cr. 1 July 1643 Bar. LEIGH
First sat Oxford 1644; first sat after 1660, 4 June 1660; last sat 15 June 1661
MP Warws. 1628.
b. c. 1595, 1st s. of Sir John Leigh of Hamstall Ridware, Staffs. and Ursula Hoddesdon. educ. Magdalen, Oxf. matric. 4 Nov. 1608. m. 11 Nov. 1610, Mary (d.1669) da. of Sir Thomas Egerton‡ of Dodleston, Cheshire, and Elizabeth Venables, 5s. (3 d.v.p.), 6da.1 suc. grandfa. 3 Feb. 1626. d. 22 Feb. 1672;2 will 6 Jan. 1671, pr. 6 Apr. 1672.3
Dep. lt. Staffs. 1627–at least 1628, Warws. by 1639; sheriff, Warws. 1636–7; commr. array Warws. 1642.4
Associated with: Stoneleigh, Warws.5
The Leigh family originated in Shropshire, owing the rise in its fortunes to the successful career of the prosperous merchant Sir Thomas Leigh (d.1571), who became lord mayor of London and left extensive estates to his three sons. The second son, also Thomas, inherited Stoneleigh in Warwickshire. Stoneleigh was the largest house in the county and was assessed at 70 hearths in 1660.6 Thomas Leigh of Stoneleigh was created a baronet in 1611 and was succeeded in 1626 by his grandson, the subject of this piece. The latter was a prominent member of Warwickshire society but also had significant interests in Staffordshire and Bedfordshire. By marriage he was connected with the Egerton family, and his aunt Alice, duchess of Dudley, was reported to have been a great benefactress to Stoneleigh.7
Leigh was for the most part a loyal supporter of the king during the civil wars and owed his elevation to the peerage to service in the king’s cause. Yet he maintained good relations with some of his neighbours of the other party and was the beneficiary of assistance by at least two major parliamentarian figures, Robert Greville†, Baron Brooke, and Basil Feilding, 2nd earl of Denbigh. Leigh attended the Oxford Parliament but in 1646, following the king’s defeat, he petitioned to compound, pleading that he had been compelled to open his gates to the king in 1642 and that he had never been ‘in arms nor assisted the king with men, horses or money’. This was demonstrably false: Leigh had at one point been taken prisoner while in command of a company of royalist horse and he had contributed funds for the king’s coffers in return for his peerage. The assessors evidently paid little heed to his account. He was said to have ‘suffered much’ at the hands of the grand commissioner and was forced to pay a substantial composition, which was increased in 1648 after it was determined that Leigh had underestimated his income by approximately £1,000.8
Leigh was watched carefully during the Interregnum and was arrested as a precaution during the rising led by George Booth, later Baron Delamer, but he does not appear to have been an active royalist plotter and he was not incarcerated for long. At the Restoration, he was among the first of the royalists to gather in London, arriving in the capital on 17 May, but in common with the majority of those in possession of Civil War peerages he delayed taking his seat in the House. He first attended on 4 June 1660, after which he was present on a third of all sitting days. He appears to have been an inactive Member. He was named to no committees and on 7 Aug. he was given a month’s leave to go to Bath on account of his health.9
He did not sit again until the following year, covering his absence in the second session of the Convention by registering his proxy with his kinsman Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, on 10 November.10 Leigh focused his efforts instead on the recovery of property lost in the wars. He petitioned the dean and canons of Windsor to restore his lease on the lordship of Leighton Buzzard, which he had been compelled to sell to one of the regicides, Colonel John Okey‡.11 Leigh was assured privately that the dean and canons intended to settle in his favour but he was also encouraged to seek the king’s approval, ‘to break through all oppositions’. Another property dispute was settled in chancery.12 Leigh took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 May 1661 but he attended just three days of the session before quitting the House for the final time. On 6 Aug. he registered his proxy with Southampton once more. Thereafter, he was excused attendance on the grounds of ill health on several occasions. On 12 Oct. 1667 he entrusted his proxy to another kinsman, John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, who was the recipient of the proxy once again on 11 Feb. 1670.
Leigh became guardian to his grandson, another Thomas Leigh, later 2nd Baron Leigh, in 1666, following the death of his son and heir four years previously. By this time, his financial situation appears to have deteriorated further. Roger Boyle‡, earl of Orrery [I], appealed to Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, to encourage Leigh ‘to clear his grandchild’s fortune of its encumbrances’.13 It may have been in response to this that Leigh agreed to marry his grandson to the wealthy heiress Elizabeth Browne in 1669, ‘Lord Leigh prudently considering that a portion in moneys would be more adequate than lands to his grandson’s occasions’. The alliance soon descended into acrimony. Leigh appears to have been frustrated in an attempt to clear his own debts by using Elizabeth Browne’s assets.14 Unable to settle his business that way, on 23 Nov. 1670 he introduced a bill into the House to enable him and his grandson to sell lands in Staffordshire to provide portions and to pay off the remaining debts. Leigh’s granddaughter-in-law seems to have been convinced that Leigh aimed to deprive her of her dower and objected to the measure as it failed to consider the interests of any children she might have. The committee considering the bill decided not to proceed any further in the matter, bearing in mind that the debts had been contracted since the war, despite an intervention on Leigh’s behalf by Bridgwater.15
Leigh was again said to be suffering from poor health in January 1672.16 On 6 Jan. he drafted a new will, leaving some £4,000 to be divided between three of his daughters for portions, as well as substantial grants to his sons Charles and Christopher.17 He died the following month and was buried at Stoneleigh.18 According to Sir Roger Burgoyne, Leigh had suffered from a steady degeneration of health and, commenting on his death, he remarked that ‘his nose went long before’.19
R.D.E.E.- 1 Dugdale, Antiquities of Warwickshire, iv. 180.
- 2 Isham Diary, 85 ; CSP Dom. 1671–2, p. 159.
- 3 TNA, PROB 11/338.
- 4 Warws. CRO, Z237, cited in A. Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire 1620–1660, 137n.
- 5 CSP Dom. 1671-2, p.159.
- 6 G. Tyack, Warwickshire Country Houses, 180.
- 7 CSP Dom. 1668–9, p. 208.
- 8 HP Commons, 1604–29, v. 97.
- 9 HMC 5th Rep. 206.
- 10 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/29.
- 11 CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 248.
- 12 SCLA, DR 18/17/24/56; Add. 15,662, f. 11.
- 13 SCLA, DR 18/1/2069; CCSP, v. 552.
- 14 SCLA. DR 671/10.
- 15 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 369.
- 16 Isham Diary, 75.
- 17 SCLA, DR 18/13/9/5.
- 18 CSP Dom. 1671–2, p. 159.
- 19 Verney ms mic. M636/22, Sir R. Burgoyne to Sir R. Verney, 26 Feb. 1672.