Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

ticular, was stigmatized by that intemperate man as a disaffected person.

It was the policy of the time to render every man suspected of disaffection, who took any part in politics adverse to the views of the faction which swayed the administration. The government, in fact, was in the hands of the Beresfords and Fitzgibbons.*

The brothers, on their return from France, became members of the United Irishmen society. The earliest account I find of either taking any part in the proceedings of those meetings, is of one which took place in the month of August, 1793. At that period, none but men eminent for their talents, rank in society or professional ability, usually presided over their meetings. From the commencement of the society to the year 1794, among the persons we find filling the chair, are the Honourable Simon Butler, Dr. Drennan, Bagenal Beauchamp Harvey, and John Sheares. The latter, when he presided at the meeting of the society, on the 16th of August, 1793, called for the purpose of preparing and presenting an address to Messrs. Butler and Bond, recently liberated from confinement, had only then attained his twenty-seventh year; and at a time when the society abounded with men of rank and talent, so young a man as John Sheares to have been called to the chair, shews that he must have been held in high repute by his associates.

* The Honourable William Beresford, Archbishop of Tuam, married the Lady Elizabeth Fitzgibbon, sister to the Chancellor.

The part taken by both brothers, in the proceedings of the society at this time, was such as moderate reformers, in our days, might be supposed to take.

The society had not then swerved from its first character, and abandoned its original constitution. That both were unobjectionable, we have the admission of Mr. Pollock, a writer, the most able antagonist of that society, at a latter period, when the new organization took place, and the only writer, of all the political scribblers of that period, hostile to the United Irishmen society, whose arguments, it would be difficult for even the ablest of the United Irishmen to refute.

Pollock, speaking of this society, in his admirable letters, addressed to the inhabitants of Newry, in 1792, says: "In making war on the United Irishmen of Dublin, I attack a society, whose first establishment and principles, in their spirit and general tendency, I approved of; of which, but for some trifling accident-some lucky or unlucky circumstances, in their formation, I should myself have been a member, or proposed as such. I take liberties with a body of men, some few individuals of whom, that I have lived in a degree of intimacy with-men of considerable talents, and I believe, of much private worth—I feel a personal, and even affectionate regard for; a body, to the great majority of whom, as individuals, I attribute perfectly good intentions towards their country, and even its constitution, so far as the majority have taken the trouble or used the means to understand it; and to whom, as a society, I leave

this testimony of my private opinion: that they have contributed to raise, assimilate, and warm into new life and energy, the divided, and thereby depressed spirits of their countrymen. Happy, had they but known where to stop!"*

The writer points out the matters, in which, he considers, they had shown indiscretion: namely, "in merging the simple discussion of the question of emancipation and reform, in theoretical disquisitions on the principles of government," &c. &c.

Neither in the speeches, nor in the writings of the Sheares, at the period of the address presented to Messrs. Butler and Bond, was there any matter, in the slightest degree, of a treasonable character, or of a seditious tendency; yet it was regarded at that time, as such; and henceforth, the language of Lord Clare, whenever he spoke of the Sheares, was that of violent invective, nay, of vindictive bitterness.

Violence begets violence: and it certainly was so, with respect to Fitzgibbon's intemperance; for it is admitted by those most intimately acquainted with the Sheares, that they gave vent to their feelings of resentment against Lord Fitzgibbon, in the loudest terms of reproach. This partizan judge, it is well known, carried with him his inveterate animosity to his political opponents, even on the bench. The ear of the judge was never for an advocate of politics opposite his own. In the case of Curran, he carried this spirit of judicial rancour to the extent of virtually banishing him from his court; and according to the

* Vide Pollock's Letters to the Inhabitants of Newry, 1793. Letter IX.

account given by the son in his admirable life of his father, he estimated his losses from Fitzgibbon's conduct towards him, at £30,000.

Curran had, many years before Fitzgibbon had become chancellor, fought a duel with him; and when he gained the bench," Lord Clare remembered the resentments of Mr. Fitzgibbon, and avenged the wounds he had received in the senate, by excluding Mr. Curran from all practise in his court." *

Very nearly in the same terms, the friend of the Sheares communicates to me the injury inflicted on them, in their professional capacities, by the evident discountenance they met with from Lord Clare, in his judicial character; and however trifling their losses might be, in comparison with those of Curran, the public knowledge of the ear of the court being closed against them, at the very onset of their professional career, was enough to ruin their prospects of advancement ;-and they attributed the ruin of them to Lord Clare.

The offence of advocating reform was like the crime of Mr. Grogan, in presiding at a public meeting in Wexford, hostile to the administration-a sufficient motive for calling in question the loyalty of that old gentleman, and keeping the suspicion of treason suspended over his head till the insurrection "exploded," and the offence against the faction was expiated in blood. "For a similar offence, of opposition to the measures of administration-years before the outbreak of the rebellion-Sir Edward Crosbie was likewise suspected of disafVide Life of Curran, vol. i. C

VOL. II.

66

fection to the faction; and he, too, when the day of reckoning came, in 1798, was sacrificed in the confusion of the times."

He died the death of a traitor, indeed; but many an innocent man, besides Sir Edward Crosbie, has been called a traitor, whose murderers posterity denominates miscreants.

Sir Jonah Barrington states :-"The execution of Sir Edward Crosbie was a murder, that of Mr. Grogan a butchery. The viceroy had signed no warrants for the execution: he was not consulted concerning the prisoners, till their fate had been decided."*

If Crosbie and Grogan failed to realize the suspicions which were formed of their fidelity—if the injustice that was done them by such suspicions had not carried their indignation to such terms of desperation, as had driven the Sheares into rebellion, they fared no better: they had all incurred the displeasure of the faction; and their conduct as political opponents, or even as private adversaries, was sufficient to establish their criminality, as men of republican principles and traitors.

The first cause of Lord Clare's animosity to the Sheares, was of as old a date as the marriage of Henry with Miss Swete, of Cork; and there is even much reason to fear, that Lord Clare never forgot or forgave the preference given to his rival in this affair. The next circumstance that created ill-will took place in 1793, on the occasion of Henry Sheares demanding an explanation of the injurious

* Vide Barrington's Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation, p. 375-6.

« AnteriorContinua »