In June, 1654, he was lying sick at his house in Lancashire, where his oath had to be taken as to certain matters in connection with his Sussex estate.

In October, 1652, the County Committee were still refusing to hand over the surplus received since 24th December, 1649, pretending that they had accounted for it, and had no funds out of which to satisfy such a claim. And, as far as one can gather from the papers, which are very voluminous, neither of these points was settled in the lifetime of the unfortunate compounder, if at all.

On the 1st of December, 1652, Lord Molyneux petitions the Committee for relief on the Articles of War, complaining that he is not permitted to compound for several parts of his estate, viz. :-The Town and Lordship of Liverpool, with its right of passage over the Mersey, together with Mills and several other profits, for which he paid a fee-farm rent to the late King, of £14 a year; the office of Master Forester of the late King's Forest and Park of West Derby; the Stewardships of Salford and West Derby; the office of Constable of Liverpool Castle and lands belonging thereto, wherein he had an estate of inheritance; the Stewardships of Blackburnshire, Tottington, and Clitheroe; the Butlership of the County Palatine of Lancaster; and the Admiralship of the great part of Lancashire, wherein he has an estate for life. Whereupon, it

Cople, of Thornton; William Hesketh, of Derby; Thomas Hodgson, of Euxton; Cicely Woods, of Croxteth Park; Thomas Bulloyne, of Maghull; Hugh Aspinall, of Aighton "for the fox house in Male"; Anthony Livesay, of Altcar; Mr. Formby, for a tenement in Altcar; James Woosey, of Altcar; George Aspinall, of Kirkby. Some time previously, namely in March, 1651, an inquiry into these matters was held at Preston, when the following were examined :-John Brianson, of Sephton, bailiff to Lord Molyneux; Edmund Raphson, the same; Cuthbert Halsall, of Croxteth, servant to his lordship; Thomas Bulloyne, of Maghull; Edward Goare, bailiff for his lordship; Robert Norris, the same; William Hesketh, of Derby; Thomas Hodgson, of Euxton; Thomas Bowten, of Aughton; and William Wright, of Euxton, bailiff to Lord Molyneux.

was ordered, that the Committee for Compounding with Delinquents state the case, and whether Lord Molyneux has forfeited the benefit of his Articles either by omission of anything he should have performed, or by having a hand in any hostilities or new design against the Parliament.

แ

Through the eight weary years during which these proceedings dragged their slow length along," Lord Molyneux does not appear to have been altogether a free man, nor yet always in captivity. We have seen that he was taken prisoner at Ludlow, in May, 1646, and that he was next month in Lancashire, preparing to go to London to compound for his estates. Then we hear of his four horses being seized by the County Committee in Sussex. Whether he was again apprehended, or for what cause, does not appear, but in 1648 it was ordered by the Council, That no prisoners "of quality should any more be brought to London, because, as Lord Molyneux, who was "discovered and taken at Islington near London, "had been brought thither, the apprentices having "risen, followed the coach, and were like to have "rescued him from the guards."

In July 1648, whether in custody or not, Lord Molyneux seems to have contemplated claiming his betrothed wife, for the Case respecting his marriage was laid before counsel, no doubt by his orders, about this time, the Opinion signed Arthur Ducke being dated the 12th of this month.

What steps he may have taken to claim his bride upon receiving the opinion that the marriage was a good one, and that there was "noe remedie att "law to avoid itt or to dissolve itt till death," do not appear. More than two years later, however, he had not abandoned all hope of bringing the affair to a happy issue, for in a report of the day's proceedings of the Council of State, under date

16th October, 1650 (Calendar of Domestic State Papers for year 1650), we read that an "Order "[was made] upon the petition of Richard Viscount "Molineux, that he have liberty to send to the "Isle of Man, two persons approved by Col. Birch, "Governor of Liverpool, to demand the answer of "Mary Stanley, one of the daughters of the Earl "of Derby, concerning her consent in a case of "marriage in the petition mentioned, with which "answer only they are to return, and to do no "other business there."

Whether Lord Molyneux was in actual custody at this time does not appear, but in March, 1659, he was apparently again apprehended; for, in the Moore Collection of MSS. (transcripts of which are in possession of this Society), there is a letter from one Richard Worsley, at Liverpool (who seems to have been the confidential business man of the Moores of Bank Hall), dated 18th March, 1650, addressed "To the Worp. Edward Moore Esq. at his chambers in Grayse Inn," in which he says:

Here is great newes in Leverpoole this day, wch in briefe is thus my Lord Mollineux was yesterday brought Prisoner to the towne wth most of his gentlemen & horses as also Mr Skaysbricke Mr Wm Ashurst & Mr John Ashurst was sent for but beinge not at home eskaped Mr Alex: Greene in Livpoole hath a guard sett on him with many others, they must goe very speedily to Chester there was also a priest taken: now the case [cause] of the takeinge theise gentlemen is as is reported this, there was a packett of letters intercepted, wherein most of the gent: of this Countrey that were of the old modell, had a plott with the Earle of Darby, that hee should have come over and landed at fformeby wth an army & they rayseinge forces both in Lanc: & Cheshyre would have joyn'd with him, uppon good ffryday to have taken this towne and the Castle & soe all had been cleere theire owne & to have march't uppon the backe of of Army in Scotland this is reported to have beene their plott but it hath pleased god to dissipate it but the truth wee shall here hereafter.

Collins, in his Baronetage, says that Lord

Non-fulfilment of the "Child-Marriage." 273

Molyneux and his brother Caryll were present at the battle of Worcester, fought on the 3rd September, 1651. In the case of our hero this is hardly likely to have been the case; for, as we have seen, he was at this very time still endeavouring to get more favourable terms from the Committee for Compounding Delinquents' Estates, and, on the 17th August in this year, the Council of State granted a license "for Lord Molineux to pass "with his horses and servants from Islington "to London."29

What answer Lady Mary Stanley sent back by the special messengers despatched to the Isle of Man, in July, 1650, we do not know; but that the marriage between her and Lord Molyneux was never consummated is a matter of history. The causes which had led to the non-fulfilment of the youthful contract are not given in the statement, nor has anything been found among the Croxteth papers to throw further light on this subject. But it is evident the marriage never was "perfected," though Sir William Dugdale, acting, no doubt, according to the strict law of the time, considered it an accomplished fact, for he recorded the alliance at his visitation, and it so stands in Burke's pedigree of Stanley in the modern Peerage.

In his answer to the fourth question submitted to him, Counsel would seem to say that the objection to perfecting the marriage proceeded from the young lady's mother-the illustrious but strong-willed and imperious Charlotte de la Trémoille, Countess of Derby, whose name was perhaps used owing to the absence of the Earl in the Isle of Man.

Whatever may have been the Earl's feelings towards Lord Molyneux, or what the cause which

T

29 Calendar of State Papers, for 1651, p. 531.

prevented the consummation of the latter's marriage with his favourite daughter, it is quite certain that it was never perfected, and that both Lord Molyneux and Lady Mary Stanley married elsewhere. This he was the first to do; and at Croxteth there is a deed, bearing date 27th October, 1652, by which Lord Molyneux, in contemplation of his intended marriage with the Lady Frances Seymour, eldest daughter of William, Marquess of Hertford, (on whom the restored Dukedom of Somerset was afterwards conferred), by his second wife Frances, sister of the Earl of Essex, the Parliamentary general, settles lands in Lancashire on his intended wife, to whom he was privately married the day following, at Essex House.

Thomas Hawarden, of Upton, in the parish of Prescot, and William Tempest, of Wigan, gentlemen, are the Trustees named in the Settlement, the signature of Lord Molyneux to which (almost illegible) is witnessed by Orlando Bridgeman, Tho. Gasse, Jo. Wood, Jo. Alchorn, and Edw. Alchorn. The lady's portion was £8,000, "to be paid on or "before marriage." Lands in Sussex, the Caryll inheritance, should also have been settled on her, but were not, as appears by a recital in a subsequent deed, dated 20th September, 1654, by which Frances Dowager Viscountess Molyneux agrees to accept £1500 a-year from her brother-in-law Caryll, then Lord Molyneux, in lieu of her jointure, and releases her claim to the lands in Sussex, in order that they may be sold, and the mortgage of £7500 thereon to John Bedell, Esq., paid off, and any balance remaining devoted to discharging debts of her late husband secured on lands in Lancashire which had been settled upon her.

In the Calendar of Domestic State Papers for the year 1652, under date November 2, there is printed