PEERAGE
			Last updated 10/07/2010
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
			LEICESTER OF HOLKHAM
12 Aug 1837	E	1	Thomas William Coke	6 May 1754	30 Jun 1842	88
			Created Viscount Coke and Earl of
			Leicester of Holkham 12 Aug 1837
			MP for Norfolk 1776-1784, 1790-1807 and
			1807-1832, and Derbyshire 1806-1807.
30 Jun 1842		2	Thomas William Coke	26 Dec 1822	24 Jan 1909	86
			Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1846-1906.  KG 1873
24 Jan 1909		3	Thomas William Coke	20 Jul 1848	19 Nov 1941	93
			Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1906-1929
19 Nov 1941		4	Thomas William Coke	9 Jul 1880	21 Aug 1949	69
			Lord Lieutenant Norfolk 1944-1949
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
			LEIGH
1 Jul 1643	B	1	Sir Thomas Leigh,2nd baronet	1595	24 Feb 1672	76
			Created Baron Leigh 1 Jul 1643
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		5	Edward Leigh	1 Mar 1742	4 Jun 1786	44
to			Peerage extinct on his death
4 Jun 1786
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 May 1839	B	1	Chandos Leigh	27 Jun 1791	27 Sep 1850	59
			Created Baron Leigh 11 May 1839
			For further information on the Leigh peerage
			claim, see the note at the foot of this page.
27 Sep 1850		2	William Henry Leigh	17 Jan 1824	21 Oct 1905	81
			Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1856-1905.
			PC 1895
21 Oct 1905		3	Francis Dudley Leigh	30 Jul 1855	16 May 1938	82
			Lord Lieutenant Warwick 1921-1938
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
			LEIGHTON OF ST.MELLONS
25 Jan 1962	B	1	George Leighton Seager	11 Jan 1896	17 Oct 1963	67
			Created Baron Leighton of St.Mellons
			25 Jan 1962
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
			LEIGHTON OF STRETTON
24 Jan 1896	B	1	Sir Frederic Leighton,1st baronet	3 Dec 1830	25 Jan 1896	65
to			Created Baron Leighton of Stretton
25 Jan 1896			24 Jan 1896
			President of the Royal Academy 1878-1896
			Peerage extinct on his death (the shortest-
			lived peerage on record)
			LEINSTER
3 Mar 1646	E[I]	1	Robert Cholmondeley	26 Jun 1584	2 Oct 1659	75
to			Created Viscount Cholmondeley [I]
2 Oct 1659			2 Jul 1628,Baron Cholmondeley
			1 Sep 1648 and Earl of Leinster
			3 Mar 1646
			Peerages extinct on his death
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Mar 1691	D[I]	1	Meinhardt Schomberg		16 Jul 1719
to			Created Baron Tara,Earl of Bangor
16 Jul 1719			and Duke of Leinster 3 Mar 1691
			He succeeded to the Dukedom of Schomberg
			(qv) in 1693
			Peerage extinct on his death
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Sep 1721	E[L]	1	Charlotte Sophia Kielmansegge	c 1673	20 Apr 1725
to			Created Countess of Leinster for life
20 Apr 1725			11 Sep 1721
			Mistress of George I
			She was later (1722) created Baroness of Brentford
			and Countess of Darlington (qqv). All peerages
			became extinct on her death.
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Nov 1766	D[I]	1	James FitzGerald,Earl of Kildare	29 May 1722	19 Nov 1773	51
			Created Viscount Leinster 21 Feb 1747,
			Earl of Offaly and Marquess of
			Kildare 3 Mar 1761 and Duke of
			Leinster 26 Nov 1766
			PC [I] 1746
19 Nov 1773		2	William Robert FitzGerald	13 Mar 1749	20 Oct 1804	55
			PC [I] 1777  KP 1783
20 Oct 1804		3	Augustus Frederick FitzGerald	21 Aug 1791	10 Oct 1874	83
			Lord Lieutenant Kildare 1831-1874.  PC [I] 1831
			PC 1831
10 Oct 1874		4	Charles William FitzGerald	30 Mar 1819	10 Feb 1887	67
			Created Baron Kildare 3 May 1870
			MP for Kildare 1847-1852.  PC [I] 1879
10 Feb 1887		5	Gerald FitzGerald	16 Aug 1851	1 Dec 1893	42
			PC [I] 1888. Lord Lieutenant Kildare 1892-1893
1 Dec 1893		6	Maurice FitzGerald	1 Mar 1887	4 Feb 1922	34
4 Feb 1922		7	Edward FitzGerald	6 May 1892	8 Mar 1976	83
			For further information on this peer, see the note
			at the foot of this page.
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]	1	Alexander Park Leitch	20 Oct 1947
			Created Baron Leitch 7 Jun 2004
			LEITH
18 Dec 1905	B	1	Alexander John Forbes-Leith	6 Aug 1847	14 Nov 1925	78
to			Created Baron Leith 18 Dec 1905
14 Nov 1925			Peerage extinct on his death
			LEITRIM
30 Apr 1583	B[I]	1	John de Burgh	c 1557	11 Nov 1583
			Created Baron Leitrim 30 Apr 1583
11 Nov 1583		2	John de Burgh		c 1600
to			He was attainted and the peerage forfeited
c 1600
			---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Oct 1795	E[I]	1	Robert Clements	25 Nov 1732	27 Jul 1804	71
			Created Baron Leitrim 11 Oct 1783,
			Viscount Leitrim 20 Dec 1793 and
			Earl of Leitrim 6 Oct 1795
			PC [I] 1802
27 Jul 1804		2	Nathaniel Clements	9 May 1768	31 Dec 1854	86
			Created Baron Clements 20 Jun 1831
			MP for Leitrim 1800-1804. Lord Lieutenant
			Leitrim 1831-1854  KP 1834. PC [I] 1834
31 Dec 1854		3	William Sydney Clements	17 Oct 1806	2 Apr 1878	71
			MP for Leitrim 1839-1847.
			For further information on this peer, see the
			note at the foot of this page.
2 Apr 1878		4	Robert Bermingham Clements	5 Mar 1847	5 Apr 1892	45
5 Apr 1892		5	Charles Clements	23 Jun 1879	9 Jun 1952	72
to			Lord Lieutenant Londonderry City 1904-1921
9 Jun 1952			Peerages extinct [or possibly dormant] on his death
			For information on the disappearance of the
			Earl's younger brother and heir presumptive,see
			note at the foot of this page
			LENNOX
c 1180	E[S]	1	David of Scotland
to			Created Earl of Lennox c 1180
c 1184			He probably resigned the peerage c 1184
			-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1184	E[S]	1	Alwyn		c 1200
			Created Earl of Lennox c 1184
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 favor of -
1385		8	Duncan	c 1350	25 May 1425
25 May 1425		9	Isabel Stewart		1459
to			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	E[S]	1	Charles Stuart	1556	1576	20
to			Created Lord Darnley and Earl of
1576			Lennox 18 Apr 1572
			Peerages extinct on his death
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Jun 1578	E[S]	1	Robert Stuart	c 1515	29 Mar 1586
to			Created Lord Darnley and Earl of
1580			Lennox 16 Jun 1578
			He resigned the peerages in 1580
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Aug 1581	D[S]	1	Esme Stuart	c 1542	26 May 1583
			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
26 May 1583		2	Ludovic Stuart	29 Sep 1574	16 Feb 1624	49
			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
16 Feb 1624		3	Esme Stuart	1579	30 Jul 1624	45
			Created Baron Stuart of Leighton
			Bromswold and Earl of March
			7 Jun 1619
			Lord Lieutenant Haddington 1612. KG 1624
30 Jul 1624		4	James Stuart,Duke of Richmond	6 Apr 1612	30 Mar 1655	42
30 Mar 1655		5	Esme Stuart,Duke of Richmond	2 Nov 1649	10 Aug 1660	10
10 Aug 1660		6	Charles Stuart,Duke of Richmond	7 Mar 1640	12 Dec 1672	32
to			Peerages extinct on his death
12 Dec 1672
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Aug 1675	D	1	Charles Lennox	29 Jul 1672	27 May 1723	50
			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"
			LEOMINSTER
12 Apr 1692	B	1	Sir William Fermor,2nd baronet	3 Aug 1648	7 Dec 1711	63
			Created Baron Leominster 12 Apr 1692
7 Dec 1711		2	Thomas Fermor
			He was created Earl of Pomfret (qv) in 1721
			with which title this peerage then merged
			LEONARD
2 May 1978	B[L]	1	John Denis Leonard	19 Oct 1909	17 Jul 1983	73
to			Created Baron Leonard for life 2 May 1978
17 Jul 1983			Peerage extinct on his death
			LESLIE
1445	B[S]	1	George Leslie		c 1490
			Created Lord Leslie 1445 and Earl of
			Rothes 1457
			See "Rothes"
			-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 May 1680	E[S]	1	John Leslie,Earl of Rothes	1630	27 Jul 1681	51
to			Created Lord Auchmoutie and
27 Jul 1681			Caskieberry,Viscount of Lugtoun,Earl
			of Leslie,Marquess of Ballinbrieich
			and Duke of Rothes
			Peerage extinct on his death
			LESTER OF HERNE HILL
13 Oct 1993	B[L]	1	Anthony Paul Lester	3 Jul 1936
			Created Baron Lester of Herne Hill
			13 Oct 1993
			LESTOR OF ECCLES
4 Jun 1997	B[L]	1	Joan Lestor	13 Nov 1931	27 Mar 1998	66
to			Created Baroness Lestor of Eccles
27 Mar 1998			4 Jun 1997
			MP for Eton and Slough 1966-1983 and
			Eccles 1987-1997
			Peerage extinct on her death
			LEVEN
11 Oct 1641	E[S]	1	Alexander Leslie	c 1580	4 Apr 1661
			Created Lord Balgonie and Earl of
			Leven 11 Oct 1641
4 Apr 1661		2	Alexander Leslie	c 1637	15 Jul 1664
15 Jul 1664		3	Margaret Montgomery		6 Nov 1674
6 Nov 1674		4	Catherine Leslie	c 1663	21 Jan 1676
to			On her death the peerage became dormant
21 Jan 1676
1681		5	David Leslie	5 May 1660	6 Jun 1728	68
			He succeeded to the Earldom of Melville
			in 1707 since which time the titles have
			been merged
6 Jun 1728		6	David Leslie	17 Dec 1717	Jun 1729	11
Jun 1729		7	Alexander Leslie	c 1699	2 Sep 1754
2 Sep 1754		8	David Leslie	4 Mar 1722	9 Jun 1802	80
9 Jun 1802		9	Alexander Leslie-Melville	7 Nov 1749	22 Feb 1820	70
22 Feb 1820		10	David Leslie-Melville	22 Jun 1785	8 Oct 1860	75
8 Oct 1860		11	John Thornton Leslie-Melville	18 Dec 1786	16 Sep 1876	89
16 Sep 1876		12	Alexander Leslie-Melville	11 Jan 1817	22 Oct 1889	72
22 Oct 1889		13	Ronald Ruthven Leslie-Melville	19 Dec 1835	21 Aug 1906	70
			PC 1902  KT 1905
21 Aug 1906		14	John David Leslie-Melville	5 Apr 1886	11 Jun 1913	27
11 Jun 1913		15	Archibald Alexander Leslie-Melville	6 Aug 1890	15 Jan 1947	56
			Lord Lieutenant Nairnshire 1935-1947
			KT 1934
15 Jan 1947		16	Alexander Robert Leslie-Melville	13 May 1924
			Lord Lieutenant Nairnshire 1969-1999
			LEVENE OF PORTSOKEN
22 Jul 1997	B[L]	1	Peter Keith Levene	8 Dec 1941
			Created Baron Levene of Portsoken
			22 Jul 1997
			LEVER
10 Jul 1975	B[L]	1	Leslie Maurice Lever	29 Apr 1905	26 Jul 1977	72
to			Created Baron Lever 10 Jul 1975
26 Jul 1977			MP for Ardwick 1950-1970
			Peerage extinct on his death
			LEVER OF MANCHESTER
3 Jul 1979	B[L]	1	Harold Lever	15 Jan 1914	6 Aug 1995	81
to			Created Baron Lever of Manchester
6 Aug 1995			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
			LEVERHULME
27 Nov 1922	V	1	Sir William Hesketh Lever,1st baronet	19 Sep 1851	7 May 1925	73
			Created Baron Leverhulme 21 Jun 1917
			and Viscount Leverhulme 27 Nov 1922
			MP for Wirral 1906-1909
7 May 1925		2	William Hulme Lever	25 Mar 1888	27 May 1949	61
27 May 1949		3	Philip William Bryce Lever	1 Jul 1915	4 Jul 2000	85
to			Lord Lieutenant Cheshire 1949-1990. KG 1988
4 Jul 2000			Peerage extinct on his death
			LEVESON
10 May 1833	B	1	Lord Granville Leveson-Gower,Viscount	12 Oct 1773	8 Jan 1846	72
			Granville
			Created Baron Leveson and Earl
			Granville 10 May 1833
			See "Granville"
			LEVY
23 Sep 1997	B[L]	1	Michael Abraham Levy	11 Jul 1944
			Created Baron Levy 23 Sep 1997
			LEWES
14 Jan 1876	E	1	William Nevill,Earl of Abergavenny	16 Sep 1826	12 Dec 1915	89
			Created Earl of Lewes and Marquess
			of Abergavenny 14 Jan 1876
			See "Abergavenny"
			LEWIN
19 Nov 1982	B[L]	1	Terence Thornton Lewin	19 Nov 1920	23 Jan 1999	78
to			Created Baron Lewin 19 Nov 1982
23 Jan 1999			Admiral of the Fleet 1979. KG 1983  Chief of
			the Defence Staff 1979-1982
			Peerage extinct on his death
			LEWIS OF NEWNHAM
8 Feb 1989	B[L]	1	Jack Lewis	13 Feb 1928
			Created Baron Lewis of Newnham
			8 Feb 1989
			LEWISHAM
5 Sep 1711	V	1	William Legge,Baron Dartmouth	14 Oct 1672	15 Dec 1750	78
			Created Viscount Lewisham and Earl
			of Dartmouth 5 Sep 1711
			See "Dartmouth"
			LEXINTON
21 Nov 1645	B	1	Robert Sutton		13 Oct 1668
			Created Baron Lexinton 21 Nov 1645
13 Oct 1668		2	Robert Sutton	6 Jan 1662	19 Sep 1723	61
to			PC 1692
19 Sep 1723			Peerage extinct on his death
			LEY
31 Dec 1625	B	1	James Ley	1552	14 Mar 1629	76
			Created Baron Ley 31 Dec 1625 and
			Earl of Marlborough 5 Feb 1626
			See "Marlborough"
			LEYBURN
6 Feb 1299	B	1	William de Leyburn		1310
to			Summoned to Parliament as Lord
1310			Leyburn 6 Feb 1299
			Peerage extinct on his death
			---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Jun 1337	B	1	John de Leyburn		1384
to			Summoned to Parliament as Lord
1384			Leyburn 21 Jun 1337
			Peerage extinct on his death
			LICHFIELD
10 Dec 1645	E	1	Charles Stuart	7 Mar 1640	Dec 1672	32
to			Created Baron Stuart of Newbury and
12 Dec 1672			Earl of Lichfield 10 Dec 1645
			He succeeded to the Dukedom of Richmond (qv)
			in 1660 - peerages extinct 1672
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Jun 1674	E	1	Sir Edward Henry Lee,5th baronet	c 1656	14 Jul 1716
			Created Baron of Spelsbury,Viscount
			Quarendon and Earl of the City of
			Lichfield 5 Jun 1674
			Lord Lieutenant Oxford 1687-1689
14 Jul 1716		2	George Henry Lee	12 Mar 1690	15 Feb 1743	52
15 Feb 1743		3	George Henry Lee	21 May 1718	17 Sep 1772	54
			MP for Oxfordshire 1740-1743.  PC 1762
17 Sep 1772		4	Robert Lee	3 Jul 1706	4 Nov 1776	70
to			MP for Oxford 1754 and 1761-1768
4 Nov 1776			Peerage extinct on his death
			-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Sep 1831	E	1	Thomas William Anson,2nd Viscount Anson	20 Oct 1795	18 Mar 1854	58
			Created Earl of Lichfield 15 Sep 1831
			MP for Yarmouth 1818. Postmaster General
			1835-1841.  PC 1830
18 Mar 1854		2	Thomas George Anson	15 Aug 1825	7 Jan 1892	66
			MP for Lichfield 1847-1854. Lord
			Lieutenant Stafford 1863-1871
7 Jan 1892		3	Thomas Francis Anson	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]	1	Helen Lawrie Liddell	6 Dec 1950
			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
			LIDDLE
19 Jun 2010	B[L]	1	Roger John Liddle	14 Jun 1947
			Created Baron Liddle for life 19 Jun 2010
			LIFFORD
4 Jan 1781	V[I]	1	James Hewitt	28 Apr 1712	28 Apr 1789	77
			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 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	V[I]	1	John Louis Ligonier	7 Nov 1680	28 Apr 1770	89
20 May 1762	V[I]	1	Created Viscount Ligonier 31 Dec 1757
27 Apr 1763	B	1	and 20 May 1762, Baron Ligonier
10 Sep 1766	E	1	27 Apr 1763 and Earl Ligonier
to			10 Sep 1766
28 Apr 1770			MP for Bath 1748-1763.  PC 1749
			Field Marshal 1757
			On his death the Earldom,Viscountcy of
			1757 and the Barony became extinct, whilst
			the Viscountcy of 1762 passed to -
28 Apr 1770		2	Edward Ligonier	1740	14 Jun 1782	41
19 Jul 1776	E	1	Created Earl Ligonier 19 Jul 1776
to			Peerages extinct on his death
14 Jun 1782
			LILFORD
26 Oct 1797	B	1	Thomas Powys	4 May 1743	26 Jan 1800	56
			Created Baron Lilford 26 Oct 1797
			MP for Northamptonshire 1774-1797
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
			LIMERICK
11 Dec 1661	B[I]	1	Roger Palmer	4 Sep 1634	28 Jul 1705	70
to			Created Baron of Limerick and Earl of
28 Jul 1705			Castlemaine 11 Dec 1661
			Peerage extinct on his death
			-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Jan 1686	E[I]	1	Sir William Dungan,4th baronet	c 1630	Dec 1698
			Created Viscount Dungan of Clane and
			Earl of Limerick 2 Jan 1686
Dec 1698		2	Thomas Dungan	1634	14 Dec 1715	81
to			Peerage extinct on his death
14 Dec 1715
			-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 May 1719	V[I]	1	James Hamilton		17 Mar 1758
			Created Baron Claneboye and Viscount
			of the City of Limerick 13 May 1719, and
			Earl of Clanbrassil 24 Nov 1756
			See "Clanbrassill"
			-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 Jan 1803	E[I]	1	Edmond Henry Pery,2nd Baron Glentworth	8 Jan 1758	7 Dec 1844	86
			Created Viscount Limerick 29 Dec 1800,
			Earl of Limerick 22 Jan 1803 and Baron
			Foxford [uk]11 Aug 1815
			PC [I] 1797
7 Dec 1844		2	William Tenison Pery	19 Oct 1812	5 Jan 1866	53
5 Jan 1866		3	William Hale John Charles Pery	17 Jan 1840	8 Aug 1896	56
			PC 1889  KP 1892
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	16 Oct 1888	4 Aug 1967	78
			CH 1961
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	E	1	William de Roumare	c 1095	c 1155
to			Created Earl of Lincoln c 1140
c 1155			On his death the peerage reverted to the
			Crown
			-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1147		1	Gilbert de Gand		1156
to			Created Earl of Lincoln c 1147
1156			On his death the peerage reverted to the
			Crown
			---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 May 1217	E	1	Randolph de Blondeville		28 Oct 1232
to			Created Earl of Lincoln 23 May 1217
28 Oct 1232			On his death the peerage reverted to the
			Crown
			---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 Nov 1232	E	1	John de Lacy	c 1192	22 Jul 1240
			Created Earl of Lincoln 22 Nov 1232
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		4	Alice Plantagenet	c 1283	2 Oct 1348
to			On her death the peerage reverted to the
2 Oct 1348			Crown
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Aug 1349	E	1	Henry Plantagenet	c 1300	13 Mar 1361
to			Created Earl of Lincoln 20 Aug 1349
13 Mar 1361			and Duke of Lancaster 6 Mar 1351
			See "Lancaster"
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 Mar 1467	E	1	John de la Pole	c 1464	16 Jun 1487
to			Created Earl of Lincoln 13 Mar 1467
16 Jun 1487			Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1484-1485
			Peerage extinct on his death
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Jun 1525	E	1	Henry Brandon	11 Mar 1516	c 1540
to			Created Earl of Lincoln 18 Jun 1525
c 1540			Peerage extinct on his death
			----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 May 1572	E	1	Edward Clinton,9th Lord Clinton	1512	16 Jan 1585	72
			Created Earl of Lincoln 4 May 1572
			Lord High Admiral 1550-1554 and 1558-1585.
			Lord Lieutenant Lincoln  KG 1551
16 Jan 1585		2	Henry Clinton	1540	29 Sep 1616	76
			MP for Launceston 1559 and Lincolnshire
			1571
29 Sep 1616		3	Thomas Clinton	c 1568	15 Jan 1619
			MP for Great Grimsby 1601-1604 and
			Lincolnshire 1604-1610
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	1684	7 Sep 1728	44
			PC 1715  KG 1721  Lord Lieutenant Cambridge
			Mar-Jun 1728
7 Sep 1728		8	George Clinton	15 Jan 1718	30 Apr 1730	12
30 Apr 1730		9	Henry Pelham-Clinton,Duke of Newcastle	16 Apr 1720	22 Feb 1794	73
22 Feb 1794		10	Thomas Pelham-Clinton,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 and last
			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	M	1	Charles Wynn-Carrington,Earl Carrington	16 May 1843	13 Jun 1928	85
to			Created Marquess of Lincolnshire
13 Jun 1928			26 Feb 1912
			MP for Wycombe 1865-1868. Governor of
			NSW 1886-1890. President of the Board of
			Agriculture 1905-1911. Lord Privy Seal
			1911-1912.KG 1906. Lord Lieutenant of
			Buckinghamshire 1915-1923
			Peerage extinct on his death
			LINDGREN
9 Feb 1961	B[L]	1	George Samuel Lindgren	11 Nov 1900	8 Sep 1971	70
to			Created Baron Lindgren 9 Feb 1961
8 Sep 1971			MP for Wellingborough 1945-1959
			Peerage extinct on his death
			LINDLEY
10 May 1900	B[L]	1	Nathaniel Lindley	29 Nov 1828	9 Dec 1921	93
to			Created Baron Lindley 10 May 1900
9 Dec 1921			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
			LINDORES
31 Mar 1600	B[S]	1	Patrick Leslie		c 1608
			Created Lord Lindores 31 Mar 1600
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		8	John Leslie	1750	May 1813	62
to			Since his death the peerage has remained
May 1813			unclaimed
			LINDSAY
22 Feb 1445	B[S]	1	John Lindsay		6 Feb 1482
			Created Lord Lindsay 22 Feb 1445
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		10	John Lindsay	c 1598	1678
8 May 1633	E[S]	1	Created Lord Parbroath and Earl of
			Lindsay 8 May 1633
1678		2	William Lindsay,Earl of Crawford	Apr 1644	6 Mar 1698	53
6 Mar 1698		3	John Lindsay,Earl of Crawford	by 1672	Dec 1713
Dec 1713		4	John Lindsay,Earl of Crawford	4 Oct 1702	25 Dec 1749	47
25 Dec 1749		5	George Lindsay-Crawford,Earl of Crawford	c 1729	11 Aug 1781
11 Aug 1781		6	George Lindsay-Crawford,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	3 Jan 1827	12 May 1894	67
12 May 1894		11	David Clark Bethune	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	19 Nov 1955
			LINDSAY AND BALNEIL
9 Jan 1651	B[S]	1	Alexander Lindsay	6 Jul 1618	30 Aug 1659	41
			Created Lord Lindsay and Balneil and
			Earl of Balcarres 9 Jan 1651
			See "Balcarres"
			LINDSAY OF BIRKER
13 Nov 1945	B	1	Alexander Dunlop Lindsay	14 May 1879	18 Mar 1952	72
			Created Baron Lindsay of Birker
			13 Nov 1945
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.Lord Willoughby de Eresby	17 Dec 1582	23 Oct 1642	59
			Created Earl of Lindsey 22 Nov 1626
			Lord Lieutenant Lincoln 1629  KG 1630
23 Oct 1642		2	Montagu Bertie	c 1608	25 Jul 1666
			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
25 Jul 1666		3	Robert Bertie	8 Nov 1630	9 May 1701	70
			MP for Boston 1661-1666. Lord Lieutenant
			Lincoln 1666-1700.  PC 1682
9 May 1701		4	Robert Bertie	20 Oct 1660	26 Jul 1723	62
21 Dec 1706	M	1	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
26 Jul 1723		5	Peregrine Bertie,Duke of Ancaster	29 Apr 1686	1 Jan 1742	55
		2
1 Jan 1742		6	Peregrine Bertie,Duke of Ancaster	1714	12 Aug 1778	64
		3
12 Aug 1778		7	Robert Bertie,Duke of Ancaster	17 Oct 1736	8 Jul 1779	42
		4
8 Jul 1779		8	Brownlow Bertie,Duke of Ancaster	1 May 1729	8 Feb 1809	79
to		5	On his death the Marquessate became
8 Feb 1809			extinct,whilst the Earldom passed to -
8 Feb 1809		9	Albemarle Bertie	17 Sep 1744	18 Sep 1818	74
			MP for Stamford 1801-1809
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 succeeded to the Earldom of Abingdon
			(qv) in 1928 with which title this peerage
			then merged
			LINGEN
3 Jul 1885	B	1	Ralph Robert Wheeler Lingen	19 Feb 1819	22 Jul 1905	86
to			Created Baron Lingen 3 Jul 1885
22 Jul 1905			Peerage extinct on his death
			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 lasy 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 devoled 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 respresented, 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 probabilties 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 point in the case - the question
			of the monument in Stoneleigh Church.
			'Pedigrees had been proved in peergage 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-examinarion, 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 fot 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,
			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 superindendent 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 bleive 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 juris-
			diction 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.
			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, changlings substituted for rightful
			heirs, an inposter 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 valiidity 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 desparate 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 impr