CHAPTER IV.

The Marquis of Wellesley comes to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant-O'Connell addresses a letter to him on the decoration of King William's Statue on the 12th of July-Bar anecdotes of O'Connell-He refuses a Fee! -The Bottle Conspiracy-Origin of the Catholic Association-The Catholic Rent-The "Second Reformation" O'Connell a Controversialist His "Bolivar" Speech-Prosecuted by Government-Sir Harcourt Lees.

Earl Talbot, who had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from 1817, was recalled towards the close of 1821, and on the 21st of December, of that year, the Marquis of Wellesley succeeded him. The Catholic body held a meeting in January, 1822, and voted him an address of congratulation and welcome, which was drawn up by Mr. Sheil and presented to him at his first levée. It was most graciously received, although no answer was given to it, it being contrary to etiquette to return a formal reply to an address presented at a levée.

The general question of Catholic Emancipation was not brought before Parliament in 1822, as Mr. Plunket, who had then the management of it, thought the time inopportune; but Mr. Canning introduced a bill asking the very small favour of admitting Catholic peers to the House of Lords. This bill was passed in the House of Commons by a majority of twelve, and defeated in the Lords by a majority of FORTY-TWO! The Catholic body were indignant; O'Connell was more than ever

convinced that an organization on a broader basis, and therefore more powerful than had as yet existed in Ireland, was absolutely necessary to wrest from the fears of England and of English statesmen, those civil rights which it was now evident they would never concede through a sense of justice. O'Connell had made up his mind as to the nature of this organization-it was, to cause the priests of Ireland to take an active part in Catholic politics. Up to this they had not done so. After the defeat of Canning's bill, a meeting of the Catholic Committee was called, at which along and warm discussion took place respecting various plans of action, and after an opposition of a vexatious kind to O'Connell's views, he rose and said in an impassioned tone :— “Gentlemen, we have a power that has never yet been called into the field, one that must coerce them to do us justice, and that power is the Priesthood of Ireland. In combining them with us, we bring to our aid learning, virtue, and influence, not belonging to any other class.-Without them we cannot succeed. To succeed we MUST have them with us, and from this day forward." There was a majority against this proposal, and it was combatted with the most persevering opposition, but O'Connell was immovable, and at last succeeded. "The

clergy," says Fagan, "were brought into the agitation, with what result it would be superfluous to

say.

Had Lord Talbot continued Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Catholics could not have expected him to prevent Orange party display in College-Green, on the 12th of July, as he was one of the first to

"Life and Times of Daniel O'Connell." Vol. i., p, 284.

violate the spirit of Lord Sidmouth's letter, by drinking the Glorious, Pious, and Immortal Memory, at the Lord Mayor's banquet; but Lord Wellesley came with other views, and it was hoped that insulting party displays would find no favour at his hands. The Catholics looked forward, with deep interest, to the 12th of July, 1822, as the day that would test his principles.

Some days before that blood-stained anniversary, it was observed that painters were quietly and unobtrusively engaged in touching up the statue in College-Green with the usual " orange and blue." On the 10th the Freeman's Journal called attention to the fact, and then continued in the following words:"Neither the government nor the police magistrates can be ignorant of what is passing before their eyes, in broad day and in the open street; but lest, possibly, they should not have observed what is notorious to every one else, we here apprise them of it, and we call upon them now, while there is yet ample time for the purpose, to protect the city of Dublin from a repetition of these outrages which have too long disgraced it." On the 11th, O'Connell addressed a letter to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject, which was thrown off in his best vein. The following are extracts :

"MY LORD-To-morrow will finally decide the character of your administration. The oppressed and neglected Catholics of Ireland had fondly hoped, that they might have obtained from a friend, placed in the exalted situation which your Excellency occupies, are commendation in favour o their claims. You took an early opportunity to crush that hope for ever. In your reply to the address of the Catholics of the county Clare, you

told the Irish people, that you came here to administer the laws, not to alter them.' Your Excellency came to administer the laws. My Lord, I most respectfully, but, at the same time, most firmly, call upon you to administer them. The exhibition intended (it is said) for to-morrow, is plainly a violation of the law. ... I pledge myself to prove, before any court, or to any impartial jury, that the usual annual exhibition, on the 12th of July, is illegal. I make this pledge under no small risk. I have certainly as large, probably a larger professional income, than any man in a stuff gown ever had at the Irish bar-an income depending mainly upon the public notion, that I understand something of my profession. I could not afford to forfeit that public confidence; and yet I freely consent to forfeit it all, unless I am able to demonstrate to any judicial tribunal, that the annual exhibitions of the 12th of July are illegal. As you cannot alter, I again respectfully, dutifully, but firmly, call upon you to administer the law, and to suppress an illegal and insulting nuisance. . . My Lord, the Catholics forgot injuries, and what is infinitely more difficult, forgave insults, to effect a reconciliation with their Protestant fellow subjects; and in no one instance have the Catholics, since the King's visit, violated, in deed or even in word, the spirit of that amicable concord which they then sought, and believed they had attained. . . . But, alas! how speedily, how completely, how entirely has it been violated upon the other side. On the other side, those men who were loudest in proclaiming sentiments of amity-what has been their conduct since! But I will not dwell upon this painful subject; I will only say, that the Catholics deserve

...

and require protection from insult and injury. Will you, my lord, refuse them that protection?"

Then, true to his belief in the value of repetition, O'Connell thus closes his letter exactly as he began it-To-morrow decides the character of your Excellency's administration in Ireland."

The government did not interfere, and the statue was dressed in the usual manner, on the 12th. The ceremony was performed very early in the morning, about 4 o'clock, and in the presence of several policemen, who made no attempt to prevent it. In the evening some of the "indignant spectators" mounted the pedestal with the intention of undressing the statue. The horse patrol and police prevented them, dispersed, and subsequently charged the people.*

The bar anecdotes of O'Connell, illustrative of his wonderful ability and tact as a cross-examiner, are very numerous. His Son, in his biography of him, relates one which occurred in the summer of this year. In one of the assize towns of the Munster circuit, he was offered a retainer, from the solicitor of a man accused of having plundered some plantations, belonging to a rich proprietor of the neighbourhood. The evidence against his client was expected to be of the clearest kind, being that of no less than three servants of the injured party-the gamekeeper, the butler, and a labourer, who had, all three assisted in capturing the offender, in the very act of committing the depredation. In face of such evidence O'Connell sent back the retaining fee, advising that it should be applied to something more useful than in engaging counsel,

* Freeman's Journal, 13th July, 1822.