Anti-Union riots in Dublin.

Chapter XII.

1759-1760.

Anti-Union Riot in Dublin - Peers compelled to swear against a Union - The Desire in the House - Danger of the * Commons’ Journal *- Ireland to hang the Secretary - No Action by the Lord Mayor - No Riot Act in Ireland - The Viceroy calls out the Military - Humane Commander-in-Chief - Loss of Life before Mob dispersed - The King indignant

• The Secretary gives a Convivial Party - Has to give an Explanation.

The gentle dullness of the Lords was rudely broken in 1759, during the viceroyalty of the Duke of Bedford. A rumour spread through the city that a union was contemplated between Great Britain and Ireland, and was to be brought forward in the Irish Parliament. This caused the most intense excitement in the Irish metropolis) and the citizens of Dublin arose *en masse *to signify their hostility to the proposed measure. In order to allay their wrath, Mr. Rigby, secretary to the viceroy, addressed them, and declared “there were no grounds whatever for their apprehensions.” This assurance having failed to dispel the idea, the Speaker, the Right Flon. John Ponsonby, son of the Earl of Bessborough, relying on his popularity and that of his family, said the same, but with no better success. The people were fearfully excited; they seized many of the Lords on their way to the Parliament House, and obliged them to swear “fidelity to Ireland,” and that they would vote against the union. Lord Inchiquin was one of the first met. The mob pulled off his periwig and red ribbon, and as he had a great impediment in his speech, which they attributed to disinclination to take their pledge, one official cried out, “D—n you, why do you hesitate?” Luckily, he was recognised as the chief of the O’Briens of Thomond, and then, with the greatest respect, they replaced his hat, wig, and ribbon, and cheered him on his way. They then caught the Bishop of Killala, whom they made get out of his coach and take the oath. Lord Bowes, lord chancellor, came next. His carriage was stayed, and he tendered the oath, whereat he grew very indignant, but, regarding discretion as the better part of valour, he complied, and then was compelled to repeat it in the presence of Lord Chief Justice Caulfield, the mob considering the presence of the chief justice giving greater efficacy to the oath. The chancellor and chief justice were then allowed to pass on. Several peers, who contrived to get into the Lords unmolested, were proceeding with formal business, Lord Farnham was taking’ the customary oath on taking his seat on the death of his father on 6th August 1759, when the rabble entered the House of Lords, and insisted upon Lord Farnham taking their oath also. The rioters then indulged in all sorts of outrageous conduct. They dragged a feeble old woman into the House from College Green, and placed her on the throne, put a pipe in her mouth, and insisted on her smoking. Having satisfied their spirit for mischief in the Lords, they rushed in hundreds into the House of Commons, and were about to burn the journals and documents of that assembly, when some one proposed “they should hang Rigby,” recently appointed master of the rolls. The object of popular fury, probably expecting personal outrage, prudently kept out of harm’s way, so they were not able to effect their purpose. During these riotous proceedings, the authorities were consulting how to quell the outbreak. The lord-lieutenant sent an express to the lord mayor, John Tew, calling on him to preserve the peace of the city. Lord Mayor Tew returned for answer, “that he could do nothing, for there was * no Riot Act in Ireland!” *Then the Privy Council, such as were within summons, met, and the commander-in-chief, General John Leslie, eighth Earl of Rothes, K.T., received orders from the viceroy, as general governor of the kingdom, to put down the riot by force of arms

This brave and humane officer took the troops out, and ordered the cavalry to ride among the crowd and try and disperse them, using their sabres only, and no firearms. Yet such was the obstinacy of the mob, that before peace was restored, no fewer than 16 of the rioters lost their lives. These scandalous proceedings called forth prompt action. The day following this tumult, the Commons resolved, “That assaulting, insulting, or menacing any member of their House, on his coming to or from it, or on account of his behaviour in Parliament, was a high infringement on their privileges, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour.”

A committee was selected to inquire and report as to the persons implicated in the riot, and to prepare an address to his Excellency to thank him for his energy in causing the dispersion of the rioters, and requesting him to offer a reward for the discovery of the guilty persons or their abettors. The House then called the corporation before them. The lord mayor and sheriffs were summoned to the Bar, and admonished by the Speaker, who censured them for not obeying the order to keep the avenues to the House free and open, and for permitting these riotous assemblages. Nor were the Lords behindhand. An address from their lordships was presented by the lord chancellor to the viceroy, thanking him for his seasonable interposition in having made use of the most effectual means for dispersing a most dangerous and insolent multitude of persons assembled before the Parliament House, in order most illegally and audaciously to obstruct and insult the members of both Houses of Parliament attending the public service of the nation, in manifest violation of the rights and privileges of Parliament.

The king (George II.) was quite indignant at what he regarded as the gross supineness of the civic authorities of Dublin, and desired “that an inquiry should take place by the executive as to what course should be taken to punish them.”

Some curious illustrations of the habits of Peers and Commons during the last century may relieve the dry details of the transactions of the Irish Parliament. The secretary Rigby, whose narrow escape from popular violence, in consequence of his suspected design to promote the union between Great Britain and Ireland, appears to have been a great promoter of the excessive drinking prevalent during the last century. The quantity of liquor consumed at Righy’s banquets, and the excesses committed thereat, caused the wine-bibbing secretary to be censured by the less convivial members of the Government in England; and Sir Robert Wilmot, who was chief of the Irish department in London, on hearing of some breach of the temperance laws, wrote sharply in reference to this case. Rigby thus excused himself: “Now for the drunken story. It is very certain Mr. Pery and I once dined together since I came to Ireland, and it is true that we liked one another well enough not to part till near three in the morning, long before which time the company was reduced to a *téte-á-tété, *except one other drunk and asleep in a corner of the room. Who, therefore, had been accurate enough to remember the whole conversation, I cannot imagine, but you may assure yourself their ingenuity much exceeds their veracity. I have never heard or seen any symptoms of anger from Kildare [This was James, 20th Earl of Kildare. He was created Marquis of Kildare in 1760, and Duke of Leinster in 1766. He built Leinster House, Dublin.] or Malone [Right Hon. Anthony Malone, one of the most eminent members of the Irish Bar, and one of the greatest ornaments of the House of Commons.] from that night’s jollity till I read it in your letter this morning. We both, I believe, made free with the times, as people in high spirits and in their cups are apt to do; but I really believe, were I to show it to him, Pery would be as much surprised as I am, to hear that’ our fun was made matter for serious discourse or deliberation. I am much obliged to you, Sir Robert, for sending me all these stories; I am as much entertained, and can laugh at them more than those that invent them. I know that a secretary is lawful game for everybody to fly at, and I should be very sorry to have led so insipid a life as to be suffered to pass unenvied, and consequently uncensured, through that employment. Let me hear from you, the oftener the better; and when, from Parliament and claret, from councils and bumpers, I can find time to work, I shall think my time well bestowed in answering you.” [*Bedford Correspondence, *Introduction iii. p.23.]

The small attendance, and equally small amount of work, in the House of Lords at this time formed a strong contrast with that of the Irish House of Commons. Seldom above 30 peers, and of these were about a dozen bishops, would drop in to the Lords. The business was of a very trivial nature. Preparing addresses to the Crown or viceroy, introducing new peers to the House, occasional debates on some question from the Commons, constituted the chief matters recorded in the *Lords’ Journals. *Rigby complained: “I am kept every day in the House of Commons till six or seven o’clock on one nonsensical motion or another. I am railed at by one party for being the mover of all these inflammatory inquiries, and the great incendiary; and the other condemning me for my candour and good-humour towards (for they would not have me speak to) any that vote against the Castle.” [*Vide Correspondence of the Duke of Bedford, *vol. ii.]

At this time a great effort was made by the Government to deprive the Irish House of Commons of the right to initiate money bills, and the viceroy canvassed all the officials to influence them on this subject.

The postmaster-general gave a timid and irresolute reply. He declared: “Should an adjournment be proposed for a week, or a longer time, he would certainly vote against it.” Most of the junior officers, as might be expected, were under the necessity of supporting the viceroy, but their votes were of no avail. The national sentiment was all-powerful. On the division postponing the Money Bill, the votes were 85 for, to 64 against - a majority against the Government of 21. This made the viceroy very indignant. He complained that officers in the army, in the revenue, nay, what caused him still greater surprise, commissioners of various public departments, who dipped very freely into the king’s purse, voted against the king’s ministers.” To the annoyance of Rigby and the viceroy, the success of this vote caused some bold spirits to question the policy of being confined and impeded by Poynings’ Law. It was with a fixed purpose of undermining the growing progress of patriotic ardour, Rigby gave a succession *or * dinner parties, where the utmost mirth and hilarity prevailed.

The habits of the Irish gentry at this period were of a nature to render these ministerial banquets quite consonant to their tastes. Hard drinking was the vice of the upper classes, and, as the example was one sure to find imitators, we cannot feel much surprised if it spread so extensively amongst the lower classes, that I have heard the existence of spontaneous combustion doubted, for it was said, “had it existed, the people of Ireland would be *off in a blaze.” *

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.