The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(LAST NIGHT). Lord DITNDAS presented a petition from Guisborougl•, in Yorkshire, praying for a revision of the penal laws. Lord KING presented a petition from the Unitas ians of Chiehtster, praying for an alteration in the marriage laws. he always supposed Lady Ellenborough, when she vent to Harley-street, went to her father's. In answer to a question put by the Marquis of BLAND F•)RD, he said that he had never received any money from Lady Ellenborough or Prince Schwartzenburg.— Witness withdrew. John Ward examined—He gave the same evidence as he had given before the Lord•. He proved the fact of a lad) coming frequently to visit Prince Schwartzenburg, whom he afterwards, by means of her phaeton and her servant, identified to be Lndy Ellenborough. He had seen her in the drawing-room with the Prince, and saw hint assist in dressing her. Cross-examined by Dr. LUSIIINGTON—He lived a.• butler, at No. 11, Harley-street. He was generally em ployed in his pantry, and after his work was done there, he went to the front door. He saw the I,,dy go to Prince Sehwartzenburg's between a quarter before two and four o'clock. lie saw the Prince assisting to dress the lady between three and four o'clock. He was then in the drawing-room of No. 11, but he did not recollect for what Purpose be went into the drawing-room ; when he was Viere he went to the window, and looked into the opposite house. He could easily see the persons there when the middle door was open, as there was a light from the op posite side of the house ; there were blinds to the front drawing-room windows, but they were only half down at the time ; when they were down he could not see into the opposite drawing-room ; the middle door was open when he saw the Prince dressing the lady ; he had seen the lady often. He knew the lady by her figure, but be did not know she was Lady Ellenborough. He had seen her fre quently in her pony phaeton in Welbeck-street, in Harley street, in Portland-place, in Cavendish-square, and in Wimpole-street. He admitted he could not have recog nised the phaeton unless it was pointed out to him, but when he saw it at the coachmaker's he was sure it was tie same. When he saw the Prince lacing the lady's steps he was in the drawing-room by accident, but he had sot seen anything pass between them before which could have induced him to watch them. He had, however, seen them frequently standing together at the window. By Mr. BERNAL—He could not distinguish the face of the lady, but he was certain she was the same person he had seen so frequently go into the house ; he had seen her frequently stand at the window ; he could not undertake to swear it was the same lady, but the impression on his mind was that she was the lady he had seen in the phaeton. By Sir C. WETHERELL—There was no crest on the phaeton ; lie could not have said it was Lady Ellenbc rough's phaeton if he had not been told so at the coach maker's; he never felt any curiosity to watch the Prince and the lady when lie saw her go there so often. By Mr. AGAR ELLIS—He had no reason to know it was Lady Ellenborough who called so frequently on the Prince, until he was told so in the house where he lived; he learnt it by conversation with one of the servants ; when he told that servant that the lady called on the Prince every day, she said it was a falsehood, and that the lady could not be Lady Ellenborough ; he had no other reason to know that the lady was Lady Ellenborough, ex cept the information he derived from the conversation with his fellow-servant ; it was Sir Launcelot Shadwell who appointed him to the situation he holds in the Vice-Chan cellor's Court ; he was not acquainted with Sir Launeelot ; his wife had influence with him.—(A laugh.)—He had no communication with Mr. FreshfieW, or any other per son, about this business before his appointment to the Vice-Chancellor's Court. By Mr. HUME—It was in October last he had the first communication with Mr. Preshfield about what he had seen from the windows of his master's house; the house he lived in was not immediately opposite No. 73. The house was a little to the right, but when the doer of the back room was open, the light behind enabled him to see persons in the room ; the blinds on the day in question were only half down. By Sir H. II ARDINGE—He could not see the dress the lady wore, nor could he identify her as the person who rode,in the phaeton, but he repeated his impression to be that she was the same. By Mr. TENNYSON—He never saw any other female go to the house of the Prince except servants, and the lady who rode in the phaeton. Ann Lewis, the female servant of Prince Schwartzen berg, was then examined by Mr. Adam—She stated that the Prince occupied the drawing-rooms, and that the lady visited hint two or three times a-week ; the Prince gene rally let the lady in, but she opened the door once. She never saw any lady but one come to the house. The evi dence of this witness was precisely the sense as that given before the Holm of Louis. Cross-examined by Mr. AGAR ELLIS—She did not know who the lady was. By Mr. G. LAMB—She was told afterwards that it was Lady Ellenborough. James Elkington, the servant of Mr. Oswin, of Harley street, saw the lady come two or three times a week, and go into the house of the Prince. The lady's visit at tracted his attention ha consequence of her stopping in the pony-phaeton so frequently at the corner of Queen Ann street, and other places in the neighbourhood. Cross-examined by Mr. HUME—The lady generally stopped about twenty yards from the house ; he had seen her stop more than a dozen times. He knew Admiral Dicby's house, but be had never seen her go to the Ad miral's at any time when she stopped in the pony-gig ;he did not think that the boy who was left in the phaeton could see where the lady went, because the angle of the street prevented him; he knew it was Lady Ellenborough's phaeton from the boy and the livery. Mr. Adam then said he should proceed to call evidence to prove the acts of adultery committed at Wimbledon. Mr. HUME begged that the witness Carpenter should be recalled. In answer to several questions, this witness stated that he had stopped with the phaeton in Harley street, Queen Ann-street, and various other places, and that he had never seen Lady Ellenborough call at any house but her father's. William Wheel, the post-boy who drove Lady Ellenbo rough to the Countess St. Antonio's, at Wimbledon, re peated the evidence given before the House of Lords on the subject of her being joined there by Prince Schwartzenburg. Mr. HUME suggested the expediency of calling the coachman to whom the groom had told the circumstances which he had described, in order to keep up the chain of the evidence, and to show how far Lord Ellenborough was or was not cognizant of what all his family appeared to be talking about. Sir C. WETHERELL spoke to order. That would be a subject for after consideration. John Prior, a waiter of the George, Queen Ann-street, and Robert Wheeler, a waiter at - Brighton, and Robert Heppe], another waiter at Brighton, gave evidence in sub stance similar to that which they had given before the House of Lords The last witness, on cross-examination by Mr. Hume, Mr. Gordon, Sir Henry Hardinge, Esc. stated, that he had seen the gentleman, whom he under stood, but whom he did not know, to be Prince Schwart teriburg, go into Lady Ellenborough's apartment ; that after ten minutes he (the waiter) went to Prince Schwart zenlorrg's room, and found that he was not there, but that the door was locked and the key out of it ; he also stated that he mentioned the circumstance the next morn ing to Mr. Walton, and at a later period to Mr. Fresh. field ; that there was no communication between the east and west wing of the hotel except on the ground floor ; that he had watched of his own accord ; that Lord and Lady Ellenborough never re-visited the hotel. Thomas Dunhill, hook-keeper at Marks's, the coach builder, and William Wheel, were then examined. During the examination of the last witness, Mr. HUME observed, that in the thin state of the House it was not advisable to go on with the examination. The CHAIRMAN observed, that at least the whole of the evidence of the witness under examination ought to be taken. Another post-boy proved to having driven the Prince TITHES. Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from the hun dred of Dias, in the county of Norfolk, praying for an alteration in the mode of the payment of the Clergy by tithes. The whole of the petition was well worthy their Lordships' attention ; but the petitioners stated in general that the present mode of paying the Clergy by tithes was injurious to religion on account of the irritation frequent!) occasioned by it between the incumbent and the pa rishioners; and it was contrary to sound policy, because it had a tendency to prevent improvement and the exten sion agricultare, and so far to lessen the means of em ployment for the labourer. It was a cause of injustice also, for a farmer might be disposed to lay out some ca pital in the improvement of land in the hope that it would yield him a profit after the payment of the tithe, but it might turn out that the gain would he but barely sufficient to pay the tithe, and thus the Clergyman would get the whole of the profit of the farmer's capital, and the farmer, of course, would hare nothing. He did not understand these petitioners to mean to pray for anything injurious to the Established Church of England; if they had, he would have been the last man to advocate their views, although he might present their petition, if respectfully worded. The petition was read, and laid on the table. The bake of AIONTR OSE presented a petition from the Gorbals of Glasgow, praying fur the opening of the trade to China. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions to the same effect from Buratall, and six or seven districts of the county of York. All these petitions were laid on the table. The Bills on the table were forwarded in their respec tive stages. The Marquis of SALISBURY gave notice that he would to-morrow rove the third reading of the Indemnity Bill.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT). A New Writ was moved for a Burgess to serve in Par liament for the borough of Dorchester, in the room of the Hon. Mr. Cooper. Sir C. BURRELL presented a petition flora Brighton respecting the Duties on Beer. The House then re.olved itself into a Committee on the ELLENBOROUGH DIVORCE BILL. Mr. Adam appeared at the Bar on behalf of Lord Ellen.. borough, and in support of the Bill. The Learned Council, in a speech which was only upon occasions audible in the gallery, detailed the facts which have been already laid before the public in the Lord's Re port, He stated that he would bring evidence to prove the solemnisation of the marriage, awl the fact of his Lordship and his wife having lived upon terms of affection, up to the period when his Lordship's suspicions of her fidelity were first awakened. He would also show a con tinued course of adultery between her Ladyship and Prince Schwartaenburg, from March, 1828, to May, 1829. He said he would establish, by the best evidence, that her Ladyship was in the habit of calling at the Prince's lodg ings, in Harley-street—that she was seen in his drawing roonf lay a person in an op' osite house, almost in a state of undress, while the Prince was assisting her to make her toilette; that it would be proved the bed at Harley-street, which had ken made in the morning, did, after her Lady ship's departure, bear evident marks of two persons having lain in it or upon it. He farther declared he would prove, that after the Prince had removed to Holles-street, Lady E. still cortinued her visits to him ; and that he would also establish the fact of her Ladyship's having, in February, 1829, left London, under the pretext of visiting her only child, who lay sick at Brighton ; and that there she net Prince S., and, on his sending up his card to her, invited him to tea; that he left her sitting-room about ten n'clock, and was afterwards, at the hour of twelve, seen by a waiter entering her Ladyship's bed-room ; that the waiter listened at the door, and heard his Highness getting into the bed, and subsequently heard a noise, which the Learned Counsel did not choose to dead ibe. He then read her Ladyship's letter (which has already appear d in this Paper) and argued that there was no►hing like negligence to be imputed to his Lordship; he could not have been led to suspect that his Lady's visits to Harley-street, in which her another resided, could be urged by any improper motive, es she was only absent from home between the hours of three and six, at which time all ladies of I.er rank, as was wed known to the Hon. Members of the Committee, were in the habit of paying their visits, and taking their daily exer cise. Neither could he imagine her visit to Brighton, where her only child liy sick, was dictated by any but the purest motive. lie contended, from the tenor of her Ladyship's letter, that she had made no disclosure of actual guilt to her injured husband, although she might have confessed to some indiscretion or partiality for the Prince. He alluded to the confession made to Miss Steele, her early and confidential friend, and proceeded to call the following witnesses : Charles Freshfield and Paux, to prove the solem .niaation of the marriage. They did so in the same words used before the Lords' Committee. The Hon. H. S. Law also proved the solemnization of the marriage, and deposed to the fact of his brother and Lady Ellenborough living on terms of affection. In reply to a question by Dr. PHILLIMORE, Mr. Law stited, that Lord and Lady Ellenboreugh hail lived together affectionately as man and wife usually ilo. William Carpenter, the groom, was examined, and re peated the evidence he had given before the Lords, but his answers were given in so low a tone that they were very indistintly heard in the gallery. Sir G. CLERK, the Chairman, was obliged to desire the witness to speak cut, for nobody heard him in the House. In reply to a series of questions by Mr. HUME, we on. derstood the witness to say that Lady Ellenborough was in the habit of driving out in her phaeton, which she left at the corner of some street ha the neighbourhood of Harley street; that sometimes he put the carriage up; sometimes he drove about and returned to the spot where he had left her Ladyship; sometimes he took the carriage home ; sometimes he was desired to do so. He had lived with Lord Ellenborough some time before he went to attend on Lady Ellenborough in the phaeton. He mentioned to the coachman the circumstance of the horses being kept out bo long, but did not mention it to any other person. He was not desired by Lady Ellenborough not to mention it. He believed that what he said and what he did when he went out with the phaeton was not generally known. He was quite satisfied that he never mentioned Lady Ellenborough's con duct to any other person, never mentioned it to Lord Ellen borough. There was a coachman in Lord Ellenborough's service, and he mentioned to him more than once that he had put up the horses ; the coachman asked why the horses were kept out so long ; sometimes told him that they had been out for a lora.; ride, sometimes told him that they had been out riding with Prince Schwartzenburg ; he had told this to the coachman, and might have told him so when the phaeton had been kept waiting at the corner of a street, for sometimes it did wait, and sometimes her Ladyship did go for a ride ; he did not recollect what the coachman said, when he was told of the riding out with Prince Schwart senburg ; he was desired by Lady Ellenborough to drive about, and come again, and then lie sometimes went to his own stable to put the horses up; he knew Prince Schwart eenburg through the Prince's groom, but never talked to him about Lady Ellenborough's going with the Prince ; never talked about this to the coachman ; sometimes told the coachman, told hitn more than once, that Lady Ellen borough went with Prince Schwartzenburg; saw her when he left her at the corner of Harley-street, going to her father's; never saw her go into any other house in Harley-street than her father's ; saw her go into a house with Prince Schwartzenburg at Richmond ; he told the coachman that they went to Richmond, and that Prince on a stage to Brighton. Schwartzenburg and Lady Ellenborough went into a house A post-master at Cuckfield, proved Prince Schwartzen at Richmond ; he did not recollect that he had ever spo- burg's passing on the road to Brighton, on the 6th of ken to any of the other servants about Lady Ellenborough February, and from Brighton to London on the succeed going with Prince Schwartzenburg; Lord Ellenborough ing day. The witness underwent a long cross-examine never asked him where he or where Lady Ellenborough tion, but without eliciting any thing of importance, had been ;he was quite positive he had never told the other Walton was again called, and swore to the welter at servants about Lady Ellenborough's going with Prince the Norfolk Inn communicating to him what he had wit- Esclovartzenburg. nessed between Lady Ellenborough and the Prince. The In reply to questions put by Sir CHAS.WETHERELL, witness had never communicated it to Lord Ellenborough, he stated that he had never talked with Prince Schwart- or to any body but his brother; witness's brother (the aenburg's groom about the Prince and Lady Ellenborough, keeper of the Norfolk Inn) had discharged his waiter for though he met the groom frequently ; he was boarded in mentioning what had occurred in the house; witness had Lord Ellenborough's family ; he did not recollect that he been discharged for the same cause; his brother wished to ever mentioned the conduct of Lady Ellenborough to any have kept the affair a secret, for he thought it might affect other of the servants but the coachman. He never did the character of the hotel ; he had accused witness of talk to the other servants about it ; the servants saw Lady having given the information of the intrigue which led to Ellenborough and the Princ e ride together in the Park ; Lord Ellenborough's sending his agent to collect evidence ; but lee never did talk to the other servants about it ; there witness had not written any letter to Mr. Freshfield on the was some talk about it among the servants; he believed subject ; Ludy Ellenborough, on the 6th of February, had that what was going on was known amongst them ; there given the witness 201. for not divulging what had passed ; were a great many servants, and he believed that they all witness had been to Lady Ellenborough, and told her what knew ; most of them he was sure did ; most of them he knew, and she gave him the 20/., half of which he talked about it ; they talked of Lady Ellenborough and gave to brother waiter to hold his tongue ; after wit- Prince Schwartzenburg riding out together, and nothi ng I riess had g o t th e 201., the other waiter went and divulged else ; there was n o j eer i n g a b ou t it among the servants th e whole story to his brother, the keeper of the Norfolk that he knew of ;he could not swear that they had neve r ; witness kept the 201. till October, when he gave the made a joke of it in the servants' hall ; it was talked of half t o the waiter, for it had got abroad that he had re by the females, though what they said he did not exactly ceived the hush money; Lady Ellenborough had confessed recollect. • Ito witn ess th at ahe had done extremely wron g , and en- In reply to Sir HENRY HARDINGE, be stated that treated witness not to expose her ; witness bad exposed her to hit brcther the egy after he took t'ie 201. 1= r secrecy. Robert Heppel was again called. He communicated ti Walton, his master, at eight o'clock in the morning, who , he had seen in the night, and then communicated it ti Walton, the waiter; never received any money from Lei Ladyship, but had received only 51. from Walton, the waiter, for secrecy, two or three days after the 7th of February ; he said it was a present from Lady Ellen borough, and witness thought at first it was for his services. Cross-examined by Mr. HUME—He had never re ceived any in October; be received the five pounds a few days after her Ladyship bad left the house; when he told his master what had occurred, he found his master knew• it ; witness was surprised at this ; witness had not told any body else ; witness left his situation in December, in consequence of his having mentioned this ; that was the cause of his discharge; at the time he was discharged he had not received any money; he was discharged because he had appeared to give evidence in this case. By Mr. IL GORDON—He was not discharged for writing any letter ; he did not write any letter to London ; he had never received ten pounds from Walton ; he had never received any thing but the five pounds ; he meant at that time; he received five pounds then, and some time afterwards he received another five pounds; that last five pounds was lent to hint ; Walton lent it him ; eo he cou sidered ; he had not yet paid it back ; when he had mid that he only received the five pounds, he did not think he had been asked about the five pounds that was lent. By Mr. 11. GRANT—At the time this sum of five pounds was lent, Walton told witness that it was a loan. Mr. IL GORDON commented upon the gross contra. dictions in this witness's evidence, and then moved espe cially with reference to the last part of his testimony, that Walton should be called again to the bar to confirm or contradict it ; and that Heppe] should remain while Wal ton was questioned about the matter. Mr. HUME also wished that Walton should be calls d back. Walton was then called back to the bar; and in answer to questions from Mr. Gordon, said, that he had before stated that he had received 20/. He received it to hold his tongue about what had passed—in fact, as hush money. Witness gave 101. of that money to Ileppel, the waiter. He gave money to Heppel on the 10th of October last, and not before that time. When he gave Heppel the 101., he told Heppel that it was half the money he had received from Lady Ellenborough to hold his tongue. He did not give it to Heppel as a loan. He never expected Heppel to repay him that money, or any part of it. He neither lent money to Heppel then, nor since that period. He had not given Heppel any money since then ; he had paid the expenses of the witnesses within these two days ; he paid these ten pounds in two sums of five pounds at a time; be paid them within a short time of each other; the first was about the 10th of October—not before that time. Cross-examined by Mr. WARBURTON—He had never told Heppel that he expected to be repaid the 101., or any portion of the sum. By Mr. IL GRANT—Heppel Lever told witness that he would repay the money, or any part of it. By Mr. R. GORDON—He did not give Heppel the Si. before the 10th of October. nor while Lady Ellenbo rough war in the house; he never told Heppel that her Ladyship sent him that money for his attendance; witness was now doing nothing ; since he left his brother's he had resided in lodgings; he maintained himself upon money he bad previously saved. By Sir H. HARDINGE—He did not give Heppel the whole 10/. at once, as he was short of money at the time. Mr. HUME asked Heppel how he could reconcile his two statements—first, that he had only received Si., and then that he had received Si. afterwards ? Heppel answered, that he always conceived the second 51. was a loan; he never thought that he received wore than 51.—the first 51. on account of keeping secret what he knew about Lady Ellenborough. The that Si. was given witness within a few days after Lady Ellenhorough left the house, and that was for the purpose of keeping him quiet about what he knew. Mr. R. GORDON—What ! was that told you at the time? Heppel answered in the negative. When he said what that money was given for, he did not mean that it was explained to him at the time, but it was explained to him some time afterwards, and now he knew what it was given for. [This testimony appeared to excite a strong sensation among the Members. JI Heppel continued—The cause of this money being given to him was explained to him not long ago ; perhaps about three weeks ago. By Mr. R. GRANT—That was after you received the second 51. ? Heppel answered in the affirmative. Mr. It: GRANT—Then how could you say that you considered it as a loan, and that you thought you were to repay it? Hrppel said, he still considered it as a loan. Some Mnataans said, the witnesses might go back to Brighton, for what they were good for.—(Cries of order.) The witnesses were ordered to withdraw. _ Mr. HUME rose to move the adjournment of this ex amination. The Chairman ought now to report progress, and ask leave to sit another day. He did not think any advantage would arise from continuing the examination at that hour. Sir H. HARDINGE objected to that course. Mr. R. GORDON supported Mr. Hunie's motion for an adjournment. The House really was tco thin to pro ceed with the examinations at present. Sir H. HARDINGE proposed that Miss Steele's ex amination should be taken. That lady was a witness of undoubted respectability, and he should wish her evi dence to be taken now. He had every desire that the case should be gene into most fully; for the more it was examined, the more, he was convinced, it would appear that Lord Ellenborough was entitled to the relief he now prayed at the bands of the House. If Miss Steele's exa mination was taken now, he believed it would close the case for the Bill ; and he thought it ought to be taken, not only for that reason, but because that lady had been in attendance some time, and if examined now, need not be put to further inconvenience. Mr. HUME opposed proceeding- any further at present. He could assure the House, that when he first came there it was not his intention to ask a single question, nor had he done so until the apparent, the evident con tradictions in the testimony of the witnesses were so great as to induce in his mind a suspicion of connivance. He really had never read the evidence that had before been given, and he should not have interfered at all but for the cause he bad stated. He wanted to know what evidence had been given, for he really had not as yet read anything of it? It seemed from what he hai heard to-night that all the servants knew of these occurrences for some months ; in fact, that they had been the topic■ of com mon conversation in the family. Now he wanted to know what the servants that had been examined had said, and whether more servants would not be called to explain all they knew about the matter? He had hoped to-day to have been home by five o'clock, but he had been kept here about this business until that hour ; and now he was obliged to go away, for lie had a very pressing en gagement. Sir H. HARDINGE pressed the Hon. Members to go through the examination of Miss Steele. Mr. HUME said, there were not forty Members in the House, and he did not think with such a thin attendance they ought to go into the examination of witnesses, some of whom, it was evident, had received bribes, and their testimony was therefore suspicious. Sir H. HARDINGE said, that the fact that a witness had received bribes did not of itself vitiate his evidence. Mr. Alderman WOOD observed, that surely the Gal. lant Officer did not mean to say that the evidence of such persons was worthy of belief. Mr. GORDON again observed on the very thin attend ance of Members, and said that Wednesday was rather an awkward day to fix for such an examination. Mr. HUME and Sir C. WETHERELL left the House. Sir H. HARDINGE then observed, that if Members who had taken an active part in the examination absented themselves, it was impossible to go on. He repeated that he wished the case to be most fully investigated, satisfied as he was that the rent% would be favourable to the Bill; but after the Hon. Member for Montrose and the Hon. and Learned Member had withdrawn, he felt he could not conveniently press the examination further to-night. The further hearing of the case was then postponed to to-morrow (this day). The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to Nine o'clock. THE WEST INDIES.--Perhaps there is no part of the globe so little treated of by modern travellers as the West Indies, though there are tcw portions which from their situation offer so many advantages in a commer cial point of view. Under the title of " Notes on Haiti," a work is announced for immediatediate publi cat i on w hi c h, it i is said, will elucidate n a striking manner the actual con dition of this Island re no w n e d b yits insurrections and the many vicissitudes it has undergone. The fate of the negro chief, TOUSSAINT VOUVEKTURE, who here opposed such formidable resistance to the power of NAPOLEON, will be in the recollection of many of our readers. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The subject of Crown property, itt extent and management, and the necessity of inquiring intc both, was brought before the House of Commons or Tuesday last, in a speech of various and curious learning, by Mr. D. W. Harvey—a Member who though apparently unpopular and slightly supported, yet fixes the attention, if he cannot gain the suffrages, of the House of Commons. It is impos sible, with the least appearance of gravity, or witl, my respect for truth, to deny that the whole modem history of Woods and Forests, and Crown Lands, in this country, is that of a system of individual job. Bing—of barefaced fraud upon the King and peoplt , the most foul, rapacious, and ,iniquitous, of which are have ever heard or read. We do not say much about those times when there was no law to con tr Irene the Sovereign's pleasure,or the sordid schemes of his Ministers, but it really does appear quite mon strous that, after successive Acts of Parliament had passed prescribing the minimum of rent (relatively to the full value) at which Crown farms should be let, on terminable leases—viz., one-third before the reign of George 111., and one-eighth at the accession of his said Majesty, stating also that under the forme' regulation two-thirds of the valued rack rent, and under the latter seven-eighths, should be paid over in the shape of tine by the tenant—it does seem a matter of even perplexing enormity, that in most cases the rents reserved, and the fines exacted, were nearly nominal, in comparison with the value of the property, and that the cost of keeping and attending to the lands of the Crown bore a proportion quite ridiculous for its magnitude to their alleged produce; Sherwood Forest, for example, a sheet of land com prising upwards of 90,000 acres, not paying the ex p nses of its management ! We do not mean to follow the extraordinary details of Mr. D. W. Har vey's speech, many of which reflected little honour upon the by-gone administration of the Woods and Forests ; but we must say, in answer to some gentlemen who talk about the impossibility of inter fering with the possessions of the Crown, that there is no part of our national policy more clear and un questionable, than that which enjoins the people cf a free country to leave no power in the hands of the Crown exempt from the inquiry, if not the superin tendence, of Parliament, much less a pecuniary fund to the amount of several hundred thousand pounds a year, which is of all powers the most effectual and formidable that can be wielded by a King or his ad visers. We may and do confide in the constitutional in tegrity of the present Sovereign and his Government; but the question is not individual or temporary,—it is national and permanent. We long ago recom mended the expedient of a report every year on the subject of the woods and forests, and of the expense occasioned by them to the people, or the benefits of which they fail, through wasteful practices, to be productive. Sure we are that annual reports, com bined with annual estimates of every penny required or proposed for outlay within the ensuing year, would long ago have checked that course of mingled barbarism and prodigality which has cost the nation so many hundreds of thousand pounds beyond the original announcements to the public, in the article of Palaces alone. We are pleased to find that Lord Lowther is a friend to this proposal of frequent inquiring and reporting ; and though aware of some things which might have been executed by his Lordship with more graciousness to the community and at a less sacrifice of the public money, we con fess that, as regards his connexion with the Board of Woods and Forests, lie appears to be, upon the whole, a most diligent, exact, and active man of business.— Times. Lord Lowther was right in throwing overboard all the Peers and Commoners of the days preceed ing our own, when defending the management of the Crown Lands. In England we have always the best of Kings and the purest of Parliaments while the Kings are alive and the Parliaments are in existence ; but as we need only to confine our eulogies to living Kings and existing Parliaments, we may venture to take a little fredom with the characters of the others. Lord Lowther admitted that " it was impossible for them now to remedy the prodigality of Charles 11., or that of William 111., who was profuse in rewarding his officers who had assisted him in ascending the Throne. Neither could he attempt to justify the conduct of Pulteney, or others of his day. They were guilty of gross jobs which would not now be admitted." Mr. I Whittle Harvey had stated, " that it was in the power of the Ministers of the Crown, in managiag Crown Revenues, to bring round them half the Members of this House, and a very considerable portion of the other. Noblemen and Members of Parliament did not like to stand in the relation of middlemen. They moved upon large views, and I aimed at great objects, nor would they stand in an intermediate relation, without some compensation which would assuage the risings of pride. He had a right therefore to infer, from the number of tenants, and from the nature of the tenants of the Crown, that very solid advantages were derived from these transactions. In 1786 he found, out of 408 tenants of the Crown, 200 were titled persons. He saw among them the names of Sir T. Clsrges, the Duke of Sr. Alban's, the Earl Bathurst, Lord Viscount Bacon, the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Litchfield, and Titchfields, Bellevues, Ravens fords, and other noble names, as thick as the Peer-' age could make them." This was in 1784; by which time a great improvement had taken place in the principles of the glorious class, as Sir Francis Burdett terms them ; for they had been content ing themselves for some time with fraudulent ap propriations of the public property of their own country ; whereas, down to the lievolution a t l east , both Whigs and Tories werein the pay o f L ou i s the Fourteenth, and contrived to sell their Parlia mentary interest to the Grand Monarque. Louis, who had seen not a little villainy in the course of his long and eventful life, seems to have been dis posed to award the palm to the English Aristocracy,' for, according to a letter to the Monarch who had abdicated his Throne, in Somers's Tract:, vol. xi., p. 94, when James was communicating to him the hopes with which he was buoyed up, in consequence of the invitations received by him from England, he tells him—" As you have experience to know your subjects, so I know them by their character, and do believe them to be a people of no faith, no honour, and no honesty, whom no promise can oblige, nor oath can bind. And, as for their Clergy, I look upon them as much worse than the com monalty, having not only by teaching and preaching taught the people to forswear themselves, but shown ill examples in themselves by doing the same, &c." But this character applies only to the Aristocracy of former days. Yet why should Members of Perlis merit in the present day, who are so pure compared with their predecessors, be so reluctant to rake their a ppearance - in a debate which could not possibly touch them ? Their fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers had all the disgrace of earning by Crooked ways the property which enables them to exist in honourable independence. Their withers are unwrung. We consider a debate of the nature of that of Tuesday night as beyond measure edifying. It shows how much the best of men are improved by being well watched. It is, for instance, agreed on all hands, that a Minister does not now, as in the time of our Great Deliverer of Immortal Memory, and down to a late period was done, give for a vote in Parliament a quid pro quo. " The Act of 1794," says M r. H us ki sson, "deprived the Crown of the great patronage and in fluence it possessed, by having the power to grant leases to the amount of 400,000/. The Crown gave up this power, and that measure, more than any other which had been passed since the accession' of the House of Brunswick, had diminished the in fluence of the Crown." No, the virtue of our times would be quite shocked at the gross bribery practised by Sir Robert Walpole. But does vice lose half its evil by losing all it grossness ? The great men of that day were like people at an ill supplied public dinner; they grasped with avidity, and without decorum, at what was within their reach, because there was comparatively little to livide among them, The Crown Land were then one of the principal streams of corruption. The re venue raised from the people was a mere trifle. Even in the period of war, in King William's time, 'he whole expenditure of the country, at home and 'broad, did not exceed the per eentage on the col- I !ction of the present public revenue—and did not, According to Gregory King, amount to one-third part of the rent of land of England. England, at the time of the Revolution, was comparatively the lowest taxed of the great countries of Eurcpe. But !t is not necessary now for Mr. Peel, like Sir Ro bert Walpole, to put a majority of placemen in the House of Commons. The enormous expenditure of this country, partly appearing in the public ac counts, partly appearing in the accounts of the dif ferent assemblies of the Colonies, with the in creased value of a number of employments paid by fees, and, in reality, sinecures, enable a Minister to go to work with more de corum now. Sons, brothers, cousins, natural chil ;leen, are all provided fur in a handsome way, so that the indecent spectacle of Noblemen and Gentlemen of high name fastening like so many vul tures on the Crown Lands, can be spared. It is Admitted on all hands that the management of Lord Lowther Las been meritorious, so that he can have no motive for wishing to prevent the most ample inquiry. We protest against the doctrine laid down by Mr. Huskisson—" That the Hon. Members who had spoken on the other side seemed to regard this property as quite at their disposal; but that was not the case. By the Act of the year 1786, the manner in which the Crown Lands could be dis p)sed of was regulated, and when they were sold, the proceeds were ordered to be invested in a par ticular manner. The Parliament had no right to dispose of the hereditary revenues of the . Crown, without its consent; and the Parliament and the Crown were not at liberty to dispose of it beyoiid the life of his present Majesty." Put when it is wished to do a base and corrupt thing, is not an Act of Parliament always obtained with ease ? And why are we to presume that an Act of Parliament cannot be obtained for settling the Land Revenues in a manner the most advantageous for the nation ? The Monarch is for the nation, and not the nation for the Monarch. It is libelling the King to sup pose that he would not consent to any arrangement which should have for object the good of the nation. Surely, if Parliament can cashier a King and change a Dynasty, it can settle anew the Lan(' Revenue of the Crown or the public. Besides, if the King should stand upon his rights, the Civil List affords a lever to the Parliament.—Morn. Chronicle. The industry and research which the elabor a te and intelligent statements of Mr. D. W. Harvey, relative to the Crown Lands, evinced, although un availing as to any practical purpose in the House of Commons, will not be thrown away as far as public opinion is concerned. On the public mind he may feel assured such a statement will make a deep and permanent impression—an impression that will one day, perhaps, have its influence in rectifying abuses that appear at present to be too strong for the suc cessful application of a constitutional remedy. If he did not make out a case—an urgent—an impera tive case for inquiry, we know not what collection of facts, or what force of evidence, would be con sidered sufficient for that purpose. It is true Lord Lowther found only a subject for a sneer in the re mote period of time at which the Hon. Member commenced his narrative of the mismanagement and profligate devastation of the landed estates of the Crown. Lord Lowther does not travel into the Saxon Heptarchy, either to mend roads or to ascer tain the state of jobbing at that time—sufficient for all his purposes are the concerns of the present day ; but nevertheless it was quite right that Mr. Harvey should give the House an account of the original state of the demesne lands of the Crown, and trace historically their different values under different reigns, that the public might see what had been gained or lost to the nation by the sort of control to which they had been subjected. Was it of no use, also, to show that those lands which were, in the beginning, settled on the Crown for support and maintenance of the regal splendour and dignity, bad, by a sort of established teetge, been plundered for a series of ages by Court minions, and jobbed and made away by corrupt Mi nisters to their political tools and creatures by the most shameful sort of traffic by which the Crown and people were ever impoverished and betrayed. Of course the pure eyes of Lord Lowther could not bear to glance over such scenes of sordid iniquity— he could not bear to look back to times when Peers and distinguished Commoners laid hands upon the Crown property, and parcelled it out among them selves much upon the plan of Rob Roy's code of morality, the only difference being that they pre ferred sly fraud to open force. His Lordship can only look at modern times, when the discerning judgment and immaculate integrity which preside over this great trust makes it gratifying and delect able to a patriotic and loyal mind to look into the accounts of the stewardship. It having, however, been proved, from indisputable records, that the most gross and flagrant abuses with respect to Crown property had taken place in former days, and acts of mismanagement, either betraying great want of principle, or great incapacity, having been shown to exist at a period not far distant, surely all this was sufficient to make unprejudiced people suspect that what occurred before might happen again at some future time, unless such a reformation was made in the system by which this sort of property was managed, as would protect it, either against the dishonesty or incapacity of those who might here after be appointed to the office which the present Commissioners discharge. However unsullied may be the integrity of the present Commissioners of that part of the property which is called the woods and forests, they have not escaped the charge of gross improvidence in many instances. It is only necessary, indeed, to look at the annual receipts, and the costs of collection, with the extravagant expen diture under its several heads, to be satisfied that ' there is great mismanagement somewhere. Mr. Harvey having stated his case—replete as it was with facts which proved that the Crown lands that ought to relieve the people from the burden of the Civil List, if rightly administered, were by some fatality, prevented, and likely to be long prevented, from being available to that purpose, only asked the House to inquire into the matter—but in van. lie moved that a Select Committee he appointed to take into consideration the present state and ma nagement of the land revenue of the Crown and to report upon the most efficient means of rendering it available to the exigencies of the country. When the Civil List was first settled upon Queen Anne — being then 700,0001. a year, in lieu of land i evenue of the Crown, the preamble of the Statute, as quoted by Mr. Harvey, set forth that its object was " to defray part of the expenses of Government, and lessen the burdens on the subject, by means of the preservation and improvement of the Crown lands." The object of Mr. Harvey's motion was the preservation and improvement of those very Crown lands; and it was calculated to lessen the burdens of the people, without stripping either Church or State of their property, but this motion the representatives of the people refused!—Morrz lag Herald. We have not hitherto invited any particular at tention to the extraoruinary Bill already passed the Lords, and now riding; quarantine in the Lower House of Parliament. We allude to a Bill the pro fessed object of which is to annul the marriage of Lord and Lady Ellenborough—enable his Lordship to degrade his present beautiful wife—to cast her upon the world dishonoured and unprotected—and likewise enable him to take another to his arms, in place of her whose only fault as concerns him ap pears to have been—her " not loving wisely, but too well." This is a painful as well as a delicate subject, but we owe it in duty to the sacred bond of marriage, the laws of the land, and the equal administration of these laws, to say, that the mode in which this Divorce Bill has been conducted is far from being creditable to the senators of the sta. tion. The ground of divorce is an allegation of adultery—by whom ?—by the husband, in the ab sence of his wire, who is either a collusive party to the suit, or she is an oppressed and deeply injured woman. In either of these cases this is not a Bill to receive the sanction of Parliament. Before a husband can demand or should obtain a divorce from his wife it ought to be clearly established, not merely the criminality of the latter, but the entire innocence of all previous cognoscence of or participation in this criminality on the part of the hrmer. The plaintiff in this case, above all others, should come into court with clean hands. He should be called on to show that he had faithfully executed his part of the conditions of the conjugal bond—that he had loved, and cherished, and pro tected his wife according to his vow—that he had yielded to her his best affections, treated her with tender care, and neither left her to brood ever the sarrows of neglect, nor drove her to the desperate alternative of love—the vengeance of infidelity and the horrors of seduction. Lord Ellenborough, be fore he can call upon the Parliament of England for a release from his engagements, and a license to woo, and wed, and sacrifice another victim, must purge himself of every impure motive, and all charges if concurrent guilt. But has he done this ? In no part of the evidence does it appear that Lord Ellen borough ever sought either the company or the affections of his wife. It does not appear that he was entirely innocent of those guilty professions of affection for her which led to her alienation and ruin. For nearly a whole year was this neglected and defenceless woman in the practice of visiting the deputy of her wedded lord, a young unmar ried man, at his own private or rather publics lo lgings; and these visits were performed in open day, were notorious to the neighbourhood, the ihject of constant remark, under circumstances too plain to be misunderstood. And, yet, during the whole course of this passion and these guilty in dulgences, Lord Ellenborough is never once seen in the company of his wife—is a perfect stranger to the facts—is happy in his ignorance, or more happy in the society of those whose meretricious charms were deemed more captivating. Good God! is it for such a man that the band of marriage is required to be cancelled —the law suspended—and privileges unknown to the laws of England conferred, and this upon ex-parle evidence—in the absence of the de fendant, and without it being deemed requisite to - cross-examine the witnesses for the interested party I' We trust the Commons of Great Britain—those of them at least who have wives and daughters, and who deem the marriage contract entitled to observe ante on both sides—we trust these honourable law givers will pause before they thus rashly become iaw•breakers. They are bound, in the first place, to inquire into the conduct of the petitioning party, in order to ascertain not only the purity of that conduct, but also whether this alleged adultery be not collusive, be not merely the' result of a reciprocal arrangement to separate and change partners. In the second place, they are bound to inquire whether the accused lady has made proper and legal appearance in the suit. In the third place, they are bound to inquire, by the most diligent and searching examination of the witnesses, whether the imputed criminality be proved. Now, what has been proved ? One man swears that he saw Prince Swarizenburgh lacing the lady's stays. No attend ant on the parties, though each we have no doubt had as many eyes as Argus—eyes that could pierce. a double-panelled door—has proved more than or even so much as this. The evidence of the waiter at Brighton goes for nothing. His midnight scene is curious, but that is all, for he could net prove the identity of Lady Ellenborough. The whole case rests on the evidence of the governess, and this, .to say the least of it, is extraordinary, and even suspi cious. This antiquated virgin, long estranged front the family, whose bread even in the lifetime of his Lordship's first wife she had eaten, and as gratefully perhaps as most female antiques do, is suddenly called from some lone village in the country, and de To puted to this person, we and ,tyhethe the accused ac unhappy mmed divulged all her hidden and secret sins. She disclosed to this she lather confessor her whole course of life, and,. among other things, she admitted that the infant of which she was then enciente was,defitclo, though not de jure (mind that, my Lord !) the child of Prince Swartzenourgh ! Can this be true? Is it likely ? Is it within the range of probability that a highly. accomplished lady, of great judgment, and sen sitive feelings, would make such a confession to such a virago—to one sent to watch her, and whose every word she would, as a matter of course, con vey to her employer ? We say it is improbable in the extreme. Clad she asserted that it was the Prince's child from the neglect of her husband— or her husband's child in spite of his neglect and ill treatment—this might have been said in spleen, and in order to annoy the prying creature whom she despised. But the whole story is improbable, and we commend it to the strict scrutiny of the Com mons. But, admitting, merely for the sake of the proposition, that Lady Ellenborough did make this confession, would such a fact not prove to demon stration that she did so collusively in order to facili tate the divorce ? Take it which ever way we please there is difficulty in coming to any sound conclusion without better and more direct evidence. But the truth of this alleged pregnancy might easily be obtained. Her Ladyship is approachable, and the fact might be confirmed. Why, then, is this not attempted ? It is within our own knowledge that a short time ago a paragraph appear e d i n a ll t h e papers stating that her Ladyship, since her retirement to the Continent, had given birth to a child—the infant alluded to by the governess. But this report was contradicted on the authority of the family of Lord Ellenborough, if not by his own directions I All this is curious, and, we say again, demands rigid investigation.—Morning Journal. BIRTHS. O❑ the Slet tilt. in Upper Grosvenor-street, the lady ef Sir J. Gerard, Bart., of a daughter, Eill-born. On the 30th ult. Mn.s E. Caudell, of Bow-lane, Cheap side, of a eon. MARRIED. On the 30th ult. at Bath, Lieut.-Col. Bellingham' J. Smith, eldest son of the late Major-General J. Smith, to Priscilla Elizabeth Newport, widow of the late Lieut.- Col. G. S. Newport, and sister to Sir B. Graham, Bart., of Norton Conyers, Yorkshire. ON the 31st ult. at St. Martin Vintry, College-hill, Mr. G. F. Aston, of Tolse-bill, Surrey, to Maria, youngest daughter of Thomas Gansdell, Esq., of Joiners'-hall, Thames-street. On the 31st ult. at St. Pancras, Wrn. R. Ilbert, Esq., of Iforswell-house, Devon, to Augusta Jane, the second (laughter of Jaints Somerville Fownes, Esq., of Mack lenburgh-square. On the 30th ult. at St. Georges, Hanover-square, Mr. J. Hunter, of Guildford, to Mary, only daughter of the late Mr. W. 13radnock, of Greenwich. DIED. On the t7th ult. at the house of her father, J. Orme, Esq. of Sutton Bouningtoa, Penelope, the wife of C. N. Lewe, Esq., of Derby. On the 26th ult. S. Jenkins, Esq., of Caine College, Cambridge, at the house of his brother-in-law, C. S. Stokes, Esq., Streatham. On the 30th ult. Jane, the wife of J. Sylvester, Esq•s of Great Russell-street, Bloombsury-square, in the 30th year of her age. On the 25th ult. in Lewes, in the 93d year of his ages Mr. Thomas Lloyd, formerly a gun-smith in Southower. The deceased was well known among the sportsmen of the old school, and, until th e last few years, was himself a most excellent shot, and to V,e last delighted in recount ing his shooting exploits. Not many years since he killed, from his owu gun, 130 wild-fowl in the space of one week, in the neighbourhood of this town. lie was a most inveterate smoker of tobacco for the long period of 7tl years ; and it is calculated that he consumed, during h . * lire-time, nearly a quarter of a ton of his favourite weei. Ile bad been bed-ridden for nearly two years, owing to an a ccidental fail, but he still enjoyed the luxury of his pipe, which he smoked with great zest the day preceding his dissolution. He was a very inoffensive man, an excellent mechanic, and was greatly respected. PRINTED ♦ND PUBLISHED By MURDO YOUNG, ♦l 7U SUN Orrica, Sr's Aim, Lem*F. < _./, a -- I