Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805, Part II, Volume 5: 1797–1800 9781848933019

Citation preview

IRELAND IN THE AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1760–1805

CONTENTS OF THE EDITION

Part I: Ireland and the American Revolution volume 1 General Introduction Introduction to Part I 1760–1779 volume 2 1779–1782 volume 3 1783–1789

Part II: Ireland and the French Revolution volume 4 Introduction to Part II 1791–1797 volume 5 1797–1800 volume 6 1798–1805 Index

IRELAND IN THE AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1760–1805

Volume 5 1797–1800 Edited by Harry T. Dickinson

First published 2013 by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © Taylor & Francis 2013 Copyright © Editorial material Harry T. Dickinson 2013 To the best of the Publisher’s knowledge every efort has been made to contact relevant copyright holders and to clear any relevant copyright issues. Any omissions that come to their attention will be remedied in future editions. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. british library cataloguing in publication data Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805. Part II. 1. Ireland – History – 1760–1820 – Sources. 2. Ireland – Politics and government – 1760–1820 – Sources. 3. United States – History – Revolution, 1775–1783 – Infuence – Sources. 4. France – History – Revolution, 1789–1799 – Infuence – Sources. I. Dickinson, H. T. 941.5’07-dc23 ISBN-13: 978-1-84893-301-9 (set) Typeset by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited

CONTENTS

Orange Lodges [of ] the Province of Ulster, held in the Town of Armagh, on Sunday the 21st of May, 1797 (1797) Earl of Moira’s Speech to the British House of Lords, 22 November 1797, in William Cobbett (ed.), Te Parliamentary History of England A Letter to the Earl of Moira, in Defence of the Conduct of His Majesty’s Ministers, and of the Army in Ireland (1797) Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion, for an Address to the Lord Lieutenant, Recommending Conciliatory Measures on Behalf of the People of Ireland (1798) ‘Behaviour of the Armed Forces Prior to the Rebellion’, in Te Diary of Sir John Moore, ed. J. F. Maurice, 2 vols (1904), vol. 1, excerpts An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed in an Address to the People of England ([1798]) Dr John Tomas Troy, R. C. A. D., Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics of the Archdiocess of Dublin (1798) ‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’ [Government Bulletin, May 1798] Castlereagh and the United Irish Prisoners (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, ed. Charles Vane, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (1848), vol. 1, excerpt Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh (1848), vol. 1, excerpts Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Commons in Ireland, as Reported by the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh, August 21, 1798 (1798) Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Lords in Ireland, as Reported by the Honourable John Earl of Clare, Lord High Chancellor, August 30, 1798, 2nd edn (1798) General Humbert to the French Troops and to the Irish Nation (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, (1848), vol. 1, excerpt

1 5 15

31 65 79 111 121

135

141

161

183

199

vi

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

[Waterhouse Crymble Lindsay], A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland (1798) Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh ([c. 1799]) An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq. Te Catholic Advocate; in Reply to the Calumnies Against the Orange Institution (1799) Snowden Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association ([1799]) Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis (1798–1800), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh (1848), vol. 2, excerpts Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies (1800) Editorial Notes

205 211

239 259

275 313 325

ORANGE LODGES [OF] THE PROVINCE OF ULSTER

Orange Lodges [of ] the Province of Ulster, held in the Town of Armagh, on Sunday the 21st of May, 1797 (Mullingar: Printed by Willmia [sic] Kidd, 1797).

Tis single sheet publication printed the resolutions taken by the Orange Lodge of Armagh, expressing support for the king and the constitution and a frm desire to defend the Protestant ascendancy from those who were threatening Ireland with rebellion, anarchy and civil war. It ofers to raise forces to defend the existing political system and urges the propertied elite to remain on their estates and to ofer the Orangemen a lead. Te Orange Order was founded afer the Battle of the Diamond, a skirmish fought in county Armagh on 21 September 1795 between Catholic Defenders and Protestant Peep O’Day Boys. Te latter routed the former. Te organization was sectarian in that only Protestants were allowed to join. Te order was named afer the Protestant hero, William III of Orange, who had defeated the eforts of James II to restore Catholic dominance in Ireland in the early 1690s. Te membership of the order was originally dominated by artisans, labourers, small proprietors and Protestant clergymen, but gradually larger landowners began to give a lead. Te Orange Order soon had lodges across Ulster and these played a signifcant role in resisting the Irish rebellion in 1798.1 Notes 1.

On this subject, see Te Formation of the Orange Order 1796–1798; Te Edited Papers of Colonel William Blacker and Colonel Robert H. Wallace, ed. C. Kirkpatrick (Belfast: Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, 1994); H. Senior, Orangeism in Ireland and Britain 1795–1836 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966); D. W. Miller, ‘Te Armagh Troubles 1785–1795’ in Irish Peasants, Violence and Political Unrest, 1780–1914, ed. S. Clark and J. S. Donnelly (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983), pp. 155–91; Te Peep O’Day Boys and Defenders: Selected Documents on the County Armagh Disturbances 1784–1796, ed. D. W. Miller (Belfast: PRONI, 1990); and J. Smyth, ‘Te Men of No Popery: Te Origins of the Orange Order’, History Ireland, 3 (1995), pp. 48–53.

–1–

Orange Lodges [of ] the Province of Ulster, held in the Town of Armagh, on Sunday the 21st of May, 1797 (Mullingar: Printed by Willmia [sic] Kidd, 1797).

Te following RESOLUTIONS were Unanimously agreed to. Having seen our Association calumniated and stigmatized, our Obligation belied and exaggerated, and ourselves abused and insulted by a nest of Traitors, stiling themselves UNITED IRISHMEN. We have determined in this public manner, to declare the Principals upon which our

GLORIOUS INSTITUTION Is Established. II. WE associate together, to Defend Ourselves and our Properties; – to preserve the Peace of the Country; to support our

KING AND CONSTITUTION, And to maintain the PROTESTANT ASCENDANCY: in short, to uphold the present System and Establishment, at the Risque of our Lives, in opposition to the Schemes of Rebels of every Description. III. OUR Association being entirely composed of PROTESTANTS, has given an opportunity to people, who undeservedly assume the PROTESTANT name, to insinuate to the ROMAN CATHOLICS of Ireland, that we are sworn to extirpate them; this Charge we thus publicly deny: – Our Obligation compels us to support the Laws of the Land, and so long as we remain under the infuence of that Obligation, the Loyal well-behaved Men, let their Religion be what it may, need fear no injury from us. IV. WE earnestly request, that the Gentlemen, at the head of Afairs in this Country, will not sufer themselves to be prejudiced against us by the unfounded Calumnies of unprincipled Traitors, who detest us for no other cause, than our well-known LOYALTY, and who are using every Exertion to increase their –3–

4

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Consequence, and to better their Fortunes, by plunging the Kingdom into all the horrors of REBELLION! ANARCHY! and CIVIL WAR! And we likewise request the Nation at large to believe our most solemn assurance, that there is no body of Men more frmly attached, or more strongly bound to support the Government of the Empire, than the ORANGE-MEN of IRELAND. V. WE further request the Gentlemen to stay in the Country, and we will form ourselves into District Corps under them, Two Guineas (Government allowance) not being sufcient to Cloath a SOLDIER, we invite them to subscribe what they may think proper, many an honest Fellow having nothing to fght for but the PROTESTANT CAUSE. VI. RESOLVED, Tat there our Resolutions be published in the Belfast News Letter, and in the Dublin Journal.

EARL OF MOIRA’S SPEECH TO THE BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS (22 NOVEMBER 1797)

Earl of Moira’s Speech to the British House of Lords (22 November 1797), in William Cobbett (ed.), Te Parliamentary History of England fom the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, vol. 33 (London: Printed by T. C. Hansard; for Longman, Hurse, Rees, Orme & Brown et al., 1818), cols 1058–61.

Te increasingly disturbed state of Ireland alarmed the governments and parliaments of both Ireland and Great Britain, especially as the war with France was going badly and peace negotiations had recently stalled. On 22 November 1797, the Earl of Moira introduced a debate in the Westminster House of Lords on the crisis in Ireland, which he blamed on the harsh measures adopted by the authorities in Ireland and imposed by military force. He claims that his strong criticisms are based on reliable evidence that he has received from Ireland and he fears that the harsh treatment meted out to Irish reformers will provoke them into armed rebellion. In his opinion, a policy of conciliation is urgently required. Moira’s speech irritated many British peers. Lord Grenville, the Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House, maintained that the British government had consistently sought to redress the grievances of the Irish people and he challenged the reliability of the evidence on which Moira had built his case. Te troops in Ireland were dealing with a most dangerous situation and were responding with reasonable force in order to suppress a potential rebellion. Te radicals in Ireland were supporting the French in the present war and were seeking to separate Ireland from Great Britain. Here it is argued that the Irish government and parliament were best ftted to deal with the crisis in that country and the British government and Parliament should not try to dictate how the Irish authorities should respond to the threats facing them. Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings (1754–1826), second Earl of Moira (from 1783) and then frst Marquess of Hastings (from 1816), was born in Moira, county Down, where he was a landowner. He served as a soldier in the War of American Independence, was briefy an Irish MP for Randalstown (1781–3) and –5–

6

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

was later Governor-General of India. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800 and there is a recent biography, Francis Rawdon Hastings, Marquess of Hastings: Soldier, Peer of the Realm, Governor-General of India, by Paul David Nelson (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005).

Earl of Moira’s Speech to the British House of Lords (22 November 1797), in William Cobbett (ed.), The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, vol. 33 (London: Printed by T. C. Hansard; for Longman, Hurse, Rees, Orme & Brown et al., 1818), cols 1058–61.

Debate in the Lords on the State of Ireland.] Nov. 22, 1797. Te Earl of Moira1 said: – It is impossible for me to avoid once more calling your lordships attention to the difculty and danger of the present crisis. Since we met last session, there has been a material alteration in the afairs of this kingdom. Te negotiation with France being broken of, is an event which may be productive of little short of the destruction, not only of this, but of the sister country. I wish your lordships to look forward to what must be the inevitable consequence of a farther continuance of the war with France, and what must be the situation of the country, if we are to proceed upon such a system of expenditure as is necessary to carry on such a war. Let us refect upon the events that have happened since we met last. We have gained a decided victory over one of our enemies.2 But what, my lords, has resulted from it? It has parried a danger. It has removed a mischief that was apprehended. But are we to sit with our arms across and do nothing more? If the object of the enemy be to subvert our constitution, you should, in order to defeat that object, call forth the heart and spirit of the country. If any part has reason to be dissatisfed, we should give it the benefts of the constitution; not in words merely, but in substance and in fact. It is admitted on all hands that the danger is imminent. What ought we to do to enable us to meet it? I have observed with surprise, that a kind of consciousness has been professed of some inattention in calling forth all the vigour and resources of the country. I have seen a statement which I have a right to consider as a correct one, of the probability of a supply being wanted for the service of Ireland. / My lords, in such a contest as we are engaged in, I am astonished that any part of the kingdom should be sufered to hang like a dead weight upon the country. What is the situ–7–

8

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

ation of the trade of Ireland? Desponding, drooping and distressed; her labourers in penury, her manufactures subsisting upon public charity. Look at the condition of the manufactures of Dublin: 27,000 have been kept by the bounty of the public from perishing with want. Look at other parts of Ireland. I myself know that the manufactures of Newry are almost stopt. Whence does this evil arise? While you are boasting of the increase of the British trade, how happens it that Ireland is reduced to a state of beggary? What does it proceed from, but from the internal state of that kingdom? Is not this country, then, bound to inquire into the evil, and to apply a remedy to it? Tat the evil exists, I have the most convincing evidence. What I have to speak of, are not isolated measures, not partial abuses, but what is adopted as the system of government. I will not, on the present occasion, enter into a detail of the heart-burnings which have reduced Ireland to her present calamitous situation. I may discuss them elsewhere. Here it will be sufcient to lament and deplore them. But in lamenting them, I will state that to my conviction these discontents have arisen from too mistaken an application of severities. Putting that consideration, however, out of the question, I will resort to this argument; suppose there have been grounds sufcient for these severities – another question will then arise upon the policy of them. My lords, I have seen in Ireland the most absurd, as well as the most disgusting tyranny that any nation ever groaned under. I have been myself a witness of it in many instances. I have seen it practised and unchecked; and the efects that have resulted from it have been such as I have stated to your lordships. If such a tyranny be persevered in the consequence must inevitably be the deepest and most universal discontent and, even hatred to the English name. I have seen in that country a marked distinction made between the English and Irish. I have seen troops that have been sent full of this prejudice, that every inhabitant in that kingdom is a rebel to the British government. I have seen the most wanton insults practised upon men of all ranks and conditions. I have seen the most / grievous oppression exercised, in consequence of a presumption that the person who was the unfortunate object of such oppression, was in hostility to the government: and yet that has been done in a part of the country as quiet and as free from disturbance as the city of London. He who states these things, should be prepared with proofs. I am prepared with them. Many of the circumstances I know of my own knowledge. Others I have received from such channels as will not permit me to hesitate one moment in giving credit to them. From education and early habits, we used to consider the curfew as a badge of servitude and oppression. Te curfew, my lords, exists at this moment in the North of Ireland; and persons must put out their fres and candles at a particular hour. I have known an instance of a party knocking at the door of a person’s house, and insisting with much abusive language, and many insults upon the candles and fres being immediately put out. I have known the master of the house, intreat, with

Earl of Moira’s Speech to the British House of Lords

9

much earnestness, that he might be permitted to keep a candle alight, for his child was in convulsion fts, and the mother was hanging over the infant to administer the necessary assistance. Te party, however, still accompanying their commands with much insult, insisted that the light should be put out. But this circumstance, I see excites a smile in a noble lord opposite to me; but perhaps unintentionally. – I proceed now to more serious subjects. Tere is not one man, my lords, in Ireland, who is not liable to be taken out of his house, at any hour, either of the day or night, to be kept in a rigorous confnement, restricted from all correspondence with the persons who have the management of his afairs, be treated with mixed severity and insult, and yet never know the crime with which he is charged, nor the source from whence the information against him proceeded. I can furnish many instances, in which such cruelty has been exercised. Your lordships have hitherto detested the inquisition.3 In what did that horrible institution difer from the system pursued in Ireland. By the inquisition, a man was liable to be torn from his family and friends; his afairs might be ruined, himself and his children reduced to beggary, yet no crime might be advanced against him to justify the practice of such severity; and if he required to be confronted with his accuser, that frst principle of all justice was denied / him; and he was lef to groan in prison, under the dreadful uncertainty of the length of his confnement, and of his ultimate fate. It may be said, by those who distinguish between the system pursued in Ireland and the practices of the inquisition, that I have forced a comparison, because the torture has not been used in Ireland. What will your lordships say, when I inform you that the torture has actually been practised in the cases of the persons of whom I have been speaking? Men, indeed, have not been put to the rack in Ireland, because that horrible engine was not at hand. But I do know instances of men being picketed in Ireland till they fainted. When they recovered picketed again till they fainted – recovered again, and again picketed, till they fainted a third time; and this in order to extort from the tortured suferers a confession, either of their own guilt, or of the guilt, of their neighbours. But I can even go farther: men have been half-hanged, and then brought to life, in order, by the fear of having that punishment repeated, to induce them to confess the crimes with which they have been charged. Good God! What must the general feeling be in a nation where such measures are adopted? – My lords, I could go much farther, but I choose to veil some of the most atrocious parts. Tese acts, which I have stated to your lordships, have been done so publicly, that I cannot but consider them as belonging to the system which has been adopted. Tey have been done in open day; and if you do not hear the recitals of them from the newspapers of Ireland, it is because they are not published, from the fear of the publishers being exposed to the vengeance of the government if they did publish them. I know that authenticated relations of the most oppressive conduct have been refused insertion in the Irish newspapers

10

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

on this account. Te printer says, “what punishment hangs over me if I do insert them?” What happened to the printers of the Northern Star?4 A party of troops went in broad day and destroyed the whole property, types and every thing, belonging to that paper. I enter not now into the nature of the articles inserted in that publication; but surely there were laws sufcient for the punishment of the publishers of that paper; for the criminal code of Ireland is more severe than any I have heard of. Te laws, therefore, as I have before said, were sufcient for the / purpose. Your lordships have heard of a proclamation confessedly illegal, requiring the surrender of all arms from a free people. A man reared and educated in an opinion that the constitution allows every man to keep arms for his defence, and that nothing short of an act of parliament can deprive him of that right, might hesitate in bringing in his arms. What is the punishment? It is a contumacy, for which perhaps there might be some punishment, of a moderate nature. Yet what is the regular punishment in Ireland? A party of the military may go and burn his house, and totally destroy his property. I know of instances where this has been practised, because the district in which the property has been situated, has not brought in such a number of arms as it was conceived were contained in the district. Te estimation of the quantity which ought to be surrendered must rest entirely, your lordships will see, upon loose and vague grounds. – Now, my lords, with these facts before you, I appeal to your hearts, what must be the sentiments of a country where such outrages daily happen, and where constant menaces make every man apprehend that he may be the victim of such oppression? Do not you see, that by such a system you place in the hands of the enemy5 an engine the most forcible as well as the most fatal? Can any thing be more formidable than a statement such as I have laid before you? Upon the accuracy of it, it is the dearest wish of my heart to be examined before the privy council, or at the bar of this House. I know that those who doubt the expediency of the measures that have been pursued, think it too late to alter them; and that the security of property stands on no other chance but the success of the system that has been adopted. My opinion is directly the contrary. I think the moment for conciliation is not past. I think that Ireland may yet be saved; but it can only be by an immediate change of measures – by holding forth oblivion of mischiefs on both sides, by an assurance that the law shall be administered strictly, without respect to persons, and with a fair and just intention of protecting every man in the enjoyment of those rights to which, if he be under no legal disability, he should, without making any religious distinctions, be held eligible. I declare solemnly, that if you go on a little longer in the present system, all hope is lost of seeing Ireland connected fve years longer / with the British empire. You say the Irish are insensible of the benefts of the British constitution, and you withhold all those benefts from them. You goad them with harsh and cruel punishments, and a general infiction and insult are thrown upon the kingdom. I have seen, my

Earl of Moira’s Speech to the British House of Lords

11

lords, a conquered country held by military force; but never did I see, in any conquered country, such a tone of insult as has been adopted by Great Britain towards Ireland. It is not my intention to make any motion upon the subject. My object is, to submit it to the consideration of government. I have made a last efort. I acquit my conscience. I have done my duty, and I leave it to his majesty’s ministers to refect upon the facts I have stated to them. Lord Grenville6 said, that he felt it a matter of no small delicacy and difculty, to attempt entering on the question which the noble lord had thought proper to introduce, or the vague grounds and isolated facts upon which it was endeavoured to be supported. Indeed, the noble lord seemed fully aware of his own defciency in that respect. Te noble lord was undecided, as to the manner in which he ought to proceed. Nor should the noble lord’s indecision excite any surprise. Te discussion which he seemed desirous to produce could be attended with no advantage; it was, on the contrary, a discussion pregnant with mighty mischief. He was unable to discern what should alienate the afections of Ireland, or indispose her from uniting in the general co-operation against the enemy. Tat such, however, was her present disposition, was more than insinuated by the noble lord, who accused government of being hostilely inclined towards the sister kingdom, and eager to keep up in it a system of coercion. He might, however, confdently appeal to their lordships, if it had not been the uniform disposition of government to adopt an opposite line of conduct. For the whole space of thirty years his majesty’s government had been distinguished by the same uniform tenderness of regard by the same undeviating adherence to the mild principles of a conciliatory system. Indeed the whole of that period is throughout endeared by unceasing acts on the part of his majesty, of love favour, liberality, and kindness. Among these various instances of concession and conciliation exhibited by this country towards Ireland, he might advert to the / establishing of its parliament into an independent legislature, and a wide extension of its commercial privileges. He was not therefore disposed to go to the extent of saying, that we had any pretensions for watching over the safety of Ireland by our legislature. Tis was the duty of its own parliament; and what idea must that parliament, whose independence we have sanctioned, conceive of our proceedings, should we entertain a discussion like the present? He would therefore contend that the agitation of the question would be an undue interference in a matter solely belonging to the internal government of Ireland. He would now proceed to the general statement of the cruelties which the noble lord asserted had marked this system of coercion which he so bitterly inveighed against, and which, he insinuated was principally promoted and acted on by the British military. But it was no difcult matter to vindicate the British military from any imputation of the kind; for humanity and good nature were the characteristics of the English disposition. Tat there might be individual exceptions

12

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

but if such excesses had been perpetrated were there no courts of justice. Indeed, if a system so rigorous and cruel had been pursued, it must naturally be resented by a spirited and independent people. But what was the object for which these troops were sent over? Were they not sent over to counteract the machinations of a set of men who were plotting the destruction of the country, and favouring the designs of our inveterate enemy? If against such men they have at times been incited to acts of harshness and severity; if they had been occasionally warmed into a sense of indignation that broke out into insults and outrages, could it excite surprise? What more natural than that a large body of men should feel indignant against the abettors of a conspiracy to deliver up the country to the French invader? And that such a conspiracy existed had been proved beyond the possibility of a doubt. Had it not been proved in courts of justices that money had been distributed to hire assassins to murder those who were inimical to their traitorous plans, and to intimidate all witnesses from coming forward to give evidence against them, and to deter juries from giving in a conscientious verdict? Did they not hang the same terrors over the heads of the judges and magistrates, to scare them from the performance of their sacred duty? Was this a system which / could be viewed with the cool composure of civil prudence? Impossible. And if it instigated some individuals to acts of outrage and of cruelty, those crimes and cruelties were imputable to the men by whose unprincipled conduct they were provoked. Keen, notwithstanding must be the regret which such unwarrantable revenge must excite in every humane breast. And here he would heartily join in the tribute of praise paid by the noble lord to the present viceroy of Ireland.7 He held him dear as his friend; but it was not the partiality of friendship that prompted the praise he was ready to bestow on him. No public man, placed in so trying a situation, had ever displayed more exemplary moderation in the discharge of a painful duty; no public man had ever more zealously exerted himself for the beneft and happiness of the people over whom he had been sent to rule; but if his benevolent exertions were defeated by those whom he would willingly protect, if rigorous measures were necessarily pursued, no blame could surely be imputed to him; the circumstances of the country required it, and if any partial abuses did exist, we had only to lament them. He could not, therefore see what utility could be derived from the removal of a person, whose conduct in every respect was highly commendable. Nor ought it to be forgotten that it was not the English military who solely acted on these lamentable occasions. Were not many of the nobility and gentry of Ireland actively employed in the same service: and must they not naturally feel infnite regret at being driven to measures of violence? What motive could be supposed to actuate their conduct, but the general safety? But this was an object which could never be compassed by the system recommended by the noble lord. On the contrary, it would only tend to vilify the government, and bring all its measures into contempt and disgrace. Te

Earl of Moira’s Speech to the British House of Lords

13

contrary system must therefore be persevered in: and to the spirited exertions of the English military, should we owe the preservation of Irish laws, of Irish property, and of Irish lives. And what again, was the object of the conspiracy which their endeavours were exerted to bafe and to crush? Was it not a separation of Ireland from the British empire? – And as to the liberty of the press, to what horrid abuses had it not been converted? He held in his hand a printed paper, the contents of which were too shocking to be / read: it would sufce to say that its avowed object was, to point out innocent men to the poignards of assassins. It contained a list of the names of those who, at a future period, were to be murdered. It loaded his majesty with the most opprobrious epithets, and reviled the English nation with every term of contumely. It held it out to be the duty of every Irishman to wrest from the hand of English rufans the property which those English rufans had wrested from their ancestors. Tis was no obscure or ambiguous language; it pretty clearly developed their favourite project of separating Great Britain and Ireland – an object suggested by France, and of which France was desirous to promote the accomplishment. Such was the situation to which open conspiracy of profigate men had reduced the sister kingdom. And how could this situation be meliorated, or the danger that threatened that country be repelled, but by a system of severe and vigorous laws? Nor can those laws be enforced without entrusting great powers in the hands of those on whom we imposed the performance of this arduous duty under severe responsibility. Te question, therefore, was, would their lordships interpose on the present occasion, and tell the parliament of Ireland and the Irish magistracy, that we were more careful of the interests and happiness of the Irish people than they were, and that the English military were not to obey the Irish laws, but the arbitrary instructions of the British parliament.

A LETTER TO THE EARL OF MOIRA, IN DEFENCE OF THE CONDUCT OF HIS MAJESTY’S MINISTERS, AND OF THE ARMY IN IRELAND

A Letter to the Earl of Moira, in Defence of the Conduct of His Majesty’s Ministers, and of the Army in Ireland (London: Printed for John Stockdale, 1797).

Te previous text reproduced the Earl of Moira’s speech to the British House of Lords criticizing the policy and conduct of the Irish government, Parliament and armed forces towards Irish radicals. Tis speech had aroused opposition in Parliament and, as here, in print. Te author of this pamphlet launches a ferce attack on Moira’s claims and attempts to vindicate the actions of the king’s ministers and the armed forces. He paints a very diferent picture of the current situation in Ireland in general and in Ulster in particular. He insists that the widespread disorder in Ulster approaches open insurrection and has been promoted by the United Irishmen, who had attacked many magistrates and men of property while under the infuence of dangerous French principles. It is argued that in such a dangerous situation the Irish authorities had responded reasonably and rationally in adopting coercive measures. Tey were fully justifed in seeking to disarm potential insurgents. According to the author, in recent years the British government had made every efort to redress the grievances of the Irish people, but this policy of conciliation had only served to encourage Irish radicals to demand more extreme reforms. Faced with a dangerous conspiracy, the Irish legislature had wisely passed a series of measures to restore law and order. Te constitutional guardians of Irish liberty were wise to act in such a way to save the Irish constitution from destruction. Conciliation had been attempted, but to no avail and hence there had been no alternative but the employment of reasonable military force. Te author argues that General Lake and his troops had used necessary force to achieve their aims. Te conduct of these troops and of Lord Lieutenant Camden deserved to be praised, not condemned. Te anonymous author of this pamphlet, who had adopted the pseudonym ‘Civis’, was, in fact, Sir George Dallas (1758–1833). An Englishman, who later served as MP for the Isle of Wight in the Westminster House of Commons from – 15 –

16

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

1800 to 1812, he was married to an Irish woman and had recently made several visits to Ireland. He had previously written an attack on the French Revolution in Toughts upon Our Present Situation (London, 1793) and had written in defence of Warren Hastings. In 1798 he used the same pseudonym in contributing several essays on Ireland to the infuential loyalist periodical, the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine.

A Letter to the Earl of Moira, in Defence of the Conduct of His Majesty’s Ministers, and of the Army in Ireland (London: Printed for John Stockdale, 1797).

audi alteram partem.1

[…] / A

LETTER, &c. My Lord, Your Lordship has been pleased to give to the public a melancholy picture of the state of afairs in Ireland; and your station in the country must impart to it a degree of weight, to which otherwise it is little entitled. It is therefore for the double purpose of showing to your Lordship that you have been the dupe of others, as well as of preventing you from innocently duping the people of England, that I shall presume to ofer a few observations upon the very erroneous account you have just delivered, of the state of afairs in that quarter. / My Lord, it is not for me to arraign the motives which have infuenced your Lordship, to give to the public so fallacious a description of the real situation of the north of Ireland. How far it is prudent or wise, at this eventful moment, to encourage the enemy to a second attempt2 upon Ireland, by such exaggerated representations as are calculated to inspirit his hopes, and to depress those of your countrymen, is in your Lordship’s breast to determine: but at least, it is for me to show how grossly your Lordship has been deceived; how unjustly the government of Ireland has been aspersed; and to endeavour, by the sober statement of a few facts, which cannot be refuted, to destroy the baneful efect which your Lordship’s declamatory and ill-judged speech is calculated to produce upon the public mind. – 17 –

18

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

For this purpose, my Lord, it is necessary to advert to the situation of Ireland a short time back. Your Lordship charges the present state of that country to be the consequence of the measures now pursuing by Government, for retaining it in a state of peace and subordination. It is fair, therefore, to inquire, what was its condition before the great and opulent county / of Down, and other districts in the province of Ulster, were proclaimed, to which the present discontents are ascribed. At that period, the measures of which your Lordship has so loudly complained, had not taken place. Te complaints which you represent to arise out of them could have no existence; and therefore we may fairly recur to that era, as a test by which we may examine the question at issue between Government and their opponents. Does your Lordship not know, that before the meeting of the Irish Parliament in November, 1796, an alarming conspiracy was generally conceived to exist, which has since been detected; and that many baronies throughout the North were in a state of the greatest insubordination and tumult? Is not your Lordship aware, that this conspiracy had for its object the reduction of rents, the division of property, the abolition of tithes, the absolute destruction of Government, and a general massacre of the principal gentry throughout the provinces? Was not the constitution then nearly put down, and the laws in general silenced, by a system of terror gradually extending itself over the country, and threatening in its progress both a dissolution of government / and society? Can any impartial spectator, then in the country, deny this? At that period your Lordship was in England; you are therefore entitled to call for proofs. Perhaps, if you had been upon the spot, the scandal of the scene would have impressed upon your Lordship’s mind, the necessity of being a little more cautious in relying so implicitly upon your channels of intelligence. You would then have seen a country rich in population, soil, and industry, in the wantonness, of prosperity conspiring against its own happiness, and driven to the verge of insurrection through the diabolical machinations of demagogues and traitors. Yes, my Lord, I aver, that at that period hardly a magistrate dared to do his duty. Scarcely a juryman would venture to discharge his trust, so universally were they under the infuence of terror, from the lawless conduct of that desperate body of men denominated United Irishmen. At the spring assizes at Carrickfergus, both the sherif and the jury were universally said to have received letters, threatening them with death if one United Irishman was convicted. Many gentlemen constantly carried pocket pistols about them, as a security against assassination. / Mr. Finley,3 a magistrate of considerable property and respectability, near Trim,4 had already been fred at, and was dangerously wounded, by an unseen hand, while walking near his own grounds. In open day, in the town of Lisburn, near Belfast, in the month of September, 1796, the Rev. Mr. Johnson,5 an active and able magistrate, was shot in the streets as he was mounting his horse, for daring to be superior to fear in the discharge of his duty. In the month of

A Letter to the Earl of Moira

19

November of the same year, another magistrate, the Rev. Mr. Cleland,6 was shot at, in New Town Ards, on the same account; and magistrates the most eminent, were obliged to have soldiers living in their houses, to protect them from the sanguinary vengeance of these deluded and ferocious people. Was not Lord Londonderry,7 and is he not to this moment, compelled to have a military guard at his house? Were not witnesses against any of these individuals either cut of by assassination, compelled to emigrate, or necessitated to live under military protection? Were not these murders frequent? Does not your Lordship know that at that very period (in November, 1796), the King’s stores in Belfast were robbed, and a quantity of gunpowder / carried of by force? Was not the country stricken with universal consternation, in consequence of these atrocious scenes? And was there not, at the same time, a general expectation of a foreign invasion? Yes, my Lord, such was the state of the north of Ireland when Parliament met in the month of November, 1796. What then ensued? Te intended invasion was announced from the throne; and the country was called upon to put itself into a state of adequate resistance to the enemy. Yeomanry corps were then ordered to be raised, for the purpose of maintaining peace through each barony, and of enabling Government, in the event of necessity, to concentrate as much as possible the regular military force of the kingdom. In this situation, I ask your Lordship, if the conspirators in the North did not employ every base art to prevent as much as possible the formation of these useful corps? At one moment they misrepresented to the people the oath of allegiance to be taken by individuals entering into these corps; at another the most open threats were practised; and in some instances, the most daring and cruel violence was employed / with successful efect, to terrify those into resigning, who had already inlisted therein. Does your Lordship require any proof of this? Read it in the tragical fate of the gallant but unfortunate Mr. Cummins.8 In one night (in the year 1796), a body of United Irishmen, with blackened faces, forcibly disarmed several yeomen belonging to Lord Londonderry’s corps, by entering into their houses in the dead of the night, and seizing upon their arms and accoutrements; and because this brave gentleman who was one of their ofcers, nobly refused to surrender up his arms, they inhumanly butchered him with the most savage barbarity. Did not the lamented Mr. Hamilton9 meet with a similar fate? Shortly afer they appeared in arms, in open day, in the vicinity of Cumber, to rescue two men then carrying to Downpatrick jail. Near Belfast a considerable number of them, in the course of a night, dug a trench of great labour across the exercising ground belonging to the yeoman cavalry of that place, and covered it over so artfully, that it was only discovered on the ensuing day by the ofcer at the head of the line falling into it, with his horse. Is not this a fact notoriously known? Did they not, about the / same time, begin forcibly to disarm all the inhabitants of the country who were not united with them, by nocturnal visits? Did not families

20

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

fy into Belfast for safety, dreading to sleep in the country? Did not others quit Ireland altogether? Did not a regular battalion of United Irishmen, in the spring of this year, march to Mr. Kennedy’s,10 at Kentraw, near Belfast, and carry away thirteen stand of arms forcibly from the family, with as much systematic regularity as if they had been invested with lawful authority so to do? And is it not within your Lordship’s knowledge, that before the county of Down was proclaimed, several gentlemen’s estates immediately in your Lordship’s vicinity were despoiled of their best timber, for the purposes of manufacturing pikes for the insurgents? In this situation what was the government of Ireland to do? they had seen the laws openly violated; they had witnessed the blood of the magistrate to fow; they had beheld illegal associations administering unlawful oaths throughout the country, for the purpose of overthrowing the constitution; they had seen the authority of the state despised, in the disarming / of its soldiery; they had the warning of revolutionary preparations, in the war-whoop of sedition sounded throughout the country, in the forging of arms, and the carrying of of the King’s military stores. Te press at Belfast was in a state of open hostility to its existence; the insurgents every day became more daring, and the loyal part of the country grew clamorous for protection against the dangers which encompassed them. Nothing, therefore, was lef to Government, but the interposition of military force to check acts of rebellion which defed and suspended the civil power; to renew the existence of the constitution, by rescuing the laws from that state of imbecility into which the lawless violence of a banditti had plunged them. It was only then, when every measure of lenity and forbearance had failed, and the conspirators were on the eve of concerted and general insurrection, that the province of Ulster was proclaimed, and the inhabitants were called upon to deliver up their arms in trust for themselves, and to be restored hereafer, to prevent the United Irishmen from getting them into their possession. Tis, my Lord, I aver to have been the state of the north of Ireland at / the moment when that salutary measure was adopted, and to it alone is to be ascribed the quietude it has since enjoyed. Outrage has greatly ceased; confdence is returned; the laws are re-assuming their sway; and persons and property have derived a security from it, to which for a considerable time before they were entirely strangers. Such have been the benefcial results of that wise and necessary measure. On the whole, therefore, it must appear, that antecedently to the county of Down, and other parts, being put out of the King’s peace, and consequently prior to the adoption of those coercive measures which your Lordship so warmly arraigns as the cause of the present disorders, many parts of the country were in a state utterly lawless; and that a system of terror, founded in blood and massacre, had suspended the operation of the civil power, and spread general apprehension every where. – Hence it became necessary to counteract one system of terror against the laws, by meeting it with another in their support; and the military

A Letter to the Earl of Moira

21

strength of Ireland was in consequence increased, to protect it from the twofold danger, / of foreign invasion, and internal treason. But the diference between the two systems is this – that the one had for its object to subvert the government; and the other, to protect both the laws and the people. Tis, my Lord, is the general state of the question between the government of Ireland and the disafected part of the people, corrupted by French principles. But I would further ask your Lordship, whether, in your own immediate neighbourhood, the most criminal excesses were not committed, before it was put into a state of proclamation, both at Sainfeld, Ballynahinch, and Killeleah? Was not the tree of liberty actually planted in the latter town, so early as in the autumn of 1796? Was not the castle at Hillsborough11 broke open, and all the arms carried of ? And has not your Lordship heard, since you were last in Ireland, that a meeting of delegates from the diferent societies of United Irishmen was held near your Lordship’s estate in the North, about the middle of June last, for the express purpose of considering whether they should then rise, or defer their plan to a future period? Was it not proposed at that meeting to cut of the / troops in detail; and to commence the insurrection with massacre? Is not this known to General Lake?12 and was not the question carried by a trifing majority, for remaining quiet? What are the presumptive proofs of this? Te fight of some of the conspirators, and the apprehending of others. Did not eight of them make their escape from the port of Bangor, upon fnding the plot discovered? And were there not several of their intended ofcers in confnement in the artillery barracks in Belfast, in August last? When, in addition to those facts, we advert to the trial of Jackson,13 and to the conviction of others, proved to be in league against the constitution, as well as to the mass of information contained in the Report of the Secret Committee of the last session, it must irrefragably appear, that his Majesty’s Ministers in Ireland would have abandoned their duty, and betrayed the dearest interests of the state, if they had tamely sufered a system of disafection gradually to extend itself over the country, until ripe for action, in preference to crushing the evil in its infancy, by measures of energy suited to the magnitude of the occasion. / My Lord, I have said, and I think established, that many parts of Ireland were in a state of the greatest disorder, and a strong spirit of discontent reigning among the people, before the present system was resorted to, a few months since, of employing the military to protect the laws. It may therefore be asked – What then occasioned that spirit among the people in 1796, independently of those religious animosities in particular parts, which are not chargeable to the administration of the country? Did it arise from any act, on the part of the government, tending to provoke the people? Or was it the consequence of any attempt to mislead them by incendiary publications; or to stimulate them to rebellion by secret conspiracies against the state? – It could

22

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

not be the consequence of oppression on the part of the government, because the conduct of Government, for a series of years, has been marked by a laudable endeavour, in various ways, to meliorate the condition of the people. – What are the proofs? Tey are these:– Te people of Ireland desired to have the duration of their Parliament limited – it was done.14 A cry was raised for / the repeal of Poyning’s Law, and the independency of the Legislature – the law was abrogated,15 and their imperial sovereignty recognised! Tey called for a restriction of the Pension List – it was granted. Tey claimed a Free Trade Bill – it was passed. Tey desired a Responsibility Bill – it was admitted. Tey wished for the independence of their Judges – it followed. Te Roman Catholics prayed for a restoration of their Elective Franchise – their prayer was heard.16 What then do these desperate societies now claim? What but the subversion of that constitution from whence so many blessings have been entailed upon themselves? Yes, my Lord, under the fimsy veil of a reform in Parliament (an abstract question, little suited either to the times, or to the understanding of the lower orders of society), they are endeavouring to pull down the fabric of their government, for the purpose of substituting in its stead that hideous system of anarchy and plunder, which, in desolating France, has annihilated the trade, the industry, and the morals of her inhabitants. Tis is the proved and acknowledged object of there incendiaries. It cannot have escaped your Lordship’s notice, that for some years past they / have been actively employed in the pursuit of this wicked scheme. Is it not notorious that they have leagued to deliver the kingdom to a Foreign Invader? – Can this be to reform the Parliament? Tey have formed themselves into regular battalions, nominated their ofcers, supplied themselves with arms, provided gunpowder and artillery, manufactured pikes, sworn each other to secrecy, in defance of the law, organized their convention on the French model, collected money, and maintained a traitorous intercourse with the enemy. Can all this have only in view to reform the Parliament? Common sense rejects the supposition; and was not this traitorous plan conceived before any part of the country was proclaimed to be in a state of disturbance? Tis, then, has been the state of Ireland for some years back. What was the language of Mr. Toone,17 the parent founder of these societies? Does he not, in his letter, contained in the Report of the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Lords,18 unmask the object of their views at once, by roundly stating, that it is impossible to suppose the Parliament of Ireland can ever be brought to / regenerate itself – that such a reform as they might concede, would little answer public expectation – that both parties in Parliament are playing their own game, and the opposition too much connected with the aristocracy, to be really the friends of the people? And he further proceeds to say, that to reform Parliament by such means is, as if “a plaister were to be applied to the fnger, for a mortifcation

A Letter to the Earl of Moira

23

in the bowels.”19 Here then is the language of this high-priest of sedition; and such are the tenets his followers have adopted. In this growing and dangerous conspiracy against the state, the legislature had recourse to such restrictive laws as went in their principle to grapple with the mischief, and in their operation to protect the real liberties of the people. For this purpose, the laws know by the name of the Convention,20 Gunpowder,21 and Insurrection22 Bills were passed, all fettering, in some degree, the views of these revolutionary bodies, but leaving the honest citizen no reasonable ground to imagine that any infringement was intended on his rights. I am well aware that it is these laws that / many ascribe a portion of the discontents which prevail in Ireland. – Te government has been charged with a design, in these, of infringing upon the liberties of the subject; and the spirit of party has not been wanting to give them this construction. But, is it hard that individuals should be restricted from conspiring to overthrow their country? Is it hard that they should be restrained from administering oaths of secrecy to each other for political purposes which avoid the light? Such is the object of these laws, which have only been enacted to save the kingdom from the miseries of anarchy. In such a state of things, when a mine was preparing to destroy the laws, the liberties, and the religion of the people – when the press, cooperating with the views of traitors, was teeming with the most daring and infammatory libels against the laws, the justice, and authority of the state – when even the mild spirit of our constitution was converted into a weapon against itself, from the privilege it imparts to licentiousness, and the impunity which too ofen it ensures to guilt – was it not a time for the constitutional guardians of Irish liberty to save the constitution from the destruction with which it was threatened, by fortifying it with / new securities against the unexampled dangers which assailed it? To say that these laws are repugnant to the nature of our constitution, is only to misunderstand its genuine spirit. Te principle of the constitution is to communicate and ensure, to every man, as great a portion of civil liberty as is compatible with the nature of his condition, and to bind him, in return, to a due submission to its authority. It necessarily follows, where measures are avowedly pursued which equally endanger the right of the subject, and the authority of the state, that every law is consonant to the principle of the constitution, with strictly goes to maintain both the one and the other inviolate. Such laws must ever be considered as sanctioned by justice. If they have any thing in them beyond the ordinary mildness of our constitution, it is because the occasion called them into action, against the desperate designs of those who were meditating its subversion. It is not sufcient to say, that these laws were unknown to our ancestors; and that they are therefore at variance with the principles of our constitution. – Te answer is obvious: Tese times, and the crimes growing out of them, were equally unknown to our forefathers. Teir / laws were suitable to the period

24

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

in which they lived, and grew out of their situation. So must it be with ours. No system of laws can be invariable. In proportion as new crimes engender new dangers, they induce the necessity of fresh laws, to counteract their infuence upon the manners, opinions, and morals of society. To say, therefore, that our ancestors were strangers to such laws, is not to prove that they are oppressive; it only goes to establish that they lived at a period when the loyalty and good sense of the people rendered them unnecessary. – Let those who complain against these laws, show by their conduct that there is no occasion for them, and they will be done away. But while every day produces some new outrage against the rights of individuals, and some fresh attack upon the authority of Government, they will continue to appear, what they really are, a security to the public and a safeguard to the constitution. It is for the repeal of these laws, and the substitution of opposite measures, that your Lordship contends. It is for the introduction of such a system of conciliation as would go, in its efect, to show to the country that Government / felt it had either abused, or overstrained its authority. Where are the proofs that a spirit of returning duty would be the happy result of such a policy? Would your Lordship impress upon the public mind, that the government of Ireland has blindly coerced the people, without endeavouring, by measures of lenity, to supersede the necessity of so doing? When his Majesty’s Ministers came into possession of those materials from whence the proofs of this great conspiracy to overthrow the constitution, and deliver the country into the hands of the enemy, were deduced, what was their frst act? To issue a mild proclamation, endeavouring to recall the deluded within the pale of the laws, by ofering a full pardon to all such as had taken the illegal oath administered by these societies, provided they came in within a limited period, acknowledged their error, entered into a recognizance, and took the oath of allegiance to his Majesty. Here then was lenity. What was its efect? Your Lordship states (though I do not vouch for the accuracy of this statement), that (from the best information you have been able to collect) these societies of / United Irishmen have tripled their numbers since frst the Report was published which exposed their traitorous designs. At that period they rated themselves in numbers to the extent of near one hundred thousand men. If an ofer of pardon has the operation of increasing the number of the disafected in the alarming proportion your Lordship states, what would be the general consequence of an universal system of concession, founded in the principle of admitting the measures of Government to have been either erroneous or oppressive? Your Lordship’s own statement, therefore, proves the necessity of the case for which we contend, and vindicates the conduct of Government, by showing that those discontents have their origin in causes which they cannot control, since the spirit of disafection has thus increased, notwithstanding the earliest eforts on their part to subdue it, by the adoption of such lenient measures as your Lordship recommends.

A Letter to the Earl of Moira

25

Tus, my Lord, I have endeavoured to demonstrate – First – Tat many parts in the north of Ireland / in the year 1796 were in a situation of extreme disorder, from the lawless conduct of these desperate incendiaries. Secondly – Tat the conduct of Government for a series of years towards the people of Ireland has been such as could not in its natural result have produced these commotions; but that they grew out of a traitorous system of disafection, which had for its object to subvert, by sanguinary violence, the ancient laws and constitutions of the realm. Tirdly – Tat the spirit of discontent which prevailed at that period had arisen to such an alarming height as to break out into acts of open rebellion against the constituted authorities of the state; and induced the necessity for those restrictive laws which, enacted subsequently to the existence of such discontents, could not have been the occasion of them; and which laws were neither in their principle nor operation, at variance with the spirit of our constitution. And lastly – Tat it was only when the civil power became too weak to protect the / subject, and when the lenity of Government had only the efect of rendering the conspirators more bold, that his Majesty’s Ministers, in the discharge of an imperious duty, had recourse, in the year 1797, to military authority, to protect those laws which at diferent periods, and in various instances, had been so daringly violated both before and during the year 1796. If this statement of facts be correct, and it is for your Lordship and the world at large to disprove it, it amounts to a complete vindication of the conduct of the government of Ireland, inasmuch as that it clearly establishes that the present discontents which prevail in that country do not arise from any oppression on the part of this Majesty’s Ministers, but have principally their origin in the factious views of some individuals, and the traitorous designs of others. Having vindicated his Majesty’s Ministers, I shall now proceed to ofer a short justifcation in behalf of the British and Irish troops stationed there, who have been represented to the public as acting in a manner derogatory to the high reputation they have ever borne. / Tey have been charged with unnecessary severity in the exercise of their duty. No man better knows than your Lordship, that such conduct is repugnant to the character, to the spirit, and to the well-known feelings of the British soldier.23 Tat some irregularities, to which even the best state of discipline is liable, may have been committed, is not improbable; and these may in some degree have been the result of previous provocation, and grown out of the nature of the service; where, from the necessity of employing severity in some cases, the tempers of men may have been warmed into excess on both sides. One of the facts most relied upon is, the burning of houses. Has this happened but in cases which plead their own apology? in cases when, rather than deliver up concealed arms, individuals have sufered the thatched roof of their

26

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

houses to be destroyed? But I would ask your Lordship, whether on such occasions the soldiers themselves have not previously assisted in removing the furniture out of them? and whether you have not heard of a variety of instances of individuals ofering to swear they had surrendered up their arms, when upon / searching their houses, and pulling down the roof, pikes and other warlike weapons have been found concealed in the walls, and other places? and, whether you have not understood, that in general such searches were only made upon positive information being lodged of arms being there concealed? If this should not have come within your Lordship’s knowledge, at least you will fnd it to have occurred in your own county, in various places, and particularly in the barony of Ards. Can your Lordship state an instance of any house having been destroyed, which the hard necessity of the case did not justify, from the party dwelling therein having provoked his own fate; either from being active in those nightly depredations on peaceable inhabitants, which no law or police could guard against, or refusing to surrender up arms concealed for the notorious purpose of turning them against his country? In the discharge of such a duty, perhaps, individual soldiers may have exceeded their authority; and the particular case must be lamented, under the general necessity of having recourse to a measure, which the disloyal / obstinacy of the disafected alone rendered necessary. But when we are dwelling upon these severities (which I mean not in each individual instance to vindicate, and should be the frst to deplore), let us not turn from the provocations the soldiers have received, and the atrocities they were called upon to restrain. Have they not seen their comrades maimed? Has your Lordship never heard that General Lake was necessitated to threaten to burn the town of New Town Ards, if a soldier was killed, from the centries [sic] being fred at in the night? Have they not been engaged in open day? Have they not seen the active emissaries of these united societies travelling every where throughout the country, to seduce them from their colours, to swear them into their societies, to bind them to the French, and to make them rebels to their King? Had not this been attended with melancholy success, in instances well known to your Lordship? And could then the great body of the army, as gallant in their spirit as they are pure and untainted in their loyalty, see cruelty and treason conspiring against the brave defenders of the liberties of / all, without feeling a virtuous indignation against those parricides, who, in striving to destroy their country, were seeking to render them the accomplices of their guilt, and the partners of their shame? – No! my Lord, that gallant army, the pride and prop of their country, were not to become the blood-stained associates of so base a cause; and in the indignation which they felt at these wicked endeavours to alienate them from their allegiance, and debauch them from their standards, their resentment may, perhaps, in some instances, have been measured by the sentiment of their wrongs.

A Letter to the Earl of Moira

27

But what are these instances of harshness, which we have yet to learn, when compared with the cruelties committed by the United Irishmen, with which we are all acquainted? One man, it is asserted, has fainted on the picket, and recovered (I mean not to justify the act); but where are the victims of these sanguinary revolutionists? In the cold grave! – Seek not then, my Lord, to turn the indignation of the public from them to the British soldiery, employed in the defence and protection of the country, and foremost in the post of danger; / but rather point it at those barbarous men, who, trampling upon all laws, and violating all justice, have carried death and woe into the mansions of their victims! Let the cries of the orphan and the widow reach that breast in which so much munifcence and humanity are known to dwell. Teir wrongs, my Lord, are a subject as worthy of your eloquence, as they have been found deserving of the sympathy and remuneration of their country. Instead, therefore, of arraigning particular instances of misconduct among the soldiers, dwell on the enormities which have excited their indignation, and, possibly, provoked their intemperance. Collect before them the children of a Hamilton, and a Cummins, sheltered under their bayonets from the merciless fury of the assassins of their fathers; and then, in this powerful appeal to the best feelings of their nature, pardon the soldier if he has sometimes erred in the limits of his duty. If your Lordship must speak to the passions, here are facts for your guide; and the tears of the fatherless for your subject! In the instances of these acts of oppression and cruelty, what measure of justice was ever / dealt out to the suferers by the United Irishmen? But in the case of the soldiers, where is the individual who can say that the tribunals were shut upon his complaints; or that his wrongs have been unredressed upon appealing to the laws of his country? My Lord, it is as much the interest, as it is the duty of Government, to protect the subject: and to show to your Lordship, that while it will frmly maintain its own authority on the one hand, it will not, on the other, protect its agents in the abuse of that authority, I have only to recall your Lordship’s recollection (for I wish to convince by facts) to a recent instance at the last assizes at Dundalk, when a Captain of an Irish regiment quartered there, was sentenced by Baron Yelverton24 to a heavy fne, and three months imprisonment, for an act of injustice to an individual who had appealed to the laws for redress; holding out, in this instance of impartial justice, the bright example to the people, of the diference between anarchy, strong enough to injure, yet too weak to redress, and the blessings of a mild and regular government like ours, possessing strength sufcient to restrain / injustice, without the power or the will to perpetrate it. It is by examples like these, that the people are taught to feel their best security to consist in obeying the laws; and their surest protection to be found in uniting to maintain them. Tus, my Lord, when the nature of the service, the state of the country, and the feelings of the army, are considered, I believe it will appear that their con-

28

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

duct in general has been regular and correct; and that the individual instances of severity which may have occurred, are either too few in their number to be noticed, or too trifing in their nature to be made the subject of public accusation. To such instances I am persuaded your Lordship would turn with the deepest regret; and on those of a contrary nature, I feel you would dwell with the pleasure which arises in the breast of a soldier, when rescuing his profession from unmerited stain. At Belfast (where certainly the military were unwelcome visitors) the uniform good conduct of the Scotch battalions is the theme of general praise with the inhabitants. Te / mild and conciliating manners and conduct of General Lake, in the discharge of his painful duty have equalled the testimony of their respect. At Carrickfergus, you will fnd the British troops vying with this example, and their peaceable deportment approved by the inhabitants. Again, to the northward, at Colerain you may hear the conduct of the Somersetshire Fencibles the subject of their praise. Traverse the country from thence to Ballycastle, and you may learn, that when the British troops quartered there, in July last, were relieved by another detachment sent from Carrickfergus, many of the town’s-people rose at the early hour of four o’clock in the morning, to give them three cheers on their departure, as a testimony of their approbation of the good conduct and discipline they had maintained in the town, while quartered near a year among them. I quote these few instances to your Lordship, as liable to have fallen within the range of your own observation; and possibly, if your inquiries had extended further, the same results, in other parts of the country, might have established the most honourable testimonies / in favour of the general good conduct and character of the army at large. Tus stands the case between the government of Ireland, the army, and that portion of the people who have enrolled themselves in these traitorous societies. Tat they are numerous, I admit; that they are daring, their conduct shows; but that they can succeed, no man who knows that army, or is acquainted with the unshaken loyalty of the more numerous body of the people, will allow. Let not the disafected, nor our enemies, therefore be elated, by the mistaken picture which your Lordship has been prompted to lay before their view. Far be it from me to impute to your Lordship a sentiment adverse to the glory and happiness of your country. But, my Lord, without disputing the purity of your intentions, sufer me to consider the policy of giving such statements to the public of our internal situation, at this important crisis, as may, by cherishing this spirit of disafection, animate / the enemy, and excite despondency among ourselves. My Lord, when they come from you, they no longer are treated as the feeting calumnies of the day; they become grave and substantial charges, when the place, the matter, and the rank of the individual are considered, who thus accuses his Majesty’s ministers with oppression.

A Letter to the Earl of Moira

29

To the public, which has received your Lordship’s statement, I submit these observations; which, though obscure and anonymous, your Lordship will perceive, proceed from a quarter not entirely destitute of the means of refuting it. And now, my Lord, that I have endeavoured to show (and I hope not unsuccessfully) that the conduct of his Majesty’s ministers, as well as of the army in Ireland, has been such as to merit the approbation of their country, instead of those censures which your Lordship bestows, I should feel my engagement to the public incomplete, if I neglected on this occasion doing justice to the conduct and to the services of / his Majesty’s chief governor in that quarter, the Earl Camden.25 Few men have better deserved of their country in the course of the awful struggle in which we are engaged; or have devoted themselves more zealously to the duties of an anxious and severe responsibility. However various may be the opinions of men on the measures of Government, the sentiment of public respect universally attaches to him, when either his private virtues, or his public conduct in the discharge of his ofcial duty, are the subjects of their consideration. Placed in a situation most arduous, and called to it at a moment most critical to the interests, and perhaps to the fate of both kingdoms, it is to the prudence, the moderation, and the uniformly able conduct of that nobleman, that the people of Ireland are indebted for being rescued from the horrors of a civil war, to which the violence of party, and the frenzy of disafection, were mutually driving them with alarming speed. I admit, with your Lordship, it is easy to recall him; – the difculty would be, to replace him. I have the honour to be, My Lord, &c. &c. CIVIS.

REPORT OF THE DEBATE ON LORD MOIRA’S MOTION

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion, for an Address to the Lord Lieutenant, Recommending Conciliatory Measures on Behalf of the People of Ireland (Dublin: Printed by J. Stockdale, 1798).

By early 1798 the Irish authorities were convinced that an insurrection was being planned, the country was very seriously disturbed and that harsh measures were needed to prevent the breakdown of all law and order. Lord Moira was convinced that the authorities were adopting the wrong strategy to deal with the crisis. On 19 February 1798 he moved in the Irish House of Lords for an address to Lord Lieutenant Camden urging the adoption of conciliatory measures to take the heat out of the present alarming crisis. Having failed to infuence the British government with his appeal for a change of policy made in the Westminster House of Lords, reproduced on pp. 7–13 above, he hoped to have greater success in his appeal to his fellow Irish peers. He believed that conciliation was the only policy that could prevent an imminent rebellion. Te harsh treatment being meted out by government forces was not suppressing but encouraging the threat of armed insurrection by the United Irishmen and their allies. He relates in detail the kind of abuses that were increasing the support for rebellion and were also encouraging the French to consider intervening in Irish afairs. If the government’s policies were not reversed the French would be the gainers and even British freedom would be imperilled. Despite all his eforts, Lord Moira failed to secure much support for his motion. Several pro-government peers, especially John FitzGibbon, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, made powerful speeches refuting Lord Moira’s detailed evidence and rejecting his general arguments. In their view he was underestimating the threat of rebellion and maligning the necessary actions taken by the government’s forces. Tese peers concluded that frm, even harsh, measures were the only way to avoid a bloody rebellion. At the end of the debate, only ten Irish peers supported Lord Moira’s motion and it was heavily defeated.

– 31 –

32

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

For more information on Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings (1754–1826), second Earl of Moira (from 1783) and then frst Marquess of Hastings (from 1816), see pp. 5–6.

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion, for an Address to the Lord Lieutenant, Recommending Conciliatory Measures on Behalf of the People of Ireland (Dublin: Printed by J. Stockdale, 1798).

In tali tempore tanta vis hominum, Magis leniunda quam exagitanda videbatur1

[…] /

REPORT of the

DEBATE on

LORD MOIRA’S MOTION; Monday, february 19 [1798]. At an early hour the House was crowded in every part; the Chancellor2 could with the greatest difculty procure accommodations for the Peers and ladies of distinction. At fve o’clock Lord MOIRA3 rose. My Lords, apology for ofering myself to the attention of your Lordships, would be afectation. In the unhappy state of this country, there is a call upon every man to stand forward, if he thinks that his counsel can be proftable to the country. One may feel the magnitude of the interest that is to be discussed; and, measuring with it the humble rate of his own talents, one may lament the inadequacy of his powers; but one must remain secure, that any efort for the – 33 –

34

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

general welfare cannot be unbecoming. Tis sentiment alone was sufcient to have called me forth. Indeed it would have been a dereliction of duty, which I could not have reconciled to my mind, not to have availed myself of the right of my seat in this house, in order to / make one trial whether it be not practicable to incline government to a timely refection on our circumstances. Tere was, however, a more personal call upon me, arising from the language of the newspapers supposed to be in the pay of government, respecting the statement which I had made in England relative to the afairs of this country. I do not allude to the scurrilities which have been vomited forth against me. I may lament to see any government lowered to such a degree, as to look for support from those vile expedients; but I must, as far as regards myself, be indiferent to attacks of that nature. On abuse of that sort, I refer myself to the opinion of some writer who likens slander to the mephitic vapors in the Grotto del Cane,4 which will smother any animal that grovels, but cannot reach a man who walks upright. What I mean to indicate is the confdent denial of the existence of the oppressions asserted by me. Te astonishing indiscretion of such a denial could not but bind me to repeat the statement in this place, where it shall be substantiated either by remaining uncontradicted, or (if questioned) by the investigation of a committee. I am aware of the extreme sensibility of the public mind, and I shall, therefore, be most cautiously attentive not to say or state any thing that can add to the irritation of the country. Unless I am forced into particulars, by the charges being denied in gross, I shall forbear a detail which would not only be disgusting, but would counteract the salutary object at which my hope points. I wish to speak the words of peace, and I would fain avoid mingling with them any thing that could defeat their infuence. It is notwithstanding, incumbent on me to maintain that representation of facts, on which the necessity for a change of measures must rest. I had stated, in the British Parliament, that very many individuals had been torn from their families, and locked up for months in the closest confnement, without hearing by whom they were accused, with what crime they were / charged, or to what means they might recur to prove their innocence. I stated that great numbers of houses had been burned, with the whole property of the wretched owners, upon the loosest supposition of even petty transgressions; and I stated that torture, by which I meant piquetting5 and half-hanging, had been used in more instances than one, in order to extort from the suferer a charge against his neighbours. It might have been believed that I could not have ventured to present such a picture to the public, without having had the facts ascertained by evidence that appeared perfectly sure. At the same time no man can assert that he has not been imposed upon by testimonies, howsoever apparently strong, to matters which he could not himself have witnessed. My frst care, therefore, on arriving here, was to renew my enquiry into the truth of the circumstances which I had advanced. It would have given me no common

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

35

degree of pleasure, could the result of that enquiry have enabled me to come to this House, and profess that I had been deceived. Alas! I am justifed in repeating my assertions, with still greater confdence and wider extent: and you must know that I stopped short, when I restricted my representation to outrages of the quality which I specifed. I therefore now re-assert those oppressions which I asserted in the British Parliament. If I am contradicted, I shall produce the afdavits of the facts, and shall move for the examination of the deponents at your Bar. Unless I shall be so urged, every motive combines to make me suppress the particulars. Respecting the arbitrary imprisonments, indeed, there is nothing lef for me to prove, since the Court of King’s Bench has, by its decision on the illegality of several of those cases, established the charges sufciently[.] Whilst I am treating of these infictions, I cannot pass over a misrepresentation which most pointedly afects my feelings. I hope it has arisen from the inaccurate report in some of the English papers, and in a pamphlet compiled / from them, of my speech. I am stated as having imputed these severities to the wanton excesses of the army in Ireland. Nothing could have been farther from my contemplation, than such a charge; and from no man could it come more ungraciously. Such an imputation from me, ought to have been painful indeed to the troops; inasmuch as a wound from the hand of a friend, is the most galling of all wounds – But upon the very face of the thing, the error of the Printer ought to have been suspected by every one. Te pride, which from my earliest youth I have taken in the name of a soldier, the warm attachment which I have invariably shown to my comrades, of every rank, and the applause which I have been foremost to give to those, who without permanent views in the profession, have generously stood forth to defend their country in this serious contest – all made the supposition of my attacking the military, improbable beyond the common measure of unlikelihood. Te charge must have been made by me in such general terms, as would have involved every corps, and every individual ofcer in Ireland: A step that must in its very nature have been so obviously and so absurdly unjust, as to leave it impossible that a man of ordinary sense could be guilty of it. Nay, my nearest connections in this country, and those the most bound to me by the ties of personal friendship, must have been comprehended in the accusation. My Lords, what I did say was this: Tat the oppressive measures arraigned by me, were not imputable to the troops; for that I did not speak of casual irregularities, but of a system whose uniformity evinced that it was enjoyed by government. And here let me remark the cruel situation in which the troops are placed – I cannot conceive a position more hazardous, and more distressing for the ofcer, than that in which he is placed in this country. A civil magistrate has the boundary of his exertions defned to him by law, so that he knows where he is justifable in / declining to act. An ofcer is sent into a district, in which he is told civil order is overthrown, and he is required to keep it in subjection by such means as the occasion may demand.

36

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Te extent of the actual force which he can employ, is the sole limit to his powers. Prepossessed with the notion which has been instilled into him of the seditious disposition of the inhabitants, he marks his suspicions of them by his demeanor – his appearance naturally awakens their apprehensions, and they shrink from him; their timidity seems the efect of conscious guilt, and is instantly construed by the ofcer into a disposition towards insurrection, or into a proof of conspiracy. In this state of mind he is practised upon by the malignity of informers; who, according to your system of not confronting them with the accused, can safely wreak their private revenge against their neighbours, by secret charges. Te ofcer is wrought upon by his sensibility to military reputation, by his feelings of professional duty, by his loyalty to his Sovereign, and by his zeal for his Country: and, through the false light in which surrounding objects have been exhibited to him, as well as from the undefned nature of the exertions required from him, the worthiest sentiments of his heart unavoidably lead him into infractions of the law, the necessity for which it is impossible he should measure. Is it upon men standing in such a situation, that I would have cast a harsh refection? Even had not this consideration remained, that by laying the imputation on the troops, I defeated my own argument, and exonerated the British Cabinet, which I was then professedly charging with all the evils in Ireland, as consequences of the perverse principles of government, adopted by that Cabinet for this country. But to come to my object. Tere is not one among you, my Lords, that can deceive himself as to the state of this kingdon: therefore none of you can regard our present circumstances, without the deepest / anxiety. How long is the dreadful fever to rage which now aficts it? You must, at some moment or other, look forward to conciliation – why delay it? Can it at any moment be more expedient? can its necessity ever more imperiously press upon you than it does just now? Te time is not yet lost for regaining the afections of your countrymen: But you will not regain them by reproach and threats; and infictions; and every day’s delay, which gives the discontent of the lower classes more time to rankle, adds to the difculty of accommodation. Procrastination repels no danger from you; but it gives to the designing and disafected the opportunity of debauching the minds of a disgusted and exasperated peasantry. If you look to the welfare of the British empire, heal your domestic dissensions. In an hour of unprecedented difculties, England requires the utmost energy that this country could supply to the common cause; instead of which, you leave this kingdom a continued source of alarm and embarrassment to Great Britain. Had she the cordial co-operation of this country, instead of dreading an attack within her own precincts, she might carry terror into the domain of her formidable and insolent enemy. Why is it that France has refused to make peace with England, when every exterior circumstance made such a peace the interest of France? It is that she has thought the British empire vulnerable somewhere; and what mind can doubt that the

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

37

point is here. Why did France, when she had accomplished more than her fondest hopes at the outset of the war had ever imagined, dismiss your negociator, and continue wilfully to sufer those evils of contest to which she might have put an advantageous termination? Because that in the civil dissensions of this country she saw a mischief which palsied the arm of British strength, and relieves her from the fears which she would otherwise have entertained in the continuance of hostilities. Her hopes, I trust fallacious ones, regarded Britain as a / diminished power, crippled through internal disunion, and reduced to an humble and ruinous self-defence. If the cause of the empire, the cause of our common interest and common glory cannot excite you; look perspectively at home, and ask yourselves what must happen. You will not imagine that you can continue in your present state. Your condition must fall into conciliation, or into settled despotism: catastrophes equally revolting to any liberal mind. If the animosity of your fellow-subjects, becomes fxed and irremediable, you must be protected by the force of England; and that force, from the hostility that would surround it, would be constrained to hold this country in a state of thraldom. Let me ask you how you could bear the refection of having entailed chains upon your country; chains of which you would feel the intolerable weight yourselves, and still wear the shame? Could you bear to creep about at your country-seats, examining the eye of every tenant you met, to see whether you could discover in the reproachful disdain, with which he regarded the authors of the national degradation, or to detect in his loathing look the conspiracy which he was placing against his oppressors? Would you not imagine that you heard the plaintive genius of Ireland applying to her Parliament the beautiful apostrophe of the Psalms – “Had it been an open enemy that had done me this dishonour, then I could have borne it; or had it been mine adversary that had magnifed himself against me, peradventure I would have hidden myself from him: But it was even thou my companion, my guide, mine own familiar friend.”6 And your debasement would not be more ruinous to you than it would be to England. Tis country cannot be reduced to a state of servitude, without the changes efecting equally the destruction of freedom in Great Britain. Need I ask whether you, men of elevated minds and generous education, would feel your personal security cheaply purchased by an uneasy consciousness of degradation? / And what a security! Recollect what Cicero7 says on the head of resorting to the protection of troops alone. – “Nonne igitur millies perire est melius quam suâ in civitate; sine armatorum præsidio non posse vivere, sed istuc crede mihi, non est præsidium. Carritate enim & benevolentia civium septum esse oportet non armis.”8 But you will say, we will look to conciliation in a ftter moment. When can you have a ftter moment? No, my Lords, if you sufer the estrangement that is spreading through this country to become the settled habit of the people, never will the future attempt at conciliation succeed. But if it could succeed, why hazard all the evils that may occur in the interval?

38

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Refect upon the impression which French force, combined with internal disaffection here, may make in this country; whilst, were it not for that disafection, you might laugh to scorn every menace of a foreign foe. Were Ireland cordially united within, I should think it indiferent whether a single ship were employed to guard against an invasion. Could France uninterruptedly land on our coasts, the most powerful army which she had means to transport; in a fortnight not a man of them would exist, unless in the character of a Prisoner. Yet this proud confdence, you think it politic to forgo; and you goad into hostility those who would secure to you such a triumph. I know it is said that conciliatory measures would not now be efectual: but by whom is it said? by those who in that assertion attempt to justify the impolitic rigor which has been exerted through their counsel. Do not admit that belief without further trial. Your countrymen never were insensible to kindness; they are alive to acts of friendship, and know how to estimate a beneft. To the heat of party, and in the agitatedstate of the public mind, I fear that great misapprehensions, as well as considerable faults, have taken place on both sides. Having stood clear of the current of measures on either side, I may possibly see matters with a less prejudiced / eye than most of those who have been implicated in the contention; and it is thence that I have derived the confdence of giving my opinion on the subject. Government says that plots have existed, that conspiracies have been discovered, that atrocities have been committed in the country; granted. And have you laws to repress those enemies? If your statutes are not sufciently forcible for the purpose, why do you not apply to Parliament for provisions better calculated to suppress the mischief ? If there are delinquencies, there must be delinquents. Prove their guilt and punish them; but do not on a loose charge of partial transgression impose an infiction on the whole community. Te state of society is dreadful indeed when the safety of every man is at the mercy of a secret informer; when the cupidity, the malevolence, or the erroneous suspicions of an individual, are sufcient to destroy his neighbour. I have had proof how lightly the charge of treasonable practices has been fxed upon a district. My own vicinage9 in the country was repre[sent]ed as deeply disafected; incorrigibly tainted with Republican notions. Whilst I resided there, it was scarcely possible that such dispositions could exist; without my perceiving some indications of them, or obtaining some hint of them from the attachment of particular persons. Nothing to countenance the suspicion, ever came within my observation, or reached my ears. At last I found out the person upon whose testimony government had settled its opinion of an extensive and populous tract of country – it was one Morgan,10 a man of the very lowest class, and of a character so notoriously profigate and villainous, that I am sure no neighbouring magistrate would have credited his oath in any case where he could get sixpence by the deposition. At this time some parishes at no great distance had sufered

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

39

outrages from some rioters. To prevent the evil from reaching us, and at the same opportunity to ascertain the sentiments of the people, I proposed to / my neighbours a declaration expressive of our resolution to support the Laws, to maintain the Constitution, and to defend the Crown of our Sovereign,11 with the stake of our lives and fortunes. Tat nothing might be done by trick, I sent copies of this declaration to the several congregations, ten days before I was to propose it at a general meeting. When the inhabitants were convened, the resolutions were adopted with unanimous concurrence. It may be said that such a profession of sentiment was superfcial, and might cover the most seditious intentions. I, however, rested my opinion upon appearances not easily mistaken by any attentive observer, and which, when they are in unison with professions, aford the strongest degree of human conviction. Tere is a simplicity about sincerity, which never accompanies hypocrisy or guilt, and, if I ever read ingenuousness on the countenances of men, I read it on that occasion. I stated to the meeting the evils that are inseparable from a Democratic Republic; explaining on the other hand the advantages of a limited Monarchy, which is in fact the truest Commonwealth. A marked and general assent accompanied the representation. I expatiated on the virtues and benevolence of the Sovereign that now flls the Trone – and who from that Trone holds forth so inestimable an example for the conduct of his people. Tere was not a voice or a look that did not bear testimony to the justice of the picture, or that did not join in the tribute of grateful praise. I spoke to them of the generous magnanimity of him12 who is the future hope of these realms, and of the afection with which he returned the attachment manifested to him by this country, upon a melancholy occasion. Tere was not an eye that did not beam with the honest pride of uniting by heart-felt devotion the favourable opinion of such a Prince! Yet the signatures of more than seven hundred of those men to the public engagement of supporting at every hazard the / Trone of our beloved Monarch, and the Laws of this country, could not weigh against the charge of a secret slanderer. Te truth is, that government, to carry the point of defeating a Parliamentary Reform, has done incalculable mischief by throwing an indiscriminate imputation of treasonable purposes on all who had associated under the name of United Irishmen. Undoubtedly there is in any association so organized a danger to the public tranquillity, which I am persuaded scarcely any of those who originally engaged in it foresaw. Government however, by designating as traitors all the members of that association, bound itself in consistency to exert against them a violence and a severity which it could not reconcile to public opinion; by the adduction of adequate evidence. And although I am convinced the views of an infnite majority in that association, did not at frst go beyond a Constitutional Reform in the Representation of the People, there is no saying now what efect

40

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

may have been produced on the minds of many, by the charges of criminality so arbitrarily afxed upon them. I have happened to see something of the management by which these charges were to be supported. Since my arrival here, I have perused the spontaneous confessions of a Mr. Newell, and a Mr. Bird.13 Te latter has also gone under the names of Smith, Johnston, &c. Your Lordships know that the testimony of those persons was the principal support of the accusations against the North of Ireland. I verily believe that those men have made the declarations to which I allude, through conscientious disgust at the practices into which they were seduced. Teir statement struck me with very painful sensations; and I shuddered at the thought of the mischiefs which government might have unecessarily [sic] entailed, and possibly may yet entail – If you seize the moment, you will probably still prevent the evil. / Tese are not times for crimination and recrimination: Te veil must be drawn over the past on both sides, and both parties must come forward with a generous disposition to bury the remembrance of irritating violences, if a real reconciliation be sought. Te manly confdence and good-nature of Ireland must be revived; and the years of contention and calamity must be consigned to oblivion. You know that the temper of your countrymen is capable of this. Never did I meet with a peasantry so sensible to kindness, or so readily guided by any frank procedure, as the lower classes in this country; make your appeal to their hearts, as long as you make it to their fears, you cannot have a chance for success; and recollect that in trying the tone of conciliation, you are not called upon to relax a single precaution. Te maintenance of your military arrangements, and the employment of the troops to support the execution of the laws, is perfectly consistent with the proposition which I shall submit to you. It is this:– “Tat an humble Address be presented to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant,14 representing that as Parliament hath confded to his Excellency extraordinary powers for supporting the laws and for defeating any traiterous combination which may exist in this kingdom, this House feels it at the same time, a duty to recommend the adoption of such conciliatory measures as may allay the apprehensions and extinguish the discontents unhappily prevalent in this country.” Were I to cease here, I am sure I should be censured for not saying something on the two great points which have agitated the public mind, and which must thence have a direct relation with this motion. Your Lordships will suppose I mean the concession of those immunities which are still withheld from the Catholics, and Parliamentary Reform. On the frst of those questions, my mind has been long decided. I never could understand the justice of subjecting to disqualifcations a majority of the community / on account of their religious opinions; nor could I see the policy

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

41

of refusing to give to such a body a common interest with their countrymen. Relaxations have taken place with regard to the Catholics; but they have stopped short: and why they have done so will not be satisfactorily made out to impartial refection. I can comprehend the reasoning, howsoever opposite it be to my own opinion, of those who say that nothing ought ever to have been conceded to the Catholics; but I cannot construe into sense the argument which maintains that afer having raised them into strength, you ought to keep them discontented. Tat which remains towards putting them on the same footing with their fellow subjects, cannot be injurious for you to grant: yet to with-hold it is not only an invidious distinction for them, but a source of inconvenience which they have very heavily felt. I, therefore think, that what remains to be granted, ought to be granted; and I give the opinion with the more confdence, afer the zeal and ardor which the Catholics of the South had the opportunity of manifesting in the common cause, when a French feet was anchored in one of your ports.15 I will speak as distinctly on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. In what has been printed and circulated as my speech in the British House of Lords, which teems with misrepresentations and distortions; I am made to treat the project of Parliamentary Reform with unqualifed condemnation. Once for all, I must request that that publication may not be received as a report of what I actually did say. Te sentiment which I expressed was this – “Tat I was not a friend to Parliamentary Reform; not because that I foresaw from it any of those ruinous consequences, on the certainty of which declaimers had rested their opposition; but because I thought it would not answer the expectation of those who brought it forward – and a change of such magnitude might be attended with embarrassments which no forecast could anticipate or measure.” / Te statement was not applied to this country, for I read it only incidentally, to prove that I might be considered as impartial, when I spoke of those who supported it in this kingdom. Even with respect to England, I have held it a measure perfectly consonant to the constitution; and I difer solely on the ground of practical expedience, from those who recommend it. When I exercise my judgment on such a subject, I admit equal latitude, and allow equal weight to the judgment of others. Terefore, were the sentiment in favor of the experiment widely adopted in England, I should think that my opinion ought to give way upon this; as much as upon any other point of speculative convenience: of course, I hold it illiberal, at least, to throw upon the maintainers of the sentiment, an imputation, of purposes, hostile to the constitution. When I refer to the question of Parliamentary Reform here, I see these very considerations substantiated, to which I have said my opinion would elsewhere bow. Te House of Commons here, representing the people, has recorded a resolution, as to the necessity of a Reform in the representation. I believe that the inhabitants (I speak of a great and undeniable majority) are anxiously and

42

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

immoveably bent on the object. I should, therefore, say it is impossible for me to argue against it. I own that the probability of reaping the expected beneft, has never been made out so clearly to my conception, as to make me think the plan desireable, even for this kingdom; that, however, is my own humble doubt, which I could not state without great difdence, in opposition to the general persuasion. But when the concession of Parliamentary Reform, is regarded as the means of tranquilizing the minds of the people, and I frmly believe it would have the efect, all hesitation ceases. Te greatest inconvenience that my imagination ever devised, as likely to arise from Parliamentary Reform, sinks to nothing, when compared with the magnitude / of the mischief which is raging at present; and I say distinctly, that if the fatal ferment in this country can be allayed by such a measure, Parliamentary Reform ought immediately to be conceded to the people. In the motion which I have read to you, nothing specifc is expressed; because it would not be ftting that the House should pledge itself without direct deliberation to any particular measures. Te profession, however, of a conciliatory desire on your part, would immediately suspend the agitation of the public mind, and give you time to mature in security, all that is necessary to re-establish general satisfaction. I repeat, that the step must be safe; as no relaxation of vigilance, or military precaution, is required. I am convinced the trial would be salutary: and I am sure it is requisite, In that persuasion, I submit the motion to the wisdom of the House. Te motion was then read. LORD GLENTWORTH16 – Te motion which has just been made seems to me to be of such a nature as seems calculated to dishearten and dismay the loyal, and to animate and invigorate the disloyal. I trust the noble Earl will not suppose that I mean to give him any personal ofence – I have the highest respect for his professional and private character; but I conceive it to be my bounden duty to canvass every public measure with freedom. Tis subject is not a novel one; it has been treated of elsewhere, and feeling as an Irishman, I am bold to say that its frst introduction into the Parliament of another Country, was not to give it an harsher name, “an attack on the independence of the Irish Parliament.” – In the desperate plunges of British Party, I observe that it is a constant practice to introduce Ireland; this practice prevails particularly in the English House of Commons. Te afairs of Ireland are introduced by a leading Member of that House into every debate. What was the language of that Gentleman17 in 1782, when Mr. Eden (now Lord Auckland)18 / brought forward his motion for the Repeal of the 6th of George the 1st? Tat leader, now so seemingly interested for Ireland, rose in his place, and expressed his surprise that any gentleman, standing, in Mr. Eden’s situation, would bring forward a motion which was calculated to lay Great Britain at the feet of Ireland. If I am not deceived by the Papers

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

43

which I have read, the Noble Earl ofered to verify the facts he stated in another place upon oath; such facts, I take for granted, came under his Lordship’s knowledge; they could not have been built on the information of agitating Physicians, of factious tradesmen, of the emissaries to treason, or of traitors; they must have been founded on much better grounds; and why did not his Lordship then communicate to the Lord Lieutenant the facts within his knowledge? I have not heard that he ever did so – I repeat I have not heard that he ever did so. I have read, possibly it was erroneously set forth, that the introduction of this subject before the Parliament of another country, had been attempted to be justifed by the pressure of the time, and greatness of the danger; the Parliament of Ireland not being then sitting, and a necessity existing of calling for immediate remedy. To justify this practice upon precedent the motion for the removal of the Duke of Lauderdale19 from the Lord Lieutenancy of Scotland, had been adduced: Te Duke of Lauderdale was a member of the British Cabinet – the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not so; the cases were dissimilar. In this reference to the Parliament of another country, was it not indirectly said to the turbulent and disafected people in Ireland – your Parliament is too corrupt, or too insuffcient, to redress the grievances which you sufer, or to entertain the discussion of them. What has been accomplished in the last ffeen years by the parliament of Ireland? has it not given to the country constitution and consequence in that short period? why then should such unwarrantable supplications be held forth? / Te Nobel Earl in his statement seemed to mistake the efect for the cause – the measures of which he complained were the consequences and not the cause of dissatisfaction; Government was certainly to blame, but it was for not having resisted to those measures sooner. Te noble Lord has expressed a wish to draw a viel [sic] over passed trangressions on both sides; but draw aside that veil, and exhibit the truth, and shew that the present war, which is held up as the source of grievance, was not originally pursued as the cause of discontent; for it neither afected our manufactures, agriculture, nor commerce, which had prospered beyond example. Te real distractions arose from the machinations of those serpents cherished within the bosom of the country, who saw and sickened at our prosperity and happiness; who like the devil sought to blast the tranquility they could not enjoy, by the talismanick words, Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform; merely as the paroles of treason and rebellion. Teir true object is subversive to the laws, to property, and all the established orders of society; to change places with their superiors. For this purpose they formed a regular system, and entered into a league with the Directory of France,20 with whom they maintain a regular correspondence by envoys and ambassadors sinnce [sic] the year 1795 to the present moment; the plundering his Majesty’s loyal subjects of their arms; the murder of Magistrates who dared to support the laws; of Witnesses who dared to give evidence against Conspirators, and of threats

44

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of terrorism held to Jurors to deter them from fnding verdicts of conviction against the most fagitious ofenders makes a part of their system. Te late attempt of the French to invade this country, was invited by this society: a rising was concerted which was to take place in May, 1797, in which a general massacre of all who were inimical to their purposes, was to take place; which was happily prevented by the vigilance of government in seizing arms. With / respect to the burnings mentioned by the noble Earl, I do not justify them, at the same that I think the examples were not unnecessary. I positively assure the noble Lord, that government never gave orders for military outrage, or lenity or partiality to any class of men who disturbed the public peace, but to do justice with an even hand, and repress disorder whenever it appeared. I am no friend to outrage – Te doings of the Orange-men21 have been spoken of – I do not justify what they did, but I say that there was material diference between them and that damnable society of traitors.22 Te former acted, as they thought, for the good and protection of the government; the other to overturn the constitution. To talk of conciliation then with rebels, determined on the subversion of the government and the constitution, degrade the dignity and authority of Parliament, at a moment too, when those very men have envoys at Paris, surrounded by traitors of every description, from the demagogue Napper Tandy23 to Tomas Paine.24 Tere were resident agents at Lisle during the late negociation with Lord Malmesbury,25 who saw the French Directory ofener than the embassy did. It cannot be contradicted, I know it is true that there in Lisle Irishmen, dissuading the French Directory from peace, and advising to demand as a preliminary the total independence or rather separation from Great Britain of Ireland; a measure which they knew would not be granted, and promising them the aid of Ireland to separate and subdue the British empire. Trough those agents and their corresponnets [sic], were they even regularly informed of the military force of this country, and every local circumstance favourable to the project of invasion. In aid of this project, an infamous newspaper was published, called Te Press,26 fraught with the most palpable falsehood and sedition, and which, encouraged by impunity, had recently thrown of the mask, and fully avowed the purposes of invasion as their security, from the “Great / Nation:”27 and advising the people to be prepared. Papers have been mentioned as in the pay of administration – I know of no such paper; but let me state, that though I do dispise all oppressive measures, yet I say the Press, that detestable vehicle of sedition and rebellion, ought to be put down, not by open force, but by the strong arm of the law. Another publication, called the Union Star,28 in which men are marked down as victims for murder, ought to be suppressed. What newspaper is circulated with the industry with which the Press is? You fnd it in every house, in every hand; and so assiduous are they in the circulation of that paper, that it is given to people in the street. Tank God the Union Star has not been in much circulation;

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

45

but the Press is forced on the people, it is supported by I know not whom, it is paid from I know not what fund. What does it hold out to common people? It holds out to them the distribution of the country, and of the property of every man who does not think as the directory of that paper think; that every man’s property is to be destroyed and burned. Would the French Directory bear it? No; the Guillotine would have stopped it long ago, and if you do not put it down, you deserve what it holds forth. Te noble Earl has mentioned the restrictions laid upon the peasantry, and compared them to that badge of Norman slavery the Corfew.29 But how can any man compare to that instrument of feudal despotism, the law which obliged the labouring man, in a proclaimed district, to go to his rest at nine o’clock, instead of running about the country concerting and perpetrating robberies and murders? An ofcer of the Wicklow militia had been ordered out with some men; he had not gone far when he met a body of insurgents; they stood upon their defence at frst, till he threatened to fre on them; they then threw down their arms, and ran away. When some of them were taken, they begged their lives, and the ofcer, with that humanity / and gallantry which ever distinguish the brave, granted it to them. If I was situated as he was, I do not know how I would have acted. He had put a rope round his neck, and said he would throw it over his shoulder, but he did not. Has the noble Lord heard of the murder of James King,30 Abraham Edwards,31 and several others? Did he hear of another murder, where a soldier of the Limerick militia, who had sworn against some of those traitors; but a contrivance made, thro’ the means of the wife of one of them, who was sent to pretend love to him, and ofer him a purse of money; by her means, unwary, he was seduced about a mile from his quarters, and while her hand embraced him in all the semblance of fond endearments, the hatchet of one of the accomplies [sic] clove his skull in twain? Did his Lordship hear of another murder which took place a short time since, about two miles from Youghall, where a man, his wife, his child and servant maid, were barbarously murdered, and horrible to relate, the brother of the servant maid was the murderer; not daring even to spare his own sister under the duties of his engagement? I have still a tale of woe, blacker if possible than all the rest, it is a copy of the deposition of the unfortunate Mrs. Uniacke,32 on the circumstances of the massacre of her husband and Colonel St. George; accompanied by circumstances too horrible for detail, and which outvies the sanguinary cruelties of the wildest savages. On Tuesday, the 9th of February, Mr. St. George dined with Mr. Uniack. Perhaps he was a man too open in his sentiments, possessing a manliness which he derived from his situation, a soldier of courage and of honour; who had bravely fought for his country, and sufered in her cause. At night as Mr. Uniack’s wife was lighting him to the bed room, a man entered the door of the kitchen, rushed by her through the room, and was followed by near fourteen, and the house surrounded

46

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

by others. Tey ran up to her husband, whom they assassinated. Mrs. Uniacke / threw herself between him and their murderer, and one of the rufans had the baseness to give her a blow; they dragged the husband down the stairs, Mrs. Uniack fell by him; she heard a scufe between the other and Mr. St. George,33 and while she was lying on the dead body of her husband, they drew the mangled corps of Mr. St. George across her. And to shew the Noble Lord that the system of terror assassination is in its full vigour, I will mention a circumstance which I have learnt since I came into the house; it is the murder of two privates of the Ninth Dragoons who had been seduced from their duty by these miscreants, but aferwards relenting, returned to their allegiance, and were murdered; the one mangled with horrid circumstances of barbarity; the other hanging on a tree! Tese are acts of desperation and horror that vied with the dictates of the Man of the Mountain.34 Tere are men of the Mountain who look on, and there are men who screen themselves behind a curtain and order assassination. Was the Noble Earl apprized of these circumstances before he brought forward his motion? Ot [sic] did he conceive that conciliation and concession were the measures to be followed with such men? It is in vain to think of cicatrizing by such plaisters a wound so deeply gangrened. All that I have stated are facts that can be proved, and I do conceive that the Government has been justifed in the measures they have pursued; if they have been wrong in any one instance, it is in not having acted sooner. Is it with such men the Government is to treat for conciliation? – Are you prepared, my Lords, to treat with those traitors? Let me intreat you to recollect what you are required to do. Te Noble Lord knows the danger is not over when you have lef the bloody feld, there are still acts committed on both sides, which make the mind shudder. I appeal to the candour and honour of that Noble Lord who has so ofen hazarded his life for his country, / and I do intreat of him, that if he perceives he has been deceived into error, by misrepresentation of the Government and their measures, that he will shew that magnanimity of spirit and of honour, which has ever characterized him, by owning he is wrong, and that the Government have acted right – and I do tell you, my Lords, that if you do not by vigorous measures put down those traitors and rebels to their country, they will put you down. Te EARL of CAVAN35 rejoiced that the Noble Earl had disavowed the expressions in which he was reported to have spoken so hastily of the military character. It became that Noble Earl to do so; and as he had done so, he thought the Noble Earl should go farther, and prosecute the printer of a pamphlet published in this city within these two days, and purporting to be his speech, in which this attack on the military was set forth in the most unequivocal terms – a nobleman who revered the military character so highly could hardly refuse them this justice. It had been said of the soldiery that they obeyed orders as soldiers, at which their feelings as men revolted – this he felt as severe imputation on him-

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

47

self and other General Ofcers of Ulster, who must have frst received those orders from Government; and he trusted that every man who knew them had too high an opinion of their feeling to suppose that they would obey orders inhuman or illegal, if Government could have issued them; but he must say, that to his certain knowledge, no orders had ever issued which could bear such a construction. His Lordship said, that the zeal steadiness and loyalty of the troops in the quarter where he had the honour to command, were beyond his praise; whenever their exertions were necessary, they were prompt, and those exertions were ofen necessary; men had associated themselves together under a name which ought to include every thing honorable and patriotic, the name of / United Irishmen; yet, was there a man in the kingdom who did not know they were associated for traiterous purposes? If there was any circumstance which could give him more pride than any other it was that by his Seat in that House he was enabled to declare his frm attachment to his Sovereign and the Constitution – an attachment, from which neither the attacks of rebels, or their anonymous menaces should ever shake him. Assassination had been the lot of many who had dared to manifest this attachment; it might be his:– it was a fate against which no man could guard; it was a fate to which every man obnoxious to treason was now liable; but this apprehension had no weight with him: his sentiments were too much fxed to be altered by it. He would conclude by one observation. Te Noble Earl had stated enormities to have existed; why did not the Noble Earl apply to the next General Ofcer to have them redressed, when he heard of them, instead of carrying the recital of them, without explanation, into England, and detailing them in the British House of Peers? Te LORD CHANCELLOR desired the Report of the House in 179336 to be read – And then continued: If the Noble Earl had read the report of last Session, I should not trouble the House to have it read; the subject now before the House is one which had been ofen debated, and ofen misrepresented. Te speech published in the name of the Noble Earl, but disavowed by him, has added not a little misrepresentation to the common stock; it has been generally circulated, and had produced much misapprehension. For the military and personal character of the Noble Earl, I feel the most unfeigned respect. I hope I will not be thought to speak ironically, when I assure the Noble Lord, I have the highest respect for his character, and when I say I sincerely regret it has been the lot of the Noble Lord to reside so much out of his / own country; for I believe, if he had been a resident in Ireland, he would have perceived how unnecessary is the motion he has now proposed. And I will put it to the good sense and candour of the Noble Lord, upon what principle the Noble Earl has passed by the Irish House of Parliament, of which he was a Member, and forced his subject on the British Legislature, to call upon that Legislature to interpose with the Crown on a subject only cognizable by the Parliament of Ireland. I will put it to the candour and honour of the Noble Lord, and I will ask him upon what pretence

48

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

he started up in the British House of Parliament, and required the Peers of that kingdom humbly to beseech his Majesty to interpose his paternal infuence to procure the repeal of laws, of fundamental import to the Irish Constitution? I will put it to the candour of the Noble Lord, and ask him upon what pretence he can justify having passed in the English House of Peers a sweeping condemnation on all the acts of the Irish Government and Legislature, both civil and military? On what principle he has done this? On what principle he has represented the feudal tyranny of a corfeu as established in this kingdom? On what principle has he accused Government of reviving the practices of the inquisition, of urging persons to become witnesses against their friends and neighbours by torture? On what principle can those unwarranted and distorted exaggerations which have been painted to the British Parliament be excused, and which have passed current under the authority of the Noble Lord’s name, through every seditious Paper in Great Britain and Ireland? It has been too much the practice of these countries to drown truth and reason in clamour and outcry; it is part of the party system in England to embarrass the Minister by exacting that clamour. Te same persons who played the game of embarrassment against Lord North,37 by which America was lost, are now / attempting to do the same with respect to Ireland. Te noble Earl has disavowed the heavy charge against the army, that the pamphlet passing under the sanction of his name, attributed to him; but he has attributed the treasons which disgrace the country, to the misconduct of the British Cabinet. To cure that misconduct, he has stated that conciliation is the only remedy; but I do ask, what security is there for the accomplishment of the noble Earl’s presage? Does the noble Lord reason from the past? Te past is against him – Does conciliation allay clamour and discontent? I call upon the noble Lord now, not for the sake of idle declamation; but I call upon him to meet me on this ground, and I will prove to the noble Lord’s conviction, that there has been a general system of conciliation, and that in no place has the experiment been so fairly tried as in Ireland, in none has it so completely failed. I presume that though the noble Lord was engaged in this discharge of his honourable duties in America,38 he has heard that Parliament addressed his Majesty on the subject of Ireland, and that the grounds of that complaint all related to the commerce of the country. Tat in consequence of that address, a grant was made to it, of a right to trade to the British colonies, and that the gentlemen then at the head of afairs in England, did strongly express their disapprobation; but the restraints upon our commerce were taken of. In 1782, the opposition Cabinet of the country39 was called upon for their list of grievances; they gave them in an address to the throne; they declared themselves satisfed; they pledged their lives and fortunes, that all grounds of dissention were removed. One of them40 received the enormous sum of 50,000l. as a reward for his discovery of grievances, and he and his brother patriots were for about three weeks the idols of

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

49

the country. It was then discovered that the repeal of the 6th of George I.41 was insufcient for our freedom, / and a clamour was raised for renunciation.42 Te Duke of Portland43 in his œconomy, raised four provincial regiments to defend the country, in the place of the army which was sent abroad. Fencible regiments were new in Ireland, and therefore an outcry was raised against him, as if he had afronted the country beyond reparation. Soon afer he had lef the country, Lord Mansfeld44 gave judgment in a record that had been removed from this country by writ of error, to England: no, man will say they could not do it. Te Majesty of the People was roused, they attacked Lord Mansfeld for it, and they abused the British House of Commons for that, as the noble Lord now fnds fault with them. His successor Lord Temple,45 anxious to prove the sincerity of the British Cabinet, procured a renunciation act46 in England: I had a perfect communication with him upon every subject of the country. Te people wanted something else, they had not yet got enough; they would take an act of renunciation. He recommended it, and his brother47 brought it forward in the English House of Parliament, renouncing any legislative controul, or bringing any appeal from an lrish decision. Still there was a grievance; the people discovered that the same House of Commons which had procured all these great benefts; free trade, independence, and renunciation; that this House of Commons was itself a grievance; the armed Majesty of the Peop1e was appealed to; a military convention, assuming the forms of Parliament, was assembled close to the House of Commons, a Speaker was elected, a Committee was nominated, a bill was brought in, read a frst time, a second time, ordered to be engrossed, read a third time, passed,48 and was sent up by two of the members to the Parliament, and one of them did state, that the salvation of Ireland, that the very existence of Ireland, depended upon preserving the independence of the House of Commons. It met, as it might be / expected, with scorn, and was rejected with disdain, and the members who presented it49 were overwhelmed with shame, and brought it back from whence it came; afer which the country had some short rest. In 1785, an ofer was made by England, to participate her colonial trade with us, provided we submitted to her colonial regulations; this was exclaimed against as an attack upon our independence, and by the wisdom of the Parliament of Ireland was rejected.50 Some respite was now had for a short time, until the lamentable occurrence of 1789, when, in their rage for power, a party in this country shook the constitution to its foundation,51 and by studiously neglecting the example of England, laid the ground for all that has happened since. – Te Marquis of Buckingham,52 overlooking the personal insults he had received, laboured to conciliate those gentlemen, whom this business had separated from him; no man took more pains to heal the sore, and I shall never cease to lament, that he was obliged to dismiss some of those servants that refused to agree in his measures. He was unsuccessful; they were necessarily dismissed, and having

50

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

formed themselves into a club for redress of grievadces [sic], the frst of which was charging the British government with a design to destroy the liberties and hopes of Ireland, were the very men who had in 1782 pledged themselves, with their lives and fortunes, to imperial conciliation. Tey formed themselves into a club,53 in which they professed to support as their fundamental opinions, the Constitution in church and state, as settled in 1688. – Teir pension bill, their place bill, have been past, they were anxious for a responsibility bill, by which the government of the country would be vested in an Executive Directory of fve ofcers, not amenable to the crown, but this was rejected by Parliament; they carried on their debates with so much foulness and scurrility, with such gross and disgusting language, and bestowed their mutual / accusations of corruption so liberally, that what was the consequence? Why the people at length took them at their words, and gave both sides credit for all the abominable and villainous charges they made against each other. By the conduct of this political Club has the Parliament been debased in public estimation, and the country degraded into that state of cannibal barbarism, which we could hardly have heretofore believed in reading the annals of 164154 – and by their clamours against British infuence, there has been difused such a spirit in the country, that it is not merely to the Duke of Portland, Mr. Pitt,55 Lord Lansdown,56 to Mr. Fox,57 but to the British name that their animosity is excited. Agreeable to the practice of the Whig Club, that pestilent society, calling itself an Union of Irishmen, began its proceedings with a manifesto, in which their utter abhorrence of British name and British connection is every where conspicuous; by which it has been held out to the people that they are ruled with a rod of iron, and that the only salvation of the country was in an Union of Irishmen of every religious persuasion: and has their abhorrence still further explained by a letter from their founder Tone58 who is now a fugitive for High Treason, and was lately an Adjutant General in Hoche’s59 army, and bore a command in the Dutch service, to his friends in Belfast. I have ofen lamented that Government had not earlier exerted their power to put down this pestilent association; but so it was, that the magistrates were not allowed to disperse them until they had sat four years, and laid a foundation for all the mischief to which they found themselves disposed. So early as 1792 they had determined to raise a corps of National Guards, their uniform was to be French, and their insignia of disafection; and it was proposed that similar corps should be raised through the country, and that no / efort should be lef untried to seduce his Majesty’s army from their allegiance, and emancipation was to be the watch-word to this pestilential society. Tis is not proved either by Newel or Smith,60 but a gentleman of high worth and character, now a colonel in the army, who was applied to receive a commission in the rebel army, in order to discipline them; and they avowed that their object was a separation of the countries, by the aid of France; that they

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

51

had arms, money, and men; but that ofcers of distinction was what they wanted. To provide themselves with more arms, they took advantage of a very old religious feud in the county of Armagh,61 and set on the Roman Catholics, under the name of Defenders of the North, to rob and plunder their Protestant fellow subjects of arms. A Roman Catholic committee, sitting in Dublin, had avowedly interfered in behalf of some men who were confned in Dundalk gaol, in order to get them out before their trial on bail, and for this purpose a man was spoken to. Tis appeared from the report which I just caused to be read; and the consequence of that report has been the Gunpowder Bill,62 the frst of the strong measures which Parliament had found necessary for the public safety. A determination on the part of Irish Union, to summon a Convention at Athlone, had given rise to the declaratory law, by which the contraband trade of Parliament was forbidden.63 In the course of two or three years afer passing those necessary acts, what scenes of murder, and robbery, and burning were acted through the country, when no man could sit in safety with his family, when no man’s house was a security against the midnight rufans who assailed his little cabin, or burned his haggard; and who, if he dared not appear, or would not bind himself by that test, which was death to his fellow-creature, he was made to sufer under the system of murder and assassination. It was therefore enacted / by the Legislature, that to administer the oath should be a capital felony. Te county Armagh was the frst place where the abominable systems took their rise. It was there that the Orange-men, as they stiled themselves, being the strongest party, did take advantage of the others. I do not defend their proceedings, but I lament the existence of those outrages. Te most express orders were sent down, to put an end to those disturbances; and what was the consequence? Te thanks of the country were given to Colonel Cradock,64 for his ofcer-like and gentlemanly behaviour in suppressing the insurgents. It was stated in the English House of Lords, that the Orange-men were sanctioned by government: Little does the Noble Lord know of this country, if he imagined that the government would sanction such proceedings; the Orangemen certainly were not enemies to their country. I have been dissatisfed with the proceedings of government, for I always thought they should have early put down the nest of conspirators and traitors, who have now grown so enormous as almost to counteract the utmost vigilance of an active government. What are the proceedings of those rebels? I will tell the Noble Lord what they are – they are subtle, and it is impossible to counteract them. When a society is formed, and amounts to thirty, they then in their phrase split into fours. Tose fours elect each a secretary; the secretaries so elected form a baronial. Te baronial, when thus formed, go up to the county committee – the county committee commune with the provincial committee, and the provincial with the Directory; and so secret is every thing carried on, and with such caution do they proceed, that every transaction is committed to memory. Te secretary who receives his

52

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

instructions from any of the higher authorities; if they should be committed to writing, it is merely to impress those instructions on his memory, and he then commits the manuscript to the fames. I / do put it to the good sense of the Noble Lord, whether it is possible for any government to counteract the intentions and proceedings of such an abominable nature? I do assert there is at this moment in this country, a regular committee holding regular correspondence with the French Directory.65 Unhappily for the nation those rebels have spread their abominable principles so through the country, as to make them incompatible with any regular government. Te Noble Lord has made assertions of several enormities which he has stated as facts. He mentioned in particular that one man had been hanged; that fact is not so, the rope was put about his neck, but he was not tied up: as to the piquetting, what was that? Information had been given that a Black-Smith had a number of pikes concealed; his place was searched none could be found; he was threatened in case he did not confess, he said he knew of no pikes, but the information was too strong, he was taken to the guard house, he was piquetted – and what was the consequence? He acknowledge to know where one hundred pikes were concealed, his information was true and the pikes were got. I put it to the good sense of the Noble Lord whether the temporary punishment which had been inficted on the Black-Smith is not more than compensated by the lives which have been saved by the murders that have been prevented in consequence of this discovery. I put it to the good sense of the Noble Lord are pikes an argument for Catholic Emancipation? Are powder and ball an argument for Parliamentary Reform? Te Noble Lord has stated that the peasants cottage was burned – I do not justify these excesses, but when treason and rebellion make it necessary to call out the military, it is not always possible to restrain their resentments. Te proclamation issued by General Lake66 has been severely animadverted upon. To force persons to give up their arms is certainly constitutional, when they have forgotten what they owe to their country and to their King, so / far, as to turn rebels to both. What happened in the American war when the Noble Lord was there in command? An ofcer Colonel Haynes67 had been taken endeavouring to seduce the King’s troops, he was sufered to be out on his parole – what was the consequence? Instead of behaving as he ought and being sensible of the manner in which he had been treated, he went about the country again endeavouring to seduce the soldiery. He was take in the fact, and he was hanged without a trial; the only thing done was to identify his person – I ask the Noble Lord was not that a justifable act? Has the Noble Lord heard of Waller?68 has he heard of the death of Mr. Hamilton,69 a man of learning and integrity? has he heard that he was murdered, because he dared to be active in endeavouring to suppress the diabolical treasons in existence? Mr. Hamilton ventured out one evening to his friend’s house. What

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

53

was the consequence? the house was surrounded, the wretches got in, they swore they would destroy the house and all the family if Mr. Hamilton was not given up – the servants either through fear or some other cause gave-up the unfortunate gentleman, the rufans dragged him out of the house, and murdered him – and these are the men of sentiment, and of feeling, of liberality and of injured innocence, that the army of Ireland has presumed to put down! Has the Noble Lord heard of the murder of the Rev. Mr. Knipe?70 Has he heard of the fate of M. Cummins?71 Has he heard of the assassination of the Rev. Mr. Butler?72 Will the Noble Lord stand up in his place and tell me that when a system of treason and rebellion is in the state, spreading desolation and murder through the country, that they ought to be reconciled? Will the Noble Lord contend that such persons are to be dealt with by conciliation? I will mention another circumstance: Last summer, Mr. Connolly73 discovered among his servants a plot against his life and that of his amiable lady – a woman / who I may call the paragon of her sex; who fed them when they were hungry; who cloathed them; who considered them as her children – Yet notwithstanding every attention, and every kindness, the abominable miscreants formed a plan against her life, and no later than last summer, she was afraid to let a gentleman sleep in the lower part of the house. I was there – and Lady Louisa Connolly74 told me she was afraid to let me sleep in the lower part of the house. I saw at each of the hall-doors strong chevau-de-frize,75 and as regular a garrison in the house as in any fortifed town. And are these people to be suffered to over-run the country without a struggle? What is the excuse held out for their treasons? Tat they do not act from themselves, but are driven to it by the excesses of the government? Te noble Lord has said the town of Ballynahinchy76 has been represented as the citadel of treason – I say that next to Belfast it is the strongest citadel of rebellion in the country. If I may, without being thought a pedant, use a professional phraze, from their great respect for the Heir Apparent of the Crown,77 they may be said to be in obeseance [sic] during the life of his Majesty. If the Noble Lord wishes to know the true state of the rebellious system in the country, let him go to the War-ofce, and he will see the trials of six or seven unfortunate soldiers, who had been seduced from their duty. It was sworn to, that in the timber-yard of the Noble Lord had been concealed a number of pikes and handles; certainly without his knowledge. It is generally the case that where there can be the least suspicion, is the place for concealing those instruments of death. I state this transaction to his Lordship that he may know the kind of persons he has about him, and that he may avoid the fate intended for Mr. Conolly. Te Monaghan militia, anxious to clear the character of the regiment, and to express their loyalty, went to the Northern Star-ofce,78 to have an advertisement inserted to the efect. Te person they met with at the / ofce, told them they

54

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

were a set of scurvy fellows. Te soldiers, irritated at the insult, and at the fate of their companions, seized the opportunity, and demolished the Printing-ofce in part; but the commander of the regiment, when he heard what they were about, drew them of – he could do no more. Another party of soldiers, with some yeomen in brown cloaths, attacked it again, and did the business efectually; and they did destroy the Printing-press. Te Noble Lord has mentioned the Curfew, and the oppression of making the people put out their candles at a certain hour: A man of the name of Carson had his candle lighting – he was ordered to put it out, and one of the soldiers threw a stone, and broke his window; and Mr. George Crozier,79 the Noble Lord’s land-steward and receiver, went to the man, and told him if he did not make an afdavit of the fact, he should be dragged up to the bar of the House of Lords. What was the case of Newel? He was a miniature-painter – He entered into the association, and being sick, he did not attend for a short time; the consequence was, that the committee of assassination devoted him to death – he was denounced, and an attempt actually made upon him in a dark lane. Finding he was not safe, he thought he might as well give information of all he knew. Does the Noble Lord know where the four hundred pounds were got that were given to Newel and to Bird? Did the Noble Lord receive his instructions from the Directory as to the terms of conciliation? Does be know any of them? If he does, the government will be extremely obliged to him to tell their names. I know the Noble Lord has conversed with some of them, certainly without his knowledge; but let him beware, they would as soon treat with me as with the Noble Lord. At a time when the county of Down was in a state of disturbance, a requisition was sent to the Sherif to convene a meeting of all the inhabitants of the county. / Te Sherif, with a spirit which did him honour, refused to convene a mob of insurgents; and in his place a Protestant Bishop80 was seen hunting for signatures through the county, and aferwards joined his name with that of the mob who signed it, (among whom was a lame mendicant living near the town) in a petition to his Majesty. In this petition these people, with a Bishop of the established church at their head, carried a falsehood to the foot of the Trone. Tey complained, among other things, that the war had entirely destroyed the manufactures and trade of the county, when it appeared, that on an average of four years before the war, compared with four years afer its commencement, the average annual value of the linen was encreased in the latter period, as was also the tonage. His Lordship examined the greater part of Lord Moira’s former speech, and animadverted on those parts of it which charged on the government the casual excesses of the soldiery. Te publication of the Union Star, the promotion of feuds in Armagh – of the origin of which he gave a history, allowing that the Peep-of-Day-Boys were certainly the aggressors; but that the others, afer peace had been made between them renewed the dispute.81 He charged his Lordship’s

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

55

calculations of the trade of Belfast with being inaccurate, and put it to his own good sense to reconcile his having made a violent statement of particular enormities in the British Parliament, with his silence on that head in his speech of to-day in this assembly, where the point could be fairly discussed. With regard to Catholic Emancipation, he asked did his Lordship know that the Catholic now is under no disabilities except a few, which prevent him from getting into situations of power; that his religious principles, if he were truly a Catholic, must prompt him to use against the established church – and asked how he could reconcile the principles of the British Constitution, as established at the Revolution, with / the repeal of the test and supremacy oath, for attempting to repeal which, King James was expelled the Trone.82 His Lordship concluded by observing, if it should be the noble Earl’s lot to meet with any of the Directory of the union, let him hold this language to them – withdraw your Agent from Paris,83 and your Ambassador from Lisle84 – lay down the arms of which you have plundered the loyal, and return to your habits of peace and industry – deserve the favour of Parliament, and you will receive it. Te noble Earl may be surprized to hear, that during the late negociations at Lisle, the Plenipotentiary of the Union was there also; that his name85 is perfectly well known to government; I know it myself, and will tell the noble Earl when I sit down if he desires it; that this Plenipotentiary, who commenced his education in a seminary of Jesuits, and concluded it in an attorney’s ofce, was employed in urging the French Ministers to the most exorbitant demands; and that if Great Britain had had the meanness to yield to the demands of France, as a preliminary, the next demand would have been, the separation of Ireland from the British Empire. Will the noble Lord undertake to have the Ambassador recalled? Will he undertake that Arthur O‘Connor,86 the registered printer of the Press, will cease to disseminate treason three times a week, if his motion be adopted. I feel that I have already exhausted the patience of the House; I certainly have exhausted my own; but I will no longer detain your Lordships than to ask if we give up our power, and submit to our enemies, and if the experiment should fail, what resource, what return will be lef to us? And I beseech the noble Earl, when he sees the condition to which this country had been reduced by the artifces of party, that as he values the peace and happiness of Ireland he will, on his return to England, use his infuence / with the politicians of Great Britain to entreat that they will cease to play the game of party politics in this unfortunate country. Te noble Earl does not know the people of Ireland so well as I do; he does not know that there is not so volatile or credulous a people on the earth; that they are ready to be dupes of any projector if he will only profess good will towards them; that they will not hesitate if any man comes with a book in one hand, and a declaration in the other, to take the test, provided it professes to be for their advantage. If he knew this, he would be less surprised at the melancholy infu-

56

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

ence which words and parties have with them, and he would be more anxious than he is to prevent the increase of so mischievous a practice. BISHOP of DOWN.87 My Lords, unused as I am to public speaking, and ill qualifed as I feel myself to attempt it, I cannot sit totally silent under the personal attack with which the Noble Lord on the Woolsack88 has honoured me; and that in a tone of authority which I am not quit tame enough to submit to. What is this crime that I stand charged with? My Lords, I joined with men of character as respectable as any in this kingdom – freeholders of the county in which I live, and of which I am a freeholder myself. I joined with them in calling a county-meeting, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of addressing his Majesty, on the awful and calamitous state of public afairs. Where was the crime in this? Where, let me ask, would the crime have been, if I had joined in a call of the county, for the purpose of expressing our happiness and satisfaction under the present system, or to thank Mr. Pitt for the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam,89 and for the 1ost blessings restored to us by that auspicious measure? – Amongst the frst of these blessings, that of the Noble Lord’s mild and benign infuence in our government? No; the crime is this – that I, or that any man in my situation, should presume to have an opinion of his own on public matters, / and to act from that opinion. And the Noble Lord not only considers us, himself, as the most abject dependants upon the Castle, but he thinks it right, and wise, and decent, to hold us up in that light to the whole country – for I defy any man who shall know this treatment of me this night, to put any other possible construction on it; to which I shall only say, that if this is his friendship to the church, the Catholics have reason to be happy in his enmity, I do not mean that the noble Lord is capable of personal enmity to any body of men; I mean happy in his opposition to their claims. My Lords, I shall enter into no justifcation of my conduct; I know that it requires none. If I have transgressed the law, I do suppose there is no want of zeal in the Crown lawyers, to call me to account for it. If I have committed any ofence against this House; to the chastizement of the House I shall submit with all due humility. But as to the noble Lord’s opinion of me, I must tell him plainly, there is nothing in this world that I regard with more perfect indiference, than either his censure or approbation. He has said that if he was well informed, I carried about the petition for subscriptions. His information was false, though I scarcely think it worth my while to contradict it; had it been true, I should not be ashamed to avow it; I see no impropriety in doing so. I shall not enter into the discussion of the question before the House, that subject is in abler hands; you have tried the system of coercion long enough to judge of its fruits; have those fruits been such as to encourage you to persevere in it? No. From the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam to the present moment, we have been going on from bad to worse; ’till at last we are on the brink of ruin. Tat the people of this country were at that period well afected, is certain; if any proof of

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

57

it had been wanting, it was given unequivocally in the regret and concern which was expressed / at this departure, from one end of the kingdom to the other. Had their intentions been mischievous, they would have rejoiced that the man was recalled, who, they had every reason to believe, had come over with such terms in his hand, of conciliation and peace, as must have defeated them completely. My Lords, I must say one word more of our country petition; the noble Lord here asserted, that it sets out with a gross and scandalous misrepresentation. Tere is not a word of misrepresentation from the beginning to the end of it. Whatever might have been the revenue of Belfast last year, or the year before last, or the year before that, the fact is, that the trade and commerce of Belfast is at this moment nearly annihilated. My Lords, I never before obtruded myself on your Lordships attention; and I have no desire of ever troubling you again; I shall, therefore, take the present opportunity of declaring my sentiments, on two very important questions that have been mentioned in the debate of this night; the emancipation of the Catholics, and a Reform in Parliament. I am a decided friend to both, I have been so to the total and complete emancipation of the Catholics, from the frst moment that I was capable of thinking on that subject; and I have always considered it is a matter of right, not of favour. A Reform in Parliament, I consider as an act of policy which the state of the country renders absolutely necessary. Without both, there is no salvation for this country. Tey are, notwithstanding the noble Lord’s irony on the occasion, they are, I am convinced, the only weapons with which you can attack the discontented with efect. My Lords, I have a double stake in this country; my preferment in the church, and my own personal property, which, though an inconsiderable one, is an object of some consequence to me. I am as much interested as any man, in the tranquillity and prosperity of this country; but this I am satisfed of, that neither my property, nor that of / any man in this House, nor our lives, nor any thing that is dear to us, will be long safe under the present system. Te noble Lord has said something of letters received in the North from England, holding out expectations of a change of Ministry; that those letters were handed about, and were, in fact, the cause of our county-meeting and petition. I am totally at a loss to know what letters the noble Lord speaks of; but this I know, that I have not for years, either received or seen any letters from England, that aforded any such hopes. Tat event, unfortunately for the country, is I believe very distant indeed. Lord DUNSANEY90 supported the motion with much ability:– he shewed that the present system was the cause of the existing discontents in a great measure, and that where the people of Ireland were treated by Government with lenity and indulgence, they were proportionably loyal and grateful. It had been asked of the Noble Earl who made the motion, why he had not now brought before the House a catalogue of those enormous cruelties which he had detailed in the British House of Peers? Instead of being asked such a question, the noble and learned

58

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Lord should rather have thanked him for the conciliating and pacifc manner in which he proposed to act. – But if noble Lords wanted such a catalogue he could furnish them; he could relate to them not simply the burning of houses, but the murder in cold blood of their inhabitants – he could give them an account of three men particularly, who, afer having had their houses burned to the ground, were shot by the military afer having been for some time prisoners – and he could add to these accounts the much more numerous instances of men torn from their family and country, and without the form of a trial, transported for life. He declared himself a friend to both the measures of conciliation which had been mentioned – Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. / Lord MOIRA, in reply. – My Lords, the noble Baron91 who spoke second in this debate and the learned Lord on the Woolsack have both said, that my arrival in this country has produced much mischief and greatly infamed discontent. If my Lords, so much danger were to be apprehended by my coming, they whose misrepresentations of my conduct in another country, so widely and so wantonly circulated, made it necessary that I should come, – are chargeable with the mischief. – Te noble Lords have said also, that the discussion in which we are now engaged will aggravate the disorders which are already so mischievous – if so, my Lords, they who made the discussion necessary by resisting a motion of conciliation and peace are to be blamed for the consequences. Nothing in my statement could have a tendency to produce such an efect, or in any degree to irritate the public mind. Te noble Baron who, in a speech of much eloquence, frst opposed my motion, began by insinuating that a something had taken place somewhere, which with respect to this House he did not think becoming – Te noble Baron appeared to labour under great difculty in stating what that something was – it however at last appeared to be my having agitated in the British Parliament some points relative to the subject now before you. But the noble Baron, though apparently much discontented with my speech on that occasion could not state exactly in what the irregularity of it consisted. Te learned Lord on the Woolsack who followed him, declared himself equally dissatisfed with my conduct on that occasion, but laboured under the same difculty in stating in what the breach of order or want of respect to this House consisted. Of my attachment to the independence of the Irish Legislature, any present declaration must be superfuous; since I have on all occasions loudly maintained the necessity of that independence as the only security for the welfare of Ireland. I am surprised that the learned Lord, who from his station ought to be enlightened on the subject, / did not discover and acknowledge that the steps taken by us in the British Parliament, were perfectly consistent with the independence of the Legislature of Ireland, and consonant to that spirit on which the connexion of the two countries is founded. Te learned Lord as a Privy Counsellor in both countries, and a Cabinet Minister in this, might be

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

59

reasonably supposed to have known that the Lord Lieutenant of this country is appointed by a commission under the Great Seal of England – that he receives his instructions from the Secretary of State and under the King’s Signet – that he is bound to obey the instructions which he receives thro’ the medium of that Secretary, a Member of the British Cabinet, and that therefore it is under the special instruction of that Cabinet that he acts. Trough what channel then could application be made to correct the abuses of the Irish Executive but through the channel of the British Parliament, to whom only that Cabinet is responsible? Te learned Lord might have learned further on the subject – he might have learned that if the conduct of an Irish Lord Lieutenant is not censurable by the British Legislature, the Irish Lord Lieutenant holds a situation which the British Constitution disclaims and abhors – a situation destitute of responsibility. Te Irish Parliament has the fullest right to animadvert on the conduct of the Viceroy, and can never want the means to make its opinion on that conduct respected; But it has no process by which when his administration expires it can summon that Viceroy to abide a trial. Te jurisdiction of the British Parliament over the conduct of the Irish Viceroy, the learned Lord might have seen ascertained by the highest authority, by Lord Coke92 himself, who lays it down as a principle, that wherever the King’s seals go, there does the authority of Parliament extend. But laying aside these arguments, which from the nature of them the noble Lord might be supposed to know, there was a circumstance / which might have given the learned Lord a hint that there was not any thing contrary to Parliamentary order in his addressing the British House on the topic; for he will surmise that it was rather more likely that the Minister should have a number of partial friends present, than that I should; and the irregularity of ’ a discussion, which could not be thought very entertaining to the Ministers, would naturally have been seized as an excuse for stopping the conversation, could it possibly have been pleaded. Te learned Lord in a very long speech has gone into an elaborate and I will allow an able detail of the concessions which Great Britain has made to Ireland for some years back. I do not see how those detail bears on the present question, but I will say of those successive demands and concessions which have been made, that they were such as in an improving country might naturally have been expected. Every new advantage which Ireland enjoyed enlarged her sphere of action, and made her know the value of, and feel the necessity for others. I will say still farther, that if these were concessions made to the demands of Ireland, they were equally benefcial to Great Britain, for the wealth of Ireland is the strength of Great Britain, and I would say that the weakness or poverty of Great Britain would be the calamity of Ireland. Te learned Lord asks me whether I do not believe that there exists in this country a dangerous conspiracy against the government? My Lords, I do believe there exists such a conspiracy, and I attribute the existence of that conspiracy to

60

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

the severe, the unconstitutional, measures which government have adopted. I attribute much of the danger and much of the disturbances which exist, to that most impolitic and lamentable measure – the recall of my Lord Fitzwilliam.93 I predicted the consequences, when I frst heard of that measure, and I have been too true a prophet. Both houses of parliament here had declared the measures proposed by that Nobleman to be such as merited the / support of parliament and the approbation of the public: yet the course of those measures was violently interrupted; the promise given to the nation by the declaration of those measures was unwisely broken; and principles of government diametrically opposite to those which had met such applause from the country, were adopted by the new Viceroy.94 Te system which was continued subsequent to that event, a system of coercion, of cruelty, and of blood, has aggravated the evil, and driven the people to the most dangerous and unconstitutional steps, as means of supposed self-defence against the extreme severity of their government. Te learned Lord had thought proper to allude to newspapers and pamphlets, and argue from what they report as my speech, as if it were really mine. In one of those publications I am made to say what certainly I never said, that the troops in Ireland regarded every Irishman as a rebel, and treated him accordingly. It would have been extremely absurd in me to have used such an expression generally, of the troops in Ireland, for many of those troops are themselves Irish. What I said was “that the foreign troops which were sent to Ireland went thither under an unfortunate prejudice, which care had been taken to instill into them, that every man they met there was a rebel.” His Lordship is also pleased to say, that he would not, were he a general ofcer commanding the army in Ulster, be much obliged to me for saying that I was sure they did not act with their inclination in discharging the late orders of government. I am sure that these ofcers would fnd it an unpleasant duty were they bound to execute on the people a punishment legally inficted. I am sure it must be still more so where they are obliged to exert measures of extraordinary severity. I know too the delicate situation in which an ofcer is placed, when he is appointed to execute such orders as those under which General Lake and others have acted. I know how difcult it is in such circumstances to avoid being misled by the mistatements, the falsehood or the passions of others, / to acts perhaps more severe than truth of circumstances would warrant. You are to observe that the repartition of the troops into small detachments, must leave the delegated power to the discretion of young ofcers who could not be expected to use it with the strict caution and judgment which General Lake himself would use. With respect to the persecution of the Catholics which took place in the country of Armagh and parts adjacent, I did state that I suspected government of winking at the progress and efects of that fanatic violence, from the belief that those religious feuds would smother the cry for Parliamentary Reform. I

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

61

suspect it still. Te long time for which those outrages continued unchecked by any interference on the part of government, necessarily creates the suspicion. If it be an unjust one, government has at least entailed it by a culpable inattention. Another of the measures which, taking my speech from the public prints, his Lordship asserts I attributed to government, without any rational ground, was the publication of the Union Star. I will tell the learned Lord what I did say on that occasion: I did say that, there was something so extravagantly absurd in that paper, something so inconsistent with its professed end assassination; in describing publicly the names of the persons to be assassinated, by which they would naturally be put upon their guard, that I did think, and I still retain that opinion, that it was much more likely to have been written by the enemies of that party on whom the imputation of it was to fall, than by the party itself. But of the facts which I alluded to in the British House of Peers, as proofs of the extreme cruelty of the system which was carried on in Ireland, his Lordship denies the truth. One of those facts was the strangling of one Shaw, in order to induce a confession, and his Lordship asserts that the rope was only put round his neck, but that he was not actually suspended. I repeat / my former assertion, that he did actually undergo a process of strangulation, and sufered many other infictions, as well as picketing. But here the learned Lord says it was done to make him discover where pikes were hidden, and that he did confess where a hundred pikes might be found, and the Noble Lord asks is it not better that an individual should have been picketted, or even half-hanged, than that all those should perish, who might have been killed by the pikes? I do not wish to examine too minutely the notion of that Justice, which can defend the subjecting an individual to excessive and illegal sufering upon the plea of its being done to prevent a consequence gratuitously imagined for the argument’s sake. But I will tell the learned Lord, that he has by stating the case of Shaw, endeavoured to mislead attention from the real point in charge. My assertion is that, torture has been used to force a man to accuse his neighbours; a practice standing in the justest reprobation of every writer on morality or jurisprudence; because it has been too well proved that the person, who to free himself from immediate anguish, has inculpated an innocent man, has aferwards through shame or fear maintained the charge, and led the unofending victim to a dreadful death. Tat accusations have been thus endeavoured to be extorted, I have the fullest proof; and in one instance the suferer was half-hanged thrice, because he declared he knew no guilt in his neighbours. His Lordship has alluded to another part of my speech, and triumphantly denies that the curfew regulation was so rigorously enforced in a particular instance as I was supposed to have mentioned. In describing the severity of so arbitrary a measure, I took the liberty to suppose a case in which the enforce-

62

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

ment of it would be attended with great hardship – the case was that of a parent watching at night over his dying child, and obliged in such circumstances to put out his lights by the order of a military patrole. I represented the possible irritation which might arise from such a restraint. / But says the learned Lord, I am strangely ignorant of the situation of the Country, if I can a moment suppose that the meetings which have been convened for the alledged purpose of petitioning the Sovereign or laying a state of grievances before Parliament, were merely intended for that purpose. To this my Lords I answer that it is unbecoming in us upon every occasion to impeach the loyalty, and suspect the peaceable intentions of the people of the country, it is not so much the absolute exercise of tyranny, that I censure and condemn, as the peevish, acrid treatment which has uniformly been exhibited towards the people. By what right have you wrested from the subject his constitutional privilege of petition and of meeting to expose to his Sovereign the errors and mismanagement of his Ministers? Is it by the Insurrection bill? Tere is no clause in that bill which takes away this privilege from the people. I cannot discover any such intention in the Legislature in that act of parliament; and I am under the correction of the law ofcers of the crown when I assert that that act has not deprived the people of this invaluable privilege. But my Lords should this unfortunately be the case, should this act have taken away the subjects right of petition, then indeed I do not wonder, at the excesses committed by the people. Te right of complaint, and the privilege of petition tho’ sometimes abridged, yet never have been heretofore entirely wrested from the people, and their existence kept hope alive. If you deprive the people of these constitutional resources, you account for their desperation. It is to this encroachment on the rights of the people, the existence of a French party, if any does exist in this country, must be ascribed. A system of terror, and nothing else, may have driven some of our countrymen to the degrading wish of succour from a foreign power. It is the delirium of party contention, the fever of despair, that must have reconciled / such an idea to the minds of my generous countrymen; if indeed such an idea has ever been reconciled to them. Could my voice go farther among them, I would implore them to refect on the conduct which France has held towards every nation that has admitted her to an interference with its concerns. Is there a country upon which she has inficted her friendship that has not groaned under her rod? Is there a community to which she has extended her assistance that has not had reason to curse the war in which it accepted the insidious aid? No! let the honest pride of my countrymen repose itself upon the resource of dignifed patience and temperate perseverance. Te grievances of this country will at last be understood and redressed by the paternal benefcence of our Sovereign.

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion

63

As to those statements of the trade of Belfast which I had mentioned in my speech on this subject in Great Britain, and which the learned Lord has contradicted – I certainly did not take that statement from the Custom house returns. My information on that subject I derived partly from the communication of merchants whom I occasionally saw from that port, and who in those communications, I have full certainty, did not mean to deceive me. It was a subject however in which error might take place – my belief, however, on the subject was swayed by something more certain than those loose communications. I formed it from the great diminution which had taken place in the West India trade of that port. In late years antecedently to the war, from twenty to twenty-fve vessels annually used to be laden from the port of Belfast for the West Indies. As I am informed by an extract from the Custom-house Books, which could be procured, though more complicated information could not. In the year ending January 1797, there were but twelve, and in the year ending January 1798, there was but one! Te learned Lord has thought ft, when speaking of the United Irishmen, their Executive Directory, and / their ambassadors, to say that his Lordship thought I was not unacquainted with them. I know not exactly whether he means by this – [Te Chancellor rose to explain: he only meant that as the ambassadors at Lisle were certainly Belfast men, he probably might have known them, though certainly not in that capacity – ] I do think it is sometimes not very difcult to know the persons who transact the business of that society – for if I am rightly informed, Administration themselves have been consulted with one of those gentlemen, Mr. Nelson,95 about what terms would satisfy the people. I do certainly not disapprove of the measure – I think every measure which tends to conciliation and fnal adjustment with the discontents of the country is useful; I only think it proves that Government, though they have confned this very gentleman for several months, so long indeed that I hear he will loose the use of his limbs, are now beginning to entertain less strong suspicions of his guilt. My Lords, I shall here conclude by once more recommending to your refection those arguments which urge the necessity of Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. Te situation of this country is not an ordinary situation, and therefore calls for no ordinary measures. Tese measures are of such a kind that if not successful they would at least not injure, for in the adoption of conciliatory plans, no measure of precaution need be relaxed. If they fail, they will leave us where we were, which no doubt is a situation sufciently disastrous. In the worst event, the experiment will give to the House and the Government the consolation to refect that they had done every thing wisdom and duty have suggested to save the country. Lord ROSSMORE96 spoke against the resolution, but in a tone so low we could not hear him.

64

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Lord BELLAMONT97 was a friend to conciliatory measures – but inasmuch as the Noble Earl had said, / that Emancipation and Reform were two of the conciliatory measures which he meant to recommend, if that resolution passed, he could not support him, because it was a principle with him never to pledge himself to any measures until it was specially before him. At two o’clock in the morning the question was put – Contents - - - - Proxy98 - - - - - -

10 Non-Contents - - - 1 Proxy - - - - - - - - 11

Majority

44 1 45

35

Te names of the minority are as follows:– Earls Charlemont,99 –––– Bellamont, –––– Arran,100 –––– Kilkenny,102 –––– Granard,103 –––– Belvedere,104

Earl Moira, Lord Dunsany, –––– Cloncurry,101 and Te Bishop of Down. Proxy, Earl Mt. Cashel.105

Afer the division, the following protest was immediately entered:– Dissentient.106 Because that, at a moment when Government has thought itself obliged to exert unusual rigor, it appears the extreme of impolicy not to profess the reluctance with such severities are enforced, and the wish of Government to conciliate the minds of the people by a gentler course. Granard, Moira, Charlemont, Arran,

Wm. Down and Connor, Dunsany, Mount Cashel, (by Proxy.)

Te other Lords who voted for the motion had lef the House, through fatigue, before the protest.

‘BEHAVIOUR OF THE ARMED FORCES PRIOR TO THE REBELLION’, IN THE DIARY OF SIR JOHN MOORE

‘Behaviour of the Armed Forces Prior to the Rebellion’, in Te Diary of Sir John Moore, ed. J. F. Maurice, 2 vols (London: Edward Arnold, Publisher to H. M. India Ofce 1904), vol. 1, excerpts from pp. 270–90.

Tese extracts from the diary of John Moore, a senior British army ofcer who served in Ireland from December 1797 to June 1799, reveal how some British ofcers tried to act in a professional manner even when a major rebellion was feared and then broke out. Moore’s diary reveals how he struggled to maintain discipline among the troops under his command and how he faced the problems created by the eforts of United Irishmen to suborn some of his soldiers. Like his admired Commander-in-Chief, Ralph Abercromby, he opposed any resort to the kind of harsh measures supported by Lord Carhampton, the previous Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, and practised by troops under the command of General Lake in Ulster. Moore deeply regretted the fact that Abercromby was driven to resign rather than implement the measures approved of by Lord Lieutenant Camden. He wished to follow his commander into withdrawing from Ireland, but was not permitted to do so. In the subsequent rebellion, he commanded the forces which recaptured the town of Wexford from rebel forces. John Moore (1761–1809) was a Scottish army ofcer, who saw military service in Gibraltar, Corsica, the West Indies, Egypt, Portugal and Spain, as well as in Ireland. He also served as MP for Linlithgow burghs in the Westminster Parliament from 1784 to 1790. He died a hero’s death at the battle of Corunna on 16 January 1809, when he strove to cover the embarkation of the British troops retreating from superior French forces. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB and a biography, Sir John Moore, by Carola Oman (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1953). His service in Ireland during the Irish rebellion has been analysed by Paul M. Kerrigan in ‘General Moore in Ireland in 1798’, Irish Sword, 23 (2003), pp. 401–8 and by W. F. G. Stockley, ‘Sir John Moore (1761–1809) and the Ireland of 1798’, American Catholic Quarterly Review, 45 (1920), pp. 676–96. – 65 –

66

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Moore’s diary was edited by Sir John Frederick Maurice (1841–1912), an army ofcer, military writer and professor at Camberwell College. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Te signifcance of the resignation of Sir Ralph Abercromby has been studied by Tony Gaynor, ‘Te Abercromby afair’, in 1798: A Bicentenary Perspective, ed. Tomas Bartlett et al. (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003), pp. 394–405. Tere is an entry on Abercromby in the ODNB.

‘Behaviour of the Armed Forces Prior to the Rebellion’, in Te Diary of Sir John Moore, ed. J. F. Maurice, 2 vols (London: Edward Arnold, Publisher to H. M. India Ofce 1904), vol. 1, excerpts from pp. 270–90.

Cork, 10th January 1798. – Sir Ralph Abercromby1 invited me to his house during my stay in Dublin, and he detained me there till he had made his diferent arrangements…. […] / I had opportunities of hearing from Sir Ralph whilst I remained with him the very defective state in which he found every military preparation. No artillery were in a condition to move, even the guns attached to the regiments were unprovided with horses. No magazines were formed for the militia regiments, little or no order or discipline, and the troops in general dispersed in small detachments for the protection of individuals. Te situation of Commander-in-chief in Ireland is subservient to the Lord-Lieutenant,2 to whom every application, even of the most trifing kind, must be made, and by him directed. In quiet times a Commander-in-chief has been little attended to, and the army has been considered little more than an instrument of corruption in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant and his secretary.3 So much has this been the custom that even now, when the country is undoubtedly in a very alarming state, both from internal disafection and the fear of invasion, it requires, I believe, all Sir Ralph’s temper and moderation to carry on the necessary business, and to obtain that weight which his situation and the times require. Te mode which has been followed to quiet the disturbances in this country has been to proclaim the districts in which the people appeared to be most violent, and to let loose the military, who were encouraged in acts of great violence against all who were supposed to be disafected. Individuals have been taken up upon suspicion, and without any trial sent out of the country. By these means the disturbances have been quelled, an apparent calm produced, but the disafection has been undoubtedly increased. Te gentlemen in general, however, still call out aloud for violent measures as the most proper to be adopted, and a complete line seems to be drawn between the upper and lower orders…. /

[…] – 67 –

68

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Bantry, 16th February. – Diferent arrangements have prevented my moving from this garrison. A conspiracy was discovered among the Militia4 last summer to murder their ofcers, seize the cannon, and march to Bantry; several soldiers were shot for it. I hope no more of that spirit exists; the men are upon the whole well-behaved, but they have, I observe, no sort of respect for their ofcers; I am more afraid of this than of their disafection. I am convinced the same men if transferred might be perfectly depended upon; but there must always be danger, and more particularly in these times, of armed men who are not subordinate. Sir Ralph has gone back to Dublin. I had a letter from him yesterday. He mentions that the Shannon afords the easiest means of debarkation to an enemy, and is tempting from its immediate communication with a fruitful country. He suspects that the Shannon and Galway will be the points. I have written to him upon the necessity of insisting upon immediate steps being taken to complete the old regiments. It is melancholy to think that we have only the Militia with which to encounter an enemy inured to war. When the Militia were frst formed, had pains been taken to select proper ofcers and to introduce discipline they might by this time have been respectable troops; but, like everything else in this country, the giving of regiments was made an instrument of infuence with the colonels, and they made their appointments to serve electioneering purposes. Every sort of abuse has been tolerated, and it is, I fear, now too late to amend them. Te ofcers are in general profigate and idle, serving for the emolument, but neither from a sense of duty nor of military distinction. In the management of this country there appears to have been a great want of probity and talent. If there ever was a time when / such an ofcer as a dictator was required, it is the present. If a man of suffcient character and talent was to be found to fll it, he might still save Ireland. It was an ofce admirably imagined, and adapted to situations of difculty and danger. It gave to a free country all the advantages of a despotic one; it gave strength and energy to the Government, without debasing the people. 4th March. – Some attempt to excite disafection in the Sligo Regiment at Macroom has been discovered; three men deserted, but eight or nine were taken up. I went myself to Macroom the moment it was reported to me. I examined the diferent persons concerned. It was impossible to make more out of what could be extracted from them than that several meetings had taken place, improper toasts had been drunk, such as “Te French Republic,” “Hell to the King5 and Duke of York”6 and “their well-wishers.” It appeared also that an oath of secrecy had been tendered, and taken by some. I am inclined to hope the discovery was made in time and before the plot had gone far; it is, however, evident to what it tended. A soldier, who was formerly a Dublin ’prentice, is supposed to have been the instigator. I directed them all to be tried by a regimental court-martial, and intend afer they are punished to get them sent abroad. Te Militia of Ireland were only raised to serve a certain number of years, and not during the war.

Te Diary of Sir John Moore

69

Te consequence is that the time of enlistment with most of the men has lately expired, and now not only are the greatest part of the Militia recruits, but recruits from a mass of people who are supposed to be disafected. Te advantage of four years’ discipline is lost, and also that which I believe was intended at their formation, the advantage of keeping them apart from the other inhabitants and giving them a separate interest from them. An attempt has been made when too late to remedy these evils, and an Act has been passed to enlist the Militia in future for the period of the war. Te ofcers of the Militia are in general Protestants, the men Roman Catholics. Te hatred between these diferent / persuasions is inveterate to a degree, and the ofcers have so little sense or prudence as not to conceal their prejudices. Te plots which have been hitherto discovered among the troops have been confned to the Roman Catholics. Te argument used by the Chancellor of Ireland7 in a late debate upon Lord Moira’s motion seems to me very weak. He says that “Conciliation (meaning with respect to the Roman Catholics) had already been tried, and instead of contenting them, it had only created discontent; that on each new concession the people professed themselves contented and grateful, and yet, within a month or two aferwards, their discontent and turbulence returned with increased vigour.” But is not this perfectly natural? Tey are pleased with each concession as with one step advanced towards their fnal object; but must not their demands continue till all is granted, and they are put on exactly the same footing with the rest of the inhabitants? Tose of the Roman Catholic persuasion were perhaps with propriety put under certain restraints; they were then enemies to the liberty and constitution of these kingdoms, but this for many years has been no longer the case. Can it then be sound policy in a Government to favour one part of its inhabitants against nineteen that are oppressed? Every man is oppressed to whom the privileges of his fellow-citizens are denied. Tat so much has been granted to the Roman Catholics is a bad argument for withholding from them the little that remains.

[…] 16th March. – […] / I went early next morning to Macroom to see Lieutenant Colonel Cooper8 again about the men of Sligo. I found they had received their punishment, and had consented to go abroad. I spoke to the regiment upon their past and future conduct, and came back to Bandon in the evening, meaning to join Sir James Stewart9 in Cork the next day; but I received letters from Skibbereen and Bantry, and was aferwards waited upon by the high sherif of the county,10 to inform me of outrages which had been committed in those neighbourhoods by the people, who were all united men, and that a general rising of the people was expected. Te high sherif, who seems to be a well-educated man, was under great apprehension. I endeavoured to encourage, him by stating the

70

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

improbability of a general rising unless the French landed, or if they did attempt it, the certainty of its being immediately crushed. I said that he should / not disgrace his countrymen by supposing that the Militia were not faithful. I was convinced the majority of them were, and they had never refused to act when called upon; but I told him, which seemed to give him more satisfaction than all I had said, that I should postpone going to Cork. I would set out next day for Clonakilty, and be with him at Skibbereen the day following. At Clonakilty the people were apprehensive, though they allowed the lower class had been quiet immediately about there. I was informed that several of the respectable inhabitants were disafected. I found upon inquiry the persons to whom they alluded were “Democrats,” but they were clever, and in private life good men. I inspected the three companies of the Westmeath Militia. I received from them two anonymous letters, complaining of injustice from their ofcers in retaining from them money that was their due. I ordered the regiment to parade next morning, formed the circle, and told them when they had complaints of any kind to make they should not make them in anonymous letters, which was a mode unbecoming soldiers. Tey should make them in a decent, manly manner, either by memorial delivered openly or by deputing a man to speak, that men who were conscious of doing no wrong need not be afraid. Te articles of war directed soldiers to complain when they thought themselves aggrieved, and it was the duty of general ofcers to inquire into the nature of their complaints, to explain to them if they were mistaken, and to order justice to be done to them if they were wronged. Afer adding something more to the same purpose I desired them to pitch upon two men from each company to come to me and explain their grievances. I directed the captains of companies to attend with their account-books. Te men deputed were decent, intelligent men. I found their demands to be just, and I ordered a regimental court-martial to state them. It was not the fault of the private ofcers, but of the colonel, Lord Westmeath,11 who undoubtedly has detained their money from them. When / I receive the proceedings of the court-martial I shall forward them to Sir Ralph Abercromby. Having fnished this I proceeded to Skibbereen. Te gentlemen of the neighbourhood were convened to meet me. All were alarmed and in fear of a rising. Tey represented that the whole country was disafected. I found, however, that no outrage had been committed except that a few trees had been cut down. Tey said that the trees were to be used as pike handles. I rather fancy they were cut down for fuel, for want of which the people are in great distress. Some were cut down for works of husbandry. Te alarm, however, of the gentlemen did not seem to prompt them to take any steps to exert themselves, either by fair or other means, to remove the evil; they seemed to have no reliance but on the military. I told them I could do nothing for them; we could not fght phantoms. If they could obtain information of improper meetings we might prevent them,

Te Diary of Sir John Moore

71

or if there was a rising we should quell it. As they had a conviction that mischief was intended, I should establish such vigilance as to be ready to meet it. I knew not what more as a military man I could do; we could not act till something appeared for us to act against. I then encouraged them to unite, to show a joint resolution to oppose whatever was unlawful, but at the same time to be just themselves; not to judge by what they imagined was in the people’s minds and to treat them accordingly, and not, when armed for the support of good order, to be themselves the frst to infringe it. By these means they would do more than we could do towards the restoration of tranquillity. A soldier of the Westmeath Regiment came to me in the evening, and said he could make me great discoveries; that some people of the country had asked the men to drill them. Te man was heated with drink. I gave him some encouragement, and told him to come next day to his ofcer. Nothing that he said seemed sufciently important to detain me from visiting the rest of the coast. I desired the ofcer to examine him, and I set out next day along the coast to Crook Haven. /

[…] From thence I went by Dunmanus Bay, and so returned to Bandon. I found everywhere the people of the country quiet and at work, but everywhere equal apprehension. I have, since my return, received the deposition of the soldier at Skibbereen. He accuses thirteen or fourteen inhabitants and above forty soldiers of the two companies there with being “defenders,”12 and sworn to join the French. Te deposition is incoherent, and, unless more is made out, I shall doubt the whole of it. I have, however, sent a detachment of cavalry to reinforce the post and overawe disafection, and have desired the major of the regiment, who is just arrived, to go and command there. I shall go myself as soon as I can leave this, but so strong a conviction exists that a rising is to take place on the 17th, that I cannot absent myself from my headquarters. 17th March. – Te guards were reinforced, and patrols were kept going all last night. I saw no reason to apprehend danger, but information was given me that something would be attempted. I myself visited the diferent guards at 3 a.m. this morning. Te town never was so quiet; this day the market was full as usual, and nothing appears to give cause of suspicion. Te same precautions shall; however, be taken this night; I have also instructed the diferent ofcers commanding the out-quarters to take every precaution against surprise. I made a speech yesterday to the troops. I reprobated some meetings of Orange boys (Protestants), which, as I heard, had taken place. I said that if by such meetings they intended to form a union to defend their country, they were unnecessary, as every good man was already determined in his heart to do so, and they, as soldiers, had

72

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

already sworn to do it; but if it was to create a distinction and separate interest from the Catholics, it was wicked, and must be punished. Ireland was composed of Roman Catholics and Protestants. Te Government had / entrusted both equally with her defence. A union of both was necessary for this purpose. Distinctions of this kind were illiberal, and for a man to boast or be proud of his religion was absurd. It was a circumstance in which he had no merit; he was the one or the other because his parents were so before him, and it was determined for him before he had a choice. Any man might fairly pride himself upon being just and honest, but not on his religion. If they followed the doctrines of the one or the other they would be good and upright. I then told them that they, like everybody else, must have heard the reports of disturbances and of risings which were said to be about to take place; that I did not see much reason to apprehend them; I had everywhere observed the people to be perfectly tranquil, but that it appeared that much pains were taken by ill-disposed persons to excite alarm, and to make every person jealous of his neighbour; that people had even gone so far as to say that amongst them were many ready to join the enemy. I could give no faith to such reports; their conduct did not entitle me to pay them so bad a compliment as to suspect them of such villainy. Every man had been taught from his cradle to look upon any one who joined the enemies of his country as a traitor and a villain. I had no thoughts that they were such; and in spite of every report, I was convinced that they would do their duty when called on in support of the laws of their country, either against a foreign enemy or against whoever might be wicked enough to attempt to overturn them. I said that I was as much at my ease amongst them as I ever had been amongst any soldiers whatever. Amongst so large a number bad men might no doubt be found, but the majority were, I was convinced, good. Let these therefore not listen to or trouble themselves with idle rumours, but determine solely to do their duty. By this means they would probably prevent all internal rising or commotion, and undoubtedly repel invasion if attempted, and beat their enemies as their countrymen had ever done before them. If they failed, they would still have the satisfaction of having / done their duty; or if they fell, they would die as every honourable and good man should wish to die, in the defence of the laws of his country. As, however, such rumours were circulated, it became them to be circumspect; that the next day was the anniversary of the Saint of their country,13 a day commonly spent in mirth and jollity, but, as it was said to be intended for diferent designs, it was necessary they should keep sober and be in a state to do their duty if called upon. It was melancholy to be obliged to act against one’s countrymen. I hoped sincerely it would never be our case; but, as soldiers, we had engaged not only to fght the foreigner, but also to support the Government and laws, which had long been in use, and framed by wiser men than we were. If, therefore, any people were weak or wicked enough to oppose or attempt to subvert them, we had no choice, nor could we, as honest men, do otherwise than act against them, &c. &c.

Te Diary of Sir John Moore

73

22nd March 1798. – St. Patrick’s and the day following, which in general is equally riotous, passed of very quietly. Te garrison was perfectly orderly with the exception of one captain, who was on picquet, and who got drunk. I heard of it in the morning, and instantly put him under arrest, and reported the circumstance to the Adjutant-General14 for the information of the Commanderin-chief.15 I hope sincerely he may be broken. I understood that such things had been practised by the ofcers heretofore, and warned them against it as a practice so disgraceful that it would be impossible for me to overlook it. Soldiers are fogged for it. I do not see how I could look them in the face if I was not to punish it equally in ofcers; but still by this act of justice I shall bring upon myself much odium. It will be called harsh, &c.; I know it is the reverse. By getting a very worthless ofcer dismissed more efect will be produced than if ffy poor men had been fogged. I set out for Skibbereen, and saw the soldier who had before given the information respecting the disafection in the Westmeath Regiment. He had been able to disclose nothing upon / which it is possible to act; but from the whole of what he has stated I am convinced that the regiment to a man are disafected, and had the country risen or the French landed, they would have joined them. Tis is in a great measure the fault of their colonel and ofcers. Te men have not been dealt with fairly; the ofcers do not act in a manner to gain their confdence or esteem. I had the day before sent a detachment of cavalry unexpectedly to Skibbereen. It had the good efect of inspiring the gentlemen with courage, and it overawed the ill-intentioned, and showed to both with what ease the force from Bandon could be upon them. Te gentlemen of the neighbourhood expressed their obligation to me. Tey have themselves begun, and I hope will continue, to act.

[…] Bandon, 29th March. – Sir Ralph in his visit to the diferent quarters observed and received reports of the irregularities and abuses which existed, particularly in the regiments / of Militia. Tey had risen to a height, and were not only extremely disgraceful to those who permitted and connived at them, but were completely subversive of all discipline and order. Te colonels and principal ofcers being members of Parliament and men of rank, no person had hitherto dared to check them. Sir Ralph’s orders from the beginning have been pointed to that object; he at least exposed and reprobated the abuses which had been practised, and in strong terms forbade the continuance of them. Particularly in an order dated February 26th he expressed himself, “Tat the frequency of courts-martial and the many complaints of irregularities in the conduct of the troops in this kingdom having too unfortunately proved the army to be in a state of licentiousness which must render it formidable to every one but the enemy, the Commander-in-chief thinks it necessary to demand from all Generals com-

74

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

manding districts and brigades, as well as commanding ofcers of regiments, that they exert themselves and compel from all ofcers under their command the strictest and most unremitting attention to the discipline, good order, and conduct of their men, such as may restore the high and distinguished reputation which the British troops have been accustomed to enjoy in every part of the world. It becomes necessary to recur and most pointedly to attend to the standing orders of the kingdom, which at the same time that they direct military assistance to be given at the requisition of the civil magistrate, positively forbid the troops to act (except in case of attack) without his presence and authority, and the most clear and precise orders are to be given to the ofcer commanding the party for this purpose,” &c.16 Tis order, addressed to the troops, though their state loudly called for it, gave ofence in proportion to its truth. Te principal ofcers, who had hitherto been used to be complimented, could not bear the language of truth. Tey had the folly to call out and make public what was meant for their private guidance and correction, and they have done so with all the efrontery of innocence and rectitude. Not, however, daring to deny the abuses, they have laid / hold of that part which forbids acting without the presence of a civil magistrate. Tis is stated to be in direct contradiction to former orders, and to the Lord-Lieutenant’s proclamation. In consequence of the disturbed state of the north the laws were extended and districts were proclaimed, but in the practice and execution the troops had infnitely exceeded what even the laws thus extended authorised, and undoubtedly enormities had been committed extremely disgraceful to the military as well as prejudicial to their discipline. Sir Ralph was determined that this should no longer be the case, and his instructions, private and public, to the general ofcers tended strongly to forbid such practices. But as the above conduct in the north had terrifed the people into submission, the cry of the gentlemen throughout is that nothing but strong measures, as they are called, will do; and upon every murmur of the people they call upon the military and urge them to every act of violence. A cabal has by this means been raised against Sir Ralph for his moderation, and it is surprising to what length it has been carried. His recall has been talked of, and the whole of his conduct arraigned. In a letter which I wrote to him lately I took notice of the clamour raised against him in consequence of his order, and I hinted that should he be induced to resign I was determined not to serve. In his answer, which I received yesterday, he writes: “My orders of the 26th ultimo have caused a great fermentation, which originated here, and has been communicated to England from here. Of this I cannot bring positive proof, but it is as sure as cause and efect; I cannot as yet enter into any detail. Matters have, however, gone far; they may force me to resign, but I shall not lower myself by a compliance with their propositions.” He then, in terms friendly and fattering, entreats me to take no hasty resolution with respect to

Te Diary of Sir John Moore

75

myself. His resolution not to retract his orders nor to submit has aforded me much pleasure, and I have taken the liberty of writing so to him. In fact, his conduct since his arrival in Ireland has been so exemplary, the motives upon which / he has acted have been so honourable and upright, that he stands upon grounds which refect great credit upon him, and happen what may, he must have pleasure in the refection through life. Te gentlemen of this country are so profigate that the General [here occurs a blank in the MS.]. He has already done much good; the country allows it, and should the perverseness or weakness of Government by yielding to unjust clamour force Sir Ralph to resign, Ireland will repent it I am confdent, but unfortunately when it will be too late. Two soldiers of the Dublin Militia were shot yesterday in Cork. Tey were condemned by a court-martial for conspiracy and “defenderism.” It appeared that they had been purposely sent from Dublin to enlist and to debauch the regiment. Bandon, 30th March. – Te order, issued by Lord Carhampton17 when Commander-in-chief, which that of Sir Ralph Abercromby of the 26th February is said to contradict, is as follows:– “Adjutant-General’s Ofce, 18th May 1797. In obedience to an order of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, it is the Commander-in-chief ’s commands that the military do act without waiting for directions from the civil magistrate in dispersing any tumultuous or unlawful assemblies of persons threatening the peace of the realm and the safety of the lives and property of his Majesty’s loyal subjects wheresoever collected.” I have read the Act of Parliament, which does not justify this order.

[…] BANDON, 5th April. – I returned yesterday from Mallow, where I had been to receive Sir James Stewart’s instructions for disarming the baronies of East and West Carbery. Te disarming diferent baronies in the county of Cork commenced this morning; I shall be obliged to defer my operations for some days. A proclamation from the Lord-Lieutenant in Council has just been issued, proclaiming the whole kingdom to be in rebellion, and directing the Commander-in-chief to take the most efectual means to quell it. An order from Sir Ralph accompanied the proclamation nearly in the same terms as that issued formerly by Lord Carhampton, stating that in obedience to an order from the Lord-Lieutenant in Council the troops were to act without waiting for the authority of a chief magistrate. Upon this the Commander-in-chief has written to be recalled. Bandon, 16th April – I returned yesterday from Cork, where I had gone to meet Sir Ralph. He explained to me confdentially all that had passed; he spoke of Lord Camden as one of the best men in the world but one of the weakest, and completely guided by a set of violent, hot-headed men. Sir Ralph told me that the proclamation and order in / consequence of it, formerly issued in Lord

76

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Carhampton’s time, had never been acted upon; but a special order and Act of indemnity and pardon having since passed,18 they were considered as thereby annulled. In one instance only since his arrival at a place in the north had an ofcer acted without a magistrate, and he was immediately stopt. In the south, where Colonel Manser St. George19 was murdered, General Johnstone wrote that he was going to burn houses, &c. His letter was sent to Mr. Pelham,20 and from him to the Lord-Lieutenant, and orders were instantly sent down to stop General Johnstone.21 When Sir Ralph issued his order desiring ofcers never to act without a civil magistrate he conceived he did nothing but what Lord Camden approved of. In the diferent councils he had always disapproved of the violent measures proposed and of dispersing the troops. His opinion was that the civil magistrates should be encouraged to act. He had already succeeded in getting them to attempt it in some parts where he had been. Te Chancellor and those of his party would never explain exactly what they wished; but it was evident that they wished the Commander-in-chief with the army to take upon themselves to act with a violence which they did not choose to defne, and for which they would give no public authority. Teir approbation would therefore depend upon the success. Sir Ralph said he never chose to understand them. It was during his tour to the north that the cabal was formed against him, and it was not until his return to Dublin that he found his orders to the army had been the subject of discussion, and his character and conduct traduced and misrepresented both in this country and in England. He had done all he could with Lord Camden to show him the danger of the measures pursued. His Lordship agreed with him, but could not resist the other party. Upon the proclamation Sir Ralph issued the order he was desired to do, because he did not wish to be said to have disobeyed, but he immediately wrote to be recalled. Te Lord-Lieutenant then asked him to come to the south where the disturbances were, to carry into execution the / orders which he disapproved. He told the Lord-Lieutenant that since it was his desire he should comply, but it was a sacrifce which he did not expect would have been demanded of him; he hoped it would be the last, and that upon his return to Dublin he should be permitted to quit the kingdom. Te powers given to the Commander-in-chief are equal to martial law, but still they do not proclaim this, and the civil courts are sitting and the assizes are going on. Tose who have the government of the country seem to have no plan or system but that of terrifying the common people; they will give you every power to act, against them, but the rest of the community are to be indulged in every abuse. Te troops are now so dispersed that when Sir Ralph took his pen to see what number could be assembled, supposing the enemy to appear at Bantry or the Shannon, he found that in four or fve days 6000 was the utmost. I have written in the most pressing terms to Colonel Brownrigg22 to be withdrawn from Ireland. Te measures likely to be adopted will be most odious, and

Te Diary of Sir John Moore

77

whoever attempts to execute them with lenity or moderation risks giving displeasure and being ruined. Should an invasion be attempted there will be no head to direct, and no previous arrangement made; the scene will be disgraceful, and I wish to retire from it. I mentioned this as my intention to Sir Ralph. He begged I would be cautious, both for my own sake and his; he should be sorry that anything we did should bear the appearance of party. Sir Ralph said, “I shall be blamed for what I have done in this country, but I never felt more satisfed with myself, or my conscience more clear. I meant to act well, and feeling this, the calumny of the world does not afect me.” I told him I was sure that in time all prejudice would subside and his conduct would obtain the approbation it deserved. I was convinced the part he had acted would always be a source of pleasant refection to himself. Bandon, 27th May 1798. – I received orders in April to disarm the two Carberries, which is all the country which / lies from Crookham along the coast to Bandon. Sir Ralph issued a notice commanding the people to deliver their arms to the diferent magistrates or ofcers commanding the troops, informing them that if they did so they should be not only unmolested, but protected; that if they did not, or persevered in committing outrages, the troops would be sent to live upon them at free quarters, and other severe measures taken to reduce them to obedience. I aferwards issued a similar notice to this for my district, fxing the 2nd May as the date on or before which, if the arms were not delivered in, the troops should act; and to convince them that I was serious, I marched fve companies of Light Infantry and a detachment of Dragoons throughout the country to Skull to be ready to act. I expected that upon the appearance of the troops the people would have given in their arms, but it had no efect. I spoke to the priests, and took every pains to represent the folly of holding out and of forcing me to resort to violent measures. I directed Major Nugent,23 with the troops quartered in Skibbereen, to march on the 2nd May into free quarters in the parish of Coharagh, which had been much disturbed; and I placed the fve Light Companies in diferent divisions from Ballydehob to Ballydevilin, with orders to forage the whole of the country from Crookhaven to within seven miles of Skibbereen. My orders were to treat the people with as much harshness as possible, as far as words and manner went, and to supply themselves with whatever provisions were necessary to enable them to live well. My wish was to excite terror, and by that means obtain our end speedily. I thought this better than to act more mildly, and be obliged to continue for any time the real oppression; and, as I was present everywhere myself, I had no doubt of being able to prevent any great abuses by the troops. Te second day the people, afer denying that they had any arms, began to deliver them in. Afer four days we extracted sixty-fve muskets. Major Nugent in Coharagh was obliged to burn some houses before he could get a single arm. / Tey then delivered in a number of pikes. I then removed the

78

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

troops to another part of the country, always entreating that the arms might be delivered without forcing me to ruin them. Few parishes had the good sense to do so; such as did escaped. Te terror was great. Te moment a red coat appeared everybody fed. I was thus constantly employed for three weeks, during which I received about 800 pikes and 3400 stand of arms, the latter very bad. Te better sort of people seemed all delighted with the operation except when it touched their own tenants, by whose ruin they saw they themselves must sufer, but they were pleased that the people were humbled, and would be civil. I found only two gentlemen who acted with liberality or manliness; the rest seemed in general to be actuated by the meanest motives. Te common people have been so illtreated by them, and so ofen deceived, that neither attachment nor confdence any longer exists. Tey have yielded in this instance to force, are humbled, but irritated to a great degree, and unless the gentlemen change their conduct and manner towards them, or Government steps in with regulations for the protection of the lower from the upper order, the pike will appear again very soon.

AN IRISH EMIGRANT, THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION IN IRELAND DISCLOSED IN AN ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed in an Address to the People of England. In which it is Proved by Incontrovertible Facts, that the System for Some Years Pursued in the Country, has Driven it into its Present Dreadful Situation (London: Printed for J. S. Jordan, [1798]).

Te author of this pamphlet advises his readers that the present rebellion in Ireland has been provoked by the corruption of the political system in Ireland, the oppressive powers exerted by the Irish authorities and the failure to redress any of the many grievances of the Irish people. He maintains that the achievement of legislative independence in 1782 had not brought liberty and justice to Ireland. A corrupt and unreformed electoral system lef real power over the Irish Parliament not in the hands of the Irish people, but in those of the Irish and British governments. Repeated eforts at Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform had been thwarted. Moderate men such as Lord Lieutenant Fitzwilliam and General Abercromby had been replaced by harsher men and oppressive policies. Despite the popular support for the Whig Club, the Catholic Committee, the United Irishmen and the Defenders, the Irish executive and parliament had regularly rejected most of their eforts at reform. Te author argues that the authorities had also resorted to a series of repressive measures (such as the Convention Act, the Gunpowder Act and the Insurrection Act) and had allowed the army to mistreat all supporters of liberty. Te Irish authorities had encouraged sectarian disputes between Catholics and Protestants in an efort to prevent eforts at uniting the majority of Irishmen in support of Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform. Furthermore, they had even encouraged the Orange Order to attack defenceless Catholics and had incited the troops to abuse all reformers, especially in Ulster. Coercion had repeatedly been preferred to the kind of conciliation favoured by the Earl of Moira. Since peaceful protests and constitutional reform organizations had been suppressed, the United Irishmen and the Catholic Defenders had no way of achieving the – 79 –

80

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

redress of any of their grievances except to engage in clandestine conspiracies and resort to insurrection and then full-blown rebellion. Te Irish authorities, and not these reformers, had been the initial aggressors. Hence rebellion had been forced upon the United Irishmen. Force could suppress the present rebellion only temporarily. Te ‘Irish Emigrant’ closes with the argument that for more permanent peace and stability in Ireland, then the whole political system in the country needed to be reformed.

An Irish Emigrant, The Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed in an Address to the People of England. In which it is Proved by Incontrovertible Facts, that the System for Some Years Pursued in the Counrty, has Driven it into its Present Dreadful Situation (London: Printed for J. S. Jordan, [1798]).

Insita mortalibus natura violentiæ resistere. TACITUS.1

[…] / CAUSES OF THE

REBELLION, &c. &c. FELLOW SUBJECTS, It is always a bold undertaking in a private individual to become the advocate of a sufering people. It is peculiarly difcult at the present moment to be the advocate of the people of Ireland, because there are among them men who have taken the power to redress into their own hands, and committed acts of outrage and rebellion which no suferings could justify, and which can only tend to aggravate ten-fold the other calamities of their country. Deeply impressed, however, as I am with a conviction that these difculties stand in my way, I shall yet venture to state to Englishmen the case of Ireland. In doing so, I rest not on a vain confdence in my own strength, but on the nature of the cause I plead; for I am convinced, that when the train of measures which have led that miserable country into its present situation shall be fully disclosed, it will be but little difcult to rouze the people of England not merely to commiserate a distressed – 81 –

82

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

country, but excite them to exert their constitutional endeavours, as head of the British empire, to avert the destruction of its principal member. Tere is another circumstance which gives me hope. Te People of England at this hour feel themselves much more interested in what concerns Irishmen, than they have ever done at any former period. Whatever mischiefs may have resulted to human society from that kind of philosophic illumination by which modern times are distinguished, one certain good at least has been produced by it – Men have become better acquainted – the bond of a common nature has been strengthened – and each country begins to feel an interest in the concerns of every other. It is not to a more extensive personal intercourse, or to the creation of any new principles of political union, that this is to be attributed. It is owing solely to an increased communication of sentiment and feeling – to a knowledge which has difused itself through the world that the human mind is every where made of the same materials, and that on all the great questions which concern / man’s interest in society, the men of every country think alike. Hence has arisen an increased sympathy between nations – if not between those who govern them, at least between those by whom they are constituted; and hence too has it followed, that those national antipathies which had so long debased and aficted mankind, are now become less strong and rancorous; and, it may be reasonable to hope, will one day be known no more. It is not, however, on the infuence of this nascent principle of philanthropy among nations that I ground my principal hope, when I call on Englishmen to hear with an ear of kindness and concern the complaint of a sister-country. I resort to a still more powerful principle – I shall call on them as a people famed even in barbarous times for those feelings of generosity and compassion, which are inseparable from valour – I shall call on them as a FREE people, to watch with caution the progress of despotism toward their own shores, stalking in all its horrors of murder. Pillage, and fames, through the territory of a neighbor – I shall call even on their INTEREST, eat to save from utter ruin, political, commercial, and constitutional, the most valuable member of / the British empire! If Englishmen look with horror on the enormities of France, I will call on them to let crimes of as black a dye perpetrated in Ireland meet their share of detestation. If they who subvert the good order of society – who overleap the bounds fxed by the law of Nature itself to guard the liberty, life, and property of individuals against the spoiler, be ft objects of reprobation, I shall turn the eyes of all the good and wise in England toward that faction by whose counsels and whose deeds the fairest island in the British empire has been made a theatre on which lawless outrage has played its deadly freaks! When I speak in terms thus strong of that system under which the people of Ireland have sufered for some years, and by which they have been goaded into acts of folly and madness which no good man is either able or inclined to defend,

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

83

let me not too early be charged with declamation. Tere are some cases in which no language can be declamatory because no words can aggravate them. If I shall not shew before I conclude this address that the case of Ireland is one of them, let me then be branded with the epithet of empty talker! / It will not be necessary for me, in stating to the people of England the calamities under which Ireland smarts, and the causes which produced them, to go farther back than that period at which she became, nominally at least, an independent country. What remains of her history before that period the honour of both countries calls on us to forget – a mistaken but overbearing principle of domination and monopoly on one hand, fed and strengthened by a servile and base acquiescence on the other, constitute the outline of the sketch – an idle and beggared populace, a jobbing legislature, proscriptions, penal laws, &c. &c. are the disgusting materials with which it must be flled. Tat Time should quickly draw his veil over such a scene, and cover it with oblivion, would be the natural wish of every British and Irish heart, were it not that scenes still more disgraceful to both countries and more calamitous to one of them have succeeded – scenes which force the mind to revert with regret to those days of poverty and peace, when, as there existed little wealth to excite avarice, and little spirit to aggravate the ambition of party, that little remained inviolate, and the miserable cabin, though flled with objects of disgusting wretchedness, was yet the secure covering and castle of its humble owner. / – How diferent his present situation! when in laying down his head at night he fears lest before morning he shall be rouzed by the cries of his family in fames, or dragged from his bed by military rufans, to be hanged at his own door! Forgetting then the many causes of discontent with the people of England which existed in Ireland prior to the year 1782,2 I shall call the attention of this country to only those transactions which have taken place since that time – and indeed to many of those transactions it would not be necessary to advert at all, were it not for that minute and elaborate detail which has been made of them by a well known public character in a late publication,3* for the purpose of proving that Ireland deserved what she sufered – that she has been always sottishly discontented and basely ungrateful. But I call on Englishmen to judge impartially for themselves – nor let the confdent assertion or bold recrimination of an accused man pre-occupy their decision on the merits and the suferings of an unhappy people. It will scarcely be denied at this day, that the people of Ireland did right in calling for the independence of their legislature in the year 1782, and in pressing that claim on the British minister, until he yielded to its force. – It is admitted that Ireland, on that occasion, while she armed herself to repel the foes of Britain, while her population poured to her shores to resist the insulting feet of the *

Vide Irish Chancellor’s speech on Lord Moira’s motion. /

84

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

enemy, and preserve her connexion with the empire, acted with the proper and true spirit of a brave and loyal people in calling on the British Parliament for a renunciation of that claim to rule her which was originally founded only on her weakness, and was supported by no other argument than power. While this then is admitted, let it be remembered, that they who opposed this just claim of Ireland to be free, must have been the advocates of a slavish system – and that the people of Ireland might fairly entertain doubts of the sincere attachment of such men to her cause. – Let it be remembered, that the men who said to a country struggling for the legitimate power of governing for itself, “You have no right to make your own laws – you are materials ft only to be governed by strangers,” were not men in whom that country, when she succeeded in the struggle, could place much confdence. In / fact, she did not confde in them. It was thought necessary to watch attentively the measures of men who had reluctantly assented to the manumission of their country, and who were believed to have such a deeply rooted attachment to the principles of the old court, that they would lose no opportunity of re-inducing upon the nation those bonds which she had broken only by a combination of fortunate circumstances, concurring with her own eforts. In this consciousness of the danger with which they were surrounded from false friends, originated that doubt which is now charged on the people of Ireland as a frst proof of wanton discontent – I mean a doubt about the validity of the simple repeal of the 6th Geo. III.4 as an act of renunciation. Discontent on this subject arose and became general in Ireland almost immediately on the repeal of that obnoxious statute; and from the zeal and warmth with which it was attempted to beat it down, did for a time put the kingdom in a ferment.5 Te men who have since that time scourged Ireland with a rod of iron, charge this as the commencement of the crimes of the country – the frst overt act of her intemperance and violent propensity to discontent. Whether it deserves that epithet / Englishmen will judge, when they learn that this doubt was frst suggested by some of the best lawyers – the warmest friends and the most enlightened and able men whom Ireland ever knew – by Walter Hussey Burgh6 – by Henry Flood,7 and by the brilliant phalanx of constitutional lawyers who at that time graced the popular cause – men “to whom compared” the most proud and petulant of her present persecutors “are but the insects of a summer’s day.”8 Tese gentlemen had been the long-tried friends of the country – they had been found pure in principle, and in intellect superior to their contemporaries. Where, therefore, was the wonder, that the people should adopt an opinion sanctioned and inculcated by such venerable names? What was there strange or criminal in believing, that a country which only retracted in silence a claim for more than half a century enforced and acted on, did but suspend for the present a right which she believed to exist, and which she would not fail to urge again in more favourable circumstances? Te partisans of the Irish Chancellor act with

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

85

as much confdence on his opinions in cases where common understandings have less to guide them: why then should the people of Ireland be branded / as seditious and disafected, for following, in a matter of law, the counsels of men whose integrity she had tried, and whose talents were acknowledged? It is true, indeed, there was on the other side of this question a name to which Ireland owed much, and to whose subsequent exertions in her cause, though fruitless, she owes perhaps still more – Mr. Grattan.9 He thought the simple repeal of itself a valid and full renunciation. But it may be said for the people of Ireland, that Mr. Grattan, when this question was agitated, stood in circumstances which deducted much from his high authority. He had but just come from the Treasury, afer receiving 50,000l. for his past services10 – and it was too generally known in Ireland, that there was some quality in Treasury gold, however acquired, which attracted the possessor powerfully towards the Castle.11 Te private judgement of Mr. Grattan might also be reasonably supposed to have a bias on the question, from the circumstance of being himself the adviser of the simple repeal – the idea of an explicit renunciation not having been started when Mr. Grattan’s principal exertions, seconded by the voice of the people, triumphed over the old / system. Tere was another reason – Mr. Grattan’s infuence was weakened, if not lost, by the fallen character of those with whom he then acted. Te people of Ireland were naturally jealous of those men who had uniformly supported the dominating principles of the British party in Ireland, and who had as violently opposed (though by more legitimate means) the exertions of the popular party to obtain an independent legislature, as they now do to prevent the reform of the legislative body. And fnally, the opinion and authority of Mr. Grattan, however respectable were not thought an adequate counterpoize to the weight of those very numerous and most respectable opinions which were on this question in opposition to his. Under these circumstances, the charge of sottish discontent, which has been so confdently made against the Irish nation, will appear to be one of those foul calumnies by which a desperate and enraged faction strive to cover their own enormities. Englishmen, and the world, will see, that had Ireland at that critical moment adopted the advice of those who had always acted as enemies to her best interests, and rejected the counsels and opinions of those to whom she owed the most important obligations. she would then indeed have been incorrigibly sottish. / Te next crime with which the Irish nation stands charged, is their early and zealous eforts for parliamentary reform. – It has been enumerated as one of the causes which have produced the present horrible system of administration in Ireland, that shortly afer the establishment of their legislative independence a convention met in Dublin,12 consisting of representatives from the diferent Volunteer Associations, by whom the country had been saved from the common enemy, and who were supposed to have contributed much to the establishment

86

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of her independence. Tis convention had been constituted on the same principle (but with more circumspection and order) as that which was so well known by the name of the Dungannon meeting13 – an assembly, which though perfectly military, so far as its being constituted by armed citizens could make it so, did more towards asserting the independence of Ireland and procuring for her the most important advantages of constitution and commerce than any other which ever sat in Ireland. To the Dungannon meeting, however, no exceptions were taken – they were sufered to meet – to resolve – and to point out in the most decisive tone the grievances under which they supposed the country laboured. Teir remonstrances were / carried even to the foot of the throne, and the father of his people,14 uninfuenced by that romantic sense of dignity, which has since produced such lamentable efects in Irish Parliaments – graciously received, and wisely attended to their remonstrances. – Te jesuitical or or [sic] Machiavelian distinction between citizens in red clothes and in coloured ones,15 had not yet been thought of – it was considered sufcient to entitle an address or petition to a respectful hearing, if it was substantially the sense of a great body of the property and population of the state, no matter whether they spoke in the character of volunteers associated to defend the constitution, or as freeholders assembled only to exercise its privileges. It is not for me now to defend the convention of that day from the imputation of false policy and imprudence, in preferring the character of soldiers to that of citizens in their deliberative capacity, but I cannot help observing – First, that the Irish administration have never manifested any dislike of military bodies – real, mercenary, foreign soldiers, – expressing publicly their sentiments on great public questions, when those sentiments coincided with the politics of the Castle – witness the / manifestoes with which the Irish newspapers have for the last year or two been crouded, from Scotch and English mercenary troops, in which these zealous advocates for religion and liberty declare themselves friends to this or that measure, publish their determination to support them – and sometimes conclude by letting the Irish public know – they had not come thither to be trifed with. – Secondly, I must remark, that tho’ the great objection to the volunteer convention was its being armed, and consisting of the representatives of an armed body, yet opposition equally violent has been since made to other representative bodies not military – instance the calumny with which the servants of the Irish administration have blackened the Catholic committee – and, above all, instance the Athlone convention,16 the meeting of which administration were so solicitous to prevent, that they ventured on a law to prevent for ever the meeting of any representative body – the House of Commons excepted. By these circumstances it seems sufciently clear, that the inconceivable aversion entertained against this body, and the memory of it, was founded not in its being military, but in its being representative and popular – not in its / constitu-

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

87

tion, but in its object. – With respect to its being a representative body, I profess, for my own part, I cannot conceive why for that reason the Irish government and the Irish Chancellor have held it so much in abomination. You, Englishmen, who understand that constitution of which you are properly so proud, will be surprized to hear that representative bodies are unconstitutional. – If you heard this asserted with much confdence by a lawyer, you would say he had studied special pleading rather than the British constitution. – If you heard this doctrine swallowed implicitly by an assembly of legislators, you would say they were still unft to govern themselves. What is it, you would ask, that forms the general and pervading principle of the British constitution, if not the representative one? Every petty corporation, you would observe, elects representatives to act for them in their Common Council – the council elect Aldermen, and these again their Mayor – all on the same principle – that of having the sense of the multitude concentrated, and their business dispatched at once with ease and order. Nay, every Freeman is himself but a representative, not indeed of other men – but of his own property. / But it is impossible that this should have been the real ground of objection to the Convention, however it might have been urged as the ostensible one – for it is obvious, that if the principle of representation be a fair and useful principle to adopt in collecting the sense of the people with respect to laws or taxes, it must also be a useful and fair principle to resort to, in every other instance, where great bodies of men are permitted to express their common sense as they are unquestionably in petitioning for redress of grievances, &c. No, Englishmen! it was not because the Convention was unconstitutional as being representative, but because it was chosen to recommend, as the sense of the Irish people (for the Volunteers of that day were people of Ireland,) – a parliamentary reform, and to consider of a specifc plan. It was this that the corrupt part of the Irish Government dreaded. Tey had been stunned by the unexpected blow struck by the people in asserting the independence of the legislature: for whatever credit the Parliament of that day may assume for the part which they acted in that business, it requires no argument to prove to a discerning man, that they were passive instruments in the people’s hand – they only re-echoed the voice of an armed nation which they conceived too / loud to be smothered, and were hurried on irresistibly by that enthusiastic sentiment for national independence, which the ability of one great mind, aided by a fortunate concurrence of existing circumstances, had excited. But at the period I now speak of, the party of the British Minister17 had recovered from the astonishment into which the successful and prompt energy of the nation had thrown him. He now began to refect on the extensive consequence which must follow from the restoration to Ireland of the right of legislating for herself. It was soon felt, that there now remained in the hands of the court faction in Ireland, only one instrument by which the

88

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

efect of the recent revolution could be checked or frustrated; and that was, the borough system. It was seen, that whatever nominal independence the Irish legislature might have attained, yet while a majority of the Common’s House was constituted of members returned immediately by the crown infuence, the will of the crown or the will of the British Cabinet must still be the law which would bind Ireland. To preserve the borough system then, at all hazards, became from that moment the great object of the dominating faction. Te Convention was an engine which seemed to threaten its immediate and complete / overthrow; it was therefore resolved, by all means, to efect its ruins. Te staunch hounds which had fattened for years on the vitals of the country, but had been for some time kept at bay by the universal energy of the public mind, were again hallooed into action. In addition to these were introduced new forces from every quarter, but principally from the old aristocratic families, who had monopolized for a century the power and wealth of the country. On the memorable night when Mr. Flood presented to the House18 the petition of the Convention, was made the grand efort which was to decide whether the will of the nation or that of the old faction should govern. Te latter was victorious. Te people, with the characteristic levity of their nation, repulsed in this great efort, for the present at last shrunk back from the contest. Te victorious party, possessing means of the most extensive and corrupting infuence, strained them to the utmost; and gaining ground from that moment on the sense of the nation on that main point, have continued triumphantly and insolently to prostrate the people of Ireland. Every thinking and steady Irishman, however, retained his opinion as to the necessity of reform, and continued by the few means in his power, to promote it. At this / point, then, commenced the separation between the Irish administration with their partisans in Parliament and the Irish people, and from that time they have gone in directly opposite directions. Such, Englishmen, is another of the crimes with which we are charged, and for which the highest law authority in our country has declared we merit to be deprived of all the benefts of the British constitution! For this we have been called a sottish, an insatiable, and tumultuous people – and to punish us for this ofence the world has been told we deserve all those horrible calamities which, year afer year, since that time have been inficted on us! I have already said, that the people and the parliamentary supporters of administration separated from the moment when the Irish House of Commons extinguished the public hope on the important measure of parliamentary reform. Te grand argument urged by the House of Commons against a reform at that time was, that it would be a surrender of the dignity and independence of the legislature to adopt a measure proposed to it on the point of a bayonet. Te Convention proved the malice / of the argument by the manner in which they bore the insulting rejection of their petition: having discharged the duty

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

89

which they were created to perform, they dissolved, not only without a threat but without a murmur. Te people, with a patience and moderation of which perhaps few more laudable instances are to be found in the history of any country, acquiesced, or submitted in silence to the decision of the legislation on this their most esteemed and favourite application. No doubt they hoped that a Parliament who refused to receive the petition of the people when presented as soldiers, would listen with a more patient ear to their claims when presented in another character. But this hope having been tried for fve years without efect, was at last relinquished. Te pertinacity with which all applications on the subject of reform were rejected, put it beyond doubt that reform was an object which by ordinary means could never be obtained. It was, however, a measure too big, when it had once gotten possession of the public mind, to be let go without a struggle. Accordingly, whatever of intelligence, of zeal, or of public spirit the country possessed, continued to be directed toward the acquisition of this great object. Among other modes which had been devised for giving greater efcacy to / the public will on this subject, was that of forming societies which should have for their sole object to animate, to direct, to concentrate, the exertions of the people in the pursuit of this favourite and vital measure. Of these societies the frst was formed in Dublin,19 of a few men whose talents, principles, and character, moral and political, gave such weight and popularity to their union, as soon swelled its numbers to a great magnitude, which, while it gave hope to the friends of the popular cause, excited in the administration very lively alarm. But it was yet more the principles of this body than its numbers which alarmed administration. Te original members of the society, men of minds not only frmly attached to the political interests of this country, but superior to the infuence of bigotry, which had been the most powerful instrument in the hands of the Court faction for dividing and weakening the people, made it a radical principle of their union to promote an abolition of all religious distinction, and to procure for all the freemen of the state, whatever might be their religious sentiments, a participation in all the privileges of the British constitution. A reform in Parliament, accompanied by such a principle as this, became a measure in which every man in the country was / interested; and the catholics, who constitute the great majority of the people, more interested than others. Te consequence was, that men of every description of religion, men of every rank in life, not immediately under the controul or infuence of the Castle, adopted the principles of the society, or solicited admission into the ranks. Te fear and the hatred of administration was soon manifested. Every art was used to blacken the principles of the society – its principal members were pointed out as the agitators of sedition – the enemies of social order – and men who aimed at nothing less than a subversion of the constitution and separation from Great Britain, under the pretext of reform and emancipation. Te prints which were in

90

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

the pay of the Castle vomited out daily the most gross, the most malignant, and irritating calumnies; and even the senate itself, now really forgetting its dignity, condescended to become the scurrilous aggressor not merely of the society at large, but of particular, and, in many instances, inconsiderable members of it. It was this despicable conduct in the prevailing faction in Ireland that laid the ground work of all the mischiefs which have since afected our unhappy country. Te Irish Minister20 / who paid the money of the people to cover their name with infamy and their principles with dishonour, him I charge with having frst implanted in the minds of the multitude that invincible detestation of the system by which they were governed, that has since ended in assassination and treason. His subordinate agents, who in the folly and venom of their hearts at one time charged the great body of the Catholics with disafection, at another held up to ridicule and odium the names of individuals of the most respectable and unsullied characters – at one time sneering at the merchant, at another insulting the tradesman, them I charge with having irritated the people of Ireland wantonly and wickedly, by calling forth the personal feelings, the pride, and sensibility of individuals, into a personal and revengeful opposition to the British name and British connection. What would Englishmen have felt, how would Englishmen have acted, had two or three individuals, strangers to their country, despicable in point of birth or talents, and considerable only from fortuitous elevation to ofces which they were unft to fll, ventured to insult their national character – to accuse of treason every man who dared to complain of his suferings or his privations, or assumed the courage / to exercise the humble privilege of petitioning for redress? If the saucy hirelings of a foreign Cabinet should publicly avow contempt for the men who uphold the strength and consequence of the state by useful industry, and tell the merchant and manufacturer that it was not for such fellows to deal in politics, to seek for rights, or talk of constitution – would not the spirit of the nation rise against their insolence, and make them feel how much more valuable he is who promotes the comfort and welfare of society by commerce or by labour, than he who lives upon the spoil of the community in something worse than idleness? It was this arrogance in the Castle servants, the result of their conscious strength in corruption, that scouted with contempt and insult, out of the Irish House of Commons in 1795,21 the petition of three millions of Catholics, fully and impartially represented. Was not this an aggression of administration against the people? And yet the partisans of that administration – nay, the frst mover in it, has had the confdence to assert, that the discontents and tumults of the people preceded the measures of which they complain. Englishmen will determine, whether the Irish nation, consisting / principally of Catholics, had or had not reason to be disgusted with the administration of the government under which they lived, when by the infuence of that administration not only their

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

91

wishes were not consulted, not only their general sense disregarded, but even their supplications spurned without a hearing from that body which professed to be, and which ought to be, their representatives. If it be granted that such conduct in the popular representation of a nation was calculated to excite discontent and destroy confdence, what followed that transaction must have had a much more powerful tendency to alienate the afection of the people, and produce those direful consequences which are now boldly said to have arisen unprovoked. When the Irish Catholics perceived, from the manner in which their petition for the elective franchise was treated, that in the Irish House of Commons they were not to look for friends, they resorted to the Trone. Te supplications which had met only with contumely when addressed to the Irish Commons, was received with favour by a British King, acting with the advice of a British Cabinet. In the next session, the speech from the throne recommended to the Irish Parliament / to take into their consideration the situation of the King’s Catholic subjects. No sooner was this hint received from the British Cabinet, than those very men, who but last year pledged their lives and fortunes to perpetuate the exclusion of the Irish Catholics from the privileges of freemen, because to admit them to share those privileges would be a subversion of the constitution and establishment, surrendered that opinion with as much promptness and facility as they had shewn violence and rancour in taking it up. Without any petition from the Catholics, without any change of circumstances, except the declaration of the will of the British Cabinet, that privilege which was last year refused with so much harshness and disdain, was this year spontaneously conceded!22 Will any man who knows any thing of men and of the feelings and motives which actuate them, assert that there was any thing in this concession which should attach more frmly the Irish Catholics to the Irish House of Commons? Will he say that this was one of those gracious measures which an enlightened legislature would adopt to sofen the exasperation of national discontent? Probably he will rather / say, it was ftted to evince more strongly than ever the necessity of reforming the constitution of that assembly, which, from the inconsistency of its measures, appeared evidently the instrument of a foreign will, not the authentic organ of the national sense. Let him, or them whose hot folly, whose rank bigotry, or whose petulant and stolid zeal led the Irish Commons into this disgraceful and contemptible situation, feel the blush of shame and confusion burn their cheek, when they refect on these scenes. Let them, while it is yet in their power, atone to their ofended country for the fatal consequences of their advice, before those records which are to inform future ages impress on their names for ever the indelible character of – public enemy. In speaking of these transactions I have not attended to chronological accuracy. Tere were other measures to which the administration of Ireland had

92

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

resorted to prop up their power, and form a substitute for that legitimate strength which is to be found only in the chearful support of a contented people – there were other / measures which they adopted to beat down the public voice, and overbear the general sense of the nation. Among these were wanton prosecutions of innocent and respectable men, sometimes for libels, which all publications were construed to be that dared to talk of reform as a good measure or of constitutional rights as things to be desired; others for crimes of a deeper die – for sedition and for treason. Te evidence adduced in support of these charges were ofen the vilest of the rabble, whose testimony on the trials was discredited even by themselves, and the prisoners discharged, to the honour of themselves and the detestation of their accusers. Such was the case of the Drogheda merchants, on whose trial came out proofs of subornation and perjury which would shock credibility.23 Tese, however, were but venial errors, compared with those more mortal sins against the constitution and against common right, with which the Irish administration stands charged – sins, which including a violation of general and vital principles, may be fairly reckoned among those great and leading causes which have reduced Ireland to the dreadful state of discontent and disorder in which she now stands. / Of these, one was the Convention Bill24 – a measure proposed by administration, and adopted by the Parliament of that day, for the avowed purpose of preventing the Catholics from collecting the sense of their body on a petition to Parliament, or to the Trone, for the elective franchise. Tis bill, if it did not annihilate a popular right, certainly narrowed it to a degree which, in a great measure, under the then existing circumstances, destroyed its efcacy. It had been one of the special pleading tricks of the Irish Court, when the people expressed their sense on particular measures, if there happened to be any variations of mode or sentiment in the application of diferent bodies, to take occasion, from these variations, to reject the whole as inconsistent. Tis scheme had been practised with much plausibility on the question of reform. No reform, they contended, was practicable, which would content the nation; because of the many petitions which had been presented from the diferent counties, cities, and towns in the country, and of the many plans which had been proposed, no two were found perfectly to correspond – as if when the general sense of the people was fully expressed, no attention should be paid to / it, because there was not to be found in the various expressions of that sense that perfect coincidence which on a general question of morals or politics it is absolutely impossible to attain. It had also been boldly and shamelessly asserted by administration, in opposition to the most general and public declaration of the Catholic body, that the claim of the elective franchise was only the suggestion of a few turbulent agitators, and that the great bulk of the Catholics had neither solicitude nor desire about the matter. To give the lie to this hardy and absurd assertion, the Catholics resolved upon a measure which would put the matter beyond doubt, and by col-

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

93

lecting into a focus the sense of their body, and expressing that sense in a simple and explicit manner, would take from their enemies the two great arguments by which they had defeated the popular applications for reform. Administration, however, were too vigilant to sufer the Catholics to get hold of this powerful weapon. Te Convention Bill, by which all representative assemblies were made illegal, and punishable with the severest penalties, proposed in haste, and passed with precipitation, deprived them of the only means of giving to the legislature that simple and indubitable / declaration of the general sense, which, however, the legislature insisted on as a necessary preliminary to hearing their complaints. Here certainly was another of those measures which without any crime in the people of Ireland was levelled at one of their most valuable privileges. Let the people of England judge, whether under the circumstances I have mentioned, it was not likely to wound deeply the feelings of three-fourths of his Majesty’s Irish subjects – and, combined as it was with the insulting rejection of the Catholic petition, and the subsequent concession, at the instance of the British Cabinet, of that favour which was refused to Irish supplication – let Englishmen say, whether it may not fairly be reckoned among the wanton and unprovoked causes of the present discontents. Te Convention Bill, however mischievous it may have been by aggravating the discontent which had already spread through the mass of the people, was yet more mischievous by stopping up that channel through which popular discontent discharges itself with most safety – that of petition and remonstrance. So little efect had been found to result from the petitions / of individuals in the legislature on any of the great questions which in any degree interfered with the system adopted by administration, and in which they seemed resolved to persevere, that it was thought futile and absurd to resort to that mode of stating complaint or soliciting redress. If a corporation petitioned, they were answered only by an observation on the manner in which the petition was obtained, by contrasting it with other petitions produced by Castle infuence, or by some sarcastic remark on their profession or character. If a body of citizens petitioned, they were porter house politicians or bankrupt traders. Tere remained, therefore, no way in which the people could lay their complaints before the legislature, with any hope of relief, but in that general way of a representative body, which, while it gave weight and consistency to their application, obviated these pitiful arts by which the Castle continued to elude and frustrate the wishes of the people. Te Convention Bill, by rendering that mode impracticable, compressed the public discontents, and while it encreased the irritation, lef no vent to its violence but in assassination and conspiracy. / Tat such would be the consequence of this measure, administration were solemnly warned. It was urged on them, but without efect, that in every country where the freedom of remonstrance and complaint was denied, secret conspiracy

94

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

or open insurrection took the place of angry but harmless petition. Italy was mentioned; and it was said, rather with the spirit of a prophet than a politician, that if this bill passed, Ireland would become more infamous for private assassination than Italy itself. Te Society of United Irishmen was not yet become a clandestine or an illegal body – but it was foretold, that this bill would create clandestine and seditious meetings: for it was easy to see, that when discontented people were prevented from uttering their complaints, they would substitute other modes of redress for angry publication. But with the administration of Ireland, or the Irish House of Commons of that day, advice and remonstrance were vain. Tey boldly ventured on a measure of which these consequences were foreseen, yet now profess to wonder why such consequences have happened. On the folly of their counsels, then, the people of Ireland are justifed in changing the assassinations – the sedition – the conspiracy, which have disgraced their country: they are not the native / growth of her soil! Tey have been begotten only by insolence and injury upon the stifed indignation of a volatile and feeling people! But the Convention act was not the only measure to which the party abusing the powers of government in Ireland resorted, to tame or to irritate the Irish people. Te Gunpowder Bill,25 prior in order and time, which deprived the Irish subject in a great measure of the constitutional power of self-defence, prepared the minds of the people for receiving the full impression of the Convention act, which narrowed another of his rights. Te attempt to annihilate the independence of the country, by insisting on the right of Britain to choose a regent for Ireland, and the subsequent attempt of the same kind in 1785 to substitute a commercial boon for the right of self-government, had already gone far toward producing a tendency to irritation in the people, which these more vital attacks completed. Nor did even these measures, insidious, violent, and unconstitutional as they were, produce so much discontent as the tone and the spirit in which they were carried into execution. Te most insulting imputations on the / loyalty, and even on the intellect of the nation, were daily made by the needy adventurers, whom chance, or perhaps infamous services, had raised to a place in the administration. Te public prints were polluted by the foulest calumny against every man who had the virtue and the courage to oppose a system which he foresaw must eventually terminate in the ruin of the country. Some of the basest of mankind, distinguished, however, by more than usual talents for perversion and invective, were appointed to conduct those publications which were paid by the public money for abusing the national character. Te Whig Club,26 consisting of noblemen and gentlemen who, by possessing large property and extensive connections in the country, felt themselves bound to oppose the mad measures of men who, as they were mostly foreigners, had no interest but to turn the present moment to most advantage, were held up to the public, both in and out of Parliament, as enemies to the tranquillity of the state, and anxious only, at all events, to raise themselves to power.

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

95

Te conduct of administration to the Whig Club, indeed, deserves peculiar consideration, as it evinces, in the fullest manner, that it was / not the irregular or unconstitutional proceedings of this or that body of men – of the Volunteer Convention, or of the United Irish Society – but the measures which these bodies recommended, against which the infuence and force of government was turned. Te Whig Club had formed themselves on the most constitutional and moderate principles. Teir object was to obtain for the people of Ireland, by a concentration of their parliamentary infuence and exertions, those laws by which the British constitution was guarded, against the encroachments of the executive power; and by the want of which in Ireland, her constitution seemed to have but a precarious existence at the pleasure of the Court. Such were a Pension Bill, for limiting the infuence resulting to the Crown by an indefnite power of granting pensions – a Place Bill, to secure the independence of the House of Commons, by making the acceptance of ofce by a member a vacation of his seat – a Responsibility Bill, by which the men intrusted with the management of the public treasure, or enjoying high ofcial situations in the government of the country, should be responsible to Parliament for their conduct and advice. Tese were the measures which the Club undertook at their formation to press upon / minister. Tey subsequently adopted others on which the sense of the people became too generally known to be at all doubtful. Te question of reform and Catholic emancipation they did not take up, until the nation called for them in a manner which proved the concession of them to be essential to the peace of the country. Of the constitutionality of those measures which the Whig Club originally espoused, no man could entertain a doubt. Tey were the law of England. Te manner in which these measures were urged by the Whig Club was equally constitutional. Tey brought them before Parliament by bill and by motion, supported by arguments which were answered only by majorities consisting of those placemen and pensioners, those borough members and irresponsible ofcers, against whose parliamentary existence they were levelled. Tis constitutional pursuit of constitutional measures – how did the Irish administration treat it? By imputing the worst motives to those by whom they were proposed – by impeaching their loyalty to their Sovereign – by the most open and bold avowal of the existence, and the necessity of corruption in the government – by the most / contumelious indiference for the public voice, and, fnally, by afxing the most disgraceful and irritating marks of suspicion on every nobleman and man of property in either house of Parliament, who dared to support those pretensions of the people to the benefts of the British constitution. Te removal of that good and estimable character, the Earl of Charlemont,27 from the ofce of Governor of the County of Armagh – an ofce which might be considered as hereditary in his family, and to which his estate in that county gave him a kind of indefeasible right, is one instance of a number. It will ever be remembered as a damning proof of the foolish and wicked malignity of the Irish administration against the friends of the Irish people.

96

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Tese arts of the Castle, however, were unable to counteract or repress the persevering efects of the Whig Club. It is not necessary in this place to enter into a defence of the motives of that body in thus contending for the interests of the public. It is sufcient that the measures which they patronized were in a high degree benefcial to the Irish nation; and whether they urged them from a wish to raise themselves to ofce, or from a principle of pure patriotism, / was to the public immaterial. Tat they supported them zealously and faithfully, from whatever motive, was indubitable. So zealously and faithfully indeed did they exert themselves, that the very same men who had for years made a constant and violent opposition to those measures, exhausting every epithet of reprobation which the English language aforded, both against them and their supporters, yet at last found themselves obliged to concede them to the unrelaxing vigour of these gentlemen, supported by the general sense of the country. It is the concession of these measures that the friends of the Irish junto call “conciliation!” Tese are the favours which they say Ireland has received, and which they contend ought for ever to have silenced popular complaint, and put a period to the demands of the country! Had they been yielded at an earlier time, before the long, long irritation which the obstinate refusal of them for several successive years had produced, they would have been received with gratitude by the nation, and the efect would have been general tranquillity and content. But the Irish administration knew neither how to concede nor withhold – their resistance was without strength, and their concessions without kindness. Like the Roman King and the Sybils,28 / they withheld the price of public content, until the people, aggravated by refusal, insisted on still higher terms; and, indeed, rose in their demands, beyond what an administration, bankrupt in character and confdence, were able to grant them. What a Minister of comprehensive mind and enlarged views would have granted to the people with magnanimity at once, and what if thus granted, would have taken the tongue from discontent, and lef disafection no handle to use against the peace of the country, the Irish administration conceded piece-meal – one little measure afer another – reluctantly and with hesitation; thus teaching the people that what was granted could not be witheld, and that the same means which had extorted one concession from the weakness of government would be equally successful in extorting others. Nay, at the very moment when they were yielding those measures to the perseverance of opposition, supported by the public sense, they continued to load those very men by whose exertions they had been obtained with scurrilous and foul invective; and while with one hand they afected to conciliate the people, with the other they scattered the seeds of disaffection widely through the land by the most infammatory and ill-judged libels upon the country and its claims. Tus, / in the hands of those men, the benignity of the Sovereign was perverted into an instrument of discontent, and those rich concessions which, if judiciously administered, would have bound Ireland

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

97

to Britain by indissoluble ties, were made means of exciting in numbers of the inhabitants of that country a deep hatred of the British name and connection. When Englishmen contemplate for a moment this picture of the “conciliation” which the Irish nation has received with so much ingratitude, it is possible they may conclude that nothing has happened which might not have reasonably been expected. Possibly they will think it not unnatural that the people should have received, with little sense of obligation, measures which were never conceded until they came to form only a small part of what was demanded as rights – and that they should rather feel indignant at the insult and abuse heaped on them by a few contemptible and obscure adventurers, than acknowledge gratitude for benefts long kept back, and, at length, reluctantly yielded. I have dwelt thus long on the early conduct of the Irish administration for two reasons – / the one to vindicate the people of Ireland from the insolent charge made against them by their enemies – “Tat conciliation had been tried in vain with that sottish and discontented people – that they had not intellect to understand, nor gratitude to acknowledge benefts – and that, therefore, the present system of unconstitutional coercion and deprivation was resorted to of necessity:” – the other was to shew, that whatever discontent has been recently shewn in Ireland, whatever crimes have been committed for political purposes, had their remote origin in that system by which the powers of government had been abused in Ireland for several years back. Whether I have succeeded in this attempt, I leave to Englishmen, who know and value freedom and constitution, to determine. For myself I shall only say, that my mind is incapable of feeling a greater degree of moral certainty, than that the people of Ireland are innocent of causeless discontent and of ingratitude; and that all the evils which now lacerate that unhappy country, (for the mere suppression of present discontents will not end the danger,) and threaten the mutilation of the empire, are the necessary and inevitable efects of the wicked system adopted by the weak, hot-headed, and petulant men to whom the administration of Ireland was / entrusted, operating upon a generous and loyal but irritable and warm people. But had the Irish junto rested at the point to which we have now come in describing their system, Ireland would not now have to appeal for pity or for aid to the British nation. It is the subsequent measures to which they resorted, and for which no precedent is to be found in the history of this or any other country pretending to laws, or rights, or constitution, that we complain of. It is by these that Ireland has been lashed into madness, and driven to crimes and to follies which her sober reason would have looked at with detestation. It shall be now my business to advert to those measures – to shew that they have generally preceded those crimes of the people which are alledged to have produced them – that they have been severe and desperate beyond what the necessity of the case called for – that their probable result will be a military despotism – that

98

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

they cannot tranquillize the country but by the destruction of every degree of constitutional liberty – that, therefore, the people of Great Britain are interested in preventing the progress of that system in Ireland – and, fnally, that if the two great objects of the public in Ireland were honestly and fully / conceded, and if the people were re-instated in the blessings of the constitution by the establishment of a mild and just administration, peace and content would be restored to the country, disafection would vanish, and the connection of the two islands become closer and more permanent than ever. I have already mentioned the Convention and Gunpowder Acts, and the discontent which these laws had excited. Administration felt, that on these questions there was but one opinion amongst the people of Ireland. Tey perceived, that though these acts were of the strongest kind, their operation would not be adequate to the suppression of the existing and encreasing discontent; and they therefore resorted to a device, which, having been but too ofen and too successfully tried in Ireland on former occasions, would, it was hoped, be equally successful at present. A religious feud was excited, and sufered to rage without check or intermission, until it nearly desolated a whole county. Some petty quarrels had, a considerable time back, taken place in the county of Armagh, between a few Catholics and Presbyterians, which, however, produced no serious mischief, and were almost instantly terminated / either by the interposition of the magistrates, or by the mutual compromise of the parties. Subsequent to this, the county of Armagh enjoyed the most profound tranquillity, until about this period a party started up on the sudden, without visible motive, without provocation, and, to the surprize of the people in Ireland, commenced a most outrageous and unaccountable persecution of the Catholic inhabitants.29 It would shock the ears of an Englishman, and, perhaps, exceed his belief, were I to give a minute detail of the ferocious barbarities which were committed by this party. It may sufce to say, that under the name of Orange-men,30 and under colour of attachment to the constitution and afection for the Protestant establishment, they not only burned the houses and destroyed the persons of numbers of the unfortunate Catholics, in the heat of blood and fervour of outrage, but with a cool and settled system proceeded to banish the whole of them. Entire districts were proscribed in a night. Labels were afxed on all the Catholic houses in a village, with the words “To Connaught or to Hell!” Nor was the threat vain; – for in numberless instances where the unfortunate inhabitants refused to obey the mandate, their habitations were pulled down or burned by / these bravadoes of the constitution, happy if they thus escaped personal destruction. In many cases these outrages were accompanied by plunder; but plunder did not seem to constitute any part of the system under which the Orangemen acted, unless perhaps the plunder of arms, to deprive the Catholics of which was one of their proposed objects.

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

99

With what reason the Irish administration were charged with having clandestinely excited, or culpably connived at the excesses of these men, the people of England may determine when they hear that the magistracy of that country remained for many months inactive spectators of these scenes; nay, indeed, in some cases, are said to have given countenance and support to the ofenders, by executing the laws with the most infexible rigour against the Catholics when they happened to fall into any casual error in repelling the attacks of their persecutors, while these latter were lef in the enjoyment of perfect impunity. But this is not the only circumstance which may assist an Englishman to judge how far the Irish administration participated in the guilt of these disturbances – there is another which / seems pretty decisive on this point; and that is, that notwithstanding this palpable and notorious misconduct of the Armagh magistracy, not one man was turned out of the commission for his negligence and connivance on those occasions! What apology did the Irish Chancellor ofer for not removing those magistrates? – “Tat better men could not be found in the country!” Tis feud, so malignant in its origin, and so destructive in its progress, was possibly expected to have weakened the efcacy of the popular sentiment against the Irish Ministers, by throwing the diferent religious descriptions to a consideration of their respective and peculiar interests. It produced a very contrary efect. Te persecution commenced against the Catholics in Armagh, alarmed the Catholics in every quarter of the country; and when they saw such enormities committed against them with impunity, if not with the approbation of the Castle, they naturally apprehended that a general persecution was designed. Tey knew, however, that the great body of the Protestants in Ireland were too enlightened to assist in such a scheme – for they had already experienced that the rigour of old prejudices was abated, and that men now began to consider each other / rather as men than as religionists. – But they also knew the character of the administration; and the recent transactions in Armagh and elsewhere, taught them, that though they had no reason to fear persecution from the great body of their Protestant fellow-subjects, they were yet not exempt from danger. Tese fears suggested the necessity of drawing still more closely the bond of union between them and their countrymen of other persuasions. Te Protestants met them half way in their advances toward a conjunction of interests – for they perceived, that though the present blow was struck against the Catholics, yet the warfare of administration was not against them only, but against the constitution, against the people, their privileges, and their interests. Had these been the only consequences that followed this dreadful experiment, the partial evil would have been compensated by the union which it produced. But this was not the case. Te alarm which the Armagh persecution produced on the minds of the enlightened Catholics, and on the lower orders of that description were very diferent. In the former it produced a desire to unite

100

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

more closely with his Protestant brethren, in order to form by their conjunction / the stronger barrier against the apprehended assault of the Irish Cabinet upon both. In the latter, it excited a fear of extermination, which resolved itself into the most violent and unjustifable measures, of what they considered personal defence – Te Orange-men had deprived the Catholics of their arms – the lower order of Catholics co-operating in many instances with their Protestant neighbours of the same rank, who detested the conduct of Orangemen, betook themselves to retaliate on those whom they considered suspected characters. Te robbery of arms became a general measure of safety, and those who exerted themselves in this way obtained the name of Defenders31 – a body of men, whom that administration which sufered the Orange-men to violate the laws with impunity, followed with the utmost severity of legal punishment. No man who values the interests of society, or knows the value of peace and good order in a community, can be supposed for a moment to justify the intemperate and incautious conduct of those deluded men. If such license as they usurped were permitted, human society must be dissolved, and man be thrown back to a state of savage nature. But on the other / hand, no man who has any regard for truth, or who enjoys a capacity of distinguishing between diferent ideas, can deny, that the crimes of the Defenders were provoked by the preceding crimes of the Orange-men, and that those powers which, contrary to justice, were sufered to lie dormant against the one class, whose guilt was original and unprovoked, were exercised without mercy against the latter; whose errors were the ebullition of untaught nature repelling in an untaught way, the most wanton and unparelleled aggression. Tere were some collateral circumstances which contributed to give full efect to the impression which the enormities of the Orange society were calculated to make on the minds of the lower orders. Te severity with which administration had followed the United Irishmen by dispersing their meetings, seizing their papers, and prosecuting as libels every publication which emanated from them, had driven them to the necessity of meeting secretly, and admitting members into their society in a private and mysterious manner. Between secret meetings and conspiracy the interval is small – between meeting secretly for constitutional purposes and meeting to alter or overthrow the / constitution, the interval is perhaps still less. Whether the objects of the United Irish societies were at this period unconstitutional or not, it is certain the meetings were clandestine, and that of the lower class of people numbers focked to them who were admitted only on condition of taking an oath to be true to the body – i.e. to keep its secrets, and to devote themselves to the pursuit of the two great popular objects – Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. Te impression which the minds of the lower order of the people would be apt to receive at the discussion of these meetings cannot be considered as very likely to mitigate their

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

101

zeal in opposition to the persecutors of the Catholics, or to form their minds to receive with patient forbearance the severities which were now every were exercised indiscriminately against the United Irishmen and Defenders – terms which, in the indiscriminating language of the senate and the Castle, were considered as synonymous. In considering the efect which the extensive and secret meetings of the United Irishmen produced on the dispositions of the lower people it is not necessary to ascertain whether the designs of that body were or were not treasonable. / it is sufcient that were they precisely limited to their professed objects, emancipation and reform, the efect of them on the mass of the public by whom they were constituted must be adverse to the system which administration had adopted, and which they now began to force on the nation by means the most unjustifable. If this statement of facts, which I have now submitted to the English nation, as demonstrative that the Irish administration were themselves the authors of those enormities which they have since made a pretext for introducing fre and sword through the country – if this statement, I say, be true, and I defy any part of it to be disproved, their guilt and the emptiness of the pretences by which they have endeavoured to screen it, are incontrovertible. What was the next measure of administration? Te Insurrection Act.32 Te outrages which commenced in Armagh, and had been but too successfully, though faintly, imitated in several parts of the country, administration now afected to consider as incurable by any of the ordinary powers with which the law invested the executive authority. A law was therefore propounded and adopted, by which any district / which the magistrates of it might think proper to declare in a state of disturbance, or in immediate danger of becoming so, (phrases so vague that it required but little artifce to make them applicable at that time to any county in the kingdom,) was put into such a state of regimen, that any individual magistrate might on his own authority, without trial or proof, seize the person of any inhabitant and send him to serve on board his Majesty’s feet – i.e. transport him for life. In such districts the privileges of the constitution with respect to liberty, and I may add, life, were completely suspended; for whether under pretended authority derived from this act, or from the superabundant zeal of the military protectors of the public peace, who were employed to assist in the execution of it, numbers, fell, either by being shot at their own doors, or by the newly-invented process of strangulation, adopted to procure confession of crimes which perhaps had never been commitmitted [sic], or the accusation of others, whose innocence might have made it impossible to convict them by other evidence. / Without entering into a more minute detail of the disgusting enormities or the suferings to which this measure gave birth, I may safely refer it to the judgement of men accustomed to enjoy the uninterrupted blessings of British law and liberty, whether the infiction of this measure on the people of Ireland was not

102

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of itself enough to aggravate feelings already irritated into discontent the most alarming. I do not mean surely to justify assassination or treason, but I appeal to men who have the feelings of freemen, whether to see a father, a brother, or a son, fall, perhaps innocently, under the bayonet of a military executioner, or transported for life from his helpless family and nearest connections – it may be without guilt, because the punishment was inficted without trial – may not in some degree account for, though it cannot justify, the shocking crimes which have, since the introduction of that measure, been committed by individuals in Ireland? A magistrate who exerts himself in carrying this law into efect, and who, in obedience to the will of the legislature, sends numbers of his countrymen from the soil in which they drew breath, and the connections which make life dear to them, merely because he suspects their / loyalty, does that which, being legal, ought not to induce on him either odium or punishment; but while human nature shall continue to be composed of its present materials, there will be found men among the people over whom he exerts such authority, whose vindictive passions will be apt to mark him as their victim. In many deplorable instances has this been verifed in Ireland. Te Insurrection Act was adopted to prevent such enormities; unhappily it but encreased, greatly encreased, the black catalogue. I ask unprejudiced men, whether these measures, carried into execution against a people who from the recent acquisition of independence felt much of the pride and sensibility of freedom, were not most likely to be attended with the consequences which have followed? What then, I ask, must have been the efect of that measure, at which freedom and justice feels still more abhorrence – a legal indemnity for all crimes committed against the people, under colour of preserving the peace? Good heavens! was it not enough that a law was passed which lef the subjects’ liberty and person at the mercy of the magistrates – but must the military or civil tyrant be protected by law / against law, in the perpetration of acts which even by the spirit of that act would be illegal and oppressive? Te frst Bill of Indemnity33 was designed to protect my Lord Carhampton,34 who had played the part of a self-created Dictator in Ireland. What the particular measures pursued by his Lordship were, I shall not enumerate. Tey are known, and I believe will be remembered by both countries. He is indemnifed for his zeal; and his measures, instead of quieting, have been unfortunately found to have produced a contrary efect. From that time to the present, Bills of Indemnity have become an established part of the system of government in Ireland; so that he who can contrive means to cover the most malicious and oppressive crimes by the easy pretext of securing the public peace, may rest as frmly on an act to indemnify him in the succeeding session, as the public creditor may depend on the passing of the money bills. In enumerating these successive steps which have been taken in Ireland, professedly to tranquillize the country, but which have operated only to render it

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

103

outrageous, I might have mentioned the appointment and the recall of my Lord Fitzwilliam.35 But in speaking to the / people of England it were superfuous to dwell on that event; for with the circumstances of that, they, as well as the people of Ireland, are acquainted. I shall therefore content myself with saying, that of the many irritating measures which have goaded Ireland, the recall of my Lord Fitzwilliam was the most mischievously efcacious. With that nobleman, Hope fed from the country. What has since followed has been the counsel of Despair. By that event it was placed beyond doubt, that the Cabinets of the two countries formed a junction against reform – against the restoration of the constitution to Ireland – and against a mitigation of the coercive system. If treason have spread widely through the country – if the friends of the French system have become numerous, it must be since that insulting act of the British Cabinet told the people, that if they felt the pressure of present evils, or looked for a further extension of constitutional rights, their hope must be turned to another quarter than to the infuence of the British connection. By the operation of the measures which I have now described, the Irish people and the Irish administration were put at issue. Te system to which the Castle had resorted to silence murmur, had produced outrage – the / measures which they took to punish outrage had created conspiracy, assassination, and, in many instances, treason. Troughout the whole process of discontent, I have shewed that administration were aggressors, and that the irregularities which have followed were but the reaction of an high and irritable spirit in the people, compressed by coercion, which lef no vent to its feelings but in acts of private or public violence. At this point the administration found it necessary to pause. Te measures which they had already tried to smother the discontents of the people, and to repress those violent and illegal consequences of it, had not only proved ineffectual, but had aggravated, to a most alarming height, the mischiefs which they were sottishly expected to remedy. In almost every part of the country the most extreme disorder prevailed. It was not now a Volunteer Convention, consisting of men of known loyalty and great stake in the country, meeting to petition for reform – it was not now a Catholic Convention sitting in Dublin, pursuing open and constitutional measures to obtain elective franchise, or a full admission to the privileges of the constitution – it was not, I say, such / bodies as these that administration had to cope with. Tey had put down those. Other more numerous and more dangerous difculties were now to be encountered. Te populace of the country was now organized, and an imperium in imperio36 formed, which, from its privacy and the numbers of which it consisted, was truly alarming. Te professed objects of this society, the most singular which perhaps had ever been formed in any country, still continued what they originally were – Reform and Emancipation. But papers were found which were supposed to prove, that their designs were more dangerous and more extensive; and a letter from a Mr. Tone,37

104

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

which clearly expressed a treasonable opinion respecting a separation of the two countries was taken as full evidence that this was the sentiment of the society at large, consisting, as was believed, of not less than 600,000 men. Whatever might be their real designs, it was certain, that the conduct of the Orange-men of Armagh had been successfully imitated by the peasantry in many parts of Ireland. Te plunder of arms was carried on systematically; the quantity taken was known to be considerable; and in the proclaimed districts several magistrates who had been active / in transporting suspected persons, &c. &c. had been assassinated. In this critical moment, the best and wisest men in Ireland, gentlemen possessed of the most extensive property in the country, and at the same time of character above the slightest imputation of disafection or loyalty, urged on administration the necessity of changing that system which had been found to produce such horrible efects. Tey urged, that the great body of the nation was loyal – that even of the United Irishmen the greater part wished only for the admission of the Catholics and reform – and that to concede these would throw such a weight into the scale of government as would efectually tranquillize the country. Administration, however, took up the contrary opinion, and decided on a continuation of coercive measures. Tey pretended, that the people of Ireland were rebels, and that with rebels conciliation should not be tried. Tey assumed, in the frst place, that all the United Irishmen were traitors – in the second, that that society comprehended the great body of the people, or that those who were not of that body approved heartily of all the measures which had been / carried on for some years back by the Irish Cabinet. No account was made of that great and respectable class of men who, while they looked with detestation on those acts of insubordination, of assassination, and treason, which had followed the adoption of the present system, contemplated with the most unqualifed reprobation that system itself. Determined, therefore, to scourge the nation out of that ill temper into which the scourge had driven it, what step did administration fx on? Tey send a military force under General Lake38 to the province of Ulster, and enjoin him to act at his discretion for disarming the freemen of the North, and enforcing content and tranquillity at the point of the bayonet! It is not necessary to waste much reasoning on this measure. Te constitution prescribes the interposition of the sword only in cases of open insurrection or rebellion. If the province of Ulster was in that state, what indignation must not the two countries feel at the wicked pertinacity of the Irish Cabinet in a system which led to that issue? If it were not in rebellion, what punishment could be too great for those who resorted without necessity to that last and dreadful remedy – a military force vested with / discretionary powers, for disorders properly within the cognizance of the civil magistrate? But the administration justify themselves by the plea, that the proceedings of these United Irishmen were too subtle and cautious to be met by the ordinary exertions of the civil

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

105

power, though they were not yet in open rebellion. Tey must take the praise, therefore, of having created a new species of opposition to established government, hitherto unknown, by directing, without intermission, the force of the state not against open violence, but against political principle; by warring, not with men whose aim was anarchy and plunder, but men skilled in, and zealous for, the perfection of the representative system. But I deny that Ulster was in such a state as to justify the measure that was then taken – for it was not in open and avowed rebellion, nor was the system of the disorderly people in that province either too subtle or too strong for an active magistracy, constitutionally aided by the military. Te disturbances amounted to nothing more than the assemblage now and then of parties of people on the original principle of the Orange-men (who to the disgrace of legislature, have, in a certain place, more than / once, been called the friends of the constitution,) breaking houses and plundering arms; and I contend, that with a proper force lef always at the disposal and under the direction of active magistrates, those individual acts of outrage might have been prevented. Te pretext, that the magistrates were terrifed from acting by frequent assassination, is empty – courage is not exclusively the boast of the military in Ireland; and every country in which the Insurrection Act has been carried into operation has produced numbers of magistrates who dared to meet all the odium and all the danger which the execution of that unpopular act imposed on them. Under this Proclamation, Gen. Lake deprived of arms not only the traiterous and the disafected, but the loyal and most zealous friends of the constitution. Where arms were expected and not found, a very new mode of trial was instituted. Te suspected or accused person was suspended by the neck until the process of strangulation was nearly completed. He was then let down, and if he was still pertinacious, the touchstone was again tried, until he either confessed or accused others. In other cases, it was ascertained what quantity of / arms should be brought in by a certain village or district – if the full quantity could not be produced by the inhabitants, their habitations were reduced to ashes to detect the concealment. Tese seem to have been ordinary modes of proceeding under the military system; there were others more irregular and eccentric which the zeal of the soldiers frequently prompted them to indulge in. Of the system thus steadily pursued by the Irish administration, the Irish legislature expressed their most hearty and zealous approbation. – Troughout the whole train of violent measures to which the Irish administration resorted, the Irish Parliament went with them pari passu.39 Without stopping to enquire whether this cooperation of the legislature tended rather to reconcile the people to the system than to encrease the discontents which it was naturally calculated to produce, it is certain that some very celebrated characters, whose opinions in this case deserve to be respected, had declared the most decided disapprobation

106

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of at least that part of it which related to the military. Te conduct of my Lord Moira,40 in the Parliament of both countries, himself a soldier, an Irish nobleman, and one possessed of such a stake in the / country as must make him anxious for its welfare and its peace, has already perhaps inclined the British public to doubt whether the enormities practised under that system were tolerable in any country. Te manly and candid opinion of the brave old Abercrombie,41 “Tat the conduct of the army in Ireland was calculated to make them formidable only to their friends,” must have also had its weight in ascertaining the merits of that system. Tat the feelings and the honour of that venerable ofcer did not sufer him longer to remain in the command of the Irish army, Ireland will long have reason to lament. Te infuence of even one such mind on Irish politics would have produced the most important benefts. For some time the administration boasted that they had at length found the way to quiet the country. In fact, the operations of the military in Ulster did reduce that province to a state of peace, and no disturbance existed but what the army itself created. Less violent and unconstitutional measures would have prevented acts of outrage – but neither this, nor any measure of coercion, could have eradicated discontent. As the infiction of the military system produced a gloomy quiet in one part / of the island, the disturbances broke out with much encreased enormity in other parts of the country. – Te South, hitherto tranquil, and which at the moment of danger, when the enemy appeared on the coast a few months before,42 exhibited the most enthusiastic spirit of zeal and loyalty, now became convulsed by partial risings to an alarming degree. Te interior of the country, the King’s and Queen’s County, the County of Kildare, and even the vicinity of the metropolis, the Counties of Wicklow and of Dublin, were now in as bad a state as the pacifed North had ever been. Every reasonable man, who believes that nothing can be produced without a producing cause, must attribute this change of temper in the South and other parts of the country to some circumstance which did not exist at the time of the invasion; and that circumstance could only be the introduction of the military system – of the efcacy of which administration had so much vaunted. But powerful as they supposed that system to be, they were not inclined to depend on its efcacy, such as they had tried it. Tey therefore now resorted to a measure which has hitherto been used only by irritated victors over perfdious and vanquish’d enemies – they sent them troops, not to disarm / the inhabitants of a district, or to act with discretionary powers for, what was now a general pretext for violence of every species, the preservation of the public peace; but permanently to live at free quarters on all the inhabitants of those counties which were in what was called a disturbed state. Under this measure, excesses were committed which Ireland, much as she had sufered, had not yet witnessed. It was not the burning of a peasant’s house, or the strangulation of one or two individuals in a village, which struck the eye of a spectator – but the houses of the most respectable farmers in the country, nay, houses of gentlemen

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

107

of large fortune, and, in many instances, of the most approved loyalty, converted into barracks by the soldiery – the females of the family fying from the insults of these new guests, who rioted on the provision, emptied the cellars of their unwilling hosts, and when they had exhausted the house which they occupied sent their mandate to the neighbourhood to bring in a fresh stock! At this point I stop – for here the fate of Ireland comes to its crisis. Tis measure was in operation not three weeks, when the rebels, the traitors, or the people of Ireland, to the sorrow of every friend to peace, to the Irish / name, and to the British connection, stood forth in opposition to the King’s troops. Te scene of blood is now opened. Ireland is wasteing her vital strength in convulsion; and whether victory or defeat await them, humanity, loyalty, and patriotism must weep over the event! When I solicit the people of England attentively to consider that long train of harsh and hideous measures which I have now enumerated, and which have brought Ireland into this lamentable condition – when I call on them to examine with anxious care the motives in which they originated, and the end to which they lead – I call on them to attend to that in which they are deeply interested. In my mind they have been adopted but for one purpose – to raise on the broad basis of corrupt influence a system of government, which, under the form of the British constitution, should stand independent of, and in opposition to, the sense of the nation. I rest this opinion on two grounds – Te one is, because each successive measure taken up by administration to counteract the wishes of the people, carried in it features of despotism, which in a free country the necessity of the case could not call for. Every bill of pains and penalties to which they resorted involved / and asserted a general and permanent principle, or gave the Executive a general and extraordinary power, inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, though the occasions which gave rise to those measures were but partial or transient. I refer for instances to the Convention Act, the Insurrection Act, the Gunpowder Act, and the Press Bill,43 a measure which, in my enumeration of the violent steps taken by the Irish government, escaped me, though perhaps it is, of all the dreadful groupe, the most prominent and most fatal to liberty and the constitution. – Te other reason on which my opinion rests is, because administration have persevered in that system without making any one efort to allay discontent or satisfy the moderate and loyal part of the community by the concession of any of those measures on which the heart of the nation was fxed – because they have gone on in opposition to the sense of the best men in the empire to force the people of Ireland, or the discontented part of it, into open and avowed rebellion, rather than try any means to prevent that catastrophe by conciliating measures – because this intention was avowed and gloried in* – and, fnally, because from / the outset of their career they have *

See Mr. J. Claud Beresford’s Speeches in the House of Commons during the session of 1797.44

108

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

resorted to military coercion in every case where they could fnd, or create, the slightest pretence for the life of that dreadful engine. Te fame which by these means has been kindled in Ireland can be extinguished but in one of two ways – either the rebels aided by the power of France will succeed in wresting Ireland from the British connection, or the military force with which the Irish government is entrusted will stife in blood the discontents of the country. Of the frst there is happily no danger. Te numbers of the insurgents is much too small to endanger the connection, and that moderate and loyal party, which administration have hitherto treated with contempt, is too strong and too much attached to the present form of government, notwithstanding what they had sufered, either to be overcome by the force, or seduced by the artifce of disafection, to forego their allegiance. Tere remains then only the other alternative – and of that what will be the efect? Rebellion will be quelled by power, but the existing causes of discontent – those causes which through a long series of petty conficts have at length terminated in the present dreadful issue, will remain rankling in the bosom / of the country. Conscious of its force, administration will, with an high hand, bear still more hard on the constitutional rights of the people – at least against those rights which are calculated to guard them against the tyranny of an ambitious faction. Knowing the hatred which the Irish nation bear to the set who have heaped on her head those calamities under which she now groans, and of which centuries will not remove the efects, will the Irish administration, think you, resign that extraordinary unconstitutional force which in course of the struggle they have acquired? Impossible! If we can reason at all on the event, it is most reasonable to believe, that the military system which shall have subdued the discontents of Ireland, will continue to govern it. Will it be for the safety, or for the honour of England that her sister country should be a military despotism? In one event only, then, does there appear to be a gleam of hope that Ireland may yet become a free, happy, and contented member of the British empire – and that is, in a suppression of the present insurrection – in a change of the men by whom the afairs of Ireland have been for some years so abominably administered – and / in a change of that system which has hitherto been pursued by them. If Englishmen value their own liberty, which the contiguity of despotism must always hazard, or feel sympathy for the suferings of an unfortunate people, whose attachment to Britain has been proved during the course of an anxious and changeful century, to these objects will they direct their eforts. Already thousands of the people of Ireland have fallen in the contest – and yet the standard of rebellion is erect. More of the blood of Ireland must be shed, before Ireland, under the present system, is restored to peace. A military chief governor45 has been sent over, not to appease but to subdue. He may subdue – but is it the pride of a British King to rule a depopulated, a desolated, and a

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed

109

discontented country? Will fre and sword restore content and confdence to the land? Will the slaughter of a hundred thousand of the people of Ireland reconcile the survivors to that system of mal-government which they have risen to oppose? Will the faction which has provoked this scene of slaughter, become more popular by the carnage they have occasioned? / Englishmen! – your fellow subjects of Ireland now call on you to consider the case of a distracted country, as that of brethren united by the tie of a common nature, and by the still closer tie of a common Sovereign; both entitled to the advantages of the same constitution, each depending, in some measure, on the others strength. For one hundred years you have found in the people of Ireland a faithful and frm friend – though for much of that period we laboured under the most distressing disadvantages, destitute of the means of wealth, and aliens from the most important benefts of the British constitution, we have yet borne our suferings with patient and uncomplaining attachment to a British Sovereign, and to the British cause. In our poverty we still contributed to the exigencies of the empire. When an extension of our means enabled us to give more largely towards the common stock, we poured forth our blood and treasure in the cause of Britain with more than the zeal of brothers. In our fallen state, with an island reeking with blood, and the sword at our throat, directed by an administration in the best and in the worst of times hostile to Ireland, we call upon you to assist in rescuing our country from utter and irretrievable ruin – we implore you to interfere / for us with our common Sovereign – to solicit at his paternal hand the removal of those wicked men, who by abusing the confdence of their Sovereign, and sacrifcing their duty to his people, to the gratifcation of ambitious views or native malevolence, have belied the Irish nation; and by their obstinate and relentless cruelty have driven it to madness. We conjure you to think of us as of men enamoured of liberty and animated by that zealous attachment to monarchy, limited by law, which has given immortality to the name of Englishmen – though at the same time, as of men, among whom many have been hurried into unpardonable indiscretions while the great body remain a loyal, though a sufering people. – In a word, we solicit your sympathy as brethren, and your infuence as fellow subjects, with the common Father of both kingdoms, to save four millions of people from the insulting tyranny of Ministers who have abused their powers, and, instead of the mild genius of the British constitution, have governed by the galling despotism of a military mob!

FINIS.

TROY, PASTORAL INSTRUCTION TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF THE ARCHDIOCESS OF DUBLIN

Dr John Tomas Troy, R. C. A. D., Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics of the Archdiocess of Dublin (Dublin: Printed by M. Fitzpatrick, for P. Wogan, 1798).

In the immediate afermath of the Irish rebellion of 1798 many commentators supportive of the Protestant Ascendancy strove to depict it as a sectarian confict between Catholic rebels and Protestant loyalists. Tey took advantage of the fact that a small number of Catholic priests joined the rebellion. Modern scholarship, however, has shown that the vast majority of Roman Catholic clergymen were not in any way implicated in the rebellion.1 It is very clear that the Catholic hierarchy desperately sought to distance themselves from French Revolutionary principles and Irish political radicalism. None did so more than John Tomas Troy (1739–1823), the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin from 1786. He was very critical of the French Revolution, attacked the violence of White Boys, Right Boys and United Irishmen, and was prepared to excommunicate Catholic rebels in 1798. He wrote several pastoral letters urging the Catholic bishops, priests and laity to renounce French principles, to avoid taking secret oaths and to remain politically loyal. Te text printed here is typical of his approach to the crisis of 1798. Troy, however, was never a simple loyalist who always steered clear of politics. He was supportive of all recent relaxations of the penal laws, ensured that the recently created Catholic seminary of St Patrick, established at Maynooth afer an Act of 1795 remained under the control of the Catholic hierarchy, and advocated further Catholic emancipation. Troy was born London and educated in Rome. He had previously been Bishop of Ossory for ten years from 1776. He was very active in improving the discipline and religious observances of the Catholic clergy. For his career, see the entry in the ODNB; Vincent J. McNally, Reform, Revolution and Reaction: Archbishop Tomas Troy and the Catholic Church in Ireland 1789–1817 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995), and Daire Keogh, ‘Te Pattern of the Flock: John Tomas Troy, 1786–1823’, in History of the Catholic Diocese of Dublin, ed. Daire Keogh and James Kelly (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000), pp. 215–37. – 111 –

112

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Notes 1.

See, in particular, D. Keogh, ‘Te French Disease’: Te Catholic Church and Irish Radicalism, 1790–1800 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1993).

Dr John Thomas Troy, R. C. A. D., Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics of the Archdiocess of Dublin (Dublin: Printed by M. Fitzpatrick, for P. Wogan, 1798).

JOHN THOMAS TROY, D.D. &c. &c. TO HIS

BELOVED FLOCK, Te Roman Catholics of the Archdiocess of Dublin, wisheth Peace and Salvation in the Lord. In the discharge of my humble ministry I have ofen instructed you, my dearly beloved Brethren, on the duties of Christian subjects. At the frst appearance of the anarchical system, which has laid waste a considerable part of Europe,1 I have endeavoured to preserve you from deception and danger, by timely admonitions, and explanations of the peaceful doctrines of our blessed Redeemer, so forcibly illustrated and confrmed, by the uniform conduct of all good Christians in successive ages, to our own times.* I might refer you, my dear Brethren, to these several instructions, to direct your present and / future conduct in similar circumstances; as the religious principles of Roman Catholics being unchangeable, they are applicable to all times: But as St. Paul instructs all Pastors to be, afer his own example, All to all, that they may *

See a Pastoral Instruction on the Duties of Christian Citizens; Second Edition, Dublin 1793: – It was re-published at London in the same year. A Vindication of it, in a Letter from a Roman Catholic Clergyman; London, 1793. A Tanksgiving Sermon on the 16th February, 1797. Several occasional Instructions, some of which appeared in the newspapers. All printed by P. Wogan, Old-Bridge, Dublin. – 113 –

114

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

gain all to Christ;2 it is incumbent on me to raise my voice, and exhort in sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers,3 whenever peculiar circumstances require it. At present, when these kingdoms are seriously menaced with invasion by a formidable and implacable enemy, when too many may have been seduced into a persuasion, that French Republicans are our friends and allies, desirous to fraternize with us, for the sole purpose of delivering us from pretended bondage, and securing our religion and liberty, I cannot be silent, nor withhold my pastoral endeavours to warn the unrefecting, or recal to a sense of duty such as may, unhappily, have become the proselytes of that dangerous delusion. To destroy or diminish the salutary infuence of our Clergy in this kingdom, some ignorant and unsuspecting persons of our Communion, have been practised on to consider the Roman Catholic Prelates as their enemies, or as so many mercenaries prostituting their venal pens and exhortations for pensions and bribes. Te fatal efects of this malignant calumny in many parts of the kingdom, oblige me to declare, (I do it most solemnly) that in publishing diferent Pastoral Instructions, I have been infuenced by no other motive than a conscientious sense of duty, and a most sincere friendship for my beloved fock; not only without pension or other temporal emolument, but without even the expectation or desire of any: neither have I ever published or preached any doctrine at the instance or insinuation of Government. / With equal truth, I confdently declare the same on behalf of all and every one of my Venerable Brethren in this kingdom. We have been likewise accused of explaining Politics, when recommending respect for our Rulers and obedience to the Laws. Tis sinistrous accusation is as groundless as it is false. I desclaim any interference with worldly politics, and have invariably confned my pastoral instructions to gospel politics only. Tey are few and simple: – DO AS YOU WOULD BE DONE BY:4 GIVE TO CÆSAR WHAT BELONGS TO CÆSAR, and TO GOD WHAT BELONGS TO GOD:5 OBEY YOUR RULERS FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE:6 FEAR GOD, HONOUR THE KING:7 BEAR WRONGS PATIENTLY:8 FORGIVE YOUR ENEMIES:9 RETURN GOOD FOR EVIL:10 PRAY FOR THOSE THAT HATE AND PERSECUTE YOU:11 BE MEEK AND HUMBLE:12 NEVER SWEAR BUT IN TRUTH, IN JUSTICE, AND IN JUDGMENT:13 AVOID CALUMNY, DETRACTION, AND LIES IF YOU WISH TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.14 Tese are the maxims of Christian policy, which I have occasionally endeavoured to explain. It is my duty to recommend and enforce them with pastoral energy. I have as little leisure as inclination to study, or intermeddle with, any other politics. Te progress of French Republicans, those pretended champions of the rights of man and of liberty, their fatal progress, I say, into every country, is uniformly marked with hostility to the rights of God, and to the Ministers of revealed religion.

Troy, Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics

115

I noticed some instances of their infdel fanaticism in my former instructions. Every day furnishes / additional efects of it, equally lamentable. I shall only mention their recent sacrilegious injustice at Rome. Neither his advanced age, his acknowledged virtues, nor his sacred character, have preserved his Holiness15 from insult, outrage and exile. Add to these excesses, the pillage and profanation of Churches in the metropolis of the Catholic world – the plunder of private property – the imprisonment or dispersion of Cardinals, Prelates and Clergy – the banishment of all Ecclesiastics, not natives of the Roman state, among whom are many of our countrymen – the confscation of church property – the suppression of religious institutions, and particularly of six houses established in that city and its vicinity, for the education of Irish youth disposed to embrace the clerical state.* Tus have they given the last and convincing proof of their hatred to Christianity, particularly to the faith of Roman Catholics; and manifested their impious intention, to destroy it, if possible.† By forcing the Supreme Pastor from his residence, and degrading him as much as in their power, they vainly expect that the dispersion of the fock must follow; but it is not in the power of human malice to destroy the work of God. Te gates of Hell can never prevail against the Church, built on a solid and immoveable Rock. Te promises of her Divine Founder shall for ever secure her against every attack, and the successors of St. Peter will continue to the end of time, to exercise the powers communicated to that frst Bishop of Rome, by Jesus Christ himself. / Wherefore, whether our Holy Father Pius VI. and his Successors, reside in the Vatican palace, or elsewhere in a cottage; whether at liberty or in chains; whether invested with the temporal sovereignty of Rome, or maintained by the alms of the faithful, their supreme spiritual authority will remain unchanged and unalterable. Te religion of Christian Rome has been constantly announced to infdel nations by apostolical men, commissioned by the Holy See. At this moment numberless missionaries, hitherto maintained by the pious munifcence of his Holiness, are zealously occupied in dispelling the darkness of Paganism and Mahometan superstition, by the splendour of gospel light. Several distant nations possessed establishments at Rome, where their youth were educated and prepared for the sacred ministry. Te unremitted attention of St. Peter’s successors, to the propagation of Christianity, has been ever extended to all countries. Can you then consider the French Republicans, who have deprived the Sovereign Pontif of the means to continue that bountiful attention – who have reduced him to a state of dependance and captivity; will you, I say, fraternize with them, * †

Tirteen other similar Establishments had been previously suppressed, by these pretended friends of Irish Catholics, in France, Flanders and Lorrain. See [Augustin] Barruel’s Memoirs of Jacobinism, lately published by Watson and Son, Capel-Street, Dublin.

116

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

or consider them as friendly to the Catholic religion? No, dearest Brethren, you will not, you can not. Fly then from the irreligious incendiaries, who insidiously whisper the contrary. Listen not, I conjure you, to their destructive suggestions. Neither can you expect freedom or security from French invaders, by the eventual success of their hostile designs on these kingdoms. Ask, enquire, observe whether and what kind of liberty or security is enjoyed in France? You will fnd, alas! that unhappy country subject to the most tyrannic military despotism, a prey to / infdelity, licentiousness and anarchy; under the dominion of terror exercised by successive factions, gratifying their lust of power and of money by oppression and extortion, whereby the people in general are become slaves and beggars. I say nothing of the massacres, assassinations, emigrations, proscriptions and other countless evils, caused by the revolutionary maxims prevailing in France, which have barbarized a civilized people, and, in a great degree banished literature, with religion, from that once christian and learned nation; the Rulers of which, desirous to preserve their own usurped power by any means, seem intent on subjugating all Europe. Te prospect of plunder, by which their armies are principally paid, stimulates the soldiers to every violence on property, public and private, sacred and profane. With such incontestable and melancholy proofs of French irreligion, tyranny and rapacity before you, can you possibly imagine, that we shall be, in the event of successful invasion, the only privileged people, the only to be exempted from the calamitous fate of all those countries that have forcibly or imprudently fraternized with them? Look to Brabant and Holland, to Avignon and Rome, to Savoy and Lombardy, to the Rhine and Switzerland; in a word, to the diferent Countries and States they have conquered or republicanized under the mask of friendship: in every one of them you may observe, that anarchy has succeeded to regular government, poverty and distress to afuence and competency, infdelity and licentiousness to religion and morality. Let then the fate of these countries be a timely and salutary warning to you; if not, you may, perhaps, when too late lament your blindness and bitterly deplore your inattention to my paternal admonitions. Be wise in time, lest / folly and infatuation should imperceptibly endanger every thing dear to you and your families, as Christians and members of civilized society. In my former instructions I earnestly exhorted you against administering or taking unlawful or unnecessary oaths, and explained the conditions required, to render any oath binding and acceptable to Almighty God. Recollect, I entreat you, most beloved Brethren, recollect what you have read, or heard from your friendly Pastors. Tey have ofen told you that “an Oath is a solemn Appeal to the God of Truth, who cannot be deceived. Neither the kissing of a book, nor the expression, I swear, is necessary to constitute an oath. Whenever we call on God, on Heaven, on His presence, or on any thing sacred to witness or attest the truth of our resolutions or declarations, we take on oath. We should never, if possible,

Troy, Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics

117

make the awful appeal. Let your speech, says our blessed Redeemer, be Yea Yea, and No No; for whatever is more than these cometh fom evil.16 All rash, profane, unnecessary oaths, are forbidden by this command; but it does not forbid to swear in truth, in justice, and in judgment,17 to the honor of God, in our own or our neighbour’s just defence. To afrm a known falsehood upon oath, is abominable perjury against Truth. To swear without perfect knowledge of the subject matter, or to any thing equivocal, doubtful, obscure, or mysterious; to promise secresy on oath, without knowing what is to be kept secret, to swear to any purpose without due consideration is rash and against judgment. To promise on oath any thing which tends to encourage the invasion of a foreign power; to promote, favor, or excite rebellion, sedition, insurrection, / disturbance of the public peace; injury to any community, family or individual, in person, property, or reputation, is contrary to Justice. Compulsory oaths, even when neither truth nor justice is violated, are sinful; because taken without free deliberation or judgment: Te Rulers of every State are competent to propose Oaths of Allegiance to their respective Subjects, and other oaths to individuals employed by them in the diferent ofces; in order to ascertain the purity of their civil principles, and oblige the several ofcers to a faithful discharge of their relative duties. Oaths of either kind are not compulsory. To render then an oath lawful and acceptable to Almighty God, as an act of religion honouring the divine veracity, it must be taken in truth, in justice, and in judgment: When taken without all and every one of these conditions, it is sinful, and if taken without justice, it is null and void; highly sinful when taken, but doubly criminal when complied with in fact. Te certainty, much less the prospect of redressing grievances by unlawful oaths, can never justify or excuse them, or any unlawful act. Te fairest and most desirable object or end is to be abandoned, rather than procure it by evil means: It is, therefore, sinful to perpetrate the smallest moral evil with the view of efecting the greatest good.” Such, my dear Brethren, is the doctrine concerning oaths taught by the religion which you profess, and declared by God himself, who commands you not to take his name in vain;18 and denounces the most dreadful punishments, even in this life, on those who swear rashly. A MAN THAT SWEARETH MUCH, SHALL BE FILLED WITH INIQUITY, / AND A SCOURGE SHALL NOT DEPART FROM HIS HOUSE: AND IF HE SWEAR IN VAIN, HE SHALL NOT BE JUSTIFIED; FOR HIS HOUSE SHALL BE FILLED WITH INIQUITY. (Ecclesiast. xxiii. 12. 14.) I WILL DESTROY MEN FROM THE FACE OF THE LAND, SAITH THE LORD, AND I WILL STRETCH OUT MY HAND UPON THEM THAT SWEAR BY THE LORD. (Soph.19 13. 5.) BUT ABOVE ALL THINGS, MY BRETHREN, SWEAR NOT, NEITHER BY THE HEAVEN, NOR BY THE EARTH, NOR BY ANY OTHER OATH, BUT LET YOUR SPEECH BE YEA, YEA; THAT YOU FALL NOT UNDER JUDGMENT. (James, v. 12.)

118

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Is it possible, that any of my beloved fock, with this evidence of divine vengeance denounced against false and rash swearers before them, will despise the friendly admonitions of their Pastors, or conceive themselves bound by any oaths or engagements tending to encourage or countenance disturbance or injury to any person; and thereby disgrace the meek religion which they profess? Is it possible, that Irish Roman Catholics, hitherto so attached to their principles, who during centuries withstood all temptations and hardships, rather than abjure the Religion of their conscience, or neglect the duties it prescribes – that a people so justly commended for their loyalty and peaceable demeanour, whilst under the just and happy infuence of that Religion and its ministers, should miserably deviate from such a meritorious line of conduct; and, led astray by deceitful guides, sufer themselves to be seduced into an approbation of the principles and views of the enemies of Christianity? / Will you, my beloved Brethren, submit to the yoke of a nation without religion, mercy, or honor? – of a people who have brought with them impiety, plunder and devastation into other countries? Such are the French Republicans. I cannot harbour even a suspicion so dishonourable to my Brethren, always peaceable from principle, and anxious to preserve their fair character pure and immaculate. Compare your present situation with the past. Twenty years ago the exercise of your religion was prohibited by law: Te ministers of it were proscribed: It was penal to educate Catholic youth at home or abroad: Your property was insecure, at the mercy of an informer: Your industry was restrained by incapacity to realize the fruits of it. At present you are emancipated from these and other penalties and disabilities, under which your forefathers, and some amongst yourselves, had labored. You are now at liberty to profess your religion openly, and to practise the duties of it: Te ministers of your religion exercise their sacred functions under the sanction of law, which authorises Catholic teachers: A College for the education of your Clergy has been erected at the recommendation of his Majesty:20 It is supported and endowed by parliamentary munifcence: Te restraints on your industry are removed, together with the incapacity to realize the fruits of it for the beneft of your posterity. What, let me ask you, has efected this favorable change – this great diference between your past and your present situation? I answer: Your loyalty, your submission to the constituted authorities, your peaceable demeanour, your patience under long suferings. It was this exemplary and meritorious conduct, invariably dictated by the principles of your religion which pleaded your / just cause, and determined a gracious king and a wise parliament to reward it, by restoring you to many benefts of the Constitution. You will perhaps reply, that some legal disabilities still exclude the most loyal and peaceable Roman Catholic from a seat or vote in parliament, from the privycouncil, from the higher and confdential civil and military departments of the state. I grant it. But, is it by rebellion, insurrection, tumult, or seditious clamour on your part, that these incapacities are to be removed? Is it by adopting or

Troy, Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics

119

countenancing the modern French principles of licentious liberty and anarchical equality that you are to recommend yourselves to our rulers? Is it by encouraging French Republicans to invade this country, that you are to expect a continuation of his majesty’s favor and protection? Is it from the enemies and scofers of revealed religion, and of the Catholic faith in particular, or from the French philosophers, attempting to destroy the very remembrance of it, by abolishing the observance of the Sabbath, and substituting an infdel for the Christian calendar,21 that you are to be protected in the free exercise of the Catholic faith? Is it by the pillagers of Brabant, of Holland, of Venice, of Rome, &c. &c. that your property will be secured? Is it by resisting the power of the state, disobeying the laws by entering into illegal associations, by administering or taking combination oaths, equally ofensive to God and our temporal rulers, that you can preserve and foster the benevolence of our most benevolent Sovereign? Is it by the plunder of arms you can conciliate the esteem of your neighbours? In a word, can favor or afection be expected as a return for outrage or insult? Most certainly not. Common sense – the slightest refection – will enable you to / perceive the absolute necessity of adopting an opposite conduct. It is dictated by religion and prudence: Te only one conducive to your temporal and eternal happiness. Do not then be, my dearly beloved Brethren, do not, I most earnestly beseech you, as your Pastor and afectionate friend, be led away from this path, by false guides, encouraging you to tumult or riot of any kind! Listen to your peaceful pastors who love you tenderly; observe their salutary instructions. You will thereby secure the favour of God, and recommend yourselves to the attention and further protection of his majesty and of parliament, to the good-will of all, and remove the foul suspicion of irreligion or disloyalty, if any be conceived, from the minds of your enemies or others. When St. Peter, the frst Bishop of Rome, and Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, was imprisoned by order of Herod,22 the Church prayed for his deliverance without intermission. Our Holy Father, PIUS VI, Successor of St. Peter, and Centre of Catholic Unity, is now an exile from Rome,23 reduced to a state of dependance, and treated as a captive by the enemies of religion. How sensibly must every good Catholic, every real Christian feel these sacrilegious attacks on the person and dignity of his Holiness! It is impossible to calculate the extent of calamity to which the Father of the Faithful is exposed. Te Catholic Church is deeply interested in whatever concerns her visible head. When St. Peter was miraculously freed from his captivity,24 he came to the house of Mary, the Mother of John, who was surnamed Mark, where many were gathered together and praying. (Acts 12.5.) Te prayers of many were incessant by night and by day, for his deliverance. Let us, my dear Brethren, follow this example, and devoutly supplicate / the throne of mercy, to deliver our Holy Father from his enemies, and restore him to the free exercise of his authority.

120

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

In complying with this duty dictated by our religion, it is to be remembered, that we are not only Catholics but likewise subjects and members of society, partaking of the benefts of an excellent Constitution; the destruction of which will be the consequence of a successful invasion. We should be grateful for these benefts, and endeavour to preserve them by a meritorious conduct. Our loyalty inspired by religion, our allegiance to a benefcent Sovereign confrmed by a solemn oath to maintain it inviolate, should be conspicuous. At the present crisis, neutrality or indiference is disgraceful, if not criminal. We must confrm our repeated declarations of attachment to his majesty and the constitution by unequivocal facts: Otherwise, we shall forfeit every claim to remuneration, and merit the censure of every good subject. Your lives and properties, the reputation and honor of Irish Catholics are at stake. Endeavour then, my dearest Brethren, to preserve them, by a magnanimous sacrifce of every selfsh consideration to the public safety. Resist then; strenuously resist every attempt of the rebellious or disafected to alienate you from your loyal dispositions and the obedience due to constituted authority: Deliver up your arms and weapons of every kind, to those appointed to receive them: Renounce, for ever, all connexion with any prohibited association. Follow, my dearest Brethren, follow, I conjure you most earnestly, this seasonable advice: It fows from a heart warmed with the purest zeal for your temporal as well as your eternal interests: It is dictated by the tender love I cherish for you as your Spiritual Father and most sincere friend. Do not / then, for Jesus sake, do not despise my admonitions; and thereby expose yourselves to danger and misery in this life, and to endless torments in the next! But, unless the Lord keepeth the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it. (Ps[alm]. 126.2.) Wherefore, prostrating ourselves before the Lord, let us beseech him most fervently, to stretch forth the arm of his power in our favor; to preserve our most gracious Sovereign; to direct his councils, and frustrate the designs of his enemies! Te Lord will mercifully grant our petitions when preferred with humility and a sincere sorrow for our sins; for he does not despise a contrite and humble heart. (Ps[alm]. 50.) To render our supplications more solemn and grateful to the Father of mercies, appropriate Collects25 are recited by the Clergy in every Mass. Te Prayer for his Majesty and the Royal Family, usually repeated before each Mass on Sundays and holidays, is to be continued. Psalms and some suitable prayers are added. Te entire Form to be observed, (until directions to the contrary) is published separately for your information and instruction. May the God of peace sanctify you, Dearest Brethren, in all things, that your souls and bodies be preserved blameless for the coming of the Lord. Amen. (1 Tes. 2. 3.) J. T. TROY. Dublin, May 25, 1798.

‘PUBLIC NOTICES ON THE IRISH REBELLION OF 1798’

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’ [Government Bulletin, May 1798].

Tese addresses, proclamations and notices are all pieces of propaganda that emanated from the Irish executive, the armed forces, the magistrates of Dublin, the leaders of the Catholic community and anonymous individuals and were produced in order to warn the Irish people not to engage in public disturbances or to support those in rebellion. Tey endeavoured to accuse the rebels of deluding the people and seducing them into activities that would bring condign punishments down upon them. Tey implied that the rebels could not succeed in their aims and honest men would not listen to their blandishments.

– 121 –

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’ [Government Bulletin, May 1798].

DELUDED UNITED IRISHMEN!!! You have been driven by your deceivers to the verge of destruction – One step more and your ruin would have been inevitable. – You have seen your countrymen pour forth in arms – as eager to defend the constitution, and support the government, as your wretched leaders were to overturn it – and if you had once the madness to have shewn yourselves in open force – that instant, you would have been the victims of a just but dreadful vengeance. Where are now the boasted promises of the men who misled you? Te horrors they were preparing for their unsuspecting neighbours – the fetters – the dungeons – and the deaths – are by the awful retribution of a merciful providence, falling to their own lot – and the incensed justice of their country, whose lenient caution they foolishly mistook for weakness, hastens at this moment to pour out its long provoked vengeance upon their guilty heads. Provoke not that Power under which you see your leaders falling – but which still is willing to shew mercy unto you. – You cannot trust each other. – Every day – every hour is bringing out new discoveries. Enlisted by your chiefs, to be instruments of rapine and cruelty, how could you hope that bloody rufans – worse than high-way robbers – could long keep faith with one another or with you? Do not, then, go on to force those severities which the mercy of government is unwilling to infict – but which must and will be inficted, if you persevere in provoking them. – Surrender, at once, the arms you have concealed – and prove by this act that you see your madness, and by a peaceable and quiet conduct, are desirous to make atonement to your injured country – If you do, you will be humanely dealt with – your rulers wish only to see you penitent and quiet. – If you do not – tremble at the doom which awaits you – If you will have no mercy on yourselves – you deserve none from others. – An opportunity is now ofered – neglect it, and you have nothing to look for but dreadful – inevitable vengeance. CITIZENS of a diferent description! – honest and inofensive members of an abused public – whose properties and persons were to have been sacrifced – 123 –

124

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

to the hellish ambition of a few dark and bloody traitors – let neither your own misapprehensions, nor the misrepresentations of your enemies, persuade you that you are distrusted or intentionally ill-treated. – Te pressure of the moment makes summary measures necessary – but, with respect to you, they are measures not of insult, but of safety. – If you feel inconvenience from them, they who made them necessary, by the most infernal and bloody conspiracy that ever was brought to light, ought alone to bear the blame. – You are called upon to give up your arms, merely lest they should fall into the hands of those who would employ them in murdering you. – Mistake not then this instance of an attentive and parental care – Yield to it – co-operate in it – and, by every means in your power, assist that government, which at this moment feels no other anxiety, but to save this country from havock and desolation, and to ensure to a loyal and virtuous people, the blessings of constitutional protection and undisturbed tranquillity. /

By the Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland. A PROCLAMATION. CAMDEN.1 WHEREAS by an Act of Parliament passed in this Kingdom, in the Tirty-sixth Year of His Majesty’s Reign, Entitled, “An Act more efectually to suppress Insurrections, and to prevent the Disturbance of the publick Peace,”2 it is Enacted, Tat it shall be lawful for the Justices of the Peace of any County, assembled at a special Session, in Manner by the said Act directed, not being fewer than Seven, or the major Part of them, One of whom to be of the Quorum, if they see ft, upon due Consideration of the State of the County, to signify by Memorial, by them signed, to the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of this Kingdom, that they consider the County, or any Part thereof, to be in a State of Disturbance, or in immediate Danger of becoming so, and praying that the Lord Lieutenant and Council may proclaim such County, or Part thereof, to be in a State of Disturbance, or in immediate Danger of becoming so; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of this Kingdom, by and with the Advice of His Majesty’s Privy Council, by Proclamation, to declare such County, or any Part of such County, to be in a State of Disturbance, or in immediate Danger of becoming so; and also such Parts of any adjoining County or Counties, as such Chief Governor or Governors shall think ft, in Order to prevent the Continuance or Extension of such Disturbance. AND Whereas Fify-fve Justices of the County of Dublin, several of whom are of the Quorum, being the major Part of the Justices of the Peace, duly assembled pursuant to the said Act, at a special Session of the Peace, holden at the County of Dublin Grand Jury Room, in and for said County, on Monday the

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’

125

Fourteenth Day of May Instant, have by Memorial by them signed, signifed to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, that the said County of Dublin is in a State of Disturbance, or in immediate Danger of becoming so; and have thereby prayed, that the Lord Lieutenant and Council may proclaim the said County of Dublin to be in a State of Disturbance, or in immediate Danger of becoming so. NOW We, the Lord Lieutenant, Do, by and with the Advice of His Majesty’s Privy Council, in Pursuance of, and by the Authority to Us given by the said Act of Parliament, by this our Proclamation, declare the said County of Dublin to be in a State of Disturbance, or in immediate Danger of becoming so, of which all Justices of the Peace, and other Magistrates of the said County, and all others whom it may concern, are to take Notice. Given at the Council-Chamber in Dublin, the 15th Day of May, 1798. Clare, C.3 Char. Cashel.4 W. Tuam.5 Waterford.6 Drogheda.7 Westmeath.8 Shannon.9 Altamont.10 Portarlington.11 Ely.12 Dillon.13 Pery.14 O’Neill.15 Carleton.16 Castlereagh.17 H. Meath.18 G. L. Kildare.19 Glentworth.20 Callan.21 John Foster.22 J. Beresford.23 J. Parnell.24 H. Cavendish.25 Jos. Cooper.26 D. Latouche.27 J. Monck Mason.28 Arthur Wolfe.29 Rob. Ross.30 Isaac Corry.31 Lodge Morres.32 GOD SAVE THE KING.

Extracts fom an Act of Parliament, more efectually to suppress Insurrections, and prevent the Disturbance of the Public Peace. 36th Geo. III. Cap. 20. PERSONS who administer, or aid, assist, or are present at the administering any unlawful Oath, shall sufer death. And every Person taking such Oath, unless he give Notice thereof in ten Days to a Justice of Peace, and of the persons compelling him so to do, shall be transported for Life. Persons who have Arms shall give written Notice thereof to the Clerk of the Peace, and register the same, or forfeit 10l. or be imprisoned two Months, and for second Ofence forfeit 20l. or be imprisoned for four Months. Justices, or Persons warranted by them, may search for Arms, in Houses or Grounds of Persons who have not so notifed, or who are suspected of having given false Lists of said Arms, and may enter by Force and carry away Arms. Te Informations of Persons who shall be murdered, or maimed, or secreted, so as not to be able to give Evidence on Trial, shall be admitted as Evidence on the Trial of the Person or Persons against whom such Informations were given. Where a Witness, Magistrate, or Peace Ofcer shall be murdered or maimed on Account of Evidence given or Exertions made, the Grand Jury may present such Sum as they think ft to be paid to the Person so maimed, or the Repre-

126

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

sentative of the Person so murdered, to be raised on the County, Barony, Half Barony, or Parish, in which such Murder or maiming shall be committed. Magistrates may arrest Strangers and examine them on Oath, and if they do not answer satisfactorily, may commit them to Gaol or to the House of Correction. In proclaimed Districts Magistrates or Peace Ofcers may arrest any Person found out of his Dwelling or Place of Abode from one Hour afer Sun-set until Sun-rise; and unless he can prove to the Satisfaction of such Magistrates that he was on his lawful Occasions, such Persons shall be sent to serve on Board his Majesty’s Navy, or in the Army. Justices of the Peace may also in such Districts enter Houses from one Hour afer Sun-set to Sun-rise, and if Inhabitants be absent, unless they can prove to the Satisfaction of the Magistrate that they were absent on their lawful Occasions, such Person or Persons shall be sent to serve on Board his Majesty’s Navy, or in the Army. Justices of the Peace, or any Person with Warrant of a Justice, may, in such Districts, take Arms and Ammunition from Persons who have registered their Arms, and lodge the same in a Place of Safety. Persons who in such Districts shall unlawfully or tumultuously assemble in the Day are deemed idle and disorderly Persons, and may be sent to serve on Board his Majesty Navy, or in the Army. All Persons who, in such Districts, shall be found in Public Houses (not being Inmates or Travellers) whether such Houses be licensed or not, afer nine at Night and before six in the Morning; also all Men or Boys hawking or dispersing any seditious Paper, shall be deemed idle and disorderly Persons, and sent to serve on Board his Majesty’s Navy, or in the Army. And any Woman guilty of the like Ofence, unless she discover the Person or Persons by whom she was employed, shall be committed to Gaol for three Months. Every Person obstructing the Execution of this Act, or any Part thereof, shall be sent to serve on Board his Majesty’s Navy, or in the Army. Grand Jury may present 3l. per Session for Clerk of the Peace, and 3d. per Mile to Constables and Assistants bringing Prisoners to Gaol, and other Expences under this Act. 38th Geo. III. for continuing the 36th Geo. III, Cap. 20. All Persons arrested by Warrant of Lord Lieutenant and Council, or Lord Lieutenant’s Secretary, for High-Treason, Suspicion of Treason, or Treasonable Practices, may be detained in any Place whatever within this Kingdom, and such Place shall be deemed a lawful Gaol. If in any proclaimed District a Justice of Peace, or any Person authorized by his Warrant, shall fnd any Arms, Ammunition, or Pike, Pike-Head, Spear, Dirk, or other ofensive Weapons whatsoever, in the House, or Power, or Possession of any

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’

127

Person, concealed or otherwise, afer such Person has been called upon to deliver up the same, such Person shall be sent to serve in his Majesty’s Navy or Army. Any Justice of the Peace or any Person authorised by Warrant of a Justice may search for Pikes, Pike-Heads, Daggers or Dirks, wherever such Magistrate or Person authorised by him, may suspect such Weapons to be, and may seize, carry away, and destroy the same: And the Person or Persons in whose Possession such Weapons shall be found, being thereof summarily convicted before two Justices of the Peace, shall be sent to serve in his Majesty’s Army or Navy. Any Smith or other Person who shall make or assist in making any Pike, Pike-Head, Dirk, Dagger, Spear or other Instrument serving for Pikes or Spears, without License from the Ordnance, shall be adjudged a Felon, and Transported for Seven Years. N. B. Persons making an Insurrection to compel an Alteration of the Laws, are guilty of Treason, and punishable by hanging, drawing, and quartering. /

NOTICE. 33

Lieutenant general lake, commanding his Majesty’s Forces in this Kingdom, having received from His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant full Powers to PUT DOWN THE REBELLION, and to punish REBELS in the most summary Manner, according to Martial Law, does hereby give Notice to all his Majesty’s Subjects, that he is determined to exert the Powers entrusted to him in the most vigorous Manner, for the immediate Suppression of the same; and that all Persons acting in the present Rebellion, or in any wise aiding or assisting therein, will be treated by him as Rebels, and punished accordingly. And LIEUTENANT GENERAL LAKE hereby requires all the Inhabitants of the City of Dublin, (the great Ofcers of State, Members of the Houses of Parliament, Privy Counsellors, Magistrates, and Military Persons in Uniform excepted) to remain within their respective Dwellings from NINE o’Clock at Night till FIVE in the Morning, under Pain of Punishment. By Order of LIEUTENANT GENERAL LAKE, Commanding his Majesty’s Forces in this Kingdom. G. HEWETT, Adjutant-General.34 Dublin, Adjutant-General’s Ofce, 24th May, 1798.

128

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. A PROCLAMATION. THOMAS FLEMING.35 Whereas the Circumstances of the present Crisis demand every possible Precaution: Tese are therefore to desire all Persons who have registered Arms forthwith to give in, in Writing, an exact List or Inventory of such Arms at the Town Clerk’s Ofce, who will fle and enter same in a Book to be kept for that Purpose; and all Persons who have not registered their Arms are hereby required forthwith to deliver up to me, or some other of the Magistrates of this City, all Arms and Ammunition of every Kind in their Possession. And if, afer this Proclamation, any Person having registered their Arms shall be found not to have given in a true List or Inventory of such Arms, or if any Person who has not registered, shall be found to have in their Power or Possession any Arms or Ammunition whatever, such Person or Persons will, on such Arms being discovered, be forthwith sent on Board his Majesty’s Navy, as by Law directed. AND I do hereby desire that all Housekeepers do place upon the Outside of their Doors a List of all Persons in their respective Houses, distinguishing such as are Strangers from those who actually make Part of their Family; but as there may happen to be Persons who, from pecuniary Embarrassments, are obliged to conceal themselves, I do not require such Names to be placed on the Outside of the Door, provided their Names are sent to me. And I hereby call upon all his Majesty’s Subjects within the County of the City of Dublin immediately to comply with this Regulation, as calculated for the public Security; as those Persons who shall wilfully neglect a Regulation so easy and salutary, as well as Persons giving false Statements of the Inmates of their Houses, must, in the present Crisis, abide the Consequences of such Neglect. Given at the Mansion-House, this 24th Day of May, 1798. Signed by Order, JOHN LAMBERT, Secretary.36 /

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’

129

A PROCLAMATION. Whereas it is in the Power of His Majesty’s Generals, and of the Forces under their Command, entirely to destroy all those who have risen in Rebellion against their Sovereign and his Laws; yet it is nevertheless the Wish of Government, that those Persons who, by traitorous Machinations, have been seduced, or by Acts of Intimidation have been forced from their Allegiance, should be received into His Majesty’s Peace and Pardon: commanding in the County of specially authorized thereto, does hereby invite all Persons who may be now assembled in any Part of the said County against His Majesty’s Peace, to surrender themselves and their Arms, and to desert the Leaders who have seduced them; and for the Acceptance of such Surrender and Submission, the Space of fourteen Days, from the Date hereof, is allowed; and the Towns of are hereby specifed, at each of which Places one of His Majesty’s Ofcers, and a Justice of the Peace, will attend; and upon their entering their Names, acknowledging their Guilt, and promising good Behaviour for the future, and taking the Oath of Allegiance, and at the same Time abjuring all other Engagements contrary thereto, they will receive Certifcates which will entitle them to Protection so long as they demean themselves as becomes good Subjects. And in order to render such Acts of Submission easy and secure, it is the General’s Pleasure, that Persons who are now with any Portion of Rebels in Arms, and willing to surrender themselves, do send to him or to any Number from each Body of Rebels not exceeding ten, with whom the General or will settle the Manner in which they may repair to the above Towns, so that no Alarm may be excited, and no Injury to their Persons be ofered. 29th June, 1798. /

130

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

To such of the Deluded People, now in Rebellion against his Majesty’s Government in this Kingdom, as profess the Roman Catholic Religion. The under-signed ROMAN CATHOLICS of Ireland, feel themselves earnestly called on, to remonstrate with such of the Deluded People of that Persuasion, as are now engaged in open Rebellion against his Majesty’s government, on the wicked tendency and consequences of the conduct which they have embraced. Tey apprehend, with equal horror and concern, that such deluded men, in addition to the crime committed against the allegiance which they owe to his Majesty, have in some instances attempted to give to their designs a colour of Zeal for the religion which they profess! – Te undersigned profess equally with them the Roman Catholic Religion; – some of them are Bishops of that persuasion; others are Heads of the leading Families who profess that Religion, – and others are men of the same persuasion, who, by an honorable industry have, under the constitution now sought to be subverted, raised themselves to a situation which afords them, in the most extensive sense, all the comforts of life. Te undersigned of each description, concur in entreating such of the Deluded, who have taken up arms against the established Government, or entered into engagements tending to that efect, to return to their allegiance, – and by relinquishing the treasonable plans in which they are engaged, to entitle themselves to that mercy which their lawful governors anxiously wish to extend to them: A contrary conduct will inevitably subject them to loss of life and property, and expose their families to ignominy and beggary – whilst at the same time, it will throw on the religion, of which they profess to be the advocates, the most indelible stain; on this point, the unfortunately deluded will do well to consider, whether the true interests and honor of the Roman Catholic Religion are likely to be most considered by the Bishops of that persuasion, – by the ancient families who profess that religion, and who have resisted every temptation to relinquish it – by men who, at once professing it, and submitting to the present constitution, have arrived at a state of afuence which gratifes every wish; or by a set of desperate and profigate men, availing themselves of the want of education and experience in those whom they seek to use as instruments for gratifying their own wicked and interested views: – At all events, the undersigned feel themselves bound to rescue their names, and as far as in them lies, the religion which they profess, from the ignominy which each would incur from an appearance of acquiescence in such criminal and irreligious conduct; and they hesitate not to declare, that the accomplishment of the views of the deluded of their persuasion, if efected, must be efected by the downfal of the Clergy – of the ancient Families – and respectable commercial men of the Roman Catholic Religion. Te under-signed Individuals of each of which Description, hereby publicly declare their Determination – to stand or fall with the present existing Constitution.37

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’ Fingall,38 Gormanstown,39 Southwell,40 Kenmare,41 Sir Edward Bellew,42 Malachi Donelan,43 Jos. Edm. Nolan, William Bellew,44 Morgan Kavenagh,45 Gerald Aylmer,46 Matthew Donelan,47 Francis Bellew,48 James Farrell,49 Val. O’Connor,50

Tomas Fitzsimon,51 Phil. Lawless,52 Barry Lawless,53 Walter Dowdall,54 John White,55 R.J. Keating,56 Sir Tos. Burke,57 Robert French,58

Hon. Rt. Plunkett,59 Richard O’Reilly, D.D. Armagh,64 John Taafe,60 Boetius Egan, D.D Tuam,65 Michael Burke,61 Bernard O’Neill,62 John Ball,63 P.J. Plunkett, D.D. Meath,66 Hugh O’Reilly, D.D. Clogher,67 Denis Maguire, D.D. Kilmore,68 Anthony Coyle, D.D. Raphoe,69 Mathew Lennan, D.D. Dromore,70 John Cruise, D.D. Ardagh,71 – McMullen, D.D. Down & Connor,72 Dominick Bellew, D.D. Kilalla,73 T homas Costelloe, D.D. Clonfert,74 Edward French, D.D. Elphin,75

131

John Tomas Troy, D.D. Dublin,80 Tomas Bray, D.D. Cashell,81

Mich. P. McMahon, D.D. Killaloe,82 Francis Moylan, D.D. Cork,83 D. Delany, D.D. Leighlin & Kildare,84 James Caulfeld, D.D. Ferns,85 M. Coppinger D.D. Cloyne,86 James Lanigan, D.D. Ofory,87 John Young, D.D. Limerick,88 C. O’Donnell, of Derry, D.D.,89 C. Sahrue, D.D. Ardfert & Aghadoe,90 Rev. Peter Flood, D.D.91 President of the Royal College of St Patrick, at Maynooth, for himself, the Professors and Students of said College.

Tomas O’Connor, D.D. Achonry,76 Ed. Dillon, D.D. Kilmacd. & Kilfen,77 Charles O’Reilly, D.D.,78 John Dillon, D.D.79, J. Joyse, D.D. Galway,

N. B. Te pressure of the moment not allowing time to wait for Signatures, the above has been published without the Names of many loyal Men, who, there is no doubt would have signed, if there had been an opportunity of consulting them. /

132

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

TO SUCH OF THE

PEOPLE OF IRELAND, AS ARE NOW IN REBELLION. MY DELUDED COUNTRYMEN, YOUR gracious King once more, through his humane Viceroy, opens his parental Arms, to receive you into the Bosom of Peace and Protection. For this divine Purpose the Proclamations of his Generals have, by his Direction, been sent abroad among you. With military Force in the Kingdom, much more than sufcient to punish your Crimes with Death, your merciful Sovereign again invites his deluded Subjects to look to him as their Father, to receive his Pardon, and to enjoy his Protection of their Lives and Property. Many Tousands of your unfortunate Countrymen, have already perished in Battle, the Victims of their own Madness, and of the bloody Schemes of the United Irishmen, your bitterest Enemies. Teir Widows and desolate Orphans have ample Cause to curse the infernal Spirits, who seduced those Tousands to rebel, and urged them on to Death and Desolation. Your wretched Leaders, if they shall escape, will pay little Regard to the Widows and Orphans they have made: Tey feel no Remorse for the Fate of the Wretches whom they have led on to Destruction: Te Widows may wring their Hands, and their starving Children may scream for Food, without touching the hardened Souls of your Leaders, who would sacrifce a Million of you, to their own horrible Purposes: Tey have cruelly betrayed you; and they will give you farther Proofs of their Treachery, by seeking Pardon for themselves, without any Regard to your Fate. Your Country was happy before the Year 1791: It was growing into great Prosperity: Its Trade was increasing rapidly: Peace and Plenty appeared all over the Land: Rich Harvests covered the Fields, and the Farmer was blessed with abundant Crops, as the Reward of his Labour: Te Life, Liberty and Property of the Subject were efectually secured by equal Laws, fairly and justly administered; and in no Nation upon Earth, had Talents and Industry a more free Scope, for the Attainment of Wealth and Honours. In that fatal Year, ever to be deeply lamented by our Country, the United Irishmen frst began to sow the Seeds of Sedition, to spread the Poison of Rebellion among our People, and to plan your Destruction: From that gloomy Period, every Artifce which deep-laid Villainy could invent, and the basest Treachery suggest, hath been resorted to for the Purpose of imposing upon your Minds, and of infaming your Passions. Tose wicked Conspirators well knew, that the great Body of the poor People of Ireland, could not reason deeply, but that they had lively Feelings: Tey, therefore, took Advantage of the Warmth of your Hearts, my unfortunate

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’

133

Countrymen; and by private Imposition and Seduction, by infammatory public Speeches, and by venomous printed Publications, of every Sort, they have fatally succeeded, in giving to your Conduct, the deadly Bias they wished for: Every Class of Men in Society, which we had been used to view, with Veneration and Fondness, was attacked: Religion and its Ministers were vilifed: Te Government of the Country scandalized: Our most upright, constitutional and enlightened Judges, were basely calumniated and belied: Te artless Minds of the Youth of the College, were perverted and poisoned: Every Relation and Connection in Life, which formed the great Bonds of Society, was almost destroyed: Te Afection between Landlord and Tenant – the Confdence between Master and Servant, nay, even the Ties of Nature, with which, the Almighty bound the Hearts of Mankind, were, in many Instances destroyed, by the diabolical Eforts of the United Irishmen. – Assassination was avowed, and defended by your wicked Instigators; and in the dark Hour of Mid-night, the Servant was tutored to shed the Blood of the Family at whose Table he received his daily Nourishment; and thus, through every Artery of Life, was the most deadly Poison made to fow from that infernal System, of which the Society of United Irishmen was the Heart. Merciful God! my Countrymen, how could you have been Dupes enough to believe, that such horrid Principles, and such hellish Plots, were intended for bettering your Condition, or for any other Purpose, than your ultimate Destruction! Can you believe, that a Horde of Villains who could thus aim a Death-blow at every Principle of Religion, at every Tie of Nature, and at every Degree of Confdence, between Man and Man, would have kept Faith with you, if they had succeeded in their murderous Designs! But, to fll up the Measure of their Iniquity, and to give a deeper Die to their Crimes, one Engine more was to be played of, upon the Simplicity of your Minds: Your Fears were to be roused, and you were to be driven into Rebellion by Panic. To efect this detestable Purpose, the Speakers and Writers of the United Irishmen, by the most impudent Falsehoods, succeeded in persuading many of you, who were Roman Catholics, that nothing less than your total Destruction, was resolved upon by your Protestant Fellow-subjects: Many of you believed this wicked Lie, and fed with your Families, into the open Fields, exposed to the Severity of the Weather, to avoid the imaginary Massacre. By such Artifces and abominable Falsehoods, have you been driven into a Rebellion, which has afxed a Mark of eternal Disgrace, to the very Name, of your once happy Country: Do you now feel, and see, that you have been made the Dupes, and the Victims, of the vilest Treachery, and the most profligate Falsehoods? What! Te Protestants of Ireland, disposed to destroy their Catholic Fellow-subjects? Lay your Hands upon your Hearts, and say whether you now believe the detestable Lie! I appeal to the several Proclamations, of the Protestant Generals, of a Protestant King, whether any such Distinction was

134

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

even hinted in them: I appeal to the present Proclamation of Pardon and Protection issued to you, by the Command of your benevolent Sovereign, calling upon all his deluded Subjects, of every Persuasion, to return to their Allegiance, and to receive his Forgiveness. I appeal to the many gallant Catholics, now in the Ranks of our Yeomanry and Militia, for the cordial Afection with which they are treated, and deserve to be treated, by their Protestant Fellow-soldiers. Irishmen! In what Situation are you now lef by the Miscreants, who have led you to the Brink of Ruin! Some of them have already felt the Punishments due to their Crimes; others, whose Speeches and Writings have greatly contributed to your Misfortunes, with afrighted Looks, now skulk along the Streets of Dublin, the Objects of general Detestation and Contempt, and with complicated Treachery, they now load you with Abuse, for those very Acts of Rebellion, which they themselves have goaded you to commit: Tey vainly hope that they will purge their own Conduct, by abusing yours. Te People of the North of Ireland discovered, in Time, the treacherous Schemes of these Miscreants, and now burn with an honest Zeal, to make them the Victims of natural Justice: But you are still in Arms against the best of Kings and his Government: Yet he seeks not Vengeance upon you: You sought to deprive him of the Crown of Ireland, and have thereby forfeited your Lives and Properties: Yet your Sovereign mercifully gives you both Life and Property, and pledges himself and his Government, for the Protection of both! You are now a wandering, miserable Crowd, fying before his victorious Armies; Yet, he graciously invites you back, to the Comforts of Peace and Protection, upon Conditions, the most indulgent and easy to be performed. Delay not a Moment, my Countrymen, to avail yourselves of this Act of Grace and Mercy. As you value your Lives – As you value your wretched Wives and Children – As you value every thing dear to the Heart of Man in this Life, and your Salvation in the next, instantly desist from Rebellion, return to your God – return to your King and Country, and save your Lives and Families, while the Proclamation gives you Power to do so! If you neglect this Bounty of your Sovereign, your Destruction is inevitable. I am not connected with any political Party: I have done the Duty of a Fellow-subject, by giving you the best Advice in my Power: And may Heaven give it that Efect upon you Conduct, which is most sincerely desired by an IRISHMAN.

CASTLEREAGH AND THE UNITED IRISH PRISONERS (1798)

Castlereagh and the United Irish Prisoners (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, ed. Charles Vane, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (London: Henry Colburn, 1848), vol. 1, pp. 243–8.

Tese two letters of Lord Castlereagh, Chief Secretary for Ireland, are addressed to William Wickham (1761–1840), a government magistrate in the Home Ofce in Britain, superintendent of aliens, and later himself Chief Secretary of Ireland from 1802 to 1804. It explains why Castlereagh and Earl Cornwallis, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, are ready to pardon entirely or commute the death sentences to terms of imprisonment that could be imposed on United Irishmen who have taken part in the late rebellion. Castlereagh and Cornwallis do not wish to drive United Irishmen to such despair that they will remain in rebellion or will take up arms yet again afer ofering to lay them down. Tey are also hoping to negotiate with such leading United Irishmen as William James MacNeven, Arthur O’Connor, Tomis Addis Emmet and Oliver Bond, who might be persuaded to volunteer valuable evidence on their radical activities if their lives are spared and their sentences are commuted to periods of imprisonment. Tey are both ready to ofer a general pardon to rank-and-fle rebels, though exceptions are to be made for those who took more active roles in the organization, who had committed murder, had been in contact with the French, or who deserted from the military to join the enemy. Tis policy did not immediately win the support of the King and his ministers in Britain. Hence, the criticisms made later by Arthur O’Connor, that Castlereagh did not negotiate fairly with the United Irishmen prisoners, failed to recognize that Castlereagh could not decide policy himself, but required the approval of his superiors in Britain before he could agree terms with these prisoners Details on Castlereagh and on his Memoirs and Correspondence are given in the headnote on p. 199 below. Tere is an entry on Wickham in the ODNB.

– 135 –

Castlereagh and the United Irish Prisoners (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, ed. Charles Vane, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (London: Henry Colburn, 1848), vol. 1, pp. 243–8.

Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Wickham.1 Private.

Dublin Castle, July 30, 1798.

Sir – I am very happy to fnd that the determination of the Lord-Lieutenant,2 as to the Bill of Pardon, has been such as will relieve the Duke of Portland3 from all anxiety on this subject. Upon a communication with the Chancellor,4 the time to be gained by presenting the act, transmitted under the King’s signature, having reference to a Bill of Exceptions aferwards to be submitted to Parliament, did not appear to his Excellency, in any degree, to counterbalance the inconvenience of opening so delicate a subject to general discussion. It has, therefore, been decided by his Excellency to submit the exceptions which appear expedient to those who have a local knowledge of the treason to the King’s ministers in England, and to await a perfect Bill being transmitted under the King’s signature, before any further steps are taken in this Parliament. Te measure will then be according to the most approved precedents; and, as Parliament will only have a simple afrmative or negative, much of the warmth inseparable from a detailed discussion will be avoided. Te Lord-Lieutenant writes himself to the Duke of Portland upon the general subject. As his Excellency is much occupied, and his Grace may wish to be acquainted with the reasons upon which the exceptions have been selected, I shall trouble you with a few observations on this part of the subject. It is the wish of the Lord-Lieutenant that the measure should have all the grace possible, and that the principle of pardon should be pushed as far as may be at all compatible / with the public safety. At the same time, his Excellency feels it necessary to advert to the peculiarity of this act of grace being granted pending the Rebellion. In every other instance, the Bill of Pardon5 has followed the struggle; and the principal object in view has been the quieting of the minds – 137 –

138

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of those who had been engaged in the treason. In the present case, the Rebellion, though crushed in a military sense, is yet in organized force; and, in many parts of the kingdom, disturbances still exist, and the people retain their arms with an obstinacy that indicates the cause is not yet abandoned. Under this impression, his Excellency is of opinion that the pardon must be granted upon a principle of precaution, as well as of clemency; and that, although it might be highly dangerous, by the terror of severe punishment, to drive numerous classes of men, however deeply implicated in the treason, to despair, yet that it is still necessary for the safety of the State to keep the Leaders under the restraint of the law, holding out to them such a principle of compromise as shall not drive them to take up arms, as the only means of preserving their lives; but shall leave Government at liberty to look to its own safety. Te frst exception proposed is that of prisoners in custody, previously to the Lord-Lieutenant’s message. Prisoners since committed not to sufer from the delay which has unavoidably occurred in carrying his Majesty’s gracious intentions into execution. Persons guilty of murder or conspiracy to murder. Te troops to be excepted, and lef subject to the Mutiny Act. Te yeomanry, not being subject to Martial Law, it is proposed to except out of the pardon such as have deserted their corps and joined the Rebels; also those who have administered illegal oaths since they became yeomen – this description of yeomen being the active seducers of their own body, and, in many instances, having entered into the service expressly for the purpose. / Persons having had direct communication or correspondence with the enemy. In the civic organization, it is proposed to except the members of the Executive, Provincial, and County Committees, as in these situations the persons most dangerous to the State have been employed. Te County Delegates, being pretty numerous, were the exception, in all cases, to be followed by punishment, it would certainly operate far too extensively; but, as its operation will only be to bring their claims to favour under consideration upon their individual cases, and as much danger might arise from discharging, without any conditions whatever, a class of men, many of whom are still active Rebels, it is thought most advisable that they should stand excepted, the rather as it is proposed, by a general clause, to pardon all persons, even of the excepted cases, (save those who have been guilty of deliberate murder, or been in direct correspondence with the enemy), who shall surrender within such time as the Lord-Lieutenant in Council may prescribe, upon condition of banishment for such time as may be enjoined, with reference to their degrees of criminality, or upon giving such security for their future good behaviour as may be demanded. It is thought that this will so sofen the rigour of the exceptions, that it will in itself be considered as an act of grace even to the most guilty; and the State will be equally secured by their removal as by their punishment.

Castlereagh and the United Irish Prisoners

139

Upon the same principle, in the military organization, the exceptions are made to extend to captains. It has appeared to his Excellency the more necessary to have this reserve in giving an unqualifed pardon to captains and county delegates – the only two classes upon which much doubt has been entertained; as, in many counties, where the organization of the treason was only in progress, the elections have not proceeded beyond these degrees; and the individuals who would shortly have been raised to the rank of generals and Executive Committee are to be found in the humble class of County / Delegates and captains, a description of persons too formidable to be dismissed harmless, without being brought under some regulation, either of security or temporary banishment. My Lord-Lieutenant will always have it in his power, either altogether to pardon or merely to require security, when the nature of the case will enable his Excellency to dismiss the individual with safety to the State upon these mild conditions. Te above, with the persons to be excepted by name, comprehend all the limitations which have occurred to his Excellency as necessary to be connected with the Act of General Pardon. Te Lord-Lieutenant has fully explained to the Duke of Portland that it never was in his Excellency’s contemplation, in any degree, to compromise the King’s prerogative, by submitting the Bill with blanks for Parliament to fll up. His Excellency always looked to its being presented entire as his Majesty’s Act. Te objections stated by the Crown Lawyers in England to the King’s signature being obtained to an imperfect instrument are too strong not to be convincing; and, as the Lord-Lieutenant could not have been earlier prepared to ofer the exceptions to his Majesty’s consideration and that of his Ministers; in fact, no time has been lost that could have been saved, and the mercy being referred back, as far as the prisoners are concerned, who are the only class that could have sufered, to the date of the message, the Royal clemency will in no degree be impeached or lessened by the delay in carrying the measure into execution. I have the honour to be, &c.

Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Wickham. Private.

Dublin Castle, July 30, 1798.

Sir – I have been honoured with your letter of the 25th, marked private, relative to Dr. McNevin’s Memorial.6 In / going over it with Mr. Cooke,7 I doubt not I shall be able to render it sufciently correct; indeed, I am not without hopes that, in the course of this day, we shall receive the best possible assistance for this purpose – Dr. McNevin himself being now employed in preparing a statement of his foreign communications for the information of Government. It may reasonably be hoped that the report of the Committee of Secrecy may contain every circumstance at all material for the public information, without in the least compromising the secret intelligence, which it is so great an object to use as sparingly as possible.

140

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Te Lord-Lieutenant will have explained to the Duke of Portland that, with a view of giving the Secret Committees a general impression of the extent to which the traitors of this country had been in communication with the enemy, his Excellency authorized me to read the correspondence and memorial once over to the Committee of the Commons, with a strict injunction that no person should note a single fact; and I can truly state that the individuals on that committee are altogether in the dark as to the manner in which that intelligence was obtained, and, from the mode in which it was gone through, can only have a very general impression of its contents. Te same precaution was used in the Lords; and, I trust, although the Duke of Portland’s Despatch to his Excellency does not altogether sanction what has been done, yet that his Grace and the Ministers, who have so wisely enjoined the greatest precaution to be observed in the use to be made of that most interesting and important correspondence, will be of opinion that the guarded manner in which the Lord-Lieutenant made the communication to the committees, not authorizing the smallest extracts to be made, or any of the facts to be relied on in their Report, without being fully authorized by his Excellency, will preclude any danger to the State from this valuable channel of intelligence being in any degree brought into suspicion. Te few lines I had the honour of addressing to you by / Saturday’s mail will have, in some measure, explained the communication we are about to receive from Dr. McNevin and the other State prisoners. I acceded to the interview requested by Mr. O’Connor,8 Mr. Emmet,9 and the Doctor; and the Chancellor was kind enough to be present. Tey expressed an anxious desire to save Mr. Bond’s10 life, as also to rescue the country from a Rebellion, which it was evident must be destructive to all parties. Tey admitted that they had intended every thing we knew they did, but most positively denied that they were ever prepared to accept of French assistance to an extent which might enable them to interfere as conquerors instead of allies. Tey were now convinced that France would not aford the partial assistance they required; and that, coming in force, the patriots of Ireland would fnd it as difcult to get rid of them as of their present opponents. Tey were ready to give the fullest information on every part of the treason, foreign and domestic, declining to mention names, so as to implicate individuals. All the State prisoners, in the gaols of this city, have signed their acquiescence in a full disclosure and banishment from this country for life. Tey are ready to appear before the Secret Committees, and to be examined – such is their ofer, the importance of which, if sincerely acted upon, appears to the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chancellor such as warrants a farther respite of Mr. Bond’s execution, and ultimately a pardon on the same conditions as the other prisoners solicit. I have the honour to be, &c.,

COMMUNICATIONS PASSED BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE PRISONERS (1798)

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, ed. Charles Vane, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (London: Henry Colburn, 1848), vol. 1, pp. 347–72.

Te papers in this text provide details of the negotiations conducted between Chief Secretary Castlereagh and leading United Irishmen held in Kilmainham gaol awaiting trial afer being arrested for planning the recent rebellion. Tese state prisoners, Arthur O’Connor, Tomas Addis Emmet and William James MacNeven in particular, wrote memoirs detailing the activities of the United Irishmen between 1796 and 1798, when the movement was engaged in a clandestine conspiracy to overthrow the political system in Ireland with the aid of the French. Te memoir reproduced here was ofered in return for commuting possible death sentences to terms of imprisonment followed by banishment. Tese state prisoners provide substantial evidence on the activities of the United Irishmen that would be useful to the enquiries being conducted into the Irish rebellion by the Committees of Secrecy established by both houses of the Irish Parliament. Tey refused, however, to implicate any former comrade by name. For a modern discussion of these negotiations, see James Quinn, ‘Te Kilmainham treaty of 1798’, in 1798: A Bicentenary Perspective, ed. Tomas Bartlett et al. (Dublin: Four Courts, 2003), pp. 423–36. Tere are entries on O’Connor, Emmet and MacNeven in the ODNB. Details on Castlereagh and on his Memoirs and Correspondence are given in the frst headnote on this particular source, p. 199 below.

– 141 –

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh (1848), vol. 1, pp. 347–72.

On the 24th of July, Mr. Dobbs,1 Barrister, and Mr. Archer,2 Sherif of Dublin, called on Lord Castlereagh, and delivered to him the paper marked No. 1, signed by a number of the State Prisoners. Lord Castlereagh laid the above paper that evening before the Lord-Lieutenant.3 His Excellency, on the following morning, (the Chancellor4 being out of town) communicated with Lord Carleton,5 Lord Kilwarden,6 the Prime Serjeant7 and the Attorney8 and Solicitor-General,9 upon the subject of it. It was their unanimous opinion that the conditions proposed on / the part of the State Prisoners would not warrant the Crown in extending mercy to Byrne10 and Bond,11 then under sentence of death, the former ordered for execution on that day, the latter on the day following. Te principal grounds upon which they relied for the opinion they gave were, that several of the most notorious traitors, particularly the O’Connors12 and Sampson,13 had not signed; that there was nothing in the terms of the engagement to prevent the prisoners, if released and permitted to leave the kingdom, from passing into France, and that their ofer of giving information did not, to them, appear in point of advantage to counterbalance the discontent which would be occasioned by saving two of the most leading traitors from the punishment due to their crimes. Tey particularly also relied on the injurious efects such an act of undeserved mercy would have on the administration of criminal justice, by discouraging jurors hereafer from coming forward to discharge an odious duty. Teir reasoning did not altogether satisfy the Lord-Lieutenant. His Excellency, however, felt that he could not do otherwise than abide by the opinion of the frst law authorities in the country, thus peremptorily and unanimously stated: accordingly, Byrne was executed on that day. – 143 –

144

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Te following morning, Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Alexander,14 member for Londonderry, a distant relation of Mr. Bond’s, called on Lord Castlereagh. Tey intimated to him that Arthur O’Connor, Sampson, Hampden, Evans,15 and several others, who had declined signing the former paper, were now desirous of soliciting the mercy of the Crown, in common with the other prisoners; that they were ready to communicate to Government every information in their power, provided they were not required to criminate individuals; and, to guard against the danger which the State might apprehend from their passing, if liberated, into an enemy’s country, that they were willing to leave the time of their liberation so long as / the war lasted to the discretion of Government, as also the place of their exile, it being understood they were not to be transported as felons. Tis communication was stated by Lord Castlereagh to the Lord-Lieutenant. His Excellency immediately summoned the same persons with whom he had before consulted, and, having intimated to them the above proposition, strongly expressed his disposition to grant a respite to Bond, in order precisely to ascertain what might be expected from the renewed ofer of the State Prisoners. Te opinion of these gentlemen perfectly coincided with that of his Excellency. Te alterations in the terms of the proposal, but more particularly the ofer of O’Connor to disclose his treasons, appeared to them to make it highly expedient to entertain the proposition so submitted. Bond was accordingly respited until Monday the 30th of July. Lord Castlereagh, by the Lord-Lieutenant’s directions, transmitted to the Lord Chancellor at Mount Shannon16 a statement of what had passed. His Lordship highly approved of what had been done, and stated in the strongest manner his opinion of the expediency of obtaining, on any terms consistent with the public safety, the confessions of the State Prisoners, particularly of M’Nevin and O’Connor, as the only efectual means of opening the eyes of both countries, without disclosing intelligence which could by no means be made public. Te Secret Committee of the Commons was at this time appointed, and proceeding with its inquiry. It was intimated to the prisoners that no further respite could be granted to Bond, unless they, in the mean time, gave Government unequivocal proofs of their serious intention to make a full disclosure of all their treasons. On Sunday, M’Nevin,17 O’Connor, and Emmett,18 requested an interview with Lord Castlereagh, that they might understand the wishes of Government, and explain their own intentions. / Tis was accordingly complied with, under the Lord-Lieutenant’s directions: the Lord Chancellor, who came to town that day, and Mr. Cooke19 being present at the interview. Te substance of the explanation which took place was as follows. Te only observation made on the part of the prisoners was, that they should not be required to implicate persons by

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

145

name, and that the place of their banishment should neither be Botany Bay nor any other part of the world to which convicts are sent. On the part of Government, a full discretion was reserved of retaining any or all of the prisoners in custody so long as the war should last, provided their liberation was deemed inconsistent with the public safety; and it was intimated to them that they could not be permitted to reside on the Continent during the contest, and that, if they were sufered to retire to America, they must be prepared to give security for conforming faithfully to the terms of their liberation. On these conditions they declared themselves ready, with the most perfect good faith, to give the fullest information to Government of the treason in all its branches, foreign and domestic, in whatever manner the Lord-Lieutenant should point out. It was proposed by them that some person, on the part of the Government, should proceed to examine them. In reply to this, it was suggested, that it was difcult for any person to frame questions, not being in possession of the extent of the information which it was in their power to give, and that it would be more desirable that they should state facts, in the shape of a narrative, upon which aferwards explanations might be required. To this they assented, requesting two or three days to arrange their ideas, which was granted. Under these circumstances, a further respite of a week was granted to Bond. On the same evening, a paper, marked No. 2, signed by 79 of the State Prisoners (including O’Connor, Sampson, &c.) was delivered to Lord Castlereagh. Tis paper, afer being / perused by the Chancellor, was laid before the LordLieutenant. Te terms on which the disclosure was to be made by the prisoners being perfectly understood, it was not thought advisable to enter into any discussion on the wording of the above paper, nor to insist on a formal recognition in writing of that subscription, which appears on the face of the Bill since passed for enforcing their banishment. It was evident, in the course of the communications which took place on this subject, that the greater number of the prisoners entered very unwillingly into the agreement of confession and banishment. Bond and Neilson20 were naturally anxious upon the subject, and appeared to leave no means untried to induce the others to accede to the measure; but not so as to indicate any disposition to betray their party to save their own lives. M’Nevin, feeling himself in danger, was proportionably inclined to a compromise, but, O’Connor and Emmett, particularly the former, were most reluctant to accede to either stipulation, and would willingly have availed themselves of any pretence which might justify them to their own party in refusing to make this sacrifce to save Bond’s life. As the evidence of the above-named persons was considered of the last importance to both countries, and as there were little hopes of convicting the leading traitors then untried, (Neilson excepted) by due course of law, it did not appear to his Excellency, and those with whom he consulted, expedient to contest expres-

146

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

sions in all probability at the hazard of losing the now substantial advantage of having the treasons of the distinguished members of the Union21 proved by their own confession. A copy of this paper, which was meant for publication, having been confdentially entrusted to Mr. Pollock,22 then employed in conducting the criminal trials in the North (perhaps without instructions sufciently explicit), it was inadvertently published in a Proclamation of General Nugent’s.23 In pursuance of the above conversation, a Memorial, signed / by O’Connor, Emmett, and M’Nevin, a copy of which has been already transmitted to Mr. Wickham, was delivered in a few days afer. Tis paper was returned to the prisoners, by the Lord-Lieutenant’s orders, as inadmissible, being rather a justifcation of their treason than a statement of facts. Tey professed that it was not their wish to ofend; that they were ready to separate, if directed so to do, the facts from what they called the explanations, but submitted whether, as Government was now in possession of the leading facts of their information, the best mode of obtaining the statement in the shape most acceptable would be to bring them before either the Privy Council or Secret Committee. Tis was accordingly assented to, and they were examined before the Secret Committees of both Houses. Although there was little appearance upon their examination of contrition or of change of principle, yet it was the unanimous opinion of both Committees that their evidence as to facts was given freely and without reserve, and that they had fairly adhered to the spirit of their engagement. From this time the strictness of their confnement was in a great degree relaxed. Being no longer objects for prosecution, their intercourse with each other within the gaol was permitted, and leave was granted them to see their families under certain regulations, which regulations it since has appeared were not sufciently enforced by the keepers of the several prisons. Teir very daring publication appeared in print on the 27th of August. On the same day, they were ordered to be confned separately, and no person permitted to have access to them without an order from Government. On the following day, Mr. Marsden,24 by Lord Castlereagh’s directions, had an interview with them. Te substance of what passed is stated in a very accurate minute, signed by Mr. Marsden, and transmitted to Mr. Wickham. On the 6th of September, they were again brought before / the Committee of the Lords, and underwent an examination relative to their publication which was perfectly satisfactory to the Committee. Since that time, O’Connor, M’Nevin, and Emmett have been permitted to breakfast and dine together; but continue to be excluded from all intercourse with other persons without a special order from Government. Memoir of the State Prisoners. Te disunion that had long existed between the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland, particularly those of the Presbyterian religion, was found by experience

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

147

to be so great an obstacle to the obtaining of a Reform in Parliament on every thing of just and popular principles, that some persons, equally friendly to that measure and to religious toleration, conceived the idea of uniting both sects in pursuit of the same objects, a repeal of the Penal Laws, and a Reform, including in itself an extension of the right of sufrage to Catholics. From this originated the Societies of United Irishmen, in the end of 1791. Even then it was clearly perceived that the chief support of the borough interest in Ireland was the weight of English infuence; but as yet, that obvious remark had not led the minds of the Reformers towards a separation from England. Some individuals, perhaps, had convinced themselves that beneft would result to this country from such a measure; but, denying the whole existence of the Society of United Irishmen of Dublin, we may safely aver, to the best of our knowledge and recollection, that no such object was ever agitated by its members, either in public debate or private conversation; nor, until the Society had lasted a considerable time, were any traces of Republicanism to be met with there. Its views were purely and in good faith what the test of the Society avows: those, however, were sufcient to excite the most lively uneasiness in the friends of Protestant Ascendency and unequal representation, / insomuch that the difculty of their attainment, notwithstanding the beginning union of sects, became manifest; but, with the difculty, the necessity of the measure was still more obvious, and the disposition of the people to run greater risks for what they conceived both difcult and necessary to be had was increased. Tis will sufciently account for the violent expression and extraordinary proposals that are attributed to that Society. One of the latter was that of endeavouring, at some future but undetermined time, to procure the meeting of a Convention, which should take into consideration the best mode of efecting a Reform in Parliament, as had been done in 1784. It was thought the weight and the power of such a body, backed, as it was hoped it would be, with the support of Catholic and Protestant, and the increased disposition towards liberty which arose from the French Revolution, would procure a more favourable issue to the eforts of that Convention than had attended those of the former: but the object as yet was no more than a Reform in Parliament, only on broader and more liberal principles. Te discussion, however, of political questions, both foreign and domestic, and the enacting of several unpopular laws, had advanced the minds of many people, even before they were aware of it, towards Republicanism and Revolution: they began to reason on the subject, and to think a Republican form of Government was preferable to our own; but they still considered it as impossible to be obtained in consequence of the English power and connection. Tis, together with its being constantly perceived that the weight of English infuence was thrown into the scale of the Borough interest, gradually rendered the connection itself an object of discussion, and its advantages somewhat prob-

148

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

lematical. While the minds of men were taking this turn, the Society of United Irishmen of Dublin was forcibly dissolved in 1794; but the principles by which it was actuated were as strong as ever. As hypocrisy was not one of the vices of that Society, it / brought its destruction on itself by the openness of its discussions and the publicity of its proceedings. Its fate was a warning to that of Belfast, and suggested the idea of forming societies with the same objects, but whose secrecy should be their protection. Te frst of these Societies was, as we best recollect, instituted in 1795. In order to secure co-operation and uniformity of action, they organized a system of Committees, Baronial, County, Provincial, and even National; but it was long before the skeleton of this organization was flled up. While the formation of these Societies was in agitation, the friends of liberty were gradually, but with a timid step, advancing towards Republicanism. Tey began to be convinced that it would be as easy to obtain a Revolution as a Reform, so obstinately was the latter resisted; and, as this conviction impressed itself on their minds, they were inclined not to give up the struggle, but to extend their views. It was for this reason that, in their text, the words are, “an equal representation of all the people of Ireland,” without inserting the words “in Parliament.” Tis test embraced both the Republican and the Reformer, and lef it to future circumstances to decide to which point the common strength should be directed. But still the whole body, we are convinced, would have rejoiced to stop short at Reform. Another consideration, however, led the minds of refecting United Irishmen to look towards a Republic and separation from England. Tis was the war with France. Tey clearly perceived that their strength was not, and was not likely speedily to become, equal to wresting from the English and the Borough interest in Ireland even a reform. Foreign assistance would therefore perhaps become necessary; but foreign assistance could only be hoped for in proportion as the object to which it would be applied was important to the party giving it. A Reform in the Irish Parliament was no object to the French; a separation of Ireland from England was a mighty one indeed. Tus they reasoned: Shall we, between two objects, / confne ourselves to the one least valuable, even though it is equally difcult to be obtained, if we consider our own internal resources, and much more difcult to be obtained, if we consider the relation of Ireland with the rest of Europe? Whatever progress this united system had made among the Presbyterians of the North, it had, as we apprehend, made but little way among the Catholics throughout the kingdom until afer the recall of Earl Fitzwilliam.25 Notwithstanding many resolutions which had appeared from them, manifesting a growing spirit, they were considered as entertaining not only an habitual progression for Monarchy, but as being less attached than the Presbyterians to political liberty. Tere were, however, certain men among them of a diferent description, who rejoiced at the rejection of their claims, because it

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

149

gave them an opportunity of pointing out that the adversaries of Reform were also their adversaries, and that those two objects could never be separated with any chance of success to either. Tey used the recall of that nobleman, and the rejection of his measures to cement together, in political union, the Catholic and Presbyterian masses. Te modern societies, for their protection against informers and prosecution, had introduced into their text a clause of secrecy. Tey did more. Tey changed the engagement of their predecessors into an oath, and mutual confdence increased when religion was called in aid of mutual security. While they were almost entirely confned to the North, but increasing rapidly there, the Insurrection Bill26 was passed in the beginning of 1796, augmenting the penalties upon administering unlawful oaths or solemn engagements even to death. But death had ceased to alarm men, who began to think it was to be encountered in their country’s cause. Te statute remained an absolute dead letter, and the numbers of the body augmented beyond belief. To the Armagh persecution is the union of United Irishmen most exceedingly indebted. Te persons and properties / of the wretched Catholics of that county were exposed to the merciless attacks of an Orange faction,27 which was certainly in many instances uncontrolled by the justices of the peace, and claimed to be in all supported by Government. When these men found that illegal acts of magistrates were indemnifed by occasional Statutes, and the courts of justice shut against them by Parliamentary barriers, they began to think they had no refuge but by joining the Union. Teir disposition so to do was much increased by fnding the Presbyterians, especially of Belfast, step forward to espouse their cause and succour their distresses. We will here remark that, once for all, what we solemnly aver, that wherever the Orange system was introduced, particularly in Catholic Counties, it was uniformly observed that the numbers of United Irishmen increased most astonishingly. Te alarm which an Orange Lodge excited among the Catholics made them look for refuge by joining together in the United system, and, as their number was always greater than that of bigoted Protestants, our harvest was tenfold. At the same time that we mention this circumstance, we must confess, and deeply regret, that it excited a mutual acrimony and vindictive spirit, which was peculiarly opposite to the interest and abhorrent from the feelings of the United Irishmen, and has lately manifested itself, as we hear, in outrages of so much horror. Defenderism28 has been supposed to be the origin of the Societies of United Irishmen: this is undoubtedly either a mistake or a misrepresentation. We solemnly declare there was no connection between them and the United Irishmen, as far as we know, except what follows. Afer the Defenders had spread into diferent counties, they manifested a rooted but not an enlightened aversion, among other things, to the same grievances that were complained of by the

150

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Union. Tey were composed almost entirely of Catholics, and those of the lowest order, who, through a false confdence, were risking themselves and the attainment of redress by premature and unsystematic insurrection. / In the North, they were also engaged in an acrimonious and bloody struggle with an opposite faction, called the Peep-of-Day Boys.29 Te advantage of reconciling these two misguided parties, of joining them together in the Union, and so turning them from any views which they might have exclusively religious, and of restraining them from employing a mutually destructive exertion of force, most powerfully struck the minds of several United Irishmen. For that purpose, many of them in the Northern Counties went among both, but particularly the Defenders, joined with them, showed them the superiority of the Union system, and gradually, while Government was endeavouring to quell them by force, melted them down into the United Irish body. Tis rendered their conduct infnitely more orderly and less suspicious to Government. It has been alleged against the United Irishmen, that they established a system of assassination. Nothing has been ever imputed to them that we feel more pleasure in being able to disavow. In such immense numbers and very various dispositions as were to be found in that body, although uniformity of system may have given a wonderful uniformity of action, yet it is unfair and unjust to charge the whole body with the vices of a few of its members. Individual grievances produced individual resentments, and the meeting of many suferers in the same way caused them to concur in the same resolution. It appears, indeed, by some trials, that a Baronial [Committee] once took that subject into consideration, but it is manifest it was taken up by them as individuals, whose principles, it aferwards appeared, were not repugnant to the act. A Committee of Assassination has been much talked of, and we have heard persons mentioned as members of it, whom we know, from the most private and confdential conversations, to be utterly abhorrent from that crime. We solemnly declare we disbelieve such Committees having ever existed; we most positively aver it never was with the cognizance [of the whole] or a part of the Union. We also declare that, in no communications / from those who were placed at the head of the United Irishmen to the rest of that body, and in no ofcial paper, was assassination ever inculcated, but frequently and fervently reprobated; it was considered by them with horror, on account of its criminality, and with personal dread, because it would render ferocious the minds of men in whose hands their lives were placed, most peculiarly placed, inasmuch as, between them and the rest of the body, they were out of the protection of law. In proof of this assertion, we would beg leave to refer to a sketch of a publication which we believe was seized among the papers of one of us at the time of his arrest, and which it was intended should appear, if the paper to which it alluded had not been discontinued.

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

151

One other observation, which we entreat may not ofend, will, we hope, be decisive; if such a Committee had existed, and if the men at the head of the United Irishmen had thought assassination a justifable mode of attaining their views, and had been capable of encouraging such an atrocity, possessed, as they were, of wide-spread means of acting, and powerful control over them who, it is now manifest, held the loss of their lives in utter contempt, the poniard would have been directed, not against such petty objects as an obnoxious county magistrate, or an informer. We were none of us members of the United system before September or October, 1796. At that time, it must be confessed, the reasons already alleged and the irritations of the preceding summer in the North had disposed us to a separation and Republic, principally because we were hopeless that a Reform would ever be yielded to any peaceable exertion of the people. We cannot be accurate as to the progress either of the numbers or organization of the United Irishmen, because, it having been an invariable rule to burn all returns or other papers afer they had ceased to be useful, we have no documents with which to refresh our memories; but we apprehend the reports of the Secret Committees to be, in that respect, sufciently / accurate, except that the numbers were always much greater than appeared by those reports. Te documents on which they rely only noticed those who went regularly into societies, but great numbers (perhaps, at a rough guess, half as many) were sworn to the test who were prevented, by private motives and local circumstances, from committing themselves in that way. We are, however, convinced that the numbers could not latterly be less than fve hundred thousand. Te returns from the diferent Societies and Committees upwards specifed, among other things, arms and ammunition. Tese were not originally included in them, nor were they introduced until afer the passing of the Insurrection and Indemnity Acts,30 when the people began to be worse than ever carried towards resistance, and were extremely irritated by the indemnifed violations of law in the North. Te returns also stated sums of money having been collected: those sums were always very small, and applied towards the spreading of the system in other places, towards the support of persons imprisoned on charges connected with the Union, and on the conducting of their defences; any other expenses were defrayed by occasional private subscription. Te printed constitution mentions a National Committee; none such, strictly speaking, was ever formed at frst, because to its appointment two Provincials at least were necessary; and, before the organization in any other part of the kingdom could reach to a Provincial, the immense numbers in Ulster required the superintendence of a supreme head. Some persons were then chosen by the Northern Provincial, with powers to associate to themselves such others as they should think ft. Tey were commonly called the Executive. When the organiza-

152

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

tion began in Leinster, and a short time afer the French had lef Bantry Bay,31 some persons resident in this Province were associated to that body. Tings continued thus until many began to think that elections should be made pursuant to the Constitution. Te / fdelity of the people had by that time been so abundantly proved, that men did not hesitate to submit themselves to a guarded election by the Leinster Provincial. National Delegates were therefore chosen by it, who acted for their own Province, and occasionally consulted with the Executive of the North on subjects of general importance. Te election of National Delegates for Leinster frst took place, as we best recollect, about the latter end of November, or in December, 1797. Te military organization had no existence till towards the end of 1796; and was, as near as could be, engrafed on the civil. In order to avoid giving alarm, it continued to conceal itself as much as possible under the usual denominations. Te Secretary of a Society of twelve was commonly the petty ofcer; the delegate of fve Societies to a lower Baronial, when the population required such an intermediate step, was usually the Captain; and the Delegate of ten lower Baronials to the upper Baronials or District was most commonly Colonel. All ofcers to Colonels up were indispensably elected by those they were to command; but, at that point, the interference of the Societies ceased, and every higher commission was in the power of the Executive only. As soon as a sufcient number of regiments were organized in any county, the Colonels were directed to transmit to the Executive the names of three persons ft, in their opinion, to act as AdjutantGeneral for that county: of those the Executive chose one, and, through this organ, all military communications were made to the several counties. In consequence of such arrangement, not more than one of the Executive need ever be committed with any county, and that only to a person of his own choice from amongst them. It so happened that the same member was enabled to hold communication with several Adjutants-General, which still further diminished the risk to the Executive. We refer to the amended printed Constitution, where the military organization, without being named, is more correctly set forth than we can now give it from memory. / As to the manner in which those men were to be provided with arms and ammunition, every man that could aford it was directed to provide himself with a musket and bayonet, and as much ammunition as he could; every other man with a pike, and, if he was able, a case of pistols; but this, we apprehend, was not strictly complied with. We have heard it said that treasurers were appointed for raising money to purchase arms, but no such appointment was ever made, at least, by the Executive: perhaps some private societies may have adopted such a measure. In many instances, the lower orders went about to private houses searching for arms. Tis the Executive constantly endeavoured to prevent, because they were unwilling to raise alarm in their adversaries, or to let the members of their

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

153

body acquire habits of plunder. Tey endeavoured to dissuade from these acts, by representing to the people that the arms would be always kept in better condition by the gentlemen than by them, and could be easily seized whenever they were necessary: in other respects, our stores were in the arsenal at the Castle, and the military depots throughout the country: our supplies were in the Treasury. We have read, in some evidence lately given, that a person was appointed Colonel by a commission from a General in the United Army: we must be permitted to doubt, if not to deny, the truth of that assertion. No General was ever chosen for Leinster, and Colonels were always appointed by their Captains. Tey derived their authority from this appointment, and not from any commission of a General. If Irish ofcers in foreign service had joined in our cause, they would have been gladly received and rapidly promoted. Indeed, an attempt to procure that was actually set on foot. We counted upon their attachment to their native soil and hatred to England as a substitute for Republicanism; and when they should be convinced that such a form of Government was the best security for the permanent separation of the two countries, we were sure of their fdelity. It has so happened, / however, (either from the delay of peace on the continent, or because our agent was over-cautious in conducting the negotiation, lest it should become known to the respective potentates and communicated to the British Court), that nothing in consequence of it has hitherto been efected. Attempts were made, with as much zeal as the necessary caution would permit, to introduce the system amongst the military, the militia especially; but the reports of the agents were mostly confused and unsatisfactory; so that the success of the measure could never be ascertained with any tolerable accuracy. A military committee was appointed by the Executive in February, 1798, for the principal purpose of preparing plans of operation, either in the event of a premature insurrection, if we should be unfortunately and unwillingly forced into one, or of an invasion from France. As a Committee, it did nothing; but some of its members took up the consideration of the latter subject, and framed instructions how to act in case of the landing of a foreign force. Tese were sent by the Executive to such AdjutantGenerals as had received their appointments: they generally went to use every efort in favour of the French. We can aver that there existed no general plan of insurrection previous to the 12th of March, 1798; but some individuals had perhaps found local ones adapted to the taking of Dublin and a few other places, when the North was on the point of rising. Shortly afer the celebrated Proclamation of General Lake,32 a plan of operations had been digested for the occasion, which were destroyed as soon as the people were dissuaded from that enterprise, and of which we cannot now speak with any degree of precision.

154

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Several recommendations were occasionally delivered down from the Executive through the Committees, the dates or contents of which we cannot undertake to detail, unless they shall be called to our recollections. Te most remarkable as they now occur to us, were a recommendation to abstain from / the use of spirits and excisable articles, not so much to destroy the resources of Government as for the purpose of preserving sobriety, which was so necessary to secrecy and morality, which was so necessary to good order. It may be right to remark that this recommendation was most astonishingly complied with, however painful to the people and contrary to their former habits. Te Executive also directed to discourage the circulation of Bank notes, and published a handbill cautioning against the purchasing of quit-rents, pursuant to a scheme then in agitation, declaring that, as such a sale was an anticipation of the future resources of the country, it should not be allowed to stand good in the event of a revolution. Te reasons for these publications are obvious. We must here remark, that many things were entrusted by the Executive to some one of its members; it having been an invariable rule that no more than one of them should ever, on any occasion, be committed with persons not of its body. For this reason, many things here stated are set forth on the credit of one individual, but believed by the remainder. About the middle of 1796, a meeting of the Executive was held, more important in its discussions and its consequences than any that had preceded it. As such, we have thought ourselves bound to give an account of it with the most perfect frankness, and more than ordinary precision. Tis meeting was convened in consequence of a letter from one of the Society, who had emigrated on account of political opinions.33 It mentioned that the state of the country had been represented to the Government of France in so favourable a light as to induce them to resolve upon invading Ireland, for the purpose of enabling it to separate itself from Great Britain. On this solemn and important occasion, a serious review was taken of the state of the Irish nation at that period. It was observed that a desperate ferment existed in the public mind, and a resolution in favour of Parliamentary reform had indeed been passed in the House of Commons early in 1793; but, afer it / had been frustrated by several successive adjournments, all hope of its attainment was vanished, and its friends everywhere proscribed. Te volunteers were put down; all power of meeting by delegation for any political purpose (the mode in which it was most usual and expedient to co-operate on any subject of importance) was taken away at the same time. Te prosecutions of 1794, the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam, and the resumption of coercive measures that followed it, were strongly dwelt on. Te County of Armagh had been long desolated by fomented feuds, the two contending factions agreeing only in one thing – an opinion that most of the acting magistrates in that County treated one party with the most fostering kindness, and the other with the most rigorous persecution. It was stated that so marked a partiality exasperated the suferers

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

155

and those who sympathized in their misfortunes; it was urged with indignation that, notwithstanding the greatness of the military establishment in Ireland, and its having been able to suppress the defenders in various Counties, it was not able, or was not employed, to suppress those outrages in that County which drove 4000 persons from their native dwellings. Te magistrates, too, who took no steps against the Orangemen, were said to have overleaped the boundaries of law to pursue and punish the Defenders. Te Government and Legislature seemed to take upon themselves those injuries by the Indemnity Act, which screened from punishment, and even honoured the violations, and, by the Insurrection Act, which enabled the same magistrates, if they chose, under colour of law, to act anew the same abominations. Nothing, it was contended, could more justly excite the spirit of resistance, and determine men to appeal to arms, than the Insurrection Act. It punished with death the administering of oaths, which, in their opinion, were calculated to promote the most honourable and virtuous purposes. Te power of proclaiming Counties, and quieting them by breaking open the cabins of the peasants between sunset and sunrise, by seizing / the inmates and sending them on board tenders, without the interposition of a trial by jury, had, it was alleged, irritated beyond endurance the minds of the refecting and the feelings of the unthinking inhabitants of that province. It was contended that, even according to the Constitution and example of 1688,34 when the protection of the constituted authorities was withdrawn from the subject, allegiance, its reciprocal duty, had ceased to bind. When the people was not redressed, it had a right to resist, and was free to seek for allies wherever they were to be found. Te English Revolutionists of 1688 called in the assistance of a foreign Republic35 to overthrow their oppressors. Tere had sprung up in our own times a much more mighty Republic,36 which, by its ofers of assistance to break the chains of Slavery, had drawn on itself a war with the enemies of our freedom, and now peculiarly tendered us its aid. Tese arguments prevailed, and it was resolved to employ the profered assistance for the purpose of separation. We are aware it is suspected that negotiations between the United Irishmen and the French were carried on at an earlier period than that now alluded to; but we solemnly declare any such suspicion is unfounded. In consequence of this determination of the Executive, an agent37 was despatched to the Directory,38 who acquainted them with it, stated the dispositions of the people, and the measures which caused them. He received fresh assurances that the succours should be sent as soon as the armament could be got ready. About October, 1796, a messenger39 from the Republic arrived, who, afer authenticating himself, said he came to be informed of the state of the country, and to tell the leaders of the United Irishmen of the intention of the French to invade it speedily, with 15,000 men, and a great quantity of arms and ammunition; but he neither mentioned the precise time nor the place, doubting, we

156

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

suppose, our caution and secrecy. Shortly afer his departure, a letter arrived from a quarter which there was reason to look upon as confdential, stating that they would / invade England in the ensuing spring, and possibly Ireland. Te reason of this contradiction has never been explained; but the consequence of it, and the messenger not having stated the intended place of landing, was, that when the armament arrived, in December, 1796, at Bantry Bay, they came at a time and in a port we had not foreknown. Afer the intended descent had failed, it occurred to some members of the Opposition and their friends in the City, and to some of the most inconsiderate of the United Irish, that one more attempt should be made in favour of Parliamentary Reform. Tey hoped, by the terrible warning which had been given, by the facility of reaching our coasts, and (if the armament had landed) the possibility at least of its succeeding, would have convinced the borough proprietors of the necessity of conceding to the popular wish. Te storm had dispersed – a cloud big with danger – but it might collect again, and the thunder of republic and revolution again roll, and perhaps burst over their heads. Tis was then judged the best moment to persuade them, in the midst of their fears, to a measure strictly counter-revolutionary. We think it but right to state that no greater connection than that of private acquaintance and friendship ever subsisted between any of the members of the Opposition and the United Irishmen, except in this instance, and for the accomplishment of this purpose. In consequence of these joint eforts, a meeting was held at the Exchange, which declared in favour of Reform, and a proposal of that nature was submitted to Parliament. If, in the course of that efort for Reform, it had not become evident that success was hopeless, it was the wish of many among us, and we believe the Executive would have gladly embraced the occasion of declining to hold any further intercourse with France, except sending a messenger there to tell them that the diferences were adjusted between the Government and the people, and that they would have no business a second time to attempt a landing. In fact, no advance was made to renew / the negociation until April, 1797, when an agent was sent. In the May following, General Lake’s wellknown Proclamation appeared.40 Tis very much increased the ferment of the public mind, and the disposition of the people to wish for a return of the French, that they might get rid of the severities of martial law. It did more – it goaded many of the people of the North to press the Executive to consent to an insurrection, independent of foreign aid. But about this time a letter arrived, assuring us that the French would come again, and requesting that a person should be sent over to make previous arrangements. Te eagerness of those in the North, who were urgent for insurrection, was checked by making known to them this communication, and entreating for delay. It was resisted likewise by some of the most sober and refecting among themselves, who were of opinion they were not

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

157

yet sufciently prepared for the attempt. Tese considerations prevailed, particularly as, in order to enforce them, advantage was taken of a wish expressed in Parliament that the people might rise. Te impatience, however, which was manifested on this occasion, and the knowledge that it was only controlled by the expectation of foreign and speedy assistance, determined the Executive to send a second agent,41 with an answer to the letter. Tis person departed in the latter end of June, 1797. By both these agents, rather a small number of men, with a great quantity of arms, ammunition, artillery, and ofcers, were required. A small force only was asked for, because the Executive, faithful to the principle of Irish independence, wished for what they deemed just sufcient to liberate their country, but incompetent to subdue it. Teir most determined resolution, and that of the whole body (as far as its opinion could be collected) always has been, in no event to let Ireland come under the dominion of France; but it was ofered to pay the expenses of the expedition. Te number required was ten thousand men at the most, and at the least, fve thousand. / Te Executive inclined to the larger number; but, even with the smaller, the general opinion among them was, that there could be no doubt of success. As to the quantity of arms, by the frst agent 40,000 stand were specifed; but, by the second, as much more as could be sent. Te diference arose from the disarming that had gone on in the mean time in the North, and from the increasing numbers that were ready to use them. Te Executive also instructed its agents to negociate for a loan of money, if it could be had in France; but, if not, to negociate for that purpose with Spain. Te sum was half a million. Our second agent, on his arrival at Hamburg, wrote a Memorial, containing these and other details, a copy of which we perceive Government have somehow or other obtained, and therefore refer to it. He then proceeded to Paris, to treat further on this business, where he presented a second Memoir. Te object of this was to urge motives arising out of the new state of afairs, which should induce the Directory not to postpone the invasion. We cannot precisely state the whole of its contents, as, according to the constant practice, already mentioned, no copy of it has been preserved; but it went to demonstrate that so favourable a disposition as then existed in the Irish mind was in no future contingency to be expected. In any subsequent rupture between Great Britain and the French Republic, his Majesty’s ministers must see that Ireland would infallibly become the seat of war, if they did not previously remove those grievances, the existence of which would naturally invite and prove a powerful auxiliary to the enemy. Such a rupture, it was observed, must be in the contemplation of the British cabinet, as several of its most leading members had declared, that they considered the existence of the British monarchy incompatible with that of the Republic. Conciliation would, therefore, according to every rule of policy and common sense, be ultimately

158

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

adopted; and, though it should fall somewhat short of the wishes of the people, it was asserted that, if once possessed of a reasonable / share of liberty, they could not be brought to run the chances of a revolution, in order to obtain a more perfect system of freedom. Our second agent, while at Paris, (and pending the negociation at Lisle)42 was told by some of the persons in power in France, that, if certain terms, not specifed to him, were ofered by the English, peace would certainly be made. However, afer the negociation was broken of, he received positive assurances that the Irish never should be abandoned until a separation was efected, and that they should be lef entirely at their own option to choose their own form of Government. About the same time, a person came over, informing us that a considerable armament was ready, and embarked in the Texel, destined for Ireland, and only waiting for a wind. Te troops were aferwards disembarked; but we are ignorant of the reason why they never sailed, except perhaps that the wind continued for so long a time adverse, that their provisions were exhausted, and that, in the mean while, disturbances had broken out in the French government. It may be proper to remark, that in none of the negociations or communications from France did the Government of that country ever intimate the place they should land, or (except in the frst) the force they would bring. Some time in the beginning of this year, a letter was received from France, stating that the succours might be expected in April: why this promise was not fulflled we have never learned. We know nothing of further communications from any foreign State, nor of the future plan of operations of the French, but we are convinced they will never abandon the purpose of separating this country from England, so long as the discontents of the people would induce them to support an invasion. Let us, then, while Ireland is yet our country, be indulged in a few remarks which we deem extremely important to its future prosperity. Now that we have given these full and faithful details of the past, we cannot be suspected of any but / pure and disinterested motives in what we are about to say, ere we leave it for ever. Te parts we have acted have enabled us to acquire the most intimate knowledge of the dispositions and hearts of our countrymen. From that knowledge we speak, when we declare the deepest conviction that the Penal Laws, which have followed in such rapid and doleful succession, that the houseburnings, arbitrary imprisonments, free quarters, and, above all, the tortures to extort confessions, neither have had, nor can have, any other efect than exciting the most deadly rancour in the hearts of almost all the people of Ireland against those of their countrymen who have had recourse to such measures for maintaining their power, and against the connexion with Britain, whose men and whose means have been poured in to aid them. Te matchless fdelity which has marked the Union, the unexampled frmness and contempt of death displayed by so many thousands at the halberts, in the feld, in the jail, and at the gibbet,

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners

159

exempt us from claiming any belief on our personal credit. If the hearts of the people be not attached by some future measures, this nation will most assuredly be again and more violently disturbed on the next coming of a foreign force. If a reform be adopted, founded on the abolition of corporations and boroughs, as constituent bodies, and the equal division of the representation among those who may be entitled to the elective sufrage, the best possible step will be taken for preserving the monarchical constitution and the British connection. For the success of this measure we would not now answer; but, of this we are sure, you must extirpate or reform. Te heavy and still agitated minds with which we write will, we hope, not only apologize for any inaccuracies of style, but likewise serve the much more important purpose of excusing any expressions that may not be deemed suffciently circumspect. Much as we wish to stop the efusion of blood, and the present scenes of useless horrors, we have not afected a change of principles, which would only bring on us the / imputation of hypocrisy, when it is our most anxious wish to evince perfect sincerity and good faith. We, however, entreat Government to be assured that, while it is so much our interest to conciliate, it is far from our intention to ofend. A. O’Connor. Thomas Addis Emmett. William James M’Nevin.

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF SECRECY, OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN IRELAND, AS REPORTED BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Commons in Ireland, as Reported by the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh, August 21, 1798 (London: Printed for J. Debrett and J. Wright, 1798).

Te Irish House of Commons set up a Committee of Secrecy (separate from that of the House of Lords) to investigate the activities of the United Irishmen that had led to the 1798 rebellion. It reported when the rebellion had been efectively, though not completely, crushed. Its report was based on a wide range of evidence discovered about the activities of the United Irishmen by a variety of means. Tis evidence (published in thirty-nine appendices which are not reproduced here) is summarized in the synthesis included below. Some of the material in the appendices includes early publications when the United Irishmen were acting openly and constitutionally. Most of the material, however, reveals what the United Irishmen were doing when they were a clandestine and militant movement from 1796 to 1798 and how the Irish authorities responded to this threat. Te report provides a great deal of evidence on the size of the movement, its contacts and correspondence with the French, its collecting of arms, its seditious publications, its plans for a rebellion and its encouragement of a French invasion, and so on. It also details the responses of the Irish authorities, including the passing of legislation, the issuing of proclamations to the people and instructions to the armed forces, the courts martial, trials and examination of United Irishmen, the arrest of the Leinster provincial committee, and more. Te following report provides a very useful and reliable guide to what the authorities knew of the various activities of the United Irishmen when the latter were seeking to operate clandestinely.

– 161 –

Report from the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Commons in Ireland, as Reported by the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh,1 August 21, 1798 (London: Printed for J. Debrett and J. Wright, 1798).

REPORT. Mr. Speaker,2 THE Committee of Secrecy, appointed to take into consideration the papers presented to the House on the 17th day of July last by the Right Honorable Lord Viscount Castlereagh, have directed me to report as follows: Your Committee, in reporting upon the papers referred to them, (Ap. No. I.) fnd it necessary to recall the attention of the house to a report of a secret committee of the Lords in the year 1793, (Ap. No. II. and III.) as also to the reports of secret committees of both houses of the late parliament, presented in the course of the year 1797. Your committee fnd that the allegations stated in those reports are fully confrmed by farther evidence and by subsequent events; and the facts they contain, connected with the information arising out of the present enquiry, will enable the house to trace in all its parts the conspiracy carried on by the party stiling themselves United Irishmen, from its frst appearance under the pretext of reform till it connected itself with the foreign enemy, and broke out into a wide and extended rebellion. Before your committee proceed to trace the extension and progress of the system of treason since the period of the last report, (the organization of which at that time appeared to have been in a great degree confned to the northern counties, but shortly afer extended itself throughout other parts of the kingdom,) they are desirous of adverting to the prominent facts established by former enquiries, and to the measures adopted by the government to meet the dangers which then, and at the period immediately subsequent to the last report, existed in the province of Ulster. / – 163 –

164

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Te society under the name of United Irishmen, it appears, was established in the year 1791; its founders held forth what they termed Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform, as the ostensible objects of their union, (Ap. No. II.): but it clearly appeared from the letter of Teobald Wolfe Tone,3 accompanying their original constitution, as transmitted to Belfast for adoption, that from its commencement the real purpose of those who were at the head of the institution, was to separate Ireland from Great Britain, and to subvert the established constitution of this kingdom: in corroboration of which your committee have annexed to this report several of their early publications, particularly a prospectus of the society which appeared in the beginning of the year 1791, (Ap. No. IV. and V.); as also the plan of reform which they recommended to the people. For the frst three years their attention was entirely directed to the engaging in their society persons of activity and talents in every quarter of the kingdom; and in preparing the public mind for their future purposes by the circulation of the most seditious publications, particularly the works of Tomas Paine.4 At this time, however, the leaders were rather cautious of alarming minds not sufciently ripe for the adoption of their principles by the too open disclosure of the real objects they had in view. In 1795 the test of the society underwent a striking revision, (Ap. No. XXIV.); the words in the amended test stand, “a full representation of all the people,” omitting the words “in the Commons House of Parliament;” the reason for which has been admitted by three members of the executive examined before your committee, (Ap. No. XXXI.) to be the better to reconcile reformers and republicans in a common exertion to overthrow the state. In the summer of 1796 great numbers of persons, principally in the province of Ulster, had enrolled themselves in this society. About the same period, (Ap. No. VI.) as will be more fully explained hereafer, a direct communication had been opened by the heads of the party with the enemy, and French assistance was solicited and promised to be speedily sent to aid the disafected in this kingdom. With a view of being prepared as much as possible to co-operate with the enemy then expected, (Ap. No. VI.) and in order to counteract the efect of the armed associations of yeomanry established in October 1796, directions were issued by the leaders to the societies to form themselves into military bodies, and to be provided with arms and ammunition. / Tese directions were speedily obeyed; the societies assumed a military form; and it appears by the original papers seized at Belfast in the month of April 1797, (Ap. No. II.) that their numbers at that period in the province of Ulster alone were stated to amount to nearly 100,000 men. Tat they were very largely supplied with fre-arms and pikes; that they had some cannon and ammunition, and were diligently employed in the study of military tactics; in short, that nothing was neglected by the party which could enable them to take the feld on the

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 165

arrival of the enemy, or whenever they might receive orders to that efect from their superior ofcers, whom they were bound by oath to obey. To deter the well-afected from joining the yeomanry corps, and to render the administration of justice altogether inefectual, the most active system of terror was put in operation; persons enrolled in the yeomanry, magistrates, witnesses, jurors – in a word, every class and description of people who ventured to support the laws, became objects of the most cruel persecution in their persons, property, and even in the line of their business; and multitudes were compelled to take their illegal oaths, and profess an adherence to the party, as a means of security. In the latter end of 1796, and beginning of 1797, the loyal inhabitants of Ulster sufered most severely from the depredations of the United Irishmen; throughout the province they were stript of their arms; the most horrid murders were perpetrated by large bodies of men in open day, and it became nearly impossible to bring the ofenders to justice from the inevitable destruction that awaited the witnesses or jurors who dared to perform their duty. Your committee will now shortly trace the measures resorted to for suppressing these disturbances, and for extending protection to the well afected. In the summer of 1796, the outrages committed by a banditti, calling themselves Defenders, in the counties of Roscommon, Leitrim, Longford, Meath, Westmeath and Kildare, together with a religious feud prevailing in the county of Armagh, induced the legislature to pass a temporary act of parliament, (36 Geo. 3.c.)5 generally called the Insurrection Act, by which the Lord Lieutenant and Council were enabled, upon the requisition of seven magistrates of any county assembled at a sessions of the peace, to proclaim the whole or any part thereof to be in a state of disturbance; within / which limits this law, giving increased power to the magistracy, was to have operation. Many districts in Ulster, in which outrages prevailed, occasioned by the active and persecuting spirit of the United Irishmen, were in the course of the winter of 1796, and spring of 1797, put under the provisions of the act above mentioned: and your committee have to observe, that, although where the law was put in force with activity by the magistrates, very benefcial consequences were found to result from it, yet the treason was then too deeply rooted to yield to this remedy. Te parliament being assembled in October 1796, the dangerous progress of the treason, and the active preparations of the enemy for the invasion of this kingdom, were announced in the speech from the throne. Bills (37 Geo. 3.c.) were immediately brought in, and passed without delay, for suspending the habeas corpus6 act, as also for the establishment of the yeomanry:7 – measures to which your committee feel themselves justifed in attributing the salvation of the country; and which being taken immediately subsequent to the formal alliance concluded between the Executive of the Union and the French Directory, at once prove the

166

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

vigilance of government, as also their well-founded confdence in thus entrusting the defence of the kingdom and its constitution to the loyalty of its inhabitants. Your Committee have to observe with great satisfaction, that the estimate for the yeomanry, as frst laid before Parliament, was for a number not exceeding 20,000 – that in the course of six months above 37,000 were arrayed; and that the zeal of the country had so risen with its difculties, that during the late rebellion, the yeomanry force exceeded 50,000 men, and might have been increased to a much greater extent. It is unnecessary to recall to the recollection and gratitude of parliament and of the country, the services they have performed during the unhappy struggle in which we have been engaged; sharing all the hardships and dangers, and performing all the duties, in common with the King’s regular and militia forces. Te next measure to which your Committee beg leave to point the attention of the House is, (Ap. No. VII.) the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant and Council, bearing date the 6th of November, 1796, issued in consequence of the disafected having adopted a practice of marching in military array, and assembling in large bodies, in some instances to the number of several thousands, under / pretence of saving corn, and digging potatoes: but in fact to terrify the peaceable and welldisposed, and to compel them to enter into their treasonable associations. Te same system has since frequently been had recourse to by the United Irishmen in other parts of the kingdom under various pretences, such as funerals, foot-ball meetings, &c. with a view of displaying their strength, giving the people the habit of assembling from great distances upon an order being issued, and making them more accustomed to shew themselves openly in support of the cause. Te next measure to which the government was driven by the traitorous excesses of the United Irishmen, and to which your committee beg leave to advert, is the proclamation of Lieut. Gen. Lake,8 (App. No. VIII. and IX.) then commanding in Ulster, issued on the 13th of March, in consequence of a letter addressed to him by the Lord Lieutenant’s secretary, Mr. Pelham.9 Te disorders which called for this interposition of military authority are sufciently set forth in the body of the letter; and your committee have only to observe, that in carrying Lieut. General Lake’s proclamation into efect, no acts of severity whatever were used by the military towards persons concealing or refusing to give up their arms; but that on the contrary, the search for the arms of the disafected was conducted with all possible mildness; and that where persons voluntarily brought in their arms, certifcates were granted by the magistrates and assurances given to the people that their arms would be returned as soon as the country was restored to tranquillity. – It must, however, be observed, that in June following, when a general insurrection was decided on by the party, and upon the point of breaking out in the province of Ulster, more vigorous means of compelling the surrender of arms were had recourse to, under the authority

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 167

of the proclamation of the 17th of May;10 – (Ap. No. X.) a measure absolutely indispensable to the public security, and under the circumstances of the case, strictly defensive. Of the quantity of arms which appeared by their own reports to be in the hands of the disafected, comparatively few were obtained by the search then made in Ulster by General Lake’s orders; and it is also to be observed, that previously to, and during the circuit which took place in the month of April 1797, acts of violence of every description became more frequent, and were at / the same time so systematically directed, with a view to stop the course of criminal justice against the United Irishmen, that the crown prosecutions in the disturbed counties proved from their failure an encouragement rather than a restraint upon the treasonable projects of the party. Te report of the Secret Committee (App. No. X. XI. XII.) was followed by the proclamation of the 17th of May 1797, which afer reciting many acts of outrage and rebellion that had been committed, and ofering pardon, with certain exceptions to all persons guilty of the said ofences who should surrender within the period of a month, and give security for their future good behaviour, declared that the civil power had proved inefectual, and that it became necessary to employ the military force for the immediate suppression of such rebellious attempts. It appears to your committee, (No. XIV.) that notwithstanding this measure of mercy and warning to the disafected, in the latter end of the same month, as will be more fully explained hereafer, a general insurrection in Ulster was decided on, and the plan of attack for each county arranged. Te intention transpired, and was defeated by the active exertions of the army; notwithstanding which, a partial rising did take place near the mountains in the county of Down, where the insurgents, fnding themselves unsupported, soon dispersed.11 Te efect of the measures then adopted was immediately felt; the arms of the disafected, by necessary acts of coercion, were collected throughout the province in great numbers: – the loyal were encouraged to declare themselves – such as had been misled, came in in crowds to take the beneft of the proclamation of pardon, (App. No. XIII.) which was extended for another month; outrage ceased, and public confdence was so far restored throughout Ulster in the course of the months of July and August, that the laws were administered with efect in the diferent counties during the autumn circuit, and the manufacturing industry of the country was restored to its usual vigour during the remainder of that year. Your committee think it peculiarly incumbent on them to state, that during, and subsequent to, the assizes of the said circuit, the civil authority was found throughout Ulster fully adequate to the preservation of the public peace, and that all military interference was generally discontinued from that period. /

168

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

It appears to your committee, that the inferior societies of United Irishmen, in general, discontinued their meetings; that the people applied themselves to their ordinary occupations; and though some of the higher committees were kept alive by the active leaders in the treason, yet it will appear from an inspection (Ap. No. XIV.) of the authentic reports of their proceedings, that for several months only a proportion of the counties of Ulster were represented in the provincial committee; that the others refused to send delegates; that little money was collected; that they could not succeed in reviving the inferior societies; and that although they encouraged each other in the hopes of bringing the lower orders of the people again into action in case the enemy should land, they were not able to make any impression of consequence, till the insurrection in Leinster was on the point of breaking forth; and your committee feel themselves warranted in stating, that the benefcial consequences arising from the measures adopted in the year 1797, in the north, were strongly exemplifed in the feebleness of the late insurrection in that quarter, and in the spirit displayed on that occasion by the yeomanry and loyal inhabitants of the province of Ulster. It appears to your committee, that the leaders of the treason, apprehensive lest the enemy might be discouraged from any farther plan of invasion, by the loyal disposition manifested throughout Munster and Connaught on their former attempt, determined to direct all their exertions to the propagation of the system in those provinces, which had hitherto been but partially infected. With this view emissaries were sent into the south and west in great numbers, of whose success, in forming new societies, and administering the oaths of the Union, there were, in the course of a few months, but too evident proofs in the introduction of the same disturbances and enormities into Munster, with which the northern province had been so severely visited. In May 1797, although numbers had been sworn both in Munster and Leinster, the strength of the organization, exclusively of Ulster, lay chiefy in the metropolis and in a few neighbouring counties, namely, Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath, and the King’s County. It is observable, that the counties in which Defenderism had prevailed, easily became converts to the new doctrines; and in the summer of 1797 the usual concomitants of the treason, namely, / the plundering houses of arms, the fabrication of pikes, and the murder of those who did not join their party, began to appear in the midland counties. In order to engage the peasantry in the southern counties, particularly in the counties of Waterford and Cork, the more eagerly in their cause, the United Irishmen found it expedient in urging their general principles, to dwell with peculiar energy on the supposed oppressiveness of tythes, (which had been the pretext for the old White-boy insurrections.12) And it is observable, that in addition to the acts of violence usually resorted to by the party, for the furtherance

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 169

of their purposes, the ancient practice of burning the corn, and houghing the cattle of those against whom their resentment was directed was revived, and very generally practised in those counties. With a view to excite the resentment of the catholics, and to turn that resentment to the purposes of the party, fabricated and false tests were represented as having been taken to exterminate Catholics, (App. No. XXVI.) and were industriously disseminated by the emissaries of the treason throughout the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. Reports were frequently circulated amongst the ignorant of the catholic persuasion, that large bodies of men were coming to put them to death. Tis fabrication, however extravagant and absurd, was one among the many wicked means, by which the deluded peasantry were engaged the more rapidly in the treason. In addition to the above arts practised to excite the people, and to turn local prejudices to the furtherance of their purpose, the party did not fail to avail themselves, to the fullest extent, of the most wicked and licentious abuse of the Press. (App. No. XXVII.) In the summer of 1797, an infamous paper, called the Union Star,13 was privately printed and circulated, inculcating the principles of insurrection and assassination in direct terms, and containing a description of those persons by name, (particularly magistrates and such as had served on juries) who were to be held out to the party as objects of assassination, on account of their active loyalty, or a conscientious discharge of their duty. Towards the end of the same year, a newspaper, called the Press, was established, latterly published in the name of Mr. A. O’Connor14 as proprietor thereof, who has admitted before your committee, / that he was for more than a year a member of the Executive Directory of the Irish Union, and who, as it appears to your committee from various channels of information, was a most active and confdential leader of their treason in its principal departments, both at home and abroad, which conveyed periodical exhortations to all manner of outrage and insubordination. Every species of misrepresentation and sophistry was made use of to vilify the government, to extend the union, to shake the connexion with Great Britain, to induce the people to look to French assistance, to exaggerate the force and numbers of the disafected, and systematically to degrade the administration of justice in all its departments. Tis paper, conducted on principles still more licentious than the Northern Star15 (which had contributed so largely to the extension of treason in the North) was distributed throughout all parts of the kingdom, and from the activity of its partizans, had immediately a more extensive circulation than any paper long established. Te measures thus adopted by the party, completely succeeded in detaching the minds of the lower classes from their usual habits and pursuits, insomuch, that in the course of the autumn and winter of 1797, the peasantry in the midland and southern counties were sworn, and ripe for insurrection. Pikes were

170

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

fabricated in such numbers, (App. No. XXXIX.) that in the single county of Kildare, in consequence of the measures adopted by government, twelve thousand have been surrendered; and your committee have every reason to believe that a still greater proportion was retained, and that the preparation of arms in other counties by the disafected, was nearly as extensive as the organization itself, will appear as well from the numbers seized in diferent parts of the kingdom, amounting in the whole to above 129,000 of diferent descriptions, (App. No. XXXIX.) as from the fact, that wherever the insurrection broke out, the mass of the people were universally armed either with muskets or pikes. While they were thus maturing their design, and secretly acquiring the strength and consistency of a revolutionary army, they omitted no artifce by which they could hope either to weaken or embarrass the government of the country. So early as the year 1792 the seduction of the soldiery made a part of their system. Tey imagined that the season was now arrived for its accomplishment, and no means which wicked subtilty could suggest, were lef / unemployed. (Ap. No. XXX.) Printed papers were industriously circulated amongst the privates and non-commissioned ofcers, urging them to insubordination and revolt, and holding out the most tempting ofers of preferment to such as should desert their colours. Te atrocious crimes to which they were incited, will best appear by reference to the proceedings of the general courts martial hereunto annexed, (Ap. No. XXIX. and XXX.) before whom the culprits were tried, prior to the breaking out of the rebellion, and to the trial of Henry and John Sheares16 (Ap. No. XX.) before a special commission lately held. Teir attempts to frustrate the administration of justice have already been mentioned. It will be proper to state some farther particulars. (Ap. No. XIV.) From several authentic reports of their own proceedings, it appears that considerable sums of money were subscribed for the purpose of defending such of their associates as should be brought to trial. Tat they had itinerant committees, who went circuit as regularly as the judges. Tat a bar of lawyers were retained to undertake the cause of all persons in the gross committed for state ofences.17 Entries of money appear in their proceedings as paid to procure, as well as to buy of, witnesses. In many cases to gaolers for being guilty of breaches of trust, and even to under sherifs for returning partial pannels;18 hand-bills to intimidate jurors were circulated, and every species of indecent management practised in the courts, to exclude from the jury-box persons unconnected with their party. In the hope of diminishing the resources of the State, (Ap. No. XXV.) instructions were given to the people to abstain from the consumption of exciseable articles, which are productive to the Revenue, and every endeavour made to depreciate the value of Government Securities (Ap. No. XXVIII.) in the estimation of the public, to stop the raising of the supplies of the year by the sale of the quit rents, and to prevent the circulation of Bank paper.

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 171

Before your Committee proceed to state the traitorous correspondence carried on by the leading members of the conspiracy with the enemy, (Ap. No. XXIV.) they think it necessary to advert to a new organization of the Society which took place in August 1797, the reasons for which change will best appear by an inspection of the printed paper at that time circulated, as an instruction / to the body, and your committee beg leave to refer to the examination upon oath before the Secret Committee of the House of Lords of Dr. M’Nevin,19 (Ap. No. XXXI.) who states himself to have been a member of their Executive Directory for the detailed application of this new system to military purposes. Te evidence of the same person together with that of two other members of the executive, (Ap. No. XXXI.) namely Mr. Emmet20 and Mr. Arthur O’Conner, delivered upon oath before the said Secret Committee of the Lords, and who as well as the said Dr. M’Nevin have been examined since before your Committee, has completely developed the connexion of the party with the French Directory. From their testimony it appears that so early as the year 1796, the party despairing of carrying their plans into execution through the medium of a democratic reform, avowedly directed their eforts to revolution, and having received an intimation from one of their society, and whom your Committee have very good reason to know to be Mr. Teobald Wolfe Tone already mentioned, (a fugitive from this country on account of his treasonable conduct) then at Paris, that the state of the country had been represented to the government of France in such a light as to induce them to resolve on sending a force to Ireland for the purpose of enabling it to separate itself from Great Britain, an extraordinary meeting of the Executive of the Union was convened to take the proposal into consideration. Tis meeting was held in the Summer of 1796, (Ibid.) and the result of their deliberations was to accept of the assistance thus held out to them by the French Directory. In consequence of this determination an agent was dispatched to the Directory to acquaint them with it. (Ibid.) He was instructed to state the dispositions of the people, and the arrangements of the union for their reception, and received fresh assurances from the French Government that the armament should be sent as speedily as it could be prepared. Te agent above alluded to appears to your Committee from various channels of information to have been the late Lord Edward Fitzgerald,21 who accompanied by the said Mr. Arthur O’Connor, proceeded by Hamburgh to Switzerland, and had an interview near the French frontier with General Hoche,22 who aferwards had the command of the expedition against Ireland, on which occasion every thing was settled between the parties with a / view to the descent. Te reason the persons employed on this mission did not pass into France was, lest the Irish government should gain intelligence of the fact, and cause them to be apprehended on their return.

172

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

About October, 1796, (Ap. No. XXXI.) an accredited messenger23 from the French Republic arrived, who said he came to be informed of the state of the country, and to communicate to the leaders of the United Irishmen the intention of the French to invade Ireland speedily with ffeen thousand men and a great quantity of arms and ammunition, which attempt so announced was accordingly made in the month of December following, when the French feet with a large body of troops on board arrived in Bantry-bay.24 Your Committee do not think it necessary to advert to the early and frequent communications of a treasonable nature that took place between the disafected who had fed from this country to France, and the leaders of the party here, it is sufcient to set forth the leading attempts of the union to prevail upon the French Directory to send a force to their assistance. It is necessary however to observe that although previous to the summer of 1796 no formal and authorised communication appears to have taken place between the Irish Executive, and the French government, yet the trial of Dr. Jackson,25 convicted of High Treason in the year 1795, (No. XXXI.) proves that even then the enemy had agents in this kingdom who were addressed to the most active members of the Irish Union for information and assistance, and the treasonable statement respecting the interior situation of Ireland then drawn up, to be transmitted to France, appeared on the trial to have been the joint production of Teobald Wolfe Tone heretofore mentioned as the framer of the original constitution of United Irishmen, assisted by Archibald Hamilton Rowan, Esq.26 who frequently appeared in their publications as the chairman of the Society, to which treason, Lewins27 whom your committee from various channels of information are enabled to state to be now their resident agent at Paris, appears to have been privy. From the period of the failure of this expedition, the disafected either actually did expect, or with a view of keeping up the spirits of their party, pretended to expect the immediate return of the enemy, and assurances to this efect were industriously circulated in all their Societies. However in the Spring of 1797, the Executive of the / Union thinking the French dilatory in their preparations, did then dispatch Mr. Lewins above mentioned as a confdential person to press for assistance. Tis agent lef London in March, and proceeded to Hamburgh, but did not reach Paris until the end of May or beginning of June, from which time he has continued to be the accredited Minister of the Irish Union to the French Directory. It appears to your Committee, that in the Summer of 1797, (Ibid.) the Executive of the Union apprehensive lest a premature insurrection in the North before the promised succours from France could arrive might disappoint their prospects, thought it necessary to send a second agent to Paris, to urge with increased earnestness that the promised assistance should be immediately sent; accordingly a most confdential member of their body, whom your Committee

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 173

have grounds to state to have been Doctor M’Nevin, who had hitherto acted as Secretary to the Executive, was dispatched on this mission – He lef Dublin in the end of June, and presented himself with the necessary letters of credence to the French Minister at Hamburgh28 – Meeting with some difculty in obtaining a passport to proceed to Paris, he delivered to the Minister of the Republic a memoir to be forwarded to the Directory, the substance of which appears in Dr. M’Nevin’s examination as taken on oath before the Secret Committee of the Lords. It is unnecessary to make any observation upon this most curious statement – it is in itself a complete picture of the desperate purposes of the party, and the House will observe that the statement of their own resources is studiously exaggerated in proportion to the anxiety felt by them that the succours might be sent before the vigorous measures adopted by government in the North should disconcert their projects. Tis agent (App. No. XXXI.) was authorised to give France assurances of being repaid the full expenses of any future armament she might send to Ireland, as well as of the last which had miscarried, the same to be raised by the confscation of the lands of the church, of the property of all those who should oppose the measures of the party. He was also particularly charged to negociate if possible a loan on the above security to the amount of half a million, or at least three hundred thousand pounds, for the immediate purposes of the Union; and directions were given to him that in case / France could not be prevailed on to advance so large a sum, he should address himself to the court of Spain for that purpose. It appears to your Committee (Ap. No. XXXI.) that the Executive of the Union, though desirous of obtaining assistance in men, arms, and money, yet were averse to a greater force being sent than might enable them to subvert the government, and retain the power of the country in their own hands; but that the French shewed a decided disinclination at all times to send any force to Ireland except such as, from its magnitude, might not only give them the hopes of conquering the kingdom, but of retaining it aferwards as a French conquest, and of subjecting it to all the plunder and oppressions which other countries, subdued or deceived by that nation, have experienced. A remarkable illustration of which sentiment in the Directory of France occurs in the substance of a letter said to be received from Lewins, the Irish agent at Paris, and shewn by Lord Edward Fitzgerald to John Cormick,29 a colonel in the rebel army, who fed from justice on the breaking out of the rebellion, and whose voluntary confession, upon his apprehension in Guernsey, before Sir Hugh Dalrymple,30 is given in the appendix. Tis letter, although written apparently on money business, which is the cloak generally made use of by the party to conceal their real views, is perfectly intelligible when connected with, and explained by, the memoir presented by Doctor M’Nevin, the Irish agent to the French Directory. Te letter states, that the trustees, that is, the Directory, would not advance the fve thousand

174

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

pounds, that is, the smaller number of troops asked for in M’Nevin’s memoir; saying they would make no payment short of the entire sum, that is, the larger force, which they always declared their intention of sending, and that this payment could not be made in less than four months from that time. Te demands of the party by their frst agent, (Ap. No. XXXI,) went to a force not exceeding ten thousand, nor less than fve thousand men, with forty thousand stand of arms, and a proportionate supply of artillery, ammunition, engineers, experienced ofcers, &c. A still larger supply of arms was solicited by the second messenger, (Ap. No. XXXI.) on account, as he stated it, of the growing number of their adherents, and of the disarming of the north, in / which province above ten thousand stand of arms and as many pikes had been surrendered to the King’s troops. It appears that an attempt was made about the same time, (Ap. No. XXXI.) to procure the assistance of such Irish ofcers then in foreign service, as might be prevailed upon, by receiving high rank, to engage in the service of the Union, and that a negotiation was actually set on foot for this purpose; but it has been stated, that from the over-caution of the agent who was employed in conducting this transaction, nothing in consequence of it was efected. A second memoir was presented by this confdential agent upon his arrival at Paris, (Ibid.) in which he urged such arguments, as he conceived most likely to induce the Directory not to postpone the invasion. He endeavoured to demonstrate, that so favourable a disposition as then existed in the Irish mind, was in no future contingency to be expected; and he artfully represented, that the delusions held out by reform might cease from delay, and thus render more difcult to France, and the true republicans of this country, their endeavours to separate the two kingdoms, and to establish a republic in Ireland. Previous to this mission from Ireland, a confdential person (Ib.) was sent over by the French Directory to collect information respecting the state of Ireland. Failing to obtain the necessary passports in London to pass into Ireland, he wrote over to request that one of the party might meet him in London. A person was accordingly sent over, whom your Committee know, from various channels of information, to have been the late Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and who, it is to be presumed, did not fail to furnish the French agent with every necessary intelligence. Te Directory gave the Irish agents sent to Paris, the strongest assurances of support, and did accordingly, during the summer, make preparations of a very extensive nature, both at the Texel and at Brest, for the invasion of Ireland; and in the autumn, intelligence was received by the Executive of the Union, that the troops were actually embarked in the Texel, and only waited for a wind. In consequence of this communication, great exertions were made by the party; and in the beginning of October, when the Dutch feet was on the point of sailing, the approach of the enemy (as will appear by reference to the pro-

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 175

vincial reports (Ap. No. XIV.) from Ulster of that date) was announced to the societies as at hand. / Te troops had been actually on board, commanded by General Daendalls,31 but were suddenly disembarked. Te Dutch feet, contrary to the opinion of their own Admiral,32 as is believed generally, was, at the instance of the French government, obliged to put to sea, which led to the ever memorable victory of the 11th October, 1797.33 It appears to your committee, (No. XVI. and XXXI.) that early in the present year farther advices were received by the Irish Executive from France; stating, that succours might be expected to be sent to Ireland in April, but notwithstanding the temptation held out by the rebellion, which commenced on the 23d of May following, the French government have not yet thought it prudent to fulfll their promise. Te committee trust they have laid sufcient grounds before the house, to satisfy them of the long-entertained and fxed purpose of the United Irishmen to introduce the enemy into this kingdom, and through their assistance to seize upon the government and property of the country; and that in their negotiation with the French Directory, they have had no other reserve but what their own treasonable ambition pointed out. Te particulars of the statement resting for the most part upon the admission of the parties themselves, there can be no possible room to doubt the truth of what has been submitted. Your committee think it material to observe, that notwithstanding the wildness of the hope that they could ever succeed in overturning the government without powerful aid from abroad, yet on more than one occasion, the eagerness of the more violent partizans so far prevailed over their reason, as to induce them to meditate an insurrection. To this they were excited by the apprehension that the zeal of their followers would subside if they were not called into action, as well as by a dread that a resort to stronger measures on the part of government might at length deprive them of the means of exertion. It had been their invariable policy to announce an efort as at hand, merely to keep up the spirits of the people, when no attempt of the kind was really in contemplation; however, in the spring of 1797, a plan was seriously discussed amongst the leaders then assembled in Dublin, (Ap. No. XXXI. & XV.) for commencing a general rising, without waiting for foreign assistance; but as this scheme did not meet with the approbation of the Dublin / part of the committee, it was laid aside; and it appears that at this period a coolness took place between the Ulster and the Leinster Delegates, in consequence of which the progress of the conspiracy seems to have been for a time much impeded. Te northerns then in Dublin, disgusted with the cowardice (as they termed it) of the Leinster Delegates, proposed to act without their approbation, to seize upon the castle, ordnance stores, magazine, &c. and to trust to the mob of Dub-

176

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

lin for assistance; (No. XIV.) but from some additional military precautions at that time adopted in the garrison, this plan was abandoned. Shortly afer the proclamation of the 17th of May 1797, above stated, notwithstanding the strong opinion entertained by the Leinster Executive, of the impolicy of such an attempt, the more so, as assurances had been recently received of the preparations going forward both at Brest and in the Texel for the invasion of Ireland; yet an active efort was made to produce a general insurrection throughout Ulster, the orders for which were given out the latter end of May, in conformity to a plan previously prepared. A slight movement did take place as before stated; however the main design of the party was frustrated by the active military measures then taken by Lieutenant General Lake, and many of their principal leaders were obliged to fy, several of whom passed into France, having received letters to Reinhart, French minister at Hamburgh, from persons then resident in this country, in consequence of which introduction, the necessary passports were granted, to enable them to proceed to Paris, where they arrived early in August, and had frequent communications with the French Directory on Irish afairs. Your committee do not fnd that the disafected entertained at any other periods than those alluded to, until the middle of March 1798, any serious intention of hazarding an efort independent of foreign assistance. Indeed the opinion of the most cautious of their body was always adverse to a premature exertion. Teir policy was to risque nothing so long as the party was gaining strength. Teir principle to extend their organization, to add to their stock of arms, and to wait for events: and it appears from a variety of evidence laid before your committee, that the rebellion would not have broken out so soon as it did, had it not been for the well-timed measures adopted by government, subsequent to the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant34 and council, bearing date the 30th of March, 1798, (Ap. / No. XXXVII.) as it is notorious that in many counties the efect of those measures was such in dissolving the union, and in obliging the people to surrender their arms, that it became evident to the generality of their leaders, they had no other alternative but to rise at once, or to abandon their purpose. It appears to your Committee, that with the double view of being prepared either to co-operate with the enemy in case of a descent, or of directing an insurrection upon system should they fnd it necessary to have recourse to such a measure (Ap. No. XXXI.) before assistance might arrive from France, a military committee was appointed by the Executive in the month of February last. About this time detailed military instructions were issued to the Adjutant-generals of the Union, (Ap. No. XIV. and XVII.) by which they were required to inform themselves and report on the state of the rebel regiments within their districts, of the number of mills, the roads, rivers, bridges and fords, the military positions, the capacity of the towns and villages to receive troops, to communicate

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 177

to the Executive every movement of the enemy, (meaning the King’s troops,) to announce the frst appearance of their allies, (meaning the French,) and immediately to collect their force, with several other military regulations. Instructions were also given to the several rebel regiments as to the arms and appointments with which they were to be furnished, so as to be enabled to take the feld on the shortest notice. At a meeting held the 26th of February, thanks are voted to the several Colonels (Ap. No. XXVII.) for their efectual exertions in embodying and arming their respective regiments – the people are requested to bear the shackles of tyranny a little longer till the whole kingdom shall be in such a state of organization as will, by their joint co-operation, efect without loss that desirable object which they stated as hourly drawing to a crisis. Whilst these extensive military arrangements were making by the Executive to act against the state as soon as a favourable opportunity should present itself, the same system of outrage which had been so successfully made use of by the party the year before in Ulster, to establish their own authority in opposition to that of the laws, and to compel the people to look to the Union for protection rather than to the State, was very generally prevalent throughout the southern / and midland counties. Te enormities committed on the well afected, were marked with the most disgusting cruelty. It is unnecessary for your Committee to detail individual instances of outrage which are fresh in the recollection of the House: it will be sufcient to state, that in the months of February and March, many parts of the provinces of Leinster and Munster were actually in the possession of a murderous banditti. If they did not appear in arms by day, it only rendered their rebellion more difcult to be met and crushed by the King’s troops and yeomanry – not a night passed without numerous murders; several districts in the provinces of Leinster and Munster had been proclaimed under the powers given to the Lord Lieutenant and Council by the act for preventing insurrections; but these measures proved inefectual – very many of the loyal inhabitants of the counties of Cork, Limerick, Tipperary, Kilkenny, Carlow, King’s County, Queen’s County, Kildare, and Wicklow, were, in the course of one month, stript of their arms, and in many places obliged to fy for shelter into the garrison towns; and as one instance among many of the daring lengths to which the conspirators at this time had proceeded, your Committee think it necessary to state, that, in open day, eight hundred insurgents, principally mounted, invested the town of Cahir, in the county of Tipperary; held possession of it until they had made a regular search through every house, and carried of in triumph all the arms and ammunition they could fnd. Under these circumstances (Ap. No. XXXVII.) the Lord Lieutenant and Council issued the proclamation before spoken of, bearing date the 30th of March, stating that the traitorous conspiracy long existing within this kingdom

178

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

had broken out into acts of open rebellion; and giving notice that the most direct and positive orders were issued to the ofcers commanding His Majesty’s forces to employ them with the utmost vigour and decision for the immediate suppression thereof; and also for the recovery of such arms as had been traitorously taken from the King’s peaceable and loyal subjects. It was also enjoined, that they should disarm the rebels and all persons disafected to His Majesty’s government by the most summary and efectual measures. Tis proclamation was transmitted by his Excellency’s commands to Sir Ralph Abercrombie,35 then Commander in Chief, who / was directed to proceed into the disturbed counties, being invested by the Lord Lieutenant with full powers. Your Committee annex to this report, a notice to the inhabitants of the disturbed counties, (Ap. No. XXXVIII.) as issued by the said Commander in Chief; and think it incumbent on them to observe, that on this, and, indeed, on every occasion in which the government, or the ofcers acting under its orders, have been driven to the necessity of adopting extraordinary measures for the safety of the State, full notice and time have uniformly been given before they were acted upon, and the people have been exhorted to prevent the necessity of rigorous measures by a cessation from outrage and a surrender of their arms. It appears to your Committee, that the steps then taken, as mentioned in the proclamation, had an almost immediate efect in repressing the audacity of the rebels, and in restoring tranquillity. Te loyal inhabitants were enabled in many places to return in safety to their houses – murders became less frequent; in many counties, particularly in Kildare and Tipperary, the people, sensible of the madness and wickedness of their conduct, began openly to acknowledge their crimes, surrender their arms, and point out their leaders and seducers; a submission which invariably obtained for them pardon and protection. In April and the beginning of May, the delusion of the people was so fast and so widely yielding to the measures of Government, which while they treated with severity the obstinately guilty, (Ap. No. XXXIV.) in all cases held forth mercy to the repentant, that the leaders of the treason, both in Dublin and the provinces, began to perceive that their cause was losing ground, and that they had no alternative lef but to hazard an insurrection, or to relinquish their hopes. Te arrest of the Leinster provincial committee, on the 12th of March, (Ap. Nos. XVI. and XIX.) and of several other leading members of the Union on the same day, tended so much to disclose the guilt of the party and to weaken their organization, that the conspirators felt themselves still more compelled to a desperate efort. A plan was accordingly digested by the military committee for a general rising, (Ap. No. XIV.) the outline of which was to surprise Dublin, the camp at Loughlinstown, and the artillery stationed at Chapelizod on the same night, (Ap. No. XVIII.) in / which attack the counties of Dublin, Wicklow, and Kildare, were to co-operate: the insurrection being commenced in the neigh-

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 179

bourhood of the metropolis, (Ap. No. XXXI.) (the signal for announcing which was to be the detention of the mail-coaches,) it was expected that the North and South would also rise. Te House will fnd the plan of insurrection detailed and fully proved in the evidence adduced on the trial of Henry and John Sheares, lately convicted of high treason; (Ap. Nos. XX. XXXI. and XXXIII.) the bloody intentions of the party may best be collected from a manifesto in the hand writing of the said John Sheares, (one of the new executive elected afer the arrests made on the 12th of March last, as your Committee have reason to believe) which was to have been issued in the event of success. Were any additional proofs necessary to establish the authenticity of the plan as above stated, it may be found in the proceedings of the provincial committee of Ulster, (Ap. No. XIV.) which met at Armagh on the 12th of May, where the same plan was announced as decided on, and the necessary orders given for securing, as far as possible, the co-operation of the North. Te Government, perfectly informed of the intentions of the conspirators, caused several of the leaders to be apprehended on the 19th and 21st of May, and the approaching insurrection was announced to the Lord Mayor36 late in the evening of the 21st in a letter from the Lord Lieutenant’s secretary;37 and on the following day a message to the same efect was sent by his Excellency to both Houses of Parliament. Notwithstanding the military precautions adopted to counteract the intended rising, it took place in the neighbourhood of Dublin on the night appointed, namely, the 23d of May; and every possible efort was made by the disafected within the town to co-operate with those without. In conformity to the plan laid down, the mail coaches were destroyed on the northern and southern roads, and every exertion made by the party in the provinces to bring the people into action. Your Committee do not think it necessary to record the events of the bloody and destructive rebellion that ensued, (Ap. No. XXXV.) which are still but too fresh in the memory of the House; they need only state, that as soon as the rebels had actually taken the feld in force, and commenced their operations by several daring attacks / upon the towns garrisoned by the King’s troops; the Lord Lieutenant and Council published a proclamation, bearing date the 24th of May, (Ap. No. XXXIX.) announcing, that he had authorized the summary punishment by martial law of all rebels found in arms, or of persons in any wise aiding or assisting in the rebellion; to which seasonable interposition of the powers of the state, the preservation of the constitution against this daring attempt to subvert it is not less to be attributed, than to the distinguished fdelity and bravery of the Kings troops, both regulars, militia, and yeomanry. On consideration of the whole of the evidence, your Committee are of opinion,

180

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Tat the rebellion originated in a system, framed not with a view of obtaining either Catholic emancipation, or any reform compatible with the existence of the constitution, but for the purpose of subverting the government, separating Ireland from Great Britain, and forming a democratic republic, founded on the destruction of all church establishment, the abolition of ranks, and the confscation of property. Tat the means resorted to for the attainment of these designs, was a secret systematized combination, ftted to attract the multitude, by being adapted to vulgar prejudices and vicious passions, and artfully linked and connected together with a view of forming the mass of the lower ranks into a revolutionary force, acting in concert, and moving in one body, at the impulse, and under the direction of their leaders. Tat for the farther accomplishment of their object, the leaders of the conspiracy entered into a negotiation, and fnally concluded an alliance with the French Directory, by which it was stipulated, that an adequate force should be sent for the invasion of this country, as subsidiary to the preparations that were making for a general insurrection. Tat in pursuance of this design, measures were adopted by the chiefs of the conspiracy, for giving to their societies a military form; and that for arming their adherents, they had recourse partly to the fabrication of pikes, and partly to the plundering of the loyal inhabitants of their arms. Tat from the vigorous and summary expedients resorted to by / government, and the consequent exertions of the military, the leaders found themselves reduced to the alternative of immediate insurrection, or of being deprived of the means on which they relied for efecting their purpose; and that to this cause is exclusively to be attributed that premature and desperate efort, the rashness of which has so evidently facilitated its suppression. Tat the vigilance of the executive government, in detecting and arresting many of the principal conspirators in the very act of concerting their plans of insurrection, the convictions which have ensued, and the still more complete development of the treason by the confession of some of its most active and efcient conductors, have not only essentially contributed to the defeat of the rebellion, but by enabling the Committee to disclose the views and machinations of the conspirators, may suggest means for securing the future tranquillity of the country. Your Committee cannot conclude without observing, that on a review of the treason which has employed their attention, they trace a perfect coincidence, in its commencement and in its progress, its means and its objects, with that by which the government, the religion, and the happiness of France, have been destroyed; which has extended its desolating infuence over some of the most prosperous and fourishing countries of Europe, and has shaken to its foundation the fabric of regular society throughout the civilized world. Tat the leaders of

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 181

the system, in order to adapt the minds of the multitude to the purposes of their treason, have, afer the example of their jacobine allies in France, lef no means unemployed which the most malignant subtlety could suggest, for eradicating from amongst the working classes, every sentiment both of private and public duty – all quiet and peaceable habits, all social as well as moral obligations, it has been their object to destroy; and the more sacred the tie, the more industriously have they laboured to dissolve it: they have incited the soldier to betray his King, they have armed the tenant against the landlord, and they have taught the servant to conspire with the assassin of his master; blasting the repose and confdence of private life even in its sanctuary, and efacing every law of truth, of justice, of gratitude, and of religion, except where it has been possible to make even religion itself the perverted instrument of their execrable views. Such have been the / leading principles, and the long-laboured preparatives for that rebellion from which your committee trust this country has been happily rescued; and they indulge a sanguine hope, that their present statement, authenticated as it is by such a mass of evidence, will contribute still farther to the complete re-establishment of tranquillity, by throwing the fullest light on the dangers to which the community has been exposed, and against which it is still necessary to guard.

END OF THE REPORT.

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF SECRECY, OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN IRELAND, AS REPORTED BY THE HONOURABLE JOHN EARL OF CLARE

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Lords in Ireland, as Reported by the Honourable John Earl of Clare, Lord High Chancellor, August 30, 1798, 2nd edn (London: Printed for J. Bebrett and J. Wright, 1798).

Both houses of the Irish Parliament appointed committees of secrecy to look into the activities of the United Irishmen and others who were planning, and who later embarked on, rebellion in 1798. Reports were published in 1797 before the rebellion had started and further reports were published in late August 1798 when it was clear that the rebellion would not succeed. Both reports in 1798 were more detailed and more accurate because of the evidence that had recently been gained. Te text of the report from the House of Lords was largely based on the evidence gained from the examination of six prominent members of the United Irishmen: Arthur O’Connor, William James MacNeven, Tomas Addis Emmet, Oliver Bond, Samuel Neilson and John Hughes. All except Hughes were careful not to implicate others in any treasonable activity. Nevertheless, together they provided a wealth of evidence on the United Irishmen so that the Lords could build up in their report a reasonably accurate account of their activities as a clandestine movement between 1796 and 1798. Te appendix to this report (which is not reproduced here) provides the responses of these six men to their interrogation. In return for providing the House of Lords with their detailed evidence, these United Irishmen escaped execution for treason and were imprisoned instead, frst in Kilmainham gaol in Dublin and then in Fort George in Scotland. Tey were released, but exiled in 1802, when peace was made with revolutionary France.1 Notes 1.

For the treaty they made with the Irish government that saved their lives, see J. Quinn, ‘Te Kilmainham Treaty of 1798’, in 1798: A Bicentenary Perspective, ed. T. Bartlett et al. (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003), pp. 423–36.

– 183 –

Report from the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Lords in Ireland, as Reported by the Honourable John Earl of Clare, Lord High Chancellor,1 August 30, 1798, 2nd edn (London: Printed for J. Bebrett and J. Wright, 1798).

REPORT. Die Jovis, 30 Augusti, 1798. THE Lord Chancellor from the Lords Committees appointed to examine the matters of the sealed-up papers received from the Commons on the 23d of July last, whose Lordships had power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to examine all such persons as they might summon before them in the most solemn manner, and to communicate from time to time with the Committee of Secrecy, appointed by the House of Commons, made the following Report.

My Lords, The Lords Committees appointed to examine the matters of the sealed-up papers received from the Commons on the 23d of July last, and to report the same as they shall appear to them to this House, have met and examined into the matters to them referred, and directed me to report to your Lordships as follows: Your committee beg leave frst to recall your Lordships attention to a report made to this House on the 7th of March, 1793, by the Lords Committees, who had been appointed to enquire into the causes of the disorders and disturbances which prevailed in this kingdom in the years 1792 and 1793, by which it appears, “Tat considerable bodies of Insurgents, then distinguished by the name of Defenders,2 infested the counties of Meath, Louth, Cavan, Monaghan, and other adjacent districts, during that period, and that the measures which were then pursued by them, appeared to be concerted with a degree of system and regularity, which proved / distinctly that they were directed by men of superior rank, who stimulated the lower orders of the people to tumult and outrage, as leading to the abolition of tythes, hearth, and county taxes, and to the reduction of rents. – Tat during that period, very considerable sums of money were levied – 185 –

186

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

upon the Roman Catholics of this kingdom, under the authority of a committee of persons of that persuasion, who then assumed, and seemed, in a great degree, to succeed in the government and direction of the whole body of Irish Catholics, and that out of the general fund thus created, protection was extended to persons who were criminally prosecuted for the most daring and fagrant crimes. – Tat during the same period, an unusual ferment disturbed several parts of the northern province, particularly the town of Belfast, and the county of Antrim, kept up and encouraged by every artifce which turbulence and disafection could suggest, and more particularly by the most licentious abuse of the press. – Tat the conduct of France was openly held up as an example for imitation, that hopes and expectations were given of French assistance, by a descent upon this kingdom, and that prayers had been publicly ofered up at Belfast, from the pulpit, for the success of the French armies, in the presence of military bodies, which had been newly levied and arrayed in that town, without any legal authority. – Tat several other military associations had in like manner been entered into, in diferent parts of the province of Ulster, composed of persons of a very inferior description, armed without authority, and disciplined by ofcers of their own election. – Tat these armed bodies were daily encreasing in numbers and force, and had exerted their best endeavours to procure military men of experience to command them. Some of them having expressly stated, that there were men enough to be had, but that ofcers were what they wanted. – Tat arms and gunpowder to a very large amount, much above the common consumption, had been recently sent to Belfast and Newry, and that orders had been given for a much greater quantity, which could be wanted only for military operations. – Tat at Belfast large bodies of men in arms, assembled nightly, by candle light, to be drilled and exercised, and that repeated attempts were made to seduce the soldiery, which much to the honour of the King’s forces had proved inefectual. – Tat at the same period a body of men had / been arrayed at Dublin, under the title of frst battalion of national guards – their uniform copied from that of the French national guards, and marked with emblems of disafection. – Tat the declared object of these military preparations was to procure a reform of parliament; but that the plain and palpable intention was to overawe the parliament and executive government, and to dictate to both.” Your committee next beg leave to recall your Lordships attention to a report made to the House on the 12th of May, 1797, by the Lords Committees, appointed to examine the matters of the sealed-up papers received from the Commons on the 4th of the same month, by which it appears, “Tat the system of treason which had been established in the year 1792, was then much matured and extended under the infuence and direction of numerous afliated societies, calling themselves United Irishmen, in conjunction with the associated body of Defenders. – Tat a traitorous correspondence and communication between

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Honourable John Earl of Clare

187

the leaders and directors of the societies of United Irishmen and the Executive Directory of the French Republic had been carried on between the month of June 1795, and the month of January 1796, and that the means by which it had been carried on were distinctly proved.” Your Committee are now enabled more fully and accurately to state to your Lordships the nature and extent of the treason which so justly alarmed your Lordships in 1793, and which has recently broken forth in open rebellion, having examined four persons who were members of the Executive Directory of the Irish Revolutionary Union, namely, Arthur O’Connor,3 Esq. who was lately tried at Maidstone for high treason, William James M’Nevin,4 doctor of physic, Tomas Addis Emmett,5 barrister at law, and Oliver Bond,6 lately convicted of treason, all of whom have acknowledged themselves to have been confdential leaders and directors of the Irish Union, and that their object was, to efect a revolution in this kingdom, by seducing his Majesty’s subjects from their allegiance, under a variety of specious pretences, and by introducing a French army into their country, to assist them in this most foul and unnatural project. Te original constitution of the traitorous societies of United Irishmen, their gradual progress to open rebellion, and the means / by which they hoped to succeed in subverting the existing establishments in church and state, have been so fully detailed in former reports upon the subject appearing on the journals, and by the report recently made by the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, which has been communicated to your Lordships, that your Committee have forborn now to enter so minutely into this disgusting subject, as they might otherwise have considered a duty incumbent on them; they have therefore taken up the detail of it from that period, when the conspiracy was so matured, as to have for its avowed object the array and levy of a regular military force, in every part of the kingdom, for the purpose of assisting the French, if they should be enabled to make a descent upon this country; or, if foreign assistance could not be procured, of making a General Insurrection, in the hope of subverting the monarchy and ecclesiastical establishment, of seizing the persons, and confscating the property of his Majesty’s loyal subjects, and of establishing a Republican Government, guaranteed by the power of France. – It appears to your Committee, that the organization, as it is called, by which the Directory of the Irish Union was enabled to levy a revolutionary army, was completed in the province of Ulster on the 10th of May, 1795. Tat the scheme of extending it to the other provinces was adopted at an early period by the Irish Directory; but it does not appear to your committee, that it made any considerable progress beyond the northern province, before the autumn of 1796, when emissaries were sent into the province of Leinster to propagate the system. It appeared distinctly to your committee, that the stale pretexts of Parliamentary Reform and Catholic Emancipation were found inefectual for the seduction of the people of that province,

188

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

and therefore the emissaries of treason, who had undertaken it, in order to prevail with them to adopt the system of organization, frst represented that it was necessary in their own defence, as their Protestant fellow-subjects had entered into a solemn league and covenant to destroy them, having sworn to wade up to their knees in Popish blood. Te people were next taught to believe that their organization would lead to the abolition of tithes, and to a distribution of property, inasmuch as they would become members of a democracy which would govern the country; and under the infuence of these false, wicked, and artful suggestions, the system of organization appears to have / been gradually extended by the emissaries of the Irish Directory into the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. – Te better to impose on the people, the system was frst represented to be purely for civil or political purposes. Te inferior societies at their original institution consisted each of thirty-six members, they were however, aferwards reduced to twelve – these twelve chose a secretary and treasurer, and the secretaries of fve of these societies formed what was called a lower baronial committee, which had the immediate direction and superintendence of the fve societies who thus contributed to its institution. From each lower baronial committee thus constituted, one member was delegated to an upper baronial committee, which in like manner assumed and exercised the superintendence and direction of all the lower baronial committees in the several counties. – Te next superior committees were, in populous towns, distinguished by the name of district committees, and in counties by the name of county committees, and were composed of members delegated by the upper baronials. Each upper baronial committee delegated one of its members to the district or county committee, and these district or county committees had the superintendence and direction of all the upper baronials, who contributed to their institution. – Having thus organized the several counties and populous towns, a subordinate directory was erected in each of the four provinces, composed of two members, or three, according to the extent and population of the districts which they represented, who were delegated to a provincial committee, which had the immediate direction and superintendence of the several county and district committees in each of the four provinces; and a General Executive Directory composed of fve persons, was elected by the provincial directories, but the election was so managed that none but the secretaries of the provincials knew on whom the election fell – It was made by ballot, but not reported to the electors, the appointment was notifed only to those on whom the election devolved, and the Executive Directory thus composed, assumed and exercised the supreme and uncontrouled command of the whole body of the Union. Te manner of communicating the orders issued by the Executive Directory, was peculiarly calculated to bafe detection. One member of the Executive alone communicated with one member of each provincial committee or directory, –

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Honourable John Earl of Clare

189

Te order was transmitted by / him to the secretary of each county or district committee in his province, – Te secretaries of the county and district committees communicated with the secretaries of the upper baronials in each county, they communicated with the secretaries of the lower baronial committees, who gave the order to the secretaries of each subordinate committee, by whom it was given to the several inferior members of the Union. – It appears to your committee, that the leaders and directors of this conspiracy having completed this their revolutionary system in the province of Ulster, so early as the 10th of May, 1795; and having made considerable progress in establishing it in the Autumn and Winter of 1796, in the province of Leinster, proceeded at that period to convert it into a military shape and form, for the undisguised project of rebellion; and this project has been distinctly and unequivocally acknowledged by the aforesaid Arthur O’Connor, William James M’Nevin, Tomas-Addis Emmett, and Oliver Bond, who have confessed themselves to have been leading and active members of this conspiracy, as will appear more distinctly to your Lordships from the confessions which they have made before your committee, annexed by way of Appendix to this Report. From the confessions of these persons it appears to your committee, that the military organization, as they termed it, was grafed on the civil. Tat the secretary of each subordinate society composed of twelve, was appointed their petty or non-commissioned ofcer, that the delegate of fve societies to a lower baronial committee was commonly appointed Captain of a company, composed of the fve societies who had so delegated him, and who made up the number of sixty privates; and that the delegate of ten lower baronials to the upper or district committee, was commonly appointed Colonel of a battalion, which was thus composed of six hundred men – Tat the Colonels of battalions in each county sent in the names of three persons to the Executive Directory of the Union, one of whom was appointed by them Adjutant-General of the county, whose duty it was to receive and communicate military orders from the Executive to the Colonels of battalions, and in general to act as ofcers of the revolutionary staf. – In addition to this establishment, it appears that a military committee was appointed by the Executive Directory to prepare a regular plan for assisting a French army, if any such should make a landing in this kingdom, by directing the national military force, as it was called, to co-operate with them; or to / form a regular plan of insurrection in case it should be ordered, without waiting for French assistance; and it appears to your committee, that a regular and digested plan of insurrection was actually formed and reduced to writing, in April 1797, which was given up for that time only from the representations of the Executive Directory of the Union that speedy and efectual assistance was promised from France. For the purpose of arming this body, orders were given by the Irish Directory, that every member of the Union who had the means, should

190

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

provide himself with fre-arms and ammunition; and that such persons, whose means would not aford any other weapons, should provide themselves with pikes – which order appeared to your committee to have been executed in a very great extent throughout the provinces of Ulster, Leinster, and Munster – in the province of Connaught the emissaries of the Union seem not to have been enabled to proceed farther in their system of treason than by administering oaths to the people; their farther progress seems to have been obstructed by the vigorous exertions of the Executive Government, when rebellion broke forth in acts of open hostility. It appears to your committee, that the Directory of the Union having thus established a Revolutionary Government in themselves over a great body of the people, issued an order forbidding the use of any article of consumption liable to the Excise duties, which order was stated to your committee by the aforesaid persons, who had been members of the Republican Directory, to have been generally and implicitly obeyed. – And it farther appeared to your committee, from the testimony of the same persons, or some of them, that an order had been also issued by the same directory to stop the currency of bank notes, and to forbid the purchase of quitrents payable to the crown, which, by an act of this session, have been vested in the Lords’ Commissioners of the Treasury, to be sold for the service of the current year, with a threat on the part of the Directory, that such a sale would be disallowed at the approaching Revolution, as an anticipation of its resources. Your committee having thus detailed the system of Treason and Rebellion established within this kingdom, which has been so acknowledged by some of the most active and confdential members of the Irish Revolutionary Directory, will now proceed to open to your Lordships their dark and desperate designs, which have been confessed / by them, of betraying their country to a rapacious and merciless foreign enemy. It appears to your committee, that early in the year 1796, a proposition was made from the Executive Directory of the French Republic, by Teobald-Wolfe Tone, late a barrister of this country, who absconded shortly afer the conviction of a man of the name of Jackson, for treason, in the year 1794, to the Executive Directory of the Irish Union, that a French army should be sent to Ireland to assist the Republicans of this country in subverting the Monarchy, and separating Ireland from the British Crown. Te aforesaid Messrs. Arthur O’Connor, Tomas-Addis Emmett, William M’Nevin, and Oliver Bond, all of whom have been members of the Irish Republican Directory, have deposed to your committee, that this was the frst communication within their knowledge which took place between the Irish and the French Directories, and that the proposition originally moved from France; Your committee, however, are of opinion, that the communication thus made to the Irish Directory through Mr. Tone,7 must have taken place in consequence of an application originating with some members of the Irish Union, inasmuch as it appears by the Report of the Secret

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Honourable John Earl of Clare

191

Committee of this House, made in the last session of Parliament, that a messenger had been dispatched by the society of United Irishmen to the Executive Directory of the French Republic, upon a treasonable mission, between the month of June, 1795, and the month of January, 1796, at which time the messenger so sent had returned to Ireland; and your committee have strong reason to believe, that Edward John Lewins,8 who now is and has been for a considerable time the accredited resident Ambassador of the Irish Rebellious Union to the French Republic, was the person thus dispatched in the summer of 1795. It appears to your committee, that the proposition so made by the French Directory, of assistance to the rebels of this kingdom, was taken into consideration by the Executive Directory of the Irish Union, immediately afer it was communicated to them, that they did agree to accept the profered assistance, and that their determination was made known to the Directory of the French Republic by a special messenger; and your Committee have strong reason to believe, that the invasion of this kingdom, which was aferwards attempted, was fully arranged at an interview which took place in Switzerland in the summer of 1796, near the French / frontier, between Lord Edward Fitzgerald,9 the aforesaid Mr. Arthur O’Connor, and General Hoche.10 It appears to your Committee, that in the month of October or November, 1796, the hostile armament which soon afer appeared in Bantry Bay, was announced to the Irish Directory by a special messenger dispatched from France, who was also instructed to enquire into the state of preparation in which this country stood, which army was then stated to the Irish Directory to consist of 15,000 troops, together with a considerable quantity of arms and ammunition intended for the use of the Irish Republican Union: in a few days afer the departure of the messenger who had been thus sent to announce the speedy arrival of this armament on the coasts of this kingdom; it appears to your Committee, that a letter from France was received by the Irish Directory, which was considered by them as authentic, stating, that the projected descent was postponed for some months, and to this circumstance it has been fairly acknowledged to your Committee, by one of the Irish Directory, that this country was indebted for the good conduct of the people in the province of Munster, when the enemy appeared in Bantry Bay. He has confessed that these contradictory communications threw the Irish Directory of their guard, in consequence of which they omitted to prepare the people for the reception of the enemy. He has confessed that the people were loyal, because they were lef to themselves. It appears to your Committee, that afer the attempt to invade this kingdom in December, 1796, had failed, the Irish Directory renewed their solicitations to France for assistance, and it was determined by them to establish a regular communication and correspondence with the Directory of France, by a resident accredited Irish Minister at Paris; – Accordingly it appears to your Committee, that in April, 1797, Edward-John Lewins of this city, attorney at

192

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

law, was dispatched from hence, under the assumed name of Tompson, to act as the Minister of the Irish Republican Directory at Paris. Tat he went by way of Hamburgh, where he obtained a letter of credence from the French Minister to General Hoche, with whom he had a conference at Franckfort, from whence he proceeded to Paris, where he has continued to reside from that time, as the minister of the Executive Directory of the Republic of Ireland. It appears to your Committee, that in June, 1797, a second messenger, Doctor William-James M’Nevin, was dispatched by the / same Directory to Paris, with more precise instructions than they were enabled to give to Lewins, and that M’Nevin also took Hamburgh in his way, where fnding some difculty in obtaining a passport from Rheynhart11 the French Minister to enable him to go to Paris, he presented a memoir in writing to that Minister, containing the substance of his instructions from his employers, to be transmitted to the Directory of the French Republic. M’Nevin has stated to your Committee the principal points of this memoir, in which it was recommended particularly to the Directory of the French Republic, on their next attack upon this kingdom, rather to make a landing at Oysterhaven12 than at Bantry, as the reduction of the city of Cork would be thereby considerably facilitated – and he has stated, that it also contained every species of information which occurred to the Irish Directory as useful to the enemy in their projected invasion of this kingdom, the particulars of which your Committee forbear further to detail, as they have annexed the said M’Nevin’s confession made to them by way of Appendix to this Report. It appears to your Committee, that the said M’Nevin having obtained a passport from the French Minister at Hamburgh, soon afer the delivery of his Memoir to him, proceeded directly to Paris, where he had several conferences with some of the Ministers of the French Republic, in which he pressed strongly upon them the advantages of a second armament against this kingdom, in which an additional supply of arms was represented as necessary, from the seizure which had been made, by order of Government, of arms which had been collected for rebellion in the northern province; and the expences of this armament, as well as of that which had already failed, he undertook, for the Irish Directory, should be defrayed on the establishment of a Republic in Ireland: and in these conferences it appears to your Committee, that it was strongly impressed upon the French Directory to make the separation of Ireland from the kingdom of Great Britain, an indispensable condition of any treaty of peace which might be concluded in consequence of the negotiation which then depended at Lisle:13 the better to impress his arguments, a second written Memoir was presented by the said M’Nevin, enforcing as strongly as he could every thing which he had theretofore urged to encourage the invasion of this kingdom by a French force, and to induce the Directory of the French Republic to continue the war with Great Britain, until Ireland should be / separated from the British Crown; and it appears to

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Honourable John Earl of Clare

193

your Committee, that M’Nevin was further instructed to negotiate a loan of half a million in France or Spain for the Irish Directory, on the security of the Revolution which they meditated, but that in this object of his mission he failed altogether. It appears to your Committee that immediately afer the negotiation at Lisle was broken of, information of it was sent from France to the Irish Directory, with assurances that the French Government would never abandon the cause of the Irish Union, nor make peace with Great Britain, until the separation of Ireland from the British crown was efected; and with fresh assurances of a speedy invasion, which have frequently been renewed since that period. It appears to your Committee that the said M’Nevin returned to this kingdom in October 1797, when he made his report to the Irish Directory of the result of his mission, and that they might rely with confdence on the promised succours from France; and it has also appeared to your Committee that in July or August 1797, the Irish Directory received a dispatch from their Minister at Paris,14 announcing the Dutch armament in the Texel intended against this kingdom, which was bafed and discomfted by the ever memorable and persevering valour of the British feet commanded by Lord Duncan.15 It appears to your Committee that three several dispatches have been received by the Irish Directory from their Minister at Paris since October 1797; the two frst contained a renewal generally of the former assurances of friendship and support given by the Directory of the French Republic; the last announced that the projected invasion of Ireland would be made in the month of April 1798. And it appears to your Committee that a dispatch for the Directory of the French Republic earnestly pressing for the promised succours was made up by the Irish Directory, late in December 1797, or early in January 1798, which one of them undertook to have conveyed to France: but that the attempt failed. It has been stated to your Committee by one of the Rebel Directory of Ireland who was privy to this act of treason, that the dispatch was not to be sent through Great Britain; but he did not explain to your Committee any reason on which this assertion was founded, nor any other route by which the messenger was to make his way to France. Te several persons aforesaid who have so confessed themselves to have been members of the Executive Revolutionary Directory of the / Irish Rebels and acknowledged their traitorous correspondence and connection with the Directory of the French Republic, have endeavoured to palliate this branch of their treason by ascribing it, frst to their disapprobation of an act of Parliament passed in the year 1796 to prevent insurrection,16 next to their disappointment in obtaining a Parliamentary Reform, and lastly by representing their disinclination to negotiate with France for a greater force than might enable them to subvert the monarchy and retain the Government of this Country in their own hands. Te falsehood and absurdity of these pretences are so manifest that your Committee would have thought it unbecoming to advert to them in their report,

194

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

if these avowed Traitors to their King and Country had not in part learned thus to palliate their treason from persons of a very diferent description in Great Britain and Ireland, who fatally for the peace of this kingdom and the security of the British empire, have during the progress of this most foul and unnatural Rebellion, from utter ignorance and misinformation on the subject, as your Committee must presume, publicly and repeatedly palliated, if not justifed, that system of treason which had well nigh involved this once happy and fourishing kingdom in all the miseries of the French Revolution. With respect to the Insurrection Act your Committee have only to observe that it passed into a law on the 24th of March 1796, and was not put into execution before the fourteenth of November 1796, on which day the frst proclamation, which issued under the provisions of it, bears date, and that the introduction of it into the House of Commons was long subsequent to the period when it appears that the connection and correspondence of the Irish Union with the Directory of the French Republic frst commenced; and that it was enacted in consequence of a system of midnight murder, robbery and outrage which began in 1792, and was so matured in 1796 under the infuence and direction of the Irish Union as nearly to depopulate a very considerable district in two of the provinces, of every loyal and peaceable inhabitant of it. With respect to Parliamentary Reform your Committee have to observe that it was distinctly acknowledged by the persons who in their own phrase have taken upon them to think for the People, that no Reform of Parliament will satisfy them which does not necessarily involve in it, the subversion of all ecclesiastical establishments Protestant and Popish, and the gradual separation / of this kingdom from the British Crown; and that no plan of reform will satisfy them short of an House of Commons purely Democratic. It was further alledged by the several persons who so acknowledged their traitorous connection with France, that the immediate cause of their establishing a resident agent at Paris, was the rejection of a plan of reform which was proposed in 1797 in the House of Commons, which plan they said would have satisfed the People. But the palpable falsehood of this assertion appears by the journals of the House of Commons; for these persons have all confessed that their resident agent was dispatched by them to Paris in April 1797, with instructions to negotiate a treaty with the Directory of France; and the proposition for Parliamentary Reform, to the rejection of which they pretend to ascribe the mission of Lewins, was not made till the ffteenth of May 1797. As to Catholic Emancipation (as it is called) it was admitted by them all to have been a mere pretence from the frst establishment of the Irish Union, and that if they had been enabled to succeed in their plan of Reform and Revolution it would have involved in it equally the destruction of the Protestant and Popish religion – Te said M’Nevin having distinctly acknowledged that the intention was to abolish all church establishment, and not to have any established religion, and that, for his own part, he would as soon establish the Mahometan as the Popish religion, though he was himself a Roman Catholic.17

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Honourable John Earl of Clare

195

With respect to their disinclination to negotiate for a French force to be sent into this kingdom of sufcient magnitude to conquer it – the idea of setting bounds to the ambition and rapacity of that power, if once enabled to establish itself here, is too absurd to deserve any notice; but it appears to your Committee, that the Directory of France have therefore declined to send any force to this country which will not enable them to dictate such terms to it as they may think ft, although it appears to have been urged to them, on the part of the Irish Rebels, particularly by Lord Edward Fitzgerald, that the best expedient for accomplishing a Revolution here would be, to dispatch fast sailing frigates to the coast with small bodies of troops and considerable supplies of arms and military stores, together with ofcers qualifed to discipline the Irish peasantry; but from a letter supposed to be written from Paris by Lewins, the Irish agent to the said Lord Edward Fitzgerald, which / he read, shortly before his arrest, to John Cormick,18 a Colonel in the Rebel army of Dublin, it appears that the Directory of France disapproved of any such plan of carrying their object – the terms of the letter are: “Te trustees have refused to advance the 5000l. on the security, they will not make any partial advance till they have the whole sum ready.” Upon a review of this subject, of the evidence which has been collected, and of all those facts of notoriety which have taken place in this kingdom for the last eight years, your Committee feel themselves fully warranted to state, that there has been, during the whole of that period, a seditious and treasonable faction in this country, whose object has been to subvert the Constitution in Church and State, and to separate Ireland from the British Crown, by inculcating the principles, and adopting the means which were successfully employed to abolish the Religion, extirpate the Nobility, and subvert the Monarchy of France. Your Committee here allude to the addresses which were forwarded at an early period, from this faction to the French National Assembly, to their commemorations of French Festivals, particularly the 14th of July, to their attempts made to pervert the loyal institution of Volunteers to the purposes of Rebellion, by reviving it on the system of the French National Guards; to the institution of the original societies of United Irishmen, their various seditious and treasonable publications in favour of the French and Republican system, vilyfying and degrading the Government and Parliament of their own country, particularly by representing the House of Commons, as it is constituted, not to be a legitimate branch of the Legislature, that it was in its original formation a violation of the rights of the people, and has continued to be an usurpation on them; to their persevering industry in issuing and circulating these and all other publications at the cheapest rate amongst the lower orders of the people, which could alienate their minds from the duty of allegiance, and inculcate the principles of insubordination, revolt and irreligion, and to their attempts, in imitation of the French Revolutionists, to form a National Convention. Your Committee further allude to the system of organization which they have already detailed, which appears to them to have been formed by this fac-

196

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

tion when their open attempts to subvert the Constitution were frustrated by the Convention Act;19 and to the / secret obligations which they imposed upon their associates, to elude detection and punishment. Your Committee farther allude to the measures which were pursued by the same faction to intimidate the resident gentlemen of the country, by midnight attacks, in order to drive them from their houses, or to enforce their connivance or support, a course which your Committee understand was pursued with fatal success in France; and to the impudent falsehood and calumnies propagated with similar industry by the same faction, and by their partizans, representing the means to which the Government and Parliament were compelled to resort, for the suppression of midnight robbery and murder, and for the discomfture of rebellion, as the source of these complicated evils. Your Committee farther allude to the insidious address used by the same faction, in turning to their purposes the religious feuds, prejudices, and distinctions of the country, which were revived principally by their wicked machinations; at one time fattering the passions and hopes of the higher order of the Catholics, at the moment in which they meditated their destruction, and at another, stimulating the lower ranks to indiscriminate acts of outrage and vengeance against their loyal fellow subjects. Your Committee farther allude to the plan formed by the same faction, of arraying and regimenting the whole mass of the people, of supplying them with arms and ammunition forced from the loyal, and of establishing in every part of the country manufactories of pikes to be distributed amongst the lowest ranks of the people. Your Committee farther allude to the early disposition which appeared in the leaders of the same faction to correspond with the ruling powers of France, to obtain French assistance in their revolutionary projects, and to the regular system which they aferwards established, for connecting themselves with the Executive Directory of the French Republic, wherein they appear to have acted as the ruling power of the country, negotiating treaties and loans of money with foreign states. Your Committee farther allude to the repeated attempts which have been made by the same faction to seduce the King’s troops of all descriptions from their allegiance, and their attempts to deter his Majesty’s loyal subjects from enrolling themselves in the yeomanry / corps; to their plans of insurrection, massacre and confscation, which have been clearly proved against some of their leaders, who have been convicted of treason by due course of law, and have been confessed by others of them before your Committee; and above all, to the desperate project of the same faction to corrupt the youth of the country, by introducing their organized system of treason into the University; which attempt was happily frustrated by the timely interposition of the visitors of Trinity College, and by the high spirit of honour and loyalty of the great body of students in that learned seminary.

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Honourable John Earl of Clare

197

Your Committee farther allude to the various insurrections which were meditated, as well as those which have actually taken place; to the late destructive Rebellion, and the present Invasion by a French force, which your Committee feel themselves warranted in stating accurately to correspond with the plan of revolutionizing this country, which was recommended by Lord Edward Fitzgerald. It appears to your Committee, that the Government and Legislature being sensible of the designs thus meditated against the Constitution of this kingdom, felt themselves bound to resist every demand which was made upon them by the same faction, with a view to efect their traitorous purposes; and as it appears from the confession of some of the most leading and notorious traitors engaged in this conspiracy, that what they termed Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform, were considered as the surest means of accomplishing their rebellious projects, your Committee cannot but applaud the wisdom and diseretion of Parliament in withholding their assent to such wild and fatal concessions. If any thing was wanting in proof of their wisdom, it is supplied by a resolution entered into by the rebel provincial Committees of Ulster and Leinster on the 19th February 1798, the day on which a proposition was made to your Lordships of concession and conciliation to the people, as a probable measure to tranquilize the country. Tis resolution was agreed to in the same words and on the same day, 19th February 1798, by two provincial committees, one assembled at Armagh, the other at Dublin, it has been authenticated to your Committee, and appears to have been ofcially reported to the Executive Directory of the rebellious Union, and is in the following words “Resolved, that we will pay no attention whatever to any attempt / that may be made by either House of Parliament to divert the public mind from the grand object we have in view, as nothing short of the complete emancipation of our country will satisfy us.” On the whole, your Committee attribute the salvation of this kingdom to the vigorous and decisive measures of the Executive Government, adopted in March 1797, and pursued from the same period; and to the frmness of Parliament, who, always disposed to promote the welfare and happiness of the people, have evinced a determined resolution never to yield to the artifces of traitors, what is intended only for the subversion of the Constitution – But your Committee think it their bounden duty to state to your Lordships, that although it appears to them that the system of treason and rebellion which had been established, is for the present considerably shaken, yet that having fatally taken deep root in the country, it will require unceasing vigilance and attention, in every department of the State, to guard against the revival of it. Your Committee have to lament deeply the facility with which the lower orders of the people may be seduced from their allegiance, and cannot but represent to your Lordships their decided opinion, that no efort should remain untried, to open their eyes to the evils which they have invariably sufered by

198

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

yielding to seduction, and to the wicked artifces of that traitorous association, which has already involved them in extreme and complicated miseries. Your Committee have thought it their duty to annex by way of Appendix to this Report, the confessions of their treasons made on oath, by some of the most notorious and leading traitors, who have been engaged in this conspiracy, and who have thrown themselves on His Majesty’s clemency. And your Committee beg leave also to refer your Lordships to the Report of the Committee of Secrecy of the House of Commons, which will be found to contain most interesting and important details upon this subject, all of which are fully illustrated and proved in the Appendix annexed to their Report. [Te Appendix includes an examination of John Hughes,20 William James M’Niven, Arthur O’Connor, Samuel Neilson,21 Tomas Addis Emmett, and Oliver Bond; its Address of the United Britons22 to the United Irishmen; and a copy of a paper found in the writing box of Lord Edward Fitzgerald.]

GENERAL HUMBERT TO THE FRENCH TROOPS AND TO THE IRISH NATION (1798)

General Humbert to the French Troops and to the Irish Nation (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, Second Marquess of Londonderry, ed. Charles Vane, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (London: Henry Colburn, 1848), vol. 1, pp. 388–91.

Robert Stewart (1769–1822) was the son of a rich and infuential Ulster landowner, who was made the frst Marquess of Londonderry in 1796. Robert was known by the courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh from 1796, until he succeeded his father as the second Marquess in 1821. He was MP for county Down in the Irish House of Commons from 1790 to 1800 and Chief Secretary of Ireland under Earl Cornwallis, the Lord Lieutenant, from 1798 to 1801. He was later a very prominent politician in the Imperial Parliament and a famous foreign secretary. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800, and many studies and biographies of him. Te latest and most substantial biography is John Bew, Castlereagh: Enlightenment, War and Tyranny (London: Quercus, 2011). Robert’s half-brother, Charles Stewart (1778–1854) edited four large volumes of his memoirs and correspondence, which are valuable sources for Irish politics at the time of the Irish rebellion and the debates on the Union. Charles Stewart added the name of Vane to his own on his second marriage to a wealthy heiress. He was a general who served during the Napoleonic wars and he was later ambassador to the Austrian empire. He succeeded as the third Marquess of Londonderry afer Castlereagh committed suicide in 1822. Te text reproduced here is a translation of the addresses delivered by General Jean-Joseph Amable Humbert (1755–1823) to the French troops invading Ireland in 1798, in a vain attempt to bring the Irish rebellion to a successful conclusion, and to the Irish people, whom he expected to welcome him. Te Irish and British authorities had repeatedly warned the Irish radicals that the French would only come to Ireland as conquerors and would not give the Irish greater liberty than they enjoyed already. General Humbert advised his French soldiers not to act as conquerors and he informed the Irish people that he had come to deliver them from British tyranny. – 199 –

General Humbert1 to the French Troops and to the Irish Nation (1798), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, Second Marquess of Londonderry, ed. Charles Vane, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (London: Henry Colburn, 1848), vol. 1, pp. 388–91.

TRANSLATION. To the French Army destined to efect the Revolution of Ireland. Republicans – Proud of having rendered you victorious on several occasions, I have obtained permission from the Government2 to lead you to new successes; to command you is to make sure of triumphing. Jealous of restoring to liberty a people worthy of it, and ripe for a Revolution, the Directory sends us to Ireland, for the purpose of facilitating the revolution which excellent Republicans have just undertaken there. It will be gratifying for us, who have conquered the satellites of kings armed against the Republic, to break the fetters of a friendly nation, to assist it to recover its rights usurped by the odious English Government. Never will you forget, brave and faithful companions, that the people to whom we are going are the friends of our country; that it is our duty to treat them as such, and not as a conquered nation. On your arrival in Ireland, you will meet with hospitality, fraternity. Tousands of its inhabitants will soon swell our phalanxes. Let us then take good care not to treat any of them as enemies. Like us, they have to revenge themselves on the perfdious English.3 It is on these latter alone that we have to wreak a signal vengeance. Believe that the Irish sigh not less for us than we do for the moment when, in concert with us, they will go to London, to remind Pitt4 and his friends of what they have done against our liberty. From friendship, from duty, for the honour of the French name, you will respect persons and property in the country to which we are going. If, by con– 201 –

202

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

stant eforts, I provide for your wants, believe that, jealous of the reputation of the army which I have the honour to command, I shall severely punish any one who swerves from what he owes to his country. Laurels and glory shall be the lot of the French republican soldier – death shall be the reward of rape and pillage. You know me well enough to believe that I shall not break my word for the frst time. It was my duty to forewarn you. Be sure to bear it in mind.

Proclamation to the Irish Nation. People of Ireland – At various periods, you have manifested your horror of the slavery to which ambitious England has reduced you; and, notwithstanding / your natural bravery, your eforts for shaking of the odious yoke were unsuccessful, thwarted by the address and the perfdy of the English administration, which, employing all the means of corruption, produced every time division among your leaders, and contrived, through their treachery and disunion, to keep you in their fetters. Now that the glorious and ever-memorable French revolution has rekindled the sacred fame of the love of liberty, which tyranny had in vain striven to extinguish in your hearts, your secret, central, and revolutionary committee has with reason deemed it to be its duty to take advantage of the moment when the arms of France, everywhere triumphant, permit her to lend succours to Ireland, in order to recover her ancient independence. In the hope of obtaining them, it has addressed itself to the executive power of the French Republic; given it the most positive assurances of the dispositions prevailing among the great majority of the Irish to become again a free people, and at the same time communicated to it the measures long since taken in silence, and for the success of which nothing was wanting but the arrival of a French army with arms and munitions of war; that instantly all the patriots capable of serving would hasten to the French colours, and in a short time efect the expulsion of the English and their partisans from the Irish territory. Te touching exposition given by your secret committee of your situation, of your wishes, its petition for succours preferred in the name of your whole nation, having excited among all the French Republicans those sentiments of generosity and benevolence which they take delight to manifest towards oppressed people, the executive power has determined to come to your assistance in a manner that must fulfl your highest hopes. For this purpose I have just landed among you, at the head of an army of Republicans accustomed to conquer under their commander. We present ourselves as sincere and zealous friends of all those who shall espouse the cause of liberty, and we aspire to the sole glory of breaking your fetters and punishing your tyrants.

General Humbert to the French Troops and to the Irish Nation

203

Tis is no longer the contest between the houses of Hanover5 and Stuart,6 the one to become, the other to make itself again despotic. Free men fght only for the maintenance of equality of rights; they detest the very name of a master. Persuaded that you will share with us these noble sentiments, we ofer you our hearts and our arms for the re-establishment of your national dignity, by the free choice which you will make of a form of government which ensures the duration of your independence. / Te unbounded liberty of expressing an opinion upon persons and upon things will enlighten your representatives in the framing of your laws; the publicity which you will give to the deliberations will prevent errors; the order and the tranquillity which I will assist you to maintain in them will preserve you from the excesses of enthusiasm, sometimes more dangerous than the enterprises of malevolence. Te example of other nations, the experience gained by their diferent essays, all promise you a happiness which has cost your friends dear, and which they have the generosity to ofer you for the mere efort of speaking out with the frmness beftting and worthy of a people of four million individuals. Tere is, without doubt, not one well informed Irishman but is sensible of the advantages of the geographical position of the population of his country, of the richness of its soil, of the activity, strength, and courage of its inhabitants; of the number, the excellence, and the happy situation of its ports. His indignation must therefore be unbounded when he surveys the frightful wretchedness of the great majority of his countrymen, and refects that in vain Nature has lavished her bounty, if they cannot fnd means to circumscribe the systematic tyranny of the English Government within the compass of cruel Albion.7 It is, in fact, by this usurping spirit that England has contrived to paralyze successively all the physical and moral resources of Ireland. Te English policy has constantly kept up there a leaven of animosity and jealousy between the diferent religious sects, whose fanaticism, excited and directed by the court of London, prevented the rallying of the strength of Ireland against the common enemy. From this disunion arises the facility of treating the Irish as slaves, by excluding them from all places, civil, military, or ecclesiastical, on account of the Romish religion which three-fourths of them profess. Whoever is Presbyterian, has the quality which the English have been pleased to give him of Dissident: on account of this single distinction, every thing soon becomes the prey of a handful of Protestant foreigners, creatures devoted to the Machiavelism and to the rapine of the English Government. Tese satellites of despotism, by dint of spoliations and injustice perpetrated upon your ancestors, have become almost the only possessors of landed property in your country, the revenue of which, transmitted to England, consigned you

204

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

to the most abject indigence; and, for fear that your industrious activity should raise you again from this abasement, the Navigation Act was applied to the purpose of keeping it down, and to / deprive you of all means of forming a navy. Te absolute nullity of representation in your parliament does not allow you even the hope of redress of your grievances. Te prohibition to acquire landed property, or even to hold it on long leases, and which has but very lately received some slight modifcations, has forced most of the farmers to become day-labourers and servants to the usurpers of the estates of your ancestors. You have been precluded, as well by the severity of the laws as by the privation of means, from the possibility of giving any education to your children; and, to conclude, barbarity has been carried to such a pitch, as to forbid the use of the language of your forefathers.

[LINDSAY], A LETTER TO HIS GRACE THE LORD PRIMATE OF IRELAND

[Waterhouse Crymble Lindsay], A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland: In which is Vindicated the Principles and Conduct of Orange-Men, by a Resident in the Diocese of Armagh (Dublin: Printed for Peter Moore, 1798).

Tis text shows that disputes over the collection of tithes for clergymen in the Church of Ireland could arouse resentment even among the most loyal of Irishmen. Waterhouse Crymble Lindsay’s family had lived in Ireland since the Protestant plantations of the early seventeenth century. He had spent many years in the British army, being commissioned as a lieutenant in 1762, serving in Canada and America, and being wounded while serving with General Burgoyne’s expedition that ended in disaster at Saratoga. He retired with the rank of colonel to a house he named Fort Edward in the townland of Killymaddy, in county Tyrone, though part of the diocese of Armagh. As he indicates in this short pamphlet, he was active in drawing up an address of loyalty to George III when war with France broke out in 1793. He rallied support when France attempted to invade Ireland at the end of 1796. When a rebellion was in prospect from 1796 to 1798 he was particularly active commanding a yeomanry corps based on his own land. He played a signifcant role in defending the local inhabitants from violence, Catholics as well as Protestants, and he even arrested some armed insurgents. Most of the mounted troops under his command were members of the Orange Order, a movement not countenanced yet by their landlords. His notable service had not prevented him from coming into dispute with his local clergyman over the payment of tithes. He complains here that he would have been treated better had he actually been a United Irishman and he implies that the dispute in which he is engaged may have been exacerbated because his troop of loyal and devoted Orangemen were very probably Protestant Dissenters. Lindsay was possibly a Presbyterian himself. Te primate of the established Protestant Episcopalian Church of Ireland was the Archbishop of Armagh. Tis position was flled from January 1795 to January 1800 by William Newcome (1729–1800), an Englishman, who had – 205 –

206

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

previously occupied three Irish bishoprics. A rich man, he spent heavily on the upkeep of Armagh Cathedral and he was regarded as an exemplary prelate. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. For the role of the Irish yeomanry during the Irish rebellion, see Allan Blackstock, An Ascendancy Army: Te Irish Yeomanry 1796-1834 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998).

[Waterhouse C. Lindsay], A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland: In which is Vindicated the Principles and Conduct of Orange-Men, by a Resident in the Diocese of Armagh (Dublin: Printed for Peter Moore, 1798).

“When a Nation once loses its regard to Justice – when they do not look upon it as something venerable, holy, and inviolable – when any of them dare presume to lessen, afront, or terrify, those who have the distribution of it in their hands – when a Judge or Jury is capable of being infuenced by any thing but Law – or a Cause be recommended by any thing but its own merits, we may venture to pronounce that such a Nation is hastening to its own ruin.[”]1

[…] A Letter, &c. MY LORD, More than twelve months have elapsed, since I had the honor to lay before your Grace, a detail of a species of insult and injury, I received by means of the Tythe-Gatherer of the Parish in which I reside. I have to return many thanks for your Grace’s polite and benevolent interference. To make such a business serious, from any other motive than his being a protegé of the Church, would degrade even the middling rank of life which I hold, and to pass it over without comment, as a warning to others in a similar situation, would not be fulflling the duty I owe to myself and them, [sic] Afer passing the best part of my life in the army, I indulged the hope of living the remainder of my days in quiet, in the most / obscure retirement. Te spirit of the times, and the idea that I could be useful, revived a latent spark, and urged me to take a part, I had no right, I fnd by experience, to attempt. So early as January, 1793, I foresaw the dangers with which we were threatened. Unsupported by property or infuence, and unconnected with party, I ventured to step for– 207 –

208

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

ward with an Address to the King, signed by a number of loyal and respectable inhabitants, pledging ourselves to support his Majesty’s Person and Government with our lives and properties. Tis was presented to the Lord Lieutenant2 by Mr. Stewart of Killymoon,3 to be forwarded, and was graciously received by His Majesty. For this I had the honour of an attempt being made to burn me in efgy, in the town of Aughmacloy.4 Undismayed by the violence of party, and not dispirited from want of protection, I presumed to go on, and I can appeal to my letters to the Lord Chancellor,5 to the then Secretaries of State, Mr. Hamilton,6 Mr. Cooke,7 and Mr. Pelham,8 to my own conduct and example in my neighbourhood, whether / I have deserved either the neglect or harsh treatment I have received. Your Grace cannot but be aware of the particular exertions I must have made, to carry any point, situated as I have represented; and yet, owing to these exertions by night and by day, for these last fve years, I have so far had the happiness, not only to secure the lives and properties of almost all my neighbours, no part of the country being so little harassed by excesses, and this without regard to any religious distinction; but also to confrm many in their allegiance, bring over some, and keep all round me in due subjection to the laws; insomuch, that whilst I had the power to controul them, no open acts of outrage, and very few private ones, were committed. In all this, my Lord, I boast not of my own conduct. I now fnd, had I considered my own interest, individually, I should not have interfered without encouragement or emolument, but the contrary; but when a man has laid it down as a position, that parting with his integrity in the minutest circumstance, is losing so much of his very self, / self-love will become a virtue; – the world may make him unfortunate, but it can never make him base – and the man who follows the dictates of truth, and right reason, may, by artifce, be led into error, but never can into guilt. When Rebellion began to take a more regular form, and was organized into a system the most dangerous, by fascinating the lower class of the people, with the principles of Equality, my endeavours to counteract its progress, were unremitting. For the purpose of protecting my neighbours from the dangers they were before then threatened with, owing to a mistaken zeal on a religious account – I had prior to that time obtained a party of soldiers, with whom I patrolled almost every night, and succeeded in preventing my neighbourhood from being a disgrace to the name of a christian country; but the progress of rebellion was more to be dreaded, because more general, and threatened, by a union of the parties, on French principles, the existence of the state itself. All the information I could obtain, I immediately communicated to Government, nor / did I stop there. I waited on every Gentleman of consequence in the country, with whom I could be said to be acquainted, in order to rouse them to a sense of their danger; but the spirit of unbelief had gone abroad, and it was near being too late, when some of the most respectable and popular characters were obliged to fy for refuge, and

[Lindsay], A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland

209

some of those who remained, were insulted in their own houses. I now found my party of soldiers of the greatest use in preventing combinations, and assisting me in detecting those informed against; but the probability of their being soon ordered to join their regiments, which shortly afer happened, induced me to artempt [sic] raising a yeomanry corps; – and my return, in defance of all opposition, was among the frst sent to the Castle. In forming this respectable corps, too much praise cannot be given to the men for their spirit in coming forward at such a time, and placing themselves under the command of one, of whom, to a man, they were independent; nor can too much honor be paid to the principles of the body of which it was / chiefy composed, being mostly Orange-Men, which, as a combination not countenanced by their landlords, I had rather discouraged; but which I will say, and have long known, have saved at least the North of Ireland, from a general insurrection and massacre, determined on by the United Irishmen. I shall give one instance, out of many, that we are far from having a persecuting spirit, on account of a diference in religious opinions. Not being allowed any military protection last winter, I was applied to by several of my Roman Catholic neighbours, who assured me, that for three weeks, being the time since my corps had been ordered of duty, they had not lain one night in their own houses – that I should protect them. I represented their situation as well as my own, but without efect – when my yeomen, to their particular honor as soldiers, and as orangemen, volunteered the duty, and guarded, alternately, such Roman-Catholic houses as I placed them in, by night, and prevented their being disturbed. Tis, as my men had no pay, I accepted with gratitude for my neighbours, but could not for myself, and / therefore removed with my family from the country. Called upon by the increased turbulence of the disafected, and well informed of their intentions, I hastened to take the command of my men in April last, daily expecting an insurrection. About the latter end of May, when I found them, as they thought, well prepared, I took the liberty of acting for myself, and by seizing a few of their chiefs, and making an exhibition of their pikes, at the moment they were determined to rise with the counties of Down and Antrim – I have the happiness to think, I was the means of saving many lives, who, I hope, will yet be of use to their families and their country. On the business about which I presumed to apply to your Grace, as it is now become a matter of property, and is to be laid before a jury, I shall not comment. I have many apologies to make for that appeal – it was intended, however, to prevent a personal altercation. I since fnd, I need not have been apprehensive. Te person I allude to is right to protect the man who has raised the tythes / of his father’s parish, to the great emolument of the poor, at least 100l. per annum. – He is right to encourage insolence to a magistrate, but for whose exertions very little tythe or rent either, would probably have now remained to be collected, in that, or perhaps one or two neighbouring parishes. He is right, when called on as a Gentleman, (for which gross mistake I publicly ask his pardon,) to

210

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

deny that he had pledged himself, as formerly, begging of this his protegé, that he should give no further trouble. He is right, when told that his conduct was unlike that of a Gentleman, a Man of Honor, or a Neighbour, to say with Rigdum Funnidos,9 “I’ll take the law.” He is right, knowing as he might, that conspiracies had been laid to murder my family, which may possibly happen before my return, to have me dragged from them at this inclement and dreary season, to the distance of near eighty miles, to fnd bail at bar, to a fat against me from the Court of King’s Bench, issued upon the afdavit of his protegé – knowing also that my property is not considerable, / and that my circumstances are not independent – afer having been insulted in a rufan-like manner, by being made a prisoner in my own house, by virtue of this fat – knowing too, that rather than have further trouble with a litigious law-suit, I proposed paying whatever demand should be made against me. He is right to have this persecution carried on with the utmost rigour of law, an attachment under this fat, against the High Sherif of the County10 being taken out on my account, as if I was a felon, or had committed any act of which I should either be afraid or ashamed. If, instead of taking the active part I have done, in defence of my King and Country, I had collected and armed with pikes, a company of United Irishmen, I am persuaded I should have escaped this persecution, as well as others have done. To become an object of resentment, it is enough to be an orangeman, the loyal principles of which I shall ever abide by – principles I glory in – because, but for those principles, the King would not this day be on his throne – and because, but for those principles, all constituted / authorities, not only in these kingdoms, but probably throughout Europe, would have been at an end. To’ I shall not comment on the cause, or what may be the event, of this fat, I must say, I have acted no otherwise than I should do, were I again placed in the same situation, an error in judgment only excepted; and if a magistrate is to suffer for ignorance in a point of law, then will I acknowledge my being so severely persecuted, to be right. I have only to add further, that however my property has been expended, my health injured, and my life ofen and ofen risqued for the protection of my neighbours, and to support and maintain the laws, I must ever act upon the same principle, with my mind at least, unsubdued – and I trust I shall e’er long see my country-men return to a sense of their duty, and become once more, “Loyal, yet independent – obedient, yet free.”11 I have the honor to be, My Lord, / Your Grace’s most devoted, And most obedient humble Servant, W.C. LINDSAY, Captain Fort-Edward Cavalry. DUBLIN, Nov. 28, 1798.

ARTHUR O’CONNOR’S LETTER TO LORD CASTLEREAGH

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh ([c. Dublin, 1799]).

Previous texts, printed above, have shown how the leading United Irishmen state prisoners, including Arthur O’Connor, ofered to provide Chief Secretary Castlereagh with important details on the activities of the United Irishmen, particularly when they operated as a clandestine conspiracy between 1796 and 1798. Te Irish government and the two committees of secrecy established by the two houses of the Irish Parliament could not come upon much of this evidence by other means. Hence, they wished to hear what these state prisoners could divulge, even if they refused to implicate any of their former colleagues by name in any act of treason. In return for providing this valuable evidence, these state prisoners were to escape the death sentence and to serve instead a term of imprisonment followed by permanent banishment. Te negotiations between the Irish government and the state prisoners leading to the Kilmainham treaty, named afer the Dublin prison in which these United Irishmen were held, were difcult and protracted, not least because the British government did not immediately approve of the terms proposed and the state prisoners themselves were very anxious not to appear to have betrayed former comrades and imperilled their lives. Nonetheless, Arthur O’Connor published this pamphlet, condemning Castlereagh for acting in bad faith in not immediately implementing the terms that he had provisionally ofered. He wished to defend his own conduct and to escape any blame for his actions, and yet to condemn Castlereagh for not immediately implementing what the state prisoners had expected to receive. Details of these negotiations can be found in several texts and headnotes included above.1 O’Connor’s text printed here, however, tells us more about these difcult and protracted negotiations as well as allowing his readers to appreciate how he was seeking to escape any criticism for his own behaviour. Notes 1.

See pp. 135–98 above.

– 211 –

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh ([c. Dublin, 1799]).

On Wednesday the 16th instant, Mr. Justice Swan,1 accompanied by a number of English militia, paid a domiciliary visit to Kilmainham Prison, at day-break – as we suppose, on information that Arthur O’Connor was writing a statement of Lord Castlereagh’s conduct. Mr. Swan, afer a most minute examination of Arthur O’Connor’s most private concerns, took away the following Letter to Lord Castlereagh – Orders were immediately issued for straitening his imprisonment to the closest possible confnement – Some of the Prisoners have been loaded with bolts and irons; but whether Arthur O’Connor be ironed, or not, we cannot determine, as he has been separated fom his fellow-prisoners, and as he is not let out of the cell in which he is imprisoned, even to take a moment’s air or exercise, since this Letter has come into Lord Castlereagh’s possession. /

ARTHUR O’CONNOR’s LETTER TO

LORD CASTLEREAGH. MY LORD, When it is considered that fve months have elapsed since you undertook to pledge the faith and honor of Lord Cornwallis’s administration2 in a transaction which it shall be the business of this Letter to explain, it cannot be imputed to me, that I have been actuated by any unmanly impatience under the insults, the injuries and the calumnies to which your dishonorable conduct, for a time, has exposed me, or that what I shall say has been the result of passion, and not of the most mature deliberation. I shall frst state the transaction, in the order in which it has happened; and then draw such conclusions, and ofer such remarks, as will place your conduct in such points of view as that they that run may read.3 I will not lose time in ascertaining how or from whom the idea of proposing terms for saving the lives of Bond4 and Byrne5 originated; it was a circumstance – 213 –

214

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of which I had no knowledge. On the 24th of July last, Mr. Dobbs6 and the Sherif7 entered my prison with a written paper, signed by seventy State Prisoners, purposing “to give such information as was in their power, of arms, ammunition, and schemes of warfare,” (of which it is now manifest they knew little or nothing), “and to consent to leave Ireland, / provided the lives of Bond and Byrne (both under sentence of death) should be spared.” I refused to sign it, not only from a detestation of entering into any conditions with those who composed the councils of Lord Cornwallis’s administration, but because, in the massacre of my unarmed Countrymen still raging, I did not think that any object, which was not general, could warrant me, in whom such confdence was placed by so many millions of my Countrymen, to enter into any such compact, and because the possibility of its being attributed to a desire to save my own life, in the peculiar situation I stood in, was in my mind an insuperable objection, if there had been no other. Besides, it seemed to me, that, to save the lives of Bond and Byrne, enough had signed their self-sacrifce to induce the Ministers, already sated with blood (as you and Lord Clare8 appeared to be when we met), to acquiesce: But in this I was deceived; a Council sat on the fate of Byrne – he was executed. In this barter of blood, although you had lessened your quantum by half, yet you raised your demands for the price of the other, and proposed to those who had signed the paper, that they should deliver up names. Te heroism and utter contempt with which so many thousands of my brave Countrymen had met death in preference to life, and those profuse rewards they were pressed to accept to betray their associates, and the unparalleled fortitude with which they endured the most excruciating tortures, not only at Beresford’s Riding house,9 Sandys’s Prevot, the old Custom-house,10 and the Royal Exchange,11 but those torturings and lashings which resounded in every hamlet throughout the nation, rather than violate the principles to which they had sworn, should have deterred you from ofering a proposition so truly dishonorable. You may enjoy all the satisfaction your heart can reap from being the author of such a proposal; whilst the expression of the contempt and abhorrence with which it was rejected, rests with those to whom you proposed it. Immediately afer this base proposition had been retracted – on the eve of Bond’s execution, (a beloved friend, whom I myself had brought into the undertaking) – surrounded with the horrors of a charnel-house, where, day afer day, I had seen the companions and friends of my heart dragged before some tribunal or other, “fom whose bourn no traveller returns,”12 whilst not an hour that was not the / messenger of some direful disasters, wherein my Countrymen, without leaders, ammunition or arms, continued the victims – thus environed with horrors, it was intimated to me, that, at the Council which had sat on the fate of Byrne, the parties had been nearly balanced – those who were sated with the blood that had fowed, and those that were not; that the latter, who had been triumphant in the case of Byrne, had made my consenting to sacrifce myself a

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

215

sine qua non;13 and that my compliance would incline the balance in favour of the party which had declared against shedding more blood, of which party Lord Cornwallis was not only the head, but that he was the father of this sentiment to which a part of the Council now professed to be converts. How far this intimation was fact, it was impossible for me to ascertain: But whether I considered the extent and value of the object, in putting a stop to that indiscriminate massacre of a disarmed People, the truth of which, though not the extent, has been so fully proved by some of those inquiries which have been made by Lord Cornwallis, so much to his credit; or whether I considered it as afording my Countrymen an opportunity to make their retreat from an efort, not worse conducted than it had been unwisely concerted, as putting a stop to those horrible tortures so universally practised to extort confession – it appeared to me as holding out advantages too considerable for my beloved Countrymen, to authorise me, in the frst instance, to decline holding an interview with the Irish Government, to try how far any sacrifce I could make, consistent with honor, could enable me to obtain objects so devoutly to be wished. With this view, I yielded to the solicitations which were made to me, to undertake to make terms for the Country with those in whose hands the Government was vested. I consented to meet you, for this purpose; but foreseeing that the misrepresentations and falsehood which have been practised, would be attempted, I expressly stipulated, that some men upon whose honor I could rely, should accompany me – Emmet14 and M’Nevin15 were accordingly joined with me, upon the part of the State Prisoners. A short time afer we had been in one of the lower apartments in the Castle, you entered, when I accosted you with stipulating that we should have the right of publishing, in order to secure us from calumny; you then requested that we would consent to the Chancellor’s / being present; Mr. Cooke16 made a third on the part of Government – as I suppose, in his ofcial capacity. When we were all assembled, the frst demand I made was, “that I might not be required to sign any conditions with the Irish Government, but that I might be brought to trial upon whatever evidence could be produced against me; and that whatever quarter Government might give to a disarmed People, might be granted without forcing me to sacrifce myself for an equivalent.” Tis you would not assent to; which convinced me that it was pre-determined, as I had been informed, that my devoting myself was made a sine qua non, and that, without it, the system of blood would still be triumphant. I told you, you had no evidence whatsoever against me; which you did not deny. Having put it beyond doubt, that a regard for self or for life had no share in the part I was now forced to adopt to to save the blood of my Countrymen, and that I was throwing myself between them and the persecution to which they still were a prey, my next concern was to make the terms as wide as I could. To this end, I observed, that as the information I should condition to give might be

216

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

made a subject for grounding a charge of constructive treason against the whole Union, as had been attempted so widely in England, I could not consent to give any information whatever, unless I was assured that no more blood should be shed for any thing that had passed in the Union.17 Te Chancellor afrmed, that constructive treason was law, and that, if his advice had been followed, every member of the Union would have been prosecuted for treason: To which I replied, that he must have prosecuted the People of Ireland to extermination, as nearly the whole population was of the Union against which he was to draw his bill of indictment – a fact from which neither you nor the Chancellor could withhold your assent. In answer to my demand of an amnesty, you assured me that Government would not shed any more blood for any act hitherto done in the Union, except for murder, which you did not suppose I would wish to have excepted; but that, though you would assure me that no more blood should be shed, you would not consent that we should have any part of the credit. Convinced, from every information we had obtained, that the murders which had been committed upon the People were beyond all comparison more numerous than those / which had been committed by them, and being equally abhorrent of murder, be the perpetrators of what side they may, we assured you that we were desirous that murderers of no side should receive any quarter; and as to the credit of putting a stop to the farther efusion of the blood of my Countrymen, I did not contend for what you called the credit, I contended only for that performance for which we were to give the equivalent. You then asked, if it was to be understood that the information we might give, in consequence of the agreement into which we were going to enter, was to be given as our’s, or whether we would insist on its being given generally, without specifying by whom it was given? To this we answered, that we insisted on the right of publishing the whole of whatever information we might give, whether verbal or written, (a right I had set out with securing) – specifying particularly, that if any calumnies or misrepresentation should be published against us, we should be free to refute them. Having done all in my power to procure a trial, and to avoid entering into any conditions with the Government – having put it beyond all doubt, that what they called their mercy, was to be purchased at my expense, I desired to see Lord Cornwallis, on whose character as a man of strict honor we relied for the religious fulflment of the conditions. Tis you evaded, assuring me that it was of no consequence how loosely the agreement was worded; that Lord Cornwallis’s honor was pledged to us for the religious performance; and Lord Clare made use of these remarkable expressions – “It comes to this – either you must trust the Government, or it must trust you; a Government which could violate engagements thus solemnly made, neither could stand, nor deserved to stand”; whilst you followed up his declaration with the strongest assurances, that the whole of

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

217

what had been agreed to, should be observed, on the part of the Government, with the greatest liberality and good faith. Tinking it was impossible that such solemn assurances could be made, to be so soon and so grossly violated, and seeing how difcult it would be to reduce the whole of the conditions to writing, so as to express all our stipulations, without making it appear what title you had to the credit you claimed for stopping the efusion of blood, which was the great object for which I had devoted myself – leaving / the stipulations to the religious observance, liberal construction and good faith to which you had so solemnly pledged Lord Cornwallis’s honor, the following was drawn up: “Tat the undersigned State Prisoners, in the three prisons of Newgate, Kilmainham, and Bridewell, engage to give every information in their power, of the whole of the internal transactions of the United Irishmen; and that each of the Prisoners shall give detailed information of every transaction that has passed between the United Irishmen and Foreign States; but that the Prisoners are not, by naming or describing, to implicate any person whatever: And that they are ready to emigrate to such Country as shall be agreed on between them and Government, and give security not to return to this Country without the permission of Government; and not to pass into an enemy’s country, if, on their so doing, they are to be freed from prosecution; and also Mr. Oliver Bond be permitted to take the beneft of this proposal. Te State Prisoners also hope, that the beneft of this proposal may be extended to such persons in custody, or not in custody, as may choose to beneft by it.” 29th July, 1798. (Signed by 73 persons.) Te last sentence was added, to mark that more was conditioned for than could be expressed. Pursuant to this agreement, at the instance of government, Emmet, M’Nevin, and I, drew up a Memoir containing thirty-six pages, giving an account of the origin, principles, conduct and views of the Union, which we signed, and delivered to you on the 4th of last August. On the 6th, Mr. Cooke came to our prison, and, afer acknowledging that the Memoir was a perfect performance of our agreement, he told us that Lord Cornwallis had read it, but, as it was a vindication of the Union, and a condemnation of the Ministers, the Government and Legislature of Ireland, he could not receive it, and therefore he wished we would alter it. We declared we would not change one letter; it was all true, and it was the truth we stood pledged to deliver. He then asked us, if Government should publish such parts only as might suit them, whether we would refrain from publishing the Memoir entire? We answered, that, having stipulated for the liberty of publication, we would use that right when / and as we should feel ourselves called on: To which he added, that if we published, he would have to hire persons to answer

218

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

us – that then he supposed we would reply, by which a paper-war would be carried on without end between us and the Government. Finding that we would not suffer the Memoir to be garbled, and that the literary contest between us and these hirelings was not likely to turn out to your credit, it was determined to examine us before the secret committees, whereby a more complete selection might be made out of the Memoir, and all the objectionable truths, with which it was observed it abounded, might be suppressed. For the present I shall only remark, that of one hundred pages, to which the whole of the information I gave to the Government and to the secret committees amounts, only one page has been published. Afer the reports were nearly fnished, M’Nevin asked you, on the 11th of August, if you were convinced that we had fulflled our part of the conditions? You acknowledged that we had, most fully. He then requested that you would perform your part: You replied that no time should be lost, and that you would be glad to have a conversation with us, to adjust the manner in which it should be carried into efect; but having neglected to call, M’Nevin wrote you the following letter: – “MY LORD, However anxious my fellow-prisoners and myself are to be relieved from our present disagreeable situation, we have forborne to trouble Government with it, until the Committees should have reported, or we have been examined; but as the season is advancing, and that we shall want some time to settle our afairs, I am desired by my companions, and encouraged by your Lordship’s obliging ofer on Saturday, of a conversation on the subject, to request you would do us the honor of naming, for that purpose, the earliest time that may be convenient to you. I have the honor to be, &c. &c. &c. 17th August, 1798. Wm. J. M’Nevin.”

Te day following, Mr. Secretary Cooke came to our prison, and told us he came on the part of Government to fulfl their agreement, with the good faith and liberal construction / they were pledged to; that we were at liberty to go where we pleased, provided we lef the British dominions – that whatever parts of the conditions concerned us afer our having passed into exile, would be secured by act of parliament18 – that, therefore, the only part which remained to be settled, was the nature of the accommodation we should require, to enable us to dispose of our property prior to our departure. Here was a full and unequivocal declaration of the conditions, for the performance of which you had pledged Lord Cornwallis’s honor, delivered to us by Mr. Secretary Cooke in his ofcial capacity, one of those who was present when the agreement was made, and now sent expressly by you to defne it. Immediately afer the Committees had reported, but before their reports had been printed, the newspapers (notoriously, by their own declaration, under your absolute dominion) inserted the most impudent falsehoods with respect to what we had sworn, and in many respects they went even farther than the reports. As to the reports, however, we could have waited

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

219

until we had read them; and then we would have published the whole of what we had delivered, leaving the world to judge how far the facts we had stated, or those vouched for by the Committees, were most worthy of credit. We published a contradiction of those scurrilous falsehoods which appeared in the newspapers, adding, that by our agreement, we were not, by naming or describing, to implicate any person whatever. Te manner in which this was taken up by those men who sat in the House of Commons of Ireland, is upon record, and will form a precious morsel for the future historian of that illustrious body: I am not now writing their history; I am detailing your conduct. Conscious as you must have been, that, in contradicting those infamous falsehoods, we were doing no more than exercising a right for which we had strictly conditioned, why did you not come forward in that fair and honorable manner, to which a regard for truth, for the House, and for your own honor, so imperiously bound you, and avow the the [sic] existence of your stipulations with us for publication, and of our written agreement, somewhat of which, on the second day, the House learnt from its being published by General Nugent19 at Belfast? You did neither one thing nor the other; but you did that which convinced the discerning part of the world, that there was something which you dare / not avow, nor yet dare disclaim: but, although you had neither the spirit or honor to defend your own stipulations, you had the meanness to censure; and, to fll up the measure of the perfdious part you had acted, you sent one of those very men to my prison, whose hands were reeking with the blood of my beloved, valued, ******** friend, Edward’s20 precious blood! for which, in those times of stalking butchery, not even the semblance of an inquisition has been had! Tis was the Mute you sent with orders to circumscribe my prison to the still narrower limits of a cell. For two months, these orders were varied with the most fantastical absurdity; but all with a view to make a prison more irksome, adding wanton cruelty to the basest perfdy. Te next act, which followed close on the heels of this, was your declaration that you had reserved a power to detain us during the war . . . . a power not only repugnant to the wording of the written agreement, loosely as it was drawn, but to the interpretation you yourself had so lately given by Mr. Cooke . . . . a power which was a direct violation of that liberal construction and good faith so ofen and so solemnly promised. As Mr. Cooke had been the bearer, a few days before, of the real conditions, a fresh character was thought necessary; accordingly Mr. Marsden21 was the messenger of this gross infraction of all that had gone before. Having now passed all bounds of honor and truth, no wonder you should shudder at publication: a Bill was to be brought into Parliament, said to be conformable to an agreement, which, according to Lord Clare, “a government that could violate, neither could stand, nor deserved to stand.” You are the Minister who furnished the facts to the Parliament; and if gross and palpable

220

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

falsehoods have been delivered, you are that Minister who has dared to deceive them. It is asserted in this Bill, in which I fnd my name in company with eightynine others, “that I had confessed myself conscious of fagrant and enormous guilt, expressed contrition, and humbly implored mercy, on condition of being transported, banished, or exiled, to such foreign country, as to his Majesty, in his royal wisdom, shall seem meet.” On reading this Bill, shortly afer it was brought into the House, not one of the ninety, whose names are inserted, that was not astonished at these unfounded assertions; and before it was passed, Neilson wrote the following letter to the Editor of The Courier:22 / “sir, Having seen, in your paper of the 16th instant, a publication, purporting to be a copy of the Bill now in its way through the Irish Parliament, relative to the emigration of ninety persons in custody under charges of high treason, which states that they had acknowledged their crimes, retracted their opinions, and implored pardon, I thought myself peculiarly called upon to set you right, by inclosing to you a copy of the compact, as settled between us and the Government, which cannot by any means authorise such a statement: None of us, so far as I know, did either acknowledge a crime, retract an opinion, or implore pardon; . . . . our object was, to stop an efusion of blood. I am, Sir, Your obedient, humble servant, New Prison, Samuel Neilson.”23 Dublin, 12th Sept. 1798.

Te copy of the above was inclosed to you, in the following letter: “my lord, Feeling, in common with my fellow-prisoners, extremely hurt at a publication which tends to brand our names with infamy, I think it incumbent on me, who commenced the negociation, to justify our characters and motives, by setting the whole in a true point of view; at the same time, wishing to pay all due respect to Government, I trouble you with a copy of the letter which I mean to send by this night’s post. I also take the liberty of sending you the newspaper, with the ofensive passages underscored. I am, &c. 12th Sept. 1798. Samuel Neilson.” To Lord Castlereagh.

In a day or two, Neilson inclosed the two preceding letters in the following, which he wrote to one of the prisoners of Kilmainham: “my dear friend, About two hours afer I sent the inclosed letters to Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Cooke, and a gentleman whom I did not know, but believe to be Mr. Marsden, called here, / and sent up for me. I met them. Mr. Cooke had the letter in his hand. “Why, Mr. Neilson, are you losing your judgment altogether?” “No, Sir; you took that from me some time ago.” “But, in earnest, will you publish or not?” “I will.” “Well, then, I am commanded by his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to tell you, that he will consider its publication an infraction of the whole negociation, and executions will go on as

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

221

formerly.” “Pray, Sir, how is it possible we can let our names go to the world and to posterity, branded with infamy?” “I see, Mr. Neilson, what actuates you; it is a feeling for the honor of your fellow-prisoners and their friends.” “It is.” “Well, have you no feeling for their lives? for we can convict the most of you.” “I do not care this moment you would order me to be hanged.” “Very true; but are all the rest of the prisoners of the same opinion?” “I suppose not, but they can never in justice incur the resentment of Government for my act.” “I once more assure you, it will be considered as an infraction, and we will act accordingly.” Yours, &c. Samuel Neilson.”

Te Septemberizing24 style of these menaces, would astonish in any other country than mine – –––– Alas! poor Country! Almost afraid to know itself ! It cannot Be called our mother, but our grave; where nothing, But who knows nothing, is once seen to smile; Where sighs, and groans, and shrieks that rend the air, Are made, not mark’d; where violent sorrow seems A modern ecstacy: the dead men’s knell Is there scarce ask’d, for whom; and good men’s lives Expire before the fowers in their caps, Dying or ere they sicken!25

I am now stating facts; by and by I will ofer some comments. On the 25th of September I wrote to Lord Cornwallis, demanding the fulflment of the engagements to which you had pledged him: Afer nearly a month had elapsed, on the 21st of October, I received a letter from Mr. Cooke, informing me that we should emigrate to America, and that we should be obliged to give security not to return to Europe. Tis was the third interpretation of the agreement, a direct violation of the written compact, and totally diferent from those terms of which Mr. Cooke had / been the bearer; yet, the very next day, Mr. Marsden came to our prison, to tell us that the whole purport of the letter we received the day before, was all revoked, and that, in a few days, a ffh interpretation would be notifed to us by Government. Afer six weeks had elapsed, we received the ffh interpretation of the agreement, in a scroll of your writing, brought here by Mr. Marsden, of which the following is a literal copy: Samuel Neilson, Tomas Russel,28 To. A. Emmet, W. J. M’Nevin,

Henry Jackson,26 Matt. Dowling,29 John Sweetman,32 Joseph Cuthbert,34

Arthur O’Connor, John Sweeny,30 Hugh Wilson, John Chambers.35

Miles Duigenan,27 John Cormick,31 Deane Swif,33

“Te above persons cannot be liberated at present: the other State Prisoners named in the Banishment Bill,36 will be permitted to retire to any neutral country on the continent, giving security not to pass into an enemy’s country. A pardon, conformable to the Banishment Bill, will be passed previous to their departure. Te Lord Lieutenant

222

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5 will be glad to extend this indulgence to the Prisoners now excepted, as soon as he can do it consistent with the attention which he owes to the public safety, and laments that a change of circumstances has rendered the present precaution necessary.”

Here all respect for all former conditions is laid by, and a State necessity is made the pretext, which, if admitted as a justifable plea for breach of engagement, at once destroys every principle of good faith, honor, or justice. Now that I have recited the principal facts, I shall proceed to a recapitulation. Having stated that I forced you to an acknowledgement that you had no evidence against me, that I demanded a trial upon whatever shadow of evidence you could fnd, and that you would not grant one – having stated that, placed in the excruciating alternative of subjecting myself to be calumniated as one who had betrayed my Countrymen with a view to save my own life, when I was really sacrifcing myself to save theirs, or, should I decline this, to be calumniated as one who would not consent to devote himself to save his country’s blood – driven to this cruel situation by you, and which the critical state of my Country obliged me to decide on; in the face of God and of the world I ask you, with what truth, with what justice, with what honor, have you dared to represent me to the world, as a man “who had confessed himself conscious of / fagrant and enormous guilt, as one who had expressed contrition, and humbly implored his Majesty’s mercy?” Gracious God! would it not be supposed that a Minister who delivered such facts to a Parliament and to the world, had some one document upon which he could found such assertions, which went directly to blast the honor and character of so many men? Nay, will it be believed, that every one of those daring assertions has been made in direct opposition to every word that was uttered and every line that was written by those men who are thus vilely calumniated? I challenge you to produce a syllable that has come from me, verbal or written, which can be tortured into a confession of a consciousness of guilt, an expression of contrition, or an imploring of mercy. Read the Memoir37 I signed and delivered to you – is there a word that can warrant it? So directly is the contrary the truth, that it is expressly set forth in the Memoir, that we would never abandon the principles upon which we had acted. When you made these false and daring assertions of guilt, contrition, and mercy, had you so soon forgotten, that you had sent us the Memoir to alter, because it contained a vindication of the United Irish, and a condemnation of the Ministers, the Government and the Legislature? Or had you forgotten, that we had refused, in the most positive terms, never to alter a letter? Was it because I requested not to be forced to sign any compact with Government, and that I demanded a trial, and that you would not grant it, that you have represented me as one who had most humbly implored his Majesty’s mercy? With what truth have you talked of extending mercy to me, or of the gratitude I owe for the mercy I have experienced, when it

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

223

is a fact you cannot deny, that you forced me to devote myself to procure conditions for others? Ask Mr. Cooke of the diabolical means he has used to procure evidence against me, by abusing the name and infuence of a relative to a purpose at which the most unnatural relative would shudder. Ask those underlings, of the enormous sums that have been ofered, to supply the place of that evidence you could never obtain. Commence an inquiry into the orders by which those shots were fred when I was confned in the Castle; and examine the wife of the gaoler – she will tell you of a third attempt being made, of which her being in childbirth prevented her giving evidence at Maidstone; she will tell you of the money she saw paid, by one of the / King’s messengers, to the assassin! Are these the acts of mercy for which I am so deeply indebted? When you have considered these facts, read the agreement, and say, in what instance does it imply a consciousness of guilt, an expression of contrition, or most humbly imploring mercy! But these are not the only instances in which you stand detected of having dared to advance the most palpable falsehoods. Te words in that part of the agreement which has been committed to writing, are, “and that they are ready to emigrate to such country as shall be agreed on between them and Government.” With what truth, then, have you informed the Parliament, “that we had humbly implored his Majesty’s pardon, on condition of being transported, banished, or exiled, to such foreign country as to his Majesty shall seem meet?” When the written compact could so easily be produced to the world, (nay, when it had been published by General Nugent), in which it is expressly conditioned, that the country to which we were to emigrate should be one mutually agreed on between us and Government, is it not astonishing that any Minister could be hardy enough to inform the Parliament, that we had conditioned to be transported, banished, or exiled, to such country as the King shall think meet! Having fastened those unparalleled falsehoods on their author, I dare you to make your defence. Tell the world, how demanding a trial, and a refusal on the part of the Government, in a country said to be fee, can be construed into humbly imploring mercy! Tell the world, how the most positive assertion of the frmest adherence to the principles upon which I had acted, and the most direct refusal to retract a particle of the assertion, can, by any force of language, be converted into a confession of conscious guilt, or an avowal of contrition! A convict of these unblushing breaches of truth, can it be matter of wonder that you should shudder at publication? Can it be matter of wonder, that, advanced too far to retreat, and impelled to violate truth in every other particular, you should feel yourself forced to violate the right of publication, for which I so expressly conditioned? or that, irretrievably criminal, and tremblingly alive to detection, you should send Mr. Cooke, in Lord Cornwallis’s name, with that murderous menace, that if any of the Prisoners “should, from a feeling for the honor of their fellow-prisoners, their friends, or themselves,” attempt / to contradict those

224

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

falsehoods and calumnies which you had dared to advance, executions should go on as formerly? Can the most regular Government that has ever appeared upon earth, exhibit such another instance of distributive injustice? Is this a part of that clemency which you say I have experienced? Is this a specimen of that mercy for which you have asserted I am so much indebted? Deeply as these glaring infractions of every thing that should be dear to a man who valued his honor, interested you in resisting publication, there were other calumnies, which could never have been attempted to be palmed on the most credulous, had I been allowed to refute them. Had the facts been given to the world, the Minister of England38 could never have enjoyed those malignant and scurrilous calumnies which have been disseminated, here and in England, of the Opposition who gave evidence on my trial at Maidstone,39 by means of those Antetruth, prostitute prints, upon which such enormous sums are lavished to panegerize corruption, and to assassinate the characters of those who oppose it. Believing, as I do in my soul, that this calumniation of the Opposition of England has been one of the principal reasons why the stipulation I made for publication has been violated with so much injustice and menace, I feel myself peculiarly called on to set forth the truth, in vindicating myself from having given the smallest grounds for these calumnies, which have been propagated, with so much malignity, against men so truly honourable, and so justly revered. I was arrested at Margate, and prosecuted at Maidstone, on a charge of inviting the French to an invasion of England;40 to substantiate which, a written paper was produced, said to have been found in a greatcoat pocket, said to be found in a public-house, in a room in which there was no one, said to be the property of Coigly.41 Tis paper purported to come from some secret committee, of whom no account has been given: it contained an invitation to the French to invade England, and a most infamous, unmeasured proscription of the whole Opposition, as men wholly unft to be trusted. In order to exculpate myself from having any concern in inviting the French to invade a country of which I was not, a native, and where I had been received by thousands of the most distinguished, not only with the greatest hospitality, but with the most afectionate kindness. . . . As the foremost for rank, fortune, / talents and virtue, were those against whom this infernal paper had denounced this unqualifed proscription, I called upon them to declare to the world, whether they believed I was that monster who had attempted to assassinate those venerated characters, that had honoured me with their society, blessed me with their friendship, and enlightened me with their instruction. Te enormity of the charge was, that I had most basely betrayed these kind benefactors; and to those very men I appealed for my justifcation. Te testimony they bore was, “that they were convinced I was incapable of the diabolical treachery, contained in the paper, with which I was charged; that so far were they from conceiving such perfdy formed any part of my char-

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

225

acter, that I was of an open, unreserved disposition; and that my principles were those of the Revolution of 1688, which were their own.” Tat I have impeached this testimony since, by what has fallen from me, has been propagated by every perversion of truth which malignity and falsehood could invent; but these are the mists of the moment, which vanish on the appearance of truth. Deal fairly by those honorable men, and by me: I dare you to the test; and, in the presence of God and Truth, I call on you to publish the whole of what has come from me, verbal and written; – then let me be ranked lower than the lowest, lower than the exposure of these detailed breaches of honor shall rank you in the estimation of every honest man, if, afer the publication, those honorable men, who gave evidence at my trial at Maidstone, would not be bound, in truth and justice, to give the same evidence they gave before. Nay, so unequivocally has every word that came from me, since my trial, put it beyond the possibility of doubt that I was utterly guiltless of every particle of the indictment, that if the whole of what came from me had been made public as the sun in its meridian, I would defy the most sanguinary of my persecutors, from the man whose memory is a sponge for every thing that could make for innocence, and an indelible tablet for every malignity that could make against it, to the pampered informer, whose tongue outstrips the ofce of his ears, and who, when he casts up the ledger of his perjuries in his murderous account, can tell you all he is worth, to adduce a single fact that could stand between me and an acquittal. Te frst part of this evidence I shall notice, is that which / respects the paper which contains the unqualifed proscription of these great and good men, and the invitation of the French to invade England. In declaring their conviction that I was utterly incapable of thus perfdiously proscribing them, no one can doubt their sincerity. If they could have supposed me to have been capable of such perfdy toward them, they must have been the last men living who could have found inclination or interest in bearing testimony of my innocence. Will their calumniators assert, that they were convinced I had been to them this perfdious friend? and will they also accuse them of the more than Christian forgiveness, in proving my innocence? Tus calumny itself is driven to admit, that the Opposition must have been convinced of my innocence of this part of the paper which proscribed and betrayed them. How, then, was it possible they could conceive that I was guilty of the other part, which invited the French to the invasion of England? Was it in the nature of things that they could believe me to hold one part of the paper in the utmost abhorrence, and approve of the other, and be the author, or have any part in being the bearer of the entire. Tus the contents of this paper, which in fact comprises the whole of the charge in the indictment, if examined with the smallest attention, must carry conviction, that the Opposition regarded me as one of the last men who could have been guilty. If, however, there had been any doubt, my examination since, has put it beyond all suspicion. Tese are

226

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

my words before the Secret Committee of the Commons, which I set down to writing the instant I came back to my prison. Afer stating my having formed the frst alliance that ever existed between the Union and France in August 1796, and that I had arranged the expedition with General Hoche,42 which sailed in the December following for Ireland, I stated, “that it was proposed to me that a body should be sent against England, to cause a diversion, and to retaliate for the Quiberon expedition.43 To dissuade the French from the invasion of England, I* used every argument in my power: I said, from my knowledge of England, I was certain the best men in it would be most hostile to any interference of the French in the government of their / country, on the same just principle, that they condemned the interference of England in the government of France; – that the state of England and of Ireland were very diferent; that in Ireland the People were most solicitous to rescue themselves from foreign and domestic tyranny, but that the majority of the people of England would be most adverse to their interference; . . . that many of the People of England were beginning to see and to feel the ruin which the Ministers had brought on the nation by engaging in the war; but that, if an invasion was attempted, all consideration of the injustice of the war would be buried under the immediate consideration of self-defence; – that it would prove the greatest support to an unpopular Ministry, by giving them an unlimited power over the remaining wealth of England, in any way they might think ft to take it, while a guinea could be extorted. Tese, together with other arguments, were thought conclusive by those to whom I addressed them; and the invasion of England in 1796 was abandoned.” And again, before the Secret Committee of the Lords, on the 6th of September, afer pointing out some mis-statements which had been made of the examination I had given, as published in the Appendix to the Report, on being asked if there was any other inaccuracies in the Report, of my examination in this Appendix, I answered, “Yes; I have expressly stated, that the Union had no connexion with the Societies of England and Scotland, and yet my answer is so worded as if I admitted that some connexion was supported by individuals; this appears to me to have been done, to give a colour to that charge, in a paper produced at Maidstone against me, which states that a Delegate from Ireland was then sitting with a Secret Committee of England, every particle of which I do declare most solemnly was most false, as I do also declare, that every part of the indictment, as far as I was concerned, was wholly unfounded; for, so far was I from seeking an invasion of England, that when it was proposed to the Irish negociator (who formed the frst alliance between Ireland and France) to invade England, and to retaliate for the Quiberon expedition, he used every argument in his power to dissuade them, *

In the examination I spoke of myself in the third person, but so as to be understood to mean myself; and so the Secret Committee has taken it.

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

227

which I know were conclusive. I state this, because I fnd that, while I have been imprisoned, occasion has been taken to / calumniate those who gave evidence on my trial at Maidstone; and therefore I wish it to be known, that instead of my inviting the French to invade England, I prevented it; and I did so, because I knew the best men there, were as averse to the interference of the French in England, as they had uniformly declared themselves to be to the interference of the English in the government of France.” Tese are faithful extracts of those examinations, which, it has been said, impeaches the evidence given at Maidstone. Is there one word which can warrant such an assertion? Is it in the power of language to convey a stronger corroboration of their testimony, or a more direct exculpation from every part of the charge contained in the indictment? Had I not been prevented from refuting these infamous calumnies, the People of England would have been informed, that the man who had been charged with inviting the French to invade them, was the man who averted that event from them; and that he succeeded by stating, how repugnant such an attempt would be to the principles and wishes of those very men, who have been so grossly maligned, and how advantageous it would prove to those Ministers (in extracting the wealth of England) who maligned them. Indeed, had I not mentioned these facts by which these calumnies have been so clearly refuted, the absurdity of my being concerned in taking a paper to the Directory of France, by way of credentials, in 1738 [sic],44 who am now known to have formed an alliance with them two years before, in 1796, would alone be sufcient to carry conviction that I could not have had any part or concurrence in this infamous paper; besides, without arrogating much credit for composition, or falling into the folly or weakness of overweening, I may express my contempt of the style of the paper; and I trust every act of my life allows me to express my utter abhorrence of its contents. If, then, it must be admitted that it is so vile a production – that it was a credential which I could not have wanted, and that, if such a paper could have been of the least use, I could have composed one, when I had arrived on the Continent, more to my purpose, none but men determined against the clearest conviction, could believe that I had any part, concurrence or knowledge of this transaction, upon which the whole of the indictment was founded. / Te next part of the evidence is, that I was of an open, unreserved disposition; and my having been so long and so deeply engaged in the Union, is the ground upon which this has been carped at. Much of my political life is known to the world – enough to enable the public to form its judgment . . . enough for me to appeal to. From the moment I perceived that my Countrymen were willing to sacrifce their religious rancour on the altar of National Freedom, I fung away every other consideration, and exerted every faculty of my soul to dispel the dæmon of Discord, and to cherish the spirit of Union. Te emancipation and independence of Ireland from internal and external thraldom, were the objects

228

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

I had in view. So early as 1795 I openly avowed my opinions, as may be seen in what fell from me on the Catholic question. Tese sentiments are to be found amongst others: “But if you shall have convinced the People of Ireland, that you are traitors to them, and hirelings to an avaricious, domineering nation, under the outward appearance of a sister-country . . . if you shall have convinced the People of this country, that the free national constitution for which they were committed, and for which they risked every thing in 1782, has been destroyed by the bribery of a British Minister, and the unexampled venality of an Irish Parliament . . . if you shall have convinced them, that, instead of rising or falling with England, they are never to rise but when she is humbled by adversity, and that they must fall when she becomes elated by prosperity . . . if you shall have convinced the People of this country, that, instead of reciprocal advantage, nothing is to be reaped from their connexion with England but supremacy and aggrandizement on one side, and a costly venality, injury, insult, degradation and poverty on the other, – it is human nature, that you shall have driven the People of this country to court the alliance of any nation, able and willing to break the chains of a bondage not less galling to their feelings than restrictive of their prosperity.”45 When Union and Reform were made treason and death by new laws, agreeable to the sentiments I had openly avowed in 1795, I negotiated that very alliance with France in 1796, which I had declared was our only alternative; and when I had returned to Ireland, afer having formed the alliance, you will fnd these words in my frst address to the / Electors of the county of Antrim: “If the monopoly of the whole national representation by a few individuals forms the basis of their constitution, and if the most profigate sale of that representation to the agents of another country be the sole means by which it is moved and maintained, so far from seeking your confdence by promising to support it, I pledge myself to you and my Country, to use every means in my power to efect its destruction. Catholic and Protestant are alike convinced, that on the Union of both depends the salvation of all. Tose who sell the rights of their country, will call this by the name of that treason they live by committing; but if to promote the Union of Irishmen be treason, if to place the liberties of my country upon its true Republican basis be treason, then do I glory in being a traitor. It is a treason I will seal with my blood, and that I hope to have engraved on my tomb. I know that an attempt on the part of the Executive, to subvert our liberties, has sanctioned one Revolution; and I feel, that if the Legislative, becoming more corrupt than the Executive, should attempt a similar subversion, not only by force, but by the more deadly corruption – they will have sanctioned another.” If these extracts from sentiments spoken and published at large, are not sufcient, in the circumstances under which I was placed, to entitle me to a character for frankness, I refer you to the whole of my second address to the Electors of the county of Antrim, in which I have openly asserted the right of forming an alliance with

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

229

France; and if this be not sufcient, I refer you to the “State of Ireland”46 I published, in which I have justifed resistance, and calling in foreign assistance. If those who read these avowals of my political principles before my trial at Maidstone, before they knew of the part I was acting, thought me entitled to the character of an open, unreserved disposition, let them read those avowals of my opinions and principles now that the thousand dangers, with which I was environed at the time they were written, have been made public – would they not be bound, a fortiori, to give me the same character over again? Te last part of the evidence, “that they looked upon me as professing the principles upon which the Revolution of 1688 was founded,” is a matter of opinion. Tese principles are, the right of resisting oppression, and even of calling in foreign aid in supporting the right. Tat these / were my principles, I appeal to every act and word of my life. If my writings and speeches do not go to the proof, why did not the Crown Lawyers produce them? Tey could have brought evidence to prove they were mine; they found a manuscript copy of my second Address to the County of Antrim in my desk, when I was arrested in 1796; and they found two copies of my State of Ireland, when I was arrested at Margate in 1798. Te fact, then, being admitted, how does the general assertion, that these were my principles as given in evidence, bind those who gave it, to any responsibility for the prudence, propriety or ftness with which I applied them. Tat the Opposition of England were United Irishmen, or that I made those men who, on a change of Ministry, must form the administration of England, acquainted with my design of separation, is too absurd to be mentioned by the most malignant calumniator, or to be credited by the most deludable dupe. Te charge against me at Maidstone was wholly confned to England; Ireland, or its politics, were not mentioned in the indictment. Hence the Opposition were, not only not called on to give an opinion on any transaction relating to Ireland, but, if they had attempted to say a word on the subject, the Judge must have stopped them. In a word, that I have impeached one title of the evidence which was given at Maidstone, by any thing which has come from me, verbal or written, is so utterly false, that if I was to be tried over again, at this instant, on the former indictment, without subtracting a letter, and that every syllable I have since delivered was published, so far from retracting any part of the evidence they have given, they would be bound to declare my innocence of the whole charges in positive terms, which they gave only as a matter of opinion before: And as to the part I have acted in my own country, it would be now as it was at my trial – they would not be called on, or even sufered to give an opinion; nay, if all the reports of the Irish Parliament that ever were printed, with their appendices, were produced in evidence, they would not avail – for this plain reason – neither Ireland, nor a particle respecting it, are so much as mentioned in the indictment.

230

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Tese remarks on what has fallen from me, as it respects the evidence given at Maidstone, must assure every man who has not shut his mind against all conviction, that / nothing ever has, or ever can, consistent with truth, come from me, which can impeach the credit of the great and good men in question. For the part I have taken in my own country, my acts shall be my vouchers; neither the force of foreign mercenaries, nor the corruption of traitors, nor the falsehood of ministers, nor the calumny of hired defamers, nor the torture of tyrants, can condemn me, as long as CONSCIOUS INTEGRITY fnds a place in my heart. Disloyalty, rebellion and treason are confounded, by the mass of mankind, with the success that attends them; whilst, with the magnanimous, success conveys no acquittal, nor defeat condemnation. Tat the constitution contained some of the purest principles of Liberty, that they have been most violently assailed, that the assailants have been enormously criminal, and that they should be selected for exemplary justice, I have uniformly asserted; – then let those vital principles of the constitution be the standard, and let their violation be the criminal test. I ask but that the world should be informed of the part I have acted: there have been instances of virtue which might challenge the brightest page of the world; there have been crimes which cannot be equalled in the records of Hell: I demand a fair allotment of my share in a just distribution; and, with the claims of a calumniated man, I call on my calumniators for publication, not only by the imprescriptible right of self-defence, but by the right of express stipulation. Te whole of what has been delivered by me, verbal and written, flls one hundred pages, of which only one has been published: Publish the ninety-nine which have been suppressed; and when the world are informed of the crimes I have detailed, the criminals I have exposed, and the principles upon which I have acted, then let them judge whether I have had recourse to resistance and to foreign aid, against the constitution, or against racks, tortures, lashings, half-hangings, burning houses, rape, military execution, bastiles, free quarters, and every species of oppression! If these ninety-nine pages contain falsehoods, why have I not been exposed by their being published? If they contain confessions of conscious guilt, contrition, or humbly imploring of mercy, why are they not published? If these pages do not contain unanswerable charges against the King’s Ministers, if they contain any thing that can be tortured into their justifcation, and, above all, if they contain / a syllable that impeaches the credit of the Opposition of England, is it credible that they would not have been published? Give them, every line, to the world; and if they contain a thought which the man who loves his species can disclaim, if they contain dereliction of my principles, breach of my engagements, treason to my cause or my country, or perfdy to my friends, let me be overwhelmed by the infamy attendant on instant exposure. You dare not! Like the witless bird, you hide your head, and think you have escaped detection. When it is known that, of one hundred pages, ninety-nine have been kept back, are

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

231

you so weak as to imagine that any other reason will be assigned than that your own crimes have made you suppress them? Can the silliest dotard suppose that you have broken your solemn engagements, and held out those Septemberizing menaces in Lord Cornwallis’s name, to prevent the publication of those ninetynine pages, if they contained a particle that could criminate me, or impeach the honor of the Opposition of England? No! they will surmise the truth; they will be convinced that you have uttered falsehoods, that you have given grounds for calumny, that you have deceived the Parliament, and that you have prostituted the name of a man of honor, to most infamous, murderous menace, and to most dishonourable breaches of the most solemn engagements. So truly Protean47 have you been with the State Prisoners, from the beginning of this transaction to this instant, that I am wholly at a loss to fnd any two parts of your conduct, which have any accordance with truth, with each other, or with the agreement. Immediately afer we had performed our parts of the conditions, and before a sense of your dishonorable conduct induced you to violate your’s, you clearly perceived, that, by the compact, we had reserved a choice of country for exile, and that we had not excluded ourselves from passing into any country on the globe that was not at war with Great Britain; you were convinced, that, by your own stipulation “that we should not pass into an enemy’s country,” it is implied that we were to emigrate during the war, while there was a country to come within your exemption; nor had you yet forgotten all those professions of liberal construction, good faith and honor, of which you had been so lavish. In this mood you sent Mr. Cooke to our prison, on the 18th of August, with a fair construction of / the compact verbal and written, that we were to emigrate to any country not at war with Great Britain; on the 16th of September you sent Mr. Marsden to inform us, that we should be detained during the war; on the 21st of October you again informed us by Mr. Cooke, that we should emigrate to America, and not be sufered to pass into any other country whatever; on the 22d, the very next day, you sent Mr. Marsden to tell us, we should not be sufered to go to America; on the 5th of December you again sent Mr. Marsden to tell us, that all the State Prisoners might emigrate to any country on the continent not at war with Great Britain, with the exception of ffeen, who were to be further detained; and although more than a month has elapsed since this ffh interpretation of the agreement, and that many of the non-excepted have demanded to be sufered to emigrate, they are still prevented from leaving the prison: and whilst I am writing this Letter, it will not surprise me if you should send a sixth interpretation of the agreement, as contradictory to the whole as those you have sent are to each other. But to what end shall I waste time in reciting any more of your conduct? Te man who has shewn a total contempt for truth and good faith in one hundred instances, would betray the same in one thousand. Ten, setting aside every idea of the existence of the agreement, in which equivalents

232

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

and terms are set forth; setting aside all those professions of liberal construction and good faith; leaving you to reconcile your plea of necessity with non-performance of compact, for which stipulated equivalents have been religiously paid; I call on you to reconcile those manifold contradictions and prevarications, which have appeared in your various interpretations of the agreement, with justice and honor, which can be but one. You would have been happy, no doubt, that I had implicated Lord Cornwallis and the Parliament with you in this accusation: but in this you shall fnd yourself widely mistaken; for, much as you have defamed and deceived me, and vilely as you have attempted to furnish grounds for calumny against the Opposition of England, your conduct to Lord Cornwallis and the Parliament are not less fagrant. Detected of such manifest breaches of truth in the outset of your ministerial career, the fagrance of your perfdy forms the strongest evidence that you are the sole author of those disgraceful transactions which I have detailed; / whilst the unimpeached character for incorruptible integrity which Lord Cornwalliis has uniformly supported in some of the most trying situations, carries as forcible evidence that he has not debased himself thus suddenly to so low and so vile a degree. As to the Parliament, you, and you only, could have furnished the statements upon which their proceedings were founded; and that you did not lay the written agreement before them, is manifest from the debate on our Advertisement, when some of the Members declared, on the second day, that their having seen General Nugent’s publication of our agreement, wherein it was stated that we had stipulated “not to implicate any person whatever by naming or describing,” induced them to alter the opinions they had expressed on the preceding day, when they had not been informed of those conditions. Wholly acquitting Lord Cornwallis, and not interfering in any wise with the Parliament of Ireland, without saying one word of the future, I have accused you, in the face of the world, as a Minister who has uttered the most gross falsehoods of me; that you have entered into engagements, for the performance of which you have pledged the faith of Lord Cornwallis’s administration; and that you have been guilty of the most direct violations of your agreement, attended with all those shifs, subterfuges, contradictions and prevarications, to which the honest man can never be driven, and from which the cunning, pitiful, unprincipled courtier, can never be free. I have impeached you of keeping back from the Parliament that written agreement to which you had pledged the Executive Government, and of furnishing the Ofcers of the Crown with materials for a law in violation of the letter and spirit of those very conditions to which you had bound it. I have impeached you for having prostituted the name of a man, whose honor was unquestioned before you had profaned it, by setting it to a menace the most infernal, whether it be considered for its injustice, in attempting to silence men (whose honor you had attacked) by placing the dagger to their throats to prevent them from justifying their characters by that publication for which I had expressly conditioned;

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

233

or whether it be considered for its style of more than Robespierian butchery,48 in threatening to take the lives of eighty-nine for the crime of one, and that no other than the crime of exposing your perfdy, and of vindicating their honor. Ten let me be that criminal! / – mark me for your victim! – for if to declare to the world that you have most foully belied me, and that these falsehoods have been made the grounds for calumny against the most honorable men, be the forfeit of life, I have no desire to live. If it has come to this, that to contradict the falsehoods of a Minister be a capital ofence – if every Tyro49 in ofce is to be erected into a Bey or a Bashaw50 in these times of blood, life is not worth the keeping. If I cannot live with honor, nay, if I cannot live but loaded with infamy, and to be made the stalking beast for the assassination of the fair fame of my best benefactors, it is time for me to die. You knew I demanded a trial – you knew I demanded not to be required to sign any agreement; and yet you have told the world that I have most humbly implored pardon! You knew I asserted my principles, and vindicated the cause I espoused, in the worst of times – you knew you had required of me to retract this assertion and vindication, and that I refused to do either; yet you have told the world, “that I have confessed myself conscious of the most fagrant and enormous guilt, and expressed my contrition!” You knew, that, of ninety State Prisoners, six only have been examined – that these six have not, in the most distant degree, confessed conscious guilt or contrition, or humbly implored pardon, and that the eighty-four have never been asked a question; yet you have told the Parliament, that every one of the ninety have made the like confessions of guilt and contrition, and have alike humbly implored pardon! You knew that the written compact contained a stipulation, that the country to which we were to emigrate “was to be mutually agreed on between us and the Government;” yet you have told the Parliament, “that we had conditioned to be transported to such foreign country as to the King shall seem meet!” You knew that I had expressly declared, that my Brother would not enter into any conditions with the Government; yet you have frst attempted to terrify him into your measures, by sending the very Mute you had sent me, and, when this was treated with the contempt it deserved, you took advantage of our separation to try to make him believe that I had promised he should enter into conditions! You knew that I had expressly conditioned for the right of publishing every part of the information I might give, conformably to my agreement, and also of refuting calumnies – you knew that this right had been / recognized by your colleague Mr. Cooke, some time afer we made our agreement; yet you have not only violated this important condition, but you have added to the suferings of a prison, and held out your murderous menace! You knew that you had conditioned that we should emigrate afer we had performed our part of the compact; and, now that our’s has been faithfully discharged, you have set up a plea of necessity, which is equally valid for detaining us for life as for an hour, and equally reconcilable with your contradictory interpretations and shameful prevarications!

234

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Tese are a small part of the catalogue of breaches of faith, honor and truth, of which I accuse you. As to what concerns the written agreement, compare it with the law which you were pledged should be in perfect conformity with its spirit and letter, and for which you were bound to furnish the matter for the Parliament to go by; yet I will submit to be branded for the most infamous liar, if this law is not a most gross violation of the agreement, which, the Chancellor declared, “the Government that could violate, neither could stand, nor deserved to stand.” But, though there had not been one of those express stipulations, or those dishonorable infractions, should I have forfeited every right of Humanity, should I have borne with every falsehood, and every calumny, malice and perfdy have poured out against me? No! I should still retain the imprescriptible right of self-defence, . . . that right with which God and Nature have armed every man, and of which no power on earth can deprive him. Let it cost what it may, I will rescue those honorable men from the calumny for which you have held me out as having furnished the matter. Te means which have been hitherto used to dispatch me, leave me no doubt of what I have to expect. Te solemn declaration of Coigley (in the presence of persons of the frst credit) of the proposal conveyed by the Reverend Grifths,51 for saving his life, and the giving up mine, gives some idea of the justice I have any hope of obtaining. Abandon those underhand means .  .  . spare your murderous menace .  .  . send me your Mutes! Te same necessity which can justify your detaining me a prisoner for life, will equally justify you for my murder, and infnitely more than for my calumniation. Te man who has lived in constant habits of intimacy with Death for these last three years, / had he been the veriest coward, must now be familiar with his most ghastly appearance: not a night that he has not sat perched on my pillow, – not a step have I taken that he has not walked by my side – not a thought nor an act that was not directed to what, I was convinced, was the good of my Country, and not a thought nor an act that did not forfeit my life, by the code, martial and civil, to which my Country has been made subject. My prison is the mansion of Death – its inmates in succession are dragged to the gallows – its porch is the scafold, and the hangman is amongst my attendants; yet you imagine you can infuse terror by your dastardly menace! Do not yourself such injustice; you have not prepared me so ill for the language of the assassin, or the executioner’s gripe. Torn myself from the loved, adored, chosen friends of my heart, is there a fbre that can link the parent to his child, the wife to her husband, children to their parents or to one another, that I have not seen torn asunder by the rufan hand of ruthless power, in those diferent prisons of misery where I am doomed to pass the vigour of life? Is there an insult you or your underlings have not practised? Is there an alleviation, of which you have not sought to deprive me? One only comfort I had lef – I shared the prison of the twin brother52 of my soul – I shared his sorrows for the suferings of his loved Wife and his eight

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

235

infant innocents, scattered by marshalled blood-hounds, who have plundered his house, ravaged his demesne, and destroyed his property,53 one hundred miles distant from the pretext of revolt. When the tear started for his absent, helpless Children, or for his beloved Country, I could press him to my heart and wipe away the bitter drops from his manly face, or alleviate his sorrows by making commonage of our feelings, our afections, and our suferings. Tis is the Brother whose crimes are his talents, his virtues, and love of the People – for whom an acquittal serves but to prolong your cruelties and his persecutions.54 Beref of this last, this only comfort I had lef – familiarized not only with death, but with its most sublimated horrors – trust me, there is no terror in your threats. Beloved, faithful Countrymen! have you, with a fdelity unparalleled in the annals of the world, preserved my life in defance of torture, that I should drag it along in a dungeon, loaded with chains and infamy, for the mere suferance of respiration. / You, whose discoloured faces, and swollen tongues hanging from your mouths, scarcely able to receive sustenance for the support of existence, describing the stranglings you have endured more feelingly than eloquence could utter! and you, whose fesh has been torn from your bones by lashings, and torn again before it had been cicatrized! have you borne all (when but to have sighed my name in the ravings of your tortures, you would have been cherished as the saviours of your country) that I should breath but by the bounty of calumniators. And you, dear, venerated, departed friends! have you taught me, by your example, to balance between death and infamy; you have been made exiles from the world; I have submitted to be exiled from our beloved Ireland – Let him that loves his country, estimate the diference. You may imagine that justice has been silenced by the storm which has raged, and in your triumphant course you may revive the ancient law which makes the murder of mere Irishmen justifable homicide: I am indeed a mere Irishman, the country knows me to be nothing else: like* Williams and Lawrence, you may confess the fact, and plead the CUSTOM; a host of precedents, in six hundred years, will bear you out – But not so fast; – returning calm may one day bring the reign of reason back; the man who “smears the sleepy grooms”55 will fnd “there is no sure foundation set on blood.”56 A few designing villians [sic] may delude; they cannot with the like success betray. At any time, justice to myself, and to those venerated men you have attempted to defame, would call for the disclosure I have made; but now, when ministerial confdence has become the wicked and destructive jargon of the day, it is a duty I *

Sir John Davis cites the records of these two cases, to prove that the murder of the Irish People by the English was a legal act. Williams confessed the murder, but proved the man he murdered was a mere Irishman. – Williams was acquitted. – Lawrence set up the same plea; but it appeared, the man he murdered was an Englishman – Lawrence was hanged.57

236

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

owe my Country to give a true and faithful picture of the honor your ministerial integrity afords. It the time should ever come, when a treacherous advantage of our cruel disunion might be taken, by a desperate efort to destroy even the shadow of our national independence, and erase this great and powerful island from the list of nations.  . . . if, adding insults to injury, equivalents should be / talked of for what is beyond all value, and that to dole out as charity the thousand part of rights which God and Nature gave us shall be called equivalents. . . . if enormous burdens should be added, that we shall be told they are meant for our relief; and if, in this monstrous project, you should hold a ministerial station, let your conduct towards me be the earnest of your conduct to the nation. Let me be banished to the most distant pole. . . . you cannot eradicate the love of Country from my heart: Country is my God; upon its altar I could ofer up, not only fortune, not only life. . . . I can do more. . . . I can sacrifce revenge. Had the dreadful list of those beloved friends, whom I shall mourn while I live, been greater than it is. . . . had the profusion of my own particular blood been so abundant that I were lef the last of mine own race. . . . did my suferings equal, for exceed they could not, the most excruciating tortures which have been inficted throughout all Innisfail.58 . . . if the salvation of our Island were at stake, I would stretch out one arm to grasp the bloody hands of my deluded, madened [sic], betrayed Countrymen, point the other to our common parent, and, in the deliverance of our common Country, bury all remembrance of the past; while mutual tears of bitterest grief, sorrow, and regret, should wash away all memory, of how all former blood had fowed. Add these to my crimes, and let the exposure of your guilt be one. Te more clearly I have depicted you, the more vindictive your revenge. What I value, and which I now defend, is above your reach: Power is not tempered to pierce the shield which Honesty can forge . . . put Character upon its trial; no Jury can be packed. . .the Patriots who have ever lived are duly summoned to attend, and Time records the verdict. Te Patriots of Greece and Rome, the Russels,59 Sydneys,60 Hampdens,61 and Roger Moore,62 the Patriots of Helvetia,63 of Batavia,64 of America, have all been branded Traitors, in the days they lived; but Posterity has done them justice. – Patience, Kosciusko!65 your beloved Poland has been partitioned by the rufan robbers who have shed her blood: Justice has but slept. . . . ten years, nay, not fve have yet elapsed: “Time is the old Justice that examines all such ofenders.” Character is never fairly before the world until the owner is no more. While I live, though it be within the precincts of the scafold, I will vindicate my honor, I will / raise my voice from the depths of my dungeon; and when I shall have discharged the last debt my Country can expect, or I can pay – the world will do me justice. Young Lord! I sought you not: you have grappled with my honor upon these troubled waters; if your’s shall have perished, blame your own temerity. Mark but the smallest shade in any charge I have made against you, that is not grounded

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh

237

in the brightest truth; and I will feel more pleasure (if possible) in retracting it, than I have felt pain in travelling through the long and shameful history of your dishonour. Tose who know me best, will acquit me of the despondent, gloomy mind, which likes to dwell on human nature’s dark, deformed side; whilst those who know me least and hate me most, shall seek in vain for grounds for deformation. Had your ofences been those of folly, of inexperience, of ignorance, or of inordinate presumption, the pompous empty carriage of the man should have ensured your acquittal; but vacant indeed must be the mind that cannot mark the strong and glaring lines which separate truth from falsehood, honor from infamy, and faith from perfdy. Convince me that you are guiltless, . . . that I am in an error; and I will do you justice: But with these strong impressions of strong conviction on my mind, I can subscribe myself with no other sentiment than that which arises from a mixture of pity and contempt. ARTHUR O’CONNOR. From my Prison, January 4th, 1799.

AN ORANGEMAN, A LETTER TO THEOBALD McKENNA, ESQ.

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq. Te Catholic Advocate; in Reply to the Calumnies Against the Orange Institution; Contained in his Pamphlet Purporting to be a Memoire on some Questions Respecting the Projected Union, &c. &c. &c. With Observations on the New and Further Claims of the Catholics, as Afecting the Constitution and Protestant Establishment (Dublin: Printed for J. Milliken, 1799).

Teobald McKenna (or Mackenna as the ODNB refers to him) was born in 1765 and died in 1808. A barrister and political writer, he was secretary to the Catholic Committee up to December 1791, when he seceded with the more conservative members led by Tomas Browne (1726–95), fourth Viscount Kenmare. Although he supported Catholic emancipation and moderate parliamentary reform, he opposed the more radical policies of his successor, Teobald Wolfe Tone. He later wrote in support of the Union between Britain and Ireland, with the encouragement of Chief Secretary Castlereagh and the Irish government. Te pamphlet printed here is a response to A Memoire on Some Questions Respecting the Projected Union of Great Britain and Ireland. By Teobald McKenna, Esq. Barrister at Law (Dublin, 1799). McKenna supported the Proposed Union, hoping it would lead to Catholic emancipation, which would allow Roman Catholics to serve in the Imperial Parliament and in the executive of the United Kingdom. On this he was to be disappointed, as the concession was not made. Te pamphlet printed here does not address the arguments for or against the Union. Instead, its author concentrates on McKenna’s pro-Catholic sympathies in general and his attacks on the Protestant Orangemen in particular as enemies to the Catholic cause and disturbers of the public peace. He regards McKenna’s pamphlet as a diatribe against Orangemen and as verging on treason. Tis attitude leads him into an account of the rise and spread (geographically and socially) of the Orange Order. He praises the eforts that the Orangemen had made to save Ireland from the late rebellion initiated by the United Irishmen and promoted by the French. He denies that the Orangemen oppose all measures of Catholic relief, but he is adamant that Catholics cannot be allowed to serve in the Irish legislature or government because the Catholics will always be enemies – 239 –

240

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of a Protestant constitution. Given their superior numbers, the Catholics will always press to be masters of the Irish state. Tis conclusion leads him into justifying the Protestant ascendancy and regarding the recent rebellion as a Catholic attempt to destroy Ireland’s Protestant constitution in church and state.

An Orangeman, A Letter to Theobald McKenna, Esq. The Catholic Advocate; in Reply to the Calumnies Against the Orange Institution; Contained in his Pamphlet Purporting to be a Memoire on some Questions Respecting the Projected Union, &c. &c. &c.1 With Observations on the New and Further Claims of the Catholics, as Affecting the Constitution and Protestant Establishment (Dublin: Printed for J. Milliken, 1799).

WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING SOME ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE POPULAR PAMPHLET ENTITLED, “AN IMPARTIAL VIEW OF THE CAUSES LEADING THIS COUNTRY TO THE NECESSITY OF AN UNION,” &c. &c. &c.2 Pars Hominum vitiis gaudet constanter, et urget Propositum:3

[…] PREFACE. I think it necessary to premise, that the following work does not contain any arguments for or against an Union; that subject has been already so copiously and prematurely discussed, as to become worn out and trite, even before the question is known, or has been propounded: So that we may fnd the common adage inverted, and see a new friend with an old face. Te Memoire of Mr. McKenna, under the pretext of treating of some questions, respecting the Union, is, in reality, a Catholic Manifesto, denouncing the Orangemen, as enemies to the Catholic cause, monopolists, and disturbers of the – 241 –

242

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

public peace. Te gauntlet thrown down with such ferce defance, I have taken up. Te object of these sheets is, to refute these weighty charges, and rebut the / slander, by stating the principles, conduct, and relative situation, of the Protestants and Catholics in this kingdom; with some strictures on the new and unwarrantable pretensions of the latter. Te reader need not search for any underplot or ambiguity – there is none such. I have endeavoured, without aiming at what is called composition, to express myself in the most plain and intelligible language, and that degree of seriousness, which subjects of great national concern demand, though it has lately been the fashion to treat them with farcical bufoonery, and grinning levity. How far I have succeeded, the public will judge. /

A LETTER TO

THEOBALD McKENNA, Esq. &c. SIR, Taking up a pamphlet bearing your name on its title-page, and purporting to be, A Memoire on the Projected Union, I expected to fnd that subject generally discussed, and from former proofs of your ability as a writer, I deduced hopes of receiving some new lights, on that important question; under this impression, I travelled with you, to your 16th page, not without some approbation, and pleasure, when to my great surprise, and disappointment, your real plot opened, and I discovered, that the scope and tendency of your Memoire, however ushered in and masked, under the most plausible introductory pretensions, was neither more or less, than to make a most gross and audacious attack, on the principles, and conduct, of the loyal Protestants of Ireland, / and in this again, you display an address truly Jesuitical: You are an avowed Catholic advocate, and it might be expected, that you should rest their cause in some degree, on their merits as a body, or their obedience to the laws, their public virtue, their morality, or their loyalty; but no! you wisely desert those grounds, as not tenable, and instead of defending your own, you boldly attack, what you consider an enemy’s position, vainly hoping, by calumniating the Protestants, to serve and forward the cause of the Catholics. You at once roundly assert, that Ireland can never be settled by domestic means – and why? Because the loyal Protestants of Ireland have dared to form associations, for the defence and support of the constitution, and their religion, and because they have also dared, in defance of rebellion, and Popery, to wear

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

243

openly, an Orange ribband, as a badge, or symbol, of their association. Tough not an old man, I recollect the time, when a publication such as yours, would have been considered a species of treason against the constitution, and would have subjected the writer, to exemplary punishment; but now thanks to the liberality, as it is termed, cut in reality to the profigate apathy of the present day, any public concern of morality, virtue, or religion, may be safely invaded, and men are only to be roused, by trenching on their private and paltry interests. Te best refutation I can ofer, to your false and scandalous libel, is to tell you, who and what those Orangemen, whom you revile, are, which you may possibly not thoroughly know, though I suspect there is much of pretended ignorance, afected terror, and wilful perversion, among those of your sect, in regard / to the Orange institution. Te exposition of the origin and principles of the Orange association, will necessarily lead me to a discussion of the principles and views of the Catholics, their merits, and their claims, and the dreadful consequences, which must inevitably ensue, should fate, or our madness, ever grant to them full means of obtaining political power; I shall aferwards, Sir, advert to some of your assertions, and positions, in such order as they occur; and in so doing, I shall sedulously avoid any opinion, or discussion, on the question of the projected Union, and solely confne myself to remarks, on what you have advanced against the Orange societies, and in favour of the Catholics, and their claims. Te name of Orangemen was frst adopted by some Protestants in the county of Armagh,4 at a time when the jealousies excited by the exercise of the portion of political power, newly granted to the Catholics, had unfortunately broke out, in open hostility, and mutual outrages, and afer the violence of those feuds had ceased, Orange associations still continued, and spread over many parts of the province of Ulster. In the year 1797, when the system of the United Irishmen had attained a great degree of maturity, and was every day threatening open rebellion, and when the Catholics, little grateful for past favours, demanded new concessions, amounting to a surrender of the constitution, under the fantastical name of Catholic emancipation, which stood foremost among the postulata5 of the rebels, then I say, at that dangerous crisis, a plan was formed, and executed, of transplanting the Orange association from the North to the metropolis, and by regulating and improving the system, and placing at its head men of higher rank and talent, to convert to the support of the Trone / and the Constitution, an institution, which from the nature of its origin and formation, might have degenerated into a ferocious spirit of persecution, this plan was the more benefcial and laudable, as any attempt to crush the association, in the place of its origin, would have been highly dangerous and impolitic, and therefore it was wise and expedient to direct the motions and progress of a machine, which could not, with safety, be stopped. Te detaching the Presbyterians from the Union,6 as it was then called, was also a strong motive. Te publication of the principles of

244

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

the institution, soon became necessary, to refute the various falshoods and calumnies levelled with unceasing malice against the Orangemen. – Many enrolled themselves in the association, in consequence of the decided part the Catholics then began openly to take in the impending rebellion, and I am convinced that many persons were preserved frm in their allegiance, from the support and example of these societies, who, had they not found such a refuge, would have been betrayed by their fears into the society of the Union. I refer to the declaration of the Orange principles, and I do declare as an Orangemen, that in that declaration, the principles of the institution have been fully and wholly set forth, without equivocation or reservation. Now, I say, that the Orangemen of Ireland, as at present constituted, are merely loyal Protestants, associated and bound together, under no new or unknown principles, but solely for the purpose of keeping in memory, supporting, and defending the Laws, Constitution, and Religion, as established by the great King William,7 at the glorious Revolution, and reviving, by a fresh obligation, their sense of a solemn and sacred duty, and their determination, as far as in them lies, to perform that / duty, namely, that of transmitting unimpaired to their children, that Constitution, in Church and State, which they received, as a most precious gif, and deposit, from the hands, and cemented with the blood, of their fathers. It hence follows, that every true and loyal Protestant, though he has not formally renewed such his duty, by any fresh obligation, is virtually and morally bound, by the same ties and principles, as a sworn Orangeman. I do assert, that the circumstances of the times called for some new spur, some further test, some fresh pledge, of mutual assistance, and of energy in the support, and defence of our laws, our religion, our persons, and our properties – for there is nothing more certain, than that they are bound in one sheaf, and should the band once be loosened, all will be scattered, trodden under foot, dissipated and lost. We were assailed at once by the whole host of French principles, their spurious liberty, and mock equality, the rights of man, republican fanaticism, the rage of political innovation, and the monstrous union of atheism and superstition, and all these had to work on a divided, and discontented nation, the majority of which considered the Constitution and Government as a foreign usurpation, and the established Religion an impious and damnable heresy; but more dangerous than all, many among ourselves began to be infected by a strange apathy, and luke-warmness, towards things formerly considered as claiming our warmest interest and attachment. I hope, and believe, that the Orange institution has given to us an animating and seasonable impulse, and has tended to rouse us to a sense of our danger, and our duties, and nothing leads me more strongly to this belief, than the hatred, abuse, and fear, manifested by the people of a certain / description, against an association which they seem to consider as a bulwark, interposed between them and the temple of the Constitution, which they seek to enter, for the purpose of violating. I do, Sir,

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

245

most positively deny your assertion, that the Orange body laments that immunities have been granted to the Catholics, or denies them further concessions for the purpose, or on the principle of securing to themselves, or enjoying a selfsh preeminence over their fellow-subjects. On the contrary, the Orangemen have veiwed [sic], with pleasure, every indulgence granted to the Catholics, whereby they have been rendered more secure in their persons and properties, and the free exercise of worshipping God in any manner they please; but we deprecate and oppose the granting political power to Catholics, who, we are convinced, must ever direct that power unceasingly, and always to the destruction and overthrow of our religion, and the establishment of their own; and this they never could hope to efect, otherwise than by a separation from England, and a total change of the Constitution. It is impossible that any Catholic could honestly and zealously administer the afairs of a Protestant state – and if we were even content to share every thing with them, and give up all establishment and preeminence, they would cease to be Catholics, if they did not perseveringly aim at supremacy, and the paramount establishment of the Popish religion. Catholics could not be content to share equal power with heretics, all civil interests must be overlooked; the advancement of the holy church, is with them an obligation which must take place of all others; and any of the most sacred engagements, if contrary to, or not coinciding with the interests of their church, are by that church dissolved, and declared void. / If we wished to enter into such a contract with them, it could not be; they are incapable of so contracting; they are not free agents; there is no reciprocal tie, pledge, or security – individuals might be inclined to keep good faith; but there is an absolute controuling power, which issues its mandates, and enforces obedience, wielding Heaven and Hell in either hand. We could not expect security on the score of gratitude. Teir frst success would be ascribed to God’s direct interference in favour of the holy church; it would be considered impious, not to improve so fortunate a beginning, and us they would look on as dementated [sic], and devoted victims. It may be asked, on what grounds I rest my assertions? My answer is – on the principles, sacred and political, character, spirit, and acts of the Romish church, its pastors and votaries, as handed down to us by history, from early ages to the present time; and those principles, as the Catholic theologists themselves tell us, can never change. Dr. Hussey,8 the titular Bishop of Waterford, tells us, in his pastoral letter, “that the Catholic faith is suitable to all climes, ages, and forms of government – and that it is immutable.”9 Te foulest atrocities ever yet perpetrated under the directing superstition of the Romish church, in the most remote ages, are at this day defended and supported by the writings of the Catholic divines, as infallibly just and right – the church / cannot err. Into this abyss, morality, charity, truth, mercy, and all the virtues are precipitated and lost. Every vice becomes a virtue, when exercised to pro-

246

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

mote the interests of the holy religion. It would be disgusting to trace this truth through all the horrors, cruelties, plots, and massacres, which the page of history has recorded. I have been told, by some of the liberal enlightened men of the day, that they could in every instance, ascribe these circumstances, as they termed them, to political motives, and a train of leading events. Let me tell these enlightened philosophers, that there must be some pre-disposing cause, to rouse to action each latent and inherent vice or passion, whether natural or acquired. Te most ferocious and passionate man may be quiet occasionally, when not provoked; but should he rise in rage, and slay his brother, you might as well say, that it was not owing to his ferocity or passion, the accident being ascribable to the leading event of the deceased having trod on the toe of the passionate man, which happened to be tender. I do not fnd any record in history, of any other sect, save the Catholics, having persecuted and massacred their fellow-christians, to promote the interests or tenets of their own particular church; and it is very unfortunate that those leading events have exclusively urged the Catholic to religious massacres and cruelties. Te Catholics in diferent climes, and in diferent ages, could not possibly, as a body, have similar natural propensities to cruelty, they are and must be, like all other men, good and bad, it therefore follows, that those enormities, must be ascribed to the pernicious and intolerant system and doctrines of the Popish superstition. I think I have established / my grounds on the best possible foundation, proof deduced from facts recorded, and open to the research of every one. Tat the Romish Church has lost nothing of its principles, character, infuence or efect in this kingdom, the horrible transactions in Wexford,10 and indeed in almost all the disturbed counties, during the late rebellion, aford melancholy proofs. Te Popedom is overthrown, but the Papal spirit still pervades the world, the Papal genius never sleeps, it is always watchful, enterprising, encroaching, and insatiable, wherever it gains any power, or footing, it never rests whilst there is any thing remaining to be had, it must have all. It is that encroaching spirit we have to dread, and guard against. I remember that a few years ago, the Catholics of this kingdom declared, they would be fully satisfed by the grant of certain privileges, and obtaining those, they would never ask further, they have since obtained all and more than they then required, and now they advance new claims. So would it be ad infnitum, until all power were exclusively their own. It has always been a principle of the Romish Church, not to be scrupulous about the means, provided the end was the advancement of the holy religion; a strict adherence to this practice has been strongly exemplifed by the Irish Catholics, who frst leagued themselves with the Presbyterians, a sect of Protestants, whom they always have detested more than those of the established Church, and then called into their aid the atheistical legions of France; the overthrow of a bad government, reform and republicanism, were then the avowed objects of this

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

247

heterogeneous confederacy; but it is well known, that an underplot was formed by the Catholics, who being the majority, hoped, when the government was extinguished, that they the rightful inheritors should / repossess the usurped lands, and that they should be able to restore their old and holy religion to its ancient supremacy. I think the Protestants of Ireland having these records, and this experience before them, must be strangely infatuated indeed, should they hesitate a moment to refuse a participation of power to the Catholics, who would, as I have shewn, use that power to the subversion of our Constitution and establishment. And for these reasons, and not from the motives which you, Sir, have been pleased to ascribe to us, do the Orangemen of Ireland oppose the grant of further immunities to the Catholics. I do lament it as a great misfortune, that the State cannot with safety to its existence, command and proft by the entire attachment, energy, and services of so many of its subjects; would to God it were otherwise! every individual in the kingdom would then gain additional security to his rights and property, Ireland would become a nation, and the empire would be strengthened. If any men or body of men should from low or selfsh views, oppose so great a general good, I should be the frst to pronounce them enemies to their own interests, and those of their country. But circumstanced as things now are, and indeed until some great change shall happen, every true Protestant in both kingdoms is bound on the principle of self-preservation, as well as duty, to resist further grants to the Catholics. Te all-directing Providence may, in his own good time, cause these things to cease, and may allow us to become brothers, and one people. As yet the prospect is hid from us, certainly for wise purposes; but God has, within the last few years, ordained great changes in the world, and he has the power of efecting greater. We are told, that we shall all yet be members of one and the / same pure and holy religion, it would be presumptuous to guess what that system may be, revelation and a chain of events corresponding to that revelation, almost clearly indicate, that it cannot be the Romish; nor do I at all suppose, that our Reformed Church has yet reached such a degree of perfection, as to become the standard. But whatever it may be, coming from him, it must be right and good; and he may exalt the most humble, and put down the proud. Tus far, I have endeavoured to state with as much fairness and truth as possible, the relative situation and principles of the Protestants and Catholics in this unhappy country, and I most solemnly declare that in doing this, I have not been actuated by animosity, or ill will. I did conceive myself bound to refute a most audacious calumny aimed at the Orangemen of Ireland. Te defence and support of my own principle, and those of my brethren, against malicious misrepresentation, required that I should not hesitate to speak truths, which pained me in the writing, and always have pained me, when my thoughts have rested on them. But when every thing dear to us is at stake, a cautious delicacy would be weak and criminal. I do consider my Catholic

248

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

countrymen, as by nature endued with the same feelings, virtues, and passions, as we are, and I do proudly think that the natives of this Isle in general, are not in natural endowments, inferior to any nation in the world; but I do lament that so many of my fellow-subjects have been so long enslaved by the tyranny of a superstition, which had unfortunately too many collateral aids, which it has made use of to continue the division and separation of a people, whose mutual interests ought long ago to have made them one. I lament this most sincerely, and I do say to the Catholic body of Ireland in general, that / the attainment of the concessions which you seem so eagerly to seek, would in all probability prove to be the greatest evil which could befall you, it would ruin us, yourselves, and our country; your priests and bigots would never give peace to you, or us; their restlessness, superstition, and ambition, would always embark you in new enterprizes, until Great Britain would be obliged to conquer this island again, or submit to its separation from the empire: without the intervention of foreign aid, the contest could not be long doubtful, and should even a separation for a time, be efected by strong foreign assistance, it could not be continued but by giving an establishment to your ally, which must end in your subjugation; in either case, Ireland would become the scene of bloody and destructive wars, and exhausted, wasted, and desolated, would prove a barren compensation to the victors. Humanity shudders at such a frightful prospect. And now, Sir, sufer me to advert to some passages of your Memoire as you are pleased to term it, really if you had not given it a name, I should have been much at a loss how to refer it; I should have classed it among the non-descripts. You discover to us pretty clearly in your 15th and 16th pages, that the Catholics would consider it as a grievance lef unredressed, and that the plan of the Union11 could not be complete, without the admission of the Catholics to full political power and privileges, and consequently to seats in the Imperial Legislature, this though not expressed in direct words, is strongly insinuated, but all doubt of your meaning is removed by subsequent parts of your Memoire, particularly in your 35th page. On the frst reading, the audacity of the pretensions astonished me, as much as / the Jesuitical slyness under which it is introduced, provoked me. I always did feel it as the strongest inducement and argument in favour of an Union – that thereby, the Protestant interest would be consolidated, and our establishment secured from encroachment, and that the Catholics of Ireland would necessarily sit down in acquiescence, the object of their wishes being placed beyond their reach; but it seems I had yet a lesson to learn, and farther experience to gain, of the insatiability, perseverance and encroachment of the Papal sect and genius. Some of the best and wisest men of England have of late expressed in their speeches and writing, apprehensions of the plots and restless spirit of Popery, even in regard to England, where its power and infuence is comparatively small;

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

249

this new aim at encroachment, proves that their fears have not been vain, it also shews a co-operation between the English and Irish Catholics; and such discoveries may rouse the common sense of both countries. From your 19th page I transcribe this sentence: – “Te Government in combination with a part of the people, may, so far as physicial force confers authority, impose restrictions on the Catholics; but Ireland will pine over the dungeon of her children.” Tis is the most laboured and pompous scrap of nonsense I have ever met with. I will construe this curious morceau, and illustrate its blundering absurdity. Government you say, combined with a part of the people, the minority, meaning the Protestants – form the physical force of the country – and may, so far as that physical force confers authority, impose restrictions on the / Catholics, the majority – who by your antithesis, must necessarily be considered, as forming the artifcial force of the country – but Ireland will pine over the dungeon of her children. I need scarce point out to any reader, that a minority governing a country must be termed an artifcial force – and that numbers constitute physical or natural force – And this from the learned Catholic advocate, Mr. McKenna. Pray, Sir, was your understanding lost in your religious zeal – or bewildered in the labyrinth of your own subtlety? or did you wish, by simulating a confusion of ideas, to prevent any mistake, as to your being legitimately an Irishman? But let me rescue this passage from the confusion which envelopes it, and give to it the only meaning to which it can be reconciled – it is a sort of oracular prediction, and it would be a pity to have it misunderstood or lost – Talibus ex adyto dictis Cumœa Sibylla, Horrendas canit ambages, antroque remagit Obscuris vera involvens.12

Let me interpret it thus: Government and the Protestants may, for a time, oppress and restrict the Catholics; but they will not acquiesce; they will be always ready on every opportunity to rebel against an usurping and unnatural Government, and to assert their superiority in this kingdom, which they claim from God and Nature. Analogy may serve to explain further. Bishop Hussey, in his Pastoral letter, page 10, says, “Te vast rock is already detached fom the mountain’s brow, and whoever opposes its descent and removal, must be crushed by his own rash endeavours.”13 If my explanation of the sentence extracted from your Memoire, is right, I will leave it to the reader whether most to admire at the absurdity / of the composition, or the wickedness of the sentiment. In a note to your 20th page, you say, “What numbers during the late disturbances, would not believe the evidence of their senses, that every Papist was not a rebel! How many were sadly chagrined at the propriety with which the persons of property of the Romish communion acted!” To this I answer, that the rebellion having very soon afer its commencement, assumed the appearance of an holy

250

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

insurrection, and being even so termed in one of the French Councils – and so many cruelties being committed by Catholics on Protestants – it is not wonderful, that generally every Papist should be suspected; and this suspicion was further encreased, by numberless instances of detected treachery among those Catholics who were in the military ranks – I say generally, because I should be sorry to think that there are not individuals of that communion, who have, from a sense of honour, adhered to their allegiance and duty, as yeomen and soldiers – and where so likely to fnd such, as among the higher ranks. In your 23d page you say, “Tat the penalties against Catholics ought to be repealed, if it were only to discountenance the Orange faction, by shewing the error and impotence of the association. Te measure would be popular, and acceptable.” Are you serious, Mr. McKenna, in recommending to any Administration, so great an innovation, to call it no more, merely for the sake of a fretful and peevish experiment – to see how the Orangemen would look, when discountenanced. Surely you either consider the men in power, as fools, or you mean to insult them. Te measure of emancipation would, in your opinion, / be popular and acceptable; so would the establishment of Popery in Ireland, in all its antient tyranny, because the Catholics are the populace, and to them it would be acceptable. Doctor M’Nevin14 and others have said, that Catholic emancipation, as it was called, was not an object really and seriously sought afer. I think you and the Doctor are both right; and thus I reconcile the seeming contradiction. I do believe, that the Catholics who were engaged in the rebellious confederacy, before the insurrection actually took place, were very indiferent as to any concessions which could be made to them by a Protestant Parliament. Tey hoped soon to be masters of all, by a short and less incumbered mode – they expected to establish themselves on the ruins of our Government, Constitution, and Religion. Tey have been vanquished, and disappointed, and they would now gladly accept from us, that participation of political power, which they before disdained, and that merely for the purpose of making the next efort with increased strength, and under better auspices. Like wise Generals failing in the storm of the citadel, they wish to make a lodgement in the body of the work, and there cover themselves, waiting the opportunity of another assault. In your 24th page you say, “If every Catholic in Ireland bad been a rebel, it ought to make no diference.” And again: “If even such were the case, the moment of victory would be the critical time to make the concession. What might in the last year have been injudicious, as liable to be represented a pusillanimous compromise, might at this day be compliment, and heroic sacrifce.” Bravo, Sir! most excellent and high-sounding / rhodomantide!15 You shif your ground, and change your mode of attack, with admirable dexterity. You are a very Proteus;16 you assume every form.

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

251

Dr. Hussey and you have menaced and frightened us with rocks and mountains, with dungeons, and physical force. Forgetting, or pretending to forget, that the civil and religious code was introduced by the great William, moulded and blended together, forming one indivisible establishment in Church and State; you have dared to ridicule this Constitution, and by splitting its founder in two, you afect to praise one side of the heroes mutilated image, that you may defame and vilify the other, by comparing it to John Wesley,17 or any other fanatic – you have endeavoured to divide the Protestants, by rousing those who are not Orangemen, against those who are – and you call upon the former, to make concessions to the Catholics, to spite the latter – You now cajole us, and try to persuade us, that having fought for our Constitution and Religion, and having conquered, that it would be magnanimous in the conquerors to surrender to the conquered – and having proved our courage, to give up all pretensions to sanity or common sense. It shews not strength of intellect, to undervalue too much that of others. Did you, Sir, imagine you were addressing fools or Quixottes;18 and on this ground you declare you are at issue with the Orangemen – I think the verdict ought to be non compos.19 Your address to the Orangemen in the next page, about espionage, is too vague in its application to be understood, and too contemptible to be answered. I suppose the word was introduced, to shew your / travel, and foreign education – by the bye, I have always understood, that such education as our countrymen usually receive in the Jesuit Colleges abroad, peculiarly qualifes them to become adepts in the system of espionage. You next labour to prove that the Catholics, as such, had not any thing to do with the rebellion – and that the Catholic rebels were combated by Catholic militia regiments, Catholic noblemen, gentlemen, farmers, &c. It is painful and unpleasant to be under the necessity of renewing past grievances; but as you have provoked and challenged the detail, I must not finch from it. In my turn I say, Sir, on this ground, I am at issue with you – As to the Catholic militia soldiers, many, I am proud and happy to acknowledge, did their duty like brave men; the conduct of the Limerick regiment stands particularly conspicuous.20 Some regiments have aforded shameful and melancholy instances to the contrary. It is a delicate point – I do not wish to insist on it – I will only observe, that soldiers taken from their families, removed from their early observances and habits, and placed in a mixed society of strangers, under a strict system of subordination and obedience, must soon forget their local and religious prejudices; and the latter sooner, perhaps, than any other. I have ofen heard old ofcers say, that the Irish Catholics became the better soldiers, the further and the longer they were removed from home. I am sure, had not uncommon pains been taken to mislead them, that all the Irish militia regiments would have done their duty, with fdeli[t]y and bravery. We can better form an opinion of the part the Catholics

252

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

took in the late rebellion, by recurring to the conduct of the Catholic yeomen – men better educated, and of better / situation than the militia soldiers – men who were or ought to have been free agents, who took up voluntarily the arms of their Sovereign (a Sovereign whom they had recently and publicly acknowledged as their greatest benefactor), and who bound themselves by a voluntary and solemn oath, to use those arms in his defence, and that of his Government. How they fulflled that obligation, is lamentable to consider – what a disgusting picture of perfdy and perjury was disclosed, shortly afer the insurrection took place! I speak of the city of Dublin – it was discovered that nine-tenths of the Catholics in the yeomanry corps, were United Irishmen, and had taken an oath to be true to the rebels, in direct contradiction to their sworn allegiance – and that many of them, afer taking the United oath, had, on a principle of diliberate [sic] and pre-determined perjury, joined yeomanry corps, for the purpose of getting arms into their hands, learning the use of them, and turning them against us, perhaps in the very moment of attack. Te consequences might have been horrible, had they not been prevented by a timely discovery. If any of the projected nightly attacks had taken place, the loyal yeoman, roused from his bed, would have treacherously fallen by the bayonets of those whom he might hasten to join, as friends and fellow-soldiers. It is remarkable, that in the city of Dublin above two thousand Catholics were desirous of admittance into the several yeomanry corps, during the six weeks immediately preceding the insurrection – and that most of these were proposed by Catholic yeomen, who aferwards either proved to be rebels, or were disarmed on strong suspicion. Tese facts are notorious, and recent; they are open to investigation, and if not founded, may be / disproved. Of the Catholic yeomen in the country, I can only speak by hearsay – report has not been generally more favourable to them, than to their brethren in the city. Can any man hesitate to what he should ascribe such shocking violation of faith and morality? You, Sir, have acknowledged that there were twenty-fve Priests actually and openly leaders of the rebels – pretty well this – and of the formidable remainder, consisting, by your calculation, of two thousand four hundred and seventy-fve – how many fomented and encouraged the rebellion secretly? and were, as Dr. M’Neven and others of the principal traitors declared, most active agents in forwarding the cause.21 I do conceive, that the circumstance of so many as twenty-fve Priests acting openly as leaders of the rebels – considering the character, habits of life, and education of Romish Priests – forms a strong proof of the warm interest their body at large took in the rebellion. As to individual noblemen and gentlemen, a sense of honour might keep them true to their engagements. As I before have mentioned, such men must be averse to treachery in the feld; but had matters taken a more decided turn, it would have been hard to expect even from them more than neutrality.

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

253

In your 29th page you make your Catholic claimant say, “Tat be does not desire the aggrandizement of his fellow-religionists, as a body; but that there should not be any obstacle in the way of any individual of that communion, to push to the utmost extent they are capable, the advantage of birth and fortune, talents and industry.” And in your next page –” So far as my observation extends, the refecting Catholics in this country, never entertained a wish to give an establishment to their clergy.” I think my detail of the character and principles of the Romish / church, and its votaries, shews that it is impossible that Catholics could sit down contented with civil advantages alone, neglecting the advancement of their clergy, and the aggrandizement of their religion. I shall here observe; that in a commercial country like this, property must be always shifing, and that in the course of time, particularly if aided by high lucrative situations, the balance of property, as well as numbers, would be found in the hands of Catholics, who would then consequently have a preponderance in the Legislative Bodies. Under these circumstances, I should be sorry that the Protestant establishment should be at the mercy of Catholic suferance and moderation. Tis will also serve as an answer to the reasoning in your 35th page, about population and property.* Te poetic picture presented in the note to your 31st page, is certainly more to be remarked for the exactness and truth of its delineation, as an historic piece, than for the pleasing choice of the subject, or the delicacy of the colouring. Some things and persons, when faithfully represented, become disgusting caricatures. Your 32d page goes to tell us, “Tat Catholics are men constituted as we are, and that forbearance under any restrictions, is not to be expected fom them.” Tis argument comes red hot from the school of the / new philos[o]phy, and the rights of man. You launch boldly into innovation, forgetting all the former ties, rules, and restrictions of every civilised country in Europe. Pray, Sir, in what Catholic state of Europe, does a Protestant enjoy half the privileges, which a Catholic now enjoys in the Protestant state of Ireland? Certainly in none. Or in what Protestant state of Europe, does a Catholic enjoy so many immunities as in Ireland: And where, I may add, have concessions met with so ungrateful a return. We may clearly infer from your 35th and 36th pages, that the Catholics, on the event of an Union, lay the same claim to admission into the imperial, as they now do into the Irish Legislature; and in the advancement of such their claims, you without hesitation get over all difculties, by bold and unqualifed afections, unsupported by argument, and in contradiction to principles long established. “You deny that any new Parliamentary test oath should be famed, to admit the jurisdiction of the Pope.” And you as lightly get over the omission of the *

Mr. McKenna says, that the pillars of the established church are, the connexion with Britain, and the balance of property. I have here and elsewhere in this work, shewn that by granting to the Catholics full political power, both those pillars would be undermined, and the whole fabric of the Constitution overthrown.

254

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

oath of supremacy; such an oath being totally unnecessary. “As the jurisdiction of the Pope is as clearly ascertained as the jurisdiction of the Court of King’s Bench, and would not be let in on temporal points, by omitting the oaths which assert the King’s Ecclesiastical supremacy,” &c. Tis is a most extraordinary assertion, and is contradicted by experience, and history, which shews, that in all countries, and during all ages, Popery has never failed, wherever it got footing, to intermeddle with, and embroil every thing temporal as well as spiritual, on one pretence or other; and the history of England, in particular, proves this in the strongest manner, even to the dethronement of her Kings. / How can any man presume to say, that the Popish jurisdiction is as well ascertained, as that of the Court of King’s Bench, when every one knows that it requires but little sophistry to implicate almost all temporal with spiritual concerns, as ultimately, directly or indirectly involving the spiritual salvation of the actors: and who is to be the judge of this spiritual salvation and temporal discrimination? Tat very church, whose interest and character it is, to draw every thing within the vortex of its own dominion, and to use every handle and pretext for interference and domination. Te Romish clergy may squabble among themselves, but should any laymen, or lay body interfere, the whole hive forgetting their internal disputes, would fasten on them, and sting them to death. But could even the inexpediency and impolicy of such concessions, as afecting the Protestant interest, be palliated or got over, the impractability of such a measure remains, and must remain for ever, insurmountable, and unalterable, at least so long as Popery and the British Constitution shall continue. I do maintain that a Catholic cannot be admitted into the Irish or English Legislative Bodies, but by a violation of the Constitution, as established in 1788,22 in its very essence, and foundation, and by a breach of the King’s coronation oath, and also of the fundamental articles of the union between Scotland and England.23 Is it possible, that a King of Great Britain could be so blind to the danger to which he would expose the Constitution he had sworn to protect, as to assent to such an innovation, not calling it by a stronger name? Or could he conscientiously think, that he acted according to the obligation of his coronation oath, by knowingly and deliberately exposing the Protestant establishment to the risque of so desperate an experiment? Religious / establishment, is not the religion itself, but merely the mode of preserving it, and that can only be efected, by a political connection of the religious with the civil establishment, and this forms, what is called the Constitution in Church and State – I do again assert, that such our Constitution cannot admit to its Legislative, Administrative, or Executive functions, any man, or body of men, who deny and violate one of its vital and fundamental principles, by cherishing a foreign supremacy, and paying an implicit obedience to it, either in spiritual or temporals. And I do here contend, that this fundamental principle of the British Constitution, has been established on the surest and most unerring grounds, namely the conviction of the many evils attending foreign spiritual interference, derived and deduced from

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

255

the experience of many centuries. Were we now to separate Church and State, we would virtually declare, that the reformation and revolution were founded on bad policy, and false principles, and that the settlement of the Crown by stat. 12th and 13th W. 3d. c. 2. was an illegal usurpation.24 I hope and trust, that no Minister will ever be found hardy enough to bring forward such a question, in a Protestant Parliament, or so daring as to advise a King of Great Britain to give his consent to the annihilation of the title, by which he holds his Crown. To enter into a full historical and legal discussion of these questions, would far exceed my limits. Let me ask Mr. McKenna, and the Catholics, on what grounds they expect all these experiments and sacrifces in their favour? Is it because they have so well requited us for past benefts? Do they advance their claims on the score of their loyalty to their King, / or their brotherly love and charity to their Protestant fellow-subjects? Or do they come forward smeared with the blood of the Kildare, Carlow, Mayo and Wexford Protestants, and brandishing their pikes, to terrify us into concession. I cannot help saying, that there is a hardened and indecent assurance, in the time and form of their demands. What the heart of man could scarcely imagine, in the most peaceful and praiseworthy times, is now ushered in, with unblushing impudence, at the heels of rebellion and massacre. For shame! you ought to have sat down rebuked, chastened, and grateful, for the magnanimous moderation of your victors. Instead of new favours and concessions, it might have been expected, at the eve of the late atrocious rebellion, that all former ones should have been revoked and rescinded, and that the Popish superstitution [sic] should have been at once rooted from the land, by the banishment of its Priests, and the forbiddance of the Mass, as incompatible with true Christian charity, morality, and a just observance of the laws of society in a Protestant State. Could such an event take place, without personal cruelty, bloodshed, or civil disturbance, I do not hesitate to say, that the Catholics of Ireland, would ultimately be greater gainers by the change, than even the Protestants. I will conclude by warning the Government against a practice, which has been too common among the parties of this country, namely that of treating and parleying with the Catholics, as a political body, and making stalking-horses of them, and their claims, for the purposes of mutual embarrassment and vexation. Tis weak and wicked policy feeds, and has fed, unjustifable pretensions. Tis has been a sort of game; but “hæ nugæ seria ducant in mala.”25 It / is not wise to seek hollow, unreal, and fugitive connexions, in pursuance of a system of Machiavelian policy, thereby disgusting and detaching those whom reciprocity, congenial interests, and common sense, indicate as the true friends of a good Government, the friends and supporters of the Trone, the Constitution, and the Laws. – May they be perpetual. An ORANGEMAN. Dublin, January 14, 1799. /

256

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

AN APPENDIX. Since writing the foregoing letter, I have read a pamphlet on the question of Union, wherein Catholics and Orangemen are introduced. Had I sooner seen this production, I should have given it some notice in the body of my work; but I must now confne myself to such few remarks, as time, and the limits of a short Appendix, will admit. Te pamphlet I allude to, is entitled, “An impartial view of the causes leading this country to the necessity of an Union,” &c. &c. &c. and is publicly ascribed to a gentleman, whose name, though mutilated of its barbarous O, is still suffciently indicative of Aboriginism, and Catholicism.26 Tis circumstance may strike many as not favouring the promise of impartiality, avowed in the titlepage; but let us examine how this promise has been kept. Tis gentleman gives us an history, or historic sketch, of English and Irish relation, from the reformation to the present time; if that can be called an history, which details the injustice, oppression, and tyranny of the English over the unfortunate natives, without fairly stating the circumstances, and / necessity, which obliged England to maintain, by strong and coercive measures, her dominion over a savage and hostile nation, which had alwa[y]s displayed an inveterate dislike to the English, their laws, manners, and customs, and which had renewed, whetted, and increased all its antient antipathies, by superadded hatred and aversion to the religion then newly introduced among them, and by an obstinate adherence to the Popish superstition. Tis gentleman seems to forget, that since England has had sufcient respite from her own evils and disturbances, to attend to the settlement of Ireland, that all her endeavours, and those of the Protestant settlers, have been counteracted, bafed, and checked by the growth and infuence of Popery, which has been the real obstacle to the peace and prosperity of their country. So much for historic impartiality. Tis O gentleman dates the Orange institution so far back, as the year 1793. He says it was founded by some of the factious and disappointed aristocracy – and that it produced the late rebellion. I do most positively deny the truth of every one of these statements. I have in this work already shewn that an association of some of the middle and lower orders of the people, in the county of Armagh, frst assumed the name of Orangemen, about the year 1794;27 but Orange societies never became so general, as to be worthy of political consideration, until the year 1797, (the real date of the Orange institution) when they were transplanted to Dublin,28 and when the rebellion, which he says they produced, was arrayed, and had even appointed a day for rushing into action. Tis gentleman has attempted to prove this charge against the Orangemen, by saying that the Catholics only rebelled in counties / where they were intimidated into

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq.

257

rebellion by Orangemen. I will ask him, were there Orange societies to intimidate the Catholics of Mayo and Wexford into rebellion and massacre? Were there Orangemen to any intimidating amount in Wicklow, Carlow, Kildare and Kilkenny? But this gentleman, by way of clinching his proof, with triumphant exultation, quotes and rests upon the counties of Limerick, Clare, and Galway, as patterns and examples of Catholic loyalty. Unfortunately his exultation has been short lived indeed – his ink has had scarce time to dry on the paper, ere his proofs and their loyalty have vanished, and the standard of rebellion has been seen to foat over the face of those peaceable counties. In contradiction to his assertion, that the Orange institution has grown out of factious and disappointed aristocracy – I do say, that there never yet has been any political institution, so completely independent, so purely disinterested, so single in its object, and so free from factious or aristocratic infuence, as the Orange association; I am an Orangeman, I know that it must be so – no man can become an Orangeman, from impure motives, without perjury. As to this gentleman’s statement of Catholics lawfully prosecuting lawful claims, of Catholic frmness, steady attachment to the Constitution, and loyalty, I will only observe, that such a fction would better become a poet than an historian. I cannot help adding, that it is remarkable how seldom apostacy from Popery extinguishes hereditary afection to the cause. / I do also deny, that the oaths taken by United Irishmen and Orangemen, are equally unlawful, under the construction of the statutes – as the matters to which Orangemen are bound, form no part of the gravamen, against which those laws provided, nor could have been in the contemplation of the Legislature, whose only object was to guard against and suppress seditious conspiracies, then existing. Te comprehensive penning of the statute of 37th of G. 3d.29 was occasioned by the dexterity shewn by the conspirators in eluding the former statute – which clearly appears by collating the two acts. Wherefore I conceive that a Judge of the land, before whom any man should be tried for taking the Orangeman’s oath, would leave it to the Jury to determine, not only as to the fact of his having taken such oath, but also as to the tendency thereof, and the quo animo,30 of the swearing – all which ingredients are necessary to constitute crime. I believe no Jury could be found, hardy enough to bring in a verdict of conviction against any man, on the ground of the Orangeman’s oath, which goes solely to the support of the King and our glorious Constitution, and that in the most direct terms – and thus, Sir, if I am right, your appeal to the twelve Judges, proves to be a solemn and pompous nullity – if conviction took place, the Judge must pronounce the sentence of the law; but I conceive, that such a conviction could not happen, except, indeed, from a packed Jury of United Irishmen, and even they might be deterred by the dread of an attaint.

258

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

You ought, Sir, to have been more cautious, and have chosen sure grounds, before you ventured to prefer so serious an accusation against Legislators, whom you have presumed to represent, as publicly / administering oaths, in direct violation of a statute made by themselves; and for the breach of which, they were publicly co-operating “in hanging and whipping wretches – and this crude opinion you publish and proclaim to the people of this agitated country, and tell them, that it causes a dissolution of all government. I do suppose that party and Catholic zeal against the Orangemen, blinded you to all the consequences of such a publication, which even truth could not excuse or justify, under the present circumstances. Te Press,31 in its zenith of licentious audacity, never vomited forth a more dangerous or deadly political poison. Were I not confned in time and limits, I should animadvert on other parts of this pamphlet, which, notwithstanding its partialities and misrepresentations, on the points I have noticed, its afectation of intimate acquaintance with Cabinets, and its familiar exposition of public and leading characters, certainly shews considerable ingenuity, wit, and satire, and contains many forcible arguments in favour of an Union, conveyed in a pleasing, familiar, and impressive stile. Dublin, January 22, 1799.

FINIS.

CUPPLES, THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ORANGE ASSOCIATION

Snowden Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association, Stated and Vindicated, in a Discourse, delivered before the Members of the Orange Societies, in Lisburn District, July 12, 1799 (Belfast: Printed by Doherty & Simms, [1799]).

Tis pamphlet originated as an oral discourse delivered before members of the Orange Order in Lisburn, near Belfast, by a local minister of the Church of Ireland. In it, the Reverend Cupples seeks to vindicate the principles and the conduct of members of the Orange Order in the area. He insists that the Orange Order was established on the purest and best principles and for the most patriotic purposes, but admits that this has not prevented it being undeservedly traduced and maligned, not just by such enemies of the state as the United Irishmen, but by those who might have been expected to approve of its motives and its actions. He insists that the Orange Order has done much to thwart the attempts of the United Irishmen to overthrow the constitution in Ireland and to separate Ireland from Britain. Its members have been staunchly determined to preserve the Protestant religion and the existing constitution. Although mainly lower-class Protestants, acting independently of the great and the powerful, they had done great service to the state. Tey had provided frm opposition to French principles and republican government and had ofered great support to the Protestant religion and the monarchy. If any individual Orangeman had acted badly, this was because he had failed to live up to the principles of the Order that he had sworn to uphold. Rev. Cupples advises his listeners/readers to recognize the obligations placed upon them when they were admitted to the Orange Order and to observe due order, sobriety and decorum in their personal lives. His original oral discourse has been reinforced by appending the resolutions and regulations of various Orange societies to his text when printed. He does not address the frequent charge that the Orange Order promoted sectarian divisions by explicitly excluding any Roman Catholic from its membership and hence implying that no Catholic could be a true loyalist.1 – 259 –

260

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Snowden Cupples (1750–1835) was ordained as a Church of Ireland clergyman in 1776 and served as rector of Lisburn Cathedral from 1796 to 1835. He graduated MA (1773) and DD (1793) from the University of Glasgow. A faithful and diligent rector, he gave holy communion to Henry Munro (1758–98), before the rebel commander was executed on 16 June 1798, following his defeat at the battle of Ballynahinch. Notes 1.

For modern scholarship on the founding of the Orange Order, see Te Formation of the Orange Order 1796–1798; Te Edited Papers of Colonel William Blacker and Colonel Robert H. Wallace, ed. C. Kirkpatrick (Belfast: Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, 1994); H. Senior, Orangeism in Ireland and Britain 1795–1836 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966); and J. Smyth, ‘Te Men of No Popery: Te Origins of the Orange Order’, History Ireland, 3 (1995), pp. 48–53.

S. Cupples, The Principles of the Orange Association, Stated and Vindicated, in a Discourse, delivered before the Members of the Orange Societies, in Lisburn District, July 12, 1799 (Belfast: Printed by Doherty & Simms, [1799]).

It may perhaps incline the candid Reader to excuse many defects in the composition of the following Discourse, when he is informed, that it was written hastily for the occasion, and without the most distant view to publication. /

THE

PRINCIPLES OF THE

ORANGE ASSOCIATION, STATED AND VINDICATED. romans, 14th chap. 16th verse. “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.”

Regard to reputation is one of the best supports of virtue, and a powerful incitement to upright conduct. It leads us to avoid such actions as are likely to be marked with public disapprobation, and to omit whatever may become an object of merited censure. It is not sufcient to satisfy our minds, that we think an action innocent; we are desirous that it may appear in the same light to others. If it does not, our duty, as laid down by St. Paul in the verses preceding the text,1 is to refrain from it altogether: or if that be inconvenient or impracticable, we should at least give such a satisfactory explanation of our motives and intentions as may be proper to remove any misapprehension that may be entertained concerning them. As we would be reluctant to do what is palpably wrong, so we should be careful to avoid whatever has the appearance / of it, least our conduct give cause of ofence, or be the means of misleading others. – 261 –

262

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Te same love of virtue and rectitude which inclines us to do good, will prompt us at the same time to take all proper and prudent precautions that the good we do “be not evil spoken of;” for this is injurious not only to our own reputation, but to the cause of virtue itself. We should endeavour to accommodate ourselves, for the sake of peace, and as far as we innocently can, even to the prejudices of others. Te Apostle exhorts every one of us “to please his neighbour for his good to edifcation: for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.”2 Due attention to avoid giving ofence ofen prevents others from thinking harshly or unfavourably of us. Where our conduct is ever so upright in the great and leading parts of it, yet if we be suspected of mistake or error, even in such trivial circumstances as the use of certain kinds of meat and drink, (in which there can be no moral turpitude), and seem to neglect or despise that suspicion, the Apostle charges us with uncharitableness, or want of that benevolence and afection which we owe and should exercise to one another. “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, says he, walkest thou not uncharitably;”3 and then adds, “Let not your good be evil spoken of.” From inattention of this sort, and indiference to the good opinion of others, the worst consequences may ensue: it may become a source of uneasiness to our best friends, and eventually lessen their respect for us. It may entirely separate from us those who are but slightly attached, and give an handle to our enemies for misrepresentation, of which they will not be backward to avail themselves to our disadvantage. It may dispose them to become more inveterate against us, and put into their hands the means of efecting a malicious triumph over us in the public estimation. / On the other hand, an anxious care not to deserve reproach, and a desire to avoid the imputation of it, will procure us the regard of mankind, when they see the deference we entertain for their judgment and good opinion. It will certainly recommend us to the favor and protection of the well-disposed, and furnish them with inclination and means to defend us. It will tend to convince the prejudiced, that they have formed a wrong judgment concerning us, and incline them to repair, by future kindness, any injury done to us by their former unfavourable opinion. It will ultimately have its efect even upon our enemies themselves; and if it does not entirely remove, will at least abate, their rancour against us. If a compliance with the precept in the text, thus obliges us to vindicate our general conduct from unjust aspersions; we are particularly bound to rescue such actions as are eminently praiseworthy from unmerited obloquy. Regard not only to our own character, but to the cause of morality and religion, requires this of us. Tese observations apply with peculiar propriety to the Orange Institution, of which we, who are here assembled, profess ourselves members. Tough founded on the purest and best principles, and for the most patriotic purpose, it has been most undeservedly traduced and maligned, not only by its open and

Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association

263

declared enemies, who are also the enemies of our happy Constitution in Church and State, but through their means by many loyal and well-meaning people, who are misinformed respecting its true nature and tendency, and whose good opinion we should be desirous of obtaining. It has been justly observed that “the very best things may be misrepresented; and when once an outcry is raised against them, few people have either the candor to examine them impartially, or the courage to appear in their defence, on fnding them injured / in the public opinion. Tey are afraid to patronise what is generally condemned, least the singularity of their judgment should be misconstrued into an afection for the bad qualities imputed, however falsely, to the thing whose worth and utility they would otherwise assert.”4 Few things have sufered more unjustly, from misrepresentation, than the Orange Institution. To obviate and confute the calumnies which have been maliciously and extensively circulated concerning it, and which we sincerely lament have been too successful in prejudicing the minds of many worthy and respectable persons, it will only be necessary to state briefy the principles on which it rests, and the circumstances out of which it grew. Tis will, at the same time, aford an opportunity of tracing these foul aspersions to the poisonous source from which they originated. Recent events have imprinted it deeply in the recollection of every inhabitant of our island, that a most atrocious conspiracy was formed and extended in this country,5 to overturn the Constitution and Government under which we live, and by whose benign infuence the nation had attained an unexampled state of prosperity and opulence. Tis unnatural combination was concerted and promoted by the active zeal of unprincipled and designing agitators, encouraged by assurance of foreign aid from our most inveterate enemies,6 whose seductive projects and indefatigable exertions have been nearly fatal to the liberties of Europe. For this purpose they early declared hostility to all regular Governments, and formed committees to foment infuence in every country to which their baneful infuence could reach. How far their daring attempts have been attended with success, the deplorable situation of several Continental Nations sufciently declare. Te British Islands presented the most formidable barrier to their / ambitious views; and hence it became an object of their serious concern to detach this country from Britain, in order to weaken her power and resources. A correspondence was accordingly opened with seditious societies here, even in their infant state, and their growth encouraged by abundant supplies of suitable ailment. Discontents were excited among the mass of the people, under plausible pretexts of alleged grievances; and the foundation of due subordination sapped, by the open and unqualifed abuse of the regular Orders of the State. Te spurious and imposing doctrines of liberty and equality were sedulously disseminated, and the lower classes encouraged to expect a share in the property of

264

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

their more wealthy and industrious neighbours. Absurd as these inducements to insurrection were, when viewed with the deliberate eye of reason; they were well calculated to impose upon the credulity of the multitude, who are generally more governed by the impulse of appetite and the delusive suggestions of an heated imagination, than the cautious and prudential dictates of cool deliberation. Seditious societies were soon multiplied, and revolutionary ideas became alarmingly prevalent. A system of terror was constructed and enforced, to compel those to join the standard of Rebellion, whom a sense of duty and of honesty retained in their allegiance. Assassination of suspected adversaries became frequent, and the whole machinery of insurrection was set in motion. Atheism and contempt of religion were zealously propagated, in order to eradicate from the human heart those social and moral principles which hold society together, and to prepare their agents for the use of any means that might be thought necessary for the accomplishment of their nefarious purposes. To resist and defeat such dangerous designs is the obvious duty of every good subject; and this laudable / determination gave rise to the Orange Institution.* – When societies formed for the subversion of religion and regular government were daily gaining ground, and threats held out to intimidate all who shewed a reluctance to join them, it became indispensably necessary for the friends of the Constitution to associate together, and adopt such measures as prudence might devise for the preservation both of public tranquility and their own personal safety, which in many places was openly menaced by their disafected neighbours. It became necessary to excite and cherish a spirit of loyalty which began to languish and decline to a degree heretofore unknown in this country: and it was necessary, under these threatening circumstances, for every person who was really attached to religion, civil order, and law, to rally round the Altar and the Trone, which were in imminent danger of being overturned. It confers distinguished credit on the early members of the Orange Institution, that they associated together for this truly patriotic purpose, unsupported and unprotected by the great and powerful, to whom their motives and intentions were grossly misrepresented. Te lower classes of Protestants, actuated by an invincible and zealous regard for their King and Country, stood forward at this perilous crisis in the spirited defence of both. Tough at frst few in number and humble in rank, and at a time when loyalty was almost become a term of reproach, they avowed their unalterable attachment to the Constitution, their *

It may be proper here to observe, that the Orange Association did not commence till near the end of the year 1795, and should not be confounded, as it has ofen inviduously been, with the mutual and disgraceful outrages which prevailed in the County of Armagh for several years preceding that period, between certain Protestants, under the designation of Peep of Day Boys, and Roman Catholics who assumed the name of Defenders.7 With their transactions it has no connection or afnity.

Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association

265

determination to stand or fall with it, and / their decided opposition to all who would attempt to injure or impair it. Supported by a consciousness of the goodness of their cause, and by the protection of Providence, they persevered through every difculty in their generous resolution, rapidly increased in numbers, and became an irresistible obstacle, whereever the institution got a footing, to the progress of the seditious societies. As they increased, a spirit of loyalty increased with them, and mutual strength and confdence succeeded to the place of supineness and despondency in the breasts of loyal men. Te ranks of the armed associations among us were soon flled with ardent and resolute protectors of the Constitution; and the prompt and essential services of the Orange Yeomanry, during the late rebellion, will not soon be forgotten. Te Members of the Orange Institution being thus instrumental in uniformly resisting the progress, and contributing to defeat the revolutionary designs of confederated traitors, became of course objects of their most pointed and vindictive resentment. Every means were employed to traduce and vilify them; and all the resources of calumny exhausted for that purpose. Te nature of their association was totally misrepresented, and oaths which they abhor were fabricated and imposed upon the public as the obligations of Orangemen. Principles and practices, which are objects of their detestation, were attributed to them; and the confdence with which the most groundless falsehoods were asserted, served instead of evidence to procure them a temporary credit. Tat the tale of slander should be believed by those at a distance and unacquainted with the true state of the case, or that it should impose upon some worthy and unsuspecting minds, who could not easily bring themselves to think the human heart so miserably degenerated, as to invent and propagate the most infamous calumnies, unsupported by any foundation in truth, is not surprising; and under the circumstances / now stated, might naturally enough be expected. – Hence the good done by Orangemen was ‘evil spoken of,’ not only by the enemies of the Constitution, but by many of its warmest friends; and their minds deeply tainted with prejudice against the Institution itself. Indeed had it really been what it was thus intentionally, and with the most mischievous design, reported to be, it would doubtless have deserved the most indignant reprobation from all honest and good men. Te members of it were charged with having associated, under the obligation of an oath, for the diabolical purpose of utterly extirpating their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.* A more unjust, malicious, or unfounded calumny could not possibly be invented! An Orangeman has no animosity to Catholics as such, but on the contrary sincerely respects every loyal man of that communion. “He has no enmity *

Te manifest design of circulating this horrid imputation was, to alarm the Catholics and irritate them against loyal Protestants, in order to induce them the more readily to join in the United Conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and Government of their country.

266

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

but to the enemies of his country, and regards every loyal subject as his friend, be his religious persuasion what it may.”* So far from being bound by an obligation to extirpate, he cannot consistently with his principles use disrespectful language to Roman Catholics; for it is a fundamental rule of the Orange Association, “that no person do persecute or upbraid any one on account of his religious opinions; but that he will, on the contrary, be aiding and assisting to every loyal subject of every religious description.”† Some, assuming the name and unworthy of the designation of Orangemen, may perhaps have transgressed this rule: but it is to be presumed that the instances are neither so numerous nor so atrocious as / they have been represented. Be this, however, as it may, the disgrace should be confned to the perpetrators themselves, and not extended to the institution whose appellation such unworthy members, if such there be, dishonour and abuse. Is it candid or ingenuous to brand a whole body for the misconduct of a few of its worst members; or to charge an institution with countenancing practices which it most peremptorily forbids, and is calculated to restrain? Any Orangeman, who is directly or indirectly concerned in illegally wrecking or destroying any man’s house or property, violates a most solemn obligation, and so far from being countenanced by the principles of the Orange Association, acts in the most direct opposition to them, and subjects himself to the marked reprobation of that body. Are good laws to be censured because some are so abandoned to every sense of duty and obligation as to transgress them? Or are such transgressions to be imputed either to the laws which prohibit; or to those who frame and observe them? Is a physician accountable for the bad health of a patient, who not only refuses his prescriptions, but does the very contrary to what he has enjoined? Is a system of morality to be condemned, because some who appear to approve of it in theory, disobey it in practice? With as little reason is the Orange Institution reproached, for the misconduct of a few of its nominal and unworthy members. It has been likewise objected to us, that we conceal principles under a veil of secrecy, which in itself implies a consciousness that they will not bear the test of examination. Tis imputation is equally groundless with the preceding. Adverse to innovation, we have no principles which we have not openly avowed: we have no evil designs to cover with a cloak of mystery. We are conscious of the purity of our principles, and it is our earnest desire that they should be universally known. We fear not the most rigid examination of / them, and invite the severest scrutiny, convinced that the more they are discussed, they will be the more respected and approved by all those whose good opinion it is honourable to obtain. We do not dread or skulk from enquiry; we only deprecate misrepresentation. * †

See the annexed Declaration in No. 1 of the Appendix. Fifh Rule of the Orange Association.

Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association

267

We are associated for the sole purpose of protecting, as far as in us lies, the interests of religion and regular government against a system of Atheism and Anarchy, by which they have been assailed.* “We have therefore pledged ourselves to maintain the laws and support our good King8 against all his enemies, whether rebels to their God or to their Country; and by so doing, shew to the world that there is a body of men in this island, who are ready, in the hour of danger, to stand forward in the defence of that grand paladium of our liberties, the Constitution of Great Britain and Ireland, obtained and established by the courage and loyalty of our ancestors, under the great King William.”9 If a steady opposition to French principles and Republican theories of Government, which have deluged many nations of Europe with blood, be criminal; we plead guilty to the charge. If unshaken loyalty to our beloved and excellent Sovereign be a crime; we confess our guilt. If an inviolable attachment to the Protestant Religion, and a desire to secure the interest and prosperity of it by all ft and lawful means, be reproachful to us; we certainly merit that reproach. We revere our present happy Constitution, and disclaiming revolutionary projects, wish it to be perpetual. We venerate the Protestant Religion, with Protestant liberality of sentiment towards those who difer from us, and disavow every species and degree of persecution. Tese, and these only, are the principles of Orangemen, and we are neither ashamed nor afraid to acknowledge / them. Tey are not the visionary ephemeral productions of metaphysical subtlety; but have been long tried and approved by the sure tests of reason and experience. Tey are the old Whig Principles, and held by us in common with every good Protestant in these islands. Tey were handed down to us from our ancestors, and we hope to transmit them unperverted and unimpaired, as a precious inheritance, to our posterity. Tey have been the source of abundant prosperity and comfort to the land of our nativity for more than a century; and in the support of them we have declared our readiness “to shed the last drop of our blood.”† We have no secrets to conceal, except the marks and tokens by which we know one another. In times of turbulence and intestine commotion, it was necessary to have certain words and signs, to discriminate friends from enemies, and prevent designing traitors from mixing among us in order to betray us. Tey were necessary to inspire mutual trust and confdence, by indicating similarity of sentiment; and they are still necessary, not only to guard against imposition, but to recommend us to the attention and kindness of Brother Orangemen wherever the institution prevails. To divulge these would destroy their utility, and therefore the knowledge of them is strictly and properly confned to ourselves. * †

See annexed Declaration in No. 1 of the Appendix. See annexed Declaration in No. 1 of the Appendix.

268

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Having thus endeavoured to explain the principles of our Association, and to vindicate it from the aspersions with which it has been injuriously loaded; I shall now briefy point out some of the methods which it may be proper to pursue, in order to comply with the Apostle’s admonition in the text, “Let not your good be evil spoken of.” Your time at present will not permit me to do more than barely mention the most important of them. Our unrivalled Constitution and form of Government / are justly objects of our sincere veneration; let us therefore remember that the best expression of our attachment to them is a punctual and conscientious observance of the laws; for without this, we can have no claim to the character of good subjects or good Orangemen. Let us be careful to respect the person and property of our neighbour, in the Christian latitude of that term; and do all in our power to protect him in both, from violence and injury. – Let the punishment of ofences, whether against individuals or the State, be always referred to the laws alone, to which it exclusively belongs, and which were wisely enacted for that purpose; otherwise we disturb the peace and good order of our country, which we are solemnly enjoined to preserve.* Should any Orangemen so far forget his obligation, as to ofend in this way, let him be excluded with ignominy from our Association, and let us be the frst to use our best endeavours to discover and bring him to justice. It is also of the utmost importance to the stability and even the existence of our institution, to avoid the discussion of all political questions, which have a tendency to interrupt that harmony and unanimity which have hitherto so happily prevailed among us. On great and fundamental points we are perfectly unanimous; but in the wide and extended range of politics, questions may ofen arise respecting lesser matters, about which wise and good men may entertain diferent sentiments. As Orangemen, we have nothing to do with these; and the agitation of them at our meetings can only serve to divide and distract us. It is amply sufcient for us to keep our original principles steadily in view, and to let them engross our undivided attention.† We profess an inviolable regard to Religion, and we know that the form and structure of our institution are admirably adapted to impress religious ideas on the mind. To support it against Atheism and Infdelity is a principal end of our Association. Let us therefore shew by our conduct that we are Christians, not in words only, but in deed and in truth. “As we name the name of Christ, let us be careful to depart from iniquity,”10 and pay due attention to public worship with the other ordinances of our holy religion. Our duty is so well delineated in the “Qualifcations for an Orangeman,” contained in our Book of Rules and Regulations,11 that I shall conclude with *

†

Te frst rule in our Book of Regulations is, that “we associate for the defence of our Persons and Properties, and for preserving the peace and good order of our country.” See Appendix, No. 4. See the annexed Address from the Grand Lodge of Ireland. /

Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association

269

repeating them. Tey cannot be too deeply fxed in your memories; and should be read as ofen as you assemble together. Remember then, that an “Orangeman should have a sincere love for his Almighty Maker, productive of those lively and happy fruits, righteousness and obedience to his commands; a frm faith in the Saviour of the World; convinced that he is the only Mediator between a sinful creature and an ofended Creator: without these he can be no Christian. He should be of a humane and compassionate disposition, and a courteous and afable behaviour. He should be an utter enemy to savage brutality and unchristian-like cruelty. Let him be a lover of sobriety and improving company, and have a laudable regard for the Protestant Religion, and a sincere desire to propagate its precepts; zealous of promoting the honour of his King and Country, and have an hearty desire for victory and success, but convinced and assured that God only can grant it. Let him have an hatred for cursing and swearing, and taking the name of God in vain – a shameful practice; taking all opportunities to discourage it among his brethren. Wisdom and prudence should guide his actions; honesty and integrity infuence his conduct; and honor and glory / be the motives of his actions. Lastly, he must pay the strictest attention to a religious observance of the Sabbath, and also of temperance and sobriety.” It is unnecessary for me to detain you by recommending, because I trust you scrupulously observe in all your meetings, due order, sobriety, and decorum. Any kind of irregularity or intemperance, or even the appearance of them, will cause “your good to be evil spoken of,” by those who are gratifed in having an opportunity of doing so, and watch your conduct narrowly for that purpose. Sense of duty, and regard for the honor of your institution should make you careful to guide your steps with discretion, and conduct yourselves in all things as becomes those who have the interest of piety, religion, and civil order seriously at heart. By these means, and in these methods we shall most efectually put to silence the ignorance of foolish or uninformed men, and extract the sting from the tongue of slander. We shall rescue our institution from the power of calumny to injure it, and render it truly and universally respected. “Finally, Brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”12 May “truth and justice, devotion and piety, concord and unity, brotherly kindness and charity, with other Christian virtues, so fourish among us, that they may be the stability of our times, and make this our Association a praise here on earth. Tis we most humbly beg, in the name, and for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour:”13 To whom, with the Father and Holy Spirit, three Persons and one God, be all majesty, dominion, adoration, and praise, now, henceforth and for ever. Amen. /

270

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

APPENDIX.

No. 1 – Declaration of the Protestants of Dublin, assuming the Name of Orangemen. From the various attempts that have been made to poison the public mind, and slander those who have had the spirit to adhere to their King and Constitution, and to maintain the laws – We, the Protestants of Dublin, assuming the name of Orangemen, feel ourselves called upon, not to vindicate our principles, for we know that our honour and loyalty bid defance to the shafs of malevolence and disafection, but chiefy to avow those principles, and declare to the world the objects of our institution. We have long observed with indignation the eforts that have been made to foment rebellion in this kingdom by the seditious, who have formed themselves into societies under the specious name of United Irishmen. We have seen with pain the lower orders of our fellow-subjects forced or seduced from their allegiance by the threats and machinations of Traitors. And we have viewed with horror the successful exertions of miscreants to encourage a foreign enemy to invade this happy land, in hopes of rising into consequence on the downfall of their country. We therefore thought it high time to rally round the Constitution, and there pledge ourselves to each other, to maintain the laws and support our good King against all his enemies, whether rebels to their God or to their Country; and by so doing, shew to the world that there is a body of men in this island, who are ready in the hour of danger, to stand forward in defence of that grand paladium of our liberties, the Constitution of Great Britain and Ireland, obtained and established by our ancestors, under the great King William. Fellow-subjects, we are accused of being an institution founded on principles too shocking to repeat, and bound together by oaths at which humanity would shudder: but we caution you not to be led away by such malevolent falsehoods. For we solemnly assure you, in the presence of Almighty God, that the idea of injuring any one on account of his religious opinions, never entered our hearts. We regard ever[y] loyal subject as our friend, be his religion what it may: we have no enmity, but to the enemies of our country. We further declare, that we are ready, at all times, to submit ourselves to the orders of those in authority under his Majesty; and that we will cheerfully undertake any duty which they shall think proper to point out to us, in case either a foreign enemy shall dare to invade our coasts, or that a domestic foe shall presume to raise the standard of rebellion in the land. To these principles we are pledged, and in support of them we are ready to shed the last drop of our blood. /

Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association

271

No. II. Declaration of the loyal inhabitants of the Province of Ulster, stiled Orangemen. WE, the loyal inhabitants of the Province of Ulster, who have been stiled Orangemen, in remembrance of our glorious Deliverer, King William the Tird, think it incumbent upon us, at this critical period, to declare our faithful and steady attachment to his Majesty King George the Tird, and to our valuable Constitution in Church and State, as well as our gratitude for the blessings we enjoy under the present Government, and our happiness in the suppression of insurrection and rebellion, and the restoration of tranquillity in this Province, by the exertions of the General Ofcers and Militia, aided by the zeal of the loyal inhabitants. We have read in the public papers, with much satisfaction, the Declarations of the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of several parishes in this Province. We have no doubt of the sincerity of such Declarations; and that the Catholics of Ireland, sensible of the benefts which they enjoy, will not sufer themselves to be made the dupes of wicked and designing men for the most diabolical purposes. And we fatter ourselves that such Declarations will be embraced and have the happiest efects in other parts of the kingdom. Such conduct must be acceptable in the eyes of God and Man. We declare most solemnly, that we are not enemies to any body of people on account of their religion, their faith, or mode of worships. We consider every loyal subject our brother, and they shall have our aid and protection. Anxious to co-operate in preserving internal tranquillity and repelling invasion, should our foreign enemies be desperate enough to attempt it, we take this opportunity of declaring our readiness to undertake any duty in obedience to the commands of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant.14 15th February, 1798. [Signed by several thousand loyal inhabitants.]

No. III. GRAND ORANGE LODGE OF IRELAND. JANUARY 5, 1799. Te Grand Lodge of Ireland observe with heart-felt satisfaction, that their former recommendation to their brethren to abstain, as Orangemen, from any discussion of the question of Union, has had the happiest efects, insomuch as it has disappointed the sanguine and malignant hopes entertained by the enemies of religion and good / order, that such discussion would be productive of discord among Orangemen. Tey now feel it their duty to ofer some farther observations on the present juncture of afairs.

272

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Orangemen, in diferent capacities, as Members of Parliament, Grand Jurors, Freeholders, and Members of Corporate Bodies, will have opportunities of debating the important question of an Union. But it is the earnest entreaty of the Grand Lodge, that as a society they will continue silent; for as every Orangeman, however zealous, may, and no doubt will, conceive diferent ideas on this subject; the discussion of a question of such magnitude, involving not only great imperial topics, but also matters of local advantage and local disadvantage, must unavoidably create a division in opinion, and “an house divided against itself cannot stand.”15 It is therefore recommended to all Orangemen, to keep in mind the great object for which they have associated, and to avoid, as injurious to their institution, all controversy not connected with their principles. Te Grand Lodge most solemnly enjoin the Masters of Lodges and their Brethren in general most particularly to scrutinize the character of every candidate for admission, as they understand, with indignation, that men notoriously disafected have of late had the audacity to ofer themselves to some lodges. It is also requested that Masters of lodges will discountenance by every means in their power, even by the imposition of a fne, any imitation of the manners and dress of traitors, which the Grand Lodge have heard with surprise, has been of late afected by some of the younger Orangemen. Tey are the more anxious on this head, which may at frst seem unimportant, as traitors are now busy in boasting of a coalition with our association, an opinion which this conduct in known Orangemen tends greatly to encourage. Te Grand Lodge further recommends that this Address be read at all Lodges in Ireland. [Signed] THOMAS VERNER,16 Grand Master, JOHN C. BERESFORD,17 Grand Secretary,

No. IV. RULES and REGULATIONS of the BOYNE SOCIETY, commonly called ORANGEMEN. 1st. We associate for the defence of our persons and properties, and for preserving the peace and good order of our country. 2d. Tat we are exclusively a Protestant Association. 3d. Tat we will, to the utmost of our power, defend and support his present Majesty King George the Tird, the Laws and Constitution of this Kingdom, and the Succession to the Trone in his Majesty’s illustrious House. / 4th. Tat we will aid and assist all Magistrates, and all high and petty Constables in the lawful execution of their ofce, when called on.

Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association

273

5th. Tat we will, upon all occasions, aid and assist each other, when promptitude and propriety appear to give rise to the necessity of such assistance, and that the same do not exceed the jurisdiction of the laws, or tend to promote insurrection or internal disturbance. 6th. Tat we are to be true to all Brother Orangemen in all their just actions, neither wronging any, nor seeing or knowing them to be wronged, and as far as in our power promote each other’s interest and welfare. 7th. Tat we are not to give the frst assault to any person whatsoever. 8th. Tat we are individually bound not only to observe the peace ourselves, but also to be active in preventing all others, of whatever persuasion or denomination, (who may come within our knowledge) that may have an intention to do an ill or riotous act. 9th. Tat we are to meet every frst day of July (old style) in a full body, to commemorate the signal victory gained by King William, Prince of Orange, at the Boyne;18 who bravely supported our Rights, and established the Protestant Religion: that on this day we are to walk wherever may be agreed on, always behaving with propriety and decorum.

FINIS.

DISCUSSIONS ON THE UNION BETWEEN THE DUKE OF PORTLAND AND LORD CORNWALLIS (1798–1800)

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis (1798–1800), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, Second Marquess of Londonderry, ed. His Brother, Charles Vane, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (London: Henry Colburn, 1848), vol. 2, pp. 19–374; vol. 3, pp. 320–47.

Te alarming crisis caused by the Irish rebellion of 1798 convinced the British government led by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger that the only way of restoring political stability in Ireland was to end the life of the separate Irish Parliament and create an Imperial Parliament at Westminster for all of Great Britain and Ireland. Te prime responsibility for carrying through the difcult and delicate negotiations to pass an Act of Union through the Irish Parliament was placed in the hands of Lord Lieutenant Cornwallis and Chief Secretary Castlereagh in Ireland and the British Home Secretary, the Duke of Portland, in London. Te letters printed here provide a great deal of valuable information on relations between Cornwallis and Portland, and about their views on the Catholic question, how to win support in the Irish Parliament for Union, and, in particular, what representation Ireland could be allowed in the proposed Imperial Parliament at Westminster. Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and then frst Marquess Cornwallis, had served in the War of American Independence (surrendering at Yorktown in 1781) and then as frst Governor-General of India. He was appointed as Commander-in-Chief and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in June 1798 to deal with the political crisis created by the Irish rebellion. He saw through, with Lord Castlereagh, his Chief Secretary, the negotiations within Ireland which fnally produced the Irish Parliament’s acceptance of an Act of Union with Great Britain in 1800. Te Union took efect on 1 January 1801, the frst day of the nineteenth century. When the King refused to accept William Pitt’s proposal for Catholic emancipation, allowing Roman Catholics to sit in the new Imperial Parliament and to hold executive ofce, the Prime – 275 –

276

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Minister resigned in early 1801. Cornwallis and Castlereagh both followed suit. Cornwallis lef Ireland in May 1801. Tere are substantial entries on both Cornwallis and Castleraegh in the ODNB. For Castlereagh, see also John Bew, Castlereagh: Enlightenment, War and Tyranny (London: Quercus, 2011) and Patrick Geoghegan, ‘Castlereagh and the making of the Union’, in Te Union: Essays on Ireland and the British Connection, ed. Ronnie Hanna (Newtownards: Colourpoint, 2001), pp. 9–20. William Henry Cavendish Cavendish-Bentinck (1738–1809), third Duke of Portland, was nominal head of the Whig party in opposition from 1784 to 1794, although Charles James Fox was the efective leader of the party. Increasingly disagreeing with Fox over the French Revolution and the French war, Portland led a substantial part of the Whig party into coalition with Prime Minister Pitt in 1794. Portland himself became Home Secretary and held this post until 1801. As Home Secretary he had departmental responsibility for Britain’s relations with Ireland, hence the detailed correspondence he conducted with Lord Lieutenant Cornwallis on negotiations leading to the Act of Union. Portland played a major role in persuading (even sometimes bribing) Irish MPs to support the Union bill. He was later an inefective prime minster from 1807 to 1809. Tere is a useful entry on him in the ODNB and a scholarly biography by David Wilkinson entitled Te Duke of Portland: Politics and Party in the Age of George III (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). Te bicentenary of the Act of Union produced much scholarly work on the difcult and delicate negotiations to secure it passage through the Irish Parliament. See, Patrick M. Geoghegan, Te Irish Act of Union: A Study in High Politics 1798–1801 (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1999); Acts of Union: Te Causes, Contexts, and Consequences of the Act of Union, ed. Daire Keogh and Kevin Whelan (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001); Te Irish Act of Union, 1800: Bicentennial Essays, ed. Michael Brown, Patrick M. Geoghegan and James Kelly (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2003); and eleven essays on ‘Te British-Irish Union of 1801’, published in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, 10 (2000), pp. 167–408. Still useful is G. C. Bolton, Te Passing of the Irish Act of Union: A Study in Parliamentary Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), though the author was unaware of Portland’s use of secret service money to persuade Irish MPs to vote for Union.

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis (1798–1800), in Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, Second Marquess of Londonderry, ed. His Brother, Charles Van, Marquess of Londonderry, 4 vols (London: Henry Colburn, 1848), excerpts from vol. 2, pp. 19–374; vol. 3, pp. 320–47.

[Volume 2] Te Duke of Portland to Lord Cornwallis. Whitehall, November 25, 1798. My Lord – In the letter with which I transmitted to your Excellency the proposed articles of Union between this kingdom and Ireland, I informed you that it should be shortly followed by suggestions and observations, which it was hoped would tend to facilitate the accomplishment of that very desirable event; but, several doubts having arisen concerning the modes which had occurred for choosing the representatives of the Commons of Ireland in the United Parliament, it has been thought most advisable to confne the instruction which I am to give you upon this part of the measure to two great outlines, and to leave the decision respecting the particular mode of election open, until we receive from your Excellency the result of the conferences which you will have upon the subject with those who have the most immediate interest in the rights of voting and in the consequences of elections; as well as with those who are best acquainted with the usages, customs, manners, prejudices, expectations, and wishes of the country, and best skilled in discovering and managing the disposition of the people. Your Excellency will therefore take such means as you judge most proper for making this investigation; and I have at present only to recommend to you to take most particular care, throughout the course of it, that it may – 277 –

278

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

be clearly / understood that the preservation of the rights of election, in every county, city, and place which now sends members to Parliament, precisely in the same manner and form in which they are now enjoyed and exercised, is one of the fundamental points in which no alteration whatever will be sufered to be proposed; and the other is, that the number of representatives, to be chosen by the Commons of Ireland is upon no account whatever to exceed one hundred. Subject to these two conditions, in neither of which any relaxation will be admitted, it is not the wish of this Government to dictate or to intimate any other preferences than to that mode which is most consonant with the constitutional principles of Representation, which know no diference between a knight of the most opulent shire and the representative of the most insignifcant borough in the kingdom; but, whether the reduction which is to take place in the number of the Irish representatives is to be efected by one member being returned for the counties, instead of two, as at present, and classing the boroughs in the manner adopted in Scotland, or by alternating some of the counties, of which examples are also to be found in the representation of that part of the kingdom, or by returning the present number of representatives, and empowering them by ballot or otherwise to choose delegates for the whole body of electors, or for a part of them only, are considerations so much of a local nature that it is to be wished that your Excellency may be able to collect the sentiments of the country upon them with sufcient decision to point out the mode which will be the most grateful to the general feelings of the Irish. With respect to the future representatives of the Peerage of Ireland, with the diference only in point of number, and of the admission of spiritual as well as temporal Lords, it should seem that a better model could not be followed than that of the election of the 16 Peers for Scotland; and I should suppose that 32 at most, taken out of the whole body, 6 or 4 of whom / should be elected from among the Bishops, would be thought a very competent number to represent the Peerage; which, exclusive of 42 or 43 who are already Peers of Great Britain, amounts, together with the Bishops, to about 180. With respect to the 16 or 17 Peers who are members of the British House of Commons, it is proposed to reserve to them their right of sitting in that House for the remainder of this Parliament, unless they should happen to be chosen to represent their own body, for which they should certainly be eligible during their continuance in the House of Commons; but whether the double capacity of representing their own body and the Commons of Great Britain should be reserved to them under certain restrictions is a question into which I need not enter at present. I think I have now enabled your Excellency to satisfy the inquiries which will be made of you upon the points of representation; but I cannot entirely quit this subject without adding a few words upon it respecting the numbers which I have stated to be the highest which prudence, and indeed the practicability of

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

279

carrying on the business, will sufer to be admitted, for the purpose of observing to you that, though our minds are made up to receive 32 Peers and 100 Members from Ireland, it does not follow that the representation of the Irish in either House should of necessity amount to that number. If they should be disposed to be satisfed with a more limited representation, I believe every good purpose proposed by the Union would be equally well attained by a smaller delegation from Ireland; and it would certainly be a mark of confdence and forbearance on the part of the Irish which could not but be considered as an auspicious circumstance for the success and good efects of the measure. I must not omit to add, for fear of any misconception, that it must be distinctly laid down as a condition sine qua non,1 that, in case it shall be determined that the representatives of the Commons should be chosen in such a manner as to be entrusted with the powers either of total or / partial delegation, they must be restrained from any other business, or discussing any other topic than that of the election which they are called together to make, under the same penalties to which the Peers of Scotland have been made liable, which penalties will of course be made to attach to the Peers of Ireland under the same circumstances. Te fairness and liberality which manifest themselves in the 6th and 7th Articles, which relate to Commerce and Revenue, make it necessary for me to observe on the queries which stand opposite to them. Te subjects reserved for consideration are evidently pledges of a disposition on this side to do everything that is kind, generous, and friendly to the people of Ireland. Upon the last query, it may be right to inform your Excellency, in confdence, that Mr. Pitt2 has a plan in contemplation by which there is reason to hope that means may be found to make every individual contribute to the exigencies of the State in proportion to the fair amount of his income; in which, if he should prove successful, it is not possible to imagine a juster criterion to determine the quota which each country should bear of the public expense. In the mean time, other data must be resorted to; and it should seem that a fairer and better could not be fxed upon than the relative proportion of the permanent war and peace establishments of the two kingdoms. Tis certainly may serve as a basis for a temporary arrangement for a given term, subject, at the expiration of it, to revision and alteration, as circumstances may vary or require; and you may be very confdent that every care will be taken in such an arrangement to give no cause of complaint or jealousy to our newly united brethren. When you shall have sufciently felt the pulse of the country, and have collected their sentiments, so as to enable you to form an opinion of the mode by which the measure may be most likely to be brought to a successful issue, I would submit to you to spare Lord Castlereagh,3 and to let him come over here for a short time, as I cannot but think that great facility / and advantage would be derived from personal communication with him in making these arrangements,

280

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

without which I cannot but apprehend the accomplishment of this great work may be considerably retarded, if not exposed to fail. If any doubts present themselves to you, or any questions arise upon which you have occasion to wish for information, you will always fnd me ready to give you every satisfaction in my power, and happy to relieve you, to the best of my abilities, from any part of that weight to which you are subjected by the importance of your public station. I have the honour to be, &c., Portland.

[…] Lord Cornwallis to the Duke of Portland. Phoenix Park,4 December 5, 1798. My Lord – Since I last had the honour of addressing your Grace on the subject of the Union, I have had an opportunity of extending my communications with individuals, and of observing, in some degree, the frst impressions produced on the public mind by the agitation of this important question. I beg leave to refer your Grace to Lord Castlereagh (whom, I trust, I shall be enabled to despatch from hence to-morrow evening) for the particular sentiments of the several persons who have been sounded, since I last addressed your Grace, on / the measure. Te general result enables me to confrm the opinion stated to your Grace in my despatch of the –, that the prevailing disposition amongst those with whom I have had communication is to entertain the question dispassionately, and to rest their decision upon the merits of the arrangements when detailed, rather than to reject the principle of the measure. Te opponents of the Union are desirous to prevent the discussion of the subject, and leave no means untried to commit the public, in the frst instance, against the measure, as subversive of the Constitution; and, as such, not to be entertained. Pains have been taken to represent an acquiescence in its principle as a violation of the oath of a yeoman, in which he swears to support and maintain the “Constitution of this Kingdom as by law established.” Te Bar5 have been most forward in their opposition, and have been this day assembled as a corps, it is understood, with an intention of taking up the question. Should that learned body be so intemperate as to set an example to the yeomanry at large, unconstitutional in the extreme, and dangerous to the public safety, I shall feel myself called on, in the outset, to meet this attempt to overawe the King’s Government and the Legislature with decision.

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

281

I am happy to observe that the leading Catholics, notwithstanding the measure is understood by them to be unconnected with any immediate extension of constitutional privileges to their communion, express themselves highly in its favour. Lord Fingall,* whose good sense is as distinguished as his attachment to his Majesty’s Government and to the British connection, has expressed much satisfaction that it was not meant to complicate the question of Union by attempting, at present, any change in the Test Laws. He considers it would be injurious to the Catholic claims to have them discussed in the present temper of the Irish Parliament, and was satisfed / it would hazard the success of the Union, without serving the Catholics; and considers it much more for their interest that the question should rest, till it could be submitted, in quieter times, to the unprejudiced decision of the United Parliament, relying on their receiving hereafer every indulgence which could be extended to them, without endangering the Protestant establishment. Lord Kenmare† joined in this sentiment, and is a warm advocate for the measure; both these noblemen expressed an anxious wish to see the Catholic clergy rendered less dependent on the lower orders, by having a reasonable provision under the State. Lord Castlereagh has seen Dr. Troy,6 and fnds his sentiments perfectly correspondent with those of my Lord Fingall and Lord Kenmare. He expressed himself perfectly satisfed, provided no bar to their future hopes made a part of the measure, and was ready to use his utmost infuence in its support. Upon the whole, it appears to me, as far as the dispositions of the Catholics have yet disclosed themselves, that there is every reason to expect from them a preference for the measure. An active support from that body would not perhaps be advantageous to the success of the Union. It would particularly increase the jealousy of the Protestants, and render them less inclined to the question. I feel it unnecessary at present to trouble your Grace more at length upon this interesting question, as Lord Castlereagh will be enabled to explain to your Grace my sentiments on every part of the subject, particularly on the topics treated of in your Grace’s despatch of the 25th, marked Secret. I trust that the Speaker7 and Sir John Parnell8 will not have lef London before Lord Castlereagh’s arrival, as I consider it highly important that he should have an opportunity of hearing them state their opinions before the King’s ministers on the question. / Some of the King’s Irish servants appear to be amongst the most impracticable in their opinions, and I feel confdent that your Grace will leave no means untried to impress these gentlemen more favourably before their return to this kingdom. I have the honour, &c., C[ornwallis]. * †

Arthur James [Plunkett (1759-1836)], eighth Earl. Valentine Browne [1754-1812], created, in 1798, Baron of Castlerosse, and Viscount Kenmare, [then] Earl of Kenmare, in 1800 [1801].

282

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

PS. I am happy to inform your Grace that the good sense of the Bar has prevailed, and that the meeting has dispersed; it being the decided opinion of the majority that any deliberation on the question or political measure, in their military capacity, was highly criminal. I trust the failure of this attempt to make it a question of arms will secure us against any interference of a similar description. A general Bar meeting is summoned, I understand, for Sunday next.9

[…] Te Duke of Portland to Lord Cornwallis. Whitehall, December 24, 1798. My Lord – Te several points of the Articles of the intended Union with Ireland upon which your Excellency is desirous of receiving more detailed instructions having been stated to me in writing by Lord Castlereagh, together with a paper, containing the mode in which your Excellency proposes to arrange the representation of the Irish Commons in the United Parliament, I laid them before his Majesty’s confdential servants, by whom I am authorized to acquaint your Excellency that they very much approve the plan you have formed for that branch of the Legislature; that the advantage of it appears self-evident; and that they observe, with great satisfaction, the superiority it possesses over all the ideas which were suggested to you in my despatch of the 23rd November, / and the great success with which it promises to obviate the most serious of the objections which occurred in the reduction of the numbers of that representative body. It is not to be supposed that any material difculty can occur in the selection of a borough to which a permanent seat is to be given, for the purpose of enabling you to reduce those which are to choose alternately to an even number; nor need your Excellency apprehend any objection from hence if you should think proper or fnd it expedient for any reason to allow the City of Dublin two representatives, as has been hinted by Lord Castlereagh: the only condition respecting this part of the measure upon which I am to require your Excellency to insist being, that the number of the representatives of the Commons of Ireland is not to exceed 100, and that the chartered and prescriptive rights of electors are to be religiously maintained. With respect to the election of the Peers, who are to sit on the part of Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdoms, it should seem, upon the best consideration that we have been able to give the subject, that, if the precedent of the Union with Scotland was to be exactly followed, the following difculties would arise:– First – Te principle of election for one Parliament only appears in itself to be adverse to the constitution and character of the House of Lords as forming a

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

283

part of the British Legislature; and the inconvenience arising from this circumstance would evidently be much augmented when, instead of 16, as at present, so large a proportion as near 50 out of less than 300 members would be so elected. Second – Tat, in this instance, the danger would be greater than in the Scotch Peerage, because, though that body has in the course of a century sufered some diminution, it is nevertheless so constituted that it is little likely to sufer any further diminution, and the body is still sufciently numerous to aford a reasonable security against improper combinations or cabals; whereas, the Irish Peerage, being for the most part of / a much later creation, and in almost every instance limited to heirs male, is likely to sufer a much more rapid diminution; and, as the number to be elected is to be considerably larger, the efect may at no very distant period be extremely inconvenient, by subjecting the election of so powerful a body in the House of Lords to be dependent on the cabals possibly of a few individuals. Tird – Te taking from the Crown all power of conferring Irish honours would necessarily reduce very considerably the objects of fair ambition, to which persons of consequence in that kingdom may hereafer aspire; and it would, besides, throw on Government such a pressure of claims for British Peerage as must in its efects be highly embarrassing, whether those claims be satisfed or not. I am, therefore, to recommend it to your Excellency to consider whether a new principle may not with advantage be adopted as to the election of Peers on the part of Ireland, and that accordingly, the Irish temporal Peers, now existing, or hereafer to be created by his Majesty, should elect, in the frst instance, 28 of their number to seats in the House of Lords for life, and should, by a like election, supply all vacancies, and that all such of the electing Peers as are not now Peers of Great Britain, or shall be created Peers of the United Kingdom, shall be capable of being elected and sitting in the United House of Commons. Should, however, the last provision be thought to bear hard on the leading Commoners of Ireland, the Peers to whom this right is proposed to be given may be restrained from being elected by any county, city, or borough, within that part of the United Kingdom. Considering the number and the professional character of the spiritual Peers of Ireland, it has been thought desirable that they should take their seats by rotation among the archiepiscopal and episcopal Sees respectively, so that one Archbishop and three Bishops may be to sit in each Parliament. But I incline to think that your Excellency will be disposed / to collect the opinions of the Primate,10 or of such other prelates as are within your reach, on the mode in which it is most becoming that that reverend body should be represented, previous to the public discussion of any proposal respecting it. By this plan it is evident that the Irish Lords, as well spiritual as temporal, will be much less under the infuence of the Crown, and at the same time will be free from the operation of private cabal. Should the temporal Peers of Ireland

284

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

be desirous of retaining in the United Parliament the right they now possess of sitting in the British House of Commons, it will occur to your Excellency that a question of some difculty must unavoidably arise, respecting the privileges of Peerage, which, though I am not prepared to ofer you a solution of it, would not, I should hope, much retard or embarrass the conclusion of the measure when it has attained such a state of advancement. Te only other point which it remains for me to mention respecting the election of the Peers is that no meeting whatever should be held for that purpose, but that lists containing the names of those for whom the Peers chose to vote (as is practised in the case of the Scotch Peers,11) should be made and subscribed by them, and sent, properly authenticated, to the Speaker of the United House of Lords,12 who would be to deliver them sealed up at the Table, and that this should be the only mode by which the representatives of the Irish Peerage should be permitted to be chosen. One of the greatest difculties, however, which has been supposed to attend the project of Union between the two kingdoms is that of the expense and trouble which will be occasioned by the attendance of witnesses in trials of contested elections, or in matters of private business requiring Parliamentary interposition. It would, therefore, be very desirable to devise a plan (which does not appear impossible) for empowering the Speaker of either House of the United Parliament to issue his warrant to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions in Ireland, or to such other person as may be thought more / proper for the purpose, requiring him to appoint a time and a place within the county, for his being attended by the Agents of the respective parties, and reducing to writing in their presence the testimony (for the Consents and Dissents, as the case may be) of such persons as, by the said Agents, may be summoned to attend, being resident within the county (if not there resident, a similar proceeding should take place in the county where they reside); and such testimony so taken and reduced into writing may, by such Chairman or by the Sherif of the County, be certifed to the Speaker of either House, as the case may be. It seems difcult to provide, by a detailed Article of the Union, for the various regulations which such a proceeding may require; but the principle might perhaps be stated there, and the provisions lef to be settled by the United Parliament. All questions respecting the admissibility, competency, or credibility of such evidence so certifed must, of course, still remain with the House or Committee to whom it is to be produced; but it does not appear that in such cases there is any beneft of viva voce13 testimony, which might not equally be attained by written evidence in this form. Perhaps, in arranging the details, it may be probably useful to consult the provisions now subsisting by the diferent Acts respecting the procuring evidence in the like manner for the East Indies.

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

285

Te reference in Article 6 to the Tarif of the Commercial Treaty concluded with France in 1786,14 was intended to convey, in the most intelligible terms, the intention of establishing a moderate Tarif of equal duties, which should secure to the capitals of each country employed in manufacture the fair beneft of their respective markets: but as to the equal as well as the countervailing duties, which it is proposed shall be allowed as long as any diference remains in the internal duties of the two countries, I will procure for your Excellency a copy of the terms which were agreed upon in that respect when the Irish / Propositions were under consideration, and which were settled by persons of such experience and competence in matters of trade and commerce and the mutual interests of both kingdoms, that it will be evident to those who are most conversant in subjects of this nature that Ireland will have every reason to be satisfed with the substance of the Article. With respect to Revenue, it is intended to propose for a given number of years a fxed proportion for the contribution of Ireland towards the peace establishment of the empire, and also a fxed proportion for her contribution towards the expenses of war. Whether the proportions shall be the same or diferent must be the subject of separate and detailed discussion; but, on the whole, as far as relates to the Peace establishment, it is not probable that, in the present arrangement of the business, Ireland will be called on for any additional expense beyond what would now be her establishment at the Peace, if the Union did not take place. It will be necessary that the present Irish Revenue should be made perpetual (subject to repeal and substitution of taxes by the United Parliament), and that it should be appropriated towards defraying the proportion to be so fxed of the general Peace establishment, as well as the interest and Sinking Fund of the Irish debt, and the objects now provided for by annual grant of Parliament; and it may be matter of consideration whether any surplus of revenue beyond this proportion, which shall arise beyond the increased produce of the Irish taxes or from the extinction of debt, should be appropriated or reserved for the extra expences, or should, to any limited amount and for a given time, be applied to objects of local improvement. It only remains for me to satisfy the inquiries which your Excellency has directed to be made respecting the mode of bringing forward the measure of the Union, and I therefore proceed to state to you what has appeared upon consideration to be the most advantageous course of proceeding on that subject; namely, that the British Parliament should adjourn to / the 22nd of January, the day on which I conceive you are to meet for the despatch of business, and that the measure should be recommended on the same day to both Parliaments; to that of this kingdom by a Message to both Houses, and to that of Ireland by your Excellency’s speech from the throne; with which view, I will not fail, in pursuance of the desire you have communicated to me by Lord Castlereagh, to send your Excellency the draf of a paragraph for that purpose. Te answer to the

286

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

communications should in the frst instance be quite general, and a day should be fxed for taking the subject into consideration, which day should be as nearly as may be the same in both countries, and should be sufciently distant for a call of the House in Ireland; whether that call should be proposed by the opposers of the measure, or it should be thought advisable, (as I rather collect it may) that the proposal should come from Government; and, upon talking the matter over with Lord Castlereagh, it appears that, if your Parliament meets, as I conceive it will, on the 22nd of January, the 5th of February will not be an improper day to appoint for the frst proceedings in the question of Union. On the 5th of February, then, or the day which may be fxed on, it does not appear to us that any other proceeding will be necessary than a joint address of the two Houses in each kingdom, expressing their disposition to promote so desirable an object on suitable terms, and requesting the King to appoint Commissioners of each kingdom to confer together, and to prepare a plan for that purpose to be submitted to His Majesty, and, if His Majesty shall think proper, to be laid before Parliament. I reckon that such an Address would pass, if at all, in the course of the frst full week in February; in the next six weeks I understand it would be impossible that the Irish Commissioners should come to England, on account of the business of the Parliament; but much and very valuable time would be saved, if it should be thought expedient that the British Commissioners should name a certain number of their body to go / to Ireland, to collect information there, and to confer with any Committee of the Irish Commissioners. If the persons selected for this purpose are well acquainted with the English and Irish trade, and particularly with the latter, more progress might be made towards a conclusion by a fortnight or three weeks of such discussion taking place upon the spot than in as many months of formal conferences between large bodies of Commissioners sitting in England. Te report which Lord Castlereagh will make you of the conversation which he has had with Sir John Parnell will prove to your Excellency our concurrence in your opinion respecting the propriety of bringing the leading members of Administration, and Sir John Parnell in particular, to a clear and distinct avowal of their sentiments and intentions with regard to the Union; and I desire to assure your Excellency, in the most explicit and unqualifed terms, that every one of the King’s servants as well as myself will consider themselves indissolubly obliged to use their best endeavours to fulfl whatever engagements your Excellency may fnd it necessary or deem it expedient to enter into for the purpose or with a view of accomplishing the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. I wish I may have succeeded in giving your Excellency the whole of the information you expected, and satisfying the doubts which may have suggested themselves to you on the consideration of the Articles; but, if I shall have failed, I shall have the satisfaction of thinking that the defect will be supplied by Lord Castlereagh, whose assistance we have had the beneft of at all the meet-

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

287

ings which have been held upon the subject. I desire, therefore, to refer your Excellency to him, and to assure you I should most willingly have trusted to his report alone, would my duty have permitted me, in a case of such delicacy and importance, to have appeared to have shrunk from any part of the responsibility attached to my public situation. I remain, &c., Portland. /

[…] Lord Cornwallis to the Duke of Portland. Secret and Confdential.

January 2, 1799.

My Lord – Te renewed activity of the disafected, which I had the honour of stating to your Grace in my despatch of the 21st to have been particularly observable in the Counties of Down and Antrim, has not yet been productive of any open efort. With what immediate view this attempt, which has been very general, was made to set the lower orders again in motion, it is difcult precisely to trace. I have no reason to believe that it was occasioned by any feelings arising out of the question of Union. In the North, an idea of co-operation from abroad prevailed, and this expectation may have been connected with the preparations going forward in the Texel.15 Te Catholics, as a body, still adhere to their reserve on the measure of Union. Te very temperate and liberal sentiments at frst entertained or expressed by some of the most considerable of that body were by no means adopted by the Catholics who met at Lord Fingall’s, and professed to speak for the party at large. Whether it was their original sentiment to oppose the Union unless their objects were comprehended in it, or whether this disposition was taken up when they observed Government to be either weakly supported or opposed by the Protestants, it is difcult to determine. Certain it is, they now hold of, which can only arise either / from an original disinclination to the measure, or an expectation that Government will be driven to a compliance with their wishes in order to carry it. What line of conduct they will ultimately adopt, when decidedly convinced that the measure will be persevered in on a Protestant principle, I am incapable of judging. I shall endeavour to give them the most favourable impressions, without holding out to them hopes of any relaxation on the part of Government, and shall leave no efort untried to prevent an opposition to the Union being made the measure of that party; as I should much fear, should it be made a Catholic principle to resist the Union, that the favourable sentiments entertained by individuals would give way to the party feeling, and deprive us of

288

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

our principal strength in the South and West, which could not fail, at least for the present, to prove fatal to the measure. Te clamour against the Union continues in Dublin and its neighbourhood. Te County is to assemble on Friday; there can be no doubt of the result. I do not understand that, as yet, any steps have been taken for calling any other County meetings. I understand Mr. Saurin16 was this day employed in soliciting the ofcers of the diferent corps of yeomanry in Dublin to sign a paper stating their determination to lay down their arms in case the measure of Union was brought forward. He was refused by Mr. John Beresford,17 who expressed his strongest disapprobation of the attempt. I much fear Mr. Saurin’s conduct will render it necessary for me to submit, through your Grace, to his Majesty the indispensable necessity of withdrawing from him those professional distinctions, of which his former conduct had rendered him so deserving. Te accounts from the Provinces are, upon the whole, favourable. Cork certainly is at present perfectly well disposed to the measure. Should it be thought politic to encourage a declaration from that City, I have reason to believe it might be obtained. / Limerick, Waterford, and Wexford, though less eager on the question, are understood to be inclined to the measure. Te appearances in the North are by no means discouraging. Belfast has shown no disinclination, at which some of the violent party in Dublin are not less surprised than indignant. In Derry, the most respectable merchants are decidedly for the measure; and I have understood, from several persons lately returned from the North, whose information deserves credit, that the linen trade, looking to secure for ever the protection they now enjoy in the British market, are friendly to the principle. Newry is quiet on the question, and disposed to consider it fairly. Te Orangemen in the North have followed the example of the Dublin lodges in declining to interfere as Orangemen. I trust this instance of moderation will have weight with the yeomanry, and preserve them from the infuence of the very pernicious example endeavoured to be set them from hence. I shall have the honour of acknowledging your Grace’s despatch, delivered to me by Lord Castlereagh, in which all the important features of the measure are most distinctly and comprehensively treated, as soon as I have had an opportunity of making the necessary communications to the leading individuals, for which I feel myself now fully prepared by the very decided authority I have received, and the very ample instructions with which your Grace has favoured me. I have the honour to be, &c., Cornwallis.

[…]

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

289

Lord Cornwallis to the Duke of Portland. Secret.

Dublin Castle, January 11, 1799.

My Lord – I feel it necessary to apprize your Grace that a very unfavourable impression has been made within the two last days against the Union, partly by the arrival of the Speaker, but still more by its being generally circulated and believed in town, that both Lord Downshire18 and Lord Ely19 are adverse to the measure. Tere seems but too much reason to apprehend, from some expressions in a letter of Lord Downshire’s to Lord Castlereagh, that his Lordship’s opinion is, at best, unsettled on the subject; and, by the enclosed copy of a letter from Lord Ely to a friend here, it is evident that his support can by no means be relied on. Your Grace will observe that Lord Ely’s expressions are verbatim those of the Speaker, Lord Downshire, Lord Cork,20 &c. It is reported that he means to bring Mr. Luttrell21 forward, who has been peculiarly active in London against the measure, which, if true, is not only a proof of his Lordship’s present sentiments, but of the school in which they have been formed. It appears, by his letter, that he has been living with the Archbishop of Cashell,22 from whom he would infallibly receive similar impressions. I need not press upon your Grace’s attention the insuperable difculties so unexpected and so important a defection as this must occasion in the accomplishment of the measure. It not only transfers 18 votes in the Commons to the Opposition,23 but strikes a damp among the supporters of the measure, which may operate in a fatal extent against us. Lord Castlereagh has been endeavouring to bring forward the friends of the measure to declare their sentiments openly, and with some success, notwithstanding the natural apprehension of committing themselves in so important a contest without being assured how the strength will lie; but he fnds the / unfortunate circumstances above alluded to have thrown new and considerable impediments in his way. In stating these considerations to your Grace, I have only most earnestly to entreat that every possible efort may be made on your side of the water to overcome the difculties of these important characters, and to send us whatever assistance can be collected from thence. I conclude that his Majesty’s Ministers will feel, whatever may be the issue of the present attempt, that they owe it not less to themselves than to the Empire, and particularly to those individuals who, at their instance, and under their assurance of a decided support, have been induced to declare themselves in favour of the measure, to bring it into discussion with every advantage which decision on their part can give it. Should it fail, it will require a very mature consideration how the powers of the State can be best exercised, with a view to its future success, without materially impeding the present administration of the Government.

290

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

I have already felt it a question of considerable delicacy to decide in what instances and at what period it was expedient to remove persons from ofce who have either taken a decided line against the measure, or, who, without acting publicly, hold a language equally prejudicial to its success, and equally inconsistent with their connexion with Government. In the instance of Mr. J. C. Beresford,24 whose conduct has been very hostile at many of the Dublin meetings, the diffculty has been peculiarly felt. With a view of impressing our friends with the idea of our being in earnest, his dismissal seemed desirable; on the other hand, as we profess to encourage discussion, and neither to precipitate Parliament or the country on the decision, much less to force it against the public sentiment, there seemed an objection to a very early exercise of ministerial authority on the inferior servants of the Crown. I have, therefore, thought it expedient to proceed, in the / frst instance, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer,* who has not been altogether punctual in his engagement with Lord Castlereagh, of being here on the 10th, and not being yet arrived; and shall then proceed, according to circumstances, or such directions as I may receive from your Grace, with the inferior members of the administration. Tere certainly is a very strong disinclination to the measure in many of the borough proprietors, and a not less marked repugnance in many of the ofcial people, particularly in those who have been longest in the habits of the current system. Te secondary interests of course look to it as the destruction of their authority, and the leading interests as exposing them to fresh contests. Tese impressions, connected with the natural expectation which every individual forms of deriving some personal advantage by the change, make its accomplishment full of difculty. Te steady purpose of the English Government, and the natural authority of the State in this kingdom, will counteract these principles in a great degree; but weighty names may encourage a general resistance, which would certainly leave those who are supporters of the measure, from a conviction of its necessity, in a minority. I have taken the necessary steps for encouraging declarations from the towns of Limerick, Waterford, Derry, and Newry, as far as they can be obtained without too strong an appearance of Government interference, and am employed in counteracting, as far as possible, the County meetings, which are extending themselves. I have endeavoured to impress upon your Grace the extent of the difculties we have to surmount. Your Grace may depend on every exertion in my power to promote the success of a measure which I feel to be essential to the British interests in this kingdom. I have the honour to be, &c., C[ornwallis]. /

[…] *

Sir John Parnell, who was removed from that ofce, and replaced by the Right Hon. Isaac Corry.25

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

291

Te Lord-Lieutenant to the Duke of Portland. Dublin Castle, January 25, 1799. My Lord – I have to state to your Grace that the party which on Tuesday supported the amendment to the address gained last night on the Report sufcient strength to expunge the original paragraph. Te leaders of the Opposition were sanguine in their hopes of cementing the members who voted with them into a fxed Anti-Union opposition, and openly professed their expectation of overturning the present Administration. Sir John Parnell, who made strong declarations on his removal from ofce of his disinclination to engage in any factious opposition, was encouraged to enter warmly into the views of the party, and, in his speech, particularly recommended to the House the adoption of a general Resolution, pledging them conclusively against the principle of a Legislative Union. Lord Castlereagh, with a view of breaking up the party for general purposes, made an attack upon them, which, towards the close of the debate, appears to have made the country gentlemen the more eager to withdraw from their new associates. Te question was strongly argued by the friends of Government, particularly by Mr. W. Smith26 (Baron Smith’s27 son), whose speech, I understand, tended strongly to establish / the measure in the feelings of the House; though it could not be expected to alter the decision of the question. Lord Castlereagh was strongly pressed to decline the agitation of the question during the present Session. He decidedly refused entering into any compromise, declaring that he should always keep himself free to propose it whenever the temper of Parliament and of the country appeared to him to render it expedient to do so, and professed that it was a measure Government never would lose sight of, convinced that cool refection must recommend it to the House and to the country. Your Grace will be informed, by my ofcial despatch, of the fate of Mr. Ponsonby’s28 attempt to commit the House. I consider the party as partially dissolved; but we must be prepared to fnd the Opposition considerably increased in strength. Te Speaker, the Ponsonbys,29 and Sir John Parnell, have all possible inclination to hostility: whether they will be able to assemble numbers with any efect on general topics of opposition I cannot yet pronounce. I am confdent a considerable proportion of last night’s opposition will return to Government. Mr. J. C. Beresford this morning resigned his ofce,30 very liberally expressing his wish to relieve the Administration from all difculties on his account, and desirous that the support which he intended to aford the Government on all other questions might not be attributed, in any degree, to his wish to retain his situation. Considering the Speaker as decidedly hostile, I cannot look to the possibility of making Mr. Foster an exception to those principles which have been adopted towards other servants of the Crown who have opposed Government; but I

292

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

do not think his dismissal presses so much in point of time as to induce me to proceed without waiting for a communication from your Grace, intimating the general sentiments of Ministers upon the system to be pursued. Your Grace will recollect that I stated some time since the Catholics stand aloof, apparently with a view of inducing / Government to compromise with them, in order to gain popular strength in favour of the Union. Since the Opposition has assembled in force, I have reason to believe that a negotiation has been set on foot to connect them with the opposers of the measure. I shall endeavour to collect further information, and shall not fail to communicate the result to your Grace. It is said that a committee on the state of the nation will be prepared. Tere was every disposition in the leaders of Opposition to follow up their victory with addresses to restore the dismissed servants of the Crown. Te Bar have entered into resolutions to give the Prime Sergeant31 precedence as at present. Tey met with the proper rebuke this morning from the chief Judges (particularly the Chancellor32) in their respective courts. I propose that the Parliament should adjourn for ten days, to give time for the re-elections, and for the arrangement of business.

[…] Te Duke of Portland to the Lord-Lieutenant. Whitehall, January 26, 1799. My Lord – I have not lost a moment in laying before the King your Excellency’s despatches of the 23rd, which were brought me this morning by Captain Taylor,33 and in consulting the rest of his Majesty’s confdential servants upon the points on which you are desirous of knowing our opinion. Although the result of the Debate in the House of Commons on your Excellency’s Speech from the throne makes it necessary for you to defer for the present the consideration of the measure of Union, and may possibly render it advisable not to resume it in the course of the present session, we are unanimously of opinion that nothing that has happened ought to occasion any alteration in the intentions we had formed, or any deviation from the plan which it was in our contemplation to pursue; and Mr. Pitt will accordingly open to the House of Commons, on Tursday next, the Resolutions of which I sent your Excellency a copy on the 17th inst., will resume them on the Tuesday or Tursday following, for the purpose of taking the sense of the House upon them, and, should it be as favourable as there is certainly every reason to expect, he / will bring them up in the course of a few days for the concurrence of the House of Lords, whose dispositions, I fatter myself, were too plainly manifested by the manner in which they received the King’s message of the 22nd, not to entitle me to presume that they will feel, upon this important subject, an equal degree of liberality with

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

293

the Commons and the rest of the nation, and that I shall receive his Majesty’s commands to transmit the Resolutions to your Excellency, to be communicated to the Parliament of Ireland, at such time and in such manner as you shall judge most proper and expedient. Te union of the kingdom is a measure so evidently benefcial to the general interests of Ireland, that it is not possible seriously to suppose that the good sense of that country will not prevail, and ere long get the better of the opposition which it has now met with from the passions and prejudices of the day; and it is moreover so necessary to the strength, the security, and the tranquillity of the empire, that his Majesty will never sufer his servants to lose sight of it, nor will they, I trust, be ever so remiss or unmindful of their duty as to omit or neglect any means of attaining so salutary and important an object, and which, unless it be accomplished, will ever leave incomplete that fnal adjustment which was so much professed to be the view of the arrangement which took place between the two kingdoms in 1782.34 Tis would naturally lead me to observe upon the extraordinary assertions of the Speaker and others, who have afrmed that the proceedings at that time were to be considered as a fnal adjustment between the two kingdoms; but, though I cannot pass them entirely by without notice, I will satisfy myself with referring you to the journals (I believe) of either Parliament, but to those of the House of Commons of this country, from the 9th of April to the end of that Session, where you will fnd the most ample means of contradicting and putting down this assertion. I therefore proceed to the only other point on which your Excellency expresses, and on which you instructed Captain / Taylor to urge, your desire of being immediately informed, of the sentiments of his Majesty’s Ministers – I mean, the removal from ofce of those persons who have taken a part respecting the Union in opposition to Government. Tere can be no doubt of the measure to which our feelings would carry us, and that duplicity and treachery would not receive from us a greater degree of indulgence and forbearance than open and active hostility. But we are sensible that, in such a crisis as the present, other circumstances must be attended to, and that, though it may be necessary to make the Speaker himself and the country sensible that his rank and situation can not preserve their employments to such of his family and dependents as act in opposition to the measures of Government, it may not be advisable to use the same degree of severity to those who, though they may have shrunk from their duty and given way to the timid and speculative disposition of their minds, have not taken so decided a part as to force you to deem them irreclaimable and incapable of being restored to a proper sense of their duty. As for the actors of an inferior order, I pass them over entirely, and have only to recommend it to you to rely upon your own judgment respecting the treatment of political ofenders of every description. At this distance from the scene

294

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

of action, the imperfect view and judgment which can be formed of the state of things very little enables me to prescribe the proportionate measure of frmness and moderation which the occasions may require. Your own discretion will certainly be your best guide, and I hope it is unnecessary to assure your Excellency that, whatever your decisions may be, you may depend upon their receiving the unreserved sanction and support of his Majesty’s servants. Whatever may be the conduct your Excellency may pursue with respect to the delinquents, I am persuaded that every conciliatory measure will be pursued by you, and that nothing will be omitted on your part which can convince the misguided of their errors, / and that can reconcile them to a proper sense of their own interests, and of the real tendency of the measure you have in view. Lest it should be possible that the success which may attend the attack to which you are exposed on the report of the Address may induce your Excellency to question whether the King’s Government here may not be disposed to suspend the intended plan of their proceeding, and alter the language they have hitherto held respecting the Union, I think it right to apprise you that such an event was a contingency which had not escaped our consideration, and that I am authorized to assure you that, whatever may be the fate of the Address, our determination will remain unaltered and our exertions unabated; and that, though discretion and good policy may require that the measure should be suspended by you during this Session, I am to desire that you will take care that it shall be understood that it neither is nor ever will be abandoned, and that the support of it will be considered as a necessary and indispensable test of the attachment on the part of the Irish to their connexion with this country. Your Excellency is now so fully possessed of the expectations and determinations of this Government with respect to the Union, that I have only to add that I am, with great truth and regard, Yours, &c., Portland.

[…] Te Duke of Portland to Lord Cornwallis. Whitehall, Sunday, February 3, 1799. My Lord – I had yesterday the honour of laying before the King’s confdential servants the despatch which Mr. Elliot35 delivered to me on Friday from your Excellency, and I hope, by the result I have to communicate to you of our deliberations, that you will receive all the information you can desire upon the several important and delicate questions you have proposed for our consideration. If, however, I shall not have been so fortunate as to express myself as intelligibly

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

295

as I intended, I have the satisfaction of thinking that Mr. Elliot returns to you with this despatch, and that, from the conversations / he has had with Mr. Pitt and with me upon the diferent subjects, and from the comprehensive and distinctive powers he possesses, he will be able to explain any part of it which may appear obscure or confused, and illustrate any passages of it, on the construction of which your Excellency may entertain any doubt. With respect, then, to the Union itself, the sentiments of the King’s Government, which I conveyed to you in the despatch I had the honour of writing to your Excellency on the 26th ultimo, have been so powerfully expressed on that subject by the speech in which Mr. Pitt introduced the Resolutions, and the heads of the Address, with which it is proposed that they should be accompanied whenever they are laid before his Majesty, that it would be extremely difcult, and must be almost unnecessary, to add anything to them by way of illustration or explanation; but I cannot omit to observe that the whole of Lord Castlereagh’s conduct throughout the course of the proceeding has been so judicious and correct, that it is the decided opinion of the King’s Servants that the line he has hitherto observed cannot be too strictly adhered to, and that no pledge should be ofered diferent from that which he has already given on the subject. With respect to the Religious divisions which a Union might have tended to reconcile, if any attempt should be made by the Opposition to embarrass you upon that ground, either by bringing the whole of the Catholic question under Parliamentary discussion, or by moving for the repeal of any of the remaining penal laws against the Catholics, the opinion of the King’s Government has been so distinctly conveyed to your Excellency by my despatch of the –, that I know not how to enforce it further. Your Excellency will not omit any means of opposing such attempt with success; and I should hope that it will not be found impossible to satisfy every reasonable Roman Catholic and every man of property of that persuasion, that such an / attempt could not be made in the present circumstances without the most imminent danger to their properties and persons; that, in the actual state of the country, the acquisition of the privileges which are withheld from them could not be considered as secure and permanent, and that a Union is as indispensably necessary for the purpose of afording them a reasonable probability of being admitted to a full participation of rights in common with the Protestants, as it is to remove and quiet those apprehensions which are at present entertained of them on account of the superiority of their numbers, and to render them no longer objects of terror or jealousy. In answer to the inquiry Mr. Elliot is directed to make respecting the removal from ofce of persons who have taken a part against the measure of Union, I must beg leave to refer your Excellency to the despatch I wrote to you upon that subject, to which I will only add, by way of observation, that the strength of your

296

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Administration is the frst object to be attended to, and again to endeavour to impress upon you that your Excellency cannot resort to so good and sure a guide as your own judgment. Te expectation which your Excellency expresses of the endeavours of the present Opposition to embarrass your Administration, by bringing forward motions respecting the connexion of the two countries and the state of the Dissenting Clergy, as well of the Protestant as of the Catholic persuasion, require that I should acquaint you that, with respect to a Regency Bill,36 it will meet with no objection from hence, provided it is formed upon the principles of the Annexation Act,37 and acknowledges, as with respect to the Crown, the same person for Regent of Ireland as shall be appointed Regent of this kingdom, and subject to all the provisions and conditions with which the Parliament of Great Britain shall think ft to qualify the appointment. As for the Channel trade, or any fxed rate of contribution to the general expenses of the Empire, it must be observed / that these are matters which neither one nor the other Parliament is alone competent to settle; that they are proper subjects for discussion, and can be adjusted only by agreement between the two Parliaments. With respect to the frst of these subjects, it must be obvious that it so materially depends upon the party who possesses the entire power of protecting it and the principal means of carrying it on, that any idea of its being regulated by the Parliament of Ireland, or even of that Legislature taking the lead on such a subject, can hardly be seriously entertained: and, as for the latter, it would be so direct a resignation on the part of the Irish Parliament of their power of controlling their own expenditure, that I cannot conceive that your Excellency can be under any great difculty in silencing any attempt to bring either of these questions forward. Should, however, the Opposition propose to Parliament to raise a sum towards defraying the general expenses of the Empire, and to ofer it as a pure free gif unconditionally, and without any stipulation with regard to the application of it, your Excellency may safely venture to assure them that it will be readily and thankfully accepted; but, at this moment, I cannot look with much confdence to any such efusion of gratitude or liberality from the Irish House of Commons. Te provisions which may be proposed for the Dissenting Clergy, as well of the Protestant as of the Roman Catholic persuasion, do not appear to me to require much more address, or to expose you to more difculty or embarrassment in the treatment of them. We are of opinion that such a proposition, without adverting to the quarter from whence it may originate, or intimating a suspicion of the motives which may have suggested it, should meet with a favourable reception, and a general good disposition should be manifested to entertain and discuss it; but, at the same time, the promoters of it should be called upon to bring forward a specifc plan of the measure in detail, for which I shall be much mistaken if they

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

297

are not so little prepared that the business will be at a stand, and consequently / expose their real views, which I incline to think cannot but alienate both descriptions of Separatists from them, and convince those deluded people that it is to Government only that they can resort for indulgence as well as for protection. A directly contrary conduct is that which it is thought necessary for your Excellency to hold with respect to the question of Tithes. Should your apprehensions be realized by its being attempted to be made a subject of Parliamentary discussion, your Excellency will resist the introduction of it with frmness and decision, and you will let it be understood that it never can be entertained, unless some plan respecting them should so far receive the sanction of the Legislature of this country as to be thought deserving of its serious consideration. I have now, I believe, gone through all the topics which are either stated in your Excellency’s letter of the 28th ult., or in the Memorandum committed to Mr. Elliot’s care. I cannot, however, close this despatch without representing to your Excellency the clear and unanimous opinion of his Majesty’s servants that the only efectual means to which you can resort to relieve you from the embarrassments which you apprehend will be the prorogation of Parliament. It appears to us the only measure which can give time for the ferment which has been raised to subside, and for the public mind to recover the degree of temper necessary to understand the advantages of a Union. Te frst and principal object, therefore, of your attention and study should be to arrange the business of the Session in such a manner as can best tend to that event. I am sensible that the change which you have been under the necessity of making in one of the important ofcial departments of your Administration may unavoidably retard its attainment; but I have that opinion of the activity and diligence of your present Chancellor of the Exchequer,38 that I am persuaded the experience of his predecessor will be fully compensated by those qualities, and that the Session will probably not be protracted upon that account beyond the usual term of its duration; and as, from / what I have been given to understand of the nature of Parliamentary business in Ireland, there are very few cases in which private concerns can stand in need of or become the subject of Parliamentary interposition, I should hope that the principal business of your Session may be concluded before Easter, and that, in the meeting afer the recess, there will be little more to be done than to receive and pass the Bills which have been transmitted hither, and which shall be returned to you with all possible despatch. Besides the infuence which you must have with those friends who have uniformly supported your Government, I am persuaded that, by the means you will employ with those who abandoned you upon the Union question, and whose desertion can be imputed only to the prejudices and passions of the moment, or to ignorance or misapprehension of the terms on which it was to be proposed to them, you will be able to reunite them in such a manner as at least to defeat any of the attempts which have been supposed,

298

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

or any other which may be made to protract the duration of this Session; and by this counteracting and disappointing the hopes of the gentlemen of the Opposition, the Nation will be enabled to appreciate their real strength and the real object of their designs – two points, which, if brought distinctly and obviously under the public eye, cannot fail to contribute to the tranquillity of your Government, and to facilitate ultimately the success of the Union. I have the honour, &c., Portland. February 4, 10 minutes past 4, P.M. PS. As Mr. Elliot is of opinion that your Excellency will be anxious to be possessed of the sentiments of the King’s confdential servants upon the subjects of this despatch, I have determined to send it to you by a messenger, instead of waiting to convey it by that gentleman : but Lord Castlereagh’s letter of the 28th of January to Mr. Elliot, which he has only received this afernoon, contains matter of so much importance, that I have prevailed upon Mr. Elliot to defer his departure till it has / been submitted to the consideration of the Cabinet, which it will be to-morrow morning; and, in the mean time, I desire your Excellency will not consider any part of the instructions in this despatch conclusive which relate to the repeal of the restrictions to which the Roman Catholics are at present liable, or act upon them in any matter whatever, until you hear again from me upon the subject. P[ortland].

[…] Te Duke of Portland to Lord Cornwallis. Secret and Confdential.

Whitehall, March 8, 1799.

My Lord – Te public attention, notwithstanding the avowed determination of Government not again to bring forward the question of Union in the course of the present Session, appears to be so entirely occupied by that subject, its infuence so evidently manifests itself in the discussion of every measure which comes under the consideration of the / House of Commons, and it enables the Opposition to embarrass and retard the progress of business to so great a degree, that I am to recommend to your Excellency to take, without further delay, such means as, without abandoning the measure, you may judge to be most efectual for allaying the apprehensions which have been conceived of its efects, and which may best tend to reconcile to it those who, with the exception of the proprietors and trading inhabitants of Dublin, must be principally, if not solely, afected by it. By a very ingenious and interesting letter of Lord Castlereagh’s, which I had the pleasure of receiving on the 7th ult. (and to which I have not sooner adverted, from the necessity of acquiescing, for the present, in what was to be collected from the debate on the Report of the Address to be the opinion of the

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

299

Irish House of Commons) the diferent descriptions of persons whose present interests dispose them to be adverse to the measure are so justly and accurately defned, the causes of their opposition are so clearly and distinctly detailed, and the means of removing them so judiciously and satisfactorily pointed out, (and they seem, moreover, so much within reach) that I should advise your Excellency to resort to them without loss of time, was I not sensible that your general local knowledge, and the means your situation gives you of observing the temper of the country, as well as the disposition of its leading interests, enable you to choose the most favourable mode and opportunity of making this new arrangement known, either by an open avowal of it and specifcation of it in detail, (which, at this moment, we conceive would scarcely be prudent) or by letting it get out by degrees, as a project that might be in the contemplation of Government, if, on communication with individuals, it should be found likely to recommend the general measure of Union. But, at whatever time, whether on receipt of this despatch, or at a remoter period, your Excellency shall determine to open this plan, I conclude that your frst communication will be of that part of it which is intended to / conciliate the County interests, and to restore you the support of the independent and most respectable members of the House; and that they will be informed, in the frst instance, that their relative situation in respect of seats will be exactly the same in the United as in the Irish House of Commons. For, upon the best consideration which his Majesty’s servants here have been able to give the subject, they are convinced that, under whatever circumstances the measure of Union may be brought forward, the County representation should remain exactly on the same footing that it is at present, and that, consequently, each county should continue to send two Representatives. By this arrangement, the two most important of Lord Castlereagh’s classes, viz., the frst and second interest in Counties, considered in that point of view only, are lef, not only without a pretext of complaint, but, without their being exposed to any risk, expence, or trouble, in addition to that which they are now subject to, their situations necessarily become doubled in value and importance. How far it may be insisted on that a Union will give additional security to the frst County interests your Excellency will best judge; but, inasmuch as it will necessarily reduce the number of all species of Parliamentary Adventurers, they will gain, in common with all other landed proprietors, and, as it may render it less an object to any one to endeavour to create a Catholic interest in a County, both these classes, but the frst in particular, cannot but fnd themselves considerably beneftted. Tese, however, are contingencies on which I lay no particular stress: there are such abundant other reasons for reconciling these two classes to the measure, that, when once their fears respecting their own situations are quieted, they cannot but anticipate the personal as well as public advantages which must result from its adoption, and become strenuous advocates in its favour.

300

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

With respect to the borough proprietors, though I cannot subscribe to any proposal for increasing the number of Representatives beyond 100 at the utmost, and am not prepared to / admit Lord Castlereagh’s valuation of either English or Irish Boroughs, I have no difculty in authorizing your Excellency to hold out the idea of compensation to all persons possessed of that species of property, and I do not scruple to advise that the compensation should be made upon a liberal principle.39 But, as this part of the plan cannot be carried into execution without attending to a variety of considerations and entering into great details, I will go no further into it at present than to say that I should strongly incline to follow, as nearly as may be, the method adopted in Scotland of classing the Boroughs, which has, at least, the authority of near a century’s experience. But I cannot conclude this part of the subject without expressing a hope that, from the additional value which the Borough seats will acquire in the United Parliament, exclusive of any consideration of the seats for Counties, it will be found that this very great and never to be lost sight of object will be attained upon much easier terms, in all respects, than the caution of Lord Castlereagh will allow him to imagine. As to the lawyers and those adventurers, who were tempted to speculate in Parliamentary politics by the cheapness of seats, at the last general election, there can be no pretenders to compensation whom I should be less disposed, and, I should hope, it will be less necessary, to consider than both, particularly the last description of them. As soon as the two descriptions of County interests are secured, of the practicability of which I have little doubt, and in which a considerable part of the third class, or Borough proprietors, is necessarily included, there seems a most obvious and easy mode of settling the pretensions of the professional politicians, and, at the same time, an opportunity of giving an additional boon to all the Borough proprietors. Your Excellency will anticipate my meaning, and infer that I can allude to nothing but a dissolution of the present Parliament – a step which, I should imagine, would be much approved by the public, and would be highly agreeable to such of the Borough / proprietors as would, by that means, be restored to the possession of their own natural weight and importance, and be completely relieved from the tyranny of those declaimers whom they unwarily brought into the House of Commons at the last general election. As a popular measure (as far as that may be thought worth attention), it might have its efect in being represented as a proof of the candour of Government in resorting, on such an occasion, to the sense of the constituent body. But this is an idea which I throw out with entire deference to your better judgment, because, notwithstanding the advantage which it seems to aford, in the point of view in which I see it, it may be capable of producing consequences which, in the opinion of a closer and more experienced observer, may render it too dangerous an experiment to be attempted.

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

301

Te apprehensions of all descriptions of Proprietors and resident inhabitants in Dublin are too natural to be treated as prejudices, or to be expected to be got the better of by the common means of persuasion or infuence. Nothing, however, should be omitted that can conciliate or dispose them to acquiesce in the measure. In respect to representation, I conceive there could be no objection to put them upon the same footing as the Counties, and to leave them in possession of the two Seats they now have in the House of Commons. Any and every other indulgence might also be conceded to them; but, at the same time, they must be given to understand that, whenever it shall be thought advisable to bring on the measure of Union, their supposed local interests will not be considered as any obstacle to it, and must not be expected to be put in competition with those of the kingdom in general, and the stability and aggrandizement of the British Empire. I have gone at greater length than I frst intended into this subject; but I have been irresistibly led to pursue the masterly outline, which has been traced for me by Lord Castlereagh. My anxiety, also, that the remainder of your Session should be rendered as easy as, I am persuaded, it will be honourable / to you, was a further inducement; nor was it the least of my motives to suggest to your Excellency the best means which occurred to me to quiet the alarms and jealousies which prevailed, and reunite the power and property of the kingdom, as well for the purpose of discouraging the enemy from attempting, and defeating him should he attempt to invade you, as for the purpose of promoting the success of a Union, the necessity of which is fully and incontrovertibly proved by the event of every day. I have the honour, &c., Portland.

[…] Lord Cornwallis to the Duke of Portland. Dublin Castle, June 22, 1799. My Lord – I had the honour of receiving by express your Grace’s despatch of the –, in answer to mine of the –. On so important a question of policy as that which I had the honour of submitting to your Grace, it is a peculiar satisfaction to my mind, that the line of conduct which the honour of the Crown appeared to me to require, and which the particular interests of the King’s Government, with relation to the question of Union, additionally called for, should be so decidedly approved by his Majesty and his confdential servants. I took an early opportunity of impressing the principal friends of my Government with the reasons which had induced me to recommend, and his Majesty to sanction, the removal of those gentlemen from his service who not only difered

302

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

in sentiment with my administration on the question of Union, but who had, in a manner not the most respectful, refused even to discuss a measure which had been recommended from the throne. I have not yet altogether settled my arrangements. Your Grace may be assured of receiving the earliest intimation of the mode in which I propose to fll up the several vacancies. I trust the disposition which I shall propose will be approved / by his Majesty. Your Grace may be assured that in this, as in every act of my administration, my conduct shall be solely directed with a view to the general stability of the King’s Government and the furtherance of the great object given me in charge. I have abstained for some time from addressing your Grace much in detail on the subject of Union. It is difcult to notice the daily variations observable in the sentiments of individuals or of the public, without being liable to receive, and of course to convey, impressions in respect to the prospect of ultimate success which may not rest on any very certain foundation, and a truer estimate of our real progress may be perhaps better formed by a comparison of the general aspect of afairs at periods somewhat removed from each other. Within the last month, I think I am justifed in stating to your Grace that we have sensibly gained strength. Were I justifed in ranking Lord Downshire amongst the friends of the measure, I should feel that our progress had been so considerable, as to induce me to entertain very sanguine hopes of bringing the measure to a successful issue in the course of the next Session. I have this day had a very long conversation with his Lordship, and am sorry to observe that his language is more hostile than it was when I last communicated with him, and extends itself to the principle of the measure, as well as to the unftness of the season for its execution. Lord Downshire’s sentiments are not likely to remain a secret, and I cannot but apprehend that they will operate most injuriously as well in discouraging, and perhaps, to a certain degree, in shaking the constancy of our friends as in giving confdence to the Opposition, several of whom were beginning to hold more moderate language since the frmness as well as the perseverance of Government was so distinctly marked at the close of the Session. Without troubling your Grace with names, which cannot at present be mentioned without considerable explanations, I / think I cannot with safety state that the supporters of a Union in the Commons have increased from 149, at which number they were stated in my last despatch, to 165. Te increase is partly acquired from the numbers stated as against; partly from the class reckoned as doubtful. Should my Lord Downshire persevere in his present indisposition to the measure, I trust he may at least be induced to leave his friends, as he did on the late occasion, to pursue their own line, in which case we should divide his strength, which does not, in the present Parliament, exceed seven votes. Having stated to your Grace the result of our exertions, as far as Parliament is concerned, I wish to give you some idea of the prospects we have out of doors. I

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

303

feel the direction of the public sentiment superior in importance to every other object, and shall leave no efort unmade to turn it to advantage. Every publication of merit has been systematically and most extensively circulated, and certainly with the best efects: I have most earnestly recommended it to the friends of Government to exert themselves during the summer in their several Counties, and have urged them, without risking popular meetings, to obtain declarations similar to those of Cork and Galway in favour of the measure. Te eforts necessary to procure these declarations have roused our friends to exertion, and inspired them with a proportionate zeal; and we fnd in the counties in which it has been successfully tried that it has been not less useful in pledging individuals in favour of the measure than in disposing the timid to declare themselves, and will not only encourage but justify the opponents of the question in Parliament in a change of conduct. Our situation in the Counties is at present nearly as follows. Galway, King’s County, Mayo, and Kerry have already come forward; Cork, Mayo, and Kerry, with a unanimity unexampled, on any public measure. We expect to have nearly equal success in Clare, Derry, Tipperary, Waterford, and / Wexford. We reckon the strength divided in diferent degrees, and of course the point is to be contested, in Antrim, Armagh, Donegal, Down, Kilkenny, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Monaghan, Meath, Queen’s County, Roscommon, Sligo, Tyrone, and Westmeath. In Carlow, Cavan, Dublin, Fermanagh, Kildare, Louth, and Wicklow, we reckon little strength, and of course can look only to time for making an impression. Te temper of Dublin remains strongly adverse, but not in the degree it did. Some of the commercial body have altered their sentiments. Dublin is not without materials for a counter-party, which I should have sanguine hope of collecting, if my endeavours to produce a schism in the Corporation should prove successful. Your Grace is so thoroughly impressed with the various difculties, which present themselves in the prosecution of so important a change in the frame of any country, that it is unnecessary for me to guard your Grace against drawing too fattering conclusions from any facts I have stated, which, in truth, appear to me not to warrant more than a determination to persevere. I cannot conclude this despatch without submitting to your Grace some suggestions, with a view to the prosecution of the measure. Te period of bringing forward the question must necessarily depend on the future temper of Parliament and of the country. Should both be ripe for such a proceeding, I conclude your Grace would not consider it wise to hazard by any delay a change of sentiment; and that you would recommend the assembling of Parliament without loss of time. When that much desired moment may arrive, it is impossible to foresee; but it appears to me desirable that every detail connected with the measure should be prepared without delay, and that all those points which will remain to be settled by Commissioners named on the part of the respective countries, afer

304

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

the general resolutions shall have been agreed to, should be all privately reviewed and digested, under the direction of Ministers, / by a very few of those persons who are likely aferwards to be employed in conducting the formal treaty. No delay need then occur in the execution of the measure. Te period of the conferences between the Commissioners, which is an awkward moment of suspense and cabal, both in and out of Parliament, would be materially abridged; and the persons so employed would guide the respective Commissioners more certainly aferwards to a unanimous decision, having had an occasion of forming common opinions, than if they were to enter into the treaty without any previous intercourse. Should this idea meet the approbation of your Grace, I beg leave to suggest that Mr. Beresford40 and Mr. Corry should, at such time as your Grace should think ft to appoint, be desired to go over to London. Mr. Beresford, I fnd, is particularly engaged with some private business, which will necessarily detain him in Ireland for the next six weeks; but his arrangements would admit of his attending your Grace’s summons about the middle of August. I mention these gentlemen as most conversant with the detail which is to be gone into, not wishing to give the Chancellor or any other member of the Government the trouble of going over – unless your Grace should upon consideration think it necessary – upon an investigation merely preliminary, and principally relative to trade and fnance. It is also perhaps desirable that the business should be transacted so as not to attract the public attention. I should wish Lord Castlereagh to be present; and he will regulate his departure in conformity to your Grace’s instructions. If that period should be acceptable to your Grace, Lord Castlereagh would be enabled to carry over the result of the Assizes, which will probably aford an occasion to the diferent parties of trying their strength on the question; and Ministers would have full time to decide on the expediency of calling the Parliament before Christmas, and of raising their supply; or, if that is thought inexpedient, as delaying the measure too much, it may remain open for the united Parliament. Objections / certainly attach to the latter suggestion, but not in themselves so formidable to the success of the main question as risking a by-battle in a country peculiarly ignorant and liable to be strongly excited on a question so strongly coming home to their feelings. In a pecuniary point of view, Mr. Pitt may perhaps be the better reconciled to this delay, from the probability there is that a considerable saving may arise (from the reduction of the Army) in the Estimates of this year; from the prospects we have of being able to make even a larger loan in the Irish market next year than was obtained this year; and from the peculiarly fourishing situation of the Revenue. I am happy to have it in my power to state to your Grace that the Revenue of the current year promises to exceed the Revenue of the last in a sum considerably beyond what the Revenue of 1798 exceeded that of 1797. Te excess of 1798

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

305

above 1797 was about half a million; that of 1799, between the 25th of March and the 10th of August, has risen to £300,000 above the excess of last year; and the remainder of the year may reasonably be expected to be proportionally much more productive, as the payments on the Window Tax, which, it is supposed, will produce above £100,000, have not yet been brought into the collection. Te three causes cannot fail to diminish very materially the amount of the loan which Great Britain will be called on to raise for the service of Ireland, and this consideration may possibly induce your Grace and Mr. Pitt to think it inexpedient to press this subject on the Irish Parliament, till they shall have been brought to decide, in the frst instance at least, on the general principle of Union.

[…] Lord Cornwallis to the Duke of Portland. Dublin Castle, August 13, 1799. My Lord – I returned to town on Friday, from my southern tour, and am happy to have it in my power to convey to your Grace the most satisfactory accounts of that part of the kingdom, as well in point of tranquillity as in general good disposition towards the Government, and cordial approbation of the measure of Union. Tis sentiment is confned to no particular class or description of men, but equally pervades both the Catholic and Protestant bodies; and I was much gratifed / in observing that those feelings which originated with the higher orders have, in a great degree, extended themselves to the body of the people. I received, in the course of my tour, addresses from all the public bodies connected with the towns through which I passed, as also from those in the neighbourhood of the places where I made any stay (with the exception of those Corporations which happened to be under the infuence of individuals who had taken a part in Parliament against the measure); they universally declared themselves most warmly and unequivocally on the question of Union; and, since my return, a meeting of the County of Tipperary, convened by the Sherif,41 and most numerously and respectably attended, has entered into strong resolutions, and instructed their representatives42 to support the Union. Lord Lismore* and some few of Mr. Ponsonby’s friends attended, but their strength was so inconsiderable, that they withdrew, and the proceeding was unanimous. Te accession of Tipperary to those counties before declared, gives us the entire province of Munster; and its weight will be the more authoritative, as it is an inland county and not decided merely by commercial prospects. *

He succeeded to the Barony on the decease of his father, 1797, and was aferwards created a Viscount.43

306

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Te province of Connaught is going on well. Te town of Galway has recalled its former decision, and declared strongly for Union. I hope the county will shortly follow this example. Te measure has not as yet made the same progress in the province of Ulster. Although we have very formidable opponents to contend against in that quarter of the kingdom, I by no means despair of the public sentiments being ultimately favourable; and, feeling strongly the importance of the object, my exertions shall be particularly directed to dispose the public mind to the Union. In the Northern Counties, we have already established the question strongly in Derry and Antrim. Were the Commons of Ireland as naturally connected with / the people as they are in England, and as liable to receive their impressions, with the prospects we have out of doors, I should feel that the question was in a great degree carried; but your Grace is so well acquainted with the constitution of the assembly in which the question is to be prosecuted, and must be aware how anxiously personal objects will be connected with this measure, which goes to new model the public consequence of every man in Parliament, and to diminish most materially the authority of the most powerful, that your Grace will feel, however advantageous it is for Government to carry the public sentiment with it, that distinct interests are there to be encountered, which will require all the exertions and all the means of Government to overcome, and which may still very much delay and impede the accomplishment of this great settlement. Lord Castlereagh will state to your Grace, more in detail, my ideas on this part of the subject, and on which the early success of the measure will, under the present appearances, absolutely and entirely depend. I have the honour to be, &c.,

[Volume 3] Te Duke of Portland to the Lord-Lieutenant. Whitehall, June 12, 1800. My Lord – I have had the honour to lay before the King your Excellency’s despatch, private, of the 3rd of June, with its three enclosures, received on the 7th by the messenger, Hyde,44 and your despatches of the 9th, one of which contained the reasons of your recommendation of the persons whose names you have submitted to his Majesty as proper to be raised to the dignity of the Peerage, and the other of which was marked separate, both which were brought to me yesterday by the express.

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

307

Your Excellency appears to have been well aware of the manner in which his Majesty would naturally receive a proposal for so large an addition to the Peerage, by the statement you have made of the considerations which you hope may dispose his Majesty to assent to such a measure; and I have the satisfaction of acquainting your Excellency that the proceeding has been attended with the happiest efect: for the sense his Majesty is graciously pleased to entertain of the ability with which you have overcome the difculties you have had to / struggle with, and of the judgment you have displayed in administering the government of his kingdom of Ireland, have given such a weight to your representations in favour of the gentlemen whom you have recommended for this high mark of his Majesty’s favour, that I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s determination to assent to your request. At the same time, I am particularly directed to let you know that his Majesty will very unwillingly consent to the conferring of any of these intended honours till afer the election of the Peers has taken place; and he therefore relies upon the exertion of your Excellency’s utmost infuence, and depends much upon the confdence which your conduct has so justly entitled you to from the candidates for those distinctions, as well as from the country at large, to reconcile them to their being suspended till afer the accomplishment of that event, with the exceptions, however, of the promotions of the Viscounts O’Neill45 and Bandon,46 for which the necessary letters will be sent to your Excellency as soon as you will signify your wishes for them; as well as for conferring the vacant Ribbon of the Order of Saint Patrick47 on the Earl of Altamont,48 which his Majesty very much approves. Te limitation of the titles proposed to be conferred on Mr. Blake49 and Mr. Sandford50 would be more conformable to his Majesty’s sentiments, and the course of general practice, were they confned to the male heirs of the bodies of those gentlemen respectively; and it is his Majesty’s wish that your Excellency should endeavour to reconcile them to retract so much of their expectations as exceeds the general rule; but, if your Excellency has entered into such engagements with them as to render such an attempt inconsistent with the hopes you have encouraged, his Majesty will not ultimately refuse his sanction to your engagement. His Majesty very much approves your Excellency’s intention of deferring the signifcation of his royal assent to the Union Act till afer all the business of the session is completed. / Te power, however, of giving it will be transmitted to you in the accustomed manner, and the time of exercising that power will be lef entirely to your own discretion, with a confdent hope and belief, however, that there will be no occasion for its being brought into use at an earlier period than that which has been suggested by your Excellency. I have the honour to be, &c., Portland.

[…]

308

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Extract of a Letter fom Lord Cornwallis to the Duke of Portland. Secret and Confdential.

Dublin Castle, June 17, 1800.

My Lord – Afer having passed two painful years of difculty and anxiety, my prospect had begun to brighten; the spirit of rebellion was almost universally subsiding, and the great and important measure of Union was not only carried by a majority in Parliament, but received throughout the nation and even in the metropolis with less ill-humour than could have been expected; and many of the most respectable, although not, during the contest, the least violent of the Anti-Unionists had declared that they wished no longer to be ranked among the Opposers of the Government. But your Grace’s despatches of the 12th and 13th, as far as my personal feelings are concerned, have placed me in a more distressing situation than I have yet experienced. In the most severe trials, I have hitherto been able to conduct myself with a frmness becoming a man of honour and integrity, but now my condition is so much altered that I must either say to those whom I am about to disappoint, that I will not keep my word with them, or acknowledge that I have / pretended to have power which I did not possess, and that I must declare my engagements to be void, because his Majesty’s Ministers have refused to fulfl them. Your Grace and his Majesty’s confdential servants do not appear to be aware of the difculties in which we should be involved by deferring the creation of the Peers until the Union Act has received the royal assent. For, although I admit that it would be a matter of very little importance to the welfare of the Empire whether fve or six Unionist or Anti-Unionist Peers should sit in the Imperial Parliament, yet I must contend that it would be of great consequence to the person on whom the administration of the afairs of this kingdom was imposed, if the former should, afer the assurances they had received, have any colour for imputing their disappointment to what they might deem his treacherous delay; and it seems a degradation not altogether consistent with the nature of the distinction intended for the individuals in question, so to manage their creation as studiously to deprive them of all interference in the delegation from the body to which they are hereafer to belong, and to the interests of which they are to be associated. I am so overcome by your Grace’s letter, that I know not how to proceed. Tere was no sacrifce that I should not have been happy to make for the service of my King and country, except that of my honour; the mischief, however, will not end with my disgrace, but the confdence in the English Government will be shaken, and the ill humour of our disappointed supporters will greatly retard the benefts which might have been expected from the measure, and will not tend to strengthen the hands of my successor. I stated to your Grace in my former letter what I had said to Lord Ormonde:51 if I should now tell him that his Majesty had refused the boon which I had asked

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

309

as a personal favour to myself, he will not believe that I had pressed it in a manner that he had a right to expect; and it is likely that there / will then be an end of all intercourse between us. I have had no communication with Lord Londonderry52 on the subject of a British Peerage, but I felt that it ought to be ofered to him on account of the eminent services of his son. I have now only to request that your Grace will assure his Majesty that I have on this occasion served him honestly and faithfully to the best of my abilities: that I have been biassed by no private motives or partialities, and that all my measures have been solely and uniformly directed to the attainment of that great object, in which the honour of his crown and the security of his dominions were so deeply involved. He will, I am persuaded, see the necessity of my having entered into embarrassing engagements, according to the various circumstances which occurred during the long and arduous contest; and if any of them should appear so strongly to merit his disapprobation as to induce him to withhold his consent to their being carried into efect, he will be pleased to allow me to retire from a station which I could no longer hold with honour to myself, or with any prospect of advantage to his service. I have the honour, &c., Cornwallis.

[…] Te Duke of Portland to the Lord-Lieutenant. Private and Confdential.

Whitehall, June 27, 1800.

My Dear Lord – Nothing certainly could be farther from my intention than to propose any measure for your Excellency’s adoption that could place you in any distress whatsoever; and impossible as I conceived the despatches which I had the honour of writing to you on the 13th, to have hurt any of your personal feelings, I most sincerely lament the impression they made upon your Excellency, and I can assure you, for / my own part, that, had it appeared to me possible that they could have produced such an efect, I think myself incapable of writing them to you, and, what is still more, I am satisfed that, had they been seen in that light either by his Majesty, or by any of his servants to whom they were communicated, they would never have been sufered to have found their way to you. I hope I am not less sensible than any other person with whom I have the honour of acting in administration, of the severe trials your Excellency has undergone, of the frmness and integrity with which you have conducted yourself, of your ability and success in conciliating the afections of the diferent descriptions of his Majesty’s Irish subjects, of the value of the important work which you

310

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

have undertaken, and of the services you have rendered, and the honour you have acquired, by bringing the Union, the greatest and most desirable measure which ever was in contemplation, to its happy and fnal accomplishment. Need I then, with such sentiments, disclaim any intention of hurting your peace of mind, much less of suggesting to you the breach of an engagement, or even the disappointment of a hope, which you had thought it right to encourage or to give sanction to? I will not enter into the defence of either of my despatches, further than to say that several of your engagements I considered, and I still think I was not mistaken in considering them, not to be absolute; but an appeal to yourself. I desire to remind your Excellency that they were not his Majesty’s commands, but his opinions and wishes, that I signifed to you. His Majesty acknowledged the difculty of the task you had undertaken, and the merits of your labours. He was not forgetful of the powers you were necessarily entrusted with for that purpose; and if his being desirous that they should be used as temperately as the nature of the case would admit occasioned him to direct me to represent to you his wishes that, in certain instances, the benefts to be derived from them should be suspended or restrained, / having trusted the exercise of such powers to your Excellency, his Majesty was as little disposed as his servants to withdraw them from you, or to require you to break your engagements. It would still be certainly his Majesty’s wish that no new peer should be created until the election of the twenty-eight had taken place, and even, as I before stated, that the number could be made at diferent, rather than at the same time. But, if you have entered into positive engagements upon that subject, his Majesty will not refuse to confrm them, and your Excellency will proceed to carry them into efect, at the time and in the manner you shall judge most expedient for his Majesty’s service. As his Majesty had only authorized assurances to be given to Lord Ely,53 that he might depend upon being made a peer of Great Britain, although the eminence of Lord Castlereagh’s services has been such, as in his Majesty’s gracious consideration, as well as in the unanimous opinion of the public, to entitle Lord Londonderry to that distinction, as the claims of the Marquess of Drogheda54 and of the Earls of Ormonde and Carysfort55 to be Members of the Representative Peerage were irresistible, it will not appear so unreasonable that I should have imagined that some of your engagements in that respect must be conditional also; and I had nothing in particular to lead me to suppose that the displacing of the persons whom I suggested as most easily removeable was inconsistent with your engagements; but the assurances I now understand to have been given by your Excellency make me desist from urging that matter further, and I shall confne myself solely to recommend it to you to fnd an opening for Lord Drogheda among the candidates for the Representative Peerages, and to reserve one for Lord Londonderry, if he should be prevailed upon to see that his Majesty’s interests will certainly be best promoted by his not having the British Peerage added

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis

311

to his Irish honours, and that his family will be no suferers by it, as his Majesty is pleased to authorize your Excellency to assure / Lord Londonderry and Lord Castlereagh that, at any time that it may be the wish of Lord Londonderry, or any of his descendants when in possession of the title, to have a British Peerage conferred on them, the sense his Majesty has of Lord Castlereagh’s most distinguished and meritorious services will ever be remembered by his Majesty; and his Majesty will be ready to fulfl their wishes in such a manner that, should it not take place in the lifetime of Lord Londonderry, his posterity, by his present or any future Countess, would derive the same beneft from it as if the creation had taken place in the lifetime of the present Earl. I abstain from entering into any reasoning about the Marquisates, as well as about the other promotions proposed in the Peerage, upon the ground of the engagements your Excellency has entered into with the parties being absolute and irrevocable, but by resorting to those means which of all others are the least likely to be recommended to or adopted by his Majesty. His Majesty will also be much gratifed by as sparing and as tardy a distribution of Irish honours as the interest of his service will admit; and, at the same time that his Majesty relies upon your Excellency’s judgment and discretion in preventing any prodigality in the dispensation of the patronage of the Crown, he looks to you with no less confdence for the preservation of the honour of Government, and the religious performance of all its engagements. I have the honour to be, &c. Portland

Te Duke of Portland to Lord Cornwallis. Whitehall, July 2, 1800. My Lord – I feel the greatest satisfaction in acquainting your Excellency that the Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland has this day received the royal assent; his Majesty attending in person, for the purpose of passing into a law a / measure of such importance to the interests of both countries and to those of the Empire at large. I have the honour to be, &c., Portland.

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ALL ORANGE SOCIETIES

Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies, Revised and Corrected by a Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland; and Adopted by the Grand Orange Lodge, January 10, 1800 (Dublin: Printed by an Orangeman, 1800).

Te frst Loyal Orange Institution was formed in Armagh in September 1795, shortly afer some Protestant Peep O’Day Boys had driven of some Catholic Defenders in a bloody skirmish known as the Battle of the Diamond, at a crossroads outside Loughgall, county Armagh. Te name was adopted to refect Protestant Irish admiration for the deeds of William III of Orange, who had prevented the Catholics recovering power in Ireland in the early 1690s. Forged out of sectarian confict, the frst members were militant Protestants from the lower orders, including labourers, artisans, innkeepers and small traders. Te earliest leaders were also Freemasons, who adopted some of the rituals, observances and ranks or degrees of membership found in that organization. Proving useful in combatting the radical and militant activities of Catholic Defenders and United Irishmen in Ulster, Orange societies spread across Ulster and beyond, attracting tens of thousands of recruits. Tis expansion began attracting the interest of the government and men of greater wealth and infuence. Tey soon showed a strong desire to control an organization that could itself create widespread disturbances. It then extended to Dublin and elsewhere where Protestants were strong enough to combine in order to protect themselves from what they perceived to be a Catholic and radical threat to their political, economic and social infuence. Tey declared their commitment to the King, constitution and Protestant religion in particular, expressed hostility to Catholic emancipation and political reforms based on French revolutionary principles, and supported the connection with Great Britain. Exclusively Protestant, Orangemen rejected Catholic emancipation primarily for political reasons: they were convinced that the beliefs and structure of the Catholic Church made its adherents unft for liberty and that a Protestant state could not survive in Ireland if the Catholic majority was enfranchised. Tey also swore to assist fellow-members and to – 313 –

314

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

live honest, sober lives. Te approaching threat of rebellion led to the formation of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland on 21 April 1798. Tis body set about reducing the amount of unnecessary ritual that had accumulated in the movement and began simplifying and standardizing the procedures throughout every lodge in Ireland. Te old Orange Order was abolished in 1800 and all Orangemen were requested to re-join a new Orange Institution. Te rules and regulations of this reformed organization are printed here. Tis text explains what Orangemen were expected to support, how they were to enter the organization and how Orange lodges were to be established.1 Notes 1.

On this subject, see Te Formation of the Orange Order 1796–1798; Te Edited Papers of Colonel William Blacker and Colonel Robert H. Wallace, ed. C. Kirkpatrick (Belfast: Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, 1994); H. Senior, Orangeism in Ireland and Britain 1795–1836 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966); D. W. Miller, ‘Te Armagh Troubles 1785–1795’, in Irish Peasants, Violence and Political Unrest, 1780–1914, ed. S. Clark and J. S. Donnelly (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983), pp. 155–91; and J. Smyth, ‘Te Men of No Popery: Te Origins of the Orange Order’, History Ireland, 3 (1995), pp. 48–53.

Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies, Revised and Corrected by a Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland; And adopted by the Grand Orange Lodge, January 10, 1800 (Dublin: Printed by an Orangeman, 1800).

GENERAL DECLARATION of the objects of the

ORANGE INSTITUTION. We associate, to the utmost of our Power, to support and defend his Majesty, King George the Tird, the Constitution and Laws of this Country, and the Succession to the Trone in his Majesty’s illustrious House, being Protestants: for the defence of our Persons and Properties; and to maintain the Peace of the Country: and for these purposes we will be at all times ready to assist the Civil and Military Powers, in the just and lawful discharge of their Duty. We also associate in honour of King William the Tird, Prince of Orange,1 whose Name we bear, as Supporters of his glorious Memory, and the true Religion by Him completely established in these Kingdoms. And, in order to prove our gratitude and afection for his Name, we will annually celebrate the Victory over James at the Boyne,2 on the frst Day of July O. S. in every Year, which Day shall be our grand Æra for ever. We further declare that we are exclusively a Protestant Association; yet, detesting as we do any intollerant Spirit, we solemnly pledge ourselves to each other, that we will not persecute, injure, or upbraid any Person on account of his religious Opinions, provided the same be not hostile to the State; but that we will, on the contrary, be aiding, and assisting to every loyal Subject of every religious Description, in protecting him from Violence and Oppression. /

– 315 –

316

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Qualifcations requisite for an Orangeman. He should have a sincere Love and Veneration for his Almighty Maker, productive of those lively and happy Fruits, Righteousness, and Obedience to his Commands; a frm and stedfast Faith in the Saviour of the World, convinced that he is the only Mediator between a sinful Creature, and an ofended Creator – without these he cannot be a Christian; of an humane and compassionate disposition; and a courteous, and afable behaviour. He should be an utter enemy to savage brutality, and unchristian cruelty; a lover of society, and improving company; and have a laudable regard for the Protestant Religion, and a sincere desire to propagate its Precepts; zealous in promoting the honour, happiness, and prosperity of his King and Country; heartily desirous of victory and success in those pursuits, yet convinced, and assured, that God alone can grant them. He should have an hatred of cursing and swearing, and taking the Name of God in vain (a shameful practice); and he should use all opportunities of discouraging it among his Brethren. Wisdom, and prudence should guide his actions; honesty, and integrity direct his conduct; and the honour, and glory of his King and Country be the motives of his endeavours. Lastly, he should pay the strictest attention to a religious observance of the Sabbath; and also to temperance, and sobriety.

Obligation of an Orangeman. I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely swear, of my own free will and accord, that I will, to the utmost of my power, support and defend the present King, George the Tird, his Heirs and Successors, so long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy, the Constitution and / Laws of these Kingdoms; and that I will ever hold Sacred the Name of our Glorious Deliverer, William the Tird, Prince of Orange: and I do further swear, that I am not, nor ever was a Roman Catholic, or Papist; that I was not, am not, nor ever will be an United Irishman; and that I never took the Oath of Secrecy to that, or any other Treasonable Society; and I do further swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will always conceal, and never will reveal, either part or parts of what is now to be privately communicated to me, until I shall be authorized so to do by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution; that I will neither write it, nor indite it, stamp, stain, or engrave it, nor cause it so to be done, on Paper, Parchment, Leaf, Bark, Stick, Stone, or any thing, so that it may be known: and I do further swear, that I have not, to my knowledge or belief, been proposed and rejected in, or expelled from any other Orange Lodge; and that I now became an Orangeman without fear, bribery, or corruption. SO HELP ME GOD.

Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies

317

Secret Articles. 1st, Tat we will bear true allegiance to his Majesty, King George the Tird, his Heirs and Successors, so long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy; and that we will faithfully support and maintain the Laws, and Constitution of these Kingdoms. 2nd, Tat we will be true to all Orangemen in all just actions, neither wronging one, nor seeing him wronged to our knowledge, without acquainting him thereof. 3rd, Tat we are not to see a Brother ofended for six pence or one shilling, or more, if convenient, which must be returned next meeting if possible. / 4th, We must not give the frst assault to any person whatever, that may bring a Brother into trouble. 5th, We are not to carry away money, goods, or any thing from any person whatever, except arms and ammunition, and those only from an enemy. 6th, We are to appear in ten hours warning, or whatever time is required, if possible (provided it is not hurtful to ourselves or families, and that we are served with a lawful summons from the Master), otherwise we are fned as the company think proper. 7th, No man can be made an Orangeman without the unanimous approbation of the Body. 8th, An Orangeman is to keep a Brother’s secrets as his own, unless in case of Murder, Treason, and Perjury; and that of his own free will. 9th, No Roman Catholic can be admitted on any account. 10th, Any Orangeman, who acts contrary to these Rules, shall be expelled, and the same reported to all the Lodges in the Kingdom and elsewhere. GOD SAVE THE KING.

Marksman’s Obligation.3 I, A. B. of my own free will and accord, in the Presence of Almighty God, do hereby most solemnly and sincerely Swear, that I will always conceal, and never will reveal, either part or parts of what is now to be privately communicated to me, until I shall be duly authorized so to do by the proper authority of the Orange Institution; and that I will bear true Allegiance to his Majesty, King George the Tird, his Heirs and Successors, so long as he or they maintain the Protestant Ascendancy, the Constitution, / and Laws of these Kingdoms; and that I will keep this part of a Marksman from an Orangeman, as well as from the ignorant; and that I will not make a Man, until I become, and only whilst I shall be Master of an Orange Lodge; and that I will not make a Man, or be present at the making of a Man on the Road, or behind Hedges; and that I will be aiding and assisting to all true honest Orange Marksmen, as far as in my power lies, knowing him, or

318

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

them to be such; and that I will not wrong a Brother Marksman, or know him to be wronged of any thing of value, worth apprehending, but I will warn or apprize him thereof, if in my power it lies. All this I swear, with a frm resolution, So help me God, and keep me stedfast in this my Marksman’s Obligation.

General Rules for the Government of Orange Lodges. 1st, Tat every Member of the Orange Institution should undergo a new Election, whenever the Grand Lodge may think it expedient. 2nd, Tat each Lodge, now existing, shall, on such occasion, elect by Ballot fve of its Members, that those fve Members shall then proceed to re-admit, or reject the remaining Members of such Lodge; and that each Member, as he shall be so re-admitted, shall become qualifed to proceed with the said fve original Member to the further re-election of others: but that, in the event of any Person’s being discontinued as a Member of his Lodge, or wishing to become a Member of another, he cannot be balloted for in any other, without producing to the Committee of such Lodge a Certifcate from his former Lodge specifying the cause of such change, and that he is a ft and proper Person to be admitted, or continued an Orangeman. / 3rd, Tat each Lodge shall have a Master and Deputy Master, a Secretary and Deputy Secretary, a Treasurer, and fve Committee Men :– the Master to be appointed by the Lodge; the Deputy Master, Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Treasurer, by the Master, with the approbation of his own Lodge; and the frst Committee Man by the Master, the second by the frst, and so on until the number of fve be completed :– the Election to each of those Ofces to take place on the frst Day of June, for one Year from the frst Day of July; which Election, and every other Change or Alteration that may take place, shall be forthwith certifed to the Grand Master of the County, or City, to be by him forwarded to the Grand Lodge. 4th, Te Master, Deputy Master, Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Treasurer, and the fve Committee Men, upon their Appointment, shall take the follow Obligations:

M.; D. M.; S.; D. S.; T.; and C. Men’s Obligation I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely Swear, that I was not, nor am not a Roman Catholic or Papist; that I was not, am not, ever will be an United Irishman; and that I never took the Oath of Secrecy to that or any other Treasonable Society. For the Master, and Deputy Master, add Tat I am not now made a Master for any private Emolument, or Advantage; that I have not a Sitting in my House, for the purpose of selling Beer, Spirits, or any other Liquor; that I will not knowingly admit, or consent any person for me shall admit any one into the Society of Orangemen, who was, or is a Papist, or

Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies

319

has been an United Irishmen, or has taken their oath of secrecy; that I will use my Authority to keep proper Behaviour, and Sobriety in this Lodge; and that I will not Certify for any / person, without having frst proved him, and being satisfed in my conscience that he is a person of good character. SO HELP ME GOD. For the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, add And that I will, to the utmost of my power, keep safe the Papers belonging to the Lodge; and that I will not give any Copy of the Secret Articles, or lend them to make an Orangeman out of the Lodge I belong to; or lend the Seal, so that it may be afxed to any forged paper, or irregular Orangeman’s Certifcate. For the Treasurer, add And that I will fairly account for all money I have, or may receive for the use of this Lodge, when called upon by the Master of this Lodge. SO HELP ME GOD. For the Committee Men, add And that, whenever I may be called upon to act, in the absence of the Master, and Deputy Master, I will not knowingly admit any one into the Society of Orangemen who was, or is a Papist, or has been an United Irishman, or has taken their Oath of Secrecy; and that I will use my authority to keep proper behaviour and sobriety in this Lodge. SO HELP ME GOD. 5th, Tat the afairs of each Lodge be conducted by the Master, Deputy Master, Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Treasurer, and the fve Committee Men. 6th, Tat, in the absence of the Master, the Deputy Master shall preside, and, in his absence, the senior Committee Man, who shall be present: but that no other person whatever shall have the power of making an Orangeman. 7th, Tat each Candidate for admission shall in future be certifed to be eighteen years of age; and that he shall be proposed by one, and seconded by another member at / one meeting; and admitted, or rejected at a subsequent one: but no ballot can take place, unless the person proposing, or seconding be present. 8th, Tat one negative shall exclude. 9th, Tat any person, wishing to become an Orangeman, must be admitted in the Lodge nearest his place of abode (except in cities and great towns), or have a recommendation from that Lodge, that he is a proper person, before any other Lodge can accept him. 10th, Tat the names of persons withdrawn and rejected in, or expelled from any Lodge, shall be forthwith sent by the Master, or Secretary, to the District Master, with the objections to such persons; in order that the District Master

320

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

may communicate the same to other Lodges; as those, who are unft for one Lodge, must be so for every other. 11th, Tat each Members on admission shall pay – 12th, Tat Master of Lodges do make returns to their District Masters of the number, names, and places of abode of the members of their respective Lodges every six months. 13th, Tat, in order to establish a fund to defray the various and necessary expences of the Grand Lodge, in all Lodges one ffh of the sum paid by members on their frst admission shall be forthwith paid by each, and shall be coutinued [sic] to be paid annually, by half yearly payments, that is on every frst day of May and every frst day of November, to the Treasurer of their respective Lodges; who shall hand over the amount to the District Master, to be by him remitted, through the Grand Master of the County or City, to the Grand Treasurer of Ireland: Te Treasurer of each Lodge to be accountable according to the return made previous to the days above specifed. / 14th, Tat, as Regiments are considered as Districts, the Masters of all Regimental Lodges do make half yearly returns of the number, names, and rank of the Members of their Lodges to the Secretary of the Grand Lodge; but that they shall not make an Orangeman, except the Ofcers, Non-commissioned Ofcers, and Privates of their respective Regiments; and that they do remit to the Grand Treasurer of Ireland the Half-yearly Subscription, as well as that, which is immediately to take place. 15th, Tat no Visitor shall be admitted into any Lodge, unless introduced by a Member; and that new Members shall not be initiated in the presence of any Visitors, save Masters and Deputy Masters. 16th, Tat no Master shall initiate any Orangeman into the Purple Order, who does not belong to his Lodge, or without a written recommendation from the Master of the Lodge, to which such Orangeman may belong: and that no member can, on any account, be raised to the dignity of the Purple Order, who has not been an Orangeman for twelve months at least, and has attended eight monthly meetings during that period; save in the instance of a Member, who has been elected to the ofce of Master, Deputy Master, Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Treasurer, or Committee Man. 17th, All Members to be subordinate to the Master or person presiding for him, who shall have full power of fning all disorderly persons to an amount not exceeding – 18th, Any dispute arising, not provided for by the rules, is to be decided by the Ofcers of the Lodge; and the parties must abide by their decision, on pain of expulsion saving the right of appeal in all such cases to the Grand Lodge. /

Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies

321

19th, Tat each new resolution shall remain on the books from one meeting to the subsequent one, previously to its being adopted or rejected by the majority of the Lodge then present. 20th, Tat no election or other business do take place, unless ten members at least be present, provided the Lodge consist of so many: if it do not, then twothirds of the members must be present. 21st, Tat no business be done in any Lodge, afer dinner, supper, or drink have been brought in; but every motion shall be previously decided. 22d, No person attending intoxicated can be initiated at that meeting: any old member so attending shall be fned. 23d, Te Secretary is to read out, before the books are closed, the names of persons proposed for the next night. 24th, A person is to attend on the outside of the door, while business is going on; that person to be nominated by the Master, or whoever may preside at the time.

Order of Business for each Night. 1st, Lodge to open with a prayer (Members standing) 2nd, General Rules read. 3rd, Members proposed. 4th, Report from Committee. 5th, Names of Members called over. 6th, Members balloted for. 7th, Members made. 8th, Lodge to close with a prayer (Members standing.)

Rules for the formation of Districts, &c. &c. 1st, Tat Masters of Counties, and Cities do divide their respective Counties, and Cities into Districts, according to local circumstances; not more than fve Lodges to / constitute a District, unless they may see reason to extend the number: the Masters of Lodges, so forming a District, to elect a Master for that District. Should the choice of a District Master fall on any private Member of a Lodge within the District, that then such Person shall cease to be a private Member of that Lodge, so long as he shall continue in such Ofce. 2nd, Tat, during the absence, suspension, on non-election of a District Master, the senior Master in the District shall act for the time; the Seniority to be determined by the Number of the Lodge, to which the Master may belong. 3rd, Tat the election to the Ofce of District-Master shall take place on the frst Day of June, for one Year from the frst Day of July. 4th, Tat District-Master shall make returns of the Number, Names, and Places of Abode of the Members of the diferent Lodges within their respective District to the Grand Master of their County, or City every six Months.

322

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Regulations for the Appointment of Grand Masters, and Deputy Grand Masters of Counties, and Cities. 1st, Tat a Grand Master for each County, and City shall be chosen by the District-Masters of such County, and City, and a Deputy Grand Master by the Grand Master; both subject to the approval of the Grand Lodge. Should the choice of a Grand Master, or a Deputy Grand Master of a County, or City, fall on any private Member of a Lodge within the County, or City, of which he is chosen Grand Master, or Deputy Grand Master, that then / such Person shall cease to be a private Member of that Lodge, so long as he shall continue in such Ofce. 2nd, Tat the Grand Masters, and Deputy Grand Masters of Counties, and Cities shall be elected on the frst Day of July in every Year. 3rd, Tat in any County, or City, in which there shall be less than three Districts, the senior District-Master shall, with the approbation of the Grand Lodge, act as Grand Master for that County, or City. 4th, Tat, during the absence, suspension, or non-election of a Grand Master of a County or City, the Deputy Grand Master shall act; and, should the Grand Master, and Deputy Grand Master be absent at the same time, or in case both Ofces should be vacant, then the senior District Master; the Seniority, in all such cases, to be determined by the Number of the Lodge, to which such District-Master may belong. 5th, Tat Grand Masters of Counties, and Cities, do forward to the Secretary of the Grand Lodge, every six Months, such Returns, as shall be made to them by their District-Masters, of the Number, Names, and Places of Abode of the Members of the diferent Lodges within their respective Counties, and Cities: and that they do remit to the Grand Treasurer of Ireland the Half-yearly Subscription from such Lodges, as well as that, which is immediately to take place.

Rules for the Formation of the Grand Lodge. 1st, Tat the Grand Lodge shall be formed anew. 2nd, Tat the Grand Lodge shall consist of Grand Masters of Counties, and Cities, their Deputies, District-Masters, Masters of Lodges, and, in their absence, / Deputy-Masters of Lodges; from amongst whom shall be chosen a Grand Master for Ireland, a Grand Secretary, and a Grand Treasurer: the election to each of these Ofces to take place on the frst Day of July, O. S. in every Year. 3rd, Tat all Authority necessary for the Advancement, and Welfare of the Orange Institution, shall be vested in the Grand Lodge. 4th, Tat the Grand Lodge do meet in the Metropolis four Times in each Year, for the general Government of the Orange Societies, to wit, on the seventh Day of February, the seventh Day of May, the seventh Day of August, and the seventh Day of November: and that the Committee do lay before them, at such

Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies

323

quarterly Meetings, a Report of their Proceedings, for the approbation of the Grand Lodge. 5th, Tat the ordinary Business of the Orange System be transacted by a Standing Committee, to consist of such Members of the Grand Lodge as may be in Dublin; and to which the Grand Lodge shall have the Power of calling in the Aid of Men of known Zeal and Talents, not to exceed twenty-one, to be selected by them from the Purple Order: such Persons, from the time of their being so chosen, to be considered as Members of the Grand Lodge. Provided always that such Committee shall only exist until the 7th Day of August next ensuing, the Day of their being appointed, or chosen. 6th, Tat in every Meeting of such Committee, in the absence of the Grand Master, the senior Member, who shall be present, shall act as Chairman of that Meeting; the Seniority to be determined by the Number of the Lodge to which such Member may belong; and that seven shall be a Quorum. / 7th, Tat the Secretary to the Grand Lodge shall be Secretary to this Committee. 8th, Tat as the Ofce of Secretary to the Grand Lodge is attended with great Expence; and requires constant Labour, and Attendance: therefore, it is expedient, that all the Expences, incurred in the execution of that Ofce, shall be defrayed by the Grand Lodge; and that the Person, flling it, shall be allowed an adequate Compensation for his Trouble, and Attendance, which shall be paid one Quarter in Advance. /

Prayer for opening the Lodge. Gracious and Almighty God, who in all ages hast shewn thy mighty power in protecting righteous Kings and States, we yield thee hearty Tanks for so miraculously bringing to light, and frustrating the secret and horrible designs of our Enemies, plotted and intended to have been executed against our gracious King, our happy Constitution and the true Religion established by our Glorious Deliverer, William the Tird Prince of Orange. Vouchsafe, O Lord, to continue unto us thine Almighty protection, grant to our pious King, long Life, Health, and Prosperity, let thy Providence ever guard our happy Constitution, and enable us to transmit it to our latest Posterity, unimpaired, and improved by our Holy Religion. Bless, we beseech thee, every Member of the Orange Institution, with Charity, Brotherly Love, and Loyalty. Make us truly respectable here on Earth, and eternally happy hereafer. Tese, and all other Blessings, we beg in the Name, and through the mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. Amen.

324

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 5

Or this: Almighty God, and Heavenly Father, who in all ages has shewed thy power and mercy, in graciously and miraculously delivering thy Church, and in protecting righteous and religious Kings and States from the wicked conspiracies, and malicious practices of all the Enemies thereof; we yield thee hearty thanks for so wonderfully discovering and confounding the horrible and wicked designs of our Enemies, plotted and intended to have been executed against our most gracious Sovereign Lord King George, and the whole Estates of the Realm, for the subversion of Government and established Religion. Be thou, O Lord, still our Mighty Protector, and scatter our Enemies that delight in blood; infatuate and defeat their Councils, abate their Pride, assuage their Malice, and confound their Devices. Strengthen the hands of our / Gracious Sovereign, and all that are in authority under him, with judgment and justice to suppress and punish all such workers of iniquity, as turn Religion into Rebellion, and Faith into Faction, that they may never prevail in the ruin of thy Church amongst us; but that our gracious Sovereign, and his Realms being preserved in thy true Religion, and by thy merciful goodness, protected in the same, we may all duly serve thee with praise and thanksgiving. And we beseech thee to protect the King, Queen and Royal Family, from all Treasons and Conspiracies; preserve him in thy Faith, Fear, and Love; make his Reign long, prosperous and happy here on Earth, and crown him hereafter with everlasting Glory. Accept also, most gracious God, our unfeigned Tanks, for flling our Hearts with joy and gladness, by sending thy Servant, the late King William, for the deliverance of these Nations, from Tyranny and arbitrary Power. Let truth and justice, devotion and piety, concord and unity, brotherly kindness and charity, with other Christian Virtues, so fourish amongst us, that they may be the stability of our times, and make this our Association a praise here on Earth. Tis we most humbly beg, in the Name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. Amen.

Form of Prayer to be used at Closing. O Almighty God, who art a strong Tower of Defence, unto thy Servants, against the face of their Enemies; we yield thee praise and thanks for our deliverance from those great and apparent dangers wherewith we were encompassed: We acknowledge thy goodness that we were not delivered over as a prey unto them, beseeching thee still to continue such thy mercies towards us, that all the world may know thou art our Saviour and mighty Deliverer, though Jesus Christ. Amen.

EDITORIAL NOTES

Earl of Moira’s Speech to the British House of Lords 1.

2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

Te Earl of Moira: Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings (1754–1826), second Earl of Moira 1783–1816 and then frst Marquess of Hastings. He was MP for Randalstown 1781–3. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, P. D. Nelson, Francis Rawdon-Hastings: Soldier, Peer of the Realm, Governor-General of India (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005). We have gained a decided victory over one of our enemies: Tis is a reference to the Royal Navy’s major victory in 1797 over a French feet of Ushant in the Atlantic known as ‘Te Glorious First of June’. the inquisition: Roman Catholic institution, which sought to suppress heresy. the Northern Star: radical newspaper of the Belfast Society of United Irishmen, edited by Samuel Neilson, which was active from 1 January 1792 to 19 May 1797, when it was suppressed by the authorities. See, G. O’Brien, ‘“Spirit, Impartiality and Independence”: “Te Northern Star”, 1792–1797’, Eighteenth-Century Ireland, 13 (1998), pp. 7–23. in the hands of the enemy: revolutionary France. Lord Grenville: William Wyndham Grenville (1759–1834), frst Baron Grenville, who had been Chief Secretary of Ireland 1782–3 and was Foreign Secretary 1791–1801. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. See also, P. Jupp, Lord Grenville 1759–1834 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). the present viceroy of Ireland: John Jefreys Pratt (1759–1840), second Earl of Camden, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795 to 1798.

A Letter to the Earl of Moira 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

audi alteram partem: Tis Latin phrase can be translated as ‘Hear the other side too’. to encourage the enemy to a second attempt: Te frst attempt had been the abortive French landing at Bantry Bay in late December 1796. Mr. Finley: John Finlay, not Finley, of County Kildare (1737–1823), was MP for Kilmallock 1777–83 and for County Dublin 1790–7. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. Te attacks on Finlay and the others mentioned below are recorded in Sir Richard Musgrave’s, Memoirs of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, ed. S. W. Myers and D. E. McKnight, 4th edn (Fort Wayne Indiana: Round Tower Books, 1995). near Trim: in County Meath. Rev. Mr. Johnson: Rev. Philip Johnston of Lisburn was a staunch loyalist.

– 325 –

326 6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Notes to pages 19–27 Rev. Mr. Cleland: Rev. John Cleland was a clerical magistrate and the former tutor of the Earl of Londonderry and his son (Viscount Castlereagh). He was shot on 29 October 1796. Lord Londonderry: Robert Stewart (1739–1821), MP for County Down 1771–83, was created Earl of Londonderry in 1796. He was the father of Robert Stewart (1769– 1822), Chief Secretary of Ireland 1798–1801, who held the courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh. Mr. Cummins: John Cummin (not Cummins) of Castlebay, County Down, was murdered on 27 February 1797. the lamented Mr. Hamilton: Dr William Hamilton was murdered at Sharon in March 1797. Mr. Kennedy’s: John Kennedy of Fethard narrowly escaped being murdered. the castle at Hillsborough: Te country seat of Arthur Hill (1753–1801), second Marquess of Downshire from 1793. He was an MP for County Down 1776–93 and an MP at Westminster from 1774 to 1784. General Lake: Gerard Lake (1744–1808), who had served in the Seven Years’ War, the War of American Independence and in Flanders in the early 1790s. He was very active in 1796–7 disarming potential rebels in Ulster. He became Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in April 1798. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. we advert to the trial of Jackson: Rev. William Jackson (1737–95) was born in Ireland, but lived in France 1789–93. He then returned to Ireland and started communicating in Ireland with United Irishmen as an agent for France. He was arrested in April 1794 and charged with high treason, but the trial was delayed for a year. He was convicted, but avoided execution by committing suicide in April 1795. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Te people of Ireland desired to have the duration of their Parliament limited – it was done: by the Octennial Act of 1768. the law was abrogated: in 1782. Te Roman Catholics prayed for a restoration … prayer was heard: In 1793. Mr. Toone: Teobald Wolfe Tone (1763–98), one of the founders of both the Belfast and the Dublin Society of United Irishmen and an agent for the Catholic Committee. He was exiled to the United States of America, but then made his way to France. He promoted the French invasion attempts of Ireland 1796 and 1798. He was convicted of treason in 1798, but avoided hanging by committing suicide. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. See also M. Elliott, Wolfe Tone, 2nd edn (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2012). the Report of the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Lords: Report fom the Committee of Secrecy of the House of Lords of Ireland, appointed to take into consideration matters of the sealed-up papers Received fom the Commons, the 4th of May, 1797 (London, 1797). a plaister were to be applied to the fnger, for a mortifcation in the bowels: Tone, quoted in Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, appointed to take into consideration the treasonable papers presented to the House of Commons of Ireland (London, 1797), p. 45. the laws know by the name of the Convention: 33 George III, cap. 29. Gunpowder: 33 George III, cap. 2. Insurrection: 36 George III, cap. 20. No man better knows … feelings of the British soldier: because of Lord Moira’s years of active service with the British army. Baron Yelverton: Barry Yelverton (1736–1805), frst Viscount Avonmore, was an Irish MP for Donegal borough and then Carrickfergus, 1774–83. He was Attorney General

Notes to pages 27–40

327

1782–3 and was then Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer from 1793. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 25. the Earl Camden: John Jefreys Pratt, second Earl of Camden, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795–8.

Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

In tali tempore … exagitanda videbatur: Tis Latin quotation can be translated as ‘in such a crisis so powerful a man ought to be propitiated rather than exasperated’. It is from C. Sallusti Crispi [Sallust], Bellum Catilinae [Te Catiline War], para. 48. the Chancellor: John FitzGibbon (1749–1802) had been MP for Trinity College Dublin and then Killmallock from 1778 to 1789, before he was made Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1789. He held this position until his death and became successively a baron and viscount, and then Earl of Clare. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, A. V. Kavanaugh, John FitzGibbon, Earl of Clare: A Study in Personality and Politics (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1997). Lord MOIRA: Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings (1754–1826), second Earl of Moira from 1783 and frst Marquess of Hastings from 1816. He was a former army ofcer and MP for Randalstown 1781–3. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Grotto del Cane: Te Cave of the Dog, near Naples, which emitted a noxious gas. piquetting: A form of torture whereby the victim had a noose put around his neck and he was strung up so that his toes just touched the ground and he struggled to avoid being strangled to death. Had it been an open enemy … it was even thou my companion, my guide, mine own familiar fiend: Psalm, 15:12–13. Cicero: Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 bc), the Roman statesman, philosopher, orator and political theorist. Nonne igitur millies … septum esse oportet non armis: Tis Latin quotation can be translated as: ‘Is it not better then to undergo a thousand deaths, than not to be able to live in your own country without an armed guard. But, believe me, that is no guard. Te hearts and afections of your fellow-citizens, and not your arms must be your protection’. It can be found in Cicero’s Select Orations, translated into English, ed. W. Duncan, new edn (London, 1792), section XLIV, p. 650. My own vicinage: he lived at Moira House, in County Down. Morgan: Rev. Patrick Morgan acted as a government informer in County Down in 1797. the Crown of our Sovereign: George III (1738–1829), who succeeded to the throne in 1760. the generous magnanimity of him: George, Prince of Wales (1762–1830), who acted as regent for his incapacitated father from 1811, and who reigned as George IV from 1820 to 1830. Mr. Newell, and a Mr. Bird: Edward John Newell (1771–98) and John Bird were the two most notorious government informers operating in Ulster and pointing out radicals to the army. Newell was particularly notorious, as he had been a member of both the Defenders and the United Irishmen before he became a notorious and hated government informer. He was later turned by the United Irishmen and to the embarrassment of the Irish government he published, Te Apostacy of Newell Containing the Life and Confessions of that Celebrated … Written by Himself (London, 1798). Tis forced the government to release some of the men that had been arrested on his evidence. He was murdered in June 1798, almost certainly by a United Irishman. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB.

328

Notes to pages 40–6

14. Lord Lieutenant: John Jefreys Pratt (b. 1759), second Earl of Camden, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795–8. 15. one of your ports: in Bantry Bay in December 1796. 16. LORD GLENTWORTH: Edmond Henry Pery (1758–1844), second Baron Glentworth from 1794 and previously MP for Limerick City 1786–94. A supporter of Union, he was later Viscount and then Earl of Limerick. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 17. that Gentleman: Charles James Fox (1749–1806), who was Foreign Secretary in 1782. 18. Mr. Eden (now Lord Auckland): William Eden (1745–1814), frst Baron Auckland, had been Chief Secretary of Ireland 1780–2, when Frederick Howard, the ffh Earl of Carlisle was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Eden was briefy MP for Dungannon. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 19. Duke of Lauderdale: John Maitland (1616–82), frst Duke of Lauderdale was leader of the Cabal in the reign of Charles II. In 1678 the House of Commons very narrowly passed a motion requesting his removal from ofce. Tis had also been attempted in 1674 and 1675. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 20. the Directory of France: Five Directors controlled the French executive from 1795 to 1799, between the Convention and the Consulate. 21. the Orange-men: a militant society of ultra Protestants, formed in Armagh in 1795 and naming themselves afer the Protestant hero, William III, Prince of Orange. 22. that damnable society of traitors: the United Irishmen. 23. the demagogue Napper Tandy: James Napper Tandy (1740–1803) was a radical member of Dublin corporation and a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He fed to France and encouraged a French invasion of Ireland. Accused of treason, he was exiled afer the Irish rebellion of 1798. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 24. Tomas Paine: Tomas Paine (1737–1809), the famous radical author of Common Sense, Rights of Man and Te Age of Reason, who was a major infuence on the United Irishmen. 25. Lord Malmesbury: James Harris (1746–1824), frst Baron then frst Earl of Malmesbury, was an experienced English diplomat, who tried to negotiate peace with revolutionary France in Paris and Lille in 1796–7. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 26. Te Press: a radical newspaper set up by Arthur O’Connor in Dublin in September 1797, afer the suppression of the Northern Star in Belfast. It was suppressed by the Irish government in March 1798. 27. Great Nation: the phrase, ‘La Grande Nation’, was just being introduced to describe revolutionary France. 28. Union Star: a militant low circulation news-sheet, ofen pasted up in public places in and around Dublin. It specialized in naming government informers, Orangemen and other enemies of the United Irishmen. 29. the Corfew: Te curfew ordered Irish people to stay indoors during the hours of darkness. 30. James King: Tere was a James King, shoemaker in Dublin. 31. Abraham Edwards: Abraham Edwards was murdered in County Down in 1796 or 1797. 32. Mrs. Uniacke: the widow of Jasper Uniacke of Arglyn, County Cork. 33. Mr. St. George: Mansergh St George. He and Jasper Uniacke were murdered on 9 February 1798. 34. Man of the Mountain: Rashid ad-Din Sinan (c. 1132–92) was an Arabic teacher and leader of the Hashshashin sect, who encouraged his followers to kill the newly elected king of Jerusalem (Conrad of Montferrat) in 1192 and to attempt the murder of Sultan Saladin, who ruled Egypt and Syria. Te word ‘assassin’ comes from the name of his sect.

Notes to pages 46–50

329

35. EARL of CAVAN: Richard Ford William Lambert (1763–1837), seventh Earl of Cavan from 1778. A major general in 1798, he commanded troops in Ulster and later served in Egypt under Sir Ralph Abercromby. 36. Report of the House in 1793: possibly a mistake for 1797. 37. Lord North: Frederick North (1732–92), Prime Minister 1770–82. He was known by the courtesy title, Lord North, and was later second Earl of Guilford. 38. his honourable duties in America: Te Earl of Moira served in America during the War of American Independence and was one of those who surrendered at Yorktown in October 1781. 39. the opposition Cabinet of the country: Te Irish Patriots seeking legislative independence. 40. One of them: Henry Grattan (1746–1820), the leading Irish Patriot who did so much to achieve legislative independence for the Irish Parliament in 1782, and was granted this sum by the grateful House of Commons. 41. the repeal of the 6th of George I: the Irish Declaratory Act of 1720. 42. a clamour was raised for renunciation: Led by Henry Flood (1732–91), the Patriot rival of Henry Grattan. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 43. Duke of Portland: William Henry Cavendish Cavendish-Bentinck (1739–1809), third Duke of Portland, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1782, was nominal head of the Fox–North coalition of 1783, and was Home Secretary under William Pitt from 1794. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 44. Lord Mansfeld: William Murray (1705–93), frst baron and then frst Earl of Mansfeld, was Lord Chief Justice in England from 1756 to 1788. 45. Lord Temple: George Nugent-Temple-Grenville (1753–1813) was Earl Temple 1779– 84 and then frst Marquess of Buckingham. He was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the Earl of Shelburne’s ministry 1782–3 and pressed the Westminster Parliament to pass the Renunciation Act of 1783. See P. Jupp, ‘Earl Temple’s Viceroyalty and the Question of Renunciation, 1782–3’, Irish Historical Studies, 17 (1971), pp. 499–520. 46. a renunciation act: 33 George III, cap. 29. It is printed in Volume 4. 47. his brother: William Grenville (1759–1834) was Temple’s Chief Secretary 1782–83 and was active in securing the passage of the Renunciation Act through the Westminster Parliament. He served as Foreign Secretary 1791–1801 in William Pitt the Younger’s frst administration. 48. a bill was brought in … read a third time, passed: Tis is a reference to the Grand National Convention of Irish Volunteer delegates that met in Dublin in November 1783. 49. the members who presented it: Henry Flood presented the bill for parliamentary reform to the Irish House of Commons on 13 March 1784. 50. by the wisdom of the Parliament of Ireland was rejected: Tis is a reference to the Irish opposition to William Pitt’s Commercial Propositions of 1785. See J. Kelly, Prelude to Union: Anglo-Irish Politics in the 1780s (Cork: Cork University Press, 1992), pp. 76–209. 51. a party in this country shook the constitution to its foundation: Tis is a reference to Henry Grattan’s eforts to pass a Regency bill in Ireland in 1789 to acknowledge the Prince of Wales’s right to act as regent during the incapacity of his father, George III, an incapacity which proved temporary, 52. Marquis of Buckingham: See Earl Temple in note 45 above. He was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland again in 1787–9, when he refused to send the Irish Regency bill on to London. 53. a club: Henry Grattan established an Irish Whig Club in Dublin in June 1789.

330

Notes to pages 50–3

54. By the conduct of this political Club … reading the annals of 1641: Irish Protestants at this time had bitter memories of the Irish rebellion of 1641, which they blamed entirely (though unfairly) on Catholic hatred of Protestants. 55. Mr. Pitt: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. 56. Lord Lansdown: William Petty Fitzmaurice (1737–1805), second Earl of Shelburne and then frst Marquess of Lansdowne from 1784, was Prime Minister 1782–3. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 57. Mr. Fox: Charles James Fox (1749–1806) was briefy Foreign Secretary 1782–3, but spent much of his career leading the opposition to Prime Minister Pitt. He had close links with Irish Whigs. See, in particular, M. J. Powell, ‘Charles James Fox and Ireland’, Irish Historical Studies, 33 (2002), pp. 169–90. 58. their founder Tone: Teobald Wolfe Tone (1763–98) was one of the founders of the Society of United Irishmen in both Belfast and Dublin. Driven into exile to the United States in order to escape possible charges of treason, he then went to France where he encouraged the French to launch the abortive invasion attempt of late 1796. He subsequently accompanied the French invasion attempt during the Irish rebellion of 1798. Captured, he committed suicide before he was due to be hanged for treason. 59. Hoche: Lazare Hoche (1768–97) commanded the French invasion attempt of 1796, which briefy landed at Bantry Bay in late December to fnd no support there. 60. not proved either by Newel or Smith: See note 13, above. 61. they took advantage of a very old religious feud in the county of Armagh: See, Brendan McEvoy, ‘Te Peep of Day Boys and Defenders in the County Armagh’, Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society, 12:1 (1986), pp. 122–63 and 12:2 (1987), pp. 60–127. 62. Gunpowder Bill: 33 George III, cap. 2 (1793). 63. A determination on the part of Irish Union … trade of Parliament was forbidden: Te planned Convention of the United Irishmen to be held at Athlone persuaded the Irish Parliament to pass the Convention Act of 1793 (33 George III, cap. 29) banning such meetings. 64. Colonel Cradock: Lt.-Col. Sir John Francis Cradock (1759–1839), aide de camp in ordinary to the Lord Lieutenant, Quarter Master General and MP for Clogher, Castlebar, Midleton and then Tomastown from 1785 to 1800. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 65. French Directory: Te Directory governed France from 1795 to 1799. 66. General Lake: Gerard Lake (1744–1808) commanded the government’s forces in Ulster in 1796 and was ordered to disarm Ulster in 1797. His proclamation of 13 March 1797 is printed in Volume 4. 67. Colonel Haynes: Col. Isaac Haynes (1745–81) was an American militia ofcer hanged at Charleston on 4 August 1780, without having had a fair trial. Te Earl of Moira, when known as Lord Rawdon-Hastings, was one of the British army ofcers blamed for this. 68. Waller: Te Rev. Dr Waller’s wife was shot at their home in Sharon in County Donegal in March 1797, 69. the death of Mr. Hamilton: Dr William Hamilton was murdered at Rev. Walker’s house at Sharon in March 1797. 70. Rev. Mr. Knipe: Rev. George Knipe, a clerical magistrate, was murdered for his exertions to prevent disorder. Te government awarded his surviving widow and children an annuity. 71. M. Cummins: John Cummin (not Cummins) of Castlebay, County Down, was murdered on 27 February 1797.

Notes to pages 53–8

331

72. Rev. Mr. Butler: Rev. Tomas Butler of County Meath was murdered on 24 October 1793. See, Te Trial of John Fay, Esq. of Navan in the County of Meath for Conspiring with Others to Kill and Murder the Rev. Tomas Butler of Ardbracken (Dublin, 1794). 73. Mr. Connolly: Rt. Hon. Tomas Conolly, not Connolly (1738–1803), MP for County Londonderry 1761–1800. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 74. Lady Louisa Connolly: Lady Louisa Conolly, not Connolly, was the daughter of the Duke of Richmond. She served as a visiting lady to the Magdalen Asylum for Female Penitents, along with the Countess of Moira. 75. chevau-de-fize: a chevaux de fise was a portable frame, covered with projecting long iron or wooden spikes, designed to cripple cavalry horses. 76. Ballynahinchy: Ballynahinch is a town in County Down. 77. the Heir Apparent of the Crown: George (1762–1830), Prince of Wales, later Prince Regent from 1811 and King George IV from 1820 to 1830. 78. Northern Star-ofce: Te Northern Star, the newspaper of the Belfast United Irishmen, had its ofce in Belfast until it was closed down by the authorities in May 1797. 79. Mr. George Crozier: George Crozier (d. 1831) worked for the Earl of Moira for many years. His son, a naval ofcer and polar explorer, was named Francis Rawdon Moira Crozier. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 80. Protestant Bishop: William Dickson (1744–1804), Bishop of Down and Connor from 1783, was a lifelong friend of Charles James Fox. 81. afer peace had been made between them renewed the dispute: See note 61 above. 82. King James was expelled the Trone: James Stuart (1633–1701), King James VII and II from 1685, fed to France in late 1688 and never regained his throne thereafer. 83. Agent fom Paris: Tis could refer to Teobald Wolfe Tone or to William James MacNeven who, as agents of the United Irishmen, were in Paris at this time seeking French support for an invasion of Ireland. MacNeven (1763–1841) was arrested in Ireland in 1798 and imprisoned until 1802. He returned to France, joined the French army in 1803, but emigrated to the United States in 1805. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 84. Ambassador fom Lisle: Edward John Lewins (1756–1828) was sent to France as an ambassador for the United Irishmen. In some sources his second name is given as Joseph and his surname as Lewines. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Both he and MacNeven were trying to frustrate the British eforts to negotiate peace with France at Lille. 85. his name: likely to be Lewins, but could refer to MacNeven. 86. that Arthur O‘Connor: Arthur O’Connor (1763–1852), a United Irishman, produced this radical newspaper in Dublin. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB and publications by him are printed in Volume 4. 87. BISHOP of DOWN: See note 80 above. 88. Noble Lord on the Woolsack: John FitzGibbon, frst Earl of Clare and Lord Chancellor of Ireland from 1789, sat on a woolsack, while presiding over debates in the Irish House of Lords. 89. Lord Fitzwilliam: William Wentworth Fitzwilliam (1748–1833), fourth Earl Fitzwilliam, was briefy Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1795. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 90. Lord DUNSANEY: Randall Plunkett (1739–1821) was the thirteenth Baron Dunsany (not Dunsaney) from 1781. 91. noble Baron: Lord Glentworth. See note 16 above.

332

Notes to pages 59–64

92. Lord Coke: Edward Coke (1552–1634) was the greatest jurist of his age and held the posts of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Solicitor General and Attorney General. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 93. recall of my Lord Fitzwilliam: On the recall of Earl Fitzwilliam, see D. Wilkinson, ‘Te Fitzwilliam Episode: A Reinterpretation of the Role of the Duke of Portland’, Irish Historical; Studies, 29 (1995), pp. 315–39. 94. new Viceroy: John Jefreys Pratt (1759–1840), second Earl of Camden, succeeded Fitzwilliam as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1795 and served until mid-1798. 95. Mr. Nelson: Samuel Neilson (1761–1833) was a member of the Belfast Society of the United Irishmen and editor of their newspaper, the Northern Star from 1792 to 1797. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 96. Lord ROSSMORE: Robert Cunningham (1726–1801), frst Baron Rossmore, was Commander-in-Chief of the army in Ireland 1793–6. He was an MP for Tulsk, Armagh borough and then Monaghan borough 1761 to 1796. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 97. Lord BELLAMONT: Charles Coote (1738–1800), frst Earl of Bellamont, was MP for Cavan 1761–6. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 98. Proxy: Te members of the Irish House of Lords, unlike MPs in the Irish House of Commons, were allowed to vote by proxy when absent from the chamber. 99. Earls Charlemont: James Caulfeild (1728–99), frst Earl of Charlemont, formerly the patron of Henry Grattan and Commander-in-Chief of the Irish Volunteers. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 100. Arran: Arthur Saunders Gore (1734–1809), second Earl of Arran from 1773. He was an MP for Donegal borough and County Wexford 1759–73. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 101. Cloncurry: Nicholas Lawless (1733–99), frst Baron Cloncurry, was MP for Liford 1776–89. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 102. Kilkenny: Edmund Butler (1771–1846), frst Earl of Kilkenny from 1793, was the son of the eleventh Viscount Mountgarret (and he also held the title of twelfh Viscount). His uncle, Simon Butler, had been President of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen in its early months. 103. Granard: George Forbes (1760–1837), sixth Earl of Grannard from 1780, was related by marriage to Moira and shared his views. An army ofcer, he commanded the Longford militia at Castlebar in 1798, when his troops fed from the French. He was also present at the battle of Ballinamuck when General Humbert and his French forces surrendered. 104. Belvedere: George Rochfort (1738–1815), second Earl of Belvedere from 1774, had been MP for Philipstown and County Westmeath 1759–75. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 105. Earl Mt. Cashel: Stephen Moore (1770–1822), second Earl of Mount Cashell (or Mountcashell) from 1790, was briefy MP for Clonmel for two months in 1790, before succeeding to his earldom. 106. Dissentient: Te members of the Irish House of Lords had the privilege of expressing their formal dissent to a motion by signing a protest that entered the ofcial record of the house.

Notes to pages 67–75

333

Te Diary of Sir John Moore 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

Ralph Abercromby: Sir Ralph Abercromby (1734–1801) was a Scottish army ofcer who had served in Germany during the Seven Years’ War and then in Ireland for some years. He fought the French in Flanders in 1793–5 and served with success in the West Indies in 1796–7. He was made Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in December 1797 and was soon highly critical of the ill-discipline of the troops under his command. He resigned in early 1798. He was killed in Egypt on 28 March 1801. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Lord-Lieutenant: John Jefreys Pratt (1759–1840), second Earl of Camden, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795–8. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. the Lord-Lieutenant and his secretary: Tomas Pelham (1756–1826), later second Earl of Chichester, was Chief Secretary of Ireland 1795–8. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. the Militia: On the conduct of the militia at this time, see I. F. Nelson, Te Irish Militia 1793–1802: Ireland’s Forgotten Army (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007). Hell to the King: King George III, who reigned from 1760 to 1820. Duke of York: Prince Frederick (1763–1827), George III’s second and favourite son, was Duke of York from 1784. He commanded the British forces in Flanders 1793–5 with little success. He was made Commander-in-Chief of the British army on 34 April 1798. Chancellor of Ireland: John FitzGibbon (1748–1802), frst Earl of Clare, was Lord Chancellor 1789–1802. For this speech see the text printed immediately before this one. Lieutenant Colonel Cooper: Joshua Edward Cooper (1762–1827) was MP for County Sligo, 1790–1800. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. Sir James Stewart: Sir James Stewart (1756–1827) was MP for Enniskillen 1783–90. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. the high sherif of the county: Samuel Townsend (1768–1836) was also a JP and a Deputy Lieutenant of County Cork. Lord Westmeath: George Frederick Nugent (1760–1814), seventh Earl of Westmeath from 1792, was MP for Fore 1780–92. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. defenders: Te Defenders were a clandestine militant Catholic protest movement. See, T. Garvin, ‘Defenders, Ribbonmen and Others: Underground Political Networks in Pre-Famine Ireland’, Past and Present, 96 (1982), pp. 133–55; Peep O’Day Boys and Defenders: Select Documents on the County Armagh Disturbances, 1784–96, ed. D.W. Miller (Belfast: PRONI, 1990); and M. Elliott, ‘Te Defenders in Ulster’, in Te United Irishmen: republicanism, radicalism and rebellion, ed. D. Dickson et al. (Dublin: Te Lilliput Press, 1993), pp. 222–33. Saint of their country: St Patrick (c. 387–c. 460), the patron saint of Ireland. Te date of his supposed death, 17 March, is celebrated each year as St Patrick’s Day. Adjutant-General: George Hewett (1750–1840) was Adjutant General from 1791. He was later Commander-in-Chief in India and then in Ireland. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. the Commander-in-chief: Sir Ralph Abercromby. Particularly in an order … for this purpose,” &c: Tis famous order, which irritated many leading Protestants, soon led to his resignation. See, T. Gaynor, ‘Te Abercromby Afair’, in 1798: A Bicentenary Perspective, ed. T. Bartlett et al. (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003), pp. 394–405. Lord Carhampton: Henry Lawes Luttrell (1737–1821), second Earl of Carhampton, becxame Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, by default, in October 1796. He was replaced by Abercromby in November 1797, but became Master General of Ordnance.

334

Notes to pages 76–85

18. Act of indemnity and pardon having since passed: 37 George III, cap. 39. 19. Colonel Manser St. George: Mansergh St George, who was murdered on 9 February 1798 at the home of Jasper Uniacke. 20. Mr. Pelham: Te Chief Secretary of Ireland. 21. General Johnstone: Major-General Henry Johnson, not Johnstone (1748–1835) was later defeated by the Irish rebels at the battle of New Ross on 5 June 1798. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 22. Colonel Brownrigg: Robert Brownrigg (1759–1833) was military secretary to the Duke of York. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 23. Major Nugent: Major James Nugent of the Westmeath militia.

An Irish Emigrant, Te Causes of the Rebellion in Ireland Disclosed 1.

Insita mortalibus natura violentiæ resistere. TACITUS: Tis is probably taken (not quite accurately) from book two of the Histories of Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56–117 ad), the Roman senator and historian. Te Latin can be translated as: ‘It is natural to man to resist violence’, 2. the year 1782: Tis was the year when the Irish Parliament secured its legislative independence. 3. that minute and elaborate detail … by a well known public character in a late publication: Te speech on the Earl of Moira’s motion, by John FitzGibbon, frst Earl of Clare and Lord Chancellor of Ireland from 1789 to 1802, is printed above, pp. 47–56. 4. the 6th Geo. III: Tis is a reference to the Irish Declaratory Act of 1720, which was repealed in 1782. 5. fom the zeal and warmth … did for a time put the kingdom in a ferment: Henry Flood led the campaign, which fnally persuaded the Westminster Parliament to pass the Renunciation Act of 1793, by which the British Parliament formally renounced its right to legislate for Ireland. 6. Walter Hussey Burgh: Walter Hussey Burgh (1742–83) was a leading Patriot and MP for Athy and then Trinity College Dublin 1769–82. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 7. Henry Flood: Henry Flood (1732–91) was a leading Patriot (though a rival to Henry Grattan) and MP for County Kilkenny, Callan, Enniskillen and Kilbeggan for 1759–60 and 1760–90. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, J. Kelly, Henry Flood: Patriots and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998). 8. are but the insects of a summer’s day: Richard Payne Knight, Te progress of civil society. A didactic poem in six books (London, 1796), p. 145. 9. Mr. Grattan: Henry Grattan (1746–1820), the leading Patriot in the campaign to secure legislative independence for the Irish Parliament in 1782. He later campaigned for moderate parliamentary reform and for Catholic emancipation, but opposed the Union. He was MP for Charlemont 1775–90, Dublin City 1790–7 and Wicklow borough 1800. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, R.B. McDowell, Grattan: A Life (Dublin: Lilliput Press, 2001). 10. his past services: Tis was a grant voted by the Irish Parliament for his success in securing its legislative independence. 11. the Castle: Dublin Castle was the seat of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish executive. 12. a convention met in Dublin: Delegates from Volunteer corps across Ireland met in a Convention in Dublin to discuss a campaign for parliamentary reform from 10 November to 2 December 1783.

Notes to pages 86–98

335

13. the Dungannon meeting: Some 243 delegates from 142 Volunteer corps met at Dungannon on 15 February 1782. 14. father of his people: George III, King from 1760 to 1820. 15. distinction between citizens in red clothes and in coloured ones: Most regular forces in the British army wore red uniforms. Te Volunteers usually wore green uniforms, though some corps chose other colours. 16. Athlone convention: Te Athlone Convention was planned by the United Irishmen. Lord Chancellor John FitzGibbon, frst Earl of Clare, acted to prohibit such an assembly by promoting the Convention Act of 1793 (33 George III, cap. 29). 17. the party of the British Minister: Te supporters of William Pitt the Younger (1759– 1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. 18. Mr. Flood presented to the House: Henry Flood, infuenced by the Convention of Volunteers, introduced his proposals for parliamentary reform on two occasions. Tey were defeated in the Irish House of Commons on 30 November 1783 and on 20 March 1784. Many MPs resented the suggestion that the Volunteers, an armed group, could dictate constitutional issues to the legislature. 19. the frst was formed in Dublin: Te frst Society of United Irishmen was formed in Belfast, not Dublin. 20. Te Irish Minister: John Fane (1759–1841), tenth Earl of Westmorland, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland October1789–December 1794. He strongly opposed granting the franchise to Catholics in 1792, but had to concede it in 1793, under pressure from the British government. 21. It was this arrogance in the Castle servants … out of the Irish House of Commons in 1795: Tis is a mistake for the great Catholic efort to secure the franchise in 1792. See, T. Bartlett, Te Fall and Rise of the Irish Nation: Te Catholic Question 1690–1830 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1992), pp. 195–97. 22. this year spontaneously conceded: Te Catholic Relief Act (33 George III, cap. 21) gave the Catholics the parliamentary franchise on the same terms as Protestants in 1793. It is printed in Volume 4 of this collection. 23. Such was the case of the Drogheda merchants … which would shock credibility: See, Bartlett, Te Fall and Rise of the Irish Nation: Te Catholic Question 1690–1830, pp. 184–85. 24. Convention Bill: 33 George III, cap. 29 (1793). 25. Gunpowder Bill: 33 George III, cap. 2 (1793). 26. Te Whig Club: First formed in Ireland by Henry Grattan and others in Dublin in 1789. See T. Cooke, A Letter to the Rt Hon Tomas Conolly, Secretary to the Whig Club. To which are Added, the Declarations and Resolutions of that Society (Dublin, 1789) and Henry Grattan, A Letter on the Nature and Tendency of the Whig Club, and of the Irish Party (Dublin, 1791). For a modern study, see Nancy J. Curtin, ‘“A Perfect Liberty”: Te Rise and Fall of the Irish Whigs, 1789–97’, in Political Discourses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Ireland, ed. D. G. Boyce et al. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 270–89. 27. the Earl of Charlemont: James Caulfeild (1729–99), frst Earl of Charlemont, was a key member of the Dublin Whig Club. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 28. the Roman King and the Sybils: Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (535–496 bc), the legendary and fnal king of Rome, was overthrown for tyranny in 509 bc. Te Cunaean Sybil ofered him the nine books of prophecy at an exorbitant price. It was twice refused and she burned six of them before he paid the same price for the remaining three. He put these three Sybilline books into the Temple of Jupiter. 29. a most outrageous and unaccountable persecution of the Catholic inhabitants: See B. McEvoy, ‘Te Peep of Day Boys and the Defenders in the County Armagh’, Seanchas

336

30.

31. 32. 33. 34.

35.

36. 37.

38.

39. 40.

41.

42. 43. 44.

45.

Notes to pages 98–108 Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society, 12:1 (1986), pp. 123–63 and 12:2 (1987), pp. 60–127. under the name of Orange-men: Te Peep of Day Boys formed the Orange Order in September 1795 as a militant Protestant movement. It was named afer the Protestant hero, King William III, Prince of Orange. See J. Smyth, ‘Te Men of NO Popery: Te Origins of the Orange Order’, History Ireland, 3:3 (1995), pp. 48–53. obtained the name of Defenders: the militant clandestine movement defending the Catholics. Te Insurrection Act: 36 George III, cap. 20 (1796). Bill of Indemnity: 37 George III, cap. 39 (1797). Lord Carhampton: Henry Luttrell (1743–1821), second Earl of Carhampton, was Commander-in-Chief in Ireland 1796–97. He took a strong line against possible rebels. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Lord Fitzwilliam: William Wentworth-Fitzwilliam (1748–1833), fourth Earl Fitzwilliam, was briefy Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in early 1795. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. imperium in imperio: A Latin term meaning a government within a government, or a government separate and independent of the ofcial, authorized government. Mr Tone: Teobald Wolfe Tone (1763–98), although a Protestant, had served the Catholic Committee and then helped found the Society of United Irishmen. His activities forced him to leave the country to avoid prosecution. He went frst to the USA and then to France. He helped promote the French invasion attempts of both 1796 and 1798. Captured in 1798, he committed suicide rather than be hanged as a traitor. General Lake: Gerard Lake (1744–1808) was ordered to disarm potential rebels in Ulster in 1797. He was briefy Commander-in-Chief in Ireland from April to June 1798, when he was replaced by Lord Lieutenant Cornwallis. He defeated the rebels at Vinegar Hill on 21 June 1798. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. pari passsu: Tis Latin term can be translated as ‘on an equal footing’ or ‘hand in hand’. Lord Moira: Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings (1754–1826), second Earl of Moira and later 1st Marquess of Hastings. A former army ofcer, who had fought at Yorktown in the War of American Independence, he was also briefy MP for Randalstown 1781–83. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. brave old Abercrombie: Ralph Abercromby (1734–1801), who was Commander-inChief in Ireland from December 1797 to April 1798. He resigned soon afer making this comment in February 1798. a few months before: Te French briefy landed an invasion force at Bantry Bay in late December 1796. the Press Bill: 38 George III, cap. 7 (1798). Claude Beresford’s Speeches: John Claudius Beresford (1766–1846) was MP for Swords and then Dublin City 1790–1800. He was the son of John Beresford, a Treasury Commissioner in Ireland. He was active in extorting evidence by force from suspected United Irishmen and he led a force of Yeomanry cavalry against the Irish rebels in 1798. His speeches in 1797 can be found in volume 17 of Te Parliamentary Register, or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons of Ireland (Dublin, 1801). Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. A military chief governor: Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and later frst Marquess Cornwallis was both Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Commander-in-Chief from June 1798 until he resigned in 1801.

Notes to pages 113–25

337

Troy, Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

At the frst appearance of the anarchical system, which has laid waste a considerable part of Europe: Te French Revolution and the resulting French Revolutionary Wars. All to all, that they may gain all to Christ: First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians 9:22. exhort in sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers: Te Epistle of St Paul to Titus 1: 9. DO AS YOU WOULD BE DONE BY: Jesus in Matthew 7: 12. TO GOD WHAT BELONGS TO GOD: Jesus in Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25. OBEY YOUR RULERS FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE: Romans 13:5. FEAR GOD, HONOUR THE KING: 1 Peter 2:17. BEAR WRONGS PATIENTLY: 1 Peter 2:20. FORGIVE YOUR ENEMIES: Jesus in Matthew 5:44. RETURN GOOD FOR EVIL: Romans 12:21. PRAY FOR THOSE THAT HATE AND PERSECUTE YOU: Jesus in Luke 6:28. BE MEEK AND HUMBLE: Jesus in Matthew 5:5. NEVER SWEAR BUT IN TRUTH, IN JUSTICE, AND IN JUDGMENT: Jeremiah, 4:2. AVOID CALUMNY … TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: Te eighth commandment according to the Roman Catholic catechism. his Holiness: Count Giovanni Angelo Braschi (1717–99) who was Pope Pius VI 1775– 99. He was expelled from the Papal States by French troops in 1798 and remained in exile until his death. be Yea Yea, and No No; for whatever is more than these cometh fom evil: Jesus in Matthew 5:37. in truth, in justice, and in judgment: Jeremiah 4:2. not to take his name in vain: Exodus 20:7. Soph: Sophonias is the Greek form of Zephaniah. Tis quotation is from Zephaniah 1:3–5 (not 13:5). A College … of his Majesty: St Patrick’s College at Maynooth, by an act of the Irish Parliament in 1795 (35 George III, cap. 21). substituting an infdel for the Christian calendar: On 24 October 1793 the French Republic adopted a revolutionary calendar, which was not abolished until 1 January 1806. Herod: Herod Agrippa I (10 bc –44 ad) was the Roman client king of Judea from 41 ad. For this story, see the Acts of the Apostles 12:3–19. PIUS VI, Successor of St. Peter, and Centre of Catholic Unity, is now an exile fom Rome: Pius VI moved through a series of Italian cities and then to France. St. Peter was miraculously feed fom his captivity: By the intervention of an angel. appropriate Collects: A short general prayer.

‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’ 1. 2. 3. 4.

CAMDEN: John Jefreys Pratt (1759–1840), second Earl and later frst Marquess of Camden, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795–8. An Act more efectually to suppress Insurrections, and to prevent the Disturbance of the publick Peace: 36 George III, cap. 20. Clare, C.: John FitzGibbon, frst Earl of Clare, Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. Char. Cashel: Charles Agar (1736–1809), Archbishop of Cashel from 1778. He opposed Catholic emancipation and supported strong measures against the rebels of 1798.

338 5. 6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

24.

25. 26.

Notes to page 125 W. Tuam: William Beresford (1743–1819), Archbishop of Tuam 1794–1819. Waterford: George de le Poer Bersford (1735–1800), second Earl of Tyrone and then frst Marquess of Waterford from 1789. He had been an MP for County Waterford and then Coleraine 1757–63. Drogheda: Charles Moore (1730–1820), sixth Earl of Drogheda from 1758 and frst Marquess from 1791. An army ofcer, he was Master General of Ordnance 1770–97 and Postmaster-General for Ireland 1797–1806. Westmeath: George Frederick Nugent (1760–1811), seventh Earl of Westmeath. Shannon: Henry Richard Boyle (1728–1807), second Earl of Shannon from 1764. He had been an MP for Dungannon and then County Cork 1749–64. Altamont: John Browne (1756–1809), third Earl of Altamont from 1780. He had been MP for Jamestown 1776–80. Portarlington: John Dawson (1744–98), frst Earl of Portarlington from 1785. He had been MP for Port Arlington and the Queen’s County 1768–79. He died on 30 November 1798. Ely: Charles Tottenham Lofus (1737/8–1806), frst Earl of Ely from 1794 and frst Marquess from 1800. He had been MP for Clonmines, Fethard and then Wexford Borough 1761–85. Dillon: Charles Dillon (1743–1813), twelfh Viscount Dillon from 1787. Pery: Edmund Sexton Pery (1719–1806), frst Viscount Pery. He had been MP for Wicklow Borough and then Limerick City 1751–85. O’Neill: John O’Neill (1739/40–1798), frst Viscount O’Neill from 1793. He had been MP for Randalstown and then County Antrim 1761–93. He died on 18 June 1798. Carleton: Hugh Carleton (1739–1829), frst Baron and then frst Viscount. He had been MP for Tuam, Philipstown and then Naas 1772–87. Castlereagh: Robert Stewart (1769–1822), who held the courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh. He was MP for County Down 1790–1800 and Chief Secretary of Ireland 1798–1801. H. Meath: Henry Maxwell (c. 1723–98), Bishop of Meath from 1766. He died in October 1798. G. L. Kildare: George Lewis Jones (d. 1804), Bishop of Kildare from 1790. Glentworth: Glentworth: Edmond Henry Pery (1758–1844), second Baron Glentworth. He had been MP for Limerick City 1786–94. Callan: George Agar (1751–1815), frst Baron Callan from 1790. He had been MP for Callan 1776–90. John Foster: John Foster (1740–1828) was MP for Dunleer and then County Louth 1761–1800. He was briefy Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1784 and then Speaker of the House of Commons from 12785. He supported strong measures against the rebels, opposed Catholic emancipation and opposed the Union. John Beresford: (1738–1805) was MP for County Waterford 1761–1800, frst Commissioner of the Revenue 1780, and Commissioner of the Treasury from 1793. He was a strong supporter of Union. Sir John Parnell: (1745–1801), who was MP for Bangor 1767–8, for Innistiogue 1777– 83 and then for Queen’s County 1783–1800. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1785, but opposed the Union and was dismissed in 1799. Henry Cavendish: (1732–1804) was MP for Lismore 1766–8, 1776–90 and 1798–1800 and for Killybegs 1790–7. Joshua Edward Cooper: (1762–1837) was MP for County Sligo 1790–1800.

Notes to pages 125–31

339

27. D. Latouche: David La Touche (1768–1816) was MP for Newcastle 1797–1800. 28. J. Monck Mason: John Monk Mason (1725–1809) was MP for Blessington and then St Canice 1761–1800. 29. Arthur Wolfe: Arthur Wolfe (1739–1803), was MP for Coleraine, Jamestown and then Dublin City 1783–98. He was Solicitor General 1787, Attorney General 1789 and then Chief Justice of the King’s Bench from 1798. He was made frst Baron and later frst Viscount Kilwarden. He was appointed in 1798. He was murdered in Dublin by rebels involved in Robert Emmet’s abortive rising of 1803. 30. Rob. Ross: Robert Ross (1728/29–99). He was MP for Carlingford and then Newry 1768–99. 31. Isaac Corry: Isaac Corry (1753/55–1813) was MP for Newry 1776–1800. He was Surveyor General of the Ordnance 1788, a Commissioner of the Revenue 1789 and then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1799. 32. Lodge Morres: Lodge Evans Morres (1746/7–1822), MP for Innistiogue, Bandon Bridge, Ennis and then Dingle 1768–1800. 33. Lieutenant general lake: Gerard Lake (1744–1808) commanded the forces in Ulster in1797 and was Commander-in-Chief in Ireland afer the resignation of Abercromby in April 1798 until he was replaced with the arrival of Cornwallis in June 1798. 34. G. HEWETT, Adjutant-General: George Hewett (1750–1840) had fought in the War of American Independence and was Adjutant General in Ireland from 1791. He was later appointed Commander-in-Chief in India in 1807 and in Ireland in 1813. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 35. THOMAS FLEMING: Tomas Fleming (1764–1809), a cardmaker, was elected to the Common Council of Dublin in 1774, became an Alderman in 1791 and was Lord Mayor 1797–8. He was notorious for his religious bigotry and fervent loyalty. He committed suicide on 24 July 1809. 36. JOHN LAMBERT, Secretary: He was later Clerk of the Common Council of Dublin. 37. Te under-signed Individuals … stand or fall with the present existing Constitution: Te list of names, which follows, was printed in four columns, two of them in very small font. Te four columns begin with the names Fingall, Hon. Rt. Plunkett, Richard O’Reilly and John Tomas Troy. 38. Fingall: Arthur James Plunkett (1759–1836), eighth Earl of Fingall from 1793. He led his yeomanry in defeating the rebels at Tara Hill in 1798. He was married to the sister of Malachy Donelan, below. 39. Gormanstown: Jenico Preston (1775–1860) twefth Viscount Gormanston (not Gormanstown) from 1786. 40. Southwell: Tomas Anthony Southwell (1777–1860), third Viscount Southwell from 1796. His sister married Viscount Gormanston, above. 41. Kenmare: Valentine Browne (1754–1812), ffh Viscount and then frst Earl of Kenmare (from 1801). 42. Sir Edward Bellew: Sir Edward Bellew (c. 1760–1827), sixth Baronet. He captained the Barmeath Fencible Cavalry in County Louth 1796–8. 43. Malachi Donelan: Malachy Donelan (d. 1830) of Ballydonelan in County Galway. He was a captain in the Loughren Fencible Infantry Company during the 1798 rebellion. 44. William Bellew: William Bellew (c. 1762–1835) was called to the bar in 1792 when the legal profession was opened to Catholics. He was the brother of Sir Edward. 45. Morgan Kavenagh: Morgan Kavanagh (d. 1804) signed the petition of 1793 seeking the enfranchisement of Catholic, as a representative for Queen’s County.

340

Notes to page 131

46. Gerald Aylmer: Gerald Aylmer held a minor post in the Irish Treasury and was a gentleman of the bedchamber. 47. Matthew Donelan: Matthew Donelan, the brother of Malachy, above. He represented Loughrea in County Galway at the Catholic Convention of 1792. 48. Francis Bellew: Francis Bellew served as the second Lieutenant, under Sir Edward Bellew, in the Barmeath Fencible Cavalry 1796–8. In 1792, he was charged with being a Defender, but was not convicted. See, Trial of Francis Bellew, Esq., Younger Son of Sir Patrick Bellew, Bart, for Appearing in Arms with a Mob of Defenders on the 26th of December 1792 (Dublin, 1794). 49. James Farrell: James Farrell of Dublin signed the petition of 1793 to enfranchise Catholics as a representative for Dublin City. 50. Val. O’Connor: Valentine Malachy O’Connor (c. 1744–1814) was a prominent Dublin merchant and a director of the Royal Exchange Insurance Company. He testifed against Tomas Reynolds, the government informer, at the trial of Lover Bond, the United Irishman, in 1798. 51. Tomas Fitzsimon: Tomas Fitzsimon signed the petition of 1793 to enfranchise Catholics as a representative for County Wicklow. 52. Phil. Lawless: Philip Lawless was a Dublin merchant. 53. Barry Lawless: Barry Lawless was a Dublin merchant, who signed the petition of 1793 to enfranchise Catholics as a representative for County Dublin. 54. Walter Dowdall: Walter Dowdall of Barretstown, County Kildare put in a claim for losses sustained during the 1798 rebellion in County Kildare. 55. John White: John White of Dublin signed the petition of 1793 to enfranchise Catholics as a representative for Dublin City. 56. R.J. Keating: R.S. Keatinge (not R. J. Keating) signed the petition of 1793 to enfranchise Catholics as a representative for County Limerick. 57. Sir Tos. Burke: Tomas Burke junior (possibly his son) was second Lieutenant in the Loughrea Fencible infantry company captained by Malachy Donelan, above. 58. Robert French: Robert French was a barrister and also alandowner of Rabisane, County Galway. He was Captain of the Roxborrow Fencible infantry in County Denegal and a JP for the counties of Galway and Kerry. He put in a claim for losses sustained during the 1798 rebellion. 59. Hon. Rt. Plunkett: Te Hon. Robert Plunkett (1765–1823) was the third son of the seventh Earl and the younger brother of the eighth Earl of Fingall, above. 60. John Taafe: John Taafe served as the frst Lieutenant in the Barmouth Fencible Cavalry in 1796–8, captained by Sir Edward Bellew, above. 61. Michael Burke: Michael Burke of Loughrea, County Galway, was a government informer, who gave evidence at the court martial of Mathew Tone (the brother of Teobald Wolfe Tone) in September 1798. 62. Bernard O’Neill: Bernard O’Neill (c. 1725–98) was a Dublin merchant, who represented County Antrim at the Catholic Convention of 1792 and signed the petition of 1793 to enfranchise Catholics, also as a representative for County Antrim. 63. John Ball: John Ball (1738–1804) was a Dublin silk manufacturer, who represented County Tyrone at the Catholic Convention of 1792. He signed the petition of 1793 to enfranchise Catholics as a representative for the City of Dublin. He was a moderate Catholic in his politics. 64. Richard O’Reilly, D.D. Armagh: Richard O’Reilly (1746–1818) was Archbishop of Armagh 1787–1818.

Notes to pages 131–7

341

65. Boetius Egan, D.D Tuam: Boetius Egan (1734–98) was Archbishop of Tuam 1787–98. 66. P.J. Plunkett, D.D. Meath: Patrick Joseph Plunkett was Bishop of Meath 1778–1827. 67. Hugh O’Reilly, D.D. Clogher: Hugh O’Reilly (1739–1801) was Bishop of Clogher 1778–1801. 68. Denis Maguire, D.D. Kilmore: Denis Maguire (1721–98) was Bishop of Kilmore 1770–98. 69. Anthony Coyle, D.D. Raphoe: Anthony Coyle was Bishop of Raphoe 1782–1801. 70. Mathew Lennan, D.D. Dromore: Matthew Lennan was Bishop of Dromore 1780–1801. 71. John Cruise, D.D. Ardagh: John Cruise was Bishop of Ardagh 1788–1812 72. McMullen, D.D. Down & Connor: Patrick McMullan was Bishop of Down and Connor 1794–1824. 73. Dominick Bellew, D.D. Kilalla: Dominick Bellew was Bishop of Kilalla 1779–c. 1812. 74. Tomas Costelloe, D.D. Clonfert: Tomas Costelloe was Bishop of Clonfert 1786–1831. 75. Edward French, D.D. Elphin: Edward French was Bishop of Elphin 1787–1810. 76. Tomas O’Connor, D.D. Achonry: Tomas O’Connor (1755–1803) was Bishop of Achrony 1788–1803. 77. Ed. Dillon, D.D. Kilmacd. & Kilfen: Edward Dillon (1739–1809) was Bishop of Kilmacduagh and Kilfemora from 1795, and was translated to the archdiocese of Tuam in November 1798 afer the death of Boetius Egan, above. 78. Charles O’Reilly, D.D.: Charles O’Reilly was Bishop of Kilmore 1798–1800. 79. John Dillon, D.D.:Tere was a James Dillon (1738–1806), who was Bishop of Kilmore 1800–6. 80. John Tomas Troy, D.D. Dublin: John T. Troy (1739–1823) was Archbishop of Dublin 1786–1823. 81. Tomas Bray, D.D. Cashell: Tomas Bray (1749–1820) was Archbishop of Cashel 1792–1820. 82. Mich. P. McMahon, D.D. Killaloe: Michael Peter McMahon was Bishop of Killaloe 1765–1807. 83. Francis Moylan, D.D. Cork: Francis Moylan (1735–1815) was Bishop of Adfert 1775– 86 and then Bishop of Cork 1787–1815. 84. D. Delany, D.D. Leighlin & Kildare: Denis Delany (1747–1814) was Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin 1787–1814. 85. James Caulfeld, D.D. Ferns: James Caulfeld was Bishop of Ferns 1786–1814. 86. M. Coppinger D.D. Cloyne: Actually, William Coppinger, Bishop of Cloyne 1791–1830. 87. James Lanigan, D.D. Ossory: James Lanigan was Bishop of Ossory 1789–1812. 88. John Young, D.D. Limerick: John Young was Bishop of Limerick 1796–1813. 89. C. O’Donnell, of Derry, D.D.: Charles O’Donnell was Bishop of Derry 1797–1824. 90. C. Sahrue, D.D. Ardfert & Aghadoe: Actually, Charles Sughrue, Bishop of Ardfert and Aghadoe 1798–1824. 91. Rev. Peter Flood, D.D.: Peter Flood was President at St Patrick’s College, the Catholic seminary at Maynooth, from 1798 to 1803.

Castlereagh and the United Irish Prisoners 1.

Mr. Wickham: William Wickham (1761–1840) was a government magistrate in the Home Ofce, who had diplomatic experience, had been Superintendent of Aliens, and helped to set up a secret service. He later succeeded Castlereagh as Chief Secretary of Ireland 1802–4. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB.

342 2.

Notes to pages 137–40

Lord-Lieutenant: Charles, Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and frst Marquess Cornwallis arrived as both Lord Lieutenant and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in June 1798 and served until 1801. His prime duties were to suppress the rebellion and secure the Union of Ireland and Great Britain. 3. Duke of Portland: William Henry Cavendish Cavendish-Bentinck (1738–1809), third Duke of Portland, had joined a coalition led by Prime Minister Pitt in 1794 and was rewarded with the post of Home Secretary, a position he held 1794–1801. Ireland was within his jurisdiction and he was deeply involved in the negotiations leading to Union. 4. the Chancellor: John FitzGibbon (1749–1802), frst Earl of Clare, was Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. 5. the Bill of Pardon: Tis pardon bill was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1798 as 38 George III, cap. 55. 6. I have been honoured with your letter of the 25th, marked private, relative to Dr. McNevin’s Memorial: Tis was the evidence provided to the Committee of Secrecy by Dr William James MacNeven (1763–1841), a leading United Irishman, about the activities of the United Irishmen and their relations with the French before and during the Irish rebellion of 1798. Tis evidence was provided in return for the arrested United Irishmen being imprisoned rather than executed. McNeven was imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland, until the peace of Amiens in 1802. He then went to France, before later emigrating to the United States. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 7. Mr. Cooke: Edward Cooke (1755–1820) was MP for Liford and then Old Leighlin 1789–1800. He had been under Secretary of State in the military department of the Irish government 1789–96 and he then served in the civil department from 1796 to 1801. He worked very closely with Castlereagh in securing support for Union and wrote an infuential pamphlet on the subject of Union, printed in Volume 6. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 8. Mr. O’Connor: Arthur O’Connor (1763–1852) was a leading United Irishman, who had been arrested before the outbreak of the Irish rebellion of 1798, but had previously been involved in negotiation with the French in order to secure military assistance in support of an Irish rising. He took part in the Kilmainham treaty so that he and others could escape execution. He was imprisoned until 1802, when he went to France. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 9. Mr. Emmet: Tomas Addis Emmet (1764–1827), another active leader of the United Irishmen who took part in the Kilmainham negotiations. He too was imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland, until 1802. He then went to France before emigrating to the United States. He was the elder brother of Rober Emmet, who led the abortive rising of 1803, for which he was executed. Tere is an entry on both brothers in the ODNB. 10. Mr. Bond: Oliver Bond (1760/1–98) was an early member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen and was an active leader and deeply involved in plans for the Irish rebellion of 1798. Members of the Leinster Directory of the United Irishmen were arrested in his house in Dublin on 12 March 1798. He was convicted of treason, but his life was saved by the negotiations between the leading United Irishmen under arrest in Kilmainham gaol and Lord Castlereagh. He died suddenly in prison on 6 September 1798. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB.

Notes to page 143

343

Communications Passed between the Government and the State Prisoners 1.

Mr. Dobbs: Francis Dobbs (1750–1811) was a politician and barrister. He was a member of the Ulster Volunteers and a supporter of parliamentary reform, but opposed Union. He was MP for Charlemont 1798–1800. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 2. Mr. Archer: William Henry Archer was sherif of Dublin, 1797–8. 3. the Lord-Lieutenant: Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and frst Marquess Cornwallis, was Lord Lieutenant and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland 1798–1801. 4. the Chancellor: John FitzGibbon (1748–1802), frst Earl of Clare, was Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. 5. Lord Carleton: Hugh Carleton (1739–1826), frst Baron and then frst Viscount Carleton, was MP for Tuam, Philipstown and then Naas 1772–87. He was then appointed Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. He presided over the trial and conviction of the Sheares brothers. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 6. Arthur Wolfe: (1739–1903), frst Baron then frst Viscount Kilwarden, was MP for Coleraine, Jamestown and then Dublin City 1783–98. He was Solicitor General 1787–9 and then Attorney General 1789–98. In July 1798 he was appointed Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. He did not favour showing leniency to the arrested leaders of the United Irishmen. He was murdered in 1803 by a Dublin mob, during Robert Emmet’s abortive rising. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 7. the Prime Serjeant: James Fitzgerald (1742–1835) was a barrister and MP for Fore, Tulsk and then Kildare Borough 1778–1800. He was appointed Prime Sergeant in 1787, but dismissed in 1799 for opposing the Union. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 8. the Attorney: John Toler (1741–1831), later frst Baron and frst Earl Norbury, was MP for Tralee, Philipstown, and then Gorey 1776–1800. He was Solicitor General 1789– June 1798 and then Attorney General 1798–1800. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 9. Solicitor-General: John Stewart (1757–1825) was MP for Augher and then Bangor 1794–1800. He was appointed Solicitor General in June 1798 and served until December 1799. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 10. the part of the State Prisoners would not warrant the Crown in extending mercy to Byrne: William Michael Byrne was one of the Leinster Directory of United Irishmen arrested at Oliver Bond’s house in Dublin, on 12 March 1798. He was executed on 28 July. Tis helped convince other leading United Irishmen to save their lives by agreeing the Kilmainham treaty, by which they provided the Irish Parliament’s Committees of Secrecy with evidence of their activities in planning the rebellion of 1798 in return for temporary imprisonment until the end of the war in France. Tey were released in 1802. 11. Bond: Oliver Bond 1760/61–98 was a woollen merchant, who was a founding member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen and one of its most militant members. He was deeply involved in planning the rebellion of 1798. Members of the Leinster Directory were arrested at his house on 12 March. He was accused of treason, convicted and sentenced to death. His life was saved by the Kilmainham treaty, between the Irish government and the United Irishmen leaders under arrest, but he died suddenly in prison on 6 September 1798. 12. the O’Connors: Arthur O’Connor (1763–1852) and his brother Roger (1762–1834), who had both been arrested in 1797 and in 1798 and were not directly involved in the

344

13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23.

24. 25.

Notes to pages 143–8 rebellion itself, though they had helped prepare for it. Tere are entries on both of them in the ODNB. Sampson: William Sampson (1764–1836) was a lawyer, who had contributed articles to the Belfast Northern Star newspaper. He was arrested in 1798, but never brought to trial. Mr. Alexander: Henry Alexander (1763–1818) was MP for Newtownards, Askeaton and then Londonderry City 1788–1800. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. that Arthur O’Connor, Sampson, Hampden, Evans: Tere is a confusion here in the text. Te reference should be to one man, Hampden Evans, a rich Dubliner, who had been a reformer in the 1780s, joined the Dublin Society of United Irishmen in December 1792, and was a JP. He was arrested on a charge of treason in July 1798, but never brought to trial because of the Kilmainham treaty. He was banished by act of parliament (38 George III, cap. 78). He went to France, entered the French service, but returned to Ireland in 1811. Mount Shannon: Mountshannon in County Clare was the Lord Chancellor’s estate, where he was an improving landlord. M’Nevin: William James MacNeven (1763–1841), who had sought French assistance for the United Irishmen, was arrested in March 1798, benefted from the terms of the Kilmainham treaty and was imprisoned in Fort George in Scotland until 1802. On his release, he went to France, but then emigrated to the United States. O’Connor, and Emmett: Tomas Addis Emmet (1764–1827, older brother of Robert Emmet and a leading United Irishman, who was imprisoned until 1802. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Mr. Cooke: Edward Cooke (1755–1820), was MP for Liford and then Old Leighlin 1789–1800, and under-Secretary of State for the military and then the civil departments of the Irish government 1789–1801. His famous pamphlet in support of Union is printed in Volume 6. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Bond and Neilson: Samuel Neilson (1761–1803) was a founding member of the Belfast Society of United Irishmen and editor of the Belfast Northern Star 1792–97. He was arrested in 1798, was included in the terms of the Kilmainham treaty, and was imprisoned in Fort George until 1802. He soon aferwards went to the United States and died there in 1803. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. the Union: Tat is, the United Irishmen. Mr. Pollock: John Pollock, a legal counsellor, held a wide variety of legal posts in the late eighteenth century: third Justice of the King’s Bench, Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of County Down, Clerk of the Peace for Leinster, Clerk of the Report Ofce of the Court of Chancery, and transcriptor at the Court of Exchequer. He had in the past used the pseudonym Owen Roe O’Neill, the name of a real Irish Catholic rebel leader (c. 1580–1649) active in the rebellion of 1641. He was the author of Te Letters of Owen Roe O’Nial [sic] (Dublin, 1779). General Nugent’s: George Nugent (1757–1849) had served in the War of American Independence and in Flanders 1793–4. He defeated the Ulster rebels at Ballynahinch on 12 June 1798, served as Adjutant-General of Ireland 1799–1801. He was an MP at Westminster for many years and was later Lt-Governor of Jamaica. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Mr. Marsden: Alexander Marsden, secretary to Lord Cornwallis and later an underSecretary of State. Earl Fitzwilliam: William Wentworth Fitzwilliam (1748–1833), fourth Earl Fitzwilliam was briefy Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in early 1795. His sudden recall dismayed Irish Catholics, who had hoped he would introduce Catholic emancipation, allowing Irish Catholics to sit in the Dublin parliament.

Notes to pages 149–58

345

26. the Insurrection Bill: 36 George III, cap. 20. 27. Te persons and properties / of the wretched Catholics of that county were exposed to the merciless attacks of an Orange faction: Te Orange Order was established 1n 1795 afer the battle of the Diamond between Protestant Peep of Day Boys and Catholic Defenders on 21 September. See Jim Smyth, ‘Te Men of No Popery: Te Origins of the Orange Order’, History Ireland, 3:3 (1995), pp. 48–53. 28. Defenderism: Te Defenders were a militant Catholic popular protest movement. Te United Irishmen started to seek to enlist their support as the former became more militant themselves. 29. In the North, they were also engaged in an acrimonious and bloody struggle with an opposite faction, called the Peep-of-Day Boys: See, B.McEvoy, ‘Te Peep of Day Boys and Defenders in the County Armagh’, Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society, 12:1 (1986), pp. 122–63 and 12:2 (1987), pp. 60–127. 30. Indemnity Acts: Te Indemnity Acts: 6 George III, cap. 6 (1796), 37 George III, cap. 39 (1797) and 38 George III, cap. 19 (1798). 31. When the organization began in Leinster, and a short time afer the French had lef Bantry Bay: In December 1796. 32. Shortly afer the celebrated Proclamation of General Lake: Lt-Gen. Gerard Lake (1744– 1808) was commander of the government forces in Ulster in 1797, when he did much to disarm potential rebels. He was briefy Commander-in-Chief in Ireland April-June 1798 and he defeated the rebels at the battle of Vinegar Hill and re-captured Wexford. Te famous proclamation referred to here was issued on 13 March 1797. It is printed in Volume 4 of this collection. 33. Tis meeting was convened in consequence of a letter fom one of the Society, who had emigrated on account of political opinions: Teobald Wolfe Tone (1763–98), who had lef Ireland in 1795 to avoid prosecution for his political activities. He had initially gone to the United States, but then made his way to France, where he was active in promoting the French invasion expeditions of 1796 and 1798. 34. example of 1688: A reference to the Glorious Revolution of 1688–9. 35. Te English Revolutionists of 1688 called in the assistance of a foreign Republic: Te Dutch Republic whose forces were commanded by William of Orange (1650–1702). 36. Tere had sprung up in our own times a much more mighty Republic: Te French Republic formed in 1792. 37. the Executive, an agent: Edward John Lewins (1756–1828). Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 38. the Directory: Te Directory governed France from November 1795 to November 1799. 39. a messenger: Bernard MacSheehy. See, M. Elliott, Partners in Revolution: Te United Irishmen and France (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 105. 40. In the May following, General Lake’s well-known Proclamation appeared: Tis is an error. Te proclamation of May 1797 was issued by Lord Lieutenant Camden. See, Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, 17 (Dublin, 1797), dccclvii. 41. a second agent: William James MacNeven. See note 17, above. 42. pending the negociation at Lisle: Britain conducted abortive peace negotiations with the French at Lille in 1797–8. Te United Irishmen sought to frustrate these peace negotiations.

346

Notes to pages 163–8

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh 1.

Right Honourable Lord Viscount Castlereagh: Robert Stewart (1769–1822) held the courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh from 1796 to 1821, when he succeeded his father as second Marquess of Londonderry. He sat in the Irish House of Commons for County Down, 1790–1800 and was Chief Secretary 1798–1801. He played a major rule in negotiating the Kilmainham treaty with the arrested leaders of the United Irishmen and in securing the Union. He was later a famous Foreign Secretary. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See, also, J. Bew, Castlereagh: Enlightenment to Tyranny (London: Quercus, 2011). 2. Mr. Speaker: John Foster (1740–1828), MP for Dunleer and then County Louth 1761–1800 and Speaker of the Irish House of Commons 1785–1800. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See, also, A. P. W. Malcomson, John Foster: the politics of the Protestant ascendancy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). 3. Teobald Wolfe Tone: Teobald Wolfe Tone (1763–98), although a Protestant, had been a secretary for the Catholic Committee in the early 1790s. He was a radical advocate for Catholic emancipation and was a founding member of both the Belfast and Dublin Societies of United Irishmen. Driven into exile to escape prosecution, he went frst to the USA and then to France, where he enlisted in the French army. He encouraged the French invasions of Ireland in 1796 and 1798. He was captured on landing in Ireland with French forces in 1798. He committed suicide to escape being hanged for treason (rather than shot as a soldier). Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Tere are many biographies of him. See, in particular, M. Elliott, Wolfe Tone, rev. edn (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2012). 4. Tomas Paine: Tomas Paine (1737–1809) was the most famous, infuential and read radical writer of his age. His Rights of Man, in two parts (1791–2) and Age of Reason, in two parts (1794–95) were particularly infuential in Ireland. 5. the legislature to pass a temporary act of parliament, (36 Geo. 3.c.): 36 George III, cap. 20, which is printed in Volume 4. 6. Bills (37 Geo. 3.c.) were immediately brought in, and passed without delay, for suspending the habeas corpus: 37 George III, cap. 1. 7. Bills (37 Geo. 3.c.) were immediately brought in, and passed without delay, for suspending the habeas corpus: 37 George III, cap. 2. 8. Gen. Lake: Gerard Lake (1744–1808), who commanded in Ulster 1796–7 and did much to disarm the province. He was very briefy Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in 1798 before being replaced by Cornwallis (who also became Lord Lieutenant) in June. 9. Mr. Pelham: Tomas Pelham (1756–1826) later frst Earl of Chichester, was Chief Secretary 1783–4 and 1795–8, and Home Secretary 1801–3. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 10. the proclamation of the 17th of May: Tis proclamation can be found in Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, 17 (Dublin, 1797), dccclvii. 11. a partial rising did take place near the mountains in the county of Down, where the insurgents, fnding themselves unsupported, soon dispersed: Tis claim is questioned in Charles Dickson, Revolt in the North: Antrim and Down in 1798 (London: Constable, 1997), pp. 112–13. 12. which had been the pretext for the old White-boy insurrections: See, J. S. Donnelly, ‘Irish Agrarian Rebellion: Te Whiteboys of 1769–76’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

Notes to pages 168–71

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. 19.

20.

21.

347

Section C, 83:12 (1983), pp. 293–331; and M. Wall, ‘Te Whiteboys’, in Secret Societies in Ireland, ed. T. D. Williams (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1978), pp. 13–25. In the summer of 1797, an infamous paper, called the Union Star: A low-circulation and short-lived, but very radical newspaper in Dublin in 1797, which listed the names of government informers and the enemies of political reform. Mr. A. O’Connor: Arthur O’Connor (1763–1852) was a United Irishman and a radical MP for Philipstown 1790–5. In 1796, he sought to enlist French assistance in support of an Irish rebellion. He was imprisoned without trial February to August 1797. He was arrested in England in 1798 and tried for treason. He was found not guilty, but was sent back to Ireland and imprisoned there and in Fort George, Scotland, until 1802. He then settled in France. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, Jane Hayter Hames, Arthur O’Connor: United Irishman (Cork: Te Collins Press, 2001); and C. D. Conner, Arthur O’Connor: Te Most Important Irish Revolutionary You May Never Have Heard Of (Bloomington, NY: iUniverse, Inc., 2009). the Northern Star: Te Northern Star was the radical newspaper published by the United Irishmen of Belfast and edited by Samuel Neilson from January 1792 until it was wrecked by the Monaghan militia and closed by the authorities in May1797. See, O’Brien, ‘“Spirit, Impartiality and Independence”: Te Northern Star 1792–1797’ Eighteenth-Century Ireland, 13 (1998), pp. 7–23. the trial of Henry and John Sheares: Henry (1753–98) and John Sheares (1756–98) were Irish lawyers, who were swept by enthusiasm for the French Revolution when in Paris in 1792. Tey joined the Dublin Society of United Irishmen in 1793 and gravitated to its revolutionary wing. Tey helped plan the Irish rebellion of 1798, but were arrested on 21 May before it had really begun. Tey were put on trial on 12 July, convicted, and hanged, drawn and quartered on 14 July. Tere is a joint entry on the brothers in the ODNB. Tat a bar of lawyers were retained to undertake the cause of all persons in the gross committed for state ofences: Te most famous of these defence lawyers, defending the Sheares brothers and other United Irishmen, was John Philpot Curran (1750–1817). Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. pannels: a panel is a petty jury. Lords of Dr. M’Nevin: William James MacNeven (1763–1841) was a member of the executive of the United Irishmen. He went as their agent to Hamburg and Paris in 1797 seeking French support for an Irish rising. Back in Ireland, he was arrested on 12 March 1798, but made a deal with the government that allowed him and others to escape death. He was imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland until 1802. Afer briefy returning to France, he emigrated to the United States in 1805. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Mr. Emmet: Tomas Addis Emmet (1764–1927) was a barrister, a close friend of Teobald Wolfe Tone, and a leading United Irishman. He sought French assistance for an Irish rising. He was arrested on 12 March 1798 and was involved in the agreement made, while he was in prison at Kilmainham, whereby he and others would provide the Irish authorities with details of the activities of the United Irishmen, without incriminating other individuals, in return for escaping the death penalty. He was imprisoned in Scotland until peace was signed with France in 1802. He went to Paris on his release, but then emigrated to the United States. He was the older brother of Robert Emmet, who led another rising in Dublin in 1803. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Edward Fitzgerald: (1763–98) was a son of the frst Duke of Leinster. A former soldier, he was MP for Athy 1783–90 and County Kildare 1790–7. He joined the United Irish-

348

22.

23. 24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

31.

32.

33. 34.

Notes to pages 171–6 men, travelled to Hamburg with Arthur O’Connor in 1796 and sought French support for an Irish rising. He evaded capture on 12 March when the members of the Leinster Directory were arrested, but was wounded when resisting arrest on 10 May 1798. He died on his wounds on 4 June 1798. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, S. Tillyard, Citizen Lord: Edward Fitzgerald 1763–98 (London: Chatto & Windus, 1997). General Hoche: Lazare Hoche (1768–97) had fought in Flanders and on the Rhine before he led the abortive French invasion of Ireland at the end of 1796. He died of consumption in September 1797. an accredited messenger: Bernard MacSheehy. See M. Elliott, Partners in Revolution: Te United Irishmen and France (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 105. when the French feet with a large body of troops on board arrived in Bantry-bay: See, Te French are in the Bay: Expedition to Bantry Bay, 1796, ed. J. A. Murphy (Cork: Mercier Press, 1997). Dr. Jackson: William Jackson (c. 1737–95) was a journalist and spy who had lived for some years in France, before arriving in Ireland in 1794 as a French agent seeking to meet with the most radical United Irishmen. He was arrested in April, but not brought to trial for a year. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. In that time the Dublin Society of United Irishmen was suppressed. Convicted of high treason in April 1795, Jackson committed suicide by taking poison. Archibald Hamilton Rowan, Esq: Archibald Hamilton Rowan (1751–1834) was a founder member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was arrested in 1792 for publishing radical work, but was not sentenced to imprisonment until 1794. He escaped to France in 1794, went to the United States in 1795, was back in Hamburg by 1800, and returned to Ireland in 1805. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Lewins: Edward John Lewins (1756–1828) was an attorney and a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was sent to France in 1797 to seek French support for an Irish rising. In 1799, he continued his eforts afer the failed rebellion, but he increasingly fell out with other United Irishmen in Paris. He gradually withdrew from radical activities and became a French citizen. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. the French Minister at Hamburgh: Karl Friedrich Reinhard (1761–1837), a Germanborn diplomat, who served the French Republic in Hamburg and later in Tuscany and Switzerland. John Cormick: John Cormick, see note 18 in the next text. Sir Hugh Dalrymple: Sir Hew Whitefoord Dalrymple (1750–1830) was Governor of Guernsey 1797–1801 and later Lt-Governor of Gibraltar. While on Guernsey he established contacts with French royalists. General Daendalls: Herman Willem Daendals 1762–1813) was a Dutchman, who had fed to France afer the failure of the Dutch rebellion in 1797. He served in the French army on the Rhine. He failed to prevent an Anglo-Russian force landing in Holland in 1799. He later served the Batavian Republic and was Governor of the Dutch East Indies. their own Admiral: Vice-Admiral Jan Wellem de Winter (1761–1812) was taken prisoner at the battle of Camperdown. He was exchanged in December 1797 and became Dutch ambassador to the French Republic 1798–1802. the ever memorable victory of the 11th October, 1797: Admiral Adam Duncan’s victory over the Dutch feet at the battle of Camperdown. the Lord Lieutenant: John Jefreys Pratt (1759–1840), second Earl of Camden, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795–8.

Notes to pages 178–87

349

35. Sir Ralph Abercrombie: Sir Ralph Abercromby (1734–1801) was a very experienced soldier, who served as Commander-in-Chief in Ireland 1797–8. He tried to improve the discipline of his troops, but his eforts were undermined by the partisan attitude of Lord Lieutenant Camden and his Protestant advisers. He resigned in April 1798 and was replaced by Gerard Lake. He was later killed while leading the British expedition to Egypt to fght the French there in 1801. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 36. Lord Mayor: Tomas Fleming (1764–1809), a Dublin cardmaker, was a Common Councillor, then Alderman from 1791, and Lord Mayor 1797–8. He was notorious for his fervent loyalism, ignorance and bigotry. He committed suicide in 1809. 37. the Lord Lieutenant’s secretary: Tomas Pelham, see note above 9.

Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, Honourable John Earl of Clare 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Honourable John Earl of Clare, Lord High Chancellor: John FitzGibbon (1749–1802), frst Earl of Clare, was Lord Chancellor of Ireland from 1789 to 1802. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Tat considerable bodies of Insurgents, then distinguished by the name of Defenders: Te militant Catholic popular and widespread protest movement. See B. McEvoy, ‘Te Peep of Day Boys and Defenders in the county Armagh’, Seanchas Ardmhaca: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society, 12:1 (1986), pp. 123–63 and 2:2 (1987), pp. 60–127; M. Elliott, ‘Te Defenders in Ulster’, in Te United Irishmen, ed. D. Dickson et al. (Dublin: Lilliput Press, 1993), pp. 222–33; D. Lindsay, ‘Te Defenders’, in 1798: 200 Years of Resonance, ed. M. Cullen (Dublin: Irish Reporter, 1998), pp. 15–25; L. M. Cullen, ‘Te Political Structures of the Defenders’, in Ireland and the French Revolution, ed. H. Gough and D. Dickson (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1990), pp. 117–38; and T. Bartlett ‘Defenders and Defenderism’, Irish Historical Studies, 24 (1985), pp. 373–94. Arthur O’Connor: Arthur O’Connor (1763–1852) was a United Irishman and a radical MP for Philipstown 1790–5. In 1796, he sought to enlist French assistance in support of an Irish rebellion. He was imprisoned without trial February to August 1797. He was arrested in England in 1798 and tried for treason. He was found not guilty, but was sent back to Ireland and imprisoned there and in Fort George, Scotland, until 1802. He then settled in France. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, J. H. Hames, Arthur O’Connor: United Irishman (Cork: Te Collins Press, 2001); and C. D. Conner, Arthur O’Connor: Te Most Important Irish Revolutionary You May Never Have Heard Of (Bloomington, NY: iUniverse, Inc., 2009). William James M’Nevin: William James MacNeven (1763–1841) was a member of the executive of the United Irishmen. He went as their agent to Hamburg and Paris in 1797 seeking French support for an Irish rising. Back in Ireland, he was arrested on 12 March 1798, but made a deal with the government that allowed him and others to escape death. He was imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland until 1802. Afer briefy returning to France, he emigrated to the United States in 1805. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Tomas Addis Emmett: Tomas Addis Emmet (1764–1927) was a barrister, a close friend of Teobald Wolfe Tone, and a leading United Irishman. He sought French assistance for an Irish rising. He was arrested on 12 March 1798 and was involved in the agreement made, while he was in prison at Kilmainham, whereby he and others would provide the Irish authorities with details of the activities of the United Irishmen, without incriminating other individuals, in return for escaping the death penalty. He was imprisoned in Scotland until peace was signed with France in 1802. He went to Paris on his release, but

350

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17.

Notes to pages 187–94 then emigrated to the United States. He was the older brother of Robert Emmet, who led another rising in Dublin in 1803. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Oliver Bond: Oliver Bond (1760/61–98) was a wool merchant and leading member of the United Irishmen. He spent six months in prison in 1793 for libelling the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Lords. He was a member of the Leinster Directory, which was arrested at his home on 12 March 1798. He was convicted of high treason, but avoided execution by signing the Kilmainham treaty with his colleagues. He died suddenly, however, while in prison, on 6 September 1798. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Mr. Tone: Teobald Wolfe Tone (1763–98), although a Protestant, had been a secretary for the Catholic Committee in the early 1790s. He was a radical advocate for Catholic emancipation and was a founding member of both the Belfast and Dublin Societies of United Irishmen. Driven into exile to escape prosecution, he went frst to France and then to France, where he enlisted in the French army. He encouraged the French invasions of Ireland in 1796 and 1798. He was captured on landing in Ireland with French forces in 1798. He committed suicide to escape being hanged for treason (rather than shot as a soldier). Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Tere are many biographies of him. See, in particular, M. Elliott, Wolfe Tone (revised edn., Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2012). Edward John Lewins: Edward John Lewins (1756–1828) was an attorney and a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was sent to France in 1797 to seek French support for an Irish rising. In 1799, he continued his eforts afer the failed rebellion, but he increasingly fell out with other United Irishmen in Paris. He gradually withdrew from radical activities and became a French citizen. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Lord Edward Fitzgerald: Edward Fitzgerald (1763–98) was a son of the frst Duke of Leinster. A former soldier, he was MP for Athy 1783–90 and County Kildare 1790–7. He joined the United Irishmen, travelled to Hamburg with Arthur O’Connor in 1796 and sought French support for an Irish rising. He evaded capture on 12 March when the members of the Leinster Directory were arrested, but was wounded when resisting arrest on 10 May 1798. He died of his wounds on 4 June 1798. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, S. Tillyard, Citizen Lord: Edward Fitzgerald 1763–1798 (London: Chatto and Windus, 1997). General Hoche: Lazare Hoche (1768–97) had fought in Flanders and on the Rhine before he led the abortive French invasion of Ireland at the end of 1796. He died of consumption in September 1797. Rheynhart: Karl Friedrich Reinhard (1761–1837), a German-born diplomat, was minister for the French Directory in Hamburg 1795–8 and then later in Tuscany and Switzerland. Oysterhaven: Near Kinsale. Lisle: British eforts to negotiate peace with France at Lille failed in late 1797. Minister at Paris: Lewins. Lord Duncan: Adam Duncan (1731–1804), a Scot, was the admiral, who commanded the North Sea feet which defeated the Dutch at the battle of Camperdown on 11 October 1797. He was created Viscount Duncan of Camperdown ten days later. Te several persons aforesaid who have so confessed themselves to have been members of the Executive Revolutionary Directory of the / Irish Rebels and acknowledged their traitorous correspondence and connection with the Directory of the French Republic, have endeavoured to palliate this branch of their treason by ascribing it, frst to their disapprobation of an act of Parliament passed in the year 1796 to prevent insurrection: 36 George III, cap. 20 (1796). M’Nevin having distinctly acknowledged that the intention was to abolish all church establishment, and not to have any established religion, and that, for his own part, he

Notes to pages 195–203

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

351

would as soon establish the Mahometan as the Popish religion, though he was himself a Roman Catholic: Both of his parents were Irish-speaking Roman Catholics and he had been educated at Prague and Vienna. John Cormick: John Cormick was a Roman Catholic feather merchant from County Westmeath. Te Leinster Directory of the United Irishmen sometimes met at his house. He helped Lord Edward Fitzgerald to hide temporarily from the authorities in 1798. Your Committee further allude to the system of organization which they have already detailed, which appears to them to have been formed by this faction when their open attempts to subvert the Constitution were fustrated by the Convention Act: 33 George III, cap. 29 (1793). John Hughes: John Hughes joined, the United Irishmen in Belfast in 1793 and led a section himself, but he then betrayed them. At frst reluctant to testify, he subsequently provided the Secret Committee with the most detailed evidence on the activities of the United Irishmen and he was prepared to name names. See Appendix I of this report, pp. i–ix. Hughes tried to suggest that Henry Grattan sympathized with the revolutionary aims of the United Irishmen. He was the frst printer and bookseller to make part Two of Tomas Paine’s Rights of Man available to readers in Belfast. Samuel Neilson: Samuel Neilson (1761–1803), a Belfast wool merchant, joined frst the Northern Whig Club and then the United Irishmen, which he helped to found in Belfast in October 1791. He helped establish and edited the radical newspaper, the Northern Star for January 1792 to September 1797. He was imprisoned in September 1796 for seventeen months, but rejoined the activities of the United Irishmen in early 1798. He was again arrested on 23 May 1797. He took part in the Kilmainham treaty to save the lives of leading members of the United Irishmen in return for giving evidence on their activities and accepting a prison sentence. He served a term in Fort George, Scotland, before being released in July 1802. He sailed for the United States in December 1802, but soon afer died there in August 1803. the United Britons: a small, secretive and militant radical group in England, which sought to ally the United Irishmen, the United Scotsmen and the United Englishmen, without success.

General Humbert to the French Troops and to the Irish Nation 1.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

General Humbert: Jean Joseph Amable Humbert (1755–1823). He was taken prisoner afer his defeat at the battle of Ballinamuck on 8 September 1798. He was exchanged for British prisoners in French hands and he later served in the West Indies. Critical of Napoleon, he fed to the United States in 1808 and fought against the British again at the battle of New Orleans on 8 January 1815. permission fom the Government: France was governed by the Directory from 2 November 1795 until 10 November 1799. perfdious English: Te term ‘perfdious English’ or more common ‘perfdious Albion’ was a stock pejorative term used by the French ever since the thirteenth century, but most recently in a poem by Augustin, Marquis de Ximenez in 1793. See, N. Hampson, Perfdy of Albion: French Perceptions of England during the French Revolution (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998). Pitt: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. houses of Hanover: Te ruling dynasty in Britain and Ireland since 1714. and Stuart: Te ruling dynasty in Britain and Ireland 1603–1714. cruel Albion: Te oldest name for the island of Britain.

352

Notes to pages 207–13

[Lindsay], A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland 1.

When a Nation once loses its regard to Justice … its own ruin: Joseph Addison, Maxims, Observations, and Refections, Moral, Political, and Divine (London, 1719), p. 5. 2. the Lord Lieutenant: John Fane (1759–1849), tenth Earl of Westmorland, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1789–94. 3. Mr. Stewart of Killymoon: William Stewart (1710–97) lived at Killymoon. He was a Presbyterian and one of the richest landowners in County Tyrone. He was MP for County Tyrone 1748–68. It might possibly be his son, James Stewart (1742–1821), MP for County Tyrone 1768–1800. Tere are entries on both in the HoIP 1692–1800. 4. Aughmacloy: Actually Aughnacloy, in County Tyrone. 5. the Lord Chancellor: John FitzGibbon (1749–1802), frst Earl of Clare, who was Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 6. Mr. Hamilton: Sackville Hamilton (1731/32–1818) was MP for St Johnstown, Clogher and Armagh City 1780–97 and under-Secretary of State for the civil department 1780–96. 7. Mr. Cooke: Edward Cooke (1755–1820), MP for Liford, and then Old Leighlin 1789– 1800. He was private secretary to three Lords Lieutenant, and then under-Secretary of State for the military department 1789–96 and then for the civil department 1796– 1801 of the Irish executive. He worked closely with Castlereagh in securing support for Union. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 8. Mr. Pelham: Tomas Pelham (1756–1826), later frst Earl of Chichester, was MP for Carrick, Clogher and then Armagh Borough 1783–99 and Chief Secretary 1795–8 for Lord Lieutenant Camden. 9. Rigdum Funnidos: A plain-speaking character in Henry Cary (c. 1687–1743), Te Tragedy of Chrononhotonthologes (1734). Te quotation is from Scene 7. 10. the High Sherif of the County: Kenrick Cope was High Sherif of County Armagh in 1798. 11. Loyal, yet independent – obedient, yet fee: William Blackstone is quoted as stating, ‘loyal, yet free; obedient yet independent’, in John Rose, A Constitutional Catechism (Bristol, 1795), p. 30note.

Arthur O’Connor’s Letter to Lord Castlereagh 1.

2.

3. 4.

Mr. Justice Swan: William Bellingham Swan (d. 12 January 1837), inspector-general of excise, a JP in several Irish counties, and deputy town major (a senior policeman) of Dublin, had arrested several members of the Leinster Directory of the United Irishmen at Oliver Bond’s Dublin house on 12 March 1798. He was later severely wounded when capturing Lord Edward Fitzgerald. Lord Cornwallis’s administration: Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and frst Marquess Cornwallis, was Lord Lieutenant and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland from June 1798 until 1801. as will place your conduct in such points of view as that they that run may read: A famous Biblical quotation; see Habakkuk, 2:2. Bond: Oliver Bond (1760/1–98) was a Dublin woollen merchant and militant United Irishman, at whose house several members of the Leinster Directory were arrested on 12 March 1798. He was convicted of treason, but his life was spared as a result of the negotiations conducted at Kilmainham gaol between the arrested leaders of the United Irishmen and the Irish government. He died in prison, however, on 6 September 1798.

Notes to pages 213–20 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21. 22. 23.

353

Byrne: William Michael Byrne, a member of the Leinster Directory of the United Irishmen, was executed for high treason on 28 July 1798. It was his execution that helped persuade the other arrested leaders of the United Irishmen to negotiate the Kilmainham treaty with the Irish government, whereby they saved their lives in return for general information on their recent political activities. Mr. Dobbs: Francis Dobbs (1750–1811), MP for Charlemont 1798–1800. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. the Sherif: William Henry Alexander, Sherif of Dublin 1797–8. Lord Clare: John FitzGibbon (1749–1802), frst Earl of Clare, was Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. Beresford’s Riding house: John Claudius Beresford (1766–1846), MP for Swords and then Dublin 1790–1800, kept a riding school in Dublin. Sandys’s Prevot, the old Custom-house : Te customs house on Essex Quay was built in 1707. It was used at this time as a barracks. It was replaced in 1791 by a new customs house at Custom House Quay. the Royal Exchange : Te Royal Exchange was in Parliament Street, next to Dublin Castle. from whose bourn no traveller returns: Hamlet, in Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, IV.i.78–9. sine qua non: A Latin term which can be translated as ‘without which nothing’ or ‘an essential condition’. Emmet: Tomas Addis Emmet (1764–1827), one of the arrested leaders of the United Irishmen, whose life was saved by the Kilmainham treaty. He was imprisoned until 1802, and went frst to France and then emigrated to the United States. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. M’Nevin: William James MacNeven (1763–1841), another arrested leader of the United Irishmen, whose life was spared as a result of the Kilmainham treaty. He too was imprisoned until 1802, went to France on his release, and later emigrated to the United States. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Mr. Cooke: Edward Cooke (1755–1820) was an under-Secretary of State frst in the military and then in the civil department 1789–1801. He was also an MP 1789–1800. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. the Union: Te societies of United Irishmen. Te day following, Mr. Secretary Cooke came to our prison, and told us he came on the part of Government to fulfl their agreement, with the good faith and liberal construction / they were pledged to; that we were at liberty to go where we pleased, provided we lef the British dominions – that whatever parts of the conditions concerned us afer our having passed into exile, would be secured by act of parliament: See, 38 George III, caps. 45 and 78. General Nugent: George Nugent (1757–1849) defeated the Ulster rebels at Ballynahinch on 12 June 1798. He was subsequently Adjutant-General in Ireland 1799–1801. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Edward’s: Lord Edward Fitzgerald (1763–98), a son of the frst Duke of Leinster, was a militant United Irishman, who was mortally wounded when trying to avoid arrest and died on 4 June 1798. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Mr. Marsden: Alexander Marsden was secretary to Lord Lieutenant Cornwallis. The Courier: A London newspaper established in 1792. Samuel Neilson: Samuel Neilson (1761–1803) was a Belfast wool merchant and one of the founders of the Belfast Society of United Irishmen. He was editor of the Northern Star from January 1792 to May 1797. He served 17 months in prison from September 1796. Arrested on 23 May 1798, he was imprisoned following the Kilmainham treaty

354

24. 25. 26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34. 35.

36. 37.

Notes to pages 220–2 until 1902. On his release he went to the United States, but died shortly afer settling there. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Te Septemberizing: An allusion to the September Massacres in Revolutionary France in 1792. Alas! poor Country! … Dying or ere they sicken!: Ross, in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, IV.iii. Henry Jackson: Henry Jackson (c. 1750–1817) was a Dublin iron-founder and member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was arrested in 1798, imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland, and he then emigrated to the United States. Miles Duigenan: Miles Duigenan was a grocer and wine and spirits merchant, and a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was arrested in 1797 and 1798 and released at the end of 1801. Tomas Russel: Tomas Russell (1767–1803) was a friend of Wolfe Tone, one of the founders of the Belfast Society of United Irishmen, and one of those most concerned about the poor. He was arrested in September 1796 and was imprisoned until 1802. He tried to rescue Robert Emmet afer Emmet had been arrested, following the collapse of his abortive rising of 1803. He was executed on 21 October 1803. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Matt. Dowling: Matthew Dowling (d. Paris 1805) was an attorney and a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was arrested, imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland, and then banished. John Sweeny: John Sweeny was a vintner and owner of a Dublin tavern. He was a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was arrested in 1798 and imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland. John Cormick: John Cormick was a Roman Catholic from County Westmeath, a feather merchant in Dublin, and a militant United Irishmen. He helped to hide Lord Edward Fitzgerald in 1798 and allowed the Leinster Directory to meet in his house. He was arrested in 1798, imprisoned and then banished. John Sweetman: John Sweetman (1752–1826) was a rich Catholic brewer who joined the Dublin Society of Irishmen. He was arrested in 1798, imprisoned until 1802, and thereafer went to the Netherlands and then France. He returned to Ireland in 1820. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. Deane Swif: Deane Swif (c. 1770–c. 1860) was the son of Teophilus Swif (1746– 1815), a lawyer and writer. He himself wrote, under the pseudonym ‘Marcus’, for the Press, the radical publication established by Arthur O’Connor in Dublin in 1797. He was arrested in 1798, imprisoned and then banished. He is mentioned in the entry on his father in the ODNB. Joseph Cuthbert: Joseph Cuthbert was a member of the Belfast Society of United Irishmen. He was arrested in 1793 and again in 1798. He was imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland. John Chambers: John Chambers (1754–1837) was a printer and bookseller. He was a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He was arrested in 1798, imprisoned in Fort George until 1802, spent three years in France, and then emigrated to the United States. See, M. Pollard, ‘John Chambers, Printer and United Irishman’, Irish Book, 3 (1964), pp. 1–22. Te above persons cannot be liberated at present: the other State Prisoners named in the Banishment Bill: 38 George III, cap. 78. the Memoir: Later published as: Memoire; or, Detailed Statement of the Origin and Progress of the Irish Union: Delivered to the Irish Government, by Messrs. Emmett, O’Connor, and McNevin ([Dublin?, c. 1799–1800]).

Notes to pages 224–35

355

38. the Minister of England: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783– 1801 and 1804–6. 39. the Opposition who gave evidence on my trial at Maidstone: Evidence as to the character of O’Connor was given at his trial at Maidstone by several prominent opposition Westminster Whig MPs, including Charles James Fox, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and Tomas Erskine. 40. I was arrested at Margate, and prosecuted at Maidstone, on a charge of inviting the French to an invasion of England: See, Te Trial at Large of Arthur O’Connor [et al.] (Dublin, 1798). 41. Coigly: James Coigly [or O’Coigley or Quigley] (1761–98) was a Roman Catholic priest and a United Irishman, who tried to unite the United Irishmen and the Defenders. He visited England and France to enlist support. He was arrested with O’Connor at Margate on his way to France on 28 February 1798. Incriminating evidence was found in his possession. He was convicted of high treason and hanged on 7 June. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. See also, Patriot Priest: A Life of Reverend James Coigly 1761–1798, ed. D. Keogh (Cork: Cork University Press, 1998). 42. General Hoche: Lazare Hoche (1768–97) was the French general in command of the abortive French expedition against Ireland, which landed briefy at Bantry Bay in late December 1796. 43. Quiberon expedition: In June–July 1795 French counter-revolutionary troops landed on the Quiberon peninsula, on the coast of Brittany, in support of the revolt in La Vendée, which sought to restore the French monarchy. Tey were aided by the British, but repulsed by forces led by General Hoche. 44. in 1738 [sic]: clearly a misprint for 1798. 45. But if you shall have convinced the People of Ireland … restrictive of their prosperity: Speech of Arthur O’Connor, Esq. in the House of Commons of Ireland, May 4, 1795, on the Catholic Bill (Dublin, 1795), p. 28. Tis pamphlet is printed in Volume 4. 46. I refer you to the “State of Ireland”: Te State of Ireland, by Arthur O’Connor (Dublin, 1798). 47. So truly Protean: In Greek mythology, Proteus, a sea-god, was capable of assuming many diferent forms. 48. Robespierian butchery: Tis is a reference to the French Terror of 1793–4 when Maximilien de Robespierre (1758–94) was a leading revolutionary. 49. Tyro: In Greek mythology, Tyro was the daughter of Salmoneus and married to Cretheus, but loved Enipeus. She gave birth to the twin sons (Pelias and Nelens) of Poseidon. Te word is used to refer to a beginner in learning something. 50. a Bey or a Bashaw: A Bey is a provincial governor in the Ottoman empire or the title of the ruler of the kingdom of Tunis. A Bashaw, a variant of Pasha, is high ofcial in the Ottoman empire. 51. Reverend Grifths: For Father Grifths see, Patriot Priest: A Life of Reverend James Coigly 1761–1798, ed. D. Keogh, pp. 45, 54–55, 57–60. 52. twin brother: Tis is a reference to Roger O’Connor (1762–1834), Arthur’s brother, who was also a United Irishman and a prisoner in Newgate prison, Dublin. Both brothers were sent to Fort George in Scotland until 1802. Roger later defrauded Arthur of his property. Roger’s son, Feargus, was later a famous Chartist in Leeds. Tere is an entry on Roger in the ODNB. 53. destroyed his property: His house in Connorville, in County Cork, was looted by government troops during the 1798 rebellion.

356

Notes to pages 235–41

54. Tis is the Brother whose crimes are his talents, his virtues, and love of the People – for whom an acquittal serves but to prolong your cruelties and his persecutions: Roger had been arrested at Cork in 1797, but was acquitted of the charges brought against him, but this did not prevent him being re-arrested in London in 1798 and sent back as a prisoner to Dublin and then Fort George. 55. smears the sleepy grooms: Lady Macbeth, in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, II.ii. 56. there is no sure foundation set on blood: King John, in Shakespeare’s King John, IV.ii. 57. Sir John Davis cites the records of these two cases … Lawrence was hanged: Sir John Davies (1569–1626) was an English MP, but spent much time in Dublin from 1601, where he was Solicitor General 1603–6, Attorney General 1606–19, MP for County Fermanagh and Speaker of the Irish House of Commons in 1613. His book, Discoverie of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued nor brought under obedience of the crown of England, until his majesties happie reigne (1612), was reprinted in London in 1747. 58. Innisfail: Inis Fail, a poetic name for Ireland. 59. Russels: William, Lord Russell (1639–83), who was executed for his involvement in the Rye House Plot against the policies of Charles II and became a Whig martyr. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 60. Sydneys: Algernon Sidney (1623–830, the radical Whig theorist who was also arrested and executed for planning a rebellion to prevent James, Duke of York, succeeding his brother Charles II. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 61. Hampdens: Tis is probably John Hampden (1653–96), the radical Whig, who was also involved with Sidney in trying to prevent James Duke of York inheriting his brother’s thrones. He was imprisoned for some time and later supported the Glorious Revolution. It could possibly refer to John Hampden (1595–1643) who was a leading opponent of the policies of Charles I. Tere are entries on both in the ODNB. 62. Roger Moore: Roger Moore (c. 1592–c. 1666), who was involved in the Irish rebellion of 1641, when he tried to unite the Catholics and Protestants of Ulster. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 63. the Patriots of Helvetia: Switzerland. 64. Batavia: Te Dutch Republic. 65. Kosciusko!: Andrzej Tadeusz Kosciuszko (1746–1817), who fought for the Americans in the War of American Independence and in 1794 led a Polish revolt against Russia and Prussia, but was captured. He could not prevent the third partition of Poland and emigrated to the United States. He later returned to Europe.

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq. 1.

2.

3.

An Orangeman, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq. Te Catholic Advocate; in Reply to the Calumnies Against the Orange Institution; Contained in his Pamphlet Purporting to be a Memoire on some Questions Respecting the Projected Union, &c. &c. &c: Tis is printed in Volume 6 of this collection. WITH AN APPENDIX,CONTAINING SOME ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE POPULAR PAMPHLET ENTITLED, “AN IMPARTIAL VIEW OF THE CAUSES LEADING THIS COUNTRY TO THE NECESSITY OF AN UNION,” &c. &c. &c.: Tis was written by Tomas Grady and published in Dublin in 1799. Pars Hominum vitiis gaudet constanter, et urget Propositum: Quintus Horatius Flaccus [Horace], Sermons, Book II, No. 7, ll. 6–7. Te Latin can be translated as: ‘A portion of mankind consistently glory in their vices and pursue their purpose’.

Notes to pages 243–51 4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

18.

19. 20.

357

Te name of Orangemen was frst adopted by some Protestants in the county of Armagh: In late 1795. See, Jim Smyth, ‘Te Men of No Popery: Te Origins of the Orange Order’, History Ireland, 3:3 (1995), pp. 48–53. the postulata: Demands or claims. the Union: A term for the United Irishmen the great King William: William of Orange (1650–1702), who became King William III in 1689 as a result of the Glorious Revolution. It was 1691 before he was efectively joint-ruler of Ireland (with Mary II). Dr. Hussey: Tomas Hussey (1746–1803), a friend of Edmund Burke and Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford and Lismore from 1797, helped establish St Patrick’s College at Maynooth in 1795 and was its frst president. In 1797, he issued a pastoral letter to his clergy, strongly resenting government interference in ecclesiastical discipline, establishing Protestant schools, and encouraging Catholic troops to attend Protestant services. the titular Bishop of Waterford, tells us, in his pastoral letter,“that the Catholic faith is suitable to all climes, ages, and forms of government – and that it is immutable.”: Tomas Hussey, A Pastoral Letter: To the Catholic Clergy of the United Dioceses of Waterford and Lismore (Waterford, 1797), p. 6. Tis work went through at least six editions. the horrible transactions in Wexford: A reference to the rebels murdering Protestants on Wexford bridge and also perhaps to the massacre of Protestants on nearby Vinegar Hill. the plan of the Union: Tat is, the terms of any Act of Union. Talibus ex adyto dictis Cumœa Sibylla, / Horrendas canit ambages, antroque remagit / Obscuris vera involvens: Publius Vergilius Maro [Virgil] (70–21 bc), Te Aeneid, Bk VI, ll. 98–100. Te Latin can be translated as ‘With such words having been spoken, the Cumaean Sybill sings from the inner shrine the dire mysteries and roars in the cave, enfolding the truth in darkness’. in his Pastoral letter, page 10, says, “Te vast rock is already detached from the mountain’s brow, and whoever opposes its descent and removal, must be crushed by his own rash endeavours.”: Actually, on p. 7 of the Waterford edition mentioned above. Doctor M’Nevin: Dr William James MacNeven (1763–1841), a leading United Irishman, who sought French assistance for the Irish rebellion. Arrested in 1798, he was imprisoned in Fort George, Scotland. When released in 1802, he spent some time in France before emigrating to the United Sates. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. rhodomantide!: a rhodomontade is a vainglorious, extravagant or empty boast. Proteus: In Greek mythology, Proteus was a sea-god capable of assuming many diferent forms. John Wesley: John Wesley (1703–91) was a Church of England clergyman, who played a major role in creating the Methodist movement, which separated from the Church of England shortly afer his death. He was regarded as a fanatic because he preached to large enthusiastic crowds, ofen in the open-air, and stressed the need to feel a conversion experience. Quixottes: A Quixote is a rash, foolish, impractical person, especially in pursuit of an unattainable ideal. It comes from the comic hero in Te ingenious gentleman, Don Quixote de la Mancha, by Miguel de Cervantes, 2 vols (1605, 1615). non compos : Tis Latin term ‘non compos mentis’ means ‘not of a sound mind’. As to the Catholic militia soldiers, many, I am proud and happy to acknowledge, did their duty like brave men; the conduct of the Limerick regiment stands particularly conspicuous: See, I.F. Nelson, Te Irish Militia, 1793–1802: Ireland’s Forgotten Army (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007), p. 226.

358

Notes to pages 252–63

21. by your calculation, of two thousand four hundred and seventy-fve … most active agents in forwarding the cause: Te most reliable modern estimate is that only seventy out of about 1500 Catholic clergy in Ireland were implicated in any way in the rebellion of 1798 and some of these had only the most tenuous of links. See, D. Keogh, ‘Te French Disease’: Te Catholic Church and Irish Radicalism 1790–1800 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1993). 22. 1788: this is a misprint. Te author means 1688, the Glorious Revolution. 23. the fundamental articles of the union between Scotland and England: Tis is a reference to the Act of Union between England and Scotland in 1707. 24. Were we now to separate Church and State … an illegal usurpation: In 1701 William III and the Westminster Parliament settled the succession to the throne by passing the Act of Settlement of 1701, which decreed that the House of Hanover would succeed to the throne afer Princess Anne, William’s sister-in-law and heir, whose last surviving child had just died. IN 1714, when Queen Anne died, George of Hanover succeeded to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland as George I. Te act was passed to exclude James II and his Catholic male descendants from his second wife (the Jacobite Pretenders of the eighteenth century) from being regarded as legitimate kings. 25. hæ nugæ seria ducant in mala: Quintius Horatius Flaccus [Horace], ARS poetica, ll. 451–2. Tis Latin can be translated as: ‘Tese trifes will lead to serious mischief ’. 26. a gentleman, whose name, though mutilated of its barbarous O, is still sufciently indicative of Aboriginism, and Catholicism: Te author here is suggesting that the author of An Impartial View, Tomas Grady, is trying to hide the fact that his real Gaelic Catholic family name is O’Grady. 27. about the year 1794: In fact, the Orange Order was established in 1795. 28. Orange societies never became so general, as to be worthy of political consideration, until the year 1797, (the real date of the Orange institution) when they were transplanted to Dublin: Men of higher social and economic status began taking over control of the Orange Order when the Grand Lodge was established in Dublin in 1797. 29. Te comprehensive penning of the statute of 37th of G. 3d: Te Irish act of parliament, 37 George III, cap. 38 amended the cap. Insurrection Act of 1796 (36 George III, cap. 20). 30. quo animo: A legal Latin term that can be translated as: ’with what intention or motive’. 31. Te Press: Te Press was a radical pro-United Irishmen set up in Dublin in 1797, by Arthur O’Connor, afer the Belfast Northern Star had been suppressed.

Cupples, Te Principles of the Orange Association 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

our duty, as laid down by St. Paul in the verses preceding the text: St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, ch. 13. Te Apostle exhorts every one of us “to please his … to God, and approved of men.”: Ibid., ch. 14: verse 18. If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, says he, walkest thou not uncharitably: Ibid., 14: 15. the very best things may be misrepresented … to the thing whose worth and utility they would otherwise assert: Tis is a quotation from a speech, ‘Te principles of a Freemason explained, by a brother’, printed in the Freemasons’ Magazine, 2 (London, 1794), p. 16. Te speech was originally delivered to the Freemason’s Lodge at Kilwinning, Ayrshire in 1766. that a most atrocious conspiracy was formed and extended in this country: Te alliance between the United Irishmen and French revolutionaries. our most inveterate enemies: the French.

Notes to pages 264–79 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

18.

359

Protestants, under the designation of Peep of Day Boys, and Roman Catholics who assumed the name of Defenders: See, B. McEvoy, ‘Te Peep of Day Boys and Defenders of the County Armagh’, Seanchas Ardmhaca: Te Historical Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Society, 12:1 (1986), pp. 122–63, and 12:2 (1987), pp. 60–127 our good King: George III (1738–1820), king from 1760. the great King William: William of Orange (1650–1702), King William III from 1689. As we name the name of Christ, let us be careful to depart fom iniquity: St Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy, 2:19. “Qualifcations for an Orangeman,” contained in our Book of Rules and Regulations: Tis text is printed in the present volume, below, pp. 315–24. Finally, Brethren, whatsoever things are true … and if there be any praise, think on these things: St Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 4:8. truth and justice … our blessed Lord and Saviour: ‘Prayer for opening a Lodge’, printed below in the ‘Rules and Regulations’. his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant: John Jefreys Pratt (1759–1840), second Earl of Camden, who was Lord Lieutenant from 1795 until June 1798. an house divided against itself cannot stand: Mark 3:25; and Matthew 12:25. THOMAS VERNER: Col. Tomas Verner (1774–1853) from Church Hill, County Armagh. His father, James, was MP for Dungannon 1794–1800. Tis family took part in the Battle of the Diamond against the Catholic Defenders and formed an Orange Lodge on the family estate in October 1796. Te Grand Lodge was founded in Dublin on 8 March 1798, but its rules were not established until 20 November because of the rebellion. Verner is sometimes seen as the frst Grand Master, but the honour is sometimes given to Col. William Blacker, who performed the duties of a Grand Master until the Grand Lodge was formed. Verner resigned in 1801 because he opposed the Union. JOHN C. BERESFORD: John Claudius Beresford (1766–1846) was MP for Swords and then Dublin City 1790–1800. He was the son of John Beresford (1738–1805), MP for County Waterford 1761–1800 and for years an Irish Treasury commissioner. Unlike his father, John Claudius was a staunch opponent of Union. Tat we are to meet every frst day of July (old style) in a full body, to commemorate the signal victory gained by King William, Prince of Orange, at the Boyne : Te Protestant hero, William III, defeated the Catholic King James II at the battle of the Boyne, outside Drogheda, on 1 July 1690 (Old Style, according to the Julian calendar) or 11 July (New Style, according to the Gregorian calendar). When the Gregorian calendar was ofcially adopted by Britain and Ireland in 1752 the diference between the two calendars was eleven days and, hence, the battle has since then been celebrated by the Orange Order on 12 July.

Discussions on the Union between the Duke of Portland and Lord Cornwallis 1. 2. 3.

sine qua non: a Latin term for an essential or indispensable condition. Mr. Pitt: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806, Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. Lord Castlereagh: Robert Stewart (1769–1822), who held the courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh, was MP for County Down 1790–1800 and Chief Secretary for Ireland 1708–1801. He was very active in promoting the cause of Union in the Irish Parliament. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB.

360 4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

Notes to pages 280–8 Phoenix Park: Phoenix Park in Dublin was where the Deerfeld Residence was built in 1774 as the residence of the Chief Secretary of Ireland. Te Bar: Te professional association of the legal profession. Dr. Troy: John Tomas Troy (1737–1823) had been Catholic Archbishop of Dublin from 1786. In 1799 he had accepted George III’s right to veto the choice of Irish Catholic bishops and he was persuaded to acquiesce in the Union because he hoped it would lead to Roman Catholic emancipation. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. the Speaker: John Foster (1740–1828) later frst Baron Oriel, was MP for Dunleer and then County Louth 1761–1800. He was Speaker of the Irish House of Commons 1785– 1800. He opposed further measures of Catholic Relief and the Union, but accepted it once it had been accomplished. He became Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland 1804–6 and 1807–11. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also, A. P. W. Malcomson, John Foster; Te Politics of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). Sir John Parnell: John Parnell (1745–1801) was MP for Bangor 1767–8 and then for Innistiogue and Queen’s County 1776–1800 and Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1785. He opposed the Union, quarrelled violently with Prime Minister Pitt on the subject, and was dismissed by Lord Lieutenant Cornwallis in January 1799. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. A general Bar meeting is summoned, I understand, for Sunday next: Te debate on the Union by the Irish Bar is printed in Volume 6. the Primate: William Newcome (1729–1800) had been Church of Ireland Bishop of Dromore, Ossory and Waterford and Lismore, before becoming Archbishop of Armagh in 1795. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. lists containing the names of those for whom the Peers chose to vote (as is practised in the case of the Scotch Peers: At each general election the peers of Scotland chose sixteen of their number to serve as the Scottish Representative peers in the next parliament. Te twentyeight Irish representative lay peers were to be elected for life. the Speaker of the United House of Lords: Te Speaker of the House of Lords afer the Union was the Lord Chancellor of England. viva voce: Tis Latin term means literally, ‘with living voice’, meaning words delivered orally, not in writing. Te reference in Article 6 to the Tarif of the Commercial Treaty concluded with France in 1786: Tis is a reference to the Commercial Treaty between Britain and France successfully negotiated by William Eden in 1786. See W.O. Henderson, ‘Te AngloFrench Commercial Treaty of 1786’, Economic History Review, new series, 10 (1957), pp. 104–12. For the consequences of this treaty for Ireland, see, J. Kelly, ‘Te AngloFrench Commercial Treaty of 1786: Te Irish Dimension’, Eighteenth-Century Ireland, 4 (1989), pp. 93–111. the Texel: A Friesian island of the coast of north Holland, where the Dutch could assemble and harbour a large feet. Mr. Saurin: William Saurin (1757–1839) was MP for Blessington January–August 1800. He was an Irish lawyer passionately opposed to the Union, who tried to persuade his fellow lawyers of the Irish Bar to join him in opposing it. He made major speeches against Union in 1800. Tis did not prevent him becoming Attorney General of Ireland 1807–22. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Mr. John Beresford: John Beresford (1738–1805) was MP for County Waterford 1761–1800. He was frst commissioner of the Irish revenue 1780 and Commissioner

Notes to pages 288–91

18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

25.

26.

361

of the Irish Treasury 1793. He was a personal friend of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger and a very infuential Irish politician. He supported Union and played a major role in shaping its commercial and fnancial terms and later fnancial arrangements. His son, however, John Claudius Beresford, was a staunch opponent of Union. Tere are entries on both in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Lord Downshire: Arthur Hill (1753–1801), second Marquess of Downshire from 1793, had been MP for County Down 1776–93 as well as a British MP 1774–84. He vigorously opposed Union and was dismissed as Governor of Down and struck of the Irish Privy Council in February 1800. He committed suicide on 7 September 1801. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Lord Ely: Charles Tottenham Lofus (1737/8–1806), frst Baron and then frst Earl of Ely from 1794, had been MP for Clonmines, Fethard and then Wexford Borough 1761–85. At frst doubtful on the Union, he was won over and was rewarded by being made Marquess of Ely in 1800 and Baron Lofus in the UK peerage, which gave him a seat in the united House of Lords from 1801. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Lord Cork: Edmund Boyle (1767–1856), eighth Earl of Cork and eighth Earl of Orrery from 1798, was an army ofcer. Mr. Luttrell: Henry Luttrell (1786–1851) was MP for Clonmines 1799–1800. Tis was a constituency in which the Earl of Ely had considerable infuence. Tere is an entry on Luttrell in the HoIP 1692–1800. Archbishop of Cashell: Charles Agar (1736–1809), Church of Ireland Archbishop of Cashel 1779–1901 and then Archbishop of Dublin 1801–9, was an opponent of Catholic emancipation. Very ambitious, he used the Union debate to further his own career. As well as becoming Archbishop of Dublin for supporting Union, he was given a lay UK peerage as frst Viscount Somerton in 1800 and then frst Earl of Somerton in 1806, which enabled him to sit in the united House of Lords as a lay peer. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. See also, A. P. W. Malcomson, Archbishop Charles Agar: Churchmanship and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009). It not only transfers 18 votes in the Commons to the Opposition: Tat is, because of the infuence these peers had over MPs in the Irish House of Commons. Mr. J. C. Beresford: John Claudius Beresford (1766–1846) was MP for Swords and then Dublin City 1790–100. Despite his father’s government position and support for Union, he was a ferce opponent of the measure. Tis did not prevent him sitting in the Imperial Parliament 1801–4 and 1806–11, and supporting Pitt and Addington. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. the Right Hon. Isaac Corry: Isaac Corry (1763–1813) was MP for Newry 1776–1800. He replaced Parnell, who had been fercely opposed to Union, and served as Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer until 1804. He fought a duel with Henry Grattan in 1800, and was slightly wounded, afer having accused Grattan of supporting the Irish rebellion of 1798. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Mr. W. Smith: William Cusack Smith (1766–1836) was MP for Lanesborough and then Donegal Borough 1794–100. In the frst debate in the Irish House of Commons on the Union in January 1799 he opposed the measure, but in the second debate he became a strenuous, efective and infuential supporter of it. He published his revised opinions as William Smith’s Address to the People of Ireland; being the substance of his speech, delivered on Tursday, 24th January, 1799, in the Irish House of Commons, on the subject of a Legislative Union between that country and Great Britain (London and Dublin, 1799). On

362

27.

28.

29.

30. 31.

32. 33.

34. 35.

36.

37.

38. 39.

Notes to pages 291–300 6 December 1800 he was made Solicitor General for Ireland and in 1801 he became a Baron of the Exchequer, a post he held for the rest of his life. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Baron Smith’s: Michael Smith (1740–1808) was MP for Randalstown 1783–93. He was a Baron of the Irish Exchequer 1793–1801 and Master of the Rolls in Ireland 1801–6. He was made a baronet in August 1799 as a reward for his support for Union. He was married to a Catholic. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. Mr. Ponsonby’s: George Ponsonby (1755–1817) was MP for Wicklow Borough, Innistiogue, and then Galway Borough 1778–1800. He was active in opposition to Union, but came to accept it. He was Lord Chancellor in the Ministry of All the Talents 1806–7. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Te Speaker, the Ponsonbys: Tese were William Brabazon Ponsonby (1744–1806), who was MP for Cork City, Bandon-Bridge and then County Kilkenny 1764–1800; John Brabazon Ponsonby (1770–1855) who was MP for Tallow and then Dungarven 1797– 1800; and William Ponsonby (1772–1815) who was MP for Bandon-Bridge and then Fethard 1796–1800. Tere are entries on them all in the HoIP 1692–1800. Mr. J. C. Beresford this morning resigned his ofce: He was Inspector-General of Exports and Imports for the port of Dublin. Te Bar have entered into resolutions to give the Prime Sergeant: James Fitzgerald (1742– 1835) was MP for Fore, Tulsk and then Kildare Borough 1776–1800. He was Prime Sergeant 1787 until 28 January 1799. He had strenuously opposed Union. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. particularly the Chancellor: John FitzGibbon 1749–1802), frst Earl of Clare, was Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. He supported Union. Captain Taylor: Herbert Taylor (1775–1839) was private military secretary to Lord Lieutenant Cornwallis. He was subsequently private secretary to the Duke of York, George III, Queen Charlotte, George IV, William IV and Queen Victoria. He was MP for Windsor 1820–3 and Ambassador to Berlin 1820–7. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. the arrangement which took place between the two kingdoms in 1782: In 1782 the Westminster Parliament acknowledged the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament. Mr. Elliot: William Elliot (1766–1818) was MP for St Canice 1796–1800 and later served in the United Parliament. He was Chief Secretary for Ireland 1806–7 during the Ministry of All the Talents. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. a Regency Bill: On 22 February 1799, the former prime sergeant, James Fitzgerald, introduced a Regency bill into the Irish House of Commons ‘to provide for the administration of the government of Ireland, whenever and as ofen as it shall be administered by a Regent or Regency’. He wanted the person appointed Regent of Great Britain automatically to assume the same powers in Ireland, in order to remove any ambiguity created by the regency crisis of 1788–89. He hoped it would remove one argument in support of Union. Te ministry delayed the bill rather than oppose it directly. It was dropped at the report stage. the Annexation Act: In 1542 the Irish Parliament had passed an act (33 Henry VIII, cap. 1) that the crown of Ireland was inseparably and forever annexed to the crown of England, in an efort to prevent the two kingdoms ever having diferent monarchs. Tis was reinforced by the Crown Recognition (Ireland) Act passed by the Irish Parliament in 1692 (4 William and Mary, cap. 1). your present Chancellor of the Exchequer: Isaac Corry. See note 25 above. I have no difculty … should be made upon a liberal principle: Tis was done.

Notes to pages 304–9

363

40. Mr. Beresford: John Beresford, not his son John Claudius Beresford. 41. the Sherif: Tomas Judkin-Fitzgerald (d. 1810) was High Sherif of County Tipperary 1798–1803. He helped suppress the rebellion of 1798. He was created a baronet of the UK in August 1801 as a reward for his services in promoting Union. 42. their representatives: John Bagwell (1752–1816) was MP for County Tipperary 1792– 1800 and Francis James Mathew (1768–1833) represented the county 1796–1800. Tey opposed Union. 43. He succeeded to the Barony on the decease of his father, 1797, and was aferwards created a Viscount: Cornelius O’Callaghan (1775–1857), second Baron Lismore from 1797, lived at Shanbally Castle, in County Tipperary. He was made a Viscount in 1806. His mother was the daughter of John Ponsonby (1713–87). 44. the messenger, Hyde: Hyde was a messenger, who worked for the Irish executive at Dublin Castle. He had once achieved the considerable feat of delivering despatches from Dublin to London in just 43 hours. See, Revolutionary Dublin, 1795–1801: Te Letters of Francis Higgins to Dublin Castle, ed. T. Bartlett (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2004), p. 236 note. 45. Viscounts O’Neill: Charles O’Neill (1779–1841), second Viscount O’Neill was created frst Earl O’Neill in 1800 and was elected as one of the 28 Representative Irish lay peers to sit in the united House of Lords from 1801 as a reward for promoting the Union. He was appointed Post Master General of Ireland in 1807. 46. Bandon: Francis Bernard (1755–1830) was MP for Ennis and then Bandon-Bridge 1778–90. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 47. the vacant Ribbon of the Order of Saint Patrick: George III had created this order of chivalry in 1783. 48. Earl of Altamont: John Denis Browne (1756–1809), third Earl of Altamont was MP for Jamestown 1776–80. For his services in promoting Union, he was made Marquess of Sligo in December 1800 and was later made a UK Baron in 1806 to allow him to sit in the united House of Lords as of right. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 49. Mr. Blake: Joseph Henry Blake (1765–1803) was MP for County Galway 1792–1800. He was created Baron Wallscourt on 31 July 1800 as a reward for supporting Union. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 50. Mr. Sandford: Henry Moore Sandford (1751–1814) was MP for Roscommon 1776–83 and 1791–1800. He was created Baron Sandford on 31 July 1800 as a reward for supporting Union. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 51. Lord Ormonde: Walter Butler (1770–1820), eighteenth Earl of Ormonde from 1795, had been MP for County Kilkenny 1789–95. He was elected one of the 28 Irish representative peers. He was created frst Marquess in 1816. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 52. Lord Londonderry: Robert Stewart (1739–1821) had been MP for County Down 1771–83. He was created Baron Londonderry 1789, Viscount Castlereagh 1795, Earl of Londonderry 1796 and later frst Marquess of Londonderry from 1816. His second wife was the sister of John Jefreys Pratt, second Earl of Camden, who had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795–8. He was not given a UK peerage at the time of the Union debates, but he was made Governor of County Down in 1801 and was elected one of the 28 Irish lay representative peers in 1801. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. His son of the same name, held the courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh. He was Chief Secretary of Ireland 1798–1801 and deeply involved in the eforts to secure Union. He did not wish for a title for himself because he wished to make a name for himself in the united House of Commons.

364

Notes to pages 310–17

53. Lord Ely: Charles Tottenham Lofus (1737/8–1806), frst Earl of Ely from 1794 was made Marquess of Ely in 1800 and Baron Lofus in the UK peerage in 1801 as a reward for supporting Union. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 54. Marquess of Drogheda: Charles Moore (1730–1822) was an army ofcer, reaching full general in 1793, and MP for St Canice 1757–58. He then became sixth Earl of Drogheda, one of the founding knights of St Patrick in 1783, and became frst Marquess in 1791. He was Joint Postmaster General of Ireland 1797–1806. He was given a UK peerage as Baron Moore in 1801 so that he could sit in the united House of Lords as of right. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 55. Earls of Ormonde and Carysfort: John Proby (1751–1828), second Baron 1772, frst Earl of Carysfort 1789, was created Joint Master of the Rolls in Ireland in 1801 and Baron Carysfort in the UK peerage in 1801 so that he could sit in the united House of Lords as of right.

Rules and Regulations for the Use of All Orange Societies 1. 2.

3.

King William the Tird, Prince of Orange: Te Dutchman, William of Orange (1650– 1702), became William III in 1689 as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688–9. we will annually celebrate the Victory over James at the Boyne: William III defeated the forces commanded by James II at the battle of the Boyne on 1 July (Old Style) 1690. By the late eighteenth century, afer Great Britain and Ireland had changed to the New Style calendar, the battle was celebrated on 12 July. Marksman’s Obligation: Following the example of the Freemasons, the Orange Order created rituals for entering men into the Order in three degrees: the Orange degree (equivalent to the Apprentice degree); Marksman degree (Fellowcraf degree) and Purple Degree (Master Mason degree). Tis practice caused some disputes and disagreements since the ritualistic observances were unclear. Te Purple Marksman degree was added in 1796.