Harding Tracy and Daniel O’Connell
In
1815 Daniel O’Connell composed a speech regarding Napoleon achievements, his law
system, the state of justice in Ireland and of particular note that Judge Day
was under the influence of Dublin Castle. Some accounts state that it was
delivered at a ‘purported’ meeting in Tralee but O’Connell later stated that it
had been held in Cork. O’Connell sent the manuscript of this speech to the
‘Mercantile Chronicle’ in Cork for publication. When the speech was published,
Mr. Saurin, the Attorney-General was determined to
prosecute and the only person he could find liable was the registered printer,
Mr. Harding Tracy. O’Connell could not be convicted as the manuscript of the
speech was destroyed, except for a part of which that later became available.
The paper was prosecuted and Tracy pleaded guilty in court in Dublin, where
O’Connell defended the case. Tracy received a two year sentence, a fine of
£300, and find security for the peace, himself in £300 and two sureties for
£200 each. Part of the sentence was later remitted but he remained in gaol from
May to December 1816. He contracted an illness in prison, which stuck to him
till his death. The Tracy family maintained that he was totally neglected by
O’Connell.
The
Proceedings of the Irish Catholic association of 1823-5, after the death of
Harding Tracy, give a rebuttal of the allegations against O’Connell.
The
Dublin Evening Post of the
11 February 1834 is a four page, five column,
broadsheet. Four column inches on page 2 and over 3/5th of the back
page are given over to the case of Harding Tracy and the “selfishness and
treachery” of O’Connell’s character.
1. There is a
synopsis of the affair.
2. There
follows an account printed in the Evening Mail shortly after Tracy’s
death. It states “Mr. O’Connell was counsel for the printer. He first
recommended the destruction of the manuscript (for fear of accidents) and then
advised him to plead guilty.” It further states that while in jail Tracy
received four pages of the manuscript of the speech from a fellow printer in
Cork which he could have used to his advantage and O’Connell’s disadvantage,
which he did not do. To the hour of his death, he never received a shilling,
nor have his family since, from O’Connell. It states that he was greatly
indebted for the help received from a fellow prisoner, the Roman Catholic
barrister Mr. Eneas McDonnell.
3. There
follows on an account from the Dublin Chronicle of the next day added
the following: That Tracy never received, nor his family, even his usual wages
during the period of his imprisonment. Even in Newgate,
when he laboured for the Dublin Chronicle, a journal patronised by Mr.
O’Connell, was he paid, nor his family. On his release, he was given a position
with the Dublin Chronicle until his death.
4. There is a
reply from Daniel O’Connell delivered at a meeting of the Catholic Association
on the 3rd July 1824 in which he lays out the charges directed
against him; a) That Tracy in possessing the manuscript had O’Connell
completely in his power but refused to use it. b) That Tracy had a bed of straw
in prison and was neglected. c) That Tracy’s family was left to starve. d) That
Tracy had got an illness in prison of which he died. There is a comprehensive
reply to the charges. He stated that Tracy did not plead and was eventually
released as a result of three affidavits stating that O’Connell was not
connected with the publication. O’Connell paid a half guinea a week for a good
bed and also got Mr. McDonnell to help him. He paid 32 to 40 shillings for his
board. During his imprisonment his wages at the Mercantile Chronicle was paid
to his wife every week. Tracy died seven years after being released from jail.
5. There was a
copy of a letter sent to the papers by Eliza Tracy the wife of Harding Tracy.
She stated that the report of the speech published stated that the purported
meeting was held on the 14th April 1815 in a south Parish Chapel of
Cork. The manuscript was copied by a living near relative of hers. She states
that her husband “Intoxicated by flattering promises, and led away by wily
persuasion, he was induced to leave his home and plead guilty to the charge”.
Her husband was sentenced on the 18th May 1816. Again, he was
seduced in believing that he would be liberated in a few weeks, his fines paid,
his family would be afforded every comfort. The promises were not kept and his
wages were stopped. She heard that her husband was dangerously ill, and to ask
friends for the money to travel to see him. He was in a bad state. Due to the generosity of Mr. McDonnell until his removal. for the first four months he had breakfast and dined with
him. He paid for his own bed. His family in Cork received only £3. In jail, he
was employed as compositor for the ‘Dublin Chronicle’, in combination with his
son, for which he was still owed the bulk of the wages. After his release, an
application for aid from O’Connell for a “few pounds”, was replied with two
guineas, which is all the support that was ever received from O’Connell.
6. There was a
statement from his son. He had an interview with Mr. McDonnell in Kilmainham jail. Mr. McDonald said that O’Connell had pleaded
poverty for not having done something for your family and that £400 would not
compensate the family for the sacrifices they had made. He said that he had not
contradicted O’Connell’s account because they were in dispute and that it would
have been attributed to that circumstance. A letter addressed to Dr. Coyne, to
rectify the situation was given to the son including the sum of £10.
7. There is a
short paragraph stating that Dr. England, owner of the Cork Mercantile
Chronicle, had contradicted O’Connell’s account to Tracy’s friends.
8. It is then
stated that O’Connell had sent a letter of apology to a relative of Judge Day.
9. There is
then an account of two letters sent by Harding Tracy to Mr. O’Connell. The
first received no reply and the second resulted in the messenger being abused.
10. It concludes
by stating that it was Judge Day’s intercession that secured Harding Tracy
release.
Fagen, in
the main, backs O’Connell account of events. He states that Harding Tracy was
of strong Tory connections. He names the person who found part of the
manuscript as a Mr. Higgins. He states that while in jail, Harding Tracy was
employed as compositor for the ‘Dublin Chronicle’ at a wage of over four pounds
a week. In addition he states that Harding Tracy son George Tracy, who was an
apprentice there had his wages raised. He states that O’Connell secretly aided
Harding Tracy. In 1824, after Harding Tracy’s death, the ‘Correspondent’ the
paper that he and his son George had worked on after his imprisonment, charged
that O’Connell had allowed him to pine in jail, of letting his family starve
and of refusing him all assistance when he was released from jail. His son,
George, tried to establish the case against O’Connell. Fagen
goes on to state that his brother Harding, on his return to Cork, was
catechised by George, for stating that they had nothing to complain about
O’Connell.
Keenan
states that Frederick Conway had a different impression of O’Connell’s conduct.
Conway recounted the affair of Harding Tracy in the Dublin Evening Post on 11 February 1834. That O’Connell
was not a bit worried if those who tried to assist him or took his legal advice
ended up in gaol. He always wanted to continue the legal struggle in their
behalf, regardless of the risks, they not he, ran. But on no account would he pay to get them
out of prison. This had happened with the editor of the Dublin Evening Post, John Magee in 1814, Harding Tracy the printer
in 1815, and Edward Hay in 1819. Conway, like the Earl of Donoughmore,
was a staunch anti-vetoist. It states that many other
Catholics came to the same conclusions about O’Connell at the same time.
Dublin Evening
Post, 11th February 1834 p.2 & 4
Fagen,
William Trant (1847) The
Life and Times of Daniel O'Connell. O’Brien, Cork. Vol. 1, p.307-9
Keenan, Desmond
(2002) The Grail of Catholic Emancipation
Proceedings in Dublin, May 13, 1823 to Feb. 11, 1825 -
Irish Catholic assoc - 1825 - 80 pages
Harding Tracy (b. 1775 Cork) m. Eliza Hurly (b. 1779) 1800
Cork (LDS)
1809 Report of the Pipe Water Commissions, Cork
City
Harding
Tracey, Half Moon St., £36/0/0
Harding Charles Tracy, Esq., formerly of 32, Sackville-street, Lower, Dublin, youngest son of the late Harding Tracy, Esq., of Cork. October 5, in Columbus, Ohio, United States America, The Cork Examiner, 1st or 2nd November 1865
George R Tracy; Cork City COR>Dublin DUB IRL; Cork Examiner (COR IRL); 1856-10-31; dja
1826-1827 Dublin Directory
Richard Tracy, merchant tailor, 30 Capel St
1830-1836 Dublin Directory
Richard Tracy, merchant tailor, 38 Capel St
1837-1839 Dublin Directory
Richard & J Tracy, mens mercers, 70 Dame St
1840-1843
Dublin Directory
R & J Tracy, mens mercers, 32 Lr Sackville St
1841-1843
Dublin Directory
George & Harding Tracy, general printing office, 32 Lr Sackville St
R & J Tracy, mens mercers, 32 Lr Sackville St
1844-
Dublin Directory
Brothers Tracy, printers & men’s mercers, 32 Sackville St lower
The
special jury panel for 1844 as delivered by David Charles LaTouche,
Esq, AB High Sheriff of Dublin this evening
Richard Tracey, 32 Lower Sackville street, merchant tailor
1848-51 Griffiths Valuation Dublin
Brothers Tracey, 32 Sackville Street Lower St. Thomas Dublin
1850 Thoms
Directory of Ireland
Tracy Brothers, 32 Sackville Street Lower, woollen drapers, merchant tailors, hosiers, etc
Tracy Brothers, 32 Sackville St Lower (woollen
drapers)
1851 Census
Rich Tracey, 32 Sackville St Lr, Dublin City
1856
Richard Tracy, Sackvill Street, Printer (Intestacy)
Harriett Tracy, Miss, (90l). 32
Sackville-street, Upper.
James Tracy, esq,
32 Sackville street lower
February 27, 1892 News from Ireland
Tracy - At 33 Lower O'Connell street, January 29, Harriet Tracy, aged 80? years.
Last update: 02
November 2009