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.
180/192 page 170
![f L 170 ] Manner conclufi've Evidence againft him ; in what Situation mu ft the Prifoners be, whofe Life, or Liberty, or Property, or Fame refts on the Judgment of Courts, which have no Jurifdidion over them in the Predicament in which they ftand ? and in what Situation are the Judges of the Common Law, who muft condemn, on the Word of an Ecdefiaftical Judge, without exercifing any Judgment of their own? The Spiritual Court alone can deprive a Clergyman : Felony is a good Cau'e of Depri¬ vation: Yet in Lord Hobart's Reports it is held, that they cannot proceed to deprive for Felony, before the Felony has been tried at Law ; and although, after Conviction, they may ad upon That, and make the Conviction a Ground of Deprivation, neither Side can prove or difprove any Thing againft the Verdidt; becaufe, as that very learned Judge declares, “ it would be to determine, though not capitally, upon a Capital Crime, and thereby judge “ of the Nature of the Crime and the Validity of the Proofs; neither of which belongs to “ them to do.” If therefore fuch a Sentence, even upon a Matter within their Jurifdidion, and before a Felony committed, fhould be conclufive Evidence on a Trial for a Felonv committed after, the Opinion of a Judge, incompetent to the Purpofe, refulting (for aught appears,) from incompetent Proofs (as fuppofe the Suppletory Oath) will dired, or rule, a Jury and a Court of competent Jurifdidion, without confronting any Witneftes, or hearing any Proofs : For the Queftion ilippofes, and the Truth is, that the Temporal Court does not and cannot examine, whether the Sentence is a juft Conclufion from the Cafe, either in Law or Fad ; and the Difficulty will not be removed by prefuming, that every Court determines rightly, becaufe it muft be prefumed too, that the Parties did Right in bringing the full and true Cafe before the Court; and if they did, ftill the Court will have determined rightly by Ecdefiaftical Laws and Rules, and not by thofe Laws and Rules by which Criminals are to ftand or fall in this Country. If the Reafon for receiving fuch Sentence is, becaufe it is the Judgment of a Court competent to the Inquiry then before them ; from the fame Reafon* the Determination of Two Juftices of the Peace upon the Fad or Validity of a Marriage, in adjudging a Place of Settlement, may hereafter be offered as Evidence, and give the Law to the higheft Court of Criminal Jurifdidion. But if a aired Sentence upon the identical Queftion, in a Matrimonial Caufe, fhould be admitted as Evidence (though fuch Sentence againft the Marriage has not the Force of a final Decifion, that there was none) yet a Caufe of Jaditation is of a different Nature •, it is ranked as a Caufe of Defamation only, and not as a Matrimonial Caufe, unlefs where the Defendant pleads a Marriage ; and whether it continues a Matrimonial Caufe throughout, as fome fay, or ceales to be fo on Failure of proving a Marriage, as others have faid, ftill the Sentence has only a negative and qualified Effed, viz. “ That the Party has failed in his “ Proof, and that the Libellant is free from all Matrimonial Contrad, as far as yet appears leaving it open to new Proofs of the fame Marriage in the fame Caufe, or to any Proofs of That or any other Marriage in another Caufe : And if fuch Sentence is no Plea to a new Suit there, and does not conclude the Court which pronounces, it cannot conclude a Court, which receives the Sentence, from going into new Proofs to make out That or any other Marriage. So that admitting the Sentence in its full Extent and Import, it only proves, that it did not yet appear that they were married, and not, that they were not married at all : And, by the Rule laid down by Lord Chief Juftice Holt, fuch Sentence can be no Proof of any Thng to be inferred by Argument from it; and therefore it is not to be inferred, that there was no Marriage at any Time or Place, becaufe the Court had not then fufficicnt Evidence to prove a Marriage at a particular Time and Place. That Sentence, and this Judgment, may ftand well together, and both Propofitions be equally true ; it may be true, that the Spiritual Court had not then fufficient Proof of the Marriage fpecified, and that your Lordlhips may now, unfortunately, find fufficient Proof of fome Marriage. But if it was a dired and decifive Sentence upon the Point, and, as it ftands, to be admitted as conclufive Evidence upon the Court, and not to be impeached from within ; yet, like ail other Atls of the higheft Judicial Authority, it is impeachable from without; although it is not permitted to Ihevv that the Court was miftoften, it may be fhewn that they were mifled. Fraud is an extrinfic collateral Ad, which vitiates the moft folemn Proceedings of Courts of Juftice. Lord Coke fays, it avoids all Judicial Ads, Ecdefiaftical or Tem- Civil Suits all Strangers may falfify, for Covin., either Fines, or real or feigned Re¬ coveries ; and even a Recovery by a juft Title, if Collufion was pradifed to prevent a fair Defence ;](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30458961_0001_0180.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
