AN ANSWER To a Printed Paper, Entitled THE CASE of Mary Duchess of Norfolk.  
IF notorious Untruths and false Inferences deserve the Name of a scandalous Libel, the said Printed Case is one.  
The Case sets forth, That her Father, the late Earl of Peterborough, paid 10000 l. in Money, and settled near 1000 l. per Ann. in Lands, the remainder thereof to the Duke and his Heirs; and a Personal Estate of 10000 l (after the Decease of the said Earl and Countess) and also 1000 l. per Ann. for twenty Years: Besides very rich Jewels, Plate, and other things of great value, which the said Duchess brought into the Duke's Family. And it's pretended, that her Grace hath, since her Separation, paid great Debts that had been contracted for the support of the Duke's Honour and his Service.  
Answer. Neither the Duke, nor his Father, received from his Grace's Family any more than 1000 l. to evidence which, if the Duke pays back the 10000 l. as the Bill directs, than her Estate is as entire and free to all intents, as if he had never married her.  
As to his having 1000 l. per Ann. for twenty Years to his Use, as is pretended, the Duke absolutely denys it; or that he has Jewels, Plate, or any thing of Five pounds' value from her or her Family: But soon after they married, he was obliged to borrow 1500 l. to buy Linen and Household Goods.  
That within three Years, which happened between the late Duke's Death, and the parting of the now Duke and Duchess, she ran him out by extravagant expenses, near 30000 l. above his Income; to pay which obliged him to sell his Life in 2400 l. per Ann. out of his Estate in Sussex and Yorkshire.  
That she has been so far from paying any debts for his Honour and Service, that he has been sued, and forced to pay several considerable Sums to Tradesmen (contracted by her without his Privacy) tho' she had a 1000 l. a Year Pin-money all the while.  
That upon her refusal to go into the Country, and her Fathers refusing to receive her in any House of his, she at her own request chose to go into France. But the Duke did not concern himself whether she came back, or not, nor ever heard of her change of Religion, till he felt it (as well as heard it) by her sueing him before the than High Commissioned Court for Alimony, which forced him to retire beyond Sea, from whence he returned about two Months before the King's Landing.  
It is a great assurance that the Duchess' Agents have, to mention what was Sworn by her Servants, as disproving Hauseur and Vaness, when it appeared so plainly that they were taught a Lesson which they greatly mistook, and instead of disproving, confirmed thechief part of the others Evidence.  
And its pleasant, that instead of Susannah Barrington, who has been charged with the Privacy of the whole intrigue, and appears to have been in the Duchess' Service all along, and likewise since the bringing in this Bill, they should advance that Infamous Witness Frances Knight to be the Duchess' Woman.  
What they say of Bayly's contradicting Hauseur, is upon a mistake, which Bailie himself soon Corrected: And the Duchess' Servants were so far from proving the Dutch-Woman Vaness turned away before the rejecting the last Bill; that one of the Duchess' Witnesses proves her to have been the Duchess' Servant while that Bill was depending.