William Fitzhardinge Berkeley Fitzhardinge.

A narrative of the minutes of evidence respecting the claim to the Berkeley peerage, as taken before the Committee of privileges in 1811. Together with the entire evidence of the persons principally concerned. To which are added, facsimiles of the banns, and register of the marriage: extracted from online

. (page 10 of 22)
Online LibraryWilliam Fitzhardinge Berkeley FitzhardingeA narrative of the minutes of evidence respecting the claim to the Berkeley peerage, as taken before the Committee of privileges in 1811. Together with the entire evidence of the persons principally concerned. To which are added, facsimiles of the banns, and register of the marriage: extracted from → online text (page 10 of 22)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


where ihey came from ; I camiot be particular as lo ih* se
trifiing words.

Do you recollect particularly one day before the l6ih of
May 1796, Miss Tudor going into the Ubiary where Lx^rd
Berkeley was: — She went into the librarv frequen<\v^ tut she
^ent particularlv one day when she had been \er\ m\[ all

Digitized byVjOOQlC



( 116 )

Can you recollect at what time that was t — Perhaps it
might be the latter end of April, I cannot exactly say.

At what place was it ? — Spring Gardens.

From tiiat time, did Miss Tudor appear to be more cheer-
ful than she had been before? — Much more so.

Do you remember any day in the month of May 1796,
Lady Berkeley's going out of h( r house in Spring Gardens
for any purpose to buy furnitur ? — Two mornings she went
out, saying she went for the express purpose of buying fur-
niture for Little Hampton House.

Did you observe any thing that passed upon her return that
enabled you to know for \\iiiit purpose she had gone out? —
Nothing more than my observations, that she appeared more
cheerful. 1 couid not ascertain the exact day they were
married.

Do you remember the family going to Cranford ? — AVe
went the following week that she had been pretending to go
out to buy furniture. It v/as usual for the sempstress to
mend die children's clothes prior to their going to the laun-
dry ; on going into the work-room where the servant was at
work, 1 found her ecjployed in taking out the* letter T. in
Lady Berkeley's clothes^ and introducing the letter B. with a
coronet.

Upon that occasion, arid from that time, by what name did
you address her? — l^ady Berkeley.

By what name had you been in the habit of calling her
before that time ? — Miss Tudor. Lady Berkeley wished me
not to call her Lady Berkeley for some time to come ; but I
th(jught it nece^isary to call her so, and likewise the rest of
ihe house.

Were you acquainted with Mr. Tudor.'* — ^Yes; he used
to visit at the house at Cranford, and in town.

Do you recolitct any enquiries made at any time by Mr.
Tudor respecting Berkeley ? — Oh, frequently.

At what time was it he made those enquiries f — Even down
(o the montli of October, when 'iliomas Moreton was boru*

In what year was that? — In 1796.

What were the enquiries Mr. Tudor made respecting
Berkeley; what did lie enquire about? — He wished t(e
Jknow what soit of a place Berkeley was; what sort of a
tjwu the tov>n was: what sort of a plate tht^ Castle wasjC



( 117 )

td tire, and told him he had better come and see it. I en-
quired of him at the same lime if he ever had been there, and
he said no, but be misht come soon.

Are you sure, that among the enquiries he made, the Church
was one of the objects of his enquines? — It was. '

When he >aid he bad not been there, where was it he said
be had not been before? — Not to Berkeley.

Did you collect from him whether he had ever been in the
Church or not:— Hie first time he came down was by mj
w riling to him, when Lady Berkeley was very ill.

What time was tli^t: — ^That was, 1 believe, the beginning
of the year 1797.

Was it after the birth of Moretonr — It was, as neariy as
I can charge my memory, it was the beginning of 1797.

Lady Berkeley was then very ill ? — she was.

UjxMi that occasion you desired ^Ir. Tudor to come
down : — I did ; she expresseil a wish to sec him before she
died.

Where was she then: — At Berkeley Casde.

Did Mr. Tudor, ia consequence of that appUcalion, eome
down to Berkeley Castle: — He did.

Relate what happened after he came down to Berkeley Castle,
in the beginnin;^ of 1797? — It was on a Saturday; the pre-
cise day of the month I cannot express; I cannot recollect it;
after being in the Casde some little time, and seeing his sister,
he wished me to show him the Cliurch; I did; I think Mr.
Carrin^on was one of the party; the three sons. Master
Berkeley, Master Frederick, and Master Augustus. When
in the Church I ob^ened him looking about very much,
which convinced me that he had not been there bet'ore ; upon
wl.ich I put the question, ^^ Have you ever been here, Mr.
Tucior,^ and his answer was, " No."

Do you remember the next day ui the breakfast -^auour
before dinner, Mr. Tudor being there: — 1 do.

Was any question put to him by any body, andii so,^^^'^^^
was it: — They were very happy to see liiiu, and etvc>^^^
he had e\er been there before ; his answ er was, *' ^ ^^V^n^^w

Who was it that expre^j^ed thai": —There were ^*^^' *^^^\^vvxx^t
rlemeu^ and I think I can take upon me to say , Doc^^*^^^ ^^^^^^^
was one. ^unday ^xas a pubVic day theve, an<^*_^^^\^ v.\v:>
strangers com ill**- ar fh of fr^rr.^ T /^onnot a5:revlaio t'^*^ Ao^uat



( 118 )

Do you remember in the year 1799> early in that year,
Mr. Tudor coming to the Castle? — Yes;

In M'hat month was it? — It was in February I think, the
17th of February I believe; I have a memorandum of that
in my pocket.

The witness referred to a memorandum.

(Q. hif Mr. Serjeant Best.) When did you make that
memorandum? — At the time. " On the 17th of February
1799* Mr. Tudor came down to B. C. meaning Berkeley
Castle. On the 24th of the same month we all came to town
from Cranford, having left B. C. on the 19th" It was a
slight memorandum I made. I left Berkeley Castle with the
children on the 19th, they followed me the day after; 1 slept
a night on the road, which made it the 20th I think that 1
arrived at Cranford ; they followed and came to Cranford on
the 20lh. " C. C.*' that is Mr. Carrington, '^ was sent back
the following week.'* I never expected this paper would
come to light, but found it among some papers the other
day ; it is very badly written.

Do you reccJk'ct w hat passed on Simday the 1 7th, after
Mr. Tudor's arrival ? — They were shut up in a centre room ;
Lord and Lady Berkeley and Mr. Tudor, for I suppose
about au hour or an hour and a half.

Were there any particular measures taken to prevent in*
terruptions, or any body hearing or .seeing what they were
about?— The outer doors were locked, a precaution I had
rtever seen used before while 1 was in the house^ and an extra
blind was put to the window to prevent any body lookir^g
over from the other side of the Castle ; I cannot tell what
they were doing.

Had you ever observed that circumstance before, of a
blind being put to prevent persons overlooking from the
opposite side ? — 1 do not recollect that I had.

Do you recollect when the investigation was going for-
ward in the year 1799, in this house? — Yes, I do.

Do you remember any expression used by Lady Berkeley
during that period ? — To use her Ladyship's own express
.«iion, she said she would raise Heaven and Hell to gam
her point. ^ j

Digitized by VjOOQIC



( 119 )

Are you sure that you beard her use that expression ? —
I am sure.

Did you observe at this time the appearauce of Mr. Tudor,
during the time this investigation was going forward? — He
was very much agitated indeed, insomuch that he used to
come to my room, and as many witnesses were backward^
and forwards wine and refreshments were placed for them
in my sitting room, to ask for a glass of wine. I enquired if
he was upon a just cause, why he felt so agitated ; he said
he felt it more particularly on account of hii» sister, and that
he feared their Lordships would be offended with him for
taking another name.

You spoke of his commg for refreshments, was it in the
morning that he came to you for wine and i-efreshment f—
Before he came to this house.

Was it before or after his dinner ? — Before his dinner.
Had he ever been used to do that upon any other occa-
sion ? — No, never. ^ •

From the time that you entered into the employment in
Lady Berkeley's family down to the month of May 1796, in
vvhav way and upon what footing did Lady Berkeley appear
to be with Lord Berkeley?) — She lived with him, I always
understood, as his mistress. )

Did the ladies of the neighbourhood visit in the family t

during tiie time 30U were there? — In London and at Craa-
t'ord a Mrs. Bell used when I first went.

V\'as there likewise a Mrs. Black r — Mrs. Black at BevVe-
lev Castle, and Mrs. Heur\ Jenuer. There were also, soua©^
time after 1 had been there. Major Austin s daughter^ ^^^
to visit. ^^^^

Were they natural daughters of Major Ausliu?— Ye^^
were. %^^ ^

With the exception of those persons ^as there a»y ^^^' ^^"^
distiQction at the places where they were, ^^>Uo Visited >^ ^^x

^^JZ^ ""' not any. ^ <^

vf « ^^- Hupsman visit before the ^e^^* ^7QQ^^^(^^ ^ ^
Eu^:i ci/uot v«u till th^ Y?ar ^1 ' ^l -? ,79s; ^ ^^^\






1>^



( 120 )

son, before I went there, and two daughters while I resided
there.

Was the eldest son ever called Lord Dursley by any body
prior to the Year 1 7gb ? — Oh, never.

Who was the youngest son in the year 1 796 ? — Henry.

Who was the youngest son in the year 1799 — April 1799?
—Thomas Moreton ; he was two years and nine months old
when I left, I believe.

There was no other son born subsequent to him in April
1709; no other son had been born in the interval between
1796 and 1799?— No.

Have you seen Mr. Tudor lately ? — I have not seen him,
he has called several times, but I have not seen him. ,

Where is it that he has been calling upon you ? — In Char-
lotte Street, Fitzroy Square ; he had not a card he said, he
left his name.

You have not seen him lately ? — I have not seen any of the
family to converse with thani since I left them, that is almost
"eleven years ago.

On her cross-examination being asked, have you never
threatened Lady Berkeley ? — She answered no^ never, no
further than \\hen I left tliem, 1 had suffered so much during
the last investigation, I resolved to quit the family ; 1 wrote
her then to say, I would quit, and that 1 could be a Friend or
otherwise ; words to that effect, 1 wrote to I^ady Berkeley
certainly ; but it was merely to get out of the house, if that
is called revenge.

Did not you tell Lady Berkeley you would be her greatest
enemy? — Oh, never; Lady Berkeley cannot say it, for I
never did.

Afterwards the following paper was shewn to the witness,
and she was asked.

Is not the whole of this letter your hand-writing ? — Yes,
the whole of this is uihic.

The same was read as follows :

'' Saturday, July 20th, 1799
*^ Mrs. Price feels Iicrsvlf treated so unlike a gentlewoman
in every respect in l^ord BvMkcley's family, that she begs leave
to cnv slip wmhps to hp no Irinof^r pnofntrpH fhpmin : thous^h^



f i2i )

Tlien the otter receipt which had been produced b^ the
Xvitness was read as follows :

'' Cranford, July 2Gd, 1799- Kec^ of the Earfof
Berkeley the sum of seven pounds seven shillings, in full
of all demands/'

'' M. J. PRICE."

They must have made a great mistake in the sum ; I re-
ceived a much larger sum than that. I did not read it when
I signed it. She was in a very great passion ; and there-
fore I suppose it was written in a very great hurry.

In whose hand-writing is the body of that receipt?— I ra-
ther think it looks something like my Lords, and 1 rather
think it is his. My Lord was present when I signed it. The
date of that receipt is within a Sew days of the time I men-
tioned.

Do you recollect the sending that letter which has been
read r — Yes, I do.

Xot withstanding you had sent that letter, did not Lady
Berkeley discharge you? — It was my own discharge. 1
discharged myself by that letter. It was my request to go.
It was before I left the house of course.

Did not Lady Berkeley insist upon your going, after that
letter ? — There was no necessity for insisting, because it was
my owTi wish.

Did not she refuse to give you a character afterwards .
— Yes.

Did she not tell you that she would send that letter to aB^^
person who applied for your character ? — ^That 1 wi^^^^ ^
I had no occasion to seek for anv other. ^\ol

Did not Lady Berkeley tell you so r-^-Yes, 1 had nO ^^
objection to its being sent any where. '^<tr^'^'^

You have said, that you remember Mr. ChapeaU ^^ • ,^^

the house ."^1 do. ^ ^^ ^^ vTn

nff^^ ^a"" '•^^^"^^r Ae circumstance of ^£j. q peai^ ^ ^^vVe

tTt A ""l ^^^^^»^^^g that parsed there ^_UeUe^^ ^ ^

but L>rd Berkeley and Mr/cbapeau U,^^^^ ,.ci ^ ^^^



( 122 )

he was sitting at the fire-side on the left hand of my T^rd ;
my Lord used the epithet as they were very jocular of cal^
hng him Old Fusius/awd Mr. Chapeau was in a passion.

Do you recollect Lord Berkeley, or any one in his pre-
sence, calling him any thing else which offended him ? — No,
I do not.

The word Chapeau ? — I do not recollect it.
Are you sure he did not ? — I do not recollect any such ex-
pression.

Jack Ass you may recollect perhaps ?— No, I do not,
indeed.

Do you recollect that Mr. Chapeau was very angry ? — •
Yes.

Did he not go away immediately ? — But he retunied the
next day.

At dinner-time ? — No, I think it was evening ; they lived
very near.

What offence had'Lady Berkeley given you before you
wrote that letter ? — None in particular.

Did you ever make application to Lady Berkeley to give
you a character for the situation of a governess since you left ?
— Yes, 1 have since.

What answer did you receive ? — That she would send my
letter that I gave her notice to quit with to any person who ap-
plied to her.

Then you consider that Lady Berkeley has prevented your
obtaining that situation in consequence of having refused ta
give you a character ? — No ; that would not have prevented my
getting the situation, because I had sufficient friends to give
nie a character; but I had no occasion to go any more
out.

How do you account for having heard the eldest son cal-
led Lord Dursley in 1 798, if that is the case ? — She was
called Lady Berkeley from 1796, therefore in 1798^ conse-
quently I do not know the time they were married, whether
it was May or when it was, only my own conjecture that led
me to suppose they had been recently married ; then I did
not know it for a certainty, but it was no wonder he should
be called l^rd Dursley after that.

Which son was called Lord Dursley in 1798 ? — ^The same;,
the eldest son. ^ ,

How old was he at that time? — I thinkotee^tai-iC^fiiglC
fourteenth year.



( 123 )

marriage till 1 799^ when you had heard the eldest son at the
age of fourteen called Lord Dursley in 1798? — I did not
know what tinje diey^were married ; it was not for me to en-
quire. 1 could not tell even what church they were married
at. 1 never knew of any other marriage than that 1 have just
stated, in the year 179^^; but then I could not ascertain
when that marriage had taken place, it might have been years
back as far as I knew at that time ; it \\as not till the investi-
gation I knew that two marriages had taken place.

But you know tliat the eldest son was called Lord Durs-
ley in 1798 ?— Yes.

He was then 1 4 years old ? — Yes.

A marriage in 1796 could have no influence upon his
title ? — As far as I knew then they might have been married
before that child was bom.

You are understood to say that it was in ilay 179^ that
Lady Berkeley told you she had carried her point ? — la
April 1 79^, 1 think it was.

Previously to that time you Jiad observed her frequently in
tears, and that her situation was very distressing ? — \ es.

And therefore you had not imagined she was married be-
fore that time r — No, 1 had not.

You are apprehended to have tised the date of the mar-
riaixe with which you are acquainted, to be in 1796: — les.

Then in 1798 you could not have imagined that marriage
had taken place prior to 1790 ?— Lady Berkeley msisted
upon it, that the present young Lotd should lake t\\e title
of Dursley ; it was much against his Lordbliip s incVmation
that he should do it. ,

Could you have believed that any marriage \\adtaVe ^ ^^
prior to 1796:— Not at thai time cena\u\y. ^ ^^\^a.

But at that time you heard the preseut cUW^^
Lord Dursley? — Yes I -o« '^'^^*

Did that suggest no idea to voor to\^^ ""llcSV^^ °^
nage^-.No u d,d not, from circui^^^^^'^^^^^ ^^' ^,^.sV^

Howdidyou account f i- ..^irt^- caX'^*=*^ av^J -^^

at that timeV-Becan (°'' ^'' ^ i_ Iwn' "^^^^^"^^^X^
.%n his name. He f ^ Lady Heri^"^/-^^ ^ .vovev^.^

^ould sign his uaa.1 i V^> ^erkelf J' .^",.^.d vv»jVe^^ X^^^^,
Filar -Berie/ev. Sl,^ '- f^/d Rerkel*^,>^ •,^. feVto_^^a -^ ^






( 124 )

This was in Tendon? — In Spring Gardens in 1798.'
Are you sure it was not 1797 r— I do not think it was, but
I cannot fix dates.

At that time he was desired by bis mother to sign the
name of Dursley ?-^Yes.

Was any reason assigned for that ? — They had been to the
Theatre the night before and sat the next box to the Mar-
chioness of Salisbury. Her Ladyship dropped a trinket from
her watch ; this young man saw it, and after they had left the
box he got over and picked it up and brought it home, and
was to stnd it back the next morning, in consequence of
which he was to write a note, and that was the purport of the
note.

Was any, and what reason, given for his taking at that
ti:ne, for the first time, the title of Dursley i* — His mother
said it was necessary he should take the title of Dursley. I
do not know any particiJar reason any more than that, that he
was to sign Jiis name to this note, and it was necessary, she
thought he should take the title of Dursley.

Did you know the late Mr. Hupsman ? — Yes ; he used to
visit at the Castle at the time I first went there.

Do you remember w hen he died ? — I recollect his death,
but not the date.

Can you recollect whether this transaction of the note
being to be written, either in the name of P'itz Berkeley or
Lord Dursley, happened previous to the death of !Mr. Hups-
man, or sub'^equent ? — After; as far as that I can recollect..

Do you rtcoliect any quarrel having taken place between
Lady Berkeley and Mr. Cliapeau? — Never, I do not recoK
lect any particular quarrel between them; there might, but
1 am not certahi of it.

Do you recoil ct any quarrel between Lord Berkeley
and Mr. Cliapeau ? — Yes ; they quarrelled sometimes.

Do you recollect any particular quarrel? — No; nothing
further than what I have stated.

Did you know Capt. Cracraft? — Yes; he was my Lord's
cousin.

Did you ever hear of any quarrel between Capt. Cra-
craft and Mr. Chapeau? — No; I never did.

You are positive of that? — Yes. C^r\r\n]o

Were the ascendencv and controul in fflS^'^fafiih^HVdU^



( 125 )

Can you state at what time Mr. Hupsman died? — ^T do
not know whether it was 1797 or 179i>; oue of those date*
I tliinL.

Can you state at w hat time this letter was written to Lady
Salibbury ? — 1 believe it was m i 797 or 1 793 ; but it was
after Mr. Hupsmau*s death.

When you cannot htate the date of ^Ir. Hupsniau's
death, nor the date of that note; how do vou know \\helher
]Mr. Hupsman's death preceded that noier — From circum-
stances; because Mr. Clarke, the house-steward, was sent
down by Lady Berkeley's orders to Hare- Hatch, where he
had hved, to a,^erlain his death, and 1 said, *' Why do you
feud the man so fai to enquue at.er his dtaih ; wliat does it
concern you :" She said, *^ If he should nut be dead, or
should come to life again, there would be dreadUil work;**
or, ** sad things ;" or words to that eti'ect.

How does the recolKction of this circumstance, being
Ignorant of the date of \>riting of the note, and the date of
Jvlr. Hupsman's death, euabie }ou to itate that Mr. Hups-
man died previous to the writing of the letter? — Because he
^ as never called Dursley till that ; till after he Mas dead;
lliat makes the circumstance stronger in my recollection.

And there is no other circumstance but his being called
Loj-d Dursloy, and your rece)hecting that Liidy Berkelev
<cnt down this n^essenTcr, which enables you to say that
Mr. Hupsman ched betore the writing that letter to Lady
Salisbury ^ — Yes ; I am certain of that.

lliose are the only circumstances ? — Yes; at present tliat
I recollect.

Upon your oath, is any of the evidence you have given to-
dav, given w ith any malevolent feeling towards Lady Berkeley
or any of tlie family r — Xo ; all 1 ha\e said is drawn from me;
I wished not to appear here.

You were acquainted with Capt. Cracraft ? — ^1 knew \a\\x^»
as I did the rest uf the gentlemen, coming to tlie Casile ^ ^>^^
he was my Lord s coumh.

You never had any quarrel with Capt. Cracrah, nof^ ^^
one of the family r — 1 had no quarrel', i tad uo\.U^^^-=*
quarrel about.

DANIEL WILLEY, Esq. was again cail©*ia^^Sl)0^e
mined as follows : ^^-^ ^ V>



( 126 )

The witness produced the book.

Is that the book to which you referred on your former ex-
amination ? — Yes it is.

Have the goodness to refer to the entry, and read it to
their Lordships : — Fii'teenth of January sold Mr. Farren five
cows, 25 1. 4 .

What year?— 1784.

Is there any other entry in that book relative to that trans-
action ?

Several were produced.

There is no subsequent entry in the book on that subject?
— No ; there is not.

( Bt/ a Lord.) Are you sure the militia was out in May,
1785^ — To the best of my recollection they were out m
May, 178.5.

Are you not able positively to state whether tliey were or
were not? — 1 think they were part of the time, but not the
whole.

Have you any memorandum upon that subject in this
book? — No, I have not. I was chosen Coroner for the
County in the beginning of 17^4, and I never joined the
regiment afterwards. 'Ihis is a pocket-book of 1784.

Are you sure that the first time you went to remonstrate
with Mrs. Farren about not receiving your money, was after
the cessation of tho.se payments r — I am not sure ; it might
be between the January and the March.

Was the money brought to you.^ — It was brought to
me.

Are you positively sure that it was after the cessation of
these weekly payments, that Lord Berkeley desired you to
introduce him to Mary Cole ? — O, yes, it was after, when
I came into the Southgate-street with Lord Berkeley, that
was the latter part of May, or about the middle of May,
1785. '

Are you positively sure it was after that October >\henyou
received the last guinea ? — O, yes, certainly.

The witness was informed he might return to Glou-
cester.

Proposed to adjourn this Committee to W^edm;sday next

at ten of the clock. Digitized by C^OO^lC

Accordinelv. adiourned to Wednesdav npvt nt ten of the



( 1G7 )

Mary Price being again called in was examined as follows :-
Yon say that you travelled up to town in February 1797
M iih the children ? — Yes.

Did you write any account to Lady Berkeley of the cliil-
dren f — Yes ; always if she staid behind me : she has staid
perhaps a week after me at the Castle, and I at Cranford, but
that never happened above twice ; we corresponded, and I
always addressed her as Mi s Tudor.

The Counsel were called in.

Then WILLIAM HILL was again called in; and pro-
ducing a book, was examined as follows :

What is that book you have in your hand ? — A common
ledger, in which 1 eutered my accoantj generally once a
week.

Is it the book you made use of in the year 17 So ? — It is.

Turn to that part which enables you to state at what pe-
riod Farren lived as your neighbour in Southgule-street.

The witness turned to the entry.

How does it appear by that book, he was your neighbour
at that time i' — From an entry I made here which Mas never
discharged^ IS June, 17S3, that is the last account I have.

Is there not one of the 5th and 7 th : — Yes ; '* oth and
7th of June 17B3, Mr. Green and Mr. Farren^ bi-andy and
Hollands, Is. 5d. Breakfast Is. 4d.'' that was for both.
'' Milk punch, 6d."

Are vou sure that Jlr. Farren was then in Southgate-
streetf — Yes. ^' On the 18th of June, dinner Is. cyder lOd.
brandy 3d."

^At those dates lie was your neighbour in South gate-street?
— Yes.

Cross-examined.

I^w comes this entry of 17S5 to be under 1784^ —
Wherever there was a vacant place 1 entered t\\eiB, ^^^
put them into the index ; 1 did riot put them in re^^^-^"^
order, ^ _^^

At the lop of the page it appears to be under 173-^ '
Yes.

William Hill and Wiiiiam Griffith being: called on ^^— ^'^
tive to the register o( Farren s children, tl.e Solicitor ^ ^ ^ ^4,



C vis )

That he had another witness of the name of Thompson id
produce, whom he should have examined immediately, but
tuifortfuiately she did not arrive time enough to be sworn


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Online LibraryWilliam Fitzhardinge Berkeley FitzhardingeA narrative of the minutes of evidence respecting the claim to the Berkeley peerage, as taken before the Committee of privileges in 1811. Together with the entire evidence of the persons principally concerned. To which are added, facsimiles of the banns, and register of the marriage: extracted from → online text (page 10 of 22)