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, binder very strange circumstances. The earl having announced his former marriage, his eldest son William, commonly called Viscount Dursley, and at that time M.P. for the county of Gloucester, 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 5art iculars concerning the Berkeley ceremony, the earl died in 1810, and his son William 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 6 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 fathered 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' Extinct and Dormant Peerages.]
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
