article to be true in any part thereof. Finally, she demurs to the article which alleges consummation.

Denying the rest of the article to be true in any part of it reserves this salvo. The whole averment of marriage was but one part' of the article; that averment (the language is so constructed) makes but one member of a sentence; and yet it combines false circumstances with true. They were, in Mr. Merrill's house at Sparshot, joined together in holy matrimony.' This part of the article, as her answer calls it, is not true. It is true they were married; but not true, that they were married at Sparshot, or at Mr. Merrill's house.

How was this gross and palpable evasion treated? It is the course of the Ecclesiastical Court to file exceptions to indistinct or insufficient answers. Otherwise, to be sure, they could not compel a defendant to put in any material answer. But it was not the purpose of this suit to exact a sufficient answer; consequently no exceptiops were filed; but the parties went to issue.

The plan of the evidence also was framed upon the same measured line. The articles bad excluded every part of the family: even the woman whom Mr. Hervey had sent to demand the divorce, was omitted. But her busband is produced, to swear, that in the year 1744 Mr. Hervey danced with Miss Chudleigh at Winchester races, and visited her at Lain ston; and in 1746 he heard a rumour of their marriage. Mary Edwards and Ann Hillam, servants in Mr. Merrill's family, did not contradict the article they were examined to, which alleges, that none of his servants knew any thing of the matter. But they had heard the report. So had Messrs. Robinson, Hossach, and Edwards. Such was the amount of Mr. Hervey's evidence; in which the witnesses make a great shew of zeal to disclose all they know, with a proper degree of caution to explain that they know nothing.

such as might naturally have excited the cu. riosity of an adverse party to have made further enquiries.

In the event of this cause, thus treated, thus pleaded, and thus proved, the parties had the singular fortune to catch a judgment against the marriage by mere surprise upon the justice of the court.

While I am obliged to complain of this gross surprise, and to state the very proceedings in the cause as pregnant evidence of their own collusion, I would not be understood to intend any reflection on the integrity or ability of the learned aud respectable judges.

For oft, though wisdom wake, suspicion sleeps
Resigns her charge; while goodness thinks no
At wisdom's gate, and to simplicity

Where no ill seems.

[ill,

Nor should any imputation of blame he extended to those names, which your lordships find subscribed to the pleadings. The forms of pleading are matters of course. And if they were laid before counsel, only to be signed, without calling their attention to the matter of them, the collusion would not appear. A counsel may easily be led to overlook what nobody has any interest or wish that he should consider.

Thus was the way paved to an adulterous marriage; thus was the duke of Kingston drawn in to believe, that Mr. Hervey's claim to the prisoner was a false and injurious pretension; and he gave his unsuspecting hand to a woman, who was then, and had for 25 years, been the wife of another.

In the vain and idle conversations which she held, at least with those who knew her situation, she could not refrain from boasting how she had surprised the duke into that marriage. "Do not you think," says she with a smile to Mrs. Amis, "do not you think, that it was very kind in his grace to marry an old maid ?" Mrs. Amis was widow of the clergyman who The form of examining witnesses was also had married her to Mr. Hervey, who had asobserved on her part; and she proved, most ir-sisted her in procuring a register of that marrefragably, that she passed as a single woman; went by her maiden name; was maid of ho. nour to the princess dowager; bought and sold; borrowed money of Mr. Drummond; and kept cash with him, and other bankers, by the name of Elizabeth Chudleigh; nay, that Mr. Merrill and Mrs. Hanmer, who had agreed to keep the marriage secret, conversed and corresponded with her by that name.

For this purpose a great variety of witnesses was called; whom it would have been very rash to produce, without some foregone agreement, or perfect understanding, that they should not be cross-examined. Many of thein could not have kept their secret under that discustion; even in the imperfect and wretched manner, in which cross-examination is maaged upon paper, and in those courts. Therefore not a single interrogatory was filed, or a single witness cross-examined, though produced to articles exceedingly confidential,

riage, and to whom she had told of the birth of the child. The duke's kindness, as she insultingly called it, was scarcely more strange, than her manner of representing it to one who knew her real situation so well.

My lords, this is the state of the evidence; which must be given, were it only to satisfy the form of the trial; but is in fact produced, to prove that, which all the world knows perfectly well, as a matter of public notoriety. The subject has been much talked of; but never, I believe, with any manner of doubt, in any company at all conversant with the passages of that time in this town. The witnesses, however, will lay these facts before your lordships; after which, I suppose, there can be no question what judgment must be pronounced upon them: for your lordships will hardly view this act of parliament just in the light in which the prisoner's counsel have thought fit to represent it, as a law made for beggars, not for

Cl. of the Cr. Hearken to your oath.The evidence that you shall give on behalf of our sovereign lord the king's majesty, against Elizabeth duchess-dowager of King-house?-Not that I saw. ston, the prisoner at the bar, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, So help you God.' [Then she kissed the book.]

Did you attend on the lady as her maid?— I did at that time, her own not being able.

After the ceremony, did you see the parties in bed together?—I did.

A Lord. Repeat what you said.-Cradock. 1 saw them put to bed: I also saw Mrs. Hanmer insist upon their getting up again.

Did you see them the next morning?—I saw them that night afterwards in bed, the same

Mr. Wallace. I shall beg the witness may night after Mrs, Hanmer went to bed.

What parish is Mr. Merrill's house in?-I | it, as I had no offers made me from the probelieve in St. George's: his house at Lainston is a parish of itself.

Are there any other houses in the parish besides Mr. Merrill's?-Not at Lainston, there is not.

Was there service regularly in Lainston church, or did the family go to any other church ---They went to service at Sparshot church.

Solicitor General. My lords, we have no more questions to ask this witness at present. Lord High Steward. The counsel for the prisoner are at liberty to ask the witness any questions they think proper.

Examined by Mr. Wallace.

Have you not declared to some persons, that you had an expectation of some provision or benefit on the event of this prosecution?---I never could declare I had any thing promised me by any body.

Expectation of provision from the persons that prosecute?-I never bad; I know none of the family.

Where have you lived for this month, or two, or three?-I have lived at Mr. Beauwater's.

What is the reason of your having your residence there ?-In regard to his lady being a relation to Mr. and Mrs. Bathurst.

Had your residence there any relation to this prosecution?-It is unknown to me, if it has.

What have you to do with Mr. Bathurst? Mrs. Bathurst is so kind as to have me there, as being a servant to her aunt from my childhood.

How long have you been at Mr. Beauwater's? I am sure I cannot justly say the day when I came there.

How long before this prosecution was commenced? I can't tell when I came there; I can't tell how long I have been there.

I do not mean that you should answer to a day, but according to the best of your memory. -About four months, I fancy.

Was it before or since you appeared before the grand jury?-Since I appeared before the grand jury.

Do you know who is the prosecutor of this indictment?-Mr. Meadows, I imagine.

Do you know Mr. Meadows?-I have seen him twice or three times in my life, and that is all.

Where? The first time I ever saw him, was at Mr. Beauwater's house, since I came to town.

Are you to stay at Mr. Beauwater's or to return, when this prosecution is over? The last home I had is at Lainston, where I hope I may return again. I went down there in August was a twelvemonth.

Have you never declared to any body, that you had an expectation of some provision from the cause now in hand P-I could not declare

Have you declared it?-I have just now said,

Would you be understood, that you have not? What was I to declare?

true or false I do not care, that you had an exWhether you have not declared, whether pectation of some provision from this prosecution?-I could not declare it, before it was made to me.

You must say whether you did say so or not. I never had any offer from the prose

Had not you an expectation from the cution?-No, I could not say that, when they prose never offered is me.

or confined to the prosecutor ?-I think it can Do you understand the question generally, be confined to none but himself.

Have you any expectation from any body

clared that I had any such expectations.
Nor ever declared so?-No. I never de-

At what time of the night was this mar-
at night.
riage?-I cannot possibly tell the hour; it was

Have not you mentioned to any body some hour of the night ?-I do not know that I have night. mentioned it, any farther than that it was at

keep the servants out of the way at the time; You have said, that you were employed to how came you then to go to the church?-I the marriage, and see that the house was clear: was employed to come out of the church after after the marriage, and not before.

Was there any care taken before they went to church ?-No, I do not know that there was.. do not know that any of the house knew that Mr. and Mrs. Merrill dined out that day, and I there was to be a marriage.s

dined out that day ?-Yes.
Are you sure that Mr. and Mrs. Merrill

Mrs. Hanmer it was; there was no Mrs. Mer-
When did Mrs. Merrill die?-I do not know,
rill at that time.

mer, did you?-Certainly I did mean Mrs. Then by Mrs. Merrill you meant Mrs. HanHanmer, for there was no Mrs. Merrill.

don't know whether I was desired to go, but Were you desired to go to the church?-I there I was; that I recollect.

--I was there to see the marriage. As to witDid you go as a witness, or out of curiosity? ness, I was not called to be a witness.

church? Those that were in the church Did any of the parties know you were in the knew it.

Did you hear the ceremony performed ?-I

lieve so: certainly.
Did you hear the whole ceremony?-1 be

ceremony ?-Not that I know of, and I never
Have you not said, you did not hear the
was asked, to my knowledge.

Do you speak positively that you have

565]

for Bigamy.

so declared?-Certainly I do, for I know whether I was asked or not.

How long did Mr. Hervey stay there after this marriage ?—I really cannot say how many days; he was not long ibere.

You said that Mrs. Hanmer made them get up soon after they went to bed; how long did Mrs. Hanmer sit up after that?---I cannot justly say how many hours; I can't say whether it might have been one, or two, or three hours.

Was it Mrs. Hanmer's custom to lock the door where Miss Chudleigh lay ?---I never knew that she did lock the door at all.

Nor any body by her order?---Not to my knowledge: I never knew the door ordered to be locked by any body, nor by myself neither: I am sure I never locked it.

You are sure the door was never locked then, when Mr. Hervey went out, when he was made to get up and leave the room as you have said?-Went out where? I don't understand.

You have said, he was made to get up again. -To the best of my knowledge, the lady got up too, as well as Mr. Hervey.

And both left the room?---I believe they both left the room, I know nothing to the contrary; but I know they afterwards went to bed together.

Have you not declared, you knew nothing of this marriage?---No, never in my life, to my knowledge.

That you did not remember any thing about it?--It is odd that I can remember it now, very and should not have remembered it before: 1 ever had it in my memory.

Have not you declared that you did not remember it? No, not that I know of.

I desire you will give a positive answer, yes or no, whether you have or not have declared it? I never could have declared that which I did not know.

That you did not remember any thing about it?---No, I never could say that.

Did you or did you not say so?---No, I did not say so.

By the Earl of Buckinghamshire.

I beg to put one question to the witness. You know that you speak not only in the presence of this respectable court, but in the presence of Almighty God ?--Yes.

Have you, or have you not, ever declared that you did expect an advantage from the proI secution? say aye, or no.—I must say no: could not say aye.

You have told us, that Mr. Merrill and Mrs.
Hanmer went out to dinner the day on which
the marriage was performed; 1 should be glad

to know at what time Mr. Merrill and Mrs.
Hanmer returned home?—I believe it might
be between seven and eight o'clock, as I had
given tea out of the housekeeper's room to the
gentleman and lady by candle-light.

What day of the month was it? That I
cannot tell.

By the Duke of Grafton.

Did you ever see the child, that the lady at the bar offered to carry you to see?—No, I

never did.

What was the interval of time between the offer to carry you to see the child, and the death of that child?-That I cannot justly say neither; but as far as I can remember, the day that I was to go to see the child, the lady came and said it was dead.

Though you cannot exactly recollect the interval between the one transaction and the other, yet still you may speak at large. Was it a week? Was it a month? Was it half a

year?-It was not a month, nor yet half a year.
Were there a few days interval between the
one and the other?-There was, but I cannot
say
how many days.

Did you, in the space of these few days, ever express to the lady at the bar your earnestness and desire to see the child, which you say the lady at the bar told yon was so like Mr. Hervey ?-1 expressed my desire at the time, when the lady spoke of the child to her aunt.

What was the answer that you had for not carrying you immediately to the child?-The lady told me, she would come on such a day with the princess's coach, and that I should go and see the child.

Were you examined by the Ecclesiastical Court?-1 was not.

Did you know at the time, that there was such a process going on there?—I was told by Mr. Hervey there was.

you

Did offer to Mr. Hervey, or to any other of the parties, to give that evidence which you now have proved it was material to give?-He told me, he must call upon me to assist him in his marriage.

Did any thing else pass relative to the process in Doctors Commons, after Mr. Hervey's conversation with you?—Yes, there certainly was, though I never was called.

Did any thing pass between Mr. Hervey and you, or between any of the parties and you, after that declaration of Mr. Hervey's to you?-I was to acquaint the lady with his intentions.

You said you were to remove the servants out of the way at Mr. Merrill's house at the time of the marriage: how many servants might there be about Mr. Merrill's house at the time of the marriage?—The butler; a maid, who waited on Miss Merrill; two house-maids : a laundry-maid: one of the house-maids belonged to Mrs. Hanmer, who always went down along with her, and there was a kitchenmaid.

Were there any lights in the church at the time of the ceremony being performed?—There was a wax light in the crown of Mr. Moun. tenay's hat.

Lord Townshend. Whether she has ever received or been offered any thing to with-hold her evidence relative to the supposed marriage?-Ann Cradock, I never have.