The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-07 00:00:00

nina- °ale se of lg his and jpon nents h all Irce ; have This voice r an into n the then enact !rime At shop and In at to be. 11 by eces :Asti- of a deals ,w of ade and that and; lark, :and* ready • Ited; I the , the and DU US Out- f : tear. eces -3 ted. wife, ijoy .um- ass were in upon enee with but cvi. con " ehe male t tea pr of (Sir aund sent nour wife on :ude. lady tten eater Miss trate not it at eita trery walls idust of Lord EllentioroOgb that could form the slight justifica tion of the wife's dishonour, or that could be ccnstrued into a' pretext for withholding from him the relief lie soughs :"If-the evidence did not justify this, teas the House:UO."11111 wildly to presumption in order to deprive this Nobleman of his remedy? He knew that the princi ple of. isueh Bills was a repeal of the only supplement to the absurdity of the law. As a lawyer, as a legislator, and as -a gentleman, he felt himself bound in justice and honour to say, that from all that had apppeared upon the case, there was not the slightest imputation upon the character of the complainant.—(Hear, hear, hear, hear. ) lie would never resort to confused, unfounded, visionary presumption, in order to inflict a substantial evil upon any teen ; and ho felt it impossible to vote against the Bill con sistently with reason, integrity, and honour. Dr. PHILLIMORE explained. He had soot thrown any blame whatever upon the manner in which the case had been discussed and settled in the Courts below. His obsetvations had extended only to the two Houses of Par liament in taking cognizance of such cases. Mr. R. GRANT said he had never risen to perform a more painful duty than that which was cast upon him by the ptesent Bill. He considered himself called upon to decide a j u di c i al question, and acting with that consci entiout; feeling on which Members of that House were hound to act in all judicial questions, he felt himself bound to say, that the conclusion to which lie had come was un favourable to the relief for which Lord Ellenborough was an applicant. Almost every gentleman who had taken any :-share in this discussion had remarked on the pecu liarity of their being called upon to come to a decision upon. this case, without having had an inquiry before a court; of common law. He implored the House to con sider how important it was that such inquiry should be bad, not merely in this, but in every other case of adul tery ~• If such an inquiry had been instituted, not only Woulii; the 'evidence have been thoroughly sifted, but the defendant in the action would have had an oppor tunityoto.repel, if he could, the evidence given in proof of the net of adultery ; or if he could not do that, he would have an opportunityof seeking to reduce the husband's claim to dainaget by proving misconduct on his part towards his wife: ;The defendant might effect this by showing collusion or connivance on the part of the husband, or by proving his ill-uiage of his wife, by disclosing his flagrant im morality with regard to other women, and, as the lowest ease 'Which could be urged as a reason for extinguishing the husband's claim, by proving his palpable carelessness and "inattention to his wife's behaviour. Now, where a defendant attempted to prove any of these defences, acid ns such objection could be made as was made in the present case : where he succeeded, no damages would be given, and no groundwork would be laid for such a Bill. Where a defendant had not attempted such a line of defence, there would be a strong presumption that, because he had not attempted to prove such misconduct, there had bee/Is-none on the part of the husband. In such a case the House would be convinced by looking at the prelimi naryproceedings, not only that the husband had properly Perfermed his duty, but that lie had also not been in fluenied by any of the considerations to which lie (Mr. IL Grant) had previously alluded. When a case came be fore'Patliament without the institution of any proceeding in a.Court of Common Law, it was clear that all those guards which he had just enumerated against a collusive understanding between man and wife were totally void.— Was there any person who could supply that void ? Yes, there was one person, and one person only, and that was th e husband.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not intend to Open the door to the most frightful devastation of principle among this higher orders of society, they must lay it dawn as a principle that the husband should supply that part which was defective in his case—(Loud cries of " hear, hear'-')—and that he should produce evidence to convince the House that no such defence could have been attempted with success.—(Hear.) He said that it was in the power of the husband to do this—it was not calling upon him to prove the truth of a negative, though every one knew that there were a hundred cases in which that species of proof Was demanded in a Court of Law. He said that, by pro ducing witnesses familiar with his habits and proceed it was in the power of the husband to place his 'conduct towards his wife fully before the House, and to produce in the mind of every Hon. Member a moral con le;tion that he had nut been wanting in any of those at tentions towards his wife, in which if he had been want 14g, his claim to damages would have been destroyed. 'he House, it was true, had the power to send for dif ferent witnesses, and to examine them ; but it was riot in the power of the House, without some previous informa tion respecting the private habits of his life, to get the truth on such points from reluctant witnesses. He begged to say that he did not intend to impute to the Noble Lord Who 00W asked for relief, any of that conduct which he had been putting in hypothetical cases ; but he Was entitled to say, upon the evidence which had been taken, that except the point of unkind treatment, none of the other points to which he had alluded was negatived by the evidence then before the House. - Hon. Members said that they had not judicial evidence before them that Lord Ellenborough could be charged with any of those acts, of whit% a defendant could have availed himself before a Jury, •To say that you had not judicial evidence on such cha r ges, was merely to say that you had no evidence to the- contrary. He said that the House ought to have evi dence to the contrary. For the sake of shutting out collu sive applications from husband and wife fur these Divorce Bills, it was of importance to hold it out as a general prin - eiple, that - the House would throw on the applicant the burden of - showing, that if there had been a trial at com mon law for damages, it would have been in vain for any Ad:et/dant to set up the husband's misconduct as a defence • to' such an action.—(Hear.)—Such were the grounds on Which be felt a moral incapacity to support a measure like the present. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman made several other remarks in continuation, but they were in audible in the gallery. LUSIIINGTON, if he had consulted his feelings, should have abstained from any participation in this dis cussion's but he considered that it would have been a de sertion of his duty if lie abstained from declaring the im pression which the evidence in this case had made upon his mind. It had so happened that in his character as Chancellor of London he had had occasion to pass a de cree in this very case, in favour of Lord Ellenborough, for a separation a metzsa et thoro. Whatever necessity lie might labour under in his situation in another place as to 'the judgment to be pronounced on a cause of this descrip lion, he was here as a Member of Parliament, and felt himself at perfect liberty to vote for a remedy of a totally different description, and sought for upon entirely different g. r °°Ods• ;He could not help thinking that there was a circu mstance. in thi s case, and he would boldly advert to It, which made an impression with respect to the judg- Went of this Case, which it ought not to make. He was o_t opinion, and he spoke it painfully, because of intro clueing the character of any individual—namely, that the general unpopularity of Lord Ellenborough's character was what aroused the present opposition This might be his birneisfbrtune ; but he himself had heard from many Mem t rs;tlaitt this was the state of the case. He did not mean o say that every Member could not endeavour to divest himself of this feeling ; but whether that was the case or not, , it had produced an excitement and caused a critical :1411)411163n, such a s would never oth erw i se h ave b een at .,,e •",t4ted. H e wou ld not at all attempt to palliate Lord , Il ealioiough ; b ut w h en he felt that the measure came here fix its ordinary course, he first asked himself in this W ay;:seva s he to consider this case as an honourable man osodollv and dispassionately, and free from the controul of every of prejudic e ? H e h a d d one hi s b est to divest -himself o f a ll t h ose f eel i ngs, and he would then tell the II House that Lord Ellenborough was entitled to the relief he sought. He would now give his reasons. No man rn who h a d read or heard the evidence could for a mo theat nt doubt that t h e adultery had been committed. If were the real state of the case, according to the ests hh.litii practice for the last 28 or 30 years, in order to de r'eeve the h usband of the remedy he sought, it would be Ofco tiry to prove hin t guilty of n eg l ec t, o f conn i vance , or n u'ikin• Ile would ask, upon directing the closest batteation t o t h e evidence, whether they could see there had . : 1 7 . 0V crimin a l neglect of Lady Ellenborough, or any thei kind, no roan livi ng cou ld d ou b t.—( Hear, hear.)— mias but on e passage, which was in the evidence of wosiShtaete he le, that could bear such a construction ; that they should ec,nreZdeived th e i n ti ma ti on w i t h a l aug h : b ut intended as disre er that meant, and whether it was did not smile at g t r . trding the intimation, or whether lie wife's virtue.t witness in the perfect confidence of histhat, if every man's (Ilear, hear,)—He really thought lo as this,no one, c onduc; were examined by such h a test alive to his c on . this w e nvev ever cautious his feeling, or however ' duct or to hi s character, who could not in Ybe made a victim. If this was the case, for what reason n'teuree Noble tor_ refuse the ordinary remedy in . such . cases to from his li on an Learned • He felt a difficulty' in differing !less); but hia a ' • earned Friend (the Member for Inver could not help objectio n as to the absence of a verdict he in the present eas,,,ntering as unfair, more particularly necessary, for Lo o t E nenb it was possible, were it even to the absence of a verdict, however, this was not the As orou g h to attain such an object. first,- nor- the second, Bills had been passed wit f li n o r t the 20th instance, in which be miti,fa verdict. This might not a• Man's fault, but guilty of criminal conversation wirtthuni A man might be e. t . s lo ( n Dr i,r L ien sh d i s n a g r t o o ti n' w ) , wife, or with the wife of any of his hint—(Hear, and a laugh)—and he might escape to the East or to the West—and thus there would be no power of applying this test. But, after all, this test was good for nothing ; for, in the course of his experience, which was great, he could aver that, in actions against the guilty parties, the trial, in one out of every 20 cases, did not afford any clue to the real circumstances of the case. There were many cases where, from feelings of delicacy, no defence was made. In other cases, it was the object of both parties to obtain a divorce ; and it was a rare occurrence, indeed, where the real facts were sifted throughout in an action at law for criminal conversation. And when there was no possibility of a husband's attaining this test, were they to turn round and say that because of an acci dent, out of his controul, we will throw upon you the onus —of what?—not of establishing a prima fade case, but that you shall come to the bar of this House; that you shall bring every party connected with your family, in order to establish that no imputation shall remain upon you. God forbid that such should be the test. He knew no ease is which a man was placed upon his trial, until some case was made out against him. He admitted that it might be said, that you have no claim to this remedy unless you are innocent. But the course he should pursue was to prove he was guilty; this was the general rule of law. These were his opinions; and God knew that he had no very friendly feeling for the Noble Lord, and of course was not entitled to any gratitude at his hands. How then could they refuse the remedy in this case, in the face of all the precedent they had ? It unfortunately happened that he was but too conversant with the details of every Bill that had passed in this House, and that he never recollected such a case as the present, although he knew others where the facts were ten thousand time, stronger against the in dividual seeking the remedy. He repeated that he never saw such a case, notwithstanding the peculiar ingenuity exemplified in this caste, because questions were put to wit nesses such as never would be admitted in any Court of Justice—leading questions put, in order to produce crimi natory answers, and not like inquiries made, as they ought to be, with the sole object of ascertaining the truth. Would to God that the House were to be called on with respect to such a question. He declared solemnly that nothing was so repugnant to his feelings, nothing ►nore degrading to the House of Commons, than to see the full attendance brought down on occasions like the present— a prurient curiosity to inquire into such concerns; and he would say that in the discharge of his duties—one most productive of great evil. Would to God that the/ could be spared this disgrace, and that the law for annulling mar riages was placed on a solemn principle—(Hear, hear.) — that rules were laid down to entitle every individual, high or low—and mark, also, male or female—to this remedy, upon certain improved grounds. The repulsive iniquity of the present system was this—that males alone bene fitted ; that there was but one solitary instance to the con trary in the year 1801 ; and that, with that exception, since the time of the Reformation, Parliament had neither the justice nor the honesty to extend its interference for the emancipation of any one female. As to justice, he would merely mention one case, that of Lord Powis, in the year 1707, who obtained an Act for a divorce without either any proceeding at law or any suit in the Ecclesias tical Court. After the Reformation, this House, for the space of 40 years, never interfered in divorce cases, but all was done in the House of Lords ; and then came the complaint that this mode of proceeding was a violation of the law of God. All he would say was, that if it was a violation of God's law for a Court of Justice to pronounce a divorce, a vinctdo matrimonii, it was an equal violation when committed by the Houses either of Lords or Com mons. lie, however, much wished that a different sys tem was had recourse to. With respect to the present proceedings, he thought in his conscience that if they re fused the remedy he sought to Lord Ellenborough, they would, in spite of the evidence, upon a mere presumption, without proof, stamp upon him the commission of a guilt which had not been committed. For these reasons the Bill should have his cordial support. Lord FRANCIS L. GOWER said, that his object was to congratulate the House, the country, and the justice they owed the country, on the speech they had just heard. The lion. Gent. had done much to refute all the argu ments which might be urged relative to cant and sophis try. He had done more—he had dealt justly with the observations of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had preceded him. As to the state of the law, much as he regretted what had occurred upon this occasion, especially the great waste of time, still all would not be lost if, out of these proceedings, there should arise some amelioration of the law as it stood.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. TRANT felt no prejudice against Lord Ellen borough, and if he did he should absent himself from the debate. He had, however, heard every speech and every argument on both sides of the question, and was sorry that the conclusion lie came to would not enable him to 'vote for the Bill. Be agreed in thinking that there was great absence of care on the part of the husband. The Marquis of BLANDFORD was uninfluenced by fear, favour, or affection, and were the party Peer or Commoner, Cabinet Minister or otherwise, all were equal in his eyes. He should vote against the Bill, and be would briefly state the grounds of his opposition. He would pass by whether the evidence was so satisfactory as to warrant the con clusion here sought for, and he thought it was of that nature that no 12 men, on their oaths, would give a verdict for damages upon it He believed the fact of the adultery, and his opposition was grounded, not on any dis belief of that, but on the strong belief he entertained of the existence of c liusicn, and ca the impression that there was long-continued neglect on Lord Ellenborough's part. Sir GEORGE CLERK could not allow this question to come to a conclusion without saying a few words ; at the same time that he would not trespass on them. The Hon. Baronet then proceeded to answer the arguments of the Hon. Member, as to the propriety of the remedy, the absence of a verdict, and the want of sufficient evidence. As to the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, the Hon. Mem her had said that he dial not prove his innocence ; but it was surprising that, when the witnesses most capable of speaking to any misconduct on his part were present, evidence of this nature was not elicited front them. All his servants were down, and ready for strict scrutiny ; and it was too hard, when they were not examined, to urge what they might, hut did not, say as as argument against the Noble Lord. He did not complain of the tone or temper of the debate, but he was convinced that a foul conspiracy of some kind existed, and that long articles emanating from that were sent forth by the Press, at par ticular tunes, only for what, he was happy to find, was merely the impotent design of prejudicing the minds of those who were to judge upon this case. The evidence of the father of this lady, who stated that, as far as he was capable of judging, nothing could exceed the kindness and attention of Lord Eilenborough, was a sufficient proof, if there was no other, that the Noble Marquis was not justi fied in attributing any culpable neglect to his Lord ship. It was objected that the only evidence as to the terms on which they lived was that of the Noble Lord's brother, who had beets absent for two years, but that gap was supplied by Miss Steele. The letters showed that the same affection had always continued on his part, and been assumed oa her part, in order to con ceal her conduct. One Hon. Gentleman had laid down a ❑ew principle, that the House ought to grant no divorce to a gentlema❑ whose wife should go to a ball or opera unac companied by hint. If that were to be the principle, the House must make the law different from that upon which it had hitherto acted. Would the Hon. Gentleman deprive persons engaged in public business of any remedy, in case of the misconduct of their wives ? In 18.26 Lord Ellen borough was engaged much in public business; and in the course of that year Lady Ellenborough formed this unfor tunate acquaintance with Prince Swartzenberg. Los d Ellenborough had never received the Prince in his house, and had nu means of knowing of the intimacy' that sub sisted between the Prince and his lady. The Noble Lord was engaged in avocations at his office. lie would ask whe ther a persou in that situation, whose habits might not lead hint to mix in society, and whose wife should have a fancy for enjoyment of that sort, was to debar her front all enjoyment ? The only complaint brought against Lord Ellenborough was, that he had unbounded confidence in his wife's honour. His public duties rendered it impos sible always to attend her, Ile (Sir G. Clerk) therefore thought that no blame was attached to the conduct of the Noble Lord, and it was impossible the House could refuse the Noble Lotd a remedy, without casting a foul stigma on his character. Mr. MONCK said that there was suspicion in this case as in every case which bad not been submitted to the scru tinizing ordeal of a Jury. At the same time there was no proof of misconduct on the part of his Lordship, and it was impossible to imply misconduct. He had looked at the evidence with this view, and was bound to say there was an entire absence of all preconcerted plan and collusion.— (Hear.)—The most suspicious circumstance was the want of cohabitation between the Noble Lord and his Lady. Colonel WOOD having been called upon to bear his testimony to the conduct of the Noble Lord, and having also, like his Right Hon. Friend, married one of the Lady's sisters, he thought he should not do justice to the Noble Lord if he did not stand up in the House and bear testi mony to his excellent conduct. Lord F. OSBORNE must say he could not vote for the Bill. The House then divided— For the Bill 66 Against it I6 Majority On our return to the gallery, Mr. HUM was stating that he had to complain of certain imputations upon the motives by which he had been actuated—not that he was unaccustomed to have hard words and epithets applied to ward him. He complained of the Hun. Member for Tre gony, that, well ccquainted as he was with the manner of examining evidence on such occasions, he should tell the House that any opinion contrary to that which he enter tained was inconsistent with an upright and honourable mind. I bold such imputations (said the Hon. Member) to be altogether uncalled for and unwarrantable. It is said that we have opposed this Bill because the Noble Lord was unpopular. I deny the fact. I know nothing of his un popularity ; this is the first time I hare heard of it. I say the Learned Member is wrong in the position he takes. He accuses us of bad intentions in objecting to the pass ing of the Bill, because he says there is ❑o evidence to implicate Lord Ellenborough. The Hon. and Learned Member, who gave so clear, and, I think, so satisfactory a statement of what was the law in this case, said it was slot only not necessary that Lord Ellenborough should not be charged, but that it was imperative on the party seek ing redress to come forward and prove he was not culpable. I think, therefore, that the Learned Gentleman has not dealt out his usual measure of justice to us, in asserting that no man who differed from him could be of an upright and honourable mind. We have friends here to interfere in judicial duties, and to allow private feelings to bias their judgments. I don't blame them. I think it is too mani fest in this debate that they are not here as judges, but as friends and advocates, and, therefore, it appears ex tremely unfair, because they may be acquainted with facts —because they may intepret the evidence, from knowing the connecting links which we want—to throw epithets upon us. The Right Hon. Gentleman must allow me to say, that the manner in which he blames others is not consistent with that liberality of opinion which, on other occasions, he has express.d. He says that no man of sense and decency could come to the conclusion I have. Does any one expression which I used warrant him in say ing that I want sense or decency ? Of sense, God knows, I have little enough.—(A laugh.)—Such expressions are altogether inapplicable, and, therefore, unjust; not that they affect me, because I am too much subject to them. Then the Right Hon. Gentleman imputes to me expres sions altogether foreign to my mind. He says that I leave been snaking false and foul imputations. Sir H. HARDINGE—I did not. Mr. THLNIE—I took down the words : were they ap plicable to me? If so, I throw them back as altogether undeserved. He accuses us, too, of a foul conspiracy against the Noble Lord. I challenge him to the proofs. If I could be guilty of that, I should be altogether un worthy to sit here. This kind of answer to arguments is altogether novel. One ground upon which I formed my opinio❑ was, that I was not satisfied the Noble Lord had done his duty. This was the whole amount of my ob jection, and therefore it appears extremely unfair that the question cannot be argued without abusive epithets. When I see one Learned Doctor of the Law differ diamet rically from another, and other Members coining to op posite conclusions, am I to have these epithets hurled against me, because between contending parties I am obliged to join with the one or the other ? Such epithets are little calculated to support the cause. I regret that Bills of this kind may be brought into Parliament. It is to be hoped the practice will cease since Parliament itself has the power to remove the evil. Dr. LUSHINGTON—I could not have thought that it was within the power of human misapprehension to have such a misconception of every syllable that fell from me as I now find, by experience, it is possible to exist in the mind of the Hon. Member. I did not believe that the power of mistmderstanding that which had fallen from me or any other individual, could have existed in this extraor dinary plenitude. I did not believe that a man with the faculty of hearing, the power of understanding, and the gift of recollection, could have got up within three quar ters of an hour after I had delivered a speech, and put into my mouth sentiments which I never uttered, either by word, or entertained a conception of, or gave—l will say any man of common apprehension—the slightest reason to believe I thought.—(Hear.)—There is no safety for man if speaking in plain, intelligible, and straight-forward terms, is thus to be tortured and turned into an expression of sentiments which I abhor equally with the Hon. Member for Montrose. You ought to have a short-hand writer at your table, to refute representations so utterly, so totally unfounded. What did I say? lam told that I accused the opposers of this Bill of having been carried away by the unpopularity of the Noble Lord, to do him injustice. What were the words I uttered ? I said, and I lamented, that I had found a strong feeling against the Noble Lord on the ground of his unpopularity. The Hon. Member for Montrose has said that he has heard of this un popularity for the first time. I protest that 1 have a little difficulty in giving entire credit to that statement, because, it he has not heard of the unpopularity of the Noble Lord, 1 verily believe he is the only man who has not. Be that as it may, what said I afterwards? That every Hon. Member who came to vote had done his best to understand the evidence. To be told that I accused Hon. Members who opposed the Bill of voting against the dictates of their conscience and the truth of the evidence from feelings of dislike, is just precisely the reverse of that which I did say, and what (with the single exception of the Honourable Member for Montrose) every human being who heard me knows I did not. This is a little hard ; but that is not all. lam now told I made an accusation, and said that no man could give his vote against this Bill except he was actuated by unfair prejudice and partiality. That is pure imagination from beginning to end. That is not misrepresentation—it does not deserve the name of misre presentation—it is absolute invention. I can put up with misrepresentation—but I put it to the House whether we shall carry en our debates with advantage and facility if Hon. Members are to indulge in flights of fancy, and cre ate, without the possibility of any foundation, and put into the mouths of others, sentiments which they n ever uttered, and which they abhor. I complain of unj us t, unfounded, unjustifiable, not misrepresentation, but in vention of sentiments which I never uttered, which I never alluded to, and which I never gave any fair, honest, honourable, or intelligible Member of this House the slightest reason to suppose that I could by possibility have advocated. Sir HENRY HARDINGE—It is seldom that any one accuses the Hun. Member for Aberdeen of too much in vention, but often of want of invention. My observa tions were entirely directed to his perversion of the evi dence—and I entertain the same opinion still. The Hon. Member argued that a case of sufficient adultery had not been made out. In stating to the House the calumnies and false imputations upon my Noble Friend, I said that reports had been industriously circulated to his disadvan tage. I could never mean the statement of the Hon. Member. I said, "reports." I accused the Hon. Mem ber of an unfair, perverted, and exaggerated statement of the evidence. I beg leave to assures the Hon. Member, that however good his intellect may be for estimates (and he and I have had frequent skirmishes on that subject), I have no respect for his intellect where morality or a know ledge of law is concerned, and I think he has entirely failed to do himself credit, either as a moralist or a learn ed civilian. I did particularly allude to the indecency of his expression, that an English woman never denied her husband certain privileges. His statement was indecent, and Iso characterised it. I appeal to the House whether that was not the statement of the Hon. Member—it was noticed at the time by those around me. Mr. S. RICE said that, whatever difference of opinion there might be in this case, it seemed to be admitted, on all hands, that in all these cases the duties t i the House were very imperfectly performed. If the present Session were allowed to pass without l'ethrining the evil, the House would not stand well with the country, or dis charge the duty it owed t' its constituents. Mr. NV. SMITH had given his vote in favour of the Bill upon the full conviction that the case against the lady had been so proved that no reasonable man could entertain a doubt, and next upo❑ the ground that the charge of col lusion had not been proved at all. As to the mode of proceeding, he concurred in the view which the Hon. Member who had spoken last took of the subject, and be lieved it not to be singular. He was exceedingly scan dalised at permitting a person of the character of Miss Steele to be brought to this bar, and to be questioned in a manner which he himself thought extremely unnecessary, and which, if necessary, was discreditable to the House in the greatest degree, and a most monstrous, abominable, and detestable affront to female delicacy.—(Hear, hear.) — He hoped that a remedy would be adopted in the course of this Session of Parliament. Sir GEORGE CLERK—The Hon. Member for Aber (ken has also misapprehended what I stated to the House. I attach no blame to him. when I said that no person could look at the articles in the daily Press without seeing that there was a studied attempt to prejudice the question before it came before the House. If I had not been aware of the extraordinary talent for misconception of the Hon. Member for Montrose, I should have been inclined to be lieve that his arguments had not been taken from the do cuments on the table, but from some of those sources to which I have alluded. It is, however, entirely owing to the extraordinary constitution of his mind, that he has misapprehended the evidence. Mr. HUME—I have only to say that these observations are very impertinent. Mr. Alderman WOOD—Being one of the small number who voted against the Bill, begged leave to say that he knew nothing of the unpopularity of the Noble Lord..— Whether he w; is unpopular in this or the other House, he knew nothing whatever. There was one circumstance in favour of the Noble Lord, that no lady was present to bear this debate. Sir HENRY HARDINGE wished to refute the charges which were circulatLi against Lord Ellenborough, and which, in his opinion, were atrocious calumnies.— (Cries of " order," and " chair, chair.")—Really, the Hon. Member who called out order was more out of order than he was. The reason for which be rose to order was, that the Hon. Alderman was re-echoing those calumnies. Mr. Alderman WOOD alluded merely to what his Hon. Friend called the unpopularity of the Noble Lord. Really, he did not know that the Noble Lord was unpopular. It could not, surely, be Possible that a Noble Lord, one of his Majesty's present Ministers, could be unpopular.—(A laugh.) —He was not adverse to this measure. He did not know but he might himself have to approach the House in this way—(Much laughing)—but he hoped, if he should, he would have a better case. He gave his vote on this question with the conviction that the evidence did not hear out the Bill, and that there should be further inquiry.. Sir HENRY HARDINGE wished to eet the Hon. Alderman right. He did not apply to him the words he had used. What he said was, that there were atrocious calumnies spread by the public prints against Lord Ellen borough respecting his intention of remarrying, which calumnies he was anxious to refute. After a few words from Mr. Alderman WOOD, Mr. CHOKER called the attention of the House to the state of the law of marriage and divorce. In England the law was one thing, in Scotland the law was another, and in Ireland there was no law at all.—(A laugh.)—When the question of divorce came to be considered by Govern ment, or by Parliament, he hoped the law would be put in an intelligible way, and that a uniform system would be established. The question was then put, that the Bill do pass, and it was carried in the affirmative, but with some dissentient voices. BEER TRADE. Mr. CALCRAFT brought up tile report of the Com mittee on the beer trade, and in moving that it be printed, he gave notice that on Thursday next he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the plan recom mended by the Committee. The report was then ordered to be printed. Mr. CARTER moved for several returns relating to the expenditure, by the victualling department of the Navy, upon buildings in Portsmouth, &c. Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition fro►n tile licensed victuallers in Liverpool against the opening of the beer trade.—Laid on the table. The HoN. MumErt presented a petition from Mid dlewood, one of his constituents, complaining that a ve getable soap which he discovered was taxed by the Com missioners as if it were medicine. He was once relieved by the Treasury, but he was now again under prosecution. Mr. BRIGHT asked if it was the intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to improve the Stamp Act this Session ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was his intention that evening to give notice that, to-mor row, he would move for a Committee of the whole House upon the Stamp Act, when he would submit to them a schedule of the new rates of Stamps. He did not expect any discussion to-morrow evening, as that would be incon venient, but he would, by the schedule, put the House in possession of what he was to do. Mr. I - lUME hoped the schedule would have two co lumns; one of the old Stamps, the other of the altered duties. Mr. BRIGHT thought the whole Act should he pro duced in the first instance, and that before the holydays. The.petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. HUSKISSON moved for accounts of the amount of Exchequer Bills in the hands of the Bank of England ; and also a copy of the contract with the Corporation of the City of London for a loan to complete London Bridge. —Ordered. The Marquis of BLANDFORD presented a petition from St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, praying for retrenchment and for reform.—Laid on the table. Col. O'GRADY presented a petition from V. Blake, Esq., complaining of the expense of passing Bills through Parliament.—Laid on the table. Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from St. Andrew'r, Dublin, praying for the repeal of the duty on coals. The same MEMBER presented another petition from die unemployed workmen of Limerick, complaining of distress ; and six petitions from different parts of Yorkshire, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter.—All were laid on the table. HACKNEY COACHES. Mr. PALLMER presented two petitions from hackney coach proprietors, complaining of the manner of licensing hackney coaches. Mr. WARBURTON said it was hard that more than one million, constituting the population of this metropolis, should be in want of the means of transporting themselves from one part of the town to the other, in consequence of a bad restrictive law obliging them to take their departure from one point or another. He hoped this question would come under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer. Mr. HUME said it was now three years since they had a promise that the office of Commissioners of Hackney Coaches would be inquired into. By the abolition of it, 10,000/. a year could be saved to the public, and the busi ness could be (lone by the police offices. Mr. MONCK was understood to say, that the keeping of hackney coaches ought to be open to all. Sir J. WROTTESLEY gave notice that on Thursday, the 13th of May, he would move for a Committee to inquire into the state of the public carriages of the metropolis. The petitions were then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from the Unita rian Protestant Dissenters of the Chapel of Finsbury,com plaining of the severity of the Criminal Law. Another petitio❑ was also presented from certain manufacturers of British sweets, complaining of the Licensing System.— Ordered to be printed. Mr. BATLEY presented a petition from the Licensed Victuallers of Beverley, against the opening of the Beer Trade.—Laid on the table. Lord TULLAMORE presented several petitions from Mullingar, and other places in Ireland, complaining, a 9 we understood, of the Corn Laws. Mr. P. THOMSON moved for an account of the duties charged for several specified years on articles which he enumerated. Mr. P. THOMSON brought in a Bill to alter and amend the Laws respecting Contract Loans and the Rate of Interest on Money.—Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second on the 26th inst. Mr. HERRIES presented a petition from an individual residing at Warminster, against die practice of paying «•ages by truck.—Laid on the table. TOBACC(I. DUTIES. Mr. Alderman THOMSON wiihed to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it was his intention to :flake any alteration in the duties on stemmed and un stemmed tobacco ; and also whether it was the intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman to allow the growth of tobacco in Ireland. A large class of persons were inte rested in this subject ; and it should be observed thlt an article, the intrinsic value of which was but 1,0001. now paid a duty of 10,0001. Mr. W. SMITH begged to ask, at the same time, whe ther it was intended to make any compensation for the duty of in the pound which had been dropped? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to the latter question, said that the decision come to at every succeeding Board was that no compensation should be allowed for the Is. which had been dropped. With respects to the question put to him by the Hon. Alderman, he could only say that his Majesty's Government did not intend to make any alteration in the duties on foreign to bacco. He should, to-morrow, move for a Committee to take into consideration the question as to the growth of tobacco in Ireland. Jr.i WARBURTON moved that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to direct his Consul at St. Petersburgh to furnish an account of the precious metals circulated in Russia from 1820 down to the present period.—Ordered. Lord NUGENT presented a petition from the Agri cultural. Labourers of a parish in the county of Bucks, complaining of distress, and praying for relief.—Laid on the table• _ PORTUGUESE AMNESTY. Lord PALMERSTON wished to put some questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting a statement which had came before the public, as to an amnesty which t h e present Government of Portugal was represented to have issued• The Noble Lord then referred to the follow ng document LissoN, MARCH 17.—" I. An amnesty will be granted to all privates and officers below the rank of Captain. 2. Civil officers who have talen no active share in the re-actions which have oc curredgal against the authority of Don Miguel will likewise have the benefit of amnesty, but not be reinstated in their offices. 3. The Treasury, in restoring the property of those emigrants who shall return to Portugal within six months, will in Forti no not restore the rentals of which the Government may have dis ,sod. 4. "I be . garrison of Terceira, and the inhabitants of that I s l an d, will be included in this amnesty 5. The prisoners will be set at large, but some, designated by Government, will leave the kingdom, and reside abroad for a certain time. ti. With re gard to all other classes 01' emigrants, Don Miguel engages to grant another amnesty, eighteen months after the recognition of his autho rity by England, reserving to himself such exceptions as be may *ale. • 7. Counts Saldanha and Villa for, Generals Stubbs and Mello, the Marquis do Valentina, and some other noted characters, who fought against the Marquis of Chaves and General Povoas, will be proscribed for life." le had stated, on a former occcasion, that every one knew what the word amnesty meant, in the sense adopted in Turkey or Spain; but that statement he now wished to re tract, for neither in Turkey nor Spain had there ever been any thing equal to this amnesty, which was said to have emanated from the Portuguese Government. He now begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, first, if the English Go vernment had received this as a project of an amnesty corning from Don Miguel ?—secondly, if it had come through Don Miguel directly to us, or through any, and what, foreign Court or Courts ?—and, thirdly, if it was the resu't of the spontaneous determination of Don Mi guel. or of negotiations carried on with him for that pur pose? He also wished to ask if such negotiations had been carried on between England and the Government of Por tugal directly, or by the intervention of any, and what, foreign Power or Powers? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his Noble Friend referred to a statement which he had seen in the English newspapers respecting an amnesty in tended to he issued by Don Miguel. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) bad seen this document; and he would only assure his Noble Friend that his Majesty's Govern ment knew nothing whatever about it, nor had they the slightest intimation of its having been issued when it came before the public. It followed, therefore, from this igno • ranee of the whole transaction on the part of his Majesty's Government, that the further questions put by his Noble Friend were fully answered. If the advisers of the Crown were in utter ignorance of the affair, it was impossible that he could answer the questions of his Noble Friend. was. Ihe if . tpt ai uctizvoi , attcti ;'; :rip, 1 con, Law y to !pun nn- • the peak but le to 4 lined h or tbere et of a the tion• yr plete4 :birtg louse' -0 ,1 r:the Alice - WWI - and wut rouse?)tb buroul t had sdt le*va4 Ileo and 7 r the s ; 4 epre- J ai it lie.4fig Indy put t his . 1 fence • 1 his (1)r. ution form adul- - that I the been I out I the • thing. • fated • his law . new Ipon, not any tletlB- -* . dr- LABOURERS' WAGES. Lord NUGENT, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating and altering the mode of paying la bourers' wages, said that this measure affected the interests of a very large and important class of the community; namely, the labouring population of the country. It also affected the interests of the rate-payers in a very material degree. It was said the alteration which had taken place in the pa rochial law with respect . to the payment of wages changed the whole character and habits of the labouring classes ; and if this were so, and he was afraid it was too true, not a moment was to be lost in providing a remedy, for the evils of the present system had already gone to an immense ex tent. Hon. Gentlemen who resided in the country must be aware of the vicious practice to which he alluded. It was technically called the " Rounding System," by which was meant the system of paying labourers' wages out of the poor rates. In the immediate district in which be himself re sided, owing to the inveterate tenacity with which this wicked system was persisted in, the earnings of unmarried labourers did not exceed 3s. 6d., and were often so low as 3s. a week. This was a pittance on which it was impos sible for any working man to exist; yet the farmers would employ no labourers who were not content to be paid at that rate. Last year, during a season of the greatest seve rity, this wretched trifle of 3s. 6d. and 3s. a week was at one time three weeks in arrear. It might, however, be argued that this could not have been the case, for the la bourer, having no credit with the baker or with the butcher, could not exist in the mean time without some means of support. He (Lord Nugent) was not bound to show in what proportion the wretched man might have struggled with misery and starvation, or in what proportion he might have had recourse to stealing in order to sustain life; but this he must say, in justice to the labourers of the part of the country to which he alluded, that at the last assizes for the county of Buckingham the calendar was much lighter than he had known it for several years. No one could possibly be aware of the distress that pre vailed in that county who did not, as he did, come in daily contact with it. He and the other Magistrates of the districts frequently found young men coming before them, in the depth of last winter, without either food, fuel, or raiment. So likewise were they called upon to relieve, at the same inclement season, poor women, with children in their arms, perishing from cold and hunger, and having no place to return to, on leaving the Sessions-house, but a miserable cottage, cold and dismal, with a roof scarcely proof against the violence of the elements. The answer of the overseer to the labourers who applied to him for relief generally was, that he had no complaint to make agai let them ; but that as no rates could he collected so no new rates could be made, and therefore there was nothing to give to applicants. Under those circumstances there was only one course open, which was to distrain for the rates due. This was a severe expedient; but it was at the same time called for by the pressing urgency of the occa sion, and many worthy persons were obliged to feel the effects of it—" Delicta majorum immeritus fuss." The object of this Bill was to give to the Magistrates the power to grapple at once with the " rounding system," and to enable the parish poor to de without it. The Bill proposed to make it legal for two-thirds of the inhabitants of every parish to bind the remainder as to the rate of pay ment to be agreed to. The measure was not to be obli gatory unless adopted by two-thirds of the inhabitants. This Bill involved three principles; the first was to en courage the occupiers of land to employ as many labourers as possible; the second was to lighten the parish rates, by a fair exchange of labour for a fair equivalent ; and the third was to open and secure to the labourer a fair market and a fair price for his labour. These were the objects contemplated by the measure which he proposed to intro duce, and he hoped that the House would concur with him in the opinion that some measure of the kind was furgently called for by the extremely distressed state of the labouring poor. He begged that Hun. Gentlemen would observe that he limited his Bill entirely to one grievance and evil connected with the rounding system He did not think that the measure would apply beneficially in cities or large towns, where that or some similar system was not recognised or acted upon. He should conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for promoting the em ployment of the labouring poor by furnishing them with free hiring and adequate wages. The question was put by the SPEAKER, and carried without any observation. Lord NUGENT then moved that the petition which he had presented should be printed. Mr. LENNARD wished to offer a few suggestions to his Noble Friend relative to this measure. Ile thought that certain persons ought to be exempt from its opera tion. For instance, a farmer holding a small farm, and cultivating it himself, should be exempt, not from paying the rate, but from receiving a labourer under this Bill; also, a father having several sons grown up, he thought should be excepted ; but, at tr:e same time, he would not consider the persons claiming these exemptions as qualified to vote at vestries. He thought the Bill would be benefi cial, by ensuring regular labour to the pauper, and pre venting the necessity of paying him out of the poor-rates, with the many evils by which it was attended. Lord NUGENT said a few words in explanation Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE said that before condemn ing the measure, it would, of course, be but fair to see the details of his Noble Friend's Bill ; but he must confess that he did not expect much from it. Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the Bill calculated to do good ; and he gave notice that, at a future stage, he should oppose it. Mr. CALVERT postponed to the 14th May his motion relative to the petition of the tobacco manufacturers, and said that he was confident he should then be able to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the unfor tunate case of the individuals on whose behalf he under took this matter. Mr. SPRING RICE in the absence of Sir James Macintosh, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to indem• nify parties who had suffered by the insolvency of Gilbert Ricketts, Registrar at Madras. He hoped that no oppo. sition would be offered to the bringing in the Bill, ;Ind that any discussion upon its merits might be reserved for the future stage. Mr. ASTELL should reserve to himself the right of opposing the Bill in all its future stages. Leave was then given, and the Bill was brought up and read a first time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the order of the day for taking into consideration the postponed resolutions of the 2d of April. Mr. BRIGHT begged leave to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to propose any measure for the consolidatimi of the Assessed Taxes ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rep!ied that he had really been so fully occupied with the cons, filiation of the Stamp Acts, which comprised a gnat body of law, that he was not prepared at present to say when he should be able to propose any measure on the other subject. 111 r. BRIGHT wished to understand whether the Right Hon. Gentleman thought that he should be able to consolidate the Assessed Taxes this Session or not. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should be very desirous to propose such a measure, but he would rather not be called upon to state the precise time. Mr. CALVERT was anxious to know what arrange ment was contemplated relative to the co mposition for the Assessed Taxes. It was desirable that the public should be informed on this point, as the composition would e x. pire in October. The CHANCELLOR of the E XCHEQUER said that the housevortee,vfoadnrad they . s e a Ia countryr i es of Officers should : of or e at i s d fi n e a d the i subject th in e a The resolutions w ere then read a second time. On ilr. HEIIIE said that if the office of Lieut.-General of the Ordnance was to be kept up, the Pk/ of that e3IL3- cure ought to be reduced from 3,000/. be 10100/. the amount at which it stood till 1801. It was a reelection upon the Government that those sharps which is 1796 cost but 13,000/. should new amount to 70,9001. Since they refused to attend to the daily warnings which they received, he only hoped that the revenue would fall 3,400,0001. by this time twelvemonth, and then those who had been sn neglectful of their duty would be sufficiently punished.—(A laugh ) Cul. SIBTHORP hoped that the revenue would fall double what the Hon. Member of Montrose had said, fur without that he feared the Government would not be brought to a sense of its duty. He should be always ready to support the Hun. Member fur Montrose in his endea vours to procure all proper reductions of expenditure. Mr. TRANT thought the department in question was managed efficiently, and without any unneoessary expense. The resolutions were then agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the order of the duy fur receiving the Report of Supply. Sir A. GRANT brought up the report, and the resole- Cons were read. Mr. HUME begged to ask whether there was an annual manufacture of gunpowder •till carried on. Mr. PERCEVAI replied that there was some, but a very small quantity manufactured. Mr. HUME said that if the Hon. Gent. would look int' the returns, he would find that tide article cost the. Government three times as much as it could be purellased o r. Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY wished to take that op portunity of asking the Hon. Gentleman to clear up a con tradiction which had occurred on a former occasion. It had been asserted that the Government applied to the East India Company to manutieture arms for them, but that the offer was rejected by the Company, on account of the price and quality of the articles. He believed that this, as well as the other establishments of the Government, was conducted on a very expensive seals. Mr. PERCEVAL was mistake• in the answer which he gave on the former occasion. Seek as offer was, in fact, made, but it was refused without referense to the pries. The resolutions were then agreed to. Sir A. GRANT brought up the report ea the Four per Cent. Annuities Bill. The amendments were agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed and read a third time to-morrow. On the motion of Mr. BRIGHT, a rater■ was Endured of the amount of duties received in 18t9. The other Orders of the Day were ikon disposed uf, and the House adjourned at Fire miscue' after Ekren o'clock. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The evidence on the Elletiborougl. Divorce Bill, printed by order of the House of Commons, brought down the proceedings to Friday last, and we deem the publication of it essential to the gads of justice, as \yell for the facts which have been thereby established, as for the omission of many other and highly important circumstance., which is obvious to e‘eiy body even on the most cursory perusal. So far as the report of the evidence gorse, and so far us that evidence is of a positive nature, it would be ex tremely uncandid to deny that nothing appears which could be adduced as an argument for with holding from Lord Ellenborough the legal remedy which he solicits. His wife's adultery has been made out, as it would seem, if not by any one wit ness of perfectly unitnpeached and irresistible credit, at least by a union of direct and incidental occur rences, each reasonably well attested in its kind ; and not affording any fair or weighty objection to the in ference that the last crime against the marriage vow was (perhaps frequently) committed by that lost). oung creature, scarcely more than just arrived at woman hood. If the case presented no aspect beyond this, we should say that Parliament had an easy office, and that no further doubt need be entertained on the pro priety of granting Lord Ellenborough's applicaticm. But is this really all? Ofan active promotion and fur therance of his wife's licentiousness, there is no ground, from aught that has been disclosed, for charg ing the Noble Baron. But ofnegligenee,—reekless, in conceivable negligence,—after the explicit statement of Miss Steele, he cannot be acquitted so easily. Public opinion is, we believe, outdo up as to the name of one, we might say snore than one, of the female profligates against whom Lord Ellenborough was warned by his lady's governess, and anxious and watchful friend. Opinion is made up with re gard ,to that, or rather these, individuals—why ? because of her or their reputations; because their vices have been notorious, and their habits of life are understood in general society to have long been depraved and infamous. Yet Lady 11.1Ienborough, who, in the bosom of a retired and virtuous family, bad never had intercourse with or seem such persons, was made acquainted with thews by her husband,-- a man almost twice her age, who had always lived in the fashionable world of London, and to whom it was impossible that the moral elzaracter of any woman, occupying a very forward place in that community, should hare remained unknown. Lord Ellenborough must have had opportunities of being satisfied that the readiest way to destroy the inno cence of an inexperienced female is to plunge her into the company of other females less innocent, hat more practiced than herself. Yet, even when cautioned on the delicate subject of the bad counsel and example to which his wife was thus exposed by the intimacies.to which he had himself introduced her, what was the reply of Lord Ellemborough to his prudent and well-principled adviser ? Hs laughed! ! Again we say, that Lord Ellenborough, for aught that is yet apparent, must be exonerated from all suspicion of connivance at his unfortunate wife's dis grace ; but the above conduct, on his part, we sub mit, was short only of connivance. It was a heart less indifference, to us inconceivable, except on the ground, first, of his being on such terms with his lady as to render him regardless what became of her, in which case he has no merits to plead on behalf of a remedy by divorce; or, secondly, on that of his having formed an attachment elsewhere; in which case, if proved, neither law, nor justice, nor the most obvious interests of society, would permit the guilty husband, even of a guilty wife, to obtain that authorized release from the obligations of a compact which both had violated. To maintain the allega tion of their living on happy terms together, wit nesses, among whom was the brother of Lord Ellen borough, were brought to prove what their manners appeared to be in the presence of these third parties. That is, surely, a most fallacious test. To demonstrate that a man and woman of rank are not in the habit of calling names, or swearing, or making savage faces at each other, is really very little towards the purpose of proving that they live on happy terms. A fashionable man and wife of the 19th century would not, in nine in stances out of ten, be at the trouble of making un pleasant scenes, by the use of unbecoming language towards each other, or by loud tours, or angry gestures, or even by laying aside the modes and symptoms of conventional complacence and good nature. No, there is hardly a roue and titled strumpet about town,—however sick of their ma trimonial fetters,—who would for all the world do so ungrateful a thing as to discard the mutual accom modation of obliging, yea, of endearing epithets, in daily intercourse in the presence of others, even be fore their dornestiss. They neither use daggers, nor speak them : the age does not hear such . a a nd P a r ff " e Y ctio fo n r a y y ex cesses;feeliyg t o t h. indulge, o y dislike, they thatf and fo b rg e e t t oo ey p e a r i y u t t l u i i l n g a but their own personal pleasures. The noble hug sgohfilip:Commons, w hi c h cons hand amuses himself with some pretty ltyjitiesicken nllner oriinig.iwo ‘ o tLvo l o t og e irei r ddt a ie - ;) t er ! rb a l, t vi, t i, e iti e ytt r i ehf h oe r e l r ,L;loll l llui a lvs :l iue y igi tains some old hands among its members, did not scout the nonsense by acclamation. As there has been no opposition by Lady Ellenborouph or her family to this Bill, we must conclude that nei ther she or they have any objection to let the divorce be completed. Now this is a state of things which naturally begets the idea of some collusion between the parties. It is not correct of Sir Henry Har (bilge to imagine, because " the families" of the separating parties are equally desirous of a divorce, that, therefore, there exists no other party with an interest at stake, or possessing the right of interfer ence. The community at large has a direct interest in every question of dissolving the tie of marriage; and so far from the law of England favoueisg the grant of