Second marriage. George IV.

Chapter XI.

1807-1825.

Viceroyalty of the Duke of Richmond - My second Marriage - Domestic Circle and Occupations - Associates - Mr. Kirwan, the Geologist - Mr. Chenevix - Mr. Jephson - Viceroyalty of Lord Whitworth - A new Persecution on the score of my “d---d Politics” - Letters from Lord Whitworth - Memorandum of Mrs. Douglas’s Interview with Lord Chancellor Manners - Letters to and from Lord Manners - Affidavit of Mrs. Douglas - Letters; from Lord Whitworth, from the Earl of Limerick, from the Earl of Donoughmore - Viceroyalty of Earl Talbot - Letter from him - Lord Talbot’s Private Kindness - Public Policy - Meeting at Kilmainham to address the King - Its Conduct and Dispersal - A Characteristic Incident - Letters; from Sir Francis Burdett, from the Duke of Leinster, from Mr. Murphy - Mot of the Duke of Wellington - Visit of George IV. to Ireland - Ebullition of Loyalty - Renewal of Discord - The Lord Mayor’s Dinner - Recall of Lord Talbot - Viceroyalty of the Marquis Wellesley - His intended Policy - His Rupture with “the Castle” - Protestant War declared against him - The Bottle Riot - Stretching of the Law - Letters from Lord Holland - Enlightened Opinions of Lord Wellesley on the leading Irish Questions.

The prospects of a liberal government, held out by the accession of the ministry of “all the Talents,” were soon overcast. In 1807, the Duke of Bedford was succeeded in the viceroyalty by the Duke of Richmond, at whose court I did not present myself, but who, notwithstanding, with that unaffected *bonhommie *for which he was noted, insisted upon making my acquaintance. I met his Grace at Straffan (the seat of Mr. Henry), and he did me the honour of visiting me at Lyons. During that period, however, I had few relations with the government, and passed my time entirely in the ordinary employments of a magistrate and country gentleman, until my quiet was painfully disturbed by occurrences that ended, in the year 1811, in a dissolution of my hasty and imprudent marriage. Shortly afterwards I formed another, and more fortunate connexion, with Emily Douglas, the widow of the Hon. Joseph Leeson, and mother of Joseph, Earl of Milltown, with whom I lived in uninterrupted happiness and affection for 30 years.

I had then, with my wife’s three children and my own, a large family at Lyons, and, in all that related to my individual concerns, there were few happier or more contented men. I was never idle; the day was never long enough for my various occupations of building, draining, planting, and cultivating my grounds. In the course of them I created a fine place, and employed an army of men, at a cost, indeed, of at least £200,000, but with the advantages of vastly improving my property, and of surrounding myself with a prosperous and happy tenantry, who occasioned me no uneasiness, and put the state to but small cost for soldiers, police, or lawyers. My domestic circle was ever a joyous one, and seldom failed to be enlarged by the addition of four or five friends from among those who sympathised, or bore with my unfashionable national politics. It was always my habit to endeavour to draw around me whatever of talent, or worth, or promise among my fellow-countrymen came within the sphere of my influence, and to perform the duties of hospitality to foreign sojourners. My visitors were, therefore, numerous and various, and at Lyons *ennui *was felt as little in our evenings in the drawing-room, as in our mornings amid the labours of the fields. Of some of my habitual visitors I have already spoken, and I will now mention one or two others who were frequent and honoured guests.

First on the list I must place Mr. Kirwan, the well-known geologist and natural philosopher, who passed a good deal of time at Lyons, and ultimately purchased a residence in the neighbourhood. He was a man of extreme simplicity of character, but had attained so eminent a scientific reputation, that, even during the hottest period of the war, his letters were suffered to pass free from all parts of Europe. He was very social and entertaining; but in consequence of a convulsive affection of his throat, which rendered it disagreeable to him to eat in presence of others, it was his habit to dine alone, and not to join our party until dinner was over.

Another distinguished friend and neighbour, both of mine and Mr. Kirwan’s, was Mr. Chenevix, the chemist. He and I were not as one in politics; and he had been one of those ultra-loyal Irishmen, of whom I have spoken as having endeavoured to counteract my exertions at Vienna in favour of the United Irish deserters from the Prussian service. Nevertheless, we were not the worse neighbours for that, and he frequently joined our party. Nor can I forget the most brilliant, even of that circle which included Curran, Grattan, and Lattin - the Rev. Robert Jephson. He, truly, was the life of our society, until the splendour of his preaching and conversation so dazzled Primate Stewart, that he removed him from among us to the valuable living of Mullaghbrack, near Armagh. It was his Grace’s hope that those talents would do good service in resisting an inroad of Methodism, which then threatened to lay waste his fold; but poor Jephson, like the soldier described by Horace, no sooner found himself in possession of a *zone, *than he withdrew from the war.

[Mr. Jephson was nephew to the well-known “Roman-Portrait Jephson,” author of the “Count of Narbonne,” who, like himself, was endowed with an extraordinary brilliancy of wit. He lived at the Blackrock, in a house which still remains, nearly opposite Maretimo, and was, for a considerable period, the salaried poet laureate of the viceregal court. He lost place and pension by an untimely exercise of his wit, when dining one day at my father’s house. The dinner was given to the Lord Lieutenant, the Marquis of Buckingham, who happened to observe, in an unlucky mirror, the reflection of Jephson in the act of mimicking himself. He immediately discharged him from the laureateship.]

Amid such occupations and amusements as these, time, as I have said, passed lightly and pleasantly on.

In 1813, the Duke of Richmond was replaced by Lord Whitworth, with whom I exchanged the usual civilities. The spirit of party, however, prevailed at the court of this viceroy, and it was not long until cause of offence arose between us, and I was made to know that I was not yet forgiven for the sufferings and persecutions that had been inflicted upon me by the ministry whose opinions and policy his Excellency inherited.

My step-son, Lord Milltown, had a brother and sister, who, as their father had died before their grandfather, did not inherit the honours of Earl’s children. My wife was anxious that this accident should be set right in the usual way, by the customary grant from the King of permission to these children to take their rightful place in society, and with a view to obtaining that grant, I applied to Lord Whitworth. His Excellency seemed to think the affair a matter of course, and as he was going to England at the time, he promised to speak to the Home Secretary on the subject; but, upon his arrival at the other side, he wrote to me to say that what I desired could not be effected. Shortly after this, my neighbour, Lord Mayo, spoke to Lord Liverpool who said that there would be no difficulty about obtaining the grant, provided it was recommended in the usual way by the Irish executive, which, he said, had not been done. This being in direct contradiction of Lord Whitworth’s letter, I made no further application; but my friend, Lord Aylmer, a nephew of Lord Whitworth, happening to be at Lyons at the time, volunteered to undertake to settle the matter with his uncle, and accordingly rode over to Powerscourt to procure, as he thought he could easily do, the necessary formal letter to Lord Liverpool. He came back, however, much disappointed, and told me that owing to my “d---d politics” his mission had failed.

The matter now became one of feeling, and Mrs. Douglas, the grandmother of the children, waited on Lord Chancellor Manners, their legal guardian, to urge it upon his notice, when his Lordship assured her that ministers would gladly confer any compliment of the kind upon Lord Milltown, but that under the circumstances it would appear as if done for Lord Cloncurry, who was a Catholic emancipator, and an enemy to the government. I have stated the facts of this transaction shortly and correctly, but as they throw light upon the spirit of sound hatred to political opponents which animated the authorities of that day, I think it right to substantiate my tale by producing the documents upon which it is founded:- *

His Excellency Lord Whitworth to Mrs. Douglas.*

Phoenix-park, 12th March, 1815.

“Madam - I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 6th instant, upon a subject concerning which Lord Cloncurry did express to me his wishes some time ago.

I was lately under the necessity of informing his Lordship, that my endeavours to give effect to those wishes had not been effectual; it is true there are instances of such distinctions being conferred, but never, I believe, unless under very peculiar circumstances.

I will not fail, however, Madam, on my arrival in England, to renew the subject, and should I be enabled to do so effectually, it willl be a source of gratification to, Madam,

Your most obedient humble servant,

Whitworth.” *

Memorandum made by Mrs. Douglas of her interview with Lord Chancellor Manners.*

“Mrs. Douglas waited on Lord Manners, accompanied by the Dowager Countess of Militown; she requested his interference in favour of the minor with the Lord Lieutenant, his Excellency’s approbation being alone necessary to confirm the kind intentions of the government of England.

Lord Manners said-” Madam, I can do nothing in the business; Lord Cloncurry is a Catholic emancipator, an enemy to the Protestant ascendancy, and a most violent opposer of the government.” Mrs. Douglas replied - “My Lord, the favour is not for Lord Cloncurry, but for the minor, Earl of Milltown.” “Lord Milltown is under Lord Cloncurry’s protection, the favour would, therefore, be granted to him, Madam.”

Mrs. Douglas told him she did not think Lord Cloncurry would give five shillings for the accomplishment of it, as it was natural he should be sorry to see the children of his wife above his own. Lord Manners answered, that - “the public were not to know that, they would still imagine the favour was granted to Lord Cloncurry, who was hostile to the government; and if Lady Cloncurry had married to injure her children, she must abide the consequences.” His Lordship made use of some other very strong expressions against Lord Cloncurry, and seemed so offended, she left the room, not having been asked to sit down.” *

Lord Cloncurry to Lord Chancellor Manners.*

“My Lord - I understand that you have lately taken a liberty with my name, which I think very unwarrantable, and incompatible with that good sense and discretion which ought to accompany your high station.

My young friend, the Earl of Milltown, was anxious to obtain for his brother and sister that rank in society of which they were accidentally deprived by the premature death of their father. In order to promote his wishes, I visited Lord Whitworth shortly after his arrival in Ireland, went to his court, and paid him the respect due to the representative of the Sovereign, thinking that a man who had seen so much of the world would be above the wretched party politics and miserable bigotry which too often distinguish our provincial government. In a conversation I had with his Excellency, I mentioned the wish of Lord Militown, and stated that I did so at his particular desire, as I, myself, would neither ask nor accept of any favour from a government so constituted as was that of Ireland. His Excellency said Lord Milltown’s claim was natural, just, and reasonable, and promised it his support; he afterwards wrote to Mrs. Douglas, Earl Milltown’s grandmother, stating that his endeavours to give effect to Lord Milltown’s wishes had not been successful, in consequence of some impediment in England, but promised to renew his exertions when he went there himself. His Excellency soon after wrote to her from London, stating that his endeavours were still unsuccessful.

In the beginning of this year a friend of Lord Milltown’s having made the necessary applications in England, succeeded in removing all obstacles there, and having the matter, merely *pro forma; *referred to the Lord Lieutenant for his sanction. I was astonished to hear that his Excellency had determined to oppose what he had previously promised to support, and that his opposition arose from hostility to me. This his Excellency has denied, under his hand, in the most explicit terms; so, also, has Mr. Peel; but your Lordship, in a recent interview with Mrs. Douglas, had the offensive and indiscreet candour to declare that, however favourably you were disposed towards Lord Mflltown, yet, he being under my protection, the request could not be granted, nor would you do anything in the business because I was an emancipator, an enemy to the Protestant ascendancy, and a violent opposer of the government. And in relation to Lady Cloncurry you added, that when a woman marries to injure her children, she must submit to the consequence.

Now, my Lord, I forbear to dwell upon the indelicacy of mixing up political prejudices with the duties of your high station; I forbear to enter into any justification of ray opinions or principles, but permit me to ask your Lordship, where is the justice or equity of making them the ground for counteracting the laudable wishes of a young nobleman, who, as a ward of your court, is peculiarly under your guardianship and protection, and why should you use my name in a manner calculated to excite his prejudices and the prejudices of his family against me, by attributing to me the disappointment of his hopes.

I am never ashamed to avow my political principles, and do not think them the less respectable for differing from those of your Lordship. I am deeply interested in the prosperity and happiness of my native country, and detest that narrow-minded bigotry which destroys both. If you think you are authorised to punish me for this, you should confine that punishment to myself and not visit it on an unoffending person.

Your hostility to me seems to have commenced from the following circumstances:- Soon after your appointment to the seals in Ireland, you removed Mr. Wogan Browne, my neighbour and friend, from the magistracy of two counties, leaving him in that of a third, so that you either insulted him gratuitously, or you knowingly left an improper person in the coin-mission. That he was undeserving such treatment every body who knew him will allow - he was the best magistrate, country gentleman, grand juror, and landlord whose loss we had to deplore for many years. An accomplished scholar, kind-hearted and liberal, he injured a large fortune by a profuse and almost indiscriminating hospitality which we have not since seen in Kildare - “Tros Triviuse fuit nullo ille discrimine habetur.”

His good sense and moderation checked the indignation which such an insult excited in every man of property in the country. The circumstance, however, was alluded to at a county meeting, and I could not help condemning such a proceeding of a stranger, without property in the country, towards such a man as Mr. Browne. To this I attribute your marked hostility to me in every little matter where you have the power to show it; if confined to myself I should treat it with utter indifference, but when brought to bear on others who happen to be connected with me, I feel myself called upon to remonstrate against such injustice.” *

Lord Chancellor Manners to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin, June 27, 15i7.

“My Lord - Your letter, which I have this instant read, so far as it relates to Lord Milltown, and to anything I have said or done upon that subject, is in the matter of it so utterly unfounded, and in the manner of it so extremely offensive, that I do not feel it incumbent upon me to take any further notice of it than by saying that it is a gross misrepresentation.

As to the removal of the late Mr. Wogan Browne from the magistracy, I never, to the best of my recollection, heard, until I read your Lordship’s letter, that you had expressed any opinion upon it; and I do assure your Lordship, that your style of writing to me makes me perfectly indifferent to any opinion you may form or express upon my conduct on that or any other occasion.

Your humble servant,

Manners.” *

Lord Cloncurry to Lord Chancellor Manners.*

“My Lord - Having left home for some days before the arrival of your Lordship’s communication of the 27th ult., I had it only in my power to desire that a copy of Mrs. Douglas’s informations should be forwarded to you.

I hope your Lordship will acknowledge that what she affirms may have excused any hastiness in a person so peculiarly circumstanced as I am; and that as I can safely affirm, that I should be most sorry to give offence to your Lordship or any other person, you will feel I owe it to my character, and to the happiness of my domestic circle, to seek a further explanation, or, if possible, a remedy for what Mrs. Douglas has deposed to.” *

Affidavit of Mrs. Douglas, Daughter of Sir Paul Crosbie, Bart., and Mother to Lady Cloncfurry. *[The history of this family contains an incident lamentably characteristic of the English model of justice in Ireland. The son of Sir Paul Crosbie, and brother of Mrs. Douglas, Sir Edward Crosbie, Baronet, of Nova Scotia, a gentleman of liberal opinions, but altogether innocent of treasonable or other criminal designs or acts, was arrested in Carlow in 1798, tried by a court martial, sentenced to death, and executed by torch light a few hours before the arrival of an order from the Lord Lieutenant for his transmission to Dublin.]

“I waited on the Chancellor, accompanied by Lady Milltown, who, after introducing me to his Lordship, quitted the room. On my mentioning to him that the government in England (and showing some documents I brought with me to prove it) were favourably disposed towards Lord Milltown’s claim for his brother and sister, provided Lord Whitworth approved of it, I therefore waited on him to entreat his influence with his Excellency, he said immediately, “Madam, I can do nothing in the business. Lord Cloncurry is a Catholic emancipator, and an enemy to the Protestant ascendancy, the most violent opposer of the government.” I replied, “My Lord, the favour is not to Lord Cloncurry, but to Lord Milltown.” His answer was, “Lord Milltown is under Lord Cloncurry’s protection; the favour would, therefore, be granted to him.” I said, “I don’t believe Lord Cloncurry would give five shillings to accomplish it; on the contrary, it is natural he would dislike to see those children above his own.” He replied, “The world are not to know that: the favour would still appear as granted to him. The government would be happy to oblige Lord Milltown, but, living under the protection of Lord Cloncurry, it would be obliging him.” I named to him the Thomond family, a collateral succession. He replied, “You forget, madam, they all got it through Mr. Saurin’s interest, who is the strong support of the Protestant ascendancy, whereas Lord Cloncurry is hostile to us.” I then stated the situation I had left Lady Cloncurry in, from illness brought on through anxiety of mind on her hopes being blasted for her children. He said, ” When a woman marries to injure her children’s prospects in life, she must submit to the consequences.

M. E. Douglas.” *

Lord Chancellor Manners to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin, July 12th, 1817.

“My Lord- Your Lordship’s letter, which I yesterday received, is entitled to an answer from me. I stated, in reply to your former letter (which was couched in terms calculated, and I must suppose intended, to irritate and insult me), that the language imputed to me, in a conversation with Mrs. Douglas, was a gross misrepresentation; and I persist in that assertion, notwithstanding the affidavit made before your Lordship, as a magistrate, by Mrs. Douglas. Your Lordship says that Mrs. Douglas is a most respectable lady. I do not mean to controvert that fact; but I am very sorry she forgot that character, and your Lordship did not remind her of it, when she made the supposed substance of a conversation pressed upon me in my study the subject of an affidavit. If Mrs. Douglas conceived that I had said anything injurious to your feelings or character, she ought to have apprised me of it, and to have given me an opportunity of explaining myself and disabusing her. As to calling you an emancipator and an enemy to the Protestant ascendancy and government, I profess I never knew, and do not at this moment know, and little do I care, what are your sentiments upon that subject - whether you agree with Lord Liverpool or Lord Castlereagh; but I am perfectly sure I never used any such expression; and the rest of this garbled conversation is, I am convinced, equally misrepresented. And now, my Lord, I wish you to understand that I am taking this trouble, not to satisfy your Lordship-for I think you have no claim upon me whatever - nor to prevent your having recourse to any measure you may think proper, but to complain how abominably I am treated by your Lordship and Mrs. Douglas, by supposing me so disqualified for the situation and office I hold in this country, as to be capable, wantonly and unprovoked, of insulting any gentleman.

I am your Lordship’s humble servant,

Manners.” *

His Excellency Lord Whitworth to Lord Cloncurry.*

Phoenix Park, 27th June, 1817.

“My Lord - As your Lordship did not intend that the affidavit of Mrs. Douglas should be communicated by me to the Lord Chancellor, I return it to your Lordship. I remain, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s very obedient, humble servant,

Whitworth.” *

The Earl of Limerick to Lord Cloncurry.*

(Private.)

Mansfield-street, July 1st, 1817.

My dear Lord - I hasten to answer your Lordship’s letter of the 28th ult., this moment received.

I deeply lament the disappointment your family has experienced in the refusal to grant the desired rank to Miss Leeson.

If your Lordship’s information be well founded, that the refusal given has been caused by any political conduct of yours, it is still more mortifying and distressing. I trust, however, that you have been misinformed upon that subject. It must be well known to government, that for a long series of years your Lordship’s conduct, both as a magistrate and a country gentleman of great influence, has been most exemplary; and that your exertions in preserving the peace of your county have been most active and most successful.

I deeply feel for the kindness you express towards me in the close of your letter. Your kind conduct, on a late unfortunate occasion, can never by me be forgotten. Believe me, my dear Lord, with sincere regard and affection,

Most truly yours,

Limerick.” *

The Earl of Donoughmore to Lord Cloncurry.*

Bulstrode-street, Leaden, 5th July, 1817.

Dear Cloncurry - You will not doubt the interest with which I perused your letter, nor, as I trust, the indignation which your statements excited in my mind. To have an opportunity of giving vent to those feelings in my place in parliament, would have been to me a most gratifying exercise of my privilege as a member of that body. But it was fitting that I should ask myself this obvious question - Cui bono? Not being able to give to this any other but a negative answer, and being fully persuaded that, in this high prerogative time, it is a worse than fruitless task to venture to kick against power, I am bound to give it to you, as my best advice, upon the fullest consideration, not to attempt the fruitless labour of striving to interest parliament in any case of individual oppression, where the party playing the tyrant, or the mis-administrator of justice, happens to be an Orangeman and a member of the faction who have so long held the reins of power in their hands.

Could there have been presented to parliament a more flagrant case of oppression and cruel injustice than that of Mr. O’Hanlon? and yet, taken up as it was, even by Lord Grey himself, see what it has ended in-nothing but a mere statement of unredressed grievances. If, indeed, the oppressor had your feelings or mine, the mere exposure of such conduct on his part would operate as a strong penalty. But under all the circumstances, I am quite sure it would rather be considered as a triumph - the proof of a vigour beyond the law, humbly bowed to by the parliament and the public.

You have thus my candid opinion - given with the shadow of a doubt-and in which my brother, with whom I did not fail to talk the matter over, agrees with me altogether. Believe me to be

Yours always, dear Cloncurry, and very truly,

Donoughmore.” *

The Earl of Limerick to Lord Cloncurry.*

(Private.)

Mansfield-street, July 8, 1817.

“My dear Lord - I have this day received your Lordship’s very kind note, with the accompanying affidavit, which I now return.

You ask my advice whether you should commence an action on the ground of the statement in the affidavits. I shall frankly answer your question, at the same time assuring you, that I am guided in giving it by the warmest friendship, and the most sincere regard to your interest.

I am decidedly against your commencing any action, as I am persuaded it would answer no good purpose whatsoever. Your character stands too high to need any justification; and a difference of opinion upon an important subject, on which even the ministers are not agreed, cannot surely be considered criminal in any one.

I beg you will present my best respects to Lady Cloncurry, and that you will believe me to be

Your sincerely attached friend,

Limerick.”

The late Earl Talbot succeeded Lord Whitworth very shortly after the date of these letters, and the following communication from him concludes the story. The empty compliment was conceded immediately upon his Excellency’s recommendation to that effect:- *

His Excellency Earl Talbot to the Earl of Milltown.*

Dublin Castle, August 3rd, 1818.

“My Lord - I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship’s letter and its enclosure, and to inform you that I have this day written to Lord Sidmouth upon the subject of your memorial. I can have no doubt but that your wishes will be speedily carried into effect. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s faithful, humble servant,

Talbot.”

To the memory of Lord Talbot I must do the justice of saying, that although he was not able to keep himself free from the trammels of party prejudice, and did not always succeed in extending his sphere of vision beyond the limits set to it by the Castle retainers and hangers-on, still the policy of his government was based upon principles of honest economy and detestation of jobbing, and he was not influenced by those narrow partisan views that regulated the conduct of his predecessor. As his Excellency was a friend and relative of the Duke of Leinster, I frequently met him at Carton, and there, as well as in my other intercourse with him, I had an opportunity of observing that in his case the spirit of party hatred was not suffered to poison the courtesies of private life.

It never occurred to Lord Talbot - all Tory as he was - to execute vengeance for my political sins upon a boy and girl who happened to be my step-children. Nevertheless, the public rule of the government continued the same as before, and of this a remarkable example, *quorum pars fui, *occurred during the viceroyalty of the noble Earl.

At the close of the year 1820, the high sheriff of the county of Dublin, Sir Richard Steele, called a meeting of his bailiwick for the purpose of addressing George the Fourth, at that moment unpopular on account of the recent prosecution of Queen Caroline. The intention of the originators of the meeting was to compliment his Majesty; but a counter movement was determined upon by the popular party, with the view of bringing under the King’s notice certain wholesome truths which they conceived it to be of importance to the nation that he should be made acquainted with.

The attendance was very numerous, and among the leaders of the opposition were Mr. Curran, Mr. John Burne, and Mr. O’Connell. Considerable trouble had been taken by the high sheriff to fill the court-house with his friends; but the opposition was equally active, and when an address prepared for the occasion was moved, a counter address was proposed by Mr. Burne, expressing “most dutiful, loyal, and affectionate attachment to his Majesty’s person and family, and unaltered fidelity and allegiance to that inestimable constitution which placed his Majesty’s illustrious house on the throne of this realm,” and submitting that such sentiments deserved the greater consideration from his Majesty, inasmuch as they were not diminished by the multiplied distress and aggravated miseries of his faithful people of Ireland since the measure of the Union - “distress and misery, the consummation of which we trace to the misconduct and evil councils of your Majesty’s present ministers, who have endeavoured to deceive your royal mind into a belief, that the honest expression of feelings, excited by sufferings on the one hand, and unconstitutional proceedings on the other, have arisen from disaffection and disloyalty.”

The document concluded with an assurance of “inexpressible satisfaction at the termination of the late proceedings in the House of Lords, sincerely hoping that proceedings so dangerous and unconstitutional never will be revived in any shape.”

The remainder of the proceedings I will tell in the words, somewhat abridged, of a newspaper of the day:-

“The sheriff interrupted Mr. Burne, and said he would hear no more from him, and that he would put the question upon the address, which he held in his hand, and dissolve the meeting.

Mr. Burne insisted upon his right to be heard.

Mr. O’Connell, and several other gentlemen, declared their intention to address the meeting before the question could be put.

The sheriff persevered, and exclaimed in a loud voice, *“*As many as are of opinion that this address do pass, say aye. A few voices exclaimed, “aye, aye,” and they were instantly replied to by one hundred Noes for every Aye. The question, however, was not put by the sheriff in the alternative at all, and he declared the meeting to be dissolved. He then said he hoped that the loyalists would retire accordingly. “The party” withdrew, and demonstrated what a trivial portion they composed of the meeting: with the exception of the bench, which was thinned, the rest of the meeting apparently suffered no diminution.

Mr. O’Connell then addressed the meeting; he declared that the chairman had abdicated the chair, but that he had no right to dissolve the meeting until they had completed the business for which they were convened; for that purpose he should move that Lord Cloncurry do take the chair. The motion was immediately seconded, and put and carried by acclamation.

Lord Cloncurry came forward to take the chair amidst the enthusiastic plaudits of the freeholders.

The sheriff said he would oppose Lord Cloncurry’s taking the chair.

Lord Cloncurry - The freeholders of the county of Dublin have done me the honour to call me to the chair, and I will cheerfully obey their commands. I most solemnly protest against the illegal and unconstitutional conduct of the sheriff this day; he has assumed to himself the control of the meeting at which he was merely ministerial; he has endeavoured to stifle the public voice and public opinion; his conduct is inconsistent with every notion of law or liberty; and I am happy to obey the call which directs me to give all the resistance in my power to proceedings so arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Here the sheriff was understood to threaten to commit Lord Cloncurry if he persisted in keeping the chair.

Mr. O’Connell - Prepare your prison then if it be large enough to contain us all - we will accompany him there. More freeholders will accompany him there, then were found to vote at the last election; nor will they regret the absence of their representatives, though they may have an opportunity of reminding them of that absence.

The sheriff then said that he would call in the military. He called upon Lord Cloncurry immediately to withdraw.

Lord Cloncurry - I will not withdraw; this is the freeholders’ house, built with the freeholders’ money; at their will I have taken the chair; I am a magistrate of this county; no man shall use illegal violence in my presence, unless he has a force superior to the law. In support of the law I am ready to perish in this chair, and nothing shall tear me from it.

The sheriff said the meeting was an illegal meeting, and that he would disperse it.

Mr. O’Connell - The meeting is a perfectly legal meeting; let every freeholder, who values his rights, remain; and if any man is prosecuted for remaining here, let me be that man, for I have, and shall every where avow that I have, advised and counselled you to continue the meeting.

The sheriff withdrew; the most perfect order and decorum sill prevailed. The court-house then exhibited one of the most crowded and respectable meeting we have ever witnessed.

Mr. Burne addressed the chair, and proceeded to discuss the topics which he though ought to be comprised in a loyal address, such as would be creditable to the independent freeholders of the metropolitan county, respectful to the royal person, and serviceable to the stability of the throne. He had not uttered many sentences, when a side-door was thrown in with a violent crash. Soldiers commanded by one officers entered, and were soon seen at every side of the meeting. They commanded the freeholders, in the most peremptory manner, to withdraw. Some violence was offered to individuals, but, certainly, not much, as the privates conducted themselves with good temper, and the freeholders dispersed.

Lord Cloncurry kept his seat; Mr. Curran placed himself by his side; two soldiers, with bayonets in their hands, ascended the bench close to Mr. Curran, who, good-humouredly, but firmly, put the weapons aside. The officers, standing on the table, order Lord Cloncurry to withdraw.

Lord Cloncurry replied that he was a magistrate, presiding over a legal meeting of the King’s subjects; that he would remain until the proceedings were regularly brought to a close, unless he was removed by actual force.

The officer said he must use force, and he drew, or was in the act of drawing his sword, and force was actually applied to Lord Cloncurry’s person before he left the bench.

The freeholders being thus dispersed by actual violence, assembled in immense numbers at the opposite public-house. A chair was procured for lord Cloncurry in the passage. Mr. Burne moved the address, which was read and seconded by Mr. O’Connell. The question was then put upon itt, by Lord Cloncurry, when it was adopted amidst the acclamations of the freeholders that filled and surrounded the house.

Mr. O’Connell then moved that a committee should be appointed to lay before the Lord Lieutenant the outrageous and illegal conduct of the sheriff on that day. He prefaced the motion in a short and animated speech, in which he congratulated the freeholders upon their triumph, which the very violence of their opponents was the strongest proof of their having obtained. He said that he felt happy in the hope that all would sympathise with the inhabitants of this trampled land. The people of England would now see that the Irish, however attached to liberty, could attend a meeting convened by a sheriff only at the peril of their lives.

Let the people of England learn from the events of this day the fate that is reserved for them, if they do not, while there is yet time, one and all resist the machinations of a ministry, of which the leading personage is the very man who extinguished the liberties of his native land, and laid her prostrate under the hoof of every illegal violence. Mr. O’Connell’s motion was seconded and carried unanimously.

It was then moved that Counsellor Burne, King’s counsel, should take the chair, and the thanks of the meeting were voted, amidst the most enthusiastic cheering, to Lord Cloncurry, for his resolute, manly, constitutional conduct that day, and for the uniform and undeviating patriotism of his whole life. The meeting then broke up.

As Lord Cloncurry was departing, there was an universal cry to chair him into town, and he was surrounded for that purpose by a large group of gentlemen near the gate of the Old Man’s Hospital, but his Lordship succeeded in preventing them from carrying their intention into execution, by addressing them in a short speech.

He entreated them to forbear. They owed him no compliment, or, if they did, their thanks amply repaid him. The approbation they had uniformly bestowed upon his conduct was, to his mind, a reward superior to any monarchs could bestow. He would always live in Ireland. He was early attached to the principles of liberty, the foundation of the British constitution. The miseries of his native land only rendered those principles more dear to him, and the events of that day served but the more to convince him of the value of law and liberty, by showing how abject was the state of man when deprived of those blessings; a chairing, however innocent, might be construed into a riot, and that construction might be written in blood.

“Let us,” said his Lordship, “by our orderly conduct, furnish the strongest contrast to our opponents, and not tarnish the victory we have gained this day, by affording them the slightest pretence for censure. Let us, my friends, depart in peace, and not give a handle to your enemies for any additional act of violence.” The people then gave his Lordship three cheers and retired, exclaiming ” your advice shall ever be considered by us as a command.”

A characteristic incident occurred at the second meeting, which will not occupy much time in the telling. In the confusion of the expulsion from the court-house, Mr. Burne mislaid his counter-address, and when he was searching his pockets for it, after he had finished his speech, Mr. O’Connell, who was standing near, said, “Here it is,” and put a paper into his hand, which was moved and adopted, as described above, and duly forwarded to the King. It was, however, a composition of Mr. O’Connell’s own, very much stronger than Mr. Burne’s dutiful and loyal effusion.

The outrage committed by the high sheriff made a good deal of noise at the time. Resolutions were passed at public meetings, condemnatory of that functionary’s conduct, and formal complaint was made to Lord Talbot upon the subject. His Excellency, however, would do nothing in the premises, and gravely advised me to bring an action against the sheriff, a recommendation which I declined following, on proverbially obvious grounds. The following letters, referring to the matter, have remained among my papers:- *

Sir Francis Burdett to Lord Cloncurry.*

Bath, January 10,1821.

“Dear Lord Cloncurry - How often have I taken up the pen to write to you! but I am a sad, idle penman. Seeing, however, what has lately taken place at Kilmainham, I cannot defer expressing to you how much we are all beholden to you for your conduct, which also holds out a hope that poor cast-down Ireland may still aid the cause of liberty by her exertions, and not think it concerns only Englishmen; but call to mind that her enemies are ours, that those who have inflicted her injuries, have done the same for us, and that she should not confound English domination with the English nation; in short, that there is every reason for union - none for enmity - between the people of the two countries. Wholesome doctrines these, which, I fear, Ireland has great need of having preached; and I don’t know any one so able, on all accounts, to do it as yourself.

So much for public matters It remains for me to make inquiries after your most amiable lady; and, as this is the season of wishes, to request of you to make mine for her happiness, and yours, and family’s, acceptable; and be assured no one more sincerely sends, both all the compliments of the season, and many happy returns of them, than

Yours, very sincerely,

F. Burdett.” *

The Duke of Leinster to Lord Cloncurry.*

Harrington House, January 12, 1821.

“Dear Lord Cloncurry - I am not so much surprised, knowing the system of government in Ireland, at Lord Talbot’s refusing to attend to the application of the freeholders. I recommend you to advise them to petition both Houses, stating the fact rather under, and very mildly; also, that the government have refused to inquire into it; and praying that they will do so. My brother, I am certain, will present the one, and I will the other, as it is shameful conduct. Let them be moderate, as the conduct of the freeholders has been admirable, and you have justice at your side.

I went, yesterday, with Leicester Stanhope (who, by-the-bye, is a fine fellow, and great liberale) to the Common Council of London, and was much pleased at the independent spirit that prevailed throughout. They all declared their attachment to the King; but deprecated the idea of disloyalty, on account of differing with his ministers. I think I shall be able to stir up some friends in the Houses of Lords and Commons, to assist the freeholders of Dublin. I am sorry T--- has lost himself. The Duchess and boy are as well as possible. Most kind remembrances to Lady C.

Yours, sincerely,

Leinster.”

The names attached to the two foregoing letters tell their own tale. The following is from my venerable friend, whom it would be superfluous, In Ireland, to describe in any other terms than by his simple appellation of “Billy Murphy,” but whom I may characterise as one of the most sensible, honest, and independent, and, in his private affairs, I am happy to be able to add, successful Irishmen I have known during my long life:- *

William Murphy, Esq., to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin, January 9, 1821.

“My Lord - I had the honour of receiving your Lordship’s letters of the 4th and 8th instant-the former stating a report made to Mr. Bagot of my having advised Colonel Talbot, through Mr. James Bagot, not to attend the Kilmainham meeting. I never gave it as an opinion that Mr. Talbot should not attend that meeting; on the contrary, I thought the people’s representative of the county should have attended a meeting of freeholders called by the sheriff, and there give his opinion on any subject that might be introduced. But as Mr. Talbot did not attend the county meeting, I doubt that he should attend a meeting, on Thursday next, at the Corn Exchange; for there it will not be a meeting of freeholders of the county, but of idle and curious persons, who are ever ready to attend public meetings. In my opinion, the committee appointed by the county freeholders should, without any aggregate or public meeting, prepare petitions for Parliament, complaining of the illegal conduct of the sheriff, Sir Richard Steele; put the petitions into the hands of Lord Grey and Mr. Plunket, or any other members that your Lordship might prefer and think more likely to succeed in procuring parliamentary redress for the outrage committed on your Lordship, and on the independent freeholders of the county. this, in my humble opinion, should be looked for in the way most likely to obtain redress. But if reform and radicalism is to be trumpeted forth from next Thursday’s meeting of county freeholders, as it is intended to be called, the victory must thereby be given over to the sheriff, who, I otherwise hope, should be punished by parliament for the outrage he has committed, by calling in the military to disperse a meeting convened by himself. If the petitioners confine themselves to the mere matter of fact, and which a county and a city member must prove, if called on, I should hope Sir Richard is now in a trap, on any side of which I would not be disposed to make the smallest opening, lest he should escape. We should not lose our game, if possible; and, if lost to us, make the Parliament prove, by refusing redress to the County of Dublin freeholders, that no justice is to be had, or can be expected from them, until reformed.

If the county freeholders are now to be refused, they may afterwards look for reform - indeed, they *must do so. *I should not have taken the liberty of troubling your Lordship on this subject, were it not that you requested my opinion. I have the honour to remain, with the highest respect,

Your Lordship’s most faithful and obliged servant,

Wm. Murphy.”

It was apropos to this County of Dublin meeting, that the celebrated *mot *of the Duke of Wellington was uttered in the House of Lords:- “County meetings,” said his Grace, “are farces.” “On this occasion,” retorted the Duke of Leinster, “it was not the fault of the authorities that the farce did not turn out a tragedy.”

The viceroyalty of Earl Talbot was signalised by the visit of George the Fourth to Ireland, in the year 1821; and in the general peace-making that then took place, I was included. Overtures for a reconciliation were made to me through Lord Bloomfield, and I was invited to the royal table, where I was complimented most graciously by his Majesty. I was also present at all the public entertainments given to the King, with the exception of that of the Corporation of Dublin.

A strange madness seemed at that conjuncture to seize people of all ranks in Ireland. Men and women of all classes and opinions joined in a shout of gladness. There was nothing thought of but processions, and feasting, and loyalty - boiling-over loyalty - and I was carried on by the stream so buoyantly, that I gave a pledge of the sincerity of my own unconditional waiver of all bygones, by inviting his Majesty to honour my house by his presence; an invitation which he declined in the most gracious terms, on the ground of the shortness of his stay, and the determination he had made to refuse all invitations of the kind.

The noise of the shout of welcome had, however, scarcely ceased to sound in men’s ears, when matters fell back into their former state, and, notwithstanding the King’s parting admonition, conveyed in the letter of Lord Sidmouth, the ensuing city feast was made the scene of a new party conflict. The Lord Mayor of the day (Sir John Kingston James) happening to be a fellow-director with me upon the board of the Grand Canal Company, I accepted an invitation to his inauguration dinner, where, notwithstanding the presence of several Roman Catholics, his invited guests, he felt himself constrained by corporate custom, to give the toast of the “Glorious, pious, and immortal memory,” which was the signal for battle. On this occasion I turned down my glass, and remained seated, for reasons which I stated in a letter written at the time in the following terms:-

“Individually I have a respect for the memory of King William the Third. He was a liberal Dutchman, and intended more good to Ireland than any King I ever heard of, except his present Majesty; but as mayors and corporators are not necessarilly historians, they generally give this toast from party motives, and it has long become a kind of password among those who desire, by the insult and exclusion of their more worthy fellow-citizens, to arrogate to themselves those petty honours and emoluments which want of industry or talent render so necessary to them. Bad taste and bad feeling received a mortal wound from the hand of his Majesty; and if for one moment they may raise their heads, public opinion and the march of events must put them down. The King commands, and the times require benevolence and union.”

My friend Lord Talbot de Malahide, who sat near me, also turned down his glass. Earl Talbot drank the toast, and was directly afterwards recalled, and replaced by Lord Wellesley. The dismissal of the noble Earl was so sudden, that he was unable to leave the country with the honours usually paid to a parting Lord Lieutenant. He retired from the Castle to Carton, where I met him, and some days afterwards departed privately, much regretted, as an honest, high-minded gentleman, whose lapse into the mire of party feeling was but an incident of his position as a party minister.

The first appointment of Lord Wellesley, in 1821; to the Lord Lieutenancy, was, professedly, a sort of experiment upon the possibility of governing Ireland without reliance upon the factious support of a party.

“I have come to administer, not to alter the laws,” was the form of expression in which the noble Marquis himself announced this to be the principle upon which he had undertaken the difficult task of presiding impartially between two bitter contending factions; and I sincerely believe that he was anxiously desirous of carrying out the experiment fairly. His words were, at first, assumed to mean that he would lend no countenance to the party then actively working for the great political object of the day - the abolition of the civil disabilities imposed by the penal laws upon professors of the Roman Catholic religion - and, so interpreted, they were consoling to the ultra-Protestants, who were then the managers of “the Castle,” where they were represented by the Attorney-General Saurin, and the Chief and Under Secretaries, Messrs. Goulburn and Gregory.

It was not long, however, before a rupture took place. The habits of dominion acquired by his Excellency during his Eastern life, did not tally with the Viceroy-over-him-system, which the officials I have mentioned were accustomed to carry out; nor could they easily brook the fair administration of the law, when fairness implied any countenance to liberal opinions. Lord Wellesley and Mr. Saurin, therefore, very soon separated, and the retirement of the latter from office at once alarmed and incensed his party. A war then commenced between the Viceroy and the Protestants, in the course of which his Excellency was forced into a sort of leadership of the opposite party, which, though scarcely avoidable by him, was productive of much evil to the country.

In the course of this war, Lord Wellesley was violently attacked in the theatre by Protestant partisans, and the riot was made the occasion for a marshalling of forces upon both sides, that was eagerly seized on by the leaders, and that tended much to embitter, and, perhaps, to prolong the struggle between the parties.

The bottle-riot (as the attack upon Lord Wellesley at the Theatre was called) gave occasion to numerous addresses of condolence and congratulation on his Excellency’s providential escape, as well as to many lampoons and satires upon the alleged unreality of the danger proceeding from those whose sympathies went rather with the rioters than with the object of their attack. It also led to a step of very doubtful propriety being taken by the law officers of the government, to the evil tendency of which nothing but the blindness of party fury could have rendered men of liberal principles insensible. I allude to the filing of an *ex-officio *information by the Attorney-General, against the rioters, after bills of indictment against them had been ignored by a grand jury. I had fully sympathised with Lord Wellesley in my opinion as to the brutal violence of the attack made upon him, and had expressed my sympathy by carrying up an address on the subject, as one of a deputation from a meeting of the inhabitants of the county of Kildare; but, I confess, I felt no disposition to countenance any stretching of the law for the punishment of political offences, even though these were committed by opponents of my own political views. I presume it was the statement of my feelings on this matter that drew out the following interesting letter:- *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

March 7, 1823.

“My dear Lord - Never, I entreat you, apologise for your letters; they are always full of information and interest, and I am always gratified by the marks of confidence which they convey.

Your description of the conduct of the Irish government is but too true; but yet, Lord Wellesley’s worst enemies are our enemies, too; and his discomfiture would furnish a triumph to the most malignant and oppressive faction in your country. My old friend, Stanhope, used to say of the French convention, “When they do right I praise them; when wrong, I say nothing; *and that, you know, is candid.” *Now, though I am not quite prepared to go the full length of that candour in favour of the Irish government, I think something in the spirit of it should be found in the language and conduct of the friends to a change of system in Ireland, towards Lord Wellesley and his government. The tithe measure, and the abandonment of the Orange Lodges, are great admissions, in principle, and may effect some practical good. I am, however, afraid that the great measure of admitting the body of the people to some share in the management of their own concerns is as far off as ever.

The imprudence and omissions which you so justly animadvert upon, in the late legal proceedings, are, I think, to be ascribed to the professional advisers, rather than to the Viceroy himself. Their experience should have made them the best judges of the public temper, and their learning and practice should have rendered them masters of the constitutional question. It seems, however, to me, that a great part of your reasoning applies to the petty, not the grand jury - to the latter, I apprehend, no challenges are admitted. The fact is, that if the offence was such as called for an ex-officio information, the Attorney-General should have proceeded in that way at first; and nothing, certainly, but an enormity of danger (which has not been made out), could justify so unusual and indecorous a step, as an ex-officio information, after a grand jury had thrown out the bill. Remember me to Robeck. My son, who is in the Fifteenth, is on the point of going to Ireland. I hope you will allow him to pay his respects to you, and bear my thanks for your valuable communications.

Ever truly yours,

Vassal Holland.

You must not grudge us Leinster for a few months.”

I add, as a sort of a contrast to the foregoing, another letter from the same able hand, but of earlier date, showing that Lord Wellesley’s liberal friends were, at the outset, scarcely satisfied with his displays of vigour in the popular cause, a feeling which would, very possibly, have increased, had he been left unstimulated by personal opposition:- *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

Holland House, 27th June, 1822.

“My dear Lord - I am quite ashamed of having so long deferred my acknowledgements for your kind, interesting, and important letter. Your good opinion gives me sincere pleasure. It is quite clear that conduct like yours, if adopted by other Irish noblemen and gentlemen, would do more to tranquillise the country, and promote the happiness of the inhabitants, than a hundred police bills. I have not hitherto read the bill, nor do I intend to read it till it has passed the Commons, and been modified and altered there, as it no doubt will be, very materially. Other and very different measures are no doubt necessary.

We are not a little indignant, and somewhat disappointed too, at the great question of commutation of tithes being evaded, or, at least, postponed; and I am afraid the government on your side of the water is not exempt from the blame which you attach to it. At the same time, idleness may be roused, and vanity may take a good direction; and I cannot but indulge some hopes that there is at least a desire in the quarter you mention, to distinguish himself by some signal alteration of system.

It is, I think, the interest of those who wish well to Ireland, to strengthen, as much as they can, any party in the government which is particularly obnoxious to the ruling, or rather, misruling faction in Ireland, and to do their utmost to encourage them to do their duty.

Ever truly your obliged and obedient,

Vassall Holland.”

Upon the whole, however, Lord Wellesley’s administration was productive of a favourable effect upon the liberal cause in Ireland. Upon many of the questions then in agitation, he entertained enlarged views, and he did much to break down the underworks of the subordinate Castle influence that rendered the largest and most enlightened policy of a viceroy impracticable.

Had his way been prepared by a previous removal of these barriers, he would have settled many moot points, at a time when they might have been settled in a way that would have left behind as little of bitterness as could have been expected to attend upon the crisis of party contests much less than attended upon subsequent more violent, though, perhaps, less complete dealings with them. The Church, the Education, and the Catholic questions, all engaged his attention; and, in reference to all of them, he held enlightened opinions, and projected plans that would, I believe, have been productive of a more permanent quieting than has been attained by the measures of his successors.

To these questions it is my intention again to refer, as I took a considerable part in the discussion of all of them, and was acquainted with most of the details of their progress.

Lord Wellesley had been an old friend of my father’s, and I was, consequently, upon terms of familiar intercourse with him during his viceroyalty. He was fond of passing a day or two with me in the quiet of my villa of Maretimo, and I preserve the pleasantest recollections of the charms of his conversation, drawn, as it was, from a boundless store of political and literary knowledge, and pointed by his long and varied acquaintance with the world. Of his correspondence with me, which was extensive, I regret much that I can find no traces in the confused mass of my papers.

Next Chapter. Cloncurry Index