[Leland's Commentarii, 306; Bale, De Script. Brit. i. 420; Pits's Relat. de Illustr. Script. Angliæ, 449, 450; Dugdale's Monast. Anglic. (ed. 1817), vi. pt. iii. 1522.]
CATTWG, DDOETH. [See Cadoc.]
CAULFEILD, JAMES, fourth Viscount and first Earl of Charlemont (1728–1799), Irish statesman, second son of James, third viscount Charlemont, and Elizabeth, only daughter of Francis Bernard of Castle Bernard, Cork, was born in Dublin 18 Aug. 1728. At six he succeeded to the peerage. Educated privately, he in 1746 went abroad, residing for a year in Turin, and visiting Rome, the Greek Islands, Constantinople, the Levant, and Egypt. At Turin he made the acquaintance of David Hume, and the intimacy was renewed in England. Although not coinciding with either Hume's philosophical or political opinions, he was a warm admirer of his writings, and cherished for him personally a great regard. Shortly after Charlemont's return to Ireland in 1754, he undertook, with the approbation of the lord-lieutenant, to mediate between Primate Stone and Henry Boyle, speaker of the House of Commons, afterwards Earl of Shannon [q. v.], regarding the apportionment of 20,000l. of Irish surplus, and succeeded in effecting a reconciliation between them. His experience of the conduct of the Irish leaders in this and other matters made Charlemont early resolve to act as an independent nobleman, and tended strongly to bias his mind in favour of a general reform of the administration and of popular liberty. At the same time his loyalty always remained thorough and sincere. Of this he gave proof in the alacrity with which he proceeded to the north to command the raw levies collected for the defence of Belfast, after the occupation of Carrickfergus by the French in February 1760. Not long afterwards he had an opportunity of engaging in an equally chivalrous if less hazardous mission, the vindication of the rights of the Irish peereses to walk in the procession at the coronation of George III. Having succeeded by his prudence and courageous self-restraint in quieting without bloodshed the serious disturbances that were threatened in the north of Ireland, he was in recognition of his services raised in December 1763 to the dignity of an earl; but his opposition to the address returning thanks for the treaty of Paris prevented further court favours, even a promise to appoint him a trustee of the linen board being immediately after this disregarded. In January 1764 he proceeded to London, where till 1773 he had a town residence. His literary and artistic tastes found gratification in the society of Burke, Johnson, Reynolds, Goldsmith, Beauclerk, and Hogarth, and he acted as chairman of the committee of the Dilettanti Club, appointed to superintend researches under the auspices of the society into the classical antiquities of Asia Minor. At the same time the political condition of Ireland continued to occupy much of his attention. Almost equally with Flood he shared the honour of passing the Octennial Bill in 1768, limiting the duration of the parliament to eight years instead of making its continuance depend upon the life of the sovereign. Taking advantage of the rising tide of sentiment in favour of the bill, he prevailed on the House of Lords to read it three times in one day. In 1768 Charlemont married Miss Hickman, daughter of Robert Hickman of county Clare, and about 1770 he began to build a house in Rutland Square, Dublin, and also to reconstruct his residence at Marino, having come to the conclusion, notwithstanding the attractive connections he had formed among Englishmen, that residence in Ireland was the first of his political duties, ‘since without it all others are impracticable.’ For some time he gave his strenuous support to Flood's proposal for an absentee tax, but latterly he became so impressed with the difficulties connected with the matter as to consider its general application inadvisable. In Dublin Charlemont's house was for many years the great centre of attraction among the educated and upper classes, and his bent towards the liberal and polite arts assisted to give an elevation to the general tone of society. His influence in politics was not less beneficent; for though he could not lay claim to the higher gifts of statesmanship or oratory, he possessed the insight resulting from a single-minded and unselfish regard for the general welfare, while his genial temper and polished manners fitted him to act with success as a mediator between the government and the country. Grattan's estimate of his character was no doubt to some extent coloured by personal regard, but with his usual happy gift of delineation he has indicated in a few sentences the secret of his influence. ‘Formed to unite the aristocracy and the people; with the manners of a court and the principles of a patriot; with the flame of liberty and the love of order; unassailable by the approaches of power, of profit, or of titles; he annexed to the love of freedom a veneration for order, and cast on the crowd that followed him the gracious light of his own accomplishments, so that the very rabble grew civilised as it approached his person’ (Memoirs of Grattan,
