Pepys, 8 Dec. 1667, and 29 and 31 Oct., and 5, 11, and 14 Nov. 1668). During 1671 and 1672 Anglesey was employed continuously upon commissions appointed to inquire into the working of the acts of settlement; and in 1671 he also took the leading part in the conference between the houses regarding the lords' right to alter money bills, and wrote an acute and learned comment thereupon. On 22 April 1672 his services were rewarded with the office of lord privy seal, and in 1679 he was placed on the newly modelled privy council, which was framed at Temple's instance. When the popish terror began, Anglesey showed independence of character; he is recorded as the only peer who dissented from the vote declaring the existence of an Irish plot; and, according to his own testimony, he interceded for Langhorne, Plunket, and Strafford, though convinced of the guilt of the last (Happy Future State, p. 205; Sir W. Pett, Memoirs of Anglesea, pp. 8, 9). This line of action brought upon him, on 20 Oct. 1680, an accusation by Dangerfield, and he was attacked by Sir William Jones, attorney-general, in the House of Commons (Happy Future State, p. 267; Dangerfield, Narration). In 1681 Anglesea published ‘A Letter from a Person of Honour in the Country,’ containing his ‘Animadversions’ upon some memoirs regarding Irish affairs written by the Earl of Castlehaven. There were in this letter passages which seemed to reflect on Charles I; Ormond was called upon to answer it, and on 9 Aug. 1682 Anglesey was dismissed from his lucrative post of privy seal. His loss of office was doubtless hastened by another paper addressed to the king, entitled ‘The Account of Arthur, Earl of Anglesea, to your most excellent Majesty, of the true State of your Majesty's Government and Kingdom.’ This was dated 27 April 1682, immediately after the dissolution of Charles's last parliament. The boldness of the tone of remonstrance, and the vehemence with which the attack on James was supported at such a time, are remarkable. Upon his dismissal he retired to his seat of Blechingdon in Oxfordshire, and took no further part in public affairs, except by voting in a minority of two, in 1685, against the reversal of Lord Strafford’s attainder, for whose condemnation he had voted, though pleading afterwards for his pardon (Sir W. Pett, Memoirs, p. 10). He died of quinsy on 26 April 1686.
Anglesey was undoubtedly a most useful official during his unbroken service of twenty years (Pepys, passim), laborious, skilful, cautious, moderate, and apparently, on the whole, honest and independent in action, a sound lawyer, with a high reputation for scholarship, research, and the use of a ‘smooth, sharp, and keen pen’ (Athenæ Oxon. ii. 784). But there is no reason whatever for regarding him as a great man. His care for his own interests was contant and successful. Besides the profits of his various offices he secured large sums and grants from Ireland. Thus, in 1661, he had a grant of the forfeited estates of the regicides Ludlow and Jones, as well as other spoil; on 10 March 1665–6 he received a pension of 600l. a year; on 24 March in the following year 500l.; on 10 Oct. 5,000l. out of forfeited lands, as well as many grants, both of lands and money, under the acts of settlement, at various times.
Anglesey is noted as perhaps the first peer who devoted time and money to the formation of a great library. The sale of this library at his death is remembered because among the books was a copy of the ‘Eikon Basilike,’ which contained a memorandum, presumably by himself, though this is warmly disputed (Biog. Britan.), to the effect that the writer had been told both by Charles II and James II that the ‘Eikon Basilike’ had been composed not by Charles I but by Bishop Gauden.
In addition to the works mentioned, Anglesey wrote: 1. ‘The History of the late Commotions and Troubles in Ireland,’ from the Rebellion of 1641 to the Restoration, the manuscript of which was unfortunately lost. 2. ‘True Account of the whole Proceedings betwixt his Grace the Duke of Ormond and the Earl of Anglesea.’ 3. ‘The King's Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matters asserted.’ 4. ‘Truth Unveiled.’ 5. ‘Reflections on a Discourse concerning Transubstantiation.’
[Wood's Athenæ (Bliss), iv. 18; Biographia Britannica; and other authorities quoted above.]
ANNESLEY, FRANCIS, Baron Mountnorris and Viscount Valentia (1585–1660), descended from the ancient family of Annesley of Annesley, Nottinghamshire, was the son of Thomas Annesley, high constable of Newport, Buckinghamshire, and was baptised 2 Jan. 1585-6. As early as 1606 he had left England to reside at Dublin, and he took advantage of the frequent distributions of Irish land made to English colonists in the early part of the seventeenth century to acquire estates in various parts of Ireland. With Sir Arthur Chichester, who became lord deputy in 1604, he lived on terms of intimacy, and several small offices of state,
with a pension granted 5 Nov. 1607, were
