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 6 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 6 of 22)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

[The witness pointed out Mr. John Home ; derk to
Messrs. Forster, Cooke, and Frere] Digitized byGoOglc

( ^ )

I turned to the name of Parker among the bundle of paper*
and read that only; I did not look over the others.

Did you, when you enquired for the papers, say y6u
wanted to see the deposition of Mr. Parker ? — Yes, 1 did.

And upon your enquiring for the deposition of Mr.
Parker that paper purporting to be so was given you by Mr.
Home ? — Yes.

Along with a bundle of other papers ? — Yes.

State the name of any one perbon no w» living, Mr. Parker
being now dead, who knows you went by the name of Tu-
dor before you left Gloucester ? — Mr. Parker's house was
the only one I ever lived in out of my own family, and he
was the only person that I knew of that ever was acquaint-
ed with my having that name, or going by it, and that ap-
pears by his books ; that is entered in his books.

Mr. Solicitor General objected to the latter part of the
answer relative to Mr. Parker's books.

Can you state the name of any individual living that
know that you went by the name of Tudor prior to your
leaving Gloucester ? — 1 cannot say, indeed ; the only per-
son 1 did state it to was Mr. Parker, to whom 1 was going
apprentice, which clearly appears by his evidence.

When you were called by any surname at all by Farren
it w^as by the name of Tudor and not by the name of Cole?
— ^I have been called by the name of Tudor by him I am

How did he call you in general, by tlie name of Tudor
when he expressed your surname at all, or by the name of
Cole? — He generally called me William.

When he liad occasion to add the surname at all, which
name did he use, that of Tudor or that of Cole? — I can-
not recollect at so distant a period.

Then you cannot recollect whether he used the name
of Tudor or Cole ? — He certainly has done it, but whether
once, twice, or more times, 1 cannot recollect

Has he called you by both names? — He very likely

What name did you go by at school? — That is so long
ago, 1 cannot recollect.

What was the name bv which in point of fact voiuwent .

( 63 )

Bame of your father Vfhich was Gole, and not by the name
of Tudor?— I do not recollect that they did.

How then came you to answer when asked, ** Whether
you evej went by the name of your father," ** Never that
I can recoHect," when you now say that you were called
so during the time you were at school? — That which was
reiy natural passed without my feeling interested to make
any comment upon it, people would call me by the name
of my father knowing his name.

But in your answer, you have stated, when asked whe-
ther you went by the name of Cole, ** Never that 1 recol-
lect; and now you say that during the time you were at
school for six months after your father's death after the
age of fourteen, all the boys called you by the name of
Cole, and no other; how do you reconcile those two
answei's ; one, that you never went by the name, and the
other, that you went always by the name ? — I do not feel
satisfied that the thing does stand perfectly so.

Mr. Solicitor General referred the witness to page 32 of
the Printed Minutes of the Committee of Privileges 1799.

The witness said ; — I beg that your lordships will have
the goodness to look at this examination, I think there is
an answer follows which explains my meaning, " I never
signed myself any otherwise than William Tudor ;" from
that answer it is clear I meant, not that I might not have
been called so by those who knew my father, but that I
never put my hand to any one act or deed by the name
of Cole, so as to take the name.

The first question is not as to your signing the name,
but by what name you were called, to which you answered,
** Never that I can recollect;" that has no reference to any
signature ? — ^^^ery true ; but my meaning at the time and
the impression on ray mind, I am positive, when 1 gave •
that answer, was that which is evident from the words
immediately following, that I never signed myself by aiiy
other name ; that I have never acknowledged niys*i\t ^y
any other name, however I might have been called.

When you were asked whether you had ever ^rot^^ ^^
ihat name, did you recollect you had always gone i^y that
name ?^»It was very natural that they should hav^ <^'*^^
me by that name twenty-nine or thirty years bet<>r<i» ^^

( 64 )

correspondence with your sister or any of your family?—
While I was at Parker's, after they left Gloucester, I had
occasion to correspond with them.

Before they left Gloucester, which was in 1785, had you
any correspondence with any of your, family ? — Yes.

With whom ? — With my sister,
i Which sister ? — Lady Berkeley.

It was in writing to Lady Berkeley you signed yourself
William Tudor ? — Yes ; no doubt ofit.

To anybody else ? — I never wrote to anybody else.

The only occasion you had to sign yourself William
Tudor was in a letter to Lady Berkeley ?— -Not so ; I signed
myself so in Mr. Parker's books during my residence with

Was there any occasion on which you were called upon
to sign your name except in Mr. Parker's books and the
letter to your sister ? - -I cannot recollect any material oc-
casion, nor indeed any occasion upon which I was called
upon to sign my nume.

Do you remeniher accompanying a boy of the name of
Gwinnett from Barnwood or Wootton, where your father
lived, to school? — So it has been stated in this house, but
I have not a recollection of it.

The witness and counsel withdrew.

I'he House afterwards adjourned till the 7th of May.

William Tudor being called in, and cross-examined, was
asked whether he went to any house at Berkeley, before he
went to the church there? — x\nswered, I went to an inn.

Were there many persons present at the church ? — ^There
was a congregation, I cannot speak after this number of
years to the size of it

Did the clergyman when he pronounced the banns speak
it with a distinct and audible voice? — I do not know, if I
had not known the names 1 was to expect, whether 1
should have distinctly heard him.

Why not ? — I heard my sister's name very distinctly.

What other name did you hear ? — I heard the Earl of

Did you hear that distinctly ? — Not so distinctly as I did
my sister's; my sister's was very distinctly pronounced, jc

( 65 )

Of course tliere was a profound silence at the time the
clergyman got up to publish the banns in the church, was
not there ? — That s;enerany is the case.

Was it not so at that time ? — It was as fer as I know.

About how many persons neariy might there be present
in the church ? — d cannot form the least conception.

Was there twenty, or a hundred, or two hiindred, or
about how many ; it is not wanted to fix you to the pre-
cise number, but as nearly. as you can state ?-^I cannot
form the least conception after this lapse of years, and to
a thing I never attended to.

Did you remain till the service was over ? — ^Not quite.

Did you stay after the senice was over in Berkeley ?
— I was there some little time.

In what part of the service was it publi^ied ? — ^As it
is usually done, I am not conversant, though I have heard
manj banns published since, to say exactly the exact time.

How can you know whether it was in the usual way or
not, unless you know what the usual way is ? — I conceive
it to have been so.

What do you conceive to have been the usual way; in
what p^ of the service do you conceive it to be usual to
publish the banns ? — I do not know the church service
particularly,, so as that I could speak to it so as to say ex-
actly when it was proper.

You have said it was published in the ususd way ? — ^As
fiir as I know.

Having said it was in the usual way, what is in your
opinion the usual way of publisiiifig banns, in the course
of the service ? — I do not know any further than I have
stated; I have heard banns puMi^ed several times' in
church since that.

Cannot you now answer the question in what part of
the service it was that the banns were published : — No, I

Was it in the morning or evening service ? — Morning.

Had any part of the service been gone tlirough before
the banns were published r — There was some part of the
service gone through.

JTow much ? — I cannot tell. ^ooIp

_ W^Jio was the clersrvman who published the banns r^^^

( 66 )

Only at the time of the marriage, and at the. time of
publishing the banns ?— I have never seen him since.

But you distinctlj saw him when the banns were pub-
lished ? — Certainly.

What sort of a person was he ? — ^As far as I can recol-
lect after twenty-six years, I should say he was a middling-
sized man, not a very tall man ; but 1 cannot speak more

Not a tall man; a middle-sized man ? — As far as I know ;
but I do not recollect.

Do you recollect his countenance ; wds he fat and jolly
in his countenance, oi: the contrary ? — I do not recollect

Or whether he was a young or an old man ? — I cannot
speak indeed to that.

Did he wear a wig ? — I cannot tell indeed, I do not
know that he did.

From your recollection do you believe that he did ? I do
not believe any thing about the matter, I have not the
least conception of it.

Do you recollect the complexion of this clergyman ? —
Not the least after this lapse of time, twenty-six years,
and never having thought of it since.

You were present in the church the greatest part of
the service on this day that you attended the publication
of the banns ? — Yes.

Cannot you nearly state whether there were present at
that time a hundred persons, or ten, or any interme-
diate number? — I Cannot positively with any accuracy
state it.

Were there ten persons there ? — I dare say there
might be.

Were there twenty ^ — I cannot tell.

You must be able to recollect whether the church ap-
peared to be full or not ? — I cannot recollect a thing I
never once attended to or thought of.

Your wGire directed by your sister to attend to the pub-
lication of the banns ? — Yes.

Did you then know it was to be kept a secret ? — Cer-

tainly. Diaitiz^byGoOQle

Did not you, when you knew it was to be kept a secret

( W )

once only, or to attemd tfie publication of the banm aU
three times ? — I do not recollect what the directions weiie;
I know that I went once in consequence of Uie letter I

Was the day on which the publication of the banns was
to take place mentioned to you ? — I was told what day I
was to go certainly.

You collected, when you were there, that tUs was
the first time of the banns being published ? — ^Yes.

Did you exer go again to see whether the banns were
pablislied the second and the third time ? — Never.

How came you not to go the second and third time, to
see whether they were publisl^ again ? — I did not think
it of any consequence.

Did you think it of any consequence to hear the first
banns published? — To satisfy my sister whether they were
or not.

How long was it before you were put in possession of
any reason for keeping tne marriage secret ? — I did not
"know my Lord Berkeley's reason ibr many years after.

You did not, at the time you attended the publication
of the banns, know the reason, although you knew
the fiaict that it was intended to be kept secret ? — I did not
know my Lord Berkeley's reasons ; I knew that it was
his request, and I knew that I was ordered.

Did you never inquire into the reasons why, when
your sister was about to be married to Lord Berkeley^
and was nhaoried, it was kept secret ? — I do not remember
.«ver doing it, at least at that early period.

You say you were not acquainted with it fin* some
3^ears afterwards ; how many years afterwards was it be-
fore you were acquainted with the cause of keeping it
secret ? — I cannot exactly npeA to the number of y«irs.
Was it four or five years, or more ? — I really cannot
say exactiy, I ifare say it might be.

Then it was not liefore yon went abroad, which you
stated beSwe was the year 1787 ? — At this distance of
time I really cannot speak positively to whether the infor-
mation was given me before or after, but I think it wa^

You stated, that at the time you received the intinia-ie
tion to attend the publication of the banns you were Kv-

' ( 68 )

In what street ? — I think it was then in the Westgate-
gti*eet5 to the best of my recollection.

Did Farren afterwards remove to South^te-street, the
corner of Bell-lane, in Gloucester ? — He did remove there
some time about that period, but I am not positive as to
the date.

Upon the death of your father, in January 1783, what
became of your mother and her two unmarried daughters,
Susan and Mary ? — I cannot exactly say where they were,
I do not exactly know where my mother went to.

Were. you a part of that family then? — I was of my
sister's family from the time of my JFather's death.

Do you not know that your two unmarried .sifters, Su-
san and Mary, after the death of your father went into
service? — I believe they might, but I was not present to
see ; they left Gloucester.

Susan and Mary left Gloucester together? — I cannot
speak to that positively at this distance.

How soon after the death of their father was it, that
these tv*^ persons left Gloucester and went into service ?
— I think it was very early, but I am not positive ; I can-
not speak to the time.

Did they not go into the service of Lady Talbot ?— I do
not know indeed.

How soon was it afterwai^ds before you saw them again^
Susan aiid Mary ? — Before I left Glouce^er they both c^me
down, bat not together.

By your l^?tving Gloucester, . do you mean leaving
Gloucester towards the end of .1785 ?r-^Yes. ,

At what time before that ; how long before that was it
that Susan and Mary, or one of them, came down to
Gloucester ? — I cannbt speak as to the date when Susan
came down, it was only for a few days.

When did you see Mary again, when she had left Glou-
cester for the purpose of going into service ?— I did not
see her, as far as 1 can recollect, till I met her when she
was going to be married ; I cannot speak positively, but
my memory does not serve me if I did see her between
those times.

Do you mean by tliat till you met her at Newport the
day she was going to be manied ?— Yes. Digitized by V^OO^IC

Are vou tl^u to be understood to sav vou had not se^n

( 69 )

your seeing her the morning of the marriage? — I think I
might have done that, but I reallj am not positive ; it is a
longtime, twenty- six v^ars, and I have no accounts to
refer to, and i was very young.

Were not you at Gloucester in the month of March
1784, when your sister Mary was hired into the service of
Mrs. Foote ? — Certainly, I was at Gloucester.

Where was youi* modier living ? — I do not know whe-
ther she lived in any one place particularly;

Was not she living in Gloucester ? — I saw her at Glou-
cester, bat I think she was out at times at different

. What do you mean by out at different places ? — She used
to go out as nurse, or something of that kind ? I know
I only saw her seldom.

You represented your going to Nevrport, the morning
of the marriage, to your sister who was there ? — Yes.

From thence you represented, that you went on foot
to Berkeley, where you were present at the marriage?
•—Yes, -J

Did you see anyp^rson^at Berkeley that day, having
represented the marriage to having taken place between
nine and ten in the morning ? — I do not think that I did,
I did not go into tke town.

After the ceremony was over, you stated that you went
back tb Newport wufli- your sister ? — YesL '

Did any body else go to Newport- with your sister ? —

Did you walk back to Newpwi with your sister after
the ceremony ? — lYes, I did^

. How long did you stay with your sister at Newport ?—
A veiy little time. , . .

During that little time, did any body join yo^ at New-
pwt ? — rio^ not any body that 1 know ; I never saw any
one that I knew.

You having represented that you were present at the
carriage, was there any person officiating as clerk?— <
There was a man in the cnurclu

Vl^ere you aware that that persoa officiated as cleik? —
-^ :^^s I'knew.
Wlio was that p^^son ? — I do not know^h^^naiac anyj^

( 70 )

You mean Richard Barns ? — Yes.

W^at (lid that man do, that you consider was ofBciat*
ing as clerk ? — ^At this moment I cannot recollect what a
man ought to do that officiates as clerk on such an oc-

It is not asked what he ou^ht to do, but in point of
fact what did that person do, if any thing ; what did you
see him do ? — I saw him subscribe his name, or at least
make his mark, I cannot recollect any particulars so long

Besides making his mark, do you now recollect any one
act that was done by that person besides making his
mark at the church ? — No, I cannot take upon me to say
that I do.

Was the marriage ceremony performed in the church?
— In the church, yes.

Was that the same person that had acted as clerk when
the banns were publisned ? — I should think not, but I do
not know.

Do you recollect who it was that was clerk at the time
the banns were published ? — No, I do not.

This person that you describe having officiated as clerk
ou do not recollect having done any thing except putting
is mark to the book ? — At this distance of time I really
cannot recollect.

Is it that you represent this person to have officiated as
clerk because there was no other person that officiated as
clerk, or because of any thing that you saw this clerk
do ? — I suppose he officiated as clerk to the best of my
recollection, but what a clerk ought to do as officiating
as such, I do not know ; I have been married myself since
that time, but I am sure I do not know what a clerk has
to do with it.

Do you mean to represent that this man who could not
sign his name was able to, ^nd did in fact read ? — I do not
recollect his reading.

Or repeating any part of the service ? — I do not recol-
lect his doing that at this distance of time.

Do you recollect who it was that wrote in the register
his mark, opposite to the mark made by this Richard
Barns ?— No, 1 do not. ^■^^■,,,,^ by GooqIc

The words are, " The mark of Richard Bams," who


( 71 )

How long^ after the marriage bad taken place, which
was in March, 1785, was it before you saw jour sister
again ? — Pcannot say how long it was, exactly.

About how long ? — It was not long, I am sure I cannot

In the course of the same year ? — Oh yes, certainly.

Where did you see your sister again ? — At Gloucester.

At what house? — My sister's particularly, I used to
see her there frequently.

Did not your sister, this person whom you represent to
have been married in March 1785, come to live (or several
months in Gloucester in the course of that year ? — She did,
I cannot say how many months, but she was there for a

During the time of your sister remaining for some
months in Gloucester at that period, did she not all that
time pass by the name of Mary Cole ? — Yes, she did cer-

Did she in any respect appear in any part of her ap-
pearance different in the smallest degree from what she
had done before she was married ? — I do not recollect that
she did ; not that I bbserved.

During this period where was Lord Berkeley ? — I can-
not tell ; I saw him several times at Gloucester, but
where he was constantly, I do not know.

When you saw him "in Gloucester, where did you see
him? In what part of Gloucester? — I saw him in the
streets ; I saw him at Mr. Parker's once or twice.

Did you at any time ever see Lord Berkeley and your
sister together ?— They were once together in Dr. Parker')^

How long were they together ? — Not long; 1 cannot at
this distance of time say, but I should tttnk ^^^ ^^'

Do you know a person of the name of M^. "pri^^^ ^
I person or that name some years a^^. *' 5»r^ca^

was housekeeper in Lady Berkeley^? family J-
a person of that name sorae years a<::o.

Digitized by


( 73 >

Then is it true, thftt the reasons diat operated fiir a
fime to produce the concealment with Lord jSerkdey did
not continue ?— Certainlj, thej ceased in a great measure^
when my sister was married and went abroad; but I can-
not recollect the time.

After the reasons had ceased for keeping the marriage
a secret, did you make any application to Af r. Hupsman,
to know the particulars of the registry of the marriage ? —

Did you at any time before consulting Bfr. Bearcroft,
or before the second marriage, examine the r^istry, to
see whether it contained the entry of the marriage which
you had attested ? — ^Never.

How came you not, when all parties were desirous or
willing at least that the marriage should be made public,
either to apply to Mr. Hupsman to know in point of fact
whether the registry was destroyed, or to look at the re-
jfister to see i^ether it contained the entry or not? — I
implicitly believed the entry was gone.

Why ? — ^^Because it was so asserted.

By whom ? — ^By Lord Berkeley and my sistar ; we had
many conversations on the subject

Was it represented that Lord Berkeley was privy to the
destruction of the registry ? — So I undei^tood, but he did
not allow it ; he never admitted it ; I do not recollect that
lie admitted it ; only to the concealment.

You have stated that you did not conceive Lord Berke-
ley to admit he was privy to the destruction of the re-
gistry : to refer you to pa^ 35 of the former minutes,
you were asked ^^ What did you mean to say about the
registry being destroyed ?" Answer, " I was given to
understand it was destroyed." You were then asked, " By
whom ?'' and you replied, ^^ By my sister and my Lord
Berkeley." ** Did you understand that it was done by
Lord Berkeley's consent from your sister only, or from
Lord Berkeley himself?" to which you answered, ^ I
first leamt it from my sister; after, from Lord Berkeley

I alluded to the destruction, not to Lord Berkeley's
admitting that he was a party concerned in it ; that hajvas .
nrivv to the transaction. Digitized by vjOOg Ic

( 74 )

to andersUgiid it was done by my Lord Berkeley's con-
sent;" and then follows the question you were asked,
^^ Did you understand that it was done by Lord Berkeley's
consent from your sister oulyj or from Lord Berkeley
himself?" and you answered, " I first learnt it from my
sister, after from Lord Berkel^ himself." — I do not con-
ceive that I ever said that Lorn Berkeley ever admitted
that he was privy to the destruction ; he admitted that it
was destroyed ; but that he was not a party concerned in
the transaction ; that it was not his wisn ; he wished for a

. Did Lord Berkdey inform you that he had liimself
written the body of the registry? — I do not recollect; he
mi^ht have done so.

You have spoken of Lord Berkeley's having stated that
the registry was destroyed ; do you know anj thing of the
registry having been discovered ? — The first information I
received of it, was by letter from Lord Berkeley.

Have you got that letter ? — I have ; this is it (producing
a letter).

Sir Samuel Romilly requested that the letter might be

The Solicitor General, for the reasons he assigned, ob*
jected to its being received.

The House having adjourned to the 8th of May, Sir
Samuel Romilly requested leave to call a witness to ex-
plain a circumstance spoken to by Mr. Tudor on the
Friday preceding ; upon which John Hone, one of the
managing clerks of Messrs. Foster, Cooke and Frere,
being caued, acknowledged shewing Mr. Tudor one of
the documents, or briefs, which the latter called the de-
position. This witness denied shewing Lady Berkeley
copies of the depositions, or any paper on the subject of
the cause. He also denied ever having any personal or
verbal communications with Lady Berkeley on the subject,
or being present when any were made to her.

During the sitting of the 13th of May, Sir Samuel
Romilly asked the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, if he had yet refreshed his memory as to whether
he did, or did not know it was Lady Berkeley who con^
suited him upon an occasion which he had acknowledged^
before upon a second marriage ? To this Lord Mansfield

( 75 )

him, in a great degree of agitation, or exclaimed, ^ It
was already done, taken place, or words to that eflFect."

1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 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 6 of 22)