MacNally the betrayer.

MacNally and Turner.

(See Chapter 6)

The “Cornwallis Correspondence,” published in 1859, confirms the allegation that Leonard MacNally, the confidential law-adviser to, and eloquent counsel for, the leaders of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, was in the pay of the unscrupulous Tory Government of that day, and basely betrayed the secrets of his confiding clients. MacNally had been himself a member of the Whig Club and the Society of United Irishmen, and went so far as to challenge and fight Sir Jonah Barrington, who had indulged in stinging animadversion of it.

He was apparently a stanch democrat, and enjoyed the most unlimited confidence of the popular party. He survived until 1820; and with such consummate hypocrisy was his turpitude veiled, that men who could read the inmost soul of others never for a moment suspected him. The late W. H. Curran, in the Life of his father, (i, 384, 385,) pronounces a brilliant eulogium on “the *many endearing traits” *in MacNally’s character, and adds that he (W. H. Curran) is filled with “emotions of the most lively and respectful gratitude.”

We farther learn that “for three-and-forty years Mr MacNally was the friend” of Curran, and that “he performed the duties of the relation with the most uncompromising and romantic fidelity.” Years after, when the late D. Owen Maddyn urged W. H. Curran to bring out a new edition of the Life of his father, he replied that it would be difficult to do so, as he should have to cancel the passage to which I have referred, and indulge in severe reflections upon the memory of MacNally, a near relation of whom was practising in the court where Mr W. H, Curran sat as judge.

Curran’s regard for MacNally was steadily consistent. In 1807, on the accession of the Whigs to power, Mr Curran exerted the large influence which he possessed to obtain a silk gown for his friend. The Duke of Bedford, however, who was then viceroy, having discovered the base compact which subsisted between his Tory predecessors and MacNally, rejected the claim. But the reasons for the refusal were not then known, and the popular party regarded as a grievance this treatment of their favourite counsel.

Charles Phillips, who practised for many years at the same bar with MacNally, thus notices, in one of the last editions of “Currau and his Contemporaries,” the report that MacNally had a pension: - “The thing is incredible. If I was called upon to point out, next to Curran, the man most obnoxious to the Government, - who most hated them, and was most hated by them, - it would have been Leonard MacNally, - that MacNally who, amidst the military audience, stood by Curran’s side while he denounced oppression, defied power, and dared every danger!”

After the death of MacNally [MacNally must have died intestate, as we can find no trace of his will in the Irish Probate Court.] his representative claimed a continuance of the secret pension of £300 a-year, which he had been enjoying since the calamitous period of the rebellion. Lord Wellesley, the first really liberal viceroy which Ireland possessed, demanded a detailed statement of the circumstances under which the unholy agreement had been made, and after some hesitation it was furnished. The startling truth soon became known. O’Connell announced the fact publicly, and used it as an argument for dissuading the people from embarking in treasonable projects.

The MS. volume containing “An Account of the Secret Service Money Expenditure,” discloses the frequent payment of large sums to MacNally, irrespective of his pension, during the troubled times which preceded and followed the Union. This engine of corruption, as recorded by the same document, invariably passed through the hands of a Mr J. Pollock.

It is suggestive of intensely melancholy ideas to glance over this blood-tinged record. The initials of MacNally perpetually rise like an infernal phantom through its pages. Passing over the myriad entries throughout the interval of 1797 to 1803, we come to the period of Robert Emmet’s insurrection. In the “State Trials;’ we find MacNally, on September 19, 1803, acting as counsel for Emmet at the Special Commission. Under date September 14, 1803, “L. M., £100,” appears on record in the Secret Service Money Book. This retainer doubtless overbalanced poor Emmet’s fee. The gifted young Irishman was found guilty, and executed. No one is permitted to see him in prison but MacNally, who pays him a visit on the morning of his execution, addresses him as “Robert,” and shows him every manifestation of affection. On the 25th August 1803, “Mr Pollock, for L. M., £1,000,” is also recorded. Sometimes MacNally signed the receipts for Secret Service Money “J. W.;” but besides that the writing in these documents is identical with his acknowledged autograph, the clerk’s endorsement, “L. M. N.” leaves no room for doubt. The original receipts were kindly shown to us in 1854 by Dr Madden.

The masterly manner in which MacNally fortified his duplicity is worthy of attention. Persons usually the most clear-sighted regarded him as a paragon of purity and worth. Defending Finney, in conjunction with Philpot Curran, the latter, giving way to the impulse of his generous feelings, threw his arm over the shoulder of MacNally, and, with emotion, said, “My old and excellent friend, I have long known and respected the honesty of your heart, but never until this occasion was I acquainted with the extent of your abilities. I am not in the habit of paying compliments where they are undeserved.” Tears fell from Mr Curran as he hung over his friend. [Life of Curran by his son, vol. i., p. 397.]

Nineteen years after, Curran died with the illusion undispelled. From the *Freeman’s Journal *of October 13, 1817, we gather that Judge Burton wrote from London to MacNally, as the old and tried friend of Curran, to announce the approaching death of the great patriot. [We contributed to *Notes and Queries *some portions of this paper.]

Sir Jonah Barrington insinuates that MacNally was an unpopular companion in society. The late Dr Fulton, addressing us in 1858, observed:- ” L. MacNally was a most agreeable companion - quite a little Curran; and his political views were considered even more democratic than Curran’s. He made a bet that he would dine at the mess of the Fermanagh Militia, an ultra-Orange body. He joined them unasked, and made himself so agreeable, and every man there so pleasant, that he received a general invitation to their mess from that day. He was a most pleasing poet, and wrote, among other effusions, the well-known song, ‘Sweet Lass of Richmond Hill.’”

Sir Jonah Barrington, who often sacrificed strict accuracy to sensational effect, has given us, in his “Personal Sketches,” a monstrous caricature of MacNally’s outward man. Nevertheless, although, like Curran, of low stature, he had, as we are informed by O’Keefe, who knew him intimately, “a handsome, expressive countenance, and fine sparkling dark eye.” [Recollections of John O’Keefe, vol. i., p.45.]

Mr MacNally must at least have had a rare amount of what is familiarly termed “cheek.” In his defence of Watty Cox at a public trial in Dublin, February 26, 1811, he says, “Few men become … informers until they have forfeited public character.” [*Irish Magazine, *April 1811, p.45.]

The Duke of Wellington, in the following letter, probably refers to MacNally, whose insatiable cupidity is very likely to have prompted him to seek further recognition of his unworthy services by applying for some office in the gift of the crown:-

“London, *June *29,1807.

“My Dear Sir, - I agree entirely with you respecting the employment of our informer. Such a measure would do much mischief. It would disgust the loyal of all descriptions, at the same time it would render useless our private communications with him, as no further trust would be placed in him by the disloyal. I think that it might be hinted to him that he would lose much of his profit if, by accepting the public employment of Government, he were to lose the confidence of his party, and consequently the means of giving us information - Believe me, ever yours most sincerely,

“Arthur Wellseley. [Who is the “Catholic orator” referred to in the following note from Sir A Wellesley to Lord Hawkesbury?: -

“Dublin Castle, *Jan. *891808.

“The extracts of letters sent to you by Lord Grenville, were sent to us by ---, the Catholic orator, two months ago. The --- mentioned is a man who was* **desirous of being employed by Government as a spy, *and his trade is that of spy to all parties. He offered himself to ---, Lord Finga, and others, as well as to us, and we now watch him closely.”]

“To James Trail, Esq.”

The editor of the “Cornwallis Papers,” Mr Ross, in enumerating, with others, (iii., 319,) one Samuel Turner, who received a pension of £300 a year at the same time as MacNally, declares that he has been unable to obtain any particulars of this man. There can be no doubt that Mr Turner belonged to the same school as MacNally.

The old Dublin Directories, in the list of “Judges and Barristers,” record the name of Samuel Turner, Esq., who was called to the bar at Easter Term 1788; and the following paragraph, which we exhume from the London *Courier *of December 5, 1803, suggests a painful glimpse of the grounds on which Mr Turner obtained a pension at the same time as MacNally

“On Friday last, Samuel Turner, Esq., barrister-at-law, was brought to the bar of the Court of King’s Bench, in custody of the keeper of Kilmainham prison, under a charge of attainder, passed in the Irish Parliament, as one concerned in the Rebellion of the year 1798; but having shown that he was no way concerned therein, that he had not been in the country for a year and seven months prior to passing that Act,

• i.e., for 13 months prior to the rebellion, - and therefore could not be the person alluded to, his Majesty’s Attorney-General confessed the same, and Mr Turner was discharged accordingly.”

To return to MacNally:-

A gentleman who conducted the leading popular paper of Dublin some 40 years ago in a communication addressed to us, observes:- “It was in 1811, during the prolonged trial of the Catholic delegates, (Lord Fingal, Sheridan, Burke, and Kirwan,) that doubts were first entertained of MacNally’s fidelity. MacNally took a leading part in the counsels of the delegates and their friends. We observed that the Orange Attorney-General, Saurin, always appeared wondrously well prepared next day for the arguments which we had arranged. MacNally, no doubt, used to communicate to the law officers of the Crown all the secrets of his confiding clients.”

MacGuicken, the attorney of the United Irishmen, of whom we shall speak hereafter, was also subsidised.

The world now knows the guilt of MacNally and MacGuicken. Their memory has been execrated. But surely the seducer of these once honourable men deserves a share of the obloquy. Who was the man who first debauched the counsel and solicitor of the United Irishmen?

Sham Index Home.