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 appointm