DR. MACNEVIN'S MEMORIAL INTERCEPTED
Although the spy did not confide to Lord Downshire until October 1797
his name and secrets, there is reason to believe that he had furnished
information previously. To enhance his importance he probably said
nothing of this. As Mr. Froude observes, he painted his own conduct
in the colours he thought best. This man had long played fast and
loose. So early as May 1797 Turner was viewed with suspicion. The
Castlereagh Papers contain a bundle of intercepted letters addressed by
Reinhard, the French Minister at Hamburg, to De la Croix, head of the
Foreign Office, Paris, of whom Tone often speaks with affection.[140]
These letters, as already stated, mention Turner under the name of
Furnes, which we learn from the Castlereagh Papers was an _alias_ of
Turner.[141] He is praised for his zeal and patriotism; but in one
letter Reinhard is found struggling with a painful misgiving. The
suspicion is so dark that he does not like to write even the name of
Furnes, but makes dots to tally with the letters composing it, and no
name was better known to De la Croix. At last Reinhard tries to banish
the thought as an unworthy suspicion; and a subsequent letter of his
reinstates Turner in full prestige.
The letter which expresses suspicion bears date May 31, but is
confusingly assigned, in the Castlereagh Papers, to the year 1798.
Its reference to Hoche, however, shows that it was written during the
previous year--his death having occurred on September 15, 1797.
You must have heard [writes Reinhard to De la Croix] of the
apprehension of two committees of United Irishmen at Belfast, and
the publication of the papers seized, made by the secret committee
of the Parliament of Ireland.[142] Among these papers is a letter
from the provincial committee, informing those of Belfast that the
executive committee having conducted itself in an improper manner,
the provincial committee thought fit to dissolve it, retaining
however, two-thirds of the former members. This letter has been
printed in London in the _True Briton_, a ministerial paper. It
is very remarkable that ...... should never have mentioned that
circumstance to me. Supposing, which is very probable, that this
reorganisation of the executive took place before the departure of
...... [from Ireland], it is natural enough to suppose that ......
should find himself among the _excluded members_. The opinion
that I have formed of him ...... [adds Reinhard in words worthy
of a true diplomat] is, that he is a man of haughty and violent
character, without, on that account, stooping to dissimulation and
deceit; so, in order to revenge himself on his countrymen, he may
have betrayed his cause to Mr. Pitt. [Reinhard goes on to say that]
It was letters of Lord Edward Fitzgerald which certified that this
man who called upon me was the person sent to me by Lady Fitzgerald
on his arrival.[143]
It seems needless to point out that this must be the 'person' whom Mr.
Froude describes as being introduced by Lady Edward Fitzgerald, and
having the ear of Reinhard at Hamburg; and there is hardly less doubt
that the man thus noticed was the same who, having got into debt with
his friends, addressed himself to Pelham as early as 1796. His secret
letter to Pelham will be seen presently. Meanwhile the same sensitive
pride and the same revengeful spirit when that pride was once wounded
is also traceable in the details revealed to Lord Downshire next year.
Judging from the slippery and impulsive character of the man, I cannot
doubt that previous to his mission to London in October 1797, for the
purpose of making a final bargain with Pitt, he had coquetted with
Dublin Castle.
Lewins and Turner were rival envoys--Lewins represented the Leinster
Directory; Turner claimed to speak for Ulster. Of Lewins, who stands
above all suspicion, Reinhard writes to De la Croix in 1797:--'I think
L..... incapable of treachery, but capable of imprudence. I should not
answer thus concerning _the other_. What seems further to concur in the
support of my hypothesis is, that Mr. L. before his departure made it
a point of great importance to ascertain whether there was any other
envoy from Ireland, who addressed himself to me, and that he begged me
not to give my confidence to any other than to him alone. I refrained
from giving these tidings to General Hoche, not only because my means
of corresponding with him are uncertain, but because all the letters
from Frankfort announce his departure for Paris.'
It may not have struck Mr. Froude, as it certainly strikes me, that
the man he describes[144] as visiting Lord Downshire, and at the last
moment offering to betray, was the same person whom the historian,
one hundred pages previously, notices as an informer, 'in the closest
confidence of the _Northern Leaders_, but whose name is still a
mystery.'
It will be seen that Pelham's correspondent of 1796 had fallen into
debt and difficulties. This at first seems not consistent with the
statement of Mr. Froude that Downshire's visitor was the son of a
gentleman of good fortune in the North. But it is easy to see that the
son himself had got into pecuniary straits. He tells Downshire of the
expenses he is under, and asks Pitt for a 'cool 500_l._'[145] to begin
with.
In addition to a judgment debt of 1,500_l._ which Jacob Turner in his
will forgives his son Samuel,[146] I find, on examining the records of
the three Law Courts, that another judgment debt of 800_l._ was marked
against Samuel Turner on January 26, 1793.[147]
Speaking of informers, Mr. Froude writes under date 1796:--
One of these especially, whose name is still a mystery, was in the
closest confidence of the Belfast leaders. He had been among the
most enthusiastic of the original members of Tone's society, but
he had fallen into debt to others of the confederates and had been
expelled. In revenge he sold himself to the Government, satisfied
his creditors with money which he received from Pelham, and was
at once taken back into confidence. Among others, he became an
intimate associate of William Orr, a Belfast tradesman, afterwards
executed for treason, who at this time was a member of the Head
Northern Committee.
Orr told him that everything was ready. Dublin, Cork, Limerick,
were waiting only for orders to rise, and when the word was given
the movement was to be universal and simultaneous. They had 200,000
men already officered in regiments; they had pikes and muskets for
150,000, and more were on the way.
The militia were almost to a man United Irishmen, and in fact,
according to Orr, they would have risen in the autumn but for some
differences among themselves. For himself, the informer thought
that nothing would be attempted till the arrival of the French.
The Belfast men, Neilson, Orr, the two Simms, the party who had
taken the oath with Wolfe Tone on Cave Hill,[148] he described 'as
wealthy, wily, avaricious, tenacious of their property, distrustful
of one another, and if afraid of nothing else, desperately afraid
of the Orangemen, who were five times stronger than people in
general believed.[149] They had authentic news that Hoche might be
expected in the fall of the year, and then undoubtedly an effort
would be made. If Hoche came, they were perfectly confident that
Ireland would be a republic before Christmas. The instant that the
signal was given the whole Orange party were to be assassinated....
The Informer concludes with these words:--
Be assured that what I have told you is true. The original
agitators have been kept concealed even from the knowledge of the
common people. The medium of dissemination has been the priests,
and they have concealed from their congregations, on whom they have
so effectively wrought, the names of those who have set them on,
merely saying that there were men of influence, fortune, and power
ready to come forward. The motive of the original agitators--and
I mean by them the members of the Catholic Committee that sat
in Dublin, and many of the Convention that were not on the
Committee--was to carry the Catholic Bill through Parliament by the
influence of terrorism.[150]
So much for the informer who sought the ear of the Irish Secretary
in 1796. His close connection with the Northern leaders, his air of
mystery, his hatred of the priests and the Catholic Committee, even
his style and tone, the reference to Hoche, the prediction that the
Protestants would suffer if the rebels won--all point to him as the
same person who made overtures to Pitt, through Downshire, in October
1797. The alleged disaffection of the militia and the danger which
menaced the estates of the aristocracy again crop up in Turner's letter
to Talleyrand.[151] In both cases the same stipulation is made that he
should not be called upon to give evidence publicly--the same nervous
temperament is revealed. Downshire's visitor expressed mortal terror
lest his life should pay the forfeit of his startling whisper. The same
fear--and I believe I may add, presentiment--pervades the letter to
Pelham in 1796. 'Don't name it,' he writes; 'if it get out they will
know whence it came, and my life will be the certain forfeit.'[152] The
'secret' which the informer of '96 told Pelham was what Mr. Fronde
describes as 'a curious story.' 'To show you that they tell me their
secrets,' writes the informer to Pelham, 'here is the account told me
of the death of Mr. McMurdoch of _Lurgan_.'[153] From searches made
in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, I find that Samuel Turner
was closely connected with Lurgan, and in a way which gave double
facilities for acquiring its secrets.[154]
The reader might glance once more at Mr. Froude's account of the visit
to Lord Downshire on that dark October night in 1797. The betrayer's
disguise and stealthy nervous gait as though some avenging power were
on his track, are things worth noting. Why was he in such dread of
assassination before he unfolded his story to Downshire? Surely he
must have been conscious of having earned, for a long time before,
the penalty of 'Ormond steel.'[155] This, according to Dr. Conlan's
sworn testimony, was a specially familiar dogma with Teeling and
Turner when organising treason in Ulster. The visit to Downshire
was clearly prompted by greed. This peer had got the name of having
secret service money at his disposal. 'Bank notes were offered to
me,' observes James Hope, the working weaver of Belfast, 'if I would
implicate Will Tennant, Robert Simms and others, and it was admitted
that the money came from Lord Downshire.' This was probably among the
efforts which were made to induce minor conspirators to give evidence
publicly against their leaders, of whose treason the Crown had private
knowledge through Turner.[156] McDougall's 'Sketches of Irish Political
Characters,' published in 1799, says of Lord Downshire (p. 20): 'His
political conduct agrees very well with his motto, _Ne tentes, aut
perfice_; he supports administration with all his might.' Downshire's
visitor knew, therefore, that this peer, if he liked, could make good
terms with Pitt. Much of the melodramatic character of the scene
appears to have been designed to move Downshire. 'He saw Mr. Pitt' says
Froude, 'who consented that "the person's" services should be accepted.'
The Cabinet, we are told, was kept in ignorance of his name. But
Pelham, the Irish Secretary previous to Castlereagh, seems to have
known something of him already, for, as we learn, 'Pelham, when in
London, made large offers to Lord Downshire's friend.'[157] That
information had been given by Downshire's visitor prior to the
interview of October 1797, I cannot doubt.[158] Mr. Froude, describing
Lord Edward's visit to Hoche on the Swiss frontier,[159] writes: 'Hoche
himself had not revealed it even to Tone, but Lord Edward was known to
be intimate with Macnevin. He had been watched in London, and traced
to the lodgings of _a suspected agent of the French Directory_.'
Downshire's visitor, it will be remembered, had interviews with Lord
Edward in London.
When the betrayer threw back his disguise, Downshire, we are told,
recognised him at once. This, I suspect, was not the first time that
a communication reached Downshire from the same source. Dr. Madden
quotes from the 'Northern Star' of September 16, 1796, a sensational
account of the arrest at Belfast of Russell, Neilson, Sampson, and many
others, and how the whole garrison, with its artillery, took part in
the stirring scene, and it appears that Downshire helped to direct the
proceedings. That day Neilson and Russell surrendered to his lordship,
and Tone in his 'Diary' deplores the arrest as the heaviest blow which
could fall on their cause.[160]
The name of the French agent in London is not mentioned by Mr. Froude.
It is M. Jägerhorn, described by Reinhard, the French Minister at
Hamburg, as 'that estimable Swede;' and concerning whom there is
a mass of matter, often purposely misleading, in the Castlereagh
Correspondence. Macnevin's memorial to the French Directory was
betrayed to England in the summer of 1797. M. Jägerhorn was sent
by France to treat with the Irish Directory. His mission, however,
transpired, and means were taken to prevent him going farther than
London, whereupon Lord Edward Fitzgerald was deputed to cross to
England, and there confer with Jägerhorn.
Turner's _fracas_ with the terrorist commander-in-chief, Carhampton,
was supposed to have caused his retirement to Hamburg. But that scene,
with its dialogue, may have been purely theatrical.[161]
In June 1797 Turner attends several meetings of the Ulster delegates in
Dublin.[162] There it was that the 'prudence or the cowardice' of the
Papist leaders in Dublin, as he says, disgusted him.[163] Why should
the notorious Turner be allowed to go on to Dublin, and Jägerhorn be
refused?
Samuel Turner saw a good deal of Lord Edward and Jägerhorn in London.
We find traces of this knowledge in Mr. Froude's notes of 'the
person's' interview with Downshire--how he called Lord Edward 'Fitz'
and had confidential talk with him in Harley Street. The spy tells
Downshire soon after that Reinhard begged him to stay at Hamburg, 'as
the only mode in which I could serve my country and the republic. I
instantly acquiesced, and told him I had arranged matters with Lord
Edward Fitzgerald in London for that purpose.'
Turner played his cards so well, and personated an ardent patriot so
completely, that the suspicions of his fidelity which Reinhard[164]
expressed on May 31 are found removed soon after. Dr. Macnevin, of
Dublin, a chief in the Executive Directory, was now coming to Paris to
ask French aid. Reinhard reports progress to De la Croix:--
Hamburg: 25 Messidor [July 12].
While Mr. Lewins has suffered me to lose all traces of his journey,
and Mr. Furnes[165] is gone to write to him, M. Jägerhorn has
returned from London, and a new Irish deputation has called upon
me. All the efforts of M. Jägerhorn having failed against the
obstinacy with which the Duke of Portland refused him a passport
for proceeding to Dublin, he determined to call Lord Fitzgerald
to London. The latter came upon pretext of accommodating his
sister. The authenticity of the mission of Mr. Lewins was verified;
important details respecting the state of Ireland were given; it
was ascertained that there was no derangement in the plan, and in
the resources of the united patriots. It is unnecessary for me to
give you a circumstantial account of the information brought by
Mr. F., since he enters fully into that which Mr. Macnevin has
just given. The latter came surrounded by all the motives for
confidence, and he did not leave Dublin till the 27th of June: his
intelligence is of the latest date, and from the very source. The
reports of Mr. Macnevin, who goes here by the name of Williams,
and who would wish to appear always under that name, as Mr. Lewins
under that of Thompson, appear to me to throw great light upon all
that the Government can have an interest to know. Mr. Macnevin has
been secretary of the executive committee, and all that he says
proves him to be a man thoroughly acquainted with the ensemble
of facts and combinations. In annexing to this despatch the
Memorial[166] which he delivered to me, I shall add what I have
reason to think of importance in his conference.
My first care was to clear up what the papers seized at Belfast
said concerning a change made by the provincial committee in the
organisation of the executive committee. It results from the
answers of Mr. Macnevin, conjointly with those of _Mr. Furnes, that
it was of dilatoriness and indecision that several members of the
committee were accused_; that the northern province, feeling its
oppression and its strength, was impatient to break forth,[167]
while the committee strove to defer any explosion till the arrival
of the French, and declined giving a full explanation of its
relations with France; that, nevertheless, after the change of
the committee, meetings were held in Dublin and in the North, at
which it was resolved to wait; that the clandestine visitation of
several depôts of arms, where the powder was found damp and the
muskets rusty, contributed a good deal to that resolution; and that
the desire for the assistance of the French had in consequence
become more general than ever. It was, however, decided that a
rising should take place when the prisoners were set at liberty.
Macnevin and Lord Fitzgerald are of the moderate party. Furnes is
for a speedy explosion; and it is some imprudences into which his
ardent character has hurried him, that have obliged him to leave
the country[168]; whereas, the conduct of Mr. Macnevin has been so
circumspect,[169] that there is nothing to oppose his return.
Reinhard's despatch is continued at very great length, and those who
care to read it should consult the 'Castlereagh Papers' (i. 282-6).
He thus ends: 'I have just received a memorial in which M. Jägerhorn
gives me an account of his journey. I will send it to you by the next
courier. That estimable Swede has again manifested great devotedness
to the cause of liberty.'
By some marvellous sleight-of-hand Jägerhorn's secret report found
its way to Whitehall, instead of to Paris, and may be read in the
memoirs of Lord Castlereagh.[170] Two years later, the Swede will again
be found tracked from Hamburg to London, and arrested on Portland's
warrant.
Mr. Froude's allusion to the facilities of command exercised by 'the
person' over Lady Fitzgerald's letter-bag, the hints he gave Downshire
how secret letters from Hamburg were sealed and addressed, and how
they might be intercepted, read, and then passed on,[171] are only
those gleams of light that shine dimly in dark places, but enough, with
present knowledge, to discern a good deal.
It will be remembered that Downshire's visitor, in his list of men
marked out for doom, gave prominence to Dr. Macnevin, 'a Physician who
had great weight with the Papists.' 'He (the betrayer) had discovered,'
writes Froude, 'that the object of the Papists was the ruin and
destruction of the country, and the establishment of a tyranny worse
than that which was complained of.'
The famous memorial of Dr. Macnevin, embracing a full report on the
state of Ireland, and appealing to France for help, was written at
this time.[172] On arrival at Hamburg he entrusted it to Reinhard,
the French minister there, by whom--as we learn from the 'Cornwallis
Papers'--it was translated and forwarded to Paris. Mr. Froude thinks
its betrayal to the English Cabinet a very remarkable circumstance, and
the more strange because 'no suspicion has been suggested of Macnevin's
treachery.' A hidden hand contrived to pass on to Pitt this document
destined to become historic.[173]
Wickham, writing to Castlereagh on August 15, 1798, states that the
rebel executive committee directed Dr. Macnevin to proceed to Paris
by the way of Hamburg; that the principal objects of his journey were
to give additional weight and credit to the mission of Lewins, and to
confirm the information that had already been transmitted.[174] Again
the reader may be reminded that Lewins and Turner were rival envoys.
Each is found constantly trying to circumvent the other. Turner,
therefore, had a special object in foiling and intercepting Macnevin's
memorial.
Reinhard, in the betrayed despatch of July 12, 1797, tells De la Croix,
at Paris, that every confidence might be reposed in Lewins. Lewins'
usual post was at Paris, just as Turner's was at Hamburg, but both
passed to and fro. Of Lewins, Reinhard takes care to say that Macnevin
not only attested that he possesses, and deserves, the utmost
confidence, but that he is designated a minister at Paris in case
of success. Mr. Macnevin wished much that his memorial should be
communicated to him.[175]
If it was Turner's interest to intercept Reinhard's letter establishing
confidence in Lewins, it was still more his interest to keep back from
Lewins a document which, while vindicating his name, would protect it
from further attack; and this the 'Memorial' of Macnevin was designed
to do.
Camden had now ceased to be Viceroy and was succeeded by
Cornwallis.[176] The latter co-operates with the Home Secretary in
screening from publicity the name of their informer. The report of the
Secret Committee was now in progress. Cornwallis, writing to Portland,
says:--
The same reason may not operate against the production of Dr.
Macnevin's memoir, which might be supposed to have fallen into our
hands by various other means, and which, from its being produced,
without connection with the other papers, might not create any
alarm in the quarter where it is so necessary that the most
implicit confidence in our prudence and secrecy should be preserved.
Your Grace will of course be aware that no account will be given,
even to the Secret Committee, of the means by which these papers
came into the hands of Government.[177]
Portland duly acknowledged Lord Cornwallis's despatch,
in which you represent the advantages which might result from
laying before the Committees of Secrecy of the two Houses of
Parliament in Ireland the whole, or at least a part, of the very
secret and authentic documents relating to the conspiracy in that
kingdom, which I had the King's permission from time to time to
transmit to the late Lord-Lieutenant [Lord Camden]. I lost no
time in acquainting his Majesty's confidential servants with your
Excellency's sentiments upon this very important and delicate
question; and I am now to inform you that, after its having
repeatedly undergone the most serious investigation and discussion,
the result of our unanimous opinion is, that the communication
of the whole of those papers cannot on any account, or in any
situation of the country, be suffered to be made to a parliamentary
committee, under whatever qualification or conditions it may be
appointed, consistently with that secrecy which in certain cases
the honour and safety of the State require to be observed.
We agree, however, for the reasons you have stated, that the same
objection does not exist to the production of the greater part of
Dr. Macnevin's memoir, and I have therefore had an extract made of
such parts of it as it appears to us may be laid before the public
without inconvenience....
To prevent as much as possible any occasion being given which can
tend to a discovery of the channels by which this intelligence has
been obtained, I most earnestly recommend to your Excellency to do
your utmost in procuring that the facts which are stated from it
may not stand in the report of the committees in the exact order in
which they are given here, but that they may be mixed with other
information which has been derived from other sources.[178]
The precautions taken to screen the betrayer were certainly very
complete. Castlereagh tells Wickham (July 30, 1798):--
His Excellency authorised 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. The 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
authorising the smallest extracts to be made, or any of the facts
to be relied on in their report, without being fully authorised by
his Excellency, will preclude any danger to the State from this
valuable channel of intelligence being in any degree brought into
suspicion.[179]
In June 1798 Lord Edward was dead. The Sheares's had been executed.
Macnevin, O'Connor, T. Addis Emmet, and Sampson lay in prison in
Dublin. Blood flowed on every side. The city was like a shambles. The
State prisoners, on the understanding that executions should cease, and
that they might be allowed to leave Ireland, consented to reveal, but
without implicating individuals, the scheme of the United Irishmen. A
prolonged secret inquisition by the Secret Committee took place. As
soon as their evidence appeared, Macnevin and his fellow-prisoners
complained, by a public advertisement, that the Crown officials who
drew up the report of the Secret Committee had garbled the facts and
distorted their evidence. Into all this it is not necessary now to go,
but it may be observed that, while everything inconvenient was left
out, an innuendo was made that the betrayal of Dr. Macnevin's memoir
may have been due to Reinhard, the French Minister. This--apart from
M. Mignet's testimony to the incorruptibility of Reinhard--serves to
exculpate him, and narrows the spot on which suspicion now rests.
Reinhard, in his letter to De la Croix, thinks it strange that Turner
had never spoken to him about certain revelations made by 'the Secret
Committee of the Parliament of Ireland;'[180] but the reason now seems
intelligible enough.
Macnevin published his 'Pieces of Irish History'[181] at New York in
1807, and notices the betrayal of the memorial which he had addressed
to the French Government. Up to that time, and until his death in
1840, he does not seem to suspect Turner. Had any such doubt occurred
to him, he would have been the first to avow it. At p. 146 of his
book Macnevin inveighs against a 'profligate informer,' 'a ruffian of
the name of Reynolds;' but Reynolds' treachery was confined to the
arrests at Bond's in Dublin, and did not take place until March 1798.
Ten pages further on Macnevin speaks of the 'unparalleled fidelity of
the United Irish Body.' Dr. Macnevin was struck by the knowledge the
Government had acquired of the 'negotiations of the United Irishmen
with foreign States,' and, he adds, 'at this time one of the deputies
[_i.e._ himself] had personal evidence of its extent and accuracy. That
knowledge was obtained from some person in the pay of England and in
the confidence of France.' And Dr. Macnevin then proceeds to point to
REINHARD by name!
This is just what the officials of the Home Office wished for all
along. Wickham, referring to the publication of Macnevin's memorial by
the Secret Committee of the House of Lords, writes: 'It may fairly be
presumed that the copy has been obtained at [the Foreign Office] Paris,
or from R.'s [Reinhard's] secretary at Hamburg. _This conjecture will
be at least as probable as the real one._'[182]
One circumstance struck Macnevin as 'confirmation strong' of his dark
suspicion. Reinhard, as he tells us, made difficulties about giving him
a passport to Paris. A most important despatch from Reinhard to De la
Croix thus concludes:--
What I must particularly urge, Citizen Minister, in regard to this
business, is, at least, that you will have the goodness to direct
me as to Mr. Macnevin. I will not give another passport without
your order.[183]
This letter--possibly written at Lady Edward Fitzgerald's house at
Hamburg, and put into her post-bag--was treacherously betrayed to Pitt.
When De la Croix remained ominously silent in response to the above
appeal, is it surprising that Reinhard should have made difficulties
and delays in giving Macnevin a passport?[184]
Macnevin's groundless distrust of Reinhard naturally influenced the
views of a most painstaking investigator. Dr. Madden, who, when
he at last saw, in the 'Castlereagh Papers,' Reinhard's letters
to De la Croix, regarded the circumstance as damning proof of his
treachery.[185] Subsequently Mignet, the great French historian and
keeper of the ministerial archives at Paris, who had ample official
means of knowing the character and acts of both Reinhard and De la
Croix, assured Madden in writing that both men were incorruptible. This
may be taken as conclusive, for, unlike Turner, there is not a line
in any English State Paper tending to compromise Reinhard or De la
Croix.[186]
For the act of betrayal we must therefore look to Samuel Turner, agent
at Hamburg of the United Irish Brotherhood; the man who had access to
the most secret papers in Lady Fitzgerald's house, and who, we learn,
'was admitted to close and secret conversations upon the prospect of
French interference in Ireland with Reinhard.' This, in fact, was
the grand proof submitted by Downshire's visitor to show that he was
in a position to spy to advantage--a fact sufficient in itself to
demonstrate that Reinhard was himself no spy.
Dr. Madden's suspicion of Reinhard was doubtless strengthened by a
passage which for a long time puzzled myself, and occurs in Wickham's
letter to Castlereagh of June 8, 1798. Wickham speaks of 'information
confirmed by a person at Hamburg, who must necessarily have derived
his intelligence from a very different source, and who could not
but be ignorant of that from which R. had procured all that he has
communicated to us.' The name thus masked is not Reinhard, but
Richardson--an alias for Turner, as proved at p. 48 _ante_.
One thing greatly complicated this puzzle as regards 'R.' Wickham,
in a subsequent letter, dated July 25, 1798, speaks of 'R.'--meaning
not Richardson, but Reinhard, as the context shows.[187] But these
blanks are due to the noble editor of the 'Castlereagh Papers,'
the late Lord Londonderry; and in cloaking the name Richardson--it
inadvertently peeps out in one place, like 'Capel' instead of 'Catesby'
in 'Lothair'--he doubtless thought that it was a real name.
On February 18, 1798, Lord Moira addressed the House of Lords in favour
of Catholic Emancipation, which, he declared, must be granted, as
well as Parliamentary Reform. 'The greatest evil to be feared from it
sinks to nothing compared to the mischief which is raging at present.
The expression of a conciliatory desire on your part would suspend
immediately the agitation of the public mind.'
Mr. Froude says that the members of Council knew more than Lord
Moira--'if he really believed his words;' and he adds that they must
have found it hard 'to sit patient under his flatulent declamation.'
How much Turner's tattle had excited the Cabinet, and aroused lasting
prejudice against a statesman not less able than estimable, appears
from the historian's words: 'At that moment the Council were weighing
intelligence from the friend at Hamburg, so serious that they had
all but resolved on an immediate arrest of the entire Revolutionary
Committee.'
Reinhard tells De la Croix, on July 12, 1797, that while 'Lord Edward
Fitzgerald and Macnevin[188] were of the moderate party, Turner was
for a speedy explosion.'[189] Turner was co-operating in a very base
policy, one which unscrupulous statesmen are said to have planned.
During the examination of Macnevin before the Secret Committee, Lord
Castlereagh confessed that 'means were taken to make the United Irish
system explode.' The policy of exciting a premature explosion before
Ireland had been organised peeps forth in the Report of the Secret
Committee of the Irish Parliament: 'The rebellion [we are told]
would not have broken out so soon as it did, had it not been for the
well-timed measures adopted by Government.'
Turner's policy changed according as the policy of his employers
changed. In March 1798 the rebel Directory at Dublin were seized
as they sat in council at Oliver Bond's. Soon after, three out of
thirty-two counties rose; and to crush that partial revolt cost England
twenty-two millions of pounds and twenty thousand men.
FOOTNOTES:
[140] _Castlereagh_, i. 282-292.
[141] _Ibid._, General Index, iv. 504.
[142] Further on will be seen Portland's caution to Castlereagh as to
the means to be taken by the Secret Committee of the Irish Parliament
in order to divert suspicion from their spy.
[143] The letter, of which this is an extract, appears in the
_Castlereagh Papers_ (i. 275-6). It was the interest of the spy that
this letter should not be seen at the Foreign Office, Paris. It could
do him no harm in the eyes of Pitt. A second intercepted letter from
Reinhard states that consistently with his duties he sent Samuel
Turner [of Hamburg] to General Hoche (see _Castlereagh_, i. 285).
Tone mentions in his diary that Hoche one day 'seemed struck when I
mentioned Hamburg, and asked me again was I going hither. "Well then,"
said he, "perhaps we may find something for you to do there. There is a
person there whom perhaps you may see."' Tone muses, 'Who is my lover
that I am to see at Hamburg, in God's name?' (_Diary_, ii. 341.) His
diary is relinquished, however, just as he gets there, and his death in
an Irish prison occurred soon after.
[144] _English in Ireland_, iii. 278.
[145] _Ibid._ iii. 284.
[146] Irish Record Office.
[147] Judgment Registry, Four Courts, Dublin, No. 302.
[148] Tone's _Life_ (i. 128) describes how, before leaving for America
in 1795, he swore to his friends who surrounded him on Cave Hill never
to desist from his efforts until Ireland was free.
[149] This is quite Turner's style.
[150] Froude, iii. 176. The original objects of the Society of United
Irishmen were parliamentary reform and Roman Catholic emancipation.
[151] _Ante_, p. 25.
[152] The Rev. Arthur McCartney, vicar of Belfast, stated that he had
never heard of a Committee of Assassination existing in Belfast with
the cognizance or sanction of the leaders of the United Irishmen.
[153] Froude's _English in Ireland_, iii. 175.
[154] The following memorandum, though of no political import, is
useful as an authentic record of facts:--
'1791, February 13. Samuel Turner and Jacob Turner his father, both
of Turner's Hill, co. Armagh, Esquires, to John McVeagh of Lurgan.
Conveyance of Premises in Lurgan.
'1794, October 8. Samuel Turner of Newry, and Jane Turner, late of
Lurgan, now of Newry, to Thompson and others. Premises in Lurgan.
The Teelings, with whom Turner claims to be intimate, came from
Lurgan.' See Webb's _Irish Biography_.
[155] See Conlan's sworn information, Appendix.
[156] James Hope to the late Mr. Hugh McCall, of Lisburn. See Webb's
_Irish Biography_ for an appreciative notice of Hope.
[157] Froude's _English in Ireland_, iii. 290.
[158] There were informers from the first, but not to the extent
suggested; nor can it be fairly said that they were men 'deepest in the
secret.' 'This and similar information,' writes Mr. Froude, 'came in to
them (the Government) from a hundred quarters' (p. 177). 'They had an
army of informers' (p. 174). The historian here writes of the year '96,
and rather overrates the extent of the treachery. Dr. Macnevin, writing
in 1807, says that the secrets of the United Irishmen were kept with
wonderful fidelity. Their society existed from 1791; it was not until
1798, when ropes were round their necks, that Reynolds and McGuckin
proved false; and the same remark applies to most of the others.
[159] As regards Pelham's correspondent in 1796, and Downshire's in
1797, does Mr. Froude mistake, for two distinct betrayers, the one
Informer? His striking scenes, his dramatic situations, his fine
painting and accessories, remind me of a stage where the movements of
a few men convey the idea of an advancing 'army.' That 'Downshire's
friend' had been previously known as an informer is proved by a letter
from the Viceroy Camden to Portland, dated December 9, 1797.
[160] _Lives and Times of the United Irishmen_, iv. 22.
[161] _Ante_, p. 11.
[162] Appendix No. 1 to Report of the Secret Committee of the House of
Commons, 1798.
[163] See _ante_, p. 2; Froude, iii. 279.
[164] The French minister at Hamburg.
[165] The noble editor of the _Castlereagh Papers_ says that this name
is an alias for Samuel Turner.
[166] Mr. Froude errs in stating (iii. 260) that Macnevin himself
carried the Memorial to Paris.
[167] All this is exactly what Downshire's visitor told him (see chap.
i.).
[168] His challenge to the commander-in-chief, Lord Carhampton, was
among the 'imprudences.'
[169] Instead of the words 'circumspect' and 'moderate,' 'prudence' and
'cowardice' are applied to Macnevin's party by Turner (_vide_ chap. i.).
[170] _Castlereagh Papers_, i. 286-8.
[171] Among the letters headed 'Secret Information from Hamburg,'
in the _Castlereagh Papers_, is one making allusion to the writer's
previous communications with Downshire, whom he mentions by name, and
stating that certain letters to Charles Rankin, of Belfast, were 'to be
sealed with a particular seal I have for the purpose.'--_Ibid._ i. 234.
[172] Mr. Lecky says, what previous writers do not, that Macnevin wrote
the memorial _at_ Hamburg.
[173] Other intercepted letters addressed to the French Minister of War
will appear later on. These unanswered appeals were well calculated
to damp the ardour of the Irish refugees; but they tried to keep the
machine of conspiracy moving--despite the subtle insertion of so many
hidden obstacles tending to clog and destroy it.
[174] _Castlereagh Papers_, i. 271.
[175] _Ibid._ i. 284.
[176] How this appointment came about, see Appendix.
[177] _Castlereagh Correspondence_, i. 228.
[178] _Ibid._ i. 251.
[179] _Castlereagh Correspondence_, i. 246-7.
[180] _Castlereagh Correspondence_, i. 275-6.
[181] Allibone erroneously assigns (p. 558) the authorship of this book
to Thomas Addis Emmet.
[182] _Castlereagh Papers_, i. 237.
[183] _Castlereagh Papers_, i. 281-6.
[184] Reinhard seems to have complained to the French Directory that
his letters to De la Croix were not answered. The last intercepted
letters are dated July 1797; and on the 15th of the same month
Talleyrand was appointed to succeed De la Croix, who had been unjustly
suspected. De la Croix survived until 1805, when he died at Bordeaux,
mortified by the desertion of some old friends.
[185] _Lives and Times of the United Irishmen_, ii. 290.
[186] Arthur O'Connor, at all times distrustful, seems to have
suspected the upright Macnevin. They were never quite cordial
afterwards, and it is certain that in 1804, when both served in the
Irish Legion, a duel very nearly took place between them.
[187] See _Castlereagh Papers_, i. 237.
[188] After 1798 Macnevin migrated to America, where he filled several
important medical posts, and published numerous books. He survived
until July 1841.
[189] _Castlereagh_, i. 283.