some fashionable tables solely to be laughed at."

The scheme for converting the Irish people to the Protestant faith by means far different from persecution, is thus traceable to one who never lost an opportunity to denounce the evils of the penal code in whatever form they existed. With the second reformation came the horrors of the famine of 1822. Deplorable was the condition of the peasantry in that memorable year; hundreds of thousands were living on charity; in one county, that of Clare, the numbers receiving relief amounted to 99,639, and in Cork, 122,000. And yet from this famishing people did the absentee landlords receive and spend in happier countries no less a sum than four millions of pounds. Taxation went on, too, increasing; the national debt of Ireland, which in 1803 amounted to forty-three millions, had risen, at the time of the Consolidation Act of 1816, to eighty millions. In the midst of this widespread desolation arose on all sides an embittered cry against the system of tithes-nor did that cry originate from the Catholic clergy, or from the Catholic people alone. One of the first petitions against the tithes was from the High Sheriff and Protestant landed proprietors of the County of Sligo, and was presented to the House of Commons on the 15th May, 1822, by Mr. Cooper, M.P. for that county. Mr. Plunket took an opposite view of the petitioners' "He did not believe that the calamities of Ireland arose from the tithes. The situation," he said, "of the Protestant clergy in many parts of Ireland, was most distressing. It was the exactions of heavy

case.

rents by the landlords, and not of tithes by the clergy, that had oppressed the people, and it was too often the case that when the landlord had levied everything for his rent, the clergyman was left to deal with an insolvent tenant, and was forced to abandon altogether his claim."

In order to remedy this state of things, Mr. Goulburn, Chief Secretary for Ireland, moved for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the tithe system in Ireland, and to empower the clergy to make leases for twentyone years, transferable to the landlord, which would be binding on his successor. Mr. Plunket supported the measure: "The rights of the Protestant clergy he would ever defend; and no authority, not even their own approbation, would ever induce him to consent to compromise the rights of the Church."

With the famine came agrarian outrages, which the Government papers dignified with the appellation of an insurrection. Here and there landlords were shot, bands of men traversed the country with faces blackened, and wearing white shirts over their clothes, sometimes demanding arms, but more frequently demanding bread.

The first thing that occurred to the British Government to meet this great calamity was a new and improved Insurrection Act. This act, together with another for the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus, was introduced at once, and carried by the Marquis of Londonderry, better known to history by his former title of Lord Castlereagh. Mr. Plunket spoke in favour of both of those measures. A summary of his speech in the House of Commons on that

Alison's History of Europe since 1815.

4 Hansard, vol. vii., col. 597-601.

occasion appeared in the Dublin Morning Post of the 8th of July following, and he is there reported to have said, that "He felt, as an Irishman, the degradation of shutting out his country from the pale of the constitution, even for an hour; but he saw and acknowledged the necessity which demanded it." The right honourable gentleman proceeded to thank the gentlemen of England in that House, who took so deep an interest in preserving the liberties and the rights of his country. "He believed that if there was any difference in the feeling of the Irish and English members of the House of Commons, with regard to the welfare of Ireland, it was in favour of the latter. It had been said by a noble authority alluded to that night, that the penal laws against the Catholics attended them at their birth, and followed them to their graves. But these had been now removed; and was this a proof that there had been no consideration for the condition of Ireland? The great statesman (Henry Grattan), now no more, whose name had been justly described as being identified with that of Ireland, had greatly raised the commerce and constitutional liberties of his country. Did this prove that there had been no consideration for Ireland? There was the Union also; was that nothing for the country? There were different opinions upon the subject, but his was that the Act to which he alluded was its salvation. The present Government of Ireland found, on their arrival in that country,a conspiracy ripening into rebellion, and before they could adopt measures to put it down, the noble marquis had to encounter the additional evil of famine. All that could reasonably be expected the Government of Ireland had done. If honourable members knew what was the state of Ireland they would not object to the passing of the bill as a temporary measure. Honourable members knew not the state of suffering, op

pression, and degradation, to which the people had been reduced by insurrection. No system of despotism had ever existed more goading and abominable than that adopted by the miscreants who took part in the insurrection: murder, robbery, and house-burning, had been resorted to in order to obtain absolute dominion over landed property. There was no crime they were not ready to commit, in order to carry into execution their lawless despotism over the rest of the community. In the county of Cork, not less than sixteen human beings suffered capital punishment. In Limerick, and other counties, the number of punishments were more extensive. He could assure the House that these executions had not the desired effect; but when the Insurrection Bill passed the effect ceased. With respect to the clause which took away the trial by jury, he was satisfied the Bill would be useless without it. The system of terror which prevailed in the different counties would have stopped the course of justice. The most respectable jurors would have been intimidated, and unable to discharge their duty. He had first received a communication from the Crown Solicitor of Cork, stating that the greater part of the law expenses of the county had been occasioned by having to maintain 100 persons in the gaol of Cork, who sought security from the terrorists. They were kept in prison as a place of safety, to save them from these murderers. In one instance a person ventured out, and was murdered. The renewal of the bill was necessary."

Great powers had been bestowed by those Acts on the Marquis of Wellesley, then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; but this nobleman has never been charged with unmercifully exercising those great powers. deed, the Marquis, from the conciliatory and kind way in which he spared the suffering people, and

from his courtesy towards the Catholic leaders, some of whom he entertained at the Castle, soon became unpopular with the Orange party.

"A striking instance," writes the Hon. David Plunket, "of the political arrogance that once disgraced the loyalty of many Irish Protestants was exhibited shortly after the beginning of the Wellesley Vice-royalty in 1821. So soon as the Orangemen of Dublin understood that the new Lord-Lieutenant had come to Ireland for the express purpose of breaking down their old ascendancy,' they determined to show that they would not submit to the new system without a struggle.

"Two circumstances occurring in the summer of 1822, largely contributed to stimulate their zeal against the innovators of their ancient privileges.

"In the first place, George IV., when accepting an invitation to dinner at the Mansion House, had stipulated that the glorious, pious, and immortal memory' of William III. should not be given; and again, Lord Wellesley had forcibly prevented the dressing of King William's statue in College Green on the 12th of July-a mummery in which the Orangemen had annually indulged, in commemoration of the battle of the Boyne. The latter considered that their most sacred feelings had been violated, and forthwith planned revenge. An opportunity of showing their spirit was soon afforded them, by a visit which the Lord-Lieutenant paid to the Dublin Theatre. On this occasion an organised party of Orangemen, numbering nearly a hundred, packed the pit and upper gallery of the theatre, and having caused much interruption and disturbance throughout a portion of the performance, and having used the most offensive

language-such as, 'Down with the Popish Government,' 'A groan for the Popish Lord-Lieutenant'-they even went so far as to throw several heavy missiles at His Excellency, who sat in the royal box, one of which, striking the cushion, rebounded on to the stage. A heavy whisky bottle was also aimed in the same direction, and narrowly missed its object, from which circumstance this most disgraceful affair is still remembered in Dublin by the name of the Bottle Riot. About a dozen of the ringleaders were apprehended, and several of them admitted their part in the transaction, and seemed to glory in their complicity in it. A very strong case was made out by the Crown against the transgressors, but the grand jury ignored all the bills, and Plunket felt himself compelled. to file ex-officio informations against the powerful delinquents," and a day was appointed for a trial at the bar. The most anxious suspense awaited its arrival. A deep pulsation throbbed through the city. The ordinary occupations of life appeared to be laid aside in the agitating expectation of the event which was to set a seal on the future Government of Ireland. It engrossed the thoughts and tongues of men, and exercised a painful monopoly of all their hopes and anticipations. At length the day of trial (3rd February, 1823) appeared, amidst the heaviness of a gray and sombre morning. soon as the doors were opened, one tremendous rush filled in an instant the galleries and every avenue of the Court.2

As

The Judges were the Lord ChiefJustice (Charles Kendal Bushe), Mr. Justice Jebb, Mr Justice Bruton, and Mr. Justice Vandeleur. The Counsel for the Crown were the Attorney-general (the Right Hon. William Plunket), the Solicitor-general (Henry Joy), Serjeant Lefroy,

110-111.

Sergeant Torrens, Mr. Townsend, and Mr. Greene. The traversers were defended by an equally powerful and distinguished bar, amongst whom were - Mr. Blackburn, afterwards Lord-Chancellor of Ireland, and Mr. Perrin, afterwards one of the Judges of the Queen's Bench.1 The information having been opened by Mr. Greene, Mr. Plunket stated the case with great courage and skill "to a jury, who, as he felt morally certain, would under no circumstances convict the accused."2 He opened his address by an explanation to the Court of how he exercised his discretion in filing an information against the traversers, after the bills had been thrown out by the grand jury. He supplied them with a case in point, which was one in which a former Chancellor, Sir Constantine Phipps (99th Chancellor) was concerned.

"In the latter end of the reign of Queen Anne, in the year 1713, on King William's birthday, the play of Tamerlane was to be represented. King William, as your lordships are aware, was compared to Tamerlane. A prologue to the play, written by Dr. Garth, was very generally repeated at the time. The doctor, it seems, was more happy as a poet than as a courtier; and his reverence for King William led him to compliment that monarch in terms not sufficiently guarded, and so as to give offence to Queen Anne. The Government, in consequence, thought it right that the prologue should not be repeated. When the play therefore came on for representation, the actor omitted to repeat it, and by so doing gave great offence to the audience. They were full of respect for the memory of William, and did not wish that attention to Queen Anne should break in on the ancient

practice. Mr. Dudley Moore, a zealous Protestant, who was in the house, leaped upon the stage, and repeated the prologue. This gave rise to something like a riot. The Government indicted Mr. Moore for the riot. The bills were sent up to a grand jury, who returned a true bill, and were then discharged. In about half-an-hour after, the foreman came into Court, and made an affidavit that "billa vera" was a mistake, and that they meant to return ignoramus." The Court refused to receive his affidavit; but then came in the three-and-twenty, and swore to the same fact to which their foreman had deposed. The party was, notwithstanding this, in my opinion very unwisely, put to plead to the indictment. But the Attorney-general, thinking it would be hard to compel him to plead when the bill had been in fact ignored, moved to quash the indictment, which was done. Do I overstate the matter when I say, that things were then in the same situation as if the bill had been ignored by the grand jury? And yet under these circumstances, the Attorneygeneral thought himself at liberty to file an ex-officio information against the same person for the same offence. Sir Constantine Phipps, who was then Lord Chancellor, and one of the Lords Justices, was considered by many as a great Tory and Jacobite, and as an enemy to the Protestant interest. History has done more justice to him in that respect than in the heat of party he received from his contemporaries. He interfered with the prosecution; he sent for the Lord Mayor, and lectured him as to the mode in which he was to conduct himself. He was even supposed to have interfered with the return of the jury. The

whole matter was brought before the House of Commons, who addressed the throne to remove Sir Constantine Phipps for intermeddling in the trial. No fault was found with the information, though directly before them; but the trial was treated as legally depending, and a petition presented against the Chancellor for interfering with that trial. Do I not here show a case in which an exofficio information had been filed after a bill had been thrown out, and where the zeal of party generated an anxiety to lay hold of anything that could warrant an imputation on the proceeding, as the information filed was never questioned, but the chancellor and chief governor petitioned against for interfering with the proceeding ?"

The Attorney-General having passed a high eulogium on the character of William III., stated in effect that, although the religious feelings of the people of England entirely harmonised with those of that prince, and afterwards of the house of Brunswick, it was not until after a century that the hopes of those who still cling with affectionate remembrance to the descendants of their ancient line of sovereigns "were finally subdued. But in unhappy Ireland the exiled king was the professor and patron of the religion to which they were ENTHUSIASTICALLY DEVOTED. He must be a preposterous critic who will impute as a crime to that unhappy people, that they did not rebel against their lawful king, because he was of their own religion, even if they had been so fully admitted to the blessings of the British constitution as to render them equally alive to the value of freedom. They seem, therefore, by the nature of things, almost necessarily thrown into a state of resistance; nothing could have saved them from it but so strong a love of abstract freedom as might subdue the principles of

loyalty and the feelings of religion. No candid man can lay so heavily on poor human nature; nor fairly say, that he thinks worse of the Roman Catholic, for having on that day abided by his lawful sovereign and his ancient faith. What was the result? They were conquered-conquered into freedom and happiness -a freedom and happiness to which the successful result of their ill-fated struggles would have been destructive."

Mr. Plunket then went into a statement of the riot; witnesses were produced; the facts above mentioned were established beyond all doubt; and yet, after six days consumed in useless debate, the jury were discharged without coming to any agreement.

The matter was

Great was the umbrage taken by the Orange party at the high-handed manner in which in which the AttorneyGeneral had proceeded against the Bottle - rioters. brought before the House of Commons by Mr. Brownlow, afterwards Lord Lurgan,1 and Plunket's defence of his conduct is thus commended by Lord Grenville : LETTER OF LORD GRENVILLE TO MR. PLUNKET.

"Dropmore, April 17th, 1823. "MY DEAR SIR,-I cannot resist the desire I feel of expressing to you, in these few lines, the sincere and heartfelt pleasure I derive from your complete and decisive triumph, and not less from the sense how much you are indebted for it to your own brilliant exertions, and to the manly tone and temper of your speech.

"I still fear that the irritation of this subject is not at an end, either here or in Ireland, but a better beginning could not have been made. than by the impression you have produced on the House.-Ever, my dear sir, most truly and faithfully yours, GRENVILLE."