By thr Hev. E. H. Goddard. 107 



this seems rather to suggest that the foot and stem were ])ossibly 

 altered at the time of its presentation to the Church in 1671. 

 It is, however, singular that in the only other similar cup of 

 which I have been able to find any notice, that belonging to the 

 Church of Stapleford, in Leicestershire, which has a very similar 

 bowl and cover, with, however, a longer stem in proportion 

 fashioned like an oak branch, and an ornamental foot with 

 acanthus and egg and tongue ornament, the stem and foot also 

 take to pieces. This latter example, illustrated in Trollope's 

 Church Plate of Leicestershire, vol. I., p. 138, is stated to be 

 probably of German make of about 1610, and bears no hall-marks. 

 Like the Westbury cup it was a piece of domestic plate for many 

 years before it was dedicated to Church use, having been presented 

 to Stapleford in 1732. 



Apart from the value of the piece itself, a special interest is 

 given to it by the curious note of Anthony a Wood quoted above. 



It will be observed that Mary, Countess of Marlborough, who 

 at some time after the death of her first husband, Henry Ley, 

 second Earl, married Thomas Wanklin, died at the age of 74 on 

 June 2nd, 1670, yet her name appears with that of her husband 

 as joint donor of this cup in 1671. For most of this year the poor 

 lady, according to Anthony a Wood, was lying under the turnips 

 in tlie garden (at Hey wood ?) " between two boards " — while the 

 rascally " Collonel " continued to enjoy her estate, which should 

 have passed from him at her death. Was the cup presented before 

 her death was known, with the idea of giving the impression that 

 she was still alive, or was it given when her body was exhumed from 

 the turnip patch and properly buried at Westbury, by way, possibly, 

 of a kind of peace otiering ? The removal of the body and the 

 consequent publication of her death must, however, have taken 

 place before the date given by Anthony a Wood, because, as shown 

 by an entry above quoted, which apparently must refer to the 

 " Collonel," we find him marrying Mrs. Frances Brandsby, widow, 

 on July 8th of the same year. No doubt he thought it un- 

 necessary to part with his first wife's property before he had 

 practically secured that of her successor. 



