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

HOUSE OF COMMONS---(LAST NIGHT).

LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL.
Sir GEORGE CLERK—Sir, I rise to more the Order
of the Day for the third reading of Lord Ellenborough's
Divorce Bill.
Tke Order was accordingly read, and the SPEAKER.
then put the question that this Bill be now read a third
time.

Mr. HUME—Sir, I will state to the Ifouso what ap-
pears to me to be wanting in the case before us. In the
first place it appears to me that not only has the preamble
of the Bill not been proved, but it has been disproved by
the evidence ; so clearly so, indeed, that it appears to rue
quite impossible we can piss this Bill while such glaring
inconsistencies exist upon the face of its averments. The
preamble state, that the parties tip te the time when these
discoveries were rnado, were cohabiting together in a state
of connubial happiness. Now, we have it from Miss
Steele, in a part of her evidence, that this was not the
case ; for that Lord and Lady Ellenborough had not co•
habited together for months before the time alluded to.
They slept in separate beds ; and if the evidence of Miss
Steele is to go for any thing, Lord Ellenborough did not
cohabit with his Indy, as the preamble sets forth. Ano-
ther parr of the preamble states, that by the adultery of
the said Janet Elisabeth, Edward Baron Ellenborough had
been deprived of the comforts of matrimony. Have we
not evidence in the very teeth of this averment, that he
lied previously, of his own accord, deprived himself of the
weinforte of matrimony ? They had separated themselves
from each other's intercourse apparently by mutual con-
sent, and it was evident that for many months before May,
1829, Lord Ellenborough had of his own accord, I say,
withdrawn frem the enjoyment of these domestic comforts.
These two matters, then, require, as I thick, that we
should adjourn the third reading of this Bill, to let in, if
possible, further explanatory evidence. I do not knew
whether I have made myself sufficiently understood.—
(A laugh.)—lf I have, what I wish to ask is, whether
either of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite think it necessary
to ask further time to adduce explanatory evidence to sup-
port the two main allegations, which appear to me not
only unsupported, but entirely contradicted by the evi-
elenea as it now stands.
Sir G. CLERK—I have no hesitation to inform the
Hon, Member for Montrose, that we hare no intention to
produce further evidence in support of the preamble of
this Bill.
Mr. HUME said that as they were, it appeared, to have
no further evidence, and as the Hon. Gentleman saw no
ieconeisterwy in the discrepancies which he had stated to
him, it only remained for him (Mr. Hume) to proceed
in his statement of the reasons why he thought they ought
not to pass this Bill, and why Lord Ellenborough was not
in a situation to be entitled to the redress which it went
to confer. He had already shown that the preamble was
notoriously contradicted by the facts stated in evidence
The proof was clear that he and Lady Ellenborough, in-
stead of living together as man and wife, had been for
several months occupying distinct site:4.6ons: The
preamble avers, that Lord Ellenborough has, by his wife's
act, lost the comforts of matrimony, and therefore he
hopes Parliament will grant him the relief of this Bill. It
is proved most decidedly that he had not been maintaining
tire comforts of which lie spoke, and that tcould be shown
by the evidence of the letter marked " Saturkiay night,"
without date or post-mark, but which must be supi;oaecl
to have been written about the time of the separation, and
in that there was nothing to show his wife's affections
to have been estranged from him, but the contrary.
It seemed, then, that it was in May Lord gßenberough
had separated from his lady, for their mutual ,aarafermila-
lion. He acquiesced in, if be did not dictate that sepai.a-
tion, according to that letter a Saturday night, in which
her ladyship says, that in the acts was innocent, and
adds these words, "Those feelings of lioneur which I still
retail towards you, make me still acquiesce ie your de-
cision." This showed that the separation was imposed
upon her by Lord Ellenborough, and if so, what right
had he to say that Ire had been wrongfully deprived
of his domestic comforts Further on in the letter, it is
quite manifest that she by no means desires this separa-
tion ; for, she adds, " ought trot time, solitude, aed
change of *retie, to be tried by me, to conquer or oblite-
rate sentiments so inimical to our mutual peace?" What
did any man gather from these words? They were living
as man and wife under the same roof at least ; he dictated
her separation,—be made no allegation against her : how
then, could he say he was deprived of the comforts of
matrimony? He could not be said to have last that which
he had himself previously Abandoned. He believed that
the Consistory Court was obliged to grant a separation on
the proof of adultery ; but when an individual went be-
fore a Jury in a Court of law, he is booed to show how
far he deserves the redress he seeks, and in seeell a Court
the truth could be sifted by the rules of evidence, awl the
proper means used of extracting the facts, of which they I
were in that House deprived. In looking at questions of
this nature, he was stare he only echoed the voice of the
public when he laid down, that marriage involved duties
on the part of the husband ss well as of the wife. 's 11n-
cirtunately," continued Mr. Hums, 0 it is the custom here
14 men to be allowed a latitude, which I think they
ought not. I do not now stop to sty how fee this is just
et- right; but so it is, that while from females 6fter mar-
siage the utmost decorum is exacted, the man is left lcaere,
—he can go upon all occasions and mix in the indul-
gencies and pleasures of fashionable society, This, I say,
is not equality, and the obligations of the marriage state
ought to be equal ;—no, it 'is great injustice to the lettings
and interests of women generaby. What is the case el
alie Bill, as it is before us? At the age of 40 or 42,
Local Ellenborough marries a young and innocent girl el
17 years of age, who had never been before marriage be-
yond her father's door. What was to be expected from
the husband of such a lady, and partietilarlyfrom one who
iaad had for some time the experience of u previous
marriage? Wus he net. hound to assist her in the way
of avoiding these evils which elmoq necessarily arose upon
the path of a young and inno...2.nt person possessed of
great attractions, and for the first time entering the circle
of gay and fashionable society? He had reettieed her pure
and unblemished from her family, and he was hoeeal to
superintend the society into which he introduced her.
What evidence is there of their domestic intercourse after
marriage, which will show that he took the proper care
of such a charge? There is the evidence of Mr. Law,
but he had no opportunity of judging in the two most cri-
stical years, :fee- be had left England in March, 1827, and
lead not returned till March, 1829. This gentleman,
tberefere, could say only, that from his occasional obser-
- nation, he saw .'them living together as man end wife.
And yet at this very time, when they appeared to live so
eyeise.tion a toly together in the eyes of Mr, Law, the par-

ties were occupying separate bed., according to the evi-
dence which we have before us, and had so lived for many
months before. I know it is not to be expected that an
official personage could be always in attendance upon his
wife, but where and when is Lord Elleuborough proved
to be accompanying her ? She visits Brighton, unac-
companied by him, and upon these points, when we exa-
mine Miss Steele, who lived most with her Ladyship, we
find that she recollects some things, and does not remem-
ber others. She says that it was by Lady Ellenburough's
desire the parties dwelt apart; but on this point, I say

. .
it behoves the Noble Lord to show that there was nothing
done en his part to occasion that distrust or displeasure
which must have induced her tohave withdrawn from him."
Then, as to the society of Lady Ellenborough, to which
Miss Steele objected, she was asked, " Were the associates
gentlemen or ladies ? Both." " Are the Committee to
understand, that the persons objected to were associates of
Lord Ellenborough or Lady Ellenborough ?—They were
latterly of hers." " Can you state that those individuals,
to whom you objected as improper, were the associates in
the house on the invitation of Lord Ellenborough or Lady
Ellenborough ?—That I do not know; they were of course
introduced by Lord Ellenborough, because they were not
her associates when she was Miss Digby." " Were those
associates who visited at Lord Ellenborough's persons of
rank in English society ?—They were." " They were
usually accepted in society at other very respectable houses ?
—At houses called respectable, certainly." " You con-
sidered, viewing this with the best intentions, that it was
better she should avoid the society of those persons rather
than that you had any positive grounds for knowing they
were bad associates? I did think them bad associates fur any
one, but for Lady Ellenborough singularly so." "But they
were persons universally accepted in the best society in
London ?—ln fashionable society certainly." " Now,
Sir," proceeded Mr. Hume, " what would any prudent
loan have done under these circumstances ? A husband
was certainly bound to protect the members of his family
from association which was deemed bad and dangerous.
Such was its character, indeed, that a lady who bad been
governess to his wife could take the liberty of remonstrating
on the danger of it. Would, I say, a prudent husband
il.sregard advice so given ? No, he would receive it with
thankfulness ; instead of which, however, what does
Lord Ellenborough ? He laughed ! lie considered the
admonition not a subject worthy his serious attention.
As to the question of adultery, I am not prepared to say
that we have proof of it in this case.—(A murmur.)-1
know that circumstances have been detailed to us, which
would generally warrant such a conclusion, but lam not
altogether satisfied of the identity of the individuals, judg-
ing from the evidence before us. The evidence, the Hon.
Member went on to repeat, was most disjointed and con-
tradictory. He ridiculed the criminal inference which was
drawn from Lady Ellenborough accompanying Prince
Scliwartzenberg in a carriage to dinner at Wimbledon.—
He did not believe a word of the stories told of the visits
to Highgate and Richmond ; if such things had passed as
were inferred on these occasions, then there would have
been ample evidence to have made the matter clearer than
it was at present. Such was his impression of this case,
that he was satisfied, if tile lady haul appeared to contest
the proceedings, the parties would have been placed in a
critical dilemma. Indeed, Mr. Freshfield admitted that
in his evidence, for he was afield of recrimination ; and
when asked, " Did you advise Lord Ellenborough to pro-
ceed in the first instance or not ? I advised him not even
to institute an inquiry ; I thought it must be unsuccess-
ful, from the very few fads he haul ; that he was not in
possession of sufficient facts, and that he might be placed
in a situation of great difficulty, if the Digby family knew
1:e haul instituted an inquiry involving the character of
Lady Ellenhorough ; they might institute a proceeding to
compel a restitution of conjugal rights, and he was not in
possession of evidence to rebut that." Such was the opinion
given by Mr. Freslifield.—(A cry of "Read on farther.")
Much stress had been laid on that passage in Miss Steele's
evidence, in which she said that Lady Ellenborough had
withdrawn het self from her Lord's bed ; why, perhaps, if she
were here, and asked her reason for doing so, she might re-
ply, " because he had somebody else in it."—(Muruturs.)
" I ask," said Mr. Hume, "would any lady in England quit
her husband's bed without any cause or provocation ? Is it
consistent with whit we all know of females generallyl?
(Roars of laughter.) It is a libel on the ladies to make
such an assertion; no lady would quit her husband in that
manner.—(Renewed laughter.) Perhaps the gentlemen
who make light of these matters see a different class of
society from that to which lam accustomed. I take it
for granted that must be the case, and that they confine
themselves to what they see in fashionable life, where, it
would seem, matters of this kind are lightly noticed."
The Hon. Member then proceeded to say, that having dis-
posed of the visits to Wimbledon, Highgate, and Rich-
mond, he thought he could equally get rid of the alleged
visits to Prince Schwartzenberg, which were not, be
thought, sufficiently identified ; in proof of which he re-
ferred to the contradictory evidence of the servants. With
respect to the affair said to have taken place at Wimbledon,
he did not think that such evidence had been adduced as
the House ought to receive. Then, with regard to the
transaction at Brighton, he must say that the clumsy con-
trivance of proving Lady Ellenborough's guilt had been
completely thwarted by the witnesses Hepple and Walton.
Could it be supposed that a waiter in an inn would go up
to a lady of the rank of Lady Ellenborough, anl say to
her, " I know what has taken place with you in the night-
time," and that she should have replied, "Pray do not
tell, and I will give you 201. ?" He did not think Wal-
ton's evidence deserving of belief, because, when he was
askud what he did with the money, he said, that " he had
got it as hush-money, and had given 101. of it, on the
10th of October, to Hepple, to hold his tongue." 'When
11epple was called, however, he contradicted the testimony
of Walton, and said that he received Si. the day after
Lady Ellenborough had left the hotel, which he consi-
dered as a remuneration for his attendance as waiter; and
added, "no conversation took place between him :and
Walton about the Si. being hush-money." He therefore
asserted that there had been an entire failure of proof as
to the alleged act of adultery at Brighton. These wit-
nesses being disposed of, the only individual remaining,
whose evidence deserved the smallest attention, was Miss
Steele ; admitting that it was, it was mo,t con-
demnatory of Lord Ellenborough's conduct, and would
alone foam a sufficient gronnd for the rejection of this Bill.
If Lady Ellenborough had been guilty of adultery, such
conduct on the husband's part had led to it. He showed
a wait of that attention which it was his duty to have
paid his Wife under the circumstances in which she was
placed. In what situation was the House placed, arid
what were Hon. Membeis palled upon to do? To do jus-
_ _

. .
tice, not to Lord Ellenborough and Lady Ellenborough
only, but likewise to the public.—(Hear, bear.)—They
ought to look at the present case as one in which the
morals of tyre community were much involved. Would
the House be doing its duty to allow the Bill to pass, when
there was evidence before it showing that the husband had
allowed his wife, placed under his car, at a tender age, to
associate with abandoned and profligate women? The
question was pot merely whether Lord Ellenborough
should or should 11.:t have the relief be prayed for; but
the vote of the House 04%t to teach men this salutary
lesson--that however high their rank or situation in so-
ciety, they were not to expect redress, in cases similar to
the present, unless they came before it with clean hands,
and unless they had performed those obligations, and
atiorded that care and attention, which a wife had a title
to expect from her husband. No man bad a right to ex-
pect redress. 40dess he could show that he had endeavoured
to guard his innocent :nod young wife against the allurements
which unfortunately prevaiie.i so generally in the society
in which Lady Ellenborough had moved. The Hon.
Member eat tJown by declaring his intention
.cf op/ °sing
the third reading.
Lord NUGENT and Sir n. HARDINGE rose together,
IPA the former lowing given way,
Sir jr. HARDINGE proceeded to say that he the
he had nesw, in the course of his life, heard a more
i, clumsy perversion of evidence, or a more exaggerated
mis-statement:of facts, that; had proceeded from the Hon.
' Mcoiber for Aberdeen; and if the Hon. Member pre-
tended to sit in a judicial capacity, he (Sir H. rfardinge)
must be allowed to say, that he seemed the very rewerae
of a Judge; for, while snmming up the evidence, he had
perverted it in a most unfair mantier, and now with re-
spe4 to the evidence, the Hon. Member had stated that,
in his op:..cion, it was disjointed and defective, because
there were prewivications and variations in the testimony
of the witnesses. The ;lon. Member too stated, ithat be
way dissatisfied with the witnsves who had conic from
Brighton, whose prevarication and complete inaccuracy,
he said, showed that they were not to be relied on. But
the Ho.nse well knew, that if a man was so vile as to ex-
tort money from Lady Elle;aborough because he had seen
Mince Schwartzenberg enter her be,,l-room, be would be
as disposed to cheat his partner of his sba,re of the spoil.
Would that circumstance, however, depreciate the esti-
pony of the witnesses as to the main fact of Prince
Schwa.rtienberg's having gone to Lady Ellenborough's
bed-room? Let the House, too consider how that state-
ment was confirmed by Miss Steele. She said that she
went to Roehampton on the vi.tli or 95th of May, and
that 0,.-1 the first or second night after arri.-'47.g there, Lady
Ellenborough .confessed to her her guilt with Pwitice
Scliwartzenberg, and among other facts disclosed ' that
the waiter came to her next morning and told her that
1e liad discovered what had taken place on the preceding
niglit, The C‘unwl for the Bill only tl,tsc• oYeretl this

fart from the waiters in October, and Miss Steele con-
firmed their statement. He agreed with the Hon. Mem-
ber for Aberdeen, that if Lord Ellenborough had been
guilty of any act of negligence and want of proper at-
tention towards his wife, lie would not then be entitled to
relief. But the whole evidence negatived such a suppo-
sition, Every witness had deposed to the affection and
good understanding existing between his Lordship and his
wife. Miss Steele stated that Lord and Lady Ellenbo-
rough lived happily together ; that she was in the habit
of passing some days with them in the course of every
year till I S2B, and observed Lord Ellenborough's manner
towards his wife to be invariably kind. Now that was
the evidence of Miss Steele, a woman of education, of
respectable family, and high character ; and he contended 1
that it was worthy of belief. Hon. Members should also
take this circumstance into consideration, that she came
to the bar of the House from Lady Andover, being a
friend to Lady Ellenborough's family. He then referred
to the letter written by Lady Ellenborough from Brighton
to her husband, the last expression in which was, " Good
night, dearest," as showing that both parties were living
on good terms together up to the time of the separation ;
and if an Hon. Member read the other letter, he must
come to the conclusion that the parties were living in
great harmony together. If it be the pleasure of the
House to call further evidence in proof of the manner ins
which Lord and Lady Ellenborough had lived together'
the promoters of the Bill would be ready to afford it. The
affectionate manner in which they lived together was ad-
mitted by the lady's family. He held in his hand a letter
from Admiral Digby, in answer to one written by Lord
Ellenborough, which he would read, if the House wished
to hear it.—(Cries of " No, no.")—ln that letter Admiral
Digby admitted that his Lordship's conduct had been
most kind and honourable towards his wife.—( Hear.)—
Now, with respect to the criminality of Lord Ellen-
borough, in introducing such bad associates to his wife,
that he was to be considered the cause of his own wrong.
A more unjust accusation, after the evidence which Mies
Steele had given, had never been made in that House.
Being strict in principle, she said that she did not conceive
that Lord Ellenborough took sufficient pains in prevent-
ing the visits of certain fashionable associates of Lads, El-
lenborough. Though he thought Miss Steele's evidence
perfectly worthy of belief, yet the House ought to bear in
mind that she belonged to that class of society, which
though highly respectable, did not make her a proper
judge whether those persons in fashionable society were so
bad as she insinuated. But he would ask the House, did
she caution Lord Ellenborough against these associates of
his wife in the manner which had been stated ; and on
this point the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had perverted
the evidence, and had not done justice either to the Bill
before the house, or to the evidence, which he had
' pretended to sum up.—(Hear, hear.)—He would read
the questions put to_ this lady, and her answers, and then
lie hoped the House would have no more perversion. The
Hon. Member here read the following extract from Miss
Steele's evidence. " You believed that these associates were
profligate, and therefore you cautioned Lord Ellen-
borough against them ? I can hardly say I cautioned him.
I wished to du so.—Did you do that snore than once?
No, I did not.—Can you recollect what Lord Ellenbo-
rough said? He laughed : he thought probably that 1
was too scrupulous." That was Miss Steele's evidence,
and it entirely exculpated Lord Ellenborough from any
bad intention in introducing those persona to his wife.
The next point to which he wished to advert was the no-
tion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, that Lord Ellen-
borough could net be ignorant of what was going on, be-
cause the misconduct of his wife was a matter of such
notoriety. But he (Sir H. Hardinge) was of opinion that
that notoriety was confined to persons moving in that par-
ticular circle in which Lady Ellenborough moved; and he
was borne out in that opinion by the very fact, that at the
very moment of Lady Ellenborough's separation, Miss
Steele, her intimate friend and early guardian, did not
know that she had been on terms of intimacy with Prince
S, hwartzenberg. He could call on several Members of that
House as witnesses of the truth of what he was about to
state, that when Lord and Lady Ellenborough went into
society together where Prince Schwartzenberg was, the
Prince and she seemed not to know each other; but that,
as soon as Lord Ellenborough went away, an improper
familiarity commenced between them. Great pains had
been taken to show that Lord Ellenborough was aware of
his wife's intimacy with Prince Schwartzenberg, but he
referred to the evidence of Thomas Kane, who stated that
the Prince had never been in his Lordship's house.—(The
Gallant Officer again refer red to the evidence of Miss
Steele to prove her ignorance of intimacy existing between
Lady Ellenborough and the Prince previous to her separa-
tion from her husband.)—Here wee a woman, the gallant
Officer continued, of great respectability and virtue, who
had educated Lady Ellenborough, ignorant of her connec-
tion with Prince Schwartzenberg; and, as the husband
was always the last person to hear of his wrongs, was it
not natural to infer that Lord Ellenborough was also un-
acquainted with that guilty intimacy ? The Hon. Mem-
ber for Aberdeen had touched on a point, to which lie con-
fessed he did not attach much importance; but as the Hon.
Member had introduced it, he would only observe, that
the non-cohabitation of Lord Ellenborough with his wife
(if a proof of want of affection between the parties)
only extended, according to the evidence, to a period
of three or four months at the most. The House would
recollect that it was not in the habit of examining into
these points, before passing Bills of the present description.
It would be remembered that Mr. Gzelet applied last
year for a Bill of Divorce. He had been absent in India,
and while he was away, his wife had been guilty of adul-
tery. He did not cohabit with his wife for one year after
his return, she managing to give him excuses which were
so satisfactory as gave no reason to suspect her of guilt;
at length a fema'e friend of the lady expostulated with her
on the impropriety of not cohabiting with her husband,
and the guilty woman, by far the snore decent of the two,
replied, "It is too unnatural ; I cannot do it. lam
guilty. I will not add any thing more to my guilt."
The House passed that Bill of Divorce, and would the
House not pass the present one, because non-cohabitation
had existed for three months? The doctrine was so
monstrous, that it only required the Hon. Member to
broach it, in order to have it scouted out of the House
with all the contempt it deserved. It was plain that Lord
Ellenborough was the dupe of the art of a guilty woman ;
yet he was disposed to speak of the lady with all possible
respect consistently with his duty to Lord Ellenborough.
He must explain why he stood forward as the vindicator
of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, who had been so
unjustly and unfairly attacked. The reason of his doing
so was, because lie was connected with Lord Ellenborough
by a former marriage. He had known that Noble Lord
, fur fifteen years, and on every occasion he bad found him
to be a man of honour, integrity, and possessed of a kind
heart. If it had been thought necessary to make any os-
tentatious display of his Lordship's merit, he (Sir Henry
Hardinge) should have insisted on being examined at the
Bar of that House on oath, if the forms of Parliament
would have allowed it, as to Lord Ellenborough's con;
duct to his former wife. That conduct had been such
as to secure the esteem of Lord Londonderry's family;
and he could say, from his own knowledge, having lived
two or three months with Lord Ellenborough, that a more
exemplary, kind, and indulgent husband never breathed.
He could state another fact (though he was almost
ashamed to occupy the time of the House upon the sub-
ject) to vindicate his Lordship from such false imputations
as had been cast against him. Up to the time of his
Lordship's marriage with Miss Digby, he continued to be
respected and esteemed by the whole of Lord London-
derry's family ; and the Dowager Marchioness of London.
derry wrote a letter to Admiral Digby, congratulating bins
on the marriage his daughter was about to enter into, be-
cause Lord Ellenborough had been for five years a most
exemplary and excellent husband to a relation of her's.—
(Hear.)—These were facts which ought to neutralize any
of the objections of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, some
of whose morality and decency was so very coarse, that he
wondered where the Hon. Member could have picked it
up. If English women were to be described as never
refusing the attentions of their husbands—attentions such
as decency would not allow him to mention—he never
could allow such a description to be a just one. The Hon.
member for Breconshire, who was also connected with
Lord Ellenhorough, could speak as to the terms of affec-
tion in which his Lordship and his wife lived together.
From 1824 to March, 1829, he was in the habit of
eieitieg Lord Plenborough at Roehampton, mad he could
only repeat that his Lordship's behaviour was that of a
most affectionate and indulgent husband. If these were
facts, and he (Sir Henry Hardinge) would maintain that
they were, be was fully borne out in saying, that Lord
Ellenborough had been assailed, calumniated, and vilified,
in the most ehameful manner that any man had ever been
before attacked who had reason to come before that house
in that way.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was obvieusly easy for a
man immersed in public business to become the dupe of
an artfel and cunning seducer, and to have, as in this case,
his
wife
allured f; em her boine to the arms of a seducer.
It was not in the power of e Imeband so situated, let his
vigilance be ever so great, to preys nt the possibility of such
an occurrence. But this he (Sir IL Hardinge) would say
for himself, that lie would prefer the misfortune of being
a dupe of that description to the disgrace of being a spy.
—(Hear, hear. )—But it was said there had been connivance
on the part of Lord Ellenborough. If it were possible to
suppose that a maim of rank, of station, of virtue, anti of
charaCters could so far demean himself iki N le,-td the way,
_

and act the pander to the dishonour of his wife, the
mother of his only child, then indeed they might give
credit to this foul assertion, and afford their sanction to a
suspicion so monstrous and so contradictory to the whole
tenour of that Noble Lord's life.—(Hear.)—Lord Ellen-
borough had been before the public now for a period of 20
years, and there was not a single ungentlemanly or un-
generous act of his public conduct during that time which
argued on his part a want of integrity, of honour, or of
principle. But it was said that there was collusion be-
tween the parties in this case, because Lady Ellenborough
confessed her guilt ; and because, in doing so, she did not
wish to inflict still greater wrong upon her injured hus-
band, by attempting to prevent his obtaining this divorce.
Was it collusion on the part of a wife who had thus
wronged her husband, to feel sorrow after she had done
so—a sorrow which there was every reason to suppose this
unfortunate lady did feel, and actuated with that feeling
to abstain from taking any steps to prevent her husband
from obtaining that release which was now sought for ?
Could that be denominated collusion ?—(llear, hear.)—
Could it be said to be a proof of collusion on the part of
that brave and gallant officer, Admiral Digby, if he, feel-
ing that Lord Ellenborough had acted kindly and ho-
nourably towards his daughter, should abstain from offer-
ing any opposition to his getting a divorce ? Was it not,
on the contrary, more the part of an honourable and high-
minded man, under such circumstances, rather to desire to
do justice to Lord Ellenborough than to seek to impede
him from obtaining that relief and redress which lie now
sought?—(Hear, bear.)—But they had been told 'hat
Lord Ellenborough should have looked more narrowly
after his wire. Were they to be told that in Great Britain
a husband should be a spy upon the actions of his wife?—
(Hear, hear.)—He (Sir Henry Hardinge) saw many
Hon. Members around him who, during the session of
Parliament, were frequently obliged to be absent from
their homes from eleven o'clock in the day until past
twelve o'clock at night. How could a man, under such
circumstances, maintain a close and continued observation
of all his wife's actions and conduct throughout the day ?
flow was it possible for any Hon. Member who had to
attend to the Committees and to the business of that House
to maintain that incessant watch upon his wife which the
Hon. Member for Aberdeen had spoken of as indispensably
necessary on the part of a husband ? This he would say, that
the Hon. Member for Aberdeen was the last man in that
House who should have spoken of the necessity of such
continual observation, for his own absence from home
was perhaps more constant than that of any Hon. Gentle-
man present.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear.")—Sup-
pose a husband a lawyer, a physician, or a military man,
and that his wife should avail herself of the opportunities
which his necessary attention to his professional duties
should afford her to bring disgrace upon herself and dis-
honour upon him, was he on that account to be debarred
from that relief which Lord Ellenborough sought in the
present instance? Although the most satisfactory evidence
should be given of her criminality, was he to be deprived
of all redress because it had not been in his power to pre-
vent it? A doctrine so monstrous and so unjust only re-
quired to be shown up to the House to be scouted as it
deserved.—(Hear, Lear.)—The Hon. Member for Aber-
deen might consider th.t jealousy on the part of the hus-
band was a proper kind of vigilance to be exercised by
him in refetence to the actions and conduct of his wife;
but lie (Sir H. Hardinge) would confess that be enter-
tained no such sentiments.—(Cheers.)---He trusted that
such sentiments would never gain ground in this country.
What would be the result if they should be eternally em-
ployed in looking after their wives, and if their almost
sole occupation should be a silent and jealous watching of
their actions and conduct? The result would be to per-
vert English society in the worst degree, and to convert
an English family into a Turkish harem.—(Hear, hear.)
—He rejected the principles on this subject of the Hon.
Member for Aberdeen. o treat a wife as a virtuous wo-
man, to treat her with confidence and affection, was, in
his opinion, the only course which an English gentleman
was justified in pursuing. Under all these circumstances
he felt it to be his duty to support the Bill. By party
feelings he was quite sure that in such a case they would
not allow themselves to be actuated ; and as for personal
feelings, he was quite sure that if the Noble Lord had any
reason to believe that he had given offence to any one, lie
would be the first man in the world to give him satisfac-
tion for it.—(A laugh.)

Dr. PHILLIMORE trusted the House would bear with
him while, as shortly as possible, he would state his opi-
nion on the question under their consideration. The Gal
lant Officer who had just spoken had called on them to
consider the subject judicially, and to divest themselves of
all personal considerations with reference to it. He could
assure that Gallant Officer and the House, that from the
very commencement of the proceedings he had considered
it strictly ,vitb judicial feelings. He had watched with
great attention both the course of evidence and the pro-
ceedings which had since been pursued. On other occa-
sions, when Bills of a similar nature had been introduced
into that House, he had frequently abstained from taking
any part in the proceedings with respect to them, because
he had been employed in the cause elsewhere, as a counsel
either for the one party or the other. In the present in-
stance, however, he had no connection whatever with either
party , and had endeavoured to divest his mind—he hoped
successfully—of all bias towards either. The Gallant
Officer endeavoured to intimate that some unfriendly feel-
ing existed in the House with respect to this particular
Bill. If such a feeling did really exist, he (Dr. Milli-
more) disclaimed all participation in it ; his sole object
being to regulate his decision by what appeared to him the
justice of the case. If, as had been alleged, the manner
in which the Bill had been opposed was unprecedented,
it must also be allowed that the manner in which
the proceedings in favour of the Bill had been con-
ducted was not usual. In the first place, there had
been no prior proceedings in the Courts below ; no op-
portunity had been given by such a proceeding for the
cross-examination of witnesses by Counsel ; no verdict had
been returned on the merits of the case by a Court of
Common Law. He admitted that there had been seve-
ral cases in which no verdict of a Jury had been given, and
yet in which Parliament had passed Bills of Divorce ; but
that always increased the difficulty. There was another
consideration which bore upon the present question. An
impression existed, whether right or wrong he would not
presume to say, but an impression existed that the House
of Lords had not done their duty in the examination of the
witnesses. There was another point, the importance of
which was well known to persons who wets conversant
with matters of this nature, namely, that no Counsel had
been employed on the part of Lady Ellenborough—a cir-
cumstance which in all cases called upon the Court to ex-
tend a greater degree of indulgence and consideration
towards the party proceeded against. His Hon. Friend
the Member fur Aberdeen had justly stated the importance
which ought always to be attached to the obligations of
marriage. The circumstances of the present case were
well worthy time most serious consideration. In the first
place it was to be observed, that the decree of an Eccle-
siastical Court had relieved the Noble Earl from all danger
of having a spurious issue foisted upon him ; that it had
relieved him from the payment of alimony; and that it had
relieved him from other inconveniences of a similar nature.
The Bill now under the consideration of the House was a
Bill of Pains and Penalties against Lady Ellenborough. It
was a Bill to empower Lord Ellenborough to marry again.
Now there was no object more steadily contemplated by
the marriage law of this country, than the indissolubility
of the marriage contract. In one instance, and only one,
was it departed from ; and that was, where it was proved
that one of the parties to the marriage contract (and that
in most cases the female) had committed adultery; and
even then, in order to increase the difficulty of the pro-
ceeding, in each case an especial law was necessary for the
purpose of releasing the complaining party from the bonds
by which the marriage ceremony had bound hint. Even
the practice of passing Bills of Divorce at all was no: of
ancient date. The first case occurred in 1669, and was
that of Lord Roos, afterwards Duke of Rutland. With
reference to this case, Burnett observed—

" This matter had lain asleep above 100 years (the
allowance of a second marriage after a divorce for adul-
tery), till the present Duke of Rutland (the Lord Roos)
moved for the like liberty. At that time a sceptical and
libertine spirit prevailed, so that some began to treat mar-
riage only as a civil contract, in which the Parliament
was at full liberty to make what laws they pleased ; and
part of King Charles's courtiers applauded this, hoping
by this doctrine that the King might be divorced from the
Queen."
Then came the Bill to divorce Lord Roos, which was
before Parliament for several years, and was carried at last
by only a small majority. The next case was in 1692,
when the Duke of Norfolk applied for a divorce, and fail-
ed. In 1700 the Duke renewed his application. A great
legal discussion took place at the bar; in the course of
which Sir Thomas Powis, who was the leading Counsel
against the Dake's application, stated, that for 600 years
there had been but four or five divorces. One of the
junior Counsel, however, on the same side, subsequently
corrected his leader, and stated, that in the whole uf that
period there had been only three divorces. It appeared,
that from the period of the Bill allowing Lord Roos to
marry again, down to the year 1800 (a period of upwards
of 130 years), there had been only 132 divorces by Act of
Parliament, viz., eight during the first 45 years ; 15
during the next 60 years ; and 76 during the last 25
years ; and that from 1800 to 1823, there had been 26
such divorces. It was impossible to look at the various

discussions which had taken place on these Bills without
observing that where collusion or connivance was supposed
to exist between the parties, great opposition had always
been made to them. In our Courts of Law the Judges
had frequently insisted upon the proofs of collusion and
connivance as defeating the claims of the complaining par-
ties. He found that thirty years ago, Lord Grenville, no
nu•an authority, expressed himself with reference to the
subject of divorces in the following terms :

" He had long been sensible of these truths, nor had he
ever been present when a Divorce Bill was passed that he
did not think the House disgraced and degraded."
What was the course usually pursued by the House of
I ords with reference to these Bills ? Their Lordships had
a Standing Order declaring that the adultresa should not
be allowed to marry the adulterer ; but when a Bill came
into the House, that older was suspended. In truth the
whole system of these divorces required revision. He now
came to the question, whether there was any thing in the
present case which entitled the Neble Lord to the peculiar
indulgence and consideration of the House ? It had been
admitted by the able Counsel who appeared at the Bar in
his Lordship's favour, and it had also been admitted by the
Gallant Officer who bad last spoken, that there was a
double obligation imposed on Lord Ellenborough before he
could hope that the House would consent to the Bill ;
first, to prove by incontrovertible evidence that his wife had
been guilty of adultery; and secondly, to prove as incon-
trovertibly that be bad not been guilty of any connivance
in the adultery, or of any neglect or other misconduct
towards his wife which had driven her to the commission
of the crime. On this last point he need only refer to the
words of the Canon Law, which, with the permission of
the House, he would read. They were as follows :
" Judex adulterii ante miles latere debet et inquirere an
snaritus pudice vivens, malieri quoque bonos snores colendi
auctor fuerit. Periniquurn enim vide'ur esse ut pudicitiam
vir ab uxore exigat quam ipse nan exhibent."
Such was the doctrine of the Canon Law—a doctrine
which had been again and again acted upon in the Courts
below. With respect to the first point, the commission of
adultery, he had maturely considered the evidence, and his
conviction was that the case of adultery had been corn.
pletely made out. It was true that some of the witnesses
on the Brighton part of the case had broken down ; but
ethers had abundantly proved the visits of Lady Ellen-
borough to Harley-street and Holles-street ; her servants,
her horses, her groom, &c., had all been identified by a
complete chain of evidence which could not be disputed.
Again, even as to the Brighton ca,e, no doubt could re-
main on the mind of any rational or legal man; the pre-
cipitate haste with which Prince Schwartzenburg went to
Brighton; the letter which Lady Ellenborough wrote;
and lastly, her confession on the subject to Miss Steele, all
concurred to establish the fact. With respect to the last-
mentioned circumstance, he might be asked if confession
ought to be allowed to operate to the injury of the party.
Undoubtedly not as substantial evidence in itself. But he
would quote the opinion on this subject of Lord Stoll-ell,
in one of those masterly and admirable judgments by
which that Learned Judge had se greatly distinguished
himself. Lord Stowell said on the occasion to which he
alluded

" The Court, however, must remember, that confession
is a species of evidence which, though not inadmissible, is
liable to great distrust. There is a canon particularly
pointed against it, which says, ' Nec partlum confessioni
fides habeatur ;' and though it is evidence which is not
absolutely excluded, but is received in conjunctio❑ with
other circumstances, yet it is on all occasions to be most
accurately weighed.''

Although, therefore, the confession of Lady Ellen-
borough would have been nothing in itself, yet, combined
with other evidence, it convinced him that adultery had
been committed. The Gallant Officer had said that a
man ought not to be a spy on his wife. The duty of a
husband, however, to superintend the conduct of his
wife, was maintained by all legal authorities. Lord Sto-
well, in the case of Forster and Forster, had thus defined
the duty of a husband in that respect :

" It is not, however, to be considered as a matter par-
fectly light in the behaviour of a complaining husband,
that he has withdrawn himself (with cause and without
cause) from the discharge of duties that belong to the
very institution of marriage; and if he has done so, he
ought to feel less surprise if the consequence of human in-
firmity should ensue. I have to observe also, that his
marital conduct is in the present instance in the highest
degree inothcious. A husband is expected by law to pay
a due attention to the behaviour of his wife, and to give
her the benefit of some superintendence wh ere she is placed
in a dangerous situation."
The same eminent authority, in the debate oa the Adul-
tery Prevention Bill in that House, had also expressed his
opinion in very unequivocal terms ; and although he (Dr.
Phillimore) could not quote it on such authority as that of
the Learned Lord's judgments which had been revised by
himself, yet he quoted them on the usual authority for the
debates in that Ifouse. On the occasion which he had
described, Sir Wm. Scott said :
" At any rate, there was a want of that delicate sensibi-
lity—of that prudent attention—of that honest caution—
which belong to the character of a husband. He was,
however, disposed to think that the law of this country
was placed on a footing the best cons*stent with the gene-
ral safety. lie meant, so far that the Legislature should
keep the matter of divorce in its own hands rather than
leave it to the subordinate Courts. By the existing prac-
tice of the Legislature, it was requisite, to entitle a hus-
band to a divorce, not only to give proofs of the miscon-
duct of the wife, but, at the same time, of his own good
conduct. It was evident there might be shades of differ-
ence as to the conduct of the husband, so as to render the
decision of the Legislature a matter of discretion, which
did not safely belong, and could not strictly be intrusted,
to a Court of Justice, where decisions were to be guided
by strict rules of evidence and matters of fact." Now,
in the first place, there were only two witnesses to the con-
duct which Lord Ellenborough had pursued towards Lady
Ellenborough. One of these witnesses was Mr. Law, who
had given his evidence with great clearness and candour,
and who spoke to the living of the parties together in the
ordinary habits of man and wife, and to the affection
which appeared to subsist between them. But it would be
observed, that in consequence of the absence of Mi. Law
from England, lie did not see Lard and Lady Ellenborough
for two years; and, that on his return to this country, the
unfortunate lady was pregnant by Prince Schwartzenberg.
Undoubtedly, therefore, the whole of this part of the case
rested on the evidence of Miss Steele, a lady of ability and
character. In the first place, the circumstances under
which that lady was examined, ought to be considered. If
that examination had taken place in a Court, and if she
had been pressed by Counsel, it was very probable that
more would have been elicited from her. Miss Steele, the
governess of Lady Ellenborough, declared, however, that
she (Lady Ellenborough) had always been remarkably re-
gardless of consequences. Was not that a prima facie
obligation on Lord Ellenborough to be cautious? Was not
that obligation increased by the fact of his having married
a lady a great many years younger than himself ? Miss
Steele stated that Lady Ellenborough was living in society
unlike that to which she had been accustomed ; and that
she gave a warning to Lord Ellenborough on the subject.
Then came the question respecting the absence of sexual
intercourse. In June, Lady Ellenborough confessed to
Miss Steele that she was pregnant by Prince Schwartzen-
berg. It was in evidence that there had been no cohabi-
tation between Lord and Lady Ellenborough for three or
four months. Miss Steele was asked, "You were under-
stood to say that Lady Ellenborough gave as a reason why
the child could not be Lord Ellenborough's, her not sleep-
ing with him ; have you never stated that she gave as a
reason that she had not for several months slept with Lord
Ellenborough ?" Miss Steele's answer was, " Since Fe-
bruary, March, or April ; but I cannot recollect which."
It was clear, therefore, that for several months there had
been no cohabitation between Lord and Lady Ellenborough.
This was another increase to the obligation of the Noble
Lord to he cautious. The circumstance of a young and
beautiful wife not having intercourse with her husband for
several months, would be considered in a Court of Jus-
tice as one which ought to excite vigilance on the part
of the husband. Then there was the publicity of all
the circumstances ; Lady Ellenborough daily visiting
Harley-street, and undressing, and going to bed in the
middle of the day with her paramour. There was the
evidence of the coachman, and the other servants, proving
the notoriety of these proceedings. Nor was it on that
evidence alone, pregnant as it was, that he (Dr. Milli-
more) was disposed principally to press ; it was on the
absence of all evidence, certifying proper vigilance and
caution on the part of the Noble husband, He could assure
the House that it was with great pain that he made these
observation's. He bad no bias whatever on the subject ;
but feeling as lie did, and as the habits of his profession
naturally induced him to feel, he could not allow the
measure to pass without the expression of his opinion.
Although he was willing to admit that the words of the
great Itonian Satirist might possibly be applicable to the
present case :
dum ICS
Nota urbi ct populo contingat Principis cures,
Dedecua ille domus sciet ultimus."

Yet at the same time it was difficult to believe that the
Noble Lord was wholly ignorant of facts so extensively
known. His opinion was, and it was an opinion which
he had adopted after very mature consideration, that it
was not such a made up case as to warrant the House in
granting the relief sought for lie admitted that there

was no doubt of the fact of adultery, and tkat
no positive evidence to criminate the applicant, but still be
was bound to say that he doubted whether any Court ;of, out;
Law, upon such evidence, and in the absence of sa tnuelk!vat
evidence that ought to have been introduced, would proaseoll
nounce for the relief sought for. Taking all the cireumir,
stances into consideration, and considering also the facility. .14
of producing proper evidence, and also considering the die-. ,if
cretion which the House had in questions of this descrip-
tion, he must give his individual vote against the Bill. •
Mr. BATLEY had given the subject his deepest cons •
sideration; and he thought that neither the Divorce Law
nor Canon Law, gave any right iu cases of adultery to
the parties to marry a second time.
Mr. SPRING RICE could not give a silent vote upon
such an occasion. In the first place, if anything were un-
usual in the circumstances of this Bill, those peculiar cir-
cumstances, he thought, were of a nature to render the
course adopted against it unjustifiable. He did not speak
with reference to the parties concerned in this Bill, but
with reference to Divorce Bills in general, that came to
that House unsupported by verdicts previously obtained
in Courts of Law. Whether the parties were high or
low, whatever were the circumstances of the case, if there .1
was not that ground for a decision which the verdict of
a Court of Law in contentious cases afforded, it was the • ,
absolute duty of the House, in exercising its functions ,•
judicially to make the most strict and the most complete
' inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. There- ail
fore, for one, he thought that the House bad done nothing as
more than discharged its duty to the public in undertaking as
this inquiry. Although he did not think that the House -0,3
ought to be swayed in the least by the situation of :the •
parties, he was willing to admit that, acting in the office •
of a Court of I aw, if ever there were a time when it was
expedient to extend to a case the strictest rules of law and
equity applicable to matters of this description, it was,
when the parties concerned were high and wealthy ;
it was but justice to the parties themselves that the House .web
should not decide as a matter of favour or influence, but All
upon an examination founded in Justice. Evidence had ,df
been laid before the House, and what was the fair and le—ed
-
gitimate inference to be drawn from that evidence ? He
entirely, though respectfully, dissented from the doctrine .:41
laid down by his Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and lo
ha did not think that he had given a fair account of the si4
evidence.—(Hear.)—lf the evidence were as he repre-
sented it, he should come to the same conclusion ; but lie. 'as
(Mr. S. Rice) read that evidence entirely and distinctly .0
different from the sense that his Hon. Friend had-lat.bai,
upon it, and, therefore, his vote should be against his-lsfu
Hen. Friend and in favour of the parties. The evidence
was now fully before the House ; and he agreed with his 28
Learned and Hon. Friend who spoke last but one (Dr.
Phillimore), that he could not understand the constitution :4
of that man's mind that could read that evidence anti form
on the subject the smallest doubt that the crime of adul-
tery had been committed. Nothing on the face of that
evidence could justify him in consenting to withhold the ~11
Bill. A charge of discussing the question had been
brought forward ; but the present occasion pointed out •si
most forcibly the inconvenience, the absurdities, and the
strong injustice which attended this species of proceeding.
—(Hear, hear, bear.)--Not one word had been stated'
upon this part of the subject to which he did not give his
most entire and cordial assent. He allowed that the law 4
was most unjust; but the House could not apply a new .11
principle of law, a principle never allowed or acted upon, -'?Y,
to meet this case. Au examination at the Bar was not
creditable to the House, nor calculated to lead to any •
knowledge of the truth. If there were one branch of discus-
sion above all others to which all the evils of an examina-
tion at the Bar attached, without the benefit which some-
times resulted from such examination, it was a case of
divorce, when the House had to decide upon the justice of
the case. If the House bad not to decide upon that jus-
tice, what was the use of its proceedings--why interfere
at all? He hoped that the time was not distant, when, by
altering the law, the House would be called upon to abdi-
cate those functions which it was notorious it could not
discharge with credit to itself or satisfaction to the pub-
Fe. 'Was there ever such a principle with respect to con-
tracts,
as to say that the general principle should be the
indissolubility of contracts under any cireuntstancea, and
then to come to Parliament fur an ex post facto law to •
govern particular cases as they arose? But very much ,
worse was the application of this absurdity and injustice.
This ex post facto law was well contrived by its me-
chanism to give relief to the rich and powerful, and to
refuse relief when the principlee and circumstances of the
grievance might be precisely the same, but the parties
poor, wretched, and defenceless.—( Hear, hear.)--A
great aggravation of the evil inflicted by the House was,
that this wrong was snore severely felt in proportion as
the habits of the individual were humble; for he had not
the same Means with the rich of retreating from his un-
happy home, nor the power of flying from or ejecting his
disgraced partner, that was possessed by the higher and
wealthier classes of life.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—Upon
whatever principle the law was founded, let its enactments
be what they might, it was evident to all men of sense

and probity that— it ought to be consistent and equally ad-
ministered, and that there ought not, in any case, much
less in cases like these, to be one law for the rich and

another for the poor. The whole law of the Ecoleuiasti-

cal Courts was coming under revision, and he hoped that
the laws affecting this subject would be included. What-

ever were the views of Ministers with respect to the re-
forms of the law, he thought they must feel that the cha-
_ _

_ .
racter of Parliament was degraded and lowered by in-
vestigatione taken in these cases at the Bar of the House,
and they must feel that a reform of the law upon this sub-
ject was unanimously called for by the country.—(Hear.)
A MEMBER, whose name could not be learnt, said he
hoped that justice would be done to the two families con-

corned in this measure, by allowing the Bill to pass.
Sir E. CARRINGTON regretted, in common with all
others, the state of the law upon the subject of divorce ;
and it was curious to consider how the law should have

been allowed to continue in its present state so long. This
was certainly no new regret. Justice had raised her yoke

against the law, not by any novelty of opinion, but by an-
cient acknowledgment and wishes to carry Reform into
effect. He alluded to the reign of Edward VI., when the
defects of the law had undergone some reform, and when
the miserable and impotent sentence of the divorce a monad
et thoro, that inadequate redress and fertile source of crime
and wretchedness, was forcibly objected to by the Corn-
mission that was formed to effect a reform in the law. At
the head of that Commission was the venerable Archbishop • .
of Armagh, a name venerable to all who heard him ; and
in it were men of the greatest character in the nation at `
that period. In the ordinary course of law, it was to be
regretted that a complete divorce could not be granted by
some one competent tribunal. At present, it was neces-
sary for a case not merely to pass through the Ecclesiasti-
cal Courts, but through the viva voce examination of a
Law Court before a Jury. When both of these ordeals
kad been passed through, he regretted that, by the law of •
this country, the Courts could not grant a full and ade- •
quate remedy to the parties, such as the principles and
justice of the case might demand. He was aware that
this iniquity was not peculiar to the laws of England ;
it was applicable to the law of Scotland, of Denmark,
and a few ether countries. On what foundation stands
the Law of Divorce in England It was already
conceded that divorces a vinculo might be granted;
and why could they not follow the usual course of the
Tribunals, and not travel through a trial by Jury, the
Ecclesiastical Courts, and the unavailing, impotent, and
most expensive examination at the Bar of the two Houses 5/
of Parliament? No man could doubt the crime of adul-
tery in the present case : the corpus delicti was clear.
There could be no doubt that other premises were neces-
s try to he established before a divorce could be granted.
The husband ought to exercise tenderness towards his wife,
and not to neglect her conduct or restrain her from enjoy-
ments, rational and adapted to her condition and circum-
stances. What was the evidence in the present case
Were the House to depend upon that evidence, or were
they to run front the evidence to a vain presumption, in • •
order to itiflict a wanton stigma, and a cruel injury upon
any man.—(Hear, hear. )__A slight degree of negligence
had been proved against Lord Ellenborough. Miss Steele 1/.,
bad said that Lady Ellenborough had been treated with •
uniform kindness and feeling by Lord Ellenborough ; but
the Honourable Member for Aberdeen drew from the evia '
dence an inference unfounded in itself, and cruel in its con-
sequences.—(lfear.)_m; Steele
said, that when she
mentioned to Lord Ellenborough the improper female
society to which he introduced his wife, he laughed at 0.9
information. This was not the laugh of iadifferpnce or of
levity, it was not the laugh of sat calm ;a
vt 1,. (Sir
E. Carrington) should construe that it floled.eafrsok'm a mind ,•
full of unlimited confidence in his wife—a mind absent
from all suspicion, and rejecting the shadow of dishonour
which was implied by the observation against his wife
a mind convinced that it was justified in having an
unbounded confidence in her affection and in her rectitude.
What was the evidence of the butler, but that the lady
had been treated with confidence and respect, with atten-
tion and tenderness, uniform and unaffected, and greater
than the witness had ever seen in other families? Miss
Steele, in giving evidence of the partite having separate
beds, had said that this arrangement had been made not
only with the concurrence of Lady Ellenborough but at
her especial request. That the fact of adultery was eats-. \
bashed by sufficient proof—was acknowledged by every
body. Would any mart in that House, or without thewalls
Parlietnent, say that there was scything in the eendect

uperk. this
court. of o
Cider how
Lad, not
tery;;, -If I
would • the
defendant
tunity•to.r
the iset of
have an opt
to damages

17h
heha ITH
)o." —uus. eaa
with succe!
of the hue,
prove the t
there were

nina-

°ale-
se of

lg his

and
jpon
nents

h all
Irce ;
have
This
voice

r an-
into
n the
then
enact

!rime

At
shop

and
In at
to be.
11 by
eces-
:Asti-
of a
deals
,w of
ade-
and
that
and;
lark,
:and*
ready •

Ited;
I the
, the
and
DU US

Out- f:
tear.
eces-
-3 ted.
wife,
ijoy-
.um-
ass
were

in
upon
enee
with
but
cvi.

con-
"
ehe
male
t tea
pr of
(Sir
aund
sent
nour
wife
on
:ude.
lady
tten-
eater
Miss
trate
not

it at
eita-
trery
walls
idust

of Lord EllentioroOgb that could form the slight justifica-
tion of the wife's dishonour, or that could be ccnstrued
into a' pretext for withholding from him the relief lie
soughs :"If-the evidence did not justify this, teas the
House:UO."11111 wildly to presumption in order to deprive
this Nobleman of his remedy? He knew that the princi-
ple of. isueh Bills was a repeal of the only supplement to
the absurdity of the law. As a lawyer, as a legislator,
and as -a gentleman, he felt himself bound in justice and
honour to say, that from all that had apppeared upon
the case, there was not the slightest imputation upon the
character of the complainant.—(Hear, hear, hear, hear. )
lie would never resort to confused, unfounded, visionary
presumption, in order to inflict a substantial evil upon any
teen ; and ho felt it impossible to vote against the Bill con-
sistently with reason, integrity, and honour.
Dr. PHILLIMORE explained. He had soot thrown
any blame whatever upon the manner in which the case
had been discussed and settled in the Courts below. His
obsetvations had extended only to the two Houses of Par-
liament in taking cognizance of such cases.
Mr. R. GRANT said he had never risen to perform a
more painful duty than that which was cast upon him by
the ptesent Bill. He considered himself called upon to
decide a judicial question, and acting with that consci-
entiout; feeling on which Members of that House were
hound to act in all judicial questions, he felt himself bound
to say, that the conclusion to which lie had come was un-
favourable to the relief for which Lord Ellenborough was
an applicant. Almost every gentleman who had taken
any :-share in this discussion had remarked on the pecu-
liarity of their being called upon to come to a decision
upon. this case, without having had an inquiry before a
court; of common law. He implored the House to con-
sider how important it was that such inquiry should be
bad, not merely in this, but in every other case of adul-
tery ~• If such an inquiry had been instituted, not only
Woulii; the 'evidence have been thoroughly sifted, but the
defendant in the action would have had an oppor-
tunityoto.repel, if he could, the evidence given in proof of
the net of adultery ; or if he could not do that, he would
have an opportunityof seeking to reduce the husband's claim
to dainaget by proving misconduct on his part towards his
wife: ;The defendant might effect this by showing collusion
or connivance on the part of the husband, or by proving
his ill-uiage of his wife, by disclosing his flagrant im-
morality with regard to other women, and, as the lowest
ease 'Which could be urged as a reason for extinguishing
the husband's claim, by proving his palpable carelessness
and "inattention to his wife's behaviour. Now, where a
defendant attempted to prove any of these defences, acid
ns such objection could be made as was made in
the present case : where he succeeded, no damages would
be given, and no groundwork would be laid for such a
Bill. Where a defendant had not attempted such a line of
defence, there would be a strong presumption that, because
he had not attempted to prove such misconduct, there had
bee/Is-none on the part of the husband. In such a case
the House would be convinced by looking at the prelimi-
naryproceedings, not only that the husband had properly
Perfermed his duty, but that lie had also not been in-
fluenied by any of the considerations to which lie (Mr.
IL Grant) had previously alluded. When a case came be-
fore'Patliament without the institution of any proceeding
in a.Court of Common Law, it was clear that all those
guards which he had just enumerated against a collusive
understanding between man and wife were totally void.—
Was there any person who could supply that void ? Yes,
there was one person, and one person only, and that was
the husband.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not intend to
Open the door to the most frightful devastation of principle
among this higher orders of society, they must lay it dawn
as a principle that the husband should supply that part
which was defective in his case—(Loud cries of " hear,
hear'-')—and that he should produce evidence to convince
the House that no such defence could have been attempted
with success.—(Hear.) He said that it was in the power
of the husband to do this—it was not calling upon him to
prove the truth of a negative, though every one knew that
there were a hundred cases in which that species of proof
Was demanded in a Court of Law. He said that, by pro-
ducing witnesses familiar with his habits and proceed-
it was in the power of the husband to place his
'conduct towards his wife fully before the House, and to
produce in the mind of every Hon. Member a moral con-
le;tion that he had nut been wanting in any of those at-
tentions towards his wife, in which if he had been want-
14g, his claim to damages would have been destroyed.
'he House, it was true, had the power to send for dif-
ferent witnesses, and to examine them ; but it was riot in
the power of the House, without some previous informa-
tion respecting the private habits of his life, to get the
truth on such points from reluctant witnesses. He begged
to say that he did not intend to impute to the Noble Lord
Who 00W asked for relief, any of that conduct which
he had been putting in hypothetical cases ; but he
Was entitled to say, upon the evidence which had been
taken, that except the point of unkind treatment, none of
the other points to which he had alluded was negatived by
the evidence then before the House. - Hon. Members said
that they had not judicial evidence before them that Lord
Ellenborough could be charged with any of those acts, of
whit% a defendant could have availed himself before a
Jury, •To say that you had not judicial evidence on such
charges, was merely to say that you had no evidence to
the- contrary. He said that the House ought to have evi-
dence to the contrary. For the sake of shutting out collu-
sive applications from husband and wife fur these Divorce
Bills, it was of importance to hold it out as a general prin-
- eiple, that -the House would throw on the applicant the
burden of-showing, that if there had been a trial at com-
mon law for damages, it would have been in vain for any
Ad:et/dant to set up the husband's misconduct as a defence
• to' such an action.—(Hear.)—Such were the grounds on
Which be felt a moral incapacity to support a measure like
the present. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman made
several other remarks in continuation, but they were in-
audible in the gallery.
LUSIIINGTON, if he had consulted his feelings,
should have abstained from any participation in this dis-
cussion's but he considered that it would have been a de-
sertion of his duty if lie abstained from declaring the im-
pression which the evidence in this case had made upon
his mind. It had so happened that in his character as
Chancellor of London he had had occasion to pass a de-
cree in this very case, in favour of Lord Ellenborough, for
a separation a metzsa et thoro. Whatever necessity lie
might labour under in his situation in another place as to
'the judgment to be pronounced on a cause of this descrip-
lion, he was here as a Member of Parliament, and felt
himself at perfect liberty to vote for a remedy of a totally
different description, and sought for upon entirely different
g.r°°Ods• ;He could not help thinking that there was a
circumstance. in this case, and he would boldly advert to
It, which made an impression with respect to the judg-
Went of this Case, which it ought not to make. He was
o_t opinion, and he spoke it painfully, because of intro-
clueing the character of any individual—namely, that the
general unpopularity of Lord Ellenborough's character was
what aroused the present opposition This might be his
birneisfbrtune ; but he himself had heard from many Mem-
t rs;tlaitt this was the state of the case. He did not mean
o say that every Member could not endeavour to divest
himself of this feeling ; but whether that was the case or
not, ,it had produced an excitement and caused a critical
:1411)411163n, such as would never otherwise have been at-
.,,e
•",t4ted. He would not at all attempt to palliate Lord
,Ilealioiough; but when he felt that the measure came
here fix its ordinary course, he first asked himself in this
Way;:sevas he to consider this case as an honourable man
osodollv and dispassionately, and free from the controul of
every
of prejudice? He had done his best to
divest
-himself of all those feelings, and he would then
tell the
II House that Lord Ellenborough was entitled to the
relief he sought. He would now give his reasons. No
man
rn who had read or heard the evidence could for a mo-
theat nt
doubt that the adultery had been committed. If
were the real state of the case, according to the ests-
hh.litii practice for the last 28 or 30 years, in order to de-
r'eeve the husband of the remedy he sought, it would be
Ofcotiry to prove hint guilty of neglect, of connivance, or
nu'ikin• Ile would ask, upon directing the closest
batteation to the evidence, whether they could see there had
.:17.0V criminal neglect of Lady Ellenborough, or any
thei kind, no roan living could doubt.—( Hear, hear.)—
mias but one passage, which was in the evidence of
wosiShtaete he le, that could bear such a construction ; that
they should ec,nreZdeived the intimation with a laugh : but
intended as disre er
that meant, and whether it was
did not smile at gtr.trding the intimation, or whether lie
wife's virtue.t witness in the perfect confidence of
histhat, if every man's (Ilear, hear,)—He really thought
lo
as this,no one, conduc; were examined by suchha test
alive to his con .
this we nvevever cautious his feeling, or however
' duct or to his character, who could not in
Ybe made a victim. If this was the case, for what
reason n'teuree
Noble
tor_ refuse the ordinary remedy in. such.
cases to
from his lion
an Learned
• He felt a difficulty' in differing
!less); but hia a' • earned Friend (the Member for Inver-
could not help objection as to the absence of a verdict he
in the present eas,,,ntering as unfair, more particularly
necessary, for Loot Enenb it was possible, were it even
to the absence of a verdict, however, this was not the
As orough to attain such an object.
first,- nor- the second,
Bills had been passed witflinort the
20th instance, in which
be
miti,fa verdict. This might not
a• Man's fault, but
guilty of criminal conversation wirtthuni A man might be
e.t.slo(nDri,rLienshdisnagrtootin'w),
wife, or with the wife of any of his

hint—(Hear, and a laugh)—and he might escape to the
East or to the West—and thus there would be no power
of applying this test. But, after all, this test was good
for nothing ; for, in the course of his experience, which
was great, he could aver that, in actions against the guilty
parties, the trial, in one out of every 20 cases, did not
afford any clue to the real circumstances of the case.
There were many cases where, from feelings of delicacy, no
defence was made. In other cases, it was the object of both
parties to obtain a divorce ; and it was a rare occurrence,
indeed, where the real facts were sifted throughout in an
action at law for criminal conversation. And when there
was no possibility of a husband's attaining this test,
were they to turn round and say that because of an acci-
dent, out of his controul, we will throw upon you the onus
—of what?—not of establishing a prima fade case, but
that you shall come to the bar of this House; that you shall
bring every party connected with your family, in order
to establish that no imputation shall remain upon you.
God forbid that such should be the test. He knew no ease
is which a man was placed upon his trial, until some case
was made out against him. He admitted that it might be
said, that you have no claim to this remedy unless you are
innocent. But the course he should pursue was to prove
he was guilty; this was the general rule of law. These
were his opinions; and God knew that he had no very
friendly feeling for the Noble Lord, and of course was not
entitled to any gratitude at his hands. How then could
they refuse the remedy in this case, in the face of all the
precedent they had ? It unfortunately happened that he
was but too conversant with the details of every Bill that
had passed in this House, and that he never recollected
such a case as the present, although he knew others where
the facts were ten thousand time, stronger against the in-
dividual seeking the remedy. He repeated that he never
saw such a case, notwithstanding the peculiar ingenuity
exemplified in this caste, because questions were put to wit-
nesses such as never would be admitted in any Court of
Justice—leading questions put, in order to produce crimi-
natory answers, and not like inquiries made, as they ought
to be, with the sole object of ascertaining the truth.
Would to God that the House were to be called on with
respect to such a question. He declared solemnly that
nothing was so repugnant to his feelings, nothing ►nore
degrading to the House of Commons, than to see the full
attendance brought down on occasions like the present—
a prurient curiosity to inquire into such concerns; and he
would say that in the discharge of his duties—one most
productive of great evil. Would to God that the/ could be
spared this disgrace, and that the law for annulling mar-
riages was placed on a solemn principle—(Hear, hear.)—
that rules were laid down to entitle every individual, high
or low—and mark, also, male or female—to this remedy,
upon certain improved grounds. The repulsive iniquity
of the present system was this—that males alone bene-
fitted ; that there was but one solitary instance to the con-
trary in the year 1801 ; and that, with that exception,
since the time of the Reformation, Parliament had neither
the justice nor the honesty to extend its interference for
the emancipation of any one female. As to justice, he
would merely mention one case, that of Lord Powis, in
the year 1707, who obtained an Act for a divorce without
either any proceeding at law or any suit in the Ecclesias-
tical Court. After the Reformation, this House, for the
space of 40 years, never interfered in divorce cases, but
all was done in the House of Lords ; and then came the
complaint that this mode of proceeding was a violation of
the law of God. All he would say was, that if it was a
violation of God's law for a Court of Justice to pronounce
a divorce, a vinctdo matrimonii, it was an equal violation
when committed by the Houses either of Lords or Com-
mons. lie, however, much wished that a different sys-
tem was had recourse to. With respect to the present
proceedings, he thought in his conscience that if they re-
fused the remedy he sought to Lord Ellenborough, they
would, in spite of the evidence, upon a mere presumption,
without proof, stamp upon him the commission of a guilt
which had not been committed. For these reasons the
Bill should have his cordial support.
Lord FRANCIS L. GOWER said, that his object
was to congratulate the House, the country, and the justice
they owed the country, on the speech they had just heard.
The lion. Gent. had done much to refute all the argu-
ments which might be urged relative to cant and sophis-
try. He had done more—he had dealt justly with the
observations of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
had preceded him. As to the state of the law, much as
he regretted what had occurred upon this occasion,
especially the great waste of time, still all would not be
lost if, out of these proceedings, there should arise some
amelioration of the law as it stood.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. TRANT felt no prejudice against Lord Ellen-
borough, and if he did he should absent himself from the
debate. He had, however, heard every speech and every
argument on both sides of the question, and was sorry
that the conclusion lie came to would not enable him to
'vote for the Bill. Be agreed in thinking that there was
great absence of care on the part of the husband.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD was uninfluenced by fear,
favour, or affection, and were the party Peer or Commoner,
Cabinet Minister or otherwise, all were equal in his eyes.
He should vote against the Bill, and be would briefly state
the grounds of his opposition. He would pass by whether
the evidence was so satisfactory as to warrant the con-
clusion here sought for, and he thought it was of that
nature that no 12 men, on their oaths, would give a
verdict for damages upon it He believed the fact of the
adultery, and his opposition was grounded, not on any dis-
belief of that, but on the strong belief he entertained of the
existence of c liusicn, and ca the impression that there was
long-continued neglect on Lord Ellenborough's part.
Sir GEORGE CLERK could not allow this question
to come to a conclusion without saying a few words ; at
the same time that he would not trespass on them. The
Hon. Baronet then proceeded to answer the arguments of
the Hon. Member, as to the propriety of the remedy, the
absence of a verdict, and the want of sufficient evidence.
As to the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, the Hon. Mem-
her had said that he dial not prove his innocence ; but it
was surprising that, when the witnesses most capable of
speaking to any misconduct on his part were present,
evidence of this nature was not elicited front them. All
his servants were down, and ready for strict scrutiny ; and
it was too hard, when they were not examined, to urge
what they might, hut did not, say as as argument against
the Noble Lord. He did not complain of the tone or
temper of the debate, but he was convinced that a foul
conspiracy of some kind existed, and that long articles
emanating from that were sent forth by the Press, at par-
ticular tunes, only for what, he was happy to find, was
merely the impotent design of prejudicing the minds of
those who were to judge upon this case. The evidence of
the father of this lady, who stated that, as far as he was
capable of judging, nothing could exceed the kindness and
attention of Lord Eilenborough, was a sufficient proof, if
there was no other, that the Noble Marquis was not justi-
fied in attributing any culpable neglect to his Lord-
ship. It was objected that the only evidence as to the
terms on which they lived was that of the Noble
Lord's brother, who had beets absent for two years,
but that gap was supplied by Miss Steele. The letters
showed that the same affection had always continued on
his part, and been assumed oa her part, in order to con-
ceal her conduct. One Hon. Gentleman had laid down a
❑ew principle, that the House ought to grant no divorce to
a gentlema❑ whose wife should go to a ball or opera unac-
companied by hint. If that were to be the principle, the
House must make the law different from that upon which
it had hitherto acted. Would the Hon. Gentleman deprive
persons engaged in public business of any remedy, in case
of the misconduct of their wives ? In 18.26 Lord Ellen-
borough was engaged much in public business; and in the
course of that year Lady Ellenborough formed this unfor-
tunate acquaintance with Prince Swartzenberg. Los d
Ellenborough had never received the Prince in his house,
and had nu means of knowing of the intimacy' that sub-
sisted between the Prince and his lady. The Noble Lord
was engaged in avocations at his office. lie would ask whe-
ther a persou in that situation, whose habits might not
lead hint to mix in society, and whose wife should have a
fancy for enjoyment of that sort, was to debar her front
all enjoyment ? The only complaint brought against Lord
Ellenborough was, that he had unbounded confidence in
his wife's honour. His public duties rendered it impos-
sible always to attend her, Ile (Sir G. Clerk) therefore
thought that no blame was attached to the conduct of the
Noble Lord, and it was impossible the House could refuse
the Noble Lotd a remedy, without casting a foul stigma
on his character.

Mr. MONCK said that there was suspicion in this case
as in every case which bad not been submitted to the scru-
tinizing ordeal of a Jury. At the same time there was no
proof of misconduct on the part of his Lordship, and it was
impossible to imply misconduct. He had looked at the
evidence with this view, and was bound to say there was
an entire absence of all preconcerted plan and collusion.—
(Hear.)—The most suspicious circumstance was the want
of cohabitation between the Noble Lord and his Lady.
Colonel WOOD having been called upon to bear his
testimony to the conduct of the Noble Lord, and having
also, like his Right Hon. Friend, married one of the Lady's
sisters, he thought he should not do justice to the Noble
Lord if he did not stand up in the House and bear testi-
mony to his excellent conduct.

Lord F. OSBORNE must say he could not vote for the
Bill. The House then divided—
For the Bill 66
Against it I6
Majority

On our return to the gallery, Mr. HUM was stating

that he had to complain of certain imputations upon the
motives by which he had been actuated—not that he was
unaccustomed to have hard words and epithets applied to-
ward him. He complained of the Hun. Member for Tre-
gony, that, well ccquainted as he was with the manner of
examining evidence on such occasions, he should tell the
House that any opinion contrary to that which he enter-
tained was inconsistent with an upright and honourable
mind. I bold such imputations (said the Hon. Member)
to be altogether uncalled for and unwarrantable. It is said
that we have opposed this Bill because the Noble Lord was
unpopular. I deny the fact. I know nothing of his un-
popularity ; this is the first time I hare heard of it. I say
the Learned Member is wrong in the position he takes.
He accuses us of bad intentions in objecting to the pass-
ing of the Bill, because he says there is ❑o evidence to
implicate Lord Ellenborough. The Hon. and Learned
Member, who gave so clear, and, I think, so satisfactory
a statement of what was the law in this case, said it was
slot only not necessary that Lord Ellenborough should not
be charged, but that it was imperative on the party seek-
ing redress to come forward and prove he was not culpable.
I think, therefore, that the Learned Gentleman has not
dealt out his usual measure of justice to us, in asserting
that no man who differed from him could be of an upright
and honourable mind. We have friends here to interfere
in judicial duties, and to allow private feelings to bias their
judgments. I don't blame them. I think it is too mani-
fest in this debate that they are not here as judges, but
as friends and advocates, and, therefore, it appears ex-
tremely unfair, because they may be acquainted with facts
—because they may intepret the evidence, from knowing
the connecting links which we want—to throw epithets
upon us. The Right Hon. Gentleman must allow me to
say, that the manner in which he blames others is not
consistent with that liberality of opinion which, on other
occasions, he has express.d. He says that no man of
sense and decency could come to the conclusion I have.
Does any one expression which I used warrant him in say-
ing that I want sense or decency ? Of sense, God knows,
I have little enough.—(A laugh.)—Such expressions are
altogether inapplicable, and, therefore, unjust; not that
they affect me, because I am too much subject to them.
Then the Right Hon. Gentleman imputes to me expres-
sions altogether foreign to my mind. He says that I leave
been snaking false and foul imputations.
Sir H. HARDINGE—I did not.

Mr. THLNIE—I took down the words : were they ap-
plicable to me? If so, I throw them back as altogether
undeserved. He accuses us, too, of a foul conspiracy
against the Noble Lord. I challenge him to the proofs.
If I could be guilty of that, I should be altogether un-
worthy to sit here. This kind of answer to arguments is
altogether novel. One ground upon which I formed my
opinio❑ was, that I was not satisfied the Noble Lord had
done his duty. This was the whole amount of my ob-
jection, and therefore it appears extremely unfair that the
question cannot be argued without abusive epithets.
When I see one Learned Doctor of the Law differ diamet-
rically from another, and other Members coining to op-
posite conclusions, am I to have these epithets hurled
against me, because between contending parties I am
obliged to join with the one or the other ? Such epithets
are little calculated to support the cause. I regret that Bills
of this kind may be brought into Parliament. It is to be
hoped the practice will cease since Parliament itself has the
power to remove the evil.

Dr. LUSHINGTON—I could not have thought that
it was within the power of human misapprehension to
have such a misconception of every syllable that fell from
me as I now find, by experience, it is possible to exist in
the mind of the Hon. Member. I did not believe that the
power of mistmderstanding that which had fallen from me
or any other individual, could have existed in this extraor-
dinary plenitude. I did not believe that a man with the
faculty of hearing, the power of understanding, and the
gift of recollection, could have got up within three quar-
ters of an hour after I had delivered a speech, and put into
my mouth sentiments which I never uttered, either by
word, or entertained a conception of, or gave—l will say
any man of common apprehension—the slightest reason to
believe I thought.—(Hear.)—There is no safety for man
if speaking in plain, intelligible, and straight-forward
terms, is thus to be tortured and turned into an expression
of sentiments which I abhor equally with the Hon.
Member for Montrose. You ought to have a short-hand
writer at your table, to refute representations so utterly,
so totally unfounded. What did I say? lam told that I
accused the opposers of this Bill of having been carried
away by the unpopularity of the Noble Lord, to do him
injustice. What were the words I uttered ? I said, and
I lamented, that I had found a strong feeling against the
Noble Lord on the ground of his unpopularity. The Hon.
Member for Montrose has said that he has heard of this un-
popularity for the first time. I protest that 1 have a little
difficulty in giving entire credit to that statement, because,
it he has not heard of the unpopularity of the Noble Lord, 1
verily believe he is the only man who has not. Be that
as it may, what said I afterwards? That every Hon.
Member who came to vote had done his best to understand
the evidence. To be told that I accused Hon. Members
who opposed the Bill of voting against the dictates of their
conscience and the truth of the evidence from feelings of
dislike, is just precisely the reverse of that which I did say,
and what (with the single exception of the Honourable
Member for Montrose) every human being who heard
me knows I did not. This is a little hard ; but that is
not all. lam now told I made an accusation, and said
that no man could give his vote against this Bill except
he was actuated by unfair prejudice and partiality. That
is pure imagination from beginning to end. That is not
misrepresentation—it does not deserve the name of misre-
presentation—it is absolute invention. I can put up with
misrepresentation—but I put it to the House whether we
shall carry en our debates with advantage and facility if
Hon. Members are to indulge in flights of fancy, and cre-
ate, without the possibility of any foundation, and put
into the mouths of others, sentiments which they never
uttered, and which they abhor. I complain of unjust,
unfounded, unjustifiable, not misrepresentation, but in-
vention of sentiments which I never uttered, which I
never alluded to, and which I never gave any fair, honest,
honourable, or intelligible Member of this House the
slightest reason to suppose that I could by possibility have
advocated.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE—It is seldom that any one
accuses the Hun. Member for Aberdeen of too much in-
vention, but often of want of invention. My observa-
tions were entirely directed to his perversion of the evi-
dence—and I entertain the same opinion still. The Hon.
Member argued that a case of sufficient adultery had not
been made out. In stating to the House the calumnies
and false imputations upon my Noble Friend, I said that
reports had been industriously circulated to his disadvan-
tage. I could never mean the statement of the Hon.
Member. I said, "reports." I accused the Hon. Mem-
ber of an unfair, perverted, and exaggerated statement of
the evidence. I beg leave to assures the Hon. Member,
that however good his intellect may be for estimates (and
he and I have had frequent skirmishes on that subject), I
have no respect for his intellect where morality or a know-
ledge of law is concerned, and I think he has entirely
failed to do himself credit, either as a moralist or a learn-
ed civilian. I did particularly allude to the indecency of
his expression, that an English woman never denied her
husband certain privileges. His statement was indecent,
and Iso characterised it. I appeal to the House whether
that was not the statement of the Hon. Member—it was
noticed at the time by those around me.

Mr. S. RICE said that, whatever difference of opinion
there might be in this case, it seemed to be admitted, on
all hands, that in all these cases the duties t i the House
were very imperfectly performed. If the present Session
were allowed to pass without l'ethrining the evil, the
House would not stand well with the country, or dis-
charge the duty it owed t' its constituents.
Mr. NV. SMITH had given his vote in favour of the
Bill upon the full conviction that the case against the lady
had been so proved that no reasonable man could entertain
a doubt, and next upo❑ the ground that the charge of col-
lusion had not been proved at all. As to the mode of
proceeding, he concurred in the view which the Hon.
Member who had spoken last took of the subject, and be-
lieved it not to be singular. He was exceedingly scan-
dalised at permitting a person of the character of Miss
Steele to be brought to this bar, and to be questioned in a
manner which he himself thought extremely unnecessary,
and which, if necessary, was discreditable to the House in
the greatest degree, and a most monstrous, abominable,
and detestable affront to female delicacy.—(Hear, hear.)—
He hoped that a remedy would be adopted in the course of
this Session of Parliament.

Sir GEORGE CLERK—The Hon. Member for Aber-
(ken has also misapprehended what I stated to the House.
I attach no blame to him. when I said that no person
could look at the articles in the daily Press without seeing
that there was a studied attempt to prejudice the question
before it came before the House. If I had not been aware
of the extraordinary talent for misconception of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, I should have been inclined to be-
lieve that his arguments had not been taken from the do-
cuments on the table, but from some of those sources to
which I have alluded. It is, however, entirely owing to
the extraordinary constitution of his mind, that he has
misapprehended the evidence.
Mr. HUME—I have only to say that these observations
are very impertinent.
Mr. Alderman WOOD—Being one of the small number
who voted against the Bill, begged leave to say that he
knew nothing of the unpopularity of the Noble Lord..—

Whether he w; is unpopular in this or the other House, he
knew nothing whatever. There was one circumstance in
favour of the Noble Lord, that no lady was present to bear
this debate.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE wished to refute the
charges which were circulatLi against Lord Ellenborough,
and which, in his opinion, were atrocious calumnies.—
(Cries of " order," and " chair, chair.")—Really, the
Hon. Member who called out order was more out of order
than he was. The reason for which be rose to order was,
that the Hon. Alderman was re-echoing those calumnies.
Mr. Alderman WOOD alluded merely to what his Hon.
Friend called the unpopularity of the Noble Lord. Really,
he did not know that the Noble Lord was unpopular. It
could not, surely, be Possible that a Noble Lord, one of his
Majesty's present Ministers, could be unpopular.—(A
laugh.)—He was not adverse to this measure. He did
not know but he might himself have to approach the
House in this way—(Much laughing)—but he hoped, if
he should, he would have a better case. He gave his vote
on this question with the conviction that the evidence did
not hear out the Bill, and that there should be further
inquiry..
Sir HENRY HARDINGE wished to eet the Hon.
Alderman right. He did not apply to him the words he
had used. What he said was, that there were atrocious
calumnies spread by the public prints against Lord Ellen-
borough respecting his intention of remarrying, which
calumnies he was anxious to refute.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman WOOD,
Mr. CHOKER called the attention of the House to the
state of the law of marriage and divorce. In England the
law was one thing, in Scotland the law was another, and
in Ireland there was no law at all.—(A laugh.)—When
the question of divorce came to be considered by Govern-
ment, or by Parliament, he hoped the law would be put
in an intelligible way, and that a uniform system would be
established.

The question was then put, that the Bill do pass, and
it was carried in the affirmative, but with some dissentient
voices.

BEER TRADE.

Mr. CALCRAFT brought up tile report of the Com-
mittee on the beer trade, and in moving that it be printed,
he gave notice that on Thursday next he would move for
leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the plan recom-
mended by the Committee.
The report was then ordered to be printed.
Mr. CARTER moved for several returns relating to the
expenditure, by the victualling department of the Navy,
upon buildings in Portsmouth, &c.
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition fro►n tile
licensed victuallers in Liverpool against the opening of the
beer trade.—Laid on the table.

The HoN. MumErt presented a petition from Mid-
dlewood, one of his constituents, complaining that a ve-
getable soap which he discovered was taxed by the Com-
missioners as if it were medicine. He was once relieved
by the Treasury, but he was now again under prosecution.
Mr. BRIGHT asked if it was the intention of the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to improve the Stamp
Act this Session ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was his intention that evening to give notice that, to-mor-
row, he would move for a Committee of the whole House
upon the Stamp Act, when he would submit to them a
schedule of the new rates of Stamps. He did not expect
any discussion to-morrow evening, as that would be incon-
venient, but he would, by the schedule, put the House in
possession of what he was to do.
Mr. I-lUME hoped the schedule would have two co-
lumns; one of the old Stamps, the other of the altered
duties.

Mr. BRIGHT thought the whole Act should he pro-
duced in the first instance, and that before the holydays.
The.petition was then ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUSKISSON moved for accounts of the amount
of Exchequer Bills in the hands of the Bank of England ;
and also a copy of the contract with the Corporation of
the City of London for a loan to complete London Bridge.
—Ordered.

The Marquis of BLANDFORD presented a petition
from St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, praying for retrenchment
and for reform.—Laid on the table.

Col. O'GRADY presented a petition from V. Blake,
Esq., complaining of the expense of passing Bills through
Parliament.—Laid on the table.

Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from St. Andrew'r,
Dublin, praying for the repeal of the duty on coals.
The same MEMBER presented another petition from die
unemployed workmen of Limerick, complaining of distress ;
and six petitions from different parts of Yorkshire, against
the renewal of the East India Company's Charter.—All
were laid on the table.
HACKNEY COACHES.

Mr. PALLMER presented two petitions from hackney
coach proprietors, complaining of the manner of licensing
hackney coaches.
Mr. WARBURTON said it was hard that more than
one million, constituting the population of this metropolis,
should be in want of the means of transporting themselves
from one part of the town to the other, in consequence of
a bad restrictive law obliging them to take their departure
from one point or another. He hoped this question would
come under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer.

Mr. HUME said it was now three years since they had
a promise that the office of Commissioners of Hackney
Coaches would be inquired into. By the abolition of it,
10,000/. a year could be saved to the public, and the busi-
ness could be (lone by the police offices.
Mr. MONCK was understood to say, that the keeping
of hackney coaches ought to be open to all.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY gave notice that on Thursday,
the 13th of May, he would move for a Committee to
inquire into the state of the public carriages of the
metropolis.
The petitions were then ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from the Unita-
rian Protestant Dissenters of the Chapel of Finsbury,com-
plaining of the severity of the Criminal Law. Another
petitio❑ was also presented from certain manufacturers of
British sweets, complaining of the Licensing System.—
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. BATLEY presented a petition from the Licensed
Victuallers of Beverley, against the opening of the Beer
Trade.—Laid on the table.

Lord TULLAMORE presented several petitions from
Mullingar, and other places in Ireland, complaining, a 9
we understood, of the Corn Laws.
Mr. P. THOMSON moved for an account of the duties
charged for several specified years on articles which he
enumerated.

Mr. P. THOMSON brought in a Bill to alter and
amend the Laws respecting Contract Loans and the Rate
of Interest on Money.—Read a first time, and ordered to
be read a second on the 26th inst.

Mr. HERRIES presented a petition from an individual
residing at Warminster, against die practice of paying
«•ages by truck.—Laid on the table.

TOBACC(I. DUTIES.

Mr. Alderman THOMSON wiihed to know from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it was his intention to
:flake any alteration in the duties on stemmed and un-
stemmed tobacco ; and also whether it was the intention
of the Right Hon. Gentleman to allow the growth of
tobacco in Ireland. A large class of persons were inte-
rested in this subject ; and it should be observed thlt an
article, the intrinsic value of which was but 1,0001. now
paid a duty of 10,0001.
Mr. W. SMITH begged to ask, at the same time, whe-
ther it was intended to make any compensation for the duty
of in the pound which had been dropped?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in
reply to the latter question, said that the decision come to
at every succeeding Board was that no compensation should
be allowed for the Is. which had been dropped. With
respects to the question put to him by the Hon. Alderman,
he could only say that his Majesty's Government did not
intend to make any alteration in the duties on foreign to-
bacco. He should, to-morrow, move for a Committee to
take into consideration the question as to the growth of
tobacco in Ireland.

Jr.i WARBURTON moved that an humble Address
be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be
pleased to direct his Consul at St. Petersburgh to furnish
an account of the precious metals circulated in Russia from
1820 down to the present period.—Ordered.
Lord NUGENT presented a petition from the Agri-
cultural. Labourers of a parish in the county of Bucks,
complaining of distress, and praying for relief.—Laid on
the table• _

PORTUGUESE AMNESTY.
Lord PALMERSTON wished to put some questions
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting a statement
which had came before the public, as to an amnesty which
the present Government of Portugal was represented to
have issued• The Noble Lord then referred to the follow-
ng document
LissoN, MARCH 17.—" I. An amnesty will be granted to all
privates and officers below the rank of Captain. 2. Civil officers
who have talen no active share in the re-actions which have oc-
curredgal against the authority of Don Miguel will
likewise have the benefit of amnesty, but not be reinstated in
their offices. 3. The Treasury, in restoring the property of those
emigrants who shall return to Portugal within six months, will
in Fortino
not restore the rentals of which the Government may have dis-
,sod. 4. "I be. garrison of Terceira, and the inhabitants of that
Island, will be included in this amnesty 5. The prisoners will
be set at large, but some, designated by Government, will leave
the kingdom, and reside abroad for a certain time. ti. With re-
gard to all other
classes 01' emigrants, Don Miguel engages to
grant another amnesty, eighteen months after the recognition of
his authority by England, reserving to himself such exceptions

as be may *ale. • 7. Counts Saldanha and Villa for, Generals
Stubbs and Mello, the Marquis do Valentina, and some other
noted characters, who fought against the Marquis of Chaves and
General Povoas, will be proscribed for life."
le had stated, on a former occcasion, that every one knew
what the word amnesty meant, in the sense adopted in
Turkey or Spain; but that statement he now wished to re-
tract, for neither in Turkey nor Spain had there ever been
any thing equal to this amnesty, which was said to have
emanated from the Portuguese Government. He now begged
to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, first, if the English Go-
vernment had received this as a project of an amnesty
corning from Don Miguel ?—secondly, if it had come
through Don Miguel directly to us, or through any, and
what, foreign Court or Courts ?—and, thirdly, if it was
the resu't of the spontaneous determination of Don Mi-
guel. or of negotiations carried on with him for that pur-
pose? He also wished to ask if such negotiations had been
carried on between England and the Government of Por-
tugal directly, or by the intervention of any, and what,
foreign Power or Powers?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
his Noble Friend referred to a statement which he had
seen in the English newspapers respecting an amnesty in-
tended to he issued by Don Miguel. He (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) bad seen this document; and he would
only assure his Noble Friend that his Majesty's Govern-
ment knew nothing whatever about it, nor had they the
slightest intimation of its having been issued when it came
before the public. It followed, therefore, from this igno •
ranee of the whole transaction on the part of his Majesty's
Government, that the further questions put by his Noble
Friend were fully answered. If the advisers of the Crown
were in utter ignorance of the affair, it was impossible that
he could answer the questions of his Noble Friend.