London. Irish Refugees. Duel. Arrests.

Chapter IV.

1798-1798.

Take up my abode in London - Irish Refugees - Their Appeals to their Fellow-countrymen - The Free-quarters System - The United Irish club - Its Objects and Members - Duel with Mr. H---; - Disclosures in the Castlereagh Paper - Manufacture of Treason - Espionage - St. Patrick’s Dinner - O’Coigly - Assist him in his Defence - Arrested - Simultaneous Arrest of the Duke of Leinster, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Grattan - Intentions of the Government, as disclosed in the Castlereagh Papers - Their Failure - Examination before the Privy Council - Liberation - Letters; from Lord Cloncurry, from Miss C. Lawles - Projected Marriage.

In November, 1797, as I have already stated, I took up my abode in London, under circumstances which will be understood by any Irishman, who, having a few pounds in his pocket, or bearing a name known beyond his domestic circle, may have had occasion to reside in a foreign resort of his poorer countrymen. To such a reader there will be no necessity to explain the operation upon myself and ‘some other young Irishmen then in London society, of the gregarious habits of our compatriots. We became a sort of centre of refuge for the hosts of poor people driven from their homes by the atrocious deeds of an army, described by its commander as being “formidable to every one but the enemy.” Some of these refugees were evading the grasp of the law; many were merely flying from the persecutions to which they were exposed under the Insurrection Act and free-quarters system. Of the working of the former measure I have given an example in the story of Captain Fraser and Dixon - the effect of the free-quarters system “upon the discipline of the troops,” is so tersely described in a short letter from Lord Castlereagh to General Lake, that I will take the liberty of quoting it:-

Dublin Castle, April 25,1798.

“Sir - It having been represented to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, that much evil may arise to the discipline of the troops from their being permitted, for any length of time, to live at free quarters; that the loyal and well-affected have, in many instances, suffered in common with the disaffected, from a measure which does not admit, in its execution, of sufficient discrimination of persons; I am directed by his Excellency to request that you will advert to these inconveniences, and adopt such *other vigorous and effectual measures *for enforcing the speedy surrender of arms as in your discretion you shall think fit, and which shall appear to you not liable to these objections.

I have the honour, &c.

Castlereagh.”

[Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, edited by his Brother. Vol. i., p. 189.]

This frozen intimation of the *inconveniences *which “free quarters and pillage” occasioned to the troops and the “loyal,” will convey a notion of their operation upon those whom Lord Castlereagh and the Ancient Britons, or Fraser Fencibles, thought fit to include in the class of “disaffected.” The practical effect was, as I have said, to send crowds of poor houseless and starving creatures out of the kingdom, many of whom made their way to London, and when there, applied to any fellow-countryman they could find out, for relief and protection. Whatever may be the faults of Irishmen, a want of generosity and good feeling towards each other when absent from home, and even of forgetfulness, under such circumstances of domestic feuds, is not one of them. Accordingly, we who were able to give any assistance to the refugees did what we could in that direction; and in the course of our work of charity a sort of club was formed, the members of which were chiefly young Templars, and which we called the “‘United Irish.” This club was not, however, affiliated with the United Irish Society *of Ireland; *and, indeed, had the character rather of a debating and convivial, than of a political body. It was certainly neither illegal nor mischievous, although it would appear, from some vague allusions in the Castlereagh letters recently published, to have been represented by the spies of the government in both one and the other light. The best proof that there was no foundation for any such representations was, nevertheless afforded by the fact, that it was never made the subject of legal proceedings. [I may mention a little incident, illustrative, in some degree, of the character of this club. Some of its members had access to the newspapers, and upon one occasion a notice of our festive proceedings appeared in one of these, Some expressions, condemnatory of the publication, fell from me at a subsequent meeting, which resulted in a duel (the only one, I am happy to say, I ever fought) with Mr. H---, a member of the Irish bar now no more. We met at Norwood, and exchanged a couple of shots, but without doing any damage.]

Among the persons thus associated, and with whom I was then on terms of familiar intimacy, were Mr. Stewart, of Acton, and Mr. Bonham, who were both, as I sincerely believe, as well as myself, utterly unconscious of any illegal design, or indeed of any design, except that of relieving our poor and persecuted fellow-countrymen who flocked around us, and of participating in such social amusements as are customary among very young men. We were all three, however, made to pay dearly enough for our whistle. Little did we then think how uneasy the pillows of ministers were made by our subscriptions to relieve the destitution of Peter Finerty, [Ex-printer of the *Press *- a paper honoured by being burned by the common hangman. When Peter Finerty was pilloried for a seditious libel published in the *Press, *Arthur O’Connor stood beside him upon the scaffold, and held an umbrella over his head.] or what mighty peril was supposed to hang upon our occasionally dropping in to a singing-club, at the close of an evening spent in one of the theatres. With a proper force of spies and detectives, however, it is not difficult to manufacture treason, and accordingly I find it was announced by Mr. Wickham (an under-secretary of state) to Lord Castlereagh, on the 8th of June, 1798, [Castlereagh Memoirs. Vol. i., p.216.] that “His Majesty’s confidential servants had found it necessary to take into custody and detain” the Hon. Mr. L---, Mr. S. of Acton, and Messrs. A. C. and T. of the Temple; and that “the testimony of *two gentlemen recommended [sic in orig.] *by Mr. Cooke,” left no room for doubt “that all these persons were more or less deeply implicated in the treasonable conspiracy in Ireland; that they had all knowledge of the connection between the traitors in that country and the French Directory, or its ministers, and had given aid and countenance to the agents who have at different times been sent over from one country to the other.”

lt is scarcely necessary to say that the Hon. Mr. L--- was the writer of these reminiscences ; Mr. S. was Mr. Stewart, of Acton, a gentleman of large fortune in the North of Ireland; and Messrs. A. C. and T. were, I presume, Mr. Agar, a relative of the Archbishop of Dublin; Richard Curran, eldest son of the future Master of the Rolls, and Mr. Trenor, who was, at the time; my friend and private secretary. I can with certainty answer for myself, and I believe with almost equal certainty for all the others, that the testimony of Mr. Cooke’s two *gentlemanly friends *was altogether untrue; that none of the party were engaged in any correspondence with the French Directory or its ministers, and that the only aid and countenance we gave to any suspected persons was limited to the charitable assistance to our poor fellow-countrymen, to which I have alluded, or to the ordinary social intercourse between acquaintances casually meeting in a strange place. To the particular event which was fixed upon as the justification of my own arrest, I will presently refer; but it may be worth while, first, to point out another specimen of treason manufacture.

In the report from the Committee of Secrecy of the Irish House of Commons, it is stated that “The leading members of the disaffected societies were in the habit of frequenting an occasional meeting, which was held at a cellar in Furnival’s Inn, and was first formed for the purpose of reading the libellous and treasonable publication called *The Press.” *When a mysterious intimation of my own offences against authority was made to me by the privy council, my attendance upon the Furnival’s Inn *reunions *was enlarged upon with indications of grave censure - the fact being, that the meetings referred to (which, by the way, were not held in a cellar) were nothing more than the promiscuous assemblages of a free-and-easy singing club, into which I had strolled, altogether not more than two or three times, on leaving a theatre or other place of public resort. If the persons present on these occasions were “members of disaffected societies,” I certainly did not know of it; and if the business transacted was treason, it was carefully wrapped up in the jokes and ribaldry commonly said or sung in such places, even, I presume, up to the present loyal and moral age.

There was enough, however, to furnish Mr Cooke’s gentlemen with a theme for their testimony, and I was accordingly enrolled upon the list of suspects. That I was placed in that unenviable situation, was not a secret to myself, as, in addition to the hints to which I have already referred as having been given to my friends in Ireland, I was informed, soon after my arrival in London, that all my motions were carefully watched by a policeman in disguise - one of those respectable members of society whom it is now the fashion to distinguish by the title of “detectives.”

My kind informant was Dr. Hussey, afterwards Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford, but who had been private secretary to the Duke of Portland, and, at the time I speak of, was upon familiar terms with his Grace, although employed, in his profession, as Chaplain to the Spanish Ambassador’s Chapel in Manchester-square. The information did not give me much uneasiness, as I was not conscious of any crime that could justly bring me within the grasp of the law; and, accordingly, the only effect it produced was a laugh among my friends, when I excused myself for breaking up a party on the plea that it would be an act of unwarrantable cruelty to keep “my spy” longer exposed to the night air, and that I must therefore, relieve him from duty, by allowing him to see me safe to my chambers.

An incident occurred about this time, which I may mention, as it not only throws light upon the state of party feeling, and the heated intolerance of those who assumed to themselves the exclusive character of loyalty; but it also shows that my intimate associates were not, at that time, so selected as to make me now blush at the remembrance of my connexion with them. On St. Patrick’s Day, 1798, I happened to be so unwell - indeed confined to my chambers - that I determined not to attend the public dinner, at which Lord Moira (the late Marquis Hastings) was to preside. On his way to the dinner, his lordship called upon me, and induced me to accompany him. In his carriage with us were my intimate friends, William Moore (brother to the late Earl of Mountcashel), and Thomas Moore the poet. I chanced to sit among some acquaintances at the lower end of the table; and when the Queen’s health was proposed, owing to some accident, probably the bodily indisposition under which I was suffering, I did not rise to drink the toast with so much alacrity as would have been pleasing to some red-hot loyalists who sat near.

As I was dressed in green (then a suspected colour), my slowness in rising was, without delay, interpreted into an intention of not rising at all; and a cry of “turn him out” was raised among my enthusiastic neighbours. The cry, however, soon came to an end, when my friends close to me-among them were Somerset and Pierce Butler, brothers of the late Earl of Kilkenny - announced that the operation of turning me out would assume a complex character. The moment the uproar subsided, I went up to Lord Moira, and explained to him my share in the transaction, assuring him that I had not the slightest intention of showing disrespect to the Queen; and that if I had, I would not choose an occasion for doing so, when I must necessarily accompany the act with an insult towards himself, as the proposer of the toast. The explanation was at once accepted as satisfactory; but the occurrence was made the most of by the government-hack journals of the day.

Early in 1798 (as well as I recollect, some time in the month of February), 1 was waited upon by an Irish priest, who brought me a letter of introduction from my father’s solicitor, Matt. Dowling, [It may not be improper to mention here that Mr. Dowling was a Protestant.] whom I have already mentioned. This person, who was one of the finest men I ever saw, was the unfortunate O’Coigly, or Quigley ; and upon this occasion for the first time, I met him or knew of his existence. His story to me was, that he was driven from Dundalk, by the persecutions of the Orangemen of that town, and that he was now endeavouring to get back to Douay, where he had been a Professor in the University. This statement was confirmed by Mr. Dowling’s letter, with the addition that O’Coigly was very poor, and in much need of pecuniary aid to help him on his journey.

I was, at the time, living upon a very moderate allowance, and had but little money to give away; but I did what I could, and asked my visitor to dine with me-a request which he readily complied with. At dinner, Arthur O’Connor was one of the party; and, so far as I know, he also then met O’Coigly for the first time. As to what communications took place between them subsequently, I have no knowledge; but they shortly afterwards left London together - the priest having been invited (as I understood) to accompany Mr. O’Connor as his secretary, so far as their roads lay together. They were arrested, with some others, as is well known, at Whitstable, tried at Maidstone, and O’Coigly - who alone of the party was convicted - was hanged at Penenden Heath, on the 7th of May, 1798.

It was my casual act of charity towards this unfortunate man, which furnished the ostensible excuse for my arrest and detention, referred to in Mr. Wickham’s letter, from which I have already quoted. No sooner was O’Coigly lodged in jail than he sent me an earnest application for funds to enable him to carry on his defence; to which I responded by employing, on his behalf, Mr. Foulkes, an eminent solicitor, then living in Hart-street, Bloomsbury, but to whom I was at the time a perfect stranger; and guaranteeing to that gentleman the payment of his costs. To enable me to meet this engagement I applied to some friends for subscriptions; and, amongst others, I wrote to Mr. Broughall, my father’s land-agent, who was, at the time, secretary to the Irish Catholic Association, telling him that it was incumbent upon his co-religionists to subscribe for the relief of a member of their priesthood, and naming, as one of those who had already handsomely contributed, my late excellent friend, Mr. Henry, of Straffan. [Mr. Henry, in reply to rqy letter mentioning the ease of O’Coigly, enclosed me a check for £500, of which I retained £50, a sum equivalent to my own subscription.] Mr. Broughall, who was a suspected person, was shortly afterwards arrested at Dublin, and his papers having been seized, my letter was found among them. The immediate result was my capture, at my lodgings in St. Albans-street; and the arrest, at the same time and place, of the Duke of Leinster, John Philpot Curran, and Henry Grattan, who happened at the moment to be visiting me. They were all, however, immediately liberated ; the only tangible charge against any of them being the supposed applicability to Mr. Grattan, of the words “little Henry,” used in my letter to Broughall, in reference to Mr. Henry, of Straffan.

Coincidently with my own arrest, my secretary, Mr. Trenor, was also put into confinement; and the hardships he was exposed to brought on an illness which terminated, not long afterwards, in his death. My Swiss servant, Christian Serry, a most respectable man, who had come to my father’s service from that of the Duchess of Devonshire, and had lived in our family many years, was also laid hold of, under the authority of the Alien Act, and sent out of the country. He was never afterwards heard of; but I had the satisfaction of placing his son in a respectable position in life; and, a few months since, of enabling his grandson to seek his fortune in America, I trust, under happy auspices.

My first imprisonment (in 1798) lasted about six weeks, during which time I was confined at the house of a king’s messenger in Pimlico. I was taken before the Privy Council several times, and questioned *more majorum, *with a view to the inculpation of myself and others, by Lord Loughborough, Mr. Pitt, and the Duke of Portland. That there was every disposition to discover or invent a plausible excuse for delivering me over to the “due course of law,” as it was then mercifully administered, was made manifest enough to me by the course of this inquisitorial proceeding. The secret intention of the inquisitors is described in the following passage of the letter of the 8th June, 1798, from Mr. Wickham to Lord Castlereagh, from which I have already quoted:-

It is evident, under the present circumstances (wrote Mr. Wickham), and with the evidence of the nature* *of that of which government here is at present in possession, strong and decisive as it is, that none of these persons can be brought to trial, without exposing secrets of the last importance to the state, the revealing of which may implicate the safety of the two kingdoms. But as it is possible, in the course of the discoveries which his Majesty’s Government in Ireland has been lately, and may still be, enabled to make, that something may appear of a *public nature *that may tend directly to affect some one or more of the prisoners, either in this country or in Ireland, his Grace has no doubt that his Excellency will, in either case, give directions that such evidence may be immediately communicated to him, to the intent that each person so affected by it may either be proceeded against in due course of law, or removed to Ireland, to be tried in that country, in case his Majesty’s Government there shall think proper to demand him, according to the nature of each offence, and the country where it shall have been committed, There arc some papers found in Mr. L.’s possession that tend directly to show his connexion with some of the most desperate of the republican party here, as well as with those who are in habitual communication with the French agents at Hamburg; and his Grace is in daily expectation of some material evidence from that place tending more directly to implicate that gentleman in a treasonable correspondence with the enemy.

That his grace never obtained what he so anxiously desired, is manifest from the sequel. The information he sought so diligently he would, no doubt, have unscrupulously received; and my only wonder, now that the publication of the Castlereagh letters has shown me, in full light, the pitfall over which I stood 50 years ago, is, that some of Mr. Cooke’s “gentlemen” did not contrive to satisfy the longing of the noble duke. With such good will to the work, his grace and his colleagues were, after all, but bungling manufacturers of treason, or they would have discovered in the pockets of O’Coigly, or in the memories of the frequenters of the Furnival’s Inn “Free and Easy,” enough to have hung so desperate a traitor as myself. As to the papers alleged by Mr. Wickham to have been found in my possession, and “tending directly to show my connexion with some of the most desperate of the Republican party” in London and Hamburgh, I now solemnly declare, that I believe the statement to be a pure fiction, and that no papers were found - as I am most certain that, with my knowledge, no papers existed - which could have had any such tendency, more directly or indirectly than, perhaps, a visiting ticket of Arthur O’Connor’s, or a note from O’Coigly in acceptance of my invitation to dinner.

The questions put to me by the privy councillors, whose names I have mentioned, were very numerous; but I refused to answer any of them, until; at the end of six weeks, I was finally brought up, and told I should be liberated. I then offered to answer any questions that might be put to me candidly and fully-I had nothing to conceal. Advantage was taken of this offer, and I was asked what I knew of O’Coigly. I stated how much and how, just as I have now recorded the narrative of my intercourse with that unfortunate man. I was then asked if I was acquainted with Mr. Bonham, and had ever accompanied him to Furnival’s Inn; to which I also replied fully. The question was then put- “Was I a United Irishman?” To which I answered- “I was, before any law was passed against that society.” At length Lord Loughborough closed the conference by saying- “Mr. Lawless, we believe you have been imprudent rather than criminal; your father is very angry with you for incurring our suspicions; be careful in future, and we will esteem you as we do him.”

Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Portland also assured me that “they were sorry for what had happened; that my good nature had led me astray; but they had a great regard for my father, and hoped we would be good friends for the future;” and so ended this first act of my persecutions. One or two documents connected with it, which I have found among my papers, I will here introduce, as being corroborative of the testimony of my own recollection *

Nicholas Lord Cloncurry to Lord Loughborough.*

Dublin, 20th June, 1798.

“My Lord - I request you may receive my most sincere thanks for the goodness and condescension your Lordship has shown to my son, as I have been informed by a friend; and in advising my son, a young man who, I fear, had been led into great indiscretion, by the influence and example of persons with whom he associated, several of whom, perhaps, highly respectable from rank and connexion, but whose opinions on political subjects are, in the present situation of the empire, very doubtful - I believe I may say dangerous - and, as he well knew, extremely opposite to the principles which I wish him to entertain.

I have the honour to be, with respect and gratitude, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most obedient humble servant,

Cloncurry” *

The Hon. Charlotte Lawless to Lord *--- [The title has been omitted in the copy, which is in my sister’s handwriting; but I believe her correspondent to have been Lord Moira. The Hon. Charlotte Lawless, my youngest sister, married Colonel Edward Plunkett, fourteenth Lord Dunsaney.]

“My Lord - Having been apprised of Colonel Clavering’s truly kind effort to interest your Lordship for my brother, Lord Cloncurry, and having seen your Lordship’s obliging answer, I feel most anxious, by the communication of every information his friends could obtain, to remove, as far as possible, the difficulties which a politic mystery observed as to the real cause of his confinement, and the various reports industriously circulated, must naturally oppose to the most earnest intention to befriend him.

The memorial which mistaken but well-meant zeal troubled your Lordship to present, without my brother’s knowledge or consent, could contain nothing but the general grievances of his situation; and I cannot think that any application of the kind is likely to induce the Duke of Portland, &c., &c., to allow that the warrant under which my brother is confined cannot be justified. I therefore request to intrude another memorial on your Lordship’s attention, which contains everything relative to his arrest and detention that could, with prudence, be made public; and submit to your Lordship’s consideration whether it, being addressed immediately to the king, does not afford the best, the only chance of redress. If such a measure is strictly proper, I speak the wishes of all my brother’s friends when I entreat your Lordship to present it to his Majesty. There are passages in this memorial not so explicit as I am desirous to be with you, my Lord. Since my brother’s arrest, I have, with the assistance of friends, endeavoured to discover whether there was any information, true or false, against him; suspicion being all that was alleged, and the supposed offence said in this country to relate to the mutiny of the fleet, or to some offence his conduct in London gave to English ministers; and in England, the result of every inquiry was, that information was sent from this side the water, and that being an United Irishman and implicated in the rebellion, was imputed to him. Of the falsehood of the last accusation there is not only the strongest proof, in his name never having been mentioned in the secret reports or any of the trials of this country, but upon an application I made to Lord Cornwallis, he assured me, through his secretary, that he had purposely caused to be examined the papers in the various offices under him, and that I might be assured no official information had gone from Ireland against my brother, which directly contradicts an assertion Mr. Cooke made to me. As to the egregious absurdity of his knowing anything concerning the mutiny of the fleet, it is not worth speaking of: he was not above 18 at the time.

I will now, my Lord, tell you, in the fullest confidence, what I am as fully persuaded as of my existence, is the sole charge that could be proved against him. Numbers of poor Irish, whom he had not the means to assist, were in the habit of soliciting relief from him in London. To assist them, and also to furnish means of defence to some of his unfortunate countrymen-persons who were to stand their trial in England, and who he thought were unjustly accused - he openly called on all his acquaintance to subscribe; and never conceived it possible that his doing so could meet the disapprobation of anybody, much less that it could ever be deemed illegal. I understand, however, it may be construed so.

He undoubtedly gave offence, also, by his interference in regard to Coldbath Fields, though the measures adopted there since prove that he was in the right, and by making public his sentiments on the Union. It cannot be supposed, however, that the treatment he has received had no other foundation; and it is a cruel circumstance that I am obliged to observe the most guarded caution on points that leave not a doubt in my mind that private malice took advantage of public confusion, and by acts of the basest treachery and gross misrepresentation, contrived to make ministers believe they were taking a step of necessary and even lenient precaution, in arresting and detaining my persecuted brother.

Mr. Lees and Mr. Cooke I do believe to be the decided though concealed enemies of my brother. They had been intimate in our family as long as I can remember; and until my brother was of an age to see their views and character, always affected to lead my father’s opinions and direct his decisions on every political question. I need not say how opposite was the part my brother urged him to take. He succeeded for a time; but by alarming insinuations, and false construction of his opinions, these gentlemen so irritated my father against him, that, aware of their conduct, he went to them separately, and told them, that if they persisted to interfere between him and his father, he would resent it. This occurred just before his going to London, to pursue his studies at the Temple, in the year 1797. My father continued in the sentiments his own unbiassed judgment and my brother’s wishes led him to entertain of the proceedings in this country, until the ever-to-be-lamented events of the year ‘98.

I know no person who was more sincerely grieved at that fatal rebellion than my brother, who saw that the blind infatuation of those who led the wretched people to destruction, though their intentions sprung from feelings that do them no dishonour, afforded the greatest triumph to the real enemies of Ireland. I have ever possessed his entire confidence; and his letters to me contain the strongest evidence of the falsehood of those imputations, by which every endeavour has been made to injure his character, and by which my father was so incensed as to be on the point of disinheriting him; or, as he mentioned to a friend who interceded for him, leaving him and all of its under the control of Mr. Lees.

With my father’s life ended the views of this seeming friend of our family. Mr. Cooke, I believe, acted from resentment, and, perhaps, apprehension of the threat my brother held out. Both together, I am convinced, represented him to government as too dangerous to be left at liberty, and gave such a turn to the few acts of imprudence his generous, benevolent disposition led him into, as might, in some measure, justify his arrest. Knowing we had no friends who had any interest to cause an inquiry into the business, they supposed he would remain forgotten in his prison; but when they found that the zealous affection of sisters fondly attached to the best of brothers, of whom they have ever been justly proud, would make every possible exertion to procure his liberation, they adopted the plan of appearing to serve us; and I do conceive that they would now wish him at liberty, and their proceedings undiscovered. Mr. Cooke visited my brother in the Tower; and a gentleman, admitted frequently to see him, understood from my brother, that the purport of Cooke’s visit was, to hint to him that an acknowledgement of his having been in error would procure his liberty. He not only spurned with indignation at this offer, but, I fear, let Cooke see that he knew where all the injustice he suffered originated. This was very unguarded, as those who had the power to cause may also prolong his confinement, if they find themselves interested to do so-a consideration that has obliged me to a forbearance I would still wish to observe, did it not appear to me necessary that those who interest themselves for my brother should know such strong presumptions of the most unworthy conduct towards him.

I have not entered into this detail, my Lord, from the idea that all the calumny which tyrannical oppression endeavouring to exculpate itself, malevolent design, or prejudice, has vented on my brother, could make any impression unfavourable to him on a liberal mind, but in the hope that should you find any opportunity to serve him, the possession of the facts I have stated may be useful. He has given me full power to act for him in every respect, and I am certain of his approving what I do. In near two years’ severe confinement his sufferings have been such as to try the firmest mind. His father died in anger with him; an amiable, charming girl, to whom he was to have been united, has fallen a victim to her anxiety on his account; he is deprived of the consolation of almost any intercourse with his dearest friends; for as letters that must undergo inspection, or meetings in the presence of a jailor and guard, could not afford him or us any satisfaction, we have never combated his aversion to such intercourse. I know he never will leave his prison on any condition that can reflect in the least upon his character; but, perhaps, there may be some concession absolutely necessary, and no way humiliating, such as going to some other country. Of this it will be time enough to speak should it be proposed, and most joyful should I feel if it were. At present I am told to look to peace as the only probable termination of this intolerable outrage, which is little better than desiring one to resign all hope.

The miserable anxiety of my mind has made me too inconsiderate of your Lordship’s time and patience; but public and private testimony instruct me to seek no excuse for pressing on your attention a subject so interesting to every just and humane feeling. With sincere respect, I have the honour to be,

Your Lordship’s very humble servant,

Ch. Lawless.”

Immediately after my liberation from arrest-that is to say, about the end of June or beginning of July, 1798 - I left London, and being commanded by my father not to return to Ireland, I employed the summer in making a tour of England on horseback, which occupied me until the month of October, when I visited some friends in Yorkshire, and remained, partly at Harrowgate, and partly at Scarborough, during the remainder of the year. At the latter place I met Miss R--- (the sister-in-law of an intimate friend), my acquaintance with whom ended in an engagement to marry, which, after a lengthened correspondence with my father, was sanctioned by him, on condition that I should first complete my terms at the Temple, and be called to the bar. In accordance with this arrangement I returned to London at the close of 1798, much against my will, I admit, and with my mind fully engrossed by my project of marriage - indulging hopes of happiness and quiet, which it pleased his Majesty’s ministers to scatter to the winds.

Next Chapter. Cloncurry Index