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 14 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 14 of 22)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

never recolltrct having u«ed tlie name of Lady Berkeley to
her; did you use the title Your Ladyship? — I have no re
coUtction ot that.

Mrs. Btll neither had nor expected any pecuniary recom-
peiice for drawing or cleaning picturei? — Cjrtainly she
never expected any pecuniary remuneration from Lord or
Ladv Berkeley, nor ever received any.

Were there ever any presents received r — Mrs. Bell once
received from Lady Berkeley a Htlle silver sauceboat for one
of the children, uh j was a great favourite, bat nuthiug I could
consider as valuable.

The witness was directed to withdraw.

TLcn^ELLTS TAYLOR FARREX was called in, aini
having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr, Si'tjeaut Best.) What relation are you to William
Farren, late of Gloucester r — !j;'.t!ier.

Whom did he marry : — Ann Cole.

She is dead r — Yes, she is

Do you know a person of the name of William Tudor :—
Yes, 1 do.

As you have stated you are brother of William Farren who
manied A:in Cole, were you intiniule in the family of the
Coles: — I was.

When did you fir«t know the family of the Coles : — I knew
them before mv brother was married several years.

At what year did your knowledge of them begin ? — Before
the year 1780-

Have you ever heard Tudor, about the year 1780, called
by the name of Tudor r — Since that ; not in the year 17^0.

When did you tirst bear that per??on caV.ed by the name
of Tudor: — After my brother manied Ann Co\e.

\\'hat year did your brother mairy Ann Cole ?— To v\ve
best of my knowledge 17^^*2. .. -.

How soon after vour brother married Nv\tA\ Ann CoW a\A
you hear Tudor calieti by the name of ^Fudort— V iHiiaV^^^^
was, to the best of my recollection, ^784 that 1 W^

h<^«rd if Digitized by CiOOQIC

( 168 )

State to the Committee in what manner it was done, what
they said about his name ? — They begini with me first, as to
my name being Eiiis Taylor Farren, what was the reason of .
luy being christened with three names, lillis Taylor Farren.
I made a remark upon that, to know the reason of WilHam
Tudor Cole.

Had you ever before this heard either of them speak of
Tudor by the name of William Tudor Cole? — I had not.

How long had you known his name was William Tudor
Cole? — I heard him called Tudor, and I asked for what reason
he was called Tudor.

Have you ever since that, heard him called Tudor? — I

By whom ? — I heard Doctor Parker cull him so.

Uo you mean Mr. Parker; the apolhecary of Gloucester ?■—
I do.

You have said that Mrs. Farren is dead who was the sister
of Lady Berkeley r — Yes.

Have you ever heard Mrs. Farren say any thing respecting
Lady Berkeley 'ii nmrria<re ?^She did.
.^ What did you hear Mrs. Farren say ? — I heard my brother
and she both say Aie was majried to Lord IJerkeley.

Are you sure you heard that in the year 1785 ? — I am.

You heard them both say 17B5 that Lady Berkeley was .
married t© I^)rd Berkeley ? — I did.

What more did they say ? — Nothing.

Did you hear that more than once ? — I did not.

What is your situation in life ? — A farmer and grazier.

Where do you farm ? — I rent near a thousand a-year of
Walker Wilkiiis, Esquire, the Member of Parliament for

Cross examined.

When weie you first applied to be a witness on this
subjecti — I cannot exactly say ; it was by Mr. Griflith.

Did you then to Mr. Griffith give the same account y«u
have given to day ? — 1 cannot positively say whether I did or

How long ago was it you spoke to Mr. Griffith ? — I can-
not exactly sa}', it was on a Saturday Mr. Griffith called me
away from niy dinner just as I was about to sit ^P^^r^tflp
Booth Hall Inn. '^'^"^ ^ o

( 169 )

might be a nonth before I came up here ; it was ontt Satv*
day I perfectly recollect.

When did you come up? — ^I have come up twice ; I weo^
back again.

When did you comfe up first ? — That I cannot positively
say^ but I know I have l>een up twice and went hack. I came
up this last time on Wednesday nioming.

hi what month was it you first came up ? — In May I should
expect ; 1 know it was May.

Do you happen to know whether the claimant had closed
hi" case when you came up f — I heard Sir Samuel Romilly
speak when 1 was in the House.

How long before that had you been brought up to Lou*
don r — I think two days to the best of ojy knowledge.

Had you been asked questions by the Solicitor for the
claimant before that? — I had not.

Before Sir Samuel Rornilly spoke? — No; I had not.
Who brought you to London ? — I came without any order
whatever ; Mr. Bloxsome sp5ke to me, but I came without
any order. I had business with Colonel Kiney of the Royal
Artillery to take an estate. «

When did Mr. Bloxsome speak to you? — I cannot ss^.
Was it before you heard Sir Samuel Romilly ? I think it

Where did he speak to you? — At Gloucester.
When he spoke to you at Gloucester, did you then tell
bim what you have related to-day? — I do not think that

Did you tell him any part of what you have told to-day ?-— •
1 rather think I did.

What part? — ^That I lived nearly under the same rw^ aa
my brother ; and that 1 knew them from the tune they wer^
married ; that I knew Tudor Cole ; and that 1 heard m^
brother and sistcr»in-law say that Lord Berkeley was manift^
to Mary Cole.

All that you told Mr. Bloxsome whei^ be first apok^e ^
you? — Yes; I think I did.
Are you sure you did ? — Yes.

ITiat was two days before S'u- Samuel 'RomJUy spokf

vrai here two days before he spoke. . i^ODOi^

Then it must be about a week ago ?- X should thim^ Vt^dr**


Digitized by


( 171 )

Did he ask yoa whether Mr. Farren had caUed him so?
^-^1 do DOt know that he did^ but I told him he had.

Then why did not you tell him of both equally ? — I cannot

. Did yoo at that time know that the enquiry was goins: on
respecting the majriage of Lord atd Lady Berkeley ? — 1 did


When Mr. Griffith came to speak to you^ did not you
know that ^m enquiry was going on about the marriage of
Lord and Lady Berkeley r — I did not ; Mr. Griffith came
to my. bouse for half an hour, and would not tell his busi-
tiessy in an underhand way, with my wife; he would not tell
his business; but that is not the first time of Mr. Griffith's
disgrace ; Mr. Griffith came and asked underhand questions^
in an underhand way, and walked about the hou^e, and said
that was where he spent the younger years of his life; but
that is not the first time that Mr. Griffith has done things
that has disgraced him — 1 could tell things that would make
the house shudder.

How long did Mr. Grffith stay at your house? — I cannot
tell ; I was not at home, and did not see him.

How long was he there when you were at home? — ^He
never was there when I was there.

Where did this conversation pass? — In the Booth Hall.
How long was the conversation ? — About twenty minutes,
I suppose.

Did you know that an enquiry was going on about Lord
Berkeley? — Nothing more than that Sir. Griffith told my
wife ; 1 will not deceive you any longer \ 1 want to ask ^Ir.
Farren some questions about his brother and sister-in-law.
(By a Lord.) Were you presei\l? — -^^^^ .
Did you hear it .?— N o, 1 did not. , ., .-n .v^at

Then how dare you swear it ?~I did not know it tiU tua^
time I said. *- j

{Mr. Solicitor General,) Dn vna lU^^ ^"^ ^^^^ ^^""wt
noi know before that tiine that an ^ nu^y - ^r^^^,^^
Lord Berkeley's marriage ^-n!^ ''Thet-^^^"^^' vl^CcV^^^^

Had not you beard before ^vf "" .^^ ^^'"''"'''
was questioned?— Never in 1 r.^^° v ' t\.e cro^o^l

hL not you beard that, r*'^^- 3^^^^ ^^^d 1^ V*^

of Gloucester, - hetheVLf/R. T1 %^^ ^''CvJ^'^^^^^

And. you never lueard a dispute about the marrk^e of Lord'
Berkeley? — ^Yes, I tave heard of a dispute, but .1 aev€#
heard what ihe dispute was about ; and I will venture to
swear, that Lord nor Lady Berkeley never spoke. to me ill
their lives ; I have had no communkatiou with them to speak
to them.

You are not asked as to the communication with Lord
and Lady Berkeley, but do you mean to swear positively,
you did not hear what the dispute was about, till Mr. GriflSti
came to you ? — To the best of my knowledge, I knew nothing
of ^t ; I heard there was a dispute at the election, but what
it was about, God kiK)W8, 1 never knew.

You never heard that there was a dispute about a marriage
in 1765 of Lord and Lady Berkeley? — I heard there wm a
dispute, but I never enquired into it ; I did not expect to be

Had you heard of a dispute about the marriage of Lord
and Lady Berkeley ? — I had heard there was a dispute ; but
VI hat it was about, I did not know.

Did you hear the dispute was about the marriage ? — Yes ;
but not what it concerned m any way.

Did you hear there was a doubt entertained about that
marriage ? — Not by any particular person I knew, nor no
person came to me to say such a thing.

Did you never hear in the county of Gloucester, that the
marriage of 1 785 w as doubted ? — 1 heard a rumour that there
' was sttch a thing.

When ? — I cannot say.

How long ago? — I cannot say; I never tfiought of beino"
concerned in it any way.

Did you hear it ten years back ? — I canaet say.

Five ? — I cannot say.

One year back ? — 1 did not keep the time in my mind.

Will you swear that you did not hear of the dispute a year
back ? — I cannot say when.

Have you not, for more than a year past, heard that thefo
was a dispute about the marriage ? — 1 do not think I have ;
the first time I heard it was, I think, when Lord Berkeley
put up for the county.

What did you hear ? — ^That there was a dispute.

What did you hear ? — That the mob went on calling, thaie
he would not be Lord Berkeley, that I heard. -

( ITS )

dmibt whether he \vas to be Lord Berkeley Mas on a donbt
i^iiether he was a iegirimate or a natural clnid : — I never
beard of that ; I never asled any questions about it*

Was not the doubt, whether the prt^sent claimant N^-as a
child bom in lawful wedlock, wai not that the doubt f— I de-
clare I iTever heard that mentioned ; 1 heard that there was a
doubt, but I heard it iVom no particular person whatever ; i
heard the mob in the street i^oing oa in the streets at the

VV hat was the doubt which pr^v^ttled at the election ?—
^^ hat I heard was^ that Lord Berkeley was bom before mar-
riage, by the mob, nothing more ; I did not hear no parti-
eular person ; it was wrote in chalk, or something or

Was it at the county election you heard that the present
claimant was bom before marriage ? — ^Yes.

Yon did hear that ?— Yes, I heard it talked of, but no one
talked of it to me.

' Did not you hear it a common topic of conversation for a
considerable time r — Yes ; by the mob in the streets.

You heard it repeatedly : — Yes.

Did ^ou not know tliat there existed a doubt of the \alidity
of that marriage r — I heard diere was a rumour, but no po^cjit
said any tiling to me about it.

The following questions and answers of the W itnes* vcsre

read over.

'' You recollect that Mr, Griffith spoke to you, and you
told him about this person s name being Bill ?— 1 do.

- Will you swear you told him his name had ever ^e«
Tudor r— I really believe I did .. tf%

^^". Will you Lear you dulr-I think I ca*. vcnu«e to

':; W.11 you venture ?->To tl. best of my ^'^^^^S^oi «,
1 his passed not nianv u^.i ^?^T^ ^**
l»o.l ,.e I ..,1 s«ea. iLat.^"''^ ^''^ ,,tf ..,V«o*-

/^a-e i" f" ''''''' " Po^iliveh :_To th^^ ^^t- l^^^'^" .e-

^r^s^^Z^, ^^^' ^' - '^ ^ able to know -i^'^ 1^ -»V> >^^'^«* **'

P 1 J '^'^a as Ills name : — I ,.^ , ■ , ij i.it»* r^ . a

l,^^ ^^otl, Hall. '-'^tUimh told iw* digitized by Gft<a^ caUe*

( 174 )

^ You are quite sure now ?— I am as clear as that I stand

^^ That you told Mr. Griffilh the first time he applied to
you, his name was Tudor Cole r — That he was generally
called Bill or Wi'l, but 1 had heard Mrs. Farren call him
WiUiam Tudor Cole."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

The Witness was again called in.

I think you faid in answer to a question put to you, that
It was in lYSl- you first heard this person called by the name
of Tudor, was that so ? — To the best of my recollection it
was, I cannot say positively what time it was, because 1 lived
next door to them the whole of the time, my brother lived
next door, Tudor did, and I was backwards and forwards
the whole of the time.

Had you known hiii long before 1784- ? — Yes, I was at
school in 178/^, and came away in llSi*.

Had you known liiin while he was at school ? — I had
knrwn him, but not been much with him.

Had yon ever h( ard any person call him by the name of
Tuc^or oi Tu'U>i Cole before the year 1784 ? — No.

Had vou always he rd him called by the name of Bilf,
Willi-n, or William Cole? — Bill most.

Had )ou not heard him called Cole before? — Yes, I

And never the name of Tudor before ? — Never.
After the year 1784, did you hear any other person than
the bi other and sister call him by the name of Tudor?— ^1
did not.

How often did you ever hear either the brother or the sia-^
ter c-iil him Tudor ? — Not very frequently.
How often ? — I cannot say.

Will you swear to having heard them call him so three
times ? — I think I have.

N^ipe any person m whose presence you ever heard him
called Tudor by them ? — I think that man who lived with me
hjs lieard him as well.

What man ?— The Serjeant in the North Gloucester
militia. ^ j

You mean Roberts ?— Yes. ^'^'^'^^^ by V^OOglC

( 175 )

driving cattle together continually, my mother and ray bro-
ther used to buy a hundred cattle together and divide thera.

You ne\'er heai d what Roberts was to prove here ?— No*

You have not talked to him about this ? — No.

You had not heanl that Roberts was called to prove
this ? — I sent for Roberts myself to prove this frotn Brist<)l,
tor I knew that he hai lived with me at the tine, and that he
had seen Lord Berkeley, and that I had heard him say so ;
I was ill, and my wife fetched him up.

When was it they fetdied up Roberts, how long ago ? — I
think Sunday or Monday last.

Before last Sunday or Monday had you told any body that
tbe name Tudor, was the name you )OurseIf hid heaid used
to this person ? — I cannot say to whom I told it.

Will you swear that before Sunday you told it to any
body ?— -To the best of my recollection, I tokl Mr. Grif-

Any body else ? — I really cannot say, but I really believe
I told Mr. Griflith so in the Booth Hall ; nobody has asked
me about it but Mr. Griffith, that I recollect.

Did you ever tell any body before Sunday last, except Mr.
Griffith, that you had heard him called Tudor ? — Yes, Mr.

When ? — I cannot say ; I have been to Mr. Cheston's
house and drank tea there.

Was that in the course of the present year ? — Yes, 1 think
it was.

You told him you had heard him called by the name of
Tud©r ?— Yes.

AVas that before Mr. Griffith spoke to you or not ? — ^1 can-
not recollect ; it was somewhere about that time, 1 will not
pretend to say whe her it was or was not.

Do not you know it was after ? — No, 1 ^^ ^^* ^^

Will you take upon you to swear it wasnotatterr to
the best of my knowledge I may swear it sate.

Will you swear ?— I cannot swear w^betbet it wa* beiore
or after. , , -

After the brother and sister had in vour '^^^^'"'^u lime ^^
Tudor, did you afterwards yourself caU J^^ ^^
Tudor ?— I d'd not. ii A a» bcjoro

Did yon after irS* freqneiuJv hear hi*** ^^gSL byCoOolc
byj_henameof iVjJIiamCoie ?-^Ye, 1 Ji^- .n ..before.

( 170 )

Ani you never heard him called Tudor by any body in
your lite. ?— I <iid not.

Have you subsequcnlly to 1781«, called him by the name
of William, or Billy, or Cole ? — I do not recollect to Live
call«'(i him by the name (»f Tudor in my life, I never
called him by any name but Bill in my life that I re-

You never had occasion to call him by his sirname ? —

When did you he^r Mr. Parker call him Tudor ? — In
the beginning of .!e )rar 1785.

In whose picscnce did Mr. Paiker call him Tudor ? — Ho
vas put there with an intention to be apprenticed to Mr,

In whose presence? — I do not know that I ever heard it
in any body's prcbcnce. If he w.is at the door and wanted
lo call him, I have heard him call him Tudor.

How often have you heard him call him Tudor ? — I do
not know.

Can you name any one person now living in whose pre-
sence Parker ever called him Tudor ? — I cannot.

You heard both Farren and his wife say, in 1785, that
Lord Berkeley was married to Ldy Berkeley i^ — Yes.

Was it told you as a secret ? — Yes, Mrs'. Farren told me

Why ? — That Adtr.iral Berkcit y was married to the Ho-
nourable Miss Lenox, and that his Lordship had promised
him he never would marry, and that was tlie reason it was
kept a secret ; that was the reason she told me.

Have you ever yo rself reported to any body what Farren
and hid wife have said to you upon the subject of this mar-
riage ?— -Never but to my mother.

Is yo.r mother living ?— No, she has. been dead these
twenty years.

Do you^remember an enquiry going on in the year 1799
upon this subject ? — No, I do not.

Did you ever hear o[ it ? — 1 never heard a syllable of any
thing till the election.

You did nnt hear there had been a former enquiry in the
House of Lv)rds on the subject of Lord Berkeley's mar-
riage ? — I cannot charge my memory that I knew any thing
more about than this cli)ih.

( 177 )

ibom m"^!.'^' ""* '''•"S 'o Mr. Griffith that I do now
about Mrs Farren'. telling me that subject.
V^f>»t subject ?— That her sister was marrier'. -

talcr,ln7°" "^'^ *'''" >'°" '°" ^'- <^nffilh ?— 1 will not
"xe upon me to swear that.

iloi^l"tT'''T '^"'embcr?— No; I was coming in, just

do nft '",,''°^' Mr. Griffith called me suddenly, and I

■ falsity "^^ *^'" I would sooner lose my life than state a

d Jff" F^"? recolLct whether vou told Mr. Griffith of the
n«. f- }°° °' nrarriage of Farren" and his wife ?— I will not
posiuvely swear that, I cannot say I did or did not; but I
»bink to the best of my knowledge I did.

Cross^xamined by Mr. Attorney General.

vr. ^"ij w^^ J"*' "°w that to the best of your knowledge
'I -L ' ^^'"' <^"ffith in the Booth Hall, that in the year
J -64 you had heard Will Cole called Tudor ?~I told him
h.J *°P^.'"^e, I cannot pretend to say when ; but I told
h:m so ,n the Booth Hall. ^

Jed °" '^^u^-^ ^ °" ^^^ "'''' ^"° *° ^° ^^^ ^^** °^ y""^ know-
g^y^^'- . .'"ff pressed afterwards whether you would not
vear it positively, you said you would swear it positively ? —
1 said to the best of my knowledge I told him so, and 1 really
believe to the best of my knowledge I did.

The following questions and answers were read to the

Witness :

,'' You recollect that Mr. Griffith spoke to vc»«. »«* V^^
'°' ^r., °"' **»« person's name being Bill ? 1 ^°- . ,^„

"Will you swear you told him his name had «^« ^'*"
rudor — I really believe I did. ^ to

-; Win you swear you did ?— I think I car* '«'«"*^*'*

* ' Will you venture ?...To the best of my kr»<=»^'^^^^

'^>^' -T-L- , -ft oi «dY

* * 1 his passed not many weeks ago ?~-To the t*^*"*

t»^^','/.^,f ^''*^"8^«»'".'^^t. ^ of wy

^* U 111 you swear it positively ?...To the fc»^^^-te«lgc-
L^'^'^'Mge, and no ma* can swear h.,. r ».;. i^-r»«=^^^ ,_,«.-

( 17S )

" What did you tell hitn ?-^That he was frequently called
Bill or Will, but he \vas sometimes called Tudor Cole.

** Yoii arc'^uite sure now ? — I am as clear as that I stand

•' That you told Mf . Griffith the first thne he applied to
you his name was Tudor Cole ?— ^That he was generally
called Bill or Will, but I had heard Mrs. Farren call him
William Tudor Cole.*'

Did not Mr. Griffith, at the time yon gave him these an-
swers, write a memorandum oF the account which you ren-
dered him ?"-I believe he did.

Did not Mr. Griffitli, afier he had written that account,
read it over to you p.—I think he did ; I am positive he

Did you, when that account was read over to you, com-
plain that any thing was niistated in it, or th^t any thing was
omitted ?— I cannot say as I did or did not ; not now I won't
aay as I did in any respect whatever, nor as I did not.

The witness was directed to withfiraw.

The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

The Counsel were again called in.

The Attorney General requested permission to call Mr.
Griffith, to state what had passed between him and Ellis
Taylor Farren.

Then WILLIAM GRIFFITH was again called in, and
examined as follows :

(Mr, Attorney General.) How long have you been an at-
torney ?— I was admitted in the year 1779, Michaelmas

Have you practised in Gloucestershire since that time ?—
Nearly from the whole of that time, not quite.

Have you had a considerable extent of business -P—I have
latterly, I believe I may say the first office in Gloucester in
partnership with Mr. Whitcombe and Mr. Phillpous.

Did you examine the last witness, Farren, for he pur-*
pose of collecting from him what he knew relative to the
supposed marriage that ' had taken place between Lord ande
Ladv Berkeley in the year 1785 ?.— As he was the brother of

( 179 )

had been the maternal property of my family, and I found
his wife at home ; he was not at home, and I certainly had
conversation with her on the Saturday teven-night. I be*
lieve the Saturday, if the 15th was on a Saturaa^y, on the
Saturday after this Committee adjourned for the Easter Re-
,ces8, 1 saw him at Gloucester ; I enquired for him at iiis inn,
he was not in the house, I waited some little time and met
him at the door, he was going in the house to dinner. I took
him up stairs with me into the dining room, and there I put
some questions to him, the answers to which, the result of
which, is contained in this paper.

The Witness produced a paper and was asked.

Was that paper read over to him afterwards ? — It wa^ ; it
was written in his presence, and read over to him.

Did he make any objection to any part of this paper F-r.-
Certainly not.

Did he state that you had omitted any thing in that pam-
per ? — He did not.

Was that received from him as the result of the account
that he could give f-.-It was.

As of the whole account that he could give ?— Whether it
"^y be quite the whole I am not positive, perhaps not.

Every thing material? — Every thing thiat X considered

Poes it contain every thing he said relative to the n^ipp of
•* "<^or being ever given to tliis man ? — Certainly,

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Best.

^ "P/c/^omx put any questions of that sort to him ?— -I do not

j^'^^mh^r' that I did ; I haye sc^e recollection that there

^b!^^ A^ something mor^ ^bout 0ie marriage, if he kiiew

i^^t iJm^ ^xiarriage ; and that hp wid he knew nothing of the

![W^^ xiothing p^rticulv. , ' , c

t- ''^ y-^^m^ mean tp »ute, that that contain* vbe wboAc ot
r-^-^r^n S4id ?."I believe it to cont;^\u the whole ot vjVxat
^«^^^'cia the exception, if ihpre wa^f any thing »^d ^^•
M^^:^^ »wriage, that he kncw*pptTb\P69^*^Y ^«^^^S^^^
'^^^^^ ^as said upon jhat gubiect* ^r.

Y. >^^^^^ _^arren extremely rcluctair^ to give you iiny *^

( 180 )

Did you observe a reluctance in him ?— -I should think
myself that there was a reluctance, naturally so from the con*
nection with the family.

How long were you and Farren together ? — I should think
about a quarter of an hour.

Re-examined by Mr. Attorney General.

You have been asked as to the questions you put to the
witness. I ask you only as to the answers which toe witness
gave to you. Are you sure that the witness did not tell you
that in 1784 he had heard this man called by the name of
Tudor ? — Certainly he did not.

Are you sure, whatever your questions to him might be,
that he did not in any of his answers, tell you that Mr.
Farren or Mrs. Farren, or any one else, had informed him
of a secret marriage between Lord and Lady Berkeley ?—
He certainly did not tell me so.

Did he, during that conversation, say Tudor's brother and
sister called him Tudor ?— No, he did not.

Examined by the Lords.

You made this memorandum at the time the conversation
took place between you and Farren ?— Yes.

And you read it to Farren ?— Yes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 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 14 of 22)