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 20 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 20 of 22)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ley?— With perfect friendship and good-humour on every
occasion I have seen. I never saw them depart from that
at all ; he always appeared to be in habits of great intimacy
till after he quitted the house, and then he spoke of him as»'
loving him and liking him. ^

The manner of Lord Berkeley's reception of Mr. Chapeau
was that he would have ^iveii lo any other friend ? — Exactty
so to my ey^.

Were ther^ any ladies visited Lady Berkeley before the
year 1798, when you first heard 6f the marriage ? — Not of
.consideration, I believe. I understood, though 1 have not
perhaps been exactly present, that a Mrs. Black, the widow
of a clergyman at Berkeley, visited Miss Tudor.

You do not know that of your own knowledge ? — I wa»
not present ; perhaps I might, but I can venture to say she
did visit Miss Tudor, because it was in every body's mouth
in the village.

Had you ever any conversation with Lady Berkeley about
her marriage ? — No ; I cannot say that I have liad any con.
versation with Lady Beikeley about her marriage, till the
event of the marriage of 1796 had been disclosed, which was
to meperhnps in the beginning of the year 1799, or thelatter
end of 1798, in consequence o( Sir Godfrey Webster's stop-
ping me, which I have already stated to this House.

You neVer had, previous to that time, any intimation of
any kind t«oai Lady Berkeley that she was married ? — Good
God, never ! I never had an idea that she was married.

Did Lord or Lady Berkeley ever give you any detail of the
circumstances that led to their first connection ? — Never.

Had you any reason ever to know what were the circum*
stances that led to the first connection between Lord and
Lady Berkeley ? — I do not know that I had any reason to
know what were the circumstances that led to that first ac-
quaintance ; because I really cannot say that I know any
thing about it. 1 know that tliey were acquainted, but I do
not know what led to their acquaintance. I know perfectly
that they were acquainted.

October, 1 78 5, you are understood to say was the first
time you saw Miss Tudor? — It might have been about the
i22d or 23;l of October, 1785; it is maiked by a very ludi-
crous circumstance, which I will relate to the House, if they
please; it will cause laughter; I was sitting with Lord Bcike-

( 54T )

"WTiere^ — In Grafron- street, in the year IT 85, in the month
r>f Ociober nS5, he told me he would take me to tea witli
two very prettv women. I was then twenty-six years
younger than I am now, and it was very agree:ible to me.
In picklnj; the bone of a pheasant I broke one of my teech ;
my tongne found tlie vacancy, and Isaid, " Good God, I
have swalltiwed a tooth." **'A tooth," said he: "Yes,"
I said, '« I have." We went in the evening to visit Miss
TuJor ; and her sisrev, called Mrs. Tumour, being seated by
he , I told her she was sitting hv one of the most extraordi-
nary men in ^ the world, •* How so ?" says she. " Ma-
dam," says I,' *» I have a tooth in my stomach."

You are sure ot the date ; this passed in October 1735 r — •
I am, upon my oath, as to the date, the month of October,

You saw Ladv Berkeley that time wirh her sister, Mrs.
Tumour ? — Yes', by her sister.

By what name was she introduced to you ? — Susan wag
her name.

When did you see them ? — It was in the Brompton Road»
in a street declininT to the right ; there is a chapel ; 1 do not
Icnowthe street; there are tiiree small houses, with bow win-
dows ; hut I do not know the name of it.

To whom did that house belong ? — I cannot tell.
Was it at MissTudoi's lodgings, or her sister's lod^^t^?^
• you iin(!erstood voii saw her ?— I did not understand ^^^^.^^
fhe other; Lord Berkeley told me he would takevW>o ^n ^^
tea wuh two very prettv women; ar.d it did ^^^^^^^Xe^l
me whether it was at Hampsread, or Hi^h^aC^^. ot ^\,^^;^e-
•/r'' y«" remember being ^vHh Lord Berk <^f^'\^^,:,e -, 1

rH>d of that same year previous to October?- ^^

^'as an inmate at his house a'ti tne year. .. o^^^'^^^-'^'^

l-)o you recollect where be was in the mot*'^^ ^^ '^v'^^^'^

^o I do not recollect; he was very ofren vvi ^^^^^< <^^^^ '

TO ;ght have gone for a dav or two. ^eC^^^""

A here is no circumstance brings to vour rec-^=^^ _-^'^^\>.^o<^
^ner he was with the militia or not in that vea ^ :z ^ ^^^^^^ V'

Were you ever in Gloucester m that year ?— — ' ^^^^*=:r^^^A ci\e ^^
«^^at 1 was ; 1 should not suppose 1 wai; hut ^^ -^ c^ ^^^ ^1^^

V, ^" cannot say whether you were at Ber*^'^^^^ i'^Y ^^
^^ month of November, 1784 r— No, { cani:» <^^^ ^^ , .\\

( 248 )

Susan together, at any other time than that vrsir,* when you
told them of your tootli r — Not for a' great while; I did not
see them together, I believe, till the house was taken for her
in Pc'rk-streer. I took the house.

After you took the house in Park-street, did you see Lord
Berkeley, Miss Tudor, and Susan together after that ? — I
never saw Susan with her after that, not in that house.

In any other kouss? — Yes, I have in another house.

Where ? — In Princes-strect, Hanover-square.

Was Miss Tudor visiting Mrs. Tumour, or Mrs. Turnour
visiting Miss Tudor ? — Tiiat I cannot tell.

Was Lord Berkeley there? — No, he was not.

When was the hoii^e taken in Park-street ; can you recoU
lect ? — Yes, perfectly, because I have got the-receipts in my.

The witness produced several papers, and said ; here are
the I eceipts for the house, and here is the attorney's letter
upon paying.

This is the receipt for the rent of the house in Park-street?
— ^Yes, which I suppose miglu take place about ilie middle
of the year 1786, and be given up in the middle o( the year
1787, wlien Miss Tudor becj^me an inmate of the house in
Grafton -street.

Upon whose account did you pay this? — On Lord Berke-
ley's account.

Then when Miss Tudor was living in that house in Park-
street, wlien you paid this rent on Lord Berkeley's account,
arc the Committee to understand you saw Susan at that house
in Park-street ? — I never saw her in tliat house in Park-

But in Princes-street ? — Yes, in Princes-street I saw her.

Subsequently lo that period of 1787 ? — No.

17S6 ? — No, antecedent to thar.

When did you see her last in Princes-street ?-r-It must have
been in the month of December, in the year 1785.

Have you ever seen her since ? — I do not recollect ever to
have seen her^irrce ; I do not know what prevented it, I hac^
no objection to see her ; but I never saw her afterwacds.

W-as that upon an occasional visit they were^ together, or
were they living together ? — They were living together^ but ,

Digitized byVjOOQlC

T>id Aey appear t© be on ttnm of mdmncy togaAcr >-^
« es, they seemed to be so.

As sisters > — ^Yes, I saw nothing to create a different opi-
nion, but that they were then amicably together; bat I never ,
saw theiB but encc or twice in this house-
Did yoo know the mother of Lady Berkeley at Aat tknc^

When did vou first know her ?— I never knew her in my

Do yott renieraber Lord Berkeley's lining with Mrs. Bai*

^ Have yoo ever dined with him when Mrs. Bailey was liv-
ing with him ? — Very often, it is a very delicate sub^t for
^^*^ for I am in habits of acqvaintance with Mrs. Bailey

Was Mrs, Bailey treated by Lord Berkeley with the same
respect yon have seen him treat Miss Tudor ? — Precisely. ^

Can yoo state at what time Lord Berkeley ceased living
'^wt Mrs. Bailey ? — Upon ray word I cannot answer the
^««ion ; I wish 1 couU. Yon will please to recoUeet that
<hw^ing a great part of the rim? he K*«d with Mrs. BaUey I
^^^3s at sea.

Was thene a considerable interval between Lord Berkeley**
ceasmg to live with Mrs. Bailcf and your visk to Miss Tu-

^"1"^""^ tcIL ^

*Va« he living with Mrs. Bailey when yon rctttrae* wt*
sca?~I Oikik he was. I think ^recollect visiting W^^'^^l'
,Zf tl*" ^ ^"^^ J^mc ; that must have been in the y »^ M'^

shl?!^ • ^"^"^ ^ h^d afterwanb a sixty.four gun <^6^^!;2e^


expedition to the Cape ofGo^ Hope, and »o •
JBaile^l^ ^olloct how long he eonrin«ed to Irf^
^^y after that p^iod?-.Na, I ^ not. ^^ x>- .

dr<S^ T^^^^^ know of LorA Berkeley's par*^*^^\,i^- .1
hav^Kj'^j *t'*^ Oary?—The c^^^Musrioner's da^^^^^ci^^,
him\|!^ . ""^ *^ *^«« n^ circnmstanriaHy , and bi«^

1 iM^e ii^!! '^^''^ ^'* ^^^ Berkeley npon the

X>^^ iy^ ^e sacne as I should with any other

m^A^^^* Chapcan appear to be as much in V


coafidi-— ^*

I Lord


Digitized by


( 251 )

Did Lord Berkeley ever explain to you the reasons for hav»
'itig so long concealed his marriage? — No reasbns but those
I have given, that he was very sorry for it; but it was sc.
He never gave me any reason of any sort or kind ; indeed I
^vas not curious on the occasion. I go in a straight lipfe
through the world, and do not trouble myself about other
people's business.

Did Lord Berkeley ever mention to you his situation with
Trspect to his brother, as to his being his successor in either
his title or his estate? — No, rever.

You have stated that Lord Berkeley communicated to you
that he was married, and sorry for it? — Oh dear no, he nev^r
expressed that he was sorry he was married, but that he was
sorry he had not loid me about it before.

Did the communication relate to the first or the second
marriage? — ^To the first marriage. I asked liim how an
event of that kind could take place and he not communicate
it to me. He said, he was sorry for it, but it was too

Was It in 1799 he said that to you? — ^Yes, it was when
the business was before this House; but it was before that I
had written to him in consequence of the conversation with
Sir Godfrey Webster.

When did you dine at Lord Berkeley's with the Prince of
\VaIes? — On the 15th of April I think, in the year 1803,
but I can go to book and tell, if the House wish to know
exactly that, because it comes within the verge of my obser-

Do you re4nember, while the question was depending in -
the House of Lords in the year 1799, Lady Berkeley coming
home in great agitation, and throwing herself into a'chair m
the room where von were ?^I have not the least recollec-
tion of it. I jhi J, such a circumstance x^^ouUhave impressed
itselt upon nje T never saw it, I think- ^ . . , ^

but a co^^^^'^fiatWMpursuedonthacoc^^^^^^^^^^ ^^

Aearfn^ ;,^''\«atioo may pass m my F^ ViiveescaiteA tS^t
Dorfce. ^ • *"it I think tl.e coodact caO«^"

he hart '^^^'^st> . h»>;„^ -„a mined. aX»<^ , «qc nretiou^ t*

^^'"- .r.

^'le Witness was directed to ^^


Digitized by


( 253 )

Was she ia mourning for her father in 1763, when yon
first knew her ? — She was not ; and that is die circun^tance
that makes me think that it was on the first of May, and not
on the 20th of February, I saw her at the Masquerade.
There are two masquerades at the Pantheon every year,
immediatelv before the Lent season and the otlier after ; oa
refeiente to the newspaper file of that year, I find tke first
of the season was on tlie 20th of f ebruary, the second on
the first ot May ; and, as I have no other means of ascertain-
ing than that, 1 think it was on the first of May 1 first knew
them, and not the twentieth of February.

About that period wheu yoa saw her at the Masquerade,
did Tou see her at any otKcr [ ubiic place ? — At no other pub*
lie piace than whe»e 1 myself conducted the two ladies; that
id, to the Theatre to see the P.av.

Were vou trequeuriy ac the Theatre with them ? — ^I think
twice with the two sisters alone.

Do you know whee ihey were living at the time ?— *
After their first appearance at the Masquerade, they went
both to reside with Lady Talbot in Berkeley Square.

Do you know w here they had been residing previously ?
—I cannot distinctly say ; they lived in lodgings near to
White Cross Street, and they came to the Masquerade under
the care of the person at whose house they lodged ; the
woman at whose house ihey lodged, whose name I do Bot

You say she preserved, during the spring, summer, and

autumn of 1185, the same simplicity of appearance that you

h^d obser\ ed when you first knew her ; do you mean the

dress and character of a person in service ? — She appeared

in the simple dress of a young country woman, not giving

io to any of the gaudincss of a pcisoa dressed for public

appearance. She was generally dressed m pUm white or

coloured cotton, , .fnss?— Tb\s

^^ And this conrinued down to the *txiumn of 1165 ?-.it^

«. he,^^^ ^f^at time did you observe anyj^J ag^^tv^

^oJiaiL^'^^^^bJe time; and from rt^^^^e ceased bet >»^4:^^^t
^<^r w^'^Suaintai.ceandallcorrespoO^ diimk u o^-rvs^^^

«'ieh /^Uer Lady Be fkdcy. 1 ^ v^^t, axid the sa^^e J^ i
«i2- 5./. ^Pecr rhat 1 should recogm^^ ^^r#. canaoi «a^:v u*^

( 251 }

observed any difference in her appearance until after her
establishment with Lord Berkeley.

When was that ?— I do nat know. I never saw her but
in public place??. My Lord Berkeley afterwards did me the
honour to introduce nic to her, hut till that introduction, I
did not presume to take anv notice of her.

Can you state the fir-st time you saw her in public with
Lord Berkeley after the autumn of 1785 ? — I believe I did
not see her in his Lordship^s company for years afterwards,
hnt 1 had often occasion to see her alone ; 1 have seen her in
Hyde Park several time^ walking alone, or with a child,
but I did not see her with Lord Berkeley for years after-

You do not know from your own knowledge, when she
was establii^hed under the protection of Lord Berkeley ? — I
do not.

Nor the exact date when you observed any change in her
appearance? — I certainly 'saw her walking in Hyde Park,
which was the first occasion of my seeing her afterwards ;
sKe was then very differently dressed.

Can you' state whenabi)uts that was? — I should fancy it
was not till the year 1787.

When you first knew these two ladies, th» one of them
went by tlie name of Susan Cole ? — She did.

And at the latter end of the year 1785 she went by the
name of Mrs. "I'urnour ? — Yes.

W^as that in consequence of her having married anybody
of the name of Turui^ur ? — I believe chat Susan Cole took
the name of Turnour, in consequence of living under the
protection of a person of that name without marriage.

Can you state, whether to your knowledge Lady Berke-
ley, when you saw them together in' 1785, knew that her
sister Susan went under the name of Susan Turnour? — She
certainly knew that she went under the name of Susan

In the year 17S5, when she was with her sister Susan,
do you know that she was hving under the protection of a
person of the name of Turnour r— It is impossible for me la
say whether fyady Berkeley knew it or not.

Did you ever meet Mr. Turnour at Susan's lodgings ? — I

Digitized by


( 253 )

Did you ever see Lady Berkeley In company with that
p>erson who was pointed out to y.iu as Mr. TuniDur? — .

In an answer vou made early in your examination, yoa
stated that vou ha<l no acquaintaince with William 'I'udor,
but that yon had been accustomed to call him William Cole ;
"will you explain what you mean by t'^at ? — One hears of
absent persons, but I only kr.evv him from the conversa-
tion of the two sisters. Susan Cole was very a.ixious to
recommend him to mv very humble protection, as in the
whole course of her life she was most solicitous to assist
her family.

Can \ ou recollect where you saw these two ladies r — It •
vas a house near to a Chapel, upon the riglit hand.

With a bow wjndow ? — Yes.

Did you ever hear of their living any where but at White-
cross Street before they went to the Masquerade ? — I under-
*^tood, indeed afterwards 1 knew, that they lived ar the Ox-
ford Road comer of Bond Street.' I knew that they came
fiom Lady Talbot's back to that lodging, for then I saw
them there; thcv afterwards resided in Newport Street,
Newport ATarket, and from Newport Street they went into
the country, the one to Gloucestershire, and the other into

Did you ever hear of one or both of the sisters being at
Air. Jenning^'t, r — I never did; but Mr. Jennings may be
the person who kept that house ; I never heard ot the name
ot Jennings.

You have said, that the dress of Mary Cole maintained
the same character ot simpliciiy to the end of the year llSo,
rhat it iiad when you originai'lv saw her ; was that the case
also with Mrs. Tumour ?— It was not.

Can vou speak to your own knowledge of the cause o£

her at Che. ^eorge ScreeC, ^J^^^^^^^e^V^.er wa.kms vsrvv^v

/ eii/inot r ' '^' ^^otrt B.omptuH to neai ^ ^^^, ^, ,^e co^^et
or' ^^-hnt , '^^^pon ^e at thi^ P^^'^^ ^^ eood aUcvno. . xv. ^
AV'as ./'^^UbaJ^ her good eveniiig^ ^- hose care IL^a>

( ^56 )

delivered my charge back agaia to the lady, and she con-
ducted them home.

Were Lady Ber!<eiey and her sister of the company at
the Masquerade, or only spectators of it ? — I observed the
two ladies in the coffee room, or room where they served
refreshments to the company, I mean tea and coffee ; and
they were there very simply dressed, not mixing with the
company of the Masquerade, but apparently brought in as
strang^ers, to see the entertainment.

Where is White-cross Street ? — It is near Bedlam, in the
lower part of the city.

Did they appear in masks during a part of the evening ? —
I believe, I can say distinctly, that I used the licence of tiic
sort ot cntertaiument, and did address myself to them ; I
was amusing myself in a character, and I did address mVself
to these young ladies, and I believed that I prevailed upon
them to allow me to get masks with the consent of the
lady, under whose care thej came to the Masquerade, and
wider my arm they went round the room two or^ three times
to see the company ; it was a scene perfectly new to them ;
they were prevailed upon ro mix with the company, and I
went and procured them masks, and I believe a couple of
rakes, or something of that kind, by \yhich the)' wee con-
verted into the characters of hay-makers, and they mixed
>pvith the company.

' You have stated that you walked with Mrs. Turnout to
call on Lady Berke.ey at her lodgings in South-street? — I
have a faint recollection that I walked w ith Mrs. Turtiour
to a nouse which she said was the lodgings of her sister
Mary ; 1 think it was in South-street, but I cannot take
uj on me positively to say whether it was in South-street or
Prmce^ street, it is such a length of time it i& impossible to
recollect wbicli.

Can you seate at what time that happened? — ^Thclatter
end of 1785.

Did vou see Lady Berkeley npon that occasion ? — T think
I did ; but 1 have stated ori> inally that my recollection
uram rhis point is extremely f . nt and imperfect ; there is no
striking ciicumsiance that I can associate with it in my mind,
to 01 ing it to niy recollection. >^ j

D.u Lady B^Mkeley ever visit at any hc^Mg^Wei'P^^^

( 557 )

tlien a yerj young man, and living in chan^bcrs in CIcmcntV

Can yon state about what time that was ?— About the period
^ 1783, when they were in London, and also I believe, once in
the beginning of 1785.

Did you ever hear Lady Berkeley speak of her brother by
«Je name of Tudor ?— I have heard Lady Berkeley speak of her
brother by the name of Tudor at the end of the year 1 78$, but I
do not recc^ect hearing any mention of the name of Tudor by her
at the beginning of the year 1785.

Do you know how long Susan was at Lady Talbol*s ?— I
think that she continued at Lady Talbot's but a fortnight. Mary
continued longer.

Are you perfectly sure Mary continued the longest? — ^Thc
mchnation of ray memory is, that she continued aftet Susan
came away.

The first time you ever saw either the present Lady Berkeley
or her sister Susan, was in the coffee-room at the Pantheon ? —
Ihat was the first time.

Have not you often heard Lady Berkeley reprobate the kvity of
oer sister's conduct ?

Mr. Solicitor-General objected to^e question.

. ^n the 1 7th of June, Mr. JAMES PERRY W«s ag»i» »^*^
m and examined as follows : ^

Can you state to their Lordships, where, from T^^^ V^ !l ^e
^i!l^ y^^i- knowledge extends. Lady Berkdey ^^^^ the
y^rTrLP?"^' fromyour first acqnJntancc ^"-^^^eV^
IhL u^ - The first residence I leally do not k^^^J? Je \^
^nd^T ^'^^^^^inWhitecfo»-*tfm, at the bo^^^^^^^a^V^
rern^ J^^"^ care I saw her at the masque^de ? ^^eO%^<?^

^^t corner of New Bon d-street, with the mter^^^^ ^^H^^to^
^rt m'^v'^^J^Talbofs; she muled in Ncwpo^r^TS \^^*S^tc.
£ort market, near Long acre, the grtat street Wi^ ^ ^^^^e^^^^t ^^
^^^r .'^ Newport-market. 1 find that sl^-^ ^<^^\V^<>^

sbi re[n^ ",^'P« ^"^ o" Saturday, 1 said that to i*^ ^^Z^^ *^titi^t
tbe W ^ ^^ Gloucester in July or August. I r'^'^-fcro^^re^^^

rcideH • ^"^ ^ ^^^"'^^ fro"* my own knowledge ^=^^^^1 ^"T^,^ ^

thlt^ '" '^^''- ^ «^ ^^^ ^* ^"- Tumour's," fc^*^ -t^' jn ^!5l

.Vr-I *i*5 »«>^^ there, in June 1785. I a^w her ^^^^^.- t7«^ L;Ae<>

Digitized by


Digitized by


( S61 )

iieve it to be al that masqiiefade that this tfain^ happened ; and hi
looking into the account that was given next day, I see diat there
is an account of Highlanders in May, but there is nothing of that
sort in the account of the masquerade in February, so diat every
thing concurs to give an inclination to my mind that it was on the
first of May, and not on the twentieth of February.

Is there nothing with regard to two haymakers in the paper ^—
There is not ; I hare never made it a practice to allude to any
ladies in any paper that I have had the conduct of.

The Rev. THOMAS LATHAM, officiating clergyman of
Osboumby, in Lincolndiire, mentioned several conversations
which he had with Mrs. Glossop during a short time she remained
with him, and of his administering the sacrament to her. In one
of these conversations, she stated that they had no relation of the
name of Tudor, neither on her side nor her husband's; but
that a lady of that name in the neighbourhood, when she was de>
livered of her son, William Cole, requested tiie child might be
called Tudor.

The Most Noble the Marquis of BUCKINGHAM having
been sworn, was examined by the Lords in his place as follows:

Had your Lordship any conversation with the late Lord
Berkeley prior to the year 1799, relative to his family ? — I ap-
prehend that I do not dejiart from the respect which 1 owe to this
House in requesting their permission, before I answer any
question, to remind the House, that I stand here in obedience to
their orders, and not as a voluntary witness, in a matter, for many
reasons, so veiy ptdnful to me. The question put to me is, whe-
ther I had any conversation with the fate Lord Berkeley on the
circumstances of his marriage or of his family prior to the year
1 799 ? My answer is, that in the relation in which I stood with the
jate Lord Berkeley by fnarriage, and with the confidential habits
in which I lived with him for many years, 1 bad very many con-
versations with him upon the circumstances of ^as famiAy. At
^"■'ous times Lord Berkeley communicated to me tae otcum-
*^«<^e of his living with a person, then, as \ nudctsiooxi, tne
5?°^^er o( children by him. to whom ^e^f ^^^ ^^XuS^to
i^^^ ^t that period he was not married. If I am caWeA ^u
S^^be preKte *f that first declaration^ - ^^^^^^
WfJ^^t ; it is limited, however, by F*^*^^^^ ^^ I tctutned

rfiations, fhtrtbn^f must liave been betiw^Mn -tiiese twa det^s in
which his lordship told me be was not married to the mother of
rsome children, I did not then know how many, but boys he told
me, whom he requested that I would-be guardian to in the con-
tingency of his death. I gave him many reasons which induced -
me to decline, that, but particularly adverted Jo the circumstance
of their illegitimacy, and of their mother being alive, which
would be a very awkward circumstance to me in the relation of
guardian. He pressed me upon this several times ; I declined \t
uniformly, and for the reason of their illegitimacy, which I
assigned as my reason to him. Jn the courseof these. conversa-
tions he frequently adverted to a matter that dwelt much upo^
his mind, which he stated as dwelling much upon his mind ;
namely, the probability that the castle and honour of Berkeley,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 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 20 of 22)