LEIGH, Edward (1684-1738)

LEIGH, Edward (1684–1738)

suc. fa. 12 Nov. 1710 as 3rd Bar. LEIGH

First sat 13 Mar. 1711; last sat 6 May 1723

b. 13 Jan. 1684, 2nd but 1st surv. s. of Thomas Leigh, 2nd Bar. Leigh, and 2nd w. Eleanor, da. of Edward Watson, 2nd Bar. Rockingham; bro. of Charles Leigh‡. educ. Balliol Oxf. matric. 1702; ?travelled abroad (Italy) 1711.1 m. 11 Sept. 1705 (settlement 20 May 1706),2 Mary (d.1743), da. of Thomas Holbech, of Fillongley, Warw; 2s. (1 d.v.p.), 2da. d.v.p. d. 9 Mar. 1738; will, 26 July 1737, pr. 7 Apr. 1738.3

Associated with: Stoneleigh, Warws. and Maxstoke, Warws.4

Closely related to a number of influential Midlands families, Edward Leigh inherited an estate that should have enabled him to command considerable political interest. Stoneleigh Abbey, the family seat, was the largest house in Warwickshire, assessed at 70 hearths in 1660.5 Leigh was a cousin of Lewis Watson, 3rd Baron Rockingham (later earl of Rockingham), William Bromley‡ and Sir Justinian Isham‡, the head of the Northamptonshire Tories. The marriage of Leigh’s sister, Eleanor, to Thomas Verney, grandson of Richard Verney, 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, further underpinned his Warwickshire connections.6 Despite such influential relations, Leigh appears to have turned his back on regional and national politics, choosing instead ‘a retired country life … assisting and relieving the poor’ and concentrating his efforts on the development of his seat at Stoneleigh Abbey.7 As a result of his marriage in 1705 to the wealthy heiress, Mary Holbech, a bill was introduced in Parliament for vesting estates in the hands of trustees on behalf of the young couple.8 In the bill both were cited as being under age, though Leigh was already 21 years old. Leave was given for the bill to be presented to the House but it was not brought in.9

Leigh took his seat in March 1711. He attended for a mere seven days before retiring for the remainder of the session, but on 21 Mar. he registered his proxy in favour of Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester. Leigh may have travelled abroad again at this time.10 He appears to have returned to England in time for the funeral of his neighbour, William Craven, 2nd Baron Craven, but he then failed to attend the 1711-12 session which opened in December 1711.11 Leigh’s disinclination to attend was a disappointment to Bromley, who had previously assured Oxford that he would be able to prevail on Leigh, ‘a young man of good understanding and very well inclined’, to turn out. As late as 3 Dec. Bromley still believed Leigh to be en route to Westminster but, two days later, he was forced to admit that Leigh’s proxy was the best that they could expect. Leigh had sent in a blank proxy form to Bromley directing that it be entrusted either to George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton, Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, or Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth. Bromley then referred the matter on to Oxford, declaring himself to be ‘sorry at this time to lodge his vote amiss, I therefore beg your lordship will please to let me know how I shall fill up the proxy.’12 Bromley need not have concerned himself as the proxy had already been registered in Northampton’s favour four days earlier. In December 1711 Oxford listed Leigh as a likely supporter. The same month Leigh was listed among those voting in favour of barring Scots peers holding post-Union British peerages from sitting in the House although he was not present that day and proxies were not taken. On 29 Dec. Leigh was listed by Oxford as one of the peers to be contacted during the Christmas recess.

Leigh remained absent from the House for the following three years, but in March 1713 Swift again listed him as a likely government supporter. He attended for just one day in April 1714. This brief appearance may have coincided with his being in London seeking advice about obtaining an act of Parliament, though Leigh’s undated account book for the period makes no mention of the nature of the act required.13 On 3 May he again registered his proxy in favour of Northampton, which was vacated by the close of the session, and on 27 May he was listed by Nottingham as being likely to support the bill to prevent the growth of schism. In spite of his poor attendance, on 19 June he was named one of the commissioners for executing the River Trent navigation amendment bill.14

From 1714 Leigh’s principal concern surrounded his redevelopment of Stoneleigh Abbey, a project that was to last 12 years.15 The initial estimate for a three-storey addition was £545.16 In the event Leigh expended over £3,000 on his building works.17 Speculation that Leigh harboured Jacobite sympathies is not supported by any substantive evidence, though there is a tradition that Leigh had a private chapel constructed so that he and his family could avoid offering prayers for the House of Hanover.18 While his attendance in the House following the Hanoverian succession remained sporadic, his supposed support for the exiled Stuarts did not prevent him from making occasional appearances after the death of Queen Anne. The latter phase of his career will be considered in detail in the second part of this work.

Leigh sat for the final time on 6 May 1723. Four years later, he declined to attend the coronation of King George II, pleading poor health. Despite encouragement from his sister Eleanor Verney, he also failed to attend the new Parliament.19 Although Leigh played no further role in parliamentary affairs, he maintained a close interest in events at Westminster and beyond, remaining informed through a regular supply of newsletters.20 Leigh composed his will on 19 Apr. 1736. Political or family rivalries appear to have been at the forefront of his mind as he specified that in the event of his heir, Edward Leigh, marrying a daughter of George Montagu†, earl of Halifax, or of ‘Lord Lumley’ (probably Thomas Lumley-Saunderson†, 3rd earl of Scarbrough from 1740) he was to be deprived of a possible inheritance of £12,000 which was to be conveyed instead to Leigh’s younger son, Thomas Leigh† (later 4th Baron Leigh). Leigh composed a new will the following year in which this proviso was reiterated.21 Although rumours of a marriage between Edward Leigh and Anne Montagu continued to circulate, the stipulation proved to be unnecessary. Less than a week after signing his new will, Leigh’s heir, Edward Leigh, died from smallpox.22 Leigh survived him by just eight months. He was succeeded by his favoured younger son, Thomas Leigh, as 4th Baron Leigh.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Tyack, 180.
  • 2 TNA, PROB 11/689.
  • 3 Ibid.
  • 4 G. Tyack, Warwickshire Country Houses, 178; VCH Warws. iv. 141-2.
  • 5 Tyack, 178.
  • 6 SCLA, DR 18/17/25/32.
  • 7 London Evening Post, 16-18 Mar. 1738; VCH Warws. iv. 232.
  • 8 SCLA, DR 18/13/1/14.
  • 9 HMC Lords, n.s. vi. 1704-6, p. 343.
  • 10 Tyack, 180.
  • 11 Verney ms mic. M636/54, Sir T. Cave to J. Verney, 15 Oct. 1711.
  • 12 Add. 70287, W. Bromley to Oxford, 15 Nov., 3 and 5 Dec. 1711.
  • 13 SCLA, DR 18/31/763.
  • 14 HMC Lords, n.s. x. 1712-14, p. 366.
  • 15 VCH Warws. vi. 232.
  • 16 Trans. Birm. Archaeological Soc. lxxix. 78.
  • 17 Tyack, 181.
  • 18 Trans. Birm. Archaeological Soc. lxxix. 78.
  • 19 SCLA, DR 18/17/25/13, 14, 21, 24.
  • 20 SCLA, DR 18/26/3.
  • 21 SCLA, DR 18/13/7/6.
  • 22 London Evening Post, 4-6 Aug. 1737.