NANNEY, Hugh (c.1669-1701), of Nannau Hall, Llanfachreth, Merion.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. D. Hayton, E. Cruickshanks, S. Handley, 2002
Available from Boydell and Brewer



1695 - bef. 26 Mar. 1701

Family and Education

b. c.1669, 2nd s. of Hugh Nanney of Nannau Hall by Jonet, da. of Owen Salusbury of Rûg, Merion.  educ. Eton c.1682–7; Jesus, Oxf. matric. 8 July 1687, aged 18; L. Inn 1687.  m. 1690, his cos. Catherine (d. 1733), da. of William Vaughan of Cors-y-Gedol, Merion., sis. of Richard Vaughan II*, wid. of Griffith Wynn (d. 1680) of Bodvan, Caern. and mother of Thomas Wynn*, 4da.  suc. bro. ?1689.1

Offices Held

V.-adm. N. Wales 1697–d.2


The last of a line of native gentry with a traditional reputation for fostering Welsh culture, Nanney maintained the only surviving household bard in 17th-century Wales. The exact date on which he became master of Nannau remains unknown, but it may have been in about April 1689, when his elder brother was replaced as sheriff of Merioneth. In 1691 he was himself intended for the shrievalty but presumably managed to avoid being pricked. He was more conscientious, however, in undertaking other local responsibilities, taking very seriously his duties as deputy-lieutenant and colonel of militia. Returned unopposed as knight of the shire in 1695, succeeding his ageing distant cousin Sir John Wynn, 5th Bt., he was forecast as likely to oppose the Court in the divisions of 31 Jan. 1696 over the proposed council of trade, but markings on the forecast may indicate that he actually voted the other way, or abstained. Certainly he signed the Association promptly and then voted in favour of fixing the price of guineas at 22s. Appointment as vice-admiral of North Wales in January 1697 would be consistent with Whiggish sympathies, and he was classed as a supporter of the Court party in 1698. What he was not, emphatically, was a diligent Member. Absent on 6 Mar. 1696, when a petition was received charging him with abusing his privilege in protecting a litigant in a suit over property, he came up to the House when ordered on the 9th, but a week later was afforded leave of absence. Given leave again on 22 Mar. 1697, he was sent for in custody on 16 Dec. for being absent from a call of the House, being discharged five days later. The experience did not prove salutary: he was once more granted leave on 15 Apr. 1698, and in March 1699 was one of a number of Members announced by the clerk as not having attended at all during the session. These absences may have been occasioned by the demands of Nanney’s involvement at this time, in partnership with some London gentlemen and merchants, in a lead mining venture.3

Nanney was re-elected unopposed at the first 1701 election, but when ‘coming up to attend the Parliament . . . [he] was seized with such a violent cold upon the road (in a terrible season of rain, wind and snow) that using no proper remedies (or at least no effectual ones) to remove it, he was thrown into a fever, which in the space of a few days, put a period to his life’. A new writ was issued for Merioneth on 26 Mar. 1701, and Nanney’s will, written on 11 Mar., was proved on 20 Aug. 1702. This left his widow a £300 annuity, charged his estate with £2,500 for jointures for his three younger daughters, and left a personal and real estate valued at £1,000 p.a. to his eldest daughter. Nanney’s electoral interest and parliamentary seat fell to his cousin and brother-in-law Richard Vaughan II of Cors-y-Gedol. Following the death, unmarried, of his eldest daughter, Nanney’s estates eventually passed to William Vaughan†, the husband of his second daughter, thus guaranteeing the supremacy of the Cors-y-Gedol family in county elections for the rest of the century and beyond.4

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: D. W. Hayton


  • 1. J. E. Griffith, Peds. Anglesey and Caern. Fams. 171, 200; Eton Coll. Reg. ed. Sterry, 242; Williams, Parlty. Hist. Wales, 117.
  • 2. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 167; Cal. Treas. Bks. xiv. 209.
  • 3. T. P. Ellis, Dolgelly and Llanelltyd, 82–83; Jnl. Merion. Hist. and Rec. Soc. ii. 5, 6–7, 11; v. 186; HMC Finch, iii. 403; CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 377; 1700–2, p. 256; Arch. Camb. ser. 1, i. 362; Bull. IHR, sp. supp. 7, pp. 11, 63; UCNW, Nannau mss 448–9.
  • 4. Add. 27440, ff. 159–60; Nannau mss 463, 3712; CJ, xiv. 471–2, 493; Jnl. Merion. Hist. and Rec. Soc. ii. 5–6.