ANSTEY, Thomas Chisholm (1816-1873), of 11 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, Mdx.

Anstey was born in Kentish Town, London, a member of an old Devonshire family. He went to Hobart, Tasmania in 1827, where his father was one of the first private settlers, renowned for his role as a magistrate and councillor and for the efficient management of his large livestock business.1Daily News, 19 Sept. 1851. His stock was said to be valued at £200,000: Derby Mercury, 9 Apr. 1851. His brother, Henry, served in the Tasmanian legislature (1850-6) and as secretary for lands and works in the first Tasmanian ministry (1856-7): F. Boase, Modern English Biography, 142. He returned to England in 1831 to complete his education and, having been articled to a London solicitor, studied law at University College, London. He was called to the bar in 1839. A ‘young disciple’ of Thomas Carlyle, and an early adherent of the Oxford Movement, Anstey converted to Roman Catholicism on 25 February 1833.2B. Ward, The Sequel to Catholic emancipation 1830-1850, i (1915), 76-7, 197, 282; Boase, Modern English Biography, 74. Anstey recorded and transcribed a number of Carlyle’s public lectures, see J.P. Seigel, Thomas Carlyle: the critical heritage (1996), 88; T. Carlyle & J.A. Froude (eds.), Letters and memorials of Jane Welsh Carlyle, i (1913), 80. He subsequently became secretary of the English branch of the ‘Ouevre’, a French Catholic lay organisation, and married Harriet Strickland, ‘an Irish Catholic lady of good family’ in 1839. He spoke alongside Daniel O’Connell at the first annual meeting of the Catholic Institute in London before returning to Hobart, where he was politically active in the Catholic community and established a reputation for ‘brilliant oratory’. He was dismissed from his post as commissioner of insolvent estates in Tasmania for ‘eccentric conduct’ and returned to England in 1841 to join the Northern Circuit before becoming professor of law and jurisprudence at the Catholic Colleges of St. Peter and St. Paul at Prior Park, Bath.3Ward, Sequel to Catholic emancipation, i, 146, 197; Illustrated London News, vol. 14 (10 Feb. 1849), 85; ‘Anstey, Thomas (1777-1851)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 1 (1966), 19-21. An ardent champion of Catholic interests and an authority on the history and policy of the Catholic Church, he published a number of relevant legal tracts and acted for his friend and fellow convert (to whom he had acted as godfather), Frederick Lucas, as temporary editor of The Tablet.4Ward, Sequel to Catholic emancipation, i, 77; New York Times, 14 Aug. 1873. His works included British Catholics and the New Parliament (1841), A Guide to the Laws affecting Roman Catholics (1842), Guide to the History of the Laws and Constitution of England (1845) and many contributions to the Dublin Review and the Law Magazine. In 1843-6, he used his skills as an equity draftsman to draw up bills to abolish the remaining legal disabilities endured by Catholics, and to provide greater security for their charitable bequests, which were presented in parliament by Lord Beaumont and William Watson.5PP 1844 (529), i, 103; PP 1845 (50) v, 279; PP 1846 (32) iii, 589, and see Ward, Sequel to Catholic emancipation, ii, 72-82.

In 1846 Anstey resigned his fellowship to devote himself to politics. After denouncing the arrest of William Smith O’Brien for refusing to serve on a parliamentary committee, he assisted the repeal candidate, Anthony Flaherty, in petitioning the result of the Galway by-election of February 1847. On O’Brien’s recommendation, Anstey was brought forward for Youghal at the 1847 general election and was returned as a committed repealer.6D. Gwynn, Young Ireland and 1848 (1949), 100-1. A firm opponent of ‘centralization’, he resented the control imposed by the Repeal Association over its MPs and was soon afterwards warmly received into the Irish Confederation.7Freeman’s Journal, 27 Aug. 1847; Nation, 16 Oct. 1847. For his correspondence with John O’Connell and Smith O’Brien, see Freeman’s Journal, 30 Aug. 1847. Influenced by ‘the doctrines of independent federation’, he advocated the repeal of the Union both with Ireland and Scotland and argued that the abolition of excise duties, the reduction of customs, and the repeal of all currency laws were necessary to ensure ‘protection to all’.8Dod’s Parliamentary Companion (1847), 122. A ‘tall, lean, Quixote-like figure’, Anstey was a frequent and pugnacious speaker in the House. In October 1847 he was applauded in Ireland for ‘extorting from the Prime Minister a declaration of his future policy for Ireland’ in the course of his public correspondence with Lord John Russell on distress in County Cork.9Freeman’s Journal, 4 Oct. 1847. Russell opined that it was the obligation of Irish property owners to support the poor of their estates, and that it was ‘not just to expect that the working classes of Great Britain should permanently support the burthen of Irish pauperism’. Two months later he attracted further public attention for his trenchant opposition to Lord Palmerston’s foreign policy, which he regarded as a deliberate scheme to sacrifice the political liberties of Europe ‘to the despots of the Continent’.10Daily News, 9 Dec. 1847; Pall Mall Gazette, 4 Sept. 1873. On 23 February 1848, he ‘turned a request for papers into a fervent attack on Palmerston, accusing him of criminally mismanaging Britain’s foreign relations’. Though he was forced to discontinue the debate on 16 March due to lack of parliamentary support, he participated in David Urquhart’s attempt to have Palmerston impeached by making two speeches, the second of which, concerning the Treaty of Adrianople, lasted five hours, during which he ‘never referred to a note for a date, figure or fact’.11M.J. Turner, Independent Radicalism in Early Victorian Britain (2004), 112; Hansard, 8 Feb. 1848, vol. 96, cc. 290-311; 23 Feb. 1848, vol. 96, cc. 1132-242; 1 Mar. 1848, vol. 97, cc. 66-123; 16 Mar. 1848, vol. 97, c. 698; S. Lee, rev. K.D. Reynolds, ‘Anstey, Thomas Chisholm’, Oxford DNB, vol. 2, 273-4; J.G. Ridley, Lord Palmerston (1971), 334; Boase, Modern English Biography, 74, and see T.C. Anstey, Charges against Lord Viscount Palmerston. Proceedings on the Motion of Thomas Chisholm Anstey (1848).

Anstey never missed an opportunity to ventilate his views on colonial, Irish and Catholic affairs, such as when he attempted to thwart Palmerston’s plan for British diplomatic relations with the Vatican.12Hansard, 17 Aug. 1848, vol. 101, cc. 204-9; 24 Aug. 1848, vol. 101, cc. 487-90, 511-2; 29 Aug. 1848, vol. 101, cc. 621-2; Ward, Sequel to Catholic emancipation, ii, 212. He did, however, earn ‘a somewhat unenviable reputation by the crotchety opinions to which he gave vent on almost every subject’.13The Times, 15 Aug. 1873. Ever the individualist, in 1847-9 he introduced his own abortive bills, independent of any ecclesiastical authority, to obtain legal security for Catholic charities and repeal the remaining ‘penal laws’, a move which led to a breach with Lucas.14PP 1847-48 (5) vi, 239; PP 1847-48 (4) vi, 223; Daily News, 26 Nov. 1847; Hansard, 25 Nov. 1847, vol. 95, cc. 211-4; 8 Dec. 1847, vol. 95, cc. 800-9; 16 Feb. 1848, vol. 96, cc. 714-25; 8 Mar. 1848, vol. 97, cc. 314-8; 31 May 1848, vol. 99, cc. 134-70; Ward, Sequel to Catholic emancipation, ii, 163. Anstey also introduced unsuccessful bills for the protection of Irish salmon fisheries, the promotion of tenant-right (with William Sharman Crawford) and the reduction of expenses incurred for proceedings against corrupt electoral practices.15PP 1850 (350) ii, 527; PP 1851 (43) vi, 23; PP 1850 (431) viii, 323; 1852 (425) i, 391; 13 Feb. 1849, vol. 102, cc. 648-52. Anstey also took a keen interest in colonial affairs and was a strong critic of the Irish administration, speaking against the Irish coercion, transportation, and habeas corpus suspension bills of 1847-9. Nevertheless, he opposed popular Irish opinion by supporting the treason felony bill on the practical ground that it mitigated the severity of the existing law governing treason.16Hansard, 10 Dec. 1847, vol. 95, cc. 941-3; 10 Apr. 1848, vol. 98, cc. 103-4; 6 Feb. 1849, vol. 102, cc. 348-52, 369-73; 16 Feb. 1849, vol. 102, cc. 781-2; Freeman’s Journal, 12 May 1848, 12, 22 Feb., 29 June 1849; Illustrated London News, vol. 14 (10 Feb. 1849), 85.

Anstey was a formidable debater, who was said to have ‘not only command of language, but a sinewy facility of both speaking and writing … besides a curious power of pertinacious sophistry, which was difficult to meet even when he was most wrong’. However, his willingness to speak upon almost every subject that came before parliament, including Indian affairs, the government of New Zealand, the condition of Poland, sugar duties, Arctic exploration, and the use of chicory in coffee, won him few admirers in the Commons.17S. Lee, ‘Anstey, Thomas Chisholm’, DNB, vol. 1 (1885), 512-3; Hansard, 26 Nov. 1847, vol. 95, cc. 263-4; 9 Feb. 1848, vol. 96, cc. 361-2; 4 Apr. 1848, vol. 97, cc. 1304-12; 29 June 1848, vol. 99, cc. 1393-6; 19 Mar. 1849, vol. 103, cc. 957-8; 5 Feb. 1850, vol. 108, cc. 389-90; 12 Mar. 1852, vol. 119, c. 967. In August 1848, he was criticised by Ralph Bernal Osborne for wasting parliamentary time and thereafter acquired a reputation as ‘a malcontent of the highest bore-power’; publicly berated for his petty squabbles with cab drivers and omnibus conductors, and often caricatured by Punch.18Hansard, 30 Aug. 1848, vol. 101, c.719; Nation, 1 Sept. 1848; Pall Mall Gazette, 4 Sept. 1873; Examiner, 9 Oct. 1847; Morning Chronicle, 11 Dec. 1847; R.D. Altick, Punch: The lively youth of a British institution, 1841-1851 (1997), 294-5, 337-8. The Conservative press claimed he had ‘the unenviable distinction that belongs to the most successful waster of the time of the House’, while Liberals referred to him as the ‘interminable Mr. Anstey’.19Belfast News-letter, 23 June 1852; Daily News, 17 Apr. 1849. Nevertheless, Anstey brought his extensive legal expertise to bear on a number of select committees concerning Irish fisheries, Sunday trading in the metropolis, import duties on wines, civil bills, and the law of mortmain.20PP 1849 (536) xiii. 1; PP 1851 (221) x. 1003; PP 1852 (495) xvii. 1; PP 1851 (483) xvi. 1; PP 1852 (493) xiii. 1.

In divisions on foreign policy, Anstey voted with Russell’s ministry on its Australian colonies government bill, but sided with the Conservatives over the administration of Ceylon in 1850. Palmerston was said thereafter to have taken ‘the trouble to convert him from an enemy into an ally’ and Anstey subsequently ‘gave sincere concurrence’ to the foreign secretary’s policies (at least ‘since February 1848’) during the ‘Don Pacifico’ debate that June.21Daily News, 8 Feb., 8 May 1850; Manchester Times, 29 June 1850; Pall Mall Gazette, 4 Sept. 1873; Ridley, Lord Palmerston, 388. For an account of Anstey’s conversion, see ibid., 524-5. In general, Anstey was a free-trader who supported other liberal measures such as the removal of Jewish disabilities and the abolition of paper duty and stamp duty on newspapers. He supported the Irish franchise bill, voted to equalise the county and borough franchises at £10, and favoured the adoption of the ballot.22Daily News, 16 May 1850; Morning Chronicle, 14 May 1852; Freeman’s Journal, 13 May 1850; Manchester Times, 13 July 1850; Daily News, 1 Apr. 1852. However, Anstey’s increasing anti-clericalism offended Irish liberal opinion. Regarding Russell’s ecclesiastical titles bill, Anstey indicated that he would favour the measure ‘provided its effect was to limit the powers of Catholic bishops over their flocks’, and he subsequently voted for the bill on the understanding that it would not be extended to Ireland.23Hansard, 4 Feb. 1851, vol. 114, cc. 90-6; 23 May 1851, vol. 116, cc. 1372-3. For this act of apostasy, one delegate to the Catholic Defence Association dubbed Anstey ‘the perfect personification of a human kangaroo’: J. O’Shea, Prince of Swindlers: John Sadleir M.P., 1813-56 (1999), 195. Furthermore, although he attended a meeting of MPs to consider the demands of the newly-formed Tenant League in August 1850, he subsequently had little to do with the Irish Brigade’s campaign against Russell’s ministry and was criticised for supporting the government in the confidence vote that they engineered, 13 Feb. 1851. Shortly thereafter, Anstey received a requisition from some of his constituents calling upon him to stand down but, notwithstanding his threat to retire, he went on to support the Whig ministry in six other confidence votes in 1851-2.24Freeman’s Journal, 17 Feb. 1851; Nation, 8 Mar. 1851; Daily News, 27 Mar., 30 June, 7 July 1851; J.H. Whyte, The Independent Irish Party 1850-9 (1958), 20, 178; O’Shea, Prince of Swindlers, 111, 118, 170-1. (He was accused of voting ‘against Ireland, and in favour of religious persecution’ by opposing the motion of his former ally, David Urquhart, 9 May 1851, and after siding with the government on the titles bill on 30 May 1851, the Freeman’s Journal commented that if ‘the people of Youghal forget or forgive this vote they deserve to be disenfranchised’.25Freeman’s Journal, 12 May, 2 June 1851. Urquhart’s motion argued that the Pope’s decision to allocate territorial titles to English Catholic bishops had been precipitated by the actions of the Government: Hansard, 9 May 1851, vol. 116, cc. 780-834.) An unrepentant Anstey again sided with the government against the Irish Brigade in the Clarendon debate that June, but later joined Palmerston and the Conservatives against Russell in the confidence vote which brought down the Whig ministry in February 1852.26Freeman’s Journal, 21 Feb. 1852; Daily News, 23 Feb. 1852. Clashing in the chamber with the repealer Henry Grattan that April, Anstey was criticised for his remoteness from his Irish constituents and accused of renouncing the ‘catalogue of liberalities’ he had once laid before his electors, and of sitting instead as an ‘independent Catholic’ who found favour with the Conservatives.27Morning Chronicle, 3 Apr. 1852; Belfast News-letter, 5 Apr. 1852; Anglo-Celt, 8 July 1852; Freeman’s Journal, 10 May 1852.

At the 1852 general election, ‘the omniscient member for Youghal’ abandoned Ireland to contest Bedford. Never having been an opponent of the established church, he now denounced the Catholic hierarchy’s involvement in Irish electoral politics and, with characteristic independence, campaigned for the repeal of the Maynooth grant on the ground that it was ‘inexpedient to give support to religious establishments out of the resources of the state’.28Hansard, 28 July 1848, vol. 100, cc. 976-8; 27 Feb. 1852, vol. 119, c. 934; 11 May 1852, vol. 121, cc. 528-32; Hull Packet, 23 Apr. 1852; Bristol Mercury, 3 Apr. 1852; Preston Guardian, 15 Apr. 1852; Freeman’s Journal, 10 May 1852. Although he failed to secure election, he sat on the royal commission to inquire into corrupt electoral practices in the city of Canterbury in May 1853 and assisted the commission for consolidating the statute law in 1854.29PP 1852-53 (1658) xlvii. 1; Morning Chronicle, 17 May 1853; PP 1854-5 (1963) xv. 829.

On 9 October 1855, Anstey was appointed attorney-general for Hong Kong and, in May 1856, became a member of its legislative council.30Freeman’s Journal, 13 Oct. 1855; Examiner, 31 May 1856. For his career there, see G.B. Endacott & J.M. Carroll, A biographical sketch-book of early Hong Kong (1962), 89-94. He was suspended from his post in August 1858, after a dispute with the governor, Sir John Bowring, over proposed legal reforms to stem vice and excess within the Hong Kong community. He returned to England to publicise his grievances but failed to gain parliamentary support for his position, and so resigned in 1859.31The pamphlet containing his (unpublished) letter to The Times ran to 116 pages, see F. Welsh, A History of Hong Kong (1993), 212-3. He subsequently established a successful legal practice in Bombay, where, by carrying ‘everything before him by sheer ability’, he was made an acting judge of the high court in May 1865.32Pall Mall Gazette, 4 Sept. 1873; Hansard, 12 July 1859, vol. 154, cc. 1057-60; Daily News, 21 June 1860; Leeds Mercury, 8 Sept. 1865; Diplomatic Review, vol. 21 (1873), 271-82, and see P.B. Vachha, Famous judges, lawyers and cases of Bombay: a judicial history of Bombay (1962). However, he was soon compelled to resign again after he vigorously denounced commercial abuses in the Bengal government with typical lack of moderation. He returned to England in 1866 to join the agitation for parliamentary reform and advocated universal manhood suffrage as an antidote to ‘usurpations of original popular rights’. He subsequently published an influential critique of the 1867 Reform Act, with particular reference to its implications for the enfranchisement of women.33T. Walsh, ‘Thomas Chisholm Anstey’, The Catholic Encyclopedia, i (1907); ‘Anstey, Thomas Chisholm’, Oxford DNB; Pall Mall Gazette, 5 Dec. 1867; C. Hall, K. McClelland, J. Rendall (eds.), Defining the Victorian nation: class, race, gender and the British Reform Act of 1867 (2000), 142, and see T.C. Anstey, Plea of the unrepresented Commons for restitution of franchise. An historic inquiry (1866), and Notes upon the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (1867). In August 1869, while acting as a revising barrister, he sat on the royal commission to inquire into corrupt electoral practices at the borough of Bridgewater.34Daily News, 2 Apr. 1869; PP 1870 (C.10) (C.11) (C.12) xxx. 1, 9, 57. Thereafter, Anstey returned to Bombay and successfully re-established his law practice. He gained great popularity amongst all sections of the native population, to whom he had always been ready to render legal assistance, and died there on 12 August 1873.35‘Anstey, Thomas Chisholm’, Oxford DNB; Times of India, 15 Aug. 1873, quoted in Birmingham Daily Post, 9 Sept. 1873. It was then said of him that ‘at the bottom of all his extravagancies and absurdities’ lay ‘real, high honesty of purpose. … As it was, his life was a failure, but very far from a dishonourable one.’ 36Pall Mall Gazette, 4 Sept. 1873.