The Bill then went through the Com mittee. the noble Baron, that the Bill had already PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING BILL.] Lord Melville moved the Order of the Day for the committal of this Bill. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, April 6. MINUTES.] Mr. CALCRAFT brought up a Report from the Committee on the Beer Trade, and gave notice, that on Thursday next he would move for leave to bring in a Bill founded upon this Report, and he would then explain the plan pointed out by the Committee for establishing a Free Trade in Beer. Report to be Printed. Mr. POULETT THOMSON brought in a Bill to alter the Usury Laws. Mr. SPRING RICE, on the part of his right hon. friend, Sir J. MACKINTOSH, brought in a Bill to indemnify parties who suffered by the insolvency of Mr. GILBERT RICKETTS, late Registrar at Madras. [Mr. Astell said, that he formerly objected to a bill of this kind, but he now understood that the Bill had been much altered from that of last year. He would not now oppose its introduction, but would reserve to himself the power of opposing it hereafter as he should think proper, when more fully acquainted with its details.] The Earl of Malmesbury was anxious to take advantage of that occasion to protest, not against the Bill, but against the practice which made it necessary. Their Lordships were aware that at present, service in the Navy was made a punishment for smuggling, and the Bill compelled the smuggler serving in the Navy to allot a moiety of his pay for the support of his family. To that he had no objection, in fact it was necessary; but he objected to punishing smugglers in that manner. The principle was highly objectionable, and could only have the effect of throwing a stigma on a highly honourable service. What brother seaman but must feel humiliated when he sees a profession to which he had devoted his best energies, and in which were embarked his best hopes and aspirations, thus dishonoured by being made a punishment for offences against Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BONHAM CARTER, the laws of this country? He had resisted the application of the same objectionable principle to the punishment of poachers, who, it was proposed, should be forced into the Army. He hoped the noble Lord would remedy this defect, and thereby prevent a stigma being thrown on a highly honourable profession. Lord Melville, in answer to the noble Earl, begged leave to state that this punishment of the crime of smuggling was only inflicted on those smugglers who had been at sea previous to the commission of their offence. To no other class of smugglers did it apply. He should be happy to support any measure which would put an end to smuggling, or provide a better method of disposing of the smuggler, but that question was not then before their Lordships. The present Bill was made necessary by the law as it stood and would be an improvement. The Earl of Malmesbury said, he objected to the system altogether. A man was caught smuggling, he was asked whether he was a sailor or not, and if he answered yes, he was sent to a King's ship. This was degrading the King's service, and therefore he objected to it. The Fever Hospitals (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The East Retford Witnesses Indemnity Bill was read a second time. Returns laid on the Table. Number of Bankrupt Petitions set down for hearing before the LORD CHANCELLOR and before the VICE CHANCELLOR and unheard on the 50th of March last. Report from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to the Treasury relative to Dean Forest. of the money expended by the Victualling Office since June 1827, for buildings at Weevil; the expense of removing the Victualling establishment from Portsmouth to Weevil; the sums for which the old premises at Portsmouth have been let or sold, and of the number of persons reduced in consequence of the removal of the establishment: -On the Motion of Mr. HUSKISSON, the Amount of Exchequer Bills now held by the Bank of England; for a Copy of the contract for any Loan for the Completion of London Bridge; an Account of all Distributions by the Bank of England among the Proprietors of Bank Stock since 1797; and of the whole of the Dividends paid on increased Capital since 1816:-On the Motion of Mr. ALEXANDER DAWSON of the expense incurred by the Ballast Office Corporation, in erecting a patent slip at the North Wall, Dublin; with the number of vessels repaired thereon;-On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, of the average quantities of various articles, such as Silk, Wool, Flax Hemp, &c. imported from January 5,1783, to January 5, 1830, in periods of three years; of the amount of Stamp Duties received on Policies of Insurance, Fire and Marine, on an average of the years ending 1783, 1793, 1815 and 1830; of the British and foreign tonnage entered inwards at the same periods:-On the Motion of Mr. WARBURTON, an humble address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct our Consuls at St. Petersburg to furnish all the information they might be able to obtain respecting the amount of precious metals raised in Russia from 1820 to the present time;-On the Motion of Mr. BRIGHT, the sums received in 1829 on each article contained in the various Schedules to the Stamp Acts:-On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, a Copy of the condition on which Lands are granted in the North American Colonies, and Colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. Petitions presented. Against a Free Trade in Beer;-by Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Licensed Victuallers of Liverpool;-By Mr. H. BATLEY, from the Licensed Victuallers of Beverley. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR, from the inhabitants of Taunton :-By Mr. SPRING RICE, from Ayr; and from the clothing district of Horbury, of Check healion, Birstall, Bramley and Morley. For a Repeal of the clause of Act 31 George 3rd, which interferes with the Medical Profession in Ireland, by Mr. SPRING RICE from the Apothecarics of Bandon. For the Poor Laws Amendment Bill, by Mr. C. PALLMER, from the Select Vestry of Richmond, Surrey. For a Revision of the Criminal Code by Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the Congregation of Unitarians at South-place Finsbury-square: by the same hon. Gen tleman, from certain Manufacturers of Sweets or British Wine, complaining of the effects of the present system of Licences, and praying for its revision. For a remission of Taxation by the Marquis of BLANDFORD, from the inhabitants of Saint Leonard's Shoreditch;-By Mr. SPRING RICE, from the weavers of Limerick. For an investigation into the Election Laws of Ireland, by Colonel rough had not cohabited together__for months before the time alluded to. They slept in separate beds; and if the evidence of Miss Steele is to go for any thing, Lord Ellenborough did not cohabit with his lady, as the preamble sets forth. Therefore, with the circumstance of the preamble not being proved, but, on the contrary, as I have before said, disproved, it is impossible we can pass this Bill, while it is charged with such glaring inconsistencies. The House will recollect what was deposed by Miss Steele, the lady to O'GRADY, from VALENTINE BLAKE, Esq. against the whom Lady Ellenborough is represented duty on Coals, by Mr. SPRING RICE, from the parish of Saint Andrew's, Dublin. LORD ELLEN BOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL.] Sir G. Clerk.-Sir, I rise to move the Order of the Day for the third reading of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill. The Order was accordingly read, and the Speaker then put the question that this Bill be now read a third time. Mr. Hume.-Sir, I am not well aware what course I ought exactly to take on the present occasion, because I have two objects in view upon which I still want explanation; one is, to see if further information can be afforded to supply the evidence which appears to me to be wanting here; and the other is to reconcile, if it can be reconciled, the contradictory evidence we have upon our minutes respecting this Bill; for as it stands, it certainly does not warrant us in granting the redress which is prayed. If by adjourn ing the third reading of this Bill, or by any other course which can be suggested by the hon. Gentlemen who have charge of it, we can obtain these objects,-if there can be any mode supplied of filling up the blanks which exist in the evidence, I am ready to adopt that mode. I will state to the House what I conceive really to be wanting in the case before us. In the first place, it appears to me that not only has the preamble of the Bill not been proved, but it has been disproved by the evidence so clearly so, indeed, that I apprehend it to be quite impossible we can pass this Bill while such glaring inconsistencies exist upon the face of its averments. The preamble states, that the parties, up to the time when these discoveries were made, were cohabiting together in a state of connubial happiness. Now, we have it from Miss Steele, in a part of her evidence, that this was not the case; and that Lord and Lady Ellenbo to have made what may be called her confession, the fact of her pregnancy, which, as she said, would soon become visible, and could not be concealed from Lord Ellenborough. This showed they had not cohabited together for some previous time, which was in direct variance with the terms of the preamble of the Bill, which said that their cohabitation, as man and wife, had gone on till, I think, May 1829. Surely this one discrepancy alone ought to dictate an adjournment of the further proceedings in the Bill, to see if sufficient explanation were forthcoming by the means of other evidence. Another part of the preamble states, that by the adultery of the said Janet Elizabeth, Edward Baron Ellenborough had been deprived of the comforts of matrimony. Have we not evidence in the very teeth of this averment, that he had previously, of his own accord, deprived himself of the comforts of matrimony? They had separated themselves from each other's intercourse, apparently by mutual consent, and it was evident that for many months before May, 1829, Lord Ellenborough had of his own accord, I say, withdrawn from the enjoyment of these domestic comforts. These two matters, then, require, as I think, that we should adjourn the third reading of this Bill, to let in, if possible, further explanatory evidence. I do not know whether I have made myself sufficiently understood. If I have, what I wish to ask is, whether either of the hon. Gentlemen opposite think it necessary to ask further time to adduce explanatory evidence to support the two main allegations, which appear to me not only unsupported, but entirely contradicted by the evidence as it now stands. If they do wish to produce fresh evidence, I have no wish to press the subject further at this moment; if they do not, I shall consider it my duty to state my objections gene- | to have been estranged from him, but the rally to the Bill in its present form, and contrary. It seemed, then, that it was in to show how utterly undeserving of atten- May Lord Ellenborough had separated tion the evidence for it appears; and then from his lady, for their mutual accommoI shall call upon you to do justice to the dation. He acquiesced in, if he did not public, and prevent such a measure from dictate that separation, according to that passing into a law. letter of Saturday night, in which her ladyship says, that in act she was innocent, and adds these words, "Those feel Sir G. Clerk. I have no hesitation in informing the hon. member for Montrose, that we have no intention to produce fur-ings of honour which I still retain towards ther evidence in support of the preamble of this Bill; and indeed, I believe the hon. Member is himself the only Member of this House who does not think the evidence already adduced sufficient. He was told the other night, that we had all the servants here, if any hon. Member wished for a further examination of them; but he started no doubt of this kind then, and now his whole objection is, that the parties had not slept together as man and wife for a short period,-a circumstance which, he says, is inconsistent with the preamble of the Bill. I do not see that any such inconsistency is furnished by a temporary arrangement of the nature alluded to, while the parties were living on terms of affection at that time, under the same roof. Mr. Hume said, that as they were, it appeared, to have no further evidence, and as the hon. Gentleman saw no inconsistency in the discrepancies which he had stated to him, it only remained for him to proceed in his statement of the reasons why he thought they ought not to pass the Bill, and why Lord Ellenborough was not in a situation to be entitled to the redress which it went to confer. He had already shown that the preamble was notoriously contradicted by the facts stated in evidence. The proof was clear, that he and Lady Ellenborough, instead of living together as man and wife, had been for several months occupying distinct apartments, and living as it were separate. The preamble avers that Lord Ellenborough has, by his wife's act, lost the comforts of matrimony, and therefore he hopes Parliament will grant him the relief of this Bill. It is proved most decidedly, that he had not been in the possession of the comforts of which he spoke, and that could be shown by the evidence of the letter marked "Saturday night," without date or post-mark, but which must be supposed to have been written about the time of the separation, and in that there was nothing to show his wife's affections you, make me still acquiesce in your decision." This showed that the separation was imposed upon her by Lord Ellenborough, and if so, what right had he to say that he had been wrongfully deprived of his domestic comforts? Further on in the letter, it is quite manifest that she by no means desires this separation; for she adds, "ought not time, solitude, and change of scene, to be tried by me, to conquer or obliterate sentiments so inimical to our mutual peace?" What did any man gather from these words? They were living as man and wife, under the same roof at least; he dictated her separation, he made no allegation against her: how then could his Lordship pretend, when he had voluntarily separated from his Lady, that he had been deprived of the comforts of matrimony? According to the evidence, it was plain that Lord Ellenborough could not be deprived of what he had not previously possessed. He believed that an allowance was then fixed on Lady Ellenborough-that a liberal settlement was then made on her Ladyship, and that the expressions of gratitude in that letter were on account of the liberal settlement. He was satisfied that the settlement was the result of a mutual agreement. If that were the case, there were peculiar circumstances for the consideration of the House. Other individuals, when they came before the House with a claim to have their marriage dissolved by Act of Parliament, and to be released from the wife whose affections they had lost, went first of all into a Court of Law. There the complaints were sifted by a jury of twelve men, and the husband was obliged to satisfy them that his loss was not owing to his own fault, but to the artifices of others, or to the evil disposition and passions of his wife. He was then placed in a situation where all his allegations could be proved, and all the evidence he brought be sifted. He must make out a case that he had been deprived of his wife's society--not that he had voluntarily relinquished it. In this case, however, there had been no such sifting, and there was no such evidence. The letter to which he had already referred, showed that the comforts of matrimony had been given up by Lord Ellenborough's own act. This was for him a sufficient consideration to show that the Bill ought not to pass. He called on the House to reflect on the situation in which the people of this country would be placed if that House should take upon itself to release individuals from the engagement of matrimony without witnesses being called to show that all the duties of that state had been fulfilled. Under the most favourable circumstances, that House was ill calculated to prosecute such an inquiry. He called on them to consider in what state the people would be placed if they decided such question, when the parties had not been before a jury court. He believed that in the Consistory Court, if the fact of the adultery were proved, the Judge was bound to pronounce for the divorce; but not so at common law. There the individual stated his grievance; but there the evidence was subjected to be cross-examined, and the truth could be elicited, and the party obtained no relief unless he could show that he had done nothing to place himself in the situation for which he sought redress. He was sure that in such a Court it would be found, from the evidence already adduced, that the preamble to the Bill had not been proved. There were many duties which a husband was bound to render to his wife, and which a court was bound to exact. In this country the faults of a woman were visited with a severe punishment she was banished for one fault from society-but the faults of the husband were overlooked. He did not say how far that was good or bad; but it was not equitable or just, perhaps, that the woman should be so treated. He trusted that when females were thus exposed to what he might call a hostile inquisition, they would always find, as they ought to find, protectors. It was the business of the husband to take care that his wife had not access to evil companions, and to protect her against moral contagion. What was the situation of Lord Ellenborough, and his conduct in these respects? Lord Ellenborough was forty-two years of age when he married his lady, a young and innocent woman, who had never been beyond her father's threshold, and who was, when she was married, only seventeen years of age, or a mere child. His Lordship's experience, previously acquired in the marriage state, should have made him take care of the almost infant mind intrusted to his keeping, and he should have guarded her carefully against the evils which necessarily beset a young person when first introduced into the gay society of London. Had Lord Ellenborough performed this duty? He had received her innocent from her father's house, and might have made her a faithful wife. Had he employed any care to guard her against the dangers to which she was exposed? Had Lord Ellenborough behaved towards his lady like a good and faithful husband? What evidence was there that he had? What proof was there of his affection? The brother of the noble Lord had been called, a gentleman who was, he believed, in the Army or the Navy, and who at any rate was abroad for a considerable period; this gentleman deposed, that he had been intimate with the family of Lord and Lady Ellenborough from the time of the marriage up to the month of March 1827: then he went abroad, and from March 1827, to March 1829, there was no evidence whatever of the terms on which the parties had lived: except some incidental admissions of Miss Steele, no one had been brought during all that interval, or between March 1827, and March 1829, to prove what had been the conduct of Lord Ellenborough. This officer returned in March 1829, and he is asked-“Then, after your return from the Mediterranean again, were you on terms of intimacy with Lord and Lady Ellenborough ?—I was. Did it then appear to you that they were living on terms of affection?—Yes, it did. Did you observe any difference from those terms on which they were living at the time you left England ?—No, I did not." Yet at this very time, continued the hon. Member, when this witness described them as living affectionately together, it was proved in evidence that they did not cohabit. It was proved by Miss Steele, that for many months before this period, Lord and Lady Ellenborough had not been on good terms. There were the outward bearing and appearances of affection at the very time they did not sleep together. It was a mockery to call that evidence to show how these parties had lived together. Was there no individual of all the noble Lord's acquaintance and friends who could be brought forward to fill up the gap between was neglected-was she to stay at home. these two periods? Was there nobody to all day, and from one month's end to show that Lord Ellenborough did not visit another? In that there was no indiscreBrighton, and there pass many months to- tion. The witness had contradicted her gether without the company of Lady Ellen- own evidence. She had been asked about borough? Why was not Lord Ellenbo- some companions of Lady Ellenborough's, rough allowed to make all that clear, and whom she described as very low, and she exhibit proofs that Lady Ellenborough had was asked, "Can you state that those inno good reason for withdrawing herself dividuals to whom you objected as imfrom his protection? Wanting that evi- proper, were associates in the house on dence, was he not warranted in entertaining the invitation of Lord Ellenborough or a strong suspicion that Lady Ellenborough Lady Ellenborough ?-That I do not had withdrawn herself from some strong and know; they were, of course, introduced by efficient reason? It appeared by the answer Lord Ellenborough, because they were not of Miss Steele to a question from an hon. her associates when she was Miss Digby. Member, that it was at the request of Lady Were the ladies such as were generally Ellenborough that she had ceased to cohabit received in the society in which Lord with Lord Ellenborough. It was extra- Ellenborough moved?They were. What ordinary that not one person of Lord objections had you, or why did you think Ellenborough's acquaintance, but a soldier, their society indiscreet when they moved who was for some time absent from Eng- in the society in which Lord and Lady land, could be brought to prove on what Ellenborough were ?-I think it was one terms the two parties lived. If that were thing to see a person occasionally, and not a mockery of evidence, he did not another to be very much in each other's know what was. The House was bound society; and I thought that, by warning not to pass the Bill without more proof on Lord Ellenborough, he might be more this part of the case; and if it were post- cautious. Will you try and recollect what poned, it would be possible to get such warning you gave Lord Ellenborough ?evidence as ought to be produced. It Particularly about some ladies, but I cannot was proved, indeed, that Lady Ellen- mention names." The witness also stated borough had been much neglected, and it that the ladies of Lady Ellenborough's was most probable that all the subsequent family were dissatisfied with Lord Ellenfaults had been the consequence of that borough, for having introduced his lady to neglect. He had already stated, that these companions. He would ask, was Lady Ellenborough was seventeen years of that, on the part of Lord Ellenborough, age when she was married, and that Lord the conduct of a prudent man? Ellenborough was advanced in life; he introduced his lady to such dangerous had experience, and ought to have warned society, that her late governess thought it her against the snares which at her tender necessary to warn him against it. What years she was likely, without great atten- did his Lordship say when he received tion, to fall into. What was his course of this warning? Did he remove his lady conduct? He trusted her entirely into out of the way? No; he only laughed her own keeping. It was said that his at it. He did not think the subject worthy official duties occupied him very much, of any serious attention. Let the House but was it possible that he should not recollect that Lord Ellenborough was know for three years what company his charged with a wife of tender years; that wife kept that for three years she should he was a man experienced in the world, be daily driving about, and he know and that he had not only neglected her, nothing of her proceedings? It appeared but introduced her to improper companions that the acts on the part of her Ladyship not known to her before marriage, and the had been noticed; she had been advertised | House would see, that no care had been that she was doing wrong, and the evil taken to cherish and protect her character had not taken place without warning. and fame. He called on the House to The mentor, Miss Steele, who had super-pause before they assented to the Bill in intended Lady Ellenborough's education, the absence of all proof as to what the had stated that her Ladyship had been guilty of some levities; but when pressed, she could recollect none but riding out. And what was a young lady to do who VOL. XXIII. He had conduct of the noble Lord had been. He did not know whether he was prepared to admit or not, that the case of adultery had been made out. There were certain cir2 X |