3

until it succeeds." The Lord-Lieutenant summarily dismissed the experienced chancellor of the exchequer and the venerated prime-sergeant, putting in their high places creatures of no account. Similar dismissals were known to threaten every office-holder who should stand by his sworn fidelity to the constitution.2 The Government now organised a system of corruption on a vast scale. The Castle counted on a considerable majority, but still nothing was neglected. Places, pensions, and even titles were in the market; and ready money, not so secretly procurable in Ireland, was got over from Whitehall by special messengers. "Most secret," writes Castlereagh on January 2, 1799, "already we feel the want, and indeed the absolute necessity, of the primum mobile." He wished to operate on and through the press by hiring briefless young barristers to write. Five thousand pounds was most earnestly requested "in bank notes by the first messengers." Pitt, Portland, and Grenville saw and sanctioned the request, and his grace volunteered to say that "means will soon be found of placing a larger sum at the Lord-Lieutenant's disposal." Castlereagh welcomed the assurance; the funds would be "carefully applied." With great magnates other methods were employed. Lord Ely, for instance, was hesitating in London. Castlereagh requested Portland to have a proper explanation with him on the subject of his peerage, or to authorise the Lord-Lieutenant "to assure him of that favour, in the event of the measure being carried." Ely found all Irishmen he met "pointedly and decidedly against the measure." It was a "mad scheme;"

66

5

1 Portland to Cornwallis, December 21. Nothing but a conviction of this purpose can give the measure a chance of success" (Castlereagh to Portland, January 2, 1799). Pitt was to declare this determination.

2 The Cabinet was urged to send over office-holders living in England (Cornwallis to Portland, January 11; Camden to Castlereagh, January 15). Carhampton was amongst those to be sent, though (then) adverse to Union; he was open to pressure, and his influence was subsequently required over

his son.

3 Castlereagh to Wickham, January 2, 1799.

• Wickham to Castlereagh January 7. ["Private and most secret."]' 5 Castlereagh to Portland, January 5.

1799]

CORRUPTION AND INTIMIDATION

175

its only advocates absentees or strangers to the country. He had not heard a single argument in its favour; still he kept his mind free.1 Cornwallis, however, gave him to understand that he would "not be allowed to shuffle." 2 Camden called on him, found him adverse, but "open to conviction;" his friends still awaited instructions how to vote. Pitt was brought to town, gave an assurance, and averted the opposition.3 "The demands of our friends rise," groaned Cornwallis, "in proportion to the appearance of strength on the other side." He detested jobs, but would overcome his detestation on account of the object (January 21). The Castle set to work to manufacture addresses of confidence. These were issued to provincial autocrats whose adherence had been secured, and they, moving with all the authority of yeomanry commanders in terrorised districts, procured signatures sufficient to make the addresses colourable imitations. An outline of the Union scheme was circulated. There were, however, discomforting signs. "The Catholics still continue against us,' ," wrote Castlereagh. There had been notorious disaffection in some of the Irish regiments.5 The Orangemen took such a "violent part" in opposition as to make an impression on the Castle's most Protestant supporters, to change Lord Shannon, and even to shake the chancellor. Nay, the British militia regiments themselves could not be

1 Letter from the Earl of Ely, January 7. 2 Cornwallis to Portland, January 13.

3 Camden to Castlereagh, January 15; "Beresford Correspondence." Lord Ely slipped behind the throne on the division (January 23); Portland said he deserved every punishment. Afterwards in March (Castlereagh writes to Portland) he declared positively for the Union, and would control two members. The determination was "clogged with some awkwardness." July 8, Cornwallis reports that Ely had been induced to "promote resolutions" in countries where his property lay, but it would be highly imprudent to give him his reward till the Union was carried. Finally, he is made a marquis and British peer, as had been promised in writing by Pitt, forwarded by Portland (Cornwallis, June 17, 1800).

On January 7 Castlereagh enclosed to Portland the draft of an address "which will be sent up from Cork this morning from Lord Boyle." Portland took it to the king; it was eagerly welcomed to influence English opinion, especially the English militia (January 11; Portland).

5 Camden to Castlereagh, January 8.

trusted. When once they perceived that rebellion was over, or only a pretext, their love of liberty would bring them to the Irish side. It was necessary to influence them by confidence addresses, for "if no disposition to harm should be shown in Ireland, our militia may consider it entirely as a ministerial measure, and be more inclined to countenance than to resist the opposition to it, should it even proceed to acts of violence and outrage."1 The hint was not lost; the "rebellion" was kept simmering to divide classes and countries, and so promote the Union.2

The eventful day arrived. On Tuesday, January 22, 1799, the viceroy delivered the speech from the throne, in the Upper House. Their enemies had made efforts to separate the kingdoms, he said; it was hoped both Parliaments would consolidate, as far as possible, the strength and resources of the empire. When Lord Cornwallis and the Commons had retired, issue was at once joined. Lord Powerscourt declared himself an enemy to the mischievous measure. The country had risen in prosperity under its own Parliament; it would not be calmed, but troubled, by the agitation of such a project. He challenged the competence of Parliament, and moved an amendment. Lord Enniskillen seconded him. The aged Charlemont came forward to vote against the doom of the Irish legislature. Two bishops and seventeen lay peers opposed its extinction; fifty-six approved; one, Lord Ely, hid behind the throne.3 In the Commons, the debate began at four o'clock, and continued throughout the night till one o'clock P.M. on the 23rd. The address was moved by the son of the Marquis of Waterford, and by the brother of the notorious Judkin Fitzgerald. Sir John Parnell, late chancellor of the exchequer,

1 Portland to Castlereagh (January 11). ["Private and secret."]

2 Beresford informed Auckland that it was believed Cornwallis "protected the rebels, and urged them on for the purpose of promoting the Union " (January 26).

3 Of the Castle peers, Lords Ormonde and Westmeath were notoriously deep in debt to their tradesmen, who sent in their bills and procured executions (Beresford to Auckland, January 26.) They, and others in similar condition, were easy prey to the Castle.

1799] THE FIRST STRUGGLE AND TRIUMPH

177

opposed the principle of union in a speech which extorted approval from Cornwallis. George Ponsonby, he adds, made an animated appeal to support the national pride and independence. (The viceroy had not a word to say for his own mercenary brigade of place-holders, or placehunters.) Ponsonby concluded by moving to supplement the address with the words, "Maintaining, however, the undoubted birthright of the people of Ireland to have a resident and independent legislature, such as it was recognised by the British legislature in 1782, and was finally settled at the adjustment of all differences between the two countries." This was seconded by Sir L. Parsons, always staunch, and supported by all the independence, and almost all the talent in the House. Lord Castlereagh alone displayed ability on the Unionist side, and the effort was not great; it was completely eclipsed by the bold convincing voice of Plunket, an Ulsterman, who, speaking in the grey dawn, made the House forget the absence of Grattan. He appealed to the sacred pact which established their constitution, to their success in its defence against foreign and domestic foes; he denounced the "system of black corruption" carried on to undermine it, and the intimidation which held threats of dismissal over members to influence their votes. He challenged denial, and would prove the truth at the bar. Eminent as a jurist, he denied the competency of a Parliament, not elected for that purpose, to alter the constitution.1 Much less was it entitled to abolish it against the expressed will of their constituents. The country gentlemen, inspirited by the county meetings, spoke warmly and in great numbers against the measure.2 The division was taken

1 "Sir, I, in the most express terms, deny the competency of Parliament to do this act. I warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on the constitution. I tell you that if, circumstanced as you are, you pass this Act, it will be a nullity, for no man in Ireland will be bound to obey it. You have not been elected for this purpose. You are appointed to make laws, and not legislatures. You are appointed to act under the constitution, and not to alter it. You are appointed to exercise the functions of legislators, and not to transfer them. And if you do so your act is a dissolution of the Government" (Plunket, "Life and Speeches of Lord Plunket," pp. 141, 142. London, 1867). 2 Castlereagh to Portland, January 28.

M

at one o'clock next day. The British Cabinet had been assured of a vast majority. From 160 to 170, or even 200, were expected to vote against 100 of the opposition.1 When, after the division, the numbers were announced, they were found to be nearly equal: ayes for the amendment (including tellers), 107; noes against it, 108.2 It was an unexpected and marvellous triumph. Ponsonby, following it up, gave notice that he would on Friday or Saturday, whichever was the more convenient to the noble lord in office, take the sense of the House on the principle of the measure. Castlereagh deprecated haste. The division, he said, had been a surprise; he would not persist further at present. However, on Thursday evening, the 24th, Sir Lawrence Parsons moved, on report, to expunge the consolidation paragraph from the address; and after a stirring debate, the division, taken at six o'clock next morning, showed 106 for the Government, and III for the constitution; giving a majority of 5 to the national party.

The result was hailed with extreme enthusiasm all over the land. Dublin repeatedly illuminated; bonfires blazed in its streets, the joy-bells were rung, and the exultant citizens drew the Speaker home in triumph. Elsewhere, the lord chancellor stood at his black and broken windows and fired on the populace.3 Meetings of counties and corporations were held to express the sentiments of the nation, and to convey the high approval of the people to their faithful representatives.

1 Castlereagh to Portland, January 21; Beresford to Auckland, February 6.

2 Two members were bribed in the House. One was Luke Fox, who got a judgeship, which he disgraced (Barrington, “Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation;" ""Cornwallis Correspondence," vol. iii. p. 164). The other was Mr. Trench of Galway, who spoke against the Union in the debate. He obtained "resolutions in favour of the Union" afterwards in Galway, and the title of Lord Ashtown, when it had passed (Barrington, "Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation;""Cornwallis Correspondence," vol. iii. p. 304).

3 Beresford to Auckland, January 24. Cork was alleged to be Unionist, but "the bells of the city of Cork were rung, and at night numberless bonfires were lighted up, in consequence of the rejection of a union by the independent and virtuous majority of the representatives of the people" (Hibernian Magazine, 1779, p. 135).