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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 11013/9' or tortbs-:-(LAST NIGHT). Lard WIIARNCIAFFE presented several petitions from the West Riding of York, praying for the removal of the Assize to Wakefield. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from Dundee, praying for free trade to India. Mr. A. CaMraxLL, Mr. Elowaas, and several other Members, brought up the Dundee Gas Light Bill and several Private Bills. The Marquis of SALISBURY was requested by a Noble Duke to postpone the second reading of ttie E tst Retrord Bill to the 3d of May. Lord HOLLAND objected to the length of the post ponement ; the Bill was one of great importance, calling for the speedy interposition of the House, and if the course was to be adopted that was proposed by the Noble Mar quis, the probability would be the pissing of the Bill could not take place in the present Session. The Earl of MALMESBURY entirely concurred with the Noble Lord (Holland). The Marquis of SALISBURY, after a few observations, withdrew his notice, and the second reading of the Bill will take place on the appointed day. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from an inhabi tant of St. George's parish, Bloomsbury, against the passing of the Bloomsbury Vestry Bill. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from Arbroath, praying for free trade to China. Lord MELVILLE moved the committal of the Sea men's Family Bill. The Earl of MALMESBURY observed that he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, but he trusted that some other punishment would be found for smugglers and poachers than snaking sailors of them. The navy, in his opinion, was very much degraded by such a course; and instead of a punishment being inflicted upon these offenders, au honour was conferred upon them. Lotd MELVILLE observed that the punishment re ferred to by the Noble Lord applied only to those offenders who had been originally seamen. _ _ After a few further observations from the Earl of MALMESIIUKT and Lord INIELvILLE, tlse Bill passed through a Committee. Lord STRANGFORD presented a petition from an individual whose name we could not catch, praying to be heard at the bar by Counsel against the Berkeley Peerage claim. The Marquis of BUTE moved for certain returns rela tive to coals. The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from the borough of East Ream], praying to be heard at the hor by Counsel against the Bill for disfraashisiag them of their soifragef.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS---(LAST NIGHT). LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL. Sir GEORGE CLERK—Sir, I rise to more the Order of the Day for the third reading of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill. Tke Order was accordingly read, and the SPEAKER. then put the question that this Bill be now read a third time. Mr. HUME—Sir, I will state to the Ifouso what ap pears to me to be wanting in the case before us. In the first place it appears to me that not only has the preamble of the Bill not been proved, but it has been disproved by the evidence ; so clearly so, indeed, that it appears to rue quite impossible we can piss this Bill while such glaring inconsistencies exist upon the face of its averments. The preamble state, that the parties tip te the time when these discoveries were rnado, were cohabiting together in a state of connubial happiness. Now, we have it from Miss Steele, in a part of her evidence, that this was not the case ; for that Lord and Lady Ellenborough had not co• habited together for months before the time alluded to. They slept in separate beds ; and if the evidence of Miss Steele is to go for any thing, Lord Ellenborough did not cohabit with his Indy, as the preamble sets forth. Ano ther parr of the preamble states, that by the adultery of the said Janet Elisabeth, Edward Baron Ellenborough had been deprived of the comforts of matrimony. Have we not evidence in the very teeth of this averment, that he lied previously, of his own accord, deprived himself of the weinforte of matrimony ? They had separated themselves from each other's intercourse apparently by mutual con sent, and it was evident that for many months before May, 1829, Lord Ellenborough had of his own accord, I say, withdrawn frem the enjoyment of these domestic comforts. These two matters, then, require, as I thick, that we should adjourn the third reading of this Bill, to let in, if possible, further explanatory evidence. I do not knew whether I have made myself sufficiently understood.— (A laugh.)—lf I have, what I wish to ask is, whether either of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite think it necessary to ask further time to adduce explanatory evidence to sup port the two main allegations, which appear to me not only unsupported, but entirely contradicted by the evi elenea as it now stands. Sir G. CLERK—I have no hesitation to inform the Hon, Member for Montrose, that we hare no intention to produce further evidence in support of the preamble of this Bill. Mr. HUME said that as they were, it appeared, to have no further evidence, and as the Hon. Gentleman saw no ieconeisterwy in the discrepancies which he had stated to him, it only remained for him (Mr. Hume) to proceed in his statement of the reasons why he thought they ought not to pass this Bill, and why Lord Ellenborough was not in a situation to be entitled to the redress which it went to confer. He had already shown that the preamble was notoriously contradicted by the facts stated in evidence The proof was clear that he and Lady Ellenborough, in stead of living together as man and wife, had been for several months occupying distinct site:4.6ons: The preamble avers, that Lord Ellenborough has, by his wife's act, lost the comforts of matrimony, and therefore he hopes Parliament will grant him the relief of this Bill. It is proved most decidedly that he had not been maintaining tire comforts of which lie spoke, and that tcould be shown by the evidence of the letter marked " Saturkiay night," without date or post-mark, but which must be supi;oaecl to have been written about the time of the separation, and in that there was nothing to show his wife's affections to have been estranged from him, but the contrary. It seemed, then, that it was in May Lord gßenberou g h had separated from his lady, for their mutual ,aarafermila lion. He acquiesced in, if be did not dictate that sepai.a tion, according to that letter a Saturday night, in which her ladyship says, that in the act s was innocent, and adds these words, "Those feelings of lioneur which I still retail towards you, make me still acquiesce ie your de cision." This showed that the separation was imposed upon her by Lord Ellenborough, and if so, what right had he to say that Ire had been wrongfully deprived of his domestic comforts Further on in the letter, it is quite manifest that she by no means desires this separa tion ; for, she adds, " ought trot time, solitude, aed change of *retie, to be tried by me, to conquer or oblite rate sentiments so inimical to our mutual peace?" What did any man gather from these words? They were living as man and wife under the same roof at least ; he dictated her separation,—be made no allegation against her : how then, could he say he was deprived of the comforts of matrimony? He could not be said to have last that which he had himself previously Abandoned. He believed that the Consistory Court was obliged to grant a separation on the proof of adultery ; but when an individual went be fore a Jury in a Court of law, he is booed to show how far he deserves the redress he seeks, and in seeell a Court the truth could be sifted by the rules of evidence, awl the proper means used of extracting the facts, of which they I were in that House deprived. In looking at questions of this nature, he was stare he only echoed the voice of the public when he laid down, that marriage involved duties on the part of the husband ss well as of the wife. 's 11n cirtunately," continued Mr. Hums, 0 it is the custom here 14 men to be allowed a latitude, which I think they ought not. I do not now stop to sty how fee this is just et- right; but so it is, that while from females 6fter mar siage the utmost decorum is exacted, the man is left lcaere, —he can go upon all occasions and mix in the indul gencies and pleasures of fashionable society, This, I say, is not equality, and the obligations of the marriage state ought to be equal ;—no, it 'is great injustice to the lettings and interests of women generaby. What is the case el alie Bill, as it is before us? At the age of 40 or 42, Local Ellenborough marries a young and innocent girl el 17 years of age, who had never been before marriage be yond her father's door. What was to be expected from the husband of such a lady, and partietilarlyfrom one who iaad had for some time the experience of u previous marriage? Wus he net . hound to assist her in the way of avoiding these evils which elmoq necessarily arose upon the path of a young and inno...2.nt person possessed of great attractions, and for the first time entering the circle of gay and fashionable society? He had reettieed her pure and u nblemished from her family, and he was hoeeal to superintend the society into which he introduced her. What evidence is there of their domestic intercourse after marriage, which will show that he took the proper care of such a charge? There is the evidence of Mr. Law, but he had no opportunity of judging in the two most cri stical years, :fee- be had left England in March, 1827, an d lead not returned till March, 1829. This gentleman, tberefere, could say only, that from his occasional obser - nation, he saw . 'them living together as man end wife. And yet at this very time, when they appeared to live so ey e ise.tion a toly together in the eyes of Mr, Law, the par ties were occupying separate bed., according to the evi dence which we have before us, and had so lived for many months before. I know it is not to be expected that an official personage could be always in attendance upon his wife, but where and when is Lord Elleuborough proved to be accompanying her ? She visits Brighton, unac companied by him, and upon these points, when we exa mine Miss Steele, who lived most with her Ladyship, we find that she recollects some things, and does not remem ber others. She says that it was by Lady Ellenburough's desire the parties dwelt apart; but on this point, I say . . it behoves the Noble Lord to show that there was nothing done en his part to occasion that distrust or displeasure which must have induced her tohave withdrawn from him." Then, as to the society of Lady Ellenborough, to which Miss Steele objected, she was asked, " Were the associates gentlemen or ladies ? Both." " Are the Committee to understand, that the persons objected to were associates of Lord Ellenborough or Lady Ellenborough ?—They were latterly of hers." " Can you state that those individuals, to whom you objected as improper, were the associates in the house on the invitation of Lord Ellenborough or Lady Ellenborough ?—That I do not know; they were of course introduced by Lord Ellenborough, because they were not her associates when she was Miss Digby." " Were those associates who visited at Lord Ellenborough's persons of rank in English society ?—They were." " They were usually accepted in society at other very respectable houses ? —At houses called respectable, certainly." " You con sidered, viewing this with the best intentions, that it was better she should avoid the society of those persons rather than that you had any positive grounds for knowing they were bad associates? I did think them bad associates fur any one, but for Lady Ellenborough singularly so." "But they were persons universally accepted in the best society in London ?—ln fashionable society certainly." " Now, Sir," proceeded Mr. Hume, " what would any prudent loan have done under these circumstances ? A husband was certainly bound to protect the members of his family from association which was deemed bad and dangerous. Such was its character, indeed, that a lady who bad been governess to his wife could take the liberty of remonstrating on the danger of it. Would, I say, a prudent husband il.sregard advice so given ? No, he would receive it with thankfulness ; instead of which, however, what does Lord Ellenborough ? He laughed ! lie considered the admonition not a subject worthy his serious attention. As to the question of adultery, I am not prepared to say that we have proof of it in this case.—(A murmur.)-1 know that circumstances have been detailed to us, which would generally warrant such a conclusion, but lam not altogether satisfied of the identity of the individuals, judg ing from the evidence before us. The evidence, the Hon. Member went on to repeat, was most disjointed and con tradictory. He ridiculed the criminal inference which was drawn from Lady Ellenborough accompanying Prince Scliwartzenberg in a carriage to dinner at Wimbledon.— He did not believe a word of the stories told of the visits to Highgate and Richmond ; if such things had passed as were inferred on these occasions, then there would have been ample evidence to have made the matter clearer than it was at present. Such was his impression of this case, that he was satisfied, if tile lady haul appeared to contest the proceedings, the parties would have been placed in a critical dilemma. Indeed, Mr. Freshfield admitted that in his evidence, for he was afield of recrimination ; and when asked, " Did you advise Lord Ellenborough to pro ceed in the first instance or not ? I advised him not even to institute an inquiry ; I thought it must be unsuccess ful, from the very few fads he haul ; that he was not in possession of s ufficient facts, and that he might be placed in a situation of great difficulty, if the Digby family knew 1:e haul instituted an inquiry involving the character of Lady Ellenhorough ; they might institute a proceeding to compel a restitution of conjugal rights, and he was not in possession of evidence to rebut that." Such was the opinion given by Mr. Freslifield.—(A cry of "Read on farther.") Much stress had been laid on that passage in Miss Steele's evidence, in which she said that Lady Ellenborough had withdrawn het self from her Lord's bed ; why, perhaps, if she were here, and asked her reason for doing so, she might re ply, " because he had somebody else in it."—(Muruturs.) " I ask," said Mr. Hume, "would any lady in England quit her husband's bed without any cause or provocation ? Is it consistent with whit we all know of females generallyl? (Roars of laughter.) It is a libel on the ladies to make such an assertion; no lady would quit her husband in that manner.—(Renewed laughter.) Perhaps the gentlemen who make light of these matters see a different class of society from that to which lam accustomed. I take it for granted that must be the case, and that they confine themselves to what they see in fashionable life, where, it would seem, matters of this kind are lightly noticed." The Hon. Member then proceeded to say, that having dis posed of the visits to Wimbledon, Highgate, and Rich mond, he thought he could equally get rid of the alleged visits to Prince Schwartzenberg, which were not, be thought, sufficiently identified ; in proof of which he re ferred to the contradictory evidence of the servants. With respect to the affair said to have taken place at Wimbledon, he did not think that such evidence had been adduced as the House ought to receive. Then, with regard to the transaction at Brighton, he must say that the clumsy con trivance of proving Lady Ellenborough's guilt had been completely thwarted by the witnesses Hepple and Walton. Could it be supposed that a waiter in an inn would go up to a lady of the rank of Lady Ellenborough, anl say to her, " I know what has taken place with you in the night time," and that she should have replied, "Pray do not tell, and I will give you 201. ?" He did not think Wal ton's evidence deserving of belief, because, when he was askud what he did with the money, he said, that " he had got it as hush-money, and had given 101. of it, on the 10th of October, to Hepple, to hold his tongue." 'When 11epple was called, however, he contradicted the testimony of Walton, and said that he received Si. the day after Lady Ellenborough had left the hotel, which he consi dered as a remuneration for his attendance as waiter; and added, "no conversation took place between him :and Walton about the Si. being hush-money." He therefore asserted that there had been an entire failure of proof as to the alleged act of adultery at Brighton. These wit nesses being disposed of, the only individual remaining, whose evidence deserved the smallest attention, was Miss Steele ; admitting that it was, it was mo,t con demnatory of Lord Ellenborough's conduct, and would alone foam a sufficient gronnd for the rejection of this Bill. If Lady Ellenborough had been guilty of adultery, such conduct on the husband's part had led to it. He showed a wait of that attention which it was his duty to have paid his W ife under the circumstances in which she was placed. In what situation was the House placed, arid what were Hon. Membeis palled upon to do? To do jus _ _ . . tice, not to Lord Ellenborough and Lady Ellenborough only, but likewise to the public.—(Hear, bear.) —They ought to look at the present case as one in which the morals of tyre community were much involved. Would the House be doing its duty to allow the Bill to pass, when there was evidence before it showing that the husband had allowed his wife, placed under his car, at a tender age, to associate with abandoned and profligate women? The question was pot merely whether Lord Ellenborough should or should 11.:t have the relief be prayed for; but the vote of the House 04%t to teach men this salutary lesson--that however high their rank or situation in so ciety, they were not to expect redress, in cases similar to the present, unless they came before it with clean hands, and unless they had performed those obligations, and atiorded that care and attention, which a wife had a title to expect from her husband. No man bad a right to ex pect redress. 40dess he could show that he had endeavoured to guard his innocent :nod young wife against the allurements which unfortunately prevaiie.i so generally in the society in which Lady Ellenborough had moved. The Hon. Member eat t Jown by declaring his intention .cf op/ °si ng the third reading. Lord NUGENT and Sir n. HARDINGE rose together, IPA the former lowing given way, Sir jr. HARDINGE proceeded to say that he the he had nesw, in the course of his life, heard a more i , clumsy perversion of evidence, or a more exagg erated mis-statement:of facts, that; had proceeded from the Hon. ' Mcoiber for Aberdeen; and if the Hon. Member pre tended to sit in a judicial capacity, he (Sir H. rfardinge) must be allowed to say, that he seemed the very rewerae of a Judge; for, while snmming up the evidence, he had perverted it in a most unfair mantier, and now with re spe4 to the evidence, the Hon. Member had stated that, in his op:..cion, it was disjointed and defective, because there were prewivications and variations in the testimony of the witnesses. The ;lon. Member too stated, ithat be way dissatisfied with the witnsves who had conic from Brighton, whose prevarication and complete inaccuracy, he said, showed that they were not to be relied on. But the Ho . nse well knew, that if a man was so vile as to ex tort money from Lady Elle;aborough because he had seen Mince Schwartzenberg enter her be, , l-room, be would be as disposed to cheat his partner of his sba,re of the spoil. Would that circumstance, however, depreciate the esti pony of the witnesses as to the main fact of Prince Schwa.rtienberg's having gone to Lady Ellenborough's bed-room? Let the House, too consider how that state ment was confirmed by Miss Steele. She said that she went to Roehampton on the vi.tli or 95th of May, and that 0,. - 1 the first or second night after arri . -'47.g there, Lady Ellenborough .confessed to her her guilt with Pwitice Scliwartzenberg, and among other facts disclosed ' that the waiter came t o h e r n e xt morning and told her that 1e liad discovered what had taken place on the preceding niglit, The C‘unwl for the Bill only tl,tsc• oYeretl this fart from the waiters in October, and Miss Steele con firmed their statement. He agreed with the Hon. Mem ber for Aberdeen, that if Lord Ellenborough had been guilty of any act of negligence and want of proper at tention towards his wife, lie would not then be entitled to relief. But the whole evidence negatived such a suppo sition, Every witness had deposed to the affection and good understanding existing between his Lordship and his wife. Miss Steele stated that Lord and Lady Ellenbo rough lived happily together ; that she was in the habit of passing some days with them in the course of every year till I S2B, and observed Lord Ellenborough's manner towards his wife to be invariably kind. Now that was the evidence of Miss Steele, a woman of education, of respectable family, and high character ; and he contended 1 that it was worthy of belief. Hon. Members should also take this circumstance into consideration, that she came to the bar of the House from Lady Andover, being a friend to Lady Ellenborough's family. He then referred to the letter written by Lady Ellenborough from Brighton to her husband, the last expression in which was, " Good night, dearest," as showing that both parties were living on good terms together up to the time of the separation ; and if an Hon. Member read the other letter, he must come to the conclusion that the parties were living in great harmony together. If it be the pleasure of the House to call further evidence in proof of the manner in s which Lord and Lady Ellenborough had lived together' the promoters of the Bill would be ready to afford it. The affectionate manner in which they lived together was ad mitted by the lady's family. He held in his hand a letter from Admiral Digby, in answer to one written by Lord Ellenborough, which he would read, if the House wished to hear it.—(Cries of " No, no.")—ln that letter Admiral Digby admitted that his Lordship's conduct had been most kind and honourable towards his wife.—( Hear.)— Now, with respect to the criminality of Lord Ellen borough, in introducing such bad associates to his wif e , that he was to be considered the cause of his own wrong. A more unjust accusation, after the evidence which Mies Steele had given, had never been made in that House. Being strict in principle, she said that she did not conceive that Lord Ellenborough took sufficient pains in prevent ing the visits of certain fashionable associates of Lads , El lenborough. Though he thought Miss Steele's evidence perfectly worthy of belief, yet the House ought to bear in mind that she belonged to that class of society, which though highly respectable, did not make her a proper judge whether those persons in fashionable society were so bad as she insinuated. But he would ask the House, did she caution Lord Ellenborough against these associates of his wife in the manner which had been stated ; and on this point the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had perverted the evidence, and had not done justice either to the Bill before the house, or to the evidence, which he had ' pretended to sum up.—(Hear, hear.)—He would read the questions put to_ this lady, and her answers, and then lie hoped the House would have no more perversion. The Hon. Member here read the following extract from Miss Steele's evidence. " You believed that these associates were profligate, and therefore you cautioned Lord Ellen borough against them ? I can hardly say I cautioned him. I wished to du so.—Did you do that snore than once? No, I did not.—Can you recollect what Lord Ellenbo rough said? He laughed : he thought probably that 1 was too scrupulous." That was Miss Steele's evidence, and it entirely exculpated Lord Ellenborough from any bad intention in introducing those persona to his wife. The next point to which he wished to advert was the no tion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, that Lord Ellen borough could net be ignorant of what was going on, be cause the misconduct of his wife was a matter of such notoriety. But he (Sir H. Hardinge) was of opinion that that notoriety was confined to persons moving in that par ticular circle in which Lady Ellenborough moved; and he was borne out in that opinion by the very fact, that at the very moment of Lady Ellenborough's separation, Miss Steele, her intimate friend and early guardian, did not know that she had been on terms of intimacy with Prince S, hwartzenberg. He could call on several Members of that House as witnesses of the truth of what he was about to state, that when Lord and Lady Ellenborough went into society together where Prince Schwartzenberg was, the Prince and she seemed not to know each other; but that, as soon as Lord Ellenborough went away, an improper familiarity commenced between them. Great pains had been taken to show that Lord Ellenborough was aware of his wife's intimacy with Prince Schwartzenberg, but he referred to the evidence of Thomas Kane, who stated that the Prince had never been in his Lordship's house.—(The Gallant Officer again refer red to the evidence of Miss Steele to prove her ignorance of intimacy existing between Lady Ellenborough and the Prince previous to her separa tion from her husband.)—Here wee a woman, the gallant Officer continued, of great respectability and virtue, who had educated Lady Ellenborough, ignorant of her connec tion with Prince Schwartzenberg; and, as the husband was always the last person to hear of his wrongs, was it not natural to infer that Lord Ellenborough was also un acquainted with that guilty intimacy ? The Hon. Mem ber for Aberdeen had touched on a point, to which lie con fessed he did not attach much importance; but as the Hon. Member had introduced it, he would only observe, that the non-cohabitation of Lord Ellenborough with his wife (if a proof of want of affection between the parties) only extended, according to the evidence, to a period of three or four months at the most. The House would recollect that it was not in the habit of examining into these points, before passing Bills of the present description. It would be remembered that Mr. Gzelet applied last year for a Bill of Divorce. He had been absent in India, and while he was away, his wife had been guilty of adul tery. He did not cohabit with his wife for one year after his return, she managing to give him excuses which were so satisfactory as gave no reason to suspect her of guilt; at length a fema'e friend of the lady expostulated with her on the impropriety of not cohabiting with her husband, and the guilty woman, by far the snore decent of the two, replied, "It is too unnatural ; I cannot do it. l am guilty. I will not add any thing more to my guilt." The House passed that Bill of Divorce, and would the House not pass the present one, because non-cohabitation had existed for three months? The doctrine was so monstrous, that it only required the Hon. Member to broach it, in order to have it scouted out of the House with all the contempt it deserved. It was plain that Lord Ellenborough was the dupe of the art of a guilty woman ; yet he was disposed to speak of the lady with all possible respect consistently with his duty to Lord Ellenborough. He must explain why he stood forward as the vindicator of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, who had been so unjustly and unfairly attacked. The reason of his doing so was, because lie was connected with Lord Ellenborough by a former marriage. He had known that Noble Lord , fur fifteen years, and on every occasion he bad found him to be a man of honour, integrity, and possessed of a kind heart. If it had been thought necessary to make any os tentatious display of his Lordship's merit, he (Sir Henry Hardinge) should have insisted on being examined at the Bar of that House on oath, if the forms of Parliament would have allowed it, as to Lord Ellenborough's con; duct to his former wife. That conduct had been such as to secure the esteem of Lord Londonderry's family; and he could say, from his own knowledge, having lived two or three months with Lord Ellenborough, that a more exemplary, kind, and indulgent husband never breathed. He could state another fact (though he was almost ashamed to occupy the time of the House upon the sub ject) to vindicate his Lordship from such false imputations as had been cast against him. Up to the time of his Lordship's marriage with Miss Digby, he continued to be respected and esteemed by the whole of Lord London derry's family ; and the Dowager Marchioness of London. derry wrote a letter to Admiral Digby, congratulating bins on the marriage his daughter was about to enter into, be cause Lord Ellenborough had been for five years a most exemplary and excellent husband to a relation of her's.— (Hear.)—These were facts which ought to neutralize any of the objections of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, some of whose morality and decency was so very coarse, that he wondered where the Hon. Member could have picked it up. If English women were to be described as never refusing the attentions of their husbands—attentions such as decency would not allow him to mention—he never could allow such a description to be a just one. The Hon. member for Breconshire, who was also connected with Lord Ellenhorough, could speak as to the terms of affec tion in which his Lordship and his wife lived together. From 1824 to March, 1829, he was in the habit of e i e itieg Lord Plenborough at Roehampton, mad he could only repeat that his Lordship's behaviour was that of a most affectionate and indulgent husband. If these were facts, and he (Sir Henry Hardinge) would maintain that they were, be was fully borne out in saying, that Lord Ellenborough had been assailed, calumniated, and vilified, in the most ehameful manner that any man had ever been before attacked who had reason to come before that house in that way.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was obvieusly easy for a man immersed in public business to become the dupe of an artfel and cunning seducer, and to have, as in this case, his wife allured f; em her boine to the arms of a seducer. It was not in the power of e Imeband so situated, let his vigilance be ever so great, to preys nt the possibility of such an occurrence. But this he (Sir IL Hardinge) would say for himself, that lie would prefer the misfortune of being a dupe of that description to the disgrace of being a spy. —(Hear, hear. )—But it was said there had been connivance on the part of Lord Ellenborough. If it were possible to suppose that a maim of rank, of station, of virtue, anti of charaCters could so far demean himself iki N le, - td the way, _ and act the pander to the dishonour of his wife, the mother of his only child, then indeed they might give credit to this foul assertion, and afford their sanction to a suspicion so monstrous and so contradictory to the whole tenour of that Noble Lord's life.—(Hear.)—Lord Ellen borough had been before the public now for a period of 20 years, and there was not a single ungentlemanly or un generous act of his public conduct during that time which argued on his part a want of integrity, of honour, or of principle. But it was said that there was collusion be tween the parties in this case, because Lady Ellenborough confessed her guilt ; and because, in doing so, she did not wish to inflict still greater wrong upon her injured hus band, by attempting to prevent his obtaining this divorce. Was it collusion on the part of a wife who had thus wronged her husband, to feel sorrow after she had done so—a sorrow which there was every reason to suppose this unfortunate lady did feel, and actuated with that feeling to abstain from taking any steps to prevent her husband from obtaining that release which was now sought for ? Could that be denominated collusion ?—(llear, hear.) — Could it be said to be a proof of collusion on the part of that brave and gallant officer, Admiral Digby, if he, feel ing that Lord Ellenborough had acted kindly and ho nourably towards his daughter, should abstain from offer ing any opposition to his getting a divorce ? Was it not, on the contrary, more the part of an honourable and high minded man, under such circumstances, rather to desire to do justice to Lord Ellenborough than to seek to impede him from obtaining that relief and redress which lie now sought?—(Hear, bear.)—But they had been told 'hat Lord Ellenborough should have looked more narrowly after his wire. Were they to be told that in Great Britain a husband should be a spy upon the actions of his wif e ?— (Hear, hear.)—He (Sir Henry Hardinge) saw many Hon. Members around him who, during the session of Parliament, were frequently obliged to be absent from their homes from eleven o'clock in the day until past twelve o'clock at night. How could a man, under such circumstances, maintain a close and continued observation of all his wife's actions and conduct throughout the day ? flow was it possible for any Hon. Member who had to attend to the Committees and to the business of that House to maintain that incessant watch upon his wife which the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had spoken of as indispensably necessary on the part of a husband ? This he would say, that the Hon. Member for Aberdeen was the last man in that House who should have spoken of the necessity of such continual observation, for his own absence from home was perhaps more constant than that of any Hon. Gentle man present.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear.")—Sup pose a husband a lawyer, a physician, or a military man, and that his wife should avail herself of the opportunities which his necessary attention to his professional duties should afford her to bring disgrace upon herself and dis honour upon him, was he on that account to be debarred from that relief which Lord Ellenborough sought in the present instance? Although the most satisfactory evidence should be given of her criminality, was he to be deprived of all redress because it had not been in his power to pre vent it? A doctrine so monstrous and so unjust only re quired to be shown up to the House to be scouted as it deserved.—(Hear, Lear.)—The Hon. Member for Aber deen might consider th.t jealousy on the part of the hus band was a proper kind of vigilance to be exercised by him in refetence to the actions and conduct of his wife; but lie (Sir H. Hardinge) would confess that be enter tained no such sentiments.—(Cheers.)---He trusted that such sentiments would never gain ground in this country. What would be the result if they should be eternally em ployed in looking after their wives, and if their almost sole occupation should be a silent and jealous watching of their actions and conduct? The result would be to per vert English society in the worst degree, and to convert an English family into a Turkish harem.—(Hear, hear.) —He rejected the principles on this subject of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen. o treat a wife as a virtuous wo man, to treat her with confidence and affection, was, in his opinion, the only course which an English gentleman was justified in pursuing. Under all these circumstances he felt it to be his duty to support the Bill. By party feelings he was quite sure that in such a case they would not allow themselves to be actuated ; and as for personal feelings, he was quite sure that if the Noble Lord had any reason to believe that he had given offence to any one, lie would be the first man in the world to give him satisfac tion for it.—(A laugh.) Dr. PHILLIMORE trusted the House would bear with him while, as shortly as possible, he would state his opi nion on the question under their consideration. The Gal lant Officer who had just spoken had called on them to consider the subject judicially, and to divest themselves of all personal considerations with reference to it. He could assure that Gallant Officer and the House, that from the very commencement of the proceedings he had considered it strictly ,vitb judicial feelings. He had watched with great attention both the course of evidence and the pro ceedings which had since been pursued. On other occa sions, when Bills of a similar nature had been introduced into that House, he had frequently abstained from taking any part in the proceedings with respect to them, because he had been employed in the cause elsewhere, as a counsel either for the one party or the other. In the present in stance, however, he had no connection whatever with either party , and had endeavoured to divest his mind—he hoped successfully—of all bias towards either. The Gallant Officer endeavoured to intimate that some unfriendly feel ing existed in the House with respect to this particular Bill. If such a feeling did really exist, he (Dr. Milli more) disclaimed all participation in it ; his sole object being to regulate his decision by what appeared to him the justice of the case. If, as had been alleged, the manner in which the Bill had been opposed was unprecedented, it must also be allowed that the manner in which the proceedings in favour of the Bill had been con ducted was not usual. In the first place, there had been no prior proceedings in the Courts below ; no op portunity had been given by such a proceeding for the cross-examination of witnesses by Counsel ; no verdict had been returned on the merits of the case by a Court of Common Law. He admitted that there had been seve ral cases in which no verdict of a Jury had been given, and yet in which Parliament had passed Bills of Divorce ; but that always increased the difficulty. There was another consideration which bore upon the present question. An impression existed, whether right or wrong he would not presume to say, but an impression existed that the House of Lords had not done their duty in the examination of the witnesses. There was another point, the importance of which was well known to persons who wets conversant with matters of this nature, namely, that no Counsel had been employed on the part of Lady Ellenborough—a cir cumstance which in all cases called upon the Court to ex tend a greater degree of indulgence and consideration towards the party proceeded against. His Hon. Friend the Member fur Aberdeen had justly stated the importance which ought always to be attached to the obligations of marriage. The circumstances of the present case were well worthy time most serious consideration. In the first place it was to be observed, that the decree of an Eccle siastical Court had relieved the Noble Earl from all danger of having a spurious issue foisted upon him ; that it had relieved him from the payment of alimony; and that it had relieved him from other inconveniences of a similar nature. The Bill now under the consideration of the House was a Bill of Pains and Penalties against Lady Ellenborough. It was a Bill to empower Lord Ellenborough to marry again. Now there was no object more steadily contemplated by the marriage law of this country, than the indissolubility of the marriage contract. In one instance, and only one, was it departed from ; and that was, where it was proved that one of the parties to the marriage contract (and that in most cases the female) had committed adultery; and even then, in order to increase the difficulty of the pro ceeding, in each case an especial law was necessary for the purpose of releasing the complaining party from the bonds by which the marriage ceremony had bound hint. Even the practice of passing Bills of Divorce at all was no: of ancient date. The first case occurred in 1669, and was that of Lord Roos, afterwards Duke of Rutland. With reference to this case, Burnett observed— " This matter had lain asleep above 100 years (the allowance of a second marriage after a divorce for adul tery), till the present Duke of Rutland (the Lord Roos) moved for the like liberty. At that time a sceptical and libertine spirit prevailed, so that some began to treat mar riage only as a civil contract, in which the Parliament was at full liberty to make what laws they pleased ; and part of King Charles's courtiers applauded this, hoping by this doctrine that the King might be divorced from the Queen." Then came the Bill to divorce Lord Roos, which was before Parliament for several years, and was carried at last by only a small majority. The next case was in 1692, when the Duke of Norfolk applied for a divorce, and fail ed. In 1700 the Duke renewed his application. A great legal discussion took place at the bar; in the course of which Sir Thomas Powis, who was the leading Counsel against the Dake's application, stated, that for 600 years there had been but four or five divorces. One of the junior Counsel, however, on the same side, subsequently corrected his leader, and stated, that in the whole uf that period there had been only three divorces. It appeared, that from the period of the Bill allowing Lord Roos to marry again, down to the year 1800 (a period of upwards of 130 years), there had been only 132 divorces by Act of Parliament, viz., eight during the first 45 years ; 15 during the next 60 years ; and 76 during the last 25 years ; and that from 1800 to 1823, there had been 26 such divorces. It was i m p oss ibl e to lo o k at the various discussions which had taken place on these Bills without observing that where collusion or connivance was supposed to exist between the parties, great opposition had always been made to them. In our Courts of Law the Judges had frequently insisted upon the proofs of collusion and connivance as defeating the claims of the complaining par ties. He found that thirty years ago, Lord Grenville, no nu•an authority, expressed himself with reference to the subject of divorces in the following terms : " He had long been sensible of these truths, nor had he ever been present when a Divorce Bill was passed that he did not think the House disgraced and degraded." What was the course usually pursued by the House of I ords with reference to these Bills ? Their Lordships had a Standing Order declaring that the adultresa should not be allowed to marry the adulterer ; but when a Bill came into the House, that older was suspended. In truth the whole system of these divorces required revision. He now came to the question, whether there was any thing in the present case which entitled the Neble Lord to the peculiar indulgence and consideration of the House ? It had been admitted by the able Counsel who appeared at the Bar in his Lordship's favour, and it had also been admitted by the Gallant Officer who bad last spoken, that there was a double obligation imposed on Lord Ellenborough before he could hope that the House would consent to the Bill ; first, to prove by incontrovertible evidence that his wife had been guilty of adultery; and secondly, to prove as incon trovertibly that be bad not been guilty of any connivance in the adultery, or of any neglect or other misconduct towards his wife which had driven her to the commission of the crime. On this last point he need only refer to the words of the Canon Law, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. They were as follows : " Judex adulterii ante miles latere debet et inquirere an snaritus pudice vivens, malieri quoque bonos snores colendi auctor fuerit. Periniquurn enim vide'ur esse ut pudicitiam vir ab uxore exigat quam ipse nan exhibent." Such was the doctrine of the Canon Law—a doctrine which had been again and again acted upon in the Courts below. With respect to the first point, the commission of adultery, he had maturely considered the evidence, and his conviction was that the case of adultery had been corn. pletely made out. It was true that some of the witnesses on the Brighton part of the case had broken down ; but ethers had abundantly proved the visits of Lady Ellen borough to Harley-street and Holles-street ; her servants, her horses, her groom, &c., had all been identified by a complete chain of evidence which could not be disputed. Again, even as to the Brighton ca , e, no doubt could re main on the mind of any rational or legal man; the pre cipitate haste with which Prince Schwartzenburg went to Brighton; the letter which Lady Ellenborough wrote; and lastly, her confession on the subject to Miss Steele, all concurred to establish the fact. With respect to the last mentioned circumstance, he might be asked if confession ought to be allowed to operate to the injury of the party. Undoubtedly not as substantial evidence in itself. But he would quote the opinion on this subject of Lord Stoll - ell, in one of those masterly and admirable judgments by which that Learned Judge had se greatly distinguished himself. Lord Stowell said on the occasion to which he alluded " The Court, however, must remember, that confession is a species of evidence which, though not inadmissible, is liable to great distrust. There is a canon particularly pointed against it, which says, ' Nec partlum confessioni fides habeatur ;' and though it is evidence which is not absolutely excluded, but is received in conjunctio❑ with other circumstances, yet it is on all occasions to be most accurately weighed.'' Although, therefore, the confession of Lady Ellen borough would have been nothing in itself, yet, combined with other evidence, it convinced him that adultery had been committed. The Gallant Officer had said that a man ought not to be a spy on his wife. The duty of a husband, however, to superintend the conduct of his wife, was maintained by all legal authorities. Lord Sto well, in the case of Forster and Forster, had thus defined the duty of a husband in that respect : " It is not, however, to be considered as a matter par fectly light in the behaviour of a complaining husband, that he has withdrawn himself (with cause and without cause) from the discharge of duties that belong to the very institution of marriage; and if he has done so, he ought to feel less surprise if the consequence of human in firmity should ensue. I have to observe also, that his marital conduct is in the present instance in the highest degree inothcious. A husband is expected by law to pay a due attention to the behaviour of his wife, and to give her the benefit of some superintendence wh ere she is placed in a dangerous situation." The same eminent authority, in the debate oa the Adul tery Prevention Bill in that House, had also expressed his opinion in very unequivocal terms ; and although he (Dr. Phillimore) could not quote it on such authority as that of the Learned Lord's judgments which had been revised by himself, yet he quoted them on the usual authority for the debates in that Ifouse. On the occasion which he had described, Sir Wm. Scott said : " At any rate, there was a want of that delicate sensibi lity—of that prudent attention—of that honest caution— which belong to the character of a husband. He was, however, disposed to think that the law of this country was placed on a footing the best cons*stent with the gene ral safety. lie meant, so far that the Legislature should keep the matter of divorce in its own hands rather than leave it to the subordinate Courts. By the existing prac tice of the Legislature, it was requisite, to entitle a hus band to a divorce, not only to give proofs of the miscon duct of the wife, but, at the same time, of his own good conduct. It was evident there might be shades of differ ence as to the conduct of the husband, so as to render the decision of the Legislature a matter of discretion, which did not safely belong, and could not strictly be intrusted, to a Court of Justice, where decisions were to be guided by strict rules of evidence and matters of fact." Now, in the first place, there were only two witnesses to the con duct which Lord Ellenborough had pursued towards Lady Ellenborough. One of these witnesses was Mr. Law, who had given his evidence with great clearness and candour, and who spoke to the living of the parties together in the ordinary habits of man and wife, and to the affection which appeared to subsist between them. But it would be observed, that in consequence of the absence of Mi. Law from England, lie did not see Lard and Lady Ellenborough for two years; and, that on his return to this country, the unfortunate lady was pregnant by Prince Schwartzenberg. Undoubtedly, therefore, the whole of this part of the case rested on the evidence of Miss Steele, a lady of ability and character. In the first place, the circumstances under which that lady was examined, ought to be considered. If that examination had taken place in a Court, and if she had been pressed by Counsel, it was very probable that more would have been elicited from her. Miss Steele, the governess of Lady Ellenborough, declared, however, that she (Lady Ellenborough) had always been remarkably re gardless of consequences. Was not that a prima facie obligation on Lord Ellenborough to be cautious? Was not that obligation increased by the fact of his having married a lady a great many years younger than himself ? Miss Steele stated that Lady Ellenborough was living in society unlike that to which she had been accustomed ; and that she gave a warning to Lord Ellenborough on the subject. Then came the question respecting the absence of sexual intercourse. In June, Lady Ellenborough confessed to Miss Steele that she was pregnant by Prince Schwartzen berg. It was in evidence that there had been no cohabi tation between Lord and Lady Ellenborough for three or four months. Miss Steele was asked, "You were under stood to say that Lady Ellenborough gave as a reason why the child could not be Lord Ellenborough's, her not sleep ing with him ; have you never stated that she gave as a reason that she had not for several months slept with Lord Ellenborough ?" Miss Steele's answer was, " Since Fe bruary, March, or April ; but I cannot recollect which." It was clear, therefore, that for several months there had been no cohabitation between Lord and Lady Ellenborough. This was another increase to the obligation of the Noble Lord to he cautious. The circumstance of a young and beautiful wife not having intercourse with her husband for several months, would be considered in a Court of Jus tice as one which ought to excite vigilance on the part of the husband. Then there was the publicity of all the circumstances ; Lady Ellenborough daily visiting Harley-street, and undressing, and going to bed in the middle of the day with her paramour. There was the evidence of the coachman, and the other servants, proving the notoriety of these proceedings. Nor was it on that evidence alone, pregnant as it was, that he (Dr. Milli more) was disposed principally to press ; it was on the absence of all evidence, certifying proper vigilance and caution on the part of the Noble husband, He could assure the House that it was with great pain that he made these observation's. He bad no bias whatever on the subject ; but feeling as lie did, and as the habits of his profession naturally induced him to feel, he could not allow the measure to pass without the expression of his opinion. Although he was willing to admit that the words of the great Itonian Satirist might possibly be applicable to the present case : dum ICS Nota urbi ct populo contingat Principis cures, Dedecua ille domus sciet ultimus." Yet at the same time it was difficult to believe that the Noble Lord was wholly ignorant of facts so extensively known. His opinion was, and it was an opinion which he had adopted after very mature consideration, that it was not such a made up case as to warrant the House in granting the relief sought for lie admitted that there was no doubt of the fact of adultery, and tkat no positive evidence to criminate the applicant, but still be was bound to say that he doubted whether any Court ; of, o ut; Law, upon such evidence, and in the absence of sa tnuelk!vat evidence that ought to have been introduced, would pro ase oll nounce for the relief sought for. Taking all the cireumir, stances into consideration, and considering also the facility. .14 of producing proper evidence, and also considering the die-. ,if cretion which the House had in questions of this descrip tion, he must give his individual vote against the Bill. • Mr. BATLEY had given the subject his deepest cons • sideration; and he thought that neither the Divorce Law nor Canon Law, gave any right iu cases of adultery to the parties to marry a second time. Mr. SPRING RICE could not give a silent vote upon such an occasion. In the first place, if anything were un usual in the circumstances of this Bill, those peculiar cir cumstances, he thought, were of a nature to render the course adopted against it unjustifiable. He did not speak with reference to the parties concerned in this Bill, but with reference to Divorce Bills in general, that came to that House unsupported by verdicts previously obtained in Courts of Law. Whether the parties were high or low, whatever were the circumstances of the case, if there .1 was not that ground for a decision which the verdict of a Court of Law in contentious cases afforded, it was the • , absolute duty of the House, in exercising its functions ,• judicially to make the most strict and the most complete ' inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. There- ail fore, for one, he thought that the House bad done nothing as more than discharged its duty to the public in undertaking as this inquiry. Although he did not think that the House - 0, 3 ought to be swayed in the least by the situation of :the • parties, he was willing to admit that, acting in the office • of a Court of I aw, if ever there were a time when it was expedient to extend to a case the strictest rules of law and equity applicable to matters of this description, it was , when the parties concerned were high and wealthy ; it was but justice to the parties themselves that the House .web should not decide as a matter of favour or influence, but All upon an examination founded in Justice. Evidence had ,df been laid before the House, and what was the fair and le—ed - gitimate inference to be drawn from that evidence ? He entirely, though respectfully, dissented from the doctrine .:41 laid down by his Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and l o ha did not think that he had given a fair account of the s i4 evidence.—(Hear.)—lf the evidence were as he repre sented it, he should come to the same conclusion ; but lie. 'a s (Mr. S. Rice) read that evidence entirely and distinctly .0 different from the sense that his Hon. Friend had-lat.bai, upon it, and, therefore, his vote should be against his-lsfu Hen. Friend and in favour of the parties. The evidence was now fully before the House ; and he agreed with his 2 8 Learned and Hon. Friend who spoke last but one (Dr. Phillimore), that he could not understand the constitution :4 of that man's mind that could read that evidence anti form on the subject the smallest doubt that the crime of adul tery had been committed. Nothing on the face of that evidence could justify him in consenting to withhold the ~11 Bill. A charge of discussi ng th e quest i on h a d b een brought forward ; but the present occasion pointed o ut •si most forcibly the inconvenience, the absurdities, and the strong injustice which attended this species of proceeding. —(Hear, hear, bear.)--Not one word had been stated' upon this part of the subject to which he did not give his most entire and cordial assent. He allowed that the law 4 was most unjust; but the House could not apply a new . 1 1 principle of law, a principle never allowed or acted upon, -'?Y, to meet this case. Au examination at the Bar was not creditable to the House, nor calculated to lead to any • knowledge of the truth. If there were one branch of discus sion above all others to which all the evils of an examina tion at the Bar attached, without the benefit which some times resulted from such examination, it was a case of divorce, when the House had to decide upon the justice of the case. If the House bad not to decide upon that jus tice, what was the use of its proceedings--why interfere at all? He hoped that the time was not distant, when, by altering the law, the House would be called upon to abdi cate those functions which it was notorious it could not discharge with credit to itself or satisfaction to th e pub- Fe. 'Was there ever such a principle with respect to con tracts, as to say that the general principle should be the indissolubility of contracts under any cireuntstancea, and then to come to Parliament fur an ex post facto law to • govern particular cases as they arose? But very much , worse was the application of this absurdity and injustice. This ex post facto law was well contrived by its me chanism to give relief to the rich and powerful, and to refuse relief when the principlee and circumstances of the grievance might be precisely the same, but the parties poor, wretched, and defenceless.—( Hear, hear.)--A great aggravation of the evil inflicted by the House was, that this wrong was snore severely felt in proportion as the habits of the individual were humble; for he had not the same Means with the rich of retreating from his un happy home, nor the power of flying from or ejecting his disgraced partner, that was possessed by the higher and wealthier classes of life.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—Upon whatever principle the law was founded, let its enactments be what they might, it was evident to all men of sense and probity that — it ought to be consistent and equally ad ministered, and that there ought not, in any case, much less in cases like these, to be one law for the rich and another for the poor. The whole law of the Ecoleuiasti- cal Courts was coming under revision, and he hoped that the laws affecting this subject would be included. What- ever were the views of Ministers with respect to the re forms of the law, he thought they must feel that the cha _ _ _ . racter of Parliament was degraded and lowered by in vestigatione taken in these cases at the Bar of the House, and they must feel that a reform of the law upon this sub ject was unanimously called for by the country.—(Hear.) A MEMBER, whose name could not be learnt, said he hoped that justice would be done to the two families con- corned in this measure, by allowing the Bill to pass. Sir E. CARRINGTON regretted, in common with all others, the state of the law upon the subject of divorce ; and it was curious to consider how the law should have been allowed to continue in its present state so long. This was certainly no new regret. Justice had raised her yoke against the law, not by any novelty of opinion, but by an cient acknowledgment and wishes to carry Reform into effect. He alluded to the reign of Edward VI., when the defects of the law had undergone some reform, and when the miserable and impotent sentence of the divorce a monad et thoro, that inadequate redress and fertile source of crime and wretchedness, was forcibly objected to by the Corn mission that was formed to effect a reform in the law. At the head of that Commission was the venerable Archbishop • . of Armagh, a name venerable to all who heard him ; and in it were men of the greatest character in the nation at ` that period. In the ordinary course of law, it was to be regretted that a complete divorce could not be granted by some one competent tribunal. At present, it was neces sary for a case not merely to pass through the Ecclesiasti cal Courts, but through the viva voce examination of a Law Court before a Jury. When both of these ordeals kad been passed through, he regretted that, by the law of • this country, the Courts could not grant a full and ade- • quate remedy to the parties, such as the principles and justice of the case might demand. He was aware that this iniquity was not peculiar to the laws of England ; it was applicable to the law of Scotland, of Denmark, and a few ether countries. On what foundation stands the Law of Divorce in England It was already conceded that divorces a vinculo might be granted; and why could they not follow the usual course of the Tribunals, and not travel through a trial by Jury, the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the unavailing, impotent, and most expensive examination at the Bar of the two Houses 5/ of Parliament? No man could doubt the crime of adul tery in the present case : the corpus delicti was clear. There could be no doubt that other premises were neces s try to he established before a divorce could be granted. The husband ought to exercise tenderness towards his wife, and not to neglect her conduct or restrain her from enjoy ments, rational and adapted to her condition and circum stances. What was the evidence in the present case Were the House to depend upon that evidence, or were they to run front the evidence to a vain presumption, in • • order to itiflict a wanton stigma, and a cruel injury upon a ny man.—(Hear, hear. )__A slight degree of negligence had been proved against Lord Ellenborough. Miss Steele 1/. , bad said that Lady Ellenborough had been treated with • uniform kindness and feeling by Lord Ellenborough ; but the Honourable Member for Aberdeen drew from the evia ' dence an inference unfounded in itself, and cruel in its con sequences.—(lfear.)_m; Steele said, that when she mentioned to Lord Ellenborough the improper f e male society to which he introduced his wife, he laughed at 0.9 information. This was not the laugh of iadifferpnce or of levity, it was not the laugh of sat calm ;a v t 1,. (Sir E. Carrington) should constru e t h at it flol e d .ea fr s o k' m a mind ,• full of unlimited confidenc e in his wife—a mind absent from all suspicion, and rejecting the shadow of dishonour which was implied by the observatio n against his wife a mind convinced that it was justified in having an unbounded confidence in her affection and in her rectitude. What was the evidence of the butler, but that the lady had been treated with confidence and respect, with atten tion and tenderness, uniform and unaffected, and greater than the witness had ever seen in other families? Miss Steele, in giving evidence of the partite having separate beds, had said that this arrangement had been made not only with the concurrence of Lady Ellenborough but at her especial request. That the fact of adultery was eats-. \ bashed by sufficient proof —was acknowledged by every body. Would any mart in that House, or without thewalls Parlietnent, say that there was scything in the eendect uperk. this court. of o Cider how Lad, not tery;;, -If I would • the defendant tunity•to.r the iset of have an opt to damages 17 h he ha IT H ) o ." — u u s . e aa with succe! of the hue, prove the t there were A :iajje