The Grail LINKS TO INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS. CLICK The Grail TO RETURN TO BOOK LIST; CLICK Home Page TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE
The Fourth Phase 1811 to 1815
[The Grail of Catholic
Emancipation
copyright
© 2002 by Desmond Keenan
Click on links below to go the various sections; click on top to return to top of page
*****************************************************************************
January
(1811 to January 1812) ...............................
(February to
December 1812) .................................
(January to
May 1813) ..............................................
(June 1813
to April 1814) .................................................
The Quarantotti Rescript and the Genoese Letter
(May 1814 to
June 1815) ..........................................
*****************************************************************************
From
now on until the end of his life, among the Irish Catholics O’Connell is too
big to be ignored. But he was never the undisputed leader of the Irish
Catholics, and for a large part of his life he was the leader of a smaller and
more discredited part. His only real triumph was in the final campaign from
1824 to 1829, and this was only because he agreed to work with all the others
involved and not against them. He was a man of extraordinary ability and
energy.
In this phase the initiative
gradually passed from the Whigs to the moderate Tories like Castlereagh and
Canning. In this phase too the Whigs finally lost their chance of coming to
power, for the Prince of Wales rejected them. They had assumed that the Prince
of
In this phase too the English Catholics seized the initiative from the Irish
Catholics by being the first to refer the matter to
The Regency Question January (1811 to January
1812)
[January
1811] Negotiations between
The
year began with a circular letter sent out by Edward Hay to the Catholic
leaders in all the counties asking them to appoint
managers of their affairs in
[February 1811]
The Irish Secretary, Wellesley-Pole agreed with the two lords and on 11
February 1811 sent a circular letter to all the magistrates in the various
counties warning them that an attempt to breach the Convention Act was about to
take place, and pointing out their duty to arrest any delegates. The Catholic
meetings continued in their stormy way in February, and George Keogh, son of
John Keogh (2 February) attacked O’Connell, the rising star. (Another son of
Keogh, Cornelius, was also on the committee.) He asked to know by what
authority the enlarging of the committee was being carried out. O’Connell
retorted by asking him how he got on the committee. It was explained that a power
of co-option had been granted by a general public meeting. O’Connell explained
it was necessary to publish the exact state of the Catholics. Even people like
Grattan were unaware of the extent of Catholic exclusions. The Edinburgh Review thought that, beside
the exclusion from Parliament, Catholics were only excluded from 40 military
posts. In fact the total number of posts they were excluded from either by
patronage or positive enactment exceeded 30,000 (SNL
Some
Irish magistrates at least considered that appointing delegates to represent
rural interests in the Catholic Committee in
Lord Moira (18 February) and the Whigs
including Grattan bitterly attacked the Government for this action. They
charged the Government with persecuting the Catholics. Lord Liverpool, who had
little information about the actions of the Irish Government, had to try to
defend the actions of the ministry as best he could. He was rescued by the Earl
of Donoughmore who said he was not prepared to
condemn the Government on the information available to him. He added that the
object of the Catholics was well known, namely to meet to petition Parliament
for Emancipation, and he was astonished that this measure had not the previous
consent of the Regent and the Government. He also considered that asking
country gentlemen to attend was merely to give weight to their petition. At
Hay’s request he had personally delivered several copies of the circular, so
there was nothing secret about the activity. To this Liverpool replied that
their petition had already been agreed on and prepared before Hay’s letter was
sent out, so that enlarging the Committee in this way must be for ulterior
purposes. The addition of 338 extra delegates must be for some reason. It did
not occur to him that the sole reason was to give Keogh’s and now O’Connell’s
party extra leverage against the aristocratic party and their supporters. These
might be fewer in numbers but were higher in rank (SNL 27 February). There was also the question of the jealousy of
the country people who felt that those in Dublin were taking advantage of their
exclusion by distance. Sir Henry Parnell noted that there was an objection to
presenting up to thirty separate county petitions because nobody would have
control over the language used and they might be asking for different things.
He added that the proposal of county delegates came from Lord Fingall as being
more conducive to rational debate than either Aggregate Meetings or separate
county meetings (FJ 14 Feb 1812).
[March 1811]
An Aggregate Meeting of the Irish Catholics was called for 8 March in the
private theatre, Fishamble Street, Dublin, in order
to address a vote of loyalty to the Prince Regent according to custom. An Aggregate
Meeting was simply a public meeting widely advertised beforehand to which all
Catholic men were invited. Because of incessant complaints from the likes of
Keogh of the non-representative character of particular meetings, all major
decisions from about 1810 onwards were taken in Aggregate Meetings. If the sole
purpose of the meeting was to petition Parliament these meetings were perfectly
legal, and the Aggregate Meeting could pass resolutions establishing a
Committee to carry out its will, and authorise it to do other things in
connection with the petition such as collecting money for expenses, getting
backers in Parliament, getting the petition engrossed in due form, and sending
deputies to London to explain the circumstances to their parliamentary representatives.
It seems to have been the case that when the petition was presented, or it was
decided not to present it, the committee lapsed until it was given a new
mandate. It was apparently also lawful
for a body of men to assemble to draw up and approve an Address to the monarch,
and appoint a committee as above. These rules seem to have been evolving at
this time judging by questions raised at various meetings of the Committee. It
was clear however that the existing Committee had received no mandate to
address the Regent so another Aggregate Meeting had to be held this purpose.
The address was proposed by O’Connell and seconded by Cornelius Keogh. Major
Bryan also wanted an address that would ask for the recall of the Lord
Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond, but O’Connell considered this too divisive,
and also that those who knew Richmond liked him and did not regard him in the
way they regarded Perceval and Pole (SNL
9 March, 24 April). The matter was referred to a committee. Young Mr Sheil made
a brilliant speech and his style was highly commended.
The
Catholic Committee met on 16 March to draw up two addresses, one to the Regent
and the other for the removal of Richmond and Wellesley-Pole. The Committee
found this latter task distasteful but proceeded with it because of the mandate
of the Aggregate Meeting. The Committee continued to meet regularly with much
squabbling usually involving the Keoghs who were carrying on a Dublin-wide
campaign again O’Connell’s friend Major Bryan who appears to have been
representing the country gentlemen. On 31 May Grattan presented the Catholic
petition to a very thin House, and his motion was defeated. Donoughmore’s
motion on the petition in the Lords was also defeated. Mr Hutchinson put of his
Bill to repeal the Convention Act until the next session. The Catholic
delegates who went to London to present the petitions included Lord Fingall,
Lord Castlerosse (son of the Earl of Kenmare), Lord Southwell, Lord Killeen, Sir Hugh O’Reilly, Sir Francis Goold, and various Catholic gentlemen including Edward Hay
and Major Bryan.
[March 1811]
Meanwhile events in the Peninsula began to run Wellington’s way. Massena had
kept his starving army as close to the lines as he could while he awaited
reinforcements. But as the French stripped the country bare of food they had to
retreat further and further to find it. Wellington had one great worry and that
was that when the Prince of Wales became Regent he would bring in the Whigs who
would promptly abandon Spain to Napoleon. The French were able to maintain
themselves in Portugal for far longer than Wellington expected, and too long
for their own good. But on 5 March 1811, Massena suddenly struck camp and
retreated covered by a thick fog. They were thirty miles away before the
British became aware of the fact. Wellington’s army, unlike Massena’s was
well-fed, but had to make forced marches to catch up with the French. Massena
had intended merely to withdraw to a part of Portugal where there was still
food, and then resume his attack on Lisbon when the good weather came. He was
out-manoeuvred by Wellington and the Portuguese militia under the Irish
General, Sir Nicholas Trant, and on the 15 March 1811
he ordered his army to abandon all its equipment and hasten to the safety of
the Spanish frontier. By the 8 April, Massena reached safety at his base at
Salamanca, but had lost 25,000 men in the retreat. Wellington’s army was
learning its trade, and had displayed an astonishing manoeuvrability in the
pursuit of the French. The astonishing turn of events came as a great relief to
Perceval’s ministry which was fast running out of
money. The loss of trade caused by the Continental System had not yet been made
good by the development of new markets especially in Spanish territories.
Though the Whig chiefs were profuse in their congratulations in Parliament it
could not be denied that Perceval as well as Wellington had won a victory. On
16 May Marshal Beresford (of the Waterford Beresfords)
fought a French army under Marshal Soult at Albuera to a standstill in one of the bloodiest battles of
the war in which neither general distinguished himself. Nevertheless the French
were prevented from entering Portugal from the south while Wellington was
engaged in the north.
At
home John Foster in his seventy first year retired from the post of Irish
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Wellesley-Pole undertook the work of this
office beside his own. Milner renewed his attacks on Poynter
and accused him of sheltering Gallican clergymen in his diocese. He considered Poynter remiss in not censuring a book written by a French
émigré priest, the Abbè Blanchard. As usual, Troy and the Irish
bishops backed Milner. Poynter was correct in
considering that it was a matter solely for himself as the responsible bishop,
after consulting the Holy See, to decide.
[July 1811]
The Big Committee established to petition the previous year decided that its
mandate had now expired. An Aggregate Meeting was held on 9 July 1811 in the
little Theatre, Fishamble Street with Lord Fingall in
the chair. A new Committee was approved to consist of the members of the
aristocracy, of the Catholic bishops, the members of the counties, the
survivors of the 1793 delegates, and representatives of the Dublin parishes.
These parish meetings seem to have been the places where the Keoghs felt most
at home, for they had organised parish meetings against Major Bryan the
previous year. The Dublin parishes proceeded to choose their representatives
and on 30 July the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed the Committee thus constituted.
In the month of July Fingall had several meetings with Wellesley-Pole who
considered the Committee illegal, but neither could agree with the other. The
Catholic Committee met the following day 31 July in the Committee Rooms, Capel Street. and
passed a resolution stating that its sole purpose was to petition Parliament,
and its meeting were not under the
pretence of preparing petitions, but actually preparing them. Many of the
country magistrates too maintained that Wellesley-Pole was misinterpreting the
Act. An eminent barrister was quoted by Saunders
that a court case would have to be brought in the courts to establish the true
interpretation of the law.
It
is not obvious why Wellesley-Pole took such a strong line as he was usually a
man of moderation and common sense. No doubt the driving force behind the move
was Saurin the attorney general. But he was also influenced by a book recently
published in Ireland by some Catholic saying that the Catholics had a legal
right to three quarters of the land in Ireland. At that time Catholics held
about one tenth of the land in fee i.e. they were the landowners. (Feudal
theory stated that all land was held from the king, and owners of land in fee
were supposed to be holding directly from the crown. These lands could be
leased to others, and the Catholics held much more land by lease (O’Connell, Evidence). The implication of the book
was that Catholics after Emancipation would seize back the lands in fee from
the Protestants (Wellesley-Pole DNB).
Wellesley-Pole gave a long account of his version of the affair to Parliament
on 2 February 1812 (RWC 15 February
1812).
[September 1811] A
Catholic meeting was held in Meath, and the lords Fingall, Netterville,
Gormanston, and Killeen were chosen as the
representatives of the county on the Catholic Committee. In Louth, Sir Edward Bellew, Lord Southwell, Francis Bellew, Michael Chester and others were chosen.
[October 1811] The
new Committee met at the Theatre, Fishamble Street on
19 October 1811 with Lord Fingall in the chair. Two policemen sat through the
entire meeting to ensure it was a meeting of the Catholic Committee. The
galleries were filled with spectators. Lord Netterville
introduced the proposed petition to Parliament for Emancipation.
[November 1811]
The case was brought in the Court of King’s Bench on 11 November 1811. Several
members were charged with breaches of the Convention Act, and the City of
Dublin Grand Jury found true bills against them. The defence objected to the
composition of the Grand Jury claiming that the Government was ‘packing’ it
(Keenan II). It was agreed that one delegate, Thomas Kirwan,
should be tried and all would abide by the verdict. There was a lot of legal
fencing regarding the composition of the jury, and whether liberi meant freeholders or
freemen of the city. Judge Day decided that the latter meaning was tenable.
Another lawyer for the defence suggested that the court was sitting on a
commission of gaol delivery, but if the offence took place outside Dublin city
it should proceed by writ of certiorari.
To which it was replied that it could treat the case as one under the
commission of oyer
and terminer. Tricks of defence lawyers do no change
much. The defence objections were over-ruled and the judges decided that the
Grand Jury had been properly formed. A date was set for the case before the
trial or petit jury and the case against the first defendant, Dr Sheridan,
commenced. Luby notes that O’Connell, though he
appeared for the defence could not be the leading counsellor, not having been
called to the inner bar. Though Sheridan was found not guilty, the judges gave
the necessary interpretation of the law, namely that delegated bodies were
illegal, whether for the purpose of petitioning or for other purposes. The
Government got the construction it needed and did not propose proceeding
against any others for it could get the police to disperse any attempted
illegal meeting.
[December 1811]
In December the police broke up a proposed Committee meeting and removed Lord
Fingall from the chair. But the attorney general, Saurin, the most bitterly
anti-Catholic member of the Government was not satisfied and determined to
proceed against the delegates from Meath and against those charged in the first
batch including Thomas Kirwan, with new bills. This
included lords from county Meath, and Wellesley-Pole’s family was also from
Meath. An attorney general could proceed by ex
officio informations without a Grand Jury.
O’Connell too wanted the trials to proceed so the accused could be cleared of charges of disaffection and treason. But
Saurin replied that they were not charged with such. After the trial of Kirwan in February under differently worded charges when he
was found guilty, the Government did not proceed with the other charges. Saurin
entered a nolle prosequi to withdraw the prosecution. Kirwan was fined one mark.
An
Aggregate Meeting was called on 27 December to petition, and this was perfectly
legal. A letter from Milner to the editor of the Dublin Evening Post was published in which he stated that the
English Catholics had a Catholic Board . Milner approved of the Catholic Board
because it was not Butler’s Catholic Committee. However, he deplored the
relations of some of them with Lord Grey over the veto. This appears to be the
meeting at which the poet Shelley was present (Luby).
In
the Peninsula Massena had counter-attacked in May but was repulsed by
Wellington at Fuentos de Onoro
a village on the Spanish-Portuguese border, a charge by the Connaught Rangers
driving the French from the field. Marmont replaced
Massena. Wellington’s first task was to capture the frontier fortresses of Badajos and Ciudad Rodrigo. He failed to take the first
when Soult advanced again with a large army and the
arrival of Marmont with fresh troops prevented him
from taking the latter. During this time, his confidant was his brother William
(Wellesley-Pole) to whom he could speak plainly about his difficulties. William
always wrote back to cheer him up. In September Wellington withdrew to the
safety of Portugal, and Marmont did not pursue him.
Wellington’s army rested for three months until December 1811, and Napoleon
came to their aid by transferring 15,000 men from Marmont’s
army to Suchet’s on the opposite side of Spain.
[January 1812]
Napoleon was preoccupied with eastern Europe, so Wellington was gradually
getting the upper hand over the dispersed French armies under different
marshals. He was able to defeat them singly, but lacked the forces to deal with
them if they combined. Wellington commenced
his campaign early by besieging Ciudad Rodrigo on 8 January 1812 and the
fortress was taken by storm on the 19th. He then besieged Badajoz,
the siege commencing on 16 March and the place was taken by storm on 6 April.
Wellington then marched his army north again to deal with Marmont.
Marmont was now short of troops as Napoleon was
preparing to invade Russia and was unwilling to attack unless he had the
advantage. Wellington, too, ever short of troops, was unwilling to attack
unless the advantage was with him. The fortune of the Catholic Question was
closely linked to the fortune of the army in the Peninsula, and all parties
eagerly studied the reports and prognostications coming from there. Napoleon
later moved the Pope from Savona to the palace of
Fontainebleau outside Paris. Napoleon was to attack Russia, an event
commemorated among other places in Tchaikovosky’s Overture 1812.
As
Wellington and Marmont were marching and
counter-marching seeking the advantage, Wellington received much information on
Marmont’s movements from a strange quarter. There was
an Irish priest from co. Meath at the Irish College in Salamanca called Dr
Patrick Curtis. He organised a system of spies and runners to bring information
about the French to Wellington. At the same time he kept on good terms with the
French so that they did not suspect him for a long time. Finally he was
arrested as a spy, but was saved from death by an unexpected advance by
Wellington. On the latter’s recommendation he was given a small government
pension and he returned to Ireland where he lived quietly for some years. He
was very respected by his former students amongst whom was Archbishop Murray.
Curtis was to be archbishop of Armagh seventeen years later when Wellington
introduced his own Emancipation Bill.
The
fickle Prince Regent was growing tired of the War and tired of his ministers.
He still was not ready however to recall the Whigs and he disliked Grenville and Grey. In September 1811 he began to cultivate
close relations with the Marquis Wellesley. His chief interest was to secure
the best deal he could for himself, with the revenues of the monarch’s civil
list transferred to himself, and a modest provision being made for the king,
queen, and princesses. He himself was in poor health and was constantly taking
laudanum because of a sprained ankle. He was also grossly overweight.
Wellesley, though still Foreign Secretary, was now in opposition to many of the
cabinet because of his view that the Government itself should bring in an
Emancipation Bill, and he resigned from the Government on 16 January.
Parliament had re-assembled on 7 January, and the first point to be decided was
making the Regency unrestricted, and making suitable provision for the Regent.
The
hopes of the Whigs had been high in January 1812 as the restricted Regency came
to an end. They were convinced that the Prince would send for the friends of
his youth. The Regent invited Grenville and Grey to
join the Government but framed his invitation in such a way that they would
refuse. They insisted that Perceval should go, and that the Government would
bring in an Emancipation Bill. Most importantly, they insisted that the Regent
should get rid of the Hertfords (Butler. Donoughmore also detested the Hertfords,
and this was to have strange consequences later.) These conditions the Prince
would not accept. He was now very much under the influence of the Marchioness
of Hertford, and when he had assumed the Regency he gave orders that Mrs Fitzherbert who was a Catholic should be given no official
recognition. Perceval and his ministers had always been satisfied that Lady
Hertford would prevail. The atmosphere between the leading Whigs and Lady
Hertford’s party was poisonous. Lord Grey incurred the enmity of the Regent
when during a speech in the Lords in January he attacked Lady Hertford as
‘unseen and pestilent secret influence which lurked behind the throne’ Grey DNB). Grenville
and Grey were far more concerned about the Regent consulting Lady Hertford in
private than about any conversation with the aged Sheridan.
Constitutionally,
of course, the question was not that the monarch had no right to have his
personal friends and take private advice from them. Indeed, thirty years later,
Lord Melbourne pointed out the young Queen Victoria the impropriety of having
only Whig Ladies of the Bedchamber when there was a Tory Government. The reason
was that Lady Hertford was a strong supporter of Spencer Perceval, and a strong
anti-Catholic. By the Constitution the ministers were the king’s advisers
representing Parliament and the country. They did not want to be in a position
of putting forward, as the monarch’s constitutional advisers, policies like
Emancipation or making peace with the French, when he could then turn to an
unconstitutional clique to have the advice overturned. Curiously, Lady Hertford,
and her son Lord Yarmouth understood and accepted the conditions of the Whigs,
but Prince George was unwilling to promise not to discuss politics with him.
Many years later the Marchioness of Conyngham was in
a similar position, but she used her influence to assist, not oppose, the then
prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington.
The
question remains why the Whigs were so bitter against Lady Hertford. They were
very experienced in politics and used to its up and downs. Nor, as Regency
gentlemen, were they likely to be concerned by the Prince’s morals which were
not notably worse than those of other gentlemen at the time. Nor is even clear
if their anger was directed primarily at Lady Hertford or at Spencer Perceval
whom they particularly detested. It would seem however that the Earl of Donoughmore, his brother Baron Hutchinson, and Lord Moira,
the long-standing companions of the Regent since their youth, felt themselves
edged out by Lady Hertford’s party. Also, according to Roberts, Donoughmore felt he had been used by the Regent to pacify
the Catholics, while at the same time listening to the advice of the
anti-Catholics to do nothing for them. But the Regent had an intense personal
dislike of Lord Grey. The fact remains that they were furious, and expressed
their fury openly, and this openly expressed fury was to find its echo in the
‘Witchery Resolution’ some months later. More immediately, all these factors
came into play in May after the assassination of Perceval (Roberts). The end of
the matter was that the Prince Regent retained Perceval and his ministry.
[Top]
The Open Principle in Cabinet (February to
December 1812)
The Irish Catholics set about organising a
Catholic Board, no longer with delegates, and the merit of its name was that it
was not called the Catholic Committee which Wellesley-Pole was authorised to
suppress. An Aggregate Meeting was held on 28 February 1812 in Fishamble Street to transfer to it all the privileges,
properties, and powers of the Catholic Committee. The Board was in fact
composed of the same people who had composed the Catholic Committee. An address
to the Regent and petitions to both Houses of Parliament were approved and the Board met to select
delegates to present it.
[March 1812] The
ballot took place on 4 March. Besides the nobility the following gentlemen were
selected, George Bryan of Jenkinstown, Owen O’Connor
of Ballenagare, John Burke of Glynsk,
W.G. Bagot of Castlebagot,
Randall MacDonnell of Dublin, Thomas Wyse of Waterford, John Lalor of Cranagh, Miles O’Donnell
of London, Major General Ambrose O’Ferrall, Peter
Bodkin Hussey of Dingle, and Dominic W.O’Reilly of Kildargan Castle. It will be noticed that with the
exception of Randall MacDonnell all were country gentlemen. The Dublin
barristers would have been on the legal circuits through the provinces. Edward
Hay accompanied the delegates, and his alleged communication with ministers was
later to form the basis of O’Connell’s attacks on him.
Wellesley-Pole’s son William married
Catherine Tylney-Long, an heiress, and added her
names to his becoming the celebrated William Pole Tylney
Long-Wellesley! (He was celebrated only for his name, and his obituary notice
said he had not a single redeeming virtue). An Irish general petition for
Emancipation open to Protestants was adopted. Protestant gentlemen with
property in Ireland met in London, 3 March, with Earl Fitzwilliam in the chair.
Among those who signed were the Dukes of Devonshire and Bedford, the Marquises
of Lansdowne, Downshire, and Sligo, Earls
Fitzwilliam, Moira, Essex, Derby, Bessborough, Darnley, Fortescue, Donoughmore, Temple, and Upper Ossory, Lords Dillon,
Clifton, Ponsonby, Muskerry,
and Duncannon. Among the commoners were Ponsonby,
Grattan, Newport, and Parnell. In all about 4,000 Protestant gentlemen signed.
Numerous local county meetings also were held to petition. The Earl of Fingall
wrote to Mr Richard Ryder, the Home Secretary, enquiring how they should
present the petition, and was informed that it could be presented at a levee.
The Prince Regent received the Irish Catholic delegation at a levee, but
refused a private meeting, and made no comment on the petition (FJ 19 June 1812, RWC 25 June 1812). (A levee was an afternoon session in which the
monarch received only men. It was originally held in the morning after the king
rose from bed.) The Earl of Fingall presented his son, Lord Killeen, now come
of age, to the Regent. It should be noted that though Catholic lords were
excluded from Parliament they never were excluded from Court, and in this
respect had the same rights as Protestant peers.
[April
1812] Donoughmore, seconded by the Duke of
Sussex, the Regent’s brother, presented the Irish petition on 21 April 1812,
but his motion was defeated. Donoughmore made a
violent attack on Lady Hertford. He referred to her and her circle as an influence
behind the throne, which ‘issuing forth from the inmost recesses of the gaming
houses and the brothel presumes to place itself near the royal ear…an associate
and adviser from Change Alley and from the stews’ (Roberts). The number of supporters of the Catholics in
the Lords was steadily increasing. The Marquis Wellesley made a notable speech
in favour of the Catholics.
On 20 April Mr Elliot in the Commons presented
the English Catholic petition, and Mr Maurice Fitzgerald presented the petition
of the Protestant gentlemen connected with Ireland. Wellesley-Pole conceded
that the majority of Protestant gentlemen in Ireland now favoured Emancipation.
He also stated that the Government had not exercised any influence or pressure
on those asked to sign the petition. He found himself on the same side as
Protestant hard-liners like Patrick Duigenan. On 23
April Grattan presented the principal Irish Catholic petition. He proposed a
motion to consider the Catholic
claims but it was defeated by 82 votes. The growing support for Emancipation on
all sides was noted. By 1812 the Catholic Question, like the anti-slave trade
question became a non-party issue.
Seeds of more disputes were sown at
a meeting in Galway in April 1812, with Lord Ffrench in the chair, when it was
decided to impose a pledge on future MPs that they would vote for Emancipation
if they were returned. Other counties too passed similar resolutions, but this
was not general.
At this time Sir John Coxe Hippisley made his own
attempt to rescue the Pope. The English and Scottish vicars apostolic decided
to appoint a Scottish priest, Dr Paul MacPherson as
their agent and to send him to Rome. Coxe Hippisley came to an arrangement with the Hon Mr Yorke and the ministry and sent for Dr MacPherson
to explain his plan. A Captain Otway was to command
the expedition. Ships of war and transports were to assemble off Cagliari in
Sardinia, and British troops were to land at Savona
at night. Dr MacPherson was to travel to Savona, make himself known to the Pope so that he would not
be alarmed and would be ready to escape. But by this time, fearing such an
attempt, Napoleon had removed the Pope to Fontainbleau
on 9 June 1812 so that when MacPherson was landed on
the coast of Brittany to make his way overland to Savona,
he heard that the Pope was no longer by the sea. He proceeded to Rome as the
accredited agent of the English and Scottish vicars apostolic, and had great
influence on Dr Poynter’s behalf with Monsignor Quarantotti, whom the Pope had left in charge of affairs in
Rome when he and the cardinals had been removed thence (Ward 2, MacPherson had also been involved in a British plot to
rescue Pius VI DNB). Monsignor John Baptist Quarantotti
had been Secretary of the Congregation of Propaganda in Rome in charge of
missions in non-Catholic countries, but now was acting as pro-Prefect of
Propaganda with extended powers. He relied on MacPherson
for information about English affairs. Monsignor is a rank in the papal
household below that of cardinal. The holder is not necessarily a bishop. The
Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda at the time was Cardinal di
Pietro.
[May
1812] Bishop Douglas, the vicar apostolic of the London district died, and
was succeed by his co-adjutor, Dr Poynter.
On 15 May the prime minister, Spencer Perceval, was assassinated by ‘a man of
disordered brain’, a bankrupt gentleman named John Bellingham, in the lobby of
the House of Commons. The plea of insanity was rejected by the court, and he
was hanged for murder.
The whole question of who would form
a ministry for the Regent was opened up for the third time in little over a
year. Lord Liverpool tried to carry on but lost a vote of confidence. The
Marquis Wellesley and the Earl of Moira were asked in turn to form ministries,
but failed. Very few people were willing to serve under the imperious marquis.
George Canning, on the marquises behalf wrote to Lord Liverpool on 23 May 1812
asking his support for a ministry whose first object would be to bring relief
to the Catholics, and secondly the vigorous prosecution of the War in the
Peninsula. Wellesley wrote to Grenville and Grey with
the same proposals (SNL 14 February
1829). Lord Moira consulted with Grenville and Grey,
and they once again insisted that Lady Hertford’s son Lord Yarmouth should be
removed from the royal household. Lord Yarmouth had in fact informed Sheridan
that he intended resigning if the Whigs came in, but Sheridan told Tierney the
exact opposite. Sheridan then denied that he had been given a formal message.
Henry Grattan junior, in his Life of
his father, maintained that Sheridan did this deliberately in a pique at being
excluded from the cabinet, but this cannot be proved (Grattan). Moira himself
considered the question of the composition of the royal household irrelevant to
Parliament (Letter to the Earl of Fingall 23 June 1812; FJ 17 July 1812).
[June 1812]
Moira then secured the adhesion of Lord Liverpool, but gave up trying to form a
ministry when the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Erskine
(Thomas Erskine, Lord Chancellor in the Ministry of
all the Talents) made difficulties. Some Irish Catholics were very angry with
Moira for giving up so easily. But it was clear that as the question was now a
non-party one it could be as easily achieved under a Tory prime minister as a
Whig one. Liverpool was then asked to try and form a ministry. He succeeded in
putting one together, which though it was regarded as weak at the start, lasted
fifteen years. Wellesley-Pole now resigned from his position as Irish Secretary
to assist the marquis still in opposition in his campaign for Emancipation. He
said he had always been in favour of Emancipation provided that the
establishments in Church and state were safeguarded, and now that the Regent
had given his consent to the discussion of the matter, he was in favour of
conditional Emancipation. Castlereagh remained as Foreign Secretary but got in
addition the post of Leader of the House. This was a strategic one as far as
the Catholics were concerned because it was the Leader who arranged the order
of business in Parliament. Castlereagh always ensured that there was sufficient
time early in the session for Catholic business. The young Robert Peel, then
aged twenty-four, became Irish Secretary. He was overshadowed for some years by
the somewhat older and more experienced William Vesey Fitzgerald who became
Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer at the age of twenty nine and who had been on
the Irish Treasury Commission and a privy councillor for two years.
The
Irish Catholic Board continued to meet regularly, and drew up addresses of
thanks to the Duke of Sussex, the Earl of Donoughmore,
and Henry Grattan. It was reported that George Canning was intending to take
some action on behalf of the Catholics. Edward Hay remained in London when a
committee of nine was appointed to draw up Resolutions to be put before an
Aggregate Meeting for approval. The Irish Catholics met together in an
Aggregate Meeting on 18 June 1812 in the Little Theatre, Fishamble
Street, with Fingall in the chair. Fingall recounted how the delegation had
been snubbed by the Regent, and how he had again communicated with Mr Ryder,
who said the Regent had nothing to communicate. According to a later account of
this meeting by Edward Hay who was then in London, some members of the
committee who had drawn up the Resolutions met again and substituted a
different set of Resolutions, and also sent a copy of them to the Dublin Evening Post for publication, and
for transmission to London. One of Hay’s informants promptly wrote to him in
London. Luby said the new Resolutions had been
compiled by Scully. Daniel O’Connell read out the Resolutions at the request of
Lord Killeen who was to propose them. The Resolutions should have been read by
the proposer or by the Secretary of the Board.
Presumably Killeen found the handwriting difficult. O’Connell read them out in
a low tone, different from the one he usually used. He was unaware of any
substitution. The members of the Board
were unaware of the content of the Resolutions and made no comment,
presuming that the members of the committee had done their job properly. It was
noted later that it was possible to get almost anything passed by an Aggregate
Meeting. It should be remembered that there were no loudspeakers in those days.
Presumably, the Chairman and the proposer sat on the
stage while the rest of the members sat in the body of the hall. So if the text
of the Resolutions were read out in a low tone pro forma nobody would
hear it. It is possible that O’Connell considered that the reading was just pro forma,
but obviously he had no comment to make on the text. He was more concerned with
censuring Lord Moira. Most of the Resolutions were innocuous intending merely
to make explicit that the function of the Catholic Board was to carry out a
Resolution of an Aggregate Meeting to petition Parliament. Because of a report
that Canning was to attach conditions it was resolved that the Catholics would reject them in advance. It was the
Third Resolution known ever afterwards
as the ‘Witchery Resolution’ which caused the storm.
In
London, George Canning had refused to serve under Lord Liverpool, preferring to
join the Marquis Wellesley in opposition. But he now felt that George III’s scruples regarding Emancipation could be ignored when
the Regent allowed discussion of the question. So despite the defeat of Grattan’s motion in April he felt he could proceed with a
similar motion of his own in June. As it was nearing the end of the session,
the motion was just to consider the Catholic question in the next session.
The text of the Resolutions arrived in London
just as Canning was about to propose his motion on the Catholic Question in
Parliament. The relevant phrases of the Third Resolution were as follows,
…that
from authentic documents now before us we learn with deep disappointment and
anguish how cruelly the promised boon of Catholic freedom by the fatal witchery
of an unworthy secret influence, hostile
to our fairest hopes, spurning alike the sanctions of public and private
virtue, the demands of personal gratitude, and the sacred obligations of
plighted honour…that to this impure source we trace but too distinctly our
baffled hopes and protracted servitude, the arrogant invasion of the undoubted
right of petitioning, the acrimony of illegal state prosecutions…That cheerless
would be our prospects were they to rest on the constancy of courtiers, or the
pompous patronage of men who can coldly
sacrifice the feelings and interests of millions at the shrine of perishable
power, or deluded by the blandishments of a too luxurious court can hazard the
safety of a people for ill-timed courtly compliments. The pageants of a court
command not our respect- our great cause rests upon the immutable foundations
of truth, justice, and reason.
Though
the unworthy secret influence undoubtedly refers to Lady Hertford’s group, yet
many of the phrases would seem to have been aimed rather at Lord Moira. There
is no direct attack on the Regent himself. The writer too seems to have been
unaware of the latest developments in London, where Canning had decided he
could succeed where Grattan had failed. Copies of the Dublin newspapers arrived
in London on the morning of 22 June, the
date on which Canning was to introduce his motion. Such language from the Irish
Catholics was the last thing he needed.
Edward Hay had been given a seat in the
Strangers’ Gallery in the House of Commons, and was immediately besieged by
those seeking an explanation, but was unable to provide one, apart from the
information of his correspondent who had been present at the meeting, but was
unable to hear the Resolutions themselves. Canning said he could not put
forward a motion in favour of the Catholics without reprobating the language of
the Dublin Catholics. However after much discussion among the MPs the
Resolutions were deplored rather than reprobated. (Hay finally in 1819 sent an
account of the affair in explanation to Canning). He noted that the language of
the Resolutions strongly resembled what he had heard in the corridors of the
Commons about the time of Perceval’s assassination,
but they were purely confidential and not suitable for public resolutions.
Nevertheless it was held by many that the Resolutions originated in London, Donoughmore’s name in particular being mentioned. But Hay
was convinced they originated in Dublin (DEP
13 July 1819). The best guess is that they were substituted by Scully for the
Resolutions he had presented to the Committee and had been accepted by the
Committee.
Parliament
voted on Canning’s motion on 23 June and his motion was passed with a majority
of 129. Castlereagh and Wellesley-Pole voted for the motion. As Hay observed,
‘The judicious management pursued by Mr Canning and the transcendental ability
which he displayed on this occasion produced a triumphant majority of 129 in
support of the first favourable motion for the Catholics which carried in the Imperial Parliament’
(loc.cit.).
[July 1812]
The parallel motion in the Lords was introduced by the Marquis Wellesley on 1
July and was lost by a single vote. The parliamentary session ended on 30 July
1812, giving everyone time to prepare for the big vote the following year.
Lord
Moira now passes from the scene of Irish politics. In November he accepted from
Liverpool the post of Governor General of Bengal, Wellesley’s old post, and he
continued Wellesley’s policies. He dealt with an invasion of the Gurkhas from Nepal and concluded a peace treaty with Nepal
that survives to this day. Moira was made Marquis of Hastings. He also dealt
with the robber bands called Pindaris, and firmly
established British authority in Central India. His numerous successes in India
would seem to indicate that he would have made a better prime minister than
Liverpool. He resigned from his post in
1821 and Canning was appointed he successor. However, Castlereagh committed
suicide before Canning sailed for India, and he was appointed Foreign Secretary
instead.
Napoleon,
on 24 June 1812, ordered his armies to march towards Russia as the Czar was backing out of the Continental System. The
Russians were narrowly defeated at Borodino on 7
September 1812 (Gregorian calendar), and withdrew their army to the other side
of Moscow which Napoleon entered unopposed a week later. In the Peninsula,
Wellington and Marmont marched and counter-marched
until outside Salamanca on 22 July 1812 Marmont made
a fatal mistake. Seeing a cloud of dust on the horizon he concluded it was
Wellington’s army hastening towards the Portuguese frontier and set out in hot
pursuit. Wellington’s army had not moved and was still on the other side of a
hill. Wellington caught Marmont’s divisions in line
of march on the flank, and utterly routed the French army. Nonetheless, the
exact moment to attack, the point of attack, and the troops to be used in the
attack all had to be judged exactly. Armies could march at about four miles an
hour so the local divisional commanders would have about an hour’s warning.
Their commander-in-chief then had to be notified and his orders issued to meet
the attack. Wellington’s timing was such was that the individual French commanders
could turn their units about to face the attack, they could not form a
continuous line. Marmont was severely wounded, Bonnet
his successor was killed and General Clausel had to get the shattered French army away as best
he could. Wellington’s reputation as a first class general soared throughout
Europe. His army entered Madrid on 12 August 1812 to the ecstatic welcome of
the Spanish inhabitants. The Prince Regent made him Marquis of Wellington. He
advanced into northern Spain to besiege the fortress of Burgos. Fresh French
armies came up and he had to retreat precipitately towards the Portuguese
frontier. He withdrew from Burgos on 21 October to extricate his army. Three
days earlier Napoleon had abandoned Moscow for the same reason. But Wellington
successfully extricated his army, and Napoleon did not. By 31 October
Wellington’s army was safe and he congratulated himself on getting clear of the
worst scrape he was ever in. Napoleon was not defeated by the Russians but had
walked into a trap. As the Russians were systematically removing food from
around Moscow, he had to retreat to winter quarters in Poland. Though he
marched back by a different route, the Russians everywhere removed food from in
front of his army. Of the 600,000 persons who had entered Russia only a body of 10,000 men able
to fight remained with Napoleon’s main force when he recrossed
the Berezina River in November. Prussia and Austria
joined the Russians to form the Fourth Coalition in 1813. Both Wellington and
Napoleon spent the winter and spring months building up their armies. France
was nearing the end of its ability to recruit sufficient soldiers to make up
for losses. He called up the conscripts for 1814 a year early, hastily trained
them. But he also had to thin out his armies on other fronts to concentrate
against the Russian and Prussian advance in Central Europe. He left just
sufficient troops in Spain to hold up Wellington.
On
the other hand, Britain had got itself embroiled in a totally unnecessary war
with the United States that it took Castlereagh two years to extricate Britain
from. The war was caused by the slackness of the Marquis Wellesley in not
promptly informing President Madison that some offending Orders in Council had
been withdrawn.
Though
Liverpool’s ministry was neutral, the Irish Government under Richmond was still
anti-Catholic, though all of its members were not equally strongly
anti-Catholic. William Gregory was appointed in October 1812 as the
Under-secretary for Civil Affairs, in effect Irish Home Secretary. He was then
fifty six years old, and a determined anti-Catholic, and he took the young
Robert Peel under his wing. The powers attached to the Under-Secretary’s office
had grown up during the years when the office of the Irish Secretary was a
sinecure. Not until ten years later, when faced with Gregory’s intransigence,
did any Lord Lieutenant make a determined attempt to subordinate the
Under-Secretary to the Secretary. This Lord Lieutenant was the imperious
Marquis Wellesley. The Irish Secretary at this time, especially if
inexperienced, was regarded as merely the Lord Lieutenant’s message boy.
Wellesley-Pole was different, and it is not clear why he felt he had to resign,
but he did so after a dispute with Richmond. In doing so he virtually handed
over control of the Irish Government for ten years to Gregory. Though he was
appointed by the Lord Lieutenant and in theory could be removed by him, there
was considerable difficulty in dislodging Gregory and he was not actually
removed from office until 1831. He was a very capable administrator. Saurin
continued as attorney general until 1822 when Wellesley removed him. The Lord
Chancellor, Manners survived until 1827. There were three Irish Secretaries
between 1812 and Liverpool’s death in 1827, Peel from 1812 to 1818, Charles
Grant between 1818 and 1821, and Henry Goulburn 1821 to 1827. Peel and Goulburn
were anti-Catholics, Goulburn being appointed specifically to counteract the
pro-Catholic tendencies to Wellesley. This period of fifteen years from 1812 to
1827 was the heyday of the Ascendancy faction during which any attempts to
appoint Catholics to offices in Ireland, or to extend their civil freedoms were
systematically blocked by a clique in Dublin Castle. The solicitor general
Kendall Bushe might have pro-Catholic sympathies but he was removed from the
political arena in 1822 by making him a judge.
The
next Aggregate Meeting was held in the Little
Theatre, Fishamble Street, on 2 July with
Fingall in the chair. He noted that there was now a real prospect of
Emancipation. A petition of the Catholics of Ireland was transcribed with some
verbal changes from one of the Dissenters. At this time the affair of the Rev.
Dr. Charles O’Conor, a close relative of both Owen O’Conor (the future O’Conor Don)
and of Matthew O’Conor of Mount Druid came to a head.
Dr O’Conor became chaplain to the Marchioness of
Buckingham, a Catholic, and also librarian of the future Duke of Buckingham,
(Richard Temple Grenville, Earl Temple, first Duke of Buckingham and Chandos) who was Lord Grenville’s
nephew, at Stowe, the chief seat of the Grenvilles.
He was an antiquarian and between 1810 and 1813 he wrote ‘Columbanus ad Hibernos, or Seven Letters
on the Present Mode of Appointing Catholic Bishops in Ireland’. He clearly and
correctly pointed out that the Irish Church in the past had elected its own
bishops without reference to Rome. He attacked the ultramontane
party, and supported the veto, and preferred Domestic Nomination, and was
predictably denounced by Milner. Predicable too he was suspended by Troy, and
the Irish bishops denounced his book. The library at Stowe had a great
collection of Irish manuscripts. He was a timid scholarly man, but was
ill-advised to cross Milner even if his views were more historically correct.
[August 1812]
Dr Poynter on 23 August 1812 again wrote to the Irish
bishops saying that no veto had been intended, and that no innovation could be
introduced without the consent of the Pope. But Milner insisted that they
‘retract’ their errors. None of the three Irish archbishops to whom the letter
was sent replied (Ward II).
[November 1812]
Liverpool’s ministry was now surprisingly secure. There was no strong anti-war
faction. Liverpool asked the Regent for a dissolution of Parliament and a
general election. Peel’s first job in Ireland was to organise it for the
Government. Peel wrote light-heartedly to his friend Croker,
that he was ‘bound to secure the Government’s interests if possible from
dilapidation, but still more bound to faint with horror at the mention of money
transactions’. These were not particular instruction to Peel to bribe right
left and centre while at the same time denying it. Every out-going Government
in the early nineteenth century tried to influence the outcome of elections.
The Irish Government had little money to spend on bribery. But promises of
future favours could always be made to important landowners whose
forty-shilling freehold tenants would vote as instructed, or to borough-owners
who would instruct the handful of voters in the boroughs. O’Connell said he had
no doubt that John Burke and John Lalor had thus been
approached, and perhaps they had been. He was then fifty six years old. The
Catholics had no general policy regarding which candidates they should support.
Donoughmore’s brother was defeated in Cork and he
expressed his displeasure to Fingall, saying that the Hely-Hutchinsons
were thrown out of Cork after representing it for fifty years. (This seems to
be one of the earliest cases where attempts were being made to break the stranglehold
of certain Tory families on certain constituencies. Some time later the Fosters
were thrown out of Louth, and the Beresfords from
Waterford.) In some constituencies there was a policy of extracting pledges
from candidates, in other not. Owing to a mix-up John Philpot Curran was
defeated in Newry. John Burke of Glynsk and John Lalor of Cranagh supported a
Government candidate. John Lawless wanted them expelled from the Catholic
Board, but Fingall defended their liberty of conscience. O’Connell, in a
typical remark said that while he did not doubt for a moment the baseness of
their motives he considered the Board incompetent to expel them, i.e. it was
not a matter concerning a petition to Parliament. Burke replied that
Emancipation was a single issue, and opening up the county of Galway, which was
nearly as bad as a borough was a more important task. Despite help from Edward Jerningham, Sheridan was defeated in Stafford, and his long
and distinguished parliamentary career came to an end. He was by then an
alcoholic, and he died in 1816. The new Parliament opened on 30 November 1812.
This
election seems to have been the first in which a Catholic priest acted as an
election agent. His name was Fr Cornelius O’Mullane,
and the disturbances in which he became involved resulted in lawsuits for many
years to come. He brought an action for damages in Galway in 1816 against
someone who had described him as a degraded and convicted clergyman. When it
was related in court that he was suspended by his bishop for taking part in
politics, and because of a legal conviction for causing a riot and assault in his own chapel, and for
his connection with the Catholic Board, and that the other bishops of the
province had added their names to his suspension, he was awarded damages of six
pence. He was at that time serving as a curate in Dublin. Another priest who
involved himself in politics in this election was Fr John England from Cork,
who also started a newspaper. The other Irish bishops were relieved when he
left Ireland in 1820 to become bishop of Charleston in South Carolina in the
United States where he had a very successful career. The case is of interest as
showing the strong reaction of the bishops at that time to priests involving
themselves in politics. Some superiors of religious orders like the Franciscans
and Carmelites seem to have taken a more
relaxed line with regard to priests attending meetings purely to petition
parliament. In 1815 James Magee of the Dublin
Evening Post was trying to recover the costs of damages resulting from a
report which he had published relying on the account of Nicholas Purcell
O’Gorman (DEP 16 Dec 1815).
The
Irish bishops met on 18 November 1812. They condemned O’Conor’s
book and again stated that no changes could be made in the mode of appointing
Irish bishops without the consent of the Pope. The also condemned Blanchardism, though this did not exist in Ireland, except
in Milner’s imagination (RWC 5
December 1812). The Catholic Board seemed to be more interested in the question
of Burke and Lalor, than on the dilemma which faced
them. Canning was going to bring in a Relief Bill, and he would attach
Securities to that Bill. The Board seems to have been burying its head in the
sand. It was not a question whether they liked Securities, but what they would
do about them.
Ward
quotes a passage that shows Milner’s mind at this time. It refers to proposals
which Dr Moylan of Cork had made in his attempt to get an agreement between the
Irish bishops and the English vicars apostolic. Had these proposals been
adopted
Perfect
peace and harmony would have been restored among the Catholic pastors of these
two islands; the mischievous Resolution of the Tavern meeting would have been
rendered innocuous; the schismatical clauses of the ensuing Bill would not have
been brought forward; the Blanchardist schism would
have been suppressed, and hundreds if not thousands of the emigrant French who
during the following six years died in acknowledged schism without any other
chance for eternity but that which invincible ignorance afforded would have
died in the open communion with the Catholic Church (Ward II).
Milner
was convinced that the discord among the bishops was caused by his opponents
who refused to recognise the truth, that the French émigré clergy would be
damned for ever for not agreeing with his views of the truth, and that George
Canning’s Securities would cause a schism in the Catholic Church. It is hard to
believe however that Troy among other Irish bishops accepted these extreme
formulations.
[December 1812] At his home in Tinnehinch, Co. Wicklow, Grattan with the help of Mr Plunket, Mr Burrows, Mr Burton, and Mr Wallace was drawing
up a Bill to be submitted to Canning (Grattan). Grattan’s
version lacked Canning’s additional clauses. In England, Charles Butler had
been asked to draft a suitable Bill subject to certain conditions, that the
Established Church be maintained, that the Protestant succession to the throne
be maintained, that few a few exception, and consistent with these two
conditions, all statutes against Catholics be repealed (Ward II). Sir John
Newport consulted the local bishop, Dr Power, in Waterford, but when he
reported his views to Grattan the latter was of the opinion that those views
were not common.
[Top]
Canning’s Bill (January to May 1813)
[January
1813] For the next few years the main scene of activity shifted to England.
Firstly, Canning decided without consultation, to settle the matter himself in
his own way. Catholic petitions were therefore unnecessary. Secondly, Dr Poynter took a somewhat more flexible and pragmatic view of
the Securities, and did not regard them as an unmitigated disaster. He decided
it was best if the bishops gave a lead rather waiting for laymen to make honest
mistakes and then condemning them. The agent of the English vicars apostolic, MacPherson, had now safely reached Rome. The Irish bishops
could also have requested a clarification from Rome, but they probably
suspected that it would not be favourable to them, and preferred to wait until
they could send representatives to Rome to see the Pope himself. In the normal
course of events, replies from Rome are replies from the relevant part of the
papal curia even if approved by the Pope. Thirdly, with the defeat of Napoleon,
the Foreign Secretary was able to deal directly and even personally with the
Cardinal Secretary of State. As the matter directly concerned foreign
governments it came under the Secretariate of State
not the Congregation of Propaganda.
[February 1813]
The Irish Catholic Board balloted to select members to accompany the Earl of
Fingall to London. These included the Earl of Kenmare, Sir Francis Goold, Owen O’Connor,
Randall McDonnell, and Peter Hussey. The English Catholic Board asked
Charles Butler to draw up their petition. It contained the following passage,
Your
petitioners also humbly conceive that further securities cannot reasonably be
required of them, but this. With a perfect spirit of conciliation, they leave
to the wisdom and decision of the legislature, feeling confident that the
legislature will never undo or render nugatory its own work by accompanying the
relief granted with any clause or clauses to which your petitioners cannot
conscientiously object (Ward II)
Grattan
now got the assistance of Ponsonby and Elliot,
another Whig MP to draft the Bill. Neither Canning nor Castlereagh seem to have
been involved in the preliminary drafting. Charles Butler was asked to write
out the first draft as he had done on a previous occasion in 1788. Involving
Butler was a mistake, because then Milner would spare no effort to destroy the
Bill. The whole preparation of this Bill presents a scene of confusion. What
was Canning doing to co-ordinate efforts? Castlereagh seems not to have been
consulted, and at his first intervention he said he could not support a bill
without Securities. Donoughmore requested Fingall to
find out the views of Grey and Grenville (Fingall
NLI). Neither the English nor the Irish
framers of the Bill included Securities in their drafts though they may have
been aware of the distinct possibility that others would insist on including
them. Or perhaps they knew that it was intended to include the Securities as a
separate Bill, and to amalgamate the two Bills later. But this seems unlikely.
Monsignor Quarantotti sent a rebuke to Troy and
Milner for interfering in the affairs of the London District, clearly at the
request of MacPherson. Communication with Rome was
now clearly much easier. Poynter kept MacPherson informed of developments (Ward II). After
Napoleon’s defeat in Russia, Murat in Naples made
peace with the British. The French still held the Papal States and the rest of
Northern Italy until defeated by the Neapolitans and Austrians in April 1814.
On 25 February 1813 Grattan
introduced his motion on the Bill. Peel was now the chief Protestant champion
and was to hold that position almost to the end sixteen years later. Sir Henry
Parnell noted that there was no longer a question of examining Catholic
doctrines, catechisms, or oaths as Mr Perceval and Lord Liverpool had agreed
that such matters were irrelevant (Only the aged Patrick Duigenan
persisted in resurrecting them. Duigenan was married
to a Catholic lady and permitted her to keep a chaplain. Duigenan
was almost as famous in the House of Commons for his antiquated bob-wig and Connemara stockings as for his anti-Catholic opinions. He
was MP for Armagh DNB).
Wellesley-Pole made a long speech in favour of Emancipation. Peel made a
powerful speech in reply, accusing Pole of inconsistency. He also accused the
Irish Catholic peers of inconsistency, for in 1791 they broke away from the
Catholic Committee, and today, when they have greater reason to break away they
do not. Castlereagh wished to see the matter discussed ‘ with temper, and moderation,
and coolness’, but insisted that there must be some Securities. He himself had
none in mind at the moment, but noted that the Bill as it now stood lacked
them. He noted that all Catholic rulers had some controls over the Pope’s
actions. He did not think that the veto was incompatible with Catholic
doctrines. The Irish bishops had proposed it to him and not he to them. They
merely stated that the head of their Church must sanction it. He could not
support the Bill in its present form because it contained no Securities. On
this point he confessed pessimistically that he had little hope that a solution
would be arrived at ( 8 March 1813).Grattan’s
motion to go into a Committee to examine the Catholic claims was passed by 264 votes to 224. It was then proposed to
present a series of Resolutions to the House, which being passed would form the
basis of the Bill.
[March 1813]
On 9 March 1813 the Speaker left the Chair and the whole House went into
committee. The Speaker of the House, Charles Abbot, the former Irish Secretary,
could now speak, and he spoke against the Catholics. The chairman of the
committee was Mr Lushington.
Lushington
introduced the topic saying he was unclear about definite proposals. Three
plans had been brought forward. The first was for unlimited concession, but
this was now abandoned. The second had been proposed by Mr Grattan which
proposed Securities, but these were never spelled out in detail. In any case
the Catholics would resist these, and had
done so as recently as the previous November. The third was put forward by a
noble viscount, but was so loaded with that it had little chance of being
adopted. He objected to sweeping aside ancient safeguards like the Test Act,
but would approve of removing particular restrictions like those which
prevented Catholics becoming generals. This was a fair summing-up and was very
close to the mood of the House which eventually prevailed. The first Resolution that the disabilities of
the Catholics should now be removed, with certain safeguards being introduced,
passed by a majority of 67. A parliamentary committee was then selected to draw
up the Bill. It consisted of Henry Grattan, George Ponsonby,
Lord Castlereagh, George Canning, William Elliot, William Conyngham
Plunket, Sir John Newport, Sir Maurice Fitzgerald,
Sir Henry Parnell, Sir Arthur Pigott, Sir Samuel Romilly, Samuel Whitbread, and William Wilberforce. Seven
of the MPs were from Ireland and six from Britain. The English MPs were Whigs,
except Canning.
[April 1813]
Archbishop Troy received a letter on 4 April 1813 from a noble lord (Donoughmore according to Ward) who communicated the heads
of Grattan’s Bill and Mr Canning’s additional
clauses. Troy consulted his parish priests and replied on 12 April deprecating
lay interference not authorised by the Church in the appointment of bishops,
and also the proposed commission of laymen to inspect correspondence which
would be a form of eldership unknown in the Catholic Church. He told Lord
Fingall before his departure with the Address to the Regent that the exclusion
of bishops from the proposed commission was insulting to the Catholic clergy.
The Board of Trustees of Maynooth College was obviously to be the model for the
proposed commission, and the laymen were mostly members of the Irish Catholic
aristocracy.
Castlereagh
knew, if nobody else did, that what the Bill proposed was perfectly compatible
with Catholic discipline, and that the Pope’s assent would be required, and
also that the Pope’s assent would be forthcoming. He also knew, and Troy knew,
that European governments routinely examined correspondence, and that it was to
everyone’s advantage that respected Catholic laymen with a few token
Protestants should be appointed openly to this commission, to exercise their
right of examination should they ever think it necessary. He knew and Troy knew
that the vast bulk of communications with Rome dealt with minor dispensations
like allowing the eating of meat in Lent to particular individuals. The only
correspondence that it was envisaged would be examined concerned the election
of bishops. It could be quickly agreed with the Irish bishops that all
correspondence on that subject, and only such correspondence should be
forwarded and received through the Government office. But both knew that it was
not possible to discuss such matters openly in any meeting in Ireland. We can
also assume that Castlereagh and Canning knew that the Irish bishops were
aiming to get the recommendation of bishops exclusively in their own hands,
while the clergy of the various dioceses were trying to secure the nominations
to themselves. Even if Castlereagh did not consider these matters before, a
brief conversation with Grattan, Plunket or Parnell
would have informed him of recent developments. Canning decided to act on the views
of Dr Power of Waterford. The latter, when he heard this, informed Milner, who
went on the warpath again, and set out for London. The opponents of the Bill
made full use of Milner’s rejection of it. At a meeting held at Ponsonby’s house Donoughmore, Grattan, and Ponsonby
registered their disapproval of Canning’s clauses, but they were over-ruled.
Castlereagh said he had clauses of his own to add to give to the crown greater
powers over the appointment of Catholic bishops (Grattan). The Irish noblemen
to be lay commissioners were to be Lords Fingall, Kenmare, Trimleston,
Gormanston, and Southwell.
The peers on the corresponding English commission were to be Lords Shrewsbury, Stourton, Petre, Arundell, and Clifford (Ward II ).
The
Irish Catholic noblemen at the time were Arthur James Plunket,
Earl of Fingall; Valentine Brown, Earl of Kenmare; Jenico
Preston, Viscount Gormanston; John Netterville, Viscount Netterville;
Thomas Anthony Southwell, Viscount Southwell; Nicholas Barnewall,
Viscount Trimleston; and Thomas Ffrench, Baron
Ffrench. Also counted as an Irish peer was Charles Talbot, Earl of Waterford
but more commonly known as the Earl of Shrewsbury in England. Lord Kenmare
eldest son was called by courtesy Lord Castlerosse,
and Fingall’s eldest son was similarly called Lord
Killeen. Trimleston was 84 years old and inactive,
but one of his sons, the Hon. John Thomas Barnewall
was active in Catholic circles. The Southwells were
unusual in that they were a Protestant family which had become Catholic in the
18th century (RWC 10
December 1812). Not counted in this list were baronets like Sir Edward Bellew, as these were not considered peers and had no
rights to seats in the House of Lords. They were like hereditary knights.
Archbishop
Carroll of Baltimore had been trying to contact the Pope since the death of Dr Concanen in 1810, and on 12 April 1813 wrote to Troy that
he had been unable to reach him. It was thought that one letter got through,
but there was no reply (Moran). Troy had similar problems because there were
now several vacancies among the Irish bishops which could not be filled.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the Irish bishops were using the excuse that
they could not reach to Pope personally to prevent any discussions of
ecclesiastical discipline until they were in a position to put their views to
the Pope. Carroll, in the United States, was in the unique position at the time
of being under the one Government, Catholic or Protestant, in the world that
did not seek some control over the appointment of bishops. Carroll’s trouble
was that Troy wanted some influence over the appointment of American bishops.
Troy succeeded in 1814 in getting another Dominican Dr Connolly OP, to which
Order Troy belonged, appointed to New York. This was a
reversion to the practice in the previous century when Rome accepted
recommendations or endorsements from any quarter. As Dr Patrick Curtis a few
years later asked the Duke of Wellington for his endorsement, the practice
clearly had not died out.
[May 1812]
Canning wrote to Troy on 3 May 1813 out of courtesy informing him of the
additional clauses. This was merely to inform him, not to invite a debate for
Parliament would decide. Troy replied to him on the 8th noting the
strong objections in Dublin; he said that if the commissions were ever admitted
they should have a majority of bishops, or at least an equal number of peers
and prelates, and he reminded Canning that nothing could be changed without the
consent of the Pope. At this point too, Edward Hay wrote to Counsellor Finn
saying that the Bill would not pass without the Securities, but that he had
been able to secure some modifications to them, and that the intended
commissions had been altered so as to be only a kind of registry (SNL 9 June 1813). Both Hay and Troy, by
these admissions of correspondence had laid themselves open to charges by the
Catholic hard-liners that they were negotiating away the rights of
fellow-Catholics for personal gain. Hay and Troy were realistic enough to see
that if the Bill were to pass it was best to secure the most modifications that
could be attained. People like Milner thought that any Bill that did not meet
their full approval should be killed. There were many people like Milner in
Ireland. Clear-minded people like Lushington could see
that the Catholics could have either a wholesale purging of the Penal Code
accompanied by Securities, or a series of piece-meal and gradualist reforms
allowing them into particular offices and without Securities. But as always in
Ireland, and not only in Ireland, there were always those fired with an ideal
or ideology who saw any kind of compromise as a betrayal of the cause.
The
Catholic Board met on 1 May with Lord Fingall in the chair. This meeting was
conducted in private, but O’Connell gave a full account of it to the Dublin Evening Post which printed it on
4 May (DNB). Two letters from Edward
Hay were read out explaining his prolonged stay in London. It was decided that
the mandate of the delegates to present the address to the Regent was expired,
so an additional mandate was passed and Sir Edward Bellew,
Major Bryan, Denys Scully, Daniel O’Connell, and John
Bagot were appointed as additional delegates. Fingall
promised that they would sail on the first fair wind. O’Connell spoke
eloquently on the proposed Bill. He apparently had been given a good indication
of what the Bill would contain. He denounced the Bill as ‘restricted in
principle, doubtful in its wording, and inadequate to that full relief which
had been generally expected’. The ecclesiastical provisions of the Bill he left
to the bishops, but with the warning, that if the bishops accepted them he
might find it his duty ‘to protest against any measure that might tarnish the
last relic of the nation’s independence – its religion (DNB). It is a curious argument. The clauses were an additional
minor reduction of the powers of the native chiefs of Ireland who had been
under the crown since the reign of Henry II of Anjou in 1171. He emerged as a
populist orator, prepared for his own purposes to pander to the prejudices of
his audience, and ready with a host of alternative suggestions regarding what
the Government might do with a total disregard for their practicality. These
traits remained with him for the rest of his life. O’Connell was a man prepared
to use every trick in the book to win an argument; outright lies, bluff, coarse
abuse, challenges to fight duels, allegations
regarding the drawbacks of possible interpretations, and back-stabbing
with allegations of treating with ministers (SNL 6 May 1813).
On
4 May 1813 the text of the proposed Bill was published in the Dublin papers.
All future Bills except the final one were modifications of this Bill. A simple
oath of allegiance to His Majesty would be required. Catholics could sit in
Parliament, could vote and could be promoted to all civil offices except Lord
Chancellor of England and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (these were excepted
because patronage in the Established Churches was connected with the offices.
All Catholic clergymen were to take the oath of allegiance. This same oath to
be used by all Catholics when an oath is required in the king’s courts. They
could be members of any corporate body, including the Bank of Ireland and the
universities, provided this does not interfere with appointments in which the
Established Churches have an interest such as ecclesiastical courts, or an
office in a university with an ecclesiastical foundation. Only British subjects
could become bishops, and those elected bishops must be residents in the United
Kingdom for a period before their election.
The
additional clauses stated that certain persons, to be named, were to be appointed Commissioners for the
purposes of the present Act; such a commissioner must be a resident peer or a
commoner with a freehold of £1,000 p.a.; the Commissioners had power to appoint
and remove a Secretary paid out of Government funds; every person nominated,
elected or appointed ‘according to the usages of the Roman Catholic Church, was
to notify the said Secretary who would inform the Commissioners who by majority
vote would decide on his loyalty; a similar commission was to be appointed for
Ireland. Bulls and rescripts were to be presented to
a similar commission, but this one, following the Maynooth model was to include
the Lord Chancellor, the Irish Secretary, and the Catholic archbishops of
Armagh and Dublin, unless the recipient testified under oath that the
communication was purely of a spiritual nature. This last clause virtually
repealed the Statutes of Praemunire)
(SNL 4,5 May 1813).
Nothing
more innocuous could be devised, and
similar tests of loyalty had been imposed by Catholic monarchs since feudal
times. The Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland had accepted royal nomination
by the exiled Stuart monarchs until about twenty five years previously. The
British king had definite rights in the appointment of bishops in Canada.
Furthermore, as Castlereagh was to point out, it was his duty as Foreign
Secretary to advise the Regent on whom to nominate as the Catholic bishop of Malta,
‘who, having been nominated by the crown, received afterwards his canonical
induction from the See of Rome’ (SNL
15 May 1813) . (Malta was a peculiar case. It was a sovereign state under the
Knights of Malta, was captured by Napoleon in 1798 and returned to the Knights
in 1802. The people however preferred British rule. The Prince Regent was
obviously exercising the powers of the Grand Master of the Knights with the
consent of the Holy See.) Yet these clauses which everyone knew could be conceded but which most of the
Irish bishops and laymen (with Milner) felt ought
not to be conceded paralysed Catholic action for nearly a decade. Not only
were the Irish lay Catholics (with Milner) divided into s and anti-s, but also
the Irish Catholic laity became very suspicious of the Irish bishops.
As
Hay had written to Counsellor Finn, the commissions had been reduced virtually
to a species of registry. Catholic priests had to be registered since 1703
while bishops were excluded. Now bishops were to be added to the register. When
Finn disclosed this to the Catholic Board a delegation was sent to Troy to find
out what he had been negotiating behind their backs. Troy wrote to Donoughmore saying that his letter was confidential and
wanted to know how Hay got to see it, and he was still more surprised that Mr
Hay had asserted that he had assented to the clauses. Troy later explained that
he had discussed the matter with a certain baronet. (Ward thinks it was Coxe Hippisley, but references in
the Irish newspapers seem to point rather at Sir Edward Bellew.)
Troy had told him what the Irish bishops would accept if they were forced, not
what they wished. Troy about this time wrote to Dr MacPherson
in Rome saying that it was impossible to prevent the passing of the Bill, but
they were doing what they could to get modifications. The modification he was
looking for was equal representation of the bishops on the commissions. As with
the Maynooth Board the lay representatives would be there pro forma, and all the real discussions would be confined to the
bishops. (It was remarked even a century later, that the episcopal trustees of
Maynooth discussed the affairs of the College with the President of the College
outside the door!)
On
11 May 1813 Canning introduced his proposed Securities in Parliament, making it
clear that he required a royal veto on the appointment of bishops, but he had
difficulty in drafting his clauses and on 19 May, at Castlereagh’s
suggestion withdrew the clauses for further discussion. This veto was clearly
to be purely a negative veto, and the veto would be activated only in cases of
suspected treason as testified by the Commissioners. Charles Butler wrote to
Troy to say that he had been merely consulted on points of canon law. He
considered the additional clauses both unnecessary and innocuous. He added
The
clauses were not imagined by me, the only part I have taken in them is that
finding that safeguards were absolutely required, I have worked day and night
to bring them down to a form the least unpleasant to the Roman Catholics which
those who require safeguards could be brought to endure...
I beg
leave however to add that in practice the commission will prove a mere matter
of form; secondly that it deserves consideration that if any bull or other
instrument described by the Act should be obtained and not produced it will be
next to impossible to convict the party of it by legal evidence; and thirdly,
as the law now stands the obtaining of such a bull is in Ireland punishable by
the forfeiture of all the party’s real and personal estate and by his being put
out of the king’s protection; and that in England it is high treason, so that
in such an extreme case as I have mentioned, the Act will be beneficial to the
party convicted (Ward II).
Butler
seems to be referring to a decision of a former Lord Chief Justice of England
who refused to convict a Catholic priest of saying mass on the grounds that the
Protestant informer did not know what a mass looked like. The last clauses show
some ways in which English and Irish statutes could differ. Contacting the Pope
in Ireland without permission resulted in forfeiture of lands and outlawry; in
England it amounted also to high treason the punishment for which was
beheading.
Once again it is difficult to
determine the grounds of objection of the various parties. Milner considered it
a Gallican plot. The bishops seem to have been trying to increase the influence
of their own order, without admitting that this was what they were doing. The
view of the laymen reflected by O’Connell seems to have been that in some way
one of the last surviving relics of Irish independence whittled away since the
twelfth century was being tampered with. But there was the long-standing
connection between the campaign for Relief for the Catholics and the original
ideals of the United Irishmen, reform of Parliament, greater democratic
participation, and control of the influence of the crown which was seen as
malign and corrupt. Yet these were very unformed ideas. Popular democracy and
manhood suffrage were not thought of, though they existed in the United States.
Ideas of ending corrupt boroughs and ending control of the counties by the
great landowners were only just being considered. The parish priests were just
beginning to claim a right that historically they did not have of choosing
their bishops. But none of these points figured prominently in the debates. The
Catholic laity recognised that choosing bishops was a purely ecclesiastical
matter. (This Hildebrandine view was completely accepted at the time; only
after the Second Vatican Council 1962-1965 was this view challenged.) Yet the
popular feeling against the ecclesiastical clauses was very strong.
The Irish bishops met on 26 May and
duly condemned the clauses, echoing Milner and
claiming it would cause a schism. Milner produced a flysheet and
distributed it among the MPs condemning the Bill on 21 May . He went so far as
to say that the proposed clauses were totally incompatible with Catholic
doctrine and would cause a schism if adopted. He did not say how exactly this
schism would occur. Presumably, and against the evidence, he believed that the
Pope would reject the Securities, and that some of the vicars apostolic would
defy the Pope and accept them. This danger only existed in his imagination. It
did not cross his mind that the Pope might accept the Securities, and that in
such a case he and the Irish bishops would have to accept them or themselves
cause a schism. It is worth remembering that the opinion of Rome never changed.
The Pope was prepared to grant the necessary powers or most of them to the
British Crown, and finally did not grant them only because Peel refused to ask
for them. Nor did he consider the case where the Pope granted the necessary
powers, and the Catholic laymen accepted their positions on the Commissions.
Rome in that case would simply direct all correspondence to the Commissioners,
and only receive nominations through the commissioners. The Pope would then do, as he eventually did,
step in and regulate the election of Irish bishops, restricting nominations to
the clergy of the diocese and the bishops of the Province. He ignored any
effect his words had on Castlereagh who knew he was not speaking the truth.
(This did not mean the Milner was deliberately telling lies; it was just that
he always believed that his views were correct, and those of his opponents
obviously wrong.) The English Catholic Board got Butler to write a pamphlet
against Milner. Poynter, more reasonably, refused to
commit himself until he saw what modifications could be obtained. Poynter, over the next few years was to prove to be the
outstanding bishop as far as good judgement and a spirit of tolerance and
conciliation was concerned. It is the greatest pity that the Irish bishops
preferred to rely on Milner than on him. More astonishing than Milner’s views,
for he was an obstinate and self-opinionated man, was the fact that the Irish
bishops endorsed his views. If Milner could not see the consequences of his
words, they collectively should have been more far-sighted and thorough.
The House went into committee on 24
May 1813, and the Speaker, Abbot. Having vacated the chair, proposed an
amendment to the first clause on the grounds that Archbishop Troy and Dr Milner
were opposed to the Bill. The amendment he proposed was that the clause
proposing to give the right to Catholics to sit in Parliament should be
deleted. Abbot said that for his part he would give the direct nomination of
British and Irish Bishops to the king as was the case in Canada and Malta. But
these two bishops had said that the Securities were even worse than a veto.
This amendment was carried by a majority of four votes. The Whigs and Canning
at this point withdrew their support for the entire Bill, though Canning later
regretted his haste in throwing up the entire Bill when only one clause,
admittedly an important one, had been lost. There was much to be said for
Canning’s more considered view. It was also not possible to foresee the future,
or to know that almost a decade would pass before the ground lost in 1813 was
recovered. Milner, to whom the essential point in the Bill was the veto by
laymen congratulated himself on stopping the Bill. The Clauses were not Whig
policy so they were unconcerned by their defeat on that issue. The clauses were
the policy of moderate Protestants whose support at that time was essential to
get a Catholic Relief Bill passed. The issue had already been decided when the
Irish bishops two days later objected to the ecclesiastical clauses. Grattan on
31 May announced that another Bill would be introduced the following session.
Canning said that the Catholics should first free themselves from the tyranny
of their bishops, which was rather misunderstanding the question for the
bishops to some extent at least were reacting to the feelings of their flocks.
Canning’s habit of making over-sharp comments was one of the reasons the office
of prime minister was withheld from him for so long. He wished to take a sickly
child to the sunnier climate of Portugal and so he applied for the post of
ambassador to Lisbon
The English Catholic Board met on 29
May 1813 and passed a vote of the warmest thanks to the parliamentary committee
which had prepared the Bill. It dissociated itself from Milner’s writings and
passed a vote of confidence in Charles Butler. The Irish Catholic Board met on
29 May 1813 in the Stationers’ Hall with Lord Trimleston
in the chair. Trimleston announced the withdrawal of
the Bill. O’Connell proposed a vote of thanks to the bishops. Not all the
members present were happy with this. One member, Anthony Hussey, commented
that the bishops would have done better to explain how exactly schism would
have occurred. Counsellor Bellew said he thought the
bishops had been extremely indiscreet. He and his brother, Sir Edward, with
reason, considered that a plain vote of thanks was sufficient. Ominously, Bellew also proposed a vote of confidence in Edward Hay. Luby remarks that O’Connell never failed to mention that
Counsellor Bellew had a small pension form the
Government. Obviously, Hay’s efforts in London were coming under attack. The
motion was duly passed. The person attacking Hay was O’Connell, and his attacks
had started the previous year. Hay referred to his ‘unjustifiable insinuation’
and the ‘assassinating and calumnious attacks made on me in the discharge of my
public duty in London’. This would seem to imply suspicion of Hay’s dealing in
London, but O’Connell now demanded that Hay’s accounts be audited. The accounts
were duly audited on 27 July 1813 by O’Connell, Nicholas Mahon a rich Catholic
banker, and Mr J. Sugrue and found to be in order.
Hay refused to keep the accounts any longer, so O'Connell took charge of them.
Hay handed over to him a sum of just over £695 which was held in Ffrench’s bank
(SNL 1, 12, 21 July 1824. Hay was
later imprisoned for debt when O’Connell failed to pay certain debts of the
Catholic Board, see also DEP 3 July
1819).
[June
1813] At the next meeting of the Catholic Board on 5 June 1813, a long
letter from Troy to O’Connell was read out in which he too denied negotiating
with the ministers. He had only made some suggestion to the Earl of Donoughmore. He had also suggested to an unnamed baronet
that if the commissions were set up it would be necessary to have bishops on
them. Nor had he any communication with the baronet’s brother (presumably
Counsellor Bellew). Sir Edward Bellew
later wrote to explain how the misunderstanding between himself and Archbishop
Troy had arisen. There was clearly a witchhunt in
progress for the Earl of Fingall was asked to give an account of what passed
between himself and the Regent. A Resolution of thanks to Milner was passed,
and also one proposed by O’Connell for an address to the Princess of Wales, the
Regent’s estranged wife. What he intended by this is anyone’s guess. Luby noted that the Board’s debts at this time amounted to
£3,000 [at least £100,000 in today’s money].
[Top]
Poynter’s Recourse to Rome (June 1813 to April
1814)
In May 1813 Napoleon fought the
Prussians and Russians who were advancing through Germany at Luetzen and Bautzen, but in view
of his heavy casualties agreed to an armistice. French armies all over Europe
were thinned out to build up the emperor's army to
meet the main allied advance. Wellington was not ready to advance until the
middle of May, and this time, no longer fearing to be outflanked marched his
army straight towards the French frontier. At long last his army now numbering
100,000 men were supplied with tents. The French blew up the fortress of Burgos
and retreated towards the French frontier, and concentrated their army at a
town called Vitoria. Wellington attacked the town on
21 June and drove out the French. The news of the aptly named victory sped
around Europe . Prussia and Russia ended the armistice and resumed the war,
being joined by Austria in August, and then by Sweden. Wellington advanced to
the Pyrenees where his advance was slowed by the French now regrouped under
Marshal Soult. A close relative of Daniel O’Connell,
Lieutenant John O’Connell was killed at the siege of San Sebastien.
In October, the combined armies of Prussia, Russia, Sweden, and Austria heavily
defeated Napoleon at Leipzig. At this point recruitment to the French army
started to dry up. By the end of the year, France was surrounded, and everyone
knew that it could not last another year.
At home, the Earl of Richmond was
replaced in August by Earl Whitworth (Charles Whitworth, Earl Whitworth). He
owed his appointment to the fact that his wife was related to Lord Liverpool.
He had been a successful ambassador in Paris following the Peace of Amiens
1802. There was no change of policy in Ireland.
[August
1813] Dr Poynter felt that the bishops were in a
false position. Emancipation for laymen was not an ecclesiastical concern, but
annexed to the Bill were proposals which affected the bishops and the Holy See.
Many of the English Catholic laymen, and a number of the Irish Catholic laymen,
were prepared to accept the Government’s proposals, subject of course to the
approval of Rome. If the Bill were passed, Castlereagh would apply directly to
the Holy See, bypassing the bishops altogether. On the other hand, as Dr Doyle
was later to explain, the bishops had no wish to have the rejection of
Emancipation laid at their door. O’Connell’s fulsome praise of the action of
the bishops was clearly aimed at this end.
The English Catholic Board requested
guidance from their bishops who had dissociated themselves clearly from
Milner’s views, and if recourse to Rome was necessary, the offered to pay all
the expenses. Poynter invited all the English and
Scottish vicars apostolic except Milner to meet him at Ushaw
College. These bishops were thoroughly fed up with Milner’s conduct at
meetings, at his reporting everything they said to the Irish bishops, and
writing to the press providing distorted information about their proceedings.
They were no longer willing to attend any meeting at which Milner was present.
No formal meetings of the British bishops after the manner of the Irish bishops
could take place until he died. The bishops met in August and again in October,
and Poynter kept MacPherson
in Rome informed who passed on the information to Monsignor Quarantotti.
There is little doubt that Quarantotti was able to
keep the Pope at Fontainebleau abreast of the main developments for a large
ring of papal servants was engaged in smuggling tiny messages to the Pope.
A meeting was held in Kilkenny with
Major Bryan in the chair on 4 August 1813 .Bryan permitted the Kilkenny
Resolutions to pass assuming that the proposer would
take full responsibility for them, and that they were not to be published. Some
of these the Government objected to. They were inserted in the Dublin Evening Post as a paid
advertisement, in Magee’s absence, as he explained to the court ‘by his
servants and agents in the course of his trade and for a fee for his master’s
gain’ (SNL 5 February,17 March 1814).
[October 1813]
The Irish Catholic Board continued to meet and preparations were made for a
general petition and local petitions. At one point Troy summoned the clergy of
his diocese to discuss the theological errors in the general petition, and
found Socinian or even heretical expressions in it!
The theological phrases were excised. (Socinians
accepted the Bible but not the divinity of Christ) (SNL 19, 23 October 1813). There was a notable absence of members of
the nobility, those who met in Lord Trimleston’s house. Luby noted
that O’Connell wanted the seceders to return, and
O’Connell referred to the secession in 1813. It does not follow that rival
meetings were held in Lord Trimleston’s house at this
date, though they were held later.
[November
1813] The session of Parliament opened on 4 November 1813. In November the
Dublin Catholics decided to draw up their own Bill if Grattan and Donoughmore could be persuaded to present it. At a meeting
on 13 November the implications of the battle of Leipzig were discussed and the
possibility that the Pope would soon be free. O’Connell stress the necessity of
forestalling the English Catholics by making the prior consent of the Irish
hierarchy a necessary condition of any settlement. Dr Drumgoole
however considered that this made the bishops the negotiators and they might
not be reliable. O’Connell added ‘having once adopted the Resolution, gentlemen
could as freeholders dictate a line of conduct to their representatives in
Parliament, and punish them for not following it by refusing them support in
the ensuing elections (SNL 15 Nov
1813). As Donoughmore’s brother had been thrown out
by the electors in Cork in the previous election this was scarcely the most
tactful approach, even if Donoughmore could stomach
it on other grounds. O’Connell was not in favour of entering into a discussion
with Grattan and Donoughmore over the content of the
Bill, but rather in stating in writing before hand what the Bill must contain (SNL 17 Nov 1813).
Donoughmore wrote
on the 12 November to Nicholas Mahon as Chairman of the Catholic Board that as
he had read in the newspapers the nature of the communication to be made to
himself he must decline to assist them. It was absurd that the Catholic Board
should draw up a Bill, get the consent of the Irish bishops, and then present
it to the Lords and Commons for their simple assent! (SNL 22 Nov 1813). Grattan on the 18th wrote that the
sole function of the Chairman of the Catholic Board was to communicate with his
parliamentary representative. O’Connell said it was all a misunderstanding! Mr Costigan said that the letters were a useful check to the
violence of the party that continued to lead the Board. How the Catholic Ultras
got so far out of contact with reality is a matter for astonishment. We might
presume that they believed that Charles Butler had drawn up the previous Bill
precisely in order to get English Catholics into Parliament at any cost, and
that the vicars apostolic had concurred with Butler. Butler denied that he
played any such part, and the vicars apostolic expressly denied that they had
conceded any security.
[December
1813] At a meeting of the Catholic Board on 8 December Lord Ffrench took
the chair, and Richard Lalor Sheil spoke. Sheil noted
that while he agreed with all the arguments against the Securities, all their
representatives in Parliament had insisted on their necessity. The reason for
this was that some concessions had to be made to English prejudices. At a
meeting on 11 December the sum of one thousand guineas was voted for a service
of plate for O’Connell. Luke Plunkett denied that he and Lord Killeen intended
to secede.
There
was at this time another episode taking place which did not concern the Irish
Catholic Board but which Catholic barristers, principally O’Connell and Scully
were deeply implicated. This was the campaign by the Government against
‘seditious libels’. This campaign had been started in England and was directed
against sections of the English which printed articles considered favourable to
the French Revolution. A seditious libel was a written or printed document like
a newspaper which contained writing likely to cause a riot (Keenan II) . In one
particular trial in Ireland the words concerning the Duke of Richmond’s
administration ‘They insulted, they oppressed, they murdered, and they
deceived’ were selected as being seditious. Articles in newspapers were
anonymous, so the proprietor of the newspaper was indicted instead. The idea
was to flush out the writer of the article. John Magee, the proprietor of the Dublin Evening Post was charged, and
O’Connell was engaged for the defence. Luby considers
that Peel started the campaign, but it is far more likely that it was Saurin.
However O’Connell, who never forgot a real or imaginary injury commenced his
life-long feud with Peel. His defence consisted in trying to provoke the
attorney general to send a challenge to a duel. This was a tactic favoured by
Irish barristers in the previous century when a pair of good duelling pistols
was considered more important than a library of law books, but it was now going
out of fashion. Everyone in the court recognised the tactic and it was deplored
by the presiding judge who felt that he was doing his client no favours. The
court found the defence, printed by Magee, an aggravation of the original
charge and increased the sentence. He was sentenced on 29 November 1813 to
imprisonment for two years and a fine of £500 [about £20,000 today]. After a
second trial on a different charge, the Kilkenny Resolutions, in February 1814
when he was fined a further £1,000 and given an extra six months in gaol.
Magee, a young and inexperienced man, pleaded guilty, handed over the newspaper to his brother
James, who hastily dropped O’Connell, and brought in the experienced Frederick
Conway to act as editor of his newspaper. O’Connell never apologised to Magee,
paid anything towards his expenses, or did anything to get him out of prison.
Conway, editor and later owner of the Post
never forgot the shabby way O’Connell had treated Magee. He realised that
O’Connell used people as tools to be discarded when they were of no further
use. The atmosphere surrounding the trial may explain the attitude of the
Ultras on the Catholic Board, and why people of more moderate views stayed
away. Not to mention the attitude of witch-hunting. John (Honest Jack) Lawless was given the
nickname by which he was ever after known, for proposing that those responsible
for the printed articles should pay the costs incurred. Magee spent two years
in prison, and paid one of the fines. The Government then remitted the other
In
December 1813 Monsignor Quarantotti set up a special
commission or Congregation to consider the communications from Dr. Poynter as well as communications from Dr Troy and Dr
Milner. MacPherson
laid seven queries before the Congregation, who consulted four leading
theologians:
1)
Should the matter be reserved
to the Pope?
2)
Could the prescribed oath be
taken?
3)
Could the proposed Commissions
be accepted?
4)
Should the restriction of the
reservation of the episcopal office to British and Irish nationals be allowed?
5)
Should a royal veto be allowed?
6)
Should the Resolution of the
English vicars apostolic be considered?
7)
If the Bill cannot in any way
be accepted what reply should be made to the vicars apostolic? Ward II).
The
rapid progress of the War was reflected by the fact that Castlereagh was able
to travel to the Continent. He set out on 26 December 1813 to keep the
Coalition together and to prevent the Allies from making a too easy peace with
Napoleon, and allowing France to retain parts of its conquests. The winter in
1813 was one of the harshest in living memory so Castlereagh must have been
very cold in his unheated coach.
[January 1814] Napoleon was preparing
to negotiate with the Allies, and especially with Catholic Austria from which
his second wife had come. He therefore decided to restore the Papal States and
to send the Pope back to Savona. In Dublin the
Catholic Board was taken up with internal disputes and soon lost all respect.
Jack Lawless attacked the ‘Knocklofty’ sentiments of Donoughmore, Knocklofty being
where Donoughmore lived. O’Connell refused to divulge
the contents of his Relief Bill, but observed that Canning’s Bill had been
drafted by Charles Butler (SNL 10
January 1814). Purcell O’Gorman had been sent by the Board to Derry to assist
the priest, Fr Cornelius O’Mullane, who was charged
with promoting a riot when organising a petition, and found guilty. This priest
seems to have been the first in Ireland to involve himself directly in
politics. He was suspended by his bishop and is apparently the same priest who
was secreted in a nearby cabin when O’Connell fought his duel with D’Esterre (MacDonough).
[February
1814] Napoleon attacked the Allies and forced them back temporarily. He
stripped the French armies in northern Italy on most of their troops leaving
the Austrians virtually unopposed while he concentrated his main force against
the greatest threat. Wellington, now
across the Pyrenees on French soil, on 14 February 1813 commenced the last
campaign in the Peninsular War.
Quarantotti’s
Congregation met on 15 February 1814 and issued two ‘rescripts’
the following day. They were called rescripts rather
than bulls or briefs because they were of the nature of private replies to
private requests for guidance. (One standard reply to questions from
individuals regarding disputed points of theology was ‘Consult approved authors’.)
In this case, the Congregation of Propaganda gave definite guidance regarding
what the Holy See was prepared to concede. There was no question of doctrine,
still less of infallibility being involved. One of the letters was addressed to
the British Government and again asked for its assistance. The other was
addressed to Dr Poynter and is commonly called the ‘Quarantotti Rescript’. When the Rescripts were ready for dispatch they were handed to Dr MacPherson for carriage to England.
On 17 February the English Catholics met and
approved the petition for Emancipation and entrusted it to Lord Grey and Mr
Elliot. The Catholic Board in Dublin sent their petition again to Donoughmore and Grattan apparently with the heads of
O’Connell’s Bill.
[March 1813]
MacPherson left Rome on 10 March 1813 on the very day
that Napoleon freed the Pope. The latter was released from Savona
and made his way back to Rome. He and MacPherson
passed each other but did not meet, MacPherson
travelling through Germany. Pius however, on 29 March, came up to the British
force at Modena under Lord William Bentinck, which was accompanying the Austrian unopposed
march across northern Italy. Bentinck supplied the
Pope with sufficient money to get himself back to Rome, and conveyed to him verbally
the contents of the Rescript. The Allies entered
Paris and a provisional French government was established. Cardinal Consalvi, the papal Secretary of State, when he was
released from Fontainbleau, went to Paris to pursue
the Pope’s main interest, the restoration of the Papal States. Once again the
British Government was the only one the Pope could trust not to have designs
for annexing the Papal States. As Secretary of State, Consalvi
was only concerned with civil matters. He was not a priest, having taken only
deacon’s orders. A cardinal had to be at least a deacon. The French army in
Italy under Eugene de Beauharnais formally
surrendered on the 16 April 1814.
Donoughmore
replied stiffly to Mr P. Roche, the chairman of the Catholic Board on the day the
petition was adopted. He said he received their suggestions as from an
interested party, but does not bind himself to consider all or any of them, as
it were a treaty between the Catholics and the sovereign power of the state,
and not being bound in the remotest degree to regulate his conduct by them. Grattan on 7 March said he would take their suggestions into consideration (SNL 28 March 1814).
[April 1814]
On 10 April 1813 Wellington at Toulouse fought the last battle of the War. On
11 April 1814 Napoleon abdicated. On MacPherson’s
arrival in London on 26 April, Poynter took the civil
Rescript to the Foreign Office and presented it to
the Earl of Bathurst who was deputising for Castlereagh who was absent in
Paris. Poynter translated the other Rescript from the Latin and published it. All the other
newspapers quickly copied it. The Treaty of Fontainebleau
was ratified on 16 April 1814 and Napoleon was exiled to Elba. Castlereagh
offered to Wellington, now made Duke of Wellington, the position of Ambassador
to Paris which he accepted. On 18 April the houses in Dublin city were
illuminated for the victory. This meant candles were placed in every window. It
was announced that the mailcoach from Dublin to Cork travelled the distance in
22 hours knocking four hours off the schedule. A fancy dress ball was held in
the Rotunda in Dublin with Lord Killeen in Italian military uniform, and John
Leslie Foster as the Grand Turk.
[Top]
The Quarantotti Rescript and the Genoese Letter
(May 1814 to June 1815)
The
events in mid-April, the abdication of Napoleon, and the receipt of the Quarantotti Rescript produced
sudden bursts of activity in several quarters.
[May 1814]
The emperor of Russia and the king of Prussia visited London. Consalvi followed them to London, and on 5 July 1814 he was
presented to the Prince Regent by Castlereagh. Consalvi
was the first cardinal to come to England since the death of Mary Tudor in
1558. Lord Liverpool’s ministry had decided that it would seek no profit from
the peace, a piece of disinterestedness which struck the French as the utmost
folly. Consalvi wanted Castlereagh’s
help in getting the Papal States restored, and Castlereagh wanted Consalvi’s help in getting the Pope to grant the
Securities, and also to help in suppressing the Slave Trade. The Regent offered
to pay all the Pope’s expenses until the papal treasury was back in working
order. The Pope offered all the pillaged papal treasures to the Regent because
he could not afford to transport them back to Rome. The French had no objection
to them staying in France. The Regent had them carried back to Rome at his own
expense.
On
the 4 May a summary of the communication of the Pope to Bentinck
was published in the Dublin newspapers. It was also reported that the Pope had
confirmed the concession of the veto in a full consistory
of cardinals. The Rescript was published in the
original Latin in Saunders Newsletter
on 7 May 1814. It conceded the veto and also to a certain extent the exequatur. The
right of inspection of documents, and those only of a certain political nature,
was conceded, not the right to suppress them. For communications of this kind
by the Pope should be open to the inspection of all. Bishops were to be
subjects of the crown, and to have resided for five years in the kingdom prior
to appointment. If the Bill were brought in again, and the two commissions
again proposed, let the Catholics accept the Bill with a grateful mind (gratoque animo excipiant).
O’Connell
reacted violently to the Rescript. At a meeting of
the Board on 8 May 1814 with Mr Howley
in the Chair, he said he would rather be guided by Constantinople than Rome in
the matter. He had by now convinced himself that the honour of Ireland as a
nation was at stake, but as always with him it is difficult to know his real
feelings. If he felt it necessary to play to the gallery, or adopt a course to
outwit a rival he would do so. Some of the Catholic clergy of Dublin met on 12 May in Bridge Street
chapel. There were six parish priests, twenty two curates or other clergy, and
four regulars. Their leader was Dr Michael Blake, vicar general of Dublin,
afterwards first rector of the restored Irish College in Rome, and then bishop
of Dromore. They pointed out that the Rescript was
not obligatory as it lacked the Pope’s signature. They passed resolutions
saying that any such change was inexpedient. Other diocesan meetings of the
clergy were held in other dioceses, Cloyne, Cork, Ossory, Dromore, Clonfert, and Meath, all denouncing the Rescript.
Some assembled with the permission of their bishops, but Archbishop Troy
forbade any further meetings of priests in his diocese. Most of the bishops
seem to have accepted the Rescript, and probably a
majority of the parish priests as well. It was the noisy protestors who caught
the headlines. Milner then set off for Rome to put
his case to the Pope in person. Troy was getting distinctly unhappy at the
sight of ecclesiastical policy being decided at public meetings of priests and
even laymen when the matter concerned only the bishops and the Pope. At the
same time O’Connell and the Catholic Ultras were getting more and more
suspicious of anything that was not discussed in a meeting open to all. An Aggregate Meeting was held on 19 May with
Thomas Wyse in the chair, and with the gallery full of ladies, and it rejected
any rescript giving political control in Ireland. The
Resolutions expressed the themes that the anti-s were to keep repeating over
the next few years: that the Rescript was
non-mandatory, that the concessions would be destructive of religion because of
the anti-Catholic nature of the Government, and that Domestic Nomination would
provide a sufficient safeguard. They ignored the need to pander a little to
Protestant prejudice.
Troy
accepted the Rescript, though when writing to Milner he deplored it. But other Irish bishops like Dr Coppinger of Cloyne, Dr Derry of Dromore and Dr O’Shaughnessy of Killaloe denounced it. The Irish Catholics
were particularly annoyed that the reply had been sent to an English vicar
apostolic (Ward II). Milner tried to mitigate the
effect of the Rescript by getting the full text of
Propaganda’s reply in 1805 to Dr Concanen printed in
the Orthodox Journal. This
preliminary statement was no more than a cautious Roman reply, citing earlier
precedents, and valid only if the information supplied to Rome was correct.
(The Curia had a supply of stock diplomatic phrases excluding itself from
responsibility if the information supplied to it was incorrect, as was usually
the case.) Quoted out of context, it would seem to an outsider that Rome had
given one reply to Poynter and a different one to
himself. But in this case the reply was not to hypothetical possibilities but
to precise questions laid before Quarantotti by MacPherson.
On
24 May the Pope arrived back in Rome. Cardinal Litta
was appointed Prefect of Propaganda. Milner arrived a
few days later and predictably accused the other vicars apostolic of having schismatical tendencies. On 26 and 27 May Troy summoned a
meeting of the Irish bishops and they decided to send Archbishop Murray to Rome
to express their point of view. The Pope announced that the Order of Jesuits
would be restored throughout the Church. The Order had been suppressed in 1773
but many of them still managed to keep together under a different name and to
attract new recruits. They had a college at Stoneyhurst
in Lancashire in England. Fr Peter Kenney SJ studied in Stoneyhurst
and joined the ex-Jesuits in 1804, and was sent to Palermo for his
ecclesiastical studies at the former Jesuit university. He returned to Ireland
in 1811, and assisted Archbishop Murray when he was asked to take over the
position of president of Maynooth. In May 1814 he purchased a house Clongowes Wood, Co Kildare to start a college. Coxe Hippisley immediately raised
the question in Parliament. Young Robert Peel was informed by some horrified
Protestants that the Jesuits were back, but after making some enquiries from
Peter Kenney he ignored them. Kenney
assured him they were a lay institute, which was exactly what they were at that
time. He confirmed however he was a professed Jesuit, but he refused to
disclose where the money to buy the house came from. Sir Henry Parnell supplied
the information that the money was Kenney’s own. Sir
John Newport said that Archbishop Troy had at first refused to sanction the
school, but changed his mind. Sir John Coxe Hippisley informed the House that when the Jesuits were
suppressed they were ordered to hand over most of their ecclesiastical property
to certain ecclesiastical persons, but individuals were allowed to retain some
property until they died. There the matter rested (SNL 21 May 1814). So much for the supposed anti-Catholic bias of
the Government. The aims of the Ascendancy faction were quite limited and quite
specific, to preserve the senior offices in Church and State to Protestants.
Otherwise, they did not care. Protestants peculiarly abhorred Jesuits. Had Peel
wished to invoke the Registration of the Clergy Act (1703) to get them expelled
he could have done so.
On
24 May Grattan presented the Irish Catholic petition but said he had no motion
to propose on it at the moment. He had written to Lord Ffrench on 21 May saying
that action was inexpedient at the moment. He repeated this in the Commons on
27 May when presenting the petition from Cork.
[June 1814]
The Lord Lieutenant by proclamation suppressed the Irish Catholic Board under
the Convention Act on 3 June 1814. According to his biographer Peel acted
against the advice of Lord Liverpool and other senior Conservatives, some of
whom felt that the Board did not come under the meaning of the Act. Whitworth, Liverpool, and Sidmouth,
the Home Secretary considered him excessively zealous, especially as the Board
was virtually defunct. Technically, it was not composed of delegates, but it
did far more than prepare petitions for Parliament, for example by rejecting
the Rescript, or assisting Fr O’Mullane.
As usual, there was a local outbreak of agrarian crime, so that Tipperary had
to be proclaimed and another emergency Peace Preservation Act had to be passed.
Those of course who engaged in that kind of illegal activity were only
concerned with their local issues, and had no concern how their actions might
affect other fellow Catholics. On 8 June Donoughmore
presented various petitions regarding Emancipation, but also stated that there
was no intention to introduce a measure this session. One reason was that the
various actions of the Irish Catholic Board over the past year were not
calculated to accelerate the attainment of the objects they desired. Another
was the manner in which the Rescript from Rome was
received in Ireland. The Catholic bishops were sending a delegation to Rome to
explain matters (SNL 13 June 1814).
On 11 June 1814 an Aggregate Meeting was held in Clarendon
Street chapel (Carmelite) with the Hon. Martin Ffrench in the chair. It
formally allowed the Board to lapse, but declared that it had only existed to
petition Parliament.
The
Government was taking the usual steps to return Ireland to a peace footing. The
militia was dis-embodied, some regiments of the
militia having been embodied for twenty years. The volunteers in the yeomanry
were thanked for their services and told to await instructions. The great war
which had commenced in 1793 was finally over.Or so it
seemed.
On
24 June 1814 the English vicars apostolic except Milner,
but including the vicar apostolic of the Lowland District in Scotland accepted
the Rescript. MacPherson
was present at the meeting. The English Catholic Board were worried about what
allegations Milner might be making in Rome, and
wished MacPherson to carry an address of
congratulation to Rome to the Pope and keep an eye on things. But the following
day, the Pope hearing Milner’s allegations of their schismatical intentions withdrew the Rescript
for fuller consideration. On 25 June Litta wrote to
Troy and Poynter that the Pope now wished to
reconsider the Rescript in a General Congregation of
Cardinals. This obviously was not to reconsider the principles of the Rescript for these were to be re-affirmed the following
year in the Genoese Letter, but to examine if the
English Catholics wished to use the Rescript for schismatical purposes. A few days later the suave and polished Archbishop Murray arrived in
Rome, and made a much better impression than the unpolished Milner
whose sweeping allegations about other vicars apostolic annoyed the cardinals.
Nevertheless, Milner backed by Murray won over
Cardinal Litta, a cardinal who unusually, could read
English. The vicars apostolic also decided to send an address, and to thank the
Pope for the Rescript even if it was not quite what
they wanted.
[July to December 1814]
After the flurry of activity which followed the defeat of Napoleon the pace of
affairs slowed down again. MacPherson left to return
to Rome, and when he arrived and found out about the allegations Milner was spreading broadcast in Rome he wrote back to say
that it would be necessary for an English vicar apostolic to come to Rome to
refute the allegations. It was decided to send Poynter.
The Pope was very busy re-establishing the machinery of government in the Papal
State, and catching up on a backlog of work. He was now seventy two. On 25
September 1814 he appointed seven Irish bishops to fill the sees that had
become vacant since 1809. Saunders
Newsletter commented that all except one were the choice of the priests of
their dioceses (SNL 29 Oct 1814). He
also appointed another of Troy’s protégés to New York
to Archbishop Carroll’s annoyance. Cardinal Litta wrote to Poynter on 30 July
telling him to pay back the money due to Milner. Milner was raking over every old grievance.
Rome
was full of English visitors travelling on the Continent for the first time
since 1803. Among them was the Princess of Wales, the Duke of Bedford, the Marquis
Conyngham, and the Earl of Aberdeen. Lord William Bentinck arrived in Rome in January. Archbishop Murray was
invited by the Jesuits to be present at the celebrations for the restoration of
their Order, one of the few non-Jesuits invited. The Pope retired to his summer
residence at Castle Gandolpho, and Murray returned to
Ireland on 17 October. Milner was asked to stay in
Rome until Poynter arrived. MacPherson
wrote that it was intended to keep Milner permanently
in Rome but Bishop Gibson warned that if this were reported in Ireland there
would be a huge public outcry. The cost of travelling by public coach to Rome
was about £40 (£1600 today). Poynter and Bishop Branston left for Rome on 28 November 1814. On arrival they
found that nobody was in any hurry to deal with their case. Litta
at first favoured Milner and then changed his mind.
There
was in interesting article in Saunders
Newsletter on 24 July 1814 regarding the meaning of Domestic Nomination,
about which it said, considerable misconception existed. ‘By Domestic
Nomination is meant the investiture and appointment of Roman Catholic bishops,
by the authority of chapters, or by some other authority at home, independent
of the see of Rome’. It noted that a recent bishop was not elected by Domestic Nomination,
as his name was transmitted to Rome by Archbishop Troy for the Pope’s
approbation. ‘If there be any circumstance in this recent appointment [of a
successor to Dr Delaney of Kildare and Leighlin] not familiar for some time
past it should seem to rest altogether between the body of the Roman Catholic
clergy at large acting exclusively, and the Roman Catholic bishops’ (SNL 29 July 1814). Most Protestants
would assume that by Domestic Nomination was meant election and confirmation of
bishops at home without reference to Rome. But within the Catholic Church in
Ireland it had come to mean the exclusive right of the local diocesan clergy to
choose their bishops independently of the bishops of the province or the
metropolitan.
In
September Donoughmore refused to present a petition
from Cork, and Grattan likewise refused. Parliament re-assembled on 8 November.
Donoughmore asked Lord Liverpool if the Government
intended introducing a Bill for the relief of Catholics, and Liverpool replied
that his sentiments were unchanged. In November 1814 O’Connell wished to call
an Aggregate Meeting, but both Lord Fingall and Sir Edward Bellew
advised against it saying the time was premature. Some Catholics continued to
meet at Fitzpatrick the Bookseller’s declaring they were not the Catholic
Board. Fingall considered it better to await the results of the appeal to Rome.
There was a reference in Saunders
Newsletter to Fingall and the ‘Seceders’, but
this does not appear to mean a formal secession, but rather a reluctance to attend
Catholic meetings as they were being then held. At a meeting on 3 December
1814, with Owen O’Conor in the chair, it was agreed
to choose a committee of 31 members to prepare an Aggregate Meeting and
petition. This met on 13 December at Lord Fingall’s,
Fingall was accused of sending a haunch of venison to Peel, which he denied.
Such gifts were common by gentlemen who kept deer on their estates, and there
was no reason why Fingall should not have sent it. But the implication was that
he was doing deals with the Government. At another meeting, Fingall asked that
their discussions should be kept confidential, with no allegations like his
supposed gift to Peel published in the newspapers. All except O’Connell and one
other agreed. Sheil was asked to draw up the petition.
[January and February 1815] In
January the long expected secession of Lord Fingall’s
party took place. At a meeting in January three drafts for a petition were read
out but none secured the adhesion of a majority of the committee. The problem
was that one party wanted it made plain that no Security of any kind was
acceptable, while the other party led by Fingall and Sheil wanted it so worded
that their friends in Parliament could use it. They were not advocating a veto,
but were prepared to accept it if that was the only way to get a Relief Bill
passed. The other party refused to accept the veto on any grounds. These groups
became known to history as the vetoists and the anti-vetoists. The names were those chosen by the Catholic
Ultras because they wanted to smear their opponents both in England and Ireland
with the allegation that they advocated the veto. Their opponents always made
clear that they too opposed the veto, but if their Parliamentary supporters
felt it necessary to include some Securities to get the Bill passed and the
Pope gave his consent they were reluctantly prepared to agree, especially as it
was clear that the effect of the Securities would be minimal. Their opinion was
the same as that of Henry Grattan and the Earl of Donoughmore.
They regarded the Securities as unnecessary, but were not prepared to vote
against a Bill just because it contained Securities.
The
logic too of the Ultras was dubious. Why were they so insistent on petitioning
for a Bill that could not be passed during the time the Tories were in power
when by waiting patiently until the Whigs returned, as they eventually would,
they could have their desired Bill? Their actions seem petulant and childish.
They wanted their democratic rights? They had only to wait for the return of
the Whigs. They wanted a purge of the Orange corporations? Again wait for the
return of the Whigs. But if they wanted immediate access to Parliament, then
they should accept the Securities.
At
a meeting of the committee at Lord Fingall’s on the
17 January 1815 there arose the question of admitting the representatives of
the press. As there was only one reporter he was not admitted. Saunders Newsletter however managed to
get a report . The interest shown by the ordinary Dublin Protestant newspapers
in Catholic affairs is astonishing. Saunders
especially was notable for its neutral reporting. Frederick Conway was an
enthusiastic supporter of the Catholics, so it is less surprising if the Dublin Evening Post devoted space to
Catholic affairs. O’Connell reported that they could not get Fishamble Street Theatre for a public meeting so they had
to ask Archbishop Troy for the use of a chapel. Troy, considering that the
matter was sufficiently connected with religion to warrant the use of a sacred building
consented. O’Connell proposed a petition for total and unqualified repeal, and
said ingenuously that Sheil was making difficulties by rejecting the word
‘unqualified’. Fingall said he had agreed to participate in the meetings on the
condition that no religious topic was introduced. Circumstances had changed,
and now a single word stood for a whole policy. He deplored approach of
smearing opponents, particularly himself. If it were insisted on retaining the
word ‘unqualified’ he would withdraw from further meetings. O’Connell of course
contended that ‘unqualified’ was not a religious term, blithely ignoring the
fact that the qualification was a veto on the appointment of Catholic bishops.
Sheil pointed out that O’Connell could restore unanimity to the committee by
giving up a single word. Also, the ecclesiastical side was being discussed in
Rome and it should be left there. And even if the Pope did set aside the three
names sent to him from Ireland, the Irish Church would not go into schism. The
matter being put to the vote, O’Connell won. (SNL 17,19 January 1815).
However
O’Connell could never leave things alone. At a meeting on 21 January he gave a
lengthy explanation of how the disagreement with the Earl of Fingall had
occurred, but said they must stick, on their part, to the exclusion of
Securities even if the matter was being decided in Rome. In the course of the
speech he referred to the ‘beggarly Corporation of Dublin’ which was to lead to his duel with D’Esterre. Duelling was an accepted practice, and a
gentleman if insulted had no choice but the challenge his opponent to fight a
duel. O’Connell later attempted to fight Peel, who was by no means reluctant to
oblige. Even the Duke of Wellington, when prime minister, found it necessary to
challenge an opponent of Emancipation to fight a duel.
An
Aggregate Meeting took place in the Carmelite church in Clarendon
Street. Fr L’Estrange O. Carm.,
of that church was for some time O’Connell’s spiritual director. The Earl of
Fingall declined the chair so it was taken by Owen O’Conor.
Edward Hay was confirmed as the Secretary of the Catholics A letter was read
out from the Earl of Donoughmore declining to act for
them because of reports of their activities in the newspapers, and begged not
to be associated with them in the future. Fingall made it clear that though he
was not wedded to any particular scheme he was unwilling to adopt this one
before Rome had pronounced. The Earl of Fingall, Lord Killeen and some other
gentlemen including Sheil then withdrew. This was the beginning of the split,
with two sets of meetings. Edward Hay went to both sets, which did not improve
his standing with O’Connell. But it marked the end of any serious attempt at
petitioning in Ireland for several years. Nicholas Mahon,
now the leading Catholic banker, was
appointed treasurer of O’Connell’s group. (Ffrench’s bank had collapsed, and
Lord Ffrench committed suicide. Nicholas Mahon later
unsuccessfully sued the remaining partners in the failed bank, to get some
money back.) O’Connell proposed setting up a Catholic Voluntary Association,
‘fully consistent with any real or imaginary provision of the Convention Act’
to pursue their aims, and this was agreed to. (This ‘association’ was formed
merely by members writing their names in a book.) It first met at Fitzpatrick’s
in Capel Street on 28 January 1815.
The duel between O’Connell and D’Esterre took place on 1 February. Though D’Esterre was killed his family did not press charges for
murder, and no action was taken against O’Connell. Archbishop Murray was
detained on various affairs concerning the Irish College in Paris, and did not
reach Dublin until February 1815. O’Connell was anxious to lead a delegation to
meet Murray, but others were reluctant to interfere in a purely ecclesiastical
affair. A delegation was appointed and Murray agreed to meet them, though he
only reported to the bishops who had sent him. Murray told them what was
generally known in Rome, and about the activities of the English Catholic
representatives. He himself had made known the views of the Irish. The
Securities had been referred to a General Congregation (SNL 16 February 1815). Reports were reaching Ireland that Marshal Murat, now king of Naples, was sending troops into a part
of the Papal States, the Marches, which he claimed had been awarded to him, and
that the Austrians were colluding with him. The big issue in Parliament that
year was the proposed introduction of Corn Laws to protect the farmers in the
post-war slump. A letter of the Pope to the Irish bishops thanking them for
their address exhorted them to tell their flocks to do nothing ‘to irritate the
Government’ (SNL 7 March 1815). This
was more calculated to irritate O’Connell. The rival party continued to meet at
the Earl of Fingall’s house to petition and the Dublin Evening Post noted that the
Government did not interfere. It was not passing resolutions about the Princess
of Wales, or Orangemen, or appealing to the Cortes of
Spain (DEP 18 Jan 1815).The Post of which Frederick Conway was now
the editor, was however violently against Fingall.
In Rome
matters proceeded at a leisurely pace. Milner recited
all his old complaints against Poynter and the late
Bishop Douglass, and Cardinal Litta
required Poynter to make his reply to each individual
charge. Poynter received assistance from an
unexpected quarter. Edward Cooke, who had been
Under-Secretary in Ireland when Castlereagh had been Secretary was now
Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office again under Castlereagh. So he was able
perfectly to put Castlereagh’s viewpoint on the
Securities, and was himself a supporter of Emancipation.
At the
consecration of the newly appointed Irish bishops in Townsend
Street chapel in Dublin on 24 February, the preacher on the occasion before the
assembled prelates, a Dominican friar named Fr Ryan, urged the necessity of
submission to the Holy See. This caused an immediate storm, for some suspected
that he had been asked to preach thus by his fellow Dominican, Archbishop Troy.
Troy supported the preacher saying that there was no doctrinal error or
personal allusion in the sermon. The editor of the Dublin Evening Post (presumably Conway but not identified) made
several attacks on Ryan and Troy, and reminded his readers that Troy had got
government posts for two of his nephews. Ryan in fact was not personally in
favour of the veto. The editor was convinced that the bishops wanted to
substitute a clerical Board for the Lay Commissioners, and to keep down the
lower clergy (DEP 28 February,20 April 1815).
[March 1815]
After a lull of several months events started to move rapidly. Murat, who had deserted Napoleon the previous year, hoping
to be allowed to keep his kingdom, now made a treaty with him. The treaty of Caza Lanza restored Naples to the
Bourbons. Napoleon escaped from Elba on 28 of February and made his way rapidly
to Paris gathering forces on the way. Murat advanced
on Rome with the intention of striking at the Austrians in northern Italy. The
Pope abandoned the city before the start of Holy Week expecting to arrive in
the Grand Duchy of Florence in time for Easter Sunday, 26 March. The Pope did
not stay there, though the Austrian army was advancing, but proceeded to the
coast near Leghorn and took a felucca to Genoa where there was a British force
stationed. He arrived there on 3 April.
English
visitors rapidly dispersed from Rome. On 22 March the Allies assembled in
Vienna outlawed Napoleon.
[April 1815]. The cardinals,
followed by Milner, Branston,
and Poynter, joined the Pope in Genoa (Diario di Roma 1815). As the Pope and the cardinals had little
else to do they discussed the veto. All their needs were provided for by the
British Government, a government which was not asking anything in return.
British troops formed the papal bodyguard all during the Pope’s stay. Castlereagh
had made it clear that the Government itself was not seeking Emancipation for
the Catholics, but if it were conceded certain conditions would be attached.
Nor was it looking for diplomatic relations to be restored. Castlereagh and Consalvi had discussed the matter but had decided that it
was better to continue to use informal channels (Webster). Cardinal Litta told Poynter that he had
instructed Milner in Archbishop Murray’s
presence to desist from publishing ecclesiastical affairs. Litta
wished to detain Milner in Rome, but Milner was unwilling to stay. Litta
told Poynter that no letter was given to Milner on his departure lest he try to make use of it. Litta had learned a lot about Milner’s
character. Poynter remained to receive the Pope’s
reply to the queries of the English vicars apostolic. The special Congregation
of Cardinals met on the 20 April. A letter was drawn up which the Pope
personally revised and it was handed to Poynter on 26
April, and on 28 April he left Genoa to return to England, being forced to
travel through the Brenner Pass into Germany, and he
passed through Brussels six days before the battle of Waterloo. The Pope left
Genoa on 18 May. The Papal States were restored in their entirety.
This
letter has always been known as the Genoese Letter.
The text of the oath of loyalty agreed between Castlereagh and Consalvi contained no explicit renunciation of the temporal
power of the Pope in England, and so was unlikely to be approved by Parliament.
It approved the veto with certain safeguards. Neither the Placet nor Exequatur were conceded.
Privately Consalvi agreed that the Commission to
examine communications could be tolerated, but not approved. Poynter was reminded of the existing rule that when bishops
made their reports to the Holy See they were strictly prohibited from including
anything of a political nature (Ward II, DEP
26 December 1815). Beyond communicating the reply to the other bishops and
showing it in secret to some leading Catholic laymen, Poynter
did not publish the letter, and its existence was not widely known for over a
year. Neither Milner nor Troy saw fit to publish it
either.
[May and June 1815] In
face of the Austrian advance Murat retreated, and was
crushed at Tolentino. Napoleon struck at the British
and Prussian armies in Belgium, hoping in the old way to defeat them
separately, and very nearly succeeded. After separate heavy attacks on the
Prussians at Ligny and the British at
Quatre Bras on 16 June during which he inflicted heavy
casualties on both but without defeating either, he came up against
Wellington’s main force at Waterloo on 18 June 1815.The
Duchess of Richmond was giving a ball in Brussels where the duke was now
residing. Wellington attended, but slipped away unobtrusively. The battle
raged, and finally the cry went up ‘La
Garde
recule’ (The Old Guard is falling back). It was the last
battle of twenty three years of war, and shortly afterwards Napoleon
surrendered to the British Captain Maitland on board the
Bellerephon. His return had
lasted 100 days. He was sent to St Helena, an island from which there could be
no escape.
O’Connell’s
committee continued to meet, but Grattan refused to present their petition. The
task was undertaken by the very inexperienced
Sir Henry Parnell. The Bill, which had been drawn up by O’Connell, Scully and O’Gorman never had the
slightest chance of being passed even if it were introduced. There is an
interesting letter of O’Connell’s from this time in which he says,
‘The
crown priests (i.e. those in favour of the veto) will be despised and deserted
by the people who will be amply supplied
with enthusiastic anti-anglican friars from
the Continent. There is a tendency already
to substitute friars for any priests who are supposed to favour the veto. This
is very marked in Dublin already, and they know little of Ireland who suppose
that they could abolish friars by
law’ (Fitzpatrick, Correspondence).
Reading
between the lines we can conclude that most of the clergy of the Archdiocese of
Dublin had followed Troy’s advice to accept whatever
decision came from Rome. Some of those in religious orders in Dublin may have
been more inclined to defy Rome. For many years there had been disputes and
rivalries between the secular and regular clergy, but these died out in the
nineteenth century (Fitzpatrick, Life of
Doyle). The Irish clergy however, unlike those in England did not object to
the restoration of the Jesuits. The Jesuits had been far more numerous in
England than in Ireland. From letters like this we can see why Troy and Murray
became very circumspect and correct whenever in future they had to deal with
O’Connell.
On 30 May 1815 when the House was
considering what to do with Napoleon, Parnell brought in his motion to consider
the Catholic claims. Many of the Whigs did not turn up, and Ponsonby
walked out. Castlereagh considered the vote to be on unqualified Emancipation
and he was anxious that the House would vote on the matter. The motion was
defeated by 81 votes. A motion by Donoughmore in the
Lords to consider the state of His Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects was
defeated by 86 votes to 60.
In the same month that Napoleon was
defeated a tiny vessel driven by steam against tide and wind crossed the Irish
Sea. A new age had begun. Parliament rose on 12 July 1815. The battle of Waterloo
marked the end of an age. The nineteenth century and the modern world may be
considered to have begun on the following day.