RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Nick93 on Monday 21 September 20 16:30 BST (UK)
-
Heya, all. I'm trying to locate a court document from 1698. Little bit of a wild story, regarding the divorce of William Hockmore and his wife, Mary Prestwood. My sources I'm getting this from are the essay "Leggasicke, Filling the Gaps" by Richard G. Grylls, and the academic work "Fashioning Adultery: Gender, Sex, and Civility in England 1660-1740" by David M. Turner.
https://essaydocs.org/legassicke-filling-the-gaps.html?page=4
http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/32443/1/9pdf.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2rulWc68oYguYJwBrzy6f6pwsEm3SiKIYUh1Bd9wikLbmhS-iZHHpK08w
The separation took place in 1698. The cause of it was William was convinced their youngest daughter, Prestwood (given her mother's maiden name as a first name), was not his. Apparently Mary had multiple lovers, including a Mr. Edward Ford, a Mr. Nicholas Cove, a Mr. Charles Manley, and a Swiss mercenary referred to in Turner's work as "Killcutt."
The daughter, Prestwood, was apparently baptized in London (though William and Mary were from Devon, Mary apparently ran off to London during a dispute with her husband) in early 1696 under "Prestwood Buckmore, son [sic] of William and Mary Buckmore." Not sure why she was referred to as a son, Mr. Grylls doesn't say.
Grylls implies Mary ran off to London on her own in 1696 to have her baby, though Turner in passing says she was in London with her husband, not sure which is accurate, which is why I'm looking for the original case. Turner goes on to say that that year, according to the divorce proceedings, she made several visits to her lover, Edward Ford, another member of the Devon gentry but who had apparently taken up lodging in London at the home of a Westminster victualler named Rive Morgan, who apparently gave his deposition to the court saying Mary had complained to her that there were no curtains in Mr. Ford's room.
According to a witness, Mary had apparently told William that she would go and live in London and “there I’le live, and I’le bring thee a child every yeare if the Art of man can get them, and thou shalt maintayne them all, And I will run thee in debt until I have ruined thee, if I damne both Body and Soule to effect it”.
So, moving on, Mary apparently maintained that baby Prestwood was William's daughter, but perhaps that was for inheritance reasons. When William died in 1707 he left his estates to their four elder daughters, and left some money for Prestwood. Prestwood's guardian (Mary had aparently died by then, too) Mr. Richard Underhay, appealed the will to try to get a better deal for Prestwood.
Assuming William was right, and he wasn't the father of Prestwood, it seems to me that the likeliest candidate would be Edward Ford (unless she was carrying on with multiple lovers at the time she got pregnant), given Mary's visits to him in London that year when she gave birth, and the fact he was staying in London when she went there, perhaps to be close to her when she had their child. Turner's work references the divorce proceedings saying at a party back in Devon Mr. Ford and Nicholas Cove were carrying on very inappropriately with Mary, and Cove even went so far as to openly tease William about mounting him with a cuckold's horns.
I'd very much like to be able to find the original divorce proceedings, to see what arguments were made; who William thought to be the likely father out of all Mary's lovers, why he was so certain the baby wasn't his (perhaps they'd stopped being intimate, I imagine he'd have to be very convinced of the child being someone else's to air their dirty laundry publicly at that time). If the father was Edward Ford I believe I found him in some other sources can work on drawing up a "possible/probable" genealogy for Prestwood.
Regarding the original source, Turner cites "Hockmore v. Hockmore 1698 fo. 614" and Grylls cites both Turner's book, and "C 5/134/25 (TNA)" which I assume is The National Archives but I'm not sure.
Now I *did* manage to find this page, but unfortunately the cases only go back as 1701. I wondered if anyone familiar with this site knows if they have a page for earlier cases?
https://waalt.uh.edu/index.php/C78_1701?fbclid=IwAR0mCBIjVbS9PwR83Eq38TJwgvRpL_865ZXNZGjBmkTAeL-A7RgnoH-it5w
It includes a 1701 case involving William and Mary arguing over distribution of lands after their divorce. It includes the original document which is great, but unfortunately no transcript, and the original is extremely long and illegible.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C78no1160/IMG_0001.htm
If anyone knows where I might be able to find the original divorce proceedings, I'd be extremely grateful, and thanks regardless for going through this long post.
-
Sorry, I have not read your post thoroughly but found this on TNA website
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3932305
This list may also be worth trawling
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=william+hockmore
-
Sorry, I have not read your post thoroughly but found this on TNA website
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3932305
This list may also be worth trawling
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=william+hockmore
Oh, thank you so much, Rosie! Yep, the second link looks like it has the 1698 case, I'll have a look into that.
-
I'd very much like to be able to find the original divorce proceedings, to see what arguments were made
Divorce at this date was a matter for the ecclesiastical courts, not the civil courts. So the original documents for the divorce hearing, if they survive, will not be at the National Archives but at the relevant diocesan record office, depending on where the action was brought.
The Chancery suits at the National Archives (as indexed on Discovery) will no doubt relate and refer to the original divorce hearing, but you will not be able to get copies of those until TNA restores full access to services.
So your best bet may be to start with the decree roll (from C 78) which, as you have pointed out, is conveniently online at AALT. This should recite much of the background to the case and will therefore probably give you plenty of details.
-
I'd very much like to be able to find the original divorce proceedings, to see what arguments were made
Divorce at this date was a matter for the ecclesiastical courts, not the civil courts. So the original documents for the divorce hearing, if they survive, will not be at the National Archives but at the relevant diocesan record office, depending on where the action was brought.
The Chancery suits at the National Archives (as indexed on Discovery) will no doubt relate and refer to the original divorce hearing, but you will not be able to get copies of those until TNA restores full access to services.
So your best bet may be to start with the decree roll (from C 78) which, as you have pointed out, is conveniently online at AALT. This should recite much of the background to the case and will therefore probably give you plenty of details.
Ah, that would make sense. Thanks, Bookbox. Though maybe I'm navigating the site wrong. C78 does have a 1701 case between William and Mary, but it's an argument over property after the separation, not the separation case itself which happened in 1698, which Turner and Grylls quote regarding the question of Prestwood Hockmore's real father. I looked for 1698 in the search bar:
https://waalt.uh.edu/index.php/C78_1698
But unfortunately there seems to be nothing there regarding the Hockmore case.
-
Ah, that would make sense. Thanks, Bookbox. Though maybe I'm navigating the site wrong. C78 does have a 1701 case between William and Mary, but it's an argument over property after the separation, not the separation case itself which happened in 1698, which Turner and Grylls quote regarding the question of Prestwood Hockmore's real father. I looked for 1698 in the search bar:
https://waalt.uh.edu/index.php/C78_1698
But unfortunately there seems to be nothing there regarding the Hockmore case.
The whole of C 78 (final decree rolls) is now on AALT, but C 78 does not have an enrolled decree for every suit heard in Chancery!
The document you’ve found from 1701 may relate to a case that began much earlier than that. And the 1698 case may have rumbled on long past 1701, or may never even have reached the decree stage.
I’m afraid you may not be able to get the document you’re after at the moment. Reading through the online decree might just act as a stopgap until you can.
Meanwhile you may want to have a look at the standard research guide to equity suits.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/chancery-equity-suits-after-1558/
-
I'd very much like to be able to find the original divorce proceedings, to see what arguments were made; who William thought to be the likely father out of all Mary's lovers, why he was so certain the baby wasn't his (perhaps they'd stopped being intimate, I imagine he'd have to be very convinced of the child being someone else's to air their dirty laundry publicly at that time). If the father was Edward Ford I believe I found him in some other sources can work on drawing up a "possible/probable" genealogy for Prestwood.
Now I *did* manage to find this page, but unfortunately the cases only go back as 1701. I wondered if anyone familiar with this site knows if they have a page for earlier cases?
https://waalt.uh.edu/index.php/C78_1701?fbclid=IwAR0mCBIjVbS9PwR83Eq38TJwgvRpL_865ZXNZGjBmkTAeL-A7RgnoH-it5w
It includes a 1701 case involving William and Mary arguing over distribution of lands after their divorce. It includes the original document which is great, but unfortunately no transcript, and the original is extremely long and illegible.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C78no1160/IMG_0001.htm
I have skimmed through the first few pages of this.
It is a whole lot more than 'arguing over distribution of lands after their divorce'.
Neither is it 'illegible'.
It is full of great detail about Mary's lifestyle! (Not judging her here!) And why the case is bring brought. Lots of background information going back many years. Very interesting indeed.
I didn't get to the part, if indeed it is in here, about the parentage of the child in question in your post, but it may well be in there - one thing you're right about is that it is very long - I got to page 5 before I stopped.
As Bookbox has said, if you haven't already done so, it would be well worth reading though this document, or getting it transcribed.
There is a Handwriting Deciphering Board here on Rootschat.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/handwriting-deciphering-recognition/
You could ask for help on there.
Perhaps if the first part is transcribed, you would be able to read the rest.
-
Fascinating - someone should write a book or make a film about the exploits of William and Mary. :)
-
Fascinating - someone should write a book or make a film about the exploits of William and Mary. :)
That's what I thought Ruskie!
It sounds like a great plot for book!
-
Had a few minutes to spare so made a start on transcribing it.
Whereas heretofore that is to say in or about the
Terme ^of^ the holy Trinity which was in the * of our lord
God according to the Computac(i)on of the Church of
England one thousand six hundred ninety and eight
William Hockmore esquire exhibitted his bill of Complaint into
the high and honourable Court of Chancery against Mary
Hockmore wife of the said Complainant William Hockmore
Mary Hockmore Jane Hockmore Honora Hockmore Alice
Hockmore and Prestwood Hockmore children of the Complainant
and the said Mary Hockmore his wife George Prestwood esquire
Gilbert yard esquire John Ridgley Dorcas(?) Pearson and others
therein named Defendants THEREBY setting forth That the
said Complainant sometime in the yeare one thousand six
hundred ninety and one did Intermarry with the said
Defendant Mary and In considerac(i)on of fifteen hundred pounds to
be payd the Compainant by the Defendant Prestwood her
father as a marriage porc(i)on with her the Complainant by
his Deeds of lease and Release bearing date the fifteenth
and eighteenth dayes of Aprill in the yeare of our lord one
thousand six hundred ninety one did settle and Convey
severall estates in the Countyes of Devon and Somersett to the
Defendant Prestwood Thomas Prestwood Richard Norris and
John Cartchurch and their heires To the use of the said
Complainant for life after to the said Defendant Mary for
her Jointure the Remainder to the Issue male of their bodyes
lawfully begotten with a p(ro)vision therein for raiseing porc(i)ons
for such daughters as they should have the Remainder to
the right heires of the Complainant for ever And the
Complainant did further settforth that soone after the
execuc(i)on of the said Deeds the marriage was
solemenized and the Complainant and Defendant Mary
lived together four yeares very loveingly and contentedly vizt
untill the moneth of December one thousand six hundred
ninety and five when the said Defendant Mary haveing
gott acquaintance with a company eloped from the
Complainant and took with her three of the children
/
great quantities of plate Jewells diamond Rings
household goods ready money and other goods and ch(at)ells
to the value of att least five hundred pound and came
to London where she soone became acquainted with idle and
lewd persons and spent and consumed all the said effects
in lesse than three monethes time
* the scribe seems to have missed out the word 'year' here.
Question to those more knowledgeable:
Are the faint 's's at the ends of word such as 'goods', 'rings', etc still transcribed as 'es' at this point in time?
-
The daughter, Prestwood, was apparently baptized in London (though William and Mary were from Devon, Mary apparently ran off to London during a dispute with her husband) in early 1696 under "Prestwood Buckmore, son [sic] of William and Mary Buckmore." Not sure why she was referred to as a son, Mr. Grylls doesn't say.
Have you read the original baptism register and is it in English or are you going off a translation or transcription? I wondered if there may be confusion between "f." or "fil.", abbreviations for filius (son) and filia (daughter). Although any confusion may have been in the mind of the baptising clergyman, thinking a baby named Prestwood was male. :)
-
Page 2 from AALT
..... three moneths time and by meanes of her
new acquaintance contracted debt to the value of foure
hundred pounds and that afterward by the mediac(i)on of
some friend the breach was made upp and the Complain(an)t
was well reconciled to her and undertooke to and did
pay all her debts and thereupon the said Defendant
Mary in Apprill one thousand six hundred ninety and six
returned into Devonshire to the said Complainant and on
her knees with teares asked the Complainant forgivenesse
and p(ro)mised the Complainant that if afterward any difference
should happen if the Complainant would allow her any house
and small estate neare his owne and her said fathers she
would be bound with her children to live there and never
runne the Complainant in debte for herselfe or children or
keep any ill company and that by those p(re)misses the Compla(inant)
was p(er)suaded to enter into Articles dated on or about the
tenth day of Apprill one thousand six hundred ninety and
six and did thereby Covenant to and with the said
Defendant George Prestwood and Gilbert yard after a
recitall of the said matters that the said Complain(an)t
would from henceforth and att all times then after
kindly receive and take into his care and protecc(i)on
the said Defendant and mainteine her according to her
degree and quality and treat her civilly and that
twas thereby further Covenanted that in case of a
second sep(er)ac(i)on the Complainant was to allow her for
the maintenance of herselfe and children she then had
by the Complainant all her said Jointure estate soe
settled on her as aforesiad and that the said Defend(an)t
Prestwood and yard and the survivor of them should &
might imediately after such seperac(i)on take and receive
-
:o Mary.
Thanks for transcribing that Goldie - I was quite curious I must admit. ;D
Nick, is this your family or do you have an interest in them for some other reason?
-
Couldn't resist some more of the plot! :)
Images 3 & 4
....take and receive
all the rents and profitts of such Jointure estate dureing
the Complainants life for the said Defendant Maryes use
and for the maintenance of herselfe and children which
she then had by the Complainant and for noe other
use or purpose whatsoever and that itt was thereby
p(ro)vided that after such second seperac(i)on the Defendant
Mary should live with the said Defendant Prestwood her
father but if he would not consent thereto then she was
to live at her Jointure house the Compainant leavinge
there all the household goods thereunto belonging for the
Defendant Maryes use and under another p(ro)visoe that after
such seperate maintenance the Defendant Mary should
not run or incurr any debt on the Complainant soe as to
bring him into any trouble or molestatc(i)on whatsoever by
meanes thereof and the Complainant thereby Covenanted
that after his debts payd hee would raise twoe thousand
five hundred pounds as an Addic(i)on to the porc(i)on of the
daughters begotten or to be begotten on the body of the
said Defendant Mary which said twoe thousand five
hundred pounds together with the fifteen hundred pounds
thentofore settled to be payd att their respective ages of
one and twenty yeares or dayes of marriage which
should first happen Provided that they marryed with the
consent of their said father and mother and of the said
Defendants yard and Prestwood and if either marryed
without such consent then the porc(i)on and share of such
person was to be to the use of the heires and Assignes of the
Complainant And for the better performance of the before
menc(i)oned Articles the Complainant Covenanted to make
further Assurance within three monethes then after As by
the said Articles a counterparte thereof to which the
Complainant referred himselfe might more fully Appeare AND
the Complainant did further settforth that notwithstanding he
had kindly reced* the said Defendant Mary and forgiven her
all things past and hoped for an amnedment and that she
would have either lived contentedly amd happily att
home with him or att her said Jointure estate yet without
* there is no contraction mark here, but I think this would read ‘received’
................................................... yet without
the least provoca(i)on given her by the Complainant or any
Cause whatsoever in lesse then two monethes time when his
present maiestyes fleet* layd att Torbay in the yeare one
thousand six hundred ninety and six haveing by such her
such first elopement gotten acquaintance with one Manly
and other Seamen belonging to the said fleet she invited
them and entertained them att the said Compl(ainant)s house
against his consent and that by contrivance of the said
Defendant Mary and her maide servant and other
confederates the Complainant was locked upp in a chamber
in his owne dwelling house and was there confined for
considerable time untill by the contrivance of one Mr
Stephens the Complainants neighbour and some of his
servants on Complainant made to them out att* window the
Complainant was helped and Released out att* window
and by such meanes escaped and was thereupon forced
to leave his dwelling house but the Defendant Mary his
wife with the offices and seamen continued still in the
house where she behaved herselfe very undecently and
wasted and consumed severall sheep hogsheads of
beare and sider and other provisions of and belonging
to the house and kept the Complainant out of his house
and refused him entrance and lay and cohabited with
such souldiers in the Complainants house And that in
August one thousand six hundred six hundred* ninety
and six the said Defendant Mary caused severall goods
* the scribe has actually written ‘freet’ here, but ‘fleet’ later on
* both these ‘att’ could be ‘all’; the scribe tends to cross double ‘l’s the same as double ‘t’s, netiher of which make a lot of sense here!
* the scribe has written ‘six hundred’ here twice
-
Mary, Mary, Mary .... ::)
This is turning into a real page turner Goldie. You couldn’t make this up! ;D
-
Question to those more knowledgeable:
Are the faint 's's at the ends of word such as 'goods', 'rings', etc still transcribed as 'es' at this point in time?
I haven't seen it stated explicitly but I believe so.
Also:
Agree with Dorcas.
...out att window... looks right. I'd say it's their conventional expression: at window rather than the window.
One other I noticed - you have ill company right in Reply #11 but in Reply #9 (near bottom of first section) you have it as a company.
-
Mary, Mary, Mary .... ::)
This is turning into a real page turner Goldie. You couldn’t make this up! ;D
;D ;D
Will see if I have some free time tonight :)
-
Question to those more knowledgeable:
Are the faint 's's at the ends of word such as 'goods', 'rings', etc still transcribed as 'es' at this point in time?
I haven't seen it stated explicitly but I believe so.
Also:
Agree with Dorcas.
...out att window... looks right. I'd say it's their conventional expression: at window rather than the window.
One other I noticed - you have ill company right in Reply #11 but in Reply #9 (near bottom of first section) you have it as a company.
Thanks HD for clearing up those points.
Interesting expression 'out at window'.
-
Page 5
(Going to go with ‘es’ on the end of words instead of ‘s’ from now on)
............ Mary caused severall goodes
Chattells plate Diamondes Ringes and other of the Compl(ainan)ts
estate to the value of five hundred poundes to be taken away
and carryed to London and then wrote a letter to the said
Manly the Confident to receive the same and soone
after followed them and contrary to the Complainants consent
carryed with her twoe of the said Children and lived and
inhabited in London as the wife of the said Manly untill
such five hundred poundes worth of goodes were all consumed
and Spent which according to their lascivious and profuse
way of liveing lasted not above three weekes and that
then the Defendant Mary toook on her againe the name of
Hockmore haveing before gone by the name of Manly and
alleadged that shee was the Complainants wife and
haveing about that time gott an acquaintance with
severall ill persons did by combinac(i)on with the said
Manly and severall tradesmen att London load the Compl(ainan)t
with debt on account of the said Defendant Mary and
children notwithstanding the Complainant by severall publicke
printes and perticuler papers printed and dispersed for that
purpose did give notice that the said Defendant Mary
was eloped and runne from the Complainant and carryed
away twoe of his Children with plate and severall other
goodes to the value of five hundred poundes and was come
to London and contracted debtes contrary to the Complainants
consent amd knowledge and thereby did advise all tradesmen
and other persons not to give creditt or trust her for any
goodes or sum(m)es of money for that the Complainant would
not pay the same and that if any person could discover
where the said Children were soe as to be had againe
should be well rewarded and that the Complainant
caused three thousand of such advertizements to be printed
and dispersed in and about the Cittye of London and
Westminster on which the said Defendant Maryes creditt
?wing was the Complainant was in hopes to have
p(re)vayled on her to have returned againe or att least to
have lived att her Jointure house according to the
said Articles that the said Defendant Mary haveing
gotten into such acquainance as aforesaid and by giveing
extraordinary prizes for goodes had contracted severall
great debtes in London and elsewhere since the said
Image 6
second elopement perticulerly with the said Defendants
John Ridgely and Dorcas Pearson and for which the
Complainant had beene arrested and prosecuted and was
dayly in danger of being arrested for the rest contrary to the
Intenc(i)on and true meaneing of the said Articles and that
notwithstanding this the said Defendant Mary and her
Children by their Guardian had exhibited their bill into
this Court against the said Complainant to have a
specificke performance of the said Articles THEREFORE
that the Defendants might answere the premisses and
that the said Articles might be delivered upp to the
Complainant to be Cancelled And the Defendants the
Creditors might discover the natures and kindes of their
pretended debtes and if they had any and what securitys
for the same and from whom and had not notice of
the said elopementes before or att the time of contracting
such p(re)tended debtes and when and that their proceedings
att law touching the same might be stayed by the
Iniunc(i)on of this court and for RELEIFE in all and
singuler the p(re)misses the said Complainant further
prayed the Ayde and assistance of this honourable Court
and that processe of supua might be awarded against
the said Defendantes to compell them to appeare and
answere the said bill which being granted and the said
Defendantes therewith all served they appeared accordingly
and put in their severall Answeres to the said Complainants
bill AND the Defendant Mary Hockmore for answere
sayed that about the time in the bill she intermarryed
with the Complainant and that she had such
porc(i)on and that such settlement was made in consid(er)ac(i)on
Iniuncion = Injunction
process of Supua (or Supna) = subpoena?
Looks like Mary is going to have her say now after hubby has painted her in the worst light possible! :)
-
Good morning everyone, sorry it took me a bit to get back to the thread as of yesterday, I live in the US. Wow, thank you so, so much for all the transcribing, it's extremely kind of you, and I greatly appreciate it like you wouldn't believe!
Haha, interestingly, regarding it being great novel fodder, Prestwood's grandson did serve as a character-model for a villain in a Victorian novel, the Maid of Sker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Froude
My family comes down through his presumably tamer sister, who married Georg Fritche, a German immigrant inkeeper and church organist (presumably how he met the daughter of the reverend John Froude Sr. :) ).
Still going through the thread now, reading the transcriptions on page 2, I'm very appreciative. Regarding the 1698 case, I did see it listed in the National Archives. I saw the option to "Request a copy" and registered an account, but when I clicked that option it took me to a long page regarding the process of in-person visits to the NA. I saw they had a Q&A section but didn't see anything about requesting online copies. I sent them an email regarding it last night, asking for advice on how to go about it. Maybe I'm confused, is it possible to request pictures of the forms, like in the 1701 case? Does anyone here have experience with requesting forms online from them?
-
The National Archives document copying service is not available at present because of COVID-19 restrictions (as mentioned in reply #3 above). Relatively few staff members are working onsite at TNA.
-
Just picking up the two matters queried in goldie's Reply #18:
...the said Defendant Maryes creditt
growing low the Complainant...
You are right that it's meant to be subpoena. It's probably spelt: su(b)p(e)na
-
The daughter, Prestwood, was apparently baptized in London (though William and Mary were from Devon, Mary apparently ran off to London during a dispute with her husband) in early 1696 under "Prestwood Buckmore, son [sic] of William and Mary Buckmore." Not sure why she was referred to as a son, Mr. Grylls doesn't say.
Have you read the original baptism register and is it in English or are you going off a translation or transcription? I wondered if there may be confusion between "f." or "fil.", abbreviations for filius (son) and filia (daughter). Although any confusion may have been in the mind of the baptising clergyman, thinking a baby named Prestwood was male. :)
There is this entry in the parish register for St Margaret Lothbury, City of London:
Prastwood Buckmore the sonn of Willia[m]
Buckmore and mary his wife was
Borne the 30th of January 1696 and
Baptised the 3th of february following
(Both dates are 1697 in the modern calendar, not 1696.)
-
Next installment of the saga!
Images 7 & 8.
.................settlement was made in Consid(er)ac(i)on
thereof as in the bill and that for some time after the
said marriage the Complainant lived with her peacably
and quietly and that she had severall children by him
but that about the yeare one thousand six hundred
ninety five the Compainant falling into ill Company
and enemyes to this Defendant was persuaded to
become a very ill husband frequently useing her with
very ill language and abuseing and beating her to
that Degree that she was very desireous if possible to
have reclaimed him by faire meanes but that his
unkindnesse soe farre increased as that it became
unsupportable and that after much patience she was
forced to discover his ill dealeings to her friends and
Relac(i)ons hopeing thereby to have brought him over to his
former temper who did endeavour to persuade him to use her
better but with soe little effect that by reason of his hard
usage she for the safety of her person was in December
one thousand six hundred ninety five forced to withdraw
herselfe for that the Complainant often threatened her
death dureing which seperac(i)on she with three of her
children lived privately in a house taken by one Stephens
in Downeing street westminster save onely that shee
lodged some parte of the time in old Southampton
buildings dureing which time beleived the Complainant
knew where she lived and that shee onely tooke with
her one hundred and twenty poundes to the best of her
remembrance or thereabouts for her necessary support till
reconciliac(i)on could be procured and that what goodes
were taken by her were by her carryed back againe to
the Complainant att her returne and that she could not
conceive any reason the Complainant had to use her soe
severely onely that in Aprill one thousand six hundred
ninety and three the Complainant p(re)tending to be
pricked in Conscience for sone lewd courses she reproved
him for the same and denyed that either before or att
the time of her seperac(i)on or since shee contracted
acquaintance with any lewd persons or of ill Report or
cohabited with any such and sayed that dureing her
seperac(i)on by the frequent sollicitac(i)ons of this Defendants
relac(i)ons and of the Gentry of the County the Compain(an)t
about the time in the bill pretended he was prevayled on to
become a better husband for the future and that he was
sensible hee had not used her as he ought and
proposed to enter into the Articles in the bill and
thereby to be bound to become a better husband and
to use her civilly or att least in case he should be againe
seduced by ill company to provide a convenient maintenance
for her and her children and hopeing to find a reformac(i)on in
him and with all the duty and tendernesse imaginable
apply herselfe to please the Complainant notwithstanding
all which endeavours in or about July one thousand six
hundred ninety and six the Complainant without the
least provocac(i)on did violently assault and beate her to
that degree that shee could not appeare to any of
her Relac(i)ons till the markes of such beateing were
worne off and whom she avoyed purely to prevent
disgraceing the Complainant AND denyed shee ever
invited any seamen or souldiers to the Complainants
house or that ever shee was acquainted with Culcutt
but confessed that Manly came to the said Complainants
house with one Tregee a Cornish gentleman as
acquaintant of Mr Tregees who came to visitt the
Complainant which Manly was civilly entertained by
her and not otherwise and denyed the Complainant was
ever locked upp or made a prisoner by her otherwise
then that about July one thousand six hundred ninety
and six the said Stephens being att the gate att
midnight and calling to the Complainant to lett him in
swearing he would Iniure this Defendant and her
Iniure = Injure
Look where she went to live in London!
How different two sides of a story can be.
I wonder who the Court believed?
Maybe we'll find out...........
-
dureing which seperac(i)on she with three of her
children lived privately in a house taken by one Stephens
in Downeing street westminster
Look where she went to live in London!
Downing Street was fairly new at the time, built early 1680's by Sir George Downing. 2 storey townhouses with coach-houses and stables.
https://www.history.com/news/the-surprising-history-of-10-downing-street
There were between 15 and 20 houses. No. 10 used to be No. 5. The present No.10 was originally 3 houses. Houses 1-8 were demolished 1824 to make way for construction of government offices, Privy Council Office, board of Trade and Treasury Office. Houses on south side replaced by Foreign Office.
Lord Lansdowne resided in Downing St. 1692-6.