The Cuckold's chronicle: being select trials for adultry [sic], incest, imbecility, ravishment, &c. : Volume I.

The Cuckold's chronicle: being select trials for adultry [sic], incest, imbecility, ravishment, &c. : Volume I.

Table of contents

§

Title page

PREFACE.

THE CUCKOLD's CHRONILCE.

The Trial between the Right Hon. Sir Richard Worsley, Bart, and George Maurice Bissett, Esq. Defendant, for Criminal Conversation with the Plaintiff's Wife, on Thursday 21st of Feb. 1782,

Remarkable Indictment, extracted from No. 4254, of the St. James's Evening Post, published April 7th, 1787,

The Trial of the Rev. Mr. James Altham, of Harlow, in the County of Essex, for Adultery, Defamation, and Obscenity; in the Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London, at Doctor's Commons. 1785.

Trial of Major Hook, for Adultery with his own Niece, Mrs. Campbell, Wife of Captain Campbell, before Lord Kenyon and a Special Jury, at Westminister, February 26, 1793.

The Trial of Robert Newberry, for a Rape on the body of Jane Skinner, a Child about the age of Ten years. At the Assizes held at Kingston, in Surry; March, 1759.

Mr. William Bromel, a surgeon of New castle, against Sir M. W. Ridley, Member for that Town, for Criminal Conversation with the Plaintiff's Wife; tried in the King's Bench before Lord Kenyon, February 1793.

Mr. Erskine's Address to the Jury.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Trial of Mrs. Liege, for Adultery with Mr. Wingtworth Tonge, during the absence of her Husband. In the Consistory Court of London, February 24, 1791.

The Trial of Mrs. Henrietta Arabin, Wife of William John Arabin, Esq. of Moulsey, in ••e County of Surry; in the Bishop's Court at Doctors Commons, for committing Adultery with Thomas Sutton, jun. Esq. also of Moulsey, in Surry.

The Trial of the celebrated Mrs. Errington, for Adultery with Arthur Murray Smith, Esq. Captain Buckley, Captain Southby, Captain Roberts; the Rev. Mr. Walker, Mr. Trayte, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Daniel.

The Trial of Elizabeth Levering, Wife of W. Levering, of Gun-street, Spital Fields, Carpenter, for Adultery with Gideon Ginchenet, an Apprentice and Journeyman, and Charles Sadler; in the Consistory Court of London, in May, 1792.

Trial of John Curtis, a Publican, in Bishopsgate-street, London, for a Rape upon Sarah Tipple, Spinster, during the Old Bailey Sessions, in February, 1793.

The Case of John Bury, Esq. of the County of Devon, who was divorced for want of his Testicles. Tried in 1561.

Trial of the Right Hon. Lady Ann Foley, Wife of the Hon. Edward Foley, Esq. and Daughter of William Earl of Coventry, for Adultery with the Right Hon. Charles Henry Earl of Peterborough, in the Consistorial and Episcopal Court at Doctor's Commons.

The celebrated Case and Trial of the Marquis de Gesvres, upon the complaint of his Lady, Mademoiselle de Mascranny, who, after three years Marriage, commenced a Suit against him, at Paris, for Imbecility and Impotency.

The Trial of Mrs. Fanny Wilmot, wife of John Wilmot, Esq. M. P. for Adultery with Edward Washborn, a Footman. In 1790.

The Trial of George Davidson, at Newcastle upon Tyne, in August, 1774; for a Rape upon Isabella Blair.

The Trial of Mrs. Timmings for Adultery, in the Consistory Court of London; March 20, 1791.

The Trial of James Lavander, at the Sessions-House, Old Bailey, for a Rape upon the Body of Mary Lewis, Spinster, and robbing her of Half a Guinea. —April 1793.

The extraordinary Trial between Lady Elizabeth Weld and her husband, Edward Weld, Esq. for Impotency. In the Arches Court of Canterbury, London; 1732.

CONTENTS.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

Lady Wersley dressing in the Bathing House

§

§

[Page]

THE CUCKOLD's CHRONICLE: BEING SELECT TRIALS FOR

ADULTRY.

INCEST,

IMBECILITY,

RAVISHMENT, &c.

VOLUME I.

BOSTON: PRINTED FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO PURCHASE. 1798

PREFACE.

[Page]

AT a period like this, when the great mass of the people appears entirely devoted to Political pursuits; when ancient prejudices, or Utopian plans, actuate the views and engross the attention of all; and schemes of supporting or reforming our system of Government, supply a thousand requisites to fill up the blank spaces in the minds of men; but to which requisites there are so many objections; a publication which should attempt a part in divesting the general pursuit of subjects, so petulant and inflammatory, might neither be unnecessary nor unacceptable. A Chronicle like this, seems long to have been wanting to concenter in one point of view, the scenes of wickedness and criminality, of brutality and lust, of farcical absurdities, and ridiculous propensity, which have, during the course of later years, so strangely attracted the notice of the Public, and demanded the interposition of the law: various publications have, indeed, given many dedetails of these important circumstances to the world, but every one in such a mode as to be liable to the greatest objection. The form of Deposition, is the way in which every Trial, however uninteresting, has been given; a mode which the fanciful scenes of the most amusing subject could hardly enliven, but which must be peculiarly cold and repulsive, when employed as the vehicle of facts neither extraordinary nor important. The minutest occurrences, so circumstantially repeated, the same ground so frequently traversed, and the perpetual recurrence of the dull stile of legal procedure, form objections invincible against the imperfect collection we at present possess of Trials for the violation of the Hymeneal vow. The largest collection we have at present, is totally inadequate to a full comprehension of the subject, as it comprises at most only the course of twenty years, viz. from 1760, to 1780. The inexhaustible fund of interesting matter contained in the State Trials, the striking occurences of various Courts of Jurisdiction, [Page] and the vast number of Trials, since the year 1780, which exist only in a fugitive state, call loudly for a completer mode of collection, than has as yet been attempted. Our grand object will be to present to the Public, a series of circumstances of such mingled seriousness and absurdity, such criminal turpitude and such ridiculous weakness, comprising scenes so wildly ridiculous, and so extravagantly absurd, as must arrest every attention, and furnish food for every disposition; and this we shall convey in the easy mode of Narrative, by which we shall simplify the most intricate occurrences, and obviate that complaint of dulness and langour, which has so long and so justly been urged against these compositions. That neighbouring nation, which led the way to polished grace, and obsequious gallantry in modern Europe, which established the science of superior breeding, and matured the refined eloquence of Courts, introduced, with her fascinating influence, the contempt of those ties of connubial love which are really so sacred; and, before she uttered her political metaphysics, contaminated private life by the less laboured doctrines of her accomplished men of fashion and courtiers. Royalty and elegance seem to have yielded, in that country, to the stern virtues of haughty Republicanism; and England possesses devotees of pleasure, seemingly resolved to wear the glaring laurel of profligate fame, which France has resigned: You know it, (meaning the dishonour of your bed) said a celebrated French moralist and wit, it is but a trifle, if you are ignorant of it, it is nothing. We seem, in many instances, to have improved on this consolatory axiom: to have considered the knowledge, nay, it might be nearly said, the damning sight of our most infamous dishonour as nothing: of this the stores of novel information, we have to bring forwards will afford decisive proof, and the whole arrangement of curious matter, furnishes heroines amongst the ladies, not unworthy of being ranked with an Errington or a Newton, though as yet wanting their fame and characters among the Gentlemen deserving of being ranked in the highest class of seducers, although capricious fortune has denied them their well earned celebrity.

To the youthful, the gay, and the fashionable, the scenes of frolic and amusement, of subterfuge and intrigue, of art and of temptation, now intended to be laid before them, will supply an [Page] inexhaustible fund of amusement, and afford a species of relaxation, conveying more instruction for the use of domestic life, than the most austere dogma of morality can offer. To men of a serious and contemplative turn, this Work will not be without its use: the lessons of morality we shall occasionaly intersperse, will, in concert with their own reflections, supply a fund of argument highly gratifying to philosophical minds; if there are persons who assert that we have nearly run the career of human affairs, that we have trod over the steps of Rome, Athens and Sparta, and attained the climax of national depravity: to such men it will surely appear highly necessary, to exhibit the aggregate view of what lengths we have gone in the commission of crimes, which, by striking at the root of domestic felicity, endangers the whole religion and moral character of the State. From such men, we naturally must expect the warmest patronage, and consider their approbation of our plan, as the best evidence of the warmth they feel for the welfare of their country.

THE CUCKOLD's CHRONILCE.

[Page]

The Trial between the Right Hon. Sir Richard Worsley, Bart, and George Maurice Bissett, Esq. Defendant, for Criminal Conversation with the Plaintiff's Wife, on Thursday 21st of Feb. 1782,

THIS Trial, not more celebrated in the annals of gallantry, than in the records of judicial proceeding; quoted alike by the gay amateurs of dissipated pleasure, and the sedulous investigator of legal business, we have chosen for the opening of these interesting Memoirs. The volatile indifference of this modern Messalina, the despicable meanness of her wretched Husband, and the evidence of her Gallants, now directly pointed, and now curiously evafive, furnish a source of such mingled amusement and instruction, as few instances possess the power of surpassing, or indeed of equalling.

This cause was tried before the Right Honourable Willlam, Earl of Mansfield, and a Special Jury.

[Page]For the Plaintiff, the Counsel were,

Mr. Attorney General,

Mr. Dunning,

Mr. Lee,

Mr. Erskine.

For the Defendant,

Mr. Bearcrost,

Mr. Pechell,

Mr. Howorth,

The Declaration stated, that the defendant, on the 19th of November, 1781, and at other times between that day and the 24th of the same month, at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex; with force and arms, made an assault on Seymour, the wife of the plaintiff, and then and there debauched, deslowered, lay with and carnally was connected with her, the said Seymour, to the plaintiff's damage of 20,000l.

To this declaration the defendant pleaded not guilty, and thereupon issue was joined.

The cause was opened by Mr. Attorney General, who stated, that the plaintiff lived at Apuldurcomb, in the Isle of Wight, and was worth about 5000l. a year; that Lady Worsley was the daughter of Sir John Fleming, and that Sir Richard had a fortune of about 70,000l. or more with her: the plaintiff and she were married on the 15th of September 1775, and had issue two children, a son and a daughter, that the defendant was an officer in the Hampshire Militia, of which the plaintiff was Colonel, and that their acquaintance had been only from the end of February, or commencement of March, 1781; and that it originated in consequence of a burgage tenure Mr. Bisset possessed in the Isle of Wight, and which, added to an estate of 800l. a year in Somersetshire. made his income about 1500l. a year; this burgage-tenure, Sir Richard, impelled by parliamentary motives, wished to purchase: this occasioned their first meeting, [...] soon afterwards Sir Richard gave Mr. Bisset a com [...]ssion in his regiment. That the greatest intimacy now took place between them: the plaintiff had a house at Maidstone, and the defendant, while at camp in Coxheath, [Page] regularly visited him there. That after the breaking up of the camp, they came to Lewes, where Sir Richard had a house; and Mr. Bissett lodgings; and the greatest friendship subsisted between them, till that unhappy event, the ground work of this action, took place.

After this opening, the evidence for the plaintiff was brought forwards. The marriage of the 15th of September 1775, was admitted. Captain Leversage, an officer in the Hampshire Militia, and an acquaintance and neighbour of Sir Richard's, declared, that he had no knowledge of Captain Bissett, previous to his seeing him on the parade a [...] High Wickham, after his receiving his commission from Sir Richard; that he recollected Sir Richard Worsley and Captain Bissett's being at Coxheath together: and that there seemed to be the greatest intimacy between Sir Richard and his Family, and him; Mr. Bissett, Captain Leversage said, seemed to him a man of fashion, and extensive intimacy with the brighter circle of society. At the breaking up of the camp, he came with Sir Richard's family to Lewes, and visited also at Maidstone. Mr. Bistett had lodgings at Lewes, and was frequently at Sir Richard's house there. On Sunday the 18th of November, Lady Worsley drank tea and supped at the house of Captain Leversage, at Lewes, on the invitation of the Captain and his family; Captain Bissett came with her. Sir Richard Worsley did not come in pursuance of the invitation, but about ten o'clock in the evening, sent an apology by Captain Worsley, that he was not well and wished to be excused; that he could not attend that evening, and was then taking some sack whey for his indisposition.

This invitation to Captain Leversage's house was general: married ladies, as well as their husbands, being invited. Lady Worsley came about seven o'clock in the evening. This friendly assembly, Lady Worsley was the first who attempted to break up: she intimated a desire to part between twelve and one o'clock. Mrs. Leversage was apprehensive, that the company was not perfectly agreeable to her, by her eagerness to go, and wished [Page] her not to urge her departure; Lady Worsley sat down again, and Captain Bissett looking at his watch, and addressing himself to her Ladyship, said, Don't go yet; upon this she staid till a quarter past one.

On their departure, Captain Leversage took a light, intending to accompany them home, Sir Richard's house being nearly opposite; he went within a few yards of the door, when Captain Bissett begged he would not give himself any further trouble; on this, Captain Leversage wishing them a good night, returned home. About four or five o'clock in the morning, he was awaked by a vioent rapping at his door: he arose directly, and going to the window, found it was one of Sir Richard's servants, who brought his master's compliments, and a polite message, desiring Lady Worsley would come home; the Captain told him Lady Worsley had been gone ever since one o'clock: in about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, Sir Richard himself appears; Leversage, says he where is Lady Worsley?

When Captain Leversage came to this occurrence, the Attorney-General, actuated, no doubt by a laudable zeal for his client's interest, stopt him, and after asking one or two questions not very material, left him to the cross-examination of Mr. Bearcroft, from which as little remarkable occurred.

A Mr. Sadler proved the hand writing of Captain Bissett, in two letters; the first evinced the friendly intercourse which subsisted between the plaintiff and the defendant; it congratulated Sir Richard on his Lady's happy delivery of a daughter, and expressed the writer's great anxiety for Lady Worsley's health, and his earnest desire for her return to quarters: the second letter was wrote the morning of the elopement; inclosed the Captain's commission, which Sir Richard was desired to accept, and named Lord Deerhurst's Cleaveland Row, as the place where an answer would be expected.

Francis Godfrey, a servant of Sir Richard Worsley's remembered Lady Worsley's going to Captain Leversage's; she told him at going out, that if any body called [Page] for her, she should not sup at home that evening: he sat up for her till between five and six o'clock in the morning; about five Sir Richard called him, and sent him to Captain Leversage's; Sir Richard, he said, appeared to be much disturbed; after repeated enquiries after Lady Worsley, he was told that she had left Captain Leversage's at one in the morning, accompanied by Captain Bissett. This man had only lived with Sir Richard one day.

Mr. Stubbs, the landlord of the house where Captain Bissett lodged, did not remember his coming home on this memorable morning; but between three and four, the Captain knocked at his chamber door, and begged to light a candle; in this he was accommodated: he was then in his bed-gown, and directly returned to his room; in a short time he came out of his room and called the servant, Conolly, and begged him to go down stairs; in a little time he called the man again, and then the man or some other person went out of the door; in about ten minutes the sash was thrown up. Mr. Stubbs go out of bed to know if the Captain wanted any thing, but was answered in the negative: soon after the person, whoever it was, came in again, and just afterwards a chaise arrived at the door: it did not, however, stop, but went on to turn about, and some time after, the Captain and some other person went down stairs, and the chaise drove off.

Mr. Attorney-General questioned what the time might be, but Lord Mansfield remarked. this is nothing but travelling a long way about; why don't you come to the point and bring them to London at once?

T. Bourn, the waiter at the Royal Hotel, in Pall Mall, remembered a Lady and gentleman coming there about two in the morning, of the 19th of November; he went to the chaise door, and the Gentleman let the window down about half way; on his attempting to open the door, the gentleman pulled it up again: he stopped a short time, and the window was let down half way again, and as he was opening the door, the window was once more thrown up. Mr. Weston then came to the door, and the Gentleman [Page] and lady stepped out; they entered the house very quickly, and was shewn up stairs into a room named the Apollo, a large drawing-room, and they then ordered breakfast directly. The waiter carried breakfast up stairs and prepared a bed for them as near the dining-room as he possibly could, and then, said he, they went to bed.

Lord Mansfield asked, how he knew they went to bed: the waiter's reason for thinking so was, that he went to take the things away, and they had left the dining-room. His Lordship again asked, if he saw them go into the bed-room; to which he was answered, no: what induced the waiter to think they lay together in one bed, he declared, was the plain reason that there was no other bed in the room: they staid at the Hotel four or five days, and during that time passed for man and wife; not that they said any thing importing that they were so, but, knowing no otherwise, he supposed that to be the case.

Ann Watkinson, the house-keeper at the Royal Hotel, knew that the Lady and Gentleman, relative to whom the waiter had sworn, lodged in that house, that their dining-room was called the Apollo, and their bed-chamber No. 14. She was ordered to prepare the bed-room and accordingly did: she never saw them in bed, but she imagined they were, as it was prepared for them; and she also heard them speak in bed: she saw the bed afterward, and was convinced that some person had lain in it. She never heard any conversation between them, and did not know who they were when they came into the house, but had been informed since: when she once went into the room there was a lady there, and she asked Lady Worsley her name, and she answered that her name was Worsley.

Mrs. Commande, who lived at the Royal Hotel, recollected a Lady and Gentleman coming there, on the 19th Novem. and remaining there till the 24th she did not then know them, but had since been acquainted that their names were Lady Worsley and Captain Bisset: they did not assume any name while they remained there nor was she able to observe any thing in their behaviour, [Page] which could empower her to judge of the form of their connexion. On the morning they went away, (the 24th) Lady Worsley's name was mentioned; the occasion was, Mrs. Commande introducing two of Sir Richard's servants, a woman and a groom, to Lady Worsley and Mr. Bissett, while they were in bed; shortly afterwards, Captain Bissett sent for her into the dining-room, desired to know her motives for shewing such persons into Lady Worsley's bed-room, and said, such behaviour to ladies of quality would not benefit their house; it was about one o'clock in the morning Mrs. Commande said, when she saw Lady Worsley and Captain Bisset in bed together.

A Mr. Herne only said, that he was the receiver of Mr. Bissett's rents; the amount of which were 800l. or somewhat better than 800l. a year.

This was the whole of the evidence adduced for the plaintiff; several particulars of it, perhaps, afford scope for remark to the curious observer. How auspicious was the commencement of the Friendship between Sir Richard and the Captain! he discovered, no doubt, some kindred virtue in the breast of Mr. Bissett, which attached him by the most congenial sympathy. With the view of having so valued a friend near him, he offers him a commission in that part of the Hampshire Militia, which he himself commands: yet luckier, the Captain entertains as high a regard for Lady Worsley as for his friend; doubtless, at first, a very pure attachment! but then comes this unfortunate invitation to a friend's house, and still more unfortunately at this very crisis, poor Sir Richard finds himself indisposed, and is necessitated to remain at home, nursing himself with sack whey, whilst the scheme of his blackest dishonour is planning; his wife and her lover, tempted by the opportunity, at once forfeit all their claims to virtue, and elope: the romantic attachment of the friends, is in a moment dissolved. Sir Richard, with a patience truly exemplary, waits till five in the morning, and then sends his man to beg his Lady to return home; he comes back with the doleful inteligence, that she has [Page] left the house where she supped, some hours, in company with her guardian Captain. Sir Richard is stark raving mad at this news, and immediately repairs to his friend's house; after alarming the whole neighbourhood, he can gain no better tidings▪ but here the prudence of his counsel, the Attorney-General, interrupted Captain Leversage's evidence, and prevented our hearing those effecting bursts of tender anxiety, which must have placed Sir Richard's character in the most amiable point of view; however, let us in pity hope, that the situation of his mind was not so cruelly agonizing, as to have rendered Shakespear's lines applicable to him:

Not Poppy, nor Mandragora, not all the drowsy Syrups of the East,

Shall medicine thee, to that sweet sleep, which thou had'st yesternight.

We will rather suppose that another potion of that sack whey which unquestionably supported him during the absence of Lady Worsley, restored tranquility to his agitated mind; we cannot even imagine, that his resentment was so bitter, as to induce him to order his servants to penetrate the room where there Lady slept, and thereby give occasion to those pathetic remonstrances, which his friend Captain B. was obliged to make use of to the officious waiting-woman, who so impertinently intruded them into the presence of a lady of quality.

The evidence for the defendant now came forwards; and Mr. Bearcroft, in answer to this evidence, did not attempt to make any defence in controvertion of the charge exhibited against the defendant, but was very ready to admit, that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. The only question which then remained was upon the subject of damages; in mitigation of which only he would defend his client; and did not doubt to prove, to the satisfaction of the jury, that Sir Richard not only acquiesced under repeated acts of his own dishonour with various persons, but even excited and encouraged it: on which—

Lord Mansfield said, if a plaintiff encourages, or is privy [Page] to, or consenting at all, or contributing to the debauchery of his wife, or joins in it, he ought not to recover a verdict.

Mr. Bearcroft then stated, that he could not only prove this to be the fact, but that he should prove by the affidavits of the woman who attended the bath at Maidstone, that the plaintiff there had absolutely raised the defendant upon his shoulders, to view his naked wife while bathing, and at the same time called to her, saying, Seymour! Seymour! Bisett is looking at you! and that she, on coming out after she had dressed herself, joined the Gentlemen; and they all went off together in a hearty laugh at the transaction which had passed. The bathing-woman was ill, and could not attend the trial herself to give evidence of this fact; but that it had been agreed between the parties, that the attornies on each side should go down to the place for the purpose of taking the affidavits, and in order to view the situation, which they had done, and which affidavits would be read.

That the defendant could not possibly be the father of the child born in August last, as his first acquaintance with the plaintiff commenced only in March; so that he had not bastardized the plaintiff's issue.

He wondered why they had not called some persons belonging to, or about the family, in orderto prove how the parties lived together; a circumstance very material in a case like this: they had only called one person belonging to the family; and that was the butler, who had lived in the house but one day, and who, of course, could not speak to that point.

That the licentious conduct of Lady Worsley, was so notorious, that it had been the subject of common conversation; and that many Ladies of distinction, in the Isle of Wight and elswhere, had frequently remonstrated with Sir Richard on that subject, and told him, that if he did not attempt to restrain her conduct, her character would be ruined and destroyed; that the answer Sir Richard made was, that Lady Worsley liked it, and he chose to do it to oblige her; upon which a very sensible Lady, [Page] who had frequently remonstrated with him on the subject, replied, ‘If this is the case, God help you! you are the most contented—Husband I ever knew:’ and that, from the Lady's many prior connections, the idea of seduction by the present defendant was totally done away.

Evidence for the Defendant.

Mary Mariott being unable to attend the trial, the following affidavits were read.

Mary Mariott deposed, that Lady Worsley used to come to the cold bath, near Maidstone, to bathe, and that she used to attend her; that Sir Richard and Mr. Bissett were generally with her; and that the last time she came, which was about noon, in September last, and at the latter end of the hop-season, Sir Richard Worsley and Mr. Bissett staid at the door without, while she bathed; that after she had bathed, she retired into a corner to put on her shift, as Ladies usually do after bathing, and then returned to dress herself, and sat herself down on the seat: that there is a window over the door of the building in which the bath is, and which is the only inle [...] for light into the bath, and from which any person, who is sitting down on the seat, may be seen, but not when retired into the corner; that when she had almost finished dressing herself, Sir Richard tapped at the door, and said, "Seymour! Seymour! Bissett is going to get up to look at you," or words to that effect; and, looking round, she saw his face at the window; that he continued there about five minuets; that she did not see the plaintiff on the outside, but believes he must help the defendant up; and that after Lady Worsley had dressed herself, she went out, and they were all mery and laughing together: that, excepting this, she never saw any improper conduct or behaviour in the said three persons, unless what is above stated may be thought so.

In addition to this, there was another affidavit read, in which she believed that Mr. Bissett could not have got up to the window, unless he had been assisted by Sir [Page] Richard, or stood upon his shoulders; and that Sir Richard might easily have pulled him down if he pleased.

The Right Honourable Lord Deerhurst said, that he was first acquainted with Lady Worsley, in the year 1779: he esteemed her conduct as very dissolute, and thought that conjugal fidelity was not one of her virtues: he was intimate with Sir Richard, but never witnessed any exertions made by him, to check the lewd depravity of her life. His Lordship being on a visit at Sir Richard's house, in the Isle of Wight; Sir Richard seeing Lady Worsley pass by the window, said to Lord Deerhurst, that many young men had assailed her virtue: but that all had proved unsuccessful, and that he gave him full liberty to attempt her chastity, this his Lordship considered as the effect of a light and airy manner; and this Lord Mansfield said, went for nothing. Lord Deerhurst continued at Sir Richard's house ten days; during that time, Sir Richard once found him in the dressing-room adjacent to her Ladyship's bed-chamber, at four o'clock in the morning. Sir Richard pretended amazement at finding him there, and exclaimed, Deerhurst, how came you here? after that his Lordship retired to his bed-chamber; he was, however, suffered to attend Lady Worsley, as if no remarkable occurrence had taken place: he attended her to Southampton, at Kingston and Godalmin, at all these places alone, and with the knowledge of Sir Richard. At Kingston and Godalmin, Lord Deerhurst met her by apointment. Mr. Howarth, one of the defendant's counsel, asked his Lordship, if he was criminally connected with Lady Worsley at the last-mentioned place; but his Lordship claimed the protection of the Judge, and Lord Mansfield decided, that it was a question he had no right to answer. On the cross examination of Mr. Attorney-General, Lord Deerhurst denied any particular permission from Sir Richard to attend Lady Worsley, and said, that other Gentlemen attended her Ladyship, without objection from Sir Richard. His Lordship acknowledged carrying a message from Sir Richard to Lady [Page] Worsley at the Hotel, and receiving for answer, that he might inform Sir Richard, that it was in vain for him to attempt the recovery of Lady Worsley, as she was determined never to unite with him again.

The acquaintance of Lord Peterborough with Lady Worsley, commenced nearly about the opening of Ranelagh, in the year 1780: he was first introduced to her at Sadler's Wells, by Lord Deerhurst; he had not any intimacy with Sir Richard, either then or afterwards, nor even spoke to him during his acquaintance with Lady Worsley: he made no remarks on the behaviour of Sir Richard and his Lady, as he never saw them together, but did not think her conduct quite consistent with the character of a decent and virtuous married woman.

Bouchier Smith, Esq. was acquainted with Lady Worsley, in the year 1779; he thought she betrayed a great disregard of character; he was in company with Lady Worsley, on a party at Shooter's Hill, when they met Sir Richard in a phaeton, and her Ladyship many times asked him to accompany them, but he refused, and set off for town; he did not remark any thing else particular that day.

The Marquis of Graham's acquaintance with Lady Worsley, begun four years prior to the trial; he had no intimacy with Sir Richard, he sometimes visited at his house, but not frequently. Lady Worsley was gay, free, and airy, in a manner he thought carried rather too far for a married woman; he did not observe any absolute impropriety or immodesty in her conduct, as far as it respected conversation: to a question which nearly related to himself, the Marquis refused to answer.

A Mr. Clark gave an account of the first interview between Sir Richard Worsley and Mr. Bissett, and the occasion of it.

The Honourable Charles Wyndham's acquaintance with Lady Worsley, commenced between three and four years before the trial: he was not accquainted with Sir Richard at that time, and since his intimacy has been very slight: he never thought the conduct of Lady Worsley [Page] becoming; he remembered Lady Worsley's presenting him with a gold-ring in Kensington Gardens.

Doctor Osborn remembered Lady Worsley about August, in the year 1780, at Sir Richard's house in town: being questioned as to the condition he found her in, he replied, 'Between a patient and a physician, there is an implied secrecy; the nature of the case required it, and that being the state of the case I should hardly conceive myself at liberty to declare it; but I have the Lady's permission to give the truth: he said, he was not employed by Sir Richard: being again questioned as to the situation in which he found her, he replied, 'I believe it was never known; at least I never was asked my opinion of the disorder; nor did I think it necessary to mention it, my business was to cure her; and I do not chuse to talk upon the subject, one way or other.' Upon this answer, Lord Mansfield remarked, 'you might have told them when they first interrogated you, that you wished to be excused.'

Here the evidence for the defendant closed. Mr. J. Farrer, the plaintiff's attorney, was brought forwards and sworn on his behalf: he said, he went down to the cold bath mentioned in the affidavit; he saw the place on which Mr. Bissett got to look into the bath, and believed that he might mount it with a great deal of ease, and without the help of Sir Richard; it was about breast high; there was an arm chair placed on the outside; and when he was on the chair, he said, he could raise himself to the window with great facility: the window was about four feet high, and the seat on the outside of the bath.

Mr. Attorney-General made a short reply on the subject of damages.

LORD MANSFIELD.

Gentlemen of the Jury,

There arises upon this evidence a serious question for your consideration.—The nature of the action is such, that the defendant cannot confess a verdict, because this [Page] is between the Husband and Wife and the Adulterer; and further proceedings may be had; therefore, the verdict, you give must be out of the truth and justice of the case, and the justice of the evidence.

Now, the single question is, Whether Sir Richard has not been privy to the prostitution of his wife? assenting to, and encouraging and exciting even this defendant? And, if he is so, upon your opinion of the evidence, he ought not to recover in this action—if he is not, why then the only question that remains, is upon the subject of damages; upon which I will not say a word to you. You are the best judges of that.

This woman, for three or four years, has been prostituted with a variety of people; that is extremely clear. A stronger instance than the Doctor's appearance this day, and what he has said, need not have been brought. —In the year 1779, Lord Deerhurst knew Lady Worsley; she was very profligate, and no step was taken by Sir Richard to prevent her: he continued in the isle of Wight ten days, and he has mentioned a conversation that passed between them and Sir Richard, which ought to be laid out of the case, because it seems to be ironical: "That many young men had tried her, without success; and that he might take his chance with her." But he says, once the plaintiff found him in Lady Worsley's dressing-room at four o'clock in the morning; and he only says to him, "Deerhurst, how came you here?" And there is no further explanation or examination between them. Is it not extraordinary to find a Gentleman in his Lady's dressing room at four o'clock in the morning; and nothing further said? All is well; they are all good company the next morning; and some few days afterwards, Lady Worsley is going to Southampton. At the same time Sir Richard goes eight miles with her, and leaves Lord Deerhurst to go on with her to Southampton: he goes on with her to Southampton; he stays there twenty-four hours, and she stays three or four days:—yet there is no appearance of jealousy in the Husband! This evidence deserves your consideration.

[Page]Another piece of evidence is, that of the woman at the bath at Maidstone; she swears, she believes it was impossible for Mr. Bisset to have got up the height of the balcony, to look into the bath, unless he had stood upon Sir Richard's shoulders: but this is matter of belief; and they have called the Attorney, and you have heard his evidence: he went down there to take the affidavits: he says he got up with a great deal of ease, and without assistance; that he got up first on an arm-chair which stood on the outside of the bath; and then it was only four feet above him; so that, if he had not stood upon Sir Richard's shoulders, he might easily have pulled him down if he pleased; instead of which, he only taps at the door, and says Seymore! Seymore! Bissett is looking at you. And when she is dressed and comes out, she joins them, and they are all jolly and merry, and laughing, and so away together.

This is the evidence which they have given; and if upon that evidence you think the Husband was privy to consenting, and encouraging this debauchery, he ought not to have your verdict; but if you think he is entitled to your verdict, then the only point for your consideration is, What damages you will give—You will consider of your verdict, and give what damages you think proper.

The Jury went out of court, and after debating near an hour, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, giving him only One Shilling damages.

The whole of the evidence for the defendant, is not less curious than the testimony brought forwards in favour of the plaintiff: the remark made by the Lady, who had so frequently advised Sir Richard on the conduct of his Wife, must have been peculiarly grateful to a man of his refined and delicate sentiments; when his amiable good nature prevented him from repressing those irregularities of Lady Worsley's conduct, which their mutual friends apprehended, might terminate so disagreeably, the kind compliment of his being the most contented—Husband the Lady ever knew, must have been particularly consoling: and the word Husband so kindly substituted for that of [Page] Cuckold! but how was this poor Gentleman deluded through the whole of the business? relying on that virtue, he had intuitively discovered in the bosom of Captain Bissett, he with the most unaffected simplicity, and superiority to mean suspicion, assisted that Gentleman in taking a survey of Lady Worsley's charms, when uncovered in the bath. And yet perhaps, this was the first temptation which shook his friend's virtue, though none of the parties betrayed any symptoms of apprehension, that any thing wrong had happened, but retired laughing, joking; completely merry, happy, and wise.

Sir Richard's conduct, with respect to Lord Deerhurst, was not less expressive of confidence in his wife: and here the observation must strike us, of that general want of acquaintance with Sir Richard, which most of the young men of fashion who appeared on the Trial professed: though so friendly with his Lady, they knew but little of him; doubtless, the elevation of Sir Richard's integrity, and the refined purity of his sentiments, were circumstances but little congenial to the pursuits and attachments of those characters; their particular reserve, however, as to betraying any circumstances which might have affected the Lady's honour, may be urged as an exception in favour of their nicety: what could be a greater instance of Sir Richard's purity, than his obliging permission to Lord Deerhurst, to assail the virtue of Lady Worsley; or the good natured manner in which he passed over the extraordinary circumstance of his being so near her bed-chamber, at four o'clock in the morning! This could have arose from nothing but the conscious virtue of Sir Richard's own immaculate bosom: and how must we commiserate, that so amiable a man should suffer by fraud and deception!

To have seen things in the light Sir Richard did, he doubtless must have possessed a different kind of vision from that of persons in general: perhaps a somewhat resembled the 'poetical second sight' of Puff in the Critic, when the distracted heroine of the Poet's Tragedy, is raving, in all the agonies of despair, for the loss of her lover, [Page] the inspiration of the Muses pourtrays the Spanish Fleet in the liveliest colours to her disturbed mind; but her father, who, to use the language of Puff's friend, 'makes an allowance for this poetical second sight,' declares, that the 'Spanish fleet she cannot see, because 'tis not in sight.' The character of this father is represented by the Author, as that of a 'plain matter of fact man;' exactly this 'plain matter of fact man,' was Lord Mansfield: casting wide the poetic fiction, a fancied second sight, or whatever mode of refined illusion Sir Richard might be impelled by; he appealed only to well attested and corroborated circumstances; and directing the Jury by irresistible argument, left to the Baronet the sad recompence afforded him by the verdict.

What the feelings of Sir Richard were, when he heard the determination, it would not be very easy to imagine: the contemptuous pity of his friends, the indignation of the Public, and the sentiments of his own mind, must have afforded a happy combination: the impartial Public did not hesitate in giving their judgment, and all posterity who may hear of the curious discussion, will find no difficulty in delivering an adequate decision.

[Page]

Remarkable Indictment, extracted from No. 4254, of the St. James's Evening Post, published April 7th, 1787,

AT Leicester assizes no persons were capitally convicted, and but two burnt in the hand, and four transported; an odd Trial came on, the case being thus:

One Baggerly, being hired to work about five miles from Grooby, and being jealous of his wife, was afraid to leave her to her own inclinations, therefore put in execution a most villainous and barbarous design, which the wife told her mother and sisters of, and they in the neighbourhood, who released the woman from her great pain, and took him up, and at the last assizes he was indicted, which indictment was as follows:

Leicestershire. ss. The Jurors of our sovereign Lord the King, upon their oaths present, that George Baggerly, late of Grooby, labourer, on the 15th day of October, in the tenth year of our sovereign Lord the King, with force and arms, at Grooby, against the peace of our said Lord the King, then and there did make an assault; and that the said George Baggerly, put a certain needle and thread into and through the skin and flesh of the private parts of the said Dorothy, in divers places, then and there wickedly, barbarously and inhumanly did force, and the said private parts of her the said Dorothy Baggerly, with the needle and thread aforesaid, did then and there sew up to the great damage of the said Dorothy, and against the peace of our sovereign Lord the King, his Crown and dignity.

To which indictment the prisoner pleaded Guilty, and the Court gave him a very severe reprimand; but considering his great poverty, fined him Twenty Shillings, [Page] and to be imprisoned for two years, and to find security for his good behaviour for seven years.

As he was carrying from his Trial to the jail, the women fell upon him, and scratched him terribly, calling him all the ill names they could think of, &c.

This very singular expedient to escape CUCKOLDOM, added to many other instances which have occurred, is a striking proof that Jealousy will impel mankind to the commission of more atrocious acts, than any other passion.

The Trial of the Rev. Mr. James Altham, of Harlow, in the County of Essex, for Adultery, Defamation, and Obscenity; in the Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London, at Doctor's Commons. 1785.

WE have hardly any need to premise, that the whole of this trial, is a striking picture of a series of excentricities that have scarcely an equal in the annals of extravagance. To describe, or even to attempt to set them off in any other way, than exhibiting them developed of legal jargon, is beyond our plan. The libel gives them in an outline striking indeed. We shall first give this as it stands, and afterwards, the particulars of the evidence.

The first specifies, that the Rev. James Altham was legally married to Susannah Parkhurst, now Susannah Altham, and that they have lived and cohabited together, as lawful husband and wife. That, notwithstanding such marriage, the Rev. James Altham gave a letter to Ann [Page] Saunders, addressed to her, desiring her to read it at her leisure; and that such letter contained many strong expressions of love and regard; and mentioned, if James Altham was to die, he would leave her two hundred pounds; and that, if his wife died, he would marry her, if he had not a quarter of an hour to live.

II. That the sum of sixty pounds was afterwards paid by the said Rev. James Altham, that such letter might be cancelled, and all conversation relating thereto, suppressed as soon as possible,

III. That the Rev. James Altham appointed to meet Ann Saunders in a place called the Shrubbery, and that she met him accordingly; and that then and there the Rev. James Altham, and Ann Saunders, committed the crime of adultery together; and that, on another day, James Altham prevailed on Ann Saunders to lie with him, in the entry or passage of the house inhabited by Mr. John Edwards.

IV. James Altham is charged with having confessed that he had twice lain with the said Ann Saunders, and thereby committed the crime of adultery with her.

V. That he is vicar of St. Olave Jewry, and rector of St. Martin, Ironmonger-lane.

VI. That, speaking of his amours in public company, affirmed that Mrs. Elizabeth Wenham had kissed and smacked him, and called him "her dear Jemmy;" that he spoke very indecently of the said Mrs. Elizabeth Wenham; and intimated that her hasband, Mr. John Wenham, was not a sufficient man for her; and that Mrs. Wenham wanted him, the said James Altham, to lie with her.

VII. That he had said that he was of a very warm constitution, and that he had been concerned with fifty women in the parish of Harlow, in Essex; and, as a proof of the warmth of his constitution, that he went home and laid with his wife immediately after lying with Ann Saunders in the Shrubbery.

VIII. That he had said he kept a girl whilst he was at college, and mentioned how he supported her. That he [Page] was very unguarded in his conversation, and frequently expressed him in obscene and indecent terms, such as we [...]e highly improper for a clergyman to make use of.

IX. That he frequently importuned Ann Tavner to be criminally acquainted with him; and tried his utmost to prevail on her to consent to gratify his criminal inclinations, by promising what a friend he would be to her. That after trying every method of persuasion with her, he even attempted to force her; and once, in particular, he called upon her in the morning, and began putting his hand in her bosom, and then tried to put his hand up her petticoats, and unbuttoned his breeches; and, if she had not resisted to her utmost, she verily believes he would have carnally known her, and thereby have committed the crime of adultery.

X. That he called on Sarah Smith, wife of James Smith, of Harlow, and endeavoured to prevail on her to take her sister, Ann Saunders, from Mr. Edwards's, where she then lived as a servant, because Mr. Edwards was a single man; and that he then told Sarah Smith, that he loved Ann Saunders beyond any other woman; that he had been dying for her eight or nine months; and that was the reason why he wished she would take her from Mr. Edwards's, that he had even fainted away when he had seen her; and that Mrs. Altham had told him she was sure he loved that girl, that he had made Ann Saunders some presents.

XI. The libel further sets forth, that Ann Saunders confessed, that James Altham had once lain with her in the Shrubbery, behind Mr. Edwards's house; and another time in the entry or passage of the said house, &c.

Ann Saunders of Oakely, in Essex, who was aged seventeen years and upwards, said, that she knew James Altham for six years past, by living servant at Dr. Fisher's in Harlow, where Mr. Altham frequently visited; and further verified his person as being a priest in holy orders, and a married man.

She said, it was about the latter end of 1778, when Mr. Altham first began to take particular notice of her, [Page] by taking hold of her, and squeezing her hand, smiling upon her, and making use of very endearing expressions. And that a short time before Christmas in that year, he met her and one Elizabeth Purkis, as they were walking in the road; that he called her to him, and said he wanted to speak to her, and that going about nine or ten yards from Elizabeth Purkis, he asked her if she would accept of a pair of silver buckles, which she refused, saying, she did not want any, and that she would not accept them: they then parted.

About a fortnight after, it seems Mr. Altham came to her master's house, and put a pair of silver buckles in her hand, and immediately went into the parlour. On the Easter Sunday following, he gave her a pocket-book with a silver clasp, and a set of instruments.—In June following, he took many opportunities of frequenting her company and being alone with her, when he behaved with the utmost fondness and affection.—About this time, it seems he gave her a letter, and told her to read it at her leisure, and then either return it to him, or burn it: this letter contained many strong professions of love and regard for her; and particularly mentioned, that if Mrs. Altham was to die he would marry Ann Saunders, even if he had not a quarter of an hour to live.—Ann Saunders seemed well acquainted with Mr. Altham's hand writing.

This letter, it appears, being accidentally found in Ann Saunders's possession by her brother, the circumstance soon came to the ears of Mr. Altham, who employed some of her relatives, and a Mr. Lushington, to get it out of their hands; but as they could not obtain this letter by persuasion, Mr. Lushington, at length, paid sixty pounds on Mr. Altham's account, and it was then given up.— Yet so strong was the desire of this gentleman, for the enjoyment of the person of Ann Saunders, that the payment of this money by no means abated his ardour: on the contrary, according to her own testimony, she very soon after met him in the Shrubbery by appointment. The time being evening, and after dark, was perfectly Congenial to the good man's designs; for, according to [Page] the young lady's own account, he there and then prevailed over her to lie with him—so that in the starched phrase of the law, they had the carnal use and knowledge of each other's bodies; and thereby committed the foul crimes of fornication, adultery, and incontinence.

This occurred in the month of April; but about the latter end of May, Mr. Altham happening to find her alone in the house of Mr. Edwards, at Harlow, again prevailed upon her to lie with him in the entry or passage of the house. It seems, that she proposed going up stairs into a room, but the godly zeal of this good man was so warm, that he insisted upon fulfilling the first great command, "Increase and multiply," in the passage.

In the course of this renewed intimacy, it seems that Mr. Altham was frequently soliciting Ann Saunders, to come and live with him.—It is to be observed, that this gentleman's friends set up the plea of insanity; in excuse for his conduct; and if even this plea was valid, it must be admitted, upon his telling Ann Edwards, that he would not mind murdering his wife and children, if she would come and live with him, or words to the very same effect.

Some particulars, in this extraordinary trial, offer a variety of reflections to the philosophical observer.—Mr. Altham, appears to have been continually boasting to the women, of his prowess in the feats of love, and the variety of his connections with the sex. Few, very few women indeed, cordially despise a rake: Mr. Altham's success plainly proves it: while, lamentable to be told, any pretension to extraordinary virtue, or chastity in the male sex, is universally despised.—'Oh Lud! A fellow's chastity,' says an old lady in a drama; 'why, I never heard of such a thing in my life!'—Conformably to this maxim, it seems Mr. Altham had told Ann Saunders, that he could lie with Mrs. Seed, a married woman, whenever he chose or with her sister Elizabeth Seed, both of Harlow. Indeed, it does not seem that this gentleman thought [...] [...] ny thing so much, as of increasing the lambs of his flock.

As we have treated of the letter, and the negociation in general terms, we shall now come to its contents, and [Page] the manner of its being discovered. It seems, that Mr. John Edwards, surgeon and man-midwife, of Harlow, with whom Ann Saunders lived servant, being one day in want of a pen and ink, he went into a room opposite to her's, which was not used, where he saw several papers lying upon a shelf, and among them a letter addressed, "Dear Nanny!" he soon knew this to be Mr. Altham's hand-writing; and as he directly conceived there had been an intimacy between the parties, it also occurred to him, how urgent Mr. Altham had been with Ann Saunders's sister, to take her away from his house (Mr. Edwards's), under the idea that he being a single man and living almost alone, made it exceeding dangerous for a young woman to stay with him!—Mr. Edwards as it is natural to suppose, immediately read the contents of this curious Epistle; and it is much to be regretted, that a copy of it was not preserved: there is no doubt, that as it was got out of the hands of the opposite party, for the consideration of sixty pounds, it was immediately and totally destroyed. It is certain, that it contained the following verses:

Dear maid, since thou hast charm'd my sight,

Oh let my arms thy neck infold;

Those breasts so fair, those eyes so bright,

What joy, what pleasure to behold!

The young woman to whom this was addressed, it seems, was soon sensible of the danger of this precious epistle, as Mr. Edwards had hardly come out of the apartment, when he met her coming in with great haste; he informed her that he knew what she was in such haste about, but that he had got the letter in his pocket, and was determined to shew it to her sister. She then pressed him very hard to deliver it up to her, but as he peremptorily refused it, she began crying; but this was to no purpose.

So far from this indulgence, Mr. Edwards happening to see Mr. Smith and his wife, the brother and sister of Ann Saunders, that day, he read the contents of it to them but did not give them the letter. It is commonly said, that a woman cann [...] keep a secret; but from this and a [Page] thousand other instances, it is highly probable, that that proverb is equally applicable to the men.

The next day it seems, Mr. Edwards met Mr. Altham in the fields, and after walking together some time, he introduced the affair of Ann Saunders; at least so much of it as had then got abroad: in reply to which, Mr. Altham readily confessed that he had lain with her, but was very reluctant in acknowledging the letter in question. He indeed confessed, that he had written to her, but intirely declined entering into any particulars.

The letter, in a few days after, was given by Mr. Edwards to Mrs. Smith, the sister of Ann Saunders; and it was also shewn to a number of persons, most of whom identified it as the genuine hand-writing of the Reverend James Altham.

It is worth observing, that when Mr. Lushington came to Ann Saunders's friends, to agree with them to have it given up, he at first offered her but ten ponds; however, her brother had the address to increase this price to sixty, which was paid in the course of a few days:—and when finally given up, it was remembered, among other warm expressions, that Mr. Altham would never cease to love her as long as he lived; and only requested, that she would let him be an hour, or a night alone with her; he also asked her shortly after, whether, if he parted with his wife, she would come and live with him.

Mr. Edwards also deposed, that in conversation with the Rev. James Altham, he had confessed to him, that he was of a very warm constitution, and that he had been concerned with fifty women in the town and parish of Harlow; and as a particular instance of the vigour of his constitution, he further informed him, that directly after lying with Ann Saunders in the shrubbery, he went home and immediately obliged his wife to undergo the same proof of his amorous affections.

It is to be observed, that in course of this trial, several of the witnesses were asked, if they really believed that Mr. Altham was insane; to this, the general answer was Dr. Monro's excepted, that they had heard that he had been [Page] put in a private mad-house under the care of Doctor Monro, but that this was suspected to have been done by his relations, merely to evade the force of the law.

William Poole of Sheering, farmer, aged sixty-six, deposed, that he had been rather intimately acquainted with Mr. Altham, and that at the Tythe-feast, at Harlow, Mr. Altham, after dinner; and sitting down with some of the parishioners and inhabitants, introduced a conversation about dogs, and particularly said, "that he had a great passion for these animals, and women too;" to which W. Poole replied, Yes, Sir, I believe it, and you have paid for it lately, alluding to his connection with Ann Saunders. Mr. Altham then expressed great virulence against the people who concerned themselves in that business; and said, he would shoot two or three of them if it was not for the law. To this Poole answered, he should not talk of shooting people, though to be sure he was a man of great spirit. That I am, rejoined Altham; and he immediately went on to tell them that he kept a girl when at college and even mentioned how he supported her. He informed the company at the same time that the wife of John Wenham, Esq. was over head and ears in love with him; that she was at his house the other day, and kissed him, and smacked him, and called him her dear Jemmy, O my dear Jemmy! and the like; and that at Dr. Legas's, she asked him to have her.—To this one Edward Wife, who was present, said in a serious manner—Aye! what can she want to have you for? What, said Mr. Altham, why to r...r her, to be sure. Mr. Poole then said to him, do you consider that you are a clergyman, and a justice of peace; I think this conversation may give you a great deal of trouble; to which Mr. Altham replied, he did not care for any body.

In the course of this evidence it also appeared, that Mr. Altham had been married to two wives, before the one he then had; but that he had treated them both with much tenderness and affection.

Ann Tavner, wife of Francis Tavner of Harlow, [Page] swore, that about November 1776 her husband was arrested for debt, and confined in Chelmsford Goal; and that when Mr. Altham heard of it, he came to her to enquire into her husband's affairs, and said he would do his utmost to assist him, or to that effect; and that he always promised to be a friend to her, and particularly mentioned, that he would get her husband out of goal in a fortnight's time. After this, he began to call upon her very frequently, sometimes every day, and generally three or four days in the week; still he did not procure her husband's enlargement till four or five months after he had proposed it. During this time, he had made particularly free with her, taking very great liberties; such as putting his hands in her bosom, and attempting to put them up her petticoats. In addition to this, he very frequently solicited her to be criminally acquainted with him, trying his utmost to prevail upon her: sometimes, after he had exhausted himself in persuasions, he would even attempt open force; particularly one morning in Feb. 1777, when he began putting his hand into her bosom, and then tried to put it up her petticoats, after he had unbuttoned and opened his breeches; when she really believed, that if she had not resisted to the utmost degree, by struggling and falling upon her knees with her cloaths under her, he certainly would have had the carnal knowledge of her body. To this she added, that she thought his behaviour so barbarous, that she could not help crying.

Here it appears, in favour of Mr. Altham, that he was by no means devoid of humanity, as he was so much affected by this behaviour, that he promised he would never be guilty of the like again; and though under no actual obligation, promised, and really effected, her husband's liberty in the course of three weeks: however he had not quite relinquished his desire for the wife, nor forgot his defeat some months after the release of her husband, [Page] as he sent for her to inform her, he would send him for a soldier, for not keeping up his payments to him. But, though he thus disgraced his former liberality, he never put those threats in execution.

Thomas Speed, a malster, of Harlow, said, that walking one day in Harlow church-yard with Mr. Altham, by his desire, he began asking him whether he had heard any thing of Ann Saunders's affair. Altham then told him, that he certainly had lain with her, and that she was very willing he should. Well, said the other, and I heard that you found her a maid: 'No, by G—d,' replied Altham, she was 'as open as that pond,' pointing to a pond just by. And upon Speed's mentioning, that he thought this conduct very unbecoming in a man of his cloth, he said, in answer to it, that he was a man of a very vigorous and warm constitution; and that he had lain with a woman five times within an hour and a half.—He then went on and told him, that a certain lady not an hundred miles off, had been familiar with him; and that if discovered, it would cause a separation between her and her husband. This lady, the witness thought to be Mrs. Wenham. Mr. Altham told Speed, that he had not that experience in women that he had; as there was hardly three in the parish but would whore, if they were closely followed.

Mary Special deposed, that as Mr. Wenham and his wife, a Miss Nicholson and herself, were going to Hatfield fair, Mr. Wenham had dropped their company to speak to Mr. Altham, whom he saw in Hatfield church-yard; and that as soon as Mrs. Wenham heard his voice, she immediately went up to them, and in the hearing of all the company, said to the Rev. James Altham, "Sir, will you say that I kissed you, and called you my dear Jemmy?" and that he then made answer that he would say it; on which Mrs. Wenham gave him several blow a upon the face with all her might; to which he made no manner of resistance, but only exclaimed, See! see how I am used.—However he persisted [Page] he would say it again, and even take 'his sacrament upon it. Mr. Altham's protestations, notwithstanding, were totally void of foundation: and only add another melancholy instance of the force of malignant disappointment, and excesses, the fatal effects of those situations, which people bring themselves into, by giving up the reins of reason to lust and sensuality.

Mary Church, wife of John Church, farmer, of Matching, spoke the most in favour of Mr. Altham's insanity; and said, that a song was handed about Harlow fair made against him; that he had often complained to her about it, and was very often much agitated in consequence of this song. This, it is worthy of observation, is a new argument, which proves, that there is hardly any depravity so complete, as to be insensible to ridicule, whatever may be the vehicle by which it is conveyed.

Among other instances of eccentricity in Mr. Altham, Mrs. Church mentioned, that he once called at her gate, where he kept talking and rambling from one subject to another, for two hours together: he then mentioned, that he had had a thought of making away with himself; but that he thanked God that he had prevented him. That he likewise cried very much; and said, he had done a thing by which he had dishonoured Mrs. Altham and himself very much; but that he had prayed to God, and God had forgiven him: and then added, I know he has forgiven me; and how do you think that I know it? I have lately had a large sum of money left me; and do you think that would have happened if God had not forgiven me?

In treating of the song, we neglected to say that it had a picture at the head of it with three faces, and that its title was, "The wicked Vicar of Essex:" the author was supposed to be a Mr. Whitnell, a clerk to John Wenham, Esq. at his office in the city.

W. Cotterell, of Mansion house-street, London, [Page] deposed, that one Saturday afternoon, Mr. Altham called at his house, on his coming to town to do duty at his church the next day; but did not then stay two minutes, appearing, as he had done at other times, in a violent hurry and bustle, saying he had a great deal of business to do. That between nine and ten at night, he returned very unexpectedly laughing and rubbing his hands, and said, he was come to sup with him, being the only time he ever supped with him in his life; and then added, laughing I know how you tradesmen live and would not put you out of your way and have therefore brought my supper in my pocket; at the same time shewing two goosberry tarts he had in his pocket. Mr. Cotterell was much surprised at his discourse and manner; but nevertheless, making an apology for taking him up two pair of stairs, his house being then repairing, he introduced him to his wife, whom he had never seen before. That he then began laughing again, and saying what he had brought in his pocket for his supper; upon which Mrs. Cotterell observed, she was sorry he had given himself that trouble, for they had a goosberry-pye in the house, which was accordingly brought upon the table. Mr. Altham declared he was uncommonly glad of it, being remarkably fond of goosberry-pye, and sat down to partake of it; but soon after calling to their maid-servant, who was waiting, said to her in the most strange way, Poll come, hither, my dear? Don't be afraid, child, I won't bite you. Do you love goosbery-pye? He then took the two tarts out of his pocket, and insisted upon the maid taking them immediately into the kitchen, and eating them for her supper. That, in order to humour him, the servant was obliged to take the tarts into the kitchen; but returning to wait at table sooner then he imagined she could have eaten them, he would not be satisfied till she went back again, and ate the tarts. He then began to talk with [Page] Mrs. Cotterell, about his having a maid or two in the country, and he liked to make them a present now and then, and he bought a net-hood for one of them, which he would shew to Mrs. Cotterell; and accordingly took it out of his pocket, saying, the girls in that country wore those kind of things, and they were very becoming, and he thought it would be a very pretty present for his maid. Then holding it a little time in his hand, he told Mrs. Cotterell she should see how he looked in it, and thereupon put it on his own head, and tied it under his chin; and in that manner jumped and skiped about the room in it in the most antic mannner, now and then looking into the glass, and asking Mrs. Cotterell how it became him, and whether she ever saw a parson in a net-hood before; and other expressions in the same strange kind of way.

After running on in this manner for some time, and having drank a glass of wine, he jumped up, and said he must go to his inn, or he should be locked out, and accordingly between ten and eleven he went away, desiring Mr. Cotterell to come to his church the next day. They went as desired, but Mr. Altham was not, at most, more than ten minutes in the pulpit, and the whole congregation appeared in the utmost astonishment at the extreme shortness of his discourse, and the abruptness of his conclusion.

After church, Mr. Cotterell and his wife went home, and were scarcely got into the house, when Mr. Altham followed them there, and said laughing, "Egad, I have given them a bobtail; now I'll go to Woodford, and get a dinner at Keepe's for nothing (meaning a gentleman of his acquaintance there) and a good feed for my horse, and be at home in a chevy:" at the same time jumping about, and acting with his arms as if riding expeditiously, he went away apparently in a violent hurry.

Hugh Tarling a bricklayer, of Harlow, said, that when he was building a wall at Harlow, Mr. [Page] Altham used to be with them frequently, running on, and talking in the most free and familiar manner, as if they were his equals, and would hand bricks to them; and one time would insist on laying a brick himself, and then bragged how well he did it, and how clever he was, and could even sift cinders, or turn his hand to any thing, and that nothing came amiss to him. That some time, in the middle of his employment with the bricklayer, he would suddenly, and abruptly set off, and run homewards as hard as he could drive, and after being gone perhaps twenty minutes or so, run back again in the same manner, and quite out of breath. That one morning he came, about four o,clock, and knocked him up, saying, he must and would see him directly, and made a fresh noise at the door. That he then had his night-cap on, and his sword-cane in his hand; and upon Tarling's going down to him, he found his business was, to insist upon his taking a little fence down, which jutted a litle into the road, and run on a great deal about his being a magistrate, and he would have it done; and if he would not do it, he would be the ruin of him, and so on. That after, he told him to get his hat, and go with him, which he accordingly did; and in their way, stopt just by a pond in the road, and began talking about the presbyterians, and Mr. Wenham in particular; and complained how they persecuted him, and that they wanted to be the ruin of him, although he wanted to be at peace with them and every body, and a deal to that effect; and at last worked himself up to such an agony, as to talk of throwing himself into the pond to drown himself.

Mr. Altham, at other times in his flighty fits would talk of the dissenters, and of Mr. Wenham in particular, in terms of great anger and resentment, saying, he would fight him or any man with sword pistol or fist, and would often run on a great deal in a wild and unconnected way, about his fighting [Page] and running; as that he could fight or run with any man in England: he would then jump and skip about in a very antic manner, and run and put himself into fighting attitudes, by way of displaying his skill and cleverness in what he was talking about; he was then very apt to swear much, which he was never guilty of before. And when he used to talk of the dissenters persecuting and tormenting him, he would burst into tears; and used to harp much upon Mr. Parkhurst, his father in law, and Mrs. Altham; and what a good and excellent man Mr. Parkhurst was, and that their was not such a person in the world; and as for Mrs. Altham, there was not such a woman in a thousand; and if it was not for them, he did not know what would become of him. And this strange and unaccountable conduct, in talking and behaviour, happened, as Tarling thought, all or mostly in the summer and autumn of the year 1779.

With respect to Mrs. Wenham he said, that finding Mr. Altham at Mr. Legas's the apothecary, he began talking a great deal about that lady, and how she had met him the day before at Hatfield fair, and had beat him most cursedly, and very near knocked him down, and then damned him and said, "What do you say now, you dog?" Upon which he replied, "Madam, what I have said I still persist in." Mrs. Wenham then spitting in her hand, and clenching her fist, attacked him again, and repeated her blows several times. Upon Tarling asking him what it was for, he replied nothing, but because he had said she had put her arms round his neck, and kissed him; and he then added, "By God, Tarling, she did in this very entry; and to tell you the truth, I believe what she wanted me to do was to r...r her. As to her, she was a woman, and therefore I scorned to strike her again; but by God, if it had been that potgutted son of a bitch, Wenham, damn him, I'd have broke every bone in his skin." That he then began to put himself into fighting postures, [Page] and to talk and run on about his fighting; and how much money he had given to learn to fight, and of the strength of his arm, and that he was a very devil at fighting, and was able to fight any man in England, and a great deal to that effect; after which changing the subject, he run on a great deal about his prowess among the women, and that if it was not on Mrs. Altham's account, who was one of the best women in England, he could do any thng he pleased among the women, and swore, that if he pleased, 'he could r...r fifty or a hundred of them in a night,' and more to that effect: by every part of his conduct and discourse on that occasion, Tarling was convinced he was then absolutely insane, and incapable of considering or reflecting on what he said or did.

Joseph Legas, of Harlow, said, that as he was riding by Mr. Altham's house, in company with Wenham, Mr. Altham being in his garden, called out to Mr. Wenham for his Easter offering; upon which Mr. Wenham stopped and gave him five shillings; that Mr. Altham appeared much offended, and asked Mr. Wenham what he meant by offering him such a sum, and whether it was not meant for the clerk and not for him, and that he never took less than a guinea of a gentleman; and, upon Mr. Wenham's saying, he intended it for him, he flew into a most violent passion, and, his rage getting the better of his reason, railed at and abused Mr. Wenham in particular, and the dissenters in general, very much; swearing violently, and at length stripping off his coat, and calling Mr. Wenham a scoundrel and a coward, and other names of that sort, challenged him to come down and fight him, and by such violent behaviour, a number of people were gathered round them. Mr. Legas afterwards rode on with Mr. Wenham, who was much offended at Mr. Altham; and called him a rascal and a scoundrel, and said he would bring an action against [Page] him, for stopping and assaulting him in the highway; adding, that the fellow was crazy, and behaved like a madman, and other expressions of that sort.

He also boasted to Mr. Legas, what a great dancer he was; and at other times has told him, that if he had been bred to the navy, he was the only person in the world for the king to have sent out to sight Paul Jones, and if he had, he would have taken him at any rate. That on those occasions he would always jump and skip about, and act the part he was talking of performing. That at those very early and unseasonable hours in the morning, he sometimes insisted upon his going home with him to breakfast, and would make his servants get up and get breakfast, and after breakfast he would go to bed again.

One morning in particular, as he was jumping and skipping about the chairs, and bragging of his activity, he happened to see Hugh Tarling, the bricklayer at Harlow, coming towards his house; he threw up the sash, and called him in, when he ran on a great deal about Mrs. Wenham, that she was very fond of him, and vexed that he would not lay with her; adding, that he was the only man that was fit for her, as that fat-gutted fellow Wenham, could not half do her business; and then turning to Tarling, and catching him by the coat, said, Why, Tarling, it is nothing at all to me, I make nothing of it, I could lay with a hundred women in a night, I could, indeed, Tarling, and make nothing of it.

But with all this eccentricity, Mr. Altham had his fits of piety; he would often deplore Mr. Wenham's defection from the Church of England; would even cry, and fall upon his knees, saying, "if Wenham would but turn to his mother Church, I would die a martyr to my religion;" and had often begged and entreated the witness to go to Mr. [Page] Wenham from him, and endeavour to prevail on him to return to the church, which, to humour and pacify him, the other told him he would do, but never with any intention of doing it.

The first time Mr. Altham saw Dr. Monro, he said he would shew him a trick by way of displaying his activity, which perhaps he had never seen before; then placing his hat on the ground, and taking up one leg in one hand, and pulling the other hand over his head, in that maner he hopped several times round the hat, and then stooped and picked it up in his mouth, without altering the position of his hands, or letting go his leg.—Very consistent indeed, with the dignity of the sacred function!

And by the deposition of Robert Master, it would seem, that Mr. Altham, with his other fervours, had some small share of poetical enthusiasm, for being once at dinner with the Rev. Robert Fowler, at Harlow, he broke out in a poetical rhapsody on his favourite dog Zelio, declaring, that these verses were the only lines he ever wrote, and that they were the effect of inspiration!

Such was the aggregate of the evidence adduced upon a trial, which, for a variety of situation, circumstance and character, has never been exceeded.

It does not appear, that there was any other insanity in this case, than the almost uncontrouled dominion of violent passions, over a mind warped, but by no means devoid of sensibility.—There was by far, too much method in these proceedings for sheer madness; yet, if any person would heap a greater degree of criminality upon Mr. Altham, than upon another person, an account of his profession as a clergyman, it would be very unjust, and unphilosophical. Nature is superior to every religious form or institution in the world; and whatever may be taught to the contrary, there is scarcely [Page] any virtue or sanctity unassisted by the temperament and constitution of the body: these, it is certain, are the strongest influencers of virtue and good order, as that unassisted religion, and education are the weakest: hence it is a lamentable truth, that, in Popish countries especially, the crimes and enormities of some of the clergy, have only been rendered the more violent by restraint.

Trial of Major Hook, for Adultery with his own Niece, Mrs. Campbell, Wife of Captain Campbell, before Lord Kenyon and a Special Jury, at Westminister, February 26, 1793.

THE Counsel for Captain Campbell, were: Mr. Erskine, Mr. Mingay, and Mr. Holroyd. For Major Hook, Mr. Bearcroft, Mr. Garrow, and Mr. Burrow.

Mr. Holroyd, who opened the pleadings—stated that this was an action, in which the plaintiff complained, that the defendant made an assault on Herriot his wife, debauched, lay with, and carnally knew her and took her away, whereby he lost the comfort of her company, to the damage of the plaintiff of 50,000l.

To this charge the defendant pleading not guilty, issue was thereupon joined.

[Page]Mr. Erskine to the Jury.

Gentlemen,

I am counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Campbell; and although I feel on this occasion for the unfortunate situation of my client, which my duty in this place naturally suggests to my mind—yet, if I could have discharged from my mind the painful sensations I feel at this time, by this cause being postponed or entirely put an end to, I should have derived particular satisfaction as far as it regards myself: for I do not know any situation more unpleasant, than when it falls to the lot of an advocate to state transactions which bring a reproach upon human nature itself. If I prove what is stated to me, it must strike at all the confidences and consolations of the human mind.

The defendant, who is charged with criminal conversation with the wife of the plaintiff, is the uncle of that unfortunate lady—not an uncle by marriage, but her mother's brother. That, I dare say is sufficient to engage your indignant attention in this cause.

Gentlemen, as I understand the adultery, the incestuous adultery is to be denied, and insisted upon as the principal part of the defence; I have not the least difficulty in stating to my learned friend, that it will be abundantly established in proof: but although I shall make out to your perfect satisfaction, that in point of fact the adultery has been committed, I shall not waste your time in making any observations on the nature of such a case. All that I shall do at present, is to state those circumstances which may be necessary to be known, in order to enable you to understand it.

As to the plaintiff, he is a captain of the 74th regiment, and was married to his present wife in 1786. She was bred up in the Roman Catholic religion, and was the daughter of a Colonel Frazer, who was in the service [Page] of the East-India Company. This lady was religiously educated, and brought up in the strictest morals, although she has not been proof against the seduction of the defendant. In the year 1788, the plaintiff settled his affairs in this country, and was preparing to go to India, and it was then understood that Mrs. Campbell intended to accompany him. At the time that Captain Campbell was preparing to embark for India, the defendant, who is a Major in the East-India service, came back to this country with a considerable fortune, and found his own niece (Mrs Campbell) under the protection of her mother, Mrs. Frazer, the present plaintiff being absent. One is sorry to lay any charge to any individual, I am sorry to be obliged professionally to lay a charge to any gentleman, and much more so, when it is a charge on human nature, which we all wear and carry about us. Yet I am afraid the evidence in this cause obliges me to state, from the moment the defendant returned into Englan [...], he had conceived the diabolical purpose of debauching her affections from her husband, with a view to that criminal intercourse. So early did the plan of seduction on the part of the defendant commence, that the husband found, before Major Hook had been three weeks in England, a difference in the stile of the letters which he received from his wife.—She then began to suggest obstacles to her going to the East-Indies. There was something fretful and peculiar in her correspondence, and he found at last, without any thing that suggested to his mind any criminal intercourse, (for how could he possibly entertain such an idea) but he had occasion to see that she was considerably under the influence of the defendant. And Major Hook was proposing to take a journey to Scotland, to settle a difference which had taken place between him and the plaintiff—not on the idea, you may be sure, of any criminal intercourse between him and the daughter of his own sister, but a difference had taken place, because the defendant had presumed to give his advice with regard to certain matters, and which was contrary to the inclination of Captain [Page] Campbell, The defendant had the art to procure the father of Captain Campbell, to insist upon his son's leaving Mrs. Campbell behind him, and the defendant was to be a sort of guardian to her in her husband's absence.

The plaintiff and his father were at variance, and the defendant kept the coals alive.—The defendant went down to Scotland and caried this lady with him: pretending to the plaintiff's father that there were great quarrels between her and her husband, and that it would be infinitely better that she should remain with her mother, than accompany Capt. Campbell to the East-Indies. All this time the defendant was carrying on a plan of criminal seduction, which ultimately gave rise to this action.—The defendant gained his purpose, because, for some time his niece remained under the care of her mother. The husband went to the East-Indies; and the uncle pretended to live with Mrs. Campbell as a parent, at the moment they were carrying on this adulterous commerce.

Gentlemen, it is a very material part of this case to state that before the defendant had been three weeks in England, he carried this lady to Scotland, under pretence of carrying her to the plaintiff's father to reconcile her and his son. I shall prove the defendant in such a situation with her, and although I do not believe that the adultery was then committed, in that they had that criminal intercourse which must be the foundation of this action, yet it will be sufficient to convince you he had cast his eye upon her at that time, and therefore to that, all that happened afterwards must be refered. This was about three or four weeks after the defendant returned to England, and when the plaintiff was in barracks. It was at that time Captain Campbell saw his wife's affections alienated from him. It was at that time he complained of the uncle giving her fine cloaths. Though he only considered this as proceeding from the kind dispositions of an affectionate parent, it was productive of extremely bad consequences to him. So far was the defendant from imagining that incestuous commerce, that my learned friends come here boldly to maintain their [Page] client is absolutely innocent, not only of the commerce, but that his mind or immagination never suggested such an idea to him. That, therefore, is the nature of the defence, that this incestuous commerce never suggested itself to the imagination of the defendant, and that he is perfectly innocent.

It was with difficulty, Gentlemen, Capt. Campbell could be made believe it, when he heard it the first time in the East-Indies, and immediately came home in consequence of the report. I am extremely glad, gentlemen, the cause has not gone off. I understand I have now the witnesses in Court. They will be called, and they are many in number, I shall prove first of all, that they were found in situations at Ramsgate, three weeks after his arrival, shameful and scandalous to relate.

I shall prove afterwards that they were seen almost in the very act of adultery, and that repeatedly; and if that is not proof sufficient, where shall we find it? I shall prove it was his constant habit to sleep with her every night in the same bed, the whole of the night.

It is to be represented, I understand, that my witnesses come here to misrepresent these facts. They are unconnected with one another, they lived in the house with Major Hook and Mrs. Campbell at different times. They are persons over whom my client has no manner of influence, and therefore, unless you believe them corrupted with money, to come here to perjure themselves in the face of God and man, to fasten an imputation on a man whom they believe to be innocent, you cannot refuse to find that fact, which is the foundation of this action.

I shall make no farther observations on this case. It is of the most serious nature; like every other case, it must depend on the complexion that belongs to it when you have heard both sides.

I shall lay such a case before you as I have stated; my learned friend will then be heard on the other side; and happy shall I be if his client is not guilty; for every man must wish such a case was not proved. The evidence [Page] is of the strongest kind of any sort I ever received to urge on your attention.

Mr. Cleeve, who was examined by Mr. Mingay, proved, that he married the parties on February the 17th. 1786; he said she was a Miss Frazer, the daughter of Mr. Colonel Frazer. Her father was in India. He also stated, that the plaintiff and the defendant are cousins? And that the lady, when married, was seventeen or eighteen.

Mr. Campbell, first cousin to the defendant, and brother to the plaintiff, being examined by Mr. Holroyd, and cross-examined by Mr. Bearcroft, said, that he went to France with Mr. and Mrs. Campbell, in 1787, soon after their marriage; in company with his own wife, and Mrs. Frazer, the mother of Mrs. Campbell. He lived under the same roof with them about two months, and never observed any thing but the greatest harmony between the bride and bridegroom.

Mr. Bearcroft was very particular in questioning this witness, as to the behaviour of the plaintiff towards his wife: but nothing could be discovered that was not consistent with the duty of a tender and affectionate husband —nothing that could justify—or even apoligize—for the depraved conduct of the lady. He proved, that a bundle of papers which were shewn him, was the handwriting of Mr. Campbell. He knew the lady before she was married; and, as she was only, he said, 15 or 16, he had no doubt, from that and other circumstances, but it was a match of pure inclination.

Elizabeth Henderson was next examined by Mr. Holroyd: this witness lived as cook with Mrs. Frazer, in 1788; in which year, in the month of July, the family went to Ramsgate. In a short time afterwards, they were joined by Major Hook, Mr. Campbell being then either at Chatham or Portsmouth. Their stay at this place was about ten weeks.

Do you remember, said the counsel, seeing any thing particular between Major Hook and his neice, Mrs. Campbell, during the period? When I went into the [Page]

"Ye WH—E! ye D—d WH—E!"

[Page] parlour one day, with a bit of bread to the Major and Mrs. Campbell, said the witness, I saw the Maj [...]r one hand round her neck, and his legs upon her lap.—Did you observe any thing with respect to her hair? Her hair, replied Mrs. Elizabeth, was rolled round his left arm, and his right-hand was in the handkerchief that covered her neck.—This witness further sai [...], that when the Major first arrived at Ramsgate, Mrs. Campbell was very much alarmed, and fainted away at his coming in.—This circumstance arose, no doubt, from the sudden remorse of a troubled conscience, which at the best of times, certainly could never be at rest. If she felt so much at the sight of her uncle, who was a partner in her guilt, how much in truth, ought she to have been afflicted at the sight of her husband! who, according to all the evidence, treated her in the most tender manner.

In September the family again came to town, Mrs. Frazer and Mrs. Campbell going to their house in Brookstreet, and Major Hook to his own.

Joseph Rippington was next examined by Mr. Erskine. He was hired by Major Hook as his valet, in May 1789, at which time the Major was at the Bath hotel, cohabiting with his niece. After living here about three weeks, they removed to Sackville-street, where they continued about two months. At this time, it is to be supposed, that the lady had made her uncle as happy as this kind of connexion could make him; and yet is this witness sent to scour the streets of London, to procure obscene prints, which the Major said he wanted to send to India but, as will be presently seen, for quite a different purpose.

Did you buy these prints, asked Mr. Erskine? I bought some. I have some of them here in my pocket of the same nature. Now, Sir, did you ever see any of these prints in the Major's hand?—Yes, I did. I went into the room one day—But did they expect you, when you went in? No, Sir, they did not, answered the valet. You went into the room when he did not expect you with a message; what did you then see? Why, Sir, he [Page] had got one of the prints, I had purchased for him, in his hand, and she was looking over his shoulder at it. When I came in, she turned her head away, and walked to the window.

The examination of this witness closed, by his describing some particulars of a journey through South Wales undertaken by the Major and Mrs. Campbell, no other servant being with them except this valet. The Major, said he, would not take any lodging at any inn, unless there were rooms adjoining, and a middle door leading from the one room into the other.

Robert Green, examined by Mr. Mingay, lived with Major Hook, in the year 1790, when Captain Campbell was abroad. He refided then in Duke-street, Manchester-square. When I had been in Major Hook's service about six weeks, said he, though before that I had suspicions from what I had seen, I thought there was something going on that was improper betwen the uncle and his niece. One day, after dinner, more from curiosity than any thing else, I went up into the drawing-room, and I perceived Major Hook and Mrs. Campbell sitting on the couch which stood behind the door, in a very tender way, with one arm round Mrs. Campbell's neck, and the other up her petticoats. I plainly perceived Mrs. Campbell's naked thigh.

How fickle and inconstant is fortune! As a further proof it, we here observe Major Hook at the very summit of sensual felicity, and in the next paragraph behold him in as critical and mortifying a situation as a gentleman could well be placed in: disappointment, chagrin, remorse, nay, almost madness, conflicting in the bosom of a beautiful young lady, while with a fatal weapon in her hand, she was seeking for revenge on him! It is not for us to say the first cause of this undoing; but it seems to be certain, from this outrageous conduct of Mrs. Campbell, that she would, if possible, have retrieved her honour, by sacrificing her uncle.

One day after this, continued the witness, Major Hook said to Mrs. Campbell, I am going out, and [Page] shall be in at dinner, (the dinner was a cod's head and shoulder, and sauce); Major Hook did not come in, upon which Mrs. Campbell waited till six o'clock; she seemed to be in a violent passion, and ordered me to take the dinner down, and said she would not have any dinner.

When the Major came home I let him in; it was about half past ten at night. He went into the drawing-room, after which I went down into the kitchen. After I had been there about a quarter of an hour, I heard a violent scream and cry of murder. With that I went into the drawing-room, and perceived Major Hook standing in one corner of the room, with a chair before him, and Mrs. Campbell was trying to strike him with a poker. With that he desired me to quit the room, which I did, and went down into the kitchen. After I had been there about ten minutes I heard a violent cry out again, and Mrs. Campbell ran down stairs. This was about half-past eleven at night. She ran into the street; the Major followed her, and desired me to go after her, I overtook her some way down the street. Her handkerchief was all torn, and the Major's waistcoat was also very much torn. For God's sake, Mrs. Campbell, said I, consider what you are about, consider what condition you are in. You will be sent to the watch-house. On this she returned. She went into the parlour, and shut herself up there. Major Hook said, Herriot, I insist upon your coming out. She did come out, and ran up stairs. Her foot slipped, and she either fainted or pretended to faint away.

The Major stood over her, and when she recovered, said, Ye wh—e! ye d—d wh—e: ye worst of wh—s! To which she replied, I confess I am a wh—e, but I am a wh—e only to you. You, who ought to have been my protector, guardian, and friend, have been the utter ruin and destruction of myself and family as long as I live.—Oh! my husband!

No feeling mind, whether that of male or female, can scarcely refrain from pitying Mrs. Campbell at this awful [Page] period of her amour; and though it is, perhaps, impossible that she should ever more regain a tranquil state of mind, she may yet receive some consolation in the almost certain hope, that the example of her fatal indiscretions will operate most powerfully on the minds of every female yet untainted. While her story lives, and an uncle dares make the smallest criminal advance to his niece, we trust, that she would spurn him from her with marked and inflexible indignation; that she would not from delicacy, spare the viper, but instantly hold him up to the execration of every one within the circle of his acquaintance. Cuckoldom, in its best point of view, is a crime of no common magnitude; it is a species of robbery that would disgrace a highwayman, for he boldly ventures his life: the seducer, who ventures nothing but his money, will send your wife panting with pollution into your arms, when you take her joyfully to your bosom; but, if she does not despise, she must certainly laugh at your raptures.

Do you recollect, proceeded the counsel, at any time, when you lived with Major Hook and Mrs. Campbell, that you had the curiosity to go into their bed-chamber to look at their bed? I do, replied the witness. A woman of the name of Betty White, who lived at No. 18, and who made the beds, &c. used to come down stairs to me, and make me go up and look at Mrs. Campbell's bed. She said there had been more than one in bed: and I always saw the marks of two

This witness confirmed what had been said before, of the mode of engaging rooms at the different inns on the road; and, in addition thereto, said, that one day after dinner, while at Swansea, he was with the children, Major Hook's sons, when he perceived the Major and Mis. Campbell lying on the foot of the bed in her bedroom. Here the counsel very properly asked, what posture they were in? As soon as the Major saw me, I put him into a surprise; he started up, said the witness, and the flap of his breeches was turned down. His face was as red as fire at the same time he was lying in this [Page] manner.—Did you observe any part of Mrs. Campbell? Yes, Sir, I could see her thighs.

Mr. Garrow cross-examined the witness; and again adverted to the curiosity of Betty White, who had invited him to look at the bed after the Major and Mrs. Campbell had risen. He acknowledged having seen something else in the bed, besides the impression of two persons; but, from delicacy, he did not point it out to Betty White, who was standing in another part of the room.

If persons of a superior rank in life must commit crimes, at which justice and decency revolts, how much is it to be regretted, that they are so careless of its publicity! Inferiors will, of course, follow the pernicious example; and having their master or mistress to copy from, proceed step by step, till they imagine that to be meritorious, which is, in fact, disgraceful to human nature.

The wife of this last witness, also lived with Mrs. Campbell about six weeks; she attended her to Swansea; and gave satisfactory information about the situation of the sleeping rooms. Major Hook had his three children with him; the eldest of whom was eleven or twelve, the two others about two years of age, these children slept in a room between those of the Major and Mrs. Campbell: and sometimes the eldest slept with his father. The door of her mistress's room, and the door of the children's room, were left open by her orders. The Major has frequently come in before she left the room. Very often Major Hook, half undressed, has come into Mrs. Campbell's room when she was quite undressed: but always withdrew when he saw the witness

Elizabeth Hurn, Elizabath Taylor, James Woodrow, and William Lewis, all said, that the Major and Mrs. Campbell had been seen by them in loving, though not in criminal situations: they described some of the Major's nocturnal marches from his own chamber to that of his niece's.

Jean Grynds, examined by Mr. Erskine, had lived in the service of the defendant in 1792, as cook; at [Page] which time Mrs. Campbell lived with the Major. During that five months, tell us, said the counsel, if you saw any thing particular, and what? I saw, answered the witness, Major Hook and Mrs. Campbell together in his room, I went into Mrs. Campbell's room, but she was not there, and in coming by the Major's door, I found it was shut: the Major's room was almost close to her's. I had the curiosity to look through the key-hole; when I saw the Major lying along the foot of the bed stark-naked as he could be; and Mrs Campbell sitting beside him on the bed, with her hand on his back. She, indeed, was dressed, but the Major had no shirt on at all. While I stood there, Mrs. Campbell drew the curtains at the foot of the bed. When I could see no more, I instantly went down stairs. The Major, previous to this, had been bathing.

It was admitted, in the course of the evidence, that Captain Campbell went into barracks in 1788, sailed January 26, 1789, for India: and returned in 1792.

Mr. Bearcroft's address to the Jury on the part of Major Hook.

Please your Lordship:

Gentlemen of the Jury,—The evidence which has been given on the part of the plaintiff in this cause, entitles me to your full and most patient hearing. My title I put upon this circumstance, that the case as it now stands, is of a nature and of a complexion that must strike every mind, as undoubtedly a very aggravated case. And it is of consequence, that every generous mind will allow this follows when such a case is proved, that those who are to decide upon it, shall well view and consider it in order, that the judgment, which they ultimately give may be temperate and moderate; for, unless it be temperate and moderate, it can never be just.

Gentlemen, I should not be entitled to a moment's attention from you, if I attempted to dissemble the weight which I feel on my shoulders.

The case which has been proved on the part of the plaintiff, has been stated, and justly stated on this evidence [Page] in two very strong words—a case of Incestuous Adultery. I admit it. I allow that such a case calls seriously on the feelings of those who hear it, and of those who are to determine; but it is my duty to remark to you, and it will be the principal part with which I shall trouble you, to distinguish the situation in which you stand. You are not put there, nor does my Lord sit there, I am sure he will tell you, to punish the defendant criminally, for any crime or any offence. Perhaps it might be thought an opprobrium to the common law of England, that it asserts no criminal jurisdiction of such offences. But you will recollect there are particular jurisdictions, and different dispositions of the power of punishment, and different courts of different jurisdictions. Because the common law has no such jurisdiction, let no person run away with the notion that such offences cannot be punished in England. Punished they are, and seriously. But that jurisdiction is in the ecclesiastical courts, and not in the courts of common law. I wish to remark to you, that there is another place where the criminal part of such kind of conduct is to be considered.

Gentlemen, my Lord will tell you, that the question in this cause (I do not mean to trouble you with witnesses) for you to decide simply, relates to damages: what satisfaction you will give by your verdict to the plaintiff.

Gentlemen, when I am endeavouring to guard against mixing and running together different jurisdictions, when I am attempting to shew you that you ought not to blend the criminal jurisdiction with the civil damages, you are to give to the party, I desire to be understood, as not to be contending by my defence, that you are to divest yourselves of the other parts of the case. Take it as a matter of aggravation, but permit me to say, and I say it subject to the correction of the noble and learned Judge, that you ought not, that you have no power, in the situation in which you stand, to give vindictive damages. Vengeance, punishment for crimes, belong to another [Page] jurisdiction. You will take care in the verdict you shall pronounce, that you will not by any means mix other jurisdictions, which you have no right to take any notice of, with the question of damages which you are to give the party.

Gentlemen, it was stated to you in the outset, that it was understood that the counsel for the defendant, intended to insist upon the innocence of the defendant, and to impute to the plaintiff an attack of this kind by the means of perjury.

Gentlemen, no powers, no persuasion, after the evidence that has been given to-day, should prevail on me to stand up as counsel for a party to attempt to do any thing of the kind. It never entered into the mind of the defendant to give any such instructions. It would have been grossly absurd so to have done. It would have been an additional offence, I confess, on which to have founded an argument; for, I should then have thought it an additional offence, to endeavour to acquit the defendant by charging the plaintiff with a foul conspiracy, with the intent to bring such a case as this against the defendant, and support it by a variety of suborned witnesses. I disclaim any such idea. My client disclaims it.

Gentlemen of the Jury,—having said this, having marked this line, which separates trial, judgment, and punishment, from a question or civil damages, I am under the necessity of chiefly relying upon that ground.

Gentlemen, with respect to the damages, I have but few and very few observations to make. The plaintiff quitted his wife; the plaintiff went to the East-Indies, and left her here. It has been attempted to call a witness to prove, that he intended to carry her with him. As that is an ingredient for your consideration, I call upon you as a piece of justice, which I am sure you will not deny me, to take that as a fact which is not proved. I press my observation farther. I say, I have a right I think to ask you, and you will not refuse it, to consider it as a clear fact, that Mr. Campbell did not mean to take his wife with him, but to leave her here.

[Page]Gentlemen, with respect to the manner in which the parties have lived together, I cannot help observing, that there is not that full and satisfactory proof that might be expected in a case of this kind. Persons who are near relations to the plaintiff, and others, seem to leave that liable to observation, and liable to some degree of suspicion. But do not understand me to press it farther than is proper. I admit there is some evidence of their living well together. And, perhaps, my Lord will tell you, when some evidence is given, and that evidence is not contradicted, it must be taken that such persons lived well together. You must take it so.

Gentlemen, with respect to the damages you are to give to the plaintiff, there is another circumstance, which Juries, during my experience in the profession, have always attended to, and it is essential that they should; I mean the Situation and Abilities of the party who is to make satisfaction. My learned friend, who never forgets even in the outset to serve his client's case, though sometimes he reserves his strongest powers for a reply, told you, the defendant in this case was a person who resided many years in India, and has returned to Europe with a great fortune: a description that was proper for Lord Clive, Sir Francis Sykes, and many other persons, that we are in the habit of calling Nabobs. That description however, very little suits my client. Not a title of evidence has been given, not a question was asked about his circumstances, and my learned friend has finished his case. Now as to that, he is a Major, and has returned home with a few thousands in his pocket: a great part of it is gone, and he is about to return to his former situation in the army in the East-Indies. It is in evidence to you that he has three children. They can be guilty of nothing. These are the circumstances of this case. In assessing damages against the father, as some of you probably are, I trust that is a circumstance which you can never be prevailed upon totally to forget.

Gentlemen, with these considerations, therefore, I must surrender his case to your temper and moderation. [Page] I call no witnesses for the reason I have stated. You are in possession of the case. You will recollect, as I have said, you are not trying this man for crimes and offences, but you are assessing the damages that such a person as this shall pay to the plaintiff under all the circumstances that belong to this case.

Gentlemen, the doctrine which I take the liberty of impressing on your minds, is the doctrine of good sense, general justice, and I take the liberty of saying, that it is the peculiar doctrine of the law of England. I know perfectly well it is stated, by great authority, and we read in all books, that attention shall be paid in the question of damages; nay, even of criminal punishment and fine, to the abilites of the party. Nothing is proved on the part of the plaintiff but that this gentleman has resided some few years in India; and though a few return with great fortunes, others do not.

Gentlemen, these are the observations, that under such a case, I believe I have a right to make. I have been extremely diligent and careful not to make any improper ones. I hope and trust I have succeeded, because most undoubtedly, in a case of this sort, I am extremely anxious to defend my client.

I surrender him, therefore, without farther observation on the case, to your moderate and temperate justice.

Lord Kenyon's address to the Gentlemen of the Jury.

Gentlemen of the Jury—During the period of four or five years, it has been a painful part of my duty too often to assist Juries, as far as I am capable of assisting them, in administering justice to the parties in causes of this kind. And if I could but promise myself that this were to be the last, that the reformation of the morals of the people might not be totally extinguished, to my mind it would administer great comfort indeed; for I confess I never did hear causes of this kind, serious causes of this kind, without feeling extremely for the distress of the party who has suffered this injury, and who has been obliged to appeal to the laws of his country for redress.

The manly, prudent, and discreet manner in which the learned gentlemen who has just sat down, has left [Page] the case of the defendant, has delivered me from the painful and odious task of drudging through that horrible story, which has just been detailed by the witnesses who have been examined.

It has been admitted that the case is proved, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict, and the sole consideration is the quantum of the damages. You have been put in mind, and very properly, that this is a civil action, and that it is not a proceeding to punish the party, as if he had been guilty of a breach of any criminal law of the country. But, gentlemen, when you are called upon to proportion your damages to the injury the plaintiff has received, I hardly know how to measure out that satisfaction in pounds, shillings, and pence.

There are certain cases where some other mode of proceeding is to be adopted; but this action is brought by a person of insulted honour, and to whom no damages can be given adequate to the offence. The person who takes one's goods and chattles, is said to have taken that which has been slaves to thousands; but he that takes from another his good name, takes from him that which does not enrich him, but takes from the other that which makes him poor indeed.

Whether this action may not be resembled to something of the kind, it is for you to judge.

I shall call back to you the outlines of the case, that which the plaintiff has enjoyed, and that which he has lost: you were told, this was a match formed in consequence of the most ardent affections; that it was a love match, and as far as the situation in which they lived together was disclosed, they lived in the greatest harmony and comfort till he went to India, and it was done away in the manner you have heard. But it is hinted rather than suggested, that something wrong appeared in the plaintiff [...]s leaving his lady behind him.

What! has every young officer, who is called upon to discharge his duty to his country, the means of carrying his family with him? How few persons are able to carry along with them all their comforts: and, if he was torn [Page] away from these comforts: and, if he was unfortunately torn away from these comforts here, is he to part with them for ever? Is there no hope he might be received into the arms of a wife whom he affectionately loved? Was he cautious and regardfull of her affection before he went abroad? Where could he have left her, except in the house of her own mother? Had he not a right to expect from the nearest and dearest calls of nature, that the uncle, the brother of her own mother, would have assisted in protecting her, that wanted the immediate protection of her husband. But has she received that protection? I have a right to appeal to part of the evidence—she was a wh—e, a d—d wh—e, the worst of wh—es, she replied, she became a wh—e through his means: that she was his only, and that he who ought to have been her father and her protector, had been the ruin of her and her family; alas! her poor husband!

Gentlemen, did she fall an easy prey into the arms of this Incestuous Adulterer? As far as we are able to judge, all possible means were first used to corrupt her mind, in order that afterwards he might debauch her body. Books to inflame her passions, prints most indecent to be exhibited by any body to any body, are exhibited by the uncle to his own neice, the wife of another man.

Gentlemen, it is very true, in assessing damages of this kind, one would wish that they should bear some proportion to the circumstances of the party who is to pay them. What his situation is I do not know, but this I do know, that poverty, abject poverty, is no answer to a call of this kind; to a man injured to the extent this gentleman has been.

I can point out to you no rule but that which has been suggested certainly to consider it temperately, certainly to consider it moderately. But at what sum, temper and moderation, in a case of this kind, ought to stop, it is for you to judge, and not for me to suggest to you.

The Jury withdrew about half an hour to consider of their verdict, and afterwards found for the plaintiff damages,—Three Thousand Pounds.

[Page]

The Trial of Robert Newberry, for a Rape on the body of Jane Skinner, a Child about the age of Ten years. At the Assizes held at Kingston, in Surry; March, 1759.

CHARLES Brooks.

I am in the nature of a guardian over the infant Jane Skinner, who was then with her mother in Deadman's Place. On Monday October 16, the prisoner came to me in London, to let me know the child was ill, and would not discover what was the matter with her, till her papa came, (she meant me, whom she used to call so.) When I came to her mother, I asked her some questions, but she told nothing. The grandfather of the child called me out, and said she had got the running of the reins. The next morning I took her to Mr. Hammond's, a surgeon and man-midwife; he would not examine the child without a woman; when the woman came, Mr. Hammond was gone out. Going back. I took the child into an apothecarey's shop, told him she was bad, and desired him to let me have something. I said to the child, Now, Jenny, I charge you to tell me what ails you; if nobody has meddeled with you, this will do you good: but if any boys have been rude with you, this will kill you. Then she said, Bob Newberry had. The mother fainted away, and I was much confused, I called in the prisoner, and asked him what he had done to the child? Nothing, he said; and I took him into a room, unbuttoned his breeches, and his shirt appeared in an uncommon way. I sent for a surgeon, who is here and desired him to search them both: he did, and said they were both foul: I took the prisoner before Justice Clark: there he owned that he got this disease by one Peg Mackintosh, going to or [Page] coming from Peckham Fair, or at the Fair, I cannot tell which. The child said, he put her head in a bag of wool, and put a horn up her belly, and wet her a little; that she cried out, Grand-daddy! Grand-daddy! Grand-daddy! and he stopt her mouth with wool.

Jane Skinner.

I am a rug-maker: the prisoner was my apprentice: at the time the fact was committed, I was next door at dinner, and had left the child in the care of the grandfather and prisoner, About three or four days after that, I heard the child complain that she could not make water: I sent her shift to a chymest, to desire to know what was the matter with her; he said she was foul he gave me three doses of physic, which I gave her. The surgeon that searched her said she was foul. When the prisoner was taken up, he cried, and said he did it that day I dined at Mrs. Miller's. I said, When did you get this distemper? he said, as he was going to Peckham Fair, and that one Peg Mackintosh gave it him. I know no more of it.

Q. to the child. How old are you?

The Mother to the Question. Ten years old, the 21st of January last.

Q. to the Child. You are going to swear upon the Bible, do you know what is the consequence of taking an oath if you speak falsely!—I shall go to the naughty man.

Q. What do you mean by the naughty man?—Going to the Devil.

Q. Suppose you should speak the truth?—I shall go to God Almighty.

Q. Then you know it is sin to swear falsely? —Yes.

She is sworn.

Court. The conclusion of which oath is, "So help you God." You see God is to help you if you speak truth; but, if you do not speak the truth, God will not help you.—Now tell us where is the man that did you the injury?—There he is, (pointing to him) his name is Robert Newberry

Q. What did he do to you?—After dinner I was sitting by the fire-sides reading.

[Page] Q. Can you read?—Yes, a little.

Q. Can you say your Catechism?—Yes, a little I was siting by the fire-side reading, and Bob Newberry was at the window; says he, Jenny, there is a sway-bu [...]ter without doors; I said, Come, will you go; he said, Yes, he would go and sway me. He went out into the shop to mend a looking-glass he had broke in the morning, and said he must go up for his rule. He said Don't come up after me. I was then about half way up stairs. He then ran down before me, and bolted the shop-door; then he shoved my head into a pack of wool and skewered it down, so that I could not see any thing. He then threw a great rug over me, and got upon me, and put something like a horn into my belly. With that I kicked him off from me; he pulled out a knife, and said he would kill me; and if ever I told my mammy, that knife should be my death; and that if my mammy went to Mrs. Barne's, he would kill me before she came home.

Q. That is in case you told?—Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Donnelly.

I am a surgeon: I was called on the 16th of October to Mrs. Skinner's to see this child; the three witnesses were all crying; Brooks and the mother said the child had been abused. The prisoner was there at that time. I examined the child, and found she had got what we call a clap. I asked her if any body had meddled with her: she said what she did just now. I then took the prisoner into another room, and found him very bad with the same disorder. I taxed him with putting the child's head in wool, and covering her up after that manner. He said, he did not; but that he promised her a chaise, (or some such thing) and so she consented.

Q. How old is the prisoner?—Donnelly. Turned of 17.—He said he contracted the disorder coming from Peckham Fair, and mentioned the person that has been told your Lordship before. It was a clap; and it was just the regular distance from the [Page] time the boy gave it the child, to the time of its appearing.

Q. Could he give her this disease without lying with her?—Donnelly. I apprehend he could not; that would be a thing I never heard of.

PRISONER'S DEFENCE.

I never forced her in my life, nor never put her head in wool, or packed her up: I have been concerned with her four or five times; the last time she stood upon two half hundred weights. She put me in mind of that, being concerned with one John Jordon before. Her mother has spoke of it fifty times, or more, to people.

Jane Skinner, the Mother.

I said to the prisoner, How could you serve me so, when I never did you any injury in my life? Did you ever repeat the thing before? He said, No, never before in my life. As to that he talks about Jack Jordan, my child was not two years old then; and there was no more in it than that I am now in London.

Brooks.

The prisoner cannot with safety say he had done it several times, as the child has been continually with me before she went then to her mother's. Guilty—DEATH!

[Page]

Mr. William Bromel, a surgeon of New castle, against Sir M. W. Ridley, Member for that Town, for Criminal Conversation with the Plaintiff's Wife; tried in the King's Bench before Lord Kenyon, February 1793.

Mr. Erskine and Mr. Shepherd, were Counsil for Plaintiff, Mr. Law for the Defendant.

Mr. Shepherd opened the Pleadings. It appeared from the declaration that this was an action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife.

To this charge the defendant pleaded that he was Not Guilty, and thereupon issue was joined.

Mr. Erskine's Address to the Jury.

Gentlemen,

I am counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. William Bromel, who is a surgeon and apothecary in Newcastle upon Tyne. The defendant, Sir M. W. Ridley, is a man of independent fortune in the neighbourhood of that town, and representing it in Parliament.

Gentlemen, I am not instructed, nor is it, I assure you, my inclination to go out of this case to make any observations, much less to declaim on the defendant, on account of the unpleasant nature of the business that brings us into a court of justice. On the contrary, if I pursued my own inclinations, and my own inclinations are left perfectly free, I must say, that the defendant, in all other respects, is undoubtedly a man of character and honour; and [Page] he is married to a lady (I do not speak from instruction, but from my own personal knowledge of her for a great many years) of the most amiable and pleasant disposition. This is therefore, undoubtedly, an unfortunate cause for Sir Matthew White Ridley, even as it affects him in this respect. I have nothing to do with his sufferings, but ought rather to turn my attention to the sufferings which must be felt much more on this occasion by my client.

Mr. Bromel had been married to this lady eight or ten years and had a child by her, a daughter. I am sorry to remark, that my experience on this subject is but too large, which arises from the depravity of the times in which we live.

I shall pursue this course. I shall simply state what I am afraid my witnesses will prove, and shall not give any gloss or colour to the subject, nothing beyond that which I think properly belongs to it.

The wife of the plaintiff is a most beautiful woman, and when she was married to her husband, was extremely young; and whether from any levity in her behaviour which makes a woman an object of temptation and suspicion, a report for some time prevailed to her prejudice at Newcastle. As I understand respectable witnesses will state this is the fact, I therefore think it infinately better I should state it in the opening, lest it might throw any prejudice on the cause, which, when it comes to be examined, will entitle me to call on the defendant for large damages in this case,

It is extremely true, this unfortunate lady, from her own beauty and levity of behaviour, knew she had subjected herself to such a report in a narrow circle, in consequence of some malignity which beautiful women are but too frequently the subjects of. Undoubtedly such a report prevailed, and within the knowledge of my client. I need hardly state to you how much a husband must feel on such an occasion.

[Page]If I am broke in upon in the evidence which I shall produce in support of the plaintiff's case, I deliver up my client to be treated with all the contempt with which any man ought to be treated, if he was not watchful and properly jealous of the honour of his wife; if he was inattentive to her, and winking at her notorious adultery; or putting her into the hands of another for such purposes.

This report blew over; for a season she had lost the affections of her husband. A few more years had passed over their heads, and the plaintiff was living happily and comfortable with his wife, till his peace was broke in upon, and ruined for ever.

This cause was certainly not brought here for public example. I do not mean to insist upon it that this is any sort of persecution. I mean merely to state that this is the situation of an injured man —of an injured husband; and I think the injury sufficiently great, without bringing in aid any circumstances that might tend to inflame the minds of you the jury.

Sir Matthew White Ridley was not only a married gentleman, but was chief magistrate of Newcastle, at the time this injury was committed. He was also representative of it in Parliament; and, gentlemen, you will consider how much he has disgraced all these situations, by descending to commit a crime which is now the subject of indignation.

I understand this defendant comes here with this double sort of case. In these causes, what is to be contended on the other side is pretty generally known. We are first to have the fact of adultery resisted, and it is to be contended, that the defendant is wholly innocent of it. If he is, we shall see it. On my part, I shall establish his guilt beyond the possibility of contradiction.

The other sort of defence is this. Adulterers do not frequently give themselves the trouble to enquire how far a woman is virtuous before the hour [Page] of appetite commences, but afterwards; and when the husband is ruined, and his peace of mind destroyed, then the adulterer is to hunt out what the lady was. On this or that occasion she was supposed to be this or that sort of woman, in order to endeavour to lessen the damages for the loss of her comfort and society.

I think this a wholesome species of defence, to wit, if it can be shewn in a cou [...]t of justice, that the husband, instead of treating his wife with affection and regard; if, instead of protecting her as he ought; if he is careless as to her conduct; if he permits her to misbehave: and if he, as it were, encourages her in it, by conniving at particular instances that have come within his knowledge; if he delivers her over almost into the hands of the adulterer, he cannot be driven out of a court of justice with too much shame and too much contempt. Though to Sir Matthew White Ridley, in former times, this woman, from her conduct, had become an object of suspicion; if she in consequence of the reports that were circulated in prejudice of her virtue, had considered her conduct, and had become more and more affectionate to her husband; if she was beginning, or had entirely got the better of these suspicions; if she was the mother of his child, and his affectionate wife in every part of her conduct; if just as that sort of sensation began to be felt by the husband; if just when he had recovered his peace again; if he was broke in upon, and made a fit object for the hand of scorn to point out, (for such is the unhappy condition of every man in the plaintiff's situation however innocent) this defendant will have much to answer for to my much injured client. If a man happens to be married to a woman who misconducts herself, and dishonours her husband's bed, let his conduct to her have been ever so properly and exemplary, though he had afforded her every species of protection, and shewn her every kind of indulgence that might be expected from a good and affectionate husband; yet the moment she deviates from the paths of virtue, he instantly becomes the subject of scorn and contumely. I cannot [Page] conceive a more cruel situation. I shall content myself with this sort of opening.

The plaintiff was a most affectionate husband to his wife. He was careful to discover whether she was faithful to him, and no proof appearing of her infidelity, he continued to cherish her with that love, which his duty required he should.

Sir Matthew White Ridley, when he was mayor of Newcastle, and had given the plaintiff a place under him, and had put him near to his person, took the advantage of that relation, to rob my unfortunate client of his peace of mind, and of that which was most dear and valuable to him.

I shall make no farther observations on this case. The influence of the defendant, his life, his character, his fortune, are extremely well known to you; and from a long acquaintance with him, I believe him to be very much of a gentleman in all other respects.

I have confined my observations to the cause before you, I shall now call my witnesses, and prove my case.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

The first witness called on the part of the plaintiff was John Wilson. He deposed, that he was intimately acquainted with Mr. Bromel and his lady; that they always seemed to him to live in the utmost harmony and friendship, and to have the greatest pleasure in each other's society.

A few years ago, reports were circulated through Newcastle, which reflected on Mrs. Bromel's character and reputation, and which reports very sensibly affected Mr. Bromel, who spared no pains to investigate the truth of them: in consequence of the most minute examination, and strictest scrutiny into the foundation of them, he was led to conclude that they were perfectly and completely false.

Eleanor Swinney, was next examined in support of the plaintiff's case, and she was the only witness to substantiate [Page] the fact upon which this action was grounded, namely, the adultery.

She deposed, that she lived servant with the plaintiff; and that one night she found the defendant and Mrs. Bromel together in the very act of adultery, on the staircase in Mr. Bromel's house, in Newcastle. She did not discover this to any body, till eight months after. The reason she assigned, why she had kept it secret so long, was that Mrs. Bromel told her that she would poison herself if the witness should reveal to her master that she had seen her mistress and Sir M. W. Ridley, in the act of adultery.

Mr. Law, as counsel for Sir M. W. Ridley, made a most excellent defence for his client. It had, he said, been fairly admitted by his learned friend, in the outset, that the character and reputation of the plaintiff's wife, had been extremely suspicious long before the defendant and she had become acquainted. And this was a most material circumstance for the consideration of a jury. It had also been very candidly admitted, that the Gentlemen of the Jury were not assembled for the purpose of trying the defendant for a crime; but the only question was (if they believed the servant, who undoubtedly, if credit was given to her testimony, had proved the adultery) what damage they would give. Even if the Jury should be disposed to believe her testimony, he submitted that this was only a case for very small damages.

He remarked on the vast number of actions of this sort that were brought into courts of justice, solely for the purpose of getting money, as it frequently turned out, that the husband had even encouraged and assisted his wife in the commission of this offence. When that was the case, it did not lie in his mouth to complain that he had suffered that to which he had freely assented; and which, perhaps, could not possibly have happened but by his consent or connivance. He did not however contend, that was the case of the present plaintiff.

The defendant was a gentleman of high honour, and [Page] had a large family of children by his most amiable lady. The Gentlemen of the Jury were complete judges of every cause of this kind, and he had no difficulty in committing to them the case of his client; being perfectly assured that they would do substantial justice between the parties.

Lord Kenyon, in his excellent address to the Gentlemen of the Jury, after lamenting the frequency of actions of this nature, and the depravity of the age, observed, that there were infinite degrees of shades in actions of this sort, and that each of them depended on circumstances peculiar to itself.

In the present case, the adultery which was the foundation of the action, had been proved, if credit was given to Mrs. Swinney. It therefore seemed that the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict and the single question was undoubtedly the question of damages. He should not say a single syllable on that point to the twelve Gentlemen who were assembled before him: they were perfectly competent to the task of deciding between the parties in this cause; and he could administer no assistance to them. It was extremely probable some of the Gentlemen of the Jury were husbands themselves. His lordship desired them to put themselves in the situation of the plaintiff, and whatever damages they should think themselves entitled to in that case, to give the same to the plaintiff.

The Gentlemen of the Jury withdrew for twenty minutes, or half an hour, to consider of their verdict, and found for the plaintiff—Damages, Four Hundred Pounds.

[Page]

Trial of Mrs. Liege, for Adultery with Mr. Wingtworth Tonge, during the absence of her Husband. In the Consistory Court of London, February 24, 1791.

THIS trial presents us with a feature of novelty upon its very first face; viz. a Sailor's divorce; a thing as remarkable for its rarity, at least according to the forms of law, as Sailor's weddings, without these forms, are for the frequency of their occurrence.

Peter Liege, gentleman, of Broad-street, in the parish of St. George in the East, aged 71 years and upwards father of Peter William Liege, the principal party in this cause, said, that in June 1783 his son was the commander of the merchant ship the Kent, then bound to Philadelphia, and that when that ship sailed from England, with many other passengers, there was a lady and her daughter who went by the name of Taylor, but whose real name he had since learned was Thomas. Peter W. Liege, he said, at the time of his sailing was a batchelor, free from all contracts, &c. and that when he retuned to England, about a twelvemonth after, in June 1784, he brought the daughter of Mrs. Thomas with him, since Mrs. Liege, and whom he understood he was married to about the month of September 1783, at Philadelphia. At their return aforesaid, they took lodgings in Broad-street, and lived and cohabited together at bed and board, and consummated their marriage, having two children, a boy and a girl, since dead.

In the year 1787, it seems, that Peter W. Liege entered into the East India service, as mate of a ship, and in consequence of that was mostly abroad, in parts beyond the sea, in his profession, till March 1789. When [Page] Mr. Liege sailed in the Nottingham East Indiaman, in March 1789, he left his wife in possession of his apartment and furniture in Broad-street, and Mr. Alderman Curtis, being his agent, had orders to supply his wife with such money as she stood in need of. Mr. Liege returned to England in June 1790; but as his father was apprised of the conduct of his wife, he no sooner heard that the ship Nottingham had arrived in the Downs, but he wrote a letter to his son, informing him that his wife had conducted herself improperly during his absence, and desiring he would not see her till he had first seen some of his friends. Of course he believed that the said Mr. Liege did not quit the ship Nottingham till she came into long Reach. He further said, that he verily believed that Elizabeth Liege did commit adultery with one Wingtworth Tonge, or some strange man or other, by whom she had a female child; of which he was informed she was delivered in Parker's Buildings, near Bermondsey Spa—And further, that his son never lived or cohabited with her since his return to England.

The Reverend Jacob Duché, of Sloane-street, Chelsea, and a minister among the people called Swedenborgians, confirmed the testimony of the marriage of the parties, saying, that being well acquainted with Dr. White, the Protestant Bishop of Pennsylvania he very well knew the manner and character of his hand-writing, having frequently seen him write and subscribe his name —He therefore believed the Exhibit to contain a true copy of the entry of the marriage of the parties.

Ann Mitchell, of Lamb Green, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, spinster, aged 16 and upwards, said, that she went to live as a servant-maid with Mrs. Liege, at No. 4, Parker's Buildings, who then resided with a man that she took to be Mr. Liege, as he always went by that name, and passed for Mrs. Liege's husband, but whom she since understood was a Mr. Wingtworth Tonge. All the time she lived with them, she said, they cohabited together as man and wife, and lay several times naked and alone in the same bed; [Page] and, therefore, this young delicate witness verily believed they had oftentimes committed the foul crime of adultery, and all that, &c.

Martha Moody, the washerwoman, next deposed, that living in Parker's Building's, she was also engaged to attend Mrs. Liege during her lying-in, and that when first engaged by Mrs. Liege she understood she was a married woman, and that her husband was to come to her very soon: and that she was also present when Mrs. Liege was delivered of a female child, about four o'clock one morning, in the month of September.

She further mentioned, that she nursed Mrs. Liege seven weeks in the whole, but, that during the last three weeks, a man came and resided with her, who called himself Mr. Liege, but whose name she has since understood to be Tonge. As in this interval she slept in the [...], and used to take the infant to its mother to suckle two or three times in a night, she had an opportunity of seeing them naked and in bed together; and, therefore, she also verily believed that they had often committed the foul crime of adultery together.

Henry Radford, surgeon and man-midwife, of Newington-Place, said, that on the 26th day of August last, he received a note from Mr. Wingtworth Tonge, of whom he had a slight knowledge, informing him that he had a female friend that wanted his assistance; and that he was soon after introduced to a lady whose name he has since learned is Liege; that such lady was then with child, and very near her time; and that he accordingly delivered her of a female child, on Friday the 3d of September following, about five in the morning in the presence of Martha Moody.

Mary Penney, wife of John Penney, taylor, of Birdstreet, in the parish of St. George's, Middlesex, traced the connection further back. She said, she and her husband lodged in the same house in Broad-street with Mrs. Liege, when a person of the name of Tonge used to come backwards and forwards to visit Mrs. Liege, and used to continue, perhaps alone, with her a considerable [Page] time. All this witness then understood of Mrs. Liege was, that she was a married woman, and had a husband in the East Indies, and that she then appeared to be about six months gone with child.

Abraham Watson Rutherford, of Bond Court, St. Stephens, Walbroke, London, merchant, said, that he was well acquainted with Peter William Liege, on account of marrying his sister in 1785, and had known him in all for a period of 27 years. He perfectly remembered their taking lodgings in Broad-street, and cohabiting together as lawful man and wife, and their having two children—That Mr. Liege made three voyages as master or mate of different ships, leaving Mrs. Liege in town during the same; and that on his departure the last time, he gave Mr. Rutherford 40 guineas partly for the payment of the rent of Mrs. Liege's apartments at different payments, the remainder to be given to Mrs. Liege, at Mr. Rutherford's direction. And he further understood from Mr. Alderman Curtis, who was Mr. Liege's owner, that he had orders to suply Mrs. Liege with money to the amount of twenty or twenty-five pounds a year. And that whenever the said Mr. Liege was going a voyage, he always laid in a stock of liquor, coals and other necessaries for her use, and in every other respect always made an ample provision for her, fully adequate to his circumstances and station.

During Mr. Liege's absence, he had frequently seen his wife in London, and other places adjacent; but being informed of her improper conduct, as soon as he heard of the arrival of her husband in the Downs, he wrote two letters to him, informing him of the same, and cautioning him not to admit his wife into the vessel should she come to visit him, till he had seen him, which happened on the 31st of May, when Mr. Liege came to Mr. Rutherford's house, who afterwards accompained him along with a Mr. Thomas Seddon to Mrs. Liege's apartments, when she, being taxed with an adulterous intercourse with a Mr. Wingtworth Tonge, acknowledged it before them all, and added, [Page] in the presence of Mr. Ward, a surgeon and man-midwife, that she was then with child, but at that time declined saying by whom. This witness afterwards learned, that she was delivered of the same about the month of September, as aforesaid.

Such was the evidence produced on this trial; which, for certain, has added a fresh instance to fema [...]e weakness when left by itself; and, in consequence of which, many a sympathizing female in the same situation might easily adopt the following lines originally said of their great first parent Eve—

Lord! if the first fair woman could not stay

In her bright Paradise but one poor day,

How can it be expected we have power

To hold out siege one quarter of an hour!

A divorce was decreed in the usual manner and form.

The Trial of Mrs. Henrietta Arabin, Wife of William John Arabin, Esq. of Moulsey, in [...]e County of Surry; in the Bishop's Court at Doctors Commons, for committing Adultery with Thomas Sutton, jun. Esq. also of Moulsey, in Surry.

THIS Trial, of merited celebrity, in the annals of prostitution, for the audacious scenes of impudent profligacy it contains, is the next we shall offer.

Of the evidence produced before the Episcopal Court, James Bradley, a labouring man, of Moulsey, remembered, that between six and seven years previous to the Trial, Major Arabin and his Wife came to live there: [Page] he personally knew Thomas Sutton, jun. Esq. he well recollected, that one day in the summer of 1782, as he and William Harwood, a labouring man, were walking together up Moulsey Common, by a place called Littlebale's Shrubbery, William Harwood stopped him and said, 'they should see some game! and pointing into the shrubbery, he saw Mrs. Arabin, the wife of Major Arabin, on the ground therein, with her petticoats up, and Thomas Sutton, Esq. jun. on her, in the very act of Adultery, as he most firmly believes; and when they had finished, he saw Thomas Sutton, jun. Esq. get up, and help the said Mrs. Arabin up from the ground, and saw him button up his breeches, and wipe his breeches knees with his handkerchief, and they then walked away together:' he entertained no doubt as to the identity of their persons, knowing them perfectly, and it then being a fine day, and he not farther from them than about a dozen yards; he had also frequently seen them riding out together, both before and after the striking circumstance just related.

Maria Haynes, of Chertsey, personally knew Major Arabin and his wife, and Thomas Sutton, jun. Esq. about four or five years ago, being passing through a meadow near Moulsey Common, about two or three in the afternoon, it being hay-making time, she perceived Mrs. Arabin and Mr. Sutton walking together alone, as she had oftentimes seen them before, and presently afterwards saw them retire into a hollow way leading to a place called the Spa: Mrs. Arabin seated herself upon the bank formed by the hollow, and Mr. Sutton unbuttoned his breeches, and gently throwing himself upon her, he pulled up her clothes, and she plainly saw him in the act of carnal copulation with her, being only about three or four yards distant from them, and concealed by the intervention of some trees and bushes. Mr. Sutton, after remaining four or five minutes upon her, got up, and having raised Mrs. Arabin, gave her a kiss, and then they went away together.

How shocking must these circumstances have appeared [Page] in the eyes of every friend and relative of this Lady's by whom she was really respected! to have her conduct become the topic of discussion, in every gossiping circle, in every public print, nay, the subject of stupid jokes, and vulgar merriment among the lowest country boors! how must vice have triumphed, when a Lady, formed under the extensive information of superior life, habituated to elegant delicacy, and checked by every circumstance of her rank and situation, could stoop to such vile indecence, to prostitution, unsheltered by aught but the open canopy of the Heavens!

James Poulter, of Vauxhall, about four or five years previous to this Trial, entered into the service of Major Arabin and his wife, as gardener and footman, at their house at East Moulsey: an acquaintance, he knew subsisted between the families of Major Arabin and Thomas Sutton, Esq. sen. who was Lord of the Manor, and particularly between Mrs. Arabin and Thomas Sutton, jun. Esq. Quickly after he had been in the family of Mr. Arabin, he noticed the distinguished attention which Mr. Sutton observed towards his Mistress, and with which she appeared particularly well pleased: he oftentimes saw them go out in company with each other, during the absence of his master, arm in arm, in various places near Moulsey, and the scene of their excursions was more especially a shrubbery named Littlehale's Shrubbery, belonging to Thomas Sutton, Esq. His mistress used generally to ride out twice or three times a week on horseback, attended by him; and Mr. Sutton, jun. used almost invariably to join her, and ride with her upon Monlsey Common; and if Mr. Sutton did not arrive as early as Mrs. Arabin, she used to dispatch him home on some frivilous pretence, only that she might with more convenience wait for the arrival of her lover: when they have been riding together, Mr. Sutton more than once kissed, and used other familiarities with Mrs. Arabin, on horseback; such as putting his hand into her pockethole: when his mistress returned home, she has twice or three times told Mr. Arabin, that she had been at Siddon [Page] Wells, a place frequented by ladies for the purpose of bathing; when, in reality, she has only been in company with Mr. Sutton.

James Lawrence Brown, came personally to know Mr. and Mrs. Arabin, by living in the service of George Molyneux, Esq. the brother of Mrs. Arabin. One Sunday in the summer of 1779, or 1780, he being at the house of Mr. Arabin, at Moulsey, and his master and Mr. Arabin being gone out together, Betty Dodson, a servant in the family, told him, that her mistress and Mr. Sutton (whom he knew by sight) were in the parlour alone; in about three quarters of an hour afterwards, he, being in the kitchen, heard the parlour door open, and going to see, just catched a glimpse of Mr. Sutton, going out at the front door of the house, and also perceived Mrs. Arabin coming out of the parlour: soon afterwards Betsy Dodson called him into the parlour, and going in, he perceived one of the windows to be very much blinded, and an arm-chair near the window much tumbled and powdered, and several black pins upon it: just before the chair upon the ground, he saw some seed or matter which comes from a man in the act of copulation; on discovering the same, he called Betty Dodson, and pointed with his foot to the same, and she looked at it and smiled: from this he was in his conscience satisfied, that Mrs. Arabin and Mr. Sutton had had criminal conversation, and committed the crime of adultery with each other.

Elizabeth Dodson lived servant in the family of Mr. and Mrs. Arabin. Mrs. Arabin had one child during her marriage, and she verily believed that Mr. Arabin behaved to his wife in a manner becoming a good husband, and was ever particularly indulgent in his conduct towards her. Soon after she went to live with them, they went to reside at their country house at East Moulsey, and the frequency of Mr. Sutton's visits there soon became apparent: he and Mrs. Arabin found frequent opportunities of being alone together, and particularly when Mr. Arabin was out, which was generally [Page] the case in the forenoon, he being either on horseback, or else obliged to attend his duty as a Major in the Horse Guards: directly he was gone, it frequently happened that Mr. Sutton called, and soon afterwards he and Mrs. Arabin used to walk or ride together; at other times when Mr. Arabin has gone out, Mr. Sutton has presented himself in a field before the house, and Mrs. Arabin on seeing him, would wave her handkerch [...]ef to him, put on her things, &c. and immediately repair to him: at all times they were arm in arm together, and would frequently retire into a summer-house at some distance from Mr. Arabin's dwelling-house: oftentimes after their excursions, Mrs. Arabin's dress would look very loose and disordered, especially her hair and head, though she was remarkably nice in adjusting her attire previous to her going out. One Sunday in the year 1779 or 1780, Mr. Arabin and Mr. Molyneux went out together, and soon after Thomas Sutton, Esq. came in, and went into the parlour to Mrs. Arabin; after they had remained there shut up alone for the space of half an hour, they went out. Betty Dodson going into the parlour directly, impelled by curiosity to see which way they went, found the curtains let down, though they were not so before; Mr. Molyneux's servant followed her into the room, and while she was drawing up one of the curtains, called her to him, and upon the ground close by an arm-chair, he shewed her some seed or matter, which comes from a man in the act of copulation, and asked her if she knew what it was? And upon attentively looking at it, she replied she did, and could well undertake to speak positively thereto, being a married woman: the cover of the arm chair was very much [...]umbled and dirted with hairpowder, and several black pins were upon it, and from all those circumstances, Betty Dodson was well convinced that Mrs. Arabin and Mr. Sutton had had the carnal knowledge of each other.

Towards the winter of the year 1779, Betty Dodson said, they used to walk alone in a shubbery very near to [Page] the house (the shrubbery called Littlehales) and very frequently arm in arm; after Mr. Sutton had gone, Mrs. Arabin used to come to Betty Dodson under the shed where she was milking, and sit down and compose her hair and dress, which at these times have appeared very much ruffled, though she was dressed very neatly when she went out. When the family was in town, at Major Arabin's house in Poland-street, Oxford-road, Mr. Sutton used frequently to walk by the door and if the Major was not within, Mrs. Arabin would go out and call after him. Betty Dodson twice saw them meet in the street when she was going to market, and on their meeting they very cordially joined and walked off arm in arm together.

What excellent topics for scandal, must the proceedings of this frolicksome couple have furnished to the barren circle of a country vicinity; the retailers of scandal, and the self-appointed censors of morals, who abound so plentifully in every neighbourhood, must have observed the ridings out, the shrubby excursions, &c. &c. and those decent little intimacies of friendship, the publicly saluting a Lady, or putting a hand into her pocket-hole to—look for her snuff-box or handkerchief, with a surprising combination of mirth and resentment; the various closettings of the parties of Mr. Arabin's house, must have furnished a fund of the most inexhaustible entertainment for the kitchen fire-side, and contributed wonderfully towards improving the morals of the domestics of the family: how admirable an opportunity did the servant of Mr. Molyneux discover to display a joking drollery, when pointing with his foot towards the arm-chair in the parlour (from whence Mrs Arabin and Mr. Sutton had just retired) he asked Betty Dodson her opinion of a certain appearance very visible on the floor! and how excellent an occasion did it furnish to show her skill and knowledge as a married woman, when attentivly considering it, she found herself enabled to reply with so much pointedness to the intimation of the querist. Circumstances like these, must produce in servants the [Page] profoundest reverence for the characters of their superiors, and wonderfully serve the cause of subordination: not to mention the happy effects the details of, and observations on, the principal particulars which come to their knowledge, may have with their intimates and perhaps on society, in a wider degree than may be at first imagined.

Thomas Girdler, a youth of seventeen, lived as footboy in the service of Mr. and Mrs. Arabin, from him it appeared that when at East Moulsey, Mr. Arabin and Mr. Sutton visited each other very often, and a very particular intimacy appeared to exist between Mrs. Arabin, and young Mr. Sutton. Mr. Sutton, jun. was very much in the company of Mrs. Arabin in the absence of her husband, and his attention seemed to give her a peculiar satisfaction: they oftentimes walked out arm in arm, and rode out together, and many liberties were taken by each party with the other on these occasions: in the absence of Mr. Arabin, they have been several times shut up by themselves in the parlour at Moulsey; after their departure, the chairs and carpet have been covered with powder, black pins, &c. and almost always in such a situation, that some persons appeared to have lain on them whenever they went out together, the dress of Mrs. Arabin was particulary neat and smart; one evening when every person was out excepting this footboy, Thomas Girdler and his mistress, she sent him to fetch a pot of beer, and on his returning with it, she came into the kitchen, took the beer from him, and carried it into the parlour herself: about eleven at night he heard the parlour bell ring, and going in, his mistress told him to take the pot away, which he found quite empty; from which circumstance, and her not requiring his attendance as usual, he was satisfied that Mr. Sutton had been in company with her during the greater part of that evening.

On the next evening, Mr. Arabin being from home the boy suspecting that his mistres [...] [...] and Mr. [Page] Sutton were alone together though he had not heard him come into the house, resolved to look through the key-hole; taking off his shoes, he stept softly to the parlour door; listening, he heard the creaking of a chair, and the sound of two persons voices, and looking through the key-hole, he perceived, by the fire light, his mistress and Mr. Sutton in an arm-chair close to each other: upon this, he run and asked a boy called William Charles, to come and see, which he did, and then they both looked through the key-hole; he was perfectly satisfied that the parties then committed adultery together. The next morning, one of the chairs appeared to be very much tumbled and powdered, with several black pins on it; the print of a mans foot on the whole fill of the window was remarkably plain, and that was apparantly occasioned by Mr. Sutton's getting in at the window, in order to enter the house with the greater secresy. Another day, when Mr. Arabin was from home, Mrs. Arabin ordered the cloth to be laid for dinner in the library-room opposite the bed-chamber door: after dinner, she went into the kitchen, and told the footboy to get some large coals and leave them on the top of the stairs, saying, she would take them in herself; the boy saw no more of her that evening; the next morning entering the room, he perceived the carpet and chairs to be very much powdered, black pins laying about &c. from which he was convinced, that his mistress and Mr. Sutton had been the whole afternoon shut up together.

During the family's residing at Moulsey, the footboy said, his mistress and Mr. Sutton used frequently to ride out together; the boy attended them, and was very often ordered to ride on and leave them alone: sometimes they would ride together till very late, and Mr. Sutton never used to accompany Mrs. Arabin to her own house, but always left her before they came near there; when she arrived home, she used frequently to tell Mr. Arabin that she had not met any [Page] person during her ride. When the family was in town, in the winter of 1783, Mr. Arabin going one day to East Moulsey, he had not been out of the house long before Mr. Sutton called, and enquired if Mr. or Mrs. Arabin were at home; the footboy told him, that his mistress was gone out, and his master was in the country; but as he was speaking, Nanny Gatehouse, Mrs, Arabin's maid, came running down stairs, and informed Mr. Sutton that her mistress was at home, but that she was dressing, and that if he would walk somewhere and call in half an hour, he might see her; he did go away, and returned in about that time, and was shewn into the dining-room: presently afterwards, Nanny Gatehouse came to the footboy, and told him he must deny Mrs. Arabin to every body but Mr. Sutton; he staid with her at that time longer than an hour, and, as the boy had every reason to think, was alone with her during the whole of the time, in the back room into which the dining-room led; two of the chairs were very much powdered especially the back parts of them.

Thomas Parker; servant to Major Arabin, was ordered by his master to go to the Parish Church of St. Michan, in the city of Dublin, and examine the register-book of Marriages kept for that parish: he found an entry of the marriage of William John Arabin, Esq. and Henrietta Molyneux, spinster, of which he took a copy, and then carefully compared it with the original: and he was well convinced, that William John Arabin his master, and Henrietta Arabin his wife, were the same parties as those mentioned in the register. Thomas Parker remembered, when the family was at Moulsey, frequently seeing Mrs. Arabin and Mr. Sutton, jun. walking arm in arm, in a shrubbery, near the house, called the Manor house, or Littlehale's shrubbery, belonging to Mr. Sutton's father, and at other places contiguous to Moulsey; at these times Mr. Arabin was generally from home, and when Mrs. Arabin has returned from these excursions, her hair has appeared tumbled, and her dress greatly disordered and rumpled, though she was very neat when [Page] she went out, which, indeed, always was the case when she intended meeting Mr. Sutton.

One day, while the residence of the family was at Moulsey, in the year 1779, as Thomas Parker entered the house, Betsey Dodson, and Lawrence Browne, told him that there had been fine work in the parlour, between Mrs. Arabin and Mr. Sutton, and desired him to step into the parlour and see; on entering it, Thomas Parker perceived an arm-chair to be very much tumbled, and a great deal of hair powder upon it; just before the chair on the ground, he observed some wet, over which a person's foot had apparently been drawn, but what such wet was, he could by no means form an opinion by his own observation, as the same was nearly rubbed out: on that day Major Arabin and Mr. Molyneux had gone out pretty soon in the morning, and did not return till nearl dark in the evening: after the family's arrival in town in the winter of the year 1779, Mrs. Arabin used oftentimes to walk out attended by Thomas Parker, on the pretence of paying visits, but almost always Mr. Sutton jun. met her in the street, and then it was their custom to walk together for a considerable time; on Mrs. Arabin's return, she has frequently told her husband, in the presence of Thomas Parker, that she had been paying visits to such and such persons, when she has, in reality, been the whole time in company with Mr. Sutton; afterwards she has dispatched Thomas Parker, with cards to such persons as she has told her husband she has been visiting with the view of preventing detection.

William Graham, gentleman, clerk in the office of Messrs Graham, Attornies at Law, Lincoln's Inn, proved Mr. Arabin's obtaining damages by action, in the sum of one hundred pounds, against Thomas Sutton, jun. Esq. in a cause tried in the Court of King's Bench, before William Earl of Mansfie [...]d, and a Jury duly impannelled and sworn: he also testified, that the copy of the verdict was a true copy. This was the whole of the evidence on the part of the prosecution; on the other [Page] [...], nothing was advanced. The Sentence was, that 'upon hearing the depositions in this cause, it was decreed and adjudged, that Mrs. Henrietta Arabin be divorced from bed, board, and mutual cohabitation with William John Arabin, Esq. her husband, and by reason of Adultery.'

To the particular observations which have occurred little more can be added, than that on a view of the whole of the glaring circumstances adduced in the course of evidence, astonishment must be the prevailing feeling in every reflecting mind.

The Trial of the celebrated Mrs. Errington, for Adultery with Arthur Murray Smith, Esq. Captain Buckley, Captain Southby, Captain Roberts; the Rev. Mr. Walker, Mr. Trayte, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Daniel.

THE first deposition in this curious trial, is that of Mary Stevenson, who lived as a servant with Mr. and Mrs. Errington. Herevidence amounts to this: That a Captain Smith lived at her master's house about three months; that her master was in the profession of the law, and generally left home about eight o'clock in the morning, and did not return till four or five in the afternoon, or later; that during her master's absence, she has almost daily seen Captain Smith toying with and kissing her mistress, and putting his hand in her bosom, and through her pocket holes, at which she would seem pleased and happy: at other times she has seen her mistress [Page] sitting on the Captain's knee, with her arm round his neck or on his shoulder.

This must have created strange emotions in the bosom of the spectator, who was then about twenty-three or twenty-four years of age. She doubtless imagined something was intended besides picking the lady's pocket when the Captain put his hand through her pocket holes. Her feelings must afterwards have been greatly heightened; for, from the circumstances that followed, she must have known that those degitations were a prelude to a more capital scene.

She then says, that, "in the absence of her husband, when Captain Smith and her mistress have been together in the parlour, the little boy has been sent out of the room, and she has frequently, after that, found the door fastened on the inside; and, her mistress hearing her, would sometimes open the door to her, and sometimes not, but give her some answer from within; and that, when she has opened the door, she would appear rather embarassed, her hair being greatly disordered, and her handkerchief and cloaths much rumpled." She therefore says, that, "she believes, in her conscience, that the said parties, at such times, were criminally connected with each other"

After mentioning some trifling particulars, such as those of Captain Smith going frequently into her mistress's bed-chamber, and she into the Captain's, and that the beds were afterwards found greatly tumbled; she says, 'She has twice or thrice seen her mistress in the Captain's breeches, coat and waistcoat; and that, at such times, the Captain and she would help to undress each other.

Whether Polly Stevenson envied her mistress, we cannot undertake to say, but, it clearly appears, that this toying between the Captain and her mistress, engaged much of her attention, for she often watched them into the hay-loft together, whither they repaired under pretence of finding eggs; and she says, 'Her mistress, when she returned, had her cloaths much tumbled, and in great disorder.' At those times, she says, 'She had no doubt [Page] upon her mind, that the said parties had a criminal connection."

Mrs. Polly also watched the waters of the poor curate of Battersea. Cruel, indeed, that he could not be admitted to give her mistress a little spiritual consolation, but she must put a carnal construction upon his intentions. She says, 'She saw Mr. Walker and her mistress come out of the bed-chamber together,' and without further evidence of any thing criminal she runs immediately to the kitchen and tells her fellow servants, that she believed 'the parson and her mistress had been in a fit together on the bed.'

How depraved must the mind of Polly Stevenson have been, to form such a supposition! Does she imagine that nothing but carnalities can be practised in a bed-room? Might not he and Mrs. Errington, who was one of his parishoners, have been joining in some religious exercises, instead of perpetrating the horrid crime of adultery? Might they not have been conning over the ‘lessons of the day, and turning over the sheet of the Pilgrim's Progress?’ Might he not have pulled out of his pocket 'The Whole Duty of Man,' and have pointed out particular interesting practical passages! Was he not, thought in a subordinate degree, the shepherd of the parish; and was not she one of his lambs?—But, if a transaction will bear two constructions, Polly seems to delight in giving it the worst. It is possible that, having a strong tendency to fornication herself, she supposes a 'pair of people' cannot go into a 'bed-room' without committing adultery; and actually says, that 'she firmly believe that a criminal connection had passed between them.' She does not indeed mention the gross and indelicate words 'carnal knowledge.'

She then relates that 'her mistress, being once in a coach with her, put her head out of the window, and asked a smart officer how he did, and he came up to the coach, and the coach stopped, and he opened the door and got in; and Mrs. Errington carried him to her husband's house, where he staid to tea, and continued alone [Page] with her in the parlour some time; and that, from their conversation it appeared, that such officer was an entire stranger to Mrs. Errington. That a great intimacy afterwards took place between them, and it appeared that this officer's name was Buckley.

The Captain made his attacks in nearly the same order as Captain Smith, and in particular, regularly besieged the bosom and the pocket-holes. Mary Stephenson observes also, that, 'whilst her master was on a journey to Oxford, her mistress staid out all night twice,' and seems to conjecture that captain Buckley was with her.

Jacob Endamaur comes forward as the next witness, and says, 'he was a servant to Mr. and Mrs. Erington, and has frequently seen Captain Smith and his mistress kissing, toying, and romping together, and has seen his mistress sitting upon the Captain's knee, and her hair and cloaths in great disorder.' He makes no criminal charge against the curate, but only says, he used now and then to visit and drink tea at the house of his said master, and that he never saw any thing improper pass between him and his mistress.'

He then confirms the evidence given by Mary Sterenson, respecting captain Buckley, and adds, that 'about two months before he left Mr. Errington's service, as he went into the parlour, where Captain Buckley and his mistress were alone together, to throw some coals on the fire, and entering rather suddenly, he saw his mistress sitting in an elbowchair, and Captain Buckley standing before her; that upon his coming in, Captain Buckly turned immediately away, and appeared to be buttoning up his breeches; and they appeared to be in very great confusion.'

Hence he concludes, that 'they either had been, or were prevented by him from being, criminally acquainted together.'

Those, however, who pretend to be in the secret affirm, that nothing of that kind was then transacting; but the lady was administering something [Page] to the Captain, in a particular part, to destroy a species of testaceous insects, which were at that time very troublesome and inconvenient to him. She was acting, it is presumed, the part of 'Lady Bountiful,' by endeavouring to destroy such noxious vermin; and yet Jacob Endamaur most uncharitably conjectures, that she was engaged with the Captain in business of a very different nature!

He adds, that 'he has often seen them kissing and fondling each other; and once saw the Captain kissing her naked breast.' He concludes with saying, 'that he does in his conscience believe, that the said parties had frequently had the carnal knowledge of each other.'

Philip Dixon, clerk to Mr. Errington, besides confirming some of the particulars already mentioned, deposes, that captain Buckley, at first, 'would stand in a lane just by the house, as if upon the watch: and, upon those occasions, Mrs. Errington would go to him, and bring him home, or stay some time with him, and he has known her stay in the lane with him till eleven o'clock at night. That at length, the Captain grew more audacious in his behavior, and would come within about a quarter of an hour after Mr. Errington was gone out; and, without asking any questions, would run up stairs, whistling or singing, into Mrs. Errington's bed-chamber, dressing-room, or parlour, wherever she happened to be. That once, in particular, he remembers Captain Buckley and Mrs. Errington coming into a room called the library, where the deponent usually sat to write, and while they were in the room, the Captain went up to her in a very familiar manner, and, as she retired backwards, he followed her until she came with her back against the bookcase; and then pushed his hand in a most indecent manner, against her cloaths, between her thighs, and Mrs. Errington gently pushed him from her, and they both went out of the room.

These particulars are so very open and apparent, as to require very little comment or elucidation. Mrs. Errington, on their first interview, behaves with great [Page] freedom to the Captain; and he in his turn seems to have exactly followed her example. In short he acted as master of the house, and one would imagine he really thought himself so; but his audacity at last was insupportable; Mr. Philip Dixon therefore, communicated his suspicions, or rather facts, to Mr. Errington, and a seperation consequently took place between him and his wife, and Mr. Dixon believes that Mr. Errington has never since cohabited with her.

Another circumstance of her behaviour, mentioned by Mr. Dixon, is too material to be ommitted. He says, 'Mr. Errington's house in Adam-street, was exactly faceing the hotel, kept by William Osborne, in the same street; and that Mrs. Errington, when her husband was absent upon business, very frequently went out and staid for hours together, and often used to return home with various gentlemen, strangers to the deponent, and appeared but newly acquainted with Mrs. Errington.

There never was a more industrious woman in her line, than our heroine. Idleness she seems to have had an aversion to, and upon all occasions preferred an active life. Her generosity too was unbounded; she did not confine herself to a small circle, and deal out favours with a parsimonious hand, but liberally distributed them to every one that asked, and frequently even unasked. If the riches of a kingdom depends upon its population, (a point in which all our politicians seem to be agreed) Mrs. Errington must certainly be a valuable member of society; her whole time is employed in the business of procreation, and she constantly exerts her best endeavours to make new subjects for the state. She has not, indeed, been very sucessful in her endeavours, therefore she may exclaim, in the language of Addison,

'Tis not in mortals to command success,

But we'll do more, S [...]mpronius, we'll deserve it.

CATO.

It is however a just and a general observation, that [Page] the ladies who labour too hard in the business of propagation, seldom propagate much. This appears to be precisely the case in the present instance; and, if every woman was as indefatigable in this business as Mrs. Errington, the king might 'lack soldiers, and sailors,' which would be a heavy loss at this moment.

Luke Carter comes forward next with his testimony. He was also a servant to Mr. and Mrs. Errington. He says Captain Smith and his mistress used to romp, play, and toy together; and goes upon the same ground as the rest of the witnesses; but says nothing new, except that the Captain used to chuck his mistress under the chin, and gent [...] squeeze her hand. Luke appears to be an arch fellow, and seems to have a particular allusion when he mentions the Captain's 'playing at chuck under the chin.' Probably it was at some considerable distance under the ch [...]!

Simon Orchard, [...]ged sixteen years, is the next witness. He was foot-boy to Mr. Branston, in Lyme-Regis, at a time when Mrs. Errington boarded there. He deposes that, 'being one day in his master's parlour upon some errand, Mrs. Errington called him to her, and taking a book out of her pocket, shewed him several indecent pictures therein, exhibiting the private parts of both sexes, which she particularly pointed out to him, and told him, such pictures were a representation of the several methods in which gentle-folks and poor folks were connected together.

Mrs. Errington, it must be acknowledged, had always an eye to business, and as poor simple Simon was, at that time, only sixteen years of age, she was apprehensive that he might have been daunted, had she proceeded in a more direct manner. She was determined, however, to have a relish of him, and her mode of angling for him was truly ingenious.

Simon proceeds with his evidence, and says that, 'about two days afterwards, as one Mr. Daniel, an attorney's clerk in the town, was passing by on horseback, Mrs. Errington tapped against the parlour window, and [Page] Mr. Daniel immediately alighted, tied up his horse at the door, and walked in; when Mrs. Errington met him at the door, and asked him to take a walk round the garden; and they accordingly walked together in the orchard behind the house, and Simon afterwards saw them sitting upon the grass; but, on their observing him, she came and beat him about the head for watching them, and then returned to Mr. Daniel.'

He then relates, that a Captain Roberts, and a Captain Southby, had practised great familiarities with Mrs. Errington, and from their having been shut up in rooms together, he supposes they at those times committed adultery.

He next deposes, that 'Mr. Trayte, postmaster of Lyme, visited Mrs. Errington, and they behaved with great familiarity to each other; that he saw them playing in the orchard together; and, when Mrs. Errington ran round the trees, Mr. Trayte pursued her till she fell down, and he then caught hold of her, and she said he had hurt her leg, and pulled her petticoats above her knee; and Mr. Trayte put his hand upon her knee: that he then assisted her in getting up, and she ran and fell again, and pulled up her petticoats nearly as high as she had done before; that, about half an hourafter wards, they got into the kitchen together, and Mrs. Errington went into the store-room and fetched a syringe, which Mr. Trayte took from her and filled it with water, and discharged it under her petticoats."

This appears to have been a very extraordinary kind of amusement for Mr. Trayte. After having just had two views above the lady's knee, it is impossible to conceive why he should have recourse to a pewter squirt, and to discharge the contents of it under her petticoats. He may be a tolerable good 'Postmaster,' but he must be a wretched 'wh—e-master,' not to think of a better expedient to cool the lady's warm premises. Had either of her Captain's been then upon duty, they would have acted more 'en militaire.' The post master of Lyme-Regis stands but a poor chance of obtaining a wife (if he has not already got one) for having worked an improper [Page] 'engine,' and treated a very 'reverend' looking figure with unbecoming levity.

Soon after this, a very cruel disaster happened to poor Simon and such a one as fully retaliated for his watching Mr. Trayte and Mrs. Errington. The poor fellow deposes, that 'the next night as he was asleep in his bed, he was waked by the bedcloaths being striped off him, and observed Mrs. Errington in her shift only, and Phebe Lush, which then lived fellow servant with him, by his bed-side, and Mrs. Errington pulled up his shirt and caught hold of his private parts, and pulled him out of bed by the same, and said she would pull him down stairs; but he at length got away from her by tearing down the bosom of her shift.'

Alas, poor Simon! If you had not been looked upon as a youth of veracity, I should hardly have credited such a tale; this being the first time, by what I can learn, that Mrs. Errington attempted to treat such, 'matters' with disrespect, much less with a degree of cruelty. But the most astonishing part of this transaction is, that, after having taken a 'thing in hand,' she could ever think of quitting the room till she had finished it.—Perhaps she is not fond of miniatures.

'The next night, continues master Simon, 'just as he had undressed himself and was [...]oing into the bed, Mrs. Errington came into the room, and made him put on his breeches, and then took him down stairs into her bed-chamber, and placed him under the bedstead of his fellow-servant, Mary Mitchell, which stood even with Mrs. Errington's bed, and bade him hide himself till the said Mary Mitchell should come to bed, and was gone to sleep, and that she would then speak to him.

But when the mistress and maid were undressing to go to bed, the maid heard something breathe hard, and, by the help of the candle, she discovered poor Simon, and sent him to his own bed.

Poor Simon must have thought himself in a very whimsical situation, when placed under Mary Mitchell's bedstead. He was not so entirely an infant, as not to be able [Page] to form some imperfect idea of what Mrs. Errington meant, when she said she would 'speak to him after Mary Mitchell was gone to sleep.' Simon could not, at that early period be ignorant of the mode of gestation, though perhaps he had then only a theoretical knowledge of it; and he must have been well convinced, that Mrs. Errington intended he should attempt the practical part. It seems evident indeed, that Simon experienced those sensations which such a situation must naturally create, and that he was amply supplied with materials to act the part of a man, or he would not so readily and quietly have complied with the lady's injunctions of crawling under the bedstead, and to continue in that disagreeable hiding-place, till she ordered him to mount. In the words of the poet Mrs. Errington wanted.

To teach the young idea how to shoot.

But it does not appear, from the evidence given that he was led out of the room in the same manner that he was taken out of bed by Mrs. Errington.

The next morning, a master Simon deposes, 'he saw Mrs. Errington standing before the fire with her petticoats as high as her knees, in the presence of Phebe Lush, Mary Mitchell, and his master's son, who was then about five years of age, and, seeing some hair lying upon a paper, asked what it was, and the little boy said Mrs. Errington had been cutting it off under her petticoats; and then asked Mrs. Errington to give him some; when she replied, if she cut off any more, Mr. Errington would know it.'

Thus closes the evidence of master Simon: but there appears a deficiency in his deposition; for he does not mention a syllable about the colour of this hair.

Mrs. Errington appears, upon all occasions, to consider the propriety of her actions. She did not choose to part with a hair more, lest it should be missed by her husband; but she never thought it necessary to refuse those favours that could not be missed by Mr. Errington, though of ten thousand times the value.

[Page]Phebe Lush is the next witness on the trial; she corroborates what Simon Orchard had deposed, respecting the mode of Mrs. Errington's dragging him out of bed by the middle; she also mentions Mrs. Errington's shewing her some indecent pictures; and she adds that, 'one day in the kitchen, she, in a very indecent manner took up her petticoats, and, with a pair of scissars, cut off some hair from her private parts, and gave some to Mary Mitchell, and some to this deponent, and bade them keep it for her sake; and, to the best of this deponent's rememberance. Simon Orchard, the foot-boy, came into the kitchen whilst she was about it.'

It seems perfectly clear, from what has been already advanced, that the first tuft of hair which was generously bestowed by Mrs. Errington, to those about her, was all taken from one [...] of the premises; and the beard appearing afterward to be rather unequally divided, she gave it a second 'mowing,' in order to bring matters into a due proportion and uniformity.

Mary Mitchell next steps forward with her testimony. She was cook to Mr. Branston when Mrs. Errington boarded at his house. She corroborates the evidence given by several others, and adds, that Mr. Clarke, one afternoon amused himself with taking off Mrs. Errington's stockings, and putting them on again, frequently kissing her.'

This was a strange kind of penchant of Mr. Clarke's! —'Pulling off her stockings and putting them on again. It reminds us of Motteux, who translated Don Quixote. He had a strong propensity to women: but, as he advanced in years, he found it necessary to have recourse to art to give him ability as well as inclinations. We never heard, indeed, that he had recourse to the manoeuvre of practising upon legs and stockings, like Mr. Clarke; but he had other methods equally extraordinary; and, at length, Nature became so far debilitated, that nothing but hanging by the neck for a few moments, would give him that elasticity necessary for consummation. Extraordinary as it may appear, he frequently submitted to this operation, in order to procure a gratification, [Page] which, like Mrs. Errington, he considered as the only business worth attending to. At length, however, his life became a forfeit for his imprudence.—He was tuck'd up as usual in a two pair of stairs room, in the presence of three 'filles des joye;' and, just as he was suspended, hearing that some dancing bears were performing in the street, they all ran down to enjoy a sight of the entertainment; and, forgetting, for a while, the situation in which they had left Monsieur Motteux; when they returned, they immediately cut him down, but he was totally incapacitated for business, and also dead! Thus also, died the musician KOTSWARRA, whose exploits are so brilliantly recorded in a new publication called Modern Propensities.

Mary Mitchell mentions several particulars, which have already been fully related; and, further observes, that, when Mrs. Errington showed the obscene pictures, she would talk in a very immodest manner.

The same witness also says, that 'Captain Southby and Mrs. Errington being in a room together, she tried at the door, and found it fastened, or locked within side; that Mrs. Errington called from within, and asked her what she wanted; and Mary Mitchell told her the dinner was ready; and she told the deponent it must wait, for she was not ready for it yet; that, in the course of half an hour more, Mrs. Errington and Captain Southby came out of the parlour, and the latter went immediately away; that Mrs. Errington appeared quite heated, and looked confused, and her hair and cap, and the handkerchief about her neck were in great disorder; that she had no stays on, being in her morning dress, which appeared very much tumbled.'—She adds that, 'she afterwards found the carpet much tumbled, and believes, from her conscience, that the said parties had then the carnal knowledge of each other.

Mrs. Errington, it must be admitted, paid but little attention to her dinners, when matters of more consequence were transacting. We cannot absolutely say how she was engaged while the repast was cooling, but [Page] we can give a shrewd conjecture; and Molly Mitchell appears to favour our opinion. The Captain and she, it is supposed, were taking a wet and a relish together; or he might probably be instructing her in some new evolutions, with the modern methods of attack and defence. She is a woman who thirsted after knowledge, and if the Captain had any thing new to communicate, she was sure to pump him out of it. Polly Mitchell supposes the Captain discharged his musket, for, though she did not hear the report, she smelt the powder; and Mrs. Errington appeared to have been very much heated in the engagement.

The dinner was now cool, and Mrs. Errington, it is presumed, was equally so; for she sat down to table with as much indifference as if she was retiring to bed with her husband. She picked a bit of the wing of a capon, without the least appetite; though, but half an hour before, it is thought, she had a most voracious propensity.

Molly Mitchell relates yet another scene, which has not been deposed to by any of the other witnesses. She says, that she 'once attended Mrs. Errington to bathing, and, while she was in the bathing machine, with only her shift and petticoat on, she called to a gentleman, who was a stranger to this deponent, by the name of Love, and desired him to come in, which he did, and staid about a quarter of an hour in the machine with her, and her bosom all the while was quite exposed to his sight.'

The same witness corroborates the clipping scene, and that 'Mrs. Errington gave her and Phebe Lush some hair in a paper, and told them to keep it for her sake, and says, she believes Mrs. Errington cut off such hair from her private parts.

Private parts seems to be an improper term here, for what is meant to be understood by it! for, from the immense business which appears to have been transacted there, Molly Mitchell would have expressed herself with more propriety, if she had called them her 'public parts.' But, perhaps, Polly is not censurable in this respect, as [Page] the rest of the witnesses make use of the same expression. The term, is probably technical, in Doctors Commons, and frequently occurs in their learned and elaborate disquisitions. It is a subject often handled by the professors of ecclesiastical law; and every proctor is so well acquainted with it, that (to use a figurative expression) it is a business that he has at his 'fingers ends.'

Towards the conclusion of Mary Mitchell's evidence she says, with great gravity, 'that she thinks Mrs. Errington did not behave in a sober, decent, modest manner.

Mr. Thomas Branston, of Lyme-Regis, gentleman, deposed nothing that has not been already mentioned. But among other things, he says, that, 'as far as fell under his observation, Mr. Errington behaved to his wife with great tenderness and affection, in every respect, as a good husband.'

James Baxter another witness, says, 'he was watchman and attendant on the officers on guard at the Bank of England, in the riots in June, 1780, and still continues in the same situation; that Captain Buckley, of the Coldstream regiment of guards, used occasionally to do duty there; and that Mrs. Errington, towards the latter end of the year 1781, frequently visited him when on duty, and laid with him all night in one and the same bed.'

Captain Buckley, it appearsby this, had double duty to perform, and he supposed he was as safe as the Bank from discovery; but master James Baxter, who had been engaged by the city to prevent riots, could not endure such riotous proceedings. He thought it an abominable offence, that people who were not free of the city, should come within the centre of its walls, to commit the foul crime of adultery. Had any one of the aldermen or common council thought proper to amuse himself with a lady on his premises, he would, perhaps, like a good citizen, have winked at it; but for people to bring their harlots from the Westminster end of the town, to defile the more pure city of London, was a matter which his conscience would not permit him to conceal from the community.

[Page]Another witness, named Samuel Organ, who is a waiter at Mr. Osbourne's hotel, in the Adelphi, says, that 'Mr. and Mrs. Errington, at one time, lived in a house opposite to his master's; that at first, from the loose manner of Mrs. Errington's behaviour, he concluded she was not a married, but a kept woman; that he has frequently seen her standing at her chamber-window, dressed very loosely, and her bosom all exposed; and, from the front window of her house, he has frequently seen her making signs to gentlemen who have happened to be at the said hotel; that her behaviour at the window, was in general so very immodest, that his master and mistress often co [...]plained of it to gentlemen who came to their house, [...] [...]oped they wou [...]d not take any notice of her.'

[...] Errington h [...]d no very particular attachments, but [...] hospitable to all mankind. If business was [...], she little regarded by whom it was performed; [...] morsel now and then, from the Hotel, must have been an excellent repast for her, and she never thought [...] a [...]y indelicacy to communicate her designs, whether by gestures, words, or motions.

Edward Palmer, another waiter at Osbourne's hotel, says, 'he has often seen Mrs. Errington half naked at her chamber window, and seen her throw herself into a vari [...]y of indecent postures; and has frequently been called by gentlemen, who have been at his master's house, to come and look at her.'

He also deposes that he delivered a letter to her, from a gentleman, which she read, and afterwards desired to [...] the gentleman, and that such gentleman went to her [...] accordingly. He adds, that when Mrs. Errington [...] throwing herself into indecent postures, he once saw [...] naked thighs.'

Such are the leading features of the trial of Mrs. Har [...] Errington, and such are the observations which have occurred.

The celebrated heroine of the preceding paper, whose maiden name was H—t C—n, discovered in [...]r early days a violent prediliction for gallantry. Her [...]markable sprightliness and vivacity, led her on to [Page] romping with the boys at the boarding-school, to whom she found means of access; and notwithstanding all the care of her friends, and the vigilance of her guardia [...] she had like to have over-leaped all bounds, by taking a trip to Gretna-Green, before she was well entered into her teens.

At the age of fifteen, Miss Harriot set her tender heart on a promising youth; and shewed much emotion and sensibility on occasion of his death, which was by bathing in the Thames.

In her sixteenth year, the most heedless spectator might have run and read the language of her susceptible soul, in her sparkling eyes, comely smiles, and high heaving bosom. The fragrance of spring was not so delightfull as her breath; the roses of summer bloomed in her cheeks. She arose to perfection, attracted the eyes of the gay and wanton youths; and grew the envy of her sex. At nineteen, the fair one anticipated the springing pleasures of the distant day, and longed to peep into the page of futurity.

Accordingly, Miss Harriot, accompained by her maid, visited the gypsies of Norwood, and received from those pretenders to sooth-saying, certain dark predictions which highly pleased her fond imagination; beholding a representation of those scenes in which she was to act a capital part.

It is said, that these false augurs presented Miss a spouse whose air and address but ill accorded with her warm wishes; because he appeared employed chiefly in in disputing with the parson about tythes; and engaged in a study rather too dry for a lady of her vigorous and volatile deportment.

As in a mirror, Miss saw the day dawning, wherein her plesures were to begin. All her future favours were set before her sight, just as they afterwards actually appeared. The Curate, Post-master, Captains, Footmen, Butler, Baker, and an uncounted croud of fine fellows passed on in procession, in the manner of the kings in Macbeth. Those who believe in predestination, will easily make an apology for the misconduct of our fair [Page] inconstant; for surely a poor weak woman can never be supposed capable of thwarting the decrees of fate itself; and those who cast the greatest weight into the scale of free-will, must reflect on the many temptations which urged her on to deviate from the thorny paths of virtue and tread the more soft and flowery ones of pleasure.

Miss Harriot, in due time bestowed her gentle hand on Mr. Errington, and made him happy in her charms; in time she produced a pledge of their mutual love; or, to use the language of the law, 'They lived and cohabited together, bed and board, as husband and wife, and consummated their marriage by the pro-creation of children.' So truly loving were they in their lives, during the first twelve-months, that they might with a great degree of propriety have demanded the slitch of bacon at Dunmow. Happy, they dwelt on the banks of the silver Thames, in the pleasant village of Battersea; and in that Elysium, might have long enjoyed the purest pleasures, without a mixture of alloy, had not an insinuating serpent entered their paradise, and by his cunning, seduced this daughter of Eve, to taste the forbidden fruit, that grew in the 'middle' of the garden.

The first tempter shall be nameless, because he is not blazoned on the Bishop's Book of Adultery; although he was the first who cracked the commandment with our fair but frail spouse. His tongue was more insinuating than oil, and his gnomon of a marvellous projection. His shoulders were broad, his limbs stout as those of Hercules: in fine, his make was masculine throughout, and not a mite of the maccaroni was blended in his athletic frame. The man who charged his back with the gates of Gaza, was not much stronger, when he lay in the lap of Dalilah.

He soon enflamed the heart of the lady, attracted her ear to his tale, and pointed out all the W—s of antiquity, and the Adulteresses of his own day, as examples for the fair one to follow. He gained his point. Mrs. Errington yielded, and so pursued the road to pleasure, or rather to disgrace, from which she could never after recede.

[Page]

The Trial of Elizabeth Levering, Wife of W. Levering, of Gun-street, Spital Fields, Carpenter, for Adultery with Gideon Ginchenet, an Apprentice and Journeyman, and Charles Sadler; in the Consistory Court of London, in May, 1792.

JOSEPH LEVERING, who worked, lodged, and boarded with his brother, substantiated the marriage, and said, that Elizabeth Levering was a person of a very loose life, and of a very abandoned, wicked, lustful, and profligate disposition. He also witnessed as a person present, to the articles of separation drawn up in the presence of two attornies.

With all the rest of the witnesses, he affirmed, that Mrs. Levering used frequently to call Gideon Ginchenet out of the work-shop, and detain him for hours together; this was so frequent in Mr. Levering's absence, that on such occasions, the notice of the rest of the men was so much attracted, that they used frequently to say, "Come Gideon, your mistress wants you; she cannot do without you."

John Healy an apprentice to Mr. Levering, said, that his mistress would frequently hurry him and another to bed, saying Ginchenet should follow immediately; but which hardly ever occurred while they kept awake.—He had also seen them playing together in a manner that shewed an uncommon degree of intimacy; and in particular he had seen Ginchenet take hold of his mistress's hand in the kitchen and kiss it, she at the same time suffering [Page] him to pull her about without finding the least fault with him—she at other times pulling his hair and slapping his face. One night in particular, he remembered, that Mrs. Levering came into their bed-room with a candle in her hand, when Ginchenet got up in his shirt and followed her; and this witness afterwards putting on his breeches, followed him into the kitchen, where he found Mrs. Levering, her daughter, and another little girl, but did not observe any indecent familiarities between the parties at that time; on the contrary, Mrs. Levering affected to complain of Ginchenet's appearing before her in that manner; her daughter cried at the same time.

Another night, being in bed with Ginchenet, Mrs. Levering came into the room, and pulled the cloaths nearly off the former—Ginchenet then said, he would not go; on which she left the room, and began crying as soon as she got to the door, saying, he would repent it.—Yet, before she went away, she pulled the bed-cloaths off a second time, as low as their knees. It seems, that Healy being awake when she first entered the room, he observed the shadow of her fingers against the wall, beckoning Ginchenet to follow her, which he was at first de-determined to take no notice of.

Fanny Pounsford, wife of John Pounsford, one of Mr. Levering's journeymen, used to attend Mr. Levering's children, at his house in Gun-street, Spital-fields; she said, Mrs. Levering was an abandoned woman—she knowing them several years, had observed Mrs. Levering take great liberties with Ginchenet, while an apprentice, having him to dine, drink tea, and sup with her in Mr. Levering's absence; besides calling him out of the shop at other times, to treat him with hot wine and other liquors, indulging him with getting him what he liked to eat—he, in return, used to bring home tarts, &c. to treat his mistress.—And as a proof of Mrs. Levering's insatiable disposition, she affirmed, [Page] that she had known her call Ginchenet ten times a day out of the shop from his work; she had likewise seen him kiss her hand, and call her a pretty woman; at other times, he has attempted to take money out of her pocket, and on her hindering him, he has called her a shabby creature to her face, and the like.

Jane Hill, servant to Mr. Levering, went over the same evidence, adding, that she heard her mistress say in Ginchenet's presence, that she loved him and hated her husband; and that they were almost always playing together; and in fine, that one night in Mr. Levering's absence, going into her mistress's room unawares, she heard them in bed together. And that another time, Mr. Levering coming home rather unexpectedly, Ginchenet was in his wife's bed room, when he knocked at the door, and had much difficulty to get into his own apartment in his shirt, before Mr. Levering was let in.

Lucy Coleman another servant, testified, that Mrs. Levering was loose in her manners; and that she owned to her, that she doated on Ginchenet, and loved the ground he walked upon, and could live happier with him on a crust of bread, than with her husband upon thousands.

Lucy Coleman further deposed, that one night when Gideon Ginchenet had come home from a journey, very much fatigued and gone to bed, she was sent out about eleven o'clock, for some beer, by her mistress, who ordered her not to knock at the street door on her return, as she would wait for her and let her in; that on her return she was much surprised on finding no person at the door, and more so on seeing a light in the counting-house that was very near the passage, towards which she saw a man, whom, at first, she supposed to be a robber, till seeing him feel her mistress's breasts, and kiss her, she heard her say, "Don't Sadler! don't you see the girl?" They then went up stairs, and the girl followed them towards the kitchen that was on the [Page] same floor; Mrs. Levering then asked him if he would have any supper, to which he replied, No; but said he would drink some small beer—they then staid in the kitchen half an hour, taking the same liberties as before; but as the man asked her mistress to let him look at some needle-work in the dining-room, they both went in there, where they again kissed one another: and as the witness found the door was open, and thought they did not hear her, she looked into the room, and plainly saw them standing close together near the fire-place, Mr. Sadler with his back towards her, with his breeches quite hanging down, his hands round her mistress's waist, and his head at the same time inclined upon her bosom, while she leaned her head upon his shoulders; she at the same time saw her cloaths so far drawn up, as to discover part of her belly, and one of her thighs quite naked; but was prevented from making further observations, by supposing she heard something upon the stairs.

In this deposition, she had no doubt, but that the parties were then in the act of adultery together; neither were her suspicions that she heard somebody upon the stairs unfounded, for she had not been long in the kitchen, before she heard Mr. Levering call out and say, "I'll shoot you, Sadler! I'll enter an action against you to-morrow." Mr. Sadler immemediately ran down stairs, and Mr. Levering after him; but the other having shut the street-door, he followed Mrs. Levering into the kitchen, struck her, and said he would shoot her.

Besides this, being determined she should stay no longer in his house, he sent for two watchman; but as they refused to take charge of her, she slept with her maid that night, and went away to her brother's the next day.

This witness further proved, that she brought a letter from Mrs. Levering, to Gideon Ginchenet, after this separation, which was opened by her husband.

[Page]Mrs. Levering, it seems, had four children by her husband; and seems to have had the culpability of her conduct increased so much the more, as her husband was of a temper the most kind and indulgent.—There is hardly a doubt, from what may be collected from this trial, but that from her importunity with Ginchenet, and her publicity with Sadler, that she was in a very striking degree a Mrs. Errington in miniature.

A sentence from bed, board, and mutual cohabition, was obtained in the usual way.

Trial of John Curtis, a Publican, in Bishopsgate-street, London, for a Rape upon Sarah Tipple, Spinster, during the Old Bailey Sessions, in February, 1793.

The witnesses being examined separate, and Sarah Tipple Sworn, she said—I am a single woman, I go to service; at the time of this assault I lived servant with Mr. Curtis; and I am nineteen next August.

I went to my place to Mr. Curtis's on Monday, this affair happened on Tuesday. I was up three pair of stairs making of the beds, and my master came up stairs and bolted the door; he insisted violence upon me immediately.

Q. You must explain—He entered my body; he took and threw me on to the bed, and I called for assistance; I shrieked but once, and he put his hand and crammed the sheets into my mouth; as soon as [Page] he came into the room he bolted the door, he never spoke to me at all; he threw me on the bed without speaking to me; he put his private parts into mine.

Q. What passed then, did you make any resistance?—Yes.

Q. How did he manage to keep you down on the bed! did you resist?—He forced me down, and he laid on me in such a manner, that I could not get away.

Q. Had you stays on? I had a pair of stays on.

Q. Did you make all the resistance in your power? consider one hand was engaged at your mouth? I resisted as much as I could.

Q. Did you try to do him any injury?—Yes, all that lay in my power. I could not get away at any rate in the world.

Q, What past after he put his private parts into yours? How long might he be in that situation? How did he force himself on you? Did you see him take down his breeches?—He did that after he put his hand to my mouth, and then he forced his private parts into mine, and something warm came from him.

Q. During this time could not you make any resistance?—He put the sheet into my mouth, and I could not; I had done all that lay in my power.

Q. How long do you conceive he remained in that situation on your body?—Five minutes: After this was over he went out immediately and went and brought up some water; I was almost dead, and he brought up some water for me to drink, as I had fainted.

Q. What was your complaint?—I felt myself so ill I could not get up; I was there about three weeks afterwards; I did not know a soul in the world in London.

Q. When you did get up, whom did you find in the house?—I did not get up for about two hours; [Page] my master was in the house, and the other partner too; there was a good many people in the tap-room, but I did not know them. There is a woman that lives up one pair of stairs, but I did not know her at that time.

Q. When was it after this happened to you that you first made any complaint?—I found myself very bad indeed, and I thought it might be because I had never known any body before; at last I applied to a surgeon.

Q. Did you not complain to your master of this ill-treatment?—No, I did not at all. But I went to live in Little-Mitre court, in Fenchurch-street, I was so bad I could not stay; after I found I had the bad distemper I asked the prisoner, my master, to get me into the hospital, and he sent a constable to take me up, I had left him a long time before I found out that I was so; about nine weeks.

Q. Did you tell him he had committed a rape on you?—I did not know any thing about committing a rape; all I asked of him was to get me into the hospital.

Q. Will you swear upon your oath that you have never known him but that one time?—I never had any connection with him but then: he sent for a constable and took me up; he said I insulted him for money, but I did not.

Q. What answer did he make to that?—I did not hear him say so, the constable told me so; the constable came and told me I must go along with him, and he took me to the Compter.

Mr. Knowlys. Now my girl tell us a little more about this: There was a man of the name of Potts that lodged in the house?—There was.

Q. Did not the other two servants say, you was very fond of Potts.—They did say so.

Q. Did not Hannah, one of them, say you sometimes got out of bed and cuddled Potts. Young woman was not you turned out of doors for being found in bed with Potts?—I was not.

[Page]Q. And so your master came in and never said a word to you, good, bad, or indifferent, never called you my dear; never courted you at all?—Never said a word, but immediately threw me down on the bed.

Q. You had never known any thing of this sort before?—Never before in my life.

Q. Which part of the bed did you fall against? —It was the side of the bed near the foot, and my head towards the other side,

Q. When he threw you on the bed, I suppose you suspected his intention?—I did, and shrieked out.

Q. You never shrieked out more than once?—He put the sheet into my mouth, immediately crammed it in; the sheet was in my mouth all the time of the business, he was holding it down with his hand.

Q. Then he had only one hand at liberty, for one hand was constantly employed in keeping down the sheet in your mouth; that was so?—It was.

Q. How was your two hands employed against his one?—My two hands were behind me.

Q. Pray, who was it put your hands in that shape?—Seeing him bar the door, I was frightened, and I held my hands so.

Q. You suspected, when you saw him bar the door? I did not know what he was going to do, I thought he was going to kill me, or something, I cried out, and he immediately chucked me on the bed.

Q. Then he shoved you on the bed the moment that he barred the door; how far is the bed from the door?—It is close.

Q. Then you had time to make one cry and no more; how came your hands to fall behind you? —I cannot tell.

Q. That was rather odd, was not it; did you ever in your life when you fell, having your hands [Page] close by your side, had your hands behind you before; how could they be twisted backwards by that fall?—I cannot tell.

Q. Then they remained behind all the time?—I could not get them away, I made all the resistance I could; I could not get my hands away.

Q. They then remained pinioned like a fowl?— Exactly so; he prevented me, he lay on me.

Q. The man is not two or three ton weight?— I made all the resistance I possibly could.

Q. How could he by laying on you prevent your drawing one hand from under you?—I made all the resistance I could.

Q. Then you really could not get one hand from under your back; that man is not a very fat man?—The moment I saw him bar the door, the moment my strength failed me directly. I being in a strange place, what did I suppose that that man was going to do!

Q. Did you slap his face?—I did not.

Q. Did you pull his hair?—I could not get away.

Q. Did you kick him at all?—I kicked him all that lay in my power.

Q. Then you almost overturned him by your kicking?—I don't know, I cannot say but what I might.

Q. Here he lays on you, and you kicking about, it is natural you should almost overturn him?—I did all that was in my power.

Q. Did you kick his shins, or did you not kick at all?—I did all that lay in my power to get away. I tried to get up.

Q. How did you try to get up; the moment that you fell down, he threw himself upon you; where was your petticoats?—He pulled up my petticoats.

Q. Were they pulled up before you was on the bed, or after?—After.

[Page]Q. How did he manage with his other hand?— And then he laid his knee on me, and in that situation he lay on me; he kept my petticoats high up with his knee.

Q. And in that situation he did it?—No, he did not do it so.

Q. What did he do with his knee?—After he pulled up my petticoats he laid his knee on me to keep them up while he pulled down his breeches.

Q. He continued his knee there then?—No, he did not.

Q. What kept your coats up?—He took his knee up when he unbuttoned his breeches; he was on the bed, and my coats kept up.

Q. Did they keep up of their own accord, or did you keep them up?—He kept them up, to be sure.

Q. Now, how did he keep them up?—he had not three hands, had he?—No.

Q. Now, let us dispose of the two; how did he keep them up?—I cannot tell.

Q. How high were your clothes?—My clothes were quite up to my chin.

Q. And you struggled and kicked about a good deal, did not you?—All that lay in my power.

Q. Still they kept up to your chin; you was quite a maid at this time?—I never knew a man before.

Q. Will you tell us how he managed to bring his private parts to your's? can you say how he did that?—No.

Q. Did you cross your legs?—No.

Q. It did not occur to you that that would be a good way to stop him; did you keep your legs a little wider than usual?—I don't know that I did.

Q. Don't you know that you did not?—I don't know that I did not.

Q. I should have thought keeping the legs close [Page] would be the best way to prevent him; do you know how he managed to introduce his private parts? where was the hand that was at liberty? one hand was at the sheet at your mouth, where was the other hand?—I cannot tell.

Q. Cannot you tell me how he managed to introduce his private parts to you, because you know you was a maid?—No.

Q. Nor where his hand was? was it employed to prevent your struggling?—He laid on me.

Q. Really, my girl, in the way you describe it, I cannot see how such a thing could be effected?— He certainly did.

Q. You did not feel where the other hand was; you never felt how he employed the other hand? —No.

Q. Never felt it about your person at all?— Yes.

Q. Then how was it employed?—He took his other hand to put his private parts into mine.

Q. Now, my girl, how came you to tell me, a minute ago, that you did not know how it was employed, because I put it to you several times?— Because I was ashamed.

Q. When one hand was on your mouth, and the other hand was so employed, a very little struggle would have put him off; how came it you did not get rid of him when both hands were engaged? —I did all in my power.

Q. Did he continue this hand to his private parts all the time that he did this to you?—No, not all the time.

Q. How did he employ it afterwards?—I cannot tell you, I am sure.

Q. How came you to tell nobody of this affair? —I had no friends nor any acquaintance in London or else I would have told them.

Q. Did you complain to your fellow-servant of [Page] your parts being sore?—No, not at all; neither did I shew them to any body.

Robert Carrol sworn. I am a silk weaver; I never saw the girl, only by bringing beer to my house from Mr. Curtis: he lives next door; she left her place, and she brought her box, and she asked my wife to wash her some linen, and she did; this was within a week or a fortnight after she left her place, I cannot say nearer; she told my wife she was going to live at No. 88, Houndsditch. Several weeks after she came back again to my house, and slept there; when I perceived she walked lame, and my wife used to tell me she washed herself with fuller's earth, and said, she was chafed. I said to her, if you have any thing a matter with you, I will go with you to a surgeon: I did so, and the surgeon examined her, and said, he thought there was nothing a matter, without her blood was bad; and then she came back again, and got worse and worse: I asked her several times if she was ever acquainted with her master; I meant joking among ourselves; it was said, that Mr. Curtis was rather fond of a woman; it was not done out of any harm to Mr. Curtis: she said, that her master never offered any thing to her, that he never behaved any way ill to her: but about a month after this, she came up to my loom-side, and said, My master Curtis gave me the bad distemper! I asked her how she knew it? She told me that he was obliged to take the plaisters off before he could meddle with her.

Q. How often did she pretend that he had meddled with her?—I cannot say.

Q. Did you understand from this language, that he had meddled with her more than once?—I should imagine by that, that he did; I asked her, Did you ever tell your master that he gave you this distemper? She said No. I asked her two or three times over, she said No, she never told him or her mistress of it. She then begged of me to ask her [Page] master to get her into an hospital to get cured; I told her no, I could not think of doing of any such thing, for the time was so long, I could not think of troubling my head about the matter; and if she had any thing to say to him, they must decide it themselves. She told me that she had a sister at the other end of the town.

Court.

Just now she swore that she did not tell this to any body, because she had not a friend in town.

Here the examinations ended; and the Court, as it might naturally be expected, found the prisoner Not Guilty.—This trial, upon the whole, affords a striking lesson upon the depravity of principles among the females of the lower order, especially when sharpened by resentment or neglect; but, thanks to the mildness of the British laws, and the scrutinizing powers of an unbiassed Judge and Jury, cases of life and death are not determined upon at random.

The Case of John Bury, Esq. of the County of Devon, who was divorced for want of his Testicles. Tried in 1561.

JOHN BURY, Esq. was a man of considerable landed estate, which principally lay in the county of Devon, where he resided. Being at length tired of a single life, he resolved to enter on the holy state of matrimony; and for this purpose, paid his addresses, and shortly after married, one Willimot Gifford, of the same county; a lady [Page] possessing many personal charms. The marriage took place the 20th of November, in the first year of Queen Mary.

The bride, who felt all the force of nature, was much surprized when the next morning came, to find that her husband had risen, and that nothing of a very tender concern had occurred; but she concluded, that his extreme respect for her had prevented him from taking the last liberty in a precipitate manner; and consoled herself, that she was to be initiated into the mysteries of Hymen by degrees. The next night, however, proved equally, if not more, unsatisfactory as the former; for the round-a-bout endearments which he bestowed, only made her the more desirous of an instant explanation. Delicacy forbade her to point the way; or certain it is, that she would have compelled him to discharge the duties of his station. Days, and weeks, and months and years, passed on just in the same manner: they went to bed to repose, and rose again to follow the business, or the pleasures of the day. Let us for a moment pity a blooming young lady, in the height of blood and vigour, married to a man who could not deprive her of that virgin mark which she had preserved with much care, for heightening his opinion, and for adding to the common stock of love: and while we commiserate, let us not blame her for communicating her deplorable situation to a female confidant. This confidant was a mother, who described to her all the process of the tender communication between man and wife: now were the eyes of poor Willimot opened, her indignation was justly raised, and she very properly determined to call her un-family husband before the Ecclesiastical Judge, charging him to be 'impotentem ad coeundum cum dicta Willimote, propter vitium perpetuum, & incurabile impendimentum ad generationem, & ejus inhabilitatem;' and therefore desiring to be divorced.

In support of this charge, several witnesses were called, two of whom were physicians: these unravelled the whole mystery, by declaring, that the said J. Bury, Esq, [Page] had but one little stone about the size of a bean. In further proof it was asserted by several experienced matrons, that Willimot was at that time a virgin, in the strict sense of the word. These facts were of so strong a nature, that Bury, at length, made a full confession; on which the Judge pronounced a sentence of divorce.

But what most astonished us—and, what no doubt, will most astonish our readers—was, the circumstance that this impotent man should, some short time afterwards, marry another woman called Philip Monjoy, and that she should be delivered of a son by him! Perhaps this event favours as strongly of Cuckoldom, as any other in the annals of gallantry: for, notwithstanding this auspicious birth, we find an interruption of matrimonial joys occurred in a short space of time; Mrs. Monjoy, without appealing to the laws—perhaps she could not go into Court with clean hands—precipitately left her husband, and married a Mr. Langeden, with whom she ever after continued.

It is, therefore, perhaps, not unreasonable to conclude that Bury had been cornuted by Langeden, to whom the birth of the son may be attributed. In Bury's doleful situation, he no doubt considered the affair as a piece of friendship: and, on the other hand, if he took the atchievement to himself, it must wonderfully have contributed to the good gentleman's peace of mind: for though on his examination at the suit of his first wife, he acknowledged that she was a virgin, for aught he knew to the contrary; it is not impossible but the Graham or the Forman of that day, might have fleeced his purse, on the pretence of removing his unfortunate defect.

[Page]

Trial of the Right Hon. Lady Ann Foley, Wife of the Hon. Edward Foley, Esq. and Daughter of William Earl of Coventry, for Adultery with the Right Hon. Charles Henry Earl of Peterborough, in the Consistorial and Episcopal Court at Doctor's Commons.

ANOTHER instance of licentious wickedness, and infamous indifference to public opinion, almost surpassing any preceding relation, in scandalous and bare-faced defiance of every sentiment of decency!

The Libel exhibited before the Episcopal Court, stated the marriage of the Hon. Edward Foley, and the Right Hon. Lady Ann Foley, the then Right Hon. Laday Ann Coventry, on the 24th of October, 1778: the necessary documents were produced and properly authenticated. Mr. Foley and his Lady, lived together with every affection on his part, and were commonly reputed, taken, and acknowledged to be man and wife by their relations, neighbours, and acquaintance; about the latter end of the month of November, 1783, Lady Foley set out for London, and went to the house of Miss Foley, in Chandos-street, to make preparations for a journey to the Continent; and Mr. Foley intended to follow her to London, but having been informed that a criminal intimacy had subsisted and was subsisting between his wife and the Earl of Peterborough, he declined his intention, and immediately separated himself from union and company with Lady Foley.

It was some time in the year 1781, that Lord Deerhurst, brother to lady Foley, introduced the Earl of [Page] Peterborough to the acquaintance and friendship, and into the house, of Mr. Foley, and from that time a strong intimacy continued: in or near the months of January, February, and March, 1782, whilst Mr. Foley resided in Weymouth-street, the Earl of Peterborough frequently paid morning visits to, and dined with, Mr. Foley and Lady Foley his wife, and was always entertained by Mr. Foley, in the most friendly and hospitable way: about the month of April 1783, the Earl of Peterborough returned from the Continent; Mr. Foley then lived in Somerset-street, and his Lordship there renewed his intimacy and visits to Mr. Foley and his wife: the latter, in August 1783, came from Herefordshire to London, and went to live at the house of the Hon. Miss Foley in Chandos-street; here also they were frequently visited by the Earl of Peterborough: after this they went to Hastings, accompanied by Lord Peterborough, and from thence to Brighthelmstone, where his Lordship staid but one day: in November ensuing, Mr. Foley and Lady Foley returned to London, to a house in South-street, where his Lordship was very frequent in his attendance: about the latter end of April 1784, Lord Peterborough went to Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, for the benefit of his health, as he pretended, and from that place wrote to Mr. Foley, at Stoke Court, in Herefordshire, about 30 miles distant, enquiring after his and Lady Foley's health: and Mr. Foley had not then the slightest suspicion that any thing criminal subsisted between lady Foley and him: an invitation was shortly sent to his Lordship, to come and spend some time at Stoke Court, which invitation he accepted, and in May 1784, paid his first visit to Mr. Foley and Lady Foley at Stoke Court, and from that time until about the Second of September 1784, his Lordship several times visited them there for the course of a few days, and then returned to Cheltenham: about the second of September, he came back to Stoke Court, with his servants and horses, and continued entirely to reside there till about the 20th: Lord Peterborough having thus, by [Page] various acts, established an intimacy in Mr. Foley's family, and taken opportunity thereby to seduce the affections of Lady Foley from her husband, she being a woman of a profligate and adulterous disposition, they did mutually carry on a wicked and criminal correspondence, which continued to be a matter of great notoriety.

About the month of March 1784, Mr. Foley and Lady Ann Foley his wife, went to a ball given by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, at Carleton House. Mr. Foley did not stay long at Carleton House, but retired and left Lady Foley there, who staid till about four or five the next morning, and then left Carleton House in Mr. Foley's coach, accompanied by the Earl of Peterborough, and no person besides; his Lordship ordered the coachman, Thomas Simmonds, to drive to his Lordship's mother's house, in Dean-street, Soho, which he accordingly did; when they arrived there, the Earl of Peterborough ordered Thomas Andrews, the footman not to knock at the door, and Thomas Simmonds staid on the coach box; the blinds of the coach were drawn up, and they stopped in that situation about an hour: during that time the coachman and footman perceived the coach to be in motion several times, though the horses stood quite still; the coachman, as he sat on the box, looked through the front window of the coach, and the morning being remarkably fine, and the moon shining so clear as almost to equal the light of day, he plainly saw the Right Hon. Lady Ann Foley laying upon her back, upon the back seat of the said coach, with her naked thighs exposed, and Lord Peterborough laying upon her, and between her naked thighs, and they were then in the very act of carnal copulation; and the motion of the coach was occasioned thereby.

Frequently, at other times, in the winter of the year 1783, and the spring of the year 1784, Thomas Simmonds the coachman, hath, at nights, drove the Right Hon. Lady Ann Foley, and the Earl of Peterborough, in Mr. Foley's coach, about the streets of London, the [...]oachman hath, by his Lordship's order, stopt many [Page] times; the blinds have been pulled up, and Lady Ann and the Earl have had the carnal use and knowledge of each other's bodies, and committed the crime of Adultery: in May 1784, when his Lordship was at Mr. Foley's house at Stoke Court, William Maull, master of the Crown Inn, at Worcester, by order of Mr. Foley, sent his servant, Benjamin Smith, with a pair of jobhorses, for the use of his carriage; about three weeks after Benjamin Smith went to Stoke Court with the jobhorses, he drove Lady Foley and Lord Peterborough alone together, in his Lordship's coach, about two miles from Stoke Court, near Eastwood, in the turnpike road to Sudbury; and as he was driving the carriage gently up hill, he looked through the front window of the coach, and plainly perceived Lady Foley laying on her back, on the bench in the coach, with her thighs naked, (the coach had a large double window in the front, and a narrow bench within, to communicate from one seat to the other) and extended and exposed towards his sight, and Lord Peterborough was then laying upon her, in the very act of carnal copulation, and continued in that position several minutes, thus having the carnal use and knowledge of each other's bodies, and committing the crime of Adultery. After his Lordshp and Lady Ann had left the coach, Benjamin Smith found, in one of the pockets thereof, a white handkerchief, with several marks or stains thereon, and which had been used by Lord Peterborough and Lady Foley, or by one of them, to wipe their, or one of their private parts.

Shortly after this occurrence, Benjamin Smith drove Lady Ann and his Lordship in a phaeton, to the top of Stoke Park, near the double gates there, where Lord Peterborough ordered him to stop; getting out of the phaeton, his Lordship proposed a walk to Lady Ann, upon which she left the carriage, and they walked together about fifty yards from the place where the carriage stood, and then Lady Ann laid herself down on the grass near some gorse; his Lordship upon this directly unbuttoned his breeches, and pulled up her petticoats, [Page] and laid down upon her; and they had there the carnal use and knowledge of each other's bodies: they continued on the ground together about ten minutes, and, during that time, they were perceived by Benjamin Smith with the utmost clearness.

On the ensuing day, Benjamin Smith drove Lady Ann and the Earl, in the phaeton, to the top of Stoke Park, near the double gates there, and close to the spot they were at the day before; here he stopped by Lord Peterborough's orders, and Lady Ann and his Lordship descending from the phaeton, walked on together for the space of one hundred yards among the trees; there they stopped, and Lady Ann put her back to and leaned against an oak tree, and either she or Lord Peterborough pulled her petticoats up to her waist, and thereby exposed her naked thighs; his Lordship then pulled down his breeches and got between her legs and thighs, and then carnally enjoyed her there, leaning against the oak-tree, they had the carnal use and knowledge of each others bodies, and committed the foul crime of adultery, which fact was clearly seen by Benjamin Smith, and J. Hookey, Lord Peterborough's servant.

One day, some time between May and September 1784, Benjamin Smith drove Lady Ann and his Lordship in a phaeton, on the turnpike road from Stoke Court, to the city of Hereford; during the journey, he perceived Lady Ann with her petticoats up sitting in the said Lord Peterborough's lap, whose breeches were down and her hand therein, and on his Lordship observing that Benjamin Smith noticed it, he said, Postboy, mind your horses, and don't look at us!

On Friday the 9th. of July 1784, Lady Ann Foley and Lord Peterborough had a meeting, and agreed to continue their criminal intimacy on the ensuing Sunday; the next Monday was the day fixed for the election of Members of Parliament, for the city of Hereford, and on Saturday the 10th, being the Saturday before the election. Lord Peterborough sent a letter to Lady Ann Foley, intimating therein, that he had repented having [Page] appointed Sunday for their interview; that he thought Mr. Foley's arrival on the next day a certainty, as the Hereford election would be on Monday; that, his Lordship conceived, would be a more eligible day, as her Ladyship would be certain of Mr. Foley's absence; in conclusion, his Lordship named the three-mile stone from Ledbury, as the place, and Monday at half after five as the time of meeting.

On Thursday the 30th September, 1784, Lady Ann Foley and Lord Peterborough were together in a walk in the shrubbery, near the grotto, in Mr. Foley's grounds, at Stoke Court, and his Lordship was standing with Lady Ann in his arms; her arms were round his neck, and her legs round his, with her cloaths up to her waist, and her nakedness exposed from the waist downwards; his arms were round her body, and both their bodies in motion, and they were then in the very act of carnal copulation, and then had the carnal use and knowledge of each other's bodies, and thereby committed the foul crime of adultery: all this was plainly seen by John Davies, a a bricklaye, who had been that day employed in pulling down a pigeon-house in Stoke Park, and was returning from his work, and walking along the road, parellel with the said shrubbery; he heard Lady Ann Foley cry out three times, 'Oh dear," and say, 'you hurt me!" All this was a matter of public notoriety.

Samuel Purlewent, of Lincoln's Inn, Gentleman, proved the marriage of the Hon. Mr. Foley and the Right Hon. Lady Ann. Foley. Mr. Purlewent was employed as agent by Mr. Foley's attorney, Mr. White, and said, that in Hillary Term last, Edward Foley brought his action in his Majesty's Court of King's Bench at Westminster, against the Right Hon. Charles Henry Earl of Peterborough and Monmouth, for damages sustained by reason of a criminal correspondence carried on by the Earl, with Lady Ann Foley, the wife of Edward Foley: in the month of March in the year 1785, the cause came on to be heard at the Assizes held at the city of Hereford, before Sir George Nares, Knt. and Sir James Eyre, Knt. [Page] and a Jury of lawful and honest men, duly impannelled and sworn, at which Assizes the deponent was present; when the Jury having heard the evidence, brought in a verdict for the Hon. Edward Foley, the plaintiff, with two thousand five hundred pounds damages. Mr. Purlevent also deposed to the authenticity of a copy of the verdict exhibited; and also to the identity of the persons of the Hon. Edward Foley, the Right Hon. Lady Ann Foley, and Charles Henry Earl of Peterborough and Monmouth,

John Robinson, of Bolton-street, Piccadilly, Gentleman, deposed to the hand-writing of the Earl of Peterborough; what appears singular is, that this gentleman does not affix the signature of his name, but his mark to his deposition.

This was the whole of the evidence adduced; upon the hearing of which the Court adjudged, that a definitive sentence be promulgated; viz. it was therefore pronounced and decreed, that the Hon. Edward Foley, Esq. should be divorced, &c. from bed, board, and mutual cohabition with his wife, by reason of Adultery by her committed.

Surely the scandalous scenes here related, could not have been exceeded by any of the shocking enormities committed by the great and noble, during the licentious reign of our second Charles! what an admirable scheme, on the return from Carlton House, was that of Lord Peterborough's ordering the coach to proceed to his mother's house in Dean-street, and there to stand still, while the amorous pair, 'hot with the Tuscan grape, and high in blood,' (and inflamed her Ladyship perhaps had been by some liquor, during her stay at Carlton House) enjoyed themselves in soft daliance: it is curious to consider the situation of the servants on the coach-box, their surprise on hearing his Lordship's order to let the coach stand still in the street; they might possibly suppose it was their intention to repose some little space in that situation: the chuckling and grinning, and broken hints of those candid interpreters of awkward situations, livery [Page] servants, may however, be easily guessed at; and then how must the philosophy of Thomas Simmonds, the coachman, have been puzzled, at seeing the coach move, while the horses stood perfectly still, till venturing to look through the window, he, assisted by the light of the moon, perceived that memorable scene so highly complimentary to the delicacy of modern manners, and so peculiarly honourable to the character of her Ladyship as a wife, and the feelings of his Lordship as a friend! How would the good old Lady have been affected, had she known the scene of wickedness her son was transacting at her door! Perhaps she was at that very moment, offering some prayer for strengthening the religious and moral principles of his Lordship!

These scenes, it appeared, frequently occurred in the streets of London, and they seem freaks of the imagination, this amiable couple must have been very partial to; but the country was a place more adapted to this mode of indulgence; in bye-roads, &c. the favourite propensity might be humoured, without much hazard of detection, except from the curiosity of the driver, which was an evil to be feared alike in every place; thus driving gently up hill near Sudbury, the postillion perceived them in the last exposure of shameless guilt, nor must the scenes where Lady Ann reclines herself on the grass, or leans herself back against the oak-tree, be left unnoticed, though fit only to grace the annals of vulgar prostitution. These circumstances according to the evidence of the postilion, happened about the month of May; the Spector somewhere, advises his fair readers against too great an intimacy with Sylvan scenes in that month; but had the high-bred dames of fashion, of that period, even degraded themselves by obscenities like those we have been obliged to relate, that censor of the public morals would, perhaps, almost have despaired of the efficacy of precept, and have vented his sentiments only, in indignant exclamation, or contemptuous sarcarsin.

What must her Ladyship's feelings and sentiments have been, when his Lordship admonished the postilion, on [Page] his looking at them, to mind his horses, and not the employment of the company he was driving! O virtuous education, pride of birth, female dignity and delicacy, how were ye all degraded, lost! the meanest wretch could not have stooped to lower infamy. Imperial Rome we will no longer survey as prodigies, thy Agrippina's, Messalina's, &c. England can vie with thee in some of thy most profligate exhibitions of moral evil.

The occurrences of this Trial, indeed, only take the lead of numberless others of equal atrocity; some more heightened by wantonness, and more caricatured by burlesque: the utmost impartiality, the strictest adherence to truth, will be observed in every narration; no favour will be allowed to rank or influence, nor will an already degraded name be crushed by unmerited obloquy: as our materials are drawn from the most authentic sources our means of information are unbounded; it is to the public we write, and, therefore, truth and candour will ever be the grand directors of our compositions.

The celebrated Case and Trial of the Marquis de Gesvres, upon the complaint of his Lady, Mademoiselle de Mascranny, who, after three years Marriage, commenced a Suit against him, at Paris, for Imbecility and Impotency.

THOUGH in point of morality and prudence, some people might think cases of this kind better concealed than displayed, the contrary is the fact; and further, the publication of such criminality as is generally the cause [Page] of them, is loudly demanded by the united voices of justice and humanity. *

To place these assertions in a clear, and indubitable light, only let it be considered, to what trials the modesty of a woman is exposed, if united to a sham husband!—What cruel assaults and experiments has she not to sustain! The image of such a husband, lifeless as it is, cannot but kindle some kind of desire, yet, like the apples of Tantalus, it can only torment.—And, as it is notorious, that the rage of a fumbler, is apt to hurry him into extravagancies, and even revenge; the life of a woman, hampered with such a one, may be highly endangered.—These imperfect men always seek to do away their own shame by criminating somebody else! There is a remarkable instance of this in the conduct of a King of Castile▪ But to return; all the while the connection of the parties in question, endured, it was pleaded by the lady's advocate, that her husband wanted little else but power to perform his duty: always imitating, even the gestures, kind looks, postures, and in fine every thing but reality; so that there was not only a cohabitation, a condormetion, viz. a sleeping together; but also offers and essays of consummation, all in vain and without effect. The first legal step taken in this business, was to have a form of interrogation drawn up (and this was partly done by the commands of the lady's confessors) The lady in her charge, does not tax her husband with the want of the organs necessary for generation; but only urges, that these organs are absolutely destitute of motion. This kind of imbecility, is what the Canons call frigidity.

When the Marquis was interrogated by the proper officers, he readily answered every question but that, asking [Page] him, whether he had consummated his marriage! For this he demanded three days to make his reply, notwithstanding it was expressed in the brief, put into the hands of his counsel, that he had consummated it seven or eight hundred times!

The form of the Interrogations are as follow:

Interrogatory made by us Anthony Dorsanne, &c. official of Paris, by virtue of a Sentence of the 16th Instant, at the request of Mademoiselle Mary-Magdalen Emilia de Mascranny, assisted as much as is requisite by Madame de Caumartin, and the Sieur Abbot de Mascranny, her guardians ad hoc, plaintiff. April, 1712.

I. Concerning his name, surname, age, quality, and habitation, after having taken an oath to deliver the truth?

Says, his name is Joachim-Bernard Potior, Chevalier, Marquis de Gesvres, &c. aged nineteen years and a half, living in the Street St. Augustin, in the parish of St. Roch.

II. Being asked, whether, since his marriage, he had done as much as in him lay to arrive at the end of the said marriage, and whether he had consummated it?

Said he had.

III. Whether it be not true, that finding himself unable to consummate the marriage, he spent the first night in complimenting his wife, without going about to consummate it, giving her to understand he was very much incommoded in his stomach, by having eaten part of an eel pye.

Said, that finding himself very much out of order with a sickness at his stomach, occasioned by having eaten part of an eel pye, he did not consummate the marriage that night.

IV. Whether he does not know that his valet de chambre, who, undoubtedly, was some how informed, that he was unable to consummate the marriage; said the next day to one of the chambermaids of Mademoiselle de [Page] Mascranny, that he did not think his master had consummated the marriage, because he had heard say, that his c—dpiece was tied up, which is a sort of sorcery?

Answer, he knew nothing of it, and that he thought it was forged.

V. Whether it be not true that, the next day after he was married, being uneasy to find that he was unable to consummate the marriage, he pretended to be sick, and the better to make Mademoiselle de Mascranny believe so, affected, at his arrival at St Owen, whither they went to spend part of the day, to lie on the bed till eight in the evening, when he rose to a collation?

Answer, said it was true, that his illness continuing all the next day after he was married, he was obliged, when he arrived at St. Owen, to throw himself upon the bed.

VI. Whether it be not true, that returning to Paris at ten o'clock that night, he retired into his apartment, where he lay alone, for fear that if he should lie with Mademoiselle de Mascranny, she should perceive that his illness was feigned; and that to hinder her even from enquiring into his health, he had the precaution not to let her know that he would not lie with her.

Said, it was [...] that his illness continuing, he made Mademoiselle de Gesvres acquainted with it, and went to lie in his own apartment.

VII. Whether, perceiving that Madame de Mascranny did not know what was the duty of married people, or the consummation of marriage, he did not turn her ignorance to his own advantage, and spent the following nights, Monday and Tuesday, in making her new protestations and compliments, and in embracing her amorously, without going about to consummate the marriage?

Said, the charge is false, and that he consummated the marriage, Monday and Tuesday.

VIII. Whether, on his setting out for the army, he did not testify all the tenderness imaginable, to Mademoiselle de Mascranny, and to give her more sensible [Page] marks of his friendship, writ to her during his absence, two or three times a day?

Said, that this article is true.

IX. Whether he does not know that the Duke de Tresmes, his father, went the next day after his departure, to wait upon Mademoiselle de Mascranny at her toilette, to inform himself about what had passed between them; but finding her little acquainted with such things, and thereby judging that she was not likely to complain of the condition of his son, who, he knew, was unable to consummate the marriage, he retired without giving her any information upon that head?

Said, he had no knowledge of the fact contained in that article, and that he had heard his father say, that it was false.

X. Whether the same Madame de Mascranny, being informed that the Marquis would very shortly arrive from the army, went to meet him, according to his request, and that being at Bourget, Madam de Revel, her aunt, did not take all opportunities of leaving them alone, thinking that in so doing, they obliged the Marquis, but, that then, there passed nothing particular between them, the latter contenting himself with making great shows of endearment?

Said, that article was true, and that there was nothing particular between him and Mademoiselle de Gesvre [...], because the place was not proper.

XI. Whether, being arrived at Paris, he did not lay with her, and pass the night in caresses, and new demonstrations of fondness without going about to consummate the marriage?

Said, the charge was false, and that he rendered her the duty of marriage.

XII. Whether, during his stay at Paris, he did not lie four or five times a week with her, without having ever consummated the marriage, contenting himself with embracing her tenderly, and feeling her?

Said, that he had laid with her all that time, and that he often rendered her the duties of marriage.

[Page]XIII. Whether one night in particular he did not take great care to wrap himself up in his shirt, and had the precaution to hold Madame de Mase anny by the hands, because she had writ him word, when he was at the army, she had been at the marriage of a lady of her acquaintance, who had taught her a great many things which before she was ignorant of?

Said, he had laid with her that night, and rendered her then the duties of marriage.

XIV. Whether, during the six months, whilst he staid at Paris, he could not consummate the marriage, though he often went about to do it, always giving over after having hugged and embraced his wife, and nothing else.

Said it was false.

XV. Whether, when he went about to consummate the marriage, he did not feel great agi [...]ations, and that always finding himself unable to perform the action of marriage for want of erection, he gave over without doing any thing?

Said it was false, and that Mademoiselle de Gesvres, must needs remember to have often felt the effects of erection.

XVI. Whether the Duke de Tresmes, well knowing that he was impotent, had not shown himself very much concerned at the want of consummation, and often discoursed with Madame de Mascranny upon that subject, and testified his uneasiness to his son, who being disturbed at it, had desired his wife not to speak any more of it to his father, to which she replied, that it was not she who spoke of it, but the Duke of Trismes himself, who daily questioned her upon that article, and that he should desire him not to speak any more of it, for that she would not?

Said, he knew nothing of this article, and that he had only heard his father say, he had talked privately with the lady, but never concerning the impotence she complains of, being persuaded of the contrary.

[Page]XVII. Whether the said Sieur de Tresmes did often, in private, solicit him, the son, to do his endeavours to arrive at consummation, and did even desire Mademoiselle de Mascranny to make some advances on her side, but that he tried in vain to arrive at consummation, finding himself in a natural impotence to do it?

Said, that the fact contained in this article is entirely false.

XVIII. Whether the next morning, as he was going out of his chamber, Madam de Rassicod having asked him, if he had done his wife well over, after having been so long absent from her? he did not reply, Ask my valet de chambre, and he will tell you; and that the valet de chambre immediately said, that the Marquis had told him as a secret, that he had r.....d the said Mademoiselle de Mascranny seven times that night, though he did not so much as go about to consummate the marriage, being unable to do it, but only fondled and groped her as usual?

Said, the whole fact contained in this article was forged.

XIX. Whether, as he staid five or six days at Gesvres, at the time of that first journey, he did not lay every night with Mademoiselle de Mascranny, without being ever able to consummate the marriage, and that for fear she should perceive his impotence he took great care to wrap himself up with two or three pairs of trowsers and breeches on at a time when he was up, and when he was with her in bed he did the same with his shirt, always taking the said Mademoiselle de Mascranny fast hold by the hands?

Said, no; and that as for the latter part of it, he never wrapped himself up with trowsers, or with his shirt; and that it is a fictitious story.

XX. Whether he had not formerly a rupture, with which he was very much incommoded, and was in the hands of a surgeon of Paris, and afterwards in those of a woman, who applied plaisters to his natural parts, in order to cure him of that rupture?

Said, that he had once a rupture, of which he was [Page] cured, and that at present he suffered no inconveniency upon that account; that having had the said rupture at the age of two years, and that he had been told that he never had any plaisters applied to his natural parts.

XXI. Whether since he was in the hands of that woman he has felt no ail in his natural parts, that might hinder their functions, or at least, whether he has no remains of it?

Said, that he never felt any ail, as he answered to the preceding article.

XXII. Whether the plaisters of a woman who had him in hand, being in all likelihood composed of astringent medicines, to retain the parts which caused the opening in the rupture, did not affect the testicles, and shrink up the nerves which served for erection of the penis—so that he was no longer capable of erection?

Said the charge was false.

XXIII. Whether he would consent to have the said Mademoiselle de Mascranny visited, in order to justify what he advances, and to put a stop to the report of her being still a virgin?

Said, that the proposal was so contrary to decency and modesty, that he need make no answer to it.

XXIV. Whether his reasons to hinder Mademoiselle de Mascranny from being visited, are only specious pretences which he used to conceal the truth of the marriage not being consummated?

Said, no; he having consummated the said marriage.

§

Interrogatories put to Mademoiselle de Mascranny.

I. Being asked concerning her name, sur-name, age, quality, and habitation, after having taken an oath to deliver nothing but truth—

She said, her name is Mary Magdalen Emilia de Mascranny, daughter of Messire Bartholomew Mascranny, master of requests of the Hostel du Roy, aged twenty years and a half, living at the Religieuses of Calvary, in the street of Vautgerrard.

[Page]II. Whether it was not at the persuasion of persons of ill dispositions, and who are enemies to the family of the said Marquis de Gesvres, that she engaged in the accusation of impotency, which she has entered against him?

Said, that she did not do it at the persuasion of any body, but only for the satisfaction of her conscience, and by the orders of her father confessors, who have refused her absolution ever since she was married, because of the state in which she lived with Monsieur de Gesvres.

III. Whether at the time of her marriage with the said Marquis de Gesvres, she was aged 17 years?

Said, yes.

IV. Whether, that the third and fourth night after their marriage they lay together, and that the marriage was consummated those two nights?

Says, it is true that the third and fourth night after their marriage, the said Marquis de Gesvres lay with her; but that it is false that he either then or ever since consummated the marriage.

V. Whether it be not true, that, though young, she was not ignorant what consummation of marriage was? And why, in several facta and articles upon which she caused the said Marquis de Gesvres to be interrogated, she affects to put on airs of an ignorance so little probable?

Said, it is certain that at that time she did not know what consummation of marriage was.

VI. Whether the tenderness she shewed for the Marquis, on the Wednesday following, at his departure for the army, and which she testified by her letters during the whole campaign, were the consequence and effect of the satisfaction she had received from their conjugal union?

Said, it is true she at that time testified by her letters a great deal of tenderness for the said Marquis de Gesvres; but that it was not the effect of the satisfaction she had received from their conjugal union, but only because she thought it was enough that he was her husband, that they had been before the priest, and received the benediction of the church.

[Page]VII. Whether, at his return from the army, about the beginning of November, he lay with her the very night of his arrival, continued to do so for two months and a half, and often performed the duties of marriage?

Said, it is true that the said Marquis de Gesvres, at his return from the army about the beginning of November, lay with her the very night of his arrival, and continued to do so all the time set down in the article and more, but that it is absolutely false to say that he performed the duties of marriage, whatever efforts he might make to do it.

VIII. Whether, that at that time she thought herself with child, and said so to several of the family.

Said, that she never thought herself with child, never told any body that she was so.

IX. Whether, that at his return from the army about St. Martin's day, he lay with her at St. Owen, that as he was getting into bed, he smelt an ill smell in the bed; that the said lady told him it was some tenches which were put to her sides, and that notwithstanding the disagreeableness of the smell, he had the civility to stay with her, and to perform the act of marriage?

Said, it is true that he lay that night with her, the respondent, at St. Owen; but it is very false that he at that time performed the act of marriage.

X. Whether she can so flatter herself as to think any body will believe her when she says, that, during all that time, she had been ignorant of the condition of husband and wife, and that in order to be acquainted with it, she had any need to go to the wedding of a lady of her acquaintance, who taught her a great many things which before she knew nothing of?

Said, that she thinks she may flatter herself so far, since it is true.

XI. If it be not true, that the said Marquis being arrived at Gesvres, on All Saints day, staid there ten or twelve days, and that they lay together all that time like man and wife?

Said, it is true that the said Marquis de Gesvres lay [Page] with her all the time set down in the article; but false that he either then or any time since, consummated the marriage, whatever attempts he might make to do it.

XII. Whether she will appeal to the persons who have seen the Marquis in a state of perfect erection?

Said, that the proposal is impertinent, and that she will appeal to none but the searchers.

XIII. Whether she will believe the servants and landresses, who saw upon the cloths and in the shirts of the said Marquis de Gesvres, the tokens of the consummation of their marriage?

Said, no; and that the proposal is as ridiculous as the preceding; since he never did consummate the marriage, and for proof of what she says, she demands to have her person visited.

It is to be observed, that these interrogatories were put into the hands of searchers, who were physicians, appointed for the purpose:—These they read over attentively to the parties before they proceeded to the visitation, or the inspection of the parts.—The names of the four physicians were:

The Sieur Gayant, physician, and the Sieur Marechall, surgeon to the King, nominated on the part of the Marquis; and on the part of the lady, the Sieur Hequet, physician, and the Sieur Chevalier, surgeon.—The formula of both parties follow, and first that of the Marquiss's searchers.

§

We have viewed, and carefully examined the Marquis de Gesvres, and find that his exterior parts serving for generation, have the requisite figure, size and dimensions; but as these conditions are not sufficient for judging of the consummation of marriage, because there is occasion for erection and ejaculation, which did not appear to us, we cannot absolutely decide, whether he be able to discharge the conjugal duties or not.

Paris.

Signed Gayant and Marechal.

§

[Page]

We have observed, that all the parts of the Marquis de Gesvres, are of a fitting consistence, figure, number, and largeness for performing the matrimonial duties: but because all these conditions are not sufficient for establishing virility, and his power to perform his duties, without the tokens of erection, which we saw nothing of, we are of opinion, that towards deciding whether he is capable of performing the matrimonial duties, there should appear in him some tokens of erection; and, because those very tokens of erection would not be of force enough to ascertain the consummation of marriage, we are of opinion, that it would be proper to visit the body of Madam de Mascranny, his spouse.

(Signed) P. Hequet and J. Chevalier.

A third Report, including many other particulars, was produced shortly after.

§

The Report made in pursuance of an Order of Court.

We have, in a special manner, examined the exterior genital parts of the Marquis de Gesvres: we have observed, that he is advantageously provided with all his parts, having their natural consistence, colour, dimension, and figure. But, because erection accompanied with firmness and some duration, is also absolutely necessary towards proving the virile power; and we did not observe any such thing in him, during our inspection, we suspend our judgment touching his potency. We do not, however, infer, that there is impotency in him, from our not having seen that token of virility; because it does not always appear, and there are men, to whom the presence of other men is an obstacle to the appearance of such a token. Therefore, we cannot decide concerning the potency of the Marquis de Gesvres, it being impossible to judge of such sort of things, without the tokens indicative thereof. It were to be wished, that the Marquis de Gesvres could have erection in our presence, at some other time, and in some other place more favourable to him: we might then decide concerning his condition.

[Page]Upon this acknowledged perfection of the parts, with respect to figure only, did the Marquis move for the non suitment of his wife; but against him it was expressly pleaded by the lady [...]s advocate, that conformation alone, or the natural shape of the penis, is only a condition sine qua non; and that nothing was clearer than the position, "that figure and motion do not always meet in one and the same subject.—There may be motion without figure, and figure without motion—what proves the latter beyond a doubt is, that the canon law has absolutely two different chapters, one entitled, de Frigidis of the cold, the other de Maleficiatis, of the ill-made. Those men, like the Marquis, it is evident, are called the frigid; but the operations of the ill-made, were supposed to be hindered by sorcery.

It is curious to observe, that in cases of impotency, in one of the parties, canons recommend chastity to both! The canon we allude to, was made under Gregory I. but Gregory II. who succeeded him, was too wise to lay any restraint upon a woman's suing for a divorce; he contented himself by simply recommending the husband of an ill-organized wife, to turn the conjugal life into a fraternal one. Yet, persuaded that every body has not the gift of continency he concludes his discourse with these words: Sed quia hoc magnorum est, si non potest se continere, nubat. But, because this is a great undertaking, if a person cannot contain himself he may marry again. The same thing that he allowed to the husband of a disabled wife, he granted to the wife of an impotent husband, and the decrees of this pontiff are in general adhered to, at this present time.

But to return to the consideration of what it is that constitutes the characters of frigidity and ill-make: it is to be noticed, that the first is thus defined, in the canon we have referred to: frigidus is censetur qui licit habeat membrum, habet tamen invtile ad copulam, quia inerigib [...]le quod melius facto potest inspici buam [...]erbis exprimi▪ viz. They are to be accounted frigid, who have the virile member perfect in form, but which is, notwithstanding, [Page] unuseful for copulation, because incapable of erection; which is a circumstance better understood by inspection than explained with words. Such a member, saith the law, is good for nothing; because olli durae quies nervos affereus urget somnus. It is as it were dead, and sleeps a sleep of iron; that is, it wants that motive faculty which is the summit of its utility.—As visitations for the purposes of inspecting virility, are not known in this country, we shall be more particular in describing them—"They manage these things better in France," for there, very little depends upon the oath of the accusing party. The seachers, as we have before observed, are men, and generally those somewhat advanced in years; and in a business of this nature, they are instructed to lay aside the language of judges, and talk to the parties as cordial friends, officiously tending them their advice; and more than this, like a favourable judge, who sometimes puts words in the mouth of a culprit at the bar, they sometimes point out methods and expedients to the impotent person, informing him how he may exhibit the token of virility in its best appearance. They addressed the Marquis de Gesvres in the following manner, when they paid him the visit of inspection. "Sir, we readily allow that the master of a law-office and four searchers, are by no means the most inviting objects to put nature in a good humour; and therefore, that not being the case at this present instant, send for us any morning, and call us into your chamber in the happy minute, when, within the privacy of four curtains, if that moment has not arrived, you shall wait for that favourable glance from nature's eye, which she never refuses long to persons of your age, who are not entirely under her displeasure.— Then happy shall we be to be witnesses of the alteration she shall have wrought in you."

Thus indulgently they dealt with the Marquis, but, after all their efforts, they could by no means give in their ultimatum as favourable:—there is no doubt but they made use of every incentive, for the French lawyers inform us, that in many cases the searchers did [Page] not merely trust to the formation of the virile member in a state of flacidity, but would often prick it, to discover whether it had feeling or not. The duty of searchers is thus inculcated in one of the old law books: Debent inspicere utrum homo moveatur ad libidinem; viz. they ought to see whether the man can be moved by lust.

Before we proceed any further, in order to enter into the spirit of the pleaders on both sides of this case, it will be necessary to shew the superior accuracy and circumstantiailty of the French laws, by explaining some particular terms, such as the Congress, the Visitation, &c. the former of which is simply nothing more than the act of copulation, in the presence of an ecclesiastical judge appointed to see it done: this ceremony has been of late abolished, because, in one case, it once led the judges into an error. And it has been since observed, that one happy or unhappy quarter of an hour, was sufficient to fix a man's fate in a trial of this kind for ever; as it was exceedingly difficult, if a person generally impotent, could not find himself capable once in the course of a few months!—Visitation or inspection has been the substitute for the Congress, which being a real and local state, is ever the same, and subject to no vicissitude. Again, the Congress depended upon the concurrence of two adverse parties, one of whom, the wife, as the counsel observed, might easily supplant the other, while the visitation requires no more of the wife than a little patience, which she will gladly lend as a ransom for her modesty.

Copulation is also defined to consist of Motion, Penetration, and Expulsion; and consequently as the evidence of the latter could only be obtained by the wife's person, her evidence was always supposed to be sufficient and therefore, as Madam de Mascranny was supposed to say to her husband, "The end of your marrying me was to make me pass from my-maiden condition to that of a wife; yet, after a long cohabitation, after many attempts and endeavours, you have left me the same as you found me; you are therefore culpable and insufficient."

[Page]Visitation, and the testimony or oath of the wife, was further preferred, on account of the little dependance that could be made on the external appearance and conformation of the virile member in a man; and the canon law even illustrates the case of a lifeless member, in a simile from sacred writ, viz. for as the body without the spirit is dead, so also, &c. &c. Still it is apparent, that the evidence of a wife is not always to be depended upon, supposing her to be actuated by malice, or regardless of an oath—The following case offers a shrewd suspicion of an instance of this kind—"A husband becomes a father, loses a wife, and proceeds to a second marriage. After several months cohabitation with his second wife, he goes a voyage to sea. During his absence this second wife marries another man; and the first husband, at his return home, is saluted with an accusation of impotency, which he answers by saying, I have had a child of my first marriage; but the wife insists upon it, that the birth of that child was only owing to his wife's having to do with another man. Behold the state of this contest, in which it is visible, that the searchers could not reasonably doubt of the faculties of one who had been a father!"

Still to proceed, there is a very great latitude in the notions, that the French lawyers, as well as the canon law, entertain of a temporary impotency in a man. Madam Mascranny's advocate insisted upon it, that the Marquis de Gesvres was afflicted with a palsy in the parts, and quotes Zachias, Tit. 9. Book ix. that author says he, tells us that a man's genitals sometimes fall into a palsy; that then there's an end of hope: all is lost! no resource left! And this not only when this evil seizes people who are upon the decline in point of years, but likewise when it attacks young folks: then says Zachias, nature loses the habitude of conveying the spirits towards the afflicted parts; and from thence it happens, that those spirits so entirely quit their channel, that they never resume it again. And this is doubtless the reason why that grave author, the great Petrone, who has spoken so ill of the Canonists, puts these words into the mouth of a lady dissatisfied [Page] with her favourite, paralisincave—Away, wretch! you are going into a palsy.

How justly, say the Canonists, does all this apply to the text and rule of the apostle: Vir non habet potestatem sui corporis sed mulier—A man hath not power over his own body, but the woman.

But, notwithstanding a superb and pompous appearance of ability, is often fallacious; yet such persons who can afford no such shew, are justly to be distrusted; and as the French advocate goes some length upon apparent capability, when the thing by no means exist, we shall therefore make use of that part of his plea verbatim: "It is undeniably true, and is confirmed by the experience of all mankind, that the difference between able women's men, and those that are frigid, is this: In the former, the penis is contracted and shrunk up, during the time that it does not actually stand; so that it is impossible to judge of its length and thickness unless it is erect and stiff. Whereas it is quite the contrary in those that are frigid, as in the carcase of a dead man. For such indeed have a penis, but it is never contracted or shrunk up; it has a continual length and thickness, (as in other men when it stands) but then it always hangs its head, and is incapable of a perfect and consistent erection.—See Zachias upon this head in chapter concerning the tokens of virility and impotency.

It has been observed, by all who have written concerning impotency, as well canonists as physicians, that there are many men whose penis very readily rises, nay, lifts itself up in a most proud and ostentatious manner; but then it's fury is as soon spent; like a fire made of straw, the moment it approaches its mistress's door, it basely falls down at the very threshold, and piteously vomi [...]s out its frothy soul (alluding to that verse of Tibullus, Janua difficilis dominae te verberet imber.) These kinds of impotents are not rare nor unfrequent. Hostiensis queries, whether they are to be ranked among the frigid, since their vice proceeds not from [Page] the frigidity, but rather too much calidity of their blood. Of this sort of infirmity we have a noted instance in the Baron du Pont, mentioned by Argentraeus.

This Lord was separated from his wife, Catharine de Parthenay, heiress of Soubise, for impotency, Argentraeus, in the article 429, of the custom of Bretagne, gives this description of his impotency: Quidam Juvenis valenti corpore uxorem inire non poterat, etsi benè nasutus, sed simul ac nervum admoverat, semen praecipitatâ sestinatione ejiciebat, ita ut nihil intrà injiceret, nec intromittere posset genitale. He was a young man of a hale constituon, but could not enter his wife's body, though rarely well hung; for so soon as he approached her with his penis, his semen flew off with such precipitation, that she was not at all the better for it, nor could his label of morality make its way into love's paradise.

Be that as it will, our inspectors warn us not to trust to the stiffness of the virile organ; there being in many an erective force, but not effective, because not solid, sober, and strong enough to hold out to the end; and therefore we must always consult the wife's person, if we would know what has been done by the man, whether at first sight he appears to be a man, or whether he does not. For though he appears to be a man, he is not presently to be concluded such, because there are some whose ensign of manhood is a mere cheat, gives mighty hopes, but performs nothing. Again, though he does not appear a man, it does not follow, that he is not a man; because the tokens of manhood do sometimes lie hid, and sometimes pop out. And therefore, by inspecting the husband, no certain judgment can be made either for or against virility; but by inspecting the wife, both doubts are removed. For if in the wife, the seal of virginity appears to be broke, it is most certain, both that the husband has vigour, [Page] nay, and an efficacious vigour; but if the seals remain whole and unhurt, there is, say the canons, a certain and violent suspicion, that the vigour of the man, if it did exert itself, was fallacious; and if it did not exert itself, then there was the same suspicion that nature had denied him it. And this suspicion, though presumptive, has the force of all undoubted proof, since the canons rely thereon, as appears per chapter Proposuisti, chapter Litterae, and by all the doctors, to a man."

Having now produced the substance of every argument made use of upon this famous trial, on the part of the lady, we shall draw to a conclusion, without dwelling upon the arguments in favour of the Marquis, because they are merely desultory and sophistical; and as such they were treated; for, notwithstanding all the influence of his family, and Madam Maintenon's interposition with the King on his behalf, nothing better could be obtained than an order from his Majesty, that Madam de Mascranny should continue to cohabit with the Marquis, till he was 25 year's of age; as his father, the Duke, assured the King, that he himself was impotent till that period.—The Duke's family were not the most opulent in France, but the Lady had an estate of 4000l. per year, besides a great sum in ready cash.

The second octavo volume of this trial, which like the present, is swelled up by a number of cases quite irrelative in any other eye than that of the law, contains examples of many artificial maiden-heads—descriptions of small orifices—supposed marks of virginity, impotency, &c.

[Page]

The Trial of Mrs. Fanny Wilmot, wife of John Wilmot, Esq. M. P. for Adultery with Edward Washborn, a Footman. In 1790.

WILLIAM Garthwaite said, that he went to live as butler, in the family of John Wilmot, Esq. at his house in Bedford-Row, and continued to live in his service until some time on or about the 25th day of April last: and that John Wilmot and his wife Fanny Wilmot lived and cohabited together as lawful husband and wife, and had six children, viz. one son and five daughters, who are all now living, and the youngest of them about the age of five years; and that on all occasions, as far as he knew, they owned and acknowledged themselves to be lawful husband and wife, and for and as such they were and now are commonly accounted and taken to be; and that Mr. Wilmot, on all occasions, behaved to, and treated his wife with the greatest tenderness, love and affection.

He further said, that when he went to live with Mr. Wilmot, he kept nine domestic servants, viz. a butler, a coachman, a footman, an under footman, a lady's maid or own woman, an house-keeper, a nursery-maid, an house-maid, and a kitchen-maid; and that Edward Washborn lived there as footman, and continued there until February 1791. And this witness understood that Edward Washborn had lived in the family about seven years in all.

He further deposed, that unless his mistress Fanny Wilmot had female visitors, which was very seldom the case, she used every day to retire from table soon after she had dined, and go into the back drawing-room, where she mostly sat, leaving her husband with his children, in the dining-parlour. That about a fortnight after this [Page] witness went to live in the family, he began to remark, that Edward Washborn used to eat his dinner hastily, and go up stairs to his mistress in the back drawing-room, under pretence to carry her dog victuals, and continued such practice until he left the family. Upon these occasions he would stay twenty, thirty, or forty minutes in the room with his mistress, until his master was about to leave the dining-parlour, which was known by his ringing the bell, for the butler to clear the tables; when he has frequently seen Edward Washborn come down stairs from his mistress, either with the coal-box in his hand, or the plate on which he had taken the dog's victuals. It was the custom he said of his master and mistress to breakfast in the dining-parlour; after breakfast, his master used generally to go out and not return for some hours, while his mistress used as constantly after breakfast to retire to the back drawing-room. It was the business of Edward Washborn, as footman, to clear away the breakfast things, which after he has done, he has been frequently seen by this witness going into the back drawing-room to his mistress, where he has staid alone with her near twenty or thirty minutes; and this witness was the more particular in watching him, as he had some suspicions on his mind that there was too great a familiarity carrying on between him and his mistress.

And even after he was discharged from the house and service of Mr. Wilmot, he used, notwithstanding, frequently, during the months of February, March, and April, to come and dine and drink tea with the servants, as this deponent apprehends, chiefly by the invitation of Elizabeth Smith, the housekeeper, by reason that she would, upon those occasions, tell him she had asked Edward Washborn to come and dine with them, saying, it must be very dull for him; but the latter remarked, it was generally in the absence of Mr. Wilmot, or when he happened to dine abroad, that Washborn came; and that at such times, Fanny Wilmot, soon after she retired from the dining-parlour, used to ring her drawing-room bell, which was in general answered by the footman, who, after [Page] going to his mistress, would return and tell Elizabeth Smith her mistress wanted her, who would thereupon go to her, but soon returning, he has observed her to make private signals to Washborn, sometimes by holding up one of her fingers, sometimes by pushing him with her elbow, and sometimes by using particular gestures, and on receiving such private intimations, he used to leave the kitchen, or servants' hall, and go up stairs into the back drawing-room, and remain there alone with Fanny Wilmot, from twenty to forty minutes—This witness said he could speak the more positively to the foregoing circumstances, on account of having strong suspicions that an improper intercourse subsisted between her and Edward Washborn; he made it his business more particularly to have an eye upon their conduct.

Accordingly, he noticed, that one day last April, his mistress had been for some time looking from the front windows of the drawing-room into the street, and on a sudden observed, that she put on her hat and cloak, and went out into the street, pulling the door after her; when, suspecting the business, he soon afterwards went out into the street himself, and on the opposite side of the way he saw Edward Washborn, but that he might not suppose this witness was upon the look-out, he asked him where Mr. Wilmot's smith lived, and being informed, he immediately left him, pretending he was going to such smith's, but still for some little time kept his eye upon Washborn, whom he observed to follow Mrs. Wilmot, but did not watch them further, being apprehensive that they might observe him so doing.

On or about the 25th of March, he said, that Elizabeth Barnes, Fanny Wilmot's own woman, having gone out, returned about eight o'clock in the evening, and soon afterwards came into the kitchen, and asked him if her mistress was from home, and upon his saying No, she said, It was very odd, she had been trying to open the back drawing-room door, and found it fastened; he then took no notice to Elizabeth Barnes, but suspecting that Edward Washborn might be locked up there with his [Page] mistress, he communicated his suspicion to Samuel Clough, the footman, and desired him to go into the area where he could see every person who went out of or into the house, which Clough accordingly did; though previous to his speaking to Clough upon the subject, he went himself into the parlour in order to listen and be on the watch, and had remained there but a very short time before he heard the back drawing-room door open, and saw his mistress come down stairs, who seeing him, came into the dining-parlour and took up a newspaper, and looked at the same until he left the room and went down stairs into the kitchen. But while he remained on the listen on the kitchen stair-case, and almost immediately afterwards, he heard his mistress return up stairs, and presently come down again very softly, with another foot coming down stairs at the same time with her; both went along the passage, and he then heard the street door open very gently, upon which he crept up three or four stairs, and saw his mistress with the door in her hand about a quarter open, and gently shutting the same to, and she then returned, and having opened the back-door to let the dog in, went up stairs—He then went down stairs into the kitchen, and having joined Clough, he asked him whom he had seen go out at the street-door, who answered, Edward Washborn. From the foregoing circumstances he is firmly persuaded that Washborn had been locked up some time with his mistress, in the back drawing-room, that it was not known to any of the servants in the family, that Washborn was in the house, previous to Elizabeth Barnes returning home that evening as before-mentioned; so that he did verily believe, that he was let into the house on that occasion, privately, by Mrs. Wilmot, in the same manner as he was let out. This witness well remembered that his master was from home at the time, having an engagement to dine abroad on that day.

He further said, that on Sunday the tenth of April last, Mr. Wilmot dined abroad, and Mrs. Fanny Wilmot at home with Mrs. Pascall, a lady of her acquaintance; [Page] that just as the servants had finished their dinner, the drawing-room bell rung, which was answered by Samuel Clough, who, as he was going into the room, he saw Mrs. Pascall going out of doors with one of Mr. Wilmot's children, to take a walk; that Clough soon returned from the drawing-room, and on being asked what the bell rung for, he said, it was for Washborn (who had on that day dined with them in the kitchen) to go up to his mistress; and presently afterwards this witness saw Edward Washborn go up stairs, and heard his mistress speaking to him in the drawing-room, the door being open; in about five minutes afterwards, going up again softly, and observing the drawing-room door was shut, he then returned into the dining-parlour, determining to watch Washborn's coming down, and soon afterwards heard a creaking noise in the drawing-room, which he verily believes proceeded from his mistress and Edward Washborn's being upon the large sopha, which always stood in such room; and from such noise, which continued some minutes, he was induced to believe, that Fanny Wilmot and him were then and there committing adultery together; but after they had remained shut up in the drawing-room near thirty minutes, Washborn came down stairs and went into the kitchen; while, as he went up on a pretence to go into the back drawing-room, he met his mistress on the landing-place, and observed she was without her hat, and that her hair appeared very much disordered, although at the time of dinner and afterwards, she wore a hat, and her hair appeared to be well dressed and powdered.

The pleasure of watching to discover what this witness pretended to know beforehand, must have been very great; as having leave to go to the play one evening with some of the maid servants, he could not stay with them, but came home and got into the stable, where he sent for Samuel Clough, and desired him also to watch his mistress's motions!

William Tapscott, coachman to Mr. Wilmot, said, that living in the family ever since 1788, it appeared to him that his mistress frequently fought opportunities of [Page] being alone with her footman, Edward Washborn; and he was the more induced to notice her conduct by reason that, about a twelvemonth before that time, whilst the family were at the country-house at Wandsworth in Surry, he was passing by the breakfast-parlour window, and then observed that his mistress and Washborn were in the parlour, and that his arms was round his mistress's waist, which he immediately dropt on his passing by. And further, his mistress used in town, he said, (unless she had ladies to visit her, which was not often the case) to retire from table soon after she had dined, and go into her drawing-room, when Edward Washborn used to go as soon as he had dined, and carry her dog victuals in a plate and upon these occasions remain with her ten minutes, and sometimes a quarter of an hour together. He had several times noticed, as soon as his master's bell has rung for the butler to clear the dining-table, that Washborn has come running down stairs from his mistress, in order, as he apprehended, to avoid being seen with her by his master. And that after breakfast, as soon as his master was gone out, he used to go into the room to his mistress when she has been alone, where they have remained alone together for a quarter of an hour at a time.

Previous to the discharge of Washborn from the service of Mr. Wilmot, which took place in February last, he said he never knew his mistress to walk out unattended by some or one of the men-servants, but after that event he has observed her several times to walk out alone without any servant; and on the twentieth of April last, having heard from one of his fellow-servants that she was going to walk out, and suspecting she was going to Washborn's lodging, No. 12, in Kings-street, Holborn, he was determined to watch her, and for that purpose went to a public house fronting the street where, about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, he saw her go into the house where Washborn then lodged; and in about three quarters of an hour afterwards he saw her come out, and Washborn following her to the door, and seeming as if he was speaking to her, and then bowing to her as she left [Page] him—He then saw her go into a child-bed ware-house next door, where she staid about six or seven minutes, and then came out again, and passed by the house from whence he had watched her, and she appeared as if she was walking home, but this witness, that he might not be observed by her, went a different way, and got home before her.

His master, he further said, on account of his being a Member of Parliament, and on account of his various other avocations was necessarily absent a great deal from his house in Bedford-row— But, between two and three o'clock in the afternoon of a day in April last, he well remembered it was on Easter Monday, he took a letter from his master to his fellow-witness, Mr. Scatchard, at No. 12, in King-street, where Edward Washborn lodged, and while he was waiting in the passage for an answer, the parlour-door was opened by a servant, where he saw his mistress sitting therein, and folding up a letter, and when she had folded it, she rose, came out, passed the witness, and went up stairs; she then appeared in tears and greatly agitated; she enquired for a porter, and almost immediately afterwards this witness having received a letter from Mr. Scatchard to his master, came away; and since that time, he said, that his master had not, to his knowledge or belief, cohabited with his wife.

Elizabeth Barnes, lady's maid in the family of Sir John Dailing, Bart in Upper Harley-street, said, that about June, 1786, she went to live in the family of John Wilmot, Esq. in the capacity of own woman to Fanny Wilmot his wife; and continued to live in his family in that capacity, until the fifteenth of May last, and from the time she went to live in this family Mr. John Wilmot and Fanny his wife had six children, viz. one son and five daughters, all living— Five children, and all living! —What an age must this be, when matrons go a madding! There was nothing else material in this witness's evidence.

Ann Wisdom very wisely asserted, that in the evening of a day, a little before Christmas last, Edward Washborn, [Page] complaining that he was somewhat indisposed; came up stairs and retired to his bed-room, the door of which was opposite to the door of the nursery-room, divided by a narrow passage, in order, as she supposed, to lay down: That about nine o'clock the same evening, the children being all in the drawing-room with her master and mistress, she left it, and came up stairs into the nursery, and finding the deponent there, she sent her down stairs to her own woman Elizabeth Barnes, who was then in the kitchen, with a message, that she was to go to the mantua-maker's, and desire her to come the next morning to measure one of the young ladies for a gown. She accordingly went down stairs, carried the message, and returned immediately, and when she was near the upper flight of stairs, she heard her mistress in the passage between the nursery and Washbon's bed-room and heard her go into the nursery where, when she went in, she found her sitting; and did not then appear, or pretend to have any other business in the nursery, or for waiting there, except the sending of her down stairs to Elizabeth Barnes, for whom she might have rung the bell in the drawing-room: and that from the circumstances before deposed to, and her overhearing her in the passage as beforementioned, and returning into the nursery, she then suspected, and does now believe, that her mistress took the opportunity of her absence to go into Washborn's bed-room, where he then was.

Ann Frazer, spinster, house-maid, said, that about two months after she went to live in the family, she began to notice that her mistress took every opportunity of being alone with Washborn, her footman, but the circumstance that induced her to notice the same more particularly, was her having one day about that time gone unexpectedly into the drawing-room, and found them alone together, when they both appeared much confused, her mistress blushing exceedingly. From that time she said she was cautious how she put herself in the way of breaking in upon them when she has known them to be alone in a room together, as her mistress on the beforementioned [Page] occasion seemed very angry, and remained so for several days; but she has frequently known them to be alone together in one of the drawing-rooms for twenty, thirty, and forty minutes at a time; and once in particular, some time in the month of January last, as she was cleaning the stove in the front drawing-room, Master Eardly Wilmot, her master's son, a child about eight years old, came up stairs from his dinner, and his mother, who was then in the back drawing-room, overhearing him, came to the door, and drove him down stairs again, chiding him very much for coming up to her without being sent for; this witness immediately suspecting that Washborn was with her mistress, went and listened, but happening to cough, she retired to her work, and immediately afterwards Washborn came out of the back drawing-room on tip-toe, and having peeped into the front drawing-room where the witness affected to appear quite engaged in her work, he immediately returned to his mistress in the back drawing-room, and remained with her until somebody knocked at the street-door, when he came out, and went down stairs and answered it.

Jane Smith, spinster, kitchen-maid, affirmed, that in the forenoon of a day about three weeks after she went to live in the family, as she was going up stairs and passing the back drawing-room, the door being open, she saw her mistress and Edward Washborn standing by the fireside, and observed her mistress lay her hands familiarly and playfully on him, and turn him round

According to her evidence, after Washborn had left the family, he used to come into the house through the area, to see, as he said, Mrs. Smith, the housekeeper, and who used for the most part to keep him to dinner and tea; and after dinner this witness had several times observed her making signs to Washborn, upon which he would immediately go up stairs. And that at other times when Washborn has dined at the house, Mrs. Smith has told him that her mistress wanted to speak to him about a place!—All the family, it seems, were very well acquainted with the situation of the place here alluded to.

[Page]Henry Hudson, footman to Mr. Bailey, in Bedford Square, testified to the same circumstances as have been before mentioned on the ground of undue intimacy between Washborn and his lady, adding, that after Washborn had taken lodgings at a house No. 12, King-street, Helborn, he was twice sent to him by his mistress, once with a parcel and a letter, and another time with a letter, which he was to take to some other person, and this witness saw him each time at these lodgings: and on Easter Monday last in the evening, by his master's order, he took a letter to his mistress at Washborn's lodgings, together with her favourite dog, and as from that time his mistress never returned home again, during his stay in the family, it may be said, she was turned out, as an old adage expresses it, Dog and all!

Perrot Fenton, of Doctors Commons, London, Gentleman, being sworn, said, that on Friday the 15th of April last, he was sent for to the Chambers of Messrs. Wilmot, Dunn, and Lancaster, Solicitors in Lincoln's Inn, and on going thither was introduced to John Wilmot Esq. and consulted as to the measures necessary to be taken on his part, in consequence of his having then recently been informed that his wife carried on a criminal correspondence with Edward Washborn, a discarded footman, who then lodged at a house, No. 12, in King-street, Holborn; and when this witness had considered the circumstances of the case, he consulted counsel thereon, and by the advice of counsel he went to the house in King-street, on Saturday the sixteenth of the same month, and engaged apartments as for an acquaintance, of the name of Marshall; that such apartments consisted of a dining or front room on the first floor, and a back-room on the second floor of the house; but Mr. Marshall, whom he then intended to place in such lodging, disappointing him, he applied to his fellow-witness Mr. Scatchard, and prevailed on him to occupy them for the purpose of discovering whether Mrs. Wilmot really did or did not carry on a criminal correspondence with Washborn. Accordingly, Mr. Scatchard took possession on Monday [Page] the 18th of April, and occupied them till Monday the 25th; when, to avoid suspicion, this witness was constrained to introduce Mr. Scatchard to the house by the name of Marshall, where this witness very frequently visited him, and several times had opportunities of viewing the room then occupied by Washborn, and other parts of the house; though it was not till the 20th of April that he had an opportunity of being certain that Mrs. Wilmot and Washborn were locked up together, and alone in the chamber of the latter, when he had no doubt of their commission of the crime of adultery together.

But on Saturday the 23d of April, this witness again called on Mr. Scatchard, in King-street, who informed him that the lady was just come to the house, and was then in the next room with Washborn, and presently after Thomas Scatchard had communicated such information, this witness left the house, and went to Mr. Wilmot, who was then waiting in the neighbourhood, and consulted him as to the adviseableness of breaking into the room wherein Fanny Wilmot and Edward Washborn were shut up, and afterwards quitting Mr. Wilmot, and returning to No. 12, King-street, he saw his fellow-witness, Mr. Scatchard, standing on the ballustrade of the staircase, and looking through the lights or little windows into the bed-chamber, when Mr. Scatchard informed him, that Washborn and the lady were in the nook or corner, between the bed and the fire-place, and that the bed-curtains not being drawn forward, he had been able to observe the motions of the parties; that the lady had been crying, and that Edward Washborn had been soothing and caressing her. This man then took the place of his fellow-witness, and observed that the shutters of the first and third sashed windows of the bed-room were closed, and that the parties were retired into the nook or corner near the fire-place—their persons could not be seen from the situation he was then in, but on turning to the looking-glass which hung against the pier, between the second and third sashed windows, he saw, by the reflection, the heads of Fanny Wilmot and Edward Washborn, and was [Page] convinced they were then sitting close together on the left side of the bed, and were kissing together. Presently afterwards Washborn appeared to sink or kneel before the lady, while the reflection of her head only remained visible to the witness on the looking-glass, by reason that the same was so hung, as not to reflect the lower part of the bodies of the parties, though he observed the tester of the bed and the curtains to be agitated or shaken; and particularly observed the head of Fanny Wilmot in motion; and upon the whole, from all the circumstances then under his observation, he did at the time believe that she then sat on the side of the bed, and that Washborn knelt before her, and that in that position they committed adultery together. And he also said, that after he had for some time viewed the premises, he gave place to his fellow-witness, Thomas Scatchard, who took another view, and then expressed the like opinion to him: and further, that after Fanny Wilmot and Edward Washborn had remained together about an hour, or an hour and a half, according to the best of his recollection, Mr. Scatchard went out of the house into the street, to watch Fanny Wilmot on her return from thence, and this witness remained there, and by means of the lights in the partition, he soon afterwards saw Fanny Wilmot and Edward Washborn standing together, near the middle of the chamber, with their hands joined; they were in very earnest discourse, and appeared to be greatly agitated, and frequently lifted their joined hands up towards Heaven, and seemed to the witness to be plighting vows to each other; and that after they for some time had remained thus, they passed towards the door of the chamber, while he retired up stairs to the landing-place on the second-floor, and then heard one of them undo the fastenings on the inside of the chamber-door, and come out, when Fanny Wilmot said something in a low tone of voice, which appeared to him to be a suggestion that there was some person watching them, as Edward Washborn came forward, and stepped up two or three of the second flight of stairs, and then returned, [Page] saying, "Oh no, there is not!" This witness then looking over the ballustrades of the stair-case, which is a well stair-case, saw Washborn going down stairs, and Fanny Wilmot following him; and presently heard the street-door shut to, and then saw Edward Washborn pass up stairs, and go into his chamber, and open the shutters of the first sashed window.

But the discovery on the part of Mr. Wilmot himself, it seems, did not take place till the 26th of April, when, as this witness was at breakfast with Mr. Scatchard, with the dining room door a little opened, they heard a rapping at the street-door, and thereupon heard Washborn open his chamber-door, run down stairs, and return up stairs, conversing with a woman, who accompanied him into his chamber, when one of the parties fastened the door of the chamber on the inside—And it having been previously determined, between Mr. Wilmot and this witness, that the correspondence between Mrs. Wilmot and Washborn should be exposed that morning, this witness then went to Mr. Wilmot, at a house in the neighbourhood, leaving his fellow witness to make such discoveries as he was able. About half an hour afterwards he returned to King-street, with Mr. Wilmot, whom he introduced to the gentlewoman of the house, in a parlour on the ground-floor; and, after staying some time below stairs, and endeavouring to calm the agitation of Mr. Wilmot, and do away the surprize and apprehension of the people of the house, he went up stairs, and on the first flight he observed Mr. Scatchard looking through certain holes which he had made in the wainscot, which, as he afterwards found, commanded a view of the nook, or corner, between the bed and fire-place beforementioned; he then passed Mr. Scatchard, and went on the second flight of stairs, and looked into the chamber, and observed that the shutters of the first and third sash windows were closed, and that Fanny Wilmot and Edward Washborn were standing together between the bed and the fire-place; he soon afterwards heard the bar let down on the inside of the door of the chamber, and the lock [Page] turned, and saw the door opened, and Edward Washborn come out, warily drawing the door to after him—this witness then advanced to him, and gave him a letter addressed to Mrs. Wilmot, and ordered him to deliver it to Mrs. Wilmot, whereupon he appeared surprised and confounded; but on his saying he knew Mrs. Wilmot was in the room, Washborn withdrew with the letter, and again fastened the door on the inside. This letter was written by Mr. Wilmot, informing her of his having discovered her infidelity, and insisting that she should not return to his house, recommending it to her to advise with her friends, promising to send her linen, and wearing apparel, and to furnish her with money occasionally. When this letter was delivered, Mr. Wilmot went up stairs to the dining-room, and tenderly expressed great apprehension for the personal safety of Mrs. Wilmot; left the shame of the discovery should be too much for her—But soon afterwards Mrs. Wilmot came out of the chamber, and was accosted by her husband, who led her into the opposite dining-room, where such a scene ensued between them as made this witness very apprehensive that Mr. Wilmot would be overpowered by the poignancy of his feelings, especially as he knew he was not in a good state of health—While Mr. Wilmot and Fanny Wilmot were conversing together, this deponent and his fellow witness, went into the chamber, and observed that the bed was greatly tumbled—At length Mr. Wilmot and this witness withdrew from the house, but Mrs. Wilmot staid there; in the afternoon of the same day, this deponent again saw and conversed with her, and about nine o'clock in the evening of the same day he again saw and talked with her, in Washborn's chamber, Washborn being present: and Fanny Wilmot then informed the witness that she intended to sleep that night in the house, and he was afterwards informed, and believes, she did remain at the house until the next morning. He further said, he was well assured that Mr. John Wilmot is a Member of Parliament, a Master in Chancery, and a Commissioner of American Claims; and that his various [Page] avocations must necessarily have occasioned him to be absent a great deal from his house in Bedford-row.

It further appeared, that about noon on the aforesaid Monday, Mr. John Wilmot caused the trunks and boxes in Washborn's apartments in King-street to be searched by a peace-officer, in the presence of him John Wilmot, Fanny Wilmot his wife, Edward Washborn, this deponent, and his fellow-witness, Thomas Scatchard; and that in the trunks, or boxes, there were found a parcel of guineas wrapped up in paper, and a large assortment of fashionable and new cloaths, but no letters; and on being questioned by this witness, Washborn in the presence and hearing of his mistress, acknowledged that he had received many letters from her, and that he had burnt them on the preceding day; which Mrs. Fanny Wilmot, on being questioned by her husband, acknowledged she had written and sent letters to Edward Washborn—There were also divers prints and drawings which Mrs. Wilmot and Edward Washborn then acknowledged had belonged to her, and that she had given the same to him, and also a shirt-pin, set with hair, wrapped in silver paper, and appeared to be quite new; an elegant fancy gold ring, set with hair, a box with curious shells, a nutmeg grater in the shape of a heart, a pocket-book, an ink-stand, two riding-whips, a straw-box, and a bottle of sweet water with a label bearing the inscription of "Eau de Cologne," and various other articles. And as for the hair in the head of the shirt-pin, Mrs. Wilmot acknowledged it was her own.

It further appeared, that while Mr. Wilmot was in great distress of mind, on account of his wife's infidelity, and the necessity there was for preserving appearances, till he could obtain sufficient evidence of her guilt, he informed the respondent of his having been applied to give a character of Washborn to Colonel Popham, and several times expressed the embarrassment he laboured under on that account; but this witness advised him to give such a character; he did so, and it was since believed that Washborn was, by appointment, to go, and did go, to his [Page] place at the said Colonel Popham's, late in the evening of the twenty-fifth of April last.

This witness, in respect to what he saw in Washborn's room, said, that on Saturday the twenty-third day of April, he observed the reflection of the heads of Fanny Wilmot and Edward Washborn, face to face, and afterwards saw the reflection of her head in motion, and also a tremulous motion in the tester and curtains of the bed, and after that Fanny Wilmot and Edward Washborn standing hand in hand together, and conversing together in an earnest and agitated manner.

He further said, that he furnished his fellow-witness, Thomas Scatchard, with gimblets of all the sizes he could meet with in an ironmonger's, with some or one of which he made three or four holes in different parts of the wainscot of the room, by means of which they found the whole of the nook or corner to which the parties used to retire, might be fully viewed; but, from an apprehension of being called on as a witness, and believing Thomas Scatchard would be fully competent to the proving the adultery between the parties, he modestly felt himself averse to looking through the hole, while he supposed the parties were committing adultery together; but, at length, on being strongly urged by his fellow-witness, he did for a moment look through one of the holes, just before Edward Washborn opened the door, but Fanny Wilmot was then standing so close to the wainscot, that he could not see any thing but her gown; by that means he escaped being put to the blush!

Neither could he say he ever saw the ministrant and Washborn lying down together on the bed in the room; nor take upon himself to depose positively to an act of adultery between them; but he was witness to so many approximate acts, that he has not any doubts in his mind, but that they did frequently commit adultery together.

It is now worth while to observe Mrs. Wilmot's confidence in denying the charge of adultery; as the time when she was leaving Washborn's chamber, in order to return home, this witness stopped up to her and introduced [Page] her to her husband, who was at his elbow; at which Mrs. Wilmot appeared as though she affected to be surprised at the producent's charging her with adultery, and repeatedly assured him he was mistaken, and even solemnly declared she was entirely innocent of that crime, earnestly soliciting that her oath might be taken, as to her being innocent of the same. Washborn also forced himself into the company, and made the like declarations, and offered to take his oath to the same purport; and they both contended that the producent ought to be satisfied with such their oaths, and this witness had no doubt but that they would have taken their oaths accordingly; but he considered this part of their conduct to be part of a plan concerted between them, and further considered Washborn's intrusion so improper, that he repeatedly drove him from the presence of the producent. Mrs. Wilmot at first, he said, urged there was nothing improper in her conduct; and even after the circumstances which could be adduced in evidence against her, were stated, she desired she might be allowed to clear herself on oath, and then that her little indiscretions might be forgiven! and she particularly desired Mr. Wilmot would not mention the matter to his father and family. And, lawyer-like, after obtaining an account of the several charges which were to be made against her, she asked whether the respondent and his fellow-witness, Thomas Scatchard, would take upon themselves to swear, that they had seen an absolute act of adultery, and on being answered in the negative, she addressed herself to the respondent, and said, as she obeserved that the producent acted under his opinion, she desired to argue the case with him and then contended, as the producent could not prove a positive act of adultery, he could not avail himself of the circumstances of the case, so as to obtain a divorce!!!

A Deputy's lady in the city hearing this part of the trial, exclaimed, to largest half, "Dear, dear, Mr. Dumpling, did you ever hear so much imperence in all your born-days!"

[Page]All the witnesses proved that the house of Mrs. Page, where Washborn lodged, was a decent house, as well as that Mrs. Page was a very discreet woman!

Thomas Scatchard, of Wardrobe Place, Doctor's Commons, London, went exactly over the same ground as the last witness, but was very particular in asserting that he plainly saw the curtain shake; that having looked for some time, he gave place to his fellow-witness, Perrot Fenton, who also looked for some time, and then gave place to him again, who, on looking again, by the help of the looking-glass which hung against the pier between the second and third windows, observed, that Washborn, and Mrs. Wilmot had come more forward into the room and saw them embrace and kiss each other several times, till Washborn sunk down before such lady, out of his sight.—But, previous to this, by opening the holes in the wainscot; he very plainly saw Washborn and Mrs. Wilmot standing together between the bed and fire-place, and apparently in conversation; that presently afterwards they sat down on the bed-side close to each other, when Edward Washborn took the lady by the left hand and kissed the same, and when he had so done, he stooped a little, and with his right hand pulled up her petticoats aabove her knees, so that this witness could plainly see her naked thighs; that he then stooped and kissed her naked thigh once or twice, and having so done, this witness saw him put his right-hand up her petticoats, which she seemed rather to resist; but they soon got up, and stood face to face, when he observed that the flap of Washborn's breeches was unbuttoned; that Edward Washborn again put one of his hands up the petticoats of such lady, and his other hand round her waist; she making some little resistance, and standing cross-legged; and that having stood for some time in this situation, the lady appeared to be moving as if she were about to go away.

Mary Page, of King-street, Bloomsbury, widow, said, that some time in the beginning of Febuary 1791, Edward Washborn applied to her to take an apartment or lodging in her house; and conceiving him to be a gentleman, [Page] and having received a character of him as such, she immediately agreed to let him have the use of a bedroom in her house; where he lived for eleven weeks, during which, he was several times visited there by Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, Mr. Wilmot's house-keeper, whom this witness and her servant then understood, and believed to be, his aunt.

She added, that in about a fortnight after, he began to be visited by a female person, about twice in the course of every week, during the time he resided there. This female was always let into and out of the house by Edward Washborn, and they were always together in his bed-room, and alone, but she did not think they ever remained together at such visits for a considerable time.

Richard Townsend, and John Serjeant, of Doctor's Commons, London, Gentlemen, proved the marriage of the parties.

This very singular cause was first brought into the Consistory Court of London—and from thence an Apeal was made to the Arches Court of Canterbury; where a Sentence of Divorce was obtained.

This trial, it should be remarked, is destitute of a circumstance which has certainly distinguished a great number of the kind—which is, that the lady's confidante has not become the principal witness against her!

[Page]

The Trial of George Davidson, at Newcastle upon Tyne, in August, 1774; for a Rape upon Isabella Blair.

THE following trial, as well as some others which appears in the course of this Work, occurring at an assize in the country, never appeared before in any collection whatever, and but for the assiduity of the Editors might have entirely escaped the cognizance of our readers.

Doctor Scott said, that about the 21st of January last, Isabella Blair applied to him at Stannerton, where he practises physic; that she told him how she had been used by the prisoner, and was advised to come to him for his advice. The doctor said that he did not examine her closely; she complained of a pain and weakness in her back, and a pain in one of her legs and knee, which he found were inflamed and swelled. She told him that she had been four days in coming from the place where she lived to him; which is about ten miles—he gave her some medicines, and called afterwards to see her, and told her that the distance was too far for him to attend her properly, and to administer the quantity of medicines her disorder required; and, likewise, that it would be necessary for her to apply to the Infirmary at Newcastle, where she would have the care taken of her that the distemper required, and get the assistance of the faculty of that house. He was then asked by the court, if he thought the usage she met with from the prisoner was the occasion of that disorder she complained of? he said, that in the manner she told him the circumstances, he made not the least doubt but it was. That, as [Page] far as he had examined, complaints of that nature might come by cold.

Doctor Rotheram said, that Isabella Blair came as a patient to the infirmary about the middle of February last; he being attending physician that week, she was under his care. That she told him the circumstances in the same manner as she had spoken in court. He then examined her very minutely, and found the vagina very much depressed and inflamed. That the circumstances appeared to him as if she had been lain with by a man. On the doctor being asked with regard to her knee and leg he agreed with what Mr. Scott had said. He said he would not have the jury understand him that the inflammation and swelling might not be occasioned by cold, as it was a rheumatic complaint— On his being asked if the prosecutrix's recovery was any ways doubtful? he said he looked upon her to be in a very dangerous way, as the disorder had fallen on her lungs.—He was further asked, if a woman who had never known man, might not appear, on examination, as if she had. He said it was very obvious that a woman might be deflowered by a fall, &c. though she had never known man.

Isabella Blair said, that she lived with Mr. Potts, at Mason Dinnington Hill-head, on the 12th of November, 1773, on which day she had leave to go to Stannerton to see her mistress's grand-children dance, who resided there; that on her return home she called in at a public-house at Mason Dinnington, with desire to go to see the dancers, as there was a dancing-school in that town, where she met with the prisoner at the bar, George Davidson, drinking, who as hired to her mistress; he desired her to sit down, on which she told him he had more need to go home to his wife than to be sitting there spending his money. The prisoner then told her that his wife had taken the child that day along with her to go and see her (the prisoner's wife's) mother. [Page] She then replied, he ought to be the more careful during her absence, and desired of him, as it was late, to see her home. The prisoner then told her, if she would stop a little he would go with her. He then called for some more liquor, and she went to see the dancers, and on her return she found the prisoner still drinking; she again solicited him to go home with her, he then told her he would have another pot, and then he would go with her. On this she became very uneasy, and told him she must be going; he then said, as soon as the liquor was out he would go with her, and at the same time added, he would lye with her in the way home. She then replied, "No, George, I hope not—I dare trust myself with you, as I think you are a better man than to do any thing to harm me." Upon this they came away together, and he was very peaceable till they were better than half way (this distance was better than a quarter of a mile) and then he took hold of her and threw her down on the ground —She, amazed at this treatment, asked him what he meant to do; he answered, he would lye with her; she said, For God's sake, George, rather take my life, for the one will be as agreeable as the other: he was then preparing to lye with her.

Court. What do you mean by preparing to lye with you?—He was letting down his breeches.

She then turned herself on her face; the prisoner then pulled up her cloaths behind; she then struggled with him and got upon her feet; upon this, he caught hold of her by the ancle, and she fell upon her knees: he now took hold of her by the left arm, and twined her over on her back; she shouting with all her might, he put his hand upon her mouth; whilst she struggled as much as she was able, till, quite spent, she could make no more resistance. He then took hold of her by the legs and dragged her over five or six ridges of the field.

At this part of her examination the prosecrutrix [Page] fainted, and coming to herself again, was informed by the court not to think any shame, as there was a necessity of her explaining every circumstance.

The prisoner then laid himself upon her, and had carnal knowledge of her body.

Here she fainted a second time—On her recovery—

Court. Did the prisoner enter your body?—Yes.

Court. Did you feel any thing come from him?— Yes.

She fainted a third time.

On being asked if the prisoner left her after this usage, and if she went home immediately, she said, she had not power to move from the ground; that he sat upon the dike opposite to her for about a minute, and then he came and used her in the same manner as he had done before. He then raised her from the ground, and bid her go home; she not being able to stand, sunk down on her knees. The prisoner then d—d her for a b—h, and asked her if she had got drunk. That she then desired the prisoner to go and get somebody to take her home; that the prisoner then left her for some time, and returned again, saying he had been to get her brother, but that he could get none of the family to hear, for they were all in bed. He then used her in the same manner as before, she not being able to make any more resistance. And after that he thrust something hard up her body, which to her seemed as if he was tearing out her bowels; that she supposed it must have been his hand; and he likewise put an old tobacco-chew there, which she took out of that place herself; that from the anguish and pain, she was in a state of insensibility, and could remember no more.

William Blair said, that the night on which it happened, which was on the 12th day of November last, Isabella Blair, his sister, went to Stannerton hopping. That about half past ten o'clock that [Page] night, as he was standing in the house where he lived, he heard something like a rap at the door, when, on his opening it, his sister fell into his arms. That as soon as he brought her in and saw her in the light, her cap was off, as was likewise her handkerchief: her breast was bare, and her cloaths torn and dirty. He asked her what was the matter. She told him she had been very badly used in such a field, and that she had in struggling lost her bundle, and upon her describing the place, he immediately took a lanthorn and candle, and went to the place in the field where it had happened; when he came there he found the grass laid down for about five ridges, as if somebody had been lying and tumbling there: that he found his sister's cap, handkerchief, &c. silver button; the cap and handkerchief were torn, (they were produced in court) that he then brought them home, where he found his sister in a very weak condition, sitting in an arm-chair: on his being asked if he was then informed of her situation, and the person who had used her so, she said, George Davidson.

Roger Mason, said, that the night on which this affair happened he was at work in the byar; that his work being done, he came into the room where Isabella Blair was; he found her sitting in an arm-chair by the fire—her brother was standing with his back towards her—that she seemed to this deponent to be very ill—that her breast and head were bare, and her hair hanging about her shoulders —her brother got a lanthorn and candle and desired him to go along with him in search of her cloaths —that he went with him to the field, where they found the grass, some trodden down, and her cloaths were found in that place—On his being asked if he saw the prisoner that night, he said he did not see him till the next day, when he (the prisoner) asked after Bella; this deponent then told him he had behaved to her in a very base manner, and which [Page] he was afraid he would have reason to repent of. The prisoner then told him he was very much in liquor, and that if he had behaved ill to her he was very sorry for it.

Mrs. Potts said, that Isabella Blair was servant to her at the time the affair happened. That on the 12th of November last, she sent her to Stannerton hopping, and to see her grand-daughter dance, as there was a dancing-school at Mason Dinnington that on her return home she was in a very miserable condition, her [...] very dirty, her cap and handkerchief [...] hair hanging on her shoulders; that she [...] if she had met with any person who had [...] badly? she answered, she had; and by one [...] [...]hey all knew, and that it was their George, [...] had used her in a very barbarous manner. On being asked what he had done to her, she said he had lain with her against her will. On the deponent's being asked if she had examined her body or her linen? she said her linen she did, but not her body, and found the back part of her shift very wet, which she supposed was with the prisoner's dragging her over the grass—and on being asked if there was any blood appeared upon it? she said, No; but that there was blood on her arm—and on her being further asked in regard to her health before this happened, she said that she had lived with her two years and a half, and that she never knew her ill in that time, but once of an ague, of which she got the better, and had her health afterwards as well as she had before, till this misfortune happened—And on being asked if ever the prosecutrix was given to keep company with the men, or behaved herself any ways indecent, she said she never saw any thing of the kind by her, but thought her much the reverse; and that a better servant could not be about any person's house than she was.

[Page] Court. Now, prisoner, if you have any thing to say in your defence, now is your time?—No.

Court. Have you any person to call to your character?—Call John Pringle and Ann Rutter.

John Pringle refused being sworn; said he knew little of the prisoner, and would choose to have nothing to do in it, as he could do him no good.

Ann Rutter sworn. Said she kept a public-house at Mason Dinnington; that the prisoner had been several times in her house, that she thought him an honest man, and never saw any thing ill by him. On her being asked if ever she saw Isabella Blair with the prisoner in her house? she said, that on the 12th of November last, in the evening, she did. Being asked if she heard or saw any indecencies pass between them? she said, no further than when Isabella Blair asked him to see her home, he told her if he did he would kiss her by the way. Being asked in what manner the prisoner expressed himself, and whether she thought it was in jest or in earnest? she said, she thought it was spoken in jest. She was further asked, whether she thought the prisoner in liquor or not? she said, she thought he was not, as he could speak and walk very well.

The Judge then summing up the evidence to the Jury in a very clear and impartial manner—they, without going out of court, found him Guilty.

Judge Blackstone then passed sentence of Death upon the prisoner.

There are two leading features in this trial, which in many cases, would have terminated in mercy to the prisoner; that is to say, his being solicited by the prosecutrix to go home with her, though in a state of intoxication, and notwithstanding he had in some degree made his conditions for so doing, by forewarning her that he should kiss her or lye with her, if he did. There can be no doubt, but that in a circumstance of this kind, with respect to the term kissing, it may be said with much [Page] propriety, that more was meant than meets the ear [...] for if this threat, or rather bargain, had been meant simply of a salute with the lips, there would have been little hazard in the prisoner's venturing of that, even in the public-house, especially in the season of dancing and festivity. However, the state of intoxication, and what followed as the consequences of it, though tinctured with wantonness and barbarity, was dearly atoned for, in the sacrifice of a life that might probably have repaired the injury sustained.

The Trial of Mrs. Timmings for Adultery, in the Consistory Court of London; March 20, 1791.

THE marriage being proved, Thomas Gillet, nephew and apprentice to Mr. John Timmings, in Steward-street, near Bishopsgate-street, said, that after he became journeyman and foreman to Mr. Timmings, he very well knew Mr. J. Smith of Aldgate; and that Mr. and Mrs. Timmings always lived together as man and wife, till the month of January or February last, when Mrs. Timmings's unlawful connection with Mr. Smith and others, was first discovered. Mr. Smith, he said, he knew particularly, by his bringing shoes to the house, and coming backwards and forwards as an acquaintance of his master and mistress. On the 12th of February, he said, that on Mr. Timmings's going out, he told him, the witness, that he was going to Greenwich; and that between eight and nine o'clock on the same evening, Mr. Smith came to the house; and he soon afterwards saw him in [Page] the kitchen, in company with Mrs. Timmings and Mary Gibbs, a maid-servant. From communications made to the witness by this maid servant, with respect to the conduct of Mr. Smith and his mistress, prior to this period, he said, he suspected a criminal connection; and had, therefore, made a cavity through the wainscot of the kitchen, on purpose to make use of the first opportunity to observe their behaviour. As this kitchen was on the ground-floor, he found the stair-case a very convenient place; and accordingly, soon after Mr. Smith came in, having placed himself there, he kept his situation near two hours, during which time he saw the maid dress a sowl, upon which herself, Mr. Smith, and her mistress supped. Soon after this, Mary Gibbs put on her hat and cloak and went out, and left them together; this was near eleven at night: but as the witness still kept his position, he soon observed Mr. Smith draw his chair towards Mrs. Timmings, and put his left hand round her neck, while she laid her head on his shoulder. He then kissed her, and put his right-hand up her petticoats towards her private parts; in which situation, after they had remained some time, the witness observed her petticoats drawn up, though he did not exactly see by what means; however, he was certain that Mr. Smith was then upon her, between her legs, though he could not see whether his breeches were down or not; however, he plainly observed his body in motion, while laying upon his mistress, in a chair; from all which circumstances, he had no manner of doubt but they were then in the act of copulation, and had the carnal use and knowledge of each other's bodies. But while they were in this situation, he observed Mr. Timmings rush into the kitchen, from a door leading to the yard, and addressing himself to Mr. Smith, said, "You rascal, how dare you come to my house and use my wife in this manner!" on which the deponent left his situation and went into the yard, and from thence into the street, when he heard Timmings say, "Out, out, out, with you," and heard the street-door shut, and Mrs. Timmings say, "Forgive me, forgive [Page] me, I'll do so no more!" he left his aforesaid situation at the time by him predeposed to; he did not see whether the said James Smith's breeches were down or not as articulate. He added, that he did not of his own knowledge know, that Mr. Timmings was apprized of the situation of the said persons, and did not see him from the time of his leaving his house to go to Greenwich, until he saw him rush into the kitchen. That, soon after Mr. Timmings came into the street, where he and the deponent met, he appeared very much agitated, insomuch that he begged the deponent to support him, and they went to the house of Grace Timmings, his mother, in Bishopsgate-street, where he staid about a quarter of an hour, and then with his aunt, Amey Barker, returned to his house; he went there the next day, and saw Mrs. Timmings go from thence, since which he never saw her there, but had constantly seen her husband residing there.

Mrs. Grace Timmings, widow, of Bishopsgate street, said, that Mr. Chamberlain, of White Lion-street, Chapel Yard, being indirectly charged by her son with being connected with his wife, he agreed to come and settle the matter with the latter at his house in Union-street —he came accordingly, and Mr. Timmings, Mr. Chamberlain, Mrs. Timmings, and herself, all went together into the fore parlour; Mrs. Timmings's father, Mr. Peter Huet, of Hackney, was also present—Mr. Timmings then asked her, in the presence of them all, whether she did not go with Mr. Chamberlain to an house of ill-fame in Winchester-street, on the preceeding Thursday? to which she answered, Yes—He then asked her what passed there? to which she answered, that Mr. Chamberlain took her up into a back room, and committed adultery with her—Mr. Timmings then asked her whether she had ever been with him any where else? to which she answered, Yes; and added, that she went with Mr. Chamberlain to his warehouse in White Lion-street on the Saturday following, where he again committed adultery with her, or words to that effect.

[Page]The same witness, examined on interrogatories, said, that she did neither know or believe that Mr. Timmings committed adultery with any loose woman, and thereby contract the veneral disease; but, on the contrary, had heard him declare that he had it of his wife, Mrs. Ann Timmings.

Thomas Mountfort, of Moon Yard, Shoreditch, a journeyman weaver, affirmed, that being acquainted with the proceedings of Mr. Smith and Mrs. Timmings, and being in the habit of going of errands and the like for her husband, in consequence of some conversation with Thomas Gillett, his fellow-witness, upon the subject, he was set by him to watch them in the yard into which the kitchen window opened; this was on the evening of the 10th of January. Through a crevice in the same he could see almost every thing that passed, he then observed, that on the maid's going out and leaving James Smith and Mrs. Timmings by themselves, Smith took and kissed her, and put his hands up her petticoats several times; in a short time after, Smith got up from his chair, and he saw them both move towards the window, Mrs. Timmings moving in her chair; when they came quite close to the window he could not see particularly what passed, any further than that Smith was upon her, and that both their bodies were in moiton for some minutes; after which he saw Mr. Smith get up and sit in the chair he was in before. He then left them, and informed Gillett of what had passed.

On the 12th of January, it seems only two days after, about eight in the evening, Gillett came again to him and informed him that Mr. Smith was there, and further desired him to resume his old station—He did so, and through the same crevice observed that the maid-servant went out as before; and as Mrs. Timmings and Mr. Smith then sat opposite to him, he could very well see what passed; he then very plainly observed Smith put his left arm round her neck, and while she laid her head upon his shoulders, he put his right hand up her petticoats and after remaining so about a minute, he got up, and [Page] having unbuttoned his breeches, the witness plainly saw him pull up her petticoats so far, that while he placed himself between her thighs, he could plainly see them naked on each side of him. He then again observed their bodies in motion.

But what is the most remarkable, while the witness was in this situation, Mr. Timmings, who was privy to his being placed there, occasionly came into the yard, and asked him if he had seen any thing indecent between the parties? It was about nine o'clock when Mr. Timmings first came to him upon this curious enquiry. He also came again at the critical moment, when Smith was placing himself upon his wife, which he took a view of through the crevice; and immediately after going and opening the kitchen-door, he went up to Smith, pushed him off his wife, called him a villain, asked him what business he had there, and afterwards turned him out of the house— He then called Gillett, and told him to go and fetch Mrs. Timmings, his mother—Gillett, on Smith's getting up from Mrs. Timmings, observed that the flap of his breeches was quite down.

As a case in point, and something relevelant to Mr. Timmings's patient waiting at the kitchen-window to see the completion of Mr. Smith's amour with Mrs. Timmings, we must mention a Benedict, or rather a Jerry Sneak, in the neighbourhood of Barbican, who used to be sent for liquor while a visitor of his wife's was left alone with her. When he returned from these errands, upon being let into the apartment, he would frequently say, "he had been at the door a good while!" and if he was asked by his wife and her gallant why he did not come in? his reply was, "Because I thought you might be busy!"

To a further interrogation, the witness said, that on the night of the 12th of January Mrs. Timmings said to her husband, Pray forgive me this time, and I'll do so no more! and that he never heard her make any other confession whatever. To this he added, that no threats or promises were made use of to extort it from her at [Page] that time. Of her disposition, he added it as his opinion, that she is a woman of such a simple and unsuspicious turn, that any artful person might easily make her declare what had never occurred.

Mary Gibbs, servant to Mr. Daniel Timmings, said, that soon after she came to live there she used to observe a man, a stranger, to her, come backwards and forwards to the house in Union-street, whom her mistress afterwards told her was a Mr. James Barbett, a person who she knew before she was married, and had been her sweetheart. About three weeks after this witness came to live there, she recollects carrying a note to him from Mrs. Timmings to where Mr. Barbett lived, in Stewart-street near Union-street. From that time till the 13th of January last she carried several notes to the same person from her mistress, in consequence of which he came to the house several evenings, but always when Mr. Timmings was absent, and would stay with Mrs. Timmings half or three quarters of an hour at a time: at these times Mr. Barbett and her mistress were generally alone in the parlour on the ground-floor; and she frequently heard him kiss her when he went away. Another time, as they were in the kitchen, she saw him put his arm round her waist and upon her breast, and observed that her handkerchief appeared tumbled; this was at a time when she had left them together near three quarters of an hour. After Mr. Barbett was gone away, her mistress told her, that if ever any thing should happen, and she and Mr. Timmings should part, Mr. Barbett had repeatedly promised to take care of her. Another time, after returning from a walk on the Hackney road, she told this witness that Mr. Barbett and she had been and eaten cheese-cakes together at a house on the way, and that he had assured her he would never forsake her!—Simplicity with a witness!—And, as a further proof of this disposition, according to the testimony of Mary Gibbs, the confidant, Mr. Barbett was once going by the door, and being called into the parlour by Mr. Timmings to examine him about his connection with Mrs Timmings, [Page] Barbett said to her, Did I ever know you? to which she immediately replied, Yes, Sir, you know you did, this very night four weeks, on this very carpet! stamping her foot upon the place at the same time. She then went into the kitchen, where Mrs. Amey Barker and the deponent then were, when addressing herself to them, she said, Though he denies it here, he can't deny it in a court of justice: she then laughed, and the conversation ended for that night. The next night, it seems, Mrs. Barker, and Mrs. Grace Timmings being present, the latter said to Mrs. Timmings, "How can I ask my son to forgive you, when you know you have been that wicked woman before? and proceeded thus: "Nancy, who was it that gave you the bad distemper? was it Mr. Barbett or Mr. Carre?" to which she replied, "It was Mr. Barbett:" and being further asked what she took for it? she answered, Bitter aloes, jalap, and brandy. And further this witness could not depose.

But to another article she answered, that Mr. J. Smith came to their house sometimes twice a day, and that one night going away about 10 o'clock, he kissed Mrs. Timmings twice; they also tickled one another, but on his putting his hand upon her breast, she immediately desired this witness, the maid, to put the wine upon the table, and go upon an errand, which she accordingly did, and left them together till 12 o'clock.

From her testimony it also appeared, that on the 12th of January, when Mrs. Timmings's connection was discovered with Mr. Smith, Mr. Timmings had talked of going to Greenwich, but returned home unexpectedly, after being absent about half an hour. On the maid's opening the door to him, seeing him confused, she asked him what was the matter? in answer, he desired her to go and ask her mistress; she then went into the kitchen and found her mistress with Mrs. Grace Timmings and her fellow-witness, Thomas Mount—her mistress was then crying, and said to her in the presence of all the company, "I have committed adultery with Mr. Smith, and your master has turned him out of doors!"

[Page]Amey Barker, wife of Edward Barker, a master in his Majesty's navy, in Paradise Row, Rotherhithe, deposed, that she well knew James Barbett, by seeing him several times at Mr. Timmings's house in Union-street: and that one night in December 1790, in particular, she saw a light in the window of the back parlour, on which she supposed Mr. Timmings had company that might be strangers to her; on this supposition she went up to the window and as there was a vacancy between the shutters, she could plainly see every part of the room, and, to her great surprize, then saw Ann Timmings laying upon the carpet, her petticoats were drawn quite up, and a man laying upon her; in this situation they continued some minutes during which she is certain she saw their bodies move, and was well convinced they had a mutual knowledge of each other in a carnal way. And in confirmation of this idea, she afterwards observed James Barbett button up his breeches, and Ann Timmings go and sit down in a chair in a very pensive manner; but as she heard somebody coming along the street, she left the place, and returned to her sister's.

It was also her opinion, that Mr. Timmings had contracted the venereal disease from no other person but his wife, and she was fully persuaded that he had never treated her with cruelty or violence.

But still the most surprising part of this evidence was, that Mrs. Amey Barker deposed, that Mrs. Timmings was a woman of such a pliable and unsuspicious disposition, as very easily to be imposed upon; and seemingly as a proof of this asseveration, the next part of the deposition that followed, expressed that James Barbett and Ann Timmings had absolutely committed adultery together, about the 15th of the month of December 1790, upon Mrs. Timmings's parlour-floor in Duke-street, while she, Mrs. Barker, was sitting at the window between seven and eight o'clock in the evening. This transaction, she observed, she never informed Mr. Timmings of, but added, that he spoke of it to her about [Page] the latter end of January last, which was the first time she was apprised of his knowing of it!

Mary Gibbs also deposed, that Mr. and Mrs. Timmings and Mr. Smith all supped together one night; and that afterwards about ten o'clock Mr. Timmings went out and left Smith and his wife together a considerable time; during which, she was witness to their usual intimacies of kissing, and the like.

But this, though the concluding part of the evidence, was not the only appearance of connivance, to say nothing of Mrs. Barker's presence during the parlour-floor scene. A cause of this kind brought on, where enormous damages were also obtained, would in some sense account for the palpable scenes of intricate exposure all the way through: but as this must have terminated, it is very evident there was in reality Much to do about Nothing.

The Judge very properly refused to divorce the parties.

The Trial of James Lavander, at the Sessions-House, Old Bailey, for a Rape upon the Body of Mary Lewis, Spinster, and robbing her of Half a Guinea. —April 1793.

ANN LEWIS sworn. I am fourteen years and three month old.

Court.

Remember you are now going to give an account of a transaction which may effect the life [Page] of the prisoner at the bar; let me caution you to speak the truth and nothing but the truth.

Ann Lewis.

On Friday the 22d of March, I lived a servant at Mr. M'Carty's, the Beehive, in Nightingale-lane; I came there the Wednesday before, and this transaction happened on the Friday morning.

Q. Where did you live before this?—At Mr. Stagoths, the Nag's Head, Postern-row, Little Tower-hill.

Q. Is the Beehive a house of reputation, or is it a house where men and women come?—It is.

Q. Is it a house of good reputation, or is it a house of ill fame, that receives all sorts of men and women?—All sorts of men and women come there.

Q. Do the loose women come there?—Yes.

Q. Who placed you as a servant there?—Mr. Carty's other girl came to my mother, and told her they wanted a maid. I hired myself there; my mother was bad in bed: my mother knew I hired myself there; she lived about four doors off, where she had lived but a fortnight, and I had been in the neighbourhood but two days. On the 20th of March, Wednesday night when I went there the first night, the prisoner was drinking along with Mrs. Carty, and he laid hold of me, and said I was a pretty girl; I told him to keep his hands to himself: I saw him again the next day in the same house, when he laid hold of me, and I again told him to keep his hands to himself; Mrs. Carty laughed at it. The next day he came again, and ordered half a pint of gin to go upon Bunker's-hill; he did not live there, I did not know the house; my [...]istress called me out of the wash-house, and sent [...] it. I followed him with the gin; he went [...]; I went to the door, and I said Here is the gin▪ there was a woman in the room, (I staid at the door, the door was open) and the table before her, and there was a tea-cup on the table; I [Page] gave him the half-pint of gin, and the woman said, Come in here, my dear, there is nobody here will hurt you. I did not go any further than the door all the time. I was waiting for the measure; he took the gin out of my hand at the door. Mrs. Carty told me to bring the measure back again, or take notice where it was going, as it was a strange house. The woman got up and laid hold of me to pull me in, and pushed me in, and said I am going for a farthing-worth of thread, and she would be in in a minute. I laid hold of her to go after her, and she would not let me, she pushed me in and pulled the door after her, and this man came and locked the door, and put the key in his pocket; and he laid hold of me, and there was a bureau bed-stead in the room, and he laid hold of one of my hands, and he was going to pull the bedstead down; with that I screamed out, and he took his hat off and put it on my face; there was something in the hat that catched me, that strangled me, that pressed on my throat! I had a half guinea in my pocket, that my mother gave me in the morning; I told him I would give it him if he would let me go; this was just as he was going to put the hat on my face. No, by Christ! says he, I will have my revenge of you now: he had a great coat on, he wrapped it round me and flung me down on the floor; he put something in my private parts that cut me: I was covered all the while.

Q. Was it far in your private parts?—Yes it was.

Q. When you say it cut you, do you mean a sharp instrument; or that it tore your private parts?— It tore them.

Q. And he lay his body on your's?—Yes, he did.

Q. How long did he lay on you?—I cannot rightly say. I fainted away in the hat; when I recovered, I was laying on the floor; he was on me still; [Page] he get off from me then; and when I got up, I found myself all blood.

Q. On what part of your body?—All my shift and my private parts; I never had been before this out of order

Q. Do you mean you never had those discharges which are common to your sex?—I never had before: he then opened the door, and I was going out; when I recovered myself, he pulled me back again; says he, Where is the half guinea you was going to give a while ago? I told him, if he had let me go, I would have given it him then: he said, I have had your maidenhead, and I will have that too; he then laid hold and pulled my pocket off from my side; from the pull he gave it, I thought my back was broke in two; he took my pocket and all there was in it, a red pocket-book; he kept all that was in the pocket: the half guinea was in the pocket, in the pocket-book: there was also a pocket-book in it, and a pair of scissars, and two-pence halfpenny in copper, three of them crooked, and two farthings; and when I came home to Mrs. Carty's, I could hardly walk. I went backwards and washed myself. I went out with a pint of beer afterwards, and I went to my mother, but she was not at home. I went out about fifteen minutes afterwards, and went again several times that day, and she was not at home; I saw her that night; she was in bed, it was about seven o'clock she looked out of the window, but she could not come down; I told her I wanted to speak to her very particularly. I was in the court, and I called to her; the window opens into the court: she told me to come in the morning, because my father was asleep: the next day I went about eight o'clock in the morning; she was in bed, I went up stairs to her, and I told her what had happened: she asked me if I told my master, I told her I had not, because of my character: [Page] she gave me some cloths; I got well about a week ago.

Q. How long was it kept secret between you and your mother?—About a week and a day over; the Justice sent for the doctor of the London Hospital, and he said I had the bad distemper.

Prisoner.

I hope you will enquire into her character and her mother's.

Mary Barrett sworn. I am the mother of the last witness. I am married to my second husband.

Q. How long had your daughter been at service? —She never was out but a twelvemonth, and she lived with Mr. Stagold, Postern-row, these twelve months; she is fourteen years old last Christmas; she went to Carty's service the Wednesday night before this happened.

Q. How long did you know Carty before your daughter was placed in this service?—I did not know them at all; I came down from living in Whitechapel into this house, where I am at present.

Q. Had you made any enquiry into the character of Carty's house, or did you know what kind of a house it was?—The maid that lives at Carty's, called at my house for pots, and she asked me if my girl wanted a place, my being ill at the same time; I said that I would not wish her to go and live in that house, a public-house, especially an Irish house. The next day she called again, and she said she had spoke to her mistress, and she said she would be very glad if my daughter would come to live with her. Having been very ill, and having five children, the youngest six years old, and this present man not their father, I told the girl to go after it for a little time, till I got better, and I would get her into a private house; she went after it and hired herself, and was to have four guineas a year, and that morning she was hired; I was going to the hospital, and I gave her the half guinea to pay for her shoes soleing and heel-piecing.

[Page]Q. What was your complaint?—It was in my head: I have had several blisters, and I have been in the hospital ten months, and two of my children along with me.

Q. How did you procure this half guinea, as you was a poor woman?—I had been saving it to buy a gown, so put by half a crown a week unknown to my husband. I saved it to buy the children something.

Q. Do you recollect where you was during the Friday?—I was down at an acquaintance of mine, being so very ill, and she kept me to drink a dish of tea, and I could hardly crawl home at six o'clock.

Q. What was your acquaintance's name?—Her name is Mrs. Smith, she lives in Cartwright-street in that neighbourhood; and I came home, and my husband came directly after me, and I laid down directly, being so very ill, and he had a bit of supper and laid down before eight o'clock; we were all in bed before eight o'clock, children and all.

Q. Where does your bedchamber window look to?—It looks into the court; there is but four houses in the court. The girl knocked at the door soon after I was in bed, before eight, between seven and eight; I heard her call, and I went to the window, and she said she wanted to speak to me very particularly; I told her I was very ill, and her father was asleep, and she must come in the morning, and I would hear what she had got to say; she called on me the next morning about eight o'clock, and shewed me herself, and told me what had happened to her the day before, and I asked her if she told her master? she said no, on account of her character; I then told her not to do it; and I asked her what sort of a fellow it was? she said it was an ill looking fellow in sailor's clothes; I said, Don't speak to any body about it till I get better; and I got a little better.

Q. Did you tell your husband of it?—I did not, [Page] upon my word, because he is the second father; my husband is a hard working man.

Q. In what manner does your present husband behave to this child by your first husband?—Very fond of her, but not altogether as if he was her own father.

Q. Why did not you tell him?—I did not tell him indeed. As soon as I could crawl out of doors I went to Mr. Dawson the officer, this was on Saturday, 7, 8, or 9, days after, I told it to Mr. Dawson; he is a peace-officer, his wife was present, he is here now.

Q. Did you on the day on which your daughter called on you, examine the state in which she was? —I did; she was all over bloody, her private parts all torn, and her shift all over bloody.

Prisoner.

I want to know how this poor woman could come by the half guinea to give her daughter.

Court.

I have asked her that.

Prisoner. How often did your daughter go out of nights?—She never went out of nights,

Court to Mrs. Barett. I ask, on your solemn oath, whether this girl behaved with decency and modesty before she went to Carty's house?—She did, upon my oath, the same as my youngest child, if I never enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Q. Had you any reason to suppose she had been debauched before?—No.

Q. Had you ever observed any thing wanton or unseemly in her behaviour?—No, never.

Q. Had the girl any monthly discharges before this time?—Never no more than a sucking baby; she now does not know what to do, she has got the bad distemper so bad.

Thomas Bently sworn—I am a surgeon, I attend at the London Hospital. I was desired to examine the girl on Friday, I believe it was the day she was at the Justice's. I found a considerable degree of [Page] inflammation and discharge of matter from her private parts.

Q. Had she contracted any bad disease?—There was the appearance, but I cannot tell whether the inflammation proceeded from violence or from the veneral disease; there was a deal of redness?

Court to Mrs. Barrett. Has any other medical gentleman attended her since she was examined by Mr. Bently?—No.

Q. Why did not you apply to some medical person? why did not you take her to the hospital?— The Justice promised me that he would give her something to take.

Prisoner.

Before I speak, I wish Mr. Dawson to go out of Court.

We made the agreement to take the half pint of gin to Bunker's-hill, the girl and I; there were two men present; the mistress sent the other maid to go with it, and she said, "O, I will go with it!" accordingly she did: when we came to the house, the door was latched, I took and drawed the spring of the latch, and came in; and as soon as I came in, I gave the woman in the room a glass of gin, and told her I would pay her for the use of the room: she went out and stood on the stairs while the business was done. I took and laid her down on the boards and pulled up her petticoats, and the tail of her smock was as stiff as parchment, several different colours: when she found I was feeling the tail of her smock she whips her hand round, and takes it on one side; I had drank very hard, I could not execute my office properly, I could not get it to stand, so she called me a fumbler several times; at last I coaxed it up, and got it to stand, and got in; when it was over, she takes the quartern measure, and was going, Stop, says I, the gin is not all drank so I gave her some: she went home, and I followed and went into the tap-room. I sat one side of the fire, she would pass up and down to the bar, [Page] and as she passed she would say, O you fumbler! these two men were sitting in the tap-room with me. I called for a quart of beer and quartern of gin, and she drank a glass of it; after I came out of the house, I went down to the water side to work at the rigging along the shore; I earned two shillings that night. I came home, and sitting in the tap-room, and then she wanted me to get clear of the other woman I live with, and live along with her; she even wanted me to go to Ireland with her, and she told me he [...] mother had a bed to let, and she wanted me, to go and live along with her at her mother's. Mr. Dawson put her up to this a fortnight after it happened: Mr. Dawson is her landlord.

Court. Do you choose to ask Mr. Dawson any questions?—No. Mr. Dawson took me out of the room.

Q. What do you impute to Mr. Dawson?—I impute to Mr. Dawson that he has done something improper; he was the officer that took me.

Q. What did Mr. Dawson do that is improper? —He has urged her and her mother up to all this.

Mr. Dawson called in and sworn—I am a constable.

Q. It is supposed that this prosecution has been carried on by your advice?—When the mother and girl applied to me at my own house, I took them immediately to a magistrate. I did advise her to prosecute the man, and I advised her to go to the magistrate.

Court. Did any thing pass to induce you to conceive in any shape that this was an imposition on you?—Nothing in the world.

Q Are you that woman's landlord?—I am not.

Jeremiah Leonard sworn—I was at Mr. Carty's house, I cannot say the day of the month, but it was Friday, the prisoner was there; Cullen and I came into the house, and called for a pot of beer, and sa [...] [Page] down in the box; the prisoner at the bar came and sat along with us for a little while, he then got up again, and this young woman and he began to joke and play together and kiss one another while we were drinking; at last they began to whisper and joke together; what they said I cannot tell, but he came to us and told us he was going to have a stroke at her, and so on, and called for a pint of gin, and she and he went out together, she carried the gin; then we waited till they both came back again; she came in first, and she had a bit of a blush like; he came in afterwards in less than a minute and a half or couple of minutes, I am very particular in what I say, one or another is nothing to me.

Q. Did you observe any thing in her countenance when she came in?—I took a little notice?—however, when he came after, he came to her and kissed her, and called for another quartern of gin, and drank part of it, and she drank with him by the fire-side where her mistress could not see her; he brought the remainder of the gin to us in the box and told us that he had a do with her; we drank the gin, and he gave us the pot of beer besides. I have known this man a matter of four years, he lodged with me.

Q. Being used to frequent Carty's house, did you make no observations concerning his saying, He would have to do with this young girl?—I did not say any thing against it.

Q. How many people were in the tap-room when he and the girl went out first?—John Cullen and I were in one box, there is a table in the box.

Q. Did you both sit on one side of the table?—I cannot say.

Q. Did any body sit at the same table with you? —No.

Q. Which of you came into the tap-room first, you or Cullen?—I came in first, I was in before Cullen.

[Page]Q. Was any body in company with Cullen?—He came alone.

Q. Did you stay in the house all the time this prisoner and girl was about?—Yes; they seemed both very agreeable when they came back, kissing one another and joking, so with that he gave us a pot of beer, and when they returned, they sat by the fire-side, where her mistress could not see.

Q. Did he sit down in any box at all?—No, he came to us and told us that he had stroked her.

Thomas Carey—I have known the prisoner at the bar about five months.

Q. Is he a married man or a single man?—He has got a company keeper.

Prisoner.

I am not married.

Carey.

I never saw nothing by him but civilty: one night I was going in for a pint of beer for my supper, and I met with this young woman going out with a pot of beer from Carty's as I was going in, and she told me to send James Lavander after her; this was four or five days before he was taken up; I told him, says he, Damn her, it will not do.

Court to Mrs. Barrett. I think it was the day after this Friday that your daughter told you: did you suffer your daughter to continue at Carty's afterward?—She did not come away till the Saturday after that. I told her to stop there till I got better, because I had been very ill; this here man that is gone down now, his wife came to my house and I asked her what she wanted? she said she wanted me to make it up with Lavander, and these Irish people would make a subscription, and give me some guineas.

Prisoner.

I could not stay in the tap-room to take a pint of beer but what she would be sending out somebody to me to come and meet her: the most common place we met at was in Brown Bear Alley, and when I would not meet her, she would look sulky, and I often went out and did not do any [Page] execution: this was the way I had this connection with her.

The prisoner called two witnesses to his character.

Leonard to Court.

Ask the girl whether she did not take up with a man before on such a charge, who lived in the Minories.

Ann Lewis.

No, never.

Q. Nor your mother.

Guilty, Death! Aged 28. Tried by the first Middlesex Jury, before Lord Kenyon.

The extraordinary Trial between Lady Elizabeth Weld and her husband, Edward Weld, Esq. for Impotency. In the Arches Court of Canterbury, London; 1732.

THE counsel for the prosecution stated, that Edward Weld Esq. married the Honourable Catharine-Elizabeth, daughter of Lord Aston, June 22, 1727, he being aged 22, and the lady 19. That after his marriage he cohabited with his wife at his seat at Lulworth Castle, in Dorsetshire, till June, 1728, excepting one month, wherein, being indisposed, she came to London for advice, from whence she went to the seat of her father, at Standon, in Hertfordshire, where her husband followed her in the October following, and cohabited with her about a month, and then returned to Lulworth, where he continued till February 1728-9, and came back to his wife at her father's seat, and staid with her about three [Page] weeks; he then left her there a second time, and went home to Lulworth Castle, and continued there till the end of May following, and then returned to her again for one week; after which they both came to London, and cohabited as man and wife about six weeks. During all those times of cohabitation, she said, he never, (by reason of impotency) consummated his marriage, though he acknowledged her to be able, apt, and fit for the procreation of children: his wife, therefore, would no longer cohabit with him, though urged by him to it, by his telling her that "Many married people had lived together like brother and sister:"—To which she replied, "My dear, we ought not to live together after this manner!"

All our fair readers will agree with Mrs. Weld, that a married state ought to be quite another manner of life from that of brother and sister; and the lady must be esteemed blameless in commencing this suit, as she was herself, and her husband likewise, a Roman Catholic; especially, as by their religion, matrimony is looked upon to be a sacrament—And it is further understood by those of that persuasion, that this sacrament is violated by such as continue in the married state while they are conscious to themselves that they cannot answer the holy ends of its institution.

The counsel then produced Lord Aston, who deposed, that Mr. Weld and Mr. Colclough being at his house in Hertfordshire, in May 1728; he desired Mr. Colclough to speak to Mr. Weld about his Not having consummated the marriage with his daughter. Mr. Colclough declared he had spoke to him, and he confessed he had Not consummated his marriage with the said Mrs. Weld, and that he had some outward defect that was painful to him, and hindered him from consummating his marriage. Mr. Colclough then recommended one Mr. Williams to Mr. Weld, who had cured him of a similar disorder; and after this it seems, Mr. Weld told the witness at the lady Howard's, that Mr. Williams had cured him, though that some soreness remained, but he did not doubt but he should be well in a little time.

[Page]The Duke of Norfolk deposed, that in June 1728, when he talked to Mr. Weld about the affair, he acknowledged he had not consummated his marriage with the Honourable Miss. Aston, but had advised with physicians and hoped in a little time he should be able to consummate it.

The substance of the certificate of three midwives was then produced; it was as follows:—

§

That they are well skilled in the art and practice of midwifery, and have very carefully and diligently inspected the private parts of the body of the Hon. Catharine Elizabeth Weld, which are naturally designed for carnal copulation; and that to the best of their skill and knowledge she is a Virgin, and never had carnal copulation with any man whatsoever.

ELIZABETH FISHER,

REBECCA MANN,

MARY BAKER.

The following Depositions were made in behalf of the Defendant—

Edward Weld, Esq. deposed, that he was of the age of 26, and has all the parts of his body which constitute a man perfect and entire, more particularly those parts which nature formed for the propagation of his species and the act of carnal copulation, in full and just proportion, and was and is capable of carnally knowing Catharine Elizabeth Weld, his wife, or any other woman. And that during the time he cohabited with his wife, his privy-member was often turgid, dilated, and erected, as was necessary to perform the act of carnal-copulation; and that he did at such times consumate his marriage by carnally lying with and knowing his wife.

Margaret Weld, the mother of Mrs. Weld, deposed, that within the space of a twelvemonth, or thereabouts, after the solemnization of the marriage between her son and the Hon. Miss Aston, that her daughter-in-law being out of order, as breeding women usually are, informed the witness that she did not know for certain that she was not a breeding!

[Page]Mr. Williams, an eminent surgeon, deposed, that Mr. Weld came to him in June 1728, and that upon examining his penis, he found the frenum too straight, which he set at liberty by cliping it with a pair of scissars; and on examining that part again the next day, found nothing amiss in the organs of generation.

The following was then read, being the substance of the certificate of five surgeons that had examined the Defendant:

§

That they had carefully inspected the parts of Edward Weld, Esq. designed for propagation, and did find them fully and justly proportioned, and fitly formed for the act of carnal copulation, and that it did evidently appear to them that he was capable of performing every thing requisite to the propagation of his species.

A. DICKENS, Serjt. Surgeon.

C. AMYAND,

W. CHESSELDEN,

A. SMALL,

W. GREEN.

The Court having heard the above evidence, decreed that Mrs.-Weld should be enjoined to perpetual silence on these premises, and that she should go and cohabit with her husband at bed and board at Lulworth Castle, or any other place of his abode.

After this sentence, there was an appeal to the King in his Court of Delegates. The cause was re-heard at Serjeant's Inn, and the foregoing sentence was confirmed!

To which we may very safely venture to add, without fear of being guilty of a libel, that to impose a sentence of perpetual silence upon a woman, for its cruelty and injustice never before had any parrallel in the annals or law books of any christian country whatever!

Notes

*

This case is illustrated by a number of parallel cases, ancient and modern, confirmed by Ecclesiastical Decrees, the Judgment of the Canonists, Civilians, and Common Lawyers; and is translated purposely for this work, from the French original; together with an English version of all the particular passages, that have hitherto appeared in Latin only.

↵

CONTENTS.

[Page]

ALTHAM, Rev. James, Trial of, Page 25

ARABIN, Mrs. Henrietta, Trial of, Page 76

Bobtail Sermon, what, Page 37

Bed cloaths scene, Page 104

BURY John Esq. divorced for want of his Testicles, Page 115

—Has a child by his second wife, Page 117

Bed Curtains, shaking of, Page 156-161

Barbarity of a Ravisher, Page 167

Clipping Scene, Page 95

CURTIS, John, a Publican, Trial of, Page 107

—Cross examination shrewd, Page 111-112

Coach, remarkable shaking of a, Page 120

C—dpiece tied up, what, Page 129

Copulation and Congress, what, Page 140

Confession extraordinary, Page 175-176-177

Difference between able Women's men and the Impotent, Page 142

DAVIDSON, George, Trial of, at New-Castle, Page 164

ERRINGTON, Mrs. her remarkable Trial, Page 86

Erection, prompt no token of Virility, Page 137

FOLEY, Lady Ann, Trial of, Page 118

Frigidity, what, Page 127

Fury of an Impotent Penis how wasted, Page 142

Fumbler curious confession of one, Page 186

Game, seeing of, Page 77

Grass Plat scene, Page 121

Grotto scene, Page 123

GESVRES, Marquis de, his celebrated case and Trial, Page 126

Groping and Fondling, Page 132

HOOK, Major, Trial of, Page 43

[Page]Indictment Remarkable Page 24

Imbecility and weakness, remarkable case of, Page 127

—Means used to prevent the knowledge of, Page 131-132

Impotency, opinion of the French Lawyers upon it, Page 141

—Singular example of, Page 142-143-144

—Remarkable confession of James Lavander, Tried for a Rape Page 186

Key-hole scene, Page 83

Kissing scene, Page 162

Letters, Amorous, Page 30

LIEGE, Mrs. Trial of, Page 72

LEVERING, Elizabeth Trial of, Page 103

LAVANDER, James, Trial of, Page 179

Nature, instinct of, superior to every religious obligation, Page 42

NEWBERRY, Robert, Trial of, for a Rape, Page 61

Oak Tree, scene at an, Page 122

Private parts of a woman sewed up, Page 24

—Book exhibiting those of both sexes, Page 92

—Simon Orchard pulled out of bed by his, Page 94

—Hair cut of from Mrs. Errington's, Page 95

—Formula, of an examination of, Page 136-137

—Ill made Page 138

RIDLEY, Sir Mathew White, Trial of, Page 65

Rushing scene, Page 172

Scenes salacious, Page 15-16-17-106

SUTTON Mr. Page 80

Shrubbery, Page 77-85

Scheme, admirable one, Page 124

Strangulation, Page 96-97

TIMMINGS, Mrs. Ann, Trial of, Page 174

[Page]Virility, how to exhibit Tokens of it in the best manner, Page 139

—Pricking the member to discover it, Page 140

Visitation, what, Page ib.

WORSLEY, Lady, Trial of, Page 7

Women uncommon prowess in pleasing, Page 29-41

WILMOT, Mrs. Fanny, Trial of, Page 145

Information about this book

Title statement

The Cuckold's chronicle: being select trials for adultry [sic], incest, imbecility, ravishment, &c. : Volume I.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2009-04.

ID [DLPS]

N25328

ID [TCP]

N25328

ID [STC]

Evans 33585

ID [NOTIS]

APW8095

ID [IMAGE-SET]

33585

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99014265

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 33585.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N25328)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 33585)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 33585)

Source

— The Cuckold's chronicle: being select trials for adultry [sic], incest, imbecility, ravishment, &c. : Volume I.,

Extent

v, [2], 8-193, [3] p., [2] leaves of plates : ill. ; 21 cm.

Printed for those who choose to purchase.,. Boston: :: 1798[.]. (Apparently no more published.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.