The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-03 00:00:00

actinistee. rklyoree Bill passed through the House ' ref - Peers :the . piesence - of the Right Reverend Prelates of the Church. No Bishop was at the /Jujus to examine a witness, or satisfy his conscience that there was no collusion in the case. No one in quired into the nature of the evidence—every thief; was believed on the authority of the Counsel in terested and the witnesses they produced. Perjury was not suspected—fraud was not dreamt of—and upon the worst and most objectionable evidence ever tendered in a court of justice the unfortunate and deeply-injured Lady Ellenborough was con demned as an adultress, cast dishonoured and de graded upon the world,and branded as the only guilty party, while her noble-minded and innocent husband was enabled to sanctify his wife's errors by a third sacrifice at the shrine of beauty and religion ! How refreshing is it to turn from this mockery in the Upper House of Parliament to what has passed and is passing in the House of Commons. Sir Charles Wetherell is there to see justice done between Lord Ellenborough and the public. The public are deeply interested in the result. They are disgusted with what has been done elsewhere, and they anxiously look forward to the decision in the House of Representatives, and we sincerely trust that their sanguine expectations will be realized. It is clear that the testimony of the Brighton waiters was suborned. There is perjury somewhere. One fellow says that lie received twenty pounds from Lady Ellenborough for hush money, and that he di vided, after the lapse of six months, this sum with the fellow who pretended to be the only witness of the scene he described. The latter denies the hush money—denies the alleged period of payment—and ere suspect, if pushed much farther, will be forced to admit that the whole infamous story has been concocted to promote the divorce. But, even ad mitting their evidence to be true, they are unable to identify Prince Schwartzenburg ; they do not prove that Lady Ellenborough was in the room at the time the Prince is said to enter it ; and they more over agree in nothing, and establish nothing but col lusion. There are only four parties privy to the al leged transaction; first, I,ady Ellenborough, second the landlord of the hotel, and thirdly and fourthly the two waiters. All this has been sworn to. The landlord, for his own sake, was not likely to blab a secret like this, and indeed he is not sus pected. The two waiters swear that they did not divulge the intrigue till waited upon by the agent of Lerd Ellenborough's professional advisers. How came this agent to have cogrioscence of the trans action ? Surely Lady Ellenborough did not inform Mr. Freshfield, by letter, that such and such thin g s occutred at the Norfolk hotel at Brighton ? If sh e did then is there gross collusion—she is a suitor for the divorce—the willing and ready instrument of her own degradation. God forbid that we should believe this!, We do not believe it. We believe the whole to. be „a concocted story of which it was intended she should be the victim. For we do well recollect that the Counsel for the Bill, when in the Lords,were desirous to rest the proof of adultery upon the rotten evidence of these discharged waiters. They even contested its sufficiency, and, when this was demurred to by some Noble Lord, they then, and not till then, produced the female witness Steele. Upon this damsel's evidence—for as yet — and this is one of the evils of Newgate—we can only speak of that which she gave in the Lords— we have but one observation to make. Suppose A. B. had confessed to C. D. that he had seduced the wife of E. F., his friend. The wife of E. F. meanwhile proceeds to the Continent, but he, the, husband, brings his action against A.B. Would this solitary confession, made to one person, procure a *verdict for the plaintiff ? This is Lord Ellen borough's case. The witness Steele is unsupported —she sees nothing—there is no Prince in the case— she has only a confession, which is confided to her alone, and yet upon this confession the absent wife is to be declared an adultress ! Such things could not be unless we had one law for the rich and an other for the poor, and it is high time the distinc tinn should cease to exist.—Morning Journal. The Ellenborough Divorce Bill begins now to 'mistime rather a serious complexion. It has been said, and this may be true, that if the party suing for a divorce had not been a Cabinet Minister, the evidence in support of the Bill would have been re ceived without scrutiny, and that it would have pleased -as a matter of course. This might ra ther be an argument against the character of the tribunal, that party feeling is necessary to induce it to act, than against its conduct at this time. It is quite clear, for instance, that if Parliament bad sifted the evidence in every one of the twenty Di . voree Bills'paieed last year, in the way the House of Commoristehas sifted the evidence in this, Parlia ment would have been able ..to attend to nothing else than divorces. Only -think of seven hundred persons busied in examining a witness, and the fa cility with which. food for a question arises out of a previous answer! But still, as every Member of Parliament is a Judge, and ought to take a part in the proceedings, a protracted examination is always to be calculated on when Parliament discharges its duty properly. The eae"C,with which Divorce Bills are generally obtained, is rather a proof that Par liament too often neglects its duty, than it has done more than its duty in this case. It will, no doubt, be deemed by his Lordship and his friends, a hard ship, that the circumstance of his being a Cabinet Minister should inflame the two Houses, and parti tarty that of the Commons, with so strong a sense of duty. It is a hardship. Perhaps, however, as in many other cases of individual suffering, the pub lic may be benefited by these proceedings. And in the first place, it is quite clear that if two or three Members of the House of Commons were in every case to pursue the course which has been pursued with regard to - Lord Ellenborough, the higher ranks of England, who can feel so keenly for themselves, but who look down with such beautiful indifference on the sufferings of the people, would soon become sick of the privilege which they now have of setting aside the law in favour of themselves. " Sir Henry Hirdinge was surprised to hear the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) talking of stopping the progress of the Bill. Good God! When the feelings of the fa milies were concerned—when the Bill had had such an extraordinary, sifting, could it be wished to sift it more ?" Good god ! the feelings of the families ! It never, we suppose, occurred to Sir Henry Har dinge that arty untitled man had feeling;. The law . of England says that there shall be no divorce from the tie of marriage. And what right has a Lord, because he can afford to pay oneZor two thousand pounds, to have the lawrsset aside in his favour ? It is well and truly observed by the Standard, that " If we leave this particular ease to speak of the general question of divorce, we must only repeat that there is no part of our law in which the ine quality of the pressure upon the rich and the poor ;s more severely manifest. The enormous expense precludes a poor man altogether from procuring a divorce, and yet we suppose it will be conceded that his feelings may be a; much outraged, and his domestic peace as completely destroyed by the infi delity of his wife as those of a rich man," Our contem porary might have gone farther, for a rich men suffers little from infidelity in comparison with a poor man. A rich man does not require a wife to relieve him from the pressure of domestic cares, and as a friend in whose bosom he may deposit his uneasiness, his apprehensions, his doubts and fears, in the many trying emergencies which befall almost every man whose circumstances do not exempt him from the toils of life. The business of the rich is pleasure, and it is pleasure rather than necessity which brings the husband and wife together. The management of the property devolves On stewards ; the manage ment of the house devolves on servants, and the couple have merely to decide between one descrip tion of pleasure and another. It. is wounded pride more than anything else that drives a rich man to a divorce. But when the partner of a man in humble circumstances desertshim, the consequence, in nine eases out of ten, or rather in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, is complete ruin to him. His domestic ffa go to wreck, his home (and home to him is fte4thislit) blank, be is robbed and plundered on all hands. Yet the law says, no degree of mis conduct on the part of the wife shall entitle the husband to riddance from his worthless partner. '1 he Aristocracy, knowing the facility with which they could set aside the law in their own case, have looked on the distress of their inferiors with the sort of joy which Lucretius ascribes to the man who, secure on land, looks on a vessel buffeted about in a storm. They have the sort of feeling towards their inferiors which Smollett, in one of his novels, ascribes to the better sort of French, who, when two peasants were engaged in a combat, ordered pails full of cold water to be thrown on them, to show their con tempt for both the parties. But, good God ! it is quite a different thing when the feelings of families are concerned !—the feelings of high families. This is the first time we have made any observations on this case, because we hate, above all things, any interference with private life. We cannot therefore, charge ourselves with having in any way stimulated the opposition which has been made to the Bill. The above remarks as to the consequences which may flow from such an oppo sition are quite distinct from the opposition itself. If the higher ranks of this country knew how much a distinction like that which they arrogate to them selves in the case of marriage inspires their inferiors with jealousy and dislike for them, they would be eager to renounce it. Its existence is at once a proof of a cold-blooded selfishness, which deservedly deprives them of all sympathy with them in their own distress. How much more enviable is the condition of those who have a place in the regard of their fellow-citizens,- than those who, by their conduct, surround themselves with people who may exclaim, in the language of the King of Israel, " I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirh‘ind ; when distress and anguish come upon you." The law is either good or had ; if it is bad for the rich it is bad for the poor; if it is good for the poor it is good for the rich ; and for the latter . . to seek to exempt themselves from it by a private Act, is justly making themselves objects of hatred to the community at large, who are justified in return ing scorn for scorn, and indifference for indifference. Yez those cold-blooded Aristocrats have been for centuries relieving themselves, without ever for a moment bestowing a consideration on their inferiors, or thinking that they also have families and feelings. When the object is to preserve a partridge they are ready to load the Statute Book with Acts, but equal justice is quite another affair ! The only way to reach the hearts of the higher ranks of this country is through their own sufferings. An anecdote is told of the late William Nicholson, the philosopher, which is somewhat to the point here. One of his sons, a boy, was amusing himself with running a needle through black beetles. The father took the needle and run it pretty deep into the boy's thumb, by which he was led to the reflection that black beetles might feel as well as himself. The people have an additional ground for complaining of the conduct of the Aristocracy. By the law of this country at one time, adultery was a crime, as it is still in Scotland, where it is even punishable with death. But as adultery is par excellence the crime of the higher ranks, they who have leisure for in trigue found penal consequences inconvenient. While they thus sought to extend their own liberty to do wrong, and while they thus exempted themselves from punishment, corrupting, of course, their inferiors by their example, they have less title to be relieved by divorce from marriage than any other class. The middle and lower classes in every country are hos tile to licentiousness, and a law making adultery a crime would be popular. Yet they—the grand cor ruptors—are to have all laws to yield to them; while the people whom they corrupt are to be with out remedy. In the examination last night, some of the Members seemed anxious to establish the point so happily expressed by Ariosto, according to the version of Harrington But bee't some woman breaks chaste wedlock's laws, And leaves her husband, and becomes unchaste, Yet commonly it is not without cause, She sees her man in sin his substance waste; She feels that he his love from her withdraws. _ And hath on some (perhaps) less worthy placed. Who strikes with sword, the scabbard him may strike, And sure love craveth love, like asketh like. Indeed in their behalf agree would I That all wives that adultery do commit, Should by a law condemned be to die, If so their husbands guiltless be of it; But if that men unpunished walk awry, Doubtless In sense and reason 'tis not fit, The weaker sex should for this sin be vext, Do as you would be done to, saith the text." Thus, for instance, Miss Steele, who did not seem at first inclined to be very communicative, was led, step by step, to give the following singu lar evidence : "Have you ever conversed with him (Lord E.) on the subject of Lady Eilenborough's conduct ?—Yes ; I have told him that some of Lady Ellenborough's associates were very bad indeed.—Can you tell ns who were the per sons you thus designated as being bad associates for Lady Ellenborough?" This was a dangerous question. Partridge ob serves, that though a man firing into a crowd can only shout one person, yet as no one knows that he may not be that person,every one takes to his heels. A sense of personal safety therefore, as well as Christian charity, might produce the instantaneous cry of " No, no." The question was not pressed. " Were the persons you spoke of in this language gen- tlemen or ladies?—Both gentlemen and ladies. Were they acquaintances of Lord or of Lady Ellenborough ? I don't know. Were they introduced to the house by Lord Ellenborough 2—Yes, they were of course in troduced by Lord Ellenborough. Were those persons ladies and gentlemen moving in that circle of society in which Lord and Lady Ellenborough were accustomed to move?—They were. Did you caution Lord Ellenbo rough against the permitting his Lady to associate with these ladies ?—I cannot say it was a caution ; I warned him about these ladies and gentlemen, but I ca'nt mention names.—(Hear, hear.)—Were these associates unknown to Lady Ellenborough as Miss Digby ?—Certainly. What reason had you to warn Lord Ellenborough against these persons as associates of his Lady ?—I had no par ticular reason ; I merely knew them by report as profli gate men. What did Lord Ellenborough say tvlien you cautioned him 2-1 cannot say I cautioned him ; I merely warned him. What did be say ?—I do not recollect what be said ; he laughed. Did you laugh, too?—No, I was serious. Did you say any thing more ?—No, I meant it as a warning to Lord Ellenborough ; and finding it was not taken as I anticipated, I did not repeat it. . . Were the persons to whom you allude la dies and gentlemen of rank and station in society ? Yes they were. Were they persons of a rank usually seen at places of public amusement?—Yes. They were not persons rejected by society, or refused admittance in respectable houses ?—They were persons not rejected at houses called respectable.—(A laugh.)—Did you allude to any particular individuals when you cautioned Lord Ellenborough ?—Yes, I alluded to one individual—a lady whose society I disapproved Were you not consi dered to be rather strict in your principles when you made these complaints? Were you not considered to be rather strict in your principles when you made these complaints ? Perhaps I was. Were not the persons to whom you objected received into the best English society in London ?—They were received into the fashionable so ciety of London.—(Hear, and a laugh.)" Sir Henry Hardinge, who put the questions, having for object to show that the best English so ciety was not strict, and that to object to the so ciety of good society because it was profligate, was being rather too strict, had rather a ticklish busi ness on his hands. It certainly is very hard that Lord Ellcnborough should be the scape-goat for all the sin of good society. Sir Henry's standard of the best society reminds us of a description of Hell, in a witty author, who, in distributing punishments to the various classes, observes, that "the great Lords, the makers of beds apart, are constrained to sleep with their wives, arid to be the fathers of their own children." The evidence is to be printed, and the consideration of the question is adjourned.— Chrontele. The country is indebted to Mr. Peel for his per severing and successful labours to consolidate our criminal law, and to mitigate its sanguinary severity without impairing its efficiency,—labours which have given simplicity and precision to a great body of our statutes, by clearing their useful enactments from the legi s l at i ve ru bbish with which they were surrounded,-.. w hich have made a knowledge of Ithem acces s ibl e t o every b o d y , by b r i ng i ng t h em Within a narrow compass, and ,mthielYthus tend to diminish crime by making its penalties more certain. By his various Bills of consolidation, 'modification, and arrangement, we shall at lad obtain the advan tages of a modern criminal code, without the forma lity or pedantry of such a code among 'our neigh bours,—we shall enjoy the benefits of a digested system, without the hazards of an appeal to untried theories. In that part of the field of criminal juris prudence over which he has already travelled, he has left traces of unequivocal and acknowledged improve ment, and fully verified those prophecies of advan tage from a judicious change which previous re formers bad uttered with confidence, but unfor tunately wanted the power to realize. The Right Hon. Gentleman, on Thursday night, brought for ward his promised measure for consolidating and mitigating the long list of acts relative to the penalties of forgery. Never, perhaps, was a crime more fertile in statutes than this, and never, perhaps, were statutes more impregnated with cruel arid in discriminate severity. Death is made to overlook the forger at every attempt to invade property, where the fraud and mischief are necessarily trivial or limited, as well as in the commission of enormous acts of plunder, which ruin families, destroy com ' mercial confidence, or shake the credit of great establishments. As legislation began on the sub ject as soon as the nature or frequency of commercial transactions rendered the offence of easy or frequent commission, it extended along with the increase of trade or business ; but the punishment of death was not enacted against the forger till the time of King William, when it was made capital to forge the se curities of the Bank of England. Since that time our statutes on the subject of forgery have multi plied as much as our paper-money or national debt, and every commercial legislator seems to have taken Draco for his model. The number of these acts Mr. Peel states at about 120, 61 of which inflict capital punishment. In the statement which Mr. Peel made to the House explanatory of the object of his Bill, the Right Hon. Gentleman divided the statutes against forgery into two classes : first, those which relate to public or general affairs; and se condly, those relative to official or departmental documents. In the first are included forgeries of all documents or papers for the transfer of the public funds,—forgeries of negotiable securities, of bills of exchange, of promissory notes, of deeds for the transfer of personal property, deeds relating to marriages or testamentary bequests, and public registers. The second comprehends all documents connected with the Army and Navy Pay-offices, the Customs and Excise, Chelsea and Greenwich Ho'spitals, and other public institutions. The Right Hon. Gentleman does not, of course, go the length of some humane theorists in proposing to abolish, in all cases, the capital punishment denounced against forgery in the existing statutes. Where the crime is of easy commission, of difficult detection, and tends to produce extensive mischief, as in the case of forgeries of negotiable securities, of Bank-notes, of wills, and other such instruments, the extreme penalty of the law is still to be retained, aid the only effect of the Bill will be, to bring a great num ber of acts into one, to describe or limit the nature of the offence, and to make some changes in the kind of evidence required to establish the fact. In the other cases where capital punishment is abo lished, and the offence is to be visited with minor penalties, we have few details in the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman. The following is the part of his address which contains the distinction above alluded to, and his proposed changes:— " The great principle to which he adhered was to con fine the punishment of death to the forgery of negotiable and transferable securities, and to every thing which repre sented money. He might add to them the forgery of -the great seal, the privy seal, and the sign manual. He should also add the forgery of wills and personal property. In documents of that kind no witnesses were necessary, and as they were generally not produced till the death of the parties, and might therefore be made the instruments of great deception, and cause great injury to families, be had thought it rigl,t with regard to them to retain the capital punishment. He added to these all false entries relative to public stocks—all forgeries of promissory notes—all fraudulent attempts to procure money—all forgeries of the notes of the Bank of England—in fact, all documents re presenting money, or which came under the denomination of negotiable or transferable securities. In the cases where he remitted the punishment of death, he was confident there would lie much difference of opinion as to their pro priety-, and that some persons would be inclined to sup pose he had not gone far enough, and others much too far; but he was of opinion that there would be more security in that course, and that a great deal of good might be done by the increased caution which these exceptions would in troduce. He proposed, therefore, to except from the punishment of death all forgeries of receipts for money and goods—all issuing of forged stamps, or forgeries of stamps :--all attempts to defraud by forged orders—all fabrica tions of bank paper, that is, the paper on which notes are stamped—all forgeries of deeds and bonds, and every docu ment which did not come under the class he had named, and which were not negotiable or transferable securities. For these offences death was now very rarely inflicted, and he was ready to admit that it ought not •to be inflicted." We entirely concur with Mr. Peel in thinking that it would be extremely dangerous to abolish the punishment of death denounced against forgery in the cases where he reserves it. Even the French code makes it, capital to forge the paper of the Bank of France ; and any remission of extreme penalties in a similar case with us would produce the greatest alarm for the security of negotiable securities in every class of society. On the other hand, nothing could be more impolitic than to preserve the capital penalty in the statute-book, in cases where the hu manity and justice of society combine to rescue the offender from its infliction. When the punishment is so monstrously disproportioned to the crime that our sympathies are engaged for the criminal, the law becomes a dead letter; parties who are injured will be alarmed to prosecute, witnesses will exhibit a merciful prevarication, and juries will cease to con vict. Thus a culprit will escape death, and can suffer no punishment less severe. But by graduat ing punishment according to the magnitude of the crime, and thus making its infliction certain, we de stroy this dangerous lottery of justice, and deprive the forger of that premium of escape, on the hopes of which he staked his character.—Times. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.—The following is the House List of Gov Enrolls and DIRECTORS of the Rink of England for the year ensuing, vis. FOR GOVERNORS. JOHN HORSLEY PALMER, Esq., Governor. ANDREW HENRY THOMSON, Esq., Deputy-Governor. John Bowden, Esq. Cornelius Buller, Esq. FOR DIRECTORS: IGeorge Warde Norman, Esq. James Pattison, jun., Esq. Charles Pole, Esq. Henry Porcher, Esq. Sir John Rae Reid, Bart. John Baker Richards, Esq. Wm. Thompson, Esq. and Ald. Samuel Thornton, Esq. Stephen Edw. Thornton, E 8 q. William Ward, Esq. Money Wigram, Esq. Melvil Wilson, Esq. it and Deputy-Governor will sday the 6th, and for Direc instant, from Ten o'clock in Timothy Abrahin Curtis, Esq. Samuel Drewe, Esq. George Dorrien, Esq. Charles Pascoe Grenfell, Esq. Abel Lewes Gower, Esq. John Oliver Hanson, Esq. John Benjamin Heath, }..sq. William Manning, Esq. William Mellish, Esq. Sheffield Neave, Esq. The Election for Gavernoi be held at the Bank, on Tues tors, on Wednesday the 7th the Forenoon till Four in the Afternoon. From ttie extraordinary fecundity and other estimable qualities of the potato onion, it promises to be come one of our most valuable garden productions. Like the plant whose name it bears, and widely different from its own kind, this useful vegetable multiplies under ground, each stem producing several onions, nowise inferior to the best of the species. But its most remarkable property is the power it possesses of resisting or surviving putrefac tion. In November last a gentleman in Cumberland had a quantity of these prolific onions for household consump tion, but, for want of due attention, many of them be came unfit for use, and apparently quite rotten. With little hope of their revival, he placed these putrid bulbs in his garden, about six inches under ground, and at a small distance apart, spreading immediately over them a mode rate quantity of litter. Here they remained about four months, and when examined a few days ago, were found in a state of perfect soundness, full of vegetable life, and ready for transplanting. Notwithstanding the length and severity of the winter, the roots could not have been in a more healthy state, or better adapted either for seed or culinary purpose*. IIikiPRAIAL PARLIAMENT. 11111162 01 * $'194D6--(LAST NIGHT). Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented several petitions from different townships in the West Riding of York, praying for assizes to be held at Wakefield. The Noble Lord also presented several petitions from the same county for free trade to India. Lord F. OSBORNE and Sir A. GRANT brought up the Tanjore Commissioners Bill, together with several private Bills. Mr. Barton brought up an account of the receipts and disbursements of the Pilots' Fund. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the district of the Tower of London against the punishment of death for forgery. The NOBLE PRELATE also presented a petition from Northampton to the same effect. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from a parish in Derby against the Eat India Company's Charter. The Earl of ROSEBERRY moved for a return of Fees taken in the Court of Session of Scotland from the date of the institution to the 21st of June, 1821.—Ordered. The Duke of NORFOLK presented a petition from the Jews of the West District of London, praying for a removal of their disabilities. Lord KING presented several petitions to the same effect. Lord AUCKLAND presented several petitions from parishes in the county of York for free trade to China. The Earl of DARNLEY presented a petition from Mr. John Lawless, praying for the introduction of poor laws into Ireland. Lord GOWER presented several petitions from the Pro testants of the Staffordshire Potteries for the abolition of slavery. The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from the Jews of Portsmouth, praying for a removal of their disabilities. AFFAIRS OF GREECE. Lord HOLLAND seeing the Noble Lord (the Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs) in his place, felt anxious to ask him a question. In his Majesty's speech, at the opening of the Session, the House and the country had been told that the affairs of Greece had been nearly brought to a settlement. He (Lord Holland) wished to know whether any further, and what, delay was expected before that event took place. The Earl of ABERDEEN observed that some nego tiations were still pending, but he could assure the House that the greatest cordiality existed between the Continen tal Powers and the British Government on the subject. FINES AND RECOVERIES. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to know whe— ther the suggestion made to the Law Commissioners, on the subject of fines and recoveries in Courts of Law, would be acted upon. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that it had not been considered advisable to attend to the suggestion. ALGIERS. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Ma jesty's Government had received satisfactory information from the French Government relative to the equipment of the expedition for the attack of Algiers? The Earl of ABERDEEN said that his Majesty's Mi nisters did not expect that the delay would have been so long, but he was in hopes those affairs would now very shortly be brought to a termination. Lord HOLLAND wished to know whether the delay arose in consequence of any protracted negociations, or merely from a point of form ? The Earl of ABERDEEN observed that his Majesty's Government had had continued correspondence with his most Christian Majesty, and in all their conferences there had been the readiest desire on the part of the French Go- vernment to make every communication. EAST RETFORD WITNESSES' BILL. The Marquis of SALISBURY rose to move the third reading of the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill. He moved that witnesses in this case of East Retford should be examined at the bar of their Lordships' House, and he considered it absolutely necessary to follow up that motion with the bringing in of this Bill to indemnify the witnesses, who could hardly be called upon to answer questions tending to criminate themselves without an in demnity of this description. In so doing, he had only followed the usual practice of their Lordships' House, in similar cases. This had been done in the Shoreham case, in 1'771, and afterwards in 1782, and in the late cases. But he had thought it his duty to look farther back, and he found filet the principle and practice were referred to in an Address of this House relative to the famous case of Ashby and White. It was there stated that the elective franchise was incident to the free hold or founded on custom, and constituted a civil right, which this House could not take away without an exami nation of witnesses at the bar, that the parties who might think themselves aggrieved might have an opportunity of defending themselves and their property. This, then, was evidently the practice of this House for a long time, and was founded on the principle that the House ought to be peculiarly tender in meddling with private property; and that, therefore, every possible opportunity ought to be afforded to the persons to be affected by a Bill like this East Retford Bill, to express their dissent, and to defend them selves and their rights. So peculiarly delicate was the House in meddling with matters of private property, that they had no less than sixteen Standing Orders 'elating to that particular subject. The Noble Lord (Holland) he understood, meant to contend that there was no reason for examining witnesses at all ; but if they did not exa mine witnesses they had no other alternatives than to throw out the Bill, or condemn the parties unheard, and with out allowing them an opportunity to defend themselves and their property. If they did examine witnesses, then, in order to be able to do so with effect, they must pass this Bill of Indemnity. As to the expediency of the thing, he thought that the experience of former precedents was in favour of the Bill in that view, and it was certainly not very fitting that they should by a side wind destroy a prac tice which had prevailed in this House for such a long series of years. Lord HOLLAND did not mean to accuse the Noble Marquis of attempting to smuggle the Bill through the House, but he regretted that the attention of the House had not been more prominently directed to it in an earlier stage, although he freely acquitted the Noble Marquis of an attempt to take the House by surprise. The Noble Marquis had supposed many grounds for his opposition to the Bill, and had endeavoured to upset them apparently much to his own satisfaction. The Noble Marquis had started many hares, but he had not started the real game, which he would find too strong to deal with. This objection was not so much to the principle of the Bill, nor to its provision, as to the time, the manner, and the circumstances. The Bill, with reference to which this Bill was brought in, was called a Bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption at the Election of Members of Parliament for the Burough of East Retford, and he maintained that the examination of witnesses at their Lordships' Bar would not be only useless, but be at tended with injury to the public. The matter had been examined in an Election Committee of the other—the proper tribunal appointed by law for the purpose, and there was no petition either for or against the Bill. There were three species of Bills usually brought before Parlia ment—one sort of Bills dealing with private property, another sort called Bills of Pains and Penalties, and a third sort having for their object some advantage to the community, and called Public Bills. In the cases of the two first of these kind of Bills, it might be necessary to call witnesses to prove the allegations in the preambles of the Bill ; but this was a Bill of the third description, or a Public Bill, in which there was no necessity for calling witnesses to prove the preamble; for notwithstanding what had been said by the Noble Marquis, he maintained that this was not a Bill in the nature of a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Neither in the frame or nature of the Bill did it partake of the nature of a Bill of Pains and Penal ties-4f it did, the House, in its merciful consideration, would have recourse to those wise and safe forms from which, in no case affecting rights of property, does it ever depart. A most material objection to the Bill then before them was, that it pre-supposed the insufficiency of the evidence upon the Disfranchisement Bill ; and in his appre hension it was scarcely an expedient proceeding to declare that evidence insufficient which had enabled the House of Commons to come to a decision that evidence was brought regularly before a competent tribunal (a Select Committee of the House of Commons), and he conceived that the evi dence then produced would suffice at their Lordships' bar. The Dill respecting Shoreham incapacitated individuals, and was so far different from the East Retford Bill; but lie attached no great importance to the precedent, and would not trouble their Lordships with any notice of it ; but there could be no doubt that it did inflict punishment upon some individuals, and, therefore, was in part a Bill of Pains and Penalties—it was a Bill for putting an end to the fraud, hypocrisy, and corruption of a set of men desiring to assum e a plausible appellation—calling them selves a Christian Society—whose object was to get pos session of the borough and bring it to the best market.— The Bill in that case was to throw the franchise into the neighbouring hundred. The Bill, in the emphatic lan guage of Lord Chatham, was a Bill having two objects— one of which was to transfer the elective franchise from the hanks of the Ganges to the English county of Sussex. If the measure to which the present Bill had reference were a Bill of Pains and Penalties, there could be DO doubt that the course proposed would be the proper and mate course. For the duty of the House would be to see that the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill were proved ; as the House acted in same sort in the ca pacity of a public prosecutor, the onus probandi lay upon them, and they were bound to prove the preamble before they inflicted punishment. In a question of property, likewise, the same course was to be pursued, and for si milar reasons. As the persons by whom the privilege was enjoyed held it not as a property, but as a trust, there could be little question that they stood quite in a different relation from those who came before their Lordships as liable to injury from a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Then, if it should appear—as no doubt it did, from the evidence before the Committee of the 'louse of Commons—that the electors of that borough had been guilty of polluting at its source the other branch of the Legislature—had done all that they could to lower its character and impair its authority— theParliament, that is, the King, Lords, and Commons, were entitled to pass a Bill, not for disfranchising those electors so much as for preventing the abuse of the trust reposed in them ; and they were entitled to pass that Bill without its being subjected to the incidents of a private Bill, or fettered with the forms of a judicial proceeding. At the period of the Scotch and Irish Unions many individuals were de prived of their franchises, and yet no judicial proceed ings were instituted—no witnesses were examined ; had they begun to examine witnesses, they never would have got through the Union question. Nay, further, in Ireland Peers were deprived of their right of sitting and voting in Parliament, and many boroughs received compensation for the loss they sustained, but no one dreamt of proposing to prove the preamble of the Bill. When that most weighty Act was under consideration, no witnesses were examined —but on this trifling matter, the most scrupulous formality was to be observed. The, present differed altogether from the common law rights possessed by freeholders—it was much more to be considered in the light of a trust con ferred by a charter. Besides, the practice against which he was contending opposed itself to all moderate and gra dual reform—for a few of those who might oppose them selves to such reforms might, by interposing objections and insisting upon strict formalities, create such delays as would defeat any plan of reform. He could not held re peating an often-repeated maxim of Lord Bacon's, that " Time was the greatest of all innovators." The duty of Parliament should be to afford every useful and safe facility to the innovations of time, by adapting its proceedings to the growth and progress of society and the altered situa tion of the country : and if anything could add to their motives for such adaptation, it was the necessity which there existed that that particular House should prevent any impediments to that wise and salutary reform which it was their duty to advance, and which, if they impeded, would lose much of its beneficial effects, but, ultimately none of its force. He concluded by moving that the third reading of the Bill be postponed to the 27th of April. The East Retford Disfranchisement Bill was to be read on the 26th. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to state shortly his objections to the amendment of his Noble Friend. He would not enter into the general topics connected with reform, which had just been handled, but he must be al lowed to say, that when the Noble Lord referred to that well-known maxim of Lord Bacon, it was much to be re gretted that be did not add the concluding words—That all those who wished to reform beneficially mankind, should, like Time, endeavour to do so imperceptibly, quietly, and safely.—(Hear, hear, from Lord H011and.)..... The case of Cricklade bad been argued both by Lord Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, in that House, upon prin ciples altogether different from those which the Noble Lord took up. The ground on which he (the Lord Chancellor) would contend for the examination of wi nesses was this—there was vested in these persons (the electors of East Retford) a certain right, which they had abused, and he had )et to learn how their delinquency could be shown otherwise than by an examination of wit nesses. The House of Commons had appointed a Select Committee from out of their own body, but was that House satisfied with the Report of their own body ? So far from being so, they examined witnesses themselves ; and upon what grounds, then, could their Lordships avoid doing that which the Commons thought necessary ? The next con sideration related to the present Bill. It was perfectly true that, according to the strict rule of law, no witness was bound to return any answer which might criminate himself; but there were answers which might afford a clew to information fixing guilt upon a witness, and yet they might be such as he could not refuse to answer. The case of Scotland and of Ireland, at the time of the Unions, afforded no precedent, for there no case of delinquency was sought to be set up. Upon these short, plain, and direct grounds he should move the third reading of the Bill. Lord WHARNCLIFFE objected to the Bill, on the ground that the preamble pledged their Lordships to an in quiry. To that he for one was extremely unwilling to be come pledged. God knew that he was no reformer, and it was with great pain that he saw even Disfranchisement Bills brought in, because he really believed that any addi tion to the democratic power of the House of Commons would interfere with the due discharge of the functions of Government. If he had not this dread of increase of de mocratic influence, he should be inclined to approve of a change in the anomalous condition of the representation of Scotch counties; that would be a case proceeding on noto riety, and this case ought to be governed by the same rule. The House had sufficient prima facie and without further evidence to proceed on its own authority. As he could not consent to pledge the House upon all occasions of this description to examine witnesses at the bar, he should sup port the amendment. Lord WYNFORD, with reference to what had fallen from a Noble Baron (Holland), denied that it was the duty of the House, when a witness was before it, to wait until that witness took an objection to a question, the answer to which might criminate himself. The House, like a this is! misled.been be,iat asked might necessary, g h l o o Art w tt he nna a s t o that the to witnesses Judge, was bound to interpose, in ord er t o put t h e wit ness on his guard, and to p ro t ec t hi m f rom t h e conse f quences be knownwould °being e u im thatbe examinedl hadd a way that criminate themselves ? Although it was irregular to ad vert to what passed in debate in the other House, yet the evidence taken before the Committee of the Commons was upon the table, and from that their Lordships might judge of the course and nature of the inquiry. It was certain that persons would be examined who could not safely be questioned without the protection which this Bill afforded. A great deal had been said whether the measure upon the table was a Bill of Pains and Penalties, or whether it was only a Bill taking away a right - for a public purpose. He agreed that it was not necessary to settle that point for the purpose of discussion, because either way a case ought to be made out. He agreed with Lord Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, that whatever diminished a right was so far a Bill of Pains and Penalties : and be had looked through the Journals upon this subject, and in Hatsel's Pre cedents he found a case under the head of " Pains and Penalties," of a separation (not a divorce) between man and wife. At all events, the cases established this principle—that whatever was done by the Legislature which placed an individual in a worse situation than before the passing of the Bill was, according to the plain dictates of common sense, a Bill of Pains and Penalties. The Noble Baron had argued that as the Bill deprived parties only of a public interest, it was not necessary to adduce evidence; and in support of this point he had re ferred to the Act transferring the Crown of this country from the Stuarts to the family now upon the Throne, and to the recent Statute disfranchising the forty-shilling free holders of Ireland. These, however, were cases where Parliament had proceeded upon general notoriety, and witnesses were never examined upon matters known to the whole world. Was such the fact in the instance now before the House ? Were the grounds of disfranchisement known to the House ? He, for one, begged to state that he knew nothing of the circumstance, and that be re quired to be informed by evidence before he ventured to decide. The Noble Baron (Holland) had objected to the disfranchisement of East Retford, because he thought it would retard Parliamentary Reform. He (Lord Wynford) bad his own opinions upon Parliamentary Reform ; but he could not see in what way it could postpone that measure, supposing it desirable. On the contrary, it seemed to him that it was calculated to purify and to keep pure the As sembly of the Representatives of the People ; certain it was, that it never would be accomplished by an adherence to what was called the corrupt borough system. Dis franchisement Bills, when the necessity for them was proved, tended to counteract the injuries and inroads of time, and to renew the vigour of the Constitution. Lord HOLLAND explained. He thanked the Noble Baron (Wynford) for the lecture be had been pleased to read him on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and for the statement of the perfect acquaintance he had with his (Lord Holland's) views and wishes. He was not aware, however, that he bad ever promulgated those views and wishes to the Noble Baron, either publicly or privately; but sure he was, that rendering this House the bar to all improvement of the kind, was the true mode of producing that convulsive and violent reform which every man must dread. lie expressed his obligation also to the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, for finishing his (Lord Holland's) quotation from Bacon, by a passage much more to his purpose than that which be bad himself cited. The Earl of CARNARVON commenced by stating that the preamble of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill asserted the existence of bribery and corruption, and Porliarnent would neglect itv duty if it did not require the • ~, establishment of the fact by evidence • wolf Aare 0 1 no parties resisting, the Constitution- ought- Ao. be CO sidered a pa r ty requ i r i ng th e proof, Although, no Rat h' Reformer, he advocated these partial renovations, and pe r i l haps had gone further than many in support of them. the Bill under consideration could for a moment construed to involve a pledge that the House would pr°; ceed without further inquiry, he begged to be c or ,sidelo no party to the pledge. He could only consent to the sd' mission of the evidence taken by the Commons, if it vie d the best evidence that their Lordships could obtain ; it could not be disputed that it was not. To pass the 1 3 ' without inquiring into the facts he thought wo uld!) throwing impediments in the way of rational refortv which he had endeavoured, by advocating measures of tb kind on more occasions than one, to promote. On the grounds he should vote for the Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY said, his Noble Fried opposite had recommended that to which he was and strongly opposed. That recommendation was, that tb4 should adopt the proceedings on evidence with which tY, Members of the House of Commons themselves had rt been satisfied—that was the Report of the Select Commit tee. if they were not satisfied with that Report, mall their Lordships ought not to be less exact. The Bill was then read a third ti me w ith ou t a divisioo Lord JOHN RUSSELL and others from the Commode, brought up the Bill for the improvement of the manse ment of the affairs of the parishes of St. Giles and SF George, Bloomsbury. The Bill was read a first time. Lord WYNFORD gave notice on behalf of a Nob/ Friend of his, that on Monday next he should move tle 26th and 27th Standing Orders with respect to this Bill and he now moved that their Lordships be summoned. Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT). - HAYMARKET BILL. Lord LOWTHER moved that the report on the 73 11/ for the removal of the Haymarket be re-committed, for tl O purpose of making certain alterations. Mr. BYNG opposed the Bill, as it was calculated to 1)1 injurious to his constituents residing in the Haymarket . ' The Noble Lord might try the effect of establishing an other, market, but that which was found to be most convenieo l would be the most satisfactory. Lord LOWTHER said the obstruction bad l on g bee' complained of as a nuisance, and he believed that the ooli opposition was from the licensed victuallers. The Bill was ordered to be re-committed on'llfondsy. HUNGERFORD MARKET. On the motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE the Hungerfor Market Bill was read a. second time without opposition. Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from serer individuals residmt in and near th e mar k et , pray i ng the if the Bill passed into a law they might be allowed compeo' sation. ST. GEORGE'S, BLOOMSBURY, AND ST. GILES'S SELECT VESTRY BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading oil the above Bill. • Mr. HOBHOUSE presented two petitions against it. Mr. HUME moved as an amendment that the Bill he read a third time on the 27th of April. A long desultory conversation ensued, after which ra • Hume's amendment was negatived by a majority of 34. For the amendment ... 36 Against it Majority On our return to the gallery we found Mr,. MID proposing, as an amendment, that every person,rated at the sum of 251. should be entitled to a vote, precisely is the same manner as in the parishes of Marylebone and St' Paul's, Covent-garden. [From the manner in whisk the amendment was worded, we understood the effect to be, that no person could poe secs more than one vote.] Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the friends of the Bil l had reduced the qualification for a vote from 301. to 25 1 1 on the understanding, as th e y th oug h t , t h a t *h e 10 would not then be opposed in the other parts; .and as the Hon. Member pressed this amendment, he must voto against it. Mr. HUME declared he had not heard of any such agreement as that alluded to by the Noble Lord. •:• The House then divided on the amendment :. Against it 4B For it 26 Majority The Bill was then read a third time and passed. • ELLENBOROUGFI DIVORCE BILL. The Report of the Committee. on the Ellenborough vorce Bill being brought up and agreed to, Sir G. CLERK moved that it •be read a third time of' Monday next. Mr. TENNYSON objected to the appointment of Moo' day for the third reading, when the evidence ordered to be printed had not yet been delivered. Sir G. CLERK believed the evidence would be ready rot delivery to-morrow. Mr. TENNYSON said it was not to be supposed thal Members were to occupy their Sunday in its perusal, ad suggested the propriety of postponing the third reading until Members bad an opportunity to examine it with ittentioe , Mr. A. ELLIS also complained of the impropriety 0 ordering the evidence on a Bill to , be printed, and then hut' rying on the second reading with breathless haste; and he. fore the Members of the House could have an opportuniti to avail themselves of the Order of the House. Mr. S. RICE was not prepared to read the Bill a third' time en Monday, but be saw no reason why it could not be fixed for Wednesday or Thursday. Sir GEORGE CLERK said if it would be a conveni. ence to the House, he had no objection to ix the thi.J reading for Tuesday next. The Bill was then ordered to be read a third time Tuesday next. LAW OF FORGERY. Sir it. VYVYAN presented a petition from Truro, ie Cornwall, praying a mitigation of the punishment for Forgery. Mr. LITTLETON presented several petitions from. the Presbyterian Dissenters of Sion and Ebenezer Chapels, in the Staffordshire Potteries, against the practice of burning widows in India--a practice which the Hon. Member ev pressed his pleasure to hear was abolished. Mr. LITTLETON presente d a pet i t i on from ` the mans' facturers and other inhabitants of Henley Sheldornin -110 Staffordshire Potteries, against the East India Monopoly. Mr. BONHAM CARTER presented a petition front the Jews of Portsnaoutk, praying to be relieved from Civil The Marquis of BLANDFORD presented a petition from Rochester and Chatham, praying that the Jews might be allowed to take oaths on the Old Testament. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Whitby, Yorkshire, praying for the repeal of the Window Tax. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the manu facturers residing in two places in the eounty of York, complaining of the evils which resulted from the employ' meet of power-looms, and praying that some cheek might be put upon them. SHIPPING INTEREST. •" • , Mr. SYKES rose, in pursuance of his notice, to present a petition from the ship-owners and merchants of Hull, on a subject which claimed the most serious attention of the House, and which he was sure would not refuse its The petitioners were numerous, well-educated, extensively' informed, and as capable of forming an opinion on tr!. ; e subjects of the petition as any men in the kingdom: A Committee bad been formed for the purpose of prepariaf the petition ; and, to his knowledge, the statements in t petition were perfectly true and well founded. The peti tioners stated that the interests whom they represented were in a state of the greatest distress, for that, for the last two or three years, the shipping trade had declined with alarm' ing rapidity; and they prayed that the .; House would e nter into some inquiry for the purpose of adopting those reme" dial measures which alone could prevent this most import ant branch of the natioual industry from sinking into a situation of utter hopelessness, from which it would be im' passible ever to recover it. They were entirely unable to contend with the new competition on the part of foreiga countries which the policy recently pursued had cherished, un l ess they obtained relief by the diminution of taxation; and by other measures which the wisdom of the House might d ev i se . In what the petitioners stated with respect to whet was called the reciprocity system he (Mr. Sykes) did not concur; and he thought it a proof of their candour that knowing as they did that he differed in opinion from them ° they, neverthel e ss, did him the honour to place ha ac t et t h s e u ir bje lk e t t ition in his hands. This he would observe, that whether the reciprocity law s were right or wrong, the consideration of them could not afford the petitioners Suffi cient relief in the unfortunate situation in which they were placed. With respect to the diminution of taxation, all 1 ersons who were acquainted with the eircuiry stances of the case must allow that the petitioners had an undoubted claim to whatever relief it ; was possible to afford them in that respect ; and in that part of their petition he entirely concurred. He had stated that the petitioners were as able to form an opinion on the subjects respecting which they petitioned as any persons in the kingdom ; and he might refer the House to the petition itself in proof of that ass e rtion. But he should he sorry to sit down without saying a few words on the subject.—(Hear, hear.)—ln his O pinion th 9 petitioners could look for relief only in iri thi • ill • 'sit •rei the tisl goi not tra acr the Th yet . exc there 207, 182, • went of Ja ing Year 9nly retur clear( Unite Russi wards those Only loo n . 187,E by 1 Appel! 2674 clears surini cleare to the occa4i intere his wb sub, SOU tior woi and to nect the] dcu cirri lister to ti dure stren sure. the inter sides rest fle f luck( built of fox polio with He prep and Boni Men. Pete Amt Men' Pete Ame Beef Pork Brea Wad Beef Pork Brea Wag Wa• pert: the ing thre that, men own