The Duke of Wellington and Catholic Emancipation

G. I. T. Machin

doi:10.1017/S0022046900064940

The Duke of Wellington and Catholic Emancipation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011

G. I. T. Machin

Show author details

G. I. T. Machin: Affiliation:
University of Singapore

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The passage of Catholic emancipation in 1829 ended a highly controversial struggle and marked an important stage in a gradual revolution in Church and State. Yet the duke of Wellington, whose political standing and skill were largely responsible for its passage, has rarely been given due credit for it. His popular reputation is still that of a wartime genius but a peacetime Blimp. His resistance to parliamentary reform is vividly remembered, but his adoption of Catholic emancipation is lightly passed over in comparison. It is widely believed that he yielded to emancipation only because he was forced to do so by the irresistible demands of O'Connell and the Irish Catholics. More recent accounts have hinted at a different picture, but the old image is far from being completely exorcised. It is the aim of this article to show that, instead of blindly opposing Catholic emancipation until further resistance was both useless and dangerous, Wellington had long regarded the question with an empirical eye and had, in fact, been considering means of passing it years before 1829.

Type: Articles
Information: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , October 1963 , pp. 190 - 208

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046900064940 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

^{page 190 note 1} See, e.g., Hughes, Philip, The Catholic Question, London 1929, 304Google Scholar.

^{page 190 note 2} E.g., Gash, N., Mr. Secretary Peel, London 1961, 595, 597.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} I have used the terms ‘pro-catholic’ and ‘anti-catholic’ to describe the opposing parties over Catholic emancipation. These are more accurate than the conventional terms, ‘Catholics’ and ‘Protestants’, which are confusing because they conflict with the religious boundaries. I have given the name ‘ultras’ to those extra-ministerial anticatholics who opposed Catholic emancipation to the end. They formed a distinct group within the anti-catholic body during the period covered by this article.

^{page 191 note 2} For the opinions and personnel of the ultras, see Best, G. F. A., ‘The Protestant Constitution and its Supporters’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fifth series, viii (1958), 105–27CrossRef Google Scholar.

^{page 191 note 3} Major-general C. Macauley to Wellington, 31 May 1828. Second duke of Wellington (ed.), Despatches, Correspondence and Memoranda of the duke of Wellington … in continuation of the former series (WND.), London 1867–80, iv. 480Google Scholar.

^{page 191 note 4} The bill, introduced by Sir Francis Burdett, passed its second reading by 27 votes on 21 April and its third by 21 votes on 10 May.

^{page 191 note 5} Liverpool to Wellington, 1 April 1825; WND., ii. 435.

^{page 191 note 6} Bamford, F. and the duke of Wellington (eds.), The Journal of Mrs. Arbuthnot, London 1950, i. 392.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} Ibid., 393–4.

^{page 192 note 2} Wellington assured the king at this time that he would never desert him (Journal of Mrs. Arbuthnot, i. 396), thus indicating that he would try to form a ministry if called on. His plan for a Catholic settlement was that emancipation should be accompanied by a concordat with the pope, which would give the king a form of veto in the appointment of Catholic bishops and vicars-apostolic within the realm. The scheme was drawn up in the form of a memorandum, printed in WND., ii. 592–607.

^{page 192 note 3} The second reading of the bill in the Lords was beaten by 48 votes on 17 May.

^{page 192 note 4} Wellington to Liverpool, 22 June 1825 (WND., ii. 463–5); Wellington to Eldon, 7 September 1825 (ibid., 482–3); Wellington to the duke of York, 22 September 1825 (ibid., 501–3). J. W. Croker wrote to the marquess of Hertford that Wellington had told him that if he were first lord of the treasury, he would confine treasury influence at an election to the anti-catholic candidates; 22 September 1825: Jennings, L. J. (ed.), The Correspondence and Diaries of the late Rt. Hon.J. W. Croker, London 1884, i. 281Google Scholar.

^{page 193 note 1} Wellington to Liverpool, 2 May 1826: WND., iii. 314–15.

^{page 193 note 2} Wellington to Clancarty, 14 November 1825: WND., ii. 562–5.

^{page 193 note 3} The earl of Clare to Ralph Sneyd, 27 February 1827: Sneyd MSS., University of Keele.

^{page 193 note 4} 1 April 1827: WND., iii. 616–17.

^{page 194 note 1} 21 February 1827: Aspinall, A. (ed.), The Formation of Canning's Ministry, Camden Society, third series, lix, London 1937, 250–3.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 2} See the correspondence between Canning and the seceders in Aspinall, op. cit., 57 ff.

^{page 194 note 3} The earl of Harrowby to viscount Sandon, April 1827 (date illegible, probably 13 April): Harrowby Papers, Sandon Hall, Stafford (third series, lxi, fols. 375–6); T. G. B. Estcourt to Lord Sidmouth, 13 April 1827: Aspinall, Canning, 73.

^{page 194 note 4} Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 455–8.

^{page 194 note 5} By Temperley, H. W. V. in his Foreign Policy of Canning, London 1925, 523Google Scholar.

^{page 194 note 6} Speech in the House of Lords, 2 May 1827; Parl. Deb., N.S., xvii. 461 f.

^{page 194 note 7} See the examination of Wellington's position in Aspinall, Canning, xxxix–xlii.

^{page 195 note 1} The duke of Newcastle said this at an interview with the king on 24 March 1827. Newcastle's account of the interview is in the Newcastle MSS. at Nottingham university.

^{page 195 note 2} The marquess of Londonderry to Mrs. Arbuthnot, 18 April 1827: Aspinall, Canning, 114. Londonderry was a peculiar anomaly. He was nominally a pro-catholic out of respect for the views of Lord Castlereagh, his dead half-brother. But adherence to procatholic opinions must have greatly embarrassed him, for all his other views were in harmony with those of the ultras. He was at one with them in desiring active opposition to Canning.

^{page 195 note 3} Countess Cowper to the Hon. F. Lamb, 27 July 1827: Mabell, countess of Airlie, Lady Palmerston and her Times, London 1922, i. 134.

^{page 196 note 1} Falmouth to the duke of Newcastle, 19 August 1827: Newcastle MSS.

^{page 196 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 196 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 197 note 1} Huskisson to the earl of Harrowby, 16 January 1828: Haxrowby Papers, first series, xv, fols. 201–2.

^{page 197 note 2} MS. diary of E. J. Littleton, 7, 10 February 1828 (pp. 6–9): Hatherton Papers, in Staffordshire Record Office.

^{page 197 note 3} Cumberland to Sir William Knighton, 2 February 1828: Aspinall, A. (ed.), Letters of George IV, Cambridge 1938, iii. 382–3.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 4} Newcastle to Lord Colchester, 15 January 1828: Colchester, Second Lord (ed.), The Diary and Correspondence of Charles Abbot, Lord Colchester, London 1861, iii. 537–8.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 5} Newcastle MSS.

^{page 198 note 6} I February 1828: Newcastle MSS. Arbuthnot was a confidant of Wellington.

^{page 198 note 2} Earl, of Ellenborough, , Political Diary 1828–30, ed. Colchester, third Lord, London 1881, i. 18–19Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 3} WND., iv. 257–8.

^{page 198 note 4} 1 February 1828. The ‘peculiar connexion’ referred to was probably the fact that Wellington was a brother of the pro-catholic marquess of Wellesley, who, until the end of 1827, had been lord lieutenant of Ireland.

^{page 198 note 5} Phillpotts later became bishop of Exeter and is well known for his part in the Gorham Case. As the following account will show, he played an important role in pointing the way for Wellington to settle the Catholic question. Hitherto this has not been properly appreciated.

^{page 198 note 6} WND., iv. 254–6.

^{page 198 note 7} Ibid., 324–9.

^{page 198 note 8} Parl. Deb., N.S., xviii. 69.

^{page 199 note 1} Ibid., 458.

^{page 199 note 2} Russell to Thomas Moore, 31 March 1828; quoted in Halévy, E., History of the English People, London 1949, ii. 266Google Scholar.

^{page 199 note 3} The two parliamentary seats at East Retford were disfranchised for corruption. Huskisson and his followers wanted the seats to be given to manufacturing centres, but they were given instead to the hundred of Bassetlaw, where the ultra Newcastle had considerable influence. Huskisson thereupon proffered his resignation, not expecting that it would be accepted, but Wellington seized on it and Huskisson had to go. Charles Grant, Dudley and Palmerston resigned with him, as did William Lamb, the Irish chief secretary.

^{page 199 note 4} Leeds Intelligencer, 5 June 1828.

^{page 199 note 5} John Bull, 2 June 1828.

^{page 200 note 1} Ellenborough, op. cit., i. 136.

^{page 200 note 2} Colchester's diary; op. cit., iii. 564.

^{page 200 note 3} Quoted in MacCullagh, W. Torrens, Memoirs of R. L. Sheil, London 1855, ii. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 200 note 4} 7 June 1828: Bulwer, H. W., Life of Viscount Palmerston, London 1870, i. 282Google Scholar. Cf. the earl of Donoughmore's observation that when Wellington turned out the Huskissons, he must have had a Catholic arrangement in contemplation, ‘otherwise his conduct is not consonant to my notions of common sense’; Donoughmore to Sir Robert Wilson, 15 June 1828: Sir Robert Wilson Papers, B.M. Add. MS. 30126, fol. 85.

^{page 200 note 5} Mahon, Lord and Cardwell, E. (eds.), Memoirs by the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Peel, London 1856–7, i. 128Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 1} The exact date of this conversation is not given in the Memoirs, op. cit.

^{page 201 note 2} WND., iv. 484–5.

^{page 201 note 3} Parl. Deb., N.S., xix. 1291.

^{page 201 note 4} Ibid., 1292.

^{page 201 note 5} Phillpotts to Wellington, 14 june 1828: WND., iv. 486.

^{page 202 note 1} Ellenborough, i. 143–4. Wellington told the ultra earl of Shaftesbury that he would be very glad to relieve the Catholics, but did not think they could give adequate security: Colchester's diary, op. cit., iii. 572.

^{page 202 note 2} The ultra Viscount Lowther, who had accepted a minor office, stood for re-election at Westmorland a few days after the speech, and announced his confidence in the premier who was leading the Government back into the ‘ancient ways’ of the constitution : Leeds Intelligencer, 19 June 1828.

^{page 202 note 3} Reynolds, J. A., The Catholic Emancipation Crisis in Ireland 1923–9, New Haven 1954, 28Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 4} Ibid., 131.

^{page 202 note 5} Anglesey to Sir Arthur Paget, 20 June 1828: SirPaget, Augustus (ed.), The Paget Papers, London 1896, ii. 393Google Scholar.

^{page 203 note 1} The earl of Donoughmore told Grey that at a general election over fifty elected Irish representatives might be unable to take their seats: 14 July 1828 (Grey MSS., at Durham university).

^{page 203 note 2} This possibility was suggested in The Times, 2 and 5 July 1828.

^{page 203 note 3} Journal of Mrs. Arbuthnot, ii. 198.

^{page 203 note 4} WND., iv. 565–70.

^{page 204 note 1} Wellington to Peel, 12 September 1828: WND., v. 43.

^{page 204 note 2} Peel's conversion is treated in detail by Gash, N., Mr. Secretary Peel, London 1961, 594 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 3} Peel Memoirs, i. 181 ff.

^{page 204 note 4} N. Gash, op. cit., 546 ff.

^{page 204 note 5} These discussions were mainly concerned with the securities which the Government proposed to exact from the Catholics in return for emancipation. The various suggestions, may be followed in the letters and memoranda in WND., v.; Journal of Mrs. Arbuthnot, op. cit., ii; and Ellenborough, op. cit., i.

^{page 204 note 6} Ellenborough, i. 297.

^{page 204 note 7} At an Orangemen's dinner (held on 12 August 1828) commemorating the defeat of the Catholics at the siege of Deny. The speech is in WND., iv. 604–10.

^{page 204 note 8} Wellington to Curtis, 11 December 1828: WND., v. 326. Published in the Dublin Evening Post, 23 December 1828, and in English newspapers on 26 December.

^{page 205 note 1} These crises may be followed in WND., iv. 575 ff., v. 62 ff.; Peel's Memoirs, op. cit., i. 203 ff.; and the seventh marquess of Anglesey, One-Leg: the Life and Letters of the first Marquess of Anglesey, London 1961, 201 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 2} Wellington to the duke of Cumberland, 24 September 1828: WND., v. 78.

^{page 205 note 3} The pro-catholic Grey wrote: ‘It seemed to me as much as possible the same as his speech in the House, of Lords—an expression of his wish to settle the question, with a declaration of his inability to do so’; Grey to Lord Holland, 9 January 1829: Grey MSS. The ultras, for their part, were not unduly alarmed.

^{page 205 note 4} Donoughmore to Sir Robert Wilson, 20 January 1829: Sir R. Wilson Papers, Add. MS. 30126, fol. 118.

^{page 205 note 5} MS. diary of E. J. Littleton, 6 February 1829 (pp. 41–2): Hatherton Papers.

^{page 206 note 1} Report of a conversation in a letter from Charles Lloyd, bishop of Oxford, to Peel, 15 June 1828: Peel Papers, Add. MS. 40343, fols. 283–4.

^{page 206 note 2} The most outspoken hostility is to be found in a violent ultra paper, the Birmingham Monthly Argus. See especially the issues for August and September 1829.

^{page 207 note 1} Cumberland to Sir Richard Vyvyan, 16 July 1829: Vyvyan Papers, in Cornwall Record Office.

^{page 207 note 2} The intrigue may be followed in correspondence between Cumberland, Sir Richard Vyvyan and Sir Edward Knatchbull, in the Vyvyan Papers. Some of these letters have been summarised in SirKnatchbull-Hugessen, Hughe, Kentish Family, London 1960, 178 ff.Google Scholar Additional light on the episode is provided by Palmerston's account of an interview between himself and Sir Richard Vyvyan, in which the latter sounded the possibility of Palmerston's joining an ultra ministry. Palmerston to Laurence Sulivan, 7 October 1829: marquess of Lome, Viscount Palmerston, London 1892, 56–62. A calculation by Vyvyan of the number of supporters whom the ultras were likely to muster in the Commons listed only 35 who were definitely against the Government, and 89 ‘possibles’: undated memorandum in the Vyvyan Papers.

^{page 207 note 3} Journal of Mrs. Arbuthnot, ii. 251.

^{page 207 note 4} Princess Lieven to Count Benckendorff, 14 April 1829: L. G. Robinson (ed.), Letters of Dorothea, Princess Lieven, London 1902, 193. Two Whigs, Lord Rosslyn and James Scarlett, were given ministerial office, but this did nothing to ensure the support of the Whigs as a body.

^{page 207 note 5} At the general election of 1830, the Government attacked the Huskisson candidates and thus helped to drive them into the Whig camp. In September it was rumoured that Wellington had been about to suggest a junction to Huskisson at their meeting on the railway-line where Huskisson was killed (Princess Lieven to Count Benckendorff, 20 September 1830: L. G. Robinson, op. cit., 241). In October the duke half-heartedly invited Palmerston to join his Government, but Palmerston would only consider doing so if certain Whigs also joined (Journal of Mrs. Arbuthnot, ii. 395–6).

^{page 208 note 1} Wetherell was attorney-general, Bankes chief secretary to the Board of Control and Lowther first commissioner for Woods and Forests.

^{page 208 note 2} Ellenborough, i. 406. For the speech, see Parl. Deb., N.S., xx. 1263–4.

^{page 208 note 3} Brougham wrote that Wellington could not continue to rely on the support of the Whigs without coalescing with them, ‘unless indeed he has got some great & popular measures as he had last session’; Brougham to Grey, 10 January 1830: The Life and Times of Henry, Lord Brougham, written by himself, ed. Brougham, W., Edinburgh 1871, iii. 19CrossRef Google Scholar.

^{page 208 note 4} Brougham to Grey, 6 April 1830: Brougham MSS., University College, London.

Article contents

The Duke of Wellington and Catholic Emancipation

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests