THE LEIGH PEERAGE.
THIS claim upon the barony of Leigh, and the estates now pos- sessed by Mr. Chandos Leigh, which is pending before the House of Lords, and in prosecuting which strong contradictory state- ments have been made, rests upon the fact of one Christopher Leigh having left descendants. This is attempted to be proved by several arguments : the principal. evidence rests on a gravestone, which is said to have once existed in Stoneleigh Church, but which is now non-apparent. The claimant is clearly descended from one Roger Leigh of Haigh ; and the difficulty is to prove that this Roger Leigh is the son of Christopher, who died in 1626. All the particulars relative to Christopher's wife Constance are well known, and that she left a son:. the claimant however avers, that this Christopher had a prior wife, by whom he had one son and two daughters, and the son was the Roger Leigh from whom the claimant descends. If it could be proved that the nephew of this Christopher Leigh, the son of his elder brother, knew nothing of this prior marriage, though he knew every particular of the second and of his uncle's death and burial, it would certainly be an ar- gument against its existence—against the existence too of children, which it is said was recorded before his face on a gravestone in the most conspicuous part of the church. Now mark the evi- dence of the fact of such a nephew's testimony in this case, which is brimeht forward in a masterly analysis in the Third Part of the Retrospective Review, New Series. It is derived front heraldic documents ; and we think it will go further to decide the question than the gravestone about which there is such contra- dictory testimony. 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 iirst Lord and uncle of the individual who voucAo/frr thus described : ",1. Christophr 11,eigh, Constance, dar of John
obilt apd Stoneley I Cleat, of Applewiek, Corn. Scpultus [6 Sept. 1672. Wigorn Gen.
Thomas Leigh, onely child at. circa 12, annor. 1683."
This statement of Lord Leigh, in 1683, is corroborated by that of Peter he Neve, in 1694, who was then all officer, and soon afterwards became Norroy, King at Arms. In a valuable collection of materials for a Ba- ronage of England *,that accurate genealogist has given a pedigree of tile Lords Leigh, and where he thus notices Christopher, the son of the first Baron.
"3. Christopher marr' Constant Cleat of — Wygorn. of Stoneley.
Thomas Leigh about 18 yrs old 1694."
It is material to cbserve that le Nero must have derived his informa- tion 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 Constant Clement 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.
Previous page
