The Grail LINKS TO INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS. CLICK The Grail TO RETURN TO BOOK LIST; CLICK Home Page TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE
The Third Phase 1808 to 1811
[The Grail of Catholic
Emancipation
Copyright
© 2002 by Desmond Keenan. Book available from Xlibris.com and Amazon.com]
Click on links below to go the various sections; click on top to return to top of page
*****************************************************************************
(January
1808 to December 1809) .........................
The Fifth Resolution
and its Aftermath
(January to
December 1810) ...................................
*****************************************************************************
This
phase involves the attempt to gain Emancipation by offering the right of veto
to the king, and the controversy that resulted from this offer up to the
beginning of the Regency of the Prince of Wales. During this period Napoleon
occupied the
At
the same time the Catholic bishops began to meet together to study the
implications for themselves of a royal veto on the appointment of Catholic
bishops, on the appointment of bishops appointed by the Pope under duress from
Napoleon, and of a conclave to choose a new Pope if the choice was dictated by
Napoleon. The infant Catholic Church in the
The Veto and its Aftermath (January 1808 to
December 1809)
[January 1808] The petition of 1807 had
been left hanging in the air, so a meeting was held on 5 January 1808 at
Fitzpatrick’s the bookseller’s with Fingall in the chair, and it was decided
unanimously to petition in the following session. Mr Edward Hay was recorded as
Secretary to the meeting. No doubt, nobody expected that the Government would
do anything, but at least the petition could be laid on the table in
Parliament. At another meeting on 19 January Mr Costigan
attacked the aristocracy for alleged ‘clandestine activities’. Mr O’Connor of
[April
1808] The Catholic petition was entrusted to Grattan in the Commons and Grenville in the Lords after the Duke of Portland had
refused to present it. The procedure regarding petitions was as follows. First
the petition had to be presented by a member of the House, who made a speech
regarding it. If the House accepted the petition it was ordered to lie on the
table. Then a motion of a general character was proposed based on the petition,
for example that the House should consider the matter contained in the
petition. If this motion passed, a Bill on the subject was drawn up, and a
suitable time for the debate was negotiated with the Leader of the House. The
bill had to pass various stages, the First Reading which dealt with the
principle of the Bill, the Second Reading which dealt with the details of the
Bill, the Committee Stage where the Bill was sent to a committee of the House
which could bring in alterations and amendments suggested during the Second
Reading. The next was the Report Stage when the committee reported back to the
House, which then voted on the Second Reading. The Third Reading was a
formality and consisted in reading through the Bill in its final form. The Bill
was then taken to the other House which also went through the three stages. A
bill could be first introduced in either house. If amendments were made in the
other House the Bill was referred back to the first House for its assent. On
questions of religion, the Committee Stage was taken by the Committee of the
whole House.
John Foster, in the Commons,
proposed an increase in the Maynooth Grant from £8,000 to £9250, because of an
increase in the number of students. The Irish bishops refused to recognise any
Irish students who studied in the colleges under Napoleon’s control in
[May
1808] On 2 May, the famous Dos de
Mayo, the people of
A
few days before Grattan was to present the petition the Earl of Fingall introduced
Milner to Ponsonby, saying that he could give better
information on theological matters. In the course of the conversation Milner
(22 May) agreed that a veto on the appointment of bishops could be allowed.
Grattan and Ponsonby, when presenting their petition
on
The
secret negotiations of 1799 were now out in the open. Only those directly
involved, and a few outsiders like Milner, had known about them. The Whig
leaders of the Opposition clearly had not, along with most of the Irish public.
The actual veto was of little concern to the average Irish layman. Nor were the
bishops at that time engaged in politics. But once the suspicion was implanted
in men’s minds that the bishops and the aristocracy were engaged in secret
negotiations with the Government for their own ends it was hard to get rid of
that idea. The matter had of course not been discussed since Castlereagh’s departure from Ireland, and it is doubtful if
many in the Government had even heard of the negotiations. Fingall had taken
part publicly in all the petitioning since 1805, and if he ever thought of the
matter it would have been to regard it as a part of canon law already agreed by
the Pope. But opinion among the bishops was turning against it, and the present
Government, unlike that of Pitt, had no intention of negotiating with the Pope,
until the structure of the Roman Church was changed, as Perceval made clear.
Edward
Hay immediately protested to Fingall that the aristocracy and the people were
keeping the people in the dark, and he also immediately informed the English
vicars apostolic that that such proposals would never be accepted in Ireland.
Hay had been speaking to Fingall before the petition was presented, and Fingall
had said nothing about the veto to him. He clearly believed that Fingall was
playing a secret game. But there is much to be said in favour of his comment at
that time, ‘The principal object the bishops have had steadily in view, and
pursued with an unremitting perseverance, has been to secure the nomination of
their own order to themselves (FJ 21
January 1819). In the disputes in the coming years there were many corners
being defended.
Replying
to an anxious letter from Milner who was clearly taken aback by the storm his
communication to Ponsonby had stirred up, Troy
reassured him that the Irish bishops had full confidence in him, and said there
was no doubt that the Irish bishops would approve of the proposals subject to
certain restrictions. Dillon of Tuam wrote in similar vein, but Dr Coppinger of Cloyne wrote to him protesting at his intervention
(Ward II).
While
the petitions were being presented in Parliament, some of the English Catholics
decided to form a Catholic Board and they met on 23 May 1808 to form it. Edward
Jerningham, not Charles Butler, was elected
Secretary. Priests were allowed to join so that theological matters could be
sorted out from the very start. Its initial aim was to secure accurate reports
of what was said about Catholics in Parliament. Milner joined it but was later
expelled from it (DNB, Ward II).
[August 1808]
Milner came to Ireland to discuss matters with the Irish bishops. There was a
fierce outcry against him, Troy, Fingall, and Coxe Hippisley. Milner was burned in effigy. Here one can
clearly detect Keogh denouncing a secret plot and a sell-out by the aristocracy
and the bishops. Milner went to Maynooth to meet the assembled bishops but was
not admitted to their discussions. A majority of the bishops were now opposed
to a veto. A vote of thanks to Milner was passed on the understanding that he
no longer ‘either write or speak in public in favour of the veto’. Milner
however considered that the bishops would re-open the question when there was a
friendly minister to support the measure (Ward II). As always, there was a
distinction between what the bishops preferred, and what they were prepared to
concede. Some of the bishops at least convinced themselves that a royal veto
would mean the ruin of the Catholic religion, a view the Pope found
incomprehensible.
[September 1808]
When the bishops met in September they rejected the veto on grounds of
‘inexpediency’.
‘…it is
the decided opinion of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland assembled, that
it is inexpedient to introduce any alteration in the canonical mode hitherto
observed in the nomination of Irish Roman Catholic bishops, which mode long
experience has proved to be unexceptional, wise, and salutary;
that
the Roman Catholic prelates pledge themselves to adhere to the rule by which
they have hitherto been uniformly guided, namely to recommend to his Holiness
only such persons as are of unimpeachable loyalty and peaceable conduct’ (DEP 17 September 1808).
As
noted in Chapter One, the selection of bishops in Ireland was not regulated by
canon law as there were no chapters, but by local custom. This custom could be
over-ruled at any time by the Pope who could issue an Apostolic Constitution to
deal with the matter. The bishops did not wish to see any of their acquired
powers eroded in such a papal decision. But the second part of their resolution
was missing the point, namely that there should be a minimal external check on
their decisions.
While
this was going on the British Government in September made its first attempt to
rescue the Pope from the captivity of the French. A ship was fitted out in
Sicily to go to Rome and smuggle the Pope on board, and to take him wherever he
wanted to go. Fr. Peter Kenny, the Irish Jesuit, then studying in Sicily was to
be an interpreter. A friar sent ashore was suspected by the cardinals of being
in the pay of the French, so they did not believe his story (Allies).
[October 1808] The
primate, Dr. O’Reilly, replying on 29 October to a query from Lord Southwell and Sir Edward Bellew
explained that the ‘circumstances’ were the existence of a no-popery
Government, and that ‘inexpedient’ meant what it said, and referred only to the
present circumstances. The bishops did not intend their decision to be final or
permanent (DEP 8 November 1808). Troy
later made the same points But in a letter to Dr. Hamill,
vicar general of Dublin, Dr Ryan, the co-adjutor
bishop of Ferns denied this interpretation, and maintained that a majority of
the bishops opposed the veto in any form (Ward II). There is no contradiction
between these reports.
[November 1808]
Archbishop Troy formally asked that the Daniel Murray, a secular priest
attached to the metropolitan chapel, a doctor of theology of Salamanca, a canon
of the chapter of Dublin, a celebrated preacher, curate of the mensal parish,
forty years old, and with no connection or relationship with the archbishop, be
made co-adjutor bishop of Dublin with the right of
succession (Scritture Referite
1808).
[December 1808 to February
1809] Wellesley, in Portugal had defeated Junot, but was superseded by a more senior general who
agreed with Junot at the Convention of Cintra on 30 August 1808 that the French could freely leave
Portugal. He then returned to his duties in Ireland. Sir John Moore was left in
command of the British troops fighting along with the Spanish troops under
General Blake who actually was born in Ireland. Blake was defeated, so Sir John
Moore made his celebrated retreat to Corunna in the north west corner of Spain
where the British army was re-embarked. Sir John was killed at Corunna by a
stray shot. Ten thousand British troops in Portugal were not involved in the
advance and retreat and remained in Portugal. Parliament opened on 19 January
1809. A small meeting of some Catholics met on 4 February to decide whether to
petition again this year, but Fingall left the chair before a vote could be
taken.
[March, April 1809]
In March the new English Catholic Board met and decided to petition, and it
drew up a petition which was signed by 300 priests, 8 peers, 13 baronets, and
8000 gentlemen. Wellesley convinced Castlereagh that Portugal could be held
indefinitely. Castlereagh secured his appointment to command the British troops
in Portugal, so he resigned from Parliament and from the Irish Government. He
had reached the rank of lieutenant general. He continued working in Parliament
until he sailed for Portugal on 14 April 1809. He was succeeded by Robert Dundas as Irish Secretary. Rumour went out that Portland
would have to resign and that the Marquis Wellesley would become prime
minister. But the Marquis went to Spain to assist his brother.
[May 1809]
Several Irish gentlemen decided to requisition a public meeting. The meeting
was held on 10 May in Dignam’s Tavern, Henry Street.
Among them were Lord Netterville, Sir Francis Goold, Thomas Wyse of Waterford, Nicholas Mahon, Richard
O’Gorman, Luke Plunket, N.P. O’Gorman, John Lawless,
Edward Hay, James Ryan, Dr. Drumgoole, and J.B.
Clinch. (DEP 11May 1809; it would
seem that this Thomas Wyse was the eighteen year old then studying at Trinity
College, later Sir Thomas Wyse (DNB)).
Two barristers, Counsellors Plunket and Finn objected
to the non-representative character of the meeting. A meeting at Lord Netterville’s on 21 May and it was decided unanimously to
proceed with the petition.
A General Meeting of the Catholics was held on
24 May 1809 in the Exhibition Room, William Street, with Lord Fingall in the
chair. It was clear that the first thing to be done was to re-constitute the
old Catholic Committee, which had virtually come to an end in 1790 with the
secession of the aristocratic party. Several complicated resolutions were
passed. Among them was the following,
‘That
the noble lords who compose the Catholic peerage, and survivors of the persons
who were in the year 1793 delegates of the Catholics of Ireland…with the
persons who were appointed by the Catholic citizens of Dublin to prepare a late
address, do possess the confidence of the Catholic body’.
This
indicates to us how it was proposed to restore the Catholic Committee. All
present agreed to their claims to represent the Catholics, either because they
were hereditary noblemen, or because they had been legitimately elected by some
body. Though this would seem to exclude Ryan, it was further resolved, that the
Committee could co-opt new members (presumably by voting), and that the
petition committees of 1805 and 1807 be added. It was resolved to have a
petition ready for the next session. It was further resolved that the above
were not ‘representatives’, that they could collect subscriptions (towards
their petition), and that Edward Hay be appointed Secretary to the aforesaid
body (SNL 6 June 1809). The Committee
on 5 July elected a sub-committee of peers and 21 gentlemen chosen by ballot.
County gentlemen were free to attend its meetings. It met rarely and was often inquorate. Once again we can suspect that Keogh’s
criticisms were behind this tortuous attempt at establish the legitimacy of the
petitioning body. According to Luby, Keogh was
opposed to petitioning. The Lord Lieutenant, Richmond, decided to ignore the
new Catholic Committee.
Fr.
Luke Concanen was still in Rome, and was still able
to get some letters through to Troy. In fact Troy was the only way had had of
communicating with his own metropolitan, Archbishop Carroll. On 20 May 1809, he
wrote to Troy, and said he was translating Troy’s and Milner’s remarks on the
veto for the benefit of the Pope. He informed Troy that his request for a co-adjutor had been granted. The bulls appointing Daniel
Murray as bishop could not be dispatched, being too bulky. If the bulls cannot
get through Troy will be allowed to consecrate Murray without them (Moran). He
was almost starving for his money was running out, and could get no more
Austria,
inspired by the revolt in Spain, came back into the War and Napoleon
immediately attacked it. The allies were now getting the measure of Napoleon,
and he was never from this time onwards to have easy victories. The Austrians
defeated him in a bloody battle at Aspern-Essling on
24 May, the first military defeat he ever suffered.
[July 1809]
He recovered and defeated the Austrian army at Wagram
on 5 July, and Austria agreed to the Treaty of Schoenbrunn
in October. In May Napoleon ordered the arrest of the Pope, and the Pope was
seized by Marshal Murat and was moved to a fortress
in Savona in northern Italy which had recently been
annexed to the French Empire. His Italian servants were not allowed access to
him. The Pope issued a general excommunication, but did not specifically name
Napoleon. In Spain, Wellesley cleared the French out of Portugal and advanced
into central Spain along with a Spanish army. Though he defeated Marshal
Victor’s superior army at Talavera (28 July), he
could not maintain his position and had to retreat back to the Portuguese
frontier. He was raised to the peerage as Viscount Wellington; Wellington in
Somerset being the supposed place from whence the Wellesleys
came to Ireland in the twelfth or thirteenth century. Arthur Wellesley is
hereafter referred to as Wellington.
[October 1809] The Duke of Portland’s
health was visibly declining, and Canning was plotting behind Castlereagh’s back to succeed him as prime minister. They
fought a duel and both resigned from the ministry. Portland himself resigned in
October 1809 and shortly afterwards (30 October) he died. Spencer Perceval
asked Grey and Grenville to join the cabinet. They
declined unless a pledge to do something for the Catholics was included.
Perceval managed to put together a cabinet, with neither Castlereagh nor
Canning in it, and his majority in Parliament was always doubtful. With regard
to Ireland, Wellington’s brother, William Wellesley-Pole, became Irish
Secretary. (In 1788, William Wellesley added Pole to his name on inheriting the
estates of his cousin William Pole. He was the second son of Garret Wellesley,
first Earl of Mornington; Arthur was the fourth son.) It was commented on at
the time that accepting the posts of Irish Secretary and Secretary to the
Admiralty did not require resignation from parliament and re-election. James
Warren Doyle was ordained a priest on 1 October 1809, having been four years in
the Augustinian Order, and three years professed. It was common at the time for
members of religious orders to be ordained after studying arts and before
studying divinity. He was appointed to study divinity and teach logic (Fitzpatrick).
[November
1809] The full Committee of the Catholics re-assembled on 8 November with
58 members present. A petition had been prepared but a sub-committee was set up
to revise it. The meeting was very harmonious. The Committee met again on 13 November
and accepted the revised petition.
The
problem with petitions lay in the Preamble that set out the reasons for the
petition. The language in this had to be carefully modulated. There was a great
difference between petitioning for a favour and demanding a right. However
strongly individuals might feel about it, the difficulties from which the
petitioners begged for relief should never be attributed to the present
Government. Still less should it be stated or implied that Parliament acted
unlawfully or illegally. The language should be dignified, and not whining or
pleading. Some people like Keogh never grasped this point, or else considered
that ordinary people ought to be able
to demand rights. To take this latter attitude was to chase two hares at the
same time. For Catholics, it could be pointed out that the laws against them
were passed in totally different times, that the reasons for them no longer
applied, and that their continuance led to considerable and unnecessary
disadvantages to some of His Majesty’s loyal subjects, and so to His Majesty
himself. The procedure originated in the Middle Ages. The king with his council
could issue statutes. If a particular group of people, for example those living
in a particular town, wanted a statute passed in their favour, they had to
petition the crown, and later the Houses of Parliament, for the statute. In the
course of time all laws were passed by the king in parliament. In the present
case, the revising committee that included the Earl of Fingall and Daniel
O’Connell produced a text satisfactory to those present. Fingall sent the
petition to Grattan who acknowledged its receipt in December. The Earl of Donoughmore agreed to present a petition from the Catholics
in Cork, and his brother, Mr Hutchinson, promised to do the same in the
Commons.
A
certain change in attitude in favour of the Catholics was discerned when the
sheriffs of Dublin city summoned Catholic gentlemen to the city Grand Jury for
the first time in centuries. Fifteen years previously, after the passing of the
1793 Act, Catholics had been deliberately excluded from the city Grand Jury.
Among those summoned were Nicholas Mahon, James Edward Byrne, John Burke and
Val O’Connor. On 30 November 1809 Daniel Murray was consecrated co-adjutor bishop of Dublin with the personal title of
Archbishop. He had not the jurisdictional powers of an archbishop, or indeed of
any bishop, being merely Troy’s assistant, with whatever powers Troy delegated
to him. Powers delegated to co-adjutor bishops were
usually very extensive as the aged incumbent realised he was not able to cope
with the work in his diocese. It seems that Archbishop Murray was largely
employed in visiting the parishes outside the city, and presiding over the work
on the new cathedral when it was commenced. Even Daniel O’Connell did not
realise he was not really an archbishop. About the same time Dr Flynn of Achonry was consecrated bishop. These were the last bishops
to be appointed until the Pope was released from French captivity.
In
the Peninsula Wellington, when the winter rains stopped campaigning, was safely
back in Portugal. He knew that he could defend Portugal indefinitely, if given
the necessary support in men and cash. The problem lay with Parliament where
support for Perceval was always doubtful. Perceval could not even get anyone to
act as Chancellor of the Exchequer, so he had to undertake that job himself. It
appeared that support for the Whigs and the peace party was growing. A defeat
like that of Sir John Moore would bring down the government. Wellington assured
Lord Liverpool, now at the War Office, that he could hold out in Portugal, and
he commenced fortifying the ‘lines’ (system of defence) at Torres Vedras, but they were not used this winter. The Marquis
Wellesley accepted the post at the Foreign Office, and was replaced in Seville
by his brother Henry. The Earl of Fingall’s eldest
son, Lord Killeen was sent to Edinburgh university to study, and Fingall
himself was now residing in that city.
Coxe Hippisley was bustling about and kept up a correspondence
with Fingall and Troy offering his advice on a veto scheme of his own. Lord Grenville was in Oxford canvassing before the election of
the chancellor of the university which was noted as a stronghold of
anti-popery, His pro-Catholic views had little effect on his candidacy, and
this was considered a favourable omen. He was duly elected. Hippisley,
writing to Fingall on 21 December 1809, stated
‘Lord
Grey has expressed to me his anxious wish that some new ground should be taken
to support your friends in Parliament – something to that effect, and
assuredly, it will be difficult to deny the right of a government to interfere
so far as to say that you shall not send
the name of a rebel to Rome to
receive institution to the exercise of an office, though merely spiritual
within the realm, which office necessarily must have a great influence on the
minds of those of your communion, and every mind is not strong enough to
discern the limits of a spiritual and temporal influence’ (Fingall Papers
PRONI).
Milner
had by now turned against the veto and had written to Hippisley
to tell him so.
[Top]
The Fifth Resolution and its Aftermath (January to
December 1810)
[January 1810]
The session of Parliament commenced on 22 January 1810 It was rumoured that the
English Catholics were going to concede the veto (DEP 16 January 1810). On 16 January the Post clarified that it was the English lay Catholics who were
making the concession. They were expecting daily to be called to form a
government, and wanted above all to avoid a debacle like that which befell Ponsonby eighteen months earlier. Perceval however survived
an attack on him in the vote on the King’s Speech. Parliament still preferred
Perceval.
The
Irish Catholic petition was left in the ‘Committee Room’ in Crow Street for
signing. Edward Hay seems to have
maintained some permanent office in Dublin. Hay wrote to Bishop Douglass in
London that never before had he seen such an outcry against the Bill, the veto,
and the English laity. Douglass told his co-adjutor Poynter (26 Jan 1810) that the Whig leaders were getting
rather tired of the Irish Catholics, and that Coxe Hippisley was merely sounding out possible grounds for an
agreement. This was regarded in Ireland as a Government plot. The new Secretary
of the English Catholic Board, Jerningham who had
replaced Charles Butler, wrote to Troy that the English were guided by the
Irish, and would put off their next meeting until 1 February so that the Irish
deputies with their petition could be present. Troy wrote back to say that if
any Irish bishop were to advocate the veto he would be regarded as an apostate
(Ward II). Hay then sailed for England.
Concanen wrote to Troy on the 3 January 1810, and noted
that though Murray had the title of archbishop he would not received the
official insignia, the pallium, until he succeeded to Dublin. He said nothing
could be done about the appointment of any new bishops until the Pope returned
from captivity, as he had not delegated this faculty. He wrote again on 26
January that the Irish bishops must make up their own minds on the veto as no
instruction on the matter can now come from Rome. The archbishop of Tuam had
died, and Oliver Kelly’s name had been put forward for the see, but no decision
could be made (Moran). Pius was refusing to appoint Napoleon’s nominees to
vacant French sees at this time. Napoleon decided to transfer the Pope and his
attendants to Paris.
The Whig leaders wanted a firm
commitment from the Catholics that some definite form of security would be
offered. Grenville wrote to Fingall on 22 January
1810 advising against petitioning at this time. He had twice presented the
Catholic position in the Lords though he had disagreed with the timing. This
third time was unsuitable as the Government was very hostile and also because
of the ‘unexpected difficulties which have arisen in Ireland’. He reminded
Fingall that the reasons put forward for granting Emancipation were the peace
and happiness of Ireland and the union of the Empire in affection as well as
government. To achieve these ends it was insufficient merely to repeal the few
remaining statutes. Other extensive and complicated arrangements must be made
for the maintenance of the civil and religious establishments of this United
Kingdom; many contending interests must be reconciled, many jealousies allayed,
many long cherished and mutually destructive prejudices eradicated. Among the
measures to be taken must be the vesting in the crown an ‘efficient negative on
the appointment of your bishops’. Anxiety on this score had been heightened by
the capture of the Pope, and Napoleon’s declaration that he would appoint
future Popes. On the precise nature of the Securities to allay Protestant
suspicion etc. there need not be a quibble, but there must be some. He noted
that there was no ecclesiastical objection to these proposals for the Catholic
Church had conceded them with other Governments. He would in these
circumstances present the petition but would make no motion on it (DEP 30 January 1810, where the letter
was printed in full).
Grenville
was pointing out that there were two parties in this dispute, and there must be
some give and take. There were prejudices of long standing to be removed and
mutual jealousies to be allayed. The Catholics might want the full restoration
of their civil rights, but many Protestants feared for their cherished
liberties. He did not refer to the constant terrorist campaign directed against
Protestants, or to the enthusiasm with which some Catholics embraced the French
Revolution. Memories on either side were very selective in these regards. But
he did point out that the Pope was held captive by Napoleon. It would seem from
the tone of this letter that Grenville required the
Securities in a Bill purely in order to allay Protestant fears, and so to allow
the passage of the Bill through Parliament. Whether they remained a dead letter
afterwards does not appear to have concerned him. Nor does he seem to have
believed that any group of senior and responsible Irish priests in any diocese
would actually send the name of a rebel priest to the Pope. After all, only a
small handful of Irish Catholic priests had participated in the insurrection in
1798. But Protestant popular memories, like those of the Catholics, went back
to the time of Cromwell 150 years earlier, when the Catholic bishops allied
themselves with the papal nuncio Archbishop Rinuccini
to gain the help of either France or Spain and to import arms and ammunition.
Ward believed that Earl Grey (Lord Howick; 2nd
Earl Grey 1807) had no intention of seeking a veto. One should not confuse the
approach of the Whigs with that of Castlereagh and Canning.
Once again, it is hard to discern why the
Irish Catholics reacted so violently to any proposal concerning a Security, but
it is clear from Hay’s letter that this was the case. The matter did not
concern the laity, nor were the bishops at that time taking any part in secular
politics. It was not until 1812 that any priest engaged in political activity
of any kind, and it was not until the 1830’s that clerical participation in
secular politics took place on any large scale. Once again we are left with the
impression that if Keogh could find any flames of suspicion to fan, he would do
his best to fan them. But again, as Hay warns us, distrust was deepest in rural
areas, where Keogh’s influence was minimal. Luby, in
his Life of O’Connell, says that he
believed that Keogh at this stage preferred that the cause should fail, rather
than that another person should get the credit for success.
So the chief cause was probably the mutual
distrust of Catholics and Protestants who had been separated into two different
groups for centuries, with each side believing that the other was attempting
something underhand. As MacHale on the Catholic side many years later
constantly warned his hearers to beware of the Greeks even when they are
bringing gifts. A few years later, when the Tory Government began giving public
money to education, its primary concern was that all Irish children should be
educated in the same schools so that the centuries old barriers of prejudice
could be broken down. It is to this prejudice or lack of it that we can trace
the divisions between the English Catholics and Irish Catholics, and between
the vetoists and anti-vetoists
in Ireland.
Daniel
O’Connell did not yet to make his bid to be the leader of the Catholics. Nobody
appears to have been disputing Fingall’s position as
the Catholic leader. O’Connell, by the standards of the time was a rather
poorly educated man. His schooling was interrupted by the French Revolution.
Though he doubtless had a schoolboy’s knowledge of Latin he never matriculated
in any university. Nor did he study for any law degree; all that was required
was that he reside in the Inns of Court in London for some terms before being
called to the Irish bar. Like Doyle and MacHale he was largely self-taught. The
fact that cases could be deferred until the next term (traverse in prox) meant that any barrister had plenty of time to look
up relevant points of law. Other rising Irish Catholic barristers at the time
like Richard Lalor Sheil and Nicholas Ball had the
benefit of a full proper grammar school education and degrees from Trinity
College, before keeping terms in London. Even Lord Killeen was sent to
university. Until his dying day O’Connell never understood Protestant
prejudices or saw any need to remove them or to make allowances for them. He
was at his best playing on the prejudices of his fellow-Catholics from Munster
for he shared their prejudices. He
probably shared their belief that all the thousands of jobs from which they had
been unjustly excluded because of their religion should be instantly handed
back to them. (When full Emancipation was finally conceded in 1829, it occurred
at a time when some qualifications were beginning to be required for various
posts, such as an ability to read or do arithmetic. So the passing of the
Catholic Emancipation Act (1829) made virtually no difference to most
Catholics, leading to a great sense of disillusionment. O’Connell was then able
to harness this in his campaign for Repeal.
Lord Grey too spelt out the
requirement for the English Catholics,
‘the
Catholics should declare by some instrument that they are ready and prepared to
give some pledge which should not be repugnant to the principles of their
religion respecting the loyalty of those who should be appointed to the
prelacy’.
Poynter was unable
to accept this condition. The English Catholics felt unable to give any pledge
before the arrival of the Irish deputies. So a further meeting with the Whig
leaders had to be held. But on the eve of the English meeting they agreed with
Lord Grey, ‘that only a general declaration should be made, which would express
what the Catholics were prepared to do on their part, those things which, while
they were conformable to their religion, might at the same time give mutual
satisfaction to Government and the Catholics’ (Ward II). As the meeting was to
take place the following day a resolution was drafted by Grey, Grenville, Jerningham, Charles
Butler, Throckmorton, and Silvertop’
‘That the English Roman Catholics,
in soliciting the attention of Parliament to their petition are actuated not
more by a sense of the hardships and disabilities under which they labour than
by a desire to secure on the most solid foundation the peace and harmony of the
British Empire, and to obtain for themselves opportunities of manifesting by
the most active exertions their zeal and interest in the common cause in which
their country is engaged for maintenance of its freedom and independence; and that they are firmly persuaded that
adequate provision for the maintenance of the civil and religious
establishments of this kingdom may be made consistently with the strictest
adherence on their part to the tenets and discipline of the Roman Catholic
religion;
And that any arrangement on the
basis of mutual satisfaction and security, and extending to them the full
enjoyment of the civil constitution of their country will meet with their
grateful concurrence’ (Ward II).
The text was shown to Milner who did
not object. This Resolution was called ‘The Fifth Resolution’. To include it in
the English petition it was necessary for those present at the meeting to sign
it. It was made clear by all the vicars apostolic that they were not
negotiating with regard to a royal veto or other security, but only expressing
a willingness to co-operate with the lay Catholics and the Government to arrive
at a satisfactory conclusion.
[February
1810] The English Catholic meeting was held on 1 February 1810 in St.
Alban’s Tavern, with Lord Stourton in the chair in
the absence of Lord Shrewsbury. About a hundred gentlemen were present. It was
made clear to the meeting, and by writing to Bishop Clifford who was absent,
that no specific proposals were being made, and that no veto was intended. All
the vicars apostolic and their co-adjutors except
Milner signed the Resolution. One can only suspect that because Butler had a
hand in the drafting he suspected that Gallicanism
must lurk there somewhere. Ward treats Milner very gently, but he was quite
unbalanced on this topic. Unfortunately, the Irish bishops accepted Milner’s
interpretation against the combined testimony of the other seven vicars
apostolic. As Ward observes,
‘…it is only fair to the Irish
bishops to remember that their views on the English Catholic affairs were all
derived from a single source. In his letters to Ireland Milner wrote without
restraint, in his most partisan style, and Dr Troy accepted his accounts
without question’.
Milner
never got the London Districted he wanted and the Irish bishops could only
secure for him permission to reside in London briefly from time to time.
Charles Butler on the other hand lived in London and was in frequent contact
and was in frequent contact with the Whig leaders. Some of the English Catholic
nobles contributed largely to the expenses of the London District, so in
Milner’s view Douglass and Poynter were their pawns.
Milner also wrote endlessly to Rome about this supposed Gallican plot. The
other vicars apostolic finally refused to summon him to their meetings because
he monopolised the discussions, and then immediately rushed into print,
misquoting everybody. They finally refused to speak to him at all except in the
presence of independent witnesses.
The Irish Catholics met on 13
February and refused to consider the veto in any form. Lord Grey presented the
English petitions but did not make any motion upon them. On 27 February 1810
the Irish bishops met and passed the following resolutions: that only bishops
should discuss matters of doctrine and discipline; that the resolutions of 1808
were confirmed, that the oath of loyalty was a sufficient security, that the
Pope had no temporal jurisdiction in Ireland so there was nothing wrong with
the present mode of appointing Irish bishops; and that the bishops did not
desire or seek any provision from the state for their clergy. These resolutions
were missing the point which was that Grenville and
Grey needed something to allay Protestant suspicions. The bishops treated them
as if they were the most uncompromising members of Perceval’s
cabinet. And even Perceval himself desired nothing more than to leave matters
as they were.
It would seem from Luby’s
Life of O’Connell that the first
division in Ireland between the ‘vetoists’ and ‘anti-vetoists’ occurred at this time. Though Luby
may be placing here an episode which happened later. At a meeting in Limerick
O’Connell opposed Stephen Woulfe, later Chief Baron of the Exchequer, on the
question of securities and he told the story of how a wolf was trying to
persuade the sheep to give up the protection of the sheepdogs.
Woulfe
observed ‘How useless it is to contend with O’Connell! Here I have made an
oration that I had been elaborating for three weeks previously, and this man
entirely demolishes the effect of all my rhetoric by a flash of humour and a
pun upon my name’.
But in
this lay the secret of O’Connell’s success before country juries and popular
audiences. He made them laugh.
[March
1810] On 2 March 1810 the General Committee of the Catholics of Ireland,
all 400 of them, met at D’Arcy’s in Earl Street, with Lord Ffrench in the
chair. Troy’s new co-adjutor Archbishop Murray
attended, and read out a communication from the bishops. A resolution was
proposed and passed ‘That as Irishmen and as Catholics we never can consent to
any dominion or control whatever over the appointment of our prelates on the
part of the crown or the servants of the crown’. The Committee gave ample
discretion to Fingall to deal with Henry Grattan, and the Acting Secretary of
the Committee, Daniel O’Connell, was asked to communicate this to Fingall,
together with a resolution of thanks to Fingall for his exertions (Fingall
Papers PRONI. Hay presumably was still in England). On 8 March the Earl of Donoughmore presented the Irish petition in the Lords and
his brother Mr Hutchinson did the same in the Commons. Grattan also presented
petitions from other places, but said he was no longer allowed to offer
securities. He said he preferred to believe that he had been mistaken rather
than that the Catholics had changed their policies. Ponsonby,
some months later, placed the blame squarely on Milner, saying that Milner had
stated clearly that a veto would be conceded.
The Irish bishops issued a pastoral
letter in which they stated their position clearly. They pointed out that at
this time the Irish bishops were being given their due weight in the selection
of bishops for Irish sees, and that other influences customary in the past were
now being given lesser weight. Foreign temporal influences and corrupt
recommendations were being gradually excluded, so that everyone knew that
bishops in Ireland were only appointed for the good of religion. It is clear
from this that the bishops hoped that eventually only the recommendations of
the Irish bishops would be heeded by the Holy See. They expressly excluded the restriction of
choice of a bishop to the chapters of the vacant diocese even if subject to
confirmation by the archbishop of the province. They added
‘That by an act of the same day as
these presents and encyclical to the Roman Catholic churches, we have judged,
concluded, and declared that during the public captivity of his said Holiness,
and until his freedom shall be unequivocally manifested by some act not merely
of approbation or cession, we refuse, send back, and reprobate – and moreover
for ourselves we annul and cancel as to any effect all Briefs, Bulls, or
pretended Bulls and Rescripts even as of his proper
motion [motu proprio] and certain knowledge, bearing title as from
his said Holiness and purporting to be declaratory of his free will, or of any
resignation of the papal office, and that during the said captivity of Pius VII
we will account the years of his pontificate and no other (DEP 20 March 1810).If the Pope were to die they would regard the
Holy See as vacant till proof were given of the ‘free, canonical, and due
election of his successor’ (DEP 20
March 1810).
If this declaration had come from
the English vicars apostolic Milner would have found his worst suspicions of Gallicanism proved to the hilt. But the Irish bishops, in
their ‘encyclical’ were dealing with a wider issue than the veto. Most Catholic
bishops not under Napoleon’s control were in British territories, or in Spanish
and Portuguese colonies. No instructions had been circulated to the bishops as
to what was to be done in the event of the Pope’s death in captivity, or an
attempt by Napoleon to impose his own choice on the ensuing conclave. (The Pope
may have made such provision, but it was not communicated to the bishops.)
There was indeed a rumour circulating that the next Pope would be a Frenchman
who would live at Avignon. Sometime earlier,
Archbishop Carroll of Baltimore had written to Troy suggesting that the Irish
bishops, in concert with the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking bishops should
concert common measures. Now in March 1810, he suggested to Troy that if the
Pope did die, those bishops not under Napoleon’s control should themselves
elect a Pope and ignore any decision by cardinals under French control (Carroll
to Troy 21 March 1810, Moran). The Pope was sixty eight years old, a very old
man at that period. When Carroll received his copy of the ‘encyclical’ he
replied expressing his concurrence.
There was a sharp exchange of
letters later in the year between Troy and Poynter.
Troy accused the English vicars apostolic of giving a carte blanche to Grenville when they
subscribed to the Fifth Resolution drawn up by a panel of laymen, some of whom
were long notorious for laxity of principle and possessing a daring spirit of
innovation in matter of religion. The Resolution was drawn up specifically to
get round the previously expressed resolutions of the Irish bishops. They had furthermore
ignored the recommendation of their zealous and enlightened colleague Dr
Milner. To which Poynter replied that the vicars
apostolic did not and never had supported a veto, and in any case they were not
subject to the Irish bishops. Troy made matters worse, when at Milner’s
instigation he tried to interfere in the London District regarding a priest
alleged by Milner to be a Gallican. The exchange of letters continued for
several weeks, with neither bishop giving way an inch. Poynter
believed that Troy always wrote to Milner for instructions before replying to Poynter’s letters (Ward II). Ward notes that Lord Grey had
disclaimed any intention of interfering with the principles or discipline of
the Catholic Church. One can only wonder why the Irish bishops continued to
support Milner who had lost the support of all his own colleagues.
At this time some Irish Catholics
were beginning to realise that something more than had been proposed would have
to be done to allay the fears of the Protestants. At a meeting in Tipperary on
31 March, it was felt that the security could be afforded if the choice of the
bishops should be confined to British subjects of known loyalty. The choice
would be ‘substantially domestic’
‘Either
by the votes of the surviving prelates or by the choice of the clergy of the
diocese or by other such proceeding as shall be found compatible with Catholic
doctrine’ (DEP 12 April 1810).
This
solution, which became known as ‘Domestic Nomination’ was to cause as much
trouble as any of the other solutions. Though the term originally meant choice
or election by loyal subjects of the king of a name to be sent to the Pope for
confirmation, in the rapidly changing circumstances of the early nineteenth
century it came to have a more specific meaning. This was the right of parish
priests to join together and select names for transmission to Rome. This fell
foul of the undeclared plan of the bishops for the greatest weight in the
selection of bishops, or even the exclusive right, should be accorded to
themselves. O’Connell testified before Parliament in 1825 that the custom of
parish priests meeting to elect a new bishop was quite recent, not dating back
more than eight or ten years. This development may have occurred earlier in
some dioceses for there was no uniform rule. Lord Killeen testified that the
bishops objected to this practice (Evidence).
As most laymen had only the vaguest idea how candidates for the episcopacy were
selected, the publishing of results in the newspapers of the elections by the
priests of various dioceses probably gave rise to the idea that this was the
proper canonical procedure. In 1790 the sixty priests of the London District
met to choose three names to send to Rome. Propaganda replied that this was a
novelty, and asked the other vicars apostolic to send names (Ward I). Dr Doyle,
in 1825 before the House of Lords, was unable to state what would happen if the
Pope rejected all the names sent to him, for to his knowledge this had never
occurred. He said that he did not believe that in dioceses in Ireland election
was by the chapter alone, but by the chapter at times with the concurrence of
the bishops of the province. In other cases all the clergy of the diocese
selected a successor, and they too got the concurrence of the bishops. It is
clear that by this time the bishops of the province had secured a right to take
part in the selection of a bishop in their province (Evidence).
The desire of the bishops was far
from unreasonable. Various diocesan archives from this period show that an
episcopal election in a diocese could degenerate into an open contest for power
between different factions within the diocese. The clergy in Armagh were split
into three different factions, those from county Louth, those from county
Armagh, and those from county Tyrone, these divisions having originated in the
Middle Ages. In other dioceses there were powerful clerical families dating
back perhaps for centuries, which had supplied numerous priests and bishops to
the diocese. The family that succeeded in getting its choice of bishop adopted
stood to gain most from the various promotions that he made. (Diocesan archives
do not necessarily present a complete picture, and the disputes they record are
not necessarily typical. But they show us they did occur and explain why the
bishops of a province might want to keep the selection of bishops as far as
possible in their own hands.) Rome eventually in 1829 conceded the right of the
parish priests to forward names. Dr Doyle was strongly opposed to leaving the
choice of a bishop solely to the clergy of the vacant diocese. He maintained
that everyone aspiring to the office of bishop would court the favour of the
electors, their friends would be equally active, the great men of the parishes
would be engaged, favours would be conferred and returned, simony would
eventually prevail. If discipline in a diocese had become relaxed would they
not prevent the election of a reforming priest (Fitzpatrick, Life of Dr Doyle. Actually, though the
discipline of the clergy in Kildare and Leighlin had become rather slack they
chose the best priest available, Dr Doyle himself. But one can see Doyle’s
point.)
But there was another issue, and
that was whether Domestic Nomination excluded the right of the Pope himself to
put forward a name. People like Grattan intended excluding nominations by
people like Napoleon, but did the words mean excluding original nomination by
the Pope himself? O’Connell testified that both the clergy and laity objected
to original nomination by Rome. It would seem too that bishops like Dr Doyle
would have preferred the restoration of the pre-Reformation right of election.
When the bull was issued in 1829 the supreme right of the Pope to choose
anybody he wanted was retained.
[April
1810] On 19 April Grattan informed Lord Fingall that he would not mention
the veto in his speech on the motion he was bringing forward, but would
concentrate instead on ‘domestic nomination’. He added that he had received a
strange letter from Dr. Milner – he seems to be very wild entirely misinformed
on the subject of my motion. I will show you his letter when I see you (Fingall
Papers NLI).
[May
1810] In May 1810 Grattan, supported by Coxe Hippisley brought forward a motion to establish a committee
to consider the claims of the Catholics on the Catholic question. He said that
the security he was offering would be domestic nomination. Unlike Grattan, Ponsonby was determined to set the record straight
regarding the veto, and said that on the previous occasion he had been acting
on information supplied to him by Dr. Milner in a discussion lasting over two
hours, and also that Milner had put the matter in writing. He read out Milner’s
letter on the subject in which he clearly stated that the Catholic bishops of
Ireland were willing to give a direct negative power to the king’s ministers.
He also said that his proposed veto would not go beyond what Milner himself had
proposed He had therefore been astonished some time later to see a publication
in Ireland in which Milner stated the exact opposite (DEP 31 May 1810). The debate was perhaps most notable for the fact
that for the first time since the fall of the Talents’ Ministry, a member of
Portland’s cabinet spoke in favour of Emancipation. Castlereagh, now out of
office, decided that he could once more support the Catholics. But the Catholic
ultras were not pleased when he said that he would accede to their claims ‘as
soon as he saw a proper disposition on their part to abandon tenets that were
subversive to the British constitution’ (SNL
30 May 1810). Canning opposed Grattan’s motion saying
that the time was not ripe for it. Grattan’s motion
was defeated. The Dublin Evening Post
noted that the majority against the Catholics in 1805 was 212, in 1808 153, and
in 1810 only 105.
The Earl of Donoughmore
replaced Lord Grenville as the champion of the
Catholics in the Lord’s. He was still at this time a member of the Prince of
Wales' circle. In the debate Lord Liverpool insisted that Emancipation would
not be conceded unless securities were conceded. The Whig leaders asked the
English Catholic leaders to state plainly that Milner did not represent their
views. This assurance they gave on 29 May. The Duke of Wellington noted later
that after 1810 it was only possible to construct a cabinet on the ‘open
principle’, namely that each minister was free to follow his own conviction on
the Catholic Question.
[June
1810] Moran cites an interesting letter from Concanen
to Troy that throws an interesting light on conditions at the time.
I shall make every attempt to get
from Mr Paul [the Pope] what you and your companions called for. I well
perceive the great need there is of his compliance and therefore send him an epilogo of the
whole business. He does some things at his country house, whereas very little
is done at his shop. It is for fear of Mr Martin [Napoleon] that Oliver Kelly
has not been served ere now (Moran).
Letters
had to smuggled in and out of the Pope’s rooms by his servants, and one servant
who had legible handwriting was employed to write the Pope’s communications. A
smuggling organisation grew up for this purpose, until in January 1811 Napoleon
ordered a search of the Pope’s rooms, and brought various charges against some
of the Pope’s household
[July 1810]
On 13 July 1810 there was a stormy meeting of the Catholics at the Farming
Repository, Stephen’s Green, in Dublin with Dr Sheridan in the chair. The old
argument whether or not to petition raged. O’Connell’s motion for a committee
to continue petitioning was defeated by 162 votes to 112.He then put a motion
for an adjournment. His courtroom tactics stirred up a riot with people jumping
on to the tables which collapsed under them. O’Gorman put forward a motion that
they should elect delegates. Keogh claimed he was being attacked in the press
where he was accused of having secret dealings and private negotiations with Mr
(afterwards Sir) Evan Nepean in 1793. Shortly afterwards James Ryan published
his account of what had happened in 1804. The meeting adjourned to November.
Milner wrote several letters to The
Statesman of Wolverhampton in Staffordshire trying to justify himself with
regard to the veto.
Perceval’s
government staggered on until the end of the session of Parliament at the end
of June. A modest Irish Arms Act (1810) and a limited Insurrection Act (1810)
were passed to deal with possible outbreaks of terrorism or insurrection.
[September
1810] On 18 September 1810 a public meeting against the Act of Union was
held in Dublin. Luby dates the rise of O’Connell’s
influence from that meeting. During the autumn rains Wellington retreated
behind the fortified lines at Torres Vedras, fighting
the battle of Busaco on the way in order to prop up Perceval’s government. Marshal Massena now commanded the
French forces. Massena came up to the lines, and made a personal reconnaissance
of them on 14 October. He decided not to attack, and drew back short distance
from them. His army was caught in the open in the wintry rainy season without
supplies. Gradually, as sickness and hunger increased in his army he had to
retreat further. The 14 October proved to be the turning point in the War. The Czar of Russia began to defy Napoleon and to admit British
merchandise.
[November
1810] The Irish Catholics re-assembled on 2 November 1810, with O’Connell unusually
in the chair. The moderate Catholics wished to confine themselves to one point,
namely to seeking Emancipation. Increasingly O’Connell sought to interfere in
all sorts of causes that had little connection with the Catholic cause.
Technically he might claim that he did not breach the letter of the Convention
Act (1793), but that Act was passed to prevent assemblies, purporting to be
representative of the people, discussing matters which were the proper affairs
of parliament. This meeting was chiefly famous for the fact that an
inflammatory journalist called Peter Finnerty, who
had long lived in London and who had been prosecuted in 1798 for helping the
United Irishmen, was asked to speak. Tact was never a strong point of
O’Connell. Finnerty was at this time publishing
attack on Castlereagh’s conduct of the War, and two
months later he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for libel.(There was
indeed much to criticise about the Walcheren
Expedition to the Low Countries in 1809 when most of the troops involved
contracted a particularly virulent and persistent form of malaria, and were
rendered useless for the rest of their lives.) Several meetings of the Catholic
Committee were held at this time, with O’Connell obviously trying to find work
for it to do. But a clear majority determined to continue petitioning come what
might.
Parliament
re-assembled on 29 November but by this time the king was unable to speak.
[December 1810] In
December a sub-committee was established to examine alleged Catholic grievances,
and undertook to defend a Catholic soldier. Wellesley Pole pointed out that
these activities contravened the Convention Act. The Committee met regularly in
December, and on 15 December O’Connell proposed that they should study how to
concert their actions with the gentlemen in the country. He was of course aware
that opinions in the country parts were closer to his own than to those of the
aristocratic party. At a meeting on 22 December Counsellor Hussey defended Grattan’s record with regard to the veto. O’Connell said he
would prefer if the Earl of Fingall did not deal with both the petition for
Emancipation and the proposed address to the new Regent. At the last meeting in
the year on 30 December 1810, it was decided that delegates should accompany
Lord Fingall to London. O’Connell said that there would be an Emancipation Bill
shortly, and it would be necessary to have some Catholic lawyers in London to
‘prepare, advise, and examine’ any bill being presented to Parliament (RWC 5 January 1811).
The
king’s mind finally gave way. A parliamentary committee was set up to examine
the medical evidence. It was agreed that the king was no longer capable, but
discussion concerning the form of the regency continued until February 1811.
The state of the king’s mind was public knowledge in Dublin from December.
Perceval out-manoeuvred the Whigs by getting parliament to agree to a
restricted regency for one year. This of course displeased the Prince of Wales,
and he associated himself with Lord Moira and Lord Hutchinson. The Whigs
expected shortly to be in office.