From the Belfast News-Letter, 28 January 1812, this account of proceedings for criminal libel initiated by barrister and later Lord Chancellor of Ireland William Conyngham Plunket against Gilbert and Hodges, booksellers, for sale of a publication which asserted that he had acted improperly in his prosecution of Irish revolutionary Robert Emmet:
“Mr Burrowes applied for a conditional order for criminal information against Gilbert and Hodges, booksellers, on behalf of the Right. Hon. William Cunningham (sic) Plunket, for a libel alleged to be published by them against him. Mr Burrowes said that Mr Plunket had made an affidavit, stating that in a book sold by Gilbert and Hodges, Sketches of Characters taken in Dublin in the year 1810-11 – he read a passage to the following effect: –
‘That Mr Plunkett (sic), the late Attorney-General of Ireland, was an admirable public speaker, both in Parliament and elsewhere, but that he had been severely reprobated for his behaviour towards the unfortunate Mr Emmet, when conducting his trial, and that Mr Plunket had then acted with a rancour and virulence, which was more strange from the favours which he had received from the family of that unhappy young man. But that all Crown Lawyers were of the bloodhound kind and were not to be diverted from their object either by considerations of humanity or gratitude.’
Mr Burrowes stated that Mr Plunket came forward to give a public denial to all the facts of this passage. He had never known Mr Emmet nor seen him, till he was arraigned for trial; so far from having received favour from his family, he had not even had any connexion with one of his members which reached much farther than a passing salutation; and this, on account of difference in political sentiments, was afterwards mixed with a coolness which entirely prevented further intercourse.
He (Mr P.) … had indeed had occasion to speak to evidence on the trial, and had disapproved of the conduct of Mr. Emmet in many particulars; but he had used no language which was calculated to give unnecessary pain to a person in that unfortunate situation; his speech reported by Ridgeway, was still to be referred to, and he believed that it would bear him out in his assertion…
Mr Burrows said that he would not make any encomiastic observations on the character of Mr Plunket – he believed it was well known to their Lordships, but it was certainly the duty of any one, however high his character, to guard against the repeated attacked of falsehood… he did not believe that it was for anyone to envelop himself in his conscious dignity, and to disregard, industrious and repeated misrepresentation. He hoped, therefore, the Court would grant the application.
The Chief Justice – ‘There cannot be a doubt of it.’”
In 1804 Plunket had previously obtained £500 damages in an action in the English courts against William Cobbett, owner of ‘Cobbett’s Weekly Register,’ which had published a letter from ‘Juverna’ describing Plunket as ‘a renegade, who deserted for place his former political associates, and became a Crown Prosecutor, to the death of the brother of his bosom friend, in order to qualify for the position of law officer in the Administration which he had assailed at the time of the Union.’
It subsequently transpired that ‘Juverna’ was Robert Johnston (or Johnstone), judge of the Common Pleas in Ireland, who was forced to retire from the judicial bench when identified as the writer of the letter, albeit with a large life pension, which he received for many years.
Plunket himself became Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas, and, in 1830 was appointed to the highest legal position in the State, Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
The debate as to the extent of Plunket’s friendship with the Emmet family pre-1803 was still alive at the date of his death in the mid-19th century. Although there is no evidence that he was familiar with Robert Emmet, he had at one time been very friendly with his brother Thomas Addis Emmet, although they had not spoken to one another for ten years at the time of Emmet’s trial. The accusations against him appear to originate with Robert, who is reported as having described Plunket as that viper whom his family nurtured in their bosom.
Of course, a man is entitled to change his views, and although Plunket and Addis Emmet had shared very similar political views in their younger years, the events of the French Revolution have been suggested as having caused a change in the former’s political principles. It seems, however, that Plunket was disingenuous in characterising his relationship with Addis Emmet as merely a passing salutation.
A very thorough account of Plunket’s speech at Emmet’s trial may be found in Madden’s ‘United Irishmen,’ available to read here.
Gilbert and Hodges were a predecessor of Hodges Figgis booksellers, still in business in Dublin today!
Leave a Reply