SHORT SKETCH OF THE BERKELEY CLAIM. THIS claim, which has occupied so much of the time of the House of Lords, was brought forward early in the Session, on the Petition of William Fitzharding Berkeley, stating himself to be the eldest son and heir apparent of the late Earl of Berkeley, and therefore entitled of right to the honours and dignities possessed by his father. It being known that the late Earl was publicly married to the present Countess of Berkeley in May 1796, and the son of that marriage born in October 1796: being a minor, the House addressed the Prince Regent to appoint one of the Law Officers of the Crown to appear for him, to take care of his interests. The case theu came on to be heard Mr. Serjeant Best, Sir Samuel Romilly, and Mr. A. Moore, attending as Counsel for the claimant, who claimed under a marriage alleged to have taken place between his father the late Earl, and the present Countess, on the 30th of March 1785, at Berkeley church. The Solicitor General and Mr. Harrison attending on behalf of the son of the undisputed marriage in 1796, who failing, the claim of the claimant was of course the next heir, and the Attorney-General, as in all cases of a claim of Peerage, attending on the part of the Crown. The evidence on the part of the claimant went to the proof of the publication of banns between the late Earl of Berkeley and Mary Cole, now Countess of Berkeley, on the 30th of November, 5th and 12th of December, 1784, and to the solemnization of a marriage between the same parties on the 30th of March 1795, and to the concealment of the entry of the former and the registry of the latter for several years, in order, as alleged, that at the earnest desire of the Earl of Berkeley, the marriage might be kept secret. To prove the publication of the bauns, Mr. William Tudor, brother to the Countess of Berkeley, was called, who swore that he attended at Berkeley church, by the desire of his sister, to hear the hanns published, and that he actually heard them published by Mr. Hupsman, the Curate, afterwards Vicar. He also swore that he was present at the marriage, to the registry of which his name appeared signed as a witness. The Countess of Berkeley also swore that she was married on the 30th of March 1785, to the Earl of Berkeley, at Berkeley church, and in cross examination, stated, that his Lordship became acquainted with her when she was at school at Gloucester; that she left Gloucester to avoid him; and finally, when at Mrs. Foote's, in Kent, 1784, agreed to marry him; but that the marriage was to be kept secret, on account of the conduct of her sister. Evidence was also adduced of the finding of the registry of the marriage concealed in the inside of the cover, under a leaf of the book pasted over it, and of a declaration made by the Earl of Berkeley in his last illness, that this alleged marriage took place on the day stated, in 1785, and of the legitimacy of his children. On the part of the son born in 1796, evidence was adduced to shew, by circumstantial evidence, that it was impossible the alleged pub. lication of banns in 1784, or marriage in 1785 could have taken place. A great number of witnesses were examined. It was proved that Lord Berkeley, in his own hand writing, minuted down the form in which the baptism of his children by Lady Berkeley, then living with him under the name of Miss Tudor, should be registered, and which was previous to 1796, uniformly as the illegitimate children of the Earl of Berkeley and Mary Cole; that his Lordship swore himself to be a bachelor in 1796, to obtain a licence for his marriage with Lady Berkeley, denominated in the affidavit Mary Cole, spinster; and that with respect to the son born after the marriage, his Lordship in his own hand-writing minuted down the form for the registry of his baptism, expressly denominating him Lord Dursley, son of the Earl and Countess of Berkeley. The life of her Ladyship was also traced in evidence, from the death of her father, William Cole (who lived at Wooton, in Gloucestershire), in De cember 1782, or January 1783; her coming to London; her going into the service of Lady Talbot; afterwards in March 1784, into the service of Mrs. Foote, in Kent. Evidence was also given of declarations of Lady Berkeley and of Lord Berkeley, at different times, between 1785 and 1796, indicating that they were not married. The person who was officiating clerk of the parish of Berkeley at the time the banns were alleged, was also called, who never heard any such bauns published. The name of Augustus Thomas Hupsman, the Vicar of Berkeley, signed to the registry of the marriage, was declared by his widow not to be like his hand writing, and the rest of the registry was proved to be in the hand-writing of Lord Berkeley, including the words "the mark of Thomas Barnes." Evidence was likewise adduced to shew that Lord Berkeley was not acquainted with Lady Berkeley till late in the year 1785. To rebut the effect of this testimony, several witnesses were examined on the part of the claimant, to prove a belief and persuasion on the part of the individuals connected with the family, that Lord Berkeley and Lady Berkeley, at the time she was living with him as Miss Tudor, were married; also to prove that from the mode of publishing bauns at Berkeley church, they might frequently not be heard. To shew likewise that Lord and Lady Berkeley were seen in company together in the early part of 1783. Mrs. Glossop, the mother of Lady Berkeley, also swole that her daughter made a solemn declaration to her, when preg. nant of her first child (the claimant), that she was married to Lord Berkeley. Some witnesses were then examined, called by the Solicitor-General, respecting some points of contradiction. Witnesses were then finally called by the House of Lords, whose testimony went to shew that the first known intimacy between Lord and Lady Berkeley was not till the autumn of 1785, and one of whom, the Marquis & Buckingham, deposed to repeated conversations between his Lordship and Lord Berkeley, in which the latter stated himself not to be married to the person then living with him, now Lady Berkeley, by whom he had children; and that he actually proposed to the Noble Marquis to become a mediator with his brother, Admiral Berkeley, to engage to marry his eldest son to an illegitimate daughter (by Mary, now Countess of Berkeley), in which case he would settle the Castle and honours of Berkeley on her, that they might not be separated from the Peerage. It has been erroneously said, that by the resolution of the House of Lords, the Berkeley Peerage indisputably devolves on the first son of the marriage in 1796. That may be the ultimate effect of the decision; but in the mean time the resolution of the Committee of Privileges goes no farther than to say, that he has not made good his claim. It is open to him yet to petition the House if he can adduce new proofs, or overthrow the evidence given against him; and his brother, Morton Fitzharding, is only in his fifteenth year, and caunot claim to be called to the House of Peers till he shall have reached twenty-one ―The eldest son of the alleged marriage in 1785, is put into this curious predicament. He was forced to quit the House of Commons as being a Peer, and not allowed to enter the House of Lords as being a Commoner. The following MINUTES of EVIDENCE given before the COMMITTEE of PRIVILEGES ON this subject, will be found extremely interesting. The Right Honourable Mary Countess of Berkeley was called, and a chair being placed for her, her Ladyship came to the table, and having been sworn by the Lord Chancellor, was examined as follows: When was your Ladyship first married to the late Earl of Berkeley? On the 30th of March, 1785.-Where was that marriage solemnized? In the parish church of Berkeley. -Who was the clergyman that solemnized that marriage? The Rev. Mr. Hupsman.Who were present at the time of the solemni. zation of that marriage? My brother, Mr. Tudor, and the clerk, and the late Earl of || Berkeley-Was the marriage duly registered at the time? Yes, I think it was; I am sure it was. Did your Ladyship sign your name to that registry? Yes, I did.-The witness then turned to an entry in the parish register of Berkeley, which was read as follows :- "No. 74-Frederick Augustus Earl of Berkeley, of this parish, bachelor, and Mary Cole, of the same, spinster, were married in Was that marriage immediately avowed, or was it kept secret? It was kept secret.-When was it first proposed to the Earl of Berkeley that that marriage which your Ladyship has stated to the House was kept secret should be avowed? I cannot exactly tell.-Does your Ladyship recollect, when it was proposed to Lord Berkeley that that marriage should be avowed, the reasons that Lord Berkeley gave for the farther concealment of that marriage? Yes, I do recollect them.-Have the goodness to state them? Lord Berkeley gave me as a reason, that the registry had been destroyed, and that it could not be avowed without great risk to the clergyman, who was supposed to have destroyed the registry.—In consequence of that communication from Lord Berkeley, was it determined that the marriage should as.-Does your still be kept secret? Yes, it was.—) Ladyship recollect consulting with any professional man, respecting what was to be done under the idea of the registry having been destroyed? Yes, I cousulted Mr. Bearcroft-Will your Ladyship be good enough to state to the House what advice Mr. Bearcroft gave upon that subject? He recommended a second marriage, under the circumstances of the cas-Did your Ladyship immediately acquiesce in the advice of Mr. Bearcroft, that there should be a second marriage?—No, 1 did not; I thought it would be forsaking my eldest son, and giving up all possibility, in my own mind, of proving the first marriage.But in consequence of the advice you had received from Mr. Bearcroft, did your Lady ship ultimately consent to a second marriage? I did. Where was your Ladyship married to Lord Berkeley a second time? In the parish of Lambeth-On the second marriage taking place, was the marriage avowed, or was it still concealed? The marriage was still concealed -Did your Ladyship take the title of Countess of Berkeley, or did your Ladyship pass by the same name you had formerly passed by? I passed by the same name I had done before, and refused to be acknowledged then.-By what name did your Ladyship pass. Miss Tudor.-Down to what period of time did your Ladyship continue by the name of Miss Tudor? I think about the latter end of 1797, or the beginning of 1798.-Was the petitioner then called by the title of Lord Dursley? I cannot answer to a few months, but very soon after.— Has he been in every respect treated from that time as the eldest legitimate son of the late Earl of Berkeley? Yes; he was treated so from the hour of his birth, except in taking the title. Did your Ladyship ever take the name of Tudor prior to the marriage with Lord Berkeley? No, I do not think I was ever called Miss Tudor till after my marriage with Lord Berkeley. Your Ladyship's maiden name prior to that was Mary Cole? Yes.→ Where was your Ladyship living immediately prior to the first marriage in March 1795? I had a lodging in Mount-street, or South-street, I cannot exactly recollect in which of those streets.-Your Ladyship has stated that the marriage took place on the 30th of March 1785? Yes-At Berkeley? Yes.-How long had your Ladyship been at Berkeley before the marriage took place? I arrived at Newport the night before.-Alone, or with any person? Alone -From whence did your Ladyship come immediately? From Mount-street or Southstreet, London-Was Lord Berkeley in London when your Ladyship left London, or did he go to Berkeley before your Ladyship? I met him at Berkeley; he was in the church when I arrived -How long had your Ladyship been acquainted with Lord Berkeley? Ever since I was a girl at school-Where did your Ladyship first become acquainted with Lord Berkeley? At Mrs. Clark's boarding-school in Gloucester. Did the acquaintance continue from the time of Lord Berkeley seeing your Ladyship at the boarding-school to the time of the marriage? It did.-During that interval was your Ladyship visited by Lord Berkeley? Oftener than I wished to be.-Where? Wherever I was, Lord Berkeley found me out, or followed me.--) -Does your Ladyship mean to say, that Lord Berkeley was in the habit of visiting your Ladyship while you were at Gloucester? I left Gloucester to avoid him.- || Ladyship live with Lord Berkeley regularly? No.-Where, then, did your Ladyship live after the marriage had taken place? I had a lodging in George-street, Hanover-square.-Did your Ladyship immediately after that marriage come to that lodging in George-street, Hanover-square? The first two days after my marriage, I think I went to Kew, and to Hampton Court, with my husband; after that I think I went to George-street; I have some faint idea that I might have gone to Mountstreet, or perhaps South-street.-It is understood that after the marriage had taken place you came up to London? I did.-How long did your Ladyship continue to live in London? I went for the summer, 1785, to Gloucester, I believe in May, but am not quite clear-From the month of March, 1785, to May, 1785, your Ladyship was constantly in Londou? constantly. Where then, if not in London? I was with my husband in the neighbourhood of Kew and Hampton Court.-Not at any place of residence that Lord Berkeley had? No, not till after I returned from Gloucester in 1785. But in point of fact wherever it was, your Ladyship was constantly living with your husband? No, I did not say so; on the contrary, I was very ill, and we did not live much together.-At what time was your Ladyship Not At what house will your Ladyship have the goodness to state, Lord Berkeley came to visit you before you left Gloucester to avoid him? The only place I recollect to have seen him in Gloucester was at the house of Mr. Parker, surgeon of his Lordship's regiment.-Excepting that place, your Ladyship never remembers to have seen Lord Berkeley visiting you at any place in Gloucester? I have seen him constantly, but I cannot answer the question more distinctly upon my oath.-At what house in Gloucester had Lord Berkeley been in the habit of visiting your Ladyship before your Ladyship left Gloucester? There are ways of pursuing a lady without visiting her at any particular house-Am I to understand Lord Berkeley did not come to the house where your Ladyship was visiting during the time you were at Gloucester? I do not think he did at that period; I left Gloucester for good in the beginning of the year 1784.-To what place did your Ladyship go when you left Gloucester for good at that period? I went into Kent until the end of December, 1784.During that interval was your Ladyship in the babit of at all coming to London? Never. —Your Ladyship then was under the roof of a lady of the name of Foote? I was-During the whole time, from the time of your Lady-very ill? I continued very unwell for three ship's leaving Gloucester, which was in the month of March, 1784, till the month of December, 1784? Yes.-How often during that interval, from March to December, did Lord Berkeley, if at all, come into Kent to see your Ladyship? Once-Where did your Ladyship see him? At a village called Lenham, or some such name, about two miles from the place where I resided.-How came your Ladyship to meet Lord Berkeley at that village? I feel a difficulty in answering that question.—It is understood your Ladyship left Gloucester for the purpose of avoiding Lord Berkeley? I did. -Did your Ladyship go accidentally to this village, or on purpose to meet Lord Berkeley? I went on purpose.-Then, except that time, your Ladyship did not see Lord Berkeley during the whole time you were in Kent? I corresponded with him. Has your Ladyship any of the letters? No.-From the time of the marriage, which was in March, 1785, did your months after I was married-At what place had your Ladyship that illuess?—I was ill immediately after I was married, and I was ill at Gloucester after I was married; and before I went to Gloucester I was ill in London. Your Ladyship is understood to say, that you were taken ill soon after the marriage, and whilst you were in London? Yes.-Was your Ladyship attended by any medical persons in London? Yes.-By whom? I cannot recollect at this period, so many years have elapsed-Was it by one person, or more than one? I was attended by one.-Was it an apothecary or a physician? I cannot recollect.-Your Ladyship may remember whether the state of your health was so bad as to require the daily attendance of a medical persou? I was unwell, but on that subject I cannot answer more fully.-If the state of your Ladyship's health was such as to produce a temporary separation from Lord Berkeley, I presume it was such as to require the constant house of Mr. Parker.-Your Ladyship means Here the Counsel and the Countess of Berkeley were directed to withdraw-The Counsel were again called in. to have been brought up as a surgeon; unac time. Where was your Ladyship's mother then living?-In Gloucester, I believe. I was in Kent when it was settled that I was to be married; and my mother then in Glouces ter-During the time your Ladyship was at Southgate-street, at Mrs. Farren's, from the month of May to the month of August or September following, does your Ladyship remember being visited by any Barrister there? Yes, I do. What was his name? Fendall.-Was your Ladyship previously acquainted with him? I cannot recollect whether I saw him once or twice. He drauk tea once or twice at my sister's.-Had your Ladyship ever been acquainted with him prior to the time of his The Countess of Berkeley was again called in, and her Ladyship was informed, there was no intention to ask her as to the nature of the disorder, but-who was the medical person who attended her Ladyship in town from the time of her marriage to the time of her going to Gloucester? I do not know the name of the medical person who attended me at that time; it was a medical person who was sent to. Had your Ladyship occasion to call in any medical man when you was at Glouces ter? Yes. Whom? Mr. Parker.-Is he living or dead? He is dead.-Had your Lady-acquainted with the marriage? Not at that ship occasion for the attendance of any other medical person at Gloucester? No.-At what place in Gloucester was your Ladyship attended by Mr. Parker? My sister had a house in Southgate-street, I think the name of it is, the street leading to Berkeley.-What sister was that? Mrs. Farren.-How long did your Ladyship continue with that sister? I was at Gloucester till August or September, as near as I can recollect.-And continued during the whole of that time at the house of Mrs. Farren? Yes.-Was your Ladyship visited by Lord Berkeley? I saw Lord Berkeley in Gloucester during that period.-How often? I cannot say how often.-From the mouth of May to the month of August or Sep-coming to drink tea with you? I cannot recoltember, was three or four months; during that time is it to be understood that Lord Berke. ley visited your Ladyship at Mrs. Farren's house, and had meals with you, or lived with you there? No. Where was Lord Berkeley? | I was very unwell, and cannot answer to where he was. Can your Ladyship recollect the name of any one person who saw Lord Berkeley in company with your Ladyship at either of those houses? I do not think there person now living, who did see Lord Berkeley in my company at either of these houses, except my brother, who saw him once at the any lect whether I had or not, or whether my sister had met him or not.-Did he repeat his visits? I think be was there twice, as far as I can recollect.-Not oftner? No, I do not think it was oftner.-Did your Ladyship ever correspond with him? I wrote one letter to him.-Where? He went the circuit and wrote to me. Has your Ladyship a copy of that letter? No; but I should like to read to the House of Lords a letter which I wrote to a friend of his to shew him, six months ago, in consequence of his having taken great libertles in representing the transactions, be |