Henry Grattan (1746-1820)

Chapter XV.

Henry Grattan. Born 1746; Died 1820.

Born in 1746 - Recorder Grattan opposed to his Son’s Politics - Is disinherited - A Law Student - Encounter in Windsor Forest - Called to the Irish Bar in 1772 - Member for Charlemont in 1775 - Efforts for Free Trade - English Hostility to Irish Industries - By Aid of the Volunteers - Irish Independence gained - Political Changes in England - Viceroys changed in Ireland - Fox’s Manoeuvring - Great Excitement in Dublin in April 1782 - Grattan in the Front - He obtains Ireland’s Freedom - Vote of £100,000 to Grattan - Accepts Half - The State of Ireland in 1798 causes him to abandon attending Parliament - The Debate on the Union - Grattan’s last Appeal - The Union Act - Grattan returns to Tinnahinch - Elected to represent Dublin in the United Parliament - His Fame as an Orator - The Champion of the Roman Catholics - Death - Last Words.

The career of this great Protestant patriot has been so frequently written, I would not feel justified in attempting to add to the number. I shall content myself with some particulars of his birth, education, and career. Henry Grattan was born in Dublin in 1746. His father was recorder of Dublin, and had for his colleague in the representation of the Irish metropolis Mr. Lucas. But they were of decidedly adverse politics. While Lucas, as I have shown, was an ardent Nationalist, devoting all his energies to the independence of Ireland, Recorder Grattan opposed this spirit; and, finding his son Henry espoused the views, and no doubt was early educated in them, of Dr. Lucas, did all he could to induce his son to abandon them. Finding Henry was immovable, the angry recorder marked his sense of the son’s opposition to his political sentiments by depriving him of the paternal property, and leaving him dependent on a small income derived from his mother.

Henry Grattan became a law student, and during his terms in London, tired of the confinement of the city, he took lodgings in Windsor, and was accustomed to take nocturnal rambles in Windsor Forest. He seems at this time to he practising that talent in which he afterwards displayed such consummate ability - public speaking, and caused his landlady to have some suspicion of his sanity, as she often heard him shouting in his room, and calling on one Mr. Speaker, though she knew no one else was present. An anecdote is related of his midnight orations. While in the glades of Windsor he beheld a gibbet, where some malefactor had been hung, but the cord dangled unoccupied. This afforded a meet theme for the young orator, who was vehemently addressing the vacant gibbet, when he was touched on the shoulder by some other nightly rambler, who pointed to the empty place of punishment, and inquired, “How the mischief did you get down?”

Grattan’s reply was prompt.

“Sir,” said he, “I perceive you have an interest in asking that question.”

Grattan was called to the Irish Bar in 1772, and went the Home Circuit, where he had some practice. He soon gave up the legal profession, for which we can readily believe he was not suited. It is said he used to return his fees when the cases in which he was retained were decided against his clients. Another pursuit, more congenial to his taste, and better suited to his talents, was henceforth to claim him. The brother of the Earl of Charlemont, Major Coalfield, who was member for the family borough of Charlemont, was drowned in 1775, and the earl bestowed the seat on the talented Henry Grattan.

In that admirable *Historical Study of Grattan *by Mr. John George MacCarthy, the young men of Ireland may learn the claims Henry Grattan has to be enshrined in the Irish heart. Here, in choice and elegant as well as eloquent words, the late talented Mr. J. G. MacCarthy traces the career of this great Irish patriot. We learn from this able work his early culture, from his birth in 1746 to the period of his taking his seat for the borough of Charlemont in 1775. His noble struggles to remove the barriers to the commercial freedom of Ireland, which English jealousy and cupidity had imposed, are fully told. The restrictions on trade having been removed, Grattan determined to induce the Irish Parliament to assert its independence. Many opposed his views, alleging that sufficient had been gained, and a resolution was passed by the House of Lords, on a motion by the Duke of Leinster, that the agitations of misguided men should be discouraged, as it diverted the people from prospering by commercial advantage.

But neither Lords nor Commons could divert Grattan from his course. On the 19th April 1780 he proposed, “That the king’s most excellent Majesty and the Lords and Commons of Ireland are the only powers competent to make laws to bind Ireland.” [*Grattan’s Life, *by his Son, vol. ii.]

Though these enactments were so far yielding independence to the Irish Parliament, another Act had to be passed repealing Poynings’ Law. This was done by statute 21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 47, and a mode directed for the future legislation in 1reland. [For summary of the speech, see Hist. Review.]

Mr. Corry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having taunted Grattan with raising the rebellion in 1798, had reason to repent of his charge, and was thus replied to:-

“Has the gentleman done - has he completely done? He was unparliamentary from the beginning to the end of his speech. There was scarcely a word he uttered that was not a violation of the privileges of the House, but I did not call him to ordee. Why? Because the limited talent of some men render it impossible for them to be severe without being unparliamentary. But before I sit down I shall show him how to be severe and parliamentary at the same time. On any other occasion I should think myself justifiable in treating with silent contempt anything that might fall from that honourable member; but there are times when the insignificance of the accuser is lost in the magnitude of the accusation. I know the difficulty the honourable member laboured under when he attacked me. Conscious that, on a comparative view of our characters, public and private, there is nothing he could say which would injure me. The public would not believe the charge. I despise the falsehood. If such a charge was made by an honest man, I would answer it in the manner I shall do before I sit down. But I shall first reply to it when not made by an honest man, however, which I am proud to say was not greater than my deserts. I have returned to protect that constitution, of which I was the parent and the founder, from the assassination of such men as the honourable gentleman and his unworthy associates. They are corrupt they are seditious, and they at this very moment are in a conspiracy against their country. I have returned to refute a libel, as false as it is malicious, given to the public under the appellation of a Report of a Committee of the Lords Here I stand ready for impeachment or trial. I dare accusation. I defy the honourable gentleman. I defy the Government; I defy their whole phalanx. Let then come forth. I tell the ministers I will neither give them quarter nor take it. I am here to lay the statement The right honourable gentleman says, ‘I fled from the country after exciting rebellion, and that I had returned to raise another.’ No such thing. The charge is false. The civil war had not commenced when I left the kingdom, and I would not have returned without taking a part On the one side, there was the camp of the rebel; on the other, the camp of the minister, I greater traitor than the rebel. The stronghold of the constitution was nowhere to be found. I agree that the rebel who rises against the Government should have suffered, but I miss on the scaffold the right honourable gentleman. Two desperate parties were in arms against the constitution. The right honourable gentleman belongs to one of those parties, and deserves death. I could not join the rebels. I could not join the Government. I could not give torture. I could not give half-hanging. I could not give free quarters. I could take part with neither. I was therefore absent from the scene when I could not be active without self-reproach, nor indifferent to safety. Many honourable gentlemen thought differently from me. I respect their opinion, but I keep my own; and I think now, as I thought then, that the treason of the ministers against the liberties of the people was infinitely worse than the rebellion of the people against the ministers. I have returned, not as the right honourable member has said, to raise another storm. I have returned to discharge an honourable debt of gratitude to my country, that confers a great reward for past services, I hope not undeserved.

“It is not a little singular that the city of Cork, which has shown such vigour in seeking the repeal of the Union, should have been the principal strength of the Government in its support of this measure. Under date of 23rd April 1800, I find, at a meeting of the City Grand Jury, held during the Spring Assizes in the city, in the Grand Jury room, it was resolved unanimously that the sentiment of the city of Cork in favour of a legislative union with Great Britain has already been expressed in the most decided and unequivocal manner, and that the ineffectual efforts which have been made to represent this city as entertaining a contrary opinion, affords the most decisive evidence that the great majority of our fellow-citizens, in point of wealth, loyalty, and steady attachment to the constitution, still continue to approve of the measure.”

This resolution was signed by the mayor, sheriffs, and common Speaker. But the unanimity was broken; for two most eminent citizens Messrs. Purvis and Jeffrey, went as a deputation to present a petition to his Majesty, signed by leading merchants and freemen, in reprobation of the measure. Lord Cornwallis, however, was delighted at the apparent approval of Cork, while sternly contrasted with the hostility of Dublin. Writing to Mr. Wickam, he says: “There is every reason to hope of a different sentiment.” The efforts made by The viceroy to obtain what could be presented to Great Britain as showing the desire of the Irish nation to effect the union, are thus described by Mr. Plunket in the debate in the House of Commons, 15th January 1800: “During the whole interval between sessions, the barefaced system of Parliamentary corruption has been pursued - dismissals, promotions, threats, promises. In despite of all this, tie minister found he could not succeed in Parliament and so affected to appeal to what he had before despised, the sentiment of the people. Bribes were promised to the Catholic clergy; bribes were promised to the Presbyterian clergy. Though Grattan was prostrated by illness when the Bill for the Union was on for the third reading in tie House of Commons, the entreaties of his family could not restrain him from once more urging the House to refuse assent to the measure. He felt the consequences of the measure being carried would inflict a deep blow upon the country he loved; so he left his sickbed, and travelled from Tinnahinch so Dublin, a distance of about 40 miles.

It is no wonder, when) wearied and fatigued by his journey, he appeared before the gaze of the members, cheer after cheer rang through the domed chamber, and his attached friends welcomed him warmly. His request that he would be allowed the indulgence of addressing the House from his seat, which the Speaker (Foster) readily yielded, he delivered one of the noblest pieces of Parliamentary oratory ever heard in any assembly. The deep patriotism and pathos of its peroration could not be surpassed.

The last words of Grattan in the Irish Parliament are, I think, applicable now, as I think they amount to a prediction of a possible Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. “The constitution may for a time seem lost. The character of the country cannot be lost. The ministers of the Crown will find that it is not so easy to put down for ever an ancient and respectable nation by abilities, however great, and by power and corruption, however irresistible. Liberty may repair her golden beam, and with redoubled heat animate the country. The cry of loyalty will not be long continued against the principles of liberty. Loyalty is a noble, a judicious, and a capricious principle; but in these countries loyalty, distinct from liberty, is corruption, not loyalty. The cry of the connexion will not in the end avail against the principles of liberty. Connexion is a wise and a profound policy; but connexion without an Irish Parliament is connexion without its own principle; without analogy of condition, without the pride of honour which should attend it, is innovation, is peril, is subjugation - not connexion. The cry of disaffection will in the end avail against the principles of liberty. Identification is a solid and imperial maxim necessary for the preservation of freedom, necessary for that of empire; but without union of hearts, with a separate Government, and without a separate Parliament, identification is extinction, is dishonour, is conquest - not identification. Yet I do not give up my country. I see her in a swoon, but she is not dead. Though in her tomb she lies helpless and motionless, there is on her lips a spirit of life, and on her cheek a glow of beauty.

Thou art not conquered, beauty’s ensign yet

Is crimson on thy lips and on thy cheek;

And death’s pale flag* *is not abroad there.’

While a plank of the vessel holds together I will not leave her. Let the courtier present his loyal sail to the breeze, and carry the barque of his faith with every wind that blows: I will remain anchored here; with fidelity to the fortunes of my country, faithful to her freedom, faithful to her fall.”

Had there been any general burst of antagonism in the country, had Catholics and Protestants and Presbyterians been of one national sentiment, such appeals as were made by Grattan, Plunket, Bushe, Curran, and Ponsonby would have effectually prevented the Bill from passing the Commons; but there was not. The Catholics were still the hewers of wood and drawers of water, unable to hold office or emolument in their native land, treated as unworthy to associate with their fellow-countrymen.

The life of Grattan,” says my gifted friend the late Daniel Owen Madden, “affords valuable lessons. It bids Irish Protestants not to entertain harsh prejudices against their Catholic fellow-countrymen, to look on all with a loving heart, to be tolerant of their infirmities caused by their unhappy history, and, like Grattan, earnestly to sympathise with all that is brave and generous in their character. It reminds the Irish Catholic that the brightest age of Ireland was when Grattan, a steady Protestant, raised it to proud eminence; that in the hour of his triumph he did not forget the state of the Catholics, but laboured through his virtuous life that all Catholics should enjoy unshackled liberty of conscience. He bids Irishmen of every creed to ponder upon the spirit and principles which governed the patriot’s career in public and private.”

It was very unfortunate that, on the question of Parliamentary Reform, Grattan should have opposed Flood. That statesman evidently distrusted the English ministers, and felt that, with the immense patronage of the proprietors of Irish boroughs, there was no safety if the measure of Union was proposed. The close of the last century, setting as it did in rebellion and disaster, left the country an easy prey to the wiles of Pitt, and so disheartened Grattan, he withdrew from Parliament, and left the Opposition of the Government to young, no doubt eloquent and patriotic members, notably Plunket, afterwards Lord Plunket, and Charles Kendal Bushe, afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. Against the Union they protested.

The career of Henry Grattan subsequent to the Union does not belong to this work. The Irish Parliament was no more. The independence of Ireland was brief. As he pathetically said, “I watched over its cradle, and I followed its hearse.” However, a few words must be added as to what was his career after the Irish Parliament ceased to sit in the noble building in College Green. He was a member of the Imperial Parliament, and devoted his great intellectual and oratorical powers to break the fetters which enchained his Catholic countrymen. Time after time he brought forward this Catholic Relief measure, doomed to be defeated, and, with the exception of a speech on the war with France in 1815: he rarely addressed the House of Commons save as the advocate of his country. The noble example of our Protestant patriots should induce our fellow-countrymen to hold out the hand of friendship. Then, Catholic fellow-Irishmen, remember the Christian advice of Father O’Leary:- “Let not religion, the sacred name of religion, which can in the case of an enemy discover a brother, be any longer a war of separation to keep us asunder. We are all in some close degree allied, and it is time to forget past difference, and work harmoniously for the land of our birth.”

After the Union Grattan retired to Tinnahinch, which was purchased with the money granted for his services in the cause of Ireland. Moore thus describes him:

“Who that ever approached him when free from the crowd,

In a home full of love, he delighted to tread

‘Mong the trees which a nation had given, and which bowed,

As if each brought a new civic crown to his head.”

He greatly loved the pine-trees in his lawn, and when some one suggested the removal of one which interfered with a prospect from his house, he replied: “Oh no I if either is to come down, it must be the house, for it is the latest comer.”

In 1805 he was elected member for Dublin, and went to the House of Commons at Westminster to advocate the claims of the Catholics to emancipation. They subscribed £4,000 to defray the expenses of his election; but he declined to accept their liberality. On entering the House of Commons he sat down behind Fox, who said, “That is not the place for the Irish Demosthenes,” and drew him to a seat beside himself. His fame as an orator brought many to the galleries of the House on the evening he was to address the House, and many feared, at his advanced age and peculiar style of speaking, he would not maintain his Irish reputation; but he did so fully all the great speakers - Fox, Sheridan, Pitt - were enthusiastic in his praise. In 1819, though in delicate health, he retired to London, and though his family and friends endeavoured to dissuade him, and his physician warned him of the danger, like Parnell in later years, he persisted, and the country suffered the loss of his services. He died in London on the 6th June 1820, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, where Pitt, Fox, and other statesmen now rest.

When making a tour in the County Wicklow some years ago, I resolved to visit Grattan House of Tinnahinch. We were on our way to the Vale of Glendalough, and I bade our driver go to the country seat the nation gave to her patriot. We halted at the hall door, and I knocked. An aged female answered my summons, but to my request for admission she declined to permit my entrance. She said, “Lady Laura Grattan had given her orders that no stranger was to be allowed into the house in her absence.” “Quite right of Lady Laura,” I said; “no stranger should enter this sacred house; but I am no stranger. You may tell Lady Laura that no one can be a stranger acquainted with the life and glorious death of the immortal Grattan - that I am. I am sure you know how he went from this house, while dangerously sick, to make a last effort against the Union, and his pathetic words:

‘Thou art not conquered, beauty’s ensign yet

Is on thy lips and on thy cheek,

And death’s pale nag is not abroad there.

Let the coaster present his flowing sail to the wind, and carry the light barque of his faith with every wind that blows: I will remain anchored here; with fidelity to the fortunes of my country, faithful to her freedom, faithful to her fall.’”

I could see in the glistening eyes of the old lady that I had conquered. “Oh, sir,” she said, “you indeed have a right to visit the house, you and your lady!” and as my wife accompanied me through the rather small but commodious hall, drawing-room, and parlour, we saw from the windows the clumps of well-grown trees-ash, oak, beech, and elm - which no doubt were the objects of Grattan’s pride, which have outlived him, but with God’s blessing may yet bloom and flower when another Grand Old Man restores an independent Parliament to Ireland.

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.