duelling, called The Brothers' Steps," and describing the locality, Southey thus narrates his own visit to the spot: "We sought for near half an hour in vain. We could find no steps at all within a quarter of a mile, no, nor half a mile, of Montague House. We were almost out of hope, when an honest man, who was at work, directed us to the next ground, adjoining to a pond. There we found what we sought, about three-quarters of a mile north of Montague House, and 500 yards east of Tottenham Court Road. The steps are of the size of a large human foot, about three inches deep, and lie nearly from north-east to southwest. We counted only seventy-six; but we were not exact in counting. The place where one or both the brothers are supposed to have fallen, is still bare of grass. The labourer also showed us the bank where (the tradition is) the wretched woman sat to see the combat." Southey adds his full confidence in the tradition of the indestructibility of the steps, even after ploughing up, and of the conclusions to be drawn from the circumstance.-Notes and Queries, No. 12.

Joseph Moser, in one of his Commonplace Books, gives this account of the footsteps, just previous to their being built over: "June 16, 1800. Went into the fields at the back of Montague House, and there saw, for the last time, the forty footsteps; the building materials are there, ready to cover them from the sight of man. I counted more than forty, but they might be the footprints of the workmen."

We agree with Dr. Rimbault that this evidence establishes the period of the final demolition of the footsteps, and also confirms the legend that forty was the original number.

In the third edition of A Book for a Rainy Day we find this note upon the above mysterious spot :-" Of these steps there are many traditionary stories: the one generally believed is, that two brothers were in love with a lady, who would not declare a preference for either, but coolly sat down upon a bank to witness the termination of a duel, which proved fatal to both. The bank, it is said, on which she sat, and the footmarks of the brothers when passing the ground, never produced grass again. The fact is, that these steps were so often trodden that it was impossible for the grass to grow. I have frequently passed over them: they were in a field on the site of St. Martin's Chapel, or very nearly so, and not on the spot as communicated to Miss Porter, who has written an entertaining novel on the subject."

THE FAMOUS CHESHIRE WILL CASE.

THE Will of Dame Lady Anne Fytton, widow, introduces us to two families--the Fittons of Gawsworth, and the Gerards, their cousins. The son and heir of Lady Anne was Sir Edward Fytton, whose sister Penelope married Sir Charles Gerard. Fytton and Gerard! what a coil the men who bore these names made some years after Lady Anne was entombed at Gawsworth! Will upon will, lawsuit upon lawsuithow fierce and foul the struggle, which began in one century with forgery, and concluded in the next with murder in Hyde Park!

They who now pass through Gerrard Street and Macclesfield Street, Soho, pass over ground where the son and heir of Sir Charles Gerard, first baron of that

name, and subsequently Earl of Macclesfield, kept a gay house, surrounded by trim gardens, and a sulky French wife, whom Charles the Second forbade continuing her attendance on the Queen, because the lady let her tongue wag rudely against the Castlemaine whom Gerard himself received at his mansion. That lord, who gave up his commission of the Guards for a douceur of 12,000l. from the king, who wanted the dignity for Monmouth, was a fine dresser, a false friend, a talebearer against Clarendon, and altogether not a man to be esteemed. His uncle, Sir Edward Fytton of Gawsworth, had died childless, entailing (it was said) his estates on a kinsman, William Fytton, who was succeeded in the possession by his son, Alexander. To oust the latter, nineteen years after the death of Sir Edward, and thirty after the entail had been confirmed, as alleged, by a deed-poll, Gerard produced a will which would be looked for in vain in the Ecclesiastical Court at Chester. It purported to be that of Gerard's uncle, Sir Edward, duly made in the nephew's favour. Hot, fierce, anxious, was the litigation that followed. Fytton pleaded the deed-poll, but Gerard brought forward one Abraham Granger, who made oath that he had forged the name of Sir Edward to that deed under menace of mortal violence. Thereupon the judgment of the Chancellor was given in favour of Gerard, and the deed declared to be a forgery. Gerard, as soon as he heard the judgment pronounced,

66

rose up," says Roger North, "and went straight down to a shop in the Hall, took up his Lordship's picture, paid his shilling, and, rolling up his purchase, went off, desiring only an opportunity in a better manner to resent such an ancient piece of justice."

Then ensued the strangest part of this will story. Abraham Granger, impelled by remorse or liberal payment, or desire to escape a great penalty by acknowledging the smaller offence, appeared in court, and confessed that he had perjured himself when he swore that he had forged the name of Sir Edward. The confession, however, was unsupported, and Fytton, who was considered the responsible person, was condemned to fine, imprisonment, and pillory. But he was not a man to be kept from greatness by having suffered such degradation. Turning Romanist, he was patronised by James the Second, who made him Chancellor of Ireland and Baron Gawsworth, and who found in him a willing and unscrupulous instrument in James's Irish Parliament, and active in passing Acts of Forfeiture of Protestant property and Attainder of Protestant personages.

The family quarrel, as we have said, ended in blood. Gerard died in 1693, Earl of Macclesfield. He was succeeded by his two sons, Charles, who died childless, in 1701, and Fytton Gerald, Earl of Macclesfield, who died, without heirs, in 1702. Ten years later occurred, in Hyde Park, that savage duel between Lord Mohun and the Duke of Hamilton, in which both adversaries were slain. Political animosities, which ran very high at this period, gave a peculiar acrimonious character to the transaction; but the main cause was - these two men, Mohun and Hamilton, were husbands of coheiresses, who were disputing possession of the old Cheshire estates of the Fyttons; and they brought to a sanguinary end the old Cheshire will case,* as will be seen in our next narration.

* Abridged from the Athenæum.

i

DUEL BETWEEN THE DUKE OF HAMILTON AND LORD MOHUN.

On the 15th of November 1712, this most sanguinary duel was fought near Prince's Lodge, in Hyde Park. The spot was known as "the Ring," parts of which can be distinctly traced on the east of the Ranger's grounds. This memorable struggle is minutely detailed in Transactions during the Reign of Queen Anne, published at Edinburgh in 1790, by Charles Hamilton, a member of the illustrious house of Hamilton, who was led to take a peculiar interest in the subject.

It appears that upon the return of Lord Bolingbroke from Paris, Queen Anne was pleased to nominate the Duke of Hamilton her Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to France. Previously to his departure upon this embassy, his grace laboured to bring to issue a Chancery suit, which for some time had lain depending between Lord Mohun and him, whose respective consorts were nieces of the late Earl of Macclesfield. By appointment the two lords met on the morning of the 13th November, at the chambers of Olebar, a Master in Chancery. Upon hearing the evidence of Mr. Whitworth, formerly steward of the Macclesfield family, an old man, whose memory was much impaired by age, the Duke of Hamilton said, "There is no truth or justice in him." Lord Mohun replied, "I know Mr. Whitworth; he is an honest man, and has as much truth as your Grace." This grating retort was not noticed by the Duke. Having concluded their business, the parties separated