ANGLESEY COMPLETE PEERAGE 137 According to another account, (') however, in the same year 1 7 1 5, he m., istly privately, and afterwards publicly (with a Lie. from the Consistorial Court of Dublin) ("), Anne, only da. of John Simpson, a wealthy clothier of Meath Str., Dublin, she being then about 15 years old. This Anne is mentioned in her father's will (who d. 1730) under the name of "Lady Altham, " and was presented (after 1737) at the Vice Regal Court [I.], as " Countess of Anglesey. " (") This Lady, by whom he had three daugh- ters, survived the Earl four years, so that, if her marriage be reckoned valid, C^) it would upset hi/i the other ones. On 15 Sep. 1741 (about a month after the burial of Anne, Countess of Anglesey first named), he m., (°) privately at his own house, Camolin Park, afsd., Juliana, da. of Richard Donovan, sometime a merchant of Wexford, by ( — ), da. of Richard Nixon, of the same co. This marriage, both the witnesses being dead, was acknowledged to have taken place as above, and was again celebrated in the same place, 8 Oct. 1752. The Earl d. 14 Feb. 1761, at Camolin Park. Will dat. 7 Apr. 1759, pr. 1761, Prerog. Ct. [1.]. (') His widow m. (as his ist wife) Mathew Talbot, of Castle Talbot, co. Wexford, whose will was pr. 1795, and d. at Bath, Somerset, 20 Nov. 1776. Will pr. 1771. (") See Burke's Vicissitudes of Families, 3rd series, 1863, p. 83, &c. (') No such Lie. exists, {ex inform. G. D. Burtchaell, 1909.) V.G. C^) It must be remembered, however, that the rival wife (Miss Prust) was also named Anne. C) There is a remarkable document signed by this Lady, on 22 Dec. 1726, wherein she binds herself never to prosecute her husband for bigamy, which certainly looks as if both these parties considered the marriage with Ann Prust to have been legal. See claim to Earldom of Anglesey, in 1819. (*) The certificate of this marriage was produced to the English House of Lords on the trial for the English Peerage, but was discredited on the ground of forgery. The witness on whose testimony that decision was principally grounded was proved {aftenvards) to have been perjured, and the decision itself (22 Apr. 1771), was but by a majority of one, thirteen Peers being present. In the following year, the validity of the marriage was again confirmed by the Irish House (i June 1772), and their decision appears (from the evidence produced) to have been in all probability the right one. Both the Earl and Countess testified to the marriage of 1 741 on their death beds. As to the Earl (though we are told that he was " a man very regular in devotion, and using frequent prayers in his family, at which he constantly assisted with great appearance of fervour "), his devotion to the fair sex certainly equalled, if it did not surpass his spiritual devotion, for we hear oi another illegit. s. of his (by yet another woman, named Salkeld), one Richard Annesley, who claimed the title in 1770. The London Evening Post, 4 Apr. 1722, states this Richard to be the legit, s. of Earl Richard " by Anne, 2nd da. of William Salkeld, of the city of London, Merchant. " (The date of 1 742 is attri- buted to this marriage in a ped. of Jackson — the name of Anne Salkeld's mother — in Morehouse's History of Kirkburton, co. York, p. 172. See ISS . & Q., 7th Series, vol. ii, p. 16.) The possibility of such a marriage is doubtful, as the Earl's 1st marriage (or marriages) was (or were) in 17 15, soon after he was of age, and the subsequent marriage (the 1st of the two marriages with Juliana, who survived him) was within a month of the death of one of these wives, probably the 1st and lawful wife. See N. is" Q., and Series, vol. x, pp. 27 and 156, as also several notices in 2nd Series, vol. xi. (*) The statement in Vicars' Irish Wills, that his will was pr. 1 759, is wrong. V.G. 19
