at Portsmouth. The August following, he made a second visit at Lainston for two or three days; during which the marriage was contracted, celebrated, and consummated.

Some circumstances, which I have already alluded to, and others, which it is immaterial to state particularly, rendered it impossible, or improvident in a degree next to impossible, that such a marriage should be celebrated solemnly, or publicly given out to the world. The fortune of both was insufficient to maintain them in that situation to which his birth and her ambition had pretensions. The income of her place would have failed. And the displeasure of the noble family to which he belonged, rendered it impossible on his part to avow the connection. The consequence was, that they agreed without hesitation to keep the marriage secret. It was necessary for that purpose to celebrate it with the utmost privacy; and accordingly no other witnesses were present, but such as had been apprised of the connection, and were thought necessary to establish the fact, in case it should ever be disputed.

Lainston is a small parish, the value of the living being about fifteen pounds a-year; Mr. Merrill's the only house in it; and the parish church at the end of his garden. On the 4th of August 1744, Mr. Amis, the then rector, was appointed to be at the church, alone, late at night. At eleven o'clock, Mr. Hervey and Miss Chudleigh went out, as if to walk in the garden; followed by Mrs. Haumer, her servant (whose maiden name I forget; she is now called Ann Cradock, having married Mr. Hervey's servant of that name) Mr. Merrill, and Mr. Mountenay; which last carried a taper to read the service by. They found Mr. Amis in the church, according to his appointment; and there the service was celebrated, Mr. Mountenay holding the taper in his hat.* The cere

By the Marriage Act (stat. 26 Geo. 2, c. 53, s. 8,) "if any person shall solemnize matrimony in any other place than a church, or public chapel, where banns have been usually published, unless by special licence from the archbishop of Canterbury, or shall solemnize matrimony without publication of banns, unless licence of marriage be first obtained from some person having authority to grant the same; every person knowingly and wilfully so offending, and being lawfully convicted thereof, shall be guilty of felony, and transported to some of his majesty's plantations in America for fourteen years, according to the laws in force for transportation of felons, and all such marriages shall be null and void." And by s. 11, of the same statute," marriages by licence, where either of the parties, not being a widow, or widower, shall be under twenty-one years of age, had without the previous consent of the father, or lawful guardians, or one of them, or if no guardian, then of the mother, if living and unmarried, or if none such, those of a guardian appointed by the court of Chancery, shall be null and void."

mony being performed, Mrs. Hanmer's maid was dispatched to see that the coast was clear; and they returned into the house, without being observed by any of the servants. I mention

Mr. Justice Blackstone (Comm. book 1, c. 15, s. 2, vol. 1, pp. 439, 440,) observes, that "the intervention of a priest to solemnize this contract is merely juris positivi,' and not juris naturalis aut divini;' it being said (Moor 170,) that Pope Innocent the 3d" [he was Pope from 1198 to 1216]" was the first who ordained the celebration of marriage in a church: before which it was totally a civil contract. And in the times of the grand rebel❤ lion, all marriages were performed by the justices of the peace; and these marriages were declared valid without any fresh solemnization by stat. 12 Car. 2, c. 33."

The passage

in Moor to which the learned judge refers is as follows:

solemnization de marriages ne fut use en l'Eg. "Goldingham Doctor del civil ley dit que le lise devant que le Pope Innocent 3 ceo ordaine Primes; mes devant cest ordinance le marriage al meason lou la feme inhabite, et amesneroit fuit solemnize en tiel forme, que le home vient la feme ove luy a sa meason, et ceo fuit tout le ceremony; et de ceo fuit que le home est dit ducere uxorem, per reason que il duce la feme viro per reason que el est quasi cooperta nube ove luy a sa meason, et la feme fuit dit nupta (cest') viro, a que el fait luy on subject per agreament de marriage."

As to the proceedings for regulating the ce lebration of marriages "in the times of the grand rebellion;" on January 3, 1644-5, the parliament passed an ordinance bearing this title, "The Book of Common Prayer shall not be benceforth used; but the Directory for Publique Worship" (in the table it is intitled,* "For taking away the Book of Common Prayer, and for establishing and putting in execution of the Directory for the Publique Wor ship of God.")

In the Directory therein set forth is the fol lowing provision respecting marriages:

"The Solemnization of Marriage. "Although Marriage be no Sacrament, nor peculiar to the Church of God, but common to mankinde, and of publique interest in every Commonwealth, yet because such as marry are to marry in the Lord, and have special need of Instruction, Direction, and Exhortation from the Word of God, at their entring into such a new condition; and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient, that Marriage be solemnized by a lawful Minister of the Word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them.

*Of the titles inserted in Scobell's table of the Acts of Ordinances' but very few are the same with those respectively, which are prefixed to the Acts and Ordinances themselves.

their plan of keeping the marriage secret. In the latter end of November in the same year, Mr. Hervey sailed for the Mediterranean, and returned in the month of January 1747, and stayed here till May in the same year. Mean while she continued to reside in Conduit-street, and he to visit her as usual, till some differences arose between them, which terminated in a downright quarrel; after which they never saw each other more. He continued abroad till December 1747, when he returned; but no intercourse, which can be traced, passed between them afterwards.

This general account is all I am able to give your lordships of the intercourse between Mr. Hervey and his wife. The cause of the displeasure which separated them, is immaterial to be enlarged upon. The fruit of their intercourse was a son, born at Chelsea, some time

cording to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England.

"Le mariage dans l'ordre civil est une union légitime de l'homme et de la femme, pour avoir des enfans, pour les élever, et pour leur assurer les droits des propriétés, sous l'aútorité de la loi. Afin de constater cette union, elle est accompagnée d'une cérémonie religieuse regardér pår les uns comme un sacre ment, par les autres comme une pratique du culte public; vraie logomachie, qui ne change rien à la chose. Il faut donc distinguer deux choses dans le mariage, le contrat civil ou l'engagement naturel, et le sacrement ou la cérémonie sacrée. Le mariage pourrait donc subsister avec tous les effets naturels et civils, independamment de la cérémonie religieuse. Les cérémonies même de l'Eglise ne sont de venues nécessaires dans l'ordre civil que par ce que le magistrat les a adoptées. Il s'est même écoulé un long temps, sans que les ministres de la religion aient eu aucune part à la célébration des mariages. Du temps de Justinien le consentement des parties en présence de témoins, sans aucune cérémonie de l'Eglise, légítimoit encore le mariage parmi les chrétiens. C'est cet empereur qui fit, vers le milieu du sixième siècle, les premières lois pour que les prêtres intervinssent comme simples témoins, sans ordonner encore de bénédiction nuptiale. L'empereur Léon, qui mourut" [qu. monta]" sur le trône en 886, semble être le premier, qui ait mis la cérémonie religieuse au rang des conditions nécessaires. La loi même qu'il fit atteste que c'était un nouvel établissement.

"De l'idée juste que nous nous formons ainsi du mariage, il résulte d'abord que le bon ordre et la piété même rendent aujour d'hui nécessaires les formalités religieuses, adoptées dans toutes les communions chrétiennes. Mais l'essence du mariage ne peut en être dénaturée; et cet engagement, qui est Je principal dans la société, est et doit demeurer toujours soumis, dans l'ordre politique, à l'au tarité du magistrat." Voltaire Dict. Philosoph. set. Droit Canonique, sect. 6.

in the year 1747. The circumstances of that birth, the notice which people took of it, and the conversations which she held about that, and the death of the child, fur. ish part of the evidence that a matrimonial connection actually subsisted between them.

After having mentioned so often the secrecy with which the marriage and cohabitation were conducted, it seems needless to observe to your lordships, that the birth of a child was suppressed with equal care. That also made but an awkward part of the family and establishment of a maid of honor.

My lords, that which I call the second period, was in the year 1759. She had then lived at a distance from her husband near twelve years. But the infirm state of the late lord Bristol's health seemed to open the prospect of a rich succession, and an earldom. It was thought worth while, as nothing better had then offered, to be countess of Bristol; and for that purpose to adjust the proofs of ber marriage.

Mr. Amis, the minister who had married them, was at Winchester, in a declining state of health. She appointed her cousin, Mr. Merrill, to meet her there on the 12th of February 1759; and by six in the morning she arrived at the Blue Boar inn, opposite Mr. Amis's house. She sent for his wife, and co nmunicated her business, which was to get a certificate from Mr. Amis of her marriage with Mr. Hervey. Mrs. Amis invited her to their house, and acquainted her husband with the occasion of her coming. He was ill a-bed; and desired her to come up. But nothing was done in the business of the certificate, till the arrival of Mr. Merrill, who brought a sheet of stamped paper to write it upon. They were still at a loss about the form, and sent for one Spearing, an attorney. Spearing thought that the merely making a certificate, and delivering it ont in the manner which had been proposed, was not the best way of establishing the evi dence which might be wanted. He therefore proposed, that a check-book (as he called it) should be bought; and the marriage be registered in the usual form, and in the presence of the prisoner. Somebody suggesting that it had been thought improper* she should be present at the making of the register, he desired she might be called; the purpose being perfectly fair, merely to state that in the form of a register, which many people knew to be true; and which those persons of honour, then present, give no room to doubt. Accordingly bis advice was taken, the book was bought, and the marriage was registered. The book was entitled, Marriages, Births, and Burials in the parish of Lainston. The first entry ran, The 22d of August, 1742, buried Mrs. Susannah Merrill, relict of John Merrill, esq. The next was, The 4th of August 1744, married the honourable Augustus Hervey, esq. to Miss Elizabeth Chudleigh, daughter of colonel

So in former edition,

Thomas Chudleigh, late of Chelsea College, deceased, in the parish church of Lainston, by me Thomas Amis. The prisoner was in great spirits. She thanked Mr. Amis, and told him, it might be a hundred thousand pounds in her way. She told Mrs. Amis all her secrets; of the child she had by Mr. Hervey; a fine boy, but it was dead; and how she borrowed 100l. of her aunt Hanmer to make baby clothes. It served the purpose of the hour to disclose these things. She sealed up the register, and left it with Mrs. Amis, in charge, upon her husband's death, to deliver it to Mr. Merrill. This happened in a few weeks after.

Mr. Kinchin, the present rector, succeeded to the living of Lainston; but the book remained in the possession of Mr. Merrill.

In the year 1764 Mrs. Hanmer died, and was buried at Lainston. A few days after, Mr. Merrill desired her burial might be registered. Mr. Kinchin did not know of any register which belonged to the parish; but Mr. Merrill produced the book which Mr. Amis had made; and taking it out of the sealed cover, in which it had remained till that time, shewed Kinchin the entry of the marriage, and bade him not mention it. Kinchin subjoined the third entry, Buried, December the 10th, 1764, Mrs. Ann Haumer, relict of the late colonel William Hanmer: and delivered the book again to Mr. Merrill.

In the year 1767 Mr. Merrill died. Mr. Bathurst, who married his daughter, found this book among his papers; and taking it to be, what it purported, a parish register, delivered it to Mr. Kinchin accordingly. He has kept it as such ever since; and upon that occasion made the fourth entry, Buried, the 7th of February, 1767, John Merrill, esq.

The earl of Bristol recovered his health; and this register was forgotten, till a very different occasion arose for enquiry after it.

The third period to which I begged the attention of your lordships in the outset, was in the year 1768. Nine years had passed, since her former hopes of a great title and fortune had fallen to the ground. She bad at length formed a plan to attain the same object another way. Mr. Hervey also had turned his thoughts to a more agreeable connection; and actually entered into a correspondence with the prisoner, for the purpose of setting aside a marriage so burdensome and hateful to both. The scheme he proposed was rather indelicate; not that afterwards executed, which could not sustain the eye of justice a moment; but a simpler method, founded in the truth of the case; that of obtaining a separation by sentence‘a men• så et thoro propter adulterium ;' which might serve as the foundation of an act of parliament for an absolute divorce. He sent her a message to this effect, in terms sufficiently peremptory and rough, as your lordships will hear from the witness. Mrs Cradock, the woman I have mentioned before as being Mrs. Hanmer's servant, and present at the marriage, was then married to a servant of Mr. Hervey,

and lived in the prisoner's family with her busband. He bade her tell her mistress,' that be wanted a divorce; that he should call upon her (Cradock) to prove the marriage; and that the prisoner must supply such other evidence as might be necessary.'

This might have answered his purpose well enough; but her's required more reserve and management; and such a proceeding might have disappointed it. She therefore spurned at that part of the proposal; and refused in terms of high resentment, to prove herself a whore.' On the 18th of August following she entered a caveat at Doctors Commons, to hinder any process passing under seal of the court, at the suit of Mr. Hervey, against her, in any matrimonial cause, without notice to her proctor.

What difficulties impeded the direct and obvious plan, or what inducement prevailed in favour of so different a measure, I cannot state to your lordships. But it has been already seen in a debate of many days, what kind of plan they substituted in place of the former.

In the Michaelmas session of the year 1768, she instituted a suit of jactitation of marriage in the common form. The answer was a cross libel, claiming the rights of marriage. But the claim was so shaped, and the evidence so applied, that success became utterly impracti cable.

A grosser artifice, I believe, was never fabri cated. His libel stated the marriage, with many of its particulars; but not too many. It was large in alleging all the indifferent circumstances which attended the courtship, coutract, marriage ceremony, consummation, and cohabitation; but when it came to the facts themselves, it stated a secret courtship, and a contract, with the privity of Mrs. Hanmer alone, who was then dead. The marriage ceremony, which, in truth, was celebrated in the church at Lainston, was said to have been performed at Mr. Merrill's house, in the parish of Sparshot, by Mr. Amis, in the presence of Mrs. Hanmer and Mr. Mountenay, who were all three dead. Mrs. Cradock, whom but three months before he held out as a witness of the marriage, was dropped; and, to shut her out more perfectly, the consummation is said to have passed without the privity or knowledge of any part of the family and servants of Mr. Merrill; meaning perhaps that Cradock was servant to Mrs. Hanmer. It was further insinuated, that the marriage was kept a secret, except from the persons before-mentioned.

To these articles the form of proceeding obliged her to put in a personal answer upon oath. She denies the previous contract; she evades the proposal of marriage, by stating that it was made to Mrs. Hanmer without her privity; not denying that it was afterwards communicated to her. The rest of the article, which contains a circumstantial allegation of the marriage, together with the time, place, witnesses, and so forth, she buries in the for wulary conclusion of every answer, by deny. ing the rest of the said pretended position or