his mother's narrow means and on the help of friends. He returned to Dublin in May 1786, was called to the bar in Hilary term 1787, and acquired a modest practice before the year was out. His rise was rapid, and gave proofs of steady industry, conspicuous logical power, and temperate habits, the last then an uncommon distinction. He practised indiscriminately in common law, equity, and criminal courts, and went the north-western circuit, which included Enniskillen. He was soon one of the leading advocates of his day, and his fame ultimately exceeded that of any Irish counsel before or since.
In 1797 Lord Clare made him a king's counsel; but until 1798 he kept aloof from politics. Nor was he professionally brought into political prominence except once, when, on 4 July 1798, he appeared with Curran to defend Henry Sheares [q. v.] on his trial for high treason (State Trials, xxvii. 255). Early in 1798 James Caulfeild, first earl of Charlemont [q. v.], offered to Plunket the seat for his family borough of Charlemont, once held by Grattan. At first the offer was refused, Plunket being for, and Charlemont against, the Roman catholic claims; but it was renewed without any pledge being attached to it, and on these terms was accepted (see Hardy, Life of Lord Charlemont, ii. 429). Plunket was elected, and devoted himself to an uncompromising and disinterested opposition to the projected Act of Union. He took his seat on 6 Feb. 1798, and during the remainder of the existence of the Irish parliament frequently spoke in debate; nor did his parliamentary fall short of his forensic reputation. He was also a contributor of witty articles to the ‘Anti-Union’ newspaper, begun on 27 Dec. 1798 and abandoned in March 1799. The extinction of the Irish parliament in 1800 for a time put an end to Plunket's political ambitions, and he devoted himself to his practice and to the accumulation of a fortune. He appeared for the prosecution on the trial of Robert Emmet [q. v.] in September 1803 for his rebellion (State Trials, xxviii. 1097), and is charged, unjustly, with having pressed with undue severity the charges and evidence against his former friend, in order to win the favour of the government (see R. Madden, United Irishmen, 3rd ser. iii. 235, 254, and D. O. Madden, Ireland and its Rulers, pt. iii. p. 125). In fact, however, he had only known the prisoner's brother Thomas (see Plunket's affidavit, 23 Nov. 1811, in O'Flanagan's Chancellors of Ireland, ii. 472; Irish Quart. Rev. iv. 161). By the attorney-general's special request Plunket made the speech in reply. Shortly afterwards, at the end of 1803, he became solicitor-general, and was at once denounced as a renegade by the writer called ‘Juverna’ in Cobbett's ‘Weekly Register’ in terms for which, in 1804, he recovered at Westminster 500l. damages against Cobbett in an action for libel (State Trials, xxix. 53). Some years afterwards he was obliged to commence proceedings against the publishers of ‘Sketches of History, Politics, and Manners in Dublin in 1810,’ for a gross repetition of the charge. In 1805 Pitt made him attorney-general, and he retained that office in the following whig administration. Hitherto he had treated the post as professional and non-political. Now it became a party and parliamentary one. He was invited by Lord Grenville to enter the English House of Commons, and was accordingly, though with reluctance, elected for Midhurst early in 1807. He then became an adherent of Lord Grenville, and, though he sat only for two months before the dissolution, made his mark in debate; but having identified himself with the whigs he declined the request of the new tory administration, that he should retain the attorney-generalship.
Upon the dissolution he was not re-elected to parliament, and for the next five years remained in Ireland, earning both reputation and an income probably unequalled at the Irish bar. In cross-examination he excelled; he addressed juries with marked success; but it was to chancery cases that he devoted most of his time, and in them he felt most at home. Of his methods of argument the case of Rex v. O'Grady is said to be the best example (see report by Richard Wilson Greene, publ. 1816). Despite the Duke of Bedford's offer of two successive seats in the interval, it was not until 1812 that he re-entered parliament, as member for Dublin University. The government favoured a tory candidate, but his friends Burrowes and Magee secured his return. He held the seat till he retired from parliament. He was now rich, partly from his own exertions, partly from his brother Dr. Plunket's bequest to him of 60,000l. In parliament he generally supported Lord Grenville, but chiefly directed his parliamentary efforts to furthering the cause of catholic emancipation. It was on 25 Feb. 1813 that, on Grattan's motion for a committee on the laws affecting Roman catholics, he made a great speech, of which even Castlereagh declared that ‘it would never be forgotten’ (C. S. Parker, Peel in Early Life, p. 75). The motion was carried, and a bill was introduced. His next great effort was, on 22 April 1814, in favour
