1799. PERSISTENT FIRMNESS OF PITT. 167 deep murmur of despair by the great mass of the population of Ireland. It was to the firmness and wisdom of Pitt, in supporting, with the single weight of his authority, the only Lieutenant who had attempted to govern Ireland with an impartial hand, and to chastise the insolence of a cabal as cruel and intolerant as any tyranny which has crushed mankind, that the salvation of the island, and perhaps the integrity of the Empire, is to be ascribed. Cornwallis himself was worthy of such confidence. The slander with which he was systematically assailed, in a country where slander was virulent, and truth was weak, still taints his fame, and the great services which he rendered to Ireland, and through Ireland to the Empire, have never been duly appreciated. From a pure sense of public duty, and without a moment's hesitation, Cornwallis, already sated with wealth and honours, accepted an office for which he felt the utmost repugnance. But while he refers to the life of a Lord Lieutenant as fulfilling his idea of 'perfect misery,' he is never deterred by weariness or disgust from the task which he had undertaken, and never shrinks from the performance of duties which, to a high-minded man, must have been odious and revolting. His political sagacity is manifest in the whole tenour of his administration. He saw that the great grievances of Ireland did not admit of topical remedies. A reform of Parliament was impracticable, there being no materials out of which a constituency could be created. Catholic emancipation and a local Parliament were incompatible with British connection. Legislative union with Great Britain was the only remedy, and he would hear of no other. determined to check the savage spirit of Protestant ascendency. But his resolute will was tempered with a red riband to a post which required the civil and military talents of a Marlborough.' He was Courts and Cabinets of George the Third, vol. ii. p. 430. 168 PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY CHECKED. CH. XXXVIII. prudence and caution. Had he proceeded, after the fashion of Lord Fitzwilliam, at once to root out abuses, which had long been imbedded in the political system of Ireland, he would have experienced the fate of that rash, though well-meaning ruler. Cornwallis knew that he could not make Protestant noblemen, gentry, and yeomanry, long accustomed to domineer over the subject race, moderate, just, liberal, and conciliatory, all in a moment. He was content, therefore, to restrain them, so far as he could, from murdering and torturing people, whose only offence was their religion. He would not suffer the forms of martial law, the superintendence of which immediately concerned him, to be abused to the purposes of private malice and political rancour. He greatly mitigated, therefore, but could not wholly prevent the persecution of the Catholic people.* Nor was he strong enough to deny to the Judkin Fitzgeralds the protection which they demanded against the outraged laws. He was frequently baffled even in his efforts to keep the administration of martial law within the limits of common sense and humanity. One example may be mentioned, not because it was one of peculiar atrocity, for there were many similar cases, but as showing what Irishmen of high station, and conse 'I never can permit them [the yeomanry] to take advantage of their military situation to pursue their private quarrels, and gratify their personal resentments; or to rob and murder at their discretion, any of their fellow-subjects whom they may think proper, on their own authority, to brand with the name of rebels.' Lord Cornwallis to Duke of Portland, March 1799. 'You write as if you believed that there was any foundation for all the lies and nonsensical clamour about my lenity. On my arrival in this country, I put a stop to the burning of houses and murder of the inhabitants by the yeomen, or any other person who delighted in that amusement; to the flogging for the purpose of extorting confession, and to the free quarters, which comprehended universal rape and robbery throughout the country.' Lord Cornwallis to General Ross, April 1799.Cornwallis Correspondence, vol. iii. pp. 74-89. 1799. MURDER BY THE YEOMANRY. 169 quently of some education and knowledge of the world, were capable of in those times. A part of the Mount Kennedy corps of yeomanry were, on an autumn night, in the year Murder in 1798, patrolling the village of Delbary, Wicklow. in the county of Wicklow. Two or three of the arty led by Whollaghan, one of their number, entered the cottage of a labouring man named Dogherty, and demanded if there were any bloody rebels there? The only inmates of the cabin were Dogherty's wife and a sick lad, her son, who was eating his supper. Whollaghan asked if the boy was Dogherty's son; and, being told that he was-Then, you dog,' said Whollaghan, 'you are to die here.' I hope not,' answered the poor lad. And he prayed, if there was any charge against him, to be taken before Mr. Latouche, a magistrate in the neighbourhood, of known humanity and justice. The fellow replied that he cared nothing for Latouche, and raised his gun. The mother entreated him, for the love of God, to take her life instead of her child's. Whollaghan, with a volley of abuse, pulled the trigger twice, but the piece missed fire. A comrade then handed him another gun; and the woman rushed at the muzzle to shield her son. In the struggle the piece went off, and the ball broke young Dogherty's arm. When the boy fell, the assassins left the cabin; but Whollaghan returned, and seeing the lad supported by his mother, cried out, Is not the dog dead yet?' 'O yes, sir,' said the poor woman, he is dead enough.' 'For fear he is not,' said Whollaghan, 'let him take this.' And with deliberate aim, he fired a fourth time, and Dogherty dropped dead out of his mother's arms. Whollaghan was tried for murder, not by the civil tribunal, as he should have been, but by courtmartial. The facts were not disputed; but the defence was that the poor boy had been a rebel, and 170 WHOLLAGHAN'S TRIAL AND ACQUITTAL. CH. XXXVIII. that the prisoner was a humane and loyal subject. That the Doghertys were rebels is probable enough; as, indeed, it was hardly possible that a Catholic peasant should have been anything else. But no legal evidence of the fact was tendered; and the hearsay which was admitted was about as credible as the oaths of the Orangemen who came to giv Whollaghan a character for humanity. But the real defence was, that the prisoner and his companions had been sent out with general orders from their officer to shoot anybody they pleased. The court seem to have been of opinion that such orders were neither unusual nor unreasonable; and it is difficult to collect, from their finding, that they thought the prisoner had been guilty even of an error in judgment. They found, that the prisoner did shoot and kill Thomas Dogherty, a rebel; but do acquit him of any malicious or wilful intention of murder.' Now this crime was perpetrated, not in the wilds of Connaught, but in the metropolitan district. The trial took place in Dublin; Cornwallis. and the president of the court was the Court-martial dissolved by Earl of Enniskillen, one of the chiefs of the Irish nobility. When the proceedings of the court were submitted to Lord Cornwallis, he signified his entire disapproval of the acquittal of a man who by the clearest evidence had been guilty of a cruel and deliberate murder. He directed the courtmartial to be immediately dissolved; that Whollaghan should be dismissed from the yeomanry, and that this order should be read to the president and members of the court-martial in open court.* A similar case to Whollaghan's, and one, if possible, still more flagrant, so far as the conduct of the court-martial was concerned, was that of a lieutenant and a party of militia, who were tried for another * Cornwallis Correspondence, pp. 419, 420, 421. Plowden's History, part ii. p. 810. 1799. MURDER BY A PARTY OF MILITIA. 171 act of deliberate murder. The court, sympathising with the act, and willing to shield the perpetrators, came to a conclusion, which mingled absurdity and baseness in a manner that no other country or faction could have equalled. They acquitted the officer who gave the order, and convicted the men who had committed the homicide in obedience to the order. 'But,' they added, it appearing that the deceased had belonged to a yeomanry corps which had been disbanded, and that he had not joined any other, the court are of opinion that at the time the crime was committed, the prisoners did not think they were doing an improper act, in putting a person they thought a rebel to death; and from their former good conduct, the court submit to His Excellency, whether they are not fit objects for mercy, and to be sent to serve in a regiment abroad for life.' Lord Cornwallis, of course, disallowed the sentence altogether as regarded the men, who were clearly entitled to their acquittal; but as regarded the lieutenant, he took the opinion of the law officers, whether a finding so manifestly perverse must be considered final. The acquitted murderer, however, could not be tried again; and all that Cornwallis could do, to repair the iniquity of this officer's accomplices on the courtmartial, was to procure his dismissal from the service. The trials were numerous, in which the court endeavoured to adapt the evidence to their foregone conclusions, by rejecting legal, and adınitting illegal, proof-thus showing a determination, at all hazards, to avoid giving a just and honest decision. Yet, for interposing whenever he could, to protect the lives of the people committed to his charge from assassination and perjury, the King's vicegerent was assailed with calumny and insult, by a faction never before thwarted, or even checked, in its cruel inso * Cornwallis Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 421. |