Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	duke_n	earl_n	norfolk_n	4,453	5	11.9361	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B10237	A Vindication of Her Grace, Mary Dutchess of Norfolk. Being a true account of the proceedings before the House of Lords, (from Jan. 7th. 1691. to Febr. 17th. following) upon His Grace the Duke of Norfolk's bill, entituled, An act to dissolve the marriage, &c. occasioned, by several libellous pamphlets lately published, and dispersed, under the same pretence and title. / [Publis]hed by the direction of Her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk.	Norfolk, Mary Howard, Duchess of, 1659?-1705.; Norfolk, Henry Howard, Duke of, 1655-1701.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Lords.	1693 (1693)	Wing V478; ESTC R186015	45,346	28

to Bowtell to say no more at present he stands upon the Journal of the Hous● of Commons to have given an untrue Information against Captain Motley and upon it was Or dered to be taken into Custody who afterwards petition'd to be discharg'd and being brought t● the Bar and owni●g his Fault had a Reprimand by the Speaker and at length discharged paying his Fees Now upon the Reputation of this Verdict though the Dutchess was no Party nor her Witnesses examined as aforesaid yet the Duke was pleased to offer a new Bill to the Lords the 22th of Decemb●● last for Dissolving the Marriage c. But the Dehate for Receiving or not Receiving it u● Adjourn'd to the 29th following and from thence to the 31th and from thence to the second January when after a long and serious Debate The Bill was again Rejected So that now it 〈◊〉 not be thought Impertinent for this true Account to appear to the World A Vindication of her Grace MARY Dutchess of NORFOLK c. THE 7th of January the said Bill was lodg'd in the House of Lords The 8th of January the Dutchess of Norfolk having received Intimation that the Duke of Norfolk was this Day offering a Bill to the House of Lords for Dissolving the Marriage between them and that the same was under De●at● bef●●● their Lordships She was advised to present the following Petition To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled The Humble Petition of Mary Dutchess of Norfolk Sheweth THat your Petitioner being informed that the Duke of Norfolk is at this time offering a Bill to your Lordships for Dissolving the Marriage between him and your Petitioner Your Petitioner Humbly prays she may be heard by Your Lordships before such Bill be received And Your Petitioner will ever pray c. M. Norfolk Upon which Petition their Lordships were pleased to make the following Order viz. Die Vineris 8 Januarii 1691. A Bill having been offered to this House on the behalf of the Duke of Norfolk to dissolve the Marriage between the said Duke and his Dutchess It was ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled that Her Grace shall have notice thereof and may be heard by her Counsel at the Bar of this House on Tuesday next at 12 of the Clock what she hath to object against the receiving the said Bill at which time the said Duke may also be heard by his Counsel for the said Bill if he shall think fit Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parlimentor ' Die Martis 12 Januarii 1691. AFter hearing Counsel this day at the Bar what they could object for her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk against the receiving of a Bill offered by his Grace the Duke of Norfolk to dissolve the Marriage between him and his Dutchess As also the Counsel of his Grace the Duke of Norfolk for receiving the said Bill And after Consideration of what was offered by Counsel on either side and a long Debate thereupon This Question was put Whether the Duke of Norfolk's Bill should be received It was Resolved in the Affirmative Which Bill is as followeth An Act to Dissolve the Marriage of Henry Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal of England with the Lady Mary Mordant and to enable the said Duke to Marry again FOrasmuch as Henry Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England having been Married to the Lady Mary Mordant hath made full proof that his said Wife is guilty of and hath committed Adultery on her part And forasmuch as the said Henry Duke of Norfolk hath no Issue nor can have any probable expectation of Posterity to succeed him in his Honours Dignities and Estate unless the said Marriage be declared void by Authority of Parliament and the said Duke be enabled to Marry any other Woman The King and Queens Most Excellent Majesties upon the Humble Petition of the said Henry Duke of Norfolk having taken the Premises into their Royal Consideration for divers weighty Reasons are pleased that it be Enacted And be it Enacted by the King and Queens Most Excellent Majesties and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same That the said Marriage between the said Henry Duke of Norfolk and the said Lady Mary his Wife shall from henceforth be null and void and is by Authority of this present Parliament Declared Adjudged and Enacted to be null and void to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever And that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Henry Duke of Norfolk at any time or times hereafter to Contract Matrimony and to Marry as well in the Life-time of the said Lady Mary as if she were naturally dead with any other Woman or Women with whom he might lawfully Marry in case the said Lady Mary was not living And that such Matrimony when had and celebrated shall be a good just and lawful Marriage and so shall be adjudged deemed and taken to all Intents Constructions and Purposes And that all and every Children and Child born in such Matrimony shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be born in lawful Wedlock and to be Legitimate and Inheritable and shall Inherit the said Dukedom of Norfolk Office of Earl Marshal of England and all other Earldoms Dignities Baronies Honours and Titles of Honour Lands Tenements and other Hereditaments from and by their Fathers Mothers and other Ancestors in like manner and form as any other Child or Children born in lawful Matrimony shall or may inherit or be inheritable according to the Course of Inheritances used in this Realm And to have and enjoy all Privileges Preheminencies Benefits Advantages Claims and Demands as any other Child or Children born in lawful Wedlock may have or claim by the Laws or Customs of this Kingdom And be it farther Enacted That the said Henry Duke of Norfolk shall he Intituled to be Tenant by Courtesie of the Lands and Inheritance of such Wife whom he shall hereafter marry And such Wife as he shall so marry shall be Intitled to a Dower of the Lands and Tenements of the said Henry Duke of Norfolk and of such Estate whereof she shall be Dowable as any other Husband or Wife may or might claim have or enjoy And the Child or Children born in such Marriage shall and may derive and make Title by Descent or otherwise to and from any their Ancestors as any other Child or Children may do any Law Statute Restraint Prohibition Ordinance Canon Constitution Prescription or Custom had made exercised or used to the contrary of the Premisses or any of them in any wise notwithstanding And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That the said Lady Mary shall be and is hereby barred and excluded of and from all Dower and Thirds and of and from all Right and Title of Dower and Thirds unto or out of any the Honours Mannors Lands or

Hereditaments of the said Duke And that all Conveyances Jointures Settlements Limitations and Creations of Uses and Trusts of into or out of any Honours Mannors Lands or Hereditaments at any time heretofore made by the said Duke or any of his said Ancestors or Trustees unto or upon or for the use or benefit of the said Lady Mary or any the Issue of her Body or for raising discharging or counter-securing any the Mannors Lands or Hereditaments of the said Lady Mary or any of her Ancestors shall be from henceforth utterly void and of none effect And all and every the said Honours Mannors Lands or Hereditaments of the said Duke or any of his Ancestors or Trustees shall from henceforth remain and be to and for the use and benefit of the said Duke and such other Person or Persons and for such Estates and Interests and in such manner and form as if the said Lady Mary was now naturally dead without any Issue of her Body And also That all Limitations and Creations of any Use Estate Power or Trust made by any of the Ancestors of the said Lady Mary unto or for the use or benefit of the said Duke his Heirs or Assigns out of any the Mannors Lands or Hereditaments of any of the Ancestors of the said Lady Mary shall be from henceforth void and of none effect 13 Januarii 1691. THE Duke of Norfolk's Bill aforesaid having been yesterday received and read The Dutchess of Norfolk presented the following Petition to Their Lordships this Day To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled The Humble Petition of Mary Dutchess of Norfolk Sheweth THat your Petitioner being Married to the Duke of Norfolk fourteen Years and upwards never had or received from her Husband any Intimation of a Misdemeanor on her part against him which joined to her Innocency of the Crime mentioned in the Bill makes this Proceeding before your Lordships very surprizing to her Her Person Estate and Honour which is more dear to her than her Life being now brought in question Your Petitioner humbly prays she may have a Copy of the particular Charge against her with the Names of the Witnesses and reasonable time allowed her to answer the same before any farther Proceedings upon the Bill Mary Norfolk Upon which Petition the following Order was made Die Mercurii 13 Januarii 1691. UPon reading the Petition of Mary Dutchess of Norfolk It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That Sir Richard Reynes Sir Charles Hedges and Dr. Oxenden do attend this House to Morrow at ten of the Clock in the Forenoon Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' 14 Januarii 1691. After having heard the Civil Lawyers the following Order was made Die Jovis 14 Januarii 1691. AFter hearing this day the Civil Lawyers pursuant to the Order Yesterday upon reading the Dutchess of Norfolk's Petition It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That his Grace the Duke of Norfolk shall being in the Charge against his Dutchess and particularly to the Person Time and Place by Saturday next at twelve of the Clock Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' 16 Januarii 1691. This Day the Duke of Norfolk brought in the following Charge against his Dutchess The Charge which Henry Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal of England doth exhibit against his Wife Mary Dutchess of Norfolk before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled pursuant to their Lordships Order of the 14th of January 1691. is for the Crime of Adultery THE Person charg'd to commit the said Crime with the said Dutchess is John Jermaine of the Parish of S. Margaret's in the Liberty of Westminster The Times when the said Crime was committed were between the Months of June and December 1685. and several times since The Places where the said Crime was committed are at Whitehall Windsor and within the Parishes of S. Margaret's Westminster S. Martin's in the Fields S. James's S. Ann's within the Liberty of Westminster And in the Parish of Lambeth in the County of Surrey Norfolk and Marshal Upon which the following Order was made Die Sabbati 16 Januarii 1691. UPon reading this Day the Charge which Henry Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal of England hath exhibited against his Wife Mary Dutchess of Norfolk for the Crime of Adultery It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk do attend this House on Monday next or some Person on her behalf then to receive a Copy of the Charge against her Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' 19 Januarii 1691. The Answer of Mary Dutchess of Norfolk to the Charge exhibited against her by the Duke of Norfolk before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled THis Respondent is advised that the Charge exhibited by the Duke of Norfolk into this Honourable House against her as to Time and Place is too general and is not pursuant nor doth answer the end of your Lordships Order of the 14th instant made upon the humble Petition of this Respondent Wherefore she doth humbly hope and pray your Lordships will not oblige her to make any further Answer till the Duke shall bring in a particular and certain Charge as to Time and Place against her And this Respondent doth the rather humbly insist That your Lordships would please to require the Duke to be particular and certain in these material Circumstances of his Charge against her for that it appears by his own shewing therein that the supposed Crimes objected to her and alledged to be committed were above six Years before the Bill was offered to this Honourable House during most of which time at the advice and by the approbation of the Duke was and continued beyond the Seas to ease him in his Charge and Part He frequently declaring that when he should be more easie in his Fortune they should live together M. Norfolk Upon which Answer the following Order was made And the Duke's Second Charge delivered in the same Day Die Martis 19 Januarii 1691. IT is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk shall have a Copy of the Duke's Charge delivered this day against her And that she or Sir Thomas Pinfold do attend this House to Morrow at 11 of the Clock in the Forenoon to answer to the said Charge Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' Which Copy is as followeth The Charge which Henry Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal of England doth exhibit against his Wife Mary Dutchess of Norfolk before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled pursuant to Their Lordships Order of the 14th of January 1691 is for the Crime of Adultery THE Person charged to commit the said Crime with the said Dutchess is one John Jermaine of the Parish of St. Margaret's Westminster The Times and Places when the said Crime was committed were at Whitehall in the

was made Die Lunae 1. Februarii 1691. IT is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That on Wednesday next at Eleven of the ●ock in the Forenoon the House shall proceed in hearing the Dutchess of Norfolk's Evidence and that all the Witnesses that have been sworn on either Side do then attend the House Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' Which they did and the following Order was made Die Mercurii 3 Februarii 1691. AFter having this Day heard several Witnesses on behalf of her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk as also for his Grace the Duke of Norfolk It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk's Council shall proceed in her Grace's Defence on Saturday next at Twelve of the Clock Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' They proceeded accordingly and the following Order was made Die Sabbati 6 Februarii 1691. AFter having this Day heard several Witnesses on the behalf of the Dutchess of Norfolk It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That the Council for his Grace the Duke of Norfolk shall proceed to examine Witnesses on Tuesday next at Twelve of the Clock Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' Which accordingly they did and the following Order was made Die Martis 9 Februarii 1691. AFter hearing some Witnesses this Day on the behalf of his Grace the Duke of Norfolk It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That the Council for his Grace the Duke of Norfolk as also the Council for her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk shall be heard on Thursday next at Twelve of the Clock to sum up the Evidence on either side and that Mrs. Sawbridge and Mrs. Stourton do then attend to be heard Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' The Council attended accordingly but not heard and their Lordships were pleased to make the following Order Die Jovis 11 Februarii 1691. IT is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parl●●ment assembled That the Council for his Grace the Duke of Norfolk as also the Council for her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk shall be heard to Morrow at One of the Clock in the Afternoon to sum up the Evidence on either side and that Mrs. Sawbridge and Mrs. Stourton do then attend to be heard Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' After Evidence summed up this following Order was made Die Veneris 12 Februarii 1691. AFter hearing this Day the Counsel and a Civilian for his Grace the Duke of Norfolk and also Counsel and a Civil Lawyer for her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk who summed up the Evidence for their Graces severally It is Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled That on Tuesday next at Twelve of the Clock this House shall proceed on the debate of this Business and that then no other Business whatsoever shall intervene And that all the Lords in and about the Town shall be summonned then to attend and that the Officers that summon them give the House an account of what Lords they summon Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' The Matter was accordingly entred upon and after some previous Debates by their Lordships they were pleased to apjourn till the next Day when they proceeded viz. Die Mercurii 17 Februarii 1691. THe Depositions taken at several Times before on the behalf of his Grace the Duke of Norfolk as also those taken on the behalf of her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk were read at the Table by the Clerk After long Debate thereon The Question was put Whether the Bill Entituled An Act to Dissolve the Marriage of Henry Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal of England with the Lady Mary Mordant and to enable the said Duke to Marry again Shall be Read a Second Time It was Resolved in the Negative Matth. Johnson Cler ' Parliamentor ' The Proceedings of the LORDS upon the Evidence Rowland Owen Examined on the behalf of the Duke of Norfolk against the Dutchess of Norfolk ROwland Owen saith that Mr. Keyner about Six Years since being the Duke of Norfolk's Butler ordered him to carry the things out the Lodgings being open he saw Mr. Germaine in Bed with the Dutchess of Norfolk the Dutchess leap'd out of the Bed and put on a Morning Gown and Germaine hid himself in Bed this was between five and six a Clock in the Evening about a Fortnight before Bartholomew Day he did not tell the Duke he is sure it was Germaine he saw him often twice or thrice a day the outward door of the Lodgnigs was shut but he opened it with a Key he had Rowland Owen examined a second time saith he never ha● the Key of the Lodgings but once that Mr. Keymer g●v● him the Key when he went as as he told him to th● Blew Posts in the Haymarket to bespeak the Dutchess's Supper he saith he saw not Francis Knight then in the Lodgings nor any other Woman but the Dutchess of Norfolk he saith h●●● hath seen Keymer often open the outward Door of the Lodgings when he hath been by without calling Francis Knight 〈◊〉 he saith that he himself opened the first Door with the Key the Second Door was not close shut and the third Door was open he saith two of the Doors are streight forward and the third turns a little on the right Hand he saith he was gon● in at the third Door when the Dutchess leapt out of Bed Witnesses produced to the Credit of Rowland Owen EDward Silvester saith he hath known Rowland Owen three or four Years and he hath trusted him in Business and he hath ever been very faithful he hath trusted him in Stores to the King and he might have imbezell'd but ever found him honest and he hath had three or four Thousand Pounds worth of Goods that he might have imbezell'd and hath had opportunities of doing ill things but never did he hath trusted him with every thing he hath he hath had more than 20 l. imbezell'd by others but he never imbezell'd a half penny H● knows not well who recommended him to him he hath a●● hundred Men now and he knows not that three of them wer● recommended He hath trusted him with Goods an hundre● and an hunded times that he might have imbezell'd and othe● that he hath so trusted have cozened him and he hath l●● 20 l. in a Months time by them He works at our wo●● and that better than twenty that he hath had and he 's 〈◊〉 Porter he saith he knows not Mr. Negus nor was not 〈◊〉 quainted with him till Yesterday John Jones saith he hath known Rowland Owen above th● Years and that he 's a very honest Man and that he ever for him faithful that he lodged in his House and that he m●●● have done him injuries if he would and he hath been 〈◊〉 ployed else where and he never heard ill of him he beli●● he 's a Man of a

A VINDICATION Of her GRACE Mary Dutchess of Norfolk Being a true Account of the PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE House of Lords From Jan. 7 th 1691. to Febr. 17 th following Upon his GRACE The DUKE of Norfolk's BILL ENTITULED An Act to Dissolve the MARRIAGE c. OCCASIONED By several Libellous PAMPHLETS lately Published and Dispersed under the same Pretence and Title Published by the Direction of her Grace the Dutchess of Norfolk The Second EDITION Corrected LONDON 〈…〉 The PREFACE THere have been lately printed and made publick Two scandalous Pamphlets the one under the Title of The Proceedings before the House of Lords between the Duke and Dutchess of Norfolk The other is called The farther Depositions and Proceedings in the House of Lords in the Affair of the Duke and Dutchess of Norfolk with the Bill of Divorce Now these Two Papers are so far from a faithful Narrative of the said Proceedings that what with confounding the Order of the Transaction and disguising the Truth of Things by industrious Omissious gross Imperfections and wilful Mistakes This pretended Account has made it absolutely necessary even for the sake of common Justice to set the World right in the Story To which end the entire Series of this Affair is here set forth from Point to Point just as it passed before their Lordships and stands upon their Journal with such Notes upon the Evidence on both sides as the Nature of the Case requires and as the reason of it will fairly bear The Reader will observe here upon this Relation that the two Principal Witnesses produced against the Dutchess of Norfolk are Row Owen and Marg. Elwood for they Swear positively to the stress of the Question whereas all the rest is but Circumstantial and made use of only for Aggravation Prejudice and Clamour So that upon invalidating their Testimony the main Cause falls effectually to the Ground saving only the unavoidable Misfortune of many an Innocent Person that suffers under the Impossibility of proving a Negative there being no Pence against uncharitable Presumptions Now taking this for granted as it is not to be demed the Reader is only desired to lay seriously to Hear the Improbability of the Fact that is sworn against the Dutchess in some Cases and the utter Impos●bility of it to be true in others The Tampering and Practice that has been used the Inconsistency of the Witnesses with themselves their Character and Credit c. one of them Ann Burton being trapt in a false Oath out of her own Mouth upon the very place of Examination The Reader will also take notice that of 26 Witnesses produced in Favour of the Duke one half of them are Principals and the other only Seconds Peter Scriber Andrew Anderson Robert Hemming John Reynolds and Margaret Foster are Five of the former Number but speaking little or nothing to the Merits of the Question it was not thought worth the while to offer Exceptions to their Testimony though to the other Eight that is to say Owen Elwood Hudson Burton Varelst Tho. Foster Lloyd and Wadsworth there were several Witnesses on the behalf of the Dutchess to invalidate their Credit viz. Two to the First Six to the Second Two to the Third Four to the Fourth One to the Fifth Two to the Sixth Two to the Seventh and Six to the last It is very remarkable also after all these Exceptions to every one of the Duke 's principal Witnesses that the Testimony of the Dutchesses Witnesses passed current without any contradiction saving only that Henry Dagley and John Hoskins were examined against the Credit of John Hall in the Case of Jane Wadsworth leaving four Witnesses more in the same Case untouch'd and Edith Sawbridge against the Testimony of Mrs. Judith Stourton which Depositions the Reader will find to be of little or no moment as to the matter in hand This puts it past Dispute that they had nothing more to say against the Witnesses for the Dutchess but stopt at these Three for want of farther Pretence The Result in short is this That all the material Witnesses to the Charge are Impeached and the Evidence on the other side stands Vntainted To say nothing of the unanswerable Reasons that prevailed with the Lords finally to Reject the Bill especially considering the Solemnity of the Proceedings For 〈◊〉 Cause was kept up on from the 7th of January to the 17th of February following All the Lords 〈◊〉 and about the Town being summon'd by an Order of the House bearing date Die Veneris Feb. 1● 1691. to attend at Twelve of the Clock on the Tuesday following And the Officers that summone●● them to give an Account of what Lords they summoned pursuant to which Order their Lordships met according to the Appointment and after some previous Debates Adjourned till the next Day when the Depositions on both sides were read at the Table by the Clerk as will be seen more at large upon the following Journal And after a long and solemn Debate The Question being put Whether the Bill intituled An Act to Dissolve the Marriage of Henry Duke of Norfolk Ear Marshal of England with the Lady Mary Mordant and to enable the said Duke to Marry again shall be read a second time It was resolved in the Negative ADVERTISEMENT THis Account of the Proceedings before the House of Lords by the Duke of Norfolk against the Dutchess with her Defence was design'd to have been Published soon after the Determination of the Cause in February 1691. But that there might be no Offence given to the Duke It was thought advisable to suspend it But since that albeit the Dutchess did take such care not to give the Duke any manner o● Offence yet he thought fit to bring his Action against Mr. Jermaine in hopes of a new Foundation to prosecute the Dutchess and did obtain a Verdict in the Court of King's Bench in November last and a 100 Marks Damages In which Action the Dutchess was no Party nor could any Defence be made for her there Now in this Cause the Witnesses produced by the Duke were the same that were examined before the Lords when the Bill was first Rejected and the Dutchess Acquitted and particularly Owen Elwood Burton and Hudson who spake to Matters in 1685. But the most Material of the Dutchesses Witnesses who could have confronted them were not produced at the Tryal because those Witnesses of the Duke did speak of things not in Issue and therefore those of the Dutchesses ●ere thought unnecessary in that Cause speaking to things out of that time to which the Duke ●ad confin'd himself by his own Declaration And though there were two or three new Witnesse●●roduc'd by the Duke at the Tryal yet nothing of Fact pretended to be was proved And though it was impossible to speak any thing to the Discredit of those Witnesses then yet by Enquiry since they are found to be of no better Reputation than the first as in due time may appear And particularly as

and a Maid to look to them and no visible means of doing all this But in fine the Change was not wrought by Miracle and leans much toward the D●scourse before-mentioned that Ann and Mary Ross had with Ellwood's Husband The Question at last is briefly this Whether is to be believed a Woman under so many scandalous Circumstances and one that swears for her self too or six Witnesses against her of so unquestionable Probity that not so much as one of them could be impeached by the other Party To pass now to the palpable unlikelyhood of the Story barely in it self Ellwood was carrying Company she says to see the Lodgings at Windsor and opening the Door she saw and heard as in her Deposition How came it now that none of this Company should be produc'd or so much as nam'd to second Ellwood For 't is to be presum'd they must needs hear and see what pass'd upon this Adventure as much as she her self did or if she had but nam'd the Woman who she says told her my Lady was not there it might have serv'd as a Collateral Inducement for the giving of some sort of Credit to it But in a Matter of this Importance to have so many Witnesses within reach of being found out and none to appear looks very ill on their part that were so much concern'd to produce them And so for Germain's threatning her and the Dutchess's bidding him kick her down no People in their right Wits but would have try'd to stop her Mouth with fair Words and a good Bribe in such a Case as this rather than provoke her by Menaces and ill Language to run open Mouth to the Duke with the Story in Revenge when she had the Dutchess's Honour and Estate so absolutely at her Mercy As to the business of Mr. Germain's Handkerchief and Ruffles and his being let out of the Closet the Contrivance is all of the same piece with the rest for why were not the Persons nam'd in her Deposition produc'd to prove the Particulars therein mention'd as well as Ellwood's It is most certain that the Prosecutors could easily have done it and that it was properly their Business and Interest so to do for what signifies Ellwood's single Testimony under her Circumstances without Corroborating Proofs She tells us a Tale of Company to see the Lodgings a Woman that told her so and so and another Woman and a Gentleman that said and did this and that and yet not one Creature at last to second her Deposition nor any pretence of an Exception to the Evidence on the other side Thomas Hudson Examined on behalf of the Duke of Norfolk against the Dutchess THomas Hudson saith That the Duke of Norfolk being at Portsmouth he was Butler at Windsor when Germaine and the Dutchess and Cornwall went to play Germaine sent his Footman for clean Linnen which he brought the next Morning Mrs. Gwin said to the Dutchess The Dog would have lain with me but she would not lay the Dog where the Deer laid for she knew the Lady Dutchess would accept of him after that he saw a Shirt and Wastcoat in the Closet which my Lady's Woman and Ann Burton took away My Lord being absent we murmured among our selves that my Lord was wrong'd I told my Lord Whereupon my Master Cragg had me to my Lord Peterborough's Lodging and threaten'd me that he would prefer me to his Brother Richards who turn'd me off in Germany This was as he thinks in December or September 1685. Mrs. Gwin spoke this in the Green Room and he was in a Closet hard by and the Door open and so heard it Witness sworn on the behalf of the Dutchess for invalidating the Testimony of Thomas Hudson WIlliam Purchase saith That he knows Thomas Hudson who he says was never Butler to the Duke of Norfolk either at Windsor or any other place He the 〈◊〉 was Under-Butler himself Keymer was Butler 〈◊〉 and the Witness was Under Butler He saith Hudson 〈◊〉 on the Gentleman of the Horse and the Steward he 〈◊〉 the Duke's Servant nor waited at the Table that he know 〈◊〉 he was never suffer'd to come into the Room when the 〈◊〉 or Dutchess was at Play He saith He the Witness was at Windsor at the time when the Duke of Norfolk was at Po●●●mouth but he was sent to Drayton in Northamptonshire 〈◊〉 was then the Duke's Servant as Under-Butler he knows 〈◊〉 where Keymer was he saith he is now Servant to the Lord ●●terborough Col. Jacob Richards saith That he knows Thomas Hudso● he was his Servant he was recommended to him by Mr. Crag● he was his Footman he believes he was in his Service fo●● Months he parted with him because he found him a tricki●● Fellow He told him his Brother Cragg was to be kill'd 〈◊〉 one Curry and another Irishman He the Witness writ to 〈◊〉 Brother Cragg and he advis'd the Witness to part with hi● for he did not think him fit to be trusted in his Travels whe● upon he paid him his Wages and gave him Money to bear 〈◊〉 Charges to England and sent a Trunk by him One Mr. N●gus travell'd with the Witness and his Father who then a●● now lives with the Duke of Norfolk writ to us That he d●● not think it fit for us to keep such a Servant for he was a dang●rous Fellow or to that effect Hudson never own'd any thi●● of the Adultery to the Witness but positively declar'd to hi●● he knew nothing of it This was in January 1685. 〈◊〉 saith that Cragg writ him Word That Hudson must needs 〈◊〉 a Tricking Knave He negligently told the Witness this of 〈◊〉 Adultery Curiosity made him ask it of him for he had 〈◊〉 with the Duke and Dutchess and it was natural for him 〈◊〉 Witness to ask such a Question He saith he believes Hu●●●● saw some of his Letters He saith there were Printed Pa●●●● in the Trunk he sent but nothing of any considerable va●●● He saith Hudson never cheated him of any thing that he k●●●● of he hath trusted him with a 100 l. at a time The T●●●● was deliver'd in England and he believes he knew 〈◊〉 was in it He saith that asking Hudson whether he knew 〈◊〉 thing of the Adultery charg'd on the Dutchess of Nor●●●● Hudson said he knew nothing of it He the Witness told 〈◊〉 that it was said that it was he that had betray'd the Dutc●●●● 〈◊〉 He said it was a false Accusation for he knew nothing of 〈◊〉 Observations upon the foregoing Evidence HVdson swears himself the Duke's Butler at Wi●●●●● William Purchase swears that Hudson was never 〈◊〉 Duke's Butler Hudson says that they went to Play and that he 〈◊〉 heard Mrs. Gwin out of a Closet saying as in the Evid●●● Mrs. Gwin is a dead Witness and Hudson but a Closet ●●●●ness which is little better Now Purchase says again T●●● Hudson was never suffer'd to come into the Room where 〈◊〉 Duke or Dutchess was at Play