(Vol. ix., p. 221.)
The inquiry of MR. R. W. DIXON is one that I feel should not remain
unanswered; and a few circumstances that I can detail will be sufficient to
prove that his brother Mr. J. H. Dixon only exercised a just discretion in
rejecting the information offered by William Sidney Spence.
On 4th March, 1848 (a few months, therefore, earlier than the letter which
has been quoted), a communication was forwarded to me by Mr. Spence so
similar, as to warrant the supposition that a set form was kept on hand to
be copied in different applications with such variations as each case might
demand, though even then a discrepancy has crept in that would render the
evidence suspicious.
The first paragraph is the same, except that Mr. Spence states he was
engaged by the "_widow_ of Sir John Cotgreave," instead of the "_sister_."
In the second the pedigree is said to be the "work of Randle Holme, 1672,
from documents by William Camden," instead of the work of "the great
Camden." Monsons, of course, are substituted instead of Dixons. Four
generations from Sir John Monson temp. Edward III., instead of five
generations from Ralph Dixon temp. Henry VI. And this Sir John is slain
fighting under Lord Audley at the battle of Poictiers, 1356, as a
counterpart to Ralph Dixon, slain at the battle of Wakefield, 1460.
The third paragraph is word for word the same, except that, to be
consistent with the descents, four shields with sixteen quarterings are
offered instead of five shields with twelve.
Lady Cotgreave is to vouch for the authenticity instead of Miss Cotgreave.
The quarterings promised in the next paragraph are only partially the same,
and the conclusion merely differs in wording by the substitution of the
names of "Sir John Monson" and "his mother Elinor, daughter and coheir of
Sir John Sutton, de Sutton and Congleton," in place of "Ralph Dixon and his
mother Maude, daughter and coheiress of Sir Ralph Fitz Hugh," &c.
I acknowledge that from the first I did not believe a word of this
ingenious tale; in fact I was rather an unfortunate subject for Mr.
Spence's purpose, having for years made the early history of my family my
especial study; but having a friend resident at Birkenhead (a clergyman), I
applied to him out of curiosity to find out something of my informant, who
at least had shown some ingenuity. The answer was by no means in favour of
Mr. Spence; and one fact was decidedly ascertained, that he neither lived
nor was known in Priory Place, whence his letters were dated. I answered
his letter, declining to give the remuneration of five pounds which he had
asked; and on taxing him with the falsity of his residence, he said he had
his letters left there for convenience.
MR. DIXON must now himself judge of the credit to be placed on the
informant. As for the information in my own case, it bore internal proofs
of being worthless; and if such a pedigree as is described should exist, I
feel assured it is not the work of Camden, but more probably of a
cotemporary, of rather discreditable notoriety among genealogists, of the
name of Dakyns.