Right Honourable Walter Hussey Burgh. Born 1743; Died 1783

Chapter XVI.

Right Honourable Walter Hussey Burgh. Born 1743; Died 1783.

Born in 1743 - Education - Called to the Irish Bar, 1768 - Letter on the Impolicy of Pledging Candidates - Joins the Opposition - While Prime Serjeant sacrifices Place for Patriotism - Specimens of his Oratory - Coincidence in Laguage between Hussey Burgh in 1769 and Lord George Bentinck in 1846 - Appointed Chief Baron of the Exchequer in 1781 - Death in 1783 - Public Funeral - Pension on his Family - Praise by Grattan.

This distinguished patriot, statesman, and orator, of whom Ireland may feel justly proud, occupied a considerable place in Irish history during that brilliant period of her Parliament when it was enlightened by the genius and adorned by the eloquence of Flood and Grattan.

Walter Hussey Burgh, son of Ignatius Hussey, Esq. of Donore House, County Kildare, and Miss Elizabeth Burgh, was born in the year 1743. His original name was Walter Hussey, but he assumed the additional name of Burgh in pursuance of the will of a relative, who devised to him an estate in the county of Limerick, conditional on his taking the name of Burgh. Walter received his education at the school of Mr. Young in Abbey Street, and was prepared to enter the University of Dublin. He was an excellent classical scholar, and quite distinguished as a poet. Having selected the legal profession, and kept his terms, he was called to the Irish Bar in 1768. In those days, when owners of boroughs had the means of introducing young men of promise into Parliament, Walter Hussey had for this purpose the good offices of the Duke of Leinster; and in the year 1768 he was elected a member of the House of Commons. He soon was to make known his powers of oratory, but at first they showed more of the prodigality of a classical and poetic taste than was fitted for the deliberate assembly. This, however, was a fault in the right direction. Dr. Johnson truly says, it is easier to lop off redundancies than to supply deficiencies, and the fluency of young Hussey soon was regulated by the requirements of debate. He had tact and judgment to direct him, and very soon he was regarded as one of the most eloquent and powerful debaters in the Irish House of Commons.

Previous to the General Election in 1777, some questions of importance looming in the near future, many constituencies required from the candidates for their suffrage pledges that, when returned, their candidates were bound by their pledge to support or oppose the measures before the House in the way their constituents required. Among others seeking re-election was Hussey Burgh, and the views of so true a patriot and clear politician may be deemed serviceable on similar occasions. I am fortunate in having the means of stating them. They are addressed to an elector of Trinity College, Dublin, and I discovered the letter in the first volume of tile Anthologia Hibernica:-

“Dear Herbert, - As I understand the business relating to a test, which was mentioned last night, is to be considered this afternoon in a large circle, and I am desirous that the same sentiments which I have already expressed to some of the independent electors may be known to all of them, I take the liberty of troubling you with the repetition of them, which, if you think proper, you will communicate. If the test required should be nothing more than a solemn engagement to act with integrity in the trust which you are about to respose in your candidates, there can he no other objection to it but the indelicacy of large professions, which in general are little else than the eulogium of one’s own virtues. However, if it be any satisfaction to gentlemen who espouse this measure, I will and do give them the most solemn assurances that whileever I have the honour to sit in Parliament, I will, to the best of my judgment, pursue the real interest of this kingdom, without suffering any motives of profit or advancement to warp my sentiments or bias my vote. But at the same time that I make this declaration, I freely acknowledge that if gentlemen should have found no such promise in my conduct, they should pay but little attention to that of my pen. If by the test in contemplation it is proposed that your members should vote for or against any particular measure, I think it neither constitutional nor wise to enter into any previous promise by which deliberation shall be precluded; there is no seeing what new lights may be thrown on a subject, or what new circumstances may alter the merits of a question. If the member of an American Assembly had pledged his faith some years ago never to encourage it foreign trade in preference to that of the mother country, how different an aspect such a question would now wear from what could have been foreseen while the interests of Great Britain and her colonies were one. Am I then to say that I will steel my breast against conviction, and that I will regulate my conduct sonic years hence by the circumstances that now exist without regard to what they may be at the time I am to act? Am I to go to the House of Commons liable to see changes and to hear arguments that may convince me that what I think advantageous may prove ruinous to the kingdom; and shall I expose myself to the dilemma of voting for ruin or breaking a solemn, perhaps the most solemn of promises? Is he an honest man who, with his eyes open, will run the hazard of such an alternative? If, again, the test is intended to restrain your member from taking any place, pension, or emolument under Government; as to a pension, I freely assure you I never will accept one, unless, perhaps, in this instance, if it should happen in the vicissitudes of affairs that I should grow old in an honourable employment, - I will suppose, for example’s sake, on the Bench, - I shall think it no disgrace to accept a testimonial of having faithfully discharged my duties I should be no longer able to fulfil. This is so remote and improbable a contingency, that I should not mention it but for two reasons: the one, I intend these declarations to bend my whole life, I would suit them to every period of it; the other, that in disdaining pensions in general I would avoid throwing an imputation on that just use of them whereby they are made the asylum of merit instead of the sanctuary of vice. I am an enemy to pensions, but the head that has long been watchful for the public welfare, let it at last find a pillow to repose upon; he who has long and laboriously cultivated the land, let him at last find a peaceful retreat beneath its honourable shade. Before I quit the article of pensions, I must observe to you that I consider an additional salary to a useless place on the same footing as a pension, only with these two differences: the one, that hp who accepts what is in effect a pension, yet dares not own it by that name, plainly admits a consciousness of doing a wrong; the other, that whereas the pension dies with the pensioner, the salary remains for ever. I think I need not further assure you I never will accept of such a salary. As to the test precluding your members from accepting an active employment, I confess it strikes me as highly exceptionable. Whatever is now determined by the College ought to set, and probably will set, an example to the whole kingdom. Do I set them to be universally determined that no man of independent principles shall have any share in the administration of government? While every other nation complains of the corruptions of her ministers, is Ireland going to resolve that she will have no minister but the most corrupt that can be found? Such a universal test will be a universal law that no man of public spirit shall be in office. Let us suppose for a moment that Nero had made such a law: ‘Whereas the famed spirit of Roman patriotism has fallen into decay, be it therefore decreed that no man of integrity shall have any share in the conduct of public affairs.’ Will you make a law that would have disgraced Nero? In what situation is it that a man can render best services to his country-where he can direct what is right, or where he is to oppose what is wrong; where he can preserve the fountain pure, or where he is to endeavour to purge the stream; where he can stifle mischief in its infancy, or where he must combat it if grown into a giant; where he can turn aside the uplifted shafts of power, or where he is to hold up his shield against them? But it will be said that experience tells us that men who come into office surrender their opinions at direction. Would to God there were more men who acted on real principle. The designing patriot will always become the corrupt courtier. If a man has no principle, he will make up in jobs what he denies himself in office; if he has principle, he will be honest at all times and in all situations. There are no slighter things than these paper kites which ride against the wind. But though I will not promise never to be in office, I will and do most solemnly promise never to be corrupt in office. When I see things ill-conducted, I will not promise not to conduct them better. But no emolument of office shall ever induce me to increase my expense. By not making emolument necessary to luxury, I* *will always be able to lay it down when it becomes inconsistent with my honour. In the armoury of virtue truth is the sword, and frugality the shield. Would any man wish that Lord Chatham had never been a minister? Had he taken such a test as is now thought of, England was undone. Should Lord Hardwicke and Lord Camden never have been chancellors? Every man’s own recollection will furnish an hundred examples. You think the ship in danger; you complain of those at the helm; you tell me you have some dependence on my skill, or at least on my care, and what do you tell me? We will put you in the way of buffeting the man at the helm, but if you touch the rudder we will throw you overboard. One word more and I shall have done. Your endeavour is by some engagement to put it out of my power to desert the cause of truth. I will not conceal from you that I have some ambition. I would not anticipate the harvest of an honest reputation, and reduce every exertion of virtue to the bare right of performance of an exacted promise. I aspire to represent the College; ‘tis not to be in Parliament, but to be thus in Parliament. ‘Tis the honour of your confidence that I seek; I shall never court the brand of your distrust.

• I remain yours, etc.,

W. H. Burgh.”

This cogent reasoning prevailed, and he was duly elected for the Dublin University. One of his fellow-members gives the estimate of his character by stating, “He never allowed his own private interests to clash with his public duty.” [Curran and his Contemporaries, p. 48.] When he held the dignified office of prime serjeant, in moving an amendment to an address from the throne, he said: “I never will support any Government in fraudulently concealing from the king the rights of his people. The high office which I possess can hold no competition with my principles and my conscience, and I shall consider the relinquishment of my gown as only a just sacrifice on the altar of my country. Strong statement rather than pathetic supplication is adapted to the crisis, and the amendment which I propose is, that it is not by expedients that this country is to be saved from impending ruin.” Having resumed his seat, the consequences sure to follow from his thus assailing the executive government flashed upon his mind. He knew what the immediate result would be, and whispered to a friend who sat near, “I have now sealed the door against my own preferment, and I have made the fortune of that man,” indicating his successor, Mr. Brown.

The office which he thus relinquished is described by Sir Jonah Barrington: - “The office of prime serjeant, then the first law officer of Ireland, was filled at this period by one of the most amiable and eloquent men that ever appeared on the stage of politics, namely, Walter Hussey Burgh, whose conduct in a principal transaction rendered him justly celebrated and illustrious.”

Sir Jonah Barrington thus sketches his character:- Mild, moderate, and patriotic, Mr. Burgh was proud without arrogance, and dignified without effort; equally attentive to public concerns and careless of his own, he had neither avarice to acquire wealth, nor parsimony to retain it; liberal even to profusion, friendly to a fault, and disinterested to a weakness, he was honest without affluence, and ambitious without corruption; his eloquence was of the highest order - figurative, splendid, and convincing. The errors or his conduct were lost in the brightness of his virtues. At the Bar, the Parliament, and among the people, he was equally admired and universally respected.” [Annals of the Irish Parliament.]

On all the great questions tending to establish the parliamentary independence or Ireland Mr. Burgh was a staunch advocate. When his friends regained office in 1781, he was restored to the place of prime serjeant. It is curious to find a parallel between a speech of his in 17.69 and one of Lord George Bentinck in 1846. Describing the corrupt state of the Irish Parliament in 1769, Mr. Burgh said: “Our members are returned by the fear or dependence, not the affection or choice of the electoral body. Unaccountable for their conduct in Parliament, their venality is unrestrained, and universal corruption reigns in the House. They are the instruments of power - a set of men in regular pay, the janizaries of despotism.”

During a debate on the Corn Laws in 1846, Lord George Bentinck said: “We are told by the Right Hon. Baronet that he would not consent to be a minister on sufferance; but I think he must be blinded indeed by the flattery of those around him, if he has not learnt that he is now a minister on sufferance, tossed from one side to the other, sometimes depending on the honourable gentlemen opposite, sometimes on friends around me, supported by none but his 40 paid janizaries and some 70 other renegades, one-half of whom, while they support him, express their shame in doing so.” [The Irish Bar, p. 40.]

Unfortunately we have no report of his speeches, but this eloquent passage has been preserved.

In about two years after this, in June 1783, he was appointed chief baron of the Court of Exchequer, on the death of Lord Tracton; but he did not live long to enjoy this dignity. He died on the 29th of September 1783, in the full vigour of his intellect, and fullness of his fame, at the early age of 40 years. His fatal illness was said to have been contracted on circuit at Armagh, where the gaol fever prevailed. He left one son and four daughters, but no inheritor of his splendid talents. A* * public funeral was accorded to him, and his remains were followed to the grave by the members of the Legislature and the authorities and students of the University. After returning from his funeral, a grateful House of Commons conferred a pension of £2,000 a year upon his five children, with benefit of survivorship.

Unfortunately of Hussey Burgh’s splendid oratory few specimens remain. When preparing my late work, *The Irish Bar, *for publication, I tried in every direction to discover some of these magnificent orations with which he electrified the Irish House of Commons, and smote dismay into the hearts or Ireland’s foes; but, alas! no Hansard existed in those days, and the Journals of the House only give the formal notices Of daily routine. I am not the only author who was equally unsuccessful. In the valuable work of Mr. Phillips, called *Curran and his Contemporaries, *he says, in reference to Hussey Burgh: “I have heard but one sentence which has escaped unmutilated. Referring to the state of Ireland under English rule, and the embodiment of the National Army of 1782, the Irish Volunteers, Mr. Burgh warmed into this classical allusion, ‘Talk not to me of peace. Ireland is not in a state of peace. It is smothered war. England has sown her laws like dragons’ teeth, and they have sprung up armed men?” I rejoice to say I have been more successful than Mr. Phillips, for, on reference to my “Memoir of Hussey Burgh,” in *The Irish Bar, *I find I discovered a longer specimen of his oratory than Mr. Phillips has given. It displays his utter disregard for self-interest - not a common quality in the Irish Bar in our times. On the motion of the Anglo-Irish Government to send 4,000 Irish soldiers to uphold British rule in America during the War for Independence, Mr. Burgh refused his consent while taxation without representation was contended for. He closed his speech in these words: “Having no enemies to encounter, no partisans to serve, without passion, without fear, I have delivered my sentiments upon the present question - one of the greatest importance. I will not vote a single man against America without an accompanying address recommending conciliatory measures. I foresee the conclusion of this war. If ministers are victorious, it will be only establishing a right to the harvest after they have burned the grain - it will be establishing a right to the stream after they have cut off the fountain. Such is my opposition - a method ill calculated to secure emolument or to gain popularity. My conduct will not please either party. But I despise profit, I despise popularity, if the one is to be gained by base servility, and the other purchased by blind zeal. Farewell profit, farewell popularity, if, in acquiring you, fair fame is to be the victim.”

Those who had the advantage of hearing his speeches place him above all his great contemporaries. Plunket said: “No modern speaker approached him in the power of stirring the passions;” and the Marquis Wellesley, another critical judge, ranked him superior to Pitt, Fox, or Burke.

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.