The legal career of MacNally in his native country commenced with a “dirty act”, and it terminated, as it commenced, in a discreditable manner. In a remarkable work, The grand Juries of Westmeath from 1727 to 1853, with Historical Notices, written and printed by John Charles Lyons, Esq., of Ladiston, (in 2 vols., 1853), referring to a trial respecting the legitimacy of the marriage of General William Naper, father of William Lenox Naper, Esq., of Littleton, in which case Leonard MacNally, counsel for Lord Sherborne, was employed against Naper, Mr. Lyons observes :— “Previously to the last trial, in 1790, the late Leonard MacNally, who had kept a grocer’s shop in Mary’s Lane, Dublin, where he had been unfortunate in trade, settled in London, and was practising at the Old Bailey; he was brought over to this country by Mr. Stackpool, who had interested himself very much for Lord Sherborne. He (MacNally) wrote a pamphlet in 1790, entitled, I think, The Duty and Authority of Jurors, which was widely circulated, particularly in this county. On this trial were produced two witnesses on the part of Lord Sherborne—Mr. Hickey, an old dilapidated attorney picked up in the purlieus of the Old Bailey, and Sarah Taylor. This Hickey swore that he had been employed by General Naper while in London, and where the general resided for some years after his return from Germany, to transact some law business for him, and amongst others to draw up a deed of annuity or rent-charge for Anne Fitzgerald, of three hundred pounds a year during her life, chargeable on the Westmeath estate, and actually produced a deed of annuity or rent- charge for Anne Fitzgerald of three hundred pounds a year during her life, chargeable on the Westmeath estate, and actually, in support of his testimony, produced his bill of costs book. After his examination was over, a young lawyer of the name of Eyre Burton Powell, stood up and offered evidence to the court. He was sworn and examined. He deposed that he was present some time before at the Old Bailey, where he saw the witness (Hickey) tried and found guilty of perjury. By what means his discharge from prison was effected, did not at that time transpire”.

“Sarah Taylor swore she was sister to the person with whom General Naper and his lady lodged while in London; that she saw several officers visit and dine with the general, but that the lady never dined with them; that she saw the last witness, Hickey, frequently there, and dining with the general and hislady. “On her cross-examination by J. P. Curran, she was obliged to admit that she was only ‘cinder-wench’ in the house, and that she and Hickey had travelled over from London with a gentleman who had paid all their expenses.

“Beresford Burton, who stated Naper’s case, abused Leonard MacNally in the most unmeasured language, and charged him with doing the dirty work of the opposite party, and with procuring Hickey and Taylor in London, and bringing them over here. “A few days after this, MacNally sent a message to Mr. Burton:a general meeting of the bar took place, when it was resolved that Burton was not to meet MacNally”.’

This decision had the effect of putting MacNally out of the pale of legal society on circuit. He made up for this affront and its consequences by seeking popularity and showing off as a patriot.Some years passed over before he could get a gentleman to meet him in the field, ardently as he desired to have an affair of honour for the retrieval of his character. At length, however, he was fortunate enough to fix a quarrel on a brother barrister of some reputation—then a facetious gentleman too, and of free and easy manners and principles like himself—Sir Jonah Barrington.

On the 29th of April, 1793, a duel was fought between Mr. MacNally and Sir Jonah, and both parties were slightly wounded on the occasion. Sir Jonah’s second was a Mr. Henry Harding, and MacNally’s was John Sheares, who was accompanied to the ground by his brother Henry and Mr. Bagenal Beauchamp Harvey.

“Both of the latter”, says Sir Jonah, “were, I believe, amicably disposed; but a negotiation could not be admitted, and to it we went”. The express acknowledgment of the amicable disposition of Henry Sheares and Harvey, and omission of any mention of a desire for an arrangement on the part of John, shows pretty plainly Sir Jonah’s opinion that no such desire was manifested by him.

Sir Jonah has given a ridiculous version of this encounter, in which he damages as much as possible, but in the most “facetious” way imaginable, “his friend” MacNally. He represents the quarrel as fastened on him by the latter on very little provocation. “MacNally”, he says, “was a good-natured, hospitable, talented, dirty fellow, and had, by the latter qualification, so disgusted the circuit bar, that they refused to receive him at their mess—a cruelty I set my face against, and every summer-circuit endeavoured to vote him into the mess, but always ineffectually; his neglect of his person, the shrillness of his voice, and his frequenting low company, being assigned as reasons which never could be set aside”. But, according to Sir Jonah, the bar would not only not mess with him, but they would not fight with him, andthis, in Sir Jonah’s estimation, was “the cruelest cut of all”. It reminds one of Tom Cringle’s serious objection to either feeding or fighting with the Americans. Harry Deane Grady, it seems, had refused to fight MacNally; and in his despair of getting any one to fight him, according to Sir Jonah, he fixed a quarrel on himself, without much rhyme or reason, for the mere purpose of making a character at the expense of Sir Jonah’s condescension, whose own character was of course already made.

The plain facts of the affair are these :—Sir Jonah Barrington, in 1793, in the course of his professional duties, took occasion to speak of the members of the United Irishmen in opprobrious terms, and he was called to an account for so doing by a member of that society, Mr. Leonard MacNally.

In one of the well-known organs of the United Irishmen, the Northern Star, of the 3rd of March, 1797, the duel between these gentlemen is mentioned as having occurred in consequence of Counsellor Barrington, at the trial of a gentleman for an assault, having used disparaging language with respect to the United Irishmen society, “of which” (adds the editor) “Mr. MacNally is a member”. The latter assertion is deserving of notice, for reasons already stated. There can be no question but the editor of the Northern Star had good means of knowing what leading men were members of that society, and who, belonging to the popular party, were not.

It will be seen in the reports of the early proceedings of the United Irishmen of the North, that on some occasions Mr. MacNally took an active part in their proceedings, especially in conjunction with Tone and Neilson. As one of the original members of the Society, he also occasionally took part in the proceedings of the Dublin “Union”, but seldom at public meetings. He was a chamber lawyer to the leaders—an entertaining entertainer of the gay and good fellows of the society. He was the advocate of the members when they got into trouble, and he advocated their cause invariably, not only with apparent zeal and heartiness, but sometimes even with success, lie had the confidence of most of the Dublin leaders, but not of all. He was suspected of treachery by some of them even previously to 1798. IsraelMilliken of Belfast, one of the United Irishmen of the North, of well-known integrity, in reply to a recent inquiry of mine, put to him by Miss Mary M’Cracken, respecting the confidence placed in the fidelity of MacNally by the Northerns engaged in the affairs of 1798, said that “to his knowledge MacNally was strongly suspected in the North of treachery”.

MacNally being a facetious barrister, a great liberal, and a flaming patriot, and a successful advocate in criminal cases, was extremely popular with his fellow citizens, and “hail fellow, well met” in all social circles of, the United Irishmen. In April, 1794, the emissary of the French government, Jackson, arrived in Dublin, accompanied by the London solicitor, Cockayne, who was the agent of Mr. Pitt, and within a day or two of their arrival they dined with Mr. Leonard MacNally. To use the words of the attorney-general on the trial of Jackson, in reference to this entertainment:—” Mr. MacNally, no doubt, merely from that hospitality in which Irishmen are never deficient, invites the to strangers to dine with him, and as a man of manners does always, he selected an agreeable company to meet them. Mr. Simon Butler and a Mr. Lewins were, among others, present at this entertainment; the conversation was naturally turned by the gentleman who had come on this mad mission, to the state of the country. Much talk there was about the discontented state of the kingdom; anxiously did he inquire how far the people would be willing to rise if there should be an invasion by the French”.

Here plainly it appears that MacNally must have been cognizant of the treasonable objects of Jackson. Why did the government then leave him unmolested or unprosecuted? The attorney- general admitted the treasonable objects of Jackson were discussed at MacNally’s table: he was implicated then in a guilty knowledge of them. How fortunate was Mr. Leonard MacNally, and how kind and forbearing the government of that day was to him!

The plot for entrapping the popular leaders of the society of United Irishmen was duly hatched under the roof of Mr. Leonard MacNally, and at that gentleman’s hospitable board an interview was arranged for Jackson with Rowan, then in Newgate.

On the trial of Jackson, Cockayne, under cross-examination, said:— “He had known Mr. MacNally when he practised at the English bar, and so had Mr. Jackson known him. MacNally was counsel at Lord Hood’s election; believes he saw him on the listings there three or four times. Does not know Mr. MacNally’s motive for asking him to dinner on his arrival in Dublin. He, Cockayne, had some business to transact here. MacNally had done some business for him.

“Jackson had been his client for many years and his old friend, and had known him ten years, when he made the communication to Mr. Pitt about Mr. Jackson. He mentioned likewise to Mr. Pitt that Mr. Jackson owed him a considerable sum of money on the balance of an account, about £300; that if he, Cockayne, interfered and should be a sufferer thereby, he should think it hard to be a loser as to that sum. Mr. Pitt made answer, he believes, ‘You must not be a loser’“.

Being further pressed about the sum due by Jackson, he said: “The sum due to him was between £250 and £300”. He said, he (Cockayne) had been tried for perjury in 1793, in an affidavit that he swore, but was acquitted, he hoped honour- ably, but admitted that “he had sworn the affidavit incautiously”, not being able to prove an attendance in a court which he had sworn to.

We have already seen that, although the treasonable communications between Jackson and the United Irishmen, who were introduced to the former at the house of Leonard MacNally, “the counsellor” was left at large, while Jackson was prosecuted, and Tone, to avoid prosecution, had to fly the country, MacNally was not molested, and being an United Irishman, and generally employed as the professional advocate of the persons of that society who had been arrested and arraigned on the charge of treason, his means of acquiring information were very considerable; and it was only discovered at his death, when an application was made for the continuance to his family of the stipend he had been in the receipt of, that government had availed themselves of his services, and had conferred a pension of £300 a year upon him for his private services.

The fact was first publicly stated by the late Mr. O’Connell when denouncing the United Irishmen. He pointed out the stupidity of confiding in their supposed secret organization, when one of their own body, and their boasted advocate and defender, Leonard MacNally, was a hireling of the government.

There was a strange coincidence in several crown prosecutions of importance from the date of the criminal proceedings against James Napper Tandy, in 1792, to that of the prosecution of Dr. Sheridan and Thomas Kirwan in 1811, in MacNally’s connection with them, and the failure of plans for the defence.

Mr. Leonard MacNally usually contrived to be employed as junior counsel; and there were fw cases of importance as state prosecutions in which he was so employed, that the plans agreed on for the defence, and the arrangements made previously to the trials by prisoner’s or traverser’s counsel, were not disclosed to the law officers of the crown of the time being, to the great astonish-ment of the leading counsel for the accused parties, and in numerous instances they were thus defeated.

At the time of the trials of Dr. Sheridan and Mr. Kirwan, the fact of the disclosure of the plans of their defence came to the knowledge of the late Mr. O’Connell and also the late Mr. David Lynch. In June, 1792, in the singular case of Mr. James Napper Tandy against the viceroy, the Earl of Westmoreland, for offering a reward for his (Tandy’s) apprehension, Matthew Dowling issued a subpcena against the Lord Lieutenant, and the question was raised by Tandy’s counsel and argued before the judges, whether any action could lie against a Lord Lieutenant during his viceroyalty.

Thomas Addis Emmet had advised the startling course with the view of showing that there was in fact and law no viceroy of Ireland then existing, inasmuch as the great seal of Ireland waa necessary to the recognition of that office in the Irish courts of law, and that of Great Britain only was affixed to the letters patent appointing his Excellency. In determining on this course, it was considered by Tandy’s leading counsel of the greatest importance to keep their main object from the knowledge of the crown lawyers. That object, however, was disclosed to them by some one of the legal advisers of Tandy, and it was thus frustrated by one in the confidence of his advisers; and even then, so early as 1792, a suspicion of treachery attached to Mr. MacNally.

Perhaps to it Lord Edward’s caution a little later, with respect to Mr. MacNally’s friends, Messrs. Jackson and Cockayne, may be attributed. The treachery in the case of Tandy led to the same results as in the case of Tone. Tandy having made himself obnoxious to the government, on secret information was involved in a charge of high treason, and like Tone, to save his life, had to fly the country. Tone was snared; Dr. Reynolds was snared; Archibald Hamilton Rowan was snared; and all had to fly the country to save their lives. But fortunate Counsellor MacNally, the prime mover in this tripartite treason, who introduced the spy of Mr. Pitt and the unfortunate dupe and victim of Cockayne to those Irish gentlemen who were peculiarly obnoxious to the government, was left unmolested, and eventually certainly was not left un-rewarded for his services to the state, whatever the precise nature of those services my have been. A professional man who undertakes to defend the life, liberty, or property of another, and communicates to that man’s opponentsthe secrets of his case, is said to pick his client’s brains. The crime of that man can hardly be parallelled for its turpitude by any other species of villainy, however enormous. Of that crime Mr. Leonard MacNally I believe was guilty on several occasions.

The year 1798 saw the desolation of many homes, previously to that fatal year happy homes. The year 1800 saw the homes of other persons, of the supposed principles of the proscribed and fugitive members of the Society of United Irishmen, bearing evidences of elevated fortunes on the part of the possessors. In that year Mr. Leonard MacNally emerged from his old abode, No. 57 Dominick Street, to No. 22 Harcourt Street, where he died in 1820. Of what avail is it to enter into these disgusting details? To that question I answer: the utility of the task entirely depends on the amount of insecurity to treachery which similar disclosures of secret perfidy are calculated to produce, and the obloquy their disclosure is sure to bring sooner or later on those who practise treachery. In the account of secret service money expenditure we find some items with the initials only of a name prefixed to them— M.N.; for instance: “27th February, 1800—Mr. Cooke, for M.N., £100”. Whether Leonard MacNally or not is the person indicated by those initials, it is impossible to say with any certainty, but it is very certain that persons who had pensions granted to them for secret services are very frequently found recorded in the list of recipients of secret service money in large sums for occasional specific services. I have elsewhere referred to original receipts in my possession for secret service money pension payments, in the handwriting of Leonard MacNally, as I believe, and those well acquainted with his handwriting believe, signed with the initials of a feigned name, J. W., but endorsed by the secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, W. Taylor, Esq., “L.M’N.”

It will be borne in mind, in the endorsement of those receipts for moneys paid to spies and informers, the particular services requited are indicated by initials—thus, S.S., O.A., S.A. Of the nature of the first there can be no doubt—secret services—the ordinary stagging, for which blood-money was earned by such miscreants as O’Brien, Reynolds, et hoc genus omne. I find the receipts which are endorsed by Mr. Secretary Taylor with the initials O.A., and S.A., are for pensions given to persons who had not come forward as witnesses on trials, but who stagged sub rosa, and gave official advice or secret advice to government, as their sly perfidious betrayals of confidence or other disclosures mightenabled to turn their neighbours, clients, parishioners, or townspeople to a profitable account. Thus we find initialled the receipts of such informers as, Counsellor Magan, the Rev. Thomas Barry, of Mallow, John Wilcocks, Esq., etc. Vide I have elsewhere had to observe, in reference to Mr. MacNally’s pension, and the receipt in my possession in his own handwriting, with the initials I. W., but endorsed by Mr. Secretary Taylor L. M’N., that various entries appear in the official list of secret service payments, published by me, of payments made through Mr. John Pollock, one of the registrars of the Court of King’s Bench, and Clerk of the Crown for the Leinster Circuit in 1798, to a person who figures under the initials T. W. There are various entries of payments to - this worthy secret ser vant to a considerable amount, on one occasion of £200, another of £150. And it is to be noted that a repayment of a sum advanced to T W. is entered under date of the 16th June, 1803, “repaid from penion”.

I must repeat that I cannot help thinking the mysterious gentleman, the ghost of whose services ever and anon rises up in the initials T. W. in the official list of secret service money payments above referred to, and who long has preserved his incognito in them, is no other than the same individual who figures as 1. W. in the original receipt for his quarter’s pension, endorsed L. M’N., which is in my possession. The secretary who thus endorsed that document may have easily mistaken the first initial of that assumed name, which the wary informer had adopted, for it is only with the aid of a magnifying glass that one can pronounce with certainty that the initial in question is an I, and not a T.

I have only further to remind the reader that the secret service money which passed through the hands of Mr. John Pollock was always for persons either engaged in legal pursuits or in some way connected ‘with the administration of justice, as the perversion of it and the corruption of its ministers and agents, in official parlance, was termed in 1798.

Let us suppose the pension, namely of £300, which MacNally was in receipt of to the period of his death in 1820, was conferred on him some years later than 1798, but still during the lifetime of J. P. Curran (for of that fact there can be no question, as the date of one of these receipts in ray hands is July the 5th, 1816), can it be reasonably doubted that MacNally had performed “secret services” long previously, of’ which Curran was in ignorance at that period?

The deception practised on Curran by MacNally was most strikingly and revoltingly exhibited in January, 1798, at the trial of Patrick Finney. MacNa.lly had successfully adopted a suggestion of his colleague to speak against time, in order to enable counsel for the defence to produce a witness to invalidate the testimony of the approver, O’Brien. MacNally made a speech remarkably able for its inordinate length, and there was suflicleut time expended on its delivery to have the witness sought for and brought into court. Curran, in his address to the jury, alluding to the able statement of his friend, giving way to the impulse of his generous feelings, threw his arm over the shoulder of MacNally, and said with evident emotion: “My old and excellent friend, I have long known and respected the honesty of your heart, but never, until this occasion, was I acquainted with the extent of your abilities? I am not in the habit of paying compliments where they are undeserved”. Tears fell from Mr. Curran as he hung over his friend and pronounced those few and simple words.—Curran’s Life, vol. i. p. 397. Mr. MacNally was one of the counsel of Robert Emmet, and the only friend who appears to have been allowed to visit him in his prison with the exception of a clergyman, after his conviction.

Robert Emmet was tried the 19th September, 1803. In the same month, and in the preceding month of August of the same year, we find L. N. in the secret service money account, receiving £210. In coupling these two occurrences with the fact that Emmet held communications with MacNally during his confinement, concerning the pains taken by him to conceal his plans, which communications were reported to the Lord Lieutenant, and made use of in the exculpation of the government from the charge of remissness, and, moreover, that MacNally was entrusted with a letter from Thomas to Robert A. Emmet, which never was delivered to the latter, I would be glad it was shown, as well as said, that an injustice had been done to the memory of Mr. Leonard MacNally.

It is certain that the leading counsel Ibr Dr. Sheridan and Mr. Thomas Kirwan, who were prosecuted by the crown in 1811, on a charge of a violation of the convention act, were ignorant that Mr. MacNally was in the pay of the government when they consulted in his presence, and determined on the line of defence they were to adopt, which it was of so much importance to their clients that the crown lawyers should not be made acquainted with. Mr. MacNally, by the admission of those who deny his treachery, had then been a pensioner of the government upwards of four years. Messrs. O’Connell, Burrowes, Burton, Driscoll, Johnson, Perrin, Furlong, the counsel for the accused Catholic gentlemen, had not the remotest idea, when they discussed their plans of defence in one of the most difficult cases to deal with that had occurred for many years, that the whole course of action on which they had determined was at the mercy of a man pensioned by the crown, who appeared amongst them in the character of a popular advocate independent of all state influence. If this is not playing the traitor in a case where the strongest confidence in the character and position of the advocates was required, I know not how to designate the performance of the part of a popular independent advocate by a gentleman who was secretly dependent on the crown and trammelled by his obligations to its bounty. But it is stated that injustice has been done to Mr. MacNally by those suspicions which were openly proclaimed by Mr. O’Connell when he made the first revelation to the public that Mr. MacNally had died in the receipt of a pension, and that the fact of its existence had been made known to the late Mr. D. Lynch, the eminent barrister, in a way that left no doubt of its having been paid to Mr. MacNaily up to the time of his decease. It has been said, moreover, that injustice has been done to Mr. MacNally in this work with regard to the supposition of his being in the receipt of a pension from the crown when he took upon himself the duties of an advocate of persons prosecuted by the government in 1794, 1798, and 1803. But the fact which l have stated, that Mr. MacNally was pensioned by the crown for some secret service which the government could not make public, and Mr. MacNally could not allow to be made known, is now admitted. Those who think Mr. MacNally wronged, say: We admit that a pension was granted to him in 1806 or 1807, but we deny that it was in existence in 1794, 1798, or 1803.

I acknowledge that I am ignorant of the time when the pension of £300 a year was conferred, but I produce evidence in the case of Jackson, Tone, and Rowan, to show that there is good reason for believing that it was earned so early as 1794, and even previously, in the case of James Napper Tandy. I am in the possession of original official documentary evidence that shows a person whose initials were T. M’N. was in receipt of a pension of the amount of £300 a year, in July, 1816. Further, I can produce authentic evidence to show that Mr. MacNally was in receipt of a pension very shortly before his death. But admitting that there are not sufficient grounds for believing that certain payments, entered in the accounts of secret service money in 1797, 1798, and 1803, made by Mr. Pollock, the Clerk of the Crown of the Leinster Circuit, were made to Mr. MacNally, I inquire what were the particular services for which a pension was formally conferred on Mr. MacNally in 1806 or 1807, which he deemed it necessary to conceal?  The answer given to this question is, that when the Whigs came into power with Mr. Fox, and the Duke of Bedford was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Mr. MacNally’s claims to a silk gown were strongly urged on the government, and the Lord Lieutenant was deterred from giving a silk gown to a barrister who was in bad odour on his circuit, and was considered to have derogated from his professional character by practising in the criminal courts. But, to make amends for the refusal of the silk gown, the government consented, it is said, to give him a pension of £300 a year. If Mr. MacNally had been in parliament, and voted for the Union, or rendered the government some known service equally signal, one could understand this act of state bounty. But, supposing it was granted to make amends for the refusal of the silk gown, at the instance of some friend of MacNally’s, some person of great influence in the new Irish government, must not John Philpot Curran, then one of the leading men of the Whig party, the most intimate and steadfast of all MacNally’s friends, have been cognizant of the fact?

There is good ground to believe that he was not cognizant of it; for one who had the best right to know Curran’s opinions, and the best right to deal with the written records of them, was at one time disposed to defend the character of MacNally from the suspicions that were excited by Mr. O’Connell’s first disclosure of the recently discovered pension in 1820, on inquiry, had found it necessary to abandon his intention. I have, in conclusion, to call attention to the items in the secret service money lists of payments made by Mr. Pollock, to which I have already referred, and especially to that original authentic official document in my possession, bearing so strikingly on the subject of this inquirr, and throwing much light on it, which is given in the Appendix to the first volume: “July 5th, 1816.—Received from W. Taylor, Esq., seventy-five pounds, due the 25th June last. mI. Endorsed by the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, 5th July,1816:  “L. M’N.” “S. A.”

But the fact of the existence of MacNally’s pension has been denied, because Mr. MacNally’s name does not appear in the list of secret service money payments, which first saw the light in a former edition of this work, published fifteen years ago. But it is only necessary, in reply to that denial, to state, the payments recorded in that book are, with few exceptions, of specific grants, and not pensions. It will be in vain to look in that book for any record of the reward of the secret services of the notorious Captain John Warneford Armstrong. Yet that honourable gentleman enjoyed the reward of his signal services to the state up to the tune of his death, an event of recent occurrence. The blood-money cf the Sheares, year after year for threescore years, less one, flowed into the pockets of this veteran informer: and the people of this kingdom had the privilege, for fifty-nine years, of taxing them. selves through their representatives in parliament, and of paying the annual homage of a blood-money pension to the, betrayer of two young Protestant gentlemen, sons of a member of parliament, barristers of high repute, who had the misfortune to receive that arch-traitor into their confidence, to be hospitable to him, and unguarded with him in their social intercourse, to have their words and their lives laid in wait for in the midst of their family, and to be entrapped by this great villain, at the bidding of another in an exalted position, as we are informed by him, at their own fireside.

I find some notes of an old date among my papers, of letters which I discovered in books then preserved in the Tower, labelled—” Secret Correspondence of Lord Lieutenants”, and some volumes of government correspondence, numbered 44, 45, 47, which indicated the mode in which the claims of the secret service gentlemen were provided for. The following entries have special reference to that subject :— A letter dated the 11th June, 1799, from Lord Cornwallis to the Lords of the Treasury, praying their lordships to grant a sum not exceeding £3,000 a year, for pensions to persons who had rendered services in the suppression of the rebellion. A letter from Lord Cornwallis to the Lords of the Treasury, 18th October, 1800, referring to acts 38 and 39 Geo. III., providing for the remuneration of suffering loyalists and persons who rendered services to government in suppression of the rebellion, setting forth the necessity of granting money to the amount of £1,500 a year to the under-secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, for the purpose of reward in that class of persons out of the consolidated fund, and praying that said amount should apply to pensions from 25th March, 1800. By a clause in the Act 39 George III., chap. 05, a sum of £2,910 was allocated to the under-secretary of the Lord Lieutenant in the civil department, Dublin Castle, for the time being, in trust, for payment of secret annuities. * Lord Cornwallis was appointed Lieutenant-General and Governor of Ireland vice the Earl of Camden, the 13th May, 1798.

[There has been much fluctuation in the amount allocated to secret service payments in Ireland during the past half century. By the estimates for the financial year ending 31st March, 1859, we find the amount set down to meet charges of secret service in Ireland, is £5,000 sterling. This sum, it will be observed, is exclusive of the amount of pensions on the consolidated fund, paid in Ireland, which in the past year exceeded £8,000.]

In the same volume of secret correspondence of the Lord Lieutenant, above referred to, I may notice two communications, though not in relation to pensions, of some interest:— A letter from Lord Cornwallis to the Duke of Portland, acknowledging the receipt of a copy of his Majesty’s letter, directing Mr. H. Grattan’s name to be struck off the list of the privy council in Ireland, which accordingly was done and notified in the Gazette. 7th June, 1800. Lord Castlereagh to John King, Esq., in reply to his letter, stating that his Excellency does not know of any objection to Mr. O’Connell and his two sons, who have arrived at Guernsey from Bourdeaux, proceeding to England.

There were formerly books called by an outlandish name— borrowed, I presume, from the legal jargon of early times— namely, Fiants, among the records that were kept in Birmingham Tower. In these books of Fiants, sometimes also named Docket Books, over which, in earlier days, I was wont to solace my leisure hours, when I first came to the conclusion that it was better for a man in Ireland, of studious habits and of an inquisitive turn of mind—for one who thought for himself, and judged right and wrong without reference to foreign interests, to live in the past rather than in the present I found many records bearing on the subject of state espionage and its rewards, the results of which are not without instruction and utility for those even who speculate on the future.

The Fiant Books, be it observed, arc collections of legalized official documents emanating from the Irish government, conferring pensions, appointments, and preferment’s, granting pardons, etc., etc., etc.; each document being signed by the attorney or solicitor-general for the time being. Such records as the following, in three books alone, afford a fair sample of their quality.

“George Ilepenstal,’ a pension of £100 a year, during the life of his son, Hugh Hepenstal, from the 6th March, 1798. Signed, JOHN TOLER”.

* George Hepenstal was an attorney—a brother to the miscreant nick-pained “The walking gallows”, who was wont to hang suspected peasants over his shoulder, and whose particular services on the occasion of one of the state trials, were referred to by Toler, as the energetic acts of a zealous young officer.

SECRET SERVICE MONEY DISCLOSURES. 583

[George Hepenstal again]—” A pension of £100 a year to George ?aine during the lifetime of Hugh Hepenstal, son of

George Hepenstal, from the 21st March, 1798. Dated 6th August, 1798. Signed, Joux T0LE&’.

“William Cockayne and Barbara his wife, a pension of £250 for their lives from the 25th March, 1798. [Date of document]

25th March, 1798. Signed, Jorn’i ToLEit”.

The services too of the friend and patron of “The Walking Gallows”, it is pleasant to find are not forgotten in the “Fiant Books”. We find under date 10th December, 1797, a document to the following effect:— “Mrs. Grace Toler raised to the dignity of Baroness of Norwood

of Knockallen in the county of Tipperary”. Date of document the 10th December, 1797. And three years later another, dated 20th December, 1800:—” The Right Honourable John Toler created a baron”.*

Lord Carleton. A pension of £2,700 a year. Date of document, the 12th January, 1801.

Sir Boyle Roche and wife, a pension of £300 a year. Date of document, the 15th December, 1801. Again, some months later we find Sir Boyle Roche’s name:

“Sir Boyle Roche and wife, and after their decease a pension of £400 a year to Alexander Marsden, Esq., for his two daughters, Ellen and Maria Marsden, during their lives”. Edward Cooke, Esq., a pension of £1,000 a year, “together with the office of keeper of the records of parliament, with all fees, dues, and allowances of said offices. January, 18024

In the books of Fiants the various measures having reference to the rebellion and the rebel leaders are indicated, which were enacted in the Irish parliament, not certainly with the view of ending its days with honour:— An act to empower the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor of Ireland to apprehend and detain such persons as he or they

* John Toler was appointed attorney-general, vice Arthur Wolfe, the 16th July, 1798, and was sworn of his Majesty’s privy council the 2nd August, 1798.

t In the original MS. precise book of applications for places, pensions, and preferment’s, in my possession, of Earl Fitzwilliam, during his viceroyalty, I find an application from Sir Boyle Roche to be made a peer: “Sir Boyle Roche wishes to be made a peer, and desires to know whether Lord Westmoreland recommended him”. A little later I find this jobber, who played the part of a parliamentary buffoon, having failed to obtain a peerage, installed in the office of gentleman-usher and master of the ceremonies at Dublin Castle, in 1798. Sir Boyle’s condescension was ultimately shown in his acceptance of so paltry a remuneration for his services to his country as £300 a year.

t Mr. Secretary Cooke, Lord Camden’s protégée, and Lord Castlereagh’s right-

hand-man for all the dirty and discreditable work of his administration, in the

Castlereagh Memoirs will be found duly eulogized.

shall suspect for conspiring against his Majesty’s person and governinent, 37 Geo. 111., ch. 14.

An act for more effectually suppressing insurrections and preventing the disturbance of the public peace, 38 Geo. 111., ch. 21.

An act for indemni1ring mch persons as have acted since the 1st day of January, 1797, for the preservation of the public peace and suppression of the insurrection prevailing in some parts of this kingdom, 38 Geo. III., ch. 74.

An act to remove doubts respecting the property in the service

of persons transported from this country, 38 Geo. 111., cli. 59.

An act for the attainder of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Cornelius

Grogan, and Beauchamp Bagenal Harvey, accused of high treason,

38 Geo. III., ch. 77.

An act to prevent persons from returning to his Majesty’s do- minions, who have been, or shall be, transported, banished, or exiled on account of the present rebellion, and to prohibit them from passing into any country at war with his Majesty, 38 Geo. 111., ch. 78.

An act to compel certain persons who have been engaged in the late rebellion which hatli broken out in this kingdom, to surrender themselves and abide their trials respectively within a limited time, on pain of being attainted of high treason, 38 Geo. 111., ch. 30. In what would appear to be a draught of the Fugitive Bill, Duckett (of whom ‘l’one makes such frequent mention in his memoirs) is described as formerly of Killarney, but now of Ham- burgh, and attached to the “Mission of the French Republic” there; Edward O’Finn is described as a woollen draper of Cork; Joseph Orr, of Belfast, a brazier; John Cormick, as a feather merchant, Thomas Street; Richard MCorrnick, a manufacturer, Francis Street, Dublin; the Rev. James Hull, formerly of Ballyvarnon, near Bangor; Anthony MCann, of Corderry, county Louth (the Exile of Erin of the song of Thomas Campbell). In the Banishment Act. Hugh Ware, of Rathcoffey, Kildare, is described as a surveyor. Elsewhere in these books we find such entries as the following: Mrs. Eleanor Bond, widow of Oliver Bond, a grant of restoration of all the properties and chattels of her late husband, dated 8th February, ] 799; William Sampson, a pardon on condition of quitting time British dominions for life, dated 28th November, 1798.—Edward Fitzgerald, of Newpark, county Wexford, and Garret Byrne, of Ballymanus, county Dublin, a pardon on condition of their quitting the kingdom for ever, dated th March, 103.

* Very recently I found, in the Ceinctire clu Nord, Montmartre, in Paris, a monument, with the following inscription :—‘l’iie grave of my poor friend and brother, Gerard Byrne. He was born in Ireland, 1776, and died at I’aris, 1832.— May he rest in peace. Amen.

SECRET SERVICE MONEY DISCLOSURES. 585

In re Arthur O’Connor.—s. letter signed Robert Peel, dated 1st February, 1815, to J. Beckett, Esq., acknowledging communication from secretary of state intimating assent to an application for leave for the wife of A. O’Connor to visit London, and to proceed to Ireland on private business of her husband’s, and concur ring in Lord Sidmouth’s views to permit her to visit Ireland, but at the same time to watch her movements there.

in re Mr. Archibald Hamilton Rowan.—The Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Hardwicke, communicates to the Secretary of State for the Home Department the strong objections that lie to any extension of mercy to so dangerous a person as this fugitive is known to be, and protests against his return to Ireland.

In re Mr. John Sweetman.__The Lord Lieutenant, through Mr. Secretary Gregory, writes to Lord Sidniouth, recommending strongly that Mr. John Sweetman should not be permitted to return, as no hope of amendment could be expected in any of the rebels of [798. Dated the 15th May, 1819.

In re Mrs. Mary Lloyd._In trust for her three daughters, a pension of £300 a year to Thomas O’Neil of Turnham Green, proposed to be granted the 23rd February, 1815. Signed, WI-UT WORTh.

In re Edward Connor and Mrs. Margaret Connor.—A pension

for life of £200 a year, proposed to be granted 23rd August, 1815.

Signed, WHITWORTII.

In re Myies John O’Rciliy.—_For the life of Miss Helena White, daughter of Thomas Jervis White, Esq., of Dublin.—A pension - to Myles John O’Reilly, Esq., of £250 a year. Signed, WiurwoaT h’.

I have not been unmindful of Mr. MaeNnlly’s name or that of Captain John Warneford Armstrong, in the inquiries which have led to the rescue of the preceding notices from the oblivion in which the books of Fiants and the government correspondence are now buried.

In those that I have examined, there is no trace of the name of Mr. Leonard MacNally, nor of that of Captain John Warneford Armstrong. The books that I examined were not of consecutive years; nor were those of the intermediate years existing in the archives. l’hey had been either stolen or taken especial care of; and kept separately from the other records and state papers.

I may also observe, in the books which exist, no trace is to be found of the name of that mysterious gentleman, the betrayer of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, whose initials, F. H., stand before the price of his lordship’s blood, the £1,000 sterling, in the secret service money list of payments.

In thc last edition of the best book yet written of the best ofIrihmen—Curran and his cotempofaries—by Charles Phillipps, Esq., 1851, there is a very remarkable note appended to the account of the proceedings in parliament on the bill of attainder of Lord Edward Fitzgerald:— “I have had the name of Lord Edward’s betrayer disclosed to

me. It has never yet been published, nor shall it be by me. The innocent living ought not to suffer for the guilt of the dead. It was, however, the act of a Judas. He was, to the very last, apparently the attached friend of his victim”—page 88.

I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Phillipps, that “the innocent living” have suffered terribly for the guilt of the dead, in this particular instance, by the veil which has been thrown over the guilt of the real criminal in this case. Permit me to remind him, that the feelings of the children and the grandchildren of Samuel Neilson, who was so long and so unjustly suspected of being the betrayer of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, are quite as worthy of consideration as the children of the actual traitor, whose name is known to Mr. Phullipps, and is so mistakenly, as I presume to think, withheld by him from publicity. I call upon Mr. Phillipps, in the name of justice both to the living and the dead, to those who are best entitled to it at his hands, to publish the name of the betrayer of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, which he tells us has been disclosed to him, and whatever Mr. Phillips states, I am well aware, is entitled to all reliance.

In his early career, MacNally gave a good deal of his time and

attention to dramatic literature. his productions, dramatic and

professional, are the following:

1. The Apot/Leo8is of Punch—a satirical masque, 8vo, 1779.

2. The Claims of Ireland and the Resolutions of the Volunteers Vindicated—a pamphlet, 8vo, 1782. 3. Retaliation—a farce, 8vo. 4. Tristrarn Shandy_a farce, 1782. 5. Robin Hood—a comic opera, 1784. 6. Fashionable Levities—a comedy, 1785.

7. Richard Cceur de Lion—a comic opera, 1786. 8. Abstract of Acts Passed in Parliament, 1786. 9. Critic upon Critic—a drainatic medley, 1792. 10. Cottage Festival—an opera, 1796. 11. TILe Rules of Evidence on Pleas of the Crown, 1803. 12. The Justice of the Peace, 2 vois., large 8vo, 1809.

For two editions of the last-mentioned work MacNally received

from Mr. Fitzpatrick, the bookseller, the large sum of £2,400.

MacNally wrote also four dramatic pieces, which were performed but not published: Ruling Passion—a comic opera, 1779; Prelude for C’ovent Garden, 1782; coalition—a musical farce, 1783; April Fool—a farce, 1786.

The Biographia Dramatica, compiled by Baker, Reid, and

Jones, ed. 1812, in its notices of the several dramas by Mac-MACNALLY’S PRODUCTIONS. 87

Nally, affords little commendation to the author as a dramatic writer. “Robin Hood”, he said, “was acted at Covent Garden; but, notwithstanding the excellence of the music, there was little originality or spirit in the piece. Robin Hood is dwindled down to a mere sententious pedant”.

Tristrarn Shandy was acted several times at Covent Garden,

and “kindly received”, though very indifferently executed.

“When acted in Dublin, it was condemned the first night”.

Richard Cceur de Lion was acted at Covent Garden, but very

soon was condemned to oblivion.

Retaliation, acted at Covent Garden. “This farce possesses considerable merit, and was favourably received. The character of Prucipe, the attorney, is highly drawn, and the dialogue is well seasoned with wit”.

The Apotheo8i8 of Punch, acted at the Patagonian Theatre, Exeter Change. “This is an attempt to ridicule Mr. Sheridan’s monody on the death of Garrick. Malignant without merit. Its author, we believe, was Mr. MacNally”.

April Fool, acted at Covent Garden, “tolerably well received”.

Coalition, acted at Covent Garden for a benefit. “The audience gave it a favourable reception”.

The Cottage Festival was performed in Dublin in 1796.

Critic upon Critic was performed at Covent Garden.

Fashionable Levities was acted at Covent Garden “with good success”.

So much for the estimate of MacNally’s dramatic pieces of the

Biographia Dramatica.

Of his pamphlet, The Claim8 of Ireland and the Resolution8 of the Volunteers Vindicated, the Biographia JJramatica speaks as “a very sensible pamphlet”. I have never met with a copy of it, and have some reason to say it is rare.

Of his Justice of the Peace, his principal work, an ample account will be found in Phillipps’ Curian and hi8 Cotemporaries. He was more qualified, we are told, for dramatic than for legal literature. This is certainly faint praise; for his dramatic talents were of a very humble order, though his faculty of invention was largely developed, and exercised rather freely, we are told, in conversation. His Justice of the Peace was the cause of vast numbers of actions against country magistrates; but it brought great business to country attorneys. The magistrates were constantly led by it into the commission of illegal acts, and when they com.plained to the author of his numerous legal errors, he was wont to assure them he would correct them in a second edition.

Phillipps’ picture of his personal appearance, and the many pe

culiarities of his osseous structure, is graphic ana amusing: “His very appearance fixed attention. Not naturally deformed, he seemed so. He seemed, at one time or other, to have had every bone in his body broken, and lost, I believe both, but certainly one, of his thumbs—but how, he either coul,d not or would not tell: the latter probably, as he always accounted for it,—but never was there an era richer in variations. . . . Both his legs and his arms totally differed from each other; he limped like a witch; his eye and voice pierced you through like arrows, and served him well in cross examination.*

If we add to the foregoing sketch a few words of his physiognomy, of which I have a very vivid recollection, Mr. Leonard MacNally will be sufficiently described: MacNally’s complexion did not contribute much to improve his peculiar cast of countenance; it was extremely sallow; it was the complexion of a man who had no red globules in his blood, but a great deal of bile commingled with it—that muddy complexion of a dirty brown hue, unctuous and unwholesome withal, which gives an appearance to the face of being always soiled, and an idea that its owner is either sickly in the flesh, uncomfortable in the spirit, or labours under that complicated form of hydrophobia manifested ii a horror of soap as well as water. There was something marked in his features: they were naturally sombre and heavy, but could become suddenly vivacious, and as suddenly moody and saturnine again. The predominant expression of his cold, unimpassioned countenance and dead-setting look, was that of quiet laying in wait tendencies, indicative of adroitness, sharpness, an instinctive wariness and habitual watchfulness; one was reminded by it of the hawk’s beak, and the cold, gray, twinkling eye of another bird of prey, of an ominous and evil-boding character.

These outlines and similitudes are certainly not flattering; and yet there were traits in this man’s character which it is very difficult to reconcile with the impression which their tout en8e7nble was calculated to leave on the mind of the observer. MacNally could be moved even tears by a distressing spectacle; he could speak humane woids, and he could do kind acts to the unfortunate. In social intercourse he could be genial, jovial, and amusing; in his family circle, and in all his relations to it, nothing could be said to his disparagement.

The once popular ballad of The Lass of Richmond hilt was composed by MacNally; and the lady (Miss Janson) whose attractions are celebrated in the song, became, at the commencementof his career, the wif’e of the author of it. This lady must have died prior to 1800. Mr. MacNally terminated, in 1820, a career which it had been better for his memory to have closed in the hardest struggle in his arduous but honourable profession, for a bare subsistence even, than to have died in the possession of any advantages he might have derived from services stealthily performed and secretly rewarded by the government. In one of the best of MacNally’s dramatic pieces—Robin hood, or Sherwood Forest—a passage occurs in the scene where sentence is about to be pronounced on Friar Tuck, which may be very aptly applied to the author of the drama: “Your profession, sir, should have taught you principles of honour”. ‘In the Dublin Magazine for April, 1800, we find a notice of the marriage of Mr. Leonard MacNally to Miss Louisa Edgeworth, daughter of the Rev. Robert Edgeworth, of Issaid, in the county of Longford

****************************************************