consented to commit her son to the care of such a woman, and so very early in the trial it struck the Chief Baron. Furthermore, it appeared that the house in which Landy and her father lived was a very poor and mean one; and although it was attempted to be shown that a large addition had been built to the house, and that it had been greatly improved when the child was sent there, the cross-examination of the witnesses tended to show that the boasted addition and improvements were really of the most trivial character. Before going any further, we may observe as to the mode in which the Irish courts did their business in 1743, that the proceedings of the first day of the trial did not end until eleven o'clock at night. The same diligence was practised on the succeeding days. The court almost invariably sat at nine o'clock in the morning, and seldom rose before ten or eleven at night. We wonder what the comments of counsel and jurors would be if a similar course was proposed to them at present. But so it was in 1743.

One of the most important witnesses for the lessor of the plaintiff was a woman named Joan Laffan, who had been in Lord and Lady Altham's service, and who was examined on the second day of the trial. The child, according to her statement, was about three or four months old when she came into Lord Altham's service. A great part of her evidence related to the separation between Lord and Lady Altham. That separation took place very suddenly at Dunmain, and the occasion of it was detailed by this witness upon her cross examination. It appeared that in the year 1717, a Mr. Thomas Palliser was staying at Dunmain, of whose conduct Lord Altham entertained suspicions, which were encouraged by the servants of the house, who, for some petty reasons, had conceived a dislike for Mr. Palliser. The evidence upon this point of the separation discloses such a curious state of society, that it is best to give it as reported. The witness was asked if she knew Colonel Palliser? 66 Says she has never seen him but once. Says, she wishes his son Tom Palliser never had been at Dunmain, for then the accident of the separation never had happened. Says she remembers that the day his ear was cut off she had the child in her hand, and the child showed deponent some of the blood which had fallen from Palliser's ear on the ground; says he showed it by pointing his finger to the ground where some drops of blood were. She was asked if Mr. Thomas Palliser saw the child? says he did. Says, that the occasion of my lord's cutting off Mr. Palliser's ear was that some of the family had made my lord jealous of him, and contrived that morning to get him into my lady's chamber, when she was in bed and asleep, and then they brought my lord, who being by this stratagem confirmed in his suspicions, ordered Tom Palliser to be dragged out of my lady's oed-chamber by the servants, and with a sword was going to run him through the body; but the servants interposed, and begged my lord not to take away his life, and only to cut off his nose or one of his ears; and accordingly the huntsman was ordered to cut off his ear, which he did. Says the servants kicked him down

66

stairs, and turned him out of the gate, and that this happened upon a Sunday morning; that my lady left Dunmain the same day, and went to Ross." The rest of this scene of the domestic tragedy was given by the same witness upon her direct examination : Says that she was present when my lord and lady parted; that she saw my lady at the door with the child in her arms; that my lord came out of the house in a great rage, and asked where his child was? and upon being told that he was with his mother, he ran up to her and snatched the child out of her arms; that my lady begged very hard she might take the child along with her, but that my lord swore he would not part with his child upon any consideration; that my lady, finding she could not prevail, burst out a crying, and begged she might at least give the child a parting kiss; that my lord with some difficulty consented, and then my lady drove away to Ross. That as soon as my lady was gone my lord gave the child to deponent, with a strict charge to deponent not to let my lady have any access to him; but says, that notwithstanding these orders, some of the servants found means to carry the child privately to Ross to see my lady, which, when my lord was told of, he flew into a very great passion. Says that the child was carried to Ross without deponent's privity, for that sometimes deponent used to go to Waterford to see a brother of hers who lived there, and some other friends; and in her absence some of my lord's servants, for the lucre (as she believes) of getting a piece of money from my Lady Altham, took those opportunities to carry the child to New Ross. Says that the Christmas Eve after the separation, the present Earl of Anglesey, who was then Captain Annesley, was at Dunmain house, and not seeing the child, said to deponent, Where is Jemmy? or, where is my brother's child? How did his mother behave at parting with him? To which deponent answered that my lady had begged of my lord very hard to have the child with her, whereupon the present earl made use of an extraordinary oath and said, “that he wished his brother had kept none of the breed, and that when he turned away the mother he should have packed off the child, and sent them both to the devil." All this was of great importance as shewing that the child must have been that of Lady Altham, and that both Lord and Lady Altham evinced a care and tenderness for it, which was only explicable upon that ground, and upon the ground of its being the heir of the house, and accordingly counsel for the defendent did his best to break down Laffan's credit. The line of cross-examination was intended to shew, in fact, that Laffan had got into the hands of an agent of the lessor of the plaintiff, and that her whole story had been concocted. In this attempt, however, counsel was baffled, and though it certainly did appear that Laffan had had communications with the agent, still she persisted in asserting the truth of her evidence.

The next class of witnesses that were examined were brought up to depose to the period from 1721 to Lord Altham's death. Witnesses were produced who proved that they had known Lord Altham during his successive

but says he has a better notion of religion now (thank God!) Says that Lord Altham never examined deponent whether he was a Roman or Protestant, and believes my lord did not know of what religion he was. Being asked if he is in holy orders now, the counsel for the lessor of the plaintiff objected to that question, and the witness refused to answer it. The meaning of all which is this. One hundred and seventeen years ago, and even later, to be a Catholic priest, unless regularly registered with the clerk of the peace, was a crime punishable by transportation. It is a principle of our law, that no man is bound to criminate himself, and therefore no witness is compellable to answer a question, if the answer would make him liable to an indictment. That being so, the counsel for the defendant here, wishing to break down Mr. Dempsy's credit, asked him if he had committed the atrocious offence of receiving holy orders in the Catholic Church. In those days it was precisely as if a counsel nowadays were to ask a witness if it were he who had committed the Frome murder.

stays at Kinnay, in the county of Kildare, Carrickduff in the county of Carlow, or as it is invariably called in the old report of the trial, Catherlough, and Dublin. All these witnesses deposed to the fact of Lord Altham having had constantly with him a boy whom he treated as his legitimate son, and of whom he frequently spoke as being the heir to the title of Anglesey. One of these mentioned that Lord, Althan, while at Carrick duff, "used to take the child with him to hurlings, and bought a little horse for him to ride upon, and that the child was dressed very gay." During this time also Lord Altham provided for the child's education, at some periods sending him to school, while at another time he employed a tutor for him. One of the witnesses, a Mr. Misset, had been at school with the boy in the county of Kildare. We will quote a portion of his evidence, which throws a curious light upon the history of the times. "Says," so runs the report," he knew Lord Altham, when he lived at Kinnay, in the county of Kildare, about two miles and a half from the place where deponent lives: says deponent, when about 17 or 18 years old, went to school to a place called Dowdingstown, and that there was a boy there whom the scholars called Lord Altham's son. Deponent thinks the child could not be less than six years old, and says he continued about a month there; says the schoolmaster's name was Bryan Connor; that being a Papist, he was persecuted by a Protestant schoolmaster in the neighbourhood, who wanted to banish him from those parts; that some of the neighbours, being concerned that the poor man who had lived so long amongst them should be banished or disturbed, requested my lord to take him under his protection; and deponent says, that having had the honour to hunt sometimes with my lord, he took the opportunity to speak to his lordship about it, to which my lord answered that he had been spoke to on Connor's behalf, and intended to send his son to school to him, which he believed would hinder the other schoolmaster from disturbing him; that, accordingly, at the request of the neighbouring farmers, my lord sent his son to Connor's school. Thus, here we have a poor old man all but deprived of the means of earning his bread, merely because he, being a "Papist," had excited the jealousy of a Protestant competitor. A little further on we get another illustration of the Penal Code. James Dempsy, another witness, knew Lord Altham at Carrickduff, in 1721. and was engaged by him as a tutor for his son. He was now requested to look about him in court, and try whether he could see the person who he said was Lord Altham's son, and to whom he was tutor, whereupon, after looking about, he pointed to the lessor of the plaintiff, and said he was the very person to whom he was tutor. This was strong evidence of course; but counsel for the defendant now rose to crossexamine the witness. We give the words of the report of part of this cross-examination. Being asked if he went to mass or to church, says that he goes to mass, but that he did not know much of religion when he tutored Mr. Annesley, for during the six months that he staid in the house he neither went to church or mass;

VOL. I.

We now come to that part of the case which treats of the declining fortunes of young James Annesley. Lord Altham came to Dublin with him in the year 1722 or 1723. To the modern reader, the names of the places where this nobleman successively took up his abode, will seem very strange. Lord Altham's first residence was in Cross Lane, his next in Frapper Lane. At the present day, these are scarcely the places at which one would expect to find a member of the peerage living, but in the first place, Lord Altham's fortunes at the time appear to have been far from flourishing; and in the next place, the great changes which the last fifty or sixty years have wrought in our city, must not be forgotten.

While living at Cross lane or Frapper lane, Lord Altham, according to the evidence, sent his son to the school of one Carty, in the latter place. He soon, however, fell under the control of Miss Gregory, whose name we have mentioned, and after a while quitted Dublin for Inchicore, leaving young James Annesley in the care of a dancing-master named Cavenagh, who put the boy out to board at a house in Ship street. Here the child seems to have been badly treated, for he applied for relief to an old playfellow of his named Byrne, who was examined upon the trial. Mr. Byrne's evidence was, that James Annesley had come to him complaining of the treatment he had met in Ship street, and of Cavenagh's heartless conduct towards him. Byrne advised him to go to Inchicore to his father, but this the boy refused to do on the ground of his fears of Miss Gregory. Thereupon Byrne invited him to stay with him, and actually supported him for six weeks, James Annesley sometimes sleeping in the same bed with him, and sometimes in the hayloft attached to Byrne's father's house. Byrne further, at the trial, identified the lessor of the plaintiff as being the same person whom he had years before known as James Annesley, and whom he had supported in the manner which he had deposed to. At this period, the fortunes of Lord Altham's son came to

2 B

almost their lowest ebb. Witness after witness was examined, who had seen him, knowing who he was, wandering about the streets of Dublin, starving, and glad to earn a few pence by chance jobs. One gentleman, a Mr. Amos Bush, deposed, that when in Trinity College, he had for some time employed him as a sort of servant, and had discharged him on discovering his rank. This witness also identified him upon the trial. Another witness, Mr. Dominic Farrell, deposed that he had known Lord Altham and also the boy at Dunmain, and was well acquainted with him when he was in disgrace with his father, for he used to come to visit deponent, and deponent often relieved and supported him, and recommended him afterwards to one Purcell, a butcher, because deponent's wife grudged the child's being in the house, and kept at deponent's expense, who was a sufferer by his father £56: that finding the child was abandoned and neglected, deponent went to my lord to Inchicore, and applied to him, and told him the cruel and scandalous way his son was in, and begged his lordship not to let the poor child continue as a vagabond about the streets; that my lord said he was in low circumstances, and could not pay for his board, nor could he take him into his own house because of Miss Gregory, for he should have no peace if he offered to do it; but my lord desired deponent to support him, and he would not only pay deponent the money he owed him, but thankfully repay what deponent should supply his son with, whenever it was in his power. Purcell, whom Farrell had mentioned, was also examined. He related how the latter had recommended the boy to him "as an object of pity." Thereupon he took the lad home with him, and presented him to his wife, who seems to have had much more of the milk of human kindness in her than Mrs. Farrell, for she at once proceeded to take the greatest care of the boy, and nursed him through an attack of small-pox which he shortly afterwards got. Soon after his recovery, the defendant, then Mr. Annesley, came to see him, and the boy, though evidently in great terror at his visit, spoke to him as his uncle. Very shortly after this visit Lord Altham died, and, says the report of Purcell's evidence, the child was told of the death of his father, and that he was to be buried at Christ Church; and the child went there and saw the funeral, and afterwards came back all in tears. Being asked when Lord Altham died, says in November 1727. That in about three weeks after my lord's death, Mr. Richard Annesley, (who was then called Lord Altham,) came into the market, (where or near which Purcell lived,) and sent a man, who belonged to one Jones, a butcher, to deponent's house, to desire that the child might come to the said Jones's house in the market; that thereupon the child came, and told deponent that his mistress (meaning deponent's wife) wanted to speak with deponent; that deponent accordingly went home, and was told by his wife that the child had been sent for to Jones's house, but that she was afraid it was some trick of his uncle's to use him ill, and that she did not care to let the child go to Jones's without deponent. Deponent thereupon bid the man return and tell them

the child was coming, and then deponent took a cudgel in one hand and the child in the other, and went to the said Jones's house, where deponent saw the present Earl of Anglesey (who was then in mourning,) with a constable and two or three odd-looking fellows attending about the door. We need not go into the details of the scene that followed. There were hot words between Purcell and the boy's uncle. The latter called the boy a thief, and Purcell answered: "My lord, he is no thief; you shall not take him from me; and whoever offers to take him from me, I will knock out his brains." In the end Purcell and his cudgel prevailed over his lordship and his myrmidons, and the boy was brought safely back to Purcell's house, where, however, he did not remain long; for without Purcell's knowledge he went away, being frightened at the number of people whom he saw about the house, and fearing lest he should be carried off by some of them. Such at least was the reason he gave, when Purcell afterwards saw him.

Next came the evidence of two of the men who were employed by the defendant to kidnap the boy. One of them, Mark Byrne by name, swore "that about sixteen years ago one Dounelly, a constable, met deponent (who was at that time likewise a constable) and told deponent he had a good job for him, which he was to get a guinea for, and deponent should have a share of it; and Donnelly desired deponent to go along with him. That deponent accordingly went along with him to one Jones's house in Ormond Market, aud the present Earl of Anglesey was there (who was then called Lord Altham), and there was a small boy there, which my lord said was his brother's son. My lord charged the boy with stealing a silver spoon, and that he was a thief, and desired deponent and the said Donnelly and others, who were there with my lord, to take him away to George's Quay. That accordingly they took the boy away and carried him towards Essex Bridge, and there a coach was got, into which the said Donnelly, the boy, and deponent went; and the coach was ordered to drive down to George's Quay. Says my lord was there as soon as the coach, but deponent does not know whether my lord walked or went in a coach or chair. Says, there was a boat waiting at the slip at George's Quay, and the boy was put into it by Donnelly, and Lord Anglesey went into the boat down the river, and depon ut returned home. That next day Donnelly came to depouent and gave him a shilling, whereupon deponent demanded half-a-guinea, as the part which Donnelly had promised him, but never got it. There was a mob followed them when they carried the child away: that the child cried very much." His description on cross-examination of the state in which the boy was, was "that he was so tired with crying that he could scarcely speak.' James Reilly, the other witness to this part of the case, corroborated the statements of the former one, and added that he had been sent over several parts of Dublin to look for the boy, but with directions "not to take him in Ormond Market, for fear Purcell the butcher should alarm the market boys, aud rescue Mr. Annesley

from him. "We accompanied the boy and Lord Anglesey to Ringsend, and saw the boy put on board ship."

66

Thus the fact of kidnapping was clearly proved; and it certainly speaks very ill for the vigilance of the public authorities of Dublin at the time, that such an occurrence could take place in sight of a multitude of people without any notice being taken of it. From further evidence given in the case it seems there was at that time a regular system of sending out servants to the colonies, or as they were called, "the plantations." Certain precautions were taken to ensure that those who were thus sent, went of their own free will. They entered into indentures before the Lord Mayor at the Tholsel, and a list was made of them, and retained in the archives of the Corporation. But how nugatory this protection was ap. peared from the evidence in the case. The last thing that was done after all the servants had been got on board, and just before the ship sailed, was that an agent or clerk of the owner went on board, received from the captain a list of the servants, and called it over. This list so handed by the captain to the agent, was taken as final, and from it there was no appeal; it was for it that the master was responsible to the owner. Every person," said one of the witnesses, "found on board, when the list is taken of the servant's names, would be set down in the list as a servant, even if he was to declare himself unwilling to go, or whether the clerk found him indented or not, and the clerk would not on that account stop the ship." Of course this left a wide door open to oppression, and it was very easy to avoid the ceremony of indenting a servant at the Tholsel, and to send a person off to the plantations whether he liked it or not. The present case was an example. The evidence of Reilly and Byrne shewed clearly that there could have been no time for indenting young Annesley, and at all events, though the captain's list, when produced at the trial, showed that he had a James Annesley on board, there was no record of that name in the Corporation's indenture-books, which were also produced. The name James Hensley certainly did appear in them, and Lord Anglesey's counsel urged that this was a mere mis-spelling of the name Annesley, and that therefore it appeared that the boy, having been regularly indented, must be taken to have gone with his own full consent. The lessor of the plaintiff's counsel, on the other hand, argued, the two names were plainly different; and that as it had been proved that James Annesley had been actually put on board ship and sent to Pennsylvania by the defendant, it lay upon the latter to shew by what authority he had so acted. The ship's destination, we may observe, was proved by the production of the Customhouse book of ship entries. What the jury thought of the matter will be seen afterwards.

Still the evidence went on with poor James Annesley's f rtunes. We have seen him in wretchedness in Dublin, and kidnapped and banished by his uncle. Another

itness gives us a glimpse of his life in America. Mr. J. hn Broders "knew Mr. Annesley, and saw him in America about fourteen or fifteen years ago; that deponent and his brother having been riding out there

one cold morning, they called in at a house that was open, in order to warm themselves; that while they sat at the fire, a boy came in with a gun and a dead squirrel; that deponent's brother, in discourse with the boy, asked him what countryman he was; that the boy said he was an Irishman, and came from the county of Wexford; that he was born at Dunmain; that his name was James Annesley, and that he was Lord Altham's son. He told them he was a servant to the master of the house, and had been kidnapped by his uncle. Says he cannot swear to Mr. Annesley's face: but that from what he told deponent of the conversation they had in America, he believes him to be the person he saw and talked to there."

The evidence did not trace James Annesley's escape from bondage, or his return from America to England. But it will be remembered that we have already spoken of the fact of his having killed a man near London, and that we have mentioned that one of those who aided most vigorously in his prosecution for that offence, was the defendant, the Earl of Annesley. This part of the case was to be proved by a Mr. Giffard, who had been the Earl's attorney. But as soon as he was called, and before he was sworn, the defendant's counsel insisted upon its being stated for what the witness was produced; and, upon the plaintiff's counsel shortly giving an outline of Mr. Giffard's evidence, objected altogether to his being sworn, upon the ground that the evidence was irrelevant to the matter then in hands. An argument ensued, the result of which was that the Court desired that Mr. Giffard's evidence should, for the present, not be gone into, and other witnesses were proceeded with. On the next morning, at the sitting of the Court, the argument as to the reception of Mr. Giffard's evidence was resumed. On this occasion, the defendant's counsel abandoned their former ground of objection, and confined themselves to the point that, as Lord Annesley's attorney, Mr. Giffard ought not to be allowed to give his client's secrets in evidence. But after a long argument, the Court decided that Mr. Giffard's evidence was admissible upon the ground that the secret which he was about to reveal, was not one relative to any suit in which he had been employed by the Earl. Accordingly, Mr. Giffard having been sworn, proceeded with his story; and terribly damaging to the defendant that story must have been. It must be borne in mind that James Annesley's return from America was, at the time at which it took place, a matter of notoriety and of public conversation in every coffee-house in London; and Lord Anglesey, with all the rest of the world, was aware of the claims which he was preparing to enforce. Under those circumstances, the following was Mr. Giffard's evidence:-"That some time between the 7th of December, 1741, and the 1st May, 1742, the defendant having an appeal before the House of Lords, and several suits depending between him and Charles Annesley, Esq., Francis Annesley, Esq., the Right Honorable the Lord Faversham, and one Mrs. Anne Simpson, who passed for his Countess in Ireland, often declared to deponent that he would deliver up to the lessor of the

plaintiff his right to the Anglesey and Altham estates and titles, and accept of £3,000 a-year, and leave the three kingdoms, and go to France and live there, which, he said, was better than to continue here and be so tormented by Charles Annesley, Francis Annesley, and Lord Faversham; that he had rather his brother's son should have the title and estate than they; and that £3,000 a-year would make him easy and happy abroad, for he did not value the title, and it was better to let Jemmy have his right than to be so plagued; and that he had sent for a gentleman to teach him the French tongue and the defendant had actually one Stephen Hays, who was an officer in the French army, to converse with him, and instruct him in the French tongue; that he repeated this several times, and continued in this resolution till May, 1742, when he heard that Mr. Annesley had the misfortune to shoot a man. It was on the 1st of May, 1742, that Mr. Annesley happened to shoot a man at Stains: on the 2nd of May (the day following), Lord Anglesey sent for deponent to go to Stains to enquire into the affair and collect the evidence, in order for the prosecution, and to follow the instructions of Mr. Garden and Gordon, with the assistance of Mr. J'ans; and my Lord said that deponent should appear as private as possible in the affair, for fear it should be known that deponent had formerly been his Lordship's attorney, which might hurt the cause; and my lord said, he did not care if it cost him ten thousand pounds, if he could hang the lessor of the plaintiff, for then he should be easy in the enjoyment of his title and estate; and that Mr. J'ans (who was my lord's intimate companion, and chief agent and manager,) should furnish deponent with money to carry on the prosecution, because he was advised it was not proper to appear in it himself." This evidence was not weakened by Mr. Giffard's cross-examination, and the value of it is too obvious to need any remark.

This witness closed the case for the lessor of the plaintiff. The case for the defendant simply amounted to a point-blank denial of the truth of that of the lessor of the plaintiff. It consisted of two parts: first, that Lord and Lady Altham never had a child, and that all the evidence upon this point given by the lessor of the plaintiff's witnesses, was so much flat perjury; secondly, that the lessor of the plaintiff, who called himself James Annesley, was no other than Joan Landy's son, who had been adopted by Lord Altham after his separation from his lady, and afterwards discarded by his lordship for his incorrigible idleness and bad habits. To sustain these two points a number of witnesses were called, and certainly their evidence afforded a startling contradiction to that of which we have attempted to give a summary. People who, at the time of the supposed birth, were living in the neighbourhood of Dunmain, came forward to state that they had never heard of the event. Persons who, according to their own statements at least, were frequent and familiar guests at Dunmain, while Lord and Lady Altham lived there, swore that at none of their visits had they ever seen the boy whom the plaintiff's witnesses had described. In vain were the

conflicting witnesses confronted with each other; and two, three, and even four of them placed upon the table together. Each party abode unflinchingly by his or her original statement; the lessor of the plaintiff's witnesses recapitulating all that they had before sworn to; the defendant's witnesses repeating their negative testimony, and stating besides declarations of Lady Altham herself, shewing that she was childless. In the course of the lessor of the plaintiff's case, several witnesses had deposed to the reputation of the country about Dunmain being that an heir had been born to the house of Annesley. Now the defendant's witnesses were as ready on the other hand to swear that the reputation of the country was that Lady Altham never had a child. In fact, the contradiction was as flat and as complete as it possibly could be. But in addition to thus simply contradicting the lessor of the plaintiff's case, the defendant went further. It will be remembered that the evidence had been that Lady Altham's alleged confinement had taken place in March or April of the year 1715. This was about the time at which the spring assizes of that year for the county Wexford had been held, and at those assizes a rather remarkable trial had taken place. Two gentlemen, Mr. Masterson and Mr. Walsh, had been indicted for the offence of enlisting men for the Pretender, the son of the dethroned James II. The year 1715, as the reader will recollect, was that in which took place the Earl of Mar's desperate attempt to restore the House of Stuart. The two gentlemen who were thus indicted at Wexford were acquitted, the judge who tried them "not liking the evidence against them," to use the expression of one of the witnesses in the present case. The trial naturally excited a great deal of attention in the county of Wexford, and of course, during it the court-house was thronged with spectators. Amongst these spectators, according to the evidence for the defendant in the present case, was Lady Altham, who, if the lessor of the plaintiff's witnesses were to be believed, was not at that time in a fit condition to leave her house, or even her room. One of the defendant's witnesses even went so far as to state her recollection of the manner in which Lady Altham had gone to the court-house, and swore that Lord Altham and Mr. Cæsar Colclough had gone into court with her. Here, however, the evidence for the defendant utterly failed. Not only did Mr. Kerr, the clerk, or as we should nowadays say, the Registrar, of the judge of assize, state that he had no recollection of having seen any ladies in court during the trial, but Mr. Cæsar Colclough himself, who was examined on a rebutting case gone into by the lessor of the plaintiff, positively swore that he did not 66 remember to have seen Lady Altham at that assizes; and that she could not attend that trial and sit near him, but he must have seen her; and believed, if she attended that trial he should have known it."

The examination of witnesses took up no less than ten days. On the eleventh morning Prime Sergeant Malone rose to address the court for the defendant. He did his duty in a manner fully equal to his great reputation. His speech was a most masterly review of