The Duke of Wellington on Bribing the Press.

**

**CHAPTER II.

Peculation. - The Press Subsidised and Debauched. - How to get up an Ovation for an Unpopular Viceroy. - Lord Buckingham. - Judges Revel at the Board of the Sham Squire. - A Pandemonium Unveiled. - Lord Avonmore. - A Great Struggle. - The Regency.

• Peerages Sold. - John Magee. - Lord Carhampton. - Mrs Lewellyn. - Squibs and Lampoons. - The Old Four Courts in Dublin. - Dr Houlton. - The Duke of Wellington on Bribing the Irish Press.

The viceroy’s leisure in the last century was heavily taxed by unceasing applications from Lord Clonmel and his unpopular colleagues to authorise and sign proclamations on every imaginable infraction of the law. Mr Griffith, on January 23, 1787, complained in his place in Parliament that the “newspapers seemed under some very improper influence. In one paper the country was described as one scene of riot and confusion; in another all in peace. By the proclamations that are published in them, and which are kept in for years, in order to make the fortunes of some individuals, the kingdom is scandalised and disgraced through all the nations of the world where our newspapers are read. The proclamations are a libel on the country. Was any offender ever taken up in consequence of such publications? And are they not rather a hint to offenders to change their situation and appearance? He did hope, from what a right honourable gentleman had said last year that this abuse would have been redressed, but ministers have not deigned to give any answer on the subject.” (Irish Parl. Register, vol. vii., p.37-8)

On 2d February following, Mr Corry animadverted to the same effect. Foreigners would mistake the character of our people, and look upon us as a savage nation; hence the low price of land in Ireland, and the difficulty of raising money. He denounced the bills furnished by newspapers as a gross attempt to waste the public funds. Hussey Burgh declared that more proclamations were to be found in the *Dublin Gazette, *in the time of profound peace, long before the Right Boys created a disturbance, than in the *London Gazette *during the rebellion!

Mr Wolfe observed that Government absolutely abetted the Right Boys; they had inserted Captain Right’s manifesto in the middle of a Government proclamation, and so sent it round the kingdom much more effectually than Captain Right ever could have done, and that without any expense to the captain.

Mr Forbes “thought it hard that the payment of the *Freeman’s Journal *should be disputed; for he was sure that the proprietor was a very generous man. An innkeeper in the town he represented regularly received that paper. On his inquiring what he paid for it, and who sent it, the innkeeper replied that he did not know. A Mr F. H., some worthy gentleman, God bless him, had sent it to him, and never troubled him for payment or anything else.” (Irish Parl. Register, vol. vii, pp. 83, 88, 89)

Here two things are obvious; first, that the editor of the “Parliamentary Register” held Mr Higgins in such fear that he dared not report his name; secondly, that “F. H.” considered himself so overpaid by his peculating employers, that he could well afford to push his paper into an enormous gratuitous circulation.

In January 1788, the Marquis of Buckingham, who had previously ruled Ireland as Lord Temple, resumed the viceregal reins. An historic writer, alluding to Higgins, says:-

“This man, ready for any job for which he should be paid, under some natural suspicions that the return of the Marquis of Buckingham to assume the viceregency of Ireland would not be attended by any particular demonstrations of joy, had hired a mob to wait his arrival, and had supplied a proper number of them with silken cords and harness to draw him in his carriage to the Castle, under the fastidious deceit of mercenary popularity and triumph.” (Plowden’s Historical Review; Gilbert’s Dublin, iii. 27)

Of this chief governor, Mr Grattan observes: ” He opposed many good measures, promoted many bad men, increased the expenses of* *Ireland in a manner wanton and profligate, and vented his wrath upon the country.” (Memoirs of Henry Grattan, vol. iii., p. 146.) Such being the case, it is not surprising that Lord Bulkley, in a letter to his Excellency, dated June 14, 1788, should remark: “I saw your brother, Marquis, who told me that he heard with the greatest concern that your popularity in Ireland was falling apace, and that the candles were out.” (Courts and Cabinets of George III., vol. iii, p. 146)) By way of counterbalance, Higgins swung the censer with more than ordinary energy. According to the *Post, *a cheque from the treasury for £1030 was graciously presented to the Sham Squire at this period, in testimony of his efficient support of Lord Bucking-ham’s administration. (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1806-1808)

The daring and dastardly experiment of bribing the press was then of recent introduction in Ireland. A letter from Mr Eden, afterwards Lord Auckland, addressed to Lord North, and dated “Phoenix Park, August 27, 1781,” says:-

“We have hitherto, by the force of good words and with some degree of private expense, preserved an ascendancy over the press not hitherto known here, and it is of an importance equal to 10,000 times its cost, but we are without the means of continuing it.” (Correspondence of Right Hon. J. C. Beresford, i., p. 170. Mr. Eden was Chief Secretary for Ireland from 1780 until 1782 created,. 1789, Baron Auckland; died, 1814. Modern statesmen seem to hold conflicting opinions as to the expediency of subsidising newspapers for political ends. The memorable trial of Birch v. Lord Clarendon ill 1850, revealed that hard cash had been given to the editor of the World for writing down the Young Ireland Party. Cavour, on the other hand, who was for many years before his death the daily butt of journalistic abuse, disdained the purchase of the press. “One day,” writes his secretary, M. Artom, “somebody tried to show him the advantage of founding a semi-official journal, which should have the province of defending the policy of the Government. He replied, ‘If you want to bring the best and soundest ideas into discredit, put them into officious or official form. If you have a good cause to defend, you will easily find writers who, without being paid, will defend it with more warmth and talent than paid journalists.”’)

But Higgins had too much natural taste for the “art and mystery” of legal lore, as well as for bills of costs, to forego the emoluments of an attorney-at-law for the editorial desk, however lucrative. We find him figuring as solicitor for prisoners in several cases which excited much noise at this time-instance the ” Trial of Robert Keon, gentleman, for the murder of George Nugent Reynolds, Esq.” (Dublin, 1788. 163 pages. Reported by George J. Browne) Retaining the absolute control of the *Freeman’s Journal, Higgins, in order that he might be able to devote more time to his profession, engaged Doctor Houlton as his sub-editor, and George Joseph Browne, barrister, but originally a player, (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1793) and C. Brennan, formerly a fierce democratic writer in the Evening Post, (ibid., No. 1774) *as contributors. In a short time the *Freeman’s Journal *became an important and influential organ of the Irish Government. The Sham Squire’s society is said to have been courted by high authorities in the law and the state.

In the great liberal organ of the day it is alleged that “judges are the companions of his festive hours “-that “judges revel at his board, and are his associates.” (Ibid., No. 1756) But the most startling feature in this epoch of the Sham Squire’s life, is the allegation repeatedly made by the *Post, *that Higgins, at the very period of which we write, was the proprietor of, or secret partner in, a gambling house of the worst possible description. In prose and verse, this public nuisance received energetic denunciation.

“Where is the muse that lash’d the Roman crimes ?

Where now is Pope with all his poignant rhymes?

Where’s Churchill now, to aim the searching dart,

Or show the foulness of a villain’s heart?

Where is the muse to tune the piercing lay,

And paint the hideous monster to the day?

Alas! all gone! let every virtue weep

Shamado lives, and Justice lies asleep.

How shall I wake her-will not all the cries

Of midnight revels, that ascend the skies,

The sounding dice-box, and the shrieking [---]

The groans of all the miserable poor,

Undone and plunder’d by this outcast man,

Will not these wake her?” --- &C., &c.

The satiric bard proceeds to describe Shamado raising the unhallowed fabric in Crane Lane:-

“Henceforth, he cried, no watchman shall presume

To check the pleasures of each festive room;

Henceforth, I say, let no policeman dare,

No sheriff, alderman, or e’en lord mayor,

No constable, or untaught bailiff rude,

With hideous visage, on these realms intrude.

He said, and striking with a golden wand,

The doors obey the impulse of his hand;

The portals back upon their hinges flew,

And many a hazard-table rose to view.

On every table did a dice-box stand,

Waiting impatient for the gamester’s hand,

Full many a couch prepared for soft delight,

And a few lamps gleam’d out a glimmering light.”

(Dublin Evening Post, No. 1743)

But we have quoted sufficient as a specimen. In a subsequent number the editor asks:-

“Will not a day of retribution come for all this accumulation of villany and enormity at which the blood runs cold? Oh that we had a Fitzgibbon judge. Then would not longer the Newgate felon, the murderer of wretched parents, the betrayer of virgin innocence, the pestiferous defiler of the marriage couch, Sham his fate; and defy the laws of **God and man.” (Ibid, No. 1743)

In the Directory for 1788 is recorded Mr Higgin’s removal from the obscurity of Ross Lane to 72 Stephen’s Green, South, one of the fine old Huguenot houses, of which Grattan occupied one. From the above date, we find his professional practice extended from the King’s Bench to the Common Pleas, besides acting at the Tholsel or Sessions’ Court-the very edifice in whose dock he stood a fettered malefactor a few years before. Chief Baron Yelverton, afterwards Lord Avonmore, presided in the Exchequer, and discountenanced the impudent pretensions of the Sham Squire to practise in that court. Yelverton, as one of the illustrious patriots of 1782, had not much claims to the favourable consideration of the Sham Squire. He was accordingly lampooned by him. On May 3, 1789, we read “Counsel rose on behalf of Mr Higgins, who had been ordered to attend, to answer for certain scandalous paragraphs reflecting on that court.

“Chief Baron Yelverton said, ‘If you had not mentioned that affair, the court would not have condescended to recollect its insignificance, but would have passed it by, as it has done every other paragraph, whether of praise or censure, which has appeared in that paper, with the most supreme contempt. Let the fellow return to his master’s employment. Let him exalt favourite characters, if there be any mean enough to take pleasure in his adulation: let him continue to spit his venom against everything that is praiseworthy, honourable, or dignified in human nature: but let him not presume to meddle with the courts of justice, lest, forgetting his baseness and insignificance, they should at some time deign to inflict a merited punishment.’” (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1757)

Yelverton’s opinion of the Sham Squire’s insignificance was not endorsed by Inspector-General Amyas Griffith, who, in his tracts published this year, after returning thanks to the “established Bishops of Dublin, Cashel, Cloyne, and Kildare,” and other personages who had patronised him, acknowledges his obligation to Francis Higgins, Esq. (Advertisement for Miscellaneous Tracts)

To render the career of the Sham Squire more distinct, and the interest of this book more general, we shall here make a slight historical digression.

A most important and embarrassing struggle between England and Ireland took place in 1789, in reference to the regency which George the Third’s mental aberration had made necessary. The Prince of Wales at this period professed not unpopular politics, and favoured the Catholic claims. Mr Pitt, apprehensive that the regency might prove fatal to his ambition and to his cabinet, powerfully resisted the heir-apparent’s right to the prerogative of his father, and decided on 11th December 1788, that “the Prince of Wales had no better right to administer the government during his father’s incapacity than any other subject of the realm.” (The Prospect Before Us, 1788, p. 4) An address to his Royal Highness from the Irish Parliament requested that he would “take upon himself the government of Ireland during the continuation of the king’s indisposition, and no longer, and under the title of Prince Regent of Ireland, in the name, and on behalf of his Majesty, to exercise, to the laws and constitution of that kingdom, all regal powers, jurisdiction, and prerogatives to the crown and government thereof belonging.” Ireland called upon the prince, in virtue of the federative compact, to assume at once the sceptre of authority; but Mr Pitt’s followers furiously struggled against it. Grattan headed the independent party in the Commons. Mr Pelham, afterwards Lord Chichester, after speaking of what he styles “the tricks and intrigues of Mr Pitt’s faction,” says, “I have not time to express how strongly the prince is affected by the confidence and attachment o£ the Irish Parliament. I have only time to say in his own words, ‘Tell Grattan that I am a most determined Irishman.”’ The Duke of Portland, writing to Mr Grattan on the 21st February 1789, says:- “I beg most sincerely to congratulate you on the decisive effect of your distinguished exertions. Your own country is sensible and worthy of the part you have taken in defence and protection of her constitution. The prince thinks himself no less obliged to you; and whenever this deluded country becomes capable of distinguishing her true friends, she will contribute her quota of applause and gratitude.” (Life and Times of Henry Grattan, by his son, vol. iii., pp.373-4.)

The probability of his Majesty’s recovery,” writes Sir Jonah Barrington, “had a powerful influence on placemen and official connexions. The viceroy took a decisive part against the prince, and made bold and hazardous attempts upon the rights of the Irish Parliament.” The recently-published Buckingham correspondence (Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of George III., from Original Family Documents, by the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, 1853. The noble editor of these valuable state papers admits that “the Parliament of Ireland preserved the unquestionable right of deciding the regency in their own way. The position of Lord Buckingham,” he adds, “had become peculiarly embarrassing. What course should be taken in the event of such an address being carried? The predicament was so strange, and involved constitutional considerations of such importance, as to give the most serious disquietude to the Administration.” - Vol, ii., p.101) confirms Sir Jonah’s statement. Every day a bulletin announcing the monarch’s convalescence reached the viceroy. The good news was orally circulated among his supporters. Mr Fitzgibbon was promised the seals and a peerage if he succeeded for Mr Pitt. Each member of the Opposition was menaced, that he should be made the *“victim of his vote” *Lures were held out to the wavering-threats hurled at the independent.

This extraordinary threat elicited that spirited protest familiarly known as “the Round Robin”, to which the Duke of Leinster, Lords Charlemont, Shannon, Granard, Ross, Moira, and a host of other influential men, affixed their signatures. The document dwelt on the recent threat of making individuals “the victim of their vote,” and stigmatised it as a reprobation of their constitutional conduct, and an attack upon public principle and the independence of Parliament; that any administration taking or persevering in such steps was not entitled to their confidence, and should not receive their support.”

The address to the regent having passed both the Lords and Commons, it was presented to Lord Buckingham for transmission ; but the viceroy declined to have anything to say to it, and thus Parliament was reduced to the necessity of forwarding the address by the hands of delegates. Previous to their departure the following resolution was carried by 115 to 83:-

“That His Excellency’s answer to both Houses of Parliament, requesting him to transmit their address to his Royal Highness, is ill-advised, contains an unwarrantable and unconstitutional censure on the proceedings of both Houses, and attempts to question the undoubted rights and privileges of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and of the Commons of Ireland.”

The viceroy, as a last resource, endeavoured to multiply his partisans by the most venal means. Mr Fitzgibbon gave it to be understood that if a million of money had been placed in his hands for corrupt purposes and as the first law officer of the crown made this disgusting avowal, he casually confessed that one address of thanks to Lord Townshend, a few years before, had cost the nation £500,000. (The corrupt policy and proceedings of the Townshend administration received effective exposure in a publication called Baratariana.)

Grattan, who was an eye-witness of all these disreputable proceedings, observed at a later period:- “The threat was put into its fullest execution ; the canvass of the minister was everywhere - in the House of Commons, in the lobby, in the street, at the door of the parliamentary undertakers, rapped at and worn by the little caitiffs of Government, who offered amnesty to some*, *honours to others, and corruption to all; and where the word of the viceroy was doubted, they offered their own. Accordingly, we find a number of parliamentary provisions were created, and divers peerages sold, with such effect, that the same parliament which had voted the chief governor a criminal, did immediately after give that very governor implicit support.” (Life and Times of Henry Grattan, vol. iii., p.338) “They began,” said Curran, “with the sale of the honour of the peerage-the open and avowed sale for money of the peerage to any man who was rich and shameless enough to be the purchaser. It depraved the Commons, it profaned the sanctity of the Lords, it poisoned the sources of legislature and the fountains of justice, it annihilated the very idea of public honour - or public integrity! Curran did not speak this strongly from any cankering feeling of wounded pride at slights received from the Government. Describing the events of 1798, His biographer tells us:-

To Mr Curran it was communicated that his support of the Government would be rewarded with a judge’s place, and with the eventual prospect of a peerage; but, fortunately for his fame, he had too much respect for his duties and his character to sacrifice them to personal advancement.” (Life of Curran, by his son, vol. i., p. 240.)

Grattan, Curran, and Ponsonby offered to prove on evidence the startling charges to which we have referred; but the Government, knowing that it had been guilty of an impeachable offence, shrunk from the inquiry. The peerages of Kilmaine, Cloncurry, and Glentworth were, beyond doubt, sold for cash in 1789, and the proceeds laid out for the purchase of members in the House of Commons.

Mr Wright, in his “History of Ireland,” pronounces Mr Johnson’s to be the ablest speech on the Government side during this struggle. He quotes it in full; but the effect is spoiled by Mr Johnson’s confession to Thomas Moore in 1831, that he had always supported Grattan’s policy until the regency question, when he ratted, and at once became the recipient of state favours. “In fact,” added the ex-judge Johnson, “we were all jobbers at that time.” (Diary of Thomas Moore, vi., p. 55.)

The struggle between the viceroy and the Parliament was a sadly exciting one. Political profligacy stalked, naked and unblushing, through the Senate and the Castle. Vows, resolutions, rules, reputations, and faith were daily broken. Meanwhile, the royal physicians opined that the king would soon be restored to health. “Your object,” says the Secretary of State, in a letter to the viceroy on Feb. 19, 1789, “your object will be to use every possible endeavour, by all means in your power, debating every question, dividing upon every question, moving adjournment upon adjournment, and every other mode that can be suggested, to gain time!” (Buckingham Correspondence, vol. ii., p. 117)

Sheridan’s politically penetrating eye saw through the ruse. “I am perfectly aware,” he writes in a private letter to the prince, “of the arts that will be practised, and the advantages which some people will attempt to gain by time.” (Life of Sheridan, by Thomas Moore, chap., xiii.) These expedients, coupled with the energetic efforts daily made by a venal press and minister, at last triumphed; and the king was now, to quote the words of Lord Grenville in writing to the viceroy, “actually well!” The struggle was therefore at an end, but not the results of that struggle.

The master of the rolls, the treasurer, the clerk of permits, the postmaster-general, the secretary at war, the comptroller of stamps, and many other public servants of importance, were summarily expelled from office. The Duke of Leinster, one of the most respected officers of the crown, received a supersedeas, together with Lord Shannon. The influential family of Ponsonby, long the unwavering supporters of Government; but who on this occasion joined the legislature in asserting its constitutional independence, were also cashiered.

But the promotions and appointments vastly exceeded the dismissals. Of the former, which included a long string of creations in the peerage, there were 40 - of the latter, 15 only. Employments that had long remained dormant were revived, useless places invented, sinecures created, salaries increased; while such offices as the board of stamps and accounts, hitherto filled by one, became a joint concern. The weighmastership of Cork was divided into three parts, the duties of which were discharged by deputies; while the principals, who pocketed the gross amount, held seats in Parliament.

In 1790, 110 placemen sat in the House of Commons! On February 11th in that year, Mr Forbes declared that the pensions had been recently increased upwards of £100,000. In 1789 an additional perpetuity of £2800 was saddled on the country. The viceroy, however glad of his victory, had not much reason, one would think, to be proud of the means whereby that victory was attained.

But an examination of his correspondence shows the utter unscrupulosity of his heart. Writing to Lord Bulkley, he observe:- “In the space of six weeks I have secured to the crown a decided and steady majority, created in the teeth of the Duke of Leinster, Lord Shannon, Lord Granard, Ponsonby, Conolly, O’Neil, united to all the republicanism, the faction, and the discontent of the House of Commons; and having thrown this aristocracy at the feet of the king, I have taught to the British and Irish Government a lesson which ought never to be forgotten; and I have the pride to recollect, that the whole of it is fairly to he ascribed to the steady decision with which the storm was met, and to the zeal, vigour, and industry of some of the steadiest friends that ever man was blessed with.”

Amongst” the steadiest friends” by whom the viceroy was “blessed,” the Sham Squire deserves mention. He worked the engine of the press with unflagging vigour, and by means of a forced circulation he succeeded to some extent in inoculating the public mind with the virus of his politics. It was Lord Buckingham’s policy to feed the flame of Shamado’s pride and ambition: and we are assured by John Magee, that so essential to the stability of the Irish Government were the services of this once fettered malefactor, that on frequent occasions he was admitted to share the courtesies of the viceroy’s closet.

The first allusion to Francis Higgins, which the leading organ of the popular party in the last century contains, is an article on March 8, 1789, wherein the Sham Squire is spoken of as “Frank Paragraph, the Stephen’s Green Attorney,” who on the previous night, having been escorted up the backstairs of the Castle by Major Hobart, (MajorHobart, afterwards Lord Buckinghamshire, was the diplomatic chief secretary for Ireland at this period) received the Marquis of Buckingham’s hospitality and confidence. The article concluded by expressing a hope that Frank, whether as an attorney, as proprietor of a prostitute print, or as the companion of a viceroy, should not, in the day of his happy exultation, forget his original insignificance.

Mr John Magee was the then proprietor of the *Dublin Evening Post. *Sir Jonah Barrington tells us that although eccentric he was a most acute observer, a smart writer, and a ready wit. Politically honest and outspoken, often to indiscretion, he enjoyed the confidence and love of the popular party in Ireland.

By the Government he was feared and hated; and on more occasions than one he was consigned to a dungeon. Magee exercised considerable influence on the public events of his time, and he may be styled the Irish Cobbett of the 18th century.

Against the Sham Squire Magee had no personal enmity; and previous to 1789 there is no allusion to him direct or indirect in the *Post; *but Mr Higgins’s importance having in that year swelled to an unprecedented extent, as the accredited organ of the Castle; Magee felt urged by a sense of public duty to declare uncompromising war against the fortunate adventurer. Probably Magee’s labours had good effect in checking the further promotion of Higgins.

Magee first wielded the lash of irony; but finding that this failed to tell with sufficient effect, he thereupon applied the loaded bludgeon of denunciation. Several poetic diatribes appeared in the *Post *at this period; but they are too voluminous to quote in full. One, in which the Sham Squire is found soliloquising, goes on to say:-

“You know my power; at my dread command

B—s, pimps, and bullies, all obedient stand:

Nay, wen you know, at my terrific nod

The *Freeman *lifts aloft the venal rod:

Or if you still deny my sovereign awe,

I’ll spread the petty-fogging nets of law.”

Higgins’s antecedents are glanced at:-

“You know my art can many a form assume.

Sometimes I seem a hosier at a loom;

Then at the changing of my magic wand

Before your face a wealthy Squire I stand,

With a *Sham *title to seduce the fair,

And murder wretched fathers by despair.”

As soon as the struggle respecting the regency question had ceased, the viceroy is said to have acknowledged Higgins’s fidelity by recommending him to Lords Carhampton and Lifford (Before Lord Lifford accepted the seals, then estimated as worth £12,000 per annum, they had been offered to Judges Smyth, Aston, and Sewell, of the English Bench, and declined. He was the son of William Hewit, a draper in Coventry, and began life as an attorney’s clerk. See Irish Political Characters-London, 1799, p. 55 ; also Sleator’s Dublin Chronicle, 1788-9, pp. 240, 550, 1256. Lord Lifford’s personality was £150,000.)a s a fit and proper person to grace the magisterial*** ***bench!

We resume the Sham Squire’s soliloquy

” And if Old Nick continues true, no bar shall

Prevent me from becoming Four Courts marshal.

Behold me still in the pursuit of gain,

My golden wand becomes a golden chain.

See how I loll in my judicial chair,

The fees of office piled up at my rear;

A smuggled turkey or illegal hare.

Those I commit who have no bribe to give,-

Rogues that have nothing don’t deserve to live.

Then nimbly on the turning of a straw,

I seem to be a pillar of the law;

See even nobles at my tables wait.

But think not that (like idiots in your plays)

My friendship any saves but him who pays;

Or that the foolish thought of gratitude

Upon my callous conscience can intrude;

And yet I say, not Buckingham himself

Could pardon one, unless I touch the pelf;

There’s not a robber hang’d, or pilferer whipt,

Till at my word he’s halter’d or he ‘s stript.”

(Published Dublin Evening Post, No. 1742.)

By the Act 5 George the Second (c. 18, s. 2) no attorney can become a justice of peace while in practice as an attorney; but in the case of the Sham Squire all difficulties were smoothed. Some of the most influential political personages of the time travelled out of the way in order to mark their approval of Mr Higgins’s elevation. The letter to which we have already referred, signed “An Old Gray-headed Attorney,” and published on July 23, 1789, records that Francis Higgins had the honour of being first “introduced as a justice of his Majesty’s peace for the county of Dublin, to the bench assembled at Kilmainham, by the good, the virtuous, the humane Earl Carhampton; that peer who so truly, nobly, and gallantly added to the blushing honour of a before unsullied fame, by rescuing from a gibbet the chaste Mrs Lewellyn. Mr Higgins was also there, and there accompanied by that enlightened senator, independent placeman, and sound lawyer, Sir Frederick Flood, Bart.” (Frederick Flood, Esq., K.C., M.P. for Wexford, received his baronetcy (which is now extinct) on June 3, 1780. Sir F. Flood also sat in the English Parliament. He was a commissioner of the Stamp Office, For a notice of Sir F. Flood see “A Review of the Principal Characters of the Irish House of commons,” by Falkland, *(i.e., *John Robert Scott, B.D.,) London, 1795, p.50; also Barrington’s Personal Sketches, i. 207.)

Lord Carhampton, Governor and Custos Rotulorum of the County Dublin, who regarded Higgins with such paternal patronage and protection, has received scant courtesy from the historians of his time. As Colonel Luttrel, he first attained notoriety at the Middlesex election, where he acted as unconstitutional a part as he afterwards did in Ireland in his military capacity. Mr Scott, on this occasion, publicly declared that Luttrel “was vile and infamous.”

Luttrel did not resent the insult, and his spirit was called in question. An unpopular Cabinet and subservient Senate tried to force him, with 296 votes, instead of Mr Wilkes, with 1,143 votes, on Middlesex as its representative; but a later Parliament cancelled the unconstitutional record. “There is in this young man’s conduct,” wrote Junius to Lord North, “a strain of prostitution, which for its singularity I cannot but admire. He has discovered a new line in the human character. He has disgraced even the name of Luttrel.” These shafts told ; and we learn that policies of insurance on Lord Carhampton’s life were opened at Lloyd’s Coffee-house, in London.( O’Ca1laghan’s History of the Irish Brigade, vol. i., p. 364)

Unpopular to loathing in England, and hooted from its shores, Luttrel came to try his fortune in Ireland, where, having openly joined the Beresford party in their system of coercion, he daily sank lower and lower in popular estimation. Lord Carhampton’s utter contempt for public reputation was evidenced in every act. Flippant and offensive in his speech - arrogant, haughty, and overbearing in his manner-steadily opposing, on perverse principles, generous sentiments and public opinion-Lord Carhampton soon acquired an unenviable character and fame. But even had his lordship had the purity of a Grattan or a Fox, he would have vainly attempted to cast off a hereditary stigma of unpopularity which was originally fastened on his family by Luttrel, the betrayer of King James.

The picketings, free quarters, half-hangings, floggings, and pitch-cappings, which at length fanned the flame of disaffection into open rebellion, were understood to be mainly directed by Lord Carhampton. In 1797 the Rev. Mr Berwick, under whose windows men had been flogged, and in some instances left for dead, having humanely procured proper surgical treatment for some of the sufferers, was sent for by Lord Carhampton, who told him “that he had heard he was interfering with what was going on; that it was shameful for him; and that if he persevered he would send him in four days on board the tender!” (Grattan’s Memoirs, vvol. iv., p. 334) Thirteen hundred of the king’s subjects had been already transported by Lord Carhampton without trial or sentence. (Plowden’s History of Ireland, vol. ii., p.372)

Under the auspices of this peer, who at last attained the rank of commander-in-chief, the army were permitted to riot in the most demoralising licence. Cottages were burnt, peasants shot, their wives and daughters violated. (Speech of Lord Moira, Nov. 22, 1797. See also Speeches of Lord Dunsany, Sir L. Parsons, and Mr. Vandelcur,)

General Sir Ralph Abercrombie viewed the state of the army with disgust, and declared that they had become formidable to all but the enemy.” As a commander, Lord Carhampton was ruthless and capricious. The Lord-Lieutenant on several occasions interfered, but Lord Carhampton refused to obey him. (Barrington’s Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation, p. 261) At last so detested did he become, that his own labourers conspired to assassinate him in cold blood. But one named Ferris, having turned informer, the murderous design was frustrated, and the ringleaders hanged.

In the letter of “A Gray-headed Attorney,” from which we have taken an extract, Lord Carhampton’s name is mentioned in conjunction with that of a woman named Lewellyn, who seventy years ago enjoyed an infamous notoriety in Dublin. A young girl, named Mary Neal, having been decoyed into a house by Mrs Lewellyn, met with some ill-usage, for which Lord Carhampton got the credit. Against Mrs Lewellyn, as mistress of this house, the father of the girl lodged informations. But in order to avert the prosecution, a friend of Mrs Lewellyn, named Edgeworth, trumped up a counter-charge to the effect that Neal, his wife, and daughter, had robbed a girl, and thus got warrants against them. “She had interest enough with the gaoler,” writes Hamilton Rowan, “to procure a constable who, in the middle of the night, took the Neals to Newgate, and locked them up in separate cells.” Mrs Neal, it seems, was enceinte; and in the morning, on opening the cell, she and an infant, of whom she had been delivered, were found dead. (Autobiography of A. Hamilton Rowan, p. 95) Neal was tried for the alleged robbery, but the case failed. Meanwhile, Mary Neal remained dangerously ill at a public hospital, where, adds Mr Rowan, ” she was protected from the examinations and interrogations. of some persons of high rank, which did them no credit, in order to intimidate her, and make her acknowledge that she was one of those depraved young creatures who infest the streets, and thus to defend Lewellyn on her trial.”

Mrs Lewellyn was tried for complicity in the violation, and received sentence of death. Edgeworth was convicted of subornation of perjury, and ordered to stand three times in the pillory, and to be imprisoned for one year. Both culprits were shortly afterwards pardoned and liberated by the viceroy! Several pamphlets appeared on the subject. Hamilton Rowan wrote- “An Investigation of the Sufferings of John, Anne, and Mary Neal;” another writer published - “The Cries of Blood and Injured Innocence; or, The Protection of Vice and Persecution of Virtue,” &c., addressed “to his Excellency the Marquis of B—.”

Dr Boyton also entered the lists, and was called out by Lord Carhampton. Rowan espoused the cause of Mary Neal with Quixotic fervour. He challenged to mortal combat every man who dared to asperse her fame. He accompanied her to the castle, and presented a petition to the Lord-Lieutenant, praying that, as Lewellyn’s “claim to mercy was founded on the principle of Mary Neal being soiled with guilt, which her soul abhorred, such a communication of the evidence might be made as she may defend herself against.” The viceroy, however, declined to grant the prayer; and the statue of Justice over the castle gate was thereupon supposed to say-

“Since Justice is now but a pageant of state,

Remove me, I pray you, from this castle gate.

Since the rape of an infant, and blackest of crimes,

Are objects of mercy in these blessed times,

On the front of new prison, or hell let me dwell in,

For a pardon is granted to Madame Lewellyn.”

John Magee declared that the Sham Squire’s influence in high quarters had been exerted to the uttermost in effecting the liberation of Mrs Lewellyn and her obliging friend Edgeworth. The *Post *of the day, in a parody on the Rev. Dr Burrowes’ slang song, “The Night afore Larry was Stretched,” tells us that,

“Oh! de night afore Edgwort was tried,

Be council dey met in despair,

George Jos - he was there, and beside,

Was a doctor, a lord, and a player.*

Justice Sham den silence proclaim’d,

Be bullies dey all of them harken’d;

Poor Edgwort, sis he, will be framed,

His daylights perhaps will be darken’d,

Unless we can lend him a hand.”

(* Counsellor George Joseph Browne and Dr Houlton, assistant editors of the *Freeman’s Journal; *Lord Carhampton, and Richard Daly, lessee of Crow Street theatre.)

Several stanzas to the same effect are given. At length - some further squibs intervening - a valentine from Maria Lewellyn to the Sham Squire appeared:-

“with gratitude to you, my friend,

Who saved me from a shameful end,

My heart does overflow;

‘Twas you my liberty restored,

‘Twas you that influenced my lord,

To you my life I owe.

Mrs Lewellyn was not the only frail member of her family. Her sister, who kept a house of ill fame, (Female immorality seems to have been regularly punished in the last century. In the *Freeman’s Journal *of December 6, 1766, we read - “Alice Rice was pilloried at the Tholsel, pursuant to her sentence, for keeping a house of ill fame in Essex Street.”) fell from one crime to another, until at last, in 1765, it was deemed necessary to make a public example of her, and the wretched woman was burned alive in Stephen’s Green!

But perhaps the best satire on the “Sham” which appeared in the Post, is an ingenious parody, extending to 14 stanzas, on a then popular slang song, “The Night afore Larry was Stretched,” by the Rev. Dr Burrowes, and which, by the way, is said to have lost him a bishopric. Pandemonium, Beelzebub, and a select circle of infernal satellites, developing a series of diabolical plans, are described. In the ninth verse Shamado is introduced:-

From Erebus’ depths rose each elf, who glow’d with infernal desire,

But their prince judged it fit that himself should alone hold confab with the Squire.”

The eleventh stanza is pithy-

‘Tis well, said Shamado, great Sire! your law has been always my pleasure;

I conceive what your highness desires - ‘tis my duty to second the measure.

The deeper I plunge for your sake, the higher I raise my condition;

Then who would his fealty break - to a prince who thus feeds his ambition,

And gratifies every desire!

Through life I’ve acknowledged thy aid, and as constantly tasted thy bounty,

From the Newgate solicitor’s trade till a sub-sheriff placed in the county.

Shall I halt in the midst of my sins, or sink fainting and trembling before ‘em.

When my honour thick-spreading begins - when, in fine, I am one of the quorum,

And may in the senate be placed?”

(Dublin Evening Post, No. 1744)

In May 1789, Justice Higgins gave a grand entertainment to his patrons and supporters in Stephen’s Green. All Dublin spoke of it; the papers of the day record it. Magee ridiculed the Sham Squire’s pretensions. He called upon Fitzgibbon, the new chancellor, to reform the magistracy, and for a statement advanced in the following passage Magee was prosecuted by Higgins; but of this anon. “Can it be denied - nay, is it not known to every individual in this city - that the proprietor of a flagitious gambling-house - the groom-porter of a table which is nightly crowded with all that is vile, base, or blasphemous in a great capital-that the owner and protector of this house is a justice of peace for the county Dublin?’)*

Mr Higgins had no longer any necessity to bribe the judge’s coachman to drive him through the streets in the judicial carriage. The Sham Squire had now a gorgeous chariot of his own. In the *Post *of June 4, 1789, we find a description of it, - i.e., a dark chocolate ground, enlivened by a neat border of pale patent yellow; the arms emblazoned in a capacious mantle on each panel. In front, behind, and under the coachman’s footboard, the crest is handsomely engraved on every buckle of the silver-plated harness. (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1759) In this shining equipage, with as puffed a demeanour as Lord Clonmel or Sergeant Toler, Mr Higgins drove to the courts. We read; “Mr Higgins appeared in his place yesterday at the courts. He was set down in his own carriage immediately after that of the attorney-general.” (Ibid., No. 1767)

And in a subsequent number, it is reproachfully remarked, that Higgins sits on the same bench with Sergeant Toler, arrayed in chains of gold, and dispensing justice. (Ibid., No. 1770) The ostentatious manner of the Sham, and his impudent swagger, excited a general feeling of disgust. He openly “boasted of his influence at the seat of power, and bragged that the police magistrates I lived on terms of the closest intimacy with him.” (Ibid., No. 1760)

On Sunday, June 16, 1789, the celebrated pulpit orator, Walter Blake Kirwan, afterwards Dean of Killala, and originally a Roman Catholic priest, preached an eloquent sermon on morality in St Andrew’s Church, and, according to the Post of the day, took occasion, in the course of his homily, to lash the proprietors of the flagitious gambling-house in Crane Lane. (Ibid., No. 1777.) Higgins denied that he was the proprietor of it; but the *Post *persisted in declaring that if not the avowed owner, he was the secret participator in its profits. This vile pandemonium was said to yield £400 a year to Mr Higgins. (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1782) In vain were the authorities implored, year after year, to suppress it. At length the following curious “card,” as a last resource, was published:-

The Freemen and Freeholders of the Parish of Saint Andrew’s take the liberty to demand from Alderman Warren, their representative in Parliament, and president at the Police Board, why some measures are not taken by him immediately and effectually to suppress that nursery of vice - that receptacle for vagrants - that hell of Dublin - the gambling-house in Crane Lane. The alderman has been so repeatedly applied to on the subject that it is high time that Freeholders, who know and respect themselves, should no longer be trifled with. Reports are now current, and circulated with a confidence that renders inattention somewhat more than censurable. A magistrate and a city representative ought to be above suspicion. The Freeholders are aware that infamous house is not in their district, yet they know how their representative ought to act whether as a man or a magistrate. His future conduct shall alone determine their votes and influence.” (Ibid., No. 1756)

Weeks rolled over, and still nothing was done. At length a correspondent, who signed himself “An Attorney,” threw out the following astute innuendo:-

“Alderman Nat and Level Low are in gratitude bound not to disturb the gambling-house in Crane Lane, as the Sham is very indulgent to them by not calling in two judgements which he has on their lands.” (Ibid., No. 1789)

The sumptuousness of Mr Francis Higgins’s entertainments excited much comment. Judges, as we are assured, revelled at his board. (Ibid., No. 1756) The police magistrates basked in the sunshine of his smile ; (Ibid., No. 1776) but it is at least gratifying to learn that there were some high legal functionaries who indignantly scouted the Sham Squire’s pretensions. Magee observes, “To the honour of Lord Fitzgibbon, (Clare,) be it recorded, that he never dined with Higgins on his public days, or suffered his worship to appear at any table which his presence dignified.” (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1798)

Higgins, meanwhile, surrounded by a swarm of toadies and expectants for place, with a loose gown wrapped like a toga around him, would sometimes swagger through the hall of the old Four Courts. He is traditionally described as having been one of the ugliest men in existence; and the following contemporary portrait, though somewhat exaggerated, serves to confirm that account:-

“Through the long hall a universal hum

Proclaims at length the mighty man is come.

Clothed in a morning gown of many a hue,

With one sleeve ragged and the other new;

While obvious eructations daub his chin

With the remaining dregs of last night’s gin;

With bloated cheek and little swhinish eye,

And every feature form’d to hide a lie;

While every nasty vice, enthroned within,

Breaks out in blotches o’er his freckled skin.”

The bard, after describing Enmity, Treachery, Duplicity, and other disreputable qualities, adds :-“And artful Cunning, simpering the while,

Conceals them all in one unmeaning smile.

He comes, and round him the admiring throng

Catch at the honey dropping from his tongue;

Now promises - excuses round him fly;

Now hopes are born-and hopes as quickly die;

Now he from b—ds his daily rent receives,

And sells indemnity to rogues and thieves.”

(Ibid., No. 1746)

The hall of the Four Courts, through which Francis Higgins was wont to stalk, is not the stately vestibule now known by that name in Dublin. The old Four Courts stood adjacent to Christ Church; its hall, crowned by an octangular cupola, was long and narrow, and entered by a door leading from the lane known as ” Hell.” The chancellor, on entering, was always preceded by his mace-bearer and tipstaffs, who were accustomed to call out, “High Court of Chancery,” upon which the judges rose, and remained standing until the chancellor had taken his seat. (Gilbert’s Dublin, vol. i., pp. 136, 137)

Daniel O’Connell had some reminiscences of the old Four Courts and prison. The gaoler, it will be remembered, was the Sham Squire’s father-in-law:- “As we drove along Skinner’s Row, O’Connell pointed out the ruins of the old Four Courts, and showed me where the old gaol had stood. ‘Father Lube,’ said he, ‘informed me of a curious escape of a robber from that gaol. The rogue was rich, and gave the gaoler £120 to let him out. The gaoler then prepared for the prisoner’s escape in the following manner: he announced that the fellow had a spotted fever, and the rogue shammed sick so successfully that no one suspected any cheat. Meanwhile the gaoler procured a fresh corpse, and smuggled it into the prisoner’s bed; while the pseudo-invalid was let out one flue dark night. The corpse, which passed for that of the robber, was decently interred, and the trick remained undiscovered till revealed by the gaoler’s daughter, long after his death. Father Lube told me,’ added O’Connell, ‘that the face of the corpse was dappled with paint, to imitate the discolourment of a spotted fever.’” (Personal Recollections of O’Connell, by W. J. O’Neil Daunt, vol. i., p.110)

To reduce the overcharged importance of the Sham Squire, Magee published, in June 1787, an outline of his escapade in the family of Mr Archer On June 30, a note appeared from the “reverend gentlemen of Rosemary Lane,” stating they had no official or other knowledge of an imposture alleged to have been committed 23 years previously on the late Mr Archer by Mr Higgins, and adding, that during Mr Higgins’s residence in Smock Alley, his conduct had always been marked with propriety and benevolence. “This sprig of rosemary,” observed the *Post *“may serve to revive the fainting innocence of the immaculate convert of St Francis.” But in the following number a different aspect is given to the matter, thus: “We have it from authority that the advertisement from the reverend gentlemen of Rosemary Lane chapel is a *a sham; *for confirmation of which we refer the inquirer to any of the reverend gentlemen of said chapel.” (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1782) How far this may be in accordance with the truth, it is not easy to determine.

Mr Higgins was not without some redeeming qualities. He regularly attended divine service in the Protestant church of Saint Andrew, and he occasionally dispensed sums in charity. But for all this he received little thanks and less credit. In a trenchant poem levelled at Higgins, numbering some 50 lines, and alleged to be from the pen of Hussey Burgh, we find:-

“The cunning culprit understands the times,

Stakes private bounty against public crimes)

And, conscious of the means he took to rise,

He buys a credit with the Spoils of vice.”

(Ibid., No. 1794)

The Sham Squire’s duties were onerous and varied. He not only presided, as we are told, with the subsequent Lord Norbury, at Kilmainham, (Ibid., No. 1779) but often occupied the bench of the Lord Mayor’s court, and there investigated and confirmed the claims of persons to the rights and privileges of freemen. (Ibid., No. 1789)

Mr Higgins had, ere long, nearly the entire of the newspaper press of Dublin in his influence; (Ibid., No. 1796) to*** ***quote Magee’s words, they were all “bowing down to Baal,” (Dublin Evening Post, No. 1796) or, as Magee’s poet described the circumstance:-

“Now hireling scribes exert the venal pen,

And in concerto shield the best of men.”

And again:-

“Nay, e’en Shamado is himself on fire,

And humdrum Houlton tunes his wooden lyre;

But virtue their resentment cannot dread,

And Truth, though trampled on, will raise her head.”

(Ibid., No. 1743)

Dr Houlton, the Sham Squire’s sub-editor, whose name frequently appears in the local squibs of the day, is noticed in Boaden’s “Life of Mrs Jordan,” as “a weak man with an Edinburgh degree in physic, who wrote for a morning paper, and contributed a prologue so absurd that it has been banished from the play.” (Boaden’s Life of Mrs. Jordan, vol. ii., p. 62)

From Raymond’s “Life of Dermody” we learn that Houlton humanely befriended the unfortunate poet. The doctor lost nothing by his connexion with Higgins. The same work in-forms us that he received “a medical appointment under the Irish Government,” and that his house in Dublin was as showy as his style, having been put through a process of decoration by Daly’s head scene-painter. (Raymond’s Life of Dermody, vol. i., p. 26, et seq.)

The “Literary Calendar of Living Authors,” published in 1816, mentions that Houlton was a native of England, “practised in Ireland with some success,” brought out some musical pieces on the Dublin stage, wrote poems for newspapers, and songs for Vauxhall; and through the patronage of Hook brought out at Drury Lane Theatre, in 1800, his opera called “Wilmore Castle,” which having been damned, he retorted in a pamphlet entitled “A Review of the Musical Drama of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, Tending to Develop a System of Private Influence Injurious to the Public.” 8vo. 1801.

Houlton as a poetaster was useful on the Sham Squire’s journal, which freely employed satirical poetry in assailing reputations.

In 1789 the bill furnished by Higgins to the Treasury amounted to £2,000; but the viceroy, we are told, cut it down to £1,000.

(*Dublin Evening Post, *No. 1761. This payment may have been on account of proclamations inserted as advertisements; but the Duke of Wellington’s correspondence, when Irish Secretary, makes no disguise that all money paid on such grounds was for purposes of corruption. This arrangement was partially relinquished from the death of Pitt; but in 1809, on the restoration of the old Tory regime, we find a Dublin journalist petitioning for a renewal. Sir A. Wellesley, addressing Sir Charles Saxton, the under-secretary, alluded to “the measures which I had in contemplation in respect to newspapers in Ireland. It is *quite impossible to leave them entirely to themselves; *and we have probably carried our reforms in respect to publishing proclamations as far as they will go, excepting only that we might strike off from the list of those permitted to publish proclamations in the newspapers, both in town and country, those which have the least extensive circulation, and which depend, I believe, entirely upon the money received on account of proclamations. I am one of those, however, who think that it will le very dangerous *to allow the press in Ireland to take care of itself, particularly as it has so long been in leading strings. *I would, therefore, recommend that in proportion as you will diminish the profits of the better kind of newspapers, such as the *Correspondent and the Freeman’s Journal, *on account of proclamations, you shall increase the sum they *are allowed to charge on account of advertisements and other publications. *It is absolutely necessary, however, to keep the charge *within the sum of ten thousand pounds per annum, *voted by Parliament, which probably may easily be done when some newspapers will cease to publish proclamations, and the whole will receive a reduced sum on that account, even though *an increase *should be made on *account of advertisements *to the accounts of some. It will also be very necessary that *the account *of *this money should be *of a *description always *to be produced before Parliament. – Ever, yours, &c., - Arthur Wellesley.

Sham Index Home.