Star.
London, England, 1811-05-14 00:00:00

Does your Ladyship recollect to what house you
went from the Gloucester Coffee4TOUSe on your arri-
val when you alighted from the stage ?—To Mount-
street or South-street, I rather think Mount-street,
one of the lodgings I have mentioned.
The question related to your going to London in
August or September, 1785 ?—No ; I did not under-
stand that ; if it was meant after I had resided in
Gloucester, I went to George-street.
Is that the time your Ladyship went in the stage-
; coach ?—Yes ; I think it WAS a machine called a Di-
ligence.
Without any companion ?—I think so.
Where did your sister Turnet live at that time ?
q..
I cannot tell.
Did your Ladyship cease to be acquainted with her
en your return to London in 1785 ?---I cannot say I
ceased to be acquainted with her ; the last time I ever
saw her was in 1786.
Did you not continue to be on the same friendly
footing with your sister Turner on your return in Au-
gust, 1785, as you had been before ?—Not quite.
Did you visit one another ?—Seldom.
Was your Ladyship in her house ?—Yes ; when
my eldest sister came from Gloucester she was there.
Was your Ladyship yourself ever living in the
house of your sister Turner after you came to Lon-
don in August or September 1785 ?—No ; not after
August or September, 1785.
Your Ladyship has spoken to the marriage which
took place in May, 1796 ?—Yes.
That was at Lambeth 2—Yes.
Before that marriage took place, in what parish
were Lord Berkeley and your Ladyship resident ?
In Spring Gardens, where I live now.
Was your Ladyship constantly resident for some
time before that marriage took place in Spring Gar-
dens ?—Except when I was at Cranfield or Berkeley
Castle, those and Spring Gardens were the usual
places of our residence.
Did you for six months prior to the marriage in
1796 reside at' any other place at all ?—Perhaps I
might be at Weymouth, but I cannot exactly point
Lout.
The question is four 'or five months prior to May,
1796 ?—I might have been at Berkeley ; I was not in
London ; I think I was not at Lambeth.
Where was the first son that was born after the
second marriage baptized first ?—At St. Martin's in

the Fields.
Had he been,privately baptized in Spring-gardens?
—.I forget whether he was or not.
What name was he baptized by ?—Thomas Mor-
ton Fitzharding.
Was he not baptized by the name of Lord Dursley,
er that name inserted in the register ?
Mr. Serjeant BEST objected to the question, stating,
that the registry was the proper evidence.
Who, if any, body, gave directions for his being re-
gistered
_by the name of Lord Dursley ?—I do not
recollect at this period; but if I had been consulted I
should not have objected.
Does not your Ladyship know that it was by the
direction of Lord Berkeley himself given in writing
that he was registered Lord Dursley ?—No, I do not
know it ; if it was so, I do not know it.
Perhaps your Ladyship may recollect who were the
sponsors to this person who was registered by the
name of Lord Dursley ?—He was half-baptized here
i when he was registered ; he was christened at Berke-
ley Castle afterwards, and Lord Euston and Colonel
Kingscot were the sponsors at Berkeley Castle.
This person who was registered Lord Dursley was
not called by the name of Lord Dursley for any con-
siderable time ?—Never.
Can you account for how he came to be registered
by that name ?—The impression upon my mind at
that time was, that there would be no possibility at
that time of proving the first marriage, or I should
never have entered into a second.
Your Ladyship spoke of having consulted Mr.
Bearcroft on that subject ?—Yes, I did.
Is it to be understood that those were the senti-
ments and expressions of Mr. Bearcroft ?—He re-
commended a second marriage most strongly, cer•

.8.
tamly.
What were the reasons which produced a tempo-
rary concealment of the marriage ?
Mr. Serjeant BEST, as Counsel for the claimant, ,
informed the Committee, that, on a former enquiry,
Lord Berkeley stated that there were particOlar rea-
sons for concealing the marriage, but which, to avoid
wounding the feelings of a particular person, he did
not wish then to bring forward ; to prove, however,
that they did exist, he had communicated them in
private, and amongst others, to his Royal Highness
the Prince Regent.
The Counsel was informed, that if he meant to
make that statement as a ground of objection to the
question being asked, it was no legal objection.
Mr. Serjeant BEST stating that he did not offer it
as a legal ground of objection, he was informed, that
the Counsel were to put such questions &IS they might
think proper to propose ; and if not improper, the
Committee would entertain them.—Adjourned.

RETURN of W HEAT in Mark-lane. including only irons the
29th of April to the 4th of May. Total 6.793 quarters.
Average 835
. 110. id
—os. .la last return.
A RETURN OF FLOUR.
From the 27th of Apia to the 3d ol May.
Total 17.966 sacks—Average 7.. R
Os. Oid. lower than last return.

On the 6th instant, at Blackheath, the Lady of Captain Far-
rington, Royal Artillery, of a son.
On the Soh inst. at Windsor, the lady of Captain Markham
Sherwin, of the King's awn Stafford ?Atha*, of a daughter.

--------
MARRIED.
Saturday, a Sr. Georges Church, Hanover-square, William
Hargood, Esq. Rear-Admiral of the Blue, to Maria, third
daughter of the late Themas Somers Cocks, Esq.
Saturday, at St. Mary-la-Bonne Church, the Rev. John Bah.
lard, Easton, Hampshire, to Sophia, widow of the late Robert
Moss. Esq.

---------- _
DIED.
May 6th, at Upton upon Severn, in Worcestershire, Mrs.
Houstoun, wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Houston's, and third
daughter of William Whitmore, Esq. of budmaston Hall, Shrop-

.
,

On the 48th ult. at Greenwich, William Crawford, Esq. of
Kelso, North Britain.
On the Bth instant, at Bury St. Edmund's, in the prime of life,
after a lingering disorder, Mrs. Oakes, wife of 0641 Oakes,Esq.
Her personal and mental accomplishrnedts gained the admiration,
and her loveliness of disposition and benevolence of character
commanded the attachment of all who knew her. She was tell.
glous without superstition, and pious without affectation. She
united is so unusual a manner the great qualities of the head, and
the amiable virtues of the heart, that it is more easy to lament
her Lau, than to imitate her actiop:, as a friend, a wife and a
slather.