Laffan agree that the charge against Lady Altham was false; that Laffan attributes the plot to the revenge of the servants, on account of some mischievous boyish tricks which had been played upon them by Palliser; whilst Palliser himself attributes it to the deeper, and more probable, motive, of a determination, on the part of Lord Altham, to get rid of a wife from whom he hoped for no heir-a motive which, we have seen, gave rise to some of the darkest domestic tragedies that have disgraced humanity. The case, however, is beset with difficulties on all sides; for if we are to accept the evidence of Palliser as true, the inevitable consequence follows, that we must hold, not only Joan Laffan, but Major Fitzgerald, Turner, and many, indeed most of the fifty witnesses called on behalf of the claimant, and who swore positively to the existence of the child, to have been deliberately perjured.

After the separation Lady Altham went to reside at Ross, and subsequently removed to Dublin. Her circumstances were extremely narrow, and her health bad, but she was faithfully attended until her death, which took place in October 1729, by Mary Heath. From her first arrival in Ireland, in 1713, a period of sixteen years, with the exception of a single week, this woman was never absent from her. Whilst she resided at Dunmaine, Heath dressed her every morning, and undressed her every night; and this witness swore in the most distinct and positive manner that she never had a child. It seems to be enough to shake one's confidence in all human testimony to find evidence so clear, distinct, and unimpeachable, on each side, to be compelled to admit that on one side or the other there must be the most wilful and deliberate perjury, and yet to feel it impossible to say on which side perjury exists.

Lord Altham removed, shortly after his separation from his wife, to a place called Kinnay, in the county of Kildare, and the issue now assumes a different aspect. It is admitted that there was a child at Kinnay, that he was put to school by Lord

Altham and treated as part of his family; but it is contended that he was the illegitimate child of Lord Altham, by a woman of the name of Joan Landy, who had been a servant in the house at Dunmaine, and that he had been brought to the house subsequently to Lady Altham's departure.

In the earlier part of the case the claimant is met with the general denial-Lady Altham never had a son. Prove that she had, and we will admit you to be that son. In the latter part, the defendant says in substance, I admit that, during Lord Altham's residence at Kinmay, there was a boy who passed as his son. I admit that you are that boy; but you are not the heir of Lord Altham, but his illegitimate son by Joan Landy.

:

The whole of the evidence, therefore, changes its character when Mary Heath swears that her mistress never had a child, whilst Eleanor Murphy swears that both she and Heath were present at the birth, one or the other must be perjured. But Lord Altham might use expressions as to "little Jemmy" which one witness might understand as being a distinct declaration of his legitimacy, and another might think only conveyed the expression of his affection for his natural child.

During the first period the existence of the child is denied; during the second it is admitted; and we shall now proceed to follow the fortunes of the boy, waiving for the present the question of who was his mother.

Lord Altham, after his separation from his wife, formed a connection with one Miss Gregory, who seems to have exercised an unbounded influence over him. After a short time poor "Jemmy" was turned out to wander in rags about the streets of Dublin. Here, however, he met with friends a good-natured student in Trinity College, of the name of Bush, clothed and fed him, and employed him to run of errands, till his grandfather told him it was not fit he should have a lord for his servant, when he was turned out upon the world again. He was next taken charge of by an honest butcher, named Purcell, who took him home

and brought him up with his own son. Purcell tells the Court that whilst

"The boy was in his house, a gentleman (who was then called Richard Annesley,and is the now defendant, the Earl of Anglisea) came to deponent's house and asked if one Purcell did not live there, and said he supposed they sold liquors; that the gentleman had a gun in his hand, and sat down, and having called for a pot of beer, asked deponent if he had a boy in his house called James Annesley? To which deponent answered that there was such a boy in the house, and called his wife and told her that a gentleman wanted to see the boy; says that the child was sitting by the fireside, and immediately saw Mr Richard Annesley, though he could not see the child by reason of the situation where he sat; says the child trembled and cried, and was greatly affrighted, saying, 'That is my uncle Dick;' says that when the child was shown to the defendant, he

said to Jemmy, 'How do ye do?" That the child made his bow, and replied, ་ Thank God, very well.' That the defendant then said, 'Don't you know me?' 'Yes,' said the child,' you are my uncle Annesley.' That thereupon the defendant told the deponent that the child was the son of Lord Altham, who lived at Inchcore; to which deponent replied, 'I wish, sir, you would speak to his father to do something for him.'"

The child's fear of his uncle was not without good cause. About three weeks after Lord Altham's death, Richard Annesley came a second time, to seek for the child, and desired it should be sent to one Jones's in the market. Purcell suspected mischief. The honest butcher shall tell his story in his own words :

"Then deponent took a cudgel in one hand, and the child in the other, and went to the said Jones's house, when he saw the present Earl of Anglesea (who was then in mourning), with a constable, and two or three other odd-looking fellows attending about the door; that deponent took off his hat, and saluted my lord, which he did not think proper to return; but as soon as he saw the child in the deponent's hands, he called to a

fellow that stood behind deponent's back, and said to him, 'Take up that thieving son of a (meaning the child), and carry him to the place Ï bid you.' After some more language of the

same kind from his lordship, the deponent said, My lord, he is no thief: you shall not take him from me; and whoever offers to take him from me, I'll knock his brains out;' then deponent took the child (who was trembling with fear) and put him close between his legs." +

He then

Some high words passed, but the butcher was true to his trust; the lord and the constable sneaked off, and the child was carried back in safety. He was not long so fortunate. Fear of a repetition of the attempt to capture him induced him, very foolishly, to leave his friend the butcher. took refuge in the house of a Mr Tigh; but it was not long before the emissaries of his uncle discovered his retreat, forced him into a boat, and on board a ship bound for Philadel phia, which sailed on April 1728. His uncle himself placed him in the ship, and returned to Dublin, thinking, no doubt, that he had heard the last of him. All the details of this nefarious transaction are given with the utmost minuteness, and without shame or hesitation, by the very agents who were employed in it. The share which Lord Anglesea took in the abduction of his brother's child is hardly disputed. The contention is confined to the point that the child was illegitimate. The villany of the act seems never to have struck any of the parties concerned. But this act appears to us to turn the wavering balance of evidence against Lord Anglesea. If this boy were really the son of Joan Landy, it could not be difficult for Lord Anglesea to procure proof of that fact whilst the events were so recent, whilst Lady Altham was still living, and when he had himself, by common consent, been admitted to the title and estates of his brother. If, on the other hand, he knew that the boy was his brother's legitimate son, he had the strongest interest to remove him out of the way before any inquiries could be made, and whilst he was in the obscurity into which his father had permitted him to fall.

Yet a suspicion, almost equally strong, against the truth of the

+ Ibid., vol. xvii. 1202.

claimant's case, would seem to arise from the fact, that Joan Landy was living, and yet was never called.

The claimant's story was, that this woman was his nurse; that her own child, which was a few months older than himself, had died, when he was four or five years old, of small-pox. Who could be so valuable a witness for the claimant as this woman? Yet she was never examined, nor was her absence ever satisfactorily accounted for. If it is argued that she might have been called by either side-that it was equally open to the defendant to produce her to negative, as to the claimant to produce her to support the story-it may be answered, that she could hardly be expected to come forward to denounce her own son as an impostor. The non-production of a witness who must have important evidence in her power, who was naturally the witness of the claimant, and whose absence is not satisfactorily accounted for, throws the gravest suspicion upon his whole case. To what conclusion, then, can we come? The jury, after a consultation of about two hours, found for the claimant. They must, therefore, have considered Heath, Palliser, Rolph, and the other witnesses who swore to the non-existence of the child, to have perjured themselves. The plain

tiff appears to have been disposed to follow up his victory, for an indictment for perjury was at once preferred against Mary Heath. The same evidence was repeated; Joan Laffan was again examined. But the jury found her " Not Guilty." They must, therefore, have considered that Laffan, and all those who swore to Lady Altham having had a child, had been guilty of the crime of which they acquitted Heath. James Annesley does not appear to have taken any further steps to obtain possession of the estates and honours to which the decision of the jury had established his title. He died at Blackheath on the 2d of January 1760. His uncle Richard Annesley, Lord Anglesea, closed his career of profligacy and cruelty twelve short months afterwards. James Annesley left a son, who died an infant, and a daughter, who married, and whose children died young. Thus his line became extinct; and his rights, whatever they were, reverted to his uncle. Such was the termination of the "Annesley Case," memorable for the dark mystery in which it must for ever remain shrouded, and for the curious picture which it affords of the manners and habits of life that prevailed little more than a hundred years before our own day.

2 Q

VOL. LXXXVIII-NO. DXLI.

as "Le Baptême," "La Veuve du Soldat," ," "La Mère Convalescente," "Les Enfans du Marin;" followed by more mature works: "La Défense de Missolonghi,” ," "Les Femmes Souliotes," and "La Bataille de Morat." But it must be admitted that, in the "atelier" of Guerin, Scheffer's professional education had commenced amidst the ruins of a degenerate school. "The Restoration" of the legitimate government, setting loose the springs of energy, wrought a revolution even in the arts. The classic school to which Scheffer had been bound, "everywhere gave way," says Mrs Grote, 66 to the romantic; the conventional, again, to the sentimental and passionate. Victor Hugo in dramatic literature, Rossini in lyric music, Géricault and Delacroix in painting-these led the van of the new movement. The young Ary also tried his hand, and in 1819 exhibited his picture of Les Bourgeois de Calais,' in which was discerned an evident intention to break through old traditions, and to aim rather at compositions clothed in expression and feeling."

But Scheffer soon allied himself in politics to the opposition which harassed the government of the Restoration. He is a frequent visitor at the Château de la Grange, the wellknown residence of General Lafayette. He becomes the associate of Augustin Thierry, of Lady Morgan, and others of advanced opinions. He enters warmly into political confederacies, and enrols himself a member of the "Carbonari." Thus for a time were his energies diverted from his art, and his slender means of subsistence heavily taxed. It is, we confess, with little regret that we find a succession of misfortunes at length drive Scheffer once more to the tranquil and more remunerative labours of his studio. At this fortunate juncture in his destiny, he was introduced to the Duke and Duchess of Orleans, the future King and Queen of the French. From this moment dates the mutual and memorable friendship which grew up between Scheffer and the royal family; a friendship which, year by year, seems to have matured into warmer affection, and which death only could terminate. Scheffer

now becomes instructor of the royal children; he is the master who fostered the art talent, and cherished the enthusiasm of the Princess Marie; he is for years a constant visitor at the palace; and yet throughout, to his honour be it spoken, he is ever the honest patriot, whose independence and truth can neither be bought nor biassed. The spirit of the man is noble and uncompromising. A simple drawing-master to the royal children, he yet knew what was due to his self-respect. We find that, cost what it might, he either would maintain his authority or surrender his post. Thus Mrs Grote relates, that

"During one of the lessons which, at a later stage, Scheffer was giving to the children of the royal family, one of the brothers forgot the respect due to the master, and used some unbecoming expressions towards him. Scheffer banished the offending prince from the lesson. The Queen interposing to obtain a remission of this penalty, Scheffer resigned his appointment. The brothers and sisters were so grieved and discomposed at the loss of their master, that they begged and entreated him to resume his position; yet he was inexorable, until the King adding his own earnest endeavours, Scheffer was induced to give way, and he presided anew over their artistic studies. But he made it a condition that the mutinous pupil should never more join in the lesson, and he was accordingly excluded. I am afraid," says Mrs Grote, "it must be added, that this incident was long remembered by both parties."

Scheffer pos

The high mental culture, the simple yet uncompromising honesty and truth of Ary Scheffer, no less than his skill in art, soon won for him the confidence, and secured, as we have said, the abiding friendship of the Orleans family. sessed, indeed, all those qualities which inspire affection and respect. Duty was the law of his being, and self-sacrifice the practice of his life. Engaged in the severe study of his art, secluded in the retirement essential to the unfolding of his genius, he yet ever responded to the call of private friendship and public patriotism. Occupied in works of high imagination, holding converse with the spirits of the great departed, he yet was a man who walked the path