1798.

and legal point of view, similar to that of Hanover to England, so long as the English succession remained in the male line.1 Even this tie, weak as it was, might have been still further weakened by the divergent action of the two parliaments; thus, during the King's illness in 1788, the Regency regulations adopted by the Irish Parliament differed from those adopted by the English Parliament. The substantial dependence of Ireland upon England was, however, to a great extent, secured by the intimate connection of the great body of the Irish landowners with English interests, by the close character of nearly the entire borough representation, and by the wholesale system of corruption with which the Government managed the Irish Parliament. During this period, therefore, the Irish Government may be characterised as a system in which legal independence was neutralised by corruption and religious intolerance. The governing power was in the exclusive possession of the party identified with Protestant ascendency; and hence there were two elements of disaffection which were called into active operation by the events of the French Revolution; the Presbyterians

1 Lord North, in proposing in 1783 a measure relative to the postage of letters, acknowledged it 'to be very certain that Great Britain and Ireland had become to each other, in point of political power, as foreign nations.' [Compare Sir George Lewis's book on the Government of Dependencies (p. 154), and the quotation from Lord Abingdon's speech of 1783, and Lord Grenville's on the Union (ibid. pp. 362, 366).

The latter said, that 'if the parliaments were to remain distinct and separate, the bond of connection between the countries was null and void.' At first sight it appears that the expression as to Hanover in the text is inaccurate, inasmuch as the King of England was King of Ireland in his political capacity-because he was King of England. He was King of Hanover in his personal capacity and accidentally. But in fact the theory of the connection with Ireland between 1782 and the Union was utterly rotten and unsound. A King of England can act as such only in connection with the Parliament of England: therefore, to require him to govern as King of England and exclude the English Parliament is a contradiction in terms. ED.]

and the Catholics. The latter formed the great bulk of the population; but the former were the more energetic and enterprising politicians. The United Irishmen, consisting of Presbyterians and Protestants, and having their head-quarters at Belfast and Dublin, wished to convert Ireland into a republic, wholly independent of England, and connected with that of France. For this purpose they entered into treasonable communications with the French Directory, and organised an insurrection in Ireland, which was to be supported by a French invading force. The French Government are reported to have assured the United Irishmen, a short time before Lord Cornwallis's arrival in Dublin, that invasion should follow invasion, though defeat succeeded defeat, until Ireland was completely free.'1 The conspirators, however, were not faithful to each other; the Government received full information of the plans which were in preparation, and in May 1798, Lord Edward Fitzgerald and the Sheares were arrested. These arrests, instead of suppressing the insurrection, were the signal for its outbreak. The Irish rebellion now began; but although it spread to the Catholic population of the south, its duration was short. The defeat of the rebels at Vinegar Hill took place at the

6

1 Vol. ii. p. 349. In the early part of the French Revolution Lord Cornwallis had shared the opinion, then general, that France would be so weakened by internal discord as to prevent her from being troublesome to her neighbours. In a letter written from Calcutta to the Duke of York, and dated April 1790, he says: 'It is impossible to look without compassion upon the wretched state of France; but when we consider that the unprovoked and unjustifiable part which that nation took against us in the late American war has, perhaps, greatly contributed to produce the present convulsions, we cannot say that they are totally unmerited; and although it may be natural for your Royal Highness to feel disappointed at not having the means of improving yourself in your profession, I must candidly confess that I reflect with no small degree of satisfaction, that our tranquillity in Europe is not likely to be soon disturbed by that late powerful and restless neighbour.'

N

1798.

1798.

time of Lord Cornwallis's arrival in June; in July, the majority of the state prisoners offered to acknowledge their offences, on condition that their lives were spared and that they left the country. In this state of things, the humane, prudent, and temperate disposition of Lord Cornwallis induced him to adopt a policy of clemency towards the defeated rebels.1 In the adoption of moderate measures, he was supported by his chief secretary, Lord Castlereagh; but the subordinate agents of the Government, and the ascendency party by which it had been hitherto guided, urged partly by fear and partly by resentment, strongly insisted upon the necessity of severe punishment. Lord Cornwallis, therefore, in the summer and autumn of 1798, found himself in a position similar to that of Lord Canning during the late Indian mutiny.2 The Irish Protestants, like the English of Calcutta, cried for blood. In both cases, the head of the Government had the firmness to resist this cowardly and savage cry. The passages in the correspondence which relate to this subject are too numerous for us to reprint; we will, however, lay some extracts before our readers, which will serve to exhibit their general tenor. The first is from a despatch to the Duke of Portland, of July 8, 1798:

The principal persons of this country, and the members of both Houses of Parliament, are in general averse to all acts of clemency; and although they do not express, and perhaps are too much heated to see, the ultimate effects which their violence would produce, would pursue measures that could only terminate in the extirpation of the greater number of the inhabitants, and in the utter destruction of the country. The words Papists

1 The excellent effects produced by Lord Cornwallis's arrival are described, in strong terms, by Plowden, Historical Review of the State of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 765. 4to.

2 [Compare Massey's History of England, vol. iv. p. 322. Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, vol. iii. p. 251.—ED.]

and Priests are for ever in their mouths, and by their unaccountable policy they would drive four-fifths of the community into irreconcilable rebellion; and in their warmth they lose sight of the real cause of the present mischief, of that deep-laid conspiracy to revolutionise Ireland on the principles of France, which was originally formed, and by wonderful assiduity brought nearly to maturity, by men who had no thought of religion but to destroy it, and who knew how to turn the passions and prejudices of the different sects to the advancement of their horrible plot for the introduction of that most dreadful of all evils, a Jacobin revolution.

In a private letter to General Ross, of July 24, 1798, Lord Cornwallis says:

Except in the instances of the six state trials that are going on here, there is no law either in town or country but martial law, and you know enough of that to see all the horrors of it, even in the best administration of it. Judge then how it must be conducted by Irishmen heated with passion and revenge. But all this is trifling compared to the numberless murders that are hourly committed by our people without any process or examination whatever. The yeomanry are in the style of the loyalists in America, only much more numerous and powerful, and a thousand times more ferocious. These men have saved the country, but they now take the lead in rapine and murders. The Irish militia, with few officers, and those chiefly of the worst kind, follow closely on the heels of the yeomanry in murder and every kind of atrocity, and the fencibles take a share, although much behindhand with the others. The feeble outrages, burnings, and murders, which are still committed by the rebels, serve to keep up the sanguinary disposition on our side; and as long as they furnish a pretext for our parties going in quest of them, I see no prospect of amendment. The conversation of the principal

1 Lord Cornwallis here assumes that the ratio of Roman Catholics to Protestants in Ireland was at that time as 4 to 1. The population of Ireland in 1791 is estimated by Doctor Beaufort at 4,088,000. Of this number the Roman Catholics were probably about 3,000,000, and the Protestants about 1,000,000.

1798.

1798.

persons of the country all tends to encourage this sytem of blood; and the conversation even at my table, where you will suppose I do all I can to prevent it, always turns on hanging, shooting, burning, &c., and if a priest has been put to death, the greatest joy is expressed by the whole company. So much for Ireland and my wretched situation.

A despatch to the Duke of Portland, of Sept. 16, 1798, contains the following remark :

The principal personages here who have been long in the habit of directing the councils of the Lords-lieutenants, are perfectly well-intentioned and entirely attached and devoted to the British connexion, but they are blinded by their passions and prejudices, talk of nothing but strong measures, and arrogate to themselves the exclusive knowledge of a country, of which, from their mode of governing it, they have, in my opinion, proved themselves totally ignorant.'

In a letter to General Ross, of Nov. 16, 1799, in the year subsequent to the rebellion, the Lord-lieutenant recurs to the same topic:

The greatest difficulty which I experience, is to control the violence of our loyal friends, who would, if I did not keep the strictest hand upon them, convert the system of martial law (which, God knows, is of itself bad enough) into a more violent and intolerable tyranny than that of Robespierre. The vilest informers are hunted out from the prisons to attack, by the most barefaced perjury, the lives of all who are suspected of being, or of having been, disaffected; and indeed every Roman Catholic of influence is in great danger.

The same humane and temperate policy which was adopted by Lord Cornwallis had been acted upon by Sir Ralph Abercromby, who had held the office of Commander-in-chief before his appointment. But as he did not, like Lord Cornwallis, unite the chief civil with the military

1 See further on this subject, vol. ii. pp. 355, 359, 361, 386, 414.