|
1682.
Nov. 11.
London. |
Newsletter to John Squier, Newcastle. Yesterday a motion
was made at the King's Bench bar by Sir George Jefferies that
a trial at bar might be this term between his Royal Highness
and Mr. Pilkington. It was opposed by some counsel for Pilkington who would have it deferred till next term. However a
rule of court was made that he show cause why the motion should
not be allowed. |
|
Last night the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, among
them Alderman Cornish and Sir Robert Clayton, attended his
Majesty in Council, being sent for to prevent the riotous assembly
that has for three years past usually met on the 17th of this
month. They received an order from the Council to prevent
all manner of squibs and bonfires for the future and this day
we expect the Lord Mayor's precept thereon. |
|
They write from Holland that on notice of the march of some
of the Elector of Brandenburgh's troops the Prince of Orange
caused the regiment of Holstein to march to Groll to watch
their motions and just as these letters came away a courier
brought advice that 500 Brandenburgh troops were already
entered East Friesland by water, upon which more Dutch troops
are ordered to advance that way. |
|
The Emperor has resolved to raise 25,000 men more, which
with the troops on foot he thinks will be sufficient to act on the
Rhine and in Hungary. |
|
It being reported that the King of Denmark and Elector of
Brandenburgh had entered into a league against Holland, the
former has written to the States to assure them of the contrary. |
|
The States have at last resolved to send an extraordinary
ambassador into France to complain of that King's proceedings
against the city of Orange and to pray him to make the Prince
of Orange and the inhabitants satisfaction. |
|
Letters from Brussels of the 13th say that Monsr. Dellvall,
who was sent to Paris to get a longer time from the French King,
assured the Marquis de Granay that he can't obtain it: upon
which he dispatched an express to the States desiring them to be
ready according to their treaty. They add that Luxembourgh is
in a very good condition and fears no attack from the French,
three generals of battle being sent thither to command successively in case the Prince of Chymay the present Governor should
be killed. All the Spanish officers that were at Brussels are
gone to their commands. |
|
This day Mr. Pilkington's counsel endeavoured to show cause
why he should not be tried this term, saying that he was taken
at some disadvantage and was making application to his Royal
Highness and desired it might be tried in London. The court
told him it should be tried at that bar and not at London. Lord
Grey's counsel moved also for [bail] and that he might come
abroad with his keeper, but the court denied him till the trial
or the lady produced. [3 pages. Admiralty 77 (Greenwich
Hospital), 2, No. 60a.] |
| [1683 ?] |
Neal Mellaghlin, Cormuck Rice and William and Arthur Maggin
to the King. Petition stating that about Michaelmas, 1681, the
petitioners exhibited an indictment of high treason against John
Hawkins of Rathfreilan, co. Down, but, the faction being then
very powerful there, the bill was returned Ignoramus notwithstanding the fullest evidence, with which the Duke of Ormonde
was very much dissatisfied, wherefore the petitioners thought it
needless to attempt anything against Sir John Magill, Hawkins'
brother-in-law and his accomplice, but, the present discovery of
the conspiracy having very much weakened the interest of the
factions, the petitioners doubt not that the said Hawkins and
Magill, if sent for to England, will be found guilty on their
evidence and will likewise in all probability make a further
discovery of the late conspiracy, and therefore praying an order
that the said Hawkins and Magill be forthwith seized, on the
petitioners making oath of the said treason against them, and
brought to England for their trial. [S.P. Ireland, Car. II. 343,
No. 150.] |
| [1683.] |
Instructions to Mrs. Fanshawe's counsel to draw her bill in
equity. Patrick Sarsfield, suing Sir Theophilus Jones for the
manor of Lucan and the lands belonging thereto of about 1,200l.
a year value, was found to be a nocent Papist and his right
thereto forfeited, the Court of Claims decreeing the premises to
Sir T. Jones for the said Patrick's life and the remainder to
William Sarsfield in tail male with remainder to the Crown in
fee simple to the uses of the Act of Settlement. William Sarsfield
afterwards married the Duke of Monmouth's sister and, having
no present estate to support her, proposed to the Duke that, if he
will persuade the King to grant him the quit-rents of his estate
of about 160l. a year and the remainder in fee thereof, he would
settle a jointure of 800l. a year on his wife and submit to such
further settlements as the Duke shall think fit, with an instrument
under his hand and seal to that effect dated 4 Aug., 1671. In
consideration thereof the Duke obtained letters to the Chief
Governor of Ireland in Dec., 1671, and Dec., 1672, to suffer
William Sarsfield to pass letters patent for the said quit-rent
and the said remainder in fee, which he did accordingly. |
|
Sarsfield afterwards proposed to the Duke that, if the King
would purchase Sir T. Jones' interest in the premises for himself
and his wife by the grant of 800l. a year concealed rents in Ireland,
he would not only suffer a jointure of 800l. a year on his wife
but likewise settle the whole estate in Sir T. Jones' possession
on her children by him. The King approved thereof and, having
given Sarsfield a pension of 200l. a year with several other
bounties, appointed Edward Proger to treat with Sarsfield,
between whom it was agreed that Sarsfield, in consideration
of his Majesty's bounties already to him and his wife and of his
promise to purchase for them Sir T. Jones' interest in the premises, should settle a jointure on her of 800l. a year and his
whole estate, then in Sir T. Jones' possession, on her children
by him. |
|
(Then follows a recital of the letter of 6 Dec., 1674, calendared
in Cal. S.P. Dom., 1673–75, p. 450, authorizing Sir Theophilus to
pass letters patent for 800l. a year concealed lands in lieu of the
estate of Lucan.) |
|
In 1674 Sarsfield levied two fines of all his lands, etc., to uses in
a certain indenture, but his wife joined not therein nor was he
then or at any time after during his life possessed of any of the said
estate or the remainder in fee. He died 13 April, 1675, of smallpox
before making any settlement on his wife and children according
to his said agreement. After his death his sister produced a will,
wherein he is supposed to have conveyed several parcels of his
estate to the value of 300l. a year to Patrick Trant, to have given
4,000l. to his two sisters, 750l. to his brother, 100l. a year each to
his father and mother during his father's life, 200l. a year jointure
to his wife, provided she disclaims all rights to dower or thirds,
1,000l. a piece to his two younger children and, after charging
his estate with several other debts and legacies, he gave it to his
son Charles in tail male with remainder to his brother Patrick in
tail male with remainders over, declaring his father guardian to
his son, which he could not be, being a Papist, so that the guardianship of the son and younger children became vested in the
mother, who is a Protestant. This will was never mentioned
to Mrs. Sarsfield during his life and the physicians and Mr.
Arthur, her husband's priest, hindered her coming to him during
his illness. |
|
After his death Sir Theophilus gave up possession of the manor
of Lucan containing 947 acres to trustees for the use of Sarsfield's
widow and children and promised to deliver the residue shortly,
but afterwards combining with Mr. Sarsfield's relatives he pretended he was not obliged to deliver up the estate till he had
completed his reprisals, and deluded the widow and her second
husband, Mr. Fanshawe, with vain and frivolous promises for
many years. They have in the present year, 1683, exhibited a
bill in equity in the Exchequer in Ireland against Sir Theophilus,
old Mr. Sarsfield, his two daughters, Patrick Trant and others
for the delivery of the said lands bought by his Majesty as aforesaid and promised to be settled on William Sarsfield's wife and
children on the considerations above specified, as will appear by
the affidavits of Edward Proger and Charles Chetwynd, dated
15 May, 1683 (which here follow). |
|
Mr. Sarsfield's youngest son, William, born after his father's
death, died in Dec., 1676, being a year and three months old. His
eldest son, Charles, died at Paris, 3 July, 1683, being nine years less
three months old. His only remaining child is Charlotte, who is
about ten years old, in whose right her mother sues to have the
estate settled according to Mr. Sarsfield's agreement and to have
her own jointure set out. [2¼ pages. Ibid. No. 151.] |
