Star.
London, England, 1830-03-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—Wannispay.
Bu Rama.. Mr. CORRETT, and other members of the House
of Commons. brought itp several priva'c Bills, which were severally
teatl a first time.
.Mr. DaxvEllg, from the East India House, presented at the bar
• •) account of the receipts and charges of the Presidencies in India,
a given period.
(Cr. tile motion of Viscount MELVILLE the account was ordered
te.pr;nted.
Viscouttt GRANVII.I.I: presented a petition from New.
...ctle.ander..Lyno. against paying wages in goods instead of money.
The E.srl of CLARE presented a petition from several uni'ed
:r Monmouthshird, praying a revision of the tithe laws.

CORN RETURNS.
The Earl of ROSEBERY moved for a return of the amount of
duty paid, with the rate stated, of grain imported into the country
from the sth of July, 1828, to the sth of January, 1830, distin-
guishing the grain on which the duty was paid. The noble
earl was desirous of having this return, with a view of completing
the returns already on their lordships table in reference to this
subject.
After a few observations from the Earl of MALIIIESBERY, the
motion was agreed to. _ _ _

LEAD.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from Swaledale, in
Yorkshire, against the importation of foreign lead.
lIAMERTON'S DIVORCE BILL.
Mr. HARRISON stated the case for Major Hamer-
ton, on whose behalf a Divorce Bill was introduced.—
The averment was, that the parties had been married at
Paris in 1818, and staid in France till 1827, when they
came to England, and resided at Cheltenham, where they
met with Mr. Bash°, with whom the lady committed
r.dultery. On the 26th or 27th of May, 1827, Mr.
illishe and the lady left England, and went abroad, where
they had been ever since One of the witnesses to the
marriage was dead; and the other, General Murray, was
No ill that he could not attend, but he had a duplicate of
the certificate of the marriage, which was produced from
an office of the Bishop of London, which would, in the
case of a foreign marriage, be sufficient when they should
prove the hand-writing of the parties.
Thomas Rogers, clerk to the Bishop of London, proved
the certificate of the marriage sent from Paris to the
proper v! ice in the usual manner.
Anne Hatton, who lived with Mrs. Hamerton as lady's
maid for five years, proved the hand-writing of the par-
ties to the certificate.
Captain Richard Halket was acquainted with the par-
ties both before and after the marriage. They lived on

good terms together.
Major Hamerton's solicitor stated that on the 26th of
March, 1827, he received instructions to proceed against
Mr. Bushe by action at law, and against the wife in the
Ecclesiastical Court for a divorce. Mr. Bushe left Eng-
land on the 26th, and had not since returned, and the
solicitor could only proceed to an outlawry.
Mrs. Mathews's servant woman often saw Mrs. Ha
uierton and Mr. Bushe, at the house of Mrs. Mathews,
Bellvue-crescent, Cheltenham ; they came at different
times in the day, and they were often, for some time, in
a room by themselves • once when Mr. Bushe called at
the house of Mrs. Mathews, Mrs. Hamerton was there,
and had just begun her dinner; when he came in, he
went into a separate room, and Mrs. Hamerton imme-
diately followed him, and they remained together for an
hour ; the window-blinds were down, when they were to-
gether in the room ; Mr. Bushe gave her and other ser-
vant of Mrs. Mathews money; he was the only gentle-
man who visited Mrs. Mathews who did so; Mr. and
Mrs. Hamerton did not live in the same house with Mrs.
Mathews.
Anne Hatton proved that Mrs. Hamerton, who had
before been in the habit of breakfasting in bed, in the
year 1826, and the beginning of 1827, rose in the morn-
ing, when she ascertained that her husband had gone out
to hunt, and went to meet Mr. Bushe ; on the 25th of
March, 1827, she went with Major Hamerton, when he
examined Mrs. Hamerton's dressing-case.
Further proceedings on Wednesday next.
LORD ELLENBOROVGIeS DIVORCE BILL.
The Earl of ROSSLYN moved the third reading of
Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill.
The Earl of RADNOR rose to oppose it. It was with
the greatest pain and regret that he found himself com-
pelled by a sense of duty to adopt this course ; but on
the best consideration he could give to the evidence which
he had now examined, both in its manuscript and printed
state, ho really thought that it was not sufficient to
authorise the passing of this act, considering the prin-
ciples on which their lordships had been in the habit
of proceeding with reference to such billi. It might be
said that he ought to have stated his objections on
the motion for the second reading, and he would be
exceedingly sorry, and wished to make every apology
if he bad been the occasion of any inconvenience
or delay to their lordships, by his not having done
so. But the truth was, he had not been aware of
the intention to hear the evidence on the bill on the day
in which it was taken, and had only come into the house
by accident, at five o'clock, when the case was almost
concluded. He had only heard a very small portion of
the last part of the evidence on the day when the bill was
read a second time, and was not then prepared to state
his objections. He had, at that time when he came into
. the house, no idea or intention of opposition to the bill.
He had no thought of any such thing, and it was by
accident merely that he came to the house before the bu-
siness was concluded. .He did not then feel any disposition
at all to interfere, and therefore he did not desire that

the evidence should be printed, and did not a

any opposition to the second reading of the bill.
But afterwards, when he had left the house, and consi-
dered the aspect which the case appeared to assume, with
reference to that part of it which he had heard, he re-
solved to come to the house on the following day to read

the evidence ; eight+ dtd read it in manuscript, and in con.

sequence of having read it, he suggested the propriety of
postponing 'the third reading of the bill till the Mon-
day following, and then he requested the .noble earl opposite
(Rosalyn) to delay the third reading till this day, in order to
have the evidence printed in the meantime, for the use of
their lordshiPs; and to this also the noble earl acceded.
—Now that he had again considered the evidence, he
found hiniself compelled to say Not content" to the
question for the third reading of the bill, although it
was with the mese sincere pain and regret that he opposed
the remedy which was sought by a bill of this kind'. It was
most painful and. disagreeable to stand in the way of the
'Pike( applied for under such circumstances ; and the more
so, considering that the person 'soliciting this indulgence
was a noble lord and a member .of this house, and also
-envoi' the ministers of the crown. But, at the same time,
*Rum/ the noble lord ihsi a member cif this house and
one of shieltlAjesty:s .mipisters, their lordships were so
much tiffs atiye bound to-take Care thai in this proceeding
'every thing„nhould be done openly, fairly, formally,-and ,
But; iheir /brdilhips were aware that the
•
-.formalitimFalstuil hilhele vase% had not baits observed in
tbie catZt had not undergono investigation in the tri-
lunak ; -awd, under these circumstances, it was pe-
lialarly.intingient theit•Lewiships to inquire strictli.
into-the whole of the cam. -kosher cir-
• eumstanceleorthiof °bewail= was,
that it was usual on
516casions for a Learned Council.to attend on the

' .

.. v.

part of the Lady, and really and bona fide to oppose the
Bill. Now, any one who attended on the hearing of the
evidence must be aware, and could not avoid seeing most
plainly, that the Counsel who attended apparently for the
purpose of opposing the Bill, was a mere blind, and never
contemplated nor intended a real and bona fide opposi-
tion. There was surely in this evidence much that was
very liable to observation ; and a Counsel really anxious
to oppose the Bill, if he was possessed of any ability at all,
could not have been much at a loss to find strong argu-
ments against it. It was manifest that it was not a bona
fide opposition, and the counsel might as well not have
been at the bar at all. These were surely circumstances
which required much consideration before their lordships
consented to pass this bill. Now it did appear that the
evidence was in many parts loose, vague, and unsatis-
factory. On the first branch of it there was much
doubt as to the identity of Prince Swartzenberg ;
and the counsel for the Bill was, therefore, desired
to carry the case farther; and then he produced the
evidence as to visits of the Lady to Prince Swartzen-
berg, in Harley-street, three or four times every week,
and her staying with him, and going to bed with
him for some hours. (Hear, hear.) He confessed, as
an honest man, that on hearing the evidence he had no
doubt of her guilt, and that ho had no doubt of the
identity of the parties. But his objection was, that the
conduct of Lord Ellenborough throughout the transaction
was such that he was not entitled to the relief which
he prayed. He could understand, as well as any
man, that it might be an invidious task to oppose a
man when struggling for this kind of remedy ; but at
the same time it was not unfair to do so under the cir-
cumstances of this case ; however grievous and irksome
it might be to those parties to be kept in the miserable
bondage of marriage after what bad happened. But
there were other considerations to be attended to besides
the wishes and the feelings of the parties. If the propo-
sition were to be admitted that the wishes of the par-
ties were the main consideration to be attended to, then
when married parties differed in temper, or from any
cause were disagreeable to each other, that would be a
sufficient ground for a divorce. What his own opinion
on the subject was, he would not now state. It was',
quite enough for him at present to show that this Bill
ought not to be passed, and could not be passed con-
sistently with the principles by which their Lordship's
had been governed in proceedings of this description.—
At present, no lawylr could say that the mere wishes of
the parties formed a good ground for a divorce; and if
the Right Reverend Prelates had been present, he would
confidently put it to them whether the mere wishes of
the parties formed a good ground for a divorce. Of all
the evidence, however, that with respect to the terms on
which the parties lived together formed the weakest point.
To prove that the parties lived happily together, the best
witnesses were relations of the family, who were in the
constant habit of visiting them and observing their con-
duct, or others who were in the habit of seeini, them. In
the present case it was easy to have produced many wit-
nesses of this description, but only two had been, in fact,
produced. One of these was Mr .Law, a brother of Lord El-
lenborough, who stated ho was in the habit of seeing them
for two years and a half from the period of their marriage ;
but then he had been abroad, where he staid a consider-
able time ; and all he could say was, that they appeared
to live happily together for some time after their mar-
riage, and that they appeared to be happy together after
his return. Miss Stephen, the governess, who appeared
to be rather a reluctant witness, said, indeed, that they
lived happily together, but she did not live in the house,
and knew little about the matter. Another remarkable
circumstance was, that for six or eight months prior to
the separation, the parties had separate beds, and did
not cohabit together • and although the governess
stated that in the Ecclesiastical Court, the counsel
did not think proper to examine her to that point
here. And then, it appeared from the evidence, that
the lady was in the habit for a year and a half, or
nearly so, of going to Harley-street to visit Prince
Swartzenberg three or four times in the week, of re-
maining with him each time for some hours, and going
to bed with him, and then going away in broad day,
and as openly as when she came. Now he would
ask whether any man of common sense, who paid
any attention to the conduct of his wife, could fail
under such circumstances of knowing what was going
forward ? or if he did not know, was not this an instance
of the grossest negligence and inattention ? Then con-
sider the age of the lady. She was a young woman of
21 years of age, and was stated to be very beautiful.
Now was it consistent with the proper degree of at-
tention in the husband to be allowing a young and in-
experienced woman to be ranging the streets of London
in this way unattended and unguarded, especially when
it was known how superior to her in knowledge of the
world Lord Ellenborough was ? He owned that this
did appear to him to be very gross negligence, and
his not cohabiting with her for so long a time was
worse than negligence ; and under these circumstances
he did not think the husband was entitled to a di-
vorce a vinculo matremonii. If this bill should be
passed, it might be said that the bare fact of adultery
was a good ground for a divorce,although, in the Queen s
case, a right reverend prelate was severely reproved for
saying something like that. It was a sound doctrine,
that the man who came here for a divorce ought to come
with clean hands ; and another right reverend prelate
bad quoted, in support of this passage, from the Gos-
pel by St. Matthew, " He that putteth away his
wife without a cause, causeth her to commit adultery."
Now did not this negligence and inattention, and
want of cohabitation, provoke the wife to commit
adultery ? To a woman of that kind negligeneg itself
was a great provocation. All this might be explained ;
but, as the evidence stood, he could not think that
the husband in this case was entitled to a divorce.
,He did not pretend to say that there was collusion
in all this ; but he would say, that if the parties had in-
tended to collude to procure a divorce, they could not
have for that purpose acted in a better way than they
, did. Then, as to the confession of the wife to the Go-
verness that she was with child by Prince Swartzenberg,
what could be more easy than for parties, when they got
tired of each other, to agree that the wife should tell a
story of this kind, in order to procure a divorce ? And
then, again, consider that the adultery was with a fo-
reigner, and that the parties, immediately after the sepa-
ration, went abroad so as to avoid an action in the Courts
below ; and also that the husband did not direct his soli-
citor to commence proceedings till a month after they
went off. He did not mean to impute collusion to the
parties ; but if there had been collusion, the matter could
not have been better managed. He did think that
under all the circumstances this bill could not be allowed
to pass, if their lordship. chose to adhere to the princi-
ples by which they were usually governed.
The Earl of MALKISIIIST thought this was ti:2
important uestion, and was anxious to say a few w
041. the subject. He also felt great pain in opposing the
1311, tits he was bound to look, at the question impartially.
firmly, and with a single eye to the purposes of justice.
IHo teed not 'trouble their lordships with a detail of the
-

evidence, as they had it in their hands. Their lordships
would consider that in these cases they were called upon
to exercise a kind of dispensin; power, for this was not
merely a divorce a mensa et thoro, which might by the or-
dinary law of the country be granted. Such a divorce might
be necessary to prevent a spurious issue being palmed on a
man and inheriting his property. But this bill went much
further than that, the object being to place the husband in
the same situation as if he had never been married. He had

the curiosity to ascertain what was the number of divorce
bills that had passed this house during the last 10 years,
and he found that from 1820 to 1825 six bills of this kind
had passed ; and from 1825 to 1830, 21 bills. So that
the number of divorce bills was on the increase ; and this

evinced an increasing profligacy in the higher classes, or a
greater facility in their lordships in granting these divorces.
He said the higher classes, because the remedy was so ex-
pensive that the middling and lower orders were deprived
of it. The points which had been raised by his noble
friend were highly deserving of their lordships' atten-
tion. If these parties had been living happily together,
where could have been the difficulty of producing a dozen
of the most competent witnesses to prove the fact ? Instead
of that, they called only the brother and the governess, nei
ther of whom, for the reasons mentioned by his Noble
Friend, knew much about the matter. The lady, it
was true, was stated to have confessed that she was with
child by Prince Schwartzenberg ; but then, bow easily
could a story of this kind be got up, if parties intended
to collude together to get a divorce ? He did not mean
to say that there was a collusion in this case, but then
their Lordships must consider what effect the passing of
the Bill might have by way of precedent, and whether
it would not have a tendency to encourage profligacy in
the upper classes. It was, undoubtedly, a remarkable
circumstance, that the lady should have ranged the
streets in open day so frequently, and for so, long a
time, without any knowledge on the part of the husband
of what was going forward. If he did not know of her
misconduct, it was most strange negligence; and yet it
was admitted, that he who came to their lordships for a
remedy of this kind ought to come with clean hands. As
the evidence at present stood, he did not think it suffi-
cient to support the bill. But then further evidence might
be adduced ; and in a late instance (Thorndyke's divorce
bill) their lordships had rejected a divorce bill in one ses-
sion, and passed it in the next. So hero, the better course
would be, to withdraw the bill for the present, and then
' to proceed with it again, when satisfactory evidence should

be produced.
The Earl of ROSSLYN contended, that the evidence
was already complete and satisfactory. The noble lords had
disclaimed the imputation of collusion; otherwise, that was
au insinuation which he would have been certainly prepared
to repel. But then they asked, why more abundant and
satisfactory evidence of the parties living happily together
had not been produced. What better evidence could there
be produced than that of the noble lord's brother and the
governess, who had the best opportunities of knowing on
what terms they lived ? But then the noble lords said,
that as only these two were called, the evidence was vague,
loose, and unsatisfactory. In that respect, he differed
from them ; but, in point of fact, there was more evidence
on this point, to which the noble lords had not adverted;
and that was the two letters which had been put, and
which were expressed in terms which proved that the
parties lived on good terms together. The noble earl here
read the letters, which he contended shewed that these
parties had lived together without dispute. He was sur-
prised after this to hear the statement that the noble lord
had been guilty of negligence, and that in so decided a
manner as to disentitle himself to the relief he nowsought.

In his opinion there was no pretence whatever for accusing
the noble lord ofnegligence ; the identity of the parties
was fully made out; and the evidence which the noble earl
had just objected to, relating to the demeanour of these
parties, was evidence that would have been admitted in
any Court of Justice in the kingdom. He thought it
was impossible to doubt the fact of the adultery ; and thill
question then resolved itself into one of collusion or
negligence. In his opinion there never had been a cue
in which there was less of either than in the present.
The noble earl had referred to the great number of
divorce bills that within the last five years had passed
through parliament ; but surely there was no reason
on that account to refuse the passing of this bill ; for
even if it were true, as the noble earl seemed to sup-
pose, that these bills were in general granted with so
much facility, that circumstance ought not to prevent an
individual who had fully made out his case to be deprived
of the remedy he sought. Where was the pretence of neg-
ligence ? There was none whatever ; for it surely would
not be argued that a man was bound to employ his whole
time in watching his young wife, and yet to such a length
must the argument be carried before the noble lord could
be accused of negligence. As to Lord Ellenborough's
not having heard of these transactions till so late a
period, he must say, that he much wondered to hear that
circumstance stated as a ground for not passing the bill.
Good GOD! was it to be said in that house, that a hus-
band in such a situation was blameable, when they
must know that a husband was always the last person
who was made acquainted with such transactions ? The
conduct of Lord Ellenborough, even after his suspicions
had been awakened, was that of a kind and generous,
but not of a negligent man ; he could not watch her vi-
sits, to see whether she always went to her mother's,
when she pretended to do so ; and upon the whole of the
evidence Be (Lord Roselyn) was not the least afraid of
the decision to which their Lordships would come upon
this Bill.
The Earl of MALMESBURY explained.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE had never seen a stronger case
of adultery. What, then, were the grounds on which Lord
Ellenborough was to be refused the relief he sought ?
The first was, that it was said it had not been shown
that the parties lived on good terms with each other.
He thought it had been proved ; but, in his view of
Ithe case, such proof was not necessary in support of
Ithis bill. In a court of law such proof was required,
'because the amount of damages sought must have
relation to the degree of injury inflicted, and the ex-
tent of the injury was hest proved by showing the
terms on which the parties had lived together. But
the case was different when a party came to that house
for a bill of diiorce.. He would suppose a case in which
the parties had lived together on bad terms, and that these
were the consequence of the bad temper of the wife ;
was there any one in that house who would say, that
because the parties did not live happily together, the
wife was at liberty to go into the streets and intrigue with
;oilman she might meet? He believed no one could
such a doctrine. He thought, however, that in
this case the letters of Lady Ellenborough furnished, if
the proof was necessary, ample proof of the affectionate
terms on -which she had lived with her husband; and
in the very last of them 'she spoke in the warmest
terms of his kindness and affection. The noble ead
te had talked of the negligence Of Lord El-
lenborough, and seemed to impute the adultery of
the lady to that cause. He begged -to ay that in his
Wind 6ere was not the s4hteia ground for the ha-
pindien. Lady Elienboro went to Harley-street, to

•

visit Prince Schwartzenberg, in the day-time. Why,
was there a peer of that house who did not know that,his
wife was in the habit of going out at two o'clock in the
day, and returning at five; and was there any one who,
merely because she was absent from home during those
two hours would accuse her of being unfaithful toward;
him? But then it was said she went to Harley-street.
True ; and what was there in that circumstance t,)
excite suspicion ? If Prince Swartzenberg lived in
Harley-street, so did Lady Ellenborough's family ; and
if Lord Ellenborough had inquired where his lady had
been during the morning, and had been answered that she
had been to Harley-street, he would naturally have con-
cluded that she went thither to visit some member of
her family. The time and the place, therefore, were
both of a kind that in themselves precluded suspicion ;
and they must know that a husband was always the last
man whom his servants thought proper to inform of any
suspicious circumstances. On the whole, if he were a
juror, giving his verdict on his oath, he should say, most
conscientiously, that he never saw a case in whicL
adultery was more decidedly proved, or in which there
was less appearance of negligence or improper conduct on
the part of the husband. He did not know on what it
was that noble lords founded their opposition to this bill.
They might, perhaps, found it on something they had
heard out of the house, for there was nothing that had
occurred within the house that justified them in their
opposition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said this Bill was
founded on the adultery of the lady, which had been
proved so clearly and unequivocally, that nobody who
read the evidence could doubt of its having been corn
mitted. His Lordship hero referred to the evidence of
the groom of the visits to Harley and Holles-streets—of
the meeting at Brighton—all of which, he asserted, even
without Miss Steele's testimony, was sufficient to show
the fact of the adultery, and to establish the identity of
the parties. The previous mode of life of Lord and Lady
Ellenborough was proved by Miss Steele to have been
kind, affectionate, and happy, but on that point he must
say, that lie concurred fully with the Noble Baron who
had preceded him, that such proof was not necessary in
support of a Bill of Divorce. Yet the proof had been
given, and given in a manner that must establish the fact
beyond all doubt, for not only bad Miss Steele, who fo
years possessed the most perfect opportunity of acquiring a
knowledge of the s;ihject, proved the affectionate and happy
terms on which they lived together, but Lady El lenborougt
herself had given by her own letters the most conclusive,
the most convincing testimony in support of the same fact
He knew not how Lord Ellenborough could justly be ac-
cused of negligence towards his wife's conduct. Every
noble lord must recollect that Lord Ellenborough, during
the whole of these transactions, had been an active mem-
ber of his majesty's government ; and every member of
that government could speak to the unremitting attention
which Lord Ellenborough had paid to the discharge of the
duties incident to his high station. But then it was said
that there was collusion between these parties as to the
manner in which the case had been presented at their Lord-
ships' bar, and the affectionate terms of Lady Ellenbo-
rough's letter were referred to in proof of the statement.
In his opinion, no man could read that letter attentively,
and then come to the conclusion that it was written collu-
sively to forward the views of Lord Ellenborough.
man at all acquainted with the human heart could avoid
perceiving that the expressions of the writer were the un-
disguised and natural effusions of her own agitated feelings
His lordship here read the letter, and laid particular stress
on the assertion of her Ladyship, that Lord Ellenborough
had always, in act and manner, been most kind to her; that
she was grateful to him for his kindness ; that though het
conduct had excited his suspicions, she solemnly assured
him she was innocent in act ; and that she only yielded to
his desire for a separation in obedience to his wishes. Evi-
dence like this would be of the greatest weight, even if it
were met by evidence of an opposite character, but there
was no opposing evidence, and on every ground he felt
confident that their lordships would come to an unanimous
vote in favour of this bill.
The Earl of RADNOR said, the vote certainly would
not be unanimous as far as he was concerned ; and
notwithstanding the speech they had just heard,he thought
that if there were collusion between the parties, they would
not have acted otherwise than they had done.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR and
Lord RADNOR as to the evidence of Miss Steele, the
question was put and carried, and the bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were
read a second thme.—Adjourned.
-..VVEDNESDAV.
HOUSE OF Car---.)NS
Sir E. C. Dzzairm took the oaths and his seat, as member for
Wexford.

CRIMINAL LAWS.
Sir THOMAS BI AM MARTIN presented a petition from the
Mayor and inhabitants of Plymouth, praying a revi.ion of the Cri-
minal Laws, and that punishment of death should be abolished,
except for the crime of murder.—The petition was laid on the table.
and ordered to be printed.
A similar petition was presented from the town of Poole.
Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the Mayor (and principal
inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull, also praying a revision of the
Criminal Laws.—Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SPRING RICE moved for the return of the amount of
duty on coals received in Ireland for the last ten years. Also for an
account of the number of gallons of spirits on which duty had been
paid for the last ten years in Irehnd.—Ordered.
Mr. RAMSDEN presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Alalton, praying for a revision of the criminal laws.—. Ordered to
be printed.
Petitions against the truck system were presented from Wednes.
bury, and other places in Staffordshire, by Mr. BENSON ; from
Kingstanky in Gloucestershire, by Mr. CRIPPS ; from Bursar,
in the Staffordshire potteries, by Lord SANDON ; from
intoßoln, in
Lancashire, by Mr. Ilusensox ; and from four places Staf.
fordshire, by Mir LITTLKTON.
Petitions complaining of distress, were presented from Romney
Mah, aull other districts In the county of Kent, by Sir EDWARD
KNrsATCHSHLL; from Stockbridge, by Mr. Wit.mutuau from
several parishes in Warwickshire, by Mr. LAWLIY; from a parish
in Oxford, by Mr. LOCKHART.
Mr. HAYpresented a petition from Lanark, against the East
India monopoly.
Mr. HUME postponed to the 11th of May a motion of his.
which stood for the 23d of this month, relating to the continuance
of the once of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the brewers in Edin-
burgh, praying for a higher duty upon whisky.
Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from Norwich, praying for
the abolition of the punishment of death for forgery.
Mr. Alderman -THOMPSON moved for an account of the
duties paid on fire Insurances in the respective quarters of the
year 1829..
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS postponed to next WednesdaY.
his motion for a bill to consolidate the acts relating to the pay ot
tbo Navy. • •
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from a hundred in
Norfolk, praying for the repeal of the malt duties.
Mr. LAW LEY resented a petition front a parish in War.
wickshianTs.yhtg for the abolition of the practice of burning Hin-
doo W
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the Lord Lieute-
nant and Grand Jury of Suardsh complaining if the haw?
duals upon the county rates caused by the pogo, of Scotch and
kish vagrosaa.
TMICK STSTHIS.
Mr. LITTLITON rose to all the attention ri the Moe to a
=Wed of great loportanco, upon which a n
obeady
howevumber of pslidens
boi hoes er, he was convinced,
but a MB peolpoillomMilsoneutheiVa the house would receive.--
(Hear, alert bei.) The heeonzeble member then proceeded
Wl'_ • how mildtloonne the truck system wee to the workmen.
Me podium& diewisift to thew that some at if sedirlooltho
ma rime, Irals swift tbsessaili, woe them 6or
,

LONDON.
THURSDAY, MARCH 18.
PRICE OF STOCKS AT TWO O'CLOCK.
Burk Stock shut Do. Do. Jul.dcJan.l9 1-16th

4 per Cent. Red. shut India Bonds 77
1 per Ct. Cons. 911 21 2 5 per Cent. 1751,
5i per Ct. 1818, shut £lOOO Exch.Bills 77 8
slt per Ct. Red. shut £5OO Ditto 77 8
4 per Cent. 102+ 1 £lOO and £2OO Do. 77 8
4 per Ct. 1826, shut Bank for Ace.
Long Ann. shut India for Acct.
Do. 50 Years, 241 Cons. for Acc. 921
FOREIGN FUNDS, TWO O'CLOCK.
ChiUan Bds. 6 pr Ct. 27 Do. Acc. 2$
Colons. Bds. 6 per Ct. Do. 100, 291
Do. lids. 1824, 21 Neapolitan Bds 5 per Ct. 0
Do. Ace. 21 Peruv. Bds. 6 pr Ct. 201 1 11 11
Greek Bonds, 5 p Ct. Sp Bds. 5 per Ct. 141 1 1 1 1 111
Do. 100, 401 40 Do. 510, 151
Do. 8.1825, 5 pCt. 42 40 1 Fr. R. 5 p Ct. 81f. 50
Do. Ace. 42 40 / Exchange, 25f. 70e.
Alex. Bds. S per Ct. Do. WO,
BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHARES, TWO O'CLOCK.
SHARE. Pain. rut SNARE.
Brazilian Company 20 5 9{
Do. National 25 10 81
Real del Monte 400 400 53
Ditto Subscrip. 21 41

That event which we have long contemplated as in-
mitable, and to which we have anxiously looked forward
as the assured triumph of popular opinion, when consti-
tutionally and legitimately exercised, over the encroach-
ments of self-willed and arbitrary power, is—even whilst
we are writing—in the very act of its accomplishment.
THE POLIGNAC MINISTRY is no longer in existence;
—or if it yet survives the overwhelming expression of
national opprobrium and distrust, it clings to the last
hold of the prerogative with the tenacity of despair, and
with the fearful determination of sacrificing the tranquil-
lity of France—and the crown of the Bourbons—to the
wild and inordinate dictates of a ruinous ambition.—On
Tuesday last, after a sitting of six hours and a half, the
Chamber of Deputies concluded a long and stormy de-
bate by voting an address to the KING, hostile to the
existing Ministry ;—and this address was carried by a
majority of FORTY—the numbers being 221 to 181.
We shall not now pause to comment upon this decisive
termination of a trial of strength which has evinced all
the national spirit of the Chamber of Deputies in its best
and proudest day; and which, we trust, may afford a
salutary lesson to every Cabinet in Europe. We proceed
at once to give the details of this momentous discussion :
6, CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.
" DEBATE OF TUESDAY, March 16.
" The President took the Chair at one o'clock.
" Messrs. de Month'', Guernon de Ranville, d'Hausses, and de
Polignae, were on the ministerial bench. •

`• The chamber resolved Itself into a secret general committee, and
*trangern were ordered to withdraw.

" The discussion of the paragraphs of the address was resum ed.
The paragraph upon Portugal terminates thus :
•` It is worthy of the solicitude of your Majesty to put an end to
the evils which afflict Portugal without touching the protecting
principle of legitimacy, which ought to be held equally sacred by
kings and people."
--
" The war with Algiers is thus noticed :
Your Majesty does not think proper to defer any longer taking
measures to obtain ample reparation for the insult done to your
Hag. We shall wait with respect the communications that your
Majesty shall think necessary to be made to us respecting a sub.
ject of such great importance. Sire, whenever it shall be neces-
sary to defend the dignity of your crown, and protect national coin.
merce, your Majesty may rely upon the support and upon the
courage of your people."

" The address terminates In the following manner:
" Called by your Majesty's voice from all parts of the kingdom,
we come to lay at the foot of your throne the homage of a faithful
people, whose emotion on beholding you the most beneficent in the
midst of the general beneficence, has not even now ceased, and who
venerate in you the accomplished model of the most noble and most
touching virtues.

" Sire, your subjects cherish and respect your authority. Fif-
teen years of peace and liberty which they one to your brother and
yourself, have strongly rooted in their hearts the sentiments of grati-
tude which attach them to your august dynasty. The people, now
enlightened by experience, have learned that, especially in matters
of authority, the antiquity of possession is the most sacred of all
titles, and it is no less for their own happiness than for your
glory, that ages have placed your throne above the reach of storms
and tempests. Their conviction coincides with their duty, to re-
Present the sacred rights of your Crown as the greatest guarantee of
their liberty, and the integrity, the inviolability of your prerogatives,
as the safeguard of their rights.
" However, Sire, notwithstanding the unanimous sentiments of
aspect and affection with which your people surround you, the tran-
quillity of France is intenapted by the most anxious feelings, which
might become fatal to her happiness, were they to be prolonged—
enscience, our honour, and the fidelity which we have sworn
to your Majesty, and intend to keep with 'crapulous attention,
make it our duty to make the cause of that anxiety known, to your
Majesty.
"Sire, the Charter which we owe to the wisdom of your august
brother, and whose blessings your Majesty is determined to wino-
lidater—that Charter bas gives to the country the right of inter-
'ening illthe discussion of the public interests. Such an interval.

Lion ought to exist: it is indirect, and wisely circumscribed within
limits which we shall never suffer to be passed. But it is also
positive in its result; for it makes the concurrence of the political
views of your government with the wishes of your people an indis-
pensable condition of the regular administration of public affain.
" Sire, our loyalty and our fidelity oblige us to assert that this
concurrence does not really exist. An unjust mistrust of the sen-
timents and reason of France is the principle which now governs the
Administration. Your subjects view it with pain, because it is in-
sulting to them ; they also view it with anxiety, because it threatens
their liberties. But such a mistrust can find no access to the heart
of your Majesty. No, Sire, France is as great an enemy of anarchy
as your Majesty is of despotism. She deserves that your Majesty
should rely on her loyalty, as she relies on your promises.
" Let the high wisdom of your Majesty decide between those who
do not understand a nation so calm, so faithful ; and us, who, guided
by a sincere conviction, come to depose in your Majesty's bosom
the affliction of a whole people, jealous of the esteem and confidence
of their Bing. The royal prerogatives of your Majesty afford you
the means of establishing between the different powers of the state,
that constitutional harmony which is the first and essential condi-
tion of the grandeur of the throne and the prosperity of France."
" M. Alexander de Laborde blamed the delay in preparing the ex-
pedition to Algiers, because every day cost millions ; and would to
Gun that it only cost millions ! It would be too late for this year;
for the embarkation could not take place till the 15th of May.

" The Minister of Marine enumerated the insults which had de-
termined the 'Government to prepare the expedition to Algiers. lie
assured the Chamber that the expedition was necessary to avenge
the honour of the French flag, and that the result must be glorious
to their arms.

" The paragraph respecting Algiers was then agreed to by the left
and two centres.

" The last part of the address was then debated.
" General Demarsay defended the expressions in which It was
couched.

"M. de St. Marie, M. de Cordoue, and M. de la Boulaye, se-
verally addressed the Chamber. The latter defended the Ministry,
as did likewise M. de St. Marie.

"M. Dupin succeeded M. de Boulaye. His speech was listened
to amid the murmurs of the right side and the applause' of the left.
' You wish the Charter, you tell us,' cried lie to those who inter-
rupted him, ' but you do not desire its consequences. You desire the
car, but you would break its wheels.'
" The paragraph was then adopted by a great majority ; all the
right, and the half of the right centre, voting against it.
" M. de Berbia proposed an amendment on the last paragraph,
which he represented as more respectful to the Crown.
" M. Guizot supported the original address.

" M. de Lorgeril proposed a new reading of the amendment of M.
de Berbis to the following effect:—' Nevertheleu, our honour, our
conscience, and the fidelity which we hale sworn to your Majesty,
impose upon us the duty of making known to your Majesty, that in
the midst of the unanimous sentiments of respect and affection with
which your people surround you, lively disquietude has been mani-
fested in consequence of the changes which have been effected since
the last session.

" General Sekastiani opposed the amendment, and defended the
wording of the commission.
"M. Pas de Beaulieu spoke for the amendment, though he
was against the ministry.
" 111. Berrycr spoke against the address.
" After a good deal of discussion, in which M. de Bourdeau,
M. de la Rouchefoucalt, and M. de Puymaurin took part (the latter
declaring that the address was a work of darkness,) it being now
towards evening, the President put the adoption of it to the vote,
when the result was as we have mentioned above."

Although we had determined to reserve to the close of
the adjourned debate, our general remarks upon Mr.
EDWARD DAVENPORT'S motion for " referring all pe-
titions sent to the House, and complaining of distress,
to a Committee of the whole House.;" yet there is one
point connected with the discussion, which, as it prac-
tically illustrates not only the domestic policy, but the
expedients, of ministers and their partisans, throughout
the present session, we think worthy of peculiar notice.
—On Tuesday evening, prior to the introduction of Mr.
DAVENPORT'S motion, the House was principally occu-
pied by the presentation of petitions from several popu-
lous districts, complaining of the unprecedented distress
under which the country laboured ;—and that a just
estimate may be formed of the nature of these petitions,
and the character of the petitioners, we shall distinctly
enumerate thorn in this place :—Colonel SIB-
THORP presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Spilsby, in Lincolnshire—and Sir W. HE ATHCOTE
presented TEN from various places in Hampshire, and
one from a general Meeting of the Freeholders and Land-
holders of that County. Sir J. SEBRIG HT presented a
Petition from the Nobility, Gentry, and Landholders of
Hertfordshire; and Mr. Hums presented one from Aber-
deen and two from Irvine, stating that in that neighbour-
hood, where there were sixty thousand persons in a state
of indigence worse than common beggars, the hand-
loom weavers could not earn more than three shillings
and sixpence per week, by the labour of sixteen hours
per day. Colonel Lrnos presented a Petition from the
Grand Jury of Worcestershire ; and one from a populous
parish in that County. Lord NUO ENT presented a
petition from Aylesbury—in support of which Mr.
SL A NET observed, that Aylesbury, which ought to
be one of the richest and most flourishing places
in the southern part of England, was now suffering
distress which had but few precedents. Lord
MANDEVILLE presented a Petition from the own-
ers and occupiers of land in Huntingdonshire ;
and Mr. SADLER presented one from Nottingham, and
one from the stuff-manufacturers of Leeds. Mr. CART-
WRIGHT presented a petition from Northamptonshire,
and Mr. PEARSE one from the inhabitants of Devises.
Lord ALTHORP presented a petition from Norfolk, and
Mr. OTWA Y CA V E one from the tradesmen and manu-
facturers of Leicester. Mr. Duxcom as presented two
petitions from Yorkshire, and Mr. HIATIICOTE one
from Boston in Lincolnshire. Lord J. RUSSELL and Mr.
EASTCOU KT severally presented petitions from Dursley in
Gloucestershire, and Mr. LITTLETON presented several
from Staffordshire. Mr. Des IsoN presented a Petition
from Bermondsey, and another from the agriculturists
of Sheen. Here we have—in one evening, and in
little more than one hour—upwards of twenty peti-
tions laid upon the table of the House of Commons,
from various quarters of the kingdom, but all breathing
the one deep tone of human wretchedness, and simul-
taneously praying for relief from the pressure of that
distress which some of our Legislators have not scrupled
to pronounce only "partial,"—but which the voice oldie
people at large proclaims to be without precedent in its
severity, and its extent. And yet, in the face of such
bitter truths—such indisputable attestations of general

suffering—we find, amongst the self-styled " Represen -
tatives" of the people of England, some men who are capa-
Ile of opposing vague assertions and uncorroborated state-
ments to the appalling facts which the experience of
every day too mournfully confirms. In the face of all
these petitions, and of the petitions that have poured in
upon Parliament since the opening of the session, Mr.
IRVING, the member for Bramber, boldly asserts, on the
authority of some anonymous letter-writer, that " looking
fairly to the whole subject, his decided impression was,
that the description of the distress as given in his MA-
JESTY'S speech, was a more correct description than that
which had been offered to them by many Honourable Gen-
tlemen, who appeared to view with feelings of hopeless
despondency, the situation of the country." But if such
was the hardihood of Mr. laviNo, what shall we say of
Mr. HERRIES ?—what shall we think of the Minister,
who—amidst the undisguised impatience and dissatisfac-
tion of the House,—followed up the unqualified advocacy
of such a partisan, by saying that " he could not see why
the statement of the Hon. Member for Bramber (Mr. In-
v ti(;) was not as much entitled to respect as any of the

statements contained in the petitions ?"—and who unblush-
ingly endeavoured to support his own statements—not by
the production of any official report, or any authentic evi-
dence—but by the perusal of " a letter ho had received
from a gentleman ! !" For such conduct, Mr. 11 creel Es is
neither without a precedent, nor without the highest Mini-
sterial sanction.—We shall not easily forget the Gallant
Premier's production of a somewhat similar document,rela-
tine to the currency, on the first night of the Session ; nor
the admission which his Grace was afterwards constrained
to make, that it was but " a memorandum which he
himself had made from communications received in con-
versation with sonic gentlemen." But we reserve, fur
the resumption of the debate, all further notice of such
Ministerial manoeuvres.

BANK OF Es °LAN D.—At the half-yearly meeting
of the proprietors of bank stock held this day, the Go-
vernor informed the Court that the Directors having
looked into accounts, agreed to a dividend of four per
cent. on the Capital Stock for the half year ending in
April.
INDIA MONOPOLY.-.-GRATUITOUS LECTURE.—Mr.
BUCKINGHAM being anxious to give the greatest possi-
ble degree of publicity to his unaltered views on this im-
portant national question, will deliver a Gratuitous Lec-
ture on this subject, at the Great Room of the Crown and
Anchor, in the Strand, on Wednesday evening next, the
24th inst. previous to his leaving London. The doors will
be opened at half-past Six, and the Lecture will com-
mence at Seven o'clock precisely. This will be a suffi-
cient refutation of the imputed silencing of Mr. Bum-
tNG II A M by the East India Company.

CITY, TwE
'ED AND DUE TH'

!L \'R
IS MORNINO.

A. D.
o France... 1
1 Flanders

a. D.
0 Lisbon ..... 0
0 Jamaica 0

O Holland 0
O Hasnburgh ..

O Sweden 1
0 Malta