THE REGENCY--STRUGGLE BETWEEN WHIG AND TORY CAMPS--O'LEARY AND THE
PRINCE OF WALES
The State Papers throw no light on what Plowden styles 'the arbitrary
withdrawal of O'Leary's pension.' The following historic incident, now
forgotten, and curious in its detail, may have led to that act.
In 1789, a great struggle raged between the Parliaments of England
and Ireland on the question of creating the Prince of Wales Regent
during the insanity of George the Third. The Prince at this time had
been bound up, politically and socially, with the Whigs. Pitt, fearing
that the Regency might prove fatal to his ambition and his Cabinet,
resisted the heir-apparent's right to the prerogative of his father,
and declared that 'the Prince had no better right to administer the
government during his father's incapacity than any other subject of the
realm.' An address to the Prince from the Irish Parliament requested
that he would 'take upon himself the government of Ireland during the
continuation of the King's indisposition, and no longer; and under the
title of Prince Regent of Ireland, in the name, and on behalf of his
Majesty, to exercise, according to the laws and constitution of that
kingdom, all regal powers, jurisdiction, and prerogatives to the crown
and government thereof belonging.'
Pelham, speaking of 'the tricks and intrigues of Mr. Pitt's faction,'
adds, 'I have not time to express how strongly the Prince is affected
by the confidence and attachment of the Irish Parliament.' Portland
takes the same tone. The Buckingham Papers afford rich material for a
history of this struggle. The noble editor admits that 'the Parliament
of Ireland preserved the unquestionable right of deciding the Regency
in their own way. The position of Lord Buckingham[603] had become
peculiarly embarrassing. What course should be taken in the event of
such an address being carried? The predicament was so strange, and
involved constitutional considerations of such importance, as to give
the most serious disquietude to the Administration.'[604]
Hopes were felt that the King might recover. The Viceroy receives
instructions to use obstructive tactics, 'to use every possible
endeavour, by all means in your power, debating every question,
dividing upon every question, moving adjournment upon adjournment,
and every other mode that can be suggested, to gain time!'[605] But
the Viceroy did more. He openly threatened to make each opponent 'the
victim of his vote.' Fitzgibbon was promised the seals and a peerage
if he succeeded for Pitt. Lures and threats were alternately held out.
The peerages of Kilmaine, Glentworth, and Cloncurry were sold for hard
cash, and the proceeds laid out in the purchase of members. Meanwhile
the King got well. Thereupon the Master of the Rolls, the Treasurer,
the Clerk of Permits, the Postmaster-general, the Secretary of War,
the Comptroller of Stamps, and other public servants, were dismissed.
The Duke of Leinster, Lord Shannon, the Ponsonbys were cashiered.
Employments that had long remained dormant were revived, sinecures
created, salaries increased; while such offices as the Board of Stamps
and Accounts, hitherto filled by one, became a joint concern. The
weigh-mastership of Cork was divided into three parts, the duties of
which were discharged by deputies, while the principals, who pocketed
the profits, held seats in Parliament. In 1790, one hundred and ten
placemen were members of the House. The Viceroy, Buckingham, during his
short régime, added 13,040_l._ a year to the pension list; the names
of the recipients are already on record. On the other hand, some men
who had taken the Prince's side in the contest lost their pensions.
O'Leary may have been in this batch.[606] Croly, in his 'Life of George
IV,' dilates on the intimate relations which subsisted between the
Prince and the priest, and adds that O'Leary was no unskilful medium
of intercourse between his Church and the Whigs, and contributed in no
slight degree to the popularity of the Prince in Ireland. According to
Buckley, the Prince patronised O'Leary to such an extent that rumour
whispered it was by him the marriage ceremony with Mrs. Fitzherbert had
been performed.
Barrington, describing the chastisement applied to those who, in
Ireland, favoured the appointment of the Prince as Regent, says: 'Lord
Buckingham vented his wrath on the country;' but what proof have we
that the alleged agent of the Castle, O'Leary, incurred that Viceroy's
displeasure?
In 1789, the year O'Leary removed permanently to London, he settled
down, at the Spanish Ambassador's Chapel in London, as an assistant
priest to Dr. Hussey, and, apparently, a most unwelcome one. An
extraordinary pamphlet, not known to his biographers, was privately
issued by O'Leary referring to a feud between himself and Dr. Hussey.
At page 11 O'Leary writes:--
The old clerk told me in the vestry, 'that I might now return to
Ireland, as my enemy, the Marquis of Buckingham, had returned to
England.' Surprised how or where the clerk of a vestry could get
such an insulting information, I recollected that his master [Dr.
Hussey] had told me some time before that he had seen a letter
from the Marquis of Buckingham, when Viceroy of Ireland, to some
nobleman or gentleman of the English Catholic Committee, wherein he
depicted the Catholics of that kingdom in very unfavourable if not
odious colours, and painted me as one of the ringleaders.[607]
This serves to explain Dr. England's remark in 1822, when accounting
for O'Leary's permanent removal to London, that 'his residence in
Ireland had become painful;'[608] but elsewhere in his book he assigns
a different reason for the change.
It has been stated [he writes] that a secret condition was annexed
to this grant, binding O'Leary to reside in England,[609] and
preventing him from further interference in the political concerns
of the empire. The fact, however, is that O'Leary had made previous
arrangements for a permanent residence in London--not only as being
more favourable to his health, which generally suffered by his
visits to Dublin, but from a rational conviction that the great
seat of influence and power was the proper sphere of his benevolent
exertions.
This biographer did not know O'Leary personally; his conjecture,
or explanation, is plausible. But few men would remove for their
health to the purlieus of St. Giles and Soho, the mission with which
O'Leary had most to do. Its fearful squalor at the period described
is curiously shown in Clinch's recently published 'Bloomsbury and St.
Giles.' It will be remembered that the preacher of his funeral sermon
conveys that the migration in 1789 was caused by O'Leary's refusal to
write in a venal Dublin print against the party with whom he had long
been associated. Snubbed by the Viceroy, Buckingham, his usefulness
at Dublin Castle was now a thing of the past; but yet, as he could
not afford to give up all State endowment, I suspect that he settled
down in London in some undefined diplomatic rôle, where his tact and
influence would find a field for exercise. A most careful memoir of
O'Leary, ending with the words 'Requiescat in pace'--written probably
by his friend and co-religionist Plowden--appears in the 'Gentleman's
Magazine' for February 1802. It contains some facts not noticed by his
more diffuse biographers. 'This laudable conduct,' we are told, 'did
not escape the attention of the Irish Government, and induced them,
when he quitted Ireland, to recommend him to men of power in this
country.' I believe that O'Leary's removal to London was made under
Government auspices, extended in the hope that, by his diplomatic
power, it might lead to useful knowledge and results.
As George, Prince of Wales, held Whig views at this time, Mr. Pitt's
great career ran some risk of being cut short. The Prince gathered
round him the leading Whig lights, including O'Leary, as we learn
from Croly's 'Life of George IV.'[610] A good picture of life in the
Pavilion at Brighton is given, and of the brilliant jokes which capped
the hits of Sheridan and Curran. But O'Leary's presence had, I think,
a deeper significance. With graver men his intercourse was frequent.
'Edmund Burke was very marked in the regard which he manifested to
O'Leary,' writes England. 'Fox was not only Pitt's rival, but the
leader of a powerful party constantly on the watch to oust Pitt from
office.' It may be presumed that the men of power in London to whom
O'Leary, on leaving Ireland, had letters from Dublin Castle, occupied a
camp hostile to the Whig garrison of the Pavilion.
One proof that O'Leary wished to regain favour with Pitt is afforded
by the casual remark of his biographer. 'When O'Leary learned that
his friend (Plowden) was engaged at the desire of Pitt in writing
the 'Historical Review,' he sent him his invaluable collections, as
affording the best and most authentic materials for the recent history
of Ireland.'[611]
I do not like that phrase of Plowden in which he says--when speaking
of O'Leary's pension--that it was only after giving repeated proofs
that the secret condition had been complied with, he received a large
arrear.[612] Plowden no doubt thinks that the pension was meant as
'hush money;' but it is a question whether O'Leary was quite frank
with him as to its character.
'An oak of the forest is too old to be transplanted at fifty,' said
Grattan, regarding Flood's removal to London in 1784. 'Disgusted with
the condition of his country,' writes O'Leary's later biographer,
Buckley, 'and hopeless of doing anything by which it could be improved,
he resolved on quitting it altogether and living in the free atmosphere
of England, so congenial to a bounding and manly temperament like
his.... In the year 1789 Arthur O'Leary left Ireland for ever, and
took up his residence in London as one of the chaplains to the Spanish
Embassy.'[613] It appears, however, from the testimony of Plowden, the
attached friend of O'Leary, that it was a condition expressly made
by the Crown that O'Leary was 'to reside no more in Ireland.'[614]
I suspect that the appointment just described was brought about by
Court intrigue. From the time of the Armada the movements of the
Spanish minister were viewed with jealousy, often with alarm. In
1779, when the combined fleets of Spain and France rode menacingly in
the Channel, O'Leary, as we have seen, denounced them to the Irish
people, and his appointment to the Spanish embassy must have been the
work of England rather than of Spain. In 1789 strained relations had
again arisen between Spain and England; and a few years later war was
actually declared by Spain.[615] Sydney states that O'Leary had already
consented to furnish secret information.[616] His present position
would enable him to acquire knowledge of, not only the designs of
Spain, but of Dr. Hussey too; and without saying that O'Leary could be
capable of downright treachery, it is probable that Pitt believed he
would. It will be remembered that, in 1780, Dr. Hussey, chief chaplain
to the Spanish embassy in London, had been sent with Richard Cumberland
to effect a treaty with the Court of Spain, a negotiation not entirely
successful. What was the precise nature of the hold which Hussey,
originally a Carthusian monk, acquired over the Court of England is
destined to remain shrouded. Buckley says it was at the special request
of George III. that Dr. Hussey accompanied Mr. Cumberland on a secret
mission to Madrid.[617]
What Cumberland himself thought of his colleague is curious to see. We
are told that 'the high-sounding titles and dignities showered upon
Dr. Hussey by the Court of Spain outweighed in his balance English
guineas;' that 'in his heart he was as high a priest as à Becket, and
as stiff a Catholic as ever kissed the cross;' but yet 'had left behind
him in his coffin at La Trappe no one passion native or ingrafted
that belonged to him when he entered it.' So clear-sighted a man as
Hussey could not fail to see the secret thoughts of Cumberland, or to
have diagnosed, in his turn, the jaundiced retina through which he
was viewed; for Cumberland complains of 'his singular, sudden, and
capricious conduct to the author and his family, of which he was an
inmate.'[618] Hussey had demanded his passports to return to England;
but on Cumberland's remonstrance paused, and cancelled a letter he had
addressed to the English Secretary of State asking leave to return.
Mystery covers much of this mission to Spain, for Cumberland says, 'I
will reveal no more than I am in honour and strict conscience warranted
to make public. For twenty years I have been silent, making no appeals
at any time but to my official employers, who were pledged to do me
justice.'[619]
Mr. Froude tells us that Dr. Hussey[620] was in the confidence of
Dundas and Portland, and had received favours from them. Both were
prominent statesmen in the Cabinet of Pitt, and both eventually turned
against Hussey. Dr. Hussey is described as Chaplain to his Catholic
Majesty of Spain, and Rector of the Church of the Spanish Embassy in
London. He evidently knew something of O'Leary not revealed to the
world.
At this point it may be well to open once more the pamphlet privately
printed--'A Narrative of the Misunderstanding between the Rev. Arthur
O'Leary and the Rev. Mr. Hussey.' Its purport, O'Leary says, is to
remove the bad impressions which a late report, one which impugned his
morality, might have made on some Catholic families, and the reader is
requested either to burn the brochure, or erase altogether the name of
Mr. Hussey. The latter is just the man to have muttered 'qui s'excuse
s'accuse' as he read the following; and O'Leary's remark serves to show
that Hussey suspected he had deeper motives.
The desire of co-operating in the work of the ministry [writes
O'Leary] was my only inducement for associating with Mr. [Hussey]
in the Spanish Ambassador's Chapel. He soon began to throw some
obstacles in my way--but in the most insulting and contemptuous
manner. The old clerk of his vestry, who retails among the common
people all the stories he hears from his employer, was commissioned
by him to direct me in the choice of my theme [in the pulpit].[621]
In 1780, the Spanish ambassador to London was, we learn, 'Count Fernan
Nunez, who had committed himself to a conversation from which Mr.
Hussey drew very promising expectations.'[622] But in 1789 we find
him succeeded by no less a person than the Marquis del Campo, whose
previous attitude, as sub-Premier of Spain, had filled the British
Cabinet with alarm.[623] Orde, writing to Nepean, of the Home Office,
five years before, tells him to be very watchful over this minister;
and O'Leary's friend, Plowden, whatever he means by it, says that it
was only after giving repeated proofs that the secret conditions had
been complied with, that O'Leary received a large arrear of his pension.
'A Narrative of the Misunderstanding' between O'Leary and Hussey
shows that the appointment of the former as Hussey's colleague was
forced upon the latter, and that Hussey distrusted and despised him,
confirming the old adage, two of a trade never agree. O'Leary complains
that on Good Friday, in presence of a crowded congregation numbering
many Protestants, Hussey sent
one of the boys who attend the altar, twice into the pulpit to
interrupt me in the most pathetic part of my discourse by chucking
the sleeves of my surplice and ordering me to come down under
pretence that the ceremonies of the day were too long. Thus a scene
was exhibited of which neither the congregation nor myself had ever
been spectators before.
And again:--
By the manner in which he concerted his plans, in waiting until
the eve of the days on which I was to appear in public, and
then sending me, on a sudden, verbal messages by his clerk, and
afterwards such insulting notes as no Prelate would send to the
meanest clergyman in his diocese, one would be apt to imagine that
he played the part of a skilful general, who amuses an enemy the
better to decoy him unprepared into an ambuscade.
I was surprised at such peremptory mandates from a man who, at
most, could pretend but to an equality.... But his view was, either
to disgust me with the chapel, or to commit me with the public, in
thus thwarting me in the exercise of my functions.
O'Leary was the lion of the hour; his portrait looked out from the
windows of Bond Street and Piccadilly, surrounded by soul-stirring
sentiments culled from his published books.[624] There it was that Dr.
Hussey sought to reduce his prestige, which he considered overcharged,
and to destroy the confidence and respect usually manifested in his
regard. It is certain that he felt as uncomfortable in his society as
he had ever done in the hair shirt and enforced reserve of La Trappe.
He did not brand O'Leary as a spy; he could not do so without offending
the Government; but he raised what lawyers call 'a false issue.' Indeed
O'Leary charges the doctor, on strong circumstantial evidence, with
having supplied to the newspapers paragraphs in which an unworthy
innuendo is advanced, and one by no means calculated to exalt the
friar's reputation for asceticism: 'In proportion as the breach widened
between us, the paragraphs rose in a climax to a greater degree of
asperity.'[625]
Many curious things transpire in this _brochure_, and amongst them
the following: 'I got the very singular information,' writes O'Leary,
'that some years before, in a boarding school at Hampstead, then under
his (Hussey's) direction, he took my picture out of a frame, tore it
in several pieces, and cast it away with disdain, saying, "One would
imagine he is founder of this establishment."'[626] Here again I submit
that Dr. Hussey raised a false issue, and his dislike to O'Leary, as
evidenced by this strong proceeding, must have had deeper grounds than
the paltry plea assigned.
When this affair relative to the picture happened [writes O'Leary]
I was in Ireland, in the full bloom of my reputation,[627] which I
would have preserved unfaded to the last moment of my existence,
had it not spread on the lips of a man to whom I cannot apply the
Italian proverb, Whatever your mouth touches, it heals: 'La vostra
bocca sana quel die tocca' (p. 14).
Dr. Hussey, as already stated, was in the secrets of the Crown. In
1784 Sydney tells Orde, rightly or wrongly, that O'Leary had consented
to furnish private information. In 1789 O'Leary, as we have seen,
removed to London and settled down in alarming proximity not only to
Hussey, but to the minister of Spain. Hussey's attachment to Spanish
interests, Cumberland states, outweighed his devotion to his English
patrons, and of course it was highly inconvenient that a man who played
fast and loose with both should be domesticated with O'Leary. 'They are
all of them designing knaves,' writes Orde, and doubtless he and his
colleagues, acting on the coarse prejudice thus expressed, urged the
arrangement on the principle of 'set a thief to catch a thief.' The
more refined Sydney probably calculated that it would be 'diamond cut
diamond' between them.
The effort it must have cost so polished a person as Dr. Hussey to
pursue the course ascribed to him may be inferred from the words
of Charles Butler: 'He was a man of great genius, of enlightened
piety, with manners at once imposing and elegant, and of enchanting
conversation: he did not come in contact with many whom he did not
subdue: the highest rank often sunk before him.' Cumberland, his
companion in the secret mission, describes him as wearing 'a smile
seductive; his address was smooth, obsequious, studiously obliging and,
at times, glowingly heightened into an impassioned show of friendship
and affection. He was quick enough,' he adds, 'in finding out the
characters of men.'
O'Leary appealed to Bishop Douglas, and a meeting between the parties
took place at his house. The result was a written statement, dated June
21, 1791, that Dr. Hussey never had any crime or immoral conduct to
allege against O'Leary, and that he had left the Spanish Ambassador's
chapel of his own free will. 'Mr. O'Leary and I have come to a full
explanation upon all past misunderstandings, and are both satisfied
with the explanation,' writes Dr. Hussey. This paper was certified
by Bishops Douglas and Berington[628] and by Francis Plowden to be
conformable to Dr. Hussey's verbal declaration. The finale was worthy
of an ecclesiastic who wished to avoid disedifying the laity by
unseemly wrangles. But, privately, Dr. Hussey took means to prevent a
recurrence of an incident which greatly annoyed him. The Castlereagh
Papers contain a letter to Lord Hobart from Sir J. Cox Hippisley, in
which he mentions as having been reported to Rome, 'a very offensive
measure of Hussey's in a way so as to have produced a sort of censure
on Bishop Douglas of London.' Dr. Hussey, it is stated, had claimed
the right, as chaplain to the Spanish mission, of nominating priests
to officiate at the Spanish chapel in London independently of Bishop
Douglas.[629]
Frequent reference has been already made to Del Campo. The concluding
words of O'Leary's 'Narrative' go on to say:--
I intended to complain in person or to write a severe letter
against him to the Marquis del Campo,[630] than whom there are
few ambassadors[631] of a more amiable disposition, or in whose
train a chaplain would be more happy. But, expecting never to be
disturbed by Mr. [Hussey], after leaving him in the unrivalled
possession of his pulpit and controversy, I retired without the
slightest murmur. Had I even been treated with that civility to
which I was entitled, I would yet have quitted York Street. We were
on the eve of a war with Spain, and from my peculiar obligations to
my own sovereign, in case of a threatened invasion, I would have
returned to Ireland, where, upon a similar occasion, the exertions
in the line of my profession had been attended with the happiest
results in promoting that loyalty which recommends my Religion and
countrymen.
Here O'Leary, though so recently attached to the Spanish embassy,
declares himself a partisan, if not a sentinel, in the English
interest. It appears that, while officiating at Spanish Place, he
lodged in Warwick Street, probably acting as assistant chaplain to
the Bavarian embassy as well, and where, as Mrs. Bellamy records, he
arrived opportunely, in 1783, to adjust angry difficulties that had
arisen in that quarter. Seven years later, although ostensibly pastor
of St. Patrick's, Soho, from 1790 to his death, he seems still attached
in some way to the Bavarian chapel and embassy, for the preface to
his sermon in denunciation of French principles is dated from Warwick
Street, though the sermon itself had been preached at St. Patrick's.
In March 1797, O'Leary's desire to retain the favour of Pitt is
traceable in the sermon to which reference has just been made. It was
preached before a congregation mainly Irish, but embracing also the
famous Duchess of Devonshire, and many other great personages.[632] Its
aim is apparent in the account given of it by the 'Monthly Review' as
'a discourse well adapted to keep alive a high degree of good, warm,
Christian hatred of the French, on whom the preacher is very severe,
with now and then a stroke of pleasantry, sarcasm and rough wit.'
Ireland had been nearly lost to England the previous year by Hoche's
expedition to Bantry Bay, but England's unsubsidised allies, the winds,
had come to her aid. O'Leary's discourse, occupying fifty pages, was at
once issued in pamphlet shape, and reprinted in Dublin.
As has been already observed, O'Leary maintained cordial relations with
some men who bore a bad name. Francis Higgins, originally a Newgate
felon, became at last a most influential negotiator. Plowden exhibits
fully his unpleasant character in the 'Historical Review,' vol. ii.
pp. 256-9. 'This man' he says, 'had the address, by coarse flattery
and assumed arrogance, to worm himself into the intimacy of several
persons of rank and consequence, who demeaned themselves by their
obsequiousness to his art, or sold themselves to him. The fact that
he died worth 40,000_l._ is highly illustrative of the system which
generated, fostered, and pampered this species of reptile.' Higgins is
shown by the 'Cornwallis Papers' to have been a spy on a great scale.
There is reason to know that he wormed himself into the confidence of
O'Leary; and reason to fear that he turned it to account. The man who
began his career by duping a Jesuit and obtaining his co-operation
in making an heiress his wife, is not likely to have failed with the
genial Franciscan. Higgins early won the friendship of O'Leary; and
his bequest 'to my long and faithful friend, the Rev. Arthur O'Leary,'
has been already noticed. Fidelity to Shamado seems like fidelity to
Mephistopheles!
Higgins liked to utilise profitably the information he acquired from
pliable Catholics like Magan.[633] Magan was a barrister, and held
his head high. It will be remembered that Higgins drew from him the
secret of Lord Edward Fitzgerald's hiding place, and for this service
alone received 1,000_l._ in hand, and a pension of 300_l._ a year. The
'Sham Squire' was not the man to leave money, in 1791, 'to his long and
faithful friend,' O'Leary, unless he had made more than the amount by
the use of him. Higgins claims O'Leary as a dear friend; the habits of
the time warrant the assumption that he was his boon companion too. In
the unguarded intimacy of social intercourse, that frank and affable
nature is likely to have enriched the Squire's stock of gossip. To what
extent that confidence was unfolded can be now but darkly surmised.
O'Leary, if called upon to reveal information to the Government, may
have acted with reserve. In softer moments[634] much may have leaked
out which was not deliberate betrayal.
It is casually stated by Mr. Lecky (vol. vii. p. 211) that Higgins, in
enumerating his services to the Government, especially mentions the
expense he had incurred in entertaining priests, and other persons
of the higher class, for the purpose of obtaining intelligence. In
one respect O'Leary's intercourse with Higgins worked for good. The
newspaper of the latter, though an organ of Orangeism, advocated the
Catholic claims.
In 1796 Dr. Hussey, afterwards Bishop of Waterford, seems to have
accepted the post of secret agent,--probably not widely dissimilar from
that which the statesmen of 1784 thought O'Leary would not object to
discharge. Higgins, writing to Dublin Castle in October 1796, expresses
regret that the Government had not been very judicious in their
selection of 'an agent for acting on the Catholics.[635] 'The Roman
Catholic body hold a superficial opinion of Dr. Hussey as a courtly
priest. If anything was to be effected or wished to be done in the
Roman Catholic body, Dr. O'Leary would do more with them in one hour
than Hussey in seven years. Of this I am perfectly assured; and O'Leary
not ten days since wrote me word he would shortly claim a bed at my
house.'
O'Leary had a nephew for whom in a recently published letter he hopes
to provide a berth when some friends of his would regain their power.
The allusion no doubt is to Fox and the Whigs. This is the nephew
noticed by Francis Higgins, in a secret letter to Under-Secretary Cooke
eight months before the rebellion. 'At a meeting at Bond's, which Lord
Edward Fitzgerald and O'Connor attended, O'Connor read a letter from
Fox which had been delivered to him (O'C.) by O'Leary, nephew of Dr.
O'Leary, who had arrived from London with despatches from Mr. Fox,
and set off in the mail for Cork the same night.' These despatches
concurred with the United Irishmen as to the necessity of enforcing a
parliamentary reform.[636]
The bequest of Higgins to O'Leary is noticed as strange by the priest's
biographer. Was it meant by way of restitution, seeing that the compact
to pay O'Leary had been broken? As in the case of the betrayal of Lord
Edward Fitzgerald by Magan, 'Shamado' no doubt pocketed the lion's
share.
The will of Francis Higgins goes on to say: 'To Andrew D. O'Kelly,
of Piccadilly, London, I leave 300_l._: declaring that if I did not
know that he, my friend, was in great affluence, I would have freely
bequeathed him any property I might be possessed of.' This was the
man sometimes known as Count O'Kelly, but more generally as Colonel
O'Kelly. An Irish judge who once acted as advising counsel for the
legatees of O'Kelly, informs me that the latter was originally a
jockey, afterwards a successful blackleg, and was made colonel of a
regiment that never existed, simply by the Prince Regent addressing
him under that title. This explains a remark made by the 'St. James's
Gazette,' that 'his military rank, whatever right he may have had to
it, as well as to his Countship, could never obtain for him an entrance
to the clubs of his fellow sportsmen.'[637] He owned the racehorse
'Eclipse,' and by its aid netted 124,000_l._
There has been much discussion by O'Leary's biographers upon Plowden's
statement as to the stoppage of the pension, and they vainly try to
account for so harsh a step. 'What the reason for this withholding
was, it is not easy to ascertain,' writes Father Buckley; but, from an
observation in the 'Life of Grattan,' by his son, we surmise that it
must have been because O'Leary refused to comply with a request made by
the minister, that he _would write in the support of the Union_.[638]
Plowden takes care to say that the pension was 'hush money.' Buckley's
argument demands, however, a fuller reply.
The agitation against the Union took place chiefly in 1799. O'Leary
died in January 1802, soon after the Union became law. Plowden, through
whom he got the arrears paid, says that it was 'after a _lapse of many
years_, by importunity and solicitation, and _repeated proofs_ of his
having complied with the _secret conditions_, he received a large
arrear.' Therefore there could not have been time for all this in the
interval between the Union and O'Leary's death.
But, in point of fact, O'Leary _did_ express himself publicly in
favour of the Union. His 'Address to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,'
dated from O'Kelly's house, and published in June 1800, mentions
that he is 'a great friend to the Union, and reconciled many to it;'
and then follows much clever argument in support of the measure.
This rather spoils the statement in Grattan's 'Life,' quoted by the
biographer of O'Leary as proof that he spurned Pitt's proposal to
support the Union.
Colonel O'Kelly [writes Grattan] related that, at the period of the
Union, Mr. Pitt offered a considerable pension to O'Leary, provided
he would exert himself among his Roman Catholic countrymen, and
write in support of the Union; but every application was in vain;
O'Leary steadfastly resisted Mr. Pitt's solicitations, and, though
poor, he rejected the offers of the minister, and could not be
seduced from his allegiance to his country.
The newspapers recording O'Leary's death, in January 1802, say that he
died at his lodgings in Great Portland Street, London. When the Union
was carried, he probably got his _congé_ from O'Kelly. This man, of bad
odour, became a Crœsus in wealth, and eventually a sort of Brummagem
Brummell, deep in the confidence of George, Prince of Wales.[639]
O'Leary is found living with O'Kelly in Mayfair, London, and some of
his pamphlets are dated from 46 Half-Moon Street, Piccadilly, the
'Colonel's' house.[640] Father Buckley is puzzled 'how our worthy
friar contracted so close an intimacy with a man of tastes and habits
apparently so little congenial to his own.'[641] Perhaps O'Kelly[642]
was the trustee in whose name O'Leary got a pension on secret
conditions. Plowden is the only writer who alludes to the intervention
of a trustee. He was very intimate with O'Kelly, and witnessed his will
in 1820. The Prince of Wales had already made O'Kelly the medium for
paying a secret pension of 300_l._ a year to Chifney the jockey, in
consideration of having designedly lost a race at Epsom.[643]
I now come to a startling piece of evidence, calculated, almost, to
make one exclaim with Luke (xix. 22), 'Out of thy own mouth I judge
thee.' The testimony of no less a witness than O'Leary himself claims
to be heard.
More than sixty years after the death of O'Leary, Father Buckley was
informed in writing, by a relative of the deceased, that O'Leary, when
dying, often exclaimed, 'Alas! I have _betrayed_ my poor country.'[644]
The informant's impression is that O'Leary's remorse was due to having,
at the request of Pitt, acquiesced in the Union, notwithstanding
that we have 'Colonel' O'Kelly's testimony that 'O'Leary withstood
Pitt's solicitations to support that measure.' The Catholic bishops
of Ireland cordially encouraged the Union, as the Castlereagh Papers
show--and we do not hear that Dr. Troy and his _confrères_ felt much
remorse--although, in addition to their support of the Union, they
signed resolutions in favour of giving to a Protestant king a veto in
the appointment of Catholic prelates.
But the letter of O'Leary's kinsman must not be dismissed without
quoting its context. 'Pitt,' he writes, 'promised the emancipation
of Catholics and repeal of the Penal Laws, if he (O'Leary) would
acquiesce, &c. He did; and so silence was deemed consent. Pitt obtained
the Union; then resigned his office; and tricky enough,' adds O'Leary's
kinsman, 'said he could not keep his promise.'
This is slightly misleading. Pitt had given a pledge, through
Cornwallis, to Archbishop Troy that he would not accept office except
on condition that the Catholic claims were to be met. In 1801, owing
to the fixed resolve of the King against Emancipation, Pitt went out.
His conduct, therefore, was so far straight. When he returned to power
in 1804, in complete violation of that compact, O'Leary had been two
years dead.
Among O'Leary's admirers there was none more ardent than the late Lord
Chancellor O'Hagan, in whose now deserted study still hangs a fine
portrait of the friar, inscribed with soul-stirring sentiments on which
O'Hagan had long sought to shape his own course. This gentleman could
not bring himself to believe Mr. Froude's charge branding O'Leary as
a spy, and was unable to rest until he read with his own eyes at the
State Paper Office the original correspondence. He returned to Dublin
declaring that the imputation was but too well founded. This view,
coming from a man of judicial mind, might be taken as conclusive;
but yet, one is unwilling to see a great reputation wrecked, without
wishing to throw out a hope or a plank by which there is a chance of
saving it. This plank is, indeed, a poor one; but, just as a sinking
man will grasp even at a straw, humanity suggests that no effort should
be left untried to keep the struggler afloat.
The two letters which led Lord O'Hagan to his reluctant conclusion are
now before the reader. In neither is the Christian name of O'Leary
given; but no other priest of the name obtained contemporary notice.
The most damaging bit of evidence is Sydney's letter to Rutland
announcing that O'Leary, having been talked to by Nepean, was willing
to do what was wished for 100_l._ a year.[645] These letters bear
date 1784, eighteen years before O'Leary's death. No letters of his
in any way compromising him have been found. The voluminous papers of
Pelham, the Irish Secretary, from 1795 to 1798 do not once mention
his name. 'I have certainly never seen any reports from O'Leary to
the Government,' writes Mr. Lecky in reply to an inquiry; 'and I have
quoted in my History every passage I have come across in which he is
ever mentioned.'[646] These passages are few.
O'Leary was a decided humourist: no one conversing with him felt quite
sure when he meant to be serious. In the 'talk' that passed he may
have played the diplomat. We have seen how Orde distrusted him. To
a request blandly urged in personal converse by a statesman who had
already pensioned him, this friar, existing merely by connivance, could
not afford to assume attitudes of offended dignity. A glimpse of his
precarious position is caught from a speech of Grattan's:--
At the time that this very man lay under the censure of a law
which, in his own country, made him subject to transportation or
death, from religious distinctions, and at the time that a prince
of his own religion threatened this country with an invasion, this
respectable character took up his pen and, unsolicited and without
a motive but that of real patriotism, urged his own communion
to peace, and to support the law which had sentenced himself to
transportation.[647]
Nepean and Orde suggested certain inquiries which O'Leary was to make;
but who can tell at what point of these inquiries the practised casuist
may have meant to draw the line? A hundred pounds a year, which Nepean
says he named, seems marvellously small for the magnitude and risk of
the service expected. Orde writes on September 8, 1784, expressing
satisfaction that Nepean, in London, had 'settled matters with O'Leary,
who can get to the bottom of all secrets in which the Catholics are
concerned, and they are certainly the chief promoters of our present
disquietude.' A fortnight later, after an interview with the priest at
Dublin Castle, he adds, (September 24, 1784): 'O'Leary has it in his
power, _if we can depend upon him_, to discover to us the real designs
of the Catholics, from which quarter, after all, the real mischief is
to spring.' O'Leary must have known that, in 1784, _no_ treasonable
designs were harboured by the Catholics, and probably felt that he
would be safe in making the inquiries prescribed. Mr. Lecky, a most
patient historic investigator, a man who has searched more secret
sources of sound information than any other writer of Irish history,
while he considers that the letters just quoted prove O'Leary a spy
(p. 369), yet, in describing this very time, doubts
whether the Catholics themselves took any considerable part in
these agitations. For a long period an almost death-like torpor
hung over the body, and, though they formed the great majority
of the Irish people, they hardly counted even in movements of
opinion. Even when they were enrolled in volunteer corps there
were no traces of Catholic leaders. There was, it is true, still
a Catholic Committee which watched over Catholic interests;
Lord Kenmare and a few other leading Catholics were in frequent
communication with the Government; two or three Catholic bishops
at this time did good service in repressing Whiteboyism; and Dr.
Troy, who was then Bishop of Ossory, received the warm thanks of
the Lord-Lieutenant;[648] but for the most part the Catholics stood
wholly apart from political agitation.
I do not like repetitions; but they are sometimes a necessity, as in
judicial summing-up. Twelve days after O'Leary had been set to work,
the Chief Secretary at Dublin Castle seems quite dissatisfied with him.
The tone in which our humourist's reports were pitched may be guessed
from the following passage in a later pamphlet from his pen[649]:--
Lord Chesterfield, on his return from his Viceroyship, informed George
II. that he had met in Ireland but _two dangerous Papists_, of whom
_His Majesty should be aware_--two [comely] ladies named Devereux, who
had danced at the Castle on the King's birth-night. All the viceroys of
Ireland, from Lord Chesterfield to Earl Camden, could have made a much
similar answer, if interrogated, concerning what is called the _danger
of Popery_.[650]
Whether from this tone, or from other causes, the Government
became quite disappointed with their man; for, as Plowden states,
they withheld his pension, and 'an arbitrary refusal for many years
threw the reverend pensioner on his friends for subsistence.' 'The
unexplained cause,' noticed by Dr. England,[651] may, perhaps, here be
guessed. O'Leary, as Sydney states, consented, in 1784, to make the
secret inquiries which Orde wished, and probably to offer such advice
as his experience should suggest; but the idea thrown out at an early
stage of this study seems likely enough,--that, after he had made due
efforts to find out the truth, he pleasantly assured the Government
that no French emissaries had been to Dublin at all; that the Catholics
were loyal subjects; and, instead of a slumbering volcano, that Rutland
had found a mare's nest! This Viceroy's letter will be remembered in
which he drew a highly sensational picture of alleged secret doings
in Dublin. It was he who first urged on Sydney the wisdom of securing
O'Leary as a spy, and Sydney soon after reports the negotiation
as successful. But we have no testimony from Nepean with whom the
interview took place. When Rutland spoke, Orde spoke; the act of one
was the act of the other. Both were equally fluent as correspondents;
but during the three subsequent years that they held office at Dublin
Castle, we find no letters from either announcing any discoveries made
by O'Leary, and which, no doubt, they would have been only too glad to
do as confirming their own forecast, and building up a reputation for
subtle statesmanship.
More troublesome times came within the next ten years: the Society of
United Irishmen spread with alarming rapidity; and if O'Leary had any
wish to play the spy, he had now a grand opportunity by simulating
ardent patriotism like McNally and others. His great sermon in 1797 was
a declaration of war against French principles, and against all who
adopted the policy of revolution. Again, when it became necessary for
him to preach the panegyric of Pius VI., who died at this time, he went
out of his way to run full tilt against democracy. The 'Courier,' a
popular organ, thus describes it:--
Abounding with glowing imagery, classical allusion, and displaying
in every sentence the energy of an enlightened and vigorous mind,
the Doctor took occasion to felicitate his flock, in the most
emphatic terms, on the happiness enjoyed in this country, on the
constitution and state of which he pronounced a fine panegyric,
happily applying to the extent of our dominion and national glory
the line of the poet--
Imperium Oceano, famamque terminat astris.
O'Leary's friends will hope that it was by this tone, rather than by
playing the ignominious _rôle_ of a spy, that he sought to regain
governmental favour.
The sole remaining letter in the carefully preserved records of the
informers of '98 which names O'Leary must not be excluded here. Things
had quite changed since 1784. Higgins, in a secret letter to Dublin
Castle, dated January 2, 1798, says:--
I took leave to inform you, some time since, that many Roman
Catholics seem apparently sorry for the lengths they've been led,
and suggested, if O'Leary, or any popular preacher, was to exert
himself among them, thousands would come to swear allegiance. I
know O'Leary would be a tower of strength among them. He was their
first champion, and is most highly respected by the multitude. His
writings and preaching prevented the White Boys and insurgents of
the South from joining the rabble of Cork and rising _en masse_ at
the period when the combined fleets of Spain, France, etc., were in
the English Channel.[652]
Higgins does not say that O'Leary authorised him to make this
proposition; and even had he done so, it cannot be deemed base.
Orde's letters to the Home Office in 1784, though urging extreme
caution lest he and his colleagues should be themselves betrayed, show
him to be impulsive in statement, and prone to jump to conclusions.
These letters, blemished by an occasional expletive, are printed by Mr.
Lecky. Orde is quite sanguine as regards wonderful Catholic secrets
that O'Leary would unearth, but this is not the only case in which he
exhibits rashness of assumption.
These notes must now end. If their freedom and fulness need
justification, it is found, perhaps, in O'Leary's own words. He had
meditated a history of the political events of 1780.
The duty of the Historian [he writes] binds him to arraign at
the impartial tribunal of truth both men and actions; unmask the
leading characters; examine into their motives; lay open the hidden
springs of proceedings, whether worthy of applause, or deserving
to be doomed to censure; and embellish his narrative with suitable
reflections. No person is obliged to write a history [he adds], but
when he writes it he must tell the truth.[653]
A word remains to be said respecting Parker, the second agent named
in Orde's letter of 1784. He is not so easily identified as Father
O'Leary. The Irish books which treat of the period may be vainly
searched for the name of Parker. It has been said that the adventurous
spirit, who thirteen years later aroused by his eloquence the British
navy to mutiny, was identical or connected with Orde's agent. I do
not bind myself to the truth of this theory; nor am I able to prove
a negative; but certainly some circumstances support it worthy of
consideration; and having promised in a former chapter to recur to
Parker of the Nore, I am afforded an opportunity for doing so by Mr.
Froude's account of the secret mission to Dublin. Orde's agent arrived
there in September 1784, to overreach and, as we are told, outmouth
noisy patriots. It is true that Parker the mutineer was finally
executed by the English authorities; but Jemmy O'Brien, the spy, also
swung at the same hands. The former had received a classical education,
and had served in the navy during the American War. His character
was bad. His irrepressible oratory and power of influencing minds
got him into scrapes. He married a woman with some property, which
he dissipated, and was then imprisoned for debt. Released at length,
he was sent on board the royal fleet as a 'supernumerary seaman,'
to quote Portland's proclamation offering 500_l._ for his arrest.
'The address, ready eloquence, but, above all,' says Rose, 'the deep
dissimulation he possessed, gave him vast influence over his comrades.'
If true that Parker was sent on board the fleet to counteract mutiny,
the result only shows that it is possible for an extinguisher to take
fire. In his written defence, read on the fourth day of his trial, he
'solemnly declared that his only object of entering into the mutiny was
that of checking a most dangerous spirit of revolt which had prevailed
in the different ships, the bad effects of which he had done all in
his power to prevent.' How he fanned the flame of mutiny, and on its
outburst was appointed 'President,' we have already seen. This was in
1797. Who is the Parker, with persuasive oratorical powers, that is
sent on a questionable mission to Ireland in 1784? It may be said that
this cannot be Parker who afterwards figured at the Nore, because at
the time of the secret mission to Dublin he was serving in the navy
at a far distant place. The following words of Gorton make it hard to
prove an 'alibi' for Richard Parker.[654] After describing his service
during the American War, Gorton writes: 'On peace taking place he
retired from his professional duties.' American independence had been
won in 1778; but the articles of peace were not signed by England until
November 30, 1782. Therefore Parker could be easily in Dublin in 1784.
Mr. Froude's remarks about him are meagre, but it may be gleaned that
the Parker of '84 was a man qualified and ready to keep a dark diary
of what he observed. Parker of the Nore had the same habit. When he
was searched, an elaborate diary of the proceedings which had taken
place on shipboard was found. Parker's wife testified to the fact
that he was rhapsodical and eccentric, but the plea failed to save his
life. Orde, in announcing the arrival of Parker of '84, speaks of his
'rhapsodies,' and avows a misgiving that he might not act discreetly.
The written defence of Parker of the Nore was highly rhapsodical, and
the reverse of discreet. But he had abundant talent. Parker of '84 is
described as an accomplished orator, and a good hand at sedition. So
was Richard Parker. The former was an expert in dissimulation. The same
character is given of Richard Parker by Rose. It may be also noteworthy
that Orde's agent hailed from London. Mr. Froude assumes that Parker
was an Irishman; the name is certainly English.
The 'Courier' of October 14, 1797, records some conversations with
Richard Parker which afford a sample of the rhapsodical eloquence which
had so often entranced his audience. An officer on board the ship that
held him prisoner expressed impatience at not getting ahead, as the
winds were contrary. 'What!' said Parker, 'are you not satisfied with
having an admiral of the British fleet in chains, but you must also
usurp the command of the elements? Or, because you have the honour to
be my executioner, are you likewise as mad as the Persian tyrant who
ordered his minions to lash the waves?' Much more of his talk is given.
The 'Courier' states that 'from peculiar energy of intellect, his
diction, even in common conversation, was bold and original.'
FOOTNOTES:
[603] The Viceroy of Ireland.
[604] _Memoirs of the Courts and Cabinets of George III., from Original
Family Documents_, by the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, 1853.
[605] _Ibid._
[606] Dr. England, the first biographer of O'Leary, mentions that his
pension had been charged on the _Irish_ Establishment.
[607] _Narrative of the Misunderstanding between Rev. A. O'Leary and
Rev. Mr. Hussey_, p. 11. (Dublin, 1791.)
[608] _Life of O'Leary_, by Rev. T. England, p. 190.
[609] The good Priest does not quite deny the statement though seeming
to do so.
[610] With Lord Moira, too--a great Whig power in those days--O'Leary
was specially intimate; and it was this peer who erected in St.
Pancras the monument to his 'virtues and talents,' for which the
_Tablet_ newspaper, fifty years later, opened a subscription list to
restore,--in such enduring honour was the memory of this marvellous
friar held.
[611] England's _Life of O'Leary_, p. 289. (London, 1822.)
[612] See _ante_, p. 214.
[613] _Life of the Rev. A. O'Leary_, by the Rev. M. B. Buckley, pp.
304-5.
[614] Vide _ante_, p. 213.
[615] See Alison's _History of Europe_, ii. 30, 203, 425.
[616] See p. 218, _ante_.
[617] Buckley's _O'Leary_, p. 306.
[618] Cumberland's _Memoirs_, ii. 62-5. (London, 1807.) Dr. Hussey had
died four years previous to their publication.
[619] _Ibid._
[620] Previously, Dr. Hussey is found at Vienna, hand in glove with the
Emperor Joseph of Austria. See England's _O'Leary_, p. 199.
[621] _A Narrative of the Misunderstanding, etc._ p. 7.
[622] Cumberland's _Memoirs_, ii. 2.
[623] Del Campo lived in the well-known palatial structure opposite the
old chapel in Spanish Place, described by Thackeray as 'Gaunt House,'
and lately occupied by Sir Richard Wallace. The defeat of the Armada
in 1588 had marked an epoch in the history of the British Empire, and
Englishmen uneasily regarded the feasts and intrigues in Manchester
Square.
[624] One, published in 'April, 1784, by Keating, of Bond Street,'
displays the following fine sentiment: 'Let not religion--the sacred
name of religion--which even in the face of an enemy discovers a
brother, be any longer a wall of separation to keep us asunder.'
[625] _A Narrative of the Misunderstanding between the Rev. Arthur
O'Leary and the Rev. Mr. Hussey._ (Dublin: printed at No. 75, Aungier
Street, 1791.)
[626] _Ibid._ p. 13.
[627] O'Leary's comment on Hussey's treatment of his picture is
amusing. 'When Constantine the Great was informed that stones were cast
at his statue, he rubbed his forehead and said that he did not feel
himself hurt. And I can say that my body was not lacerated when my
picture was torn.'
[628] Why Dr. Berington, Bishop of the Midland District, should be
called in was, clearly, because a schism threatened the diocese in
consequence of the Pope appointing Dr. Douglas bishop in opposition
to the strenuous efforts made by the Catholic Committee to get Dr.
Berington translated to London. Several lay members of that league
went so far as to maintain that the clergy and laity ought to choose
their own bishops without any reference to Rome, and procure their
consecration at the hands of any other lawful bishop. After the
appointment of Dr. Douglas, they even threatened to pronounce it
'obnoxious and improper.' Dr. Berington, however, addressed a printed
letter to the London clergy, resigning all pretension to the London
vicariate, and soon the schismatical opposition to Dr. Douglas was
withdrawn. See Brady's _Catholic Hierarchy in England_, pp. 178-9.
(Rome, 1877.)
[629] On visiting this chapel, in 1888, a fine relic of the ancient
splendour of Spain, I found it very much as it was in the days of
Father O'Leary. A study of Dr. Hussey's face, by Gainsborough, is
preserved here, as well as some maps and papers in the autograph of
the former. The foundation stone of a new church to replace it, and
near the old one, was laid by Cardinal Manning, on June 27, 1887,
in presence of the Infanta of Spain and the Spanish minister. Canon
Barry, the present pastor, mentions an interesting tradition connected
with Tyburn tree, which, as is well known, stood near the Marble
Arch: 'The Chapel of the Spanish Embassy was, during the dark days of
persecution, a special home for Catholics. Many a martyr on his way to
Tyburn received the blessing of the chaplain of the embassy and was
aided by the prayers offered in the Spanish Chapel for perseverance in
his conflict for the faith.' The Canon, in the course of a statistical
detail, adds: 'When war between England and Spain broke out, the usual
payments made by Spain for the support of the chapel fell 4,000_l._
into arrears. Diplomatic relations having been again suspended between
England and Spain in 1805, the chapel was confided to the care of Don
Miguel de la Torre.'
[630] Del Campo ceased, soon after, to be Spanish minister to St.
James's, and was succeeded by the Chevalier Azara. The latter had great
influence at the Vatican, and proposed that Dr. Hussey should be the
channel of communication between the Pope and the British Government.
_Castlereagh Papers_ iii. 86.
[631] An historic writer, Sir Nathaniel Wraxall, famous rather for
pleasant gossip than for strict accuracy, states that the Spanish
embassy in London maintained friendly relations with England. But what
was the prevailing idea in Spanish diplomatic circles at this time
is traceable in a despatch of Talleyrand published last year (1890)
by M. Pallain. Talleyrand states, on the authority of the personal
assurance of the Spanish minister, that nearly all the sailors who man
the British fleet are Irish, and from love of country would turn their
guns on England. The accurate number will be found set forth at p. 114,
_ante_.
[632] The sermon was preached in St. Patrick's, Soho, where O'Leary
mainly officiated. Last year (1891) the chapel was in process of
demolition.
[633] _Vide_ chap. xi. _ante_.
[634] Father Buckley, the biographer of O'Leary, died soon after the
date of the following letter. It notices a weakness, of which a paid
purveyor of news, like Higgins, would be apt to take ready advantage.
Shamado is likely to have been the more successful because his own
character of a brain-sucker and betrayer had not then been unmasked.
On December 7, 1869, Father Buckley writes from SS. Peter and Paul's,
Cork: 'The _Personal Memoirs_ have arrived, and I am much pleased with
them. The sketch of O'Leary I am sorry I had not seen, to embody in
my book. I fear, however, it would not have tended much to enhance
the esteem of the good _padre's_ character, inasmuch as, in the
background of the picture, there is a strong steam of whisky-punch,
and the narrative affords a strong confirmation of what Michael Kelly
records that Father O'Leary, like himself, was rather partial to "Saint
Patrick's Eye-Water."
[635] It cannot be said that this agency was of a base character. In
1795, Dr. Hussey announces to Edmund Burke that the Catholics were
loyal and ready to spill their blood to resist the French (Lecky,
vii. 90). Mr. Lecky states that he was 'constantly employed by the
Government in negotiations with the Irish Catholics.' In September
1794, Dr. Hussey, then an _employé_ of the Crown, comes over to consult
with the Catholic bishops at Dublin on new measures of education
(Lecky, vii. 121). The foundation of Maynooth College was the result.
[636] Higgins to Cooke, September 1, 1797. (MSS. Dublin Castle.)
[637] _Vide_ 'Fathers of the Turf,' in _St. James's Gazette_, January
6, 1881. The writer adds that O'Kelly is said to have held post-obits
to a large amount, 'and his transactions were upon so large a scale
that he might be seen turning over "quires" of bank-notes in search of
a "little one," by which term he meant one for £50.' In the Registry of
Deeds Office, Dublin, is preserved a document, dated February 12, 1819,
whereby the Marquis of Donegal secures to O'Kelly the sum of 27,934_l._
12_s._ 4_d._, a gambling debt, and O'Kelly is described as Andrew Denis
O'Kelly, Esq., son and heir apparent of Philip Kelly, Esq., deceased.
'Colonel' O'Kelly died in 1820, leaving no children.
[638] _Life of O'Leary_, by the Rev. M. B. Buckley, p. 357 (italics in
original).
[639] Vide _Ireland before the Union_, 6th ed. pp. 211-15. (Dublin:
Duffy.)
[640] Grattan's _Life_, by his Son. Those who may suppose that O'Leary
forgot the priest in the diplomat, should see Father Morgan D'Arcy's
account of the reforms he effected in the demoralised region of St.
Giles. _Vide_ Buckley, pp. 397 _et seq._
[641] _Life of O'Leary_, by Rev. M. B. Buckley, p. 359.
[642] See _ante_, p. 213.
[643] _Ireland before the Union_, pp. 211-15.
[644] _Life of the Rev. Arthur O'Leary_, by the Rev. M. B. Buckley, p.
355.
[645] See _ante_, p. 218.
[646] W. E. H. Lecky, Esq. to W. J. F., October 28, 1890.
[647] _Parliamentary Register_, Feb. 26, 1782.
[648] In a letter signed by Orde.
[649] _Address to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal_, p. 12. (London,
1800.)
[650] O'Leary does not tell this anecdote correctly. It was not of
two ladies named Devereux, but of a famous beauty, Miss Ambrose, that
Chesterfield made this joke; and it was told, not to George II., but
to Lord North. Chesterfield addressed the following impromptu to Miss
Ambrose at a viceregal ball:--
'Pretty Tory, where's the jest
Of wearing orange on a breast
Which, in whiteness, doth disclose
The beauty of the rebel rose?'
[651] See _ante_, p. 220.
[652] Francis Higgins to Under-Secretary Cooke. (MSS. Dublin Castle.)
[653] _Postscript to Miscellaneous Tracts_, 1781.
[654] Richard Parker is usually described as a common sailor. A
statement from his widow appears in the _Courier_ of July 5, 1797:
she claimed Parker's corpse, and, when asked by the admiral for what
purpose, she answered, 'To have him interred like a gentleman, as he
had been bred.' The request was refused. Parker's corpse remained
exposed for years on the island of Sheppey, hung in chains until it
dropped to pieces at last. The London _Courier_ of the day insists that
he had been for some time a lieutenant in the Royal Navy.