rated from the Government, though he was 'a very lukewarm patriot' and very hostile to the Catholics, must be attached, and by these means all serious difficulties would be removed.1 The Lord-Lieutenant, however, soon learnt that he had miscalculated the energy of the movement. His letters during the remainder of the year are extremely curious, but they must be read with the same reservations as the letters from which I have already quoted. They were written by a strong opponent of the policy of Catholic enfranchisement, by a governor who was surrounded by, and derived his chief information from, men who were at the head of the anti-Catholic party, and who desired above all things to obtain a decisive English declaration in its favour. The proposed Catholic convention he thought especially serious. It was intended, among other objects, to intimidate their own gentry and clergy, as their clergy, and the Pope himself, are very much intimidated by the agitations of these factious democrats.' The design, he said, was to elect a National Assembly, and such an assembly would be very alarming on religious, but still more on political, grounds. Is it to be supposed that the Catholic Committee, when reinforced by delegates from the whole country, 'would ever give way to so aristocratic a Parliament as the present Irish House of Commons? Every acquisition made through their application, or rather intimidation, would increase their power and influence with their electors, and would eventually produce a total reform of the present Parliament, and how England is to maintain its management of an Irish National Assembly is beyond my ability to conjecture.' It was 'a deep-laid scheme, not only against the religious establishment . . . but against the political frame of the Irish Government, which England has, with very little variation and exception, managed to her own purpose.'2 Westmorland painted in the strongest colours the Protestant ferment which was shown during the summer by the resolutions of the grand juries and of the county meetings, but he did not inform the Government of the great part which men connected with his Administration took in producing it, nor does he appear to have 2 Westmorland to Dundas, June 7, 1792. 1 Westmorland to Pitt, April 4, 1792. adequately described the amount of public support which the Catholic Committee found. The general condemnation of the sixty-eight seceders by their co-religionists, proved that while the old leaders of the Catholics were still exceedingly conservative, they had lost their power of guiding and restraining. It had been the policy of the penal laws to reduce as much as possible the numbers and influence of the Catholic landlords, and the unexpected but very natural consequence was, that the leadership of the Catholic body was passing into other and much less trustworthy hands. The powerful Catholics,' wrote Westmorland, 'however they may wish, as all men do, to get rid of disabilities, would be very sorry to do anything offensive to Government; . . . if they could get rid of violent democrats that manage their concerns, they would be very desirous to be quiet.'1 There were, however, no means of preventing the convention. The legal opinions in its favour published by the Committee were unanswered, and Westmorland was obliged reluctantly to confess that, if it confined itself to petitioning, he knew no existing law by which it could be suppressed. Grand juries and public meetings might protest, but they could do little more, and the moral effect of their protests was destroyed by the attitude of the Belfast dissenters, and by the great Catholic meetings which now became common. In Dublin several thousand Catholics were addressed by Keogh, McNevin, and others, and a counter-manifesto was drawn up by Emmet in reply to the manifesto of the Corporation. The opposition of the bishops to the meeting of the convention was at first very decided, but the Catholic Committee at last succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of some of them and the neutrality of the rest. In October twenty-two counties, and most of the cities, had already elected delegates according to the prescribed form, and the other counties in a more irregular way, and instructed them to maintain a guarded language, but to petition for 'the elective franchise and trial by jury.' The committee,' wrote Westmorland, are attempting, and have to a certain degree 3 1 Westmorland to Pitt, Oct. 16, 1792. 2 Wolfe Tone's Memoirs, i. 67. Ibid. i. 86, 87. • Westmorland to Pitt, Oct. 20, 1792. 1 gained, a power over the people ... and if the convention should meet, will probably have such influence and authority as will be quite incompatible with the existence of any other Government.' 'The general Catholic Committee,' he wrote a month later, have already exercised most of the functions of a Government. They have levied contributions; they have issued orders for the preservation of the peace-a circumstance perhaps more dangerous than if they could direct a breach of it-they maintain the cause of individuals accused of public crimes; their mandates are considered by the lower classes as laws; their correspondences and communications with different parts of the kingdom are rapid, and carried on, not by the post, but by secret channels and agents. If their general Committee have acquired this degree of power, what may not be apprehended from the power of the convention?' Among the lower classes vague, wild hopes were rapidly spreading. They have been told that the elective franchise will put an end to rents and tithes and taxes, and there was an evident change in their demeanour towards Protestants. There were alarming rumours of the purchase of arms, but, except in one or two counties, Westmorland did not believe them to be founded, and a thousand wild stories of conspiracies and intended massacres were floating through the country. Imprudent words, such as, 'We have been down long enough, It will be our turn next,'' We shall not pay tithes after Christmas,' have been repeated and re-echoed through every part of the kingdom. At the same time the Lord-Lieutenant adds that, though the lower orders of Catholics were often riotous, disorderly, and impatient of regular law, he had not heard of any symptoms of disaffection to their landlords.2 6 The evil, he thought, came chiefly from England, and it was in the power of England to arrest it. The present agitation and impertinence of the Catholic body is a general impression ... that England wished the Catholics to have further indulgence, was indifferent who was uppermost in Ireland, and would not take any part in any dispute that might arise; and I am very much inclined to believe that if they could once under 1 Westmorland to Pitt, Oct. 20, 1792. 2 Westmorland to Dundas, Nov. 18; Westmorland to Pitt, Oct. 20, 1792. stand that English Government was resolved to support the Protestant Parliament and establishment, the serious part of this agitation would end.' Before Richard Burke came over there was no violence amongst the Catholics, and even now a clear intimation of the English sentiments may quiet the country. He had consulted with his confidential servants, and reports that 'hardly anyone thinks the state of the country requires the immediate calling of the Parliament. They seem agreed in resistance, and in the cry that if England would but speak out that she would support the Parliament, the alarming part of the agitation would be at an end.'3 Fitzgibbon especially, said that Government should not yield anything at present,' that 'British Government should speak out plainly their determination' to that effect, that this declaration must be inserted in the next speech from the throne, and that no conciliatory language towards Catholics should be used. If this course was taken, the Chancellor and the other confidential servants were agreed that there was nothing to be feared." The Irish Government did not believe that there was any serious danger of rebellion from Catholics, and they were for a long time completely sceptical about the possibility of union between Catholics and Dissenters. The greater part of the country,' wrote Hobart in November, 'is perfectly quiet.' Mr. Keogh and a particular set of the Catholics openly profess their approbation of the levelling system, and exult in the success of the French arms. These men industriously proclaim a junction between the Catholics and the Presbyterians, a junction, however, which only exists between themselves individually and the Dublin and northern republicans, and undoubtedly does not include either the body of the Presbyterians or Catholics.' Except a few troublesome spirits in Dublin, perhaps a majority at Belfast,' writes Westmorland, the Protestants universally consider the admission of Catholics to political power as dangerous to their property, and as the annihilation of their establishment. . . . I do not think that levelling principles 1 Westmorland to Pitt, Oct. 20, 1792. 2 Hobart to Barnard; Westmorland to Pitt, Oct. 20, Nov. 3, 19, 1792. 6 1792. Westmorland to Pitt, Nov. 24, • Westmorland to Dundas, Nov. 18, 1792. Hobart to Nepean, Nov. 15. 1 3 have yet spread to any dangerous extent.' 'I am convinced. the Catholics have made no preparation for insurrection, nor have it at present in contemplation, nor any material connection with the great body of Dissenters.' 'There is certainly a dislike between Protestant and papist every day increasing.' 'It is very extraordinary, but I believe the two sects of Irish hate and fear each other as much as they did one hundred years ago.' A revival of volunteering was much spoken of, and it caused the Lord-Lieutenant much anxiety, but he at first believed that it was mainly a Protestant movement against the Catholics. Belfast, he says, is republican, but so it has been ever since the American War, and the republicans are far from agreed respecting Catholic emancipation,' and many of them are most bigoted Protestants. In parts of the counties of Down, Armagh, and Louth, the riots between the Defenders and Peep-o'-Day Boys were constantly raging. The lower ranks there have that inveteracy, that they are almost in a state of open war.' 7 From an English point of view the divisions and ferment in Ireland appeared not altogether an evil. It had always been a leading English object to induce the Irish Parliament to support as large an army as possible, and the present time seemed well fitted for carrying out this object. The augmentation of the army is a point that I believe, if the agitation continues, would meet with the universal approbation of the Protestants ... and I am convinced they would be equally ready to incur any expense that may be rendered necessary.'8. Another remark, which is certainly not less significant, occurs in a later letter: The Protestants frequently declare they will have a union rather than give the franchise to the Catholics; the Catholics that they will have a union rather than submit to their present state of degradation. It is worth turning in your mind how the violence of both parties might be turned on this occasion to the advantage of England.'' |