ANNESLEY, Arthur (1614-86), of Mountnorris, co. Armagh, and Drury Lane, Westminster.

Arthur Annesley was born in Dublin, the scion of a prominent New English planter family. His father, a substantial Irish landowner and administrator with Calvinist religious leanings, was ennobled as Lord Mountnorris in 1629. His mother, a Philipps of Picton in Pembrokeshire, had important Irish connections of her own, as a granddaughter of Lord Deputy Perrott, niece of Lord Deputy Chichester and sister of Lady Clandeboye. As befitted his father’s aspirations, Annesley received the education of an English nobleman. He was admitted to Oxford in 1630, and a surviving letter to his aunt shows that he was still in residence in June 1632.43C108/188, part 1, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol. In October 1633 he was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn, with Thomas Manby and William Gibbs acting as manucaptors.44LI Admiss. Bk 6, f. 80. The following February, Annesley and his younger brother, Robert, were granted licence to travel abroad for three years, but they may have delayed their departure for a year, as in February 1635 Annesley entered an Irish statute staple bond for £1400, perhaps to cover the costs of the journey.45SO3/10, unfol.; Irish Statute Staple Bks. 58. By May 1636 Annesley was at Geneva, presumably studying with the Calvinist ministers there, although he did not subscribe at the Academy. From Geneva he wrote to his sister, Beatrice, saying that he hoped to see her again in Ireland very soon, ‘if a contrary wind blow me not into Spain, as envying me so great a happiness’.46C108/188, part 1, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol. While abroad, Annesley had become acquainted with another young traveller, James Zouche of Woking in Surrey, and he went on to play an important part in arranging the match between Zouche and his sister, negotiated on his return to Dublin in October, and finalised in December.47C108/188, part 1, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol.; C108/18, unfol. Annesley was also involved in rescuing his father’s career, and reputation, after his row with Lord Deputy Wentworth (Sir Thomas Wentworth†). In the autumn of 1636 he submitted a petition to the queen, complaining that his father had been forced to submit to Wentworth ‘to his dishonour and prejudice’, and begging for ‘your majesty’s continued gracious mediation to his majesty’, to secure his freedom from imprisonment, that he might return to his ‘native country’ of England.48HMC Cowper, ii. 151; SCL, Strafford MS 16(3). In April 1638 Annesley married the daughter of the Hertfordshire landowner, Sir James Altham. In the next few months he remained on the fringes of the royal court, and made himself useful to the lord chamberlain, the 4th earl of Pembroke, who wrote to Wentworth in March 1639 that ‘I have many motives inducing me to wish well to this gentleman, Mr Arthur Annesley, who hath brought my letters of recommendation of him to your lordship’.49SCL, Strafford MS 18(182). In the same month, the king also wrote to Wentworth with instructions that lands recently granted by Mountnorris to Annesley should be passed by the commission for defective titles, ‘and because his father and himself purpose to attend us in our expedition to the northern parts, we do hereby require you that, as soon as he shall have ended his business there, you give him leave to return into this our kingdom, and to bring with him twenty of his own horse to be by them employed in this service’.50SO1/3, f. 131. There is no evidence that this promise to support the king during the 1st Bishops’ War was fulfilled, and in the next few months the Annesleys distanced themselves from the royal court. In the early months of the Long Parliament, Annesley was involved in the proceedings against Wentworth, now 1st earl of Strafford. On 29 March 1641 he and his father gave evidence on the sixth article of the impeachment of Strafford, concerning the abuse of process at the Irish council board.51LJ iv. 200b; Procs. LP, iii. 196, 201, 203, 205.

After the outbreak of the Irish rebellion in October 1641, Annesley remained in England. His absence raised eyebrows. In January 1642 his brother-in-law, Roger Lort, asked him to answer a ‘calumny’ circulating in County Wexford, that he had deserted his duty in leaving Ireland.52CCSP, i. 233. Moral pressure did not encourage Annesley to return home, however. In October 1643 he was living at his house in Drury Lane, and corresponding with the Surrey sequestrations committee in the hope of preventing the seizure of the estate of James Zouche, who had recently been killed while fighting for the king.53C108/189, part 2, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol. In March 1644 Annesley was living at Woking, where he was managing his widowed sister’s interests, protecting her horses from confiscation, and recovering from his own ‘sudden lameness’.54C108/189, part 2, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol. It was another year before Annesley became involved in public affairs. In early April the Committee of Both Kingdoms responded to propositions by the officers in Ulster by agreeing to appoint a committee to reside with the army, and to manage the war effort in that province and neighbouring Connaught, working in conjunction with Scottish commissioners already resident with the army.55CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 391. Annesley, Sir Robert King* and a representative of the London Adventurers, Colonel William Beale, were nominated as the commissioners, and the Lords gave their consent on 3 May.56LJ vii. 350a. A delay followed, as the money for the commissioners was raised. In June the Committee of Both Kingdoms sent Annesley to the lord mayor of London to encourage the Adventurers to stump up the cash.57CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 590. In September the power of the Ulster commissioners was augmented, after debate on the matter in both Houses. They were to be styled ‘chief governors of Ulster’, with the same rights (in commission) over the northern province that the presidents of Connaught and Munster enjoyed in their own areas. The new Ulster ‘governors’ were directly responsible to the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs or the Committee of Both Kingdoms, as representatives of the Westminster Parliament.58CJ iv. 261b, 270b, 276b; LJ vii. 596b; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 129.

As a man who was at best disengaged from public affairs during the early years of the civil war in England and the rebellion in Ireland, Annesley was a surprising choice as Ulster commissioner. The reaction of the pro-royalist Viscount Conway indicated that the choice was acceptable to him, a least: ‘[they] are very honest gentlemen, Mr Annesley and Sir Robert King I know well’; and he went on to advise his son to ‘address yourself to them, give assurance to them that they may make good report of you hither [to England]’.59The Rawdon Pprs, ed. E. Berwick (1819), 181. Others were more doubtful. Sir Philip Percivalle* was perhaps referring to Annesley when he recounted, in October 1645, ‘that Sir John Temple*, being asked by a friend why he went not into the employment northwards [to Ulster], he gave for reason, that there was one to be employed ... therein at that time, who was one that used to take half-crowns, a mean fellow, with whom he would not be joined’.60HMC Egmont, i. 263.

Commissioner in Ulster and Dublin, 1645-7

Any doubts about Annesley’s suitability as a commissioner soon subsided. The Committee of Both Kingdoms found the commissioners a useful siding onto which to shunt awkward issues, such as the petition of the ‘gentlemen of Ulster’, referred to them on 24 Oct.61CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 205. On 12 and 16 January 1646 letters from Annesley and King were read in the Commons, reporting the defeat of a Catholic force under the titular archbishop of Tuam, and revealing the contents of the ‘cabinet’ of letters captured in the baggage.62CJ iv. 403b, 404a, 408b, 409a; LJ viii. 104b-105a; The Irish Cabinet (20 Jan. 1646), 3-9 (E316.29). These letters provided proof that the king had been negotiating with the Confederates through Edward Somerset, titular earl of Glamorgan, with promises of liberty of worship for Catholics in return for troops to assist the royalists in England. They also gave further impetus to calls for Parliament to appoint its own chief governor of Ireland – a move that would lead to Viscount Lisle (Philip Sidney*) being appointed as lord lieutenant for a year from April 1646. In the meantime, the Ulster commissioners were ordered to continue their work, and in mid-February the Commons resolved to send nearly 7,000 troops and £30,000 to Ireland.63CJ iv. 443b. The commissioners’ authority was renewed in March, and in April they were even awarded arrears of pay.64CJ iv. 459b, 512b.

The Glamorgan peace – as revealed in the Tuam letters – had also cast into doubt peace talks between the marquess of Ormond and the Confederate Catholics, as the religious articles went far further than the marquess was prepared to go. Annesley and his fellow commissioners had been quick to alert Parliament to the possibility of conducting their own negotiations with the king’s lord lieutenant, writing that the Irish ‘hath so incensed the marquess of Ormond that he desires but power and opportunity to break off all treaty and fall upon them, and in order thereunto we have had an overture by one that came from him to us, for the British and Scots forces to join with him against the rebels’.65The Irish Cabinet, 14; Bodl. Carte 63, f. 363. By mid-February 1646 the commissioners had been given permission to treat with Ormond without involving the Scottish commissioners, and received a guarded response from the marquess.66Bodl. Carte 16, ff. 525, 573. Annesley was staying with his Clandeboye relatives in March, and in the same month he was in contact with Ormond’s councillor, Sir Maurice Eustace, voicing his concern that no progress had been made, and that a peace treaty with the Irish was not far off.67Bodl. Carte 16, f. 623; Carte 17, f. 17. In April Ormond agreed to talk about military issues, and this brought an immediate and enthusiastic response from Annesley and the commissioners, with Annesley once again contacting Eustace privately.68Bodl. Carte 17, ff. 104, 146, 157. The relationship between Annesley and Ormond was not straightforward. For example, on 11 January 1646 Ormond had granted the custodiam of the Annesley lands in Co. Wexford to Sir Edmund Butler.69Bodl. Carte 164, f. 194. On one level, this was a demonstration of Ormond’s power over the commissioner’s family; but by granting the lands to his kinsman, the implication was that the estate would be cared for, not ruined. Any hope that cordial personal relations might influence the peace negotiations was dashed by the king’s flight to the Scottish army in May 1646. Annesley and the Ulster commissioners pulled back, claiming (without foundation) that they could not negotiate without the agreement of the Scottish delegation, which had now withdrawn to England.70Bodl. Carte 17, f. 385. Later in the same month, Sir Robert King was despatched to Westminster with a report on progress in negotiations with Ormond, and letters from Annesley and Beale.71CJ iv. 567a. King reported on 6 June, the same day as the Ulster Scots were comprehensively defeated by the Confederate Irish at Benburb. A last desperate plea was sent to Ormond by Annesley and Beale and the Scottish commander, Robert Monro, asking for a military alliance against the advancing Irish, but this fell on deaf ears.72Bodl. Carte 17, ff. 465, 480, 513, 522, 574-5. The king’s lord lieutenant was already finalising his treaty with the Confederates instead.

News of Benburb reached Parliament on 15 June, revealed in letters from Annesley and Beale.73LJ viii. 378b. There were immediate calls to send large numbers of troops to Ireland in June, and these were renewed in July, when the Commons received a report by Annesley of the ‘necessities of Ireland’, prompted by the alarming news that a peace treaty had at last been concluded between Ormond and the Confederates.74CJ iv. 641a. The treaty was soon rejected by the Catholic clergy, however, and at the end of September Ormond sent his own commissioners to Westminster to negotiate the surrender of Dublin to Parliament. Annesley’s part in these talks was limited. In September and October he signed letters to Ormond warning that supplies and military help would only be forthcoming once an agreement had been reached, and that they certainly could not begin local negotiations without express permission from London.75Bodl. Carte 18, f. 564; Carte 19, ff. 54, 139. He was kept informed of developments in London, and at the end of October liaised with one of the peace commissioners, his old friend Sir John Clotworthy*.76CCSP i. 340, 345. The failure of the latest round of talk a few weeks later may have encouraged Annesley and his father (now Viscount Valentia) to begin flirting with Viscount Lisle during the winter of 1646-7. On 10 Dec. Annesley joined Sir Adam Loftus, Sir William Parsons, Sir John Temple and Sir Hardress Waller* in drafting a ‘state of the kingdom of Ireland’, designed to put pressure on Lisle to take the situation in hand. In it, they warned that the Irish ‘have their men in a better order of war, and better commanded by captains of experience and practice of war, than ever they were since the conquest, and those much emboldened by late successes’. The proposed solution was for a substantial force to be sent to the southern province of Munster, while forces elsewhere would be encouraged with supplies and money. Perhaps on Annesley’s advice, Ulster was singled out as a particular problem, ‘in regard the forces in Ulster seem now distracted under different commands’, and the solution was that the troops there ‘may entirely be reduced into one command, subject to the lord lieutenant.77Bodl. Carte 19, ff. 604-6. Annesley’s support for Lisle was reciprocated. On 1 January 1647 the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs recommended to the Commons that Annesley become an Irish privy councillor, while his father was among other former councillors to be reappointed on a temporary basis.78CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 728. The support of the Annesleys for Lisle and the Independents was, however, fragile. During the early weeks of 1647, Clotworthy’s ally, John Davies*, repeatedly told Sir Philip Percivalle that Annesley was ‘an honest man and my noble friend’, and hoped that Percivalle and his Presbyterian friends would ‘carry Mr Annesley and his father and Sir Robert King along with you in all things’.79HMC Egmont, i. 353, 365, 366, 371, 387.

The departure of Lisle, with many of his supporters, to Munster in February, coincided with news from Dublin that Ormond was again willing to treat with Parliament to prevent the Irish capital falling to the Confederates. These two factors strengthened Presbyterian influence over the Irish committees at Westminster, and it was probably as a result of this factional shift that on 1 March Annesley was added to the list of commissioners already chosen to negotiate with Ormond - a list that already included his old colleague Sir Robert King, Sir Robert Meredith, Colonel John Moore* and Colonel Michael Jones.80CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 734. Certainly Percivalle approved of the choice.81HMC Egmont, i. 389. At first, it seemed that the negotiations with Ormond would be concluded very quickly. On 18 March Annesley and King were both granted £200 for their expenses in travelling to Dublin.82CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 737. On 22 March Annesley received his formal commission to treat with Ormond.83CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 742; Bodl. Carte 20, f. 517. He was still in London on 1 April, when he wrote to the scientist, Samuel Hartlib, with news that the Commons had agreed to pay him a pension.84SUL, Hartlib MS 66/3/1A. On 21 April the Commons resolved that Annesley and the other commissioners would be allowed to issue £13,000 from the money assigned for the service of Dublin.85CJ v. 149a. On 27 April 1647, and probably in his absence, Annesley had been elected as knight of the shire for Radnorshire. He had his own connections with south Wales – not least through his mother’s family – but this return appears to have been engineered by factional interests. Annesley’s election was characterised by one hostile account as being the work of two leading Presbyterians, Sir Robert Harley* and Sir William Lewis*, who had intervened in south Wales and the marches ‘on purpose to make such creatures of their own members’, and had selected ‘one Mr Annesley, an Irishman’ for Radnorshire.86Clarke Pprs. ii. 157. His return appears to have been part of a wider strategy to elect Presbyterians for Welsh seats: Robert Harley was returned for the borough of Radnor, Lewis Lewis for Brecon, and Annesley’s new brother-in-law, John Lloyd (who had married his widowed sister, Beatrice), was elected for Carmarthenshire.87D. Underdown, ‘Party Management in the Recruiter Elections’, EHR lxxxiii. 258-9.

On 7 May Annesley was at Chester, waiting for the reinforcements to muster before crossing the Irish Sea, and he was still there a week later.88HMC Egmont, i. 399, 403. His letters to Percivalle reveal that he had now turned against Lisle, whose brief, inglorious visit to Munster had ended in acrimony only a few days before, leaving Lord Inchiquin in sole charge of that province. As Annesley commented on 14 May, ‘I hear from Ireland that the Lord of Inchiquin hath had good success against the enemy [the Irish], and I do not doubt his ability to defend himself against those who should be his friends’. He was also open in his support for the Presbyterians in their struggle to restrain the New Model army: ‘I find the distemper in those parts [Ireland] increases, which makes me wish that all sides would agree to send the army entire; there are many arguments for it, and none that I know but fears against it’.89HMC Egmont, i. 404. As he waited to embark, Annesley also kept in close contact with Ormond by letter.90Bodl. Carte 21, ff. 23, 63-4, 101-2. He had reached Dublin by the beginning of June, and immediately began intensive discussions, which he reported on 9 June to be ‘well advanced’.91HMC Egmont, i. 414. On 18 June the Dublin Articles were signed between Ormond and the commissioners.92Bodl. Carte 21, ff. 216, 223; Carte 176, f. 213. The next few weeks saw the implementation of the terms. On 24 June Annesley and the other commissioners ordered that the Book of Common Prayer was to be banned in Ireland, and replaced by the Presbyterian Directory of Public Worship.93Bodl. Carte 21, f. 241. It was agreed that Ormond would be paid over £13,000 in compensation for giving up his post, funded in part by bills of exchange.94CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 689. On 6 July the commissioners had been forced to provide pay and clothing to the troops in Dublin to prevent a mutiny.95HMC Portland, i. 429. At the end of July the last arrangements for the handover were made, and Ormond left for England.96Bodl. Carte 21, f. 338. Annesley had himself returned to London shortly afterwards, and he was in London by 11 Aug., and three days later he was thanked by the Commons for his efforts.97CJ v. 272a, 274b; CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 742.

Presbyterian politics, August 1647-June 1648

During Annesley’s absence, the political landscape at Westminster had changed completely. The Presbyterian dominance of the spring had been threatened by an increasingly aggressive New Model; the Eleven Members (including Clotworthy) had been impeached; and a political coup by the Presbyterians had been suppressed when the army occupied London on 5 Aug. Annesley, who had been kept informed of events by Percivalle, greeted the rival of the weekly post with mounting alarm. On 21 July he replied to Percivalle’s letters of 26 June and 6 July, ‘which speak much of friendship, particularly in your care to defend me from the venom of those whose greatest skill lies in traducing’, especially Sir John Temple and Sir Robert Meredith, who had accused Annesley (with some justification) of being too close to Ormond.98HMC Egmont, i. 432. On 29 July, Annesley was frustrated by the refusal to allow him to return to London, ‘which I count a great injustice, for when I engaged in this service, to the neglect and ruin of my own affairs, I did it upon condition that I might have liberty to return when I pleased after the transaction finished with my lord of Ormond’.99HMC Egmont, i. 438. Stuck in Dublin, he could not defend himself against his enemies at Westminster, or the criticism of his father, who wrote to Percivalle on 4 August that he was impatient of Annesley’s return to England: ‘when such ways are taken as are contrary to the laws of God and man, I would have him passive and not active therein’, especially when ‘the very same instruments who did cooperate with the earl of Strafford ... are still specially trusted and employed’.100HMC Egmont, i. 441.

There was nothing particularly passive about Annesley’s parliamentary activity once he had returned to Westminster. Immediately on his arrival he was named to committees to consider repealing the votes and ordinances passed during the ‘forcing of the Houses’ (11 and 18 Aug.), but this did not signal his acceptance of the Independent agenda.101CJ v. 272a, 278a. On 3 September he joined John Boys as teller against the withdrawal from the House of Edward Bayntun, for his part in the ‘forcing’ – a vote passed by a small majority, with Sir Arthur Hesilrige and Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire telling in favour.102CJ v. 290b. On 7 September Annesley was a teller against Hesilrige and Evelyn once again, this time in a vote to expel another leading Presbyterian, John Glynne, from the House.103CJ v. 295a. On 5 October he was added to the Committee for Plundered Ministers.104CJ v. 326b. From the beginning of November, Annesley was also involved in political settlement. On 6 November he was manager (alongside John Swynfen and William Pierrepont) of a conference on a resolution that the king would have to assent to all laws before a treaty could be signed.105CJ v. 352b. The possibility of such a treaty was thrown into doubt soon afterwards, with the king’s flight from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight. On 12 November Annesley was named to a committee to examine what had happened, and whether there was any plot against the king’s person, and he was joined on it by a number of Presbyterians and moderates, including William Jephson, Giles Grene and Sir Walter Erle.106CJ v. 357a. This was followed by his appointment to a committee to meet the Lords to discuss the future safety of the king, on 15 November.107CJ v. 359a. The need for settlement was as urgent as ever, and on 26 November Annesley was a teller, with Richard Knightley and then Sir Hugh Cholmeley, in favour of putting four propositions before the House into bills to be considered.108CJ v. 370a. Such initiatives were blocked by the Vote of No Addresses in January 1648, and in the months that followed, Annesley’s activity appears to have become more obviously factional, as he strengthened his ties with the Presbyterians. On 27 January he joined Boys as teller against bringing in candles and thus continuing the debate on the summons of the Eleven Members – a vote won by 21 votes, with Evelyn and Hesilrige telling in favour.109CJ v. 445a. On the same day he was deemed an appropriate messenger to the Lords with an order to replace Waller with Knightley on the Derby House Committee.110CJ v. 445b. In what may have been a statement of his personal allegiances, on 23 February Annesley took the National League and Covenant.111CJ v. 471a. Three days later he was teller against agreeing the wording of a clause in Parliament’s answer to the Scottish commissioners concerning ‘Erastian’ influence over the English church. Again, the tellers opposing Annesley were Evelyn and Hesilrige.112CJ v. 473a.

Annesley’s attachment to the Presbyterian interest continued in the spring and summer of 1648. He was involved in the local politics of the Presbyterian powerbase in south Wales. On 21 March, he was ordered to prepare an ordinance to replace the mayor of rebellious Pembroke; on 11 May he was named to the committee on an ordinance to reward the victor of St Fagans, Colonel Horton, and his men, with lands formerly granted to the turncoat, Rowland Laugharne*; and on 6 June he was named to a committee to consider the sequestration of royalists in south Wales.113CJ v. 506b, 557a, 587a. In religious affairs, Annesley sided with the conservative Presbyterians. On 28 March he was named to the committee (alongside men such as Jephson, Nathaniel Stephens, Swynfen and Knightley) to consider an ordinance for reviving the trustees for buying impropriated church lands to fund the employment of suitable ministers.114CJ v. 519a. Three days later he was appointed to another committee (with Stephens, Erle, Knightley and John Doddridge) on an ordinance for the strict observation of the Lord’s Day.115CJ v. 522b. Annesley also supported attempts to reopen negotiations for a permanent settlement in England, and on 28 Apr. he was teller on two motions concerning the wording of a statement on the basis for settlement under the traditional form of king, Lords and Commons.116CJ v. 547a. The onset of the second civil war interrupted such initiatives, however. In May Annesley was involved in attempts to persuade the Scots not to support the king. On 10 May he was named to a committee to prepare a letter to the Scottish Parliament, and he reported back from the committee the next day.117CJ v. 555b, 556a. On 19 May he was messenger to the Lords with a letter to the Scottish commissioners.118CJ v. 566a. In the same period there were concerns about the loyalty of the City of London, heightened by a riot outside Parliament on 16 May. Annesley was named to the committee to consider the disturbance (17 May), included in the committee of both Houses that attended the common council (18 May), and reported the answer of the citizens, promising to ‘live and die’ with Parliament and to uphold the Covenant (20 May).119CJ v. 562b, 565a, 567b. This was followed in June by attempts to increase support for Parliament in the City and more generally. On 1 June Annesley was appointed to a committee to produce a ‘narrative’ of the Commons’ dealings with London, alongside Boys, Knightley and Thomas Erle; and on 10 June he was included with Sir Walter Erle and Boys on a committee to prepare a declaration justifying Parliament’s efforts to come to a settlement with the king, explaining how such plans had been wrecked by the royalist uprisings.120CJ v. 581a, 593a.

An Irish Presbyterian, Sept. 1647-June 1648

As well as the pursuing a Presbyterian agenda in English affairs, Annesley’s political activities from the autumn of 1647 until the summer of 1648 were dominated by Irish affairs. He was added to the Derby House Committee of Irish affairs on 2 Sept. 1647, after an order that it should consider the speedy sending of troops to Ireland, and he joined the Star Chamber Committee of Irish affairs on 2 November, to assist in bringing in money promised by earlier ordinances.121LJ ix. 416b, 508a; CJ v. 287b, 347b. Thereafter, Annesley became an active member of the Derby House Committee, attending most of the meetings until the autumn of 1648.122SP21/26, pp. 104-170. He was also regular in his attendance of the Star Chamber Committee, and was present at meetings in almost every month in the year from November 1647.123CSP Ire. 1633-47, pp. 744-50; 1647-60, pp. 1-37. Through these committees, and his work in the Commons, Annesley was closely involved in attempts to resuscitate the Irish war effort, working with William Jephson, among others. On 1 October 1647 he and Jephson were added to a committee for disposing money for the relief of distressed Protestant refugees.124CJ v. 322b. On 5 October he was ordered to report on the state of Ireland.125CJ v. 327a. His importance is attested by a letter of 6 October, in which Dr Henry Jones sent his brother, the governor of Dublin, Michael Jones, a copy of a letter he had recently sent to Annesley.126TCD, MS 844, f. 9v. On the 22nd he was added to a committee to raise further money for Ireland.127CJ v. 347a. On 30 November he had joined Temple, Jephson and Goodwyn as a sub-committee of the Derby House Committee of Irish Affairs, to meet the Adventurers to raise funds in consultation with the ‘gentlemen of Ireland’.128CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 767. On 1 December he was given care of a committee to consider letters captured from Lord Taaffe in Ireland.129CJ v. 373b, 374a. Later in the month he was teller in favour of putting a motion that allowed James Ussher, the Calvinist archbishop of Armagh, the right to preach at Lincoln’s Inn, despite his royalist sympathies.130CJ v. 393b. On 25 January 1648 Annesley, Temple and Jephson had formed another sub-committee of the Derby House Committee, to hasten the execution of the ordinance to raise £50,000 for Ireland.131CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 771.

Attempts to reinvigorate Parliament’s response to the Irish war continued in the spring and summer of 1648. On 21 March Annesley and Temple were instructed by the committee to negotiate with the London citizens once again.132CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 775. On 24 March, Annesley was ordered to prepare an ordinance concerning previous contracts to supply provisions to Ireland.133CJ v. 513b. He was a key figure in the scheme to send commissioners to the Irish provinces to coordinate the war. Annesley was originally proposed as a commissioner to Ulster, Leinster and Connaught, but that scheme was abandoned, and it was decided to send commissioners only to Munster, where it was feared the lord president, Lord Inchiquin was about to abandon Parliament and join the king.134CJ v. 522a. On 3 April Annesley was one of the members of the Derby House Committee who signed a warrant to pay £5,000 to the commissioners to go to Munster, and the next day he was messenger to the Lords with the order to pay £2,500 to one of their number, William Jephson.135SP16/539/127, f. 161; CJ v. 526a. The defection of Inchiquin put an end to the Munster commission, and Annesley had to fall back on other measures. On 20 April the ordinance for the relief of Ireland was committed to Annesley, Temple and Goodwyn, with Annesley taking care of the business.136CJ v. 538b. He was ordered to report their findings on 6 May, and he presented amendments to the ordinance, to raise a loan of £50,000 for Ireland, only on 22 May, carrying the agreed document to the Lords four days later.137CJ v. 552b, 569b, 574a. The delay was followed by a long silence, as Irish affairs had also succumbed to the immediate problem of putting down the royalist rebellion. The Lords vote of 6 June to restore Valentia to his former office as privy signet of Ireland was no doubt intended as a favour to Annesley, but it was small consolation for the general neglect of Ireland.138LJ x. 307a.

It is interesting that throughout this period Annesley was happy to maintain amicable relations with the marquess of Ormond. On 30 August 1647 he was in contact with Ormond’s advisers concerning the marquess’s business in Parliament.139Bodl. Carte 21, f. 399. On 6 September Ormond wrote to Annesley, thanking him and King for their efforts on his behalf.140Bodl. Carte 21, f. 376. On 2 October Ormond was told that Annesley had been promoting his interest in the Committee for Compounding and the House of Commons, and at the end of the month Annesley and King had persuaded him to cancel the former bills of exchange and rely instead on ‘the honour of Parliament’.141Bodl. Carte 21, f. 474; HMC Portland, i. 439. This made the payment of the sums due a matter of personal honour for Annesley as well, and he continued to intervene on Ormond’s behalf over the following months. On 4 November the Commons voted £2,500 to the marquess, on the strength of a certificate signed by Annesley and King.142CJ v. 350a. In February 1648 Stephen Smith and another of Ormond’s servants were allowed to remain in London, by licence of the Compounding commissioners, on the motion of Annesley.143CCC 1809. An account of money disbursed by Smith, during Ormond’s absence on the continent, shows that Annesley was receiving small sums from the money released by Goldsmiths’ Hall in 1648, perhaps by way of expenses.144Bodl. Carte 30, f. 345v, 347. In February of that year, Ormond wrote to Annesley from France, fearing that he would be arrested by Parliament or prosecuted by his creditors, and asking that he would take care of his wife and children until they were ready to join him in exile.145Bodl. Tanner 58, f. 684. Ormond’s papers show that he was corresponding with Annesley and King, mostly about the money he was still owed, in April, May and June.146Bodl. Carte 22, ff. 56, 72, 74, 135.

The Newport Treaty, August-December 1648

Annesley had been granted leave of absence on 25 May 1648, but it was several weeks before he was able to leave Westminster.147CJ v. 573a. He was absent from the Commons and the Irish committees from the middle of June until the end of August.148CJ v. 602a, 692a; SP21/26, pp. 164, 169. On his return, he found the Irish situation had deteriorated further, as Inchiquin had recently signed a new truce with the Confederates, and Ormond was expected to return to France to take charge of the royalist cause. Annesley did what he could in the committees, and at Westminster, but there was no question of Parliament agreeing to an expeditionary force until some kind of settlement had been agreed with the king. In September he was chairing the committee for poor distressed Protestants, and on 22nd of that month the committee also took on the care of widows of Ireland.149CJ vi. 27a. Parliament’s commanders had to make do with gestures rather than reinforcements. On 28 September Annesley was instructed to prepare a letter to George Monck*, thanking him for capturing Belfast and Carrickfergus from the Scots, and on 6 Oct. he was messenger to the Lords with an order for Michael Jones in Dublin to receive a reward of £1,000.150CJ vi. 37b, 45b. On 17 October Annesley was ordered to bring in an ordinance to make Sir William Parsons and Sir John Temple commissioners of the great seal in Ireland – in theory, if not in practice.151CJ vi. 54b. In other areas, progress was slow. On 8 September he took the chair of the grand committee on the ordinance to abolish deans and chapters, he presented its findings to the Commons on 29 September, and reported the amendments to the ordinance on 13 October, when he was teller against annulling leases granted since 1643.152CJ vi. 9b, 38a, 51a-b. On 21 November Annesley was included in the committee of both Houses for removing obstructions to the sale of bishops’ lands.153A. and O.

With the royalists defeated, in the autumn the Presbyterians and their allies pressed for new negotiations with the king, and Annesley was a leading figure in managing the response of the Commons to the face-to-face talks conducted by commissioners at Newport on the Isle of Wight. On 23 September he was named, with prominent Presbyterians such as Swynfen, Doddridge and Clotworthy, to a committee to consider a letter from the commissioners concerning the declaration and propositions for a treaty, and on the same day he was ordered to prepare a letter to the commissioners thanking them for their care of matters so far.154CJ vi. 29b, 30a. On 13 October Annesley, Boys, Drake, Swynfen, Thomas Grove and others was given responsibility for ensuring that the money allocated for the treaty negotiations was speedily paid.155CJ vi. 51a. During October and early November, Annesley was frequently mentioned in the letters of John Crewe*, one of the commissioners at Newport, to his ally, John Swynfen.156CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 297, 307, 309, 319. This reflected Annesley’s importance in the next stage of the negotiations, which concentrated on the thorny problems of the religious settlement. On 26 October he was named to a committee to prepare instructions for the commissioners after the king’s refusal to countenance the abolition of bishops.157CJ vi. 62a. The following day he was appointed to two committees - to reduce the propositions into bills, and ‘to consider how, and in what means, the Covenant may be so framed, as it may be presented to the king and taken by him’ – and, with Swynfen, Clotworthy and Temple, he was to draft a letter to the commissioners warning demanding that the king disown Ormond, who had returned to Ireland.158CJ vi. 62b, 63a-b. He reported the letter to the Commons on 28 October, and went as messenger to the Lords with the Commons’ order on the king’s last answer on the church settlement.159CJ vi. 63b, 64a. On the 30th he was one of the reporters of a conference with the Lords on the progress of the treaty.160CJ vi. 65a. In the first week of November attention turned to the equally vexed question of which royalists were to be ‘excepted’ from pardon. On 6 November Annesley was teller against the exception of the earl of Derby, and two days later he was teller with Erle against adding any more names to the list.161CJ vi. 70b, 71b. This appears to have been part of a concerted attempt, by Annesley and his friends, to bring the talks to a swift conclusion. On 11 November he was teller with Robert Goodwin against adding further clauses to the proposition concerning the Prayer Book.162CJ vi. 74a. On 24 November, when the Commons divided on the question that the commissioners should end their talks on the 27th, and immediately return to Westminster ‘with such final answer as they shall receive from the king to what remains’, Annesley joined Francis Gerard as teller in favour, winning by 34 votes.163CJ vi. 86b. On 2 December, when it was proposed to bring in candles to allow the debate on the treaty to continue, Annesley and Bulkeley were tellers against.164CJ vi. 93a.

One reason for a keeping the talks brief was the increasing risk of military intervention. Annesley had been involved in measures to defend Parliament for several weeks. On 26 September he was named to a committee to consider how a horse guard might be paid and maintained, he was ordered to report back to the Commons on this issue on 4 Oct., and five days later he was appointed to the committee on the resulting ordinance, which also included important Presbyterians, including Knightley, Erle, Swynfen, Boys, Nathaniel Stephens, Sir Thomas Dacres and Edward Massie.165CJ vi. 34a, 42b, 47a. Annesley was included in the committee, appointed on 4 November, to attend the London militia committee and the common council to arrange for a new guard drawn from the citizenry, to replace the ‘hired men’ now employed. He was also added to the Committee for Advance of Money for the specific task of raising the money to pay these troops.166CJ vi. 69b. Annesley was named to committees to mollify the army, including those to add 3,000 foot to the establishment (14 Nov.), and to consider arrears of pay, terms for disbandment, and how to avoid free quarter (16 November).167CJ vi. 76a, 78a. On 22 November he was added temporarily to the Army Committee, when it considered these matters further, and was messenger to the Lords with order for the payment of the guards of Parliament.168CJ vi. 83b. In a last attempt to prevent a clash with the army, on 1 December Annesley and others were appointed to a committee to prepare a letter to the lord general promising that arrears would be paid, and Annesley reported from this committee on the same day.169CJ vi. 92b. Nevertheless, on 6 December Thomas Pride* and other colonels purged the Commons, and Annesley was secluded.170A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.52); Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 366.

Irish politics, 1649-58

Annesley was among those secluded MPs who sought to publish a ‘vindication’ of their actions, in defiance of the army, in January 1649, but he was not an active opponent of the commonwealth thereafter.171HMC Portland, iii. 166. A violent row between Annesley and his father, over the payment of portions on his many siblings, led to a vituperative letter from Valentia to John Lloyd in February 1651, in which he denounced Annesley for his failure to cooperate with him, and ‘resolved to have no more commerce with him by letters till he give me some better satisfaction of his sonship, and of his disclaiming confederacy with my base enemies’.172C108/188, part 1, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol. Annesley retaliated with the claim that Valentia had not paid the money agreed on his marriage, and now sought to force a resettlement of the whole estate, ‘withall carrying himself in that harsh and unfatherly manner to his son, that he had no quiet or contentment’.173C108/188, part 1, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol. The two men had apparently settled their differences by December 1652, when they were granted a pass to return to Ireland with their families, once they had taken the oath of Engagement.174CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 459.

Once in Ireland, Annesley set about re-establishing himself at the heart of the Irish Protestant community. He started by making himself useful to the powerful Boyle clan. Relations between the Boyles and the Annesleys had always been tense. The 1st earl of Cork and Lord Mountnorris had been bitter rivals in 1620s and 1630s, and Cork’s son, Lord Broghill, had sided with the Independents during the 1640s. There was still common ground between the two families, however. In February 1646, for example, Broghill’s brother, Robert Boyle, wrote to Annesley thanking him for overseeing the management of his estate in County Mayo.175Corresp. of Robert Boyle, ed. M. Hunter, A. Clericuzio and L. Principe (6 vols. 2001), i. 29-30. In the early 1650s, Annesley went out of his way to help the royalist Boyles claim exemption from sequestration under the Dublin Articles he had negotiated in 1647. In June 1652 he provided a certificate that the 2nd earl of Cork (Richard Boyle*) was able to take full benefit of the conditions, and in March 1653 he provided evidence that Robert and Francis Boyle (later Viscount Shannon) should also be included in the Articles.176Chatsworth, CM/28, no. 25; Bodl. Firth c.5, f. 155v. Later in the decade, Annesley was involved in the financial affairs of a family intimately connected with the Boyles, the Fitzgeralds, earls of Kildare, probably in the hope of recouping money borrowed from his father by the 16th earl.177HMC Egmont, i. 582. In May 1657 Annesley, Cork and Ranelagh (Arthur Jones*) persuaded the young 17th earl of Kildare to settle portions on his sisters, and in February 1658 Kildare made Annesley, Cork and Sir Maurice Eustace trustees of his estates, ‘and tied himself by deed not to make any away without the consent of one of us’.178Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol., 2 May 1657, 10 Feb. 1658. Kildare’s marriage to the daughter of the 2nd earl of Clare was settled by a deed of March 1658, witnessed by Annesley and Broghill.179PRONI, D.3078/1/3/4. In December 1658 the earl of Clare wrote to Annesley, thanking him for his ‘great care’ of Kildare’s interests, and asking a ‘farther kindness, to have an eye to the receiving of his rents, now due’.180Bodl. Clarendon 58, f. 314.

Annesley’s activities on behalf of the Boyles and Fitzgeralds were part of a wider campaign to insinuate himself into the Protestant community. His landholdings in Ulster gave him an entrée. In February 1654 Annesley wrote to the commander of Ulster, Robert Venables*, asking for the restoration of William Richardson as minister of Killaleagh.181CCSP ii. 317. In July Annesley was a party in the indenture for the marriage of the daughter of Sir John Clotworthy to Sir John Skeffington*.182PRONI, D.207/16/1. He remained on friendly terms with the Clotworthys later in the decade.183CCSP iii. 389. In December 1657 Annesley and Arthur Hill* were employed by the Irish council to adjudicate a dispute between George Rawdon* and another landowner over the fate of confiscated property in Co. Tyrone.184CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 659. Annesley was also busy building up his influence in the Dublin area, partly for financial reasons. In February 1657 he was involved in the attempt by the Catholic Viscount Fitzwilliam of Merrion to regain his estate at Baggotrath, south of Dublin, with Fitzwilliam asking Henry Cromwell* ‘that you will let my Cousin Annesley rent it from your lordship until my coming’.185Henry Cromwell Corresp. 196-7. In June Annesley negotiated with the Dublin corporation for a ninety year lease of lands on the outskirts of the city, adjacent to the garden of his own house and bordering that of Sir John Temple.186Cal. Ancient Recs. Dublin, iv. 121. In 1656 and 1658 Annesley was working to restore another Catholic peer, Lord Barnewall, to his estates near Dublin, in which he had a legal interest, probably a mortgage.187CCSP iii. 223; TSP vii. 155. There may also have been a personal, financial, dimension to Annesley’s interference with the O’Briens of Thomond, and this would explain the tone of his letter to the earl of Thomond of 4 November 1657, which remonstrated against a proposed settlement that would leave the bulk of the estate to the grandson, by-passing the son, Lord O’Brien.188CCSP iii. 381.

Annesley also acted as informal agent for the Irish Protestant community at the Irish council in Dublin and the protectoral council at Whitehall, at the same time advancing his own private interests. He was in London in the summer of 1654, advising John Percivalle and others about framing a petition of Irish Protestant landowners who feared they would lose out in the allocation of lands to Adventurers and soldiers, and when the petition was ready in July, Annesley, Broghill, Clotworthy and John Percivalle presented it to Henry Cromwell.189HMC Egmont, i. 543, 549, 551. In January 1655 he took a petition to the Irish council ‘for moderating the way of raising the contribution’ for the assessments, accompanied by John Bisse* and the earl of Meath.190HMC Egmont, i. 565. In March Annesley was involved in a further petition, this time by the proprietors of Cos. Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, Carlow and Kildare, concerning the transplantation of tenants. It may have been in connection with this that Annesley went to England shortly afterwards. He was in London in May 1655, when he wrote to the lord deputy of Ireland, Charles Fleetwood*, with news of events in England, assurances that he was ‘your lordship’s servant’, and a petition on behalf of his old associate, Sir Maurice Eustace, recently arrested as a suspect in the Penruddock rising in England.191Henry Cromwell Corresp. 51, 53. In April 1657 Annesley, the earl of Cork, Sir Charles Coote, Sir Hardress Waller* and Arthur Hill formed another delegation to the Irish council to discuss contributions.192Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol. 24 Apr. 1657. Familiarity with the workings of government could be useful to Annesley. A long cherished personal ambition was to regain the offices of secretary of state and clerk of the signet that had been taken from his father by Strafford. In July 1656 Valentia had petitioned the protectoral council for permission to resign his interest in the offices to Annesley.193CSP Dom. 1656-7, p. 40; Bodl. Rawl A.44, f. 120. In the following summer he was emboldened to approach the Irish council, and Henry Cromwell privately, to ask if his father might be restored to his pre-war offices as secretary of state and clerk of the signet. Henry was not inclined to accede to this request, but there is no doubt he was on friendly terms with Annesley.194TSP vi. 777. Annesley was again in London at the end of June 1657, and sent Henry a glowing report of the ‘magnificence and order’ of the re-inauguration of the protector at Whitehall, adding, as a compliment, ‘had it been at Dublin I assure myself none would have grudged a bonfire to see the protector receive and own his office from the civil power, though there were no bonfires here’.195Henry Cromwell Corresp. 293. A month later he acted as agent to the ‘despoiled Protestants of Ireland’, presenting their petition to the protector, and securing his recommendation on 28 July.196Bodl. Carte 63, f. 622. In February 1658 Henry Cromwell recommended Annesley, who was preparing to cross to England once again, to Fleetwood, ‘as a person of eminent parts and abilities and (for ought ever I could observe here of him) of sobriety and good affection to his highness, as also very friendly to myself’.197TSP vi. 777. In the summer of 1658 Annesley was busy promoting an ‘address to his late highness’, to be subscribed across Ireland, but it had only got as far as Co. Cork before Cromwell’s death. Undaunted, it was said that ‘something of the like nature to his now highness [Richard Cromwell*] is now on foot’.198HMC Egmont, i. 600. In early December, when a ‘declaration of the nobility’ was circulating in Ireland, the earl of Cork noted that he had heard ‘Annesley was the reporter if not the raiser of it’.199Chatsworth, CM/29, unfol. 7 Dec. 1658.

The third protectorate Parliament, 1659

Annesley’s incessant activity in the later 1650s had significantly increased his influence with the governments in Ireland and England as well as his standing in the Irish Protestant community, and it was only natural that he should seek election for Richard Cromwell’s Parliament. He was returned as MP for the City of Dublin in December 1658, probably on his own interest as a local property owner, and shortly afterwards the corporation agreed to pay him £100 towards his maintenance as their MP.200Cal. Ancient Recs. Dublin, iv. 153. Annesley did not travel to London for the beginning of the session, however. On 8 February Jerome Sankey* advised Henry Cromwell to ‘haste away your members’, adding that ‘I wonder Sir Anthony Morgan* and Mr Annesley stay so long’.201Henry Cromwell Corresp. 451. On 14 February Annesley finally took his seat in Parliament, immediately making his mark by acting as teller in favour to bringing in candles to allow the debate on the ‘recognition’ of Richard Cromwell as protector to continue.202CJ vii. 603b. In a letter to Henry Cromwell of 15 April he was upbeat about the Commons’ progress towards ‘our settlement’: although ‘the Other House is not at all owned, yet there is ground to believe a House of peers will be settled’, and although the army officers continued their meetings, ‘it’s thought the votes passed yesterday [recognising the protector] have left them little to offer’.203Henry Cromwell Corresp. 452. On 22 February Annesley reported to Henry Cromwell his hopes that the Other House would follow a traditional model: ‘I believe no House will pass but with admittance of the ancient peers that have not forfeited’.204Henry Cromwell Corresp. 462.

Annesley returned to question of the ‘old lords’ in a long speech to the Commons on 2 March, recorded in detail by Thomas Burton*. At first, he questioned the basis for the discussion, for ‘if it be yielded that the Petition and Advice is a law, and without dispute, then there is an end of the debate; but that was never yet yielded. Many arguments against it are not answered’. He then raised the matter of the ‘old peers’ whose rights must not be prejudiced. Reminding MPs of his own aristocratic connections, Annesley argued: ‘my many bonds and relations will not allow me to bar the rights of the old peerage’, and recalled ‘how far the lords adventured themselves in the late war’. ‘If now’, he continued, ‘after all this, they must be laid aside, being thus settled without ever being heard, my soul shall have no share in such counsels and such a resolution’. Annesley then turned to the role of the lords in the ‘ancient constitution’: ‘No law without the consent of the Lords in Parliament is good, but void. Lord Coke [Sir Edward Coke†] is clear that no law is of force but what is made by the three estates’.205Burton’s Diary, iii. 591-2. (Sir John Gell’s* account of the speech makes the royalist implications of this more explicit: ‘no act is binding by the king and Commons, without the lords’.206W.A.H. Schilling ‘The Parliamentary Diary of Sir John Gell, 5 Feb.-21 Mar. 1659’, (Vanderbilt Univ. PhD thesis, 1961), 155-6.) Annesley went on to argue that the old peers had a right to sit by tradition, and because of the scale of their landed wealth, while rejecting the argument that the current members of the Other House had a right by possession: ‘but to say they sit by a law, is begging the question’. In conclusion, he proposed a compromise: that the Commons would transact with the existing Other House, ‘not intending hereby to exclude some of the ancient peers, who have been faithful to the commonwealth, from their privileges of being summoned and sitting as members of that House’.207Burton’s Diary, iii. 592-3. When the debate was resumed on 5 March, Annesley spoke again, although he reassured the House ‘I shall not speak of the right of the old lords – they have strength enough to stand of themselves’. Instead, he urged the Commons to accept the Other House as a proper House of Lords, ‘to be a balance between the supreme magistrate and the people, and to supervise and protect the laws’. He reminded MPs of the alternative: ‘It was said the Commons will not bear them [the Lords]. We find the misery of that success [in 1649-53]. I hope we shall never have that again’. Finally, he urged that the matter be sorted out, one way or another: ‘Let us have any settlement rather than no settlement. I beseech you, keep us to something’. On 8 March, Annesley again spoke in favour of the old peers – noting that he was ‘glad to hear those persons that were for a commonwealth move to save this right’; and he was teller against including a clause concerning the old lords in the question on accepting the Other House – a motion passed by a bare seven votes.208Burton’s Diary, iv. 77; CJ vii. 612a. In a letter to Henry Cromwell written the same day, Annesley interpreted this as a victory of sorts: ‘the latter part concerning the ancient peers was added this night to make the question more passable, their right being asserted in the House so unquestionably that no question could pass without provision for it’, and he was now confident the main question would succeed.209Henry Cromwell Corresp. 467. Some of Annesley’s more off-beam remarks over the previous few days surprised his fellow MPs.210Burton’s Diary, iv. 27-8. Also on 8 March, Anthony Morgan told Henry Cromwell of his concern that Annesley ‘divides with the commonwealthsmen’ on the question of the Other House, and ‘declares the Petition and Advice is no law’.211Henry Cromwell Corresp. 472.

The debate on the Other House had raised the awkward question of the right of the Irish and Scottish MPs to sit at Westminster, now that the old electoral system had been revived under the Humble Petition and Advice. As early as 8 March, Annesley reported that opponents of the Other House, ‘observing most of the members of Ireland and Scotland voted for it, they set on foot the debate about the illegality of their sitting’, and warned that ‘if the question pass, the members of those two nations carry it, which gives great discontent’.212Henry Cromwell Corresp. 467-8. Two days later, Annesley was arguing Ireland and Scotland to be treated separately: ‘you cannot carry on Scotland and Ireland together. The cases differ. I never see you carry on two boroughs together’.213Burton’s Diary, iv. 118. On 18 March the impatient Annesley was teller in favour of bringing in candles to allow the debate on the Scottish MPs to continue, and the next day he was teller against an adjournment of the business.214CJ vii. 615b, 616a. On 21 March, when it was proposed that a vote on the Scottish MPs should take place, Annesley joined John Thurloe* as teller for the motion, and the main question was passed immediately afterwards.215CJ vii. 616b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 218. It seemed that the acceptance of the Irish MPs would now be little more than a formality. Annesley’s letter to Henry Cromwell on 22 March certainly gave that impression, as it included only the briefest of comments on the Irish MPs, ‘who no doubt will have the same vote passed for them’.216Henry Cromwell Corresp. 476. In debate on the same day, Annesley’s argument was conventional: ‘Methinks you should have a little respect to Ireland, that they are your own flesh. I do not reflect upon Scotland, but Ireland I hope has something to say for their right; and though Scotland cost you 14 days debate, this may haply be done before you rise’.217Burton Diary, iv. 225-6.

Yet the next day, 23 March, Annesley dropped a bombshell. Rather than supporting the right of the Irish MPs to sit, he took a completely different line. In response to comments by some MPs that the Irish should sit in their own Parliament and stop interfering with English affairs, Annesley admitted they had a point. There was no clear ‘legal right’ for the Irish to sit at Westminster; and if the thirty Irish MPs made common cause with the 30 from Scotland, ‘much mischief might ensue’. Scotland and Ireland were very different:

If you speak as to the conveniency in relation to England, much more is to be said why they who serve for Scotland should sit here. It is one continent, and elections are easilier determined; but Ireland differs. It is much fitter for them to have Parliaments of their own. That was the old constitution. It will be difficult to change it, and dangerous for Ireland.218Burton’s Diary, iv. 240-1.

In fact, representation in the Westminster Parliament was not in the best interests of the Irish Protestants either: ‘their taxes, records cannot be brought hither, nor their members come without danger’.219Derbs. RO, D258/10/9/2, f. 5r-v. The Irish Sea was an insuperable barrier: ‘Anciently ... we find that the records of Ireland would never be trusted by sea. Shall we now trust the people, and would not trust the parchments? Ireland must have the disadvantage every way’.220Burton’s Diary, iv. 241. Annesley then turned to the justice of home rule: ‘As you are reducing yourselves to your ancient constitution, why has not Ireland the same? Why not Lords and Commons there?’ Ireland should have its own ‘free’ Parliament, just as it had its own courts of justice. The current system was unjust – ‘you go about to make them foreigners’, with an unfair burden of taxation, and paying customs at a higher rate than ever before. The only solution was to allow Irish problems to be resolved in Ireland by a separate Parliament: ‘I pray that they may have some to hear their grievances in their own nation, seeing they cannot have them heard here’.221Burton’s Diary, iv. 242. Annesley went on to join John Lambert* as teller against the Irish MPs continuing to sit, although they lost the motion by 50 votes.222CJ vii. 619a.

The reason for Annesley’s sudden change of mind is unclear. From being a conventional supporter of the union, he had within the span of a day turned into an advocate of home rule. He may have felt inhibited about airing his real opinions before, but was then encouraged to do so in the heat of debate, just as in his contributions to the Other House debate he had let slip his support for monarchical government. But there is another possibility. In his letter to Henry Cromwell, written on the evening of 22 March, Annesley began with an apology that ‘the present sad condition that my aged father lies in by the dead palsy, which fell on him since the last post, which hath taken away his speech, hinders me from being so large in the present dispatch as I had intended’.223Henry Cromwell Corresp. 476. Immediately his father died, Annesley would become Viscount Valentia, with a seat in the Irish House of Lords, and ambitions redirected towards Dublin. This perhaps explains his plea for an Irish Parliament in its traditional form: ‘Why not Lords and Commons there?’

There is no doubting Annesley’s deep-rooted concern for Ireland. On 22 February he told Henry Cromwell that the Commons would soon call for a statement of the Irish revenues, advising Henry Cromwell that ‘it will be good that a return be hastened, that we may make the best use we can for a supply hence’, reassuring him that he would serve him in that and ‘in what else your excellency shall command my service’.224Henry Cromwell Corresp. 462. On 10 March he asked the Commons to read a petition from Dublin concerning the excise, but consideration of it was postponed.225Burton’s Diary, iv. 119. With the passing of the votes on the Scottish and Irish MPs, the pressing needs of both nations could at last be addressed. Committees for Irish and Scottish affairs were named on 1 April, and Annesley was appointed to both.226CJ vii. 623a-b. On 5 April, Annesley could tell Henry Cromwell that ‘there is now a committee appointed for the affairs of Ireland and some bills by their order are in preparation’, adding that ‘I hope we shall now have an opportunity to do good for that poor nation’.227Henry Cromwell Corresp. 497.

A pressing issue that affected Ireland and England alike was the need to pass a new excise bill. Annesley was wary of what he considered an irregular tax. On 12 March,, during a debate on raising money for the army, he argued that Parliament should stick to methods ‘the law knows’, and declared himself ‘against all extraordinary ways of bringing in money’.228Burton’s Diary, iv. 141. On 22 March Annesley showed his approval of the debate on ‘reducing those acts which settle excise and customs perpetual to a certain number of years’, as he thought the lack of a time limit meant that ‘the purse of the people is taken from them’.229Henry Cromwell Corresp. 476. On 31 March he argued against merely extending the existing legislation, saying that ‘I would not have us confirm laws by the lump ... if we mention the continuance of it, we admit it already settled by law’.230Burton’s Diary, iv. 316. The bill for limiting customs and excise was ‘as yet at a stand’ on 5 April.231Henry Cromwell Corresp. 497. On 13 April Annesley was named to a committee to prepare a declaration on the excise debate.232CJ vii. 639a. When this was reported on 15 April, Annesley again spoke against any suggestion that the excise was to be taken out of Parliament’s hands: ‘the words offered to you are, in effect, to make it perpetual, and, by implication, to confirm all the laws and to lay aside the redress of the grievances you have now under consideration’.233CJ vii. 639a; Burton’s Diary, iv. 436. Yet the excise bill needed to be passed if the financial problems facing the protectorate were to be alleviated. On 7 April Annesley had himself described this as ‘an incurable disease, unless you apply a cure presently ... that the charge of the nation is grown so great, you think it necessary that such a balance should be made as it may not exceed your incomes; else our children shall, in fine, be bond slaves’.234Burton’s Diary, iv. 363. On 16 April he urged the Commons to make the report from the committee of inspections a priority, as ‘money answers all things’.235Burton’s Diary, iv. 447.

Another complex issue was the declaration for a public fast day across the three nations. On 30 March Annesley was named to the committee to prepare the declaration, and when the matter was debated on 2 April, he told the Commons not to make concessions to the Scots, who were unhappy with the civil power dictating religious occasions, insisting that the word ‘require’ should stand, rather than the weaker ‘recommend’, in the wording of the declaration.236Burton’s Diary, iv. 331; cf. Henry Cromwell Corresp. 497. This reveals something of Annesley’s own religious leanings, which were Calvinist but not strictly Presbyterian. By 5 April the fast day had become a topic of factional interest, as passing it would entail transacting with the Other House. Annesley spoke against Hesilrige’s objections: ‘I see not how you can now speak against it. It is already resolved, after 14 days debate about it, and carried by almost 80 votes’.237Burton’s Diary, iv. 338. On 7 April Annesley was named to a committee to consider how the relationship between the two Houses might be formalised.238CJ vii. 627a. When the Commons finally sent a messenger to the Other House on 14 April, the details had still not be agreed, and the House divided on whether he should return immediately without waiting for an answer, with Annesley telling against this suggestion.239CJ vii. 639b. In the debates about ‘transacting’, Annesley remained wedded to the idea of reintroducing the old lords into the Other House. On 5 April his motion that the Other House should be referred to as ‘the Lords, because of the old peers’ caused laughter in the Commons, but he was clearly in earnest that the principle should be upheld.240Burton’s Diary, iv. 349. He returned to the theme on 8 Apr., when he opined that if the Other House was further restricted in ‘transacting’, ‘all the use that the old peers shall be of, shall be but to go on messages; for the other lords are able to outvote them’.241Burton’s Diary, iv. 375.

The intricacies of the excise, the fast day declaration and the nature of the Other House were soon to be overshadowed by a much greater threat to the stability of the regime. On 15 March Annesley had observed a worrying development: ‘that Dr [John] Owen* hath gathered a church in the Independent way, and that Lord Fleetwood, Lord [John] Disbrowe*, Lord [William] Sydenham*, [James] Berry*, [William] Goffe* and others were admitted members’.242Henry Cromwell Corresp. 474-5. On 12 April, when the case of Major General Boteler was debated in the Commons, and Annesley was strongly in favour of impeachment - to ‘make this person incapable of doing any more mischief’ - and he was duly appointed to a committee to consider the impeachment.243Burton’s Diary, iv. 405; CJ vii. 637a. There were also fears of religious radicalism, which came to a head on 16 April, when a Quaker petition was presented to the Commons. Annesley was dismissive: ‘they are a fanatic crew ... the petition is unseasonable, and declares their desire that is neither consonant to the laws of God or man’.244Burton’s Diary, iv. 440, 444. Tensions had risen further by 18 April, when the Commons discussed army unrest. Annesley wanted all meetings of the soldiery, whether public or private, to be banned. He also advised against sending the army into garrisons before changing the commander in chief, as ‘this may inflame them in the country, and infuse those principles that are sown abroad’. Parliament must also assert its ‘share in the militia; that your claim may appear, and no implication be that you intend to give it to another’.245Burton’s Diary, iv. 456. When John Swynfen moved that a new commander would have to swear not to ‘disturb’ Parliament, he was seconded by Annesley.246Burton’s Diary, iv. 460. Thereafter, Annesley was named to a committee to propose to the protector how Parliament and the nation might be ‘secured against any attempts’ from unspecified ‘dangerous persons’.247CJ vii. 642a. He reported from this committee the next day, presenting the House with a declaration for all suspected persons to leave London.248CJ vii. 642a. On 21 April he seconded a motion that the militia be declared ‘in three estates’ with the protector taking care of its deployment, but he was aware that such statements were not enough:

Divers members of this House are of that militia. I would have them tell what they know. I doubt there is cause for some jealousy; that we shall be imposed upon, as formerly, and divers taken out and a few sitting. I would have you first resolve that none shall impose upon you from without doors.249Burton’s Diary, iv. 475.

Annesley’s words were prophetic. He was present in the Commons on 22 April, when the army intervened to force Richard Cromwell to dissolve Parliament.250CJ vii. 644b.

The council of state and the Restoration, 1659-60

When the Rump Parliament was restored in May, Annesley joined William Prynne* and other secluded Members, who ‘were not suffered by the officers to go into the House, though they disputed their privilege of sitting’.251[Annesley], Englands Confusion (30 May 1659), 11-12 (E.985.1). After this demonstration, Annesley did not oppose the new regime further, instead retiring to his study to write his own version of recent events, which he published pseudonymously as Englands Confusion at the end of May. The pamphlet, which proclaimed it was ‘written by one of the few Englishmen that are left in England’, attacked both the ‘usurped dominion’ and ‘arbitrary power’ of the protectorate and the violence of the proponents of the ‘Good Old Cause’, who had refused entry to the secluded Members when the Rump was restored.252Englands Confusion, 1, 3, 5, 8-9. Annesley remained in London, lobbying for a reduction in the Irish assessment, during the summer, and he may have also pressed for modifications to the bill on the settlement of land in Ireland, to ensure that the 1654 ordinance granting indemnity for Irish Protestants would be honoured.253Clarke, Prelude to Restoration, 84n; Bodl. Clarendon 62, f. 140. Some Irish Protestants, especially those associated with the Boyle clan, did not trust Annesley, and were unhappy that he now claimed to represent their interests.254T.C. Barnard, ‘The Protestant Interest, 1641-1660’, in Ireland from Independence to Occupation, 1641-1660, ed. J. Ohlmeyer (Cambridge, 1995), 237. Others were more forgiving. In October, Viscount Ranelagh, Sir William Ussher, Sir Paul Davies* and John Bisse wrote to John Percivalle asking that the landowners of Co. Cork (where the Boyles were dominant) would pay their share of the money due to Annesley, ‘who has laboured most industriously for them, and as yet had no suitable return’.255HMC Egmont, i. 610.

Nothing is known of Annesley’s movements during the closing months of 1659, but he was in London in January 1660, when he again joined forces with William Prynne* in a new campaign to have the secluded Members readmitted to their seats in the Rump – a move that was guaranteed to give the Commons a pro-royalist majority.256CCSP iv. 532. There is no doubt that was what Annesley intended. In the next few weeks Annesley made contact with royalist agents in London. Lord Mordaunt told Charles Stuart on 17 February, ‘truly Mr Annesley has served your majesty so considerably that I may with confidence beg a letter may oblige him’.257Bodl. Clarendon 69, f. 170. On the same day Mordaunt told Secretary Nicholas that Annesley had come close to persuading George Monck* to meet him.258CCSP iv. 565. With Monck’s backing, the secluded Members were readmitted on 21 February. On the same day, Annesley was named to a committee ‘to expunge and obliterate’ the votes against the secluded Members passed in the winter of 1648-9, and he was also appointed to the committee on a bill constituting a new council of state.259CJ vii. 847a-b. As well as Prynne, Annesley was now working with other secluded MPs, such as Sir William Waller.260CCSP iv. 570. Elected on 23 February, Annesley was formally appointed to the new council of state two days later, and was chosen as its president.261CJ vii. 849b; A. and O. In the meantime, on 24 February, he was named to the committee on a bill to make Monck commander-in-chief of the armed forces in the three nations, and on the same day he joined Prynne and the solicitor general (Ellys?) as a committee of three to prepare a bill for the dissolution of Parliament.262CJ vii. 850b, 852b. In the days that followed, Annesley was involved in a number of moves to consolidate the moderate Presbyterians who now controlled the Commons. On 29 February he was named to committees to settle the ministry, religion and a confession of faith, to provide security for loans from London, and to settle the City militia.263CJ vii. 856a. On 1 March he was appointed to the committee on a bill to repeal two earlier sequestration acts, and the following day he was named to the committee on another bill, for the approbation of ministers.264CJ vii. 856b, 858a. On 6 and 7 March Annesley reported from the council of state what steps had been taken to neutralise republicans and military hardliners, including John Lambert and Sir Arthur Hesilrige.265CJ vii. 864a.b, 866a. Finally, on 9 March, the committee on a bill to dissolve Parliament and prepare for new elections was appointed, with Annesley as one of the members.266CJ vii. 868b. According to Mordaunt, the matter was proposed by Prynne, supported by Annesley and Edward Stephens*.267CCSP iv. 593. While the committee deliberated, other measures were considered in the Commons. On 10 March the militia bill was debated, and Annesley acted as teller in an unsuccessful attempt to block the inclusion of Sir Henry Mildmay* on the commission for Essex.268CJ vii. 869b. Two days later, he reported from the council of state their opinion (no doubt influenced by Annesley himself) that the assessments for Ireland and Scotland needed to be reduced.269CJ vii. 872a. On 13 and 14 March the new elections were discussed, with Annesley being appointed to committees to consider the form of writs for the Cinque Ports and various other clauses in the bill, and he was teller in favour of extending the debate on voter qualifications by bringing in candles.270CJ vii. 873b, 874a, 875a, 876b. The following day was taken up with other business. The passing of the bill to settle lands on Monck was successfully opposed by Annesley, who favoured the payment of a larger sum, and Annesley also reported from the council of state a bill to ensure the continuance of the four courts in Ireland.271CJ vii. 877b, 878a. On 16 March, Annesley, William Morice and Denzil Holles were ordered to attend Monck to satisfy him on certain clauses of the militia bill, and Annesley reported to the Commons that the general was no happy to allow the legislation to pass.272CJ vii. 880a-b. The Rump Parliament was dissolved the same day.

In the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Rump, Anne Baker (née Annesley), wrote to John Lloyd of her brother’s importance behind the scenes

Sir Arthur [Hesilrige] and six more came to Monck on Friday night last, and found my brother with him and scarce a hat was pulled off by my brother or them, but his advice was taken, as appeared on Saturday; and Mr [Edmund] Calamy seconds him. My brother advised the City what to say and do, they told him though he knew not many of them, they knew him. Such ringing of bells and bonfires have not been seen as was on Saturday, and roasting of rumps.273C108/188, part 1, ‘Correspondence 2’, unfol.

Annesley’s key role during this period is attested by other sources. The papers of the council of state show him to have been an effective leader, signing orders throughout March, and presiding over the interval between the dissolution of the Rump and the meeting of the Convention in April.274CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 381, 386, 396, 400; HMC Laing, 311; HMC Exeter, 215. One royalist agent told Sir Edward Nicholas in March that the council of state was made up of moderate men, while Annesley, as president, was ‘a very able and good man, one of the best there’.275Nicholas Pprs, iv. 205. Sir Edward Hyde* saw Annesley as useful, but self-serving:

[he] was very well contented that the king should receive particular information of his devotion, and of his resolution to do him service, which he manifested in many particulars of importance, and had the courage to receive a letter from his majesty, and returned a dutiful answer: all of which had a very good aspect, and seemed to promise much good.276Clarendon, Hist. vii. 181.

There were also hopes that Annesley would be a calming influence on Ireland, although Mordaunt’s claim that ‘Ireland is steered by this man’ merely reveals his ignorance of events across the Irish Sea.277Bodl. Carte 213, f. 660. Having said that, there are signs that Ormond and Annesley were on clearly on good terms during this period, and in April Annesley was sending news to the marquess of developments in England, with reassurance that the return of the king had popular support.278Bodl. Carte 214, f. 61.

Annesley’s open support of the king in the months before the restoration paid dividends. Elected to the Convention as MP for Carmarthen borough, he was active in his support for the return of the king in May, was appointed to the privy council on 1 June, and became vice-treasurer of Ireland in the following August.279Bodl. Carte 165, f. 1; CP. On his father’s death in November 1660, Annesley became Lord Mountnorris and Viscount Valentia, and to these titles the king added the earldom of Anglesey in April 1661. He died in London in 1686, and was buried at Farnborough.280CP. His children included his eldest son, James, who succeeded him as 2nd earl of Anglesey, Dorothy, countess of Tyrone, and Elizabeth, countess of Antrim.281J. Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English: the Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (New Haven, 2012), 200.

Conclusion

Despite his success, there was something inconstant about Arthur Annesley. In the early years of the civil wars he chose to remain uncommitted, and did not return to Ireland to oppose the rebellion. His relationship with Ormond in the later 1640s was complicated, and his efforts on behalf of the Irish Protestant community in the 1650s often proved to be self-serving. He was not considered a trusted agent of Henry Cromwell, despite his protestations, and his performance in the third protectorate Parliament – especially his quixotic call for home rule – ran against the accepted wisdom of both the protectorate government and the Irish Protestant community. Annesley’s personal reputation, and his political career, was only saved by his careful navigation of the troubled waters of the pre-restoration period. The reputation of the new earl of Anglesey did not remain untarnished for long, however. In later years he was described by one contemporary as ‘a man of deep politics, very subtle and reserved in the management of his affairs’, and by another as one who was ‘neither loved nor trusted by any man or any side’.282Add. 27990, f. 36v; Wood, Athenae Oxon. iv. 181; Burnet, Hist. of his Own Time, i. 177.