Search the Catalogue

CSO/RP/CA/1826/9

Memorandum by unidentified individual providing a verbatim account of the seventh day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Sir Edward Bellew; the replies of the following to invitations to attend a dinner on 2 February were read – Sir Simon Bradstreet, Sir Charles Morgan, Robert Latouche MP, William Wrixon Becher, Rev Richard Martin, Robert Henry Southwell, Col Butler, the Duke of Leinster, the Duke of Buckingham and the Marquis of Lansdowne; [Daniel] O’Connell commented on a long letter from WC Smyth [Baron of the Exchequer] explaining his political position and [John] Lawless praised Smyth for his lecture delivered to Dublin Corporation; Lord Killeen presented the resolutions of Daniel Murray [Catholic archbishop of Dublin] and the catholic prelates on national education in which they agreed that catholic and protestant children could be educated together if allowances were made for separate religious education and where school-masters and books would be approved by the hierarchy; [Nicholas Purcell] O’Gorman claimed that experiments with education in Ireland had delayed emancipation and that the Kildare Place Society were now proselytisers. O’Connell successfully proposed his petition on education which chiefly called for the abolition of the charter schools and the reallocation of their funding; recounted the history of education from penal times; mocked Capt Pringle’s assertions concerning the influence of catholic clergy given to the [Commission on Irish Education Inquiry 1825]; gave examples of ill-treatment of children at various charter schools noting in particular how school masters falsified the ages of pupils in order to keep them working on their farms or in their weaving-shops; referred to the inspections carried out by Mr Howard and Sir Jeremiah Fitzpatrick in the 1780s and Dr Beaufort and Mr Corneille in 1808. [Richard] M Bellew was pleased that the commissioners had shown the charter schools and the Hibernian Society to be ‘hotbeds of bigotry’; called for the dissolution of the inefficient and failed Kildare Place Society; rejected the view of some of that societies’ members that the catholic clergy were enemies of education; noted that some distinguished protestant prelates were also opposed to the indiscriminate reading of the bible; disapproved of a system of education where children of different creeds were educated separately arguing that the early association of children brought about the union of the classes. Mr Dillon, who later claimed to be superintendent to a school of 100 pupils, stated that the commission was a great nuisance to education and called for the petition to include a reprobation of the commission’s report; claimed that the Irish peasantry received their ‘learning’ from their clergy and that what was wanted were not men who can ‘read and write’ but men that could ‘sow and reap’; argued later that the Ribbonmen were ‘a well educated set of people’ who rejected calls for restraint from their clergy and that districts where people were the most educated were invariably the ‘most turbulent’; accused the established church of not applying monies received by the ‘First Fruits’ charge to education; disagreed with the concept of mutual education. Mr Dillon Bellew claimed that emancipation was a prerequisite for an agreement on education between protestants and catholics; urged the meeting to pay attention to the views of the hierarchy to avoid yielding to a ‘second edition of the Kildare Place Society’; cautioned against any ‘indiscriminate censure upon the Commissioners of Education’. [Frederick W] Conway disagreed entirely with Dillon; saw no irreconcilable differences between the hierarchy and the commissioners and advised that any money available from government should be accepted. Mr O’Reilly suggested that a decision on whether to support the hierarchy would have to be taken at another meeting and that the people would support the hierarchy. [John] Lawless disagreed with Dillon’s view that learning inflamed the bad passions of the peasantry; disagreed with the concept of a ‘united system of religious instruction’; expressed disappointment that the bishops had not proposed their own system. Mr O’Gorman claimed that their petition was strengthened by the commissioner’s report and urged Dillon to withdraw his insinuation against the ‘lower order’; O’Connell gave notice of a petition in support of the bishop’s resolutions on education; Lawless complained of a negative depiction of himself in ‘The Morning Chronicle’ and a discussion followed during which it was denied that a meeting in Carlow was ‘packed’ by supporters of O’Connell.

23 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/10

Memorandum by unidentified individuals providing a verbatim account of the eight day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by [John] Browne; [Christopher] Fitzsimon asked if he should remain as secretary of the meeting as [Nicholas Purcell] O’Gorman, secretary to the catholics of Ireland was in attendance but O’Gorman offered to temporarily relinquish his position for the remainder of their meetings; Sir Edward Bellew reported that the catholic prelates had expressed a desire to concur with them [on the education issue]. [Daniel] O’Connell presented a draft petition calling for their rights, as granted by the Treaty of Limerick, to be restored; called for in particular the removal of the penal code which prevented catholic peers and commoners from entering parliament; attacked Mr Dawson, Under Secretary and brother-in-law to [Robert] Peel, [Home Secretary] and used historical references refuted his claim that there was ‘no trace in Irish history of one single fact to claim the admiration or the respect of posterity’; read a passage from a book written in 1692 by George Morey, chaplain to King William, which gave an account of the siege of Limerick; refuted Peel’s claim that the treaty only granted ‘the free exercise of religion’. Mr Dillon claimed that commercial rivalry lay behind many injustices and provided as examples the threats of the English in Yorkshire and Lancashire to Irish claims in the 1780s and King William’s support of the destruction of the Irish woollen trade; referred to Mr Dawson’s speech and claimed that the thirty two volumes in Trinity College on the subject of the 1641 massacres did not bear out the assertions of protestants; mentioned the Jesuit, Father Campion, who was imprisoned and tortured on the orders of Queen Elizabeth. [John] Lawless recalled hearing Peel announce that he would endeavour to bring the people of England back to the Treaty of Limerick if it could be proven that it had been violated; asked the ‘recording Angel’ beside him to ensure that a transcription of O’Connell’s speech was given to the secretary of state; suggested that Dawson was following his superior’s orders to fan the dying embers of orangeism which [Richard] Wellesley [Lord Lieutenant] had endeavoured to extinguish. [Richard Lalor] Sheil pointed out that although the treaty had been violated for over a century no statute of limitation against the nation’s right existed and that the present monarch was bound by it under the maxim of ‘the king never dies’; explained how the treaty was agreed and subsequently renounced by [Anthony] Dopping, [Church of Ireland Bishop of Meath]. O’Gorman noted how Peel’s ignorance of history had allowed him to throw down this challenge but lamented that he had no faith in the present British government; [Frederick W] Conway suggested that O’Connell’s speech be printed to which O’Connell replied that he never spoke from notes but would attempt to recall it; O’Connell gave notice of a motion calling for simultaneous meetings throughout the country and a request to be made to the prelates to prepare a prayer for the occasion, praying for the prosperity of the state, long life to the monarch and the obtaining of justice from the legislature; in reply to a query from O’Gorman, O’Connell stated that he had no private or prior discussions with the hierarchy on this matter as to do so would be improper; [Stephen] Coppinger gave notice of a motion offering thanks to the writers of an address from New York and was supported by Lawless but was objected to by Mr McDermott, O’Connell and Mr O’Connor who condemned the address on account of its inflammatory language which would give offence to their friends in parliament.

24 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/11

Memorandum by unidentified individuals providing a verbatim account of the ninth day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by [Sir] Thomas Wyse; the replies of the following to invitations to attend a dinner on 2 February were read – George Lidwell, William Beamish, Judge Day, the Marquis of Westmeath, Isaac Stewart and Charles Brownlow; Hugh O’Connor delivered a general speech on the ‘long prevailing evil system of ruling Ireland’; Sir Thomas Esmonde submitted the redrafted petition on the Treaty of Limerick and informed Mr Dillon that his amendments had not been added; it was proposed that the petition on charter schools be presented to parliament by [Thomas] Spring Rice and the Marquis of Lansdowne [Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 3rd marquess of Lansdowne] and Lord Killeen noted that following the recent report an order had been issued which would supress charter schools but O’Connell worried that this order might be rescinded by the next lord lieutenant and hoped that the measure might be enshrined in law. O’Connell moved a motion calling for the petition [for unqualified emancipation] to be presented to the House of Commons by Sir Francis Burdett; noted that some of their friends in cabinet had suggested that the catholic question should not be discussed during the next parliamentary session; argued that when they called for a discussion every year ‘the men who bring it forward are not to be blamed for it for they do it only in compliance with our wish but if we consult with them it becomes a personal ground of complaint against them’; stated that he had closely examined the counter-argument put by Sheil; noted that the ‘spirit of bigotry’ was afloat in parliament and quoted a speech by Sir Isaac Coffin stating that if Ireland was ‘put for 48 hours six fathoms under water … it would rise up a beautiful little Green island for Protestants’ but added that they had been supported three times by the House of Commons; suggested that the English population were ignorant of their claims but that the British constitution was laid on a firm basis and that the catholic religion was actually flourishing in England; concluded by recounting how he attended a meeting in London in honour of Burdett ‘the only political gentleman that I ever met with that totally disregarded all idea of self or selfish motives and looked to nothing but public utility’. Sheil admitted that he had changed his mind concerning the wisdom of pressing the catholic question at the next parliamentary session; acknowledged the ‘honourable motives’ of their supporters who feared that pressing the question in ‘an expiring House of Commons’ would have little effect on the House of Lords while exposing them to the disapproval of their constituents; acknowledged that those who supported the wings had allowed their opinions ‘to melt’ when faced with public opinion against them; now believed that as long as ‘Lord Eldon, Lord Liverpool, Mr Peel and Lord Westmoreland’ remained in office it was self-delusional to hope that they would gain liberty and so the best course of action was to cause difficulty for the administration by raising the emancipation question. Lord Killeen did not press his amendment which would have left it to their parliamentary advocates to choose the time and place to originate the discussion of the catholic question but advised that they should concentrate their efforts on the House of Lords as they had already secured the support of the lower house on three occassions. [John] Lawless did not admire Peel’s policies but admired his determination and spirit; credited Sheil for ‘bowing to the Majesty of the public mind’; was extremely critical of O’Connell’s recollection of the dinner which occurred while the delegation were in London; claimed that given the chance he would make the ‘Morning Herald’ into a liberal paper that would be circulated amongst Englishmen with no sectarian sentiments. [Nicholas Purcell] O’Gorman believed that a ‘divided cabinet must be injurious to [their] cause’; O’Connell quipped that ‘no question is agitated in the Catholic Association without a speech from John Lawless’.

25 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/12

Memorandum by unidentified individuals providing a verbatim account of the tenth day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Corn Exchange, chaired by Nicholas Mahon; the replies of Lord Riversdale and Col Shaw to invitations to attend a dinner on 2 February were read; Anthony Browne proposed a motion of thanks to Rev Sydney Smyth, Rev Bird and Rev Shepherd of Liverpool; [Christopher] Fitzsimon stated that the issue of a burial ground for Dublin would be taken up in another association; [Stephen] Coppinger refused to abandon his proposal to offer a vote of thanks to the authors of an address from New York; [John] Lawless gave notice of a motion condemning the language used in the ‘monstrous’ oath of allegiance and Mr Dillon called for the repeal of the ‘Protestant Oath’ which barred catholics and dissenters from holding public office and which even Lord Castlereagh found disgusting; Sir Edward Bellew wondered if the committee looking into the accounts and expenditures of the catholic body could legally proceed with their work; Lord Killeen proposed an address to the people of England which would answer the accusations against catholics that they held divided allegiances, sought to overthrow the established church and that they wished to disconnect from Great Britain; Mr Preston believed that the main English opposition came from the its clergy; [Sir Thomas] Wyse agreed that the House of Lords could always rely upon ‘a great mass of spiritual Peers’ who were opposed to them but also noted the cordial relations between English protestants and catholic cardinals in Rome; [Daniel] O’Connell denied a comment attributed to him in ‘Saunders Newsletter’ in which he was alleged to have accused the managers of the Kildare Place Society of spending the societies’ funds ‘at Bath and Cheltenham’; [Richard Lalor] Sheil proposed a vote of thanks to [Patrick] Kelly, catholic Bishop of Waterford for having commenced a census of his diocese. O’Connell proposed a plan to hold simultaneous parochial meetings throughout Ireland for the purpose of preparing petitions; acknowledged that some members were opposed to the idea and moved that the plan be first discussed by a committee of twelve; added that the bishops would be requested to prepare a prayer for the occasion; worried that their enemies could use the meetings to cause disturbances and riots and drew attention to possible difficulties in the north of the country; suggested that such meetings would refute the claim that the peasantry cared little for the emancipation cause; explained how the plan was legal and promised that he would abandon it if it could be proved that it would lead to a breach of the peace. Dillon Bellew supported the plan which would result in 300 petitions containing millions of signatures being laid before parliament; Sir Edward Bellew also feared for consequences in the north; [Nicholas Purcell] O’Gorman felt the plan was quite impracticable and dangerous; Sheil took credit for envisioning the plan which would be best debated in committee; Luke Plunkett did not support the measure as Ribbonmen had also favoured having simultaneous meetings.

26 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/13

Memorandum providing a verbatim account of the eleventh day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Catholic Rooms, Corn Exchange, chaired by Cornelius McLochlin [McLoughlin]; [Stephen] Coppinger proposed a motion that the association should formally thank a catholic body in New York for an address which vowed to ‘promulgate through North and South America the story of Ireland’s wrongs and expose the crimes of her oppressors’. Various counterarguments put forward, outlining that the language used in the address was overly antagonistic to the British, and to thank its authors unconditionally was to condone its more militaristic sentiments, which included the dismantling of both the union and the established church. [Sir Thomas] Wyse noted that they sought emancipation yet promised to use it against [the government] who in turn could say that they would rather fight them ‘in chains than in arms’; Sir John Burke did not wish for the association to be ‘identified with that address’. [Richard Lalor] Sheil cautioned the assembly that they were bound [by the Unlawful Societies Act] ‘not to enter into questions not connected with Catholic Emancipation’, and stated that as the assembly expressed ‘the public sentiment of Ireland’, their actions should be representative of the entire Catholic cause. [Anthony] Marmion argued that although he did not wish for separation from England, he felt Ireland ‘would be much more prosperous without the connection’ – the reaction to which was ‘considerable marks of disapprobation and great tumult’. [Daniel] O'Connell objected wholeheartedly to any sentiments of separation and ‘the mischief that would ensue if such sentiments were to go forth’. As no decision was reached the meeting adjourned until the following day.

27 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/14

Memorandum providing a verbatim account of the twelfth day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Catholic Rooms, Corn Exchange, chaired by Sir John Burke; the meeting continued to discuss a motion to tender ‘marked and grateful thanks’ to the catholic body in America for its address; Lord Killeen [Arthur James Plunkett, 9th earl of Fingall] proposed an address ‘to the people of England’, which aimed to raise ‘a general sympathy in the wrongs of those who are subjects of the same king and supporters of the same Constitution’; a motion that the various parishes in Ireland should each petition the legislature for ‘unqualified Emancipation’ and the advantages and disadvantages of holding simultaneous meetings in catholic parishes ‘from one end of Ireland to the other’ was debated; the challenges faced by catholics in the north of Ireland was discussed. [Daniel] O’Connell proposed a special word of thanks to Killeen, whom he described as ‘one of the most important features in the aspect of the Catholic Cause’; proposed a vote of thanks to ‘an Orangeman’, Charles Brownlow, an unlikely advocate of catholic emancipation who nonetheless had become ‘the best and truest friend that Ireland ever had’; quoted the [Unlawful Societies Act] and argued that the limit of 14 days was ‘totally insufficient’ to conduct the association’s business; announced that to prevent any person from imagining there is any connection between this and any other meeting he would 'move a resolution at the close of the Proceedings tomorrow that this Association is totally dissolved’.

28 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/15

Memorandum providing a verbatim account of the thirteenth day’s meeting of a Catholic Association at the Catholic Rooms, Corn Exchange, chaired by Col [Pierce] Butler; proposed that a petition for the repeal of the Burial Bill [Burial (Ireland) Act, 1824], be got up which [Daniel] O’Connell described as ‘a new Penal Statute’ in its restriction of catholic burial rites. Lord Killeen [Arthur James Plunkett, 9th earl of Fingall] proposed a vote of thanks to O’Connell ‘for his great exertions and the sacrifices which he has made for the people of Ireland’ and this was passed ‘with loud acclamation’. O’Connell proposed a petition calling for the creation of a parliamentary fund for education ‘under the Catholic Prelates’; criticised the recent education report [First Report of the Commissioners on Education in Ireland, 1825]; noted that the report was partially based on evidence submitted by individuals such as Thomas Moyle, a candidate teacher at a Charter School at Santry, County Dublin, who argued that the Bible should be introduced as a school text; criticised Capt Pringle who had claimed that catholics, who had not read the scripture for themselves, were likely to think that a priest had the power to ‘change them into a Goat or a Hare’; remarked that Pringle came ‘amongst these savages here with all his wisdom and science… a Captain who has laid down his sword to take up the Bible – he had better resume his former avocation and enlist under Lord Anglesea [Anglesey, Lord Lieutenant] and come and cut the throats of these poor Irishmen when turned into Goats and Hares by the Priests unless they should happen to be protected by the Game Laws’. O’Connell’s suggestion that the catholic bishops be requested to form a prayer ‘to implore the protection and direction of Providence for the exertions of the Catholics of Ireland to obtain civil liberty’ was passed despite objections being raised that it was ‘down right chimerical’ for Irish catholics to ‘presume to offer to their God a petition which had been scornfully rejected by their fellow creatures’ and that it might be thought of as ‘injudicious’ to request a prayer which was political in nature. O’Connell formally dissolved the association.

29 Jan 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/16

Letter from CW [Charles William] Flint, [Under Secretary of Irish Office], Irish Office, [London] to [William Henry] Gregory, [Under Secretary for Ireland]; noting that Mr Gurney had been informed that, as the association [New Catholic Association] has terminated its sittings, Mr Dawbarn was now allowed to return to London; adding that Gurney had written to [Henry] Goulburn, [Chief Secretary of Ireland] on the matter.

4 Feb 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/17

Letter from James McNamara to [George] Thrundle, Irish Office, [London]; enclosing a printed invitation addressed to him inviting him to attend a 'Catholic Convivial Meeting' held at the house of Mr Rogers, Bull Court, Tooley Street, [London]; stressing the respectability of those attending the meeting including the chairman, E Dias Santos, a man of property and a gentleman 'of French decent'; at the meeting he declined taking an oath, for which he was threatened, but has been given some days to reconsider; seeking advise on whether to take the oath adding that if he 'was once settled [he] could very easy get into their designs'; he has sought the opinion of 'the Mayor' on the subject; the people's minds 'are worked up to a pitch'on account of the 'revelations of Pastorina' [Pastorini]; Lord Clifford is to chair a meeting in the 'London Tavern' where the subject of a Catholic Library will be discussed; pamphlets emphysising the non-tyrannical nature of catholicism are being distributed to English protestants.

27 Feb 1826

1826

CSO/RP/CA/1826/18

Correspondence between Maj [George] Warburton, [Inspector General of Police for Connaught], Oatfield House, [County Galway] and William Gregory, [Under Secretary], Dublin complaining about the actions of the high sheriff, a 'silly' 'party man', prior to an election in Castlebar, [County Mayo]; stating that the high sheriff has fixed on Saturday as the election day to maximise the crowd that will assemble and has declined an offer of an [armed police force] in the town; enclosing a letter from the Chief Constable at Castlebar providing private intelligence [not present]; the priests are influencing the people in order to 'detach them from the Browne party' and the Bingham party are influencing the Browne freeholders; believing that Dominic Browne will be the unsuccessful candidate; adding that he has declined offers of accommodation; requesting a response before he travels to counties Roscommon and Galway.

15 Jun 1826-24 Jun 1826

1826