Appendices to Irish Parliaments.

Appendices.

Appendix I.

The Parliament House - The Exterior - Anecdote of the Statues - A New Order of Architecture - Interior - The Houses of Lords and Commons - Cost of Erection - Floored after the Union - Sale to the Bank of Ireland.

The Parliament House of Dublin has justly been regarded as one of the finest buildings in Europe. It occupies the position in the south side of the city where Westmoreland Street connects the city with College Green. This splendid structure was commenced in A.D. 1729, during the viceroyalty of Lord Carteret, and though some doubt exists as to the name of the architect, who furnished the original plan, it is confidently stated that the” celebrated Gandon was employed in its erection. It is at once remarkable for its simplicity and dignity; and though harmony of style has not been preserved throughout, there is sufficient unity of design to please the most critical. When seen from Grafton Street, as has been well said, it derives all its beauty from a simple display of fine art and is one of the few instances of form expressing true symmetry. The principal front, facing College Green, contains a stately portico, the entablature and corner surmounted by an attic, the tympanum sustaining the royal arms. From the front are spacious colonnades, forming with the centre three sides of a quadrangle enclosing a courtyard. Over the front is a colossal statue of Hibernia, with statues emblematic of Commerce and Fidelity.

A stranger to Dublin, driving on an Irish jaunting car, inquired of the driver “if he knew who these statues represented.”

“Oh yes, your honour!” promptly replied the driver. “Thim’s the Twelve Apostles.”

Why,” remarked the stranger, “there are only three.”

“Oh, shure, you wouldn’t expect all the gintlemen to stand out in the could at the same time; so you see they take the post in turn.”

The height of the building, enriched with basement of rustic stonework, joins the eastern and western fronts with the principal entrance. These are relieved by niches placed at regular intervals between columns, and surmounted by a rich cornice and entablature. This portion of the building is of the simple, and what might be termed severe Ionic order of architecture; while the portion standing in Westmoreland Street, and six pillars with tympanum, is of the Corinthian order. Here are statues of Fortitude, Justice, and Liberty. This portico formed the entrance to the House of Lords; and it is said that during its erection some critic inquired of the architect, “Why he disturbed the harmony of the Ionic by the incongruity of the Corinthian pillars.”

“Oh, you mistake,” was the witty reply. “This is altogether a new order of architecture.”

“And what do you call that order?” inquired the critic. *

The Order of the Irish House of Lords,” *was the very intelligible reply.

The House of Commons is thus described by one of its most observant members [Sir Jonah Barrington, Personal Sketches.]: “Whoever has seen the interior of the Irish House of Commons must have admitted it as one of the most chaste and classic models of architecture. A perfect rotunda with Ionic pilasters enclosed a corridor which ran round the interior. The cupola of immense height bestowed a magnificence which could rarely be surpassed; while a gallery, supported by columns divided into compartments, and accommodating 700 spectators, commanded an uninterrupted view of the chamber.

“This gallery on every important debate was filled by the superior order of society in Dublin, the first row being occupied by ladies, not put behind a grate, as in Westminster, where they are very inconveniently located for seeing or hearing; but in Dublin they not only saw and heard what was going forward, but were seen themselves - no mean consideration where youth, beauty, grace, and fashionable attire were displayed.”

To suit the altered requirements when the Parliament House was * improved *into the Bank of Ireland, this grand hall of the people’s representatives was turned from a rotunda into a square, and now the only portion unaltered is the House of Lords. It is of course much smaller than was required for the Commons, and the walls are covered with tapestry representing the battle of the Boyne and the siege of Londonderry, both emblematic of Protestant triumphs. A statue of King George III. occupies a recess in which the throne was placed. It is stated that the building originally cost £90,000, but after the Union was sold to the Bank of Ireland for £40,000.

Appendix II

Parliamentary Banquets peculiar to Ireland

Peers and Members of the House of Commons join in the Revelry.

Sir Jonah Barrington relates the following:- “On the day when the routine business of the budget was to be opened for the purpose of voting supplies, the Speaker invited the whole of the members to dinner in the House, in his own and the adjoining chambers. Several peers were accustomed to mix in the company; and I believe an equally happy, joyous, and convivial assemblage of legislators never were seen together. All distinction as to Government or Opposition parties was totally laid aside - harmony, wit, wine, and good humour reigning triumphant. The Speaker, clerk, chancellor of the exchequer, and a very few veteran financiers remained in the House till the necessary routine was gone through, and then joined their happy comrades, the party seldom breaking -up till midnight.

On the ensuing day the same festivities were repeated; but on the third day, when the report was to be brought up and the business to be discussed in detail, the scene totally changed: the convivialists were now metamorphosed into downright public declamatory enemies, and, ranged on opposite sides of the House, assailed each other without mercy. Every questionable item was debated, every proposition deliberately discussed, and more zealous or assiduous senators could nowhere be found than in the very members who, during two days, had appeared to commit the whole funds of the nation to the management of half a dozen arithmeticians. But all this was consonant to the national character of the individuals. Set them at table, and no men enjoyed themselves half so much; set them to business, no men ever worked with more earnestness and effect. A steady Irishman will do-more in an hour when fairly engaged upon a matter which he understands, than any other countryman in two. The persons of whom I am more immediately speaking were certainly extraordinarily quick and sharp. I am, however, at the same time ready to admit that the lower orders of officials, such, for instance, as mere clerks in the public offices, exhibited no claims to a participation in the praise I have given to their superiors.” [*Personal Sketches *by Sir J. Barrington, p. 102.]

Appendix III.

Attendance of High Officials - The Ceremonies respecting the Viceroy - Conference between Lords and Commons - Royal Assent - Order in the Streets - Favourite Hours of Attendance in the House of Commons.

As it was the rule that the regulations observed by the English Parliament were adopted in Ireland, we may here mention the ceremony of opening the Parliament in Dublin, which we expect soon to see revived, was a very imposing one. Regiments of infantry lined the streets, and an escort of cavalry attended the viceroy and his staff. Bands played and trumpets sounded. On reaching the Parliament House, the viceroy repairs to his robing-room, puts on royal robes, and, attended by two earls, one bearing the sword of state, the other the cap of maintenance, and three noblemen’s sons acting as train-bearers, he proceeded to the House of Lords. Then, after a bow to the vacant throne, he took his seat in a chair of state beneath the canopy. Until the viceroy has taken his seat, the peers, Spiritual and Temporal, stood in their places attired in their robes, uncovered. On the viceroy being seated they took their seats. *

Conferences. *

Conference between the Lords and Commons was as follows:- When the Commons sought a conference with the peers, they sent their usher to inform the Lords, who, after disposing of any business on which they were engaged, sent for the members of the House of Commons, who, on entering the House of Lords, stood at the lower end of the chamber. Then the lord chancellor, with any of the peers who pleased, rose and went to the middle of the bar where the leader of the Commons with the members stood. Having bowed thrice, the usher delivered his message to the chancellor who thereon returned to his place, and the Commons having retired, the usher stated what the message was for.

Appendix IV. *

Procedure during the Session. *

The Lords sent for the Commons, who, re-entering, made their obeisance to the peers, and the answer of the Lords was given by the lord chancellor from his seat on the woolsack. The usher of the black rod waited outside the bar, and spoke there when required. The serjeant-at-arms waited in an adjoining room until summoned. None were allowed to be present at the debates in the House of Lords but sons of peers, and persons required to be present.

Mode of giving the Royal Assent.

When Bills had passed both Houses, and only wanted the assent of the Crown, the manner was thus:- The lord chancellor, kneeling, conferred with the viceroy, and they, standing on the right of the chair of state, commanded the usher of the black rod to acquaint the House of Commons it was his excellency’s pleasure they should attend immediately at the House of Lords. Having obeyed the summons, they were conducted to the bar, and the Speaker, after a speech, read the titles of the Bills ready for the royal assent. The Bills were then delivered at the bar by the Speaker to the clerk of the Parliament, Who brought them to the table, when the clerk of the Crown having read the Bills, the clerk of Parliament pronounced the royal assent separately for each Bill. In case of supplies or Bills concerning revenue, the assent ran thus: “Le Roy remercie ses bons sujets, accepti leur benevolence et ainsi les veut.” When the Bills were not money Bills, the words were: “Le Roy le veut,” or “Soit fait comme il est desire.” His excellency then withdrew in the same state, and the Commons’ having retired, headed by the Speaker, returned to their House, and the Lords adjourned. *

Order in the Streets. *

Great care was taken to keep the streets as free as possible from noise or obstruction during the sitting of Parliament. Hackney vehicles were prevented from coming to the entrance doors, and the lord mayor, by proclamation, forbade all drivers of carts, cars, or drays to pass, repass, or go through-the streets in, front of the House, from 1am. to 5pm, .*** ***during the sitting of Parliament, in order to prevent stoppages and obstruction to the people resorting thereto. [*Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland, *vol. i. p.299, in note.]

Divisions.

A very great difference in the regulations of the sittings was observed between the Irish and English Parliaments. In Ireland the divisions were public, and the names of the members who voted were published immediately after each division, so that their constituents could see how they voted. In England, on the contrary, strangers withdrew from the galleries, and for the time no one knows how the members vote. It may be said that the public have a right to know if the trust reposed in their representatives is fairly exercised, and the Irish was the more constitutional practice.

Payment of Members and Hours of Sitting. *

In Ireland as well as in England, the State considered the time devoted to their public interests by their representatives in the House of Commons should be recompensed. We learn from Mr. Jenning’s able and interesting work, that by statute 16th Edward II., in England the rate of wages was only 2s. 6d. for a knight of the shire, and 2s. for a citizen or burgher. We were more liberal in Ireland, for we allowed:-

Knights of the shire, . . £0 13 4 per day

Members for cities, . . £0 10 0 per day

For boroughs, … £0 3 4 per day

These sums were found so oppressive in many cases, that petitions were presented to be relieved from sending representatives to Parliament, on the ground of the danger incurred during the journey, and the expense of sending a sufficient guard to insure their protection. *

Time of Sitting. *

In ancient times, we learn, the Irish Parliament met very early in the day.

Appendix V.

Statute Rolls and Journals.

The statute rolls of the Irish Parliament include the statutes passed by the Parliaments held in the reigns of Henry VI., Richard III., Henry VII, Henry VIII., Philip and Mary, Elizabeth and James I.

From them to the reign of George I., A.D. 1715, public and private Acts were enrolled on the same rolls, and a calendar, but an imperfect one, was made of these Acts. From 1715 to the Union in 1800, the public and private Acts were enrolled separately.

Prior to 10 Henry VII. the statute rolls are in Norman-French, then the language of the Law Courts. But from the time of Edward III. proceedings in Parliament were in the English tongue. [*Lives of the Lord Chancellors of ireland, *vol. i. p. 66]

The Journals of the Irish House of Commons commence 18th May 1619.

Hours of Attendance of the Commons. *

The hours of attendance were usually from 11am. to 5pm*, *and there was much more attention paid to dress and personal adornment than has been observed in the Imperial Parliament. The Irish members of the House of Commons always wore Court dress, and such as had orders of knighthood or ribbons wore them.

Appendix VI.

Insults to Statue of King William III. - Hoax on Sir Philip Crampton, Surgeon-General.

In 1710, the statue of King William III. in College Green, Dublin, was found so bedaubed with mud as to arouse the indignation of all the zealous admirers of that monarch. The attention of the House of Commons was promptly called to this manifest token of premeditated insult; and a resolution was carried- “That it is the opinion of this House that the perpetrators of this gross indignity be punished.” The lord chancellor was directed to wait on the viceroy, and complain of the persons guilty of this greatest insolence, baseness, and ingratitude, and desire his excellency the lord-lieutenant to issue a proclamation to discover the authors of this villainy, with a reward to the discoverer that they may be prosecuted and punished accordingly. The chancellor having obeyed his instructions, the viceroy issued a proclamation, and offered £100 for the discovery of the offenders. They were three students of Trinity College, Dublin, who did it for a frolic, but the consequence was no joke to them. They were expelled the university, sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and a fine of £100 each, which was subsequently reduced.

Another indignity and a more serious one was perpetrated during the present century. Some late revellers returning from a party through Dame Street found that the statue of King William III. had been removed from his horse, and was lying sorely damaged on the flags. It instantly occurred to one of the youths that a hoax might be played on the surgeon-general, Sir Philip Crampton; and one of the party, the others keeping a distance, proceeded to Sir Philip’s house in Merrion Square, and sought his services for a very high official who was just found badly wounded on the flags in Dame Street, but no one dared to remove him until he was examined by the surgeon-general. Sir Philip lost no time in proceeding to the place indicated, and we may presume was sorely vexed at the trick which caused him to be summoned to the effigy of the conqueror of the Boyne. I do not know if the perpetrator of this affair was discovered.

Appendix VII.

Troubles of Speakers.

In 1642 the Speaker (Eustace) described the state of Ireland in very eulogistic terms. The viceroy, Earl of Strafford, was then in the security of the king’s friend-ship, and the attendance of members was quite as the most bigoted Protestant could desire.

Ere long the Speaker was destined to feel the glowing pictures he painted of the state of Ireland were not all *couleur de rose. *In 1647 his cattle were taken by soldiers, and he made a complaint to the House, but the statement in the Commons’ Journals is so very unintelligible, that, were it not for the order of the House, it would be incomprehensible. I copied it * verbatim *as follows:- “Mr. Speaker, That little fortune in Kildare is lost, and that was left I brought to Irishtoune of this House, and by the gallantry of an officer of the horse, that Lieutenant Harman may command those soldiers.”

“It is ordered that Lieutenant Harman do cause the troops under his command, who took the cattle from Clonliffe belonging to Sir Maurice Eustace, knight, Speaker of this House, under pretence of contribution, do forthwith bring them back and leave them at the same place from where they were taken; whereof he or they do not fail.” [*Lives of Lord Chancellors of Ireland, *vol. i. p. 365.]

The Speaker also got into trouble for speaking words which imputed his conniving at Roman Catholics being members of Parliament. He said, with respect to Catholics declining the Protestant oath, “You need not put him to his oath; I wish we had more of them.” Simon Luttrel was the member alluded to. As it appeared the conversation took place at dinner in reference to a wager, the House did not think it worth making any stir in the matter, and that the member who imputed this connivance to the Speaker should be reconciled.

The Speaker consequently called Captain Shoute to the chair and shook hands, so the ,affair terminated amicably. [Com. Jour. Ir. I. P. 373.] When the Parliament was prorogued, the following compliment was paid to the Speaker, and entered in the Journal of the House:-“The House understanding that there is an intention to prorogue the Parliament for some long time, and not knowing when they shall meet again, did take into their consideration the many good services performed by Sir Maurice Eustace, knight, their Speaker, unto the House, his singular affection to the English nation and public services, his earnest endeavours for the advancement of the Protestant religion, the inveterate hatred and malice of the detestable rebels, many ways declared and acted against him, and the great expense which he hath been formerly at for the honour and service of the House, and having at the present no better way of requital than to convey the memory thereof to posterity, do think fit, in manifestation of their high esteem thereof, to declare, and do hereby declare the same to be such as in all times ought to be remembered for his advantage, and do therefore order that this be entered among the Acts and Orders of this House.” [Ibid. p. 374.]

We have noticed the encounter in 1695 between the rival coaches of the Lord Chancellor Bolton and the Speaker Rochfort; but as the Lords did not think any insult was premeditated, the matter was allowed to drop.

Perhaps the greatest trouble was that which afflicted the last Speaker, Foster, who was coerced by his duty to the House of Commons to put the question of the Union, which he felt was alike damaging to the country and destructive of the Irish Parliament.

Appendix VIII.

Violent Language - Amicable Duels.

Very violent language used in the House of Commons often called for remonstrance from the Speaker.

Mr. Egan, member for the borough of Tallow, was a large bloated barrister, who roused the anger of Mr. Grattan, who made a powerful speech on the atrocities of the Paris *sans culotte *during the French Revolution. Mr Egan, commenting on the speech of Mr. Grattan, said, “The right hon. gentleman had so dwelt on the guillotine as to cause him, Mr. Egan, to imagine that implement on the very floor of the House.”

Grattan in reply said, “The hon. member had better sight than he had, but though he failed to see the guillotine he most certainly could imagine he saw the executioner.”

During the last century duels were very prevalent in Ireland, and some instances of hostile meetings are recorded, both at the Irish Bar and in the Irish Parliament. A member, Sir Richard Musgrave, having written a history of the Rebellion in 1798, which gave offence to a noted duellist, some one begged he would not shoot Sir Richard until he published his next edition, which was to correct the errors in the first. “Bedad,” said the duellist, “I’ll take care that his next edition will be in boards.”

Curran was challenged by Egan, and when on the ground, Egan complained it was not fair; “for,” said the burly member, “I am as big as a haystack, while you, Curran, are not a fourth of my *size.” *

“Then” said Curran, “we can remedy that a little. Let my size be chalked on your big body, and any hits outside this shall not count.”

This ludicrous mode of arranging a duel so tickled Egan, that there was no interchange of shots.

Another amicable termination of a hostile meeting was this: One of the party taking up his position on a high road near a milestone, observed his antagonist deliberately walking away. “Where are you going, sir?” asked the other.

“Oh, to the next milestone,” was the reply. This ended the duel.

There are several anecdotes related of Egan. During a contested election for Tallow he worked himself so much as to be in a heat that perspiration was visible. On seeing this Curran said, “Why, my dear Egan, I regret to see you are losing Tallow fast.”

In those days duelling was the usual mode of settling all differences.

Appendix IX.

Tried by his Peers - The Kingston Tragedy - A Romance of the Irish Peerage.

Now that a century has nearly elapsed since the romantic events I have to relate occurred, and the -grave has long closed over the mortal remains of the actors in the tragedy, I do not hesitate to give names and dates, to prove the adage that “Truth is often stranger than fiction.”

The family of King, Earls of Kingston, were possessed of large estates in Ireland since the reign of Queen Elizabeth. They were created Earls of Kingston in 1768, and their estates in Munster were of such vast extent that they were said to equal the size of the county of Kildare in Ireland, or Kent in England.

Edward King, the first Earl of Kingston, had a large old mansion at Mitchelstown, since replaced by the most majestic castle ever built in Ireland. It is, in fact, now suited for a royal residence, and in the fallen fortunes of the Kingston family quite disproportionate to its present requirements. Robert, Lord Kingsborough, eldest son of this nobleman, married, in 1769, Caroline, only daughter of Richard FitzGerald, Esq., of Mount Ophaly, in the county of Kildare, by whom he had a large family of six stately sons and four blooming daughters.

The first Earl of Kingston being alive when his eldest son, Lord Kingsborough, married, the family seat at Mitchelstown was reserved by the aged earl, and the heir, Lord Kingsborough, and his family occupied a villa near London, on the banks of the Thames.

It would have been fortunate if Lord and Lady Kingsborough had confined the family circle to their own children, but, owing to their good-nature, they did not. A brother of Lady Kingsborough, who never married, when dying besought her care for his illegitimate son, and this viper was reared with the family of Lady Kingsborough, whose peace and innocence he was fated to destroy. The children, whose games he shared, in whose education he participated, were numerous - six sons and four daughters - one of whom, a very lovely girl, Mary, was the victim of his base ingratitude.

As time went on, and the sons adopted various avocations, through the influence of the Kingston family young FitzGerald obtained a commission in the army, and at the period of his violating the sanctity of the home in which he was nurtured, had reached the rank of colonel, was a married-man.

He had, unfortunately, gained the affections of one of the daughters of his benefactors, the Honourable Mary King, and he succeeded in inducing her to meet him on the road to London, where he had a post-chaise waiting, and took her away, leaving no trace of her destination. Nothing could exceed the surprise and grief of her parents when they missed their beloved child. Finding her hat and shawl by the river-side, they had the river dragged for the body, but of course without effect. Bills were printed offering large rewards for information, and the police were employed. Every means were taken to discover her - all without effect; and, to throw off any suspicion, the vile seducer called at Lord Kingsborough’s every day on the bereaved parents, inquiring, what he knew was needless, “if any clue was obtained about the fate of the missing girl.”

Once, some intelligence was communicated, which relieved their fears that she had committed suicide. A post-boy, who had seen the bills, informed Lord Kingsborough he had been driving a gentleman in a post-chaise from near Acton into London on the day the young lady was last seen. On the road they saw a young lady walking, and the gentleman inquired if she was going to London? She said she was. He, the gentleman, said if she had no objection to be his companion in the carriage, he would be glad to save her the walk. On this she got in, and he, the post-boy, drove them to the end of Oxford Street, where they got out; the gentleman gave him a sovereign, and he saw them turn up Tottenham Court Road.

This gave at least the assurance that Miss Mary King did not drown herself, and the most diligent search was instituted in the direction of Tottenham Court Road, Hampstead Road, Gower Street-all to no purpose. No trace could be found of Miss King. At length, after several weeks spent in unwearied but unproductive endeavours to discover her, a young girl, poorly clad, and evidently looking what she was, a lodging-house maid-of-all-work, asked to see Lady Kingsborough. On being admitted to the heart-broken mother, this girl said she believed she had discovered the missing young lady. One fully answering in every particular the description in the advertisement which she read in the newspapers had been placed in their lodging-house by a tall handsome gentleman, about six weeks ago. This young lady had the abundance of fair hair described, and on the servant entering the young lady’s bedroom that morning, she found her with a pair of scissors cutting off all her beautiful hair. This made the girl suspect she was the missing lady who was described in the newspapers. The lodging-house maid had proceeded thus far in her narrative when the footman announced Colonel FitzGerald, who came with his usual hypocritical inquiry, little thinking who he should find with Lady Kingsborough. The moment he entered the room, the lodging-house maid exclaimed, “Oh, my lady! that’s the very gentleman who brought the young lady to our house!” Confounded at the discovery, the ungrateful scoundrel rushed from the house with such speed he forgot to take his hat. Lord Kingsborough was at once sent for; his carriage ordered, and, with the servant maid to direct the coachman, drove as fast as the horses could go to the it house in a quiet lane near Gray’s Inn Road, where he found the unhappy girl. Feeling she had better be placed at once out of the reach of her vile betrayer, after liberally rewarding the lodging-house maid, he brought his daughter across the Channel, and placed her with her maid in the ancestral castle of Mitchelstown, County Cork.

While Lord Kingsborough was absent in Ireland, his son, Colonel King, sent a friend, Major Wood, to challenge Colonel FitzGerald to mortal combat for his gross misconduct, and on the 1st October 1797 a hostile meeting took place in Hyde Park; but so dishonourable was the conduct of FitzGerald regarded, that no man of position would act as his second, and thus he was left alone. The combatants exchanged several shots without effect though placed at only ten paces distant. when the fourth shot from each was discharged, Colonel FitzGerald said he wished to have some advice from Major Wood as a friend.

The major replied, he had no ambition whatever to be regarded as the friend of Colonel FitzGerald, but as a friend of humanity he would desire that Colonel FitzGerald should acknowledge himself the basest of men, and then the duel might close. This Colonel FitzGerald declined, but said he was willing to admit lie had acted wrong.

This was deemed insufficient, and the pistols were again loaded, and discharged without any effect. When each party had fired six shots ineffectually, and Colonel FitzGerald’s ammunition was exhausted, he applied to Major Wood for some powder to enable him to continue the duel. This Major Wood refused, though his principal was willing to accede to the request, so the duel was postponed until the next day. The police, however, prevented it, and it was not in this way the abductor met his fate.

The rebellion in Ireland about this time caused Lord Kingsborough to hasten to Mitchelstown. On his arrival, Mr. Barry, who then was proprietor of the Kingston Arms, the hotel of Mitchelstown, informed his lordship that a very suspicious customer had, for a few days, been staying at the hotel, but on hearing that Lord Kingsborough had arrived, asked for his bill, ordered a post-chaise, and went away.

This statement aroused the curiosity of Lord Kingsborough. He saw the post-boy who returned with the empty chaise, and was told he had driven the gentleman to the inn of Kilworth, where he ordered a bed.

As the distance between Mitchelstown and Kilworth was not more than about six miles, his lordship ordered his carriage, and, accompanied by one of his sons, drove at once across the mountains to Kilworth. The small town was shrouded in the gloom of the October evening as the equipage of Lord Kingsborough drew up at the inn, then kept by Mr. Simmons.

To his lordship’s inquiry, “Where was the stranger?” was given the answer that the gentleman, on arriving, had dinner, and then went to his bedroom, where he then was.

His lordship bade the waiter tell the gentleman Lord Kingsborough wished to see him for a moment.

The house was small, and the reply was heard by the anxious pursuers. It was, “Go away, I’m in bed, and bring me no messages at this hour.”

The tone of the voice confirmed Lord Kingsborough’s suspicions as to who was the speaker. He resolved to make certain, and, pistol in hand, went to the bedroom indicated by the voice. The door was locked, but a resolute push from his lordship’s shoulder made short work of the barrier, and the party entered the small chamber. The occupant of the bed sprang to the floor, and revealed the vile ingrate Colonel FitzGerald with a pistol in each hand. Before he could use either, the ball from the outraged father’s weapon entered his breast, and he fell mortally wounded. Dr. Pigot, the principal physician of the town (father of the late Right Hon. D. R. Pigot, chief baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer), was sent for, but before he arrived the patient was beyond the leech’s skill; he was dead. Lord Kingsborough went at once to the nearest magistrate-this was the Earl of Mount-Cashel, whose daughter was the wife of Lord Kingsborough’s eldest son-and surrendered himself to abide the result of his act.

A few weeks later, the death of his father, on the 13th November 1797, made him succeed to the title as Earl of Kingston, and, as such, was not amenable to be tried by the going judges of Assize, though there was some question as to the killing of Colonel FitzGerald having occurred before his accession to the title, it did not affect his right to be tried by the more exalted tribunal. It was, however, decided his lordship had his right to be tried by his peers, and this led to the solemn trial in the Irish Parliament House, College Green, Dublin.

The trial took place on the 8th May 1798. The House of Lords did not afford accommodation sufficient for the array of peers and counsel, with all who were required to attend this important trial, so it was found necessary to have the House of Commons fitted up Court on this occasion.

This grand apartment was fitted up for the trial. One compartment of seats in the body of the House was appropriated to peeresses, who ranged themselves according to the table of precedence. The members of the Commons and their families also had seats. The Speaker’s chair was occupied by the Earl of Clare, lord chancellor, who was lord high steward for the trial. The peers, two marquises - Waterford and Drogheda - 27 earls, 14 viscounts, three archbishops - Armagh, Cashel, and Tuam - 14 bishops, and 14 barons, attended the trial. The peers were in their robes; and the lord high steward and peers being seated, Sir Chichester Fostescue, king-at-arms, in his official robes, entered carrying the shield with the heraldic blazon of the accused peel. He placed himself on the left of the bar. Next came the Earl of Kingston in deep mourning, and was placed next the king-at-arms. The executioner came next, bearing a large axe. He stood next the prisoner, with the axe held as high as the neck of the accused, but with the blade averted during the trial. It would be turned if the verdict was guilty.

At the Spring Assizes for the county of Cork, in which county the earl had shot Colonel FitzGerald, a bill of indictment having been found by the Grand Jury and transferred to the House of Lords for trial, was then read.

The lord high steward, addressing the prisoner, said: “Robert, Earl of Kingston, you are brought here to answer one of the most solemn charges that can be made against any man, the murder of a fellow-subject. The solemnity and awful appearance of this judicature must naturally discompose and embarrass your lordship. It may; therefore, be important for me to remind you that you are to be tried by the law of a free country, formed for the protection of innocence ant the punishment of guilt alone; and it must be a great consideration to you to reflect you are to receive a trial before the superior judicature of the nation, that you are to be tried by your peers, upon whose unbiassed judgment and candour you can have the firmest reliance, more particularly as they are to pass judgment on you under the solemn and a inviolate obligation of their honour. It will also be a consolation to you to know that the benignity of our law has distinguished the crime of homicide into different classes. If it arises from accident, from inevitable necessity, or without malice, it does not fall within the crime of murder, and of these distinctions, warranted by evidence, you will be at liberty to take advantage. Before I conclude, I am commanded by the House to inform your lordship and all others who may have occasion to address the Court during the trial, that the address must be to the lords in general, and not to any lord in particular.”

The indictment was then again read, and the clerk of the Crown inquired, “How say you, Robert, Earl of Kingston, are you guilty or not guilty of the murder and felony for which you stand arraigned?”

“Not guilty,” replied the earl.

To the question, “How he would be tried?” he replied, “By God and my peers.”

Then the serjeant-at-arms proclaimed : “Oyez - Oyez - Oyez - All manner of persons who will give evidence - upon oath before our sovereign lord the king against Robert, Earl of Kingston, the prisoner at the bar, let them come forth, and they shall be heard, for he now stands at the bar upon his deliverance.”

Sir Jonah Barrington, who was present, states: “It is not easy to describe the anxiety and suspense evinced as each witness’s name was called over. The eyes of everybody were directed to the bar where the witnesses must enter, and every little movement of the persons who thronged it was held to be intended to make room for some accuser.”

No witnesses having appeared, Mr. Curran, who was retained for the defence, had no opportunity for displaying his masterly skill in cross-examination, or his matchless eloquence. The lord high steward then proceeded to ask the important question of each peer, and each according to his rank arose, and, walking past the chair on which the lord high steward sat, placed his hand solemnly on his heart, and said, “Not guilty, upon my honour.”

The bishops were not called, as they do not vote in criminal cases.

When all had passed, the lord high steward declared the opinion of the peers was “That Robert, Earl of t Kingston, was not guilty of the charge preferred against him.”

Having broken his wand of office, the lord high steward descended from the chair, and the trial was then concluded.

Appendix X.

Irish Parliamentary Wits and Humorists.

We may readily believe that an assemblage of three hundred Irishmen, no matter of what rank or avocation, must contain many amusing individuals, and; luckily, one who himself had a reputation perhaps not much to be commended, has very graphically sketched several of his contemporaries.

Of these the most remarkable was Sir Boyle Roche, whose name is identified with the south of Ireland, Boyle being the family name of We Earl of Cork and Earl of Shannon, and Roche, Lord Fermoy. Sir Boyle was representative of many localities during the existence of the Irish Parliament.

Sir Boyle Roche was returned for several Irish boroughs in succession. I find he had been member for Tralee, Portarlington, and Loughlin. He was a sort of whip for the Government, and held some appointment in the Revenue. In discussing a Bill before the House, relating to weights and measures, he expressed his opinion “that every quart bottle should hold a quart.” In concluding a speech, he expressed his willingness “to surrender not only a part, but the whole of the constitution, in order to *save the remainder.” *He was a staunch supporter of the Union, and managed to secure for himself and his wife a pension of £500 a year. As the rev. historian of Cork says, “He made no blunder here.” [Gibson’s *History of Cork, *vol. ii. p. 288.]

Sir Boyle Roche’s most generally known blunder was when, excusing his absence from the House, he assured honourable members “that no *man * could be in two places at once, barring *he was a bird.” *

Some reference being made to a measure which, if carried, would benefit posterity, was opposed by Sir Boyle, because posterity never did anything for him. It is said he professed to bring in a Bill “that every man should be his own washer-woman.”

Another parliamentary humorist, though not a perpetrator of bulls like Sir Boyle Roche, was John Toler, afterwards Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and a peer with the title of Lord Norbury. He was born at Beechwood, in the county of Tipperary, on 3rd December 1745. It is related that, when dying, his father told him, as his elder brother would inherit the family estate, he could only afford to leave him 50 pounds and these, said the dying Tipperary squire, - drawing from beneath his pillow a brace of silver-mounted pistols. “Now, Jack,” he added, “with these be always ready to keep up the credit of the family and the character of an Irish gentleman.” [*The Irish Bar, *p. 112.]

Acting on this parental advice, John Toler, both at the Bar and in Parliament, was noted for his duels as readily as in a debate. This was not an unusual mode of argument in the Irish House of Commons. Sir Jonah Barrington having, in the course of an attack on Toler when he was attorney-general in 1797, said the attorney was one of those men who had a hand for everybody, but a heart for nobody. The attorney-general regarded this as an insult, and instantly sent a brother member to demand “an apology, or the usual satisfaction.” Sir Jonah was quite willing to give the right hon. gentleman any amount of satisfaction, but no apology; so a meeting was arranged so openly that the Speaker required the serjeant-at-arms to arrest both the belligerents. They sought to evade arrest by means of escape. Barrington got out of the House, but was arrested in Nassau Street, and Toler got outside the door, but shut it so hastily it caught the skirt of his coat, which held him until he was arrested. When brought before the Speaker, with his skirts torn off, Curran said, “For one honourable member to trim another’s jacket in that fashion, and in the very presence of the Speaker, was quite unparliamentary.” The intended duellists, having made apologies, and promising to keep the peace, were then discharged from arrest.

Norburiana. *

Some of his legal puns deserve a place in my pages. He and another wit named Parsons were constantly indulging in repartee. One day, while on circuit, the decorous silence of the Court was disturbed by the braying of an ass grazing in a neighbouring field.

“Mr. Parsons,” asked the chief justice, “can you make out what noise that is?”

“Merely the echo of the Court,” was the caustic reply.

The chief soon paid the wit back. While Parsons was addressing the jury, the ass again began to bray.

“Oh, Mr. Parsons!” said Lord Norbury with a chuckle, “one at a time, if you please.”

Notwithstanding these retorts, they were great friends. As both were passing the gaol of Naas in the judge’s carriage, observing the vacant gibbet, Lord Norbury said, “Parsons, where would you be if that gallows had its due?” Parsons’ retort was ready and deserved. “Riding alone,” was the response.

The late Baron Green told me the following anecdote of Lord Norbury:- While trying an action for breach of promise of marriage, some of the letters of the fickle defendant, produced to prove the contract, had been so often shown by the lady to her friends, they were quite frayed, and almost so worn as to be held together with difficulty. Holding one on the palm of his hand when addressing the jury, his lordship said, “Gentleemen, it is easy to see these are love letters, because they are so mighty tender.”

An action was brought before Lord Norbury by the son of Lord Waterpark, against the Hope Insurance Company, to recover a very large sum, for which a villa near Clontarf, County Dublin, had been insured, and which was burnt. The company successfully resisted the claim, as the burning was certainly not accidental.

The plaintiff, shortly after, meeting the chief justice at a levee in Dublin Castle, said, “We meet under different circumstances from our last meeting, my lord. I came here as I intend to present my bride, the Hon. Mrs. Cavendish, at the drawing-room to-morrow night.”

“Quite right, sir,” replied the chief justice, “the Scripture says, “Tis better to marry than burn.’”

This judge, whose family name was Toler, was not only witty himself, but the cause of wit in others. I am indebted to Sir Patrick Keenan, resident commissioner of national education in Ireland, for the following epitaph on the deceased lord chief justice:-

“He’s gone, alas! facetious punster,

Whose jokes made learned wigs with fun stir.

From Heaven’s high court a tipstaff’s sent,

To call him to his punishment;

Assemble quick, ye sextons ring,

Let all your clappers ding-dong-ding,

*Nor bury *him without his due,

He was himself a *Toler *too.”

Appendix XI.

Tottenham in his Boots.

We have mentioned that it was customary for the members of the Irish House of Commons to present themselves in the House in Court dress, and those who had orders, stars, etc., wore them. However, there is no general rule without an exception, and that this rule was infringed upon is thus stated by Sir Jonah Barrington. [Personal Sketches, p. 103.]

“A very important constitutional question was debated between the Government and the Opposition, namely, the application of a sum of £60,000, then lying *unappropriated *in the Irish treasury, being a balance after paying all debts and demands upon the country and its establishments. The members seemed to be nearly poised, although it had been supposed that the majority would incline to give it to the king, whilst the Opposition would recommend laying it out upon the country, when the serjeant-at-arms reported that a member wanted to force his way into the House, *undressed, *in dirty boots, and splashed to his shoulders.

“The Speaker could not oppose custom to privilege, and was necessitated to admit him. He proved to be Mr. Tottenham of Balycurry, County Wexford, covered with mud, and wearing a pair of huge jack-boots. Having heard that the division was to come on sooner than he expected, he had, lest he should not be in time, mounted his horse at Ballycurry, set out in the night, and ridden nearly 60 miles up to the Parliament House direct, and sought admittance to vote *for the country. *He arrived at the critical moment, and critical it was, for the members being equal, his vote gave the majority of *one *to the country party.”

This anecdote is well recollected among the traditions of the Irish senate, and “Tottenham in his boots” was, for a long time, a patriotic toast in the convival banquets of Irish nationalists.

Appendix XII.

A very absent Member.

Before the passing of the Octennial Act, the Parliament usually lasted during the life of the sovereign, and as this was sometimes a considerable period, it was a matter of convenience for the members, who took little or no interest in politics, to attend when they felt inclined, or their presence in Dublin during the session enabled them to look in if any interesting matters were to be discussed.

One day a gentleman, who had seldom visited the ilpuse of Commons, was proceeding to enter, when he was asked by the door-keeper what he wanted.

“To go to the House,” was the reply.

“Have you an order of admission?”

“Oh, I’m a member,” said the absentee.

“Where for?” demanded the janitor.

“Faith, I forget the name of the place,” replied the member, “but if you have a Watson’s Almanack I’ll show you;” and so he did.

Appendix XIII.

Mr. Pitt’s Projects - Disagreement between Parliament.

The learned author of the *Historical Review of the Irish Legislative System *has pointed out that, while the constitution of 1752 made the Irish Parliament perfectly free and independent of that of Great Britain, no provision had been made in case of disagreement in policy between the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. Both were equal without any controlling authority. No matter how injurious the Irish Bill might be to British interests, the only check was the power of refusing to give the authority of the Great Seal of Great Britain and the royal assent in Ireland. [*Historical Review; *p. 138.] The learned authority states these checks would only apply to Bills and not to resolutions. [Ibid. No. BB. P. 278.]

The Duke of Portland foresaw the danger of diversity between the two Parliaments, and to obviate the difficulty suggested that in such case control should be given to the Parliament of Great Britain. This was, of course, rendering the Irish inferior to the British Parliament; and therefore the duke’s suggestion was not adopted. Some other mode will be more acceptable.

Home.