POLITICAL CONDUCT OF THE AUTHOR.
Letter from the author to Mr. Burne, relating to the political conduct of the former at the period of the Union—Extracts from letters written to the author by Lord Westmoreland—General reflections on the political condition of Ireland at the present time—Hint toward the revival of a curious old statute—Clerical justices—The king in Ireland—The Corporation of Dublin—The “Glorious Memory”—Catholics and Protestants—Mischievous virulence of party feeling.
The introduction of the following letter and extracts (though somewhat digressive from my original intention in compiling this work) is important to me, notwithstanding they relate to times so long past by; inasmuch as certain recent calumnies assiduously propagated against me demanded at my hands a justification of my conduct toward government at the period of the Union. With this view the letter in question was written to my friend Mr. Burne, whom I requested to communicate its contents to my connexions in Dublin, or indeed to any person who might have been prejudiced against me by those aspersions. Having, however, reason to fear that only a very partial circulation of my letter took place, I have adopted this opportunity of giving it full publicity by mixing it up with these sketches:—
“Paris, Rue de Richelieu, 2nd May, 1825.
“My dear Friend,
“I am well aware that the reports you mention as to my ‘having broken trust with the government in the years 1799 and 1800’ had been at one period most freely circulated: but I could scarcely suppose the same would be again and lately revived, to do me injury on a very important concern. This has not been altogether without its operation, and I feel it a duty to myself unequivocally to refute such imputation. The fact is proved in few words:—I could not break my trust with the government, for I never accepted any trust from them. I never entered into any stipulation or political engagement with any government; and every public act which I did—every instance of support which I gave, resulted from my own free agency and unbiassed judgment.
“My first return to parliament, in the year 1790, for the city of Tuam, was altogether at my own expense. I had before stood a contested election for Ballynakill, formerly my father’s borough. I was under no tie nor obligation to the government: I had not then, nor have I ever had, any patron; I never, in fact, solicited patronage: I never submitted to the dictation of any man in my life: my connexion with government therefore was my own choice, and the consequent support I gave to Lord Westmoreland’s administration of my own freewill. I liked Lord Buckinghamshire (Major Hobart) individually, and lived much in his society: I respected Lord Westmoreland highly, and he has always been very obliging to me during a period of seven-and-thirty years whenever he had an opportunity. During his administration I accepted office; and on his recall, he recommended Lord Camden to return me to parliament. Mr. Pelham did so for the city of Clogher; but made no sort of terms with me, directly or indirectly. In the autumn of 1798 Mr. Cooke wrote to me, and I had two interviews with him; on the second, I found that a Union would probably be submitted to parliament; and I promptly replied, that I must decline all further support to any government which should propose so destructive a measure, at the same time tendering my seat. He replied, ‘That I should think better of it.’
“Lord Cornwallis came over to carry this great measure; and I opposed him, Lord Castlereagh, and the Union, in every stage of the business, and by every means in my power, both in and out of parliament. Lord Cornwallis was defeated: he tried again;—Lord Castlereagh had purchased or packed a small majority in the interval, and the bill was carried. In January, 1800, I received a letter from Lord Westmoreland, stating that as Clogher had been a government seat, he doubted if I could in honour retain it. I had already made up my mind to resign it when required. I mentioned the subject to Mr. Forster, the speaker, who thought I was not bound to resign; however, I acceded to the suggestion of Lord Westmoreland, and accepted an escheatorship. But no office in his Majesty’s gift—no power, no deprivation, would have ever induced me to support the Union.
“I stood, at my own expense, a very hard-contested election for Maryborough, Queen’s County, in which I was supported by Sir Robert Staples, Mr. Cosby of Stradbally Hall, Dean Walsh, Colonel Pigot, Mr. Warburton, (member for the county,) the Honourable Robert Moore, (against his brother, the Marquess of Drogheda,) &c., and by the tenantry of the present Lord Maryborough. I was outvoted by a majority of three, the scale being turned against me by Lord Castlereagh, who sent down Lord Norbury, the crown solicitor, and several such-like gentry for the purpose. With that election my political career concluded: but I am happy and proud to state that, at its termination, I retained the confidence and esteem of every body whose friendship I considered it desirable to retain. Lord Westmoreland bears the most unexceptionable testimony to my straightforward conduct: I have been honoured by his friendship, without intermission, down to the present day; and the following extracts from his lordship’s letters to me, wherein he states his desire to bear witness to my strict conduct in my transactions with government, form the best refutal of all these calumnies against me.
“Since the period of my retirement from public life two of my then most intimate friends (namely, the present Chief Justice Bush and the present Attorney-general Plunkett) have succeeded beyond their most sanguine expectations, yet certainly not beyond their just merits. No government could pass such men by, at the bar, if they chose to claim offices. They took the same, and as strong an anti-Union part as I did; but, after the Union, my public pursuits were nearly at an end. Ireland lost all charms for me; the parliament (the source of all my pride, ambition, and gratification as a public man) had been bought and sold; I felt myself as if nobody,—became languid, careless, and indifferent to every thing. I was no longer in fact in my proper sphere: my health rapidly declined; and I neither sought for nor would have accepted any other government office in Ireland.
“Most of these facts, my dear Burne, you have been long acquainted with; and this is solely a recapitulation of some circumstances which I have no other means of making generally known. You will use it as you think may best serve me; and it only remains for me to repeat, what you already know, that I am most sincerely
“Yours ever,
“Jonah Barrington.
“John Burne, Esq., K. C.
“Merrion-square.”
Extracts of letters from the Earl of Westmoreland to Sir Jonah Barrington (enclosed to Mr. Burne):—
“London, March 28th, 1795.
“My dear Sir,
* * * * * “I shall always be obliged to you whenever you will have the goodness to let me know what is going on on your side of the water, wherein I am convinced you will always bear a very considerable part. I must at the same time assure you that no man’s name is more in public repute than your own.
“Lord Camden left town this morning, and I have not failed to assure him of your talents and spirit, which were so useful to my government on many occasions; and which, as I am satisfied he will find equally so, so is he equally disposed, I believe, to give them that countenance they deserve.
“The state of Ireland since I left you is most wonderful, but the reign of faction seems drawing to a close.
“I beg to be remembered to all friends, and am,
“Dear Sir, yours very faithfully,
“Westmoreland.
“To Jonah Barrington, Esq., one of His
“Majesty’s Counsel at Law, &c. &c.
“Merrion-square, Dublin.”
Much correspondence took place between his lordship and me after that period, in which he was always equally kind.[[38]] Indeed, in that kindness he never varied; and after knowing me seven-and-thirty years, (the most important of all revolutions having during that interval taken place in Ireland,) and after I had directly and diametrically opposed, in parliament and out of it, his lordship’s opinion and acts upon that great question;—the following extract of another letter from the same nobleman (dated 1817) proves that he never has changed his opinion of my honourable conduct toward the king’s government, (and permits me to state his approbation of that conduct,) every part of which he must have well known; since he had been, with very little intermission, a member of the British cabinet during the entire period.
[38]. He proposed, and superficially effected, a reconciliation between me and Lord Castlereagh: it had no good practical effect for me, but occasioned a very important episode in my history, which I may hereafter mention, though not in the present work.
(Abstract.)
“Paris, 19th August, 1817.
“Dear Sir,
* * * * “I have enclosed you a letter of introduction to Sir C. Stuart, and will certainly speak to him as you wish, and shall have great pleasure if it should prove of any convenience to you or your family: and I assure you I have always much satisfaction in giving my testimony to the honourable manner in which you have always conducted yourself in the political relations wherein you have stood with me.
“I am your very faithful servant,
“Westmoreland.”
I also added the following, by way of postscript, to my explanatory letter to Mr. Burne:—
“I think, my dear Burne, that after these testimonials, he must be a daring enemy who will reassert the calumnies against me. I apprehend that few public men can show more decided proofs of honour and consistency than I, in the fair and disinterested conduct I displayed when I found it necessary to oppose the government. I must also observe, on a principle of gratitude, that throughout the whole course of my public life I have uniformly experienced from the government and ministers of England, (let me here particularise Lord Stowell,) at all times and on all occasions, whether supporting or opposing them, the greatest kindness, justice, and considerate attention; together with a much greater interest, in any concerns of mine submitted to them, than I could possibly have conceived, much less have expected.
“But his Majesty’s public functionaries in Ireland were men of a different bearing: after the surveillance of a local parliament was extinguished, the country was, as it were, given over to them, bound hand and foot, and they at once assumed new powers, which before they durst not even have aimed at. Every grade of public functionaries bounded above their station; and brevet rank was no longer confined to military officers. I possess much knowledge respecting some of them, of the communication of which they are not aware; and I am not inclined to permit certain individuals to go down to their graves without hearing my observations. When the proper time arrives I shall not be silent.
“Again, dear Burne, yours,
“J. Barrington.”
On reading over the foregoing postscript of the letter to my poor friend Burne (who has lately paid his debt on demand to Nature), some observations occur to me respecting Ireland herself, her parties, and species of government, not uncongenial to the subject of that letter. The justice of these observations each day’s experience tends to prove; and I firmly believe many members of the British government at this moment view the matter precisely as I do. They find it difficult, however, to disentangle themselves from the opinions which have been so frequently expressed by themselves heretofore, and which, had they been equally informed then as now, would never, I apprehend, have been entertained. The people of England, and also of some continental kingdoms, are fully aware of the distracted state of Ireland, but are at a loss to account for it. It is, however, now in proof, that twenty-seven years of Union have been twenty-seven years of beggary and of disturbance; and this result, I may fairly say, I always foresaw. The only question now asked is, “What is to be done?” and the only comment on this question that it is in my power to make is, “a council of peace is better than a council of war.” Much of the unfortunate state of that country may be attributed to the kindred agency of two causes—namely, fanaticism in Ireland, and ignorance (I mean, want of true information) in Great Britain. The Irish are deluded by contesting factions, and by the predominance of a couple of watchwords;[[39]] while the great body of the English people know as little of Ireland (except of its disturbances) as they do of Kamschatka; and the king’s ministers, being unluckily of different opinions, go on debating and considering what is best to be done, and meanwhile doing nothing. If they do not take care, in some time there may be nothing left them to do. This is now my decided sentiment. A spectator can see the play much better than the gamester.
[39]. An ancient law still appears among the statutes of Ireland to prohibit the natives of that country from using the words Crum-a-boo, and Butler-a-hoo, as being the watchwords of two most troublesome hostile factions, which kept, at the period of the prohibition, the whole nation in a state of uproar. In my mind, a revival of that salutary enactment would not be amiss just now. A similar case (as regards the existing state of things) may be easily made out; and, as we lawyers say, “like case like rule.” As the statute is still upon our books, there is a precedent at hand, and it will only be necessary to amend it by changing the two terms Crum-a-boo and Butler-a-hoo, into Ascendancy-a-boo and Emancipation-a-hoo! The penalty for raising these cries might be the treadmill; and there can be little doubt that so wholesome a measure would speedily tranquillise the country, and save a good deal of rope, some anatomising, and the turning religion into a subject for debating societies.
I firmly believe England now means well and honourably to the Irish nation on all points, but I think she is totally mistaken as to measures. Neither honourable intentions, nor Sunday-schools, nor the four rules of arithmetic, nor Bible societies, can preserve people from starving: education is a very good thing in its proper place, but a sorry substitute for food; and I know the Irish well enough to say they never will be taught peace upon an empty stomach. Work creates industry, and industry produces the means of averting hunger; and when they have work enough and food enough, are permitted to dance on Sundays, and fight once a year, they may be turned to any thing. I speak, of course, of the lowest orders: the class immediately above those is now very unmanageable, because it is supported by its starving inferiors, who depend upon it alone for subsistence—the higher being absent. The nature and materials of the present species of Irish constitution appear to me totally unadapted to the necessities of that country. The Union never should have existed, or it should have been more perfect:—no half-mounted government can ever rule Ireland.
It is but too obvious that the natural attachment which ought to subsist between Great Britain and Ireland is not increasing, though on the due cultivation of that attachment so entirely depends the strength, the peace, and the prosperity of the United Empire; yet I fearlessly repeat that, in my mind, the English members of the imperial parliament mean well by Ireland, and only require to ascertain her true circumstances to act for her tranquillisation. Politically they may be sure that the imperium in imperio, as at present operating in that country, is not calculated to reform it. The protecting body of the country gentlemen have evacuated Ireland, and in their stead we now find official clerks, griping agents, haughty functionaries, proud clergy, and agitating demagogues. The resident aristocracy of Ireland, if not quite extinguished, is hourly diminishing; and it is a political truism, that the co-existence of an oligarchy without a cabinet; a resident executive and an absent legislature; tenants without landlord, and magistracy without legal knowledge;[[40]] must be, from its nature, a form of constitution at once incongruous, inefficient, and dangerous. Nobody can appreciate the native loyalty of the Irish people better than his present Majesty, whose reception in Ireland was enthusiastic: they adored him when he left it; and amidst millions of reputed rebels he wanted no protection: every man would have been his life-guard! I speak not however of corporations or guilds—of gourmands, or city feasters: these have spoken for themselves, and loudly too. His Majesty’s wise and paternal orders were ridiculed and disobeyed by them the very moment his back was turned! With such folks the defunct King William seems more popular than the living King George.[[41]]
[40]. I allude here more particularly to the clerical justices of Ireland. I believe I only coincide with some of the first English lawyers of this day, in maintaining that clergymen should confine themselves to spiritual and charitable duties, in doing justice to which ample occupation would be afforded them.
[41]. I lately met rather a noted corporator of Dublin in Paris. Of course I did not spare my interrogations as to the existing state of things; and in the course of conversation I asked why, after the king’s visit to Dublin, and his conciliatory admonitions, the corporation still appeared to prefer the Boyne Water and King William? “Lord bless you, Sir Jonah! (replied the corporator) as for the wather, we don’t care a rap dam about that; but if we once gave up ould King William, we’d give up all our plisures! Only for the ‘glorious mimory’ we would not have a toast now to get drunk with—eh! Sir Jonah? ha! ha! ha!” To humour the corporator, I did not hesitate to join in the hearty laugh which he set up in satisfaction at his own waggery.
Sound government, and the sufferance of active local factions are, in my view of things, utterly incompatible. Faction and fanaticism (no matter on which side ranged) ought to be put down to the ground—gently, if possible; but if a strong hand be necessary, it should not be withheld. In Ireland it has now proceeded too far to be longer blinked at. The British cabinet may be somewhat divided; but they will soon see the imperative necessity of firmness and unanimity. It is shameful that the whole empire should thus be kept in a state of agitation by the pretended theological animosities of two contending sects—a great proportion of whose respective partisans are in no way influenced by religion, the true object of their controversy being “who shall get the uppermost.” It is a struggle that cannot continue. There is a “tide” in the affairs of empires as well as of individuals: every fever has a crisis. Ireland is in one now. I am no factionist, I am no fanatic: I am the partisan only of tranquillity in the country where I drew my first breath.
I learn from Ireland with great pleasure—indeed, I read of general satisfaction being experienced at one of the ablest lawyers and most decisive, moderate, and unbiassed public functionaries of England having been presented as a head to my profession:—’tis a good beginning:—ça ira!