102
NOTES AND QUERIES. tn s. i. FEB. 5, 1910.
the dexter side plain, for the insertion of
his own death."' This monument, an ornate
tablet, is in St. Stephen's.
Under Dr. Wilson's will the estate of Woodchurch, in the hundred of Wirral, eventually became vested in Thomas Patten, father of * John Wilson Patten, but Thomas Patten, father of the above Thomas, was one of the two joint residuary legatees, to whom was left all real and personal estate not otherwise devised by Dr. Wilson's will. Presumably the statue, having been removed from St. Stephen's (see later), passed as a chattel to Thomas Patten the elder, then to Thomas his son, and even- tually to John Wilson Patten, who gave it to the town of Warrington.
Now as to the assertion made by Monk- land (see above), and copied by the * Dic- tionary of National Biography, 1 that Dr. Wilson placed the statue within the altar rail of St. Stephen's. (It was erected in the church 8 Sept., 1777.) I have examined the Vestry Minute Book of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, now lying in the library at Guildhall.
The churchwardens were evidently very irate about the erection of the statue in the church. At a Joint Vestry of the united parishes of St. Stephen, Walbrook, and St. Bennet Sherehog on 26 Nov., 1777, two of the churchwardens of St. Stephen's informed the meeting that they had " pre- sented " Dr. Wilson at a Visitation held at Christ Church on the 20th instant. In the presentment the statue is stated to have been erected " in or near the Chancel of the said Parish Church.' 1 They also reported that they had stated a case for the opinion of Dr. Wynne (of Doctors' Commons), and they reported his opinion, which was in their favour. In the case it is stated that
" this Monument is fixed on the East side of the Church and directly facing the South Ayle thereof, and it is apprehended that the Doc r thinks he had a right so to do, that part of the Church being his Freehold, as he conceives."
If the above description of the position of the statue could be supposed to mean " within the altar rails, i? it is inconceivable that the churchwardens would have omitted such a strong point. Moreover, the space within the altar rail is and was (according to an old print, not dated) barely sufficient to allow the officiating clergyman to move about the altar.
The Vestry began to take action 26 Nov., 1777, two of the churchwardens having six days earlier " presented " Dr. Wilson as
above. At this meeting a letter was ordered
to be written to him desiring that " he will
remove the monument from the Church, or
signify on or before the 19th Day of Decem-
ber next that he will do so."
When they met on 24 December there was no answer, but a letter received by the Vestry Clerk on 26 November (presumably after the meeting of that date) was read. This letter is not given in the minutes. The Clerk was directed to write to Dr. Wilson informing him that, if he did not give a satisfactory answer in one month, the church- wardens were ordered to " commence a suit " against him. Apparently he did not answer ; at least there is no answer reported.
The next meeting concerning the matter was on 17 July, 1778, when it was " ordered that the Vestry Clerk do write to Mr. Moore the Statuary to know whether he hath rec d orders from Dr. Wilson or any person on his behalf to remove the statue of Mrs. Macauley from out of the Church of St. Stephen, Walbrook. "
The next meeting of the Joint Vestry was on 12 Aug. (1778). The minute is not dated as to the year, nor is it signed, but it follows the last-mentioned, and immediately precedes a minute of St. Stephen's Vestry (alone) dated 12 Aug., 1778, which is signed by the two St. Stephen's churchwardens who were present at the Joint Vestry (pre- sumably the signatures at the end of the latter were meant to cover the former as well) :
" Ordered that Liberty be given to Dr. Wilson or who [sic] else he may appoint to remove the Statue of Mrs. Macauley from" out of the Church."
There ends the history of the statue as written in the Vestry minutes. Exactly when or why the statue was removed from the church I have failed to find out.
Mrs. Macaulay married William Graham 17 Dec., 1778. There is plenty of evidence to show that this marriage displeased Dr, Wilson.
The question as to the reason for the removal of the statue is well put by A. Y. Z. in The Gentleman's Magazine, 1791, pt. ii, p. 618. The statue
" was taken down (by the statuary who erected it) in the life-time of Dr. Wilson and by his order. Whether the Doctor was instigated so to do from motives of revenge, because she married Mr. Graham, or whether from fear, because the Vestry was just upon citing him to the Commons for it, I will not undertake to say."
I am inclined to think, taking into con- sideration the dilatory courses of the Joint Vestry, and the fact that they did not,
