ANDERSON, Sir Henry (1584-1659), of East Cowton, Yorks.

Anderson belonged to the fourth generation of an illustrious and well connected Newcastle merchant dynasty.40Mayors and Sheriffs of Newcastle ed. Blair, 29, 31, 33, 35, 41, 42, 44, 47; Howell, Newcastle, 113; Welford, Men of Mark, i. 47-50, 69-74. His great-grandfather, grandfather and father had all served as MPs for the town and had contributed significantly to the development of the coal trade in the Tyne Valley.41HP Common, 1509-1558, ‘Henry Anderson’; HP Commons 1558-1603, ‘Bertram Anderson’; ‘Henry Anderson’. Anderson took over from his father as one of Newcastle’s coal-merchant princes, but he seems to have lacked the entrepreneurial drive of his forebears and, in keeping with his education at Oxford and Gray’s Inn, he gradually assimilated himself to the landed gentry of north Yorkshire, where he established his main residence.42VCH N. Riding, i. 161.

Anderson’s withdrawal from the daily round of municipal life may have been linked in part to a sense of religious isolation within the Newcastle elite. Like his father, he was a firm Protestant at a time when most of the town’s leaders were either church-papists or religious temporisers.43HP Commons 1558-1603, ‘Henry Anderson’. In Anderson at least, this seems to have instilled a lively hatred of popery, although without any concomitant enthusiasm for further reformation in the Church of England. He co-operated eagerly with the crown’s attempts to crack down on Catholicism in the northern counties and was not above criticising his fellow aldermen for their lack of Protestant zeal.44SP14/86/125, f. 221v; CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 420, 432; APC 1627-8, p. 329. Nevertheless, until the mid-1620s, he retained a firm footing within the municipal establishment and was returned as MP for Newcastle to every Parliament between 1614 and 1626. At Westminster, he spoke repeatedly against the spread of popery and the failings of the northern clergy, but generally kept a low profile on matters of controversy and dispute between the crown and Parliament, including the parliamentary attack upon the duke of Buckingham.45HP Commons 1604-1629, ‘Sir Henry Anderson’. The fact that he was not returned for Newcastle in 1628 is perhaps a sign of the growing physical and mental distance between himself and the townsmen by the end of the 1620s.

Anderson prospered neither financially nor politically during the personal rule of Charles I. His debts were such by 1634 that he was forced to mortgage his estate at East Cowton for £1,300 and to re-mortgage it in 1640 for £1,000.46C10/52/7; PROB11/293, f. 399; CCC 2335. In terms of his public career, he seems to have been considered persona non grata by Yorkshire’s most powerful politician, Sir Thomas Wentworth† (the future earl of Strafford), president of the council of the north. Anderson was apparently on friendly terms with his neighbour Sir David Foulis, who was among Wentworth’s leading opponents in the North Riding; and in 1630, the lord president had both men removed from the northern counties recusants commission.47CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 432; 1629-31, p. 301; APC 1627-8, p. 329; Cliffe, Yorks. 300-1, 303. Anderson’s stock had sunk even lower by 1633, when he and his son were fined by the court of star chamber for trying to acquire the advowson of East Cowton by intimidation.48HEHL, Ms HM 55603, ff. 18-20; CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 519, 536; 1636-7, pp. 558, 563; VCH N. Riding, i. 161. It was probably no coincidence that Anderson was removed from the County Durham bench the following year.49C231/5, p. 140. Admittedly, he no longer resided in the county, but he still held property there, and in 1636 he was peripherally involved in the collection of its Ship Money quota.50CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 528. In 1637, he persuaded Henry Rich†, 1st earl of Holland, and Sir Thomas Jermyn* to secure him an audience with the king, to whom he delivered

a most parliamentary speech, disliking the ways they went in these times, dissuading the king wholly from further taking the ship monies and moving his Majesty to return to the old way by Parliaments. The king grew very angry at his boldness and sauciness, rebuked him sharply and bid him be gone.51Strafforde Letters, ii. 56.

During the second bishops’ war, Anderson joined the ‘disaffected’ Yorkshire gentry in their petitions to the king of July and August 1640, complaining about billeting and pleading poverty in the face of royal orders to mobilise the trained bands against the Scots.52Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 1215, 1231. He also signed the third Yorkshire petition of mid-September, in which the petitioners reiterated the demand made by a group of dissident English peers, late in August, that Charles should summon a Parliament.53Cumb. RO (Kendal), Strickland ms vol. 1608-1700, N38 Car. I. A few days later, Anderson received a ‘sharp reprehension’ from the privy council ‘for disaffection to the present service and contemptuous words touching the training of men in the place where he lives’.54CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 75. What prompted this outburst by Anderson is not clear, although it very probably related to efforts by Strafford that autumn to mobilise the North Riding trained bands to defend the line of the Tees against the Scots.

In the elections to the Long Parliament, Anderson stood again for his old constituency of Newcastle, which was now under Scottish military occupation. The Scots enthused over only one of the three candidates for Newcastle (John Blakiston*) and were ambivalent in their attitude towards Anderson – a feeling he probably reciprocated.55Infra, ‘John Blakiston’. His resistance to the king’s Scottish policy apparently derived from a hatred of Strafford and the personal rule rather than any liking for the Covenanters and their agenda. One Scottish commentator implied as much when he described Anderson as ‘resolutely against popery, but for the power of godliness [i.e. zeal for further reformation in religion] hath little of that’.56Princeton Univ. Lib. C0938, no. 224, J. Nevay to Lady Loudoun, 14 Oct. 1640. Resentment towards Strafford and dislike of the Scots seem to have given him a strong interest among the Newcastle freemen, and on 14 October he was returned for the senior place.57Supra, ‘Newcastle-upon-Tyne’.

Anderson was one of the most active northern MPs during the first 18 months of the Long Parliament. He was served as teller in five divisions between November 1640 and May 1642 and was named to approximately 56 committees, many of which related to reforming the perceived abuses of the personal rule.58CJ ii. 43a, 44b, 50b, 53a, 60a, 82a, 101a, 145a, 157a, 180b, 225b, 244a, 366a, 390b, 197b; Northcote Note Bk. 87. He joined in the Commons’ attack upon the new Canons and their Laudian authors and shared the view of many among the godly interest at Westminster that Archbishop William Laud was guilty of high treason.59CJ ii. 52a, 110b, 115a, 448b; Procs. LP i. 81, 82, 85, 626; Northcote Note Bk. 73. But if his appointments and contributions to debate are any guide, he was more interested in clamping down on recusants and Catholic priests than in purging the church of its Laudian accretions.60CJ ii. 105b, 119a, 128b, 151b, 195a, 221a, 258a, 349b; LJ iv. 385a; Procs. LP i. 110, 250, 335-6; iv. 161, 163, 272, 280. And there is no evidence that he was part of the puritan caucus in the Commons. On the contrary, he was prepared to speak in defence of Laud’s vicar-general, Sir John Lambe.61CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 539, 556. Moreover, in January 1641 he complained to the Newcastle aldermen that he could ‘get nothing done for them because...of the puritanical faction’ at Westminster.62Princeton Univ. Lib. C0938, no. 224, Nevay to Lady Loudoun, 18 Jan. 1640. During a debate on the bill for abolishing episcopacy, in July, he moved that the royal privileges in the county palatine of Durham be annexed to the crown rather than put into the hands of parliamentary commissioners.63Procs. LP v. 579. His admiration for the Calvinist bishop of Durham, Thomas Morton, probably says much about his own doctrinal and ecclesiological preferences.64Procs. LP ii. 627; vi. 182.

Anderson’s opposition to the bill for holding annual Parliaments, which he voiced on 19 January 1641, is one among numerous signs of the political distance between him and the parliamentary leadership or ‘junto’.65Procs. LP ii. 224. On those occasions when his agenda chimed with that of the junto, it was probably more by accident than design. There is evidence, albeit inconclusive, that he supported moves by the junto in January 1641 towards removing bishops from the Lords.66Procs. LP ii. 89; Russell, Fall of British Monarchies, 252. Likewise, his motion on 4 May 1641 that no Member be admitted to the House until he had taken the Protestation, and his thinly-veiled demand four days later (8 May) for the removal of Catholics at court, would probably have been welcomed by John Pym and his confederates.67Procs. LP iv. 191, 272. Yet the fact that his remarks on 8 May began with an attack on the Scottish soldiery in the north – he claimed that they were extorting grain from the country people and then selling it back to them for seed – may well explain why this ‘honest speech’ (as Sir Simonds D’Ewes* referred to it) was made ‘unseasonably’ and received no seconders. Again, Anderson was probably echoing rather than premeditatedly seconding the views of the junto on 9 August (just before the king’s departure for Scotland), when he declared ‘what danger would accrue if the king should now go, and also moved that care be taken with whom the prince [of Wales] should be left and to consider of what council should go along with his Majesty and who should stay here’. 68Procs. LP vi. 316, 321.

Anderson was among the earl of Strafford’s fiercest critics in the Commons. He repeatedly drew attention to the authoritarian proceedings of the earl and his northern lieutenants – notably, Sir Thomas Danbie* – declaring at one point that George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham, had been ‘far less criminal’ than Strafford.69Procs. LP i. 136; ii. 366; iii. 584. True to form, however, his attack upon the beleaguered lord deputy was not coordinated with that of the parliamentary leadership and shows no evidence of any sensitivity to the concerns of the junto’s Scottish allies. On 21 November 1640, for example, he presented ‘many articles of most high and dangerous crimes’ that he had ‘mustered up’ against Strafford, and he pressed the House to read them.70Procs. LP i. 224, 227-8, 230-1, 233, 234, 237, 240-1; Add. 11045, f. 145. However, according to one observer, these charges were ‘such weak ones as the House took no other notice save the reading of them only’.71Add. 11045, f. 145. On several occasions in the months preceding Strafford’s trial, Anderson took issue with Members who voiced doubts about the House’s proceedings against the lord lieutenant.72D’Ewes (N), 303; Procs. LP iii. 584. Yet he himself could claim no inside knowledge of this business. He was named to just one committee relating to the trial; and despite possessing evidence that was germane to the 27th charge – that Strafford had levied an illegal tax upon Yorkshire during the second bishops’ war – he was not summoned as a prosecution witness.73CJ ii. 79b; Procs. LP ii. 366. Anderson’s hostility towards Strafford extended to his nephew Sir William Savile*, for on 19 June 1641, he and Ferdinando, 2nd Baron Fairfax, were majority tellers against releasing Savile from the Tower.74CJ ii. 180b.

Anderson’s main preoccupation at Westminster during the opening session was the relief of Northumberland, County Durham and Yorkshire, where the quartering of the English and Scottish armies had caused greatest hardship. In about March 1641, he and the future royalists Sir William Withrington* and Sir William Darcy petitioned the lords commissioners (for treating with the Scots at Ripon in 1640) on behalf of County Durham, Northumberland and Newcastle, complaining that the Scottish forces were impoverishing the region, and requesting that the commissioners move Parliament ‘that the said counties may be in some part repaired for what is past and [that] for the future, the same may be prevented’.75PA, Main Pprs. 15 Mar. 1641. Anderson was named to several committees concerning the regulation, supply and disbandment of the two armies and the compensation of the northern counties for military charges; and on 21 May 1641, he helped to manage a conference on the ‘brotherly assistance’ to the Scots.76CJ ii. 66a, 152a, 153a, 172b, 178a, 196a. In debate, he repeatedly highlighted the miseries being endured by his fellow northerners and suggested expedients for raising money to alleviate their sufferings.77Procs. LP i. 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 188, 198, 459; ii. 809, 816-17; iv. 214, 272, 280; vi. 201. His preferred schemes involved procuring loans from the clergy and the London merchant strangers.78Procs. LP i. 188; ii. 625; v. 28, 40, 46.

It is on the issue of relieving the northern counties that Anderson’s estrangement from the parliamentary leadership is most apparent. Whereas the junto exploited the presence of a Scottish army in the north as leverage against the king, Anderson desired only a swift Scottish withdrawal from the region. As early as 23 December 1640, he moved that the treaty negotiations between the two kingdoms be concluded and the armies disbanded – a motion that was ‘generally disliked’.79Procs. LP ii. 34. He expressed a similar desire in April, but was again ignored.80Procs. LP iii. 480. As his speech on 8 May demonstrated, he was not shy of criticising the Scots.81Procs. LP iv. 272, 280. And his attempt, on 12 August, to play down the first army plot as merely ‘foolish’ and not treasonous, and to excuse the part played in it by Henry Percy*, would not have pleased the Scots or many of their allies in the House.82Procs. LP vi. 386. A few days later (19 Aug.), Anderson was appointed with his son-in-law John Hotham* and Arthur Goodwin* to attend the lord general (the earl of Holland) in Yorkshire with an order from Parliament to finish disbanding the horse – where the army plots had been hatched – before commencing on the foot.83CJ ii. 264a; Procs. LP vi. 492. That same day, Anderson was granted leave of absence and does not appear to have returned to the House until December.84CJ ii. 265a, 349b.

The gathering of swordsmen around the king in London by late December 1641, and Charles’s attempted arrest of the Five Members early in January 1642, may have narrowed the political gap between Anderson and the junto, at least for a brief period. On 30 December, Anderson ‘moved concerning the dangers we were in and desired that we might take some course first to secure ourselves, and next, the kingdom’.85D’Ewes (C), 364. And on 12 January 1642, he was named to a committee for preparing a declaration highlighting the ‘several designs...against the Parliament’.86CJ ii. 372a. By 24 January, however, he was clashing with Blakiston and other godly Members over whether one Colonel Philip Hill had been raising troops in Kent contrary to Parliament’s orders (Anderson was subsequently named first to a committee for investigating this matter).87PJ i. 143, 150; CJ ii. 390b. And that same day (24 Jan.), he was a minority teller with the future royalist Francis Newport against appointing a son of William Cecil*, 2nd earl of Salisbury, as captain of the St Martin-in-the-Fields trained bands in place of the king’s bedchamber man and crypto-Catholic, Endymion Porter*. The majority tellers were the godly knights Sir Walter Erle and Sir Peter Wentworth.88CJ ii. 390b; PJ i. 143-4, 150-1.

Anderson continued to receive committee appointments during the early months of 1642, including several relating to the Hothams’ defence of Hull.89CJ ii. 414b, 415b, 440a, 448b, 497a, 511a, 515a, 519b, 533b, 535b. But he contributed little, if anything, to Parliament’s military preparations against the Irish rebels or to its propaganda war against the king; and at some point after 21 April, he departed Westminster, being declared absent at the call of the House on 16 June.90CJ ii. 626a. He evidently supported the treaty of neutrality that Lord Fairfax and a group of West Riding gentry negotiated with some of the county’s royalists late in September, joining John Wastell* and several other North Riding gentlemen in desiring a meeting with Fairfax ‘touching some course for the securing of these parts’.91Add. 15858, f. 215; Bodl. Nalson II, f. 154. The treaty was quickly condemned by Parliament, however, and was undermined locally by the belligerent activities of Anderson’s son-in-law, Captain Hotham. With the treaty’s collapse, Anderson wrote several letters to the Commons from Northallerton expressing his opposition to the commission of array and blaming the region’s distractions upon papists and malignant clergy.92CJ ii. 802a; Add. 18777, f. 25; Harl. 164, ff. 10v, 11v. On 1 December, he was among a group of Yorkshire parliamentarians who were declared traitors by the royalist grandee Henry Clifford†, 5th earl of Cumberland, for raising men in support of Parliament – although in Anderson’s case it is likely that his military preparations were intended more to preserve peace in the North Riding than to prosecute Parliament’s quarrel against the king.93LJ v. 586a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 132. Consequently, when the royalist army of William Cavendish, 1st earl of Newcastle, crossed the Tees in December, Anderson and his men put the defence of their homes before the fate of Parliament’s northern army under Lord Fairfax.94LJ v. 494b, 527b; Fairfax Corresp. ed. Bell., i. 26.

Anderson was seized by the royalists in the winter of 1642-3 and imprisoned in York Castle for 14 weeks, ‘during which time his goods were taken away and nothing left for the support of his wife and children’. He was eventually released by means of Captain Hotham – probably through the latter’s secret dealings with the earl of Newcastle – and was forced to quit his estate and make his way to Westminster.95Infra, ‘John Hotham’; HMC 5th Rep. 107. On 14 April 1643, he was re-admitted to the Commons, although only after the House had heard a report on his case from the committee for absent Members.96CJ iii. 43a. Among his parliamentary appointments over the next three months or so were several that related to the maintenance of Lord Fairfax’s army and to northern affairs generally, including a scheme to seize Newcastle-upon-Tyne.97CJ iii. 56b, 89a, 91a, 104b, 116a, 132a, 174b. He was also a minority teller with the ‘fiery spirit’ Sir Peter Wentworth in what seems to have been a non-partisan division concerning Irish policy.98CJ iii. 102b.

By 6 June, when he took the vow and Covenant, Anderson seemed destined to sit out the war as a parliamentarian mediocrity – that is, until the arrest of the Hothams at Hull late in June.99CJ iii. 118a. Among the cash and moveables seized with the Hothams were £1,400 and some goods that Anderson claimed were his own. On 12 July, the Commons ordered the parliamentary committee at Hull to return Anderson’s money and goods to him – an order it reiterated on 3 August, but with the significant proviso that the committee should first discover which of the confiscated items actually belonged to Anderson.100Hull RO, C BRL/318; CJ iii. 164a, 192a. To sweeten this pill, the House recommended Anderson’s son – a prisoner in the royalist garrison at Newark – to the committees of Hull and Lincoln for an early exchange. Several of Anderson’s committee appointments in these weeks suggest that he shared the Hothams’ hostility towards the war-party grandees, which had been a major factor in their attempted defection to the royalists.101Infra, ‘John Hotham’; ‘Sir John Hotham’. On 29 July, he was named to a committee ‘to take an accompt of the close committee [the Committee of Safety*] and of all others which were trusted with receipts or disbursements of money’, which was set up in reaction to an attempt by Pym to interest the Commons in propositions from the lord general for the supply of his army.102Supra, ‘Committee of Safety’; CJ iii. 186a; Mercurius Aulicus no. 32 (6-12 Aug. 1643), 424-5 (E.65.26). A little over a week later, on 7 August, Anderson was named to a committee for investigating allegations that Pym, Sir Gilbert Gerard* and other leading war-party figures had sent money abroad in the event of defeat at home.103CJ iii. 196b. This would be Anderson’s last parliamentary appointment. On 26 August, the House rescinded its order of 3 August and authorised Fairfax, the new governor of Hull, to retain custody of the goods seized from the Hothams.104CJ iii. 196b, 219a. By late August, it was being reported that Anderson had joined the king; and on 4 September, the Commons disabled him for deserting the service of the House and repairing to the king’s headquarters at Oxford.105Mercurius Britanicus no. 1 (23-9 Aug. 1643), 6; CJ iii. 227b. The relatively short lapse of time between the Commons’ orders of 26 August and 4 September suggests that the former was a reaction to Anderson’s defection rather than vice versa.

Early in November 1643, Anderson was captured by parliamentarian forces at Leicester while making his way from Oxford to Yorkshire, and among the papers taken with him was a letter to Speaker William Lenthall, dated 25 September, in which he warned that unless Parliament restored his goods he would procure a royal order for satisfying his losses from the estates of Sir Matthew Boynton*, Sir William Allanson* and others involved in the Hothams’ arrest.106CJ iii. 305a, 305b-306a; Harl. 165, f. 225; HMC 5th Rep. 108. However, he claimed that his main reason for going to Oxford had been to secure his son’s release, and that the Commons’ order of 26 August had come as a ‘great surprise’ to him. He also professed another, even more honourable, motive for his actions, and that was to broker a negotiated settlement. Thus he had written a second letter – this one addressed to Denzil Holles*, entreating him to consult with Sir John Holland*, Sir Philip Stapilton*, John Selden* and John Maynard* about inclining Parliament, and more specifically the earl of Essex, towards peace.107HMC 5th Rep. 107, 108. To this end, Anderson had drawn up propositions for an accommodation between king and Parliament, of which the main heads were the disbandment of the armies; the disarming and suppression of papists; a commission of divines appointed by the king to settle church government; the relinquishing of all naval and militia forces to the king; parliamentary approval of royal councillors for five years; and the repeal of ‘dangerous’ parliamentary ordinances passed without the king’s consent.108Harl. 164, f. 225v; HMC 5th Rep. 115. Although he traced England’s troubles to the activities of ‘particular men for sinister ends by their interests in court’, he clearly believed that the onus of compromising in the name of peace lay more heavily upon Parliament than the king.109H. Anderson, A Meanes to Reconcile the Present Distempers of these Times (1648), sig. A3 (E.458.18). Anderson assured Holles that Charles would agree to honourable terms, and that if Essex refused to follow suit then ‘all men will join with the king in reducing the opposers to obedience’.110HMC 5th Rep. 115. When Anderson’s letters and peace initiative were read to the Commons on 8 November they were greeted with derision, for as even the peace-minded D’Ewes observed – ‘as if he [Anderson] had been a fit instrument for such a work’.111CJ iii. 305b-306a; Harl. 164, f. 225. The lord general took the matter less lightly, conceiving that Anderson’s remarks had tended much to his dishonour and prejudice.112LJ vi. 318a; HMC 5th Rep. 115.

The timing of Anderson’s defection to Oxford, and the content of his peace propositions, suggest a more partisan motive for his actions than a simple desire to end the fighting. Anderson seems to have abandoned his seat shortly after 7 August – in other words, just days after the Commons had rejected peace proposals from the anti-Scottish alliance faction in the Lords, which had represented the last chance to reach a negotiated settlement before the Covenanters entered the civil war. The goal of an exclusively English settlement was probably close to Anderson’s heart. His own propositions pointedly made no reference to the Scots and the minimum concessions to their demand for root and branch reform of English church government. In the end, the prospect of another Scottish invasion of northern England and a ‘covenanted uniformity’ in religion may have been too much for him to bear. At the height of the second civil war, Anderson’s propositions and the preface he had written to them were published in the cause of pressuring Parliament into entering into a personal treaty with the king.113The Wonder, or Propositions for a Safe, Well-Grounded Peace (1648, E.453.46). Anderson responded with a pamphlet of his own in which he revealed a strong bias towards the full restoration of the king’s powers, the disbandment of the New Model army and the suppression of the Independents and other ‘sectarists’. 114Anderson, A Meanes to Reconcile the Present Distempers.

Anderson was brought to the bar of the House on 12 December 1643 and informed that he would be committed to the Tower for deserting the service of Parliament and assisting the enemy.115CJ iii. 338b, 339b. He was allowed £2 a week out of his estate for maintenance. But as his property was all in royalist hands he went continually short of money and food, as he complained to his friend John Rushworth*.116HMC Portland, i. 171, 177; PROB11/293, f. 32. The Commons ignored his petitions for pardon until December 1646, when he was released from the Tower on bail.117CJ iv. 492a; v. 7a. He enjoyed less than two years of freedom, however, for early in 1648 he was imprisoned (from May 1650 in the Fleet) for his ‘several debts’, including £4,000 owed by his deceased son-in-law Hotham.118C10/52/7; SP23/63, p. 319; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 290; H. Hopkins, A Schedule, or List of the Prisoners in the Fleet (1653), 3 (E.698.13). The Yorkshire compounding commissioners heaped further misery upon him in August 1649, when they sequestered his estate on unspecified charges of delinquency.119CCC 2334, 2335; CJ vii. 206. Although he obtained a parliamentary order in 1653 for lifting this sequestration, the compounding commissioners continued to detain his rents and he was thus unable to discharge his debts and secure his freedom.120CJ vii. 276a; CCC 2335, 2336. In his several petitions to the commissioners, the council of state, and the protector during the mid-1650s, he complained of the ‘causeless’ and ‘unjust’ proceedings against him and his consequent lack of ‘meat and clothes, much less [the] wherewithal to pay my debts’.121SP23/63, pp. 308, 319; CCC 2335, 2336, 2337, 3162-3, 3164; CSP Dom. 1655, p. 290. In one of his petitions to the protector, he claimed that he had lost £6,000 to the royalists during the civil war and a further £2,500 when the Hothams’ goods had been seized by Parliament.122CCC 2336.

Anderson was still in prison for debt when he died in the spring of 1659. He was buried at St George the Martyr, Southwark, on 25 March.123C6/155/2; St George the Martyr par. reg. In his will, he asked to be interred ‘according to the discipline of the Church of England as it was used in Queen Elizabeth her time, when I was born’. He made bequests of less than £200 and little mention of his estate, the bulk of which he had settled upon his son in 1648.124PROB11/293, f. 32; C6/155/2. None of his immediate family sat in Parliament, but a likely kinsman of Anderson’s, Sir Francis Anderson†, represented Newcastle three times after the Restoration.125HP Commons 1660-1690.