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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—Tu Lan AV. •
Lard WAIINCLIFFS presented petitions from Illerfield and
Scarandale, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying that the
Assizes for that Riding might be held at Wakefield. The pubic
lord also resented a petition from the retail traders of DunCre
for throwing open the trade to India and China; a::d anotlyr
petition from the shipowners of Newcastle, praying tin: removal
of impedimenta in discharging the ballast of vessels at Ni•rth

Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CALVERT, and Mr. HOWARD, and other
members of the House of Commons, brought up several private
bills, which were severally read a first time.
EAST acTrono.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said be had been requested in
consequence of the indisposition of a noble duke (the duke cf New-
castle it was understood,) to postpone the second reading of the
East Retford disfranchisement bill to the 3d of May. The noble
marquis then moved that the order be discharged for the day on
which the second reading was proposed.
Lord HOLLAND °betted to the postponement.
The Earl of DIALISILSBURY thought, as the et idexce would,
it all probability, be very lengthy, that if the Mll were put off to
the period now suggested, there might be a difficulty in carrying it
through the house in the present session. He therefore concurted
in what the Loble baron had stattd. The noble earl added that be
was disposed to accommodate the noble duke to whom allusion had
been made; but he felt the objection which hail been first
argued, for individual interests ought to be sacrificed to public
convenience.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, considering that it was the wish
of the house that he should not press his motion—be would acceif•
to that desire.
The notion was then negatived, and the second reading e
brought as originally proposed.
Lord HOI.LA ND presented a petition from an individun! rr
Bloomsbury parish, against that parish vestry bill. The noble lo:
also presented a petition from a body of trades in Arbroath, ft.!
throwing open the trade to India and China.
SMIGOLERS' FAMILIES BILL.
Viscount 3IELVILLE moved the committal of the Smugglers'
Families (provision) Dill.
Before the house went into committee.
The Earl of MAL3IESBURY said, he did not rise to oppose ti:'.
progress of the bill, but he did object to the principle u:
offenders against smuggling into the royal navy. By the bill, the
person committing that offence had to gicc one-half his pay towards
the support of his Emily, the other moiety was for his own sub.
sistence. The noble earl said he must protest agaitsi tl:e principle
of sending men either into the army or navy, as a trul: of pai.:sh.
meat. (Hear.) " When a man offends against the laws, le Nemo
other punishment be devised. lam one of those," continued tlr
noble earl, " who consider such a course as that to which I has e
alluded as being highly impolitic and highly unjust. 1 ant happy
to find my opinion is nut singular on this point. There ought to
be a feeling that these are honourable pursuits. How is i: possible
that a btother measmate, with high-minded and honourable tcelings,
can consider a man, sent to serve in the navy as a punishment, a.
a fit companion ? The saute objection holds with respect to ser.dir.g
men into the army for crimes which they may have committed. I
have always protested against that practice for the sante reason. My
lords, I have taken this opportunity of expressing my sentiments irt
the subject, and I do hope that some other mode of punishment may
be found foe the smuggler than making a seaman of hint."
Viscount MELVILLE said the question of sending seamen con-
victed of smuggling into the navy was not now before the house.
The legislature had decided that question. The noble earl kaew
that the punishment was different with respect to landsmen con-
victed of smuggling—(hear, from the Earl of 3lalmesbury). How-
ever, if any mode of punishment could be devised for seamen con-
victed of that offence, likely to have the effect of preventing that
crime, he (Viscount Melville) should have no objection to its being
adopt Cd.
Atter a few further remarks from the Earl of Al AL 3I EAU (.7 ay,
the Bill passed through a committee.
The house having resumed, tome private(road)Bills were advanced
one stage.
Lord STRANGFORD presented a petition ftom Sir John Shel-
ley, Bart. praying to be beard by counsel at their lordships' bar
against the claim to the Berkeley Peerage.—Reforred to the Com-
mittee of Privileges.
Several returns of coal* exported from different towns in Wales.
for stated periods, were ordered, on the motion of the Marquis of
BUTE.
The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from the bur.
genes of Eaat Retford, against the Bill for disfranchising that
borough.
Adjourned at a Quarter past Five.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TUESDAY.
A person from the Secretary of Bankrupts' Office presented cere
tan returns previously ordered.
Mr. C. M HITMOIiE presented a petition from a Mr. Wright,
of Great Marlborough-sueet, relative to the establishment of an
asylum for the deaf and dumb.—Laid on the table.
LORD ELLENIIOIOUOII'II DIVORCE BILL.
Sir GEORGE.CLERK moved the third reading of the above
BilL
Mr. HUME said he had not made up his mind as to what course
he should pursue in opposing the progress of this bill, having two
objects in view. But Hot he wished to know whether it was in.
tended to afford any further evidence, foe at present be considered
the information the house possessed of so imperfect end contradic-
tory a description, and the ease so incomplete as not to warrant the
party seeking relief to apply to that house 'for redress. If delay
were granted to obtain additional evidence, and to till up those link,
in the present unconnected chain of evidence, he should be far from
inclined to throw any unnecessary impediments in the way ; but as
the evidence now stood be did consider that the postponement of the
third reading of the bill was absolutely necessary, and that the house
would not be warranted in passing the bill on such defective evidence.
This was one of the grounds on which he opposed the bill; and the
other was, that the preamble to the bill, the very prayer for relief.
was not borne out in evidence, but on the contrary, was completely
disproved. The preamble stated that the parties had " lived and
cohabited together up to the 22d of :day, 1829," whilst the evi.
dence went to prove that they had not cohabited together for months
end months previously to that period. The evidence of Miss Steele
proved this in the most distinct manner. He, therefore, submitted
that the allegation contained in the preamble was not proved, and
contended that the bill ought not to pus with so glaring an
inconsistency on the very face of it. (Hear, hear, hear.) Another
point in the evidence given by Miss Steele also proved that
Lord and Lady Ellenborough
,bad had no intercourse together
I for months previously to May, ISM), which was the communka-
tion made by Lady Ellenborough to Miss Steele—via. that she
(Lade Ellenborough) should be unable to conceal the fact of her
being in a state of pregnancy from the knowledge of Lord Ellen.
borough, who would thus discover the illicit intercourse that bad
taken place. These be (Mr. flume) thought were circumstances
amply sufficient to cause the bill to stand adjourned, to afford time
for further evidence. Anther pan of the bill asserted that the ap-
plicant had been deprived of his "matrimonial rights and comforts"
by the conduct of Lady Ellenboraigh ; whilst from the evidence it
was proved most distiuctly that Lord Ellenborough was nut in pos-
session of those " rights and comforts " for many months prior to
the denouement. lie, therefore considering these important defects
in the evidence, and gross inconsistencies, wished to ask of the hon.
baronet, who had the conducting of this bill, whether it was his in-
tention to bring forward any additional evidence? If so, he (Mr.
Hume) should offer no opposition until he had beard that evidence ;
otherwise he felt bound, for the reason he had already stated, to op-
pose the passing of the bill on such imperfect testimony.
Sir GLORtiti CLERK replied that it was not the intention of
the parties promoting the bill to adduce any additional evidence.
They considered it quite unnecessary, when the witnesses had been
in attendance before the house, and given all the evidence the hook
decided necessary. The hon. member (Mr Hume) appeared to .b
the or.ly one who entertained the least doubt of the principal object
of inquirj, whether adultery had been committed or not r He (Sir
G. Clerk) contended that no reasonable person could entertain a
doubt of the fact having been peeved. He did not consider there
was any inconsistency in the evidence of Miss Steele with the alle.
gations contained in the bill ; and with respect to Lord and Leidy
Ellenborough sleeping in separate beds, that had originated with
Lady Ellerbnrough heraeif three months previously to the final se.
paracion.
31r. HUME said, if that were the determination and opinion of
the Hon. Baronet, he ( Mr. Hume) considered it became his duty
to state at length to the House his reason for opposing the Bill.
He had already adverted to that part of the Bill in which Lord
Ellenborough makes an averment that he (Lord Ellenborough)
had been deprived of his matrimonial comforts; whilst, from the
evidence, it was, in his (Mr. Home's) opinion, clearly made out
that his Lordship was not enjoying thern—(bru).....(The Helmut- •
able Member here refitted to the printed evidence, page 47, and
read an extract of lAdyEllenburough's)etter, in which she protested
her innocence.)—This letter, the Hon. Member observed, was
dated on Saturday night, but that win no other date—no post-
mark ; but, from the roarardoo of its contents with other cireuni-
stances, it left him to suppose that it wee written in May, pre-
viously mind about the time of tileir sepantion. No suspicion
existed at this time that Land riSeaborougbitetl been injured ;
but it appeared that a private endeestanding led been ware to that
they should sleep in sparse beds, and in tarp deionnicetie, it
' was evident Lord Oka Itail tritely allB6eNottit
to this same letter Lad_ saysrt-lans innoorab"
boom, of what, he (7Mr. ame) would etiqube Bid it not

' I

'''• • , A