Volume 1
The trial of Elizabeth Duchess Dowager of Kingston for bigamy, before the Right Honourable the House of Peers, in Westminster-Hall, in full Parliament, on Monday the 15th, Tuesday the 16th, Friday the 19th, Saturday the 20th, and Monday the 22d of April, 1776. On the last of which days the said Elizabeth duchess dowager of Kingston was found guilty / Published by order of the House of Peers.
- Elizabeth Pierrepont, Duchess of Kingston-upon-Hull
- Date:
- 1776
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The trial of Elizabeth Duchess Dowager of Kingston for bigamy, before the Right Honourable the House of Peers, in Westminster-Hall, in full Parliament, on Monday the 15th, Tuesday the 16th, Friday the 19th, Saturday the 20th, and Monday the 22d of April, 1776. On the last of which days the said Elizabeth duchess dowager of Kingston was found guilty / Published by order of the House of Peers. Source: Wellcome Collection.
170/192 page 160
![[ <6° ] sc the Value of Ten Shillings; or as Acceffary to any fuch Offence; the faid Offence “ being no Burglary, nor Robbery in or near the Highway, nor the felonious 4t taking of any Money, Goods, or Chattels, from the Perfon of any Man or Wo- 44 man privily, without his or their Knowledge, but only fuch an Offence, as in the 44 like Cafe a Man might haye his Clergy, fhall, for the Fiift Offence, be branded, 44 and marked in the Hand, upon the Brawn of the Left Thumb with a hot burning Iron, 44 having a Roman T upon the faid Iron ; the faid Mark to be made by the Gaoler, 44 openly, in the Court, before the Judge; and alfo to be further punifhed by Imprifon- “ ment, Whipping, Stocking, or fending to the Houfe of Correction, in fuch Sort, Man- 44 ner, and Form, and for fo long Time (not exceedi g the Space of One whole Year) as 44 the Judge, Judges, or other (uftices, before whom llie fhall be fo convicted, or which 44 fhall have Authority in the Caufe, fhall, in their Difcretion, think meet, according to the 44 Quality of the Offence, and then to be delivered out of Prifon for that Offence ; any “ Law, Cuftom, or Ulage to the contrary notwitliftanding/’ This Statue, at Jeaft, excludes all Colour of Reference to the Firft of Edward VI. Any Woman convicted of Grand Larceny (if it be but a fimple Felony, Clergyable in a Man) fhall be burnt. She was not put to demand Benefit of the Statute ; to pray her Clergy would have been too abfurd; but, the Larceny being ftated in the Record to be com¬ mitted by a Woman, Judgment was forthwith entered of Burning, and fo forth. The Sta¬ tute is, moreover, confined to fuch Larcenies, where, in the like Caje, a Man might have his Clergy. I take Notice of thefe Words at prefent, only for the Sake of remarking that, in this Statute, at leaf!, they muft relate to the Quality of the Offence, not to the Condition of the Offender. My Lords, The only Statute, of which the Prifoner can claim the Benefits againft Judg¬ ment of Death, is the Third and Fourth of William and Mary, c. 9, f. 6, which runs in thefe Words ; “ And whereas, by the Laws of this Realm Women convidted of Felony, 44 for ftealing of Goods, and Chattel of the Value of Ten Shillings, and upwards, and 44 for other Felonies, where a Man is to have the Benefit of his Ciergy, are to fuffer Death ; 44 be it therefore erfadted and declared by the Authority aforefaid, That, where a Man, 44 being convidled of any Felony, for which he may demand the Benefit of his Clergy, if 44 a Woman be convicted for the fame or like Offence, upon her Prayer to have the Be- “ nefit of this Statute, Judgment of Death fhall not be given againft her upon fuch Convic- 44 tion ; or Execution awarded upon any Outlawry for fuch Offence; but fhall fuffer the 44 fame Punifhment, as a Man fhould fuffer, that has the Benefit of his Clergy allowed 44 him, in the like Cafe ; that is to fay, fhall be burnt in the Hand by the Gaoler, in open 44 Court, and be further kept in Prifon for fuch Time as the Juftices in their Difcretion 4C fhall think fit, fo as the fame do not exceed one Year’s Imprifonment.** Under this Adt, to avoid Judgment of Death, the Prifoner muft pray the Benefit of this Statute. I colledt from Converfation, perhaps too idle to be referred to, that the Argument will be laid thus. A Woman Convidt of a Felony, which would be Clergyable in a Man, fhall fuffer the fame Punifhment, as a Man would do in the like Cafe, that is, as a Man of the fame Condition with herfelf: But a Peer would fuffer no Punifliment: Therefore a Woman of that Condition fhall fuffer none. The Words, in the like Cafe, muft mean the fame here, as in the Twenty-firft of Jamesy convifted of the like Offence. And the Words, of the fame Condition muft be wholly fuper- added, if they are admitted at all. But it is impoftible to conceive, that, if the Legifla- ture had meant to create fo important aDiftindtion between different Orders of Women, it would have ufed no Words for that Purpofe. Nor, indeed, can fuch a Diftindtion be fo created by any Operation of Law. If, in Favour of the Prifoner, the fiighteft Degree of Punifliment, which any Man can fuffer in the like Cafe, is to be intended, every Woman would claim Exemption from Burn¬ ing, becaufe inferior Ecclefiafticks are not burnt; and from Forfeiture, becaufe Lords of Parliament are neither burnt nor forfeit. But this abfurd Conftrudlion happens to be thrown out by the Adt itfelf, which appoints the Punifhment, it means, to be Burning and Imprifonment. The Statute therefore will not fuffer it to be underftoocf, that any Woman, convidted of any Felony, fhall fuffer no other Punifliment, than thofe who, it is now con¬ tended, are to fuffer no Punifhment at all. Upon thefe Grounds I fubmit to your Lord (hips, that the Judgment, to be pronounced upon every Woman, of whatever Quality or Denomination, is that, which is preferibed by](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30458961_0001_0170.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
