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,

that some of the good people of Warwickshire possess most extraordinary memories! That a cross examination at the bar of the House of Lords will ascertain the simple fact, whether such a monument existed or not, it would be folly to doubt; and in the mean time we will only remark, that no account of any such monument occurs in Thomas's edition of Dugdale's Warwickshire', or we believe, in any MS. collection for that county; and we subjoin the AttorneyGeneral's comments on the subject. "There is another circumstance relating to the supposed monument which it may be material to notice. It appeared in evidence that various monuments to the memory of the different members of the family of Lord Leigh were placed in the chancel, which was the property of that family: it is not very probable therefore that a monument to the memory of the honourable Christopher Leigh, son of the first Lord Leigh, should have been separated from the rest and placed in the body of the church."

Besides the supposed monument, and the alleged tradition, two other facts have been urged in support of the claim. The one, that Mr. Manning, the former solicitor of the claimant, had seen a pedigree in the possession of Lord Combermere, in which the marriage of Christopher Leigh with a Penelope Cotton was mentioned, and that Lord Combermere had admitted the existence of such a pedigree, and added, "that he had never been able to find it since he had given permission to a Mr. Manning to examine it in the month of August, 1814." The last fact adduced is, that a Francis Willoughby was a witness to the will of Roger Leigh, the presumed son of Christopher; which Francis Willoughby is attempted to be identified with the Hon. Francis Willoughby, brother of Lord Willoughby of Parham, who married Honora, sister of Thomas the second Lord Leigh, and niece of the said Christopher; but we confess we see no proof whatever of that identity, and think it would but slightly strengthen the case if it were established.

Several insinuations are thrown out in the Case that parish registers have been obliterated, and that the will of the Hon. Christopher Leigh has been taken away from the proper registry for the purpose of destroying the evidence of the claimant's descent. On the justice of these hints we cannot give an opinion; but we must not forget that documents have sometimes been destroyed by claimants themselves, with the view of removing the proofs of the falsehood of their pretensions.

It is

necessary also to examine the other facts as they appear in the

claimant's Case.

First, Although Constance, the widow of the Hon. Christopher Leigh, made a very long will, in which she mentions a number of her husband's relations, there is not a word that can be fairly deemed to allude to his having had issue by a former wife.

Secondly, Roger Leigh, the alleged eldest son of the Hon. Christopher Leigh, and consequently the grandson and first cousin of a

Whether Dr. Thomas has given all the inscriptions respecting the Leighs that existed in Stoneley church in 1730, when he wrote, we have not the means of knowing; but as he has introduced the copy of one to a porter of that family, who died in 1688, it is difficult to believe that he would have passed over that which recorded the descent of three generations from a son of the first peer.

peer, was not only a yeoman, and in a very low situation of life, but he decidedly could not write his name, since his will is certified by his mark; and though this circumstance is attempted to be explained by attributing it to illness and infirmity, the fact is unquestionable.

Thirdly, The supposed marriage with Penelope Cotton does not appear in any of the pedigrees of the Cotton family in the College of Arms, or in the British Museum.

Fourthly,-In the four descents of the claimant's undoubted pedigree, not one baptismal name resembles those of the family of the Lords Leigh.

Fifthly,-That neither of the pretended sons of Christopher Leigh, nor their issue, are noticed in any will or deed which has been found of persons who undoubtedly belonged to the baronial line.

Sixthly,-Though the Hon. Mary Leigh, who died in 1806, is made, according to one witness, to admit that " her nearest relations of the name of Leigh lived in Lancashire," she settled her property on a much more distant branch, apparently with the sole intention of preserving it to the male representatives of the family of Leigh, since she passed over her much nearer relations in the female line.

Such were the facts, together with those that have been already noticed, which appeared in the case laid before the Attorney-General, and which induced him to state, that although he "was far from being satisfied that Roger Leigh, of Haigh, from whom the petitioner derives his descent, was the son of the Hon. Christopher Leigh, and thought the statement extremely improbable; yet, as the existence of the supposed monument has been asserted by so many witnesses, who have stated that they had repeatedly seen it and read the inscription, he considered it his duty to recommend that the claimant's petition should be submitted to the House of Lords." We question however whether such would have been the Attorney-General's report had his doubts been strengthened by the following circumstances; and of one of which, the agent for the claimant, who has said so much on the suppression of documents, must undoubtedly have been aware.

In the Herald's Visitation of Warwickshire in 1683, a pedigree of Leigh occurs which was certified by Thomas the second Baron, and in which the said Christopher, the son of the first Lord and uncle of the individual who touched for the facts, is thus described :

"4. Christoph Leigh,
obiit ap Stoneley
Sepultus 16 Sept. 1672.

Constance, da' of John
Clent, of Applewick, Com.
Wigorn Gen.

Thomas Leigh, onely child

æt. circa 12, annor. 1683."

This statement of Lord Leigh, in 1683, is corroborated by that of Peter le Neve, in 1694, who was then an officer, and soon afterwards became Norroy, King of Arms. In a valuable collection of materials for a Baronage of England', that accurate genealogist has given a pedigree of the Lords Leigh, and where he thus notices Christopher, the son of the first Baron.

1 Harleian MSS. 5808. f. 102.

It is material to observe that Le Neve must have derived his information from some other source than the Visitation of Warwickshire in 1683, since his account differs from it; first, by his calling Christopher the third son instead of the fourth, which probably arose from his being the third son then surviving; secondly, by the omission of the place in Worcestershire of which the father of Constance Clent is described in the pedigree in that Visitation; thirdly, by the omission of the words " onely child;" and lastly, by Le Neve stating that Thomas, the son of Christopher, was in 1694 about eighteen years old, whereas, if he had merely followed the pedigree in question he would have said that he was about twenty-three years of age in that year. Under these circumstances, no other inference can be drawn than that the person from whom he had derived his information was as ignorant in 1694, as Lord Leigh was in 1683, that his Lordship's uncle, Christopher Leigh, had left issue by a former wife; and it seems actually incredible that the individual who recorded such minute information of his uncle as to state the very day of his funeral, and the age of his son, should call that son his only child, if, as the supposed monument affirms, he had by a former wife two sons and two daughters, one at least of whom must have been then living! Nor is it likely that a similar statement should be made by so celebrated a Herald as Le Neve, when, as we have shown, he must have derived his information from a new source, if the Hon. Christopher Leigh had left issue by a former wife. The question is however before the House of Peers, and it would ill become us to enter into any farther discussion of its merits.

SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES.

WHEN we undertook the ungracious task of exposing the abuses which for so many years have existed in this Society, our most sanguine hopes did not allow us to flatter ourselves with the expectation of being able to commence our third paper on the subject in the language of congratulation. A new era has, however, we are happy to say, dawned upon the institution; and though the spirit of reform has only entered its portals, it has met with a reception, which justifies the belief, that the day is close at hand, when dulness will no longer be the characteristic of the proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, nor incapacity and supineness the only traits for which its officers

VOL. I.-PART III.

L L

and the members of its councils are distinguished. Many of the Fellows are already roused from their lethargy, and it is impossible to doubt that others will speedily be influenced by their example. Thus the friends of the institution look forward to its becoming really useful to the world, and to its being likely to confer honour upon all who are connected with it; but to accomplish these desirable objects, much, very much, remains to be done. The means of attaining it are fortunately in the hands of the body at large, and they consist in selecting ten independent and zealous individuals to supply the places of that number who must retire from the council on the next anniversary; unless it be also advisable to remove the officers who, as it is our purpose to state, have refused the Fellows the exercise of a right which belongs to the members of every corporation in the kingdom.

The proceedings of the Society, since our last number, have been of almost unprecedented importance; and it is material that they should be detailed at length: for, whilst they show that the Fellows are disposed to shake off the torpidity in which they have long existed, they prove that its servants are, if possible, more indifferent to their duties, and more eager to enrich themselves out of its funds; and that its officers and its present council, by refusing an application for access to the accounts and records of the Society, have virtually invaded the rights of all its members by resolving to exclude them from a knowledge of the manner in which the money they have contributed has been expended.

We announced that on the 29th of November a ballot was to take place, for voting an addition of fifty guineas per annum to Mr. Ellis, the junior secretary, on the ground that he had edited the publications of the Society for several years; and we reminded our readers of the enormous labour which that learned gentleman must consequently have undergone. Previous to the appointed day, several of the diurnal journals commented upon this application in a manner which would have shamed most persons from persisting in it but the individual in question appears to possess nerves which are not to be so easily shaken; for the question was suffered to be put to the vote, and though only fifty-two members were present, nineteen of them were sufficiently conscious of propriety to vote against it. The proposition was, of course, carried', though the sense of that portion of the Society which Mr. Ellis must and does respect the most, was sufficiently

The officers of the Society and Members of the Council present were ten in number, who, doubtless, supported their own proposition, which, deducted from thirteen, left the question carried by the three only!