that it was impossible there should have been such a monument,
but he thought it highly improbable: and upon being repeat-
edly pressed to say, whether he would positively assert, that there
was no such monument affixed at the place in question, he declined
doing so, but contented himself with repeating what he had before
stated, adding, that he had never heard any person speak of a
monument to the memory of the honorable Christopher Leigh as
having been in the church at Stoneley.

It was afterwards stated to me by Lionel Place, esq. the present
high sheriff for the county of Warwick, that he had formerly, upon
more occasions than one, heard the said Mr. Roberts speak of a
monument to the memory of the honorable Christopher Leigh as
having been in the church at Stoneley, and which he, Mr. Roberts
said, had been removed.

Upon the whole of this case, although I am very far from being
satisfied that Roger Leigh of Haigh, from whom the Petitioner
derives his descent, was the son of the honorable Christopher Leigh,
and think for the reasons above mentioned, the statement extremely
improbable,-yet, as the existence of the supposed monument has
been asserted by so many witnesses, who have stated, that they had
repeatedly seen it, and read the inscription, (the effect of which I
have above humbly stated to your Majesty) I have considered, that
I should best discharge my duty, by recommending to your Majesty
(if your Majesty should be so pleased) that the Claimant's petition
should be submitted to the house of lords for their consideration, in
order that their lordships may examine the same, and certify to
your Majesty, their opinion thereon.

All which I humbly submit to your Majesty's royal wisdom.
J. S. COPLEY.

(signed)

Serjeants' Inn, 25th of April, 1826.

No. 7.

INDEX TO THE DRAWINGS.

No. 1.

Exterior south view of the parish church of Stoneley, before
the alterations.

The south wall was taken down under the pretence that it was
crooked, and in so delapidated a state as to be in danger of falling

outwards, although supported by the porch and three massive buttresses. Mr. Richard Darley, who was actively employed in superintending the alterations, in his very elaborate written evidence forwarded to the attorney general (which having been rejected is not set forth in the report) gives the following deplorable account of the state of the church, at that time:-he says "in consequence "of being the land steward of the late rev. Thomas Leigh, of Stoneley Abbey, I did some time previous to the year 1810, "attend him and his law agent and auditor of accounts, the late "Mr. Hill, of Saville Row, London, who afterwards resided in New "Burlington Street, on a view they took of Stoneley church, when "their attention was chiefly occupied in viewing the pews and pav"ing, which were in the most ruinous state. Mr. Hill desired I "would attend a few sundays during service, and notice whether it "appeared that the sittings were sufficient for the accommodation "of the parishioners, and if not, to encourage them, not only to "new pew and pave the whole, but to enlarge the sittings by con"tracting the wide aisles; and to forward this improvement, he "allowed me to assure them, that Mr. Leigh would contribute libe"rally towards the expence. This was all that I recollect to have passed at the time.

66

Upon this, several meetings of the parishioners took place, and "I mentioned to them what I was authorized to say, and a commit"tee was appointed to consider what was most advisable to be done, "and to carry the resolutions into effect. After several meetings "had been held, it appeared upon examination, that both the principal roof and that to the side aisle were in a dangerous state,― one beam in the former being broken, the boarding under the "lead with the rafters in several parts decayed,-and as the lead. "required to be re-cast, that it would be absolutely necessary to "secure and repair the principal roof, which by the expansion in its "width, had bulged the wall of the south aisle, so that it over-hung on the outside considerably, and take down and re-build the wall "before the church was new pewed and paved."

To accomplish these very desirable alterations, Mr. Darley states, that "Mr. Leigh contributed £300, a great part of the timber, "with leave to dig stone, &c." and the wall was forthwith taken down as hereafter related; yet the new pewing and paving, which had primarily been the object proposed, was not commenced until after the year 1820, owing to "the difficulty of raising money by "parochial levies."

To show the fallacy of the foregoing statement it is necessary to observe, that the church had originally consisted only of a nave and chancel, the side aisle having, at some subsequent period, been added thereto; the principal roof therefore, which Mr. Darley reports to have "bulged the wall of the south aisle," could not have done so, without having likewise "bulged" the intermediate wall upon which it rested, which does not appear to have been the case, as it underwent no repair, nor was it found necessary to take off the main roof, although its expansion, as stated, was the cause of the apprehended disaster, and the "broken beam" from which danger was anticipated, yet remains (with a trifling repair) a record of its strength and the truth of this replicative position.

It is likewise worthy of remark, that the defect proposed to be remedied by the repair, has only been very partially effected, so much only of the wall having been taken down as would cause the removal of the monuments, and a small portion at the west end, by reason whereof, a length of about fourteen feet, including the centre window, still" bulges" about twelve inches from a straight line -besides being out of the perpendicular, yet does not appear to be considered at all dangerous, although unsupported as formerly. John Allcott, the mason who was employed in making the alteration, and who a few years since was examined involuntarily before one of the aldermen of Coventry, stated, that "to have made a "workmanlike job of it, more of the wall ought to have been taken "down, but the parish officers (among whom was Mr. Darley) "would not incur any further expence.'

No. 2.

"

Interior view of the south wall of Stoneley church before the alterations, with the Leigh and Webster monuments thereon.

No. 3.

Interior view of the south side of Stoneley church, after the alterations.

By enlarging the window at the east end, and bringing it nearer the centre one, the distance between them has been considerably diminished. The monument to Mr. Webster having alone been replaced as there represented.

No.

Ground plan of Stoneley Abbey,

Illustrative of the evidence of John Wilcooks and others, see report, appendix page 47 et seq.

No. 5.

Ground plan of Stoneley church before the alterations.

The entrance was then at the porch on the south side. The pulpit and reading desk on the north side, marked A. with the two monuments nearly opposite (B and C.) It is not a little singular that the rev. gentleman, who for twenty years performed duty there, (vide report, appendix, page 57) and who upon his examination could repeat the inscription upon Mr. Webster's monument, should be so deficient in his recollection as to the Leigh monument, as neither to remember it, or be able positively to assert, that it had not had existence.

No. 6.

Ground plan of Stoneley church after the alterations.

The buttresses and porch on the south side have been removed and the entrance there stopped up. The pews at that part of the south side where the monument was affixed, have been, for no ostensible reason, re-built with the backs to the wall.-Indeed the whole of the alterations are of that nature as would tend very much to confuse the recollection as to its former appearance. This is an exact copy of the plan furnished by Mr. Darley, in August, 1820, as stated thereon in his own hand writing, "shewing the proposed 66 new pews, &c."

THE FAC-SIMILES

Are for the identification of the honorable Francis Willoughby as a witness to the will of Roger Leigh.-The copy of the attestation to the will, certified by Mr. Ward, deputy registrar of the episcopal court at Chester; the other signature is copied from a deed, of which the following is the preamble and certification."This indenture, made the 7th of October, an. dom. 1703, and in the second year of the reign of our sovereign, lady Ann, queen, defender of the faith, &c. between John Bradley, of Rivington, in the county of Lancaster, schoolmaster, and Thomas Waddington,

of Heath Charnock, in the said county, yeoman, of the one part, and the honorable Francis Willoughby, of Horwich, in the said county, esquire, Alexander Waddington, son and heir apparent of him the said Thomas Waddington, John Sale, of Rivington, aforesaid, chapman, Richard Brownlow, of Rivington, aforesaid, yeoman, and John Morris, son and heir apparent of John Morris of Brookhouse, in Anglezark, in the said county, yeoman, of the other part."

The above preamble and simile of the signature of the hon. Francis Willoughby, are taken from the original deed of conveyance in possession of Mr. Thomas Lowe and Mr. John Shaw, both of Rivington, in the said county of Lancaster, the only surviving trustees for the chapel at Rivington, aforesaid, and examined by us, the 2nd of March, 1826.

Signed in the presence of-And. Taylor.

(signed)

Thomas Lowe.

John Shaw, jun.