the most important period. Miss Steele was the next witness • she answered with great dexterity; but had she been exam ined in a witness box, he had no doubt that much more would have been extracted from her. Here was a nobleman marrying a lady at 17 years of age. of whom her governess stated that she was reckless of consequences ; now would not this character require a greater degree of caution upon the part of the noble lord? So far the question after all was. was sufficient attention paid to her and the society selected for her? Then there was the absence of sexual intercourse, which would ex. cite suspicion, or at least inquiry. Why not have respectable per. sons here to testify to the conduct of his lordship in this regard ? Much was said about the feelings of compassion which this case should excite ; but justice, in his humble opinion, had stronger claims than kind feelings towards an indviduaL It was often dis. tressing to be called upon by a sense of duty to pronounce an opi. nion ; but having had his attention particularly directed to that subject, when the proper opportunity arrived, he would Dot hesitate from giving his opinion. 'raking all the circumstance of the case into his consideration, he could not vote for the third reading of the bill. Mr. BATTLEY said that in his conscience he did not believe the noble lord entitled to the relief which he sought, and he there fore could not vote for the bill. Mr. S. RICE said, that the case was one which deserved the strictest investigation, and the house had done its duty in making the investigation as sect as it was in its power to do. But after giving Wind combination to the evidence, he could not under. stand the amstitullset of diet asee's mind who did net see in it the meet swissuboolds peseta orkekery. He did not appease of the whole of the cachet of the noble bed, bat there was .string in the ease which wadi *sit him be rebating the relief sought by the bid. He this gaudy es a judicial opinion. The state of the law be had, list be would not strike at the de. fects.of the law though the killeiduaL He thought examinations like those which had jut lakes plass degrading to the character of the beast, sad sakes poodsolbe of any geed. Hs tasted that the dist of *see dismisse wield be such an altitudes of the law and milks sfpullasmest, in emu ef dimes, as would prevent dub issenesse. CAISINCYZON coonsodol br tin osotosity of $ Ethan o oftltions, sad Wood to *history is pea of that De. i mot,. Ulna dot mod* of {be ow the boo. somber mated *A 31r. Law, wbo had not that he could see little he most important period. 't he answered with great in a witness box, he had e been extracted from her. ady at 17 years of age. of reckleu of consequences ; greater degree of caution the question after all was. the society selected for her ? etcourse, which would ex- ! not have respectable per. lordship in this regard p mpaasion which this case ble opinion, had stronger lviduaL It was often dis. duty to pronounce an opi. irticularly directed to tbt red, he would not hesitate e circumstances of the eau For the third reading of the nacience he did not believe i he sought, and he there. is one which deserved the d done its duty in making a power to do. Rut after ence, he could not under. who did nOt see in it the He did not armee of the at there was nothing in the dug . the relief sought by a 'nags' opinion. The mid not strike at the de. He thought examinations grading to the chasacter of d Ho wasted that t rod on ttlllwtin of dos &worms tr weill•poirist ▪ awarity sr a 04 . 1 . Map Is pia Oda soh s bob we* mid OM