6

6

Dissenters who have lately petitioned for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, Birmingham, 1787, 8vo. 5. The History of the Lives of Abeillard and Heloisa, from 1079 to 1163, with their genuine letters, from the collection of Amboise,' Birmingham, 1787, 4to. 6. Reflections, with an Exposition of Roman Catholic principles, in reference to God and the Country,' 1787, 8vo. 7. Account of the present State of Roman Catholics in Great Britain,' 1787,8vo. 8. 'An Essay on the Depravity of the Nation, with a view to the promotion of Sunday Schools, &c., of which a more extended plan is proposed,' Birmingham, 1788, 8vo. 9. The Rights of Dissenters from the Established Church, in relation principally to English Catholics,' Birmingham, 1789, 8vo. 10. The History of the Reign of Henry the Second, and of Richard and John, his sons; with the events of this period, from 1154 to 1216, in which the character of Thomas à Becket is vindicated from the attacks of George, Lord Lyttelton,' Birmingham, 1790, 4to. 11. Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani; giving an account of his agency in England in the years 1634, 5, and 6; translated from the Italian original, and now first published. To which are added, an Introduction and a Supplement, exhibiting the state of the English Catholic Church, and the conduct of the parties before and after that period, to the present times,' Lond. 1793, 8vo; reprinted under the title of 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Religion in England during a period of two hundred and forty years from the reign of Elizabeth to the present time; including the Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani, envoy from Rome to the English court in 1643, 1644, and 1645, with many interesting particulars relative to the court of Charles the First and the causes of the civil war. Translated from the Italian original,' Lond. 1813, 8vo. This work elicited some 'Remarks on the book entitled Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani' (1794), from the jesuit Father Charles Plowden, who expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the manuscript. Berington vindicated its genuineness in the Gentleman's Magazine' for June 1795, and was answered by Dr. Milner in the number for September. Milner then stated that the well-known Mr. Joseph Berington, so far from being a Roman catholic bishop, has not even the ordinary commission of a Roman catholic clergyman in the ecclesiastical district in which he resides.' 12. 'An Examination of Events termed Miraculous as reported in letters from Italy,' 1796. This was answered by Father George Bruning in a pamphlet published the same year, and also

by Milner in 'A serious Expostulation with the Rev. Joseph Berington upon his theological errors concerning Miracles and other subjects,' 1797. Berington's work is accompanied by an announcement of the first of five quarto volumes of the History of the Rise, Progress, and Decline of the Papal Power,' but this was never published. 13. Protestantism and Popery illustrated. Two letters from a Catholic priest to the author of the "Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World," with his reply, tending to illustrate the real sentiments of the Catholics throughout the United Kingdom. With remarks on the subject by John Evans,' 2nd edit. Lond. 1812, 8vo. 14. 'The Faith of Catholics confirmed by Scripture and attested by the Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church,' written conjointly with John Kirk, D.D., 8vo, Lond. 1813, 2nd edit. 1830, 3rd edit. revised and greatly enlarged by the Rev. James Waterworth, 3 vols. 1846. 15. A Literary History of the Middle Ages; comprehending an account of the state of learning, from the close of the reign of Augustus to its revival in the fifteenth century,' Lond. 1814, 4to, reprinted in 'The European Library,' Lond. 1846, 12mo, with an introduction by William Hazlitt; and again Lond. 1883, 12mo. A French translation by M. H. Boulard was published in sections.

Several of Berington's works, especially 'The Faith of Catholics,' elicited replies from writers on the protestant side; and his taste for innovation was censured in 'Remarks on the Writings of the Rev. Mr. Joseph Berington; addressed to the Catholic clergy of England, by the Rev. Charles Plowden,' 1792.

[Jackson's Oxford Journal, 8 Dec. 1827; Nichols's Illustrations of Literature, v. 685, 690, 721, vii. 485; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. viii. 43, 44, ix. 267: Gent. Mag. lxv. 723, lxix. (ii.) 750, xcviii. (i.) 374 ; Butler's Hist. Memoirs (1822), iv. 455; Milner's Supplementary Memoirs, 45, 46; pref. to Hazlitt's edit. of Hist. of Literature; Life of Mary Anne Schimmelpenninck (1859), 36, 123, Church in England, ii. 388, 390, 391; Home 174; Biog. Univ. Suppl.; Flanagan's Hist. of the and Foreign Review, ii. 538; Husenbeth's Life of Milner, 26, 63, 97, 100, 397, 402; Notes and Queries, 1st ser. x. 131, 186, 270; Biog. Dict. of Living Authors (1816), 24; Burke's Dict. of the Landed Gentry (1868), 89.]

T. C.

BERKELEY, FAMILY OF. The first tenant of Berkeley after the Conquest was Roger, who in 1086 held lands in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (Domesday, i. 78, 162, 168; Monasticon, i. 549). He bequeathed his lands to his nephew William (Pipe Roll 31 Hen. I, p. 133), founder of the abbey of Kingswood (Monast. v. 425). By this

time a small castle, built at Berkeley by William Fitzosbern (Domesday, 163), had probably given place to one of greater size when Henry spent Easter there in 1121 (Anglo-Saxon Chron.). Roger, the heir of William, having fallen into the hands of Walter, the brother of Miles, earl of Hereford, was cruelly tortured to make him give up his castle (Gesta Stephani). His son Roger lost some of his lands, and in 12 Hen. II part of Berkeley was held by Robert Fitz Harding. As at that date Roger held certain fees of the honour of Berkeley, for which he did no service to Robert, it may be supposed that he had forfeited some part of his estate by opposition to Henry FitzEmpress; that of these forfeited lands part had been granted by the crown to Robert Fitz Harding; and that the honour, with the castle of Berkeley, was perhaps still in the king's hand (Liber Niger Scacc. i. 165, 171). An alliance was made between the rival families; for Roger married his daughter Alicia to Maurice, the eldest son of Robert FitzHarding, giving Slimbridge as her marriage portion. In spite of these losses, Roger of Berkeley, as he was still called, retained large estates, and his house was represented in the elder line by the Berkeleys of Dursley (Testa de Nevill, 77), extinct in 1382, and in the younger by the Berkeleys of Cubberley, extinct in 1404 (FOSBROKE, SMYTH).

The house of Robert FitzHarding, which has held the castle of Berkeley for seven hundred years, descends in the male line from Eadnoth, the 'staller' of Edward the Confessor and of Harold, the son of Godwine (Codex Dipl. iv. 204; FREEMAN, Norman Conquest, Iv. 757), who fell in battle against the sons of Harold in 1067. Of his son Harding (Codex Dipl. iv. 234) William of Malmesbury, speaking of him as then alive, tells us (Gest. Reg. iii. 254) that he was 'better used to whet his tongue in strife than to wield his arms in war.' This Harding may probably be identified with the Harding who, in 1062, subscribed the confessor's Waltham charter as 'reginæ pincerna' (Coder Dipl. iv. 159), and continued after the Conquest in the household of Eadgyth, appearing as a witness to the sale of Combe to Bishop Gisa, transacted in Eadgyth's presence at Wilton in 1072 (Liber Albus, ii. 254 fo. Chapter Records, Wells). In 1086 he held lands in Gloucestershire in pledge of a certain Brihtric, who held them in the time of Edward the Confessor (Domesday, i. 170 B, and FREEMAN, as above). It is safe to assume that Robert FitzHarding was his son. It is possible that Harding had an elder son, Nicolas, the ancestor of the family of Meriet (SMYTH'S

Lives, p. 19, n. A, ed. Maclean). If this was so, the younger son soon outstripped the elder in wealth. Whether the honour of Berkeley was in the king's hands in 12 Hen. II, or had already passed to the new family, it is certain that before long it was granted to the house of Eadnoth; and on the accession of Richard I Maurice, the son of Robert and the husband of Alicia, procured a charter from the king granting him the lordship of Berkeley Hernesse, to be held by him and his heirs in barony (Lords' Committee, 1829). This charter does not imply that a new grant was made. Like many others of the same date, it probably confirmed a former grant, and Robert FitzHarding is to be held the first lord of Berkeley of the new line. This Robert founded St. Augustine's, in Bristol, as a priory of black canons (Monast. vi. 363). His grandson, Robert [q. v.], the son of Maurice, having joined the baronial party against John, was excommunicated and his castle was seized by the king (WENDOVER, iii. 297, where, by a confusion arising from the headquarters of the barons being at Brackley, Robert is called De Brackele; but the connection of the name with that of his kinsman, Maurice de Gant, marks the lord of Berkeley; see also p. 356 and Close Rolls 18 John. p. 276). Robert, dying without issue in 1219, was succeeded by his brother Thomas, who obtained seisin of his lands on 5 March 1220 (Close Rolls 4 Hen. III). His grandson, also named (1) Thomas, took an active part in the wars of Edward I against the Welsh, the Scots, and the French. As he received a writ of summons to the parliament of 1295, the date fixed by lawyers as a period of limitation, he is reckoned as the first baron of Berkeley who held and transmitted an hereditary peerage (Lords' Report, App. i. 67). His name is also to be found among the barons who, on 12 Feb. 1301, wrote to Pope Boniface VIII on the subject of his claim to the lordship of Scotland (Fed. i. 926,927; HEMINGB. ii. 209). As the lords of Berkeley held Bedminster and Redcliff, they were brought into conflict with the burghers of Bristol, who sought to add these estates to their town, and were very jealous of the jurisdiction which the lords exercised in them. This jealousy led to open violence in 1303, and a long struggle ensued between the burghers and the Lord Thomas and his son Maurice (Parl. and Close Rolls 33 Ed. I; SEYER, Hist. of Bristol, ii. 77; SMYTH, Lives, 195-200). Shortly before the death of Edward I, Thomas was sent on an embassy to Rome. In the next reign he was taken prisoner at the battle of Bannockburn. He died in 1321, and was

succeeded by his son (2) Maurice. A writ of summons was sent to Maurice in 1308 during the lifetime of his father, and thus a dignity was created independent of that which was derived from the writ of 1295 (NICOLAS). During the famous insurrection at Bristol Maurice had the satisfaction of being employed against his old enemies, and was made the keeper of the castle and of the town. Having married Margaret, daughter of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, earl of March, and widow of the Earl of Oxford, he joined the confederacy of the barons against the Despensers, and took part with Hugh of Audley in ravaging their Welsh lands. The Mortimers, however, were forced to submit to the king in January 1322, and Maurice followed their example. He was imprisoned at Wallingford until his death in 1326 (ADAM MUR. 33, 36, 40). Queen Isabella released his son (3) Thomas from prison, and gave back the Berkeley estates, for which he paid a relief, ut pro baronia' (Lords Comm.) The story told by Froissart (bk. i. c. 162) of the gallantry and capture, at the battle of Poitiers, of a young knight who announced himself as Thomas, lord of Berkeley, has usually (DUGDALE) been attributed to this lord. As, however, the chronicler states that this was the first time the young knight unfurled his banner, it is more likely that he was Maurice, the eldest son of Lord Thomas (SMYTH). In 23 Ed. III this lord levied a fine of his estates at Berkeley and other places, and in 26 Ed. III of the manor of Portbury, by which he settled them on his son Maurice and the heirs male of his body, with remainder to the heirs male of his own body by his second wife Catherine, with remainder to his right heirs. He died in 1361. From his youngest son John descended the Berkeleys of Beverston Castle, a family of considerable wealth and importance during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which fell into decay early in the seventeenth century (SMYTH).

From Sir Maurice (d. at Calais 1346-7), the second son of (2) Lord Maurice, came the Berkeleys of Stoke Gifford, Gloucestershire, of Bruton and of Pylle, Somerset (now represented by Edward Berkeley-Portman, Baron, 1837, and Viscount Portman, 1873), and of Boycourt, Kent. His son Maurice (d. 1385) married Catherine, daughter of John, Lord Bottetourt. From him came the three brothers, Sir Charles Berkeley (d. 1688), Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia [q. v.], and John, first Lord Berkeley of Stratton [q. v.] This title became extinct in 1773. Sir Charles's second son Charles was created by Charles II Baron Berkeley

of Rathdown, and Viscount Fitzhardinge (Irish honours), and in 1664 Baron Bottetourt of Langport and Earl of Falmouth in England. The earldom became extinct on his death, 3 June 1665. In 1763 Norborne Berkeley claimed a summons as Baron Bottetourt, he being a lineal descendant of Sir Maurice Berkeley and his wife Catherine. He received a summons in 1764. On his death in 1776 the Bottetourt title again fell into abeyance, until it was revived in 1803 in favour of Henry Somerset, fifth duke of Beaufort. Sir William Berkeley [q.v.], brother of Charles, earl of Falmouth, who died in battle with the Dutch in June 1665, is noticed below.

Lord Thomas (5), grandson of the Lord Thomas who died in 1361, was one of the commissioners appointed by parliament to pronounce sentence of deposition on Richard II (KNIGHTON, ii. 2760; Traison et Mort, 219). He was a warden of the Welsh Marches, and did good service by sea against Owen Glendower and his French allies (WALSINGHAM, ii. 272). He married Margaret, daughter and heiress of Warine, lord I'Isle, and covenanted for himself and his heirs to bear the arms of l'Isle (NICOLAS, L'Isle Peerage). He died 1417, leaving his nephew James, son of his brother James, his heir male; but the heir of his body was his only daughter Elizabeth, married to Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, by whom she had three daughters, of whom the eldest, Margaret, married John, earl of Shrewsbury. On the death of Lord Thomas the Earl and Countess of Warwick took possession of Berkeley Castle, and did not surrender it until (6) James was found the right heir on a writ of diem clausit supremum. The barony of Berkeley then passed to James, summoned to parliament 1421-61, while the Countess of Warwick took the lands of her mother and such lands of her father as were not settled in tail male. The countess died in 1423 and the earl in 1439. As this Lord James was summoned as seised of Berkeley while the Countess of Warwick was her father's heir, it appears that the tenure of Berkeley Castle did at that time constitute a right and confer a dignity. If, however, claim by tenure is set aside, the summons to Lord James must be regarded as the origin of the present barony, while the baronies created by writ of 25 Ed. I and 2 Ed. II are now in abeyance (NICOLAS). Lord James (d. 1462) married Isabel, daughter and coheiress of Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk. Among the minor troubles of the reign of Henry VI must be reckoned the strife between Lord James and his cousin, the Countess of Warwick, supported by her son, Lord l'Isle, in

his fifth son, Thomas Moreton Fitzhardinge, born 19 Oct. 1796, his sixth son, Charles Grantley Fitzhardinge [q. v.], and other children. After the Lambeth marriage a certificate of the Berkeley ceremony was produced, having been recovered, it was alleged, under very strange circumstances. The earl having announced his former marriage, his eldest son William, commonly called Viscount Dursley, obtained leave in 1799 to lay his pedigree before the lords committee of privileges, and in 1801, in a suit to perpetuate testimony, the earl made a deposition giving full particulars concerning the Berkeley ceremony. The earl died in 1810, and his son William, who was then M.P. for the county of Gloucester, applied to be summoned as next earl. In March 1811 the committee of privileges decided that the Berkeley marriage was not then proved,' and that the petitioner's claim was not made out. Colonel William Berkeley received the castle of Berkeley and the other estates of the late earl by will, and on 2 July, after the adverse decision of the lords' committee, claimed a writ of summons as baron, pleading his right as seised of the castle. The claim was fully laid before the committee of privileges 1828-9. It was based on points to which reference has been made above, viz. (to mention the chief arguments) that the barony described in the charter of 1 Ric. I was precedent to the writ of 23 Ed. I; that in 5 Hen. V the baronial dignity did not descend to the heir-general of Lord Thomas, but followed the seisin of the castle, which was then in (6) James, his nephew and heir male; that (8) Maurice, the heir-at-law of the Earl of Nottingham, was not summoned, being disseised of the castle, and that his son did not sit as a peer. But besides other difficulties, which may be gathered from the above, it had been declared by the king in council in 1669 that barony by tenure was 'not in being, and so not fit to be revived. The lords pronounced no judgment on this case. In 1831, however, Colonel Berkeley was created Baron Segrave of Berkeley, and in 1841 Earl Fitzhardinge. He died unmarried 10 Oct. 1857, and his titles thus became extinct. His next brother and heir, the Right Hon. Maurice F. Fitzhardinge Berkeley [q. v.], was in 1861 created Baron Fitzhardinge, and on his death, in 1867, was succeeded by his son, F. W. Fitzhardinge, Baron Fitzhardinge, born 1826, living 1885. On the failure of Colonel Berkeley to prove the alleged Berkeley marriage of his mother, the right to the earldom of Berkeley vested in (19) Thomas Moreton Fitzhardinge Berkeley, the eldest of the sons born after the Lambeth marriage. But although earl de

jure he refused to claim his right. He died unmarried 27 Aug. 1882. On his death the earldom of Berkeley descended to George Lennox Rawdon Berkeley, seventh earl (born 1827, living 1885), the son of Sir G. H. F. Berkeley, K.C.B., eldest son of Admiral Sir G. Cranfield Berkeley, brother of Frederick Augustus, fifth earl. The barony descended to Louisa Mary, daughter of Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley [q.v.]

[Smyth's Lives of the Berkeleys, ed. Sir J. Maclean, 1 vol. privately printed, 1883; Fosbroke's Berkeley MSS.; Sir H. Nicolas's L'Isle Peerage Claim and Historic Peerage; Minutes of Lords' Committee of Privileges, No. 12, 1829; Address to the Peers by Mary, Countess of Berkeley, 1811; Lords' Reports on Dignity of a Peer; Dugdale's Baronage; Banks's Extinct and Dormant Peerages.]

W. H.

BERKELEY, CRAVEN FITZHARDINGE (1805–1855), member of parliament for Cheltenham, seventh and youngest son and eleventh of the twelve children of Frederick Augustus, fifth earl of Berkeley, of Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire, and of Mary, daughter of William Cole [see BERKELEY, FAMILY of], was born in London, at Berkeley House, Spring Gardens, on 28 July 1805. During the early part of his career he was for a time an officer in the 1st life guards. Immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill, however, in 1832, a new path in life was marked out for him. Cheltenham, on 10 Dec. 1832, returned him without opposition as its first representative under the new order. For twenty-three years in all he was M.P. for Cheltenham, being five times re-elected. A staunch liberal throughout his career, he was personally very popular with his constituents. His second return was in January 1835, when he defeated the other liberal candidate by a majority of 386. In August 1837 he defeated a conservative by a majority of 334. In July 1841 he was at the head of the poll with a net majority of 109. A year afterwards, on 15 July 1842, he fought a duel with Captain Boldero, M.P., in Osterley Park. Their encounter arose out of some words uttered by Captain Boldero with reference to the queen, which the member for Cheltenham, regarding as disrespectful to his sovereign, immediately called upon him to retract. Each of them fired twice without effect. Once before Berkeley had taken part, as a second, however, not as a principal, in a hostile encounter of a less seemly character. This was when, on 3 Aug. 1836, he guarded the door of a bookseller's shop in Regent Street (No. 215) while his brother Grantley attacked James Fraser, the proprietor [see BERKELEY, G. C. GRANTLEY F.]

On 5 July 1847, when the Health of Towns