Lucas, Flood, Grattan and Burgh.

Chapter XIII.

1760-1767.

Protestant Parliamentary Patriots - Lucas, Flood, Grattan, and Burgh - Charles Lucas born 1713, died 1771 - Makes Charges in Supply of Drugs - Publishes “Pharmacomastrix” - In 1741 Lucas a Town Councillor - Corporation Question decided in favour of the Aldermen of Dublin - Sends Charter to the King with Account of the” Citizens being robbed of their Rights - The Lords Justices decline to send to the King - In 1733 Lucas elected Member for the City of Dublin - Directs strict Obedience to Laws in after years O’Connell declared - In 1749 the House of Commons declares Lucas an Enemy to his Country - His Conduct when arrested - Imprisoned in Newgate - The cruel Order for his Treatment in Prison induces him to Escape - Dr. Johnson’s Opinion in his Favour.

Before proceeding with my account of the events which followed the accession of George III. to the British throne in 1760, I wish to make my readers acquainted with some of the great men whose devotion to Ireland procured her legislative independence. They were one and all Protestants, because the unjust penal laws barred the path of Roman Catholics to Parliament. Some had passed away - Dean Swift, whose Drapier’s Letters fanned the sparks.

One of the most remarkable members of the Irish House of Commons during the eighteenth century was Charles Lucas, M.D., whose courage, honesty, and boldness in asserting the rights and liberties of Ireland, obtained for him the proud title of the “Incorruptible Lucas.” Like Aristides in Greece, and Fabricius in Rome, he was tempted, but his pure heart refused to listen to the voice of the seducer, and he preferred the pains of exile to the pleasures of home, earned with the wages of corruption. Lucas, I believe, has had no biographer, therefore such remarks of him as I am able to give from pamphlets and magazines will be of interest and appropriate, filling in the traits and transactions of the Irish Parliaments.

The county of Clare claims the honour of his nativity. His father in the early years of the 18th century held a farm under the Earl of Carrick, and in this farm-house, in the year 1713, Charles Lucas first saw the light of day. He did not live long, among the pleasant fields, the round towers, the verdant banks of the Shannon or Fergus. His father was not a provident farmer, and sold whatever interest he possessed in his land, removing with his family to Dublin, where Charles Lucas enjoyed the advantage of a classical education, and obtained his degree in the Dublin University. His taste was for the healing art, and he became an apothecary. When admitted to practise, he opened a shop for the sale of medicine on the banks of the Liffey - Ormond Quay.

He was not devoid of literary as well as political ambition, but his first essay in print had reference to his profession. In 1735, when about the age of 22, he published a pamphlet which awakened the wrath of the, Dublin apothecaries. It was entitled “A Scheme to prevent Frauds and Abuses in Pharmacy;” and he sought the intervention of the Irish Legislature to protect the people of Ireland in general, and the inhabitants of Dublin in particular, from the danger of using drugs of so inferior a description that they could not be used elsewhere. It was asserted that, on some English vendors of drugs being accused of selling unsound and dangerous drugs, likely to prove hurtful to the natives of Great Britain, the defence was, there was no danger to their fellow-subjects in England or Scotland, as they sent all such drugs to Ireland. The exposure of this state of the medicine chest alarmed the Legislature, and caused the passing of an Act, subjecting the apothecaries’ shops in Dublin to be visited and examined, same as those in London. Yet this praiseworthy attempt to remedy so glaring a mischief, instead of gaining for the author the thanks of the Dublin apothecaries, had the very opposite result; and he tells us “he fell under the universal rage of his brethren, who combined against him, and stirred up enemies against him, among the two other branches of the profession.” He seems to have had a good deal of humour as well as satire in his disposition. In a pamphlet bearing the singular title of “Pharmacomastrix,” he gives a comic, yet natural description of a doctor visiting a patient. It is evidently an attempt to pay off some of the annoyances he sustained from the Dublin faculty. “Assuming a pedantic air, one of these gentlemen examines the tongue, and feels the pulse of the patient, with great solemnity; then in a long-spun jargon of technical phrases (enough to excite the surprise of half the nurses in Christendom), he asks a set of unintelligible questions. When the poor patient makes an attempt to answer, the wily quack, with mighty revolving ‘humph’ - ‘I thought so’ - ‘I apprehend’ sounds, with fatal pen and ink prescribes largely some pernicious burning spirit which he calls Alexipharmic, not knowing but he is signing the sufferer’s death-warrant, though he meant only to draw a small bill in his own favour.

Through the useful agitation which Lucas kept up against the importation of adulterated drugs into Ireland, the Act passed to prevent their sale with impunity, which was first only for a limited period, but was renewed. Emboldened by his success in reforming the Dublin apothecaries, Lucas next applied his energies to effecting a reform in the Dublin corporation. The Board of Aldermen had long asserted and enjoyed a monopoly in power and the lucrative appointments. The Commons naturally chafed at this. By the Irish Corporate Charters, the election of mayors and other officials was vested in the citizens. In 1662 the Irish Parliament by statute empowered the lord-lieutenant to make rules for the Irish corporations, and by these rules the aldermen, who were very much under Government control, ruled the corporations in the Irish boroughs In 1741 Lucas was elected a town councillor of Dublin, and, assisted by another member of the common council, James Digges Latouche, a member of the respectable Huguenot family of that name, a family always identified with civil and religious liberty, set about examining the privileges of the aldermen, he discovered that the new rules did not give them power of electing members of their Board. The right of such appointments being insisted upon by the aldermen, the question as to the legality was brought in the form of a *Quo Warranto *against the junior alderman in the Court of King’s Bench.

The judges then were Chief Justice Morlay, with Judges Wood and Rose. The judges were then dependent upon the Crown, and seldom dared to act save according to the will of the prime minister. The case was argued for four days, and the decision of the Court was in favour of the alderman. Lucas published a pamphlet, commenting on the decision, which he attributed to the slavish condition of the judges. This production was printed under the name of “Complaints of Dublin.” Lucas presented two copies of the brochure to the then viceroy, Lord Harrington, who did not vouchsafe to notice it. As the king’s lieutenant did not appear to notice this production, Lucas resolved to see what could be done by placing the matter before the supreme ruler of the empire. He translated the Charter of Dublin from the Latin, and dedicated the translation to King George II. As the viceroy was in England, lords justices ruled Ireland in his stead, and to these Lucas sent copies of the charter, with one designed for his Majesty. But the lords justices felt that a production which set forth that the citizens had been robbed of their corporate rights by the aldermen - and failing to obtain justice for his fellow-citizens in Ireland, Lucas appealed to the throne - was little short of a censure upon the Irish executive, they politely acknowledged the receipt of the work, which they declined to send to the king. A contest for the representation of the Irish metropolis was the next occasion on which Lucas displayed his zeal for the citizens. Sir James Somerville, who represented the city, died in 1748. Lucas’s associate in the town council, Mr. James Digges Latouche, started as the popular candidate, and was opposed by Sir Samuel Cooke, whose pretensions were supported by the weight of the aldermen. The people were resolved to oppose the nominee of the aldermen, and this resolve probably induced Lucas to offer himself as a candidate, for, as Latouche was already in the field, we should have thought Lucas was thus dividing the popular support and giving Cooke a better chance of success. Fortunately, however, for the popular cause, the death of the second member for Dublin City, Alderman Pearson, prevented any rivalry between Latouche and Lucas. The popular party had now the opportunity of electing two advocates of Irish freedom. The aldermen were not inclined to give a chance to the candidates of the Liberals. They put Mr. Charles Barton, who had filled the office of high sheriff in 1733, in nomination. This contest created much excitement. The rival candidates delivered stirring addresses in the public halls. The reception. afforded by the people to Lucas and Latouche was so enthusiastic, and their opponents received so badly, they soon left the popular favourites in undisputed possession of the platform. They worked, however, most actively in private. Pending the election, the Irish Government made a determined effort to deprive the country of the services of Lucas. He published 20 “Addresses to the Citizens of Dublin,” These Addresses breathed forth a spirit of patriotism that was only second to that which Swift printed in the Drapier’s Letters. In his denunciation of popular tumult, Lucas seems to have anticipated O’Connell, who, when warning the people against breaking the peace, said, “Whoever commits a crime gives strength to the enemy.” Lucas declared, “My cause is the cause of order; he who commits a breach of the peace is the enemy of Lucas and liberty.” In a series of pamphlets called the “Censor,” he lashed the enemies of the people. Lucas lost no time, when his Excellency returned to Dublin in presenting him with copies of his “Addresses.” The viceroy tried blandishments, treated Lucas with extreme civility, and so won upon his opinion, that Lucas praised him; but not altering his views to suit the Castle party, in the usual speech from the throne at the Opening of Parliament, the lord-lieutenant strongly recommended the Legislature to examine and punish all attempts to “spread disaffection and discontent” The publications of Lucas were scrutinised, and sedition said to be extracted. He and his printer were called to the bar of the House of Commons. The copy of the Addresses which Lucas had presented to the Viceroy supplied the evidence upon which, on the 16th October 1749, the Irish House of Commons declared that ” Charles Lucas was an enemy to his country.”

This disgraceful decision was near creating a commotion in the metropolis. Lucas was addressing a meeting of the citizens in reference to some municipal reforms at the Tholsel, when the serjeant-at-arms came to arrest him, When informed of this, he paused in his speech, and said, My friends, I have been prepared for this. I grieve, indeed, that my country’s liberty should be wounded, but I feel too much honour in being the victim of her enemies.” He then continued with great coolness the address which was interrupted, and having exhausted the subject, prepared to accompany the officer of the law. The people sought to restrain him, and volunteered to defend him from any attempt at arrest. “We are here in thousands,” they said, “and we are your friends.” He replied, “No; let me suffer, but let not one drop of blood be shed.” Some little time was allowed for him to prepare for his imprisonment. He returned to his own house, and wrote to the governor of the gaol of Newgate, asking for the indulgence of a fire in a private room, as he was in very inferior health. This slight favour was denied. Lucas was informed that the governor’s orders were that he should be confined in the common room, having only a bed of straw to lie upon, and criminals for companions. This information, aided by the expostulations of his friends, who urged him to fly, induced him to forego his intentions of braving the worst, and abiding the order of the House of Commons. He was conveyed to the sea-shore, where a boat was in waiting, by means of which he reached the Isle of Man. From thence he passed to Westminster; and this treatment of a citizen for endeavouring to serve his fellow-men was thus rebuked by the great English moralist, Samuel Johnson: “The Irish ministers forced him from his native country, by methods equally irresistible by guilt and innocence; let the man thus driven into exile for having been the friend of his country be received in every other place as a confessor of liberty, and let the tools of power be taught that they may rob but cannot impoverish.” [Boswell, vol. ii. p. 259.]

“This language,” as has been remarked by a competent critic, “reflects honour on the writer and the subject.” [James Burke in his sketch of Lucas in Duffy’s Fireside Magazine, April 1852.] The electors of Dublin, when deprived of the opportunity of returning Lucas, started Mr. Thomas Reid, a merchant, in his stead, but Latouche was the more successful of the two popular candidates. He was returned as the colleague of Sir Samuel Cooke, though the aldermen, aided by the Castle party, strove hard to keep him out, and elect Mr. Barton in his room. A petition against Mr. Latouche’s return was presented by Mr. Barton, and referred to a committee. His alleged disqualification was the countenance and support he displayed in regard to Lucas, and this, it was urged, rendered him unfit to be a member of the Irish House of Commons. The argument was deemed sufficient to unseat him, and the petitioner, who was next on the poll, declared duly elected.

The course pursued towards the banished Lucas was published in a pamphlet, entitled ‘“A Critical Review of the Liberty of the British Subject, with a View to the Proceedings of the House of Commons in Ireland, against an unfortunate Exile of that Country, who, contending for the Rights and Liberties of the Public, lost his own.” This production was powerfully written, and the authorship was attributed to Lucas himself. A reply was printed - the production of Sir Richard Cox. He had previously written against Lucas under the *nom de plume *of Anthony Litton, a Cork surgeon. This production of Cox called forth a crushing answer from the critical reviewer, which closed the controversy. Lucas did not allow his pen to rust while he was in London. In his safe retreat in Westminster, he levelled his arrows of sarcasm across the Irish Sea, and published “A Denunciation of Tyrannic Governors as a Caution to London.” He seems to have studied the interests of the London corporation as well as that of the Irish metropolis, for he published “A Letter to the Free Citizens of London,” which he expected the lord mayor would present to the corporation, and requested him to do so, but his request was not complied with. Probably not finding an avenue for his desire to spread the feelings of liberty with which he was stirred in England, he went abroad, and took the degree of M.D. at Leyden. On his return to London he delivered scientific lectures, and devoted himself to the practice of his profession. In 1756 he published an Essay *on Water, *which obtained him much repute. At this period of literary history dedications to opulent or prominent patrons was a frequent practice, and Lucas was not above adopting this general though often servile course. He published his Water Essay in three volumes. The first he dedicated to Prince George, shortly known in British history as King George III. The second volume was dedicated to Lord Anson, the circumnavigator; and the last to Lord Shelburne, who, judging from the terms in which Lucas writes of him, was the fittest to receive a compliment at his hands. Of this excellent nobleman Lucas says: “In my prosperity I was honoured by your friendship in Ireland. In that, however, there was nothing strange; the prosperous never want worldly friends. But, my lord, you stood the test of adversity; for, when oppression stripped me of the rights of a freeborn subject, and reduced me to exile, my distresses were mitigated by the thought that I still had your friendship, and that of men like you. *That *supported my drooping spirits in my exile, and taught me to smile amidst adversity. Must I not acknowledge my gratitude! I must; and rather than be unmindful of your kindness, may my right hand forget its cunning. [Essay on Water, vol. iii.]

The *Essay on Water *gained the author much favourable notice from scientific bodies. It analysed the component substances of which water is formed, and the various mineral springs of Great Britain and the Spas of Germany - in fact, to some extent anticipating Dr. Granville’s work.

In 1760, his friends having caused the attorney-general to enter a *nolle prosequi *on the indictment against him, he was induced to return to his native land. The death of King George II. and accession of his grandson, George III., caused the dissolution of the old, and the election of a new Parliament Lucas was hailed on his return with the acclamation due to his services and his sufferings. He was offered the representation of Dublin, and, on consenting to become a candidate, a committee was formed which secured his triumphant return. He became a very active and useful member. One of the evils which afflicted the political system of Ireland in his time was the duration of Parliament.

The members being elected for the life of the sovereign, were to a great extent irresponsible, and could represent or misrepresent their constituents as their conscience dictated. It was not so in Ireland. There the duration of Parliament being limited to seven years, gave the electors a hold upon the conduct of the members, who could not hope for re-election if they neglected or abused their duties as members of the House of Commons. Lucas felt this a legitimate opportunity for effecting reformation. In 1763 he brought before the House the heads of a Bill to bring about the practice in England, and limit the duration of the Parliament to six years. He obtained support from the patriot band then growing in power and strength. It was the first time the celebrated Henry Flood gave indications of that fervid oratory which afterwards made him the rival of Grattan in eloquence. The measure was sent. to England, according to the requirements of Poynings’ Law, and there altered from a sexennial to octennial, it is said in the expectation of being rejected in Ireland; but if so the expectation was not founded on a knowledge of the Irish Parliament. The change was not regarded as of sufficient importance to cause the rejection of the amended Bill, so the Octennial Act was passed. This was a step in the right direction, and gave Lucas a basis to work upon. He advocated other measures of reform, and applied himself vigorously to stem the tide of corruption which was the mode by which the Government defeated the advocates of liberty in the House!

He was of infirm health, and, like that accomplished gentleman who sat recently in the House of Commons, Mr. Kavanagh, had to be carried in and out of the House. Here his countenance, strikingly handsome, derived added interest from his silvery locks. He was remarkable for the care and neatness of his attire, and no stranger ever entered the House without being struck by his appearance and inquiring his name. [Hardy’s * Life of Lord Charlemont.*]

In 1763 Lucas started the Freeman’s *Journal, *a newspaper which, after more than a century, flourishes at the present day. The columns of this popular journal at the period of its young existence were enriched by the contributions of men whose names are household words among those who love the name of Ireland - Lucas, Grattan, Flood, Hussey Burgh, Barry Yelverton, afterwards Lord Avonmore. To Lucas there may be ascribed the establishment of the newspaper press of Ireland as the advocate and supporter of the cause or Irish nationality.

While in Parliament Lucas asserted the right of the Irish Parliament to legislate for Ireland. He argued that as Ireland was a kingdom, her king, Lords, and Commons alone had right to make the laws for the Irish people. He also tried to control the number of places and pensions which the Government gave as rewards for the support they received in order to carry their financial measures in defiance of the popular opposition.

It must have been a source of great satisfaction to the Irish patriot, that the independence of Ireland was assured ere he died. Just as the dawn of Irish freedom was breaking through the clouds which so long had engulfed it, Dr. Lucas died. A brief but most deserved complimentary notice of his death appeared in the *Freeman’s Journal, *and amidst the universal regret of all lovers of that liberty to which he devoted his talents and the labours of his active life, Dr. Lucas was consigned to an honoured grave in St. Mechan’s Church, Dublin.

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.