the same name, and used the same coat-of- born in 1740, therefore; and it was within arms, crest and motto as the noble family the category of possibilities that he was a of X. a son of William, the eldest son of Charles, One of the first thoughts which occurred the fifth Lord X. Assuming this as a fact, to my mind was that, as the old man had and also assuming the story of the old Fleet died in prison, there would, by the law of prisoner to be true, William must have been England, have been an inquest held on his twice married — first, before 1740, to the body in the prison, and that the record of Fleet prisoner's mother; and, a few years the inquest might throw some light on the later, to the Fleet prisoner's stepmother. question of his identity. With some trou Having started on this double assumption, ble, I procured access to the record of the I proceeded to put it to the test of proof by inquest, kept in Newgate; I found that the comparing the histories given in the various record made no mention of any evidence peerage books published between 1750 and being given of his identity — a most extra 1820, which I hunted up in the readingordinary omission. room of the British Museum. I can only I now pass to the noble family of X, one give the general result of my search. I of the oldest families in English history, a found that, though the earliest books stated former ancestor having played a prominent that William died unmarried, la'ter books part in an historical event which occurred in stated that he left a widow, whom he mar the reign of Henry the Second. The title ried in 1750, and that he died childless (a of Lord X was originally created in the very unusual expression), and that his widowreign of one of the Stuart kings-, and had lived to the second decade of the present descended from father to son for four gen century. Obviously, the old Fleet prisoner erations till the year 1752, which is the first could not have been the lawful issue of this important date in this story. In that year marriage. Then the thought occurred to William, the eldest son of Charles, the fifth me that he might have been the base-born Lord X, died suddenly (killed accidentally, issue begotten of William by this or by I think) in his father's lifetime. A few some other union. I kept the thought to years later on, Charles, the fifth Lord X, myself, anil proceeded to search for the died, and Thomas, his second son (as the entry made of the marriage of. 1750 in the eldest surviving son), succeeded to the title register of the parish church where the mar and estates, and held them till about 1780, riage was solemnized. There I found that when he died without male issue : there William was described as a widower, and his upon Henry, the third son, succeeded, and second wife as the daughter of a blacksmith he too died without issue about 1790; — a strange corroboration of the old Fleet thereupon Philip, the fourth and youngest prisoner's story, that his stepmother was not son, succeeded, and held the title and estates a lady by birth — a fact which might account till 1798, when he died, leaving an only for the suppression of all mention of the mar child, a daughter named Helen, who inher riage in the earlier peerage books, though another explanation might be forthcoming. ited the estates; but the title became ex tinct. Helen, the heiress, married a rich At this point a friend of mine, a profes commoner, Mr. Z, who held the estates in sional genealogist, informed me that some right of his wife, and was living at the date few years before the union of Ireland with of the death of the old Fleet prisoner. England all Irish peers were ordered to The certificate of the burial of the old make to the Irish Herald's College a return Fleet prisoner showed that he died in the of their families, with all dates and circum year 1820, at the age of eighty. He was stances relating to their succession to the
