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 17 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 17 of 22)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


put me to lights as to what he had stated.

Are you a married man ? — I was not then ; I am lately.
What did you mean by the controul of Lady Berkeley
over the condua of Lord Berkeley, being very complete
in every respect ? — I mean that Lord Berkeley shewed an
indifference about his affairs, and trusted every thing to Lady
Berkeley.

That was not the case when you first knew him ? — No, I
have observed not exactly at first, I had not an opportunity
at first of knowing how they went on ; perhaps it was a
couple of years before I visited them at Berkeley castle and
at C ran ford.

How many years was it before you observed this controul
of wiiich you spoke, after you were acquainted with them,
living together ? — I should think perhaps a year or two ; oo
my coming home and visiting at Berkeley castle and Cran-
ford, I saw that she had totally the government of his house-
hold affairs, and likewise his concerns.

Was Lady Berkeley at Berkey casile within a year or two
of her first acquaintance with his Lordship ? — ^Yes, I think
so ; I was several times at Berkeley casile, but 1 never waft
at Berkeley castle till I saw her there.

Did Lord Berkelev tell you in what rear tVis convcrsa-
cion took place \vith the king at Weymouth ?— Ibavesaid
that I really think it tDok place at that very time i\i^t\^e m-
troduced Lady Berkelev to me as countess o? Beikeky ; 1
am no|certain it happened at that time it rx^i^^^^^^ ^^"if '

J^n TX Y^' -\ tr ^^^ year i-^rJ^T^^^o^^-
. Do you r«nexx,K.. .u. kin. a.:. . . . ^ ^fe^i^ »^^ ^



( 206 )

You came from Jersey to Weymouth ? — ^Yes.

Was it immediately upon your arrival at Weymouth from
Jersey that this introduction took place ? — I believe it must
have been the first or second morning, when we were at
breakfast, and nobody in the room but Lord Berkeley, the
present countess, and me.

How long did you stay at Weymouth ? — ^^I believe two
or three weeks.

Do you remember a fete at Weymouth, at which the
J;ing was present ? — The fete did not take place then. No,
I do not remember any fete at which the king was present.

Was the king there at that time ? — The king was there at
that time.

Do, you know that Lord Berkeley ever introduced his
fourth son to the king as Lord Dursley ? - -! heard what was
said by Lord Berkeley on that subject. He told me what
passed on that subject ; for 1 had heard that he had said
something to the king, which in some degree contradicted
the marriage. s I asked him, *' Pray my Lord, what was it
that passed ?" he said, *' The king asked me which of the
sons I should call Lord Dursley ;" the question was to that
purpose. His answer, he told me, was, ** Your majesty
shall know that at the proper time.**

Had you any further conversation with Lord Berkeley on
that subject ? — I often told that story to Lord Berkeley
since, I oftentimes told him what I had heard upon that
subject.

What did Lord Berkeley say upon the occasions, when
you reminded him of this story ? — Only what I have now
mentioned.

He always said the same ? — Yes ; I never heard him con-
tradict that he said his answer was, " Your majesty shall
know that at the proper time."

You lived at Weymouth some time ?— With Lord Berke-
ley in his own house.

Was there any distinction among the children at that time ?
—None, there never was ; there never was an idea of a dis-
tinction.

At what time did Lord Berkeley first tell you what this
conversation was with the king ?— I think it was very^soon
after, during my stay at Weymouth, that he told me this
had happened ; for immediately upon my taking carq the



( 207 )

In what month in the year 1797 were you at Weymouth ?
~I think the month of August ; but I am not very posb-
live.

You had heard of this conversation with the king, before
Lord Berkeley had told you of it ? — I had ; 1 had certainly
heard there was a conversation.

And the conversation between you and Lord Berkeley
was begun by you ? — Telling him what I had heard.

To which he made the reply you have stated ? — Yes, to
put me to iights as to what he had stated.

Are you a married man ?— I was not then ; I am lately.

What did you mean by the controul of Lady Berkeley
over the conduct of Lord Berkeley, being very complete
in every respect ?— I mean that Lord Berkeley shewed an
indifference about his affairs, and trusted every thing to Lady
Berkeley.

That was not the case when you first knew him ? — No, I
have observed not exactly at first, I had not an opportunity
at first of knowing how they went on ; perhaps it was a
couple of years before I visited them at Berkeley castle and
at Cranford.

How many years was it before you observed this controul
of wiiich you spoke, after you were acquainted with them,
living together ? — I should think perhaps a year or two ; on
my coming home and visiting at Berkeley castle and Cran-
ford, I saw that she had totally the government of his house-
hold affairs, and likewise his concerns.

Was Lady Berkeley at Berkey castle within a year or two
of her first acquaintance with his Lordship ? — Yes, I think
so ; I was several times at Berkeley castle, but I never was
at Berkeley castle till I saw her there.

Did Lord Berkeley tell you in what year this conrersa-
don took place with the king at Weymouth ? — I have said
that I really think it took place at that very lime that he in-
troduced Lady Berkeley to me as countess of Berkeley ; I
am no^ certain it happened at that time, it might be the year
after, but I think it happened at the tinie, not a fortnight or
ten days after.

Are you sure it did not happen the year before ? — ^l c^^^
not think it did, because I was not there, I am r^% doulfe^V'
fhxljs to the exact time of that. , r./^ T

Digitized by LjOOQIC



( 208 )

What year did tht king drink tea in LorH Berkc/ey^Ji
tent ?— I really cannot say, I was not there.

You are certain Lord Berkeley never mentioned to you,
that what he had said to the king was, thatjic was sorry
it' was not the eldest son that would be heir to his title ?—^
No, what I have said now, is a thing I have mentioned a
hundred times to my oWn acquaintance.

Are you certain Lord Berkeley has never told yoli that
his reply to the king was, that he was sorry it was not his
eldesf son who would be heir to /his title ?— fI never heard
that from his Lordship.

Did Lady Berkeley ever tell you, prior to the year 1797,
that she was married to Lord Berkeley P - -I do not say she
has positively told me so ^ but there were hints thrown out
about it with respect to the children, what I considered as
hints of a marriage, but she never said to me that she was
married.

When you arrived in the year 1797 at Weymouth, how
were you introduced upon your arrival to Lady Berkeley ?—
The same as I have been accustomed to on ionr.er occasions.

When you arrived at Weymouth was tlie present claim-
ant then going by the name of Lord Dursley ?— -Not when
1 arrived ; he was called Fitz ; he was a Younker, quite a
boy.

When did you first hear the present claimant called Lord
Dursley ?— From the time of Lord Berkeley's introduction
of that Lady to me as Countess of Berkeley ; I always called
her Lady Berkeley, and the Younker Lord Dursley.

Are you to be understood to say it was either the first or
gccotid day that Lord Berkeley introduced Miss Tiidor to
you as Lady Berkeley ? — Yes, I believe it was the first or
second day after my arrival.

After that time did Lord Berkeley invariably call Lady
Berkeley by that title, and the eldest son Lord Dursley ?—- •
No, she went by the name of Miss Tudor for a year, or a
couple of years afterwards ; it seemed to be a maUer oi total
indifference to her, whether she was called Lady Berkeley or
not.

After that introduction you have before stated. Lady
Berkeley did not go by the name of Lady Berkeley ?— -She
did not f(jr a considerable time after ; she went by the name



( «09 )

going by that name ; but when I found that she went by
that name after her introductio:i to me, I did not think much
more of it.

Did you not say that after that introduction, you stated to
the Prince that Lord Berkeley had declared his marriage to
you ? — I did.

Did you after that, ever dine at Lord Berkeley's in com-

?any with the Prince ? — I had the honour of dining with the
rince at Lord Berkeley's ; but upon my word' I cannot caJl
to my recollection exactly when it was that I dined with the
Prince; it must have been after the introduction I rather
think, but my memor)- does not serve me.

Are you to be understood that the first information ^ven
to the Prince of the marriage was from you ?— Positively ; I
think I may venture positively to say to Lord Berkeley, that
1 was the first be ever introduced her to as Countess.

Do you mean that Lady Berkeley's controul over Lord
Berkeley was a controul over his affairs merely, or a contoul
over his will ? — No, I do not mean a controul over his will ;
but merely a controul, a power granted to her by him.

Do you remember a Curricle in which the present Lady
Berkeley drove out at Weymouth in 1797 ? - -! do.

Were the servants who attended that carriage dressed ia
the liveries of the family ?— -Yes, the Pompadour.

There was no distinction as to the carriages of Lord and
Lady Berkeley, as to the liveries ?— No, there W-^s not, be-
cause 1 fiequcntly attended her, and drove out in a Barouche,
I think it was.

She attended the Reviews in a Barouche ? —Yes

Do you remember being present at anv oi the Reviews at
which the King was present ? — Yes. . c v^

And was she then in her carriage with tbe Vwefies o} t^
family P^-Yes, and 1 have passed the Roy a\ "^^^^'^V ^^ ^^^
Barouche with her.



vhe



Were any of the children ever T^oticedbV '^'^ ^^"^i^^^ ^
No, I never saw them noticed at all . • oi

But they were in the Barouche' w\u tb^ Viv^vxes

Wh^n you were originallv introa, i tO ^^ isTu^^^-
by whatnamewereyou introduced f^^t^^ f^-^K^^^^^^^^

When you introduced her to I^ /^ ^'^^ ' Cv "^ Aot "o^ "^
you introduce herP-^B^. ^L^i^*^^- Bell, t^^-r^*"^"^ ' ^'^



( 210 J

You did not introduce her as Countcis of Beikeley, tut
introduced her by the name of Miss Tud )r, expressing a
suspicion that there was a marriage ?— Yes, because she went
by no other name.

When Lord Berkeley introduced Ladv Berkeley to you
in the year 1797, he also gave you to understand that he had
been married eleven or twelve yC'irs hefore ?— He did.

And he gave you le.ve to mention the circumst mces of his
marriage to others?— Yes, he did.

Did he also give you leave to mention to others, that he
had been married eleven or twelve years before ? — He did :
and I did mention that I said to him, ** Now am I to under-
•tand your eldest son is legitimate?" '* Yes, you are."

And that you w\^hi communicate that circumstance, as
W«H as the fact of his marriage?— Yes.

Did you communicate to the Pritice of W^les that he had
been married eleven or twelve years before ? - - Yes ; and
that he had declared to me the legitimacy of his eldest son.

Was there any other anriage belonging to Lord Berkeley
used by any paU of his f>mily, attended by servants not in
their livery ?— -1 do not recollect it.

The controul of Lady Berkeley over Lord Berkeley, did
you mean to confine to his affairs ; or that her advice had
considerable influence with him in all his affairs ? — I really
think it had.

Was not the King in the habit of taking notice of ladles
and child! en at Weymouth at that time? — That I have seen
several times.

Bat you never saw him take notice of Lord Berkeley's
children ? - -No.

Was there any other person, except the Prince of Wales,
to whom you communicated the fact of LoFvI BcrJ^eley's
having told you, th'it he had been married eleven or twelve
years before ? — 1 mentioned it to every acquaintance I had
at Weymouth.

Mention any person to whom yoii mentioned it. — Sir
William and Lady Pitt, Sir Davirl Dundas was resident
there, and C(ilonel Addenbrooke, my particular friend, and
ieveral others.

Did yc»u, iu consequence of being allowed to mention
this to any body, not make any observation afterwards, [email protected]
you heard her called Miss Tudor; did it not appear an ex-






( «H )

tinued to be called Miss Tudor ? — I have certainly made
observations to Lord Berkeley ; but he said there were
reasons why he did not ever then wish to have it publicly
known. It was a very odd case, I thought; but the matter
w ent on. I nevei' called her any name hut Couiitess ot Berke-
ley after ih-.t; nor when 1 spoke of the eldest son, did I
ever speak of him by any other name than Lord Dursley ;
bur I reully think she went bvthe name of M.ss Tudor sub-
Sc-q.ieiu to that for some time.

The answer was read over to the witness.

I hope there is notliing wrong; in that.
Whtn you told the Prmce of Wales of the marri^ee, did
yc.u tell i.im how long before tiiC mart:age ha-i taken place ? —
I certainly told him the eldest son was legiiimate; that was the
gieai pouu. 1 shoald i.ot have il.oughi it worthy of notice,
had It not been lor the legitimacy of his son.

At the time you told the Prince cf Wales of the marriage,
you told him the eldest son was legitimate ? — That was the
great point 1 requested permission to mention, and he gave
nae permission to mention that.

Did you communicate the s^me thing to Sir David Dun*
das ? — I really believe I did. I was frequently with Sir
David Dundas at that time. I mentioned it to every person
I v/as then acquainted with.

To every person to whom you communicated the mar*
riage, you stated, that vou behevcd the marriage bad taken
pUce prior to the birth of the eldest son ? — Yes, according
to Lord Berkeley's statement to me. ^

Where were yoa in 178.5 ?— 1 was then Aid-de-V^inip to
Sir Wilham Put, in Ireland. , , a a ^»

, VVfeen dul youhea. ot a second n.arri-^e? - Wvd^-^
hear of the second marriaae for a full vcar i»'<-Ci "^*
duct.on of the Counies, to" me by that t.tie-

You have heard of a second miri.^e P^-^f ": ,VeV
Had you any conve.sai.on ^.^U Ld :^'^^^^
•ubjcct of that seconi marriage ?... Yes I i» ' ''
Prior to 1799? Yes. •-!>, i*



ow



x\-.e



ta i*'^



o^






( ^1^ )

•to a Miss Cole, spinster." Says I, *' Is it true ?" he said,
"' It is very true." It surprized me very mneh to hear of
a second marriage. His only answer was, '* There is no
law against a man marrying as often as he pleases.** Says I,
*' My Lord, I know of no law against it;** that was* the
substance of what passed between us.

Nothing m©re passed P-.-No, I do not recollect any
thing passing; it struck me very much. Lord Berkeley
saying there was no lau' against a man marrying as often as
he pleased ; I said, " 1 knew no law against it."

Nothing passed on the subject of the first marriage ?—
No; I was very much attached to the boy and to the fa-
mily, and I was deliglited with his being married the
first time ; and there can be no doubt 1 said, 1 should be
very sorry to hear any thing against the first marriage ; his
reply was, ** I hope you do not doubt my knowing what I
am about ;'* those' were the exact words he used, for they
impressed me.

Do you mean by that, that hearing of the second marriage,
ha 1 occasioned some suspicion in your mind as to the first ? —
I confess it was so; it actually occasioned a suspicion as to
the first.

And you stated that suspicion to Lord Berkeley?— Yes;
and his answer was that which I have stated.

What was the exact answer that Lord Berkeley made to
you, when you stated to him the suspicion this created as lo
the first marriage? — Upon my mentioning the doubts it
would cause as to the first marriage, he sdd, ** I hbpeyou do
not doubt, I know what I am about." That stopped i"ny
mouth ; I said no more upon the subject.

Uid he re-assert that he had been married before?— Posi-
tively, and in any conversation I had with him after that, . *^

Can you state the time you first heard of tiie second mar*
riage? — It must have been the year after. ' *

The year after what?-— The year after the introduction I
had at Weymouth. ,

Was it before the enquiry in this House in the year 1799 I j

— Prior to that a great while. ' 1

You arc understood to say, that in 1797 Lord Berkeley said "1

there were reascns for not acknowledging his marriage ?-—

Digitized by VjOOyiC



( ?1S

«ai<i, ** I wish to know the reasons ;" but I never discovered
them.

Did yen e\^er say so? — I cannot s^^y positively.
Did you hear from Lord Berkelev where the marriage took
place? — Yes; I have heard Lord Berkeley talk of it since.

When Lord Berkeley iirst mentioned to you that he had
been married ten or twelve years hefore, did he tell you where
he had been married?— -He told me he had be;pn married at
Berkeley Castle.

Did he then tell you by whom he had been married ?~I
do not think he d:d.

Did you know Mr. Hupsman ? — Yes; seeing him at taWe,
dining with him; no more than that.

Did you ever hear Lord Berkelev mention Mr. Hr.psmin
• as concerned in the marriage? — Yes ; after she took the title
of Countess.

Was that before the year 1799?-.-Yes.
^Vbs there anv convtrsdiion passed between you and Lord
Berkeley in 1797 about Mr. Hupsman ? — He cenainlv enen-
tioned to me the marriage at Berkeley Castle. ^

Lord Berkelev did not tell vou any thing respecting the
suppression of the knowle.'geo'f that marriage? — Never; nc
never told me a word about it. ^ ^^^

You did not ask any question to lead to that ? — Ko,l nev
<^'d; it was enouah I'was satisfied that he was ^onvmcea
the business bein^ all just and fair- therefore I did not ^
anv further about it. ^ ,. ^e to

. Did LaWy Berkelev, in the hints she gave vou f J"^'^^^'^ ^^e.
time, jnfimare that her marriage was at i^erkeley ?— 7' ^^^^ ^,d
niory does not exactly serve me, but I rather tbi^^*^
prior to that. ..,,.. man?



Did you ever t,<.,r I.a(1v RprV^! -,i- of Mr. 1^"^*

\ou never understood from Lord or Laay i^-T%;.lr.tt^9^'



hd you ever hear Ladv Berkeley speak of Mr. ^^ \
-• - I dare say 1 have.but nothing of any conscque«;^^^^y,tV.3t



they considered themselves interested in the l»feot *i^g^^^^'

man ? - -! never heard any thing relative i<^ «^heir ^

rested in it at all. . -, or <^*^^

Did you ever hear them express any satisfactx-^* ^^c,

cern upon Xir. Hupsman's de.th ?— Never. .^^r "*- '.^";«;

lJ«-lyou, beforetheinquiryinthis House in the > ,n^''«'*''V
ever hear of th^ r\:rnn,^l3nce nt ,U. r..„ter '£}-^^CfOdg\'^'^ -'



Digitized by ^



( 2U )

You say that the marriage was said to be at Berkeley Cas^
tie?— -What 1 heard of the niru-riage was at Berkeley Casile.

Do you mean Berkeley Castle or the church?— Berkeley
church, of course, which is close to the Castle. 1 knew no-
thing more about it, but only the conversation on that sub-
ject.

Do you know whether Lord and Lady Berkeley had not a
quarrel with Mr. Hupsman before his death?— I never heard
of a quarrel with Mr. Plupsman.

You had always understood Mr, Hupsman to have been
on the Srime terms of intimacy with them till his death ? — I
paid »o little attention to Mr. Hupsman, that I cannot say
whether he was intimate or not. I have seen him at dinner.
I cannot say whether they were intimate, or not intimate.

Have you heard them talk of Mr. Hupsman? — Many
times.

Had you always heard them talk of Mr. Hupsman with the
same respect till the time of his death? — My memory does
not serve me that I have heard any complaint against him.

Do you recollect when Lord Beikeley introduced vou at
Weymouth, in the year 1797, to Miss Tudor as Lady Berke-
ley, whether he then told' you of theie being more tiian one
marriage? — Never a word of the second marriage. I did
not know of the second marriage for a twelvemonth after, or
a considerable time after. He did not say any thing of a
second marriage to me.

Did you, when you mentioned to the Prince Regent the
marriage of Lord Berkeley, tell him that his marriage had
taken place ten or twelve years before?— I did ; and that
his eldest son was legitimate. I believe that is what I have
alrea'ly said.

Do you lecollect when you first heard of the discovery of
the register of the marriage?— Upon my word, 1 know so
little about that business, being then at my military station.

Did you hear of it from Lord Berkeley? - ! heard of it,
but tny memory does not serve nie how or from whom.

Dii you hear of it From Lord Berkeley ?— I do not recol-
lect Lord Btrkeley telling me, or writing to me, about it.

Did )ou hear Loid Berkeley speak of the register after it
was found ?— I heard of what was going on, but not, 1 think,
from Lord Berkeley. /

Digitized by ^



/Google



( 215 )

h^e met bim at dinrer, but I thought bim that sort of trifling
character, who' was suffered to dine the-^e more than any
thing else. I never considered bim a companion of Lord
Berkeley's.

He dined with him often ? — Yes, when there was no com-
pany ; but I never met with him there when there was com-
pany. I keep up my acquaintance with him, and speak to
him when I meet him. ^

You were company yourself ? - -I looked upon myself as a
person who came and went as I chose.

And Mr^ Chapeau came and went when he chose ? - -Yes,
when they were down at Cranford; he lived in the neigh-
bourhood, and was received at the tdble.

Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of the present
Lord Berkeley?- -I r.m acquainted with it because I have re-
ceived several letters from him.

From the claimant ? — I have received several letters from
him.

Sufficiently to know his signature?— Yes.

Look at that paper, and say whether it is his hand-writing?
(shewing ike signature to a letter, J'—Vit writes to me in such
a way nobody can read his name, I will shew you his name
if you please upon a letter I have in my pocket ; I did not .
know he could write so well as this; I could not at all declare
that that was his hand-.vriting.

The Witness was diiected to w^ithdraw.

MARY CUNNINGHAM, who had acted as a semp-
itrt-ss to Lady Berkeley, deposed, ti.at her Lad\ship was first
catted in general Lady Berkeley tl-e laiter part of 1797 ; but
some time before, while the new servants gave her that title,
the old ones continued the name she had usually gone by.
This witness deposed, that none of her Lady^s hnen was ever
marked with a T.

The deposition of the next witness, SARAH SHRUBB,
went to prove, that from the commencement of nineteen
years.' during which she kept the White Hart at Benson,
though the servants were in the habit of caW'ing at her house,
she never heard the name of Twdor till she saw it in the
papers. This witness had previously lived m the Berkley .
family. ^mze^ byLjOOgle



Digitized by



Google



When was it ?— It was not Mr. Griffith eximirfed me, ft
vas Mr. Whitcombe.

When was it? — -Three weeks ago, I believe it will be next
Monday.

That you then told-hirh of having omitted this circura-
itance, do you mean to say that? — That I told him every
thing I could recollect.

Did you, on seeing Mr. Whitcombe, mention that you
had forgotten to mention the circumstance of seeing Lord
Berkeley at Farren's house in the summer of 1785? — No;
I did not tell him any thing about it.

Ydu were examined by Mr. Griffith aiid then by Mr.
Whitcombe ? — ^Yes.

The first was five weeks ago, and the second was three
weeks ago ? — Yes.

Did you, at either of tho^e tiines, mention the circum-
stance of Having seen Lord Berkeley come out of Farren's
Louse in the summer ot 1785 ? — No, I did not ; I thought
of it before and after, but not at that time.

Before and after which times, for there was an interval of
a fortnight between the examinations? — I did not mention it
then ; it did not occur to me when I was either with Mr.
Whitcombe or Mr. Griffith.

Had you recollected it before Mr, Griffith spoke to you ?
.—Yes ; I knowed it when I saw him.

Had you mentiotied that circumstance to anybody before
Mr. Griffith examined you ? — No, I had not.

Had you, at any lime after it happened from the vear
1785, ever mentioned it to any one before Mr. Gnffitn
spoke to you ?— I cannot say that 1 had, it \% so many years
ago. v> t

Do you remember that yoo bad ?..-No, ^ ^^^^^ *^^
I did. ^ ^. •

How do you know that you yoxmelC ^^Itl'Xuse,
cumstance of seeing Lord BerVeleV * u- r. ' -li came
before Mr. Griffith fpoke to Vou^ tYiC »"^if ' w vTeW.
ia my mind that I knew and r^co\A A i* V^^^fXcl \>ua


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 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 17 of 22)