NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE House of Commons allowed a bill for removing the disabilities of the British Jews to be read for the first time on Monday ; and on Tuesday passed Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill. Wednesday was a blank, as usual; and on Thursday both Houses adjourned till the 26th. Lord ELLENBOROUGH'S case has been a disgusting one in all its stages. How discreditable is it that the makers of the law should, in any circumstances, become instrumental, in the hands of the rich. to the attainment of objects which the law itself denies to all men! The management of the case, too, has been conducted in very bad taste. Sir HENRY HARDINGE seemed disposed to bully the oppo- nents of the bill into acquiescence ; while Mr. HUME, on the other hand, in the objections which he started to it, evinced but little of his usual sagacity. In the debate on the expediency of removing the civil disabilities of the Jews, Sir ROBERT INGLIS and his party gave utterance to the absurdities which we usually find in their speeches when religion is their theme. Mr. MACAULEY, the new member, and Sir JAMES MAcKirrrosrl, on the other side, sported in tolerable abundance the sentimental liberality in which Whigs love to rest. It is amusing to mark these rhetoricians marshalling their tropes and pointing their sentences in support of the position, that eligibility to Parliament is the inherent right of every British subject ; while we know, that were Parliamentary reform under discussion, they would be found opposing, with equal vigour, a corresponding ex.tension of the right of election. Every man, accar6Igto--the.creed of these gentlemen, should he eligible to Parliament ; but few men should be deemed worthy to play the electors.

I. BRITISH JEWS. On Monday, Mr. ROBERT GRANT moved for leave " to bring in a Bill to repeal the civil disabilities affecting Bri- tish-born subjects professing the Jewish religion." Mr. Grant traced at great length the history of the persecutions to which the Jews had been subjected from the earliest times. He called upon the House to follow up the great measure of last year, and place all the King's subjects on the same footing. He anticipated possible objections, and answered them.

One respectable and intelligent member (Sir Robert Inglis, we believe) had informed him that he must vote against the motion on account of the religious position of the Jews—that inasmuch as both Jewish and Christian commen- tators agreed this community was under a species of heavenly proscription, those who endeavoured to improve their condition would be guilty of impiety and presumption. In other places, but not in Parliainent, he should not shrink from meeting his opponents upon this ground. Here he should con- tent himself with saying, that the conclusion of the argument fell infinitely short of the premises. As the Jews were proscribed—as they were to be bandied to and fro until the appointed time—to be denied all freedom of reli- gious worship, and to be subject on every hand to persecution—as such was to be the condition of the Jewish community, the gentlemen who took this objection would do—what ?. Why, they would give them freedom of worship, and they would protect them against persecution ; thus removing from this devoted community the greatest part of that dread proscription, from any part of which it was by the proposition made presumptuous in us to attempt to relieve them. (Hear, hear.) Was not this an absurd mode of reasoning ? If there were any weight in the argument, they must go the whole length of it : they must re-enact the sanguinary laws of the Plantaganets ; they must sacrifice the Jews to the fury of the populace, and place this unhappy com- munity once more in the condition in which they found themselves under Richard, when 1500 were either slain by the people or fell by their own hands, rather than fall under the infliction of Christian cruelty. (Hear, hear.) They must do all this before they could come to a just conclusion from the pre- mises laid down. Very different, however, was the opinion of Bishop New- ton on this subject. That learned prelate, in his work on the Prophecies, said, that " if the Jews were blameable for persevering in their infidelity, after so many opportunities of conviction, yet that was no reason why we should oppress them, as Christians, who had neither knowledge nor charity, in all times had; that the unbelief of the Jews, far from justifying us in persecuting them, should rather make them objects of compassion to those who were sen- sible of the value of Christianity ; and we should recollect that, according to the prophecies, it was the wicked nations which were to persecute the Jews, while the good nations were to show mercy to them." (Cheers.) Such was the language of Bishop Newton, and to that language he fully subscribed. lie would make no impassioned appeals to them in favour of the people whose cause he pleaded ; but he would tell them that they were a meek and humble people scattered through every quarter of the globe, and speaking a common language. If their petition were granted, the British name would be cele- brated through all these countries. That celebrity would not be empty praise, but it would be the renown of having, with a cheerful and liberal hand, be- stowed substantial benefits on a depressed community, thus fulfilling the maxim of both religions, " Do justly add love mercy." (Cheers.) Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the Ateasure. The Jews were aliens, without country ; and they cared less for the interest of the country that harboured them, than for the interests of each othef In Bohemia, during one of the wars of last 4entury, they had takCDrt against the King. Napoleon was assisted by London Jews V, money ; his retreat from Russia was aided by Jews. Then it had been said that the number of the Jews was small. He thought, with Mr. Burke, that a small number, enterprising and active, making up by•

philosophy what they wanted in actual weight, might produce the greatest possible public effects. He thought his honourable friend and those around him were an example of this. That, perhaps, was not the proper place for discussing the value of seats in Parliament—(Laughter)—he meant, of course, the political, not the commercial value. That value would be admitted to be very great; and might not persons who had an interest distinct from that of the country, use the power they acquired by means of a seat here for pur- poses not national ? They had heard of such things even as members having been sent to the House of Commons by a foreign prince; and Mr. Burke once

designated some members of the House as members for Arcot. In a popular government, he would allow that no Jew would be admitted to a seat in the legislative assembly ; but they had heard there were no less than four ready to be introduced at once if this bill should pass. This was, by the showing of the Jews themselves, a greater proportion than they had a right to have in the representation ; for they stated their number to be between thirty and forty thousand. By whatever means members might sometimes be brought into that House, it was supposed that all came there by unbought suffrages. But would not the introduction of a single Jew be direct evidence to the con- trary? If a person of that persuasion were to make his appearance in that House, he would carry with him direct evidence of the means by which he came there. From the time at which a Jew should first be admitted into that House, the principal step towards Parliamentary Reform would be gained. (Much Laughter.) He was perfectly satisfied that the admission of the first Jew would be the signal for Parliamentary Reform ; and that within seven years at most, after the admission of a Jew, Parliamentary Reform would be carried. (Cheers and laughter from the Opposition side of the House.) Those who had always supported Parliamentary Reform, would, of course, think this any thing but an objection to the proposed measure ; but he trusted that those who were opposed to Parliamentary Reform would give the objection due weight. Independently, however, of the mischiefs which would result from the admission of Jews to seats in that House, he felt that other conse- quences, highly objectionable, would result from this measure. Those who had advocated the measure for the admission of the Roman Catholics, went on a different principle from that upon which the House was now called upon to act. The Roman Catholic was a member of the grealcaly of Christiana; but in admitting the Jaw, they would admit one who -declared the Saviour an impostor; encl./It, after he had come to thetable with his hat on to be sworn, would be allowed to legislate for the religion of him to whom he ap- plied that contemptuous appellation. Mr. MACAULEY, the new member for Caine, thought the claims of the Jews even stronger than those of the Roman Catholics. It was.the fashion last year to declaim about a Government that yielded to clamour, opposition, or threats, having betrayed the sacredness-of its office ; but here there could be no such argument, for even those most opposed to the present measure cannot deny that the Jews have borne their deprivations long in silence, and are now complaining with mildness and decency. Op- posite to this, the Roman Catholics were always described as an insinuating, restless, cunning, watchful sect, ever on the search how they might increase their power and the number of their sect, pressing for converts in every pos- sible way, and only withheld by the want of power from following up their ancient persecutions. But the sect with which we now have to deal are even more prone to monopoly as to their religion than the others were to propagating theirs. Never has such a thing been heard of as an attempt on the part of the Jews to gain proselytes ; and with such rites and forms as be- long to their faith, it could scarcely be expected by any one that a scheme of proselytism could succeed with them. Let the history of England be ex- amined, and it will furnish topics enough against the Catholics. Those who have looked for such things have always found enough to talk about ; the fires in Smithfield—the Gunpowder Plot—the Seven Bishops—have always afforded copious matter upon which to launch out in invective against the Catholics. But with respect to the Jews, the history of England affords events exactly opposite : its pages, as to these people, are made up of wrongs suf- fered and injuries endured by them, without a trace of any wrong or injury committed in return ; they are made up, from the beginning to the end, of

atrocious cruelties inflicted on the one hand, and grievous privations endured for conscience-sake on the other. With respect to all Christian sects, their changes of situation have always afforded scope for charges of mutual recri- mination against one another ;. but every one allows the side on which the balance between the Jew and the Christian is weighed down.

He then addiessed himself to the objections stated by Sir Robert Inglis. ' All that the House has been told is, that the Jews are not Christians, and that therefore they must not have power. But this has not been declared openly and ingenuously, as it once was. Formerly the persecution of the Jews was at least consistent : the thing was made complete at once by taking away their property, their liberty, and their lives. My honourable friend is equally vehement as to taking away their power; and yet, no doubt, he would shudder at what such a measure would really take away: The only power that he seems to wish to deprive the Jews of, is to consist in maces, gold-chains and skins-of parchment, with pieces of wax dangling at the ends of them. But he is leaving them all the things that bestow real power. He.. allows them to have property : and in these times property is power—migher and overwhelming power. He allows them to have knowledge : and know=, ledge is no less power. Then why is all this power mixed with intolerance?' Why is the Jew to have the power of a principal over his clerk—of a master. over his servant—of a landlord over his tenant? Why is he to have all this? - which is power, and yet to be deprived of the fair and natural consequeice8 of this power. M things now stand, a Jew may be the richest man in land—he may possess the whole of London—ids interest may be the means of raising this party or depressing that—of' eking East India Directors, or

in

sending Members into Parliament—the influence of a Jew may be of the first consequence in a war which shall be the mans of shaking all Europe to its centre. His power may come into . play in assisting or retarding the greatest plans of the greatest princes ; and yet, with, all this confessed, acknowledged, undenied, my honourable friend would have them deprived of power ! If it was to be full and entire persecution, after the consistent example of our ancestors, I could understand it. If we were called on to revert to the days when, as a people, they were pillaged—when their warehouses were torn down—when their every right was satrificed, the thing would be comprehen- sible. But this is a delicate persecutiOn, with no abstract rule for its guidance. As to the matteraif right, if the word " legal " is to be attached to it, I am bound to acknowledge that the Jews have no legal right to power ; but in the same way, three hundred years ago, they had no legal right to be in England; and siashundred years ago they had no right to the teeth in their heads : but, if it is the moral right we are to look at, I say that on every principle of moral obligation,! hold that the Jew has a right to political power. Every man has< right to all that may conduce to his pleasure, if it does not inflict pain on a,py one else. (Cheers.) The onus probandi lies on the advocates of re- strai . Let my honourable friend first show that there is some danger—. some ifljy to the state, likely to arise from the admission of the Jews, and

then will e time to call upon us to answer the case that he has made out."

Mr. BArt.Eit.cpuld never consent to any one taking his seat in that Muse who did MA .Nlieve in the Christian religion. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH made a speech in support of the mea- sure.

He congratulated himself that he was, on the present occasion, addressing a House of Commons which had done more for religious liberty than any assembly since the first Parliament of William the Third ; and it would even

have been without that exception, if that Parliament had not passed the Act of Toleration, which, as it was the first step towards religious freedom, ought always to be considered also as the greatest. * * * * * Every man born under the Constitution was entitled to all the privileges of the Constitution. He would repeat, as had been stated before, that this maxim ought to be ap- plied to the Jews. It had been stated as an objection to the Jews, that they had been attached to Napoleon ; but why had they been attached ? What attached them ?—Why, he did them justice. He gave them protection, and made them the sharers of the privileges of the State. He admitted them di- rectly into all the advantages of the law. Sir James Mackintosh would ask, If it were true of the Jews that they had no regard for the esteem of their fellow-men—that they were persons of no character—that they were lost and degraded—was it not, he would ask, because the law had degraded them, and that they had only sunk to the level of the reputation established for them by the law ? According to the old maxim—contemptu famm eantenzptu 'Millais— they were made regardless of their fellow-men ; and they were guilty, per- haps, of crimes and vices. But what was the remedy ? Ought they not to remove the cause of the disease ? There was, he believed, a theory of the present day, that disease was only to be cured by administering more of the -stimulus that had caused it ; or, according to the old proverb, to take a hair of the dog which bit the patient. But,wittiall his respect for theories and pro- verbs, it would not do to apply the same doctrine to the Jews. Their sub- serviency was because they were openly despised ; the moral defects of their character arose from the oppression they were subject to. What was the remedy ? To revive their regard for the esteem of other men, they must have similar motives for their conduct ; they must be released from their present degradation, and most be treated like other men. Did they refuse to vote for this measure, it migliggive rise to a suspicion that their former votes were dictated by a sentiment of fear, not by a principle of justice. Would they not act on the same principle towards forty thousand Jews as towards seven millions of Catholics ? The House must, however, shut out the consideration of numbers, whether of thousands or of millions. Justice was no respecter of persons, neither was she any respecter of multitudes ; her rules must be observed towards individuals, and numbers formed no elements in forming her rules. He could not conceive that any gentleman who had voted for those two great and healing measures, would oppose the motion, and would adopt one rule for the Catholics and Dissenters and another for the Jews. The in- conveniencies which it was said would arise from the measure, could only be discovered by a microscopical eye. The only difficulty he had ever had in considering the subject was, to find out any argument which could be urged against the measure, and which he might be prepared to answer. He could find none, and had been so perplexed to discoveieven the shadow of an argu- ment, that he had said to a friend he would advertise a reward for any argu- ment, that he might get one to refute, against granting emancipation to the Jews. He might safely have advertised even a large reward, and have been sure of not finding one. In conclusion, he would beg the House to recollect what was, according to divine law, to be understood by our neighbour.The Founder of Christianity did not take as the exemplification, what was right- eous, not what was beautiful and admired—he selected a heretic, who was held at that time in abhorrence,by the people to whom he addressed himself. He inculcated the divine precepts of his divine religion, not merely the prin- ciples of faith, but the nobler principle of charity, the safest guide for the conduct of life ; and his observations directing us to minister to the wants of each other—to love our neighbour as ourselves, were made evident by the example of the good Samaritan—a character who was hated by the Jews of that age. (Cheers.) The CuANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that if the House were .pm:ilp,red to open the doors of Parliament to the Jews, they might opeA them to the Turks, and to the members of every other -religion. If the case of the Jews were similar to that of the Catholics and that of the Dissenters, he should not oppose it, but he did not think the cases similar. He thought the House run a great risk, however, by running counter to the good feelings of the people, the majority of whom he had no doubt were op- posed to the measure. There was this difference between them and-the Ca- tholics—that the Catholics had shed their blood for us—they had fought our battles both by sea and land—they had swelled the force of our fleets and our armies; and there was a good reason why we should not make enemies of those who had served us, and who amounted to seven million people. But the Jews had not fought our battles—they had not served in our armies and navy ; and they did not amount, it was stated by a writer of their own na-

tion, to more than twenty-seven thousand persons. .

Dr. LUSHINGTON supported the. motion ; replying especially to the arguments of Mr. Goulburn.

His opinion was, that the Established religion was too well fixed in the affections of the people to require the aid of exclusion to secure it. If the number of the Jews was so small, and their influence so hounded, that there could be no danger in refusal, what possible danger could there be in admission?

Mr. PERCIVAL entreated the House, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to preserve the religion of Christianity—the religion of the State—from being deified by the introduction of the bill now proposed. Lord MORPETH concurred most cordially in the propositions which Mr. R. Grant had submitted to the House.

The SOLICITOR-d-ENERAL thought that the experiment which had been tried, of admitting Roman Catholics to the House, had not been tried sufficiently long to enable them to decide whether an extension of the principle would be safe. Mr. W. SMITH thought that if the Jews were to be admitted within the pale of the constitution, as little delay as possible was desirable.

He was one of those who thought that political rights and privileges should have nothing to do with religion. If Government were to have any thing whatever to do with religion, it ought to be with the moral portion of it, and not at all with the creed. What was the morality of the Jews ?—The morality of the Christians. What Church was there belonging to the Esta- blishment which had not the Ten Commandments, the morality of the Jews, - side by side with the Creed. If any rational man saw the Commandments and the Athanasian Creed thus in juxtaposition, was it doubtful to which would he giVe the preference ? To the question of morality, therefore, they ought, in his opinion, to confine themselves. If they extended their consi- deration to matters of faith, no one could tell where they would stop. If they looked only at civil obedience, there was no danger of their falling into political error.

Mr. R. GRANT having replied, the House divided. For the motion, 115 ; against it, 97 ; majority in favour of the measure, 18. The re- sult was hailed with cheers.

Mr. GRANT then brought in the Bill, which was read for the. first time.

2. LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL. The third reading of this bill having been moved on Tuesday, by Sir GEORGE CLERIC, Mr. HUME entered at great length upon the subjvct. After the maturest deliberation, he found himself under the necessity of op- posing the bill. He was not satisfied that adultery had been proved against Lady Ellenborough - and at all events, Lord. Ellenbo- roughs conduct had not been proved to have been what it ought to have been.

In this country the faults of a woman were visited with a severe punish- ment—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 had : 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, pro- tectors. 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 thresh- old, and who was when she was married only seventeen years of age, or a mere child. His 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 bad ? What proof was there of his affection? * * '7' They were called on to du justice between Lord and Lady Ellenborough; they were also called on to do justice to the public. They were bound to teach all who came before them for relief by a Divorce Bill, this salutary lesson—that unless they came there with clean hands—unless they had performed the obligations laid on them by the mar- riage contract—unless they had watched over their wives with care, and afforded them all necessary protection and assistance—unless they had guarded them against the allurements of society, and the attractions of that society which is called fashionable, they must not expect to he relieved from those bands which their own conduct bad rendered galling and disagreeable to them. This step they were about to take was one of the utmost import- ance. They were called on to teach the higher classes that they were not to be allowed to go on in their career of profligacy and folly, reckless—for that was the word—of consequences. That they were not to be allowed to spread the contamination of their vices amongst all the other classes in the country.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE took up the defence of Lord Ellenboroughs conduct with great vehemence. He spoke of conspiracy out of doors, and accused Mr. Hume of having most grossly misrepresented the evidence. Nothing could be clearer than the proof of the adultery, and nothing better established than the kindness of Lord Ellenborough to his unfortunate lady.

He was connected with Lord Ellenborough by a former marriage, and had been acquainted with him for fifteen years : he knew him to be a man of ho- nour and integrity—kind-hearted and amiable ; and be could have brought to the bar of that House every member of both the families with which he had been connected, to bear testimony to his character. He could state this on his oath ; and that during two months he had lived in the same house with Lord Ellenborough, a more affectionate husband never breathed. lie could also state—although he was almost ashamed to vindicate the character of such a man—that the Dowager Lady Londonderry, on hearing of Lord Ellenho- rough's marriage with Miss Digby, wrote a letter to Lady Andover, although not acquainted with her, to congratulate her upon the marriage of her daugh - ter to a man who had to her daughter made a most exemplary husband. Lord Ellenborough undoubtedly had been slandered, calumniated, and vilified in the most hateful manner conceivable. It was evident that he had been the dupe of artifice ; and every man, but more especially every man engaged in the duties of public life, was exposed to be the dupe of similar artifice—no caution, no care could guard against it. In society, when Lord Ellenborough was present, Lady Ellenborough and Prince Schwartzenburg appeared not even to know each other. Sir Henry had no hesitation whatever in saying that he would infinitely rather incur the misfortune of being a dupe than the disgrace of being a spy. (Cheers.) It had been attempted to fix on lord Ellenborough a connivance in the misconduct of his wife. Was it possible that any one could suppose that a man of rank, station, and character, would endeavour, by the introduction of bad associates, to ruin his wife, the mother of his child ? Such an accusation ran counter to the whole tenour of his noble friend's life. Lord Ellenborough had been before the public for above twenty years; during the whole of which time no ungenerous, no ungentle- manly act, no act injurious to his character as a man of integrity or as a man of honour, could be imputed to him. The charge, therefore, that he had

connived at his own disgrace, was a foul calumny, and he threw hack the un- natural lie upon the authors of it. Collusion had been inferred, because Lady Ellenhorough had not opposed the bill. But were those who indulged

ill that supposition sure that she felt no sorrow or repentance, and that she might not be actuated by a wish to avoid perpetuating the wrong which she

had inflicted on her husband ? There would be nu collusion in that. If Lady Ellenborough's family—if that brave officer and honourable man, Admiral Dighy, . felt that Lord Ellenborough had treated his daughter well, would it not be to dishonour that gallant officer—woold it not be toadd insult to injury —would it not be to do gross injustice to all parties, to refuse to agree to the present bill ? Mr. Hume had said that a husband ought to look to the con- duct of his wife. Was it the part of a husband in Great Britain to play the part of a spy ? He saw around him many honourable members who, du- ring the sessiort of Parliament, were frequently obliged to be absent fmm their homes from eleven in the morning until past twelve o'clock at night. How could a man, under such circumstances, maintain a close and continued ob- servation of all his wife's actions and conduct throughout the day ? Mr. Hume was the last man in that House who should have spoken of the neces-

aity of such continual observation-, for his own absence from home was per- haps more constant than that of any gentleman present. (Laughter.) Was

there a merchant, was there a lawyer, was there a naval or military man, who was not placed in similar circumstances ? Was any such person to be de- prived of redress in the event of the infidelity of his wife, because he had been compelled to forego for a time the pleasure of her society ? Mr. Hume might think net jealousy was a proper connubial virtue ; but Sir H. Hardinge did not think so. lie did not think that, in a country like this. husbands were justified in stealing secretly about in order to see what their wives had been doing, ia their absence. That would be to convert an English family into a Turkish harem.

Dr. PfuLmmonE took an elaborate view cf the facts, the law, and the morality of the question.

A general impression had gone forth that the House of Lords had not done its duty in the examination of the witnesses produced in this case. Now, whether that impression were correct or not, it increased the obligation upon this House to do its duty, and in the discharge of it to exercise additional caution and circumspection. There had been no counsel employed for the party accused ; and it was well known, that in every court of justice, under such circumstances, the court was bound to give the most indulgent con- sideration and the most favourable construction to the conduct and acts of the party who was' proceeded against. In viewing this question in reference to the sacred nature of the marriage contract, there were public considera- tions which attached to a bill of this sort that were well worthy of conside- ration and attention. Lord Ellenborough had been relieved from all obliga- tion of cohabiting with his wife, and from all possibility of having a spurious issue. Having been relieved from so much, this bill was introduced, and the object of it was to enable Lord Ellenborough to marry again. Now the ques- tion was, bow was marriage viewed by the law of the 'land? Marriage was looked upon by the law of this country as an indissoluble contract ; and though some great individual hardships might arise from viewing it in that light, Dr. Phillimore believed that experience showed that the general happi- ness of the married life was best promoted by considering marriage, generally speaking, as an indissoluble contract. There was only one case in which the law considered it proper to allow the dissolution of the marriage contract, mid that was where one of the parties had been guilty of adultery. Now, in order to effect that, the practice was to legislate for such particular case, and by a specific act of Parliament to release the individual so circumstanced from the bond of matrimony. This practice was not of ancient date. The first case in which the House exercised this power was in the year 1669, on the application of Lord Roos, who was afterwards Duke of Rutland. The discussions upon it lasted for several years ; King Charles himself attended in person at the debates in the House ; and the bill for the dissolution of the marriage was finally carried by only a small majority. Bishop Burnet as- cribed the doctrine that then prevailed at court to a " sceptical and libertine spirit," and to a hope that by it " the King might be divorced from his Queen." From the time when the bill was passed to enable Lord Roos to marry again, up to the year 1800, constituting a period of upwards of 130 years, there had been only 132 divorces, by at of Parliament; whereof eight had occurred in the first forty-five years of that period, fifty in the next sixty years, and seventy-four in the last twenty-five years. From 1820 till

• 1830, however, in the short period of only ten years, there had occurred twenty-six cases of divorce, that showed a .great increase in the frequency of those cases in latter years. Indeed, it was impossible for any persons who attended in the House of Lords on occasions when such bills were passed, not to observe that they were generally passed with the connivance and collusion of both parties, and with the production of scarcely any evi- dence in their support.

After quoting several decisions to show that in such cases the law required of the husband the exercise of "prudent caution" in regard to his wife, he observed that the evidence in the case bethre them did not go far to show a superintendence of his lady's conduct on the part of Lord Ellenborough.

The whole question appeared to turn upon the confession of Lady Ellen- borough to her governess, Miss Steele. That witness was allowed to be a per- son of great respectability, and of an excellent character. She certainly seemed to be an exceedingly clever, self-possessed, and adroit person ; and if she bad been before a jury, where counsel could cross-examine her, and press her for answers, we should, undoubtedly, have had more evidence from her upon this subject. (Hear, hear.) The case here was this—Load Ellenbo- rough had married a young lady of the age of seventeen, who was declared by her governess to be a person remarkably reckless of consequences : the obli- gation, therefore, upon Lord Ellenborough, to superintend her conduct, was considerably increased, when her disposition and the difference between their ages were taken into account. When Miss Steele was pressed as to the caution which she gave Lord Ellenborough with regard to the improper so- ciety to which she conceived Lady Ellenborough had been introduced, it was impossible not to see that she had given him such a caution, and that she had not brought under his observation the fact that his lady was living in society that might he dangerous to her, and to which she had not been accustomed in her father's house. This warning, it was quite plain, had been given by this witness to Lord Ellenborough long before the separation between him and his lady took place. * * Again, there was a circumstance which could not pass observation,—he alluded to the absence of sexual intercourse between these parties, as proved by the evidence of this witness, Miss Steele. She stated, that there had been an absence of such intercourse for several months; and he thought it but fair to assume that it had existed for a much longer period. In the month of June, Lady Ellenborough stated to her that the child with which she was then obviously pregnant was Prince Schwan-

• zenburg's. It was plain, then, from that statement, that she could not have had sexual intercourse with her husband for a long period antecedent to that time. The witness said, "several monthS;" but that might mean six months,

• IS wedl as three. Her; then, was a young wife of two or three and twenty, .

without baying intercourse with her husband for upwards of five or six months, and that at her own request. In any cont of justice, that circumstance would be considered one which ought to have excited great alarm. and increased vi- gilance and attention on the part of the husband. All this time it appeared that this unfortunate lady was in the habit of going daily to a house in Harley Street, and afterwards in Holies Street ; that she went there in her own car- riage, and with her own servant ; and that she was in the habit of undressing and going to bed there in the middle of the day with her paramour. The coachman, in his evidence, acknowledged that he frequently " saw Prince Schwartzenberg attending her ladyship coming out of plays or operas, balls or parties, in the evening." And yet the witnesses who deposed to these facts stated, that Lord Ellenhorough knew nothing about them at the time. Why were not persons moving in a respectable station of life, and intimate with the family, produced to give evidence as to the exercise of a proper vigi- lance on the part of the husband with regard to his wife's conduct ? * * The House were called upon to decide upon this case in their judi

cial capacity, and justice should be their primary object—justice not only to the parties themselves, but to the public ; and in doine° so, they should give

all the consideration which was due to the sanctity of domestic life, to the public morals, and to all the circumstances which crowd upon the mind in reference to the inviolable nature of the marriage tie. Under all the circum- stances of the case,—after such evidence as had been given by Miss Steele— evidence regarding which he doubted whether it would have been sufficient to obtain a verdict in a court of common law,—after the absence of other evi- dence which might and ought to have been given—after the consideration of the facility with which that evidence might have been produced by the noble applicaat, and of the discretion which the House had in its power, and was bound to exercise in all applications of this kind, he said it with pain, that under all the circumstances of this case, he could not give his vote in favour of the relief which was sought to be obtained by this bill.

Mr. BATLEY and Mr. It. GRANT felt themselves also bound to op. pose the bill. Mr. RICE and Sir EDWARD CARRINGTON thought the House could not, in justice, refuse to Lord Ellenborough the relief which he claimed.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that as judge in the case, he would, had he consulted his inclination, have taken no part in the present discussion; but, on mature reflection, he felt that he was bound to state the im- pression made upon him by the evidence which had been taken.

He could not help thinking that there was one circumstance in the case, which lie was bold to advert to without the least hesitation, though it was painful to him to do so, and which had produced an impression that ought not to have prevailed in this case,—he meant the general unpopularity of Lord Ellenborough. (Hear.) It was a misfortune that it should be so, but he knew, from what he had heard from many members of that House, that such was the real state of feeling. He did not mean to say that every mem- ber whom he was addressing had not used his utmost endeavours to divest himself of that feeling ; but whether that were the case or not, the unpopu- larity of Lord Ellenhorough had been the means of exciting an interest in the House, and of inducing a critical examination of the witnesses and the evidence, which would noeotherwise have taken place. He confessed that no man felt more than himself the unpopularity of Lord Ellenborough.

No one could doubt that adultery had been committed by Lady Ellenborough ; and it would be unfair to try Lord Ellenborough's conduct by severer tests than had been applied to the conduct of other husbands similarly situated. An honourabiemember had expressed a wish that the time would soon ar- rive when the House would no longer be called upon to interfere in cases of this kind. In that wish he heartily concurred. Would to God that this were the last case of divorce that would ever come before the House ! He de- clared solemnly, that nothing was more repugnant to his feelings—nothing, in his opinion, was more disgraceful to the House of Commons—than to witness the full attendance which was called down on occasions of this na- ture, and the prurient curiosity manifested with respect to domestic affairs. When he was called upon to discharge his official functions in cases of this nature, he considered it one of the greatest evils which could happen to him.

Mr. THANT and the Marquis of BLANDFORD could not admit that Lord Ellenborough was entitled to a divorce. Lord F. L. GOWER thought the objection to the bill mere cant and sophistry; though he begged to be understood as imputing no im- proper motives to its opponents. Sir G. CLERK could see nothing to blame in the conduct of Lord Ellenborough.

Mr. MON-CK was not disposed to throw any impediment in the way of the bill.

Colonel Woon, as the husband of the sister of Lord Ellenborough's first wife, bore testimony to the propriety of his Lordship's conduct. Lord F. OSBORNE, after mature deliberation, could not bring him- self to vote for the bill.

A division took place ; and the third reading was carried by 86 to 16. After the division, Mr. HUME complained 4:if the imputations that had been cast upon his motives and those of the gentlemen who voted with him.

Dr. LUSHINGTON, Sir HENRY HARDINGE, and Sir G. CLERK, agreed in declaring that the member for Montrose had misrepresented their observations. This scene of personality, under the limn of "ex- planation," was maintained with uncommon vigour for some time.

Mr. Alderman WOOD voted in the minority, because he was of opinion that the noble lord ought not to receive the relief he claimed. He knew nothing about his unpopularity either with the country or with the ladies.

Sir H. HARDINGE rose, amid considerable confusion, to order, and observed that what had been stated was a most foul and atrocious calumny. (Loud cries of "Chair" and "Order.") His reason for rising was, that the hon. Alderman, member for the City of London, appeared to be maldng observa- tions reechoing what he (Sir H. Hardinge) alluded to as foul and atrocious calumnies which were in circulation.

Mr. Alderman WOOD had not the slightest intention of doing what the gal- lant officer appeared to imagine. The observation he had made was in allu- sion to what had fallen from Dr. Lushington, as to the supposed unpopularity of the noble lord. For his own part, he was not aware that the noble lord was unpopular. How could it be imagined that a noble lord, who filled a high station as a Minister of the Crown, should be unpopular? (Laughter.) He hoped there might be no more bills brought in under such circumstances. Nevertheless he should himself have occasion, perhaps, to bring a bill of the same nature into the House ; but he was sore he should have it better case than the present. (Roars of Laughter.) Surely we were not to be judges h%

such a case by what passed at the bar, which, to some of the young men present, might be very agreeable, but, perhaps, it was not so to the seniors. (Laughter.) Probably this was the last session, if it were not the last case, In which the House would be called on to legislate under such circumstances. He now gave due notice he should have a bill. (Renewed Laughter.) He was of opinion that the evidence did not bear out the bill, and that there ought to have been further inquiry ; but no opposition was offered by the other party ; and every thing considered, he thought the noble lord had been let off very lightly. (Laughter.)

Sir H. HARDINGE said he meant that there had been gross and atrocious ca- lumnies publicly circulated against Lord Ellenborough, stating that he was anxious to remarry. He repeated this was a most gross and atrocious calumny. On the following day, Mr. HUME complained of certain unparlia- mentary expressions ascribed by a report (in the Morning Chronicle) to Sir Herny Hardinge. Sir HENRY, in explanation, denied that the expressions had been used.