FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT CAUSED BY THE RESCRIPT--DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MR.
O'CONNELL AND THE PRIMATE.--FINANCIAL REFORMS IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE
ASSOCIATION, AND CONSEQUENT DISSENSION.--'82 CLUB.--THE COLLEGES
BILL.--DIFFERENCES AND CALUMNIES CONSEQUENT UPON IT. QUARREL WITH MR.
DAVIS.--THE GREAT LEVEE AT THE ROTUNDA.--DECLINE OF THE
AGITATION.--CLOSING LABOURS AND DEATH OF THOMAS DAVIS.
Thus wrote Thomas Davis at the opening of the new year:--
"Hitherto our dangers have been few and transient. The product
of mistake or enthusiasm, they were remedied by explanation and
kindliness. There are dangers threatened now, and against them
we shall try the same prompt and frank policy which never failed
us yet. Already the English press are quarrelling for the spoils
of the routed Repealers. They are almost unanimous in describing
the people as disgusted, the leaders as exhausted, and the
policy of the ministers as rapidly levelling the defences of the
once great party.
"We do not quail. We remember that whenever the rent[5] has
fallen, the same press cried out the people are sick of the
agitation. Whenever righteous discussion took place in our
councils, they exulted over our 'fatal divisions,' and at the
beginning of each new blunder of the cabinet, they sang victory.
"If the Irish be a hot or capricious race, who plunge into a new
policy because it is new, and abandon their dearest interests
and most solemn vows because their success needs time, then
indeed Repeal was hopeless and was always so. If the leaders
have not sagacity enough to embrace the business of an empire
and pierce through time, unwearied industry, pure hands and
resolute spirits, then to repeal is hopeless until a new race of
chiefs appears."
Almost contemporaneously with this article, the Catholic Primate
contradicted Mr. O'Connell's assertion respecting the rescript, and laid
rescript and contradiction before the public. "I was surprised and
sorry," he writes, "to find that you had ventured to assert that a
letter sent to me some time past from the Propaganda was not a canonical
document." He adds that he laid the document before the assembled
prelates, and appends the resolution in which they acknowledged its
authenticity and approval of its counsel.[6]
Mr. O'Connell at once expressed his entire acquiescence and deep
contrition. He bowed reverentially to the resolution of the prelates,
retracted the hasty opinion, and apologised for his error, which, he
said, resulted from his great anxiety of mind, caused by the avowal of
the _Morning Chronicle_ that the Whigs had a secret agent in Rome.
But the prelates were far from unanimous in their construction of the
rescript which they promised unanimously to obey. With the resolution
among his papers, the Archbishop of Tuam proceeded directly from the
Episcopal meeting to the Repeal banquet at Limerick, where he delivered
a speech stronger in language and more violent in character than any he
had ever uttered. Some passages in that speech, wherein he eulogised the
heroism of the women of Limerick who cut their long hair to supply the
defenders of the city with strings for their bows, excited the wildest
enthusiasm and most rapturous applause. Doctor Cantwell, in the letter
already referred to, gives his construction, which he says was that of
the majority.
"The Cardinal only evidently censures violent and intemperate
language, in either priest or bishop, whether they address their
flocks in their temples, or mix with their fellow-countrymen in
banquets or public meetings. We inferred, and I think we were
justified in the inference, that conduct and language at all
times unbecoming our sacred character, and not our presence on
such legitimate occasions, were the object of this salutary
caution."
His construction was sustained more clearly and forcibly by Thomas
Davis. "It [the rescript] announces the undoubted truth that the main
duty of a Christian priest is to care for the souls of his flock, and
both by precept and example to teach mildness, piety and peace. It does
not denounce a Catholic clergyman for aiding the Repeal movement in all
ways becoming a minister of peace. Nowhere in the rescript is the
agitation as a system, or repeal as a demand, censured; but some
reported violence of speech is disapproved."
The coincidence seems a strange one, that in the same paper, which thus
disposes of the rescript, the same paper wherein appear the letters of
Doctor Crolly, Doctor Cantwell, and Mr. O'Connell, the same paper in
which is published the official denial of a Concordat with the Pope,
under the viceregal seal, are also published the proceedings of the
Repeal Association, which consisted, to a great extent, of a violent
attack on the exploded Concordat. At the meeting held on the 13th of
January, it was denounced especially by two of Mr. O'Connell's friends,
Mr. O'Neill Daunt and Mr. John Reilly, in terms the most vehement and
indignant. Mr. Daunt used these words. "On that day fortnight he had
proclaimed from the chair of the Association, that if a rescript should
emanate from Rome denouncing the national movement, the Catholics of
Ireland would treat it as so much waste paper." This statement was made
on the 13th, Doctor Crolly's letter is dated on the 11th, Mr.
O'Connell's on the 14th, and Lord Heytesbury's denial of the Concordat
on the 15th of January. Contemporaneously with all these was also
published an address of his clergy to the Archbishop of Dublin,
deprecating in the strongest language certain calumnies against him,
which they attribute to priests and people, Protestant and Catholic.
From these proceedings one inference is inevitable, namely, that they
who have so strongly inculcated obedience to the Holy See, and
denounced as an infidel any Catholic who refused blind obedience to its
decisions, in reference to secular education, were not then troubled
with the same sensitiveness or scrupulousness of conscience in regard to
the authority of the Roman Pontiff. But of that one word hereafter. I
here reproduce the historical facts connected with these letters, for
another object. Although the excitement about the threatened Concordat
was allayed, and the invectives against the Archbishop of Dublin abated
in intemperance, the bitterness of feeling which swept over the country
like an avenging scourge, left behind it germs of discord and weakness.
Publicly or privately the Seceders did not interfere. At the meeting of
the Association already alluded to, Mr. O'Brien made a most noble
speech, inculcating education, self-reliance, organisation and progress,
without stooping to refer to the perplexed question, which filled his
audience with angry passions, and supplied the other speakers with
intemperate enthusiasm.
The whole endeavours of the Seceders were at this time devoted to the
organisation of clubs or reading rooms on an educational basis.
Connected with this object was the augmentation of the Repeal revenue,
which was anticipated from the extended action of these political and
social schools. The funds were greatly diminished, and the weekly
collections had fallen to an average of about £150. It became necessary,
as much as possible, to curtail the expenses, and a reduction of a very
serious amount was effected during Mr. O'Connell's absence at Derrynane.
The effort was continued after his arrival in town, which led to
differences of opinion with him, in committee. Sinecure situations,
created by him, were abolished, and inquiries were instituted which gave
him great annoyance. He particularly resented and resisted the removal
from one of those offices of Doctor Nagle. Doctor Nagle was appointed to
be "curator of manuscripts", the ostensible duty of which was to
superintend the reports (then daily issuing from the press, and written
for the most part by the Seceders) for the purpose of preventing the
publication of anything illegal or dangerous. In effect, he was
nominally, literary, legal and moral censor. But the unanimous and loud
indignation of the essayists rendered his task a light one. He was
content to accept the salary and leave those gentlemen the guardians of
their own safety, their character and literary fame. Doctor Nagle
continued to act as librarian and, weekly, delivered to the secretary
certain lists of contributions that had been previously furnished him by
that gentleman. His salary and certain fees given to other "patriots,"
came under the cognisance of a sub-committee consisting, as well as I
remember, of the present member for Dublin,[7] a Mr. O'Meara and someone
whose name I now forget. Their report adjudged the office useless, and
recommended its immediate abolition. A motion was accordingly made in
committee for Doctor Nagle's dismissal. Mr. O'Connell was in the chair.
All his sons were present, one of whom, I think, moved an amendment to
the effect that he be continued at his then salary. A division took
place, when the majority against the amendment was considerably over two
to one. Mr.
O'Connell expressed himself deeply mortified at this result. Another
amendment to the same effect was then proposed and negatived by a
majority numerically somewhat less, when Sir Colman O'Loghlen moved, and
John Loyd Fitzgerald seconded, an amendment to the effect that he be
continued as clerk of the library at half his salary, that is £50 a
year. The result would have been the same as before but that many of the
majority had withdrawn under the impression that the question was
disposed of; the number for the amendment was twenty-two, and the number
against only twenty-three. Mr. O'Connell assumed the right to give two
votes, one as member, which made the numbers equal, and a casting vote
as chairman. It was then proposed and carried that every chairman should
in future have two votes, and Sir Colman's amendment was allowed to pass
in the affirmative. Doctor Nagle continued to fill his office until his
appointment to a more lucrative one under the Whig Government.
The Eighty-Two Club which was projected in prison was finally organised
in January, 1845. The differences which manifested themselves in
Conciliation Hall imperceptibly extended to this body. The original
members constituted the committee and were self-appointed. The others
had to submit to a ballot. Some few were rejected, at which Mr.
O'Connell's friends took umbrage, and the rejected aspirants were sure
to attribute their decision to their devotion to the "Liberator." Thus
it happened that most objectionable candidates could not be resisted
without incurring the imputation of opposing and thwarting the "saviour
of his country."
[Illustration: Charles Lavan Duffy (1846)]
Mr. O'Connell himself, although he warmly approved of the club in the
commencement, soon ceased to feel an interest in its proceedings. For
the first year, its action was confined to some routine dinners, which
attracted a very fashionable attendance, and furnished an occasion for
some brilliant speaking. Yet the fame and respectability of such a body
were seductions which few of the leading men in the confederacy could
resist. The Eighty-Two Club became a standard toast at public dinners,
and its members were received as distinguished guests or visitors
wherever they appeared. Without having yet performed any distinct
service, or realised the promise involved in its establishment, the club
became a very important and imposing body.
Mr. O'Connell was its president, and Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Grattan, Sir
Colman O'Loghlen and others, vice-presidents. The first committee was
composed of the Members of Parliament, Mayors of cities, and men eminent
in the different professions and literary pursuits. Complaints of
inattention were made against some of its members, and at the election
for officers after the expiration of the first year, others were
substituted for the inattentive and inefficient. The change for the most
part was made by unanimous consent; but when a ballot was called for,
other names were substituted for those on the house list, recommended by
the former committee, and the contest resulted in the rejection of
Richard Barrett and one or two others. This was taken as an affront to
Mr. O'Connell, though personally he neither took part in, nor was
present at, the meeting. Whether it was owing to Mr. O'Connell's
aversion to the green-and-gold uniform, to which he sometimes expressed
his dislike, or his objection to the rejection of his soi-disant
friends, or to his consciousness that the club was not subservient to
his control, he took very little interest in its progress, and
frequently spoke of it in terms of derision.
But that which produced the first sensible and vital difference between
Mr. O'Connell and the Seceders was the Colleges Bill. Education had long
been a subject of anxious solicitude with Mr. Davis, and he was in
continual communication with Mr. Wyse, its great parliamentary champion.
He had repeatedly urged upon him the indispensable necessity of the
principle of mixed education, as the basis of any collegiate system for
Ireland. That basis was recognised in the system of national education
which was accepted and approved of by the whole Catholic Hierarchy, with
one exception, and most warmly sanctioned by the Catholic priesthood and
laity. Extreme bigots of the Protestant school opposed and denounced it
as unscriptural and Godless, and one extreme bigot of the Catholic
school echoed the objurgation. It was not to be supposed that a
principle thus sanctioned, tried, and efficient as applicable to the
children of the poor, would be objected to when applied to those who
were higher in station and older in years. When, therefore, the Bill was
introduced and its principal provisions announced, it was received with
the utmost delight and, even, triumph. Mr. O'Connell proclaimed in a
meeting of the committee his emphatic approval of the principle of the
Bill.
As soon as its details were published, it was submitted to the
parliamentary committee, and, during its discussion there, he expressed
for the first time some doubts as to the practicability of a mixed
system of education. Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Davis and others expostulated, and
deprecated in unmistakable terms the fatality of engaging the
Association to a principle so sectarian, narrow and illiberal. He said
he would take time to consider, and would meantime consult with Doctor
MacHale. He was reminded that Doctor MacHale could not approve of the
system without gross inconsistency, and requested to take the opinion of
all the other Bishops as well. How far he was governed by this advice is
unimportant and impossible to tell. But the bishops met in solemn synod
and published the result of their deliberations in the following
memorial:--
"That memorialists are disposed to co-operate on fair and
reasonable terms with her majesty's government and the
legislature, in establishing a system for the further extension
of academical education in Ireland.
"That a fair proportion of the professors and other
office-bearers in the new colleges should be members of the
Roman Catholic Church, whose moral conduct shall have been
properly certified by testimonials of character, signed by their
respective prelates. And that all the office-bearers in those
colleges should be appointed by a board of trustees, of which
the Roman Catholic prelates of the provinces in which any of
those colleges shall be erected shall be members.
"That the Roman Catholic pupils could not attend the lectures on
history, logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy, geology, or
anatomy, without exposing their faith or morals to imminent
danger, unless a Roman Catholic professor will be appointed for
each of those chairs.
"That if any president, vice-president, professor, or
office-bearer, in any of the new colleges shall be convicted
before the board of trustees of attempting to undermine the
faith or injure the morals of any student in those institutions,
he shall be immediately removed from his office by the same
board."
It will be observed that the principle of mixed education is not here
directly approved or condemned. But approval is an inference, as clear
and emphatic as words could express. The memorial prays for distinct and
specific alterations in the details of the Bill. It demands that certain
branches of secular education should be taught to the Catholic students
by Catholic professors approved of by the prelates, and it insists upon
other guarantees to secure the Catholic youth from the danger of all and
every species of interference with the tenets of their faith.
How far the demands of the bishops were just or extravagant, is not a
fit subject of inquiry here. But the fact of making the demands stamps
the principle of the bill with their incontrovertible approval. The
argument which denies it involves an accusation against those Most
Reverend and Right Reverend divines, of evasion, treachery and untruth.
Any defence which implies that they avoided the direct condemnation of
the principle because they knew their memorial would be disregarded,
which would enable them to interdict the whole Bill, principle and
details, on the ground of the immorality of the latter, involves an
implication that moral and Christian turpitude is synonymous with
Catholic zeal. Such an implication, inevitable from the premises assumed
by the opponents of the mixed system, would be foulest calumny. The
Catholic prelates were eminently sincere; and had they been warmly
seconded they might have obtained such ameliorations in the details of
the system as would be satisfactory to every rational, liberal and
honest man. But the old jealousy, division and calumny which had grown
out of the Bequests Act, obtruded themselves on every attempt at calm
consideration, and scattered the elements indispensable to successful
moral combination. The principle and details of the academic project
became confused and confounded, and while some clamorously opposed,
others unthinkingly supported, the entire. Thus the minister was enabled
to balance the voice of public opinion as he found it arrayed for and
against his measure, and under pretence of indifference to despise both
parties. For a long while, the action of the Association was paralysed.
There were deeper questions at issue there than even those which
appeared on the face of the bill. The educational party insisted that
any measure which did not embrace the University was scanty and
illiberal. They claimed its honours, advantages and emoluments for all
the youth of Ireland alike; and they sought to make the academic
subordinate to and parcel of the collegiate system. The Dublin
University and Trinity College are separate and distinct foundations and
establishments. They proposed that Maynooth and Trinity College should
be both sufficiently endowed for all purposes of ecclesiastical
education, without any interference, direct or indirect, from each other
or the Government, while the University should be open alike to all who
had obtained distinction in the provincial colleges. Any measure of
narrower scope would, they contended, leave dullness and bigotry where
it found them.
Mr. O'Connell, on the other hand, insisted on the inviolability of
Dublin College as a Protestant institution, inaccessible to Catholics,
except through the slough of perverted and perjured faith. He would then
have new colleges purely Catholic and entirely under the control of the
Catholic bishops, but endowed by the State, and chartered to confer
literary degrees. He would extend the same right to the members of other
religious persuasions. It was answered that these positions and his
arguments addressed to the academic question were irreconcilable and
incompatible. Catholics were already admissible to Dublin College, and
entitled to certain degrees and a vote. He either intended that they
should be thenceforth excluded or he did not. If not, then the argument
against mixed education would hold for nothing: if he did, then he
attempted what was impracticable, or, if not impracticable, preposterous
and absurd. It is not conceivable that Catholic young men, of laudable
ambition, would be deterred from entering the lists with their
Protestant contemporaries where most honour was won by superior
eminence, or that they would be swayed by a warning that a college
course would be attended with risk to their faith and morals, when they
remembered that for the past century, while the risk was infinitely more
imminent, no such warning had been ever heard from council, synod or
conference. It is a strange fact in the history of these troubled times
that no voice of denunciation against Dublin College could be heard in
the polemical din, although it was well known that its literary honours
stamped preliminary degradation on the Catholic aspirant, and were used
at once to mock his political condition and pervert his faith--no voice
was heard although one at least of the prelates had obtained degrees in
the University, while the bishop and priests of an entire diocese, in
conclave assembled, solemnly resolved that they would refuse sacraments
to any Catholic parent who sent his son to one of the Godless colleges.
But supposing it were practicable to exclude Roman Catholics from the
University, and that the system of exclusive education among the middle
and upper classes were applied in all its rigour, when were Protestant
and Catholic to meet? If it were dangerous to faith and morals that they
should discuss together the properties of an angle or the altitude of a
star, it could hardly be safe to have them decide together a principle
of law or determine the value or limits of a political franchise. All
this was urged on Mr. O'Connell, and sometimes apparently with success,
for he more than once consented to forego the discussion of the question
in the Hall; and he would have strictly adhered to that engagement had
he not been goaded by the intemperate counsels of others.
In the desultory history of this question, two facts have been stated
requiring distinct proof. They are:--First, that Mr. O'Connell was
favourable to the principle of mixed education in the commencement.
And, secondly, that the Seceders--those who were afterwards so glibly
denounced as infidels for their support of the Godless bill--were as
much opposed to that bill as he was.
How Mr. O'Connell expressed himself when the bill was first announced
has been already stated. It is at once conceded that the writer's memory
of a conversation, in its nature almost private, were he even above all
suspicion, would not be a safe authority. In this instance there is no
need to rely on it--the statement is more than sustained by Mr.
O'Connell's recorded words. From a number of occasions, equally
available, I select one, because of its solemnity and importance.
In a prolonged and most earnest debate in the House of Commons, on
motion for going into Committee on the Bill, June 2nd, Mr. O'Connell,
after eulogising the Maynooth grant, says:--
"Take one step more, and consider whether this bill may not be
made to accord with the feelings of the Catholic ecclesiastics
of Ireland. I ought not to detain you: I am not speaking here in
any spirit of hostility. I should be most happy to give any
assistance in my humble power to make this bill work well. I
have the most anxious wish to have this bill work well, because
I am desirous of seeing education promoted in Ireland; but even
education may be misapplied power. I admit that at one time I
thought the plan of a mixed education proper, and I still think
that a system of mixed education in literature and science would
be proper, but not with regard to religious education."
And further on: "Again I repeat I am most anxious for the
success of this bill, but I fairly tell you it cannot succeed
without the Catholic bishops....
"There may have been harsh expressions in the public papers, but
depend upon it great anxiety exists in Ireland to have such a
measure."
The second proposition would be abundantly sustained by a single
sentence in Thomas Davis's commentary on the speech from which I
extract the above.
"On our part we had feared O'Connell conceded almost too far."
But the testimony of Mr. O'Connell himself will be considered more
conclusive.
Speaking in the Association on the 6th of July, he said:--
"I may remark for the present that on this subject a question of
difference has arisen among ourselves. Some of the members of
the Association are for what is called mixed education, and
others of us are against it, but that difference of opinion
ought not to create any division among us, for neither the one
nor the other of us is gratified by the bill as it stands."
Again, in the course of the same speech, he said:
"We (Mr. O'Brien and himself) did our best to avert such a
calamity. We called upon the Government not to persist in
working out this bill in all its details of blackness and
horror."
He concluded by lauding Lord John Russell for his valuable assistance in
the attempt to amend the bill, and finally said that, having failed in
this attempt, he "flung the bill to the ministry, to deal with it as
they pleased."
Mr. O'Brien continued in London, and proposed amendments to the bill in
every stage of its progress. It was during that time he was assailed by
Mr. Roebuck with all the little malevolence of his envenomed nature. He
failed in every attempt to remedy the defects of the bill, which passed
its last stage in the Commons on the 10th day of July. On the 17th of
the same month, Mr. O'Connell, speaking in the Association, said:
"In the resolution I am about submitting to the Association, we
have not inserted one word about mixed education. This is a
question upon which there exists some differences of opinion. I
have my opinions upon the subject, I am the decided enemy of
mixed education....
"I fully respect the contrary convictions entertained by others,
and I am the more ready to proclaim that respect because at
present all possibility of discussion on the matter is out of
the question."
It will be observed that Mr. O'Connell's opinions underwent a serious
and important change during the time over which these speeches range.
That change was produced gradually, and not without infinite trouble on
the part of his son whose inveterate zeal knew no bounds. In his
father's presence, and more particularly so in his absence, he denounced
the bill, and held up any Catholic who dared to support it to public
indignation. He called on the people of Waterford to demand Mr. Wyse's
resignation, not because he was an unfaithful representative, but
because he was unchristian. If he had not determined to divide the
Association on this question, he did all a man could do who had so
determined.
I shall only trouble the reader with two quotations more. They refer to
the question immediately under discussion, namely, that the Seceders
were as much opposed to the obnoxious clauses of the bill as those with
whom they differed. But while they are unequivocal and conclusive on
that branch of the subject, they go still further and attest the sincere
forbearance with which they treated language and conduct which appeared
to them in the utmost degree narrow and intolerant. Discussion among the
bishops naturally produced discussion among the chiefs of the
Association, and it was agreed that the Association should confine its
objections to those provisions of the bill upon which there could be no
disagreement. The first petition of the Association was confided to me.
I endeavoured to embody in the petition what appeared to me the true
basis of a comprehensive system of education. Some persons on the
Committee objected to certain phrases as susceptible of an inference
favourable to the principle of mixed education. Mr. O'Connell joined in
the objection and succeeded in reducing the petition to a single
paragraph, deprecatory of the Tenth Clause of the Bill. I refused to
have any more to do with the petition, and it was dropped. After the
lapse of a fortnight, Mr. Maurice O'Connell proposed another, simply
praying that the tenth clause, which vested the appointment of the
professors of the college in the Government, should be rejected.
Upon the occasion of this petition being submitted to the Association
(9th June, 1845), Mr. J. O'Connell delivered one of his usual invectives
against the bill and its abettors. Mr. O'Brien deprecated the
ill-feeling and discord such language was calculated to provoke. In the
course of his observations he said:--
"In seconding the motion of my hon. friend, the member for
Kilkenny, for the adoption of this petition, it is not my
intention to follow into any of the polemical questions which,
in the course of his protracted speech, he has raised in this
Association. I am obliged, however, to say in candour that in
some of the views he has put forward I cannot agree.... We have
given a general concurrence in this Hall to the recommendation
that has emanated from the Catholic Hierarchy.... I am not
disposed to assist the Government in making those seminaries,
which ought to be seats of learning, filthy sties of corruption.
It is because I believe that such would become their character
if this tenth clause were to remain a legislative enactment that
I shall oppose it to the utmost."
The Reverend John Kenyon, then little known, rose to protest against the
course pursued by Mr. J. O'Connell, which he characterised as not only
uncatholic but unchristian. Mr. J. O'Connell, in the blandest tones,
deprecated any discussion tending to division, which induced Mr. Kenyon
to sit down. Having spread with dexterous industry the most baleful
elements of discord, he begged they should not be disturbed.
I will be pardoned for transcribing here a few observations of my own on
that occasion.
"I am exceedingly anxious, having the misfortune to differ most
widely from my honourable friend the member for Kilkenny, on the
subject of academical education, to express my cordial
concurrence with him in reference to the subject of this
petition. I shall not say one word about our difference of
opinion. I shall enter into no disturbing or dividing
discussion, and the more so because any difference we may
express could not fail to impair the efficiency of our action
where we are thoroughly agreed. I condemn this clause as
strongly as the hon. member can. Nay, I will go a step further,
and say that if there be no provision made by the bill for
religious instruction and moral culture, Protestant and Catholic
ought to unite in struggling for its rejection. No matter how
splendid may be the accommodations provided by these
academies--no matter how richly they may be endowed--if there be
no provision made for the religious education of the pupils, I
trust they will remain silent, unattended Halls."
Numerous other proofs to the same facts are accessible, but these are
abundantly conclusive. The history of the struggle itself, the slow and
evidently reluctant change in Mr. O'Connell's opinions, and the
intolerant spirit with which the enemies of the bill pursued the name
and character of those who, although they approved of the mixed system,
were as inveterately inimical to the dangerous provisions of the bill as
they were themselves, sufficiently attest that faction swayed the
troubled movement of clerical and popular passion alike. The vulgar and
virulent anathemas of some tongues and pens not only swept unsparingly
over the unhappy crowd, but aimed at the lofty sphere of Episcopal
authority, even where most identical with purity and piety. A malignant
charity extended to the errors of the Primate that palliation which
perverted reason otherwise refused to admit. Too lofty to be accused of
treachery, he was not too sacred to be pronounced mad.
The Committee of the Association alone nearly escaped the influence of
the fierce spirit of the times. There the voice of reason for a while
held sway. The forbearance and respect for conflicting opinions which
preserved its dignity were, with the one exception, extended to the
proceedings in the Hall, where even the most unscrupulous were checked
by a petition which recognised and welcomed the principle of united
education, but strongly deprecated the objectionable provisions of the
"Godless Bill." To this petition was affixed the signature of almost
every educated lay Catholic in Dublin. The number of Catholic barristers
alone whose names are found among those signatures amounts to
seventy-two. At the same time, a remonstrance addressed personally to
Mr. O'Connell was signed by the leading Catholics of the Association.
Its object was to preclude all discussion on the subject of the disputed
principle in Conciliation Hall. It was signed for the most part by men
who theretofore had taken but little part in the dispute. But against
all these precautions passion by degrees prevailed, and when Mr.
O'Connell was reminded by Mr. Barry, of Cork, that in reply to the
remonstrance he had pledged himself to abstinence from the irritating
discussion, his apology was, that he thought the document in question
and all proceedings connected with it were strictly private; as if the
privacy of a solemn pledge dispensed with its obligation.
An episode in this strife deserves specific notice. At a meeting of the
Association, held on the 26th of May, the question was incidentally
introduced. Mr. Michael George Conway, a man of considerable literary
and oratorical powers, but not distinguished for any very rigid piety,
introduced the subject, evidently with the view of exciting Mr.
O'Connell's impulsive character against the species of restraint under
which his sinister friends were continually hinting he was held. The
speech breathed the most fervent spirit of Catholic piety, seasoned
with bitter invectives against what Mr. Conway described as a baffled
faction in the Association. Mr. O'Connell took off his cap, waved it
repeatedly over his head, and cheered vociferously. Few, if any, of the
Catholic gentlemen who were opposed to Mr. O'Connell, were present. Mr.
Davis rose, and commenced by saying: "My Catholic friend, my _very_
Catholic friend." The allusion was intelligible to almost every man in
the assembly, but the practised and dexterous advocate saw and seized
the advantage it presented for exciting the active prejudices of the
audience. He started up and exclaimed, "I hope it is no _crime_ to be a
Catholic." The whole meeting burst into a tumultuous shout which bespoke
a triumph rather than admiration. Mr. O'Connell did triumph, but not in
the sense understood by his applauders. He apprehended the effect of the
honest, frank and manly exposure which, if he were not rudely
interrupted, would be made by Mr. Davis, and he was too keen to allow an
opportunity, so tempting to his object, to pass, though he should
violate all the observances of good feeling and decorum. Mr. Davis, on
the other hand, felt the blow to be a stunning one. He was shocked at
the same time by Mr. O'Connell's disregard, not alone of friendship, but
of common courtesy, and by the intemperate exultation of the audience.
To his loving nature, both seemed, especially in such a place, utterly
unintelligible and grossly unkind. He was the last living man to offer
insult to the belief or even the prejudice of a Catholic, and he felt
that this was thoroughly known to Mr. O'Connell, and that it ought to be
known to his audience. The disappointment and the rudeness were too
much for his susceptible heart, and he so far yielded to wounded
feelings as to shed tears. Mr. O'Connell, whether gratified by success
or influenced by his better impulse, caught him by the hand and
exclaimed: "Davis, I love you." Although the first struggle closed
amidst cheers, there were carried away from that meeting in the breasts
of many, seeds of bitterness and hate which ripened in after times and
under gloomier auspices. I dwell on it as important, although a casual
incident, frequent and almost inevitable in political excitement. There
were two parties from whose memory the scene never passed. These were
the blind followers of Mr. O'Connell, to whom it seemed blackest guilt
to question his supremacy or infallibility, on the one hand, and on the
other, all who sympathised with genuine and lofty emotions, and regarded
the attack on Mr. Davis as wanton, brutal and contemptible. The
miserable little faction that existed on the spoils of the Association
magnified the difference and fanned the discontent. That Young Ireland
had received its death-blow passed into a watch-word among them.
An event of mighty augury and most trifling results, which distinguished
the year 1845, must not be passed unmentioned. This was the celebrated
levee, held in the Round Room of the Rotunda, on the 30th of May, the
anniversary of the imprisonment. It was referred to a sub-committee, on
which Mr. Davis and Sir Colman O'Loghlen were principals, to devise the
most appropriate celebration for that important day. They determined on
a public levee, to which were summoned whatever there was of
respectability, authority, genius and worth in the island, which
recognised the wisdom, justice and holiness of the struggle for
Nationhood. All the corporations, every delegation which derived public
authority from the popular voice, besides citizens of the unincorporated
towns, answered the summons with alacrity. That day witnessed a scene
the most extraordinary, imposing and formidable of the kind in modern
annals. The Round Room was thronged to excess, but preconcerted
arrangements had provided for the convenience of its favoured visitors,
while the public streets, abandoned to chance, presented an immovable
mass of human beings, swaying to and fro, but governed by a single and
omnipotent impulse, which steeled them to the pressure and broil as if
they felt themselves in presence of a speedy deliverance and free
destiny.
[Illustration: Richard O'Gorman, Jun. (1848)]
[Illustration: Patrick O'Donohoe (1848)]
The preparations engaged the vigilant activity of a large committee for
two entire days and nights. Yet these preparations bore an infinite
disproportion to the display of wealth of mind, of energy of thought,
and national pomp, which ushered in the glorious morning. Those who
scoffed at the project when it was first announced came to mock the
scene but went away admiring. The spirit of the hour infused itself into
the public heart, which appeared to throb but to one impulse and one
aim: at all events no one was, no one could be, found obdurate enough to
question the significance or importance of the proceeding.
Mr. O'Connell's fellow-prisoners shared his state and the homage which
was paid to him. But in the outward crowd no one dissociated him
personally from the minutest detail of the day's proceedings, or
admitted for a moment that any other human being partook of its glory,
or directed its end. High above the multitude they saw him receive the
nation's homage, which seemed but the expression of the liberty he had
already achieved. How he felt the influence of the scene there is no
record to tell. His demeanour while exercising the prerogatives of his
position was such as became a man conscious that he occupied a throne
loftier than ever yet was decked by a kingly crown. But when his
official functions were discharged, he addressed the impassioned throng
in language too tame for the most ordinary occasion.
The great act of the day was the adoption of the following pledge. It
had been prepared and approved by the Committee of the Association, and
every word was canvassed with the most scrupulous regard to the trying
circumstances which the committee found themselves in presence of. The
virulent hostility of the Tory Government had been baffled, and its
utmost strength discomfited. It was understood at the time that a Whig
Government was in the advent of power, and the great object of the
pledge was to record the solemn conviction of the Nation that they were
faithless and treacherous as the others were unscrupulous and
vindictive, and that to the corrupting influence of the one and the
unmasked hostility of the other the same resistance should be shown. The
pledge was preceded by this resolution:--
"Resolved, That in commemorating this first anniversary of the
30th of May, we deem it our duty to record a solemn pledge that
corruption shall not seduce, nor deceit cajole, nor intimidation
deter us from seeking to obtain for Ireland the blessings of
self-government through a national legislature, and we recommend
that the following pledge be taken:--
"We, the undersigned, being convinced that good government and
wise legislation can be permanently secured to the Irish people
only through the instrumentality of an Irish Legislature, do
hereby pledge ourselves to our country that we will never desist
from seeking the Repeal of the Union with England by all
peaceable, moral and constitutional means, until a parliament be
restored to Ireland.
"Dated this 30th day of May, 1845."
This pledge was adopted formally in the Pillar Room of the Rotunda, in
presence of most of the Irish mayors, the leading delegates of the
country, the members of the Eighty-Two Club, and a vast concourse of
gentlemen both from the metropolis and the provinces. It was proposed by
William Smith O'Brien, seconded by Henry Grattan, and put to the meeting
from the chair by the eldest son of Daniel O'Connell. The cheer that
hailed its adoption was a shout not of approval, but defiance. But alas!
many voices mingled in the chorus which have since been attuned to the
meanest whine of mendicancy. That they vilely belied their solemn
promise were of little moment. Nay, more, it is bootless to consider
whether they were more false-tongued and false-hearted in that great
pageant, or on the recent occasion of their kneeling in their own shame
to pledge a faith they do not feel, in expectation of some royal notice
or royal favour. What is mournful in both instances is this, that a show
of wealth, a practice of successful chicanery called good sense, or
public trust won by intrigue and falsehood, should so blind the world
to the _man's_ rotten and vulgar heart as to raise them to a position
where their acts should be regarded as indicative of the feeling or
important to the destiny of a nation.
With the 30th of May, passed off the excitement of which it was the
cause and scene. Those who arranged the grand pageant of that day, and
invested it with attributes, suggestive, imposing and useful as ever
decked a public spectacle, would have wrought it out into a sterner
purpose: but the heart upon which they counted had, even then, died. Mr.
O'Connell's speech too painfully bespoke his utter inability to guide
the nation in any higher effort. The energy that should have seized the
occasion to confirm the people in their strong purpose, and elevate
their hopes to the level of the great stake at issue, exhausted itself
in balancing the routine details of cold and empty statistics. The
curtain fell, and nothing remained but grotesque figures, withered
garlands, broken panels and desolate dust, which mingled confusedly
behind the scene, over the dark, deserted stage. The journals, of
course, preserved, for a few days, very glittering reminiscences of the
scene. With one accord, they pronounced it surpassing in interest and
importance. Great results were anticipated in the newspaper world; and
many imagined they had fulfilled the last obligations they owed their
country. But with the men, who had fondly hoped to date therefrom a new
era and begin a nobler task, the 30th of May, was of dark, despairing
augury. They clearly saw that from that hour forth there remained but
the alternative of abandoning their cherished hopes, or attempting to
realise them without the aid, perhaps in opposition to the wishes, of
Mr. O'Connell. It was a gloomy and sad conviction, but it was no longer
to be blinked.
Meantime, Mr. O'Connell returned to the Hall, and repeated to a jaded
audience, week after week, the same stale list of grievances. From any
other man the repetition would be intolerable. But the public ear had
become attuned to his accents, to which, whatever the sense of his
language, men listened as to a messenger of heavenly tidings. Mr. Duffy
strongly urged upon his fellow labourers the improbability of success,
and advised a distinct change of policy. In this he was overborne by
their united opinion, and the _Nation_ continued to promulgate the same
bold, unwavering course. By degrees the feeling of bitterness
entertained by the anti-education section of the priests found
utterance, and the paper was, almost openly, denounced as an infidel
publication. At first indeed, the charge was shrouded in mysterious
insinuations; but it soon gained strength and audacity, and received the
unblushing sanction of at least one prelate. The answer of the _Nation_
was confined to one indignant line. Proof was demanded and was not
offered; but its very absence only deepened the malignity of the
slanderers. Even in the midst of this storm the muse of Thomas Davis
sang no discordant strain, nor did his pen trace one angry word. On the
contrary, he summoned his whole energies to the task of harmonising the
jarring elements around him. His inspiration rose to that unearthly
height, whereon guidance becomes prophecy. Great, strong and unselfish
convictions, entertained holily and uttered sincerely, are assurances
of new creations, pledges of the destiny to which they tend. In this
spirit, spoke and sang Thomas Davis during a time of bitterness and
dissension. And his counsels had been successful, but alas! in that last
effort his fond, faithful, trusting heart was broken.
There was a perceptible lull in the agitation. The country gradually
relapsed into a state of inactive and vague hope, which centred in the
mental resources of Mr. O'Connell. The difficulties which the people
should have appreciated and learned to overcome, they transferred, with
easy and trusting indifference, to the energies of the "Liberator,"
which they not only deemed boundless but immortal. From all educated and
thoughtful men, however, hope in those energies had passed away. Davis
seduously endeavoured during the summer months of 1845, to gather these,
and others of the same class from the Conservative ranks, round some
common object or endeavour, outside Mr. O'Connell's path, and not
calculated to wake their prejudice or jealousies. The Art Union, the
Archaeological Society, the Royal Irish Academy, the Library of Ireland,
the Cork School of Design, the Mechanics' Institute and every effort and
institution, having for their aim the encouragement of the nation in
arts, literature and greatness, engaged his vigilant and embracing care.
Of each of these institutions he became the great attraction, the real
centre and head. While he successfully wrought to give a national and
steady direction to Irish intellect and enterprise--Hogan, in Italy,
Maclise, in London, and others like them, who were bravely struggling
and nobly emulating the highest efforts of the genius of other lands,
were vindicated, encouraged and applauded by his pen. Among the sterner
natures, who urged their way through the stormy elements of agitation,
his accents, though low and diffident, commanded the deepest attention
and most lasting memory. While thus engaged, compassing by his "circling
soul," every sunward effort and immortal tendency of the country, death
came, sudden and inexorable, and struck him down in his day of utmost
might. His last work on earth was the brief dedication of the memoir of
Curran, and edition of his select speeches, which he had prepared, to
his friend, William Elliot Hudson. This he wrote during a pause of
delirium, and soon afterwards passed to a brighter world. He died on the
16th of September, 1845, when yet but thirty-one years old. How sincere
and deep was the public grief, no pen can ever tell. In the mourning
procession that followed his hearse there was no parade of woe, but
every eye was wet and every tongue silent. If ever sorrow was too deep
for utterance, it was that which settled above the early grave of Thomas
Davis.
During the summer, no effort of the Association rose above the hacknied
level of the usual weekly meetings and the repetition of the same stale
grievances, except a gathering of Tipperary at Thurles, which took place
on the 23rd of September. This was the largest of the monster meetings:
but, although the crowd was enormous and the shouting loud, it seemed
without purpose or heart. During the preparations for that meeting I had
to encounter difficulties of the most extraordinary kind. First, the
meeting was opposed by certain influential clergymen; and when they
found themselves too feeble to resist, they transferred all their
opposition to me. There is no petty cavil they had not recourse to, to
thwart and discourage, and even when all had succeeded I was treated
with personal discourtesy and annoyance at the public dinner. The seeds
of strife, afterwards destined to bear such deadly fruit, had already
begun to manifest themselves, and petty calumnies were insinuated in the
name of religion and morality. From that great meeting the crowd retired
quickly, and, almost as instantaneously, its effect faded from the
public heat. All that remained was soreness and distrust.
No event worth a memory marked the close of 1845, or the first months of
1846. The Colleges Bill had passed, without a single important
amendment, and a Roman Catholic priest accepted the nomination of
Government, as president of one of the institutions. Some of the
prelates, too, were said to be favourable to the colleges, even as they
were then constituted, and the divisions supposed to exist among them
were imparting their acridity to the deepening distractions of the time,
when an event occurred--the advent of the Whigs to office--which broke
up the great confederacy on which the hopes of the nation were staked.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 5: The Repeal "Rent." The weekly contributions to the funds of
Conciliation Hall.--Ed.]
[Footnote 6: Moved by the Right Reverend Dr. Brown of Elphin; seconded
by the Right Reverend Dr. McNally of Clogher. Resolved: That the Most
Reverend Dr. Crolly be requested to reply to the letter received from
the Holy Father, stating that the instructions therein contained have
been received by the assembled prelates of Ireland with that degree of
profound respect, obedience and veneration that should ever be paid to
any document emanating from the Apostolic See, and that they all pledge
themselves to carry the spirit thereof into effect."
Dr. Crolly had previously explained what he considered true obedience to
the rescript. He writes in reference to a former one in 1839: "In
obedience to the injunction of the Holy See, I endeavoured to reclaim
those misguided clergymen;" adding that the present was "in order that I
should _more efficaciously_ admonish such priests or prelates as I
might find taking a prominent or imprudent part in political
proceedings."]
[Footnote 7: John Reynolds.]