Page images
[ocr errors]

Wood's • Athenæ' (iv. 182, ed. Bliss), from that Annesley and men of his moderate and which the former notices have evidently been practical views played a useful part. To copied. Annesley's first public employment them it was chiefly due that the lords were was in 1645. It seemed probable that Ormond checked in their desires for revenge, and would succeed in establishing a cordial union that the restoration was wellnigh bloodless. with the Scotch forces under Monroe in In the trials of the regicides and in the Ulster. To defeat this, Annesley (selected debates on the Act of Indemnity, Annesley no doubt for his knowledge of Irish affairs) was throughout on the side of lenity; and and two others were sent over with a com- he advised the carrying out of the king's mission under the great seal. Their duty declaration in its integrity. It was largely was fulfilled ably and with entire success owing to him that Hazelrig's life was spared. (REID, History of the Presbyterian Church in At the same time he made himself useful to Ireland, ii. 79, 100). In February 1647 Or- the court by securing on 10 Aug. the passmond, who was with difficulty holding Dublin ing of a money bill before the act of grace, against the Irish, reluctantly applied to the and again on 12 Sept. by helping successparliament for help, and Annesley was placed fully to oppose the motion that the king at the head of a second commission to con- should be requested to marry, and to marry clude the matter (CARTE's Ormond, iii. 168, a protestant. In November, probably in the 305). By the 19th all was settled, and court interest, he moved that the question Dublin handed over to the parliament. An- of passing the king's declaration concerning nesley appears to have identified himself with ecclesiastical affairs into a law should be the parliamentary as opposed to the repub- referred to a committee of the whole house. lican party, and, according to Heath's Chro- At the abolition of the court of wards he nicle' (p. 420), was one of the members se- strenuously, but vainly resisted, on the cluded in 1648. This appears confirmed by ground of its injustice, the proposal made his letter to Lenthall printed in ‘England's in the interests of the landed gentry to lay Confusion' (note to p. 182 of vol. iv. of the burden on the excise. In the setilement Wood's Athena). His name, however, does of Ireland his services were often called for not appear on the list in the parliamentary and liberally rewarded. In August 1660 he history taken from the well-known · Vindi- received his father's office of vice-treasurer cation. In Richard Cromwell's parliament and receiver-general for Ireland, which he of 1658 he sat for the city of Dublin, and held until July 1667, when he exchanged it endeavoured, with some others of the se- with Sir G. Carteret for the treasurership of cluded members, to gain admittance into the navy (CARTE's Ormond, iv. 340; Pepes, the Rump parliament when restored by the 26 June 1667), and on 6 Feb. 1660-1 he officers in 1659 (HEATH, p. 420). For the received a captaincy of horse. On 9 March statement (Biog. Brit.) that he was con- 1660-1 he was placed on the commission cerned in Booth's abortive rising there seems for executing the king's declaration for the no authority ; but he was certainly in the settlement of Ireland, and in June on the confidence of the royalist party, though a pro- permanent committee of council for Irish fessed friend to the presbyterians (Reid, ii. affairs. By the death of his father in No335), for he held a blank commission from vember 1660, he became Viscount Valentia, Charles II, with Grenville, Peyton, Mordaunt, and on 20 April 1661 he was made an and Legge, to treat, on the basis of a free English peer by the title of Lord Annesley pardon, with any of his majesty's subjects who of Newport-Pagnell in Bucks, and Earl of had borne arms against his father except the Anglesey. On 21 July 1663, Anglesey apregicides (Collins's Peerage). In February peared as the sole signer of a protest against 1660 he was chosen president of the council the bill for the encouragement of trade on of state. In the Convention parliament he sat grounds which show how little such quesfor Carmarthen town (Parl. Hist. iv. 8). On tions were then understood, while in 1666, 1 May he reported from the council to par- on the other hand, he strongly opposed the liament an unopened letter from the king to bill for prohibiting the importation of Irish Monk, and he was on the committee for pre- cattle (Parl. Hist. iv. 284; and CARTE’s paring an answer to that sent direct to the Ormond, iv. 234). In 1667 he was threathouse. On the same day he took part in the ened with an examination of his accounts if conference with the lords on the settlement he refused to assist in Buckingham's attack of the government of these nations.' On on Ormond; and such an examination ac1 June he was sworn of the privy council, and tually took place in 1668, but no charge on 4 June was placed on the commission for could be sustained. He was, however, temtendering the oaths of supremacy and alle- porarily suspended from his office of treagiance (Carte's Ormond, iv. 1). It was now surer to the navy (CARTE, iv. 330, 340;


PEPYS, 8 Dec. 1667, and 29 and 31 Oct., and sound lawyer, with a high reputation for 5, 11, and 14 Nov. 1668). During 1671 and scholarship, research, and the use of a 1672 Anglesey was employed continuously smooth, sharp, and keen pen' (Athence upon commissions appointed to inquire into Oxon. ii. 784). But there is no reason the working of the acts of settlement; and whatever for regarding him as a great man. in 1671 he also took the leading part in the His care for his own interests was constant conference between the houses regarding the and successful. Besides the profits of his lords' right to alter money bills, and wrote an various offices he secured large sums and acute and learned comment thereupon. On grants from Ireland. Thus, in 1661, he had 22 April 1672 his services were rewarded with a grant of the forfeited estates of the regithe office of lord privy seal, and in 1679 he cides Ludlow and Jones, as well as other was placed on the newly modelled privy spoil; on 10 March 1665-6 he received a council, which was framed at Temple's in- pension of 6001. a year ; on 24 March in the stance. When the popish terror began, Angle- following year 5001.; on 10 Oct. 5,0001. out sey showed independence of character; he is of forfeited lands, as well as many grants, recorded as the only peer who dissented from both of lands and money, under the acts of the vote declaring the existence of an Irish settlement, at various times. plot; and, according to his own testimony, Anglesey is noted as perhaps the first peer he interceded for Langhorne, Plunket, and who devoted time and money to the formaStrafford, though convinced of the guilt of the tion of a great library. The sale of this last (Happy Future State, p. 205; SIR W. library at his death is remembered because PETT, Memoirs of Anglesea, pp. 8, 9). This among the books was a copy of the · Eikon line of action brought upon him, on 20 Oct. Basilike,' which contained a memorandum, 1680, an accusation by Dangerfield, and he presumably by himself, though this is warmly was attacked by Sir William Jones, attorney- disputed (Biog. Britan.), to the effect that general, in the House of Commons (Happy the writer had been told both by Charles II Future State, p. 267 ; DANGERFIELD, Nar- and James II that the ` Eikon Basilike 'had ration). In 1681 Anglesea published “A been composed not by Charles I but by Bishop Letter from a Person of Honour in the Gauden. Country,' containing his Animadversions' In addition to the works mentioned, upon some memoirs regarding Irish affairs Anglesey wrote: 1. “The History of the written by the Earl of Castlehaven. There late Commotions and Troubles in Ireland,' were in this letter passages which seemed to from the Rebellion of 1641 to the Restorareflect on Charles I; Ormond was called upon tion, the manuscript of which was unfortuto answer it, and on 9 Aug. 1682 Anglesey nately lost. 2. "True Account of the whole was dismissed from his lucrative post of Proceedings betwixt his Grace the Duke of privy seal. His loss of office was doubtless Ormond and the Earl of Anglesea. 3. The hastened by another paper addressed to the King's Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matking, entitled “The Account of Arthur, Earl ters asserted.'4. " Truth Unveiled.'_ 5. • Reof Anglesea, to your most excellent Majesty, flections on a Discourse concerning Transubof the true State of your Majesty's Govern- stantiation.' ment and Kingdom. This was dated 27 April

[Wood's Athenæ (Bliss), iv. 18; Biographia 1682, immediately after the dissolution of Britannica; and other authorities quoted above.] Charles's last parliament. The boldness of

0. A. the tone of remonstrance, and the vehemence with which the attack on James was sup- ANNESLEY,FRANCIS, BARON MOUNTported at such a time, are remarkable. Upon NORRIS and VISCOUNT VALENTIA (1585–1660), his dismissal he retired to his seat of Blech- descended from the ancient family of Aningdon in Oxfordshire, and took no further nesley of Annesley, Nottinghamshire, was the part in public affairs, except by voting in a son of Thomas Annesley, high constable of minority of two, in 1685, against the reversal Newport, Buckinghamshire, and was baptised of Lord Strafford's attainder, for whose con 2 Jan. 1685-6. As early as 1606 he had left demnation he had voted, though pleading England to reside at Dublin, and he took afterwards for his pardon (SIR W. PETT, Me- advantage of the frequent distributions of moirs, p. 10). He died of quinsy on 26 April Irish land made to English colonists in the 1686.

early part of the seventeenth century to acAnglesey was undoubtedly a most useful quireestates in various parts of Ireland. officialduring his unbroken service of twenty With Sir Arthur Chichester, who became years (Pepys, passim), laborious, skilful, lord deputy in 1604, he lived on terms of cautious, moderate, and apparently, on the intimacy, and several small offices of state, whole, honest and independent in action, a | with a pension granted 5 Nov. 1607, were bestowed on him in his youthful days. In Earl of Strafford, became lord deputy, and Lord the colonisation of Ulster, which began in Mountnorris soon discovered that he was de1608, Annesley played a leading part, and termined to insist on the rights of his office secured some of the spoils. In October 1609 more emphatically than Falkland.

Wenthe was charged with the conveyance of Sir worth disliked Mountnorris from the first as Neil O'Donnell and other Ulster rebels to a gay liver, and as having been long guilty, acEngland for trial. On 13 March 1611-12 cording to popular report, of corruption in James I wrote to the lord deputy confirming the conduct of official duties. In May 1634 his grant of the fort and land of Mountnorris Wentworth obtained an order from the Engto Annesley 'in consideration of the good lish privy council forbidding his practice of opinion he has conceived of the said Francis taking percentages on the revenue to which from Sir Arthur's report of him.' On 26 May he was not lawfully entitled; this order 1612 Annesley was granted a reversion to the Mountnorris refused to obey. Fresh charges clerkship of the 'Checque of the Armies and of malversation were brought against him in Garrisons,'to which he succeeded 9 Dec. 1625. 1635, and, after threatening to resign office, In 1613 county Armagh returned Annesley he announced that all intercourse between to the Irish parliament, and he supported the lord deputy and himself was at an end, the protestants there in their quarrels with and that he should leave his case with the the catholics. On 16 July 1616 the king king. Mountnorris's relatives took up the knighted him at Theobalds ; in 1618 he be- quarrel. A younger brother insulted Wentcame principal secretary of state for Ireland; worth at a review, and another kinsman on 5 Aug. 1620 received from the king an Irish dropped a stool in Dublin castle on Wentbaronetcy; and on 11 March 1620-1 received worth’s gouty foot. At a dinner (8 April a reversionary

, grant to the viscounty of Va- 1635) at the house of the lord chancellor, one lentia, which had recently been conferred on of his supporters, Mountnorris boasted of Sir Henry Power, a kinsman of Annesley, this last act as probably done in revenge of without direct heir. In 1622 Lord Falk- the lord deputy's conduct towards himself; land became lord deputy of Ireland, and Sir he referred to his brother as being unwilling Francis sympathised very little with his to take'such a revenge,'and was understood to efforts to make the authority of his office imply that some further insult to Wentworth effective throughout Ireland. Dissensions was contemplated. Wentworth was now between him and Falkland in the council resolved to crush Mountnorris, and on 31 July chamber were constant, and in March 1625 following obtained the consent of Charles I the lord deputy wrote to Conway, the Eng- to inquire formally into the vice-treasurer's lish secretary of state, that a minority of the alleged malversation and to bring him before councillors, amongst whom Sir Francis An- a court-martial for the words spoken at the nesley is not least violent nor the least im- dinner in April. At the end of November pertinent,' was thwarting him in every direc- a committee of the Irish privy council undertion. But Annesley's friends at the English took the first duty, and on 12 Dec. Mountcourt contrived his promotion two months norris was brought before a council of war later to the important post of vice-treasurer at Dublin castle and charged, as an officer and receiver-general of Ireland, which gave in the army, with having spoken words dishim full control of Irish finance (RYMER's respectful to his commander and likely to Fædera (2nd edition), xviii. 148), and in 1628 breed mutiny, an offence legally punishable by Charles I raised him to the Irish peerage as death. Wentworth appeared as suitor for Baron Mountnorris of Mountnorris. In Oc- justice; after he had stated his case, and tober of the same year an opportunity was counsel had been refused Mountnorris, the given Annesley, of which he readily took ad- court briefly deliberated in Wentworth's. vantage, to make Falkland's continuance in presence, and pronounced sentence of death. Ireland impossible. He was nominated on a The lord deputy informed Mountnorris that committee of the Irish privy council appointed he would appeal to the king against the to investigate charges of injustice preferred sentence, and added: 'I would rather lose against Falkland by an Irish sept named my head than you should lose your head." Byrne, holding land in Wicklow. The com- In England the sentence was condemned on mittee, relying on the testimony of corrupt all hands ; in letters to friends, Wentworth witnesses, condemned Falkland's treatment attempted to justify it in the cause of disof the Byrnes, and Falkland was necessarily cipline, and even at his trial he spoke of it recalled on 10 Aug. 1629. On 13 June 1632 as in no way reflecting upon himself. The the additional office of treasurer at wars' only real justification for Wentworth's conwas conferred on Mount norris.

duct, however, lies in the fact that he had In 1633 Sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards obviously no desire to see the sentence executed; he felt it necessary, as he confessed MSS., A. 44, f. 120; A.57, f. 263). Henry two years later, to remove Mountnorris from Cromwell, writing to General Fleetwood office, and this was the most effective means (4 Feb. 1657–8), urges him to aid in carryhe could take. Hume attempts to extenuate ing out this arrangement, and speaks in high Strafford's conduct, but Hallam condemns terms of father and son (THURLOE's State the vindictive bitterness he here exhibited in Papers, vi. 777). Lord Mountnorris died in strong terms; and although Mr.S.R. Gardiner 1660. has shown that law was technically on Went- Lord Mountnorris married Dorothy, worth's side, and his intention was merely daughter of Sir John Phillipps, Bart., of to terrify Mountnorris, Hallam's verdict Picton Castle, Pembrokeshire, who died 3 May seems substantially just. In the result Mount- 1624. By her he had three sons, of whom norris, after three days' imprisonment, was Arthur, the eldest, became later Lord Anpromised his freedom if he would admit the nesley and Earl of Anglesey (see ANNESLEY, justice of the sentence, but this he refused to ARTHUR]. do. On the report of the privy council's [Lipscomb's Buckinghamshire, i. 279-80; committee of inquiry he was stripped of all Gardiner’s History of England, ed. 1884, viii. his offices, but on 13 Feb. 1635–6 a petition 20-3, 182–198 ; Nichols's Progresses of James I, to Strafford from Lady Mountnorris, which vols. jii. and iv.; Hallam's History, ii. 445; was never answered, proves that he was still Calendars of Irish State Papers, 1606-25; Clain prison. Later in the year Lady Mount- rendon State Papers, vol. i. passim ; Strafford's norris petitioned the king to permit her Letters, i. 508, et seq.; Lords' Journals, vols. iv. husband to return to England, and the ix.; Commons' Journals

, vols. ii. iii. v. vi.; Liber request was granted.

Hiberniæ, 44, 45, 99.]

S. L. L. The rest of Mountnorris's life was passed ANNESLEY JAMES (1715-1760), in attempts to regain his lost offices. On claimant, was born in 1715, and was the son 11 May 1641 he wrote to Strafford enumerat- of Lord Altham, according to one account, ing the wrongs he had done him, and desiring, by his wife Mary Sheffield, natural daughter in behalf of wife and children, a reconciliation of the Duke of Buckingham, or, according with himself

, and his aid in regaining the to another, by a woman called Juggy Landy. king's favour. But other agencies had al- Lord Altham, grandson of Arthur, the first ready been set at work in his behalf. A Earl of Anglesey, was a dissolute spendcommittee of the Long parliament had begun thrift. He was married in 1706, quarrelled at the close of 1640 to examine his rela- with his wife, was reconciled to her in 1713, tions with Strafford, and on 9 Sept. 1641 a and lived with her for some time at his house vote of the commons declared his sentence, at Dunmaine, co. Wexford. During their coimprisonment, and deprivations unjust and habitation the child was born. In 1716 they illegal. The declaration was sent up to the were again separated; the child remained lords, who made several orders between with the father, and was said to have been October and December 1641 for the attend treated for a time like a legitimate heir. ance before them of witnesses to enable them About 1722 Lord Altham fell under the into judge the questions at issue; but their fluence of a mistress, named Gregory. Lady final decision is not recorded in their journals. Altham returned to England in 1723, having In 1642 Mountnorris succeeded to the vis- for some time suffered from paralysis, and county of Valentia on Sir Henry Power's lingered in London till her death in October death. In 1643 the House of Commons 1729. Meanwhile the mistress (it is suggranted him permission, after much delay, gested) alienated the father's affections by to go to Duncannon in Ireland. In 1646 persuading him that the boy was not his he was for some time in London, but he lived, own son. The lad was left to himself, ramwhen not in Ireland, on an estate near his bled to different places during two years prebirth-place, at Newport Pagnell, Bucking- viously to his father's death (16 Nov. 1727), hamshire, which had been sold to him by and was at one time protected by a butcher Charles I in 1627. In 1648 parliament re- named Purcell. Lord Altham was succeeded stored him to the office of clerk of the signet by his brother Richard, afterwards Earl of in Ireland, and made him a grant of 5001. Anglesey, in spite of the reports as to the Later he appears to have lived on friendly existence of a legitimate son. In order to terms with Henry Cromwell, the lord deputy make things pleasant, the uncle attempted of Ireland during the protectorate, and to to kidnap the nephew, and succeeded, about have secured the office of secretary of state four months after the father's death, in having at Dublin. In November 1656 he proposed him sent to America and sold for a common to the English government that he should slave. The boy remained there till the term resign these posts to his son Arthur (Rawl. of his slavery was out; at the end of 1740 he entered one of the ships of Admiral Ver- Heath was prosecuted for perjury on 3 Feb. non’s fleet as a sailor, told his story to the 1744, but, after a repetition of much of the officers, and was brought back by Vernon former evidence, was acquitted. On 3 Aug. to England, where he took measures to sup- 1744 Lord Anglesey, with Francis Annesley port his claim. He was actively supported and John Jans, was tried for the assault at by a Mr. Mackercher, who appears as M- the Curragh, and they were all convicted in a chapter of 'Peregrine Pickle, where and fined. Smollett introduces a long narrative (of It seems that Annesley was unable to questionable authenticity) of the Annesley raise the funds necessary to prosecute his case and Mackercher's previous history. An case further. An. Abstract of the Case of action of ejectment was brought against James Annesley, published in 1751, is an the uncle, now Lord Anglesey, in possession appeal to the public to help him. He died of the Irish estates. On 1 May 1742 James 5 Jan. 1760, having been twice married, to a Annesley went out shooting at Staines, daughter of Mr. Chester of Staines (d. 1749), with a gamekeeper; they met a poacher by whom he left a son (d. 1763) and two netting the river, and a dispute followed, daughters, and, secondly, to a daughter of in which Annesley shot the man dead. He Sir Thomas l’Anson, by whom he had a son was tried for murder (15 July 1742), and (d. 1764) and a daughter (d. 1765). A doubtLord Anglesey, who had previously been ful narrative of his life in America is given thinking of a compromise, now thought that in the Gentleman's Magazine,' vol. xiii. he could get rid of his nephew, instructed The very curious trials are fully reported in an attorney to prosecute, and said that he the State Trials,' vols. xvi. and xvii. The did not care if it cost him 10,0001. to have story was turned to account by Scott in his nephew hanged. It was, however, clearly Guy Mannering' (see Gent. Mag. for July proved that the shot was fired by accident, 1840), and it has been more directly used by and James Annesley was acquitted. He Charles Reade in the “Wandering Heir.' went to Ireland in 1743 with Mackercher to

[Howell's State Trials, vols. xvi. and xvii.; carry on his action, in spite, as is said, of Abstract of Case of James Annesley, 1751; Gent. various attempts upon his life by the uncle. Mag. vols. xiii. and xiv.]

L. S. On 16 Sept. 1743 they went to some horse races at the Curragh, where they encountered ANNESLEY, RICHARD, EARL Lord Anglesey and his party. A riot took ANGLESEY (1694-1761), was seventh Visplace; the party were violently assaulted by count Valentia, seventh Baron Mountnorris, the earl's servants and friends ; Annesley and fifth Baron Altham in the peerage of escaped by the speed of his horse, though Ireland, and sixth Earl of Anglesey and injured by a bad fall, and three of his friends Baron of Newport-Pagnell in the peerage were knocked down, beaten, and stunned. of England, and held for some time the post The trial for ejectment came on upon 11 Nov. of governor of Wexford, but was chiefly 1743, and lasted for the then unprecedented distinguished for the doubts which hung space of fifteen days. The question was simply about his title to the barony of Altham and whether Lady Astham or Juggy Landy was the legitimacy of his children. He took his the claimant's mother. The most contra- seat in the Irish House of Lords as Baron dictory evidence was given. Several wit- Altham in 1727, on the death of his brother, nesses swore that they had been in the house the fourth baron, second son of Richard, the at the time of the birth, and said that Landy third baron, sometime prebendary of Westwas the foster-mother; that a road was spe- minster, and dean of Exeter in 1680, and cially made to her cottage after the event; succeeded his cousin Arthur, the fifth Earl of that the christening was celebrated by Anglesey, as remainderman in default of bonfires; and that Lord Altham repeatedly lawful issue in 1737, when he took his seat acknowledged James as his legitimate son in the Irish House of Lords as Lord Viscount and treated him accordingly. On the other Valentia and Baron Mountnorris, and in the hand it was sworn, especially by Mary Heath, English House of Lords as Earl of Anglewho attended Lady Altham until her death, sey and Baron of Newport-Pagnell. He was that the lady had never been pregnant at all. for a short time an ensign in the army, but The weight of evidence seems to be against quitted the service in 1715. In this year he the legitimacy, as the parents had strong married a lady named Ann Prust or Prest, reasons for establishing the birth of a legiti- daughter of Captain John Prust or Prest, of mate heir; though Lord Anglesey's unscru- Monckton, near Bideford, Devonshire, but he pulous behaviour implies doubt as to the appears to have deserted her almost immesufficiency of his cause. The verdict, how- diately. She died in 1741 without issue. ever, was given for the claimant. Mary Between 1737 and 1740 he lived with a lady


« PreviousContinue »