[24] Properly Wych elm (_Ulmus montana_). In an article on this subject in the _Archæological Journal_ (1849, vol. vi. p. 239), the writer says: “I have not been able to trace this custom to its source. It would appear to have prevailed in very primitive times, and yet the circumstance of the custom requiring the more essential part of the ceremony to be performed during the reading of the _second lesson_ is scarcely reconcilable with this idea; but I am induced to think that the custom prevailed long before our present ritual existed, and that it has in this respect been accommodated to the changes which time has effected in the services of the Church. Unfortunately, the title-deeds do not contain the slightest reference to the custom. I have no means of tracing the title beyond 1675. The parish of Broughton is a very large one, and anterior to 1675 belonged, with small exceptions, to the Anderson family; but whether Stephen Anderson, the then owner of the manor, and the 2200 acres of land sold in 1845, was owner of the other part of Broughton, which has long been in the possession of Lord Yarborough’s ancestors, I cannot say. A partition of the property appears to have been made between the co-heiresses, and the manor and 2200 acres being settled in 1772 by Sir Stephen Anderson, of Eyeworth, on his niece, Frances Elizabeth Stephens, and her issue; upon her death it became the property of her son, Ellys Anderson Stephens, who died in 1844, leaving four daughters and co-heiresses, and who, in 1845, sold the property to a client of mine, Mr. John Coupland, and who afterwards sold the manor and about 600 acres to Lord Yarborough, 982 acres to myself, and other portions to different purchasers, reserving to himself about 200 acres. I cannot make out when this partition (above alluded to) took place. The deed or will by which it was effected would probably refer to the custom and provide for the performance of it, but there is no document with the title deeds tending to show whether the custom was due only in respect of the manor, and 2200 acres, or in respect of Lord Yarborough’s portion of the parish as well. The fact of a partition having taken place, rests rather upon tradition than evidence; but supposing it, as I do, to be a fact, it seems strange that the title-deeds should be silent as to the obligation imposed upon the owner of the manor to perform the service by which the whole property was held. The manor and estate sold in 1845, were of the tenure of ancient demesne; a tenure which is very rare at this time of day, at least in this part of the world. Probably a reference to Lord Yarborough’s title-deeds would clear up the mystery, or Sir Charles Anderson may have the means of doing so.