ANTHONY HENLEY (2nd S. xii, 107, 158,)- Andover being the only Hampshire borough for which this gentleman ever sat, his letter must have been addressed to the Corporation of that town. He afterwards sat for Melcombe Regis and Weymouth severally, and died as representative for the latter in 1710.

WH LAMMIN

ANTHONY HENLEY (2nd S. xii, 107, 158, 137.)- Has not Mr LAMMIN been guilty of a slight slip in p. 337, where he say Anthony Henley sat for Melcombe Regis and Weymouth "severally", and died as representative for the "latter" in 1710.

Melcombe Regis and Weymouth, I believe, before the passing of the Reform Bill, returned four members jointly ; and, I believe, never returned two for each place, the two being one borough.

Anthony Henley, therefore, sat for and died member of the joint constituency of Melcombe Regis and Weymouth.

Would Mr Lammin inform me whether a son of the above Anthony Henley (of the same name, Anthony,) ever sat for an Hampshire borough ? and if so, the name of the borough or boroughs, and dates ?

S SHAW

Weymouth and Melcombe Regis were united by the Private Act of 13th Eliz. Cap. 9, intituled (sic) "An Act for the Incorporation and uniting of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis in the County of Dorset."

But probably there was some local custom for attributing two members to the one place, and two to the other; as from my authority for the statement, at p. 255 of the Parliamentary Register, published by Edward Cave in 1741, it would appear that in 1710, the Hon. Maurice Ashley and Anthony Henley sat for Weymouth ; whilst at p. 156 it would seem that Sir Thomas Hardy, Knt., and William Harvy (in the place of James Littleton and William Betts not duly elected), represented Melcombe Regis in the same year.

With regard to Mr Shaw's further query, I find that Anthony Henley, Jun., sat for Southampton in 1727 ; and was returned again in 1734, but was declared no duly elected and John Conduit seated in his place. Mr. Henley died in 1745. Lord Henley, in his Life of Lord Chancellor Northington, states that this Anthony Henley signalised himself, amongst other vagaries, by a "humerous but insolent reply to his constituents, who had desired him to oppose Sir Robert Walpole's famous Excise scheme." But Lord Henley adds, in a note, he is sometimes confounded with his cousin Anthony Henley, son of Sir Andrew Henley, Bart.

W.H. LAMMIN, Fulham

Notes and Queries Vol. 12 2nd S. (304) Oct 26 1861 Page 337

Notes and Queries Vol. 12 2nd S. (307) Nov 16 1861 Page 403

Notes and Queries Vol. 12 2nd S. (313) Dec 28 1861 Page 529

^ back to top ^