Secret Service Under Pitt William J. Fitz-Patrick 1888 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Secret Service Under Pitt
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Secret Service Under Pitt

Author: William J. Fitz-Patrick

Release date: January 25, 2016 [eBook #51030]
Most recently updated: October 22, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51030

Credits: Produced by Richard Tonsing, MWS and the Online
Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SECRET
SERVICE UNDER PITT ***

SECRET SERVICE UNDER PITT

Two vols. Crn. 8vo. with Portrait, 36s.
THE PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE AND MEMOIRS
OF
DANIEL O'CONNELL, M.P.
By WM. J. FITZPATRICK, F.S.A.
KNT. ST. GREG. GT.
'In these volumes there is nothing tedious, and they are well put
together.'—Standard.
'Mr. Fitzpatrick, who has done more than any living writer for Irish
biography, has in this, his latest and most important work earned the
gratitude of all students of Irish politics.'—Daily Telegraph.
'This work stands high above the extravagant and indiscriminating
eulogies of O'Connell, accompanied by ignorant and malignant
denunciations of all opposed to him, hitherto given to the world by
patriotic biographers.'—Times.
'Inspired by love and admiration, pursued with laborious and
indefatigable industry, and guided by honesty and good judgment. It
gives a higher and, we believe, a truer view of O'Connell's character
than has been given to the world before.'—Vanity Fair.
'Fresh light is thrown upon a most interesting period of Irish history by
this publication, in which Daniel O'Connell reveals his innermost
thoughts upon great public questions, as well as on themes of sacred
and private import. Courts and Cabinets—the intrigues of public men
and the subtleties of political organisations—are alike laid open to the
public gaze.'—Daily Chronicle.
'To Mr. Fitzpatrick is due the gratitude of all students of history, of
truth, and of human character for the patience and pertinacity with
which he has collected these letters, and the knowledge, discretion,
and tact of his arrangement. He has let O'Connell tell his own story,
and the connecting thread is slight and scientific, such as only minute

knowledge of his period could make it. The reader is hardly conscious
of its presence, yet it suffices to weld a huge mass of miscellaneous
correspondence into an authentic biography and lifelike portrait of the
man who, of all others, made the greatest mark on his country and his
generation.'—Athenæum.
'Mr. Fitzpatrick, while presenting to us a collection of moderate extent,
has not only woven them into a web of fair average continuity, but has,
as a sculptor would, presented to us his hero "in the round," so that we
may consider each of his qualities in each varied light, and judge of
their combination into a whole, whether it is mean or noble, consistent
or inconsistent, natural or forced.... Few indeed, as I think, of those
who give a careful perusal to these pages, will withhold their assent
from the double assertion that O'Connell was a great man, and that he
was a good man. Upon this issue the volumes now before us will
enable us to try him: and in trying him to try ourselves. For who can
any longer doubt that some debt is still due to him; that he was, to say
the least, both over-censured and undervalued?'—Mr. Gladstone, in
The Nineteenth Century.
London: JOHN MURRAY, Albemarle Street.

SECRET SERVICE UNDER PITT
BY

W. J. FITZPATRICK, F.S.A.

AUTHOR OF 'LIFE, TIMES, AND CORRESPONDENCE OF
BISHOP DOYLE'
'LIFE OF LORD CLONCURRY'
'CORRESPONDENCE AND MEMOIRS OF DANIEL O'CONNELL'
'IRELAND BEFORE THE UNION' ETC.

LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16th STREET
1892

All rights reserved

PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON

PREFACE
These rough notes—begun long ago and continued at slow intervals—were
put aside during the onerous task of editing for Mr. Murray the O'Connell
Correspondence. The recent publication of Mr. Lecky's final volumes,
awakening by their grasp a fixed interest in pre-Union times, and
confirming much that by circumstantial evidence I had sought to establish,
affords a reason, perhaps, that my later researches in the same field ought
not to be wholly lost. Mr. Lecky's kindness in frequently quoting me[1]
merits grateful acknowledgment, not less than his recognition of some
things that I brought to light as explanatory of points to which the State
Papers afford no clue. This and other circumstances encourage me in
offering more.
My sole purpose at the outset was to expose a well-cloaked case of long-
continued betrayal by one of whom Mr. Froude confesses that all efforts to
identify had failed;[2] but afterwards it seemed desirable to disclose to the
reader a wider knowledge of an exciting time.[3] In various instances a veil
will be found lifted, or a visor unlocked, revealing features which may
prove a surprise. Nor is the story without a moral. The organisers of illegal
societies will see that, in spite of the apparent secrecy and ingenuity of their
system, informers sit with them at the same council-board and dinner-table,
ready at any moment to sell their blood; and that the wider the ramifications
of conspiracy, the greater becomes the certainty of detection.
It may be that some of these researches are more likely to interest and assist
students of the history of the time than to prove pleasant reading for those
who take up a book merely for enjoyment. Yet if there is truth in the axiom
that men who write with ease are read with difficulty, and vice versâ, these
chapters ought to find readers. Every page had its hard work. Tantalising
delays attended at times the search for some missing—but finally
discovered—link. Indeed, volumes of popular reading, written currente
calamo, might have been thrown off for a tithe of the trouble.
'If the power to do hard work is not talent,' writes Garfield, 'it is the best
possible substitute for it. Things don't turn up in this world until somebody

turns them up.' Readers who, thanks to Froude and Lecky, have been
interested by glimpses of men in startling attitudes, would naturally like to
learn the curious sequel of their subsequent history. This I have done my
best to furnish. The present volume is humbly offered as a companion to the
two great works just alluded to. But it will also prove useful to readers of
the Wellington, Castlereagh, Cornwallis, and Colchester Correspondence.
These books abound in passages which, without explanation, are
unintelligible. The matter now presented forms but a small part of the notes
I have made with the same end.
A word as regards some of the later sources of my information. The Pelham
MSS. were not accessible when Mr. Froude wrote. Thomas Pelham, second
Earl of Chichester, was Irish Secretary from 1795 to 1798, but his
correspondence until 1826 deals largely with Ireland, and I have read as
much of it as would load a float. Another mine was found in the papers,
ranging from 1795 to 1805, which filled two iron-clamped chests in Dublin
Castle, guarded with the Government seal and bearing the words 'Secret and
Confidential: Not to be Opened.' These chests were for a long time familiar
objects exteriorly, and when it was at last permitted to disturb the rust of
lock and hinge, peculiar interest attended the exploration. Among the
contents were 136 letters from Francis Higgins, substantially supporting all
that I had ventured to say twenty years before in the book which claimed to
portray his career. But neither the Pelham Papers in London nor the
archives at Dublin Castle reveal the great secret to which Mr. Froude points.
That so many documents have been preserved is fortunate. Mr. Ross, in his
preface to the Cornwallis Correspondence, laments that 'the Duke of
Portland, Lord Chancellor Clare, Mr. Wickham, Mr. King, Sir H. Taylor, Sir
E. Littlehales, Mr. Marsden, and indeed almost all the persons officially
concerned, appear to have destroyed the whole of their papers.' He adds:
'The destruction of so many valuable documents respecting important
transactions cannot but be regarded as a serious loss to the political history
of these times.'
I have freely used the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin—a department
peculiar to Ireland. Originating in penal times, its object was to trace any
property acquired by Papists—such being liable to 'discovery and
forfeiture.' This office served as a valuable curb in the hands of the
oppressor, and ought to prove a not less useful aid to historic inquirers; but,

hitherto, it has been unconsulted for such purposes. Few unless legal men
can pursue the complicated references and searches, and—unlike the
Record Office—fees attend almost every stage of the inquiry. Here things
stranger than fiction nestle; while the genealogist will find it an
inexhaustible store.
I have to thank the Right Hon. the O'Conor Don, D.L.; Sir William H.
Cope, Bart.; Mrs. John Philpot Curran; Daniel O'Connell, Esq., D.L.; D.
Coffey, Esq.; Jeremiah Leyne, Esq.; the late Lord Donoughmore, and the
late Mr. Justice Hayes for the communication of manuscripts from the
archives of their respective houses. The Rev. Samuel Haughton, F.T.C.D.,
kindly copied for me some memoranda made in 1798 by the Rev. John
Barrett, Vice-Provost T.C.D., regarding students of alleged rebel leanings.
Sir Charles Russell, when member for Dundalk, obligingly made inquiries
concerning Samuel Turner; Mr. Lecky transcribed for me a curious paper
concerning Aherne, the rebel envoy in France, and has been otherwise kind.
My indebtedness to Sir Bernard Burke, Keeper of the Records, Dublin
Castle, dates from the year 1855.
The late Brother Luke Cullen, a Carmelite monk, left at his death a vast
quantity of papers throwing light on the period of the Rebellion. No writer
but myself has ever had the use of these papers, and I beg to thank the
Superior of the Order to which Mr. Cullen belonged for having, some years
ago, placed them in my hands.
The array of notes and authorities on every page is not the best way to
please an artistic eye; but in a book of this sort they are indispensable and
would be certainly expected from the oldest living contributor to 'Notes and
Queries.'
While there are many persons who enjoy a fox hunt, there are others would
vote it a bore; and readers of this mind had better, perhaps, pass over the
various stages of my chase after Samuel Turner, and come to something that
may suit them better.
49 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin:
New Year's Day, 1892.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Vide England in the Eighteenth Century, vii. 211; viii. 42-44, 45, 191, 240,
etc.
[2] See Froude's English in Ireland, vol. iii. sec. vi.
[3] I have been further encouraged by the very favourable judgment of an acute
critic, the late Mr. Hepworth Dixon, regarding a book of mine, written on the
same lines as the present. See Athenæum, No. 1649, pp. 744 et seq.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I. A MYSTERIOUS VISITOR 1
II. ARRESTS MULTIPLY 8
III. FATHER O'COIGLY HANGED 15
IV. THE BETRAYER'S INTERVIEW WITH TALLEYRAND 24
V. LORD CLONCURRY SHADOWED 35
VI. THE MASK TORN OFF AT LAST 44
VII. DR. MACNEVIN'S MEMORIAL INTERCEPTED 52
VIII. GENERAL NAPPER TANDY 70
ARREST OF JÄGERHORN IN LONDON—THE PLOT
IX. 91
THICKENS—TURNER SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD
EFFORTS TO EXCITE MUTINY IN THE ENGLISH
X. 105
FLEET
XI. THE BETRAYER OF LORD EDWARD FITZGERALD 116
XII. WILLIAM TODD JONES—EMMET'S REBELLION 156
THOMAS COLLINS—PHILLIPS THE SACERDOTAL
XIII. 163
SPY
XIV. LEONARD MCNALLY 174
XV. FATHER ARTHUR O'LEARY 211
XVI. ARTHUR O'LEARY IN LONDON 227
THE REGENCY—STRUGGLE BETWEEN WHIG AND
XVII. TORY CAMPS—O'LEARY AND THE PRINCE OF 253
WALES
XVIII. BISHOP HUSSEY 280
PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERS DEEP IN TREASON—
XIX. 290
PLOT AND COUNTER-PLOT
XX. THOMAS REYNOLDS: SPY, AND BRITISH CONSUL 301
ARMSTRONG AND THE SHEARESES—GENERAL
XXI. 308
LAWLESS
APPENDIX 335
INDEX 380

SECRET SERVICE UNDER PITT

CHAPTER I
A MYSTERIOUS VISITOR
It is now some years since Mr. Froude invested with new interest the
Romance of Rebellion. Perhaps the most curious of the episodes disclosed
by him is that where, after describing the plans and organisation of the
United Irishmen, he proceeds to notice a sensational case of betrayal.[4]
An instance has now to be related [he writes] remarkable for the
ingenious perfidy with which it was attended, for the mystery
which still attaches to the principal performer, and for his
connection with the fortunes and fate of Lord Edward
Fitzgerald.
Lord Edward's movements had for some time been observed
with anxiety, as much from general uneasiness as from regret
that a brother of the Duke of Leinster should be connecting
himself with conspiracy and treason. His proceedings in Paris in
1792 had cost him his commission in the army. In the Irish
Parliament he had been undistinguished by talent, but
conspicuous for the violence of his language. His meeting with
Hoche on the Swiss frontier was a secret known only to a very
few persons; Hoche himself had not revealed it even to Tone;
but Lord Edward was known to be intimate with McNevin. He
had been watched in London, and had been traced to the
lodgings of a suspected agent of the French Directory; and
among other papers which had been forwarded by spies to the
Government, there was one in French, containing an allusion to
some female friend of Lady Edward, through whom a
correspondence was maintained between Ireland and Paris. Lady
Edward's house at Hamburg was notoriously the resort of Irish
refugees. Lord Edward himself was frequently there, and the
Government suspected, though they were unable to prove, that
he was seriously committed with the United Irishmen. One
night, early in October, 1797,[5] a person came to the house of

Lord Downshire in London, and desired to see him immediately.
Lord Downshire went into the hall and found a man muffled in a
cloak, with a hat slouched over his face, who requested a private
interview. The Duke (sic) took him into his Library, and when
he threw off his disguise recognised in his visitor the son of a
gentleman of good fortune in the North of Ireland, with whom
he was slightly acquainted. Lord Downshire's 'friend' (the title
under which he was always subsequently described) had been a
member of the Ulster Revolutionary Committee. From his
acquaintance with the details of what had taken place it may be
inferred that he had accompanied the Northern delegacy to
Dublin and had been present at the discussion of the propriety of
an immediate insurrection. The cowardice or the prudence of the
Dublin faction had disgusted him. He considered now that the
conspiracy was likely to fail, or that, if it succeeded, it would
take a form which he disapproved; and he had come over to sell
his services and his information to Pitt. In telling his story to
Lord Downshire he painted his own conduct in colours least
discreditable to himself. Like many of his friends, he had at first,
he said, wished only for a reform in parliament and a change in
the constitution. He had since taken many desperate steps and
connected himself with desperate men. He had discovered that
the object of the Papists was the ruin and destruction of the
country, and the establishment of a tyranny worse than that
which was complained of by the reformers; that proscriptions,
seizures of property, murders, and assassinations were the
certain consequences to be apprehended from their
machinations; that he had determined to separate himself from
the conspiracy.[6] He was in England to make every discovery in
his power, and if Lord Downshire had not been in London he
had meant to address himself to Portland or Pitt. He stipulated
only, as usual, that he should never be called on to appear in a
court of justice to prosecute any one who might be taken up in
consequence of his discoveries.
Lord Downshire agreed to his conditions; but, as it was then
late, he desired him to return and complete his story in the
morning. He said that his life was in danger even in London. He

could not venture a second time to Lord Downshire, or run the
risk of being observed by his servants. Downshire appointed the
empty residence of a friend in the neighbourhood. Thither he
went the next day in a hackney coach. The door was left
unlocked, and he entered unseen by anyone. Lord Downshire
then took down from his lips a list of the principal members of
the Executive Committee by whom the whole movement was at
that time directed. He next related at considerable length the
proceedings of the United Irishmen during the two past years,
the division of opinion, the narrow chance by which a rising had
been escaped in Dublin in the spring, and his own subsequent
adventures. He had fled with others from Belfast in the general
dispersion of the leaders. Lady Edward Fitzgerald had given him
shelter at Hamburg, and had sent him on to Paris with a letter to
her brother-in-law, General Valence.[7] By General Valence he
had been introduced to Hoche and De la Croix. He had seen
Talleyrand, and had talked at length with him on the condition
of Ireland. He had been naturally intimate with the other Irish
refugees. Napper Tandy[8] was strolling about the streets in
uniform and calling himself a major. Hamilton Rowan[9] had
been pressed to return, but preferred safety in America, and
professed himself sick of politics. After this, 'the person'—as
Lord Downshire called his visitor, keeping even the Cabinet in
ignorance of his name—came to the immediate object of his
visit to England.
He had discovered that all important negotiations between the
Revolutionary Committee in Dublin and their Paris agents
passed through Lady Edward's hands. The Paris letters were
transmitted first to her at Hamburg. By her they were forwarded
to Lady Lucy Fitzgerald[10] in London. From London Lady
Lucy was able to send them on unsuspected. Being himself
implicitly trusted, both by Lady Edward and by Lady Lucy, he
believed he could give the Government information which
would enable them to detect and examine these letters in their
transit through the post.

Pitt was out of town. He returned, however, in a few days.
Downshire immediately saw him, and Pitt consented that 'the
person's' services should be accepted. There was some little
delay. 'The person' took alarm, disappeared, and they supposed
that they had lost him. Three weeks later, however, he wrote to
Downshire from Hamburg, saying that he had returned to his old
quarters, for fear he might be falling into a trap. It was fortunate,
he added, that he had done so, for a letter was on the point of
going over from Barclay Teeling[11] to Arthur O'Connor,[12] and
he gave Downshire directions which would enable him to
intercept, read, and send it on.
Such an evidence of 'the person's' power and will to be useful
made Pitt extremely anxious to secure his permanent help. An
arrangement was concluded. He continued at Hamburg as Lady
Edward's guest and most trusted friend, saw everyone who came
to her house, kept watch over her letter-bag, was admitted to
close and secret conversations upon the prospect of French
interference in Ireland with Reinhard, the Minister of the
Directory there, and he regularly kept Lord Downshire informed
of everything which would enable Pitt to watch the conspiracy.
One of his letters, dated November 19, 1797, is preserved:—
'A. Lowry writes from Paris, August 11, in great despondency
on account of Hoche's death, and says that all hopes of invading
Ireland were given over.
'I then saw Reinhard, the French Minister, who begged me to
stay here, as the only mode in which I could serve my country
and the Republic. I instantly acquiesced, and told him I had
arranged matters with Lord Edward Fitzgerald in London for
that purpose. I showed him Lowry's[13] letter. He said that things
were changed. Buonaparte would not listen to the idea of peace,
and had some plan which I do not know. I told him the spirit of
republicanism was losing ground in Ireland, for the Catholics
and Protestants could not be brought to unite. I mentioned then
what Fitzgerald told me in London, viz., that after I left Ireland
they had thoughts of bringing matters to a crisis without the
French. Arthur O'Connor was to have had a command in the

North, he himself in Leinster, Robert Simms[14] at Belfast; that
the Catholics got jealous of this, and Richard McCormick,[15] of
Dublin, went among the societies of United Men and denounced
the three as traitors to the cause, and dangerous on account of
their ambition. All letters to or from Lady Lucy Fitzgerald ought
to be inspected.
'She, Mrs. Matthieson, of this place, and Pamela[16] carry on a
correspondence. Lewins, Teeling, Tennant, Lowry, Orr, and
Colonel Tandy are at Paris. Tone expects to stay the winter there,
which does not look like invasion. Oliver Bond is treasurer. He
pays Lewins and McNevin in London. Now for myself. In order
to carry into effect the scheme which you and Mr. Pitt had
planned, it was requisite for me to see my countrymen. I called
on Maitland,[17] where I found A. J. Stuart,[18] of Acton, both of
them heartily sick of politics. Edward Fitzgerald had been
inquiring of them for me. I went to Harley Street, where Fitz
told me of the conduct of the Catholics to him and his friends.
He said he would prevail on O'Connor, or some such, to go to
Paris. If not, he would go himself in order to have Lewins
removed. Mrs. Matthieson[19] has just heard from Lady Lucy
that O'Connor is to come. I supped last night with Valence, who
mentioned his having introduced Lord Edward and O'Connor to
the Minister here in the summer, before the French attempted to
invade Ireland. They both went to Switzerland, whence
O'Connor passed into France, had an interview with Hoche, and
everything was planned.[20]
'I feared lest Government might not choose to ratify our
contract, and, being in their power, would give me my choice
either to come forward as an evidence or suffer martyrdom
myself. Having no taste for an exit of this sort, I set out and
arrived here safe, and now beg you'll let me know if anything
was wrong in my statements, or if I have given offence. If you
approve my present mode of life, and encourage me so to do,
with all deference I think Mr. Pitt may let me have a cool five
hundred,[21] which shall last me for six months to come. To get

the information here has cost me three times the sum, and to
keep up the acquaintance and connections I have here, so as to
get information, I cannot live on less.'[22]
The betrayer, before his interview with Downshire closed, supplied him
with a list of the Executive Committee of United Irishmen. This list, duly
given by Mr. Froude, includes—
Jackson and his son; Oliver Bond; John Chambers; James
Dickson; Casey, a red-faced Dublin priest; Thomas Addis
Emmet; Dr. McNevin, a physician who had great weight with
the papists;[23] Braughall, John Keogh and R. McCormick, who
belonged to the committee, though they did not attend; Samuel
Turner; Lord Edward Fitzgerald; Arthur O'Connor; Alexander
Stewart; two Orrs, one an attorney and a dangerous person, the
other of Derry, described as a clever, sensible, strong-minded
man; B. Teeling; Tenants, of Belfast; Agnew, of Larne; Lawless,
Lord Cloncurry's son; Hamill, of Dominick Street[24]; Inishry,
[25]
a priest, a canting, designing man, who swore in Lord
Edward Fitzgerald and Lawless.[26]
Lord Downshire, who negotiated in this affair, had weight with Pitt. The
husband of an English peeress, and the son of Lord North's Secretary of
State, he was a familiar figure at Court. He had sat for two English
constituencies; and in the Irish Parliament as senator, borough proprietor,
governor of his county, and one of the Privy Council, he wielded potent
sway. His later history and fall belong to chapter ix.

FOOTNOTES:
[4] The English in Ireland (Nov. 1797), iii. 278.
[5] It was October 8, 1797.
[6] But it will appear that he continued to the end to play the part of a flaming
patriot.
[7] Cyrus Marie Valence, Count de Timbrune, born 1757, died 1822. His
exploits as a general officer are largely commemorated in the memoirs of his
friend, Dumouriez. After having been severely wounded, he resided for some
time in London; but was expelled by order of Pitt on June 6, 1793. He then took
up his residence in a retired outlet of Hamburg, which our spy soon penetrated;

and he at last wormed himself into the confidence of Valence. The General
afterwards resumed active military service, and fought with distinction in Spain
and Russia.—Vide Discours du Comte de Ségur à l'occasion des Obsèques de
M. Valence; Souvenirs de Madame Genlis, &c.; Alison's Hist. Europe, 1789-
1815, x. 189.
[8] The strange career of Tandy—who was made a general by Bonaparte—is
traced in chapter viii. infra.
[9] Some notice of Hamilton Rowan's adventurous courses will be found in
chapter xv. infra.
[10] Lady Lucy Fitzgerald, sister of Lord Edward, married in 1802 Admiral Sir
Thos. Foley, K.C.B., died 1851.
[11] Bartholomew Teeling was his correct name. In 1798 he was hanged in
Dublin.
[12] Arthur O'Connor, nephew and heir of Lord Longueville, sat in Parliament
for Philipstown, and spoke so ably on Indian affairs that Pitt is said to have
offered him office. In November 1796 he joined the United Irishmen, and from
that date his life is one of much activity and vicissitude. Excitement and worry
failed to shorten it. He became a general in the French service, and died, aged
eighty-eight, April 25, '52.
[13] Alexander Lowry was the treasurer for Down. Tone describes Lowry and
Tennant as 'a couple of fine lads, whom I like extremely.'—Life, ii. 433. Aug.
1797. Their youth and ingenuousness would make them easy prey.
[14] Robert Simms had been appointed to the chief command of the United
Irishmen of Antrim; but he is said to have wanted nerve. James Hope, in a
narrative he gave Dr. Madden, said that Hughes, the Belfast informer, once
proposed to him to get rid of Simms by assassination. Hope pulled a pistol from
his breast and told Hughes that if ever he repeated that proposal he would shoot
him.
[15] Richard McCormick, originally secretary of the Catholic Committee, and
afterwards an active 'United Irishman,' and styled by Tone, in his Diary, 'Magog.'
[16] The wife of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. Moore's Life of Lord Edward
Fitzgerald says that she was the daughter of Mde. de Genlis by Philippe Egalité,
Duke of Orleans; but a letter appears in Moore's Memoirs from King Louis
Philippe denying it, and Mde. de Genlis calls her a child by adoption. Pamela
was a person of surpassing beauty; her portrait arrests attention in the gallery of
Versailles. R. B. Sheridan proposed for her, but she rejected him in favour of
Lord Edward. Died 1831; her remains were followed to Père la Chaise by
Talleyrand.
[17] The allusion may be to Captain Maitland—afterwards General Sir Thomas
Maitland, Governor of Ceylon, a son of Lord Lauderdale. He was in Parliament
from 1774 to 1779, and from 1790 to 1796, when he sat for the last time in the
House—a circumstance which may, perhaps, explain the remark that he was sick
of politics. Died 1824. In 1800 he was Colonel Maitland, and in the confidence
of Lord Cornwallis.
[18] Who Stuart was, see p. 36 infra; also Lord Cloncurry's Memoirs, p. 63.

[19] Madame de Genlis states in her memoirs that her niece, Henriette de Sercey,
married M. Matthiessen, a rich banker of Hamburg. The General Count Valence
married a daughter of Madame de Genlis, and resided near Hamburg on a farm
where the latter wrote several of her works.
[20] The expedition of Hoche to Bantry Bay in December, 1796.
[21] 'I just made a couple of betts with him, and took up a cool hundred.'—The
Provoked Husband, by Vanbrugh and Cibber, ii. i. 311, ed. 1730. See also
Smollett's Don Quixote, bk. iii. c. viii.
[22] Froude, iii. 277 et seq.
[23] Alexander Knox, in his History of Down, errs in saying (p. 26) that 'Dr.
McNevin was an influential member of the Established Church.'
[24] All these men, unless Hamill and Inishry, are to be found in books which
treat of 1798. The first is noticed in the Dublin Penny Journal, March 1, 1834 (p.
274). In 1797 Mr. Hamill was indicted for defenderism and acquitted, 'and the
witnesses for the Crown were so flagrantly perjured that the judge, I have heard,
ordered a prosecution' (Speech of Henry Grattan in Parliament, May 13, 1805—
Hansard, ii. 925).
[25] As regards 'Inishry,' no such cognomen is to be found in the pedigrees of
MacFirbis or O'Clery, or any name to which it might be traced. The name that
the spy gave was probably Hennessy—which Downshire, in writing from
dictation, may have mistaken for 'Inishry.'
[26] Long before the publication of Mr. Froude's book, Arthur O'Connor, in a
letter to Dr. Madden, states that 'Lord Edward took no oath on joining the United
Irishmen.'—Vide their Lives and Times, ii. 393.

CHAPTER II
ARRESTS MULTIPLY
It was not easy to separate the threads of the tangled skein which Mr.
Froude found hidden away in the dust of the past. But, lest the process of
unravelling should tax the reader's patience, I have transferred to an
Appendix some points of circumstantial evidence which led me, at first, to
suspect, and finally to feel convinced, that 'the person' was no other than
Samuel Turner, Esq., LL.D., barrister-at-law, of Turner's Glen, Newry—one
of the shrewdest heads of the Northern executive of United Irishmen.[27]
Pitt made a good stroke by encouraging his overtures, but, like an expert
angler, ample line was given ere securing fast the precious prey.
One can trace, through the public journals of the time, that the betrayer's
disclosures to Downshire were followed by a decided activity on the part of
the Irish Government. The more important of the marked men were suffered
to continue at large, but the names having been noted Lord Camden was
able, at the threatened outburst of the rebellion, to seize them at once.
Meanwhile an influential London paper, the 'Courier' of November 24,
1797, gave a glimpse of the system that then prevailed by announcing the
departure from Dublin for England of Dr. Atkinson, High Constable of
Belfast, charged, it is said, with full powers from Government to arrest such
persons as have left Ireland, and against whom there are charges of a
treasonable or seditious nature.
The former gentleman is well known, and will be long
remembered by the inhabitants of Belfast, for the active part he
took in assisting a Northern Marquis,[28] and the young apostate
of the County Down, to arrest seven of their fellow-citizens on
September 16, 1796; since which period these unfortunate men
have been closely confined without being allowed to see their
friends, and now remain without hope of trial or liberation.
'The young apostate of Down'—thus indicated for English readers ninety
years ago—was Lord Castlereagh, afterwards Minister for Foreign Affairs,

and well twitted by Byron for his Toryism; but who, in 1790, had been
elected, after a struggle of two months' duration and an outlay of 60,000l.,
Whig Member for Down. Like Pitt, he began as a reformer; like Disraeli, he
avowed himself a Radical; and presided at a banquet where toasts were
drunk such as 'Our Sovereign Lord the People.' Ere long his policy changed,
and his memory is described as having the faint sickening smell of hot
blood about it.
Mr. Froude's work has been several years before the world; it has passed
through various editions. Thousands of readers have been interested by his
picture of the muffled figure gliding at dark to breathe in Downshire's ear
most startling disclosures, but no attempt to solve the mystery enshrouding
it has until now been made.[29]
The name of Samuel Turner obtains no place on the list of Secret Service
moneys[30] expended by the Irish Government in 1798—thus bearing out
the statement of Mr. Froude that the name of the mysterious 'person' was
not revealed in the most secret correspondence between the Home Office
and Dublin Castle. At the termination of the troubles, however, when the
need of secrecy became less urgent, and it was desirable to bestow pensions
on 'persons who had rendered important service during the rebellion,' the
name of Samuel Turner is found in the Cornwallis Papers as entitled to
300l. a year. But a foot-note from the indefatigable editor—Mr. Ross—who
spared no labour to acquire minute information, confesses that it has been
found impossible to procure any particulars of Turner.
For years I have investigated the relations of the informers with the
Government, and Samuel Turner is the only large recipient of 'blood-money'
whose services remain to be accounted for. Turner's name never appeared in
any printed pension list. Mr. Ross found the name at Dublin Castle, with
some others, in a 'confidential memorandum,' written for the perusal of the
Lord Lieutenant, whose fiat became necessary. The money was 'given by a
warrant dated December 20, 1800,' but the names were kept secret—the
payments being confidentially made by the Under-Secretary.
At this distance of time it is not easy to trace a life of which Mr. Ross, thirty
years earlier, failed to catch the haziest glimpse; but I hope to make the case
clear, and Turner's history readable.

Previous to 1798 he is found posing in the double rôle of martyr and hero—
winning alternately the sympathy and admiration of the people. Mr. Patrick
O'Byrne, an aged native of Newry, long connected with an eminent
publishing firm in Dublin, has replied to a letter of inquiry by supplying
some anecdotes in Turner's life. It is a remarkable proof of the completeness
with which Turner's perfidy was cloaked that Mr. O'Byrne never heard his
honesty questioned.[31]
In 1836 there was a tradition current in Newry of a gentleman
named Turner, who in the previous generation had resided in a
large red brick house situated in the centre of a fine walled-in
park called Turner's Glen, on the western side of Newry, in the
County Armagh. Mr. Turner had been in 1796 a member of the
great confederacy of United Irishmen, one of the leaders who,
for self and fellows, 'pledged his life, his fortune, and his
honour' to put an end to British supremacy in Ireland. About the
date mentioned the notorious Luttrell, Lord Carhampton, who
was commander of the forces in Ireland at the time, and was
then making a tour of inspection of the army, had to pass
through Newry. The chief hotel in Newry at that time adjoined
the post-office. The gentry and merchants of Newry generally
went to the post-office shortly after the arrival of the mails to get
their letters, and while waiting for the mail to be assorted
promenaded in front of the hotel, or rested in the coffee-room.
Mr. Turner wore the colours he affected—a large green necktie.
Lord Carhampton, while his horses were being changed, was
looking out of the coffee-room windows of the hotel, and his
eye lighted on the rebel 'stock:' here was a fine opportunity to
cow a rebel and assert his own courage—a quality for which he
was not noted. Accordingly he swaggered up to Mr. Turner and,
confronting him, asked 'Whose man are you, who dares to wear
that rebellious emblem?' Mr. Turner sternly replied, 'I am my
own man. Whose man are you, who dares to speak so insolently
to an Irish gentleman?' 'I am one who will make you wear a
hempen necktie, instead of your flaunting French silk, if you do
not instantly remove it!' retorted Lord Carhampton. 'I wear this
colour,' replied Mr. Turner courageously, 'because I like it. As it
is obnoxious to you, come and take it off.' Carhampton, finding

that his bluster did not frighten the North Erin rebel, turned to
leave; but Turner, by a rapid movement, got between him and
the door, and, presenting his card to the general, demanded his
address. Carhampton told him he would learn it sooner than he
should like. Turner thereupon said, 'I must know your name;
until now I have never had the misfortune to be engaged in a
quarrel with aught but gentlemen, who knew how to make
themselves responsible for their acts. You cannot insult me with
impunity, whatever your name may be. I will yet find it out, and
post you in every court as a coward.' The Commander of the
Forces withdrew from Newry, having come off second best in
the quarrel he had provoked. Mr. Turner, for reasons connected
with the cause in which he had embarked, was obliged to lie
perdu soon after, and so Carhampton escaped the 'posting' he
would, under other circumstances, have got from the Northern
fire-eater.
The general accuracy of Mr. O'Byrne's impressions is shown by the 'Life
and Confessions of Newell the Informer,' printed for the author at London
in 1798.[32] Newell travelled with the staff of Lord Carhampton, and in
April, 1797, witnessed the scene between Turner and him.
Newell's pamphlet, which created much noise at the time and had a large
circulation, did not tend to weaken popular confidence in Turner. It
appeared soon after the time that he had begun to play false; but Newell,
with all his cunning, had no suspicion of Turner.
The late Mr. J. Mathews, of Dundalk, collected curious details regarding the
rebel organisation of Ulster in 1797. With these details the name of Samuel
Turner is interwoven, but, although the object of Mathews was to expose
the treachery of some false brothers, he assigns to Turner the rank of a
patriot and a hero. How the authorities, by a coup, made a number of
arrests, is described; and how Turner, after some exciting adventures, got
safely to France.[33]
The spy on this occasion was Mr. Conlan, a medical practitioner in
Dundalk. A sworn information, signed by Conlan, is preserved among the
Sirr MSS. in Trinity College, Dublin. It is dated 1798, when Turner himself
was betraying his own colleagues to Pitt! Conlan states that one evening,

after Turner had left his house at Newry to attend a meeting of United
Irishmen at Dundalk, the officer in command at the barracks of Newry got
orders to march on Dundalk and arrest the leaders. An officer's servant
apprised Corcoran, who was an adherent of Turner's. Corcoran mounted a
horse and galloped to Dundalk, where he arrived in time to warn Turner.
Conlan recollected Turner and Teeling travelling through Ulster and holding
meetings for organisation at Dundalk, Newry, Ballinahinch (the site of the
subsequent battle), Ronaldstown, Glanary, and in Dublin at Kearn's, Kildare
Street,[34] where the principal meetings were held.[35]
I find in the Pelham MSS. the examination of Dr. John Macara, one of the
Northern State prisoners of 1797. It supplies details of the plan of attack
which had been foiled by the arrests. 'Newry was to be attacked by Samuel
Turner, of Newry aforesaid, with the men from Newry and Mourn.'[36]
It was not Conlan alone who reported Turner's movements to the Crown.
Francis Higgins, the ablest secret agent of Under-Secretary Cooke,
announces that Turner had sent 'letters from Portsmouth for the purpose of
upholding and misleading the mutinous seamen into avowed rebellion;'[37]
and some weeks later he states that 'Turner had returned from Hamburg
with an answer to the Secret Committee of United Irishmen.'[38]
We know on the authority of James Hope, who wrote down his
'Recollections' of this time at the request of a friend, that Turner, having fled
from Ireland, filled the office of resident agent at Hamburg of the United
Irishmen. The Irish envoys and refugees, finding themselves in a place
hardly less strange than Tierra del Fuego, ignorant of its language, its rules
and its ways, sought on arrival the accredited agent of their brotherhood,
hailed him with joy, and regarded the spot on which he dwelt as a bit of
Irish soil sacred to the Shamrock. The hardship which some of the refugees
went through was trying enough. James Hope, writing in 1846, says that
Palmer, one of Lord Edward's bodyguard in Dublin, travelled, 'mostly
barefooted, from Paris to Hamburg, where he put himself into
communication with Samuel Turner.' The object of Palmer's mission was to
expose one Bureaud, then employed as a spy by Holland. 'Palmer,' writes
Hope, 'gave Turner a gold watch to keep for him.' He enlisted in a Dutch
regiment, and was found drowned in the Scheldt. 'When Turner,' adds Hope,

'was applied to for the watch by Palmer's sister, he replied that he forgot
what became of it.'
Hamburg in troubled times was a place of great importance for the
maintenance of intercourse between England and France. Here, as Mr.
Froude states, 'Lord Downshire's friend' had vast facilities for getting at the
inmost secrets of the United Irishmen. Hope's casual statement serves to
show how it was that this 'person' could have had access to Lady Edward
Fitzgerald's confidence, and that of her political friends at Hamburg.

FOOTNOTES:
[27] In chapter vii. my contention will be found established on conclusive
testimony, which had failed to present itself until years had been given to a slow
process of logical deduction. Vide also Appendix to this volume.
[28] 'The Northern Marquis' was, of course, Lord Downshire.
[29] 'A Lanthorn through some Dark Passages, with a Key to Secret Chambers,'
was the title originally chosen for the present book, but I finally laid it aside as
being too much in the style of old Parson Fry's 'Pair of Bellows to Blow away
the Dust.'
[30] How this book got out of the Castle and was sold for waste paper by a man
named Fagan is a curious story in itself. The volume is now preserved in the
Royal Irish Academy.
[31] A prisoner named Turner, Christian name not given, indicted for high
treason, is announced as discharged in December 1795, owing to the flight of a
Crown witness.—Vide Irish State Trials (Dublin: Exshaw, 1796); Lib. R. I.
Academy.
[32] Vide pp. 21-2. Newell's pamphlet will be found in the Halliday Collection,
vol. 743, Royal Irish Academy.
[33] Vide Mr. Matthew's narrative in The Sham Squire, sixth edition, pp. 355-
363.
[34] This place of rendezvous was, doubtless, chosen because of its proximity to
Leinster House, where Lord Edward mainly lived.
[35] Major Sirr's Papers (MS.), Trinity College, Dublin. Conlan's information
makes no mention of a remarkable man, the Rev. William Steel Dickson, D.D., a
Presbyterian pastor of Down, and described by the historians of his Church as
ready to take the field. Dr. Dickson, in his Narrative, admits (p. 193) that he had
been 'frequently in the company of Lowry, Turner, and Teeling.' Turner was a
Presbyterian and possibly wished to spare a pastor of his Church.
[36] The Pelham MSS. Examination dated September 6, 1797. Pelham,
afterwards Lord Chichester, was Chief Secretary for Ireland at that time, and his
papers are a useful help in throwing light upon it. A large portion of them are

occupied by a correspondence with Generals Lake and Nugent regarding Dr.
Macara; he offered to inform if let out on bail. Lake hoped that he would prove a
valuable informer; and, as he was far from rich, could not afford to reject
pecuniary reward; but, although Macara at first seemed to consent, his replies
were finally found to be evasive.
[37] Higgins to Cooke, MS. letter, Dublin Castle, June 7, 1797.
[38] Ibid., August 29, 1797. Five weeks later Turner makes his disclosure to
Downshire.

CHAPTER III
FATHER O'COIGLY HANGED
Mr. Froude, after a perusal of the letters of Downshire's friend, and other
documents, states that a priest named O'Coigly or Quigley 'had visited Paris
in 1797, returned to Dublin, and had been with Lord Edward Fitzgerald at
Leinster House; that he was now going back to Paris, and Arthur O'Connor
determined to go in his company.[39] Their mission, though ostensibly for
presenting an address from the London corresponding society of United
Irishmen to the French Government, was really for the double purpose of
urging upon it the prompt despatch of an invading fleet to Ireland, and of
deposing the Irish envoy, Lewins, who, instead of Turner, had begun to be
suspected. Mr. Lawless, afterwards Lord Cloncurry, invited O'Coigly to
dinner in London; and it was on this occasion that O'Connor met the priest
for the first time. O'Coigly, under the name of Captain Jones, with Allen[40]
seemingly as his servant, and Leary, left London for Margate, on their
mission of mystery. O'Connor travelled by another route to Margate, took
the name of Colonel Morris, and was accompanied by Binns. On the
following day, at the King's Head Inn, Margate, all the party were arrested
by two Bow Street officers. O'Coigly and O'Connor had dined at Lawless's
lodgings more than once; and here, though not necessarily with his
knowledge, the travelling arrangements seem to have been made. Whether
Turner was a guest does not appear; but he was certainly in London at this
time, and as one of the Executive Committee is likely to have been invited.
Presently it will be shown that from this quarter came all the information
which enabled Pitt to seize O'Connor and O'Coigly at Margate en route to
France, although, to elude observation, they had journeyed by different
roads. The prisoners, meanwhile, were removed to London, examined
before the Privy Council, and then transmitted to Maidstone Jail to await
their trial. The source of the information which caused these historic arrests
on February 27, 1798, has hitherto remained a mystery. Father O'Coigly,
while in jail, wrote some letters, in which he failed to avow his share in the
conspiracy, but admitted to have made a previous visit to Cuxhaven. This
was part of the city of Hamburg. Turner, in addition to being the official

agent of the United Irishmen at Hamburg, was an old Dundalk acquaintance
of O'Coigly's, and no doubt was promptly hailed by the country priest.
Turner and O'Coigly are mentioned in Hughes's information. They belonged
to the same district organisation. After describing Teeling, Turner and
Lowry working in concert in 1797, Hughes adds that priest Quigly or
O'Coigly introduced him at that time to Baily and Binns.[41] The paper
revealed by Mr. Froude, now shown to be Turner's, and other letters from
the same hand in the 'Castlereagh Papers,' show that the writer always felt a
strong dislike to work with the 'Papists,' especially priests. 'Casey, the red-
faced, designing Dublin priest,' was one of the leading men he met in
Dublin, and whose 'prudence or cowardice' disgusted him. Immediately
after O'Coigly's return to London we find the authorities on his track. The
priest himself refers to an abortive attempt to arrest him by night at
Piccadilly.[42] Mr. Froude, dealing with this case, does not seem to have
suspected that the arrival in London of Downshire's friend, at the time of
the arrests at Margate, was other than accidental. Yet clearly it was business
of no ordinary moment which brought him back to London at this time. It
will be remembered that, panic-stricken and fearing death from the
assassin's knife, he had returned to Hamburg in October 1797, ere an
answer came from Pitt to the proposition of betrayal conveyed by Lord
Downshire.
It happened that at this particular time [writes Mr. Froude] that
Downshire's friend was in London, and Pelham (the Irish
Secretary) knew it. If the 'friend' could be brought over, and
could be induced to give evidence, a case could then be
established against all the United Irish leaders. They could be
prosecuted with certainty of conviction, and the secrets of the
plot could be revealed so fully that the reality of it could no
longer be doubted.
Most earnestly Camden[43] begged Portland[44] to impress on the
'friend' the necessity of compliance. 'Patriotism might induce
him to overcome his natural prejudice.' If patriotism was
insufficient, there was no reward which he ought not to receive.
[45]
Portland's answer was not encouraging: 'The friend,' he said,
'shall be detained. As to his coming over to you, I have reason to

believe that there is not any consideration on earth which would
tempt him to undertake it. He is convinced that he would go to
utter destruction. Better he should stay here and open a
correspondence with some of the principal conspirators, by
which means you may be apprised of their intentions. If I could
be satisfied, or if you would give it as your positive opinion that
this person's testimony or presence would crush the conspiracy,
or bring any principal traitor to justice, I should not, and Lord
Downshire would not, hesitate to use any influence to prevail on
his friend to run any risk for such an object. But if he should fail
and escape with his life, he could render no further service.
Weigh well, therefore, the consequence of such a sacrifice.'[46]
After describing the arrest at Margate of Father O'Coigly, O'Connor, and
Binns, Mr. Froude writes:—
O'Connor wrote a hurried note to Lord Edward, telling him not
to be alarmed, nothing having been taken upon them which
compromised any individual.[47] The messenger to whom the
note was entrusted was unfortunate or treacherous, for it fell into
the hands of the Government. Had O'Connor known the
connection between the Government and Lord Downshire's
friend, he would have felt less confident. There was evidence, if
it could only be produced, which would send both Lord Edward
and himself to the scaffold.
It may be observed here—en parenthèse—that Downshire must have felt
conflicting emotions when called upon to communicate information which
might bring Lord Edward to the block. His father had married the sister of
James, Duke of Leinster; Lord Edward was, therefore, the first cousin of
Lord Downshire.
One of the most truthful chapters of the laudatory life of Reynolds, the
informer,[48] is that aiming to show that he could not have been the spy who
caused the arrests at Margate. But the biographer is unable to offer any
suggestion as to who that agent was—so carefully veiled from Reynolds,
one of their own confidential prompters, was the part played by Turner in
that episode.

The information which led to the arrest of O'Connor, O'Coigly, and his
companion cannot have come from Ireland, because in the 'Book of Secret
Service Monies expended in the Detection of Treasonable Conspiracies' no
entry appears connected with the above incident, unless 'Dutton's Expenses
going to England to attend Quigly's Trial,' and where he had merely to
swear to the priest's handwriting. For his courage in doing this—having
once seen him sign a lottery ticket at Dundalk—50l. is paid to 'Dutton on
June 12, 1798.' The names of Newell and Murdoch certainly appear in the
'Secret Service Money' book about that time; but it is clear from Newell's
narrative—doubtless a genuine and frank confession—that neither he nor
Murdoch had any hand in tracing the movements of O'Coigly and
O'Connor.
Lord Castlereagh was now acting for Pelham as Chief Secretary for Ireland.
On July 25, 1798, a secret letter—printed in the 'Castlereagh Papers'—is
addressed to him from the Home Office:—
I am directed by the Duke of Portland to inform your Lordship
that I have received intelligence from a person very much in the
confidence of [Reinhard] the French Minister at Hamburg,[49]
that several French officers and soldiers have lately arrived at
that place, where they have purchased sailor's dresses, clothed
themselves in them, and gone on to Denmark and Sweden, from
whence it is intended that they should embark for the North of
Ireland.[50] I know not what credit is to be given to this
information, which must be received with caution, as it does not
appear to have reached his Majesty's Minister at Hamburg.
It comes, however, from a person[51] whose reports while he was
in this country[52] were known to his Excellency as singularly
accurate and faithful—the same who gave such an accurate
account of the proceedings of O'Connor and Coigly whilst they
were in this country, and on whose authority those persons were
apprehended.[53]
Some of the letters of 'Lord Downshire's friend,' not being forthcoming in
the official archives, Mr. Froude assumed that they had been destroyed; but,
however masked, they are recognisable in the 'Castlereagh
Correspondence.' Several anonymous papers, furnishing information of the

movements of the United Irishmen about Hamburg and elsewhere, crop up
in that book, having been enclosed from Whitehall for the guidance of
Dublin Castle. One of these letters makes special reference to information
already sent to Lord Downshire.[54]
Another long letter of the same batch will be found the first placed in the
second volume of Castlereagh, though an examination of it shows that it
belongs to the middle of the previous volume. Detailed reference is made to
Father O'Coigly's mission and movements, both in France and in London.
One is struck by the accuracy of its information regarding the Ulster United
Irishmen, of whom Turner was one. Of MacMahon, who travelled to Paris
with O'Coigly, we learn that, 'tired of politics, especially those of France, he
is to write to Citoyen Jean Thomas,[55] à la poste restante à Hamburg,
whom he looks on as a good patriot.'[56] It will be remembered that a similar
phrase occurs in the letter of Downshire's friend, printed by Froude, i.e.
Rowan had 'professed himself sick of politics.' Again, 'I found Maitland and
Stewart, of Acton, both heartily sick of politics.'
How to hang O'Coigly was now the difficulty. The Government knew—
from somebody who had worked with him—that he was deep in the
treason; but nothing could persuade the informer to prosecute him openly.
On April 11, 1798, Wickham writes from Whitehall:—
It is most exceedingly to be lamented that no person can be sent
over from Ireland to prove Coigly's handwriting. Proof of that
kind would be so extremely material, that I have no doubt that
the law officers would think it right to put off the trial if they
could have any hope of any person being found, in a short time,
who could speak distinctly to his handwriting.[57]
The secret adviser who, as Portland said, 'should be detained,' worked his
brain until at length a man, hailing from a place suspiciously familiar to
Turner, is sent for to swear to the point. Samuel Turner, formerly of Newry,
had intimate knowledge of every man in the place. One Frederick Dutton,
described as 'of Newry,' was now subpœnaed by the Crown to swear to
O'Coigly's handwriting in a letter addressed to Lord Edward Fitzgerald. 'He
claimed to have seen Coigly write his name for the purpose of getting a
watch raffled which belonged to a poor man under sentence of death.'

Dutton had been a dismissed servant and had kept a public-house at Newry
without a licence.[58]
Turner—it seems absurd to doubt the identity—got back to London on
Tuesday, May 15, 1798. What secret help he gave to the law officers can
only be inferred, for they pledged themselves that he should never be asked
to come forward publicly. Though O'Connor, O'Coigly, and Binns[59] were
arrested on March 1, their trials did not take place till late in May 1798. The
Duke of Norfolk, Lords Moira, Suffolk, Oxford, John Russell, and Thanet,
Fox, Sheridan, Whitbread, Erskine, Grattan, all testified to O'Connor's
character. All the prisoners were acquitted, except the priest,
notwithstanding that Lord Cloncurry paid a counsel to defend him. He was
hanged on Penenden Heath, June 7, 1798. Judge Buller had leant heavily on
O'Coigly in his charge.
O'Coigly [writes Lord Holland] was condemned on false and
contradictory evidence. I do not mean to aver, as Lord
Chancellor Thurlow assured me he did to Judge Buller, who
tried him, that 'if ever a poor man was murdered it was
O'Coigly,' but simply to allude to a circumstance which, in the
case of a common felon, would probably have saved his life.
The Bow Street officer who swore to finding the fatal paper in
his pocket-book, and remarked in court the folding of the paper
as fitting that pocket-book, had sworn before the Privy Council
that the same paper was found loose in O'Coigly's great-coat,
and, I think, had added that he himself had put it into the
pocket-book. An attorney of the name of Foulkes[60] gave me
this information, and I went with it to Mr. Wickham, who
assured me that the circumstance should be carefully and
anxiously investigated before the execution. But the order had
gone down, and while we were conversing the sentence was
probably executed.[61]
Lord Holland adds that when the Judge was descanting on the mildness and
clemency of the Administration, O'Coigly quietly took a pinch of snuff and
said 'Ahem!'
When no evidence was produced in court which could legally ensure a
verdict against O'Coigly, it seems reasonable to assume from the tone of the

law officers and the Judge that they possessed some secret knowledge of his
guilt, for in point of fact, though O'Coigly declared his innocence, he was
deeply pledged to the conspiracy.
'O'Connor was leaving the court in triumph,' writes Mr. Froude, 'but the
Government knew their man too well to let him go so easily. He was at
once re-arrested on another charge, and was restored to his old quarters in
Dublin Castle.'[62] From whom the fatal whisper came does not appear, but
the sequel seems to leave no doubt that to Turner it was due. MacMahon
and other prominent rebels were Presbyterian clergymen of Ulster. It was an
object now with those who desired the collapse of the conspiracy to detach
the Presbyterian party from the 'Papists.' Binns was a staunch Presbyterian
rebel, a colleague of O'Coigly. In a letter dated Philadelphia, 1843, Binns,
addressing Dr. Madden, states that great efforts were used to try and
persuade O'Coigly to implicate him, 'offering Mr. Coigly his life if he
would criminate me agreeable to the instructions of the Government, which
proposal he indignantly refused to accede to. Though heavily ironed, he
pushed the gentlemen out of his cell, when he there lay under sentence of
death.'
We have seen that when severely tried he resorted to snuff. He had other
small consolations. Even in his irons he talked irony. One of several letters
of protest addressed by the priest to Portland, shortly before his death, tells
him that he is 'one of his Grace's envoys to the other world, charged with
tidings of his mild and merciful administration.'
As O'Coigly's memory has been all but beatified as a martyr's, it is due to
the interests of historic truth to add—especially after the remarks of Lord
Holland—the following from a letter written by Arthur O'Connor in 1842:
—
Though there was not legal evidence to prove that the paper
found in Coigly's coat-pocket was Coigly's, yet, the fact is, it
was his, and was found in his riding-coat; for when the five
prisoners were brought to Bow Street, a report was spread that
the papers taken on the prisoners were lost; for the first time
Coigly said it was fortunate the papers were lost, for that there
was one in his pocket that would hang them all. He never made

a secret to his fellow-prisoners that he got that paper from a
London society. In my memoirs I will clear up this point.
O'Connor's promised work, however, never appeared.
As regards Dutton, the witness who swore to O'Coigly's handwriting, his
subsequent career was cast on a spot also frequented by Turner.[63] He is
found at Cuxhaven, not very far from Hamburg, and, until 1840, holding
office in its postal and diplomatic departments, and the husband of a lady
well connected.[64] Cuxhaven, as gazetteers record, was from 1795 a place
of the utmost importance for the maintenance of intercourse between
England and the Continent.

FOOTNOTES:
[39] The English in Ireland, iii. 312.
[40] Allen, a draper's assistant in Dublin, afterwards a colonel in the service of
France.
[41] Report of the Secret Committee, p. 31. (Dublin, 1798.)
[42] Life of the Reverend James Coigly, p. 28. (London, 1798.) Halliday
Collection, R.I.A., vol. 743.
[43] The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
[44] The Home Secretary.
[45] Camden to Portland, March 1, 1798. English in Ireland, iii. 310.
[46] Portland to Camden, March 7, 1798.
[47] In O'Connor's valise were found 900l., a military uniform, and some papers
relating to Lord Edward Fitzgerald.—W. J. F.
[48] Life of Thomas Reynolds, by his Son. (London, 1839.)
[49] For proofs of the intimacy between Reinhard and Turner at Hamburg, see
Castlereagh Papers, i. 277 et seq.; and my chapter on McNevin, infra.
[50] In August, 1798, Humbert and 900 Frenchmen arrived in Killala Bay.
[51] 'The person' is the name by which Downshire's friend, the betrayer, is
usually styled in the letters from the Home Office to Dublin Castle. The words,
'while he was in this country,' show that he had left England, as Downshire's
friend admittedly did, in panic.
[52] 'I.e. in October 1797, when he called upon Downshire; and again in March
1798, when Portland offered him large sums if he would openly prosecute.'
[53] Mr. Lecky describes this arrest, and rather suggests that it may have been
due to Higgins in Dublin (vide viii. 55). The above evidence points surely to the

Hamburg spy.
[54] See Castlereagh Papers, i. 231-6.
[55] Of course one of Turner's many aliases. See p. 97, infra.
[56] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii. 1-7.
[57] Ibid. i. 178.
[58] Dutton, on his examination, said that he had sworn in Ireland against one
'Lowry.' This is the man whom Turner, in his letters, constantly points to. Dutton
admitted that he had previously sworn secrecy to the Society of United Irishmen,
but the oath had been sworn only on a spelling-book.
[59] Trial of Arthur O'Connor and James Quigley at Maidstone. Howell's State
Trials, vols. xxvi. and xxvii.
[60] Foulkes was the attorney whom Lawless engaged to defend O'Coigly. Lord
Cloncurry, in his Memoirs, writes very inaccurately of the facts. He says that the
arrests took place at Whitstable, instead of Margate, and that O'Coigly was
hanged on May 7, whereas he should have written June. See p. 67.
[61] Memoirs of the Whig Party. By Lord Holland, afterwards a Cabinet
Minister.
[62] Froude's English in Ireland, iii. 321.
[63] See p. 31, infra.
[64] In the Pelham MSS. is a letter signed Frederick Dutton, regarding his Vice-
Consulate, and dated Dec. 19, 1825.

CHAPTER IV
THE BETRAYER'S INTERVIEW WITH
TALLEYRAND
The letters of secret information in the well-known 'Castlereagh
Correspondence' being mostly without date are inserted regardless of
chronological sequence, and are often, from dearth of explanation, wholly
unintelligible. One of these secret reports follows a letter of Portland's[65]—
to be found later on—regarding the intercepted memorial which Dr.
McNevin had addressed to the French Government. The particular
references to Lord Downshire, to Hamburg, to Fitzgerald, and to the North
of Ireland, of which Turner was a native—not to speak of his 'tone of
injured innocence,' 'the dread of those from whom I come as to the
ascendency of the Papists'—all point to him as the writer.
His tone as usual is hostile to Lewins, a Roman Catholic envoy of great
honesty, whose reputation he is ever seeking to injure; and the intrigue, it
may be added, very nearly succeeded in getting Lewins superseded. Mr.
Froude, it will be remembered, when describing his unmasked informer
writes:
Lady Edward Fitzgerald had sent him on to Paris with a letter to
her brother-in-law, General Valence. By Valence he had been
introduced to Hoche and De la Croix. He had seen Talleyrand
and had talked at length with him on the condition of Ireland.
It was in February, 1798, that Mr. Froude's spy reappeared in London.[66]
He had interviews at the Home Office, where he received some instructions,
which are not stated. Camden urged Portland to beg of him to give evidence
publicly, and to offer reward to any amount. But all to no effect. At last it
was decided, as the next best thing to do, 'that he should open a
correspondence with the principal conspirators, by which means you may
be apprised of their intentions.' This is exactly what he is now found doing.
On April 17 he goes to Paris, no doubt sent by the Home Office, to ascertain

what arrangement had been made by O'Coigly and O'Connor as regards the
long-sought French expedition to Ireland.
De la Croix will be chiefly remembered as the Minister for Foreign Affairs
with whom Tone had to do. But he had been personally offensive to Lord
Malmesbury, the English Minister, and M. Talleyrand was appointed to
succeed La Croix on July 15, 1797.[67]
The following letter is to be found in the 'Castlereagh Papers' (i. 231-6), and
derives additional importance from its close connection with Talleyrand:—
Secret Intelligence.
April 17th [1798], arrived in Paris.
On the 19th waited on the Minister for Foreign Affairs; it being
Décadi, he was gone to the country. Left my name, and called
next day, at eleven; instantly admitted; talked over the purport of
my visit, which I had brought in writing, as follows:—
'Citizen Minister,—Since I had the honor of seeing you in
September last, I understand attempts have been made to injure
my character here by some persons equally despicable as
malicious (I mean Lewines and his associates), from whom,
though United Irishmen, I pride myself in differing, both in
sentiment and conduct; nor should I condescend to answer their
infamous charges.[68]
'I, however, take great pleasure in acquainting you with what I
have been about, viz., trying to bring over to the side of the
United Irish what is called the Independent Interest, alias the
Country Gentlemen, all of whom have commands either in the
Yeomanry or Militia,[69] and to whom the safety of the interior
will be entrusted, whilst the regular troops march against the
enemy. These gentlemen have always been much against the
Government, but feared, in a revolution, the loss of their
property, especially such as held their estates by grants of Oliver
Cromwell. For some time past a union has been formed among
this body for the purpose of forcing England into whatever
measures they choose as soon as an invasion takes place; all of
my most particular friends are of this association, and they have

infused into the minds of the rest the idea that English faith is
not to be relied on. In consequence, they are all now completely
up to the formation of a Republic and a separation from Britain,
provided the French Directory will give, under their seal, the
terms and conditions Ireland has a right to expect and demands.
I took upon me to say France never meant to treat Ireland has a
conquered country; that, certainly, they would expect a
contribution towards defraying the great expense incurred in
supporting the cause of liberty; but what the sum would be, I
could not take upon me to mention. They insist upon having that
specified, and any other conditions for this purpose.
'Citizen Minister, I now apply to you; to none other have I
hinted my business, and the most profound secrecy will be
requisite in order to completely deceive the English
Government. I shall mention to you the channel of
correspondence, &c., with the ciphers I'll make use of, if it is
requisite to write, but which I sha'n't do without your
permission, and giving you the letter to enclose to Hamburg.[70]
'I have the honour to remain,' &c.
Thus far the letter of Turner to Talleyrand—for Turner it assuredly is. It
does not follow that the Minister believed all he was told. The quondam
Bishop of Autun could read a soul. He was a diplomat, however, and
showed to his visitor that cautious courtesy which he had learned when a
bishop. He who said that speech is given to conceal thoughts,[71] was not
the man to be at once swayed by words. The despatch now before us had
been addressed to the Home Office, and must be one of the papers Mr.
Froude thought destroyed. The copy of his letter to Talleyrand having been
submitted to Portland, the spy thus resumes:—
The Minister then said it was a matter extremely interesting, that
other things were on the tapis at present, but desired I would call
again on the second uneven day from that, and he'd[72] enter into
particulars. I did so, and gave him the following letter. He said
he had laid my first before the Directory; that their opinions
coincided with his, but that they could not give anything under
their hands or seal, nor he either; that I had perfectly expressed

their intentions. I told him this was perfectly satisfactory to me,
but I feared it would not be so to them. 'Surely,' says he, 'they
have a confidence in you, and you shall have it from the
Directory, if you choose.' I said I hoped that would be
sufficiently satisfactory to my friends, and begged to know
when I could see him again—the 1st of the next decade, as they
were still very busy on other matters.
Copy of the Letter to Talleyrand.
'Citizen Minister,—Wishing to give the Government every
satisfaction on the point of my mission, I now have the honour
of laying before you every particular. I am extremely glad to
find it appears to you interesting, which induces me to hope as
little delay will be given as possible. I think it incumbent on me
to state to you that the spirit of the North is completely broken,
and I fear shortly the rest of Ireland will be in the same
predicament.[73] A vast number of the persons concerned in
persecuting the United Irish are those from whom I come; for at
present they dread, and with good reason, the ascendency of this
body. As soon as you set these gentlemen's minds at ease in
regard to their property, the business of revolution will get leave
to go on, and the British Government will find themselves
clogged in their system of terror, without knowing why. The
enclosed paper contains the mode in which I am to act, &c., &c.
I have the honour, &c.'
Turner then adds:—[74]
Enclosure, containing the ciphers I sent to the Marquess of
Downshire, and the following postscript:—
'The intention of the ciphers was, if I thought it requisite to write
from Paris, to say who I had had communication with and as a
channel of conveying any intelligence you might allow me to
send during my stay. The letter to be addressed to Charles
Ranken,[75] Esq., at Mr. Elliot's, Pimlico, London, to be put in
the common post-office at Hamburg, and sealed with a
particular seal I have for the purpose. As soon as I receive the
proper paper or document, in order to save time, I am to get, if

possible, into England; if that can't be done with safety, I'm to
go to either Bremen or Hamburg, write thence to Ranken, who
comes over before him. I attest the business on oath, and he goes
instantly for Ireland. Ranken,[76] having been a banker at
Belfast, a man of good property, and looked on by Government
as a friend, can pass and repass as if to settle accounts at
Hamburg.
'I beg leave once more to inform you that delay will be looked
on, I fear, as non-compliance; and, if there's any particular point
on which you wish for accurate information, I think I can
undertake to obtain it.'
The spy's letter then proceeds:—
He (Talleyrand) seemed to disapprove of my venturing to
Ireland or England; asked me if I knew anything of Fitzgerald.
[77]

Waited on him the first of the following decade; he said nothing
was resolved on. I asked if the Irish were to wait for their
coming or not. He said by all means to wait, and not to risk or
expose themselves. 'May I assure them you'll come in the course
of three months?' 'No, we cannot fix a time; it may be more, or
not so long. I shall depend on you to obtain for me as accurate a
statement, with as much information as you can collect.' I
desired to know on what particular point, otherwise I should be
at a loss; he said he could not mention any particular. I then
promised as much as I could collect in general, with a particular
and accurate one of Ireland. I then asked if I might venture to
assert that the French Government would be content with being
paid the expense of their former expedition, and of that which
will be sent; that they will leave the Irish to choose a
constitution for themselves as soon as English influence is
destroyed; guaranteeing to every individual their property,
without respect to old Catholic claims and to their political
conduct prior to the time of actual invasion. 'You may venture to
assure them that the property of no individual will be seized
upon, but the reverse. On the other points we cannot give an

answer.'—'When shall I see the Directory?'—'On the ninth of
this decade I shall speak to the President, and you may bring to
me one of your acquaintance that is known to him, who will
introduce you;' or that I might go alone, as my name was
sufficiently known to him. Between that and the 9th I spoke to
Abbé Grégoire[78] to accompany me; but he declined it, as did
Stone;[79] upon which I wrote, on the 8th, to the Minister, to say
that these two had refused, and that they thought he himself
ought to do it, or give me a note of introduction to the President;
but that, if it was disagreeable, I would not press the matter
further, as I looked on his word as that of the Directory, and that
I would call next day at the Directory, when, if I could get an
audience, so much the better; if not, I thought it imprudent to
wait longer.
Next day I called at the Directory and sent in my name. I there
met Duckett,[80] who told me it would be impossible to see any
of them that day; for a letter, which he had just brought them,
which came from Leonard Bourdon,[81] would give them, he
believed, work enough, as he understood it contained some very
interesting matter. I was to have seen some of them that day
likewise; an answer came to us both that they were too much
occupied. I then went to the Minister, and sent in my name, as
did, at the same time, Colonel La Harpe and the Swiss Deputies.
We were all sent off, as he was very busy. I left a note with his
Secretary, saying I would set out next day, which I did, the 20
Floreal, alias Wednesday, the 9th May; arrived at Cuxhaven the
Wednesday following; sailed the next day, landed at Lowestoff
on Tuesday morning, got to town [London] that night,
accompanied by one Jeffrey,[82] who passes himself off for a
Scotchman, was coming to Yarmouth as an American, was in
Paris last September, speaks French as a Frenchman, looks
extremely like one, and lodges at the New Hummums, Covent
Garden.
It is quite clear that the above letter was written by the same nameless spy
who poses in Froude's book as 'Lord Downshire's friend.' 'One of his letters,
dated November 19, 1797, is preserved,' writes Mr. Froude; but, no doubt, a

few others are preserved too, and may be found in the correspondence of
Lord Castlereagh. How they escaped destruction is a marvel. Wickham, on
January 11, 1799, writes, regarding 'United Irishmen' at Hamburg: 'The
enclosed very curious papers the Duke of Portland desires may be laid
before the Lord Lieutenant, and afterwards destroyed.'
So careful was the spy of his reputation that he vouchsafes not a signature.
Internal evidence, however, shows that he was the man who made his
disclosure to Downshire, and was by him put in correspondence with
Portland.
From the letter just quoted it appears that, after his efforts to pick news
from Talleyrand and fish in Irish channels at Paris, he returned, viâ
Cuxhaven, to London, where he arrived on Tuesday night, May 15, 1798.
This date is worthy of note. The spy feared to show himself in London and
felt that his life was unsafe. What brings him back to London on May 15,
1798? His favourite post was Cuxhaven or Hamburg. O'Coigly, Binns, and
Leary, though arrested in March en route to France, were not put on their
trial until Monday, May 21, 1798. This case is reported at extraordinary
length in Howell's 'State Trials' and would fill a volume. Scott, afterwards
Lord Eldon, prosecuted. The mass of secret information which the Crown
contrived to acquire strikes very forcibly. Letters written in cipher by
O'Coigly to Lord Edward Fitzgerald and others are translated and
expounded by Scott. All the parties concerned in the conspiracy had false
names. Mrs. Mathiessen[83] is called 'Marks;' 'a man going to William's,'
means 'going to France,' etc. It was largely on evidence of this sort that
O'Coigly was convicted and hanged.[84]
The betrayer tells Talleyrand that 'the spirit of the North was completely
broken.' In point of fact, however, it was in the North that the real martial
spirit of the United Irishmen blazed, and there the best battles were
afterwards fought under the leadership of Orr and Monroe. Turner was
anxious to make the French turn their thoughts of invasion to other points
on the Irish coast, and he so far succeeded that in August, 1798, Humbert's
expedition, embracing not 1,000 men, landed at Killala, among the starved
and unarmed peasantry of Connaught. He calculated on meeting
enthusiastic support; but, as Mr. Lecky says, it soon became apparent how
fatally he had been deceived. After winning one battle, and losing another,
Humbert surrendered to Cornwallis.

'May I assure them that you'll come in three months?' Talleyrand is asked.
The object of this and other questions, which, to a casual reader, seem
hardly consistent with Turner's treachery to his friends, is now pretty plain.
Great doubt prevailed as to whether an invasion of Ireland was really to be
attempted. The First Consul blew hot and cold upon it. If the spy, as an
envoy of the United Irishmen, could only extort from Talleyrand an explicit
reply in writing avowing the intention to invade, and telling the exact time
on which the descent on Ireland was to be made, England would thus be
well prepared, and her fleet able to destroy the French armament as she had
already destroyed that of De Winter. Why Bonaparte, at first so anxious for
invasion, should have changed his mind, is explained, in the recently
published Memoirs of Gouverneur Morris, as due to the conflicting reports
of Irish envoys. At St. Helena he told Las Cases that his mistake in '98 was
to have gone to Egypt and not to Ireland.[85]
Mr. Froude states that the betrayer had discovered one of the objects of the
Papists to be the seizure of property, and had determined to separate himself
from the conspiracy. Attention is requested to that part of the foregoing
letter[86] where the writer refers to the Cromwellian holders of estates in
Ireland, and asks that every individual be guaranteed his property without
respect to old Catholic claims and to their political conduct prior to the time
of actual invasion. Samuel Turner represented some of the Cromwellian
Settlers, and 'his most particular friends,' as he calls them, were amongst
those who held grants of land in succession to the old Papist proprietary.
The descendants of these men viewed invasion with alarm, lest their lands
should go, just as the property of the Papists had already gone.[87]
Talleyrand's caution in talking with Turner contrasts with the freedom with
which he opened his mind on the same subject to his confrères. A very
important book was published in 1890 at Paris by M. Pallain, 'Talleyrand
sous le Directoire.' It depicts his diplomatic life, and gives the pith of his
despatches. From Turner and Duckett he probably derived some
impressions regarding Great Britain and Ireland. He augurs well from the
Irish rebellion, which has been 'cemented,' adds Talleyrand, 'by the blood of
celebrated victims.' The first victim was the Rev. William Jackson, in 1794.
Talleyrand urges the invasion of Ireland and the establishment of an Irish
Republic 'for the instruction or chastisement of England.' 'Nelson's fleet,' he
says, 'is manned almost exclusively by Irishmen,' and that their patriotism

'will teach them to see in the English their oppressors and enemies.'
Talleyrand's sketch of 'Irish Landed Proprietors' is full and curious.
Another man who, besides Talleyrand and Grégoire, dealt cautiously with
Turner was Stone, as Turner in his secret letter to the Home Office admits.
Stone had been tried in England for high treason and sent into exile.[88] At
Hamburg and at Paris he belonged to the set mentioned by Mr. Froude's
cloaked spy[89] as including Lady Edward Fitzgerald (Pamela), Lady Lucy
Fitzgerald, Mrs. Matthiessen, and General Count Valence. Madame de
Genlis in her 'Memoirs' mentions Stone conjointly with her daughter
Madame de Valence and her 'niece' Pamela.[90]

FOOTNOTES:
[65] See Castlereagh Papers, i. 251. See also chapter vii. of the present volume.
[66] Froude, iii. 301.
[67] See M. de Talleyrand, par M. de Villemarest, ch. viii.; Hist. du Directoire,
par M. de Barante, liv. iv.
[68] Of infidelity to the rebel cause.
[69] Mr. Froude, speaking of 'the second arrest of two of the leading committees
of Belfast,' says (iii. 237) that 'Lake seized papers which revealed the
correspondence with France, the extent of the revolutionary armament, and the
measures taken for the seduction of the army and militia. The papers were sent
to Dublin and were laid before a secret committee.' See also correspondence in
re McNevin's Memorial, ch. vii. infra.
[70] The spy sought to deceive the French Government in this report. The
Cromwellian Settlers never thought of joining the United Irishmen. One of
Turner's objects seems to have been to get a written undertaking from Talleyrand
that the estates of these Settlers should be left intact, and money sent to promote
an alleged treasonable conspiracy of Cromwellian Settlers against England, but
which, in point of fact, did not exist. The Ulster Presbyterians were, no doubt,
rebels; but these men were the descendants, not of the Cromwellian adventurers,
but of King James's Planters.
[71] This phrase is assigned to Talleyrand by Harel in the Nain Jaune; but the
thought had been previously expressed by another bishop, i.e. Jeremy Taylor.
[72] The contractions 'he'd' and 'sha'n't' are entirely consistent with Turner's
'you'll' in the letter to Downshire, transcribed by me from the Pelham MSS. See
p. 50, infra; also Turner's acknowledged letter to Cooke, p. 97.
[73] This alternate blowing of hot and cold worked its end. A long letter from the
Home Office furnishing secret items to Dublin Castle goes on to say
(Castlereagh, ii. 361): 'Lewins had often complained that the conduct of the

French Government had been hitherto so indecisive with respect to Ireland that
all their projects had naturally failed.' However, it was admitted by Talleyrand
that 'Ireland was the only vulnerable part of the British Empire.'
[74] The Cabinet, Mr. Froude says, was kept in utter ignorance of his name, and
in the most secret despatches of the Home Office he is known only as 'Lord
Downshire's friend.' These precautions will remind us of the cipher of the
Louvais despatches, which has hitherto baffled all efforts to identify the Man in
the Iron Mask.
[75] The narrative of Edward J. Newell—the spy who turned against his
employers—states (London, 1798, p. 59) that he was asked to give information
'against Charles Rankin and others for high treason.'
[76] Our spy often refers to Rankin and others of Belfast: 'He [the betrayer] had
fled with others from Belfast at the general dispersion of the leaders,' writes Mr.
Froude, iii. 280.
[77] Whatever he knew of Lord Edward Fitzgerald is told in the first letter. See
pp. 5, 6, ante.
[78] This was Henri Grégoire, the celebrated Bishop of Blois—a most influential
member of the National Convention, and afterwards of the Council of Five
Hundred. The aplomb of our spy in hailing such men as friends will be
appreciated. Grégoire was a cautious man, who voted against the divorce of
Napoleon and Joséphine, and opposed the Emperor's marriage with Marie-
Thérèse. During the 'Reign of Terror,' when urged to follow the Archbishop of
Paris and abjure his priestly duties, he refused. B. 1750, d. 1831.
[79] Stone, see p. 33 infra.
[80] Duckett, an Irish rebel agent, falsely suspected by Tone of being a spy, will
figure in chapter x.
[81] See p. 110 infra.
[82] Possibly John Jeffrey, brother of Francis. He was a Scotchman, and usually
resided in America (Life of Jeffrey, by Lord Cockburn, i. 50). How completely a
Republican spirit possessed him is shown by his brother's letters to him in 1797,
beginning 'My dear Citizen' (ii. 30 et seq.). The subsequent Lord Jeffrey was
also a democrat, and his movements may have been shadowed, as those of
Coleridge notoriously were.
[83] See Froude, iii. 283, or ante.
[84] Compare letter from 'Castlereagh to Wickham,' p. 44 ante.
[85] Mémoires de Sainte-Hélène.
[86] The precise and careful wording is that of a lawyer, which Turner was.
[87] Mr. J. P. Prendergast, in his Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, prints, from
original MSS., a 'list of adventurers for land in Ireland' (p. 417). Among them we
find: 'Samuel Turner of London, merchant taylor, £200.' 'Richard Turner, senior
and junior, taylors, £200.' These persons are also found subscribing the same
sum, he adds, as 'adventurers, for the sea-service' (p. 417). The hereditary
feelings and predilections of a Cromwellian Settler can be traced in the letter to
Talleyrand.

[88] I find in the contents of the long-sealed chest at Dublin Castle, 'The
Examination of Samuel Rogers, of Cornhill, Banker,' regarding his relations with
Stone, dated May 10, 1794. With it is preserved an autograph statement by
Richard Brinsley Sheridan, technically called his examination, embracing ten
folios, dated May 9, 1794, and explaining his intercourse with Stone.
[89] Vide p. 5, ante.
[90] Memoirs of Madame de Genlis, iv. 130-36.

CHAPTER V
LORD CLONCURRY SHADOWED
Discoveries and arrests now multiplied, despite the care with which
Reinhard and Lady Edward persuaded themselves that all negotiations had
been fenced.
Lord Cloncurry in his Memoirs writes of his 'dear friend Lord Edward
Fitzgerald,' and readers of that book will remember the touching narrative
given of the writer's arrest and long confinement in the Tower. This peer
seeks to show that he himself was innocent of treason, but Mr. Froude
states, after studying the letters of Lord Downshire's friend, that 'Lord
Cloncurry was a sworn member of the Revolutionary Committee.'[91] The
betrayer's first interview with Downshire took place on October 8, 1797. In
that interview he ranked among the marked men, Lawless, afterwards Lord
Cloncurry. During the next month we find his movements narrowly
watched. One of Mr. Froude's sensational surprises is a statement in
reference to this subsequent British Peer and Privy Councillor. Pelham,
Chief Secretary for Ireland, writing to the Home Office on November 7,
1797, refers to the fact—if fact it is—that
'Mr. Lawless, Lord Cloncurry's eldest son, is going to England
this night, charged with an answer to a message lately received
from France. I have sent Captain D'Auvergne in the packet with
Mr. Lawless, with directions to find where he means to go in
London, and to give you immediate information.'[92]
A story never loses in its carriage; and Portland was perturbed by the news.
The Hamburg spy, who was the first to mention Lawless's name, was now
consulted.
Two secret letters from the Home Office, dated June 8, 1798, and printed in
Lord Castlereagh's 'Correspondence,' speak of a communication received
from 'a person in Hamburg,' and how

'His Majesty's confidential servants have found it necessary to
take into custody and detain several natives of Ireland, now
resident here, of whose intimate connection and correspondence
with the leaders and inciters of the present rebellion in Ireland
there was no room whatever to doubt.... Communicate this
information to the Lord Lieutenant, that the Honourable Mr. L
——, Mr. S., of Acton,[93] and Messrs. T., A., and C.,[94] of the
Temple, have been apprehended here, and Messrs. McG——
and D—— at Liverpool;[95] and that warrants for apprehending
the following have been granted: Dr. O'K——, C——[96] of
Abbey Street, Dublin, and Mr. H——.[97]
Lord Cloncurry states that the Duke of Leinster, Curran, and Grattan, who
happened to be visiting him, were also taken into custody; but this
statement is not wholly borne out by contemporary accounts.
Wickham's second letter of June 8, 1798, recurs to the arrests and speaks of
'most secret, though accurate, intelligence received from Hamburg,' adding:
—
There are some papers found in Mr. Lawless's possession that
tend directly to show his connection with some of the most
desperate of the Republican party here, as well as with those
who are in habitual communication with the French agents at
Hamburgh, and his Grace is in daily expectation of some
material evidence from that place, tending more directly to
implicate that gentleman in a treasonable correspondence with
the enemy.[98]
'Braughall' was another name which will be found in the list written out by
Downshire from his visitor's dictation. Lord Cloncurry, in his Memoirs,
describes Braughall as 'his business agent and confidential friend;' while
Tone constantly refers to him in cordial terms. The newspapers of the day
record his arrest and how 'papers of a very seditious nature were found in
his house.'[99] Among them was a letter from Lawless urging him to
contribute to the defence of unfortunate O'Coigly, and mentioning that
'Little Henry' had munificently subscribed. This passage, Lord Cloncurry
states, was interpreted at Dublin Castle as referring to Henry Grattan,
though the writer meant Mr. Henry of Straffan, brother-in-law to Lord

Edward Fitzgerald, and as the result of this mistake Grattan was placed
under arrest, but speedily liberated.
A memoir of O'Coigly is furnished by Dr. Madden in the first edition of his
'United Irishmen,' and embodies information derived from Cloncurry.
Deferring to the Hon. Mr. Lawless, when in London, he says: 'Every
Irishman who frequented his house was vigilantly watched by agents of a
higher department than the police.' Pelham says that he sent Captain
D'Auvergne on board the packet with Lawless, charged to find out where he
went to in London; and it would seem that during the tedious journey of
those days, Lawless suspected D'Auvergne's mission. 'The agent of a higher
department than the police' would also apply to Turner, who was in London
at this time. Who was the detective who had his berth next to young
Lawless on board the boat, sat and chatted with him in the coach to London,
and afterwards dogged his steps? Letters furnishing secret information, and
signed 'Captain D'Auvergne, Prince of Bouillon,' may be found in the
'Castlereagh Papers.'[100] This personage represented an old and illustrious
French family. The Prince, finding his patrimony sequestered during the
Revolution, looked out for a livelihood, and seems to have been not
fastidious as to the sort. Cloncurry states that when bidding good night at
the house of a friend, he would say, 'I haven't the conscience to keep my
poor spy shivering longer in the cold.' After 1798, D'Auvergne's usual post
was Jersey, whence his letters in the 'Castlereagh Papers' are dated, and
furnish the fruit of espionage, including all warlike preparations made by
the French at Brest.[101]
Mr. Froude quotes a letter from Portland, part of which is to the same effect
as that already given, and announcing the discovery of important papers 'in
Mr. Lawless's [Cloncurry's] possession that tend directly to show his
connection with some of the most desperate of the Republican party in
England, as well as with those who are in habitual communication with the
French agents at Hamburg; and yet,' he continued, 'under present
circumstances, and with evidence of the nature of that of which the
Government here is in possession, strong and decisive as it is, none of those
persons can be brought to trial without exposing secrets of the last
importance to the State, the revealing of which may implicate the safety of
the two kingdoms.'[102] But although the leading men could not be brought
to trial, it was fit to hold them fast, that thus the teeth of the conspiracy

might be drawn. One important man—Stewart of Acton—was certainly let
out on bail; but he was a cousin of Lord Castlereagh's.
These rough notes ought not to close without some notice of a reply to
Portland's criminatory remarks, which the late Lord Cloncurry has placed
on record. When the 'Castlereagh Papers' appeared he was an octogenarian
and enjoying, it is to be hoped, an unimpaired memory; but it is an open
secret that the book known as 'Lord Cloncurry's Personal Memoirs' was
fully prepared for publication, and its style strengthened throughout, by a
practised writer connected with the Tory press of Dublin, and who believed
that Cloncurry had been wrongly judged in 1798.
As to the papers alleged by Mr. Wickham to have been found in
my possession, [Lord Cloncurry is supposed to write] and
tending directly to show my connection with some of the most
desperate of the Republican party in London and Hamburgh, I
now solemnly declare that I believe the statement to be a pure
fiction, and that no papers were found, as I am most certain that,
with my knowledge, no papers existed which could have had
any such tendency, more directly or indirectly than, perhaps, a
visiting ticket of Arthur O'Connor's, or a note from O'Coigly in
acceptance of my invitation to dinner.[103]
On the other hand, it is stated in a letter to the Home Office, dated July 24,
1799, that rebel despatches had been regularly addressed to Mr. Lawless in
the Temple, 'whose fate,' it is added, 'is much lamented at Paris.'[104] Lord
Cloncurry himself admits that in the autumn of 1797 he was elected—but
without his desire or knowledge—a member of the Executive Directory of
the United Irishmen, 'when, for the first and only time, I attended a meeting
held at Jackson's in Church Street.'[105] This date furnished fresh proof of
the promptitude and accuracy of Turner's information to Downshire
(supplied also in the autumn of 1797)—information which revealed the
adhesion of Lawless, afterwards Lord Cloncurry, to the Executive
Directory. Jackson's name is also to be found in the list as dictated by
Turner. Of course Lawless must have been already a United Irishman, or he
could not be eligible for election to a seat in the Directory. Binns, who was
arrested with O'Connor and O'Coigly at Margate, says: 'Coigly was no
stranger to Lawless; he made him a United Irishman in his father's house, in

Merrion Street, Dublin.'[106] Cloncurry's Memoirs state merely that
O'Coigly, who was the finest-looking man he had ever seen, presented to
him a letter of introduction, descriptive of Orange persecution, which it was
alleged he had suffered.
Lawless and O'Coigly had opinions in common; and both were much
together in London. The former never forgave O'Connor for having—as he
said—unfairly sacrificed O'Coigly during the trials at Maidstone.[107] In
collecting evidence to hang the priest, renewed attention fell upon Lawless.
His first imprisonment lasted for six weeks. On April 14, 1799, on the eve
of his marriage with Miss Ryall, who at last died of a 'broken heart,' he was
again arrested on Portland's warrant and committed to the Tower, where he
remained two years. Lord Cloncurry states that his father, in dread of
confiscation following his son, left away from him 65,000l. However, the
Irish rebel lived to become a British peer, a Privy Councillor, and the
adviser of successive Viceroys. Dr. Madden, who received much help from
Cloncurry when compiling his 'Lives of the United Irishmen,' states that
Robert Emmet dined with this peer in Paris, previous to leaving France on
his ill-fated enterprise; and Madden, in his second edition (ii. 137), says he
knows not how to reconcile the account of the interview, as supplied in
'Cloncurry's Personal Memoirs,' with a verbal account of the same given by
his lordship to himself.
The list noted by Downshire from the dictation of his visitor, though
complete as regards the Rebel Executive of 1797, far from embraced all the
names which more careful thought must have brought to the recollection of
the informer. It had now become second nature to him to discharge, almost
daily, letters of fatal aim, jeopardising the lives and reputations of men who
implicitly trusted him. He also, as it appears, 'opened a correspondence'
with leading United Irishmen. It is not sought to be conveyed that all the
information came from Turner; but the following remarks of Mr. Froude,
although they repeat a few names already mentioned, are important, as
connecting 'Lord Downshire's friend' with the harvest of captures in
midsummer 1798:—
Every day was bringing to the private knowledge of the Cabinet
how widely the mischief had spread, as the correspondence
which continued with Lord Downshire's friend added to the list
of accomplices. Lord Cloncurry's son was no sooner arrested,

than Stewart of Acton, a young Agar, a young Tennent, young
Curran, McGuckin, Dowdall, and twenty others,[108] whose
names never came before the public, were found to be as deeply
compromised as he.[109]
The question was even mooted as to whether he and others should not be
excepted by name from the Bill of Indemnity, or even specially attainted by
a Bill of Pains and Penalties, in consideration of the impossibility of
convicting them by the ordinary course of the law.[110]
Turner's knowledge and duties as a United Irishman having been mainly
confined to Ulster, it seemed strange that one of the Northern Committee
could be so intimate with O'Connor and Lord Edward. Even in the
betrayer's first interview with Downshire he reveals much intimate
acquaintance with both. All this can be readily understood now. In
November, 1796, O'Connor took a house near Belfast, preparatory to
offering himself for the representation of Antrim. Dr. Madden states that
Lord Edward and O'Connor lived together for some months, and during
their stay maintained friendly intercourse with the Northern leaders.[111]
Soon after we find the command in Ulster assigned to O'Connor. 'Arthur
O'Connor,' resumes Mr. Froude, describing the events of December, 1797,
'after spending a few months in the Castle,'[112] had been released on bail,
Thomas Addis Emmet and Lord Edward Fitzgerald being his securities.
"The person" who had come to Lord Downshire had revealed the secret of
the visit to Switzerland; but without betraying his authority Camden could
not again order O'Connor's arrest.'[113] After an interval, however, and at a
critical moment, O'Connor was apprehended anew, and he remained a State
prisoner until 1802.
At an early stage of this chase I met with the seeming difficulty that the
name of Samuel Turner appears in the list of leading rebels which 'the
person' gave to Lord Downshire.[114] In undertaking to give a complete list
of the Executive Committee, he could not well omit his own name. No
doubt to invest it with increased importance, he puts it next after those of
Lord Edward and Arthur O'Connor (the nephew of Lord Longueville), and
before Stewart of Acton and the future Lord Cloncurry. The act is consistent
with the usual swagger of the man, and shows the ingenuity by which he
hoped to baffle all subsequent evidence of his treachery.

Lord Camden writes: 'The intelligence with which we are furnished would,
if certain persons could be brought forward, be sufficient to bring the
conspiracy to light, defeat its ill consequences, and make a salutary
impression on the minds of the people.'[115] 'Unfortunately,' comments Mr.
Froude, '"certain persons" declined to be brought forward. Pelham, when in
London, made large offers to Lord Downshire's friend, but without effect.'

FOOTNOTES:
[91] Froude, iii. 287.
[92] This announcement had its origin in one of the secret letters of McNally
(MSS. Dublin Castle). Lawless was to sail for London 'to-morrow night,' he
wrote, 'and ought to be watched every hour'; but nothing is said of the answer to
France, of which Pelham declares he was the bearer. McNally lived in Dublin,
was a United Irishman, and confidential lawyer of the body, but had been bought
over. The strange story of his life is told in a succeeding chapter. This man was
now asked to find out all he could about Lawless.
[93] Lord Castlereagh, in a letter addressed to Colonel Lord William Bentinck,
dated, Dublin Castle, June 24, 1798, and given to me by Mr. Huband Smith,
states that, according to the information received, 'Mr. Stewart had accepted the
post of Adjutant-General for Armagh in the rebel army. Bentinck, writing to
General Nugent three days later, says that Stewart, when his prisoner, 'confessed
to me privately that he was a United Irishman.' This tends to show how generally
accurate was the information communicated through Downshire.
[94] Trenor, Agar, and Curran. Trenor was the secretary of Lawless. Cloncurry's
Memoirs state (p. 68) that the hardships to which Trenor was exposed brought
on illness and caused his death.
[95] It appears from a letter of Wickham's (Castlereagh, i. 313) that the two men
arrested at Liverpool were McGuckin and Dowdall.
[96] The Dublin Directory for 1798 records the name of 'John Chambers, 5,
Abbey Street.' Here again the handiwork of Downshire's 'friend' is traceable. The
private list of the executive, which he gave him, includes Chambers's name. Mr.
Chambers, grandson of the above, tells me that when the warrant was issued, a
judge of unpopular antecedents hid the rebel in his house.
[97] The imprisonment of Hamilton, the nephew of Russell, is noticed in the
letter from Hamburg. Castlereagh Papers, ii. 5.
[98] Wickham to Castlereagh, Whitehall, June 8, 1798.
[99] McNally's secret letters, scores of which I have read in MS., make frequent
mention of Braughall as a man with whom he was intimate; and it is likely that
the news of Lawless's intended journey to England came from Braughall
innocently. McNally, while incriminating others, uniformly seeks to exculpate
Braughall, whose counsel he was (MS. letter of May 25, 1798). On June 13,
1798, he expresses his opinion that 'Braughall is an enemy to force'; and a

characteristic hint drops: 'If Braughall could be made a friend—and I do believe
he is not disinclined to be one, for I know he always reprobates tumult—his
influence is great, and his exertions would go far to restore peace.' Braughall had
been secretary to the Catholic Committee, and is repeatedly mentioned by Tone
in his Journal. A fine portrait of Braughall, in oils, may be seen in the boardroom
of the Royal Dublin Society, of which he was secretary. After his arrest, this
picture was relegated to a cellar of the institution; but, thanks to Lord J. Butler, it
has been recently unearthed and restored. He died in 1803.
[100] Castlereagh, i. 250, 373, 382; ii. 104, 162, &c.
[101] He obtained the rank of Post-Captain, R.N., in 1784; and at the time that
he was with Lord Camden at Dublin Castle he commanded the 'Bravo' gunboat.
In 1805 he was gazetted 'Rear-Admiral of the Blue.' His name crops up now and
then in the Wellington Correspondence. Thus, on November 15, 1814, when the
Bourbons had been restored, this gentleman, now signing himself 'D'Auvergne,
Duke of Bouillon, &c.' writes from 'Bagatelle, Jersey,' thanking his Grace for the
condescending interest he had shown in recovering for him the small sovereignty
of Bouillon. Vide also a piquant memoir of His Serene Highness Philip
d'Auvergne, Prince de Bouillon, in Public Characters for 1800-1, pp. 545, 561.
His father, though of ancient lineage, embarked in commercial pursuits; and it is
added that at Jersey 'a multitude of spies were kept in constant pay.' A love of
epistolary intrigue seems to have been hereditary with Captain d'Auvergne,
Prince of Bouillon. History records that Cardinal d'Auvergne Bouillon, 'during
the War of the Succession, held a culpable correspondence with the enemy, i.e.
Marlborough, Orrery, and Galloway.
[102] Portland to Camden, June 8.—S. P. O.
[103] Personal Recollections of Lord Cloncurry.
[104] Castlereagh Papers, ii. 361.
[105] Personal Recollections of Lord Cloncurry, p. 38.
[106] Purchased by the father of Lord Cloncurry from Lord Mornington
(Cloncurry's Recollections, p. 8). In this house the Duke of Wellington was most
certainly born in 1769, though his Grace was himself ignorant of the fact, as his
Census return, in 1850, shows. It is now the headquarters of the Land
Commission.
[107] Statement of Lord Cloncurry to Mr. O'Neill Daunt.
[108] Stewart of Acton, Tennent, McGuckin, Hamilton, and many of the twenty
others, were all, like Turner, belonging to the Ulster branch of the organisation.
[109] Froude, iii. 418; see also p. 20, ante.
[110] Castlereagh Papers, i. 163.
[111] Lives and Times of the United Irishmen, ii. 13.
[112] Birmingham Tower, Dublin Castle.
[113] The English in Ireland, iii. 288. The above passage serves to show that the
important arrests made by the Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland were largely due to 'the
person' who whispered in Downshire's ear.
[114] See this list, p. 7, ante.

[115] Camden to Portland, December 2, 1797.

CHAPTER VI
THE MASK TORN OFF AT LAST
Mr. Froude, quoting from the betrayer's letter to Downshire, writes:—'I
went to Harley Street, where Fitz[116] told me of the conduct of the
Catholics to him and his friends. He said he would prevail on O'Connor, or
some such,[117] to go to Paris; if not, he would go himself, in order to have
Lewins removed.'
Lord Edward came to this decision obviously on the representations made
by his false friend regarding Lewins. The false friend will be found
impugning Lewins on every opportunity. Turner and Lewins, it may be
repeated, clashed as rival envoys; Lewins, a Catholic, represented the
Leinster Directory, while Turner claimed to represent the Northern. Turner
worked his pen and tongue to such purpose that he at last succeeded in
convincing Lord Edward of Lewins's treachery. Binns, in his narrative,
states that 'O'Coigly had been commissioned by the Executive to supersede
Lewins in Paris, whom some suspected of betraying the interests of
Ireland.'[118]
The letter from Hamburg (first revealed by Mr. Froude) continues:—
Mrs. Matthieson[119] has just heard from Lady Lucy that
O'Connor is come. I supped last night with Valence, who
mentioned his having introduced Lord Edward[120] and
O'Connor to the Minister here[121] in the summer before the
French attempted to invade Ireland.[122] They both went to
Switzerland, whence O'Connor passed into France, had an
interview with Hoche, and everything was planned.
I feared lest Government might not choose to ratify our contract,
and, being in their power, would give me my choice either to
come forward as an evidence or suffer martyrdom myself.
Having no taste for an exit of this sort, I set out and arrived here

safe, and now beg you will let me know if anything was wrong
in my statements, or if I have given offence....
One of the many unexplained letters in the Castlereagh Correspondence
finds its keynote here. In August, 1798, Wickham, of the Home Office,
writes as follows to Castlereagh, who then held O'Connor a prisoner in
Dublin.[123] Wickham's object, though shrouded in mystery, was no doubt to
check the accuracy of 'Lord Downshire's friend,' and to weigh the
marketable value of his services:—
It would be a great satisfaction to me, personally, were
O'Connor to be questioned on the object of his journey to
Switzerland with Lord Edward Fitzgerald in 1796, and whether
they, or either of them, were in France at that time, and what
French agents they saw besides M. Barthélemy. I was absent
with the Austrian army at the time of their arrival, so that I lost
the opportunity of observing their motions.[124] If either of them
went into France, which I am persuaded they did, I should be
curious, for very particular reasons, to know whether they went
in by way of Basle, and whether their passports were given in
their own names. Should there be no impropriety in questioning
O'Connor on these points, as I have said before, it would be a
great satisfaction to me that it should be done.[125]
Fifty pages may be turned ere the answer to this letter comes. It is headed
'Secret,' and bears date 'Dublin Castle, August 17, 1798.' All my
circumstantial evidence, aiming to show that Turner is the man whom Mr.
Froude could not identify, is crowned by this letter. Castlereagh thus replies
to Wickham:—
'Secret. 'Dublin Castle: August 17, 1798.
'I have endeavoured to obey your commands in examining Mr.
O'Connor as to the object of his journey to Switzerland with
Lord Edward Fitzgerald. At first he declined answering to this
point, considering himself as only bound to state the facts which
came to his knowledge after he became a United Irishman, of
which body he was not then a member. Upon being pressed,
without mentioning names, he stated it thus:—In the summer of
1796, as set forth in the Memoir, an agent was sent to France to

arrange with the Directory the plan of invasion. This person
went to Hamburg; from thence, accompanied by his friend, to
Switzerland; neither went to Paris, but the person employed had
an interview near the French frontier with a person high in the
confidence of the Directory; upon a communication with whom
everything was settled.[126] The reason neither proceeded to
Paris was lest the English Government, in whose pay most of
the officers in Paris were supposed[127] to be, should suspect the
design, and arrest the persons on their return.
'This perfectly agrees with Richardson's information, which
states that Lord Edward and O'Connor met Hoche, and arranged
the invasion. 'R—— states that O'Connor went into France; if he
did, it was only a short distance merely to meet Hoche, and,
from what O'Connor said, Lord E. seemed to be the principal.'
The above paragraph is one of much importance. Richardson I have
discovered to be another alias of the hydra-headed Turner. Distinct proof of
this will be found presently. Castlereagh continues:—
'Should I succeed in drawing from him any further information
on this point, I shall have great pleasure in transmitting it. He
further stated that, when taken in Kent,[128] although he had not
authorised any person to hire a vessel direct for France, but
rather looked to reach a Dutch port, yet his real object was to
pass through Switzerland into France, and fairly confessed that,
had he reached Paris, he should not have been idle, as, though
not charged with any special commission, he did believe the
Directory would have considered him as an accredited
agent.'[129]
Ordinary students of history are not free to search the papers of the Home
Office, London after the date 1760; and the present writer ventured to ask
Mr. Lecky whether he had met the name of Turner in his inquiries. The
object of Mr. Lecky's history is distinct from mine, and his researches have
taken a different direction; but he could not fail to observe, he said, that the
Government correspondence threw not much light on questions of
espionage, 'for names of informers,' he adds, 'are nearly always concealed.'
However, on referring to his notes, it appeared that 'Richardson' was the

pseudonym of Samuel Turner. While thanking my correspondent, I thought
it well to remind him that in the 'Castlereagh Papers'[130] 'Furnes' is stated to
be the alias for this man. And I added, in order to guard against mistake,
that one Thomas Richardson, a Liberal magistrate for Tyrone, was confined,
in 1797, with Neilson and Teeling. The historian's reply is very satisfactory:
[131]
'Samuel Turner wrote his letters to the British Government under the
name of Richardson. This,' adds Mr. Lecky, 'is not a matter of inference, but
of distinct proof.'
Once only 'Richardson' is mentioned in 'Castlereagh.' It was the false name
by which the Home Office, when obliged to communicate with Dublin
Castle, masked Samuel Turner, LL.D., of the Irish Bar. Lord Castlereagh's
letter to the Home Office confirms the intimate knowledge possessed by
Turner of the doings of O'Connor and Lord Edward Fitzgerald. O'Connor
was now—August, 1798—in an Irish dungeon; and Lord Castlereagh
having, as he says, pressed him to answer certain questions, adds: 'This
perfectly agrees with Richardson's information, which states that Lord
Edward and O'Connor met Hoche and arranged the invasion.'
Besides his horror of martyrdom by the knife, Turner had a lively dread of
the martyrdom of exposure and social ostracism. Jackson's trial in 1794 had
the effect of deterring approvers. Curran's skill in torturing such persons
was marvellous; and Mr. Froude declares that he stretched Cockayne as
painfully as ever the rack-master of the Tower stretched a Jesuit. 'He made
him confess that he had been employed by Pitt, and showed that, if Jackson
was a traitor to the State, Cockayne was a far blacker traitor to the friend
who trusted him.'[132]
'Richardson' is now shown to be the same man as he who gave his
information to Downshire; and that 'Richardson' was an assumed name for
Samuel Turner.[133] Thus the question of identity is established without
appealing to further evidence. But inasmuch as my efforts to track Turner
open up facts long forgotten, and others new to the historian, some readers
may not object to follow.
As regards Lord Edward's meeting with Hoche, more than once referred to
in Turner's letter to Lord Downshire and in the correspondence of the Home
Office, M. Guillon, a recent investigator,[134] could find no trace of it in the
French official archives. Special efforts were made at the time to veil this

historic interview. No wonder, therefore, that Mr. Froude, in introducing the
information furnished by Downshire's mysterious visitor, points specially to
the secret meeting with Hoche, and how Hoche himself had not revealed it
even to Tone.[135]
Wickham was but carrying out Portland's behest in signifying to
Castlereagh that O'Connor, then a prisoner, should be questioned on points
of which the Home Office had acquired private knowledge. On August 23,
1798, the same polite pumping of O'Connor is urged—a task fraught with
no great labour to a man of Castlereagh's tact and powers of persuasion. 'A
private communication,' Wickham writes, 'of the names of the persons with
whom Mr. O'Connor corresponded abroad, would answer the particular
purpose required by the Duke of Portland.' The 'particular' object is not
explained. It was probably that the spy might, as previously suggested,
cultivate epistolary relations with the men whom O'Connor[136] would
admit to have been his correspondents.[137]
Teeling, one of the Northern leaders, who had been closely associated with
Turner, gives a curious glimpse of the easy intercourse which Castlereagh
would maintain with his captives. Sometimes he made the arrests himself in
the first instance, and afterwards could charm his prisoners by drawing
silken bonds around them. Teeling was accompanied by his father on
horseback, when 'we met,' he writes, 'Lord Castlereagh, who accosted us
with his usual courtesy. We had proceeded up the street of Lisburn together,
when, having reached the house of his uncle, the Marquis of Hertford, we
were about to take leave of his lordship. "I regret," said he, addressing my
father, "that your son cannot accompany you," conducting me at the same
moment through the outer gate, which, to my inexpressible astonishment,
was instantly closed, and I found myself surrounded by a military guard.'
Teeling, later on, describes a visit paid by Castlereagh to him when a
prisoner:—
Fatigued, and apparently much dispirited, Lord Castlereagh
entered the room. He possessed the most fascinating manner and
engaging address, with a personal appearance peculiarly
attractive, and certainly not in character with the office he had
that day assumed. For though national pride was extinct in his
soul, the graces of nature were not effaced from the form, nor

the polished manners of the gentleman forgotten in the
uncourteous garb of the officer of police. He regretted that in his
absence I had been subjected to the painful restraint of an
additional guard. It was not his desire that they should have been
placed within my room. A slight repast had been prepared for
him, of which he pressed me to partake. The wine was generous,
his lordship was polite, and the prisoner of State seemed for a
moment forgotten in the kinder feelings of the earlier friend.
[Lord Castlereagh then informed Teeling that they had that day
arrested Neilson and Russell.] 'Russell!'[138] said I. 'Then the
soul of honour is captive! Is Russell a prisoner?' Lord
Castlereagh was silent. He filled his glass—he passed me the
wine. Our conversation had become embarrassing....[139]

FOOTNOTES:
[116] Edward J. Lewins was an attorney, and with the astuteness of that craft he
had early suspected Turner, as appears from the letter to 'Citizen Minister
Talleyrand' (p. 24, ante).
[117] The 'some such' proved to be Father O'Coigly, arrested en route, and
hanged in 1798.
[118] Lewins, Mr. Lecky shows, proved thoroughly faithful to his party.
[119] Henriette de Sercy, the niece of Madame de Genlis, and the companion of
Pamela in childhood, who married Mr. Matthiessen, the banker of Hamburg.
[120] Lord Edward Fitzgerald.
[121] Reinhard.
[122] At Bantry Bay in 1796. By many, Tone was regarded somewhat as a clever
adventurer; but when the French authorities saw a nobleman—brother of the
Duke of Leinster—as well as O'Connor, nephew and heir of Viscount
Longueville, acting in a way which meant business, their hesitancy ceased.
[123] After the arrest and death of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and the collapse of
the rebellion, the State prisoners consented to give some general information
which would not compromise men by name.
[124] Wickham's correspondence illustrative of his secret mission to
Switzerland, when he debauched the French minister, Barthélemy, with 'saint-
seducing gold,' was published by Bentley in 1870.
[125] Castlereagh Papers, i. 259-60.
[126] 'Everything was planned,' are the words in the betrayer's letter to Lord
Downshire.

[127] In this suspicion, Lord Edward and O'Connor were not far astray. The
Confidential Letters of the Right Hon. William Wickham reveal that Pichegru and
other French generals were paid by Pitt to allow themselves to be beaten in
battle.
[128] At Margate with Father O'Coigly.
[129] Castlereagh Papers, i. 309-10.
[130] General index to the Correspondence of Lord Castlereagh. 'Furness' is the
name under which Reinhard, the French minister, refers to him when writing to
his Government.
[131] Letter of W. E. H. Lecky, Esq., to W. J. F., Athenæum Club, London, July
5, 1888. Richardson, the popular author of 'Pamela,' was then a specially familiar
name, and one which would readily occur to a well-read man who divulged the
secrets of a real Pamela. The plot in the stories of Samuel Richardson is
developed by letters, a branch of composition in which Samuel Turner was au
fait. There seems a strange irony in this spy describing, under the nom de plume
of Richardson, a new 'History of Pamela' and her struggles. Dr. Madden says
that, after the death of her husband, Pamela returned in painfully straitened
circumstances to Hamburg, the only place to which she could with prudence go.
Madden little dreamt that the fugitive's retreat was the serpent's lair.
[132] The Rev. William Jackson, an Anglican clergyman, came to Dublin on a
treasonable mission, accompanied, as his friend and legal adviser, by Cockayne,
a London attorney. The latter was deputed by Pitt to entrap the National leaders.
Cockayne prosecuted Jackson to conviction. In Ireland, unlike England, one
witness then sufficed to convict for high treason.
[133] In a letter dated June 8, 1798, Wickham speaks of the source from which
'R' procured 'all the information that he has communicated to us'—meaning what
concerned Lady Edward Fitzgerald, Valence, Mrs. Matthiessen, Reinhard, and
other ingenuous friends at Hamburg, who told Turner all they knew. Dr. Madden
and others mistook this 'R' for the incorruptible Reinhard, as M. Mignet styles
him. See folio 102, infra.
[134] France et Irlande (Paris, 1888).
[135] See p. 1, ante.
[136] Vide Appendix for some revelations of fratricidal betrayal by O'Connor's
brother.
[137] One letter only, from Richardson (Turner) to Lord Downshire, I have
found in the Pelham MSS.; it bears date 'Hamburg, December 1, 1797':—
'My Lord,—I cannot contrive any mode of seeing Mr. Fraser without
running a very considerable risque of a discovery. For this reason I
now intrude to request you'll be so kind as to favour me with a few
lines. I wrote to you on November 17, by post. Since that I have sent
you two letters by Captain Gunter, of the Nautilus: the first contains
seven and a half pages of letter paper; the second, a single letter with
such information as I could collect, which I hope will be material.
Gunter promised to put them in the Yarmouth office himself.

'It will be requisite for your lordship to lay aside every emblem of
noblesse, and adopt the style of an Irish sans-culotte, for fear of
accidents. If I appear worthy the further notice of your lordship, no
pains on my part shall be spared to merit the honour of being ranked
among your lordship's most sincere,
'J. Richardson.
'December 1, 1797, Hamburg (under cover to the master of the post-
office, Yarmouth).'—Pelham MSS.
Placed far apart from Richardson's letter is found the despatch of Cooke,
wherein it had been enclosed. 'The letters by the "Nautilus" have not been
received,' he writes, 'and we know not how to direct to him.' The Pelham MSS.
are pyramids in bulk, but no other letter from Richardson, alias Turner, is
entombed within them.
[138] Neilson, Russell, Teeling, and Turner belonged to the Ulster branch of the
organisation. Russell, who had been a captain in the 64th Regiment, and a J. P.
for co. Tyrone, remained a prisoner until 1802, and, on connecting himself with
Emmet's scheme, was beheaded October 30, 1803. Samuel Neilson, son of a
Presbyterian minister, died, after many exciting vicissitudes, on August 29 in the
same year.
[139] Personal Narrative, by Charles Hamilton Teeling. His daughter became
the first wife of Lord O'Hagan.

CHAPTER VII
DR. MACNEVIN'S MEMORIAL
INTERCEPTED
Although the spy did not confide to Lord Downshire until October 1797 his
name and secrets, there is reason to believe that he had furnished
information previously. To enhance his importance he probably said nothing
of this. As Mr. Froude observes, he painted his own conduct in the colours
he thought best. This man had long played fast and loose. So early as May
1797 Turner was viewed with suspicion. The Castlereagh Papers contain a
bundle of intercepted letters addressed by Reinhard, the French Minister at
Hamburg, to De la Croix, head of the Foreign Office, Paris, of whom Tone
often speaks with affection.[140] These letters, as already stated, mention
Turner under the name of Furnes, which we learn from the Castlereagh
Papers was an alias of Turner.[141] He is praised for his zeal and patriotism;
but in one letter Reinhard is found struggling with a painful misgiving. The
suspicion is so dark that he does not like to write even the name of Furnes,
but makes dots to tally with the letters composing it, and no name was
better known to De la Croix. At last Reinhard tries to banish the thought as
an unworthy suspicion; and a subsequent letter of his reinstates Turner in
full prestige.
The letter which expresses suspicion bears date May 31, but is confusingly
assigned, in the Castlereagh Papers, to the year 1798. Its reference to
Hoche, however, shows that it was written during the previous year—his
death having occurred on September 15, 1797.
You must have heard [writes Reinhard to De la Croix] of the
apprehension of two committees of United Irishmen at Belfast,
and the publication of the papers seized, made by the secret
committee of the Parliament of Ireland.[142] Among these papers
is a letter from the provincial committee, informing those of
Belfast that the executive committee having conducted itself in
an improper manner, the provincial committee thought fit to

dissolve it, retaining however, two-thirds of the former
members. This letter has been printed in London in the True
Briton, a ministerial paper. It is very remarkable that ...... should
never have mentioned that circumstance to me. Supposing,
which is very probable, that this reorganisation of the executive
took place before the departure of ...... [from Ireland], it is
natural enough to suppose that ...... should find himself among
the excluded members. The opinion that I have formed of him
...... [adds Reinhard in words worthy of a true diplomat] is, that
he is a man of haughty and violent character, without, on that
account, stooping to dissimulation and deceit; so, in order to
revenge himself on his countrymen, he may have betrayed his
cause to Mr. Pitt. [Reinhard goes on to say that] It was letters of
Lord Edward Fitzgerald which certified that this man who called
upon me was the person sent to me by Lady Fitzgerald on his
arrival.[143]
It seems needless to point out that this must be the 'person' whom Mr.
Froude describes as being introduced by Lady Edward Fitzgerald, and
having the ear of Reinhard at Hamburg; and there is hardly less doubt that
the man thus noticed was the same who, having got into debt with his
friends, addressed himself to Pelham as early as 1796. His secret letter to
Pelham will be seen presently. Meanwhile the same sensitive pride and the
same revengeful spirit when that pride was once wounded is also traceable
in the details revealed to Lord Downshire next year. Judging from the
slippery and impulsive character of the man, I cannot doubt that previous to
his mission to London in October 1797, for the purpose of making a final
bargain with Pitt, he had coquetted with Dublin Castle.
Lewins and Turner were rival envoys—Lewins represented the Leinster
Directory; Turner claimed to speak for Ulster. Of Lewins, who stands above
all suspicion, Reinhard writes to De la Croix in 1797:—'I think L....
incapable of treachery, but capable of imprudence. I should not answer thus
concerning the other. What seems further to concur in the support of my
hypothesis is, that Mr. L. before his departure made it a point of great
importance to ascertain whether there was any other envoy from Ireland,
who addressed himself to me, and that he begged me not to give my
confidence to any other than to him alone. I refrained from giving these

tidings to General Hoche, not only because my means of corresponding
with him are uncertain, but because all the letters from Frankfort announce
his departure for Paris.'
It may not have struck Mr. Froude, as it certainly strikes me, that the man
he describes[144] as visiting Lord Downshire, and at the last moment
offering to betray, was the same person whom the historian, one hundred
pages previously, notices as an informer, 'in the closest confidence of the
Northern Leaders, but whose name is still a mystery.'
It will be seen that Pelham's correspondent of 1796 had fallen into debt and
difficulties. This at first seems not consistent with the statement of Mr.
Froude that Downshire's visitor was the son of a gentleman of good fortune
in the North. But it is easy to see that the son himself had got into pecuniary
straits. He tells Downshire of the expenses he is under, and asks Pitt for a
'cool 500l.'[145] to begin with.
In addition to a judgment debt of 1,500l. which Jacob Turner in his will
forgives his son Samuel,[146] I find, on examining the records of the three
Law Courts, that another judgment debt of 800l. was marked against
Samuel Turner on January 26, 1793.[147]
Speaking of informers, Mr. Froude writes under date 1796:—
One of these especially, whose name is still a mystery, was in
the closest confidence of the Belfast leaders. He had been
among the most enthusiastic of the original members of Tone's
society, but he had fallen into debt to others of the confederates
and had been expelled. In revenge he sold himself to the
Government, satisfied his creditors with money which he
received from Pelham, and was at once taken back into
confidence. Among others, he became an intimate associate of
William Orr, a Belfast tradesman, afterwards executed for
treason, who at this time was a member of the Head Northern
Committee.
Orr told him that everything was ready. Dublin, Cork, Limerick,
were waiting only for orders to rise, and when the word was
given the movement was to be universal and simultaneous. They

had 200,000 men already officered in regiments; they had pikes
and muskets for 150,000, and more were on the way.
The militia were almost to a man United Irishmen, and in fact,
according to Orr, they would have risen in the autumn but for
some differences among themselves. For himself, the informer
thought that nothing would be attempted till the arrival of the
French.
The Belfast men, Neilson, Orr, the two Simms, the party who
had taken the oath with Wolfe Tone on Cave Hill,[148] he
described 'as wealthy, wily, avaricious, tenacious of their
property, distrustful of one another, and if afraid of nothing else,
desperately afraid of the Orangemen, who were five times
stronger than people in general believed.[149] They had authentic
news that Hoche might be expected in the fall of the year, and
then undoubtedly an effort would be made. If Hoche came, they
were perfectly confident that Ireland would be a republic before
Christmas. The instant that the signal was given the whole
Orange party were to be assassinated....
The Informer concludes with these words:—
Be assured that what I have told you is true. The original
agitators have been kept concealed even from the knowledge of
the common people. The medium of dissemination has been the
priests, and they have concealed from their congregations, on
whom they have so effectively wrought, the names of those who
have set them on, merely saying that there were men of
influence, fortune, and power ready to come forward. The
motive of the original agitators—and I mean by them the
members of the Catholic Committee that sat in Dublin, and
many of the Convention that were not on the Committee—was
to carry the Catholic Bill through Parliament by the influence of
terrorism.[150]
So much for the informer who sought the ear of the Irish Secretary in 1796.
His close connection with the Northern leaders, his air of mystery, his
hatred of the priests and the Catholic Committee, even his style and tone,
the reference to Hoche, the prediction that the Protestants would suffer if

the rebels won—all point to him as the same person who made overtures to
Pitt, through Downshire, in October 1797. The alleged disaffection of the
militia and the danger which menaced the estates of the aristocracy again
crop up in Turner's letter to Talleyrand.[151] In both cases the same
stipulation is made that he should not be called upon to give evidence
publicly—the same nervous temperament is revealed. Downshire's visitor
expressed mortal terror lest his life should pay the forfeit of his startling
whisper. The same fear—and I believe I may add, presentiment—pervades
the letter to Pelham in 1796. 'Don't name it,' he writes; 'if it get out they will
know whence it came, and my life will be the certain forfeit.'[152] The
'secret' which the informer of '96 told Pelham was what Mr. Fronde
describes as 'a curious story.' 'To show you that they tell me their secrets,'
writes the informer to Pelham, 'here is the account told me of the death of
Mr. McMurdoch of Lurgan.'[153] From searches made in the Registry of
Deeds Office, Dublin, I find that Samuel Turner was closely connected with
Lurgan, and in a way which gave double facilities for acquiring its secrets.
[154]

The reader might glance once more at Mr. Froude's account of the visit to
Lord Downshire on that dark October night in 1797. The betrayer's disguise
and stealthy nervous gait as though some avenging power were on his track,
are things worth noting. Why was he in such dread of assassination before
he unfolded his story to Downshire? Surely he must have been conscious of
having earned, for a long time before, the penalty of 'Ormond steel.'[155]
This, according to Dr. Conlan's sworn testimony, was a specially familiar
dogma with Teeling and Turner when organising treason in Ulster. The visit
to Downshire was clearly prompted by greed. This peer had got the name of
having secret service money at his disposal. 'Bank notes were offered to
me,' observes James Hope, the working weaver of Belfast, 'if I would
implicate Will Tennant, Robert Simms and others, and it was admitted that
the money came from Lord Downshire.' This was probably among the
efforts which were made to induce minor conspirators to give evidence
publicly against their leaders, of whose treason the Crown had private
knowledge through Turner.[156] McDougall's 'Sketches of Irish Political
Characters,' published in 1799, says of Lord Downshire (p. 20): 'His
political conduct agrees very well with his motto, Ne tentes, aut perfice; he
supports administration with all his might.' Downshire's visitor knew,

therefore, that this peer, if he liked, could make good terms with Pitt. Much
of the melodramatic character of the scene appears to have been designed to
move Downshire. 'He saw Mr. Pitt' says Froude, 'who consented that "the
person's" services should be accepted.'
The Cabinet, we are told, was kept in ignorance of his name. But Pelham,
the Irish Secretary previous to Castlereagh, seems to have known something
of him already, for, as we learn, 'Pelham, when in London, made large
offers to Lord Downshire's friend.'[157] That information had been given by
Downshire's visitor prior to the interview of October 1797, I cannot doubt.
[158]
Mr. Froude, describing Lord Edward's visit to Hoche on the Swiss
frontier,[159] writes: 'Hoche himself had not revealed it even to Tone, but
Lord Edward was known to be intimate with Macnevin. He had been
watched in London, and traced to the lodgings of a suspected agent of the
French Directory.' Downshire's visitor, it will be remembered, had
interviews with Lord Edward in London.
When the betrayer threw back his disguise, Downshire, we are told,
recognised him at once. This, I suspect, was not the first time that a
communication reached Downshire from the same source. Dr. Madden
quotes from the 'Northern Star' of September 16, 1796, a sensational
account of the arrest at Belfast of Russell, Neilson, Sampson, and many
others, and how the whole garrison, with its artillery, took part in the
stirring scene, and it appears that Downshire helped to direct the
proceedings. That day Neilson and Russell surrendered to his lordship, and
Tone in his 'Diary' deplores the arrest as the heaviest blow which could fall
on their cause.[160]
The name of the French agent in London is not mentioned by Mr. Froude. It
is M. Jägerhorn, described by Reinhard, the French Minister at Hamburg, as
'that estimable Swede;' and concerning whom there is a mass of matter,
often purposely misleading, in the Castlereagh Correspondence. Macnevin's
memorial to the French Directory was betrayed to England in the summer
of 1797. M. Jägerhorn was sent by France to treat with the Irish Directory.
His mission, however, transpired, and means were taken to prevent him
going farther than London, whereupon Lord Edward Fitzgerald was
deputed to cross to England, and there confer with Jägerhorn.

Turner's fracas with the terrorist commander-in-chief, Carhampton, was
supposed to have caused his retirement to Hamburg. But that scene, with its
dialogue, may have been purely theatrical.[161]
In June 1797 Turner attends several meetings of the Ulster delegates in
Dublin.[162] There it was that the 'prudence or the cowardice' of the Papist
leaders in Dublin, as he says, disgusted him.[163] Why should the notorious
Turner be allowed to go on to Dublin, and Jägerhorn be refused?
Samuel Turner saw a good deal of Lord Edward and Jägerhorn in London.
We find traces of this knowledge in Mr. Froude's notes of 'the person's'
interview with Downshire—how he called Lord Edward 'Fitz' and had
confidential talk with him in Harley Street. The spy tells Downshire soon
after that Reinhard begged him to stay at Hamburg, 'as the only mode in
which I could serve my country and the republic. I instantly acquiesced, and
told him I had arranged matters with Lord Edward Fitzgerald in London for
that purpose.'
Turner played his cards so well, and personated an ardent patriot so
completely, that the suspicions of his fidelity which Reinhard[164] expressed
on May 31 are found removed soon after. Dr. Macnevin, of Dublin, a chief
in the Executive Directory, was now coming to Paris to ask French aid.
Reinhard reports progress to De la Croix:—
Hamburg: 25 Messidor [July 12].
While Mr. Lewins has suffered me to lose all traces of his
journey, and Mr. Furnes[165] is gone to write to him, M.
Jägerhorn has returned from London, and a new Irish deputation
has called upon me. All the efforts of M. Jägerhorn having failed
against the obstinacy with which the Duke of Portland refused
him a passport for proceeding to Dublin, he determined to call
Lord Fitzgerald to London. The latter came upon pretext of
accommodating his sister. The authenticity of the mission of Mr.
Lewins was verified; important details respecting the state of
Ireland were given; it was ascertained that there was no
derangement in the plan, and in the resources of the united
patriots. It is unnecessary for me to give you a circumstantial
account of the information brought by Mr. F., since he enters

fully into that which Mr. Macnevin has just given. The latter
came surrounded by all the motives for confidence, and he did
not leave Dublin till the 27th of June: his intelligence is of the
latest date, and from the very source. The reports of Mr.
Macnevin, who goes here by the name of Williams, and who
would wish to appear always under that name, as Mr. Lewins
under that of Thompson, appear to me to throw great light upon
all that the Government can have an interest to know. Mr.
Macnevin has been secretary of the executive committee, and all
that he says proves him to be a man thoroughly acquainted with
the ensemble of facts and combinations. In annexing to this
despatch the Memorial[166] which he delivered to me, I shall add
what I have reason to think of importance in his conference.
My first care was to clear up what the papers seized at Belfast
said concerning a change made by the provincial committee in
the organisation of the executive committee. It results from the
answers of Mr. Macnevin, conjointly with those of Mr. Furnes,
that it was of dilatoriness and indecision that several members
of the committee were accused; that the northern province,
feeling its oppression and its strength, was impatient to break
forth,[167] while the committee strove to defer any explosion till
the arrival of the French, and declined giving a full explanation
of its relations with France; that, nevertheless, after the change
of the committee, meetings were held in Dublin and in the
North, at which it was resolved to wait; that the clandestine
visitation of several depôts of arms, where the powder was
found damp and the muskets rusty, contributed a good deal to
that resolution; and that the desire for the assistance of the
French had in consequence become more general than ever. It
was, however, decided that a rising should take place when the
prisoners were set at liberty. Macnevin and Lord Fitzgerald are
of the moderate party. Furnes is for a speedy explosion; and it is
some imprudences into which his ardent character has hurried
him, that have obliged him to leave the country[168]; whereas,
the conduct of Mr. Macnevin has been so circumspect,[169] that
there is nothing to oppose his return.

Reinhard's despatch is continued at very great length, and those who care to
read it should consult the 'Castlereagh Papers' (i. 282-6). He thus ends: 'I
have just received a memorial in which M. Jägerhorn gives me an account
of his journey. I will send it to you by the next courier. That estimable
Swede has again manifested great devotedness to the cause of liberty.'
By some marvellous sleight-of-hand Jägerhorn's secret report found its way
to Whitehall, instead of to Paris, and may be read in the memoirs of Lord
Castlereagh.[170] Two years later, the Swede will again be found tracked
from Hamburg to London, and arrested on Portland's warrant.
Mr. Froude's allusion to the facilities of command exercised by 'the person'
over Lady Fitzgerald's letter-bag, the hints he gave Downshire how secret
letters from Hamburg were sealed and addressed, and how they might be
intercepted, read, and then passed on,[171] are only those gleams of light that
shine dimly in dark places, but enough, with present knowledge, to discern
a good deal.
It will be remembered that Downshire's visitor, in his list of men marked
out for doom, gave prominence to Dr. Macnevin, 'a Physician who had great
weight with the Papists.' 'He (the betrayer) had discovered,' writes Froude,
'that the object of the Papists was the ruin and destruction of the country,
and the establishment of a tyranny worse than that which was complained
of.'
The famous memorial of Dr. Macnevin, embracing a full report on the state
of Ireland, and appealing to France for help, was written at this time.[172]
On arrival at Hamburg he entrusted it to Reinhard, the French minister
there, by whom—as we learn from the 'Cornwallis Papers'—it was
translated and forwarded to Paris. Mr. Froude thinks its betrayal to the
English Cabinet a very remarkable circumstance, and the more strange
because 'no suspicion has been suggested of Macnevin's treachery.' A
hidden hand contrived to pass on to Pitt this document destined to become
historic.[173]
Wickham, writing to Castlereagh on August 15, 1798, states that the rebel
executive committee directed Dr. Macnevin to proceed to Paris by the way
of Hamburg; that the principal objects of his journey were to give additional
weight and credit to the mission of Lewins, and to confirm the information

that had already been transmitted.[174] Again the reader may be reminded
that Lewins and Turner were rival envoys. Each is found constantly trying
to circumvent the other. Turner, therefore, had a special object in foiling and
intercepting Macnevin's memorial.
Reinhard, in the betrayed despatch of July 12, 1797, tells De la Croix, at
Paris, that every confidence might be reposed in Lewins. Lewins' usual post
was at Paris, just as Turner's was at Hamburg, but both passed to and fro. Of
Lewins, Reinhard takes care to say that Macnevin
not only attested that he possesses, and deserves, the utmost
confidence, but that he is designated a minister at Paris in case
of success. Mr. Macnevin wished much that his memorial
should be communicated to him.[175]
If it was Turner's interest to intercept Reinhard's letter establishing
confidence in Lewins, it was still more his interest to keep back from
Lewins a document which, while vindicating his name, would protect it
from further attack; and this the 'Memorial' of Macnevin was designed to
do.
Camden had now ceased to be Viceroy and was succeeded by Cornwallis.
[176]
The latter co-operates with the Home Secretary in screening from
publicity the name of their informer. The report of the Secret Committee
was now in progress. Cornwallis, writing to Portland, says:—
The same reason may not operate against the production of Dr.
Macnevin's memoir, which might be supposed to have fallen
into our hands by various other means, and which, from its
being produced, without connection with the other papers, might
not create any alarm in the quarter where it is so necessary that
the most implicit confidence in our prudence and secrecy should
be preserved.
Your Grace will of course be aware that no account will be
given, even to the Secret Committee, of the means by which
these papers came into the hands of Government.[177]
Portland duly acknowledged Lord Cornwallis's despatch,

in which you represent the advantages which might result from
laying before the Committees of Secrecy of the two Houses of
Parliament in Ireland the whole, or at least a part, of the very
secret and authentic documents relating to the conspiracy in that
kingdom, which I had the King's permission from time to time
to transmit to the late Lord-Lieutenant [Lord Camden]. I lost no
time in acquainting his Majesty's confidential servants with your
Excellency's sentiments upon this very important and delicate
question; and I am now to inform you that, after its having
repeatedly undergone the most serious investigation and
discussion, the result of our unanimous opinion is, that the
communication of the whole of those papers cannot on any
account, or in any situation of the country, be suffered to be
made to a parliamentary committee, under whatever
qualification or conditions it may be appointed, consistently
with that secrecy which in certain cases the honour and safety of
the State require to be observed.
We agree, however, for the reasons you have stated, that the
same objection does not exist to the production of the greater
part of Dr. Macnevin's memoir, and I have therefore had an
extract made of such parts of it as it appears to us may be laid
before the public without inconvenience....
To prevent as much as possible any occasion being given which
can tend to a discovery of the channels by which this
intelligence has been obtained, I most earnestly recommend to
your Excellency to do your utmost in procuring that the facts
which are stated from it may not stand in the report of the
committees in the exact order in which they are given here, but
that they may be mixed with other information which has been
derived from other sources.[178]
The precautions taken to screen the betrayer were certainly very complete.
Castlereagh tells Wickham (July 30, 1798):—
His Excellency authorised me to read the correspondence and
memorial once over to the committee of the Commons, with a
strict injunction that no person should note a single fact; and I

can truly state that the individuals on that committee are
altogether in the dark as to the manner in which that intelligence
was obtained, and, from the mode in which it was gone through,
can only have a very general impression of its contents. The
same precaution was used in the Lords; and, I trust, although the
Duke of Portland's despatch to his Excellency does not
altogether sanction what has been done, yet that his Grace and
the Ministers, who have so wisely enjoined the greatest
precaution to be observed in the use to be made of that most
interesting and important correspondence, will be of opinion
that the guarded manner in which the Lord-Lieutenant made the
communication to the committees, not authorising the smallest
extracts to be made, or any of the facts to be relied on in their
report, without being fully authorised by his Excellency, will
preclude any danger to the State from this valuable channel of
intelligence being in any degree brought into suspicion.[179]
In June 1798 Lord Edward was dead. The Sheares's had been executed.
Macnevin, O'Connor, T. Addis Emmet, and Sampson lay in prison in
Dublin. Blood flowed on every side. The city was like a shambles. The
State prisoners, on the understanding that executions should cease, and that
they might be allowed to leave Ireland, consented to reveal, but without
implicating individuals, the scheme of the United Irishmen. A prolonged
secret inquisition by the Secret Committee took place. As soon as their
evidence appeared, Macnevin and his fellow-prisoners complained, by a
public advertisement, that the Crown officials who drew up the report of the
Secret Committee had garbled the facts and distorted their evidence. Into all
this it is not necessary now to go, but it may be observed that, while
everything inconvenient was left out, an innuendo was made that the
betrayal of Dr. Macnevin's memoir may have been due to Reinhard, the
French Minister. This—apart from M. Mignet's testimony to the
incorruptibility of Reinhard—serves to exculpate him, and narrows the spot
on which suspicion now rests. Reinhard, in his letter to De la Croix, thinks
it strange that Turner had never spoken to him about certain revelations
made by 'the Secret Committee of the Parliament of Ireland;'[180] but the
reason now seems intelligible enough.

Macnevin published his 'Pieces of Irish History'[181] at New York in 1807,
and notices the betrayal of the memorial which he had addressed to the
French Government. Up to that time, and until his death in 1840, he does
not seem to suspect Turner. Had any such doubt occurred to him, he would
have been the first to avow it. At p. 146 of his book Macnevin inveighs
against a 'profligate informer,' 'a ruffian of the name of Reynolds;' but
Reynolds' treachery was confined to the arrests at Bond's in Dublin, and did
not take place until March 1798. Ten pages further on Macnevin speaks of
the 'unparalleled fidelity of the United Irish Body.' Dr. Macnevin was struck
by the knowledge the Government had acquired of the 'negotiations of the
United Irishmen with foreign States,' and, he adds, 'at this time one of the
deputies [i.e. himself] had personal evidence of its extent and accuracy.
That knowledge was obtained from some person in the pay of England and
in the confidence of France.' And Dr. Macnevin then proceeds to point to
Reinhard by name!
This is just what the officials of the Home Office wished for all along.
Wickham, referring to the publication of Macnevin's memorial by the
Secret Committee of the House of Lords, writes: 'It may fairly be presumed
that the copy has been obtained at [the Foreign Office] Paris, or from R.'s
[Reinhard's] secretary at Hamburg. This conjecture will be at least as
probable as the real one.'[182]
One circumstance struck Macnevin as 'confirmation strong' of his dark
suspicion. Reinhard, as he tells us, made difficulties about giving him a
passport to Paris. A most important despatch from Reinhard to De la Croix
thus concludes:—
What I must particularly urge, Citizen Minister, in regard to this
business, is, at least, that you will have the goodness to direct
me as to Mr. Macnevin. I will not give another passport without
your order.[183]
This letter—possibly written at Lady Edward Fitzgerald's house at
Hamburg, and put into her post-bag—was treacherously betrayed to Pitt.
When De la Croix remained ominously silent in response to the above
appeal, is it surprising that Reinhard should have made difficulties and
delays in giving Macnevin a passport?[184]

Macnevin's groundless distrust of Reinhard naturally influenced the views
of a most painstaking investigator. Dr. Madden, who, when he at last saw, in
the 'Castlereagh Papers,' Reinhard's letters to De la Croix, regarded the
circumstance as damning proof of his treachery.[185] Subsequently Mignet,
the great French historian and keeper of the ministerial archives at Paris,
who had ample official means of knowing the character and acts of both
Reinhard and De la Croix, assured Madden in writing that both men were
incorruptible. This may be taken as conclusive, for, unlike Turner, there is
not a line in any English State Paper tending to compromise Reinhard or De
la Croix.[186]
For the act of betrayal we must therefore look to Samuel Turner, agent at
Hamburg of the United Irish Brotherhood; the man who had access to the
most secret papers in Lady Fitzgerald's house, and who, we learn, 'was
admitted to close and secret conversations upon the prospect of French
interference in Ireland with Reinhard.' This, in fact, was the grand proof
submitted by Downshire's visitor to show that he was in a position to spy to
advantage—a fact sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Reinhard was
himself no spy.
Dr. Madden's suspicion of Reinhard was doubtless strengthened by a
passage which for a long time puzzled myself, and occurs in Wickham's
letter to Castlereagh of June 8, 1798. Wickham speaks of 'information
confirmed by a person at Hamburg, who must necessarily have derived his
intelligence from a very different source, and who could not but be ignorant
of that from which R. had procured all that he has communicated to us.' The
name thus masked is not Reinhard, but Richardson—an alias for Turner, as
proved at p. 48 ante.
One thing greatly complicated this puzzle as regards 'R.' Wickham, in a
subsequent letter, dated July 25, 1798, speaks of 'R.'—meaning not
Richardson, but Reinhard, as the context shows.[187] But these blanks are
due to the noble editor of the 'Castlereagh Papers,' the late Lord
Londonderry; and in cloaking the name Richardson—it inadvertently peeps
out in one place, like 'Capel' instead of 'Catesby' in 'Lothair'—he doubtless
thought that it was a real name.
On February 18, 1798, Lord Moira addressed the House of Lords in favour
of Catholic Emancipation, which, he declared, must be granted, as well as

Parliamentary Reform. 'The greatest evil to be feared from it sinks to
nothing compared to the mischief which is raging at present. The expression
of a conciliatory desire on your part would suspend immediately the
agitation of the public mind.'
Mr. Froude says that the members of Council knew more than Lord Moira
—'if he really believed his words;' and he adds that they must have found it
hard 'to sit patient under his flatulent declamation.' How much Turner's
tattle had excited the Cabinet, and aroused lasting prejudice against a
statesman not less able than estimable, appears from the historian's words:
'At that moment the Council were weighing intelligence from the friend at
Hamburg, so serious that they had all but resolved on an immediate arrest of
the entire Revolutionary Committee.'
Reinhard tells De la Croix, on July 12, 1797, that while 'Lord Edward
Fitzgerald and Macnevin[188] were of the moderate party, Turner was for a
speedy explosion.'[189] Turner was co-operating in a very base policy, one
which unscrupulous statesmen are said to have planned. During the
examination of Macnevin before the Secret Committee, Lord Castlereagh
confessed that 'means were taken to make the United Irish system explode.'
The policy of exciting a premature explosion before Ireland had been
organised peeps forth in the Report of the Secret Committee of the Irish
Parliament: 'The rebellion [we are told] would not have broken out so soon
as it did, had it not been for the well-timed measures adopted by
Government.'
Turner's policy changed according as the policy of his employers changed.
In March 1798 the rebel Directory at Dublin were seized as they sat in
council at Oliver Bond's. Soon after, three out of thirty-two counties rose;
and to crush that partial revolt cost England twenty-two millions of pounds
and twenty thousand men.

FOOTNOTES:
[140] Castlereagh, i. 282-292.
[141] Ibid., General Index, iv. 504.
[142] Further on will be seen Portland's caution to Castlereagh as to the means to
be taken by the Secret Committee of the Irish Parliament in order to divert
suspicion from their spy.

[143] The letter, of which this is an extract, appears in the Castlereagh Papers (i.
275-6). It was the interest of the spy that this letter should not be seen at the
Foreign Office, Paris. It could do him no harm in the eyes of Pitt. A second
intercepted letter from Reinhard states that consistently with his duties he sent
Samuel Turner [of Hamburg] to General Hoche (see Castlereagh, i. 285). Tone
mentions in his diary that Hoche one day 'seemed struck when I mentioned
Hamburg, and asked me again was I going hither. "Well then," said he, "perhaps
we may find something for you to do there. There is a person there whom
perhaps you may see."' Tone muses, 'Who is my lover that I am to see at
Hamburg, in God's name?' (Diary, ii. 341.) His diary is relinquished, however,
just as he gets there, and his death in an Irish prison occurred soon after.
[144] English in Ireland, iii. 278.
[145] Ibid. iii. 284.
[146] Irish Record Office.
[147] Judgment Registry, Four Courts, Dublin, No. 302.
[148] Tone's Life (i. 128) describes how, before leaving for America in 1795, he
swore to his friends who surrounded him on Cave Hill never to desist from his
efforts until Ireland was free.
[149] This is quite Turner's style.
[150] Froude, iii. 176. The original objects of the Society of United Irishmen
were parliamentary reform and Roman Catholic emancipation.
[151] Ante, p. 25.
[152] The Rev. Arthur McCartney, vicar of Belfast, stated that he had never
heard of a Committee of Assassination existing in Belfast with the cognizance or
sanction of the leaders of the United Irishmen.
[153] Froude's English in Ireland, iii. 175.
[154] The following memorandum, though of no political import, is useful as an
authentic record of facts:—
'1791, February 13. Samuel Turner and Jacob Turner his father, both of Turner's
Hill, co. Armagh, Esquires, to John McVeagh of Lurgan. Conveyance of
Premises in Lurgan.
'1794, October 8. Samuel Turner of Newry, and Jane Turner, late of Lurgan, now
of Newry, to Thompson and others. Premises in Lurgan.
The Teelings, with whom Turner claims to be intimate, came from Lurgan.' See
Webb's Irish Biography.
[155] See Conlan's sworn information, Appendix.
[156] James Hope to the late Mr. Hugh McCall, of Lisburn. See Webb's Irish
Biography for an appreciative notice of Hope.
[157] Froude's English in Ireland, iii. 290.
[158] There were informers from the first, but not to the extent suggested; nor
can it be fairly said that they were men 'deepest in the secret.' 'This and similar
information,' writes Mr. Froude, 'came in to them (the Government) from a

hundred quarters' (p. 177). 'They had an army of informers' (p. 174). The
historian here writes of the year '96, and rather overrates the extent of the
treachery. Dr. Macnevin, writing in 1807, says that the secrets of the United
Irishmen were kept with wonderful fidelity. Their society existed from 1791; it
was not until 1798, when ropes were round their necks, that Reynolds and
McGuckin proved false; and the same remark applies to most of the others.
[159] As regards Pelham's correspondent in 1796, and Downshire's in 1797, does
Mr. Froude mistake, for two distinct betrayers, the one Informer? His striking
scenes, his dramatic situations, his fine painting and accessories, remind me of a
stage where the movements of a few men convey the idea of an advancing
'army.' That 'Downshire's friend' had been previously known as an informer is
proved by a letter from the Viceroy Camden to Portland, dated December 9,
1797.
[160] Lives and Times of the United Irishmen, iv. 22.
[161] Ante, p. 11.
[162] Appendix No. 1 to Report of the Secret Committee of the House of
Commons, 1798.
[163] See ante, p. 2; Froude, iii. 279.
[164] The French minister at Hamburg.
[165] The noble editor of the Castlereagh Papers says that this name is an alias
for Samuel Turner.
[166] Mr. Froude errs in stating (iii. 260) that Macnevin himself carried the
Memorial to Paris.
[167] All this is exactly what Downshire's visitor told him (see chap. i.).
[168] His challenge to the commander-in-chief, Lord Carhampton, was among
the 'imprudences.'
[169] Instead of the words 'circumspect' and 'moderate,' 'prudence' and
'cowardice' are applied to Macnevin's party by Turner (vide chap. i.).
[170] Castlereagh Papers, i. 286-8.
[171] Among the letters headed 'Secret Information from Hamburg,' in the
Castlereagh Papers, is one making allusion to the writer's previous
communications with Downshire, whom he mentions by name, and stating that
certain letters to Charles Rankin, of Belfast, were 'to be sealed with a particular
seal I have for the purpose.'—Ibid. i. 234.
[172] Mr. Lecky says, what previous writers do not, that Macnevin wrote the
memorial at Hamburg.
[173] Other intercepted letters addressed to the French Minister of War will
appear later on. These unanswered appeals were well calculated to damp the
ardour of the Irish refugees; but they tried to keep the machine of conspiracy
moving—despite the subtle insertion of so many hidden obstacles tending to
clog and destroy it.
[174] Castlereagh Papers, i. 271.
[175] Ibid. i. 284.

[176] How this appointment came about, see Appendix.
[177] Castlereagh Correspondence, i. 228.
[178] Ibid. i. 251.
[179] Castlereagh Correspondence, i. 246-7.
[180] Castlereagh Correspondence, i. 275-6.
[181] Allibone erroneously assigns (p. 558) the authorship of this book to
Thomas Addis Emmet.
[182] Castlereagh Papers, i. 237.
[183] Castlereagh Papers, i. 281-6.
[184] Reinhard seems to have complained to the French Directory that his letters
to De la Croix were not answered. The last intercepted letters are dated July
1797; and on the 15th of the same month Talleyrand was appointed to succeed
De la Croix, who had been unjustly suspected. De la Croix survived until 1805,
when he died at Bordeaux, mortified by the desertion of some old friends.
[185] Lives and Times of the United Irishmen, ii. 290.
[186] Arthur O'Connor, at all times distrustful, seems to have suspected the
upright Macnevin. They were never quite cordial afterwards, and it is certain
that in 1804, when both served in the Irish Legion, a duel very nearly took place
between them.
[187] See Castlereagh Papers, i. 237.
[188] After 1798 Macnevin migrated to America, where he filled several
important medical posts, and published numerous books. He survived until July
1841.
[189] Castlereagh, i. 283.

CHAPTER VIII
GENERAL NAPPER TANDY
An old and very influential French newspaper, 'Le Journal des Débats,'
published, on February 29, 1884, an article descriptive of the pleasure with
which its writer had heard sung a touching but simple Irish lyric, 'La
Cocarde Verte,' commemorative of the career of General Napper Tandy. It
had been sung, he said, at Paris, by an English girl, who threw into its
simple lines a power most entrancing. The melody and the words continued
to haunt him at all hours,[190] and, some months later, we learn, found him
in London, seeking information, but in vain, regarding Napper Tandy and
the song. During a subsequent tour to the 'Giant's Causeway,' his inquiries
were not much more successful. 'J'avouai que nos histoires de France ne
nous parlent pas de Napper Tandy, et je quittai Portrush sans être
absolument satisfait.'
When French history is silent as regards Tandy, and remote inquirers appear
so much interested about him, the present chapter may not have been
written in vain.
The arrest by British agencies of Tandy and others within the neutral
territory of Hamburg and contrary to the law of nations was baldly denied
for some time.[191] A similar tone was taken by official authority as regards
the subsequent surrender of Tandy to England; but how true was the story,
and with what striking circumstances fraught, will presently appear.
Soon after the departure of Humbert's expedition for Ireland, Tandy, now a
general in the French service, accompanied by a large staff, including
Corbet and Blackwell, sailed from Dunkirk in the French ship 'Anacreon,'
having on board a store of ordnance, arms, ammunition, saddles, and
accoutrements. He effected a landing on the coast of Donegal, but, learning
that Humbert, after having beaten Lake at Castlebar, had met with reverses
and surrendered to Cornwallis, he abandoned the enterprise and re-
embarked. It is told in the 'Castlereagh Papers' that the 'Anacreon,' when
attacked by an English cruiser, gave battle near the Orkneys, and that

'Tandy had put two twelve-pound shot in his pockets, previous to leaping
overboard in the event of striking to the English ship.'[192]
An interesting memoir of Colonel Blackwell, who died in 1809, appears in
Walter Cox's 'Irish Magazine' for that year. William Murphy, an old '98
man, and afterwards the well-known millionaire, said that Cox played fast
and loose, betraying his own party and the Government alternately. Cox
begins by saying that 'few occurrences excited a stronger or more universal
sensation than the treacherous arrest at Hamburg, in 1798, of Blackwell,
Morres, Tandy and Corbet.' Cox describes Blackwell's perilous descent with
Tandy on the Irish coast, and states that, when passing through Hamburg
going back to France, the secret of his arrival and that of his comrades 'was
betrayed to the British envoy, Crawford, by two pensioned spies of
England, Turner and Duckett.'[193]
Cox was a shrewd man; but when suspicion is once raised it is apt to extend
beyond due limits. He was right as regards Turner; he wronged Duckett. His
impression of at least the first was probably derived from Blackwell
himself, for Cox acknowledges that some of the facts 'the writer of this
sketch received from the mouth of Colonel Blackwell.'
General Corbet privately printed at Paris, in 1807, strictures on the conduct
of the Senate of Hamburg for having handed him over to the British
minister. Appended to this brochure is a letter written by Tandy some days
before his death, giving an account of his arrest. 'The original,' writes
Corbet, 'is in my possession.'
I arrived in Hamburg on the evening of the 22nd of November,
1798 [writes Tandy], and the next day I went with M. Corbet to
visit the French minister and the Consul General Lagan to obtain
passports to Paris. I passed the day with the consul general and
prepared for my departure, which was to have taken place the
following day. I was invited to sup the same evening by Messrs.
T—— and D——, in a house where Blackwell, Corbet, and
Morres supped also; we remained there till midnight, and at four
o'clock went to our hotel. Towards morning I was awakened by
armed men rushing into my chamber.
Cox jumped at the conclusion that the names thus cautiously initialled by
Corbet, are Turner and Duckett.[194] A coming chapter will vindicate

Duckett; and I am bound to conclude that this man, if he really joined the
supper party, had been duped by the plausibility of Turner. Turner and
Duckett have been previously shown as on friendly terms.[195]
The accuracy of the information by which Crawford, the British minister at
Hamburg, was able to effect his coup excited general surprise. According to
the 'Castlereagh Papers' tidings reached him that Tandy and others were
lodged at an inn in Hamburg called the 'American Arms,' and on November
24, 1798, soon after five o'clock A.M., this minister, accompanied by a
guard, entered the house. Early as it was, Napper Tandy was found writing.
The officer demanded his passport. Thereupon Tandy, with composure, said
he would produce it, and going to his trunk he took out a pistol, which
presenting, he said: 'This is my passport.' The officer grappled with him,
and the guard rushing in secured Tandy. 'He and his associates were put in
irons, and confined by order of Sir James Crawford.'[196]
And now for a short digression ere finishing the story of Tandy's woes.
People were puzzled to know how the complicated intrigue which achieved
his capture—contrary to the law of nations—could have been completed in
a few hours. There can be little doubt that Turner—whom Cox broadly
charges with the betrayal, by furnishing information to Crawford had ample
notice of their coming.[197] Besides Turner's personal acquaintance with
Tandy, official ties of brotherhood had arisen between them, and nothing
was more natural than the invitation to sup.
A letter headed 'Secret Information from Hamburg,' and bearing date
August 16, 1798, has found its way into Lord Castlereagh's correspondence.
[198]
The writer, clearly Turner, is found back at Hamburg after one of his
periodic visits to Paris, where, with his usual audace, he claimed to be an
accredited envoy of the United Irishmen, and sought to discredit the
mission of Lewins.
Before Tandy had left Paris for Dunkirk, where the 'Anacreon' was being
equipped for Ireland, he had some unpleasant differences with Lewins and
Wolfe Tone.[199] This afforded prospect of a golden harvest for our spy.
Tone had long avoided Turner; Lewins repudiated his pretensions. Our spy
now 'sided' with Tandy's party, and intrigued to such purpose that he seems
to have got himself appointed locum tenens of the general. In this affair

Muir and Madgett, with honest motives, bore a part. Muir, a distinguished
Scotch advocate, had attached himself to the republican interest, and was
tried for sedition.[200] Madgett—an old Irish refugee—held a post in the
Foreign Office in Paris, and will be remembered by readers of Tone's Diary
as in constant communication with him. It is needless to quote in full the
anonymous letter of our spy. It will be found in the 'Castlereagh Papers,'
vol. i. pp. 306-9. The men noticed in it, McMahon and O'Coigly, McCann
and Lowry, had been old allies of Turner's; and 'Casey, brother to the priest,'
Tone, Tandy, Lewins, Teeling, Orr of Derry, McCormack, all figure in the
original information conveyed to Lord Downshire.
The letter begins by saying that 'Tandy, having quarrelled with Lewins and
Tone, called a meeting of United Irishmen, at which a division took place;
the numbers pretty equal.' Tandy's rupture with Lewins was quite enough to
make Turner take Tandy's side. Dating from Hamburg, and believing that
the real 'minister of the interior' was a good cook, he writes:—
A General Creevy, who goes with the great expedition [to
Ireland], called on me one day at Paris and stayed dinner. Muir
and Madgett were of the party. It was for the purpose of
inquiring into Tone's character, which we gave him. Madgett
and Muir swore me into the Secret Committee for managing the
affairs of Ireland and Scotland in Tandy's place: there are only
we three of the committee.
He then proceeds to describe his visit to the Hague, and the information he
acquired there. It may be asked if any evidence exists that Samuel Turner
left his usual quarters at Hamburg and was in Paris at this time, and
afterwards at the Hague. On p. 409 of the same volume of Castlereagh,
Turner is described by name as in Paris on business connected with the
United Irishmen, and that from thence he repaired to the Hague. Here he
was consulted, as he stated, by General Joubert on various points, including
the 'safest places for debarkation.' The West coast, he tells Wickham,
'seemed to be the most eligible, from Derry to Galway.' In the letter to
Talleyrand[201] the West coast is also suggested as the best point to invade.
[202]
The spy, after alluding to the 'contrivances of Lewins,' who 'strives to
prevent any person doing anything with the (French) Government but
himself,' reports Duckett as a most active rebel. He makes this statement in

a paper meant for the private perusal of Portland[203] and Wickham. Thus it
would appear that Blackwell and Cox wronged Duckett in accusing him of
informing against Tandy. To Duckett, a man hitherto maligned, it is
necessary in justice to return.
Lord Edward had died in Newgate June 4, 1798. The departure of his
widow from Dublin and return to Hamburg are announced in the 'Evening
Post' of August 16, ensuing. Our spy, as the 'friend' of the dead Geraldine,
welcoming Pamela back and tendering sympathy and consolation, would be
a good subject for a picture. Mr. Froude tells us that the great power
wielded by this seeming exile of Erin lay in his intimacy with Lady Edward
Fitzgerald at Hamburg. Morres had been sojourning here previous to
Tandy's arrival, and, like Turner, received hospitality at her hands. 'Lord
Downshire's friend,' who we are told had access to her house and post-bag,
could not fail to know Morres well. It will be remembered that Dr. Madden
blows hot and cold on Reinhard, the French minister at Hamburg, and
suggests that he may have betrayed to Pitt his correspondence with De la
Croix; but Reinhard had now been succeeded by a new man; and if further
exculpation[204] of Reinhard were needed after the testimony of Mignet, it is
found in the fact that the correspondence of his successor was also
tampered with. The letter of 'Lord Downshire's friend,' in which he
proposes to become a spy, mentions, as a striking proof of his power, that he
had full access to the bureau of the French resident at Hamburg: M.
Maragan now filled this post. A letter addressed by him to Talleyrand may
be found in the 'Castlereagh Papers.'
Most Secret.
Hambourg, 29 Brumaire.
M. Harvey Montmorency Morres,[205] of Kivesallen, in Ireland,
has called upon me, on the part of the interesting Lady Edward
Fitzgerald: he has been outlawed, and fears that he is not safe at
Hamburg. He was an intimate friend of the late Lord E.
Fitzgerald's; he has, therefore, acquired a right to the kindness of
the widow, and it is on this ground alone that she has allowed
herself to express it. Mr. Morres was the leader of the numerous
corps of United Irishmen: he is utterly ruined in consequence of
his attachment to the cause of liberty. He wishes to go to France,

where he has important matters to communicate. He is expecting
from day to day an officer, who has commanded some
expedition, and he hopes to make the journey with him.[206]
This was Tandy, as a succeeding letter explains. Tandy and Morres were
seized at the same moment, and doubtless on the same whisper. Hamburg
encouraged an impression that Russia prompted this arrest; but, unless on
the hypothesis that Pitt had the Senate of Hamburg in his pay, it is hard to
understand how orders were sent to effect arrests there, just as if it were on
British territory. Mr. Secretary Elliot was a member of the family which
some months previously received the peerage of Minto in acknowledgment
of diplomatic service. This official, writing to Lord Castlereagh, says: 'I
learn from Mr. Hammond, Canning's colleague [in the Foreign Office], that
Napper Tandy is suspected to be at Hamburg, and instructions have been
sent to our resident there to apprehend him.'[207] Thus Crawford must have
heard in advance of Tandy's coming, and taken his steps accordingly. Of
course he at once acquainted the head of his department; and hence the
remark of Mr. Elliot.[208] Some historians convey that Tandy, after his ill-
fated expedition to Ireland, returned direct from Donegal to Hamburg, en
route for France. The words of the editor of the 'Cornwallis Papers' are that
'he returned immediately to France.' But these accounts are most
misleading. Tandy did not get back to France until after his liberation in
1802, and instead of the few days which might be supposed to intervene
between the departure from Donegal and arrival at Hamburg, it was nearer
to two months. Dreading renewed trouble with the English cruisers, Tandy
gave orders to steer for Norway. All landed at Bergen, and after suffering
many vicissitudes sought to reach France by land. The cold became so
intense that, as Corbet notes, people were found frozen to death at the gate
of Hamburg. Weary and footsore, Tandy arrived here at twilight on
November 22, 1798. Hungry for Irish news, he readily embraced Turner's
invitation to sup.[209]
This meeting between Tandy and the man whose 'wearing of the Green'[210]
had forced to fly his native land may have been in the thoughts of the rebel
bard when writing the rude ballad which, a century later, so excited the
querist in the 'Journal des Débats:—'[211]

'I met with Napper Tandy, and he took me by the hand,
And he said 'How's poor old Ireland, and how does she
stand?'
''Tis the most distressful country, for it's plainly to be seen
They are hanging men and women for the wearing of the
Green.'

It was no isolated secret that Turner had acquired and disclosed. General
Corbet, speaking of Morres, Tandy and Blackwall, gives an interesting
account of their subsequent imprisonment at Hamburg, and how successive
plans to effect their escape became marvellously foiled. 'I lost myself in
vain conjectures,' he writes. 'It was not until a long time after that I learned
the infamous treason of which I was the victim. I was very far from
suspecting the author.' And then, in a foot-note, he indicates him with great
caution, dreading the penalty of an action for libel.
A man [he writes] residing at Hamburg, who had all my
confidence, and that of my three companions in misfortune, was
at this precise time sold to England, and was one of Crawford's
numerous agents. He was informed of all our projects, and
communicated them to this minister. This man is now [1807]
actually in London,[212] and pensioned by the Government.[213]
It is strange that Corbet was able to anticipate by half a century the
revelation made in the 'Cornwallis Papers,' that a secret pension had been
given to Turner for information in Ninety-eight. But his privately printed
brochure may indeed be styled a sealed book.
Some hours after the arrest Maragan, the French resident, wrote to the
Senate at Hamburg claiming Tandy and his colleagues as French citizens,
and threatening to leave the Hague unless they were released. Crawford
opposed the demand in terms equally strong, and, needless to say, carried
his point. The French chargé d'affaires, observing Tandy's critical state of
health, offered a large sum to the officer of the guard to permit his escape,
but the superior influence of Crawford overrode all obstacles.
The letter of Tandy, from which an extract has already been made, states
that after his arrest one hundred louis d'or were taken from him and never

returned. His sufferings in prison he describes as so severe that life became
well nigh insupportable, and more than once he prayed to be led out on the
ramparts and shot.
John Philpot Curran gives us some idea of what these sufferings were:—
He was confined in a dungeon little larger than a grave; he was
loaded with irons; he was chained by an iron that communicated
from his arm to his leg, and that so short as to grind into his
flesh. Food was cut into shapeless lumps, and flung to him by
his keepers as he lay on the ground, as if he had been a beast; he
had no bed to lie on, not even straw to coil himself up in if he
could have slept.
The details given by Corbet of their detention are hardly less painful. At last
he and Morres were removed to a new prison.
What had happened to me [he writes] would have naturally
discouraged and prevented me from making any new attempts;
nevertheless, I managed to correspond with my two companions
in misfortune; and we all three stood so well with our guards,
the greater number of whom we had gained, that we resolved to
arm ourselves and place ourselves at their head, to deliver
Tandy, who was in another prison, and after to repair to the
house of the French ambassador. Our measures were so well
taken that we hoped this time at least to recover our liberty in
spite of the impediments which fortune might put in our way.
But the same traitor who had formerly deranged my plan
discovered all to the English minister, Crawford, who
immediately gave orders that our guards should be changed, and
even that those of the different posts of Hamburg should be
doubled, which continued even to our departure. Such was the
result of the last struggle we made to obtain our liberty at
Hamburg.
These incidents occurred at a time when wagers had been laid that the days
of French power were numbered. England, Austria and Russia prepared to
form an alliance. Suvarov, repulsing the French arms in Italy, had entered
on French territory; the Archduke Charles advanced on the Rhine, and the
Duke of York was in full march on Amsterdam. Hamburg felt that the time

had come when England might be truckled to, and France slighted. At
midnight on September 29, 1799, after ten months' detention, Tandy and his
companions were torn from the sanctuary they had sought and put on board
an English frigate which had cast anchor at Cuxhaven.
Their departure was marked by a curious incident, which General Corbet
thus notices in describing his arrest and extradition:—
In open sea, and half a league before us, an English frigate laden
with gold, and on the way to Hamburg, was suddenly wrecked
and only one sailor saved. What was the use of this? Was it to
purchase additional mercenaries against France? Was it the price
of that treachery of which the Hamburghers were just guilty?
Happy would the Continent be if all the gold leaving England
for such purposes had been buried in the sea![214]
Corbet, describing his arrest in the first instance, says that he asked the
soldiers by what authority they acted. 'They appeared not to be ignorant that
we were French officers; they answered that they should fulfil the orders of
the minister of England.'[215]
For a time France sought to stifle its wrath; but at last it was resolved that
the conduct of Hamburg should be denounced to all States, allied and
neutral; that all French consular officers quit the offending territory; and
that every agent of Hamburg residing in France should leave in twenty-four
hours. The Senate of Hamburg now became penitential, and wrote to say so.
'Your letter, gentlemen,' replied Napoleon, 'does not justify you. You have
violated the laws of hospitality, a thing which never happened among the
most savage hordes of the desert.'
A deputation from the Senate arrived at the Tuileries to make public
apology to Napoleon. He again testified his indignation, and when the
envoys pleaded national weakness he said: 'Well, and had you not the
resource of weak states: was it not in your power to let them escape?' In
reply it was urged that such negligence would have irritated rather than
appeased the Powers. Napoleon laid a fine of four millions and a half on
Hamburg. This sum, it is naïvely remarked by Bourrienne, his secretary,
mollified him considerably, and helped to pay Josephine's debts.

An interesting account of the arrival in England of Tandy and his
companions appears in the 'Courier,' a leading London paper, of October 31,
1799.[216] A military cortège accompanied them from Sittingbourne to
Rochester, and thence over Blackfriars Bridge, up Ludgate Hill, to
Newgate.
Had Buonaparte and his staff been sent here by Sir Sydney
Smith, they could not have excited more curiosity [records the
'Courier']. A vast concourse of people was gathered at the
landing place, who attended the prisoners and their escort to the
garrison gates, where a new concourse was assembled, and so
from stage to stage to the end of the journey, everybody, old and
young, male and female, was anxious to get a peep at this
wonderful man, now become, from the happy perseverance of
Ministers, a new bone of contention among the powers of
Europe.
Napper Tandy is a large big-boned muscular man, but much
broken and emaciated. His hair is quite white from age, cut
close behind into his neck, and he appears much enervated. This
is indeed very natural, if it be considered that he is near seventy
years of age, and has just suffered a long and rigorous
confinement, his mind the constant prey of the most painful
suspense. He wore a large friar's hat, a long silk black grey coat,
and military boots, which had a very outré effect.
Blackwell and Morres seem to be about five and thirty. They are
two tall handsome-looking men, wore military dresses, and have
a very soldierlike appearance. The former is a man of a very
enterprising genius, about the middle size, apparently not more
than four or five and twenty, and has much the look of a
foreigner.
Morres had not accompanied Tandy in his expedition to Ireland; and it may
be asked on what grounds he was placed in irons, and made to share with
the ill-starred general all the rigours of a tedious imprisonment. While
Morres indignantly protested against this persecution, he little thought that a
document, seriously compromising him, and penned by his own hand, had
been given up to the Crown officials. This was a memorial which, on his

arrival at Hamburg as an Irish refugee, he had written, in Lady Edward's
house most probably, and addressed to the French Minister at Paris. It was
intercepted as usual, and may now be consulted in the 'Castlereagh Papers.'
Colonel Hervey Montmorency Morres tells Bruix how he had been
intrusted by Lord Edward with the direction of the intended attack upon
Dublin, and especially as regarded the magazine and batteries in the Phœnix
Park; how after the death of Lord Edward he escaped from Dublin, and
remained concealed until the arrival of Humbert at Killala, when he
assembled the men of West Meath to aid the invading army; but upon the
surrender of Humbert he disbanded his followers, and, being pursued by the
King's troops, made his way to England, and thence to Hamburg on October
7, 1798. In conclusion he implored the protection of France for himself and
his family.[217]
After Tandy and Morres had been removed to Ireland, they were placed at
the bar of the King's Bench, when the Attorney General prayed that
sentence of death should be passed upon them. Historians curtly tell that the
prosecution broke down on a point of law; but this explanation does not
quite satisfy. The prisoners pleaded that they were arrested abroad by the
King's command, and were thereby prevented from surrendering themselves
for trial before the day limited by the Act of Attainder for doing so. The
case was argued for days. Tandy's legal position was shown to be this: 'Why
did you not surrender and become amenable to justice? Because I was in
chains. Why did you not come over to Ireland? Because I was a prisoner in
Hamburg. Why did you not do something tantamount to a surrender?
Because I was unpractised in the language of the strangers, who could not
be my protectors, inasmuch as they were also my fellow-sufferers.' Counsel
argued that when the Crown seized Tandy at Hamburg it thereby made him
amenable, and so satisfied the law. Lord Kilwarden, a most humane judge,
ruled that Tandy should be discharged.[218] But their triumph was short-
lived. Tandy was transferred to Lifford, Donegal, previous to being tried in
the district where two years before he had made a hostile descent from
France. In Lifford gaol Tandy lay for seven months, during which time
great efforts were made to ensure the conviction of so formidable a
character; and April 7, 1801, was at last fixed for his trial. Several
applications to postpone it were refused by the court, and divers law
arguments and objections overruled.

The compact with Turner that he should never be asked to brave public
odium by appearing as an approver, was of course respected; but it would
seem that he was now brought over to Ireland for the purpose of assisting
the law officers in their difficult and delicate task. That the quondam spy at
Hamburg was in Ireland at this very time, though soon after he is back
again in Hamburg, can be shown. The Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin,
records that on February 25, 1801, Samuel Turner, vaguely described as 'of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain,' executed to George Lysaght a
conveyance of lands in Clare. In society he was well trusted, unless by a
few who kept their thoughts to themselves; and at this same time also he
became the trustee of the marriage settlement of John Wolcot[219] and
Dorothy Mary Lyons. One can hardly realise this man, whose more fitting
post would be a funeral feast, presiding at a bridal breakfast and wishing
joy and long life to his friends. His trip to Ireland 'killed two birds with one
stone,' for the Book of Secret Service Money expenditure reveals that on
July 8, 1801, 71l. 13s. 3d. is paid 'per Mr. Turner to Chapman in Cork for
one year and eleven weeks, at one guinea.' Chapman I suspect to have been
a minor agent employed by Turner to ferret out evidence against Morres
and the Corbets (both Cork men), and in connection with the prosecution of
Tandy.[220] The 'one year and eleven weeks' would cover the time that
Tandy and his companions, after their removal from Hamburg, lay in an
Irish gaol awaiting their trial.
Tandy, finding the evidence against him overwhelming, admitted the
accuracy of the indictment, and was sentenced to die on the fourth of the
ensuing May. In this course he was doubtless influenced by his son, with
whom, as will be seen, McNally, the debauched legal adviser of the rebels,
could do what he liked.[221] Meanwhile Napoleon, on his return from Egypt,
claimed him as a French general, and held an English prisoner of equal rank
a hostage for his safety. It was now not so clear that Pitt had a legal claim to
the life of a man who wore the uniform of a French officer, and had come
into his hands under circumstances the most peculiar.
As regards Blackwell, the fellow-prisoner of Tandy, Portland, writing to
Cornwallis, speaks of having been importuned by Mrs. Blackwell's family,
whom he describes as 'of considerable influence in Somersetshire,' and
imagines that 'there is no intention of inflicting any punishment on Mr.
Blackwell.'[222] Soon after we find Blackwell[223] discharged, but, unlike

Morres, he proudly refused to give bail. Morres after an imprisonment of
more than three years regained his liberty on December 10, 1801. Tandy,
less fortunate, was removed to Wicklow gaol, and his son asserts that while
there the French minister in London signified that Buonaparte had sent
directions to his brother Joseph not to sign the treaty of peace 'at Amiens'
till Tandy was restored. M. Otto had in fact, as Bourrienne states,[224]
previously negotiated with Lord Hawkesbury for his release. Mr. Froude
says that 'Tandy was spared as too contemptible to be worth punishing.'[225]
This hardly conveys a true idea of the facts. A pardon was at last made out
for him on condition of banishment to Botany Bay. To this proviso his son
demurred; but, as Mr. Marsden, the Under Secretary at Dublin Castle,
assured him, 'all that was required was merely the name of transportation,
in order to strike terror into others; and that he would pledge his honour, if
he acquiesced, that his father should be landed wherever he pleased, that it
might appear to the world as if he made his escape at sea.'[226]
Tandy arrived at Bordeaux on March 14, 1802. Bonaparte's treaty with
England was signed on the 27th of the same month. Military honours hailed
Tandy. Bordeaux was illuminated, and he was promoted to the rank of a
general of division. But in the midst of this jubilee the old rebel read with
horror a speech of Pelham's in Parliament stating that 'Tandy owed his life
to the useful information and discoveries he had given to the British
Government.' He addressed a letter to Pelham, now a peer, branding the
statement as mean, audacious, and false. 'This may appear uncouth
language to a courtly ear,' he added; 'but it is the voice of truth. I never had
any connection or correspondence with your Government, and if I had, they
knew my character too well to attempt to tamper with me. Had you
contented yourself with saying, "there were particular circumstances in my
case," you would have adhered to the truth, for you know the whole, though
you have let out only a part!' Tandy thus concluded: 'I am, my Lord, with
the same sentiments which I have uniformly cherished and supported, a
friend to universal benevolence, and an enemy to those only who raise their
fortunes on their country's ruin!'
Pelham probably confounded Napper Tandy with James Tandy, from whom
information had been given to his confidant, McNally, and by 'Mac'
conveyed to Dublin Castle. Napper told his son all, not thinking it would
transpire. His feelings had been roused by the imputation, and in a letter to

the 'Argus' he gave them fuller vent. 'Had discoveries been proposed to me,
I should have rejected, with scorn and indignation, a baseness which my
soul abhorred.... I had made up my mind for death in a cause which no
mode of execution could stamp disgrace upon. It would have been death in
the cause of freedom and of my country—a cause which would have
converted the scaffold into an altar, the sufferer into a victim!'
Mr. Elliot, who, I think, afterwards succeeded his brother as Lord St.
Germans, echoed in Parliament the taunt cast by Pelham, and spoke of
'Tandy's ignorance and insignificant birth.'[227] Tandy, addressing Elliot,
said:—
The illiberal attack which you have made upon me in your
speech of the 24th of November last, in the British House of
Commons, is the cause of my troubling you with this. My
'ignorance and insignificance,' which you have painted in such
glowing colours, ought, with a man of sense, to have been my
protection; but you have proved yourself as deficient in this, as
in point of good manners, which is the true criterion of a
gentleman.
You cannot, sir, but know (for you pretend to be a man of
information) that I hold a high rank in the army of this great and
generous nation, which places me upon a footing with the
proudest peer of your island. You know, also, that the honour of
a soldier is dearer to him than life; yet, with these facts before
you, you have dared to traduce my character, and have
attempted to affix a stigma to my name which nothing can now
wipe out but the blood of one of us. A French officer must not be
insulted with impunity, and you, as well as the country which
gave me birth, and that which has adopted me, shall find that I
will preserve the honour of my station. I, therefore, demand of
you to name some town on the Continent where you will be
found, accompanied by your friend and your pistols—giving me
sufficient time to leave this, and arrive at the place appointed.
Napper Tandy, General of Division.
Bourdeaux, December 12, 1802.

Eight weeks elapsed. Elliot failed to reply, and Tandy, in accordance with
the fashion of the day, proclaimed him 'a calumniator, a liar, and a
poltroon!' This fierce climax was preceded by a more temperate tone.
The question in debate [he said, when Elliot assailed him] was
for laying a tax on Great Britain, in which I, as a French citizen,
could not possibly be implicated, and, therefore, it is evident
that I was wantonly dragged in for the sole purpose of calumny
and abuse. Such conduct was unmanly, as no brave man would
attack a defenceless person, much less an absent one.
Ignorant of the source to which his betrayal was due, it did not occur to
Tandy that the speeches of Elliot and others may have aimed at diverting
suspicion from their real informant. Tandy, in reply, advanced merely the
suspicion that the charge of being an informer was fulminated to excite the
jealousy and disgust of his adopted country France, which, unlike America,
had opened her arms to afford him protection.[228]
The wearing worry of Tandy's later life had sapped his strength, and left
him sensitively open to hostile shafts, which his conduct provoked. His
vanity was commensurate with his patriotism, and in his stoutest day was
easily wounded. He gradually sank, and died at Bordeaux in 1803. 'His
private character,' writes Barrington, 'furnished no ground to doubt the
integrity of his public one.' He died, as he had lived, a staunch Protestant.
[229]

Much has been written of the wonderful escape from Kilmainham Gaol of
Corbet, afterwards a general in the French service, and one of the prisoners
captured with Tandy at Hamburg, and thence removed to Dublin. Miss
Edgeworth was so much struck by this romantic escape, that she made it the
leading incident of her best novel. But, considering the subtle international
difficulties that had arisen, and with the suggestion of Under-Secretary
Marsden before us, it is a question how far Corbet's escape may not have
been connived at by Castlereagh.
The sermon which Napoleon preached to the Hamburg deputies on their
infringement of the law of nations was in the mouths of his admirers for
years after; but it lost in impressiveness by his own violation of the neutral
territory of Baden, when, on the night of March 17, 1804, he sent a strong
guard to seize and carry off to France the Duc d'Enghien. After a hasty trial

by court-martial, and on unproven charges of conspiracy, he was cruelly put
to death in the Castle of Vincennes. In the heated discussions to which this
outrage gave rise, Buonaparte more than once quoted the case of Tandy, and
feebly sought to find in the past conduct of Hamburg a precedent and
justification.
Thomas Addis Emmet accused him of coldness and indecision as regards
the long threatened invasion of Ireland, because, instead of steering for Erin
in 1798, he changed his plan and went to Egypt. The arrest of Tandy in
Hamburg rekindled Napoleon's hostile feeling, and shortly after the death of
that general he resolved to carry out comprehensively his oft-mooted
design.
The 'Correspondence of Napoleon'[230] contains a letter to Berthier, dated
September 27, 1804. He says that an expedition to Ireland had been decided
upon; that 18,000 men for that purpose were ready at Brest; that a
simultaneous landing was to be attempted in Kent; while in Ireland the
French army would march straight on Dublin. Meanwhile 200,000 men
were encamped at Boulogne; but hostile plans collapsed with the smash of
the French fleet at Trafalgar. A few weeks later the so-called 'Army of
England' traversed the banks of the blue Danube instead of the Thames.
General Mack capitulated at Ulm; Francis of Austria fled, and Napoleon's
legions entered Vienna.

FOOTNOTES:
[190] The words of the French writer will be found at p. 78, infra.
[191] The London Courier of September 14, 1799, displays the following
translation of a letter addressed to a Paris journal: 'Citizens,—The Redacteur has
said, and many other Journalists have repeated it, that Napper Tandy had been
given up by the Senate of Hamburg. I declare to you, Citizens, that not a word is
said of this in any letters received in any of the Banking houses in Paris, nor in
those which I myself have received. I hasten to give you this information,
because the Public ought never to be deceived.

(Signed) 'Daniel C. Meyer,
'Consul General from Hamburgh.'
[192] Castlereagh Papers, i. 405. The letter, of which this is a bit, was written by
a spy who contrived to accompany Tandy as a sort of aide-de-camp, and was on
board the 'Anacreon' during the voyage. Wickham divulges merely his initial,

'O,' but the reader will find his name and career successfully traced in the
Appendix.
[193] Cox's Irish Magazine, January 1809, pp. 32-4.
[194] It will be shown, later on, that an Irish spy named 'Durnin' resided at
Hamburg.
[195] See letter to Talleyrand, ante, p. 27. Some persons supposed that because
Duckett lived at Hamburg like Turner, he used that great gangway to France for
espionage. In the Castlereagh Papers (ii. 6) Duckett is described as 'Secretary to
Léonard Bourdon.' Bourdon is noticed in the Nouvelle Biog. Génèrale, was
'l'agent du Directoire à Hambourg, d'où il fit partir les émigrés.'
[196] Sir James Crawford, British minister at Hamburg from 1798 to 1803.
Crawford afterwards filled a similar post at Copenhagen, where Reynolds, the
Kildare informer, is also found acting as British consul. Reynolds's betrayals
were long subsequent to those of Turner, and of a wholly different sort. His
evidence was given in court publicly. The editor of the Cornwallis Papers states
that Crawford died on July 9, 1839; but Mr. Ross confounds him with an utterly
different man. The Black Book, published in 1820, records (p. 31) a pension of
1000l. 'continued to the family of Sir James Crawford, late minister at
Copenhagen, dead.' The 'most exhaustive' works of biographical reference omit
Sir James Crawford, a remarkable man, and one who played an important part in
European history; and a letter of mine in Notes and Queries, asking for facts
about him, failed to elicit a reply.
[197] Infra, p. 79.
[198] Castlereagh Papers, i. 306-9.
[199] Why Tone's Diary, as published, does not once name Turner, may be due
to the uncertainty as to whether Turner was alive in 1826, and perhaps Tone's
son, from motives of prudence, cut out some allusions to him. Tone died in a
Dublin prison on November 19, 1798, three days before the arrest of Tandy.
Tone and Turner were closely associated in their studies, distinctions, and
political pursuits. Turner entered Trinity College, Dublin, on July 2, 1780; Tone
entered on February 19, 1780. Turner was called to the Bar in 1788; Tone in
1789.
[200] Muir's trial took place on August 30, 1793. He was transported to New
South Wales, from which he escaped by American agency. After a series of great
sufferings he arrived at Paris in February 1798, but died on September 27 that
year from the effect of the hardships he had endured. The papers of the Home
Office show that in 1793 Muir came to Dublin to confer with the United
Irishmen, and on January 11 in that year was elected one of the brotherhood.
Vide also Life of Thomas Muir, Advocate, by P. Mackenzie (Simpkin, 1831).
[201] Ante, pp. 25-9.
[202] A man whom he found in consultation with Joubert, planning the invasion
of Ireland with a map of it before them, he describes in this and subsequent
letters as O'Herne. Students of the Castlereagh Papers have been unable to
identify this man; but it is clear that the O'Herne who figures in them was no
other than Ahearne, so often mentioned by Tone in his Diary. The letter to
Wickham mentions General Daendels as a co-conspirator with O'Herne. In

Tone's Diary we read (p. 460): 'Received a letter from General Daendels,
desiring me to send on Aherne to him, without loss of time, to be employed on a
secret mission.'
[203] The writer mentions his election in Tandy's place as proof of his
unsleeping vigilance and increased power to betray. Portland, instead of seeing
that the man thus ready to take a false oath would not scruple to say anything,
was so struck by the importance of the letter that he sent a copy of it to Dublin
for the guidance of Lord Castlereagh. Here was a man, as Curran once said of an
approver, 'willing to steep the Evangelists in blood.' Turner, in a previous letter
(ante, p. 28), glibly writes: 'I attest the business on oath.'
[204] Vide ante, p. 68 et seq.
[205] Harvey Morres, of the ennobled family of Frankfort (b. 1767), had been in
the Austrian service previous to joining the Irish rebellion; married, in 1802, the
widow of Dr. Esmonde who was hanged in '98. He subsequently gained the rank
of a French colonel, and died in 1839.
[206] Castlereagh Papers, ii. 96.
[207] Ibid. i. 405.
[208] Tandy had borne a part in every Irish national movement from November
1783, when the Volunteer Convention met. He was a most determined man and a
firm believer in artillery, a brigade of which he commanded in Dublin, with the
words 'Free Trade or ——' inscribed on the breeches of the guns. The procession
of Volunteer delegates from the Royal Exchange to the Rotunda was announced
by the discharge of twenty-one cannon.
[209] It is doubtful whether the supper formed part of the plan for the arrest. All
arrangements with that design had been already organised. In vino veritas; and
the effect of the supper was, of course, an increased knowledge and command of
the conspiracy, with proportionate profit to the spy. For such suppers he had a
special gusto. 'I supped last night with Valence, who mentioned having
introduced Lord Edward, &c., &c.' See letter to Lord Downshire, p. 4 ante.
[210] See Carhampton's command to Turner, when at Newry, to remove his
green neckcloth, p. 11, ante. Reinhard, writing to De la Croix, says that these
'imprudences' compelled Turner to leave Ireland.
[211] These are his words: 'Pauvre de forme et bien simple de style, mais d'une
puissance d'autant plus entraînante, surtout sous le charme d'une voix qui jetait
toute l'intensité de la passion Anglaise dans les accens de douleur et de colère,
toujours un peu vagues et flottans, de la fantaisie celtique. L'air et les paroles ne
me sortaient point de l'oreille; et, comme toute impression d'ensemble se
concentre toujours sur un détail unique, il y avait surtout une strophe étrange qui
me hantait.'
[212] The London Post-Office Directory, eighty years ago and later, gave the
names of those only who were engaged in trade. But Holden's Triennial
Directory for 1808 includes the name 'Samuel Turner, Esq. 21, Upper Wimpole
Street.' The name disappears from the Dublin Directory about the same time.
[213] The Conduct of the Senate at Hamburg revealed, by William Corbet
(Paris, 1807). The number of copies privately printed was small; the pamphlet is

very scarce, and obtains no place in the Halliday Collection, R.I.A.
[214] Corbet's Narrative. (Paris, 1807.) General Corbet did not live to see the
day when the recovery of such treasure was regarded as feasible. In 1889
appeared the prospectus of the Aboukir Bay Company for recovering the
treasure sunk in the 'L'Orient,' destroyed by Nelson at the Nile.
[215] Ibid.
[216] File in possession of the writer. The British Museum, so rich in other
respects, does not embrace the Courier for 1798-9.
[217] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii. 94-6.
[218] Howell's State Trials, xxvii. 1194-1243.
[219] John Wolcot is a rare name. All have heard of John Wolcot, well known as
'Peter Pindar,' the merciless assailant of George the Third.
[220] The intercepted memorial from Morres to the French Government,
preserved in the Castlereagh Papers (ii. 96), urges: 'In case of future attempts on
Ireland on the part of France, the province of Munster, which abounds in good
havens, and whose men are the best republicans in Ireland, is the point to be
looked to.' The capture of Cork is proposed, i. 295.
[221] See Appendix, 'James Tandy.'
[222] Cornwallis Papers, iii. 284.
[223] See memoir of Blackwell in Cox's Irish Magazine of Neglected Biography
for 1811, p. 32.
[224] Life of Napoleon.
[225] English in Ireland, iii. 488.
[226] Appeal to the Public, by James Tandy (Dublin, 1807), p. 108, 2nd ed.
Halliday Pamphlets, vol. 915, R.I.A.
[227] This is probably the same Mr. Elliot (see ante, p. 77) who states that
instructions had been sent to have Tandy arrested on the neutral ground of
Hamburg. Elliot, who applied the term 'insignificant' to Tandy, must have read
the informer's letter (since published in the Castlereagh Papers, pp. 405-9),
where Tandy is described, among other contemptuous epithets, as 'insignificant'!
Elliot is styled in the Castlereagh Papers, 'Military Secretary to Lord
Cornwallis, the Viceroy.' 'Cornwallis Elliot' is a favourite name in the St.
Germans family. Tandy addresses his assailant merely as 'Mr. Elliot.' The Elliots
formed a powerful diplomatic coterie.
[228] Elliot, writing to Lord Castlereagh, says: 'The Americans absolutely refuse
to admit the Irish traitors into their territories' (Castlereagh Papers, i. 405, 411,
413, 415, 421). This is the letter which refers to the contemplated arrest of Tandy
at the Hague, and in it he further says: 'I have begged Pelham to come to London
immediately.' Succeeding letters describe Elliot and Pelham closeted together at
various places.
[229] The Society of United Irishmen had no treasonable design when first
formed, as the following letter admitting the O'Conor Don would almost in itself
convey.

Tandy writes to Charles O'Connor from Dublin, December 8, 1791:—
'Sir,—I have to acknowledge the favour of your very polite letter,
and to assure you that I had particular pleasure in seconding the
motion for the admission of Mr. O'Conor into the Society of United
Irishmen—and that no exertion of mine shall be wanting to
compleat the emancipation of my country, give her a free and
general representation, and render to every man what I conceive to
be his just and undoubted rights, security for his liberty and
property, and a participation in the blessings of that land where
Nature has placed him.
(O'Conor Don MSS.) Parliamentary Reform and Catholic Emancipation were
the two objects sought; and it was only when both demands had been spurned by
the Irish Parliament that the organisation drifted into deeper plans. Some
recollections of Tandy's expedition to Ireland will be found in the Appendix.
[230] Bingham's Correspondence of Napoleon, ii. 96. (Chapman and Hall,
1884.)

CHAPTER IX
ARREST OF JÄGERHORN IN LONDON—THE
PLOT THICKENS—TURNER SHOT
THROUGH THE HEAD
In 1799, Turner's stealthy steps can be traced once more in London. It will
be remembered that Lord Edward Fitzgerald had met, by appointment near
Whitechapel, M. Jägerhorn, a secret envoy of France, and gave him, in full
detail, information regarding every point on which that agent had been
charged to inquire. Jägerhorn was 'the estimable Swede' named by
Reinhard, the French minister at Hamburg, when writing the intercepted
letter. This document, dated July 12, the editor of the 'Castlereagh Papers'
assigns to the year 1798;[231] but as Lord Edward was dead at that time,[232]
it must belong to the previous year. Other secret missives were sent to
Dublin at the same time by the Home Office, in order to guide the course of
the Irish Government. These papers, filling forty pages of the book,[233]
were the result of a successful stroke of espionage at Hamburg.
M. Jägerhorn is of course the person alluded to by Mr. Froude when
describing the nocturnal visit to Lord Downshire. 'He [Lord Edward] had
been watched in London, and had been traced to the lodgings of a suspected
agent of the French Directory, and among other papers which had been
forwarded by spies to the Government, there was one in French containing
an allusion to some female friend of Lady Edward, through whom a
correspondence was maintained between Ireland and Paris.'
Hamburg was Turner's usual residence, and Jägerhorn had an estate near
that place.[234]
Although the case of M. Jägerhorn is opened in the first volume of the
'Castlereagh Papers,' and misplaced among the incidents of another year, we
do not find until far in the second the letters addressed to him in 1797 by
General Valence and Lord Edward. In 1799 Jägerhorn had sought to renew
his perilous enterprise. The same keen scent which traced Lord Edward, in

1797, to the lodgings of the confidential envoy in London, was once more
on his track. Wickham, writing from the Home Office on March 28, 1799,
has news for Castlereagh in Dublin: 'I have the satisfaction to inform your
lordship that we have secured M. Jägerhorn, who was coming over here on
a mission similar to that which he undertook some two years since, when he
met Lord Edward Fitzgerald in London.'
A full report is given of Jägerhorn's examination, in which he is asked:
'Were you not charged to deliver to Lord Edward Fitzgerald a letter from
somebody?' and he replied, 'Madame Matthiessen.' This was the lady, nearly
connected with Lady Edward, and alluded to by Mr. Froude as a name
found in secret papers. He is further questioned about Lord Edward, Lady
Lucy, General Valence, and a number of other persons whose names had
cropped up in the interview between Turner and Downshire; but, though the
queries were searching, and Jägerhorn now seemed completely in Pitt's
power, nothing material was wrung from him. England and Russia were at
this time allied, and Jägerhorn, pretending that he had a pension of 2,000
roubles as a spy of Russia, rather dumb-foundered his examiners, and he at
last regained his liberty. All this is to be found, with full details, in the
'Correspondence of Lord Castlereagh.'
The paltry sum which Turner received for his services now comes to be
considered. This man, who had every facility of access to Lady Edward's
house at Hamburg and its rebel entourage, held the key of a position so
incalculably important that he never himself discerned its marketable value.
Thousands would doubtless just as readily have been paid to him as 'the
cool 500l.' that he modestly asked. 'To get the information had cost him,' he
said, 'three times that sum, and to keep up the acquaintances and
connections he had at Hamburg he could not live on less.' 'Small profits and
quick returns' seems to have been his motto.
'Fresh evidence of the person's power to be useful,' writes Froude, 'made
Pitt extremely anxious to secure his permanent help.' The Cornwallis papers
record, but without any attempt to identify him, that the pension Samuel
Turner received—dating from 1800—was but 300l. a year. Wellington
when Irish Secretary addressed to Portland a letter in which a present
payment of 5,000l., and 'not more than 20,000l. within the year,' appears
guaranteed to one nameless informer.[235]

Another case may be cited. A document placed in my hands by Sir W. Cope,
Bart., records that his grandfather was told by Under-Secretary Cooke to
stop at no sum, not even 100,000l., in urging Reynolds to turn approver.
Reynolds, not realising the importance of his evidence, consented to take
5,000l. and 1,000l. a year, with the post of British consul. The tergiversation
of Reynolds did not take place until 1798, long after Turner had sold the
pass.
The services of 'Downshire's friend' were more timely and, perhaps, more
valuable. He told what he knew in 1797: the names he gave of the
Executive Committee (p. 7, ante) proved more important than might appear
at first sight. Reynolds, it is true, gave the hint that a Committee would be
found sitting at Bond's on March 12, 1798, but he does not seem to have
disclosed names; his son says that the names were inserted in the warrant
purely 'on speculation.'[236]
As regards the more distinct whisper of Turner, the betrayal of the Belfast
Directory, at the very hour that Tone was leaving Brest with a French fleet,
proved in itself a paralysing blow, and one worth its weight in gold. But the
arm that dealt it struck from behind unseen. However, as most of the
information that Downshire's friend gave concerned the Northern
organisation, he may, perhaps, be credited with this exploit. The loss of
Ulster was the loss of the right arm of the rebellion. Turner made his
disclosures on October 8, 1797. Besides the list of the Executive Directory,
there can be no doubt that in the information which followed he named,
with others, John Hughes of Belfast, the date and place of whose arrest tally
with the presumption that to Turner it was due. The 'History of Belfast'
records: 'October 20, 1797—John Hughes, bookseller, having been
apprehended in Newry[237] on a charge of high treason, was brought in here
escorted by a party of light dragoons.'[238] Mr. Froude says that
'Downshire's friend' kept him informed of everything.[239]
How well Turner knew Hughes is proved by the sworn testimony of the
latter,[240] in which he describes a breakfast in June 1797, with Samuel
Turner, Teeling, Macnevin, etc., when the fitness of the country for an
immediate rising was debated. Hughes had been a great patriot previously,
but now to save himself became a mercenary informer, and even sought to
criminate Grattan, who thereupon was dismissed from the Privy Council,

though, as Stanhope[241] admits, without just cause. There had been no
more zealous propagandist of the rebellion than Hughes, and he names a
long list of men whom he himself had sworn in on a prayer-book. In 1802
John Hughes retired to the United States and became a slave-owner.
Wickham's letter of June 8, 1798, enumerated, for the information of Lord
Castlereagh, a number of men whose arrests in England seem consequent
on the information furnished by Downshire's visitor. These names include
McGuckin, the attorney, who had been concerned for O'Coigly at
Maidstone. The subsequent career of this once determined rebel, but who
soon after his arrest in 1798 became a spy for the Crown, enhances the
importance of Turner's information at a great crisis. The first recorded
payment to McGuckin of secret service money is March 5, 1799.[242] His
son migrated to France, and was created a baron by Louis Philippe.
The peril of assassination which shadowed every step made by Turner was
not adequately weighed by Pitt when estimating the value of his services.
The risk he ran was not confined to Ireland. The life of an English spy
abroad was deemed equally unsafe, and there is much reason to fear that
more than one met with short shrift. Even a successful diplomat, if his
subtlety touched French interests, could not regard his life as safe. The
disappearance of Benjamin Bathurst, a kinsman of Earl Bathurst, has never
been explained. Bathurst was sent on a secret mission to Vienna, at the time
that England before opening the Peninsular campaign sought to persuade
Austria to declare, by way of a distraction, war against France. Austria soon
after crossed the French frontier, and Bathurst received hints of threatened
personal doom. Hoping to avoid assassination, he took a northerly route in
returning to England, and on reaching Perleberg in Brandenburg, he visited,
in his agitation, the commandant of cuirassiers, requesting that sentries
might mount guard at the inn where he stopped. These were supplied, and
Bathurst spent the day in writing and destroying letters. Shortly before his
carriage came to the door in the dark of a November evening, he told some
troopers who escorted him that they might withdraw. While all the
household was on the alert to see him off, he walked beyond the circle of
the lantern glare, and was lost to sight at the heads of the horses. This
occurred on November 25, 1809, and Bathurst was never seen or heard of
more, notwithstanding that, as we are reminded by Baring Gould, England

offered 2,000l. reward, and Prussia 100 Friedrichs d'or, for the discovery
even of his remains.
To trace the spy with whom these chapters mainly deal seemed, at the
outset, almost as hopeless as to find Bathurst's bones. Of all the
Government informers not one has been more ingeniously guarded from
discovery. Wellington, with all his astuteness, supposed that the fact of a
man's name appearing in the Banishment Act was conclusive evidence
against him of having been a rebel,[243] and therefore disqualified from
claiming any favour from the Crown. But had he known the secret history
of Turner's case, it would have opened his eyes. A Fugitive Bill was passed
in July 1798, enumerating the rebel leaders who had fled from justice. In
this bill we find Samuel Turner named. During the following year
Parliament was asked to lend itself to the fraud of branding as a traitor the
same Samuel Turner, by passing against him an Act of Attainder. From
1797 he lived abroad, posing as an 'exile of Erin.'[244]
The sealed chest in Dublin Castle which was opened a few years ago
contained the only letter I ever saw signed with Turner's name. It related to
his pension, and it was necessary to lay the mask aside for once. We have
already seen him styled Furnes, Richardson, and especially 'Lord
Downshire's friend.'[245] A new name is now adopted to puzzle posterity. He
directs that 500l. be lodged to the account of 'J. Destinger,' and this sum he
was to draw through a third party. Turner's letter is addressed, not to Dublin
Castle, but to Cooke in London, that gentleman having been succeeded, as
Under-Secretary for Ireland, by Mr. Marsden.
Rt. Honble Mr. Secretary Cooke.[246]
Hamburg: May 18, 1802.
Sir,—In consequence of letters I've had the honour of receiving
from Lord Castlereagh and Sir James Craufurd, I take the liberty
of intruding relative to a pension of 300l. per annum the
Government has thought proper to bestow on me for
information on Irish affairs.
His lordship states that you have been so kind as to offer to pay
the pension to any person I would name as agent—or in any way
I was to propose. At present there is no person in Ireland I'd like

to trust, and till some mode is adopted, I should be extremely
obliged if you'd take the trouble of lodging in any bank in
London the sum of 500l. (British) on account of J. Destinger—
the name I shall draw it under—through Sir Geo. Rumbold.[247]
Now that the war is over, and it is supposed all persons in my
line are discharged, I make it a point to spend much more money
than heretofore in order to do away any idea of my being
employed and income diminished, and it is for that reason I
request your attention, and beg the honour of a line through Sir
George to say where the draft is to be sent.
Hoping one day or other to merit your good opinion, I remain,
most respectfully, &c. &c.
S. Turner.
Turner spent money freely, and often when he could ill afford it. He had a
social status to maintain: he was the son of a county magistrate; had
distinguished himself in college; belonged to an honourable profession. He
was the trustee of marriage settlements. He was 'Lord Downshire's friend!'
If he continued to wear his mask well, why might he not aspire to attain, in
America at least, the high official rank of his late colleague and fellow-
prisoner, Thomas Addis Emmet, whom she at last honoured by a public
funeral and a monument raised by national subscription?
The 'Dublin Directory' for 1804 describes Samuel Turner's address as 58 St.
Stephen's Green, in that city. The volume must have been compiled during
the previous year, and it may be that the Irish Government, in 1808,
removed him to Dublin, with the object of picking the brains of those who
had been concerned in Emmet's rebellion of that year. Until the very night
of its outburst, in July 1808, the existence of a slumbering volcano had not
been suspected. After the vain attempts to convict and hang Tandy, Turner
had returned to his old quarters.[248]
The Irish Government were wholly unprepared for Emmet's revolt. No
wonder that Wickham, with the experience he had acquired, confessed
amazement that the secret should have been kept so well.
The Secretary of State cried out with astonishment to think that
such a preparation for revolution could be carried on in the very

bosom of the seat of Government, without discovery, for so long
a time, when any of the party could have made their fortunes by
a disclosure of the plot; and remarked, at the same time, in
presence of Mr. Stafford and the two Mr. Parrots, John and
William, that it was because they were mostly all mechanics, or
working people, that the thing was kept so profound; and said
that if the higher orders of society had been connected, they
would divulge the plot for the sake of gain.[249]
Turner was at once set in motion: but how? We find him put into the same
gaol with a swarm of State prisoners, many of whom had been active in
1798. All daily met for exercise in the yard of Kilmainham Gaol, and had
every opportunity for converse. Here Robert Emmet himself had been
confined until the very day of his execution.
The execution was followed by that of several of his confederates. Let us
look back. Martial law is proclaimed; a dead calm prevails. Turner is now
traced stealthily making his way to the Secretary of State's Office, Dublin
Castle. Anxious to avoid committing himself in writing, especially with a
true signature, he seeks the safer medium of oral communication. Mr.
Marsden cannot be seen; he is engaged just then in conference with the
chief law officer of the Crown. Turner scribbles the following and sends it
in; no signature is attached, but the paper and enclosure are endorsed, by
Marsden, 'Mr. Samuel Turner':—
Understanding the Attorney-General is just with you, I take the
liberty of sending in a letter of Mr. Ball, but wish to speak on
other matters.
Sergeant Ball's letter is dated
Temple St., October 3, 1803.
I have looked into the Act of Parliament and considered in what
manner you should proceed in order to do away the effect of the
attainder thereby passed against you. Nothing short of an Act of
Parliament, reversing the former as far as it affects you, will be
sufficient to enable you to sue for your property in our courts of
justice. I think you mentioned that some other plan had been

suggested as sufficient. If you will let me know what it is, I will
give it the most attentive consideration.
How Marsden and the Attorney-General settled the difficulty, no
correspondence exists to show; but the London 'Courier' of December 5,
1803, most lucidly reveals the facts:—
On Friday last, Samuel Turner, Esq., barrister-at-law, was
brought to the bar of the Court of King's Bench, in custody of
the keeper of Kilmainham Prison, under a charge of attainder,
passed in the Irish Parliament, as one concerned in the Rebellion
of the year 1798; but having shown that he was no way
concerned therein, that he had not been in the country for a year
and seven months prior to passing that Act—i.e. for thirteen
months prior to the rebellion—and therefore could not be the
person alluded to, his Majesty's Attorney-General confessed the
same, and Mr. Turner was discharged accordingly.[250]
The 'Dublin Evening Post' of the day states that Turner's arrest was due
simply to his indiscretion in visiting Ireland on business arising from the
death of his father.[251] But as the 'Post' in 1803 had been subsidised by the
Crown, this account was probably meant to mislead. The Castle archives
bulge with the brimful letters of its editor, H. B. Code. Turner's committal
to Kilmainham was only another act in the great drama, one scene of which
Mr. Froude has so powerfully put before us. 'Samuel Turner, Esquire,' of
imposing presence and indomitable mien, a veteran in 'the cause,' the man
who had challenged the Commander-in-Chief, the envoy to France, the
exile of Erin, the friend of Lord Edward and Pamela, the disinherited by his
father, the victim of State persecution, now stood before his fellow-
prisoners the 'Ecce Homo' of martyrdom, commanding irresistibly their
confidence.
Of his detention in Kilmainham Dr. Madden knows nothing; but he
mentions that Turner accompanied the State prisoners—nineteen in number
—to Fort George in Scotland, the final scene of their captivity. Here
Turner's work was so adroitly performed that we find a man of incorruptible
integrity suspected instead. Arthur O'Connor told John Patten that Thomas
Addis Emmet 'gave information of a letter which O'Connor was writing,
through which means Government became acquainted with the

circumstance.' A long correspondence on the subject has been published by
Madden. Emmet at last challenged O'Connor. Patten,[252] the brother-in-law
of Emmet, was told to bring a certain pair of duelling pistols to Fort
George; but, thanks to the efforts of Robert Emmet to allay the dispute, the
weapons were not used. It was Patten's impression that Turner's
machinations had set the two friends by the ears. Although O'Connor
apologised, and both parties shook hands, it is painful to add that half a
century after, when the upright Emmet had been more than twenty years
dead, O'Connor, in his book 'Monopoly,' stigmatised him as a man of bad
faith. A suspicion more baseless was never uttered. In this book the name of
his fellow-prisoner, Turner, is not once mentioned. Indeed, the inference is
that he thought well of Turner; for O'Connor, after criticising the Catholic
members of the Directory, declares that he had much greater reliance on the
Northern chiefs. O'Connor, Emmet, Neilson and others were detained at
Fort George until the Peace of Amiens, and then enlarged on condition that
they should expatriate themselves for ever.[253]
In 1807 Sir Arthur Wellesley, afterwards Duke of Wellington, entered on his
duties as Irish Secretary. A letter, dated Dublin Castle, December 5, 1807,
and addressed to the Admiralty, recommends a midshipman in the navy,
Francis Turner, for promotion. 'He is the son of a Mr. Turner in this country,
who has strong claims to the favour of the Government for the loyalty and
zeal with which he conducted himself during the rebellion in Ireland.'[254]
Doubtless the new hand merely wrote in this letter what the permanent
officials prompted.[255]
Downshire, although a staunch Tory of the old school, uniformly supported
the Catholic claims. This example probably influenced his protégé.
O'Connell, while inculcating moral force in his struggle for civil and
religious liberty, was fond of enlisting in his bodyguard men who in more
troubled times had staked their lives and fortunes for Ireland. He had
himself been a 'United Irishman,' as will be shown. The rebel General
Clony presided as chairman at the Catholic Association. Rowan, Teeling
and 'Con' McLoughlin sat at the Council board, or stood on the National
platform. What confidence must not O'Connell have reposed in the man
who, as will appear, avowed himself ready to die for his chief!

An aged gentleman, Patrick O'Byrne, who was born at Newry, almost under
the shadow of Turner's patrimonial gable, but who never once doubted his
fidelity to the cause in which O'Byrne himself has been no silent ally,
supplies a fact of sufficiently curious import:—
When the Orange ascendancy faction resolved to put O'Connell
out of the way [he writes], and their champion, the unfortunate
D'Esterre, horsewhip in hand, was ostentatiously parading the
streets of Dublin, accompanied by leering friends, to compel
O'Connell to fight him, Mr. Samuel Turner took up his position
in a hotel where it was known D'Esterre would go to seek
O'Connell. He had not been there long before D'Esterre and his
staff entered and inquired for O'Connell. Immediately Mr.
Turner advanced and stated that his friend Mr. O'Connell was
not there, but he—Mr. Turner—was there to represent him. No:
they did not want Mr. O'Connell's friend; the Liberator himself
was the object of their search. Mr. Turner, with the same spirit
that he had challenged Lord Carhampton, now declared that he
adopted Mr. O'Connell's words, publicly uttered, and made
himself responsible for his actions. In vain; none but O'Connell
himself would serve their purpose, and Mr. Turner was denied
the opportunity of doing battle for his friend.[256]
All this time it cannot be said that, although undiscovered, Turner was still a
happy man. The dread spectre of assassination ceased not to haunt him.
'After long experience of the world,' says Junius, 'I affirm before God I
never knew a rogue who was not unhappy.' Nor was Turner's presentiment
surprising. McSkimmin's History of Carrickfergus, 103-73, in his 'History
of Carrickfergus,' states that the pistol and the dagger were no uncommon
means of dealing with informers; and he supplies a list of men who thus
suffered.
Books which treat of 'Ninety-eight' often mention Byrne of Dundalk. In
1869 the late Mr. John Mathews of that town gathered from Byrne's
representative, Mr. P. J. Byrne, Clerk of the Crown, several facts, and, in
enclosing them to me, styled his informant 'the highest authority on the
unpublished history of the County.' Two days later Mr. Byrne was no more.
The inquiries I then made had no reference to Samuel Turner, but some
passing notices of this man which occur in the manuscript are useful in now

supplying missing links. Mr. Mathews was an ardent patriot, and he
described, not without emotion, how Turner died. Regarding him as a rebel
true to the end, he writes:—
Turner went to the Isle of Man, and having quarrelled there with
a Mr. Boyce, agreed that the dispute should be settled by an
appeal to arms. Both, with their friends, repaired to the field of
honour, and as Turner was preparing for the struggle his
adversary shot him through the head; and [adds Matthews] thus
terminated the career of a man whose only regret was that his
life was not lost in the service of his country.[257]
Was the vengeance wreaked by Boyce meant as a tardy retribution? Was the
John Boyce, who with five other prisoners was consigned in 1797 to
Carrickfergus Gaol, connected with the Boyce who shot Turner? What
Boyce had against Turner was a secret which died with both. No
proceedings seem to have been taken against the man by whose hand he
fell. And possibly this forbearance was not uninfluenced by the fact that the
Crown had need no longer for their informer's services, but, on the contrary,
gained by his death. Turner was a clever man, troublesome to deal with,
haughty, touchy, and resentful; and, like Maguan,[258] Bird and Newell, he
might at any moment publicly turn upon his employers and betray them
with as little compunction as he had already sold his comrades.
A word as regards Lord Downshire, through whom Turner's disclosures
were at first conveyed. This peer, who at one time had wielded potential
influence at Whitehall, and had the ear of Pitt, lived to fall into deep
disfavour with Government. He steadily opposed the Legislative Union, and
helped to form a joint-stock purse with the object of out-bribing Dublin
Castle. In chastisement he was dismissed from the Lord Lieutenancy of
Down, deprived of his rank as colonel, expelled from the Privy Council,
and threatened with a parliamentary inquiry into his conduct. These blows
told, and on September 7, 1801, he breathed his last.

FOOTNOTES:
[231] Castlereagh Correspondence, i. 282.
[232] Lord Edward Fitzgerald died on June 4, 1798.

[233] Castlereagh Correspondence, i. 270-309.
[234] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii. 265.
[235] Letter of Sir A. Wellesley to the Duke of Portland: dated 'Holyhead, June
19, 1808.' Civil Correspondence of the Duke of Wellington (Ireland), pp. 454-5.
[236] Life of Reynolds, by his Son, ii. 153.
[237] Newry had been Turner's home.
[238] History of Belfast, p. 478.
[239] Immediately after the rebellion Downshire received 52,500l., nominally as
compensation for borough seats. The magnitude of the sum has excited historic
surprise; but in making this payment other services were, no doubt, weighed,
including the timely information of which Turner made him the channel.
[240] Before the Secret Committee of the House of Lords, 1798.
[241] See Life of Pitt, ante, p. 36.
[242] Account of S.S. Money applied in detecting Treasonable Conspiracies per
affidavit of Mr. Cooke.
[243] Vide Irish Correspondence, p. 386.
[244] The original of 'The Exile of Erin' was said to be an obscure democrat
named McCann; but it is just as likely to have been that finished actor, Turner
himself. So prominent and conversable a man must have been well known to
Thomas Campbell, then a strong Radical, and who, as he tells us, wrote the
'Exile,' at Altona, near Hamburg, in 1801; and it suggests conflicting emotions to
speculate as to how far the figure of Turner, in his slouched hat, gazing wistfully
from the beach, in search of prey, may have influenced the beautiful idea of the
poet:—

'There came to the beach a poor exile of Erin,
The dew on his raiment was heavy and chill;
For his country he sighed, when at twilight repairing
To wander alone by the wind-beaten hill.
But the day-star attracted his eye's sad devotion,
For it rose o'er his own native isle of the ocean;
Where once, in the fire of his youthful devotion,
He sang the bold anthem of Erin-go-Bragh.'

[245] Also 'Jean Thomas,' ante, p. 20. Compare also Wellington's Irish
Correspondence, p. 357, regarding a letter received in 1808 'from —— alias
——.'
[246] This letter was forwarded by Cooke to Marsden for his guidance.
[247] Sir George Rumbold was Consul-General at Hamburg. Died 1807.
[248] A small box of papers, labelled 'Curious and Selected,' is preserved in the
Record Tower, Dublin Castle. Two unsigned letters supplying private
information in 1803 have puzzled their official custodians. St. John Mason—a
cousin of the ill-fated Robert Emmet—is the man mainly sought to be

incriminated. The letters are endorsed 'R.' and I observed, in holding up one
against the light, that the capitals 'S. T. 1801,' appear as the watermark. 'R' is the
cypher by which Castlereagh points to 'Richardson,' alias Turner, in his letter to
Wickham (p. 46, ante). The case of St. John Mason and his prolonged
imprisonment without trial was brought before Parliament in 1812. The Duke of
Richmond—then Viceroy—wrote a despatch and made allusion to the above
letters. 'Who the writer may have been I know not,' observes his Grace, 'but he
appears to have been some secret informer of the Government.' This despatch
was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed June 2, 1812.
[249] MS. recollections, communicated by one of Emmet's officers, Bernard
Duggan.
[250] This Attorney-General was Standish O'Grady, afterwards Lord
Guillamore. The author of Ireland and its Rulers states of him (i. 126): 'He was a
quaint joker; a shrewd and old-fashioned wit, with a vein of dry humour. As a
judge he enjoyed a plebeian popularity, for he took great sport in baffling the
Crown lawyers.'
[251] 'Mr. Turner only returned to this country within the last few weeks on
account of the death of his father, who left his property to younger children
thinking the elder could not return, or that, if left to him, it would be laid hold of
by Government by virtue of the Act of Attainder.'—Dublin Evening Post,
November 29, 1803.
[252] John Patten, librarian to the Royal Dublin Society, survived until the year
1864. He furnished me with many facts, duly noted at the time. Some appear in
the Sham Squire.
[253] For a curious poem which O'Connor distributed en route to Fort George,
see Appendix.
[254] Civil Correspondence of the Duke of Wellington (Ireland).
[255] The promotion urged by Wellington would seem to have been made, and
merited. The Gentleman's Magazine for July, 1813, under the head of 'Admiralty,
May 30,' records the capture by some boats, under the command of Lieutenant
Turner, of a French privateer, after a severe conflict and loss of life. I am bound
to say, however, that the Turner mentioned by Wellington as having strong
claims on the Government since 1798, is not satisfactorily shown to be Turner
who gave important information during the Rebellion.
[256] Letter of Mr. Patrick O'Byrne to W. J. F., Dublin, September 6, 1880.
D'Esterre was a practised duellist. He and O'Connell at last met in a field near
Naas, and D'Esterre fell January 31, 1815. Lord Whitworth, the famous
diplomat, was then Lord Lieutenant. The Sentinel, an independent newspaper,
declared that the most memorable event which occurred in his Vice-royalty was
this duel. It had engrossed the attention of all Ireland, and ought to engross that
of Parliament also. Everyone asked why the outrage which led to the
catastrophe, being so public and protracted, had not been restrained by some one
of the many members of his Government who had observed it. But vainly the
friends of peace inquired why D'Esterre had not been placed under arrest.
[257] Turner was very treacherously served by his impulsive foe. Perhaps Boyce
thought that had O'Connell accepted Turner's services in that lonely field in

Kildare, he might have been tempted, like Iago, to deal a stealthy stab.
[258] Maguan of Saintfield is not to be confounded with Magan.

CHAPTER X
EFFORTS TO EXCITE MUTINY IN THE
ENGLISH FLEET
Of Duckett, an amateur rebel envoy, mentioned in connection with the
arrest of Napper Tandy,[259] something remains to be said. He was a man of
very active habits, and if less impulsive would have had more friends. Tone,
already the victim of misplaced confidence, viewed many men with
suspicion, and let them see it. In 1796 he was passing as a French officer,
and mentions in his diary that, when waiting to see De la Croix, the minister
of war at Paris, Duckett, who chanced to be also in the ante-room, sought to
enter into conversation with Tone by handing him an English newspaper.
Advances of this sort, though natural in an exiled Irishman meeting another,
were not without effect in making Tone distrust and avoid him.[260] Duckett
no doubt had projects connected with the enterprise in hand to which the
chivalrous Tone would not stoop; but of these Tone knew little, and his
prejudice was formed on quite different grounds. These suspicions were
shared by Madgett, an official in the French War Office. Duckett, it appears,
told Madgett that two expeditions were to proceed to Ireland. 'Madgett said
that he had endeavoured to put Duckett off the scent by saying he did not
believe one word of the story, but that Duckett continued positive.' Tone
adds that the information was probably true; but that it was terribly
provoking it should be known to Duckett, 'to whom, by the by, De la Croix
revealed in confidence all that he knew, for which he ought to be damned.'
Tone later on admits that he knows nothing against Duckett unless by
report.[261]
Tone's unhealthy impression Dr. Madden caught contagiously. In the first
edition of his book, published forty years ago, he conveys that Duckett was
a spy subsidised by England.[262] Innuendo grew at last into accusation, and
a more recent edition records that Duckett, 'there is good reason to believe,
was not employed by the Irish Directory, but by the British Minister, Mr.
Pitt.'[263] Again, we are told that Duckett was 'assuming the character of an

agent of the United Irishmen at Paris, and continually dodged Tone in all his
movements.'[264]
I cannot endorse this imputation. In no pension list, or account of secret
service money, is the name of Duckett to be traced; nor is there one line to
criminate him in the archives of the Home Office. Nay more. Open the
'Castlereagh Papers,' and there Duckett is found denounced as a sworn
enemy to England. These valuable State papers were published ten years
previous to the issue of Dr. Madden's revised edition; but, uninfluenced by
their revelations, he renews the charges against Duckett.
Guillon, who has had access to the Government archives in France, says
that Truguet, Minister of Marine, had thrown himself heart and soul into the
projected invasion, and proposed to land 30,000 men in Ireland, under
Hoche; and 60,000 later on in England; but the Directory deemed the plan
too daring, and threw it aside; until Tone's memorials made their thoughts
recur to invasion, and they then adopted a portion of the rejected scheme of
Truguet.[265] An interesting letter from Duckett to Truguet, Minister of
Marine, turns up among the intercepted despatches. This functionary had
just been succeeded by a new hand.
Is the Government still resolved to prosecute the same plans and the same
projects [Duckett asks]. Can my country rely on its promises? Let me know,
I beseech you in the name of Liberty, what is to be done? Shall I go home to
accelerate the period for the arrival of which we are all solicitous? Consider
that it is only patriots and enemies of England who risk anything—it is their
blood that will flow.
The fears I had lest I should not be able to convert your bill into money are
unfortunately realised. I have presented it to Citizen Reinhard, explained to
him who I was, and what I was going to do. I showed him how necessary it
was that I should leave Hamburg. He replied that his personal means did not
permit him to comply with my application, adding that he could not act,
because I had not a particular letter for him.

A mysterious task and goal are glanced at.

I am grievously mortified that I am not at this moment at the
place of my destination. You know how deeply I interest myself
in this cause; my presence will be conducive to the success of
our friends. I wait for nothing but your answer to set out. I
would merely request you to speak about me to your successor,
to explain to him my situation and my necessities, in order that
he may take into consideration the expenses which I shall be
absolutely obliged to incur; for, when once arrived at my post, it
will perhaps be impossible for me to receive assistance from
him. I therefore beg of you to make him put me beyond the
reach of accidents, by causing a sum that will afford me the
means of subsisting and acting to be remitted to Hamburg. It
does not belong to me to fix it. It is for him in his wisdom to see
what sum will be necessary and indispensable for the expenses
of six months. It would be superfluous to assure you of my
attachment to the cause, and of the high consideration which I
have for you personally.
P.S.—Address your answer to Citizen Reinhard: it is he who
undertakes to forward this letter to you.[266]
It will be remembered that the betrayer whom Mr. Froude dramatically
pictures as unbosoming himself to Downshire was the confidant of
Reinhard at Hamburg, had access to his house, and used that fact to prove
that his services, as an informer, were worth purchase by Pitt. I have
elsewhere shown that the letters headed 'Secret Information from Hamburg,'
which have crept into the 'Castlereagh Papers' to puzzle the world,[267] can
only have been written by 'Lord Downshire's friend'—i.e. Turner. One
appears at page 306 of the first volume of that work. There the objects
vaguely broached by Duckett are revealed as plainly as though Reinhard
himself had whispered the word. The spy, having furnished other items of
news, writes:—
'Duckett is at Hamburg; he has denounced Stone at Paris as a
traitor.[268] I hear he [Duckett] has got money from the [French]
Government for the purpose of renewing the mutiny in the
English Fleet.'[269]

Obstinately hostile winds, as in 1796, once more saved England. Tone,
whose untiring energy had accomplished the organisation of the invading
forces, soliloquises in his diary of 1 August, 1797:—
I am, to-day, twenty-five days aboard, and at a time when
twenty-five hours are of importance. There seems to be a fate in
this business. Five weeks—I believe six weeks—the English
Fleet was paralysed by the mutinies at Portsmouth,[270]
Plymouth, and the Nore. The sea was open, and nothing to
prevent both the Dutch and French fleets to put to sea. Well,
nothing was ready; that precious opportunity, which we can
never expect to return, was lost; and now that at last we are
ready here the wind is against us, the mutiny is quelled, and we
are sure to be attacked by a superior force. At Brest it is, I fancy,
still worse. Had we been in Ireland at the moment of the
insurrection at the Nore, we should beyond a doubt have had at
least that fleet, and God only knows the influence which such an
event might have had on the whole British Navy.
Much that Tone privately penned is found confirmed by a secret committee
which sat while Parker's[271] corpse hung in chains at Sheppey. It appeared
that the crews were largely sworn to espouse the Irish cause; 'to be faithful
to their brethren who were fighting against tyranny;' to carry a portion of
the fleet into Irish ports, hoisting, instead of the Union Jack, a green flag
emblazoned with Erin-go-bragh.[272]
Dr. Madden's suggestion that Duckett was a spy of Pitt's is reiterated with
cruel consistency. Part of the grounds of his suspicion was Duckett's
intimate relations with Reinhard, also suspected by Madden, but who is
now shown conclusively to have been true. Madden frequently quotes from
the 'Castlereagh Papers,' but overlooks the following letter from Sir J.
Crawford to Lord Grenville, one wholly inconsistent with his hypothesis
that Duckett, like Turner, was a spy for Pitt. Crawford was, of course, the
British representative at Hamburg.
October 23, 1798.
I shall abstain from any measures against Duckett, continuing, at
the same time, to have him narrowly watched, which I hitherto
have so completely, that there is scarcely a single step which he

has taken since he has been at Hamburg with which I am
unacquainted. His views for the present seem to be turned
principally towards his Majesty's dockyards, and not choosing to
venture in England himself, he is very desirous of getting over
hither some one of those evil-disposed persons whom he knows
to be employed in the dockyards, for the purpose of concerting
with him the means of setting them on fire.... He is in very little
esteem in France, and is particularly ill with Talleyrand.[273] His
principal supporter is Bruyes (sic),[274] brother to the deceased
admiral, and who was Minister of the Marine. He pretends that,
in case of a successful attempt on the part of the French to land
in Ireland, his object would be to get over to that country; but I
have not hitherto been able to learn any particulars respecting
his commission. He affects much secrecy, even with those with
whom he lives in the greatest intimacy.[275] He has of late been
in correspondence with Holt,[276] the rebel chief, who, through
him, has been pressing the French for assistance. He says that
there are 3,500 land troops on board the squadron which lately
sailed from Brest, but that they have French uniforms for 7,000
men, with the view, as he pretends, of clothing the first bodies of
Irish that might join them in the same way as their own troops,
and thus, a numerous body appearing in French uniforms, of
impressing the Irish nation at large with an idea that they had
landed a considerable force.[277]
This letter explains the more ambiguous despatch written two months
before. Wickham transmits, by direction of Portland, for the information of
the Irish Viceroy, a copy of a secret note,
which had been confirmed by the arrival of Mr. D—— [i.e.
Duckett] under a feigned name in Hanover, on his road to
Hamburg, and I have little doubt of the truth of the rest from my
intimate knowledge of the writer. D., by the extreme vigilance
and activity of Sir James Crawfurd, has been discovered and
arrested on his road; but, as he has been acknowledged as a
person attached to the French Mission at Hamburg, and claimed

as such, I fear there are no hopes whatever of his being
delivered up, or even of having his papers examined.[278]
Your lordship, who will be aware of the extreme delicacy of this
business, will no doubt feel the necessity of keeping the whole
of it as secret as possible. In the mean time it is a point of no
slight importance that this man should have been discovered on
his road, and his journey so much delayed as that the object of it
will be, in all probability, defeated.[279]
Tone's prejudice against Duckett influenced Macnevin. 'Mr. Duckett is still
here,' writes Reinhard to De la Croix in another intercepted letter. 'I
proposed to Mr. Macnevin to reconcile himself with Mr. Duckett. He has
refused to do so.'
It is remarkable that while the usually clear-sighted physician suspects
Duckett of being an English spy, he praises 'the zeal and talents of
Turner.'[280] Nor is there one line in Tone's Diary to indicate distrust of
Turner; but the wrong man, in true dramatic style, incurs suspicion and
blows. On September 21, 1797, Tone called on General Hoche at Rennes.
Hoche spoke of Duckett, and Tone destroyed him with an expressive shrug,
adding that he had boasted at Paris of his acquaintance and influence with
General Clarke, and even with Hoche himself. Two days later Colonel Shee,
the uncle of Clarke, and who accompanied the expedition to Bantry Bay,
also inquires if Tone knew Duckett. 'I answered that Duckett was a
scoundrel. I besought him to put Hoche on his guard.' It appeared that
Duckett had made two or three advances to Shee, who, however, had
consistently avoided him. Tone's gorge is raised, and he ends some remarks
of asperity with 'I'll Duckett him, the scoundrel, if I can catch him fairly in
my grip.'[281]
Duckett, according to the Hamburg spy, now shown to be Turner, was
employed by the French Government to excite mutiny in the British fleet.
Its first outburst was at Portsmouth; it was renewed at the Nore. As
historians, who might be expected to treat largely of such incidents, barely
notice that mutiny, a few remarks here are perhaps admissible; the more so
as it will be necessary to recur again to Parker, who led the revolt. It
assumed so formidable a front that Truguet thought it might prove the
death-blow to England's greatness. Parker, who possessed wonderful

powers of persuasion, was soon joined by a large portion of Lord Duncan's
squadron, and became the soi-disant admiral of the fleet. He blockaded the
Thames, and threatened to starve London. His mutinous force now
consisted of twenty-four sail of the line. Each ship was governed by a
committee of twelve, together with two delegates and a secretary, and all
assembled by beat of drum. The pulse of public feeling was shown in three
per cent. Consols falling to forty-five. The Board of Admiralty visited the
scene of the mutiny, but failed to effect an arrangement. Lord Northesk,
R.N., waited on Parker to hear his terms. These were so exacting that
Northesk hesitated. The following is culled from the (London) 'Courier' of
June 8, 1797, and it will be seen how much Parker's letter differs from the
mild version of it given in Campbell's 'Lives of the Admirals':—
They persisted that the whole must be complied with.... Lord
Northesk was now rowed on board the 'Duke of York' Margate
packet, under a flag of truce, with three cheers from the
'Sandwich,' and with the following paper to ratify his
credentials.
'To Captain Lord Northesk.
You are hereby authorized and ordered to wait upon the King,
wherever he may be, with the Resolutions of the Committee of
Delegates, and are directed to return back with an Answer to the
same within 54 hours from the date hereof.
R. Parker, President.
Northesk, furnished with a passport from Parker, returned to town, while
Pitt and Dundas were hanged in effigy at the yard-arm. It was even debated
to surrender the fleet to the French. Thereupon Sheridan suggested that all
the buoys and beacons should be removed. A paper of the day states that the
troops, ordered to fire on the fleet from the batteries at Gravesend, broke
out into mutiny themselves, declaring that fratricide formed no part of their
duty. The biographical dictionaries say that the popularity of Northesk and
the firmness of Lord Howe caused the utter collapse of this great mutiny;
but such history is misleading. The 'Repulse' was the first ship to abandon
the cause, and becoming stranded was mercilessly cannonaded by the fleet.
Its foremast and rigging were shot away; its decks were red with blood.
Two more deserters, the 'Agamemnon' and 'Vestal,' escaped better. In

slipping their cables and entering the Thames it was supposed that they
were carrying into effect an already debated plan of bombarding Gravesend.
The rest of the fleet followed and found themselves snared into the hands of
the Government. When this fact became apparent, the mutineers were filled
with fury. The ships separated, turned the great guns on each other, and
fought furiously for hours, until at last Parker succumbed. In reading the
trials of the delegates one is struck by such Celtic names as Sullivan,
Donovan, Walsh, Hughes, Brady, MacCarthy, Maginnis, Coffey, and
Branon. Strange reports were current.[282] The 'Courier' of June 6, 1797,
records that
when he [Parker] was carried before the magistrates, he took
two letters out of his pocket, saying, 'These are my authorities; it
was on these I acted.' From this it has been inferred [adds the
'Courier'] that he was set on by 'higher powers,' as the lower
class call them: they say that Parker has declared he will not die
till he has garnished Temple Bar with heads.
However, he made no distinct revelation. He was subjected to a number of
interrogatories, 'dans lesquels,' observes a French authority, 'on chercha
vainement à découvrir les secrets moteurs de l'insurrection.'
Duckett's letter to Truguet, minister of marine, and the information of the
Hamburg spy, help to throw light on this stirring episode. The mutiny is
commonly ascribed to the harsh regulations of the Admiralty. A deeper
design underlay it. Parker was at first committed to stand his trial before a
civil court; but a court-martial was suddenly substituted. This deprived him
of the forensic services of Erskine, whose powerful eloquence had
successfully defended Horne Tooke against the Cabinet of Pitt. It was
desirable that so dangerous a man should be got rid of without delay. His
application for an adjournment was refused; and on June 30, 1797, he
suffered death.
These mutinies were largely the work of Duckett, acting under the
instructions of La Croix, the French minister of war. Tone, as we have seen,
hated Duckett, whom he constantly snubs and denounces. Had there been a
co-operation, the event would doubtless have been different. However all
moderate men rejoiced at the issue. The mutiny formed part of a scheme to
sever England's right arm; but the chivalry of Tone recoiled from a

manœuvre of which he finally saw the importance while hesitating to
approve of it. Dutch and French fleets for the invasion of Great Britain and
Ireland had been nearly ready to start at the time of the mutinies.
Pitt used a powerful engine in subduing the mutiny. He despatched to the
Nore a Roman Catholic priest, who impressively preached the doctrine of
submission.[283] This was probably the same priest of whom Father
O'Coigly complains as worrying him in the condemned cell in the hope of
persuading him to inform.

FOOTNOTES:
[259] Ante, p. 72.
[260] Many men recoil from affable persons who seem over-anxious to know
them. Sir Gavan Duffy in Young Ireland states that Davis had been prejudiced
against the subsequently most distinguished Darcy Magee, because he had
'obviously determined to transact an acquaintance with him.'
[261] Tone's Journals, ii. 141. (Washington, 1847.)
[262] United Irishmen, their Lives and Times, 1st ed. i. 40-75.
[263] Ibid. 2nd ed. ii. 37.
[264] Ibid. iv. 603.
[265] La France et l'Irlande. (Paris, 1888.)
[266] Castlereagh Papers, i. 294-5.
[267] The puzzle is increased by the noble editor's arrangement of the letters—
made without regard to chronological order.
[268] Stone is the man who had been tried in 1795 for high treason, and found
guilty. But Duckett, though a staunch rebel, may have had good reason for
denouncing Stone three years later. Madame de Genlis, in her Mémoires,
upbraids Stone with having treacherously retained some money which had been
entrusted to him for Pamela. See tome iv. 130-1.
[269] Clarke, when giving Tone his commission in the French army, asks him
(Journals, i. 151) if he knew one Duckett: 'I answered I did not, nor did I desire
to know him.' Clarke replied that Duckett was 'clever.' Clarke, afterwards Duke
de Feltre, stooped to ignoble tactics from which Tone recoiled. Clarke was a
strong advocate for chouannerie (see Tone, ii. 96-9), and probably encouraged
Duckett in his scheme for destroying the English dockyards and exciting mutiny
in the fleet.
[270] At Portsmouth, when Lord Bridport gave orders to put to sea, every ship at
St. Helens refused to obey. The marines fired and five seamen were killed. The
crew of the 'London' turned the guns, and threatened to blow all aft into the sea.

The officers surrendered; the marines laid down their arms, and Admiral
Colpoys and Captain Griffiths were put in confinement.
[271] Leader of the mutiny.
[272] Report of the Secret Committee of Commons, England, 1799.
[273] As Tone suspected Duckett to be a spy, he doubtless cautioned Talleyrand
against him. These misgivings spread from bureau to bureau.
[274] Tone's Diary of June 16, 1798, praises the talents and activity of Bruix;
'but what could he do? In the first place, he had no money,' &c.—ii. 501.
[275] Turner's instructions from the Home Office were, if he would not
prosecute, to open a correspondence, at least, with leading rebels.
[276] Joseph Holt, a Wicklow Protestant, published his memoirs in two volumes,
but does not mention Duckett.
[277] Castlereagh Papers, i. 263-4.
[278] Duckett was secretary to Leonard Bourdon, who voted for the death of
Louis XVI., and by his energy overthrew Robespierre, July 27, 1794. He headed
the Conspiracy of the Faubourgs in 1795, and doubtless applauded Duckett in
his scheme.
[279] Castlereagh Papers, i. 263.
[280] Vide Dr. Macnevin's memorial relative to a landing in Ireland.—Ibid. i.
305.
[281] Tone's Journals, i. 208. (Washington, 1827.)
[282] The Courier, describing the execution of the delegates, states that the
inextinguishable vitality of one man named Lee presented a striking spectacle,
and that extra balls had to be poured into his head before he was despatched! A
letter from the Irish Under-Secretary of the day, now preserved in the State Paper
Office, reveals that Lee was discovered to have been a most determined United
Irishman, and had joined the fleet for the sole object of helping the cause he had
at heart. Lee and Duckett seem to have acted in concert. How largely the British
navy was composed of Irish sailors, and under what circumstances their
discontent originated, appear from an amusing anecdote. Shortly before
Trafalgar, the first lieutenant of a man-of-war, when making his rounds to see
that all hands were at their guns, observed an Irish sailor kneeling in prayer:
'What! are you afraid?' exclaimed the officer. 'Afeard, indeed!' replied the tar,
contemptuously. 'I was only praying that the shots of the French might be
distributed like the prize money—the lion's share among the officers.' Tone
assured Carnot that England had recently raised 80,000 Irishmen for her navy
and marines. Carnot did not tell him in reply to reserve that statement for the
marines themselves, but took it as strict truth. The computation, however, will
not stand historic scrutiny. According to an official return, it appears that Ireland
had furnished 11,457 men for the navy, and 4,058 for the marines.
[283] Of course with the sanction of Bishop Douglas, whose name is often
mentioned in the Castlereagh Correspondence.

CHAPTER XI
THE BETRAYER OF LORD EDWARD
FITZGERALD[284]
Another man there was of the same type as Turner, who posed in
impenetrable disguise, but unlike Reynolds and Armstrong, spied in secrecy
and on the express condition that he should not be asked to give public
evidence and thus damage his social status.
An historian often quoted in these pages is not safe in suggesting that we
may find behind the mask of Lord Downshire's visitor the betrayer of Lord
Edward Fitzgerald. The utterly distinct quarter to which the Geraldine's
arrest is due will presently appear. Lord Edward had the command of
Leinster. Turner had mainly to do with Ulster. Guiltless he was of Lord
Edward's betrayal in Dublin, for the simple reason, no doubt, that living
abroad himself he knew nothing of his hiding-places. All other sensational
incidents of that stirring time paled before the sorrow by which Lord
Edward's arrest and death oppressed the people. A Dublin ballad expressed
the fierce anxiety felt to discover and destroy the veiled betrayer—

May Heaven scorch and parch the tongue by which his life
was sold,
And shrivel up the hand that clutched the proffered meed of
gold.

Whilst, on the other hand, ballads inspired by loyal ardour did not hesitate
to regard as a holy work the annihilation of Lord Edward Fitzgerald.[285]
In 1830, when continental thrones trembled and others fell, Moore
published his interesting 'Life of Lord Edward'—a work which, however
popular and opportune, will not bear a critical scrutiny as regards historic
exactness. 'From my mention of these particulars respecting Neilson,' writes
Moore, 'it cannot fail to have struck the reader that some share of the
suspicion of having betrayed Lord Edward attaches to this man.' Moore's

book attained a wide circulation, and the descendants of Neilson naturally
felt the wounding words. A letter of his daughter strongly protests against
them, and expresses a hope that allowance will be made 'for the indignant
feelings of a child who has always been proud of her father's character.'
Colonel Miles Byrne, a shrewd head which narrowly escaped the axe in '98,
failed to endorse the imputation on Neilson, but hesitated not to declare that
Lord Edward had been 'betrayed, and discovered by Reynolds, a United
Irishman, to the agents of Government.'[286] In this random shot the Colonel
missed his mark. The flaming patriot, Walter Cox, often states in his
magazine that Laurence Tighe had shadowed to death the Geraldine chief.
Thereupon Dr. Brennan, in the 'Milesian Magazine,' broadly charged Cox
with the perfidy. Murphy, an honest, simple man, in whose house Lord
Edward was taken, has not been exempted from suspicion. 'Lord Edward's
concealment,' observes Patrick Brophy, 'became known through a soldier
who was courting Murphy's servant girl;' forgetting that Thomas Moore, in
his account of the arrest, incidentally remarks: 'an old maidservant was the
only person in Murphy's house besides themselves.' Maxwell, in his
'History of the Rebellion,' said of Neilson, 'Thou art the man.' Mark
O'Callaghan, in his 'Life of O'Connell,' brands John Hughes as having
received 1,000l. for Lord Edward's blood, thus endorsing the indictment
previously framed by Dr. Madden.[287] The son and biographer of Reynolds
flings suspicion on Murphy; while Murphy, in his own account, says: 'I
heard in prison that one of Lord Edward's bodyguard had given some
information.' Again, Felix Rourke was suspected, and narrowly escaped
death at the hands of his comrades. Suspicion also attached to Mr. Ogilvie,
who, as a near connection, visited Lord Edward in Thomas Street a few
days before the arrest, and transacted business with him. Interesting as it is,
after near a century's speculation, to know the name of the real informer, it
is still more satisfactory that those unjustly suspected should now be finally
acquitted.
'On the 18th of May' [1798], writes Mr. Froude, 'Major Sirr received
communications from a quarter unhinted at in the most secret letters of the
Viceroy, telling him where Lord Edward could be found.'[288] I proceed to
point out 'the quarter.'
In 1841 Dr. Madden obtained access to a book in which Mr. Cooke,
formerly Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle, had made secret entries of

various payments to informers. Amongst these items is: 'June 20, 1798, F.
H. discovery of L. E. F. 1,000l.' Although Cooke disclosed merely the
initials 'F. H.,' he gave the name in full when recommending the informer
for a pension. Writing to Lord Castlereagh in 1799, Mr. Cooke says:
'Francis Higgins,[289] proprietor of the "Freeman's Journal," was the person
who procured for me all the intelligence respecting Lord Edward Fitzgerald,
and got —— to set him, and has given me much information, 300l.' This
300l. was an annual stipend.
The 'Freeman's Journal' at this time was the organ of Dublin Castle, and it is
stated in a memoir of Secretary Cooke that he had written for that paper.
Hence a frequent intercourse subsisted between Cooke and Higgins; and the
evidence is conclusive as to Higgins having received the Government
reward. But the person of whose good name Cooke is so careful that in
writing to Castlereagh he considerately puts a blank for it, was not so easily
traced when first I took up this inquiry. Mr. Ross, editor of the 'Cornwallis
Papers,' who was allowed to ransack the archives at Dublin Castle, writes:
'The man who gave the information which led to his [Lord Edward's] arrest,
received 1,000l., but his name has never transpired.'
The point is now to prove that Francis Magan, M.A., barrister-at-law, a man
traditionally described as one of the most unsociable of men, was the
private friend and political ally of Higgins.
Thomas Magan, of High Street, Dublin, was the father of Francis. The
leading journal of that city, in its issue of June 30, 1787, records how, on the
previous evening, 'Mr. Magan, of High Street, entertained Mr. Francis
Higgins' and others. 'The glass circulated freely, and the evening was spent
with the utmost festivity and sociality.' The editor concludes by styling him
'Honest Tom Magan.' On November 5, 1789, he returns to the charge:—
Mr. Magan, the woollen-draper in High Street, in conjunction
with his friend Mr. Higgins, are preparing ropes and human
brutes to drag the new Viceroy to the palace. It was Mr. Magan
and the Sham Squire who provided the materials for the
triumphal entry of Lord Buckingham into the capital.[290] ... Mr.
Magan is really clever, and never has flinched in his partiality
and attention to the cause of Mr. Francis Higgins—Mr. Magan
has the honour, and that frequently, to dine Higgins.[291]

From an old Directory it appears that Tom Magan's loyal zeal was
acknowledged about this time by his appointment as 'Woollen Draper and
Mercer to His Majesty'[292]—one of the few paltry boons to which, in penal
days, a slavish Catholic trader dare aspire. In 1793 a Catholic Relief Bill
passed, and the bar was opened to Papists—a concession due to the
menacing attitude of the United Irishmen and the boom of the French
Revolution. Tom Magan's son, Francis, entered Trinity College, Dublin;
graduated in 1794; and became a member of the bar—probably on the
suggestion of Higgins, who was an attorney. In 1795 Francis Magan left the
parental roof-tree in High Street and took house for himself at 20 Usher's
Island, where he continued to live until his death in 1843. This house
having been the residence of the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Dr.
Carpenter, who died there a few years previously, was regarded
reverentially by the survivors of his flock.
'Will no one urge Lord Edward to fly—I pledge myself that every port in
the kingdom shall be left open to him'—said Lord Chancellor Clare. But
money was to be made of his blood; and vampire instincts must needs be
sated. The arrest was not effected until Saturday, May 19, although a
proclamation promising 1,000l. as its price had been out since March.
Higgins, who constantly transmitted the result of his espionage to Dublin
Castle, was now more than ordinarily on the qui vive. At Moira House,
Usher's Island, Pamela, wife of Lord Edward, sometimes stayed. In March,
Leinster House, Kildare Street, was searched by soldiers—on which
occasion Major Swan said to Lady Edward: 'This is an unpleasant duty for
any gentleman to perform.'—'It is a task which no gentleman would
perform,' was the reply.[293] She little dreamed that men whose friendship
she valued were playing a part still more ungentlemanly. On this occasion
Lord Edward narrowly escaped; thenceforth he avoided both Leinster
House and Moira House, unless for stealthy visits, and for weeks he
remained hidden at Portobello near Dublin.
Thomas Moore, when engaged on the 'Life of Lord Edward,' had an
interview with Major Sirr, and learned from him that on May 17,[294] 1798,
'he received information that a party of persons, supposed to be Lord
Edward Fitzgerald's bodyguard, would be on their way from Thomas Street
to Usher's Island that night.' Their destination, Moore adds, he had failed to

discover. I am in a position to show, however, that the party were on their
way to the house of Francis Magan and his sister, in Usher's Island. Mr.
James Moore, of 119 Thomas Street, had given Lord Edward shelter when
1,000l. lay on his head; but a carpenter named Tuite—who worked in
Dublin Castle, and knew Moore—having overheard Cooke say that Moore's
house should be searched, gave a timely hint to Moore, who therefore fled
to Meath, previously telling his daughter to provide for Lord Edward's
safety. Francis Magan and his sister were well known and respected by
Miss Moore. She conferred with Magan on the subject, and an arrangement
was made that Lord Edward should move that night from Moore's in
Thomas Street to Usher's Island and occupy a bedroom in Magan's house.
[295]
But it was suggested that, as two or three people knocking at his hall
door on Usher's Island might attract attention, it would be safer to admit
them by his stable in Island Street, which lay immediately at the rear. The
biographer of Lord Edward knew nothing of Miss Moore's arrangement
with Magan; but he casually mentions that the Government received
information of his lordship's intended visit to Usher's Island. Major Sirr,
attended by a guard, proceeded to the quarter pointed out; a conflict
between the parties took place; 'and,' adds the biographer, 'Sirr in defending
himself lost his footing and fell; and had not those with whom he was
engaged been much more occupied with their noble charge than with him,
he could hardly have escaped. But their chief object being Lord Edward's
safety, after snapping a pistol or two at Sirr they hurried away.'[296]
Several volumes containing the original correspondence of Major Sirr are
now preserved in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. Amongst them is
the following letter:—
Lord Edward will be this evening[297] in Watling Street. Place a
watch in Watling Street, two houses up from Usher's Island,[298]
another towards Queen's Bridge;[299] a third in Island Street, at
the rear of the stables near Watling Street, and which leads up to
Thomas Street and Dirty Lane. At one of these places Lord
Edward will be found, and will have one or two with him. They
may be armed. Send to Swan and Atkinson as soon as you can.
[300]

Edward Cooke.

Cooke, with due consideration for the feelings of Magan and Higgins, does
not tell Sirr from whom the information came; but the plot now thickens,
and will be soon made clear.
Miss Moore—afterwards Mrs. Macready—died in 1844. To her son, she
said:—'The Government got timely information that we were going to
Usher's Island. Now this intention was known only to Magan and me; even
Lord Edward did not know our destination until just before starting. If
Magan is innocent, then I am the informer.'
On the day after Magan's apparently humane arrangement with Miss Moore
he called at her house, anxiously inquiring if aught had happened, as he had
waited up until the small hours, and yet Lord Edward did not come! Miss
Moore, not suspecting Magan, replied: 'We were stopped in Watling Street;
we hurried back to Thomas Street, where we providentially succeeded in
getting Lord Edward a room at Murphy's.' Mr. Magan, satisfied by the
explanation, leisurely withdrew, but, no doubt, quickened his gait on
reaching the street. That evening, at four o'clock, Murphy's house was
surrounded by soldiers, and Lord Edward, after a desperate resistance, was
secured, and conveyed in a sedan-chair to the Castle.
Higgins claimed, and received, 1,000l. as the price. How much was given
by him to the 'setter,' or what precise agreement subsisted between them, I
have no document to show. A pension was bestowed upon Magan, and I
find in the Secret Service account the following entry: 'September 11, 1800
—Magan, per Mr. Higgins, 300l.'
The name of Thomas Magan, the father of the betrayer, disappears from the
Directory in 1797—from which I, at first, inferred that his death occurred
about that time. But it now appears that he subsided into bankruptcy. On
May 2, 1798, the assignees of Thomas Magan, woollen-draper, a bankrupt,
grant to John Corballis, for the consideration of 690l., some house property
belonging to Magan.[301] This date is worthy of attention; it is one fortnight
before the arrest of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. The difficulties of the Magan
family had been gathering for some years. They commenced in 1793, when
Higgins lent Thomas Magan 1,000l.; and three years later, as will be seen,
another thousand. 'The borrower is servant to the lender,' saith the proverb.
Further search in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, discloses two
additional mortgages from Thomas Magan, senior, to Francis Higgins—one

for 2,341l., another for 1,000l. The 'witness is Francis Magan.'[302] Their
date is July 7, 1796, when very serious embarrassments threatened the
family. How closely Shamado's toils[303] grasped father and son is now
clear; and let us hope that when Francis Magan was persuaded by his
tempter to sell Lord Edward's blood, he muttered, not without emotion, 'My
poverty, and not my will, consents.'[304]
The name 'James Dixon' appears in the private list, supplied by Mr. Froude,
of those who constituted the executive Committee of the United Irishmen in
1795, and 'by whom the whole organisation was managed.' Dr. Madden
does not seem to know this, and says merely[305] that 'James Dickson
hospitably treated and succoured on all occasions the families of the State
prisoners.' The late Mathias O'Kelly told me that one of the few persons
with whom Magan lived, in early life, on terms of intimacy was 'James
Dickson, of Kilmainham,' and that he had repeatedly met Magan at Dixon's
house. 'Dixon was deeper in the confidence of the rebel party than many
more prominent leaders,' adds O'Kelly. 'He took the chair at the meeting of
United Irishmen which had been convened to thank Napper Tandy for
challenging Attorney-General Toler, afterwards Lord Norbury; and he was
twice imprisoned for alleged complicity in the rebellion.' But the
Government treated him with a consideration extended to few others; and,
on the grounds of ill-health, he was permitted to leave Kilmainham Gaol
daily on short riding excursions.[306]
Undemonstrative in his habits, it is not easy to trace him in the scanty
reports of contemporary newspapers. On May 17, 1797, a meeting of
barristers was held urging the Government to 'yield to the moderate wishes
of the people, and thereby defeat the designs of any party dangerous to the
country;' and amongst the seventy-three signatories, with Francis Magan,
were T. A. Emmet, H. Sheares (afterwards hanged), Robert Orr, B. B.
Harvey (commander at Vinegar Hill in '98, and also hanged), W. Sampson,
Robert Holmes, J. Philpot Curran, L. McNally, and many other popular
men, some recognised as members of the United Irish Society, such as
Joseph Huband, and W. Newton Bennett, afterwards a chief justice.[307] The
subsequent Baron, Smith, is there too with Robert Johnson, dismissed from
the bench in 1806, and George Ponsonby, afterwards Lord Chancellor. In
1797 they stood upon a pitfall, but by a miracle escaped.

Francis Magan posed through life as the pink of propriety. Before the last
century closed he had strong claims for secret service; but I cannot doubt,
knowing his quiet and somewhat nervous nature, that whatever information
he gave must have been communicated through Higgins. The latter owned a
newspaper, which was the openly subsidised organ of the Government. He
constantly assailed the popular party with invective; so that, unless through
Magan, he could have had no opportunity of approaching the patriots, much
less sucking their brains.
My contention as regards Magan was first expressed in a 'Note on the
Cornwallis Papers' printed thirty years ago,[308] and it is with no small
interest that I now find all my suspicions confirmed by Magan's own letters.
The letters of Higgins to Cooke claiming blood-money for Magan form the
crowning proof of that which at first was mere theory. Magan was an
informer of the most mercenary type—constantly tendering his services,
and withholding information when coin ceased to clink.
The earliest mention of Magan by name is in 1797; the reports of Higgins
are specially full at that date, no doubt the fruit of intercourse with Magan,
who was completely his creature. One, undated, says: 'On Wednesday last,
Jackson, Dixon, Magan, and a large party dined at McKinley's, opposite
Kilmainham Gaol. The two first went into the prison, and distributed money
which the prisoners had wrote for.'
Many letters follow. Higgins told enough to show how important a spy
Magan could become if betrayal were made worth his while. On December
29, 1797, he writes: 'You have not, dear Sir, determined as to M. At such a
momentous and critical period ... every intelligence should be obtained for
Government.'[309]
But is the proof certain that 'M.' means Magan? Higgins four days later
returns to the charge, adding: 'You have said nothing about Magan, and will
let his information slip through your hands, as he is about to go down to
Belfast, and thence to England.'[310]
Higgins and Magan, strange to say, did not know that the democratic
barrister, McNally, was already in pay as a spy. Part of the information
furnished concerns McNally's movements, which may have made Cooke
indifferent as regards some of the letters. Higgins, on January 3, 1798,
reports that at the pillorying of Finnerty, Lord Edward, O'Connor, Bond,

Sheares and McNally attended the rebel as a mark of sympathy. Magan was
hungry for Lord Edward's blood; and Cooke must needs be brought at once
to business. On January 5, 1798, Higgins says he will 'fix Magan to meet
Cooke at dinner,' and 'shall in the course of to-day or to-morrow give you a
hint of his terms.'
The dinner did its work. The ill-fated priest O'Coigly—or Quigly—was
now 'wanted,' but meanwhile other wants must needs be satisfied.
M. wants money, and I am sure will serve your intention
[Higgins writes]; let him have it, and I will bring you his receipt.
I shall also send him in quest of Quigly.[311] Permit me,
however, to mention that you have not half sufficiently
examined M. I shall, therefore, set down an outline for you, or
obtain him to attend when you can be more particular.[312]
Four days later he writes:—
M. dines with Jackson,[313] etc., to-morrow. He promises to have
many particulars. Two days before O'Connor sailed for England,
M——, Emmet, and Lord Edward Fitzgerald dined with Fallon
on settling a plan as to Galway. Fallon is a man of property.[314]
A bundle of letters covering six weeks follows. Magan feigned to be the
attached friend of his victims, and was so entirely trusted that they resolved
to give him higher office in the rebel executive.
M. wishes you to send wt [what] was promised on the 28th. He
is to be elected into office.[315]
A letter dated March 7, 1798, contains a long account from Magan, through
Higgins, regarding persons from Belfast and Wexford, recently forming
deputations from their committees. 'He is to be with me at 12 o'clock to-
morrow. I request you will be so good as to recollect sending to me for him
as promised.' Magan was duly pumped, and Higgins, on March 15, writes:
'M. was with me this day, and seemed as if I had received a second 100l. for
him. For God's sake send it, and don't let me appear in so awkward a
situation.' And on March 23, 1798, Higgins writes:
M. became quite offended that I did not send wt was promised.
He has not communicated anything to me for the ten days past,

tho I know he must have much information to give in.
The money was sent, and Magan's tattle was resumed.
This night there is to be a meeting at Lawless's.[316] I shall learn
to-morrow the nature of it. I would wish to put you in
possession of something M. knows of, that you may ask and
interrogate him about them, and let him agree to come to a fixed
point of information. I know it is (or will be from his late
election) in his power.[317]
Raised to a post of trust and authority in the organisation, Magan's power of
betrayal became, of course, largely increased. He had hitherto
communicated solely through Higgins. Stimulated by reward, he now
addressed Cooke direct, but anonymously. Cooke, however, has endorsed
the letter 'Mag.' It is dated not from Usher's Island, where he lived, but from
Higgins' house in Stephen's Green, and the handwriting is the same as that
in a later document with an acknowledged signature.
I did not receive your promised favour till Easter Monday last,
and on reading your letter requested Mr. H. to know your leisure
for an interview.... He wrote me a most pressing letter not to
leave town.... At the risk of my personal safety I accompanied
him in a carriage to your door.... I have all along had in
contemplation to put you in possession of some act that would
essentially serve the Government as well as the country, and it
may not be very long till such is effected. At present perhaps
you may not know that Lord Edward lurks about town and its
vicinity; he with Nelson was a few days ago in the custody of a
patrol in the neighbourhood of Lucan, but not being known and
assuming other names, they were not detained for any length of
time.[318] Nelson is now the most active man, and affects, if he
really does not hold, the first situation. For my part I sometimes
imagine he is the person that communicated with Government;
however, suspicion has not pointed at him.[319] His absence, I
know, at the present moment would be considered as very fatal
to the cause in Dublin. I have just this moment heard Lord
Edward has been mostly in Thomas Street.[320]

On May Day 1798, when boys and girls were rejoicing, and the May-pole at
Finglas was the scene of a festivity in glad welcome of the coming flowers,
Higgins writes in great fuss to Cooke that a more formidable rising was at
hand, adding: 'If you can see M. this night, you can bring out where Lord
Edward is concealed.' 'What hour shall I bring M. this night, if your leisure
will permit? Remember to bring him to a point—I mean about Lord
Edward.' But his lordship's frequent change of abode baulked the projected
capture. Mr. Lecky considers that the search must have been made with
singular languor to produce such little fruit. It should be remembered,
however, that no police force deserving the name existed in Dublin; and that
arrests were usually made, as eventually in Lord Edward's case, by
detachments of military.
On May 15 Higgins wrote to Cooke:—
M. seems mortified that when he placed matters within the reach
of Government the opportunity was neglected.... Lord Edward
skulks from house to house—has watches and spies around who
give an account of any danger being near. It is intended he shall
go into the country (it is thought Kildare) and make a rising.
Give me leave to remind you of sending to M.
Magan is shown to have met Lord Edward at council at this time, but it was
not easy to seize the chief on such occasions. Higgins was the Castle
journalist, and could throw off letters with ease. Mr. Lecky says that his
missives to Cooke would be found most useful material in illustrating the
history of his time; and, no doubt, they are destined some day to see the
light. Higgins uniformly writes of Lord Edward as a monster of evil, but it
is due to the ill-fated Geraldine to say that men whose testimony ranks far
higher record a different estimate.[321] Lord Holland, a Cabinet minister,
thus writes of him:—
More than twenty years have now passed away. Many of my
political opinions are softened—my predilections for some men
weakened, my prejudices against others removed; but my
approbation of Lord Edward Fitzgerald's actions remains
unaltered and unshaken. His country was bleeding under one of
the hardest tyrannies that our times have witnessed.[322]

If he had personal ambition to gratify, the powerful influence of his family
could easily have fed it to repletion. His life was one of sacrifice and attests
the sincerity of his soul.
Higgins thought that Cooke was not sufficiently alive to the importance of
Magan's hints. He now tells Cooke that an attack on Dublin Castle had been
proposed and adopted, but this information may have been embellished to
rouse the Irish Government. 'M. thinks it is on the ensuing Tuesday or
Wednesday, but will be certain for your information,' he writes. 'He says the
300l. promised should have been given at once.... However, I have given
him leave to draw upon me, and fully satisfied him of the honourable
intentions of Government where service was actually performed, and of
your kind attention if he would go forward among the meetings,
communicate what is transacting, and, if found necessary, point out the spot
where they may be seized, etc. This he has at length agreed to do.'[323]
The reader will remember Magan's arrangement with Miss Moore that, for
Lord Edward's greater safety, the noble fugitive was to shift his quarters
from James Moore's house to Magan's. The latter, to screen himself from
suspicion, felt anxious that Lord Edward's capture should be made in the
street.
... I also mentioned your kind promise of obtaining 1000l. for
him (without the mention of his name or enrolment of it in any
book) on having the business done, which he pointed out before
the issuing of the proclamation. He, therefore, puts himself on
your honour not to admit of any person to come and search his
house (which I ventured to promise you would have observed),
but to place watches after dusk, this night near the end of
Watling Street or two houses up in that street from Usher's
Island ... [here the pith of Mr. Cooke's letter, see p. 122 ante, is
given], and at one of these places they will find Lord Edward
disguised. He wears a wig and may have been otherwise
metamorphosed, attended by one or two, but followed by
several armed banditti with new daggers. He intends to give
battle if not suddenly seized.[324]
The 'armed banditti' consisted merely of Mrs. and Miss Moore, Gallagher, a
clerk in Moore's employ, and a man named Palmer.[325] This is the account

furnished to me in a most circumstantial statement by the late Mr.
Macready, the son of Miss Moore. She had been educated in Tours; Lord
Edward always conversed with her in French, and he usually passed as her
French tutor. The hour was 8.30 in a lovely May evening. Palmer and
Gallagher walked some yards in advance, and were the first to come in
contact with Sirr's party at the corner of Island Street. Sirr gave Gallagher
an ugly wound which afterwards favoured identification. The latter, a
powerful man, made two or three stabs at Sirr, who fell in the struggle, but,
as he wore a coat of mail, he was able, after a few moments, to regain his
feet. Lord Edward was also in handigrips with one of Sirr's guard; both
came to the ground, but with no more ill result to his lordship than some
unsightly daubs of mud on his coat. In the confusion the ladies hurried back
with their noble charge to Thomas Street, leaving Palmer and Gallagher to
hold Sirr at bay. The party abandoned their design of going to Magan's,
though not from any distrust of his fidelity, and obtained shelter for Lord
Edward in the house of a faithful adherent named Murphy with whom he
had previously stayed. Miss Moore told Magan next day the whole
adventure, and how the retreat had been safely effected. Lord Edward was
lying on his bed in Murphy's attic, after having drunk some whey to relieve
a bad cold, when Major Swan and Captain Ryan peeped in at the door,
exclaiming that resistance would be vain. At once Fitzgerald started up like
a lion from his lair and rushed at Swan. Revolvers were as yet unknown and
his pistol missed fire; he then drew a dagger. The account furnished by
Swan to a Government print states:—
His lordship then closed upon Mr. Swan, shortened the dagger,
and gave him a stab in the side, under the left arm and breast,
having first changed it from one hand to the other over his
shoulder (as Mr. Swan thinks). Finding the blood running from
him, and the impossibility to restrain him, he was compelled, in
defence of his life, to discharge a double-barrelled pistol at his
lordship, which wounded him in the shoulder: he fell on the bed,
but, recovering himself, ran at him with the dagger, which Mr.
Swan caught by the blade with one hand, and endeavoured to
trip him up.[326]
Captain Ryan then came upon the scene, but his flint lock missed fire; and
thereupon he lurched at Lord Edward with a sword-cane, which bent on his

ribs. Sirr had been engaged in placing pickets round the house, when the
report of Swan's pistol brought him upstairs.
On my arrival in view of Lord Edward, Ryan, and Swan [writes
Major Sirr, in a letter addressed to Ryan's son], I beheld his
lordship standing with a dagger in his hand as if ready to plunge
it into my friends, while dear Ryan, seated on the bottom step of
the flight of the upper stairs, had Lord Edward grasped with
both his arms by the legs or thighs, and Swan in a somewhat
similar situation, both labouring under the torment of their
wounds, when, without hesitation, I fired at Lord Edward's
dagger arm, and the instrument of death fell to the ground.
Having secured the titled prisoner, my first concern was for your
dear father's safety. I viewed his intestines with grief and sorrow.
Lord Edward, in fact, had completely ripped him open. Although Sirr had
lodged several slugs in his lordship's right shoulder, he continued to fight
furiously until the soldiers, of whom more than 200 were present,
overwhelmed him by pressing their heavy firelocks across his person. They
had brought him as far as the hall, when he made another desperate effort to
escape, and a drummer from behind stabbed him in the neck.[327] Previous
to this scene Higgins plied Cooke with gossip from Magan, as the case
about to be cited will show.
The nickname applied to Pamela in the following extract was due to a
popular rumour that her parents were Madame de Genlis and Philippe
Egalité, Duke of Orleans: 'Lady Egality complains dreadfully about Lord
Castlereagh ordering a short passport. She will have letters sewed or quilted
in her clothes, and goes to Hamburg. I shall send you particulars.'[328]
Lady Fitzgerald was at this time at Moira House, within a few doors of
Magan; and the concluding words go to show that he had access to the
house, and was entirely conversant with its domestic doings; the status,
politics and attainments of so near a neighbour would facilitate access to its
gilded salons.[329] Lord Edward probably sent, through Magan, messages to
Pamela. Magan acted his part so plausibly that on the very night Lord
Edward lay a bleeding captive in Newgate, he was raised by the votes of
United Irishmen to a still higher post in the organisation.

Lord Edward had been arrested in Murphy's house; and Mr. Lecky
remarks[330] that there is no mention of the place in the letters of Higgins.
The latter, to save time, may have given the hint orally. Higgins resided
within twelve minutes' walk of Cooke's office. Mr. Lecky states:[331] 'He
[Higgins] was accustomed to go openly and frequently to the Castle.' Cooke
told Sirr that if he would go on the following day, between five and six
P.M., to the house of Murphy in Thomas Street, he would find Lord Edward
there.[332]
On May 20, when Lord Edward was dying of his wounds in Newgate,
Magan furnishes through Higgins fresh hints, and promises further
information 'to-morrow.' 'He was elected last night of the committee,' adds
Higgins. 'I had a great deal of exertion to go through to keep him steady,
and was obliged last week to advance him money.' On June 8 Higgins
writes: 'I cannot get from M. a single sentence of who assumes a Directory.
I have so frequently put him off about the payment of the 1,000l. that he
thinks I am humbugging him.'[333]
It will be remembered that, according to a secret entry of Cooke's, 1,000l.
was paid on June 20 to 'F. H.' for the discovery of 'L. E. F.,' and he observed
the compact that Magan's name should not appear. Magan thought that there
was an effort to 'humbug' him as regards the blood-money which he earned,
but he knew how to 'humbug' a little himself. Higgins, setting forth his own
claims, tells Cooke, later on: 'By your interference Mr. M. obtained 300l.
for expenses; give me leave solemnly to assure you that I paid every
possible expense he was at, and more than I can mention.'[334]
Magan was one of the first Catholic barristers called after the Relief Bill of
1793, and wore an aspect highly demure and proper. He was a trump card in
the hands of Higgins, which, if adroitly played, could not fail to clear the
board. But with what a small share of the winnings Magan was content is
consistent with all we know of his crawling career.[335] Arthur O'Connor,
writing to Dr. Madden in 1842, says: 'So far as I could learn, no one
betrayed Lord Edward'—a striking testimony to the secrecy with which the
thing was done.[336]
Magan, the better to cloak his treachery, and to command that confidence
the fruit of which was distilled into dainty drops for Cooke's ear, continued

to manifest popular sympathies. He went further, and on December 9, 1798,
is found taking part against the Government in a debate and division, where
his feeble voice could carry no influence, unless to deceive democratic
friends. It was on the occasion of the bar meeting, in Dublin, convened to
discuss and oppose the Legislative Union. Francis Magan's name may be
found on the patriotic side, in company with Bushe, Burton, Barrington,
Burrowes, Curran, Fletcher, Plunket, Ponsonby, and Leonard McNally.
Passing on to 1802, we find a round sum of 500l. slipped into the hands of
Francis Magan on December 15 in that year, as appears by 'an account of
Secret Service money applied in the detection of treasonable conspiracies.'
This is the same amount which was given in 1848 for the discovery of
Smith O'Brien, and again in September 1865 for Stephens, the Fenian head
centre; while in 1798 only 300l. was offered for Neilson and General
Lawless. The discovery which earned the reward of 500l. in December
1803 must have been esteemed of importance. What that discovery was has
been hitherto involved in mystery; but the succeeding chapter, devoted to
William Todd Jones, may help to make it clear. The 500l. is given to Magan
direct, nearly eleven months after the death of Higgins, through whom
Magan's information had been previously conveyed to Dublin Castle. He
was now thrown on his own resources, and seems to have been less
squeamish than of yore. Were Higgins then living the refresher might have
been less, for 'Shamado' had no objection to a lion's share. And one is not
surprised to read in Plowden that Higgins, originally a pauper, died worth
40,000l.[337]
Magan continued successfully to preserve his mask. A great aggregate
meeting was held on December 18, 1812, to protest against acts of the Irish
Government, and among the signatures convening it are those of Daniel
O'Connell and Francis Magan. This fact is brought out in a memoir of the
Liberator by his son, who, however, does not suspect Magan.
It was a national crisis. Meetings in aid of Catholic Emancipation had just
been forcibly dispersed. Lords Fingall, Netterville, and Ffrench were
dragged from the seats in which, as chairmen, they presided. Other
signatories who, with Magan, convened this meeting, were the three
Catholic peers just mentioned, Dr. T. Dromgoole, Bernard Coyle, Sylvester
Costigan, Con McLoughlin, and Fitzgerald of Geraldine—the latter five
having been, as well as O'Connell, United Irishmen.

I was not surprised to hear from Mathias O'Kelly,[338] an old member of the
Catholic Board and at one time secretary to the Catholic Association, that
Magan possessed the respect and confidence of those bodies. He seemed to
prove the sincerity of his sympathy in the most practical way, and rarely
gave less than ten pounds as a subscription to their funds. It is, no doubt, to
Magan that Wellington refers in his letter to Dublin Castle, dated London,
November 17, 1808: 'I think that, as there are some interesting Catholic
questions afloat now, you might feed —— with another 100l.'[339]
Dr. Dirham, who from his boyhood had resided on Usher's Island, heard it
rumoured, he told me, that Magan during the troubled times kept frequently
open the door of his stable in Island Street to facilitate espionage.[340] Moira
House, now the 'Mendicity Institution,' is situated within a few doors of No.
20, Usher's Island, the residence for half a century of Francis Magan. As
already mentioned, Pamela, the beautiful wife of Lord Edward Fitzgerald,
received in the stormy period of '98 hospitable shelter from Lady Moira. To
my surprise I find, in a manuscript life of Dwyer the outlaw, by the late
Luke Cullen, a Carmelite friar, that two of Emmet's most active emissaries,
Wylde and Mahon, lay concealed in Moira House while a proclamation
offering 500l.[341] for their capture was being widely circulated. Before this
curious fact came to my knowledge, it will be seen, from a former work of
mine dealing with informers, that on utterly distinct circumstantial evidence
I sought to trace Magan as on the track of Wylde and Mahon at Philipstown
during the same eventful year.
Major Sirr made a private note, which remains duly on record[342] that the
retreat of Wylde and Mahon 'is sometimes at the gaoler's in Philipstown,
who is married to Wylde's sister.' The following entry appears in the
'account of secret service money employed in detecting treasonable
conspiracies per affidavit of Mr. Cooke': 'April 2, 1803. Francis Magan, by
post to Philipstown—100l.'[343]
In the State Papers of the time I can find no letters bearing on this
transaction, and therefore I must seek to trace it on circumstantial evidence.
Who can doubt that Magan, when a refresher reached him at Philipstown,
was in hot scent after Wylde and Mahon? Later on, during the same year,
we find Captain Caulfield and a party of military laying siege to the house
at Philipstown in which Wylde and Mahon were suspected to be concealed.

An account of a skirmish is supplied by Captain Caulfield in a letter, dated
December 17, 1803, also preserved in the Sirr papers: 'Captain Dodgson
was killed, and,' adds Caulfield, 'we were obliged to retire, while the
villains made their escape.'[344]
Luke Cullen, the Carmelite already referred to, spent his later life gathering
from the peasantry their recollections of the troubled times. His manuscript
life of Dwyer has been placed in my hands by the superior of Clondalkin
monastery. Folios 595 to 597 describe Wylde and Mahon's refuge at
Philipstown, the abortive efforts to catch them there, and afterwards their
concealment at Moira House, Dublin. The governor of Philipstown Gaol,
we learn, was a near connection of both. They are stated by Cullen to have
at last effected their escape from Moira House, Usher's Island, in a boat
which rapidly passed out of the bay. Having reached the United States,
Wylde and Mahon joined the army, and found speedy promotion. The
statement that two proscribed men, most active propagandists of Emmet's
plans, lay under Lord Moira's ægis seems startling; but this statesman and
his countess had very popular sympathies, and liked to succour rebels. The
late Mr. Thomas Geoghegan, solicitor, informed me that two uncles of his
named Clements, who were United Irishmen, obtained refuge at Moira
House while warrants were out for their arrest, and finally succeeded in
escaping all pains and penalties owing to the precautions taken by Lady
Moira.
It is not a little singular that General Lord Moira, who, later on, was offered
the Viceroyalties of Ireland and of India, and who in 1812, on the death of
Percival, sought to form an administration, should have performed the
perilous task of harbouring men who loved Ireland 'not wisely, but too well.'
Portland, in a letter to Camden, dated 11 March, 1798, classes with 'the
disaffected,' 'Lord Moira and his adherents.' This impression was partly due
to his indignant protest in Parliament against that policy of torture by which
the people had been daily goaded to rebel.
Magan's life involved some strange contradictions. Proud, and even
haughty, he yet hesitated not to commit base acts; with the wages of
dishonour he paid his just debts. An interesting letter, in reply to a query,
was addressed to the present writer by the late John Fetherstonhaugh, of
Griffinstown, Kinnegad. His grandfather, Thomas Fetherston, of Bracket
Castle, was, he states, in the habit for years of lodging in High Street,

Dublin, at the house of Thomas Magan, a draper, 'and departed this life in
his house.'[345] Fetherston's son, on inspecting his papers, found a joint bond
from the draper and his son, Francis Magan, for 1,000l., and on speaking to
the former respecting its payment, he declared that he was insolvent.
So my father [adds Mr. Fetherston] put it into his desk, counting
it waste paper. Some years elapsed and the son came to Bracket
Castle, my father's residence, and asked for the bond. 'For what?'
said my father. To his astonishment, he said it was to pay it. I
was then but a boy, but I can now almost see the strange scene—
it made so great an impression on me. Often my father told me
Magan paid the 1,000l., and he could not conceive where he got
it, as he never held a brief in court; and he was always puzzled
why the Crown gave him place and pension.[346]
James Dickson of Kilmainham has been more than once mentioned in these
pages. As soon as he had been discharged from gaol, in the absence of
evidence to convict him in a court of law, he opened his house for the
entertainment and solace of the families of the State prisoners. But his
guests were not confined wholly to the United Brotherhood. My informant,
the late Mathias O'Kelly, often met there William Todd Jones, of whose
arrest in 1803, on suspicion of complicity in Emmet's treason, volumes
were published; Lord Kingsland, famous for a career of marvellous
vicissitude; Mrs. Neilson, wife of the rebel leader, then imprisoned at Fort
George; and Plowden, the popular historian, who gathered at Dickson's
table much valuable information. The house was quite a centre of liberal
opinion in Dublin, and no man shared Dickson's confidence more fully than
Magan. Mathias O'Kelly greatly respected Magan, and thirty years ago,
when I first started my suspicion, he laboured hard to convince me that I
was entirely wrong. Magan told O'Kelly that he had been a member of the
Society of United Irishmen, but withdrew from it when he saw it drifting
into dangerous courses. The reverse is the fact. He played his part so well
that at the time of his betrayals he was promoted to a high post in the rebel
executive.[347]
In 1832 a brochure was 'printed for the author by William Shaw, Dublin,'
which must have quickened the sluggish pulse of Mr. and Miss Magan. It
was 'An Impartial Enquiry respecting the Betrayal of Lord Edward

Fitzgerald,' by Joseph Hamilton. No charge was preferred against the
Magans in this pamphlet. But conscience makes cowards; the probing given
to a sore spot, and Hamilton's mention of 'Mr. Magan and his sister,' with
others who knew of Lord Edward's movements previous to the arrest,
proved distasteful at 20 Usher's Island.
Hamilton's labour was undertaken with the avowed object of clearing
Neilson from a suspicion which Moore, in his Memoir of Lord Edward,
ventured to start. Whether Moore, in gathering facts for his book, had been
referred to the Magans, I know not, but he certainly returned to England
strongly prejudiced against the incorruptible Neilson, and straightway
framed an indictment bristling with innuendos.[348] Hamilton prints, with
other vindicatory papers, letters from Hamilton Rowan and Dr. McNevin,
also a touching protest from the daughter of Neilson. Hamilton knew Lord
Edward well.
Dearer to me was Edward's life than Neilson's memory [he
writes]. Dearer to me is Ireland than are Neilson's children and
his friends. If I thought he was the man who could betray his
generous friend and noble chieftain, I would leave his memory
and his bones to rot together. I took up his vindication, not as a
partial advocate; and in thus conducting his defence I will not
endeavour to suppress a single fact which might go to justify the
accusing passage in Lord Edward's 'Life.'
Mr. Hamilton proved Neilson guiltless, but he fell into the error, which a
man blindfolded at play commits, in very often making a grasp in the wrong
quarter. He suspects Reynolds; Captain Armstrong, who betrayed Sheares;
'a Mr. Hatton, one of the rebel Executive, who unaccountably escaped.'[349]
Even Sir Jonah Barrington; nay, the estimable philanthropist, Mathias
O'Kelly, who lived with his father at Galway's Walk, near the scene of Lord
Edward's tussle with Sirr, was also mentioned in a suggestive way. 'On the
17th May,' writes Hamilton, 'Armstrong met both the Sheares, and on that
evening Major Sirr was seen looking towards the rear of Miss Magan's
house from Mr. O'Kelly's stable door in Galway's Walk. I know five
different places where Lord Edward was concealed,' he adds. The secret
which, like the sword of Damocles, had long hung over the heads of Francis
Magan and his sister, now seemed on the point of falling; but their names
were not used in this pamphlet more freely than those of Miss Moore,

Murphy, and a few other persons amongst whose haunts the Geraldine
flitted during his last days in this world. Hamilton thus closes the first stage
of his inquiry:—
My documents and anecdotes are every hour increasing. I have
received communications from the wife and son of him with
whom the Major had the struggle near the house of Miss Magan.
I call on Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Dixon,[350] Mrs. Rowe, and Miss
Magan; I call on Mr. Magan, Mr. Murphy, their families, and all
those individuals who either visited or served them or their
noble guest, to tell all Ireland all they are acquainted with
respecting the last week Lord Edward had his freedom. I know
what some of them can say; I know what more of them might
say; and I pause for their full and faithful declarations.
A promised second part never appeared; but it were almost better for the
feelings of Magan and his sister had the dreaded charge been boldly
fulminated, than the agony of suspense to which they were doomed. I had
not seen this scarce pamphlet when I first expressed my suspicions of
Magan.
When the present century was in its teens, the aristocratic section of Irish
Catholics sought to give the Crown a 'veto' in the appointment of their
bishops, and started in opposition to O'Connell, who had been demanding
unfettered emancipation. In the ranks of this troublesome schism, the
records of which would fill a library, I find Francis Magan, Lords Fingall,
[351]
Trimleston, Kenmare, Gormanstown, and Southwell, Wolfe,[352] Shiel,
[353]
Bellew, Lynch, Donellan,[354] Wyse,[355] Ball[356] and others anxious to
reach by a short cut the good things of the State.
The gentleman into whose hands Magan's papers passed tells me that he
found a letter addressed to him in 1834 by Sir W. Gossett, Assistant
Secretary of State at Dublin Castle, asking under what circumstances he
claimed a pension from the Crown, and requesting information as to a small
office he held. A copy of Magan's reply was appended, saying that the
Viceroy of the day had promised him a county chairmanship—or, as it
would now be called, a county court judgeship; but, owing to the
disabilities then affecting Catholics, he was found to be not eligible for
appointment, and the emoluments in question were given as compensation.

[357]
Gossett had succeeded Gregory in 1831, and having come in with the
Whigs sought to administer a more liberal form of government. Cornwallis,
Castlereagh, Cooke and Marsden had been long gone to their account, and
dead men tell no tales. Whether Gossett viewed Magan's reply as quite
satisfactory does not appear. In 1835 Earl Mulgrave deprived Watty Cox of
his pension, but I cannot say whether the same high-handed course was
extended to Magan.
Magan was said to have filled some small legal office long since abolished,
though of its precise character even his relatives could afford no
information. A gossiping missive is subjoined, the less reluctantly because
Magan, having often stood in misanthropic isolation, it is pleasant to find
any person who came in frequent contact with him. Moreover it is one of
the last letters of a not undistinguished man. Sir W. Gossett, who wrote to
Magan for information as regards the sinecure he held, might have been
glad of the dates which are now supplied. The late Huband Smith, M.R.I.A.,
served with Magan as a Commissioner for Enclosing Commons. This was
rather an unpopular appointment. The disturbances of 1766, ending in the
execution of Father Sheehy, all originated in the resistance offered to a
similar measure. From 1821 to 1827 Mr. Goulburn filled the office of Chief
Secretary for Ireland, and he was a very likely man to have recognised the
claims of any person who had rendered secret service in '98. The same
remark applies to the Premier, Lord Liverpool, who provided so
munificently for the family of Reynolds the informer. On the death of that
peer in 1827 his successor, Mr. Canning, earned popularity by refusing to
employ in his departments any of the spies of '98, or even to ratify the
appointments of Lord Castlereagh or Lord Liverpool.
Huband Smith's letter runs:—
I deferred replying to your note and queries till I could lay my
hands on some documents which I had preserved respecting the
Commission for inclosing Waste Lands and Commons in
Tallaght, Killsillaghan, &c. The Act was passed in the 2nd of
George IV. session of 1821. The original Commissioners were
Morgan Crofton, James Clancy, and Francis Magan, all
barristers. The lands to be inclosed were:—In Tallaght, 783
acres; Killsillaghan, 150 acres; Luske, 320 acres exclusive of the
racecourse. The Act recited the owners of the adjoining lands,

lords of manors, and also the General Inclosure Act of 43
George III. The earlier meetings of the Commissioners were
held in the Royal Exchange, and the later ones at the house of
William Duffield Rooke, an eminent solicitor, in Molesworth
Street, well known also in the musical world as an accomplished
violinist, and member of the 'Beef-Steak Club.' Mr. Morgan
Crofton having died in 1830, it became necessary for the
surviving Commissioners under the Act to appoint a third in his
place, and in February 1831 I was sworn in as a Commissioner
at the meeting held on March 11, 1831, and this was the first
time I met Magan. Mr. James Clancy was a barrister of some
eminence well known to the profession by able legal treatises,
amongst them one of considerable authority on the law of
husband and wife.
In regard to your query, what was the average amount of the fees
which constituted Magan's salary—he was entitled to receive
three guineas per diem for every day on which the
Commissioners sat in furtherance of the Act. Magan and his
brother Commissioners were armed with large powers, such as
examining witnesses on oath, awarding costs, and enforcing
payment by distress warrant, &c. In point of fact they held a sort
of court, and constituted a tribunal from which the appeal lay to
the Superior Courts by action at law, under certain restrictions.
The Commissioners were directed to hold perambulations, and
authorised to sell such parts of the lands as, in their opinion,
were necessary to defray the expenses of passing the Act and of
carrying it into execution, and to execute conveyances of the
fee-simple.
It is on the commons at Lusk that the admirable Irish convict
system, which has worked so well, has been fully carried into
operation.
With regard to Magan's manner, it appeared to me very
unobtrusive, and, as one would say, undemonstrative. He was
then an elderly man sufficiently gentlemanlike in appearance,
tall, yet rather of plain, and even coarse exterior; perhaps a little
moody and reserved at times, and something may have been

pressing on him of which he said little.[358] As to his private
income, there were no data for coming to any conclusion.... He
resided at Usher's Island, near the Four Courts, a neighbourhood
at that time inhabited by a better class than now, and it formed
no part of the Commission to inquire more minutely into his
affairs.
Mr. Magan was socially described as a person who 'held his head high,' and
with a nice sense of honour. In later years he seemed unduly sensitive and,
at times, retiring. Possessing few friends through life, he continued staunch
to these few, beginning with Francis Higgins and ending with 'Master'
Clancy. 'I hold Magan in such esteem,' the latter said, 'that only for his
advanced age I should like to appoint him my executor.' Some other men
who remembered '98, its horrors, and its gossip, rather recoiled from Magan
without knowing well why. There was something of a 'Dr. Fell' about him.
He occasionally went the home circuit, but got no briefs. When hailed by
juniors with a deference which put to flight all misgivings on his part as to
whether acquaintanceship was likely to be valued, his hauteur softened into
a dignified affability, and this relaxation was often taken as a gracious
condescension. His white locks made him venerable, and by some he was
regarded as a father of the Bar.[359]
Another man who viewed him with respect was the late Judge Corballis,
who in reply to a letter wrote:—
I never, directly or indirectly, heard anything of the alleged
charge against Frank Magan during his life. I was on habits of
intimacy with him to the day of his death, and was with him on
his death-bed. He always bore a high character, as far as I could
ever learn, either at the bar or in society.
Mr. Corballis lived in the country and knew not what Magan's neighbours
said. In their eyes a black cloud seemed to hover over his house.

For forty long years, as the neighbours declared,
His abode had ne'er once been cleaned or repaired.[360]

But in personal appearance he was neat enough, and might be daily seen, in
the stiff high cravat of the Regency, emerging from its precincts. Dr.
Atkinson and Charles Kernan say that, though Magan was a familiar object
to them all the year round, they never saw him accompanied by mortal in
his walks. He never married, would sit in solitude, or stalk from room to
room like Marlay's ghost. Perhaps the voice of conscience muttered, 'You
are said to have sought the confidence of men in order to betray it; show the
world by your frigid attitude that such is not likely to be true.' He was
reported to have wealth: how he acquired it seemed a mystery.
In 1842, Dr. Madden, when engaged on his 'Lives of the United Irishmen,'
had interviews, as he tells us, with Mrs. Macready, who, as Miss Moore,
had been with Lord Edward the day before his arrest;[361] but her son
informed me that as Magan was then alive and residing near at hand, she
did not mention his name to Dr. Madden. Magan, however, cannot fail to
have heard of the inquiries being instituted around him by Madden, and his
nervous temperament was not calmed by that knowledge. He died in 1843,
during a period of great popular excitement and when fears prevailed that
the events of '98 were about to be renewed.
'Magan's remains lie in our vaults' writes a local priest.[362]
'By his will he requires a perpetual yearly mass to be celebrated by all
priests of this church for the repose of his soul, so that I have been praying
for him once each year since I became attached to this parish, without
knowing anything of his antecedents.'
Dr. Dirham had been residing within a few doors of Magan's house, and on
the death of that gentleman it occurred to him to move to the more ample
accommodation it afforded. His account, though wholly unimportant, is
curious in its way. For years Miss Magan kept constantly promising to
vacate in his favour, stating that some small cottage in some rural spot
would be much more suitable to her lonely life; but an irresistible
fascination bound her to the dingy rooms in which she had vegetated since
the dark days of '98. Francis Magan, by a will of ten lines, had left all his
property to Elizabeth, his sister, and directed that his funeral might be
private. The rooms were now all shut up, and Miss Magan herself ate,
drank, and slept upon the landing. For twenty years the drawing-room had
not been opened, owing to the fact that a younger sister had died there; and

the other apartments of the house were locked up for reasons equally odd. A
strange indisposition to permit the humblest visitor to enter the place, was
shown in various ways. A quarter of a century seemed to have elapsed since
the dust-pit had been emptied, and boards were erected round it which
enabled the Magans to add daily débris, until at last they became dust
themselves. When Dr. Dirham came into possession of the place[363] he
found the garden covered from end to end with some feet deep of cinders,
through which rank nettles struggled like the stings of the self-
consciousness that made life with Magan the reverse of roseate. In a retired
nook stood a bottle drainer, the wooden bars of which had fallen in from
decay, smashing in its descent the emblems of conviviality it once
enshrined, and through the aid of which profitable secrets may erst have
been gained. The sewers and gratings had become choked; and the deep
area at the rear of the house was filled with eight feet of stagnant water. A
subterranean cell, adjoining this fosse, and by courtesy styled the 'coal-
vault,' opened on another dark chamber; and a feeling of awe crept over the
Doctor when, impelled by curiosity to gauge its depth, he cast a stone into
the pit, and listened until its descent terminated in the sound of splashing
water below. The hinges of the hall door were so stiff during Miss Magan's
tenancy, that Dr. Fleming, who as a cousin once ventured to visit the
moneyed recluse, had to call at a neighbouring chemist's for sweet oil ere he
felt safe in crying 'Open Sesame.' Seated on the cold landing, in the midst of
chests of mysterious treasure, this 'unprotected female,' trembling in every
nerve lest friends should wrest it from her grasp, gloomily passed the
closing years of a hidden life. Once, on a false alarm of fire, her anguish
was pitiable, and, to the surprise of everybody, she relinquished the custody
of some chests to a neighbour,[364] Mr. Cotton, who, however, detained
them only a few hours. At another neighbour's, Miss Flanagan's, who kept
an old established bakery, Miss Magan always got her bank-notes changed;
but, fearful of being waylaid between the covered car she occupied, and the
door at which it stopped, Miss Flanagan was always obliged to get into the
vehicle and place in the hands of its shrinking occupant the metallic
equivalent for the crisp new note. Some arrears of rent had accumulated at
the time of Miss Magan's death, and a term of years in the lease remained
unexpired; but her property was so left that the landlord's claim could not be
satisfied. The house was in such a ruined state that the landlord, Colonel
King, was glad to accept half the former rent. Although an extremely old

house, only one tenant, Archbishop Carpenter,[365] occupied it before
Magan. In its back parlour had been ordained Dean Lube and many other
old priests well known in Dublin during the struggle for Catholic
Emancipation; and so searchingly severe was the operation of penal law,
that students for ordination had to be smuggled into the Archbishop's house
by the stable in Island Street, afterwards turned to ignoble purposes. An
altar stood in a recess of this parlour, which the Magans changed into a
cupboard.
William Allingham would seem to have had the house in his eye when,
some years later, he wrote:—

Outside, the old plaster, all spatter and stain,
Looked spotty in sunshine and streaky in rain;
The window-sills sprouted with mildewy grass,
And the panes from being broken were known to be glass.

Within there were carpets and cushions of dust;
The wood was half rot, and the metal half rust;
Old curtains—half cobwebs—hung grimly aloof:
'Twas a spider's Elysium from cellar to roof.

But they pried not upstairs, through the dust and the gloom,
Nor peeped at the door of the wonderful room
That gossips made much of, in accents subdued,
But whose inside no mortal might brag to have viewed.

Full forty years since turned the key in that door:
'Tis a room deaf and dumb 'mid the city's uproar.
The guests, for whose joyance that table was spread,[366]
May now enter as ghosts, for they're every one dead.

On consulting the records of the Probate Court early in this inquiry, I was
puzzled to find that the sum which Miss Magan appeared to have died
worth was quite nominal. This discovery disturbed, and for some time
retarded, the completion of the chain of evidence. On inquiry, however, it
was stated that, in order to save the legacy duty, she transferred, when

almost in extremis, a considerable sum to the late Very Rev. Dr. Taylor and a
respected physician[367] still living; and she made a will ratifying that act.
Orally, she expressed a wish as to its bestowal for some useful purpose, but
leaving details entirely to their discretion. With the bulk of this money a
refuge for penitent females and an asylum for the insane were built.[368]
Miss Magan died worth 14,000l., not to speak of a fee-farm property known
as Hartstown, held under Lord Carhampton, and not far from the Devil's
Mills, near Dublin, which, local tradition states, his lordship built in one
night by demoniac aid.[369]
It seems strange that Magan, who was insolvent before the rebellion, could
amass so much money. His secret pension was merely for 200l. a year[370]
(a sum insufficient to pay the rent of his house), give good donations to the
Catholic Board, pay off Fetherston's bond, and support himself, his sisters
and his horse—for in early life Mr. Magan did indulge in that luxury. His
pension, there is reason to think, from the letter of Sir William Gossett in
1834, ceased to be paid about that time. His fees as a Commissioner for
enclosing commons were enjoyed by him for a few years only; and as the
'S.S. Money Book' records but three payments to him—namely, on
September 11, 1800, April 2, 1802, and December 15, 1802—it is evident
that he must have derived income from other sources. There are payments
of secret service money to the informers of '98 and their representatives
which obtain no record in the book ostensibly devoted to that purpose.
Captain Armstrong, who betrayed the Sheares's, is known to have received,
throughout sixty years, about 29,000l. in recognition of that act; and yet no
trace of his name appears in the book of Secret Service Money expenditure.
Money was also obtainable under a clause in the Act of 39 George III. cap.
65, by which a sum of 2,910l. was allocated to the Under-Secretary in the
Civil department (Dublin Castle) for the time being, in trust for payment of
secret annuities. A letter from Dr. Ferris suggests another source. He states,
on the authority of a clerk in Gleadowe Newcomen's Bank, then dead, that
an annuity had been paid from that house to Francis Magan, and that the
clerk had seen Magan's receipts. Dr. Ferris suggests that the books of the
bank might be still accessible for examination.[371]
An Act of Parliament provided that the Secret Service Money placed at the
Viceroy's disposal should pass confidentially through the hands of the Chief
Secretary; but this arrangement has not always been adhered to, as is

evident from the fact that the 1,000l. reward for the discovery of Emmet
was lodged to the credit of the informer in Finlay's bank. The hint of Dr.
Ferris is not uninteresting, but the books of Newcomen's bank do not seem
to have been preserved. Barrington states that Sir W. Gleadowe Newcomen,
who voted for the Union, received a reward of 20,000l. with a peerage, and
the patronage of his county. It is a strange irony of fate that Lord
Newcomen died poor. For years he lived alone in the bank, gloating, it was
wildly whispered, over ingots of treasure, with no lamp to guide him but the
luminous diamonds which had been left for safe keeping in his hands.
Moore would have compared him to 'the gloomy gnome that dwells in the
dark gold mine.' Wrapped in a sullen misanthropy, he was sometimes seen
emerging at twilight from his iron clamped abode. La Touche's bank stood
on the opposite side of Castle Street, and Dublin wags compared the street
to a river because it ran between two banks. Jokes soon gave way to sobs.
One day Newcomen's bank broke,[372] and prosperous men perished in the
collapse. Lord Newcomen had previously retired to Killester, where he died
by his own hand. No claimant appeared for his coronet, and the line became
extinct. This was the twenty-seventh Irish peerage which had failed since
the Union. Gleadowe had been M.P. for Longford when he voted for the
extinction of the Irish Parliament. Richard Lovel Edgeworth, a betrayed
constituent, regarded this vote as an act of treason, and in anger shot forth
the following bolt:—

With a name that is borrowed—a title that's bought,
Sir William would fain be a gentleman thought;
His wit is but cunning, his courage but vapour,
His pride is but money—his money but paper!

What was a pointless sarcasm in 1800 became a stubborn fact in 1825—
Newcomen's notes were waste paper. The Hibernian Banking Company
soon after began business within the walls.

FOOTNOTES:
[284] I leave unchanged some of the circumstantial evidence which had
convinced me of Magan's guilt, adding in brackets the criminatory letters
subsequently found (January 1891).

[285] Thus, in 'Croppies lie down,' to the tune of which, as Moore says, 'more
blood had been shed than often falls to the lot of lyrical ballads'—

'The ruthless Fitzgerald stept forward to rule,
His principles formed in the Orleans school.'

[286] Memoirs of Miles Byrne, iii. 247. (Paris: Bossange, 1863.)
[287] 'Dr. Madden,' writes the Rev. James Wills, 'mentions a train of
circumstances which seems to fasten the imputation on Hughes.'—Lives of
Illustrious Irishmen, vi. 51. Years after, in his new edition, Madden suggests
suspicion against one Joel Hulbert (i. 85; ii. 443). Eventually, however, Dr.
Madden wrote: 'And now, at the conclusion of my researches on this subject of
the betrayal of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, I have to confess they have not been
successful. The betrayer still preserves his incognito; his treachery, up to the
present time (January 1858), remains to be connected with his name, and once
discovered, to make it odious for evermore.... Nine-and-fifty years the secret of
the sly, skulking villain has been kept by his employers, with no common care
for his character or his memory.'—See Lives of the United Irishmen, by R. R.
Madden, ii. 446, 2nd ed.
[288] Froude, iii. 342.
[289] Cornwallis Correspondence, iii. 320.
[290] The Viceroy, whose carriage Magan and Higgins hired a mob to draw
triumphantly through the streets, was Lord Temple, afterwards Marquis of
Buckingham, twice Chief Governor of Ireland, and of whom Mr. Grattan writes:
'He opposed many good measures, promoted many bad men, increased the
expenses of Ireland in a manner wanton and profligate, and vented his wrath
upon the country.'
[291] Dublin Evening Post, No. 1767. The same journal adds:—'It was in Mr.
Magan's house in High Street that the creditable certificate of the clergy of
Rosemary Lane Chapel was written and obtained.' It may be explained that when
the moralist, Magee, denounced Higgins as one who had defied the laws of God
and man, an advertisement, purporting to come from the priests of Rosemary
Lane Chapel, said that they had no official or other knowledge of an imposture
alleged to have been committed twenty-three years previously by Mr. Francis
Higgins, and adding that, during his residence in Smock Alley, his conduct had
been marked by benevolence. 'This sprig of Rosemary,' commented the Post,
'may serve to revive the fainting innocence of the immaculate convert of Saint
Francis!' Magan, as a leading Catholic parishioner, had much weight with the
clergy.
[292] Dublin Directory, 1790.
[293] It was during this anxious period that Lord Edward, venturing out at night,
had an interview with Pamela in Denzille Street, when their little child was taken
from its cot to see its father, and a servant suddenly entering the room found the
parents in tears.
[294] It should be Friday, May 18, as appears from Sirr's original memorandum.

[295] Statement of Mr. William Macready, the grandson of Moore, furnished
exclusively to the present writer.
[296] Life and Death of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, by Thomas Moore. Paris ed. p.
160.
[297] May 18, 1798.
[298] Lest he should arrive at the hall door.
[299] Dirty Lane, now Bridgefoot Street, was another route by which Lord
Edward could come from Moore's. The Queen's Bridge is at the foot of Dirty
Lane. Island Street runs parallel with Usher's Island, a suburban quay; and
Magan's is the second stable from Watling Street.
[300] Major Swan was the assistant town major. Atkinson will be remembered
as the chief constable of Belfast. See ante, p. 8.
[301] The premises were on Wood Quay (then known as 'Pudding Row'), Wine
Tavern Street, and Fisher's Alley; they also included the 'Dog and Duck' inn,
north side of Thomas Street, with a rear extending to Marshalsea Lane.—
Registry of Deeds Office. Traces of other property held by Thomas Magan crop
up in unlooked-for places. By the settlement of Philip Whitfield Harvey with
Miss Frances Tracy, dated September 16, 1802, it is recited that Thomas Magan,
having become a bankrupt, his properties at Blackstaheny and in Britain Street
were sold by auction to Samuel Dick and a Mr. Halpin for the sum of 4,830l.
Higgins had property of his own at Blackstaheny, for I find a conveyance of
lands there in 1806 from the Harveys and Tracys to Andrew Rorke of Clonsilla;
consideration, 1,084l. 12s. 6d.
[302] Magan's seal displays a boar's head, with the motto 'Virtute et probitate!'
[303] A nickname by which the popular journalist, John Magee, satirised
Higgins.
[304] It was whispered that Francis Magan may have been the godson of Francis
Higgins, and baptised Francis in compliment to him. The Catholic baptismal
registries of the parish do not go back sufficiently far to throw light; but,
inasmuch as Thomas Magan married, in October 1770, the daughter of Francis
Kiernan, merchant, their son would be very naturally called after the grandfather.
[305] United Irishmen, iv. 25.
[306] This would give Magan an opportunity of meeting and discoursing with
his old friend.
[307] Dublin Evening Post, Tuesday, May 23, 1797.
[308] Dublin: W. B. Kelly. Long out of print. The Rev. Dr. Stokes, Professor of
Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin, in the Mail of October 14, 1885,
stated that this pamphlet 'may be found in the library of Trinity College, Dublin,
Gallery H. 10, vol 92.' The brochure had been printed mainly for the purpose of
correcting a mis-statement made by the Athenæum, when reviewing the
Cornwallis Papers. The Athenæum, then edited by W. Hepworth Dixon, far from
resenting my correction, reviewed the book in terms which stimulated further
efforts, and, if any excuse for them were needed, it is supplied in that too
favourable judgment. See No. 1649 p. 744. 'This biography reads like so many

pages out of Mr. Lever's Con Cregan, or the Irish Gil Blas; but Mr. Fitzpatrick
quotes several legal and literary documents to authenticate his text. Facts in
abundance are produced. As illustrative of the state of Irish political society in
those days, this tract is extremely curious. With extraordinary power of social
research, an intimacy is established between the hateful Higgins and Magan; ...
most curious circumstantial evidence, to criminate Magan. This tract merits
preservation. The mass of social and personal knowledge accumulated by Mr.
Fitzpatrick is very striking. He writes like an ex post facto Boswell, and the
research with which he amasses minute particulars is a speciality with him. It is
for want, heretofore, of detailed and accurate domestic knowledge, that Irish
history is so crude and colourless; and works like those of Mr. Fitzpatrick have
value.'
[309] Higgins to Cooke, December 29, 1797.
[310] Idem, January 2, 1798.
[311] O'Coigly left for London on his luckless mission, and Magan lost sight of
him.
[312] Higgins to Cooke, January 12, 1798.
[313] Henry Jackson, a very active member of the Rebel Directory, and father-
in-law of Oliver Bond.
[314] John Fallon, Esq., J.P. and D.L., born April 6, 1767. Higgins to Cooke,
January 16, 1798.
[315] Higgins to Cooke, February 26, 1798.
[316] Lawless was Professor of Physiology in the College of Surgeons; but, on
finding that a warrant was out for his arrest, got safely to France, where he rose
to the rank of General, and lost a leg at Leipzig.
[317] Higgins to Cooke, March 28, 1798.
[318] Moore mentions that Lord Edward and Neilson were stopped, at midnight,
by the patrol at Palmerstown; but the former having personated a doctor
hurrying to the relief of a patient, both were suffered to resume their journey.
[319] The accurate information on other points which daily reached Cooke
convinced not a few United Irishmen that treachery was at work.
[320] Magan to Cooke, April 22, 1798.
[321] It is also due to Lord Edward's memory to remind the reader that Higgins
was a man of leprosied reputation. Nearly thirty years ago, I gave some account
of him in Ireland before the Union. Meanwhile, the reader might see what an
English historian, Mr. Plowden, says of him, vide chap. xiv. 'Father Arthur
O'Leary,' et seq. p. 213. I printed in the Sham Squire the original informations
against Higgins for the basest fraud, the true bills found against him by the
Grand Jury in 1766, and the records of his committals to Newgate.
[322] Memoirs of the Whig Party.
[323] Higgins to Under-Secretary Cooke, May 18, 1798.
[324] Idem.
[325] Afterwards known to Turner at Hamburg, p. 14 ante.

[326] The Express, May 26, 1798.
[327] Mr. Froude says that 'Lord Edward was naturally a powerful man' (iii.
343). This impression is not accurate. Jasper Joly, LL.D., son of Lord Edward's
godson, tells me that 'he was a small, wiry man.'
[328] Francis Higgins to Under Secretary Cooke, May 18, 1798.
[329] John Wesley visited Moira House in 1775, and has described the splendour
of its rooms, one of which was inlaid throughout with 'mother-of-pearl.' The
spiritualised philosopher adds, 'and must this pass away like a dream?' But he
did not live to see, as Magan did, Moira House the refugium of hunger, rags, and
dirt—a 'Mendicity Institution.'
[330] Lecky, viii. 44.
[331] Ibid. vii. 211.
[332] Life of Reynolds, by his Son.
[333] Francis Higgins to Cooke, Stephen's Green, June 8, 1798. Quoted by
Lecky. For curious facts about Higgins, see chapter xiv.: 'Father O'Leary.'
[334] Higgins to Cooke, June 13, 1801.
[335] The writer will be excused if he seems to linger on this theme; but from
childhood 'Magan' has been to him a familiar household word. His grandfather,
John Brett, lived next door to Magan's house at Usher's Island. Voices, long
since hushed, often described their strange, silent neighbour, of whom it might
be said, 'still waters run deep.' Brett, though not a rebel, had popular sympathies,
and several patriots, including James Tandy, visited at his house. One day Major
Sirr created a great scare at Brett's by instituting a search for pikes and papers.
The hysterics of the young ladies and the protests of their brothers served only to
stimulate his ardour. No nook was left unexplored, no stone unturned. The
intruders even uprooted the flower-beds in the garden, hoping to make a
discovery, but all in vain; and Sirr, with drooping plumage, at last withdrew.—
See James Tandy's arrest, Appendix, infra.
[336] United Irishmen, ii. 234.
[337] Historical Review, ii. 256.
[338] O'Kelly held, from a close personal knowledge of the man, that he would
be incapable of treachery.
[339] Correspondence of the Duke of Wellington (Ireland), pp. 485-6.
[340] Two gardens belonged to Moira House: one in front of Island Street, the
other at its opposite side. These gardens are separated by Island Street, which
runs parallel with Usher's Island. A subterranean passage under the street
communicates with both pleasure grounds. Usher's Island was formerly called
Usher's Garden.
[341] The monk names this figure, but I think overstates it.
[342] The Sirr MSS., Trin. Coll. Dublin.
[343] In library of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

[344] The Sirr MSS. This letter is quoted by Dr. Madden, who thinks that the
information on which Dodgson and Caulfield acted came from Kildare; but it
appears by the letter he himself prints (i. 522) that it came from Dublin.
Caulfield's letter, addressed to Major Sirr, says, 'In consequence of your
information, I reached Philipstown.' On the two previous occasions when Major
Sirr had laid hands on Lord Edward Fitzgerald, the information as we see came
from Magan. Dr. Madden, in printing the letter referred to above, erroneously
assigns to it the date 1798; but the original MS. displays 'December 17, 1803.'
[345] How Mr. Fetherston came to patronise Thomas Magan's lodgings, and
otherwise to befriend him, was partly due to the fact that Magan had descended
from a once opulent race in West Meath. Vide wills, in Irish Record Office, of
Thomas Magan, Togherstown, co. W. Meath, dated 1710; and another, probably
of his son, dated 1750. By a deed, dated May 2, 1798, it appears that James and
John Fetherston had been trustees of the will of Mary Magan, the grandmother
of Francis. The property of Papists in penal times was liable to discovery and
forfeiture, and the help of friendly Protestants as trustees sometimes became a
necessity. The first mention of the Magans, and of the Fetherstons as their
trustees, is in 1763.
[346] Mr. Lecky has been kind enough to say (History of England, viii. 45) that I
have 'thrown more light than any other writer on the career of Magan;' and he
quotes the above as 'a very curious fact,' adding that it would be interesting to
know if 'the transaction took place shortly after the death of Lord Edward.' As
satisfaction of the bond might possibly have been 'entered,' I searched the
records of the Four Law Courts, term after term, from 1798 to 1808, but no trace
can be found.
[347] The deliberate and mercenary way in which the respected 'counsellor' set
himself to spy could be shown by fifty letters. Father Quigley, or O'Coigly, who,
it will be remembered, was arrested at Margate in February on Turner's
information (see chap. iii. ante), and suffered death soon after, escaped by a
hair's breadth the net which Magan had been weaving for his capture in Dublin.
A letter from Higgins to Under-Secretary Cooke, dated 'Stephen's Green, 12th
January, 1798,' goes on to say: 'When I saw M—— this day and just mentioned
Quigly's name, he gave me instantly a description of him. Met him before he
went abroad often, and was sheltered in Dixon's house. Will, he is convinced,
find him out. But I beg to recommend a strict watch on Dixon's and you will
instantly discover him.' Four days later, i.e. January 16, 1798, Higgins tells
Cooke, 'M—— went several times to Dixon's, but found no trace of Quigly at
his former residence. Neither has he been at Dr. McNevin's. The only place that
he can be sheltered among the party is at Bond's, and which will be known by
Thursday.' Two previous letters, dated October 17, and October 30, 1797, report
very fully Dickson's conversations with Magan.
[348] Magan, to divert suspicion from himself, may have been the first to set the
story going that Neilson was a base informer. Thomas Moore, after making
inquiries in Dublin, returned home strong in suspicion that Neilson had betrayed
Lord Edward. Magan, in his secret letters of 1798, sometimes seeks to convey
that Neilson was giving information at Dublin Castle. One letter, dated April 22,
1798, says: 'I sometimes imagine he (Neilson) is the person who communicated
with Government; however, suspicion has not pointed at him.' Higgins writes

(May 15): 'M. says Neilson is playing a double game.' So faithful did Neilson
prove, that Major Sirr discovered him organising a plot to rescue Lord Edward.
[349] P. 19. The italics are Hamilton's. Hatton was one of the rebel executive at
Wexford.
[350] James Dickson, at whose house Magan had been a constant guest, died a
few years previously, and was buried beside the Round Tower at Lusk.
[351] Fingall before his death expressed deep regret for this policy. See Fagan's
Life of O'Connell.
[352] Afterwards Chief Baron.
[353] Afterwards Master of the Mint and British minister at Florence.
[354] Bellew, Lynch, and Donnellan had pensions; not for secret service, but to
restrain them from clanking their chains.
[355] Afterwards a Privy Councillor, and British minister at Athens.
[356] Afterwards Mr. Justice Ball.
[357] The papers which set forth Magan's real claims to his pension were not
then accessible, even to the Irish Government. One of the many letters addressed
by Higgins to Cooke, dated June 30, 1798, refers to the original intent of the
United leaders to rise on May 14. 'Lord Edward was then with Magan, who
found means to prevail on him to postpone his purpose.' The postponement
would give time for the capture of Lord Edward Fitzgerald and others. This
letter was written after the death of the chief, and informs Cooke that 'the plan
was to rise Garretstown, Naul, &c., and circuitously round the metropolis to
Dunleary, &c. Lord Edward insisted on his Kildare men and those of Carlow
being brought in, and he would take the field at Finglas, and march into the city,
which was his great object to carry.' The above is curious as showing how much
Lord Edward's views had changed since Reinhard described him as one 'of the
moderate party.'
[358] Some said of Smith that he was 'cracked with larnin',' and his chat
deserved that Irish compliment. 'Your phrase "Still waters run deep" seems
happy in its application to Magan. There is also an Irish proverb of which it
reminds me:—

Well rendered by the Latin, seemingly a mediæval rhyme—

"Audi, vide, tace:
Si vis vivere in pace."

and almost literally translated by the French—

"Oys, vois, et te taise,
Si tu veux vivre en paix."

Magan was not dumb, but he knew well probably when to hold his tongue.'—
Letter of the late J. Huband Smith, M.R.I.A., June 5, 1866.
[359] The only sense of humour that he is recorded to have evinced was in
reference to Con Leyne, a wit often named in Moore's Diary. The late Rickard
O'Connell, of the Munster Bar, and satellite of the Liberator, wrote, in reply to
some questions, that he had been introduced to Magan at the Four Courts in
1831 by Maurice King, who said: 'Our young friend can tell you some good ones
as to how Con got on at Darrynane' (Dan's seat); and from time to time after, as I
met Magan in the 'Hall,' there was generally some allusion to Con, and a chuckle
if any fresh story or point against the renowned gastronome turned up. 'The only
members of the Munster Bar I ever saw speaking to Magan were King,
O'Loghlen (Sir M.), Con Leyne, and Howley—all men of high honour, who
would shun him as a black sheep if they had even a strong suspicion that he was
the character you assume him to be. Usually, he was rather starched and formal
in manner.'
[360] William Allingham.
[361] See Lives and Times of the United Irishmen, 2nd ed. ii. 408.
[362] Canon O'Hanlon, author of The Lives of the Irish Saints, then attached to
the church of SS. Michael and John. The vaults referred to were once the pit of
Smock Alley Theatre. The coffin, inscribed 'Francis Magan,' reposes close to that
of the venerable Father Betagh.
[363] This was written in 1866, though not published until now.
[364] Secretary to the Mendicity Institution.
[365] Dr. Carpenter preceded Dr. Troy in the see, and by great prudence guided
the suffering Church through the quicksands which in penal days encompassed
it. He deprecated public agitation on the part of his flock, lest the very clanking
of the chains should arouse their keepers to renewed activity and vigilance.
[366] The brother of Mathias O'Kelly was betrothed to Miss Magan; but he
broke away. Whether the bridal feast had been absolutely spread, is not stated.
[367] The late Dr. Fleming of Merrion Square, one of the next-of-kin, sought by
legal proceedings to foil this arrangement, but failed. Mr. H. Fetherston, his
attorney after the case had been decided against his client, said to the gentleman
who partly represented Miss Magan: 'According to Canon Law you are now free
to keep this money, and none but a fool would reject it.' Mr. Fetherston was
right; but the other replied that there was also a law of honour and of conscience.
[368] Hartstown being a freehold, it could not go towards the endowment of the
institution, and the executor says that this fee-farm has cost him more trouble
than all the worry attendant on her complicated affairs.
[369] By a deed, dated December 10, 1797, Lord Carhampton, commander-in-
chief, a leading terrorist of his time, grants to Francis Higgins part of his estate
of Hartstown and Barnageath; but without mention of trusts or considerations of

any kind. During a law suit which took place in 1802, as Mr. James Curran,
great-grandnephew of Higgins, informs me, it transpired that Higgins, in this
transaction, had been merely trustee for Magan. The freehold conveyed by
Carhampton to Higgins is now in the hands of Magan's legal representative. I
long suspected, but, on full inquiry, have failed to satisfy myself, that
Carhampton's grant to Higgins, in trust for Magan, was part of an arrangement
cunningly devised to baffle suspicion, and meant as an acknowledgment of
private information regarding rebel doings, which Magan, it is certain, was
giving to Higgins; but at least, it proves Carhampton's friendly wish to promote
the interwoven interests of both. On pursuing the labyrinths of the Registry of
Deeds Office, Dublin, I find that the Magans had connection with the property
so far back as 1780. On February 20, 1793, 1000l. was lent by Higgins to
Thomas Magan, the father of Lord Edward's betrayer, charged on Blackstaheny
and Clonsilla, the adjoining lands. Three years later Higgins tightens his toils,
and, as already stated, seeks to further secure this 1000l. charged on the same
property. 'Shamado,' doubtless, well knew how to make his creature work. The
consent to harbour Lord Edward, and the whispered information as to place and
hour would be an easy way of wiping out the debt for 1000l., and of currying
favour with the lender. I may add that the foregoing note was written long before
I had found the criminatory letters of Higgins and Magan.
[370] Some of Magan's receipts have been preserved. On these receipts the
letters 'S. A.' are marked, a cipher implying that he belonged to a class of
informers who, by special agreement, were never to be called upon to give
public evidence. His pension was paid quarterly, and here is one of his receipts:
—
'Received from Wm. Gregory, Esq., by Wm. Taylor, Esq., fifty pounds sterling,
for the quarter to December 24 last.
'Dublin, January 22, 1816.
F. Magan.'
[371] Letter of Edward Ferris, M.D., Athy, June 21, 1867. He died, March 25,
1877.
[372] A run had been made on La Touche's Bank, and great fears were expressed
lest it should break. At last Lord Limerick, who as Sexten Pery had been
popular, took his stand at the counter, and when people saw him paying out the
gold, confidence became restored.—His kinsman, Aubrey de Vere, to the Writer.

CHAPTER XII
WILLIAM TODD JONES. EMMET'S
REBELLION
Todd Jones, Wolfe Tone, and Hon. Simon Butler were three Protestants to
whom, Mr. Froude says, the Catholic Committee voted 1,500l. each, as a
reward for their cordially rendered aid. This was in 1793, and we hear no
more of Todd Jones from Froude. His subsequent history is not without
interest, and seems interwoven with that of Francis Magan.
John Philpot Curran's writing-desk remains exactly as he left it when
quitting Ireland in 1817 to die. A long and cautiously written letter,[373]
without signature, dated August 13, 1803, but known to be from Lady
Moira, reposes in this desk. It was written three weeks after Emmet's
rebellion, and a month prior to his execution. The letter begins
mysteriously, 'Read, reflect, but do not answer. Time will unfold the
intentions.' She complains of information which had been sent to the
Government, regarding a trunk, assumed to be full of papers, reaching
Moira House, Usher's Island, and presumably from Todd Jones. She
declares that her rooms were ransacked, under a warrant from the Secretary
of State, and how letters addressed to Todd Jones at Moira House had been
carried to Dublin Castle. In writing to Curran, whom she wishes to be her
counsel if the matter should come to trial, she makes light of these letters,
and prudentially describes her correspondence with Jones as mainly of an
antiquarian and picturesque interest.
Magan, who resided within a few doors of Moira House, possessed peculiar
facilities for 'setting'[374] the movements of its habitués.[375] It must have
been in 1802 when he was found by Mathias O'Kelly[376] associating with
Todd Jones, and that date merits attention. 'I had been absent from Ireland
for ten years, from the year 1792,' writes Jones in his petition to the king,
'during the whole of which period I was uninterruptedly a resident in
England, and in May 1802 I was indispensably compelled to return to
Dublin, by an affair of honour.'[377] Soon after he proceeded to Munster,

'which I had never beheld, and had long entertained an inclination to
see.'[378]
At what date can we trace the first arrival of Jones on his mysterious
mission to Clonakilty, where with several of his friends he was arrested on a
charge of high treason in July 1803? To that question the answer is,
December 1802. The 'Account of Secret Service Money, applied in
detecting Treasonable Conspiracies,' contains the following entry:—'1802,
December 15th, Francis Magan, by direction of Mr. Orpen, 500l.'
There is but one family named 'Orpen' in Ireland; and the only Orpen who
could possibly be authorised to direct the payment of 500l. to Magan at this
time was the High Sheriff of Cork, in whose bailiwick Jones was tracked
and caught.[379]
Emmet, in his speech from the dock, denied that he was the life and soul of
the conspiracy, as alleged by Mr. Solicitor-General Plunket; declared that
men of greater mark than he were deep in it; that on his return to Ireland he
found the organisation formed; he was asked to join it; he requested time to
consider; they invited him again, and he embarked in the enterprise. And
yet, so carefully was the secret kept, that nothing transpired to show that he
had any colleagues of good position. Lord Norbury, who tried the case, and
the Attorney-General stigmatised the plan as contemptible from the fact that
Emmet's allies were of no higher rank than 'ostlers, bakers, carpenters, and
old clothes men,' and, notwithstanding the solemnity of Emmet's dying
words, history has since given him the exclusive credit, or discredit, of the
rising of 1803.
Among others to whom suspicion attaches, although there is no absolute
evidence to show his guilt, may be mentioned William Todd Jones, a
Protestant of good family and some means, a barrister and writer, and a
member of the late Irish Parliament. The Viceregal organ, the 'Dublin
Journal,' in its issue of August 6, 1803, after noticing the arrest of Jones,
adds: 'This gentleman has been many months on a tour through the
provinces of Leinster and Munster, making speculations on the state of the
country through which he passed.' He remained eight months in Cork, and it
is a question whether, during that prolonged stay, he may not have sought to
foment revolution. All memoirs of Emmet have hitherto been silent as
regards the complicity of Cork in his designs. Kildare is the county of

which mention is chiefly made. The following from the 'Courier' (London)
of August 5, 1803, furnishes a glimpse into the then state of Cork:—
A Dublin mail arrived this evening, and brought us letters and
papers of Monday last.... Though there has been no rising in
Cork, yet very unfavourable symptoms of disaffection have
appeared there, and to the south of that city we are sorry to hear
that the malignancy of the former rebellion is by no means
extinguished.
The same journal, of August 16, 1803, contains a letter 'written by a
gentleman of distinction in the county of Cork,' possibly Mr. Orpen himself,
who commanded a corps of Yeomanry. The writer, after stating that he had
spread yeomen in all directions to prevent the embarkation of persons
charged with treason, goes on to say:—
Todd Jones has been at Dr. Callanan's, Clonakilty, the last eight
months: H.,[380] by order of Government, arrested him for high
treason, as also the Doctor and his son.... These measures have
been attended with alarm; but I think we are at present quite
safe; and a strong fleet at Beerhaven relieves me from all
apprehension of an enemy.
The entire of the Yeomanry of this kingdom is now on the
permanent establishment. Our corps is strong, and without
vanity a good one. I have applied for an addition of infantry:
with this augmentation, I shall feel very little apprehension for
any attack made upon us without the aid of foreign force.
It appears from this letter, dated August, 1803, that Jones had been then
eight months at Clonakilty in the county Cork: therefore his arrival would
have been in December 1802—the very date of the payment of 500l. to
Magan by direction of Mr. Orpen, high sheriff for the county. Meanwhile
the locality in which Jones pitched his camp became, from some cause,
decidedly heated. A letter in the London 'Courier,' dated 'Cork, August 21,'
after recording the arrest of Todd Jones, Donovan, and Dr. Callanan, states,
'The peasantry in the neighbourhood of Ross, near Clonakilty, go armed to
their chapels, and mount a regular guard over their arms while they perform
their devotions.'

We have seen that Magan—traditionally described as an unsociable person,
possessing few friends—maintained most intimate relations with James
Dickson of Kilmainham, in whose house Jones was also a constant guest.
About the same time as the arrest of Jones in Cork, the 'Courier' of August
30, 1803, announces in its Dublin news: 'Yesterday Mr. James Dickson, of
Kilmainham, was arrested at his house by Messrs. Atkinson[381] and
Carleton, chief peace-officers, and his papers searched. The superintendent
magistrate had him conveyed to the Castle, where he underwent
examination, and was afterwards committed to Kilmainham Gaol.'[382]
Todd Jones, writing at the time, warmly details the circumstances of his
arrest (the italics are his own):—
My person has been assaulted in my bed at daybreak, in the
respectable mansion of a venerable friend, Doctor Callanan,
near Clonakilty, and I have been conveyed, very strongly
guarded by Troops, to an ignominious common Gaol: in
reaching which, at the moderate distance of twenty-two miles, I
have been wantonly exhibited, like an already convicted Felon,
for two long summer days, the first and second of August, in
Orange Triumph, to the gaze of a very crowded Bandon rabble;
and thence paraded, with like ostentation, through all the streets
of Cork, as if in progress to Execution.—My venerable friend
and hospitable entertainer, Doctor Calanan, a Physician of the
age of seventy, with his only son, on my account, have been
dragged from the same mansion to Prison, after a similar
triumphant exposure of two days, to gazing multitudes, in the
short distance of twenty-two miles: a Man eminent for a long
professional life, dedicated to the Poor, and to the Peasants,
whose tears kept pace with his progress.
He then goes on to request that all concerned in his detainer, including the
Sheriff of Cork, may be summoned to the Bar of Parliament. An account of
his shattered health is sent to the Secretary of State—'It is my liberty which
I pray for—a trial—liberation—or death! I have been a close prisoner for
eleven weeks, without even having been shown my indictment, or been told
the names of my accusers.'[383]

These complaints were made in October, 1803, but entirely failed to obtain
redress. His petition to the king, dated 1808, resumes the story: 'Within this
prison I continued confined from 23rd July, 1803, until the latter end of
October 1805, when I was unconditionally discharged by the High Sheriff
of the County of Cork—untried—unbailed—unexamined and
unredressed.'[384]
When the High Sheriff of Cork liberated Jones it may be assumed that the
same authority was instrumental in his committal. Formerly, high sheriffs
took much more active part in such proceedings than now. No organised
system of police then existed, and the high sheriffs seem to have been duly
impressed with the responsibility of their position. On March 18, 1800, we
find in the Secret Service Money Book, 100l. handed to Mr. Archer, High
Sheriff of Wicklow, for the detection of treason, and on April 27, 1801, a
further sum. But these exertions were dignified in comparison with the acts
of Sir Judkin Fitzgerald, High Sheriff of Tipperary, who, with his own
hands, flogged the peasantry to extort confession.
Emmet's insurrection burst forth in Dublin on the night of July 23, 1803;
that same morning, and at a distance of 150 miles, Jones is arrested.
The connection of Todd Jones with Irish politics was apparently of a graver
and more subtle sort than might be inferred from Lady Moira's letter to
Curran, or even Plowden's account of him in his History. Plowden, a
Catholic—the guest, with Jones and Magan, of James Dickson—says that
the persecution which Jones underwent at the hands of the Government was
due solely to his powerful advocacy of Catholic Emancipation and
Parliamentary Reform. He defends Jones with all the warmth of friendship;
his 'History of Ireland' enters most largely into the case, and quotes various
orators who sought to vindicate Jones in Parliament.[385] But the reply of
the ex-Secretary of State, Mr. Wickham, finds no place, contrary to
Plowden's usual honesty and fulness in that work. Wickham, as appears
from Hansard, rose from the bed of sickness to reply to Fox, who had taken
up the case of Jones, and addressed the House sitting. He said:—
For some time after the arrest of Mr. Todd Jones, which the Irish
Government was induced to order upon information—the
particulars of which he could not with any propriety describe,
but which were satisfactory to their minds as to the measure. Mr.

Jones remained in prison without any particular inquiry having
been instituted in his case. As soon, however, as the trials which
followed the insurrection of 1803, and which so much occupied
the attention of the Irish Government, had terminated, an inquiry
into the case of Mr. Jones took place.... He had already stated
the impossibility of giving a full explanation to the House
without acting unfairly towards the character of the Petitioner.
After the trial of the rebels, and the fullest investigation of the
charge against Mr. Jones, his case became much more serious
than it appeared at the outset. Willing, however, to act with
every possible mildness, his case was submitted to the Crown
lawyers accompanied by this question, 'whether it would be
proper to liberate Mr. Jones,' and their unanimous opinion was
decidedly in the negative. The Irish Government transmitted the
case of Mr. Jones to his Majesty's Ministers in this country,
requiring their advice; and their answer was, that it would be
extremely unadvisable to allow such a person to be at large in
Ireland![386]
Of how Jones's alleged guilt was hushed up, and why the vengeance of the
Attorney-General preferred to fall on 'ostlers, bakers, carpenters, and old
clothes men,' as he said, an idea may be perhaps formed from a letter
addressed by the Right Hon. William Saurin to Jones, proposing that he
should secretly, and as if of his own accord, exile himself from Ireland. This
letter was enclosed by Wickham to Jones on October 11, 1803. Saurin,
Jones states, had been his schoolfellow.[387]
Dr. Madden professes to supply a list of all persons of substance connected
with Emmet in his attempt; also of persons who were cognisant of his plans,
and were supposed to be favourably disposed towards them; but Todd Jones
obtains no place,[388] and therefore the less excuse is needed for this effort
to embrace a long neglected figure, and one not uninteresting for 'Auld lang
syne.'[389]

FOOTNOTES:
[373] The full text of this long letter will be found in the Appendix.

[374] 'Setting' is the phrase used by Mr. Secretary Cooke (see ante, p. 118).
[375] Ibid. p. 134.
[376] See previous chap. p. 140.
[377] Mr. Jones's 'Petition to the King,' dated 'Cork, March 9, 1808'; printed in
Plowden's History of Ireland, iii. 624.
[378] Ibid.
[379] The records of the Chief Secretary's Office show that in 1802 Richard
Thomas Orpen, of Frankford, was High Sheriff of Cork. During the present year
(1891), I found in the Irish State Papers a letter dated 'Cork, March 24, 1802,'
from the above Mr. Orpen, in his capacity of high sheriff, regarding a
correspondence he had with General Myers as to a small assistance of cavalry.
[380] Probably Dr. Hardinge of Cork, an active agent in those troubled times.
[381] Atkinson was desired to be on the alert in Cooke's letter to Sirr, written on
the day of Lord Edward's intended move, of which Magan gave notice.
[382] Mr. Justice Day, writing to the Irish Government on September 27, 1803
(eight days after Emmet's execution), suggests that Lord Bantry, who got his
peerage for reporting the arrival of the French in '96, would be a good man to
make inquiries regarding Jones.
[383] Curious Correspondence of William Todd Jones with the Secretary of
State. Dedicated to Lord Moira and Mr. Fox. (Cork: Odell, 1804.)
[384] Plowden's History of Ireland since the Union to 1810, iii. 626 et seq.
[385] Plowden's History of Ireland since the Union to 1810, ii. 36, 216-220, 623-
632.
[386] Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, v. 793-5.
[387] Curious Correspondence. (Cork: Odell, 1804.)
[388] United Irishmen, iii. 329.
[389] The Annual Register and other usually well-informed sources fail to record
the death of Jones. A full obituary of him appears in the Ulster Register for
March 1818, iv. 186-8; and a fine monody on 'Immortal Jones,' probably by
Drennan, in the same serial, pp. 224-5.

CHAPTER XIII
THOMAS COLLINS. PHILLIPS THE
SACERDOTAL SPY
A recent letter from the ex-Crown and Treasury Solicitor for Ireland quotes
the following from Mr. Lecky's notice of an unnamed spy, and asks me
'Who is he?'[390] 'He was a Dublin silk merchant,' writes Lecky, 'and can be
identified by a letter from Cooke to Nepean, May 26, 1794, in the Record
Office, London.'[391]
I may now state that his name was Collins. Cooke's letter mentions that
200l. a year had been settled on the informer of 1794, and that he was
recommended for office in the West Indies—his future residence in Ireland,
after Rowan's arrest, being unsafe.
Mr. Joynt's query comes not amiss, for John Keogh, also a silk merchant,
was broadly branded by Walter Cox as an informer, and the plausible
indictment is transcribed by Dr. Madden and enshrined in his magnum opus.
[392]
The charge against Keogh, who, by the way, preceded O'Connell as
leader of the Irish Catholics, is, however, baseless.
Mr. Cooke does not give the Christian name of this Collins, but later official
records describe it as Thomas. Collins was the first of the systematic
informers. Some sheaves of his letters are still preserved at Dublin Castle,
addressed to 'J. G.,' and heretofore supposed to imply 'Gregory,' a highly
distinguished secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. But Gregory's name was
William, and 'J. G.' stands for 'Jack Giffard,' whom Curran and Grattan, in
often-quoted philippics, denounced. The reports furnished to Giffard were
regularly passed on to Cooke, and two letters[393] from Collins to the latter
speak of his confidant 'Mr. G—— d.'
The daily reports extend almost unbroken from 1792 to 1795. All are
without a signature, while the official endorsement usual on such letters is
confined, in this case, to 'U. I. M.,' meaning, of course, the rebel
brotherhood. On December 15, 1792, he writes to Cooke: 'Implicitly depend

upon my being totally unknown to mankind in this business, save and
except to you and J. G.'[394]
Collins—at each conclave—feigned to be an advanced republican, and was
regularly invited to attend. New members, on being admitted, repeated 'a
test.' In an early letter to Giffard he writes:—
It is contemplated to abolish the Test, as it is found by
experience that it prevents a number of very warm friends to a
Reform from joining us; but I shall oppose it, as we have no
business with any of your lukewarm fellows who may hesitate at
going as great lengths as ourselves.[395]
In advance of every meeting a list was sent to Collins of the new candidates
for election. Scores of his secret letters enclose these lists, and announce the
results of the ballot, with the names of the rejected, and it is curiously
illustrative of the precautions taken to ensure secrecy, and as showing how
little Collins was himself suspected, that men much superior to him were
refused admission. Carefully prepared reports of the proceedings, with the
names of the speakers and of the number present, exist in endless evidence.
In one letter he encloses, for the Viceroy's satisfaction, the receipt given to
him for his annual subscription to the Society, signed by Oliver Bond, but
the part which names Collins is first blotted out, and finally cut clean away.
[396]

In August 1792, Cooke deputed Collins to extend his secret inquiries to a
wider area than the Hall in Back Lane where the United Irishmen met; and
the result is found in the subjoined letter. Its stealthy style contrasts with the
boldness of later missives.
Sir—I have made every possible inquiry and I have reason to
think that there now are Foreign agents here who have frequent
conferences with a noble Viscount and his Brother,[397] who is a
lawyer; also with J—hn K—gh, Ed—d B—re and Richard McC
—m—k.[398] For your Information you have a list of such U
—— I—— men as I think really dangerous from abilities. As to
Inclination, the whole of the Society are nearly alike.
You may be assured that whatever steps Mr. Tandy has for some
time past taken, or is now pursuing, are by the advice of the

before-mentioned noble Viscount[399] and Mr. Gr-tt-n; and also,
that let the pretentions (for the present) of the R-m-n Ca—— be
ever so moderate, the real design of their leaders is to effect a
separation between this country and Gr—t B—t—n.
I remain, &c. &c.[400]
Collins had the same liking for dramatic mystery as Turner; many of the
letters to 'G.' ask him to call at night to hear things that could not be put on
paper, to tap at a certain door in a dark passage, and 'no one would be the
wiser.' In the graphic sketch he daily furnished, special attention is paid to
the chief 'sitter,' Hamilton Rowan, who presided as chairman until his
arrest; while Tone, Tandy, Emmet, Drennan, Bond, Lewins, the Sheares,
and B. B. Harvey (the last three afterwards hanged) stand forth in bold
outline from a crowd of minor faces grouped in the background. Sometimes
they all dined together. 'When Paine's health was given his picture was
introduced and received a general embrace. Several French songs were sung
by Mr. Sheares, with proper explanations for those ignorant of the
language.'[401] Glimpses of further feasts are caught, revealing the same
familiar faces: men who had not yet begun to realise the gruesome fact that
the handwriting was on the wall.
John Keogh is not often mentioned as present; and never after 1793. In
October '92 Collins furnishes an abstract of a spirited speech delivered by
Keogh. This led to queries, and in reply Collins tells Cooke: 'The leaders
are Hamilton Rowan, Tandy, Jackson, Bond, Dowling, McCormick,
Warren, and some others. But Keogh and Drennan are the grand
movers;'[402] and on the following day he writes: 'Keogh is the principal
performer behind the scenes—as the fellow's art is such he does not appear
amongst us, but has a set of fellows to constantly attend and broach his
sentiments.'[403] Keogh, a man of rare sagacity—whose life has yet to be
written—took the course described in consequence of having recognised in
his audience a person whom he did not fully trust. Turning to Richard
McCormick, in the hearing of 'Billy Murphy,' the subsequent millionaire, he
said, 'Dick, men's lives are not safe here,' and glided quietly away. John
Keogh is the only man of mark who passed unscathed through the crisis of
'98; and Cox, mistakenly believing that this immunity was due to treachery
towards his colleagues, sought to brand him as a spy.

In 1793, John Keogh, Sir Charles Ffrench and several other Catholic
delegates,[404] waited on George III. at St. James's and presented a petition
craving relief from the disabilities by which their order was oppressed. The
loss of America had preached the wisdom of concession; and the tempest of
the French Revolution roared within measurable distance. While Pitt and
Dundas were not indisposed to grant a full emancipation to the Irish
Catholics, they were constantly opposed in this policy by Dublin Castle.
The often sensational reports of Collins seem to have had due effect. A long
letter to Cooke regarding the Catholics begins by saying that
There are few individuals better acquainted with the views and
dispositions of those people than I am. If they are gratified the
day is not far off when High Mass with all its mummery will be
performed in Christ Church[405]—the auditors to be a popish
Lord Lieutenant, a popish Chancellor, &c. &c., unless the use of
the former be preceded by an entire separation from Honest
John Bull, which is the grand object of the disaffected of every
description in this country.
Where Government has resisted, the good effects have been
found; when it has relaxed, demands have increased.... To come
to the point: give the Papists all they want or nothing. Without
the former the sword must be drawn at one period or another;
and the query is, whether it's not better to try the event when
they are unprepared, than to continue going on to give the adder
time to strengthen with the heat of summer: not that I think there
is the smallest danger of any war but wordy ones from them—
unless time and the interference of their Gallic Friends may
embolden them to acts of desperation. [He then proceeds to
advise the embodiment of military corps in Dublin, well
officered. The pay to be such as to induce respectable Protestant
tradesmen and others to enlist.]
Suppose the whole to be mounted and appointed as dragoons,
this small corps will be found of as much use as any Regiment
of Cavalry in the Kingdom.
If a friend of yours[406] should be thought of, I think there would
be an end to all illegal meetings,[407] associations and

combinations, and I will answer for his compleating and
arraying the number in 10 Days.[408]
A small measure of Catholic Relief was at length offered by Pitt. Collins, a
month later, courageously writes: 'If you think it prudent to have me
examined by the Secret Committee, I may give some useful information
previous to the Catholick Bill going to the Upper House.'[409]
It is not surprising that, from the regularity and general accuracy of the
spy's reports, Giffard in his conversations more than once revealed a
knowledge that fluttered the Inner Circle. On February 15, 1794, Collins
reports, in the précis of proceedings that had taken place that night:—
A notice by Mr. John Sheares that he will on Friday next
propose a new Ballot of the whole of the Society, or else the
total dissolution thereof, in order, as he says, to get rid of some
suspected Members, who, he says, are in the habit of betraying
the Secrets of the Society to Government. At the time he gave
this notice there were not more than fifteen members present
and the proposition seemed to meet their approbation. The fact
is they are all cursedly frightened by the examples made of
some of their friends. Fear only can keep them in order;
gentleness will only encourage their audacity.
Three months elapsed: they met and deliberated; the reports went regularly
to Dublin Castle; arrests were made; the Society wondered; but Collins,
though a loaded mine lay beneath his feet, stood his ground. On Saturday,
May 10, 1794, he announces:—
Surgeon Wright proposed appointing a commission of inquiry to
inspect into the character and conduct of not only the members
of the Society, but of all other persons in this city who profess
patriotism, as he had reason to suspect that Mr. Pitt's system of
having spies in all company and in all Societies, had made its
way into this country.
Collins, no coward like Turner, maintained his character as one of the most
regular attendants at the meetings, played his part, opposed some minor
propositions,[410] and continued his carefully framed reports.[411] These
reports perturbed Dublin Castle quite as much as the United Irishmen had

been scared by the leakage of their plans. On April 28, 1794, Marcus
Beresford writes to his father, who had long been regarded as the virtual
governor of Ireland:—
Government are determined to hang Rowan if possible; but they
have not yet shown any suspicion of any person here being
concerned in the plot, in order to lull them into security. No
person knows as much as I now tell you except Lord
Westmoreland, the Attorney-General, and Sackville Hamilton.
[412]

Judging from Cooke's letter to Nepean, Collins' chief enterprise was in
bringing Hamilton Rowan within the meshes of the law. In 1792, as we
learn from his Autobiography, Rowan was arrested on a charge of
distributing a seditious paper. Informations were filed against Rowan,
difficulties supervened, and he was not brought to trial until January 1794.
Rowan offered proof that two of his jurors had declared 'Ireland would
never be quiet until Rowan and Napper Tandy were hanged.'[413] The
challenge, however, was not allowed. Curran acted as his counsel, and
delivered a speech reminding one of Cicero's defence of Milo. Rowan was
found guilty, fined, and committed to Newgate, but, by bribing his jailer,
escaped; and, after various romantic adventures, reached France in a boat
manned by two fishermen of Howth.[414]
A proclamation offering 1,000l.[415] reward for his capture was read by the
men, but they told him not to fear. This remarkable escape took place on
May 4, 1794. Cooke's letter, saying that Collins' further residence in Ireland
would be unsafe, is dated May 26 following. An amusing proof of the
general distrust which then prevailed is shown in the fact, recorded by
Rowan, that on reaching France he was arrested as a British spy, sent under
a strong guard to Brest, and lodged with galley-slaves.[416] Judging from
Beresford's letter, written two days before the escape, however, it cannot be
said that he got out of the frying-pan into the fire, as Rowan seems to have
thought.
Some few letters from Mr. Douglas, who filled a Government post in
London, are intermingled with the Collins MSS. The Right Hon. John
Beresford, in a letter dated May 13, 1794, writes: 'Douglas called upon me
this day; we had a great deal of conversation about Rowan. He told me that,

as Rowan had escaped, Tone was the next guilty person, and ought to be
hanged.' This, however, it was not so easy to do. Neither Turner nor Collins
would prosecute openly. Meanwhile some friends of Tone entered into
negotiations with Government, and he was at last allowed to expatriate
himself beyond the seas.[417]
Mr. Collins[418] did not get the post for which he was recommended until
the year 1800. It was Dominica, one of the West Indian Islands, as we learn
from the 'S. S. Money Book.' The first entry of his name is on November
23, 1797: 'Mr. Collins.—Sent to him, in London, 108l.'[419] Here he remains
for two years—no doubt one of the gentlemen 'recommended by Mr.
Cooke,' and mentioned in the 'Castlereagh Correspondence' as qualified to
'set' the movements of Lord Cloncurry in London.
In more than one of the secret letters sent by Collins to Cooke, he offers his
services for fields in other countries, where he thinks he could be even more
useful than at home. A large sheaf of papers regarding troubles in the West
Indies is preserved at Dublin Castle. Dominica—the site of his first
appointment—had been captured by the British in 1756, but in 1771 the
French, after a hard fight, once more became its masters. In 1783 the island
was again restored to the English, but its executive felt far from secure.
Intrigue was at work; French emissaries were not few; and the presence of
Collins, a practised spy, came not amiss. The French, however, again
effected a landing in 1805; Roseau, the chief town, was obliged to
capitulate, and pay the enemy 12,000l. to quit. In 1890, after the cession of
Heligoland to Germany, there was talk of surrendering Dominica to France.
What was Collins' later history I have been unable to discover. 'Sylvanus
Urban' tells of a Thomas Collins who was hanged; but this is a mere
coincidence of name. It is within the possibilities that our spy may have
posed as Governor Collins, and even received at his levees Hamilton
Rowan, who, during the travels by which his exile was beguiled, would pay
his devoirs, as he says, to the British resident.[420]
An informer of a novel type was a priest named Phillips. Describing the
events of the year 1795, Mr. Froude writes:—
Lord Carhampton went down and took command in Connaught.
Informers offered their services, provided their presence was not

required in the witness-box. A Priest named Phillips 'caused
himself to be made a Defender with a view of giving
information.'[421] Others came whose names the Viceroy dared
not place on paper. With the help of these men, Carhampton was
able to arrest many of the Connaught Leaders;[422] and legal
trials being from the nature of the case impossible, he trusted to
Parliament for an Act of Indemnity, and sent them by scores to
serve in the Fleet. Thus, amidst the shrieks of Patriots and
threats of prosecution, he succeeded in restoring some outward
show of order.[423]
Among Mr. Froude's startling passages, none created in Ireland a more
painful sensation than this. That an Irish priest—the Soggarth Aroon[424] of
the people—should be selling the lives of his friends, flock, and penitents,
was indeed a novel incident. Interest in the episode has quite recently been
revived by Mr. Lecky, who describes Father Phillips as having given the
Government some really valuable assistance in detecting Rebel Leaders.
[425]
For all we know to the contrary, this Ecclesiastic might have gone on to
the end undiscovered, posing and pontificating as a solemn Hierarch. But,
in point of fact, Phillips, though in orders, had been degraded and
suspended by his Ordinary. Dr. Madden, long before the publication of
Froude or Lecky, casually notices Phillips[426] as an 'excommunicated priest
from French Park, co. Roscommon.'
His end was involved in some mystery which it may be well to penetrate.
McSkimmins' 'History of Carrickfeargus' records, under date January 5,
1796: 'The body of a stranger, said to have been an informer, of the surname
of Phillips, was found in a dam, near the paper mills, Belfast.' How he came
there we learn from James Hope, a Protestant rebel of Ulster. After the
excommunicated priest, Phillips, had betrayed a number of the Defenders in
Connaught, he proceeded to Belfast, only to find, however, that his
character had cast its shadow before him. A party of Defenders seized
Phillips, tried him on the spot, and sentenced him to death. 'They gave him
time to pray,' adds Hope, 'then put leaden weights into his pockets, and
drowned him.'
Punishment of informers by death was not of the frequency that
McSkimmin supposed and Turner feared. Hope, who is always truthful,

adds, that at a meeting of the Craigarogan Branch, 'they came to a
resolution: "That any man who recommended or practised assassination of
any person whomsoever, or however hostile to the Society, should be
expelled."'
There is another informer whose name Mr. Froude undertakes to disclose.
In April 1797 Camden sends Portland 'A statement which had been secretly
made to him by a member of the Military Committee of the United
Irishmen,'—and we learn that the informer in this instance was a miniature
painter named Neville. Due inquiry has failed to find any man named
Neville in the Society of United Irishmen, though a respectable wine
merchant, Brent Neville, appears as the uncle of Henry Sheares's wife;
'Neville' has been reprinted in every succeeding edition of Mr. Froude's
book. But it is now quite certain that Neville is a misprint for Newell. The
'Life and Confessions of Newell (a Spy),' written by himself, and
undoubtedly genuine, was published in London in 1798; and in it (pp. 13-
15) he describes his calling as that of a miniature painter.

FOOTNOTES:
[390] William Lane Joynt, D.L., to W. J. F., Grange Abbey, June 29, 1891.
[391] Lecky's England, vii. 8.
[392] Madden's United Irishmen, iii. 331-2. Again, at p. 41, Dr. Madden says
that so early as 1793, the very time that Collins is now shown to be at work,
Keogh was suspected of infidelity. Mr. Lecky, in reply to a private query, agrees
with me that Keogh was thoroughly true.
[393] Notably that of November 26, 1793.
[394] Anonymous to Cooke, December 15, 1792. One letter only, dated three
years later, appealing to Dublin Castle for money and place, and in the same
handwriting as the others, lays aside his disguise and is boldly signed 'Thomas
Collins.'
[395] To 'J. G.' April 13, 1792. MSS. Dublin Castle.
[396] The date of this receipt is November 1, 1793.
[397] The Hon. Simon Butler, K.C., was brother of Edmund Viscount
Mountgarret, a peerage dating from October 1550. At a meeting of the Society of
United Irishmen in February 1793, Butler in the chair, and Bond acting as
secretary, a declaration was proposed and adopted, pronouncing as illegal certain
proceedings of the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Lords, in compelling
witnesses to answer on oath questions compromising themselves, and directed to
the discovery of evidence mainly in support of prosecutions already commenced.

For this act, Butler and Bond were sentenced by the Lord Chancellor to be
imprisoned for six months and to pay a fine of 500l. to the King. (See Madden,
ii. 244.) Simon Butler was fortunate in not living to witness the sad scenes of
'98.
[398] John Keogh, Edward Byrne, and Richard McCormick.
[399] Diplomacy sought to paralyse the more influential arm of the movement.
This same Viscount Mountgarret was promoted to an earldom on December 20,
following!
[400] Anon. (Thomas Collins) to Cooke, August 27, 1792.
[401] [Collins] to 'J. G.,' November 20, 1793.
[402] [Collins] to Cooke, November 29, 1792.
[403] Idem, November 30, 1792.
[404] As in the case of Lord Mountgarret subtlety was employed in the hope of
moderating the tone of Sir Charles Ffrench. He had much influence with the
Irish Catholics; and in 1798 a peerage was conferred on his aged mother, who, in
her simplicity, said to a cousin, 'I don't know what I have done that they should
make a Lord of me.' In point of lineage few had higher claims.
[405] A Protestant Cathedral in Dublin used by the Catholics until the
Reformation.
[406] Himself.
[407] Italics in original.
[408] Endorsed by Cooke, 'U. I., Jan. 29, '93.'
[409] [Collins] to Cooke, February 28, 1793.
[410] Letter of January 4, 1793.
[411] The zealous subserviency of Collins, as in the case of Reynolds and
Magan, originated in pecuniary straits. A letter of January 24, 1792, to Giffard,
speaks of the accommodation he had received at his hands; and addressing Mr.
Cooke (June 26, 1793), he dilates on his 'embarrassments.'
[412] Beresford Correspondence, ii. 26 (unpublished).
[413] Autobiography of Archibald Hamilton Rowan, p. 183.
[414] Rowan, until the willing hands were found, remained in Mr. Sweetman's
house, now known as Rosedale, Raheny.
[415] Mr. Froude says that the proclamation named '£2,000 for Rowan's
apprehension' (Hist. iii. 119). The proclamation, dated May 2, 1794, offers
'£1,000 to any person or persons who shall apprehend the said Hamilton Rowan,
wherever he may be found, or to so discover him that he may be apprehended or
committed to prison.'
[416] Autobiography of Hamilton Rowan, p. 220.
[417] In December 1796 Tone accompanied the French fleet to Bantry Bay. Mr.
Froude and other historians think that it was Grouchy who failed to attempt a
landing. 'Then, as twenty years later, on another occasion, no less critical,' he

writes, meaning Waterloo, 'Grouchy was the good genius of the British Empire'
(iii. 205). In point of fact, Grouchy was not at Bantry. M. Guillon, in France et
Irlande, written with full access to the papers of the French Admiralty, makes it
clear that Bouvet, and not Grouchy, was the man who ought to have been named.
[418] Several persons named Collins, and described as silk mercers, appear in
the Dublin Directory between the years 1770 and 1800. Thomas Collins
vanishes in 1793; and 'Samuel Collins, silk and worsted manufacturer, 35 Pill
Lane,' is also found for the last time in the Directory for 1793. They seem to
have been brothers. A bill of Samuel, duly receipted, for goods supplied to Dr.
McNevin, a leading rebel, is enclosed by Thomas in one of his secret missives to
Cooke.
[419] Other entries follow: 'Thomas Collins' bill, from London, 54l. 3s. 4d.' is
entered on September 22, 1798. These payments continue to be made until 1799,
when they become very frequent.
[420] Autobiography of Hamilton Rowan, p. 318.
[421] Camden to Portland, July 29, 1795.
[422] The late Colonel the Right Hon. FitzStephen French, whose brother
became Lord De Freyne, informed me that his father, Arthur French, M.P. for
Roscommon from 1785 to 1820, had been threatened with arrest by Lord
Carhampton. French lived at French Park, where 'Priest Phillips' also resided.
[423] The English in Ireland, iii. 161.
[424] Anglice 'darling priest' John Banim has given to the ballad poetry of
Ireland a well-known piece under this title.
[425] Cooke to Pelham, Dec. 4, 1795.
[426] United Irishmen, i. 537.

CHAPTER XIV
LEONARD MCNALLY
Thirty years ago I published in 'Notes and Queries'[427] an exposé of
McNally, so far as it could then be done on circumstantial evidence. His
secret letters to the Irish Government were not accessible when I first
touched the subject, but these have become very familiar to me of late, and
it will be seen that all I sought to show is proved by the revelation of
McNally's own testimony. Before I come to these letters, some of the
remarks with which I had long previously prefaced my doubts may perhaps
be allowed to stand.
It is an object with Mr. Froude to show—and evidently as pointing a moral
—that men who posed as the greatest patriots were secretly betraying the
plans of their colleagues. But although Mr. Froude mentions McNally more
than once, it does not appear that he was an informer. When describing the
arrest and death of the Rev. Wm. Jackson in 1794, he mentions McNally as
'a popular barrister,' and further on his name is given with that of Curran,
Ponsonby, Emmet, and Guinness, as constituting 'the legal strength of Irish
Liberalism.' This remark is made in connection with an episode told with
such dramatic effect by Mr. Froude that it remains merely for a minor pen
to unmask 'the popular barrister.'
Charles Phillips, although he had made the lives of famous Irish barristers
his study, as shown in 'Curran and his Contemporaries,' refused to believe
any tale to the prejudice of McNally. In the last edition of his popular book
Phillips declares that
The thing is incredible! If I was called upon to point out, next to
Curran, the man most obnoxious to the Government—who most
hated them, and was most hated by them—it would have been
Leonard MacNally—that MacNally, who, amidst the military
audience, stood by Curran's side while he denounced
oppression, defied power, and dared every danger![428]

In this impression he was supported by W. H. Curran, afterwards judge—a
man who, unlike his illustrious father, was of the hardest and coldest nature.
He travelled out of his path, in writing that father's life, to pronounce a
panegyric which is quite a curiosity to exhume:—
Among many endearing traits in this gentleman's private
character, his devoted attachment to Mr. Curran's person and
fame and, since his death, to the interests of his memory, has
been conspicuous. The writer of this cannot advert to the ardour
and tenderness with which he cherishes the latter, without
emotion of the most lively and respectful gratitude. To Mr.
McNally he has to express many obligations for the zeal with
which he has assisted in procuring and supplying materials for
the present work. The introduction of these private feelings is
not entirely out of place—it can never be out of place to record
an example of steadfastness in friendship. For three and forty
years Mr. McNally was the friend of the subject of these pages;
and during that long period he performed the duties of the
relation with the most uncompromising and romantic fidelity. To
state this is a debt of justice to the dead. The survivor has an
ampler reward than any passing tribute of this sort can confer, in
the recollection that during their long intercourse not even an
unkind look ever passed between them.[429]
These remarks were elicited by a scene which occurred in Finney's trial[430]
in '98. John Philpot Curran, embracing McNally, said, 'My old and excellent
friend, I have long known and respected the honesty of your heart, but
never until this occasion was I acquainted with the extent of your abilities. I
am not in the habit of paying compliments where they are undeserved.'
Tears fell from Mr. Curran as he hung over his friend.[431] Emotion spread
to the Bench, and Judge Chamberlain, and Baron Smith warmly
complimented McNally. Poor Curran! He

loved to recall the past moments so dear
When the sweet pledge of faith was confidingly given,
When the lip spoke in voice of affection sincere,
And the vow was exchanged and recorded in Heaven.[432]

In 1817, when Curran died in England, Burton—afterwards judge—singled
out McNally, as the attached friend of the illustrious dead, to tell him the
sad news.[433]
It does not surprise one that Phillips should have expressed the scepticism
he puts on record. No man was more deeply versed in Bar traditions. He
loved to question its oldest members about their contemporaries; and
amongst all their ana he never heard, as regards McNally, a dark doubt
started. 'Dr. Madden in his "Life of Robert Emmet,"' writes Phillips,
'broadly states the fact [that he was in Government pay], but does not give,
as he usually does, his grounds for so stating it.'[434] Madden, replying to
Phillips, said, 'I acknowledge I am ignorant of the time when the pension of
300l. was conferred.'
We now know not only the date, but the nature of the service by which the
pension was earned.
Under-Secretary Cooke, in the year 1800, drew up for Castlereagh's
information a confidential memorandum respecting 'Secret Service
Pensions' for those who had given important assistance during the
Rebellion. 'Mac,' for a pension of 300l. a year, is the first name
recommended.[435] On the following page, Mr. Cooke—obliged to be
explicit—writes the name Leonard MacAnally in full, with the amount 300l.
as his annual wages.
Major Sirr was chief of the police system in Dublin. His papers contain no
letters from McNally; but Thomas O'Hara, writing to Sirr on November 11,
1800, proffers his services as a spy, and requests Sirr to address his answer
to 'Leonard McNally, Esq., 20 Harcourt Street, Dublin.'[436] McNally,
irrespective of the knowledge he possessed as counsel for the rebels, was
himself a 'United Irishman.' An organ of that body, the 'Northern Star,' on
March 3, 1797, proudly describes him as such in connection with the fact
that, some days previously, he challenged and fought Sir Jonah Barrington
for having used disparaging language towards the United Irishmen. In this
combat he lost his thumb. The two Sheareses and Bagenal Harvey—all
hanged the following year—escorted McNally to the ground.
A number of receipts for quarterly payments of Secret Service money were
stolen from Dublin Castle during the thirties, and came to the hammer at a

literary sale-room. Among them is the following:—
Received from William Taylor, Esqr., Seventy-five pounds, due
the 25th June last.
J. W.
Endorsed (by Mr. Taylor)—5th July, 1816, 75l. L. M‘N.
S. A.[437]
McNally seems to have been the only recipient who was permitted to use
false initials. The handwriting in the above is identical with some
acknowledged autograph lines of Leonard McNally; but 'trifles light as air'
at first encouraged my suspicions. For instance: there appears in the
'Cornwallis Papers,' some five hundred pages away from the part which
mentions him, a letter signed 'J. W.'[438] The able editor, Mr. Ross, cannot
guess the writer; but the information given deals with matters arising out of
legal proceedings, and thereby points to a barrister as the spy.
In the same letter,[439] 'J. W.' states that a man named Bird is determined to
'let the cat out of the bag.' Here it may be observed in passing, that a
pamphlet of the day is entitled 'The Cat let out of the Bag,' and, though
published anonymously, the copy now before me displays his well known
autograph, 'By Leonard McNally, Barrister-at-law.'[440]
John Pollock was Clerk of the Crown for the Leinster Circuit in 1798. The
Book of Secret Service Money[441] records frequent payments, through his
hands, to 'J. W.' These entries appear from February 16, 1799, to June 16,
1801, when the words 'repaid from pension' are added. McNally, it will be
remembered, received his pension the previous year. Cooke, in a
confidential memorandum for Castlereagh, writes:—
Pollock's services ought to be thought of. He managed Mac
——, and MacGuicken,[442] and did much. He received the
place of Clerk of the Crown and Peace, and he has the fairest
right to indemnification.[443]
Thus we see how weak was the attempt made by McNally's friends to
explain away his secret pension. It was plausibly alleged that McNally,
having been refused a silk gown in 1808, the pension was then conferred to

compensate for his disappointment. So popular was this barrister, that the
refusal of the Crown to give him silk was voted a grievance. Indeed, so far
as outward appearance went, he uniformly took the popular side on all
questions. The Bar meeting, to denounce the proposed Legislative Union,
held on December 9, 1798, includes, among the patriotic orators, Leonard
McNally.
Some of the reasons given by Phillips for refusing to doubt McNally's
patriotism were, that he declined to join the lawyers' corps of yeomanry in
1798, and that his was the last hand Curran grasped when leaving Ireland!
These waifs and strays only prove how well McNally played his part. As a
successful dramatic author, and one who had been himself upon the stage,
theatrical effect was at all times easy to him.
It is now time to appeal to direct evidence, not until recently accessible. Mr.
Lecky, in examining the archives of the Home Office, has found record of
McNally's fall, and the virtuous historian describes it as a 'peculiarly
shocking one.'[444] It will be remembered that the Rev. Wm. Jackson, a
parson, came to Ireland in 1794 on a secret mission from France. He was
arrested, tried, and sentenced to death. McNally now found, it is said, that if
he did not become an informer the halter would soon encircle a neck
previously dignified by forensic bands.
Jackson, shortly before his death [Mr. Lecky goes on to say],
found an opportunity of writing four short letters,
recommending his wife and child, and a child who was still
unborn, to two or three friends, and to the care of the French
nation, and he also drew up a will leaving all he possessed to his
wife, and entrusting McNally with the protection of her
interests. He wrote at the bottom of it, 'Signed and sealed in
presence of my dearest friend, whose heart and principles ought
to recommend him as a worthy citizen—Leonard McNally.'
These precious documents he entrusted, when dying, to his
friend, and about three weeks after the death of Jackson,
McNally placed them in the hands of the Irish Government.
A few days later, Camden sent a copy of them to England, with
a 'most secret and confidential letter.' 'The paper which
accompanies this,' he said, 'was delivered to Counsellor

McNally, from whom Government received it. There is so much
evidence against this person, that he is—I am informed—
completely in the power of Government. Your Grace will
observe that the care of Mrs. Jackson is recommended by her
husband to the National Convention, and that Mr. McNally is
desired to assist her by every means in his power to procure her
assistance from them. It has occurred to me that an excuse might
be made for Mr. McNally's being allowed to enter France for the
purpose of attending to this woman's fortunes, that he should go
through London, and in case your Grace should wish to employ
him, I would inform you when and where he will be found.'
Portland replied that he was perfectly ready to make use of the
services of McNally in France, if Camden thought that he might
be safely trusted, but he suggested that this was very doubtful.
The control which Government possessed over him depended
entirely upon the conclusive evidence of treason they had
against him. Would that control continue in a foreign country?
Camden, on reflection, agreed that it would not be safe to try the
experiment. McNally, however, he was convinced, would be
very useful at home.[445]
Jackson, finding no chance of acquittal, took poison and died, just as Lord
Clonmell was about to sentence him to be hanged. Shortly before his death
in the dock, seeing McNally pass, he grasped his hand and is said to have
whispered, 'We have deceived the Senate!' This was true of McNally, but
Jackson did not suspect him; nor did Curran, or the many other shrewd
scribes who have chronicled the touching incident.
Mr. Lecky thinks that McNally's fall dates only from 1794: my belief is that
he had previously evinced some frailty. In 1790, when counsel for Lord
Sherborne, Beresford Burston accused him of 'doing dirty work,'[446] and
McNally thereupon challenged Burston. Dr. Madden says that, in 1792, at
the time of Napper Tandy's action against the Viceroy, some of Tandy's
legal advisers were suspected of having disclosed their ingenious case to the
Crown. McNally was certainly counsel in this cause. St. John Mason,
brother-in-law of Addis Emmet, broadly charges McNally with perfidy
committed in 1792.[447] Previous to this date Collins the spy calls McNally

'one of us,' in a secret letter to the Government agent, Jack Gifford.[448]
Who Gifford was is shown by Curran, who complains to the Chief
Secretary for Ireland, that 'Gifford, a note-taker for your Government, had
the daring to come up to me in the street and shake his stick at me.'[449]
Mr. Lecky says that McNally often betrayed to the Crown the line of
defence contemplated by his clients, and other information which he could
only have received in professional confidence, and the Government
archives contain several of his briefs annotated in his own hand. Mr. Lecky
finds that
he was also able, in a manner not less base, to furnish the
Government with early and most authentic evidence about
conspiracies which were forming in France. James Tandy[450] ...
was his intimate friend; McNally, by his means, saw nearly
every letter that arrived from Napper Tandy, and some of those
which came from Rowan and Reynolds. The substance of these
letters was regularly transmitted to the Government, and they
sometimes contained information of much value. Besides this,
as a lawyer in considerable practice, constantly going on circuit,
and acquainted with the leaders of sedition, McNally had
excellent opportunities of knowing the state of the country, and
was able to give very valuable warnings about the prevailing
dispositions.[451]
Among the earlier victims to the severe legislation of that time was
Laurence Conner, a poor schoolmaster of Naas, charged with Defenderism,
whose case has been invested with interest by Sir Jonah Barrington, Dr.
Madden, and others. A moving speech from the dock failed to avert his
doom, and his head, for years after, grinned from a stake at the top of the
gaol. McNally, who had defended him, stated in his secret report to Pelham
that a provision had been offered for Conner's family if he would make
discoveries; but his reply was, 'He who feeds the young ravens in the valley
will provide for them!'[452] It is strange that McNally should report to his
employers this chivalrous speech, which places in marked contrast his own
frailty and disgraceful fall. But corrupt as his heart had now become, he
could not help admiring magnanimity wherever he met it. The man who
sought to make Conner inform was, doubtless, McNally himself, at the

instance of Crown Solicitor Pollock, who, as the 'Cornwallis Papers' record
(iii. 120), 'managed Mac.'
This is the man whose name Earl Russell erased from Moore's Diary of
February 27, 1835, leaving merely the initials 'L. McN.,' because some
doubts of his honesty had been expressed postprandially by Plunket, a man
more clear-sighted, it appears, than Charles Phillips. Succeeding chapters
will show Plunket associated with McNally during the State trials of '98.
Lord Holland amused with my saying how much I used to look
up to this L—— McN—— [writes Moore], on account of some
songs in a successful opera which he wrote, 'Robin Hood.'
'Charming Clorinda' was one of the songs I used to envy him
being the author of.
'Your profession should have taught you principles of honour,' McNally
writes in the piece which first roused the muse of Moore. With such fine
sentiments it must have caused him a struggle to betray. All will rejoice that
he who sang

Let Erin remember the days of old
Ere her faithless sons betrayed her—

escaped the blight of McNally's breath. Moore was the bosom friend of
Emmet, sympathised with the 'cause,' and wrote for the organ of the United
Irishmen. Shortly after '98, however, he entered at the Middle Temple,
London, and saw McNally no more. Plunket told Moore that it was in a
duel McNally received the wound in the hip that lamed him, and on a
subsequent occasion, when he was again going out to fight, a friend said,
'I'd advise you, Mac, to turn the other hip to him, and who knows but he
may shoot you straight.'[453]
McNally was indeed a brave man. If anyone seemed to doubt him, he would
be called out and probably shot. In early life he practised at the English Bar.
It is recorded in the 'Cyclopædian Magazine,' for 1808, that during the
Gordon Riots, when the mob had smashed down the Bishop of Lincoln's
coach, had dragged him out, and were beating him with bludgeons,
McNally, at the risk of his life, rescued Dr. Thurlow, on whose forehead, he
heard them say, they meant to cut the sign of the cross. This prelate, who

somewhat favoured Catholic Relief, was the brother of Lord Chancellor
Thurlow; and the young barrister may have had an ulterior object in thus
exposing himself to danger. McNally himself evidently supplied the
account, of which but a few details are here borrowed, and we learn that 'the
Bishop required, and received, the address of his protector, but never after
acknowledged the obligation.'[454] Some pamphlets on the Regency
struggle, and the 'Claims of Ireland' vindicated on the principles of the
English Whigs, introduced him to Fox, for whom he acted as counsel at an
election for Westminster. 'By whatever right England possesses Liberty,' he
said, 'by the same right Ireland may claim it!'
McNally as an orator was declamatory, and at times theatrical. His outward
man has been often caricatured, but John O'Keefe tells us that he had 'a
handsome, expressive countenance, and fine sparkling dark eyes.'[455] Sir
Jonah Barrington recognises the same features. Contemporary memoirs of
him supply a long list of his dramas, farces, comic operas, touching lyrics,
prologues and masques, all produced at Covent Garden. But when in
England he was a genuine, thoroughgoing Irishman very unlike the sham
which he afterwards became; and why he resigned a dramatic for a forensic
career is curiously shown by 'Sylvanus Urban.' The opening of Covent
Garden Theatre, on September 23, 1782, was commemorated by a prelude
from McNally's pen.
The author, with a partiality to his own countrymen which we
know not how to censure, has drawn the character of an
Irishman as one possessed of qualities which he had rather
imprudently denied to the other persons of the drama—English,
Scotch, Welsh, and French. This circumstance gave offence, and
before the conclusion of the piece the clamour became too great
for anything to be heard. It was, therefore, laid aside.
No name seems to have been more popular with the pit and galleries, and
the admiration of his countrymen for him showed itself in odd ways.
Kemble somewhere describes an Irishman at Drury Lane indignantly
claiming one of Shakespeare's plays for McNally: and when a spectator,
duly challenged, replied that he did not want to dispute the point with him,
his tormentor said, still trying to foster a quarrel, 'but perhaps you don't
believe me?' Again the man received a polite assurance which seemed quite
satisfactory; but five minutes later 'Pat,' observing Kemble whispering to a

companion, came over in an attitude still more menacing—'Maybe your
friend doesn't believe that the play is written by Leonard McNally?' and to
avoid a scene both were glad to decamp. Those were the days when the
voice of national predilection made itself heard and felt in dramatic
criticism. Home scored a success with 'Douglas:' 'and where be your Wully
Shakespeare noo?' was shrieked by some clannish Scots that night.
McNally's friends regretted more than once that he ever left London. A
book called 'Five Hundred Celebrated Authors of Great Britain now living'
was published here in 1788,[456] and it is amusing to find McNally's name
included with those of Burke, Gibbon, Walpole, Crabbe, Burns, Cowper, De
Lolme and Mackenzie, who at the close of a century were helping to
educate the minds which were to adorn its successor.
One day Lord Loughborough, finding McNally ill prepared in a case which
came before the Court, advised him to abandon the Muses and study
Blackstone; but the cacoëthes scribendi burned too strongly within him to
relinquish more cultured pursuits. His 'Sentimental Excursions to Windsor'
appeared, and on rejoining the Irish Bar he produced 'The Irish Justice of
the Peace,' for which 2,500l. was paid by Hugh Fitzpatrick, the Catholic
publisher; 'but it contained so much bad law,' writes Charles Phillips, 'that it
proved a treasure not to the J. P's., but to the country attorneys.' Sadly soon
the former had practical experience of a writ; and Michael Staunton told
me, that if McNally's law points often served culprits, they hanged as many
more.[457] 'In Dublin,' records a contemporary scribe,[458] 'he has now very
considerable law business.'
'He had a shrill, full, good bar voice,' writes Barrington, in bestowing other
praise. Sir Jonah occupied the judgment seat, and was famous for his power
of discerning character; but, although he impugns the good name of many
men, he does not distrust McNally. According to Barrington, 'Mac' was
'good-natured, hospitable, and talented.'[459] It is to be feared that hospitality
with the popular barrister was but a means to an end. 'Will you walk into
my parlour?' said the spider to the fly. McNally, in some of his letters to the
Government when requesting money, urges as an extra reason the necessity
of entertaining friends in order to get at new information.
Without money [he writes] it is impossible to do what is
expected. Those Spartans wish to live like Athenians in matters

of eating and drinking. They live so among each other, and
without ability to entertain I cannot live with them, and without
living with them I cannot learn from them.[460]
McNally knew human nature quite as well as Bishop South, who says of the
bacchanal that his 'heart floats upon his lips, and his inmost thoughts
proclaim and write themselves upon his forehead;' and he adds that, just 'as
a liar ought to have a good memory, so a person of guilt ought to be also a
person of great sobriety.'[461] McNally's dinner in honour of unfortunate
'Parson Jackson' and of the man who shadowed him to the grave, suggests
that it was not the only occasion when death sat at the table.
In midsummer 1798 the clangour of battle filled the air. 'Fear prevails, and
all jovial intercourse has ceased, so far as my experience goes,'[462] he
writes; but when hostilities ceased, amenities were renewed.
After he had ceased to produce 'masques' at Covent Garden, and entered on
his new career of a barrister and a spy, one great effort of his energetic life
was to divert suspicion and puzzle posterity. He saw the wisdom of the
proverb, 'Show me your company,' and thus he had a double object to gain
by cultivating touch with patriotic men. In 1790 he was admitted a Freeman
for—as the address to him said—his services to his country. In 1802 he
published 'The Rules of Evidence, or Pleas of the Crown.' It is dedicated to
John Philpot Curran, 'from an affectionate attachment,' writes McNally,
and from a proud wish to make known to posterity that a
reciprocal and an uninterrupted amity subsisted between the
Author and the man whose transcendent genius and philosophic
mind soar above all competition—whose honest and intrepid
heart was never influenced in the Senate, nor intimidated at the
Bar, from exerting, with zeal, independence, and spirit, his love
to his country and his duty to his client.
The 'authorised' memoir of McNally in the 'Cyclopædian Magazine' quotes
the above, adding, 'The relatives of Mr. Curran may extract from this
dedication an epitaph worthy of his memory.' The whole object of the
memoir, one evidently inspired by McNally himself, is to foster a feeling of
respect for and confidence in his own pretensions. No wonder that, in the
eyes of Young Ireland one hundred years ago, a halo encircled McNally's
head. Some of the spirited efforts which roused the Muse of Moore and

Drennan are found in the organ of the United Irishmen. The 'Northern Star'
of November 10, 1792, contains rebellious verses signed L. M. N.
Mr. Lecky has not examined McNally's secret reports after the year 1800,
and his impression is that he 'did not wish to implicate "persons."'[463] It
would appear, however, on Mr. Lecky's own showing, that McNally was not
squeamish—even during the reign of terror—in pointing to men by name.
In September and October 1797 he told them [writes Mr. Lecky]
that Bond was the treasurer of the conspiracy; that the chief
management was now transferred from Belfast to Dublin and
confined to a very few; that Keogh, McCormick, Lord Edward
Fitzgerald, Arthur O'Connor, Sweetman, Dixon, Chambers,
Emmet, Bond, and Jackson were in the secret.[464]
On February 5, 1797, McNally warns the Government that O'Coigly
(hanged the following year) was in Ireland on a political mission, and
reports the pith of his conversation.[465] 'O'Connor, Macnevin and Lord
Edward Fitzgerald,' he whispers, 'are the advocates of assassination,'[466]
which, indeed, there is great reason to doubt.[467] On November 19 Grattan
is put in jeopardy.[468] Next month 'a most circumstantial and alarming
story,' writes Lecky, had come from McNally. 'It was, that Lord Edward
received, some days since, orders from Paris to urge an insurrection here
with all speed, in order to draw troops from England. In consequence of it,
there was a meeting of the head committee, where he and O'Connor urged
immediate measures of vigour;' and thereupon their plans are laid bare: but
how Emmet, Chambers, etc., opposed. McNally lived in Dominic Street,
near the Dominican Fathers. In letters to Cooke he points to MacMahon and
other of his reverend colleagues; and I learn from the present custodian of
the 'Dominican Records' that Fathers MacMahon, Bushe, and Mulhall were
arrested in '98, but at last suffered to leave Ireland for America. On May 24,
1798, J. W. mentions that MacMahon had called on him the previous day.
But so early as June 14, 1797 the falcon eye of McNally had become fixed
on this friar. He and other priests, he states, meet weekly at Herbert's tavern,
Clontarf. 'Reilly, an officer who served in Germany, is often with them.
Individually, no doubt, they are all concerned in the politics of the day, and
they act when together with a caution certainly suspicious. Vernon, of
Clontarf, offered the waiter 100l. to make discoveries, which he refused.'

'Troy may be up,'[469] McNally reports, meaning that the Catholic
archbishop had been probably enrolled a United Irishman. Henceforth his
Grace's letters were regularly opened at the Post Office.[470] Minor names
are often breathed, and who can doubt that, with the Habeas Corpus Act
suspended, advanced men stood upon the brink of an abyss? Carhampton,
Commander-in-Chief, sent numbers of untried men out of the country,[471]
and threatened to do the same with the Rev. Edward Berwick,[472] and
others. Hundreds were seized on bare suspicion and expatriated without
even knowing their accusers, or hearing the charge for which they suffered.
[473]

The acts of no member of the Directory are more regularly reported than
those of Arthur O'Connor. McNally seems to have been in his confidence as
political ally and legal adviser. In turning over his letters I met one much
more voluminous than the rest, furnishing a complete list of all the
witnesses to appear at Maidstone for O'Connor's defence, and the facts to
which they were prepared to testify.[474] These witnesses included Erskine,
Fox, Grattan, Sheridan, Whitbread, Lords Moira, Suffolk, Thanet, and
Oxford.
Throughout the State Trials men stalked who, as Curran said, measured
their value by the coffins of their victims, and gloom was relieved by
forensic persiflage. The duel already described left McNally lame, and
another limping barrister one day asked Parsons in 'the Hall' of the Court,
'Did you see McNally go this way?' 'I never saw him go any other way,' was
the reply.
Ned Lysaght had his skit, too:—

One leg is short which makes him lame,
Therefore the legs don't tally;
And now, my friends, to tell his name,
'Tis Leonard MacAnally.

He had been urged to join a Volunteer corps; but Curran told him that
serious trouble might result, for, when ordered to 'march,' he would
certainly 'halt.'[475] When writing to Cooke on the subject of the Lawyers'

Corps, J. W., in a secret letter of June 12, 1798, introduces his real name, no
doubt to puzzle outsiders into whose hands it might fall: 'It would be well
perhaps if some of the judges would institute a Corps of Invalids. McNally
might lead blind Moore to battle.'
Mr. Lecky thinks that McNally after his fall 'retained all the good nature
and native kindness of his disposition.'[476] I fear that this redeeming virtue
cannot be safely assigned to him. A careful sketch of the man appears in a
local publication of the year 1806; and we learn that among his
characteristics are—

Satire—oft whetted on ill-nature's stone,
Which spares no other's failings, nor his own.
But well may Leonard wield that branch of trade
Where cunning comes to penetration's aid;
—No logic closer—strong his declamation,
But his best leg is cross-examination.[477]

This, as we now see, was done quite as much in the privacy of his study as
in the forensic arena.

Curran's great speech in Hevey v. Sirr contains a passage which has often
been quoted:—
A learned and respected brother barrister had a silver cup; Major
[Sandys] heard that for many years it had borne an inscription of
'Erin go bragh'—which meant 'Ireland for ever.' The Major
considered this perseverance for such a length of time a
forfeiture of the delinquent vessel. My poor friend was
accordingly robbed of his cup.
This 'learned and respected barrister' was none other than McNally himself.
I have read his secret letter to Cooke on the subject, endorsed 'June 2, 1798,'
and it makes him less a hero than he would publicly convey. He complains
of the seizure of his cup, notwithstanding that, as he assured his military

visitor, he had already erased the offending inscription. 'Mac,' in conclusion,
says that the cup was value for 22l. 10s., 'hardly earned,' and encloses a
separate paper distinctly naming that sum as his due. Four days later he
writes to Cooke: 'Major Sandys returned a sterling answer to my friend's
note,' which means a full money remittance for the amount claimed.[478]
Below we have McNally's version of this transaction, as supplied to
Curran's son for historic and popular purposes:—
A sergeant waited upon him, and delivered a verbal command
from Major Sandys to surrender the cup. Mr. McNally refused,
and commissioned the messenger to carry back such an answer
as so daring a requisition suggested.[479] The sergeant ...
respectfully remonstrated upon the imprudence of provoking
Major Sandys. The consequences soon appeared: the sergeant
returned with a body of soldiers, who paraded before Mr.
McNally's door, and were under orders to proceed to extremities
if the cup was not delivered up. Upon Mr. MacNally's
acquainting Lord Kilwarden with the outrage, the latter burst
into tears and, exclaiming that 'his own sideboard might be the
next object of plunder, if such atrocious practices were not
checked,' lost not an instant in procuring the restitution of the
property. The cup was accordingly sent back with the inscription
erased.[480]
Arthur Wolfe, Lord Kilwarden, was the Chief Justice of the King's Bench,
and his alleged intimacy with McNally is probably exaggerated. The
biographer says that Curran repeatedly told this episode of '98, and quotes a
touching peroration regarding Kilwarden's alleged interposition: that, in
fact, great was the odour of its memory and precious the balm of its
consolation!
McNally's account of the robbery of his silver cup was part of his stock-in-
trade, and I am sure that for twenty times the price he would not have been
without it.
William Henry Curran knew not very much of his father, whose biographer
he became. John Philpot Curran had excluded him from his domestic circle,
and the letters to his son which appear in the book were addressed to
Richard. Who can doubt that much detail which lends interest to the ever

popular 'Life, by his Son,' was supplied to the youth by the practised old
scribe Leonard McNally? Curran's gratitude to him for help afforded is
freely expressed. McNally wrote a style clear as rock water and full of
classic strength. Nothing can be finer than his secret letters to Pelham and
Cooke—three of which he often despatched in one day. The wonderful
anecdotes which made Curran's Life, by his son, almost a classic have been
quoted over and over, including the dinner scene at McNally's, when the ill-
fated Rev. Mr. Jackson was entertained. Curran's son tells how the talk had
been getting imprudent, when the butler, beckoning his master to the door,
warned him to be careful; 'for, sir, the strange gentleman who seems to be
asleep is not so, but listening to everything said: I see his eye glistening
through the fingers with which he is covering his face.'
Cockayne was, of course, a spy of Pitt's; but some of the sensational
anecdotes which McNally told of him, as also of Reynolds and Armstrong,
may have been overcharged to divert suspicion from himself. These are not
the only instances in which the embellishments of the professional advocate
seem traceable. As regards Jackson's death in the dock, we are told that he
made an effort with his cold and nerveless hand to squeeze McNally's,
muttering a quotation from Addison's 'Cato'; but the lines and the adjuncts
would be more likely to occur at such a moment to an old playwright like
McNally than to the dying clergyman.
Emmet's revolt took place on July 23, 1803, but was soon quelled. He
remained in concealment at Harold's Cross, and chose that position in order
that he might see Sarah Curran, with her father, pass daily to Dublin. On
August 25 he was arrested by Major Sirr. Popular confidence in McNally
had now reached its height. A special commission for trying the insurgent
leaders began on August 24, 1803. 'Most of the prisoners chose Mr.
McNally as their counsel, and Mr. L. McNally, junior, as their agent,'
records the 'Evening Post' of the day.
McNally had long had his eye on the gifted young orator Robert Emmet:
'Emmet, junior, gone on business to France—probably to supersede
Lewins,'[481] he writes to Cooke three years previous to the insurrection of
1803. On September 3, in the latter year, McNally sends one of his secret
letters to Cooke, saying that he is authorised to treat on behalf of a person
privy to the whole conspiracy.[482]

The remainder of McNally's letters during these troubles of 1803 are yet
wanting. No doubt they remain among Wickham's papers of the period
which are still a sealed book.[483] Among the sensational incidents of the
hour was the outrage of searching Curran's house, and the capture of
Emmet's love-letters to Sarah Curran—to whom the youth had been secretly
engaged. Curran himself, we are told, though aware of Emmet's visits, was
ignorant of the attachment. But there was a seemingly dear old friend,
having access to Curran's domestic circle, whose eagle eye could penetrate
still deeper secrets. In the absence of McNally's private reports of that
month there is, however, no absolute proof against him on this point.
Mount Jerome,[484] the seat of John Keogh, the great Catholic leader, was
also searched, and his papers seized. Dr. Madden mentions that, in 1802,
Emmet had dined at Keogh's in the company of John Philpot Curran, when
the probability of success in the event of a second rebellion was debated
with great animation.[485] Whose was the whisper which betrayed this
information never transpired. But Curran, the great depository of popular
secrets, maintained, as will be shown, no reserve with McNally. So far back
as 1797 McNally writes:—
Grattan and Curran are compleatly in the secret. Everything
that's done or intended is communicated to them.[486]
A quantity of information follows, and the letter ends with these pregnant
words:—
Curran gives a dinner at his house. Will be there.
This is the man whom William Henry Curran describes as having been
'from his youth to his latest hour the most affectionate, unshaken and
disinterested friend' of his father.[487]
Before and after the conviction and death of Robert Emmet, the initials 'L.
M.' peep from the 'Secret Service Money Book.' On August 25, 1803 (the
very day on which Emmet was captured), we read: 'Mr. Pollock for L. M.,
100l.' Pollock, Clerk of the Crown for Leinster, is the same man through
whom the bribes for 'J. W.' (McNally) are paid.[488] The 100l. cannot have
been for the actual capture of Emmet, for I know that in November
following a bulk sum was paid for that service. The douceur to L. M. was in
acknowledgment of useful information.[489]

McNally appears as counsel for Emmet in the State trial on September 19,
1803. Four days previously, namely, on September 14, 100l. is set down to
'L. M.' On the morning of Emmet's execution an affecting scene took place
between the rebel chief and McNally, the only friend allowed to see him.
Emmet's mother had just died, but he did not know it, and desire to see her
filled him—'Then, Robert, you shall meet her this day,' replied McNally,
pointing to Heaven in his accustomed dramatic style. A long account of the
interview, doubtless supplied by 'Mac' himself with his usual itch for
writing, and evidently designed to promote Lord Hardwicke's popularity as
Viceroy, appears in a Ministerial journal, the London 'Chronicle,' on
September 24, 1803.
Emmet [we are told] observed that, had he not been interrupted
by the Court in his address, he would have spoken as warm an
eulogium on the candour and moderation of the present
Government in this kingdom as his conception or language were
adequate to.
After Emmet's arrest Curran was examined by the Privy Council, when
Chancellor Redesdale sought by a tone of intimidation to extort the truth;
but the scowl of contempt he encountered gave his own nerves the shock he
designed for another's, and made him sink back into his chair, abashed by
the failure of his rash experiment. Curran's son speaks of the wonderful
intrepidity of McNally's language in his addresses to the Court; but it is
easy to be defiant when one knows he is safe. Contemporary critics record
his marvellous power of penetration in cross-examining witnesses on the
State trials. A shrewd man, deep in the secrets of both sides, would not find
it hard to create this impression.
Lord Cloncurry complains, in his Memoirs, that after his liberation from
gaol in 1801, and for many subsequent years, no man suffered more from
petty worries at the hands of the Irish Government. McNally was in the
coterie of which Cloncurry formed the central figure, and it cannot be
doubted that he consistently reported his fervid sentiments. The 'Press' was
the Rebel organ, its tone distinguished, as Lord Camden said, by 'an
unheard-of boldness,'[490] and a friendly offer made by Lawless, afterwards
Lord Cloncurry, to McNally is thus reported. After mentioning when the
private committee of United Irishmen met, McNally[491] announces—the
underlining his own:—

Lawless, principal proprietor of the 'Press': he has offered a
share to J. W.[492]—a £50 share.... Nothing save rebellious
toasts at the dinner; McNevin was there. Lawless gave 'Cut the
Painter' [i.e. Separation from England].
An accurate and dayly [sic] account will be given. Lawless sails
for London to-morrow night. It is his turn of duty,—perhaps to
meet some people at the Head. He ought to be watched from
George's Quay every hour till his return.[493]
A later letter assures Pelham: 'The fellow-travellers of Lawless shall be
found out if possible.'[494]
Higgins and Magan knew nothing of Cloncurry's movements, but between
Turner and McNally he had a warm time of it. Lord Holland compared his
long detention in the Tower, untried and unaccused, to the operation of the
lettres de cachet in old France. In 1803, on secret but, he declares,
erroneous information, that Emmet's wounded rebels were concealed there,
'a large military force' searched Lord Cloncurry's house in Kildare, and
robbed it of a quantity of papers, some fowling-pieces, armour, and even
plate.'[495]
No details are forthcoming as regards the intercourse which subsisted
between McNally and Cloncurry throughout the eventful period subsequent
to their friendly relations in '98; but the cordiality of that intercourse may be
seen from a waif or two. The 'Correspondent,' a Dublin journal, reports on
August 27, 1817, a speech of the patriot peer, Cloncurry, in which the
epithet 'dear' is applied to his old friend McNally. 'There is no gentleman,'
he adds, 'for whom I have a higher respect or esteem, and of whose
knowledge, talent and elocution I am more sensible.'
Sometimes McNally travelled as a spy, probably in disguise, through
remote rural districts. On August 28, 1805, he announces Tipperary as
'ready to rise.' In September he goes up the Dublin mountains, 'Emmet's
line,' and the result of his inquiries was that no rising need be apprehended.
[496]
I do not find that McNally's secret letters exist at Dublin Castle beyond
the year 1805; I must, therefore, seek to trace from other sources the close
of his career. Pecuniary need drew its toils tighter round him every day,
making him, no doubt, more energetic in his effort to cast them off.[497]

Readers of the 'Wellington Correspondence' from 1807 to 1809 will be able
to identify McNally. The subjugator of Tippoo Saib, then Chief Secretary at
Dublin Castle, found Catholic Ireland galled by various disabilities. One
letter, dated November 21, 1807, encloses a paper headed 'Information
received this evening from a very intelligent Priest.'[498] This, on being
quoted by the reviewers of the Wellington Papers, excited disgust that a
priest should be in secret correspondence with Dublin Castle; but it is quite
clear to me that the letter came from McNally, and embodies merely the
responses of a gossiping priest to the pumping of a practised hand—the
same, I may venture to add, to whom McNally, upon dying, will be found
making his own confession.
The Whig Duke of Bedford took office with Fox, Lansdowne, and Grey in
the administration of 'All the Talents,' and ruled Ireland for one year. Curran
became Master of the Rolls, and McNally thought that he himself, as the
leading popular barrister, had claims for promotion. All the men who will
be remembered as voting with him at the bar meeting in 1799 had got snug
berths. His appeal to Bedford was referred to Wellesley, whose common
sense appears in the following reply:—
I agree entirely with you respecting the employment of our
informer. Such a measure would do much mischief. It would
disgust the loyal of all descriptions, at the same time that it
would render useless our private communications with him, as
no further trust would be placed in him by the disloyal. I think
that it might be hinted to him that he would lose much of his
profit, if, by accepting the public employment of Government,
he were to lose the confidence of his party, and consequently the
means of giving us information.[499]
Curiously enough, at the time he is himself most active as a spy, Mr. T.
Mulock, of Dublin, reports him, with Messrs. Hutton and O'Connell, as
persons who 'ought to be watched.'[500] An account of the first meeting for
Repeal of the Union, on September 18, 1810, is preserved in the State
Papers; and McNally spoke on that day 'with great zeal and patriotism,' as
Plowden proudly[501] records. Mr. Mulock had not the knowledge of
character shown by his kinswoman Miss Mulock, the novelist.

Reference has been already made to the fact that in 1811 the Irish Secretary
of State, Wellesley Pole, with the object of suppressing the Catholic
Committee, caused to be arrested, under the Convention Act, Lord Fingall,
Lord Netterville, and the other Catholic delegates. Able counsel were
retained by them, and private conferences, attended by Burrowes, Johnson,
Perrin, O'Connell, Burton, O'Driscoll, and McNally, were held in order to
decide on the lines of defence to be taken. The questions involved were
difficult and subtle; and although the courses decided upon were equally
novel, it was observed with amazement that the Orange Attorney-General,
Saurin, seemed marvellously well prepared for every point, as the delegates
daily fought their ground inch by inch.[502]
An aggregate meeting of Catholics was held after the arrests of their
delegates. John Mitchel describes the party then in power as a 'No Popery
Administration,' and the appearance of a Protestant on the platform was
hailed as a happy incident. The following is taken from the 'Correspondent,'
a once influential organ of Dublin Castle:—
Mr. McNally offered himself to the consideration of the Catholic
body. He was anxious that his name should be coupled to the
glorious cause for which, as Irishmen, they were contending—a
cause that, from his earliest youth, although a Protestant, he felt
as his own. He insisted that the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant
was illegal—that he had not the power of arresting an individual
by his own mere authority; that, not having the authority, he
could not, of course, delegate it to a Magistrate.—[Here he
animadverted upon the conduct of Mr. Hare, the police
magistrate, who made the arrests.] The King himself, he said,
possessed not the power which the Lord Lieutenant assumed in
the arrest of Lords Fingal and Netterville. He instanced the case
of Chief Justice Hussey and Edward IV.—The King asked the
Judge whether his own warrant would not be deemed sufficient
to arrest a subject?—The Chief Justice answered in the negative.
And the reason was obvious. The King can do no wrong.—But
the subject could have no legal redress against such an
impeccable magistrate. He referred to the State trials for an
exemplification and authority on this point; and he showed that
a power which could not be exercised by Majesty itself, could

not pass through the opaque body of his Lieutenant—a
moonshine and intermitting ray.
O'Connell followed, and the clear head of that great lawyer saved the
Catholic body from the deeper pitfall in which the bad law of a false adviser
would have placed them. In the course of his speech he declared:—
With regard to what had been said by Mr. McNally he could not
assent. The action of Mr. Hare was merely his own, as a
magistrate, and the Lord Lieutenant had no concern in being
responsible for it; and he [Mr. O'Connell] would not allow in
that assembly anything to be laid to the charge of the Duke of
Richmond for which His Grace was not in every respect
accountable.
On October 19, 1811, Wellesley Pole writes from Dublin Castle to the
Home Secretary regarding the proceedings of the Catholic Committee, and
enclosing 'a report from,' as he says, 'one of our spies.' This document,
signed 'J. W.' is still preserved with Pole's letter in the Record Office,
London. About the same time Pole announces to the Home Office that
'Young Mr. Curran, son of the Master of the Rolls, has been very active in
soliciting from the Catholics subscriptions for Mr. Finnerty, and letters from
persons associated in London for promoting that object have been
addressed to the Catholics here.'[503] These regular reportings of Curran's
domestic circle involve a degree of treachery painful to contemplate.[504]
The reports of 'J. W.' did not tend to make Curran a favourite with 'the
powers.' The patriot's son, describing a prior year, records:—
A party of seventeen soldiers, accompanied by their wives, or
their profligate companions, and by many children, and
evidently selected for the purpose of annoyance, were, without
any previous notice, quartered on Mr. Curran's house.[505]
The late Mr. Byrne, an old Petty Sessions clerk, informed me that when
walking at this time with his cousin Mr. Phelan, an attorney of Liberal
politics, McNally, with a significant wink, accosted him, saying: 'The
people are at last beginning to read; those who cannot yet read have books
and papers read to them; after they read they will think, and they won't be
long thinking until they act.'

On the trial of Sheridan and Kirwan, two Catholic delegates, he spoke
warmly against the sheriff and others tampering with the jury, and was
checked by the bench. He excused himself by saying 'that where the heart
and the understanding went together it was difficult to keep bounds,' etc.
Great excitement prevailed by the effort made to crush the freedom of
speech, in the midst of which Percy Bysshe Shelley came to Dublin, and
largely helped by voice and pen to make the crisis historic. Mr. Pole
declared in Parliament, that 'if gentlemen would read the debates of the
Catholic Committee they would find separation openly and distinctly
recommended.' O'Connell, on February 29, 1812, replied: 'Why, my lord,
this is a direct accusation of high treason, and he who would assert it of me,
I would brand with the foulest epithets. I defy the slightest proof to be given
of its veracity.' The Duke of Richmond, then Viceroy, writes at great length
to the Home Secretary, speaks of his 'secret information,' and flutters the
Cabinet.[506]
It was during the same year that Roger O'Connor, of Dangan Castle—father
of Feargus, member for Nottingham—headed a band of rude retainers and
robbed the Galway mail coach on Cappagh Hill. Though somewhat daft, he
had method in his system, and when, five years later, he found himself a
prisoner in Newgate, pending the long averted prosecution, he directed his
attorney, named Maguire, to draw up a fictitious case, including a false line
of defence, and lay it before McNally, taking for granted that he would
betray to the Crown the person he supposed to be his client. The
prosecution strangely broke down, and O'Connor, although notoriously
guilty, was acquitted.[507] This trial took place in 1817: the death of Curran
followed soon. A man named Waring having been indicted for perjury,
McNally is found saying: 'Oppressed by the loss of my earliest friend, I
have not strength for the task. But I wish to repel the stigma thrown out
against my client, though I should die in the trammels.'[508]
The letters of McNally to Curran would be curious to read; 'but,' writes his
daughter-in-law, 'they were destroyed by my late husband when he became
so disgusted by the knowledge of the double face McNally must have worn
for so many years as the friend of his father.'[509]
Although McNally's are destroyed, some characteristic letters from Curran
to him were supplied by the spy to Curran's biographer. It was a constant

effort of McNally to engraft himself on the fame and name of Curran. A
touching document in the romance of real life is the letter addressed by
Curran to McNally in 1810. He exhibits a kind solicitude for the improved
health of his false friend, and alludes to their future meeting where secrets
and sorrow would be no more.
Godwin's, 41, Skinner Street, London.
Dear Mac,— ... I am glad to hear you are letting yourself out at
Old Orchard; you are certainly unwise in giving up such an
inducement to exercise, and the absolute good of being so often
in good air. I have been talking about your habit without naming
yourself. I am more persuaded that you and Egan[510] are not
sufficiently afraid of weak liquors.[511] I can say from trial how
little pains it costs to correct a bad habit. On the contrary, poor
nature—like an ill-used mistress—is delighted with the return of
our kindness, and is anxious to show her gratitude for that return
by letting us see how well she becomes it.
I am the more solicitous upon this point from having made this
change, which I see will make me waited for in Heaven longer
than perhaps they looked for. If you do not make some pretext
for lingering, you can have no chance of conveying me to the
wherry; and the truth is, I do not like surviving old friends. I am
somewhat inclined to wish for posthumous reputation; and if
you go before me, I shall lose one of the most irreclaimable of
my trumpeters. Therefore, dear Mac, no more water, and keep
the other element, your wind, for the benefit of your friends. I
will show my gratitude as well as I can, by saying handsome
things of you to the saints and angels before you come. Best
regards to all with you.
J. P. C.
'Mac' stuck to him like a leech to the end. 'As he walked through the
grounds of his country seat with Mr. McNally,' writes Curran's son, 'he
spoke of the impending event with tranquillity and resignation:—

I melt (said he) and am not
Of stronger earth than others.

'"I wish it was all over."'[512]
'Curran's will, which I have in the house,' writes his daughter-in-law, 'is
dated September 14th, 1816, and the codicil the 5th September, 1817; it
bears the signatures (as witnesses) of Richard Lonergan and Leonard
McNally. Lonergan was editor of 'Carrick's Morning Post,' a popular organ.
The first of a series of papers on the Dublin Theatre, signed 'L. M. N.,'
appears in this journal of December 16, 1817:—
A moral, well-acted play [he writes] is of more real benefit to
Society at large than all the inflated harangues of puritanical
declaimers. To men of letters the drama affords a most delightful
recreation, after their understandings have been absorbed in
perplexities, or their intellectual powers strained by continued
study.

O what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive.

The elder Farran began his career in Dublin, and McNally's criticism helped
to make it a success. Mrs. Edwin, Miss Walstein, Fullam, Williams, Young,
all were cleverly reviewed. It was not necessary, he said, for a tragedian to
roar like a lion, or for a comedian to grin as through a horse-collar. Two
letters signed 'L. M. N.' espouse the part of Mrs. Edwin, who had met with
some unkindness. The concluding sentence is characteristic: 'Allow me,
madam, to inform you, that while I continue your Panegyrist, you shall
never know me. All old men are more or less eccentric. I have my whims,
and one of them is a dislike to being thanked for doing what I think to be
my duty.'
Friendly relations were established between the popular journalist and his
contributor, but at last they seem a little strained. The paper got into trouble
with a very formidable enemy to popular principles, Jack Giffard, known as
the 'Dog in Office.' The officiousness of McNally, if he had no deeper

design, is shown by Lonergan in a hurried leader of September 17, 1818—
the italics are his:—
Mr. John Giffard versus the 'Morning Post.'
We did not and could not anticipate that an attempt would be
made to induce the Recorder to fix on a day for the trial, so early
as Thursday (this day!). Now, it is certainly not our intention
that one hour's unnecessary delay should take place on the part
of the proprietor of this paper, in meeting the Corporators face to
face in Court, or elsewhere. It was, however, extraordinary, that
a day so very early should be sought for, and that the motion
should be made at a time when we could have no notice of even
the Bills being found! This prosecution, in other respects unique,
is equally unprecedented, we believe, in this extreme anxiety to
hurry the business forward. The Recorder did not countenance
this very suspicious haste. Like an upright judge, he guarded the
interests of the absent.
He said it was of little consequence whether a day was fixed or
not, as he supposed the case would be put off until next sessions.
Mr. M‘Nally—'I understand, My Lord, they do not intend to
traverse in prox. Suppose your Lordship says Thursday next.'
Recorder—'No, Mr. M‘Nally. I cannot fix a day for the trial of
an indictment only just found; especially as there is not any
reason, that I can perceive, for such haste.'
We have made this extract from one of the newspapers. If it be
correct, may we ask Mr. M‘Nally who instructed him to speak
for us? We had no counsel or agent present—how then could the
worthy gentleman, with all his shrewdness and sagacity,
understand what was our intention? Mr. M‘Nally, finding that
nobody present was authorised to speak in our behalf, as amicus
curiæ, we suppose, states to the Court our intention; but how
Mr. M‘Nally discovered that intention, it puzzles us to find out,
for Mr. M‘Nally, with all his legal knowledge and abilities, is no
conjuror. We wait then to hear from this gentleman by what
authority, he, employed on the other side, in the absence of

counsel or agent for the proprietor of this paper, did undertake to
state to the Recorder what were our intentions? We think the
conduct of Mr. M‘Nally, in this instance, of a piece with the rest
of this curious proceeding.
Some legal proceedings are reported by the Dublin papers of September 18,
1818, as having been instituted by the histrions of Crow Street Theatre for
the recovery of their salaries. McNally's swaggering pretensions to pose as
an honourable man are amusingly marked. He was counsel for the lessee,
Frederick W. Jones.
Mr. MacNally—Now, Sir, you suppose your profession to be a
very honourable and gentlemanlike employment—equally
respectable with my own as a barrister. Now, Sir, let me ask you,
are you not a servant?
Mr. Gladstone—Most certainly. I consider myself the servant of
Mr. Jones and the public. But there is higher authority than
mine, for the Lord Chancellor of England declared, at an
investigation of the affairs of Drury-lane Theatre, that all the
performers were servants, and must be paid before any other
creditor.
The Lord Mayor instantly ordered Mr. Gladstone his money.
The last important case in which McNally figured was that of the Wild
Goose Lodge murderers at Dundalk. This case, highly tragic in its nature,
has been invested with thrilling interest by the powerful pen of Carleton.
'From grave to gay' marked his course on circuit. A glimpse of the 'chaff'
which followed McNally at mess is shown by Charles Phillips.
It was a common practice with the juniors to play upon his
vanity by inducing him to enumerate the vast sums he made by
'Robin Hood.' The wicked process was thus. They first got him
to fix the aggregate amount; and then, luring him into details, he
invariably, by third nights and copyright, quintupled the
original. Woe to the wight, however, luckless enough to have
been detected in this waggery. He was ready with his pistol.
Phillips also describes 'Mac' as ever varying in his account of how he lost
his thumbs, and that one night, tired and perplexed by repeated questioning

on the point,[513] he at last exclaimed, 'I don't know how I lost them!' It
seems to me that 'Mac' was too cool and cunning to trip. Phillips, as a most
distinguished co-operator with the Catholic Board, was a man worth
McNally's while to 'draw'; and the hoary-headed 'father,' in encouraging the
juniors' chaff, probably feigned features which he did not possess. We have
seen how resolutely incredulous Phillips stood when the spy's real character
was first impugned. Phillips is remembered by the English bar as a very
cunning man. But as regards McNally's treachery he died unconvinced. The
man whose seeming simplicity he loved to chaff was of deeper acumen.
The 'Metropolis,' a review of the Bar, printed in 1805, indicated among
McNally's gifts—

With all he saw or learned his memory fraught
Acute perception of his neighbour's thought.

Phillips seemed to pity the awkward simplicity of his venerable friend; but
it was clearly McNally's game at times to pose as a 'butt,' and Charles adds
no more than the truth in saying, 'his eyes and voice pierced you through
like arrows.'
'Howell' should be consulted by those who care to trace the forensic career
of McNally—

'L' stands for Lysaght, who loves a good joke;
'M' for MacNally, who lives by the rope!

sings 'the Alphabet of the Bar.' But it is McNally's speeches as a democratic
orator, delivered on all great national occasions, in which he appears to best
dramatic effect.
The mission of General d'Evereux to Ireland, with the object of raising
troops for Bolivar—the South American patriot—took place in 1819, and
with it is involved McNally's last important acts of espionage. A military
passion had seized on the popular mind. For many weeks the streets of
Dublin, gay with plumage, reminded one of Paris during the Napoleonic
fever. The city swarmed with stalwart, ruddy youths, clad in uniforms of
green and gold, their swords clanking at every step. Levées were held by

D'Evereux with all the pomp of a court; public banquets sought to do him
honour. At first these things caused alarm at Dublin Castle; but, finally, it
was decided that the statute which forbade foreign enlistment might be
suffered to lie dormant: after all, the opportunity was not a bad one to rid
the land of those military spirits whose presence could never conduce to its
repose. In this connection Dr. Scallan has something to say:—
The badge of the United Irishmen worn by Lord Edward
Fitzgerald, and taken from his remains when he lay dead in
Newgate, was given by Leonard McNally to General d'Evereux,
who recruited a number of Irishmen and drilled them, and
formed a regiment with which he sailed to Venezuela, and there
attacked the Spaniards and drove them from the country and
freed the Venezuelans from the Spanish yoke, which had grown
into an intolerable tyranny. The badge has attached to it a paper
on which is the following inscription:—
'From Leonard MacNally, Barrister at-law, to General d'Evereux
of the Irish Legion, raised by him for emancipating the
oppressed inhabitants of South America, and punishing their
Tyrants. 20 July, 1819.'
This presentation would appear to be one of the, no doubt, many
acts of McNally done for the purpose of concealing his perfidy
and gaining his ends.
My father-in-law, Laurence Esmonde White, of Scarnagh,
exerted himself very much in assisting to procure men and
officers for the Legion; and very successfully, as he had much
influence with the people of the County Wexford, in which he
always resided, and where his family had extensive estates.
General D'Evereux gave him several tokens of his gratitude, of
which the badge of Lord Edward was one. He also gave him a
deed of gift, witnessed by his military secretary, of 200,000
acres of land in Venezuela. Which deed I have; but no one went
there to take possession of the land, and it would seem to be lost
through neglect. An old friend of mine (now deceased) who
travelled much in that country, told me that the land was worth
at least 50,000l.

I never could understand how the badge could have got into the
possession of McNally, until his perfidy was revealed by Mr.
Fitzpatrick. Then all was made clear. He, no doubt, obtained the
badge from his paymasters in order that he might use it as he
did.[514]
During the passage from Dublin to Venezuela dissensions arose among the
officers, and some came back complaining that they had been misled in the
business. D'Evereux returned to justify his conduct, and a committee,
consisting of Lord Cloncurry, with Counsellors Curran, McNally and
Phillips, was appointed to inquire and report.
In 1820 Ireland lost her Grattan.[515] The man who had long shadowed him
vanished at the same time. Catholics may care to know, though they will
hardly attach much importance to the accession, that Leonard McNally,
'after life's fitful fever,' sank into the bosom of Rome. Father Smith, of
Townsend Street Chapel, on February 13, 1820, gave him the last rites. This
priest, having got word that 'the Counsellor' wished to see him, went to his
house in Harcourt Street, where Mrs. McNally informed him that her
husband was then asleep, and must not be disturbed. McNally's son, who
happened to be coming down stairs at the moment, reproved his step-
mother for the indisposition she evinced to admit the clergyman, adding,
'Can't you let him go to the devil his own way?'[516] He then conducted the
priest to the sick man's room. Father Smith put on his stole, and heard
muttered from the parched lips of Leonard McNally a general confession,
embracing the frailties of his youth and the sins of his manhood. Contrition
was manifested, and the priest gave him absolution.[517] Within an hour
McNally was dead. In life he had been no coward, but the death-bed was no
place to show old instincts. His funeral cortège wended its way to the old
graveyard of Donnybrook, where his bones now lie, near those of Dr.
Madden, the historian of the 'United Irishmen.'
McNally had married Miss Janson, the heroine of his famous lyric, 'Sweet
lass of Richmond Hill;' but it was his second wife, née Edgeworth, who
appeared to Father Smith. The son had acquired a rough reputation, and
having been once robbed near Rathcoole, his father asked Parsons, 'Did you
hear of my son's robbery?' and received for reply, 'No, whom did he rob?'
This son died in 1869, leaving no representative.[518]

An action was brought by old McNally's administrator regarding the house
in which he died. 'I was present at the trial,' writes 'Rebellion Smyth,' an
aged correspondent. 'Judge Burton gave McNally a high character for legal
learning and worldly simplicity. "In the affairs of the world" said Burton,
"he was as simple as a child."'[519] The eminent judge for once was
mistaken.
Grattan's name has been mentioned by McNally as privy to the plans of
1798. What truth may be in the assertion that Grattan would join in an
appeal to arms is a point which may never be fully determined. It is certain
that in 1782 he would not have hesitated to employ physical force. His
friend Mr.—afterwards Justice—Day records of him that 'Grattan was
resolved to assist, even by arms, if driven to it, the liberties of Ireland.'[520]
Neither Grattan[521] nor Curran were United Irishmen [writes
Macnevin shortly before his death]. It was known in the event of
success Grattan would have accepted an important appointment
in the new Government; but Curran was continually consulted
by them, knew everything that was going on, and his whole
heart was in the cause.

FOOTNOTES:
[427] Vide Notes and Queries, October 8, 1859.
[428] Curran and his Contemporaries.
[429] Life of Curran, by his Son, i. 384.
[430] McNally had spoken against time for an hour and three-quarters, as he
states in an autograph note. This has been enlarged into 'three hours and a half'
by Dr. Shelton Mackenzie in his Life of Curran, p. 228, while professing to
quote from McNally's note as given by Thomas Davis in Curran's Speeches, p.
365.
[431] Life of Curran, v. i. 397.
[432] From Curran's lines, 'The green spot that blooms on the desert of life.'
[433] The Freeman's Journal, October 13, 1817.
[434] Curran and his Contemporaries, p. 376. (Blackwood, 1850.)
[435] Cornwallis Papers, iii. 320.
[436] Sirr Papers, MS., Library, Trinity College, Dublin.
[437] Secret Aid. 75l. would be a quarter's pay.

[438] Cornwallis, ii. 350.
[439] This letter, signed 'J. W.', speaks of Father Quigley, dressed à la militaire.
The Cyclopædian Magazine for 1808 says that McNally had lived at Bordeaux,
and spoke French well (p. 537). The proceedings of the Whig Club are reported.
McNally was a member of this club.
[440] Halliday Collection, Royal Irish Academy, vol. 613.
[441] MS. now in the Library of the Royal Irish Academy.
[442] The attorney for the Ulster United Irishmen (see ante, p. 36).
[443] Cornwallis Papers, iii. 320. See Appendix to present work for some
account of Mr. John Pollock, who first succeeded in seducing the once staunch
patriot.
[444] Lecky, vii. 139.
[445] Lecky's England, vii. 140. (Longmans, 1890.)
[446] The Grand Juries of Westmeath, from 1727 to 1853, by J. C. Lyons, p. 200.
[447] Madden, iii. 37.
[448] This letter reports an early meeting of the rebel conclave, and is dated
March 30, 1792. (MSS., Dublin Castle.)
[449] Life of Curran, by his Son.
[450] For a notice of James Tandy, afterwards stipendiary magistrate for Meath,
see Appendix.
[451] Lecky, vii. 141.
[452] Dr. Madden assigns Conner's death to the year 1796, but McNally's report
is dated September 17, 1795.
[453] Moore's Journal, &c., vii. 75. Edited by Lord John Russell.
[454] Cyclopædian Magazine, 1808, p. 539. A sensational and detailed account
of the rescue, evidently supplied by McNally, is culled from a contemporary
newspaper, and, in response to the present writer, appears in Notes and Queries,
of May 19, 1860, p 293.
[455] Recollections of John O'Keefe, ii. 45.
[456] McNally's name is amusingly mentioned by the Saturday Review (lxvi.
516) in a paper on the 'Immortals of 1788.'
[457] Mr. Lecky thinks that, had not McNally become a spy, he might have risen
to the judgment seat. This, with the testimony of Phillips and Staunton before us,
is doubtful: but I am bound to say that many contemporary Irish judges were bad
lawyers, who owed their promotion solely to political claims. Higgins does not
seem to have known that McNally was also a spy. He often reports him to
Cooke: 'Counsellor McNally told me this night at Parisoll's, that Government
had offered a sinecure employment, which he rejected. I offered to hold him 100
guineas that his services were never sought for, which completely put him
down.'—Francis Higgins to Cooke, November 18, 1797. MSS. Dublin Castle.
[458] Sketches of Irish Political Characters, 1799.

[459] Personal Memoirs.
[460] This passage has been culled by Mr. Lecky.
[461] Sermon on Concealment of Sin.
[462] J. W. to Cooke, June 5, 1798.
[463] Lecky, vii. 142, 401.
[464] All these men, Keogh alone excepted, though never brought to trial,
underwent a prolonged term of imprisonment. Keogh was the highly influential
leader of the Catholics, and the Crown, probably, wished to make an exception
in his favour.
[465] Lecky, vii. 55.
[466] Ibid. p. 337.
[467] See O'Connor's letter (United Irishmen, ii. 234), saying that in 1797 he
expressed abhorrence of the Union Star, which had urged assassination;
whereupon Cox, its editor, instantly discontinued it. Then, as regards Macnevin
and Lord Edward, they are described by Reinhard as 'of the moderate party.' See
the Castlereagh Papers, i. 283.
[468] Lecky, p. 423.
[469] Ibid. p. 331.
[470] Ibid. p. 462.
[471] Plowden's Historic Review, ii. 537.
[472] Berwick to Grattan. See Life of Grattan, vol. v.
[473] 'Trials, if they must so be called, were carried on without number, under
martial law. It often happened that three officers composed the court, and that, of
the three, two were under age, and the third an officer of the yeomanry or
militia, who had sworn, in his Orange lodge, eternal hatred to the people over
whom he was thus constituted a judge. Floggings, picketings, death, were the
usual sentences, and these were sometimes commuted into banishment, serving
in the fleet, or transference to a foreign service. Many were sold at so much per
head to the Prussians. Other less legal, but not more horrible, outrages were
daily committed by the different corps under the command of Government. The
subsequent Indemnity Acts deprived of redress the victims of this widespread
cruelty.'—Lord Holland's Memoirs of the Whig Party.
[474] This despatch is dated merely 'Tuesday, 25th'; but a second on the same
subject bears 'April 27, 1798.' (MSS. Dublin Castle.)
[475] In 1810, Sir William Stamer, who seized John Keogh's papers in 1803,
gave a masquerade. McNally went as Æsop, but scorned to wear a mask.
Huband, whom he often reports, went as Pan; Dogherty, afterwards Chief
Justice, as Jeremy Diddler; Wolfe, afterwards Chief Baron, as a hair-dresser; Sir
Jonah Barrington as a friar; and 'Doctor Turner' (no doubt Samuel, LL.D.), as
Punch. For a full account, see Hibernian Magazine for 1810, p. 125.
[476] Lecky's History of England, vii. 142.
[477] The Metropolis (Dublin, 1806), p. 43, second edition.

[478] McNally always describes himself, in his secret letters, as 'my friend.'
[479] Spy as he was, McNally trembled throughout the troubles, and is not likely
to have delivered the defiant reply which he claims to have done. On May 24,
1798, he describes his family as 'all females—all live in terror.' He has moved
them a short way from Dublin. He hopes that Cooke's interest will prevent the
impending evil of free quarters on his house. It was astutely felt at Dublin
Castle, however, that the more McNally seemed to suffer persecution for justice
sake, the more freely would popular confidence be reposed in him. On June 27,
1798, he writes to Cooke, bitterly complaining that his house had been attacked
by soldiers, who refused to respect Castlereagh's protection.'
[480] Life of Curran, by his Son, ii. 148-9. Compare Lecky, viii. 24, where
MacNally seems humanely to lament the theft by soldiers, from a Dublin
barrister, of a stand inscribed 'Erin go bragh.'
[481] J. W. (secret), September 19, 1800.
[482] Wickham seems to allude to this fact in the Colchester Correspondence, i.
456.
[483] Mr. Ross, in his preface to the Cornwallis Papers, states that Wickham's
papers are destroyed. His grandson tells me that the papers are safely in his
possession.
[484] Now the cemetery at Harold's Cross, Dublin.
[485] Madden's United Irishmen, iii. 330.
[486] J. W. to Mr. Secretary Cooke: endorsed 'November 1797.' McNally adds,
of a subsequent Whig Lord Chancellor, on whom he had his eye: 'Geo.
Ponsonby is not of the private meetings at Grattan's or Curran's.'
[487] Life of Curran, by his Son, ii. 385.
[488] The same manuscript further records, under the respective dates, March
16, 1803, and November 26, 1803, two sums of 100l. each, paid to 'J. W.'
[489] Mr. W. B. Kelly, who held the copyright of a book of mine called The
Sham Squire, got it reprinted in Edinburgh many years ago. I had no opportunity
for revising the proofs, and I am anxious to correct the strange misprint at p.
250, of '1,000l.' instead of '100l.' to McNally. The original edition, at the same
page, states the amount correctly.
[490] Camden to Portland, December 2, 1797.
[491] Most of McNally's letters are endorsed by Cooke. This is marked by
Pelham, 'November 8, 1797.'
[492] McNally himself.
[493] Cloncurry did not see Ireland again until his liberation from the Tower.
The object of his mission to England was mere surmise. Pelham assumes that he
carried a despatch to the French Republic (Froude, iii. 287); but Cloncurry,
ignorant of the above letters, tells his law adviser: 'No papers on politics were
found on me, for I never had such' (Memoirs, p. 138). Previously, he casually
mentions that his father 'insisted upon my going to London to keep my terms at
the Temple, which I accordingly did in November, 1797,' the very date of
McNally's letter. (Memoirs of Lord Cloncurry, p. 57.)

[494] Endorsed, 'M. secret. November.'
[495] Personal Recollections of Lord Cloncurry, p. 219.
[496] Not one of McNally's letters is dated beyond the day of the week; but
many have a correct date endorsed. Some conjectural dates, supplied in late
years by an official pencil, are often wrong.
[497] In 1807-8 he appears as a defendant in several judgments 'marked' by the
King's Bench. To Benjamin Bradley, 38l. 4s. 9d.; to Thomas Shaw, 56l.; to the
administrators of Hatch, and others; and the search, if continued, would show the
same results in after years. Curran frequently accommodated him, as well as
William Godwin and others.
[498] Wellington Correspondence (Ireland), p. 192.
[499] Wellington Correspondence (Ireland), pp. 99-100.
[500] Ireland, 1810, August to December, No. 648, State Paper Office.
[501] History of Ireland since the Union, by Francis Plowden, iii. 896.
[502] The late Michael Staunton to W. J. F.
[503] Ireland, 1811, January to June, No. 652. Peter Finnerty, who, in 1798, had
been pilloried as editor of the Press, was now (1811) in Lincoln Gaol for a libel
on Lord Castlereagh.
[504] Mr. Lecky thinks that, so early as 1795, McNally reported to the
Government a secret conference of Curran and Grattan. Hist. vii. 145.
[505] Life of Curran, i. 147.
[506] These papers are exclusively quoted in the Correspondence of Daniel
O'Connell (edited by W. J. F.), ii. 420.
[507] For details, see Ireland before the Union, p. 8. (Dublin: Duffy.)
[508] The Correspondent, November 4, 1817.
[509] Letter of Mrs. John Philpot Curran, dated 'The Priory, Rathfarnham,
September 14, 1872.'
[510] John Egan, a member of the Irish Parliament, lost a judicial office he held
by voting against the Union, and died in poverty. A staunch patriot to the end, he
belonged to the set which numbered Curran and McNally. Curran's first
acquaintance with him was in an affair of honour. Egan, a large man, complained
of the great advantage which Curran's diminutive figure gave him. 'I scorn to
take any advantage of you, whatever,' replied Curran. 'Let my size be chalked
out on your side, and I am quite content that every shot which hits outside that
mark should go for nothing.'
[511] It is a question whether 'Mac,' in society, drank as much as he may have
pretended to do. See ante, p. 185.
[512] Life of Curran, 1820, ii. 380. Italics in original.
[513] He seems not to have been so badly maimed as he gave Phillips to believe.
John P. Prendergast, a nonagenarian, remembers McNally saying at the Trim
Assizes in 1817, 'I have a finger and thumb to tweak the nose of any man who

dares to question my acts.' Luckily the present writer did not live in those days.
How one thumb went, see p. 177.
[514] Letter of J. J. Scallan, Esq., M.D., to the author. Black Rock, April 23,
1890. The Doctor may not be quite right in his assumption.
[515] Mr. Lecky says that 'McNally had specially good opportunities of learning
the sentiments of Grattan' (vii. 281). Grattan died May 14; McNally on February
13.
[516] Rev. John Kearney, P.P., St. Catherine's, to the author, February 10, 1860.
[517] McNally and Father Smith seem to have been old chums. So far back as
1805, 'J. W.' writes, in one of his undated letters: 'Smith, the priest whom I have
before mentioned, informed me last night that a person arrived here from France
within these few days. The intelligence he brings is an assurance of a Descent by
the French, and that the Fleet is now in the Atlantic with this object. I do not
give credence to his Information. I found it impossible to extract particulars or
names, but I am to see him to-morrow (Sunday).'
Smith, suspecting McNally to be a spy, is likely to have charged his news with
sensationalism, and 'Mac,' no doubt, found him useful as a scout. That he was an
open-mouthed gossiping man, his account of his very solemn mission to the
death-bed of the spy shows. He never received promotion, and in the end
became so deaf that when officiating in his confessional he always reiterated
audibly the character of the sin disclosed, so as to be sure he heard it correctly,
and the result was very painful embarrassment to such neighbouring worshippers
as could not fail to become en rapport with the conscience of the penitent.
Compare Wellington Correspondence (Ireland), pp. 192-3, and the 'Information
of a Priest regarding threatened Invasion.'
[518] Lyons, in his Grand Juries of Westmeath, records, deprecatingly, that
Leonard McNally's people were engaged in trade; but, according to their
tombstone at Donnybrook, they once owned the castle and lands of Rahobeth.
Like other Irish gentry of the proscribed faith, they sank during penal times, and
the name of Leonard McNally is found in the official list of 'Papists' who
'conformed' early in the reign of George III. How this came about is traceable in
Sheil's notice of McNally in 1820: 'His grandfather made a very considerable
personal property, which he laid out in building in Dublin; but having taken
leases liable to the discovery of this property, in consequence of a bill under the
popish laws, he was stripped of it. His father died when he was an infant, at
which time the bill of discovery was filed, and little attention was paid to his
education.' The 'will of Leonard McNally, Dublin, merchant,' who died in 1756,
is preserved at the Record Office.
[519] William Smith, B.L., died at Torquay, April 29, 1876.
[520] See Life of Grattan, by his Son, ii. 272.
[521] One of the more voluminous of the secret reports signed 'J. W.' is dated
March 24, 1797, and details twenty-three propositions of a plan, through which
the United Irishmen were to act with Grattan. The proceedings took place at a
meeting at Chambers's, one of the Rebel Directory. (MSS. Dublin Castle.)

CHAPTER XV
FATHER ARTHUR O'LEARY
Dr. Madden, in a well-known work of considerable authority, singles out
three divines as examples of noble qualities: i.e. 'the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle,
the Rev. Arthur O'Leary, and Archbishop Murray.'[522]
Several years ago an influential journalist posted at Melbourne the
following letter. He was the mouthpiece of many. It is rather late to answer
his question publicly; but, in truth, the subject was not an inviting one to
touch, especially as, not having studied it, I felt unable to reply in a way
which would be deemed satisfactory by the querist. On the other hand, the
application having come from the antipodes, I am encouraged to think that
the subject possesses an interest not confined to a hemisphere. 'No one was
more generally loved and revered than Father O'Leary,' writes Charles
Butler. Yelverton, speaking in the Irish Parliament, said: 'Unattached to this
world's affairs, Father O'Leary can have none but the purest motives of
rendering service to the cause of morality and his country.' He was the
subject of a grand panegyric from the pulpit. Two biographies of him have
been written by anointed hands. Idolised while living, his memory was
cherished by thousands. His name wore a halo! Now, according to recent
commentators, it seems not free from that light which floats over unhealthy
places. Let it not be denied that at different times O'Leary did good work
for his creed and country. As a religionist he continued true to the end; but
if we accept the high testimony of Froude and Lecky, the same cannot be
said of him as a patriot and a gentleman.
38, William Street, Melbourne, December 1, 1875.
Sir,—Knowing you from your published writings to be
intimately acquainted with the secret political history of Ireland
at the close of the last century, I venture to trespass on your
courtesy, with a query relative to a celebrated character of those
times, whose name, long gratefully and affectionately
remembered by his countrymen, must in future, if the statements

of a recent historian are deserving of any credit, be associated
only with the names of the wretches whom, in the pages of 'The
Sham Squire' and 'Ireland before the Union,' you have held up to
the scorn of posterity!
I allude to the famous 'Father O'Leary,' who, according to Mr.
Froude, was a spy of Pitt's, systematically employed in
betraying the secrets which his sacred calling and influence as a
trusted patriot enabled him to become possessed of; and, with
unparalleled audacity and baseness, publicly receiving the
encomiums of his most distinguished contemporaries, such men
as Grattan and Curran, for virtues which he only assumed, and
for talents which he so basely prostituted! Is it possible that this
man could have played such an odious part? Do you consider,
sir, that the evidence produced by Mr. Froude in support of so
terrible an accusation is sufficiently conclusive; or, has that
sensational writer in this, as perhaps in other instances,
accommodated his facts to his theories?[523] With tantalising
reticence Mr. Froude gives only a few meagre lines from the
correspondence in which he claims to have found the proofs of
O'Leary's guilt. The subject has been much discussed in
Australia, as no doubt it has in every country in which Irishmen
are to be found. You have yourself, in one of your ...[524]
volumes, referred to a mysterious connection between O'Leary
and William Pitt. Was it an honourable, or an infamous one?
May I ask you to favour me with your opinion upon it, judged
by the light of Mr. Froude's revelations? By kindly complying
with my request, you will oblige many anxious inquirers at the
'Antipodes.'
I am, Sir, etc.,
Morgan McMahon.
W. J. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
I may at once say that, although evidence exists of O'Leary's frailty, it is not
sufficient to warrant, in all details, the very sensational picture drawn by
Mr. McMahon.

People always knew that O'Leary became entitled to a pension, though how
he acquired it was not so clear. Perhaps it is only fair to give him the benefit
of the version which his intimate friend, Francis Plowden, placed on record
eighty years ago.[525] His information was, doubtless, derived from O'Leary
himself; but O'Leary seems to have told him no more than it was convenient
to reveal:—
O'Leary's writings on toleration had removed from the minds of
many Catholics the difficulties which up to that time prevented
them from swearing allegiance to the House of Hanover, and
abjuring the House of Stuart. That Rev. Divine so happily
blended a vein of liberality and original humour with orthodox
instruction, that his writings became popular even with
Protestants, and induced so much toleration and cordiality
between them and the Catholics, that created a serious alarm in
those who studied to perpetuate their division and consequent
weakness. With much art they endeavoured to stop the progress
of this terrifying liberality and harmony among Irishmen of
different religious professions. The Rev. Arthur O'Leary was
thanked by the British minister for the services he had rendered
to the State, by frightening away the bugbear of Jacobitism, and
securing the allegiance of the whole Catholic body to the House
of Hanover. A pension of 200l. was granted to him for his life in
the name of a trustee, but upon the secret condition that he
should for the future withhold his pen, and reside no more in
Ireland,—in such dread was holden an evangeliser of tolerance
and brotherhood in that country. Two or three payments of this
hush-money were made. Afterwards an arbitrary refusal for
many years threw the Rev. Pensioner upon the voluntary support
of his friends for subsistence. After a lapse of many years, by
importunity and solicitation, and repeated proofs of his having
complied with the secret conditions, he received a large arrear;
and, in order to make himself independent for the rest of his
days, he purchased with it an annuity for his life from a public
office, and died before the first quarter became due.
It was, in fact, entirely by Plowden's intervention that the arrear was paid.
So we learn on the authority of the Rev. Thomas England, who in 1822

brought out a life of O'Leary. Plowden was a friend of Pitt's, and undertook
to write a History of Ireland under the auspices of that statesman. He had
previously published in defence of the British Constitution, and received in
acknowledgment the D.C.L. of Oxford. When writing eighty years ago of
so popular and respected a priest as O'Leary, Plowden—himself a Catholic
—made his revelation cautiously. It would now seem that some greater
service was rendered than the public service to which Plowden refers. It
will be shown on high contemporary authority that the object of the Castle
in 1784 was to divide the two great parties. This policy later on was boldly
avowed as Divide et impera.[526] The service, therefore, for which O'Leary
accepted secret pay cannot have been for promoting cordial co-operation
between Catholics and Protestants.
Mr. Lecky, in the sixth volume of his 'History of England,' has brought to
light a letter, going far to establish the fact that in 1784 O'Leary 'consented,
for money, to discharge an ignominious office for a Government which
despised and distrusted him.'[527]
On studying O'Leary's public life there seems no doubt that the secret
pension of 100l. a year, which in 1784 he agreed to accept, was merely
supplemental to a larger subsidy previously enjoyed. How he earned the
first pension is now to be shown.
A volume, 'Sketches of Irish Political Characters,' was published in 1799.
The writer, Henry McDougall, commanded sources of information which
gave his book value. Speaking of O'Leary, he says (p. 264):—
During the most awful period of the American War, he
addressed his Catholic countrymen, upon the subject of what
ought to be their political conduct, in a manner that merited the
thanks of every good citizen, and for which, it has been said,
Government rewarded him with a pension; if so, never was a
pension more deservedly applied.
McDougall doubtless refers to a publication of O'Leary's, largely circulated
and often reprinted, i.e. 'An Address to the Common People of Ireland on
occasion of an apprehended Invasion by the French and Spaniards in July
1779,[528] when the united Fleets of Bourbon appeared in the Channel.' On
April 12, 1779, Spain had concluded an alliance with France and America,
whereupon Vergennes, the French Premier, divulged to the Spanish