io<s.iii.Ju>-Kio,i905.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
443'
Shelley) claimed cousinship with the Michel-
grove branch.
It was, however, owing to his influence with the Government that, in order to throw dust into the eyes of the Catholic prisoners, Mrs. Shelley was, on 4 November, 1593, liberated from strict confinement and given the liberty of the Fleet (see 'S.P. Dora. Eliz.,' ccxlviii. 43, 47, 71, 83; 'Cal. Cecil MSS.,' iv. 407, 413). She was probably released on bail some time in 1594, and thereafter resided in London.
At some period unknown William Shelley was transferred from the Tower to the Gate- house Prison. Westminster, whence, on 19 August, 159G, he was liberated for the sake of his health, and committed to the custody of Sir John Carrell, Knt., of Warn- ford Sir John Hungerford, Knt., and Henry Guildford, Esq., being his sureties ('P.C.A.,' N.S., xx vi. 122). Whether Sir John Carrell was a relative or not 1 cannot say, but as he was in 1604 one of the trustees for William Shelley's heir, I think it probable. Of the sureties, Sir John Hungerford was the son and heir of Anthony (not John, as Berry calls him) Hungerford, Esq., of Down Ampney, Gloucestershire, by Bridget his wife, William Shelley's sister (see 'Collectanea Topogr. et Genealog,' v. 28; and compare 'S.P. Dora. Eliz.,' ccxli. 47; 'P.C.A.,' N.S., xxiv. 474, xxvi. 484) ; and Henry Guildford was probably also a nephew, and son of William Shelley's sister Elizabeth by her marriage with the person whom Berry calls Thomas Guildford, but who was probably Richard (see 'S.P. Dom. Eliz.,' clxxxii. 16).
William Shelley did not long survive his liberation. He died on 15 April, 1597, and was buried in St. Dunstan's-in-the- West, near his father-in-law John Lingen.
On the payment of 1,000^. to Lord Effing- ham, and 10,000^. to the Exchequer, William Shelley's lands were conveyed to Sir John Carrell, Sir Henry Guildford, and others on behalf of the heir, then aged eighteen (' S.P. Dom. James I.,' viii. 52). This was John Shelley, a recusant (' S.P. Dom. James I.,' xxvii. 32, Iv. 51), who, though made a baronet on 22 May, 1611 (G. E. C.'s 'Baronetage,' i. 25), remained a recusant ('S.P. Dom. James I.,' Ixviii. 62).
All the genealogies (i.e., G. E. C., Berry, and Cartwright) say he was the son of William Shelley's brother John ; but in 'S.P. Dom. James I.,' viii. 99, 'S.P. Dom. Add. James I.,' xxxvi. 36, and ' D.N.B.,' Hi. 42, he is said to be William Shelley's son. That the former authorities are correct is shown by the devolution of Mrs. Shelley's property.
On her husband's death she took steps to.
recover her inherited lands, and King James-
restored to her her jointure lands, dispensing;
her from taking the oath required by law.
These included Stondon Place, Essex, from
which, however, she was excluded by a.
grantee of the late queen, one William Bird
('S.P. Dom. Add. James I.,' xxxvi. 5 ; ' S.P,.
Dom. James I.,' xxxvii. 36). She did, how-
ever, recover enough to bring her in 3,0001. a.
year (ibid., Ixv. 45).
She does not appear to have ever again, resided in Herefordshire, though she was not unmindful of her tenants there, and in her will gave various charitable bequests men- tioned by Cooke (loc. cit.), and also founded! an almshouse in Hereford itself. She was. also, as Cooke shows, very kind to her poor relations, and was credited with not forgetting, her religion, being said to have demised land* in Shropshire to support Jesuit colleges- ('S.P. Dom. James I.,' Ixv. 45). In 1606 she- was paying 260. a year as a fine for her recusancy ('S.P. Dom. Add. James I.,' xxxviii. 75). She died in March, 1609/10, and was- buried on the llth of that month in St. Dun- stan's-in-the- West, near her husband and her father ('Collect. Topogr. et Genealog.,' iv.. 110).
It seems quite clear that she was childless, for her estates in Herefordshire and Shrop- shire descended to her cousin Edward Lingen, son and heir of her father's brother William, and nephew of the Catholic martyr John. Ingram. The said Edward Lingen had been attainted of treason in 1594 (cf. 'S.P. Dom. Eliz.j'ccxlvii. 21, 78 ; ccxlix. 1), but reprieved,., and eventually pardoned on 4 May, 1604 ('S.P. Dom. James I.,' viii. 10), though he- remained a recusant(^'<, liii. Ill, liv. ll,lxiii. 78).
In 1624, after he had been for a long time a. prisoner in " the Porter's Lodge Prison," he was discovered to be a lunatic and committed to the charge of Sir John Scudamore, Bart. ('Hist. MSS. Comm. Thirteenth Ilep./iv. 271). He was succeeded by his son, the famous- Royalist Sir Henry Lingen.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT.
THE CONVENTION OF KOYAL BURGHS
OF SCOTLAND.
(See ante, p. 401.)
SOME 150 years later, in the City of Edin- burgh, there was considerable dissatisfaction among the trades against the administrators ' of the city's affairs. They managed to pro- cure an Act of Council in 1703 applying to. the Convention of Eoyal Burghs
