Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:04:58.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Daniel O’Connell and the repeal party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

J.H. Whyte
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the criticisms most frequently made of O’Connell’s conduct of his agitation for repeal of the union has always been that he failed to build up a parliamentary party that would be a credit to his cause. The accusation comes in its harshest form, naturally enough, from his political opponents at the time. A whig journalist, for instance, writing in 1843, described O’Connell’s followers in these terms:

It would be difficult to have procured forty Irishmen with less of the wit or sparkling talent that abound in the ‘Emerald Isle’. The charge against them was not merely that they were such paltry senators, but that they were such wretched specimens of their countrymen. Judged by an Irish standard, without the slightest reference to English taste, their morale was of the lowest kind. There was nothing grand or elevating in their Donnybrook Fair school of patriotism. They could make a noise, and display animal vivacity, but when intellectual manifestations were demanded, they were powerless. With great opportunities, their party remained without distinction, for wit, eloquence, or conspicuous ability. Terribly afraid of O’Connell, who used them as the fingers and toes of his political system, they

      Cringed to his face, consulted, and revered
      His oracles—detested him—and feared.

And it was either a whig or a tory journalist who invented for O’Connell’s party the wounding nickname of ‘O’Connell’s tail’, with its implication that the members of the party were without wills of their own, completely subservient to their leader’s commands. But it was not from whigs and tories alone that criticism came: earnest repealers themselves complained that their party was damaging the cause they had at heart.

Type
Research Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 44 , September 1959 , pp. 297 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [Madden, D.O.], Ireland and its rulers, i. 249 Google Scholar.

2 Madden, op. cit., i. 230, says the nickname was invented by the whig Dublin Evening Post; Fagan, W., The life and times of Daniel O’Connell, ii. 244 Google Scholar, attributes it to the tory Dublin Evening Mail. I have tried fruitlessly to trace the phrase to its origin. The earliest references I have found are in Dublin Evening Post, 5 Apr. and 17 Dec. 1831, but they are put in such a way as to suggest that the title was not then new.

3 Sir C. G. Duffy, Young Ireland, p. 480; Nation, 26 Dec. 1846.

4 Fagan, op. cit., ii. 187.

5 Lecky, W.E.H., Leaders of public opinion in Ireland (authorised ed., London, 1912), ii. 125 Google Scholar.

6 The Repeal Association had already been founded before the general election of 1841, but O’Connell interrupted the repeal agitation during the election campaign, and the question was seldom if ever mentioned (Pilot, June–July 1841).

7 O’Connell’s own election address did not even mention repeal (Freeman’s Journal, 23 July 1830). His main object in the election campaign was to secure the return of as many M.P.s as possible who would oppose the Wellington administration.

8 For names and method of calculation see appendix.

9 It might be well to forestall a possible criticism by saying that the absence of references to MS sources in this paper does not mean that these sources have been ignored. I have examined four collections—the O’Connell MSS in University College, Dublin, the Monteagle and Smith O’Brien MSS in the National Library of Ireland, and, through the kindness of the Reverend the O’Conor Don, s.j., the O’Conor Don MSS at Clonalis. But I have found nothing in any of them immediately relevant to this paper.

10 R. B. McDowell, Public opinion and government policy in Ireland, 1801-46, p. 158; Freeman’s Journal, 13 June 1833.

11 This was particularly evident during the debates on the Irish poor law bill of 1838.

12 This is the implication in Lecky, Leaders of public opinion in Ireland, ii. 125.

13 John, Maurice and Morgan O’Connell; Christopher Fitzsimon and Charles O’Connell; W. F. Finn; Dr Herbert Baldwin.

14 Tralee Mercury, 29 Dec. 1832. I have the authority of Mr B. M. O’Connell for saying that Lalor was no relation of O’Connell’s.

15 Pilot, 10 Dec. 1832.

16 John O’Connell’s candidature was announced by a letter from his father: Pilot, 7 Dec. 1832; referring to Dublin county O’Connell wrote ‘If no one else starts as a repealer … I will get Fitzsimon to address’: Correspondence of Daniel O’Connell, ed. Fitzpatrick, W.J., i. 303 Google Scholar.

17 Freeman’s Journal, 15 June and 6 July 1833.

18 Hansard 3, xix. 1245 (25 July 1833).

19 This table is compiled mainly from the information in Dod’s parliamentary pocket companion.

20 [Madden, D.O.], Ireland and her rulers, i. 234 Google Scholar.

21 I owe this information to Mr T. P. O’Neill, who has worked on unpublished papers of the Lalor family.

22 A. Aspinall, Three nineteenth century diaries, p. 314.

23 During his four years in parliament he is mentioned only twice in the indexes of Hansard.

24 McCullagh, W. Torrens, Memoirs of the Right Honourable R. L. Sheil, ii. 285-7Google Scholar, shows that he had openly recanted his repeal opinions by about 1840.

25 Dr R. B. McDowell (Public apinion and government policy in Ireland, 1801-46, p. 138) gives a rather more favourable picture of the repeal party than I have done here. He states that it ‘included respectable landowners such as Ruthven and the O’Conor Don, Henry Grattan, the Whites, heirs of Luke White, said to have died the richest man in Ireland, and Vigors, the first secretary and one of the founders of the Royal Zoological Society’. But of these, the Whites and the O’Conor Don were not pledged repealers, and Ruthven seems to have been the main butt of those who sought to hold up the party to ridicule (see e.g. the reports of his speeches in Dublin Evening Post, 10 Nov., 1, 4 and 8 Dec. 1832). This leaves only Grattan and Vigors, who were doubtless respectable but never made much of a name for themselves in parliament.

26 Compare his addresses in Pilot, 7, 14 Dec. 1832.

27 Compare his addresses in Southern Reporter, 1, 6 Dec. 1832.

28 Dublin Evening Post, 19 Feb. 1831.

29 Correspondence of Daniel O’Connell, ed. Fitzpatrick, , i. 309 Google Scholar.

30 Dublin Evening Mail, 14 Mar. 1832.

31 This is the average obtained from the figures published in the Dublin Evening Mail from 18 July 1832 on.

32 The ‘new-light’ presbyterians were strongly liberal, as is shown by the report of the dinner of the remonstrant synod in Northern Whig, 26 July 1832. On the more numerous orthodox presbyterians it is harder to form a judgment: both conservatives and liberals were to be found among them, but in what proportions is impossible to say.

33 For names see Pilot, 24 Aug. 1832.

34 Southern Reporter, 6 Nov. 1832.

35 Dublin Evening Mail, 17 Dec. 1832.

36 This statement may seem hard to reconcile with the fact that O’Connell made strenuous efforts in the election of 1832 to win conservative as well as liberal support for the repeal cause (McDowell, Public opinion and government policy in Ireland, 1801-46, p. 157). But in reality these efforts only served to illustrate the depth of the two-party division in Irish politics, for they made practically no impression on the conservatives and caused intense irritation among the liberals. (See e.g. the reports of meetings of the National Political Union and Trades’ Political Union in Pilot, 7 Sept., 16 Nov., 1832.)

37 Newspaper circulations can be calculated from the figures given in Newspaper stamps, Ireland: a return of all newspaper stamps in Ireland from 1 Jan. 1832 to 1 Apr. 1833, H.C. 1833 (503), xxxii. The figures given by B. Inglis in The freedom of the press in Ireland 1784-1841, p. 233, create a misleading impression because they refer to some only of the papers then published in Dublin. The repeal interest was much better represented among the papers Dr Inglis left out than among the ones he put in.

38 Pilot, 21 Nov. 1831, 24 Aug. 1832.

39 This figure is calculated from the returns published weekly in the Pilot from 28 Sept. 1832.

40 Fr James A. Reynolds estimates the total of subscriptions for 1828 at £22,700 (The catholic emancipation crisis in Ireland, p. 62 n.).

41 The total of subscriptions for 1843 was over £48,000 (Sean Ó Faolain, King of the beggars, p. 328).

42 This includes not only clubs and committees with a more or less permanent existence, but also ad hoc meetings of electors convened for the purpose of adopting liberal candidates.

43 Pilot, 6 Aug. 1832: report of meeting of Dublin Independent Club.

44 Letter from John O’Connell, P. P. Dungourney, in Southern Reporter, 20 Nov. 1832.

45 J. E. O’Reilly in Cavan: see his address in Freeman’s Journal 29 Sept. 1832. He retired before polling.

46 In Cavan the liberal club appears to have wanted a repeal candidate, though the report is ambiguous (Dublin Evening Mail, 24 Sept. 1832). In Monaghan the question was discussed (Pilot, 31 Aug. 1832), but there is no report of any decision.

47 Northern Whig, 23 Aug. 1832.

48 This description is based on the reports of the Dublin Evening Mail (conservative), the Dublin Evening Post (whig), and the Pilot (repealer).

49 Southern Reporter, 29 Nov. 1832.

50 Ibid., 20 Sept. 1832.

51 e.g. Carlow county: Carlow Morning Post, 6 Dec. 1832; Cork county: Southern Reporter, 29 Nov. 1832; Limerick city: Pilot, 3 Dec. 1832; Louth: Pilot, 17 Dec. 1832.

52 Dublin Evening Post, 1 Dec. 1832, quoting Kilkenny Moderator.

53 Pilot, 26, 30 Nov. 1832.

54 Southern Reporter, 29 Nov. 1832.

55 Pilot, 21 Dec. 1832.

56 Ibid., 26 Sept. 1832; Limerick Evening Post, 27 Nov. 1832.

57 A. H. Lynch became an English master in chancery, Morgan O’Connell an assistant registrar of deeds, Nicholas Fitzsimon a police magistrate, and Carew O’Dwyer a filacer of the exchequer. R. L. Sheil became vice-president of the board of trade and David Roche and Henry Winston Barron became baronets. Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, My life in two hemispheres (i. 193), adds to this list the O’Conor Don and Charles O’Connell. But the O’Conor Don was not a pledged repealer and Charles O’Connell did not obtain his appointment till 1847.

58 The last occasion when an Irish M.P. elected on popular principles accepted a place appears to have been in 1884, when P. J. Smyth, home rule M.P. for Dungarvan, received an appointment from the Gladstone government: see Dublin Gazette, 19 Dec. 1884.

59 Correspondence of Daniel O’Connell, ed. Fitzpatrick, , i. 361, 395.Google Scholar

60 First series of reports of the Loyal National Repeal Association of Ireland, p. viii.

61 I have come across only one pronouncement of O’Connell’s which suggests that he ever expected to use a parliamentary party as more than just a propaganda asset. On 14 Aug. 1845 he wrote to the Repeal Association: ‘We must not relax our efforts for one moment to secure, at least, seventy Conciliation Hall repealers for the next parliament. Another session such as the last would so bundle up whigs and tories as to put a total end to the distinction between them. New parties will have to be formed—probably under new denominations. If we have, at such a period, but seventy staunch repealers to turn the scale, no ministry can be formed strong enough to postpone the discussion of the terms on which to found the restoration of the Irish parliament’ (Pilot, 20 Aug. 1845). This as it stands is a clear anticipation of the policy later known as independent opposition; but O’Connell does not seem to have followed up the idea and indeed, as his reversion to the whig alliance early in the following year showed, soon definitely abandoned it.

62 My life in two hemispheres, i. 251.

63 Duffy’s report was printed by the Irish Confederation as Report on the ways and means of attaining an independent Irish parliament. It is quite fairly summarised in Duffy, op. cit., i. 249-51.

64 S. O. Faolain, King of the beggars, p. 289; Duffy, Young Ireland, p. 2; McDowell, Public opinion and government policy in Ireland, 1800-46, p. 134; Fitzpatrick, W.J., The life, times, and correspondence of the Right Rev. Dr Doyle (2nd ed., Dublin, 1880), p. 451 Google Scholar.