wether ye be a paraphryser or not. Yf ye be lerned in that scyence yt ys possyble ye may of one worde make a hole sentence, and yett nott at all tymes after the true meanyng of the wryter, as yt appereth by thys yowr exposycyon upon my wryttyng.

Whan yt shalbe yowr plesur to repayre hether, ye must take sum payne to come erly in the mornyng that ye may be gone agayne by seven o clock; and so I suppose ye may come wtout suspect. I pray yow lett me have knowlege over nyght at what hower ye will come that your porteresse may wayte at the gate to the feldes for you.

"And thus wyth my most humble and harty comendatyon I take my leve of yow for thys tyme gyvyng yow lyke thankes for your comyng [to] the court whan I war there. From Chelsey.

"I wyll kepe in store tyll I speke w' you my lorde's large offer for Fausterne; at wyche tyme I schalbe glad to knowe your further pleasur therein.

"By her that ys and schalbe yowr humble true and lovyng wyffe duryng her lyf,

"Kateryn the Quene K. P."

LETTER OF THE COUNCIL OF QUEEN JANE GREY, 1553.

Inedited documents of this short reign are so rarely to be met with, that we make no apology for inserting this letter at length. It was addressed to the sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, for at that period the two counties had but one sheriff, and to the justices of the peace; and it shows more fully than any document that has hitherto seen the light, the colour which the friends of Lady Jane Grey gave to the measures adopted by Mary to secure her just rights.

King Edward, it must be observed, died on the sixth of July. "Aft' o' most hertye comendations. Where as the Queenes Highnes Quen Jane, beyng presently by just tytle in full possession of the imperiall crowne of this realme and other domynions and p'hemynencs thereunto belonging; the Lady Mary bast doughtar of the late Kyng of famouse memory Kyng Henry the heyght dothe not only by all the weys and meanes she maye, stur and provoke the commen pepulle of the realme to rebellion, but also sekyth meanes to bryng in great sortes of papystes Spanyards and other straungers for the aide of her unjust and unnaturall pretence, to the greate peryll and daunger of the utter subversion of God's holy worde and of the woll state of this realme, we nothyng doute but theese sedytious and rebellious doyngs of the Lady Mary beyng well knowne unto yow wyll of themselffs well admony she yow of yo' dutyes to yours and ours sayd lovyng Lady Quen Jane and preservation of the trew rellegion and awntiant libertye of yo' naturell contrey ageanst forren powers: Yet, consideryng what desolution may come to men of worshipp and good degre and welth by the sedyssions rebellions and motyones of the Bastds force; we have thowght good to sygnify unto yow that our sayd lovyng Lady Quene Jane's plesure and commandement is that [ye] shall not only use all man' of travell and labur to kepe and preserve her majeste's pepull inhabytyng nere aboute yow in peace and good guyett, and to represse all others that shall goo aboute to move

any tumulte ether by pretence of the unjuste and feyned tytle of the Ladye Mary beyng illigitimat and bast as ys aforsayd, or by any other meanes, butt also to put yo' selffes in order w' sutche nombres of horsemen and footemen as yow be able to make of your servants tenants and others under yo' rewles and offises, so as yow may upon sendyng for, or forther knowledge gevyn yow, eyther repair to our good Lorde the Duke of Northehumberlond, who havyng wth hym o very good lord the Margues of Northamton the Erle of Huntington and other parsonags of estate, is presently in the feilde wth of said soverengs powre for the repression of the sayd rebellion, or other ways be employed for the diffence of the realme, as the case shall require. By your good travell thereyn yow shall nott only declare yo' selffes good and pay the full mynisters to the Quenes Highnes and your contrey, butt also will deserve to fynd her highnes yo' good and gratious lady in any yo' reasonable suttes; and as also moste redye to forther your sayd suttes accordyngly. And thus fare you moste hartely well. From the Towr of London the XIJ day of July 1553. "Your assured lovyng frends,

"T. Cant.
T. Ely, Canc.,
Winchester,

F. Bedford,

Penbroke,
G. Cobham,
Edward Northe,

Jo. Mason,

F. Shrewsbury, Robert Bowes.

"To oure lovyng frends the Sheriff of Nottyngham and Derbyshire, and to the Justices of peace of the said counties and to every of them."

A friend who is well acquainted with early charters has assured us that he has seen only one private deed executed during this reign, if such it may be called. It respected a messuage in the parish of St. Dunstan in the county of Kent. The date was thus expressed: "Dat. decimo quinto die Julij anno regni D'næ Janæ Dei gratia Anglia Franciæ et Hiberniæ Reginæ Fidei Defensoris atque in terra ecclesiæ Anglicanæ et Hiberniæ supremi capitis primo."

BARONY OF LEIGH.

As a claim to this dignity is now pending before the House of Lords, a short analysis of the Case may be acceptable:

On the 1st of July, 1643, Sir Thomas Leigh of Stoneley, in the county of Warwick, Knight and Baronet, was created Baron Leigh of Stoneley aforesaid, to him and the heirs male of his body. He had issue:-1st, John, who died an infant; 2nd, Sir Thomas Leigh, who died before his father, and from whom the subsequent Lords Leigh descended; 3rd, Charles, who was baptized 31st March, 1625, and died without male issue on the 1st August, 1704; 4th, Christopher, the asserted ancestor of the claimant; and 5th, Ferdinand, who was baptized in February, 1633, and died in vitâ patris, unmarried, in

1655. Thomas, first Lord Leigh, died in February, 1672, and was succeeded by his grandson (son of Sir Thomas, his eldest son, who died in vitâ patris in 1662) Thomas, second Baron, who had four sons, all of whom died unmarried excepting Edward, who became the third Baron on his father's death, in November, 1710. His Lordship had two sons: 1st, Edward, who died before his father, unmarried; and 2nd, Thomas, who succeeded as fourth Baron, in 1738, and died in December, 1749, having had issue by his first wife three sons, namely, Thomas, who died young, in October 1738; another Thomas, who was born in 1739, and died in 1741; and 3rd, Edward, who succeeded as fifth Lord Leigh, in December, 1749; and a daughter, Mary, who died unmarried, in 1806, and who will be again spoken of. Thomas, fourth Lord Leigh, by his second wife had a daughter, Ann, who became the wife of Andrew Hacket, Esq. but died without issue. Edward, fifth and last Lord Leigh, died unmarried, in June, 1786, when Mary, his sister, succeeded, as heir at law, to all the estates of her family. From this statement it appears that in 1786, all the male descendants of Thomas, the first Lord Leigh, became extinct, unless any remain of Christopher, his fourth son, whose heir male would undoubtedly be entitled to the Barony.

According to the present claimant's case, the said Christopher was twice married: first, to Penelope, a daughter of Sir George Cotton, by whom he had two sons; 1st, Roger Leigh, of Haigh, in Lancashire, from whom the claimant, Mr. George Leigh, is descended', and 2nd, Ferdinand, and two daughters, Catherine and Mary; and secondly,

The following is the pedigree issued by the claimant; the dotted lines and the name in italics show the only points which are doubtful:

to Constance, daughter of John Clent, who was buried at Stoneley, 11th January, 1696, by whom he had a son, Thomas, who was twelve years old in 1683, and was buried at the same place on the 22nd December, 1698. There is no cause to doubt that the claimant is descended, as he asserts, from Roger Leigh, of Haigh; or that the Hon. Christopher Leigh married Constance Clent, and by her had a son, Thomas; hence the gist of his case rests in proving that the said Christopher was the father of his ancestor Roger Leigh, of Haigh; the evidence in support of which we shall proceed to examine.

Besides an alleged tradition in the claimant's family, the only proof of his descent from Christopher Leigh is an inscription on a tablet which is said to have stood in Stoneley church, but which is asserted to have been removed in 1811, when the church was repaired, and has never been replaced. In support of this fact, the following statements were made to the Attorney-General, who, it must not be forgotten, has not the power to examine witnesses on oath. Richard Perks, a plumber, remembered the monument in question; and stated that it was removed into the vestry room when the church was repaired, on which occasion he was employed there; and that besides the name of Christopher Leigh, there was also upon it that of Cotton, and the word Lancashire. Thomas Bryan's testimony corroborated that of the plumber, so far as the monument is concerned; but he also remembered that the letters on it were black, and that it related that Christopher Leigh had, by his first wife of the name of Cotton, several children, viz.-Catherine, Mary, and Roger; that a subsequent addition stated, that the said Roger was of some place in Lancashire, and that he or his son married a lady named Higham; but he added, that he was for twenty years in the service of the Hon. Mary Leigh, the sister of the last Lord, and that he had heard his mistress say, "her nearest relations of the name of Leigh resided in Lancashire."

The testimony of William Harris, a farmer, agreed with that of the preceding witness, excepting that he recollected the date of the year being upon the tablet: but the evidence of John Wilcooks is too important not to be given in the words of the Case.

"John Wilcooks, of the city of Coventry, bricklayer, stated that he went to reside at Stoneley Abbey on the 10th June, 1810, and continued there until the month of June, 1814; that he recollected the monumental stone relating to the Leigh family, which was on the south wall of Stoneley church, being brought into Stoneley Abbey House one morning about a quarter before eleven o'clock, at which time he had just returned from Coventry with the letter-bag; that he did not find any of the servants in the way, as usual; he therefore went to look for John Ilett, the house steward, who had the key of the letter-bag; that on going to seek the said John Ilett in the steward's room, he saw some men conveying along the passage the said monumental stone, in part covered with matting but open at the lower end; that not finding John Ilett he crossed over to see for him in the butler's pantry, by reason whereof he came behind the stone, and had the opportunity of recognizing it to be the same he had been in the habit of seeing in Stoneley church belonging to the Leigh family; that not meeting with Ilett there he followed the stone along the passage to the steward's office in further search of Ilett, and in so

doing saw James Henry Leigh, esq. standing near the back stairs not far from the first wine cellar, and Mrs. Leigh, his wife, standing near to the said cellar door, holding in her hand a candlestick with a lighted candle therein, for the purpose of lighting the men who carried the stone towards the wine cellar; that when the men came near, Mrs. Leigh entered the cellar, and the men with the stone instantly followed her, and Mr. James Henry Leigh as soon as he had seen the stone carried into the cellar went away up the back staircase; that having seen Mrs. Leigh at the cellar he attempted to look in to see whether the said John Ilett was there, but Mrs. Leigh directly shut the door in his face; that after the stone was conveyed into the cellar the men returned and went away."

Five other witnesses also testified to the existence of the monument in or before 1811; and one of them moreover recollected that the inscription on it stated that the descendant of Christopher Leigh, who married one Higham, had a son, Robert, who was likewise of Lancashire.

In consequence of the statement of Wilcooks, the Attorney-General requested the attendance of the Honourable Mrs. Leigh, whose character is so deeply affected by it. This lady attended accordingly, and declared that there never was such a monument in Stoneley church, and that the charge against her and her late husband, of having been concerned in its removal, was entirely false. But the most extraordinary circumstance is, that the Rev. Mr. Roberts, who had been for upwards of twenty years curate of that parish, and from which he retired in 1818, told the Attorney-General, at whose desire he appeared before him, that his reading desk was directly opposite the spot where the monument is supposed to have stood, and "that he did not remember it," though he distinctly recollected the one erected to the Webster family. That tablet stood close to where the one to Christopher Leigh is said to have been erected, and has been replaced. "He would not say that it was impossible there should have been such a monument, but he thought it highly improbable; and upon being repeatedly pressed to say, whether he would positively assert that there was no such monument, he declined doing so, but contented himself with repeating what he had before said; adding, that he had never heard any person speak of a monument to the memory of the Hon. Christopher Leigh as having been in the church of Stoneley." Lionel Place, Esq. the late High Sheriff for the county of Warwick, however, afterwards informed the AttorneyGeneral "that he had formerly, upon more occasions than one, heard the said Mr. Roberts speak of a monument to the memory of the Hon. Christopher Leigh, as having been in the church of Stoneley." A MS. note certified by the solicitor for the claimant, in the copy of the Case before us, states that a member of the committee for conducting the alterations in the church has since asserted in his affidavit that Mr. Roberts was present when a person observed, "that monument the parish have nothing to do with, it belongs to the Leigh family; let it be taken down carefully, I will send it to the Abbey; they may have it cleaned and put up again, or do what they please with it."

Upon such conflicting evidence, we may be permitted to observe,