Growth of Irish Priests’ Influence

Few things are more striking to those who compare the present condition of Ireland with her past than the rapidity with which the power of the priests augmented during the nineteenth century.

Continuing Catholic Emancipation in Ireland,
Today we begin the second part of the series with our selection from Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland by William E.H. Lecky published in 1871. The selection is presented in 6.5 easy 5-minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

William E.H. Lecky (1838-1903) was an Irish historian and political theorist.

Previously in Catholic Emancipation in Ireland.

Time: 1829

Few things are more striking to those who compare the present condition of Ireland with her past than the rapidity with which the power of the priests augmented during the nineteenth century. Formerly they were much loved by their flocks but much despised by the Protestants, and they were contented with keeping alive the spiritual feeling of their people without taking any conspicuous part in politics. Once or twice, indeed, the bishops came forward to disclaim certain doctrines that were attributed to their Church and were advanced as an argument against emancipation. Once or twice, they held meetings to further the movement by expressing their willingness to concede something to procure the boon.

The priests seem to have been at one time most reluctant to enter into the political arena, and the whole agitation was frequently in danger of perishing from very languor. There was a party supported by Keogh, the leader in 1793, who recommended what was called “a dignified silence” -in other words, a complete abstinence from petitioning and agitation. With this party O’Connell successfully grappled. His advice on every occasion was, “Agitate, agitate, agitate!” and Keogh was so irritated by the defeat that he retired from the society.

But the greatest of the early triumphs of O’Connell was on the veto question. It is evident that if the proposed compromise were made, the policy he had laid out for himself would be completely frustrated. A public spirit would not be formed among the Roman Catholics by a protracted struggle. Emancipation would be a boon that was conceded, not a triumph that was won, and the episcopacy would be in a measure dependent upon the Crown. In the course of the contest almost every element of power seemed against him. The bishops, both in 1799 and 1808, had declared themselves in favor of the veto. The English Ro man Catholics led by Mr. Butler, the upper order of those of Ireland led by Lord Fingall, and the Protestant Liberals led by Grattan, warmly supported it. Sheil, who was thoroughly identified with the democratic party, and whose wonderful rhetorical powers gave him an extraordinary influence, wrote and spoke in favor of compromise; and, to crown all, Monsignor Quarantotti, who in a great measure managed affairs at Rome during the captivity of Pius VII, exhorted the bishops to accept it.

Over all these obstacles O’Connell triumphed. He succeeded in persuading or forcing the bishops into violent opposition to the scheme, and in throwing them on the support of the people. Doctor Milner wrote against the veto and was accordingly censured by the English Roman Catholics but O’Connell induced those of Ireland to support him. Grattan refused to place himself in the hands of the Catholic committee, and the petition was immediately taken out of his hands. Lord Fingall, Sir E. Bellew, and a few other leading Catholics would not yield, and were obliged to form a separate society, which soon sank into insignificance. Sheil was answered by O’Connell, and the answer was accepted by the people as conclusive; and, finally, the rescript of Quarantotti was disobeyed by the bishops and dis avowed by the Pope. The results of the controversy were prob ably by no means beneficial to the country, but they at least served in an eminent degree the purposes of the agitator. The clergy were brought actively into politics. The lower orders were stirred to the very depths, and O’Connell was triumphant over all rivals.

In the course of this controversy, it was frequently urged that O’Connell’s policy retarded emancipation. This objection he met with characteristic frankness. He avowed himself repeatedly to be an agitator with an ” ulterior object,” and declared that that object was the repeal of the union. “Desiring, as I do, the repeal of the union, ” he said in one of his speeches, in 1813, ” I rejoice to see how our enemies promote that great object. Yes, they promote its inevitable success by their very hostility to Ireland. They delay the liberties of the Catholics, but they compensate us most amply because they advance the restoration of Ireland. By leaving one cause of agitation, they have created, and they will embody and give shape and form to, a public mind and a public spirit.”

In 1811, at a political dinner, he spoke to the toast of “Repeal,” which had been given at his suggestion, and he repeatedly reverted to the subject. Nothing can be more untrue than to represent the repeal agitation as a mere afterthought designed to sustain his flagging popularity; nor can it be said that the project was first started by him. The deep indignation that the union had produced in Ireland was fermenting among all classes, and assuming the form, sometimes of a French party, sometimes of a social war, and sometimes of a constitutional agitation. The repeal agitation directed but did not create the national feeling. It merely gave it a distinct form, a steady action, and a constitutional character. In 1810 a very remarkable movement in this direction took place in Dublin. The grand jury passed a resolution declaring that “the union had produced an accumulation of distress; and that, instead of cementing, they feared that if not repealed it might endanger the connection between the sister-countries.”

In the same year a meeting communicated on the subject with Grattan, who was member for the city. Grattan replied that a repeal agitation could only be successful if supported by the people; that if that support were given, he would be ready to advocate the movement; and that he considered such a course perfectly consonant with devoted attachment to the connection. Lord Cloncurry relates that he was a member of a deputation which on another occasion waited on Grattan, and that Grattan said to them, “Gentlemen, the best advice I can give my fellow-citizens upon every occasion is to keep knocking at the union.”

William E. Gladstone begins here. Daniel O’Connell begins here.

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history