take her out one day in the Prince's coach to Chelfea, where the child was at nurse, to fhew him to her, obferving at the fame time, that the child was extremely like Mr. Hervey, the father; that the evening appointed for that purpose, the lady informed the witnefs, that the child had died in the mean time, and was buried at Chelfea. On cross examination fhe faid, the never faw the child; that the marriage was performed late at night, fhe could not tell the hour; that the only light in the church was a wax taper, placed in the bowl of Mr. Mountney's hat; that the never faid fhe expected any advantage from the event of the trial. Being afked by Lord Hillsborough if fhe had not received a letter from fome perfon, promifing a reward relative to the evidence which the might give in this trial? fhe faid fhe had, from one Foffard, a stablekeeper in Piccadilly; and that, on receiving this letter, the fhewed it to a Mr. Harding; that he propofed to communicate the contents of it to Mr. Hervey; that, after many converfations and meffages between Mr. Hervey, Mr. Harding, and the witnefs, fhe received a letter from Mr. Harding, who defired her, as from Mr. Hervey, to keep it fafe. That the letter contained a promife of a finecure place. Adjourned.

On Saturday morning the peers met again, when Ann Cradock underwent a further examination. The Lords Derby, Hillsborough, Buckinghamshire, &c. putting various queftions to her respecting her prefent fituation-her future dependence ;-whether he was promifed any fum by the profecutor, if he gave fuch teftimony as would

convict the lady at the bar, &c.

-to all which fhe e gave rather evafive answers, but at laft confeffed the agency employed to offer her pecuniary terms, if fhe would appear against the prifoner.

Cæfar Hawkins, Efq; Serjeant Surgeon, being next called upon, begged to be informed, whether he was bound to disclose converfation imparted to him confidentially, and in the of his proway

feffion.

Lord Mansfield. My Lords, it is the duty of the witnefs to give every information in his power to this court, touching the matter in queftion.

Cæfar Hawkins, Efq; had known her Grace for many years, he believed 30-Had heard of a marriage between her and Mr. Hervey, which was mentioned to him by both of them before Mr. Hervey went laft to fea-that there was a child, as he believes, of that marriage-was in the room, at her Grace's defire, when the boy was born, and faw it once afterwards before it died-was fent for by Mr. Hervey after his return from fea, and defired by him to wait upon the prifoner with propofals refpetting a divorce; but that her Grace refufed to liften to any terms-that feveral meffages paffed on this point.-That fome time after her Grace frequently honoured his wife with a vifit, and told him one day at his own house, that he had inftituted a jactitation fuit in the Commons againft Mr. Hervey; that, another time when he came, fhe was very grave, and defired him to withdraw with her into the next room; where the told him he was very unhappy; for that at Doctors Commons they

had

had tendered her an oath, which fhe had long dreaded they would, to fwear he was not married, which he would not do:-but, not long after, upon another vifit, told him, that he had obtained a fentence, which was irrevocable, unless in fo many days Mr. Hervey took fome certain mode, which she did not expect he would. On hearing this, the witnefs asked how he got over the oath? She replied, that the matter of the marriage was fo blended with fuch a number of falfities, that she could easily reconcile it to her confcience, particularly as the ceremony was fo fcrambling and fhabby a bufinefs, that he might as fafely fwear fhe was not married as that he was.

Council. Was there no bond for a fum or fums of money paifed between them to your knowledge on this occafion ?-Not any.Were not you a trustee to fuch bond?-Never.

The Duke of Grafton and feveral other peers put many quef tions to him relative to the childwhether he believed it to be the

lady's at the bar?-To which he anfwered in the affirmative.-Whether he knew the child was really dead?-Could not fay; was only informed fo by the noble prifoner. Lord Barrington was next called upon and fworn. He was asked, whether he knew any thing of a marriage between the lady at the bar and Mr. Hervey, now Earl of Bristol. He defired to be excufed anfwering that queftion, as it would be betraying private converfation, which as a man of honour and a gentleman, he could never confent

to.

Lord Mansfield obferved, that

he was now before a court of criminal judicature; that he was not obliged to give any teftimony but what might be deemed legal evidence; but, as far as the question related to matter of legal evidence, he was obliged to answer.

Lord Camden, the Duke of Manchester, Lord Radnor, and feveral other lords contended, that his lordship was bound to answer at all events, as he was upon his oath; therefore his lordship was called on by Lord Radnor to anfwer the question, Whether he knew any thing of the marriage between the prifoner at the bar and Mr. Hervey? But he again declined to answer it.

A motion of adjournment was then made by Lord Radnor, and agreed to, and their Lordships accordingly adjourned to their own houfe. About five o'clock, their Lordships returned, when the Lord High Steward addreffed the witness to the following effect:

"Lord Viscount Barrington, it is the opinion of their Lordships that you shall answer all fuch queftions as may be put to you, refpecting what you know relative to the marriage between the prifoner at the bar and Mr. Hervey."

Lord Viscount Barrington. My Lords, I am forry to give this houfe a moment's unneceffary trouble; yet I muft again repeat, I have ftill my doubts, whether I can in honour answer any fuch queftion, as that now put to me by the noble Lord; however, as I entertain a lefs opinion of my own. judgment than that of others, I beg your Lordships will permit me to put a question to the learned counfel-Whether, if I do not give an anfwer to thefe queftions, I

fhall

fhall be guilty of perjury? [Here the Sollicitor-General whispered in his ear.]-My Lords, the Sollicitor-General has informed me, that, by the oath I have taken, I am bound to give evidence; I am therefore under the direction of the Houfe; and beg pardon of your Lordships for having given the court fo much trouble.

Duke of Richmond. If I understand any thing of the bufinefs of this Houfe, no law question (notwithstanding his Lordship's nice confcience) is ever to be put to the counsel at the bar, but to the House, who only are to decide upon it; or, if they find it expedient, they take the opinion of the judges:However, that being now unneceffary, I would ask the noble Lord a queftion or two.Here his Grace and the Earl of Radnor afked him a few queftions; his answer to which only proved, that he had heard Mr. Hervey and the lady at the bar fay, that they were married, and that there was a child, the iffue of that marriage; but that he did not know either, of his own knowledge.

The officer from Doctors Commons was next examined, to prove that the lady at the bar and the late Duke of Kingston were married in February 1769, by a licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

To prove the certificate of the marriage, a gentleman from the Chancellor's court, of the diocefe of Winchester, was produced to prove the regular entry of it.

The court rofe at feven o'clock, and adjourned to the chamber of parliament; after which their Lordships adjourned to their own

houfes, till ten o'clock on Monday morning, when the bufinefs again commenced, with the examination of feveral witneffes in behalf of the Duchefs of Kingston.

Mrs. Pritchard was called to invalidate the teftimony of Ann Cradock. She depofed, that the said Ann Cradock had frequently declared in her prefence, that she expected a confiderable fortune, in cafe the event of the profecution fhould prove unfavourable to the Duchefs of Kingston. Mrs. Pritchard further declared, that this fame evidence, Cradock, had, at various times confeffed, she did not hear a fyllable of the marriage ceremony performed.

If

The evidence being finally clofed, the Duchefs of Kingston read her defence to the court, ftated the facts alledged against her, and endea voured to invalidate them by arguments of the ftrongest nature. the had been culpable, whom had fhe to blame for that culpability? The crime charged in the indict ment, was an offence against the law. Care had been taken throughout the whole of the procefs in the Ecclefiaftical Court, that no offence fhould be committed against the law. Had the not conceived that an ecclefiaftical fentence, in a jactitation caufe like this, was equivalent to a divorce, as to all purposes of a fecond marriage, the never would have intermarried with the Duke of Kingston. Her Grace had endeavoured to obtain the best advice on the fubject. The beft advice fhe could obtain authorised her marriage. Thus fanctioned in the commiffion of a deed, could that be conftrued into a crime which the Ecclefiaftical Court had authorised? If fuch was indeed

TheLords adjourned to the Chamber of Parliament, and, after their return to the hall, the Lord High Steward put to each Lord the following question :

How fays your Lordship? Is the Lady at the bar guilty of the felony whereof she stands indicted, or not guilty?

The numbers having been counted, the Duchefs of Kingfton was called to the bar, and informed, by the Lord High Steward, that the Lords had, by their fuffrages, pronounced her to be-GUILTY.

The prifoner claimed her privilege of peerage, which gave rife to a laboured speech of the Attorney-General, wherein he attempted to prove, that, although Peers were, by ftatute, exempt from corporal punishment for clergyable offences, yet Peereffes had not the leaft title to the fame exemption.

Meffrs. Wallace and Mansfield replied.

The Attorney-General defended his former pofition, and the Lords adjourned to the Chamber of Parliament to debate on the matter. On their return, the prifoner was called to the bar, and the Lord High Steward announced it to be the fenfe of the House, that the

Duchefs fhould be allowed the privilege fhe had claimed.' By confequence, as a Peerefs, fhe could endure no kind of corporal punishment, and was difcharged on this condition, that fhe paid her fees.

Notice being then given that the Lord High Steward's commiffion was at an end, he rose, and broke his white staff; and proclamation was made, ordering every perfon to depart, and repair quietly home in God's peace and the King's peace.

The counsel for the profecution were, the Attorney and SolicitorGeneral; Dr. Harris, Serjeant Walker, Mr. Maddock, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Hargrave; with Mr. Roger Altham, as Proctor. For the Duchefs of Kingston, the counsel were, Dr. Calvert, Dr. Wynne, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Mansfield, Serjeant Davy, Mr. Cox, Mr. Leigh, Mr. Buller, and Mr. Hardinge; with Mr. Bishop, as Proctor.

A short Review of Mr. Garrick's Theatrical Reign, with fome Particulars of the former Part of his Life, &c.

MR

R. Garrick is the fon of an officer of rank in the army. He was born at Hereford, in the year 1717. After receiving a very liberal and polite education, he engaged in commerce, as a winemerchant, in which purfuit he continued for fome years; but, not meeting with the fuccefs he expected, he declined it; when, being perfuaded by his friends he had uncommon abilities for the ftage, he appeared the first time in