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

instead of minding their duties below) deposed to seeing Lady EL
lenborough go into Prince Swartsenburg's house a dozen times on
foot, whilst Ann Lewis, des servant to the Prince, said that she
(Lady Ellenborough)) never carne but once on foot, and at all other
times cams in dm a,Wolet, accompanied by Prince Swartzenburg.
These were some amongst the numinous contradictory points in ed.
'dence. The coachman stated that-the boy first communicated his
'suspicions to Carpenter ; but did the boy's evidence confirm that ?
On the contrary, he denied it. Me was asked whether he did not
tell the servants what he had seen ? His answer was, that he did
not ; but, in the same breath, he admitted that the intercourse be-
tween Lady Ellenborough and Prince Swarteenburg was a matter of
notoriety—a subject of jeering amongst the servants in the hall.
In short, the evidence of these two witnesses was throughout so
contradictory, that no reliance could be placed upon it. When
he was asked what answer he gave to the coachman, in explanation
of keeping out the bones so long, he answered, that he said they
sometimes took a long ride; sometimes that Lady Ellenborough
had been to Prince Swanzenburg's, but, when pressed afterwards
upon the subject, he denied that the name of the Prince was ever
mentioned. So that the boy Carpenter's evidence fell to the ground.
The nest witness was Anne Lewis. Her testimony was in direct
contradiction of that of some others, and tend to any thing
but the proof of Lady E.'s identity. The coachman is stated
never to have seen them together—hut the boy says that he
often saw them riding out together in the Park. Hers was a
flat contradiction of each other. But, Sir, to go further into
this evidence, contradictory and unlikely as it is, would be
but wasting the time of the house. I say that there is no
legal evidence that the lady seen in those situations was Lady El.
lenborough all that is shown is, that she was attended by a scream
in the same livery. All these collateral facts accruing to strengthen
each other, but substantially nothin , are but cheats and frauds in.
vented to hide the adultery. Therefore, so far as the Harley.stnet
part of the affair is concerned, there is nothing satisfactory proved
respecting the adultery. I come, therefore, to the Brighton
affair. But could any thing be more clumsy than the at.
tempt which was made to prove the act of adultery ? Hep-
ple, the principal witness, and Walton, contradicted each other
flatly. No man breathing would believe a word from either.—
What I that a waiter at an inn should come to a lady like Lady
Ellenborough, and say " I know what you have been doing;
I shall tell; I'll expose you if you don't give me 201;" and,
therefore, she gives him 201. It was monstrous and incredible.
Well, then, he is asked " What did you do with the money—this
hush.money ?" He says he gave 101. of it to his accomplice upon
the 10th of October—quite sure it was the 10th of October. But
what says Hepple ? Why, that he got five pounds the very day
after the lady left, for his attendance—not an unreasonable compen.
sation for his attendance, for the boy had been staying at the hotel
for some considerable time. He says he had no conversation rids
Walton about the money. If these witnesses are disposed of, then
(and who would rely upon such witnesses ?) there remains only
one more, which is Miss Steele. Now, Sir, the evidence of this
witness, if true, is the most condemnatory of all of Lord Ellen.
borough, and upon it I ask the house to reject this till. If
Miss Steele is to be believed, Lord Ellenborough does not
come to this house guiltless, to require the relief which he
seeks. Here is a witness, the confidante of both parties, complaining
to the husband of the dangers which surrounded his wife. " Lady
Ellenborough,'• she said, " is young, and surrounded by certain
associates. Your lordship is much out, but you might to take care
at least to remove her from those snares to vice. You ought to re-
move from her the profligate associates by whom she is surrounded."
What says Lord Ellenborough ? He laughs, as much as to say,
" Oh, it answers my purpose very well, let it go on." Well, it
does go on ; an act of adultery takes place. Why, is he nothing to
blame for his want of attention, for the absence of that protection
which it was his duty to afford under the circumstances ? And, if
so, what claim has he to come here ? We sit to do justice, not to Lord
and Lady Ellenborough, but to the public. This cause is of public
interest ; I say that the morals of the country are much interested in
it. Are we to be told, that when a husband, after warning given
him, suffers his wife to go abroad alone, and to continue the so-
ciety of improper persons, young and inexperienced though she
might be, that he was an object for relief by this House ? I say not.
I say that it would be an act of justice to the whole community
not to give to Lord E. this relief which he seeks, but to read this
salutary lesson, " that no man, whatever his rank or station, can
expect relief here, who does not seek it with clean hands." For
when a husband fails to fulfil those obligations which he took upon
him in entering into matrimony, and withholds that comfort, pro.
tection and assistance which a wife has a right to demand at his
hands leaving her, inexperienced, and of tender years, exposed to
all the allurements of such society as I am told is too
in the highest ranks of this country, this House must general
or other of two things; either by passing such a measure as
this, to sanction such proceedings, or to reject it altogether as im.
proper to be passed. The morality of this country is of great im-
portance ; and shall the Commons of England say to the higher
classes of society, " Oh, go on as you please; be as regardless, as
reckless of consequences as you urtoacyezoithave in our house a safe
resource ?"Shall we suffer such p • to go or., till the contend-
nation extends itself to the middling classes of society ? I hope
and trust not. It is our duty to show the country the high estima-
tion in which we bold the duties of man and wife, and that if a
Divorce Bill is to be passed, it must be supported by different evi.
dense from this now produced. Let us stamp such conduct as this with
its proper name. I do not call it collusion, because I have no means
of broving collusion, but we have not had such a satisfactory mega.
tion of such an insinuation as would warrant us in passing this bill.
If it is intended to offer any supplementary evidence in support
of this bill, I should like to see the bill postponed. If Lord
Ellenborough can come to this house with clean hands, let us enter.
lain his claim ; but as he does not, I call upon the house to reject
the bill, and thus let the noble lord, and all the fashionable classes,
know what fate they may expect from this house, if they do not
come in a peeper way to clam relief. I therefore oppose the third
reading of this bill.
Sir H. HARDINGE--Under any other circumstances I would
allow any hon. member to take upon himself the task of answering
the hon. member who has just sat down, but I thank him for the op.
portunity which he has given me of answering, with freedom, the
observations which he has just made. I never heard a more clumsy
perversion of evidence, or a greater exaggeration of facts ; and, if the
hon. member pretends, in his judicial capacity here, to help mem.
ben to come to a fair conclusion by summing up the case, it could
not be done In a more perverse or unfair manner. I complain
of the way in which the witnesses have been treated, and the whole
case misrepresented ; but 1 am glad of it for the sake of ray noble
friend, and the house generally, foi I am sure that, being men of
honour, when the honour, character, and happiness of other men are
concerned, they will be considered upon their own merits, free from
personal or party feeling, and decided upon by the merits of the
case. (Hear.) With respect to this evidence, the hon. member
says that it is disjointed end defective, and he blames us, the sup.
porters of the bill, because there have been prevaricadons and con.
tradictions among the witnesses. But what Is the fact always with
such cases ? Why, that the parties are obliged to bring persons
in the interest of the guilty parties forward as witnesses to their
case. I could prove this by alluding to the evidence of Carpenter,
whom the honourable member calls a bus witness. But Mr.
Freshfield says that he is an unwilling witness, for he was more
particularly the tenant of Lady Ellenborough herself. He it was
who had charge of the pony phaeton, and when Lord and Lady
Ellenborough first separated, he was immediately dismissed Lord
Ellenborough's service. From that time to this he had been un.
willing to come forward, and undoubtedly the promoters of the
bill take him with all his disadvantages. But what does he
prove ? Only that he drove her to the neighbourhood of Harley.
stmt; and if the prevarications and untruths of the boy
was ten times greater than they are, it is otherwise proved that
also in the livery of Lord Lllenborough was seen to drive
die lady to Harley-street, and to attend upon her at other times :
hot • the honourable member is dissatisfied with the evidence
et the waiters at Brighton. He says there is, upon the wt
of those witnesses, the greatest prevarication, and that their
widened is not to be relied upon. But these waiters were parties
to the transaction too. One of them saw the Prince go to the
Lady's apartment at the hotel, and it seems they extort money,
and cheat each other. Nnw, was it very unnatural that a man who
cold extort money, under such circumstances, front a patty in his
power would stickle at cheating his accomplice of a fair moiety
of that spoil ? I think not. But is the fact of the Prince be-
ing seen going to Lady Ellenborough's bed-room affected by
this discrepancy ? Not at all. Let us see how far this part
of the evidence Ir confirmed by other parts. Miss Steele says
that Lad y Ellenborough confessed to her, after the separation,
that she bad spent the 24th of May at Brighton, and that the
waiters came and demanded money of her. This date there-
foes Confirms the evidence of one of the witnesses, and it is
put beyond all doubt by the evidence of the post-boys as to
the'day they drove to• Brighton. I say, then, that if any min has
the sense to undersumitevidence (the hon. member I think has not),
he must be sathified that the act of adultery, alleged to have tar=
place at Brighton, is proved ; and he is sure of that, and that there
remains ne doubt of the identity of the guilty parties, what diffi-
culty can there be in paw Iv this Bill ? I agree with those hoc.
members who say that if Lad Ellenborough had been guilty of soy
other act, and had not extended a proper protection to his a wife, be
is not entitled to the relief which be claims. But what parts the
evidence show that he had been negligent in this respect? I say.
that the whole of the evidence proves the contrary, for all the wit.
masts agree in deposing to the affection and good un
which subsisted betwas Lord Ellenborough and his wife
unwilling, in a case of this sort, to trespass at any length o
the house, et, whew my noble friend is assailed in so
nod asosselie, I trust I shall be permitted to be a
mews bib hear.) lhave made a note of the soh
desoloridoh eholi itoso • and which I hope will be wok
the wradleilemisteidesiaileiletio; which the muniments of the wagi

~,~,.,,.y ,~