go to the different places which his lady might have frequented. It was made a matter of charge against Lord Ellenborough that he did not go out with his lady. But it ought to be recollected that his Lordship was engaged in public duties which took up the greater part of the her; and was it to be expected that he would abandon his public avocations to watch his young wife, whose conduct was at the time unimpeached? Did not the noble Earl think it possible that Lord Ellenborough, while discharging the duties of his office, might believe that his wife was visiting at her mother's, and feel no apprehension on that account? It was considered as an extraordinary matter that he did not hear the reports which were flying about. But surely it was perfectly well known, that in these cases the husband was generally the last person who heard of his wife's dishonour. Under all these circumstances, he trusted that he should have the concurrence of their Lordships in support of the Motion for the third reading of this Bill. precedents of the kind in every court in the | Lord Ellenborough, situated as he was, to kingdom. The demeanour of an individual when questioned on any subject that afterwards underwent legal investigation, was always admitted as evidence. As to the fact of the adultery there could be no doubt about it. The groom proved where he was in the habit of driving her ladyship; and the proceedings which took place in Harley-morning. He had no reason to distrust street were watched and described, thus placing the matter beyond question. Then the case resolved itself into a question of collusion. With respect to that, certainly, so far as he attended to the evidence, and he did so from beginning to end, he thought there never was a case in that House which had less appearances that could give rise to the suspicion of collusion than this case had. And, in his opinion, no man who looked fairly at the evidence, could come to any other conclusion. How was Lord Ellenborough situated? When the lady went to her mother's at Roehampton, Lord Ellenbornugh did not believe her to be guilty. She went from that to Ilfracombe, with Miss Steele, and it was then the belief of her family that the parties would come together again, Lord Ellenborough at that time believing in her innocence, which was a very important fact in the case. Before their Lordships proceeded, on general principles, to refuse the relief that was sought for, they ought to weigh well the consequences of such a step. Because, in the first five years to which the noble Earl alluded, there had been six Divorce bills, and in the last five years twenty Divorce bills, were they to come to the conclusion that such facilities were afforded for procuring this species of relief, that people had nothing to do but to come to that House, and, by connivance and collusion, effect a separation? Were they to act upon such a principle, merely because it was just possible that corrupt and fraudulent means might be resorted to? They might as well declare that they would not believe direct evidence on any subject, because perjury had been sometimes committed. Except noble Lords were prepared to state specific facts, on which they could fairly ground a charge of collusion, he conceived it was not fair nor right to assume, or rather to insinuate, its existence. They then came to the allegation of the negligence or ignorance of Lord Ellenborough with respect to the conduct of his wife. Now any person living in this great town must know that it would be absolutely impossible for The Earl of Malmesbury wished to explain. He had never said that he disbelieved Mr. Law's evidence. What he said was, that twenty persons might have been selected who could have spoken of the terms on which Lord and Lady Ellenborough lived much better than Mr. Law. That gentleman left England on the 3rd of March, 1827, and did not return till the 29th of March, 1829. Therefore he, for one, did not think that Mr. Law was so competent a witness as many other persons who might have been brought forward. With respect to the letter which had been read, he begged leave to say, that he was present when counsel opened this case; and what did he say with respect to that letter? Why, he stated, that there was a manifest contradiction between it and her subsequent confession. In the letter she declared that she was not criminal to the extent imputed to her; but, in her confession to Miss Steele, she fully admitted her guilt. Now, when he found one fallacy in that letter, why might he not suppose that other parts of it were drawn up to meet a particular purpose? He therefore placed no reliance on that letter. Lord Wharncliffe said, he had paid the utmost attention to the evidence in this case, and it appeared to him that a stronger case of adultery could not be made out. The noble Earl opposite, and the noble Earl behind him, while they opposed the Bill, admitted, that so far as the establishment of the case of adultery went, there could be no doubt on the subject. On what grounds, then, did they refuse that relief which Lord Ellenborough claimed? The first was, because it was not proved that he lived on terms of sufficient harmony with his wife. In his view of these cases, it was not necessary that the domestic happiness of the parties should be proved before their Lordships. In a court of law, indeed, such proof was necessary, and for this plain reason-because there the husband sued for damages, and the amount of damages must depend on the extent of the injury done to him. If, therefore, the plaintiff could not show that he lived on good terms with his wife, his loss would be considered so much the lighter, and the damages would be diminished in proportion; but where he was enabled to prove that his domestic peace and comfort had been destroyed, then, on the same principle, the damages would be enhanced. What, he asked, would be the consequence, if the House were to act on the doctrine laid down by the two noble Earls? would suppose a woman with a very bad temper, in consequence of which she and her husband lived unpleasantly and uncomfortably together. Was she, therefore, to go into the streets and intrigue with every individual she took a fancy to? And if she did, would the House refuse relief to the husband because he could not prove that he had lived affectionately with her? In this case Lord Ellenborough could not bring the individual who had injured him into a court of law, because he was not in this country. Therefore the terms on which Lord and Lady Ellenborough lived did not appear so fully as would have been the case had a trial taken place. But if proceedings had gone on in a court of law, there was sufficient evidence laid even before their Lordships to ensure damages. They had the evidence of Mr. Law, and they also had the confession of the lady. And, so far from her letter to Lord Ellenborough weakening his Lordship's case, as the noble Earl opposite seemed to contend, it did, in his opinion, strengthen it materially. The other ground on which the two noble Earls had expressed their hostility to the Bill was the apparent neglect of Lord VOL. XXIII. Ellenborough, with respect to certain visits paid by his lady to Prince Schwartzenberg, in Harley-street. Now, he wondered that they should endeavour to fix on Lord Ellenborough a charge of neglect. Was there a single Peer who then heard him who did not know that their wives generally went out about two o'clock in the day, and returned at five? And were they to suspect that in so going out, they were actuated by improper motives? Were they, without any intimation being given of impropriety on the part of their wives, to watch them, or to cause them to be watched? The place, also, to which Lady Ellenborough proceeded, was, of all others, the least likely to excite suspicion. It was in Harley-street that Prince Schwartzenberg resided; but the family of the lady likewise lived there. If Lord Ellenborough asked a question of his servant, as to the absence of his lady, he would be answered that she had gone out to Harleystreet; and were they to suppose that Lord Ellenborough could imagine that she had proceeded thither to visit Prince Schwartzenberg? On the 23rd of May his suspicion was first excited, and he spoke to Lady Ellenborough on the subHeject; but what then occurred between them their Lordships did not know. It appeared that up to that time his Lordship entertained no suspicion that his wife had committed adultery. The consequence was, that he sent her away to her parents. His noble friend said, it was not until the month of June that Lord Ellenborough took any pains to ascertain his wife's guilt, or rather to obtain evidence against her, on which he might act. But it appeared that very considerable difficulty arose in procuring evidence. As to the seeming neglect of Lord Ellenborough, he must be allowed to say, that there was scarcely a man who had any connexion with public life, or who, indeed, had any business to perform, but must necessarily be absent at times from his wife, and he must intrust his honour to her own discretion and her just sense of propriety. There was nothing in Lady Ellenborough's conduct that excited suspicion for a considerable time. If she had been observed about the streets at an unusual hour, it might have created suspicion; but she selected pre. cisely that time when it was common for fashionable people to go abroad. And forming his determination solely from the evidence which had been heard at their Q Lordships' bar, he certainly should vote | driven Lady Ellenborough to Harley-street, for the third reading of the Bill. in a coach of a peculiar kind; and his identity, as the driver, was deposed to by another witness. He would say no farther on this part of the subject, because the noble Earl himself was obliged to admit the identity of the lady. Then it was said, that no evidence was given to show that they lived happily. With respect to this point, he would pass over the evidence of Mr. Law, because he was out of the country from March 1827, to March 1829. But who was the other witness? Why, the individual who had educated Lady Ellenborough, and who continued in habits of the greatest intimacy with her up to the time of her giving her evidence at their Lordships' bar. She stated, that up to the period when this adulterous intercourse was discovered, they were living together on the most harmonious terms. Such was the evidence of Miss Steele. But they were told, and gravely told, that because the ladies of the family were not called to give evidence on this point, that therefore the proof with respect to it was not perfect. Now that was not the issue before their Lordships' House. In a court of law, where damages were sued for, it was necessary to show what degree of affection and harmony had subsisted between the husband and the wife. Therefore that issue was tried; but that was not the case when a party came before their Lordships and sought for a divorce. Then it was insinnated that there was connivance on the part of Lord Ellenborough: but what proof, he demanded, had been given of connivance, at their Lordships' The Lord Chancellor felt himself called on to trespass on their Lordships very shortly, while he made a few observations in reply to the objections urged against the Bill by the noble Earl near him, and by the noble Earl opposite. This bill was founded on an allegation of adultery-and it was brought in, in consequence of the fact of adultery having been sufficiently substantiated. That adultery, as had been justly stated by the noble Baron who had just addressed their Lordships, was proved so clearly and unimpeachably, that nobody who had heard the evidence could for a moment doubt the fact. But then it was stated, that it was necessary that the preamble should be proved, or, in other words, that evidence should be given that the adultery had been committed with a particular individual. The noble Lord who spoke early in the debate said, that though he felt no doubt in his mind as to the fact of the adultery having been committed, yet there were points of a doubtful nature connected with the case which ought to have been cleared up. He, however, thought that quite sufficient had been proved to authorize their Lordships to proceed. That which occurred at Brighton had been most clearly and unequivocally established; and he thought, independently of Lady Ellenborough's confidential communication to Miss Steele on that subject, that it was proved, and even beyond a doubt that it was Prince Schwartzenberg who slept with Lady Ellenborough at Brighton though that fact was confirmed by the private and confi-bar? It was shown, that for five or six dential communication of Lady Ellenborough herself. But he did not wish to rest on that evidence, as to the proof of adultery, particularly as other facts were stated by counsel at their Lordships' bar. Their lordships, he was sure, would agree with him, that the adulterous transactions which took place in Harley-street and Holles-street were distinctly and clearly proved; and on these occasions the identity of the lady, not of Prince Schwartzenberg, was unequivocally substantiated. The evidence placed that matter beyond a doubt, if their Lordships believed the witnesses. Those witnesses spoke of seeing the same lady driven by a particular individual to Prince Schwartzenberg's. That individual was called to their Lordships' bar, and he stated, that he had months this lady was in the habit of going to Harley-street, where, be it observed, her family resided; and because a person had not been appointed to watch her, Lord Ellenborough was therefore accused of conniving at his own dishonour. But in what situation was Lord Ellenborough placed? He was, at the time, an active member of his Majesty's Government; and those who were connected with the Government knew that at that period no person could be more anxiously attentive to the discharge of the duties of his station than Lord Ellenborough was; and unless some hints were thrown out to him-unless some person gave him information on the subject-it was impossible for him to have entertained that suspicion which it was said he ought to have entertained. the bare assertion, or rather insinuation, of the noble Lords. Therefore the adultery not being denied the identity having been proved in evidence-no charge of connivance having been sustained-and the inference of collusion not having been in any way supported-he entertained a confident hope that the third reading of this bill would be carried by the unanimous vote of their Lordships. [hear] The Earl of Radnor said, that it was in vain to hope for a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill; for he certainly should oppose it on the grounds he had stated. He wished to state that he had formed his opinion of the measures solely by the evidence he had heard in that House, and Then, it was asserted, that there was col- any collusion between these two parties, lusion in this matter, which appeared from would not Lady Ellenborough have immethe nature of the evidence at their Lord-diately given decided evidence to Mr. Freshships' bar. He could not agree to any such field, in order to enable him the more readily assertion. Allusion had been made to a let- to effect that object which was prayed for at ter addressed by Lady Ellenborough to their Lordships' bar? But what said Mr. Lord Ellenborough. To that letter he Freshfield? He declared that he was a would call their Lordships' attention; and whole month in procuring evidence before he did think that every noble Lord would he could bring the case into the Ecclesifeel, on strictly examining the contents of astical Court with any prospect of success that letter, that they entirely did away [hear]. He would therefore say that this with the imputation of any collusion hav-charge of collusion rested on nothing but ing been practised. He hoped their Lordships would indulge him while he read that letter; and he was sure that no man who knew the workings of the human heart, who could distinguish between sincere and feigned feeling, could think for a moment that that letter was written for any purpose of collusion in this case. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to contend, that no man who considered that letter calmly and dispassionately could suppose that it was written in consequence of a plan of collusion with Lord Ellenborough. It was written after Lord Ellenborough had discovered the levity of his wife's conduct, but before he was aware of the extent of her criminality. But then it was said, that the declaration in the let-knew nothing of the reports prevailing out ter was contrary to what she had confessed to Miss Steele. But where, he demanded, was the force of that argument? It was true that the lady did not confess her guilt to her husband-a circumstance not, as it appeared to him, very unnatural. But when, and to whom, did she make this disclosure? She made it in the hour of privacy and confidence-she made it to her governess, her most intimate friend she made it after her pregnancy was discovered. It was then she admitted her intimacy with Prince Schwartzenberg. Now, with respect to the supposed collusion, he would briefly state what the conduct of Lord Ellenborough had been. When he separated from his wife in the month of May, and sent her to Roehampton, he did not then think her guilty. He was not apprized of that fact till she arrived at Minton, a month afterwards, when her pregnancy was discovered. What did he then do? In the month of June he applied to his solicitor, Mr. Freshfield, who immediately set about collecting evidence. Whoever knew Mr. Freshfield must be aware of his vigilance, activity, skill, and, knowledge, in the discharge of the duties of his profession. Now, if there had been of doors. He denied that he had imputed collusion to Lord and Lady Ellenborough; what he said was, that if the parties wished for collusion, they could not have acted in a way more fit for their purpose than they had done. If their Lordships' passed that bill, they would preclude themselves from ever again rejecting similar bills; and he was sure that principle would be contrary to their Lordships' usual course of proceeding. He did not look to have that kind of affection proved at their Lordships' bar which was necessary to entitle a man to relief in a court of justice; but he expected that parties coming there to ask for a divorce should be able to prove that they had done nothing to cause the injury of which they complained. To have that justification of such a demand, a man should at least be able to shew that he had treated his wife with affection, and kindness, and attention. But could there be any affection in the case, when, for twelve months before the parties separated, Lady Ellenborough was in the habit of going two or three times a week to the lodgings of Prince Schwartzenberg, for the purpose of prostituting herself, doing it. even in the most indecent manner, often with the blinds of the room drawn up,| while she went to bed for several hours during the day? Could there be affection in such a case, and this to be going on for a whole year? These were circumstances which weighed more in his estimation than the testimony of Mr. Law, who had, in fact, seen very little of the parties. As to the letter so frequently alluded to, it contained one palpable falsehood, one hypocritical assumption, at least, and therefore it was rather to be taken as a whole piece of hypocrisy, than, as the noble and learned Lord described it, the effusion of genuine feeling. That letter was written after the lady was three months gone with child by her paramour, and after she had been carrying on an adulterous intercourse with him for a whole year. Moreover, he remembered that the learned Counsel said, on opening the case, that this letter was written with a view of preventing Lord Ellenborough from fighting with Prince Schwartzenberg. It was obviously, therefore, altogether a letter got up for the purpose, and having such an opinion, he could attach no weight to its soothing and flattering expressions of kindness and generosity. He would only allude to one other circumstance. Miss Steele stated, that she had informed Admiral Digby, that the parties did not cohabit together, and that Lord Ellenborough had declared that he would never acknowledge the child as his. In conclusion, he affirmed, that he meant to bring no charge of collusion, but the evidence was not sufficient to justify their Lordships in passing the Bill, and therefore that he could not vote for it. The Lord Chancellor then put the question, "that the Bill be read a third time." There were some cries of" Not Content," but the Lord Chancellor declared that the Contents had it. No division took place, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Sir EDWARD C. DEERING took the Oaths and PETITIONS were presented, praying for a Revision of the from Plymouth:-By Mr. SYKES, from Kingston-upon- SAUNDERSON, from Colchester, against the Game-laws: the power given to the Surveyors of Assessed Taxes:-By Mr. HUME, from Giles Hoad, of Fareham, praying for an equalization of the Duties on Beer and Spirits:-By Sir GEORGE CLERK, from the Brewers of Edinburgh, praying that the East India Company's Charter might not be renewed:-By Colonel LYGON, from Kidderminster:--And by Mr. HAY, from Lanark, praying for a Revision of the laws respecting the passing of Paupers belonging to Ireland, Scotland, Guernsey and Jersey:-By Mr. POTTER MACQUEEN, from the Grand Jury of the County of Bedford, complaining of Distress and praying for Relief, and Reduction of Taxation:-By Mr. SYKES, from Kingstonupon Hull:-By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Inhabitants of Romney Marsh, and from a parish in Kent :By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from Stockbridge:-By Mr. LawLEY, from various places in Warwick:-And against an alteration in the Licensing System:-By Mr. CRIPPS, from the Licensed Victuallers of Cirencester. The Galway Franchise Bill was read a second time. of Exchequer at Westminster, from 1823 to 1829, wherein the venue was laid in Wales:-Of the average price of Corn in England and Wales, during the last six years. Returns were ordered, On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, of the amount of Duty received on Coals, each year during the last ten years: Of the number of gallons of Spirits, which had paid duty in Ireland during the last ten years: -On the Motion of Mr. JONES, of all Suits commenced in the Courts at Westminster, within the last ten years, of which the venue was laid in Wales, and which were sent for trial to Shrewsbury or Hereford :-On the Motion of Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, of all sums paid into the Stamp Office for Duty on Insurance against Fire during the last year:-and of the sums received for Stamps on Marine Policies during the last six years ;-And on the Motion of Mr. SLANEY of the number of passengers to and from Ireland by the Liverpool government packets, between 1820 and 1830. DISTRESS.] Mr. Sykes said, he rose to present a Petition from the Gentry, Clergy, Merchants, Bankers, and other inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull. The petitioners complained, he said, of the great distress, which they felt most heavily in common with many other parts of the country; and they earnestly prayed the House to institute an inquiry into its causes, with a view of giving them relief. They prayed, and in this part of their prayer he cordially concurred with them, thinking it the only effectual method of giving relief, for a large taxation. He was convinced that the state reduction of of the country made it necessary that the House should attend to this part of their prayer. He felt much indebted to the Government for the reduction already made, but he was convinced that greater reductions must be made, to meet the situation of the country. The petitioners also prayed for a revision of the laws respecting the currency, and in this part of their prayer he could not concur. believed that the alterations which had been already made had caused a great deal of mischief, but farther changes would, in his opinion, be still more detrimental. Looking at what had already taken place, He |