No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
The 1840s, when O’Connell’s Repeal Association and Young Ireland flourished, constitute an important period in the history of the relationship between the catholic church and the Irish national movement. One of the major themes in Young Ireland’s challenge to O’Connell’s leadership of the repeal movement was that under O’Connell the association paid too much attention to religious issues, and was too closely identified with the interests of the catholic church. According to Young Ireland, Irishmen should sink their differences—including religious ones—and join together to discover their real interests, which lay in seeking Irish independence from England.
1 See the first issue of the Nation, 15 Oct. 1842, and such articles as ‘The Orange anniversaries’, 24 June 1844, and ‘The movement of nationality’, 10 Aug. 1844. On Young Ireland’s non-sectarian approach to nationalism, see Moody, T W, Thomas Davis, 1814–45 (Dublin, 1945), PP 36, 54.Google Scholar
2 Broderick, John F, The holy see and the Irish movement for the repeal of the union with England, 1829–47 (Rome, 1951).Google Scholar
3 It is clear that O’Connell’s religion was strongly reflected in his national outlook; see McDowell, R.B., Public opinion and government policy in Ireland, 1801–1846 (London, 1952), especially pp 122–3.Google Scholar The views of the leading Young Irelander, Davis, are more complex and have not yet been fully explored, but something of his attitude towards the role of the church in society is revealed in Gwynn, Denis, O’Connell, Davis, and the colleges bill (Cork, 1948).Google Scholar
4 This is discussed in detail in Hill, Jacqueline R., ‘The role of Dublin in the Irish national movement, 1840–48’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds, 1973), pp 104–5, 115–19.Google Scholar
5 For complaints about Young Ireland’s treatment in the Repeal Association, see [Sir]Gavan, Charles Duffy, Four years of Irish history, 1845–1845: a sequel to ‘Young Ireland’ (London, 1883), pp 119, 159 (note on ch. iv), 239–40, 272.Google Scholar
6 These figures are based on information given in the Freeman’s Journal (F.J), Pilot and Nation, and Thom’s Irish almanac and official directory (Dublin, 1844–50); see also Hill, , ‘Role of Dublin’, pp 98–102.Google Scholar
7 This was Rev Edward Groves, of St Peter’s parish.
8 A more detailed analysis of this point appears in Hill, op. cit., ch. 2.
9 See Table 2.2, in Hill, ‘Role of Dublin’, p. 87.
10 Details about the occupations of members of Dublin corporation were drawn mainly from the F J., 28 Oct. 1841, and Thorn’s directory, 1844–50.
11 One exception to this general rule is provided by the Dublin trade unions, whose activities were often reported in the press. Many of these bodies supported the Repeal Association, particularly in the early forties : see D’Arcy, F A., ‘The artisans of Dublin and Daniel O’Connell, 1830–47: an unquiet liaison’, above, 18, no. 66 (Sept. 1970), pp 221–43 (PP 239–43).Google Scholar However, little evidence is available about their views on the question under consideration. Since many skilled tradesmen joined the Irish Confederation in 1847 and 1848, it seems likely that they did not object to Young Ireland’s non-sectarian approach.
12 For the background to the introduction of the bill, see Dr Murray’s pastoral letter to the Dublin catholic clergy and laity, reprinted in the Pilot, 27 Dec. 1844. See also Nowlan, Kevin B., The politics of repeal: a study in the relations between Great Britain and Ireland, 1841–1850 (London, 1965) pp 66–7.Google Scholar
13 According to O’Gonnell, (Pilot, 26 Aug. 1844)Google Scholar, tne emancipation act of 1829 enabled catholics to dispose of their property as they wished, with the exception of endowing monasteries or convents. The catholic bishops claimed that the charitable bequests bill maintained this bias against the religious orders. See Pilot, 23 Sept. 1844.
14 Peel to Heytesbury, 26 Aug. (1844) (Peel papers, British Museum, Add. MS 40479, p. 41), also Peel to Heytesbury, 1 Aug. 1844 (Peel papers, B.M., Add. MS 40479, p. 15), and Heytesbury to Peel, 20 Dec. 1844 (Peel papers, Add. MS 40479, p. 216). For a discussion of Peel’s policy towards Ireland at this time, see Nowlan, , Politics of repeal, pp 59–79.Google Scholar
15 Nation, 6 July 1844.
16 Nation, 13 July 1844.
17 Nation, 27 July 1844.
18 B. A. Molloy to William Smith O’Brien, 31 July 1844 (Smith O’Brien papers, N.L.I., MS 434, no. 1221).
19 See Davis to Smith O’Brien, 20 Aug. 1844 (O’Brien papers, N.L.I., MS 434, no. 1291), same to same, 30 Oct. 1844 (O’Brien papers, N.L.I., MS 434, no. 1263), and also Davis to O’Brien, Monday (n.d.) (O’Brien papers, MS 432, no. 895). It is well known that in the autumn of 1844 O’Gonnell suddenly announced a preference for a federal solution, rather than repeal : it is not always realised that Davis himself was prepared to make very substantial concessions to federalists. An editorial in the Nation, 29 June 1844, called for high-principled federalists and repealers to be returned to the house of commons to represent Ireland : a week later the Nation urged that no repeal pledges should be required from federalist candidates for parliament. See ‘Conciliation and policy’, Nation, 6 July 1844.
20 Doheny, Michael, The felon’s track (Dublin, 1918), p. 36.Google Scholar
21 See ‘Answers to correspondents ’, Nation, 3 Aug. 1844.
22 Nation, 24 and 31 Aug. 1844.
23 O’Neill Daunt, William Joseph, Eighty-five years of Irish history, 1800–1885 (2nd ed., 2 vols, London, 1886), 2, 106–9.Google Scholar
24 Nation, 31 Aug. 1844.
25 [Sir]Gavan Duffy, Charles Young Ireland: a fragment of Irish history, 1840–45 (final revised ed., 2 vols, London, 1896), 2, 167 Google Scholar
26 John O’Connell to Smith O’Brien, 25 Oct. 1844 (O’Brien papers, N.L.I., MS 434, no. 1257).
27 Davis was referring to Archbishop MacHale, a strong opponent of the bill : see Smith O’Brien to Davis, 29 Aug. 1844 (Davis papers, N.L.I., MS 2644, pp 285–91), and Davis to O’Brien, 30 Oct. 1844 (O’Brien papers, N.L.I., MS 434, no. 1263).
27a 7 and 8 Vict., c. 97 (9 Aug. 1844).
28 These meetings are reported in the Pilot, 13 and 16 Dec. 1844.
29 Pilot, 6 Dec. 1844.
30 Pilot, 9 Dec. 1844.
31 Pilot, 16 Dec. 1844.
32 Pilot, 20 Dec. 1844.
33 Archbishops Crolly and Murray had by this time agreed to act on the new board : Nowlan, , Politics of repeal, p. 68.Google Scholar
34 Pilot, 23, 27, and 30 Dec. 1844.
35 Pilot, 12 Feb. 1845. The background to these proposals is discussed in Moody, T.W. and Beckett, J C., Queen’s, Belfast, 1845–1949: the history of a university (2 vols, London, 1959), 1, xxxv–lxv, 1–38.Google Scholar
86 Moody, and Beckett, , Queen’s, Belfast, 1, lxiii–lxiv.Google Scholar
37 Nation, 3 and 24 Aug. 1844.
38 See Duffy, , Young Ireland, 2, 170.Google Scholar
39 Davis to Smith O’Brien, [n.d.], cited in Gwynn, , O’Connell, Davis, and the colleges bill, p. 16.Google Scholar
40 Davis to Denny Lane, cited in Gwynn, , O’Connell, Davis, and the colleges bill, p. 39.Google Scholar When the proposals were first announced, Smith O’Brien spoke out for mixed education in a Repeal Association meeting : O’Connell reserved his position. See Pilot, 12 Feb. 1845.
41 See the report of a speech made by Town Councillor John Reilly, at an association meeting, Nation, 30 Aug. 1845. Other prominent members of the association who opposed mixed education are mentioned in a letter from Davis to Denny Lane, [n.d.], cited in Duffy, , Young Ireland, 2, 185 Google Scholar
42 Some of these changes are mentioned in Moody, and Beckett, , Queen’s, Belfast, 1, lxiv–lxvGoogle Scholar
43 See Bishop Kennedy to O’Connell, 20 Jan. 1845 (O’Connell papers, N.L.I., MS 13649), and Bishop Cantwell to O’Connell, 5 Feb. 1845 (O’Connell papers, N.L.I., MS 13649).
44 See Davis to Smith O’Brien, 15 June [1845] (O’Brien papers, N.L.I., MS 432, no. 884). Note also Davis’s speech in the association, Nation, 17 May 1845.
45 Duffy, , Young Ireland, 2, 166–7.Google Scholar
46 Ibid., ii, 167–9. See also Gwynn, , O’Connell, Davis, and the colleges bill, especially pp 45–70.Google Scholar
47 Pilot, 26 May 1845. should be noted that a minority of bishops, led by Archbishops Crolly of Armagh and Murray of Dublin, were inclined to cooperate with the government over this issue : see Moody, and Beckett, , Queen’s, Belfast, 1, 29–38.Google Scholar
48 Duffy, , Young Ireland, 2, 172 Google Scholar: Pilot, 28 May 1845. Following the synod of Thurles and a final decision on the question from the holy see in 1850, those catholic priests who had taken office in the colleges resigned their posts. See Moody, and Beckett, , Queen’s, Belfast, 1, 78.Google Scholar
49 Gwynn, , O’Connell, Davis, and the colleges bill, p. 46.Google Scholar
50 Pilot, 16 June 1845.
51 Nation, 14 June 1845.
52 Duffy, , Young Ireland, 2, 185–6Google Scholar; Doheny, , Felon’s track, pp 61–2.Google Scholar
53 Nation, 14 June 1845.
54 Duffy, , Young Ireland, 2, 186.Google Scholar
55 Michael Doheny claimed that seventy-two of the barristers were catholics : see Felon’s track, p. 62.
56 See Norman, E.R., The catholic church and Ireland in the age of rebellion, 1859–1873 (London, 1965), p. 60, referring to the education question in 1859.Google Scholar
57 Pilot, 17 Nov. 1845. Residents of Galway—including catholics— had earlier displayed support for the plan, together with members of a Munster college committee (set up in 1838). See Moody, and Beckett, , Queen’s, Belfast, 1, lx, 20.Google Scholar
58 Pilot, 5 Dec. 1845.
59 Pilot, 17 Nov. 1845.
60 Pilot, 5 Dec. 1845.
61 Pilot, 23 Jan. 1846.
62 These included J Κ. O’Dowd and E. W Costello, barristers, and Drs Nagle and Murphy. see Davis to Denny Lane, [n.d.], cited in Duffy, , Young Ireland, 2, 185.Google Scholar
63 Pilot, 7 Feb. 1848.
64 For the policy of the British government at this time, see The hon. Ashley, Evelyn, The life and correspondence of Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston (new ed., 2 vols, London, 1879), 2, 44–53.Google Scholar
65 This was given in full in the Pilot, 7 Feb. 1848.
66 See the editorial in the Pilot, 7 Feb. 1848.
67 Pilot, 9 Feb. 1848.
68 Pilot, 16 Feb. 1848.
69 Pilot, i Mar. 1848.
70 The Pilot (3 Mar. 1848) did publish a report that a catholic bishop in a diocese south of Dublin had told his clergy not to attend association meetings or contribute to the funds; but it is likely that the letter from Rome had only a minor effect on clerical participation in repeal activities.
71 See Nowlan, , Politics of repeal, pp 34, 78–9.Google Scholar
72 The F.J., 1 Dec. 1841, gave a list of names of twenty-eight newly-appointed J.P.s for Dublin city ; no more than six were catholics.
73 Hill, , ‘Role of Dublin’, p. 194.Google Scholar
74 See O’Brien, R. Barry, Dublin castle and the Irish people (Dublin and London, 1909), pp 60–1.Google Scholar The situation described here for 1833 had altered little by the 1840s.
75 See the report of an ‘Aggregate meeting of the catholics of Ireland ’, in Nation, 13 Jan. 1844; also a speech made by Town Councillor James Sheridan, at a meeting held to condemn jury-packing, reported in the Nation, 27 May 1848.
76 There is no shortage of evidence to show that O’Connell was anxious to see protestants join the repeal movement, and that he was not intolerant towards men of different creeds. For instance, see the report of his speech urging protestant working-men to support repeal (F.J., 15 June 1841), and his letter to Captain Sea ver, an ex-orangeman, 14 Apr. 1843 (O’Connell papers, N.L.I., MS 423). Several protestants did join the Repeal Association, before the Young Irelanders joined : John Gray of the F.J., John L. Arabin, man of property, and Edward Clements, barrister, are among the most prominent.
77 See the following articles in the Nation : ‘The Orange anniversaries ’, 29 June 1844; ’Hedging in’, 3 Aug. 1844; ‘Conservative repealers’, 28 Sept. 1844, and ‘United Ireland’, 26 Oct. 1844. This point has also been made by Owen Dudley Edwards in his chapter ‘Ireland ’, in Celtic nationalism (London, 1968), p. 137.