THat the said Mr. Emmerton and Mrs. Bridget Hyde, Daughter and Heir of Sir Thomas Hyde Baronet de­ceased, by Dame Mary his Wife (who was after­wards the Wife of Sir Robert Vyner, and now also De­ceased) were upon the first day of October 1674. To prove the Mar­riage 4 Witnesses. To the Lady Vyners consent 6 Witnesses and her Letter. To Mrs. Hydes con­sent 14 Witnesses. To Sir Thomas Hydes intention 3 Witn. Lawfully Marri­ed together by one Mr. Brandley a Minister in Holy Orders, by and with the Free Consent and Direction of the said Lady Vyner, and at the Earnest desire of the said Mrs. Bridget, and according to the full intentions of her said Father Sir Thomas Hyde, all which the said Bridget, hath since frequently declared and ac­knowledged.

That the said Sir Robert Vyner was informed of the said Mar­riage upon the third of January 1674. and did then declare he was satisfied with the Reality of it. Yet he said, To this 3 Witnesses. for other peo­ples satisfaction he would have some of the Witnesses that were present at the Solemnity come up to London and make Oath of it.

That Mr. Edlyn and Mr. Brandly (two of Mr. Emmerton's principal Witnesses did accordingly come up upon the Eleventh [Page 2] of January 1674. To this 4 Witnesses. in Barkhamsteed Coach, and nigh the end of Grayes-Inn Lane, the said Coach was beset by about Ten armed men, among whom was one Christian (then servant to the Earl of Danby) which said Company violently pull'd the said Mr. Brand­ley out of the Coach, (pretending a Warrant from Sir Joseph Williamson then Secretary of State) and Mr. Brandley then de­siring a friend might go with him, one of the said Company Swore, that if any one stirred or offered to follow, he would Pistol him; To this 1 Witness and Circumstances. and so they forcibly carried the said Mr. Brandley away, and tempted him with promises of 1000 l. (pressing 20 l. upon him) and terrifying him with threats of Ruining and Pistoling him, to force him to deny that he had Married the said Mr. John Emmerton to the said Mrs. Bridget Hyde.

That Mr. Brandley having never been in London before, and being thus threatned in a strange place, and fearing lest he should be Kill'd if he did not comply with them, did, when he was carried late that night before the King at White-Hall, and there Examined, Prevaricate in his Testimony concerning the said Marriage, the Earl of Danby, Sir Joseph Williamson and Sir Robert Vyner being then present: after which Examination Mr. Brandley was Committed to the Custody of one Copley a Messenger, and by him detained some dayes.

That Mr. Brandley being troubled in Conscience for what he had been forced to do, To this 4 Witnesses. did get leave of the said Messenger to go out, and did then of his own accord go to Sir Robert Vyner, and confess he had Married the said Mr. Emmerton to the said Mrs. Hyde, and begged his pardon for so doing, and threw down the 20 l. (that had been forced upon him) bidding Sir Robert Vyner take it, for he could not in Conscience keep it.

That after the said practices upon Mr. Brandley, Mr. Emmer­ton's Wife was taken from all his Relations, and put into the hands of Strangers; To this 10. Wit­nesses. who kept her so, that Mr. Emmerton could not speak with her since the death of her Mother the Lady Vy­ner to this day; and who by threats, promises and perswasions, and all other undue means, have endeavoured to divert her affe­ctions from her said Husband Mr. Emmerton.

That the Lord Chief Justice Hale upon the Examination of the evil practices aforesaid, The Records and 4 Witnesses. did think fit to order a Tryal at Law at the King's Bench Barr in Easter Term 1675. where the only point in Issue was, Whether Mr. Emmerton was Lawfully Mar­ried to Mrs. Bridget Hyde or not, and the Jury were so well sa­tisfied of the Strength and Validity of the Proofs and Evidence, that they gave a Verdict for the Marriage without going from the Bar, with the approbation of the said Court.

Proved by the acts of that Court.That Mr. Emmerton having Exhibited a Libel in the Archies Court of Canterbury the second of March 1674. for the Re­covering [Page 3] of his said Wife, the Judge of the said Court did de­clare (by Colour of an obsolete Canon) that his Witnesses that were at the Marriage were Excommunicated ( ipso facto) for being at a Clandestine Marriage; and so put Mr. Emmer­ton to many long Debates, to great Charges and trouble be­fore they could be Restored and absolved ad testificandum only: but as for Mr. Emmerton's Father and Mother (after four Termes Debate) the said Judge did utterly Refuse to absolve or admit them to be Witnesses at all in the said Cause: against which unjust and unlawful Sentence Mr. Emmerton Appealed to the Delegates; But they unjustly and Illegaly did Confirm the aforesaid Sentence, tho' Mr. Emmerton's Council did pray that his Father and Mother might be only examined ( de bene esse) and to be believed as they should see Cause, and as they agreed or Contested with other Witnesses when the Examina­tions should be published.

That since the said Sentence, the said Mr. Emmerton's Fa­ther is Dead, and his Mother is very Sickly and Antient, Proved by 4 Wit­nessess. so that by the said Sentence he hath utterly lost the Testimony of his Father, and will in all Probability lose the Testimony of his Mother (if he should have further occasion to use her) who both of them were the most Material Witnesses, not on­ly to prove the said Marriage, but also the Lady Vyner's desire and consent to and for the said Marriage.

That the said Judges Delegates did Retaine the said Cause before them till the 12 ^th day of July 1680. at which time it was finally heard. Proved by the acts of Court. And altho' Mr. Emmerton lost the Testi­mony of his Father and Mother, and many of the most Ma­terial Articles of his Allegations were rejected, and all his Kindred admitted to Testifie only Sub omnibus Limitationibus, and the many other hardships were put upon him; yet he made so Clear a proof of his said Marriage, that the said Judges Delegates did give a Sentence for the same.

That notwithstanding the Verdict at Law and Judgement, Execution and Possession thereupon had, yet the Lord High Chancellor of England upon a Bill filed in that Court by the said Mrs. Briget without over-ruling Mr. Emmerton's Plea thereunto (which he doth still refuse to hear) did order the Rents of the Estate in Question in the said Suite, Proved by the Or­ders of that Court. to remaine in the Tenants hands till a Sentence should be given before the Delegates: And since the said Sentence, his Lordship hath ordered the said Rents in Arrears to be brought into Court, declaring that he will allow the said Mrs. Bridget 1000 l. per Anum (which is half the yearly Revenue) during the Dependance of a Com­mission of Review which hath been granted her after almost six about 6000 l. so that Mr. Emmerton can have no fruit of his said Verdict at Law, or said Sentence.

That altho' she was obliged to plead all new matter upon her Commission of Review, Proved by the acts of the said Court. and prove all by the 26th of October 1680. yet she did not Exhibit any Allegation till the 9 ^th of this Instant November: and altho' the Allegation consisted of such matter as ought not to be admitted by Law, yet the Bishops and Civilians Impowred by the said Commission of Review then present, did admit it all, and gave her further time to prove (viz.) to the First day of next Term.

So that by these tedious delays (not knowing but this Suit may last some years longer) and by these vast expences Mr. Emmerton is put to, having spent about 6000 l. in this Suit, and being debarr'd from Receiving any Rents and pro­fits of the premises by the Lord Chancellors order as aforesaid, by such like unjust and unreasonable doings Mr. Emmerton is like to be utterly undone and Ruined.