ANNESLEY, Arthur (c. 1678-1737)

Annesley was baptized on 28 Sept. 1678, by his uncle Richard Annesley, the future dean of Exeter: his godparents were his grandfather, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, Lord Chief Baron William Montagu^‡ and the countess of Warwick. Add. 18730, f. 46. His marriage to his cousin, Mary Thompson, was evidently intended to alter the family settlements, for on the death (18 Jan. 1702) of his eldest brother James, it was reported that James had ‘given all his Irish estate which is about £6,000 p. annum to his third brother [i.e. Arthur], who lately married the Lord Haversham’s daughter, as he would have done his English estate too, which is about £1200 p. annum had he lived to the term to cut off the entail.’ Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 22 Jan. 1702. This led to litigation with his older brother, John, and also with the widow of the 3rd earl, who claimed that Arthur Annesley, his brother John and Haversham had seized all the real and personal estate of her deceased husband. The dispute between the brothers was still unsettled in 1705. TNA, C6/336/15; C9/179/19.

Annesley was an active Member for Cambridge University 1702-10, and an associate of Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state and a leading high church Tory. After Nottingham’s dismissal in 1704, he became a fierce critic of the ministry speaking out in support of the bill against occasional conformity and against the settlement proposed for John Churchill, duke of Marlborough. In popular literature he became a Tory caricature and in one poem his rhetorical style was compared to that of Billingsgate fish market. POAS, vii. 115-16. He negotiated a reconciliation between Nottingham and Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, which smoothed relations between the high church and moderate Tories. Annesley opposed the impeachment of Dr Sacheverell and further attempts to elevate Marlborough, whom he described as a ‘man whose pride was already intolerable’. Wentworth Pprs. 110. His career in the Commons would have continued but for the untimely death of his brother in September 1710. The fourth earl’s wife was expecting a child at the time of his death and there was some talk that the birth of a son would raise questions regarding the peerage succession. The situation, however, did not arise and Anglesey was using the title when writing to Nottingham on 1 Oct. 1710. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 630; Leics. RO, Finch mss DG 7, box 4950, bdle. 23, E24.

Even before the death of his brother, Annesley was in line for preferment, his name being included on several of Harley’s memoranda, as he had been in 1708. Add. 70333, memo 1 July 1708, memo 12 Sept. 1710; 70331, memo c. June 1710. At the end of September 1710 Anglesey was given his brother’s office of vice-treasurer and treasurer at war of Ireland, estimated to be worth £6,000 a year. HIP, 1692-1800, iii. 92; Bath mss Thynne pprs. 47, f. 48. On 3 Oct. he was listed by Harley as a likely supporter of the ministry, and on the 19th, together with Henry Hyde, styled Lord Hyde, the future 2nd earl of Rochester, he was named to the Privy Council.

Anglesey took his seat in the Lords on 25 Nov. 1710, taking the oaths on that day. He attended on 99 days of the session, 88 per cent of the total sittings, and was named to 19 committees. On 16 Jan. 1711, John Elphinstone, 4th Baron Balmerinoch [S], wrote that together with Alexander Montgomerie, 9th earl of Eglinton [S], he had been with Anglesey about the case of James Greenshields, noting that Anglesey ‘was a very good speaker in the House of Commons but has not yet spoken in ours.’ Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 124. On 24 Jan. Anglesey was keen to ensure that the action of Viscount Galway [I], in yielding the post of the queen’s troops to the Portuguese, was voted an act contrary to the honour of the crown, rather than merely derogatory to it. Wentworth Pprs. 179. On 5 Feb. he spoke in favour of the bill repealing the general naturalization act and entered his dissent to the resolution to reject it. Nicolson London Diaries, 542. On 9 Mar. he was appointed to manage a conference with the Commons on the safety of the queen’s person. According to Swift, on 6 Apr. Anglesey joined in soliciting ‘admirably’ while lobbying the Commons against a bill imposing a duty on Irish yarn, and Swift attended him again on the same business on 9 April. Jnl. to Stella ed. Williams, 235, 237. On 16 May a bill to enable Anglesey and Lord Hyde to take the oath of office for their Irish posts in England passed through all its stages in the Lords.

At the beginning of May 1711 Anglesey supported the land grants bill, an attempt by the Tories to reverse certain grants made by William III. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 131. His influence in high church circles was demonstrated by the observation of the Rev. Ralph Bridges on 21 May that Anglesey persuaded Henry Compton, bishop of London, to appoint Sir Thomas Gooch^†, the future bishop of Ely, as his chaplain. Add. 72495, ff. 71-72. On 1 June Anglesey spoke in defence of Irish interests in the debate on the Scottish linen bill, part of which prevented the export of Scottish linen yarn, much of which was destined for Ireland. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 136. Anglesey was identified as a Tory patriot during the 1710-11 session.

Anglesey was in Dublin by 7 July 1711, when he wrote a letter of introduction to Lord Treasurer Oxford on behalf of Thomas Keightly, Rochester’s brother-in-law. Add. 70282, Anglesey to Oxford, 7 July 1711. On 9 July Anglesey (as Viscount Valentia [I]) and his cousin, Arthur (as Viscount Altham [I]) took their seats on the opening day of the session of the Irish parliament. LJ [I], ii. 362. On 12 July he wrote to Oxford offering to collect evidence of the misdeeds of Thomas Wharton, earl, later marquess, of Wharton, the previous lord lieutenant, in case such material could prove useful in curbing Wharton’s effectiveness as a politician in England. Add. 70282, Anglesey to Oxford, 12 July 1711. His campaign against Wharton prompted Archbishop King of Dublin to write to Swift on 28 July, ‘you will observe several reflections that are in the addresses on the late management here [i.e. Wharton’s], in which the earl of Anglesey and I differed.’ Swift Corresp. ed. Woolley, i. 366.

Whilst in Ireland, Anglesey obviously made a favourable impression on some of the populace, being described in November 1711 as the ‘darling of the church party.’ HIP, 1692-1800, iii. 92. On 5 Dec. 1711, Anglesey had not yet returned from Ireland, with the parliamentary session imminent. Add. 72495, ff. 108-9. However, he was back in the chamber for the opening day of session on 7 Dec., having ‘that morning travelled above 30 miles’. During the debate on the address he supported the need for peace, further suggesting ‘that we might have enjoyed that blessing soon after the battle of Ramillies, if the same had not been put off by some persons, whose interest it was to prolong the war,’ an obvious reference to Marlborough who responded to it. Boyer, Anne Hist. 527. Having spoken on the Tory side of the debate, as Nottingham noted when he revealed to his wife ‘his great grief’ that he and Anglesey ‘differ in the matter of the peace', he probably did not vote for the inclusion of the ‘No Peace without Spain’ clause in the Address. Northants. RO, Finch-Hatton 281, Nottingham to w. 26 Dec. 1711, n.d. However, on 8 Dec. 1711, when there was an attempt by the ministry to reverse that vote, Anglesey forced a division on whether the words should stand as part of the address and had been listed as one of those likely to do so. Wentworth Pprs. 222-3.

Anglesey attended on 78 days of the 1711-12 session, 74 per cent of the total. On the issue of the rights and privileges of the Scottish peers, Anglesey was noted as having left the House on 19 Dec. 1711 when the question was put that no patent of honour granted to any peer of Great Britain, who was a peer of Scotland at the time of the Union, entitled him to sit and vote in Parliament. Given this abstention, Oxford listed him on 29 Dec. as one of the peers to be contacted during the Christmas recess. Meanwhile, on 20 Dec. he had seconded Nottingham when the latter went to meet Members of the House of Commons to ensure that the committee added a penalty clause to the occasional conformity bill ‘without which the bill would have been certainly useless.’ Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 168; Northants. RO, Finch-Hatton, 281; Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Politics, 107.

By January 1712, there is evidence from Swift that Anglesey was of sufficient importance to be one of those invited to dine with Oxford on a Saturday, ‘his day of choice company’. Jnl. to Stella, 469, 599. Family matters did, however, produce tensions with another Tory grandee: on 17 Jan. Anglesey and John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham, exchanged ‘hard words’ in the Lords and almost came to blows over the guardianship and custody of the countess of Buckingham’s daughter by her first husband, Anglesey’s brother, James, 3rd earl of Anglesey. Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 140; Wentworth Pprs. 254-5. The Lords found in favour of Anglesey in this case, the latest in a long series of lawsuits arising from the will of the 3rd earl. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 716-7. A proxy was registered in his favour from William Stawell, 3rd Baron Stawell, on 4 Mar. and from William North, 6th Baron North, on 7 April. Anglesey registered his own proxy in favour of John Poulett, Earl Poulett, from 21 to 28 May 1712 and again on 13 June 1712. On 12 Apr. Anglesey acted as a teller for the division on committing the bill restoring rights of Scottish ecclesiastical patronage. Also, on the 12th he reported to the House from the committee of the whole on the bill on behalf of Agmondisham Vesey. On 5 May he reported from committees on the bill for regius professors of universities and the bill uniting the parishes of Horndon and Ingrave in Essex. He was present on 28 May to support the ministry against the Whig attack on the ‘restraining’ orders given to Ormond, both speaking and voting in their favour. Bodl. Rawl. A. 286, ff. 413-6; PH, xxvii. 177.

On 12 Dec. 1712 Anglesey was reported to have told Gooch that ‘upon the sitting down of the Parliament, we shall have our peace.’ Add. 72496, ff. 32-33. He attended the prorogation on 3 Feb. 1713, and in a list of mid-March to early April 1713, in the hand of Jonathan Swift with additions by Oxford, Anglesey was marked as expected to support the ministry. The day before the delayed session convened, Anglesey told Oxford that he had come to town to receive his commands, and he was duly in attendance when the session opened on 9 Apr. Add. 70282, Anglesey to Oxford, 8 Apr. 1713. In total he attended on 47 days of the session, 71 per cent. In or about mid-June 1713, Oxford classed him as likely to oppose the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty, and his name appears on a list of 12 peers expected to desert the court over the issue. It was also noted that, if the bill had reached the Lords, Anglesey had already declared his opposition to it, as he had declared against it in the Lords on 17 June. Northants RO, Isham mss IC 2325, J. to Sir J. Isham, 23 June 1713; Boyer, 638. Indeed, following the bill’s defeat in the Commons on 18 June, some commentators ascribed its fate to Anglesey and Sir Thomas Hanmer^‡, ‘which two had a consultation with several Members about it.’ Robert Monckton^‡ also ascribed the defeat of the French commercial bill to ‘the defection of Sir Tho[mas] Hanmer and a great number of the Tories instigated principally by my Lord Abingdon and Anglesey’. Certainly, Anglesey, Hanmer and Montagu Venables Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon, provoked anger on both sides by their whimsical behaviour. Bodl. Ballard, 31, ff. 104-5; Lincs. Archives, MON/28/B/9/108-16, [Monckton], to [W. Archer], 26 June 1713. L’Hermitage reported on 18 June that Anglesey was ‘determined to drive the lord treasurer to extremities, and has been, for some time, in strict connection with’ John Campbell, duke of Argyll [S]. He continued, ‘this earl is one of the greatest Tories, and is not a good tempered man. He is very haughty, and very ambitious. He is one of the most active men in the world, and does not deviate an inch from what he hath once undertaken.’ L’Hermitage also linked Anglesey’s opposition to the Pretender to his possession of extensive Irish lands. Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. ii. 495-6. On 30 June Anglesey supported Wharton’s motion for an address requesting that the queen secure the Pretender’s expulsion from Lorraine. Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Politics, 139.

However, this did not mean an irreconcilable break with the lord treasurer, and by the end of June 1713 Anglesey was attending Oxford’s levee, to ‘make his compliment.’ Bodl. Ballard, 31, f. 106. At this stage in his life Anglesey was considered to be a peer with significant influence, but it was unclear how he would use it. Bodl. North, c. 8, ff. 193-4. His support for the Tories and his commitment to what he called the ‘Church interest’ was evident from his correspondence with Swift. He was being courted constantly by the Whigs, L’Hermitage noting on 4 July that ‘Anglesey unites himself more and more with the Whigs, and they concert measures together for promoting something in Parliament.’ To that end ‘he had an interview yesterday’ with Charles Montagu, Baron Halifax, and others. Macpherson, ii. 496. In September 1713 Nottingham outlined his hopes to Sunderland of having Anglesey’s assistance:

the libel on him clearly instigated by the ministry, another bill of commerce, and the transactions abroad this summer should and I hope will incite him to exert himself to prevent some things which I know he fears, and if the majority of the commons should be such as he esteems his friends, as is very probable, he will be freed from some apprehensions which fettered him to the present ministry and he will have the greater honour. Leics. RO, Finch mss DG7, box 4950, bdle. 24, Nottingham to Sunderland [Sept. 1713].

On 14 Sept. Sunderland wrote to Nottingham suggesting that in the forthcoming Parliament ‘a great deal will turn on the part Lord Anglesey, and Sir Thomas Hanmer will act; I don’t much doubt the first from his good sense, after what passed at the end of last session’. Leics. RO, Finch mss DG7, box 4950, bdle. 24, Sunderland to Nottingham, 14 Sept. 1713.

On 4 Sept. 1713, in the middle of the election campaign, Anglesey was on his way to his ‘country house’ to dine with James Barry^‡, Lord Barrymore [I], and Richard Shuttleworth^‡, two of the Members over whom he was believed to exercise some influence. Add. 70287, Bromley to Oxford 4 Sept. [1713]. Also in September 1713 the duchess of Marlborough commented on the rumours that Anglesey would succeed as lord lieutenant of Ireland: ‘I suppose it will please him, but how he can be made secure of his great estate in that country that belongs to so many Roman Catholics, I can’t imagine.’ Add. 61463, ff. 106-7. At about the same time, William Berkeley, 4th Baron Berkeley of Stratton, felt that the best card held by the incumbent lieutenant, Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, was the threat of Anglesey being sent in his place if he failed, noting that Anglesey was ‘more of a party than is liked in that kingdom’, and that he had been ‘long intriguing for that government, tho’ he pretends an averseness to it, and at some time or other will certainly have it.’ Wentworth Pprs. 357. Interestingly, in November 1713 it was reported that Argyll had referred to Anglesey as ‘the fittest man to be a prime minister, and he shall live to see him so.’ Lansd. 1024, f. 427.

Anglesey was in Ireland before the opening of the parliamentary session in Dublin and attended on the opening day on 25 Nov. 1713. Add. 70279, Oxford to Shrewsbury, 10 Nov. 1713; LJ [I], ii. 419. He kept a close eye on events in England, writing to Oxford on 21 Nov.:

I am extremely pleased to hear the treaty of commerce is likely to come to so fair a conclusion, and I doubt not that it is under your lordship’s eye, but that all objections which have been raised against it will be removed to the great satisfaction of all her majesty’s faithful servants. Add. 70031, f. 229.

Anglesey came to the aid of the Irish lord chancellor, Sir Constantine Phipps, on 18 Dec. 1713 assisting in the passage of an address by the Irish house of lords that he had ‘acquitted himself with honour and integrity’, although Alan Brodrick^‡ noted of Anglesey’s contribution that ‘at the time of his speaking I observed a want of that vivacity and presence of mind which at other times appears in him’. Surr. Hist. Cent. Midleton mss 1248, A. to T. Brodrick, 18 Dec. [1713]. A newsletter at the end of December 1713 recorded that on this occasion Anglesey had ‘made a very excellent speech wherein he told them it was hard that so worthy a minister should be attacked and those who were concerned for the government stood silent and much more to that effect which words seem to point at another great person in that kingdom.’ Add. 70070, newsletter, 31 Dec. 1713.

On 5 Jan. 1714 Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, informed James Grahme^‡ that the British Parliament would sit on 16 Feb. and that the Parliament in Dublin would be prorogued before it ‘and our friend Anglesey be here’. Bagot mss Levens Hall, Weymouth to Grahme, 5 Jan. 1713/4. On 16 Jan. Anglesey informed Swift that he was preparing for his journey to England, assuring the dean that ‘steady and vigorous measures’ would strengthen their position both in Ireland and England. Swift Corresp. i. 585. In this he was encouraged by a long missive from Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, on 25 Jan. which urged him to return ‘as soon as possibly you can; your friends here are ready to concert freely and honourably with you; and I am persuaded that we may act, through the whole session as one man, and if we once find this art, the opposite faction is undone.’ Bolingbroke Corresp. iv. 444.

If anything, Anglesey’s visit to Ireland seemed to bolster his support for the English ministry. On his return he felt able to rebuff all attempts by the Whigs and their allies to entice him into open opposition. In particular, he opposed Nottingham’s suggestion that measures should be concerted to invite George, duke of Cambridge (the future George II), to reside in England, his presence being widely seen as enabling Anglesey to break with the court. Macpherson, ii. 571-2. As the Hanoverian envoy, Schütz, remarked at the end of February 1714, Anglesey ‘is a great deal more cool than he was before he went to Ireland, and he declines hitherto, to enter into what our friends propose to him.’ Ibid. 574. The duchess of Marlborough found him quite a puzzle,

… who I don’t know at all, I believe I have never seen him. He may have some talents but sure a man of judgment could not have done what he did in Ireland to support the chancellor and be, as I think he is really, against the P. of W. and yet the refusing to vote against the Popish decree is agreeable to his friendship to the Irish chancellor. Add. 61463, ff. 124-7.

Even after the Parliament met his position with respect to the court was still unsure. Holmes, 327.

Anglesey had arrived by the beginning of the session on 16 Feb. 1714. He attended on 63 days of the session, 83 per cent of all sittings and was named to 16 committees of the House. On 19 Mar. in the committee of the whole debating the state of the nation, Anglesey came to the aid of the ministry which was facing attack over the fate of their wartime allies, the Catalans. He observed that these proceedings had been initiated ‘merely out of spleen and envy’ and that the conduct of the previous ministry should be inquired into so as to be compared with the present one. Boyer, 678. No doubt in connection with this, on 21 Mar. William Bromley^‡ reported to Oxford a meeting he had held the previous day at which Anglesey’s chief aim had been to ‘be furnished with materials to make good his challenge against the old ministry, being determined as far as he is able to support you in your administration. I think him very sincere in these assurances.’ Bromley hoped that a dinner with Oxford on the 23rd would allow Oxford to ‘be so explicit with him as may confirm and fix his resolutions to serve you.’ Add. 70032, ff. 105-6. A memorandum written by Oxford on 22 Mar. may refer to this meeting: ‘Lord A - I have no views. I have and will do all I can. I will tell you when I cannot. I will attack, or not - will not vary, do not this because I want, for I desire to be out &c.’ Add. 70331, memo. 22 Mar. 1713/4.

By late March 1714 Anglesey seemed to be wavering in the face of Whig blandishments. Holmes, 355-6. On 26 Mar. it was reported that Argyll ‘outdid himself’ in his attempts to influence Anglesey. Macpherson, ii. 585. On 1 Apr. Anglesey met with Argyll, and the Hanoverian Tories, Nottingham, Hanmer and William Dawes, archbishop of York, at which the chief article agreed was to concert measures with the Whigs to ensure the Protestant succession and the defeat of the Pretender. Ibid. ii. 587-8; Rev. Pols, 241. Anglesey’s next parliamentary intervention was on 5 Apr. when he launched a vigorous attack on the ministry in which he was said to have ‘ripped up the peace’ and spoken ‘with the greatest violence and virulency imaginable’. HIP, 1692-1800, iii. 93; Lockhart Letters, ii. 93. The Whig attack on the peace of Utrecht that day led to the Court proposing a motion that the Hanoverian succession was not in danger, to which Simon Harcourt, Baron Harcourt, the lord chancellor, added the words ‘under her majesty’s administration’. As Robert Wodrow was informed, it was Harcourt’s amendment which provoked Anglesey to

a flaming speech, in which he told the House that he had been drawn into the peace from the assurance he had that it was most honourable for Great Britain that satisfaction and security had been thereby obtained to our allies that we were to have a treaty of commerce, by which the nation would gain two millions per annum. And he appealed to their lordships whether one title of those things were true in fact. But on the contrary our allies abandoned and even what we had obtained for ourselves left to bona fide of the French king. No guarantee for the succession but the French king and the king of Sicily. That he was amazed at the words offered by the noble lord to be added to the question. Did the ministry want to be screened by these words (of her majesty’s government). Did they lie under an imputant of contributing to the danger of the Protestant succession that they want to be justified by a side wind. If they thought themselves reflected upon by the question as it was first moved, let them have a day to vindicate themselves from it but (said he) I will follow any minister, be who he will, from the queen’s closet to Tower Hill, that shall have done, or shall do any thing to weaken that Succession. NLS, Avocates’ mss Wodrow letters Quarto 8, ff. 82-3; Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters 6, George Baillie to wife, 6 Apr. 1714; Bodl. Ballard 38, f. 197; Wentworth Pprs. 366.

In another account from a newsletter, Anglesey

opposed it violently and fell a railing against all the proceedings of the peace. He said he had been one of those who was for vindicating the suspension of arms not for any reasons he had heard within doors but for some he was told without, viz, that there was a peace concluded advantageous to this nation and secure to all the allies, that the protestant succession was effectually secured by it and that we should have such a trade as would bring in 2 millions p.a. What there was of this that proved true their Lordships could now judge. He said a good deal more with a great deal of warmth and concluded that if the succession was not in danger before, this vote would make it so. Add. 22221, ff. 107-8.

The Court managed to add Harcourt’s amendment, but their majority sank to fourteen. Although the Whigs let the main question through, they passed several other votes for an address to the queen for a proclamation to apprehend the Pretender ‘dead or alive’ and for expressing their disquiet at the duke of Lorraine’s failure to expel him.

If Anglesey’s intention had been to force himself to the ministry’s attention, he certainly succeeded. On the evening of 5 Apr. 1714 he was invited to dine with Bolingbroke, and on the 7th he attended Oxford’s levee, leading some to conclude that he had been bought off by the promise of the lieutenancy of Ireland. Boyer, 684. He also had a lengthy interview with the queen. Holmes, 364-5. The upshot of all this was that when the Lords came to consider the report of the address on the Pretender on 8 Apr. Anglesey and several other ‘straggling’ Lords returned to the ministerial fold and several amendments were passed which allowed the queen to decide when to issue the proclamation against the Pretender and to offer a reward for bringing him to justice not just for his head. Wentworth Pprs. 366-7; Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters 6, Baillie to wife, 10 Apr. 1714.

Anglesey was in the country and unavailable for consultation before Schütz asked Harcourt for a writ of summons for the duke of Cambridge. However, upon his return to London on the evening of the 12 Apr. he concurred with the plan. Macpherson, ii. 592. On 13 Apr. when the House came to debate the queen’s answer to their address of the 8th on the Pretender, Wharton proposed a further address which was amended by the court. On the main amendment Anglesey narrowly failed to secure the rejection of the term ‘and industriously’ when referring to the fears and jealousies which had been ‘universally’ spread about the threats to the protestant succession. The insertion of these words was carried for the ministry by two proxy votes. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters 6, Baillie to wife, 13 Apr. 1714; Add. 47087, f. 68; HMC Polwarth, i. 18-19. On 14 Apr. Anglesey acted as a teller on the committal of the place bill, and on 17 Apr. he acted as a teller in a division in the committee of the whole and as a teller on the motion to pass the bill. On 15 Apr., when the Commons debated the motion that the Hanoverian succession was not in danger, one contemporary recorded that those against the ministry included ‘all my Lord Anglesey’s interest.’ Holmes, 373. On 16 Apr. when the Lords came to consider the Spanish treaties, Anglesey was one of the ‘revolters from the Church Party … smoked out’ by voting against an address ‘in favour of the peace and the ministry’. BLJ, xix. 172. Interestingly, Henry Brydges recorded that on 21 Apr. he had met Anglesey at the home of Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester. SCLA, DR 671/89, diary 3, p. 14, 21 Apr. [1714].

In a letter of 7 May 1714 to the Electress Sophia, Anglesey said he was obliged by duty, his own inclination and ‘the same principles of loyalty and obedience’ which made him a ‘faithful’ and ‘good subject to her majesty’, to be a ‘firm and zealous servant to the Hanoverian Succession’ and to ‘secure and preserve to these nations our invaluable constitution in Church and state’. Stowe 227, f. 21. However, at the same time William Cadogan^†, the future Earl Cadogan, was enunciating his fears to Bothmer that unless the electoral prince was sent over, Anglesey, Dawes, Hanmer and their friends would ‘leave us soon, for they declare publicly enough that the succession cannot be secured but by the presence of the prince’. Macpherson, ii. 615.

On 22 May 1714, a correspondent of Lord North revealed the machinations going on in the ministry, with Anglesey suggested as a candidate to replace Bolingbroke, or that both Oxford and Bolingbroke would be removed and that ‘there is a party cooking up that would gladly rout the present set of ministers, the Speaker [Hanmer], and Mr Hill and Lord Anglesey are of that number, upon the dismission of the Parliament we shall see something done.’ Bodl. North c. 9, ff. 74-75. At the end of May 1714, John Vanbrugh informed Marlborough that Anglesey was suspicious of the duke being in the Pretender’s interest. Add. 61353, ff. 156-7.

Given Anglesey’s conviction that the Presbyterians posed one of the greatest threats to the constitution, in late May or early June 1714, Nottingham confidently predicted that he would support the schism bill. His assessment was correct: on 4 June Anglesey spoke in the debate for four hours which ended in an unopposed motion for a second reading of the schism bill. BLJ, xix. 173. He remarked that ‘the Dissenters were equally dangerous both to church and state’, making reference to their conduct under James II when ‘in order to obtain a toleration, they joined themselves with the papists.’ Furthermore, they were unworthy of the ‘indulgence’ granted them at the revolution because they had endeavoured ‘to engross the education of youth’ by setting up schools and academies ‘to the great detriment of the universities and danger of the established church.’ Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 1353. On 11 June he acted as a teller in favour of a motion that the committee of the whole on the schism bill be allowed to receive a clause extending its provisions to Ireland, a measure which Thomas Coningsby^†, the future Baron Coningsby, later interpreted as part of a conscious design by the Church party to weaken the English interest in Ulster. Add. 61639, f. 139. Peter Wentworth described it more triumphantly as carrying ‘a clause that the House of Commons did not think fit to send up to the Lords for fear of the loss of the whole bill.’ Wentworth Pprs. 388.

On 15 June 1714 Anglesey brought into the Lords a bill ‘against popery’, which aimed to make more effectual an act of James I’s reign against recusants and also an act of William and Mary to vest the presentation of benefices belonging to papists in the two universities. Add. 70070, newsletter, 15 June 1714. On 30 June Anglesey defended the bill for examining public accounts at its first reading in the Lords, noting that ‘tho’ there had not yet been any considerable discoveries made, yet since it was probable there might be, and the burthen to the nation was but twelve thousand pounds, it was his opinion to be continued’, a view which the House narrowly endorsed. Wentworth Pprs. 403. On 5 July Anglesey was opposed to any censure of Bolingbroke during the debate on an address to the queen over naming the ministers who had advised the ratification of the articles of the Spanish commercial treaty, which was attributed by many to offers of high office on the fall of Oxford. On the following day Charles Ford was predicting Bolingbroke’s triumph and consequently Anglesey’s appointment to the Irish lieutenancy; rumours which had been current for some time. Swift Corresp. i. 634-5; Wodrow letters Quarto 8, f. 138; Verney ms mic. M636/55, Fermanagh’s notes, c. June 1714. On 8 July Anglesey moved the House to address the queen to thank her for the part of the asiento she had given to the South Sea Company, to which Nottingham added that what remained vested in her should be applied for the public. Add. 47027, f. 140. The queen’s response on 9 July that she would dispose of it as she saw fit ‘put the House into the greatest fury’; her physician recorded that he had been told by William Cowper, Baron (later Earl) Cowper that her response had provoked Anglesey and Wharton to ‘hot speeches’. BLJ, xix. 174; Hamilton Diary, 63. In particular, Anglesey noted that he could not support an order for printing the address and the queen’s reply ‘there having never been known such an answer returned to that House’. Furthermore, he would have acquiesced if the queen had ‘given them a flat denial’. She had, however, prefaced her refusal by saying ‘she always regarded their addresses at the same instant that she did not regard them was what he could not let pass without taking some notice of a thing so strange.’ Add. 47027, f. 141.

Meanwhile, in response to a legal opinion on the election of the lord mayor of Dublin delivered to the council on 16 July 1714, Anglesey was reported to be railing against Harcourt. Swift Corresp. ii. 16. On 21 July James Johnston^‡ wrote to Sir William Trumbull^‡ that ‘my Lord Anglesey, who was to have his share, is now in no great understanding with Bolingbroke and has broke with the chancellor [Harcourt].’ Add. 72488, ff. 89-90. Although he was still reported to be angry with Harcourt on 24 July, this feeling did not extend to Bolingbroke. Swift Corresp. ii. 22. Nevertheless, an antagonistic Anglesey was inconvenient for Bolingbroke as he plotted the dispositions of a new ministry. Holmes, 424. Following the news of Oxford’s fall, on 29 July it was rumoured that Anglesey would be lord lieutenant of Ireland. NLS, Pitfirrane mss 6409, no. 70.

Meanwhile, Anglesey had left for Ireland on 26 July 1714, charged with purging the Irish army of Whig supporters, ‘being dispatched thither by the new modelled juncto of the late ministry’ to remodel the forces there and bring in popery and the Pretender. Add. 70070, newsletter, 29 July 1714, 24 Aug. 1714. He had already embarked for Ireland before an express reached him informing him of the death of the queen on 1 August. Add. 72501, f. 155. Having been named as a regent by George I, he was forced to return to London. Wodrow letters Quarto 8, ff. 146-7. According to a memorandum by Oxford he was still absent on 10 Aug., but Charles Ford noted his arrival in London on that day. Add. 70331, memo. 10 Aug. 1714; Swift Corresp. ii. 68. He first sat on 13 Aug. and attended only four sittings of the session of August 1714, an attendance rate of 24 per cent. Nevertheless, he was keen to impress the new king, allegedly spending ‘three hours every morning learning French to tease him with.’ A Great Archbishop of Dublin: William King ed. King, 164.

Despite rumours in October 1714 that he would be displaced as vice-treasurer of Ireland, Anglesey remained in place and was listed as one of the Tories still in office on 26 Jan. 1715. Bodl. Ballard, 31 f. 134. However, as Sir Christopher Musgrave^‡ wrote in early December 1714, Anglesey was one of those ‘hard pursued’ by the Whigs for their places, and Anglesey himself told Bolingbroke that war had been declared on the ‘whole Tory party’. Colley, In Defiance, 181; Bolingbroke Works (1777 edn), i. 27. Eventually, he was replaced as vice-treasurer in March 1716 but retained his place on the privy council.

For the remainder of his career Anglesey remained a Tory loyal to Hanover, although over time his attendance on the House dwindled. He died on 31 Mar. 1737 and was buried at Farnborough.