obtaining her liberty; and therefore declared that the child with
which she was then great, was begotten by the Earl Rivers. This, as
may be imagined, made her husband no less desirous of a separation
than herself, and he prosecuted his design in the most effectual
manner: for he applied, not to the ecclesiastical courts for a
divorce, but to the Parliament for an Act by which his marriage
might be dissolved, the nuptial contract annulled, and the children
of his wife illegitimated. This Act, after the usual deliberation,
he obtained, though without the approbation of some, who considered
marriage as an affair only cognisable by ecclesiastical judges; and
on March 3rd was separated from his wife, whose fortune, which was
very great, was repaid her, and who having, as well as her husband,
the liberty of making another choice, she in a short time married
Colonel Brett.

While the Earl of Macclesfield was prosecuting this affair, his wife
was, on the 10th of January, 1607-8,[sic] delivered of a son: and
the Earl Rivers, by appearing to consider him as his own, left none
any reason to doubt of the sincerity of her declaration; for he was
his godfather and gave him his own name, which was by his direction
inserted in the register of St. Andrew's parish in Holborn, but
unfortunately left him to the care of his mother, whom, as she was
now set free from her husband, he probably imagined likely to treat
with great tenderness the child that had contributed to so pleasing
an event. It is not indeed easy to discover what motives could be
found to overbalance that natural affection of a parent, or what
interest could be promoted by neglect or cruelty. The dread of
shame or of poverty, by which some wretches have been incited to
abandon or murder their children, cannot be supposed to have
affected a woman who had proclaimed her crimes and solicited