APOLOGIES FOR VIOLENCE.
Soon after my appointment to office, an election occurred, and the city of Dublin was keenly contested. I received an order to proceed, on the nomination day, to Green Street, to take charge of the civil force there, and to report myself to the returning officer, the High Sheriff. I had consequently, in my official capacity, to present myself to my own brother, the late Joshua Porter, and I continued during the election, which was protracted as long as the law allowed, ready to quell any riotous demonstration. My brother was not fortunate enough to please all parties. His arrangement of booths and selection of deputies were denounced as having been made in a partial spirit, and the mob vociferously expressed an anxiety to be actuated in their treatment of him by the greatest of Christian virtues, for they unanimously agreed that it would be a "charity" to pelt him, if any opportunity offered to make a liberal subscription of stones for the purpose. He was escorted each day to and from the court-house by a strong body of police, and he remained in it until the termination of the proceedings in the evenings. There was usually during the election, a troop of hussars stationed in Halston Street, at the rere of Newgate, and a party of police was distributed between them and King Street, North. One afternoon, just at twilight, I walked out of the court-house, and as soon as I got to the steps, a crowd in King Street uttered a yell of animosity, and sent a volley of stones at me. I was not struck by any of the missiles. The police moved towards the mob, and the latter receded a few yards, but remained together. I walked towards them, and loudly informed them, that if they renewed their attack, I had the "Riot Act" in my pocket, and would instantly read it, and reply by a discharge of carbine bullets. There was no further demonstration on their part, and I returned to the court-house. In a few minutes, I was departing for home, when I was accosted by a carman named Smith. He asked me, "Would I take a covered car?" and I replied in the affirmative. He brought me home; and on discharging him, he said that the people had directed him to try "if he could get to say two or three words to me." He then conveyed to me the most extraordinary apology that could emanate from a mob for an attempted outrage. "Yer worship, I was tould to tell you that there wasn't a man or boy among them would throw anything at you or any other of yer magistrates, but whin you came out on the steps, in the dusk of the evening, they really thought that you were The High Sheriff."
I may mention that being in London in 1849, on official business, I was invited to dine at the Mansion House at an entertainment given by the Lord Mayor of that year (Sir James Duke) to the judicial authorities, metropolitan magistrates, &c. I had the honour to sit beside Chief Baron Pollok, and in conversation with him and two or three others in my proximity, I narrated the preceding anecdote. He said that the apology tendered to me was not more ridiculous or absurd than one which had been offered by some of those engaged in the "No Popery" riots of 1780, connected with the name of Lord George Gordon. There was a house in Charles Street, from the precincts of which morality was totally estranged, and it was thoroughly devastated by a furious mob. Some of those concerned in wrecking it were subsequently arrested, tried and convicted of the offence. When brought forward for sentence, the judge gave them to understand that the reputation of the premises afforded no justification for their violence, nor could it be alleged in mitigation of their punishment. Two or three of them exclaimed, "that if they had known what the house really was, they would never have attacked it; but they had been told, and fully believed, that it was a Nunnery."
TRESPASSERS ON A NUNNERY.
In twelve or eighteen months after the festive occasion to which I have referred, I accompanied a friend to visit two of his daughters, who were pupils at the Loretto Convent, Rathfarnham. Mrs. Ball, the aged and respected Superioress, gave us a very kind reception. We were conducted through the gardens and conservatories. On returning to the house, we were plentifully served with refreshments. In the course of conversation, my friend expressed his regret that so much hostile feeling should exist against conventual institutions. I remarked that it was not at all so intense as it had been in the previous century, when in London the mere reputation of a house being a nunnery was considered by the populace as fully sufficient to justify its destruction. To the best of my recollection, the Superioress observed—"I hope that those who entertained such hostile feelings lived long enough to repent of them. I think that the various classes of society are coming to a better understanding, and I expect great progressive improvement. Here we have not suffered the slightest annoyance for more than thirty years, and the only matter of which we had to complain was not very serious. Shortly after this establishment was founded, two young fellows, who resided in the neighbourhood, formed a design to entice two very handsome and rich young ladies to elope with them. They provided ladders, climbed into the trees which overhung the wall, dropped notes at the feet of the lasses, and were for a time incessant in their amatory pursuit. However, a communication with the guardian of one and the parents of the other, and the consequent authoritative expostulations, produced a satisfactory effect. They promised to relinquish their project, and as a token of their sincerity, sent us their ladders. I believe they repented of having given us any trouble, and they implicitly kept their promise. One of them is now a colonel in the army, and the other is a magistrate of police. Mr. Porter, let me request you to have more fruit and another glass of wine." I admired the kind and forgiving sentiments of the Superioress, and felt very grateful for her courteous hospitality, but I had no idle curiosity to know the names of the two ladder lads to whom her observations referred.
CHAPTER XIV. TERRY DRISCOLL'S FICTION—BRIDGET LAFFAN—SAILORS—FISHER.
I shall now revert to magisterial reminiscences, and notice an anecdote originally published in the Warder newspaper, as a portion of a letter signed "Terry Driscoll," which was the nom de plume of a well-known facetious and imaginative contributor named Jackson. It purports to be a report of observations addressed by me to a female who was repeatedly charged with being "drunk and disorderly." It states that Mr. Porter said to the delinquent that her frequent intoxication was always accompanied with indecent language and personal violence, so as to render her a public nuisance and a plague to the police. He then adjudged her, in default of solvent security for her good behaviour, to be committed for one calendar month, which time should be sufficient to bring her to a proper state of reflection on the past, and a disposition to reform her habits, and to curse Whiskey. To this she is represented to have replied, "That she had no fault to find with Whiskey, nor would she ever curse it, but from the bottom of her heart she could wish bad lack to Porter." To this anecdote several English periodicals have afforded extensive publicity, and I have merely to say that it is altogether a fiction.
BRIDGET LAFFAN.
There is, I believe, still living in Dublin, a woman named Bridget Laffan. I would readily wager that since 1841 she has been the subject of more than two thousand committals, in which drunkenness, violence, abusive language, indecent expressions or behaviour, and occasional mendicancy, constituted the offences. Shortly before I retired, she was brought before me charged with intoxication, and with three distinct assaults; one being on a constable in the execution of his duty. I told her, the cases having been fully proved, that on each of the assaults she should go to prison, with hard labor, for two months, which would relieve the public and the police for the next half year from one who had become an intolerable pest and disgrace to the community. When I directed her to be removed, she exclaimed that "she had not been allowed to say a word for herself." I then said that she was at liberty to speak, if it occurred to her that there was any favorable circumstances in her case either as a defence or mitigation. Her reply was short and peculiarly argumentative.