To conclude this sketch:—Lord Kilwarden was, in grain, one of the best
men I ever met through life: but, to be liked, it was necessary he
should be known; and the more intimately known, the more apparent were
his good qualities. He had not an error, to counterbalance which some
merit did not exhibit itself. He had no wit, though he thought he said
good things: as a specimen of his punning, he used to call _Curran_
“_Gooseberry_!”
The instability of human affairs was lamentably exemplified in his
lordship’s catastrophe:—his life was prosperous, and deservedly so; his
death cruel and unmerited. There scarcely exists in record a murder more
inhuman or more wanton than that of the chief justice.
In 1803, on the evening when the partial but sanguinary insurrection
broke out in Dublin (organised by Mr. Emmet), Lord Kilwarden had retired
to his country-house near the metropolis, and was tranquilly enjoying
the society of his family, when he received an order from government to
repair to town on particular business: in fact, the police, the
secretaries, and all attached to the executive, had continued
incredulous and supine, and never believed the probability of a rising
until it was at the very point.
Lord Kilwarden immediately ordered his carriage, and, attended only by
his nephew (a clergyman) and one of his daughters, proceeded to Dublin,
without the least suspicion of violence or interruption. His road,
however, lay through Thomas Street—wide and long—wherein the rebels had
first assembled; and previously to Lord Kilwarden’s arrival had
commenced operations. Before his lordship could conceive, or had time to
ask, the cause of this assemblage, he was in the midst of their ranks:
hemmed in on every side by masses of armed ruffians, there was no
possibility of retreat; and without being conscious of a crime, he heard
the yells of murder and revenge on every side around him, and perceived
that he was lost beyond the power of redemption.
A general shout ran among the insurgents of “The chief justice!—the
chief justice!” Their crime would have been the same in either case; but
it was alleged that they were mistaken as to the person, conceiving it
to be Lord Carleton, who, as justice of the Common Pleas, had some years
before rendered himself beyond description obnoxious to the disaffected
of Ireland, in consequence of having been the judge who tried and
condemned the two Counsellors Sheers, who were executed for treason, and
to whom that nobleman had been _testamentary guardian_ by the will of
their father. The mob thought only of him; and Lord Kilwarden fell a
victim to their revenge against Lord Carleton.
The moment the cry went forth the carriage was stopped, and the door
torn open. The clergyman and Miss Wolfe got out and ran. The latter was
suffered to escape; but the pikemen pursued, and having come up with Mr.
Wolfe, mangled and murdered, in a horrid manner, as fine and inoffensive
a young gentleman as I ever knew.
Hundreds of the murderers now surrounded the carriage, ambitious only
who should first spill the blood of a chief justice. A multitude of
pikemen at once assailed him; but his wounds proved that he had made
many efforts to evade them. His hands were lacerated all over, in the
act of resistance; but, after a long interval of torture, near thirty
stabs in various parts of his body incapacitated him from struggling
further with his destiny. They dragged him into the street: yet, when
conveyed into a house, he was still sensible, and able to speak a few
words: but soon after expired, to the great regret of all those who knew
him well, as I did, and were able to separate his frivolity from his
excellent qualities.
Certain events which arose out of that cruel murder are singular enough.
Mr. Emmet, a young gentleman of great abilities, but of nearly frantic
enthusiasm, who had been the indiscreet organ and leader of that partial
insurrection, was son to the state physician of Ireland, Doctor Emmet.
Some time after the unfortunate event he was discovered, arrested,
tried, and executed. On his trial Mr. Plunkett was employed to act for
the crown, with which he had not before been connected; but was soon
after appointed solicitor-general. The circumstances of that trial were
printed, and are no novelty; but the result of it was a paper which
appeared in Cobbett against Lord Redesdale, and which was considered a
libel. It was traced to Judge Robert Johnson, of the Common Pleas, who
was in consequence pursued by the then attorney-general, Mr. O’Grady, as
was generally thought by the bar (and as I still think), in a manner
contrary to all established principles both of law and justice. The
three law courts had the case argued before them. The judges differed on
every point:[81] however, the result was that Judge Johnson, being
kidnapped, was taken over to England, and tried before the King’s Bench
at Westminster, for a libel undoubtedly written in Ireland, although
published by Cobbett in both countries. He was found guilty; but, on the
terms of his resigning office, judgment was never called for. As,
however, Judge Robert Johnson was one of those members of Parliament who
had forgotten their patriotism and voted for the Union, the government
could not in reason abandon him altogether. They therefore gave him
_twelve hundred pounds a year for life_! and Robert Johnson, Esquire,
has lived many years not a bit the worse for Westminster; while his next
brother (to whom I have already paid my respects) was made judge of the
Common Pleas, and reigns in his stead. This is the Mr. Robert Johnson
who, from his having been inducted into two offices, Curran used to
style, on alluding to him in the House of Commons, “the _learned_
barrack-master.” He was a well-read, entertaining man, extremely acute,
an excellent writer, and a trustworthy, agreeable companion. But there
was something tart in his look and address, and he did not appear
good-natured in his manner or gentlemanly in his appearance; which
circumstances, altogether, combined with his public habits to render him
extremely unpopular. He did not affect to be a great pleader, but would
have made a first-rate attorney: he was indeed very superior to his
brother William in every thing except law; in which the latter, when a
barrister, was certainly entitled to the pre-eminence.
-----
Footnote 81:
On the argument of that case in the Exchequer the judgment of Baron
Smith was delivered with an ability scarcely ever rivalled. Its
impression may be best imagined from the fact of the whole bar rising
immediately on its conclusion by a sort of sympathetic impulse, and
bowing to him profoundly.
-----