The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-02 00:00:00

INIPERI At PARLIAMENT. UOUSE OP LORDS-(LAST NIGHT). The Earl of DERBY presented a petition from the lie?nsed victuallers of Great and Little Bolton, against en alteration in the licensing of public-houses. The NOBLE EARL presented a number of petitions from the congregations of different chapels in Liverpool against the practice of Suttees. in India, and the cruel and obscene rites of Jaggernaut. General GASCOYNE, Lord STANLEY, Sir T. ACLAND, anti Mr. BASTARD, with other Members of the House of Commons, brought up various private Bills ; among which was the Liverpool Harbour Improvement Bill.— These Bills, at a subsequent period of the evening, were severally read a first time. Mr. Joyce, from the Board of Trade, presented at the bar an account of the number of British ships which passed the Sound in 1529 ; also an account of the quan tity of grain transmitted from Liverpool to Manchester market.—To be printed. Lord KING presented a petition, very numerously signed, praying for alteration and improvement of tie laws. The petition, the Noble Lord said, was drawn up by Sonic person well skilled in jurisprudence ; and, from its style and matter, he was inclined to bel eve that it proceeded from the pen of the able writer who had given to the world " The Book of Fallacies," " The Defence of Usury," and other valuable productions. The statute /am it described as being contained in so many books that it was with difficulty any particular statute could he te fcrred to. And, as to the common law, it was a mere fiction, no where to be found. The Noble Lard said that when the improvements were completed, which were now is progress with respect to the law of the country, he hoped the division of labour among the Judges would not be forgotten. The NOBLE Loan then presented a petition from Kid derminster for the abolition of all monopolies. Lord HOLLAND wished to know whether the Noble Marquis (the Marquis of Salisbury), who had given notice of hi s intention to move that day the third reading of the Bill for indemnifying the witnesses to be examined at their Lordships' bar on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, had any objection to postpone it to to-morrow—(this day.) The Marquis of SALISBURY bad no objection to ac cede to the desire of the Noble Baron ; but in doing so it was on the understanding that the third reading should then crane on.—Lords summoned. The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented three pcti tines front parishes in his diocese, against the practice of burning widows-in India. COAL DUTIES-IRELAND. The Marquis of ANGLESEA held in his band a peti tion to which he requested the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. The object of the petition was the removal of the duty on coals imported into Ireland. The petition came from the parish of St. Catherine's, Dublin, and was signed by 115 merchants, tradesmen, and manufac turers of that parish. Their Lordships, no doubt, were well aware 'that Ireland had not the advantage of the Tick, the extensive, the inexhaustible collieries that were found in Great Britain. The ablest engineers believed that cite mines were not of any very great extent in Ireland, at all events, the coals were of a bad quality. It was obvious that every possible encouragement should be :given to the introduction of coal into Ireland : this would be an adiantage to both countries. If manufactures were more introduced into Ireland, employment would be thus given to the idle population—idle from necessity, for the people of that country were as anxious to obtain bread '' by the sweat of their brow," as the people of any nation under the sun.—(hear, hear, hear. )—H e sincerely hoped that the boon now asked weuld be granted. It would be received with great satisfaction by Ireland. The tax itself only amounted to about 50,000/. annually; and there would be no difficulty whatever in finding substitute for it. Nothing could be done that would he more gratefully received. It occurred to him that this tax might be remitted in this way ; that the constabulary force of Ireland, instead of being paid as now, by Govern ment, might be paid by the respective counties where that force was employed. The expence- of that force nearly equalled the sum raised by the tax on coals. In consequence of the great boon which during the last Ses sion received the sanction of Parliament, the counties would not have to pay that constabulary force—supposing the mode , he had taken the liberty of suggesting were adopted, for it would not be required. He must be per mitted to say it had struck him that, in the arrangement made its another place by one of Isis Majesty's Ministers, the interests of Ireland did not appear to have been very much taken intd account. There had been 50,000/. taken off the taxes by the reduction of the duty on leather; but at the same time there was imposed upon that country, by an increa , e of the duty on spirits, from 100,0001. to 130,000/. In addition to this, a large sum would be im posed by an additional duty on stamps. 'Thus, then, while Great Britain had 3,500,000/. taken from ber taxes, Ire land had added to her burdens 150,000/. This was the first petition of the kind, he believed, which had been pre sented to their Lordships that Session, but he knew there were marry others relating to the subject in preparation. The petition was but short, and he would therefore beg leave to have it read at length. It was then read at length, and laid on the table. The Nonax MARQUIS presented a petition from several parishes in Wexford, against the tithe system. The Bishop of BATII and WELLS, when presenting a petition from Shepton Mallet, Somersetshire, complaining of distress, and stating that the parish rates were higher than at any former period, said that their Lordships were *lied upon, on principles of humanity and justice, to in quire into the cause 'of the distress which now pressed on the population of the country. It was the duty of the Legiilature to endeavour to redress the sufferings of the reOple. The petition was then read, and laid on the table. Some Road Bills were read a third time and sent to the Commons. _ Earl BATHURST presented a petition against the truck system, but the place from whence it came was not beard below the bar. The Earl of MALMESBURY moved a humble address to his Majesty, that his Majesty would be pleased to direct to be laid before the House a return of the persons com mitted for trial for criminal offences, at the assizes and ses sions in Ireland, for the last seven years, distinguishing the number committed each year, with an account of the con ♦ictions, sentences, and acquittals. The Noble Earl said that there was already on their Lordships' table a similar return for England and Wales, and his object was to have the statement made complete. The Earl of ROSEBERY suggested that the return should extend to Scotland. The Earl of MALMESBURY had no f.bj , ction what ever to adopt the suggestion. He begged to add, that if returns of a similar nature were annually made of the pre ceding year—(Hear)—it would be attended with consi derable convenience. Earl BEAUCHAMP presented a petition signed by 3,600 persons, from Worcester, complaining of distress, and suggesting an alteration of the currency.—The peti tion having been read at length, Earl STANHOPE rose, and after adverting to the dis tress, which he contended was universal, referred to a let ter which he had recently received, conveying an account of the distress of Glasgow, Leeds, and Birmingham. In Scotland, the writer described, that one-third of the land not entailed was in the market for sale. The Noble Earl ts.tid he had been stated to have ascribed the distress to free trade. This was not the fact. For he never attributed the distress to one cause, but to several causes, which acted simultaneously ; among them, however, he was ready to admit, free trade stood classed. The effect felt clearly pointed out the causes. The Noble Earl then en tered into a statement of the currency question, referring to the banking system carried on in France, Austria, and Prussia, as confirmatory of his views. In each of those countries there were small notes in circulation. In France the private banks issued 20-franc notes, and the Bank of France had 50-franc notes. In Austria there were notes as low as 10s. each, and in Prussia as law as a dollar. It had been asserted that the alteration in the English cur rency, when that measure was proposed, would not affect prices beyond four• or five per cent. ; hut it was now ad mitted that the depreciation of prices was much greater. He believed, in some cases, the difference was 30, 40—may, even 50 per cent. Mr. Ricardo had admitted that, if the price should be reduced 25 per cent., it would be an act of insanity to adept such a measure. The Noble Earl said, in conclusion, that he should, very shortly after the Easter recess, bring forward a motion on the subject be fore their Lordships ; at present he would not trespass farther. The Marquis of BUTE contended that the distress was not universal, but partial ; and in Scotland he denied thtit it had existed, especially among the lower classes, to the extent his Noble Friend had described. Earl STANHOPE knew that in the county from whence the petition came, great irritation prevailed among the middle classes, and in the lower classes a hostile feeling was manifest. The petition was then laid upon the table. Lord NAPIER brought in a Bill for the better regula. Lion of the Poor Laws, which was read a first time. Lord GOWER presented petitions from Newcastle- - under-Lyne, Lane. end Potteries, and another place in Ssaffordahire, in favour of throwing open the Stafford shire trade to India and China. The Noble Lord a!so pre sented petitions from Burslem and another place in the Staffordshire potteries, praying the abolition of slavery. Lord HOLLAND presented petitions from two Protes tant congregations in Lancashire, against burning widow• in India.—Referred to the Select Committee. The proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts of D'Oyley's divorce case, were presented at the bar, and laid on the table. Several witnesses were sworn preparatory to their giving evidence at the bar. The Divorce Bill was then read a first time. Adjourned at a Quarter to Seven. HOUSE OF CO3BIONS-(LAST NIGHT). A Member, (we believe Mr. Locn), for Hythe took tl , e oche and his seat. ST. GILES AND ST. GEORGE'S, BLOOMSBURY, VESTRY BILL. Lord JOINT RUSSELL presented the report of ti:e Committee on the above Bill. Mr. HUME objected to the provisions of the Bill gene rally, but more particularly to that part of it which limit ed the voters to persons paying a rent of 301. and up wards. By this means upwards of three-fourths of the rate-payers would be deprived of giving any vote at all. The following mode of voting was proposed in the Bill now before the llonse:—The number of inhabitants rated under 30/., amounting to 1,856, paying an aggregate rental of 31,998/, were entitled to no vote ; 1,637 houses, rated from 30/. to 601. paying an annual rental of 69,665/. were entitled to one vote each; 608 from 60/. to 90/., paying 44,6521., were entitled to two votes each ; 318 from 90/. to 1201., and paying 32,850 L, were entitled to three votes each ; and 400 rated at 1201. and upwards, paying 61,4551., were entitled to four votes each. Thus it would appear that 3,493 rate payers, under 60/. a-ytar, assessed on a rental of 104,663/, were to have only the same suffrage as 400 rate-payers assessed on a rental of only 61,455/--(Hear.) This exclusive system lie (Mr. Hume) considered as extremely severe, as. depriving so many inhabitants of a right to vote at all. By Mr. Sturges Bourne's Bill, every one was entitled to give a vote on a graduated scale, and this Act had become the law of the land, and large towns, such as Liverpool, and other large parishes, had been regulated by it in peace and tranquillity. What he had to propose as an amendment was, that the amount of rate at which persons should he at liberty to vote should be 151. instead of 301.—(Hear)—as proposed in the Bill. He trusted that the Noble Lord would not object to this amendment. Mr. HOBHOUSE seconded the motion, and stated, if the Bill passed in the present shape, it would be far from producing a pacification of those angry feelings so long existing in the parish. On the SPEAKER putting the amendment, Sir T. FREEMANTLE trusted the House would not feel disposed to disturb the determination of the Committee, made after much deliberation, as to what was the proper amount of rental at which the inhabitants were entitled to vote. It bad been admitted by an Hon. Member, who had taken an active part in the discussion on parish affairs, that upon searching the parish rate-books of this parish, most of the persons rated under SW. were unable to pay the rates.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was therefore deter mined that the right to vote should be given to the land and not the tenant, in order that those who had the most property at stake should have a proportionate in fluence in the affairs of tie parish. The scale of votes was also formed to counteract a great evil experienced in these parishes----viz., a reluctance on the part of persons of property and influence to coma forward and vote at parish elections. Ile considered Mr. Sturges Boutne's Bill as inapplicable t , , all parishes. Sir R. WILSON did not see why, as the House had rej,cted the St. James's Vestry Bill two years ago, on the ground that a new legislative measure for the general management of vestries was about to be produced, now, when that measure was on the eve of being carried into execution, the present Bill should be urged forward as an exception. With respect to the amount to which the voters were limited, he knew many places where persons paying less than 301. were entitled to vote for Members of Parliament. In the borough of Southwark, for instance, persons paying 20 /. per annum were entitled to vote for Representatives in Parliament. He objected to the Bill passing until the report of the Committee on the Select Vestry Laws should be presented, and if the present amend ment should not be carded, he should move that the Bill be read that day six months. Mr. WARD, as an inhabitant of the parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, urged the necessity of the Bill im mediately passing, for the parochial authorities were at a loss to raise sums for the relief of the numerous poor that crowded the united parishes of St. Giles and St. George. Lord RUSSELL observed that the present Bill was not a Select Vestry Bill, but for the amendment of one. With respect to the question as to the amount to which votes were to be limited, he at first felt disposed to think that the amount should be lower—(Hear). —although not to the extent suggested by the amendment. The subject, however, had been much discussed in the Committee, and he felt bound to declare that he concurred in the amount fixed upon. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a divi• sion took place. For the Amendment... 27 I Against it 57 On our re-admission into the gallery, Mr. HUME was understood to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, when Mr. HOBHOUSE hoped the Noble Lord would have no objection to make this concession, as there were to be 1,856 persons deprived of voting at all, that all those per sons paying, above SOl. should be entitled to only one vote. Mr. HUME, rather than press his motion that the Bill be read that day six months, would adopt the suggestion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hobbouse), and move that all persons paying 301. and upwards should be entitled to one vote each, leaving out the words " two, three, and four votes." Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House continued sitting three quarters of an hour with closed doors. We learned that during the exclusion of strangers a division on Mr. Hutue's motion, for limiting the number of votes to one to each person, was lost by a large majority. Also that Lord J. RUSSELL moved, as an amendment, to leave out the number of four votes, and substitute three votes, a. the largest number to be possessed by the highest rate payer. Mr. J. DAWSON and other Members spoke in favour of this amendment, upon which a division took place; when the numbers were— For the amendment 6l Against it Mr. HUME then moved that the Bill be re-committed, when the House again divided. For the re-committal 26 Against it B7 The Bill was at length ordered to be read a third time to.merrow (this day). The House then - divided on the amendment, but we were not able to ascertain the numbers. The amendment was lost. We understand that during the exclusion of strangers the House divided on an amendment proposing that no pa rishoner should have more than three votes. This amend ment was also lost. The last amendment was that the Bill should be recom mitted. On a division there appeared, . _ For the Amendment. Against it S6 Majority —4B The Bill was then read a third time and passed. ELLENBOROUGH DIVORCE BILL. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into further consideration the Ellen borough Divorce Bill—Sir G. Chxnx in the Chair. Counsel were called in, and Mr. Adam proceeded to examine witnesses in support of the Bill. Miss Margaret Steele, the governess of Lady Ellenbo rough, stated that she had been acquainted with the An dover family for a great number of years, and that she superintended the education of Lady Ellenborough for six years, and until within a very few months of her marriage ; she was present at the marriage; had visited, and remained in the house with them very often, and for long periods subsequent to it, and always considered them to live very happily. together, and on terms of mutual affection ; she had, up to the year 1828, frequently passed days together in the same house, and never observed any diminution of affection on the part of Lord Ellenborough, or any want of tenderness in his conduct towards Lady Ellenborough ; the first time she saw Lady Ellenborough after the separation took place, was at Roehampton ; she believed it was the very next day; the confidence and affection of Lady Ellen borough towards her was at that time undiminished ; she went there at the desire of Lord Ellenborough, for the pur pose of living with her ; on the SOth of May, she went with Lady Ellenborough to Ilfracombe, and afterwards to her father's house in Dorsetshire ; Lady Ellenborough then confessed to her that she was with child, and that the father of that child was P r i nce S c h wartzen b urg , w h o h a d d run k tea, and passed the night with her, and part of the next day at Brighton. Cross-examined by Mr. GEORGE LAMB—When Lady Ellenborough told her she was with child, and that the Prince was the father of that child, no previous eon venation had taken place on tte subject, nor had she (Miss Steele) required Lady Ellenborough to make such a disclosure ; Lady Ellenboreugl► made the confession vo lunarily ; she wished, she said, to make a disclosure of her guilt, to some friendly bosom there, but she knew ►t could not mucl► longer he concealed Worn the world. She. had put no questions to Lady Ellenborough on the subject. It was either the first or second night after she went into the country that this conversation took place. Lady El lenborough did entre:►t her not to disclose the subject of their conversation to any one, and told her she relied o❑ her honour not to mention it. Lady Ellenborough did not give any reason for requiring this secrecy to be pre served beyond that already stated of her desire to place confidence in a friend. She first mentioned the subject of the conversation to Lady Andover, or to one of Lady Ellenborough's aunts, she could not tell which, but she knew she had Lady Ellenborough's permission to mention it. This was in the month of July, 1529. By Mr. AGAR ELLIS—Lady Ellenborough never told her of any period at which she I►ad ceased to sleep with Lord Ellenborough, nor anything to that effect. She never said that she and Lord Ellenborougl► occupied different beds, nor had they any conversation on the sub ject at any time. By Mr. MINIUM CARTER—You say that Lady Ellenborough told you Prince Schwartaenbarg, was the father of her child. Did she state any reason Idly she knew that he was the father ?—I do not recollect that she gave any reason. Did she state any reason why she knew that Lord Ellen borough was not the father of the chill?—She said she knew he was not, because she had not slept with him from that time. '—The time she was with child. What time?. Recollect yourself. Do you mean to tell the Committee that Lady Ellenhorough said she did not sleep with Lord Ellenhorough from the time she was pregnant with her first child ?—No, I did not say so. I think I have made it very clear.—(A laugh.) By Mr. TENNYSON—Do you mean to say that Lady Ellenborough told you she had not occupied the same bed with Lord Ellenborough from the time of her former lying-in ?—No ; I mean from the time when she said she was with child by Prince Schwartzenburg. When was that? At what time did it take place ?—I dcn't know very accurately. Some time in February or April, 1329. I really can't tell exactly. By Mr. B. CARTER—How often did you see Lord and Lady Ellenborough after their marriage ?—I saw Lady Ellenhorough continually; Lord Ellenhorough not so often, but very frequently ? I was at their house eight or nine times in the course of a year. Had you any conversation at any of those times with Lady Ellenborough on the subject of the terms on which she lived with Lord Ellen borough ?—Never. Did Lady Ellenhorough ever tell you at whose request it was that she ceased to sleep with Lord Ellenborough?—She did not; she did not allude to that in anv conversation. Sir H. I HARDINGE--She hail always observed the conduct of Lord Ellenborough to be uniformly kind to wards Lady Ellenborough ; his Lordship seemed to be a most indulgent husband; from the year 1821, until the year 1828, she had opportunities of observing them fre quently, and she never perceived any negligence or want of attention in his language or conduct, indeed quite the contrary; Lord Ellenborough was also extremely kind and attentive to the brothers of Lady Ellenborough, and to every member of her family. Are you aware that Lord Ellenborough was very unwilling that his lady should go abroad ?—.I know that he was exceedingly averse to it ; and although Lady Ellenborough was vet y desirous to go abroad, his Lordship resisted it to the latest moment, and declared he could not consent to her going abroad. By Air. HOME DRUMMOND—Had you any reason to believe there was any indiscretion in Lady Ellen borough's conduct before she confessed to you the inti macy with Prince Schwaitzenburg ?-only from reports. By Mr. HUME—Had you not heard that Lady Ellen box ough's conduct was blameable before the separation ? I had heard of seine indiscretions. What were they ?—I can't remember. Do you know when you heard of them ? —I do not remember the particular period. Did you not, as the friend and confident of Lady Ellenborough, remon strate with her on the subject of these indiscretions ? Yes ; I both spoke to her and wrote to her on the subject. What did Lady Ellenborough say at these times ?—She justified her conduct, and said that the accusations of le vity and indiscretion were cot true. At what time did you thus remonstrate with Lady Ellenborough?—l think it was in January, 1829. Did you not hear reports of Lady Ellenborough's indiscretions before that period ?-- Yes. What was -the nature of these indiscretions ?—I do not know any thing more; Lady Ellenhorough was always very regardless of consequences. You say you frequently visited Lord and Lady Ellenhorough. Did you ever meet Prince Schwartzenburg in any of these visits ?—No. Did you ever see him dine at Lord Ellenborough's house, or visit them ?—Never : I never saw him in the house. At what time did you first hear the reports of these indiscretions which you speak of ?—ln the autumn and winter of the year 1828. Did you speak to Lady Ellenborough on the subject at that time ?—I did. Of what nature were those reports which reached you at that time ?—lndiscre tions; I did not hear anything more. Recollect your self. Was there no specific act of indiscretion which in duced you to speak to Lady Ellenborough on the levity of her conduct ?—No ; I recollect nothing particular be yond her riding a great deal. What, alone ?—No ; with a servant; I did sot think that she should ride so much, attended merely by a servant. Was that all ? was there no other act of indiscretion of which you bad to complain? —There might probably be others, but I do not recollect them now. Does the witness mean to say that site took the trouble to speak and write to Lady Ellenborough on the subject of her indiscretion, and yet she cannot recollect anything but what she states ? Did you never hear of any other act of Lady Ellenborough which called on you to give this advice ?—I cannot recollect any particular acts; objected to her general levity of manner, and to her riding and driving about in the pony phae!on accompanied by a porno. Are we to understand that you never heard of any other indiscretions of Lady Ellenhorough until she herself communicated them to you at Roehampton ?—I do not remember any others at present ; I may recollect by and by ; I have seen Lord Ellenhorough, and had a con versation with him since the separation. Have you ever conversed with him on the subject of Lady Ellenborough's conduct ?—Yes ; I have told him that some of Lady El lenborough's associates were very bad indeed. Can you tell us who were the persons you thus designated as being bad associates for. Lady Ellenborough.—(General cries of " No, no." This question was not pressed ?).—Where the persona you spoke of in this language gentlemen or ladies? —Both gentlemen and ladies. Were they acquaintances of Lord or of Lady Ellenborough ?—I don't know. Were they introduced to the house by Lord Ellenborough ? Yes, they were of course introduced by Lord Ellenbo rough. Were those persons ladies and gentlemen moving in that circle of society in which Lord and Lady Ellenbo rough were accustomed to move ?—They were. Did you caution Lord Ellenborough against the permitting his Lady to associate with these ladies ?—I cannot say it was a cau tion ; I warned him about these ladies and gentlemen, but I cannot mention names.—(Hear.)—Were these associates unknown to Lady Eilenborough as Miss Digby?—Certainly. What reason had you to warn Lord Ellenborough against these persons as associates of his Lady ?—I had no par ticular reason ; I merely knew them by report as profli gate men. What did Lord Ellenborough say when you cautioned him ?—I cannot say I cautioned him ; I merely warned him. What did he say ?—I do not recollect what he said ; he laughed. Did you laugh, too?—No, was serious. Did you say any thing more ?—No, I meant it as a warning to Lord Ellenborough ; and finding it was not taken as I anticipated, I did not repeat it. Did you see the Caine associates at the house of Lord Ellenborough afterwards ?—I did. Did Lady , Ellenborough visit the ladies you allude to after dais period ?—She visited them. Did Lord Ellenborough visit them ?—I do not know.-- Did you visit Lady Ellenborough after the time you cau tioned Lord Ellenborough ?—Yes, I visited her repeatedly. By Sir H. HARDINGE—Were the persons to whom you allude ladies and gentlemen of rank and station in society ?—Yes they were. Were they persons of a rank usually seen at placFs of public amusement ?—Yes. They were not persons rejected by society, or refused admittance in respectable houses?—They were persons not rejected at houses called respectable.—(A l aug h. )— Di d you allu d e to any particular individuals when you cautioned Lord Ellenhorough F—Yes, I alluded to one individual—a lady whose society I disapproved !yf. Were you not considered to be rather strict in your principles when you made these complaints ? Perhaps I was. Were n ot t h e persons t o whom you objected received into the best English society in London?—They were received into the fashionable so ciety of London..—(Hear, and a laugh.) By Mr. AGAR ELLIS—The witness dined with Lord and Lady Ellenborough for the last time in 1828, and up to that time as well as afterwards sh e never heard La d y Ellenborough make the slightest complaint of the con duct of Lord Ellenborough. By Sir H. HARDINGE—Lady Ellenborough in variably expressed herself in strong terms of gratitude respecting the conduct of Lord Ellenb orough, when s h e had occasion to allu d e to i t. In answer to questions from an Honourable Member, the witness stated, that the reasons which Lady Ellen borough had given why the child with which she was pre s paut was l'i - ;11Ce Swartzenturg'a, and not Lord El borough's, was that she had not slept with Lord Ellen borough since February. Be Sir HENRY HARDINGE—When you state that improper associates were introduced to Lady Ellenborough by Lord Ellenhorough, do you mean to say that Lord El. lenborough took especial pains to select those persona for the purpose, or were they merely introduced as fashionable persons in the ordinary course of society ?—That they were merely introduced as fashionable persons in the ordi nary course of society. By lord NUGENT—Was Prince Swartzenburg cf the persons introduced by Lord Ellenborough to Lady Ellen borough's society ?--He was rot. By Mr. HUME—Did any of Lord Ellenborougk's family express themselves dissatisfied with her conduct?— The only fault that they laid to her was keeping the so— ciety which I have mentioned. Was the only fault they found with her keeping the society which Lord Ellenbo rough had introduced to her?—Certainly. Was not this objection on the part of Lady Ellenborough's family made at an ear . y period after the marriage ?—Not to my know ledge; not at a very early period. When did Lady El lenborough's family first express their objection to the society which Lady Ellenborongh was keeping?—l do not recollect ; I only remember that they bl :tried her on that account. By Sir IL HARDINGE—Yon say that Lady Ellenbo rough's family expressed dissatisfaction at the society which had been introduced to her by Lord Eilenborongli ; was that dissatisfaction expressed before the occurrence of the indiscretions on the part of Lady Ellenborough, which you have mentioned, or after ?—Lady Andover, I believe, made the remark to me, after the occurrence of the circum stance which I have mentioned. Then it was after the indiscretions to which you have alluded that Lady Ellen borough's family expressed their dissatisfaction at the so ciety which she was keeping ?—Yes. By Mr. HUME—The witness has stated that she no ticed indiscretions in Lady Ellenborough's conduct. Did she locution those indiscretions—did she mention Lady El lenhorough's riding alone to Lady El7enbarough's family? —I spoke of them to Lady Ellenborough herself ; but I (lid not mention them to Lady Ellenberough's family, be cause I knew that it would pain them exceedingly. The witness vas then ordered to withdraw. The next witness called was Mr. Freshfield. Ile was examined by Mr. Adam, and stated in Enlist:ince that he was Lord Ellenborough's solicitor ; that he received in structions to make inquiry respecting the reports and the evidence against Lady Ellenborough on the 29th of June, 1829; that he did not succeed in making any material discovery on the suliect until the second week in July; that he then discovered that Prince Schwartgenburg had before resided in Harley-street, a circumstance previously Unknown to Lord Ellenborough ; that he did not, however, at that time obtain sufficient materials to warrant him in advising Lord Ellenborough to commence proceedings ; and that he was afterwards informed that Prince Schwarizen burg had left England. _ _ . The witness was then examined by Sir CHARLES WETHERELL ; but the Honourable and Learned Gen tleman spoke in so low a tone of voice that few of his questions reached us ; and we are enabled, therefore, to give the result of his examination very briefly and imper fectly. We understood Mr. Freslifield to state in the course of the examination, that he was satisfied that Lord Ellenborough did not know where Prince Schwartzenburg had lodged before March ; that Lord Ellenborough had not told him that be did not know, but that he drew that in ference from the instructions which he had received ; that one of his reasons for drawing that inference was that Prince Schwatteenhurg was described as residing in Hol ies-street, and that Harley-street was not mentioned, which involved a misdirection to him (the witness), which of course would not have occurred had Lord Ellenborough been aware that at a former period Prince Schwartzen burg had lived in Harley-street ; that the earliest period to which hie instructions directed his attention was the autumn of 1828 ; at which periol it was alleged that Lady Ellen borough had been repeatedly seen with Prince Schwart zenburg ; that he understood that Prince Sehwartzenburg left England in June, 1829; that he made the discovery of Prince Schwartzenburg'm having resided in Harley-street before he went to Holler-street by men. accident; that it had not occurred to him to inquire at the Foreign Office where Prince Schwartzenburg bad re•ideh; that it was not until alter great difficulty and much search, that be dis covered that Prince Schwartzenburg had lived in Harley_ street ; that his instructions stated that it was believed that Prince Schwartzenburg lived in Holler-street, and that the reports were that Lady Ellenhorough and Prince Schwart zenburg met in Holler -street; that having by accident dis covered that Prince Schwartzenburg had lived in Harley street, he (the witness) inquired at above twenty houses in that street, and at length found one in which he was in formed that a foreigner had lived ; that after further in quiry it appeared that that foreigner was Prince Schwart zenburg, and that all the information which he subse quently obtained grew out of that discovery. By a MEMBER—Do you consider, Carpenter the boy who was examined before the Committee yesterday even ing, to be a willing or an unwilling witness ?—A very un willing witness indeed; I never met with a mote unwilling witness. 'Wore the general instructions which you re ceived drawn up by Lord Ellenborough ?—They were, I believe, in the handwriting of Mr. William Lao:, a cousin of Lord Ellenborough, a gentleman at the bar. Lord Ellenhorough bad directed his couNin to draw up those instructions?—So I understood. Then you understand that Lotd Ellenhorough had consulted his own family and his cousin, Mr. William Law, on the subject, before he took the step which he did take ?—Yes. From the time you received your instructions until you obtained the in formation which was necessary for proceeding, what time elapsed ?—I received my instructions on the 29th of May; it was not until September that I obtained all the neces sary information. By Sir HENRY HARDINGE—From the first con versation which yon had with Lord Ellenborough on the subject, did he ever swerve from his determination to pro ceed in the inquiry ?—Never ; although at an early pet iod of the inquiry 1 told Lim that the circumstances which I bad at that time procured, were not sufficient to bring the inquiry to a satisfactory issue. Did Lord Elienborough continue at that time to express his detsrminatio❑ to pro ceed in the inquiry ?—He did; he said that it was due to Lis own honour, and that it was due to the honour of Lady Ellenborough ; that various reports had been spread about her, which he was bound to investigate, for that her character was the only proof of her innocence, which ought to be established by incontrovertible evidence. Lord Ellenborough was always anxious, then, to continue the inquiry ?—lle never would allow it to stand still. By a MEMBER—Has the witness reason to believe that previous to the period of which he has been speaking Lord Ellenborough was aware of Lady Ellenborough'e ac quaintance with Prince Schwartzenburg ?—I believe that some report had reached Lord Elenitorough's ears of Lady Elienborough's having keen seen riding with Prince Schwartzenburg. At what period did those reports re specting Lady Ellenborough's riding with Prince Schwartz enburg roach Lord El!enborough's ears am unable to answer that question. At about what period cannot exactly say. After one or two further questions from Mr. LAMB and Lord FRANCIS OSBORNE, the witness was or dered to withdraw. The CHAIRMAN having asked the Counsel at the Bar if he had any more witnesses to call. Mr. Adam said, that he merely wished to call two wit nesses to prove, the one the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, the other the hand-writing of Lady Ellenborough's letters. He had also to state to the House that Lord El lenborough's coachman was in attendance, for the purpose of being examined, if the House should think fit to call him behore them. Two witnesses were then examined to prove the facts respecting the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, and the authenticity of Lady Ellenborough's letters. Sir HENRY HARDINGE said that he thought it right to mention to the House that he had informed Lord Ellenborough of the wish expressed yesterday evening by the Hon. Member for Montrose to have his coachman examined at the bar ; and that hie Lordship had said that he was anxious, not only his coachman, but every other atember of his establishment, should be examined at the bar,.if such a proceeding were thought necessary. Mr. HUME moved that the coachman should be called in. J. King, to questions put by Mr. HUME—I have been some time in Lord Ellenborough's service, and I am now in it ; I recollect Carpenter—be was her Ladyship's groom; he always rode with her Ladyship; another ser vant (lid attend her a few times; this was his Lordship's groom—his name was Jewel; he did not gu with her Ladyship often; I do not know where they rode; her Ladyship's horses stood in the same stable with mine in t o wn, bu: not in the country; I was the head of the de partment in his Lordship's family, but I never asked Car penter where he had been ; there was no occasion for the question ; I might have occasionally observed that the horses had been out a long time; he never mentioned to - • me any gentleman having rode with her Ladyship ; I am quite certain of that ; Carpenter has sometimes brought the horses home without bringing her Ladyship ; I never inquired where her Ladyship had been left, or where she had been to ; I never heard any report of Prince Schwurt— zenburg riding with her Ladyship ; I have seen the Prince at operas, plays, and concerts, attending her Ladyship, but i•never sate him to master's house ; aut6ter was not at the opera, or at the other public places, when the Prince was attending her Ladyship ; I know the Prince's groom, from having to wait at public places for my master whilst he was waiting for his; we were both waiting for our respective masters. By this means I knew the Prince; I am sure of his person. To questions by Lord NUGENT—I never saw the Prince in company with Lord Ellenborough, nor in com pany with her Ladyship when Lord Elie:thorough was with her. _ _ _ Mr. HUNIE now wished the butler to be ealed in again, that he might ask him one mere question. Thomas , liamts (as far as we could catch the tame) was then called in and examined by Mr. HUME—I have been butler in Lord Ellenborough's family for upwards of • four years. I attended upon his Lordship's fautiy both at floehampton and in town. His Lordship had frequent dinner parties, at which I attended, but I do not recollect having ever seen Prince Schwartzenburg dining at his Lordship's table. I am positive of this ; had he been there I must have known it. is was never at any of his Lordship's evening parties. I know nothing of Ptince Schwartzenburg. I know Carpenter, the groom. I never talked to him about where her Ladyship went when she went out to ride. I had no motive lin- such a question. I had never beard any reports of the Prince riding with her Ladyship. If any body has said that this was a sub ject of conversation in his Lordship's family, he was in error. I never heard anything of it until it was in the public papers. If such had been the topic of conversation among the servants, I insist have heard it. I never heard of it directly or indirectly. To questions put by Sir HENRY HARDINGE—Lord and Lady Ellenborough always treated each other with affection and k'ndness. I had constant Opportunities of witnessing their conduct to each other. Had any unkind treatment taken place I must have known it. I never heard the servants mention any unkind treatment between them. Lord Ellenborough never was harsh to her Lady ship, or deficient in tenderness ; his manner to her Lady_ ship was always and invariably kind. I have lived i n other families—l mean married families, and I should sa y that Lord Ellenborough was as indulgent a husband as I have seen in any preceding families; he was, in my opinion more so. At table they did not address each other as' Lord and Lady, but as Edward and Janet. Her conduct was kind and affectionate to his Lordship. To questions by Mr. TENNYSON—I cannot say whe ther Lord and Lady Ellenborough had the same or sepa rate beds ; there are two beds in the room, but how far they are separated I cannot say.—(A laugh.) To questions put by Mr. HUME—Lord and Lady El lenborough were out frequently to parties; I don't know if his Lordship attended her to the evening parties; in the country he rode out with her, but not in town ; don't recollect any particular parties in the autumn of 1828 ; I am quite certain that the Prince was never in my master's house. Examined by Sir CHARLES WETHERELL—It was not notorious in the family that Lord and Lady Ellen borough slept in different beds ; in nay conversations with the servants of the family, i have heard'of their sleeping in separate beds ; I can't say from what servant I heard this, most likely it was from his Lordship's valet. By Lord NUGENT—This was not mentioned as in consequence of any misunderstanding or disagreement be tween Lord and Lady Ellenborough ; I never heard that they slept in separate beds from any difference of temper. Sir HENRY HARDINGE—AII the rest of Lord El lenborough's servants are here, if any Member wish to have them called in and examine them.—(Cries of " No, no, no.") The CHAIRMAN—CounseI may withdraw. Mr. HUME said that he felt it his duty, after such a mass of contradictory and inconsistent evidence, to protest that the House should not conic to a hasty or premature decision. For his part, so numerous and strong were the contradictions, that he did not know on what to rest. Who could, at that moment, say how far there might have been any collusion between the parties ? And who could hazard an opinion upon the evidence before the Com mittee? He should submit that the evidence be printed, with a view to see how far it bore out the allegations in the Bill. Ho should move that the Committee report progress. Sir G. CLERK said, that it was certainly competent for any Hon. Member to move that the evidence be laid before the House, and that it be printed ? but he must only beg leave to remind the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, that if he took such a course, the third reading of the all would be postponed. Mr. R. GORDON wished to know if there was any provision made in the Bill for the support of Lady Ellen. borough ? Sir H. HARDINGE made some reply, that we were unable to hear in the gallery. Dr. PHILLIMORE said, that there never were aily such provisions in Divorce Bills. Mr. HUME said, that if upon considering the evidence he should feel satisfied that the adultery of Lady Ellen borough had arisen from the neglect of Lord Ellenborough, he should certainly propose to strike out of the Bill that clause which gave his Lordship the relief he sought for. He thought that it would be much better to report progress. Sir IL HARDINGE was surprised to hear the Hon. Member talk of stopping the progress of the Bill. Good God ! when the feelings of the families were concerned— when the Bill had hail such an extraordinary, such an un usual sifting—could it be wished to sift it more? No man's conflict could stand better than that of Lord Ellen borough's ; and he was perfectly satisfied of the honour able part of the heads of the Lady's family. He must say that it was very desirable to conclude the inquiry. The House must consider that the witnesses were not on oath ; and that in a popular assembly it was not useful to the cause of justice that the Bill should hang in that House. The usual course of r roceediog was to report the Bill without any amendment, and if the Hun. Member should find any part of the Bill of which he dis ipproved, it was competent in him to move to strike out the clause in the third reading. Mr. HUME—The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken if he supposed that he was disposed to hurt the fselings of any of the parties, or if he imagined that he was insensible to the painful nature of the ea,e. What he had done had arisen involuntarily from the nature of the evidence as it had come out before the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman's manner had indicated that he wasgivilig the parties unnecessary pain ; and in casting. such an nn potation upon him, he was not doing him justice. He was prepared to say that he should agree to the separation of Lord and Lady Ellenborough, if it were not for certain forms exacted in that House—(Hear.) —But if those forms were to form part of the law of the House, though they were mere forms, they ought to be attended to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said a few words, the purport of which, further than that they were in opposition to delay, we could not catch. Mr. TENNYSON must express the same feeelings upon the subject tt. , those set forth by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen. He (Mr. Tennyson) had as much feeling of delicacy toward the parties as any Member in that House ; but in a case where there had been no investiga tion in a Court of Law, it was unprecedented that a Bill of Divorce should pass through Parliament. No Jury, in this case, had given any damages in a Court of Law. He must not be misunderstood to blame Lord Ellenborough for not going into a Court of Law; but as that usual pro ceeding had not taken place, the House was hound, in the common exercise of its duty, to go into the Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was very sure that nothing could be further from the in tentions of his Right Hon. Friend than to impute blame to any body. He was quite willing to admit that as there were no opposing parties to the Bill, it wax peculiarly in cumbent upon the House to investigate the case. He de nied that it was unprecedented to pass a Divorce Bill where no investigation of the case had taken plans itt Common Law Court. The rule was, that a trial at law should take place, or that the parties should state why it had not taken place. This had been done in die present instance ; for it was a case in which, from the absence of the parties, it was not possible to produce the requisite evidence in a trial at Common Law. _ Sir HENRY HARDINGE denied that he liad cast any imputations whatever upon any Member for pursu ing the examination of evidence. For his part, he was extremely glad that the examination had taken place, and he should be happy if it were carried further. All that he complained of was, that the Hon. Member for Aber deen had proposed a delay painful to the feelitto of the parties ; not essential to the cause of justice ; and, in his opinion, unnecessary in every respect. Sir C. WETHERELL had only to observe, that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exellequi.r, was perfectly correct in saying that a Divorce Bill (a AM pass through Parliament without any verdict of a Jury for criminal conversation. The House had occasionally de parted from its usage, in consequence of not having such verdicts. The sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court; was first to be procured, and next the verdict of a Jury, in an action for criminal conversation ; but if the parties were out of the country, and the verdict of a Jury could trot be obtained, it behoved the House to do its best, by examin ing the case. He could suppose a case, where a delin quent might be prompted to go out of the country, in or der that such a verdict might not be obtained ; or he could suppose many other eases very likely to occur, and in uwld::_beibol dict' 1,0 tTidict in a CoinuMn Court • In such cases, he maintained that tno . • e which would to go through that inquiry, the fifeassity " 'T'he be superseded where a trial had taketi 'll pl ou &s: e now before the House laid not undergone that ; tit — • again he would say, that without such an usual , arra t 7: the House IYOZ:l+1 not discharge its duty, if it did n7 l ; v , into its merits, investigate facts, and examine witnesses.: the Bar, although they were not upon oath. As the case, laboured under the defect of wanting a trial by Jury, it -- was the duty of every Member to make himself a Jury— man, and to try the questions at issue. He was very glad that the inquiry had been gone into, and be did not en— tertain a particle of a doubt of the fact of adultery having been committed. He did lament that more evidence had not been produced. It was a right to any individual,whent adultery was proved, to obtain a sentence in an EtcleSiasti. , cal Conrt ; but. he denied that it was his right to obtain & Parliamentary divorce, which was conceded not on it prin.: ciple of adultery being committed, but upon the indiap*a; • , tittle ground that there existed an absence of miscondiVeiti; - en the part of the husband. By the Ecclesiastical and e, Divine law, a divorce did not give the husband a . right to marry again. But Parliamentary law and Divine law were distinct things, and it was only about a century ago that Parliamentary divorces were conceded ; but no• . writer had denied the proponttion that it was not the crime of adultery alone that gave the husband the right of $ Parliamentary divorce, for it was requisite for hint to prove that he had not been so fir delinquent as to bar his right to Marry again. The case we,,e to be tried three times. First, there was tl:c action of Common Law, in which the husband could obtain pecuniary damages for his wife's adultery ; then there was the ,process in the Ecclesiastical Courts, by which he could be released from all the matri monial bonds; mid lastly, there was the Parliamentary' Divorce, by which lie might contract other bonds if ke • were to inclined. All these proceedings were founded urea different principles, and they formed a perfect investiga tion of the case, and afforded full relief where they leers • duly gane through. Lard NUGENT thought that the evidence being' eased every Member owed it to the honour of the parties iMake rested, to take the earliest opportunity of stating the isle pressions upon his mind. The evidence had left upon. • him the mot complete and satisfactory conclusion that- - there was not the slightest shadow of collusion or of raise • conduct imputed to the Noble Lord. As fat as he was concerned, he should vote for the clause which save the Noble Lord the relief he asked for, and he trusted tlist tips relief would be as speedy as possible. Mr. HUME fe!t it his duty to enter his protest against giving Liu opinion on tide latter point. From the manner ia which the evidence had been taken, he could not make - up his mind, and he was extremely sorry that the declaim ration of his Noble Friend had obliged him to make :lig atationent. The Bill was then ordered to be printed, and the Spe.lker resumed the Chair. Sir GEORGE CLERK then brought up the evidence, which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. Mr. HLTME was not aware that any objection calisted to printing the evidence. The greatest part of it had Ines taken when not twenty :Members were in the House. • WAIIBUIIT6INT seconded the motion. Hu was wiling to spare the feelings of individuals ; but public justice ought to be attended to. The evidence ought to be printed, if more intended to vote than the twenty that had heard it. Sir HENRY HARDINGE would not object to the printing of the evidence, if it was the wish of the House, but he Tbought that Hon. . 'Members ought to be as sparing of delay as possible.. _ Mr.'ROhERT GRANT thought that the House would not discharge its duties without having the evidence print ed. Sincerely deprecating every degree of unnecessary delay—sincerely deprecating any pain to the feelings of the parties—he must yet say, that nut only the utmost delibe rat;on, hut the utmost appearance of deliberation, was due to the character of the House and the gravity of the case. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that the case of adultery had been established beyond a deuht, end he did not think the decision of the House would be altered by the printing of the evidence. The best judgment would be formed by those who had attended - the proceedings, and it was competent to Members to com plain on the third reading. Mr. TENNYSON said that the Right Hon. Gentle men would be correct, if only those who heard the evi deuce were to vote upon the Bill ; but twenty Members alone were present when the evidence was given, and he need not say that a great many more would decide the. question. The evidence ought to be printed. It was a re medy out of the reach of the lower classes, and naturally r o e t gt t t i r , t e lt_ p d eo o p n ie t . h i s l a t e co oughtunt t t o r i b t he recollected jealousy h y t t h o e o, great that Lord Ellenborough was a Member of that other House whose decision was the only suggestion to precede their judgment. He hoped, therefore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would not oppose the printing of the evidence, without which it would be unbecoming in them to give a vote upon the question. Sir HENRY HARDINGE declared, in explanation, that it was more for the sake of the unfortunate lady, whom he had formerly known well, than from any con sideration in the remotest degree connected with his Lord ship, that he had raised his voice upon the occasion; but if it were the general sense and feeling of the House that this evidence should be printed, he certainly would not oppose it. Mr. LENNARD. a i i, his mind was made up as to the - fact of her Ladyship having uniformly received kind treatment from Lord Ellenbrrough. This was proved by four witnesses—by the brother of his Lordship, by the butler, another servant, and the early friend of Lady Ellen borough, and he did not think it could be established by other or better evidence in a Court of Justice. He was. satisfied respectirg the criminality of Lady Ellenhorough, and consi , quently did not deem it necessary to print the evidence ; but if such was the general feeling of the House, he had no objection, Mr. BATLEY did not think it would be right for the House to give their decision without having the evidence printed. Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed that tke House was acting judicially, and thought that in deference to the opi nions of many Members and the dignity of their proceed ings. they ought to make these proceedings as judicial as possible. He had no doubt upon th e case ; b ut h e w i s h e d to have the evidence printed. Sir G. CLERK said his Right Hon. Friend and he had no objection to the evidence being printed. He could state most broadly that no friend of Lord Ellenborough's could do ott,erwise, as far he was concerned, titan wish for a publication of the entire transaction. Sir H. HARDINGE had expressed himself most infeli citously if he had given the House to understand that in consideration of his Lordship's interest or feelings he had any objection to having the evidence printed. An Hox. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, declared himself satisfied of her Ladyship's guilt ; but re gretted that no provision was made for her. He suggested the introduction of a clause, which should prevent her from being in the condition of a pauper. Sir G. CLERK said, that such a measure was in-ston• templation. Sir H. HARDINGE, as one of the co-trustees to Lord Eilenhorough's marriage settlement, said that such a pro vision would be made as had received the approbation of the lady's family.—The evidence was then ordered to he printed. CHANCERY JUDGE. Sir C. WETHERELL gave notice, that if it were pro• inquiry and an e x am i nat i on o f w i tnesses , i i n to o s v e e d t f o or ad a d n a Judge to the Court of Ch ancery , h e wou ld with a view to ascertain if a necessity did exist for such.an apoointment. r Mr. MARSHALL presented a petition from certain Tallow Chandlers against the Excise Duties on Tallow. He also presented petitions from Burton, Hanley, and a place i n Yorkshire, against the renewal of the East India Charter. _Ordered to be referred to the Committee. On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, .a Bill for the relief of the Insolvent Debtors was read a first time. It was ordered to be printed. Ile proposed that it should he read a second time on the 27th of April. TRIAL BY JURY IN SCOTLAND. The LORD ADVOCATE said, that in stating the nature of the measure which he intended to introduce, be would be as brief as possible, and endeavour to avoid touching on any extraneou s po i nts. T wo principles:bad guided the Government in th e f ram i ng o f the mewl"' one was the improvement of th e a d m i n i strat i on o f justice in Scotland, and the other the saving of public expense. If it should further appear that the alteration about to be proposed would be attended with a great sacrifice on the part of Government, he trusted that that circumstance would not render the measure less acceptable to the House and the public. The first and most iniporttlit part of the measure was to give to the subjects of Scotland, all the benefits and advantages admitted to result from that most valuable institution the Trial by Jury in civil cases, by uniting it with the proceedings of the ordinary Courts of Justice,—namely, with the courts of session of Scotland. Some Hon. Members might not be aware that it was, not vet fifteen years since Trial by Jury in civil cases was first introduced into Scotland. Previous to that introduction the evidence of witnesses in civil cases was taken by offi cers of the courts, and laid before the courts in. The inconvenience , of that course of proceeding was. felt a '1,71