FACTITIOUS PEDIGREES: DIXON OF BERSTON.
(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.
Monson.
Gatton Park.
I can give no information on the Dixon family, but having some years ago received a letter from the same Mr. Spence, with an account of my own family, every word of which is not only entirely without authority, but a gross invention opposed to the facts, I thought Mr. Dixon might like to know that Mr. Spence founds the romance in question on a "Pedigree of Cotgreave de Hargrave, the work of the celebrated Randle Holme, anno 1672, from documents compiled by that learned antiquary William Camden, in the year 1598," evidently the same veracious authority with that mentioned in the letter to Mr. Dixon.
Ev. Ph. Shirley.
Eatington Park, Stratford-on-Avon.
The following note will, I think, satisfy your correspondent R. W. Dixon that the letter of William Sidney Spence which you inserted for him was an imposture, and that Mr. J. H. Dixon was not without reason in rejecting the information offered.
A friend of mine, assuming descent from "a good old" family of the same name, which he was unable to prove, received, about the same time as Mr. Dixon did, a communication from Mr. William Sidney Spence to precisely the same effect, and having no cautious brother to consult, readily took the bait, and paid some pounds for a specious pedigree, setting forth his "distinguished progenitors," with their armorial bearings, &c., purporting to be authenticated as a true copy of one in Miss Cotgreave's possession under that lady's own hand. The information so received being subsequently submitted to a genealogical friend, some doubt was excited of its genuineness in proving too much; and an inquiry, which I made through a correspondent in Cheshire, tending to confirm this suspicion, a reference was had to Miss Cotgreave herself, when it turned out that the whole was an ingenious fabrication. Mr. Spence was then dead, and my friend, whose name I do not mention, as the subject is rather a sore one, was obliged to be content with the practical experience he had bought.
The probability is, that whenever Mr. Spence read in Burke's Landed Gentry that Mr. A. or
Mr. B., in preference to being considered as the founder of a new family, supposed himself, or wished to be supposed by others, to be descended from an old stock of the same name, he kindly offered to supply the desired information, and was ready to execute a pedigree to order.
G. A. C.
[The Editor has been informed by a person on whose accuracy he can rely, that a lady who received a letter from Mr. Spence offering certain information respecting his family taken from the Cotgreave pedigree, and who imprudently sent money for the same, got nothing but the most absurd rubbish in return, and having been induced to make inquiries into the subject, was fully satisfied that the whole thing was a fraud.]