The Catholic Question. Daniel O'Connell.

Chapter XIII.

**The Three Irish Political Questions of the 19th Century - Their real Value - The Catholic Question - Kildare Meeting in 1811 - Wariness of its Promoter - Absence of Professional Agitators from the early Catholic Meetings - Growth of Violence - Its effects upon Protestant Sympathisers - Evidence of the early existence of Good Feeling

Letters; from Mr. O’Connell, from the Marquis of Downshire, from the Earl of Fingall - The Rotunda “Tin-Case” Meeting - Letters from Mr. O’Connell - Indications of the Workings of Professional Agitation - Refusal of Messrs. O’Connell and Sheil to merge their Sectarian Grievances in the common cause of Ireland - Letters; from Mr. O’Connell, from the Earl of Donoughmore - Arrival of Lord Anglesey in Ireland - Policy of the Government in appointing him to the Viceroyalty - Its Effect - My own Connexion with Lord Anglesey - His Recall - Progress of the Catholic Question - Letters Illustrative of the time; from Lord Anglesey from Myself to Mr. O’Connell - Position of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel in 1829 - Triumph over their Fears - Their spiteful Treatment of Mr. O’Connell
Its Evil Effects - Perpetuation of Religious Discord - Effects upon the Country - Letters; from Father L’Estrange, from Lord Holland, from Lord Melbourne.**

As soon as Ireland began to awaken from the torpor into which she was thrown by the lamentable events that marked the close of the 18th, and commencement of the 19th centuries, three important political questions began to agitate the public mind, and are, even at this day, but in course of settlement. Every Irish reader will know that I allude to the Catholic, the Church, and the Education questions-the first-named being, in fact, that which included and rendered difficult the arrangement of the other two. To my mind these questions always appeared but as elements of the great subject of the social advancement of the Irish community; and I looked to their solution chiefly as means towards the end of the tranquillisation and enlightenment of the people; necessary steps to the development of physical prosperity, and the attainment of civil and moral freedom. They were, however, necessary steps on the way to that consummation; and, as such, I never failed to take a part in them, when my doing so seemed likely to be of service.

I have already touched upon the miserable story of the creation of dissension among the Irish people, by their English rulers, when the glorious occurrences of 1782 showed to these the necessary results of Irish union. I have sketched out slightly, but I trust intelligibly, the fatal success of the policy which dictated the partial enfranchisement of 1793 and its use in resisting parliamentary reform, and which proceeded, by playing upon the hopes of Catholic helots and the cupidity of Protestant masters, to re-divide the nation into two hostile factions, and to govern both through the agency of their fear and hatred of each other. I have also alluded to the operation of this system upon the two sections of the Irish people; its strengthening effect upon the oppressed-its corruption and enfeeblement of the oppressors. The Catholics having had their bonds loosened sufficiently to enable them to do mischief to their tyrants, every day grew stronger and stronger, until at length they acquired a degree of electoral and agitation power that rendered their support of importance in the struggle of English parties. Then Ireland became the battle-field of those parties; and at the rallying cries of “Catholic Emancipation” and “Protestant Ascendancy,” the Irish people arrayed them-selves under the banners of two rival English factions.

The first Catholic emancipation movement of any importance in which I took a part was a meeting of the Catholic inhabitants of the county of Kildare, held at Naas, in the year 1811. Just then a considerable stir had begun in the Catholic body, and some strong counter steps had been taken by the Government. The determination of the former to establish a representative body for the furtherance of their objects was met by an intimation from the law-officers of the Crown, that they would meet any such attempt by a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Convention Act against any person who should be concerned in a society or committee framed upon the principle of delegation.

The Crown, however, had a prudent foe to contend with. Long experience of the penal power of the law had made the Catholics sage, and every precaution was taken

and with success - to enable them to accomplish their purpose, of agitating for the redress of their grievances, without bringing themselves under the letter of the statute. At the meeting to which I allude, several Protestant gentlemen resolved to attend, in order to give the sanction of their presence, as magistrates, to its legality; and so cautious - I might almost say, pusillanimous - were some of the leaders, that my attendance (I having been a noted object of English persecution) threw the gentleman who was to take the chair into an agony of fear: a circumstance which was communicated to me in a deprecatory manner by my agent, a Roman Catholic gentleman, who was one of the committee for the arrangement of the meeting. Nevertheless, I attended and spoke, as did also Mr. Wogan Browne, Mr. John Joseph Henry, and Mr. Robert La Touche, member for the county.

The resolutions were of the very mildest kind, consisting merely of a declaration “that the interests of the Protestant and the Catholic are connected and inseparable, and that to benefit the latter is to serve both;” and of the assertion of a determination to persevere in a “decorous exercise of the right of petitioning.” The point upon which I thought it necessary to speak was an objection raised by Mr. Henry to Mr. Browne’s use of the word “restoration,” instead of “concession,” of the rights of subjects, to the Roman Catholics, and to a slight allusion made by that gentleman to the conduct of Lord Chancellor Manners, in having arbitrarily dismissed him from the commission of the peace. Without protesting against these lapses of his respected friend, Mr. Henry said, “he thought he could not discharge his duty to his God and his country.”

I need not say that I supported the stronger phrase; and, as I find by the report of my words in a newspaper of the day, I thought it necessary to justify my loyalty in so doing “True loyalty (I said) consists in an endeavour to defend the throne, and to secure the rights of the people. I hope that my heart cannot be exceeded in that spirit of genuine loyalty. But what is now called loyalty is the seeking after places, to satiate avarice - the attaining office to tyrannise over fellow-citizens; that is loyalty, to pillage our neighbours.” The phrase ” restoration of rights” was preferred to that of “concession;” but surely it is impossible not to reflect with interest upon this little cloud, ” scarcely the bigness of a man’s hand,” out of which proceeded the storm that, 18 years after, prostrated the great Captain of the age in abject submission.

They who, in 1811, trembled while they petitioned in faltering accents for a participation in the privileges of the constitution, in 1829 raised their armed hands to knock at the door of the English senate-house, and wrung, from the avowed fears of its occupants, concessions which the minister declared it would cost a civil war to withhold. At the meeting to which I allude there was not present a single professional agitator; but I find the names of 17 of the principal of the nobility and gentry of the county (amongst them those of three Protestant clergymen) included in the vote of thanks to Protestants for their attendance and support. This was but a type of other similar meetings of the day, the proceedings of which are now before me.

Justice was delayed; and when it was at length granted, it was a capitulation to a standing army of demagogues, who, like other old soldiers, regarded their trade less as a means than as an end. As the corps of agitators came to be formed, a different tone began to show itself in the agitation. It became more polemical and less courteous and tolerant. No one can doubt that the change from the *argumentum ad misericordiam *to the *argumentum baculinum, *was that which suited best with the nature of the party upon whom it was designed to act. Neither the heart nor the understanding of the Duke of Wellington were such as to render him accessible to the claims of pity, or to the teachings of sound political argument; but he well understood the signs of danger, and had seen enough of civil war to render his dread of its consequences paramount over other considerations. The violence of the demagogues certainly carried the Catholic Relief Bill ; but it drove away from the general cause of Irish independence many sensitive men, and greatly widened the breach between differing religionists. Here again, under the perverse and selfish management of English factions, the Catholic question, for a second time in a half-century, was made the means of splitting Irish interests, and enabling English ministers to bear rule thereby.

Nevertheless, for many years after the period to which I refer, the efforts in furtherance of the Catholic claims continued to be distinguished by strong marks of a desire to conciliate Protestants as well as the more timid professors of the persecuted faith. One of the earliest letters, in the handwriting of Mr. O’Connell (the great organiser of systematic agitation), which I have found among my papers, does, indeed, relate to a celebration of Protestant and Catholic sympathy, and is dated in the year 1819. It was written upon the occasion of a dinner given to Sir Thomas M’Kenny (a Protestant alderman of Dublin), in return for services rendered to the Catholic cause during his mayoralty, just then expired:- *

Daniel O’Connell, Esq., to Lord Cloncurry.*

Merrion-square, 4th Nov., 1819.

“My Lord - I suppose you heard of the adjournment of the meeting at Humphries’ until the 1st of December. A pail of cold water could not have been half so chilly. Peter Burrowes, the mover, is just gone off; I am told to London, on a political mission. I suspect - but may be wrong - wheels within a wheel.

But it will not do. The people insist on an immediate dinner. Instead of retarding the subscription, it will much promote it. In fact if the dinner be not got up properly, it *will *be got up badly; for there is no restraining public feeling on the subject. I wish I had the favour of 10 minutes’ conversation with you. I see that the Duke of Leinster is in town; let me but be able to procure his assistance and yours, and everything will be as you could wish it. I repeat that the dinner should be one of the stimulants to the subscription, because I know that it would be the most powerful in its effects. The committee for the subscription at Humphries’ are Protestants. The dinner should be given by Catholics and Protestants - (oh, how I hate these distinctions!) - that is, by Irishmen.

We want also a parish meeting in this *most loyal *parish, to thank and address M’Kenny. I will leave the requisition at your house in town, for your signature, and for any other you can procure. I do entreat of you to *step out *about the dinner, as the very best source of promulgating generous and patriotic sentiments.

There was a handsome sword bought for General Devereux with the surplus produce of the tickets for his dinner, after paying for the entertainment. I know that it would be taken very kindly if you would have the goodness to present it, when he arrives.

Let me return you my most hearty thanks for your letter to Hunt. Perhaps the thanks you receive from the honest will be almost as flattering as the abuse of the venal and the servile. I have the honour to be

Your very faithful and obedient,

Daniel O’Connell.”

Of the good feeling that then existed among the leading men of both religions, the following letters, written upon the same occasion, the one by a Protestant marquis, who afterwards took a prominent part in opposition to Mr. O’Connell, and the other by a Roman Catholic earl, are fair examples:- *

The Marquis of Downshire to Lord Cloncurry.*

Hillsborough, 21st October, 1819.

“My Lord - I have had the honour of receiving your Lordship’s letter, on the subject of a compliment which has been proposed to be paid to Alderman M’Kenny, on his going out of the office of Lord Mayor.

Approving as I do of that individual’s conduct in the line he adopted relative to the unhappy religious distinctions which have hitherto so seriously injured this country, I shall with pleasure join the Duke of Leinster and your Lordship in testifying our approbation of the Alderman during his mayoralty. From my residence in this part of Ireland, I have necessarily little to do with Dublin; but upon the principle of encouraging upright and disinterested conduct in public men, I shall always feel happy in contributing my share in instances such as the one to which your Lordship has in such obliging terms called my attention. I shall not be able to attend the dinner you mention the Duke means to be present at; but I shall be ready to subscribe my proportion, upon my being informed what his Grace, your Lordship, and other public-spirited men intend giving.

I am sorry I had not the pleasure of seeing your Lordship in Dublin, and hope to have the pleasure of doing so on some future occasion.

The Farming and Dublin Societies, which your lordship mentions, require strict inquiry. The gross mismanagement of the first has excited the attention of the Lord Lieutenant, and the indignation of the subscribers at Ballinasloe, where I attended. Of the latter Society I know little, except that I have been told the directors have been giving a pension, which, is stated, did not come within the intentions of Parliament. There is, I fear, a tendency in Ireland to misapply public grants; and if Mr. Stevens’ late publication on the charter-schools is correct, the loss to the country, the injury to our religion, and the encouragement of dishonesty has been unparalleled. I have the honour to remain, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most obedient, humble servant,

Downshire.”

The Earl of Fingall to Lord Cloncurry.

Killeen Castle, November 13th, 1819.

“My dear Lord - I shall be very happy to have the honour of attending his Grace the Duke of Leinster and your Lordship at the dinner intended to be given to Alderman M’Kenny. In every tribute of respect which can be paid to this gentleman, were I not heartily to join, I should be guilty of a crime which I trust will never with reason be imputed to me - ingratitude; for to him and to those who with him supported, with such effect, the liberal and enlightened policy of allowing their fellow-subjects to participate in the privileges they enjoy themselves, surely the excluded must look with every sentiment of acknowledgment and gratitude.

I had not the honour to receive your Lordship’s letter till yesterday, when Colonel Plunket was so good as to send it to me.

Believe me, my dear Lord, most faithfully yours,

Fingall.”

The particular act for which this tribute of gratitude was paid to Alderman M’Kenny, was his convening and presiding at a meeting held in the Rotundo, for the purpose of petitioning in favour of Catholic Emancipation, and which was rendered remarkable by the laconic reply given by the Duke of Wellington to the Duke of Leinster, when the latter forwarded to the minister the petition adopted by the meeting. “I have received,” wrote the noble Duke, “your Grace’s letter, accompanied by a tin case.” It was in those days an act of extraordinary courage in a Lord Mayor of Dublin to countenance a liberal movement; and I recollect the worthy alderman’s courage being put to a severe test upon the occasion. There was a strong opposition offered to the proceedings under the leadership of Mr. Ellis, then a Master in Chancery; and such was the violence of the storm that ensued, as to render the persistence of the Lord Mayor in occupying the chair up to the end of the meeting, highly creditable to his fortitude.

The following letters are characteristic of the writer, and tend to illustrate the view I have put forward as to the course events were then taking:- *

Daniel O’Connell, Esq., to Lord Cloncurry.*

Merrion-square, 14th May, 1820.

“My dear Lord - I am *so *delighted that you had an opportunity at the dinner of seeing the manner the people cherish you because you are honest. It really is better to be so than to take part with the enemy. But now you see that you owe us a debt in return; and I call on you to pay it on the double.

In the first place, there is the “Irish National Society for Education.” I enclose you a prospectus-first, for your own advice and correction; and then, when you have made it conform to your sentiments, to entreat that you will lay it before his Grace the Duke of Leinster, for his approbation and sanction. I am winding up the Roman Catholic prelates, and making every arrangement to have a public meeting as speedily as possible. We have not an hour to lose, because we should be before Parliament if possible to share the grant. I pray your most speedy attention to this subject. If we can have the Duke as patron, and you as one of the presidents, we shall get on rapidly. I mean to solicit your vote for the office of secretary. But time presses.

The second thing I would submit to you is our “Society for Parliamentary Information.” Let us, if you please, begin it. If you will put your name to it, and get me one half-dozen Protestants, I pledge myself to get you a batch of Papists of the first water. If it were once on foot, it would accumulate rapidly; and when we were strong enough, we would call in the aid of the excellent Duke - the finest fellow that ever bore “the noble name of Fitzgerald.” Let us not postpone making some efforts for Ireland. We may be calumniated; but do we not deserve reproach if we tamely crouch beneath our miseries, and leave this *“loveliest land on the face of the earth” *a prey to faction, and the victim of unopposed oppression? Reflect on this, and let us make an attempt to combine good and honest men in an exertion for the country. Believe me to be, with the most sincere respect and regard, my dear Lord,

Your very faithful and obedient servant,

Daniel O’Connell.” *

Daniel O’Connell, Esq., to Lord Cloncurry.*

Merrion-square 16th Nov., 1820.

“My dear Lord - I want a place, and what is more, I want you to help me to get it; but it is a place fit for a Radical, which I am, and ever shall remain.

Will you allow me to ask you, whether you deem it wrong to write for me to the Duke of Leinster, to solicit his influence with the Queen to appoint me her Attorney-General in Ireland? She certainly has a right to such an officer; and I have a right to fill the office, if she condescends to appoint me. There is not one shilling of public money attached to it; nor is it in any sense inconsistent with my principles, which are, and ever shall be, favourable decidedly to a complete - say a radical reform.

I feel I am taking a liberty with you in asking your assistance; but I do hope you know me too well not to believe I would not, for any consideration, ask you to do anything which I was conscious was in any respect inconsistent with your feelings. If I be wrong in my request, pray excuse me, and do not think the worse of me. I know of no event which would afflict me more than to lose any way in your good opinion.

The truth is, that my leading motive in looking for this office is to annoy some of the greatest scoundrels in society, and, of course, the bitterest enemies of Ireland. I have the honour to be, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most obedient faithful servant,

Daniel O’Connell.” *

Daniel O’Connell, Esq., to Lord Cloncurry.*

Merrion-square, Sunday.

“Her Majesty’s Attorney-General will have the honour of accepting Lord Cloncurry’s kind invitation for to-morrow. If he has delayed his *written *answer until he could call himself by that name, he has not forgotten for one moment, and never will forget, the respectful and very sincere attachment and regard he bears to his Lordship.”

“The finest fellow that ever bore the noble name of Fitzgerald,” applied for and procured the shortlived honour desired by my correspondent; but it was not very long afterwards when his Grace was denounced from the same quarter, as a recreant absentee and traitor to his country, for having built a house in London, and that at a time when the petty-sessions books showed that scarcely a single Monday in the year passed without the Duke taking his seat upon the bench at Celbridge, except during his unavoidable absence in the discharge of his parliamentary duties.

The earliest indication I have found among my papers of the effects of the working of the system of professional agitation in creating distrust, is a letter written by myself in November, 1824, and which, after a lucubration of seven years, was made the subject of a series of philippics from the pen of Mr. O’Connell. In this letter, which enclosed a subscription to the Catholic fund, I ventured, though certainly with what now seems to me to have been great caution, to express a “hope that the Catholic rent and Catholic Association will be employed in giving equal liberty and happiness to the Protestant and the Catholic - to the liberal and enlightened Dissenter-and even to the often honest, but ever mistaken Orangeman.”

“Whilst (I continued) I love my Catholic countrymen, I feel that I owe it to them and to myself to preserve that candour which I have made my guide, in all the varied circumstances of my life. If the Catholic Association has no other view than what is called Catholic Emancipation, I acknowledge their right; but I feel comparatively little interest in their success. If on the other hand, they seek anything farther, they should say what that is; they will neither disarm an enemy, secure a friend, nor gain a timid neutral, by a contrary line of conduct. The reformers in England weakened their cause, and distracted their friends by their indefinite pursuits. Short parliaments, extended suffrage, election by ballot - all good, all desirable; but though any of them would annihilate corruption, she gained strength by the disunion of her opponents. My object is, if possible, to prevent future disunion amongst the friends of Ireland. It is for them to demand, temperately, but firmly, the adoption of measures necessary for the relief of Ireland, and the safety of the empire; they will have the support of every wise, and of every good man, of every religions or political opinion, but, above all, they will secure what is alone wanted to Ireland, *domestic unanimity. *The last wish I ever heard from Grattan was for the *repeal of the Union. *If all Ireland was polled, I do not believe that, out of the seven millions, one hundred votes would be against the repeal of that finishing act of Ireland’s degradation. In that repeal I place my best, my almost only, hope of her regeneration.

“To the Union is due that Emancipation was not long since carried

that tithes were not modified-that the country has been deprived of the millions which would otherwise have been devoted to her improvement, and that, instead of a wealthy proprietary to employ, protect, and inform the people, we have been left to a needy, speculating magistracy, and to the agents of absentees. To the Union is due the poverty and decay of our beautiful metropolis; and to our consequent poverty and dependent state may be traced the very violence of party feeling, and the anxiety to fill every petty office to the exclusion of others; for in no instance will you find a man of independent means enrolled in the legion of intolerance; but the same desolating cause which deprives the hardy labourer of employment, is felt through every branch of society, and leaves the youth of the upper classes without occupation or pursuit.

“In conclusion, sir, though a constant and ardent friend to Catholic Emancipation, as one *great right *of my countrymen, I still feel that the emancipation of Ireland depends on the repeal of the *Union; *that measure would at once give us a reformed parliament, for there could be no idea of restoring the disfranchised and purchased boroughs. The first session of such a parliament would restore life and peace to the capital and the country-would annihilate party feeling - would exchange tithe for a moderate and respectable provision for the clergy of every denomination, according to their services. It would induce Irishmen to remain in their country (so superior to any other); it would bring Englishmen amongst us, and it would secure to the country that wealth which is now daily and hourly drawn from it.”

Seven years later, as I have said, when I again had occasion to withhold my confidence from the professional agitators, it was discovered that these expressions contained matter of grave offence. At the time, however, they were not viewed in this light, although my proposition that a common cause should be made among Irishmen was not assented to by Mr. O’Connell. It was also declined by Mr. Sheil, who happened about the time to be on a visit at Lyons, and to whom I mentioned my views. “They were in principle quite right,” he said, “but the Catholics could not afford to do what was abstractedly right; they were poor beggars, who must take what they could get and endeavour to get what they could.” So the separate Catholic agitation went on, becoming daily more separate. The following letters show plainly enough how the leaven of mischief was working:- *

Daniel O’Connell, Esq., to Lord Cloncurry.*

Darrynane Abbey, near Caherciveen,

4th September, 1828.

“My dear Lord - I know you will excuse me for writing to you anything I think useful to Ireland. If you agree with me you will zealously assist, if not, you will forgive the trouble I give you, out of regard for my motives.

The Orange faction is endeavouring to beard the government - that seems quite plain. Their ostentatious display of their peerage strength in the Brunswick Club, is manifestly made in order to terrify the government of Lord Anglesey, and to encourage the friends of bigotry in England, where there are many, and some in the highest station. It would be, indeed, quite idle to conceal from ourselves that the great enemy of the people of Ireland is his most sacred Majesty!! It is but too obvious that the pimps and parasites who surround the throne have an idea that their power is connected with the continuation of abuses in Ireland. They are miserably mistaken, and they would be much more secure by doing us justice; but it is with the fact we have to do, not with the theory. The fact, then, is most unfavourable, and the Saurins and Lefroys are only struggling to give their friends in the ministry, and men near the throne, a notion that their party in Ireland is strong enough to continue misgovernment with impunity. This is obviously the object of the recent and continued display of Orange aristocracy.

In the meantime, what are *our *friends doing? Alas, nothing! They, the Orangeists, have their peers coming forward with alacrity, openly, and with ostentation. They have their marquis at their head - more than one marquis. We have scarcely any symptom of sympathy from the higher order of Protestants. There is, indeed, a duke, who you say, and I believe you, means well; but allow me mournfully, but not reproachfully, to ask you, of what value are his intentions? What a glorious opportunity is he not letting slip to serve Ireland and to exalt himself - but above all things, to serve Ireland. I know that there is a declaration being signed in favour of Emancipation - a paltry declaration it is just enough to serve as an excuse for *doing *nothing. I want to see something *done. *The Orangeists are *doing *and so are the Catholic Association; and we are doing so well, that we can afford, after all, to go on without being encumbered with other aid. But, although we can *afford it, *we should much desire not to let things remain as they are. The assistance of Protestants generates so much good feeling, and such a national community of sentiment, that I deem it more valuable than even Emancipation itself. I tell you frankly what I think ought to be done, but what I fear will not. I think the Duke of Leinster, and every other Protestant peer friendly to the principle of freedom of conscience, should avail themselves at once of the formation of the Brunswick Club, and come forward and join the Catholic Association. There is in Ireland no neutral ground - whatever is not with us, is, in reality, against us. The time is come to take an active part in struggling to preserve the country from the bigots.

[The remainder of this letter has been lost]” *

Daniel O’Connell, Esq., to Lord Cloncurry.*

Darrymane Abbey, 24th September, 1828.

“My dear Lord - I am not going to inflict another long letter upon you; but since I wrote and sent off my last letter, I saw a speech of Sheil’s, at the Association, in which he calls on the Duke, Lord Charlemont, and on you by name, to join us for Ireland. I wish to clear from your mind all suspicion that he and I are *thus *acting in conjunction. I do assure you, solemnly, we are not; and his having concurred with me is only another evidence of the deep conviction the Catholics now entertain that they are either opposed or deserted by the Irish Protestants. This is to me a most painful subject. Why should I not grieve, and grieve to my heart’s core, when I see Lord Rossmore active and Lord Cloncurry dormant? - when I see Lord Rossmore the most popular of the Irish peerage, and the Duke of Leinster the least so.

It is vain to accuse the people of rash judgments. They know their friends, not from the wishes and intentions of those friends, but from their actions and exertions. It would be easy, indeed, for the Duke to resume his natural station. He would be received with the loudest acclaim. He is, however, in principle, or from want of thought, a unionist; and the time is come when every honest and sensible Irishman should be preparing to compel the repeal of that measure. But *we *must do this *alone. *Protestant assistance will be given us when the difficulties are over, and that success is approaching.

I do not ask you for a declaration of your concurrence in the opinion that Protestant patriotism in Ireland is at the lowest ebb. You would have long since done much for Ireland, if you could have found Protestant co-operators. This defection is the more to be regretted, because it leaves so much alive the religious prejudices of the people - those fatal prejudices which have been so long the destruction of this wretched country. For my part, the only sensation which remains in my mind is that which creates the determination to exert myself *doubly *for “Old Ireland.” I have the honour to be, with the most sincere respect, my dear Lord,

Your very faithful and sincere servant,

Daniel O’Connell.”

[This letter is remarkable, as being franked ” Daniel O’Connell,” and bearing the post mark “Free.” It was written after Mr. O’Connell’s return for Clare, and before the Relief Measure of 1829 enabled him to take his seat in the House of Commons.] *

The Earl of Donoughmore (General Lord Hutchinson) to Lord Cloncurry.*

Knocklofty, September 1, 1828. (Private.)

“My dear Cloncurry - I have received your letter of the 29th of last month, and should be very glad to co-operate with you in anything, and particularly to act with you in endeavouring to settle the Catholic question, because it is the foundation on which the permanent tranquillity of Ireland can alone be erected. In my estimation the Protestant, or Brunswick Clubs, I mean the associations at whose head Lord Longford is placed, are very formidable. We ought not to conceal from ourselves that there is a great deal of rank and fortune, and even some talent, included amongst them. I should despair of getting signatures amongst the Irish liberal Protestants, which could at all compete in number, property, or respectability with that association.

The fact is, that the violence of O’Connell and his associates, at least in this part of Ireland, has done the Catholic cause much mischief; and it would be impossible here, and in the city and county of Cork, to get any considerable number of Protestants to affix their signatures to any document similar to that which you have in contemplation. In the county and city of Cork they are much more violent than in Tipperary; but even in this county, where more of the principal gentlemen are disposed to be liberal, the late proceedings of the Catholics have irritated them very much. About three years ago, there was a very strong declaration signed by (the number is illegible) peers, to which both your name and mine were affixed. I have already sounded some of my friends. They do not seem willing to make any declaration of their sentiments. Just at present I am very apprehensive that an attempt would end in failure, and I am clearly of opinion that if we cannot procure numerous signatures, it would be much more prudent not to make any effort at all. If we could display our strength among the Protestants, I should agree with you in sentiment, but I am apprehensive that the result would be different, and our failure might be complete, which would probably injure a cause which, at the present moment, is placed in a most critical position. Believe me to be, my dear Cloncurry, with great regard,

Most truly yours,

Donoughmore.”

During the early part of the year in which the foregoing three letters were written, the Marquis of Anglesey had been appointed to the viceroyalty of Ireland by the Tory ministry then in power. The policy (if so it can be called) that guided them in their partisan resistance to the enlightened plans of Mr. Canning, had not yet been overborne by their fears. The Duke of Wellington still thought it possible to govern by the terrors of the bayonet, and no man knew better than his Grace that whatever might be accomplished by the aid of high military qualities, an aristocratic bearing, and a determined will, might be done by Lord Anglesey. Upon the mind of the Marquis, at that time, the professional violence of the leading agitators had produced effects similar to those to which I have referred, as having been occasioned by it in the minds of many liberal Irishmen: he had just then said in the House of Lords, that “if the Irish wished for war, the sooner they drew the sword the better.”

It was upon these grounds that the selection of Lord Anglesey, as the Wellington Lieutenant, was based; but it turned out to be a reckoning without the host. His Excellency had not, indeed, previously applied his thoughts to the Irish question; but he had a strong and inquiring mind, and when it became his duty to make himself acquainted with the position of Irish politics and parties, he set about the work in a candid and straightforward spirit, that soon cleared the way for a full enlightenment of his judgment. With regard to him the saying of Caesar might have been reversed: he might have said *veni vidi *et *victus fui, *so speedily did his sense of justice triumph over his prejudices.

It was my good fortune to make the acquaintance of this noble soldier very shortly after his first assumption of the office of Lord Lieutenant. We met, I think, at the table of my neighbour and friend, though political opposite, Lord Mayo, and there began an intimacy which, during his second viceroyalty, ripened into a cordial friendship that has continued without interruption to the present moment. In one respect I was a safe companion, for I wanted nothing either for myself or others, and had no interest that was not in common with that of the country. I was so circumstanced as to be free from any inducement either to blind the viceroy, that I might profit by his errors, or to seek an opportunity for prey in the continuance of confusion and discord among my fellow-countrymen.

Lord Anglesey gave me credit for being influenced by these circumstances, and not less, I believe, for being sincerely desirous of promoting the prosperity and well-founded peace of Ireland; and I was, accordingly, so far honoured by his confidence, as to be permitted to form a sort of private cabinet, to which he frequently referred for counsel and assistance. In this extra-official council, of which, I confess, I was not at first a very willing member, were included Mr. George Villiers (now Earl of Clarendon), the late Right Honourable Anthony Blake, and Mr. William Henry Curran (now a judge of the Insolvent Debtors’ Court).

We met very frequently at dinner, as well as at other periods, when matters occurred respecting which Lord Anglesey wished for information and advised; and so often, and at such uncertain times, was this assistance called for, that it was my habit to have post-horses constantly ready at Lyons, in order to enable me to obey his Excellency’s summons. It was, as I have already intimated, no long time until Lord Anglesey formed opinions for himself in reference to Irish politics; and, in accordance with his new views, he declared himself friendly to Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. The result was, his recall, in a year from the date of his appointment, and his departure with the honours of an ovation: he was escorted from Dublin to the water’s edge by the entire population of the city. And having thus voluntarily failed in the performance of the service expected from him by his colleagues, his conscientious change of opinion became the means of hastening the advent of that crisis which, twelve months before, he had been commissioned for the very purpose of retarding.

The first year passed by Lord Anglesey in Ireland, although it ended in a triumph of his popularity, was yet a season of much difficulty and annoyance. During its course, the agitation for Emancipation reached its height, and the violence of the professional agitators had culminated in the climax of the Clare election. It became obvious to the multitude that the exhibition of physical force was doing its work. The ministers were seen to falter, and both the people and their leaders perceived that it was time to press upon a wavering foe. The time had nearly passed when concession could be made without loss of honour. Under the management of Lord Anglesey it might, perhaps, have been possible to have concluded a decent peace; but, even in his hands, it would have been more than difficult to have prevented the defeat of the army of the oppressors from being converted into that scandalous rout to which the mingled obstinacy, panic, and perfidy of Wellington and Peel exposed them.

This position of affairs naturally rendered the course of Lord Anglesey a thorny one. To-day he was subjected to the abuse of the Protestant-ascendancy men - to-morrow, to the distrust of the Catholic Association. The former laid upon his shoulders the responsibility of the violence of O’Connell and his followers-while the latter suspected him of insincerity in his avowed sympathy with their cause, and, at the same time, by their intemperance, rendered it impossible for him to hesitate in the stringent enforcement of the law, which, however oppressive upon them, it was his duty to execute. The following letters may throw a little light upon the character of the time; they will, at all events, illustrate the generous and high-minded feeling towards Ireland which, from an early period of his viceregal career, actuated Lord Anglesey:- *

The Marquis of Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

Phoenix-park, December 5, 1828.

“My dear Lord - I thank you for your letter, and for the memoir which accompanies it. I shall read this document with great interest.

I do assure your Lordship that I am too well convinced of your loyalty and love of country to believe that you could have sanctioned the expressions which were used regarding you by Mr. O’Connell at the Association; and if there are those who could have entertained such an opinion, your manly disavowal at Lord Morpeth’s dinner of being a party to the sentiment expressed, ought to have removed every doubt.

In respect to the expression very imprudently used, I am one who thinks that great allowance ought to be made for the strong expressions of public speakers, which frequently are mere vapour, and mean nothing; and I feel convinced (although I know I am liable to be laughed at for my credulity) that the Prime Agitator means no harm.

I remain, my dear Lord,

Very truly yours,

Anglesey.” *

The Marquis of Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

Uxbridge House, March 12, 1829.

“My dear Lord - I have sent you the two bills now in progress, and I shall like to know what you think of them, and particularly of that concerning the forty-shilling freeholders.

How fortunate for the Catholics that the ministers did not bite at my proposition to adjust the question for them! I could have obtained much better terms (as they would have been erroneously thought to be) for the Protestants. I therefore rejoice that things are as they are.

Notwithstanding the forebodings of some croakers, I have not the least doubt that the Relief Bill will pass triumphantly; and, excepting a few trifling and silly points, which give the appearance of the measure being adopted against the grain, I do think it is a handsome production, and must please the Catholics. I believe O’Connell is behaving very well here. Poor William has had a very severe attack of smallpox. He is going on as well as possible, and I have removed him to an airy lodging at Brompton. All my ladies took fright, and disappeared, leaving me quite alone. We are fumigating, and I suppose they will soon return.

I hope Lady Cloncurry and your family are quite well. I assure you we often talk of Lyons and its hospitable inhabitants.

You can have no idea of the intense interest this Catholic question excites in England. I do not think that Ireland is so much occupied with it. Not another subject is ever broached in any society, male or female.

I continue to receive daily proofs of the kind feelings of your amiable countrymen towards me; and I do assure you it is a source of the highest gratification to me. With best regards to Lady Cloncurry,

Believe me, my dear Lord,

Very truly yours,

Anglesey.” *

The Marquis of Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

Cowes, August 7, 1829.

“My dear Lord - As you flatter me by wishing for my opinion of the projected improvements and alterations of Kingstown Harbour, I give you freely what occurs to me.

I grieve for the excesses that have been committed in Ireland, but I well know to what cause to attribute them. Those who have chosen to predict that Emancipation will profit that country nothing, are no doubt very well disposed to contribute to the verification of their predictions.

But in spite of every obstacle, in spite even of the imprudence of O’Connell, who has, I admit, had ample reason to complain, but who would have acted more wisely and magnanimously by merely smiling at the puny and pitiful efforts to exclude him from the legislature, Ireland will prosper, unless she is grossly misruled.

I have my eye fixed upon you, and if I had now the influence I once possessed amongst you, I should still preach Peace, Temperance, Forbearance, Patience. Your wounds are too deeply inflicted to expect a very rapid cure.

With best wishes to Lady Cloncurry and your family, Believe me, my dear Lord,

Very truly yours,

Anglesey.” *

The Marquis of Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

(Extract.)

“I see a subscription for the distressed manufacturers of Dublin. Should I subscribe ?-and what would be handsome without being ostentatious? Or shall I order five waistcoats? (The allusion here is to an order for a waistcoat given by the Duke of Northumberland as his answer to the complaint of a deputation of distressed weavers. There was much laughing about it at the time; but the joke wanted its point, as want of liberality was not the Duke’s fault. The circumstance of the order had its origin, I presume, in some inadvertence.)

Seriously, would double or treble the amount of what you would advise me to subscribe, be more beneficial in the shape of an order for furniture, &c.?

I have a heavier task to impose upon you shortly. Although I can never bring myself to take part in debate, yet I want you to furnish me at your leisure with your concise views of what is *not *done that ought to be done for Ireland-of what is practicable and attainable for her relief-of what are the grossest defects in her present state and system - of the best plan for something to effect what our poor - laws do not effect. In short, I want a very compressed outline of the practical means of making Ireland what she is capable of and what she should be, and what every honest Irishman and liberal Englishman should wish her to be.

No small demand, this; but in the compass of this letter, you can some day furnish me with what I want. I remain, my dear Lord,

Very truly yours,

Anglesey.” *

Lord Cloncurry to Daniel O’Connell.*

“My dear O’Connell - You will find in the Hibernian Bank, lodged by me to your credit, £10, which I request you will have acknowledged as my rent for 1829. At the same time I beg you will have corrected what is reported in the newspapers as part of your speech at the Association on Thursday last, where, amongst the frivolous causes of Lord Anglesey’s recall, is mentioned, “because, forsooth, he visited Lord Cloncurry.” Now, to have my name at all connected with that of our truly excellent Viceroy would be such a gratification, not to my vanity, but to my honest pride, as would tend in some manner to diminish the sorrow I should justly feel at having at all contributed, however unwillingly, to so dreadful a misfortune to my country; but the truth is, the self-acknowledged maniac made no such charge. The causes of recall, as far as I can form an opinion, were as follow: personal jealousy of superior popularity and talent; a desire to get rid of all the members of a more liberal administration; and a determination that Ireland should not be governed by a man capable of appealing to the good sense and good feelings of the people, and whose firm and impartial administration secured the obedience of affection.

The recall being determined, every means were taken to irritate, where it was impossible to find fault, and amongst the foolish twittings was one for my having gone to the Catholic Association, after having been visited by the King’s representative and the Lord Chancellor. Certainly, if anything could convert me, or could wean me from the Catholic Association, or from all desire to agitate, it would be such men as Lord Anglesey and Sir Anthony Hart. However, one of the first declarations I heard from his Excellency was, “I do not ask men to give up their opinions; I only ask them to obey the law, and to aid in keeping the country quiet.”

If the great proprietors and chief nobles of the land were resident, Lord Cloncurry would be a very small person, and act a very humble part amongst the hospitalities of Ireland; but where all is misery and absenteeism, a house kept warm for five-and-twenty years may *prick up its chimneys. *For this reason, and for this alone, I invited Lord Anglesey, as I did the King, and was in like manner invited by them. In one respect I was a safe companion: I wanted nothing from either, nor would accept favour, even from my sovereign, until justice was done to my country.

The part I take in some public institutions, and the kind feeling of my fellow-citizens towards me, made me the bearer of many addresses, memorials, and other communications to the government, in the course of the summer, when there was no chief secretary in the country. I was therefore more troublesome to the Lord Lieutenant, not than I have a right to be, but than I would wish to be. On one occasion his Excellency having mentioned his disapprobation of the over-numerous assemblies of the people in the south, I begged leave to be the humble messenger of his will, and the meetings, never intended for any bad purpose, were discontinued: in like manner, the mission to the north was recalled. In both instances, obedience was secured without the cost of a guinea or a blow.

On another occasion, the chief manufacturers and traders of Dublin having confided to me certain representations very important to their interests, I had several interviews with his Excellency for the purpose of forwarding and reconciling the different interests of the importers and the manufacturers, and the establishment of a woollen-hall and a market. On every occasion, I found the same patient attention, ready understanding, and full investigation of the subject.

It was during these discussions that I first got alarmed at Mr. Ford’s non-intervention resolution. After discussing the subject at the Society for the Improvement of Ireland, I went to the Association to see you and Lord Killeen, and to solicit your opposition to the measure. Mr. Lawless promised me it should be given up, or at least postponed. I then proposed the meeting which has since taken place at the’ Rotunda, to which you at once agreed. You then invited me into the great room: when I said a few words of respect and affection to the assembly, I withdrew.

Most of this history is already known to you, but I repeat it to put the public in possession of such of the *delusions *as concern me. It is the first time I have heard it suggested that a peer of the realm should ask permission of the minister to associate with his countrymen. I conclude that the Brunswickers have his gracious permission and approbation of their proceedings. Indeed, it can hardly be doubted, or the sheriff of Clare would have excited the indignation that was lavished on O’Gorman Mahon; the former having acted unconstitutionally, and the latter in the very spirit of the law, though perhaps with the intemperance of youth.

My dear O’Connell, if I do not go constantly to the Association, it is because I can safely leave the work to abler hands. The union of the friends of civil and religious liberty has sprung from the madness of the minister; and the good sense of the Catholics. They must succeed: their success will be to me a sweet indemnity for one-and-thirty years of persevering persecution. The wretches who skulked behind a bad act of a corrupt parliament, to escape the vengeance of the laws outraged in my person, never could forgive the man they so deeply injured; but the sufferer survives to forgive them, and to rejoice in the brighter hopes of his country.

Yours, &c.,

Cloncurry.”

I. have more to say in reference to the policy progress of Lord Anglesey’s Irish administration; but, postponing that subject for the present, I must conclude my observations upon the Catholic question.

It is difficult to conceive any position in which politicians could be placed, more humiliating than that occupied by the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, in the year 1829. Beaten, after a long struggle, as much by their own fears as by the strength of their assailants, they fell, without dignity, confessing their terrors and their defeat, and yet striking a parting blow, such as could only irritate without maiming their enemy. By his dogged obstinacy, the Duke delayed the concession of their rights to the Roman Catholics, until it could no longer be yielded with a good grace; and when, at length, he thought himself obliged to give way, he admitted that it was not to the justice of the claim that he conceded, but to his apprehensions of the force and violence of the claimants. And, finally, when the victory was thus gained against him, he fruitlessly vexed the victor, and staked the peace of the country upon a new election contest, by refusing to permit Mr. O’Connell to take the seat to which he had been legally chosen by the electors of Clare, and to fill which he was qualified by the Relief Act. Had this bit of petty spite been foregone, and had good feeling been shown, at the small expense of silk gowns for Messrs. O’Connell and Sheil, it is more than probable that the measure of 1829 would have been a final and healing one, and that the strength of the Catholic agitation would, thenceforward, have been turned to the improvement of the institutions of Ireland, and the development of her material prosperity and social happiness.

As it was, the epoch of Emancipation was but the beginning of a long and troubled era of discord, in the course of which Tory government was rendered impossible, and successive liberal administrations were obliged alternately to keep up their power by coercion bills, or to shrink from a policy of progress, in attempting to work out which they were at one time frustrated by the lingering spirit of Protestant ascendancy, and at another encumbered by the assistance of demagogue cupidity and priestly ambition. The manner in which the Relief Act was carried was so contrived as to render the hatred between the two sections of the Irish people persistent; to leave each still something to fight for; to keep up the notion that government favour and patronage must be for the one or for the other, and was incapable of being impartially divided between both.

The Church, the University, the municipal corporations still remained to excite the cupidity or the honourable ambition of the Catholics. Their clergy, whom 20 years of agitation had made the active leaders of the people, were allowed to continue in a state of complete dependence upon their impoverished flocks and being discouraged from the pursuit of education in common with their Protestant fellow-countrymen, in the national University, they were practically restricted to the monastic and exclusive training of Maynooth, where stinted means rendered it impossible to comply with the ordinary decencies of civilised life, not to speak of satisfying the requirements of a liberal system of education. In entire accordance with the paltry malice that denied Mr. O’Connell a patent of precedence was the government patronage administered. The Roman Catholics, indeed, were by law made eligible to all public offices; but Protestantism was still the proper faith for placehunters, and its profession the way to the honours of the corporations and the civilities of “the Castle,” not less than to the profits and emoluments of public employments.

Thus a great concession was made by the Legislature of England to the majority of the Irish people, avowedly under the influence of the fear of physical force; and at the same time it was so marred in the granting, that while the popular power was vastly extended, the irritation of the leaders of the people was preserved in its state of highest intensity, by the continuance of many small grievances. By the Act of 1829, the peasantry and artisans were not benefitted in their physical or moral condition. They were left in that *statu quo *of poverty and ignorance which enabled the demagogues, whom they obeyed, still to guide them as they pleased; and their leaders found themselves endowed with new political power, but as yet deprived or all the solid advantages that commonly cause such power to be desired by men.

It is not, therefore, matter of wonder that the remarkable year 1829, instead of being the beginning of an era of tranquillity, turned out to be but the first of a score of years of Roman Catholic agitation, more violent than had ever before distracted the kingdom. Stimulated into fury by the sweets of place and rower that now hung within their reach, the laymen began a fierce, and in Ireland, almost exclusively, sectarian struggle for parliamentary reform, for the abolition of the Established Church, and for the destruction of the municipal corporations.

In all their projects they were zealously and most efficiently seconded by a clergy who saw themselves despised, and poor, and disowned by the State, and every day contrasted their humiliating position with the court-honoured, glebe-lodged, tithe-endowed parsons and spiritual Lords of Parliament, who were their neighbours in every parish, diocese, and province. In these contests, the resisting party was exclusively composed of Protestants. The differences of political opinion that stirred society in England, and made men who frequented the same parish church take opposite sides at the hustings, were in Ireland swallowed up and confounded in the grand distinction of religious creed; and that, in truth, was but the received name for the real subject of quarrel - viz., the place, power, and consideration exclusively enjoyed by the professors of one creed, and most ardently desired by the professors of the other.

It is a consolation to me to observe that the spirit which maintained this war is at length showing signs of approaching weakness. The points in dispute are daily becoming less numerous. Changes in English party tactics have led to a more extended and less exclusively sectarian traffic in patronage. Corruption can now scarcely be said to hold any peculiar religious belief. The honest and too-long deluded people are, I trust, beginning to see, on the one side, that the chicanery of the law may be as formidable to the liberties of Ireland, when worked by the hand of a Popish Attorney-General, as it was under the guidance of the most ultra-Orange Clare, Toler, or Saurin; and to perceive, on the other, that the property, and commerce, and agriculture of the Anglo-Irish pale may be as recklessly spoiled by an orthodox Protestant poor-law commissioner as ever they were by a James or a Tyrconnel.

It seems to me now to need but a few not very considerable social modifications to effect a complete and permanent solution of the Catholic question. When that shall have been accomplished, Ireland may take the place in the civilised world which her geographical position, her internal resources, and her population, entitle her to assume. While that condition of social fever indicated by the phrase “Catholic question,” shall remain unsettled, so long will this fertile island continue to be the hunting-ground for English place-seekers, and the prison for a horde of starving serfs

Angliae decus et *obsimium.”

The Rev. F. J. L’Estrange [domestic chaplain to Mr. Connell] to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin Catholic Rooms, Feb. 3, 1829.

“My Lord - I have the honour, as chairman of a meeting of the Association, held on January 27th, instant, to enclose a resolution of grateful acknowledgments for the persevering support afforded by your Lordship in the arduous struggle in which we are engaged for our constitutional rights. The number of years in which we have been cheered by the countenance of your Lordship, even under circumstances of great difficulty, has earned for your Lordship the everlasting gratitude of your fellow-Christians; and therefore it renders it almost unnecessary for me to acquaint your Lordship with what enthusiastic applause your name is always received in the Association. I feel greatly flattered by having the honour of filling the chair on an occasion which affords me the opportunity of assuring your Lordship how cordially I join in paying the tribute of praise, so well deserved, on account of a long series of noble and patriotic deeds. I have the honour to subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your faithful servant,

F. J. L’Estrange.”

The following letters will show that the opinions I have advanced above with regard to the condition of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth were not opinions “of the morrow,” in reference to the recent salutary changes made in that establishment *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

(Private.)

South-street, 29th April.

“My dear Lord - I will take care that your suggestions shall be known to Melbourne and to Mulgrave, and enforced by your authority and your reasons; and I sincerely hope, and indeed entreat you, to continue to convey them either directly to them, or indirectly through me for I am satisfied that nothing can be more advantageous to the government than ascertaining, and deliberately and favourably considering, your views of such matters. I own your strong recommendation of additional grants to Maynooth rather takes me by surprise, as I thought that that project had in a great measure failed, and that the opinion of the best-informed and most liberal of both persuasions was that almost any other scheme that could be adopted would supply the Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland with a better class of priests than those educated at Maynooth. However, your opinion, even if there be no other, is quite sufficient to make inquiry and reconsideration advisable; and Melbourne, and Mulgrave, and Morpeth (what alliteration!) shall all be aware of it.

Our elections, with the exception of the Solicitor-General, which has no moral effect whatever on the public, have hitherto gone well. We are sanguine, and almost confident, about Morpeth’s. I wish we were equally so about John Russell’s, but we have no reason to despair, and what is encouraging, the reports from Devon improve.

Yours,

Vassall Holland.” *

Lord Melbourne to Lord Cloneurry.*

Downing-street, June 4, 1835.

“My dear Lord - I beg leave to return you my best thanks for your letter of the 3rd of last month; and I know you will think the assurance that I have not omitted to consider its contents a sufficient excuse for not having made an earlier acknowledgment of it.

I believe all you say respecting Maynooth; I have always heard the same from all persons of knowledge and information upon the subject; and yet it appears to me to be perfectly impossible, at the present time, to act upon either of your suggestions. To abolish the College altogether, without instituting anything in its room, would be considered an insult and an injury by the whole Roman Catholic population of Ireland; and, on the other hand, the prejudices of Protestants of all descriptions - Churchman, Dissenter, and Voluntary-would oppose themselves to an augmentation of the endowment. You must be sufficiently aware of the feelings of this country to be persuaded that such a proposition would fail in parliament, and that the bringing it forward would be of the utmost prejudice to the government.

Your observations respecting the police are equally sound and unanswerable. I always thought the appointment by the magistrates objectionable; and if those to whom they have given it up conduct it upon the principles which you mention, it is still worse. I can conceive that some of the Inspectors-general might act in the manner which you mention, but surely not all, and particularly not those who have been recently appointed.

The persons whom you mention have not been neglected; an offer of advancement was made to Mr. Holmes. I am afraid there is more difficulty in arranging C---‘s succeeding to Peter Burrowes. What can we possibly do for B---? Making him a privy councillor is nonsense: he is a noodle to wish it. There are, in my opinion, objections to it; and if he got it, depend upon it it would not give him three hours’ gratification. I think the late government did wrong in making S---. I shall be at all times glad to hear from you; and believe me, my dear Lord,

Yours faithfully,

Melbourne.”

Next Chapter. Cloncurry Index