O’LOGHLEN, Michael (1789-1842), of 36 St. James’s Place, London, Mdx. of 20 Merrion Square South, Dublin of Drumconora , Ennis, co. Clare

In 1834 O’Loghlen had the distinction of being the first Catholic law officer to be appointed since the reign of James II. As a talented young lawyer on the Munster circuit, his clear and powerful advocacy and mastery of legal procedure earned him an immense income. Richard Lalor Shiel provided a vivid sketch of his physical appearance at this period,

His figure was light – his stature low, but his form compact, and symmetrically put together. His complexion was fresh and healthy, and intimated a wise acquaintance with the morning sun, more than a familiarity with the less salubrious glimmerings of the midnight lamp. His hair was of sanded hue, like that of his Danish forefathers … . His head is large, and, from the breadth and altitude of the forehead, denotes a more than ordinary quantity of that valuable pulp, with the abundance of which the intellectual power is said to be in measure. His large eyes of deep blue, although not enlightened by the flashings of constitutional vivacity, carry a more professional expression, and bespeak caution, sagacity, and slyness, while his mouth exhibits a steadfast kindliness of nature, and a tranquillity of temper, mixed with some love of ridicule, and, although perfectly free from malevolence, a lurking tendency to derision.1R.L. Sheil, Sketches of the Irish Bar, ii (1854), 106-7.

Though not prominent as an agitator, O’Loghlen actively participated in the campaign for Catholic emancipation, of which he became a beneficiary when appointed a king’s counsel in 1830.2O’Connell had also hoped that O’Loghlen would be appointed solicitor-general for Ireland. Daniel O’Connell to George Kernan, 27 Nov. 1830, O’Connell Correspondence, ed. M.R. O’Connell, iv, 237. He was not a natural politician; as a speaker he was described as ‘perfectly fluent, easy, and natural’, putting his points with ‘brevity, simplicity, and clearness’, yet he did ‘not impress his phrases on the memory of his hearers’, and was said to have ‘cast away the weapons of agitation nearly as soon as the purpose for which he had taken them up was fulfilled’.3Sheil, Sketches of the Irish Bar, 112, 113; The Times, 3 Oct. 1842. O’Loghlen did, nevertheless, stand at the by-election for Dublin city in August 1831, but came fourth in a stormy contest characterised by accusations of bribery against the victorious Conservative candidates.4History of Parliament, 1820-32: Dublin City; O’Connell to P.V. Fitzgerald, 9 Aug. 1831, and to ?Edward Dwyer, 10 Aug. 1831, O’Connell Correspondence, iv, 349-52.

O’Loghlen was a close friend of Daniel O’Connell, for whom he had served as junior counsel from 1815, before succeeding to a large part of his practice. O’Connell once remarked of his protégé, ‘He is the best and most excellent creature. I love him as my son and would trust him exactly in the same way’. Nevertheless, O’Connell had reason to doubt O’Loghlen’s commitment to repeal, and it was said that once in parliament the latter displayed greater support for temperance than for repeal.5O. MacDonagh, The Emancipist: Daniel O’Connell 1830-47 (1989), 74, 308; The Times, 6 Jan. 1835; O’Connell to P.V. Fitzgerald, 22 Sept. 1832, O’Connell Correspondence, iv, 451. O’Loghlen was made third serjeant-at-law in 1831 and second the following year, but owed his subsequent promotion to Irish solicitor-general, 21 Oct. 1834, in large part, to the influence of O’Connell.6MacDonagh, Emancipist, 108, A. Macintyre, The Liberator: Daniel O’Connell and the Irish Party 1830-47 (1965), 138; O’Connell to Lord Duncannon, 2 Sept. 1834, and James Abercromby, 5 Sept. 1834, O’Connell Correspondence, v, 171-2, 179. Nevertheless, prior to the 1835 general election, O’Loghlen and Louis Perrin (then MP for Monaghan) were sufficiently concerned by O’Connell’s predominance over Irish liberalism to attempt to establish an independent organisation to rival to the Anti-Tory Association.7MacDonagh, Emancipist, 117.

As a liberal ‘in its most extended sense’, O’Loghlen attracted the support of both the duke of Devonshire and the repealers when he next stood for parliament at Dungarvan in 1835.8Morning Chronicle, 21 May 1835. He was elected unopposed and entered the Commons as ‘a zealous reformer, anxious to apply the spirit of the Reform Bill’ to all institutions of church and state, ‘to correct the abuses of corporate monopoly’, and to secure equal rights for Dissenters, the improvement of education through public funding, and the provision of adequate support for the poor.9Parliamentary Test Book (1835), 116. O’Connell pressed unsuccessfully for O’Loghlen to be made Irish attorney-general, ahead of Perrin, when Melbourne’s second ministry was formed in April 1835, and the position was finally given to him, 31 Aug. 1835.10MacDonagh, Emancipationist, 122-3; Macintyre, Liberator, 146.; O’Connell to Edward Ellice, 14 Apr. 1835, O’Connell Correspondence, v, 291. O’Loghlen twice defeated John Matthew Galwey, a repealer, at by-elections consequent upon his appointments to office in May and September 1835. As a government law officer, O’Loghlen had always striven to administer the law impartially, but he remained alert to Catholic grievances. As O’Connell explained:

We have for the first time in near two centuries a Catholic Attorney-General who, besides, is one of the most honest and straightforward persons living. His ears will be open to the complaints of the Catholic Clergy as well as of the Catholic laity upon every act of oppression and tyranny practiced against the poorest of the people. Every care will be taken to give the Commission of the Peace to every liberal man qualified for it. The Attorney-General will not allow jurors to be packed against the people. And if the Orangemen of police commit any more murders, they will be prosecuted seriously and, if possible, effectually.11O’Connell to P.V. Fitzpatrick, 4 Sept. 1835, O’Connell Correspondence, v, 328.

Indeed, in March 1835, O’Loghlen had sat on the select committee to investigate the nature and extent of Orange societies in Ireland.12For the committee’s reports, see PP 1835 (377) xv. 1; PP 1835 (475) xv. 501; PP 1835 (476) xvi. 1. He was particularly concerned by the admission of Orangemen into the Irish Constabulary, and criticised the practice of employing the police to assist in the execution of civil bills.13MacDonagh, Emancipationist, 127, 128; Hansard, 18 Feb 1836, vol. xxxi, cc.532-51, 17 May 1836, vol. xxxiii, cc.1040-3. With Lord Morpeth, the Irish chief secretary, O’Loghlen successfully brought in the Irish constabulary and Dublin police bills which established the foundations of policing in Ireland for the next 85 years.14Hansard, 18 Feb 1836, xxxi, cc.587-97; PP 1836 (87) ii. 319; PP 1836 (116) iii. 195.

O’Loghlen consistently supported liberal measures such as Irish church reform, and was widely admired ‘for his great readiness as a debater, and his sound sense and practical experience’.15Freeman’s Journal, 30 Sept. 1842. Speaking on the church temporalities (Ireland) bill, he argued that the appropriation of tithes to fund general education would provide the Irish people with ‘an interest in the payment of tithe, and in some degree reconcile them to it’. He voted for the removal of Jewish disabilities (1 June 1836) and was an eloquent defender of the freedom of Catholic members to vote on every issue as their consciences dictated.16Hansard, 2 Aug 1836, vol. xxxv, cc.810-8; PP 1836 (466) i. 799. O’Loghlen successfully introduced the Irish assizes bill in March 1835, and an ill-fated Irish registration bill that August. In February 1836, he sat on the select committee on controverted elections.17PP 1835 (209) i. 1; PP 1836 (88) iii. 691; Hansard, 26 Mar. 1835, xxvii, cc.301-5, 19, 20, 24 Aug. 1835, xxx, cc.698-706, 762-76, 942-6; The Examiner, 29 Nov. 1835; PP 1836 (496) xxi. 119. He also doggedly defended the bill which, as the Licensing (Ireland) Act, was to regulate the sale of wines, spirits and beer by retail. (The measure was intended to end the practice of permitting shops, apparently devoted to other purposes, to be converted into dram-stores, a practice regarded as the greatest impediment to the progress of temperance in Ireland.)18Morning Chronicle, 30 Sept. 1842; PP 1836 (168) iii. 791. In April and May 1836 he introduced successful bills to regulate ecclesiastical revenues, and improve local administration by grand juries, along with an abortive measure to reform petty sessions. That July he succeeding in consolidating previous acts for the uniform valuation of lands and tenements.19See Church Temporalities (Ireland) Act, 1836, c.99, Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, c.116, and Valuation of Lands (Ireland) Avt, 1836, c.84; PP 1836 (218) i. 637; PP 1836 (243) iv. 527; PP 1836 (276) iv. 49; PP 1836 (400) vi. 455.

O’Loghlen played a pivotal role in marshalling statistics in support of the ill-fated Irish municipal corporations bill of 1836, which passed the Commons only after O’Loghlen, despite O’Connell’s protests, agreed to place the appointment of sheriffs in the lord lieutenant’s hands.20Hansard, 29 Feb 1836, vol. xxxi, cc.1019-103, 28 Mar 1836, vol. xxxii, cc. 741-7; PP 1836 (29) ii. 549; Macintyre, Liberator, 241, 243. O’Loghlen regarded a sufficient popular control over the municipal affairs of Ireland as indispensable to the country’s good government, and was pointedly critical of any tendency of parliament to ‘legislate for Ireland, upon a different principle from that which was applied to England … simply, because the people of Ireland had the misfortune to differ in religion from their neighbours on this side the water’. He argued that no principle was ‘so well calculated to shake the bonds of Union between the two countries’, adding, ‘I do not speak this in the language of threat. I have all my life considered, and I shall continue to consider, that the connexion between the two countries is essential to the prosperity and the stability of both’.21Hansard, 9 June 1836, vol. xxxiv, cc.277-8.

In November 1836, O’Loghlen, again with the enthusiastic endorsement of O’Connell, was appointed a baron of the Irish court of exchequer and vacated his seat. The following January he became master of the rolls, where he ‘proved one of the best judges that ever sat on the Irish bench’.22O’Connell to Lord Mulgrave, 15 Jan. 1837, O’Connell Correspondence, vi, 5-6; F.E. Ball, The Judges in Ireland, 1221-1921, ii (1926), 277. An amiable and popular figure, who was created a baronet in July 1838, he was considered ‘just, impartial, learned, and indefatigably painstaking’ as a jurist, and a man of ‘unimpeachable integrity’.23Morning Chronicle, 30 Sept. 1842; The Times, 3 Oct. 1842; The Examiner, 1 Oct. 1842. O’Loghlen’s devotion to his legal duties was thought to have contributed to his declining health. He died in London in 1842 after contracting dysentery while convalescing in Brighton and was buried at Recan, co. Clare.24Freeman’s Journal, 30 Sept. 1842. His eldest son, Sir Colman Michael O’Loghlen (1819-1877) sat as a Liberal and Home Ruler for Co. Clare, 1863-77, and served as judge-advocate-general from 1868-70; his third son, Sir Bryan O’Loghlen (1828-1905) sat for Co. Clare, 1877-9, and served as attorney-general (1879) and premier of the Australian colony of Victoria from 1881-3.25Oxford DNB, vol. 41, (2004), 786-7.