210 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2nd s. No 89., Sept. 12. '57. 



cause the judgment in the Douglas cause was 

 really moved by him, and only supported by Lord 

 Mansfield, — I think it due to the memory of the 

 great Chief Justice to give a most peremptory 

 contradiction to the thoughtless notion that Lord 

 Brougham gave the slightest credence to so ab- 

 surd a story. That Lord Brougham should have 

 taken great pains to relieve Lord Mansfield from 

 the charges of innocent partiality and prejudice 

 brought against him by Junius and others, and 

 yet should all the while have believed him guilty 

 of judicial corruption upon the largest scale, is 

 obviously absurd. Lord Brougham's allusions to 

 Sir Philip Francis's denunciations were given to 

 show that Sir Philip was under the influence 

 of a delusion arising from his violent preju- 

 dices against Lord Mansfield, and not because 

 Lord Brougham believed that such charges had 

 any foundation in truth. How full of prejudices 

 Francis was. Lord Brougham shows in his sketch 

 of him, where he tells us that Francis, when dis- 

 appointed in his hopes of going out as Governor- 

 General of India, when the Whig party came into 

 office, " ever after this bitter disappointment re- 

 garded Mr. Fox as having abandoned him ; and 

 gave vent to his vexation in terms of the most 

 indecent and almost insane invective against that 

 amiable and admirable man." 



The reader who would really come to a right 

 view of the noble and learned Lord's opinion 

 upon this point must not content himself, as Mr. 

 Malcom appears to have done, with reading Lord 

 Brougham's Sketches of Lord Mansfield and Lord 

 Camden, but he must also consider what he has 

 said of Sir Philip Francis, Home Tooke, and 

 Wilkes. M. D. C. 



LADT CHICHESTER. 



(2°'^ S. iv. 169. 195.) 



Edward, third Earl of Bedford, married Lucy, 

 daughter of John, first Lord Harington, sister and 

 coheir of John, second and last Lord Harington. 

 (This peerage was created in 1603, and became 

 extinct in 1613. The surname of the present 

 Earl of Harrington is Stanhope. William Stan- 

 hope, first Earl, was created Baron Harrington 

 Nov. 9, 1729, and Earl of Harrington, Feb. 9, 

 1742. In 1746 he was Lord-Lieutenant of Ire- 

 land. They are in no way related to the Barons 

 Harington.) Frances, the younger daughter of 

 the first Lord Harington, and sister of Lucy, 

 Countess of Bedford, married Sir Robert Chi- 

 chester of Raleigh, K.B. (son of Sir John Chi- 

 chester, and Anne, his wife, daughter of Sir 

 Robert Dennis of Holcombe, Knight), and ne- 

 phew of Sir Arthur Chichester, who married 

 Letitia, daughter of Sir John Perrott, and of Sir 

 Edward Chichester, first Viscount Chichester, 



ancestor of the Marquesses of Donegall. Lucy, 

 Countess of Bedford, was a great patron of the 

 wits of her day, particularly Donne, who wrote 

 an elegy on her, and Daniel, who addressed an 

 epistle to her. Pennant says " her vanity and 

 extravagance met with no check under the reign 

 of her quiet spouse." {Memoirs of James's Peers^ 

 p. 312.) He died without issue May 3, 1627. 

 She long survived him.* 



Frances, the sister of the Countess, by her mar- 

 riage with Sir Robert Chichester, had an only 

 daughter Anne, married to Thomas, Lord Bruce 

 of Kinlosse, by whom she was mother of Robert, 

 Earl of Aylesbury. Sir Robert Chichester mar- 

 ried, secondly, Mary, daughter of Hill, Esq., 



of Shilston, and died in 1626. 



Sir John Chichester, the father of Sir Robert, 

 who married Anne, daughter of Sir Robert 

 Dennis of Holcombe, Knight, was killed, with 

 the Judge of Assize and others, by an infectious 

 smell from the prisoners, at the Lent Assizes in 

 Exeter Castle, 1585. This is the Sir John Chi- 

 chester, the elder brother of Sir Arthur, whose 

 wife's name Mb. Maclean states his inability to 

 discover. 



Sir John Chichester the younger, uncle of Sir 

 Robert Chichester, early obtained glory in Ireland. 

 He was knighted by Sir William Russel, Lord 

 Deputy in 1594, and in June, 1597, was appointed 

 Governor of Carrickfergus. The story respecting 

 his death given by Lodge, and repeated by Sir 

 Egerton Brydges in his edition of Collins' Peerage, 

 and even by Sir Bernard Burke in the last edition 

 of his Peerage, is quite erroneous. James Mac- 

 Sorley MacDonald was never Earl of Antrim : he 

 died unreconciled to the British Government, and 

 had too much respect for his head to venture it 

 within the walls of Carrickfergus. The anecdote, 

 therefore, of his having " in King James's reign 

 gone one day to view the family monuments in 

 S. Nicholas Church at Carrickfergus, and seeing 

 Sir John's statue therein, asked ' How the de'il he 

 came to get his head again, for he was sure he had 

 once ta'en it frae him,' " is all a myth. Before 

 King James ruled over Ireland, MacDonnell had 

 been gathered to his fathers. He was the son of 

 Sorley Boy McDonnell, who after the death of his 

 elder brother James, killed by Shane O'Nelle in 

 1565, usurped the Irish estates of his nephew 

 Angus. He was knighted, but by whom is uncer- 

 tain. The death of Sir John Chichester happened 

 in this manner. Whilst he was absent in Dublin 

 Sir James McDonnell plundered Island Magee; 

 on his return to the north he complained to 

 McDonnell of tliis outrage. To arrange matters 

 an interview was appointed to take place between 

 them on the 4th Nov. 1597. On that day Mac- 



[* Can an}' one supply the date of the death of Lucy, 

 Countess of Bedford, the patron of Donne and Daniel ? — 

 Ed.] 



