The main subject for consideration at that moment was the policy of

continuing the Act for the suppression of the Catholic Association,

which was to expire at the end of the Session of 1828. In connection

with this subject a letter from Lord Anglesey came under the Ministry's

consideration. "Do keep matters quiet in Parliament," he said, "if

possible. The less that is said of Catholic and Protestant the better.

It would be presumptuous to form an opinion, or even a sanguine hope,

in so short a time, yet I cannot but think there is much reciprocal

inclination to get rid of the bugbear, and soften down asperities. I

am by no means sure that even the most violent would not be glad of

an excuse for being less violent. Even at the Association they are

at a loss to keep up the extreme irritation they had accomplished;

and if they find they are not violently opposed, and that there is

no disposition on the part of Government to coercion, I do believe

they will dwindle into moderation. If, however, we have a mind to

have a good blaze again, we may at once command it by re-enacting the

expiring Bill, and when we have improved it and rendered it perfect,

we shall find that it will not be acted upon. In short, I shall back

Messrs. O'Connell's and Sheil's, and others' evasions against the Crown

lawyers' laws."

[Illustration: LORD BYRON.]

Mr. Lamb, the Chief Secretary, wrote to Mr. Peel to the same effect.

The Act, he said, had failed in fulfilling its main object, as well

as every other advantageous purpose. To re-enact it would irritate

all parties, and expose the Ministry to odium. He alluded to sources

of dissension that were springing up in the Roman Catholic body,

particularly the jealousy excited in the Roman Catholic prelates by

the power which the Association had assumed over the parochial clergy.

On the whole, his advice was against renewing the Statute. On the 12th

of April Lord Anglesey wrote a memorandum on the subject, in which

he pointed out the impolicy of any coercive measure, which, to be

effective, must interfere with the right of public meeting, and make a

dangerous inroad on the Constitution, at the same time displaying the

weakness of the Government, which is shown in nothing more than passing

strong measures which there was not vigour to enforce. His information

led him to believe that the higher orders of the Roman Catholic clergy

had long felt great jealousy of the ascendency that the leaders of the

Association had assumed over the lower priesthood. Besides, many of

the most respectable of the Catholic landlords were irritated at their

tenantry for continuing to pay the Catholic rent, contrary to their

injunctions; and sooner or later he believed the poorer contributors

must consider the impost as onerous, arbitrary, and oppressive. These

matters he regarded as seeds of dissolution, which would be more than

neutralised by any coercive attempt to put down the Association. He

felt confident that no material mischief could result from allowing

the Act quietly to expire, supported as the Government was by "the

powerful aid of that excellent establishment, the constabulary force,

already working the greatest benefit, and capable of still further

improvement, and protected as this force was by an efficient army, ably

commanded."

In answer to some queries submitted to the Attorney-General, Mr. Joy,

he stated that when the old Association was suppressed, the balance of

Catholic rent in the treasury was £14,000. He showed how the existing

Act had been evaded, and how useless it was to attempt to prevent the

agitation by any coercive measure. They held "fourteen days' meetings,"

and it was amusing to read the notices convening those meetings, which

always ran thus:--"A fourteen days' meeting will be held, pursuant

to Act of Parliament"--as if the Act had enjoined and required such

meetings. Then there were aggregate meetings, and other "separate

meetings," which were manifestly a continuation of the Association. The

same members attended, and the same routine was observed. They also

held simultaneous parochial meetings, by which the people were gathered

into a solid and perilous confederacy.

On the 8th of May the Catholic claims were again brought forward by Sir

Francis Burdett, who moved for a committee of the whole House, "with a

view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive

to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of

the Protestant Establishment, and to the general satisfaction and

concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects." The debate, which

was animated and interesting, continued for three days. On a division,

the motion for a committee was carried by 272 against 266, giving a

majority of six only. But in the preceding Session a similar motion

had been lost by a majority of four. On the 16th of the same month

Sir Francis moved that the resolution be communicated to the Lords in

a free conference, and that their concurrence should be requested.

This being agreed to, the conference was held, and the resolution was

reported to the Lords, who took it into consideration on the 9th of

June. The debate, which lasted two days, was opened by the Marquis of

Lansdowne. The Duke of Wellington opposed the resolution, which was

lost by a majority of 181 to 137.

Mr. Lamb had retired with Mr. Huskisson, sending in his resignation

to the Duke of Wellington, and was succeeded as Chief Secretary by

Lord Francis Gower, afterwards Lord Ellesmere. Among the offices

vacated in consequence of the recent schism in the Government, was

that of President of the Board of Trade, which was accepted by

Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, one of the members for the county Clare. He

was consequently obliged to offer himself for re-election to his

constituents, and this led to the memorable contest which decided the

question of Catholic Emancipation.

This contest excited universal interest. Mr. O'Connell, the Roman

Catholic candidate, was not unknown in England. He had come to London

as the leading member of a deputation to urge the concession of

Catholic Emancipation upon the Government and the legislature, when

he met a number of the leading statesmen of the day at the house of

the Duke of Norfolk. He had been examined by a committee of the Lords,

together with Dr. Doyle, in 1825, on which occasion the ability he

displayed, his extensive and accurate knowledge, his quickness in

answering, and the clearness with which he conveyed information,

excited the admiration of all parties. In the appeal case of Scully

_versus_ Scully he pleaded before Lord Eldon. It was the first time

he had appeared in his forensic character in England. No sooner had

he risen to address their lordships than it was buzzed about the

precincts of Westminster, and persons of all descriptions crowded

in with anxious curiosity to witness the display, including several

peers and members of Parliament. He addressed their lordships for

nearly two hours, during which the Lord Chancellor paid him great

attention, though he had only thirty-three hours before carried

the House of Lords with him in rejecting the Bill by which the

great advocate would have been admitted to the full privileges of

citizenship. Referring to this subject, Lord Eldon wrote in his diary,

"Mr. O'Connell pleaded as a barrister before me in the House of Lords

on Thursday. His demeanour was very proper, but he did not strike me

as shining so much in argument as might be expected from a man who

has made so much noise in his harangues in a seditious association."

Lord Eldon's opinion was evidently tinged by the recollection of the

"seditious harangues." It is a curious fact that the leading counsel

on that occasion on the same side was Sir Charles Wetherell, then

Solicitor-General. The English admired the rich tones of O'Connell's

voice, his clear and distinct articulation, his legal ingenuity, and

the readiness with which he adapted himself to the tribunal before

which he pleaded. One of the best speeches he ever made was delivered

at the great meeting of the British Catholic Association, the Duke

of Norfolk presiding. He astonished his auditory on that occasion.

In fact, he was regarded as a lion in London. He won golden opinions

wherever he went by his blandness, vivacity, and wit in private, and

his lofty bearing in public. His commanding figure, his massive chest,

and his broad, good-humoured face, with thought and determination

distinctly marked in his physiognomy, showed that he had the _physique_

of a great leader of the masses, while he proved himself amongst

his colleagues not more powerful in body than in mind and will. The

confidence reposed in him in Ireland was unbounded. He was indeed the

most remarkable of all the men who had ever advocated the Catholic

claims; the only one of their great champions fit to be a popular

leader. Curran and Grattan were feeble and attenuated in body, and

laboured under physical deficiencies, if the impulsive genius of the

one or the fastidious pride of the other would have permitted them

to be demagogues; O'Connell had all the qualities necessary for that

character in perfection--unflinching boldness, audacious assertion,

restless motion, soaring ambition, untiring energy, exquisite tact,

instinctive sagacity, a calculating, methodising mind, and a despotic

will. He was by no means scrupulous in matters of veracity, and he was

famous for his powers of vituperation; but, as he was accustomed to say

himself, he was "the best abused man in Ireland."

It was seldom that his name was missed from the leaders of Conservative

journals, and he was the great object of attack at the meetings of

the Brunswick Clubs, which were called into existence to resist the

Catholic Association. But of all his assailants, none dealt him more

terrible blows than the venerable Henry Grattan, the hero of 1782.

"Examine their leader," he exclaimed, "Mr. O'Connell. He assumes a

right to direct the Catholics of Ireland. He advises, he harangues,

and he excites; he does not attempt to allay the passions of a warm

and jealous people. Full of inflammatory matter, his declamations

breathe everything but harmony; venting against Great Britain the

most disgusting calumny, falsehood, and treachery, equalled only by

his impudence, describing her as the most stupid, the most dishonest

nation that ever existed. A man that could make the speeches he has

made, utter the sentiments he has uttered, abuse the characters he has

abused, praise the characters he has praised, violate the promises he

has violated, propose such votes and such censures as he has proposed,

can have little regard for private honour or for public character; he

cannot comprehend the spirit of liberty, and he is unfitted to receive

it."

There is in all this much of the splenetic jealousy of an aged invalid

towards a vigorous competitor, who has outstripped him in the race.

O'Connell excited much hostility amongst the friends of Emancipation

by his opposition to the veto which they were willing to give to the

British Crown on the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops by the

Court of Rome. But the more antagonists he had, and the more battles

he fought, the greater was his hold on the Roman Catholic priests

and people. His power had arrived at its greatest height when the

Canningites left the Ministry, and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald came to

Ireland to seek the suffrages of the Clare electors as an influential

member of the Government. At first, no one had the least doubt of his

triumphant return. He had been popular as Chancellor of the Exchequer

in Ireland; he was a steady friend of Catholic Emancipation, for which

he had always voted; he was personally popular; the gentry of the

county were almost to a man devoted to him. It appears that O'Connell

had at first no idea of starting against him. The proposal is said to

have originated with Sir David Roose, who, having accidentally met Mr.

P. V. Fitzpatrick on the 22nd of June, remarked that O'Connell ought

to offer himself for Clare. Mr. Fitzpatrick then recollected having

often heard Mr. John Keogh, of Mount Jerome, who had been the Catholic

leader for many years, express his conviction that Emancipation would

never be granted till a Catholic was elected a member of Parliament.

If, when returned by a constituency, he was not permitted to take his

seat because he would not violate his conscience by swearing what he

did not believe, John Bull, who is jealous of constitutional rights,

would resent this wrong, and would require the oath to be altered for

the sake of the constituency. The moment this thought occurred to Mr.

Fitzpatrick, he ran to O'Connell and begged of him to stand for Clare.

They went to the office of the _Dublin Evening Post_, and there, in

presence of Mr. F. W. Conway, the address to the electors was written.

Still O'Connell shrank from the contest on account of the enormous

cost. "You know," he said, "that, so far from being in circumstances

to meet that outlay from my own resources, I am encumbered with

heavy liabilities beyond my power of discharging. You are the only

person with whom I am acquainted who knows intimately the Catholic

aristocracy and men of wealth. Would you undertake to sound them as

to funds for the contest?" Fitzpatrick answered, "I will undertake

it, and I am confident of success." Within an hour he got three men

of wealth to put down their names for £100 each. The four then went

round to the principal Catholics of Dublin, and during the day they

got £1,600 from sixteen persons. The country followed the example of

the metropolis so liberally that £14,000 was raised within a week, and

money continued to flow in during the contest. The supplies, however,

were not sufficient for the enormous demand, and in the heat of the

contest a messenger was sent posthaste to Cork, and in an incredibly

short space of time returned with £1,000 from Mr. Jerry Murphy, who

himself subscribed £300, and got the remainder from its patriotic

inhabitants. The sum of £5,000 had been voted by the Association for

the expenses of the election. They had been very anxious to get a

candidate to oppose Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, and a popular Protestant,

Major Macnamara, had been requested to come forward, but he declined on

the ground of his personal obligations to the Ministerial candidate.

Indeed, there were few of the smaller gentry in the county on whom he

had not conferred favours by the liberal distribution of places among

their sons. The Roman Catholic gentry were quite as much indebted to

him as the Protestants, and they were not ungrateful, for they stood

by him on the hustings almost to a man. Mr. O'Connell was preceded by

two friends, Tom Steel and O'Gorman Mahon; the former a Protestant,

the other a Roman Catholic: both men remarkable for their chivalrous

bearing, and a dashing, reckless spirit, which takes with the Irish

peasantry. A third agitator entered the field in the person of honest

Jack Lawless, another leading member of the Association, and one of

its most effective speakers. This band was soon joined by Father Tom

Maguire, a famous controversialist, from the county of Leitrim, who

had just been engaged in a discussion with the Rev. Mr. Pope, and was

hailed by the peasantry as the triumphant champion of their faith.

There was also a barrister, Mr. Dominick Ronayne, who spoke the Irish

language, and who, throwing an educated mind into the powerful idiom

of the country, produced great effects upon the passions of the

people. Mr. Sheil, second only to O'Connell in energy and influence,

and superior to him in the higher attributes of the orator, in the

fiery temperament and imaginative faculty which constitute genius,

flung himself into the arena with the greatest ardour. On the Sunday

previous to the election each of these agitators was dispatched to

a chapel situated in a district which was the stronghold of one or

other of the most popular landlords, for the purpose of haranguing the

people after mass, and rousing their enthusiasm to the highest pitch.

Mr. Sheil went to a place called Corrofin, situated in a mountainous

district, the property of Sir Edward O'Brien, father of Mr. Smith

O'Brien, who drove to the place in his carriage, drawn by four horses.

There he saw the whole population congregated, having advanced from

the rocky hills in large bands, waving green boughs, and preceded by

fifes and pipers. The hitherto popular landlord was received in solemn

silence, while his antagonist, Mr. Sheil, was hailed with rapturous

applause. Sir Edward O'Brien consequently lost heart, and, leaving

his phaeton opposite the chapel-door, went to church. Mr. Sheil gives

a graphic description of Father Murphy, the priest of this rudely

constructed mountain chapel. His form was tall, slender, and emaciated;

"his ample hand was worn to a skinny meagretude; his face was long,

sunken, and cadaverous, but was illuminated by eyes blazing with all

the fire of genius and the enthusiasm of religion; his lank black hair

fell down in straight lines along a lofty forehead. The sun was shining

with brilliancy, and rendered his figure, attired as it was in white

garments, more conspicuous. The scenery about was in harmony--it was

wild and desolate." This priest met the envoy of the Association on

the threshold of his mountain temple, and hailed him with a solemn

greeting. After mass the priest delivered an impassioned harangue. The

spirit of sarcasm gleamed over his features, and shouts of laughter

attended his description of a miserable Catholic who should prove

recreant to the great cause by making a sacrifice of his country to his

landlord. "The close of his speech," says Mr. Sheil, "was peculiarly

effective. He became inflamed by the power of his emotions, and, while

he raised himself into the loftiest attitude to which he could ascend,

he laid one hand on the altar and shook the other in the spirit of

almost prophetic admonition, and, while his eyes blazed and seemed

to start from his forehead, thick drops fell down his face, and his

voice rolled through lips livid with passion and covered with foam.

It is almost unnecessary to say that such an appeal was irresistible.

The multitude burst into shouts of acclamation, and would have been

ready to mount a battery roaring with cannon at his command. Two days

afterwards the results were felt at the hustings, and while Sir Edward

O'Brien stood aghast, Father Murphy marched into Ennis at the head of

his tenantry, and polled them to a man in favour of Daniel O'Connell."

The way having been thus prepared, Mr. O'Connell proceeded to the

scene of the contest. On the day of his departure his carriage, with

four horses, drove into the yard of the Four Courts, where he had been

engaged on an important trial. Having concluded his address to the

judges, he put off his wig and gown, and proceeded through the hall,

where he was followed by the lawyers and the persons from the different

courts, so that the judges were deserted. Stepping into his open

barouche, accompanied by Mr. P. O'Gorman, secretary of the Association,

Mr. R. Scott, solicitor, and Father Murphy, the celebrated parish

priest of Corrofin, he drove off amidst the cheers of all present. The

greatest possible excitement prevailed along the whole route, and he

enjoyed an ovation at every town he passed through. At Ennis, though he

entered the town by daybreak, the traders and the inhabitants turned

out in procession to meet him. Priests swarmed in all the streets,

and in every face there was an unconcealed expression of joyous and

exulting triumph.

[Illustration: THE CLARE CONTEST: FATHER MURPHY LEADING HIS TENANTS TO

THE POLL. (_See p._ 273.)]

The court-house on the day of nomination presented a striking scene.

On the left hand of the sheriff stood a Cabinet Minister, attended

by the whole body of the aristocracy and gentry, Protestant and

Catholic, of the county Clare. On the right stood Mr. O'Connell, with

scarcely a single gentleman by his side. But he was "the man of the

people" and of the priests, and so he was master of the situation.

Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald was proposed by Sir Edward O'Brien, and seconded

by Sir A. Fitzgerald. The Ministerial candidate first addressed the

freeholders. He was an accomplished gentleman and an excellent speaker.

Mr. Sheil, who was present, remarked that he delivered one of the

most effective and dexterous speeches it had ever been his fortune to

hear. His venerable father, who had voted against the Union in the

Irish Parliament, was now on his death-bed, and the knowledge of the

contest had been kept from him, lest the excitement should hasten his

departure. In alluding to him, and to his own services to the county,

Mr. Fitzgerald's eyes filled with tears, and there were few amongst his

opponents, excited as they were against him, who did not give the same

evidence of emotion; and when he sat down, although the great majority

of the audience were strongly opposed to him, and were enthusiasts

in favour of the rival candidate, a loud and unanimous burst of

acclamation shook the court-house.

Mr. O'Connell rose to address the people in reply. It was manifest that

he considered great exertion to be requisite in order to do away with

the impression which his antagonist had produced. It was clear, to

those who were acquainted with the workings of his physiognomy, that

he was collecting all his might. Mr. O'Connell bore Mr. Fitzgerald

no sort of personal aversion, but he determined, in this exigency,

to have little mercy on his feelings, and to employ all the power of

vituperation of which he was possessed against him. "This," remarks Mr.

Sheil, "was absolutely necessary; for if more dexterous fencing had

been resorted to by Mr. O'Connell, many might have gone away with the

opinion that, after all, Mr. Fitzgerald had been thanklessly treated

by the Catholic body. It was, therefore, disagreeably requisite to

render him for the moment odious. Mr. O'Connell began by awakening the

passions of the multitude in an attack on Mr. Fitzgerald's allies. Mr.

Gore had lauded him highly. This Mr. Gore is of Cromwellian descent,

and the people detest the memory of the Protector to this day. There

is a tradition (I know not whether it has the least foundation) that

the ancestor of this gentleman's family was a nailer by trade in the

Puritan army. Mr. O'Connell, without any direct reference to the fact,

used a set of metaphors, such as 'striking the nail on the head,'

'putting a nail into a coffin,' which at once recalled the associations

which were attached to the name of Mr. Gore, and roars of laughter

assailed that gentleman on every side. Mr. Gore has the character of

being not only very opulent, but of bearing regard to his possessions

proportionate to their extent. Nothing is so unpopular as prudence

in Ireland; and Mr. O'Connell rallied Mr. Gore to such a point upon

this head, and that of his supposed origin, that the latter completely

sank under the attack. He next proceeded to Mr. Fitzgerald, and having

thrown in a picture of the late Mr. Perceval, he turned round, and

asked of the rival candidate with what face he could call himself their

friend, when the first act of his political life was to enlist himself

under the banners of 'the bloody Perceval'? This violent epithet was

sent into the hearts of the people with a force of expression and a

furious vehemence of will that created a great sensation amongst the

crowd, and turned the tide against Mr. Fitzgerald."

It was necessary that Roman Catholic electors should take an oath

and obtain a certificate of their having done so from a magistrate.

The friends of Mr. Fitzgerald insisted that this oath should be

taken, which caused considerable delay; but a magistrate having been

obtained, the freeholders were sworn _en masse_. Brought into a yard,

enclosed within four walls, twenty-five voters were placed against

each wall, and thus the oath was simultaneously taken. The effects of

this machinery upon the poll soon became manifest. Mr. O'Connell ran

ahead of his opponent, and on the second day the result was no longer

doubtful. Mr. Fitzgerald would have abandoned the contest, but the

landlords resolved that the last man whom they could command should

be polled out. They exerted themselves to the utmost to prevent the

defection of their tenantry. The most influential of them had their

freeholders mustered in a body, and came forward to the hustings at

their head, exhorting, promising, threatening, reminding them of past

favours, and hinting at the consequences of forsaking their best

friends and natural protectors; but the moment O'Connell or a priest

appeared--shouting: "Vote for your country, boys!" "Vote for the old

religion!" "Down with Vesey!" "Hurrah for O'Connell!"--they changed

sides to a man, with a wild, responsive cheer. One priest, Father

Coffey, adhered to Mr. Fitzgerald. "But," says Mr. Sheil, "the scorn

and detestation with which he was treated by the mob clearly proved

that a priest has no influence over them when he attempts to run

counter to their political passions. He can hurry them on in the career

in which their own feelings impel them, but he cannot turn them into

another course." The generality of the orators were heard with loud

and clamorous approbation; but at a late hour one evening, when it

was growing rapidly dark, a priest came forward on the platform, who

addressed the multitude in Irish. Ten thousand peasants were assembled

before the speaker, and a profound stillness hung over the almost

breathless mass. For some minutes they continued thus deeply attentive,

and seemed to be struck with awe as he proceeded. Suddenly the priest

and the whole multitude knelt down with the precision of a regimental

evolution. Priest and people were both silent, but they were offering

up a mental prayer for mercy on the soul of one of Vesey Fitzgerald's

voters, who had died that day, and had been accused of taking a bribe.

The polling, which lasted five days, at length closed. The court-house

was again crowded, as on the first day. Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald appeared

again at the head of the aristocracy, and Mr. O'Connell at the head

of the priests and the "Forties." The moment the latter was declared

by the sheriff duly elected, the first Roman Catholic M.P. since

the Revolution, a friend presented him with a letter to be franked.

Addressed to a member of the House of Commons, it was posted that

night, and when it arrived at its destination it was handed about

amongst the members, exciting curiosity and astonishment. It was said

also to have found its way to the king, who probably felt thankful that

his brother, the Duke of York, did not live to see "Daniel O'Connell,

M.P." Mr. O'Connell made a speech, distinguished by just feeling and

good taste, and begged that Mr. Fitzgerald would forgive him if he had

on the first day given him any sort of offence. Mr. Fitzgerald came

forward, and unaffectedly assured him that whatever was said should

be forgotten. He was again hailed with universal acclamation, and

delivered an admirable speech. During the progress of the election he

could not refrain from repeatedly expressing his astonishment at what

he saw, and from indulging in melancholy forebodings of events of which

these incidents were perhaps but the heralds. "Where is all this to

end?" was a question frequently put in his presence, and from which he

seemed to shrink.

There was, however, no violation of the peace, which Lord Anglesey had

taken effective measures to preserve. He had placed at the disposal of

Major Warburton 47 artillery, with two 6-pounders; 120 cavalry, and 415

infantry. These were at Clare Castle, close at hand; within a few miles

there were 183 cavalry, and 1,313 infantry; within thirty-six miles, 28

cavalry, 1,367 infantry, and two 6-pounders; and at a farther distance

there was a regiment of cavalry and above 800 infantry. There were

besides, on duty at Ennis, 300 of the constabulary.

Mr. Peel's reflections on the Clare election are deeply interesting.

"It afforded," he writes, in his Memoirs, "a decisive proof, not only

that the instrument on which the Protestant proprietor had hitherto

mainly relied for the maintenance of his political influence had

completely failed him, but that, through the combined exertions of

the agitator and the priest--or, I should rather say, through the

contagious sympathies of a common cause among all classes of the Roman

Catholic population--the instrument of defence and supremacy had

been converted into a weapon fatal to the authority of the landlord.

However men might differ as to the consequences which ought to follow

the event, no one denied its vast importance. It was seen by the most

intelligent that the Clare election would be the turning-point in the

Catholic question--the point--

"'Partes ubi se via findit in ambas.'"

The Home Secretary thus refers to a letter of Lord Eldon, written to

his daughter soon after the event, as follows:--"After observing,

'Nothing is talked of now which interests anybody the least in the

world, except the election of Mr. O'Connell,' he makes these memorable

remarks:--'As Mr. O'Connell will not, though elected, be allowed to

take his seat in the House of Commons unless he will take the oaths,

etc. (and that he won't do unless he can get absolution), his rejection

from the Commons may excite rebellion in Ireland. At all events, this

business must bring the Roman Catholic question, which has been so

often discussed, to a crisis and a conclusion. The nature of that

conclusion I do not think likely to be favourable to Protestantism.' It

is clear, therefore," continues Mr. Peel, "that Lord Eldon was fully

alive to the real character and magnitude of the event."

Mr. Peel publishes the letters that passed between him and Mr.

Fitzgerald while the election was pending, and from these it would

appear that the latter thought the contest would be violent and

exasperated. After the fight was over, he said he had polled the

gentry to a man, and all the fifty-pound freeholders. The organisation

which had been shown was so complete and formidable that no man could

contemplate without alarm what was to follow in that wretched country.

Mr. Peel observes:--"The last letter of Mr. Fitzgerald is especially

worthy of remark. Can there be a doubt that the example of the county

would have been all-powerful in the case of every future election in

Ireland for those counties in which a Roman Catholic constituency

preponderated? It is true that Mr. O'Connell was the most formidable

competitor whom Mr. Fitzgerald could have encountered; it is possible

that that which took place in Clare would not have taken place had

any other man than Mr. O'Connell been the candidate; but he must be

blind, indeed, to the natural progress of events, and to the influence

of example, in times of public excitement, on the feelings and passions

of men, who could cherish the delusive hope that the instrument of

political power, shivered to atoms in the county of Clare, would still

be wielded with effect in Cork or Galway.

"The Clare election supplied the manifest proof of an abnormal and

unhealthy condition of the public mind in Ireland--the manifest proof

that the sense of a common grievance and the sympathies of a common

interest were beginning to loosen the ties which connect different

classes of men in friendly relations to each other, to weaken the force

of local and personal attachments, and to unite the scattered elements

of society into a homogeneous and disciplined mass, yielding willing

obedience to the assumed authority of superior intelligence hostile

to the law and to the Government which administered it. There is a

wide distinction (though it is not willingly recognised by a heated

party) between the hasty concession to unprincipled agitation and

provident precaution against the explosion of public feeling gradually

acquiring the strength which makes it irresistible. 'Concede nothing

to agitation,' is the ready cry of those who are not responsible--the

vigour of whose decisions is often proportionate to their own personal

immunity from danger, and imperfect knowledge of the true state

of affairs. A prudent Minister, before he determines against all

concession--against any yielding or compromise of former opinions--must

well consider what it is that he has to resist, and what are his powers

of resistance. His task would be an easy one if it were sufficient to

resolve that he would yield nothing to violence or to the menace of

physical force. In this case of the Clare election, and of its natural

consequences, what was the evil to be apprehended? Not force, not

violence, not any act of which law could take cognisance. The real

danger was in the peaceable and legitimate exercise of a franchise

according to the will and conscience of the holder. In such an exercise

of that franchise, not merely permitted, but encouraged and approved

by constitutional law, was involved a revolution of the electoral

system in Ireland--the transfer of political power, so far as it was

connected with representation, from one party to another. The actual

transfer was the least of the evil; the process by which it was to be

effected--the repetition in each county of the scenes of the Clare

election--the fifty-pound free-holders, the gentry to a man polling

one way, their alienated tenantry another--all the great interests of

the county broken down--'the universal desertion' (I am quoting the

expressions of Mr. Fitzgerald)--the agitator and the priest laughing to

scorn the baffled landlord--the local heaving and throes of society on

every casual vacancy in a county--the universal convulsion at a general

election--this was the danger to be apprehended; those were the evils

to be resisted. What was the power of resistance? 'Alter the law, and

remodel the franchise,' was the ready, the improvident response. If it

had been desired to increase the strength of a formidable confederacy,

and, by rallying round it the sympathies of good men and of powerful

parties in Great Britain, to insure for it a signal triumph, to

extinguish the hope of effecting an amicable adjustment of the Catholic

question, and of applying a corrective to the real evils and abuses of

elective franchise, the best way to attain these pernicious ends would

have been to propose to Parliament, on the part of the Government, the

abrupt extinction of the forty-shilling franchise in Ireland, together

with the continued maintenance of civil disability."

"I well know that there are those upon whom such considerations

as these to which I have been adverting will make but a faint

impression. Their answer to all such appeals is the short, in their

opinion the conclusive, declaration--'The Protestant Constitution

in Church and State must be maintained at all hazards, and by any

means; the maintenance of it is a question of principle, and every

concession or compromise is the sacrifice of principle to a low and

vulgar expediency.' This is easily said; but how was Ireland to be

governed? How was the Protestant Constitution in Church and State to

be maintained in that part of the empire? Again I can anticipate the

reply--'By the overwhelming sense of the people of Great Britain; by

the application, if necessary, of physical force for the maintenance of

authority; by the employment of the organised strength of Government,

the police and the military, to enforce obedience to the law.'"

[Illustration: DANIEL O'CONNELL. (_After the Portrait by Sir David

Wilkie._)]

Then--by a process of argument so close, so logical, as to amount to

a demonstration--Sir Robert Peel meets this objection, and shows that

the proposals of the Conservative party afforded no solution of the

real difficulty. Granted that the overwhelming sense of the people of

Great Britain was against concession, what aid could they afford in the

daily, practical administration of the law in Ireland? If seditious

libels were to be punished, or illegal confederacies, dangerous to the

public peace, to be suppressed, the offenders could only be corrected

and checked through the intervention of an Irish jury, little disposed,

if fairly selected, to defer in times of political excitement to the

authority of English opinion. But the real difficulty to be surmounted

was not the violation of the law; it lay, rather, in the novel exercise

of constitutional franchises, in the application of powers recognised

and protected by the law, the power of speech, the power of meeting

in public assemblies, the systematic and not unlawful application of

all these powers to one definite purpose--namely, the organisation of

a force which professed to be a moral force, but had for its object

to encroach, step by step, on the functions of regular government,

to paralyse its authority, and to acquire a strength which might

ultimately render irresistible the demand for civil equality. If, then,

Irish agitation could not be repressed through the action of Irish

juries, if the agitators kept strictly within the letter of the law,

so that even a conviction by an Irish jury might be pronounced, by

the highest legal authorities in England, an Act making trial by jury

"a mockery, a delusion, and a snare," how was the public opinion of

England and Scotland to be brought to bear in putting down the popular

will in Ireland? It could be done only through the Imperial Parliament,

by having a law passed to suspend or abolish the Constitution in

Ireland. But the existing Parliament could not be got to pass any such

measure, for the House of Commons had just voted that the proper way

to put down agitation in Ireland was to grant Catholic Emancipation;

and that the remedy of establishing civil equality ought to be tried

without delay. Was there any hope that a dissolution of Parliament

would produce different results? No; for at the general election of

1826, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, and Devonshire

sent representatives to Parliament, a majority of whom voted against

the maintenance of Protestant ascendency in Ireland. The members for

London, for Liverpool, for Norwich, for Coventry, for Leicester, were

equally divided on the question; while the members for Westminster,

Southwark, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Preston, Chester, and Derby voted

unanimously for concession. Now, the Parliament which assumed this

Liberal complexion had been elected in circumstances calculated to

call forth the strongest manifestation of Protestant feeling; for it

was only the previous year that, after long discussion and a severe

contest, the Commons had sent up to the Lords, by a majority of

twenty-one, a Bill for the repeal of Roman Catholic disabilities. Then,

with regard to Ireland, what would have been the effect of a general

election there? Would not the example of Clare have been imitated in

every county and borough where the Roman Catholic electors were the

majority? And what would have been the effect of such an attempt on the

public peace? Probably, to involve the whole island in the horrors of

a civil and religious war; to be followed by another penal code.

Referring to the means at the disposal of Government for putting

down the agitations by military force, Peel has this remarkable

passage:--"This is a very delicate matter to discuss; but why have I

deferred for twenty years this vindication of my conduct? Why have

I consented to submit for that long period to every reproach which

malice, or mistake, or blindness to the real state of affairs could

direct against me, except in the hope that the time would come (I cared

little whether I were in the grave or not when it should come) when

delicate matters might safely be discussed, and when, without prejudice

to the public interests, or offence to private feelings, the whole

truth might be spoken? I deliberately affirm that a Minister of the

Crown, responsible at the time of which I am speaking for the public

peace and the public welfare, would have grossly and scandalously

neglected his duty if he had failed to consider whether it might not

be possible that the fever of political and religious excitement

which was quickening the pulse and fluttering the bosom of the whole

Catholic population--which had inspired the serf of Clare with the

resolution and energy of a free man--which had, in the twinkling of

an eye, made all considerations of personal gratitude, ancient family

connection, local preferences, the fear of worldly injury, the hope of

worldly advantage, subordinate to the all-absorbing sense of religious

obligation and public duty--whether, I say, it might not be possible

that the contagion of that feverish excitement might spread beyond the

barriers which, under ordinary circumstances, the habits of military

obedience and the strictness of military discipline opposed to all such

external influences."

The chief governor of Ireland, at that time, was no timid civilian.

He was a brave and distinguished soldier--a man of chivalrous honour

himself, and therefore not prone to entertain doubts injurious to

the honour of the profession of which he was an ornament. But Lord

Anglesey was also capable of estimating the force of popular contagious

influences on military discipline and fidelity in an extraordinary

national crisis; and he was so alarmed at the state of things

developed by the Clare election, that he wrote confidentially to Mr.

Peel, cautioning him against supposing that Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald,

from vexation and disappointment, should exaggerate the danger of

the crisis, and telling him that he would send Major Warburton on

a secret mission, known only to his private secretary, to explain

to the Government in London the state of affairs. Major Warburton,

a very intelligent and trustworthy officer, was at the head of the

constabulary, and commanded the force at Clare during the election.

He testified, as the result of his observation there, that, even in

the constabulary and the army, the sympathies of a common cause,

political and religious, could not be altogether repressed, and that

implicit reliance could not long be placed on the effect of discipline

and the duty of obedience. On the 20th of July Lord Anglesey wrote

as follows:--"We hear occasionally of the Catholic soldiers being

ill-disposed, and entirely under the influence of the priests. One

regiment of infantry is said to be divided into Orange and Catholic

factions. It is certain that, on the 12th of July, the guard at the

Castle had Orange lilies about them." On the 26th of July the Viceroy

wrote another letter, from which the following is an extract:--"The

priests are using very inflammatory language, and are certainly working

upon the Catholics of the army. I think it important that the depôts

of Irish recruits should be gradually removed, under the appearance of

being required to join their regiments, and that whatever regiments are

sent here should be those of Scotland, or, at all events, of men not

recruited from the south of Ireland. I desired Sir John Byng to convey

this opinion to Lord Hill."

In the meantime, Mr. Peel had, in the previous month, communicated

with the Duke of Wellington, and intimated his wish to retire from

the Cabinet, and from the leadership of the House of Commons, in

consequence of his being in the minority upon a question which, of all

others, most deeply affected the condition and prospects of Ireland,

with the government of which he was charged as Home Secretary. The

Duke of Wellington's sentiments did not differ from his as to the

embarrassment that must arise from divided counsels in the Cabinet.

The Duke also acted upon the earnest advice of Mr. Peel not to take a

course which would preclude an early settlement of the question. In the

debate on Lord Lansdowne's motion, on the 9th of June, that the Lords

should concur in the resolution passed by the House of Commons, the

Duke and Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst took part in the debate, and, though

they did not concur in the resolution, which was rejected by a majority

of 44, the general tenor of their speeches and of those of the bishops

led Lord Lansdowne to observe, in reply, that he thought the noble

lord on the woolsack and the noble duke must have had the intention of

conceding the Catholic claims, for no one knew better than they did the

danger of holding out expectations which could not be realised. The

Session of 1828 was closed by a Speech from the Throne on the 28th of

July. As only three weeks of the Session had to elapse after the Clare

election, Mr. O'Connell did not offer to take his seat, preferring to

make the most of the "M.P." in the work of agitation till the meeting

of Parliament in the spring. And, besides, he was probably aware that

he would have no opportunity of making a speech. If he appeared, the

Speaker would desire him to take the oaths required by law; and if he

declined, he would treat him as a stranger and intruder, and listen

to nothing he had to say. He could not be summoned to the House, and

compelled to attend, because he was not returned at a general election;

and it was thought better to let him enjoy his senatorial honours

unmolested for six months, than to enter, at the close of the Session,

into an irritating and protracted contest.

On the 2nd of July, in a letter to Lord Francis Leveson Gower, the

Viceroy gave his opinion of the state of Ireland in these terms:--"I

begin by premising that I hold in abhorrence the Association, the

agitators, the priests, and their religion; and I believe that not

many, _but that some_, of the bishops are mild, moderate, and anxious

to come to a fair and liberal compromise for the adjustment of the

points at issue. I think that these latter have very little, if any,

influence with the lower clergy and the population.

"Such is the extraordinary power of the Association, or, rather, of

the agitators, of whom there are many of high ability, of ardent

mind, of great daring (and if there was no Association, these men are

now too well known not to maintain their power under the existing

order of exclusion), that I am quite certain they could lead on the

people to open rebellion at a moment's notice; and their organisation

is such that in the hands of desperate and intelligent leaders they

would be extremely formidable. The hope, and indeed the probability,

of present tranquillity rests upon the forbearance and the not very

determined courage of O'Connell, and on his belief, as well as that

of the principal men amongst them, that they will carry their cause

by unceasing agitation, and by intimidation, without coming to blows.

I believe their success inevitable; that no power under heaven can

arrest its progress. There may be rebellion--you may put to death

thousands--you may suppress it, but it will only be to put off the

day of compromise; and, in the meantime, the country is still more

impoverished, and the minds of the people are, if possible, still

more alienated, and ruinous expense is entailed upon the empire. But

supposing that the whole evil was concentred in the Association, and

that, if that was suppressed, all would go smoothly, where is the man

who can tell me how to suppress it? Many cry out that the nuisance

must be abated--that the Government is supine--that the insolence of

the demagogues is intolerable; but I have not yet found one person

capable of pointing out a remedy. All are mute when you ask them to

define their proposition. All that even the most determined opposers

to Emancipation say is, that it is better to leave things as they are

than to risk any change. But will things remain as they are? Certainly

not. They are bad; they must get worse; and I see no possible means

of improving them but by depriving the demagogues of the power of

directing the people; and by taking Messrs. O'Connell, Sheil, and the

rest of them, from the Association, and placing them in the House of

Commons, this desirable object would be at once accomplished.

"The present order of things must not, cannot last. There are three

modes of proceeding: first, that of trying to go on as we have done;

secondly, to adjust the question by concession, and such guards as may

be deemed indispensable; thirdly, to put down the Association, and to

crush the power of the priests. The first I hold to be impossible. The

second is practicable and advisable. The third is only possible by

supposing that you can reconstruct the House of Commons, and to suppose

that is to suppose that you can totally alter the feelings of those

who send them there. I believe nothing short of the suspension of the

Habeas Corpus Act and martial law will effect the third proposition.

This would effect it during their operation, and, perhaps, for a short

time after they had ceased, and then every evil would return with

accumulated weight. But no House of Commons would consent to these

measures until there is open rebellion, and therefore till that occurs

it is useless to think of them. The second mode of proceeding is, then,

I conceive, the only practicable one; but the present is not propitious

to effect even this. I abhor the idea of truckling to the overbearing

Catholic demagogues. To make any movement towards conciliation under

the present excitement and system of terror would revolt me; but I do

most conscientiously, and after the most earnest consideration of the

subject, give it as my conviction that the first moment of tranquillity

should be seized to signify the intention of adjusting the question,

lest another period of calm should not present itself."

Lord Anglesey had expressed himself so strongly in his communications

with the Government, that he was afraid of being regarded by them as

a partisan. He deprecated giving the executive any additional powers,

though not without apprehensions of a rebellion, which he believed he

had sufficient force to quell, even in the improbable event of foreign

aid, upon which some of the Irish people might, however rashly, rely

for success. On the 20th of July he wrote: "It appears not improbable

there may be an attempt to introduce arms, and finally insurrection. I

am quite sure the disaffected are amply organised for the undertaking.

They are partially, but ill, armed. Pikes, however, to any amount, and

at very short notice, would be easily manufactured, if they are not

already made and secreted. Still, I cannot bring myself to believe

that the ruling characters are at all inclined to put their cause

to the test of arms; and if they do, I cannot imagine how, without

foreign aid--of which there appears no fear--they can calculate upon

success." The priests had become all silent and reserved, even

towards those with whom they had hitherto maintained confidential

intercourse. No money would tempt them to make a single disclosure, and

there was a general impression among them that some great event was

at hand. The law officers of the Crown had been consulted as to the

expediency of prosecuting some of the agitators for the most violent

of their speeches; but their advice was, that it could not be done

with any prospect of success, because their most exciting stimulants

were accompanied by declarations that they wished only to guard the

Government against insurrection, which only concession could prevent.

Such being the condition of Ireland, the position of the Government

was in the highest degree perplexing. The House of Commons was for

Emancipation; the Lords were opposed to it; the king was opposed to it.

The strength of political parties was nicely balanced in Parliament,

and strong political excitement prevailed on both sides of the Irish

Sea. Peel, in view of this state of affairs, says: "I maturely and

anxiously considered every point which required consideration, and

I formed a decision as to the obligation of public duty, of which I

may say with truth that it was wholly at variance with that which the

regard for my own personal interests or private feelings would have

dictated." His intention was to relinquish office; but he resolved not

to do so without placing on record his opinion that a complete change

of policy was necessary, that the Catholic question should no longer be

an open question, and that the whole condition of Ireland, political

and social, should be taken into consideration by the Cabinet,

precisely in the same manner in which every other question of grave

importance was considered, and with the same power to offer advice upon

it to the Sovereign. He also gave it as his decided opinion that there

was less evil and less danger in conceding the Catholic claims than in

persevering in the policy of resistance. He left London for Brighton

soon after the close of the Session, having made a previous arrangement

with the Duke of Wellington that he should send him a memorandum

explanatory of his views on the state of Ireland and on the Catholic

question, and that he should write to the Duke fully in reply. On the

9th of August the Duke wrote to him as follows:--"I now send you the

memorandum which I sent to the king on the state of Ireland, a letter

which I sent to him at the same time, his answer, a memorandum upon

the Roman Catholic question which I have since drawn up, and a letter

which I wrote yesterday to the Lord Chancellor."

[Illustration: THE FOUR COURTS, DUBLIN.]

The result of the Duke's deliberations upon the crisis and the duty

of Government respecting it was stated at length in an unpublished

manuscript, left in his own handwriting, and is probably a copy of the

memorandum sent to the king. The following is the substance of the

Duke's reflections as given in Mr. Gleig's "Life of Wellington":--

"The Government, if it should determine under existing circumstances

to maintain the statutes excluding Roman Catholics from power, must

ask for new laws, the old having quite broken down. They must bring

in a Bill requiring candidates for seats in Parliament to take at the

hustings the oaths of supremacy and allegiance; otherwise they could

not prevent Roman Catholics from contesting every vacant county and

borough in the United Kingdom, and from becoming _ipso facto_ members

of Parliament, should constituencies see fit to elect them. Practically

speaking, there might be small risk that either in England or Scotland

this result would follow--at least, to any extent. But what was to

be expected in Ireland? That every constituency, with the exception,

perhaps, of the university and city of Dublin, and of the counties and

boroughs of the north, would, whenever the opportunity offered, return

Roman Catholics; and that the members so returned being prevented

from taking their seats, three-fourths, at least, of the Irish people

must remain permanently unrepresented in Parliament. Was it possible,

looking to the state of parties in the House of Commons, that such

a measure, if proposed, could be carried? For many years back the

majorities in favour of repeal had gone on increasing, Session after

Session. Even the present Parliament, elected as it had been under a

strong Protestant pressure, had swerved from its faithfulness. The

small majority which threw out Lord John Russell's Bill in 1827 had

been converted, in 1828, into a minority; and among those who voted on

that occasion with Mr. Peel, many gave him warning that hereafter they

should consider themselves free to follow a different course.

"But perhaps it might be possible to get a Bill passed to disfranchise

the Irish forty-shilling freeholders--a class of voters who, as they

had been created for acknowledged purposes of corruption in the

Irish Parliament, would have nobody to stand up for them in high

places, now that they refused to play their patrons' game. This was

quite as improbable an issue as the other. The disfranchisement of

forty-shilling freeholders had, indeed, been talked of in former years;

but, if effected at all, it was to be in connection with a measure

of Catholic Emancipation. To propose it now for the avowed purpose

of rendering Catholic Emancipation impossible would be to insure the

rejection of the Bill. That plan, therefore, fell at once to the

ground; and there remained but two others.

"The Minister might ask Parliament for power to suspend the Habeas

Corpus Act, and to place all Ireland under military law. To ask for

less would be ridiculous; because the Act against unlawful assemblies

had failed, and, on account of its helplessness, was suffered to

expire. Now, would Parliament grant such extensive powers to any

Government merely that the Government might be enabled to debar his

Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects a little longer from enjoying

equal political privileges with Protestants? The issue was very

doubtful--perhaps it was not doubtful at all. Parliament would never

grant such powers. But, assuming that the powers were given, what must

follow?--a general insurrection, to be put down after much bloodshed

and suffering, and then a return to that state of sullen discontent

which would render Ireland, ten times more than she had ever been, a

millstone round the neck of Great Britain, and by-and-by, when military

law ceased, and the same measure of personal liberty was granted to

Irishmen which the natives of England and Scotland enjoyed, a renewal

of agitation, only in a more hostile spirit, and the necessity of

either reverting again and again to measures of coercion, or of

yielding at last what, upon every principle of humanity and common

sense, ought not to have been thus far withheld. But the Minister, if

the existing Parliament refused to give him the powers which he asked,

might dissolve, and go to the country with a strong Protestant cry; and

this cry might serve his purpose in England and Scotland. Doubtless;

but what would occur in Ireland?--the return of Roman Catholic members

in the proportion of four to one over Protestants, and the virtual

disfranchisement thereby of four-fifths of the Irish people. Would

Ireland submit quietly to any law carried against herself in a House

of Commons so constituted? Was it not much more probable that a

dissolution would only lead to the same results which had been shown to

be inevitable in the event of the existing Parliament acquiescing in

the Ministers' views? And was there not, at all events, a chance that

the electors, even, of England and Scotland, might refuse to abet a

policy so pregnant with danger to themselves and to the commonwealth?

But why move at all? Mr. O'Connell had been elected by the priests

and rabble of Clare to represent them in Parliament. Let him retain

this empty honour; or, better still, let him be summoned by a call of

the House to the bar, and, on his refusal to take the oaths, issue a

new writ, and go to a new election. In the first place, Mr. O'Connell

could not be forced to attend to a call of the House, such call being

obligatory only on members chosen at a general election; and in the

next, if he did attend, what then? As soon as the new writ was issued,

he would take the field again as a candidate, and again be elected; and

so the game would continue to be played, till a dissolution occurred,

when all those consequences of which we have elsewhere spoken would

inevitably come to pass."

Two courses were now open to the Duke of Wellington and to Peel--to

resign, in order that Emancipation might be carried by the statesmen

who had always been its advocates, and who might therefore carry

it without any violation of consistency or of their own political

principles. It was for not adopting this course that they were exposed

to all the odium which they so long endured. But the question was,

whether Lord Grey or Lord Lansdowne could have carried Catholic

Emancipation even with the aid of the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel

in opposition--could have overcome the repugnance of the Sovereign and

the resistance of the House of Lords. It was their decided conviction

that they could not, especially with due regard to the safety of the

Established Church. But being convinced that the time had come when

the question ought to be settled, the Duke examined the second course

that was open to him, and embraced it. It was this: that postponing all

other considerations to what he believed to be a great public duty, he

should himself, as Prime Minister, endeavour to settle the question.

Peel has been even more severely censured than the Duke of Wellington

for the part he took on this memorable occasion. He wrote a long

letter to the Duke, in which he earnestly protested against taking

charge of the Emancipation Bill in the House of Commons, offering,

at the same time, to give it his earnest support. He also offered to

resign, as a means of removing one obstacle to the adjustment which the

interests of the country demanded. The letter concluded as follows:

"I do not merely volunteer my retirement at whatever may be the most

convenient time, I do not merely give you the promise that out of

office (be the sacrifices that I foresee, private and public, what they

may) I will cordially co-operate with you in the settlement of this

question, and cordially support your Government; but I add to this my

decided and deliberate opinion that it will tend to the satisfactory

adjustment of the question if the originating of it in the House of

Commons and the general superintendence of its progress be committed

to other hands than mine." And in his "Memoirs" he remarks: "Twenty

years have elapsed since the above letter was written. I read it now

with the full testimony of my own heart and conscience to the perfect

sincerity of the advice which I then gave, and the declarations which

I then made; with the same testimony, also, to the fact that that

letter was written with a clear foresight of the penalties to which

the course I resolved to take would expose me--the rage of party,

the rejection by the University of Oxford, the alienation of private

friends, the interruption of family affections. Other penalties, such

as the loss of office and of royal favour, I would not condescend to

notice if they were not the heaviest in the estimation of vulgar and

low-minded men, incapable of appreciating higher motives of public

conduct. My judgment may be erroneous. From the deep interest I have

in the result (though now only so far as future fame is concerned), it

cannot be impartial; yet, surely, I do not err in believing that when

the various circumstances on which my decision was taken are calmly

and dispassionately considered--the state of political parties--the

recent discussions in Parliament--the result of the Clare election,

and the prospects which it opened--the earnest representations and

emphatic warnings of the chief governor of Ireland--the evils, rapidly

increasing, of divided counsels in the Cabinet, and of conflicting

decisions in the two Houses of Parliament--the necessity for some

systematic and vigorous course of policy in respect to Ireland--the

impossibility, even if it were wise, that that policy should be one of

coercion--surely, I do not err in believing that I shall not hereafter

be condemned for having heedlessly and precipitously, still less for

having dishonestly and treacherously, counselled the attempt to adjust

the long litigated question, that had for so many years precluded the

cordial co-operation of public men, and had left Ireland the arena for

fierce political conflicts, annually renewed, without the means of

authoritative interposition on the part of the Crown."

The state of Ireland continued to excite the greatest alarm from the

prorogation of Parliament to the end of the year. The language of the

speakers in the Association became more violent, and the harangues

of the priests more inflammatory. In the counties of Tipperary and

Limerick large bodies of men were accustomed to assemble on Sundays,

and to parade in military order, carrying banners. These bands were

regularly organised and admirably commanded. The Irish Government, from

time to time, reported the progress of this formidable organisation.

In one place as many as 700 "cavalry" would assemble, with thousands

of infantry, and go through military evolutions. These were surrounded

by thousands of the peasantry. Amongst the persons thus paraded were

some of the most abandoned characters in the country, men who had

notoriously been concerned in the perpetration of murder, and for the

apprehension of whom large rewards had been offered in vain by the

Government. These demonstrations, as might be expected, excited the

greatest alarm among the Protestants of the south, as well as the

peaceably disposed Roman Catholics. One ominous circumstance connected

with them was the fact that the dissuasions of the priests against the

meetings in military array were disregarded. Mr. Lawless, an active

member of the Association, marched northward at the head of 10,000

Roman Catholics. In the county of Monaghan, the Orangemen, apprised

of their approach, took possession of the town of Ballyhay in large

numbers, prepared to encounter the southern invaders of Ulster. As the

Orangemen were well armed, and excited to the utmost, a bloody battle

would have ensued, had not Lawless beaten a timely retreat. Getting out

of his carriage, and mounting a swift horse, he galloped off, amidst

the indignant shouts of his followers.

The formidable organisation of the Roman Catholics led to a counter

organisation of the Protestants, in the form of Brunswick Clubs. This

organisation embraced the whole of the Protestant peasantry, north and

south, the Protestant farmers, and many of the gentry. They, too, held

their regular meetings, had their exciting oratory, and passed strong

resolutions, condemnatory of the inaction of the Government, which

was charged with neglecting its first and most imperative duty--the

protection of society from lawless violence. The Brunswickers, as

well as the Emancipators, had their "rent" to bear the expenses of

the agitation. They alleged that they were obliged to organise in

self-defence, and in defence of the Constitution. In Ulster the country

was divided into two camps, Catholic and Protestant. Notwithstanding

the difference in numbers, the Protestants of Ulster were eager to

encounter their antagonists in the field, and had not the slightest

doubt of being able to beat them. They had all the proud confidence

of a dominant race, and regarded the military pretensions of their

antagonists as scornfully as the Turks would have regarded similar

pretensions on the part of the Greeks. The feeling on both sides was

such, that an aggression upon the Protestants in the south would have

called forth 100,000 armed men in the north; and an aggression upon

the Catholics in Ulster would have produced a similar effect among

the Catholics in Munster. The number of Protestants in favour of

Emancipation constituted but a small minority. The great mass were

against concession. They believed that an insurrection would be the

most satisfactory solution of the difficulty. With the aid of the army

they felt that they were able to crush the "Papists," as they had been

crushed in 1798, and then they hoped they would be quiet for at least

another generation, resuming what they considered their proper position

as "sole-leather." They forgot, however, the increase in their numbers,

their property, and their intelligence. They forgot the growth of a

middle class amongst them; the increased power and influence of the

hierarchy, and the formidable band of agitators supplied by the Roman

Catholic bar, whose members, many of them men of commanding abilities

and large practice, were excluded by their creed from the Bench; which

exclusion filled the minds of the ambitious with a burning sense of

wrong, and made it their interest to devise all possible modes of

evading the law, while keeping the country on the verge of insurrection.

So successful were they in this endeavour that the Government was

in a state of the greatest possible perplexity. Lord Anglesey,

the Viceroy, and Lord Leveson Gower, the Chief Secretary, were in

continual correspondence with the Home Secretary as to the propriety

of adopting measures of repression. Lord Anglesey was decided in his

conviction that Emancipation ought to be immediately granted. He

was naturally reluctant to employ force, unless it was imperatively

necessary, and then he felt with Mr. Peel that it ought to be used

effectively, whatever might be the consequences. Neither the Irish nor

the English Government concealed from itself what those consequences

would probably be--namely, an open rebellion, a sanguinary civil war;

which, however, they had no doubt of being able to put down. The law

officers of the Crown, both in England and Ireland, were called upon

for their opinions as to the illegality of the proceedings of the

agitators, as to the likelihood of success in case of prosecution, and

whether the Government would be warranted, by statute or common law, in

dispersing the popular assemblages by force. They agreed on both sides

of the channel that the case was not sufficiently clear to justify

the Government either in legal proceedings or military repression.

The English law officers came to this conclusion although at the time

Sir Charles Wetherell was Attorney-General. It is evident, however,

from the tone of the correspondence published by Sir Robert Peel's

executors, that the Home Secretary was far from being satisfied with

the conduct of Lord Anglesey. It was believed that he did not always

act with sufficient discretion, and that he sometimes did and said

things which made the agitators believe that they had his countenance

and support. For example, he went on a visit to Lord Cloncurry, who,

though a Protestant, was a member of the Catholic Association, and

who a few days after entertaining the representative of the king,

attended a meeting of that body. The excuse of Lord Anglesey was, that

Lord Cloncurry went for the purpose of preventing the passing of a

resolution in favour of exclusive dealing. The opinion of the English

Government was shared by Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald and many other Liberal

statesmen who sympathised with the irritation of the Irish Protestants

at the supineness of the Irish executive. Looking at the state of

things at this distance of time, every impartial person must agree that

Peel was right. He had urged the propriety of issuing a proclamation by

the Lord-Lieutenant in council, warning the people against assembling

in large bodies in military array, as exciting alarm in the public

mind, and threatening to disturb the peace. When at last Lord Anglesey

was induced to adopt this course, it proved successful. The agitators

became cowed and cautious, and it was quite evident that nothing was

further from their wishes than to come to blows, either with the

troops or the Brunswickers. Thus, in November, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald

wrote to Mr. Peel: "The sentiment is universal of disgust, indignation,

and alarm at the proceedings of Lord Anglesey's Government, and at

the tone of his partisans and his press. Whether the collision will

happen so soon as is contemplated I know not. I rather think not. The

Association is frightened; and if the demonstrations of the south are

interrupted, and Mr. Lawless's progress in the west be not persevered

in, it is possible, and it is to be hoped, that the hostile parties may

not come to an effusion of blood. But can we read the reports of the

meetings that are taking place and expect that before the winter is

over the gentry of the country, Emancipators as well as Brunswickers,

will not call on the Government to take a part, and to save us from

these horrors?" Mr. Leslie Foster, a leading Irish statesman, wrote

in the same month: "Depend upon it, let Parliament do what they may,

the Catholics will not rebel. Their leaders are more deeply convinced

than you are of the utter and immediate ruin that would be the result

of any insurrectionary movement; and in every rank among them, down to

the lowest, there is a due fear of the power of England, the facilities

of a steam invasion, the character of the Duke, and not least, perhaps

above all, the readiness of the Ulster Protestants for battle. It is

further to be borne in mind that in no period within our memory was

the condition of the people so rapidly improving, or their employment

so great, as at the present moment; and there is a real, substantial

disinclination in consequence, amongst all ranks above the mere rabble,

to hazard any course that would involve the country in confusion."

[Illustration: THE FLIGHT OF LAWLESS. (_See p._ 283.)]

Mr. O'Connell's avowed principle of action was "moral force." He was

in the constant habit of asserting that "the man who commits a crime

gives strength to the enemy;" and that no political advantages, however

great, should be obtained at the expense of "one drop of Christian

blood." Nevertheless, the letters which he was in the habit of

addressing to "the people of Ireland," and which were remarkable for

their clearness, force, and emphatic tautology, had always prefixed to

them, as a standing motto, Byron's couplet--

"Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not,

Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?"

There is no doubt that his great object was through life to inspire his

Roman Catholic countrymen with a consciousness of their physical power,

supplanting the slavish spirit that had been inspired by the penal

code. He was accustomed to say that for every shilling of "rent" there

was a man, and the man could grasp a weapon, and put forth a power that

slumbered in his right arm. In fact, this mighty political conjurer

produced all his spells by invoking this phantom of physical force;

nor did he invoke it in vain, for it was that phantom that ultimately

terrified the most determined supporters of the Protestant ascendency

into surrender to the principle of civil equality. The Catholic

Association, in its origin, was treated with contempt, and even

Catholics themselves spoke of it with derision; but as it proceeded in

its operations, the speeches that were weekly delivered produced an

effect which daily increased. The Catholic aristocrat was made to feel

that his ancient blood, which slavery had made stagnant in his veins,

was of no avail; the Catholic merchant was taught that his coffers

filled with gold could not impart to him any substantial importance,

when every needy corporator looked down upon him from the pedestal of

his aristocratic religion; the Catholic priest was informed that he had

much occasion to put the lessons of humility inculcated by the Gospel

into practice, when every coxcomb minister of the Establishment could,

with impunity, put some sacerdotal affront upon him. In short, from the

proudest nobleman down to the meanest serf, the whole body of Roman

Catholics were rendered sensible of their inferior place in the State.

The stigma was pointed at--men became exasperated at their grievances

when they were roused to their perception; a mirror was held up to

Ireland, and when she beheld the brand upon her forehead, she began to

burn. Reviled as the Catholic demagogues have been, still did they not

accomplish great things when they succeeded in marshalling and bringing

the whole population of the country into array? The English people

had been previously taught to hold the Irish Catholics in contempt;

but when they saw that such an immense population was actuated by one

indignant sentiment, and was combined in an impassioned, but not the

less effectual, organisation, and, above all, when they perceived

£1,000 a week pouring into the exchequer, their alarm was excited, and,

although their pride was wounded, they ceased to despise where they had

begun to fear. The wonders which were achieved in Waterford, in Armagh,

in Monaghan, and in Louth, may be referred to the system of energy

which had been adopted.

Shortly before the Clare election Mr. O'Connell established the order

of "Liberators," as a mode of expressing the gratitude and confidence

of the people for past services. Its objects were to prevent the

formation or continuance of secret societies; to conciliate all classes

in one bond of brotherhood and affection, "so that all religious

animosities may cease among Irishmen;" to bury in total and eternal

oblivion all ancient animosities and reproaches; to prevent feuds

and riots, and faction fights at fairs and markets; to promote the

collection of a national fund for national purposes; to protect

voters from the vengeance of their landlords, and to watch over their

registration; "to promote the system of dealing exclusively with the

friends of civil and religious liberty, Protestant and Catholic,

with the selection, where choice can be made, of Protestant friends,

being the most disinterested of the two; also, to prevent, as much as

possible, all dealing with the enemies of Ireland, whether Protestant,

Orangemen, or Orange Catholics, the worst of all Orangists; to promote

the exclusive use of articles the growth and manufacture of Ireland."

The system of exclusive dealing thus recommended was a system of social

corruption and social persecution, while the attempt to serve Ireland

by the exclusive use of articles of Irish produce only showed Mr.

O'Connell's ignorance of political economy. The system, however, was

soon abandoned.

The impression among the Roman Catholics after the Clare election

was that Emancipation was virtually won. So strong was the feeling

of exultation that immediately after, the Catholic rent reached the

sum of £2,704 in one week; the next week it was £1,427; and though

it soon after sank to £500 a week, it showed the strength of the

popular enthusiasm. Liberator Clubs were established in every part of

the country. They were branches of the Association; but each had its

own peculiar organisation, its internal management, and its working

committees. By means of this machinery the whole population of the

country could be moved at any moment, and in any direction. This is

a very remarkable fact, taken in connection with the theory of the

impulsive and fickle character of the Celtic race, their averseness

from order and method, and the difficulty of getting them to pursue any

course systematically. O'Connell, a man of Celtic blood, was one of

the greatest methodisers of his day; and there is scarcely an example

in history of any popular leader having wrought an oppressed race,

consisting of six millions of people, always prone to division, into

an organisation so compact that he could wield the fierce democracy at

his will, and bid defiance to the most powerful state in the world to

suppress the voluntary system of government he had established. This

is, perhaps, the most singular and instructive fact in the whole career

of the great agitator.

An impression got abroad, soon after the Clare election, that the Duke

of Wellington and Mr. Peel were wavering on the Catholic question; and

in the month of August a profound sensation was produced by a speech

made by Mr. Dawson, one of the members for Londonderry. Mr. Dawson was

the brother-in-law of the Home Secretary. The latter represented Oxford

University, having beaten Canning out of the field, as the champion of

Protestant ascendency. The former represented the greatest stronghold

of Protestantism in Ireland, the very last of all its constituencies to

tolerate a departure from its own inspiring watchword, "No Surrender."

Mr. Dawson had been a most uncompromising antagonist of the Catholic

claims. We cannot wonder, then, at the startling effect, which ran like

an electric shock through the country, when such a man--a member of the

Government--at a public banquet, in the midst of the local chiefs of

Conservatism within the walls of Derry, surrounded by all the memorials

of the glorious Revolution of 1688, pronounced the word "_Surrender_."

He was described as the "pilot balloon," to show the direction in which

the wind blew in high quarters. Thus, there was a complete accordance

between Mr. Sheil, the eloquent agitator, and Mr. Dawson, one of

the ablest and most loyal supporters of the Government, as to the

victorious power of the Catholic Association. But to have its triumphs

thus proclaimed on the very spot where Protestant ascendency had been

established 140 years before, and which had ever since remained its

greatest stronghold, was more than could be borne by men who had just

been drinking with enthusiasm "The glorious, pious, and immortal memory

of William III." Mr. Dawson was, therefore, reviled and execrated;

he was burned in effigy, and for years his name was almost as odious

to the Orangemen as Lundy the traitor. Hitherto, the agitation on

both sides had been little better than child's-play. The Protestant

party rested satisfied in the persuasion that "the Constitution in

Church and State" was safe in the keeping of a thoroughly Conservative

Government--a House of Lords which would not change the laws of

England, and a Sovereign who would not violate his coronation oath. But

when they found their standard-bearers fainting, and their most trusted

commanders parleying with the enemy, their exasperation knew no bounds.

The Brunswickers were now terribly in earnest. Their blood was up, and

they longed for the arbitrament of the sword.

The agitation extended to England, where also the "No Popery" cry

was effectually raised. The Duke of Newcastle, Lord Winchilsea, and

Lord Kenyon led the way in the formation of Brunswick Clubs. A great

demonstration was got up on Penenden Heath--a monster meeting of

English Brunswickers. To counteract its effects, it was determined that

some of the leading advocates of the Catholic cause, being freeholders

of Kent, should go to the meeting. Among those who attended were Lord

Darnley, Mr. Cobbett, Serjeant Shee, and Mr. Sheil; but none of them

could obtain a hearing. Mr. Sheil had come prepared with a grand

speech, carefully written out, as was his custom, and committed to

memory, but not so strictly as to exclude such extemporaneous additions

as might be necessary to adapt the oration to the actual circumstances.

When he arrived at the meeting, the reporter from the _Sun_ asked him

for his manuscript, which he gave, with the understanding that he

must make it correspond with his speech as delivered. The reporter,

taking it for granted that it would be delivered all right, made all

possible haste to get it into type. The speech appeared _in extenso_;

but it unfortunately happened that, owing to the uproar and continued

interruptions, it was not delivered. The circumstance became the

subject of remark, eliciting comments by no means flattering to the

Irish orator. The intended speech, however, was as able as any he had

ever delivered. It consisted chiefly of an elaborate defence of the

Roman Catholic Church from the charge of persecution. It admitted that

it did persecute like every other church when in power; but that it was

an incident of its establishment, not the natural result of its spirit

and principles.

In the meantime, the Catholic Association was pursuing its work with

increasing vigour and determination. It resolved thenceforth to

support no candidate who should not pledge himself to oppose every

Government that did not make Emancipation a Cabinet measure. Provincial

meetings were held in Clonmel, Kilkenny, and Mullingar; the chair at

the last place being occupied by the Marquis of Westmeath. Between

the two extreme parties there were many moderate men, of high social

position, anxious for something like a compromise. Some of these were

in confidential communication with Lord Anglesey's Government, and it

was thought desirable to establish a Liberal platform, with a view to

moderating the violence of Catholics and Brunswickers.

[Illustration: SCENE AT THE "SURRENDER" BANQUET IN DERRY. (_See p._

287.)]

It was with this object that Mr. Pierce Mahony got up the celebrated

"Leinster declaration," so called from the signature of Ireland's

only duke. But the experiment served only to reveal the weakness

of the moderate party, for after lying for signature in Latouche's

Bank for two months, only forty-two names were attached to it within

that period. When, however, the struggle between the two parties

was on the point of having a bloody issue, the alarm spread through

the ranks of moderate men on both sides, and the document rapidly

received signatures. The declaration set forth that the disqualifying

laws which affected Roman Catholics were productive of consequences

prejudicial in the highest degree to the interests of Ireland--the

primary cause of her poverty--the source of political discontents

and religious animosities--destructive alike of social happiness and

national prosperity. Unless the legislature should speedily apply a

remedy to those evils, they must in their rapid progression assume

such a character as would, perhaps, render their removal impossible.

It was stated, therefore, to be a matter of paramount importance that

the whole subject should be taken into immediate consideration by

Parliament, "with a view to such a final conciliatory adjustment as may

be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the

stability of our national institutions, and to the general satisfaction

and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects."

As winter approached, the state of things assumed a more portentous

aspect. The leading agitators were themselves dismayed when they looked

down the precipice to the edge of which they had brought the nation.

O'Connell at the end of September issued an address, urging the people

to discontinue their assemblies, and they obeyed. His lieutenants

were exceedingly anxious that the Liberal Protestants should take an

active part as mediators in order, if possible, to avert a disastrous

collision. A good occasion was offered by the visit of Lord Morpeth to

Ireland. This enlightened and accomplished nobleman--always the friend

of civil and religious liberty, destined to preside over the Government

of Ireland, as Viceroy, when the _régime_ of civil equality was fully

established, and to be the congenial interpreter of its spirit--was

then invited to a great banquet, which was attended by all the leading

friends of civil and religious liberty in and about Dublin, Protestant

and Catholic. The Duke of Leinster was in the chair, and Mr. Sheil

appealed to him, in the most eloquent terms, by all that was patriotic

and glorious in the history of his ancestors the Geraldines--which for

seven hundred years formed a great part of the history of Ireland,

and who were in past times considered more Irish than the Irish

themselves--to put himself at the head of the Liberal party.

[Illustration: THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY. (_After the Portrait by Sir

Thomas Lawrence._)]

Dr. Curtis, the Roman Catholic Primate, was an old friend of the Duke

of Wellington, whom he had known during the war in the Peninsula, and

with whom he had kept up a confidential correspondence on the subject

of the Catholic claims, on the state of the country, on the disposition

of the Roman Catholics in the army, and other matters of the kind. On

the 11th of December the Duke, in answer to a letter urging the prompt

settlement of the Catholic question, wrote to Dr. Curtis as follows:

"I have received your letter of the 4th instant, and I assure you that

you do me justice in believing that I am sincerely anxious to witness

the settlement of the Roman Catholic question, which, by benefiting the

State, would confer a benefit on every individual belonging to it. But

I confess that I see no prospect of such a settlement. Party has been

mixed up with the consideration of the question to such a degree, and

such violence pervades every discussion of it, that it is impossible to

expect to prevail upon men to consider it dispassionately. If we could

bury it in oblivion for a short time, and employ that time diligently

in the consideration of its difficulties on all sides (for they are

very great), I should not despair of seeing a satisfactory remedy."

After the reports that had gone abroad, to the effect that the

Government were about to settle the question, and that they had even

prepared a Bill on the subject, this letter from the Prime Minister

to the Roman Catholic Primate was most disappointing. Besides, it was

absurd to expect that the subject could be buried in oblivion. The

Duke, no doubt, had in his mind the difficulty with the king, and the

excitement of Protestant feeling in England, which was exasperated

by the violence of the debates in the Catholic Association, and the

tone of menace and defiance which that body had assumed. This obstacle

was not lessened by the letter in question, the purport of which

was communicated to Mr. O'Connell, and also to the Lord-Lieutenant.

The latter wrote an admirable letter in reply, which led to serious

consequences. On the 22nd of December Dr. Curtis sent him the Duke's

letter, and a copy of his own answer to it. He acknowledged that

it conveyed information which he had not himself received, though

entitled, from his position, to receive it first. He then frankly

offered his opinion as to the course which it behoved the Catholics

to pursue. He was perfectly convinced that the final and cordial

settlement of the question could alone give peace, harmony, and

prosperity to all classes of his Majesty's subjects. He advised that

the Duke of Wellington should by every means be propitiated; for if

any man could carry the measure, it was he. All personal and offensive

insinuations should therefore be suppressed, and ample allowance

should be made for the difficulties of his situation. "Difficult,"

said Lord Anglesey, "it certainly is; for he has to overcome the very

strong prejudices and the interested motives of many persons of the

highest influence, as well as allay the real alarm of many of the more

ignorant Protestants." As to burying in oblivion the question for a

short time, the Viceroy considered the thing utterly impossible, and,

if possible, not at all desirable. He recommended, on the contrary,

that all constitutional means should be used to forward the cause,

coupled with the utmost forbearance, and the most submissive obedience

to the law. Personality offered no advantage. It offended those who

could assist, and confirmed predisposed aversion. "Let the Catholic,"

said his lordship, "trust to the justice of his cause, and to the

growing liberality of mankind. Unfortunately, he has lost some friends,

and fortified enemies, during the last six months, by unwearied and

unnecessary violence. Brute force, he should be assured, can effect

nothing. It is the legislature that must decide this great question,

and my anxiety is that it should be met by the Parliament under the

most favourable circumstances, and that the opposers of Catholic

Emancipation shall be disarmed by the patient forbearance as well as by

the unwearied perseverance of its advocates."

This letter, though marked "private and confidential," was, like the

Duke's letter to the same prelate, made public, and became the subject

of comment in the Association and in the press, which tended still

more to embarrass the question by irritating the king and the Duke,

and furnishing exciting topics to the enemies of the Catholic cause.

The Marquis of Anglesey, indeed, from the time he went to Ireland,

held the strongest language to the Government as to the necessity of

carrying the measure. At a subsequent period he expressed a wish that

his opinions should be made fully known to the king and his Ministers,

because they could then better judge of his fitness for carrying into

effect the measures they might decide upon adopting. On the 31st of

July he wrote:--"I will exert myself to keep the country quiet, and

put down rebellion under any circumstances; but I will not consent to

govern this country much longer under the existing law."

There was a radical difference in spirit between the Viceroy and the

Premier. The former sympathised warmly with the Roman Catholics in

their struggles for civil equality, feeling deeply the justice of their

cause. The Duke, on the other hand, yielded only to necessity, and

thought of concession not as a matter of principle, but of expediency;

he yielded, not because it was right to do so, but because it was

preferable to having a civil war. The feeling of Mr. Peel was somewhat

similar; it was with him, also, a choice of evils, and he chose the

least.

In Ireland the administration of the law was becoming daily more

difficult. Mr. Steele and Mr. O'Gorman Mahon were magistrates, and

yet they were actively engaged in exciting the people to the very

highest pitch, and urging them to defy the constituted authorities.

On a day when a riot was expected at Ennis, county Clare, and the

high sheriff made preparations to prevent it, both these gentlemen

appeared there, decorated with the order of "Liberators," and followed

by a mob. Mr. O'Gorman Mahon held very improper language to the high

sheriff in presence of the troops. All this was certified to by sixteen

magistrates, and by the commanding officer; yet Lord Anglesey, with the

advice of the Lord Chancellor, decided on not depriving them of the

commission of the peace. This conduct greatly disappointed the Duke of

Wellington, and on the 11th of November he wrote a strong letter to

him, in which he said: "I cannot express to you adequately the extent

of the difficulties which these and other occurrences in Ireland create

in all discussions with his Majesty. He feels that in Ireland the

public peace is violated every day with impunity by those whose duty

it is to preserve it; that a formidable conspiracy exists; and that

the supposed conspirators--those whose language and conduct point them

out as the principal agitators of the country--are admitted to the

presence of his Majesty's representative, and equally well received

with the king's most loyal subjects." The Duke also, as we have already

observed, strongly censured the conduct of the Viceroy and the Lord

Chancellor for visiting Lord Cloncurry, a member of the Association,

remarking, "The doubts which are entertained respecting the loyalty

of the Roman Catholic Association, the language which has been held

there respecting the king himself, his Royal Family, the members of

his Government, your colleagues in office, and respecting nearly

every respectable member of society, and the unanimously expressed

detestation of the violence of the Association, might be deemed reasons

for omitting to encourage any of its members by the countenance or

favour of the king's representative."

Lord Anglesey replied to these sharp rebukes with great spirit. "Up

to this moment," he said, "I have been left entirely in ignorance,

not only as to your intentions with regard to this country, but also

as to your sentiments regarding my policy. They are now developed,

and I shall know how to act." He then entered into details of all the

occurrences alluded to, in order to show "how entirely his Majesty had

been misinformed." Having done so, he added, "If those who arraign

my conduct will obtain information from an uninterested source, I

feel the most perfect confidence that I shall obtain the applause

of my Sovereign, and the goodwill and good opinion of his Majesty's

Ministers with whom I serve." He denied that the Government had lost

its power, that the Association had usurped its functions, or that the

laws were set at defiance. He asserted, on the contrary, that the law

was in full vigour; and if it authorised, or expediency demanded, the

suppression of the Catholic Association and of the Brunswick Clubs, and

the disarming of the yeomanry at the same time, he would undertake to

effect it almost without the loss of a life. But he did not think such

a course expedient, and he deprecated the teasing system of attacking

every minor offence, of which the issue upon trial would be doubtful,

and which would produce irritation without effecting a salutary lesson

and permanent good. He had no object, he said, in holding his post

but that of pleasing his king and serving his country; and if, in his

zealous and unwearied efforts to effect the latter object, he had

incurred the displeasure of the king and lost his Majesty's confidence,

he ought not to remain in Ireland. He was therefore ready to depart

whenever they found it convenient to recall him. The Duke became testy

under this resistance and antagonism. In replying to the last letter he

becomes more personal in his accusations. "I might," said the Premier,

"at an earlier period have expressed the pain I felt at the attendance

of gentlemen of your household, and even of your family, at the Roman

Catholic Association. I could not but feel that such attendance must

expose your Government to misconstruction. I was silent because it was

painful to mention such things; but I have always felt that if these

impressions upon the king's mind should remain--and I must say that

recent transactions have given fresh cause for them--I could not avoid

mentioning them to you in a private communication, and to let you know

the embarrassment which they occasion."

The Viceroy rejoined with unabated spirit, replying to all the fresh

matter introduced by the Duke in a lofty tone of self-justification.

There is caustic irony in the following allusion to the king, as an

apology for his conciliatory policy:--"I have, in fact, been most

anxious to imitate, as far as my humble faculties would permit, the

example of his Majesty himself during his visit to Ireland, and have

scrupulously attended to the king's benign and paternal admonition,

when his Majesty quitted the kingdom, to inculcate good fellowship

and cordiality among all classes, and to promote conciliation." It is

dangerous to use the _argumentum ad hominem_ with a king--still more

so to make his conduct the object of sarcastic allusions; and it was

evident that Lord Anglesey could not long remain in the position of a

representative of his Majesty. There was certainly an animosity against

him in the highest quarters, which appeared in the construction put

upon the accidental dropping in of his son and some of his household,

from curiosity, to witness, as they thought unnoticed, the debates of

the Association--a circumstance which he had long ago explained, and

with which he thought it particularly unfair that he should be now

upbraided.

This memorable controversy between the Prime Minister and the

Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, exhibiting a painful conflict of opinion

and feeling between the two personages more particularly charged with

the government of the country in the midst of a dangerous crisis, was

brought to a close by a letter from the Duke of Wellington on the 28th

of December. The following is a copy:--

"London, December 28, 1828.

"MY DEAR LORD ANGLESEY,--I have been very sensible, since I

received your last letter, that the correspondence which that

letter terminated had left us in a relation towards each other

which ought not to exist between the Lord-Lieutenant and the

king's Minister, and could not continue to exist without great

inconvenience and injury to the king's service. I refrained from

acting upon this feeling till I should be able to consult with my

colleagues, and I took the earliest opportunity which the return

to town of those who were absent afforded to obtain their opinion,

which concurred with my own. Under these circumstances, having

taken the king's pleasure upon the subject, his Majesty has desired

me to inform you that he intends to relieve you from the Government

of Ireland. I will shortly notify the arrangements which will

become necessary in consequence.

"Believe me, ever yours most sincerely,

(Signed)

"WELLINGTON.

"His Excellency the Marquis of

Anglesey, K.G."

The marquis answered that he had received his letter, informing him of

the king's intention to release him from the Government of Ireland, and

that he held himself in readiness to obey his Majesty's commands the

moment he received them. He did receive them, on the 10th of January,

in a formal letter of recall from the Home Secretary.

The removal of this popular and "chivalrous" Viceroy caused

universal expressions of grief among the Roman Catholic party. In

the Association, O'Connell and Sheil spoke in the most glowing terms

of his character and his administration. He quitted Ireland on the

19th of January, 1829, followed from the Castle gates to the pier at

Kingstown by an immense concourse of people. In a letter to Dr. Curtis

Lord Anglesey gave an extraordinary parting advice for a chief ruler

of Ireland, "Agitate--agitate--agitate!" He was succeeded by the Duke

of Northumberland, a man not at all likely to trouble his chief with

controversy about anything. His appointment, however, brought back

the Conservative aristocracy to the Castle, and had a soothing effect

on the Protestant mind, while his administration was mild towards the

other party.

While these matters were going on in Ireland, Mr. Peel was applying his

mind, in the most earnest manner, to the removal of the difficulties

that stood in the way of Emancipation.

The chief difficulty was the king. At the commencement of the month of

January, 1829, his Majesty had not yet signified his consent that the

whole subject of Ireland, including the Catholic question, should be

taken into consideration by his confidential servants. In his interview

with the Duke of Wellington in the course of the autumn the king had

manifested much uneasiness and irritation, and had hitherto shown no

disposition to relax the opposition which (of late years, at least) he

had manifested to the consideration by his Government of the claims of

the Roman Catholics. In all the communications which Mr. Peel had with

the king on this subject, his determination to maintain the existing

laws was most strongly expressed. In November, 1824, the king wrote,

"The sentiments of the king upon Catholic Emancipation are those of his

revered and excellent father; and from these sentiments the king never

can, and never will, deviate." All subsequent declarations of opinion

on his part were to the same effect; and the events which were passing

in Ireland, "the systematic agitation, the intemperate conduct of

some of the Roman Catholic leaders, the violent and abusive speeches

of others, the acts of the Association, assuming the functions of

government, and, as it appeared to the king, the passiveness and want

of energy in the Irish executive, irritated his Majesty, and indisposed

him the more to recede from his declared resolution to maintain

inviolate the existing law."

[Illustration: LORD ANGLESEY LEAVING IRELAND: SCENE AT KINGSTOWN. (_See

p._ 292.)]

In the early part of January, 1829, the Duke of Wellington had an

interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London,

and the Bishop of Durham, for the purpose of laying before them the

state of affairs in Ireland, in the hope of convincing them that

the interests of the Church required the settlement of the Catholic

question. It was thought that a favourable opinion expressed by them

would have had great influence on the mind of the king; but the Duke's

arguments utterly failed to convince them. They informed him that they

could not lend their sanction to the proposed course of proceeding,

but must offer a decided opposition to the removal of Roman Catholic

disabilities. On New Year's Day the Bishop of Oxford wrote to Mr. Peel,

that he had just returned from Addington, and that he found the three

bishops decidedly hostile to all concessions, refusing to consent to

them in any form. He considered that matter, therefore, as settled. Mr.

Peel now began to feel that the difficulties in the way of Emancipation

were almost insuperable. There was the declared opinion of the king,

of the House of Lords, and of the Church, all decidedly hostile to the

proposed measure. What the Home Secretary chiefly apprehended at that

moment was, that the king, hearing the result of the Duke's conference

with the bishops, would make some public and formal declaration of

his resolution to maintain, as a matter of conscience and religious

obligation, the existing laws; and would then take a position in

reference to the Catholic question similar to that in which his father

had stood, and which it might be almost impossible for him, however

urgent the necessity, afterwards to abandon.

The meeting of Parliament was approaching, and it was necessary to

come to some final decision. Sir Robert Peel had a thorough conviction

that if the Duke of Wellington should fail in overcoming the king's

objections, no other man could succeed. It might have been that the

high and established character of Earl Grey, his great abilities,

and great political experience, would have enabled him to surmount

these various difficulties. In addition to these high qualifications,

he had the advantage of having been the strenuous and consistent

advocate of the Roman Catholic cause; the advantage also of having

stood aloof from the Administrations of Mr. Canning and Lord Ripon,

and of having strong claims on the esteem and respect of all parties,

without being fettered by the trammels of any. Sir Robert Peel had,

however, the strongest reasons for the conviction that Lord Grey could

not have succeeded in an undertaking which, in the supposed case of

his accession to power, would have been abandoned as hopeless by the

Duke of Wellington, and abandoned on the ground that the Sovereign

would not adopt the advice of his servants. The result of the whole is

thus summed up by Sir Robert Peel:--"Being convinced that the Catholic

question must be settled, and without delay; being resolved that no

act of mine should obstruct or retard its settlement; impressed with

the strongest feelings of attachment to the Duke of Wellington, of

admiration of his upright conduct and intentions as Prime Minister,

of deep interest in the success of an undertaking on which he had

entered from the purest motives and the highest sense of public duty,

I determined not to insist upon retirement from office, but to make to

the Duke the voluntary offer of that official co-operation, should he

consider it indispensable, which he scrupled, from the influence of

kind and considerate feelings, to require from me."

The Home Secretary once more submitted his views to the Duke, in a

memorandum dated January 12th, that was written with a view to being

submitted to the king, in which he put the inevitable alternative of

a Cabinet united in the determination to carry Catholic Emancipation,

or a Cabinet constructed on exclusively Protestant principles; and he

came to the conclusion that no Cabinet so constructed could possibly

carry on the general administration of the country. The state of the

House of Commons appeared to him to be an insuperable obstacle to the

successful issue of that experiment. Since the year 1807 there had

been five Parliaments, and in the course of each of these, with one

exception, the House of Commons had come to a decision in favour of

the consideration of the Catholic question. The present Parliament

had decided in the same manner. A dissolution, were it practicable,

would not result in an election more favourable to the Protestant

interest, if an exclusively Protestant Government were formed. Even

should there be an increase of anti-Catholic members in England, it

would not compensate for the increased excitement in Ireland, and

the violent and vexatious opposition that would be given by fifty or

sixty Irish members, returned by the Catholic Association and the

priests. Then there would be the difficulty about preserving the peace

in Ireland. During the last autumn, out of the regular infantry force

in the United Kingdom, amounting to about 30,000 men, 25,000 men were

stationed either in Ireland or on the west coast of England, with a

view to the maintenance of tranquillity in Ireland, Great Britain

being then at peace with all the world. What would be the consequence

should England be involved in a war with some foreign Power? Various

other considerations were urged, upon which Mr. Peel founded his

advice to the king, which was--that he should not grant the Catholic

claims, or any part of them, precipitately and unadvisedly, but that

he should, in the first instance, remove the barrier which prevented

the consideration of the Catholic question by the Cabinet, and permit

his confidential servants to consider it in all its relations, on the

same principles on which they considered any other question of public

policy, in the hope that some plan of adjustment could be proposed,

on the authority and responsibility of a Government likely to command

the assent of Parliament and to unite in its support a powerful weight

of Protestant opinion, from a conviction that it was a settlement

equitable towards Roman Catholics and safe as it concerned the

Protestant Establishment.

The paper was communicated to the king by the Duke of Wellington,

who wrote, on the 17th of January, that he entirely concurred in the

sentiments and opinions contained in it; and, referring to Mr. Peel's

request to be allowed to retire from the Government, the Duke said:--"I

tell you fairly, I do not see the smallest chance of getting the better

of these difficulties, if you should not continue in office. Even if I

should be able to obtain the king's consent to enter upon the course

which it will probably be found the wisest to adopt--which it is almost

certain that I shall not if I should not have your assistance in

office,--the difficulties in Parliament will be augmented tenfold in

consequence of your secession, while the means of getting the better of

them will be diminished in the same proportion. I entreat you, then, to

reconsider the subject, and to give us and the country the benefit of

your advice and assistance in this most difficult and important crisis."

The Duke brought this letter to Mr. Peel, who read it in his presence,

and then at once told him that he would not press his retirement, but

would remain in office, and would propose, with the king's consent,

the measures contemplated by the Government for the settlement of

the Catholic question. Immediately after this decision was taken he

attended a meeting of the Cabinet and announced his determination to

his colleagues. One of these, Lord Ellenborough, could not refrain from

writing to express his admiration of his conduct, dictated by true

statesmanlike wisdom; adding that he had acted nobly by the Government,

and in a manner which no member of it would forget. On the day that

the king got the paper, those of the Ministers who had uniformly voted

against the Catholic question had each a separate interview with the

king, and individually expressed their concurrence in the course Mr.

Peel recommended. The Ministers were--the Duke of Wellington, Lord

Lyndhurst, Lord Bathurst, Mr. Goulburn, and Mr. Herries. The king,

after this interview, intimated his consent that the Cabinet should

consider the whole state of Ireland, and submit their views to him, not

pledging himself, however, to adopt them, even if they should concur

unanimously in the course to be pursued. The king was not convinced by

Mr. Peel's arguments. He admitted it to be a good statement, but denied

that it was an argumentative one.

Parliament was opened by commission on the 5th of February, 1829. The

state of Ireland was the chief topic of the Royal Speech. The existence

of the Catholic Association was referred to as inimical to the public

peace; and its suppression was recommended, as a necessary preliminary

to the consideration of the disabilities affecting the Roman Catholics.

This part of the Speech excited much interest, as preluding the

great contest of the Session. On the 4th Mr. Peel had written to the

Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, resigning his seat for the University,

which he had won from Canning on the strength of his anti-Catholic

principles. He need not have resigned, but he acted the more honourable

part. Having offered himself for re-election, he was opposed by Sir

Robert Inglis, who, after a contest which lasted three days, during

which 1,364 votes were polled, was elected by a majority of 146. As

one of the most numerous convocations ever held in Oxford had, in the

previous year, by a majority of three to one, voted against concession

to the Roman Catholics, it was a matter of surprise that the Home

Secretary was not defeated by a larger majority. He secured a seat

with some difficulty at Westbury. On the 10th, Mr. Peel, while still

member for Oxford, introduced the first of the three measures intended

for the pacification of Ireland--a Bill for the suppression of the

Catholic Association. As it was known to be an essential condition of

granting Emancipation, there was little opposition to it either in

Parliament or in Ireland. By it the Lord-Lieutenant was empowered to

disperse the meetings of any association he thought dangerous to the

public peace. The Bill quickly passed both Houses, and in a few days

received the Royal Assent. Anticipating the action of the executive,

the Association, on the 12th of February, dissolved itself, with the

unanimous concurrence of the bishops, Mr. Sheil stating at the meeting

that he was authorised to throw twenty-two mitres into the scale.

In the Royal Speech his Majesty recommended that, when this special

object was accomplished, Parliament should take into their deliberate

consideration the whole condition of Ireland, and that they should

review the laws which imposed disabilities upon Roman Catholics, to see

whether their removal could be effected "consistently with the full and

permanent security of our establishments in Church and State, with the

maintenance of the Reformed religion established by law, and of the

rights and privileges of the bishops and of the clergy of this realm,

and of the churches committed to their charge."

Great was the excitement when, in pursuance of this recommendation, Mr.

Peel introduced the Emancipation Bill on the 5th of March. Everywhere

the Protestant press teemed, and the Protestant pulpit rang, with

denunciations of Wellington and Peel as arch-traitors. From the highest

pinnacle of popularity the Duke fell to the lowest depth of infamy; the

laurels won in so many glorious fields were withered by the furious

breath of popular execration. Petitions were poured into the House

of Commons from all parts of the United Kingdom, and "the pressure

from without" was brought to bear against the two Ministers, who were

considered the chief delinquents, with a force and vehemence that would

have deterred a man of weaker nerves than the Duke of Wellington; but

he felt that he had a duty to discharge, and he did not shrink from the

consequences. Nor did Mr. Peel. His speech, in introducing the measure,

went over the ground he had often traversed in privately debating the

question with his friends. Matters could not go on as they were. There

must be a united Cabinet to carry on the king's Government effectually.

It must be united either on the principle of Catholic Emancipation

or Catholic exclusion. It must either concede the Catholic claims,

or recall existing rights and privileges. This was impossible--no

Government could stand that attempted it; and if it were done, civil

war would be inevitable. The House of Commons, trembling in the nice

balance of opinion, had at length inclined to concession. Ireland had

been governed, since the Union, almost invariably by coercive Acts.

There was always some political organisation antagonistic to the

British Government. The Catholic Association had just been suppressed;

but another would soon spring out of its ashes if the Catholic question

were not settled. Mr. O'Connell had boasted that he could drive a

coach-and-six through the former Act for its suppression; and Lord

Eldon had engaged to drive "the meanest conveyance, even a donkey

cart, through the Act of 1829." The new member for Oxford (Sir Robert

Inglis) also stated that twenty-three counties in Ireland were prepared

to follow the example of Clare. "What will you do," asked Mr. Peel,

"with that power, that tremendous power, which the elective franchise,

exercised under the control of religion, at this moment confers upon

the Roman Catholics? What will you do with the thirty or forty seats

that will be claimed in Ireland by the persevering efforts of the

agitators, directed by the Catholic Association, and carried out by

the agency of every priest and bishop in Ireland?" Parliament began to

recede; there could be no limit to the retrogression. Such a course

would produce a reaction, violent in proportion to the hopes that had

been excited. Fresh rigours would become necessary; the re-enactment

of the penal code would not be sufficient. They must abolish trial by

jury, or, at least, incapacitate Catholics from sitting on juries. Two

millions of Protestants must have a complete monopoly of power and

privilege in a country which contained five millions of Catholics, who

were in most of the country four to one--in some districts twenty to

one--of the Protestants.

The chief speakers on the other side were Sir Robert Inglis, Mr.

Bankes, and Mr. Sadler. They contended that the evils on which the Home

Secretary had dwelt--the disturbed state of Ireland, the difficulty

of governing the empire with a divided Cabinet, the impossibility of

getting on with a House of Commons which left the Administration in

a minority--would not be removed or prevented by Emancipation. Ever

since the first relaxation of the penal code, concession but added

fuel to the fire of agitation. What, then, was to be expected from

throwing open the portals of the legislature to the Catholic body?

What but this--that the advanced work thus gained would become the

salient angle from which the fire would be directed on the body of

the fortress; and the work of agitation, having its leaders in both

Houses of Parliament, would be carried on with increased vigour, for

the purpose of overthrowing the Protestant Establishment, the severance

of the Union, and the dismemberment of the empire? The manner of the

concession would encourage the policy of aggression. It was not, they

asserted, produced by the gradual and quiet growth of public opinion.

"It was the victory of force, driving former enemies into desertion by

intimidation. It openly told the Catholic agitators that they were too

strong for the Government of Great Britain; that whatever they asked

would be conceded, even to the giving up of the Constitution, provided

only it was asked with sufficient clamour and violence. The solid

ground of right had been abandoned for the selfish and tortuous path

of expediency--expediency, the pretext for so many crimes. In France

expediency destroyed the church--expediency murdered the king."

Leave was given to bring in the Bill by a majority of 188; the numbers

being 348 for the motion, and 160 against it. This astounding result

was the signal for pouring into the House a flood of Protestant

petitions, which, in the interval between the first and second reading,

amounted to nearly 1,000; but an organisation like the Brunswick Clubs

could easily get up any number of petitions. Considering the number

of parishes in England, it is surprising, not that the number was so

great, but that it was not greater. On the 18th the second reading was

carried by a majority of 353 to 180; and on the 30th the third reading

by a majority of 320 to 142, giving a majority of 178.

The same day it was carried by the Home Secretary to the House of

Lords, accompanied by an unusual number of members. In introducing the

measure in the Upper House the Duke of Wellington spoke with great

force, and with all the directness and simplicity for which he was

remarkable. One memorable passage deserves to be recorded in this

history:--"It has been my fortune," said the Duke, "to have seen much

of war--more than most men. I have been constantly engaged in the

active duties of the military profession from boyhood until I have

grown grey. My life has been passed in familiarity with scenes of death

and human suffering. Circumstances have placed me in countries where

the war was internal--between opposite parties in the same nation; and

rather than a country I loved should be visited with the calamities

which I have seen--with the unutterable horrors of civil war--I would

run any risk, I would make any sacrifice, I would freely lay down

my life. There is nothing which destroys property and prosperity as

civil war does. By it the hand of man is raised against his neighbour,

against his brother, and against his father! The servant betrays his

master; and the master ruins his servant. Yet this is the resource

to which we must have looked--these are the means which we must have

applied--in order to have put an end to this state of things, if we

had not embraced the option of bringing forward the measure for which

I hold myself responsible."

[Illustration: APSLEY HOUSE, HYDE PARK CORNER, LONDON.]

The Archbishop of Canterbury moved the rejection of the Bill; and was

supported by the Archbishops of York and Armagh, the Bishops of London,

Durham, and Salisbury; Lords Winchilsea, Berkeley, Tenterden, and

Eldon. The chief defenders of the measure were Lords Grey, Lansdowne,

Plunket, Goderich, and Lyndhurst. On a division, the second reading

was carried by 217 against 112. On the 10th of April the Bill was read

a third time, by a majority of 104; the numbers being 213 for it,

and 109 against it. The sweeping majorities in the Lords were still

more astounding than those in the Commons; and they spread the utmost

consternation through the ranks of the Conservatives, who felt as

if the very foundations of society were giving way, and the pillars

of the Constitution were falling. The Lords had hitherto thrown out

the Emancipation Bills as fast as they came to them, by majorities

varying from forty to fifty. Lord Eldon was their prophet, and the

old Conservative peers had followed his guidance implicitly for a

quarter of a century; but during that time a generation of hereditary

legislators had grown up, who had as thorough a contempt for the

ex-Chancellor's antiquated prejudices as he had for their youth and

inexperience. Lord Eldon had, however, some compensation for being thus

deserted in the House of Peers by many of his followers, and having

his authority as a statesman disregarded, as well as for the marked

neglect of him by the Ministry, in the sympathy and confidence of the

distressed king, who was shocked beyond measure at the conduct of the

House of Lords. When a reluctant consent was wrung from his Majesty to

have the measure brought forward by the Cabinet, he felt, after all,

that he was doing nothing very rash; he had the strongest assurance

that the Bill would never pass the Lords. He told Lord Eldon that,

after the Ministers had fatigued him by many hours' conversation on

the painful subject, he simply said, "Go on." But he also produced

copies of letters which he had written, in which he assented to their

proceeding with the Bill, adding, certainly, very strong expressions

of the pain and misery the consent cost him. In his perplexity he

evidently wished to avail himself of Eldon's casuistry to get out

of the difficulty by retracting; but the latter was constrained to

tell him "it was impossible to maintain that his assent had not been

expressed, or to cure the evils which were consequential."