# Biographia Hibernica/Arthur Annesley

* related portals: Arthur Annesley.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
ARTHUR ANNESLEY,
Earl of Anglesey, and lord privy seal in the reign of Charles II. was the son of Sir Francis Annesley, Bart. Lord Mountnorris, and Viscount Valentia in Ireland; and was born in Dublin on the 10th of July, 1614. At the age of ten years he was sent to England, and at sixteen was entered a fellow commoner of Magdalen College, Oxford; where he pursued his studies with great diligence for about three or four years, and was considered a young man of great promise by all who knew him. From thence, in 1634, he removed to Lincolns Inn, ​where he applied, with great assiduity to the study of the law, till his father sent him to travel. He made the tour of Europe, and continued some time at Rome; from whence he returned to England in 1640, when he was elected knight of the shire for the county of Radnor in the parliament which sat at Westminster in the November of the same year; but the election being contested, he lost his seat, the votes of the House being against him, and Charles Price, Esq. his opponent, was declared duly elected. At the commencement of the dispute between King Charles I. and his parliament, Mr. Annesley inclined towards the royal cause, and sat in the parliament held at Oxford in 1643; but afterwards thought proper to abandon the king's party and reconcile himself to his adversaries, into the favour and confidence of whom he was soon admitted. In 1645 he was appointed, by the parliament, one of their commissioners in Ulster, where he managed the important business with which he was entrusted to the satisfaction of all parties, and contributed greatly to the benefit of the protestant cause in Ireland. With so much dexterity and judgment did he conclude his affairs at Ulster, that the famous Owen Roe O'Neil was disappointed in his designs, and the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, who was the chief support of his party, and whose counsels had been hitherto very successful, was not only taken prisoner, but all his papers were seized, and his foreign correspondence discovered, whereby vast advantages accrued to the protestants. The parliament had sent commissioners to the Duke of Ormond for the delivery of Dublin without success, and the precarious state of affairs making it necessary to renew their correspondence with him, they made choice of a second committee, and very wisely placed Mr. Annesley's name at the head of this second commission. The commissioners landed at Dublin on the 7th day of June, 1647; and, by their prudence and temper, brought their negociations to so happy an issue, that in a few days a treaty was concluded ​with the Lord-Lieutenant, which was signed on the 19th of that month, and Dublin was put into the hands of the parliament. It is to be lamented, that, when the commissioners were possessed of supreme power, they were guilty of numerous irregularities. Mr. Annesley disapproved of their conduct, but could not prevent them from doing several things quite contrary to his judgment; being, therefore, displeased with his situation, he resolved on returning immediately to England, where he found all things in great confusion. On his return to England, he seems to have steered a kind of middle course between the extremes of party violence—had no concern with the king's trial or death; and, on account of his strenuous opposition to some of the illegal acts of Cromwell, he was put among the number of the secluded members. After the death of the Protector, Mr. Annesley, though he doubted whether the parliament was not dissolved by the death of the king, resolved to get into the House if possible, and behaved in many respects, in such a manner as clearly evinced what his real sentiments were, and how much he bad at heart the re-settling of the constitution. In the confusion which followed he bad little or no share, being trusted neither by the parliament or army. But, when the secluded members began to resume their seats, and there were appearances of the revival of the old constitution, he joined with those who determined to recal the king, and took a decided part therein; and entered into a correspondence with King Charles, which unfortunately occasioned the death of his younger brother, who was drowned in stepping into a packet-boat with letters for his Majesty.
Soon after the Restoration, he was created Earl of Anglesey, and Baron of Newport Pagnel in Bucks: in the patent of which notice is taken of the signal services ​rendered by him to his Majesty, to whom he manifested his loyalty and attachment by sitting as one of the judges on the trials of the regicides. He had always a considerable share in the King's favour; and was heard, with great attention, both at the council and in the House of Lords. In 1667, he was made treasurer of the navy, and on the 4th of February, 1672, his Majesty, in council, was pleased to appoint the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Anglesey, the Lord Holles, the Lord Ashley Cooper, and Mr. Secretary Trevor, to be a committee to peruse and revise all the papers and writings concerning the settlement of Ireland, from the first to the last; and to make an abstract thereof in writing. Accordingly, on the 12th of June, 1672, they made their report at large, which was the foundation of a commission, dated the 1st of August, 1672, to Prince Rupert, the Dukes of Buckingham and Lauderdale, Earl of Anglesey, Lords Ashley and Holles, Sir John Trevor and Sir Thomas Chicheley, to inspect the settlements of Ireland, and all proceedings thereunto. In 1673, the Earl of Anglesey had the office of lord privy seal conferred upon him, which he held several years, with the favour of his sovereign. At a time when it was the practice to invent popish plots, he was publicly charged, at the bar of the House of Commons, (in October 1680,) by one Dangerfield, in an information delivered upon oath, with endeavouring to stifle evidence concerning the popish plot, to promote the belief of a presbyterian one. Yet the suspicion he incurred from this attack did not prevent him from being the only lord in the House of Peers who dissented from the vote of the Commons, which asserted the belief of an Irish popish plot.
On account of this conduct, he was unjustly charged with being a secret papist; though there appears to have existed no other ground for the suspicion, than that he was neither a bigoted nor a credulous man.
In 1680, the Earl of Castlehaven wrote Memoirs concerning the affairs of Ireland, wherein he represented the general ​rebellion in Ireland in the lightest colours possible, as if it had been at the commencement far from being universal, and at last was rendered so by the measures pursued by those whose duty it was to suppress the insurrection. The Earl of Anglesey having received these memoirs from the author, thought fit to write some animadversions upon them in a letter to the Earl of Castlehaven, wherein he delivered his opinion freely in respect to the Duke of Ormond and his government in Ireland. The Duke expostulated with the lord privy seal on the subject, to which the Earl replied. In 1682, when the succession produced a considerable degree of agitation, the Earl presented a very extraordinary remonstrance to the King; it was very warm and loyal, yet it was far from being well received. This memorial was entitled, "The account of Arthur Earl of Anglesey, lord privy seal, to your most excellent Majesty, of the true state of your Majesty's governments and kingdoms," April 27, 1682. In one part whereof he says, "The fatal cause of all our mischiefs present or apprehended, and which may cause a fire which may burn and consume us to the very foundations, is the unhappy perversion of the Duke of York (the next heir to the crown), in one point of religion; which naturally raises jealousy of the power, designs, and practices of the old enemies of our religion and liberties, and undermines and emasculates the courage and constancy even of those and their posterity who have been as faithful to, and suffered as much for the crown as any the most pleased and contented in our impending miseries can pretend to have done." He concludes with these words: "Though your majesty is in your own person above the reach of the law, and sovereign of all your people, yet the law is your master and instructor how to govern; and your subjects assure themselves you will never attempt the enervating that law by which you are king, and which you have not only by frequent declarations, but by a solemn oath upon your throne, been obliged, in a most glorious presence of your people, to the ​maintenance of; and that therefore you will look upon any that shall propose or advise to the contrary as unfit persons to be near you, and on those who shall persuade you it is lawful as sordid flatterers, and the worst and most dangerous enemies, you and your kingdoms have. What I have set before your majesty, I have written freely, and like a sworn faithful counsellor, perhaps not like a wise man with regard to myself as things stand; but I have discharged my duty, and will account it a reward if your majesty vouchsafe to read what I durst not but write, and which I beseech God to give a blessing to."
It was not, however, thought advisable to remove him from his high office on account of his free style of writing to the king, but the Duke of Ormond was easily prevailed upon to exhibit a charge against him on account of his reflections on the Earl of Castlehaven's Memoirs, (in the which, for his own justification, he had been obliged to reflect on the duke): this produced a severe contest between these two peers, which terminated in the Earl of Anglesey's losing his place of lord privy seal, being dismissed from the council, and his letter to Lord Castlehaven voted a scandalous libel, though his enemies were obliged to confess he was treated with both severity and injustice. After this overthrow he lived very much in retirement at his country seat at Blechington in Oxfordshire, where he seemingly resigned all ambitious views, and devoted his time to the calm enjoyment of study; but so well versed was he in the mysteries of court intrigues, that he got into favour again in the reign of James II. and is supposed to have been destined for the high office of lord chancellor, if the design had not been prevented by his death, which happened at his house in Drury-lane, April 6, 1686, in the 73rd year of his age. He left several children by his wife, who was one of the co-heiresses of Sir James Altham.
He was a man endowed with superior talents and extensive learning, was well versed in the Greek and Roman ​history, and thoroughly acquainted with the spirit and policy of those nations. The legal and constitutional history of his country were the objects of his particular study, both of which he had pursued with so much perseverance as to be esteemed one of the first lawyers of his age. He wrote with great facility, and was the author of several political and religious publications and historic narratives; but the largest and most valuable of all his works of this description was unfortunately lost, or, as some insinuate, maliciously destroyed; this was "A History of the Troubles in Ireland, from 1641 to 1660." He was one of the first English peers who distinguished himself by collecting a choice library, which he did with much care and at a great expense, designing it to remain in his family, but owing to some circumstances which have not been explained, his books, a few months after his decease, were exposed to sale by a Mr. Millington, a famous auctioneer of that period. This sale has been rendered memorable by the discovery of the Earl's famous memorandum in the blank leaf of an Ειχαν Βασιλιχη, which was as follows: "King Charles the Second, and the Duke of York did both (in the last session of parliament 1675), when I shewed then in the lords' house the written copy of this, wherein are some corrections and alterations (written with the late King Charles the First's own hand), assure me that this was none of the said King's compiling, but made by Dr. Gauden, Bishop of Exeter, which I here insert for the undeceiving others in this point by attesting thus much under my hand, Anglesey." But perhaps the reader will doubt the genuineness of this memorandum, if he reads "A Vindication of King Charles the Martyr," published in quarto, in 1711. Indeed Bishop Burnet, in his History of his own Times, vol. i. p. 50, relates pretty near the same foolish story; but if the reader carefully considers that passage, be will evidently see it destroys itself, for, amongst other things that may be justly observed against the veracity of that account, he (Burnet) speaks of the Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Southampton, as living at a time when it ​is well known they were both dead. His versatility, in regard to his political conduct, has been often censured; yet even those who have been so ready to blame, have discovered and acknowledged strong gleams of integrity occasionally shining through it. He certainly succeeded, in a great degree, in ingratiating himself with men and parties, as opposite as possible in their opinions and politics; and, if it was true that James II. designed him for lord chancellor at a time when he had Jefferies at his command, nothing (as has been observed with much truth) could throw a greater stigma on the Earl's character.
The following is a list of his Lordship's writings, published during his life-time:—1. "Truth Unveiled in behalf of the Church of England; being a Vindication of Mr. John Standish's Sermon, preached before the King, and published by his Majesty's Command: to which is added, A short Treatise on the Subject of Transubstantiation," 1676, 4to.—2. "A Letter from a Person of Honour in the Country, written to the Earl of Castlehaven; being Observations and Reflections on his Lordship's Memoirs concerning the Wars of Ireland," 1681, 8vo—3. "A True Account of the whole Proceedings between James Duke of Ormond, and Arthur Earl of Anglesey, before the King and his Council," &c. 1689, folio.—4. "A Letter of Remarks upon Jovian," 1683, 4to. Besides these, he wrote many other things; the following of which were published after his decease:—1. "The Privileges of the House of Lords and Commons argued and stated in Two Conferences between both Houses, April 19 and 22, 1671: to which is added, A Discourse wherein the Rights of the House of Lords are truly asserted; with learned Remarks on the securing Arguments and pretended Precedents offered at that time against their Lordships."—2. "The King's Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matters, with the Equity thereof asserted," 1688, 4to.—3. "Memoirs intermixed with Moral, Political, and Historical Observations, by way of discourse, in a Letter to Sir Peter Pett," 1693, 8vo.