Memory lane. Ship Canal from Dublin to Galway.

Chapter XII.

**Waifs and Strays of Memory - A pregnant Question from Sir Francis Burdett - Mr. Peel’s Opinions on Irish Distress and Government Interference in 1817 - Ditto in 1826 - Ship Canal from Dublin to Galway - Efforts to advance that Project- Letter from Mr. Killally - Ireland, the Natural Centre of Commerce between the Hemispheres

• Letters from Secretary Grant - Letter from Sir F. Burdett - His visit to Ireland - Letters from Dr. Drennan - Letter from Earl Fitzwilliam; from Lord Holland - The Ex-Judge Johnson; Authorship of Juverna; his turn for Military Affairs - Letters from him - Letter from Baron Smith - Letter from Dr. Doyle.**

While looking over papers relating to the portion of my life alluded to in the last chapter, a number of letters came under my eye which did not naturally fall into any particular place in these recollections, but which, as they possess some features of interest, derived either from the subjects to which they relate, or from the names of the writers, may be worthy of preservation. I will, therefore, here, bundle a few of them together with that view, leaving them to be read or passed by, as the taste of my readers may guide them. From out of this chaos, a stray beam of light may, perhaps, be elicited, and shed upon a question of importance, or upon a character in the right understanding of which the public is interested. I will begin with a note, which, though short, and without a date, includes within it the germ of volumes of matter:- *

Sir Francis Burdett to Lord Cloncurry.

“*Dear Lord Cloncurry-I should like to know what you think would allay Irish agitation.

Yours truly,

F. B.” *

The Rt. Hon. (now Sir) Robert Peel to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin Castle, September 4th, 1817.

“My Lord - I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship’s letter of the 20th ult., and cannot but feel obliged to your Lordship for communicating to me your observations upon matters connected with the welfare of this country.

There can be but one opinion upon the extent and severity of the distress which has been suffered for some time past. It has been, generally speaking, submitted to with a degree of forbearance and fortitude very creditable to that numerous body who have been exposed to it. I fear, with your Lordship, that it would be vain to expect any immediate or general remedy of the evil which results from the want of employment for a vast population.

I doubt whether the benefits arising from such an extensive interference on the part of government as that which your Lordship suggests, in respect to the encouragement of public works, would be sufficient to outweigh the evils of it. The public works of this country - the canals, the roads, the county buildings - are on a scale quite commensurate with its wants; and the undertaking and completion of’ them has been, at least I think, as much encouraged by the intervention of the government in making advances of public money, as it was politic to encourage them. If new. works, such as the embankment of rivers, &c., &c., would repay the undertakers of them, they should be, and (as money can be easily had on good security) probably will be undertaken by private speculators. If they will not repay the private speculator, I doubt the policy of encouraging them.

To a certain extent, parliament has acted on the principle to which your Lordship adverts, and applied it to this country as well as England. As you may not, probably, have seen a copy of the Act which passed last session, authorising the advance of public money for the encouragement of public works on adequate security, I have the honour to enclose a copy of it. Commissioners have been appointed, and are now acting under the provisions of this Act, and several applications have been made for advances under it; but many of the applicants, I fear, will find it difficult to give the security required. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your very faithful and obedient servant,

Robert Peel.” *

The Rt. Hon. Robert Peel to Lord Cloncurry.*

Whitehall, September 7, 1826.

“My Lord - I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Lord-ship’s letter of the 1st instant.

I regret to learn that you take so gloomy a view of the prospects of Ireland, with regard to the employment and subsistence of the people.

I have recently maintained an extensive correspondence upon those points with well-informed persons in many parts of Ireland. The accounts thus transmitted to me are far from being satisfactory, but they certainly are not so extremely unfavourable as those which appear to have reached your Lordship.

You observe that something is due to Ireland; and that England owes it to justice, as well as to her own interest, to save Ireland from the horrors of pestilence and famine.

This is true: and England has, in my opinion, given abundant proof that she admits it to be true.

If reference be had to the grants of public money which have been made for the execution of useful works, and the consequent encouragement of industry in Ireland; and to the generous zeal with which the people of England lent their voluntary aid to the succour of Ireland, when she was last exposed to pestilence and famine, no man can, with justice, impute either to the parliament or to the people of this country indifference to the sufferings of the Irish poor. They certainly ought not to carry - and I, for one, hope they never will carry - their sympathy so far as to take upon themselves the discharge of those obligations (obligations of justice and moral duty, if not of strict law) to which the landed proprietors of Ireland, resident anti non-resident, are subject. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your obedient servant,

Robert Peel.

P.S. - So far as I can form a judgment of the particular project to which you refer, a ship-canal between Dublin and Galway, I see, at present, ample grounds for doubting its practicability.”

Of the history of the project for a ship-canal alluded to in Mr. Peel’s postscript, I may as well here give a brief sketch, although it is probable that all such projects have received their quietus from the success of railroads: at least they must await some new turn in the rapidly changing art of locomotion. Nevertheless, in the year 1827, matters bore a different aspect; and, holding in view the desirability of devising some plan for laying a foundation for the permanent, profitable employment of the people, I addressed to several Irishmen of influence a letter containing the following passage

“I know nothing so likely to be a great national benefit as the formation of a ship-canal from Galway to Dublin. It would give a new and great stimulus to the trade of England; it would shorten, by one-third, the duration of an American or West Indian voyage; it would put an end to the dangers of the Channel (whether arising from storms or from steam privateers), in conjunction with the projected canals from Portsmouth to London, and from the Bristol to the British Channel; it would make the finest system of internal navigation in the world, if made on a permanent, uniform, and grand scale. Ireland affords peculiar and very remarkable facilities for such an undertaking; though mountainous to the north and to the south, the centre is an extensive plain, nowhere more than 270 feet above tide-water; the soil of easy excavation, the land of small value in its present state, though the very cutting of the canal would drain and improve near half a million of acres, growing food for and giving employment to as many persons, and securing repayment of the capital expended. I have known similar land in Ireland to have advanced from one penny to five pounds, in less than ten years, by the formation of a canal.”

To a requisition calling a public meeting to consider the advantages of the project, a large number of names were immediately signed, including those of dukes, marquises, earls, lords, baronets, and members of parliament, of all parties and opinions.

The meeting, thus sanctioned, was accordingly held, and the advantages of the measure resolved upon, *nemine contradicente; *but nothing further was accomplished beyond an outlay from my pocket of a few hundred pounds, in procuring a plan and maps, towards the cost of which the only contribution I received was £50 from the Duke of Leinster. The engineer I employed was the late Mr. Killaly, a gentleman who had been very extensively engaged in the construction of works for inland navigation in Ireland. His preliminary letter upon the subject may, perhaps, interest some readers:- *

John Killaly, Esq.; to Lord Cloncurry.*

Tullamore, 15th September, 1827.

“My Lord - A great press of business, principally connected with the interests of the Grand Canal, prevented me earlier communicating with your Lordship on the subject of your great project for carrying a ship-canal across this kingdom, the magnitude of which would be considered by most people as an insurmountable barrier to even an investigation of its practicability.

I, however, have not been unmindful of your wishes, having looked generally into my papers with the view of ascertaining the probable course, and also the probable expense of this great design. I have done this to prepare your Lordship to speak on the subject; but do not pledge myself, except generally, as to the accuracy of my deductions.

I am of opinion the best line for this great undertaking lies between the two existing canals; and that after it crosses the Liffey, in the neighbourhood of Celbridge, it should proceed by Cloncurry, Kinnegad, Tyrrellspass, Kilbeggan, Clara, Ballycumber, Ferbane, and enter the Shannon a little to the northward of Shannon Harbour; continue in the bed of that river, and of the river Suck, to near Ballinasloe; pass from thence by Aughrim, Athenry, and Oranmore, into the harbour of Galway, near to the town.

The scale I would recommend is as follows:- The canal to be 80 feet wide at the bottom, and 150 at water surface, and to have 20 feet depth of water on the sills of the locks; the locks to be 40 feet wide between the quoins, and 180 feet in length from sill to sill; the rises or falls not to exceed 10 feet.

You are aware there must be two summits on this canal - one between the Bay of Dublin and the Shannon, another between the Shannon and the Bay of Galway. From Dublin Bay to the Shannon there will be 24 ascending, and 14 descending locks; and from the Shannon to the Bay of Galway there will be 12 ascending and 22 descending locks. The following is an estimate of the probable cost of the work, on the scale already mentioned:-

104 Irish miles of excavation and embankment, averaging £70 per perch, or £22,400 per mile £2,329,600

72 Locks, lock-gates, and machinery, sinking foundations, backing, &c., complete, at £13,000 each 936,000

200 Bridges, at £1,800 each 360,000

Aqueducts, tunnels of different kinds, regulators, &c., say 66,000

Purchase of water, also making cupply courses &c. say 600,000

Purchase of lands and houses, quarries, &c. say 200,000

  £4,491,600

Incidents, superintendence, &c., fifteen per cent. 673,240

Total £5,164,840

I have to observe, in answer to your question, that the locks on the Grand Canal are 15 feet wide and 70 feet long; the canal, in cutting, 20 feet six inches at bottom, and 40 feet at water surface; depth on sills of locks, five feet.

Trusting the foregoing may prove satisfactory, I beg leave to assure your Lordship that I shall feel pleasure in affording gratuitously, the present or any further *general information you *may require. My charge, when professionally employed, is three guineas per diem and my expenses. I remain, my Lord, with high respect,

Your very obedient servant,

John Killaly.”

The project of a ship-canal between the eastern and western, or south-western coasts of Ireland, never came to maturity; yet the mention of it can scarcely fail of suggesting to a reflective mind a consideration of the persisting soundness of a policy that would make Ireland the commercial centre between the old and new worlds. No man can for a moment doubt that if this island were a barren rock, unincumbered with inhabitants, its southern and western seaboards would certainly have been made the frontier of British commerce. The British merchant would not have incurred treble risks from storm and war, nor a treble rate of insurance upon his *ships, *had he been able to load and unload them at Galway or Limerick, Berehaven or Cork, in harbours not de-Anglicised by the presence of an Irish population. Nay, the natural course of trading speculation would have led to the same results, had the union between the two kingdoms been complete, and the natural progress of the interests of their inhabitants been undisturbed by national jealousies. It requires but a narrow confidence in the force of human improvement, to foresee that the consummation pointed out by nature will sooner or later be arrived at. *

Mr. Secretary Grant (now Lord Glenelg) to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin Castle, February 10th, 1819.

“My Lord - I am truly obliged to your Lordship for the letter with which you have favoured me. The evils which you describe demand immediate attention. Whether it may be possible for me to attempt a remedy this session I cannot say, and dare not promise it; but I shall lose no time in giving my best consideration to the subject. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient servant,

Chas. Grant.” *

Mr. Secretary Grant to Lord Cloncurry.*

London, May 14, 1822.

“My Lord - I beg to thank your Lordship for the gratification of your polite letter and the accompanying tracts.

I regret that the number of magistrates in your Lordship’s neighbourhood is so defective. I presume the Chancellor is about to carry into effect a renewal of the general magistracy of Ireland.

Your Lordship will have observed that the distress of the south and south-west of Ireland have excited the warmest sympathy in this country. We hear of meetings in all parts. Our subscriptions in London amounted this day to £26,000, and they are increasing. I trust that the noble conduct of Great Britain on this occasion will have happy effects on the Irish people. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient, humble servant,

Chas. Grant.” *

Sir Francis Burdett to Lord Cloncurry.*

(Franked July 30, 1815.]

Ramsbury Manor.

“Dear Lord Cloncurry - I have a heavy sin upon my conscience in not long since sending you a line; but I trust you will impute it to the true reason, the want of time. I assure myself you will not attribute it to any want of recollection of the many happy hours we passed together in dear Ireland. I am at length got into shade and retirement; and the first use I make of it is to call to mind my happy days in Ireland, and to endeavour to again bring myself into the recollection of my friends there, amongst whom, I flatter myself, I may count on you as one.

I hope this will find Lady Cloncurry, Lord Milltown, and all your amiable family, not forgetting our young traveller, well and happy. I never was able to get to Eton, as I resolved day after day, to see him; but you know, in the midst of hurry and bustle, how it happens that one puts off, from day to day, what one ought and always intends to do. He will think this, I fear, a shabby excuse and yet it is quite true; but when he returns I hope you wilt let me know. I had cherished hopes of being able to return to Ireland this summer; but that, owing to the dissolution, was absolutely impossible.

The Duke of Leinster will bring you over a charming and most accomplished and agreeable Duchess. I dined with them at Lord Tavistock’s a few days before his marriage; so Carton will now be completely furnished. I saw, by the paper, Sir C. and Lady Morgan were come to town; but it did not say where they were, or I should send them a line to ask them here. Can you tell me anything about the enclosed. It is said I subscribed by your recommendation. I settled with Ridgeway.

Lady Burdett begs her compliments may be made acceptable to Lady Cloncurry, and to say she has found the cloak most comfortable. As 1 shall now, for a few months, be at leisure, I shall be happy to attend to any commands you may favour me with. As to politics, I will only say-and that is saying all-the cause of reform of parliament makes great progress; I am satisfied it alone can give important relief either to England or Ireland. With kind remembrances to all, believe me, dear Lord Cloncurry,

Yours, very sincerely,

F. Burdett.”

The foregoing letter was written by Sir Francis Burdett, after his visit to Ireland to give evidence upon the trial of Mr. Roger O’Connor. Upon that occasion Sir Francis, following, I believe, the recommendation of some casual fellow-passenger, took up his abode at a fifth or sixth-rate inn, in a back street in Dublin; and must have been a little amazed at the state of civilisation in Ireland, so far as related to the accommodation afforded to strangers in the metropolis. I recollect being a good deal amused at receiving a note from him announcing his arrival and bearing date from the Queen’s Head, Bride-street, from which, of course, I lost no time in dislodging him. He subsequently made a tour through the country on horseback; and, on his departure, brought away with him several articles of dress, made of Irish frieze, as mementos of his visit. The cloak for Lady Burdett, to which he alludes in his letter, was one of these.

The following three letters are from the pen of one of the most consistent, high-minded, and philosophical of the old Irish patriots - Dr. Drennan, president of the Academical Institution of Belfast:- *

Dr. Drennan to Lord Cloncurry.*

Belfast, January 29, 1819.

“My Lord - I am impelled by a sense of duty to my country, as well as regard to an individual who has already done good service to that country, and promises to do still more, to address your Lordship on the means of enabling Mr. John Lawless to accomplish his purpose of establishing a newspaper in the town of Belfast, to be conducted on the principles of civil and religious liberty - of liberty in religion, co-extensive with the Irish population, and of political liberty, in the advocacy of such a reform as may be practicable in the present condition of society, and by enlarging the basis of election, and shortening the duration of parliament, may satisfy the pressing wants and reasonable wishes of a vast majority of the people, both here and in Great Britain.

Your Lordship well knows that the periodical press has been, and may continue to be, the grand lever of the public mind; but that this lever is counteracted, not merely by the *vis inertiae *and passive resistance of the mass to be raised, but by the constant, unremitting agency, direct and indirect, of the government, or semi-government, or professedly neutral public prints, to repress the expansion and development of general opinion upon political topics.

If they have failed in this object, and particularly of late, in the North of Ireland (and the polar star of patriotism is there in its natural station), it has been, mainly, through the activity, zeal, and intelligence of Mr. Lawless, who has done much for several years, but particularly of late, in re-animating and fixing the attention of this portion of the public upon their true personal, as well as national interests. The late Protestant meeting in Belfast is a striking proof of his personal and public activity; and the friends of a free press in that town have, even under the pressure of times bearing heavily on us, contributed to the amount of £500, the half of a sum which would enable the editor of a public print to accomplish the undertaking with a security and permanency unlike to many such individual attempts, as appear, like the sparks in burnt paper, and are as quickly extinguished.

I have heard that, in his late visit to Dub]in, Mr. Lawless displayed an alacrity and an ability which may, perhaps, have proved a much better claim to your Lord ship’s patronage and encouragement than any which I and others, in this place, could give. But, if the object and the agent be agreeable, I should presume to suggest that a small sum, subscribed by several persons, would answer the purpose best, by diffusing a wider interest in the publication, without discouraging any individual friendly to the scheme.

If 50 names could be set to a subscription of £20 each, the thing would he done; and it is supposed that, in addition to the sum already advanced in Belfast, a like sum might be collected in Dublin; but, especially, if noblemen or gentlemen of high distinction would give their sanction, *in any manner *which to them would seem most suitable to the end, which they must desire in common with the middling ranks of life, the renovation of a social intercourse, a good understanding, and a joint exertion for common good among Irishmen of’ all denominations of religion.

Nothing but the motives I have mentioned in the beginning of this letter would have emboldened me to address your Lordship on a subject as to which I must conclude by remarking - that example is everything. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most obedient servant,

W. Drennan.” *

Dr. Drennan to Lord Cloncurry.*

Belfast, February 8, 1819.

“My Lord - I have received your Lordship’s letter, which I may truly say, both in the letter and the spirit, was such as I expected.

Mr. Lawless coincides with me in opinion, that the draft is not to be presented to Mr. Crook until such time as the sum is made up which is considered as necessary for carrying on the proposed establishment - and your Lordship shall receive due notice of this.

Mr. Lawless is deeply impressed with personal gratitude, as well as public respect, for your Lordship’s kindness upon this occasion; and, with the facility of one receiving favour, flatters himself that your Lordship’s subscription will be seconded by your influence in promoting the sale and diffusion of the intended publication. I have the honour to be, as every Irishman ought to be, your Lordship’s

Obedient friend, and very humble servant.

W. Drennan.

P. S. - Perhaps it might come in the circle of your Lordship’s influence to promote the subscription of which you have set an example.” *

Dr. Drennan to Lord Cloncurry.*

October 28, 1819.

“I received and transmitted the enclosure.

Nothing appeared to me more apposite than the concise yet comprehensive summary of the sufferings and deserts of Poland, which was published by Lord C. Whether the remedy fitted for the people of England be the radical reform contained in Cartwright’s bill, or such a reform as was proposed by our countryman, Flood, is a question: and still a more doubtful one, whether the former of the plans be suited to the state of society in Ireland; but certain it is, that all other plans are but an approximation to the truth, whereas this one (of Cartwright’s) is truth itself. The difficulties attending it are greatest at first sight: they disappear on closer inspection; and the plan most perfect in theory would, perhaps, turn out most easy and effectual in practice. But still many, in both countries, are hostile to what is called such extremes; and an union of reformers is to be desired on whatever procedure may attain a full, fair, free, and frequent representation of the whole people, of every religious denomination.

In the present state of public affairs, Ireland has, hitherto, kept silent - wisely, as I presume to think, for the past, whatever may be the line she will take in future. There is a dignified, emphatic, and, if I may so express it, an eloquent silence, more intelligent and impressive than a hundred tongues. The apathy of the country is more apparent than real - the river is covered with ice, but the current moves quickly underneath. The sufferings of our fellow-subjects are felt with the most sincere sympathy and cordial commiseration; but it is wise for Ireland to restrain the impetuosity of her national character: and the progress of events is so rapid, that it is highly prudent and becoming in a country which has already suffered so deeply to wait for a fuller development.

If there *be *a tendency to rebellion in England, let us not hasten to shake hands with insurrection. Let us not squander our breath, far less our blood, to little or no purpose; but, in maintaining a stern silence, contribute to puzzle and confound administration. In this attitude, fixed and firm, we are, in many points of view, the most powerful auxiliaries of reform.

In short, seeing what I have seen in my dear native land, on *both *sides, I earnestly wish that we may allow England to work out her own political salvation, satisfied that Ireland will follow in her wake, as a necessary consequence, with or without our agency. Ireland has played her part unsuccessfully, and therefore without the plaudit of fame; yet the example has not been lost, to imitate what was worthy of imitation, to avoid her errors, and, above all, her criminal credulity.

To excite, at present, politico-religious animosities by challenging, as it were, counter-meetings and hostile declarations, would serve no purpose but a bad one, for, in the event of a reform taking place in England, the domineering faction here would quickly sink to their natural level, without any commotion; but if the opposite parties be now roused to exasperation, the consequences may be fatal to the peace of the country, whatever be the event. It will partake of the nature of a battle, and the victors may extend mercy to the vanquished, or they may not.

I deprecate a Catholic upper and heavy hand as much as I do a Protestant, and the situation of this country is such, in respect to the fear of not only recrimination, but retaliation, that I wish it to be, as long as possible, a looker-on, a spectator of the drama and not an actor. I say, as possible, for I am sensible the time must arrive for declaration, and then the more general, the more simultaneous, the more concise, yet comprehensive, the more explicit and unequivocal, this exposition of the public opinion, so much the better; and, in my poor opinion, preparatory steps ought to be taken in different parts for the simultaneous promulgation of such a document of reform, adhering to the principle, adopting the plan most conciliatory if adequate to the end, and putting into practice all the peaceable means for attaining it.

Of these means, the exposition of the public voice, so as absolutely to ascertain an unquestionable majority, is one measure in great progress in England, and accelerated by the outrage at Manchester. Whether the non-consumption of those articles of indirect taxation would not be tantamount to what was often successful in our Irish parliament, by forming a short *money bill *on the *part *of the *people, *thus contributing to a defalcation of revenue, which is the most operative agent of a change both of men and measures, may be a subject of consideration to those who wish no measures but those of passive resistance, perhaps the most effectual. But a change of men will not now satisfy - not such a change as, I fear, a powerful set of men in this country contemplate as the grand remedy of all ills, if they can accompany it with the *placebo *of Catholic emancipation.

No - I hope in their good sense (that human providence) the Catholics of Ireland have a nobler motive for their present silence than the hope, by this means, of stealing into the confidence of the present, or the future administration, and thus securing a pledge (pledge upon pledge) of gaining their selfish suit at the expense of the common cause of reform. If so, they once more connive at the sale of their country; and may they be once more cajoled, cheated, and choused in their base bargain. “O, I do fear thee, Claudio, and I quake, lest thou a servile life should’st entertain, and a broad-bottomed Grenville more respect than a perpetual honour.”

Most strange it is, the excessive shyness of this body, even the democratical portion of it, respecting reform, for many years past, and even now, when the Whigs - the temporising Whigs - are, at York, mingling their shouts with the people, and splitting the vault of heaven. Under that canopy only the genuine people ought to meet - there, alone, millions can meet - in England, peaceably on their part, unless broken (I suspect, not merely by ministerial connivance, but secret authority) In Ireland, whatever *now *may be the case, such meetings would, probably, have had a similar interruption without exciting such remark.

But let not the procedure at Manchester be considered separately from reform; the matters are indissolubly connected in cause and consequence. Hostility to reform was the cause, reform itself will be the consequence, most unforeseen by the agents. The Whigs, in England, wish to separate the subjects, but they are one; and there are now striking symptoms of a coalition, not like that of North and Fox, but of the Whigs with the people-of landholders, who have been liberty-holders-in sacrificing their monopolisms at the altar of the public good.

Success to the dinner, in a close steaming room, not yet under the ample dome! Large be our loaves, and extended be our liberties! such is my wish for the people. I, as to my insignificant self, have lost all locomotive inclination, and am descending fast, as to my body, through the three kingdoms of nature, verging from animal to vegetable existence, and soon to become of the fossil order.

W. D.” *

Earl Fitzwilliam to Lord Cloncurry.*

Grosvenor-square, May 23, 1824.

“My Lord - Having just received the enclosed, I cannot better convey to your Lordship its object than by submitting it for your determination. Of the importance of your presence, in my own opinion, and in that of those immediately about me, I am at a loss for words to express: the state of the County of Kildare, and of facts that have occurred within the vicinity of your residence, require development before the Committee. Your Lordship cannot fail to be aware, that there will be found *actually in town *witnesses who, having seen them in a different point of view from your Lordship, will not fail to represent them to the Committee according to their first conception, and justify a system of proceeding which your Lordship’s activity and character had then the power to control and bar; but no less necessary for that good purpose will the same character and authority be before the Committee. I therefore hope, taking into consideration the importance of the occasion, you will excuse my taking the liberty of troubling you; and though leaving the happiness of domestic life may be the subject of regret, still the good to be done to your country may be an ample recompense for that sacrifice. Lady Fitzwilliam joins with me in offering our best compliments to Lady Cloncurry. I have the honour to be, with much esteem,

Your Lordship’s most obedient servant,

Wentworth Fitzwilliam.” *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

Holland House, 20th May.

“My dear Lord - I think no evidence is likely to do so much good - that is, to be so much to the purpose, and so credible - as yours. I have, therefore, sent your letter to Lord Darnley or Lord Lansdowne, and they will, no doubt, propose to summon you. When you hear I am of the committee, you will say, why not move to summon me yourself? My answer is, that partly from indolence, and more from a disapprobation of the limited nature of the inquiry, and distrust of the effect of those committees, I have been, and shall be so very slack an attender, that I can hardly justify to myself the moving for a witness, when I have listened so little to those summoned by others. As a disclosure of the state of the magistracy and the people of Ireland-of the temper and habits both of the one and the other-the inquiry will be useful; but as the only *immediate *result of it is the renewal of the Insurrection Act, and as no evidence will ever overcome my repugnance to that bill, I feel it disingenuous in me to take much part in the examination. I hope, however, your testimony will be taken.

Yours ever,

Vassall Holland.” *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

Holland - House, 28th May, 1824.

“My dear Lord-Our friends, who are active in conducting the inquiry into the state of the disturbed districts in Ireland, have been anxious to secure the continuance, or, more strictly speaking, revival of the committee next session, and to reserve for that session not only sonic important points of inquiry, but some of the most fearless witnesses they can call. They think that it is better to postpone the evidence of this latter sort, because, if the strongest facts are brought out too soon, the party most adverse to truth may take the alarm, and check the latitude of inquiry in which they have hitherto indulged us.

For these reasons, with some few unavoidable exceptions, they have hitherto confined themselves to the examinations of such persons as government itself produces or has employed. Every fact in our favour elicited from them has the effect of an admission. For these reasons, I believe, you will not receive a summons from the committee this year, but next session they will, no doubt recollect your disinterested offer of appearing, and claim your promise.

Yours ever,

Vassall Holland.”

No observer of passing events, or reader of newspapers, during the early part of the present century, will require to be told the history of the Ex-Judge Robert Johnson, the author of Colonel Roche Fermoy’s letters on the defence of Ireland, and the subject of prosecution for a seditious libel, under the strange circumstances of his holding, at the time, a seat upon the bench, and of there being absolutely no evidence of his authorship, beyond a sort of general conviction that he was a likely person to do an act of the kind. The article alleged to be libellous was an attack upon Lord Hardwicke, in his capacity of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was published in Cobbett’s Register, under the signature of Juverna, and was, in fact composed by the Judge.

Nevertheless, the manuscript, although sworn by a crown witness to be in Mr. Johnson’s hand-writing, was actually written by his daughter. This circumstance he might have proved; but as he could not do so without compromising his amanuensis, the jury were obliged to return a verdict of guilty. Between the termination of the trial, however, and the time for pronouncing judgment, there was a change of ministry, as a result of which a *nolle prosequi *was entered, in the year 1806, and Mr. Johnson was allowed to retire from the bench with a pension. The manuscript of the obnoxious article was given up by Mr. Cobbett, in order that he might escape the consequences of a verdict of guilty found against himself for the publication.

The ex-judge had a most unprofessional turn for military affairs, in connexion with which he held some theories that would probably startle modern professors of the art of war. Among them was a notion, which he lost no opportunity of putting forward, that pikes and arrows were much better weapons than muskets and bayonets; and he prided himself greatly upon the invention of a pike, provided with a hollow staff capable of containing arrows, and having a leg to support the weapon, and side-braces to unite it with others, so as to form a chevaux-de-frise. One of the following letters is only a fragment, but both are highly characteristic of the writer:- *

Ex- Judge Robert Johnson to Lord Cloncurry.*

22d December’.

“My dear Lord - I send a volume of Lord Dillon’s Commentary on Military Establisments, &c, Though the book be on military subjects, yet it contains some *civil information as to the state of Ireland, which the papers your Lordship was so good as to read to me recalled to my memory. The part towards which I wish to call your Lordship’s attention will be found at page 154, *ch. xi., “On the Defence of Ireland,” and the five tablets referred to (page 171), and placed, as an appendix, to the end of the volume. It seems to me as if the information given by Lord Dillon would form a confirmation and illustration of your Lord-ship’s paper. I inclose, also, a new pamphlet - “War in Greece.”

Though it be anonymous, I can conjecture something of the writer. In the pamphlet it is not difficult to perceive an *under-plot. *If where the words “Greece,” and “Greeks” occur, the words Ireland and Irish be substituted, a variety of allusions will force themselves into the mind. The mode of defending the Isthmus of Corinth - the Pass at Enniskillen, and many other positions will be found typified. The character of the Greeks, and the changes they have undergone - the consequences of their divisions - tally. He even ventures openly to recommend the pike - and that with a *hollow *staff-luckily he goes no further. The allusion to Greece (with a sincere desire, at the same time, to serve the cause of Greece) arose from Lord Byron having called the Irish “Western Helots.”

However, the arrow shot by this archer will fall short of the butt, as scarcely any one in Ireland will read such a book. If it were thought prudent to draw it into notice here (of which I very much doubt), it might be done by writing a letter from the ghost of Doctor Duigenan to Sir H--- L---, denouncing the book as a traitorous endeavour, by a most nefarious villain, to rouse the unprincipled Irish Papists into a desperate action against our “Glorious Constitution in Church and State,” giving copious extracts from the pamphlet, with proper *inuendos, *&c. - dating it from the Doctor’s retirement at Orangefield - post town Pandemonium; despatching it per the steam-packet with which Charon (on a principle of infernal economy, from the great plenty of fuel on the Doctor’s side of the shore), has been lately furnished. But I doubt much of the prudence of drawing it into notice here.

Your Lordship’s contrivance of my passage by the boat was capital. I arrived snugly at Monasterevan at nearly half-past five; the darkness, storm, and rain was an excuse for not going further-dining, sleeping, &c., at Cassidy’s. So that I was two days and two nights on my journey from Dublin - eating, drinking, and sleeping every stage at the expense of my friends - this is capital. Ever, my dear Lord, yours,

Robert Johnson.” *

Ex-Judge Robert Johnson to Lord Cloncurry.*

(The first sheet missing.)

17th September, 1828.

… . they have done so, with a perfect knowledge that the dice on the board had been *previously loaded *by their opponents, who had also secured to their own hands the time, the mode, and the lead in the game. While they provoke violence, both civil and military, they know nothing of an organisation, the very sight of which might cause violence to pause before it raised its hand: they know nothing of an organisation sufficient for their security, and not exposed by any breach of municipal jaw. If (which God forbid!) their ill-judged and too-powerful stimulants should drive their too-susceptible countrymen into a contest, tending to a suicide of their country, do they know anything of the policy by which the defence of that country could be maintained? To any suggestion hinting to them such wants, and the means by which they might be supplied, they would probably reply, as the cotemporaries of Columbus did, when he insisted that he had, in his closet, discovered the means and the application of instruments by which they could traverse in safety the path to an unknown world; they scoffed at Columbus, and said he was a *theorist - *it was all *theory. *Columbus spent more years before he could conquer this scoff, than he afterwards did in carrying his *theory *into a bolder and more successful *practice *than ever the head of man had before the genius to conceive, or the heart of man had the courage to execute. But I have as little of the passive, as I have of the active courage, or the genius of Columbus. I should fear to expose myself to scoffs. Yet to you, although not to them, I may venture to quote the observation of a man who acted in many scenes of military practice:-

“The observation is a truth, that whoever would acquit himself upon the theatre of war with approbation, must form a proper *theory *of the part he has to act. Theory is nothing more than the collection of the principles by which men are to act, in order to be fortunate. Without it, all is accidental; *all success ought to astonish; no misfortune ought to raise our wonder. *By theory we learn discernment of possibilities, and discover the means most efficacious for their execution; we penetrate our enemies’ intentions; we foresee and we prevent his measures; or we determine, when it may be prudent to abandon our designs. How can any one form a plan of operations, if he is unacquainted with the *theory *of war? This, and *this only, *can raise him to the height whence his eye can survey the wide field, can trace the paths on which he ought to tread, and point to the position of approach, by which, with the greatest certainty and expedition, he may attain the object of his hopes.”

Again-” *Experience *teaches us through the means of *errors, *which we commit *ourselves, *what *theory *points out to us, at the *expense *of others.”

To these authorities I may add, that Frederic of Prussia was of the same opinion; so was Washington and Franklin, and their opinions have been lately and wisely followed up in the institutions of their country. Of the same opinion was Napoleon, whose *most *triumphant campaign sprung *instantly *from his school-boy *theory - from *what the *Benedictine monks *had taught him at Brienne. Of the same opinion is Jomini and Bulow (the real victor at Waterloo), whose slender little volume would give to the listeners attendant on these orators more useful knowledge as to the real power, and, consequently, as to the safety and the peace of their country, than all their gaping mouths could swallow from those cascades of eloquence, sometimes bright, and sometimes muddy, at the frothy torrents of which they gaze with such untired eyes.

I have now, my dear Lord, troubled you with giving my reasons, and reasons which 1 hope will, in your mind, justify me for not interfering, or, at least, interfering with great caution, both as to opinions, and as to persons to whom they may be communicated. I have, you know, joined one society in Ireland. I did so because it appeared to me to be the only one in the country acting upon principles of common sense. The conduct of the rest, on both sides, seems to spring from insanity, or worse than insanity.

Their desire, judging from their “overt acts,” appears to be, at all events, to embroil the country - bleeding and hot water was the universal remedy of Dr. Sangrado. My means tend to attain our rights, and avoid a contest.

Yours, most truly,

R. J.”

In contrast to the effusions of this warlike disciple of Themis, I may place the letter of another Irish judge, also distinguished beyond the pale of his profession, though he chose his course in the peaceful paths of literature instead of in the rude ways of war. *

Baron Sir William Cusack Smith to Lord Cloncurry.*

Naas, March 27, 1834.

“My dear Lord - Though my being, or not being, a guest at Lyons could be of very little consequence to your Lordship, yet, allow me to say, it was to me. Accordingly, I waited to the last moment before I gave up the hope, and, in doing so, waited beyond the time for sending my apology, if this, under the circumstances, was necessary. I had got into a crown case, not entered upon at a late hour, but which was unexpectedly protracted.

We came into this county under a threat of very heavy criminal business, indeed; and I the more felt that assistance was due from me to Torrens, because at Cadow he had been unwell, and has always been very ready to assist me. The alarm appears to have been, in some degree, a false one; but not so much so but that, I believe, the little assistance I have been able to give him has not been superfluous.

I was told, though perhaps the fact was not so, that your Lordship was in town on Wednesday; and was thinking it likely I should have seen you, and have an opportunity for personal communication. This also caused me, in modern phrase, to “wait a while.”

Let me again express the gratification which your kind letter to me at Maryborough gave me, and the value which I set on your Lordship’s good opinion and good will; and this on grounds more substantial and independent than any connected merely with your Lordship’s rank.

I am no politician; I not only do not desire to be one, but I desire not to be one. To be one, I think inconsistent with the duties and character of the station which I hold. If there be anything of a political halo for a time about my name (I don’t know whether there is), I have nothing to say to it. It is my atmosphere, not myself, nor am I conscious that my conduct has contributed to exhale it. I wish to be known in no capacities (nor to have any to be known in) but those of private gentleman and of judge; and in those two characters I would be ambitious of your Lordship’s good opinion. I have the honour to be, my dear Lord,

Faithfully, your obliged

W. C. Smith.”

The following is from a no less remarkable man than either of the judges to whom I have just referred. I shall again have occasion to cite from my correspondence with the celebrated J. K. L., but insert this letter here as relating to a special subject, to which I may not again find an opportunity of referring:- *

Dr. Doyle, R. C. Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, to Lord Cloncurry.*

Carlow, December 11,1829.

“My Lord - I read this morning, in the *Evening Post *of yesterday, a letter addressed by your Lordship to the secretary of the Society for the Improvement of Ireland, wherein your Lordship takes occasion to suggest to the heads of the Roman Catholic Church, that “the saints’ days and holydays observed by our people, in greater number than in any other country, are a great loss to the country, and a great cause of one of our besetting evils, drunkenness;” your Lordship adds, “a reform on that subject is in their (the C. bishops) sole power.”

Your Lordship and the Society you address are certainly entitled to take cognizance of whatever impedes or might advance the improvement of Ireland, and the prelate should be very fastidious who would complain of the appeal made by your Lordship on the subject of holydays, or of the manner in which it is made. The object of my writing to your Lordship is solely to let in some additional light upon this matter, which you have only touched incidentally, and, first of all, to inform your Lordship, that “a reform on that subject is not in the sole power” of the heads of the Catholic Church in Ireland; also, that “holydays are not observed in greater number by our people than in any other country.”

The whole number of holydays (not Sundays) could not hitherto, in Ireland, exceed *eleven, *they were generally only *ten, *of these ten, *two *or *three *have been reduced this year; so that, henceforth, the number of our holydays cannot exceed eight or nine; and of these eight or nine, two (the Circumcision and Epiphany of our Lord) occur within what are called the Christmas holydays, a season of the year when, I believe, the Society itself for the Improvement of Ireland, rests from its labours; so that, in fact, the sum total of our holydays, which interfere in any way with public industry, are reduced to six or seven in each year.

Perhaps your Lordship is of opinion that there should be no holydays, though such days were instituted by the heads of the Synagogue and the heads of the Church, and observed under both covenants through all the time of their existence. It Is difficult, my Lord, and it is often unwise, to get rid suddenly of old institutions, especially when connected with religion; but this, even if wished for, cannot be done. The Established Church, by her rubrick and the laws of the land passed in the time of Edward the Sixth and of Elizabeth, prescribes the observances of several holydays; but that rubrick and these laws have gone into disuse; they are every day violated. This same cannot happen with us: the heads of the Catholic Church in Ireland must observe, and do observe, as far as in their power, the laws or usages respecting holydays, until the same are abrogated or repealed.

I certainly wish, with your Lordship, that the number of holydays was still farther reduced; but I wish it, not because I think such reduction good, but because I see it called for by the evils of the times; as Christ said to the Jews, speaking of the law of divorce, *“Moses, on account of the hardness of your hearts, *permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” Amongst a religious people, and where the laws of the State accord with those of the Church, holydays contribute to the exercise of piety, and of every good work; when these laws clash, or when a spirit of irreligion prevails, the effects are other : and it is therefore that I agree with your Lordship in wishing for a further reduction in the number, though small, of our holydays.

I do not think that drunkenness, our besetting sin - our permanent plague - would be materially lessened by the abolition of all the holydays: for drunkards will drink at all times; and when they do not find a holyday ready made, they, themselves, make one for the purpose. Witness *Saint-Monday, *which an impious, and besotted, and abominable race of tradesmen add to the Lord’s day, for the purpose of indulging in their horrid excesses. Look, also, to the Presbyterians of the North.

Nor do I think that an obligation of resting from servile works on six days, besides the Sundays throughout the year, can be any loss whatever in a country where the market is always overstocked with labour, and in which a man’s labour is not worth, at an average, more than threepence a-day. Add to this, that in cases of great necessity or public utility, every person is permitted to work upon holydays. The truth is, my Lord, that when idlers were few and labourers many, and when holydays were more numerous than they now are, the peasantry were better fed and better clothed than they are at present; besides which, frequent holydays, or days of prayer for some, and of rest and amusement for all, contributed not a little to produce and to preserve that gay, cheerful, friendly, strong, and athletic race of men which, by-and-bye, will be nowhere to be found in Ireland.

It is not the peasant now who gains by his labour, or loses, I might say, by his rest-it is the employer, or the driver, of the slave. Are our peasants not broken down and withered at 40 or 50 years of age? Are they not everywhere badly fed and overworked? And we, who idle *six *days, and do not labour *one, *would, when we have made them vicious and miserable, bind them down, even in their few holydays, like a slave to the oar. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient, humble servant)

J. Doyle.”

Next Chapter. Cloncurry Index