Star.
London, England, 1830-04-07 00:00:00

infer that some difference bad previously arisen which led to the
separation of beds ; and also to the natural conclusion that Lord E.
had caused the separation, and not his Lady ? Why, he would
ask. should the party now come complaining to that House of the
deprivations of those rights and comforts which he had voluntarily
given up?—(hear). The Hon. timber proceeded to read further
extracts of the same letter, to show that the agreement to • se-
parate was mutual ; and contended thit Lord Ellenborough had no
grounds for making the complaint contained in the preamble to the
bill. Lady E. expressed in the same letter that she was perfectly
satisfied with the settlement • and allowance made to her during her
separation ; and he ( Sir. H.) thought that there could be but one
Inference as to the cause that had given rise to this state of things—
naintly. ore of those unpleasant differences that occur sotnettmes
between man and wife ; and this, he would remind the house, all
took place before Lord • Ellenborough had, as appears from the evi-
dence, any reason to believe he had been injured by the improper
conduct of Lady Ellenborough. He would ask what would have
been the course if any other individual had come forward, and asked
To have his marriage dissolved, and leave to marry again ? Would
ere not be obliged to go in the first instance to a court of law, and
convince the consciences of twelve men that his own conduct had
:nen correct—that be came into court with clean hands, and proved
that he had been deprived of his matrimonial enjoyments from the
!Jul passions of his wife This was the course prescribed in almost
every case. But in the present instance, however, the house was
deprived-of the advantages arising from the previous investigation
io another court, where evidence would be requ red of the fullest
decription. He would assert that that house was not a tti.
before which evidence like the present ought to 4)errvesti.
gated. The nature of its proceedings did not admit of that ' perfect
inquiry which the importance of the question required. He would
repeat that he considered that house as a very unfit place for such an
inquiry. It was usual, in most bills for divorce, for the evidence
to have previously passed through the consistorik court, where the
rigid forms of the court requiredthat the patty suing for a divorce
had conducted himself or herself in a way that entitled them to the
mild' prayed. But was there any shadow of similar evidence before
the house in the present case ? Might not the husband have brought
0.. his own disgrace, and be therefore unentitled to relief ?—(hear,
hear, hear)--Deprived as the house was of any such evidence,
still they were called Upon to decide so important a question—a
question of such vital importance to Lady Ellenborough. Unfortu-
,,ately, the custom of the country visited the error of the female with
irretrievable disgrace, and exclusion from society ; whilst the se.
ducer, and greatest offender' in most instances, was received into
society again, as if nothing had happened, or rather, with some per-
sons, with an additional degree of dishonourable eclat. This was,
unfortunately, the custom of the country, and gross injustice to the
female it certainly was. But the laws were not to be evaded, and
they very properly prescribed that the suitors should come into
court with clean hands, and that the fullest proof should be given
that they had done nothing wrong on their part, so as to pro-
mote, by neglect or otherwise, the evil of which they complained.
He would call the attention of the house to the situation in which
the noble lord in question stood at the time of his marriage.
He was then a man aged 42 years, whilst the lady to whom he
was allied was but 17--a mere child he might call her, for she had
never left her father's door. She was undoubtedly pure and un.
sophisticated, and possessing all those inestimable qualities to form
a good and excellent wife. What, therefore, could be expected from
the husband but that he should guard and protect, by every possible
means in his power, the rich and invaluable treasure he received in
charge ? Was there any evidence brought forward to show that he
had done so ? Not a tittle ; but, on the contrary, the evidence he
should presently point out went to prove the reverse. Who was the
only person brought forward to prove the terms upon which they
lived ? Lord Ellenborough's own brother, an officer in the army
or navy, he (Mr. Hume) knew not which, who, on his arrival from
abroad, deposed to their living comfortably together in March, 1827.
But this was all; there was nothing to show how they passed the
following two years; not a single person was called to speak as to
their conduct during this long space of time,—no servants, no atten.
donut were called to state the cause of theirsleeping in separate beds,
and that for many months. There was no acquaintance of the noble
lord called to fill up this formidable gap in the evidence. No eel.
dome was adduced of Lord Ellenborough's passing months to.
bother at Brighton, separated from his wife—(hear, hear, hear);
nor was there the least ground for forming a just conclusion as
to the cause of the separation. There was in fact, nothing to
show to the contrary but that Lady Ellenborough might have
been induced to withdraw herself, perhaps, from Lord Ellenbo.
rough's bad conduct to her. Miss Steele states her belief that it was
b 1 Lady Ellenborough's own desire that the separation took place.
Now he (Mr. Hume) contended that the party suing was bound to
show that there was nothing on the part of Lord Ellenborough to.
wander' his wife to have produced that separation. It seemed ex-
tremely strange to him (Mr. Hume) that there was no one but this
soldier put into the box—brought before the house, he should have
said—to speak to the footing on which the parties lived. The evi-
dence on this point was extremely deficient, and left unrefuted other
parts of it, which led to the conclusion that the noble lord had shown
such great disregard for a young and beautiful wife asdid not entitle
him to the redress be sought. So far from protecting the young lady
from falling into snares, he appeared to have cared very little into
what society she mixed. His lordship's official duties; might require
him to be absent a good deal from home; but were it possible
that, the noble lord could be ignorant of the persons with
whom Lady Ellenborough associated? The only act of indiscre-
tion attempted to be brought against Lady Ellenborough in 1828
was that mentioned by that Mentor, Miss Steele, that LWy Ellen-
borough had gone out alone, unattended by a servant. Now, in his
(Mr. Hume's opinion, this was no indiscretion at all. Was it to
be supposed a young lady of her years should be shut up in
the house alone during whatever length of time her husband chose
to absent himself ?—(The honourable member proceeded to cons.
went on the testimony of Miss Steele, and her opinion of Lady
Ellenborough's bad associates in the "fashionabk" society in
which she mixed.) In continuation, he would ask what was his
lordship's conduct upon being cautioned on this subject and the
danger which his young and inexperienced wife ran being pointed
out to him by Miss Steel? Would an man, having a proper af-
fection for his wife, have disregarded this suggestion ? Certainly he
could not. But what was Miss Steele's statement ?—u His lord-
ship merely laughedn—(hear, hear.) He thought her unworthy his
notice—his young and tender wife he allowed to run headlong to
ruin ; and was it to be permitted that such a man should now
step forth and be allowed to marry again, when he had shown
himself so unworthy, he (Mr. Hume) would say, of having a
wife ?—(hear, bear, hear.) With respect to the act of adultery, he
(Mr. Hume) must differ in opinion from others, and would declare
that he did not consider it had been proved, or satisfactor made
out. There might be a combination of circumstances to lento the
conclusion that such act had been committed; but he must maintain
that there was a great deal more assumed than was at all probable,
er supported by the evidence. She might be blamed by many per.
sons ; but who had the least occasion to complain, after the husband
had been cautioned not to allow her to associate in society where
their actions were the talk of all the servants ? And even the servant
boy's evidence proved that the intimacy subsisting between Prince
Swartsenburg and Lady Ellenborough excited the notice and was the
conversation of all. He (Mr. Hume) considered the husband ought
to have guarded his wife against these bad associates ; and if he
did not, he had no right to come forward, and now complain of
the consequences of his own neglect. (Hear, hear.) He therefore
considered that the evidence was most disjointed and incomplete to
show what was really the conduct of the husband from the year 1827
to the end of 1838. The non. member proceeded to comment on the
various points of the evidence by which the counsel had asserted
ticy should clearly make out the fact of adultery having been com-
mitted. On the occasion it was stated that Lady Ellenborough went,
accompanied by Prince Swartrenburg, to Wimbledon, to dine at the
Countess St. Antonio's ; and that they travelled in a close carriage;
and this was all adduced in support of the alleresulfence. Now
watas it all reasonable to suppose that a lady, to attend a
dinner party and travelling in that manner, could be believed guilty
of the offence laid to her charge ? (hear, end a laugh.) Then another
alleged proof was, that whilst living alone at Roehampton
she had received a letter front Prince Swarmenburg. Did that, he
would ask, show adultery to have been committed ? Then at High.
gate and Richmond, where the offence had also been alleged to have
been committed, there was not a shadow of evidence to prove the
fact; no servants or attendants had been called who could depose to
more than mere suspicious circumstances. Had her Ladyship
thOught proper to have appeared against the Bill, he (Mr. Hume)
felt satisfied that the Bill would not have advanced to the stage it
had. What bad Mr. Freahfield said upon being asked if he had
atbrised Lord Ellenborough to proceed against Prince Swartsenberg ?
That he had not advised him to proceed, because he was afraid of a

Sir CIE6ROS CLIIRKiand other Members—" No, no."

Mr. HUME--ff Mr. Freshiltdd had no said exactly that, it wa's
to be inferred from Lord Ellenharough not. suing trim, as he might
have done, previously Whitslea** the mutiny. If there was not
some ground for recrintlhallon why did her Ladyship withdraw
herself from her husband's lied ?—(hear). He would ask the House
whether it was at all probable that a lady would withdraw herself
from her husband's bed without Foam gust use of aggrivranee ?
would
occur
were
0001.
was al,
Witned.fg

)I,Sojp

c

Was such a circumstance at ail COitaisreiTiiwith what they knew
females generally ?—(lou4aad long condekedlaughter.) He wot
In*" generally, 'because nighcity= otances might, and did inn
in some fashissable Soot. and were.,overbaed, but they w
unknown in geesnd life. TheHonottroMil Memberprocteded to co
meat on other ports oilip aktence, and particularly as to What was
lards, hassaudion It 78, Harley t. pile of the vitals
olso001! ruilittlativrered mclieW than In kind of
nektienleffi regoet nothing, that „was at
osolorial iedbo okorkikiabwl the s. He Qlr. Hume) bad or
.memo OVSIIIIIII, Ariaktool.."Ai in the. evidence of. Li
jiHmlapostoji I at 'N0.144, the InOt" and footman
tie eprodie *be to lwOritohinii up stal
•