The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-02 00:00:00

HOUSE OF CO3BIONS-(LAST NIGHT).

A Member, (we believe Mr. Locn), for Hythe took tl,e
oche and his seat.

ST. GILES AND ST. GEORGE'S, BLOOMSBURY,

VESTRY BILL.

Lord JOINT RUSSELL presented the report of ti:e
Committee on the above Bill.

Mr. HUME objected to the provisions of the Bill gene-
rally, but more particularly to that part of it which limit-
ed the voters to persons paying a rent of 301. and up-
wards. By this means upwards of three-fourths of the
rate-payers would be deprived of giving any vote at all.
The following mode of voting was proposed in the Bill
now before the llonse:—The number of inhabitants rated
under 30/., amounting to 1,856, paying an aggregate
rental of 31,998/, were entitled to no vote ; 1,637 houses,
rated from 30/. to 601. paying an annual rental of 69,665/.
were entitled to one vote each; 608 from 60/. to 90/.,
paying 44,6521., were entitled to two votes each ; 318
from 90/. to 1201., and paying 32,850 L, were entitled to
three votes each ; and 400 rated at 1201. and upwards,
paying 61,4551., were entitled to four votes each. Thus
it would appear that 3,493 rate payers, under 60/. a-ytar,
assessed on a rental of 104,663/, were to have only the
same suffrage as 400 rate-payers assessed on a rental of
only 61,455/--(Hear.) This exclusive system lie (Mr.
Hume) considered as extremely severe, as. depriving so
many inhabitants of a right to vote at all. By Mr. Sturges
Bourne's Bill, every one was entitled to give a vote on a
graduated scale, and this Act had become the law of the
land, and large towns, such as Liverpool, and other large
parishes, had been regulated by it in peace and tranquillity.
What he had to propose as an amendment was, that the
amount of rate at which persons should he at liberty to
vote should be 151. instead of 301.—(Hear)—as proposed
in the Bill. He trusted that the Noble Lord would not
object to this amendment.
Mr. HOBHOUSE seconded the motion, and stated, if
the Bill passed in the present shape, it would be far from
producing a pacification of those angry feelings so long
existing in the parish.
On the SPEAKER putting the amendment,

Sir T. FREEMANTLE trusted the House would not
feel disposed to disturb the determination of the Committee,
made after much deliberation, as to what was the proper
amount of rental at which the inhabitants were entitled
to vote. It bad been admitted by an Hon. Member, who
had taken an active part in the discussion on parish
affairs, that upon searching the parish rate-books of this
parish, most of the persons rated under SW. were unable to
pay the rates.—(Hear, hear.)—lt was therefore deter-
mined that the right to vote should be given to the land-
and not the tenant, in order that those who had the
most property at stake should have a proportionate in-
fluence in the affairs of tie parish. The scale of votes was
also formed to counteract a great evil experienced in these
parishes----viz., a reluctance on the part of persons of
property and influence to coma forward and vote at parish
elections. Ile considered Mr. Sturges Boutne's Bill as
inapplicable t,, all parishes.
Sir R. WILSON did not see why, as the House had
rej,cted the St. James's Vestry Bill two years ago, on the
ground that a new legislative measure for the general
management of vestries was about to be produced, now,
when that measure was on the eve of being carried into
execution, the present Bill should be urged forward as an
exception. With respect to the amount to which the
voters were limited, he knew many places where persons
paying less than 301. were entitled to vote for Members of
Parliament. In the borough of Southwark, for instance,
persons paying 20 /. per annum were entitled to vote for
Representatives in Parliament. He objected to the Bill
passing until the report of the Committee on the Select
Vestry Laws should be presented, and if the present amend-
ment should not be carded, he should move that the Bill
be read that day six months.

Mr. WARD, as an inhabitant of the parish of St.
George, Bloomsbury, urged the necessity of the Bill im-
mediately passing, for the parochial authorities were at a
loss to raise sums for the relief of the numerous poor that
crowded the united parishes of St. Giles and St. George.
Lord RUSSELL observed that the present Bill was not
a Select Vestry Bill, but for the amendment of one. With
respect to the question as to the amount to which votes
were to be limited, he at first felt disposed to think that
the amount should be lower—(Hear).—although not to
the extent suggested by the amendment. The subject,
however, had been much discussed in the Committee, and
he felt bound to declare that he concurred in the amount
fixed upon.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a divi•
sion took place.
For the Amendment... 27 I Against it 57
On our re-admission into the gallery,
Mr. HUME was understood to move that the Bill be
read a third time that day six months.

Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, when

Mr. HOBHOUSE hoped the Noble Lord would have
no objection to make this concession, as there were to be
1,856 persons deprived of voting at all, that all those per-
sons paying, above SOl. should be entitled to only one vote.
Mr. HUME, rather than press his motion that the Bill
be read that day six months, would adopt the suggestion
of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hobbouse), and move that all
persons paying 301. and upwards should be entitled to one
vote each, leaving out the words " two, three, and four
votes."

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House continued sitting three quarters of an hour with
closed doors. We learned that during the exclusion of
strangers a division on Mr. Hutue's motion, for limiting
the number of votes to one to each person, was lost by a
large majority. Also that
Lord J. RUSSELL moved, as an amendment, to leave
out the number of four votes, and substitute three votes, a.

the largest number to be possessed by the highest rate-
payer.

Mr. J. DAWSON and other Members spoke in favour
of this amendment, upon which a division took place;
when the numbers were—
For the amendment 6l
Against it
Mr. HUME then moved that the Bill be re-committed,
when the House again divided.
For the re-committal 26
Against it B7
The Bill was at length ordered to be read a third time
to.merrow (this day).
The House then -divided on the amendment, but we were
not able to ascertain the numbers. The amendment was lost.
We understand that during the exclusion of strangers the
House divided on an amendment proposing that no pa-
rishoner should have more than three votes. This amend-
ment was also lost.
The last amendment was that the Bill should be recom-
mitted. On a division there appeared,

. _
For the Amendment.
Against it S6
Majority —4B
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
ELLENBOROUGH DIVORCE BILL.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the
whole House, to take into further consideration the Ellen-
borough Divorce Bill—Sir G. Chxnx in the Chair.
Counsel were called in, and Mr. Adam proceeded to
examine witnesses in support of the Bill.
Miss Margaret Steele, the governess of Lady Ellenbo-
rough, stated that she had been acquainted with the An-
dover family for a great number of years, and that she
superintended the education of Lady Ellenborough for six
years, and until within a very few months of her marriage ;
she was present at the marriage; had visited, and remained
in the house with them very often, and for long periods
subsequent to it, and always considered them to live very
happily. together, and on terms of mutual affection ; she
had, up to the year 1828, frequently passed days together
in the same house, and never observed any diminution of
affection on the part of Lord Ellenborough, or any want of
tenderness in his conduct towards Lady Ellenborough ; the
first time she saw Lady Ellenborough after the separation
took place, was at Roehampton ; she believed it was the
very next day; the confidence and affection of Lady Ellen-
borough towards her was at that time undiminished ; she
went there at the desire of Lord Ellenborough, for the pur-
pose of living with her ; on the SOth of May, she went
with Lady Ellenborough to Ilfracombe, and afterwards to
her father's house in Dorsetshire ; Lady Ellenborough then
confessed to her that she was with child, and that the father
of that child was Prince Schwartzenburg, who had drunk
tea, and passed the night with her, and part of the next
day at Brighton.
Cross-examined by Mr. GEORGE LAMB—When
Lady Ellenborough told her she was with child, and that
the Prince was the father of that child, no previous eon-

venation had taken place on tte subject, nor had she
(Miss Steele) required Lady Ellenborough to make such
a disclosure ; Lady Ellenboreugl► made the confession vo-
lunarily ; she wished, she said, to make a disclosure of
her guilt, to some friendly bosom there, but she knew ►t
could not mucl► longer he concealed Worn the world. She.
had put no questions to Lady Ellenborough on the subject.
It was either the first or second night after she went into
the country that this conversation took place. Lady El-
lenborough did entre:►t her not to disclose the subject of
their conversation to any one, and told her she relied o❑
her honour not to mention it. Lady Ellenborough did
not give any reason for requiring this secrecy to be pre-
served beyond that already stated of her desire to place
confidence in a friend. She first mentioned the subject
of the conversation to Lady Andover, or to one of Lady
Ellenborough's aunts, she could not tell which, but she
knew she had Lady Ellenborough's permission to mention
it. This was in the month of July, 1529.
By Mr. AGAR ELLIS—Lady Ellenborough never
told her of any period at which she I►ad ceased to sleep
with Lord Ellenborough, nor anything to that effect.
She never said that she and Lord Ellenborougl► occupied
different beds, nor had they any conversation on the sub-
ject at any time.
By Mr. MINIUM CARTER—You say that Lady
Ellenborough told you Prince Schwartaenbarg, was the
father of her child. Did she state any reason Idly she
knew that he was the father ?—I do not recollect that she
gave any reason.
Did she state any reason why she knew that Lord Ellen-
borough was not the father of the chill?—She said she
knew he was not, because she had not slept with him from
that time.