Search the Catalogue

CSO/RP/CA/1825/27

Memorandum by author identified as 'S N E' [Stephen N Elrington] providing an eyewitness account of a meeting of the 'New Roman Catholic Association' [probably at the Corn Exchange], chaired by Rev [Francis J] L'Estrange with [Frederick W] Conway acting as secretary; Conway anticipated that some members of parliament and a ‘noble Lord’ would attend a forthcoming meeting ‘and make a communication of great consequence to the Catholics of Ireland’; [Dowall] O’Reilly proposed a number of new members including three magistrates from County Meath and [Patrick] Curtis, [Catholic archbishop of Armagh] and [Daniel] Murray, [Catholic archbishop of Dublin] and added that ‘no object could be more valuable for that occasion than the acquisition of those two dignified prelates’; O’Reilly proposed that two persons be appointed to each parish to communicate information and collect subscriptions and noted that funds would be used to educate the Irish who were susceptible to attempts by ‘proselytising persons to deprive the people of their Religion’; in a lengthy speech Counsellor O’Brien listed those who were opposed to the objectives of the new association including ‘Political Adventurers’, ‘those who had inherited their prejudices with their properties’, ‘corporators who thrive in their shops’, the ‘rabble … whose Christianity is hatred to Roman Catholics and perhaps also ‘the clergy of the Established Church’ whom he respected individually but whom as a body were apprehensive ‘of the loss of their church properties’.

13 Aug 1825

1825

CSO/RP/CA/1825/28

Memorandum by author identified as 'S N E' [Stephen N Elrington] providing an eyewitness account of a meeting of the 'New Roman Catholic Association' [probably at the Corn Exchange], chaired by Lord Gormanston [Edward Preston, 13th Viscount Gormanston] with [Frederick W] Conway acting as secretary; Mr O’Brien wished that the ‘Catholic Question’ be renamed the ‘Protestant Question’ as protestants were equally involved; [Richard Lalor] Sheil discussed upcoming elections in Wexford, Kilkenny and Waterford predicting that the Beresfords would lose their representation and that Col Butler would win. Sheil argued that emancipation would be achieved through a new course of action including the taking of a census with the cooperation of the clergy of those requiring education; through the holding of a simultaneous meeting of all catholics in Ireland for the purpose of preparing petitions on education; through an impressive, 14 day, meeting of the Irish catholic hierarchy, nobility, merchants and legal profession to be held on the same day as the opening day of Parliament. [John] Lawless saw nothing novel in Sheil’s proposals but agreed that a census would be useful in showing ‘the wilful falsehoods of Leslie Foster’. At this point Lawless was bought to order and a disagreement broke out, mainly between Sheil and Lawless, with each arguing that the other had made a political speech; Lawless recommended that they join with the ‘Dissenters of England, one hundred thousand of whom would join in the common prayer for their relief’ but Rev [Francis J] L’Estrange objected on the grounds that it was ‘too political apropositus to be entertained by them’; the meeting passed a motion to adjourn until November with Sheil arguing that ‘the deserted state of Dublin’ at this time contributed to meetings which did not exhibit the association in the best light with Lawless rejoining that the citizens of Dublin were sufficient to keep the association alive for the summer; Lord Killeen cautioned attendees not to let feelings carry them too far; it was agreed to appoint a committee of seven ‘to report the names’ of a committee of twenty one who would carry on the principal objectives of the association; L'Estrange commented on his exertions with Mr Grant to procure government money for education which were frustrated when funding for the Kildare Place Society was increased; the meeting was attended by approximately 100 persons and the new members admitted included the Earl of Fingal [Arthur Plunkett, 8th Earl of Fingall], Lord French, M O’Reilly of Ballymany, Mr Lawler of Craig, Rev Terry, Rev Dwyer and Mr Rose Price.

20 Aug 1825

1825

CSO/RP/CA/1826/1

Handwritten cover sheet entitled 'Roman Catholic Association. Proceedings of'

1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/2

Memorandum by unidentified individual providing a verbatim account of a meeting of the New Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Luke Plunkett with Mr Curran acting as secretary; [Daniel] O’Connell discussed arrangements for a dinner to be held in the Rotunda Rooms, [Dublin], mentioning that Mr Hayes of Dawson Street had offered £50 to pay for the event, that the Lying-In Hospital was in need of money and would not refuse the offer despite the hostility of the managers and that he had sent letters of invitation to 69 peers; O’Connell refuted three charges against catholics made by John Wilks jr in an address to the electors of Sudbury, [England], dismissing Wilks as an ‘obscure individual’ who was using bigotry to get into parliament and noting that his father, John Wilks [sr] was a well-respected dissenter; O’Connell recalled that [Anthony Dopping], protestant Bishop of Meath preached that faith ‘ought not be kept with Irish papists’ after the Treaty of Limerick and noted that [George] Dawson, brother-in-law to [Robert] Peel had come to Ireland to taunt catholics and stir up factions; O’Connell noted the horrible state of the English poor which he contrasted with the work of the Sisters of Charity in Ireland and on the continent; a motion regarding the appointment of collectors in each parish towards the education of the poor was debated; [John] Lawless, O’Connell and [Richard Lalor] Sheil discussed the best means to safeguard the £14000 funds of the association and ascertaining the expenses of the new association noting that money had been lodged in the Hibernian Bank; Sheil suggested that those attending the forthcoming 14 day meeting should pay a subscription thereby ensuring that the meeting be ‘utterly unconnected with the present Association’ and O’Connell emphasised the importance of not letting the meetings fall ‘within the fangs of the late statute’; members speculated on new government appointments mentioning [William] Plunkett, Sergeant Lefroy, [Henry] Joy, [Solicitor General] and the Duke of Buckingham; O’Connell recommended that parishes submit their census or enumeration figures as they became available rather than waiting for the details from each county to be gathered; [Stephen] Coppinger discussed burial grounds for catholics and Sheil replied that a petition would be drafted calling for the repeal of the law requiring catholic priests to obtain the permission of protestant clergymen prior to the performance of burial rites.

14 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/3

Memorandum by unidentified individuals providing a verbatim account of the first day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Lord Gormanston [Edward Preston, 13th Viscount Gormanston] with [Christopher] Fitzsimon acting as secretary; [Daniel] O’Connell read a letter from Mr O’Gorman apologising for his absence and disagreeing with M’Donnell’s [Eneas MacDonnell] suggestion that they submit questions directly to the House of Lords instead of the usual practice of submitting petitions to both houses of parliament; a letter from Lord Fingall [Arthur Plunkett, 8th Earl of Fingall] was read; O’Connell noted that the new association would submit to the law but not ‘one atom beyond’; a committee of eleven was appointed; noted that Archibald Hamilton Rowan wished to become a member; O’Connell delivered a long speech giving notice of a resolution, taken from the ‘Connaught resolution’ which would call for total and ‘unqualified emancipation’ offering noting in return but ‘the security of the crown and the happiness of the people. O’Connell compared the treatment of religious minorities in Britain with France; refuted the charges of Lord Liverpool [Richard Banks Jenkinson, 2nd earl of Liverpool] that Catholics had divided loyalties; explained the events surrounding the [Catholic Association] delegation’s mission to London to resist the bill putting down that association; claimed that emancipation would have been granted had it not been for the influence of the Duke of York; argued that the catholic rent was responsible for calming ‘domestic tyranny’; discussed the ‘wings’ in detail noting that he did not discuss the ‘wings’ with [William] Plunkett, Attorney General but adding that it was right that the ‘wings’ should have been resorted to as it was always said that the ‘Catholics of Ireland were asking for everything and conceding nothing’; noting that the Treasurer, Vice-treasurer and Chief Clerk from [Robert] Peel’s office had been ‘sent upon a mission of hatred to this country’. [Richard Lalor] Sheil gave notice of a motion thanking [Patrick] Kelly, catholic Bishop of Waterford for having conducted a census of his diocese and provided figures for the number of catholics and non-catholics in various parishes; noted that the vast majority of soldiers were catholic and that their commander, [the Duke of York], had influenced Lord Liverpool to oppose their claims; sarcastically refuted the claims made against him and others by Mr Dawson, brother-in-law to [Robert] Peel and who was sent to Ireland to ‘raise the flame of discord’; condemning the injustice shown to Mr Kirwan who saved the lives of eleven soldiers off the coast of Tramore and who was only given £30 reward on account of being a catholic. [John] Lawless was glad that O’Connell had acknowledged that the deputation had entered into a ‘corrupt contract with the Minister of the crown and the attorney general’ instead of limiting their actions to opposition to the act supressing the association; Lawless gave notice of a resolution which he claimed was stronger than O’Connell’s; Sir John Burke agreed with most of O’Connell’s speech but believed it was Lord Liverpool and others and not the Duke of York who had scuppered the emancipation bill; Burke argued that the English people were friends of emancipation and that the issue of the 40s freeholder’s franchise would never be brought forward again; Dowel O’Reilly, who was a member of the second delegation, claimed that he had informed Sir Francis Burdett that he would have nothing to do with the resolutions but this was contested by O’Connell who stated that O’Reilly was ‘more violent in favour of the wings than almost any person’ and even clashed with Eneas MacDonnell over the issue; O’Connell stated that nothing would change his opinion less ‘than the censure of Mr Lawless’ whose counter resolution was ‘excessively bad’; [Richard] O’Gorman asserted that he opposed the wings ‘from their first introduction’ and was praised by Sheil for the manner in which he had conducted his opposition; Lord Ffrench urged unity; Luke Plunkett admitted that ‘O’Connell had done himself great honour in deferring to the public opinion’ by framing the proposed resolution; Sheil argued that O’Connell need not allude to the subject of his leadership and proposed that only O’Connell’s resolution be taken at the following meeting; [Stephen] Coppinger and O’Connell gave notice of petitions on the tithe system and the repeal of the act putting down the ‘old’ Catholic Association.

16 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/4

Memorandum by unidentified individuals providing a verbatim account of the second day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Lord Ffrench [Charles Austin Ffrench, 3rd Baron Ffrench]; [Nicholas] Mahon, treasurer of the former Catholic Association, refuted the comments of [Richard Lalor] Sheil and others concerning his management of catholic rent funds, which were reported in the ‘Freeman’s Journal’ and noting that he was personally liable for the lease on their premises; [Daniel] O’Connell and others assured Mahon that the newspaper report was false; the rest of the meeting was concerned with passage O’Connell’s petition calling for ‘unqualified emancipation’ which was agreed to and passed to a committee; O’Connell also guided a resolution concerning the ‘wings’, namely the rejection of any measure restricting ‘the elective franchise or interfering with the discipline or independence of the Catholic Church in Ireland’ and a resolution rejecting any assertion that catholics held divided loyalties; [John] Lawless’ counter resolution was not supported and was withdrawn; during the debate O’Connell called for the liberal relaxation of the penal code which was an ‘infraction of those articles agreed upon at the Capitulation of Limerick’ and he resolved to expose [Robert] Peel and his brother-in-law, [George] Dawson who had been sent to Ireland on a ‘crusade’; Rev [Francis J] L’Estrange provided examples of the undivided loyalty of catholic troops in the British Army; Sir Thomas Esmonde called for a separate petition on education; noted that Sir John Burke could not attend due to the recent fire at Portumna Castle, [County Galway]; [Dowell] O’Reilly claimed that he did not have a personal quarrel with Eneas MacDonnell and that he had urged the deputation not to support the ‘wings’ and had informed Sir Francis Burdett of the hostility of the people of Ireland to the measures; O’Connell observed that in the past catholics wasted their strength and time on ‘subjects of theoretical value but not practical’ and that he wished in future to maintain unity but added that the Freehold Act was ‘one of the most disfranchising acts that ever took place’ ‘giving power to the Landholder and making the freeholder to a great extent a slave and operates to take away from the non-resident freeholders their votes’; in response to a direct question from Richard O’Gorman, O’Connell vowed to oppose the ‘wings’ if they were ever introduced again into parliament; Mr Preston and Lord Gormanston [Edward Preston, 13th Viscount Gormanston] did not agree with the resolutions but would not oppose them; Mr Reynolds, while agreeing to them, claimed that he and his fellow parishioners had been ‘roughly handled’; Lawless, while proposing his amended resolution which he felt addressed the issue better, blamed the delegation for having betraying the trust of the people by ‘bartering away their rights’ adding that [William] Plunkett had endeavoured to destroy [Henry] Grattan’s achievement of securing the franchise for the 40s freeholders; Sir Edward Bellew, supported O’Connell despite being in favour of both of the ‘wings’, adding that the freeholder ‘wing’ would make the counties of the north much more respectable; Lord Killeen, while also supporting O’Connell, was in favour of an extended elective franchise; Hugh O’Connor felt he must set aside his own opinions as the majority of the Irish people were against the ‘wings’; Mahon believed that the ‘wings’ were fatal to civil liberty and religious liberty and suggested that O’Connell was like a ‘stray sheep who has at length returned’; [Stephen] Coppinger while seconding Lawless’ amendment, called on him to withdraw it and added that the clerical ‘wing’ was calculated to undermine and destroy Catholicism; [Richard Lalor] Sheil sarcastically suggested that the ‘forsaken’ Lawless ‘crow and clap his double wings’ when he returned to Belfast ‘his own proper ground’ and noted that while he disapproved of the ‘wings’ he hoped that the 40s freeholders of Waterford would prove in the next election that they were not ‘slaves and serfs’; Luke Plunkett defended [William] Plunkett, a ‘great advocate of the cause of our country’; [John] Bric, as a former member of the delegation, stated that he had been willing to accept the ‘wings’ in return for emancipation; Coppinger gave notice of a motion concerning tithes but was urged to withdraw it by a number of attendees including Bellew who pointed out that it was not exclusively ‘a Catholic grievance’.

17 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/5

Memorandum by unidentified individual providing a verbatim account of the third day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Lord Killeen; Killeen expressed his satisfaction with the unanimity of the previous day’s meeting; [Christopher] Fitzsimon apologised for an absent and ill [Daniel] O’Connell and gave notice of two motions on his behalf namely a petition seeking ‘distinct allocation of the government funds for education under the auspices of the Catholic Clergy’ and the establishment of a committee to investigate into the expenditure and funds of the former Catholic Association and balances in the hands of the treasurers and the tenure of the catholic rooms; Rev Sheehan of Waterford and Rev [Francis J] L'Estrange wished to clarify newspaper mistakes regarding census figures and the loyalty of catholic troops of the 44th regiment respectively; Sir Edward Bellew read the previous day’s petition, penned by Eneas MacDonnell, which had been examined by a committee; Mr McDermott, in a verbose speech, expressed the hope that their cause ‘like the mountain torrent … must eventually burst every barrier which bigotry and intolerance may raise against it’; [Richard Lalor] Sheil, in a lengthy speech, argued that, as a general election was imminent, the catholic question should be brought before the House of Lords and not the House of Commons and that they rely on the judgement of Sir Francis Burdett as to the optimum moment to present it. Sheil, in support of this argument, recollected the hope generated by the king’s visit in 1821; the appointment of [Richard] Wellesley [Lord Lieutenant], [William] Plunkett and Lord Chief Justice Bushe; the weakness displayed to the Orange Order by permitting the dressing of the statue of King William; the unequal administration of the law and the introduction of the Insurrection Act and a new police force; the burial act; the Duke of York’s hostility which influenced Lord Liverpool [Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd earl of Liverpool]; Mr Dawson’s oration to the ‘Bacchanalians of Londonderry’ designed to set a torch to the ‘orange public’. Hugh O’Connor also doubted the wisdom of ‘going to the Commons with a view of procuring a decision upon our question’ but noted that the House of Lords not only defeated their cause but also misrepresented and calumniated their civil and religious principles and he recalled a conversation between the late, lamented Earl of Donoughmore and the deputation in London and the ‘duplicity’ of Lord Liverpool ; Mr O’Farrell believed that they should not delay in presenting the petition and that the prime minister would not have raised ‘a drunken rabble in Derry’ had he been certain that the English people opposed catholic emancipation; [John] Bric suggested that they press the question in the House of Commons and argued that [Robert] Peel’s opposition stemmed from his fears for the Church of England and the ascendancy, that only the ‘minions of Ministers’ and the ministers of religion opposed them in the House of Lords and that the respectable aristocracy, including the 69 peers who had meet in Buckingham House, supported them; Luke Plunkett believed that the House of Commons did not support ‘no popery’ views and that the speech in Derry and the burning of Lord Clifford’s plantation were insignificant events; [Frederick W] Conway agreed with Sheil’s proposal and suggested that the ‘no popery’ cry would die down in England if the Established Church clergy remained silent; [John] Lawless mocked Sheil’s support of [William Plunkett] ‘that excellent gentleman’ and ‘enactor of that Algerine Act' [Unlawful Societies Act] which had put down the Catholic Association and claimed that ‘The Courier’ newspaper was superior to other newspapers and that ‘The Morning Chronicle’ was a supporter of civil and religious liberty; Mr Dillon stated that ‘England never was prosperous that she did not trample upon’ Ireland; the petition, as read by Bellew, was adopted by the meeting.

18 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/6

Memorandum by unidentified individuals providing a verbatim account of the fourth day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Mr Preston; [Christopher] Fitzsimon read the replies of the following to invitations to attend a dinner on 2 February – Lord Bective, Lord Portarlington, Col White, Sir Capel Molyneux, Lord Kingston, the Marquis of Sligo, Lord Meath, Col Bagwell and George Ensor; Anthony Brown gave notice of a vote of thanks to the following English clergymen for their advocacy of the catholic cause – Sidney Smith, Charles Bird and William Shepherd; Mr O’Dwyer gave notice of a petition to the king recommending that he address the grievances of his Irish subjects during his opening speech to Parliament; [Daniel] O’Connell read a draft petition concerning the violation of the Treaty of Limerick which would be aimed at [Robert] Peel; Lord Killeen proposed that their petition [calling for unqualified emancipation] be presented to the House of Lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne and to the House of Commons by Sir Francis Burdett; Killeen clarified the events that surrounded the delegation’s mission to London noting that he was not ‘anxious’ to meet the Lord Liverpool [Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd earl of Liverpool] whom he believed could not be converted; a protracted argument ensued over the choice of Burdett with Mr Corley and [John] Lawless vainly proposing [William] Plunkett and [Henry] Brougham respectively; Lawless alleged that Burdett, in a private conversation, had supported the restriction of the elective franchise and had treated the Orangemen in the House of Commons with ‘ultra kindness’. O’Connell lauded Burdett as a man of conviction; praised [William] Plunkett, Attorney General, for allowing freedom to the press and remedying the justice system; refuted [Joseph] Butterworth’s claims that the catholic clergy were opposed to education; noted that 400000 children had been educated without public funding; was scathing of several newspapers and editors including Mr Black of ‘The Morning Chronicle’, ‘The Courier’ and ‘The Morning Herald’; provided his version of the delegation’s activities in London noting that he was in favour of meeting Lord Liverpool but others were not. [Richard Lalor] Sheil clarified his position regarding the presentation of the petition to the House of Lords; advised O’Connell ‘not to pay any attention to those calumnies … in the English press’ and to ignore the ‘mere pebbles’ thrown against the Catholic Church by unknowns like John Wilks jnr; praised Mr Black who ‘always endeavoured to serve our course’. O’Connell proposed that a committee, consisting of the three treasurers and others, report on the finances of the former association but assured the meeting that the catholic fund had been properly managed; [Nicholas] Mahon was also anxious that this be done while Like Plunkett, [Frederick W] Conway, [John] Lawless, and Lord Killeen debated if such a committee was legal under the [Unlawful Societies Act] and might the issue be addressed at an aggregate meeting which, in the opinion of Dowell O’Reilly, would be more representative of the people of Ireland; O’Connell in response outlined the limits imposed on them by the ‘Algerine Act' [Unlawful Societies Act] and later read a draft petition calling for the repeal of that act; Lawless suggested that Plunkett, who introduced the act, might be the best person to present the petition for its appeal; [Patrick] Costello reminded the meeting that one of Plunkett’s objectives for the act was the prosecution of Orangemen.

19 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/7

Memorandum by unidentified individual providing a verbatim account of the fifth day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Gonville Ffrench, with [Christopher] Fitzsimon acting as secretary; [Daniel] O’Connell regretted that he could not comply with a written request from Mr Rolfe for money to assist Mr Andrews, a newspaper proprietor, who had been incarcerated in a debtors prison, stating that English catholics should take shares in leading papers in England instead of trying to establish a catholic press; the replies of the following to invitations to attend a dinner on 2 February were read – Alderman Thomas McKenny, Rev Frederick Mullins, Lord Clonbrock, the Marquis of Clanricard, the earl of Essex, Edward O’Brien and Henry Grattan. O’Connell proposed a petition calling for the repeal of the ‘Algerine Act’ [Unlawful Societies Act] which had suppressed the Catholic Association; warned that this legislation could be replicated in England; claimed that the act by removing the right to petition violated every principle of the British constitution; appealed to [Richard] Wellesley, [Lord Lieutenant] to ‘remove this stain’ from his record; complemented Mr Riky on his promotion which he hoped would put to flight the enemies of the attorney general; refuted the census calculations of Mr McCullock, the Scottish economist. [Frederick W] Conway discussed the merits of Mr Riky while Mr Dillon argued that more credit was due to Matthew Foley. [John] Bric argued that their opponents refused to have an enquiry prior to the introduction of the act as they knew all charges against the association would be refuted; criticised John Dogherty [Doherty] for his speech in the House of Commons in which he stated that the Catholic Association was unconstitutional; claimed that the act was against the Bill of Rights and the principle of petitioning; argued that the association was suppressed because of the success of the catholic rent and the ‘energy of union it created’ which was ‘entirely inconsistent with … the penal code’; feared that a lack of finance would curtail their work in presenting petitions and providing legal assistance to catholics. Mr Preston also noted that the act deprived them of the remedy of petitioning; [John] Lawless claimed that [William] Plunkett, the ‘most ingenious Attorney General the Dey of Algiers ever had’, knew fully the repercussions of the ‘Algerine Act' [Unlawful Societies Act] and stated that nothing could prevent him from having his opinion printed in ‘The Irishman’ and that instead of ‘a Meeting like the present a voice would be raised throughout Ireland that would terrify John Bull himself’; Mr McDermott disagreed with the ‘censure … lavishly heaped upon Mr Plunkett’ whom he claimed was one of the ablest advocates for the Catholics; Mr Dillon recalled being astonished when Plunkett advocated for the suppression of the association and referring to the act as ‘Wellesley’s Statute’ believed that it would forever be associated with the lord lieutenant; it was proposed that the petition be given to Mr Brougham for presentation to the House of Commons and to Earl Grey [Charles Grey, 2nd earl Grey] for the House of Lords; O’Connell gave notice of a petition which would call for an allocation of funding to the catholic clergy for education and suggested that a deputation be formed to wait on the catholic prelates and request their attendance at their meeting on Monday to discuss the matter; Lawless gave notice of his own motion on education.

20 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/8

Memorandum by unidentified individuals providing a verbatim account of the sixth day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Sir Thomas Esmonde; the replies of the following to invitations to attend a dinner on 2 February were read – Lord Cloncurry, Col James Crosbie, Baron Roebuck, Lord Leitrim, Counsellor Clarke, John Byrne, John Finley, Joshua Spencer, Lord Darnley, Col Talbot and Doctor Sadlier; [Daniel] O’Connell proposed a petition concerning the funding of education noting the hostility of the English biblical meetings and school societies towards the catholic clergy, the report of the Commissioners of Education Inquiry which denounced the falsehoods of the ‘London hypocrites’, the enormous funds given to the Kildare Place Society and charter schools and the 400000 children educated by the catholic clergy without government assistance; it was decided that a deputation be sent to a meeting of the catholic hierarchy requesting their attendance at the association’s meeting on the following Monday; the delegation returned later and reported that that the bishops could not attend but would provide them with their resolution on the subject of education; [John] Lawless was critical of the speeches made by Mr Semple, an architect [and member of Dublin Corporation] whose patron was Church of Ireland archbishop [William] Magee [of Dublin]. [Stephen] Coppinger proposed and argued that a petition on the tithe system be prepared; called for catholics and dissenters to unite against this ‘pernicious’ system; likened the plight of the cottiers who were brought before the ecclesiastical courts by proctors as ‘going to Law with the Devil in the court of Hell’; believed that the tithe system lead to the rise of ‘Captain Rock’; criticised the Tithe Commutation Act and Burial Act; pointed to America where church and state were separate; noted that catholic emancipation was strongly opposed by the clergy of the established church lead by the militant ‘Bishop of Osnaburgh’ [Prince Frederick, Duke of York and prince-bishop of Osnabrück]. A number of individuals disagreed with Coppinger mainly on the grounds that the time was not right to introduce this matter as it would distract them from their main objective of emancipation; [Frederick W] Conway suggested that the matter be addressed in country meetings and both he and Mr McDermott claimed that some beneficial results had come from the Tithe Composition and Title Commutation Acts respectively; Richard Bellew cautioned that their enemies would accuse them of wanting to overthrow the church and state; [John] Bric questioned why Coppinger had not referred the matter first to the committee of eleven and advised him to withdraw the motion; Sir Edward Bellew noted that tithes were not a matter solely for catholics. O’Connell pointed out that unlike protestants, catholics received no civil rights or ecclesiastical privileges despite paying tithes; outlined the origins and legal status of the charge; argued that it would be best not to meddle in this complex issue as any approach to parliament at this time would be ‘perfectly useless’. [Patrick] Costello suggested that they wait until they had gathered census statistics to support their case; Mr Dillon stated that tithes were proscribed nowhere in the bible and that emancipation included getting rid of the ‘Church Establishment’; Mr O’Farrell, Hugh O’Conor, [Richard Lalor] Sheil, Lord Killeen and Bellew all distanced themselves from Dillon’s comment but Dillon reiterated it adding that catholics should not flinch or assume a middle course; Lawless thought that they would be a cowardly set of men and not worthy of the respect of the English if they shrunk for this issue and objected to the suggestion that the motion be brought before the ‘eleven wise men upstairs’; Coppinger withdrew his motion.

21 Jan 1826

1826