A SCANDAL OF THE 18TH CENTURY

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 167, 16 July 1937, Page 8

A SCANDAL OF THE 18TH CENTURY

ANNOUNCEMENT that Kingston House, at Kensington, built in 1770 by tho Duchess of Kingston, is to bo demolished may excite the curiosity of many as to the identity of; that lady, writes Air. Frederic Mead in tho London Observer. She was the notorious Elizabeth Chudleigh, the daughter of Colonel Chudleigh, and was born in 1726. On reaching adolescence she was no doubt, very attractive, and. obtaining the position of maid of honour to the Princess of Wales, became conspicuous in society. After a futile love affair with the Duke of Hamilton she became acquaint ed with Augustus John Hervey, a grandson of the Earl of Bristol, and then serving as a lieutenant in the Navy. This friendship culminated in a marriage in the extra parochial chapel of Lainston at eleven at night by the light of a taper. Such secrecy was desirable, as if the marriage became known Elizabeth might have forfeited her position as maid of honour. In 1746 the lieutenant returned from his voyage in tho West Indies and lived with hie wife, a child being born in 1747. short lived, however, after there had been a quarrel between the pair and a permanent rupture of their ma trimonial relations. Church Register Missing. In 1759 tho probability arose that Hervey would become Earl of Bristol, so that it seemed to bo to Elizabeth’s interest that there should bo some official record of the wedding; but as there bad been no registers at that church at all. a new book was procured and an entry of the wedding inserted. Later, however, it was the wish of both parties to be rid of the burden of tlicir wed lock, so the present frequent practice of collusive divorce was so far antici pated that Hervey suggested that solu-

DUCHESS OF KINGSTON

Rise of Colonel’s Daughter

tion, but she declined to make the necessary shameful avowal, however true. Another expedient was therefore adopted; that is, a jactitation suit, whereby it was declared that Hervey boasted wrongfully that Elizabeth was nie wife. He made a discreetly weak ieply and, the cause being reached, n was heard by tho Vicar-General of tin. Bishop of London and Official Principa. of his Consistory Court, and he, negligently it would scan, if not corruptly, decided that Elizabeth “was- and is a spinster.” She, fortified with this “sentence,” on March S, 1769, married the Duke of Kingston, with whom irregular relations had already existed. Nephew’s Move. This dukedom docs not figure con spicuously in history, but an earldom of Kingston (upon Hull) had been an existence sinco the rcigu of Charles 11. To show that the modern alleged sale of titles was not a novelty, a law report discloses that in IGSI a legacy of £IO,OOO was left by one of the family “to procure by lawful means a dukedom for the next earl.” It is not surprising that such a legacy should have been held to bo void, but subsequently the immediate predecessor of Elizabeth’s husband was so distinguished a statesman that he was created a duke, quite incorruptly one may assume. In 1773 tho duke died, the

title becoming extinct, and judging from the liberality of his will, his married life must have been a success, lor he left his real estate to Elizabeth tor life and the whole of his personalty absoluto but Mr. Meadows, an expectant nephew, gave effect to his spleen by instigating a prosecution of the widow for'bigamy. As Elizabeth, if not legally the Duchess of Kingston, was the Countess of Bristol, dt was clear that she had the status of a peeress, aud so entitled to be tried by the House of Lords. The Trial. The trial took place with all the cs sential pomp and circumstance on sucl. an occasion, more than a hundred peon in their robes marching to and fro be tween the ancient chamber of tin House of Lords aud Westminster Hub the scene of the drama. Upon the prisoner pleading “No.t Guilty.” the following obsolete quaint dialogue between her and the clerk of the court, passed, “Culprit! how will you be tried?” “B.y God and my country”.” “God give your grace a good deliverance. ” Naturally, the chief point taken in defence was the existence of the “sentence,” whereby it was judicially decided that tho Hervey marriage was void. The Lords took the opinion of

His Majesty’s judges as to the law, and they adjudged that as the Crown was not a party to that proceedings, the prosecution was not bound by it, but even if it were so, if the proceeding, was collusive, it would fail on that ground. Tho Lords acted upon this advice, and each of them, upon being asked by the Lord High Steward whether the prisoner was guilty or not guilty, laying his right hand upon his breast, answered “Guilty upon my honour.” One Dissenting Peer. The only dissenting peer was the Duke of Newcastle, whose answer was “Guilty erroneously, but not intentionally upon my honour.” In a sense the prosecution was futile as no punishment followed, for such a crime as bigamy was “ clergyable, ” there being in ordinary cases on a first offence only the penalty of being branded on tbe brawn of the thumb with the initial of the offence, but peers, by legislation, were free of such an indignity. The Lord High Steward, in concluding the case, tried to atone for the futility of the trial by addressing the prisoner as follows: “Although very little punishment or none can now be ; ntlicted, the feelings of your own conscience will supply that defect. And let me give you this information likewise, that you can never have the like benefit a second time, but another offence of the same kind will be capital.”

Unfortunately, such a sermon had little effect upon her character, for the early lightness of her conduct was continued after her conviction. She seems s« soon as 1749 to have anticipated the nude cult of the present day, as she appeared at a masked ball as Tphige nia “so naked that she might have been taken for Andromedo. ”