A Student. Projected Union. Murder of Dixon.

Chapter III.

1795-1797.

Become a student of the Middle Temple - Hear of the Projected Union from Mr. Pitt - Consequent Essay in pamphleteering - London Acquaintance - John Macnamara - Mr. Macnamara, the London Agent of Irish Politicians - His Mode of Conducting the Business of his Agency - His Sunday Parties at Streatham - John Home Tooke - John Reeves - Colonel Despard - Progress of Irish Politics - Become a Supporter of the “Press and a United Irishman - Approaching Conflict of Parties - Murder of Christopher Dixon - Judge Toler’s Charge at the Trial of the Murderer - Kildare petition - Interference of the Government - Correspondence with Secretary Pelham - Withdrawal of the Patriot Members from parliament - Mr. Grattan’s Addresss - Suspicions of the Government - Correspondence with Under-Secretary Cooke - Lord Clonmell - A bra Pleasura.

Shortly after my return from Switzerland, in 1795, I entered as a student of the Middle Temple - a step which rendered it necessary for me to pay frequent visits to London. During one of these, I happened to meet Mr. Pitt at dinner, at the house of John Macnamara, in Baker-street; and there, for the first time, heard of the contemplated project of a union between Great Britain and Ireland. The news naturally acted as a ferment upon my notions of patriotism and nationality, the product of which was, the publication of a pamphlet under the tide of “Thoughts on the Projected Union.” This brochure, which was published by Moore of College-green, was, I dare say, of no great intrinsic value ; but it was the first blow at the” ministerial scheme, and was, therefore, honoured by a special reply from the pen of Mr. Edward Cooke, then Under-Secretary of State for Ireland. My essay in literature, as will be afterwards seen, cost me as heavy price.

My occasional sojourn in London, during the years of my studentship at the Temple, brought me into contact with some remarkable men, of whom I must endeavour to sketch a few traits.

Of one of these - John Macnamara - I have just mentioned the name. With him I had become acquainted in Switzerland; and upon meeting him again in London, I found him noted as a high Tory politician, and upon intimate terms with Mr. Pitt. He had, a few years before, taken a very active part against Mr. Fox, in the celebrated contest for the representation of Westminster, in the course of which he got his skull fractured, and was thus beaten into a sort of celebrity, that was much increased by a horrible event, in which he was in some degree an actor. I allude to the murder of Miss Ray, a distinguished actress of the day, who was shot through the head by a clergyman named Hackfall, while leaving the theatre, leaning upon the arm of John Macnamara. I have often heard him describe the scene (which naturally made a great noise at the time) with frightful distinctness - the sudden assault of the assassin, the instantaneous death of the victim, and the spattering of the poor girl’s brains over his own face, made a terrible tale.

There was also, among the notables of London of that day, another Macnamara, whose position was very curiously illustrative of the state of society at the time, and especially of the character of the relation that subsisted between the two kingdoms.

Mr. Macnamara, to whom I now refer, notwithstanding the impediments of being an Irishman and a Roman Catholic, was, in the latter part of the last century, a very celebrated conveyancer in London; and, from his position, upon terms of the closest intimacy with the highest members of the legal profession. He was also land-agent, or steward, to the Duke of Bedford; but the most extraordinary of his occupations was that of London agent for political affairs to several of the public men of Ireland. In that capacity he was retained by Lord Clonmel, then Chief Justice, at a regular salary of £400 a-year.

He was, in like manner, bound to the service of several other Irish politicians, by stipends fixed at various rates; and even my father, who was neither placeman nor placehunter, constantly paid him £100 a-year What his duties in this strange employment were it would not be easy to define: his commission was a general one-to take care of the interests of his employers at the Court, and to keep them informed in reference to all political events that might concern them individually, or the country.

To realise to one’s mind, now-a-days, any conception of the uses of so singular an office, one must first forget the fact that 13 hours now suffice for a journey to London, which can be performed with scarcely as much fatigue as would attend a ride of 30 miles; and must next call to memory the correlative fact that, at the period of which I write, a dangerous and often tedious sea passage, and a laud journey of two or three days, was to be got over, in accomplishing the same purpose.

Consequently, information which an Irish Chief Justice, or peer, or even a placehunting barrister, could, at the present time, get for himself, by running over to the seat of government, at the cost of a few pounds and an absence of three or four days, would, in the last century, have been unattainable in time for use but for the services of such an agent as Mr. Macnamara. Unfortunately for Ireland, Irish politicians of this day enjoy a fatal facility for absenteeism, of which they are but too ready to avail themselves.

At the period of my early visits to London, Mr. Macnamara’s mode of conducting the business of his agency was infinitely more interesting to me than the nature of the business itself; and a strange mode it was. His table was open to his Irish employers and their connexions; and there was to be met the *elite *of the London society of the day. At his villa at Streatham, near Croydon, where his hospitality shone out with the greatest brilliancy, his larder was a sort of public curiosity, and was usually shown to his visitors as such. It was always provisioned as for a siege, which, in fact, it sustained every Sunday, when a large, and very often a most agreeable, dinner-party assembled. On these occasions it was no unusual event for the Prince of Wales to attend uninvited, as did also men of the highest rank and note in both houses of parliament.

Having a general invitation, I was frequently a Sunday guest at Streatham, and made many lasting acquaintanceships during those pleasant symposia, the agreeability of which was, however, sometimes diversified by an afterpiece in the fashion of the time.

I remember, upon one Sunday night, coming up just in time to save Lord and Lady William Russell from being rifled by highwaymen on Blackheath. They had left Streatham before me, but I drove up to their rescue about ten minutes after they had fallen into the hands of some gentlemen of the road, who took a hasty departure upon hearing the approach of my carriage. Such events as this were of daily occurrence in the neighbourhood of London in those days, and excited but little attention.

About this period, also, I became acquainted with another and a much more remarkable man than Macnamara - the celebrated John Horne Tooke. My first meeting with him was not an auspicious one, as we commenced our knowledge of each other by a quarrel. The occasion was a public dinner in commemoration of some political event, at which, for what reason I know not, I was asked to preside. After dinner, Horne Tooke (whether moved by an accidental fit of ill-humour, or by displeasure at some part of my presidential conduct, I could not find out) suddenly broke out into a violent attack upon me, which, at the time, rather disturbed the harmony of the company; but ended in our becoming excellent friends.

I was afterwards in the frequent habit of dining with him, at a cottage at Wimbledon Common, where he resided, supporting himself chiefly, I believe, upon the produce of his literary industry. These, too, were pleasant parties. Among the guests were Sir Francis Burdett, a Colonel Boswell, the two Perrys (one of them editor of the *Morning Chronicle), *and sometimes Curran.

My reminiscences of those days would, indeed, be very imperfect, if they did not include a recollection of my excellent friend John Reeves, the author of a “History of the Law of England;” but better known as the object of prosecution by the House of Commons, for the publication of ultra-Toy opinions. The *corpus delicti *was a pamphlet, entitled “Thoughts on the English Government,” in which Mr. Reeves maintained, that “with the exception of the advice and consent of the two houses of parliament, and the interposition of juries,” the government of England is absolutely monarchical; that it might go on, in all its functions, without Lords and Commons; resembling a stately tree, of which the king is the stem, and the estates of parliament only branches - goodly, it is true, but which might be lopped off, and the tree remain a tree still; “shorn, indeed, of its honours, but not, like them, cast into the fire.”

This theory was, in the year 1795, pronounced by the House of Commons, at the instance of Mr. Sheridan, to be a scandalous and seditious libel; and poor John Reeves was accordingly prosecuted by the Attorney-General, brought to trial, and acquitted.

It was not, however, in the power of prosecution or persecution to beat an idea out of John Reeves’ head; and accordingly he held by his theory to the last with as much constancy as Voltaire’s Optimist. To the day of his death he continued to seal his letters with an impression of his emblem of the British constitution - a goodly oak, surmounted by the motto, “Quiet good sense.” One of these letters, so sealed, has just fallen under my hand; and though not chronologically in place here, I will insert it, as illustrating the sentiments of a man who was made the subject of a state prosecution some five years prior to its date *

John Reeves, Esq. to the Hon. Charlotte Lawless.*

7th August, 1800.

“My dear Madam - I have the honour of your letter, and I am very happy to be able to answer the main of your inquiry to your satisfaction - that is, your brother is in very good health. Last time I was with him he borrowed some books of me - Gibbon and Clarendon. I own I rather persuaded him to have Clarendon; for Gibbon was the book he wanted. Clarendon’s history contains the origin of all our political and party questions: they are there set in their true light, such as will ever after be a guide in forming a judgment upon the merits of such claims.

I saw in the paper the account of the Irish Parliament meeting for the last time. I protest I am so much of an Irishman as to sympathise in the feelings that most of those present must have had. The Union may be believed to be a good measure; but it is an experiment, and then the splendour and pride of a parliament is gone for ever. These are natural feelings. We are to hope it is for the best. I myself have no doubt about it, except the doubt that must accompany all human attempts at improvement.

Well, we are all one now: you and I are countryfolks; that is, we shall be so on 1st January, 1801. As yet it is only an espousal; the Union will be then.

I do not hear of Lady Clonmell: indeed I have not sent, taking it for granted she would do me the favour to acquaint me with her arrival. She was to be here on 1st August.

I say nothing to you upon the other inquiry you naturally make about our friend: you, as well as he, must live in hope.

Pray make my best rememembrance to your sisters, and to Lady Clonmell, if she is still with you, and believe me,

My dear Madam, ever truly yours,

John Reeves.”

In one respect John Reeves was himself an excellent type of a despotic monarchy. He was the most noted pluralist of the day; uniting in his own person the offices of Chief Justice of Newfoundland, of a Bow-street Police Magistrate of London, of a Commissioner of Bankrupts, of Secretary to the Board of Trade, and finally of prime mover of the Crown and Anchor Association.

The duties of these various employments it was, of course, physically impossible for any man to fulfil; but the emoluments of them were, no doubt, duly received, and were as duly invested in the performance of many kind acts, and in the purchase of a most extensive library, with which the houses he occupied successively in Thanet-place, Cecil-street, and Duke-street, literally overflowed.

The remembrance of Mr. Reeves suggests to my memory another individual with whom he and I became acquainted together, and whose name I am anxious to contribute my aid to rescue from the load of opprobrium placed upon it, as the coping of a series of misfortunes and persecutions such as few men in latter times have been made to suffer. I allude to the gallant and unfortunate Colonel Despard. This gentleman, who was of Irish birth, highly educated, and gifted with the most fascinating manners, had commanded in the West Indies, at Honduras, and on the coast of South America. In the course of his service he was the Companion and friend of Nelson; and during his co-operation with that celebrated officer, at the taking of Honduras, in zeal for the public cause, he advanced large sums of money from his own resources, for the promotion of the operations of the war.

For this, as well as for his gallantry and ability, he was thanked by parliament, but not repaid. On his arrival in England, he naturally pressed his claims for repayment upon the ministry; and, irritated by the delays and difficulties thrown in his way by officials, he indulged in strong and angry expostulations, which only had the effect of converting the apathy of those persons into violent animosity.

From the ill treatment of the ministry, poor Despard appealed to the House of Commons; but his claims being supported by the opposition, were the more certain of rejection, and he was still left without redress. He then fell into pecuniary difficulties, became excited to desperation, wrote violent letters to ministers, and, having joined the London Corresponding Society, was taken up under the act for suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, and confined in Coldbath Fields prison.

His case was again brought before parliament by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Dundas (not Pitt’s friend); and then, for the first time, I became acquainted with the circumstances. I had never seen Colonel Despard; but having been much affected by reading the story of his oppressions and misfortunes, as told in the discussion in the Rouse of Commons, I got my friend Mr. Reeves to accompany me, in his capacity of a magistrate of Middlesex, on a visit to Coldbath Fields. We found the colonel, who had served many years in tropical climates, imprisoned in a stone cell, six feet by eight, furnished with a truckle-bed and a small table. There was no chair, no fireplace, no window. Scanty light was admitted into this miserable abode through a barred but unglazed aperture over the door, which opened directly into a paved yard, at the time covered with snow.

Mr. Reeves, whose toryism never interfered with the promptings of his kindly and benevolent heart, at once took up Despard’s case, and, by his influence with his brother magistrates, he got him removed to an upper room, provided with chairs and a fireplace, where his wife was allowed to visit him, after a long separation. She was a Spanish creole, a remarkably fine woman, and much younger than her husband, who then appeared to be about 60 years of age.

I may as well now finish this episode of poor Despard’s history. From the winter of 1797 until the spring of 1801, I did not see him, and during most of that time I believe he was in confinement. As I passed through London, on my way to the Continent, in 1802, he called to see me; but was then so wan and worn, that he looked like a man risen from the grave. Of the unsound state of his mind, the following anecdote may convey some notion. In talking over the condition of Ireland, he told me that though “he had not seen his country for 30 years, he never ceased thinking of it and of its misfortunes, and that a main object of his visit to me was to disclose his discovery of an infallible remedy for the latter - viz., a voluntary separation of the sexes, so as to leave no future generation obnoxious to oppression.” This plan of cure would, he said, defy the machinations of the enemies of Ireland to interrupt its success.

Three years after this conversation, this poor madman - made mad by official persecution - was executed for a plot to take the Tower. I was afterwards able to afford his wife an asylum from destitution. She lived in my family at Lyons for some years.

During the years from 1795 to 1797 my time was passed between London and Dublin, and as events progressed in Ireland, I began to take a more active and decided part in the angry politics of the day. The course of Irish affairs was now down a steep decline, and I went rapidly with it. My time was spent in the society of the leaders of the popular movement - of my beloved friend Edward Fitzgerald, of Arthur O’Connor, the elder Emmett, Sampson, Curran, Grattan, and George Ponsonby. I joined in the support of the *Press *newspaper, then the organ of reform and popular rights, and in the autumn of 1797 was elected, though without my desire or even knowledge, a member of the Executive Directory of the United Irish Society, when, for the first and only time, I attended a meeting of that body, held at Mr. Jackson’s in Church-street.

The conflict of parties was now rapidly drawing near, and of the spirit in which it was to be conducted sufficient indications were not wanting. The people disappointed, as I have shown, in their protracted efforts to obtain parliamentary reform, and a full relaxation of the penal laws, had become impatient, and exhibited their impatience in the usual mode, by local tumults and violence.

These were met in the equally usual mode by coercive laws. An Insurrection Act was passed; portions of the country were proclaimed as being in a state of disturbance, and declared to be under martial law; flying camps were established, and a curfew regulation was enforced in the proclaimed districts. How these measures worked will be illustrated by the facts of the following little tragedy.

It happened that the barony of Carbery, in the county of Kildare, was proclaimed under the Insurrection Act, and a camp established in it, which was occupied by the Fraser Fencibles.

One evening, the commanding-officer, a Captain Fraser, returning to camp from Maynooth, where he had dined and drank freely, passed through a district belonging to my father, which was very peaceable, and had not been included in the proclamation. As Captain Fraser rode through the village of Cloncurry, attended by an orderly dragoon, just as the summer sun was setting, he saw an old man, named Christopher Dixon, upon the roadside, engaged in mending his cart. The captain challenged him for being out after sunset, in contravention of the terms of the proclamation. Dixon replied that he was not in a proclaimed district, and that he was engaged in his lawful business, preparing his cart to take a load to Dublin the following day.

The captain immediately made him prisoner, and placed him on horseback behind his orderly. The party proceeded about half a mile in this manner to a turnpike, where the officer got into a quarrel with the gatekeeper, and some delay took place, of which Dixon took advantage to beg of the turnpike man to explain that the district in which he was taken was not proclaimed, and that therefore there was no just ground for his arrest.

While the altercation was proceeding, the poor old man (he was about 80 years of age) slipped off from the dragoon’s horse, and was proceeding homewards, when the officer and soldier followed him, and having despatched him with sixteen dirk and sabre wounds, of which nine were declared to be mortal, they rode off to the camp.

A coroner’s inquest was held on the body, and a verdict of wilful murder returned; whereupon Mr. Thomas Ryan, a magistrate, and the immediate landlord of Dixon under my father, proceeded to the camp with a warrant for the apprehension of Captain Fraser, who, however, was protected by his men, and Mr. Ryan was driven off.

Mr. Ryan applied to my father, who sent me with him to Lord Carhampton, then commander-in-chief in Ireland. We were accompanied by Colonel (afterwards General Sir George) Cockburn; and Mr. Ryan having produced the warrant, and Colonel Cockburn having pointed out the provision of the Mutiny Act bearing upon the ease, we formally demanded the body of Fraser, which his Lordship refused to surrender. At the next assizes, Captain Fraser marched into Athy, with a band playing before him, and gave himself up for trial. The facts were clearly proved; but the sitting judge, Mr. Toler [Mr. Toler was at the time (as well as my memory serves me) Solicitor-General, but sitting as Judge of Assize.] (afterwards Lord Norbury), instructed the jury that “Fraser was a gallant officer, who had only made a mistake; that if Dixon was as good a man as he was represented to be, it was well for him to be out of this wicked world; but if he was as bad as many others in the neighbourhood (looking at me, who sat beside him on the bench), it was well for the country to be quit of him.” The captain and his orderly were acquitted accordingly.

Such was the training of both peasant and soldier for the bloody civil war of the ensuing year. In the meantime those among the higher classes, who yet hoped to avert the dreadful calamity from their country, persevered in their exertions to procure the necessary reforms by constitutional means, while their opponents had already begun, with mischievous energy, to agitate the fatal project of a legislative union. I still took an active part on the side of Ireland; and, in conjunction with my friends, Wogan Brown, of Castle Brown (now the Jesuit College of Clongowes), and Pat. Lattin, whose name I have already mentioned, I aided in preparing the Kildare petition against the Union and in favour of Reform and Catholic Emancipation, which was signed by several hundreds of the first men of that county, including the Duke of Leinster, Lord (then the Right Hon. Wm. Brabazon) Ponsonby, my father, &c &c.

It is in connexion with this very petition that I find among my papers the earliest traces of a personal collision between myself and the government. The meeting, at which it was intended to propose the petition, had been called by the Duke of Leinster, the governor of the county (upon the refusal of the high sheriff; Mr. Robert Latouche, to convene it), on a requisition signed by several magistrates, and was fixed for a certain day, when it became incidentally known that the government intended to prevent its assembling. With that view they had concentrated a large military force at Naas, and, oddly enough, had placed it under the command of a brother of Arthur O’Connor’s, Major John O’Connor, who made known his intention of striking a signal blow, should an occasion be given him, “by the quarrelling of two dogs in the streets of Naas,” on the day of the proposed meeting. The rumours of the design of the government led to the making of a formal inquiry by Wogan Brown and myself, to which we received the following answer *

The Right Hon. Thomas Pelham to Wogan Brown, Esq., and the Hon. V. B. Lawless.*

Dublin Castle, 25th May, 1797.

“Sir - Mr. Cooke having communicated to me that you and Mr. Lawless had called upon him, stating that there was a requisition signed by you and several magistrates of the county of Kildare, for summoning a meeting of all the inhabitants of that county, on Monday next, at Naas, to consider certain political subjects; and that they understood that government had issued orders to his Majesty’s forces to disperse such a meeting; and desiring to know whether such orders had been actually given, as they did not wish to commit the county; I have laid the communication before my Lord Lieutenant; and am directed by his Excellency to point your attention to the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant and Council, wherein they have thought it advisable, under the existing circumstances of the kingdom, to forewarn all persons from meeting in any unusual number; under any pretence whatsoever; and also to the present state of the county of Kildare, part of which is under the provisions of the Insurrection Act, on account of the turbulence of the inhabitants, and other parts of which have been disturbed by treasonable associations and nocturnal outrages. I am also to suggest to you, as a magistrate, the obvious impropriety and danger of summoning all the inhabitants of the county to meet in one place, at the present crisis; and in consequence of that danger, I am directed to desire that you will use your influence as a magistrate to prevent the said meeting, as hazardous to the public peace; and I am likewise to inform you that his Excellency will give directions to his Majesty’s forces to prevent an assembly so unusual as that of all the inhabitants of a county, especially where part of that county has been proclaimed to be in a state of disturbance, and other parts of it much infested with outrage; and when, for these reasons, the high sheriff of the county, at the special desire of many most respectable noblemen, magistrates, and gentlemen, has thought it his duty not to summon a meeting of the county upon a requisition in which your name appeared.

I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient,

T. Pelham.”

The Kildare petition was followed up by an aggregate meeting, held at the Royal Exchange, for the consideration of the same subjects, with especial reference to the general election then at hand. At this meeting I presided; but before doing so, I took the precaution of making myself acquainted with the intentions of the government in regard to an interference with the right of public assemblage of the people upon the occasion. My inquiry produced the following costive reply *

The Right Hon. Thomas Pelham, to the Hon. V. B. Lawless.*

Dahlia Castle, 21st July, 1797.

Mr. Pelham presents his compliments to Mr. Lawless. He has received the honour of his note. He is not aware that it was necessary for him to inquire whether the freemen and free-holders of the city of Dublin were entitled to exercise the rights of election in the usual manner.”

Leaders as well as followers now began to get weaned with the protracted struggle against the venality and corruption of parliament and the memorable secession of the popular members from the House of Commons was determined upon. I was one of a deputation, with Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Arthur O’Connor, appointed to carry an address to Messrs. Grattan, Curran, and George Ponsonby, requesting them to discontinue the mischievous mockery of attending parliament - a request which was complied with, and the compliance recorded by Mr. Grattan in the following words, with which he concluded his speech upon Mr. W. B. Ponsonby’s motion for parliamentary reform:-

“We have offered you our measure - you will reject it; we deprecate yours - you will persevere. Having no hopes left to persuade or dissuade, and having discharged our duty, we shall trouble you no more, and after this day shall not attend the House of Commons.”

A dissolution of parliament shortly afterwards took place, when the same policy was pursued; and I remember writing the addresses of Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Mr. Henry of Straffan, declining to offer themselves as candidates for the representation of Kildare. Upon the same occasion my illustrious friend addressed an eloquent and most instructive letter to the citizens of Dublin, the concluding paragraphs of which I cannot deny myself the pleasure of quoting, as containing a short, but lucid, exposition of the creed of Irish politics which I confessed to then, and which I confess to now, after the added experience of half a century:-

“May the Kingly Power that forms one estate in our constitution, continue for ever; but let it be as it professes to be, and as by the principles and laws of these countries it should be, one estate only; and not a power constituting one estate, creating another, and influencing a third.

May the Parliamentary Constitution prosper; but let it be an operative, independent, and integral part of the constitution, advising, confining, and sometimes directing the kingly power.

May the House of Commons flourish; but let the people be the sole author of its existence, as they should be the great object of its care.

May the connexion with Great Britain continue; but let the result of that connexion be, the perfect freedom, in the fairest and fullest sense, of all descriptions of men, without distinction of religion.

To this purpose we spoke; and speaking this to no purpose, withdrew. It now remains to add this supplication-However it may please the Almighty to dispose of princes or parliaments, MAY THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE BE IMMORTAL.

Henry Grattan.”

I have narrated, candidly and frankly, the story of my connexion with the popular movements in Ireland, up to the period to which 1 have now brought my reminiscences. All the prominent events of that connexion are specified in the foregoing pages, and were, in fact, patent to the whole world at the time of their occurrence. It was not to be wondered at, that, at such a crisis, proceedings like those I have detailed should have attracted the notice of a government conscious of the unstable tenure by which they held the country, and filled with jealous fear of every stir that might endanger the rupture of those bonds of corruption and venality of which alone the elements of that tenure were composed. I accordingly became an object of suspicion, and several intimations were made to my father that the evil eye of the government was upon me. Some of these warnings came to my own ears, and were made the subject of warm remonstrance with those whom I had reason to believe to be their authors. It is to a matter of the kind that the following letters refer:- *

The Hon. V. B. Lawless to Edward Cooke, Esq.*

“Sir - I waited on you at your office, to speak with you on the subject of a conversation you had with our friend Mr. Lees concerning me. I am sorry, sir, you should think the intervention of a third person necessary; and therefore, notwithstanding the opinion I must form of any one thinking to influence me by threats, I shall trouble yourself alone with my sentiments on this business.

The enemies of the government in this country accuse it of dividing and disuniting the people. I hope the charge is false and invidious; but base as the measure would be, it would fall far short of an attempt to sow disunion in a private family. If, therefore, any step is taken to injure me in the mind of my father, 1 must look on it as the act of an individual. My conduct and my thoughts have, at least, the merit of being open and aboveboard, and I never concealed them from my father, nor from any other person, and I shall always be forthcoming, if government thinks proper to make further inquiry into them. My father, who is one of the most independent men in the country, has for years supported government, without the smallest acknowledgement on their part. You know enough of the warmth of his zeal to believe the disagreeable effects to me a charge of disaffection or treason against me might have ; I therefore, sir, request and desire you may be cautious in your conversations relative to, sir,

Your most obedient servant,

V. B. Lawless.” *

Edward Cooke, Esq., to the Hon. V. B. Lawless.*

Castle, Wednesday.

“Dear Sir - I am very sorry I was not fortunate enough to see you when you called on me. You must feel assured that what I mentioned to Lees was from regard and friendship to you, as I was convinced you would be as safe in communication with him as with me. As I had heard a report respecting your name being used, I was, of course, afraid that a similar report might come to others respecting you, and I wished therefore that you should have notice, lest anything injurious to you in any respect might happen. I beg leave to assure you very sincerely and very unaffectedly, that I would be the last person to injure you in the opinion of your father or any one, and that I should be happy at all times to be of any service to you in my power When you have a quarter of an hour’s leisure, I should hope you would call upon me. Believe me, dear sir,

Your most faithful and humble servant,

E. Cooke.”

At last the urgent advice of my father’s friend and connexion, Lord Clonmel, prevailed with him, and he insisted upon my going to London to keep my term at the Temple, which I accordingly did, in November, 1797. Upon that occasion I remember calling to take leave of Lord Clonmel, who lived at Temple Hill, near my father’s villa of Maretimo, and I shall never forget the words of our last conversation:- “My dear Val.,” said he, “I have been a fortunate man in life. I am a chief justice and an earl; but believe me I would rather be beginning the world as a young sweep.”

A fortunate man he certainly was, and in nothing more so than in the period of his death, which took place the day before the outbreak of the Rebellion of l798.

[Lord Clonmel had a villa named Temple Hill, close to Seapoint, which was made the scene of an ingenious stroke of vengeance by John Magee, then printer of the *Dublin Evening Post *newspaper. Mr. Magee had been tried before his Lordship for a seditious libel, and, as he thought, was made the subject of undue severity on the part of the bench. He certainly was subjected to a very rigorous imprisonment, in efforts to alleviate the hardships of which I myself took an active part, and with some success, but not sufficient to obliterate from the prisoner’s mind the obligations he thought himself under to the Chief Justice. This debt weighed heavily upon his conscience, and no sooner had his term of confinement expired, than he announced his intention of clearing off all scores. Accordingly, he had advertisements posted about the town, stating that he found himself the owner of a certain sum (I think it was £14,000), £10,000 of which he had settled upon his family, and the balance it was his intention, “with the blessing of God, to spend upon Lord Clonmel.” In pursuance of this determination, he invited all his fellow-citizens to “a *bra pleasura,” *to be held upon a certain day in the fields immediately adjoining Temple Hill demesne. I recollect attending upon the occasion, and the fete certainly was a strange one. Several thousand people, including the entire disposable mob of Dublin, of both sexes, assembled as the guests at an early hour in the morning, and proceeded to enjoy themselves in tents and booths erected for the occasion. A variety of sports were arranged for their amusement, such as climbing poles for prizes, running races in sacks, grinning through horse-collars, and so forth, until at length, when the crowd had attained its maximum density, towards the afternoon, the grand scene of the day was produced. A number of active pigs, with their tails shaved and soaped, were let loose, and it was announced that each pig should become the property of any one who could catch and hold it by the slippery member. A scene, impossible to describe, immediately took place; the pigs, frightened and hemmed in by the crowd in all other directions, rushed through the hedge which then separated the grounds of Temple Hill from the open fields; forthwith all their pursers followed in a body, and, continuing their chase over the shrubberies and parterres, soon revenged John Magee upon the noble owner.]

Next Chapter. Cloncurry Index