March 29th. 1700. I Do Appoint Matthew Gillyflower and John barns, to Print the Bill for my Divorce from the Lady Mary Mordant, with the Papers and Proceedings thereunto relating, and that no other Person do presume to Print the same. norfolk, E. M. THE PROCEEDINGS UPON THE Bill of Divorce Between His GRACE the DUKE of norfolk AND THE Lady MARY MORDANT, VIZ. I. The Journal of the House of LORDS, together with the BILL. II. The Depositions before their LORDSHIPS. III. The Examination and Evidence of the Duke's Witnesses. IV. The State of the Case on both sides. V. Bishop COUSENS's Argument, proving that Adultery causes a Dissolution of Marriage. VI. The Pleadings of the Learned Council, before the Honourable House of Commons, and the Committee, with other Matters thereto relating. LONDON, Printed by Matthew Gillyflower in Westminster-Hall, and John barns in the Pall-Mall. 1700. Die Jovis 15. Die Februarii, 1699. UPON Reading the Petition of Henry Duke of Norfolk, D. Norfolk's Petition. praying leave to bring in a Bill to dissolve his Marriage with the Lady Mary Mordant, and to enable him to mary again; he having certain proof of his Wife's living in Adultery with Sir John Germaine, It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition shall be taken into consideration to morrow at Eleven of the Clock, and all the Lords summoned to attend. Die Veneris 16. Februarii, 1699. After reading the Order for resuming the Consideration of the Duke of Norfolk's Petition, and debate thereupon. Bill. hody prima 'vice lecta est billa, entitled an Act to dissolve the Duke of Norfolk's Marriage with the Lady Mary Mordant, and to enable him to mary again. In the words following, Humbly sheweth and complaineth to Your most Excellent Majesty, your true and faithful Subject Henry Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England, that he did some Years since mary the Lady Mary Mordant his now Wife, and that she hath for divers Years lived in Separation from the said Subject, and hath had unlawful Familiarity and adulterous Conversation with Sir John Germaine, Bar. and is guilty of Adultery on her part, and hath broken the Bond of Matrimony. For as much therefore as your said Subject hath no Issue, nor can hope for any other than spurious Issue to succeed him in his Honours, Dignities and Estate, unless the said Marriage be declared voided, and annulled by Parliament, and your said Subject be enabled to mary any other Woman. May it please your most excellent Majesty, out of your Princely Goodness and Compassion to your said subjects Misfortune and Calamity, and for the future Support and Comfort of himself and Family, that it may be enacted, And be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, that the said Bond of Matrimony being violated and broken by the manifest open Adultery of the said Lady Mary Mordant, be, and is hereby enacted, declared and adjudged to be from henceforth wholly dissolved, annulled, vacated, and made voided to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever: And that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Henry Duke of Norfolk, at any time or times hereafter to contract Matrimony, and to mary( as well in the Life time of the said Lady Mary as if she were naturally dead) with any other Woman or Women, with whom he might lawfully mary in case the said Lady Mary was not living. And that such Matrimony when had and celebrated, shall be a good, just, and lawful Marriage, and so shall be adjudged, deemed, and taken to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes; and that all and every Child and Children born in such Matrimony, shall b● deemed, adjudged and taken to be born in lawful Wedlock, and to be legitimate and inheritable, and shall inherit the said dukedom of Norfolk, Office of Earl Marshal of England, and all other Earldoms, Dignities, Baronies, Honours and Titles of Honour, Lands, Tenements and other Hereditaments from and by their Fathers, Mothers, and other Ancestors in like manner and form as any other Child or Children born in lawful Matrimony shall or may inherit or be inheritable according to the course of Inheritances used in this Realm; and to have and enjoy all privileges, worthies, Benefits, Advantages, Claims and Demands, as any other Child or Children born in lawful Wedlock may have or claim by the Laws or Customs of this Kingdom. And be it further enacted, That the said Henry Duke of Norfolk shall be entitled to be Tenant by courtesy of the Lands and Inheritance of such Wife whom he shall hereafter mary, and such Wife as he shall so mary shall be entitled to Dower of the Lands and Tenements whereof the said Henry Duke of Norfolk shall be seized of such Estate whereof she shall be dowable, as any other Husband or Wife may or might claim, have or enjoy. And the Child or Children born in such Marriage shall and may derive and make Title by Descent or otherwise to and from any of their Ancestors, as any other Child or Children may do, any Law, Statute, Restraint, Prohibition, Ordinance, Canon, Constitution, Prescription or Custom had, made, exercised or used to the contrary of the Premises or any of them in any wise notwithstanding. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the said Lady Mary shall, and is hereby barred and excluded of and from all Dower and Thirds, and of and from all Right and Title of Dower and Thirds unto or out of any the Honours, manors, Lands, or Hereditaments of the said Duke; and that all Conveyances, jointures, Settlements, Limitations and Creations of uses and Trusts of, into, or out of any Honours, manours, Lands or Hereditaments at any time heretofore made by the said Duke; or any of his Ancestors or Trustees unto or upon or for the use or Benefit of the said Lady Mary, or any the Issue of her Body, or for easing, discharging or counter-securing any the manours, Lands or Hereditaments of the said Lady Mary, or any of her Ancestors, shall be from henceforth, so far as concerns the said Lady Mary or any Issue of her Body, or any Interest for her or them, utterly voided and of none effect; and all and every the said Honours, manours, Lands or Hereditaments of the said Duke or any of his Ancestors or Trustees, shall from henceforth remain and be to and for the use and Benefit of the said Duke, and such other Person or Persons, and for such Estates and Interests, and in such manner and form as if the said Lady Mary was now naturally dead without any Issue of her Body. And also that all Limitations and Creations of any use, Estate, Power or Trust made by any the Ancestors of the said Lady Mary, unto or for the use or Benefit of the said Duke, his Heirs or assigns, out of any the manours, Lands or Hereditaments of any the Ancestors of the said Lady Mary, shall be from henceforth voided and of none effect. This Clause was added after the Bill was brought into the House of Lords. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the said Duke of Norfolk, his Heirs, Executors, Administrators, or Assigns, shall, on or before the Five and twentieth Day of March One thousand seven hundred and one, pay or cause to be paid unto the said Lady Mary, or her assigns, the Sum of ten thousand Pounds of lawful money of England, which was the Portion in money paid on her Marriage with the said Duke; and on default of Payment of the said Sum of ten thousand Pounds, on or before the said Five and twentieth Day of March, then, and in such case, she, the said Lady Mary and her assigns, during her Natural Life from the Decease of the said Duke, if she shall survive him, shall be entitled to, and shall and may have and enjoy such jointure and other Advantages as she might or may have or claim by virtue of a certain Indenture, Quinque-partite, made upon and in consideration of the said Marriage, bearing date the thirteenth Day of June, Anno Domini One thousand six hundred seventy seven, and made or mentioned to have been made between Henry late Duke of Norfolk, then Earl of Norwich, Father of the said Duke, and the present Duke by the Name of Henry Lord Howard of the first part, Henry Earl of Peterborow and the said duchess by the Name of the Lady Mary Mordant, sole Daughter and Heir apparent of the said Earl of Peterborow of the second part, Henry marquis of Worcester, William Earl of Powis and Henry Lord Obrian of the third part, Arthur Onslow, Esq and Thomas Dalmatroy, Esq of the fourth part, Simon Fox, Esq and Thomas West, Gent. of the fifth part: And by virtue of the Agreements contained in certain Articles bearing date the eight and twentieth day of April, in the Year of our Lord One thousand six hundred ninety four, made or mentioned to have been made between the said Duke of the one part, and the said Henry Earl of Peterborow on behalf of the said duchess, and the said duchess of the other part, according to the true Intent and Meaning of the said Quinque-partite Indenture and Articles, and also during the joint Lives of the said Duke and duchess shall and may enjoy Five hundred Pounds per Annum by virtue of an Indenture Quadrupartite, dated the fifteenth day of June, One thousand six hundred ninety four, made or mentioned to have been made between the said Duke of Norfolk of the first part, the said Earl of Peterborow and the said duchess of the second part, William Lord Lemster of the third part, and Sir John Mordant, Knight and baronet, and William Longueville, Esq of the fourch part. And then and in such case the said Duke of Norfolk, his Heirs, Executors and Administrators is and are discharged of and from the Payment of the said Sum of Ten thousand Pounds, any thing herein contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. But on Payment of the said Ten thousand Pounds in manner as aforesaid, she, the said Lady Mary shall be wholly barred and excluded from her said jointure, and of and from all other Advantages out of the Real and Personal Estate of the said Duke as aforesaid. duchess to have a Copy. Upon the first Reading of the Bill entitled an Act to dissolve the Duke of Norfolk's Marriage with the Lady Mary Mordant, and to enable him to mary again, It is ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled; that the duchess of Norfolk may have a Copy of the said Bill, And that his Grace the Duke of Norfolk shall be heard by his Council to make good the Allegations of his Bill, on Tuesday next at Eleven of the Clock in the Forenoon, and that the duchess of Norfolk may have council council. to attend at the same time, if she please. Die Sabbati 17. Februarii, 1699. Upon Reading the Petition of Mary duchess of Norfolk praying to be heard by her council before any further proceedings be made on the Bill, entitled, Dutchess's Petition. An Act to dissolve the Duke of Norfolk's Marriage with the Lady Mary Mordant, and to enable him to mary again, It is ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that the duchess of Norfolk shall be heard by her council as desired, on Tuesday next at Eleven of the Clock in the Forenoon. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, Duke's Witnesses. That William Lane, and John Le Fountain, Gent. do attend this House on Tuesday the twentieth day of this instant February, at Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon, as Witnesses to be examined on the behalf of the Duke of Norfolk. Die Lunae 19. Februarii, 1699. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That Mr. Daniel Germaine, Mr. Simon Briane alias de Brienne, Mrs. Anna Maria Briane alias de Brienne, and Mrs. Judith Possette alias Persode do, and they are hereby required to attend this House as Witnesses on the behalf of his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, to morrow at Eleven of the Clock in the Forenoon. Die Martis 20. Februarii, 1699. After hearing council upon the Petition of the duchess of Norfolk, pursuant to the Order of the Seventeenth instant, as also council council. for the Duke of Norfolk, the following Order was made, viz. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear Witnesses for the Duke of Norfolk, only to matter of Fact, since the rejecting of the first Bill, except only Mr. Daniel Germaine, Mr. Simon Briane alias de Brienne, Mrs. Anna Maria Briane or de Brienne, Mrs. Judith Possette or Persode, Mrs. elinor Vaness, who are at liberty to give Evidence to matters of Fact before that time, which were not then before the House; and are hereby required to attend this House, as Witnesses on the behalf of his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, to morrow Morning at Eleven of the Clock. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That to morrow at twelve of the Clock this House will proceed to hear council and Witnesses for the Duke of Norfolk, to make good the Allegations in his Bill, at which time the duchess of Norfolk's council shall be present. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That William Bayly and edmond Davies do, and they are hereby required, to attend this House to morrow at Eleven of the Clock in the Forenoon, as Witnesses to be examined on the behalf of the Duke of Norfolk. Die Mercurij 21. Februarii, 1699. The House being informed, that endeavours had been made to serve Orders upon the Duke of Norfolk's Witnesses, and several of them were sick, and others could not be found, Joseph Whilley being called in and Sworn, said as follows. Daniel Germaine— I went to his House and was told by a Neighbour no body was within, but they bid me go to the Alehouse at the next door and I might hear of him; and inquiring there, I found one of his Journeymen, Peter Hercules, who told me he had not been at home these six Months, nor could not tell when he would return; but I shewed him the Original Order, and served him with a Copy, and told him his Master was to appear at the Duke of Norfolk's Lodgings, at the House of Lords to morrow at Eleven a Clock as a Witness for him. Mr. Simon Briane, I went to his House in St. James's Street, and Mr. Possette's Man, Jer. Hoffman, came to the Door, who told me Mr. Briane went to Kensington that afternoon; and no sooner had he said so, but Mr. Possette came in, who told me the same, and I asked him to speak with Mr. Briane's Wife, and he told me she was so weak, that I could not serve her with the Order. Then I asked to see Mrs. Possette his own Lady, he likewise told me she was sick and could not be spoken to, so I shewed him the Original Order, and left the Copy with himself for his Lady and Mr. Briane's Lady, and forthwith went to Kensington to serve the Order upon Mr. Briane, but not meeting with him after a great deal of Inquiry, I left it with his Maid-Servant at his Lodgings, and served her with it, who told me she would give it her Master that Night, who waited for the King's coming from Hampton-Court. This Morning I went again to his House at St. James's, and sent for his Servant, who told me his Master did not come to Town last Night, so I believe his Maid had given him the Order. Mrs. elinor Vanesse, I enquired at every House in Kensington, where I was informed there were Dutch People, and could not know of any of them of any such Woman; but the Earl of Albemarle's Steward, and the Porter of the Lodge going into Hide-Park( Kensington) promised me they would inquire after her, and sand me word if they heard of such a Person. Then George Starkey being called in and Sworn, said as followeth, I served William Bayly with the Order of this House, to attend as a Witness this Day, he told me he was under a Course of physic, and could not stir out without danger of his Life, but any other Day he would attend. Then a Certificate under the Hands of John Hutton and Theodore Colladon, Doctors of physic was produced, and red as follows. We whose Names are under written, Doctors of physic, do certify, that Mary Wife of Simon de Brienne, and Judith Wife of Peter Persode, have been for some time, and are at this present, so extraordinary ill in Bed, that neither of them can remove from thence, without danger of their Lives. Witness our Hands at their dwelling House, in St. James's street, betwixt ten and eleven of the Clock in the Morning, the 21st. Day of February 1699/ 1700. John Hutton. Theodore Colladon. After which the following Order was made, viz. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That Doctor John Hutton and Doctor Theodore Colladon( who signed a Certificate delivered and red this Day, of the illness of Mrs. Mary, Wife to Simon de Brienne, and Judith her Sister, Wife to Mr. Peter Persode) do attend this House to morrow at eleven of the Clock, to attest upon Oath, what they have certified. Then the form of the Oath formerly given to Witnesses, being red out of the Journal 23. Jan. 1691. The same was agreed to with some alteration, and is as followeth. You shall true Answer make to all such Questions as shall be asked you by this Honourable House, in relation to the Charge of Adultery in the Bill brought in by the Duke of Norfolk, against the duchess of Norfolk, with Sir John Germaine. You shall declare your whole knowledge of this matter, and shall speak the Truth, and nothing but the Truth, as well upon the matter as you shall be examined on behalf of his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, as upon such Interrogatories as shall be exhibited on behalf of the duchess of Norfolk, without Favour or Affection to either Party. So help you God, and by the Contents of this Book. Then the council being called in, they for the Duke having opened the Nature of their Evidence, Mrs. elinor Vanesse was Sworn, and being asked some Questions by the Duke's council, she appeared to be a Dutch Woman, and could not well understand English, and an Interpreter being offered by the Duke's council; council withdrew, and the House agreed that the Dutchess's council should have an Interpreter also; and the council being called in again, were told so by Order of the House, and that they might proceed to any other Witness. The Duke's council desired that they might begin with Mrs. Vanesse, and withdrew. Then the following Orders were made. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That the Agents for the Duke of Norfolk, do forthwith deliver a List of the Witnesses they intend to examine on the behalf of the Duke of Norfolk, to the duchess of Norfolk, or her Agents. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That to morrow at twelve of the Clock, this House will proceed to hear council and Witnesses for the Duke of Norfolk, to make out the Allegations in his Bill, at which time the duchess of Norfolk's council shall be present. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That Daniel Germaine, Simon Briane alias de Brienne, Anna Maria Briane alias de Brienne, Judith Possette, alias Persod●,— Goutaken,— Pontack, Susanna Barrington,— Hi●gonee, Mrs. Keemer, Joseph Barger, William Lane, John Le fountain, Jonathan brown,— Hater, and— Welburne do, and they are hereby required to attend this House to morrow at eleven of the Clock in the forenoon, as Witnesses to be examined on the behalf of the Duke of Norfolk. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That William Allen and John Maitland do, and they are hereby required to attend this House, on Service of this Order, as Witness●s to be examined on behalf of the Duke of Norfolk Die Jovis 22. Februarii, 1699. The House being informed that Sir Theodore Colladon, and Doctor Hutton attended, as Ordered yesterday. Sir Theodore Colladon being called in and Sworn, says he saw Mrs. De Briane yesterday, she was very ill fainting in Bed, and scarce able to live. Mrs. Persode he also visited, who having miscarried by a fright, could not stir out of her Bed without hazard of her Life. Doctor Hutton being called in and Sworn, says he visited Mrs. Mary de Briane this Morning, she hath been sick three Months, is in an ill Condition of Health, and it will endanger her Life if she comes abroad. Mrs. Persode is very ill, she cannot come out of her Bed without endangering her Life. Then the council were called in for the Duke and duchess of Norfolk. The Dutchess's council moved to have the Witnesses Christian Names, and place of their abode, and said they had not the Names till this Morning. Then the two Interpreters took the following Oath. You shall well, truly, and faithfully interpret between the House and elinor Vanesse, the Witness, touching the matters she shall give in Evidence. council being withdrawn, the House agreed to tell the Duke's council, that they might proceed to examine Witnesses that were name the day before. And that if the Dutchess's council had any Exception, they might now make it against them or their Testimony, and that the Duke's Agents should give the Christian Names of their Witnesses, and as much as they can of the places of their abode to the Agents of the duchess. The council being called in again, were told what was agreed by the House touching the Witnesses: Then the Duke's council proceeded and called in elinor Vanesse, who being asked several Questions by the Duke's council, the Interpreter asked them of her in Dutch, and she answered again to the Interpreter, and he declared her answers to the House in English. Nicholas Hauseur, being Sworn in like manner, gave his Testimony in French by an Interpreter. Then council being withdrawn, the following Orders were made, viz. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That the Short-hand Writers, who took the Witnesses Evidence, do dictate to a Clerk in Order to be transcribed what the Witnesses have said, and that the Examinations with the Short-hand Writer's Book and Papers are to be sealed up and kept by the Clerk until the next day the House shall proceed on this matter, and then what is transcribed shall be red at the Bar in the presence of the Witness. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That on Saturday next at twelve of the Clock, this House will proceed to hear council and Witnesses for the Duke of Norfolk to make out the Allegations of his Bill, at which time the duchess of Norfolk's council shall be present. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That Simon Briane alias de Brienne, shall be and is hereby required to attend this House, on Saturday next at eleven of the Clock in the forenoon, to be Examined as a Witness on behalf of the Duke of Norfolk. Die Veneris 23. Februarii, 1699. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That James Berger, Susannah Barrington, Frances Knight, and James Mackdonnell, shall, and they are hereby required to attend this House to morrow at eleven of the Clock in the forenoon, as Witnesses to be Examined on the behalf of the Duke of Norfolk. Die Sabbati 24. Februarii, 1699. The House being moved, that Mr. Simon Briane or De Brienne may be sent for in Custody, for not having attended according to the Order of this House, as a Witness for the Duke of Norfolk. Hereupon Thomas Kellett was called in, and being Sworn, said to this effect, viz. I went to the House of the duchess of Norfolk, and enquired for Mrs Susannah Barrington, and if she lived there, a Man said no: I asked if he could tell me where she was, he said no. Then I went to serve Mr. Simon Briane or de Brienne, and being at his House inquired for him, his Man said, his Master was gone to Kensington; he took the Order and said he would give it his Master. I went to the Lord Cutts's House, and asked for one Mr. Berger, but could not hear of him; I went to my Lord's Stables, and asked his Coachman for Mr. Berger, he said he lived in Hedge-Lane; there I went and found his Wife, and delivered the Order to her, she said she would have nothing to do with it, and that Mr. Germaine gave him Bread. I saw him yesterday, and he told me he had been with the Duke of Norfolk, and would attend him again. I went again to the duchess of Norfolk's House to serve Mrs. Barrington, and one told me she was seen look out of a Window, and another told me she was at home, so I could not serve the Order on her. The House being informed upon Oath, That a Copy of the Order for Mr. Simon Briane or de Brienne to attend this House, as a Witness for the Duke of Norfolk, was left with his Servant at his dwelling place, and he not attending this House, It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That the sergeant at Arms, attending this House, do forthwith attach the Body of the said Simon Briane or de Brienne, and bring him to the Bar of this House, to answer for his Offence: And this shall be a sufficient Warrant on that behalf. To the sergeant at Arms attending this House, his Deputy or Deputies, and every of them. The House was informed that one Hugonee, Servant to the Lord Haversham, being summoned was since gone away. Of which the Lord Haversham gave the House an account to this effect, That he received a Letter from the Duke of Norfolk, wherein he desired his Servant might attend the House this day. And his Lordship writ an answer that he should. But when his Lordship arose in the Morning his Servant was gone away, and told the Landry Woman or Servants, he had a Quarrel, and was going for Holland. The council and Witnesses being called in for the Duke of Norfolk, the Dutchess's council present, and M. Vanesse at the Bar, the transcribed Depositions from the Short-hand Writer were red to her, and she signed them. In like manner Nicholas Hauseur's Deposition was red, and he signed it. Then the council proceeded, and Examined William Bayly, and his Deposition was taken in Short-hand, was left with the Clerk to be transcribed, in Order to be red to him on Monday next. council withdrew, and it was Ordered that William Bayly do attend this House on Monday next. Then the following Orders were made. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That on Monday next at twelve of the Clock this House will proceed to hear council and Witnesses for the Duke of Norfolk, at which time the duchess of Norfolk's council shall be present. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That Mr. Secretary Vernon be desired to sand to this House on Monday next at eleven of the Clock, the Books wherein the Entries of Passes are in the Months of January, February, and March, One Thousand six Hundred ninety one. Die Lunae 26. Februarii, 1699. The council for the Duke and duchess of Norfolk were called in, and the Examination of William Bayly was red to him, and he being across Examined by the Dutchess's council, and that Examination red to him, he signed them. Then John cury was called in and Sworn, said, I went to serve Mr. La fountain, and Mr. Lane with the Order for their Attendance. Mr. La Fountain's Wife lay in, he said he could not be forced to come, he was not a Subject of England, and is the Lady Dutchess's Servant. Mr. Lane gave me a Letter to the Clerk of the Parliament, which was red, and in it he desired further time, not having Horses, nor could ride fast. The Dutchess's council moved for Copies of the Depositions taken, and time for the duchess to be heard, and withdrew. Then the following Orders were made, ( viz.) An Order for both Parties to have Copies of the Depositions, and so much as relates to that matter in the Journal. The other for hearing the duchess by her council, on Monday next, and the Duke's council then to be present. Depositions of elinor Vaness. Die Jovis 22. Februarii, 1699. elinor Vaness Sworn, Deposeth as followeth, ( viz.) Quest. D' ye know Sir John Germaine and the duchess of Norfolk? Answ. Yes. Q. How long have you known them? A. Two Years. Q. When did you first come acquainted with them? A. Sir John Germaine's Sister hired me for a Cookmaid the Summer after the King came for England. Q. In what Month of that Year? A. In May. Q. Did you live with either of them as a servant Maid? A. I lived two Months with my Lady duchess, in Sir John Germaine's House. Q. How long did you live in the House with them? A. Till they went to Fox-Hall. Q. How long was the duchess in the House before they went to Fox-Hall? A. two Months. Q. Where was that House? A. Just over Spring Garden. Q. At the time when the Lady duchess lived with Sir John Germaine, what Company and Conversation did they keep with one another, and in what manner? A. Like Man and Wife? Q. Where was it the Lady duchess lived when you came first into England? A. In Sir John Germaine's House. Q. Where did she live then? A. The duchess lived there then. Q. How long continued she there? A. About two Months. Q. How did they live together during that time? A. Like Man and Wife. Q. Saw you them in Bed together at any time, at that place in the Cockpit? A. Yes. Q. How often? A. Many times, as often as Man and Wife she saw them in Bed, but did not put them in Bed in those two Months. Q. Did you think any otherwise but that they had been Man and Wife? A. She did not at first, but afterwards she did, and then they kept her within Doors, for fear she should tell it. Q. Whither did the duchess go after that two Months? A. To Fox-Hall. Q. How long did she live there? A. About two Years? Q. Did Sir John Germaine use to come and keep Company with the duchess there? A. Yes, He used to come and Dine with her sometimes, and he lay there sometimes. Q. What Conversation had Sir John Germaine with the duchess at Fox-Hall? A. They Conversed together as Man and Wife. Q. How long? A. Sometimes one night, sometimes two. Q. How often did he use to come thither? A. Sometimes twice, sometimes three times a week, and sometimes but once. Q. Had they one Bed or two? A. But one. Q. What Name did the duchess go by at Fox-Hall? A. By the Name of the Lady Beckman. Q. What kin was Sir John Germaine pretended to be to the Lady duchess? A. Her Brother, my Lady duchess said so. Q. Did you go with them to Fox-Hall, or not? A. She went with the Lady duchess. Q. Whose Servant was you there? A. Lady Dutchess's. Q. How long did you serve the Lady duchess. A. She stayed with her till she went to Millbanck. Q. How came you to leave their Service? A. They sent her away upon the account of the late trial. Q. Who went with you? A. Mrs. Susannah, Chambermaid to the Lady duchess, and Mr. Nicholas, that was Gentleman to Sir John Germaine. Q. What's his Name? A. Nicholas Hosier. Q. Who took care of your passage? A Nicholas Hosier. Q. Whither was you ordered to go? A. To Holland to the Hague, they paid her in full and promised fifty Livers besides. Q. Was any part of it paid, and by whom? A. She received it in four Quarters from his Brother Philip at the Hague. Q. Whose Brother? A. Sir John Germaine's Brother▪ Q. Who hired you when you came to England? A. Mr. Briane's Wife. Q. What kin is she to Sir John Germaine? A. His Sister; and they promised if matters did not go for the duchess, she would come to Holland her self, and take her into her Service again. Q. Have you seen Sir John Germaine and the duchess in Bed together at Millbank? A. Once or twice. Q. How long had the Lady duchess lived at Millbank ere you left her Service? A. Nine or ten Weeks. Q. How came you to see them in Bed together. A. By reason none was suffered to come into the Room, the Bedchamber, but she and another Maid, to bring necessaries, as Water to Wash their hands, and to clean the Room. Q. Did you see them at their undressing when they went to Bed? A. She undressed them her self, and saw them in Bed. Q. Give an account how you two came to be admitted into the Chamber, and what you saw there? A. She helped them to Bed, and saw them go to Bod together. Q. saw you them next Morning? A. Yes. Q. On what occasion came you into the Chamber in the Morning? A. She came with Chocolate, and Water to wash their Hands. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Nicholas H●sier there? A. Yes, He did the Business that she did, when she could not be present; he was Valet de chamber. Q. Was he Valet de chamber to Sir John Germaine, or to the duchess? A. He belonged to the duchess at Fox-Hall, and afterwards to Sir John Germaine. Q. Came he to Sir John Germaine before the Lady duchess went to Fox-Hall, or not? A. The duchess was at Fox-Hall when he came to Sir John Germaine. Q. Who lived with the duchess at Fox-Hall? A. Sir John Germaine's Sister. Q. Who hired you? A. Mrs. Briane, Mr. Briane's Wife. Q. Was there no other Relation of Sir John Germaine's that lived there besides? A. Mrs. Judith. Q. What Mrs. Judith, what's her name? A. She does not know. Q. What kin was Mrs. Judith to Sir John Germaine? A. His Sister. Q. Did the duchess use to go to no other place? A. None but to the Neighbouring Gardens to gather Flowers. Q. When you were at Millbank did you ever see the Dutchess's Father? A. She hath been several times at the Dutchess's Fathers, and the Lady duchess told her Father and Mother that she brought her from Holland; she dressed three Dishes of Meat by order of the duchess. Q. Who was the Lady Dutchess's Father, where did he live? A. He lived at Millbank, but could not tell his name; the Lord Peterborow, she says, but could not think on't before now. Q. When she lived with Germaine at the Cockpit, was there no other that lived with them at that time? A. No Body. Q. Did Sir John Germaine's Brother-in-Law or Sister lie in the House at any time? A. Yes, when they came first to England they used to lie there. Q. Name them? A. Mr. Briane, and his Wife. Q. Did you see any of Sir John Germaine's Relations at any time in the Room during the time that the duchess was in Bed with him? A. Yes, Mr. Briane and his Wife. Q. Was Sir John Germaine in Bed at that time with the duchess? A. Yes. elinor Vaness across Examined. Q. Was it at Fox-Hall that the Lady duchess said that Germaine was her Brother? A. Yes. Q. Did the duchess tell you that Sir John Germaine was her Brother? A. She gave it out among the Neighbours, but never told her so. Q. Was you Cookmaid? A. She was hired for Cookmaid. Q. Did you continue to act as Cookmaid? A. Yes, at Fox-Hall. Q. Was you at the Cockpit? A. She used to clean the Rooms, and no body was suffered to come into the Room but she, Mrs. Susannah, and Nicholas. Q. Was there no other Woman in the House but you? A. Yes, Mrs. Susannah. Q. Where did you see Sir John Germaine and the Lady duchess in Bed? A. At Fox-Hall. Q. When came you fr●m Holland? A. About five or six Weeks ago. Q. Where have you been since? A. She does not know no place nor Street in London. Q. How came you over? A. About a Year and half ago, she met Nicholas at Amsterdam; She asked him how he did, and if he had got a place, he answered no, but he believed he should very soon have one in England. Q. Who sent for you, or brought you over from Holland this last time? A. She met Mr. Nicholas about a Year ago, and said she had a great mind to go and live in England again, and he said he would get a place for her. Q. Who sent for her? A. Does not know. Q. When you came over, who paid your Passage, and first took Care of you? A. Nicholas hath given her what she spent since. Q. Who brought you to Town, and who furnished you with money, and where did you Land, what House did you first come to? A. She Landed at Gravesend. Q. Who received her there, or when she came to Town, brought her to any place to Lodge at? A. Nicholas brought her to a place where she was secure. Q. What place is it? A She does not know, she never was in London. Q. Did you not live at Fox-Hall, and at Sir John Germaine's House in the Cockpit? A. She was no further than those Houses, she means she was never in the City of London. Q. Where is the House she has been at these six Weeks? A. She can't tell where abouts it is. Q. Whether was you not sent for back from Holland to be a Witness? A. No, knew nothing of it till about— Now about eight or nine Weeks ago. Q. In what Street is the House you have been at? A. I Can't tell. Q. How long is it since you went into Holland, since you left the Dutchess's Service? A. About eight Years ago. Q. Did you never tell any Body the occasion of your going over? A. Yes, in Holland, but not here. Q. To whom did you tell it? A. To a great many. Q. Know you any of those to be in England, that you told it to? A. Does not know any. Q. Did you ever Discover this matter of your own account, or was you asked to do it? A. I said I would tell the Truth if I were asked. Q. Can you Name the Person that asked you? A. Mr. Nicholas. Q. Had you any Discourse about this matter about eight Weeks ago? A. When I asked Mr. Nicholas, if he could get me a place in England, I told him I would say the Truth. Q. What Discourse had you with Mr. Nicholas about it? A. I asked Mr. Nicholas whether there was any danger of any such thing, he said he knew nothing of it. Q. Did you ever discover that you were sent out of the way into Holland? A. No, Q. Whether you and this Gent. that Interprets, have not talked most of this matter before you came hither? A. No. Q. Who have you talked to about this matter, since you came into England, besides Nicholas? A. No Body. Q. Are you a Single Woman or a Married Woman? A. A single Woman. The Duke's council. Q. Was it your Business to look after the Chamber, to keep the Door constantly, or on what occasion? A. I used to Wash the Dutchess's clothes, and bring to Sir John Germaine's House, and keep the upper Rooms clean, where Sir John Germaine lay. Q. Did Susan go over with you into Holland, and come back with you? A. Mr. Nicholas brought me into a Room where she was kept, and I stayed a while with her. Q. Did Susan go with you, and come with you again? A. Nicholas, and Susan, and I, were in a Room together, and Mr. Germaine came every Night when the House was broken up, and told us what passed. Q Did Susan go to Holland with you? whether did you go before Nicholas or with him? A. Sir John Germaine ordered Nicholas and she, to go into Holland, and Nicholas went with her. Signum, elinor Vaness. Depositions of Nicholas Hauseur. Die Jovis 22. Februarii, 1699. Nicholas Hauseur Sworn. Q. WHether he knows Sir John Germaine and the duchess of Norfolk? A. Yes Sir, I understand, I know both. Q. How long have you been acquainted with Sir John Germaine, and upon what occasion? A. The first he came to know him was in Suffolk-Street. Q. Whether ever he was a Servant to him? A. Yes, I was a Servant to him there. Q. When was it you first came into Sir John Germaine's Service? A. It was above half a Year before King James went away. Q. Did you live with Sir John or the duchess? A. With Sir John Germaine. Q. Where did he dwell at that time? A. He had Lodgings at the Golden Ball. Q. Was you with him afterwards when he was at the Cockpit? A. Yes, and I lived with him at the Cockpit too. Q. At that time did you know the duchess of Norfolk? A. I knew her, because they told me she was so. Q. Was there any Lady that lived with Sir John Germaine at the Cockpit? A. At that time there was Mrs. Brienne, Sir John Germaine's Sister. Q. Was there any body else used to lodge there? A. There was none there but her at first. Q. Was there any other afterwards? A. Yes, about two or three Months after he was there, but I don't justly know how long afterwards. Q. Who was there then? A. There was his Sister, by Name Mrs. Judith Germaine. Q. Do you know any thing about the duchess of Norfolk at that time? A. Yes. Q. What Conversation had Sir John Germaine, and the duchess of Norfolk? A. She was in the House, and they eat and drank together, and lay together. Q. Where was that? A. At Sir John Germaine's House next the Cockpit. Q. How came you to know they lay together? A. Because I was his Valet de chamber, and helped to undress and put him to Bed. Q. Where was the duchess at that time? A. The duchess was sometimes a-bed, and sometimes not, according as he came home, early or late. Q. How long was the duchess with Sir John Germaine at the Cockpit? A. She was at the Cockpit before I came there. Q. Whether he went from Sir John Germaine's Service, after he came to live there? A. He left his Service several times. Q. When was the first time he went from Sir John Germaine's Service? A. The first time he left his Service was in Suffolk-Street. Q. How long was it before he came to live with him again? A. He came into his Service again, the Summer after this present King came into England. Q. What time of the Summer was it? A. He can't justly tell that. Q. Whether the duchess was there before he came to the Cockpit or not? A. She was there before. Q. How long continued she there? A. About fifteen Days after he came to Sir John Germaine. Q. In what manner did Sir John Germaine and the duchess live there during those fifteen Days? A. He says he hath already explained th●t before, he used to undress him and put him a-bed together with the duchess. Q. Where did the duchess live after she went from Sir John Germaine's House? A. She went and dwelled at Fox-Hall. Q. By what Name did she go when she was at Fox-Hall? A. She went by the Name of my Lady Beckman. Q. Whether he went with her, or continued in Sir John Germaine's Service? A. He went with my Lady duchess for some time, by Sir John Germaine's Order, he was sometimes with the one and sometimes with the other, sometimes one paid him and sometimes the other. Q. Whether Sir John Germaine went to Fox-Hall? A. He came there sometimes, he has seen him there several Nights. Q. Whether he stayed all Night there? A. Sometimes. Q. Whether he was alone, or any Body was with him? A. There was some Body lay with him. Q. Who upon his Oath? A. Madam the duchess, Madam Beckman. Q. How know you that? A. Because he undressed him when they lay together. Q. How often was that? A. He can't justly say how often, but it was several times. Q. What Service was he in when he went out of England, and upon what Occasion? A. He left Sir John Germaine's Service at that time when the trial was depending between the Duke and duchess of Norfolk. Q. By whose Order did you leave that Service? A. He desired leave. Q. How came you to leave that Service at that time? A. Because he was afraid he should be obliged to come and speak the Truth of what he had seen. Q. Whether any went with him, and who went from their Service when he went? A. There were two Servants of the Dutchess's. Q. What was their Names? A. One is called Susanna Barrington, and the other elinor Vaness. Q. Whither did they go? A. He was ordered by Sir John Germaine to hire Lodgings for them where they should be unknown and private. Q. What was the reason why they should be in private? A. He knows no other reason, but the difference before the Parliament between the Duke and duchess of Norfolk; he was obliged to take the Lodgings because the Wind was contrary for them to go for Holland, and took private Lodgings for them by the Order of Sir John Germaine. Q. What became of Susan Barrington after that? A. She stayed about three Weeks with him, and then Sir John Germaine came and fetched her back again, and where he carried her he does not know. Q. What became of Vanness and yourself afterwards? A. When the Wind favoured we passed the Seas. Q. What time of the Year was it? A. It was about Easter that he came into Holland. Q. What time he went from his Service and was ordered to be private? A. It was about the time of the trial. Q. Whether he hath any Paper under Sir John Germaine's Hand for his Discharge? We do not ask it, but only to refresh his Memory. The Paper was dated, Eighth February, One thousand six hundred ninety two; reckoning the Year to begin the first of January. Whether that was the time he left the Dutchess's Service? A. Yes, about six or eight Weeks after he went to Sea. Q. Where did you stay in the mean time? A. In the Minories near the Tower. Q. How came you to stay there so long after you were out of Service, before you went beyond Sea? A. Because the Wind was contrary. Q. Who went over with him, what became of elinor Vaness? A. She went with him to Holland. Q. Who bare her Charges thither? A. Sir John Germaine gave him seven Guineas to pay for the expenses that he was at here, and to across the Sea. Q How long after that he continued in Holland, before he came into England? A. He did not stay long in Holland, but went into his own Country. Q. How long was it before you return'd to England? A. The Summer following. Q. Was he sent for over into England, and by whom? A. Yes, Sir John Germaine sent to him often, by himself and by his Brother in Holland. Q. When he came over in the Summer following( in Ninety two) whose Service did he come to? A. He returned to Sir John Germaine? Q. Where did he live at that time? A. Where he lives at present, at the Cock-pit. Q. Whether after he came back in the Year One thousand six hundred ninety two, he observed any Conversation between Sir John Germaine and the duchess? A. Yes, he says he saw them come together at their House. Q. What more? A. He again then saw them a-bed together. Q. Where? A. In the House of Sir John Germaine. Q. How often may that be? A. He can't justly tell how often. Q. Whether it was often or not? A. No, he can't say very often. Q. When was the last time he ever saw them a-bed together? A. The last time he saw them a-bed was not at the Cock-pit. Q. Where then? A. It was at the Dutchess's own House, where, as he believes, she lives still. Q. Whereabouts in the Town? A. It is upon a Corner of the Park, near my Lord of Oxford's. Q. How long ago since he saw them last a-bed together? A. He can't justly tell the time, it was about two or three Months before he went away. Q. Did he mean the first, second, or third time? A. It was two or three Months before he went away the last time. Q. In what Year did he go away the last time? Let him look upon any Note he hath to refresh his Memory. Accordingly he looked upon a Paper. A. 'tis the twenty seventh of April, One thousand six hundred ninety six. Q. Did you go away then the last time? A. Yes, he says, that 'twas the last time he left his Service. Q. How long before that did you see them a-bed together? A. He says it was about two Months and a half before he left the Service. Q. When my Lady duchess lived at Fox-hall, whether he can name any Body else that was a Servant in the House at that time? A. Yes, there was elinor Vaness. Q. What Servant was she? A. She looked to the Kitchen. Q. Whether he has seen her in the Chamber when the duchess was a-bed there? A. Yes, very often. Q. How came she that was Cookmaid to be in the Chamber? A. He says he can't tell the reason, or what business she had there, but there she was for one thing or other, best known to her self, he does not know. Q. Whether when the duchess was at Fox-Hall, any Relations of Sir John Germaine came to her there? A. Yes, they would come and see her. Q. Who were they? A. Mrs. Brienne and Mrs. Judith, he says he does not remember that Mrs. Brienne has lain there, but Mrs. Judith has. Q. Where it was, and upon what Occasion he met with elinor Vaness after he carried her over into Holland? A. I met her in Amsterdam. Q. Whether he came over into England with her, and upon what occasion? A. I met her at Amsterdam, and she asked me what business I had there, whether I had a Master, and I said no. Q. When was that? A. About a Year and half, to his remembrance. Q. Whether he came over with her the last time? A. Yes, he came over into England with her in Company, about six or seven Weeks since. Q. Where has she been since she came into England? A. She was in Lodgings. Q. Where? A. He put her into private Lodgings, that she should be secure. Q. Why did you put her into private Lodgings? A. Because he was afraid, in the Circumstances that he is now, that some body might give them some Affront, or do them an Injury, and therefore he thought it best to be in some place of security. Q. What particular Reason had he why he should take private Lodgings, or have that Fear upon him? A. He says, when he was last here, Sir John Germaine came up one Night in a great Passion, and swore, and said, some body would betray him. Q. I desire he might repeat that again? A. Sir John Germaine came one Night up Stairs, and said, that Nicholas this Rogue would betray him. Q. Who was that? A. He says 'twas one Nicholas Rushett, that served him or both he can't tell, but he was in his service, that he heard these words, and that he thought in these Circumstances, the securest way would be to take private Lodgings. Q. What brought him into England the last time? Whether he was spoken to, to come, and for what purpose? A. He says, that about two or three Years ago he happened to meet with a Friend, and he desired him if he heard of a good place for him in England, to let him know of it, for he would go and serve there again. Q. Whether he was spoken to, to come over, or was elinor Vaness spoken to, and what was the occasion? A. My Lord asked him if he would speak the Truth and do him any service, and whether he would bring this Girl along with him. Q. Who was it that spake to him? A. My Lord Duke and my Lord Howard. Q. When was that? A. It was about a Year ago. Q. Where was he at that time? A. He was in London. Q. Did he go over of his own accord, or was he sent into Holland, who it was that sent for him over, and for what? A. It was a Friend of his Acquaintance, that he desired in case he heard of a place to sand for him. Q. Who sent for elinor Vaness over? A. He says, that after he had promised my Lord Duke and Lord Howard to speak the Truth of what he knew, they desired him that if he met with elinor Vaness, to desire her to come over and speak the Truth of what she knew. Q. How long after did you meet with elinor Vaness? A. 'tis about twelve Months since I met with her. Q. When was the first time that he spake to elinor Vaness about her coming over to speak the Truth? A. 'tis about a year since. Q. How long is it since they resolved to come over? A. About twelve Months. Q. Whether he was acquainted with elinor Vaness, before he met with her in Sir John Germaine's Service? A. He says never. Q. You say you went from Sir John Germaine's Service in Suffolk-Street, and you say when you came to him again, he lived in the Cockpit, Did you find elinor Vaness there then? A. He says he found her at the Cockpit. Q. When he waited on Sir John Germaine in his Chamber, who waited on the duchess in her Chamber? A. There was Susanna Barrington, and elinor Vaness. Q. But who waited upon her in her Chamber? A. Susanna Barrington did, to dress her. Q. Whether he had seen any of Sir John Germaine's Relations in the Chamber, when this Lady and Sir John Germa●ne were a-bed together? A. Yes. Q. Name them? A. He says, he saw Mrs. Brienne, and Mr. Daniel Germaine there. Q. Did you see Mrs. Judith there? A. He does not remember that he saw Mrs. Judith in the Room while they were a-bed together, but the other he hath seen when they were a-bed together, but at different times. Q. Whether ever he hath seen the duchess at any other place? A. He has been at the chapel with her, and else-where. Q. Where? A. At my Lord Peterborows, and in her own House? Cross-Examined. Q. I desire he may reduce this to a certainty, what time he went out of England, and look upon his Note again? He looked again upon his Note, and 'twas dated Eighth February, one thousand six hundred ninety two. Q. How long after this he went out of England? A. He went away as soon as the wind was favourable. Q. Can he recollect the time? A. He says 'twas sometime before Easter, for he came into Holland about Easter. Q. When he told his Grace the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Howard he would be true to them, whether he was in any Service at that time? A. No, he was in no Service at that time. Q. How long had he been out of employ? A. He has none yet. Q. But how long had he been out of Employ or Service, before he made this Proposal to the Duke or my Lord Howard? A. He says he went away about the twenty seventh of June. Q. Is it the same year his Paper speaks of, that he spake to my Lord Duke? A. No, 'twas not; he spake to my Lord Duke about twelve Months ago. Q. But how long had he been out of Service when he spake to my Lord Duke, when did he leave Sir John Germaine the last time? A. 'tis about three Years and half ago, 'twill be four Years in June next. Q. Has he been in any Servine since that time? A. No, he hath not. Q. How has he lived since then? A. He says, he has something of his own in his own Country, upon which he may subsist some time. Q. I think he said, he saw Sir John Germaine and the duchess in Bed together, in the House where she now lives? A. Yes. Q. Then I desire he will tell, if he knows any of the Dutchess's Servants that were about her at that time? A. Yes, he does. Q. Then, that he will name them? A. Henry Keymer. Q. What's become of him? A. They told him he was dead, and there was Susan Barrington. Q. I desire he will tell of some of the Servants that lived with the duchess at that time, besides that person that is dead, and the other which is gone beyond Sea, as they say? Mr. Northy answered. We don't say she is gone beyond Sea. A. He does not know any other. Q. Then that he will tell what Month he saw them in Bed together? A. He can't Remember the Month or the day, but if they will ask him the Reason why he Remembers it, he will tell it them. Q. If you can come to any certainty, about the time of the Year or the Month? A. He can't say the Month, or any particular time. Q. What Servant he saw in the House, or who let him in? A. He had himself the Key of the Lower Room, and could come in when he pleased. Q. Whose Servant was he at this time he speaks of; whether he was a Servant to the duchess or to Sir John Germaine? A. He was Servant to Sir John Germaine? Q. He was saying he could tell a Reason to fix the time, let him recollect himself of the time? A. He can't Remember the time, but he came into the Room to bring a Clyster, and he was desired to stay without a little, till my Lady duchess got up. Q. That he may be positive whether he had a Key to the Lower Room of the Dutchess's House? A. He says, he had a Key of the Door that goes into the Park, and he could come into the House by it, for it was the Key of the House. Q. What Servant was it that brought him up, for that Key only let him into the lower Room? A. Sometimes Susan Barrington, and sometimes Henry Keymer. Q. What Room the Lady duchess lay in? A. 'tis a Room that looks into the Park. Q. 'tis not a Ground-Room, I suppose? A. No, 'tis up Stairs. Q. How many Stories? A. He can't tell what Degree it was. Q. Being asked that question again upon the Reading his Depositions, he says, he can't tell how many Stories, but if you please, he will describe the coming into the Room as well as he can. Q. Describe the coming into the Room? A. That as you come upon the left hand, there is a way to go into the Dutchess's Room; when you have passed the little Chamber Door, you go into a place full of China, and after that you come to the Dutchess's Bedchamber; on the other side going up Stairs, there is a little Room, where Susan told him she lay, and afterwards you come into a Room, where the Chimney is as he thinks on the Right Hand, and he thinks there are two Windows that look into the Street, he is not very certain, and in the Room upon the left hand, there is a Door into a great Room, and from that great Room you can go into my Lady Dutchess's Room. It was so at that time to the best of his Remembrance. Q. How many Rooms are there upon a Floor? A. There are a matter of four Rooms upon a Floor. Q. Whether he has spoken with any Body that he knows is acquainted with this House, since he was examined here before? A. He says, he has spoken to no body since, that has given him any account of the House. Q. Which side of the Park does the Windows of my Lady Dutchess's Room look into? A. Towards the Pond where the Brass Statue is. Q. Does the Bedchamber look towards the Brass Statue? A. He durst not go to look out at the Window for fear of being discovered, but he could see the Water. Q. Whether he knows the Horse-Guards? A. Yes. Q. Whether he knows Arlington House? A. Yes. Q. Whether the Window does look towards Arlington House, or the Horse-Guards? A. He hath been there several times, but 'twas not his business to go to the Window, but when he was in the Room he could see the Water. Q. Whether he could tell which way the Window looked? A. He did not live in the House, but went there sometimes upon Messages, and when he was there, 'twas not his business to go to the Window, but he could see the Water when he was in the Room. Q. Whether the Window was on that side of the little Door that he came in, or on the other side? A. Upon the left hand coming in, he says he has explained himself as to the entering in, and he can say no more to it. Q. Was it one or two pair of Stairs that the duchess lay? A. He can't be positive whether one or two pair of Stairs. Q. Who brought him up that time he brought the Clyster? A. Susan Barrington. Q. Who told him at the Cockpit 'twas the duchess of Norfolk? A. Sir John Germaine, her self, and the whole House told him so. Q. Did he before that time know the duchess? A. No. Q. Did you never see other Women there besides this Lady? A. Yes. Q. Did you know all the rest that you saw there? A. No, he did not know them all. Q. Whether he was not told the rest of the Women were of great Quality too? A. He never was told so, nor did he inform himself whether they were or no. Q. At Fox-Hall, and at the Cockpit, I think he spake as if he undressed Sir John Germaine and the duchess, whether he undressed them both? A. Not the duchess. Q. What Year it was they were at Fox-Hall? A. It was before he went to Ireland, and after he came from Ireland, but he can't precisely tell the time. Q. Whether he has been in any Service since One thousand six hundred ninety six, when he left Sir John Germaine's? A. No. Q. Whether when he came about a Year ago into England, there was Application made to him in order to make a Discovery, or whether he offered of himself to make it? A. He never did offer himself. Q. Who was it that first asked him the question? A. 'twas my Lord Howard. Q. Where did you meet my Lord Howard, and upon what occasion? A. He says, that 'twas that Person that he had addressed himself to, to get him into Service here, that was the occasion of their meeting together. Q. Did you know the Lord Howard before? A. No. Q. Where was the place they met? A. He called him to his House. Q. My Lord, or that Person? A. He says that Person to which he addressed himself to get a Place, told him he had found one. Q. Name that Person. A. Richardson. Q. Where does he live? A. I don't know. Q. Were you acquainted with him before? A. Yes. Q. Where had you been acquainted with him? A. At London, 'tis a Woman. Q. Whether he can describe the Room, or the Furniture of the Room where this noble Lady and Sir John Germaine were a-bed together, where she lives now? A. He cannot remember any thing of the Furniture. Q. Was it hung or wainscoted? A. He says he can't tell, and yet he was there often. Q. Pray who was the Clyster for? A. For Mr. Germaine. Q. Where was it to be administered? A. A-bed. Q. Who was a-bed? A. My Lady duchess was a-bed too. Q. Was it to be administered at the same time as he and the duchess were a-bed together? A. No. Q. Was the duchess there? A. He laid the Syringe to the Fireside till such time as the duchess rose. Q. Apothecaries are exact in point of time in making their Bills. A. He says, I composed the Clyster myself, but he did not compose it at the Dutchess's House, but at Mr. Germaine's. Q. Did you stay with Sir John Germaine till all was over? A. No, as soon as he had given it him, he went home to Mr. Germaine's House. Q. Whether he pretends to speak of any other time that he saw the duchess in bed with him at her House in Duke's street, but when he carried him the Clyster? A. Yes, my Lord, he says he has. Q. Let him tell the times and Circumstances. A. He says he can't very well remember the times, but he had sometimes business there to bring and carry Letters. Q. When was that time of the Clyster? A. It was about two Months before he left them. Q. Was that the last time he saw them together? A. That was the last time. Q. How long before that did he see them together? A. Long before that time in the same House. Q. He says he has seen Sir John Germaine and the duchess in bed together elsewhere, did he never see them in bed together at the Millbank? A. He has seen them there two or three times a-bed together. Q. When did your Master order you to prepare the Clyster? A. He had Orders to come and wait for Mr. Germaine at the Dutchess's, and that Mr. Germaine coming to the Dutchess's late, he ordered him to bring the Clyster next Morning. Q. At what time he came the next Morning? A. He had Order to bring it at nine of the Clock, and he brought it at the appointed hour, and he waited in the little Room where Susannah was, till he was called in. Q. He says he waited for Sir John Germaine by his Orders at the Dutchess's till it was late, which of the Dutchess's Servants did he keep company with? A. He says he remembers very well it was Mr. Keymer. Q. Whether that time that he saw Mr. Germaine and the duchess in bed together at Millbank, if it was after the first time he was sent out of England, when the Bill was depending before the Lords? A. 'twas after. Q. What Year did you see them a-bed together at Millbank? A. It was a day or two before Mrs. Davenant dyed. A day or two before she died Mr. Germaine came to Millbank, and stayed there about eight Days. Nicola Hauseur. Depositions of William Bayly. Die Sabbati 24. Februarii, 1699. William Bayly Sworn. Q. D'YE know Sir John Germaine and the duchess of Norfolk? A. Yes. Q. Was you Servant to Sir John Germaine? A. Yes. Q. In what Capacity? A. Three Years I wore his Livery, and three Years I was his Steward. Q. When did you first come to live with him? A. Three weeks before the King was crowned. Q. Was there any Conversation between Sir John Germaine and the duchess of Norfolk, d'ye know that they lived together, or kept Company one with another? A. No, I never knew them live together, but seen them keep Company together, but never saw any Incivility between them. Q. Where saw you them in Company together? A. I saw them in Company in my Master's House. Q. How long ago? A. About five Years ago. Q. Where did your Master then live? A. He lived then where he does now. Q. Did the duchess of Norfolk ever lie there? A. Never, to my knowledge. Q. What was the time she usually came there? A. Commonly in an Afternoon. Q. How often have you seen her there? A. Two or three times. Q. At what time did she use to come, and at what time did she go away again? A. She used to come there about four or five a Clock in the Afternoon, and might stay there about two or three hours? Q. You are upon your Oath, and pray tell whether you ever saw them in Bed together? A. By all that's good I never saw them in Bed together? Q. Did the Lady duchess use to come thither masked, or unmasked? A. She use to come masked, but put it off when she came into the House. Q. Who used to come with her? A. There used to come Mr. Keemer with her. Q. What Company? did no other use to come with her to Sir John Germaine's House? A. Yes, another Servant, Mr. Carter. Q. Who was in the Room with them in Sir John Germaine's House? A. Mr. Keemer stayed commonly with them all the time they Dined, and after Dinner, the other Servants and I were in the next Room to them, and commonly when they had occasion, they would call Mr Keemer. Q. Was there no other Servant but Mr. Keemer that they used to call upon? A. Yes, a Gentlewoman, Mrs. Susan Barrington. Q. Have you seen her lately? A. No, not these six Months. Q. D'ye know, if your Master used to go to the Dutchess's House? A. Yes, I have heard so, but I can't say so positively. Q. Did you ever go with them to the Dutchess's House? A. No, but I have gone with them as far as the Horse-Ferry. Q. When was the last time you saw them together? A. I can't tell, I have been out of my Master's Service these four Years. Q. How long before you left your Master's Service d'ye think it was, that you saw them together? A. I can't tell, but I think it might be 'bout half a Year. Q. He has gone with his Master as far as the Horse-Ferry, pray then let him be asked where he left his Master? A. I left him at the Horse-Ferry. Q. What Orders did your Master give you when you left him? A. He Ordered me to go home, and keep the House. Q. D'ye know whither your Master was gone then? A. I may judge he went to the duchess, but I can't swear he went there. Q. Did Sir John Germaine come home to bed that Night? A. Some Nights he came, and some he he did not. Q. Did you carry clothes to him at any time? A. I have carried clothes for him to Mr. Keemer, the Dutchess's Servant. Q. Where did Keemer live, when you carried the clothes to him? A. In a little Street going to the Bowling-Alley. Q. Who did he live withal? A. He told me he lived with the duchess, but he was a House-Keeper, and had a House there. Q. Did you always carry clothes to Mr. Keemer for your Master? A. Sometimes I carried his clothes to Mr. Keemer, and sometimes Mr. Keemer came to me for them. Q. Did you apprehended that your Master was then at the Dutchess's, or at Mr. Keemer's? A. I can't tell where he was, how can I tell, I Answer as punctually as I can. Q. When Keemer came to you for clothes, what account did he give to you, where your Master was? A. He gave me no account. Q Whether did you ever see the duchess and your Master together at any other place, but at his own House? A. Never. Q. When you carried the clothes to Keemer's, did your Master lie at home that Night, or not? A. Sometimes he lay at home, and sometimes he did not, many times my Master has been at the duchess of Mazareen's, from four a Clock this day, till twelve the next. Q. Repeat it again, for that's material? A. My Master has taken his Chair at his own Back-door, at four a Clock on a Saturday, and not come home till Sunday at twelve a Clock. Q. Where has your Master been at that time, when he stayed out all Night? A. At the duchess of Mazareen's, and when he lost his Gold, he has sent home to me for more Gold. Q. Did he ever sand to you for any clothes when he was there? A. Never. Q. D'ye know where he was when he sent to you for clothes? A. No indeed. Q. D'ye know Nicholas Hosier? A. Yes, I know him very well, I saw him here just now. Q. Did you know him when he waited on Sir John Germaine? A. Yes, he succeeded me, and I succeeded him again. Q. You was Footman when you went to Sir John Germaine, when was that, and what Year did you leave off your Livery, and serve him as his Steward? A. I can't tell. Q. He succeeded Hosier, and Hosier succeeded him, pray let it be asked him, at what time he came into his Master's Service, when he succeeded Hosier? A. 'twas about the same time that the trial was here before. Q. How long was it e're Hosier returned again, to serve Sir John Germaine? A. To the best of my knowledge it was three Years, for I received and paid money for my Master, and Hosier was away all that time, Hosier won't deny it, if he were called in. Q. You say that you succeeded Hosier at the time when the trial was here, how long before that time did you return to your Master's Service? A. About three weeks before the King was crwoned, I came to my Master and served him three Years, and wore his Livery, and he was pleased after Mr. Hosier went away to make me lay out his money, to be Caterer for him, and to keep his Gold, and to the best of my knowledge, 'twas three Years before Nicholas succeeded me again. Q. How long was it before he came back again to serve Sir John Germaine? Q. Before I saw him in my Master's House, and that he took my place from me, 'twas three Years. Q. Did you not see Mr. Hosier in England before that time that you went out of your Master's Service? A. No, I beg your Lordships Pardon, I will recollect my memory, for that as I have a Soul to be saved, now it is come into my mind, my Master sent for Nicholas into Holland about a Year before Nicholas did come over; my Master told me before he came, that he would sand for Nicholas again, and that I and Nicholas should have the Charge of his House. Nicholas came over, and we had the play at our own House, Nicholas stayed there some time, but he did not like his business, and so he went away again, because he could not have all the money? Q. About what time did Nicholas come into England, after the trial was before this House? A. I can't Resolve you. Q. Had you no Certificate of leave, or discharge, when you left your Master's Service? A. No, my Master was so kind, that he brought me immediately into the Excise, as soon as I was out of his Service. William Bayly Cross-Examin'd. Lunae 26. Februarii, 1699. Q. When you carried the clothes to Sir John Germaine's, was it the time when you wore his Livery? A. I carried no clothes to him when I wore his Livery. Q. Had you any Discourse with the Dutchess's Agents since Saturday Night? A. No, I have not seen them, nor don't know them. Q. He says he saw the duchess of Norfolk at the Cockpit, at Sir John Germaine's House where he now dwells; pray recollect yourself, that you may be positive as to the time? A. I can't Resolve you as to the Year, 'tis so long ago, I believe it is about five Years ago. Q. Can you be positive that it is not more? A. To the best of my knowledge 'twas about five Years. Q. Can you be so far certain, that you can say 'twas not more? A. I can't swear it was more, but I believe it may be five Year more or less. Q. You say, you saw her two or three times there, was it all in one Year, near the same time or Month, can you reduce it to any certainty? A. I believe it might be in Summer. Q. All in one Summer? A. Yes, I believe all in one, to the best of my knowledge, there was never a Winter between the time that I saw her first and last. Q. Did you know the duchess of Norfolk, before that time that you saw her in your Master's House, and took her to be the duchess of Norfolk? A. I did not know her before the trial was here. Q. Did you know her any time after that trial, before the time you saw her in Sir John Germaine's House? A. I was not sure that it was she, only as I had it from Mr. Keemer. Q. Then you don't undertake of your own knowledge to say that it was she? A. I can't swear that 'twas she, but as Mr. Keemer told me, I don't know whether I should know her now or not, 'tis so long since I saw her, I believe it is five Years if not more. Q. Did you see her before or after you saw her at Sir John Germaine's House? A. The first time they told me 'twas she, I met her in her Coach in the Pallmall, with two other Gentlewomen with her, a little before the trial was here, I followed the Coach, and the duchess went into some Ladies House in Dover-Street, and they told me the duchess was the first Woman that went out, this is the first time that e're I saw her, that I know of, till such time as Keemer told me 'twas she. Q. Whether do you know Nicholas? A. I know him very well. Q. Can you tell how long it is since he came last into England? A. No, he has been here two or three times in England, since I left my Master. Q. How long before this Examination, saw you him, or spoken with him? A. I did not see him above these three Years. Q. How long before you came hither as a Witness did you see him? A. I have not seen him these three Years till I came hither to be a Witness, and did admire to see him here, that a man that had got his bread under his Master should appear here against him, it is so ungrateful a thing. Q. How came it that you had so much curiosity as to follow the Dutchess's Coach? A. I had a mind to satisfy my own Humour. Q. D'ye know how Nicholas lived since he was out of his Master's Service? A. No, I never saw him, nor had any account of him at all, nor have seen him these three Years till now. Q. Did you know when Nicholas and elinor Vaness went out of England? A. No, I neither knew when they went, nor when they came. Q. Don't you know what business he went out of England about, the time you took his Place? A. I know not the business he went out of England upon. Q. Did he at that time tell you he was to get away to hid himself from coming hither? A. No, I heard not one Word from him at the time of his parting. Q. What reason had you to say upon the first sight of Hauseur that he was ungrateful for coming hither? A. I should think myself ungrateful to eat a Gentleman's Bread seven Years, and to do him all the Spite and Malice I could. Q. Repeat those words? A. I should think myself very ungrateful to prosecute, if I should do any harm to a Master that I had served so many Years, I should think myself very ungrateful, let him think of himself what he pleases. Q. He added some other words? A. For any thing I know it is Spite and Malice. Q. Where did you live, when you followed the Dutchess's Coach? A At Mr. Germaine's. Q. This Man is a Witness, and so is Hosier, let him explain himself what he means; and wherein there is any Difference between him and Hosier, for both are Witnesses? A. I say, I should think myself very ungrateful, if I would do any harm to a man whose Bread I had eat so long, and had got so much money under him. Q. What harm does Hosier do, being a Witness against the duchess of Norfolk, what harm is that to Sir John Germaine? A. I don't know. Q. D'ye reckon it ungrateful to speak the truth to the prejudice of a Master? A. No, I would not speak an untruth for all the Masters in the World. Q. Where is there any fault more in Hosier than in you? A. I know not. Q. Whether did elinor Vaness live with Sir John Germaine when you lived there? A I know not who she is. Q. This Woman that was here as a Witness. A. Yes she lived there. Q. What time went she away from Sir John Germaine's Service? A. I know not, I cannot tell indeed. signed William Bayly. Die Martis 5o Martii, 1699. council and Witnesses being called in for the duchess of Norfolk,( and the Duke's council being present,) the Examinations of the Witnesses, taken Yesterday in Short-hand and transcribed, were red to them, and subscribed, ( viz.) Die Lunae 4o Martij, 1699. Thomas Hawksworth Sworn, Deposeth as fozoweth. Quest. DO you know elinor Vaness? and did you live in the duchess of Norfolk's Family? Answ. I came to live with the duchess about October, 1691. and left her in September, about two Years within two Months: elinor Vaness lived there when I lived there, and was Cook-Maid. Q. When did she leave the Dutchess's Service? A. About the beginning of January, or the latter end of December, 1691. Q. On what Occasion went she away? A. She was turned away, to the best of my remembrance, for keeping Company with Dutch-men. Q. Whether used she any other Office but in the kitchen? or had she access to the Dutchess's Chamber? A. Never; she was not allowed to come any higher than the first Floor: She used to clean that Room next the Street, one pair of Stairs next the Door, and the back-Parlour even with that, but was not suffered to come into the Dutchess's Chamber. Q. Who waited upon the duchess in her Chamber? A. Frances Knight; she was constantly in the Dutchess's Chamber, and used to warm her Bed. Q. You say that Vaness was allowed to come no higher than the first Floor; Explain that. A. The kitchen is underground backward; that Room Vaness cleaned was even with the Street, a Ground-Room; the Landry-Maid clean'd the next pair of Stairs. Q. What was the Landry-Maid's Name? A. Susan; she's dead. Q. Do you know how long? A. No. Q. Did you ever see Vaness in the Dutchess's Chamber? A. Never in my life; I never heard she was allowed to come there. Q. How long is it since you lived with the duchess? A. About six or seven Years, or very near it. Q. D'ye remember the Bill that was brought into Parliament against the duchess, while you lived there? A. I came to the duchess the October before that Bill was brought in. Q. Was Vaness turned away before that? A. She was gone a Month or thereabouts before that. Q. D'ye remember the Month? A. To the best of my remembrance, 'twas about the latter end of December, or the beginning of January. Q. Was there any stir about the Dutch Foot-Soldiers haunting Vaness? A. I never saw any, but have heard the Servants say they did. Q. Can you say what time it was? Was it before or after the Bill? A. Before I heard any thing of the Bill she was gone. Cross-Examin'd. Q. Where do you live now? A. With Sir Thomas Barnardiston. Q. What Station were you in, when you lived with the duchess? A. A Foot-man. Q. Did you know Hauseur then? A. No. Q. Where did the duchess live when you came first to her? A. Upon the Row between the Horse-Ferry and Mill-Bank. Q. How long did you live there? A. A Fortnight or thereabouts, not much more. Q. Do you know where she lived before? A. No. Q. Do you know Sir John Germaine? And, on the Oath you have taken, Did he ever come to the Dutchess's House while you lived with her? A. I never saw him in the House; I never saw any unhansom thing by the duchess all the time I lived with her. Q. Did you never see Sir John Germaine with her? A. No, never; and I had the privilege of the first Floor and the second Floor, and helped to rub the Rooms, and sometimes I rubbed the Lodging-Room. Q. Had you the privilege of going up stairs in the Morning? A. No, it was one Peacock that rubbed the Room above stairs. Q. Did you know Vaness? Was she Servant to the duchess when you lived there? A. Yes, she was. Q. Can you be positive as to the Time of her going away? A. As near as I can tell, it was in the beginning of January, 1692. I came in the October before, and she went away the January following. Q. Were you by when she was discharged? A. No. Q. Who paid her her Wages? A. I can't tell. Q. Did you never see Vaness in the Dutchess's Chamber? A. Never. Q. Did you attend at the Dutchess's Chamber in the Morning? A. Not constantly; we took it by turns. Q. Did you never attend in her Chamber w●en she was a bed? A. No. Q. Who was it of her Women that attended in her Chamber? A. Susan— Frances Knight, and Susan Barrington. Q. When did you see Susan Barrington last? A. About five Years ago. Q. Did she constantly attend in the Dutchess's Chamber? A. She and Mrs. Knight carried Coals constantly to warm the Bed? Q. How old was you when you lived with the duchess? A. About Eighteen Years old. Q. How old are you now? A. I think, about Seven and twenty. THOMAS HAWKSWORTH. Die Lunae 4o Martij, 1699. Jonas Peacock Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. DID you live with the duchess of Norfolk, in 1691? Answ. 'tis six Years since I left her Service, last January, or thereabouts; I lived two years and a half with her, or thereabouts; I came in August, and stayed till January two years following, or thereabouts. Q. Did you live with the duchess, when the first trial, as they call it, came on in Parliament? A. Yes, I lived with her before and after. Q. Did you know Vaness? A. I knew one, whose Name was called Lena. Q. What was her Business? A. Below stairs in the kitchen; I never saw her in any other Room, but the outer-Room next to the Street, and I was there all the while she was there, and after she was gone. Q. Did you ever see her in the Dutchess's Bed-Chamber? A. No; the Work she was employed about was dirty Work; I never saw her clean, but nasty, and could not eat the Victuals of her dressing. Q. Was you there before Vaness? A. Yes, I was in the House some time before her Grace came over, to help the Upholder, and to carry Looking-glasses and Stands. Q. Whence did she come over? A. She came to Mill-Bank, but I know not when she came over: My Lady Peterburgh ordered me to do what I did. Q. Was you Servant there to the duchess, before she came over? A. I never saw my Lady duchess, before she came there, except some Years before, at Drayton, when he lived with her. Q. Who hired you? A. I came there by the Lady Peterburgh's Order, and had my Victuals at my Lord Peterburgh's. Q. Who hired you? A. I was not hired at all. Q. How long did you live at Mill-Bank? A. I lived about two years and a quarter, or somewhat more. Q. What was your proper Business when you lived with the duchess? A. When the duchess went abroad, I went with the Coach; and when she supped or dined at home, I laid the Cloth, Forks and Spoons. Q. Did you ever wait above stairs? A. Yes, I have waited above stairs. Q. Who waited upon the duchess in her Chamber? A. Frances Knight, one Susan, and one Susannah. Q. Upon your Oath, Did you ever see this Woman, Helena, go into the Dutchess's Bed-Chamber? A. I never once saw her there, all the time I stayed there; I rubbed the Bed-Chamber with a long Rubbing-Brush; I never saw her there, nor above stairs. Q. Do you know at what time it was she came to live with my Lady duchess? A. Yes; she came while I was there. Q. Did you live with the duchess, before she came to Mill-Bank? A. I lived at no other place with the duchess, but at Mill-Bank, and at Drayton. Q. D'ye know how Vaness left the Dutchess's Service? and why? A. Yes; upon Complaints of Disorders, and her ill Dressing the Victuals. Q. What Disorders? A. There were Men came to the Door to inquire for her, twice, or more. Q. Did you see the Fellows? A. Yes, I saw the Fellows, they came to the Door in the dusk of the Evening, and I acquainted the duchess with it, and told her Grace, I did not think it safe for her House, because I had the Charge of Silver Spoons and Forks. Q. What sort of Men were they? A. One of them appeared to me to be a Foot-Soldier, in a Blue Coat. Q In what manner was she put away, or left the House? A. Upon these Complaints, the duchess said she would turn her away. Q. Did you hear the duchess say so? A. Yes. Q. Was that before the trial at the Lord's House, or after? A. To the best of my remembrance, it was before the trial, the latter end of December, or the beginning of January, but I can't be positive; I think 'twas the latter end of December. Q. Did she go away before the trial, or not? A. I think, before the trial, but I am not sure: Yes, at the time of the trial, I remember another Cook. Q. Are you sure of it? A. Yes, I am sure of it; 'twas the Coach-man's Wife, one Gosling. Q. D'ye know Hauseur, or Nicola? A. No. Q. You lived at Mill-Bank two years? D'you know no such Man? A. I never heard his Name before; I had no acquaintance with him, nor ever saw him about the House. Cross-Examin'd. Q. Where d'you live now? A. Near Huntingdon; I Board in a House there. Q. How long have you been out of Service? A. Ever since I left my Lady-Dutchess. Q. How d'you live then? A. I Board in a House; I follow no Employment, but live on my own, except to teach Children two, three or four, out of Charity. Q. When came you to the Dutchess's Service first. A. I served her about ten or twelve years ago, but I can't remember the precise Time, 'tis so long since. Q. How long did you live with her then? A. I lived with her about half a year at Drayton, in Northamptonshire; I went about November, and stayed till Lady-Day following. Q. How long was it before you came to live with her the last time? A. I can't tell. Q. You say you came to live with her about two years and a quarter; What time was that? A. I can't tell, but that may be easily found; I lived with her about six years ago, or thereabouts. Q. How long did you leave the duchess, after the Hearing came on, in this Noble House? A. I don't know; it was about a year and three quarters, or two years, I can't be positive. Q. Was it after the trial began? A. Yes; I think the trial began in January, and 'twas a year after it began. Q. Can't you be positive what time you came to live with the duchess? A. I came about August to Mill-Bank, but the duchess was not come then, but the October following my Lady-Dutchess came. Q. Where did the duchess live then? A. I don't know; I was at the Lady Peterburgh's; I helped her Servants to carry things, and to get things ready. Q. Did you know where the duchess lived then? A. No; some said she lived in Flanders, others in Holland, and some in France. Q. Was you never at Foxhall while the duchess lived there? A. I was never there while the duchess lived there, if she did live there. Q. Was you never there where she did live? A. When no body lived there, I have seen the House where they said she did live. Q. How long ago is that? A. I know not how long ago, but 'twas in the Summer-time. Q. How came you to take notice of that House more than the rest of the Houses in Foxhall? Who was it told you the duchess lived there? A. I think it was one that was— Q. You said the duchess went sometimes by Water; Did you go along with her at that time? A. Yes, I did, with some other Company. Q. Was you ever sent to the House, to fetch Goods from thence? A. No. Q. Who went with you, when you went with the duchess there? A. One Mrs. Boufflers, and two or three other Ladies. Q. D'you know Sir John Germaine? A. I never saw him, but in his Coach, as he was going along the Street; I never saw him in any House, or any other place, sitting or going, but in his Coach. Q. Was you never at his House? A. I never was at his House, nor at any place where he lived. Q. You say you were admitted to the Dutchess's Chamber, to rub the Room? A. Yes, I was. Q. Did you not see Vaness there? A. No. Q. Can you take it upon your Oath, that you never saw her there? A. No, I never saw her there, but I saw Susan Barrington there. Q. What Service did Susan Barrington do there? A. She helped to dress and undress her Grace, and to mend Linen, as I think. Q. When saw you her last? A. 'twas about the 9th, 10th, or 11th of August last, at the George-Inn, in Huntingdon. Q. D'you know where she lived then? A. She was at Huntingdon then, and came with the Lady-Dutchess to take a Stage-Coach for London; she was at the George-Inn, in Huntingdon, I think, about August last. Q. You say you lived at the Dutchess's House at Mill-Bank, before the duchess came thither; Did Vaness come with her, or was she hired after? A. I think she came with the duchess. Q. D'ye know whence the duchess came, when she came there? A. As I have heard, she came from Foxhall: When my Lady-Dutchess went thither by Water the Summer after, I was told, that my Lady lived at such a House in Foxhall. Q. Didn't you know that my Lady-Dutchess lived at Foxhall? A. I never knew my Lady-Dutchess till she lived at Mill-Bank? Q. What Account had you, at the Dutchess's House, where she was then? A. People said she was in Flanders. Q. D'you know when Vaness came to live with the duchess? A. I believe she came to live with the duchess at Mill-Bank. Q. D'you know when she was discharged out of her Service? A. I think 'twas the latter end of December, or the beginning of January; I think so, but I don't speak positively. Q. Was you by, when her Wages were paid? A. No. Q. Have you ever seen her since? A. No; I never saw her, from that hour to this. Q. Where have you lived since you left the Lady-Dutchess's Service? and how? Have you any Estate? A. I have a small Matter to live on; I live near Huntingdon, I was born near there, 'tis my Native Place, I have lived there about four or five Years, or within seven Miles of that Place, or thereabouts. Q. Did Vaness dress the Dutchess's Dinner when she lived there? for it seems she was not good enough to serve you. A. Yes, she did dress the Dutchess's Dinner, but I did not care to eat Victuals of her dressing. Q. When did you first complain to the duchess, that Men followed Vaness? or that you apprehended danger by her being there? A. I can't tell. Q. Was she discharged immediately after that? A. I think she was discharged in a very little time after. Q. You say, there were some other Ladies that went with the duchess to Foxhall; Can you name them? A. Mrs. Marshal, and some others, but I can't be positive. Q. Did you know Mrs. Briane? A. No; I never heard her Name before. Q. Did the duchess eat always at Peterburgh-House, or Mill-Bank-House, as you call it? A. Sometimes she eat abroad, and sometimes at home. Q. Who dressed her Victuals when she eat at home? A. Lena. Q. What d'ye mean by Mill-Bank-House? A. Peterburgh-House. Q. Who did you hear say the duchess lived at that House at Foxhall? A. The duchess was going by Water, and told the Ladies then, that that was the House she had lived at, at Foxhall; and walking in the Garden of the said House, told 'em so. JONAS PEACOCK. Die Lunae 4o Martij, 1699. Frances Knight Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. HOW long have you lived in the duchess of Norfolk's Family? Answ. Twenty seven Years, or upwards. Q. With whom did you live all that time? A. With the Lady-Dutchess's Father, the Lady Peterburgh, and the duchess. Q. Did you live with the duchess when she lived at Mill-Bank? A. Yes, I lived with her at her first coming there. Q. Have you been with her ever since? A. Yes. Q. Did you know Vaness in the Dutchess's Family at Mill-Bank, and what Employ she had there? A. Yes, I know her very vell: She was in the kitchen. Q. Did you use to be in the Dutchess's Bed-Chamber, and about her Person? A. Yes, I was the first in the Morning there, and the last at Night, constantly. Q. Did you know elinor Vaness there? and did she use to come into the Dutchess's Chamber? A. She never came there. Q. Where used she to employ her self? A. In the kitchen. Q. Was she well enough in Cloath's, cleanly enough, and fit to come into the Dutchess's Chamber? A. No, she was not. Q. What time went she away? and upon what account? A. My Lady put her away, because Soldiers came and asked for her, and sent for her to Ale-houses about Ten a Clock at Night. I went up one Morning, and complained of her to my Lady-Dutchess, and told her that Soldiers haunted her, asked for her, and sent for her to Ale-houses at Ten a Clock at Night: And my Lady-Dutchess said, She would not keep a Servant that kept ill hours. Q. Was this before the trial? A. Yes, my Lady put her away, upon my speaking this. Q. Do you know why she was put away? A. Yes, for having Soldiers haunt her Company. Q. Consider well what you say. A. Yes, my Lords; I speak what my Conscience tells me: Here I am before the Lords, I must speak Truth. Q. How far can you recollect yourself, if it was before the trial, or not, that she was put away. A. It was before the trial. Q. How long? A. I can't remember; I think it was about a Quarter of a Year, I can't tell exactly, but it was near upon. Q. How near was you to the duchess? What was your Employment? A. I helped to get her to bed, as her Chamber-Maid. Q. Did elinor Vaness never undress her? A. No, never in this world. Q. Did you never know her come into the Dutchess's Chamber? A. Never, never. Oh, fie! Never, indeed. Q. D'ye know Nicholas Hauseur? A. I don't know him: There were many asked for Mr. Keemer, but I did not know them, for he has many Acquaintance. Q. Did you know Thomas Hawsworth, your Fellow-Servant? A. Yes, he came when my Lady came to Mill-Bank, Mr. Peacock came before, they were both Servants together. Frances Knight Cross-Examin'd. Q. You say you lived Twenty-seven Years and upwards with the duchess and her Mother? Do you live with the duchess still? A. Yes. Q. How long is it since you lived with her Mother? A. After the duchess was married, I came to live with her and my Lord-Duke. Q. Have you been in her Service ever since? A. Yes. Q. After the Duke partend with my Lady-Dutchess, Where did she go to live? A. She lived at Mill-Bank, and no where else, that I know of. Q. Came you to live with her soon after her Marriage? and have you lived with with her ever since? and did she ever live at Foxhall? A. I never lived with her at Foxhall. Q. Then you have not lived with her ever since? A. I have lived with her ever since, I have taken my Oath, and as near as I can tell you. Q. Where did the duchess live before she came to Mill-Bank? A. She lived at Foxhall. Q. Did not you live with her there? A. No; I broken my Leg, and was brought home to her Mother's, and stayed there a Twelvemonth; Mr. Peters was my Surgeon, he can tell it. I came here to speak the Truth. Q. Don't be angry. A. No. Q. Did you continue with the duchess till you broken your Leg? A. Yes; and when I broken my Leg, I went home to her Mother's. Q. When left you duchess after she partend with my Lord-Duke. A. I left her at Mill-Bank. Q. Do you know the Question that's asked? When did you leave the duchess after she partend with the Duke? A. I know no such Questions as you ask. I speak the Truth, as well as I can. Q. Where did my Lady-Dutchess go, when you left her? A. I went away lame, and could do her no service. Q. Where did you come to my Lady-Dutchess again, when you were well. A. At Mill-Bank. Q. Was you ever with her at Foxhall? A. I was not there, because I was lame. Q Was you ever at Foxhall? A. I told you, I broken my Leg. Q. Was you ever at Foxhall, or not? A. I tell you, I was lame. Q. Was you ever at Foxhall at any time? A. I tell you I was lame; I give you an Answer to your Question. I tell these Noble Lords, that every word I speak is Truth. Q. But you are swore to speak the Whole Truth. A. I speak the Truth. Why should you do so? Q. Was you ever with the duchess at Foxhall? A. I was not able to be there with her. Q. Was you there with her, or not? A. I was not able to go thither. Q. Was you never there? A. I was not able to go thither. Q. Was you ever there or not with the duchess? A. No, I never was at Foxhall in my life, but at Mill-Bank and Whitehall I have. Memorandum, In this Interlineation was altered, upon reading over her Examination, Yes, I have been there, but I did not stay there. Q. Was you ever there with the duchess, or not? A. I was not there: I tell you I was not there, I was lame. Q. Was you never there with the duchess at any time? A. No, I tell you I was lame: I was never there with the duchess. Q. Where was the duchess before she came to Mill-Bank? A. That I can't tell. Q. Where was she when you broken your Leg? A. I left her at Mill-Bank, with her Mother. Q. Where did you find her, when you came again? A. I found her at her Mother's Q. Can't you tell where she was in the mean time. A. No. Q. Was you never told by any of the Family where she was at that time? A. No. Q. Did Vaness come to the duchess when she lived at Mill-Bank? A. Yes. Q. How long did she live with her after. A. I can't tell; but a short time. Q. Do you know Susanna Barrington? A. Yes. Q. When did you see her last? A. About Three Weeks ago. Q. Is she not in the Dutchess's Service still? A. I'll tell you the Truth; She received a Letter from Flanders, acquainting her that her Mother was dead. She was very much afficted with it: And when the duchess came in, I told her Grace that Susan had received a Letter that her Mother was dead, and I did desire my Lady to give her leave to go to Holland, and she's there. Q. Did you see the Letter? A. I saw it. Q. Was it from her Mother, or from her Sister? A. Yes, 'twas from her Sister, That her Mother was dead. Q. Was Susanna Barrington in the Dutchess's Service when this Bill was depending. A. No. Q. How long is it since you received that Letter. A. 'tis about Three Weeks ago. Q. How long is it since she went. A. A Fortnight, to Day. Q. Did you see her at any time since these Three Weeks? A. No, No. Q. Did you not live with her in the House? and did you not see her? A. She has been gone about a Week. Q. D'you know Mrs. Judith? A. No. Q. D'ye know Mrs. Briane? A. I have heard of her Name, but am not acquainted with her. Q. Had you any Discourse with Vaness, when she came to Mill-Bank to live with the duchess? A. No, I never liked her Discourse. Q. Did you ever hear the duchess say that she lived at Foxhall? A. No. Q. Do you know Sir John Germaine? A. I know him by sight. Q. Did you ever see him at the Dutchess's. A. No. Q. Did you never see him at Mill-Bank, or at her House here. A. No, my Lords, never. Q. Did Vaness come along with the duchess when she came to Mill-Bank? or was she hired after her return. A. She came after her return to Mill-Bank. Q. What time went she away? A. I can't tell the Day; that's a hard Question. She went away, on my speaking to the duchess, that she was haunted with bad C●mpany. Q. Did not she dress the Dinner, when the duchess dined at home. A. Yes, but she never dined at home but very seldom. Q. Can't you tell when Vaness went away? A. No. Q. Did you know Nicholas Hauseur? A. No, I know no such Man. There were many People came to Mr. Keemer, Lords Servants, and others, I don't know such People. Q. You have heard that the duchess lived at Foxhall. A. Yes. Q. At what time did she live there? A. I can't tell you; I was sick in bed. Q. You may recollect about what time was it. A. I was lame in March, this Month: I can't tell what Year. Q. D'you know what House she lived in? A. Yes; 'twas one Sir Thomas Grosvener's, at Mill-Bank. Q. I ask you what House she lived at, at Foxhall? A. I know not. Q. How came you to know the duchess lived at Foxhall? A. You ask what I can't tell you. Q. You daren't tell. A. Yes, I'll tell the Truth, before all the House of Lords. Q. You said she lived at Foxhall? A. No, I never said it. Q. Whence came the duchess, when she came to Mill-Bank? A. She came from the Place she did; I did not ask her the Question, I durst not be so bold. Q. Can't you tell when she came to Mill-Bank? nor from what Place she came? A. I can't tell the Day when she came. I don't ask from what Place People come. Q. When did you know Sir John Germaine first? A. I saw him first with my Lord-Duke there, at his House in the Square. Q. Did you never know him keep Company with the duchess? A. No, but only with the Duke of Norfolk there; I speak in the Presence of God. signed, FRANCES KNIGHT. Die Lunae 4o Martij, 1699. William White Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. DID you live with the duchess of Norfolk, for some Years past? Answ. I lived with her since the first Week of the first trial, about six, or seven, or eight Years ago. Q. What care was there taken about the Dutchess's Door into the Park? A. I generally went out the first in a Morning; the Door had two Bolts, a Cross-Barr, and an Iron Chain; besides, these I unbolted every Morning, and unbarr'd, when I went out early. Q. Did you ever hear or understand that Hauseur had a Key to that Door? A. I never knew any thing of it, nor know not of what use it could have been; for he could not come in, till the Door was unbolted. Q. Say positively, whether ever you have heard, that this Man had a Key to that Door. A. I never heard of it. Q. Did you ever see him come in at that Door? A. Yes. Q. How? Upon what Occasion? A. I happened to be going out myself, and to open the Door for him. His Business, I was told by my Lady-Dutchess's Maid, was, That she had lent Money to a Man in Holland, and she wrote a Letter to be carried by this Man to her Sister, to get the Money; and she sent another Letter by one Bull, to carry to Holland, to get the Money, as she told me. Q Did you let him in? A. I unbolted the Door, and let him in. Q. Did you find that this Man used to come freely to the House, at that Door, by any Key? A. No, I never knew it. Q. Who did he come to? A. To Susan Barrington. Q. Did you ever see him above stairs with her? A. No; he might come in, and I not see it. Q. Did the duchess or Servants say any thing that he had Leave to come in? A. I never examined that; because any body that had Business had leave to come in, as tradesman, and others. Q. Did they tell you in the House, that Hauseur was at liberty to come into the House with a Key? A. No, Never Q. Had you ever any Discourse with Hauseur? A. I was one day coming from Change, and met Mr. L'Estrange, and this Hauseur. L'Estrange told me that he was ill of the Gripes. I told him, that the best thing for it was Burnt-Claret; and he and I and Hauseur went to a Tavern in Smithfield: And while we were together, Hauseur reflected upon his Master, saying, His Master had used him ill, and deserved to be ill used. Mr. L'Estrange heard these and some more words; and Mr. L'Estrange told me that he spoken to that purpose, he was resolved to be revenged of his Master. Q. What did he say of his Master? A. He said his Master had used him very ill; he had many threatening Words; he said his Master was an ill Man, and deserved to be ill used, and the time would come when he should repent it. Q. When did he say these words? A. 'twas about Michaelmas two Years ago, or a Year ago, I can't tell which. Cross-Examin'd. Q. You say you lived with the duchess the first Week of the first trial; Was Vaness there at that time? A. She was gone before I came. Q. How long? A. I can't tell; I never saw her there, to the best of my remembrance, but have heard there was such a one in the Family. Q. Did you know Hauseur? A. I see him come in at the Back-Door. Q. Whose Servant was he then? A. The first time I did not know; but a little after, I was told he was Sir John Germaine's. Q. What Occasion had he to come to the Dutchess's House? A. I know not, but about the business of the Letter. Q. How often did you see him there? A. Two or three times, or more. Q. With whom? A. With Susan Barrington. Q. What was his Business with her? A. About the Money, as she told me. He went along with that Woman; she sent a Letter by him; and she sent Letters by some other Dutchmen, into Holland, about the Money. Q. Did he ask for any other Servant? A. Not that I know of. Q. Did you see him above stairs with her? A. I never saw them in any Apartment but that place below, where the Lumber is, near the Park-Door. Q. D'you know Susan Barrington? A. I know her very well. Q. D'you know where she is now? A. Her Mother died about the 10th. of January, and then I saw her all in Tears, and she went away after this Account of her Mother's Death. Q. When did you see her last? A. I have not seen her this Fortnight or Month, that I know of, that I could distinguish her from another Woman, except she had a Mask on. Q. How long before this trial saw you her? A. About a Fortnight. She gave me an Account that her Mother died the 10th. of January, in Holland. Q. When did she go away? A. I did not take notice of the Time she went away? Q. Did you know Hauseur at any other Place but at the Lady-Dutchess's? A. Never, but as I have seen him in the Park, and with Mr. L'Estrange. Q. Was you never with him at Sir John Germaine's. A. Never. Q. D'you know Sir John Germaine? A. After I had lived with the duchess some time, I was told by some in the street, that that was his Coach, and his Livery, and that he was the Man that there was so much Noise about. Q. Did you never see him in the Dutchess's House? A. I never saw him in no part of my Lady-Dutchess's House, nor in no Apartment, and I am the only Man that goes up and down Stairs. Q. Did you never see him in the Dutchess's Company at any other Place? A. No. Q. Did you constantly lye at the Dutchess's House? A. When the duchess was last at Drayton, I lay at Richmond two or three Nights. Q. Did you lye constantly there, when the duchess was there? A. I was sick near a Month, and all that time I lay at my Wife's; but most commonly lay at the Dutchess's since she is come to Duke-street to live. Q. You say you used to open the Door in the Park first in a Morning; What time did you use to open it at? A. At Six, Seven, or Eight a Clock in a Morning; there was no certain hour, but I generally opened that Door. Q. Did you ever know Hauseur come in at any other Door but that? A. Yes; one wet Day he came in at the Street-Door, before the Porter, and all the Servants, and asked for the same Woman. Q. Did he never ask for any other Body? A. I never heard him ask for any but Susan Barrington, for she was his Country-woman. Q. If Nicholas got in at the Park-Door, Could not he get up Stairs? A. If he could get in at that Door he talks of, he could not get into the Dutchess's Apartment; for there was a Room betwixt that, where the Plate and Jewels lay, that no Key could open: that if he could get up two Pair of Stairs, he could not get in there. Q. If he had a Key, and got in at any Door; Cou'dn't Susan Barrington, when he came in, without any difficulty, led him ●ound the House. A. I can't say but she might, but I never saw him, but below stairs with that Woman, and then he went away without going up stair. Q. Did you never see him bring any thing to ●he House? A. No. Q. You named one L'Estrange, that you saw with him at the Tavern; What is he? A. He was my old Fellow-Servant at the late Duke of Norfolk's. Q. What Discourse had you with him then? A. He complained to me of his being ill, and I gave him the best of my Advice. Q. What time was it that Nicholas had those threatening Words against his Master? A. About Ten, Eleven or Twelve a Clock at Noon. Q. How long ago is it? A. I can't tell if it be a year, or two year; 'twas a little after Michaelmas; but whether it be one year or two year, I can't tell. Q. Cou'dn't Mr. L'Estrange tell? A. I asked Mr. L'Estrange, and he could not tell. Q. Whose Servant was Nicholas then? A. He was no bodies Servant then. He railed against his Master at that time for turning him away. Q. Did you not know who was his Master a year or two ago? A. He told me he was out of Place. Q. Did you not know him to be Sir John Germaine's Servant, when he came to the Dutchess's? A. I did not know it, when I first saw him and Susan together; but some time before he went away, I heard he was his Servant. Q. But you say, you did not know Sir John Germaine about two years ago. A. I did not know him, so as to speak to him. WILLIAM WHITE. Die Lunae 4o Martij, 1699. Matthew Mac-Dondell Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. HOW long have you lived with the duchess of Norfolk? Answ. Four Years, at Lady-Day next. Q. In what manner was the Door going out to the Park kept? Had any body a Key to it that was not of the Family? Did it use to be left open? A. 'twas not to be left open; 'twas very unsafe to be left open: besides, it was bolted and locked. Q. Was there particular Care taken of that Door? A. Yes, I myself bolted it very often at Night. Q. Did you often unbolt it in a Morning? A. Yes. Q. Whether or not, the time that you lived there, did you know any body that was not or the Family come with a Key to open that Door? A. Never. Q. Did you know Hauseur or Nicholas? Had he a Key to that Door? A. I never knew it. Q. Did you ever see him come in at that Door? A. I opened that Door for him once or twice, when he rung. Q. When was that? A. In an Evening. Q. What did he come about? A. I do not know; but he asked for Susan, my Lady-Dutchess's Servant. Q. Did you ever see him go up stairs? A. I never did hear he went up in my life. Q. When he asked for Susan, Did he go up then? A. No; I called her to him, and I never saw him go up stairs. Q. Did you stay with him all the while Susan was with him? A. No, I had no more business: I went my way. Q. Was Nicholas, when he rung, in the Park, or at the Inner-Door? A. In the Park. Cross-Examin'd. Q: Did you know whose Servant Nicholas was? A. I did not know, nor I asked no Questions. Q. How often have you seen him at the Dutchess's? A. Three times. Q. Did he always ask for Susanna Barrington? A. One time he asked for Mr. Keemer. Q. Who was Mr. Keemer? A. He was the Dutchess's Servant. Q. Did you use to stay with him? or did you leave him? A. No. To tell you the plain Truth, I thought he came to Court Susan, and did not stay with him. Q. Did you ever see him up stairs, in Susan's Room? A. I never saw him there. Q. What Employment have you, under the duchess? A. I am her Foot-man. Q. When did you see Susan last? A. On Tuesday Seven-night, in the Morning. Q. Not since? A. No. Q. Where did you see her then? A. At the Dutchess's House. Q. What became of her after that? A. She said her Mother died lately in Holland, and she was going there. Q. When did you hear her say so? A. I heard her say so several times before she went away, a Month, or a Quarter of a Year before she talked of going to Holland. Q. Upon your Oath, Don't you know that she is at the Dutchess's? A. I know not of her being there. Q. Can you take it upon your Oath, when she was first wanting? A. I saw her on Tuesday Seven-night last, in the Morning. Q. How came you to know she was gone, if you don't know the Time when she went? A. I did not know she was gone, till I went home from the House here. Q. Who told you she was gone? A. The Servants. Q. She was there when you came hither. A. On Tuesday Morning I did see her. Q. Has the duchess another in her Station? A. There is one Mrs. Cambell, that dresses my Lady-Dutchess, but she does not live there. Q. Did she use, in Susan's time, to come and dress the duchess? A. Yes, she used to come sometimes. Q. Has the duchess taken any body to do Susan's Work? A. I know not of any. Signed, MATTHEW MAC-DONNEL. Die Lunae 4o Martii, 1699. Mr. Robert Welburne Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. WHat Account can you give of Mr. L'Estrange's having Notice to be a Witness? Answ. I was told by the duchess, that L'Estrange had been with her, and gave her an Account of some Particulars between White, and him, and Nicholas; That having the gripping in the Guts, they went into a Tavern together; That he heard White and Nicholas talk together very loud, but he told me he had the Gripes, and could not so well mind what he said, but he heard him use hard words against his Master, but he could not remember that he said he would be revenged upon his Master; but he would recollect himself, and if he could remember, he would say what he could. He told me, he had been bread in the Norfolk Family. Q. Did you ask Mr. L'Estrange about this Matter? A. Yes, Mr. L'Estrange told me, he remembered they were together, and heard Nicholas speak very hard, ill words against his Master, but he could not be positive what they were; but what he could remember, he would speak, if that would do the duchess any service. He desired my Lady-Dutchess would give him Notice the Night before, and he would appear. Q. When was this? A. 'twas Tuesday or Wednesday: I think 'twas Wednesday. Cross-Examin'd. Q. Did the Lady-Dutchess tell you what Mr. L'Estrange said? A. Yes; that gave me the Occasion to speak of it. He said, he heard Nicholas say hard, ill Words against his Master, but not that he heard him say he would study to be revenged. Perhaps, says he, there might be some other words. That he was in the kitchen, and would endeavour to recollect who was there besides; and if he had two or three Days time, he would inquire. Q. Did you let him know that you was concerned for the duchess? A. Yes; and he told me he would tell what he could say in this Matter; and he should be ready to appear at any time, if that would be for the Dutchess's advantage. Q. Did he tell you he was going abroad, into Holland? A. Not one word. Q. Did you intimate to him, when the duchess was to make her Defence? A. I think I did, but I can't be positive; but he took no notice to me, that he would not be there. Q. D'you know Mr. La fountain? A. Yes, I know one La fountain. Q. Is he in the Dutchess's Service? A. I believe not. Q. D'you know whether he is at Drayton? A. I have seen him at Drayton. Q. Did he live with Sir John Germaine, that you know of? A. Never, that I know of. Q. When saw you Susan Barrington? A. I can't be positive; but I think, not this Month or Six Weeks. Q. Han't you seen her since this Bill was brought in. A. Positively, I have not. ROBERT WELBORNE. Die Lunae 4o Martij, 1699. elinor Monfort Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. TEll the Lords if you know Nicholas Hauseur, and on what Account you came to know him? Answ. This Nicholas lodged two or three times at my House. My Husband was a Dutchman, and he was a Dutch-man; they were like Brothers, they loved one another. Q. What know you of this Man, this Nicholas? A. My Husband told me, that this Man Nicholas, I did not know no other Name he had; my Husband told me, that he had a Design to rob his Master, and that he knew where his Gold and his Jewels lay, and had made False-Keys, and would watch his opportunity, when his Master was at Play, or out of Town, and left the Keys at her House. Q. Your Husband told you so? A. Yes, my Husband bid me sand for this Man; these were his last Dying Words. Q. Your Husband had a sad Misfortune. When was't your Husband told you so? A. When he was in Prison. Q. How long ago is that? A. About eight or nine Years ago, last Christmas. I would not have your Lordships think my Husband was so bad a Man; he was only condemned and Executed for Changing Ten Pounds of his own Money. A. What were your Husband's Last Dying Words? A. He desired me to sand for this Fellow, and deliver those Things he left at my House. I sent for him. He came, and had some Keys in a Drawer, that my Husband told me he left there He took two or three Keys, and put them in his Pocket, and looked mightily out of Countenance. Q. What did your Husband say to you? A. He bid me give Nicholas the Keys, and bid him have a care, and keep good Company. Q. When was that? A. A Week or Fortnight before my Husband was Executed. Q. Did you acquaint Nicholas with what your Husband said of him? A. No, an't please your Honours; I only told him, my Husband charged me to give him those Keys: but being in trouble, and having a great many Enemies, I talked no further with him. Q. What did Nicholas say to you? A. He looked out of Countenance, and told me he would come and see me another time, but he never did: so that I did not see him again till I saw him in the Meuse, and then he told me that he would come to see me; but he never did, but always shunned me. Q. How long have you known Nicholas? A. These eight or nine Years. I knew him when he was Foot-man to Sir John Germaine, and I knew him when he was his Gentleman. I knew him when he went, and I knew him when he came. He is like a Sea-Rat, he comes and goes when he pleases. I hope in God Almighty it will be considered by this House, that such a Fellow's Witness should not be taken in such a great Concern. Signum, elinor MONFORT. Then the Dutchess's council prayed that Mac-Donnel may be examined, as to the withdrawing Witnesses, and that it be taken in Writing. Which was Agreed to, and he examined. Then the Dutchess's council proceeded to Examine other Witnesses, and their Evidence taken in Short-Hand. Then Mrs. pits being called for, and not appearing; William Godfrey being Sworn, said to this effect: I Went to serve Mrs. pits, on Friday Morning: When I came to her House there was no body. A Woman with a Pitcher of Water went in: I asked her for Mrs. pits? She said, She was not at home. I shew'd her the Order, and left a Copy of it upon the Table. She was loth to receive it: She said, the Lady would be within quickly. The Woman's Name was Olivet. The last night I went went again, and a Woman came out, and said Mrs. pits was not at home. Then she spake in French to me. I did not understand her. I left a Note for her to Attend this Day. Then the Dutchess's council prayed, that some Agreements between the Duke and duchess, in 1694, may be red out of the Deeds executed for that purpose. Which was agreed to, and red accordingly. Die Martis 5o Martij, 1699. Francis Negus Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. I Desire Mr. Negus may be asked, Whether the duchess of Norfolk did not sand some Message by him? The Words I don't confine him to; but, Whether the Message sent by him to my Lord-Duke, was not to this purpose, That notwithstanding the Articles, she desired to know from his Grace, in what manner she should live, and that she would be governed by his Directions? Answ. I think it was much about the time of the Transaction of these Articles the duchess sent to me. Mr. Longueville was council for the Duke, and Sir Thomas Powys for the duchess. Mr. Longueville took what care he could; and when they came to talk of their living separately, I took it only to be an apprehension and fear that my Lord-Duke would confine the duchess to some House. My Lady-Dutchess sent for me. I waited on her, and she expressed her self very sensibly of the Misfortunes of the Duke and her self, that such Differences should have been between them; and she was desirous to let my Lord-Duke know, and desired me that I would let my Lord-Duke know it, that she would avoid all Company that should give him any Offence, and that she would not so much as pay a Visit but where he liked. I acquainted my Lord-Duke with something to this purpose; for she often said to me, more than once or twice, that if she happened to die before my Lord-Duke, she would leave him her Estate: And I know I have said so to my Lord-Duke. Q. Whether, from that time, do you know that the Duke sent any Message of Complaint to the duchess, to the Place where she lived, that he would have her live in any other way? A. I know nothing of that Matter. Q. Do you know whether my Lord-Duke ever desired her to come and live with him? A. I never heard of any such thing. Q. Did he ever sand to her, to avoid any Company? A. I never heard of any such thing. Q. Whether had you any Directions to attend the Duke, That he would ●ive way in a Controversy between the duchess and a Noble Lord of this House, whether he would wave his Privilege? A. I have great reason to desire Sir Thomas's Favour in this Matter. I know not what he aims at. I was called to the bar before, to speak the Truth as to the Matter of the Privilege: I know not what he means by it. Q. I meant it only as an Instance of a Civil Message between the Duke and duchess, owning her as his Wife, and that this was a Message that bespoke a good understanding between them? A. Will you have me to give an Answer to Sir Thomas, my Lords? I confess the Duke did sand for me, and asked how the Settlement and Agreement were betwixt the Duke and the duchess, because of this Matter of the Privilege. Q. I did not mean that; but only as a late Instance of the Duke's owning the duchess so far? A. When the Duke sent for me, he would know, whether by the Agreement he was obliged to let her have the Privilege? I said, I understood it so; and tho' he had no mind to do it, but as he had waved his Privilege, in the Case of an uncle, he would do it for her. Q. What would have been the Consequence, if the Duke had not waved his Privilege? Would not that have defended her from a svit? A. That you may make use of as you please. Sir Thomas Powis. I would only make this use of it, as an Instance of Kindness between the Duke and duchess. FRANCIS NEGUS. After the Examination of Francis Negus, he being before Sworn, the Dutchess's council declared, they had finished their Evidence. Whereupon, the Duke's council desired to call a Witness or two, to support Nicholas Hauseur's Reputation. Then William Allen was Sworn, and examined. Die Martis 5o Martij, 1699. William Allen Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. D'You know Nicholas Hauseur? Answ. Yes. Q. How long have you known him? A. Three Years. Q. Did you not know him before that time. A. I knew him about Three Years ago. Q. Had you any Dealings before that time? A. I had Dealings with him when he lived with Mr. Germaine. Q. What were his Dealings? A. As honest and fair as any Man could desire. Q. What Office had he, under Mr. Germaine? A. He was Cook to Mr. Germaine, I suppose. Q. What? Was he Cook to him? A. He bought in the Goods, and he paid me honestly for what he bought. Cross-Examin'd. Q. What Trade are you? A. A Butcher. Q. Then he paid you his Master's Money for his Masters Goods? A. Yes, he paid me very honestly. Q. When saw you him last? A. I saw him when I was summoned here, by the Order of this House, but not before, of late. signed, WILLIAM W. ALLEN. The Duke's council moved for Copies of the Examinations and Journals. Which was granted, and then the council withdrew. The following Orders were made. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That Copies of the Examinations, Signed by the Witnesses this Day, and Entry in the Journal, be delivered to either Side; And that the Examinations taken this Day in Short-hand, be transcribed, in order to be red to the Witnesses to Morrow. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That to Morrow at Twelve of the Clock this House will proceed to hear the Examinations taken this Day, red to the Witnesses, relating to the Duke and duchess of Norfolk, and all Lords Summoned to Attend. Die Mercurij 6o Martij, 1699. After the Examination taken Yesterday, relating to the Duke and duchess of Norfolk, were red to the Witnesses, and they signing them, the Dutchess's council moved to have Copies of the Depositions taken on either side, and then withdrew. Die Martis 5o Martij, 1699. Matthew Mac-Donnel Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. A. I Was going to Mr. Strange's House, and I saw my Lord Howard of Escrick coming that way, and he went to the Door and knocked. I made up to the Door, and a Girl opened the Door. My Lord asked if Mr. Strange was within? And she answered, Yes. Then I went to the Door, and asked if Mr. Strange was at home? She answered, No, he went away on Thursday. I asked, by Packet-Boat, or how? She said, by long-Sea. I thought she told my Lord he was within, and so I came away. Signum, MATTHEW MAC-DONNEL. Die Martis 5o Martij, 1699. Richard May Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. DO you know Nicholas Hauseur? A. I never saw him till Sunday Fortnight last. Q. Where saw you him then. A. At my Lord Duke of Norfolk's. I had a Command from my Lord Duke to take him in there. Q. Where? A. To lodge him in my Lord-Duke's House. I am his Houshold-Steward, he Commanded me to provide for him in the House. Q. I don't desire you should do any thing unbecoming to my Lord-Duke; but you are upon your Oath, and you must tell the Truth? A. I'll freely tell what I know. Q. Can you give me any Account where he was before that time? A. I never saw nor heard of him till then. Q. Hath he been there ever since? A. Yes, I made Provision for him, by his Grace's Command. Q. Do you know Vaness? Where hath she been? A. On Sunday was Fortnight she came thither likewise, and I was ordered to take care for her. Q. Where was she Lodged? A. In my Lord-Duke's House in St. James's-Square. Q. Has she been there a Fortnight? A. Yes, a Fortnight last Sunday, and coming here to attend the Lords. Q. Had she the liberty of the House? or was she kept close? A. They were kept only as they desired themselves: No body was denied liberty to see them. They desired to be there, sooner than any place. Q. D'you know that those People have been sent for, and how long before they came? A. I was never privy to any thing of that nature: I had no knowledge of their Names, nor whence they came. Q. Do you know of any Money issued out for their coming over? A. Not one Penny. Q. Do you know of any Reward they have had, or are to have. A. I know not of any Reward they have had, or are to have. RICHARD MAY. Die Martis 5o Martii, 1699. Christopher rain Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. ARE you Servant to the Duke of Norfolk? A. Yes. Q. D'you know Hauseur? A. I have seen him, but am not acquainted with him. Q. How long is it since you saw him? A. It is within this Fortnight. Q. Did you not see him any time further off? A. No; I am positive of it. Q. Where did you see him first? A. In St. James's. Q. In what Place there? A. At his Grace's House. Q. Hath he been there ever since? A. Yes. Q. Was there a Woman called Vaness with him? A. Yes. Q. Did they come at the same time? A. Yes. Q. How long ago? A. A Fortnight; it may be, not so much. Q. Had they the liberty of the House, to take notice where they were? A. They had liberty to go where they pleased. Q. Did they go abroad since they came there? A. I can't tell; not to my knowledge. Q. D'you know whether they went out of the House, upon any Occasion? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Who brought them there? A. I don't know. Q. D'you know whence they came? A. No. Q. Did you not understand where they lodged before? A. No. I am Stranger to them both; I never saw them before. Q. Saw you them when they came first? A. No; I was not at home. CHRISTOPHER rain. Die Martis 5o Martij, 1699. Edward Cotter Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. ARE you Servant to the Duke of Norfolk? Answ. Yes. Q. D'you know Nicholas Hauseur? A. I did not know him but since this trial. Q. How long ago is that? A. About a Fortnight. Q. Do you know where he had been before? A. No: I knew nothing of him, where he was, nor what he was. Q. Came Helena the Dutchwoman with him? A. Yes, the Woman came with him since the trial; I never saw them before. Q. Did you never know them go out of Doors since they came, but to this House? A. Never, no where else. Q. Who brought them to the Duke's? A. I know not. Q. Whence came they, d'you know? A. I can't tell. Q. Did they never report in the House, whence they came? A. No, I never heard where they lived, nor how they behaved themselves. Q. Do you know whether ever any Reward was given them? A. No. Q. I desire he may be asked, Whether he has not known before, for some time past, within this Fortnight or Three-Weeks, more or less, Meetings in Somerset-House, in order to this trial? A. The thing is this; I was one Night at Somerset-House with my Lord-Duke, 'twixt Six and Seven a Clock; but I can't tell how long it is, whether it be Three-Weeks or a Month; it is no more, that I know. Q. What were you there about? A. I went there with my Lord-Duke. Q. Upon your Oath, Was there any thing then done there, relating to this trial? A. Upon my Oath, I did not know, but 'twas concerning my Lord Howard of Escrick. Q. Was he there with the Duke? A. Yes. Q. Did you know who they went to? A. No. Q. Upon your Oath, Don't you know whether they went to Madam pits, or no. A. They went to some House, but I don't know her Name they went to. Q. Was there any body else there, but my Lord-Duke, and my Lord Howard? A. God knows. My Lord-Duke called me to the Door, and sent me on a Message; and I went, and came again. Q. Who did you see there, when you came again? A. I saw none but my Lord-Duke, and another that I did not know. Q. Who did you see go in? A. None but my Lord-Duke, and my Lord Howard. EDWARD COTTER. Die Martis 5o Martij, 1699. Francis Huddlestone Sworn, Deposeth as followeth. Quest. UPon your Oath, D'you know of any Meetings, relating to this trial, that have been within some time past? A. For Meetings, I know not any thing of them. Q. Do you understand the Question? A. I know nothing of any Meetings. Q. Have you not been at any place where any thing has been done, relating to this trial, against the duchess of Norfolk? A. I don't understand any thing of the trial. I know nothing of the duchess of Norfolk. Q. Pray give a positive Answer; Have you not been present, or do you know of no Meeting, relating to the Proceedings against the duchess of Norfolk? A. I never was at no Meeting. Q. Who do you live with? A. I live with my Lord Howard. Q. Was you ever present at Somerset-House, where my Lord Howard and Others met? A. I have been at Somerset-House, but know nothing of any Concerns. Q. D'you know Vaness? A. I know no such Person. Q. Do you know Nicholas? A. I don't know him. Q. Pray answer positively; Do you know one Nicholas, called Hauseur? A. I know several of that Name, but I know not who you mean. Q. I mean, one that lived with Sir John Germaine? A. I know him not. I had never any Conversation with any body that lived with Sir John Germaine. [ Nicholas called in.] Q. Did you see any such Man as appears here, at Somerset-House? A. I know no such Man as is called Nicholas Hauseur. I know several called Nicholas, but none of the Hauseurs. Q. Look upon this Man; Have you seen him before, or not? A. Yes: I have seen him twice or thrice, but I knew not who you meant before. Q. How long is it since you saw him first? A. About a Fortnight ago. Q. Have you not seen him at Somerset-House? A. Never. Q. Where did you see him? A. In Gerrard-street. Q. Was that all the Places you saw him at? A. I saw him no where else. Q. Whose House did you see him at? A. At Captain Soames's Lodgings. Q. Did you not see a Dutchwoman there, one heal Vaness? A. There was a Woman with him; I don't know her Name. Q. Did you see her at Captain Soames's? A. She was with this Gentleman there? Q. Did you see her at no other Time or Place? A. No. Q. Who else was there then? A. Captain Soames, my Lord Howard, and one or two more. I was but at the Door. I have seen this Man go in. I was but a Foot-man, waiting at the Door. I knew not the others that were there. Q. Did you know no more that were there? A. My Lord Howard was in the House, but I know not if he was with them. Q. Did you ever see heal Vaness before that time. A. I have seen the Woman since, but never saw her before. Q. Did you never see her any where else? A. Never any where else but at this House, going and coming. Signum, FRANCIS H. HUDDLESTONE. The council being withdrawn, the following Orders were made. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That Copies of the Examinations, red to, and signed by the Witnesses to Day, be delivered to either Side. It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will peremptorily proceed to Hear the Duke of Norfolk's and duchess of Norfolk's council, to sum up the Evidence on both Sides, on Friday next, at Twelve of the Clock, and all the Lords summoned to attend. The Evidence having been summed up, the Lords, after long Debate, and a Division of the House, Committed the Bill, by a Majority of Sixteen. Whereupon, the duchess immediately preferred the Petition recited in the Order 8o Martij. Die Veneris 8 Martii 1699. UPon reading the Petition of Mary duchess ot Norfolk, showing that by the Bill now depending for dissolving the Marriage between the Duke of Norfolk and your Petitioner, her jointure and Marriage Agreements are to be set aside, and other things in the Petition mentioned, and praying to be heard by her council, touching the several Claims and Interest, and several Clauses in the Bill; It is ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Petitioner shall be heard by her council to morrow at eleven of the clock, at the Committee of the whole House, to whom the said Bill stands committed; at which time she is to produce her said Marriage Agreement and Writings, as in the Petition is set forth: At which time also the Dukes council may be present, if he think fit. Matth. Johnston clear. Parliamentor. Upon which an Order was made for council to prepare a Clause for the 10000 l. The Dutchesses council having refused to join in drawing any clause, tho they advised a Petition about the jointure and Marriage Agreement, the Dukes council prepared a clause, to which the Lords added a few words, and past it as in the Bill. The Bill being sent down to the Commons, the duchess presented the following Petition. To the Honourable the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Mary duchess of Norfolk. Sheweth, THat for putting an end to all differences between the Duke of Norfolk, your Petitioners Husband, and your Petitioner, several Articles of Agreement were entred into, and executed in April 1694, by the said Duke, your Petitioner, and your Petitioners late Father, the Earl of Peterborough, whereby, and by Deeds executed pursuant thereunto, the Duke had his then desired advantage, and hath fully enjoyed the benefit thereof; that your Petitioner about the time of perfecting the said Deeds, signified to the said Duke by Mr Negus, that she should always readily comply with all such orders in her way of living and conversation as he would think fit to appoint. Notwithstanding which, and without ever signifying any dissatisfaction to or with your Petitioner, and without any manner of notice, or previous proceeding in the common and ordinary course of Justice, and to take from your Petitioner that legal trial in the Ecclesiastical Court, which by the Laws of this Realm( as she is advised) she is entitled unto, did on the 16th of February last exhibit a Bill in the House of Peers, entitled, An Act to Dissolve the Duke of Norfolk's Marriage with the Lady Mary Mordant, and to enable him to mary again. Upon which the proceedings were so very quick, two Witnesses lately brought from beyond the Seas being forthwith examined against your Petitioner, and your Petitioner being charged with facts supposed to be committed many years since, and long before the date of the said Articles, could not be prepared to make her defence as she would have done, if the proceedings had been against her according to the known Laws of this Land. The places of abode of the Witnesses produced against her being yet not known or discovered to your Petitioner: And your Petitioner having notice that the said Bill is passed the House of Lords, and sent down for the concurrence of this Honourable House: Your Petitioner preys she may be heard by her council at Law and one Civilian against the said Bill, before any proceedings be had thereon by this Honourable House. And your Petitioner shall pray, &c. M. Norfolk. A day being appointed by the House of Commons for the Committee to proceed, the Duke caused the Papers following to be published. THE Duke of NORFOLK's Case: WITH REASONS for passing his BILL. IF want either of Precedent for a Parliamentary Divorce, before going through the tedious and ineffectual Methods of Doctors Commons, or of Demonstration of Fact, have hitherto deprived the Duke of Norfolk of that Relief against his Wife's Adultery, which the Divine Law allows; The late Statute made in the like Case, and the Coming in of Two, who while the Duke's former Bill was depending, had been sent away to prevent that Discovery which they now make; cannot but he thought to remove all Objections against an Act of Parliament, not only for the benefit of the Duke, but of the public: as a means to preserve the Inheritance of so great an Office, and Honours, to persons of the true Religion. And since Bishop Cozens his Argument in the Lord Rosse's Case has made it Evident, That those Canons which govern the Spiritual Court in this matter, are but the remains of Popery; nothing can be now requisite to satisfy the most scrupulous of the Reformed Religion, but to set the Duke's Proof of his Lady's Adultery in a true light. The Reputation which the duchess had maintained, of Wit and Discretion, made it difficult for many to believe, that she could be surprised in the very Act of Adultery, as had been formerly proved. And though then it appeared, That one Henry Keemer lived with the duchess, while she went by a feigned Name at an House hired for her at Foxhall, by Sir John Germain's Brother; and that Nicola, who then lived with Sir John, used to receive Wood sent from the duchess to Sir John's House by the Cockpit; the withdrawing of Nicola, and carrying with him the Dutch Maid, equally entrusted with the secret on Sir Johns side; left no evidence of their constant conversation, but Keemer since dead, and Susannah Barrington, who had the like trust from the duchess. Keemer, though very unwillingly, some years since confessed his living with the duchess at Foxhall, where he pretended she was obliged to conceal herself for Debt: and what share Susannah had in the secret was unknown, till Nicola appeared: Nicola coming into England some time since, in expectation of a Service, expressed his readiness to discover what he knew, and to endeavour to bring with him the Dutch Maid. elinor Vanness. Exam. 22. Feb. 1699. She proves, that for two Months the first Summer after the King came for England, Sir John Germain and the duchess lived together as Man and Wife, and were seen in Bed together by her, Mr Bryan, and his Wife, Sir John's Sister: and that Nicholas Hauseur, Sir John's Valet de chamber, used to be assisting to him; as the Dutchess's Woman, Susannah Barrington, was to her, at going to Bed, and rising. She proves the like Conversation at Foxhall, and the Dutchess's House at the Millbank, till the Duke's first Bill for a Divorce was depending; within which time Nicholas Hauseur, by Sir John's Order, carried away her, and Susannah Barrington, with intention of going for Holland, to prevent their being examined to what they knew; but the Wind proving contrary, they could not go till the Bill was rejected, and then Sir John fetched back Susannah, who was most useful to the duchess; but Hauseur went for Holland with Ellen. He confirms Ellen's Evidence in every particular; and besides the Persons mentioned by Ellen, as privy to Sir John's lying with the duchess, names Sir John's Brother Daniel. Nicholas Nicholas Hauseur. having been found very trusty, his Master sent for him to return to his Service; and gave him the opportunity of proving the continuance of the same Adulterous Conversation at several Times and Places, from the Summer 1692. to the 26th of April 1696. He swears he had after his return to Sir John's Service, seen them in Bed together at Sir John's House, at the Cockpit, and at the Dutchess's Houses at Millbank, and where she now lives; and used to be let into the Dutchess's Apartment by Susannah Barrington, or Keemer. Nor can any man, who shall red the ample Testimonials given Mr Hauseur by Sir John; by the last of which it appears that he served him faithfully as his Steward, reasonably question Hauseur's Credit. Another who had been advanced by Sir John from his Footman to Mr Hauseur's place, and from thence to a good Office in the Excise, William Bayly. very unwillingly confirmed the Testimony of Hauseur and the Dutch Maid, not only as to the time of their going from the Service of Sir John and the duchess; but though being no Foreigner he could not so easily be sent away to prevent discovery, and therefore was not let so far into the Secret as Hauseur and the Dutch Maid; yet he swears the duchess used to come masked to his Masters House; that he has gone with him as far as the Horseferry towards her House at the Millbank; that then his Master sometimes lay out all Night, and the next morning he has carried linen and clothes for his Master to Keemer's House, or Keemer has fetched them from him: And this he proves to have been since the rejecting the former Bill, and about Five Years since, when he was succeeded by Hauseur, as before he had succeeded Hauseur. Two other Foreigners, La Fountain, who had lived with Sir John, and was Served with Summons at the Dutchess's House at Drayton; and Hugonee, who ran away from the Lord Haversham's since Summons was taken out against him, seem to have had the same Trust that Hauseur had: for both declared, That nothing should oblige them to betray their Master's Secrets: One said, No Court could dispense with his Oath of Secrecy: and both declared they would immediately go beyond Sea. Summons have been taken our for Mr Brian and his Wife, and Sir John Germain's Brother( who are, or lately were in Town) to confess or deny what Nichola and Ellen appeal to them for; and it cannot be imagined that Sir John should choose the Honour of being thought to have to do with a duchess, before the clearing her and himself from the Imputation, by bringing his Relations to disprove the charge, if what is sworn to be within their knowledge is false. And if Sir John's Vanity should prevail with him, at least it is to be presumed that his Relations would be more just to him and the Lady, than to suffer any thing to pass against them, which they could with Truth and Justice prevent. But since none of them appear, the World will belie●e their absenting more than a thousand Witnesses, in confirmation of what Mr Hauseur, Ellen and bailie, have sworn. Whose Evidence not only stands untouched by any thing offered by the Dutchess's Witnesses, but is plainly confirmed by them in the principal parts. This being the nature of the proofs, 'tis observable, 1. That there never yet was any Case of this kind, where the Evidence was not liable to greater objections than can be made to this. Though in the latest Case of this kind, there was full Conviction of the Ladies having Children while she lived separate from her Husband, and the presumption was very violent whose the Children were; yet this was but presumption, and that was weakened by the presumption in Law that they were the Husbands; especially. since there was no direct proof of the Lovers ever lying with her. 2. Tho in that case, by reason of the interval of Parliament, and fear of the deaths of Witnesses, a svit was begun in Doctors Commons, 'twas taken from thence while the svit was depending; therefore that was rather an Objection against proceeding in Parliament than an Argument for it. 3. In that Case, several Witnesses were examined at the Bars of both Houses who had not been examined at Doctors Commons, nor any notice given of their Names before their examination. 4. It appears by that Case, and the present, that the examinations in Parliament are more solemn and certain than those of the Spiritual Court; which depend too much upon the honesty of the Register, of his Deputy. 5. Before that Case, Parliaments have either broken through the Rules which bind the Spiritual Court, as in the case of the Duke of Norfolk, 1 Eliz. 1 Eliz. n. 31. where the Parliament ratified the Marriage, as lawful according to Gods Law; tho protracted and letted, by reason of certain Decrees and Canons of the Popes Law; 2.& 3, W. M. or else have dissolved a Marriage where there had been no application to Doctors Commons, as in the case of Mrs Wharton, who had been married to Mr Cambel; and yet there had been no examination of Witnesses, but what had been before the two Houses. 37. H. 8. So long before, in the Case of Sir Ralph saddler, upon proof before the two Houses that the Lady Sadler's former Husband had deserted her, and disappeared for Four Years before she Married Sir Ralph, the Parliament Legitimated her Children by Sir Ralph. Whereas some Object against the passing the Bill, as if it would countenance a Jurisdiction in the House of Lords to examine to such matters, in the first Instance or Originally; the Objection would be the same if it had begun, as it might, in the House of Commons; but in truth would be of equal force against most private, and several public Acts, occasioned by the examination of Witnesses, or Notoriety of Fact. Since therefore the Duke has so long, and so often in vain endeavoured to be freed from a Lady, publicly famed and proved to have lived with Sir John Germain, as his Wife; the Duke's former disappointments cannot but be powerful Arguments for his speedy obtaining that Justice which the Spiritual Court cannot give him, their power reaching no further than to that liberty of living as she list, some years since settled by Articles: But as none of less Art and Oratory than her council could have turned this into a Licence to commit Adultery, if she list, or a Pardon afterwards; had there not been evidence of her acting according to such Construction, the Duke would have hoped she had repented of the former Injuries he had received from her; but now hopes she shall not longer continue to bear the Name of his Wife, and put him in danger of being succeeded by Sir John Germain's Issue, or deprive him of the expectation of leaving his Honours, Offices, and Estate, to a Protestant Heir. Bishop COZENS's Argument, Proving, That Adultery works a Dissolution of the Marriage. Being the Substance of several of Bishop Cozens his Speeches in the House of Lords, upon the Debate of the Lord Ross's Case. Taken from Original Papers writ in the Bishop's own Hand. THe Question is indefinitely to be spoken of, Whether a Man being divorced from his Wife, who hath committed Adultery, and is convicted of it, may mary himself to another Wife or no, during the Life of her which is divorced. The place in St Matthew the 5th, repeated again St Matthew the 19th, has great perspicuity: If it be not lawful for any man to put away his Wife, and mary again, except it be in the Case of Fornication,( for the displacing the Words, by putting the Exception before the Marriage, cannot alter the Sense); then à contrario, it must of necessity follow, That if the Wife be put away for Fornication, the Husband by the tenor of Christ's Words is left free to mary again; which Freedom is not allowed to the Adulteress herself, nor any man else that shall mary her. St Mark and St Luke have been opposed to St Matthew; and it has been said, that Christs words in St Matthew did not properly belong to Christ's Disciples, or the Christian Church, as the words in St Mark and St Luke, which are absolute, do; which is a Saying that neither I, nor, I think, no body else ever heard of before: For Christ's Sermon in the Mount was spoken to his Disciples, and especially belonged to Christians. 'tis clear they are spoken to his Disciples; for he says to them, that they are the Salt of the Earth, and the Light of the World; and that they are blessed, when they suffer persecution for his name sake; which no man will say or apply to the Jews. 'tis true, that in the 19th Chapter of St Matthew, Christ answers the Scribes and Pharisees, who came to tempt him with their Question, Whether it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause, as they said Moses had permitted them to do. But the Answer that Christ gave them, That ir was not lawful, but only in the case of Adultery, for men to put awny their wives, and mary another, was a Rule which concerned all Christians to observe for ever after; and for that reason was recorded by St Matthew. The words in St Mark and St Luke are not to be taken absolutely, but to be supplied and understood by his words in St Matthew, as in many other cases is clear, viz. the Thief upon the across, Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, &c. whereof many instances may be brought, as the destruction of Niniveh, &c. But for Christ's words, the Exception confirms the Rule, and infers a Concession, that in the Case of Fornication, the putting away one Wife, and Marrying another is allowed. It is alike with divers other his Exceptions, which are found in scripture: For brevity, I will instance in this one ( viz.) Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Upon which Text, if I or any Bishop else where to Preach, I believe we should not discharge our Duty, unless we should tell the People, That if by the Grace of God they did repent, they should not perish. The exception here, {αβγδ}, nisii, unless, is parallel with the 1 Kings 3.18. None were in the house, except we twain; they Two therefore were, others were not. Such Exceptions proceeding from natural Equity, are tacitly implied in Laws, tho pronounced in general terms. But as to the Exception here, the Words are not capable of any other Sense than as I have observed; for except that Restraint be referred to Marrying again, the Sense would run thus, Whosoever puts away his Wife commits Adultery; which stands not with Truth or Reason; since it is not the Dismission that is Adulterous, but the Marriage of another. It is, therefore, the plain drift of our Saviour to teach the Pharisee, that the Marriage of a Second Wife after a dismission of a former, upon any other cause, except for fornication, is no less than Adultery; thereby inferring, That upon a Just Dismission for Fornication, a second Marriage cannot be branded with Adultery. Besides, the Pharisee's Question [ Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause] was not without a plain implication of Liberty to matry another, which our Saviour well knowing, gives a full Answer, as well to what he meant, as what be said; which had not been perfectly satisfactory, if he had only determined that one part concerning Dismission, and not the other concerning Marriage, which Clause if Two Evangelists express not, yet it must be fetched necessa●ily from the Third; since it is a sure and irrefragable Rule, That all Four Evangelists make up one perfect Gospel. The Rhemists and college of douai urge for the Popish Doctrine, Rom. 7.2. The woman which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth; but 1. This place is to be Expounded by Christs Words. 2. St Paul hath no occasion here to speak of Divorce, but of Marriage whole and sound, as it stands by Gods Ordinance. 3. He speaks of a Woman who is under an Husband; so is not she that is divorced from him. 4. St Paul useth this to his purpose of the Law being dead, to which we are not bound. Nor is their Doctrine more favoured by 1 Cor. 7.10. Let not the woman depart; as being in her Choice whether she would depart or not: but in the case of Fornication she was to depart, or rather be put away, whether she would or not. The Bond of Marriage is to be inquired into, what it properly is. Being a Conjugal Promise Solemnly made between a Man and his Wife, That each of them will live together according to Gods Holy Ordinance, notwithstanding Poverty or Infirmity, or such other things as may happen during their Lives. Separation from Bed and Board, which is part of their promise so to live together, doth plainly break that part of the Bond whereby they are tied to live together both as to Bed and Board. The distinction betwixt Bed and Board and the Bond, is new, never mentioned in the Scripture, and unknown in the ancient Church; devised only by the Canonists and the Schoolmen in the Latin Church( for the Greek Church knows it not) to serve the Pope's turn the better, till he got it established in the Council of Trent, at which time, and never before, he laid his Anathema upon all them that were of another Mind; forbidding all men to mary, and not to make any use of Christ's Concession. Bed and Board, or Cohabitation, belong to the Essence and Substance of Matrimony; which made Erasmus and Bishop Hall say, That the distinction of those two from the Bond, is merely Chimerical and Fancy. The promise of Constancy and mutual Forbearance, if it hinders Divorce as to the Bond, hinders it also as to bed and board; and because the same bed, and the same table were promised in the Marriage Contract; but the promise does not extend even to Tolerating Adultery, or Malicious Desertion; which, according to God's Ordinance, Dissolves the Marriage. Our Saviour speaks of Divorces Instituted by the Mosaical Law; but they were no other than Divorces from the Bond. The Form of the Bill of Divorce, among the Jews was this, Be Expelled from me, and free for any body else. To give the bill of Divorce, is from the Hebrew Root {αβγδ} which is to break, or cut off the Marriage. With this agree the ancient Canons, Councils, and Fathers of the Church. council. Neocaesar.& Elib. forbid the retaining an Adulterous Wife. council. Eliber. Aurelian.& Arelatens. give Liberty in such Case to mary again Clemens's Constitution, Tertullian, St Basil in his Canons, approved by a General Council, are for Marrying again. council. Venet. If they mary in any other Case than Fornication, they are to be Excommunicated, and not otherwise. council. Wormat. gives Liberty to the Innocent Party to mary after Divorce. council. Lateran. gives leave for the Innocent Party after a Year to mary again. council. Lateran. If any one take another Wife while a svit is depending, and afterwards there be a Divorce between him and the first, he may remain with the Second. Lactantius, St Hierom and Epiphanius, are for allowance of Marriage after Divorce. Chrysostom, Hom. 19. 1 Cor. 7. says, That the Marriage is dissolved by adultery; and that the husband, after he hath put her away, is no longer her husband. Theophylact on the 16th of St. Luke says, That St Luke must be interpnted by St Matthew. St hilary is for marrying again, as Dr Fulk saith upon St Matthew the 7th. The Eastern Bishops, in the Council of Florence, are for marrying again. Justin Martyr speaks of a Christian Woman's giving a bill of Divorce to a dissolute Husband, without finding any fault with it. St Ambrose says, a man may mary again, if he put away an adulterous Wife; Theodoret said of a Wife who violated the Laws of Marriage; Therefore our Lord requires the Bond or tie of Marriage to be dissolved. All the Greek Church to this day allow it. Erasmus, Cajetan, and other Papists: The Civil Law, and the Laws of the Emperor are clear for it: And the Constitutions of our own Church of England, in the time of H. 8. E. 6. and Queen Eliz. The practise of the English Church: In the Stat. 1 Jac. c. 11. against Second Marriages, Divorces are excepted; and in Canon 107. 'tis provided they shall not mary again; but it is not said such Marriages are voided, only the Caution is forfeited: Neither doth the Canon speak of such Separations, wherein the Bond itself is broken, as 'tis by Fornication. Even the Canon Law allows marrying again, in case a Woman seek her Husband's life, and in case of a Bond-woman. Gratian says, in the Cause of Adultery Lawful Marriages ought not to be denied. In the case of an incurable Leprosy, it was the Advice of St Gregory to Austin the Monk. That he that could not contain, should rather mary. Bellarmin owns, that the Bond of the Marriage of Infidels is dissolvable; but the Marriage of the Faithful and of Infidels is of the same nature: and Justinian, a Jesuit, confesses, that it is simply lawful for the innocent party to mary again. And the Roman Doctors allow a dissolution of the Bond of Marriage, if the parties should, after consummation, transfer themselves into a friary or Nunnery. The Canons which in the case of Adultery prohibit Marrying in the life time of the guilty person, are contrary to 2 Acts of Parliament made 25 H. 8. and 3& 4 E. 6, Ref. Leg. Eccles. Tit. de Adulteriis& Divortiis. wherein no Canons are allowed that be any way repugnant to the Laws of God, or the Scripture, the King's Prerogative Royal, and the Statutes of this Land, 32 persons were to review the Canon-Law, in which Review, drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer, the Innocent person is permitted to mary again, according to Christ's Law and Concession. We have examples of such Marriages in H. 4. of France, H. 8. of England, Lord Mountjoy, Lord Rich, Bishop Thornborough, and divers others. And it is observable, That in the Case of the Marquis of Northampton, 5 E. 6. who had been divorced for his Lady's Adultery, and married another before any Act of Parliament made concerning it, an Act which passed afterwards( only two Spiritual and two Temporal Lords dissenting) declares he had been at liberty by the Laws of God to mary, and did lawfully mary another; where the Act manifestly supposes, that whatever had obtained for Law till that time, was voided, as being contrary to God's Law. The most considerable Men of the reformed Churches both at home and abroad are of this opinion: Grotius quotes Tertullian, in whose time it was lawful for the innocent party to mary. Lancelot Inst. Jur. Can. acknowledges that Divorce is a dissolution of the Marriage. Selden, who is not likely to contradict the Laws of this Kingdom, maintaineth, That Marriage after Divorce is to be allowed; and in that particular, Dr Hammond doth not contradict him, but is clearly for it. The Opinion of Amesius deserves to be set down at large: Marriage, says he, cannot be dissolved by men at their pleasure; and for that reason, as it is considered simply and absolutely, it is rightly said to be indissolvable; because Marriage is not only a Civil, but a Divine Conjunction; and is also of that nature, that it cannot be dissolved without detriment to either Party: Yet it is not so indissolvable, but it may be dissolved for a Cause which God approves as just; for the Indissolvability was not instituted for a punishment, but for the Comfort of innocent persons; and it admits an exception, wherein God ceases to conjoin. By Adultery two are made not to remain one Flesh: hence it is, that a Contagious disease is not a cause of dissolving Marriage. By Adultery the very Essence of the Contract is directly violated; but the Contract ceasing, the Bond depending on the Contract necessary ceases. It is against all reason, that all Matrimonial Duties should be for ever taken away, yet the Bond or Obligation to those duties should continue. The words of our Lord, Matth. 5.32. and 19.9. have no distinction or limitation of the putting away, but simply and absolutely approve of putting away; therefore they approve of putting away, not partial, or to a particular purpose, from Bed and Board, but Total. None are against the Reformed Divines, but Dr Howson, Mr Bunny, and Dr Prideaux. Dr Howson was a professed Adversary to Dr Raynolds, who was a great Maintainer of the Church of England against all the points of Popery, and particularly in this. Dr. tailor, Bishop Hall, Dr Fulk, are for second Marriages; no Authors against them but the Council of Trent, and those of the Church of Rome; whose Credit is only saved by those of our Church who agree with them. Upon the difference of Explication between St Ambrose, Origen, and St Austin, a new kind of Divorce has been thought of, from Bed and Board; but this Divorce, or Name of a Divorce, was unknown to the Jews and Ancient Christians. I said so much before, at the first and second reading of this Bill, that I was in good hopes to have had no further occasion given me of answering any Objections against it now; but seeing divers new Arguments have been studied and framed against it since that time, I shall now endeavour to satisfy and clear them all. 1. The First Argument against it is, That the separation from Bed and Board doth not dissolve the Bond of Marriage. To which I must Reply, as I did before, That this is a distinction without a difference; newly invented by the Canonists and Schoolmen, and never heard of either in the Old or New Testament, nor in the times of the ancient Fathers, who accounted the Separation from Bed and Board, to be the Dissolution of the Bond itself. 2. That first Institution of Marriage, that they may be one Flesh, is by Adultery dissolved, when the adulteress makes her self one Flesh with another Man; and thereby dissolves the first Bond of her Marriage. 3. The Objection, that if the Bond be dissolved, and afterwards, if the Man or Woman be reconciled, they must be Married over again, is no necessary Consequence, no more than 'tis in a Person baptized, who may break his Covenant, and renounce his Baptism; and yet upon true Repentance be received into Gods Favour by virtue of the first Covenant, without any new Baptism. Suppose a Witch, who they say makes a Compact with the Devil, to renounce her Baptism; should afterwards, by the Grace of God, seriously and truly Repent herself of the wickedness; I do not believe that any body would take upon him to baptize her again: and if a Priest should renounce his Orders, and turn Turk, and yet afterwards repent him, and return into the Church, he need not be re-ordained a second time. The case will be the same in Marriage. 4. I said heretofore, That the Roman Doctors allowed this Dissolution of the Bond when the Man and Wife, even after the consummation of Marriage, would transfer themselves into a friary, or a Nunnery: but because it hath been since doubted, that no Authority can be shewed for this particular, I shall here show it ●t of the old Constitutions of the Church of England. And in the Case of Religion, that is the true understanding, that, to wit, either of them betaking themselves to Religion before Carnal Knowledge, Prov. Will. Lindewode, sieve Const. Ang. fol. 94. Ver. nul. latenus Separentur. the Bond of the Marriage be dissolved: but if both enter into Religion, and make solemn Profession, then such Marriage is dissolved, even as to the Bond. 5. It hath also been said, that if the Bill pass, it will pass against the Church of England: which, I confess, I do not understand: for the Church of England is within the Kingdom of England; and if the Laws of this Kingdom be for the Bill, and have declared it by the Assent of the King, Lords, and Commons, as in the Case of the Marquis of Northampton, was heretofore declared in the time of King Edward the 6th. That by the Laws of God the Innocent Party was at liberty to mary again. Certainly the Spiritual Lords, as well as the Temporal and Commons, are bound to admit it; and I know not why they should be called the Church of England, that join with the Council of Trent, and pled so much to uphold it, rather than others that join with all the Reformed Churches, and pled against that Canon of the Church of Rome, which hath laid an Anathema upon us, if we do not agree with them. As to the supposed inconveniencies that will follow upon marrying again. 1. More inconveniencies will follow if they be forbidden to mary again. 2. The Father would be in an uncertainty of the Children, if he should retain the Adulteress. 3. There would be danger of poisoning or killing one another, if no second Marriage were allowed. 4. Where the Parties should consent to new Marriages for their own Lusts, the Magistrates have power to over-rule such practices. 5. If they be kept altogether by Divorce from Marrying, it would occasion the Innocent Party to sin. A little before the main question about passing the Duke's Bill, the Dutchesses Agents handed about this Paper, among such as they thought to be her Friends. THE CASE of Mary, duchess of Norfolk. UPon the Marriage of the duchess with the now Duke of Norfolk, in the year 1677, her Father the late Earl of Peterborough, paid as part of her Portion 10000 l. and Settled on that Marriage Lands of near 1000 l. per annum, the Remainder of which on Failure of Issue was limited to the now Duke and his Heirs for ever; and the Earl after his and his Lady's death secured to the Duke the Forfeiture of Drayton, worth 10000 l. more, and the Duke received also by Agreement 1000 l. per annum for Twenty years out of the Earls Estate; besides very rich Jewels, Plate, and other things of great value, which the duchess brought with her into the Duke's Family: And great Debts having been contracted, for the support of the Duke's Honour and his Service, while he cohabited with the duchess, she hath since his Separation from her paid them out of her own Estate. That by the evil and malicious insinuations of the Dutchess's enemies, the Duke was prevailed on to carry her, then a Protestant, into France, and to put her into a Monastery( where she could not be admitted without changing her Religion) and l●ft her there, on great assurances of sending for her home in a short time, and so partend with great expressions of kindness. That a considerable time after, by the Dukes consent, she returned into England, and lived retiredly at Drayton in Northamptonshire; and at the time of the Revolution she again retired to France, where, she continued till she heard of her Fathers's Imprisonment in the Tower, and then came back to England, and lived privately till her Father obtained his Liberty, when she came home to him. That the 8th of January, 1691. the Duke was prevailed on by the instigation of her Enemies, to exhibit a Bill in the House of Peers, to the same effect with the Bill now depending, and divers Witnesses were examined on both sides, after which and a long solemn debate and due consideration had by their Lordships of the Witnesses, and what was Sworn by them, the 17th of February, they were pleased to reject the Bill without a second reading. Notwithstanding which the Duke was again prevailed on the 22th of December, 1692. to exhibit a Second Bill in the House of Peers, to the same effect with his First, which after several debates, was the 2d of January following again rejected. Sometime after this, and for accommodating all differences between them, Proposals were made to the duchess, which after long agitation, on 28th of April, 1694. were reduced into writing, and executed by the Duke and duchess: The preamble of which Articles is in the words following. Whereas divers Controversies, Debates, Demands, and Suits of several natures have for some time since been agitated, and continued between the said Duke and the said duchess his Wife, &c. unto all which it is at last held fitting( it being conducible to their respective quiets and ease) to have an end put, and the like for the future prevented. It is therefore hereby and by the Parties to these presents declared and agreed in manner following; Whereby the duchess conveyed to the Duke's use the Mannor of Castle Rising, &c. And also the said duchess and her Trustees assigned their Interest in a considerable part of the Mannor of Sheffield in Yorkshire to the use of the said Duke. So that by these Articles, and that dead executed thereupon, the Duke had his then desired Advantages. That after the execution of these Articles, the duchess sent for one Mr Negus the Dukes principal Gentleman, and expressed herself very sensible of the misfortunes of the Duke and her self, and desired Mr Negus to tell the Duke, that she would avoid all Company that should give him any offence, and that she would not so much as pay a Visit, but where he liked; which Mr Negus lately testified before the Lords, and that he acquainted the Duke with it, as also that she had several times told him, if she Dyed first, she would leave the Duke her Estate. That notwithstanding the said Agreements, whereby the Duke and duchess agreed to live Separately, yet without his signifying any Dissatisfaction to or with the duchess, and without any manner of Notice, or previous proceeding in the common and ordinary Course of Justice, but by taking from her that Legal trial in the Ecclesiastical Court, which by the Laws of this Realm she is entitled unto, he did on the 16th day of February last exhibit in the House of Peers the Bill now depending for Dissolving the Dukes Marriage with the duchess, and for enabling him to mary again. Upon which the proceedings were so very quick, two Foreigners( a French Foot-man and a Dutch Cook maid) lately brought from beyond Sea, being forthwith examined against her, charging her with Facts supposed to be committed many years since, and long before the date of the said Agreement, and on which the two former Bills were founded, that it was impossible for her to make her Defence as she might have done, if the proceedings had been against her according to the known Laws of this Land. The duchess thought herself under a necessity of complying with all the Orders of the House of Peers, and accordingly as well as she could, made her Defence, tho less than a weeks time was allowed her for doing it, and upon examining the Evidence of the Dukes Witnesses, many contradictions appeared, some whereof follow, as doth appear by the depositions taken in Writing, and now remaining in the House of Peers. For Hauseur the Footman swears the duchess was at the Cock-Pit, when and before he came to live with Sir John Germaine, and that he continued there fifteen days after, and that after the duchess left the Cock-pit she went to Fox hall. Vanness the Cook-maid swears Hauseur came to Sir John when the duchess was at Foxhall. Hauseur swears that 8th Feb. 92 he left Sir Johns service, when the trial was between the Duke and duchess in Parliament, and afterlived privately six or eight weeks, till he and Vanness could get for Holland, and arrived there in Easter following. And yet in another place he swore he desired leave to go, and afterwards that he also went for Holland as soon as the wind was fair. But note, all the Evidence was closed and ordered to be summed up the 9th of February, so that he need not afterwards to have gone. And whereas he insinuates that he and Vanness were secreted and kept from being Witnesses: Note, it doth no where appear, that either he or Vanness were ever thought on for Witnesses. Hauseur swears he returned again to Sir John in Summer 92, being often sent to by Sir John. Whereas Bayly an other of the Dukes Witnesses, swears he did not return again to Sir John in two years after he went away, Bayly the witness being all that time and three years before, a Servant in the House. Note also, that this very Summer 92, to wit, in Easter Term, the Duke brought his Action against Sir John, which was tried Michaelmas Term 92, at which time it had been more likely, if Sir John had believed he could have done him any harm, he should have kept him in Holland, rather than have sent for him over, especially considering that this fellow afterwards swears Sir John swore in a rage this fellow would betray him. Hauseur being asked who sent for Vanness over, He answered, that after he had promised the Duke and Lord Howard, to speak the truth of what he knew, they desired him if he met Vanness to desire her to come over, and speak the truth of what she knew. And being asked how long after he met Vanness, answered about 12 months since. And being asked when was the first time he spoken to her, about her coming over to speak the truth, answered, 'tis about a year since. And being asked how long it was since they resolved to come over, answered, 12 months. Vanness being asked whether she was not sent for from Holland to be a witness, Answered, she knew nothing of it, till eight or nine weeks ago. Van●ess Swears she was sent away on account of the trial. Whereas Peacock, Hawkesworth, and Knight, three Servants of the duchess, Swore the duchess turned her away before the Tyral, for keeping company with Dutch Souldiers, and they do Swear a new Cook maid there before the trial. Hauseur Swears he had a Key of the door going into the Park, and could come in when he would, And yet owns, he knew but two of the Servants, one whereof is long since dead. And also the Dutchesses Servants swear they never heard any body had a Key, and that if any Key had been, they must have known of it; they also prove the Shutting up, Bolting and Chaining the door every night, and Opening it every morning, and but one of the Servants remembers ever to have seen him at the door, and then he rung the Bell, but came only to see a Country woman of his, and to carry Letters to Holland, and brought answer back to her, but was not admitted beyond the passage. Hauseur and Vanness Swear they saw the duchess and Sir John in Bed together at Millbank. The Dutchesses Woman swore she has put the duchess to Bed, and taken her up every night and morning several years, and never saw him in the House. And two others swear they were constantly in waiting night and morning, and positively deny any knowledge of any such thing, and say they never saw Hauseur there, and that Vanness was never admitted up stairs, she was so dirty a creature, much less to dress or undress the duchess, as she pretended often to have done. Vanness swears she could not tell the places she has been at these six weeks last past. Whereas Mr May, and two other of the Dukes servants, Swear she has been fourteen days in the Dukes own house, with the full liberty of the House. Vanness being asked whether she ever told any body of the occasion of her going away, she swore yes, she told it to a great many in Holland, and not here. Yet being afterwards asked whether she ever discovered that she was sent out of the way, she swore directly no. These are some of the many plain Contradictions and Disproofs of these Evidences; besides the great improbability in their own nature, in several things sworn. But it is also to be noted, that Hauseur left Sir John's service in a disgust, and so it is proved by bailie another of the Dukes Witnesses, and that what Hauseur swore could be nothing but spite and Malice. Yea, it is proved on the Dutchesses part, that he swore he would find a way to be revenged of him, and that perhaps it might not be long first; and Mr Strange, Mrs. pits, and her two Maids, who could have deposed very materially for the duchess refused to appear, tho often summoned; being persons not in the Dutchesses Interest or Power. This Hauseur has been out of place ever since he left Sir John's service, April 96. and is so still, as he Swears And so in consequence likely to be necessitous. Note also, that Hauseur swears Sir John gave him seven Guineas to pay the charges of himself, Vanness and another, which were ordered to be kept private, till they could be shipped off, and also for their passage into Holland, which was in time from the 8th of Feb. 92. till Easter. Which does not look like a Bribe for a secret of this nature, being hardly sufficient to maintain three people, and pay their Lodgings, for two months. Hauseur would be thought a mighty Confident, so as to have a Key to the Dutchesses house, to come in and go out when he pleased; and yet, as well acquainted as he pretended to be with the House, and the Dutchesses Bed-chamber, he could not tell on what Floor it was, nor what Furniture it had; nor whether Wainscotted or Hanged. And when he was asked, which way the Windows of the Bed chamber looked, he trifled in that Question, and concluded he could see the Water, but was afraid to go near the Window for fear of being discovered, and yet had no scruple of coming into the house with his Key at any time. These things being observed, it must be considered, that the Facts now in effect charged against the duchess, are suggested to be done many years since, and were debated and considered before the Peers, before the rejection of the two first Bills, and long before the agreement for putting an end to all Controversies and Debates. Now 'tis very hard to put the duchess to account again, for those very Facts, considering that after eight or nine years, many people are dead, others dispersed, and not in a little time to be found out. and circumstances of times and places( which in the nature of all these Cases is almost all that is left to discover a Falsity) forgot. The duchess is also under the unavoidable necessity of proving a Negative against downright Swearing, and that without any matter Introductory, and also by two mean Servants, the one turned out of her place for keeping company with Foot Souldiers, and the other leaving his place in disgust, because he could not have the Play Money. Masters are already too much in the power of their Servants, and if they charge their Masters with Adultery, Felony, and even Treason, it is not easily in the power of the Master to defend himself against downright Swearing; Servants having those opportunities of the knowledge of times and places and company, which cannot be denied or avoided, and which others have not, whereupon they may frame and build false Evidence, and many times are of ill Principles and desperate Fortunes, and of tempers very Revengeful, so that whoever turns away a Servant, he is in his power for his Estate, Honour, and even Life itself. And therefore for the safety and freedom of Families, in other Countries they are not permitted to be Evidence against their Masters in any matter criminal whatsoever. Note also, that the duchess thinks she as an English Subjects has by Magna Carta the same right to a trial in the legal and ordinary was of Justice, as the rest of the Kings Subjects, especially considering that there never yet was in England one Precedent, of a Bill exhibited in Parliament to dissolve a Marriage at the first instance, without any previous proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts;( which in these Cases is the Law of the Land) and not above five or six Bills, in above 600 years, ever passed to dissolve Marriages, or make Second Marriages good, even after there had been a Divorce in the Spiritual Courts, and those Bills too in Cases generally where the Husbands were without any recrimination. No Impediment appears why the Duke should not have endeavoured a Divorce at Law, before he had attempted a Bill to dissolve the Marriage. For any Application to the Legislature for trial of matters of private right is improper, because there are proper Judicatures, that give that remedy the Law allows. To ask any thing of the Legislature, in private Causes between party and party, beyond what the known Laws in force give, seems to be improper, because, 1. It is to make a Law in one persons case, which is not the Law in anothers. 2. It is to retrospect actions, and after the Fact to augment or alter the Penalty. Our Laws are certain and known, that persons may comform their actions to them. 3. The Courts and Forms of Law are equally the Subjects right with the Law, and the application to the Legislature, takes away all that right of Form and Charging, whereas a certainty in time to answer, and exceptions to witnesses, and other Legal defences of the Fact, cannot be denied the meanest Subject. The consequence that short and summary ways of proceedings may have on the Settlements of Estates and Families, may be very dangerous, and tho the Duke of Norfolk's Bill passed the House of Peers, yet a great number of the Peers both Spiritual and Temporal, entred their protest against its passing, and their reasons for it. It ought to be no prejudice to the duchess, that the next Heir presumptive to the Duke doth not as yet appear to be a Protestant, because when a Bill which hath lately passed both Houses is become a Law, it is not likely that noble Family will be without a Protestant at the head of it. If any of the witnesses formerly examined on the Bill in 1691. be now again produced, it is humbly apprehended, that as the validity of their testimony they then gave was totally overthrown, by a greater number of witnesses, so it will be again, tho under the disadvantage of the great distance of time. Martis 19. die Martij, 1699. The Reading the Bill, for dissolving the Marriage of the Duke of Norfolk, the second time, and hearing Council as well on behalf of the duchess against the Bill, as on behalf of the Duke for the Bill, being the Order of the Day, before the Council was called in, to prevent the Inconvenience of People crowding into the House, the House made an Order, That none but the Council, solicitors, and Parties should be called in, and that the Witnesses should have notice to attend without, ready to be called in, if the House should think fit. It was also intimated, That if the Duke and duchess did think fit to come into the House, they should be accommodated with Chairs, that being a respect shewed to the Nobility when they come into the House. And then the Council, and solicitors, and Parties of both sides were called in: And first the Bill was red to them. And then the Lady Dutchess's Petition was red. The Council that appeared, were Sir Thomas Powys, for the duchess. Mr. Dod, for the duchess. Dr. Pinfold, for the duchess. Mr. Serj. Wright, for the Duke. Mr. Northey, for the Duke. Mr. Alwood, for the Duke. Dr. Oldish, for the Duke. And Mr. Speaker then spake to this effect: Mr. Speaker, You are there, I see, council on both sides. The House have ordered, That my Lady duchess should be heard according to the Prayer of her Petition; and my Lord Duke had likewise an Order to be heard to make good his Bill. I think the Petitioner is to be heard first, to make good the Allegations of her Petition; and when the House have heard you both, as to that, they will consider whether they will proceed to hear the Alligations of the Bill made out. Sir Thomas Powys, Mr. Speaker, with your favour, Sir, I am of council with the Petitioner, the duchess of Norfolk, against this Bill that is now before you, and I believe I may say with some assurance, that this Bill, in the manner as it is now brought before you, is the first that ever was attempted in this Honourable House. It's, Sir, true, that several years ago this Bill, or another of the same Nature, was attempted twice in the other House, and as often rejected; but 'tis as true, at last it does come from thence hither, but not without a Protestation there; and I humbly hope you will take notice that this is a Bill of Divorce in Parliament, in the first Instance, without a previous Prosecution to examine the Fact in any of the Ordinary Courts, that have Authority in these Matters. It is a Bill not only to Divorce the duchess upon a very short warning, who hath been a Wife twenty three Years, but to render her Infamous to all Posterity by Act of Parliament, which I account to be the greatest Misfortune possible to befall any Person; and at the same time it takes from her the legal trial of the Fact whereof she is accused, and which she hath a right to by the Law of the Land, sure as much as the meanest Subject; and which we don't apprehended she has in any wise forfeited, nor is there any reason assigned, why his Grace has not been pleased to proceed in the Ordinary Course. I hope, Sir, you will take notice also, that this is in truth, nothing but a svit between Party and Party. 'tis merely a Cause Matrimonial between Husband and Wife, began originally in the House of Peers, and as hitherto the beginning of Causes between Party and Party, in that House hath been strongly opposed, so I hope it will be thought reasonable to do so always, because it deprives the Subject of that Legal Defence due to him by the Law of the Land. If this was always complained of, when the Proceedings were in a Judicial way, surely 'tis a great deal worse to begin there a private Cause between Party and Party in the Legislative way. I can see no manner of difference with respect to the loss of those great Advantages the Party is entitled to, only this seems rather to be the most against reason. Sir, this is a summary Proceeding with a Witness. It began but the 16. of February, and but a Weeks time was given to the Party accused of so high a Crime, and of so great consequence to the Party accused, to be heard to it; and tho perhaps we may with reason enough find fault with the tedious proceedings in some Courts, where Appeals and Writs of Error are justly due, as where Property is well fixed, it must needs be reasonable. I say, from various Causes, though Suits in the Ordinary Courts are very tedious, yet I am sure a Summary way of proceeding without due warning, or any certain way of making Defence by any known rules, and without Oath, as here without Appeal, without any possibility of retrieving the matter again, with great submission, and if this must be for all that one has in the World, such a Summary way is a very terrible thing. I would be glad any one would make it his own Case, and think with themselves how they should like it, if their Life, Estate, and all they had, were put upon such a Summary way of proceeding. 'tis true, in some Kingdoms where the Government is Arbitrary, the Proceedings are summarily, and most commonly they go together; and if we were in a place where the Judges were infallible, and there were no False Witnesses, and Truth could be discovered at an instant, a Summary way would be best; but since Men are fallible, since there is Passion and Partiality in the World, since oftentimes there is notorious Detections of Perjury, and several things are difficult to be disclosed, and require a reasonable time for examining into Facts; from thence it is that there are settled Courses for determining all Questions in England between Party and Party; and there are known Rules and good Methods, for the relieving against any ill judgement that is given. Whatever you may think of this particular Case of the duchess of Norfolk; the Example is of mighty consequence to all Parents, that perhaps make hard shift to give their Daughters considerable Portions, and may think they have married them well, and made Provision for them and their Children. I say it will be hard, if their Daughters should be sent home to them upon a Fortnights warning, and that Witnesses should be examined against them, without their having notice so much as of the places of their Abode. And a thing should be determined before the Witnesses can be well known, and it must be agreed to be of great Consequence to all Collateral Heirs, if Marriages are so easily and suddenly set aside for want of Issue, which I find to be one of the Causes assigned for this Bill, and that it may be in a Summary way, perhaps, before they can well hear of it. I am sure, this is a matter of too great Temptation to be put upon Men that may grow weary of their Wives, and desire a better Fortune, or desire Change, or may be moved by a thousand Reasons we can't think off, to revive old Quarrels, and think of things long since passed, if you will set such a Precedent of Divorcing in such a Summary way. This is sure of infinite concern to us in higher matters. A Bill of Divorce of a Woman in Parliament, without a Legal trial, is just the same thing as a Bill of Attainder against a Man for Treason; the one forfeits the Estate, corrupts the Blood, and takes away his Life, and the other does very little less: For I find according to the Bill, 'tis to forfeit her jointure, to defame her Person, corrupt her Reputation; and though it leave her Life, it is left with Infamy, which is worse than Death, and in a Case of this high moment, sure you will be careful how you alter the course of Trials. I beseech you, Sir, will not the reason be the same, that a Bill of Attainder may be brought against a Man, and that Witnesses against him may be fetched from beyond Sea, which he had formerly discharged from his Service, and put the other side to prove what is always very difficult, the Negative, to make his Defence, which must needs require a reasonable time for the making out of Circumstances, and laying Evidence together; where will be the difference between proceeding against a Man for his Life without a trial, and proceeding against a Woman for her jointure, where her Name, Family, and Reputation, is concerned, and perhaps her Children, the ligitimacy of whom must come in question; and in a Case, where the Person by no behaviour of hers hath forfeited such a trial, nor the Person that Prosecutes this Bill, can't show, that he hath been obstructed in his proceeding in the ordinary way. I need not take notice of what every body knows, that we have a happy Constitution, if we can keep it, every Man can call his Wife his own, and his Estate his own, because it can't be taken away, but by Legal trial; but if you will go into these extraordinary resorts, when the Courts and the Law is open, without any previous Preparations for that Matter, by having a fair Examination, that the Party can't say there is a surprise, I know not where it will end; and though in one case it may be desirable that there should be an extraordinary Relief; but will this go no farther? Can any body say that? That which we find in Magna Charta is not to be forgot, where there is so much care in the several instances of it for the preserving of Property, and the Right of trials, Quod nullus destruatur, nec supper eum ibimus, nec supper eum mittemus, nisi per legal judicium parium svorum vel per legem terrae. Why, in this Case the Ecclesiastical Law, is Lex Terrae. And if that be to be taken away without any Reason, why may not the Law in any other Case. We have perhaps in time of great Emergency and public difficulties, had some extraordinary Laws grounded on Extraordinary Reasons, but now we are in a time of settled Peace, when there may be a just determination according to the Law of the Land, I can't see any reason for this proceeding, no not in this particular case. I would Sir with your favour, take notice of those few Instances of this kind, that have been in England by Act of Parliament, and in what manner they have proceeded. There have not passed hardly Six in Six hundred years, I think I may challenge them on the other side to show so great a number, but those I have I shall quote: But they Proceed d in another manner than this had done. 'tis true, where Persons have had a fair trial in a proper Court, and Witnesses have been Examined, and Sentence final been pronounced, and where the party as to the fact hath been concluded according to the Law of the Land, when all this hath passed, some Instances there have been, that afterwards an Act of Parliament has passed to strengthen the Sentence, and to carry it farther than the Ecclesiastical Courts will allow, even to the dissolving the Marriage, and Enabling the Innocent Person to mary again, but you will find all those Acts are founded and built upon the Sentence in those Courts, and recite those Sentences as a great inducement to the passing of those Acts, and I crave leave just to take notice of those. The first we find, is that made in the Case of the marquis of Northampton, which was in 5 E. 6. He was Married to a Daughter of the Earl of Essex, and she Eloped from him, and was prosecuted in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and there was Sentence against her of Divorce. The marquis from hence took upon him to mary a Daughter of the Lord Cobham, and after Four Years Marriage of her he obtained an Act of Parliament to ratify the Second Marriage, which Act recites a settlement of Divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court. This took its rise from Examination according to Law, and that Act of Parliament is grounded upon it, and recites it as a previous matter necessary to induce that Act. The next that follow's was the famous Case of the Lord Ross, afterwards Earl of Rutland, though there perhaps was as great a notoriety of Fact as can be pretended in this Case, and he did not stand impeached of any immodest behaviour, but even in that case the Divorce by the Act, followed a Divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court, and that passed with such Difficulty that it was Four Years in hand, it began in Sixty Six, and was not passed till Seventy. I have a Copy of it; and it says that forasmuch as manors commonly called L. Ross. And it proceeds thereupon to Enable him to mary again, but this Sir could not be but by two Acts of Parliament, besides the Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court, for he first got that Court to declare the Children illegimate, and then in the year( 70) the Parliament passed this Act. I know of no other till we come to a case that happened within our Memory, 'tis the Case of a Person of great worth, and I hope it will give no offence when I city the Precedent. It was the Case of Mr. Lukenor, who had been grossly abused by his Wife, by Elopement and open Adultery, but the Act he obtained went no farther than to disable the Children born while she lived in open Adultery, and that Act recites a Sentence of Divorce, I have the Copy of it, and I crave leave I may red a few lines of it, It recites that Mr. Lukenors Wife had Eloped from her Husband. There was indeed a famous case not long ago of a Lady that was taken away by Force, and pretended to be Married, and an Act of Parliament came afterwards to declare that Marriage Null and voided, but even there was a proceeding at Law with a Witness. The Person that had been concerned, was actually Indicted and Executed, it was not there to make a Divorce, and so it had been a Vain thing to have gone into the Spiritual Court, where there was no Marriage, for it was only a Law after the Fact Declaratory by way of Caution, to give the more satisfaction that that Marriage was Null and voided. Sir, the last I know of( and it may be proper for you to observe how quick these People come after it) was that of a Noble Earl, that did obtain last Parliament, an Act for Divorcing him and his Lady. It is the Case of the Earl of Macclesfield, but in that Case it will be proper to take notice to you, that there were previous proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, there was a libel exhibited against her, a charge upon her, and Witnesses examined, and she had a fair Opportunity of making her Defence, there was a Regular and a long Proceeding against her, and a Prosecution of her, in order to a Sentence of Excommunication, and then there came the Earls Petition into the House of Peers, setting forth that there had been such a Proceeding as this, and that she stood in contempt, having been Prosecuted as far as that Court could go, after an Examination of Winesses, in all the Cases I have heard of a Divorce by Act of Parliament, there have been Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, this was the way of former times, but now we are beginning where the matter ought to End. And now the first Application is to that place, wherein all these Instances( as I think it ought to be) was the last resort. 'tis true this Method may not please the Duke, for we know his Grace is in hast, and for cutting the knot a sunder, at once by the Legislative Power, but I hope upon these Precedents, you will think it more reasonable it should be at first untied, or at least loosened by a Judicial Proceeding. If you will, I do not see how in Justice the Parliament can deny the like Remedy the next Sessions to any other that may be in the like case, it may be in worse, for here is no pretence of any Spurious Issue; can the Parliament of England, whence we take our measures of Justice, deny the like remedy in Justice to any others that are in the like Case? What is it that guards you from an infinite application of this Nature, but requiring Persons to take the ordinary course first, and to come round about to the Parliament, as the last Remedy, to carry the Sentence perhaps farther than the Ecclesastical Court can do, but if Persons may come up directly hither, I am apt to think your Lobby will be crowded with Petitioners of this nature the next Sessions, though the Sessions now are long and frequent, this single business may be so great as to obstruct all other business, I am sure a Committee for Adultery would have a full Employment. Let it be considered how strange it would be if some Poor Man upon this precedent, shall come and make Application, and tell you he stands in need of such a Bill from the condition of his Family, that his Wife Plunders his House, sells his Goods, and lives in Adultery, and pray this matter may be examined in a Summary way, because he is not able to go through the costly course of Ecclesiastical Courts, and be favoured with a Divorce; would not this Poor Mans Case seem to have the like Justice, or possibly more, and yet if such a mean Man should come with such a Petition, perhaps it would look strange, and yet in Justice there is no respect of Persons, the Law in England is Unum pondus& una mensura, and if this should be done in the Case of a great and Rich Man, and not for a Poor Man, they may say what hath been said by some, That our Laws are like the Spiders web, which only holds the Lesser infects. Shall those that expect the best Fortunes and greatest Advantage by Marriage, not undergo the bad Fortune of Marriage too? I am sure if this be so, it's a Privilege of Peerage, never thought of before. You may see Sir by this Bill how Precedents grow upon you; at first in the Case of the marquis of Northampton, it was hard to get an Act after a Divorce: So it was in the Case of my Lord Rose; the last Sessions, in the Case of the Earl of Macclesfield it went farther there, because there had been a previous proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court, and his Lady had Obstructed that Sentence, that Act passed before Sentence, but now we are come to have it done without so much as a trial to get a Divorce in the Ecclesiastical Courts, to have all passed at once in a Summary way, it will be but to Petition the Parliament, and all shall be determined without a possibility of being reheard. I know nothing can be said on the other side with good reason( unless that which I heard in another place) why they should not go to the Ecclesiastical Court, which is that those Courts cannot Divorce a Vinculo Matrimony, therefore it would have been a vain thing; this may be a good Reason for them to come to you afterwards, but 'tis no Reason for them to come here at first, unless they will say at the same time, that every thing ought to be begun in Parliament, because 'tis possible every thing may be brought to the House of Peers at last, will they say that all Ejectments ought to be begun Originally in the House of Peers, because after the Parties have been at great charge and trouble in the Courts below, they may be brought thither by Writ of Error at the last. This would have been a good Expedient, in a cause lately where a dead was tried over and over, if the Persons concerned in so many Verdicts, had once thought of having begun in Parliament to have had it settled, whether it was a just dead or no, if this be the rule, it would be well it were known, and made to be the Law of the Kingdom, for that Law will be always reckoned heard which is made in one Case, if it may not be had in another, the Law of England does go throughout, and if it be Law for one 'tis for another: I have but one thing more to lay before you, and that seems worthy of your consideration, besides all that I have said. You observe the Bill is General without Restraint, of Time and Place, or Description, or Circumstances relating to the Fact; now, Sir, I must take leave to acquaint you, that so long ago as April, 1694. his Grace the Duke, who complains of this matter, as if some new misfortune had befallen him, having made former Complaints and Attempts for obtaining what he now desires, did at last in April, 1694. not suddenly, but by Advice of Council, with his Friends about him, after a long time of agitation come to Articles with his Wife the duchess, of which I crave leave only to red the Preamble. The Articles are between his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of Peterborough, and recites.— It is therefore determined by the Parties, and agreed as followeth, and thereupon the Articles proceed to settle every thing between the Duke and duchess, Vide her printed Case ut infra. to his own Satisfaction, and according to his own Desire; His Grace hath Reaped the benefit of those Articles, by having received a great Sum of Money, and the duchess partend with her Interest in that great and Noble Mannor of Sheffeild, his Grace hath had all that he on his part was to have, and hath Executed abundance of Deeds pursuant to this agreement: Now if after all this there be a Prospect of farther Advantage by another Marriage, that will not move you to give him a liberty for a departure from so Solemn Agreement, in what a Condition are People that have Purchased their Peace as the duchess has, if they may have Liberty to go back beyond this, for the Bill has no stint; surely all Reconciliation, between Men and their Wives, and all Acts towards them, and all Acts of kindness are to be favoured, and matters of a Divorce are of an odious Nature, and not to be Encouraged after such composure of Differences and Reconciliation. We have Instances of some that have taken their Wives again, and lived Comfortably afterwards; surely it shall not be in their power to go back and say, Pray let us be Divorced. 'tis contrary to the use of all Acts of Pardon, what is the End of all Acts of Parliament, of General Pardon, and all Statutes of Limitation, but to ease People in such a Case, for 'tis impossible that any person can be able to Defend their Actions, Nine or Ten Years ago, they can't keep their Witnesses alive, and therefore the Law hath often limited a time, beyond which Persons shall not go back, and this we think the Duke hath done by Articles, and surely they are Conclusive both before God and Man. I shall say no more, but that I don't apprehended the Nation will be in any great Danger. If the Duke do betwixt this and the next Session, proceed in the ordinary Course, and prepare matters against another Session, I am sure 'tis of Great consequence; no Man can deny, but we have a good constitution, but if it is in the Case of a particular Person, to be broken, such a breach in this Constitution may not be very easily recovered. I hope this Cause that is precipitated here out of time, and before those Preparations were made, that have been in all others Cases, shall be remitted to its proper place, where her Grace will give the Duke a Meeting, if they be not before that reconciled. Mr. Dodd. Mr. Speaker. I desire the favour of a word of the same side. These Bills are not common, I think there are not above three Instances to be found in the Records of this Kingdom. This Bill is to Dissolve a Marriage after Twenty three Years continuance, and that not upon so many Days Notice, as there have been Years of the Marriage, for to serve the particular purposes of one Person, 'tis a Law after the s●pposed Fact committed, the Law should go first, and the Fact follow, it is not a General Law, for all the People of England, as such it would have another Consideration, there is no occasion for particular Law, 'tis a Bill from the Lords, and in a little time for what I know, the Lords will prescribe to it, there is not one of these Bills for a Commoner, unless in my Lord Ross's Case, who was of a Noble Family. 'tis not pretended by this Bill, that the duchess hath had any Spurious Issue, though that was the Circumstances of one of the Bills that did pass, and that was a Material Circumstance in the Case, and that is not alleged here. These Bills are not to be made use off, but upon extraordinary occasions, and the utmost extremity, and till then I hope such Bills shall not be made use off, and we think the Proceeding upon this Bill, in this Case will appear much harder; for 'tis the first Instance of this Nature, when there has been no Proceeding in any Court whatsoever, to convict the duchess of this Offence, no citation all this while in the Ecclesiastical Courts, where the duchess might have an Opportunity to make her Defence. If those Courts have Jurisdiction in any one thing, 'tis in Case of Matrimony, if this was brought into those Courts, the duchess would be allowed to make her Defence, not only by way of Recrimination, but Examination of Witnesses; a Commission might be had to Examine Witnesses beyond Sea, if she had any Witnesses there, or in the Country; she might appeal to a superior Court, and thence to the Delegates; these are all proper Defences that the Law allows, that there may be no surprise upon the Party; and if injured, he may be righted in another place; these Proceedings we think are necessary to go before a Bill of this Nature, for then the Fact would be plain, and if the duchess had been convicted in this manner, as to the Fact we must not have opened our Mouths against it. By the same Reason that a Bill is brought to Dissolve this Marriage, in a little time you may have a Bill to mary People. Be it enacted for such and such Reasons, such Persons shall be married, this would be a much readier way in Case of Contracts, than any Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts. And though they may say the Law of England takes notice of Contracts of Matrimony, as well as any other Acts, that is, no Answer; for the Fact is, whether there is any Contract of Matrimony, or no; and so 'tis here, Whether my Lady is guilty of the Crimes charged here in the Bill, and for this she ought to have a proper trial, and ought to be called to an Account in the ordinary Methods of Law, and then it might be proper to carry the Sentence farther than those Courts can. I hope you will be very tender of making a new precedent, and I do not know of any Bill before this to convict a Woman of a supposed Crime; then this is the first Bill of this Nature, and you will consider, whether you will make a precedent of it( or no) though this before you is the Case of a Great and Honourable Person, yet your Justice will be the same, if it should happen that any other Man in the Kingdom should be in the same Circumstances, and willing to slip over all trials, whereby the Person accused might have an opportunity of making her just Defence, as is the Case of this Noble Lady, who is hurried on after twenty three years Marriage to a Determination, in as many Days in this extraordinary manner. I hope therefore you will not proceed in a Bill of this extraordinary Nature, of which there is not one instance to be given, where you have begun to examine a supposed Crime, but you have always left it to the Determination of the Law in the ordinary Course, and we think it ought the rather to be so in this Case, because 'tis not pretended by the Bill, that there is any stop put to their proceedings there; there is no absence of Witnesses, no incapacity, but his Grace may proceed there to convict this Lady of the Crime he supposes her guilty of, and she will there have her just Defence, and till then there is no Crime for you to judge upon; and I hope you will think fit to Reject this Bill. Dr. Pinfold, Mr. Speaker, I desire to speak a few words as to the Ecclesiastical Law, which is a part of the Law of England, as much as any other, for our Law does not receive Majus& Minus; and the Ecclesiastical Courts have been settled for several Ages, and are governed by such Rules, which every Subject hath a Right to. Sir, This Bill is to Dissolve the Bond of Marriage, and to give leave to mary again; and I crave leave to show the House what our Ecclesiastical Constitutions are in that Case, and how tender they have been in that Point, and how those Constitutions are grounded upon the Cannons and Decrees of Councils. The Cases where the Bond of Marriage is to be dissolved, are but few, and they arise before Marriage; 'tis in the case of the Precontract, or Nonage, or Consanguinity, and there the Bond is broken by the Sentence of the Judge, and the Person hath liberty to mary again; but for what comes afterwards, whether it be the Case of Adultery, or any thing else, the Law Ecclesiastical, which as I said before, is part of the Law of England, hath been very careful not to Dissolve the Marriage. The 48th Canon says, If any Lay-man shall put away his Wife, and mary another, he shall be excommunicated; That was the Sense of those early Days, and sure they did not think it an indifferent matter, because they punished it with so heavy a Punishment. So it was in the Council of Arles, 314. and there it was decreed, that if a Man took his Wife in Adultery, he should be forbidden to mary: There, what was to be done? Counsel should be given him not to mary while she lived, though she was an adulteress. And in the Council, 402. the Neapolitan, Evangelical, Apostolical Council, it was decreed, That if a Man was divorced from his Wife, or a Wife from her Husband, there they were not to mary, but should remain unmarried, or be reconciled. And in the African Council, Canon 102. there it was provided, That they who were divorced, whether it was a Husband from his Wife, or Wife from her Husband, they should remain unmarried. This was the sense of the Ancient Canons and Councils, and this is received into our Ecclesiastical Constitution. In the 15. Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, in the Chapter of Divorces, 'tis said, That upon a Sentence of Divorce, there must be an Admonition, and a Prohibition, that the Party shall not mary again. And in the Year 1602. in the beginning of King James's Reign, there was a farther Provision made to keep them from being married again, and that was this, That they should give Bond and Security they should not mary again, this is certainly our Ecclesiastical Constitution, and grounded on the Sense of the Ancient Canons. Now it remains to show some Advantage this would have had, if she had had the trial, which of common Right is due to the meanest Subject, she would have had the advantage of Challenges, which she can't have here, for here the Evidence must drop from the Witnesses Mouths, who are Foreigners, and have been long absent; there they must give an Account of themselves, which here hath not been done by any body. This Lady might have given her Exceptions to those Witnesses, and had a Commission into Holland, to have examined how these Witnesses have behaved themselves, and whether these Persons were to be believed and credited; here she would likewise have liberty to give an Account how this Design began. I do now speak with respect to the Duke, but I do say it does seem to have began a year and a half ago. She would likewise have had the advantage of a through Reconciliation; and here are some Deeds in( 94.) between the Duke and the duchess, which I hope, if the House will take an account of, will have its due effect; she would likewise have had the advantage of an Appeal, the common Right of the Subject, and grounded upon good Reason; and in case there hath been a neglect in the first Instances, the Party may be righted in another place. By this Bill she is debarred of the advantage of Recrimination, to which she hath a Right, for the Text Law is— And the Text Law, de Divortiis, is the same, were the Charge most true, which we do not admit; yet if she can prove the same thing against her Husband, the fault of one must be set against the fault of another, and he can't have the advantage of his Prayer. I shall repeat only one thing more, and that is the Case quoted already of the Earl of Macclesfield, but in that Case the Lady withdrew her self five or six days before Sentence; yet there the Lady Macclesfield had all her Defences, and even her Recriminations, and had a time to prove it; there was Publication, and a day set down for Sentence, but she spun out the time till the Parliament was ready to rise, and then my Lord's Friends advised him to begin in Parliament; and when the Lords were acquainted of my Lady Macclesfield's standing in contempt of the Court, and she was prosecuted so far, that she was almost ready to go to Prison for her Contempt, then the House of Lords did think fit to receive my Lord Macclesfield's Bill, and not before; but before my Lord Macclesfield brought his Bill in Parliament, there was nothing remained to be done in the Ecclesiastical Courts, but Sentence. And I hope for all these Reasons you will not proceed upon this Bill. Mr. Serg. Wright. Mr. Speaker, I am of council for the Duke of Norfolk, who is your Suppliant for this Bill, for redress against the highest Injury that can be offered; the Rights of his Marriage Bed have been Invaded, and he comes for that Relief here, which no other Court can afford him; for the Learned Doctor on the otherside, tells you plainly from the Canon Law, that there can be no Divorce; a Vinculo Matrimoni in their Courts, now to sand us to a Court for Relief, that they tell us before hand can give us none, is in effect to tell us we shall have none at all. The Bill is founded upon the Suggestions contained in the first Three or Four lines in the Bill, that the duchess of Norfolk, hath for divers Years lived in Separation from the Duke her Husband, and hath had unlawful Familiarity, and adulterous Conversation with Sir John Germain, and is Guilty of Adultery on her part, and hath broken the Bond of Matrimony; these are the Reasons for which the Duke desires this Bill may pass; 'tis for the Adulterous Conversation of the duchess, not for one single Act, but a continual Series of the like Acts for many Years; for we shall not give only one single Act or Instance in Evidence, but prove this Conversation for several Years, beginning in Eighty Seven, and carried on to the latter end of Ninety Five. It hath been objected that this is the first Instance, of a Divorce, the first Bill of this kind, where there has been no Proceedings in the Spiritual Court; that 'tis the first Bill of this kind, we deny, but that there have been no Proceedings in the Spiritual Court we own, for the Earl of Macclesfield's, was the same to all intents and purposes, as this is; for though 'tis true, they had been in the Spiritual Court, yet 'tis as true, they came here into Parliament, before any Sentence in the Spiritual Court; now to what Purpose is it to go into the Spiritual Court, and not to stay for the Determination of that Court; if the judgement of that Court is to have any weight, in the Case of the Earl of Macclesfield, 'tis true, they had been there and Examined Witnesses on one side, with all precipitation, yet would they not stay for a Sentence there, but quitted their own Proceedings, and came to the Parliament, now I do take it that they had better never been there, than to have come away before Sentence, for when they were in the Spiritual Court, and were proceeding there, to leave that Court, shewed rather a mistrust of their own Case. But it was no objection in that Case, that it was taking it away from the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual Court. We don't come to you for any thing the Spiritual Court can grant us, for that Court goes no farther if the Fact be proved, then to make a Separation à mensâ& thoro but the bonds of Marriage is to be continued still; now with Submission, this is to punish the Innocent, instead of the Guilty; what would the duchess desire more, than to be separated from the Bed and Board of her Husband, to be left free to accompany Sr. John Germain, but we go further, for we come to the Parliament to Dissolve this Marriage, for that which is allowed by several Learned Writers, to be a Justifiable Reason for so doing, for Adultery committed by the Wife, 'tis expressly that a Man shall not put away his Wife, except in Case of Fornication, this Text plainly allows, that in Case of Fornication, a Man might put away his Wife, but the Popish Canons the Doctor has name, have put a construction upon it, say they, you shall put her away, but how? She shall be removed from your Bed and Table, but you shall not mary another. Then they say, there is no precedent of a Bill of this kind, but there hath been a previous prosecution in the Spiritual Courts; I agree the marquis of Northampton's Case, that that Act does recite the proceedings in the Spiritual Court, But that Case is stronger than this, for there the marquis of Northampton had Married even in the Teeth of their Canon Law, and comes afterwards an Act of Parliament to make this Marriage good, and there the Divorce was no ingredient upon the passing of the Bill: But the Parliament Enacted the Marriage to be Lawful. In my Lord Ross's Case, there is no mention of any Divorce. I Appeal to the Journals of your own House, for that; but notwithstanding the Divorce, the whole matter was examined over again, Witnesses were examined both in the House of Lords, and here upon the first Bill which was brought, which was to Illegitimate, and Bastardize the Children, and the Witnesses proved, that my Lord Ross and his Lady, had not laid together for a long time, and that she had kept Company with others, so that the Parliament did not found the Bill upon what had been done upon the Divorce. I appeal to your own memory, that in the Earl of Macclesfield's Case, there was no use at all on that side, the Bill was brought, that there had been proceedings in the Spiritual Court, nor is any such thing recited in the Bill, but only an Express down right charge of Adultery; nor was it proper for them to have mentioned any proceedings in the Spiritual Court, since they waved that Prosecution, but we on the other side insisted on it, as a Reason why the Parliament should not proceed in it, it being to take upon them an Original Jurisdiction, but we were then answered by a Learned Gentleman against this Bill, that it was in vain to go there, for they could not give the Remedy that might reasonably be expected. I beg the favour to mention a Case or two, where Divorces have been in Parliament, and there have been no Proceedings in the Spiritual Court, one of them was the Case of Mrs. Knight, who was Married infra annos Nubiles, to Mr. Goodwin. Every one knows that a Marriage, infra annos Nubiles is a good Marriage, and if the Woman be above Nine years Old, she shall be Endowed, and yet notwithstanding, for some Irregular proceedings with out going into the Spiritual Court, they came into Parliament, and a Bill was passed by which this Marriage was dissolved, and I think 'tis expressly Enacted, That she shall not mary till such an Age. This goes farther, for here I am sure the Doctor would have complained, and told you, if there had been Reason to dissolve the Marriage, they could have done as great a Feat in the Spiritual Court, that they could have Examined Witnesses upon Oath, and could have told you whether there was proper Evidence, yet the Parliament without any regard to what they could do, would assert their own Jurisdiction. The Case of Mr. Wharton was mentioned on the other side, and therefore I need not say any thing to it. There was nothing of Divorce nor needed any. They say, this Bill begins where it is proper for matters of this nature to end, and that after we have taken a turn into the Spiritual Court, and traveled Three or Four Years there, then it will be fit for the judgement of Parliament. I would know if they had been Seven Years in that Court( and perhaps if we come there, we shall not get out sooner) to what use the Examination of that Court would be. This House I presume, would not let those Despositions be red here, Especially if the Witnesses to these Facts were Living. They say this is a very Summary way of Proceeding, it may be to quick for the duchess, but you may be pleased to consider, that there was a Bill brought into the other House some years ago and rejected; upon what terms that will rest upon us, to show you by and by. But the matter was, the Witnesses that proved the Fact, were sent out of the way by the duchess, and Sir John Jermain, when things were under an Examination, and we hope a matter of this Nature never shall not be baffled by keeping the Evidence out of the way. We told them long ago, who the Witnesses were, they were the Dutchess's Servants, such as they thought fit to entrust. They say this Bill deprives the duchess of her trial, I hope no Body thinks the Parliament will pass a Bill, without due examination of Witnesses, and Legal proof of the Fact, if so, what matter is it, whether the Proof be made before the Parliament, or some inferior Court, if the duchess be guilty of this Crime, we come here for a Relief, which the Spiritual Court, the Doctors tell you can't give us, since the duchess hath broken the Bond of Mattrimony, we come to you to dissolve that Marriage, and I hope we shall have it. The Doctor hath insisted on one thing that I think is very extraordinary, He tells you by the Rules of their Law, if the Woman can Reimminate, and prove her Husband guilty, in such a Case, they must set the fault of one, against the fault of the other. I wish the Doctor could have told you the offence had been Equal, that the Injury to Families had been Equal, a Man by his Folly of this kind, brings no spurious Issue to Inherit the Lands of his Wife, but the Woman deprives her Husband of any legitimate Issue, for when she converses in this Manner with another Man, the Issue may be equally looked upon to be that Man's if not more, and this Lady hath kept this Conversation ever since the Year Sixeeen Hundred Eighty Seven, and left the Duke. One thing is farther Objected, and they Insist upon certain Articles of Agreement in Ninety Four, and they red to you the Preamble of them, why Sir, the Articles if they come to be red through, I am sure it wont amount to what they pretend, it does not amount to this, that the duchess might use her Body as she pleased, there is no Agreement that she should live after her own pleasure, Indeed she was to have the use of her household Goods, and Servants, and Live where she pleased, but that will not justify her in her way of Living. Then to tell you, these are matters of a long standing, they are so, and of a long continuance, for if my instructions prove true, we shall prove this Scene of adultery for matter of Eight Years Successively, and that by Servants that were privy to the Intregues, who were sent away to Holland, but no sooner was the Bill baffled, but the Man was sent for again, and the same Conversation continued that was between the duchess and Sir John Germain before he left England. The same was continued after he came back to his Service in( 1691). only they were something more cautious, and People were not admitted so familiarly, to see them in Bed together in( 1692.) and so it continued till 1695. They mentioned the Statute of Limitations, which was to put an end to frivolous and vexatious Actions; but how they can apply it to this Case, I can't see, because a Man shall not bring frivolous and vexatious Actions after a long distance of time, therefore a Man shall not complain when he hath received the greatest Injury that can be done to Mankind. Sir, They are kind to us again, in recommending it to the Duke, to go into the Spiritual Court, till next Sessions, but we think we are in a proper Method here, for that Relief which the Spiritual Court cannot grant; and since we have so good Reason to come here, if we prove the Fact, I hope this High Court will not sand away a Complaint of this nature, without such Relief as is suitable. Mr. Northey, Sir, I am of the same side, I would beg leave to say this, as to what the Council have said in relation to the Evidence, That there were three Witnesses examined upon Oath, in the House of Peers, before the Bill did pass there, and I believe they are ware of that, and that when you hear our Witnesses, there will be no Answer to be given on their side; and indeed the Witnesses they brought, were so far from contradicting our Witnesses, that they did really confirm them. But that is not the Case now, what our Evidence is, or whether it be fit for you to believe them, that will be when you have heard them, and for the matter of the time, that you can't take notice of neither, till you hear our Evidence. But this I may say, we shall bring a Man that will speak to within four or five Years. But the matter they apply themselves to, which is material, is, Whether it is proper for you to proceed upon this Bill, that is, to give such a Relief as we desire by dissolving this Marriage. And in the next place, Whether this be a proper time to ask this Favour. For the first, the Learned Doctor tells you, 'tis not proper at any time to do it, for he would have the Canon-Law govern here, as it does in their Courts. But the Council on the other side, have cited you several Precedents where it hath been done. In the Case of the marquis of Northampton, the Second Marriage was contrary to the Canon-Law, and yet that Marriage was confirmed according to God's Law. And this Bill is to relieve against the Canon-Law. Now, whether we are here in a proper time, Sir Thomas Powys has said a great many things, which may be proper to many other purposes. One Argument was, because the Witnesses can't be upon Oath, but that we know will not prevail in in this place. In the next place they except, because this Proceeding is in a Summary way. I would know of them, Whether there is not the same Objection to all Proceedings before a Jury, That they have no notice what Witnesses will be produced. Then in the next place they bring a great Argument from the Recital of some of these Bills, That there have been before a Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Now, 'tis true, they have been so in some of those Cases; but I beg leave to observe, That in the Case of the marquis of Northampton, the Bill was not to confirm the Sentence, or to enable them to mary, but to deliver them out of the hands of the Ecclesiastical Courts, who said it was not Lawful in that Case to mary, for they were married before. I beg leave to say, That in the Case of my Lord Macclesfield, there was no notice in the Bill that came down to you, of any Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts. And I take this to be the Reason, because there was no Sentence, though where there was a Sentence, they had good reason to take notice of it. And I think there is as much certainty, and as good ground to proceed on this Bill, as in the other Case, for the Witnesses have been already examined in the House of Lords. In the Case of my Lord Ross, there was no regard to the Determination of the Ecclesiastical Courts, as a Guide to the Parliament; and it was looked upon as of no consequence, for the Witnesses were examined again. 'tis true, when we came before you without such a Proceeding, we came under this disadvantage, you will be sure to expect a plainer and fuller Proof, but for that we will undertake to make the Fact so plain, that they can't give the least pretence of Answer to it. We are here asking that, we can't have any where else. Their great Design is delay, and that we have learnt from the Civilian, who tells you their Methods are very grave and deliberate, and that they may have a Commission to examine Witnesses beyond Sea, and that is to inquire how their own Servants have lived beyond Sea. As to what Sir Thomas Powys would have, that is, that we should go into the Spiritual Court, and apply ourselves again here next Sessions: I do not think the Legislature will sand us back to ask that in the Spiritual Court, which both have submitted to; for after the Duke had miscarried in the Relief he sought by another Bill, by the Dutchess's sending the Witnesses out of the way. Why, truly, after that, to prevent any Prosecution in the Spiritual Court, the duchess submitted to a Separation by Articles, and that was all the Duke could have pretended to by the Ecclesiastical Law; we follow her upon that, and come to enforce that Separation. And to make it effectual, and for that which we humbly hope will be thought but Justice to the Duke, that is, to be delivered from this Wise, and to have liberty to mary again; we think there is no occasion for delay, and that no body can be hurt by a Precedent that carries Relief in this nature, and deliver us from a Law which in the days of Popery was put upon us. Upon the whole Matter, I hope you will think that we are here very properly for Relief, and that we shall have the favour to call our Witnesses. Dr. Oldish, Sir, The great Objection against the passing of this Bill, was, because Witnesses had not been examined in the proper Court. 'tis very true, generally speaking in Cases it ought to be so, but here is a very great Exception to that Rule, and which I think can't admit of an Answer, and that is the notoriety of the Fact, and in that Case they begin with Execution. And if that be so, I think there never was a clearer Demonstration in the World, for when formerly the duchess came to give in her Answer in the House of Lords, to the Charge against her, she did declare, That in the Year 83. or thereabouts, she went out of England, and tarried three Years, and returned about the time of the Revolution. And it does plainly appear there beyond all question, That she was at Lambeth, and went under the Name of the Lady Beckman, and was attended by one Kemer, who went then by the Name of Goodman. Besides this, there are Witnesses that speak to particular Facts. Now, I say, here is that which amounts to Demonstration, and where there is a Notoriety of Fact, that is, an Exception out of the General Rule, and 'tis proper to begin with Execution. There is an Exception to the General Councils and Canons that have been mentioned, That there shall not be a Divorce, à Vinculo. Sir, I say, it was an Ecclesiastical Constitution, which was against the Law of God, and tis demonstrably so, for where our Saviour says, That a Man shall not put away his Wife, except in Case of Fornication; it is plain, that in Case of Fornication he may. There is another thing insisted on; and that is, that there was a Reconciliation between the Duke and his duchess. 'tis true, a Reconciliation should drown all things before that time, but when the Law takes notice in Case of a Relapse, that does recrudescere, it rubs upon the old Sore; and then that which was before laid a sleep is brought again upon the Stage, and will return with greater Vengeance. And we have plain Proof of her living in the same manner since, as before. But they would insinuate to you that in case there was a trial in the Ecclesiastical Court, there might be a Recrimination, but there must be a Compensation, which can't be thought in this Case; for I think in this Case, under favour, there is no Comparison. I don't think they are Paria, for 'tis impossible for the Husband to do that Injury as the Wife may, for she may bring a Bastard into the Family, and then the Estate does not go according to the Law of God and Nature, for every body desires his own Blood should succeed him. Sir Tho. Powys, Sir, I shall say but very little. But Three or Four things have been mentioned on the other side; which they offer as if they conceived them to have great Weight, and yet they seem to me as very capable of being answered; and I crave your favour to do it. They have gone much upon the Proofs, that they are ready to make, and I think not very properly, because we speak against their proceeding upon this Bill; but I am sure it turns upon them, for according to their own showing, they are very well prepared to proceed in a Regular Course, for they have their Witnesses ready, and nothing does obstruct them. Mr. Serg. Wright mentioned a thing, which I must confess, I was surprised in; for when I told him he could not find any Precedent of such a Bill as this, without a previous proceeding in the Spiritual Court; Mr. Serg. Wright said it was quiter otherwise; and to show you it was so, he cited Two Cases, Where there was no Marriage; now I always understood, a Divorce must be in any Case where there was a Marriage, for the Case of Mr. Knights, that was very lately; That was the Case of an Infant, who they pretended to have Married, infra Annos nubiles, and therefore says he, the declaring of that Marriage to be be Null and voided by Act of Parliament, was a Divorce. The other, was he Case of Mrs. Wharton, which was no Marriage neither, for Marriage must be by consent, and that was a Force; and that he fancies to be a Case, where there was a Divorce too, without proceeding in the Spiritual Court, and yet of his own showing it was no Marriage. Another thing I am much more surprised at, we insisted, that they would not show an Act for making a Divorce, without giving the party an Opportunity to make a Defence, and the Doctor says in Common Cases it ought to be so; and they cited the Case of the Earl of Macclesfield we first mentioned, and the Doctor told you the progress it had, and that there was a full and regular proceeding, of great length of time; and that my Lady Macclesfield had all her Witnesses examined, and my Lord prosecuted her to an excommunication, which is in effect a Sentence, for it is in our Law, as in Case of Outlawry; This he calls a Precedent wherein they proceeded to get an Act of Parliament, without a previous proceeding in the Spiritual Court. He tells you in the next place, that notwithstanding the Divorce in the Case of my Lord Ross, the Parliament did examine Witnesses, 'tis true, they did, for I don't think they will so entirely pin their Faith upon those proceedings, as to have no other satisfaction. But will he therefore say they took no notice of it, when 'tis the foundation and ground of the Bill. He tells you in the next place, that the Crime does not seem equal between the one and the other, and so in some sort, they redicule the Doctors notion of Recrimination, But I apprehended the Doctor is right in it, for it would be hard if a man should mary a Young Woman, and give her an ill example in his own Family( I do not say 'tis this Case) and bring her acquanted with loose and ill Company, and by his example or provocation, led her into the same Offence; would that Man deserve to be Rewarded with a new Wife, and another portion, because his first Wife, had only followed his Example. They say the Offence is not equal, because the Man brings no Children into the Family. I doubt it happens oftentimes to them that go abroad, that they bring home that to their Wives, which stick longer by them then their Children. Then to come and say, the Articles can't be of any use to us at all; and to imagine that we use the Articles, so that the duchess might be at perfect liberty to live in Adultery, I wonder how that Conceit hath followed him hither; when we told him we had not such a thought as to live in Adultery, but they do direct her to live separate, and so we used them, as an answer to that part; we used them likewise as an Act of Total oblivion and remission, of any thing beyond that time, and I hope to such purposes, they shall be thought Sacred. Now, I beseech you, Sir, on the whole matter, have they on the other side, said one thing, but what does totally tend to bring all cases of Adultery immediately before you? Have they distinguished this Case from the Case of any other person? And then if they have not, I do not see from henceforward, that any but Fools will go to the Ecclesiastical Courts for relief; For, says the sergeant, they cannot give them a final relief, and enable any person to mary again; and therefore let no body think to go there again; but here is a relief to be had worth a man's having. But I hope, we shall have the benefit of the Law, as it is, till you think fit to alter it; and then you will erect some Judicature, where people may have their trial. Now therefore the argument goes too far, or it argues nothing at all, because if there be any thing in it, it goes to take away the proceedings of those Courts totally. But though those Courts cannot do all that these Gentlemen desire, they can do what is very proper to be done. They can examine Witnesses, and pronounce Sentence; and give the party a full opportunity of knowing the Accusation and Accusers; and then the Cases we have mentioned have had the aid of an Act of Parliament. Sir, We have spent a great deal of your time already: I hope, since you see what use they make of the last Precedent of my Lord Macclesfield, where he did proceed to an Excommunication. Now from thence they argue, that you should proceed originally in this Case. When is the time to make a stand, but in the first Case? And then no man can complain of any injury: If you grant this to my Lord, I think, in justice, you cannot deny it to any other that stands in need of it. I believe there never was the like before, and therefore, I hope, you will put a stop to it here. Mr. Dodd. The Gentlemen on the other side have told you, that our Saviour hath said, That no man should put away his Wife, except for fornication. 'tis true, the Text is so, but he cannot show you any Text wherein our Saviour says, That the man may mary again, though he might put his Wife away. Another thing was said, as to the proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Dr. Oldish says, There is to be nothing but Execution, where there is a Notoriety of fact. And here the fact is notorious; and therefore you may come up to order Execution; but that is a strange Doctrine to our English Constitution. Would they hang one first and try him afterwards? that would make work. Let the fact be never so notorious, yet 'tis the right of all the people of England to have a legal trial: and I hope you will not interpose, till there hath been a regular trial in another place. Then Sir Thomas Powis offered to produce the Articles, but they were admitted. Lunae 25. die Martii, 1700. The House resolved themselves into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the Duke of Norfolk's Bill. Sir Rowland Gwynne took the Chair of the Committee of the whole House. And the Council and solicitors were called in, and the Bill red to them. And then Mr. Northey, of Council with the Duke, opened the Evidence thus. Mr. Northey. I Am of Council for the Duke of Norfolk. I shall not trouble you now( because I think it not fit) to say any thing for the Bill, for that you have approved of by Commitment of the Bill; and declared it to be a reasonable and just relief against the duchess for the Adultery charged in the Bill. I shall not spend any of your time in aggravating the crime of Adultery. But that which is incumbent on his Graces Counsel now, is to lay before you the proofs of the fact suggested in the Bill. And the facts to be proved are the introduction of the Bill, That the duchess has lived for divers years in Separation from the Duke, and had unlawful familiarity, and adulterous Conversation with Sir John Germain; and for that fact we will call our Witnesses. And our evidence will make this out to you, as plain as 'tis possible to expect a matter of this nature to be proved. However, I think they have managed things in that manner as we shall be able to give as plain a proof of these facts as might be expected of those acts which are in their own nature most public. However in the nature of the thing, there were but a few persons to be entrusted with it, and those were generally Servants who had attendance on the Dutchesses person. We shall produce you Servants both of the duchess, and Sir John Germain. And I hope it cannot be an Objection, That they are Servants, for to object to them, for that reason, is to say, You shall prove the fact, but you shall have no Witnesses, for these are facts that cannot be proved but by such as were concerned with the duchess. For our Evidence it will fall out to be this, The Duke and duchess were married in the year 1677, and they lived together till about the year 1685: And then the Duke having some account of her conversation of this nature, they did part, and afterwards she came to live openly with Sir John Germain; for in May 1689, the Witnesses will give you an account, that for two Months together she lodged with Sir John Germain at the Cockpit. And they lived there as Man and Wife, as the Witnesses phrase it. During the time they lived there, there was a near Relation of Sir John Germain's, Mr. Daniel Germain his Brother, and Mrs. Briana his Sister, did frequently come to the house; and two of the Witnesses were frequently in the room while they were a-bed together. After two Month's time, the duchess thought fit to be a little more private, and it was given out she was gone to France, but in truth she removed to Fox-hall to a house that was taken by Sir John Germain's Brother, and went by the name of my Lady Beckman. And she lived there two years successively: and Sir John Germain came there frequently once or twice in a week, and lay there a-nights. During that time we have two Witnesses, that did attend the duchess, as well as at the Cock-pit: one of them is Ellena Vanesse, who was hired by Sir John Germain's Sister, and lived with the duchess at the Cock-pit two Months. We have a second Witness, one Hosieur, who was with Sir John Germain at the Cock-pit 15 days before the duchess went to Fox-hall; and afterwards he went to Fox-hall, when she removed there, and stayed with her all the two years. These are both Foreigners, and Dutch people; and it was reasonable enough to expect foreign Witnesses, when an English duchess had a foreign Gallant. They are such as he thought fit to entrust about her. After she had lived two years at Fox-hall( this brings her to the year 1691) she removed home again to her house at Milbank; and there Sir John Germain and she were frequently together, and have been seen a-bed together. This brings us to the time when the Duke having an account, that she had this conversation with Sir John Germain, brought a Bill into the House of Peers for a Divorce; but it happened, that the duchess, and Sir John Germain, to avoid the condemnation, kept the Witnesses out of the way; and afterwards caused them to be sent into Holland. The Woman stayed abroad till about 3 Months ago, but the Man returned before into Sir John Germain's Service; and he will give you an account of what observations he made there, for the familiarity continued between them then. He was admitted into the room where they used to be; and he will give you an account, how he hath seen them frequently together. And he brings it down to within the year 1695. We have another Witness, one William Bayley, who likewise was a Servant to Sir John Germain, and came into his place when Hosieur went beyond Sea. He is an unwilling Witness, because he hath been preferred by Sir John Germain; but when he was upon his Oath in the other House, he did give an account, that while he continued in Sir John Germain's Service, notwithstanding this public reproach in 1695 and 1696, she frequently came to Sir John Germain's house, with one Kemer, whom she had great confidence in: and one Susanna Barrington, I think yet in the Dutchesses Service. And this Mr. Bayley will give you an account, that his Master was often from home; and when he was so, he used to carry his linen to this Kemer, who was the Dutchesses Servant; or this Kemer would come to him for it: and this will bring it down to 1696. There are several Witnesses to confirm this, but we think with Submission, after the duchess had been so accused in the House of Lords of such a familiarity, any evidence of a Conversation between them afterwards, is as much as a thousand Witnesses, for no Woman that valued her reputation, having been accused as she was, would have had any Conversation with Sir John Germain afterwards. But we don't want circumstances to support the evidence of fact. We have as plain evidence in this case, as can be expected in a case of this nature: we will spend no more of your time, but beg leave to call our Witnesses. Mr. Atwood. Sir Rowland Gwynne, please to favour me a few words on the same side; I shall not mis-spend the time of the Committee in repeating any thing said by Mr. Northey; I shall only observe, that the Witnesses, Hosieur and Vanesse say, That Susanna Barrington was privy to this adulterous Conversation. And this Susanna Barrington has withdrawn her self since the Bill was depending in the House of Lords. 'tis further proved, That Mr. Daniel Germain and Mr. Brian's Wife were in England lately, and that these were privy to the same Conversation. Then the Witnesses were called in, one by one, and Interpreters allowed. The Witnesses that were examined before the Committee of the Commons were Ellena Vanesse, Nicholas Hosieur, William Bayley, and and red. But all, except and red, were examined in the House of Lord's, and their evidence there being at large set forth, the Reader is referred to the same. The evidence of and red is as follows. and red being asked, Whether she had ever seen the duchess go to Sir John Germain's house, and when, says, That about April 1692( which was soon after the Duke's Bill had been rejected in the House of Lords) she saw the duchess of Norfolk go in a Chair to Sir John's house, that the door was immediately opened upon her Chair's being set down, and she went into the house with her Mask off. She being asked, Whether she had seen Sir John come to the Dutchesses house, and when; Says, she, within a twelve-month last past, or thereabouts, followed him to the Dutchesses house about 3 of the Clock in the Afternoon, and that she did not see him come out. After the Witnesses were examined on the part of the Duke of Norfolk for the Bill, Sir Thomas Powis of Council with the duchess of Norfolk, being called upon to make defence, spake to this effect. Sir Thomas Powys. I am at a loss, Sir, and under some kind of a surprise, because as far as I apprehended, you call upon us to make our defence. I hope in a case of such moment as this is( and it may be there cannot be greater) and since you are pleased to take this case out of the usual way of trials, and to try it in the first instance, you will be pleased, that we should be fairly and regularly heard. And since it was not allowed us upon our being heard against the Bill, that we should have a time to make our defence. Now we have heard what the Witnesses swear, we shall desire but a short time, no more than what is absolutely necessary to make our defence. This hath spent us 6 hours already; and I am sure the Witnesses that have been examined, have given such variety of Answers, that it doth afford a great deal to be said to it. We have likewise a good many Witnesses to be examined; but I am far from proposing any thing to delay it. We had a weeks time allowed us in the House of Lords, but that is no rule for you, and we don't expect it here. But even while we are at this bar, a person from a very worthy Member gives us intelligence, upon sight of this Cook-maid, of a matter that will defame her; and he will be ready to make it out, that she was turned away for being a common Thief in Holland: and therefore, Sir, you see how time is necessary in point of Accidents that do happen; and I cannot make our defence now. Thereupon the Council withdrew; and the Committee having considered of the desire of the Council for the duchess to have time allowed them to make their defence, were of opinion, That the Council should proceed then to make their defence; and Candles were ordered to be brought in. And the Council being called in again, Sir Rowland Gwynne being in the Chair of the Committee, acquainted them with the determination of the Committee. Then Sir Thomas Powys observed upon the Evidence that had been given; and insisted, that the Evidence given before the Committee of Commons, did differ from the evidence given by them upon Oath in the House of Lords; and offered to produce the Examination of the said Witnesses upon Oath in the House of Lords. And an Objection being made, that such Examination ought not to be red in that case, as Evidence before this Committee; the Council withdrew, and the Committee considered of the said Objection, and were of opinion, that the said depositions should not be red. And Council being called in again, were acquainted with it, and that if they had any Witnesses, viva voice, to encounter their evidence, they might produce them. Sir Thomas Powys. Sir, By this Resolution, my Client is deprived of that defence I thought I could have made for her, but I submit to the pleasure of the Committee. Mr. Atwood. The Examinations in the House of Lords were so lately, that 'tis an easy thing for the solicitors, who were by, to give an account of a contrariety in the evidence, if there were any. A Member. Whether you have any other evidence to offer, but as to this point? Sir Tho. Powys. All our evidence would tend to contradict these Witnesses; and if the reading of those Depositions won't be allowed, we must abide your pleasure, and submit it to you. Mr. Dodd. We submit it to you; our Witnesses were in concurrence with that sort of evidence. Sir Rowland Gwynne. There are several persons name, who are persons of Credit and good Reputation, Mr. Brian and his Lady, Mr. Daniel Germain and his Sister; these would be Witnesses of Credit, against those that are you say not of Credit. Council. We have summoned them, and Mrs. pit, and done all that we could on our side to get them here. And I hope you won't prejudge our case, to say they are in our interest; that is to determine the question. We have likewise summoned Mrs. pit and her two maids, and whether they will appear or not, that we cannot tell, but this we are ready to make out to you. Mr. Atwood. Susanna Barrington the Dutchesses Woman, privy to the whole conversation, is proved to have been with her since the Bill was brought into the House of Lords. A Member. Whether he has one living Witness to produce, that he can make good his defence by? Sir Tho. Powys. Sir, if you expect an answer from me, I am assured, that we have Witnesses, but if I cannot bring those people against themselves; if I cannot bring Nichola against Nichola, I despair of doing any good, if I bring a 1000 other Witnesses against him. And therefore, I pray this favour of you; That since 'tis your pleasure, that this evidence be not allowed, you will not make a bad construction of it, that I do not proceed to make a defence to this Bill, for I cannot truly do it, unless I had some other Instructions from my Client, but shall defeat her expectation to proceed upon the other part of the case, since what we built upon with good Authority, as we thought, is not thought fit to be admitted. Sir Rowland Gwynne. Sir, you are at liberty to go on, if you have any thing more to say, than that you cannot proceed without further directions from your Client. A Member. Whether they have any thing to offer in the defence of the duchess upon the crime she is charged with; for I believe 'tis a new thing for the Council, when their Client is charged with a crime, to say, they cannot defend her, unless they go, and ask, whether they shall defend her or no? If they have any thing to say in her defence, we shall be ready to hear it. Sir Rowland Gwynne. Sir Thomas Powys, have you any thing more to say? Sir Tho. Powys. I cannot but repeat what I have already said, That I would be glad to make the best defence this case may bear: and I may say, I have defended it twice with very good success, and this is a third time: and I would make the best defence this case would bear now. And I must own to you, that the course of our evidence, we did propose to ourselves is so far broken, by the first determination you were pleased to make, that I cannot venture upon the rest of the defence, if so be your pleasure be not to admit of this matter. Sir Rowland Gwynne. You may by any solicitors or Agents, that were present when these Witnesses were examined in the House of Lords, prove what they swore there. Mr. Dodd. We apprehended you have already determined the matter, and we cannot now meddle with it; but if I apprehended it a-right from the Chair, it is your Opinion, that we may produce the solicitors and Agents to give an account of what was sworn in the House of Lords. Now we are under this disability by your determination, That we relying upon what you have determined against us, are not prepared with our solicitors or others to give evidence of that matter; but in a little time they will be able to give you an account of what was then sworn. Mr. Atwood. It seems they want to be taught their Lesson. And then the Council withdrew, and the Committee proceeded upon the Bill, Clause by Clause, and went through it, and ordered the same to be reported. FINIS.