Annesley Trial. Early Struggles of the Sham Squire. How to catch an heiress.

CHAPTER I.**

**The great Annesley Trial. - Wonderful Adventures. - Murder of Patrick Higgins. - Early Struggles and Stratagems of the Sham Squire. - How to Catch an Heiress. - All is not Gold that Glitters. - A Jesuit Outwitted. - Moral, that clergymen should be slow in introducing suitors without inquiry. - Judge Robinson. - John Philpot Curran. - The Black Dog Prison. - Uprise of the Sham Squire. - Lord Chief-Justice Clonmel.

• Sham Statesmen as well as Sham Squires. - Irish Administrations of Lord Temple and the Duke of Rutland. - The Beautiful Duchess. - Anecdotes.

The great Annesley trial, which took place at Dublin in November 1743, disclosed a most exciting episode in the romance of history. A few of its salient points are subjoined for the better illustration of our narrative, with which, as will be seen, the trial has some connexion.

A son was born to Lord and Lady Altham of Dunmaine, in the county of Wexford; but they lived unhappily together, and the lady, having been turned adrift on the world, at last died a victim to disease and poverty. James Annesley, her infant son, was intrusted by Lord Altham to the charge of a woman named Juggy Landy, who lived in a wretched hut near Dunmaine. Lord Altham. after a few years, removed with his son to Dublin, where be formed a connexion with a Miss Kennedy, whom he tried to introduce to society as his wife. This woman, who wielded considerable influence over Lord Altham, succeeded in driving James Annesley from the paternal roof. He became a houseless wanderer through the streets of Dublin, and, as we learn, procured a scanty subsistence “by running of errands and holding horses”

In order to facilitate a loan of money, which Lord Altham, conjointly with his brother, was induced to borrow on his reversionary interest in the estates of Lord Anglesey, to whom he was heir-at-law, young Annesley was alleged to be dead. On the death of Lord Altham, his brother attended the funeral as chief mourner, and assumed the title of Baron Altham; but when he claimed to have this title registered he was refused by the Ulster king-at-arms “on account of his nephew’s being reported still alive, and for want of the honorary fees.” “Ultimately, however, by means which are stated to have been ‘well known and obvious,’ he succeeded in procuring his registration.

“But there was another and a more sincere mourner at the funeral of Lord Altham than the successful inheritor of his title. A poor boy of 12 years of age, half naked, bareheaded and barefooted, wept over his father’s grave.” [Gentlemen’s Magazine, vol. xiv, p. 39.] Young Annesley was speedily recognised by his uncle, and forcibly driven from the place. The latter soon after instituted a series of daring attempts to get so troublesome an obstacle to his ambition and peace of mind out of the way. Many efforts made to kidnap the boy were foiled by the prowess of a humane butcher, who took him under his protection; and on one occasion this man, by sheer strength of muscle, and a stout shillelah, successfully resisted the united efforts of half a dozen emissaries despatched by Lord Altham. In an unguarded moment, however, Annesley was seized in the street, and dragged on board a vessel in the Liffey, which sailed for America, where the boy was apprenticed as a plantation slave, and in which capacity he remained for 13 years.

Meanwhile the uncle, on the demise of Lord Anglesey, succeeded to his title and vast estates. The boy made many attempts to escape, and on one occasion nearly lost his life from the effects of several stabs he received from the negro sentinels. The daughter of a slave-driver became passionately attached to him; he, however, failed to reciprocate her passion; and at last escaped to Jamaica, where he volunteered as a sailor on board a man-of-war.

He was identified by some of the officers; and Admiral Vernon, who commanded the fleet, wrote home an account of the case to the then Prime Minister, supplied Annesley with money, and treated him with the respect due to his rank. As soon as these matters reached the ears of Lord Anglesey, he left no effort untried to maintain possession of his usurped title and wealth; and “the most eminent lawyers within the English and Irish bars were retained to defend a cause, the prosecution of which was not as yet even threatened.”

On Annesley’s arrival in Dublin, “several servants who had lived with his father came from the country to see him. They knew him at first sight, and fell on their knees to thank Heaven for his preservation; embraced his legs, and shed tears of joy for his return.”

Lord Anglesey proposed a compromise with Annesley, but an unexpected incident occurred which the usurper resolved to turn to good account, and thus avoid the expense of an arrangement. A fowling-piece exploded accidentally in Annesley’s hand, and killed a man to whom he owed no enmity. Lord Altham exerted his influence to the uttermost, both on the inquest and at the trial, in endeavouring to get his nephew adjudged guilty of wilful murder. He sat with the judges on the bench, browbeat the witnesses, and laboured to entrap them into unguarded admissions.

Although Lord Altham expended £1,000 on the prosecution, Annesley was triumphantly acquitted.

A still more memorable trial, in which James Annesley was plaintiff, and Richard, Earl of Anglesey, defendant, was heard before the Chief-Justice and Barons of the Exchequer, on November 11, 1743, and lasted nearly a fortnight. A number of witnesses in the interest of Lord Anglesey were examined, with the unworthy object of attempting to prove Annesley illegitimate; but although the jury found for him, he failed to recover his title and property, as the powerful interest of Lord Anglesey succeeded in procuring a writ of error, which set aside the verdict. Before a new trial could be brought on Annesley died without issue, and his uncle remained in undisturbed possession of the title and estates. (Sir Walter Scott is alleged to have taken this history as the groundwork of ‘Guy Mannering,’ although he has not admitted it in his explanatory introduction to that novel. See Lockhart’s Life of Scott, chapter xxxiv, 1845 edition)

Patrick Higgins, father of the “Sham Squire, was an attorney’s clerk, who had been sent into the country to collect evidence for the trial. “He arrived in Dublin from the country late on a winter’s night,” writes a correspondent, “and was known to have in his possession some valuable papers relating to the great Annesley case, and it is supposed that he was waylaid, murdered, and disposed of by parties interested in getting possession of those papers.” (Letter of J. Curran, Esq., dated Rathmines, November 22, 1865))

That worth frequently fails to meet its deserts in this life, and that chicane too often makes the fortune of the perpetrator, is painfully evidenced in the histories of James Annesley and Francis Higgins.

In the year 1754, a bare-legged boy, with cunning eyes, might have be en seen carrying pewter quarts in Fishamble Street, Dublin (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1789.), which was then a popular locality, owing to the continual ridottos, concerts, and feats of magic, which made the old Music Hall an object of attraction. This boy became the subsequently influential Justice Higgins, or, as he was more frequently styled, the Sham Squire.

Fishamble Street is recorded as the scene of his debut by John Magee, in 1789; and this account we find corroborated by a traditional anecdote of Mr R—, whose grand-mother often told him that she remembered her father, Mr Smith, of Fishamble Street, employing Higgins, “a bare-footed, red-haired boy,” to sweep the flags in front of his door.

Our adventurer was the only survivor of a large family of brothers and sisters, the children of Patrick and Mary Higgins (Will of Francis Higgins, Prerogative Court, Dublin), who are said to have migrated from Downpatrick. (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1837) He himself was born in a cellar in Dublin, and while yet of tender years became successively “errand-boy, shoe-black, and waiter in a porter house. ”

The number of times which Higgins used his broom, or shouldered pewter pots, it would be interesting to enumerate, and unprofitable to record. Passing over a few years occupied in this way, Mr Higgins is re-introduced to the reader, discharging his duties as a “hackney writing clerk” in the office of Daniel Bourne, attorney-at-law, Patrick’s Close, Dublin. (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1837) He was born a Roman Catholic, but he had now read his recantation, as appears from the *Official Register of Conversions, *preserved in the Record Tower, Dublin Castle. (This record, which seems unknown to most Irish biographers, contains the names of Barry Yelverton, afterwards Lord Avonmore, Leonard MacNally, and several other men of mark. Thanks to Sir Bernard Burke, the courteous and efficient custodian of the records, many valuable MSS. are constantly turning up, to the great satisfaction of historical students.)

Nevertheless, he failed to rise in the social scale. Having become a perfect master of scrivenery, a strong temptation smote him to turn his talent for calligraphy to some more substantial account than £16 per annum, the general salary of hackney writing clerks in those days.(Faulkner’s Dublin Journal, January 24, 1767)

Higgins had great ambition, but without money and connexion he was powerless. Accordingly, to gain these ends, we find him in 1766 forging, with his cunning brain and ready hand, a series of legal instruments, purporting to show that lie was not only a man of large landed property, but in the enjoyment of an office of some importance under Government.

Trusting to his tact for complete success, Higgins, full of daring, sought Father Shortall, and, on his knees, hypocritically declared himself a convert to the Roman Catholic Church. The iron pressure of the penal code had not then received its first relaxation; Catholics were daily conforming to the Establishment; Father Shortall regarded Mr. Higgins’s case as a very interesting and touching one, and he affectionately received the convert squire into the heaving bosom of the suffering Church of Ireland.

“And now, holy father,” said the neophyte, “I must implore of you to keep my conversion secret. My parent has got a property of £3,000 a year, and if this matter transpires I shall be disinherited.”

The good pastor assured him that he would be as silent as the grave; he gave him his blessing, and Higgins retired, hugging himself on his dexterity, and offering mental congratulations on the prospect that began to open to his future success. When this religious intercourse had continued for some time, Higgins told his spiritual adviser that the ease of his soul was such as induced him humbly to hope that the Almighty had accepted the sincerity of his repentance.

“If anything be now wanting to my complete happiness,” he added, “it is an amiable wife of the true religion, whose bright example will serve to keep my frail resolutions firm; as to the amount of fortune, it is an object of little or no consideration, for, you are aware, my means will be ample.” (Sketches of Irish Political Characters. By Henry MacDougall, MA, TCD, Lond. 1799, p182.)

His engaging manner won the heart of Father Shortall, who resolved and avowed to befriend him as far as lay in his power. Duped by the hypocrisy of our adventurer, the unsuspecting priest introduced him to the family of an eminent Catholic merchant, named Archer.

To strengthen his footing, Higgins ordered some goods from Mr Archer, and requested that they might be sent to 76 Stephen’s Green, the house of his uncle, the then celebrated Counsellor Harward, M.P. Mr Archer treated his visitor with the respect due to the nephew and, as it seemed, the heir presumptive of that eminent person. The approach to deformity of Higgins’s person had made Miss Archer shrink from his attentions; but her parents, who rejoiced at the prospect of an alliance so apparently advantageous, sternly overruled their daughter’s reluctance.

The intimacy gradually grew. Higgins accompanied Mr Archer and his daughter on a country excursion: seated in a noddy, they returned to town through Stephen’s Green, and in passing Mr Harward’s house. Higgins in a loud tone expressed a hope to some person at the door that his uncle’s health continued to convalesce, (Tradition communicated by the late Very Rev. Dr. Yore.) When too late Mr Archer discovered that no possible relationship existed between his hopeful son-in-law and the old counsellor.

It is also traditionally stated that Higgins turned to profitable account an intimacy which he had formed with the servants of one of the judges. His lordship having gone on circuit, a perfect “High Life Below Stairs” was performed in his absence and Higgins, to promote the progress of his scheme, succeeded in persuading his friend, the coachman, to drive him to a few places in the judicial carriage.

The imposture was too well planned to fail; but let us allow the heart-broken father to tell the tragic tale in his own words:- *“County of the City of Dublin, to wit: The examination of William Archer, of Dublin, merchant, who, being duly sworn and examined, saith, that on the 9th day of November [1766] last, one Francis Higgins, who this examinant now hears and believes to be a common hackney writing clerk, came to the house of this examinant in company with a clergyman of the Church of Rome, and was introduced as a man possessing lands in the county of Down, to the amount of £250 per annum, which he, the said Francis Higgins, pretended to this examinant, in order to deceive and cheat him; and also that he was in considerable employ in the revenue; and that he was entitled to a large property on the death of William Harward, Esq., who the said Higgins alleged was his guardian, and had adopted him.

(We are indebted to John Cornelius O’Callaghan, Esq., author of “The Green Book,” and historian of “The Irish Brigades in the Service of France,” for the following tradition, which he has obligingly taken down from the lips of an octogenarian relative:-” The Rev. Mr Shortall (I believe a Jesuit) became acquainted with Higgins through the medium of religion; the fellow having pretended to become a convert to the Catholic Church, and even so zealous a one as to confess himself every Saturday to that gentleman, in order to receive the Blessed Sacrament the following day. This having gone on for some time, Mr Shortall formed a high opinion of Higgins, and spoke of him in such terms to the parents of the young lady he was designing to marry, that they were proportionately influenced in his favour After the ‘fatal marriage’ Mr Shortall was sent to Cork, and was introduced there to my maternal grandmother and her sisters, to whom he used to mention how bitterly he regretted having been so imposed upon. The story made such an impression on my mother as a child, that, shortly after she came to Dublin, she went to see the ‘Sham Squire’s’ tomb, in Kilbarrack churchyard.”)

In a few days after this introduction (during which time he paid his addresses to Miss Mary Anne Archer, the daughter of this examinant) he produced a state of a case, all of his own handwriting, saying, that he was entitled to the lands of Ballyveabeg, Islang, Ballahanera, and Dansfort, in the county of Down and the more effectually to deceive and cheat this examinant and his daughter, Higgins had at the foot thereof obtained the legal opinion of the said William Harward, Esq., that he was entitled to said lands under a will mentioned to be made in said case.

Higgins, in order to deceive this examinant, and to induce him to consent to a marriage with his daughter, agreed to settle £1500 on her, and informed examinant that if said marriage were not speedily performed, his guardian would force him to take the oath to qualify him to become an attorney, which he could not think of’ as he pretended to be of the contrary opinion; and that as to the title deeds of said lands, he could not then come at them, being lodged as he pretended, with William Harward, Esq. But that if examinant thought proper, he would open a window in William Harward’s house, in order to come at said deeds, let what would be the consequences.

Examinant was advised not to insist on said measure, and therefore waived it; and relying on the many assertions and representations of the said Higgins, and of his being a person of consideration and property, and particularly having great confidence ill the opinion of so eminent a lawyer as William Harward, this examinant having found on inquiry the same was the handwriting of Harward, agreed to give Higgins £600 as a portion with examinant’s daughter, and one half of this examinant’s substance at his death, which he believes may amount to *a considerable sum, *and executed writings for the performance of said agreement.

And upon said marriage Higgins perfected a deed, and thereby agreed to settle the lands above mentioned on the issue of said marriage, together with £1500 on examinant’s daughter. Soon after the marriage, the examinant being informed of the fraud, he made inquiries into the matters so represented by the said Higgins to facilitate said fraud, and the examinant found that there was not the least colour of truth in any of the pretensions or suggestions so made by Higgins, and that he was not entitled to a foot of land, either in this kingdom or elsewhere, nor of any personal property, nor hath he any employment in the revenue or otherwise.

Notwithstanding the repeated assurances of the said Higgins, and the said several pretences to his being a person of fortune or of business, he now appears to be a person of low and indigent circumstances, of infamous life and character, (From a contemporary publication, “Irish Political Characters,’ p.180, we learn that when Higgins acted as an attorney’s clerk his talents were not confined exclusively to the desk. “His master’s pleasures found an attentive minister in Sham, and Sham found additional profits in his master’s pleasures.”) and that he supported himself by the craft of a cheat and impostor; nor is the said William Harward either guardian or any way related to Higgins, as this examinant is informed and verily believes.”

Mr Harward, whose name has been frequently mentioned, became a member of the Irish Bar in Michaelmas Term, 1718, and was the contemporary of** **Malone, Dennis, Lord Tracton, and Mr Fitzgibbon, father of Lord Clare, and sat for some years in the Irish Parliament. At the period when Higgins took such strange liberties with his name, Mr Harward was in an infirm state of health; he died, childless, in 1772.

(The biographer of Charlemont mentions Harward as “deservedly celebrated for the acuteness of his understanding, his pleasantry, and his original wit.” He would seem, indeed, to have been fonder of Joe Miller than of Blackstone. We find the following anecdote in the Life of Edmund Malone:- “Harward, the Irish lawyer, with the help of a great brogue, a peculiar cough, ‘or long h-e-m, was sometimes happy in a retort. Harward had read a great deal of law, but it was all a confused mass; he had little judgment. Having, however, made one of his best harangues, and stated, as he usually did, a great deal of *doubtful *law, which yet he thought very sound, Lord Chief-Justice Clayton, who, though a most ignorant boor, had got the common black-letter of Westminster Hall pretty ready, as soon as Harward had done, exclaimed, ‘You don’t suppose, Mr Harward, that I take this to be law?’ ‘Indeed, my lord,’ replied Harward, with his usual shrug and cough, ‘I don’t suppose you do!’”)

A person named Francis Higgins really held an appointment in the revenue, and our adventurer availed himself of the coincidence in carrying out his imposture. In the *Freeman’s Journal *of October 21, 1766, we read:- ” Mr Francis Higgins, of the Custom-house, (The old Custom-house stood on the site now occupied by Wellington Quay) to Miss Anne Gore, of St Stephen’s Green, an accomplished young lady with a handsome fortune.”

The following is a copy of the true bill found by the grand jury against Higgins:

“The jurors for our Lord the King, upon their oath, say that Francis Higgins, of Dublin, yeoman, being a person of evil name, fame, and dishonest conversation, and a common deceiver and cheat of the liege subjects of our said Lord, and not minding to gain his livelihood by truth and honest labour, but devising to cheat, cozen, and defraud William Archer of his moneys, fortune, and substance, for support of the profligate life of him, the said Francis Higgins, and with intent to obtain Mary Anne Archer in marriage, and to aggrieve, impoverish, and ruin her, and with intent to impoverish the said William Archer, his wife, and all his family, by wicked, false, and deceitful pretences, on the 19th November, in the seventh year of the reign of King George III., and on divers other days and times, with force and arms, at Dublin, in the parish of St Michael, the more folly to complete and perpetrate the said wicked intentions and contrivances, did fraudulently pretend to the said William Archer that - [here the facts are again recited in detail.] The said F. Higgins, by the same wicked pretences, procured Mary Anne Archer to be given in marriage to him, to the great damage of the said William Archer, to the great discomfort, prejudice, injury, and disquiet of mind of the said Mary Anne and the rest of the family, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace of our said Lord the King, his crown and dignity.”

There is a painfully-interesting episode connected with this imposture which the foregoing documents do not tell, and we give it on the authority of the late venerable divine, Dr Yore, who was specially connected with the locality. As soon as the marriage between Higgins and Miss Archer had been solemnised, lie brought her to some lodgings at Lucan. The bride, after a short matrimonial experience, found that Higgins was by no means a desirable husband; and having watched her opportunity to escape, fled, with almost maniac wildness, to Dublin.

Higgins gave chase, and came in sight just as the poor girl had reached her father’s house. It was the dawn of morning, and her parents had not yet risen; but she screamed piteously at the street door, and Mrs Archer, in her night-dress, got up and opened it. The affrighted girl had no sooner rushed through the threshold than Higgins came violently up, and endeavoured to push the door open.

Mrs Archer resisted. She placed her arms across the ample iron sockets which had been formed for the reception of a wooden bolt. Higgins applied his strength. Mrs Archer cried wildly for relief and mercy; but her son-in-law disregarded the appeal, and continued to force the door with such violence that Mrs Archer’s arm was crushed in two.

On the informations being sworn, Higgins was committed to prison. We read that on January 9, 1767, the citizens of Dublin witnessed his procession from Newgate, in Cutpurse Row, to the Tholsel, or Sessions’ House, at Christ Church Place, then known as Skinner’s Row. (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1829)

The Hon. Christopher Robinson, Second Justice of the King’s Bench, tried the case. It was unusual in** **those days to report ordinary law proceedings and there is no published record of the trial beyond three or four lines. But the ease excited so strong a sensation that its leading details are still traditionally preserved among several respectable families. *

Faulkner’s Journal *of the day records:- ” At an adjournment of the Quarter Sessions, held at the Tholsel, January 9, 1767, Francis Higgins was tried and found guilty of several misdemeanours.” (*Faulkner’s Journal, *No. 4144) At the commission of oyer and terminer following, we find that Higgins stood his trial for another offence committed subsequent to his conviction in the case of Miss Archer. The leniency of the punishment inflicted on Higgins, which permitted him to regain his liberty within a few weeks after having been found guilty of *“several misdemeanours, *will not fail to surprise the reader. But a violent hatred of Popery prevailed at that time; and even the bench of justice often seemed to rejoice when it had the power to give a rebuff to those who had rejected the allurements of Protestantism, and clung with fidelity to the oppressed Church. (About 1759, Laurence Saul, of Saul’s Court, Fishamble Street, a wealthy Catholic distiller, was prosecuted for having harboured a young lady who had sought refuge in his house to avoid being compelled by her friends to conform to the Established Church.

The Lord Chancellor, in the course of this trial, declared that the law did not presume an Irish Papist existed in the kingdom!

Saul, writing to Charles O’Conor, says:-” Since there is not the least prospect of such a relaxation of the penal laws as would induce one Roman Catholic to tarry in this place of bondage, who can purchase a settlement in some other land where freedom and security of property can be obtained, will you condemn me for saying, that if I cannot be one of the first, I will not be one of the last to take flight!” Saul then bemoans the hard necessity of quitting for ever friends, relatives, and an ancient patrimony at a time of life when nature had far advanced in its decline, and his constitution by constant mental exercise was much impaired, to retire to some dreary clime, there to play the schoolboy again, to learn the language, laws, and institutions of the country, to make new friends - in short, to begin the world anew. ‘But,” he adds, “when religion dictates, and prudence points out the only way to preserve posterity from temptation and perdition, I feel this consideration predominating over all others. I am resolved, as soon as possible, to sell out, and to expatriate.” Saul retired to France, and died there in 1768 - Gilbert’s Dublin; Memoirs of Charles O’Conor.)

With reference to the Archer case, we find that Judge Robinson in his charge to the jury observed, that Higgins could not be heavily punished for attempting false pretences**, **and flying under false colours in the family of Mr Archer, inasmuch as, if they believed the prisoner at the bar to be the important personage which he represented himself, their own conduct presented a deception in not acquainting the prisoner’s pretended guardian and uncle with the matrimonial intentions, which, unknown to his family, he entertained.

“Gentlemen,” added the judge, “that deception has existed on both sides we have ample evidence. ‘Tis true this *Sham Squire *is guilty of great duplicity, but so also are the Archers.” (Tradition communicated by Mr. Gill, publisher, Dublin)

In thus fastening upon Higgins that stinging nickname which clung to him throughout his subsequent highly-inflated career, Judge Robinson unintentionally inflicted a punishment more severe than a long term of imprisonment in Newgate or the Black

Higgins exhibited great effrontery in the dock; and, appealing to the jury, asked if there was one man among them who would not do as much to possess so fine a girl. (Dublin evening Post, No. 1765)

Judge Robinson was a bad lawyer and an unpopular judge. When proceeding to the Armagh assizes, in 1763, he found a gallows erected, and so constructed across the road that it was necessary to pass under it. To the “Heart-of-Oak-Boys” Judge Robinson was indebted for this compliment. (Hardy’s Life of Charlemont, vol. i., p. 199)

He was called to the bar in 1737, and died in Dominic Street in 1786. Mr O’Regan, in his “Memoir of Curran,” describes Robinson as small and peevish. A member of the bar, named Hoare, sternly resisted the moroseness of the judge; at last, Robinson charged him with a design to bring the king’s commission into contempt. ” No, my lord,” replied Hoare “I have read that when a peasant, during the troubles of Charles I., found the crown in a bush, he showed it all marks of reverence. But I will go further; for though I should find the king’s commission even upon a *bramble, *still I shall respect it.”

Mr Charles Phillips tells us that Judge Robinson had risen to his rank by the publication of some political pamphlets, only remarkable for their senseless, slavish, and envenomed scurrility. This fellow, when poor Curran was struggling with adversity, and straining every nerve in one of his infant professional exertions, made an unfeeling effort to crush him. Curran had declared, in combating some opinion of his adversary, that he *had consulted all his law books, *and could not find a single case in which the principlee contended for was established. “I suspect, sir,” said the heartless blockhead, “that your law library is rather contracted!”

Curran eyed the judge for a moment in the most contemptuous silence, and then said: “It is very true, my lord, that I am poor, and the circumstance has certainly rather curtailed my library; my books are not numerous, but they are select, and I hope have been perused with proper dispositions. I have prepared myself for this high profession rather by the study of a few good books than *by the composition of a great many bad ones. I *am not ashamed of my poverty, but I should of my wealth, could I stoop to acquire it by servility and corruption. If I rise not to rank, I shall at least be honest; and should I ever cease to be so, many an example shows me that an ill-acquired elevation, by making me the more conspicuous, would only make me the more universally and the more notoriously contemptible.”

Poor Miss Archer did not long survive her humiliation and misfortune. She died of a broken heart; and her parents had not long laid her remains in the grave when their own mournfully followed.

Mr Higgins’s companions throughout the period of his detention in Newgate were not of the most select description, nor were the manners prevalent in the place calculated to reform his reckless character. Wesley having visited the prison, found such impiety prevailing, that he always looked back upon it with loathing.

“In 1767,” observes Mr Gilbert, “Newgate was found to be in a very bad condition, the walls being ruinous, and a constant communication existing between the male and female prisoners, owing to there being but one pair of stairs in the building. (History of Dublin, pp. 265-6, vol. i.) The gaoler carried on an extensive trade by selling liquors to the inmates at an exorbitant price; and prisoners refusing to comply with his demands were abused, violently beaten, stripped naked, and dragged to a small subterranean dungeon, with no light save what was admitted through a sewer which ran close by it, carrying off all the ordure of the prison, and rendering the atmosphere almost insupportable. In this noisome *oubliette, *perversely called “the nunnery,” from being the place where abandoned females were usually lodged, 20 persons were frequently crowded together and plundered. Criminals under sentence of transportation were permitted to mix among the debtors. By bribes and collusion between the gaoler and the constables, legal sentences, in many instances, were not carried out. These practices at length attracted the attention of Parliament. Among other facts which transpired in the resolution of the Irish House of Commons, we find that goaler had “unlawfully kept in prison and loaded with irons persons not duly committed by any magistrate, till they had complied with the most exorbitant demands.”

Even when in durance Mr Higgins’s cunning did not forsake him. Though far from being a Macheath in personal attractions, the contrived to steal the affections of the Lucy Lockit of the prison, and the happy couple were soon after married. (Sketches of Irish Political Characters, p, 182) The gaoler was an influential person in his way, and promoted the worldly interest of his son-in-law.

For his “misdemeanours” in the family of Mr Archer, Higgins was committed to Newgate on January 9, 1767; but the punishment failed to make much impression on him. In the *Freeman’s Journal *for February 28 - the paper of which Higgins subsequently became the influential proprietor - we find the following:

“At the commission of oyer and terminer, Mark Thomas, a revenue officer, and Francis Higgins, the celebrated adventurer, were convicted of an assault against Mr Peck.

Higgins was fined £5, to be imprisoned one year, and to give £1,000 security for his good behaviour for seven years. ”

Chronologically in place here are the details embodied in a curious letter, addressed on July 23, 1789, by “An Old Gray-headed Attorney,” to John Magee, editor of the *Dublin Evening Post, *who, through its medium, continued with indomitable spirit to expose and execrate “the Sham,” when he became an efficient tool of the Government, and was placed on the Bench by them

“In one of your late papers mention was made that the Sham had taken off the roll the record of his conviction in the case of Miss Archer; but if you wish to produce another record of his conviction, you will find one still remaining, in a case wherein the late John Peck was plaintiff, and the Sham and the late Mark Thomas, a revenue officer, were defendants. Sham being liberated from Newgate on Miss Archer’s affair, sought out the celebrated Mark Thomas, who at that time kept a shop in Capel Street for the purpose of registering numbers in the then English lottery at 1d. per number. Thomas found Sham a man fitting for his purpose, and employed him as clerk during the drawing, and afterwards as setter and informer in revenue matters.

“Sham’s business was to go to unwary grocers, and sell them bags of tea by way of smuggled goods, and afterwards send Thomas to seize them and to levy the fines by information. One evening, however, Sham and Thomas being inebriated, they went to John Peck’s, in Corn Market, to search for run tea. Words arose in consequence: Sham made a violent pass at Peck with his tormentor (an instrument carried by revenue officers) and wounded him severely in the shoulder. Peck indicted them both they were tried, found guilty, and ordered a year’s imprisonment in Newgate, where they remained during the sentence of the court.

“The time of confinement having passed over, they were once more suffered to prowl oh the public. Thomas died shortly after, and Sham enlisted himself under the banners of the late Charles Reilly, of Smock Alley, who then kept a public house, with billiard and hazard tables. Reilly considered him an acquisition to prevent riotous persons spoiling the play; for Sham at that time was not bloated, and was well known to be a perfect master in bruising, having carefully studied that art for two years in Newgate under the noted Jemmy Stack.

“Sham having lived some time at Reilly’s, contrived by means of his cunning to put Reilly in the Marshalsea, and at the same time to possess himself of Reilly’s wife, his house, and his all. The unfortunate Reilly from his sufferings became frantic and insane, and his wife died miserably. Sham still holds the house in Smock Alley. It is some-times let out for a b—l, at other times his worship occupies it as a warehouse for the disposal of hose.” (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1836.)

Mr Gilbert, in his “History of Dublin,” (vol. ii., p. 113,) refers to ” Reilly’s” with other gambling houses of the worst character, which continued to exist in Smock Alley till the close of the last century. The police, in 1790, on breaking into a house in this alley, found numbers of false dice; and discovered in the cellar a quantity of human bones, with the skeleton of a man who had apparently fallen a victim to the proprietors of the hell.”

For the assault on Peck, described by the “Gray-headed Attorney,” we learn that Higgins “was publicly led by the common hangman through the streets of Dublin to the Court of King’s Bench; and while in durance vile had no other subsistence than bread and water, save what he extorted by his piteous tale, and piteous countenance exhibited through the grated bars of a Newgate air-hole.” (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1799)

The next glimpse we get of Mr Higgins is in the year 1775, exercising the craft of a hosier at “the Wholesale and Retail Connemara Sock and Stocking Warehouse, Smock Alley,” (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1791) and as a testimony to his importance, elected president of the Guild of Hosiers. (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1775) In 1780 we find his services engaged by Mr David Gibbal, conductor of the Freeman’s Journal, and one of the proprietary of *Pue’s Occurrences.

The Public Register, or Freeman’s Journal, *stood high as a newspaper. In 1770 it became the organ of Grattan, Flood, and other opponents of the corrupt Townshend administration; while in *Hoey’s Mercury *the viceroy was defended by Jephson, Marley, and Simcox. In literary ability the *Freeman *of that day has been pronounced, by a competent authority, as “incomparably superior to its Dublin contemporaries, and had the merit of being, with the exception of the *Censor, *the first Irish newspaper which published original and independent political essays.” (Gilbert’s Dublin, vol. i., p.294) Dr Jebb, and the subsequent Judge Johnson, contributed papers to the *Freeman *at this period.

Until 1782 it was printed at St Audeon’s Arch; but at the close of that year Gibbal transferred it to Crane Lane.

In the journals of the Irish House of Commons we find an order issued, bearing date April 7, 1784,

That leave be given to bring in a bill to secure the liberty of the press, by preventing abuses arising from the publication of seditious, false, and slanderous libels. Ordered - That* *Francis Higgins, one of the conductors of the *Freeman’s Journal, *do attend this House tomorrow morning. (Commons’ Journals, vol. xi, pp. 267-268) The terms in which Mr Higgins was reproved are not recorded.

A short discussion on the subject may be found in the “Irish Parliamentary Debates.” The Right Hon. John Foster impugned the conduct of the *Freeman’s Journal, *and General Luttrel, afterwards Lord Carhampton, who, as will be seen, never flinched in his support of Mr Higgins, defended it. (Irish Parl. Debates, vol. iii., p. 147)

On the 8th of April following, Mr Foster brought in a bill to secure the liberty of the press, by preventing the publication of slanderous libels. The provisions of the bill were, that henceforth the name of the proprietor of every newspaper should be registered upon oath at the Stamp Office, and that the printer enter into a recognisance of £500 to answer all civil suits which might be instituted against him for publications. Mr Foster severely censured ” those papers that undertake slander for hire, and calumny for reward.”

Sir Hercules Rowley saw no necessity for the bill; “he knew of no traitorous, scandalous, or malicious libels but one, viz., the title of the bill itself, which was an infamous libel on the Irish nation.” On April 12, the subject was again debated. Mr Grattan declared that there was one paper which daily teemed with exhortations and incitements to assassination. Parliament was called upon to interfere, not by imposing any new penalty, nor by compelling printers to have their publications licensed, but merely to oblige them to put their names to their newspapers.

The Attorney-General observed that these violent publications had great effect on the popular mind. A conspiracy had recently been discovered for murdering no less than seven members of that House. “The conditions were that the assassins should, upon performance of the business, receive £100; and, in the meantime, they were actually furnished with money, pistols, ammunition, and bayonets. They were urged to use the latter weapon, because it would neither miss fire nor make a noise. The bill, in an amended form, passed both Houses, and received the royal assent on the 14th of May following.

We must now go back a little. While engaged in Mr Bourne’s office as an attorney’s clerk, in 1766, Higgins had contrived to acquire no inconsiderable knowledge of law; and as his ambition now pointed to the profession of solicitor, for which, having renounced ” Popery,” (Attorneys were sworn not to take a Catholic apprentices. I have heard that there were instances of judges swearing in their own servants as attorneys.” MS *Letter. *Until 1793 roman Catholics were inadmissible as attorneys.) he was eligible, a short course of study sufficed to qualify him.

Higgins made several attempts to grasp the privileges and gown of an attorney; but the antecedents of his life were so damnatory, that opposition was offered by high legal authorities to his efforts. But Higgins was not a man on whom rebuffs made any impression, and we learn that so indomitable was his perseverance in endeavouring to obtain admittance as an attorney of the Court of Exchequer, that Chief Baron Foster (Anthony Foster, Chief Baron of the Exchequer; called to the Bar in 1732; died 1778. He was father of the Right Hon. John Foster, last Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and first Lord Oriel) pronounced it “impudence,” and threatened a committal to Newgate if again repeated.

The importance of having a friend at court was, ere long, pleasantly exemplified. John Scott, afterwards Earl of Clonmel, had in the days of his obscurity known the Sham Squire. Mr Scott, as we are reminded by Sir Jonah Barrington, (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1828) Charles Phillips, (Personal Sketches, p. 314) and Walter Cox, (Curran and his Contemporaries, p. 35) was a person of very humble origin, but of some tact and talent. In 1765 he became a member of the Irish Bar. (Wilson’s Dublin Directory)

In 1769 we find Lord Chancellor Lifford recommending him to the patron-age of Lord Townshend, then viceroy of Ireland. “The marquis,” observes one who knew Scott well, “had expressed his wishes for the assistance of some young gentleman of the Bar, on whose talents and fidelity he might rely in the severe parliamentary campaigns.” Scott was accordingly returned for Mullingar. “The opposition,” adds Hardy, “was formidable, being composed of the most leading families in the country, joined to great talents, and led on by Flood, whose oratorical powers were then at their height. Against this lofty combination did Mr Scott oppose himself with a promptitude and resolution almost unexampled. No menace from without, no invective within, no question, however popular, no retort, however applauded, no weight or vehemence of eloquence, no delicate satire, for a moment deterred this young, vigorous, and ardent assailant. On he moved, without much incumbrance of argument certainly, but all the light artillery and total war of jests were peculiarly his own.” (Hardy’s Life of Charlemont, vol. i., p. 269)

Mr Scott’s antecedents had been foreign to his new duties. Sprung from the ranks of the people, a zealous disciple of Lucas, the companion of patriots, and even while at college a staunch opponent of the Government, Mr Scott was, in principle and practice, a thorough democrat. When introduced to Lord Townshend by Lord Chancellor Lifford, he observed with some humour not unmixed with regret, “My lord, you have spoiled a good patriot!” (Grattan’s Memoirs, vol. ii., p. 141) A few months subsequent to his return for Mullingar, we find Mr Scott created a king’s counsel; in 1772, counsel to the Revenue Board; in 1774, solicitor-general; in 1774, privy-councillor and attorneygeneral. During the administration of Lord Northington, he became prime sergeant; and in that of the Duke of Rutland, Chief-Justice of the King’s Bench, with a peerage. (Archdall’s Lodge’s Irish Peerage, vol. vii., pp. 242-3)

Politically speaking, Lord Clonmel was a bad Irishman and a worse logician. “When he failed to convince,” writes Mr Phillips, “he generally succeeded in diverting; and if he did not, by the gravity of his reasoning, dignify the majority to which, when in Parliament, he sedulously attached himself, he, at all events, covered their retreat with an exhaustless quiver of alternate sarcasm and ridicule. Added to this, he had a perseverance not to be fatigued, and a personal intrepidity altogether invincible. When he could not overcome, he swaggered; and when he could not bully, he fought.”

On the Bench, too, he was often very overbearing, and for having subjected a barrister named Hackett to some discourtesy, which, at a meeting of the Bar, was reprobated and resented as a personal offence, Lord Clonmel was obliged to apologise in the public papers. He had many social virtues, however, and Mr Hardy informs us that in convivial hours his *bonhommie *and pleasantry were remarkable.

To his great honour be it recorded,” adds the biographer of Charlemont, “he never forgot an obligation; and as his sagacity and knowledge of mankind must have been pre-eminent, so his gratitude to persons who had assisted him in the mediocrity of his fortune was unquestionable, and marked by real generosity and munificence.”

With Francis Higgins, whom he had known in that darkly-clouded period which preceded the dawn of his good fortune, Lord Clonmel ever afterwards kept up a friendly interconrse. (Dublin Evening Post, file for 1789, passim) It is traditionally asserted that Higgins had been of some use to Mr Scott, both in early life and subsequently. Higgins having been peremptorily refused admission to the craft of solicitors by Chief Baron Foster, (Anthony Foster was pppointed Chief Baron on September 19, 1765. See Smyth’s Law Officers of Ireland, pp. 144, 252) Mr Scott, when Attorney-General, kindly undertook to introduce him to Lord Annaly, (Letter of an “Old Gray-headed Attorney,” Dublin Evening Post, No. 1791. See also No. 1786) Chief-Justice of the King’s Bench, and the request so influentially urged was immediately granted. (John Gore, member for Jamestown, having pleased the parliamentary whipper-in, was appointed, in 1764, Chief-Justice of the King’s Bench. Gore was created Baron Annaly in 1755 but dying without issue in 1783; the title became extinct)

The name of Francis Higgins, as an attorney-at-law, appears for the first time in the Dublin Directory for 1781. His then residence is given as Ross Lane. From 1784 to 1787 he is styled Deputy-Coroner of Dublin. We further learn that his practice as solicitor throughout those years was exclusively confined to the court in which Lord Clonmel presided as chief-justice.

Notwithstanding our adventurer’s legal avocations and professional business, which, owing to his natural aptitude and pleasant cordiality of manner, were daily increasing, he contrived, nevertheless, to contribute regularly to the press.

“In his speculations towards advancement,” says a writer, “he considered the command of a newspaper as an essential weapon, both offensive and defensive.” To attain this desideratum the insinuated himself into the confidence of the proprietor of a very respectable print, the *Freeman’s Journal. *This gentleman becoming embarrassed, requested an accommodation. With some apparent good nature, Higgins at once granted the request; but, watching his opportunity when he thought his victim’s distress at its height, suddenly asked him to pay back the money; the proprietor seemed surprised, and begged that a longer period of accommodation might be extended.

The Sham Squire declined; the journalist expostulated; but Mr Higgins was inexorable, and forthwith arrested him for the debt. To procure his liberty he was glad to transfer to his creditors the property of the paper for one-fourth of its value. (Tradition preserved in the office of the Freeman’s Journal) This paper had hitherto been prominently conspicuous on the patriotic side of the question, and was, therefore, the more saleable a commodity in the hands of this new proprietor. He made his terms with Lord Northington, and thenceforth his paper was the most subservient to, and therefore the most favoured by, the ministers. (Gilbert’s History of Dublin; Plowden’s Historical Review, 1809)

Mr Higgins, having now acquired the sole control, literary and pecuniary, of the paper, became a person of some importance in the public eye, and of boundless consequence in his own. The tone of abject subserviency infused into its columns seemed almost inconsistent with his own arrogant strut and inflated bearing. His wealth and influence, swagger and effrontery increased; but it keenly chagrined him to find that the more important he became the more inveterately he was pursued by the nickname of the Sham Squire.

But there were sham statesmen, and other shams too, in those days, who were glad to secure the support of even a Sham Squire. “Higgins,” we are told, wormed himself into the intimacy of several persons of rank, fortune, and consequence in the country, who demeaned themselves by their obsequiousness to his art, or sold themselves to him for his unqualified enterprise in maligning their enemies, or bearing them out of difficulties and disgrace.” (Plowden’s Historical Review; Gilchrist’s Dublin, iii. 27)

“Till the Volunteers have, in some degree, subsided, your Government can only subsist by expedients, painful as such an idea must be to your feelings,” (Court and Cabinets of George III., by the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. Vol. i., p.57.) writes Mr, afterwards Lord, Grenville, brother to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The Irish Government of these days was eminently weak and venal; and Mr Higgins at once prostituted to its purposes the hitherto virtuous journal, of which he had now become the master.

In recognition of his services he received some small offices. Wilson’s Dublin Directories from 1784 to 1787 record that Mr Higgins discharged the duties of coroner for Dublin during that interval.

Lord Temple retired from the Government, and was succeeded by the Duke of Rutland. Mr Connolly, and other large landed proprietors, who had formerly supported Government, took, in 1786 and following years, a decided part against his Grace’s administration. They denounced various bills as unconstitutional jobs, introduced solely for the purpose of ministerial patronage. But the grand attack of the opposition was on the Pension List. Mr Grattan gave great offence to the Treasury Bench by causing the whole list to be read aloud by the clerk, and exclaiming, “If I should vote that pensions are not a grievance, I should vote an impudent, an insolent, and a public lie.” The Duke of Rutland fell into great unpopularity with the populace, and narrowly escaped personal outrage at the theatre. Meanwhile, the discontent which prevailed in the city extended to the country parts, and found noisy exponents in the “Right Boys” and the ” Defenders.”

Yet the Duke possessed qualities and characteristics which made him not unpopular with the gentry and middle classes. It was supposed that he had sown his wild oats in England; but, as events proved, the had still some bushels to scatter broadcast in the green fields of Erin. His mission in Ireland seemed to aim at extending luxury and extravagance, conviviality and unbridled pleasure. He had great affability, and was free from the haughty deportment which marked his predecessor’s intercourse with the Irish people. Moreover, he showered knighthoods around with a lavish hand; and it is told of him that, having one evening in his cups knighted a jolly innkeeper at Kilbeggan, named Cuffe, of which he repented in the calm reaction of the following day, he sent for the landlord, and told him that, as the whole affair was a joke, the sooner it was forgotten the better. “I should be well plazed to obleedge your Ex-ce’l-lency,” he replied, “but I unfortunately mentioned the matter to Leedy Cuffe, and she would part with her life before he’d give it up.” (This incident occurred on the property of the Lamberts of Beauparc, in whose family the story is preserved.)

In the Duke of Rutland’s energetic efforts to attain popularity, he found in his beautiful wife a zealous ally. She made the Circular Road, now a comparatively deserted highway, the Hyde Park of Dubliu. (This pleasant innovation continued for several years afterwards. Lord Cloncurry, in his “Personal Recollections,” (2d ed., p. 157,) writes:- “It was the custom, on Sundays, for all the great folk to rendezvous, in the afternoon, upon the North Circular Road, lust as, in latter times, the fashionables of London did in Hyde Park; and upon that magnificent drive I have frequently seen three or four coaches-and-six, and eight or ten coaches-and-four, passing slowly to and fro in a long procession of other carriages, and between a double column of well-mounted horsemen. Of course, the populace were there, too, and saluted with friendly greetings, always cordially and kindly acknowledged, the lords and gentlemen of the country party, who were neither few in number nor insignificant in station … The evenings of those Sunday mornings were commonly passed by the same parties in promenading at the Rotundo. I have frequently seen there, of a Sunday evening, a third of the members of the two houses of parliament.” - Moore mentions in his “Memoirs,” (i. 10,) that about the year 1790, a curious toy called “a quiz” became fashionable with the class of pedestrians to whom Lord Cloncurry alludes. “To such a ridiculous degree,” he writes, “did the fancy for this toy pervade at that time all ranks and ages, that in the public gardens and in the streets, numbers of persons, of both sexes, were playing it up and down as they walked along.” The subsequent Duke of Wellington, when in Ireland in 1797, was much given to playing with this toy; and Lord Plunkett said, that while serving on a committee with him he never for a moment ceased the puerile indulgence. The early life of “the Iron Duke ‘if honestly told, would exhibit him deficient in ballast. Having had some warm words with a Frenchman in Dublin, he wrested from his hand a cane, which was not returned. The Frenchman brought an action for the robbery of the cane, and Wellesley was absolutely tried in the Sessions House, Dublin, for the offence He was acquitted of the robbery, but found guilty of the offence)

A contemporary song says:-

“If you wish to see her Grace,

The Circular Road it is the place.”

There this lovely woman, with her six spanking ponies, sparkling postilions, and gorgeously-attired out-riders, was daily to be seen smiling and bowing. She was considered the handsomest woman in Ireland, with one exception-Mrs Dillon, wife of a* *Roman Catholic woollen-draper, residing at No. 5 Francis Street. We are informed by Mr O’Reilly, in his “Reminiscences of an Emigrant Milesian,” that one day the Liberty was thrown into a state of unwonted excitation by the appearance of her Grace and out-riders in front of Mrs. Dillon’s door. She entered the shop, but Mrs Dillon was not behind the counter. “Shall I call her?” inquired an agitated shopman: “No,” said the Duchess, “I shall go to her myself;” saying which she entered the parlour, and received a graceful bow from the lady of the house. There is no exaggeration in the description,” said the Duchess, as she peered into the dove-like eyes of Mrs Dillon; “you *are *the handsomest woman in the three kingdoms.”

The duchess had many devoted admirers who loved to flatter her with extravagantly fulsome compliments, The late “Counsellor” Walsh, in “Ireland 50 Years Ago,” mentions that Colonel St Ledger having seen the duchess wash her mouth and fingers one day after dinner, he snatched up the glass and drained the contents. “St Ledger,” said the duke, “you are in luck; her Grace washes her feet to-night, and you shall have another goblet after supper.”

A career so dissipated as that of the Duke of Rutland was not likely to last long. He died in the government of Ireland from the effects of a fever induced by intemperance, and the imposing pageantry which marked the funeral procession was consistent with the splendour of his memorable regime.

He who writes the history. of the Rutland vice-royalty should consult the files of the Sham Squire’s journal. Higgins was its organ and eulogist; but, setting aside political considerations, the Duke possessed tendencies which specially recommended him to the cordial appreciation of Higgins. The services of Shamado did not pass unrewarded. During the Rutland viceroyalty, he received the office of under-sheriff for the county of Dublin, (Wilson’s Dublin Directory for 1787, p. 112.) one, in those days, of considerable emolument. Mr Higgins had a busy time of it. Presiding in court with all the assumption of a judge, he not only tried all the 40-shilling causes, but much larger questions, under the writ of Scire Facias. He executed the writs which had been issued by the superior courts, superintended the gibbeting or criminals, and throughout the popular tumults, which locally raged at this time, he no doubt frequently figured at the head of his *posse comitatus, *or sheriff’s guard.

Nefarious practices had long degraded the office of sheriff, but in 1823 they received a decided check by the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of Mr Sheriff Thorpe. The partiality with which sheriffs habitually packed juries for particular cases was then unveiled; and it transpired that they pledged themselves, before their election, to take a decided part in politics against every Catholic.

“Catholics,” observed Mr O’Connell, “would rather submit to great wrongs than attempt a trial in Dublin.” Competent witnesses were examined at the same time; and the *Edinburgh Review, *noticing their evidence, said that ” no one could fail to be equally surprised and disgusted with the abominable course of profligacy and corruption which is there exhibited.” That the Sham Squire was no better than his predecessors and successors, we have reason to believe.

Mr Higgins became every ‘ay a richer man. From the publication of the Government proclamations alone he derived a considerable income. When we know that the sum paid in 1788 to Mr Higgins for proclamations was £1600, according t6 the parliamentary return, it is not surprising that the popular organs of the day should have complained that “Signor Shamado” received from the Government annually, more than a commissioner of his Majesty’s revenue. (*Dublin Evening Post, *No. 1765. The archives of the Board of Inland Revenue, Dublin, contain some documents illustrative of the subsidisation of the Irish press at this period.)

Sham Index Home.