LEIGH, Sir William

The Leighs, originally from Cheshire, had acquired the manor of Isel near Cockermouth and other property (including a manor at Surlingham in distant Norfolk) in the early fourteenth century by marriage to the heiress of a cadet branch of the Multons of Gilsland.2 G. Ormerod, Palatine and City of Chester ed. Helsby, i. 499; J. Nicolson and R. Burn, Westmld. and Cumb. ii. 95; F. Blomefield, Norf. v. 468. They had immediately taken a prominent part in Cumberland affairs, a position maintained by our MP’s father. An annuitant of Henry IV and constable of the Percy castle at Cockermouth, he added to the family estates through marriage, acquiring a third share of manors at Orton, Wiggonby and Stainton near Carlisle. Further, in addition to a notable administrative career, he had an energetic military one, serving both at Agincourt and upon subsequent campaigns. Our MP’s early knighthood leaves little doubt that he too participated in Henry V’s wars, and he is probably to be identified with the esquire who commanded a retinue of three men-at-arms and 11 archers on the 1417 expedition.3 E101/51/2, m. 24. The family’s importance is further exemplified by his election to Parliament even before he had inherited the family estates. On 5 Oct. 1423 he was returned at an election conducted by his father as sheriff and attested by his recently-acquired father-in-law, Sir Robert Lowther.4 The return is curious in that both Leigh and his fellow MP, Sir Christopher Curwen, appear among the attestors, but there is no evidence to suggest any irregularity in an election atttested by as many as six knights: C219/13/2. While Parliament was still in session a jointure settlement was made in favour of Lowther’s daughter as our MP’s wife: by a charter dated at Carlisle on 5 Feb. 1424, the elder Sir William settled all his lands in Blindcrake together with an annual rent of four marks on the couple and their issue.5 C139/93/50; CCR, 1435-41, p. 296. They had already been married for some time since a son was born to them two months later.6 C139/120/37.

Our MP soon joined with the Lowthers in what appears to have been a very serious dispute. This ranged Leigh and his brother-in-law, William Lowther†, against a large group, headed by William Bewley† of Thistlethwaite, Richard Bewley*, Richard Skelton of Branthwaite and John Skelton of Skelton. The involvement of the Skeltons raises the possibility that the point at issue was Leigh’s claim through his mother – unsuccessfully pursued by his father earlier in the century – to a part of the Skelton estates beyond that which the Leighs already enjoyed. There is, however, no other evidence to support this conclusion, and it was the Bewleys rather than the Skeltons who appear as the principal protagonists on the other side. On 15 July 1425 William Bewley entered into a bond in 200 marks to abide arbitration. The place and timing of this bond are suggestive: it was made in London on the day after the dissolution of the Parliament of that year, and it may be that the arbitration was arranged in Parliament. The nomination of Richard Restwold*, MP for Berkshire, among the arbiters who were to act on behalf of Leigh and Lowther, also supports this idea. The dispute was clearly an important one. The bond entered into by Bewley provided that, when the arbiters gathered at Penrith on the following 20 Aug., he was to be permitted to bring 62 men, of whom 12 were to be knights and none a ‘dominus de dignitate’. Clearly the reconciliation of the dispute was to be witnessed by the leaders of local society (exclusive of the potentially intimidating presence of peers) at a major loveday. Unfortunately these arrangements went astray: no award was returned because, if an action sued by our MP in 1432 is to be credited, the opposing party defaulted.7 CP40/685, rot. 123. Little else is known of this important affair, save that, in 1427, several of Leigh’s opponents, including William Bewley, were facing an appeal of murder.8 KB27/665, rex rot. 6.

Soon after this dispute Sir William was drawn into another controversy, for a proper understanding of which the sources again fail at the vital moment. The death of his father on 10 Apr. 1428 united his parents’ lands in his hands (saving the interest of his obscure stepmother), and he was assured a prominent place in Cumberland’s affairs, not only by virtue of his own wealth but also through his family’s long-standing association with the Percys.9 CIPM, xxiii. 40-41; CFR, xv. 221. His mother predeceased his father, but his father remarried. His widow, Margaret, sued an action of debt in 1432: CP40/685, rot. 387. This was the immediate context of the disputed parliamentary election of 1429. On 13 Sept., nine days before Parliament was due to assemble at Westminster, the sheriff of Cumberland, Sir Christopher Moresby†, presided over hustings at Carlisle at which Thomas Parr* and Thomas de la More* were elected. The attestors to their return were an impressive group, headed by four knights, and there is nothing to suggest any irregularity. None the less, the return was quickly challenged. On 28 Sept., six days after the beginning of the assembly, the Crown issued a commission to investigate the complaint that Leigh and de la More had been elected at the county court held on 30 Aug. in response to the writ of summons issued on 12 July. This election, so it was claimed, had then been confirmed ‘on another occasion’ in response to further writs issued on 3 Aug. advancing the date of the Parliament’s meeting from 13 Oct. to 22 Sept.; but, even though no county court was held after the receipt of the second writ ‘and no day for holding such court intervened’ before Parliament met, Moresby had set aside Leigh’s election in favour of that of Parr.10 C219/14/1; Parliamentarians at Law ed. Kleineke, 158-63.

No doubt this inquiry was ordered on Leigh’s complaint, the accuracy of which, with no resulting inquiry surviving, is hard to judge. There are, however, considerable problems with accepting it at face value. The day on which Leigh’s election allegedly took place, namely 30 Aug., was not a county court day in Cumberland. Between the issue of the first writ of summons and the assembly of Parliament there were two such days, 2 Aug. and 13 Sept., and thus Leigh cannot have been elected at such a court on 30 Aug., nor, unless we assume that the second writ took six weeks to arrive in Cumberland, was it true to say that no county court day fell between the receipt of this writ and the meeting of Parliament. The most likely chain of events is that Leigh and de la More were elected at the county court held on 19 Aug., but that Moresby, in response to the arrival of the second writ, then held another election at the next county court, at which the electors favoured Parr over Leigh. Whatever the truth of the matter, Parr’s election was not set aside. The commissioners named on 28 Sept. appear not to have acted, and it was not until 10 July 1430, nearly five months after the dissolution, that the justices of assize were commissioned to hold their own inquiry. Their findings, if any, are lost.11 CPR, 1429-36, p. 41. The setting aside of the election of Leigh, a Percy man, has been interpreted as a manifestation of the rivalry between that great family and the Nevilles of Middleham.12 H. Summerson, Med. Carlisle, ii. 409. This must remain very doubtful. There is no evidence to suggest rivalry at the hustings between the two families at this date, and there is no unequivocal evidence connecting Sir William’s supplanter Parr with the junior branch of the Nevilles until later.

By contrast with the 1420s, Sir William’s career in the 1430s was uncontroversial. Aside from his action against William Bewley, he appears sporadically as a litigant in the central courts: in 1432, for example, he was a plaintiff as one of his father’s three executors and a defendant in an action for a debt of £10 sued against him by his brother, Hubert.13 CP40/685, rots. 98d, 222. On 8 Apr. 1432 he headed the attestors to the election of two other knights connected with Percy, namely Sir Christopher Curwen* and Sir John Pennington*; and at the next election, held on 30 June 1433, it was his turn to be elected as a belated compensation for his failure in 1429.14 C219/14/3, 4. In the meantime he had been added to the bench in his native county, although, for an unknown reason, he was removed in 1435. In the returns to the subsidy of 1436 in Cumberland, for which he was one of the assessors, he was assigned an annual income of 40 marks, a marked underestimate. In his inquisitions post mortem his lands were valued at about £60 p.a.; and judging from the marriage contract he entered into on behalf of his son and heir, William, on 21 Dec. 1436, he was even wealthier. He was able to demand a portion of as much as 350 marks from the bride’s father, Sir John Bolde of Bold in Lancashire, a higher sum than was generally given to secure the hand of the heir to a northern knightly family. Further, this sum appears the greater when balanced against the relatively modest commitment he made in return: he agreed to give the couple an annuity of £20, which he was to retain in his own hands during his son’s minority.15 Cumbria RO, Carlisle, Mounsey-Heysham mss, DMH 10/1/3 (formerly D/Mh/2/78).

The last year of Sir William’s life was disturbed by a dispute. On 6 June 1438 his neighbour, Alexander Heighmore, esquire, and others disseised him of his weirs at Bassenthwaite and Blindcrake, but he quickly gained redress through a royal commission to the county j.p.s. On the following 4 Dec. at Isel a jury, headed by Leigh’s brothers-in-law, William and Robert Lowther, sitting before another brother-in-law, Hugh Lowther*, laid indictments, and he was formally restored to possession.16 KB9/230B/90-94. He did not long survive this vindication. He died on 14 Aug. 1439, leaving his son and heir a minor aged 15. Three months later the relevant escheators were ordered to assign dower to his widow.17 CIPM, xxv. 249-54, 448; CCR, 1435-41, pp. 295-6. A dispute followed between her and Thomas, Lord Dacre, to whom the Crown assigned the wardship of her son. He claimed that the escheator had assigned her too much dower in Cumberland and she replied by suing him for her dower in Stainton. It is not known how the matter was resolved. She was still alive as late as Michaelmas term 1458, when she secured a writ of outlawry against a labourer sued for close-breaking at Surlingham.18 CP40/719, rot. 472; 728, rot. 126; 791, rot. 44.