It was not, of course, the most auspicious time for a genuine attempt to do something practical towards the social salvation of Ireland. Crime was rife; agitation was rampant; patriotism rioting deliriously. Many districts became acquainted with famine, but if food was short orators were plentiful. De Grey had plenty of work to do, and it was he who initiated the proceedings that led to the arrest of Daniel O'Connell and some of his friends in the autumn of 1843. The Government took advantage of a public meeting of the agitators to apprehend them for conspiracy, and eventually O'Connell and his associates were placed on trial, found guilty by a packed jury, and subsequently 'imprisoned' in an old-fashioned country house, where they passed their time amidst a quiet that must have been to them a luxury. They were allowed to have their own servants and whatever food they wished, and never were prisoners more free than during the three months that elapsed between the conviction and sentence by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the reversal of the verdict by the House of Lords. That memorable trial gave William Smith O'Brien his opportunity, for O'Brien became automatically the leader of the Repeal movement when O'Connell was in 'prison.' [Sidenote: The decline of O'Connell] Between the first and second trials Lord de Grey left Ireland, and was succeeded by Lord Heytesbury, who remained until 1846. Born in 1779, {245} William a'Court, first Baron Heytesbury, was educated at Eton, and spent many years in the diplomatic service, holding the important position of Ambassador to the courts of Portugal and Russia. In 1808 he married a grand-daughter of the Earl of Radnor, and twenty years later his diplomatic services were rewarded by the bestowal of a peerage. Peel always had a high opinion of Heytesbury, and only his resignation in 1835 prevented him making the ex-ambassador Governor-General of India. On the resignation of Earl de Grey, Peel invited Heytesbury to go to Ireland, and the invitation was accepted. He was able to regard with indifference the censure of the Law Lords on the conduct of the Dublin Government in the matter of Daniel O'Connell's trial. He could easily dissociate himself from the faults of the preceding regime. The abandonment of the cry for Repeal by O'Connell lessened the anxieties of Heytesbury, but there were the usual economic problems to be dealt with, and from all over the country reports came of the terrible distress and poverty prevailing. The Lord-Lieutenant did his best, and much money was spent in a vain attempt to ameliorate the conditions of peasant life. By the close of Lord Heytesbury's brief reign, however, ominous clouds were rising on the political horizon. Daniel O'Connell, tamed by age and experience, was by no means the raging propagandist of the twenties and thirties; he was ever counselling his fiery followers to concentrate their