All Posts page

The life of Sir Joshua Walmsley – Chapter I

CHAPTER I.  1794 until 1811. This first chapter contains some of the few, very few, details about Josh’s family.  In part it covers Josh’s “ half-gipsy, half-sportsman life led on Stanemoor” [his words] up in Cumbria. It is so fantastical that it probably owes more to C19th romantic novels rather than real life. He was, without doubt, highly successful in business leaving an estate of £140,000 when he died in 1871 [a modern equivalent of just over £ 97m.] Whether he really managed to get there from a few shillings in his pocket in 1811, or was rather creating a rags to riches story is almost irrelevant.

thecustomshouseandrevenuebuilding-s
Custom House Liverpool

Joshua Walmsley was born September 29, 1794, in Concert Street, Liverpool His father was a builder, a man of considerable ability and enterprise, whose affairs prospered during the boy’s early childhood. He had extensive premises in Berry Street, and possessed quarries of freestone in Toxteth Park, and of marble in Kilkenny. Many fine buildings were erected by him in Liverpool. Mrs. Walmsley is described as a woman of energy and ability. On one occasion, when her husband was absent for two years in Ireland, she managed his affairs so skilfully that on his return he found them in a more prosperous condition than when he left. A girl, one year the boy’s junior, completed the household.

Among the reminiscences of early days recorded in the notes Sir Joshua Walmsley has left, is the vague recollection of a large workshop filled with busts, statues, and architectural ornaments, where he and his sister used to carry on their merry games, and where on one occasion, with the help of his little playmate, he carved a monumental stone for a deceased favourite cat. These were happy days, but trouble came in the shape of family dissension and failing business; the husband and wife separated, and the children were sent to Christleton, near Chester.

Here the brother and sister attended a day-school, but their real intellectual food was supplied from another quarter. The people with whom they lodged were connected with the stage. Shakespeare’s plays were the constant study and theme of conversation in the house, and before the lad could read well, he was able to declaim long passages from the tragedies and comedies, and before he understood the meaning of the word history, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Henry V., and Richard III. were living heroes to him.

At the end of two or three years the children returned to Liverpool, and were sent to day-schools, but the candid record tells how young Joshua was self-willed and impetuous, chafing against discipline, and not a very diligent scholar. “ One day,” he says, “ my schoolmaster chastised me brutally. My father’s indignation on seeing the bruises was roused to such a pitch that he horsewhipped the man who had inflicted them. I never forgot this. From that day I gave up my vagrant habits, and love for my father was deepened by gratitude.” In spite of all his shortcomings, the keen-sighted old man discerned signs of character that pointed to a bright future for his son. “Jos will be Mayor of Liverpool,” he used to say in the boy’s hearing.

To be mayor of his native town was the highest dignity the Liverpool builder’s imagination could picture, and this faith in his son brightened the latter years of his life. The boy, whose ambition had been kindled by reading and learning Shakespeare’s plays, listened with a swelling heart to these predictions. “ They sank into my soul,” he says, “ and I resolved that the day should come when they would be fulfilled.”

In his own old age. Sir Joshua, alluding to his father, writes : “ I do not know any earthly gratification I would have enjoyed more than ministering to his declining years, and witnessing his joy when seeing me fulfil those predictions which his own trust in me had no slight influence in bringing about the realisation of.”

Joshua was next sent to Knowsley School, where he spent the three brightest years of his boyhood. There he formed many life-long friendships, none of which was more fruitful of happiness than that of his future brother-in-law, Mr. James Mulleneux. Of Mr. Baron, the master, he speaks with affection and respect.

12th_earl_of_derby
Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby 1752 – 1834

We have some pleasant glimpses of this school life and its play hours. A favourite amusement of the boys was to make apple-pies with fruit and flour bought out of their own pocket-money. They dug ovens in the ground, heated them, and baked their pastry. No doubt dirt was an ingredient of the composition, but it mattered little. The pies were relished by the young cooks with a gusto that no feast or fare of after years could boast. Knowsley School stood on the borders of Knowsley Park. One day, while the boys were intent on their apple-pie making, a quaint but elegant old gentleman made his appearance. His carefully-brushed hair hung down in an elaborate cue. He wore silk stockings, silver buckles, and a beautifully-cut coat The grave aristocratic manner of this stately presence awed the boys, and they paused in their pie-making operations. Presently, however, their shyness wore off, for the gentleman seated himself on a large stone in their midst, and began talking to them like any ordinary mortal.

It was the Earl of Derby. The boys had often heard of him, for (be it understood we are speaking of four generations back) he was famed for his love of cock and dog fighting and other sports. [At a dinner party in 1778 held on his estate “The Oaks” in Carshalton, Lord Derby and his friends planned a sweepstake horse race, won the following year by Derby’s own horse, Bridget. The race, the Epsom Oaks, has been named after the estate since. At a celebration after Bridget’s win, a similar race for colts was proposed and Derby tossed a coin with Sir Charles Bunbury for the honour of naming the race. Derby won, and the race became known as the Derby Stakes.]  

He questioned the lads about their cooking, and gave them culinary hints which, when followed, improved the flavour of their pies. After that he often came to see them, and the boys would gather round him and listen to his anecdotes and advice. Then rising to leave he would tip the lads all round. Needless to say that the old gentleman with the grand genial manners became a great favourite. Little did the son of the Liverpool builder then foresee that he would one day become acquainted with the earl’s son, would work in the House of Commons with his grandson,[who was Prime Minister three times]  and in his latter years be on a friendly footing with his great-grandson, the present Earl of Derby. But the pleasant days at Knowsley were coming to an end. The terms at Mr. Baron’s school were too high for Mr. Walmsley’s reduced means. With a sad heart his son received the tidings that he must leave Knowsley School for one in Westmoreland.

Eden Hall, as the establishment was called, merits a brief description, as a type now unknown in England. From twenty to twenty-five pounds per head was the yearly sum paid by one hundred and thirty boys for board, lodging, and education. ” Breakfast at Eden Hall,” writes Sir Joshua, “consisted of a slice of black rye bread, a large proportion of bran entering into the composition. As a rule it was sour. In addition, a large boiler was placed on the table half filled with water, and into this two gallons of milk had been poured, and some handfuls of oatmeal added. Its contents were shared by the one hundred and thirty hungry lads. oats-porridgeSometimes oatmeal porridge replaced the contents of the boiler, and a teaspoonful of treacle was allowed as a great treat. Three times a week we had a limited amount of meat for dinner ; on other days, potatoes, black bread, and cheese. This cheese had grown so hard with age we nicknamed it ‘ wheel- barrow trundles’ ;  the third meal consisted of another slice of bread and of the ‘ trundle ‘ cheese. For a certain number of hours daily we were turned into agricultural labourers, working on a large farm belonging to our master.  We were a healthy set,” continues Sir Joshua, “ our constitutions hardened by outdoor life and labour. Some boys complained, some ran away, but none were ill, and only one death occurred during the six years I stayed there.”

The neighbouring orchards naturally suffered from the inroads of this healthy and hungry tribe. One instance of these exploits to show the spirit that animated the school. ” A magnificent crop of apples attracted the boys’ attention. They were in a neighbouring farmer’s orchard. The temptation was very great, so the robbery was planned and fully carried out. Being the prime mover in the affair and principal leader, I assumed the most dangerous post. Another boy and myself were still in the tree, throwing the fruit down to our accomplices, when the infuriated owner, who had been on the look-out, appeared amongst us. All fled save we two unfortunate delinquents up in the tree. The farmer leant his burly form against the trunk, but we refused, like Mrs. Bond’s ducks, to come down to be killed. Both parties held out for some time. At last terms were agreed upon between us. The farmer was to forgive the offence if I, from my retreat in the branches, pledged myself in the name of the whole school never to molest his property again.

Apple orchard at Brogdale Farm, used alongside top crops feature, Apples.

The promise was given, and the pledge accepted. We came down, returned to our schoolmates, and in presence of all assembled, the transaction was related and ratified. A law was passed that for the future property belonging to this farmer should always be respected. This edict would have been obeyed to the letter, but next morning the farmer came to the school and made his accusation before the master, picked out the two chief culprits, and demanded our punishment. A mitigation of the sentence was offered if we gave up our accomplices ; but this we refused to do, and we were flogged. The next day the farmer’s orchard was bare of fruit, and one of his finest trees lay full length upon the ground. The masters themselves looked leniently upon the act, as one of retributive justice consequent on a breach of contract.”

The pupils of the school contested matches in football, cricketing, and other games, with the townspeople, and in the majority of cases came off victorious. At all times Westmoreland has been noted for its wrestling, and to excel in this, as in other sports, was a point of honour with the school. When one of their number was declared by his master to be their best man in muscle and address, he would march into the town and throw down his gauntlet in presence of the inhabitants. This consisted in pulling the bell in the public market-place, and waiting there till a rival champion appeared.

The sound of the bell was perfectly understood by the townsfolk. It was a challenge to any antagonist who would offer himself for the best of three falls. The match was conducted in the most friendly manner, with perfect good humour, and the beaten lad went home to town or school to practise again, and when ready to toll the market -bell once more.

In 1807, young Joshua was rapidly mastering what advantages the school afforded, when the tidings reached him that his father was dead. It had been some time since the lad had seen him;  but when they had been last together a circumstance occurred which, though trifling, was destined to have an influence on his whole life, and be in a manner the key-note of all his future conduct. He writes : ” My father and I were walking down the Wavertree Road together, when we entered an orchard where the trees were laden with fruit. Taking up a stone, I threw it into a small ill-grown tree, bearing some wretched crabs, but it brought nothing down. My father stooped, picked up the stone, and threw it into another tree, the apples of which were very fine. Two or three fell at his feet. ‘My lad,’ he said to me, pointing to them, ‘ remember through life that an apple is as easily felled as a crab.’ This occurred the last day my father and I were together, but his simple words produced an impression upon me that was never forgotten.”

The father left no fortune, and thus at the respective ages of thirteen and twelve the brother and sister found themselves penniless on the world. They became teachers in the schools where they had been pupils. This exposed him to bitter mortifications, and many a lonely hour did the boy spend upon the moors brooding over his situation. One day as he mused in this melancholy mood, his father’s words flashed with sudden significance across his mind —  “Remember, lad, an apple is as easily felled as a crab.” At once his resolve was made ; life seemed suddenly to have an aim ; duty, however irksome, should be fulfilled, every spare hour should be devoted to self-culture. He would bear sneers and insults with what patience he could command, keeping ever in view the higher standard of life his father’s words were intended to convey. His determination was rigidly carried out, and it was not long ere the sneers and jests had to make way for respect and trust on the part of teachers and pupils.

Soon after, Mr. Ainslabie, the head master, entrusted him with the school accounts, and also assigned to him the task of making out the bills for the boys’ parents. This extra labour, although it brought with it no remuneration, gave him a practical knowledge which was of much value to him in after life. It brought him also into constant direct intercourse with the head master, and this in its turn led to a new phase in the lad’s existence, which tended still more to develop in him powers of self-denial and self- reliance. We shall let him tell the incident that led to this new epoch in his career.

stainmore-1
Stanmore

” Once past the small town of Kirkby-Stephen, the country extended for miles in heather-covered moors. Thickly tenanted with grouse, they stretched wild and desolate for a great distance towards Bowes. Mr. Ainslabie shot over these moors, and one day took me with him to carry his spare gun. We had gone a weary way, and the sportsman had not yet had one successful shot. Mr. Ainslabie at last sent me to the other side of one of the tarns to flush grouse for him. A party of gentlemen, with guns, dogs, and keepers, were strolling over that part of the moor. One of them, perceiving me, stepped forward and asked me did I not know I was trespassing, and that I had no right to walk about carrying a gun ? Quite unembarrassed, I explained my position, said I had not fired a single shot, but was simply carrying my master’s gun. My interlocutor dismissed me with a caution, and showing me the boundary line bid me not trespass again, even though I should not fire a shot.

brace-of-grouseThe gentleman who thus addressed me was, strange to say, Lord Stanley, son of the kind old earl of my Knowsley school-days. However, it happened that before I reached the limit of the forbidden ground a grouse rose at my feet. The temptation was great; in an instant my finger was on the trigger. I fired, and to my delight and surprise the grouse fell. I heard a loud laugh behind me ; all my sportsman instincts were aroused. I resolved to try my luck again. Keen eyesight and unerring precision served my turn, and with my single gun I brought down three brace of grouse. Great was the astonishment of Mr. Ainslabie, who, waiting for me, had shot only one brace, when I appeared and laid the spoil at his feet ! ”

The vision of a new quarry now opened upon the master. The steady aim and cool nerve of this young fellow must be turned to account. Grouse and fish fetched good prices in the market, and a dead shot at Eden Hall would be a valuable acquisition. Forthwith young Walmsley was sent to the moors to turn his talent to account. They stretched far and wide towards the north, the sweeping shadows of the clouds alone varying the purple monotony of the heather, with here and there a black tarn full of fish that no one thought of disturbing. Thus Sir Joshua describes his life among the moors :

” My gun, ammunition, a bag wherein to bestow the game, a luncheon consisting of a slice of black bread and a piece of wheelbarrow trundle cheese, composed my equipment, and very soon the funds of Eden Hall so profited by my gun, that instead of the day being spent on the moor and the night in my bed in the dormitory, it came to pass I was sent of on excursions of a fortnight’s duration. A donkey cart was allotted to me to carry the ammunition and a considerable amount of black bread and trundle cheese. A companion, by name Francis, was also given me. This Francis was the “Smike “ of Eden Hall. He a tall athletic lad of respectable parentage, whose father, having placed him in the school, completely neglected him. After some time, from pupil he became the drudge of the establishment, performing all the repulsive work of the place It was a lucky day for poor Francis, that on which that Mr. Ainslabie found out my sporting capacities ; for to spend days and nights on the moors was release from captivity for our ‘Smike.’  His duty was to carry the gun and fishing-gear.

We dragged the tarns by night, and when a goodly cargo of grouse had been shot Francis would harness the donkey to the cart, and taking charge of game and fish, would deliver all to the head master.rye-bread-and-cheese We got no share of the booty, but if our provisions were exhausted, Francis would receive a fresh supply of black bread and trundle cheese, with which he would rejoin me at our headquarters on the moor. It was usually by the side of a stream or by one of the tarns that we encamped. The donkey unharnessed found his own provisions during the daytime, while at night he would be tethered near. If the weather was fine we slept in the open, if wet or windy we turned the donkey-cart and slept under its friendly shelter. By sunrise we were afoot again, and after a bath in the stream, and a breakfast of black bread and cheese hard as flint, on to our hunter’s life again. Each meal consisted of the same unvarying fare washed down with water. Scrupulously, as if the master’s eye had counted every bird and fish, we sent home all the game we killed. Between each campaign I returned to the school-room, studied, taught, and had charge of the bills.”

We suspect that this Spartan life in the wild moorland did more to fit young Walmsley for the future that lay before him than could any school or college of the time. When the two lads that shared it together met in later years, one was a knight and a member of parliament, the other   – the humble Smike -a prosperous magistrate.

In the spring of 1811, a misunderstanding between young Walmsley and his master’s brother brought this chapter of his career to a close. The lad longed for a wider field of action than the Eden Hall School opened the prospect of, yet he would have waited longer ere taking the decisive step had not this quarrel occurred.

“One morning, in the spring of 1811, carrying all my worldly goods — they were not a heavy load — I bade farewell to Eden Hall. I travelled by carrier as far as Kendal, then took an outside seat on the conveyance that at Warrington met the Liverpool coach. After I had paid my fare but a few shillings remained in my pocket. Yet my heart beat high with hope as I turned my face towards the scene of my future labours ; and all the way I seemed to hear my father’s words :   ‘Jos will be mayor of Liverpool some day.’  “

An Anti-Corn-Law Leaguer. The Life of Sir Joshua Walmsley – The Spectator review 1880

This may seem a slightly curious place to start, but it’s as good as any to introduce Uncle Hugh’s book about his father. A great deal of the review is very fair indeed, and the Life of Sir Joshua raises almost as many questions as it provides answers. The first chapter which in part covers Josh’s “ half-gipsy, half-sportsman life led on Stanemoor” up in Cumbria is so fantastical that it probably owes more to C19th romantic novels rather than real life. He was, with no doubt, highly successful in business leaving an estate of £140,000 when he died in 1871 [a modern equivalent of just over £ 97m.] Whether he really managed to get there from a few shillings in his pocket in 1811, or was rather creating a rags to riches  story is almost irrelevant. He had a curiously Zellig-like ability to be somewhere around some fairly extraordinary events throughout the C19th, and the luck or nous to invest very early on with the Stephensons.  The book is a surprisingly good read, large sections of it are from Sir Josh’s notes and diaries, and it’s certainly massively better than at least one of Uncle Hugh’s other books  “The Ruined Cities of Zululand”.  I will be posting each chapter, in a series, to let the work speak for itself, and then try to discover more about the man himself.

 

Sir Joshua Walmsley, M.P. 1794 -1871

 

AN ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUER.

The Life of Sir Joshua Walmsley.

By his Son, Hugh Mulleneux Walmsley,

London; Chapman and Hall. 1879.

No doubt, Mr. Walmsley has thought, and probably with truth, that the public would be impatient of personal details in the life of a man only known to them as a politician ; but then, he should have called his book, “The Political Life of Sir Joshua Walmsley.” The Paddington station-master might almost as well call a careful journal of all that happens at his station—royal entrances and exits, and the like, with which he is largely concerned—his life, as Mr. Walmsley call the book before us the life of his father. With the exception of his boyhood, we hear nothing of his private life, except a shooting episode. Two pages are thought sufficient in which to summarise the events of the four years which followed his retirement from public life. We hear nothing whatever of personal or family life, of his religious opinions, of his social relations or influence, of his tastes and pursuits at home, or of his holiday wanderings abroad. We hear nothing of his wife, after his marriage, till his death ; and nothing of children ; nor of friends, except such friends as were joined with him in public affairs. In fact, we gather that Sir Joshua’s whole soul was first in business, then in municipal work, and finally in helping to bring about those great political and fiscal reforms which were to benefit the country by putting the necessaries and comforts of life within easier reach of the people. But of Sir Joshua Walmsley himself we seem to have no picture, except as an ambitious and hard-working politician, who threw all his weight into the scale of the Liberal party.

His life—if we are to call it a life—will interest all politicians, especially Liverpool people, who remember the stirring years in the earlier part of the century, from 1826 to 1846, when municipal reform, the opening of the first railways, and the great measure of this century—the repeal of the Corn Laws—kept England—and particularly the North of England, whence emanated the Anti- Corn-Law League—in a state of excitement and action that was stimulating and spirit-stirring. In all this work Sir Joshua took a very active and useful, if not a very distinguished part, though we cannot remember him as a speaker. Bright and Cobden, indeed, or Cobden and Bright—for one was as great in lucid and logical exposition as the other was eminent for force and eloquence—threw all their fellow-workers into the shade; but Walmsley had a clear head, an iron constitution, and an invincible will, and was one of the most efficient members of the indomitable and victorious band of Anti-Corn Leaguers and Parliamentary reformers.

His early life was curious, and illustrates remarkably his tenacity of purpose. It is not perhaps altogether the most pleasing trait in his character that he seems to have been much impressed by the worldly wisdom of his father, and especially by an act and an aphorism of that father’s, and to have been largely influenced by them through life. The young Joshua had brought down a few crabs with a stone ; his father at once aimed instead, and with success, at some fine, sweet apples, and remarked to his son, “Remember, through life, my lad, that an apple is as easily felled as a crab.” On another occasion he had asserted confidently that “Jos will be Mayor of Liverpool some day,” and these words, he used to say, “rang in his ears.” His father died when his son and daughter were only thirteen and twelve; leaving them—owing to sad reverses— penniless ; they both became teachers in the schools where they had been pupils. Joshua’s engagement was at a school amongst the moors of Westmoreland, and his employer, the head master, being a good shot, united with the profession of school- master the curiously incongruous one of purveyor of game to the large towns. Joshua proved an infinitely better shot, however, than his employer, and in future led a hard but to him almost a fascinating life,—camping-out on the moors and driving home his cartload of game ; alternating this employment with that of making up his master’s books. But his ambition was not satisfied with a life so little likely to lead to anything better, and he returned to Liverpool, and sought—till he was penniless, and indebted to his kind landlady for subsistence—for a situation. One was found at last in a school, and he rose in the good graces of his employer ; but ambition was a very active force in Mr. Walmsley’s constitution, and he declined a partnership in the school, worth £400 a year, for a clerkship in a corn merchant’s office worth £40, bat which seemed to him to offer better chances of future wealth and influence. He rose rapidly, was offered a partnership in another house, and his marvellous knowledge of the grain-trade enabled him to make, lose, and remake a large fortune, and retire, according to our calculation—but there is a sad scarcity of orderly dates—at about fifty years of age. His affections seem to have been as tenacious as his purposes. He engaged himself, when a small boy at a dancing-school, to a little girl of seven, and he afterwards married her, and at the close of life attributed to her influence and. wisdom much of his varied success.

Mr. Walmsley seems to have had a strong personal friendship. for three considerable men—whose friendship in return reflects honour upon him – George Stephenson, Richard Cobden, and Joseph Hume; and it is one of the book’s merits that we hear – almost as much of Hume and Cobden as of Sir Joshua himself. Of the great engineer, with whom Sir Joshua made a business journey to Spain, we have several interesting anecdotes. We select the following, which the present writer, who had the pleasure of knowing Stephenson, recognises as very characteristic :

“The travellers’ way now lay across France, and in this part of their journey occurred the two following incidents. We crossed on foot, says Sir Joshua, “the chain bridge suspended over the Dordonne. Let us go over it again,’ said Stephenson, when we had reached the other side. Accordingly, over it again we went, the ‘old man’ walking very slowly, with head bent down, as if he were listening to and pondering over every step he took. The bridge is unsafe ; it will give way at the first heavy trial it meets with,’ he said, decisively, at last. We had better warn the authorities, your name will carry weight,’ I replied. We went to the mayor, we were- politely received, and we related the object of our visit. The mayor shrugged his shoulders with polite incredulity ; he assured us that the engineer who had built the bridge was an able man. Stephenson urged his warning, supporting the interpreter’s words with gestures and rough diagrams drawn on the spot. Still the French official shrugged his shoulders, looked incredulous, and finally bowed us out. Only a few months later Stephenson’s warning came true. A regiment of soldiers crossed the bridge without breaking step, the faulty structure gave way, and scores of men in heavy marching order were hurled down into the eddies of the rapid river below, where. many were drowned, before means of rescue could reach them. Another day we passed by a French line in process of construction ; the navvies were digging and removing the soil in wheelbarrows. Stephenson remarked that they were doing their work slowly and untidily. Their posture is all wrong,’ he cried ; jumping out of the carriage, with the natural instinct that impelled him to be always giving or receiving instruction, he took up a spade, excavated the soil, and filled a wheelbarrow, in half the time it took any one of the men to do it. Then further to illustrate that in the posture of the body lies half the secret of its power, he laid hold of a hammer and mallet, and poising his figure, he threw it to an immense distance before him ; challenging by gestures the workmen, who had now gathered round him, and were curiously watching him, to do the same, but they one and all failed to equal the feat. The interpreter explained the lesson to the navvies, and told them who their teacher was. Ste-vim-son !’ the name went from mouth to mouth. The intelligent, appreciative Frenchmen gathered close around him, and broke into vociferous cheers, such as I thought could only proceed from British lungs, until the echoes rang around us on every side.”

And while we are speaking of Sir Joshua’s friends, we must quote an anecdote, which, his son tells us, he was fond of repeating, illustrative of Mr. Hume’s popularity amongst the “working-classes :”—

” A strike had been resolved upon by the London cabmen. The night was wet and miserable. On leaving the scene of our labours, we saw through the rain a reassuring assemblage of four-wheelers and hansoms. No sooner, however, did we hail the cabs, than with a loud halloo the drivers impelled them in various directions. Hume and I were walking arm-in-arm. ‘We’ll give old Joe a lift,’ shouted three or four retreating cabbies drawing up their horses. They actually fought for the privilege of giving him a lift ; and since I was walking with him, I was allowed to get in, and so shared the advantage of his popularity.”

Before leaving Sir Joshua’s friends and acquaintance, we must record his spirited account and sagacious opinions of a party of patriots with whom it was his chance to spend an evening, and of whom, at that time, all England was speaking. The quotation is part of a narrative in Sir Joshua’s own words :—

“One morning, in February, 1854,” he narrates, “a gentleman was introduced into my study. On looking at his card, I found it was Mr. Saunders, the United States Consul. We had never met before. He intimated to me that his object in calling was to invite me to meet Mr. Buchanan, the American Minister, and some political friends. It was against my rule to accept invitations of a political or party character. I asked Mr. Saunders who the guests would be ; the list was as follows :—Mazzini, Garibaldi, Louis Kossuth, Walsh, Pulski, Ledru Rollin, Count Woxcell, and Orsini. I could not resist this catalogue of fiery names and accepted the invitation. At 25 Weymouth Street, Portland Square, the singular gathering took place. Mazzini sat at our host’s right hand. His appearance was very impressive and characteristic. His eyes, burning in his wasted countenance, his high, narrow forehead, spoke of a mind lofty and pure, but wanting in variety and flexibility. His whole appearance indicated a man of few ideas, but these ideas sublime and true. It was a never-to-be-forgotten sight, this group of patriots assembled together,—the simple, manly, honest face of Garibaldi, the attenuated features of Woxcell, the grave and handsome countenance of Kossuth, the beautiful young head of Orsini. The dinner was genuinely American in the abundance and costliness of its service. The wit, the humour, the vivacity of the conversation, were delightful, but so long as servants were present I knew the talk was superficial. When the cloth was removed and the servants had left the room, the doors were closed. I noticed they were double doors. Then a toast was given; it was to ‘Humanity.’ Mazzini was the first to speak. His austere eloquence, lit with flashes of enthusiasm, profoundly impressed me. It was like listening to the utterances of the old Hebrew prophets. He sketched the dark part of humanity, trodden down by kings and priests. Then came the struggles of the people for liberty. He saw streaks of the dawn in the present. In the future lay the glorious day of a regenerated humanity, free, self-respecting, -on whose banner the word Duty’ was inscribed. It was from his beloved Italy that he looked for this new revolution to come. Each one of the party, after him, rose and addressed the gathering. And the theme of every speaker was his country’s sufferings in the past and present, and his aspirations for it in the future. All spoke ‘freely, as men who had cast off restraint, and who were convinced of the accomplishment in the future of their object. In discussing their country’s wrongs, they frankly discussed the means by which they proposed to redeem and deliver her. From these means I should over shrink. But at such a moment, the reasoning power of the Listeners was carried away on this torrent of fiery zeal, impassioned patriotism, and persuasive eloquence. As patriot after patriot spoke, each seemed to press on to a higher and ever higher view of the subject in hand. After Mazzini, Kossuth addressed us in a speech full of power; but his eloquence was more flowery than Mazzini’s, and left less impression upon me. He was too much of a poet to guide up the dangerous height to which he had climbed. His friend Pulski was more of a man of business, and ever proved himself a sound patriot. Of all that night’s discourses, Garibaldi’s simple and straight- forward words moved me most. Ho seemed to take the wisest view of the coarse to be pursued, and to bring to the service of the subject the greatest amount of practical knowledge. His address, more unpretentious, was, to my mind, more convincing than the others. Orsini looked like a man inspired by, and resolved upon, his purpose. He spoke with much seeming sorrow of the necessity for deeds which be himself was prepared to accomplish. I shall never forget how young and handsome he looked that night, and I am persuaded that the wisest course Napoleon could have pursued would have been to have pardoned him. Of Ledru. Rollin I did not conceive a high idea. The impression he made upon me was that of a disappointed politician, rather than that of a patriot. Count Woxcell represented Poland. An exile for many years, he was so poor as often to lack the necessaries of life, yet he never complained. That night he had .evidently risen from a bed of sickness. His fine features contrasted with the exhaustion and feebleness of his frame ; death was stamped on his countenance; but his mind was bright with hopes of his country’s redemption. As he spoke of Poland’s sufferings, tears flowed down his pale cheeks.”

Those who know what were the views of Mr. Hume and Mr. Cobden know pretty nearly Sir Joshua Walmsley’s. He looked, evidently, in his Parliamentary career, as Member for Leicester, to their guidance, but was not wanting in independence and originality. He did not for instance, heartily concur in Cobden’s enthusiasm for non-intervention, though it is curious to note that he bought an interest in the Daily News, at Mr. Cobden’s suggestion, for the purpose of pressing this theory, for which, Mr. Cobden thought, the country was getting ripe. What would he say now?  Mr. Hume was eager for Parliamentary and Mr. Cobden for financial reform, and Sir Joshua seems to have shared the eagerness of both, but in a more moderate degree ; his readiness and energy were remarkable, and as in the struggle to repeal the Corn Laws, so in the subsequent efforts for financial and representative reform, Hume and Cobden, and the many other noble workers of that party, were vigorously and effectively backed by Walmsley’s business powers and knowledge, and by his wonderful faculty for success. But perhaps the great work of his life was the fierce and successful, but most laborious, attack he made on the dens of vice in his native town of Liverpool – of which he was afterwards mayor – accompanied by his reorganisation of the police, and succeeded by his earnest and successful efforts in favour of the education of the poor, which, in his view, alone went to the root of the matter, and on which he relied for the future freedom of his town from that army of beggars, paupers, and evil-doers which ignorance alone can generate and nourish, and education alone can ultimately stamp out.

The above text was found on p.17, 10th January 1880 in “The Spectator” 

Alderman Richard Sheil (1790 – 1871)

On the 26th February, 1871, Alderman Richard Sheil passed away at the ripe age of eighty years. For fifty years he had been a prominent figure in every Catholic movement. Born in Dublin, in 1790, he was a member of the same family which gave to Ireland the brilliant writer and M.P., Richard Lalor Sheil. After spending many years of his life in Hayti, Mr. Sheil came to Liverpool, and carried on large business with great success. No Catholic movement was complete without his presence, whilst his interest in public matters was so intense that the Tory Corporation paid him the compliment of naming one of its public parks with his surname. One of the first three Catholic councillors, the first Catholic alderman, he had the unique honour of being the first to re-enter the Council and again become the only Catholic alderman. Dark complexioned, he looked like a Spanish monk, and his merchant friends used to say of him that he had missed his vocation. His warm Irish temperament and mellifluous brogue made him a host of friends in all parties which he with kindly wisdom turned to account for the benefit of his co-religionists. Indeed, had he so desired even a Conservative majority would have elected him to the honourable position of the Chief Magistracy. To do honour to his memory, and as an acknowledgement of his signal services to the Church, the Vicar-General sang the Requiem Mass in the absence through illness of the Bishop. His mortal remains were interred in Anfield Cemetery.

This is from the Catholic History Of Liverpool,  by Thomas Burke; Liverpool : C. Tinling & Co., Ltd., Printers, 53, Victoria Street.  1910

Bicknell v. Bicknell Divorce November 1908

I think it’s time to re-post this because it’s very entertaining, but the starting point for this might well be their wedding  in 1897

 

The Times October 31, 1908 [Day 1]

(Before Mr. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEAN and a Special Jury.)

BICKNELL V. BICKNELL (CARIELLO Cited).

Divorce-Cross Charges

This was the petition of Harriet Frances Bicknell, née Bagshawe, for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell, on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. The respondent, by his answer, denied these allegations, and further pleaded that the petitioner had been guilty of such misconduct as had conduced to the said alleged adultery (if any) by a persistent course of mental cruelty and gross insults towards him, practically driving him out of the house, and by her ungovernable temper; that the petitioner connived at and condoned the acts of adultery (if any); and that the petitioner had herself been guilty of adultery with the Cav. Antonino Cariello, the party cited. The petitioner, by her reply,denied and joined issue on all the allegations contained in the respondent’s answer, and the party cited, by his answer, denied that he had committed adultery with the petitioner.

Mr. Barnard, K.C., and MIr. Lailey were for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, K.C., Mr. Haldenstein, and Mr. J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

Mr. Barnard, said that the petitioner was the daughter of a well-known member of his own Profession, his Honour Judge Bagshawe. She was married to the respondent on October 19, 1897, at the Church of Our Lady of Victories, High-street, Kensington, the parties being members of the Roman Catholic Church. They lived together first at Knapp, near Bideford, and afterwards at Sorrento, some two hours away from Naples. There were two children of the marriage, one aged nine and the other six years of age. Unfortunately for the petitioner, her husband was a man of no occupation, and at times he drank very heavily, and what became another matter of unhappiness between them was that while at Sorrento he acquired the habit of taking morphia. It was only fair to state, however, that when he was not under the influence of drink or drugs he treated her kindly and well, and at such times she wrote affectionate letters about him to her friends. The acts of violence of which she had to complain were about as cruel as any man could be guilty of towards a woman whom he had promised to love. Both children were baptized and brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. The mother was a good Catholic, and the husband, when under the influence of drugs, threatened to have the children brought up as Protestants, and perhaps it was now going to be suggested that he had changed his religion and wished to bring up his children in another faith.

In 1898, while living at Knapp, he was guilty of an assault upon her, and he used bad language, and while under the influence of drink had said:-” Smile, you devil, or I will turn you and your filthy spawn out of the house.” In January,1899, he threatened that he would not allow her to see any of her relatives, and in February, when her child was only a month old, he insisted on her leaving her baby and on her accompanying him to the United States. They went to Sorrento in March, 1904, and remained there until April, 1907, and in June of the former year they took a villa in that town. In July, 1905, the petitioner thought that she saw from a window her husband kiss a lady in the garden. She called out, and he came into the house in a very angry temper, called her a d-d liar, struck her, and gave her a black eye, which was afterwards seen by Signor Cariello. In 1900 her husband was taking a great deal of morphia as a letter of his dated September 28 of that year would show. On March 3, 1907, when under the influence of the drug, he called her a prostitute and a liar and struck her, and afterwards acknowledged that fact in the presence of her governess. She was, therefore, living a most unhappy life when her husband was under the influence of drugs.

At this time he was in a state of great nervousness, and though they occupied separate bed -rooms, yet when he was under the influence of morphia, as he was frightened of being alone, she used to sleep on a mattress in his room. That was important, as the respondent relied on this for his plea of condonation. which was no condonation at all.

On April 15, 1907, the petitioner found in a blotting-pad a hotel bill made out to the name of “Hermano Harmsleigh “ with certain words upon it. She intended to ask her husband what it meant, but owing to his state of health, she did not until April 25. That was an important date in the case. On that day the respondent suddenly decided to leave Sorrento, and, while helping him to pack, the petitioner suggested that he should not travel with the nurse, who was leaving on the same date. He insisted, and there was an end of that matter, so far as she was concerned. She, however, asked him if he had ever passed as ” Hermano Harmsleigh.” He immediately asked her if it were Antonino (Cariello) who had told her. Antonino was the respondent’s great friend. She said No, she had seen the name on a blotting-pad. He then called her a d-d [damned] spy and said that he had made the acquaintance of a girl in Naples, that lie had given her mother 200f. for her and had promised her marriage, and that he believed that the father was coming that day to the villa about the matter. That was why he was leaving, and that was all she learnt of the matter. He left, and she kissed him at parting. She remained at Sorrento until July, when she and her children returned to England, and with them on the 13th of that month called at Morle’s Hotel upon her husband. He took in the children, but refused to allow her to enter. She returned with a friend, Lady Macfarlane, but he refused to allow her to return to him and to her children.

It appeared, continued the learned counsel. that just before Christmas, 1906, on an occasion when the respondent was in Naples, he had made the acquaintance of a girl named Anita, represented to her that he was a bachelor and wished to be engaged to her, and gave her mother a sum of money. He had visited the girl and taken her to various hotels. Witnesses had been examined on commission, and the respondent’s counsel on that commission had admitted the adultery. Condonation had been pleaded, but the first that the petitioner. had heard of her husband’s misconduct was on April 25, 1907, and she had not since cohabited with him. Connivance and conduct conducing were also pleaded, and he (the learned counsel) was waiting to hear what possible evidence could be adduced to support such pleas. ThereI was also a charge made against the petitioner and Signor Cariello. and, after he had proved his case against the respondent, it would be for his learned friend to establish his case – if he had any evidence to substantiate it.

The petitioner, Mrs. Bicknell, examined by Mr. Barnard, said her married life had been most unhappy, as her husband was very cruel to her. He was addicted to both drink and drugs ever since the date of the marriage. When under the influence of either he was violent, and called her such names as ” d–d [damned]  liar, devil. and prostitute.” A week after the marriage he tore up the Marriage certificate, and told her, ” Now I can, repudiate tho marriage at any time.” In the autumn of 1898 he threw her down and pulled her by the hair, she being enciente at the time. He was very angry because the birth of her first child was inserted in the Tablet, the leading Roman Catholic newspaper, and threatened that she should not see her father, his Honour Judge Bagshawe, or her family again. On another occasion, when she was writing to a friend, he struck her on the back of the hand with a ruler. He forced her mother to write him an apology for inserting the birth in the Tablet, and then threatened to publish it.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – I do not follow. What was the apology for ?

Mr. Barnard, – Mrs. Bagshawe had inserted the notice and the respondent had chosen to take offence.

Examination continued.- In March. 1904 they went to Sorrento. In July she saw from a window her husband kissing a lady in the garden. She called to him to come in. and they both did so. He was very angry, and the next morning struck her and gave her a black eye, calling her a “ d–d [damned] liar.” During 1906 and 1907 he said the children should be brought up as Protestants, and laughed at her for having believed him when he told her they should be brought up as Roman Catholics. He also told her he had changed his religion. On September 28, 1906, he wrote:-” That dreadful morphia has affected mv heart and caused a fainting fit. I had one after lunch:  it was most tiresome. as the Duke and his manservant had to bring me home, and the Duchess had an awful fright ! I never thought the giving up of morphia would entail such disastrous consequences. Old Dr. Garquito wanted me to go into a home for inebriates, and is vastly struck by my ability to give morphia up suddenly. Fancy me in a home. It sounds comical, doesn’t it?  You may be sure I shall never be so silly as to take drugs again.” During 1907 the respondent was again taking morphia, and she had sometimes to sleep on the floor in his room to “watch” him. In March, 1907, the respondent was in a very bad state, called her terrible names and struck her with the back of his hand, his rings injuring her lip. Her child saw the marks and asked the cause, and she endeavoured to conceal the truth, whereupon the respondent said, ” You d–d [damned] liar, why don’t you speak the truth and say I did it.” The governess was also present.

In April, 1907, the respondent having invited her to take part in a bazaar at Sorrento, at the last moment forbade her to attend it. About April 15 she found an hotel bill in her husband’s blotter, made out in the name of ” Hermano Harmsleigh.” A few davs later she found some blotting- paper with the same name upon it and the words ” Poste Restante. Mata” (a neighbouring village).  She had never heard of the girl Anita Esposito until the morning of the day he suddenly left Sorrento. On April 25 lie informed her he was leaving that day, and she advised him not to travel with a nurse, who was leaving. She then asked him if he passed as Hermano Harmsleigh in Naples. He replied,” Has Antonino told you? “ She said, “No, you are wrong; but does he know your secret ?” He then asked her how she had found out, and when she showed him the blotter he called her a “d–d [damned] spy.”

He then said he had a disagreeable story to tell her, adding that, if she had been a woman of the world she would not have thought much of it. He then told her that while driving in Naples he had seen the girl in the street, had taken a fancy to her, had got out of his trap and spoke to her, and eventually gave the girl’s mother 200f. for her, saying he was going to marry her. He added, ” I told them you were my married sister: but now they are beginning to suspect, and may come here any day, and I want to know what you are going to say.” He also told her that the girl was not enecinte. At this stage the Court adjourned until Monday.

Bicknell v. Bicknell [Day 2 – Nov 3, 1908]

(Before MR. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEANE  and a Special Jury,.)

BICKNELL V. BICKNELL -(CARIELLO Cited.)

Divorce-Cross Charges.

The hearing of this matrimonial suit, which, commenced on Friday last, was resumed, the first day’s proceedings being reported in The Times on October 31, 1908.

Certain interlocutory proceedings In the Court of Appeal with regard to a commission to take evidence in Italy were reported in 1908, W.N., 97. It will be remembered that Mr. Harriet Frances Bicknell, daughter of the late Judge Bagshawe, petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. He, by his answer, denied these charges, and pleaded alternatively that if he had committed adultery the petitioner had by her mental cruelty conduced to it, had connived at it, and had condoned it. He further alleged that the petitioner had herself committed adultery with the Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, who was cited. The petitioner and the party cited denied the charges made against them

Mr. Barnard, KC. and Mr. Lailey were, for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, KC., Mr.Haldenstein, and J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

The petitioner, further examined in chief by Mr. Barnard  said that on April 25, 1907, the governess,  Miss Serek, was in the house, and she (petitioner) made a complaint to her.

Mr. Marshall-Hall – I do so object to that form of question. The proper form is, ” Did you make a statement?

Mr. Barnard –Very welL. Did you make a statement ?

The petitioner.-Yes.

Mr. Barnard .- And in what state ,were you at the time ?

The petitioner.-I was in tears.

Examination continued.-She continued to write in affectionate terms to her husband up to the time when she saw him in England on June 13, 1907. On that day she took the children to Morle’s Hotel, where her husband was then living. She was prepared at that time to resume cohabitation with him, but he refused to allow her to remain and actually threatened to summon help and have her and her luggage turned out. He, however, retained the children. The following day she called a and he then told her that as she had not apologised he should take the children away. The apology was demanded in consequence of her having told him that his uncle, Mr. Sidney Bicknell, had professed to be ashamed of his nephew’s conduct. Mr. Sidney Bicknell, writing to the respondent from Barcombe-house, near Lewes, on June 11, 1907, denied having called the respondent a scoundrel or having said that he was ashamed to bear the same name as him. She had never stated that the respondent’s uncle had called him a scoundrel; but he saying that he was ashamed of his nephew. As soon as she obtained evidence of her husband’s adultery with Anita she filed her petition for divorce. When under the influence of drink or drugs her husband used to call her terrible names which upset her greatly and made her cry. . He would then say, “Smile, you devil, or I’ll make .you come cringing to me.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall-Hall.  She denied that Morle’s Hotel was full on the occasion of her call there on July 18. She had, to use her own words, ” stolen the children away, and they had been in hiding ever since.” Her husband did not see the children from July 15, 1907, until last Saturday. She had, changed her boy’s name from Bysshe to Basil. That was not done at the instigation of Father Galton, S.J., nor of the Jesuits. That was not one more influence exercised by them over her. Bysshe may have, been the name of an agnostic and one of Shelley’s names, while Basil was that of a saint in the calendar. The boy was christened Bysshe against her wish. Her husband’s adultery and not the change of his religion was the true cause of this suit. She had consulted Roman Catholics before bringing the suit.. She had written on June 22, 1907, ” I was nearly mad, but on Monday I stole the children away from him, and have been in hiding ever since. I have brought an action for divorce against him (I found I could do so as a Catholic, and was told by the Jesuits and the Archbishop that I ought to),  and now we are waiting results. As long as he only treated me badly I could stand it, but once he touched the children it was another matter.” Bysshe was now at a Roman Catholic school at Boscombe. He had been sent there in July by her brother-in-law. She had previously had him at a Protestant school. The dispute at Morle’s Hotel had arisen because of what she asserted Mr. Sidney Bicknell had said about the respondent and the latter’s demand for an apology. Her husband had been for years a member of the Reform Club. Her husband had complained that she did not always speak the truth. Mr. Sidney Bicknell, on June 11, had written to her husband that  “the ‘trouble’ I had in my mind was the children going to the English Church and your recession from Catholicism.” She was ready to forgive her husband for the adultery he had confessed to her on April 25 when she went to call on him on July 13 at Morle’s Hotel.  On April 26, the day after her husband’s departure from Sorrento, she had written to him,  “Cheer, up; I am glad you wrote me a kind note before you left Italy. You cannot think how miserable I was, seeing you leave me in such a manner. I hope when this reaches you you will feel happier. Don’t forget that your best and truest friend has always and will always be your wife. The children send you their love.-Your affectionate wife Harriet.” 

She had not seen her husband except at Morle’s Hotel – since April 25 – the day on which he confessed his adultery with Anita. The confession was made on April 25, and not some days earlier. She had found the sheet of blotting paper containing the incriminating words, in one of her own books – a copy book she used daily for the study of German. She had not spoken to her husband the same day. He first told her of his adultery the day he left; she had not previously questioned him about it. She had never been to his bedroom or condoned his adultery after she was aware of it.

At this stage Mr. Marshall-Hall proposed to refer to the evidence taken on commission.in Italy.

Mr. Barnard objected to the evidence being used as the commission had not been returned to the Court, owing to the commissioner, Mr. Valentine Ball, barrister-at-law, not having been paid his fees.

Mr. Marshall-Hall .-It was a joint commission; my client has paid his half, but the other side refuses to do so.

Mr. Barnard – My learned friend is mistaken in describing it as a joint commission. It is his commission, and being on the spot we took the opportunity of examining certain witnesses before the commissioner.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – The commissioner is entitled to keep beck the commission until he has been paid his fees.

Mr. Marshall-Hall.  My client brought £ 20,000 into settlement, and he has now nothing. But the lady obtained leave from Mr. Justice Warrington to raise £1,000 for the purpose of this very commission.

Mr. Barnard –  The learned judge gave her power to anticipate to that extent to enable her to defend the suit.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – I have already intimated my view.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – My solicitor client – Mr. Furber – undertakes to pay the commissioner’s fees. After the adjournment,

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane said that during the adjournment the commission had been returned to the Court, and was accordingly now in.

Cross-examination continued.-Four or five days before April 25 there had been a scene between her and her husband, but that had to do with his forbidding her to take part in the bazaar. Her husband had not confessed his adultery to her on April 21, but on April 25- the day he left Sorrento. Between April 21 and April 25 she had twice slept on a mattress in her husband’s room, as was stated by two witnesses -who were examined on commission. Her letter of April 26 to her husband did not refer to his dispute with her as to what his uncle had told her about him. She had been quite ready to forgive her husband. She had been told by the Jesuits ant the Archbishop that as a Catholic she could seek the protection of the law, but that even if she were successful in her suit she could never marry again. She had asked in May, 1907, a servant named Rose Scott if she remembered.seeing her with a black eye, but she (Rose Scott) did not remember the occasion. She did not remind Rose Scott of past favours, or warn her against allowing the respondent to go out with her young daughter.. She did say that the respondent had been lunching with the child at the Metropole Hotel, Brighton. She had heard of that incident from a Mrs. Farnham. She (petitioner) did not know that Rose Cox was a witness for the respondent. She had not sought to poison her mind against him.  She told Rose Scott that her husband had stayed with Flora Cox ( a nurse) at an hotel in Naples, passing as ” Mr and Mrs. Bicknell ” She believed her statement to be true, having herself seen the names in the hotel book.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – Then why is not that charge pleaded ?

The petitioner.-I already had one charge.of adultery, which I thought sufficient.

Cross-examination continued. – She had told Rose that the respondent had accused them of impropriety together. The respondent had dared to make that suggestion. She had not accused her husband of un-natural practices, nor was she responsible for  witnesses having been cross-examined on commission in Italy to show that a certain Giuseppe was of evil habit.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – Most- of the cross- examination referred to was on behalf of your client.

Mr. Barnard – There was, no such suggestion made by my client.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – We are not trying any issue as to Giuseppe.

Before her marriage she had heard from a cousin that the respondent was addicted to morphia, and she had refused to marry-him when he first proposed to her. He was at that time a very rich man possessed of about £ 140,000, all of which was now gone! Subsequently the respondent. settled £ 20,000 upon her, and her father settled £1,000. She had been told that he had taken to morphia because she had refused him. Before her marriage she had written to her fiancé referring to her violent temper. In spite pf her, husband having struck her on the back of the hand with a ruler or paper knife and dragged her by the hair of her head, she had written to him in most affectionate terms about the times these incidents had taken-place. When her husband tore up the marriage certificate he told her that he could now repudiate the marriage..

Mr. Marshall-Hall. – Then why, Madam, if you believed your marriage was invalid did you continue to live with-your husband ? – .

The petitioner.-,He said he could repudiate it, if he liked !

Mr. Barnard –  Voidable, -not void-!

The petitioner.-I only believed his statement for two hour.

Cross-examination continued.- She had in her letters referred to the bitter expressions she had used towards her husband, and regretted that she had not first bitten her tongue out.

Mr. Marshall-Hall. –  You called him a skunk did you not? About the worst thing you can call a man; The petitioner. – That, I think, was one of his expressions.

Cross-examination continued.- He had objected before the birth of the child to that birth being announced in the Tablet, and her mother had promised not to do so, but she afterwards put the announcement in the paper. The respondent in consequence declined to allow her mother to see the baby until she had apologized, and on June 7 1900, his Honour Judge Bagshawe  wrote on his wife’s behalf.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane. – This is 1900 and the child was born in 1899 !  All I can say is that the respondent is a most unreasonable man. I cannot understand any man taking such a line as that.

Cross-examination continued.-In spite of her husband’s conduct, she loved him and forgave him, and she never contemplated divorce proceedings until he took away the children from her. On September 28 she wrote of the lady from whom she had heard of the incident at the Metropole Hotel, Brighton, “Mrs. F. has lied like a trooper, and will get into trouble.”

At this stage the Court adjourned.

Bicknell v. Bicknell  [Day 3, Nov 4, 1908]

(Before MR. JUSTICE BARGRAVE DEANE  and a Special Jury.)

BICKNELL V. BICKNELL – (CARIELLO Cited.)

Divorce-Cross Charges.

The further hearing of this matrimonial suit, which has been reported in The Times on October 31 and November 3, was continued, and concluded, this being the third day of the trial.  It will be remembered that Mrs. Harriet Frances Bicknell, daughter of the late Judge Bagshawe, petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Herman Kentigern Bicknell on the ground of his cruelty and adultery. He, by his answer, denied these charges, and pleaded alternatively that if he had committed adultery the petitioner had by her mental cruelty conduced to it, had connived at it, and had condoned it. He further alleged that the petitioner had herself committed adultery with the Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, who was cited. The petitioner and the party cited denied the charges made against them.

Mr. Barnard, KC. and Mr. Lailey were, for the petitioner; Mr. Marshall-Hall, KC., Mr.Haldenstein, and J. W. Orr for the respondent; and Mr. W. B. Campbell for the party cited.

After the sitting of the Court.

Counsel having conferred together and seen the learned Judge in private for upwards of one hour and a half.

Mr. Marshall-Hall said that the respondent had never contested the adultery charged at Naples, but he did seriously deny any other charge made against him, and after the cross-examination yesterday those charges would not be persisted in, and he was quite willing that all charges made against the petitioner and the party cited should also be withdrawn and the jury discharged, and that a decree of judicial separation should be pronounced on certain conditions.

Mr. Barnard said that he was willing to withdraw all the charges made against the respondent -other than the one of adultery at Naples. The petitioner, however, was desirous of going into the box to deny the truth of the charges made against her.

The evidence of the girl Anita Esposito, taken on commission at Naples, was read, and went to show that the respondent had made her acquaintance in Naples five or six days before Christmas, 1906, and that the intrigue between them had continued for five months, during which time the respondent visited and passed the night at various hotels with her.

Further corroborative evidence, taken on commission, having been read,

The petitioner denied on oath that there was the slightest truth in the allegation made against her, and

The Cavaliere Antonino Cariello, in answer to Mr. Campbell, said that until the citation was served upon him in October he had no suspicion that the respondent had anything against him. He was a close friend of both Mr. and Mrs. Bicknell, and there was not a shadow of truth whatever in the charges made against him.

The respondent, in reply to Mr. Marshall-Hall said that he admitted his adultery at Naples with the girl Anita Esposito, but he denied the statement made as to the payment of money. That statement was not true. Ho had never struck his wife, and there was no truth in the charges of cruelty made against him. He did not drink to excess, nor was he habitually addicted to the use of drugs. There was no truth in the suggestion that he had ever committed adultery with Flora Cox.

Mr  Justice Bargrave Deane accordingly pronounced a decree of judicial separation with costs, and gave the custody of the elder child to the respondent, and that of the younger one to the petitioner. Questions of access to the children would be dealt with in Chambers.

Judgment accordingly.

Liverpool Election 1841

The Westminster Review says of the 1841 election, “the annals of parliamentary warfare contained no page more stained with the foulness of corruption and falsehood than that which relates the history of the general election in the year 1841”. 

At the general election in 1841, the candidates for the two Liverpool seats were Lord Sandon and Mr. Cresswell, the sitting Tory M.P.’s, and Sir Joshua Walmsley, and Lord Palmerston standing as Whigs/Liberals. Why on earth Palmerston was standing in Liverpool when he had no connexion to it is a slight mystery, – still an arrogant, bombastic, opportunistic, womanising Foreign Secretary is hardly unknown in British political life. Sir Josh’s own version of the election follows shortly. The short piece below is from the Tory supporting Spectator.

Cooke’s Royal Amphitheatre of Arts, Liverpool

LIVERPOOL. Lord Sandon and Mr. Cresswell visited their supporters for the first time on Friday, and have personally addressed the electors. There was a large meeting at the Amphitheatre on Monday. Lord Sandon avowed himself ” such a Free-trader as Mr. Huskisson “; and endeavoured to show that Mr. Huskisson was such a Free-trader as Lord Sandon. He asked the electors what claim Lord Palmerston had upon them, when he had to accompany deputations from the town to complain of the Foreign Secretary’s inattention and neglect of the commercial interests of the country ?

The Spectator  26 June 1841, Page 6

Each of the Tories had a majority of over a thousand votes.

William Huskisson (1770-1830) had been one of the M.P.’s for Liverpool between 1823 and his death in 1830. Amongst other ministerial roles, he had been President of the Board of Trade; he was regarded as one of the few men who could reconcile Tory merchants to a free trade policy; hence Lord Sandon’s comments, in what was a very mercantile city. Huskisson is now rather better known as the world’s first  railway passenger casualty when he was run over and fatally wounded by George Stephenson’s Rocket, at the opening of the Liverpool to Manchester railway. We’ll come to Sir Josh’s own version of this as well.

Viscount Sandon (1798 – 1882),was the Tory M.P. for Liverpool between 1831 and 1847 when he succeeded his father as Earl of Harrowby.  

Sir Cresswell Cresswell, (1794 – 1863), was born Cresswell Easterby. He took the surname Cresswell in 1807 when his wife inherited much of the Cresswell family money. His mother was also a Cresswell. He had a reputation as a “violent Tory”. He was elected as one of the Tory M.P.’s for Liverpool in  1837, and again in 1841. He resigned his parliamentary seat in 1842 when he was made a judge of the Court of Common Pleas.

Agitation Dinner – Daniel O’Connell in Liverpool, January 1836

The Corn Exchange, Brunswick Street, Liverpool. “Drawn by G. and C. Pyne about 1827, engraved by T. Dixon.” Courtesy of the Internet Archive and the University of Toronto. http://www.victorianweb.org

 

AGITATION DINNER.-The Radicals of Liverpool dine Daniel O’Connell, M.P., Mr. Sheil, M. P., and Mr. Wise, M.P., at the Corn Exchange, Liverpool, on Wednesday next. The tickets are one guinea each.[Present day value – £ 1,172] The trio are to arrive by the mail-packet from Dublin on Wednesday morning, and an attempt is about to be made by the Irish Catholics to get up a procession from the pier where they land into the town; and for this purpose all the Hibernian clubs are to turn out with their flags and instruments of music. The place of dining will hold about 1,000 persons. This occasion will be Dan’s first public appearance in Liverpool, and the novelty of such a species of agitation may in consequence draw together a large mob. (The Times 25th January 1836)

This rather short cutting from the Times has a very pleasing circularity. A whole strand of the story runs through Liverpool at various times, and this one almost certainly brings together two different bits of the family. Mr. Sheil, M. P., and Mr. Wise, M.P. are  Richard Lalor Shiel and Thomas Wyse, who were two of the leading founders of the Catholic Association along with Daniel O’Connell. Both were at school with Patrick Grehan II at Stonyhurst, in Lancashire. Tom Wyse was married to Princess Letizia Bonaparte [Napoléon’s niece] The marriage was fairly rocky, and in May 1828 they agreed to a separation.

Letizia threw herself into the Serpentine in Hyde Park in a suicide attempt [probably from the newly built bridge] and was rescued by Captain Studholme John Hodgson who became her lover. They had three children together, who all used the surname Bonaparte-Wyse rather than their father’s surname.

Dan the man is the father-in-law of a cousin of a great aunt, and the other person who is highly likely to be at the dinner is Joshua Walmsley.  There are a number of reasons to suppose this. He was a newly elected councillor, certainly wealthy enough to afford the cost of the dinner, politically ambitious, and as a grain merchant unlikely not to have wanted to be seen at a political event at the Corn Exchange

Joshua was a Reformer,[or Whig, or Radical, the terms were fairly interchangeable] councillor won 260 votes in Castle Street ward or just over 73% of the turnout. The ward returned three Whig, or Reformer, councillors. The polling place was at the two windows of the King’s Arms Hotel fronting Castle-street. He was re-elected unopposed in 1838, and became mayor in November 1839 – 1840 while the Reformers still had a majority on the council with 28 councillors , and 16 aldermen against 20 Tory councillors.

This was the first election to Liverpool Town Council, held on Boxing Day 1835.  It was conducted under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835. The Act reformed local government replacing corporations which were largely run by un-elected freemen, by councils elected by ratepayers.

After the election of Councillors on 26 December 1835 and the Aldermanic election in January 1836, the composition of the council was  44 Reformer councillors, and 15 aldermen, and 4 Tory councillors and 1 alderman. At the meeting of the Council in January 1836, sixteen Aldermen were elected by the Council, eight for a term of six years and eight for a term of three years. 15 whigs and 1 Tory.

Joshua Walmsley was elected Mayor of Liverpool in 1839, and was knighted on the occasion of the Queen’s marriage in 1840.

The Fighting O’Connells – 1832

This is from ‘The Herald of Peace’, Volume 8, the same volume that had the outraged letter about “Duelling Legislators” These are the final two reports about duels in 1832. In these two, Dan O’Connell’s son Maurice is in the first, and his nephew William in the second.

Mr Blennerhassett, of Ballyseedy, a highly respectable gentleman, had taken the liberty of canvassing for Sir Edward Denny some voters in Tralee, that had previously promised to vote for Mr M. O’Connell, [Maurice, one of Dan’s sons] who having stood for Drogheda and Clare in the course of his brief parliamentary existence, is now up for Tralee. Although it might be considered by any body else that a gentleman might fairly canvass on behalf of his friend any portion of a constituency, Mr M. O’Connell thought otherwise, and on Thursday evening, December 6th [1831], drove to Mr Blennerhassett’s residence, where Mrs Blennerhassett had been that day confined. Mr Blennerhassett was not at home, but received a letter from his visitor requesting to see him on particular business. Knowing, says the Irish paper, that Mr O’Connell could have no business with him, except to insult him he thought the less delay the better, and immediately apprised him that he would be at Berner’s Hotel at eight that evening.  At the appointed hour Mr M.O’Connell, with two friends entered, the room where Mr Blennerhassett was seated. After some conversation respecting the canvass, in which Mr Blennerhassett declared his resolution to persist in the course he had taken that gentleman observed that he knew Mr M.O’Connell’s object was to insult him, and as his visit had made Mrs Blennerhassett acquainted with his intentions, he (Mr B) was ready to meet Mr O’Connell in two minutes in the long room of the hotel. Mr M. O’Connell appeared very much agitated, and left the room without saying any thing more. In about two hours after, however, he returned and said to Mr Blennerhassett, “ I stated before that you were the only gentleman in Kerry that would act as you have done; I now say no gentleman would do so. “ Mr Blennerhassett immediately referred Mr O Connell to a friend, and the preliminaries being arranged, the parties met at nine o clock, and after exchanging three shots without effect, the principals were taken off the ground by their friends. –  The Atlas p 819

The total electorate was only 180 men, and Maurice O’Connell won the election and served as the M.P. for Tralee until his death in 1853. Arthur Blennerhassett was elected as the M.P. for Kerry in 1837. The Atlas also gets the time of the duel wrong. It, in fact, took place at five o’clock in the morning on Friday 30th November [The Times, 6 December, 1832].

DUEL IN GREENWICH-PARK, BETWEEN LIEUTENANT WILLIAM O’CONNELL  AND MR. CARNEY – The Times, Friday,14 December 1832

London from Greenwich Park exhibited 1809 Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851 Accepted by the nation as part of the Turner Bequest 1856 http://www.tate.org.uk/art/work/N00483

Yesterday morning [13 December 1832] a meeting took place in Greenwich. park, between Lieutenant O’Connell, nephew to Daniel O’Connell, Esq., and Mr. Carney; the latter gentleman was severely wounded. The circumstances which led to the transaction are said to be these:-

Mr. O’Connell and a friend of his on Saturday evening last were at a fashionable hell in St. James’s-street, when they saw some unfair play practised upon a young gentleman who had been entrapped to play by the black-legs connected with the establishment. Mr. O’Connell stood forward and openly acquainted the young gentleman, who had already lost a very considerable sum of money, of the manner in which he was being duped by the parties concerned in the game. Mr. O’Connell’s exposure gave rise to a most serious quarrel, which ended in a general fight and a challenge. The parties agreed through their seconds to meet at 8 o’clock yesterday morning in the deer-park at Greenwich. At 5 o’clock in the morning Mr. O’Connell left his lodgings in Beaufort-buildings, Strand in a post-chaise attended by his second, Mr. Cordey, and carrying with him a brace of duelling-pistols which he had procured at Mr. Tatham’s, at Charing-cross, the night before.

On reaching the ground (a retired part of the park) at the appointed time, they found Mr. Carney had arrived with his friends before them. A reconciliation was endeavoured to be effected by the seconds of the adversaries, but could not, and the ground having been stepped, the parties fired, when Mr. Carney received the ball of his antagonist just about the right hip, which it passed completely through. The unfortunate gentleman fell to the ground, and was instantly placed in his carriage, and conveyed with all haste to town, where he was promptly attended by Mr. White. of Parliament-street, who dressed the wound which it is believed will not turn out fatal. Before the whole of the parties left the ground a policeman of the R. division arrived, and arrested Mr. O’Connell and his friend who were conveyed before the magistrate in the town, and the charge having been preferred, Mr. O’Connell was ordered to find bail in the sum of 500s. [present day value £ 31,000.] Mr. O’Connell despatched a messenger to his friend, Captain Larkin, of Greenwich College, who having entered into the required sureties, he was allowed to depart, until he was called upon to make his future appearance. Mr. O’Connell on his arrival in town returned the pistols to Mr. Tatham and then left London for Chatham. Mr. Carney, it is said, keeps a house in Jermyn-street, St. James’., where the quarrel above alluded to took place.

The following was added in a report in The Herald of Peace, Volume 8 published By Hamilton Adams & Co, 33 Paternoster Row, London 1832. The Herald of Peace quoted the Times verbatim up to this point, then added its own points.

Without inquiring what business took Mr O’Connell and his friend to a fashionable gambling house (perhaps it was curiosity as they appear to have been spectators only), we cannot but approve of his attempt to rescue the victim of the black legs from their ruinous grasp; but his acceptance of a challenge from one of these harpies cannot be too strongly condemned. Duelling is indefensible in itself, and one of the evils attending it is, that it sometimes places the life of a useful member of society in the same jeopardy as that of a villain of a nuisance to society.

Of the foregoing duels, [There were seven reports in total]  all, excepting the last, originated in electioneering quarrels, and to the disgrace of our country, in most of them we meet with candidates for seats in a Reformed Parliament. [It is probably worthwhile pointing out that 30% of the duels involved the O’Connells.] On this point, as well as others, individual reformation is much wanting. In page 508 of this number of our Work, is an article on Duelling Legislators which contains some appropriate remarks; but effectually to wipe out this stain on our nation, some legislative restraint is necessary. Let the Reformed Parliament enact, “ that any person who had been concerned in a duel within such a date, shall be disqualified from having a seat in Parliament;”  and further, “ that any member of the House of Commons who shall send or accept a challenge, shall vacate his seat in Parliament, as being thereby disqualified for the same.“  Such an enactment would, by bringing the custom of duelling into disrepute, be a national benefit.

We have always understood that duelling was prohibited by the articles of war as well as by the civil law of the land; but by the following report of the decision of a court martial which was held at Velore, Hindostan, it appears that in our dependencies in the East Indies, instead of duelling being discouraged by the civil and military authorities, it is enforced as a duty on the military profession; so that those who have sufficient moral courage to refuse conformity to a custom which is prohibited by the laws of their country as it is by the law of God, do it at the risk of being expelled the service, – a service we cannot approve; yet we heartily hail every advance towards more correct views in those who are engaged in it. 

A court martial was held at Vellore, Jan 9. 1832, on Ensign J A Crawford, 4th Native Infantry, for “ having submitted to be called a liar by Ensign W Lawless Seppings, of the same regiment, without taking any measures to remedy the insult.” The Court found him guilty, and sentenced him to be discharged from the Company’s service which was confirmed. : – The Times

Our legislature is imperatively called upon to inquire into the decision of this East India court martial, and adopt such measures as will be calculated to check, instead of offering, a premium for transgressing the laws of God and of man.

Duelling Legislators. 1832

This is from ‘The Herald of Peace’, Volume 8 published By Hamilton Adams & Co, 33 Paternoster Row, London 1832.It was a monthly journal founded in 1819, published by the London Peace Society (technically The Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal Peace, founded in June 1816.) The members were largely Protestant non-conformists, with a high proportion of Quakers. They advocated a gradual, proportionate, and simultaneous disarmament of all nations and the principle of arbitration.  For reasons that will become clear, this letter was published on p.508.

Duelling Legislators.

[From the Christian Advocate.]

SIR, –

Observing in your last, that you express a hope that the barbarous and wicked practice of duelling was on the decline, I regret to say that last week two duels took place in this neighbourhood, both arising from real or fancied offensive expressions that were uttered in the speech of the candidate for the northern division of the county of Durham. The first was between Mr Braddyll, the candidate for the county, and Mr Bowlby, a solicitor, and an intended candidate for the representation of South Shields, at some future opportunity. These parties fired, each once, and then thought fit, rather than murder each other to do what is called apologizing. The second duel was between the same Mr Braddyll, and Sir Hedworth Williamson, another candidate for the north division of the county. These parties, not content with one chance of going unbidden before their final Judge, fired a second time, again without effect, and then agreed, by apology, to let each other live a little longer.

Are such men as these, who break the laws both of God and man, fit to be sent as the legislators of the country ? Let the country from end to end respond, No ! and give not one vote to any man that will be guilty of intending murder. I am happy to say, that several of the electors, resident in this place, have determined not to vote for either of the above candidates, to mark their abhorrence of the practice.

WLP

Sunderland, Oct. 4, 1832.

In all the duels reported, two in one day is impressive. So Tom Braddyl is either unlucky, incredibly thin-skinned, or another “man with a fork in a world of soup.” to use Noel Gallagher’s memorable phrase. I particularly like the slightly high-pitched tone of the final sentence saying “several electors” won’t vote for either man to show their “abhorrence”. A bit like the Skibbereen Eagle’s editorial in 1898: “We will still keep our eye on the Emperor of Russia.”  There’s a bit more context below.

Local Papers.September 27, 1832.About seven o clock on the morning, a duel took place in Offerton lane, near Herrington, Durham, between Mr Russell Bowlby, a candidate for South Shields, and Mr Braddyll, a candidate for the northern division of that county. The same day, soon after twelve o clock, another hostile meeting took place, at the sign of the Hare and Hounds, on the Sedgefield road, between Sir Hedworth Williamson, bart., and Mr Braddyll, rival candidates for the northern division of the county. These duels arose out of expressions purporting to have been used in the speeches of the parties against each other. – Ibid. fromThe Local Historian’s Table Book: Of Remarkable Occurrences connected with the counties of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northumberland, and Durham. MDCCCXLIII

Colonel Thomas Braddyll (1776–1862) was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Coldstream Guards, and High Sheriff of Lancashire in 1821. His father had been a Tory M.P. In 1818, he inherited the family seat, Conishead Priory, Lancashire, and had it rebuilt by Philip Wyatt at a cost of £140,000.[present day value £160m.] The remainder of his fortune was lost to speculation in the Durham coal mines and in 1848 he was declared bankrupt. In a very pleasing twist of fate, the house was bought by the Durham Miners Welfare Committee for £35,000,[present day value £10.7m.] who used it as a convalescent  home.

The Times has another go at Dan O’Connell – January 1839

This was published in The Times, on the 31st of January 1839. As I said in previous posts, The Times uses any opportunity to have a go at Dan if they possibly can. This is a rather random letter to The  Times, not really in response any political events at the time. But it does allow them to claim the O’Connells aren’t  ‘gentlemen’, or have a landed background. Whether they would have given a toss is a moot point. But both ‘ A West Briton ‘ – an interesting name, showing the writer thinks of himself as British, but living in the western part of the British Isles, i.e. Ireland, rather than an Irishman; and ‘Kerryman’ with his rather pompous language, and occasional use of Latin tell us rather a lot about themselves. There’s a big bit of mop-haired blond British buffoons about both of them. The sort of chaps (and it’s always a chap) who refer to their ‘lady wives’, and remember a glorious imperial past that never was, and wear tartan trousers with dinner jackets when they’re not Scottish.

The worst is says about the O’Connells is they’re not gents, have an Irish speaking mother who doesn’t like the English, are wheeler-dealers, good at cards, and a fairly solid accusation they are smugglers. But also, crucially, for an English audience aren’t ‘One of us.’

 

Genealogy of Daniel O’Connell

TO THE EDlTOR OF THE TIMES.

Lincoln’s Inn

Sir,- The account given in your paper of this morning of the descent of the notorious Connell alias O’Connell, is perfectly correct. Any member of Lincoln’s-inn can inform you, on reference to the books for the year 1794 that he was entered of that society as as “ Connell, Daniel”, though it is also certain that he was called to the lrish bar as Daniel O’Connell in 1798. It is also quite true that the mendacious mendicant  is in no way connected with the O’Connells of CIare. The late Mr. Connell O’Connell, solicitor of Dublin, who was a junior branch of that family, and who died only about three years ago, never either in speech or in writing addressed O’Connell otherwise than as “ Daniel Connell.” There is not a peasant in Kerry who does not know that Connell, alias O’Connell, does not possess a foot of fee-simple property. He is tenant to the college of Dublin, to Mr. Serjeant Goold, and, if I mistake not, to Mr. R. Day, formerly one of the justices of the King’s Bench in Ireland. It is also notorious that Lakeview, the residence of James Connell, alias O’Connell, the agitator’s brother, is a residence rented on lease, and though John Connell alias O’Connell, another brother, is possessed of some fee-simple property, yet he has it “ jure-uxoris.” [by right of (his) wife] 

Derrynane House

There is now resident in England a gentleman who remembers Derrynane Abbey ! (God bless the mark !) a thatched farmhouse within a period so recent as 40 years. All this were unimportant and trivial touching the history of any well-conducted man, who had risen by his own honest exertions to fame and fortune – nay, it were illiberal and unjust to reflect on the humble birth of such character; but when a fellow, whose origin is not only mean, but ignominious, dares to asperse the first men in the country, it is fitting that his own pretensions should be sifted. There was a time when he had a purpose to serve, when Daniel Connell (alias O’Connell) used to recommend his cousin Jeremiah M’Carthy, tailor of Dawson-street, Dublin, to public patronage; but now we hear no more of this relationship, as Daniel wishes to be taken for a modish and well-born person. In Tralee, however, they know better. About ten years ago the article which I send you was published in a newspaper in that town. It was today handed to me by a near relative of the writer; a gentleman of one of the most ancient families of Kerry who I believe could bring witnesses on oath to prove all, or nearly all, the allegations contained in it. I pray you to give it to your readers in extenso, and oblige your constant reader.

A WEST BRITON

 

“O’CONNELL’S FAMILY HISTORY.

“ The account given of the Counsellor and his parents in the New Monthly is in many instances inaccurate, and in some parts quite deficient; to correct the one or supply the other would occupy more time than I am willing to devote to it, and even did I enter upon the task, the thing, to use an expression of his Malafidus Achates. Cobbett, would be still incomplete. I therefore think it the more eligible plan to give to you, and through you, Sir, to the public, such recollections of Dan’s early life and that of his parents as may from time to time flit across my memory. To commence in the usual style  –  a place called Ca———-   situate on a small creek on an arm of the sea, near the village of Cahirciveen, in the semi-barbarous and barren district of Iveragh, and the county of Kerry (I like to be precise when treating on an important subject), had the honour of giving birth to Daniel Connell. His parents, with some account of one of whom I purpose filling this letter, were Morgan and Maurneen Connell,[sic] for such was the name the latter was known by in the country. The only particulars I can remember about her are that she spoke her vernacular tongue, the ‘ Gaelic,’ in its native purity, had a most invincible contempt for the ‘ Sassenachs,’ or English; so much so, that she was never known to utter a syllable of their language, and seconded the experimental exertions of her helpmate in realizing an ‘un-confiscated property’ in the most indefatigable and spirited manner. Morgan, the sire (for he must not be called father), was, as I recollect him in my boyish years, a smart, bustling, intelligent chap, holding that amphibious place in society which may be conceived but not drawn, and which can only be described by a series of negatives. He was not a gentleman, nor a farmer, nor a mechanic, nor a wholesale merchant, nor a retail-dealer, nor a peasant, nor of any one of these classes per se. You may then perhaps ask me what was he? He was, in fact, a compound of all these, and such as at the present day you may happen to meet with in some parts of North America, but in no other part of the habitable globe. His son has happily hit him off in his very classical and gentlemanly description of Her Majesty’s Ministers, whom he speaks of as being neither “ fish, flesh, nor good red herring’, but a kind of ‘olla podrida,’ or toss-up of the whole.”  To the casual observer the countenance of old Morgan presented an honesty of expression which might lead to the supposition that its possessor was at least simple if not absolutely idiotic, but should he have had the occasion to engage in any intercourse with him, deeply would he feel his own simplicity in coming to so hasty a conclusion; for, though uncouth and vulgar in his manners, ‘ Morgan had that within which passeth show,’ and the shrewd physiognomist at once perceived a certain cut of visage, and a Machiavellian arrangement of features, which expressed as plainly as could the bumps and prominences of the celebrated Doctors Gall and Spurzheim the intriguing and money-getting propensities of their possessor. Often have I seen him sitting on a small rudely-formed chair, at the end of the bridge of     C————, near the road leading into the village, clothed in what the fashionables of modern life call a Waterloo-coloured suit of frieze, with an ink-bottle appended to his buttonhole, and a goose-quill betwixt his finger and thumb, taking orders from the peasantry for the various contents of the store, for such was the high-sounding name bestowed upon a quondam stable, be it a bit of soap, a yard of tape, a noggin of whisky, a metal button, a pound of iron for the spade or horseshoe, or any other little article, almost from an anchor to a needle – old Morgan could accommodate all, and at all times, from the various and chaotic articles with which his repository abounded; – his only charge was the moderate profit of cent percent, on the first cost, and, should the purchaser not have the specie [money in the form of coins rather than notes]  at hand, why he was ready to adopt the bartering principle of the early ages, and take either the firkin of butter or porkeen pig in lieu thereof. But enough of his appearance and primitive mode of doing business; his employments were as numerous as they were diversified, and some of them of so contradictory a nature as to puzzle the mind of an ordinary man to reconcile them; but Morgan was not an ordinary man: he was in truth a most extraordinary character, and much I fear the village of Cahirciveen ‘ ne’er shall look upon his like again.’ Cahirciveen considered him as its Caleb Quotem [ A character from a Colman play from 1808 called “The Review”, it means ‘jack of all trades’.], and though he may not have drawn the teeth of its inhabitants, they all admit that he shaved them closely, bled them profusely. and critically filled all the ordinary functions with which that dramatic personage is usually invested. Though his ambition was rather of an encroaching kind, I never yet heard that he allowed it to take such possession of his faculties as to lead him to the imagination of his being of feudal or princely descent ; nor even have I heard it whispered that he supposed there was any connexion between him and the visionary monarchs of lveragh. His good sense may perhaps, have prevented the assumption of the theoretical part of Royalty, but the same good sense it was, no doubt, if we can believe ‘ common fame,’ who is frequently deemed a common liar, and which from my own knowledge I will not take upon myself to say she is not in the present instance, which dictated to him the exclusive exercise of one of Royalty’s most valuable prerogatives – the importation of his goods duty free.

This prerogative he and his brother Maurice, better – known by the name of  ‘Hunting-Cap,’ ( if the assertions of that romancing damsel I have before alluded to are to be depended on,) carried to the greatest extent, and to this, and the principle of free trade, which these ‘Adelphi’ [brothers] brought into so early and extensive operation – that to them, I believe and not to Messrs. Cannings and Huskisson, we must give the credit of its invention – is Daniel indebted for that ‘un-confiscated property’ which he spoke of in his evidence before the House of Peers as being solely in his possession. His assertion at the time, I know, puzzled many; but it may so happen that, with the clue which I have now furnished the learned gentleman’s evidence will not appear so problematical, and any doubt they may have entertained will be removed; for if, by a form logicians call concession, we only substitute the means whereby a thing is procured, for the thing procured, then Daniel’s testimony is quite reconcilable and he really is in possession of property that never yet was confiscated. [This is the allegation of smuggling]

In the eager pursuit of his favourite theory that of free trade, the principles of which he had not at the time I am about to speak of, fully tested by such extensive experiments as at a subsequent period, old Morgan did not quite overlook those accomplishments which refine the human mind, and elegantly dissipate the ennui which will at times beset even the most industrious of mortals. No man in the country round could handle a ‘deck of cards’ with more dexterity than old Morgan, and few persons, if any, could calculate with a nicer accuracy, not even Counsellor:- L——-—k of gambling notoriety and Morgan’s countryman, the proper moment to lay down the ace of hearts, the five fingers or jack of trumps. An instance of the heights  to which he attained in this accomplishment it may not be inopportune to give you, especially as to it and the sound discretion he then used, his after accumulation of wealth, and consequent power of performing those experiments I have before alluded to, is mainly attributable. Old Morgan held in early life a farm from the late Earl of G—n—-e, and on the due day went to that nobleman’s residence at A—d—r  abbey, in order to pay his rent. After its payment and getting a receipt, a ceremony he never overlooked., ‘ fast bind, fast find,’ being his favourite aphorism, he was almost proceeding homeward, when the day turning out extremely wet, his noble landlord, with his usual condescension, requested him to remain. Morgan hesitated, but at length Lord G—- being seconded by his fascinating Countess, he succeeded in detaining him. It is almost unnecessary to observe, that everything was done to make his visit comfortable, and render him quite at home. A difficult task you, Sir, will admit, when there exists so great a disparity of rank, and, a feeling of insignificance on the part of the guest; their endeavours, however, were crowned with success, and after dinner, his noble hostess, still anxious to add to the tenant’s amusement, asked him if he played cards.  Morgan then, in a hesitating manner, and as if afraid to refuse, replied, ‘ A little, my Lady,’ and a game was selected, such as was considered would best suit itself to the extent of his acquirements in that polite accomplishment. The event, however, was not that which her Ladyship anticipated, and the game terminated with Morgan having won the entire sum which he had paid that morning as rent. Lady Gr——, like other losing gamesters, attributed her ill luck to an unfavourable run of the cards, and not to old Morgan’s superior experience, and requested him, in expectation of retrieving her loss, to change the game. Morgan was all complaisance, at the same time prefacing each successive change with a profession of his ‘ knowing but little of any game, my Lady.’ Not to detain you too long, suffice it to say, that almost every game, from one end of Hoyle to the other, was gone through, and old Morgan proving successful in all, won so large a sum of money as left him rent free on his Lordship’s property for many years for many years afterwards. But if he was successful, he was by no means importunate, and on the settlement of the night’s accounts, he signified to her Ladyship, that as in all probability the largeness of the sum he had won might make its immediate payment inconvenient, he would feel himself fully satisfied, thankful, and indeed for his Lordship’s giving him receipts in advance for the growing rent. Her Ladyship thanked him for his kind consideration, the arrangement proposed was at once entered into, and old Morgan rode home the next day, chuckling in his sleeve, and exclaiming at the interval of every three or four miles, ‘ a little, my Lady.’

“ I remain, Sir, your obedient servant.

“ A KERRYMAN”

King Dan’s speech- Convent Garden 12th March 1844

This is from The Times, on Wednesday 13th March, 1844. It’s a very long post, but worth it. To get a full sense of the power of Dan’s oratory, try reading it as though you are speaking it.  At the time of the speech, he had been arrested, charged with conspiracy, and sentenced to a year in prison and fined  £2,000., but not yet jailed.  The sentence was set aside after Dan had been in prison three months. He served his sentence at the Richmond Bridewell in Dublin, living in the Governor’s House with his own servants, and food brought in. He was released on 4th September 1844.

DINNER TO MR. O’CONNELL AT COVENT GARDEN THEATRE.

Last night a dinner was given at Covent Garden Theatre to Mr. O’Connell, ” to show,” as the announcement expressed it, ” the admiration entertained by Englishmen for his constant and consistent advocacy of the rights and privileges of Irishmen, for more than 40 years.”

The pit of the theatre was boarded over so as to make it level with the stage, and five long tables, with two slips occupying the bend of the boxes, making seven tables in all were spread in that part of the house. There were six cross tables and ten long tables spread on the stage, beside the grand table, at which sat the chairman, the guest (Mr. O’Connell), and several noblemen, members of Parliament, and others.

The decorations of the portion of the arena behind the proscenium remained the same as they were on the occasion of the late Bal Masqué, The chairman sat in the centre of the stage, with the chief guests on his right and left. At back of, and immediately over the chair, suspended from the ceiling, there was a brilliant illumination of variegated lamps, representing the rose, the thistle, and the shamrock, underneath which appeared, in front of the raised orchestra, the word ” O’Connell,” in variegated lamps. On the right of the device was the word ” Ireland,” and on the left the word ” Justice,” also in variegated lamps. At the back of the chair was the retiring-room, over which was the orchestra, containing 30 vocal and instrumental performers, under the direction of Mr. G. Stansbury. The great salle, formed by the boarded pit and the stage, was illuminated by 30 elegant ormolu chandeliers, in addition to the great chandelier suspended from the centre of the theatre, and the smaller chandeliers suspended over each box in the dress circle. The stage was adorned by mirrors at the centre and the sides. The whole of the boxes were appropriated to ladies, and every place was filled. The galleries were also densely crowded. About 1,100 persons sat down to dinner, and the effect of the whole theatre when thus brilliantly filled was most imposing. Owing to the excellence of the arrangements, no confusion whatever took place. At a few minutes before 6 o’clock, the chairman and the other chief guests entered the room, accompanied by Mr. O’Connell. On the hon. and learned gentleman’s appearance, he was received with a general burst of cheering from all parts of the house.

At 6 o’clock the chair was taken by Mr. T. Duncombe, M.P., supported on his right by Mr. O’Connell, and on his Ieft by the Earl of Shrewsbury. The following noblemen and gentlemen were among the principal guests : – Lord Camoys, the Earl of Dunboyne, the Hon. F. H. Berkeley M.P.; the Hon. Charles Langdale; Sir R.W. Bulkeley, M.P.; Sir John Easthope, M.P.; Mr. William Collins, M.P.; Mr. Serjeant Murphy, M.P.; Mr. W. H. Tancred, M.P.; Mr. Henry Metcalfe, M.P.; Mr. W. S. Crawford, M.P.; Mr. Wynne Ellis, M.P.; Mr. M. J. Blake, M.P.; Mr. Thomas Gisborne, M.P.; Mr. Charles Hindley, M.P.; Mr. James Pattison, M.P..; Mr. John Dennistoun, M.P.; -Mr. H. Elphinstone, M.P.; Mr. Robert Hollond, M.P.; Mr. Joshua Scholefield, M.P.; Mr. B. S. Butler, M.P.; Sir V. Blake, M P.; Mr. M. J. O’Connell, M.P.; Mr.W. Williams, M.P.; Dr. Bowring, M.P.; Sir B. Wray, the Hon. W. B. Nugent, Mr. Edward Weld, Mr. Rigby Wason, Mr. J. A. Yates, Major Revell, Mr. James Harmer, Senor Olozaga, General Washington Barron, Mr. Summers Harford, and Mr. John Travere.

Grace having been sung by the vocalists (Messrs. Stansbury, T. Cooke, Atkins, P. Bedford, and several others), the company sat down to dinner, which was very well provided by Mr. Rouse. During the dinner, the band, directed by Mr. Godfrey, played several national Irish airs. The cloth having been removed and grace sung.

The Chairman then rose to propose the health of Her Majesty. When he considered, he said, the importance of this occasion (hear), and the influence of individuals so distinguished for their abilities and their eloquence who were invited to meet their distinguished guest (hear), he could not but feel how inadequate he was to fill the chair. (” -No, no.”), In the discharge of the duty imposed on him, however, he stood there to propose the health of the Sovereign, who, let the faults and delinquencies of her Ministers be what they might (” hear” and laughter), held, he believed, a firmer place in the hearts and affections of the people, whether of Ireland or of England (hear), than it had ever been the fate of any Sovereign of this country to possess. (Cheers.) To be sure, he had heard, at the close of a long debate in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister express a wish that the Queen of England might set her foot on Irish ground, and, like some benignant spirit, restore peace and harmony to that distracted country. That wish, in his (Mr. Duncombe’s) opinion, implied disloyalty to the Irish people. (Hear.) Who was it that prevented the Queen from setting her foot in Ireland ! Was it Mr. O’Connell (Cries of ” No ! ” and cheers.) Was it the Irish people (“No ! ”) – a people whose loyalty was proverbial even to weakness! (A laugh.) No; it would be a libel on them to assert that it was they who prevented the Queen from going to Ireland. It was that faction (hear) – that faction which in 1330 prevented King William from enjoying the pleasure of witnessing the loyalty, and partaking the hospitality, of the citizens of London. (Cheers.) The real reason was, that those whose duty it would be to attend the Queen to Ireland were afraid to show their faces there among the people – a people whose origin and religion they had, so scandalously traduced, maligned, and insulted. (Cheers.) It was well known, that the Queen had intended to visit Ireland last year; but she did not, and Belgium and. France were favoured instead, while Ireland – poor Ireland was, as usual, neglected. (Hear.) To be sure, it was a gratifying sight to the friends of international peace to witness the Queen returning to her native shores, the standard of England and the French tricolour waving from the same mast and in the same breeze – an union which he trusted would never be interrupted; but how much more gratifying a sight would it have been to have seen the Queen returning from her Irish subjects, after having personally witnessed their loyalty, and investigated the manifold wrongs and oppressions which they had so long and so patiently endured, and, satisfied that their complaints were well founded, to the confusion of evil counsellors, declaring that the union between England and Ireland should no longer be an union in name, but should hereafter be based on equal laws, rights, and privileges (hear, hear) –that there should no longer be any preference for class, sect, country, or creed ! (Cheers.) He (Mr. Duncombe) trusted, that the day was not far distant when he might behold this state of things – he trusted that they might yet come to pass – and believing as he did that they had a Sovereign who was anxious to accomplish them, and knowing as he did that the people were determined to achieve them (Hear), it was with pride that he now proposed the health of  ” the Queen, and long may she reign over a happy, a free, and an united people.” (Cheers).

The toast was received with loud cheers, and the National Anthem having been sung The Chairman then gave, ” Prince Albert, and the rest of the Royal family,” which was also drunk with enthusiasm.

The neat toast was ” The Navy and Army.” After which, The Chairman rose and said, it was now his duty to propose “ Health and long life to Daniel O’Connell.” [At the mention of the hon. and learned gentleman’s name the whole audience rose and cheered. The ladies in the boxes rose, and waved their handkerchiefs, and the whole surface of the pit presented the same appearance of waving hand- kerchiefs. The mass of white, from the floor to the ceiling, reminded one of a snow-storm. This scene of excitement was continued, with frequent renewals, during considerably more than five minutes.] Yes ! although he knew that he should be incurring the displeasure of certain high persons at the Home-office (laughter), he asked them to join with him in wishing health and happiness to this convicted conspirator. [Here there there was a renewal of the previous scene.] He rejoiced to hear that hearty sympathetic cheer for the chosen representative of Ireland, and through him for the whole people of Ireland; and he was quite sure that no observations of his could induce the meeting to do additional honour to the toast which he was about to propose. But in justice to them, as well as in justice to the public feeling that he knew existed at present in this country (hear), he could not deprive himself of the gratification of assuring their distinguished guest (Cheers), that this sympathy, and this enthusiasm, was not confined to within these walls. (Loud cheers.) He could assure him, that this building, had it been ten times more spacious, would have been insufficient for those who were anxious to come forward, not only to testify their esteem and respect for him as a patriot and a man, but for the purpose of expressing, by their presence, their disgust and indignation (hear, hear) at the persecution and the injustice, at the treachery and meanness (hear) -the malignity and vindictiveness (hear, hear) – which had marked the recent State trials, as they were called, in Ireland, and of which he and others were attempted to be made the victims – The Attorney-General for Ireland (hisses) -the first law officer of the Crown in that country – he, at the onset of the proceedings, pledged himself that he would prove the existence of one of the foulest and one of the most wicked conspiracies that ever endangered the safety of an empire. He would not insult their understandings, by asking them. how he succeeded. All England, every honest man in England proclaimed his failure. (Cheers.) All England despised his attempts, and cried shame upon the Government proceedings. (Cheers, and cries of “Shame ?”) It was with much satisfaction that he heard the other evening, one who had been high in the councils of Her Majesty, a member of the late Government, and a leading member of the Opposition at the present moment – he meant Lord John Russell – it was with great satisfaction that he heard that noble lord express his opinion of Mr. O’Connell, that he had not had a fair trial (cheers)  and that if he had been tried by an English judge and an English jury, it was his opinion that he would have been acquitted. (Cheers). Was he not justified in stating to Mr O’Connell, that he must not judge of the whole feeling of this country by that which had been testified upon the present occasion, he must not believe that with this evening’s proceedings the enthusiasm would end ! No, he might depend upon it, they would not remain tongue-tied (hear) while they saw this prosecution pursuing its accursed way, and not make any attempt to rescue from its fangs that man in whom were centred the hopes and affections of the Irish people. (Cheers). If there was no stronger inducement than their attachment to the impartial administration of justice, he was sure the attempt would be made (hear); but let him remind them, that that which was Ireland’s fate today might be England’s tomorrow if they quietly looked on. (Cries of “No”) If they saw juries packed – if they allowed judges to become Ministerial partisans – if they allowed the law to be strained – if they allowed public meetings, legally convened – to be put to an end by proclamations – if they allowed the rights of petition to be abrogated by such proceedings – if they allowed it to be proclaimed that the sword and the bayonet were the just remedies, they might depend upon it that struggles of their ancestors for freedom would have been in vain, if their descendants acted with such pusillanimity. (Cheers) But had Mr O’Connell no other claims on their admiration and support ! Had they forgotten the Catholic Emancipation measure (cheers) which was his act, and his only? To him the Catholics were indebted for it. To him the Liberal Protestants owed their admiration. Had they forgotten, also, that to Mr O’Connell and the Irish members they were indebted for most valuable assistance in the struggle that took place for the Reform Bill ! (Cheers) True it was that the Reform Bill had disappointed – had sadly disappointed – them; but Mr O’Connell was not responsible for that. (Hear, hear) Had not Mr O’Connell made many sacrifices for the cause of liberty ! Had he not devoted his time, his services in his profession, and his fortune, to the cause of the people, and his services at the present moment were at the command of his country. (Loud cheers) He (Mr Duncombe) had heard Mr O’Connell in the House of Commons state to Ministers, that if they would bring in measures for the benefit of Ireland, his much-injured country, he care not how they treated him: he would forget it all in the prosperity of his country, and co-operate strenuously with them for the benefit of his native land. What return had these Ministers mad to the man? What was their reply to the proposition? Why, the reply was this – that concession had seen its utmost limits, and that condign punishment must be his reward. It was quite clear that the last act of that contemptible drama which had been played in Ireland had yet to be enacted, and that the Government, halloed on by the bloodhounds of the Tory press, meant to send the law officers of the Crown again into the Court of Queen’s bench in Dublin, there to demand the vengeance of the Court upon their victim. (“Never”) Nay, at this moment you could not go into any society, but if you met any persons who belonged to what was called the Orange faction, with that peculiar delicacy which invariably attached to all their proceedings, you heard them speculating as to the number of years for which Mr O’Connell was to be incarcerated. (Laughter). More than this, they might be heard speculating on the relative strength of the gaols of Kilmainham and Carrickfergus. (Hisses and derisive laughter.) Deluded and short-sighted men ! Did they think that by his incarceration in a prison they could conceal Mr O’Connell from the eyes of his countrymen ! – did they think that imprisoning such a man, that his virtues, and that his patriotism, would be lost to their memories ! No. He told them in their name, and he told them in the name of the people of England – yes, and in the name of the toiling millions of England, that how dark soever might be his cell – how strong soever might be his dungeon – how gross soever the indignities they might heap upon his head: and he told Mr O’Connell in that vast and gorgeous assembly, that he might lay his head in peace upon his pillow, for that the petitions, ay, and the remonstrances too of millions of the virtuous, the patriotic, and the good, would not only attest to his innocence, but would proclaim his liberation from within the very walls of Parliament itself. (Cheering) He told them before that he had already gone beyond the limits he had assigned to himself, and he was satisfied that nothing he could urge would strengthen the feelings they had towards their patriotic and illustrious guest; and he should, therefore, conclude his observations by saying that they, in honouring Mr O’Connell, did honour to themselves; and, farther, that they testified their sympathy and regard for a people whose rights and liberties, whose prosperity and happiness, ought to be, and he was sure were, as sacred to them as their own. (Cheers) He had now, therefore, only to propose – “ Health and long life to Daniel O’Connell. “

The toast was received with the same enthusiasm that attended the first mention of Mr O’Connell’s name. The cheering and waving of handkerchiefs continued for some minutes.

Mr O’Connell ( after the cheering with which he was greeted had subsided) rose, and spoke as follows: –

I protest to you this is the first time in a long and variegated life that, with truth I may say, I feel unmanned – I feel overpowered. The dungeon that my enemies and yours have prepared for me has no terrors to my mind (Cheers); and, if the scaffold and the rack could be added to it, they would not bring such overpowering sensations to my mind as the awful magnitude of the compliment you have paid to me today. (Cheers) Oh ! how ardent must be your love of justice. Oh ! how steady and severe your hatred for judicial partiality. How you must delight in seeing justice rendered with the same intensity that you hate the practice of partiality and injustice ! What are my claims on your sympathy? That I am the victim of injustice – simply because the  law has been violated in my person, simply because those in power have practised iniquity, and you, who have integrity and manliness, know how to hate them. (Cheers) Yes, you are able to turn defeat into victory, (Cheers) and to make conviction not a source of punishment but triumph. (Cheers) You make me glad that I have been convicted. It is no exaggeration to use that expression. I use it in all the sincerity of my heart, because you have shown a sympathy in England for Ireland; you have convinced me, not reluctantly to be sure, but with some difficulty, that there is a higher mind animating the masses of the middle classes, and the better part of the higher classes, in England, which teaches me that we were born to be united in affection and in interest – born to be combined against the world, and that we have on enemies but those who are enemies of both. (Cheers) Yes, I do delight in the events that have taken place. I think they will tend to great good in both branches of the country. I am sure of this, that the people of Ireland will hear with gratitude, to be extinguished only with their lives, of the manner in which I have been received lately in more popular assemblies than one, and in that brilliant assemblaze that is now before me. (Cheers) Oh ! what a scene is here tonight. When I see the rank and station, when I contemplate the wealth and importance, when I see the manly determination and the kindly glisten of the friendly eye, when I behold those beings that seem to turn it to fairy land, those sylphs and celestial beings animating and smiling upon us, I do rejoice that at any inconvenience to myself I have beheld such a transcendent spectacle. (Cheers) They have convicted me: but you ask how and of what ! I am here to tell you of what. They have convicted me not of a crime defined or definite – not of anything you can read in law books, but of something the judges have spelt out of those law books, and put together to form a monster indictment. It is literally so. – [Considerable interruption here took place owing to the great difficulty of hearing Mr O’Connell in the more distant parts of the house. The confusion continued until Mr O’Connell, advancing towards the centre of the house, mounted on a table, and thus continued his address]

I was endeavouring to vindicate the judgement you had formed. My task, I may say, was that of vindicating you to yourselves, of endeavouring to prove that you are perfectly justified in the ardour of your enthusiasm in supporting my cause and that of the Irish people. (Cheers) The accusation that has been made against me, and on which I have been convicted is of that enormous nature, that it is interesting to every human being, whether he be himself liable to a similar machination or not, to understand distinctly its bearing, its form and its pressure. It is not a crime respecting the evidence for which there is any possible resort to law nooks, or to the conjurations of men of my trade. It is called, to be sure, a conspiracy; but there is nothing of private agreement – there is nothing of arrangement – there is nothing of plot or plan in it. It is something that the judges imagine when they dream, and make the public suffer when they are awake. (Cheers) One of our female authors of celebrity in the fulness of the feminine imagination has depicted to the world an imaginary being of extraordinary dimensions, and of voracious capacity, and denominated it Frankenstein. The conspiracy tried in Ireland was the Frankenstein of the law, uncouth of limb, unshaped in form, undefined and indefinite in manner, having nothing of humanity about it, having nothing of law but its monstrosity. (Cheers) How was it endeavoured to be supported ? By the history of nine months. What plot did it disclose ? Why a plot which was carefully committed to those cautious keepers of secrets, the public newspapers. (Cheers) Not one witness was produced to prove any fact except that A and B were proprietors of newspapers, and members of the association, and then the newspapers were read in detail against us; the judges determined that that was evidence of conspiracy, and here I stand before you a convicted conspirator. (Cheers) The history of nine months was given in this most satisfactory manner. The chronology of the newspapers, the dates of them were all varied one week from another. The history of 41 giant meetings was detailed as it appeared in the public prints, and was it alleged that any one of these meetings was illegal ? – that there was force, violence, tumult, or turbulence at any one of them ? There was not a particle of any such allegation that the magistracy or the constables, or the idle and the timid, were intimidated or frightened at any one of these meetings ? There was not a single allegation of the kind. They were peaceable. They were admitted to be legal. Each and every one of them were admitted to be legal. But by the dexterity of judicial magic, the 41, though each perfectly legal separately, when taken together formed a conspiracy. (Cheers). It is literally so. I am not mocking you when I tell you literally the fact, that 41 legal meetings were held to make an illegal one. Forty-one cyphers would not make a sum, and yet, in point of law, it was decided in our case that 41 nothings made a something, and we are to abide the event. Oh ! the scorn and indignation of mankind ought to be poured out on such an abomination of injustice. (Cheers) I arraign the men as conspirators who planned such a trial. I arraign, as the worst species of conspirators, the men who carried on this mock prosecution with all the trickery and chicanery of Old Bailey practitioners. (Cheers) What is fact today judges call precedent tomorrow, and, if this question be allowed to repose, if this precedent be once established, Englishmen, there is not one of you whose case it may not be tomorrow. (Cheers) I say not this to threaten or menace you. I say not this to instigate you to warmth in support of the people of Ireland; for I would be the most mistaken of human beings, if I were not aware already, from what I have seen in England, that it is unnecessary to animate you, or to give you any motives for acting, but your own generous feelings. (Cheers) I arraign, therefore that prosecution against me, and I tell you you are justified in arraigning it for want of anything like legal form or fixity, for want of anything that you can encounter; for it is a monstrous shadow that may be armed with deadly weapons by a miscreant administration of the law, but which has in it nothing that is tangible which a rational man can meet in fair conflict of argument or judicial discrimination. What is my next arraignment ? The conduct of the judge (Cheers) – and here I have one consolation, that no one human being attempts to justify the judge. (Cheers) The usual practice in Parliament is, when any man is arraigned for misconduct, the Ministry, if he happens to be a Ministerial man, and the Opposition, if he happens to be an Opposition man, suddenly discover that he really was endowed with all possible human virtues. They get up and eulogise him, never having discovered that he had so many good qualities till he was attacked – that is the usual course of Parliamentary proceeding. But there is one man of whom men of all classes are ashamed, a person no one praised, and that man is Chief-Justice Penefather. Nobody attempted to eulogise him. It is admitted that since the hideous days of Scroggs and Jefferys so one-sided a charge was never pronounced by judicial lips. (Cheers) He is taken back to the worst days of the history of the law. It is admitted – it was asserted and not denied – I saw it myself – he borrowed part of the prosecuting counsel’s brief to help him make his charge, and in addressing the jury he showed the bent of his mind – “ out of the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh” – he talked of the counsel on the other side. (Shame) Let it be proclaimed throughout England – from the extremity of Cornwall to the highest part of Scotland – let it be known throughout the length and breadth of the land – that there has been a trial where a chief-justice presiding was admitted to have made the charge of an advocate, which was incapable of defence by any party or any government. (Loud cheers) You see how I am coaxing him to pass a lenient sentence on me. (Cheers and a laugh) What is my next impeachment of this proceeding ? I am here to vindicate myself and countrymen, and you for your sympathy and support. (Cheers) My next impeachment is the management of the jury panel. Out of 710 names, 63 slipped by accident. (Cheers) We had a lottery, out of 773, 710 alone remained; 63 were wanting. (Villainy) To be sure it was villainy; it would not be accident. (Cheers) Especially out of the 63, 27 were Roman Catholic. Perhaps you do not know that I am of that persuasion. (Cheers and a laugh) And here let me say, that when my esteemed and valued friend (your Chairman) awhile ago told you that the Roman Catholics were indebted to me for my exertion in favour of their emancipation, he might have added with truth – I add with pride – that I sought for that emancipation, not by the assertion of sectarian preference or party, but on the great and glorious principle that religion is a matter between man and his Creator (Cheers) and there is no freedom or justice in any country where a man is prohibited worshipping his God according to the dictates of his conscience. (Cheers) It was upon that principle that we petitioned for the Protestant Dissenters in England, and helped to obtain their emancipation. (Cheers) There is the hand that drew the petition that was signed by 28,000 Catholics praying for the emancipation of the Protestant Dissenters of England, and, within one fortnight after that petition was presented Lord John succeeded; and Peel was compelled to emancipate the Protestant Dissenters. (Cheers) pardon me for this digression; but it is important that we should understand each other well. The people of Ireland have waited for their own freedom of conscience; they were in power three times since the Reformation, and they never persecuted a single Protestant. (Cheers) Let us then contend with each other, in the good, the charitable, the benevolent generous flow of our feelings, and take no credit for particular sectarian advantages, and let us establish the liberty of all on the broad basis of Christian brotherhood. (Cheers)  I come back to the trial. The 63 names slipped out. Mark now, for one moment: there is something of technicality in what I am going to tell you, but I think you will easily comprehend me. We challenged the array on account of the 63 names which had been dropped. In that challenge – the document is on record – we alleged that those names were fraudulently spoliated from the list – we alleged that this was done to the detriment of the traversers. That plea was put on the record. The Attorney-general had it in his power to join issue and say the thing had not been fraudulently done. That question of fraud would have been tried by lawyers duly sworn; but he declined to do so. he left the allegation uncontroverted – it was uncontroverted  on the record to this day, and he relied on this, that he had judges who told him and told us that, as we did not know who it was that committed the fraud, we were without remedy. (Shame) It is literally true. I am here talking to the common sense of Englishmen – to their sense of honesty, and to that noble adherence to fair play, which above all things else is the highest and most dignified trait in the English character. It is a common saying all over the world, when two men are found fighting, people who come up are sure to take part with one or the other; but in England it is proverbial that no two people fight that those who come up don’t see fair play. I am telling you those things, and appealing to your fair play. There is no one word in any other language that can express such a character, and it deserves to have a word coined for itself. The fraud is uncontroverted till the present moment; the only answer we get, as I told you, was, “you don’t know who committed the fraud, and therefore there is no remedy.” Suppose a man is robbed and does not know the name of the thief, if he went before Sir Peter Laurie, or any other of your white witches, and said “ I caught this man escaping from my premises with my goods.” everybody would laugh at Sir Peter more than they do if he were to say “ I cannot listen to your complaint: you do not know the man’s name.” (A laugh) And yet on that most ridiculous assertion we were told that the fraud must go unpunished, and we must be punished for mentioning the fraud. (Cheers, and cries of “Shame”)

There remains one more impeachment, and that is my impeachment of the jury that was sworn. In point of law Protestant and Catholic have equal right to be on that jury. (Cheers.) In point of justice it ought to be so; in fair play it would be so. Chief-Justice Fairplay would have decided for me at once. Yet what was the first step ? Eleven Catholics were on the reduced list, every one of them was struck off by the Crown Solicitor. They say, to be sure, they were Repealers. In the first place it is not true: that is one answer. In the next place, if it were true it would be no reply; because, being a Repealer might be a great folly, but it is not a crime: it is not a crime which makes a man an outlaw (Cheers) ; and if being a Repealer would make a juror favourable to me, I ask you whether my most rancorous and violent opponents – men who had voted three times against me -could be considered a fair and impartial jury against me. This is their own argument. I convict them out of their own mouths. I appeal to common sense, if a Repealer would be favourable to me, is not your anti-Repealer necessarily favourable to another. (Cheers.) But recollect this, it was the more important to have a fair jury in this case, because the crime was not a distinct one. If it had been a charge of robbery, or murder, or forgery, any human intellect could have understood the nature of the crime, and would only have had to decide the fact whether the party charged was guilty or innocent. But here was an imaginary crime, participating more of ideality than reality – here was something that was to be spelled out of the recesses of the criminal law, and it emphatically called for a thoroughly impartial as well as a thoroughly intelligent jury to investigate it. (Cheers.)

One Protestant they struck off – as respectable an individual as ever lived -almost the only liberal Protestant in the entire panel. The man whose intellect was of the highest order, the intelligent Protestant, they sent to keep company with the 11 Catholics. Yet they call this a fair trial. I call it not prosecution, but persecution. (Cheers.) I call it not a fair trial, but shifting, scheme, and management. (Cheers.) I say I am not the person convicted by the due course of law. In prison I shall feel that I am a victim, and in that prison I shall have the feeling at heart that will raise me superior to the punishment. (Loud cries of “Hear.”) Oh ! I see I have plenty here to open the prison door. (Loud cheers.) But it would be very idle to suppose that I am not thoroughly prepared for an event of that kind. Whatever I suffer for my country I rejoice in that suffering, and she is rendered doubly dearer to me by any infliction imposed on me for acting in defence of her freedom and happiness, and they mistake much who imagine that my influence will be diminished, or my power of persuasion over my countrymen will be lessened by any sentence they may possibly inflict on me. (Cheers.) However, I will not dispute with you on the nature of the sentence. I have shown you the culpability of the proceeding. I have arraigned the parties to it here, where my voice, unconfined by these walls, will reach all over the world wherever the English language is spoken: wherever the ear understands its accents my words will be conveyed on the wings of the press, and in presence of the congregrated civilization of the world, in the presence of America, of France and India, of every clime and country, I proclaim the proceedings against me a foul and dishonest persecution (Loud cheers), and I hurl at the tyrants of the law my merciless scorn and defiance. (Loud cheers.) But it will be asked what object I had in view at those meetings. You may say to me ” ’tis true you ought not to have been convicted, but you have an account still to render to us; you are accused of wishing to separate England from Ireland.” I have been accused of unnecessarily meddling with an enactment that took place 44 years ago, of needlessly reviving old causes of complaint, and accumulating new grievances to make them more unbearable. Now, I am quite ready to meet that charge, and I should be utterly unworthy of the magnificent compliment you have paid me this evening, if I were not ready here, in the presence of you Englishmen, to justify everything that I have done, and to rebut every imputation which has been cast upon me. (Loud cheers.) I will tell you why I have held these meetings, and I will abide by your disinterested judgment. They say there is a union between the two countries. I utterly deny it. There is a parchment enactment (Cheers), but there is no real union. (Cheers.) What is the meaning of a real union ? A perfect identification between the two countries (Cheers) – that there should be no difference between Englishmen and Irishmen, except a little in the accent (a laugh) – that Englishmen and Irishmen should possess the same rights, the same privileges, and the same franchises (cheers)-that there should be no difference between the men of Kent and the men of Cork (cheers) – between the men of Mayo and the men of Lancashire. (Renewed cheers.) That England and Ireland should be one nation, possessed precisely of the same rights, the same franchises, and the same privileges. Is not that the real meaning of a union ? (Cheers) I appealed to the imperial Parliament to make the union what I have described it, but I appealed in vain. TheTories, of course refused, and the Whigs were equally complimentary. (Cheers and laughter.) I do not wish to weary this assembly by the barrenness of statistics, I will, however, draw your attention to one or two statements. The county of Cork, which I have the honour to represent, has 710,000 inhabitants in its agricultural districts, and upwards of 140,000 inhabitants in its cities and towns, so that the population of Cork, taken together, amounts to 850,000 inhabitants. Now, the inhabitants of Wales are 800,000, being 50,000 less than the inhabitants of the county of Cork. The county of Cork, with its 850,000 inhabitants, returns just eight members to Parliament – and now many members do you think Wales returns with its 800,000 ? Why, just 28. (Hear, hear.) One Welshman is not able to beat five Irishmen. (Cheers and laughter.) The Welsh are a brave and perhaps sometimes ill-tempered race. (Cheers and laughter); but, at the same time, I respectfully submit that one Welshman is not worth five Irishmen. (A laugh.) Man for man,I am quite content to allow; but I cannot admit that, as compared with my own countrymen, they are worth five to one. (Loud cheers and laughter.) I cannot admit they are entitled to retain 28 members for the 800,000 inhabitants, while the county of Cork, with its 850,000 inhabitants, is only to return eight members to Parliament.(Cheers.) Ought that to last ? (Cries of “No, no.”) Is it not a thing that ought to be changed ? (Cries of” Yes, yes.”) They laughed at me when I called for the change. Then, again, let us look at the question in another point of view. The parliamentary returns, made seven years ago, on the registration of voters, showed that there were 4,000 registered voters for the county of Cork, with a population of 710,000 inhabitants, while in Wales there were 36,000 registered voters. I was looking over the Parliamentary returns this morning, and I find the number of registered voters for Cork is now 1,500 – only 1,500 ! (Hear, hear.) The votes for the largest county in Ireland are nearly extinguished by the operation of the Registration Act, while in Wales the number of voters has increased by 2,000. There are 38,000 registered voters in Wales, and 1,500 for the county of Cork. Now is that common sense ? Is that justice? Is that fairness, or is it honesty? (“No,no”) l have obtained the love and affection of my countrymen. (Hear, hear.) I know what it is to feel the delight of being borne along, as it were, on the breath of a people. (Cheers.) Oh ! if you saw the stalwart men leaving their work and flocking to the roadside as I pass by; if you saw them in the attitude of firmness, and watched their eye beaming with affection as they looked on me, and their hand outstretched, almost asking me, would you wish that we should strike the blow ?(hear, hear) – if you saw the aged woman greeting me as I passed by, and praying for my health and prosperity – if you saw the merry children and heard their chirping cry as I went along (cheers) praying for blessings on the head of him whom they called the father of their country (cheers);  – oh, if you had seen and felt this as I have seen and felt it; if you had seen the congregated hundreds and thousands – ay, more than a million – come at my call and dissolve with my breath, whom I have taught the lesson of which I am an apostle – that no political advantage can be of so much importance as to justify the shedding of one single drop of human blood (cheers) ; this is the lesson they have been taught; this is the lesson they practise (cheers); and this is the lesson they will continue to practise until the triumphant success of their efforts shall imprint the maxim upon the wise and good of all nations (Cheers); – if you had seen all this as I have experienced it you would think me, indeed, the basest of all mankind if I did not struggle to remedy the inequalities of which I have mentioned two, but of which I might cite a hundred, existing between the two countries. (Cheers.) The Irish nation, to be properly represented, ought to have 160 members at the least; and that is less even than her right. We would take less for a compromise: they will give us none; but set us at defiance and indict us for a conspiracy for endeavouring to obtain them. (Cheers.) Are you aware that the Corporate Reform Bill given to Ireland is most miserably defective in every respect. In England whoever is rated to the poor-rate is a burgess, and is entitled to vote at municipal elections; but, in Dublin, in order to be upon the burgess-lists it is necessary that a man should be rated at 10s., that is, he should occupy a 20s. house and that he should have paid no less than nine different rates. The consequence is, that in Dublin not above one-third of those who ought to be burgesses are on the list. (Hear hear.) I ask for equality with the English Corporate Reform Bill, and when I call the people together that they may insist on the desirable alterations in a peaceable, tranquil, and constitutional manner, I am indicted for  a conspiracy. (Cheers.) But there is another grievance in Ireland greater than all these. It may have the appearance of prejudice on my part, or of sectarian fanaticism, that I should advert to it now; but, as I have assailed it elsewhere, I am ready boldly to assail it here, and to take your judgment on it. I allude to the established church in Ireland. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, I appeal to you whether the church in England, that has the state emoluments, is not the church of the great majority of the people? (Cries of ” No.”) So much the worse; it ought to be. Well, that is a disputed question which I will not argue. The church of Scotland, until lately, was the church of the great majority; but the church in Ireland, which has the state emoluments, is not and never has been the church of the majority. (Hear.) I do not want the emoluments of that church for my church – I would not accept them. There does not live a Protestant who would be half so determined as I should be in throwing them aside from my church. I would scorn to have my church the vassal of the state, or connected with the state. I think such connexion is injurious to the state, and must be detrimental to the church. My opinion may be insignificant; but the Catholic prelates of Ireland have within the last six weeks proclaimed that they would never take one single farthing of public money, or any state endowment whatsoever. (Cheers.) I do not think that there is a greater crime on the face of the earth than that one man should be compelled to pay for the religion of another which he did not believe. Upon that principle, the great oppression of Ireland is the Established Church, and until this system is put an end to it will be in vain to expect tranquillity in lreland. My friends, I wish you had seen the Irish newspapers. A short time since a very respectable gentleman, named Archdeacon De Lacy died. He was the nephew of a Bishop, and according to the advertisement of the sale of his effects, he was an excellent man, he had 11 hunters, an excellent pack of hounds, and a splendid cellar of wine. (Laughter.) But it may be said that these grievances of Ireland are rather speculative than otherwise. I don’t think it will be said that the last is so. It is said, that we may be rich, happy, and contented without these political advantages. But is Ireland rich? That she is not contented is certain – has she a right to be happy ? Allow me to vindicate myself by telling you the real state of Ireland – In 1834, 40 years after the establishment of the union, the Commissioners on the Poor Law Inquiry reported that they found 2,385,000 in a state of destitution upon a population of 8,000,000 more than one fourth of the whole population; and Captain Larkom has reported that 70 per cent. of the rural population were living in huts in one room only – that 30 per cent. of the town population families were living in one room, and in some instances several families in that one room. ( Hear, hear.) Nothing shows greater misery than a decrease in the population. An increase in the population is a favourable sign, but the retrogression of a population of 70,000 a year is a most convincing proof of misery, distress, and wretchedness. Now, just to shows you that what I am stating is correct, I will read you the description of Mr. Kohl, a German, who has been travelling  all over Europe, who has visited Ireland, and lately published a book, in which is the following statement:- I remember, when I saw the poor Lettes in Livonia, I used to pity them for having to live in huts built of the un-hewn logs of trees, the crevices being stopped up with moss. I pitied them on account of their low doors and diminutive windows, and gladly would I have arranged their chimney for them in a more suitable manner. Well, Heaven pardon my ignorance. I knew not that I should ever see a people on whom Almighty God had imposed yet heavier privations. Now that I have seen Ireland, it seems to me that the Lettes, the Esthonians, and the Findianders, lead a life of comparative comfort, and poor Paddy would feel like a king with their houses, their haoilirrents, and their daily fare. (Cheers). A wooden house, with moss to stop up its crevices, would be a palace in the wild regions of Ireland. Paddy’s cabin is built of earth, one shovelful over the other, with a few stones mingled here and there, till the wall is high enough. But perhaps you will say, the roof is thatched or covered with bark. Ay, indeed ! A few sods of grass cut from a neighbouring bog are his only thatch. Well, but a window or two at least, if it be only a pane of glass fixed in the wall, or the bladder of some animal, or a piece of talc. as may often be seen in a Wallachian hut ! What idle luxury were this ! There are thousands of cabins in which not a trace of a window is to be seen. Nothing but a little square hole in front, which doubles the duty of door, window, and chimney – light, smoke, pigs, and children all must pass in and out of the same aperture !  A French author, Beaumont, who had seen the Irish peasant in his cabin, and the North American Indian in his wigwam, has assured us that the savage is better provided for than the poor man in Ireland. Indeed, the question may be raised, whether in the whole world a nation is to be found that is subjected to such physical privations as the peasantry in some parts of Ireland. This fact cannot be placed in too strong a light; for, if it can once be shown that the wretchedness of the Irish population is without a paralell example on the globe, surely every friend of humanity will feel himself called on to reflect whether means may not be found for remedying an evil of so astounding a magnitude !’ (Cheers.)

And, in Ennis, the following statement was made the other day at a meeting, at which Sir Lucius O’Brien presided: – ” At a meeting of the Guardians of the Ennis Poor Law Union on Wednesday, Sir Lucius O’Brien in the chair, Mr. Butler brought forward the resolutions of which he had given notice, relative to the exorbitant amount of Grand Jury Cess now leviable, and which he stated was entirely borne by the occupiers of land. His object in bringing forward the resolutions was, to call attention to, the matter, in the hope that the grievance would be redressed by the introduction of a provision into the grand jury laws, which would render the landlords liable for a moiety of the tax, in the same manner in which they are subject to poor-rates. The chairman and Mr. Carrick supported the landlords, attributing all their misfortunes to bad seasons, failures in the crops, &c. : while Mr. James Mahon, B. Butler, Mr. Finucane, Mr. Knox, and nearly the entire board were of opinion that the major part of the population were in a state of dreadful destitution – that pauperism was frightfully on the increase, and that nothing short of sound remedies should be considered.”   Why do I harrow you with these pictures ? Why ?  for the purpose of calling upon you to exert yourselves in the cause of my unhappy country, and to do all in your power to render her happy once again. Does this misery that I have pictured to you arise from the laziness of the people of Ireland ? No. Do they not travel far and near to obtain work ? Do they not crowd your streets and your villages in hopes of obtaining work ? (Loud cheers.) But then it may be said that Ireland it unproductive. Oh ! no, ’tis one of the greenest and the fairest isles of the globe. (Loud cheers) Its crops are abundant, and its produce magnificent. –(Cheers.) It has the best harbours and the finest estuaries in the world. It has all those advantages – and, added to this, it has in spite of all their misfortunes a cheerful, a gay, laborious and affectionate people. (Cheers.) Then why is it that this misery exists ! From bad government. It is impossible to give any other reason for it. (Great cheering.) Since the union, matters have become worse and worse in Ireland. They have given us a poor law, and that poor law, I will venture to say, will bring rebellion in Ireland if it exists for two years longer. (Hear, hear.). I stood alone in opposing it. I was attacked as hard-hearted for doing so. l said it could be no remedy – that Ireland was too poor for a poor-law. It is literally so, and now the country is breaking up in consequence of it. Let them send me to my dungeon, let them preclude me from intercourse with the people -the consequences will be awful They wait in the expectation that something will yet be done for them. They have learned from me that something may be done for them, and I have told them that he who commits a crime strengthens the enemy – that the only mode of obtaining justice is by being peaceable and quiet. (Cheers.) I have trespassed on you long; but how could I avoid expressing my gratitude and showing you that I deserve at least your good attention, your kindness, and support ? (Cheers.) I have never shrunk from standing by you in any contest, – I have always been at your side – (Cheers) – I have never given a vote that was calculated to Increase the burdens of the English people – (Cheers); but I have invariably supported every measure for the extension of civil and religious liberty. (Cheers.) I have advocated the cause of the slave in America, as well as the peasant in Ireland. I care not what a man’s creed, or caste, or colour may be; no matter, how incompatible with freedom, a southern sun may have burnt upon him – I care not whether the despotism of the Spanish tyrant or of the French mocker of liberty presses on any country, I am for freedom for every man, liberty for all, tyranny for none. (Cheers.) I stood by you in the Reform Bill, I formed one of your majority, and an influential one it was; for others voted with me. It promised much. It was spoiled in its management. Its nursing mothers were unkindly to their foster child. In another struggle for freedom I also joined you. I shall always be with you in giving the protection of the vote by ballot, and for the shortening of the duration of Parliaments, recollecting that short accounts make long friends. (Cheers.) I owe this statement to you; and now I solemnly assure you, that if I was not thoroughly convinced that the establishment of a domestic legislature was essential to the comfort of Ireland, and that it was necessary to keep up the connexion between this country and Ireland, I would advocate it no longer. If I did not apprehend that when I am gone some one else will do that which I never will do, countenance the separation of Ireland from England, I would not struggle for a local legislature. But to say that a local legislature must end in a separation is a mockery. Look at Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Canada, Barbadoes, even Botany Bay. (Cheers.) So that every dependency of England, except Ireland, has a local legislature. We don’t want to check or curb England. What we want is, that the laws, to be obeyed in Ireland, should be made in Ireland. It was so before the union; it will be so again when wise and good men understand the question as I do. And, in the mean time, I ask all to assist us in getting justice for Ireland, and they will draw away the repealing from me. Let us have equal franchises, equal representation, equal corporate reform, equal freedom of conscience from a church to which we do not belong. Let them try the experiment of kindness, and they will soon defeat any plan of further agitation. The life and soul of agitation is the injustice attempted to be done us; to crown which they come out now with a wicked perversion of the law, the scandalous partiality of the judge, the corrupt packing of the jury, and the insulting title of ” convicted conspirators.” (Cheers.) Convicted! convicted in their teeth, the renegades. Renegades who have forsaken every principle – who violently opposed emancipation one year, and carried it the next. (Hear, hear.) There is the renegade Stanley, who was the principal contriver of the Reform Bill in such a manner as to prevent it from working. (Hear, hear.) There is Graham, too, who was first on one side of the house, and now is on the other, and goes to the very extreme of renegadism. (Hear, hear.) These are the real conspirators; and let all those of both countries who wish for rational freedom, those who look for free trade and an unshackled commerce, cheap law, and a relief from the intolerable burden of debt, – let those who desire economical, practical reforms, join with old Ireland. (Cheers.) They will be sure of meeting grateful hearts. We will have no separation, but a perpetual friendship. The union would then, indeed, be rendered valuable by a domestic legislature and by a complete combination of a loyal, contented, and happy people. (The hon. and learned gentleman then retired amidst loud and general cheering.)

The Earl of SHREWSBURY came forward to propose the next toast-” The People.”

He could not tell them how extremely he felt the disadvantage he laboured under, in having so immediately to follow after the eloquent and instructive speech which had been delivered to them by their illustrious guest: but on this, as on other grounds, he felt he should receive what he so much needed, their kindest consideration. (Hear, hear.) The toast which had been assigned to him to propose was that of ” the People,” and in proposing it he was sure that the first idea which presented itself to their minds was the cause of the people of Ireland. That was a great and generous cause, for it was the cause of humanity – the cause of right as opposed to that of wrong. (Cheers.) They had arrived at a new era in the history of that cause, for they had at length embodied in it the sympathies and the feelings of the people of England. (Hear, hear.) The time was when the people of England were foolish enough to imagine that their political rights and their commercial prosperity were distinct from those of Ireland. This delusion had been done away with, and they were now beginning to see that the way to make her own empire secure was to make Ireland her happy, her trusted, and, therefore, her prosperous ally. (Hear, hear.) They now were beginning to find out that the prosperity of England would never be stable and deep-seated – that there never would be security for herself, unless she shared all her privileges and franchises fairly and equally with Ireland. Ireland was now universally acknowledged to be one of the finest countries in the world, but she had been governed by persons blinded by prejudice; and thus her great natural advantages had never been fairly developed. (Cheers.) For, with every natural advantage in a superior degree, the natural resources of Ireland remained unproductive, while the great mass of her population were in a state of misery and destitution unparalleled in any country in Europe. Why should there be this difference between England and Ireland ? It was because England was governed by another law, and in another spirit. We were comparatively happy and prosperous ; they were doomed to poverty and misery; and so it would continue until the people of Ireland enjoyed equal rights and privileges with ourselves. (Hear, hear.) But Ireland must no longer be allowed to fight her battle for justice single-handed. The people of England must come in as a generous or even as an interested auxiliary. (Hear.) Ireland deserved every assistance in her hour of need. She was deprived of half her strength. The liberties of the people had been invaded; the weapon with which the constitution had armed her for the attainment of her rights, and which she had wielded with such astounding effect under the guidance of him whose courage and prowess they were there to commemorate, had been rudely wrested from her grasp. Had Ireland sought to attain her object by the display of physical force, without a just and paramount necessity – he spoke of that sort which came in the spirit of law and order, and he should say of the constitution, for in these days it was necessary to distinguish between legal and constitutional means (Hear) – and had Ireland sought redress by the display of physical strength, without a just necessity for it, she would have exceeded the true prerogative of the people ; but where there was that necessity the people were justified in resorting to those means. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights were our title-deeds. Yes, when the moral was at hand to guide the physical power of a nation, their union became a duty where their object was to alleviate sorrow and resist injustice (Cheers); but that union was for the present dissolved. Let them not, however, be dismayed. Ireland had gained more than she had lost. She had gained the sympathies of the people of England. Let Ireland then never cease to struggle, though hitherto in vain till she had conquered injustice; ” and,” continued the noble Earl, “may he who is so truly styled the Liberator of his country (cheers) – he who first snapped our bonds asunder, may he live to see Ireland rise from poverty and oppression, and as the reward of his own untiring energy, may he live to see her enjoy the proper fruit of freedom – fair and equal justice, and fair and equal rights with the people of England.” (Loud cheers.)

The toast having been received with cheers.

The Hon. Mr. LANGDALE came forward to acknowledge the toast, and proposed,

” The 78 peers who supported Lord Normanby’s motion, and the 227 members of the House of Commons who supported Lord John Russell’s motion.” He said he felt personally bound to come forward and welcome the Liberator of Ireland on this occasion, because had it not been for the exertions of Mr. O’Connell, he would in all probability have not been now (as a Catholic) entitled to address an assembly of freemen, conscious of an equality of rights and privileges with those whom he addressed. (Hear.) With respect to the late trial, if ever there was an instance in which vengeance seemed to have taken the place of justice, it was on that occasion. However, it was a source of deep consolation that in the Upper House there should have been 78 peers to redeem the character of the House of Lords, among whom were some of the first blood of the land. He knew too how repugnant it was to the feelings of his noble friend (Lord Shrewsbury) to come forward on such a public occasion, but it was gratifying to see the head of the house of Talbot stand forth as be had done tonight on behalf of the insulted rights of his Irish fellow-countrymen. (Hear, hear.)

The CHAIRMAN returned thanks as a member of the House of Commons, and then read letters from the Earl of Radnor and Lord Kinnaird, expressive of their approval of the objects of the meeting.

Lord CAMOYS said he was proud of being one of those 78 Peers who had formed the minority on the occasion referred to. Had not the division taken place so early, the number would have been much augmented. As it was, however, that minority comprised some of the most ancient and patriotic blood in the House of Lords. He (Lord Camoys) was especially bound to be present on this occasion, for to whom was it that he was indebted for being one of that number of 78, but to the eminent individual whom they had that night met to honour. He had come there to express his indignation at those recent proceedings in Ireland which had covered the judicature of that country with contempt. Such things ought not to be allowed to continue; and he trusted that such a demonstration as this, and others which had taken place, and would take place in this country, would totally remove from the public mind that ignorance and prejudice with respect to Ireland without which no power on earth could have induced the people of England to withhold redress of the grievances of Ireland. (Hear, hear.)

Sir R. BULKELEY, M,P., also acknowledged the toast. He felt it to be the duty of every friend of civil and religious liberty to come forward on this occasion. The magnificent assembly of that evening would suffice to assure Mr. O’Connell of the sympathy of the English people, and to convince him of what was the fact, that the interference with the right of trial by jury had thoroughly aroused them, to an extent far beyond any effect that had been produced by all that had been written for many years. As a Protestant he gloried in the revolution of 1688, but far be it from him to wish to perpetuate in Ireland those wrongs for which that settlement was made the pretext. (Cheers.)

The Hon. F. H. BERKELEY M.P., then came forward to propose ” Justice to Ireland”. He could not, however, flatter the meeting, with the hope that justice would come soon, while there was the present overweening majority in the two houses of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Nor could he say he believed that another election would restore the power to the people. (No.) Nothing would effect that but an extension of the franchise, which was now a mere mockery. There would be no good done until the House of Lords had less to do with the House of Commons, (Hear, hear,) and until the House of Commons had less power over the constituents; until such a day arrived, he despaired of seeing the peopIe of England wishing to assist the people of Ireland in the way their hearts and feelings would prompt them. (Hear, hear)

Mr M.J. O’CONNELL, M.P., begged to acknowledge with pride and gratification the humour they had done his country by the practical pledge of justice to Ireland they had given that night, and on so many former occasions since the late state trials. it was a source of pride and gratification to him to see the people of England throwing off that apathy which seemed to have hung over them, however much they might be inclined to feel for the people of Ireland. It arose, however, from the feeling which always done the people of England humour – the feeling of fair play – the feeling which prompted them to take the part of an injured person at once, without inquiring whether his previous conduct had ‘er had not deserved approbation. (Hear) If there had been alienation, jealousies, and heart-burnings between the two people, he hoped they would now close on both sides. (Hear.) They might differ as to what justice to Ireland consisted in, but they were all agreed that there must be an identity of rights and privileges between the people of the two countries. (Cheers.)

MR GISBOURNE M.P., rose to propose the next toast. He had said to a member in the house that evening that he was coming to this dinner. “Oh,” said he “then you are going to a dinner given to a Repealer, and presided over by a Chartist,” to which he (Mr Gisborne) replied, “ that if the chairman believed in witchcraft, and the guest was a believer in mesmerism, it would not deter him from going for his object was to do honour to Mr O’Connell, and to express the deep conviction he felt, after having heard the nine nights’ debate in the House of Commons, that the late trials in Ireland had been a tyranny perpetrated under the form of law. He desired to express most emphatically his detestation of the whole course of the proceedings. “(Cheers.) The hon. member proposed “Trial by jury, without fraud.” (Cheers.)

Mr. Serjeant Murphy acknowledged the toast.

The health of the ladies having  been drunk,

The Chairman’s health was pronosed by Mr. O’Connell,.

The Chairman returned thanks, and

The company separated at a few minutes to 12 o’clock.

Originally  from The Times, on Wednesday 13th March, 1844. This was reprinted in The Morning Chronicle in Sydney, NSW, on Wed 10th July, 1844,  on Page 1, and I imagine a lot of other papers around the world.