The men at the top.

“The Step-Ladder, or a picture of the Irish Government as it was before Lord Cornwallis’s arrival, and during the System of Terror, etc.

No. 1. - The Cabinet, viz.

The Chancellor.
Speaker.
C. Cashel (Archbishop).
Castlereagh.
J. Beresford, Commissr.

No. 2. - Under-strappers to do., 6. E. Cooke.

Drogheda.
Glentworth.
Carhampton.
J. Claudius Beresford.

No. 3. - Strong supporters of do., of Orangism, jobbing and corruption. 11. Enniskillen.

Lees.
Carleton.
Perry.
Isaac Corry.

No. 4. - Servants to the Faction, viz., 16. Waterford.

Annesley.
Blaquire.
Londonderry.
Toler.
Kingsborough.

No. 5. - Very mischievous men, and enemies to liberty. 23. Downshire.

Dillon
Trench

Dr. Duignan

O’Beirne, Bp. of Meath.
Tuam (Archbishop).
Alexander, Mem. Derry.

No. 6. - R---n Magistrates, always ready to murder, burn, &c., 29.

Burns, Meath.

Finley, Meath.

Cleghorn, Meath.

S. H. Mannix, Cork.

Fitzgerald, Tipperary.

Jacob, Tipperary.

Tyrrel,* Kildare.

Knipe, Kildare.

Griffith, Kildare.

Blaney, Monaghan.

No. 7. - Miscreants, 30. Sirr

Swan
Sands
Giffard
Hempenstall, Lt. M.,
Spectacle Knox.
Higgins.

No. 8. - Spies, viz, 37. Armstrong.

Reynolds.
Cope **

No. 9 - Turnkey and Gaolers to the Faction 40. Godfry.

This entry has elicited, since publication, a protest from the representatives of the late Captain Tyrrel, J. P., of Ballinderry, county Kildare. We have instituted inquiries on the subject and find that this family were always popular. General Cockburn probably refers to another party.

** Another remonstrance has reached us from Sir William II. Cope, Bart., who, not unnaturally, complains that the word “spy” should be applied to his late grandfather. As the phrase occurs in a document written by General Cockburn, it is impossible to alter it; but we can have no difficulty in saying, that although Mr Cope instigated Reynolds to resort to betrayal and espionage, he was himself neither a spy nor a betrayer. Sir William Cope’s able vindication of his grandfather from General Cockburn’s accusation of “Spy,” will be found at the conclusion of our notes to the “Step-ladder.”

A few remarks in illustration of the persons enumerated in the “Step-Ladder” of General Cockburn serves to disclose a condensed history of the time.

Lord Chancellor Clare was the son of John Fitzgibbon, who had received his education for the Roman Catholic priesthood, but preferring civil to canon law, conformed, with a view to becoming a member of the bar. The subsequent Lord Clare was appointed attorney-general in 1784, and five years later attained the topmost rung of “the stepladder,” from whence he looked down with supercilious scorn on those by whose aid he had risen. He rapidly covered all Ireland with his partisans. Both houses of Parliament became his automatons. Of coercion he was an uncompromising advocate. In 1784, as alleged by Plowden, he introduced a bill for demolishing Roman Catholic chapels. In Parliament he defended the use of torture. In private, as his letters to Lord Castlereagh show, he upset the bill of Catholic relief, which, according to Mr. Pitt’s promise, was to have accompanied the Act of Union.

But it should be remembered by the assailants of Lord Clare’s reputation, that, unlike many of the influential men enumerated in General Cockburn’s “stepladder,” he, at least, was politically consistent, and did not commence his career in the ranks of the tribunes. In action he was impulsive, fearless, and despotic. Rushing to a political meeting convened by the High Sheriff of Dublin, and attended by one friend only, this, the most unpopular man in all Ireland, interrupted a democratic orator in his address, commanded the mob to disperse, almost pushed the high sheriff from the chair, and threatened an *ex-officio *information. The sheriff, panic-stricken, dissolved the meeting. If hissed in the street, Lord Clare pulled out pistols. [Unpublished Diary of Lord Clonmel, p. 449.]

He powerfully contributed to carry the Union. His ambition was indomitable, and he aspired to transfer his boundless influence to the wider field of England. He had placed several viceroys in succession beneath his thumb. Might he not also attain an ascendency over the personage whom they represented?

“If I live,” said Lord Clare, when the measure was brought before the House of Peers, “if I live to see the Union completed, to my latest hour I shall feel an honourable pride in reflecting on the little share I may have had in contributing to effect it.”

His first speech in the British Parliament met with interruption and rebuffs. He abused the Catholics, ridiculed his country, was called to order by Lord Suffolk, rebuked by the Lord Chancellor, resumed, was again called to order, lost temper, and stigmatised the opposition as “Jacobins and levellers.” “We would not bear this insult from an equal,” exclaimed the Duke of Bedford; “shall we endure it at the hands of mushroom nobility?”

Even Mr Pitt was disgusted. “Good G-d,” said he, addressing Mr Wilberforce, “did ever you hear, in all your life, so great a rascal as that?” Mr Grattan mentions, in the memoirs of his father, that this anecdote was stated by Mr Wilberforce to Mr North.

Crestfallen, Lord Clare returned to Ireland, where he found a number of hungry place-seekers awaiting his arrival. “Ah;’ said he, as he began to calculate his influence, and found it wanting, “I, that once had all Ireland at my disposal, cannot now nominate the appointment of a “gauger.” His heart broke at the thought and on January 28, 1802, Lord Clare, after a painful illness, and while yet comparatively young, died. [A few days after the Sham Squire’s demise. Lord Clare, notwithstanding his avowed tendency to foster political profligacy, possessed the redeeming virtue of having snubbed the Sham Squire.]

His death-bed presented a strange picture. Charles Phillips says he ordered his papers to be burned, [It has been mentioned by the *Athenaeum *(No. 1634) as a significant fact, that nearly all those who were concerned in carrying the Union had destroyed their papers, and Lord Clare, Sir Edward Littlehales, with Messrs Wickham, Taylor, Marsden, and King, were instanced. It is also remarkable, that all the MS. reports of the eloquent anti-Union speeches, with the MSS. of many pamphlets hostile to the measure, were purchased from Moore the publisher, and burnt by order of Lord Castlereagh. See Grattan’s Memoirs, vol. v., p.180. Lord Clonmel in his last moments, expressed much anxiety to destroy his papers. His nephew, Dean Scott, who assisted in the conflagration, assured Mr Grattan that one letter in particular completely revealed Lord Castlereagh’s scheme to foster the Rebellion of ‘98 in order to carry the Union. The purchase of Lord De Blaquire’s papers by the Government appears in our notice of that personage. Mr Commissioner Phillips tells us that the debates on the Union called into operation all the oratorical talent of Ireland, but their record has been suppressed, and that the volume containing the session of 1800 is so inaccessible, that it has been sought for in vain to complete the series in the library of the House of Lords. Whether by accident or design, the materials for a true history of the Union are yearly becoming less. The late Lord Londonderry has recorded that the ship which was conveying a chest of the most valuable of his brother Castlereagh’s papers foundered, and the papers were lost!] as hundreds might be compromised.

In Grattan’s Memoirs it is stated, on the authority of Lord Clare’s nephew, that he bitterly deplored having taken any part in effecting the Union. Plowden states that he vainly called for the assistance of a Catholic priest; but we have never seen the allegation confirmed. His funeral was insulted by much of the indecency which attended Lord Castlereagh’s in Westminster Abbey. In one of Lord Clare’s speeches he declared, that he would make the Catholics as tame as cats. Dead cats were flung upon his hearse and his grave. Lord Cloncurry, in his “Recollections,” says that he was obliged to address the infuriated populace from the balcony of Lord Clare’s house in Ely Place, ere they could be induced to relinquish the unseemly hooting which swelled the death-knell of John, Earl of Clare.

“Mr Foster, we learn, was for several years not only the supporter, and indeed the ablest supporter of the administration, but the conductor and manager of their schemes and operations.” [Review of the Irish House of Commons, p. 129.] He sternly opposed the admission of Catholics to the privileges of the constitution; but Ireland must always remember him with gratitude for the determined hostility with which, as Speaker of the Irish Parliament, he opposed the Legislative Union.

Feeling that the papers of Mr Foster (afterwards Lord Oriel) would throw great light upon the history of the Union, we asked the late Lord Massareene, who represented him, for permission to see them, but it appeared that the Honourable Chichester Skeffington “seized” the archives after Lord Ferrard’s death, and Lord Massareene never saw them after.

Charles Agar was appointed Archbishop of Cashel in 1779, translated to Dublin in 1801, and created Earl of Normanton in 1806. Long before he obtained these high promotions, Lord Clonmel clearly saw that he was a very ambitious man. When we learn that his Grace acquired £40,000 by a single renewal fine, the statement that he amassed a fortune of £400,000 is not surprising. [Dalton’s Archbishop’s of Dublin, p. 351.]

Lord Normanton would seem to have been more active as a privy councillor than as a prelate, for Archbishop Magee declared that “the diocese of Dublin had been totally neglected” by his predecessors. [Charge delivered October 24, 1822, p. 33.] A savage biographical notice of Archbishop Agar appears in Cox’s *Irish Magazine *for August 1809, pp. 382-4, together with some lines beginning:-

“Adieu, thou mitred nothingness, adieu,

Thy failings many, and thy virtues few.”

Yet amid the sectarian strife of that day it is pleasant to find “C. Cashel” in amicable epistolary correspondence with his rival Dr James Butler, Roman Catholic Archbishop of the same diocese. [Renehan’s Irish Church History, edited Rev. D. M’Carthy, p.345.]

Lord Castlereagh, who, falsifying the hyperbolical apothegm of Dr Johnson that “patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel” began political life in the ranks of the patriots. Of his hostility to the lordly interest, and identification with the reform or popular party, the autobiographies of Teeling and Sampson furnish curious particulars. His electioneering agent on those principles was Neilson the Rebel. Lord Castlereagh’s subsequent career is too notorious to require special detail. Dr Madden calls him the Robespierre of Ireland, and says that his memory has “the faint sickening smell of hot blood about it.” Lord Cornwallis writes of him in 1798 - “I have every reason to be highly satisfied with Lord Castlereagh, who is really a very uncommon young man.” This “uncommon young man” exerted himself certainly in an uncommon way. He writes, in a letter marked “Most Secret” dated Dublin Castle, January 2, 1799, and printed in the “Cornwallis Papers,” - “My Dear Sir, - Already we feel the want, and indeed the absolute necessity of the *primum mobile. *We cannot give that activity to the press which is requisite. We have good materials amongst the young barristers, but we cannot expect them to waste their time and starve into the bargain. I know the difficulties, and shall respect them as much as possible, in the extent of our expenditure; but, notwithstanding every difficulty, I cannot help most earnestly requesting to receive £5,000 in banknotes by the first messenger.” This letter is addressed to one of the Government officials in London, and ample remittances came forthwith.

Ireland, when weak and prostrate from loss of blood, was robbed by Lord Castlereagh of its virtue and its parliament. The corruption he practised to silence opposition has been sometimes denied; but little attempt to disguise it appears in his own correspondence, notwithstanding the ample weeding which it admittedly underwent.

“It will be no secret,” writes the unprincipled statesman, “what has been promised, *and by what means the *Union has *been secured. *His appointment will encourage, not prevent disclosures; and the only effect of such a proceeding on their (the ministers’) part will be, to add the weight of their testimony to that of the anti-unionists in proclaiming the profligacy of the means by which the measure has been accomplished.” [Memoirs and Correspondence 0£ Viscount Castlereagh, vol. iii. p. 331.]

The “Cornwallis Papers” are much less reticent than the printed correspondence of Lord Castlereagh. Mr Wickham writes, on January 7, 1799, in reply to Lord Castlereagh’s appeal for money, that “a messenger will be sent off to-morrow with the remittance [£5,000,] particularly required for the present moment;” and that “the Duke of Portland has every reason to hope that means will soon be found of placing a larger sum at the Lord Lieutenant’s disposal.” Lord Castlereagh, on January 10, thus acknowledges the money:- “The *contents *of the messenger’s despatches are very interesting. Arrangements with a view to further communications of the same nature will be highly advantageous, and the Duke may depend on their being carefully applied.” P.34.

On November 23, 1798, money is required to stimulate the provincial press. April 5, 1800, Mr Pitt promised to send from £8,000 to £10,000. July 10,1800, Mr Marsden writes:- “Lord Castlereagh wishes me to remind you of the necessity of supplies - we are in great want.” Dec. 9, 1800, a similar call.

After these details we are not surprised that the late Duke of Portland should have become heartily ashamed of preserving his father’s correspondence. Mr Ross, editor of the “Cornwallis Papers,” writes:-” Among the valuable sources of information thus freely opened to me I must mention the ‘Spencer,’ ‘Hardwicke,’ ‘Sydney,’ and ‘Melville Papers.’ Many other collections have been as cordially submitted to my inspection, *but upon investigation it appeared that such documents as might have thrown additional light an the’ history of those times, and especially of the Union, had been purposely destroyed. *For instance, after a search instituted at Welbeck, by the kindness of the Duke of Portland, it was ascertained that the late Duke had burnt all his father’s political papers from 1780 to his death.” [It is indeed unfair to lay entirely on Ireland the stigma of the corruption which then prevailed. The great William Pitt directed it, as has been fully admitted by his biographer; Lord Stanhope. Mr Pitt, in one of his letters printed in the “Cornwallis Papers,” writes regarding the opponents of the Union:- “It is very desirable (if Government is strong enough to do it) to mark by dismissal the sense entertained of the conduct of those persons who opposed. In particular … . in the instance of the Speaker’s eon.”]

The editor of the ” Cornwallis Papers” writes :-’” Mr Wickham, Mr King, Sir Herbert Taylor, Sir Edward Littlehales, Mr Marsden, the Knight of Kerry, and indeed almost all the persons officially concerned in carrying the Union, appear to have destroyed the whole of their papers. Mr Marsden, by whom many of the arrangements were concluded, left a MS. book containing invaluable details, which was burnt only a few years ago by its then possessor. The destruction of so many valuable documents respecting important transactions cannot but be regarded as a serious loss to the political history of those times.”

The Knight of Kerry is, we believe, the only Irishman named in the above list. We are informed by the present Knight that all his father’s “Union papers” *are *preserved, and he kindly promised to give us access to them if desired.

The Right Honourable John Beresford, member for Waterford, discharged, besides his more legitimately recognised duties as commissioner of revenue, a somewhat nondescript office, similar to that held, during a later period, by the Right Honourable William Saurin. His influence penetrated every department of the state; and to every contemporary viceregal administration, except of that of Lord Fitzwilliam, who paid the penalty of his independence, Mr. Beresford was the arrogant and dogmatical dictator. His family held places to the amount of £20,000 per annum.

In Mr Beresford’s correspondence, rather recently published, much curious matter appears. Referring to some remarks of Denis Bowes Daly, Mr Beresford writes:- “No Lord Lieutenant could exist with my powers; that I had been a Lord Chancellor, a Chief Justice of the Icing’s Bench, an Attorney-General, nearly a Primate, and certainly a Commander-in-Chief; that I was at the head of the Revenue, and had the law, the army, the revenue, and a great deal of the church in my possession; and be said expressly, that I was considered the king of Ireland.” [Mr Beresford to Lord Auckland, Dublin, January 9, 1795, vol ii., p. 51.]

Mr Under-Secretary Cooke has been noticed at earlier.
The Marquis of Drogheda was not a prominent character. “As an orator,” observes a writer in 1779, “he is of no consideration; in fact, he seldom speaks.” Lord Drogheda’s political labours were behind the scenes, and the prompter’s duties were often discharged by him. He quietly promoted the Legislative Union, with other calamitous measures, and then as quietly applied for his reward. The Duke of Portland, in a private and confidential letter to the Viceroy, dated June 27, 1800, declares that Lord Drogheda’s claims to be a member of the representative peerage were “irresistible.” [Castlereagh Correspondence, vol. iii., p. 345.]
Lord Glentworth’s services were much of the same order as those of the Marquis of Drogheda. So little was he known outside the backstairs of the Castle that he obtains no place in either of the contemporary publications which we have more than once consulted. It will be remembered that his was one of the three peerages which Grattan and Ponsonby offered to prove had been sold for hard cash, and the money laid out in the purchase of members in the House of Commons.
Of Lord Carhampton we have already spoken fully*.*
John Claudius Beresford, son of Mr Commissioner Beresford, already noticed, succeeded him as a member of “the Irish Backstairs Cabinet.” He expressed a wish for the rebellion, that Mr. Pitt might see with what promptitude it could be crushed. In conjunction with Major Sirr, Mr Beresford maintained a battalion of spies, which octogenarians sometimes refer to as “Beresford’s Bloodhounds.” He largely helped to stimulate the rebellion of ‘98 by a generally coercive policy, which was cruelly followed up by the administration of torture. This was practised under the personal direction of John Claudius Beresford, both at the riding school in Marlborough Street and on the site of the present City Hall. When Lord Castlereagh endeavoured to ignore the charge, Mr Beresford in Parliament not only admitted but defended the vile practice. He was secretary to the Grand Lodge of Orangemen, and infused their views into almost every department of the Irish Government. The capriciousness of popular feeling in his regard was quite as remarkable as the mercurial movement of his own chequered career. Having creditably filled the office of Lord Mayor of Dublin, his carriage was drawn through the streets by the same mob which had often previously execrated him.

The vicissitude which marked the later career of John Claudius Beresford strikingly contrasts with his power anterior to the union. In partnership with Mr Woodmason he opened a bank at No. 2 Beresford Place, Dublin. One day the bank broke, and Beresford was a bankrupt, cut by those who had formerly cringed. A man’s good fortune often turns his head; but bad fortune as often averts the heads of his friends. Beresford was, perhaps, an illustration of both ends of the apothegm. Some persons who had known him in his glory pitied the old attenuated man, with bent back and threadbare clothes - a well-known spectacle in the streets of Dublin for many years after, preaching in silent exposition, *“Sic transit gloria mundi!” *John Claudius Beresford strongly opposed the Union, not, we fear, on patriotic grounds, but because it was likely to stem the torrent of his own ambition.

His character was not without some good points, and he is said to have been charitable in disbursement, and of private worth in his family In the Imperial Parliament he represented the County of Waterford, the great stronghold of his race, further noticed in our sketch of the Marquis of Waterford.

Lord Enniskillen, a vigorous speaker in the Irish Parliament, presided at a drum-head trial of a yeoman, named Wollagan, for murder, and acquitted him. “It was an atrocious murder,” writes Plowden; “every aggravating circumstance was proved. No attempt was made to contradict any part of the evidence: but a justification of the horrid murder was set up, as having been committed under an order of the commanding officer, that if the yeomen should meet with any whom they knew or suspected to be rebels, they needed not be at the trouble of bringing them in, but were to shoot them on the spot; that it was almost the daily practice of that corps to go out upon scouring parties.”

Lord Cornwallis, the new viceroy, condemned the verdict and disqualified Lord Enniskillen from sitting on any new court-martial. [Plowden’s History of Ireland, vol. ii., p.514.]

Mr John Lees, a Scotchman, accompanied Lord Townshend to Ireland as private secretary. He was appointed Secretary at War and Secretary to the Post-Office in Dublin, and in 1804 received the honour of a baronetcy.
Lord Carleton, the son of a trader in Cork, [Sleater’s Dublin Chronicle for 1791.] who, as Lord Clonmel, in his unpublished diary, tells us owed all to his patronage, and whom he concludes by abusing as “an ungrateful monster,” was appointed Solicitor-General in 1779, Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas in 1787, Baron in 1789, and Viscount eight years later. In his policy on the question of the Legislative Union, Lord Carleton was not consistent We find him at first giving his sentiments decidedly against it, and a few weeks later avowing himself a supporter of the measure.

Sir Jonah Barrington, in his “Personal Sketches,” (i. 475,) writes:-” Lord Carleton, as Justice of the Common Pleas, had rendered himself beyond description obnoxious to the disaffected of Ireland, in consequence of having been the judge who tried and condemned the two Counsellors Sheares, who were executed for treason, and to whom that nobleman had been *testamentary guardian *by the will of their father.” The latter statement thus emphatically italicised by Barrington, is one of the startling myths in which he habitually indulged. The will of Mr Sheares contains no allusion whatever to the Chief-Justice.

Sexton Perry was originally a patriot of ultra energy, and of considerable influence with his party. During the corrupt administration of Lord Townshend, Perry was seduced from his popular principles. In the year 1771 he was. appointed Speaker, and in 1785 created Viscount Perry. Lord Clonmel, himself a most clear-sighted critic, writes of Perry in his Unpublished Diary:- “He seems to me the best model of worldly wisdom now extant; he is never off his guard.” [Unpublished Diary of John Scott, Lord Clonmel, p. 356] The Diary shows that Lord Clonmel, who also began his career as an ardent patriot, made Perry his constant study and model. Mr O’Regan, of the Irish Bar, writing in 1818, bemoans that Perry, Malone, and Avonmore should have no biographer: “What records have we of those who flourished for the last 50 years, the most memorable period of our history? Where, then, in what archives are deposited monuments of our illustrious dead? Where, but in ‘Lodge’s Peerage,’ are to be found any traces of Lord Perry?” [Memoirs of Curan, preface, p. xv.]

We are able to answer one of the questions asked by the biographer of Curran. The historic investigators of the life of Perry and his times may be glad to know that at Dungannon Park, the residence of the youthful Lord Ranfurley, is preserved an immense collection of letters addressed to the late Lord Perry when he was Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. [Letter of Henry Alexander, Esq., guardian of Lord Ranfurley, dated Canton Club, July 7, 1860.]

The Honourable Isaac Corry, Chancdlor of the Irish Exchequer, and M.P. for Newry, where his father was a respectable trader, joined the Whig Opposition, and for several years distinguished himself by the violence of his patriotism: but during Lord Buckingham’s administration he was appointed Surveyor of Ordnance at a salary of £1,000 a year, which was followed by further promotion.

Official peculation had attained a fearful pitch at this time. In the Ordnance and Treasury, the grossest frauds pervaded almost every department. The public stores were plundered with impunity in open day. The arms, ammunition, and military accoutrements, condemned as useless, were stolen out at one gate, and brought in at the other, and charged anew to the public account. Journeymen armourers, who worked in the arsenal, seldom went home to their meals without conveying away a musket, a sword, or brace of pistols, as lawful perquisites, and sanctioned by the connivance of the superiors.

Clerks in subordinate departments, with salaries not exceeding £100 per annum, kept handsome houses in town and country, with splendid establishments; some of them became purchasers of loans and lotteries: all exhibited signs of redundant opulence. [Plowdon’s History of Ireland, vol. ii., p.279.] During the debate on the Union, Grattan, with, we think, less point than usual, stung the vulnerable ministerialist by calling him “a dancing-master;” Corry challenged his satirist; they left the House, and before the debate terminated, Corry was shot through the arm. [Grattan cultivated unerring aim in conjunction with accurate eloquence. In the secluded woods of Tenahinch he might be sometimes seen declaiming with Demosthenic energy, and the next hour lodging bullets in particular trees which still bear marks of the havoc.]

The Marquis of Waterford was the leading member of the powerfully influential family of the Beresfords, In conjunction with his brother he hurled, by their might, the liberal viceroy, Lord Fitzwilliam, from office, and provoked from the latter a remark in the English House of Peers, to the effect, that it was impossible to effect any good in Ireland unless the power of the Beresfords could be destroyed. [Lord Clare, writing to the Right Honourable S. C. Beresford, says:- “The more I consider the flagrant and unwarrantable calumnies which he [Lord Fitzwilliam] deals out so flippantly against you, the more I am decided in my opinion that you ought in the first instance to bring an action against him for defamation, and lay it in the city of London. He had 50 copies of this memoir made out by the clerks in the different offices in the Castle, which were distributed by his order.”* - Beresford Correspondence, *vol. H., p 38.] Not until 1826 was this desirable consummation achieved. At the Waterford election in that year, the Beresfords received, from the 40-shilling freeholders, their death-blow. “I did not think,” said Sheil, “that there was so much virtue under rags.” This telling stroke was planned and inflicted by Dr Kelly, B. C. Bishop of Waterford.
Lord Annesley was a person of some influence in 1798, and following years, but he did not long enjoy his power. Lord Annesley died without issue, December 19, 1802, - the year which also terminated the lives of the Sham Squire and Lord Clare.
Sir John, afterwards Lord De Blaquire, represents one of the Huguenot families of whom we have spoken in Chapter 3.* *Patronised by Lord Harcourt, he accepted the office of bailiff of the Phoenix Park, to which the small salary of £40 a year was attached, with the use of a little lodge, a garden, grass for two cows, and half-a-crown per head for all cattle found trespassing in the Park. The first piece of his cleverness was shown in contriving to make the salary £50 per annum for his own life and that of the King’s two eldest sons; with liberty to graze cattle to an unlimited extent. Sir John was a pluralist in sinecures, and amongst the rest filled the office of Director of Public Works. [Barrington’s Personal Sketches, vol. i., p.194.] He applied for a more comfortable residence, which the Board of Works built for him at the public expense of £8,000. Sir John, however, was not yet satisfied. The garden being small, he successfully petitioned for a larger one, whereupon he took in about ten acres, which lie surrounded by a wall, also at the expense of the nation. [Irish Political Characters, 1799, p.150.] But it is De Blaquire’s connexion with the Legislative Union, and the rare astuteness with which he promoted the success of that measure, on which his fame as a diplomatist historically rests. “Sir John Blaquire is disposed to exert himself very much,” [Memoirs and Correspondence of Lord Castlereagh, vol. ii., p. 85] observes Lord Castlereagh in communicating the good news to the Duke of Rutland, on January 7, 1799. “The entrance to a woman’s heart,” said the first Napoleon, “is through her eye or ear; but the way to a man’s heart is down his throat” De Blaquire illustrated the wisdom of the apothegm. “He enjoyed,” says Sir Jonah Barrington, “a revenue sufficiently ample to enable him to entertain his friends as welt and far more agreeably, than any other person I had previously met. Nobody understood eating and drinking better than Sir John be Blaquire; and no man was better seconded in the former respect, than he was by his cook, whom he brought from Paris.” [Personal Sketches by Sir Jonah Barrington, vol. i., p.193.]

Lord Cornwallis, in recommending De Blaquire for a peerage, writes:- “Sir J. Blaquire governed this country for some years, and he has since held his rank in Dublin as a political character of no small consequence. [Cornwallis Correspondence, Letter of July 11, 1800.]

For some notice of the intrigues with which De Blaquire had secured influential support to the Union, see “The Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation.” A few years ago, one of his descendants found a trunk of old dusty papers calculated to throw great light on the history of the Union. This gentleman is said to have offered the entire trunkful to the Wellington government for £100; his proposal it is also said, was eagerly accepted; and we have heard him ridiculed by his friends for being so silly as not to have stipulated for a couple of thousand pounds, which would have been acceded to, they allege, with equal alacrity.

Lord Londonderry, father of Lord Castlereagh, was an active agent in checking the popular plots of the time; but that his lordship was not without misgivings as to the result may be inferred front the fact, mentioned in the “Castlereagh Papers,” (ii. 331,) that he would not take bank-notes in payment of rent.
John Toler, afterwards Lord Norbury, it will be remembered, was counsel for the Sham Squire, in the case Higgins V. Magee. It may without much injustice be said of him, that for 30 years he performed the triple *role *of bully, butcher, and buffoon. His services in the first capacity proved usefull to the then government, and helped him far more than his law to judicial elevation. [Mr Toler’s powers of invective were quite startling. When he uttered such language in Parliament as this, the licence of his tongue elsewhere may be conceived -“Had he heard a man uttering out of those doors such language as that of the honourable gentleman, he would have seized the ruffian by the throat, and dragged him to the dust.” (Parl. Deb.)

An extraordinary licence of language was permitted by the Speaker in these days. A tradition of the period thus describes the denunciation of a certain family:- “Sir, they are all rotten from the honourable member who has just sat down, to the toothless hag that is now grinning at us from the gallery,” - the allusion being to the honourable member’s mother. Lord Castlereagh was upbraided with impotency by Grattan, in the presence of Lady Castlereagh, who occupied a seat in the Speaker’s gallery during one of the debates on the Union.]

His old passions and prejudices clung to him as a judge; he browbeat timid counsel; and has been known to suggest mortal combat by remarking “that he would not seek shelter bebind the bench, or merge the gentleman in the Chief Justice.” His relish for a capital conviction was undisguised; a document before us mentions the almost incredible fact, that at a single assize, he passed sentence of death on one 198 individuals, of whom 197 passed through the hands of Galvin, the hangman. With the black cap on his head, he joked as freely as though it were a cap and bells. “Ah, my lord, give me a long day,” craved a wretched culprit on a certain 20th of Jane. “Your wish is granted,” replied the judge, “I will give you until to-morrow, the longest day in the year!”

Lord Norbury’s charges transcend description. “Flinging his judicial robe aside,” writes Mr Sheil, “and sometimes casting off his wig, he started from his seat and threw off a wild harangue, in which neither law, method, or argument could be discovered. It generally consisted of narratives of his early life, which it was impossible to associate with the subject, of jests from John Miller, mixed with jokes of his own manufacture, and of sarcastic allusions to any of the counsel who had endeavoured to check him during the trial.”

Sir Jonah Barrington mentions that he has seen his “racket court” [This was a designation of Lord Norbury’s own. “What’s your business?.” a witness was asked. “I keep a racket court,” “So do I,” rejoined the Chief-Justice, puffing.] convulsed with laughter by the appearance of the chief in a green tabinet coat with pearl buttons, striped yellow and black vest, and buff breeches - the costume of Hawthorn in “Love in a Village,” a character personated by Lord Norbury at Lady Castlereagh’s masquerade; and he found the dress so cool that he frequently, in after years, wore it under his robes. On this particular occasion it was revealed accidentally by Lord Norbury throwing back his robes, owing to the more than ordinarily heated atmosphere of the court.

Lord Norbury could sometimes say a good thing. The villanies of the Sham Squire had brought the attorney’s craft into deep disrepute. A shilling subscription was raised to bury a poor solicitor “Here is a guinea,” said Lord Norbury; “bury one-and-twenty of them.”

“That Scotch *Broom *deserves an *Irish stick,” *exclaimed Lord Norbury, in reference to Lord Brougham, who had brought before Parliament some unconstitutional conduct of which he had been guilty; and at a later period, it appeared, from the same source, that the old chief had fallen asleep on the bench during a trial for murder. In 1827 he resigned, and in 1831 he died. The late Mr Brophy, state dentist, who was present at Lord Norbury’s funeral, informed us that when lowering the coffin by ropes into a deep grave, a voice in the crowd cried, “Give him rope *galore, *boys; he never was sparing of it to others.” [*Anglice, *in plenty.] As a landlord, Lord Norbury was by no means bad; and in his own house he is said to have been gentle and forbearing.

Lord Kingsborough had always been prominently zealous in promoting that system of coercion [Plowden’s Hist. of Ireland, vol. ii., p. 475]: which, as Lord Castlereagh admitted, aimed to make the United Irish Conspiracy explode. [Moore’s Life of Lord B. Fitzgerald, p.110, Paris edit.] When the rebellion broke out, Lord Kingsborough, as colonel of the North Cork Militia, proceeded to join his regiment in Wexford, but was captured by the rebels, who held possession of the town. Mr Plowden, in his History, states that Lord Kingsborough owed his life to the personal interposition of Dr Caulfield, Roman Catholic Bishop of Ferns. But from a statement made to us by John Plunket, Esq., of Frescati. whose father held rank in the rebel army at Wexford, it would appear that Lord Kingsborough’s deliverance was not wholly owing to the Bishop. Lord Kingsborough and an English officer were about to be hung at “The Bull’s Ring,” when they pledged their honour to Mr Plunket, that, if then liberated, they would do him a similar service on a subsequent occasion, which they assured him could not be far distant. Lord Kingsborough and his friend wrote two letters to this effect; but when Mr Plunket was afterwards found guilty by a court-martial, the documents could not be found. His wife waited on Lord Kingsborough to hope he would renew the letter, but the peer declined to interfere in any way on behalf of Plunket, while the other officer, whose life had been spared at the same time, honourably kept his word. Our informant adds, that Mr Plowden, when engaged on his History, obtained an interview with the late Mrs Plunket in order to gather authentic details of the events of which she had personal knowledge, but as they were then of recent occurrence, she declined to assist him. [Communicated by John Plunket, Esq., Frescati, Feb. 17, 1866.]

Lord Kingsborough subsequently attained celebrity by shooting a person whom he detected offering undue familiarities to his sister. Lord Kingsborough, his son, died a pauper in the Four Courts Marshalsea.

General Cockburn regards Lord Downshire as a rotten rung in the step-ladder, and styles him “a very mischievous enemy to liberty.” We think, however, that his hostility to the Union goes far to redeem his shortcomings. His policy on this question so displeased the Government that he was dismissed from the lieutenancy of his county, from the colonelcy of his regiment, and even expelled from the Privy Council. It was further proposed to institute a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of Lord Downshire.
Lord Dillon also pursued a policy in 1800 which covers a multitude of political sins. At a meeting of influential anti-unionists in Dublin, he proposed that a joint-stock purse should be formed for the purpose of out-bribing the Government. [Plowden’s History of Ireland, vol. ii., p. 551] Until June 1799, Lord Dillon exercised his property and influence, both considerable, in favour of the Union.
Mr Trench formed, under curious circumstances, a majority of *one *in favour of the Union. His vote and voice disclosed a very painful instance of tergiversation and seduction. Mr Trench declared, in presence of a crowded House, that he would vote against the minister, and support Mr Ponsonby’s amendmeut. “This,” observes Sir Jonah Barrington, who was an eye-witness of the transaction, “appeared a stunning blow to Mr Cooke, who had been previously in conversation with Mr Trench. He was immediately observed sidling from his seat, nearer to Lord Castlereagh. They whispered earnestly; and, as if restless and undecided, both looked wistfully at Trench. At length the matter seemed to be determined on. Mr Cooke retired to a back seat, and was obviously endeavouring to count the House - probably to guess if they could that night dispense with Mr Trench’s services. He returned to Lord Castlereagh; they whispered, and again looked at Mr Trench. But there was no time to lose; the question was approaching. All shame was banished; they decided on the terms, and a significant glance, obvious to everybody, convinced Mr Trench that his conditions were agreed to. Mr Cooke then went and sat down by his side: an earnest but very short conversation took place; a parting smile completely told the House that Mr Trench was satisfied. These surmises were soon verified. Mr Cooke went back to Lord Castlereagh; a congratulatory nod announced his satisfaction. But could any man for one moment suppose that an M.P. of large fortune, of respectable family, and good character, could be publicly, and without shame or compunction, actually seduced by Lord Castlereagh under the eye of 220 gentlemen? In a few minutes Mr Trench rose to apologise for having in-discreetly declared he would support the amendment. He added, that he had thought better of the subject; that he had been convinced he was wrong, and would support the minister.” Mr Trench accordingly became Lord Ashtown.
Dr Duigenan has been already noticed in Chapter 3.
Of Bishop O’Beirne much has been written, but we never saw in print some curious details embodied in a letter, dated April 22,1857, and addressed to us by the late Mr William Forde, Town Clerk of Dublin. “I can furnish,” writes Mr Forde, “an interesting anecdote of the early history of that gentleman, which I learned when very young, living within two miles of the see house of the diocese of Meath. Dr O’Beirne was never ordained a Roman Catholic priest, but was educated at the Irish College of Paris with a view to his becoming a priest. His brother, Rev. Denis O’Beirne, was educated at the same time and in the same college, and died parish priest of the town of Longford, of which his brother was the rector. The name of the parish in the Church is Templemichael. The history of the bishop in early life was, that having suspended his studies, owing to ill-health, he returned home for a couple of years, and was returning to the college, when the following incident, which altered his destinies for life, occurred to him:- He was travelling on foot through Wales, when the day became very boisterous and rainy, and took shelter in a poor inn on the wayside, and after ordering his dinner, which was a small bit of Welsh mutton, he went into a little sitting-room. In some time two gentlemen came in also for shelter, (they were on a shooting party, and were driven in by the violence of the storm,) and asked the woman of the house what she could give them for dinner. She replied she had nothing but what was at the fire roasting, and it was ordered by a gentleman in the next room, adding in a low tone, she believed he was an Irishman; whereupon one of the gentlemen exclaimed, ’ Damn Paddy - *he *have roast mutton for dinner while we must fast; we will take it,’ whereupon O’Beirne walked down from his room, and asked who damned Paddy, and insisted upon getting his dinner, and added they should not have it by forrce, but it they would take share of it on his invitation he would freely give it, and they were heartily welcome; on which they accepted the invitation, provided he would allow them to give the wine, which they assured him was very good, notwithstanding the appearance of the place. They all retired to the sitting-room, and the two gentlemen began conversmg in French, whereupon O’Beirne interrupted them, and informed them that he understood every word they uttered, and they might not wish that a third person should know what they were speaking about and then the conversation became general and was carried on in French, of which O’Beirne was a perfect master. They inquired of him what were his objects in life, when he told them his history-that he was a farmer’s son in Ireland, and his destiny was the Irish Catholic priesthood. When they were parting, one of the gentlemen asked would he take London on his way to Paris, to which he replied in the affirmative. He then gave him a card with merely the number and the street of his residence, and requested he would call there, where he would be very happy to see him. O’Beirne walked to London, which took him a considerable time, and on arriving there did not fail to call at the place indicated by the card. When he got to the house, he thought there must be some mistake; but nothing daunted, he rapped, and met a hall porter, to whom he presented the card, and told him how he came by it, but supposed it was a mistake. The porter replied: ‘Oh no! his grace expected you a fortnight ago, and desired you should at once be shown in,’ and ushered him in accordingly to the study, where his Grace the Duke of Portland introduced himself to him. He had been appointed Governor of Canada, and O’Beirne’s knowledge of the French language, and his education and general information, were matters that made him a desirable private secretary to deal with the French Canadians, and O’Beirne accepted the proposal of going out private secretary to the Duke of Portland. It was in Canada he apostatised and became a minister of the Established Church. I understood all this from a clergyman. To the Duke of Portland O’Beirne owed his promotion in the Irish Church, first, to the parish of Templemichael, then to the see of Ossory, and finally his translation to the see of Meath, then valued at more than £8,000 per annum. He was married to a Scotch lady, a daughter of General Stuart. He had one son and two daughters. Neither of them married. At the time of his death he was an uncompromising opponent of Catholic emancipation. I believe his brother the priest died before him. I always heard that it was Bishop O’Beirne married the Prince of Wales and Mrs Fitzherbert, and that the marriage took place in France, where the party went to have the ceremony performed.”

Since the previous edition of this book appeared, we received an interesting letter from Sir William Cope, which, with some remarks suggested by it, we have the less hesitation in giving, inasmuch as the *Athenaeum, *in noticing our volume, regretted that we did not furnish more particulars of O’Beirne and some others:-

“I have been looking over your book to-day, and I venture to point out to you that Mr Forde’s account of Bishop O’Beirne must be erroneous in some particulars. He never could have married George IV. to Mrs Fitzherbert, for that marriage was solemnised by a *Catholic *[the same hand has written in the margin reads “Wrong.” KF] clergyman in 1786 or 1787; whereas I see, by the ‘Annual Register,’ that, ‘on 1st November 1783, the Rev. Mr O’Beirne, Secretary to the First Lord of the Treasury, was married to Miss Stuart, only surviving child of the Hon. Colonel Francis Stuart, brother to the Earl of Moray.’ If the First Lord of the’ Treasury was the Duke of Portland, (who came into office in April of that year’,) Mr Forde’s story of his being O’Beirne’s patron is confirmed. But surely the Duke of Portland *never *was Governor-General of Canada, - the Duke of Richmond was, but not till after O’Beirne was a bishop. I remember his two daughters living, some 20 or 30 years ago, a few miles from this. O’Beirne, in 1780, wrote a comedy called ‘The Generous Impostor,’ which was acted only about six times. In a good life of him in the ‘Annual Register’ for 1822, it says that it was with Lord *Howe *he was in America during the American war; and it is there said that the Howes introduced him to the Duke of Port-land. Excuse my remarking this; but your work is so interesting, that anything that adds to its accuracy may be acceptable to you.” [Letter from Sir W. H. Cope, Bart., February 23, 1866.]

For half a century the opinion expressed by Sir William Cope very generally prevailed, that some Roman Catholic priest performed the perilous duty of marrying the Princess of Wales to Mrs Fitzherbert, for, from that lady’s strong religious convictions, it was assumed that no clergyman but one of her own Church would satisfy her scruples. Lord Cloncurry, in his ” Personal Recollections,” [Personal Recollections of Lord Cloncurry. 2d Ed., p 175. We are assured by J. R. Corballis, Esq., Q. C., a near relation of the Abbé Taylor, and who was closely associated with him at Rome that he never knew the Abbé to be suspected of having married the Prince to Mrs Fitzherbert.] thinks that the Abbé Taylor was the party; while the “Memoirs of Lady Blessington,” (ii. p.100,) throws suspicion on the Abbé Campbell, adding that Mrs Fitzherbert’s scruples would never have been allayed without the intervention of a Catholic priest. But Lord Russell, in his ” Memorials of C. J. Fox,” and the Hon. C. Langdale, in his “Memoirs of Mrs Fitzherbert,” materially weaken these rumours by stating that the officiating minister was a clergyman of the Church of England, and that the certificate of the marriage, attested by two witnesses, is dated December 21, 1785. The biographer of Mrs Fitzberbert is, we believe, ignorant of the clergyman’s name, though he announces the interesting fact that the Pope recognised the marriage as a perfectly valid one. Dr O’Beirne is very likely to have been the officiating party. He passed a considerable portion of his early life in America, but in 1784 we find him holding livings in Cumberland and Northumberland [Walker’s Hibernian Magazine, March 1800, p. 145.]’ He was at this time much identified with the Opposition, of which the Prince was an influential member. “Once a priest always a priest” is a well-known Catholic tenet; and Mrs Fitzherbert can hardly fail to have shared an impression which generally prevailed, that Dr O’Beirne had been ordained a priest. This idea would have proved a very effective sedative to her scruples. Lord Brougham declared in the House of Commons that “Dr O’Beirne had been originally a priest, but afterwards becoming a Protestant, he was made a bishop without any further ordination.” [Hansard, p. 443, vol. xiii., New Series.] That Dr O’Beirne had been a priest, is, we believe, untrue; but there can be little doubt that he had attained deacons’ orders when studying for the priesthood in the Irish College at Paris.

Mr Forde, father of an able theologian, the Very Rev. Monsignore Forde, adds in a postscript which we omitted to quote when originally printing his letter:- “You seem not to be aware that a marriage by the parties themselves was a good marriage, and a legal marriage, without the intervention of a clergyman, before the Council of Trent was received in Ireland, and that it has not been yet received in England. I knew Dr O’Beirne; he was in his manner a perfect and accomplished gentleman. He was an admirable writer; I have seen some of his pamphlets. The late Dr Plunket, Bishop of Meath, was Professor in the Irish College when Dr O’Beirne was a student in it; and, as they lived within two miles of each other, the usual courtesies of life were observed between the rival prelates. The Professor outlived the pupil several years.” Bishop O’Beirne died in 1822.

Wm. Beresford, D.D., another prominent member of the inexhaustibly influential sept of the Beresferds, was consecrated Bishop of Dromore in 1780; Bishop of Ossory in 1784, and translated to the archbishopric of Tuam in 1795. He married the sister of Lord Chancellor Clare, and was created Lord Decies in December 1812. This influential prelate died September 6, 1819; and his personality was sworn to as £250,000.
Mr Henry Alexander, both a barrister and a banker, represented Londonderry in the Irish Parliament. Here he was an active member of the secret committee. Having successfully promoted the Union, he entered the British senate as member for Old Sarum. He signally distinguished himself as an advocate for coercion; and on the 8th February 1815, we find him strenuously advocating the suspension of the *Habeas Corpus *Act in Ireland. From the “Castlereagh Papers” (i. 348) we learn that Mr Alexander was a relation of the Irish rebel, Oliver Bond.
To describe the exploits of the members of that body, styled by General Cockburn, “R----n** **Magistrates,” would be to write the history of the whole, and we are spared the painful necessity of detailing, *ad nauseam, *scenes of revolting barbarity. As a specimen of his magisterial colleagues and contemporaries, take Mr Thomas Judkin Fitzgerald, high sheriff for the county of Tipperary. From the trial of Doyle v. Fitzgerald, we learn that the defendant, in the street, and for the purpose of flagellation, seized Doyle, who was a respectable tradesman in Carrick. In vain he declared his innocence; and some of the most respectable inhabitants tendered evidence in support of that declaration. Doyle was a yeoman, and he begged that Captain Jephson, his commanding officer, might be sent for; the request was refused. He offered to go to instant execution if, on inquiry, the shadow of sedition could be advanced against him; but inquiry was declined. Bail was then offered to any amount for his appearance, but Mr Fitzgerald would not be balked in the sport of which he had a foretaste, and declaring that he knew Doyle by his face to be a “Carmelite traitor,” tied him to the whipping-post, where he received 100 lashes until his ribs appeared; his knee-breeches were then removed, and 50 more lashes administered. Doyle’s entire innocence was afterwards proved. He appealed at the Clonmel assizes for redress; the facts appeared to demonstration; but an Orange jury, packed by the sub-sheriff, acquitted the high sheriff, Mr Judkin Fitzgerald.

Mr Wright, a teacher of the French language, employed both by public schools and private families, having called on Mr Fitzgerald, the latter drew his sword, exclaiming, “Down on your knees, rebellious scoundrel, and receive your sentence” - which was to be flogged first and shot finally. Wright surrendered his keys, and expressed himself willing to suffer any punishment if his papers or conduct revealed proof of guilt. “What! you Carmelite rascal,” exclaimed the high sheriff, “do you dare to speak after sentence?” He then struck him and ordered him to prison. The next day, when brought forth to undergo his sentence, Wright knelt down in prayer, with his hat before his face. Mr Fitzgerald snatched the hat from him and trampled on it, seized Wright by the hair, dragged him to the earth, kicked him and cut him across the forehead with his sword, then had him stripped naked, tied up to the ladder, and ordered him 50 lashes. Major Rial came up as the 50 lashes were completed, and asked the cause. Mr Fitzgerald handed him a note written in French, saying, he did not himself understand French, though he understood Irish, but Major Rial would find in that letter what would justify him in flogging the scoundrel to death. Major Rial read the letter. He found it to be a note for the victim, which he thus translated

“I am extremely sorry I cannot wait on you at the hour appointed, being unavoidably obliged to attend Sir Laurence Parsons. -Yours, Baron De Clues.”

Notwithstanding this translation,” observes Mr Plowden, “Mr Fitzgerald ordered Wright 50 more lashes, which were inflicted with such peculiar severity, that the bowels of the bleeding victim could be perceived to be convulsed and working through his wounds! Mr Fitzgerald, finding he could not continue the application of his cat-o’nine-tails on that part without cutting his way into his body, ordered the waistband of his breeches to be cut open, and 50 more lashes to be inflicted. He then left the unfortunate man bleeding and suspended, while he went to the barrack to demand a file of men to come and shoot him; but being refused by the commanding officer, he came back and sought for a rope to hang him, but could get none. He then ordered him to be cut down and sent back to prison, where he was confined in a dark small room, with no other furniture than a wretched pallet of straw, without covering, and there he remained seven days without medical aid!” [Trial of Wright r. Fitzgerald, Plowden’s History of Ireland, vol. ii., p.546, &c.]

Wright brought an action *and - mirabile dictu- *obtained a verdict; but the effect of it was neutralised by the open indemnification of Mr Fitzgerald for certain acts done by him not justifiable in common law. [Barrington’s Personal Sketches, vol. iii., p. 267] He received from the crown a considerable pension for his ultra-loyal services in 1798, and on August 5, 1801, was created a baronet. [Burke’s Peerage and Baronetage, p.399]

Tipperary is full of traditions of his excessive political zeal. One represents him equipped in cocked hat and sword, mounting the altar steps of old Latin chapel during the most solemn part of the mass, and endeavouring to recognise among the congregation some unfortunate man whom he desired to scourge. [Letter of Rev. Dr Fitzgerald, P. P., Ballinagarry, County Tipperary, July 10, 1865.] On another occasion he ascended the altar in Tipperary chapel during the delivery of an exhortation by the parish priest. Mr Fitzgerald for convenience placed his three-cocked hat on the same bench which bore the Blessed Sacrament, and it was thought, at the time, an act of most singular daring on the part of the priest to remove the terrorist’s hat and hand it to an acolyte. [Statement of Rev. W. Wall, P.P., Clonoulty, Cashel, September 1865.] It was said that Mr Fitzgerald used to steep his cat-o’-nine-tails in brine before operating. “I have *preserved *the country,” he boasted. “Rather say that you have *pickled *it,” replied Jerry Keller.

Cox, in his *Magazine, *furnishes a criminatory obituary of Sir Thomas Judkin Fitzgerald, who, execrated by the people, whom he had stung to fury and madness, sank into his grave September 24, 1810. “The history of his life and loyalty;” observes Cox, “is written in legible characters on the backs of his countrymen.” [*Irish Magazine, *October 1810, p.482.] The painful mariner in which the lives of the late baronets of this family terminated, presents some remarkable coincidences. Sir John Judkin Fitzgerald, son of the terrorist, was drowned in the Nimrod in its passage from Bristol to Cork. His son, Sir Thomas Judkin Fitzgerald - reduced to pecuniary straits - opened a blacking manufactory, and committed suicide in the year 1864; and again, his son, a flue boy, hanged himself accidentally while playing with “a swing” in the garden at Golden Hills. [Letter from W. L. Hackett, Esq., M.A. Ex-Mayor, dated “Clonmel, April 163 1805.”]

Major Sirr, who, acting upon the information supplied by Francis Higgins, shot at and captured Lord Edward Fitzgerald, is no stranger to the reader of these pages. For a pithy *resume *of his life he would do well to consult Curran’s speech in the case of Hevey versus Sirr.

“For the purpose of this trial,” said he, “I must carry back your attention to the melancholy period of 1798. It was at that sad crisis that the defendant from an obscure individual started into notice and consequence. It is in the hotbed of public calamity that such portentous and inauspicious products are accelerated without being matured. From being a town-major, a name scarcely legible in the list of public incumbrances, he became at once invested with all the powers of absolute authority. The life and the liberty of every man seemed to have been surrendered to his disposal. With this gentleman’s extraordinary elevation begins the story of the sufferings and ruin of the plaintiff.”

The cessation of the rebellion, and the introduction of a milder system of government, found Henry Charles Sirr’s occupation hone. He became a “picture fancier,” cultivated the fine arts, frequented auctions, accumulated fossils and minerals, sonorously sung psalms, and exhibited the whites of his eyes rather than the blackness of his heart. Fifty years ago he was appointed police magistrate of Dublin, and continued to discharge its duties until his death hi 1841, when “the remains of the assassin of Lord Edward,” [This phrase is not, perhaps, strictly accurate. Mr Robert Travers, A.M., MB., the present professor of medical jurisprudence in the ~niversity of Dublin, addressing the writer of these pages,**- **“An inquest was held in Newgate on the body of Lord E. Fitzgerald, and on the evidence of Surgeon Leake, a verdict returned of death from water in the chest. This fact is not known to many. I have sometimes mentioned it to my class when lecturing on forensic medicine.”] writes Mr Gilbert, “were deposited in Werburgh’s churchyard,” the same mortuary which contains Lord Edward’s bones. “The stone, shaded by a melancholy tree,” he adds, “does not explicitly state that the town-major of ‘98 was buried under it, and appears to have been originally placed over the corpse of his father, who preceded him in that office, and was also distinguished by his bad character, a fact unknown to the biographers of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. A more infamous tool than Henry Charles Sirr was probably never employed; the bare relation of his atrocities would far exceed the wildest fiction which ever emanated from the brain of the most morbid romancist.”

Identified with Major Sirr in most of his plans, perfidies, and perils, all that has been said of Sirr is applicable to Swan, with this exception, that Sirr professed to be a saint, while his deputy Swan, frank, jolly, and outspoken, claimed to be no better than an “honest sinner.” Of Swan’s efficiency as a rebel-hunter, the Sham Squire was a constant eulogist; and in one of his laudations, it is stated that the Government proved their appreciation of “Major Swan’s” services by awarding him the commission of the peace for every county in Ireland.
Major Sandys, perhaps the worst member of that terrible triumvirate of *soi-disant *majors, who daily stung the people to madness and death, filled the office of Governor of the Provost the Bastile of Ireland. Here, cruelties the most revolting were hourly practised under the direction of Major Sandys, who, as the brother-in-law of Mr Cooke, the under-Secretary of State, enjoyed thorough connivance and immunity. Dr Madden asserts that indulgences of air, light, and food were sold to the state prisoners by Major Sandys, and that he remitted tortures at the triangle, on receiving either money, or written orders for goods, plate, or pictures, addressed by the prisoners to friends outside. The rapacity of Major Sandys, especially for plate, proved at last insatiable. Curran’s memorable speech *in re *Hevey states,- “A learned and respected brother barrister had a silver cup; the Major heard that for many years it had borne an inscription of *‘Erin go bragh,’ *which meant ‘Ireland for even’ The Major considered this perseverance in guilt for such a length of years a forfeiture of the delinquent vessel. My poor friend was accordingly robbed of his cup.”

These and even graver charges were made by Curran, not only in the lifetime of Major Sandys, but under the very flash of his eye. “And I state this,” exclaimed Curran, “because I see Major Sandys in court, and because I feel I can prove the fact beyond the possibility of denial. If he does not dare to appear, so called upon as I have called upon him, I prove it by his not daring to appear. If he does venture to come forward, I will prove it by his own oath; or if he ventures to deny a syllable I have stated, I will prove, by irrefragable evidence, that his denial was false and perjured.”

A terrible vicissitude, followed by a still more terrible disease, overtook the once potential Major Sandys. His family begged bread from door to door; and he himself died in extreme destitution and bodily suffering.

John Giffard, an illiterate and illiberal alumnus of the Blue Coat Hospital began political life, like many a better contemporary, as an ardent patriot and “Irish Volunteer.” He also practised as an apothecary, as did Lucas before him; but he soon forsook the pestle for the pen, and acquired the sole editorial control of an influential newspaper, the *Dublin Journal, *which had been started, and for 50 years ably edited, by George Faulkner, the friend of Swift and Chesterfield. Like the Sham Squire, whom lie resembled in more ways than one, Giffard at once prostituted the newspaper to the worst purposes of the venal party, which ruled supreme in Ireland some 80 years ago; and it has been stated that the paper disclosed such violence, virulence, vulgarity, and mendacity, that at the present date its advocacy would be held detrimental to the cause of any party. Yet Giffard was preferred to places of honour and emolument. Besides holding a lucrative office in the Revenue under the Back-Stairs Viceroy, Mr Beresford, Giffard succeeded his brother journalist Higgins as Sub-sheriff of Dublin. We have seen it stated by Mr Gilbert, that Giffard is understood to have received the latter appointment for the express purpose of packing the jury which, in 1794, convicted Hamilton Rowan. Giffard was called “The Dog in Office,” and his paper “The Dog’s Journal.” The artists who caricatured Sheriff Higgins were placed under arrest. [See previous.] The same despotic policy pursued Sheriff Giffard’s tormentors. The following paragraph, dated October 3, 1794, doubtless refers to Giffard:-

“A printer in South King Street was taken into custody by Messrs Shee, &c, charged with printing and publishing a caricature of a dog in his last moments, with his confession and dying words. The picture and types were taken possession of.” [Masonic Magazine for October 1794, p. 383]

Hamilton Rowan and Dr William Drennan were then under trial by Mr Giffard’s juries. The following admission we find in the “Beresford Correspondence: “Government are determined to hang Rowan if possible; but they have not yet shown any suspicion of any person here being concerned in the plot, in order to lull them into security. No person knows as much as I now tell you, except Lord Westmoreland, the Attorney-General, and Sackville Hamilton.” - Beresford *Correspondence, *vol. ii., p. 26.

Giffard sought to stab with his pen and pike with his tongue every friend to national progress. in reply to a charge of treason, Grattan thus retorted: -“It proceeds from a hired traducer of his country, the excommunicated of his fellow-citizens, the regal rebel, the unpunished ruffian, the bigoted agitator. In the city, a firebrand; in the court, a liar; in the streets, a bully; in the field, a coward. And so obnoxious is he to the very party he wishes to espouse, that he is only supportable by doing those dirty acts the less vulgar refuse to execute.” The quondam. apothecary swallowed this box of bitter pills. In 1817 Giffard ceased to edit the *Dublin Journal. *In not less than twenty numbers, the following appeared, among other paragraphs, affecting not merely Mr Giffard’s reputation, but that of the party of which he had long been the champion and the protége:- “Since Mr Giffard ceased, on the 1st of July 1816, to have, directly or indirectly, any concern with this paper, it has rapidly increased in circulation, and we are now satisfied that the public can fairly appreciate the value of an independent print, which wishes to soothe, and not to irritate, the angry passions which have so long agitated the country.” [Dublin Journal, July 2, 1817]

Giffard amassed a large fortune, and built himself a handsome residence, known as Dromartin Castle, Dundrum.

Lieutenant Hepenstall is the person whom Sir Jonah Barrngton, in his “Historic Anecdotes of the Union,” and afterwards in his “Personal Sketches,” (vol. iii., pp. 267-271,) describes as Lieutenant H--- “the Walking Gallows.” This notorious officer, originally an apothecary like Giffard, was a Goliath in stature, and a Nero in feeling. If Hepenstall met a peasant who could not satisfactorily account for himself, he knocked him down with a blow from his fist, which was quite as effectual as a sledge-hammer, and then adjusting a noose round the prisoner’s neck, drew the rope over his own shoulders, and trotted about the victim’s legs dangling in the air, and his tongue protruding, until death at last put an end to the torture. These details, almost incredible at the present day, have been authenticated by several witnesses, and even admitted by Hepenstall himself at the trial of Hyland, when Lord Norbury complimented him as having done no act which was not natural to a zealous, loyal, and efficient officer.

Prefixed to the *Irish Magazine *for 1810, a picture of Hepenstall, in his capacity of executioner, appears. His features, handsome in their conformation and seraphic in their expression, present a puzzle to the students of Lavater’s theory. The print is accompanied by a startling memoir of Hepenstall’s atrocities, which we find corroborated by an article in the *Press *newspaper of January ii, 1798, and copied by Dr Madden. That article speaks of Hepenstall as a person well known by the name of “The Walking Gallows.” In conjunction with higher colleagues, he had continued, long anterior to the outbreak of ‘98, to goad the people into revolt by such brutalities as we have described. Hepenstall did not long live to enjoy the interval of repose which succeeded his unsleeping vigilance in ‘98. In 1800, as we are assured by Cox, he became afflicted with *morbus pedicularis; *his body was literally devoured by vermin, and, after 21 days’ suffering, he died in great agony. Dr Madden says that this event occurred in 1813; Mr Cox gives 1804 as the year; but the Sham Squire enables us to fix the date positively. In his Journal of September 18, 1800, Mr Higgins touchingly records:-

“‘Died on Thursday night, of a dropsical complaint, Lieutenant Edward Hepenstall, of the 68th Regiment, sometime back an officer in the Wicklow militia - a gentle man whose intrepidity and spirit during the Rebellion rendered much general good, and himself highly obnoxious to traitors.” And then follows a tribute to “the *qualities which endeared Mr Hepenstall *to his family and friends.”

Luckily, or unluckily, for Hepenstall’s memory, his fast friend, the Sham Squire, did not write his epitaph, and the lieutenant’s grave in St Andrew’s churchyard is still uninscribed. lt was once suggested by Dr Barrett that the epitaph should be confined to two lines:-

Here lie the bones of Hepenstall,

Judge, jury, gallows, rope, and all.”

Lieutenant Hepenstall’s brother, who survived him for a few years, received a large pension soon after from the Crown. The relict of the latter was married, by Archbishop Agar, to Dr Patrick Duigenan, as we gather from an entry in Donnybrook Parish Register, dated October 19, 1807, and printed in the Rev. B. H. Blacker’s work descriptive of the locality.

“Spectacle Knox,” as General Cockburn styles him, is Alexander Knox, whom Lord Macaulay calls “a remarkable man.” He began his career as assistant private secretary to Lord Castlereagh, in whose correspondence and that of Mr Wilberforce a mass of his letters may be found, to say nothing of several volumes ostensibly devoted to the preservation of his epistles. Mr Knox drew up** **the report of the Secret Committee, and made himself generally useful as a scribe during the reign of terror in Ireland. When the late Sir Robert Peel came to Ireland as Chief Secretary, accompanied by a young and beautiful wife, Mr Knox fell wildly in love with lien He was fully sensible of the madness and folly of his passion, from which he strove to fly, but in vain. In a state of temporary mania, he nearly destroyed himself by an act of bodily mutilation. Our authorities for this story are the late Surgeon Peile of Dublin and Dr Labatt, who professionally attended Mr Knox, and communicated the facts to an eminent physician still living. Knox, who realised in his own person the story of Combabus, survived for many years after, but the vigour of his intellect had sunk, and his eye had lost its former sparkle.
Captain Armstrong. The arrests at Bond’s were followed by the betrayal and execution of John** **and Henry Sheares. To those hapless victims - brothers by blood, and barristers by profession - Captain J. W. Armstrong, of the King’s County Militia, had, with vampire instinct, obtained an introduction through the agency of a mutual friend. Carried away by the ardour of youth and the strong revolutionary current of the time, they unreservedly expressed their projects. Armstrong fanned the flame, helped their plans with hints derived from military reading and experience, wormed himself into their confidence, partook of their hospitality, mingled with their families, and, as has been stated by Mr Curran, fondled on his knee the child of the parent whom he had marked out for death; while, to quote the reminiscence of one of the family, Mrs Sheares sang at the harp for his amusement. Armstrong received promotion, a commission of the peace, and a pension of £500 a year.

Fifty-six years subsequent to this tragedy, we heard with surprise that Armstrong was still alive! The late Maurice R. Leyne, addressing the present writer in 1854, says, “I saw the old scoundrel, Captain Armstrong, travelling by boat from Limerick. He was a passenger, and was attended by a body-guard of two policemen with loaded arms. He was the object of much observation and whisperings while on board; and as he was leaving the packet at I think, Banagher, one of the boatmen, with vengeful malice, addressed him as *‘Mr Sheares,’ *pretending he had mistaken his name. He was known as ‘Sheares Armstrong’ among the people.”

Captain Armstrong’s incorrigible longevity had heartily wearied and disgusted the Treasury. At length, in 1858, he died, after having drawn altogether about £30,000.

Thomas Reynolds has been already noticed.
To William Cope the same remark applies.
Of Justice Godfrey there is little of interest to tell. An instance of his magisterial activity may be found in the *Dublin Magazine *for December 1799, p. 378. And with this remark we conclude our explanatory notes to General Cockburn’s “Step-Ladder.”

It will be observed that Sir George Cockburn, in his list of the government of Ireland during the reign of terror, makes no allusion to the Viceroy whom John Magee, for having styled “the cold-hearted and cruel Camden,” was prosecuted by the Orange Attorney - General Saurin, and heavily punished. The truth is that Lord Camden was a cypher. Watson Taylor acted as private secretary to his Excellency at this period, and he mentioned to Moore, on the 19th October 1838, that “Lord Camden was constantly outvoted in his wish for a more moderate system of government by Clare and Castlereagh.” Watson Taylor, when in Ireland, was more busy writing songs than despatches; and we find that, among other effusions, he threw off the well-known piece, “Croppies, lie down.”

Sham Index Home.