PEERAGES
Last updated 19/11/2018 (23 Jan 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
LEICESTER (of Holkham)
12 Aug 1837	E	1	Thomas William Coke Created Viscount Coke and Earl of Leicester (of Holkham) 12 Aug 1837 MP for Norfolk 1776‑1784, 1790‑1807 and 1807‑1832, and Derby 1807	6 May 1754	30 Jun 1842	88
30 Jun 1842		2	Thomas William Coke Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1846‑1906; KG 1873	26 Dec 1822	24 Jan 1909	86
24 Jan 1909		3	Thomas William Coke Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1906‑1929	20 Jul 1848	19 Nov 1941	93
19 Nov 1941		4	Thomas William Coke Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1944‑1949	9 Jul 1880	21 Aug 1949	69
21 Aug 1949		5	Thomas William Edward Coke	16 May 1908	3 Sep 1976	68
3 Sep 1976		6	Anthony Louis Lovel Coke	11 Sep 1909	19 Jun 1994	84
19 Jun 1994		7	Edward Douglas Coke	6 May 1936	25 Apr 2015	78
25 Apr 2015		8	Thomas Edward Coke	6 Jul 1965
LEIGH
1 Jul 1643	B	1	Sir Thomas Leigh, 2nd baronet Created Baron Leigh 1 Jul 1643	1595	24 Feb 1672	76
24 Feb 1672		2	Thomas Leigh	17 Jun 1652	16 Nov 1710	58
16 Nov 1710		3	Edward Leigh	13 Jan 1684	9 Mar 1738	54
9 Mar 1738		4	Thomas Leigh	29 Apr 1713	30 Nov 1749	36
30 Nov 1749 to     4 Jun 1786		5	Edward Leigh Peerage extinct on his death	1 Mar 1742	4 Jun 1786	44
11 May 1839	B	1	Chandos Leigh Created Baron Leigh 11 May 1839 For further information on the Leigh peerage claim, see the note at the foot of this page	27 Jun 1791	27 Sep 1850	59
27 Sep 1850		2	William Henry Leigh Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1856‑1905; PC 1895	17 Jan 1824	21 Oct 1905	81
21 Oct 1905		3	Francis Dudley Leigh Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1921‑1938	30 Jul 1855	16 May 1938	82
16 May 1938		4	Rupert William Dudley Leigh	14 Mar 1908	24 Jun 1979	71
24 Jun 1979		5	John Piers Leigh	11 Sep 1935	16 Sep 2003	68
16 Sep 2003		6	Christopher Dudley Piers Leigh	20 Oct 1960
LEIGH OF HURLEY
16 Sep 2013	B[L]		Howard Darryl Leigh Created Baron Leigh of Hurley for life 16 Sep 2013	3 Apr 1959
LEIGHTON
24 Jan 1896 to     25 Jan 1896	B	1	Sir Frederic Leighton, 1st baronet Created Baron Leighton 24 Jan 1896 President of the Royal Academy 1878‑1896 Peerage extinct on his death (the shortest-lived peerage on record)	3 Dec 1830	25 Jan 1896	65
LEIGHTON OF ST. MELLONS
25 Jan 1962	B	1	Sir George Leighton Seager Created Baron Leighton of St. Mellons 25 Jan 1962	11 Jan 1896	17 Oct 1963	67
17 Oct 1963		2	John Leighton Seager	11 Jan 1922	28 Apr 1998	76
28 Apr 1998		3	Robert William Henry Leighton Seager	28 Sep 1955	28 May 2023	67
28 May 2023		4	Richard Leighton Seager	Dec 1981
LEINSTER
3 Mar 1646 to     2 Oct 1659	E[I]	1	Robert Cholmondeley Created Viscount Cholmondeley [I] 2 Jul 1628, Earl of Leinster 3 Mar 1646 and Baron Cholmondeley 1 Sep 1648 Peerages extinct on his death	26 Jun 1584	2 Oct 1659	75
3 Mar 1691 to     5 Jul 1719	D[I]	1	Meinhardt Schomberg Created Baron Tara, Earl of Bangor and Duke of Leinster 3 Mar 1691 He succeeded to the Dukedom of Schomberg in 1693 Peerage extinct on his death		5 Jul 1719
11 Sep 1721 to     20 Apr 1725	E[L]		Charlotte Sophia Kielmansegge Created Countess of Leinster for life 11 Sep 1721 Mistress of George I She was later (1722) created Baroness of Brentford and Countess of Darlington. All peerages became extinct on her death	c 1673	20 Apr 1725
21 Feb 1747 26 Nov 1766	V[I] D[I]	1 1	James FitzGerald, 20th Earl of Kildare Created Viscount Leinster 21 Feb 1747, Earl of Offaly and Marquess of Kildare 3 Mar 1761 and Duke of Leinster 26 Nov 1766 MP [I] for Athy 1741‑1744; PC [I] 1746 For information on his 5th son Edward, see the note at the foot of this page	29 May 1722	19 Nov 1773	51
19 Nov 1773		2	William Robert FitzGerald MP [I] for Dublin City 1767‑1773; PC [I] 1777; KP 1783	13 Mar 1749	20 Oct 1804	55
20 Oct 1804		3	Augustus Frederick FitzGerald Lord Lieutenant Kildare 1831‑1874; PC [I] 1831; PC 1831	21 Aug 1791	10 Oct 1874	83
10 Oct 1874		4	Charles William FitzGerald Created Baron Kildare 3 May 1870 MP for Kildare 1847‑1852; PC [I] 1879	30 Mar 1819	10 Feb 1887	67
10 Feb 1887		5	Gerald FitzGerald Lord Lieutenant Kildare 1892-1893; PC [I] 1888	16 Aug 1851	1 Dec 1893	42
1 Dec 1893		6	Maurice FitzGerald	1 Mar 1887	4 Feb 1922	34
4 Feb 1922		7	Edward FitzGerald For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	6 May 1892	8 Mar 1976	83
8 Mar 1976		8	Gerald FitzGerald	27 May 1914	3 Dec 2004	90
3 Dec 2004		9	Maurice FitzGerald	7 Apr 1948
LEITCH
7 Jun 2004	B[L]		Alexander Park Leitch Created Baron Leitch for life 7 Jun 2004	20 Oct 1947
LEITH OF FYVIE
18 Dec 1905 to     14 Nov 1925	B	1	Alexander John Forbes-Leith Created Baron Leith of Fyvie 18 Dec 1905 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Aug 1847	14 Nov 1925	78
LEITRIM
30 Apr 1583	B[I]	1	John de Burgh Created Baron Leitrim 30 Apr 1583	c 1557	11 Nov 1583
11 Nov 1583 to     c 1600		2	John de Burgh He was attainted and the peerage forfeited		c 1600
11 Oct 1783 20 Dec 1793 6 Oct 1795	B[I] V[I] E[I]	1 1 1	Robert Clements Created Baron Leitrim 11 Oct 1783, Viscount Leitrim 20 Dec 1793 and Earl of Leitrim 6 Oct 1795 MP [I] for Donegal County 1765‑1768 and 1776‑1783, and Carrick 1768‑1777; PC [I] 1802	25 Nov 1732	27 Jul 1804	71
27 Jul 1804		2	Nathaniel Clements Created Baron Clements 20 Jun 1831 MP [I] for Carrick 1790‑1798 and Leitrim County 1798‑1800; MP for Leitrim 1800‑1804; Lord Lieutenant Leitrim 1831‑1854; KP 1834; PC [I] 1834	9 May 1768	31 Dec 1854	86
31 Dec 1854		3	William Sydney Clements MP for Leitrim 1839‑1847 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	17 Oct 1806	2 Apr 1878	71
2 Apr 1878		4	Robert Bermingham Clements	5 Mar 1847	5 Apr 1892	45
5 Apr 1892 to     9 Jun 1952		5	Charles Clements Lord Lieutenant Londonderry City 1904‑1921 Peerages extinct [or possibly dormant] on his death For information on the disappearance of the Earl's younger brother and heir presumptive, see the note at the foot of this page	23 Jun 1879	9 Jun 1952	72
LENNIE
22 Sep 2014	B[L]		Christopher John Lennie Created Baron Lennie for life 22 Sep 2014	22 Feb 1953
LENNOX
c 1180 to     c 1184	E[S]	1	David of Scotland Created Earl of Lennox c 1180 He probably resigned the peerage c 1184
c 1184	E[S]	1	Alwyn Created Earl of Lennox c 1184		c 1200
c 1200		2	Alwyn		c 1224
c 1224		3	Maldwin		c 1260
c 1260		4	Malcolm		c 1291
c 1291		5	Malcolm		19 Jul 1333
19 Jul 1333		6	Donald		1373
1373		7	Margaret de Faslane She resigned the peerage in favour of -
1385		8	Duncan	c 1350	25 May 1425
25 May 1425 to     1459		9	Isabel Stewart On her death the peerage became dormant		1459
1473		10	John Stuart		1495
1495		11	Matthew Stuart		9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513		12	John Stuart		4 Sep 1526
4 Sep 1526		13	Matthew Stuart	21 Sep 1516	4 Sep 1571	54
4 Sep 1571		14	James Stuart He had previously succeeded to the throne as James VI of Scotland in 1567
18 Apr 1572 to     1576	E[S]	1	Charles Stuart Created Lord Darnley and Earl of Lennox 18 Apr 1572 Peerages extinct on his death For information about his daughter, Arabella, see the note at the foot of this page	1556	1576	20
16 Jun 1578 to     1580	E[S]	1	Robert Stuart Created Lord Darnley and Earl of Lennox 16 Jun 1578 He resigned the peerages in 1580	c 1515	29 Mar 1586
5 Mar 1580 5 Aug 1581	E[S] D[S]	1 1	Esme Stuart Created Lord Darnley, Aubigny and Dalkeith and Earl of Lennox 5 Mar 1580 and Lord Aubigny, Dalkeith, Torboltoun and Aberdour, Earl of Darnley and Duke of Lennox 5 Aug 1581	c 1542	26 May 1583
26 May 1583		2	Ludovic Stuart Created Baron of Setrington and Earl of Richmond 6 Oct 1613, and Earl of Newcastle upon Tyne and Duke of Richmond 17 May 1623 KG 1603	29 Sep 1574	16 Feb 1624	49
16 Feb 1624		3	Esme Stuart Created Baron Stuart of Leighton Bromswold and Earl of March 7 Jun 1619 Lord Lieutenant Haddington 1612; KG 1624	1579	30 Jul 1624	45
30 Jul 1624		4	James Stuart, 1st Duke of Richmond	6 Apr 1612	30 Mar 1655	42
30 Mar 1655		5	Esme Stuart, 2nd Duke of Richmond	2 Nov 1649	10 Aug 1660	10
10 Aug 1660		6	Charles Stuart, 3rd Duke of Richmond Peerages extinct on his death	7 Mar 1640	12 Dec 1672	32
9 Sep 1675	D	1	Charles Lennox Created Baron Setrington, Earl of March and Duke of Richmond 9 Aug 1675 and Lord of Torboltoun, Earl of Darnley and Duke of Lennox 9 Sep 1675 See "Richmond"	29 Jul 1672	27 May 1723	50
LEOMINSTER
12 Apr 1692	B	1	Sir William Fermor, 2nd baronet Created Baron Leominster 12 Apr 1692 MP for Northampton 1670‑1679	3 Aug 1648	7 Dec 1711	63
7 Dec 1711		2	Thomas Fermor He was created Earl of Pomfret in 1721 with which title this peerage then merged	23 Mar 1698	8 Jul 1753	55
LEONARD
2 May 1978 to     17 Jul 1983	B[L]		John Denis Leonard Created Baron Leonard for life 2 May 1978 Peerage extinct on his death	19 Oct 1909	17 Jul 1983	73
LEONG
31 Oct 2022	B[L]		Sonny Leong Created Baron Leong for life 31 Oct 2022	Sep 1953
LESLIE
1445	B[S]	1	George Leslie Created Lord Leslie 1445 and Earl of Rothes 1457 See "Rothes"		c 1490
29 May 1680 to     27 Jul 1681	E[S]	1	John Leslie, 7th Earl of Rothes Created Lord Auchmotie and Caskieberry, Viscount of Lugtoun, Earl of Leslie, Marquess of Ballinbrieich and Duke of Rothes 29 May 1680 Peerage extinct on his death	1630	27 Jul 1681	51
LESTER OF HERNE HILL
13 Oct 1993 to     8 Aug 2020	B[L]		Anthony Paul Lester Created Baron Lester of Herne Hill for life 13 Oct 1993 Peerage extinct on his death	3 Jul 1936	8 Aug 2020	84
LESTOR OF ECCLES
4 Jun 1997 to     27 Mar 1998	B[L]		Joan Lestor Created Baroness Lestor of Eccles for life 4 Jun 1997 MP for Eton and Slough 1966‑1983 and Eccles 1987‑1997 Peerage extinct on her death	13 Nov 1931	27 Mar 1998	66
LEVEN
11 Oct 1641	E[S]	1	Alexander Leslie Created Lord Balgonie and Earl of Leven 11 Oct 1641	c 1580	4 Apr 1661
4 Apr 1661		2	Alexander Leslie	c 1637	15 Jul 1664
15 Jul 1664		3	Margaret Montgomery		6 Nov 1674
6 Nov 1674 to     21 Jan 1676		4	Catherine Leslie On her death the peerage became dormant	c 1663	21 Jan 1676
1681		5	David Leslie He succeeded as 2nd Earl of Melville in 1707 since which time the titles have remained united	5 May 1660	6 Jun 1728	68
6 Jun 1728		6	David Leslie (also 3rd Earl of Melville)	17 Dec 1717	Jun 1729	11
Jun 1729		7	Alexander Leslie (also 4th Earl of Melville)	c 1699	2 Sep 1754
2 Sep 1754		8	David Leslie (also 5th Earl of Melville)	4 Mar 1722	9 Jun 1802	80
9 Jun 1802		9	Alexander Leslie-Melville (also 6th Earl of Melville)	7 Nov 1749	22 Feb 1820	70
22 Feb 1820		10	David Leslie-Melville (also 7th Earl of Melville)	22 Jun 1785	8 Oct 1860	75
8 Oct 1860		11	John Thornton Leslie-Melville (also 8th Earl of Melville)	18 Dec 1786	16 Sep 1876	89
16 Sep 1876		12	Alexander Leslie-Melville (also 9th Earl of Melville)	11 Jan 1817	22 Oct 1889	72
22 Oct 1889		13	Ronald Ruthven Leslie-Melville (also 10th Earl of Melville) PC 1902; KT 1905	19 Dec 1835	21 Aug 1906	70
21 Aug 1906		14	John David Leslie-Melville (also 11th Earl of Melville)	5 Apr 1886	11 Jun 1913	27
11 Jun 1913		15	Archibald Alexander Leslie-Melville (also 12th Earl of Melville) Lord Lieutenant Nairnshire 1935‑1947; KT 1934	6 Aug 1890	15 Jan 1947	56
15 Jan 1947		16	Alexander Robert Leslie-Melville (also 13th Earl of Melville) Lord Lieutenant Nairnshire 1969‑1999	13 May 1924	7 Apr 2012	87
7 Apr 2012		17	Alexander Ian Leslie-Melville (also 14th Earl of Melville)	29 Nov 1984
LEVENE OF PORTSOKEN
22 Jul 1997	B[L]		Sir Peter Keith Levene Created Baron Levene of Portsoken for life 22 Jul 1997	8 Dec 1941
LEVER
10 Jul 1975 to     26 Jul 1977	B[L]		Sir Leslie Maurice Lever Created Baron Lever for life 10 Jul 1975 MP for Ardwick 1950‑1970 Peerage extinct on his death	29 Apr 1905	26 Jul 1977	72
LEVER OF MANCHESTER
3 Jul 1979 to	B[L]		Harold Lever Created Baron Lever of Manchester for life 3 Jul 1979 MP for Manchester Exchange 1945‑1950, Cheetham 1950‑1974 and Manchester Central 1974‑1979; Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1967‑1969; Paymaster General 1969‑1970; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1974‑1979; PC 1969 Peerage extinct on his death	15 Jan 1914	6 Aug 1995	81
LEVERHULME
21 Jun 1917 27 Nov 1922	B V	1 1	Sir William Hesketh Lever, 1st baronet Created Baron Leverhulme 21 Jun 1917 and Viscount Leverhulme 27 Nov 1922 MP for Wirral 1906‑1909 For a discussion on what actually constitutes a peerage title, see the note at the foot of this page	19 Sep 1851	7 May 1925	73
7 May 1925		2	William Hulme Lever	25 Mar 1888	27 May 1949	61
27 May 1949 to     4 Jul 2000		3	Philip William Bryce Lever Lord Lieutenant Cheshire 1949‑1990; KG 1988 Peerage extinct on his death	1 Jul 1915	4 Jul 2000	85
LEVESON
10 May 1833	B	1	Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Viscount Granville Created Baron Leveson and Earl Granville 10 May 1833 See "Granville"	12 Oct 1773	8 Jan 1846	72
LEVY
23 Sep 1997	B[L]		Michael Abraham Levy Created Baron Levy for life 23 Sep 1997	11 Jul 1944
LEWES
14 Jan 1876	E	1	William Nevill, 5th Earl of Abergavenny Created Earl of Lewes and Marquess of Abergavenny 14 Jan 1876 See "Abergavenny"	16 Sep 1826	12 Dec 1915	89
LEWIN
19 Nov 1982 to     23 Jan 1999	B[L]		Sir Terence Thornton Lewin Created Baron Lewin for life 19 Nov 1982 Admiral of the Fleet 1979; Chief of the Defence Staff 1979‑1982; KG 1983 Peerage extinct on his death	19 Nov 1920	23 Jan 1999	78
LEWIS OF NEWNHAM
8 Feb 1989 to     17 Jul 2014	B[L]		Sir Jack Lewis Created Baron Lewis of Newnham for life 8 Feb 1989 Peerage extinct on his death	13 Feb 1928	17 Jul 2014	86
LEWISHAM
5 Sep 1711	V	1	William Legge, 2nd Baron Dartmouth Created Viscount Lewisham and Earl of Dartmouth 5 Sep 1711 See "Dartmouth"	14 Oct 1672	15 Dec 1750	78
LEXDEN
23 Dec 2010	B[L]		Alistair Basil Cooke Created Baron Lexden for life 23 Dec 2010	20 Apr 1945
LEXINTON
21 Nov 1645	B	1	Robert Sutton Created Baron Lexinton 21 Nov 1645		13 Oct 1668
13 Oct 1668 to     19 Sep 1723		2	Robert Sutton PC 1692 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Jan 1662	19 Sep 1723	61
LEY
31 Dec 1625	B	1	James Ley Created Baron Ley 31 Dec 1625 and Earl of Marlborough 5 Feb 1626 See "Marlborough"	1552	14 Mar 1629	76
LEYBURN
6 Feb 1299 to     1310	B	1	William de Leyburn Summoned to Parliament as Lord Leyburn 6 Feb 1299 Peerage extinct on his death		1310
21 Jun 1337 to     1384	B	1	John de Leyburn Summoned to Parliament as Lord Leyburn 21 Jun 1337 Peerage extinct on his death		1384
LICHFIELD
10 Dec 1645 to     12 Dec 1672	E	1	Charles Stuart Created Baron Stuart of Newbury and Earl of Lichfield 10 Dec 1645 He succeeded to the Dukedom of Richmond in 1660 - peerages extinct 1672	7 Mar 1640	12 Dec 1672	32
5 Jun 1674	E	1	Sir Edward Henry Lee, 5th baronet Created Baron of Spelsbury, Viscount Quarendon and Earl of the City of Lichfield 5 Jun 1674 Lord Lieutenant Oxford 1687‑1689	c 1656	14 Jul 1716
14 Jul 1716		2	George Henry Lee	12 Mar 1690	15 Feb 1743	52
15 Feb 1743		3	George Henry Lee MP for Oxfordshire 1740‑1743; PC 1762	21 May 1718	17 Sep 1772	54
17 Sep 1772 to     4 Nov 1776		4	Robert Lee MP for Oxford 1754‑1768 Peerage extinct on his death	3 Jul 1706	4 Nov 1776	70
15 Sep 1831	E	1	Thomas William Anson, 2nd Viscount Anson Created Earl of Lichfield 15 Sep 1831 MP for Great Yarmouth 1818; Postmaster General 1835‑1841; PC 1830	20 Oct 1795	18 Mar 1854	58
18 Mar 1854		2	Thomas George Anson MP for Lichfield 1847‑1854; Lord Lieutenant Stafford 1863‑1871	15 Aug 1825	7 Jan 1892	66
7 Jan 1892		3	Thomas Francis Anson For information on the death of this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	31 Jan 1856	29 Jul 1918	62
29 Jul 1918		4	Thomas Edward Anson	9 Dec 1883	14 Sep 1960	76
14 Sep 1960		5	Thomas Patrick John Anson	25 Apr 1939	11 Nov 2005	66
11 Nov 2005		6	Thomas William Robert Hugh Anson	19 Jul 1978
LIDDELL OF COATDYKE
7 Jul 2010	B[L]		Helen Lawrie Liddell Created Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke for life 7 Jul 2010 MP for Monklands East 1994‑1997 and Airdrie and Shotts 1997‑2005; Economic Secretary to the Treasury 1997‑1998; Secretary of State for Scotland 2001‑2003; PC 1998	6 Dec 1950
LIDDLE
19 Jun 2010	B[L]		Roger John Liddle Created Baron Liddle for life 19 Jun 2010	14 Jun 1947
LIFFORD
9 Jan 1768 4 Jan 1781	B[I] V[I]	1 1	James Hewitt Created Baron Lifford 9 Jan 1768 and Viscount Lifford 4 Jan 1781 MP for Coventry 1761‑1766; Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1768‑1789; PC [I] 1768	28 Apr 1712	28 Apr 1789	77
28 Apr 1789		2	James Hewitt	27 Oct 1750	15 Apr 1830	79
15 Apr 1830		3	James Hewitt	29 Aug 1783	22 Apr 1855	71
22 Apr 1855		4	James Hewitt	31 Mar 1811	20 Nov 1887	76
20 Nov 1887		5	James Wilfrid Hewitt	12 Oct 1837	20 Mar 1913	75
20 Mar 1913		6	Archibald Robert Hewitt	14 Jan 1844	22 May 1925	81
22 May 1925		7	Evelyn James Hewitt	18 Dec 1880	5 Apr 1954	73
5 Apr 1954		8	Alan William Wingfield Hewitt	11 Dec 1900	6 Jan 1987	86
6 Jan 1987		9	Edward James Wingfield Hewitt	27 Jan 1949
LIGONIER
31 Dec 1757 20 May 1762 27 Apr 1763 10 Sep 1766 to     28 Apr 1770	V[I] V[I] B E	1 1 1 1	John Louis Ligonier Created Viscount Ligonier 31 Dec 1757 and 20 May 1762, Baron Ligonier 27 Apr 1763 and Earl Ligonier 10 Sep 1766 MP for Bath 1748‑1763; Field Marshal 1757; PC 1749 On his death the Earldom, Viscountcy of 1757 and the Barony became extinct, whilst the Viscountcy of 1762 passed to -	7 Nov 1680	28 Apr 1770	89
28 Apr 1770 19 Jul 1776	E	2 1	Edward Ligonier Created Earl Ligonier 19 Jul 1776 Peerages extinct on his death	1740	14 Jun 1782	41
LILFORD
26 Oct 1797	B	1	Thomas Powys Created Baron Lilford 26 Oct 1797 MP for Northamptonshire 1774‑1797	4 May 1743	26 Jan 1800	56
26 Jan 1800		2	Thomas Powys	8 Apr 1775	4 Jul 1825	50
4 Jul 1825		3	Thomas Atherton Powys	2 Dec 1801	15 Mar 1861	59
15 Mar 1861		4	Thomas Lyttelton Powys	18 Mar 1833	17 Jun 1896	63
17 Jun 1896		5	John Powys	12 Jan 1863	17 Dec 1945	82
17 Dec 1945		6	Stephen Powys	8 Mar 1869	19 Sep 1949	80
19 Sep 1949		7	George Vernon Powys	8 Jan 1931	3 Jan 2005	73
3 Jan 2005		8	Mark Vernon Powys	16 Nov 1975
LILLEY
18 Jun 2018	B[L]		Peter Bruce Lilley Created Baron Lilley for life 18 Jun 2018 MP for St. Albans 1983‑1997 and Hitchin & Harpenden 1997‑2017; Economic Secretary to the Treasury 1987‑1989; Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1989‑1990; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade 1990‑1992; Secretary of State for Social Security 1992‑1997; PC 1990	23 Aug 1943
LIMERICK
11 Dec 1661 to     28 Jul 1705	B[I]	1	Roger Palmer Created Baron of Limerick and Earl of Castlemaine 11 Dec 1661 Peerages extinct on his death	4 Sep 1634	28 Jul 1705	70
2 Jan 1686	E[I]	1	Sir William Dungan, 4th baronet Created Viscount Dungan of Clane and Earl of Limerick 2 Jan 1686	c 1630	Dec 1698
Dec 1698 to     14 Dec 1715		2	Thomas Dungan Peerage extinct on his death	1634	14 Dec 1715	81
13 May 1719	V[I]	1	James Hamilton Created Baron Claneboye and Viscount Limerick 13 May 1719, and Earl of Clanbrassil 24 Nov 1756 See "Clanbrassill"		17 Mar 1758
29 Dec 1800 22 Jan 1803	V[I] E[I]	1 1	Edmond Henry Pery, 2nd Baron Glentworth Created Viscount Limerick 29 Dec 1800, Earl of Limerick 22 Jan 1803 and Baron Foxford [UK] 11 Aug 1815 MP [I] for Limerick City 1786‑1794; PC [I] 1797	8 Jan 1758	7 Dec 1844	86
7 Dec 1844		2	William Tenison Pery	19 Oct 1812	5 Jan 1866	53
5 Jan 1866		3	William Hale John Charles Pery PC 1889; KP 1892	17 Jan 1840	8 Aug 1896	56
8 Aug 1896		4	William Henry Esmond de Vere Sheaffe Pery	16 Sep 1863	18 Mar 1929	65
18 Mar 1929		5	Edmund Colquhoun Pery CH 1960	16 Oct 1888	4 Aug 1967	78
4 Aug 1967		6	Patrick Edmund Pery	12 Apr 1930	8 Jan 2003	72
8 Jan 2003		7	Edmund Christopher Pery	10 Feb 1963
LINCOLN
c 1140 to     c 1155	E	1	William de Roumare Created Earl of Lincoln c 1140 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	c 1095	c 1155
c 1147 to     1156		1	Gilbert de Gand Created Earl of Lincoln c 1147 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown		1156
23 May 1217 to     28 Oct 1232	E	1	Randolph de Blondeville Created Earl of Lincoln 23 May 1217 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown		28 Oct 1232
22 Nov 1232	E	1	John de Lacy Created Earl of Lincoln 22 Nov 1232	c 1192	22 Jul 1240
22 Jul 1240		2	Edmund de Lacy	1230	21 Jul 1257	27
21 Jul 1257		3	Henry de Lacy	c 1250	5 Feb 1311
5 Feb 1311 to     2 Oct 1348		4	Alice Plantagenet On her death the peerage reverted to the Crown	c 1283	2 Oct 1348
20 Aug 1349 to     13 Mar 1361	E	1	Henry Plantagenet Created Earl of Lincoln 20 Aug 1349 and Duke of Lancaster 6 Mar 1351 See "Lancaster"	c 1300	13 Mar 1361
13 Mar 1467 to     16 Jun 1487	E	1	John de la Pole Created Earl of Lincoln 13 Mar 1467 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1484‑1485 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1464	16 Jun 1487
18 Jun 1525 to     c 1540	E	1	Henry Brandon Created Earl of Lincoln 18 Jun 1525 Peerage extinct on his death	11 Mar 1516	c 1540
4 May 1572	E	1	Edward Clinton, 9th Lord Clinton Created Earl of Lincoln 4 May 1572 Lord High Admiral 1550‑1554 and 1558‑1585; Lord Lieutenant Lincoln; KG 1551	1512	16 Jan 1585	72
16 Jan 1585		2	Henry Clinton MP for Launceston 1559 and Lincolnshire 1571	1540	29 Sep 1616	76
29 Sep 1616		3	Thomas Clinton MP for Great Grimsby 1601‑1604 and Lincolnshire 1604‑1610	c 1568	15 Jan 1619
15 Jan 1619		4	Theophilus Clinton	1600	22 May 1667	66
22 May 1667		5	Edward Clinton	c 1650	25 Nov 1692
25 Nov 1692		6	Francis Clinton	c 1635	4 Sep 1693
4 Sep 1693		7	Henry Clinton Lord Lieutenant Cambridge Mar‑Jun 1728; PC 1715; KG 1721	1684	7 Sep 1728	44
7 Sep 1728		8	George Clinton	15 Jan 1718	30 Apr 1730	12
30 Apr 1730		9	Henry Pelham-Clinton, later [1768] 2nd Duke of Newcastle under Lyne	16 Apr 1720	22 Feb 1794	73
22 Feb 1794		10	Thomas Pelham-Clinton, 3rd Duke of Newcastle	1 Jul 1752	17 May 1795	42
17 May 1795		11	Henry Pelham Pelham‑Clinton, 4th Duke of Newcastle	31 Jan 1785	12 Jan 1851	65
12 Jan 1851		12	Henry Pelham Pelham‑Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle	22 May 1811	18 Oct 1864	53
18 Oct 1864		13	Henry Pelham Alexander Pelham‑Clinton, 6th Duke of Newcastle	25 Jan 1834	22 Feb 1879	45
22 Feb 1879		14	Henry Pelham Archibald Douglas Pelham‑Clinton, 7th Duke of Newcastle	28 Sep 1864	30 May 1928	63
30 May 1928		15	Henry Francis Hope Pelham‑Clinton‑Hope, 8th Duke of Newcastle	3 Feb 1866	20 Apr 1941	75
20 Apr 1941		16	Henry Edward Hugh Pelham‑Clinton‑Hope, 9th Duke of Newcastle	8 Apr 1907	4 Nov 1988	81
4 Nov 1988		17	Edward Charles Pelham‑Clinton, 10th Duke of Newcastle	18 Aug 1920	25 Dec 1988	68
25 Dec 1988		18	Edward Horace Fiennes‑Clinton	23 Feb 1913	7 Jul 2001	88
7 Jul 2001		19	Robert Edward Fiennes‑Clinton	19 Jun 1972
LINCOLNSHIRE
26 Feb 1912 to     13 Jun 1928	M	1	Charles Wynn-Carrington, 1st Earl Carrington Created Marquess of Lincolnshire 26 Feb 1912 MP for Wycombe 1865‑1868; Governor of New South Wales 1886‑1890; President of the Board of Agriculture 1905‑1911; Lord Privy Seal 1911‑1912; Lord Lieutenant Buckinghamshire 1915‑1923; KG 1906 Peerage extinct on his death	16 May 1843	13 Jun 1928	85
LINDGREN
9 Feb 1961 to     8 Sep 1971	B[L]		George Samuel Lindgren Created Baron Lindgren for life 9 Feb 1961 MP for Wellingborough 1945‑1959 Peerage extinct on his death	11 Nov 1900	8 Sep 1971	70
LINDLEY
10 May 1900 to     9 Dec 1921	B[L]		Nathaniel Lindley Created Baron Lindley for life 10 May 1900 Lord Justice of Appeal 1881‑1897; Master of the Rolls 1897‑1900; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1900‑1905; PC 1881 Peerage extinct on his death	29 Nov 1828	9 Dec 1921	93
LINDORES
31 Mar 1600	B[S]	1	Patrick Leslie Created Lord Lindores 31 Mar 1600		c 1608
c 1608		2	Patrick Leslie		8 Aug 1649
8 Aug 1649		3	James Leslie		c 1666
c 1666		4	John Leslie		17 Jan 1706
17 Jan 1706		5	David Leslie		Jul 1719
Jul 1719		6	Alexander Leslie		3 Sep 1765
3 Sep 1765		7	James Francis Leslie		30 Jun 1775
30 Jun 1775 to     11 May 1813		8	John Leslie Since his death the peerage has remained unclaimed	1750	11 May 1813	62
LINDSAY
22 Feb 1445	B[S]	1	John Lindsay Created Lord Lindsay 22 Feb 1445		6 Feb 1482
6 Feb 1482		2	David Lindsay		1490
1490		3	John Lindsay		1497
1497		4	Patrick Lindsay		1526
1526		5	John Lindsay		17 Dec 1563
17 Dec 1563		6	Patrick Lindsay	1521	11 Dec 1589	68
11 Dec 1589		7	James Lindsay	1554	5 Nov 1601	47
5 Nov 1601		8	John Lindsay		5 Nov 1609
5 Nov 1609		9	Robert Lindsay		9 Jul 1616
9 Jul 1616 8 May 1633	E[S]	10 1	John Lindsay, later [1652] 17th Earl of Crawford Created Lord Parbroath and Earl of Lindsay 8 May 1633	c 1598	1678
1678		2	William Lindsay, 18th Earl of Crawford	Apr 1644	6 Mar 1698	53
6 Mar 1698		3	John Lindsay, 19th Earl of Crawford	by 1672	Dec 1713
Dec 1713		4	John Lindsay, 20th Earl of Crawford	4 Oct 1702	25 Dec 1749	47
25 Dec 1749		5	George Lindsay-Crawford, 21st Earl of Crawford	c 1729	11 Aug 1781
11 Aug 1781		6	George Lindsay-Crawford, 22nd Earl of Crawford	31 Jan 1758	30 Jan 1808	49
30 Jan 1808		7	David Lindsay		5 May 1809
5 May 1809		8	Patrick Lindsay	24 Feb 1778	14 Jul 1839	61
14 Jul 1839		9	Henry Lindsay Bethune	12 Apr 1787	19 Feb 1851	63
19 Feb 1851		10	John Trotter Bethune For information on his successful claim to these peerages in 1878, see the note at the foot of this page	3 Jan 1827	12 May 1894	67
12 May 1894		11	David Clark Bethune For information regarding a potential claimant to the titles who appeared in 1913, but does not appear to have ever pursued such claim, see the note at the foot of this page	18 Apr 1832	20 Mar 1917	84
20 Mar 1917		12	Reginald Bethune	18 May 1867	14 Jan 1939	71
14 Jan 1939		13	Archibald Lionel Lindesay‑Bethune	14 Aug 1872	15 Oct 1943	71
15 Oct 1943		14	William Tucker Lindesay‑Bethune	28 Apr 1901	19 Oct 1985	84
19 Oct 1985		15	David Lindesay-Bethune	9 Feb 1926	1 Aug 1989	63
1 Aug 1989		16	James Randolph Lindesay-Bethune [Elected hereditary peer 1999-]	19 Nov 1955
LINDSAY AND BALNIEL
9 Jan 1651	B[S]	1	Alexander Lindsay Created Lord Lindsay & Balniel and Earl of Balcarres 9 Jan 1651 See "Balcarres"	6 Jul 1618	30 Aug 1659	41
LINDSAY OF BIRKER
13 Nov 1945	B	1	Alexander Dunlop Lindsay Created Baron Lindsay of Birker 13 Nov 1945	14 May 1879	18 Mar 1952	72
18 Mar 1952		2	Michael Francis Morris Lindsay	24 Feb 1909	13 Feb 1994	84
13 Feb 1994		3	James Francis Lindsay	29 Jan 1945
LINDSEY
22 Nov 1626	E	1	Robert Bertie, 12th Lord Willoughby de Eresby Created Earl of Lindsey 22 Nov 1626 Lord Lieutenant Lincoln 1629; KG 1630	17 Dec 1582	23 Oct 1642	59
23 Oct 1642		2	Montagu Bertie MP for Lincoln 1624‑1625 and Stamford 1625‑1626; Lord Lieutenant Lincoln 1660‑1666; KG 1661 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Willoughby de Eresby 3 Nov 1640	c 1608	25 Jul 1666
25 Jul 1666		3	Robert Bertie MP for Boston 1661‑1666; Lord Lieutenant Lincoln 1666‑1700; PC 1682	8 Nov 1630	9 May 1701	70
9 May 1701 21 Dec 1706	M	4 1	Robert Bertie He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Willoughby de Eresby 19 Apr 1690 Created Marquess of Lindsey 21 Dec 1706 and Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven 26 Jul 1715	20 Oct 1660	26 Jul 1723	62
26 Jul 1723		5 2	Peregrine Bertie, 2nd Duke of Ancaster	29 Apr 1686	1 Jan 1742	55
1 Jan 1742		6 3	Peregrine Bertie, 3rd Duke of Ancaster	1714	12 Aug 1778	64
12 Aug 1778		7 4	Robert Bertie, 4th Duke of Ancaster	17 Oct 1736	8 Jul 1779	42
8 Jul 1779 to     8 Feb 1809		8 5	Brownlow Bertie, 5th Duke of Ancaster On his death the Marquessate became extinct, whilst the Earldom passed to -	1 May 1729	8 Feb 1809	79
8 Feb 1809		9	Albemarle Bertie MP for Stamford 1801‑1809	17 Sep 1744	18 Sep 1818	74
18 Sep 1818		10	George Augustus Frederick Albemarle Bertie	4 Nov 1814	21 Mar 1877	62
21 Mar 1877		11	Montagu Peregrine Bertie	25 Dec 1815	29 Jan 1899	83
29 Jan 1899		12	Montagu Peregrine Albemarle Bertie	3 Sep 1861	2 Jan 1938	76
2 Jan 1938		13	Montagu Henry Edmund Cecil Bertie He had previously succeeded to the Earldom of Abingdon in 1928 with which title this peerage then merged	2 Nov 1887	11 Sep 1963	75
11 Sep 1963		14	Richard Henry Rupert Bertie, 9th Earl of Abingdon	28 Jun 1931
LINGEN
3 Jul 1885 to     22 Jul 1905	B	1	Sir Ralph Robert Wheeler Lingen Created Baron Lingen 3 Jul 1885 Peerage extinct on his death	19 Feb 1819	22 Jul 1905	86
LINGFIELD
17 Dec 2010	B[L]		Sir Robert George Alexander Balchin Created Baron Lingfield for life 17 Dec 2010	31 Jul 1942

	The Leigh Peerage Case of 1829
	The following article, written by Dalrymple Belgrave, forms part of a series entitled Romances of High Life published in the Manchester Times in 1898.
	The Leighs of Stoneleigh are one of those families who gained their wealth and power in the City of London. In the middle of the sixteenth century Thomas Leigh, the younger son of a gentleman of an old Cheshire family (a younger branch of the Leighs of Lyme) came up to London to seek his fortune in the City. He was an industrious apprentice, and gained the respect of his master, the rich Alderman Sir Rowland Hill, whose niece and heiress he was fortunate enough to marry. In the last year of Queen Mary's reign he was Lord Mayor of London. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and died in 1571, a great London citizen, leaving a large fortune behind him for his widow and two sons, Rowland and Thomas. His widow, Lady Leigh, purchased Stoneleigh, where she lived the remainder of her life, and at her death she left Stoneleigh to her younger son, Thomas. This Thomas was the grandfather of another Thomas, who was one of the first baronets created by James I.
	The second baronet lived in troublous times, in which he lost money and gained honours. He was a devoted Loyalist. When at the beginning of the troubles King Charles, on his way to Nottingham to set up the Royal Standard, found the gates of Coventry shut against him by a sturdy Parliamentarian Mayor, he went on to Sir Thomas Leigh's house at Stoneleigh, and there met with a warm and loyal welcome and right plenteous and hospitable entertainment. Maybe this took away some of the bitterness from what must have been an ill-omened day, and the King remembered his loyal host, for in 1643, by letters patent, dated at Oxford, he created him Baron Leigh of Stoneleigh. As Lord Leigh he was equally loyal to the King, and when the cause was lost he had to pay Cromwell £4,895 as a composition for his estates. He lived to see Charles II on the throne, and when he died in 1672 he was succeeded by his grandson Thomas, his eldest son having died during his lifetime.
	After that the Leigh peerage descended from father to son until the fifth Lord Leigh died, unmarried, in 1786, leaving a sister, the Hon. Mary Leigh. By his will he left the Stoneleigh estates to his sister for her life, and after her death they were to go to his "nearest relation of his blood and name". The fifth Lord Leigh was the last descendant in the male line of the Cavalier lord, so the peerage became extinct. But the question arose, who was to take the estates under the will after the death of Miss Leigh, which occurred in 1806? There was a gentleman of the name of Smith who in the female line descended from the Leighs, and he was the nearest male relation of the late Lord Leigh. Taking the name of Leigh by Royal licence, he claimed to inherit under the will.
	During her lifetime Miss Leigh had always recognised a Mr. Leigh, of Adlesdrop, Gloucestershire, as the person who would take the estates under her brother's will. About this gentleman's pedigree there was no question or doubt. He was the eldest male representative of Rowland Leigh, the oldest son of the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Leigh. From his father Rowland had inherited Adlesdrop, and the property had ever since gone from father to son in unbroken male succession. What, therefore, was the construction of the words of the will? The Court of Chancery did not seem to have much difficulty in deciding that the testator meant that the property should go to his nearest male relative who had inherited the name of Leigh, and that Mr. Smith-Leigh, though of his blood, was not of his name.
	Mr. Leigh, of Adlesdrop, came to the estates, and he died at Stoneleigh Abbey in 1823, and was succeeded by his eldest son. But such a will as that made by the last Lord Leigh of necessity exercised the interest and ingenuity of pedigree hunters. It would be no empty honour that a successful claimant would gain, but a fine estate. Most people who know much of English country life have come across families in very humble circumstances about whom there is a tradition of past greatness, though their fortunes have declined until there seems to be little more to support their claim to gentle birth than a dim village legend.
	Such a family as this were in the early years of the century settled at Blackwood, a little village near Wigan, in Lancashire, and their name was Leigh. There was a Mr. George Leigh, who had been apprenticed as a boy to a cotton spinner in a small way, and who had married, and was the father of a large family. His father was a James Leigh, a tanner. His grandfather was a Robert Leigh, who was still remembered by a good many people who lived at Wigan. It was said that Robert used to talk about his being of the same family as a Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh, but when this story began to be told is doubtful. This Robert Leigh is described as a picturesque figure wearing a long blue coat fastened by a massive silver buckle, and the story went that he would tell people that this buckle had been given him by his kinsman, Lord Leigh, of Stoneleigh. It is doubtful, however, whether this story had not originated after the old man's time, and when there had been much talk of Stoneleigh. That the old man had been much better off and had had reverses was undoubtedly parish history. Robert was the son of another James Leigh, who had owned property in the village, and been at least a yeoman, and then there was even a dim memory of another Leigh before James, of whom there was still just a trace in the village annals; for there was his house at Haigh, in the same parish, marked in maps, and still called, so it was said by old inhabitants, Fine Roger's or Captain Leigh's.
	It was about 1812 that Mr. George Leigh was first heard of as a claimant for the Leigh peerage and for the estates of Stoneleigh under the will of the last Lord Leigh. That Mr. George Leigh could trace descent from Roger Leigh, of Haigh, there was no doubt. Roger died in 1702. The question was, whose son was he? As a claimant to the Leigh Peerage, Mr. George Leigh would look for an ancestor amongst the five sons of the first Lord Leigh. The eldest died an infant. The second died before his father, but married, and had one son, who became the second Lord Leigh. The third, Charles, lived to old age, but died unmarried; the fourth son was Christopher Leigh.
	Christopher Leigh had married, and there was no question that his wife had died without children, but the story seems somehow to have reached Mr. Leigh that Christopher had made a first marriage into the family of Cotton, of Combermere, from which marriage his ancestor Roger was born.
	The first, but by far the easiest, step in a peerage claim is to make out a pedigree. The difficult thing to do is to prove it. The difficulty in Mr. George Leigh's pedigree was to prove that Roger Leigh, of Haigh, was the son of the Honourable Christopher. For this absence of direct proof the claimant attempted to account by a rather remarkable theory. In 1819, after spending some years in making inquiries, he presented his petition. The Attorney-General, however, after hearing his case, reported that he had failed to show that Christopher Leigh was the father of Robert Leigh. It was after this petition had been presented that a handbill was circulated in and about the village of Stoneleigh. It was headed "100 Guineas Reward" and it said that whereas, under the specious pretence of restoring Stoneleigh Church, a certain portion of the north wall of Stoneleigh Church had been in the year 1811 pulled down, so as to give an excuse for removing a monument which was on the wall to the memory of Christopher Leigh, the above reward would be given to anyone who could give an exact description of the inscription on the monument, or who would give information which would convict the persons who had removed it or caused it to be removed.
	Needless to say, the monument to Christopher Leigh became the subject of much talk in the pretty little Warwickshire village of Stoneleigh, and, as years went on, it began to take a more solid, substantial form in the memory of some of its inhabitants. In 1826 Mr. George Leigh, who had commenced legal proceedings for the estates, applied to the Court of Queen's Bench [sic - it would have been King's Bench in 1826] for an order to inspect Stoneleigh Abbey, to search for a monument to Christopher Leigh and his son Roger Leigh, which was buried under the cellar. He supported this application with numerous affidavits of inhabitants of Stoneleigh, who had seen its removal to the Abbey.
	The Court, however, did not grant the plaintiffs the inspection, though it seemed that some officer of the Court of Chancery held some inquiry at the Abbey, and satisfied himself that there was no truth in the story. Mainly, however, by evidence as to the monument that had been in Stoneleigh Church, the claimant had so strengthened his case that the Attorney-General reported that there was enough in his case to justify an inquiry before a Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords. Early in 1829, the claimant's case was opened. His counsel were Mr. Adam and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, who was then in the early stages of the long career at the Bar and on the Bench which did not conclude until after the Court of Exchequer, over which he presided as Lord Chief Baron, was abolished by the Judicature Act in 1876. The Attorney-General appeared, as he always does in peerage claims, to resist the claim and test its genuineness. The House of Lords also allowed Mr. Leigh, of Stoneleigh, to appear by counsel to resist the claim, for, though he made no claim to the peerage, his right to the Stoneleigh estates was practically at stake. Mr. Chandos Leigh's counsel were Sir J. Scarlett and the Common Serjeant of London.
	When Mr. Adam opened the case it was very soon clear that the weak point in his case was the descent of Roger Leigh, of Haigh, from his alleged father, Christopher Leigh. When he approached this subject, he found it necessary to make what practically were charges of fraud against some person or persons acting on behalf of the other side. In the claimant's pedigree it was stated that Roger Leigh was the son of Christopher Leigh by the latter's first marriage with the daughter of Sir George Cotton, of Combermere. The then Lord Combermere, he said, had been under the impression that in an old parchment pedigree that had been in his possession at Combermere it was stated that one of the daughters of the family of Cotton, which he represented, had married someone of the name of Leigh. That pedigree, however, he had never been able to find after a legal gentleman who had been acting for the claimant, Mr. George Leigh, had been to Combermere to look at it in 1814. Unfortunately, Lord Combermere was in India, and could not be called. Wrenbury, in Cheshire, was the parish church in which the members of the Cotton family were married. A search had been made in the register of that church, but it had been discovered that the register of marriages from 1645 to 1657 had been obliterated so that nothing could be read. The probabilities were that Christopher Leigh's first marriage would have been about in the year 1647, as he was born in 1626. It was probable that he had lived after his marriage at Stoneleigh, but a search in the parish register of baptisms at Stoneleigh had shown that for those years they were faulty, and that there were missing pages. Then he approached what became afterwards the main point in the case - the question of the monument in Stoneleigh Church.
	Pedigrees had been proved in peerage claims by inscriptions on monuments, and in this case he would bring an overwhelming amount of testimony to prove that in Stoneleigh Church there had been on the north wall, almost in a line with the reading-desk, a monument or mural tablet to the memory of Christopher Leigh, and his son, Roger Leigh, of Haigh, in Lancashire. This monument had remained in the church until 1811, when the wall had been taken down for a restoration of the church, but it had never been put up again after the wall had been rebuilt. The existence of this monument, he said, he would show by a great number of witnesses who had seen it, one of whom, a churchwarden, had, after the restoration of the church, asked about its being put up again. He also stated that he would have some evidence to show that the monument had been taken from the vestry, where it was first put after it had been taken down, and carried to Stoneleigh Abbey.
	The first part of the evidence that was called by the plaintiff was directed to exhausting all the male descendants of the second Lord Leigh, any of whom, had they existed, would have cut out his claim, and also to showing that the other older brothers of Christopher Leigh had left no children. As to this part of the case there was no difficulty, but to prove it Mr. Causton had made researches on behalf of the claimant. Mr. Causton had taken a very active part in helping the claimant, and Sir John Scarlett made the most of this opportunity of learning some of the secrets from the enemy's camp. He was cross-examined as to the part he had played in assisting the claimant's case, and he admitted, candidly enough, that he had lent the claimant some £2,000, and he hoped to be paid with large interest if the claimant obtained the estates.
	He was also cross-examined as to the handbill about the monument. He admitted that he had printed it, though he had not put his name to it as printer. He was also asked about a solicitor, a Mr. Bankes, who had retired from the claimant's case. He said he was dissatisfied with that gentleman, but he was asked whether Mr. Bankes had not stated that he had discovered the existence of a document that put an extinguisher on the claimant's case.
	After Mr. Causton came the most remarkable part of the case - the evidence as to the existence of the monument to Christopher Leigh. On the north wall of Stoneleigh Church there was, and probably is to this day, a monument to a certain ----- Webster, Esq., of Canley, who was High Sheriff of Warwickshire; but thirty witnesses swore that on the north wall there had also been a tablet to the Hon. Christopher Leigh.
	Most of these witnesses were parishioners of Stoneleigh, who had been to the church Sunday after Sunday, though some were persons who had relatives or friends at Stoneleigh. Some of these witnesses were small farmers, small tradesmen, and agricultural labourers. One or two of them had been servants at Stoneleigh Abbey. One witness had been the churchwarden at the time of the restoration. He remembered the monument being taken down and put in the vestry. He asked about it being put up again, and was told by the land steward at Stoneleigh, who was superintending the restoration, that it had been taken up to the Abbey to be cleaned, as it was a Leigh monument. Another person, who had been on the Restoration Committee, gave evidence to the same effect. One man, who sat in a pew under the monument, said that he remembered, when he was a boy, reading the name Leigh as if it was Leach, and then he said that he afterwards noticed the name spelled in the same way on the carts belonging to the Hon. Miss Leigh, the sister of the last Lord Leigh, and he then knew it was the same name as Leigh of Stoneleigh. Another witness, who swore to the monument, had been in the service of the Hon. Miss Leigh. He said he remembered, when he was living in her house in London as hall porter, there was a letter came to her from Stoneleigh, telling her of some wrong thing that one of his relations had done, and that his mistress had said to him that it would be hard if he were to be blamed for that, and she had gone on to say that her nearest relations were people living in Lancashire, whom she did not know, and it would be hard if she were blamed for anything they did.
	Then there was another witness who remembered copying down the Roman letters in which the date of Christopher Leigh's death was written, and getting the village schoolmaster to tell him what they meant. All these witnesses remembered the name Christopher Leigh on the monument, most of them remembered that it stated he was the son of Lord Leigh and Lady Mary, his wife, that he married a daughter of Cotton, of Combermere, and many of them remembered also that the monument was also to the memory of Roger Leigh, son of Christopher, who was of Haigh, in Lancashire, and married someone of the name of Higham. None of these witnesses were really much shaken in cross-examination, but as one reads the report of the proceedings before the House of Lords one gets the impression that Sir John Scarlett must have had much confidence that he possessed an extinguisher that he could use at the proper time. He seemed to be anxious to emphasise the memory that the witnesses had of Roger Leigh, of Haigh, who married Higham, being on the tablet.
	Rather more remarkable evidence was given of the removal of the monument. One witness remembered seeing four men, whom she did not know, take it away from the church towards Stoneleigh Abbey. It was wrapped in a blanket, but he could see the Roman numbers on it, and he recognised it. Another witness told a more dramatic story. He was, in 1811, employed to bring the mail bag to Stoneleigh Abbey, and one day when he came up to the house he saw the four men carrying the monument, which he recognised by the Roman numbers, and he followed them into the house. He was surprised to see that there were no servants about the place. He followed the four men, as he wanted to see the butler, to give him the post bag. The men walked through the kitchen to the cellar. They were no servants about anywhere, but at the cellar door stood Mr. Leigh, who pointed to the men to go into the cellar. The Hon. Mrs. Leigh stood on the cellar stairs with a candle in her hand. The men carried the stone down into the cellar, and then Mr. Leigh went away. Witness saw Ilet, the butler, in the cellar, and Ilet told him that he was not wanted there. In cross-examination, Sir John Scarlett suggested that he had left out some of his story, for in an affidavit he had made he had said that Mr. Leigh went away looking much rejoiced. Another witness said that once after Mr. George Leigh had been to Stoneleigh village Ilet had said to him: "So the old lord has been here asking about the monument", and he went on to say that he had seen the monument "in the church - aye, and out of the church". This witness also said that once when he helped Ilet, the butler, to do some work in the cellar, the latter had laughed and pointed at the ground, and said: "There lies Christopher".
	After the evidence about the monument the clergyman from Wrenbury was called to produce the register for that parish. It was suggested by Sir John Scarlett that the pages in the register, which were undoubtedly obliterated, had been the outside sheets of the old book before they had been bound into a new book, and so had got damp and in bad condition. The witness had, however, in 1813, filled up a return to the Bishop as to the condition of the registers, in which he stated they were in perfect condition from the year 1600. This certainly did not agree with the theory of the outside sheets having been years before damaged by damp, though the appearance of the book seems to have done so.
	After the claimant's case some evidence was given about the monument for the other side. The Rev. Morgan Thomas, the Rector of Stoneleigh, was called, but it appeared that he knew very little about Stoneleigh Church; in fact, he had only been inside it a few times. It was in the old days of pluralities, and he had another living in Oxfordshire. Besides, for some years he had resided first at Eton and then at Oxford, as he had been the tutor to the sons of a noble duke. He remembered monuments in the chancel to the Leighs and to a sister of the first Lord Leigh, who, by a unique grant, had been created by Charles I a duchess for her life [this was Anne, Alice? Duchess of Dudley], but he had never seen one to Christopher Leigh. A more important witness was a Mr. Roberts, who had been curate at Stoneleigh, and whose father had been curate before him. He had never seen a monument to Christopher Leigh. He remembered Webster of Canley's monument, and when the wall was taken down gave special directions that it should be put up again as nearly as possible in the same place.
	Mr. Hadley, the house steward of Stoneleigh Abbey, who directed the repairs of the church, said there was only one monument on the wall when it was taken down. The Hon. Mrs Leigh said that she stayed with her uncle, the Rev. Mr. Leigh, before the church was altered on one occasion, and that she went with him to look at the Leigh monuments in the chancel. She saw the monument to Webster of Canley, on the north wall, and asked Mr. Leigh if he visited that family, as they seemed to be of some position. She would have noticed any monument on the north wall to Christopher Leigh. She also stated that neither she nor her husband had come to live at Stoneleigh at the time the church was restored. Some servants of the family and some inhabitants of Stoneleigh were called to say that there was no monument to Christopher.
	All this, however, was comparatively unimportant compared with the extinguisher which Sir John Scarlett proceeded to put upon the claimant's case. This was obtained not from the records of the Stoneleigh family, but from further research into the parish registers of Wigan, which threw more light upon the history of Roger Leigh, of Haigh. In 1680, James Leigh, the son of Roger Leigh, was baptised, but he was not Roger's eldest child. Going back, there was in 1677 the baptism of Esther, daughter of Roger Leigh, of Haigh. Going further back, there was the registration in 1658 of another daughter of Roger Leigh, of Haigh, called Ellen. It was impossible that Roger Leigh, of Haigh, who had a daughter in 1658, could be the son of Christopher Leigh, of Stoneleigh, who was born in 1626. With the production of that register the case for the claimant broke down.
	How so many witnesses from Stoneleigh could have sworn to the existence of the monument to Christopher Leigh and his son Roger Leigh, of Haigh - who could not have been his son - is the mystery of the story. It seemed to have been a case of fraud, mixed, perhaps, with delusion. The claim came to an end, but for years afterwards George Leigh asserted his right to Stoneleigh, and as late as 1844 he created a riot by attempting to take forcible possession of Stoneleigh Abbey. [See below for further information on this attempt.] For years also, the evil weeds of falsehood and delusion, which were shown by the handbill offering a reward for the imaginary monument, grew rank the charming Warwickshire village, and stories which were as absurdly impossible as they were malicious were circulated about the family at the Abbey. [See below for some further information on these allegations.] Now, however, the high character and popularity of the family have caused these stories either to be forgotten or remembered with shame in the village of Stoneleigh.
	***********************
	The following is taken from Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper of 27 October 1844:-
	Between one and two o'clock this afternoon the fashionable town of Leamington Spa was in a state of the greatest commotion, in consequence of the examination of thirty-two individuals, who had been apprehended the same morning by Mr. Roby, the superintendent of police, they having been engaged in unlawfully taking possession of Stoneleigh Abbey, the mansion of the Right Honourable Lord Leigh. It will be recollected that, some years ago, a long protracted claim, made by a person named George Leigh, as the right owner of the extensive estates of Lord [Leigh], then Mr. Chandos Leigh, was brought to a close in the defeat of the claimant. A new claimant, named John Leigh, has just come forward, and the particulars subjoined will best explain the mode in which he sought to enforce his pretensions. On Tuesday last possession of the abbey was claimed by John Leigh, in company with James and Thomas Leigh, members of the same family, and other persons; but upon being remonstrated with by Mr. Chapman, the steward of Lord Leigh, they peaceably retired, at the same time, however, intimating their intention of again visiting the mansion upon the same errand. We believe that no member of the Leigh family is at the abbey, and are informed that an opportunity for gaining an entrance to the building, during their absence, has long been watched for by the present claimant and his adherents. A despatch from Lord Leigh's solicitor, Mr. George Jones, was forwarded this morning to the county magistrates resident in Leamington, and warrants were immediately granted for the apprehension of the rioters. Mr. George Jones deposed … : "I was this morning left in charge of Stoneleigh Abbey … as solicitor of the Right Honourable Chandos Baron Leigh. Between eight and nine o'clock this morning, I saw a mob of about thirty men coming down the private road to the corridor entrance to the abbey, which doors they tried to open, but could not; they then went to the entrance door called the housekeeper's door. I demanded who was there, and their business, telling them there was no entrance. They immediately broke through a panel of the door with hammers and other weapons. I then took a bar of iron, and through the broken panel struck at the legs of one man, after which the door was directly broken in. I think about thirty entered the abbey, and I heard persons following me as I went in search of arms, swearing they'd murder me. Not being able to find any fire arms, I got on the roof of the abbey, and thence escaped by means of a ladder, which was brought to me. On getting down I went to Coventry for assistance, and on returning, in about three quarters of an hour, I found about thirty men in the abbey, whom I am have no doubt are the same men I have mentioned, and two of them I can identify. They had barricaded the door. The civil power having arrived, Kirkland, the house steward, removed the barricading, and I gave them separately in charge. I found twenty-nine men, and two women in the housekeeper's room. They are all in custody, and are prisoners at the bar. Most of them were armed with hammers and bludgeons. On the previous Friday six or seven of the same men (whom I can identify) came to two entrances of the domain, and ordered the gates to be opened. I refused them entrance, telling them there was no road. After an hour and a half's abuse, they left, saying they were not ready then, but would come again another day. I saw [naming eleven men, including James, John and Thomas Leigh] approach the corridor window. Outside the abbey there were some policemen and some of Lord Leigh's servants before the men had forced an entrance, as above-mentioned; and I saw James Leigh strike some of them with a bludgeon. [The report then names all of the men and women who had been charged.] Mr. Jones having informed the prisoners that they were charged with creating a riot and assaulting the servants of Lord Leigh and the police, James Leigh inquired whether his lordship's title to the estates was in possession of the court? The magistrate's clerk replied that his lordship was not present himself, but was represented by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones said Lord Leigh was at present at Sandgate, and Thomas Leigh said he should wish to go to prison until the arrival of their (the prisoners') solicitors. In reply to a question from James Leigh, Mr. Jones said he had authority from Lord Leigh to pay attention to the abbey during his absence, and principally in reference to this matter. James Leigh said the present was a question for the House of Lords to decide upon, and urged that the magistrates had no jurisdiction in the affair. It was a question of peerage, and Lord Leigh was not Baron Leigh, but John Leigh was the proper heir. Several witnesses were then examined, and the labourers on the estate who exerted themselves before the arrival of the police, appeared to have suffered most severely. The evidence in the case was very lengthy, not terminating till near half-past six o'clock, and the large room of the public office was completely crowded during the investigation, and several hundreds awaited the magistrates' decision outside the building. Many of the witnesses were cross examined by James Leigh, with a view to prove that Lord Leigh was aware of their intention, which certainly appeared apparent from the answers elicited. The females were discharged, and the 29 males, who made no resistance to the Leamington police, were committed to take their trials at the sessions, the bench at the same time intimating their willingness to accept bail for their appearance.
	At the subsequent Warwick Assizes held in December 1844, all of the prisoners were found guilty of forcible entry; James Leigh and three others guilty of assault; but none of the prisoners were found guilty of rioting. James Leigh, as ringleader, received 18 months with hard labour, the other three convicted of assault received 12 months with hard labour and the remainder of the prisoners received three months' imprisonment.
	***********************
	One would have thought that, after the hearing before the House of Lords Committee of Privileges and the subsequent invasion of his property, Lord Leigh was entitled to some respite. Unfortunately for him, this was not to be, for in May 1848, an accusation was laid before the Warwickshire magistrates, which claimed that Lord Leigh had been involved in a number of murders, which had taken place many years before. The accusation, which was made by our old friend James Leigh, accused Lord Leigh of murdering four men and burying their bodies under a bridge which crossed the River Avon on the Leigh estates. The principal witness was a man named Barnett, a convicted felon, who died shortly afterwards from the effects of drink. An application was made for a search of the foundations of the bridge in an attempt to find the bodies, but this was rejected as being 'utterly absurd' by the magistrates and Barnett died before he could be prosecuted for perjury.
	This outcome did not, however, deter a local solicitor, Charles Griffin, from publishing, in July 1848, a book titled Stoneleigh Abbey Thirty Years Ago in which he repeated the accusations made against Lord Leigh. Griffin had been John Leigh's defence lawyer following the invasion of Stoneleigh Abbey in 1844. Griffin was charged with libel and was tried before Lord Chief Justice Wilde in March/April 1849. Griffin's allegations were found to be ridiculous and he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
	Lord Edward FitzGerald, 5th son of the 1st Duke of Leinster (15 Oct 1763 - 4 Jun 1798)
	The following biography of Lord Edward FitzGerald appeared in the March 1953 issue of the Australian monthly magazine Parade. It should be noted that throughout the biography his name is spelled as "Fitzgerald", whereas it should be "FitzGerald".
	Fog blurred the few lights in Thomas Street, Dublin, one night in March, 1798, when a cloak-muffled soldier, pistol in hand, slipped from a doorway and accosted a solitary figure plodding along the footpath. "Edward Fitzgerald", he said, "I arrest you in the name of …" The ominous words choked off as a strong hand closed on the soldier's' throat while another wrenched away the pistol. Major [Henry Charles] Sirr [1764‑1841], the hated Dublin manhunter, who had made a bold bid for the £1000 reward offered for Lord Edward Fitzgerald, one of Ireland's greatest patriots, had been foiled by his victim's faithful bodyguard. The mercenary major expected no mercy. Traitors and informers caught in the act were invariably dragged dead from the Liffey. It was with some surprise, therefore, that he felt the strangling hold slacken on his throat and heard the man he had tried to seize sternly order the bodyguard to release him. Still fingering his throat, Major Sirr ran like a rat into the darkness. Edward Fitzgerald lived to rue his clemency, for when at last he was cornered it was the venomous Major Sirr who fired the shot that sent him to a hideous death in the stinking cells of Newgate.
	Edward Fitzgerald never fitted into the accepted pattern of the desperate bomb-throwing rebel. Even his enemies admitted he was "honourable to a fault and incapable of falsehood or perfidy". As the fifth son of the [1st] Duke of Leinster, Fitzgerald, who was born in 1763, could well have shared the privileges of his class and ignored the oppressive English occupation of his country. Ironically, he spent his youth fighting the King's enemies in the American Revolutionary Wars, being seriously wounded [at the Battle of Eutaw Springs on 8 September 1781. His life was saved by an escaped slave named Tony Small ("Faithful Tony")]. When the Wars ended, Fitzgerald returned to Ireland. He entered [the Irish] Parliament as the member for Athy [and later Kildare County] and learned to hate politics. Four years of talk without action sickened him. He packed up and returned to his regiment in Canada, where he roamed the backwoods, living with Indians, who made him a chief of the Huron Bear tribe. He returned to Ireland and Parliament in 1789 to find the country in a ferment of discontent.
	His first show of sympathy with the rebels was his opposition to the Gunpowder and Arms Bill, which prescribed savage penalties for owning or carrying arms. In the same session he established himself as a troublemaker. A band of old soldiers had given notice of their intention to march through Dublin. They called themselves the First National Battalion and flaunted a green banner with the crown missing from above the harp. The authorities banned the march. Fitzgerald spoke bitterly against the ban and was brought before the Bar of the House to apologise for his insults. His apology was more insulting than his speech.
	Fitzgerald was now seen more and more in company with Arthur O'Connor [1763‑1852], the well-known revolutionary. In 1792 they attended the Convention of Paris together. There Fitzgerald met Thomas Paine, the real architect of the American Revolution, and shared his quarters. During the Convention, Fitzgerald and Sir Robert Smith attended a dinner and met the leaders of the French revolutionaries. To them Fitzgerald proposed his now famous toast: "To the speedy abolition of all hereditary titles [and feudal distinctions]". When the news filtered across the Channel, the nobility, especially those in Ireland, clamoured for action against Fitzgerald. He was cashiered from the Army. He did not mind. Right or wrong, he was pledged now to the cause of Irish freedom.
	One night at a theatre in Paris Fitzgerald happened to glance into the next box, where, for the first time, he saw Pamela, beautiful ward of the famous Madame de Genlis. It was love at first sight for the Irishman. Historians have squabbled for years over Pamela's origin. Some accept Madame de Genlis' story that she was a young English girl adopted on one of her trips to England. Others maintained that she was Madame's illegitimate daughter by the Royal Duke of Orleans. The historians agree on one thing - Pamela was the most beautiful woman in Paris. Within 24 hours Fitzgerald had proposed and was accepted. They were married a month later [27 December 1792]. It was a noble but tragic marriage. Even when he was hunted as a rebel outcast, her love stood the test.
	On his return from France, Irish unrest had found an active outlet in the League of Irishmen - an underground society formed a few years before. Though his association with the League was necessarily secret, his sympathies were there for all to see. One day, returning from the races at the Curragh of Clare with his friend Arthur O'Connor he passed a group of dragoon officers. The officers noticed the green scarf he was wearing, wheeled their horses and demanded he take it off. Fitzgerald faced them down. If any man objected to the colour of his scarf, he told them, let him take it off with the point of a sword. The dragoons went on their way.
	In a short time the League became a military organisation directed by a Military Committee. Fitzgerald, the soldier, took command of the war­like preparations. On their own estimate, the Committee had 280,000 armed men ready to rise at a moment's notice. England, well aware of the threat, poured in occupation troops. The League lacked trained officers and believed that outside aid was necessary for the success of the revolution. Accordingly, in May 1796, Fitzgerald and O'Connor went to the Continent seeking help. The French revolutionary army, in the full flush of victory, was sympathetic to all would-be revolutionaries. The Irishmen met General [Louis Lazare] Hoche [1768‑1797] in Hamburg and reached a tentative agreement with him. When the time was ripe he would land in Ireland with 15,000 French troops. Fitzgerald and O'Connor returned jubilant.
	The transaction on the Continent did not pass unnoticed in England. The Duke of York, meeting Pamela as she passed through London, dropped a hint that "all was known" and it was time Fitzgerald left Ireland. He ignored the warning. Two years passed and the promised French aid did not materialise. Apart from General Hoche's abortive raid on Bantry Bay [in December 1796], the French Army stayed on the Continent. Two years of waiting sapped the morale of the League's rank and file. Lightning raids by the English Army uncovered huge stocks of rebel munitions and, under threat of revolt, the occupation forces redoubled their normal savagery.
	In Dublin, the Honourable Mr. Beresford turned a yeomanry riding school into an interrogation centre. His whip-wielders beat the League's secrets out of many of its luke-warm supporters. Something had to be done quickly. Fitzgerald moved for action. At an historic meeting in the Shakespeare Galleries in Dublin, the date for the rising was set for May 23, 1798. Even as the top leaders made their plans, there was an informer among them - Thomas Reynolds. Parliament proclaimed martial law throughout Ireland. Freed from the restraint of the evil magistrates, the occupation army acted ruthlessly.
	Ireland erupted in a spate of burnings, floggings and arrests. Acting on Reynolds' information, the military raided the house of Oliver Bond [c 1760‑1798] and netted the cream of the revolutionaries. Fitzgerald, by chance, was not among them when the trap closed. In the same month Parliament proclaimed him an outlaw, with £1000 on his head. He refused to leave Ireland, or even Dublin. Pamela was expecting a baby - her third. Fitzgerald risked his life and liberty to go to her. Disguised as a washerwoman he got through the ranks of the watchdogs and stayed with his wife until her baby was born. Concealment stifled Fitzgerald. Even when he had no business abroad, he habitually took the air in streets infested with enemies. It was on one such occasion that Major Sirr made his bid for the reward. Only Fitzgerald's stern orders saved the Major's life.
	On May 17, six days before the date set for the revolution, Fitzgerald was lying up in the house of a feather merchant named Murphy. No one is certain who gave away his hiding place, but Reynolds probably passed the information to [Francis] Magan the solicitor [1774‑1843], who eventually received the reward. In the late afternoon Fitzgerald, suffering from a heavy cold, was lying on a bed with his coat off. Without warning, a party headed by Major Swann burst into the room. Fitzgerald leapt to his feet as Swann fired his pistol. The shot missed. Fitzgerald wounded Swann twice before the Major ran into the street. His companion, Ryan, was made of sterner metal. He attacked the rebel with a sword cane and when the flimsy weapon broke, grappled with him. Fitzgerald freed his dagger and drove it twice into Ryan's stomach, wounding him mortally.
	Meanwhile Major Sirr pounded up the stairs to Ryan's aid. He paused in the darkness of the landing and fired his pistol. The heavy ball hit Fitzgerald in the shoulder and bowled him over. Before he could rise, Sirr's soldiers beat him to the floor with their musket butts. The Army examined Fitzgerald's wound, declared it to be not dangerous, and hustled him aboard a ship. Four days later he was lodged in a cell in London's Newgate prison under heavy guard. The surgeons were wrong about Fitzgerald's wound. In the squalor of Newgate it became infected. Shortly afterwards he lapsed into a delirium from which he never rallied. He died on June 4, 1798.
	Edward FitzGerald, 7th Duke of Leinster
	One day in 1930 the tall, dashing but impoverished Duke of Leinster, premier peer of Ireland, arrived in New York in search of a bride wealthy enough to buy a marriage that would make her a duchess. A London bookmaker had agreed to advance the Duke £3,000 for expenses, but insisted on sending the cash to him in instalments so the Duke could not splurge the lot in a week or two. In return, the bookmaker was to get £20,000 from the £500,000 dowry the Duke expected to collect. Leinster urgently needed the £500,000 dowry to enable him to buy back the £1,000,000 estate he had foolishly sold for £67,000, plus £1,000 a year for life.
	The Duke did not find a million-dollar bride on that trip, although he did marry a wealthy American heiress some years later. She became one of the Duke's four wives. After the Duke's death, it was said of him that "the Duke's failings were money and women in that order. He had an insatiable appetite for both and not a clue as to their value."
	Leinster grew up in the tradition of wealthy Guards officers and stage-door johnnies and became one of the world's best known playboys of the time. Having sold his inheritance, he lived on the edge of financial ruin for the next 50 years and became the most bankrupted peer in Britain. Three times he went through the process of bankruptcy and, in his final years, when he no longer had a rich wife to help out, he was usually on the run or hiding from his creditors.
	He was born Lord Edward FitzGerald, third son of the 5th Duke of Leinster. The eldest son, who became the 6th Duke, suffered from epilepsy and was confined in a lunatic asylum from 1909; the second son, Desmond, was killed in action in 1916, leaving Edward as the next heir. As heir, Edward received an income from his father's trustees which was a mere pittance when measured against Edward's spending on gambling and wild living.
	He was £60,000 in debt when, in 1913, he married May Etheridge, a young actress at the Shaftesbury Theatre. Even though the trustees increased his allowance after he married, it was still woefully inadequate by Edward's standards. In order to deal with the money-lenders who were hounding him, Edward entered into a contract with the financier, Sir Harry Mallaby‑Deeley, that condemned him to comparative penury for the rest of his life. Mallaby‑Deeley agreed to pay Edward's debts of £60,000, give him another £7,000 in cash and an income of £1,000 a year for life. In return, Edward surrendered to Mallaby‑Deeley the life income he would get from the estate if and when Edward's older brother died and Edward succeeded to the title.
	Edward's older brother died in 1922, aged only 34, and the trustees learned of the contract that Edward had made. They tried to buy back the right to the income, but Mallaby‑Deeley demanded £400,000 which the trustees refused to pay. As a result, Mallaby‑Deeley and his heirs received an annual income of £50,000 and in return paid the new Duke £1,000 a year. This arrangement lasted until the Duke's death, 54 years later.
	The Duke was now forced to finance his lifestyle on a small income, although there were some occasional windfalls. For example he wagered £3,000 that he could race the London-Aberdeen express in a car. In a borrowed Rolls-Royce the Duke covered the 515 miles in 13 hours to beat the train by two hours and win the bet. He also used his name to run a profitable country club from which he took time off to paddle a canoe round the coast of Britain, collecting another sizable bet.
	In 1930, having divorced his first wife (she died following an accidental dose of sleeping tablets in 1935), he departed on his 'wife hunt' to America. Although there was no shortage of prospective meal-tickets amongst American heiresses and wealthy widows, he returned home a single man. Two years later, however, he married his second wife, Rafaelle van Neck Kennedy, an American divorcee who was visiting England and who had enough money to maintain him in comfort for the next six years. Although they separated in 1938, they were not divorced until 1946. During this eight year gap, Leinster's financial situation deteriorated rapidly, but in 1944 his situation improved when a wealthy widow and one-time Gaiety Girl, Jessie Wessell, financed him in buying a hotel in Surrey. As soon as his divorce became final in 1946, they were married. For the next ten years, the couple lived in France until his third wife left him in 1956.
	The Duke was once again in deep financial strife. He moved into a small London flat where he got to know the building's caretaker, Mrs Vivien Conner. They lived as man and wife until they were legally married in 1965. The Duke was still trying to hold off his creditors when the couple moved to Rye in 1963 where they opened a teashop.
	For the next 11 years, the couple lived in a succession of humble lodgings until 8 March 1976 when the Duke decided to end his continual struggle. In their tiny London bed-sit, while his wife was taking a bath, the Duke took an overdose of sleeping pills and was dead on arrival at hospital.
	*******************
	On 9 July 1977, the following article appeared in The Times, written by Philip Howard:-
	A mysterious claimant turning up from California to reclaim an ancient title and an inheritance perhaps not unadjacent to £10m sounds the sort of stuff that Victorian romances (or, for that matter, Hollywood dreams) are built on. However, a story to this effect is to be published next year not by a racy publisher of Gothic romances, but by Debrett's Peerage Ltd., meticulous chronicler and genealogist of the upper classes. It concerns the Duke of Leinster, the Premier Duke, Marquess and Earl of Ireland. And it has wicked uncles, changelings substituted for rightful heirs, an imposter locked away from the world for 13 years in a lunatic asylum, vast wealth and the other ingredients of cheap fiction. But in this case it may not be fiction.
	The FitzGeralds, Barons of Offaly, later Earls of Kildare, later still Dukes of Leinster, have owned great tracts of Ireland since before 1203. The monkey on their crest commemorates the tradition that a pet ape saved an infant Earl of Kildare from a fire in the fourteenth century. It is also symbolically apt, for the FitzGeralds have always been a family with a simian penchant for mischief. Thomas, the tenth Earl, and his five uncles, were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn by Henry VIII.
	The recent official history of the family runs as follows. The 5th Duke died in 1893. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Maurice, aged six. While Maurice was a minor, his estates were controlled by his uncles. Just before he came of age in 1909 [sic - this should be 1908], he was committed as a dangerous lunatic to Craighouse, a large asylum in Edinburgh, where he died unmarried in 1922. Desmond, his brother next in line, had been killed on active service in France in 1916.
	Hence the titles passed to the younger brother, Edward. Edward, the seventh Duke, had a picaresque track record, even for a FitzGerald: three bankruptcies; four wives; in the 1920s, in order to pay off his debts, he sold his life interest in the Dukedom to Mallaby‑Deeley, the founder of the Fifty Shilling Tailors. The seventh Duke died in poverty two years ago, a suicide in a Pimlico bed-sitter. He had been succeeded officially by Gerald, Marquess of Kildare, now the eighth duke: the son of his first marriage, a company chairman who runs a flying school at Oxford airport.
	Such is the official line. Enter, pursued by solicitors, genealogists and private detectives, the Californian claimant. A man died in California in 1967 calling himself Maurice Francis FitzGerald. He claimed to be the rightful Duke of Leinster since 1922, although he made the claim only to his immediate family. His son, Leonard, a school-teacher, aged 50, has inherited his belief that he is the rightful Duke of Leinster, and is pursuing the claim. He has enough evidence, and there is enough doubt about the official version to persuade Debrett's and other specialists in the field that there is a case worth investigating.
	Mr Harold Brooks-Baker, managing director of Debrett's, says: 'The strength and respectability of the Upper House of any country rest on the validity of the claim of each holder of a seat in that house. It is not for Debrett's to say that the present Duke of Leinster is or is not the rightful holder of that office. It is simply our duty to provide the public with all the relevant information. We intend to publish all the facts in this case in a completely unbiased volume.
	Some of the facts that researchers have turned up are suggestive; some are distinctly fishy; and all, as most things to do with the FitzGeralds are, are appropriately odd. Documents and photographs have disappeared. People who were always considered well, turned out to be extremely unhealthy. And a tremendous fortune has disappeared; some would say dissipated by an unrightful heir.
	The details of the mystery are dark, tangled and not susceptible to summary in so short a piece of exposition as a newspaper article. They include hair-raising evidence about the identity and character of the unhappy inmate of Craighouse. The sixth Duke is recorded as having attended Eton from 1900 to 1904. His death certificate records that he was an epileptic from 1897 onwards: the school insists that no child with such a history of epilepsy would have been admitted to Eton at that time.
	The supposed Duke was declared insane in 1909, and from that date until his death he never left Craighouse. So what was the Court Circular published in The Times on March 11, 1910 doing recording that 'the Duke of Leinster will shortly arrive in England from abroad'?
	Mr John Ford, a researcher who specializes in legal detective work and is writing the Leinster book for Debrett's with Mr Michael Estorick, knows as much about the affairs of the FitzGerald family as anyone alive and most of the inmates of wherever Leinsters go when they die. He has spent a year examining the story and photographs of the Californian claimant and says 'Our conclusions are that he had an intimate knowledge of the whole FitzGerald family, and it had to be a personal knowledge, Some of the details he knew could not possibly have been culled through the conventional channels of research, however diligent.'
	These are deep waters. Who was the unfortunate man who died in Edinburgh? Do so many missing documents indicate an old conspiracy to hide the facts, or are they coincidence? How did the Californian know so much about the old Duke and his family? Why did the Californian never pursue the claim himself, and leave it to his children? What was the terrible family scandal (illegitimacy?) that he spoke of that prevented him from pursuing it; and, if he was a fraud, why did he not make more out of it by telling others than his immediate family?
	*******************
	The book referred to in the article above was eventually published under the title Heirs and Graces: The Claim to the Dukedom of Leinster by Michael Estorick (Weidenfeld Nicolson, London 1981).
	The claim dragged on until April 2007, when it was eventually dismissed.
	William Sydney Clements, 3rd Earl of Leitrim
	Leitrim succeeded to the earldom on the last day of 1854. Over the next twenty years, he became a model for unpopular landlords in Ireland and eventually paid for it with his life.
	Until the passing of the Land Act in 1870, which, for the first time, gave tenants the right to compensation for any improvements they had made to their holdings, Irish landlords could, and often did, eject tenants without any reason and without payment for improvements. When the Act went through, many landlords embarked upon a campaign to destroy the tenants' gains by carrying out mass ejections and thousands of small Irish farmers suddenly found themselves without food, shelter and the means to earn a living.
	In a desperate attempt to protect themselves, ejected tenants formed a secret society, known as the Riband Lodge. Its first article was that "in no case shall land be taken from a tenant except for non-payment of rent". The Ribandmen embarked on a terror campaign, burning land agents' offices and intimidating any tenant who did not conform to their code.
	Leitrim threw himself into the task of improving his property and stamping out the Ribandmen. He let it be known that any infringement of his rules, no matter how trivial, would be punished severely. On the other hand, if his tenants did as they were told, they would have the advantage of low rents. This did not impress his tenants; nor did the Earl's insistence on the 'droit de seigneur' over the young girls on his estates. His tenants soon found that Leitrim's ideas were illogical. For example, he hated goats, and if he caught a tenant keeping a goat, he either shot the goat or evicted the tenant, as the mood took him. Once evicted, no amount of pleading would change his mind. On one occasion, a family he had evicted were starving and the local clergyman pleaded with the Earl to change his mind. Leitrim replied that, "I would not give you a blanket to cover their bones".
	He was just as harsh with his fellow peers. He quarrelled with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Carlisle, so fiercely that when Carlisle attempted to obtain lodging at an inn on Leitrim's estate, Leitrim ordered the manager of the inn to slam the door in Carlisle's face.
	No one denied that Leitrim set about to improve his estates. He built roads, houses and schools, but he was so strongly disliked that he often had trouble in attracting new tenants to replace those he had evicted, with the result that much of his estate became grazing land.
	On 2 April 1878, Leitrim left his house to visit his solicitor; he had 80 evictions pending and he wanted to make sure that all arrangements had been made. With him in his carriage were the driver, Buchanan, and his clerk, Meekins. His valet, Kincaid, followed behind in another carriage, but the horse became slightly lame and fell behind. Leitrim's carriage had just entered Cratlagh Wood when two men leapt from the ditch at the side of the road and jumped into the carriage. The first shot shattered Leitrim's chest and he was then battered with the stock of the gun, which broke his arm and smashed his skull. Buchanan and Meekins were both shot in the head.
	By the time the valet arrived, the assailants were in a rowing boat making for the opposite shore of the nearby bay. Although police were soon on the scene and a number of rewards were offered, no result was forthcoming.
	Leitrim was buried on 10 April at St. Michan's Church in Dublin. A crowd had gathered outside the church some hours before the funeral service and it grew more restive as time went by, until some 300 booing and hissing Irishmen blocked the street. When Leitrim's coffin was carried from the church, the crowd surged forward and the chief mourners, the pallbearers and 20 police were pinned against the church wall. The mob made a determined rush to get to Leitrim's body in order to tear it to pieces, but were prevented from doing so by the arrival of police reinforcements. The demonstration continued during the actual burial and the mourners were forced to escape by a side-door.
	Meanwhile, police investigating the murders had what promised to be two good clues. The first of these was a leaf torn from a copybook, but it was found that the copybook had been lost before the murder had taken place. The other clue was several strands of red hair clutched in Leitrim's hand. Word of this clue got around, and by the following day every farmer within a 20-mile radius of the crime had been shaved bald, making it impossible for the police to identify whose hair it may have been.
	Eventually, five suspects were arrested, but the evidence at their trial was so circumstantial that they were all acquitted. Subsequent investigations met with a blank wall of silence and, although there was little doubt that the names of the killers were known to a number of people, no one was ever punished for the murders.
	Francis Patrick Clements, brother of the 5th Earl of Leitrim
	Standard peerage reference works show that Francis Patrick Clements, younger brother of the 5th Earl of Leitrim, died about 20 May 1907, aged only 21. On that date, Clements disappeared from the house in which he was staying, and was never again seen by any of his family and friends.
	The New York Times of 12 July 1907 states that 'The Earl of Leitrim gave an interview this afternoon [11 July] to a reporter who wanted to ask him about the story from America cabled here, that his brother, the Hon. Francis Patrick Clements, had worked his way to New York as a stoker. "My brother," said the Earl, "who is entirely of independent means, was very anxious to make his own living, and leaving home several weeks ago, he said it was his intention to go abroad to get work. He was not in debt or in any trouble when he left, and we have every reason to believe that he is on the American continent. Undoubtedly he has the earnest desire to earn his own living, as he refused to take more than a few pounds with him."
	A further report in the New York Times of 8 March 1908 states that:-
	A man who died at the Kansas City General Hospital on Feb. 19, and was buried unidentified, is believed to have been Francis Patrick Clements, 23 years old, brother and heir of Charles Clements, Earl of Leitrim, Donegal, Ireland. The body was exhumed this afternoon, and it answers the description of Francis Patrick Clements.
	The young man took a room at a lodging house in January. He had little to say of himself except that his home was in England, and that he had come to Kansas City from New York. During his stay at the lodging house he pawned nearly all of his personal effects. He was taken ill of pneumonia, and was removed to the General Hospital, where he died without telling anything further of himself. He went under the name of Herbert Domican.
	Recently a circular letter from the Salvation Army Headquarters in New York City, containing a description of the missing brother of Lord Leitrim, who disappeared in May, 1907, was published. A chambermaid in the rooming house where Domican had stayed recognized the description and informed Salvation Army officials. To-day a photograph and a full description of Clements were received.
	The chambermaid felt sure that the photograph was that of Domican and the body was exhumed. It answered the description.
	In the Melbourne Argus of 8 March 1911, it was reported that "An inquiry is taking place in the Isle of Wight concerning the identity of a body buried in the cemetery of Bonchurch. The man committed suicide, and was buried without any discovery having been made as to who he was. It is now alleged that he was Francis Patrick Clements, second brother of the Earl of Leitrim, and heir presumptive to the title through the death some years ago of his elder brother. Mr Clements has been missing since 1907." The reference to the death of his elder brother must refer to that of Robert Clements, the second son of the 4th Earl of Leitrim - Francis was the third son.
	Yet another report in the New York Times of 20 August 1911 includes the following statements:-
	The Earl of Leitrim's brother, the Hon. Patrick Francis Clements, while serving as a sub-Lieutenant of the royal navy on the Pacific coast of America, became imbued with the conviction that this country was a land of magnificent opportunities, provided one started from the bottom. Accordingly, on returning to England, he resigned from the service and, with a view of preparing himself for his future career over here, secured employment as a dock-hand at Southampton. [Clements was in the Royal Navy between 1898 and 1906.]
	After working there for a time, he shipped as a stoker on board the American liner St. Louis, in June 1907, under the name of Sloan. It is recalled by his fellow stokers that he shovelled coal with a zeal and celerity astonishing in a green hand, and was very popular with them.
	Reaching New York, he was offered a permanent job by the chief engineer of the St. Louis, but declined it on the ground that he intended to work on a cattle ranch. From that day forth, until now, that is to say, for more than four years, nothing has been heard of him, although his brother, Lord Leitrim, has spent many thousands of dollars in searching for his whereabouts.
	In April 1917, the Earl of Leitrim presented a motion to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court for leave to presume the death of his younger brother, as reported in The Times of 3 April 1917:-
	Mr. Bayford, for the applicant (the Earl of Leitrim, brother of the presumed deceased), said that the Hon. Francis Patrick Clements was born in September 1885, and joined the Navy in 1898, and remained in the service until 1906. During most of the time he was stationed on the Pacific coast. In the autumn of 1906 he developed lung trouble, and he retired from the Navy. He went through an open-air cure at Penmaenmawr and he recovered. In the winter of 1906-1907 he lived in London but he hunted in different parts of the country. In the spring of 1907 he was very depressed, and on May 20, 1907, he came up to London from Eggesford, with a sister, and went to stay at the house of a Mrs. Sherlock, in Clapham. On that day he wrote to his sister:-
	"My dear Maude - I cannot stay here any longer, for I am too thoroughly bad through and through to live in a Christian house, for I am no Christian and I simply cannot sit and listen to these true people talking about the Saviour, thinking all the time that I am one of them. I daresay I shall go abroad, but do not expect to hear from me till you see my handwriting. This is fearfully cruel to you after all your love to me and kindness in coming up with me, but you know what a brute I am. It is fearful for Mrs. Sherlock, but it would be worse if I stay on. But cheer up about me for I am all right, and tell those at Eggesford the same. - best love, Paddy." [A similar letter to Mrs. Sherlock was also placed in evidence.]
	Inquiries were instituted at once and the police were communicated with, but no trace of Mr. Clements could be found. The case had been extensively advertised, and it was hoped at one time that Mr. Clements was in America. His banking account had not been dealt with since.
	Mr. Justice Low gave leave to presume the death as having occurred on or since May 20, 1907.
	Clements's presumed death was later confirmed by the High Court of Ireland in January 1957, the judge noting that Clements appeared to be in a very unstable mental condition at the time of his disappearance, and that he had written letters which indicated that he appeared to regard himself as unfit and unworthy to live among Christian people.
	Until about April 2008, there existed a Wikipedia entry on Francis Patrick Clements, which stated that he "was the son of Robert Bermingham Clements, 4th Earl of Leitrim and Lady Winifred Coke. He disappeared from the family house in London on 20 May 1907, following a furious disagreement with the then Earl. He was declared judicially dead in 1917 by the Probate Division. In reality he appears to have died in about 1908 in India, after marrying and producing a son. Although he was the heir apparent, he did not use the courtesy title. He married HRH Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna of Russia on 24 June 1907 in India. The marriage was morganatic. Tsar Nicholas II did not recognise it. Nor did the Clements family.
	This Wikipedia entry was removed around April 2008, presumably because it supplied no references to the information contained within it. In any event, the veracity of the entry is largely undermined by at least three glaring errors.
	* Evidence tendered to the Court at the time of the presumption of death in 1907 showed that Clements had disappeared from the house of Mrs. Sherlock, and not from the family house.
	* At the time of his disappearance he was not the heir apparent to the titles - he was merely the heir presumptive. His older brother, the Earl, was only 27 and married at the time of the disappearance, and any son subsequently born to him would become the heir apparent.
	* Francis Clements, as the brother of the Earl, had no right whatsoever to any courtesy title, which can only be granted to a male heir directly descended from the holder of the title - i.e. a son or grandson of the 5th Earl, but not to a younger brother.
	* Although not impossible, it seems to me to be very unlikely that Clements could leave London on 20 May 1907 and be married in India on 24 June. He would hardly have had time to reach India, let alone find himself a wife, and her a Russian princess?
	If asked to choose between the conflicting theories, my money would be on the man who died in Kansas City from pneumonia, since other evidence shows that Clements had previously suffered from trouble to his lungs … but you pays your money and you takes your choice.
	Lady Arabella Stuart, daughter of Charles Stuart, Earl of Lennox (creation of 1572)
	The following biography of Lady Arabella Stuart appeared in the March 1964 issue of the Australian monthly magazine Parade.
	A courier delivered a message to King James I of England as he sat at dinner in Whitehall Palace on September 25, 1615. "Sire"; he said, "the mad woman in the Tower is dead at last". Such was the epitaph of Arabella Stuart, whose misfortune it was to be of royal blood. For long years before, she had been the helpless pawn in a plot to make her Queen of England on the death of Elizabeth I. Even after James I was established on the throne she was regarded with fear and suspicion, alternately pampered and insulted but always kept a virtual captive. Her desperate attempts to escape her destiny by marrying a powerful protector make a romantic episode in the byways of British history.
	Arabella Stuart was born in 1575, the daughter of Charles Stuart, Earl of Lennox, a direct descendant of Queen Margaret of Scotland, the sister of Henry VIII of England. She was still a beautiful and high-spirited girl when plotters began weaving their schemes around her. Every year it became clearer that Elizabeth of England was unlikely to marry and have children. Her heir in strict succession was James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and Arabella's uncle, Lord Darnley. Arabella Stuart had no shadow of legal claim to be regarded as the Queen's successor, but many English nobles hated the prospect of the throne passing to the sickly, slovenly and contemptible Scottish monarch.
	Flattered and as yet unconscious of her danger, Arabella found herself surrounded by factions who proposed various powerful suitors for her hand. They included King Henri IV of France and the Earl of Northumberland. Nothing came of the schemes but in 1590 Queen Elizabeth was roused to fury by reports that Catholic plotters intended to marry Arabella off to the son of the Duke of Parma and then put her on the throne with the aid of a Spanish invasion. Only two years had passed since the defeat of the Armada. The threat of Spain still hung heavily over England and Elizabeth's council reacted with ruthless vigour. The bewildered 15-year-old Arabella was seized by order of the Privy Council and hustled away to Hardwick House, the great Derbyshire mansion of her grandmother, the Dowager Countess of Shrewsbury.
	Hardwick, with its 700-acre deer park and towering walls, was to be her prison for the next 12 years. The countess, an old dragon who had been married four times and was known as Bess of Hardwick, was an unrelenting gaoler. Arabella grew up in lonely seclusion like a precious flower blossoming in a desert, according to one romantic chronicler. She was watched and spied on continually and few visitors were allowed to enter Hardwick House. All her childish visions of thrones and royal suitors had ended in bitter disillusion. She now dreamed only of escape, but first she had to find a rescuer powerful and chivalrous enough to brave the wrath of Queen Elizabeth.
	Arabella had almost been forgotten when in 1602 she smuggled a letter to the Earl of Hertford, head of the Seymour family, offering to wed his grandson in exchange for the earl's protection. For months previously she had been planning to escape from Hardwick with the aid of her devoted chaplain, Thomas Starkey. But Hertford would have no part in the perilous scheme. He promptly revealed the letter to the Privy Council. Starkey killed himself when the escape plan was foiled and Arabella was transferred to even more rigorous captivity at Wrest House in Bedfordshire.
	But deliverance was near. On March 24, 1603, Queen Elizabeth died. A courier galloped off to Edinburgh to inform James VI of Scotland that he was now James I of England. Not a voice was raised to claim the throne for Arabella Stuart. By the time James reached London in May any fears of a rising in support of her had vanished. But two more years passed before the timid king allowed her to leave Wrest and appear at the court in Whitehall.
	Arabella Stuart was then 30 and in the prime of her dazzling beauty. She was "bold, witty and amorous", an expert musician, and she spoke Latin, French, Spanish and Italian fluently. Soon she had a train of ardent admirers among the aristocrats at the court. She had inherited little money from her father, the Earl of Lennox, and her extravagance rapidly piled up a mountain of debts which she disregarded with regal disdain. After the years of neglect and humiliation her pride revived with her conquests. "Her fairness and accomplishments are truly remarkable", wrote the Venetian ambassador Scaramelli. "But she holds very exalted ideas of her relation to His Majesty." She insisted on being treated as a royal princess and outraged court officials by trying to claim precedence over the king's own children until James protested angrily that she had "grown into a notorious termagant". Arabella was further embittered by the king's violent opposition to her marrying. "It is necessary for State policy that the woman be content to stay a maid and bear no heirs", one of the royal councillors warned him.
	The prospect of perpetual spinsterhood had little appeal for Arabella. In 1609 she made her first bid for freedom and tried to flee to Scotland with Sir George Douglas, only to be seized from her coach on the road and brought ignominiously back to London. King James promised her an annual pension of £1600 and 10,000 crowns to pay her debts if she would behave thereafter. But within a year she had vanished into the arms of another lover. This time her choice was William Seymour, grandson of the Earl of Hertford and brother of the boy she had offered to marry when she was a prisoner at Hardwick. Seymour was a suitor who had been specially forbidden by King James to have anything to do with Arabella because of his family's remote kinship with the royal line. In February 1610 the Privy Council extorted a promise from the couple that they would never marry.
	But on June 22 Arabella and Seymour took a boat down the Thames to Greenwich and were secretly wed. Only a few weeks later they were betrayed and arrested, Seymour being hurried to a dungeon in the Tower. His new wife was confined in Lambeth Palace, where she languished for nine months, vainly bombarding the king with abject pleas for mercy and demands for a writ of habeas corpus. "She has eaten of the forbidden fruit. Her wanton blood must be reduced!" said James coldly. Early in 1611 he ordered that she be sent to the custody of the Bishop of Durham, far away in the north of England.
	She set out with her escort in March but got only as far as Barnett in Middlesex before she collapsed from sickness and despair. There were rumours that she had given birth to a child but, if so, the fact was never publicly made known. The king allowed her to return to London and she remained in apathetic gloom until, in June 1611, she was dramatically roused by the news that Seymour had escaped from the Tower and was being aided to flee to France. Once more she eluded her gaolers. Disguised in male clothing and with a handful of faithful friends she made her way to the coast and succeeded in boarding a ship bound for Calais.
	By a coincidence worthy of romantic fiction the ships bearing Arabella and her husband met in mid-channel and drew so close that she could see Seymour standing wrapped in his cloak on deck. Then, according to the contemporary account of her life, "a great wind arose and prevented them from seeing each other ever more". Seymour's ship fought its way on in the teeth of the storm to Ostend. The other was driven back on the English coast. Before Arabella had the chance to embark again her identity was discovered and she was arrested and handed over to the royal officers.
	The king's wrath was implacable. She begged to be allowed to join her husband in exile. The queen and many powerful courtiers added their pleas for mercy. Tears and prayers were equally fruitless. Though James shrank from the final brutality of having Arabella beheaded, he was determined that she should become dead to the world of busy, intriguing humanity.
	So Arabella Stuart made her journey down the Thames by barge, beneath the grim battlements of Traitors Gate and into the Tower of London. There, a pitiful victim of the "State policy" of dynastic kings, she lingered out the four remaining years of her life. It became dangerous to even mention her name at the court of Whitehall. She was permitted considerable comfort in her quarters in the Tower but visitors found her declining rapidly into weakness and despair. Her once-radiant beauty had disappeared. She scarcely touched food and drink. Gradually her melancholy deepened into madness and she was reported hopelessly insane when death ended her woes on September 25, 1615.
	Once she was dead and no longer an object of fear, King James could afford to be magnanimous. Her body was brought from the Tower with great pomp and buried beside the magnificent tomb of Mary Queen of Scots in Westminster Abbey. A year later her husband, William Seymour, felt it safe to return to England, where he was received with favour by the king and found a completely acceptable second wife in the daughter of the Earl of Essex.
	William Hesketh Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme, of The Western Isles in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty
	I have deliberately included the full wording shown in the London Gazette in relation to Lord Leverhulme's promotion to a viscountcy in 1922. Following the creation of the viscounty, there appeared this article in The Times on 3 February 1923:-
	The protest of the Gaelic Society of Inverness against the assumption by Lord Leverhulme of the title "of the Western Isles" was communicated to the Prime Minister.
	Mr. Bonar Law's secretary, in acknowledging the resolution, says that the Prime Minister, in consequence of other letters which he received, containing representations similar to those made by the Gaelic Society, caused inquiry to be made recently, and finds that the King had approved a submission, based on the recommendation of the College of Arms, under which Lord Leverhulme was created "Viscount Leverhulme of the Western Isles in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty", and Letters-Patent were issued accordingly. In these circumstances Mr. Bonar Law regrets that it is now too late to take any action in regard to the matter; but he points out that Lord Leverhulme's title, as approved, is "Viscount Leverhulme" and that the addition of the words "of the Western Isles in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty", is a descriptive designation which does not form part of the title itself.
	Our Edinburgh correspondent states that it was hoped by the Highland Societies that Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon King of Arms in Scotland, would take cognizance of the matter. He has stated that the title "Lord of the Isles" belonged to the Prince of Wales, and that it was unfortunate that the style of dignity to be conferred on Lord Leverhulme was not submitted to the Scottish Court of Heraldry.
	Unfortunately for the credibility of the above article, it makes one major error. Reference to the London Gazette of 12 December 1922 [issue 32776, page 8793] shows an entry which reads "William Hesketh, Baron Leverhulme, to be Viscount Leverhulme, of The Western Isles, in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty". The difference between the title shown in the London Gazette and the article above is small, but absolutely vital - i.e. the presence of a comma after "Viscount Leverhulme".
	Whenever a peerage is created, the patent for the creation contains a territorial designation. In this instance, the words "of The Western Isles, in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty" are the territorial designation, and such words do not form part of the peerage title. The title in this case is merely Viscount Leverhulme, i.e. the words preceding the comma.
	But, I hear you say, there are any number of peerages where the title is in the form of "Lord X of Y." Many of these titles have been chosen by the person receiving the peerage. For example, many former MPs who have been raised to the peerage have incorporated into their titles the constituency they formerly represented; others choose to include their place of birth or residence in their titles. But by far the most common reason, at least in modern times, for the form "Lord (or Lady) X of Y" is to distinguish between two or more peerages of the same name. For example, as at February 2013, there are four Barons Smith and two Baronesses Smith, each of whom have additional words in their title so as to distinguish between them. Even with this additional wording, each of them has a territorial designation - for example, Baron Smith of Clifton is "Baron Smith of Clifton, of Mountsandel in the County of Londonderry", but his title is only that portion before the comma. An example of a peerage title incorporating a former MP's constituency is Baron Howell of Guildford, who is "Baron Howell of Guildford, of Penton Mewsey in the County of Hampshire", but, again, his title is only that portion before the comma - i.e. Baron Howell of Guildford.
	Thomas Francis Anson, 3rd Earl of Lichfield
	The 3rd Earl's death and the resultant inquest were reported in the Daily Telegraph on 31 July 1918:-
	A painful impression was created throughout the Midlands this morning by the news that the Earl of Lichfield, who had been in residence at Shugborough Hall, his Staffordshire residence, had been found dead. His lordship had gone out shooting, and as he had not returned at nine o'clock a gamekeeper went to look for him. He found the earl's body in the river, not far from the hall. There was a gun-shot wound in the head, and a gun was found by his side. Lord Lichfield was one of the best-known and most highly respected public men in the county.
	The Stafford correspondent of the Staffordshire Sentinel writes: It appears, from the police reports that last (Monday) night the Earl went out for wild duck shooting. He had asked that dinner should be put off until 8.15 p.m. As the Earl had not returned by nine p.m. search was made for him, and a gamekeeper named Hines found the body lying in the water by the side of the mere which runs through Shugborough Park.
	The inquest was held by the Stafford coroner at Shugborough Hall last night. The body was identified by deceased's son, the Hon. Arthur Augustus Anson, of Montagu-square, London, who last saw his father alive in town on Thursday last. Deceased had intimated to Lady Lichfield his intention of shooting a couple of wild duck, and the body was found at a favourite spot resorted to for the purpose.
	Alice Wilson, housekeeper at the Hall, spoke to seeing Lord Lichfield cross the lawn about seven and proceed in the direction of the river.
	Evidence as to the search for the body was given by a gamekeeper, James Hines. Lady Lichfield accompanied him in the search. His lordship was missed when he did not return for dinner at 8.15. Witness found his hat on the riverbank and the body was then discovered lying face downwards in the water, with a gun by the side. The body was cold, and Lord Lichfield had apparently fallen straight in. Both barrels of the gum had been loaded, and cartridge was discharged. The weapon had not been held close to the face, but the shot had spread.
	Dr. Bull concurred with the last witness in the belief that deceased either tripped or slipped, the ground at the spot being uneven and mossy.
	A verdict of accidental death from a gunshot wound in the neck and face was returned, the jury adding an expression of sympathy with Lady Lichfield and the family.
	The successful claim to the Earldom of Lindsay in 1878
	The Times of 8 April 1878 reported on the proceedings before the House of Lords Committee for Privileges, including the following:-
	This was the claim of Sir John Trotter Bethune, of Kilconquhar, in the county of Fife, to the honours and dignities of Earl of Lindsay, Viscount Garnock, and Lord Lindsay of the Byres &c., in the Peerage of Scotland. Evidence in support of the claim was given last year.
	Mr. Fleming, Q.C. [for the claimant] proceeded to sum up the case on behalf of the claimant. The peerage of the lordship of Lindsay was in existence in 1464 in the person of John Lord Lindsay, and in the Decreet of Ranking made in 1606, the then Lord Lindsay of Byres was placed at the head of the Lords of Parliament. The Peerage descended through an elder branch of the family until the heirs male of the body of the first Lord Lindsay were exhausted in the person of George, 14th Lord Lindsay and sixth Earl Lindsay and Crawford, who died without issue in 1808. The other Peerages claimed had been conferred from time to time upon the Lords of Lindsay. The petitioner claims through William of Pyotson, the second son of Patrick, the fourth Lord Lindsay.
	The Lord Advocate [William Watson, later Baron Watson] summed up the case on behalf of the Crown, and, having adverted to the limitations of the different peerages claimed, stated that it was not his intention to go minutely into the question of pedigree, because the proof of the pedigree generally appeared to be as satisfactory as could be expected in a case where the descent was traced from so remote a period. The learned counsel proceeded to indicate a few points where some doubt might be entertained of the sufficiency of the evidence extinguishing the different lines prior to that of the petitioner, but stated that he had no objections to raise to the sufficiency of that evidence on the part of the Crown.
	The Lord Chancellor [Lord Cairns], in moving that the Committee resolve that the petitioner had established his claim, said that the pedigree of the petitioner had been made out as satisfactorily as could be expected where the peerage was so ancient as that of Lord Lindsay of the Byres. The Lord Advocate, in the exercise of his duty, had adverted to the weaker points in the proof of the pedigree, but in his opinion they were not of such a character as would lead the Committee to decide that the claim had not been established. There was only one point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee, and that was as to the date to be assigned to the Barony of Lindsay. There was a presumption undoubtedly that is was in existence in 1445, but the earliest date at which they had authentic information of its existence was 1464. He, therefore, suggested that, in accordance with the practice of the Committee, the resolution should take the form that the claimant was entitled to succeed to the peerages claimed as heir male of the body of the
	The Committee then resolved that the petitioner had established his right to all the peerages he claimed.
	The claim to the Earldom of Lindsay which was featured in Australian newspapers in 1913
	Reference to Burke's Peerage will show that, on the death of the 10th Earl of Lindsay in 1894, the peerages were inherited by the late Earl's second cousin once removed, David Clark Bethune. The same reference work also reveals that the 10th Earl had a younger brother, Henry James Hamilton Bethune, who is shown as having died at Marseilles on 5 July 1862 at the young age of 28.
	The first intimation of any claim to the title appeared in a number of Australian papers in January 1913. The following typical report is taken from The West Australian of 17 January of that year.
	In an unpretentious wooden villa at Albert Park [an inner suburb of Melbourne], surrounded by flower beds intersected by a vine trellis, lives a distinguished-looking old gentleman, who, according to his statement, is the rightful Earl of Lindsay, the head of the famous Scottish family of that name. Three years ago he married the widow of the late Mr. John Close, of South Africa. For three years Mrs. Bethune Lindsay remained in ignorance of her husband's birth. Then, by some chance, she found in Burke's Peerage that Henry James Hamilton, the second son of the Earl of Lindsay, born on 8th June, 1834, died at Marseilles on July 5, 1862, leaving no issue. Mrs. Lindsay taxed her husband with his ancestry, and he admitted it. Mrs. Lindsay says that Henry James Hamilton did not die at Marseilles, although he came near to it, but his cousin, David Clark Bethune, has assumed, and according to De Brett [sic], assumed without official authority the surname and arms of Bethune in lieu of those of Lindsay [this is confirmed in his entry in 'Burke's Peerage'].
	"I may", began the claimant in an interview today, "begin with the explanation that it is only a very strange series of circumstances that has caused me to break the silence of many years. To make the whole thing clear let me say that when I was about 10 years of age I joined the Royal Navy in the capacity of a midshipman. Later on, when I had risen to the rank of lieutenant, I served under my uncle Admiral Bethune [1802-1884]. After a bad smash I returned to England, and a strong attachment sprang up between a little lady and myself. My family considered her beneath me, and made my life well nigh unbearable. Three medical men said I would never be strong again, and to make a long story short, I came to Australia five years later.
	"I went as overseer to a station, Cannawigra [there is today a cattle breeding operation at Cannawigra, in South Australia]. During my stay there I received a copy of 'The Scotsman', which contained a photograph of my brother, the tenth Earl of Lindsay, who died in 1894. At about the same time a gentleman named Hayes visited Australia with the object of trying to locate me, it having come to the knowledge of my family that I had not died, as stated in Burke's Peerage, at Marseilles in 1862. My identity was unknown to Mr. Hayes. I met him several times, and learned from him first hand about his quest. He little thought, I suppose, that I was the long-lost member of the family. I am an old man, and the loneliness used to affect me when I lived in Gippsland [a district of the state of Victoria]. I could not stand it without a change, and so I came to Melbourne for a holiday and stayed at a boarding-house, and among the other lodgers was the lady who is now my wife. I never expected to marry, and even though I have a partner now I will never have a son. I never had any intention of publishing to the world the story of my chequered career, but for the sake of my wife I have yielded reluctantly to the actual position being made known. The present Earl is my cousin, but he holds the position without official authority. I expect to leave for England in March, and on my arrival in the old land I will do my best to find old folks who might possibly remember me, and to make myself known to the remnants of my family."
	It appears, however, that the claimant did nothing to progress his claim. On his death in June 1921 the Australian papers revived public interest in this story. The following report which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 28 June 1921 is typical:-
	Stories of missing heirs are generally confined between the covers of a novel, and it is seldom that they occur in real life. Through the death in a Melbourne lodging house on Saturday [i.e. 25 June 1921] of Mr. Henry Hamilton Bethune (or Lindsay) an interesting account of the life of the last of a generation has been given. 'Mr. Lindsay', by which name he was generally known, was the second son of Sir Henry Lindsay-Bethune, 9th Earl of Lindsay, or Kilconquhar, in Fifeshire, Scotland, and was born in 1834. His father (the Earl of Lindsay) was 8th Viscount of Garnock, and 18th Lord Lindsay of the Byres, and was born in 1787. Entering the service of the East India Company at an early age, he, being then Major Lindsay, was sent from Madras to Persia to assist Abbas Mirza, the Crown Prince, in organising his artillery. Major Lindsay became celebrated throughout the empire for ability and gallantry. He served subsequently as accredited agent to the Court of Persia, and on his return was created a baronet in March, 1836, in acknowledgement of his services. He became 9th Earl of Lindsay, etc., de jure in 1839. He married, in July 1822, Coutts, daughter of John Trotter, of Durham Park. She died in December, 1877. Sir Henry Lindsay-Bethune died in February, 1851.
	The second son of the Earl of Lindsay (the Mr. Lindsay of this notice) went to sea with the Royal Navy when a lad, and in the course of time he went to France, where it was supposed he died from cholera. When about 30 years of age "Mr. Lindsay" came to Australia, and after a time went to Gippsland, where he was employed by a Mr. McLeod. From Gippsland he afterwards went to Queensland. In the meantime his father died, and his elder brother, John, in 1878 succeeded to the title of 10th Earl of Lindsay [see the previous note]. John died in 1894, leaving no children, and was succeeded by his cousin, David Clark Bethune, it having been thought, as already stated, that Henry had died at Marseilles without issue. Henry preferred the obscure life upon which he was now embarked, but in his later years he was in straitened circumstances, and died at a house in Gower-street, Kensington. He was of retiring disposition, and made very few friends, but Dr. and Mrs. W.H. Lang (Dr. Lang is a native of Fifeshire) took an interest in the old man.
	Mr. Lindsay recently expressed a wish that he should be buried with his ancestors, and toward fulfilment of that purpose he made arrangements to go to England. But he suddenly became ill, and died at the age of 86. He was buried in the Coburg Cemetery.

	Copyright © 2003-2018 Leigh Rayment
	Copyright © 2020-2024 Helen Belcher OBE