The Sun.
London, England, 1811-07-30 00:00:00

otioots ov JOHN ESd.

11t* tead.the sermon preached by Mr. Mike-
ley al tlie-ASYlam, on the 24th of March, and also
Dr. Nash's,l:ietters to Mr. Ponsonby
,relative inure
to, tegetiii,th Mr. Ponsouby's- Answers. The:
her mon appearS to me to inculcate a most important
principle of the Christian fieligion with great energy
and etfe6t, and I..tatve been unable to discover any
thing in it inconsistent either ‘4ltll the Gospel or
gOod sense. The Letters of DOtior Nash Contain
the most illiberal aLtl unfounded abuse of that-ser-
mon, expressed in terms unworthy of a scholar or
a Gentleman, -and
,indicating nothing but the vul-
garity and fanaticism of a Sectary. lam therefore
clearly of °plaint), that Mr-Blakeley could well
maintain an aCtion,against Dr. Nash, for this gross
and abominable libel; bat, whether it would be
prudent and advisable. to bring such _ action, is 41
cietition -of a very, different nature, and one upon
• which [ had some difficulty in foi ming an opinion.
On' the one hand,. I feel an anxious wish, to have
such unmerited calumny exposed, and punished ;
but, on the other,. I conceive that it can be attended
with no injurious consequences' to Mr, Blakeley,
and that' he will be more likely to mortify and
punish' 't he calumniatOr by treating with
fled indifference and contompf, than by instituting
any legal proceeding against him.
JOHN BIiIINE.
ILUIC 5,

BERKELEY PEERAGE.

EvtrENCE
Tfig REV. CALEB CARRINGTON. •

(Continued from §aturday,)
According to,tlie pi-iiited evidence it appears that
you were asked" Whether you knew ;vAr. Hups-
roan's hand-w'riting," to which you atisWered, "
.know his hand-writing, I have seen him I,,,rire."
You were then asked,' " Do youltnow his hand-
writing," to which you again answered, " 1 do
know his hand-writing, "- You :were then asked,
Was: that registry his hand-writing,'.? to which
you replied, "I think so," ", Do you know that 'to
be the hand-writing of the late ,vicar of Berkeley,"
to
.which you answered, " I have no doubt of this•
being his hand-writing." . Did yoosay that at that
time 1-4 said that at that, Otne ; which is Cx-
plained, by the circumstance, that whoever; asked
the question ptit his finger on the signature, and
I should say, this is such a man's receipt, if he ha,.4.
signed the receipt, though" he did not' wiiTJ.,
body of it ; especially if the verson•ask'it:g
his finger on the signature.of it.
• Did you explain that the budywas the.liand-writ.
lag of the Earl of Berkeley, amt.:4lle signature, the
?-=fate of Mr, Flupstu?-=fate t'ine4fin I
belie•e was not asked.
Did you convey to theirl.ordship's at ' the time
that' the bsodY of the writing Wa4,Lord Derkeley's
hand-writing ?—I do not recolle4 that I
0 yeti at that time observe it ?.--4 believe. I
Then when the question was put to you, Wne-
ther the registry was 'of ttie 'hand-writing of Mr.
f-luptiman, yoti at the Ainw knei4 that, the body of
it was the liand-writing of Lord Berkeley'
jtere so, I think I did.
And in all your evidenze you never did c9nyey to
their Lordships that any' pa,rt,ot it except the sig,
nature„.of" Berkeley," was the hiind-,writing of
Lord Berkeley ?—My at tlizii time w.is made
tinder the circumstances I stated, which ',distil:
is a sufficient explatt , .
NVitit respect to the manner li).Which this leaf
was left after the diseovery of this. register. by
you, art you to be understood " that, ..tho.ugh'
was stiffer than' it' is at present; it Wi•O equally
s panted float the back 4. the book as ;i is
at present ?—I rather think, as far, as my recellaion,
goes, it was not separated se far, bat, thereabouts
' (pointing it our). • ' •
!Int' that it was left in state, with at least as.
much of the leaf separated from the book ?—With a
sufficient space to .give it a spring this Way,- (pointing
it our.) • •
Was this. part of the-leaf left' avarate from the
book ?---,.Certainly.
You have said that you received this letter from
Mr.. Mansfield ;' was it in answer to any letter you
had-written ,to Lord Chief Justice Mansfield
• was.

Elaye you any copy of that letter ?—I havi
not.:

In tlio letter of Mr. Mansfield, there is'an allusion
to the only surviving witness of the Marriage ; do
you know who that only surviving witness was
Mr. Tudor.

What then had beetling of Richard Barns ?—I
know not.

Di `
.I you ever rneetwith any person in the village
of Berkeley or eke‘vbere that ever said he had scan
such a person ?—Never.
Did you ev,cr,make any inquiry after this other
witoes6, Richard Ilarn% tint myself per-
sonally; there
.wai inquiry ma.delby some attorney
of Lord Berkeley, Out 1. do not know what his
name was.

'then was that the time of the pol;gree
being before this Ilduie,
In 1769 ?---1 believe it was.

You !Live beeil Vicar of tha 'pm's!) of 13.erlCeleiy.
•
frotii I'li year t 799 ?-_iii corn the year- 1.79i3,, titl!
not instiiutcd so sboti.

. .
We're yo 6 rt dent in Berkeley at all, antecedrat
to film perinct ?—With Lord Biukeley's tamily)
when he resided there, I did,
t ie csoiltinued:)

On Saturday night, as one of the coaches ,wll;ch
flirts' to Flarnpsteaci was -roaming down the hill,
I
{tutuW
t'St End Fair, laden with passengers, it okr
down, when several, persuns'who were no the tout
Yttiere plt:TipitMett to t.he'grotAnd,,ancl greatly injured
by the fall, one of whom, a woman, bad, 011 e of
het lelp broken, and conveyed to, an, hospital. The same evening a Gentleman was robbed by,4
g ing of- hustlers, in the Ktir, of his •viatcb, gold
ettitn, and 'seals, and other apperidattes, 10 %e,,rY
.
Lionsiderable amount, with which the vinatns rats ou,
awl' made s i ther et:ape.

•

or P"
409141)0N KIUtARD HARRIS, of No. 4. Martlett-souft, ;
At the-SoN Opelce, No, iv, Strauci, wLere davertisements, Order, far the Paper, Lttltri fAt • ia) tuust4z akidrc sgu
. or t e Rdstor kc. (pori-pc .
bY WILLIAM 'OAIC R SCRIPPS. South Moltontitirgt,