lady said she had borrowed 100l. of her aunt Mrs. Hanmer to buy baby things. Who did the lady tell that to?---To Mr. Amis and to me. Did she speak it loudly or softly, or how ?---, She spoke it as she was sitting by the bed-side talking to Mr. Amis. When did you tell any body of such register?--I really cannot say exactly when, but I have said, I had it in my possession. When did you first mention it?---I cannot tell. Was Mr. Merrill present at the time when this entry was made in the register?---He was. Was he in the room the whole time that this conversation passed, that you have mentioned, of lending 1007. by Mrs. Hanmer ?---No, he was not. to know of the witness whether she can account for that stroke?-Mrs. Phillips. I cannot. Mr. Dunning. It is a repetition. There is marriage written in the margin. August the 24th, married.' The entry then proceeds, The honourable Augustus Hervey, esq. was married;' which being a repetition, I suppose they struck that through with a black line, Lord Camden. I believe it is so. Mr. Dunning. If your lordships please, the next witness to be called is, the rev. Mr. Stephen Kenchen. The Rev. Mr. Stephen Kenchen sworn. Examined by Mr. Dunning. Mr. Dunning. You succeeded Mr. Amis in this church at Lainston, I believe ?-Kenchen. I did. When did you first see that book that he has in his hand, and how did it come there?-The first time that I saw the book was after the Did Mr. Merrill come with the lady, or the lady before him, or without him?----The lady before him, for Mr. Merrill was gone to Lain-death of Mrs. Hanmer, aunt to Mr. Merrill, ston to his seat. When Mr. Merrill came, did not the lady repeat the conversation that had been about the child and the hundred pounds?---There was nothing of that said before Mr. Merrill. Was any thing said about making any other entry in the register, besides that of the marriage?-Nothing that I heard. When did Mr. Merrill come into the room; before the entry was made in the book, or after?-Before. Was Mr. Merrill in the room at the time that it was made ?-He was. Who was it brought the stamped paper? Mr. Merrill. Was Mr. Merrill in the room when the lady concealed herself, as you have said?—He was. Who else was in the room?-No one except myself. Now look at the book.-I know the hand perfectly well. Is the whole of that, which is written on that leaf, the writing of your husband?—It is. You have said that you went to Arlingtonstreet; can you name any person that you saw there?-No one was in the room, when I went, except the lady. Can you name any person that saw you there? Only a servant for some time, and then a milliner came. Can you name those persons?—I can't; I don't know them. Can you name neither of them ?-The ser vant was Fozard. Can you name no other servants that you saw there?-No; I had an inflammation in my eye, and the lady was exceedingly kind to me: she ordered an egg to be boiled for me, and Fozard brought it, in order that it might be opened and laid on my eye. Can you name any other servants whom you saw there?-I don't remember. Lord Camden. My lords, I observe in the entry of the register the words was married' are struck through with a black line; I want who was buried in the vault of that little church. By whom was that book produced to you, and for what purpose?-In order to register Mrs. Hanmer's burial. By whom?-By Mr. Merrill. Did you accordingly make an entry of the burial of Mrs. Hanmer ?-I made an entry of the burial of Mrs. Hanmer. What then became of the book?-Mr. Merrill carried it back again to his own house. When did you next see the book ?—At the death of Mr. Merrill. By whom was the book then produced to you?-I cannot say; either Mr. or Mrs. Bathurst, or in the presence of them both. Did you then make an entry of the burial of Mr. Merrill ?--I did. What then became of the book?-I have had it in my possession ever since. Mr. Dunning. My lords, I shall ask no more questions of this witness. L. H. S. Mr. Wallace, would you ask this witness any questions? Mr. Wallace. I have no questions to put to this witness. Mr. Dunning. If your lordships please, we will now call the reverend Mr. John Dennis. The Rev. John Dennis sworn. Examined by Mr. Dunning. Were Mr. Dunning. Look at that book. you acquainted with the hand-writing of the late Mr. Amis? You knew Mr. Amis, I presume?-Dennis. I knew him perfectly well. Do you know his hand-writing when you see it? I have seen his hand-writing often, as succeeding him in the living. Did you ever see him write?—I have seen bim write, but not often. Look at that hand-writing; tell me whether you believe the two entries in the first page of that book are his hand-writing ?-Yes, particularly his name, Thomas Amis, seems very much so. Do you believe it to be his hand-writing ?I believe the whole to be his hand-writing. [Ordered to withdraw.] Mr. Dunning. I do not know whether, on the part of the prisoner, they mean to put us ou the proving, which it is necessary for us to do if they require it, the marriage with the duke of Kingston. Mr. Wallace. We are ready to admit that fact. There is no doubt of her being married by the licence of the archbishop of Capterbury. Mr. Dunning. You will give us the date. Mr. Dunning. The 8th of March 1769, I understand. Mr. Dunning. My lords, we are now going to prove a caveat entered by the lady, upon the apprehension of a suit intended to be instituted by Mr. Hervey in the Spiritual Court. Mr. James sworn. Mr. Dunning. Do you know any thing of the caveat entered at Doctors' Commons on the part of the lady at the bar?-James. Yes, the caveat is entered in this book (producing it). Is that the proper book, in which such entries ought to be made?---It is. The Caveat was read by the Clerk, and is as follows: The 18th of August 1768. Let no citation, intimation, or other process, or any letters of request for the same, to judge or jurisdiction whatsoever, issue under any other the seal of this Court at the suit or instance of the honourable Augustus John Hervey, or his brother, against the honourable Elizabeth Chudleigh, spinster, of any cause or suit matrimonial, without due notice being given to Mr. Nathaniel Bishop, proctor for the said 'honourable Elizabeth Chudleigh, who, on his being warned thereto before the judge of this • Court, or his lawful surrogate, will be ready by himself or counsel to shew just cause of this same Caveat, and why no such process ⚫ or letters of request should issue thereupon.' Mr. Wallace. The witness merely produces the book; he knows nothing of the fact of the entry being made. James. I know Mr. Bishop's clerk's hand; this is his hand-writing. Mr. Dunning. Perhaps the witness may know, that Mr. Bishop was the proctor employed by the lady in the course of that suit? James. I have heard so. Att. Gen. That appears on the record they have put in. Mr. Dunning. I understand, that it is the pleasure of some of your lordships, that we should go into the proof of the marriage of the duke of Kingston? Mr. Wallace. It is admitted on the part of the prisoner. Mr. Dunning. But as some of the lords wish for the proof, we will examine it, The Reverend Mr. James Trebeck sworn. Mr. Dunning. Be so good as find the register of the marriage of the duke of Kingston. Mr. Trebeck points it out. 1769. N° 92. The most noble Evelyn PierClerk reads. N° 92. Marriages in March repont, duke of Kingston, a bachelor, and the honourable Elizabeth Chudleigh of Knightsbridge, in St. Margaret's Westmin'ster, a spinster, were married by special licence of the archbishop of Canterbury 'this 8th of March 1769, by me Samuel Harpur, of the British Museum. This mar riage was solemnized between us, 6 KINGSTON, 'In the presence • MASHAM, of WILLIAM YEO, 'A. K. F. GILBERT, 'JAMES LAROCHE, jun. 'ALICE YEO, 'J. Ross MACKYE, E. R. A. LARoche, 'ARTHUR COLLIER, 'C. MASHAM.' Mr. Dunning. I am desired to apprize your lordships of a fact, which may or may not be proved, if thought necessary. have heard in the evidence of the last woman Your lordships an account of a certain Mr. Spearing, who was found. He, though mayor of Winchester, is present. That Mr. Spearing could not be now found to be amusing himself somewhere have witnesses to give your lordships that acor other beyond sea, God knows where. Will your lordships now please to hear the count, if your lordships think it necessary.reverend Mr. Harpur? The Reverend Mr. Harpur sworn. We Mr. Dunning. Did you perform the mar riage ceremony between these parties?—Mr. Harpur. Yes. Mr. Dunning. At the time mentioned in the register?-Mr. Harpur. Yes. L. H. S. Have you any more witnesses to produce? Mr. Dunning. We don't judge it necessary to offer to your lordships any more evidence in this stage of the business. If it should become so, we reserve to ourselves the right of examining them hereafter. Mr. Wallace. I beg Mrs. Phillips may be called to the bar, that a letter may be produced to her, and that she may say whether it is her band-writing. Mrs. Phillips called. Mr. Wallace. Is that your hand-writing?Mrs. Phillips. The name is my hand-writing. Mr. Wallace. Is that your letter ?—Mrs. Phillips. It is my letter. A LETTER from JUDITH PHILLIPS to her grace the duchess of Kingston read. "My lady duchess; I write your grace this letter. My heart has ever been firmly attached to your grace's interest and pleasure, and my utmost wish to deserve your favour and countenance. Suffer me not then in my declining years to think I have forfeited that favour and protection, without intentionally giv-I ing the most distant cause. "May I entreat your grace to accept this as a sincere and humble submission for failure any of respect and duty to your grace; and permit me most humbly to entreat your grace's kind intercession with my lord duke to continue Mr. Phillips his steward, whose happiness consists only in acting and discharging his duty to his grace's pleasure. This additional mark of your grace's goodness we hope to be happy in; and in return, the remainder of our lives shall be passed in gratitude and duty. The person who carries this will wait to receive your grace's pleasure and commands to her, who remains, with the greatest respect, my lady duchess, your grace's most dutiful servant, "November 7, 1771." "J. PHILLIPS." Att. Gen. The evidence, your lordships will recollect, given by the witness was in answer to a question, whether her husband had or had not been turned out of his place? pointing the question so as to give your lordships, and to give the witness to understand, that they meant the circumstance of being turned out of his place should go personally to the discredit of her husband, and also imply some memory of that in the mind of the wife. The witness, in answer to that, told your lordships, with respect to such part of it as might be deemed to relate to her husband's credit in the business, that he had resigned his place under the duke. The letters which I have in my hand, and will just state to your lordships, if it be thought necessary before the calling of the witness, is that very correspondence, by which it appears that he did so resign his employment under his grace into his grace's hands. He wrote to his grace at Newinarket from Holm Pierrepont. The letter is dated the 17th of October 1771.' And he writes thus: "I have ever done my duty with the strictest regard to your grace's interest, and with the most perfect respect. I have declined accepting a good settlement, to act conformable to your grace's pleasure, which her grace was pleased to promise should be made up to me, which must have escaped her grace's memory, as I have since had my rent considerably raised, and am much concerned to observe lately your grace's displeasure; and being conscious of faithful discharge of my duty, I must be unjustly represented to your grace. I hope your grace will be pleased to permit my delivering up the charge of your grace's affairs, which, as an honest man, I can only properly keep, while satisfied myself, and honoured with your grace's approbation, &e." In answer to which he received this letter: "Mr. Phillips; Your letter came to me at Newmarket. After what has passed, there is no occasion for many words. Sherin will be at Holm Pierrepont some time next week, with my orders about settling your business, which flatter myself you will readily comply with. "I am your's, &c." Att. Gen. I believe I may refer to your lordships' memory, that Mrs. Phillips mentioned his grace's having looked coolly on her husband, which occasioned his resignation. A Peer. What is that, Mr. Attorney Ge neral, that you have been reading? Att. Gen. The first is a copy of a letter to the duke; the other, the duke's original answer. If it is thought material enough to trouble your lordships with it, we can easily prove that this is his grace's hand-writing, and this the copy of his grace's letter, which was all that was necessary. {Adjourned to Monday. THE FIFTH AND LAST DAY. The Lords and others came from the Chamber of Parliament in the customary order. Proclamation for silence being made as usual, The Duchess of Kingston was conducted to the bar, when her grace addressed the Lords in the following terms: My lords; This my respectful address will, I flatter myself, be favourably accepted by your lordships: my words will flow freely from my heart, adorned simply with innocence and truth. My lords, I have suffered unheard-of persecutions; my honour and fame have been severely attacked; I have been loaded with reproaches; and such indignities and hardships have rendered me the less able to make my defence before this august assembly against prosecution of so extraordinary a nature, and so undeserved. My lords, with tenderness consider how difficult is the task of myself to speak, nor say too little nor too much. Degraded as I am by adversaries; my family despised; the honourable titles on which I set au inestimable value, as received from my most noble and late dear husband, attempted to be torn from me; your lordships will judge how greatly I stand in need of your protection and indulgence. My lords, were I here to plead for life, for fortune, no words from me should beat the air: the loss I sustain in my most kind companion and affectionate husband, makes the former more than indifferent to me; and, when it shall please Almighty God to call me, I shall willingly lay that burthen down. I plead before your lordships for my fame and honour. My lords, logic is properly defined, and well who says, "It must be acknowledged, to the honour of the spiritual courts, that though they continue to this day to decide many questions which are properly of temporal cognizance, yet justice is in general so ably and impartially represented in this high court. It is a talent of the human mind, and not of the body, and holds a key which signifies, that logic is not a science itself, but the key to science. That key is your lordships' judicial capacity and wisdom. On the left hand is represented a ham-administered in those tribunals (especially of mer, and before it a piece of false, and another of pure gold. The hammer is your penetrating judgment, which, by the mercy of God, will strike hard at false witnesses who have given evidence against me, and prove my intention in this pending cause as pure as the finest gold, and as justly distinguished from the sophistry of falshood. My lords, your unhappy prisoner is born of an ancient, not ignoble family; the women distinguished for their virtue, the men for their valour; descended in an honourable and uninterrupted line for three centuries and a half. Sir John Chudleigh, the last of my family, lost his life at the siege of Ostend, at 18 years of age, gloriously preferring to die with his colours in his bosom, rather than accept of quarter from a gallant French officer, who, in compassion to his youth, three times offered him his life for that ensign, which was shot through his heart. A happy death! that saves the blush he would now feel for the unheard-of injuries and dishonour thrown on his unfortunate kiuswoman, who is now at the bar of this right honourable house. His grace the late duke of Kingston's fortune, of which I now stand possessed, is valuable to me, as it is a testimony to all the world how high I was in his esteem. As it is my pride to have been the object of affection of that virtuous man, so shall it be my honour to bestow that fortune to the honour of him who gave it to me; well knowing, that the wise disposer of all things would not have put it in his heart to prefer me to all others, but that I should be as faith fut a steward, as I was a faithful wife; and that I should suffer others, more worthy than myself, to share these his great benefits of fortune. My lords, I now appeal to the feelings of your own hearts, whether it is not cruel, that I should be brought as a criminal to a public trial for an act committed under the sanction of the laws;---an act that was honoured with his majesty's most gracious approbation; and previously known and approved of by my royal mistress, the late princess dowager of Wales; and likewise authorized by the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Your lordships will not discredit so respectable a court, and disgrace those judges who there so legally and honourably preside. The judges of the Ecclesiastical Court do not receive their patents from the crown, but from the archbishops or bishops. Their jurisdiction is competent in ecclesiastical cases, and their proceedings are conformable to the laws and customs of the land, according to the testimony of the learned judge Blackstone* (whose works are as entertaining as they are instructive,) * Vol. 3, chap. 7, 98. the superior kind,) and the boundaries of their power are now so well known and established, that no material inconvenience at present arises from their jurisdiction. And should an alteration be attempted, great confusion would probably arise, in overturning long established forms, new modelling a course of proceedings that has now prevailed for seven centuries."---And I must here presume to add, as founded on truth, that that court (of which his majesty is the head) cannot be stopped by any authority whatsoever, while they act in their own jurisdiction.---Lord chief justice Hale says, "Where there has been a sentence of divorce (which is a criminal case,) if that sentence is suspended by an appeal to the court of Arches (as a superior court), and while that appeal is depending one of the parties marries again, the sentence will be a justification within the exception of the act of parliament, notwithstanding that the sen tence has been appealed from, and consequently may be reversed by a superior court." And, my lords, how much more reason is there for its coming within the exception of the act in my case, since no appeal had been made? My lords, I earnestly look up to your lordships for protection, as being now a sufferer for having given credit to the Ecclesiastical Court. I respectfully call upon you, my lords, to protect the spiritual jurisdiction, and all the benefit of religious laws, and me, an unhappy prisoner, who instituted a suit of jactitation upon the advice of a learned civilian, who carried on the prosecution, from which I obtained the sentence that authorized your prisoner's marriage with the most noble Evelyn duke of Kingston; that sentence solemnly pronounced by John Bettesworth, doctor of laws, vicar-general of the right reverend father in God Richard by divine permission lord bishop of London, and official principal of the consistorial court of London: the judge thereof, calling on God, and setting him alone before his eyes, and hearing counsel in that cause, did pronounce, that your prisoner, then the honourable Elizabeth Chudleigh, now Elizabeth dowager duchess of Kingston, was free from all matrimonial contracts or espousals, as far as to bim at that time appeared, more especially with the said right honourable Augustus John Hervey. My lords, had this prosecution been set on foot merely for the love of justice, or good example to the community, why did they not institute their prosecution during the five years your prisoner was received and acknowledged the undoubted and unmolested wife of the late duke of Kingston? My lords, the preamble * of the very act on *See vol. 14, p. 1011. 1 which I am indicted, plainly and intirely precludes your prisoner: it runs thus: "Forasmuch as divers evil-disposed persons, being married, run out of one county into another, or into places where they are not known, and there become to be married, having another wife or husband living, to the great dishonour of God, and utter undoing of divers honest men's children, and others, &c." And as the pream ble has not been considered to be sufficient in my favour to impede the trial, I beg leave to observe how much your prisoner suffers by being produced before this noble house, on the penalty of an act of parliament, without benefiting by the preamble, which is supposed to contain the whole substance, extent, and meaning of the act. what manner. Your prisoner was at that time possessed of a small estate in the county of Devon, where sir George Chudleigh, her father's eldest brother, had large possessions. The purchase of that estate was much solicited in that county; and having frequent opportuni. ties to dispose of it, it was ever made an insuperable objection by the intended purchaser, that I could not make a clear title to the estate on account of Mr. Hervey's claim to your prisoner as his wife. And your prisoner being also possessed of building lands for a great number of years, for the same reasons she never had the ground covered (valued at 1,200l. per annum.) And as your prisoner's health declined, and inade it necessary for her to seek relief in foreign My lords, upon your wise result on my un- climes (which increased her expences beyond happy case, you will bear in your willing re- what her circumstances could support,) and ber membrance, that the orphan and widow is your little fortune daily decreased by money taken peculiar care; and that you will be tender of upon mortgage and bond, as will appear by the the honour of your late brother peer, and see evidence of Mr. Drummond; her royal misin me his widow and representative, recollect- tress likewise in the decline of life, whose death ing how easy it may be for a next of kin to pro- would probably have deprived her of 400l. a secute the widows or the daughters, not only of year; the persecutions threatened on Mr. Herevery peer, but of every subject of Great Bri-vey's side presented but a gloomy prospect for tain, if it can be effected by the oath of one su- her declining life; your prisoner was induced, perannuated and interested old woman, who de- as she before observed to your lordships, to folclared seven years ago that she was incapable low the advice of Dr. Collier, and instituted the of giving evidence thereon, as will appear in suit of jactitation, your prisoner subscribing enproof before your lordships. And I may fur-tirely to his opinion, and following his advice ther observe to your lordships, that my case is clearly within the proviso of the statute on which I am indicted. In the third clause, it is "provided that this act shall not extend to any person, where the former marriage hath been, or hereafter shall be, declared by sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court to be void, and of no effect." If there is supposed to have been a former marriage, the same must have been a true marriage, or a false one. If a true one, it cannot be declared void; and if a false one, or the semblance of one only, then only, and no otherwise, is it that it can be declared void.---Therefore must this proviso have respect to pretended marriages only, and to none other: and such only it is, that can be the objects of causes of jactitation, the sentence in which is a more effectual divorce and separation of the parties, than many divorces which have been determined to fall within this proviso.--The crime charged in the indictment was not a felony, or even a temporal offence, until the act of James the first till then, it was only cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court; and though an indictment could lie for a slight blow, yet the common law did not allow of a criminal prosecation for polygamy until that period: so that if the case comes within the exception of the only statute upon that subject, it is no offence at all; and Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, has said, in such cases the law of the land is the law of God. My lords, I bave observed, that I had greatly suffered in fame and fortune by the reports of Mr. Harvey; and I beg leave to mention in and instructions, which she presumes alone is a full defence against the charge of felony; for your lordships in your great candour cannot think, that a lady can know more of the civil law, than her learned civilians could point out to her. And as a criminal and felonious intent is necessary to constitute the offence with which I stand charged, certainly I cannot be guilty in following the advice I received, and in doing what in my conscience I thought an authorized and innocent act. : My lords, though I am aware, that any person can prosecute for the crown for an offence against an act of parliament, yet I will venture to say, that few instances, if any, have been carried into execution without the consent of the party injured and with great deference to your lordships' judgment I venture to declare, that in the present case no person whatever has been injured, unless your lordships' candour will permit me to say that I am injured, being now the object of the undeserved resentment of my enemies. It is plain to all the world, that his grace the duke of Kingston did not think himself injured, when in the short space of five years his grace made three wills, each succeeding one more favourable to your prisoner than the other, giving the most generous and incontestable proof of his affection and solicitude for my comfort and dignity. And it is more than probable, my lords, from the well-known mutual friendship subsisting between us, that had I been interested, I might have obtained the bulk of his fortune for my own family. But I respected his honour, I |