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.
173/192 page 163
![[ «63 ] Now It is faid there, that they fhall have the fame Punifhment as Men •, they are to be in the like Situation as Men. Then the Adi goes on to fay, that is to fay, Burning and Im» prifoning. My Lords, What is the fair Conflrudtion of this Law ? Why, that Women fhall be in the fame Situation as Men ; and where Men are of fuch Condition, that they would be burnt in the Hand, that they would be liable to be imprifoned. Women in like Manner fhould be fubjedt to Burning in the Hand, and fhould be fubjedl to Imprifonment: But no one ever heard, that the fevere Part of a Law inflidling a Punifhment fhould be extended fo by Conftrudlion, where it was not fo exprefs. Now you muft adt againft the clear Provifion of that Law, that Women fhould be in the fame Situation as Men, if you were to fay, that a Peerefs convidled of a Clergyable Offence fhould either undergo the Punifhment of Burn¬ ing, or the Punifhment of Imprifonment. No one can fay upon the Statute of Edward the Sixth, that they are fubjecl to either. The Objedl of the Statute of William the Third was to make the Punifhment of fuch Offenders precifely the fame with regard to one Sex as the other; and the true Spirit and great Objedl of that Law muft be diredtly adted againft, if a Peerefs was to be put in a different Situation than a Peer, and to have a more fevere and cruel Punifhment inffidted upon her, than would be upon him. Thefe are the only general Ob- fervations, that occur to me 'now in taking the whole Scope of the Law : I therefore fubmit to your Lordfhips, that the noble Lady at the Bar is intitled to the Benefit of thefe Statutes. Mr. Attorney General. My Lords, Concerning the Point which is now depending before the Houfe, I fairly confefs, that, when your Lordfhips firft called upon me to give my Reafons why Judgment of Death fhould not be fufpended upon the Prayer of the Prifoner, made in the Manner in which that Prayer was conceived •, and upon the Effedts and Confequences of allowing her the Benefit of the Statute in a more regular Courfe •, I would rather, if I might, have been excufed from laying my Thoughts before your Lordfhips. I had heard a Rumour, that Men, whofe Learning and Authority I greatly reverence, held a different Opinion. This would not fail to raife much Diftruft of my own Conclufions•, although I had thoroughly confidered the Subjedt; and although I never read any Propofition, with more perfedl Convidlion of the Truth of it, fince I learnt to read. My Lords, That Idea, the only one I have been able to form, or adopt, is now very much {Lengthened. That Cloud, which came over it from the rumoured Prevalence of contrary Notion, is very much removed. Becaufe, if there be no Opinion to the contrary, but what is to be founded on the Argument, I have heard to Day from thofe who are beft able to fuftain the contrary Opinion, 1 am perfedlly fatisfied, it is impoffible this fhould pafs as* a Point of Law, or receive the Sandtion of your Lordfhips Concurrence. My Lords, What are the Arguments ? Firft, It is utterly inconceivable, that the Law fhould put fuch Difference between the Two Sexes. My Lords, if the Subjedl was laid by for a Moment, only to make a handfome Compliment to a very refpedlable Part of this Affembly, which well defer’es all the Attention it commands, it is impoffible to quarrel with a Turn of Gallantry. But, refuming the Subjedl, we are all agreed, that the Law did adlually put that very Difference between the Sexes for many Centuries. And this un¬ costly Statute of Edward the Sixth, proceeding upon the Law as it found it, did not think of abolifhing the Diftindlion. It was quite befide the Purpofe of that Adi, which did not mean to qualify the Severity of the Criminal Law in genera!, much lefs to make an equal Diftribution of it among the Subjedls at large. But, taking the Law as it flood, it was found inconvenient, incompatible, and fnocking to Reafon, that Lords of Parliament, who were to give their Voices upon the moft arduous Affairs of a great Empire, fhould do fo under apparent Stigmata and Circumftances of open Infamy. I don’t rely on the Gender of the Words, but on the Purpofe of the Adt. Women are exclude^ by both. They were neither liable to the Stigmata, nor held the high Office which made them in¬ tolerable. Therefore Bifhops, whom the Twenty-eighth and Thirty-fecond of Henry the Eighth had, at that Time, made liable to the whole Cafe of other Clerks convidt, were included : Women certainly not. The Privilege was given, not to the Peerage, but to the Houfe of Parliament, to be claimed by the Members as fuch. It v/as not fubilantive; but an lngraftment on the Right to Clergy, which Women never had. In Truth, I have not heard a Hint from the Counfel on the other Side to queftion the Exiftence of this Difference down to the Third and Fourth of William and Mary j upon which Adi they have chiefly relied](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30458961_0001_0173.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
