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

'—The time she was with child.

What time?.

Recollect yourself. Do you mean to tell the Committee
that Lady Ellenhorough said she did not sleep with Lord
Ellenhorough from the time she was pregnant with her
first child ?—No, I did not say so. I think I have made
it very clear.—(A laugh.)
By Mr. TENNYSON—Do you mean to say that Lady
Ellenborough told you she had not occupied the same bed
with Lord Ellenborough from the time of her former
lying-in ?—No ; I mean from the time when she said she
was with child by Prince Schwartzenburg. When was
that? At what time did it take place ?—I dcn't know
very accurately. Some time in February or April, 1329.
I really can't tell exactly.
By Mr. B. CARTER—How often did you see Lord and
Lady Ellenborough after their marriage ?—I saw Lady
Ellenhorough continually; Lord Ellenhorough not so often,
but very frequently ? I was at their house eight or nine
times in the course of a year. Had you any conversation
at any of those times with Lady Ellenborough on the
subject of the terms on which she lived with Lord Ellen-
borough ?—Never. Did Lady Ellenhorough ever tell
you at whose request it was that she ceased to sleep with
Lord Ellenborough?—She did not; she did not allude to
that in anv conversation.

Sir H. IHARDINGE--She hail always observed the
conduct of Lord Ellenborough to be uniformly kind to-
wards Lady Ellenborough ; his Lordship seemed to be a
most indulgent husband; from the year 1821, until the
year 1828, she had opportunities of observing them fre-
quently, and she never perceived any negligence or want
of attention in his language or conduct, indeed quite the
contrary; Lord Ellenborough was also extremely kind and
attentive to the brothers of Lady Ellenborough, and to
every member of her family. Are you aware that Lord
Ellenborough was very unwilling that his lady should go
abroad ?—.I know that he was exceedingly averse to it ;
and although Lady Ellenborough was vet y desirous to go
abroad, his Lordship resisted it to the latest moment, and
declared he could not consent to her going abroad.
By Air. HOME DRUMMOND—Had you any reason
to believe there was any indiscretion in Lady Ellen-
borough's conduct before she confessed to you the inti-
macy with Prince Schwaitzenburg ?-only from reports.
By Mr. HUME—Had you not heard that Lady Ellen-
box ough's conduct was blameable before the separation ?
I had heard of seine indiscretions. What were they ?—I
can't remember. Do you know when you heard of them ?
—I do not remember the particular period. Did you not,
as the friend and confident of Lady Ellenborough, remon-
strate with her on the subject of these indiscretions ?
Yes ; I both spoke to her and wrote to her on the subject.
What did Lady Ellenborough say at these times ?—She
justified her conduct, and said that the accusations of le-
vity and indiscretion were cot true. At what time did
you thus remonstrate with Lady Ellenborough?—l think
it was in January, 1829. Did you not hear reports of
Lady Ellenborough's indiscretions before that period ?--
Yes. What was -the nature of these indiscretions ?—I
do not know any thing more; Lady Ellenhorough was
always very regardless of consequences. You say you
frequently visited Lord and Lady Ellenhorough. Did
you ever meet Prince Schwartzenburg in any of these
visits ?—No. Did you ever see him dine at Lord
Ellenborough's house, or visit them ?—Never : I never
saw him in the house. At what time did you first
hear the reports of these indiscretions which you speak
of ?—ln the autumn and winter of the year 1828.
Did you speak to Lady Ellenborough on the subject
at that time ?—I did. Of what nature were those
reports which reached you at that time ?—lndiscre-
tions; I did not hear anything more. Recollect your-
self. Was there no specific act of indiscretion which in-
duced you to speak to Lady Ellenborough on the levity
of her conduct ?—No ; I recollect nothing particular be-
yond her riding a great deal. What, alone ?—No ; with
a servant; I did sot think that she should ride so much,
attended merely by a servant. Was that all ? was there
no other act of indiscretion of which you bad to complain?
—There might probably be others, but I do not recollect
them now. Does the witness mean to say that site took
the trouble to speak and write to Lady Ellenborough on
the subject of her indiscretion, and yet she cannot recollect
anything but what she states ? Did you never hear of any
other act of Lady Ellenborough which called on you to
give this advice ?—I cannot recollect any particular acts;
objected to her general levity of manner, and to her
riding and driving about in the pony phae!on accompanied
by a porno. Are we to understand that you never heard
of any other indiscretions of Lady Ellenhorough until she
herself communicated them to you at Roehampton ?—I do
not remember any others at present ; I may recollect by
and by ; I have seen Lord Ellenhorough, and had a con-
versation with him since the separation. Have you ever
conversed with him on the subject of Lady Ellenborough's
conduct ?—Yes ; I have told him that some of Lady El-
lenborough's associates were very bad indeed. Can you
tell us who were the persons you thus designated as being
bad associates for. Lady Ellenborough.—(General cries of
" No, no." This question was not pressed ?).—Where the
persona you spoke of in this language gentlemen or ladies?
—Both gentlemen and ladies. Were they acquaintances
of Lord or of Lady Ellenborough ?—I don't know. Were
they introduced to the house by Lord Ellenborough ?
Yes, they were of course introduced by Lord Ellenbo-
rough. Were those persons ladies and gentlemen moving
in that circle of society in which Lord and Lady Ellenbo-
rough were accustomed to move ?—They were. Did you
caution Lord Ellenborough against the permitting his Lady
to associate with these ladies ?—I cannot say it was a cau-
tion ; I warned him about these ladies and gentlemen, but I
cannot mention names.—(Hear.)—Were these associates
unknown to Lady Eilenborough as Miss Digby?—Certainly.
What reason had you to warn Lord Ellenborough against
these persons as associates of his Lady ?—I had no par-
ticular reason ; I merely knew them by report as profli-
gate men. What did Lord Ellenborough say when you
cautioned him ?—I cannot say I cautioned him ; I merely
warned him. What did he say ?—I do not recollect what
he said ; he laughed. Did you laugh, too?—No, was
serious. Did you say any thing more ?—No, I meant it
as a warning to Lord Ellenborough ; and finding it was
not taken as I anticipated, I did not repeat it. Did you
see the Caine associates at the house of Lord Ellenborough
afterwards ?—I did. Did Lady, Ellenborough visit the
ladies you allude to after dais period ?—She visited them.
Did Lord Ellenborough visit them ?—I do not know.--
Did you visit Lady Ellenborough after the time you cau-
tioned Lord Ellenborough ?—Yes, I visited her repeatedly.
By Sir H. HARDINGE—Were the persons to whom
you allude ladies and gentlemen of rank and station in
society ?—Yes they were. Were they persons of a rank
usually seen at placFs of public amusement ?—Yes. They
were not persons rejected by society, or refused admittance
in respectable houses?—They were persons not rejected at
houses called respectable.—(A laugh.)—Did you allude
to any particular individuals when you cautioned Lord
Ellenhorough F—Yes, I alluded to one individual—a lady
whose society I disapproved !yf. Were you not considered
to be rather strict in your principles when you made these
complaints ? Perhaps I was. Were not the persons to
whom you objected received into the best English society
in London?—They were received into the fashionable so-
ciety of London..—(Hear, and a laugh.)
By Mr. AGAR ELLIS—The witness dined with Lord
and Lady Ellenborough for the last time in 1828, and up
to that time as well as afterwards she never heard Lady
Ellenborough make the slightest complaint of the con-
duct of Lord Ellenborough.
By Sir H. HARDINGE—Lady Ellenborough in-
variably expressed herself in strong terms of gratitude
respecting the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, when she
had occasion to allude to it.
In answer to questions from an Honourable Member,
the witness stated, that the reasons which Lady Ellen-
borough had given why the child with which she was

prespaut was l'i-;11Ce Swartzenturg'a, and not Lord El
borough's, was that she had not slept with Lord Ellen-
borough since February.
Be Sir HENRY HARDINGE—When you state that
improper associates were introduced to Lady Ellenborough
by Lord Ellenhorough, do you mean to say that Lord El.
lenborough took especial pains to select those persona for
the purpose, or were they merely introduced as fashionable
persons in the ordinary course of society ?—That they
were merely introduced as fashionable persons in the ordi-
nary course of society.
By lord NUGENT—Was Prince Swartzenburg cf the
persons introduced by Lord Ellenborough to Lady Ellen-
borough's society ?--He was rot.
By Mr. HUME—Did any of Lord Ellenborougk's
family express themselves dissatisfied with her conduct?—
The only fault that they laid to her was keeping the so—
ciety which I have mentioned. Was the only fault they
found with her keeping the society which Lord Ellenbo-
rough had introduced to her?—Certainly. Was not this
objection on the part of Lady Ellenborough's family made
at an ear.y period after the marriage ?—Not to my know-
ledge; not at a very early period. When did Lady El-
lenborough's family first express their objection to the
society which Lady Ellenborongh was keeping?—l do not
recollect ; I only remember that they bl :tried her on that
account.

By Sir IL HARDINGE—Yon say that Lady Ellenbo-
rough's family expressed dissatisfaction at the society
which had been introduced to her by Lord Eilenborongli ;
was that dissatisfaction expressed before the occurrence of
the indiscretions on the part of Lady Ellenborough, which
you have mentioned, or after ?—Lady Andover, I believe,
made the remark to me, after the occurrence of the circum-
stance which I have mentioned. Then it was after the
indiscretions to which you have alluded that Lady Ellen-
borough's family expressed their dissatisfaction at the so-
ciety which she was keeping ?—Yes.
By Mr. HUME—The witness has stated that she no-
ticed indiscretions in Lady Ellenborough's conduct. Did
she locution those indiscretions—did she mention Lady El-
lenhorough's riding alone to Lady El7enbarough's family?
—I spoke of them to Lady Ellenborough herself ; but I
(lid not mention them to Lady Ellenberough's family, be-
cause I knew that it would pain them exceedingly.

The witness vas then ordered to withdraw.
The next witness called was Mr. Freshfield. Ile was
examined by Mr. Adam, and stated in Enlist:ince that he
was Lord Ellenborough's solicitor ; that he received in-
structions to make inquiry respecting the reports and the
evidence against Lady Ellenborough on the 29th of June,
1829; that he did not succeed in making any material
discovery on the suliect until the second week in July;
that he then discovered that Prince Schwartgenburg had
before resided in Harley-street, a circumstance previously
Unknown to Lord Ellenborough ; that he did not, however,
at that time obtain sufficient materials to warrant him in
advising Lord Ellenborough to commence proceedings ; and
that he was afterwards informed that Prince Schwarizen-
burg had left England. _ _ .

The witness was then examined by Sir CHARLES
WETHERELL ; but the Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman spoke in so low a tone of voice that few of his
questions reached us ; and we are enabled, therefore, to
give the result of his examination very briefly and imper-
fectly. We understood Mr. Freslifield to state in the
course of the examination, that he was satisfied that Lord
Ellenborough did not know where Prince Schwartzenburg
had lodged before March ; that Lord Ellenborough had not
told him that be did not know, but that he drew that in-
ference from the instructions which he had received ; that
one of his reasons for drawing that inference was that
Prince Schwatteenhurg was described as residing in Hol-
ies-street, and that Harley-street was not mentioned,
which involved a misdirection to him (the witness), which
of course would not have occurred had Lord Ellenborough
been aware that at a former period Prince Schwartzen-
burg had lived in Harley-street ; that the earliest period to
which hie instructions directed his attention was the autumn
of 1828 ; at which periol it was alleged that Lady Ellen-
borough had been repeatedly seen with Prince Schwart-
zenburg ; that he understood that Prince Sehwartzenburg
left England in June, 1829; that he made the discovery of
Prince Schwartzenburg'm having resided in Harley-street
before he went to Holler-street by men. accident; that it
had not occurred to him to inquire at the Foreign Office
where Prince Schwartzenburg bad re•ideh; that it was
not until alter great difficulty and much search, that be dis-
covered that Prince Schwartzenburg had lived in Harley_
street ; that his instructions stated that it was believed that
Prince Schwartzenburg lived in Holler-street, and that the
reports were that Lady Ellenhorough and Prince Schwart-
zenburg met in Holler-street; that having by accident dis-
covered that Prince Schwartzenburg had lived in Harley-
street, he (the witness) inquired at above twenty houses in
that street, and at length found one in which he was in-
formed that a foreigner had lived ; that after further in-
quiry it appeared that that foreigner was Prince Schwart-
zenburg, and that all the information which he subse-
quently obtained grew out of that discovery.
By a MEMBER—Do you consider, Carpenter the boy
who was examined before the Committee yesterday even-
ing, to be a willing or an unwilling witness ?—A very un-
willing witness indeed; I never met with a mote unwilling
witness. 'Wore the general instructions which you re-
ceived drawn up by Lord Ellenborough ?—They were, I
believe, in the handwriting of Mr. William Lao:, a cousin
of Lord Ellenborough, a gentleman at the bar. Lord
Ellenhorough bad directed his couNin to draw up those
instructions?—So I understood. Then you understand
that Lotd Ellenhorough had consulted his own family and
his cousin, Mr. William Law, on the subject, before he
took the step which he did take ?—Yes. From the time
you received your instructions until you obtained the in-
formation which was necessary for proceeding, what time
elapsed ?—I received my instructions on the 29th of May;
it was not until September that I obtained all the neces-
sary information.

By Sir HENRY HARDINGE—From the first con-
versation which yon had with Lord Ellenborough on the
subject, did he ever swerve from his determination to pro-
ceed in the inquiry ?—Never ; although at an early pet iod
of the inquiry 1 told Lim that the circumstances which I
bad at that time procured, were not sufficient to bring the
inquiry to a satisfactory issue. Did Lord Elienborough
continue at that time to express his detsrminatio❑ to pro-
ceed in the inquiry ?—He did; he said that it was due to
Lis own honour, and that it was due to the honour of
Lady Ellenborough ; that various reports had been spread
about her, which he was bound to investigate, for that her
character was the only proof of her innocence, which
ought to be established by incontrovertible evidence. Lord
Ellenborough was always anxious, then, to continue the
inquiry ?—lle never would allow it to stand still.
By a MEMBER—Has the witness reason to believe
that previous to the period of which he has been speaking
Lord Ellenborough was aware of Lady Ellenborough'e ac-
quaintance with Prince Schwartzenburg ?—I believe that
some report had reached Lord Elenitorough's ears of Lady
Elienborough's having keen seen riding with Prince
Schwartzenburg. At what period did those reports re-
specting Lady Ellenborough's riding with Prince Schwartz-
enburg roach Lord El!enborough's ears am unable to
answer that question. At about what period cannot
exactly say.
After one or two further questions from Mr. LAMB
and Lord FRANCIS OSBORNE, the witness was or-
dered to withdraw.

The CHAIRMAN having asked the Counsel at the Bar
if he had any more witnesses to call.
Mr. Adam said, that he merely wished to call two wit-
nesses to prove, the one the sentence of the Ecclesiastical
Court, the other the hand-writing of Lady Ellenborough's
letters. He had also to state to the House that Lord El-
lenborough's coachman was in attendance, for the purpose
of being examined, if the House should think fit to call
him behore them.

Two witnesses were then examined to prove the facts
respecting the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, and the
authenticity of Lady Ellenborough's letters.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE said that he thought it
right to mention to the House that he had informed Lord
Ellenborough of the wish expressed yesterday evening by
the Hon. Member for Montrose to have his coachman
examined at the bar ; and that hie Lordship had said that
he was anxious, not only his coachman, but every other
atember of his establishment, should be examined at the
bar,.if such a proceeding were thought necessary.
Mr. HUME moved that the coachman should be
called in.

J. King, to questions put by Mr. HUME—I have been
some time in Lord Ellenborough's service, and I am now
in it ; I recollect Carpenter—be was her Ladyship's
groom; he always rode with her Ladyship; another ser-
vant (lid attend her a few times; this was his Lordship's
groom—his name was Jewel; he did not gu with her
Ladyship often; I do not know where they rode; her
Ladyship's horses stood in the same stable with mine in
town, bu: not in the country; I was the head of the de-
partment in his Lordship's family, but I never asked Car-
penter where he had been ; there was no occasion for the
question ; I might have occasionally observed that the
horses had been out a long time; he never mentioned to

- •
me any gentleman having rode with her Ladyship ; I am
quite certain of that ; Carpenter has sometimes brought
the horses home without bringing her Ladyship ; I never
inquired where her Ladyship had been left, or where she
had been to ; I never heard any report of Prince Schwurt—
zenburg riding with her Ladyship ; I have seen the Prince
at operas, plays, and concerts, attending her Ladyship,

but i•never sate him to master's house ; aut6ter
was not at the opera, or at the other public places, when
the Prince was attending her Ladyship ; I know the Prince's
groom, from having to wait at public places for my master
whilst he was waiting for his; we were both waiting for
our respective masters. By this means I knew the Prince;
I am sure of his person.
To questions by Lord NUGENT—I never saw the
Prince in company with Lord Ellenborough, nor in com-
pany with her Ladyship when Lord Elie:thorough was
with her. _ _ _

Mr. HUNIE now wished the butler to be ealed in again,
that he might ask him one mere question.
Thomas, liamts (as far as we could catch the tame)
was then called in and examined by Mr. HUME—I have
been butler in Lord Ellenborough's family for upwards of

•
four years. I attended upon his Lordship's fautiy both
at floehampton and in town. His Lordship had frequent
dinner parties, at which I attended, but I do not recollect
having ever seen Prince Schwartzenburg dining at his
Lordship's table. I am positive of this ; had he been
there I must have known it. is was never at any of his
Lordship's evening parties. I know nothing of Ptince
Schwartzenburg. I know Carpenter, the groom. I
never talked to him about where her Ladyship went when
she went out to ride. I had no motive lin- such a question.
I had never beard any reports of the Prince riding with
her Ladyship. If any body has said that this was a sub-
ject of conversation in his Lordship's family, he was in
error. I never heard anything of it until it was in the

public papers. If such had been the topic of conversation
among the servants, I insist have heard it. I never heard
of it directly or indirectly.
To questions put by Sir HENRY HARDINGE—Lord
and Lady Ellenborough always treated each other with
affection and k'ndness. I had constant Opportunities of
witnessing their conduct to each other. Had any unkind
treatment taken place I must have known it. I never
heard the servants mention any unkind treatment between
them. Lord Ellenborough never was harsh to her Lady-
ship, or deficient in tenderness ; his manner to her Lady_
ship was always and invariably kind. I have lived in
other families—l mean married families, and I should say
that Lord Ellenborough was as indulgent a husband as I
have seen in any preceding families; he was, in my opinion
more so. At table they did not address each other as'
Lord and Lady, but as Edward and Janet. Her conduct
was kind and affectionate to his Lordship.
To questions by Mr. TENNYSON—I cannot say whe-
ther Lord and Lady Ellenborough had the same or sepa-
rate beds ; there are two beds in the room, but how far
they are separated I cannot say.—(A laugh.)
To questions put by Mr. HUME—Lord and Lady El-
lenborough were out frequently to parties; I don't know
if his Lordship attended her to the evening parties; in
the country he rode out with her, but not in town ;
don't recollect any particular parties in the autumn of
1828 ; I am quite certain that the Prince was never in
my master's house.
Examined by Sir CHARLES WETHERELL—It was
not notorious in the family that Lord and Lady Ellen-
borough slept in different beds ; in nay conversations with
the servants of the family, i have heard'of their sleeping
in separate beds ; I can't say from what servant I heard
this, most likely it was from his Lordship's valet.
By Lord NUGENT—This was not mentioned as in
consequence of any misunderstanding or disagreement be-
tween Lord and Lady Ellenborough ; I never heard that
they slept in separate beds from any difference of temper.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE—AII the rest of Lord El-
lenborough's servants are here, if any Member wish to
have them called in and examine them.—(Cries of
" No, no, no.")
The CHAIRMAN—CounseI may withdraw.
Mr. HUME said that he felt it his duty, after such a
mass of contradictory and inconsistent evidence, to protest
that the House should not conic to a hasty or premature
decision. For his part, so numerous and strong were
the contradictions, that he did not know on what to rest.
Who could, at that moment, say how far there might
have been any collusion between the parties ? And who
could hazard an opinion upon the evidence before the Com-
mittee? He should submit that the evidence be printed,
with a view to see how far it bore out the allegations in
the Bill. Ho should move that the Committee report
progress.
Sir G. CLERK said, that it was certainly competent
for any Hon. Member to move that the evidence be laid
before the House, and that it be printed ? but he must
only beg leave to remind the Hon. Member for Aberdeen,
that if he took such a course, the third reading of the all
would be postponed.
Mr. R. GORDON wished to know if there was any
provision made in the Bill for the support of Lady Ellen.
borough ?
Sir H. HARDINGE made some reply, that we were
unable to hear in the gallery.
Dr. PHILLIMORE said, that there never were aily
such provisions in Divorce Bills.
Mr. HUME said, that if upon considering the evidence
he should feel satisfied that the adultery of Lady Ellen-
borough had arisen from the neglect of Lord Ellenborough,
he should certainly propose to strike out of the Bill that
clause which gave his Lordship the relief he sought for.
He thought that it would be much better to report
progress.
Sir IL HARDINGE was surprised to hear the Hon.
Member talk of stopping the progress of the Bill. Good
God ! when the feelings of the families were concerned—
when the Bill had hail such an extraordinary, such an un-
usual sifting—could it be wished to sift it more? No
man's conflict could stand better than that of Lord Ellen-
borough's ; and he was perfectly satisfied of the honour-
able part of the heads of the Lady's family. He must say
that it was very desirable to conclude the inquiry. The
House must consider that the witnesses were not on oath ;
and that in a popular assembly it was not useful to the
cause of justice that the Bill should hang in that House.
The usual course of r roceediog was to report the Bill
without any amendment, and if the Hun. Member should
find any part of the Bill of which he dis ipproved, it was
competent in him to move to strike out the clause in the
third reading.
Mr. HUME—The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite
mistaken if he supposed that he was disposed to hurt the
fselings of any of the parties, or if he imagined that he
was insensible to the painful nature of the ea,e. What he
had done had arisen involuntarily from the nature of the
evidence as it had come out before the House. The Right
Hon. Gentleman's manner had indicated that he wasgivilig
the parties unnecessary pain ; and in casting. such an nn-
potation upon him, he was not doing him justice. He
was prepared to say that he should agree to the separation
of Lord and Lady Ellenborough, if it were not for certain
forms exacted in that House—(Hear.)—But if those forms
were to form part of the law of the House, though they
were mere forms, they ought to be attended to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said a
few words, the purport of which, further than that they
were in opposition to delay, we could not catch.
Mr. TENNYSON must express the same feeelings
upon the subject tt., those set forth by the Hon. Member
for Aberdeen. He (Mr. Tennyson) had as much feeling
of delicacy toward the parties as any Member in that
House ; but in a case where there had been no investiga-
tion in a Court of Law, it was unprecedented that a Bill
of Divorce should pass through Parliament. No Jury, in
this case, had given any damages in a Court of Law. He
must not be misunderstood to blame Lord Ellenborough
for not going into a Court of Law; but as that usual pro-
ceeding had not taken place, the House was hound, in
the common exercise of its duty, to go into the Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was very sure that nothing could be further from the in-
tentions of his Right Hon. Friend than to impute blame
to any body. He was quite willing to admit that as there
were no opposing parties to the Bill, it wax peculiarly in-
cumbent upon the House to investigate the case. He de-
nied that it was unprecedented to pass a Divorce Bill
where no investigation of the case had taken plans itt
Common Law Court. The rule was, that a trial at law
should take place, or that the parties should state why it
had not taken place. This had been done in die present
instance ; for it was a case in which, from the absence of
the parties, it was not possible to produce the requisite
evidence in a trial at Common Law. _

Sir HENRY HARDINGE denied that he liad cast any
imputations whatever upon any Member for pursu-
ing the examination of evidence. For his part, he was
extremely glad that the examination had taken place, and
he should be happy if it were carried further. All that
he complained of was, that the Hon. Member for Aber-
deen had proposed a delay painful to the feelitto of the
parties ; not essential to the cause of justice ; and, in his
opinion, unnecessary in every respect.
Sir C. WETHERELL had only to observe, that the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exellequi.r,
was perfectly correct in saying that a Divorce Bill (a AM
pass through Parliament without any verdict of a Jury for
criminal conversation. The House had occasionally de-
parted from its usage, in consequence of not having such
verdicts. The sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court; was
first to be procured, and next the verdict of a Jury, in an
action for criminal conversation ; but if the parties were
out of the country, and the verdict of a Jury could trot be
obtained, it behoved the House to do its best, by examin-
ing the case. He could suppose a case, where a delin-
quent might be prompted to go out of the country, in or-
der that such a verdict might not be obtained ; or he could
suppose many other eases very likely to occur, and in

uwld::_beibol dict'
1,0 tTidict in a CoinuMn Court
•
In such cases, he maintained that tno . • e which would
to go through that inquiry, the fifeassity " 'T'he
be superseded where a trial had taketi'llplou&s: e
now before the House laid not undergone that ;tit— •
again he would say, that without such an usual ,arrat7:
the House IYOZ:l+1 not discharge its duty, if it did n7l ;v,
into its merits, investigate facts, and examine witnesses.:
the Bar, although they were not upon oath. As the case,
laboured under the defect of wanting a trial by Jury, it --
was the duty of every Member to make himself a Jury—
man, and to try the questions at issue. He was very glad
that the inquiry had been gone into, and be did not en—
tertain a particle of a doubt of the fact of adultery having
been committed. He did lament that more evidence had
not been produced. It was a right to any individual,whent
adultery was proved, to obtain a sentence in an EtcleSiasti.,
cal Conrt ; but. he denied that it was his right to obtain &
Parliamentary divorce, which was conceded not on it prin.:
ciple of adultery being committed, but upon the indiap*a; • ,
tittle ground that there existed an absence of miscondiVeiti; -
en the part of the husband. By the Ecclesiastical
and e, Divine law, a divorce did not give the husband a .
right to marry again. But Parliamentary law and Divine
law were distinct things, and it was only about a century
ago that Parliamentary divorces were conceded ; but no• .
writer had denied the proponttion that it was not the crime
of adultery alone that gave the husband the right of $
Parliamentary divorce, for it was requisite for hint to prove
that he had not been so fir delinquent as to bar his right
to Marry again. The case we,,e to be tried three times.
First, there was tl:c action of Common Law, in which the
husband could obtain pecuniary damages for his wife's
adultery ; then there was the
,process in the Ecclesiastical
Courts, by which he could be released from all the matri-
monial bonds; mid lastly, there was the Parliamentary'
Divorce, by which lie might contract other bonds if ke •
were to inclined. All these proceedings were founded urea
different principles, and they formed a perfect investiga-
tion of the case, and afforded full relief where they leers •
duly gane through.
Lard NUGENT thought that the evidence being' eased
every Member owed it to the honour of the parties iMake
rested, to take the earliest opportunity of stating the isle
pressions upon his mind. The evidence had left upon. •
him the mot complete and satisfactory conclusion that- -
there was not the slightest shadow of collusion or of raise •
conduct imputed to the Noble Lord. As fat as he was
concerned, he should vote for the clause which save the
Noble Lord the relief he asked for, and he trusted tlist tips
relief would be as speedy as possible.
Mr. HUME fe!t it his duty to enter his protest against
giving Liu opinion on tide latter point. From the manner
ia which the evidence had been taken, he could not make -
up his mind, and he was extremely sorry that the declaim
ration of his Noble Friend had obliged him to make :lig
atationent.

The Bill was then ordered to be printed, and the
Spe.lker resumed the Chair.
Sir GEORGE CLERK then brought up the evidence,
which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. HLTME was not aware that any objection calisted
to printing the evidence. The greatest part of it had Ines
taken when not twenty :Members were in the House. •

WAIIBUIIT6INT seconded the motion. Hu was
wiling to spare the feelings of individuals ; but public
justice ought to be attended to. The evidence ought to
be printed, if more intended to vote than the twenty that
had heard it.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE would not object to the
printing of the evidence, if it was the wish of the House,
but he Tbought that Hon. . 'Members ought to be as sparing
of delay as possible.. _

Mr.'ROhERT GRANT thought that the House would
not discharge its duties without having the evidence print-
ed. Sincerely deprecating every degree of unnecessary
delay—sincerely deprecating any pain to the feelings of the
parties—he must yet say, that nut only the utmost delibe-
rat;on, hut the utmost appearance of deliberation, was due
to the character of the House and the gravity of the case.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that the case of adultery had been established beyond a
deuht, end he did not think the decision of the House
would be altered by the printing of the evidence. The
best judgment would be formed by those who had attended -
the proceedings, and it was competent to Members to com-
plain on the third reading.
Mr. TENNYSON said that the Right Hon. Gentle-
men would be correct, if only those who heard the
evi-
deuce were to vote upon the Bill ; but twenty Members
alone were present when the evidence was given, and he
need not say that a great many more would decide the.
question. The evidence ought to be printed. It was a re-
medy out of the reach of the lower classes, and naturally
roetgtttir,telt_pdeoopniet.h i s
late co
oughtunt ttor ibt he
recollected jealousy h y tthoeo,great
that Lord
Ellenborough was a Member of that other House whose
decision was the only suggestion to precede their judgment.
He hoped, therefore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
would not oppose the printing of the evidence, without
which it would be unbecoming in them to give a vote upon
the question.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE declared, in explanation,
that it was more for the sake of the unfortunate lady,
whom he had formerly known well, than from any con-
sideration in the remotest degree connected with his Lord-
ship, that he had raised his voice upon the occasion; but
if it were the general sense and feeling of the House that
this evidence should be printed, he certainly would not
oppose it.

Mr. LENNARD. a i i, his mind was made up as to the -
fact of her Ladyship having uniformly received kind
treatment from Lord Ellenbrrough. This was proved by
four witnesses—by the brother of his Lordship, by the
butler, another servant, and the early friend of Lady Ellen-
borough, and he did not think it could be established by
other or better evidence in a Court of Justice. He was.
satisfied respectirg the criminality of Lady Ellenhorough,
and consi,quently did not deem it necessary to print the
evidence ; but if such was the general feeling of the
House, he had no objection,
Mr. BATLEY did not think it would be right for the
House to give their decision without having the evidence
printed.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed that tke House was
acting judicially, and thought that in deference to the opi-
nions of many Members and the dignity of their proceed-
ings. they ought to make these proceedings as judicial as
possible. He had no doubt upon the case ; but he wished
to have the evidence printed.
Sir G. CLERK said his Right Hon. Friend and he had
no objection to the evidence being printed. He could state
most broadly that no friend of Lord Ellenborough's could
do ott,erwise, as far he was concerned, titan wish for a
publication of the entire transaction.
Sir H. HARDINGE had expressed himself most infeli-
citously if he had given the House to understand that in
consideration of his Lordship's interest or feelings he had
any objection to having the evidence printed.
An Hox. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
declared himself satisfied of her Ladyship's guilt ; but re-
gretted that no provision was made for her. He suggested
the introduction of a clause, which should prevent her
from being in the condition of a pauper.
Sir G. CLERK said, that such a measure was in-ston•
templation.
Sir H. HARDINGE, as one of the co-trustees to Lord
Eilenhorough's marriage settlement, said that such a pro-
vision would be made as had received the approbation of
the lady's family.—The evidence was then ordered to
he printed.