Ireland’s Faithful Servant:

Alexander Martin Sullivan and Constitutional Nationalism in Post-Famine Ireland,

1855 – 1870

by

Douglas C. Kenny

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

May, 2018

Copyright 2018 by Douglas C. Kenny

ii Ireland's Faithful Servant:

Alexander Martin Sullivan and Constitutional Nationalism in Post-Famine Ireland

1855- 1870

by

Douglas C. Kenny

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. Douglas Kanter, Department of History, and has been approved by the members of his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Do glas Kanter, Ph.D. Thesis Advisor

Patricia Kollander, Ph.D.

Lo~. Chair, Department of History

Michael?~ J. Hweii,~ Ph.D. (L Dean,· Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts d Letters

Diane E. Alperin, Ph. Interim Dean, Graduate College

111 Acknowledgements

I must extend my most heartfelt and honest gratitude to the faculty of Florida

Atlantic University’s Department of History, whose earnest dedication to their fields has imparted on me a respect for academia that can only be learned. This project would not exist without the inspiration that I gained from the many hours I spent engaged in discussion during their seminars, or without their guidance and dedication to their students. My pursuit of history was first inspired by Dr. Hanne, whose lively approach to teaching and pragmatic view of the discipline was both memorable and greatly appreciated. I would like to thank Dr. Engle for “showing me the ropes” in his rigorous introductory course, and always being a pleasure to cross paths with in the halls of the department. I am also grateful to Dr. Lowe and Dr. Kollander, my committee members, for their time and efforts in providing a careful review of my work, and for their high spirits, which were always uplifting. I thank the staff at the National Library of Ireland for their kindness in assisting me during my research, and never failing to engage me in some brilliant and enthusiastic tale of local history. I must also, in no small way, thank

Dr. Kanter for his care and enthusiasm in helping me discover a passion for Irish history, and assisting me in discovering a topic for this study. This thesis would not be what it is without his astute reviews of my writing.

I also want to thank my parents for their unending support and genuine interest in my studies, which always served as a source of inspiration. Without them my academic pursuits would not be possible. A “thank you” is also extended to my family in Ireland,

iv Willie and Betty, who provided room and board (free of charge) during my research in

Ireland, and were a constant source of Irish humor. Finally, I am ever grateful to my close friends for their frequent words of encouragement.

v Abstract

Author: Douglas C. Kenny

Title: Ireland’s Faithful Servant: Alexander Martin Sullivan and Constitutional Nationalism in Post-Famine Ireland, 1855-1870

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Douglas Kanter

Degree: Master of Arts

Year: 2018

This thesis reappraises the significance of Alexander Martin Sullivan, the Irish constitutional nationalist and owner-editor of the Nation, by examining his role in carrying Young Ireland’s moderate nationalist program through the lull in popular politics between the 1840s and 1870s. Sullivan has been routinely marginalized as an important historical figure in post-Famine popular politics, yet his campaign of propping up nationalist heroes and attempts at forming nationalist organizations, primarily through the Nation, ultimately helped to revitalize nationalist politics. Although his efforts were often threatened, and even thwarted at times, by James Stephens and other advanced nationalists, Sullivan managed to preserve constitutional nationalism until the emergence of Isaac Butt as leader of the home rule movement in the 1870s.

vi For my parents, Robert and Nancy, and for Kelli. Ireland’s Faithful Servant:

Alexander Martin Sullivan and Constitutional Nationalism in Post-Famine Ireland,

1855 – 1870

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1

Chapter One: Before the Nation: Early Life and Influences, 1829 – 1855………………..7

Chapter Two: Taking the Reins of the Revived Nation, 1855 – 1858…………………...28

Chapter Three: Awkward Footing: Dealing with James Stephens and the Phoenix

Society, 1858 – 1861……………………………………………………………..50

Chapter Four: The Two Lamps of His Soul: Uniting Nationalism and

Catholicism, 1858 – 1870………………………………………….…………….83

Conclusion: Ireland’s Faithful Servant, 1870…...……………………………………...111

viii Introduction

Alexander Martin Sullivan, a twenty-four-year-old Catholic and moderate nationalist from Bantry in western Cork, arrived in Dublin in early 1853, determined to find employment as a journalist. During his formative years in Bantry he became involved, to varying extents, in the temperance and repeal movements, William Smith

O’Brien’s tour of Cork and the subsequent Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848, and was strongly affected by the impression left upon him by the Famine. All these experiences

Sullivan carried to Dublin, and they ultimately molded his view of Ireland and the Irish people; a view that is strongly evident in all of Sullivan’s writings. Sullivan eventually garnered the respect of Charles Gavan Duffy, a Young Irelander and the proprietor and editor of Dublin’s premier nationalist newspaper, the Nation, which he eventually purchased and managed from 1855 until 1876 when he left the paper to his older brother.

During Sullivan’s proprietorship he promoted both the political ideals of Young Ireland and attempted, many a time, to establish a constitutional organization to press for an independent Ireland. In doing so, he found himself hotly contesting the fate of Ireland’s political future with secret advanced nationalist societies, primarily lead by James

Stephens, who held a personal vendetta against Sullivan for his denunciation of their organizations. Sullivan was unable to achieve his goal of founding a durable association until, with Isaac Butt, he helped to establish the Home Government Association. Sullivan, soon after, retired from journalism and lent his support to the home rule movement as

M.P. for Louth, and later Meath, until his death in 1884.

1 Sullivan has most often been remembered for his encounter with Stephens, and it is when he has, almost exclusively, made his brief and predictable appearance in post-

Famine Irish history. Despite Sullivan’s position as the sole proprietor and editor of

Ireland’s then premier nationalist newspaper, the Nation, he has been neglected as a significant historical figure. Sullivan was one of post­Famine Ireland’s most prominent constitutional nationalist figures, yet he has not been accorded a sufficient position in the historiography. His ethos was predominantly shaped by some of nineteenth-century

Ireland’s most memorable figures and events as a child and young adult, and he conformed largely to the Young Ireland school of thought: regeneration of Ireland through constitutional means and expression. The Nation, under Sullivan’s direction, towed this party line.

The study of Sullivan’s life began almost immediately after his death in 1884. The following year, his brother T.D. Sullivan published A.M. Sullivan: A Memoir. T.D. was sympathetic to his brother, and regarded him as a significant figure in post-Famine politics, although he was not too liberal in his praise, and typically gave Sullivan only as much credit as he was due. Unfortunately, T.D.’s account failed to confirm Sullivan’s reputation amongst the myriad political figures in post-Famine Ireland, and when a rigorous and sophisticated post-Famine Irish historiography began to develop between the 1950s and the 1970s, Sullivan was treated as a relatively minor figure, whose most active years coincided with the nadir of nationalist fortunes. This low appraisal can be seen, for example, in the major surveys of the period written by P.S. O’Hegarty,

Lawrence McCaffrey, and F.S.L. Lyons. O’Hegarty, in his A History of Ireland Under the Union, 1801-1922, asserted that the Nation under Sullivan’s editorship “failed to

2 leave any lasting impression on public opinion,” and simply included Sullivan in the constitutional nationalist cohort, while McCaffrey and Lyons identified Sullivan merely as Stephens’ infamous “felon-setter” for his article denouncing secret societies.1

Of the scholars who have approached the subject of A.M. Sullivan’s role in nineteenth-century Irish history, Francis Martin and Ray Moran have provided the most definitive accounts thus far. Martin’s thesis, A.M. Sullivan, 1829-1884, was the first academic biography of Sullivan to appear, almost 100 years after T.D. Sullivan published the memoir of his brother. Martin went to great lengths to flesh out some of the finer details missing from T.D.’s original biography, for example, Sullivan’s childhood in

Bantry, and thus provided a more modern and well-researched account of Sullivan from birth to death.2 Moran’s thesis, Alexander Martin Sullivan (1829•1884) and Irish

Cultural Nationalism, remains the only other biography of Sullivan. Moran, working largely off of the efforts of Martin, has argued that Sullivan’s significance lies in his role as an ideologue in post-Famine politics, and has further asserted that Sullivan’s lack of charisma and ruthlessness ensured his role in post•Famine Irish history was a limited one.3 But Moran has failed to recognize the press as a form of popular political activism.

The distinguished Irish historian, Richard Vincent Comerford, has incorporated Sullivan into several of his works, but Comerford has perpetuated the idea that Sullivan was a

1 Patrick Sarsfield O’Hegarty, A History of Ireland Under the Union, 1801-1922 (London: Methuen, 1952), 411; Lawrence J. McCaffrey, The Irish Question, 1800-1922 (Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1968), 75, 83; F.S.L. Lyons, Ireland Since the Famine (London: Morrison & Gibb Ltd., 1971), 116.

2 T.F. Martin, “Alexander Martin Sullivan, 1829-1884” (master’s thesis, University College Cork, 1981), 1.

3 Ray Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan (1829-1884) and Irish Cultural Nationalism” (master’s thesis, University College Cork, 1993), 364-65. 3 minor figure in Irish history, and has assigned him the role of Stephens’ foil.4 Marta

Ramón has confirmed Comerford’s characterization of Sullivan in her biography of

James Stephens.5

More recent scholars, such as J.H. Murphy, Anne Andrews, and James Quinn, have begun to reconsider Sullivan’s significance. Primarily, the recent shift in the judgement of Sullivan’s character can be attributed to a broader refocusing of Irish history. Scholars are less inclined to emphasize a rebellious nationalistic interpretation of

Ireland’s struggle for independence, and more apt to focus on a holistic interpretation of the sociopolitical state of post-Famine Ireland and its players. Murphy, in Ireland’s Czar:

Gladstonian Government and the Lord Lieutenancies of the Red Earl Spencer, 1868-86, included Sullivan in a group of what he considered to be “prominent political leaders,” who were determined to form an open constitutional movement in Ireland.6 In the same year, Anne Andrews observed in Newspapers and Newsmakers: The Dublin Nationalist

Press in the Mid-Nineteenth Century that the Nation, under Sullivan’s proprietorship, began to cater to Catholic concerns. Andrews further contended that Sullivan and T.D. were responsible for “indelibly fusing an Irish Catholic national identity” into the nationalist movement through their influence with the Nation and several of their lesser known papers, which helped to draw the Catholic Church into the nationalist cause.

4 James S. Donnelly Jr., “Landlords and Tenants,” “Churchmen, Tenants, and Independent Opposition 1850­56,” “Conspiring Brotherhoods and Contending Elites, 1857­63,” in A New History of Ireland, ed. Vaughan, 348-9, 413, 427•30.

5 Marta Ramón, A Provisional Dictator: James Stephens and the Fenian Movement (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2008), 78, 80, 106-7, 108-11.

6 J.H. Murphy, Ireland’s Czar: Gladstonian Government and the Lord Lieutenancies of the Red Earl Spencer, 1868-86 (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2014), 52. 4 Quinn’s Young Ireland and the Writing of Irish History, most notably, has provided a refreshingly new interpretation of Sullivan’s role in post-Famine politics.

Quinn has contended that Sullivan, as well as his older brother T.D., “repeated or distilled the historical writings of Young Ireland” through The Nation and other publications, and that these historical writings had “a galvanizing effect” on Irish nationalists.7 Quinn further asserted that Sullivan “saw himself as a guardian of the Young Ireland tradition and was intent on continuing its work.”8 Determined to fulfil this role, Sullivan wrote The

Story of Ireland, which was intended to serve as an uplifting introduction to Irish history for young readers. The Story of Ireland was incredibly successful, in part, due to its attempt to argue that the Irish people had always been part of a unified struggle, which gave meaning to a disjointed and tumultuous Irish history. Ireland’s most important post- revolutionary leader, Éamon de Valera, even recalled that Sullivan’s book was his first introduction to the study of Irish history.9 The works of Murphy, Andrews, and, particularly, Quinn, have begun a reassessment of Sullivan upon which this thesis builds.

This thesis will reexamine Alexander Martin Sullivan’s motivations, significance, and influence on post-Famine constitutional nationalism during his proprietorship of the

Nation, and will demonstrate Sullivan’s significance as a bridge between the constitutional nationalism of the late 1840s and the home rule movement of the 1870s.

Moran was, perhaps, correct in his assertion that Sullivan’s political career was lackluster, and this study is not concerned with challenging that conclusion. Rather, it

7 James Quinn, Young Ireland and the Writing of Irish History (Dublin: UCD Press, 2015), 8.

8 Ibid., 127.

9 Ibid., 128. 5 will assert Sullivan’s significance as an active representative of the constitutional section of Ireland’s national party, and as an influential proponent of Young Ireland ideals via the

Nation. It will further contend that Sullivan carried with him, throughout his career, two core motivational beliefs: Catholicism, bestowed upon him by his family, and his belief in the Young Ireland movement, in which he became wholly absorbed during his impressionable years in Bantry, County Cork. This study will attempt to reframe Sullivan in the scope of post-Famine Irish history, and aims to do so through a proper understanding of his guiding principles and motives, as well as their origin. In the process, it will distance Sullivan from the role of foil to James Stephens, and focus more on Sullivan’s concern for the continuity of constitutional nationalism.

6 Chapter One

Before the Nation: Early Life and Influences, 1829 – 1855

Sullivan’s childhood is difficult to reconstruct, but some key events can still be pieced together. He was born on May 15, 1829 in Bantry, in the southwest of County

Cork, to Daniel and Catherine Sullivan, née Baylor, a house painter and a school-mistress respectively. Sullivan was the second of seven children and one of four (possibly five) brothers, and he received an elementary education in Bantry. His brother Timothy Daniel

Sullivan, later a noted journalist and politician, was the oldest of the seven.1 Beyond these few details, most of Sullivan’s childhood is lost. Nonetheless T.D. held fond memories of his younger brother and their “boyhood’s days” in Bantry.2 Sullivan left

Bantry for Dublin in 1853, so T.D.’s early memories of Sullivan’s life are from

Sullivan’s adolescence and young adulthood.3 These twenty-four years in Bantry were quite an eventful and formative time for Sullivan.

T.D. only remembered some of Sullivan’s earlier experiences, but he also reminisced about young Sullivan’s personality, which is as good a place as any to start. It seems rather ridiculous, however, to paraphrase T.D.’s description of his own brother, as perhaps no one knew him better:

1 Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 2-4; Timothy Daniel Sullivan, Bantry, Berehaven and the O’Sullivan Sept (Dublin: Sealy, Bryers and Walker, 1908), 63; “Bibliography of the Four Brothers,” Seamus ÓCasaide Papers, National Library of Ireland (hereafter NLI), MS 10670.

2 Sullivan, Memoir, 1-2; Oliver MacDonagh, The Emancipist: Daniel O’Connell, 1830-47 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989), 225.

3 Sullivan, Memoir, 1-6. 7 Some thirty-five years ago, in the little town of Bantry, county Cork, there was a group of as innocent, quick witted, and light heated young men as could be found in any town in Ireland. … Of that pleasant group Alexander Sullivan, who was, with one exception, the youngest of the party, was the life and soul. His flow of spirits, his play of wit and humour, was unfailing. His powers of description were graphic; he sung, he made verses, he bantered his companions in the most amusing manner. Withal he had in him somewhat of “the instinct of domination.” In the choir of his parish church he assumed the post of leader whenever the teacher chanced to be absent; in a rowboat he took the stroke oar; on board a sail- boat he immediately went to the helm, and gave orders to men much older and more experienced than himself. But, then, he led well and steered well, and his assumption of command was smilingly acquiesced in by everyone.4

This is, of course, from the opening of A.M. Sullivan: A Memoir, so perhaps it was somewhat embellished. In any case, it provides a rather pleasant sense of Sullivan’s youthful character, however selective it may have been. Without delving into an historic psychoanalysis of Sullivan’s personality as a young man, it would be safe to assume that he embodied at least some of these traits. At any rate, many of them appear to have stuck with him throughout his life. Sullivan’s most notable skill, however, was his ability to write well from an early age, as his verses and letters, signed with a pen-name, would occasionally end up in one of Cork’s newspapers.5

Sullivan’s earliest influences were his parents, who instilled in him a love of

Ireland and told him of the struggle for Catholic Emancipation. At home in Bantry,

Sullivan also lived with and around some of the older members of his extended family, who “had not come unscathed through the scene of ’98.”6 Prior to 1789, Ireland had long been regarded as a kind of security for Britain – a buffer between England and any invading force, with British control of Ireland ensuring that it could not be used as a

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 2.

6 Ibid. 8 staging ground for a subsequent invasion of Britain. But the French Revolution of 1789 dramatically shifted British preconceptions of Ireland. As Patrick M. Geoghegon has succinctly explained, “It had a pervasive, and sometimes pernicious, influence on events in Ireland, and inaugurated a gradual shifting in political radicalism. … In one sense it made the Irish rebellion of 1798 possible … It dominated [Britain’s] attitude towards

Ireland and defined its attempts to blend repressiveness and conciliation in both islands.”7

In the spring of 1798 Ireland was well on its way to open rebellion, though it is difficult to say where or why the “official rising” broke out. Geoghegan, however, has noted that it was “probably due to the mass arrests the government had authorized” in Ireland.8

Indeed, between the 1796 attempted landing of a French invasion fleet in Bantry Bay following the outbreak of war with France in 1793, and the Battle of the Big Cross near

Shannonvale, County Cork, during the 1798 rebellion, Sullivan’s relatives undoubtedly had plenty of stories to tell. As Sullivan matured, he was exposed to other influences. In

1842, at the age of twelve, amidst the excitement of the temperance movement, which began in Cork in 1838, Sullivan had the opportunity to listen to “The Apostle of

Temperance,” Father Theobald Matthew.

T.D., who was part of Bantry’s “flourishing” Temperance Society at the time, remembered that Sullivan too “entered heartily” into the temperance movement. T.D.,

Sullivan, and their father, were members of Bantry’s Temperance Society band, and spent much of their time marching through the streets in performance or taking excursions to “picturesque resorts in the neighborhood, with [their] temperance medals

7 Patrick M. Geoghegan, The Irish Act of Union: A Study in High Politics, 1798-1801 (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan Ltd., 1999), 2.

8 Ibid. 9 and badges displayed.”9 There is something to be said of a twelve-year-old’s involvement in a movement against the consumption of alcohol, but the fact that Sullivan was only part of the band seems to explain away that oddity, though he undoubtedly absorbed some of the candor and seriousness of those involved. Sullivan, however, reflected upon this episode somewhat differently in New Ireland. For Sullivan, who thirty-six years later, could “still remember the impression then created,” it was not so much Father

Matthew’s message as it was his method of delivery that captured his attention. Sullivan felt that Father Matthew’s success had less to do with the attractive morality of the movement, and more to do with the “almost magical effect of his personal exhortations.”

In fact, despite Sullivan’s fond memories of Father Matthew, he ultimately believed that

Father Matthew’s success was a product of the times – a wave of enthusiasm that could not have lasted. And so, while T.D. recalled his brother being fully involved in the temperance movement, Sullivan himself had very little to say concerning his level of engagement. Sullivan’s family and Father Matthew, however, were not his only influences.10

In June 1843, in the town of Skibbereen, about twelve miles southwest of Bantry,

Daniel O’Connell held one of his famous Monster Meetings. Most, if not all, of the townspeople in Bantry were fervent O’Connell supporters. Reportedly, a procession from

Bantry to Skibbereen made use of the Bantry Temperance Society’s “handsome pinnace specially built for the use of its members,” which was filled with the local Temperance band, and pushed to Skibbereen. T.D. and A.M., as well as their father, took part in the

9 T.D. Sullivan, Recollections of Troubled Times in Irish Politics (Dublin: Sealy, Bryers & Walker, 1905), 1.

10 Sullivan, New Ireland, 70-4. 10 event.11 Although Sullivan was thirteen at the time, and likely remembered the episode, he chose not to regale anyone with the tale of his journey to Skibbereen, in a boat, on wheels, while playing an instrument. Perhaps this event did not leave as lasting an impression on Sullivan as Father Matthew had. Yet T.D. noted that Sullivan was equally caught up in the excitement of O’Connell’s agitation for the repeal of the Act of Union with Britain.12 Nonetheless, by the age of fourteen young Sullivan had been swept up by two influential movements and the excitement that followed. But it would be some time before Sullivan, and many others, experienced much excitement, for with the next few years came the Famine.

Sullivan’s home town was among those in which the Famine caused the most suffering and death. Much of southern and western Ireland experienced high levels of destitution during the Famine which, in turn, resulted in the inability of many Irish to emigrate. The eminent social historian J. S. Donnelly Jr. estimates that over 1.1 million

Irish men, women, and children died as a result of the Famine between 1846 and 1851.

Those who could leave did not hesitate to do so, and between 1845 and 1855 roughly 2.1 million Irish fled Ireland, though they were not guaranteed to survive the journey.13

Sickness often followed in the cramped ships, infamously referred to as “coffin ships.”

Those who survived were then subjected to quarantine before starting their new lives abroad. Cork was among the counties most impacted by this phenomenon, which also included the other Munster counties of Clare, Kerry, and Tipperary. Similarly, in those

11 Sullivan, Memoir, 2; Sullivan, Recollections, 1.

12 Sullivan, Memoir, 2.

13 James S. Donnelly Jr., The Great Irish Potato Famine (Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 2001), 170-1, 178. 11 regions of Ireland with low emigration rates, particularly in western Cork (Bantry included), deaths from sickness or starvation were high, as Donnelly has observed.14 T.D. also confirmed this while reflecting on the Famine in his memoir of Sullivan, recalling that, “nowhere were the dreadful effects of [the Famine] more severely felt than in that district of West Cork which included the towns of Bantry and Skibbereen.”15

Furthermore, the headlines and articles of several Irish newspapers represent just how troubling the Famine was for Sullivan’s home town, particularly during “Black ’47.”

On Monday, January 4, 1847, the Cork Examiner printed the minutes of a meeting, held in Bantry the previous Friday, to discuss Famine relief options for the town. These minutes, however, were threaded with accounts of the terrible state of Bantry. Eugene

O’Sullivan’s account best captured the general state of Bantry in 1847:

They had been compelled to subsist for several weeks past on mussels and sea weed, and … in some instances the people [had] been so reduced and exhausted from this mode of treatment, that they could not leave their cabins, and they had been in consequence compelled to require the assistance of their charitable neighbours in procuring them even those miserable substitutes for food.16

Reverend T. Barry recalled an occasion on which he performed the sacraments for a man on a public road before he died. Another, Reverend Begley, lamenting “the misgovernment of this country,” recalled how many would often subsist for days on

“cold, black water,” and complained that men would labor for two days without eating.

But the Cork Examiner was not alone in reporting the hardships that plagued Bantry. The

14 Ibid., 179-85.

15 Sullivan, Memoir, 3.

16 Cork Examiner, January 4, 1847. 12 Freeman’s Journal and the Kerry Evening Post echoed these sentiments with titles such as “Distress at Bantry” and “FAMINE AND DEATH IN THE WEST – BANTRY.”17

At the time, Sullivan was likely unaware of the extent of death and displacement that the Famine caused in Bantry when compared to other regions of Ireland, but he eventually came to realize that “[his] native district figures largely in the gloomy record of that dreadful time.” Indeed, it did. Donnelly has calculated that Cork, and many surrounding counties, experienced a 20-24.9 percent decrease in population, between

1846 and 1851.18 He remembered the change in the Bantry people, contrasting their

“fierce energy” in 1846 when attempting to combat the blight, with their dismal and defeated blank stupor in 1847. For Sullivan, it was not uncommon to see an entire family perched on their garden fence, staring hopelessly at their blighted plot, and no amount of cheer could sway them from their sullen silence. A more depressing and rather common occurrence in Bantry, Sullivan recalled, was opening the front door to find the corpse of

“some poor victim,” who had stopped to rest in shelter during the night, leaning against the door. According to Sullivan, it happened so frequently that Bantry hired two men to go around, with horse and cart, and gather the dead each day. The corpses were interred in a great pit at the local abbey. On those occasions that an entire family perished, neighbors simply leveled their entire shieling19 over their corpses, which then served as their grave; a practice which Sullivan, “under heart-rending circumstances,” once assisted with in June 1847. The workhouses, too, were among Sullivan’s memories of the Famine,

17 Ibid.; Freemans Journal, January 6, 1847; Kerry Evening Post, January 6, 1847.

18 Donnelly, The Great Irish Potato Famine, 170-1.

19 Shieling: A hut or collection of huts, typically rough in their construction. 13 and he claimed to have often witnessed the distress of a poor widow at the workhouse board, holding her children close to her and begging that they be granted outdoor relief.20

T.D. believed that these scenes, which Sullivan “beheld with horror,” stayed with him his entire life.21 Indeed, Sullivan’s own experiences during the famine, and ultimately his personal experience with workhouses, as an officer of the poor-law, between 1849 and

1852, drove him to Dublin, and eventually the Nation, in 1853. Yet for all the press, and the Famine studies, perhaps Sullivan’s own recollections serve best, as the “horrible phantasmagoria” of the Famine seems to have haunted him for decades.22

But how did Sullivan and his family fare during the Famine? Had they experienced bouts of hunger, or starvation? Sickness? Were they unscathed? The answer is not exactly clear, as neither Sullivan nor T.D. discussed their personal situations during the Famine. Some inferences, however, can be made. Sullivan and T.D. discussed many aspects of the Famine in their own books, and never missed an opportunity to serve as witnesses to Ireland’s great tragedy. Yet they were reluctant to discuss their own experiences in any great detail. This suggests that neither Sullivan nor his family ever suffered the primary effects of the Famine, at least not to any considerable extent. That is not to say that the Famine left no impression, as it most certainly did.23 Therefore, it can be assumed that Sullivan and his family, when compared to the majority of West Cork, were comparatively well-off during the Famine, and managed to escape most of the suffering. Furthermore, Sullivan appears to have had the means and the time to involve

20 Sullivan, New Ireland, 85-7, 89, 91-2.

21 Sullivan, Memoir, 3.

22 Sullivan, New Ireland, 83.

23 Ibid., 85-92; Sullivan, Recollections, 2-6. 14 himself in other business – particularly the business of Young Ireland in 1848. Here

Moran argues that the Famine drove Sullivan to join a local confederate club and develop an interest in nationalist politics,24 but neither Sullivan nor T.D. mentioned that it was the

Famine, in particular, that impelled him to any course of action. It is more likely that

Sullivan, who was already a repealer, was caught up in the frenzy of political movements, and that the Famine, as well as many other experiences, simply provided the final push.

Though Black ‘47 had passed, taking with it Daniel O’Connell and severely hampering his Repeal Association, the Famine still weighed heavily on Ireland. But one year prior, as O’Connell’s movement began to disintegrate, a group of nationalists in the

Repeal Association, who came to be known as Young Ireland, were growing impatient with O’Connell’s parliamentary pursuits and “cautious leadership.” Their aim was to

“awaken the Irish people to the fact that they were an historic nation that should determine its own future.”25 The founding members of Young Ireland were also the founders of the Nation, which brought to life their push for cultural distinction and provided a vehicle for anti-British rhetoric that sought to “give the Irish people the

‘national’ education that the British government had deliberately prevented them from receiving.”26

In July 1846, amidst growing tensions with O’Connell, Young Ireland separated from O’Connell’s Repeal Association, ultimately forming the Irish Confederation.27

24 Moran, “Sullivan, Alexander Martin,” 295.

25 Quinn, Young Ireland, 6-8.

26 Ibid.

27 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 2, 8, 9-12; William Irwin Thompson, The Imagination of an Insurrection: Dublin, Easter 1916, A Study of an Ideological Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 14. 15 Though initially conceived as a constitutional nationalist organization, the French

Revolution of 1848 changed its orientation. Matthew Kelly has asserted that the Young

Ireland rebellion was “directly inspired by French events,” and that the editors of the

Nation were so enthralled with the February 1848 French revolution that they touted the

“significance of the rebirth of French republicanism for Ireland” in the pages of their journal.28 Duffy, Kelly further explained, rescinded his statement that Irish revolutionaries should “bide their time,” and argued that “Nation after nation is rising into the light liberty, while Ireland seems sinking hopelessly into ruin,” and alluded to

Ireland’s place alongside France and the United States as “beacons of liberty.”29 As for

Sullivan, the summer of 1848 provided something of a relief from the Famine and all its horrors. It was during this time that Sullivan, “his heart glowing with patriotic enthusiasm,” became more involved with nationalist politics through a burgeoning interest in Young Ireland. According to T.D. nearly all of Bantry supported Young

Ireland, and the town was humming with excitement as nationalist papers were “got down from Dublin and eagerly read.” A Confederate Club was formed in town, and its members, who were “ready and willing to strike for Ireland,” were provided with a considerable number of pikes made secretly by local blacksmiths. In the middle of all this was Sullivan, who along with his brother T.D. and his father, joined the local Confederate

Club.30

28 Matthew Kelly, “Languages of Radicalism, Race, and Religion in Irish Nationalism: The French Affinity, 1848-71,” Journal of British Studies 49, no. 4 (October 2010): 805.

29 Ibid., 805-6.

30 Sullivan, New Ireland, 98; Sullivan, Memoir, 2; Sullivan, Recollections, 7; Moran, “Sullivan, Alexander Martin,” 295. 16 To complete the picture William Smith O’Brien, Young Ireland’s leader, passed through Bantry in July 1848, just three weeks before the failed Young Ireland rising in southern Tipperary. Sullivan fondly remembered the day O’Brien came through Bantry.

O’Brien was on a tour of Cork in order to review the Confederate Clubs throughout the region. The nationalists of Bantry, upon hearing that O’Brien would be in town, decided to give him “a royal reception and in a style characteristic of an aquatic community,” and

Sullivan, still only 19-years-old, was one of the head organizers of the entire event.31 The fishing fleet of Bantry, and many boats from smaller communities for miles around, escorted O’Brien across the bay from Glengariff to Bantry. O’Brien enjoyed this

“excursion by water” on the “Independence,” a little yacht that belonged to Sullivan’s father, which was sailed by several men from Bantry, including Sullivan. When the

“Independence” rounded the northern tip of Whiddy Island, just two miles from Bantry,

Sullivan caught sight of something he would not soon forget. The people of Bantry, and the surrounding towns, had decorated boats that had been pulled ashore, the crowd boomed, and a band struck up in celebration and processed across the breadth of the harbor. O’Brien too held warm memories of that moment, as he recalled in a letter to

Sullivan from Richmond Prison in the summer of 1849, following the failed Young

Ireland rising. Due to O’Brien’s subsequent conviction for treason and banishment from

Ireland, this was Sullivan’s only contact with the nationalist leader during his earlier years (though they later became close friends), and he was soon on to other business in

Bantry, but not before a failed attempt to re-unite with O’Brien for the Young Ireland rising. When word had spread that “gallant Tipperary was ‘up,’” three weeks after

31 Sullivan, New Ireland, 112; Sullivan, Memoir, 3. 17 O’Brien’s departure from Bantry, Sullivan’s family was surprised to find him missing from home. Shortly thereafter they discovered that he had set off to join the insurrection, and T.D., together with another relative, set off after Sullivan. They caught up with him near Brandon and persuaded him to abandon his pursuit and return home.32 In 1849 he thrust himself back into the miserable scene caused by the Famine when he took a job, as a relief officer, with the Bantry poor-law union.33

Sullivan, who grew up with stories of the 1798 Rebellion, had, by the age of eighteen, witnessed Father Matthew’s temperance movement, taken part in a parade for

O’Connell, witnessed the horrors of the Famine in western Cork, joined the Bantry

Confederate Club, escorted the famed William Smith O’Brien across Bantry Bay, and attempted to join the Tipperary rising. He was wholeheartedly invested in Irish nationalism by this point, and he was a talented writer and artist. He was, essentially, a model Young Irelander, but he had yet to find an outlet. For all he had witnessed and taken part in until this point, it was the deplorable conditions that Sullivan encountered in the Bantry workhouse as a relief officer that set him on his path to Dublin and the proprietorship of the Nation.

In June 1852, while engaged in his work, Sullivan happened upon a group of women who were “yoked like oxen to a mill, and driven round with a whip, grinding corn, in a dark room.” Sullivan, deeply troubled by the inhumane treatment, criticized the practice in an indignant letter to the Cork Examiner, in which he enclosed his full name and address, to be used should his story need to be authenticated.34 Roughly a week later,

32 Moran, “Sullivan, Alexander Martin,” 295.

33 Sullivan, New Ireland, 110-113; Sullivan, Memoir, 2-3.

18 Sullivan was ecstatic to find that his letter to the Cork Examiner had been published in a leading article in the Nation, titled “A Board of Guardian Angels.” Garnering the attention of the Nation helped Sullivan develop a “special affection” for the national journal, and T.D. believed “the incident certainly helped to fix the bent of his mind towards the press as his future sphere of influence.”35 Sullivan had found his outlet, and with that he quit his position as a relief officer and set out for Dublin early in 1853.

Dublin was not easy for Sullivan, who at first had a difficult time finding work.

Sometime in the spring, “sad and melancholy at the thought of being obliged to leave,” he began preparing to return home. Sullivan was, however, all the while confident that he would succeed “if [he] only could get [his] foot in it.”36 Perhaps Sullivan’s confidence paid off, or perhaps he eventually spoke to the right person. Either way, Sullivan succeeded in securing a job with Messrs. Gunn and Cameron, the proprietors of the

General Advertiser in May 1853. It was not, however, for his skill as a writer, but rather for his talents as an artist, which he developed during his boyhood years in Bantry.

During the Irish Industrial Exhibition of 1853 (also known as Dargan’s Exhibition), held on Leinster Lawn road in Clonskeagh, Gunn and Cameron were issuing a weekly paper, the Exhibition Expositor, devoted to providing press coverage of the exhibition. Working under the management of John Sproule, Sullivan was ecstatic at the prospect of being

34 Cork Examiner, June 18, 1852. The article found here matches T.D.’s description, as well as the response to it in the Nation a week later, yet it is signed “W.J. M’G.” It is the only article matching this description and timeframe. Additionally, Sullivan, early in life, submitted articles under a pen-name, and the format of “W.J. M’G” matches Sullivan’s later use of “A.M. O’S.” Therefore, it is assumed that this was indeed Sullivan’s “indignant letter” to the Cork Examiner.

35 Sullivan, Memoir, 4-6; Nation, June 26, 1852.

36 Alexander Martin Sullivan to Maurice Healy, May 4, 1853, Sullivan Letters and Papers, NLI, MS 46546. 19 involved with the exhibition. He hastily wrote home to Maurice Healy, a relative, on May

4: “I am on the staff of the Exhibition Expositor!!!! And just listen man alive – engaged as their artist IN THE EXHIBITION BUILDING!!!!!!!!”37 But he had not forgotten about the Nation, which he still favored. While working for the Exhibition Expositor,

Sullivan decided that he would try to write two articles for the Nation. He was successful, and both were published. Their content is invaluable, as it provides an early insight into

Sullivan’s developing nationalism.38

The first piece, “Nationality in the Exhibition – WHAT AN IRISHMAN

SHOULD SEE IN IT,” appeared in the Nation on July 9, 1853. The length of the article alone is impressive, but its contents reveal a more nationalist bent in Sullivan’s thought than prior evidence has been able to demonstrate. “There is little that is National in the general aspect of the Exhibition” Sullivan confessed, as he informed readers, “there is little to evoke our sympathies and much to remind us of the chain.” Though there were only a “few objects which no Irish-born man … should leave unseen or pass by unnoticed,” Sullivan remained impressed by the Exhibition as a symbol of Irish enterprise and self-help:

It may be surveyed with satisfaction – a testimony of Irish generosity and Celtic genius. No royal head assumed the paternity of, or gave birth to the idea – no royal commission developed it into perfection – no royal grant from the public exchequer supplied ample funds for securing its success. An Irish head designed it, it rose into existence beneath the hands of sturdy Celts, and ample funds were supplied by the princely liberality of a “mere Irishman.”39

37 Sullivan to Healy, May 4, 1853, Ibid.

38 Sullivan, Memoir, 6; Moran, “Sullivan, Alexander Martin,” 295; John Sproule, ed., The Irish Industrial Exhibition of 1853: A Detailed Catalogue of its Contents (Dublin: James McGlashan, 1854), vi.

39 Nation, July 9, 1853. 20 Sullivan lamented the paucity of Irish displays that filled the halls of the exhibition and disdained the Anglicized nature of it all. In narrative fashion, Sullivan took the reader on a tour through each hall of the exhibition, before finally passing through a room of Irish artifacts, which prompted him to ask, “Do they not speak to you, child of a fallen race, those relics of your forefathers?” Sullivan conveyed an almost palpable sense of defeat in his remarks about this last hall, which he described as the “tomb of a nation’s great-ness.”

He exhorted the reader to sit “among the ruins” where the nationality of the exhibition could be found.40

Two weeks later Sullivan’s second article, “Catholic Art in the Exhibition,” appeared, and with it a much more positive tone. “There is, thank Heaven!” Sullivan proclaimed in his second piece, “A great deal that is Catholic in the Exhibition.” The abundance of Catholic art then in the exhibition halls appears to have been a great relief for Sullivan who, two weeks prior, was lamenting a fallen Ireland. Yet this sentiment also crept into his second article. Sullivan explained how a set of three large crosses “tell of a time when, in this fallen land of ours, it was no crime to be a Catholic.” Following the same conceit as in the previous article, he walked the reader through the halls of the exhibition. Furthermore, Sullivan believed that nationality and Catholicity were inextricably linked in the history of Ireland. According to Sullivan, “Whether you enter as an Irishman or a Catholic, there is much within [the exhibition] that you must revere.”41 It was ultimately to Sullivan’s great delight that even in the exhibition,

Catholicism, in his eyes, had triumphed. Together, these articles mark the cornerstones of

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid., July 23, 1853. 21 Sullivan’s beliefs. Though Sullivan had previously contributed to the local and national press, these two pieces were his longest and most profound statements of nationality, and they clearly defined its parameters. Indeed, T.D. felt that these beliefs “ruled the whole career of A.M. Sullivan.”42

With the conclusion of the Irish Industrial Exhibition on October 31, 1853, and the closure of the Dublin Expositor, Sullivan took a job as a draughtsman with the

General Valuation Office. Still dedicated to a career in the press, Sullivan used his position as a draughtsman to learn shorthand, which he believed would better his chances of a career in journalism. During his time with the General Valuation Office Sullivan kept in contact with the Nation, and eventually became something of “favorite” among its staff. It is not clear how Sullivan managed to become so well liked by the them, but he was most certainly involved with the Nation in some capacity during this time. Later, in a letter to John Martin, a fellow Young Irelander and good friend, Sullivan wrote that he

“openly & solemnly protested” against Duffy’s feud with John Mitchel, who Sullivan had come to admire, and that he and Michael Clery, with whom he would later purchase the

Nation, “declared [their] intention of leaving” if the feud continued.43 In any case, by the end of June 1854, Sullivan had quit the General Valuation Office.44 A more fulfilling prospect now demanded his attention – one that validated his reason for coming to

Dublin. It was not a position with the Nation, but for Sullivan it was close enough.

42 Ibid.; Sullivan, Memoir, 6-7.

43 Alexander Martin Sullivan to John Martin, Autographed Letters from A.M. Sullivan, May 31, 1858, NLI, MS 15714.

44 Sullivan, Memoir, 7-8. 22 As early as May 6, 1854, the Freeman’s Journal, the Nation, and many other papers began to announce the creation of a new nationalist journal, the Tipperary Leader, which was to launch on July 1, 1854. News of this new journal even reached London’s

Morning Post.45 It was Maurice Richard Leyne, editor of the Nation, behind the enterprise. Leyne was a relative of the famous Daniel O’Connell, and the only member of the Old Ireland Party to take the side of the Young Irelanders.46 He was an established and valuable member of the Nation, and since early 1854 had been working to set up a printing office and fill out a staff for the Leader. Leyne’s plan for the paper was to support Irish Independence through the use of Irish literature and politics. As outlined in its prospectus:

The TIPPERARY LEADER will advocate, as the primal and indispensable Charter of Ireland, the restoration of National Independence; and it will labor to disseminate and make wise unto Liberty a Faith and hope in the freedom of our country. … It will be the aim of the TIPPERARY LEADER to familiarize its readers with Letters as well as Politics, and to stir the Young Intellect of our greatest province to emulate the illustrious examples which her Patriots and Scholars have written on the History of Literature of our Country.47

Leyne needed a sub-editor, and Sullivan, having established a good reputation with the staff of the Nation, was selected to assist Leyne in this new venture. Naturally this was an exciting time for Sullivan. He had joined the ranks of the nationalist press; but the endeavor, to Sullivan’s great misfortune, was incredibly short-lived.48

45 Nation, May 6, 1854; Freeman’s Journal, May 6, 1854; Kilkenny Journal, and Leinster Commercial and Literary Advertiser, May 10, 1854; Waterford News, May 19, 1854; Morning Post, June 12, 1854.

46 Sullivan, New Ireland, 137.

47 Nation, May 6, 1854; Freeman’s Journal, May 6, 1854.

48 Moran, “Sullivan, Alexander Martin,” 295; Sullivan, Memoir, 8. 23 On the morning of July 1, 1854, instead of Leyne and Sullivan celebrating their success, the Nation published the following: “Our dear friend, our gallant colleague,

Maurice Leyne, is no more.” News of Leyne’s passing spread rapidly, and several newspapers managed to print the announcement on that same day, which many more continued to do throughout the month.49 Back in early June, Leyne had traveled to

Thurles, County Tipperary, which was to be the place of publication for the Leader. He began to show symptoms of typhus some time around June 20, and never completed preparations for the paper’s first issue. According to T.D., and an account from T.P.

O’Connor, Sullivan tended to Leyne throughout his ten-day struggle, and, consequently, the preparations for the Leader were never finished, nor did the paper survive. Duffy, at the request of the paper’s join-stock committee, had recommended Sullivan as Leyne’s successor, but never detailed how or why he had come to hold Sullivan in such high esteem. The committee, however, opted for someone other than Sullivan. Ultimately, the

Leader was never revived, and the new editor went on to conduct the Kilkenny Journal, with many of the Tipperary staff in tow.50 Leyne’s death was a great personal loss for the members of the Nation, but it deeply affected Sullivan, who had become close friends with Leyne during their project. In this context it is worth noting Leyne’s anti-British sentiments, which Sullivan undoubtedly shared. In 1849 Duffy arranged with Frederick

Lucas, the proprietor of the British Tablet, to bring the paper to Dublin. This was, to

Leyne, an unwelcome injection of foreign (British) character, upon which he remarked,

49 See, e.g., Nation, July 1, 1854; Dundalk Democrat and People’s Journal, July 1, 1854; Carlow Post, July 1, 1854; Commercial Journal, July 1, 1854; Limerick and Clare Examiner, July 1, 1854; Advocate, July 1, 1854; Freeman’s Journal, July 1, 1854; London Daily News, July 1, 1854.

50 Sullivan, Memoir, 8-9; Charles Gavan Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 2 (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903), 88; Nation, October 31, 1857. 24 “We have the English brought over by Strongbow, we have the English brought over by

Cromwell, and the English brought over by William—now we are going to have the

English brought over by Lucas.”51 That being said, Sullivan left for Liverpool in the summer of 1854, shortly after Leyne’s funeral in Thurles.52

As for why Sullivan left Dublin, there is only his brother’s brief account. T.D. implied that Sullivan left partly because he was stricken with grief at the loss of Leyne, but also to visit friends and seek employment. Being passed over for editorship of the

Leader likely had something to do with Sullivan’s decision as well. Shortly after arriving in Liverpool, Sullivan was able to secure employment with the Liverpool Daily Post, but he does not appear to have held any significant position. At any rate, Sullivan was not in

Liverpool long enough to have become a major contributor to the paper. His stay was cut short when, in 1855, a friend back in Dublin, likely none other than Michael Clery, sent word of a rumor concerning the Nation.53 Supposedly Gavan Duffy was planning to retire from Irish political life and sell his interest in the Nation. For Sullivan, the chance to hold a position of importance with the journal he so greatly admired was suddenly in reach. At the suggestion of his good friend, Sullivan seized the opportunity and immediately left for Dublin.

Upon returning Sullivan learned that Duffy was not only going to quit Irish politics, but as T.D. put it, “quit Ireland,” and he was indeed going to sell the Nation.

Eager not to miss his opportunity to be a voice of nationalism, Sullivan joined with

51 Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 2, 28.

52 Sullivan, Memoir, 9-10.

53 Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 2, 106-7; Sullivan, Memoir, 10. 25 Michael Clery to purchase Duffy’s shares of the Nation. Keeping in mind that Sullivan had left Bantry a mere three years prior to purchasing Duffy’s shares of the Nation in conjunction with Clery, it is certainly quite remarkable that he had the means to do so, and a certain measure of wealth and reputation ought to be assumed on Sullivan’s part. In

1855, at the age of twenty-six, Sullivan became a proprietor of one third of the Nation, with Clery becoming the majority owner.54 John Cashel Hoey, Duffy’s associate editor and trusted friend, remained editor as a condition of the purchase.55

Sullivan was, in 1855, still very much a product of Bantry and the collective experiences that he brought with him to Dublin. Sullivan was, at first, a light-hearted, quick-witted, Catholic nationalist with an aptitude for writing. He had some measure of seriousness impressed upon him, having experienced the temperance movement and the

Famine, the horrors and images of which he was never able to escape. Moran has also suggested that Sullivan displayed these traits, and contended that Sullivan was, essentially, a product of the post-Famine and mid-Victorian age which he grew up in.56

When nationalist enthusiasm came to a head during O’Brien’s visit to their small town,

Sullivan managed to escape the misery of the Famine, at least for a time. His role in

O’Brien’s reception most certainly impressed upon him a respect for the hero of Young

Ireland, and he hoped to join the abortive rising in Tipperary.

Ultimately swayed, however, by the atrocities of the workhouses, Sullivan departed for Dublin and quickly found an outlet for his talents in the Exhibition Expositor

54 Alexander Martin Sullivan to John, June 14, 1856, Sullivan Letters and Papers, NLI, MS 46546.

55 Sullivan, Recollections, 12.

56 Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 22-3. 26 as well as the Nation. He managed to establish himself as a gifted writer, eventually gaining favor with the Nation, and was chosen to assist Leyne with the establishment of the Tipperary Leader. Although the Leader never came to fruition, and Sullivan was passed over for its editorship, the failed endeavor was a marked sign of his ambition and his capabilities as a journalist, as well as his nationalist leanings. As a shareholder of the

Nation in 1855, Sullivan found himself with a career in journalism, as the head of

Ireland’s premier nationalist journal no less, but he lacked experience both as an editor and a businessman. He would have to learn quickly.

27 Chapter Two

Taking the Reins of the Revived Nation, 1855 – 1858

It would be difficult to describe the role that Sullivan was stepping into as a proprietor of the Nation without an understanding of the early success and subsequent revival of the Nation prior to 1855. In 1841, before Sullivan cared much for newspapers or politics, Charles Gavan Duffy had just met Thomas Davis and John Blake Dillon, the two men with whom he would found the Nation. Davis and Dillon were part of a small group within the College Historical Society at Trinity College Dublin who believed that the society focused too intensely on classical studies. In their minds, Trinity’s students were ignorant of modern history – particularly the history of more recent events in their own country. Together, Davis and Dillon joined O’Connell’s Repeal Association in 1841.

At about this time, both men took positions at the Dublin Morning Register under the proprietorship of Michael Staunton. Eighteen months prior, Duffy had held a position with the Morning Register as well, as sub-editor under Hugh Lynar. Without much warning Lynar sailed for the Cape of Good Hope, and Duffy left for Belfast to conduct the Vindicator. He returned to Dublin in the autumn of 1841 and discovered, upon visiting the Morning Register offices, that the editorship positions had been filled by “two young barristers … fresh from college, and strongly suspected by the veteran gentlemen of the press to be slightly crazed.” The two young barristers were

28 Davis and Dillon.1 The three soon learned that they shared a common interest in the recent history of their country, but Duffy admitted that he was “motivated by a strongly personal sense of historical grievance.” Impressed by Duffy’s professionalism, as well as his Nationalist sympathies, Dillon suggested that “a weekly paper conducted by that fellow would be an invaluable acquisition.” Dillon and Davis, however, did not remain at the Morning Register for more than a few months.2

Duffy, Dillon, and Davis reunited in Dublin in the spring of 1842 to discuss plans for the establishment of a new weekly journal. They decided that the paper should serve to reinvigorate the repeal campaign; a concept that Dillon and Davis had already fixed their minds upon. Without Duffy, however, all of this may have remained wishful thinking, for it was his contribution that made their idea a reality. Duffy agreed to finance the new publication, move to Dublin to serve as its editor, and supply talented writers.

Duffy alone of the three had the experience, resources, and connections needed for such an endeavor. They met again in July, and at Davis’ suggestion, decided on both a name and a launch date: the first number of the Nation was to be issued in autumn 1842, with the prospectus promising to appear on “the first Saturday in October.”3 But Duffy, Dillon, and Davis did not wait quite that long. As early as August 27 the Southern Reporter and

1 Charles Gavan Duffy, Young Ireland: A Fragment of Irish History (London: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co., 1880), 45, 80, 182.

2 Quinn, Young Ireland, 19-26.

3 Ibid.; Sullivan, New Ireland, 100-1; Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier, August 27, 1842. 29 Cork Commercial Courier printed the Nation’s prospectus. Many more Irish journals issued, and re-issued, the prospectus soon afterwards.4

The proprietors of the Nation, hoping to reach what they believed to be a newly educated and politically agitated generation, claimed that “a new mind has grown up” in

Ireland. They accused the contemporary press of doing nothing to appeal to this new generation, claiming that “their tone and spirit are not of the present, but the past; their energies are shackled by old habits, old prejudices, and old divisions; and they do not and cannot keep in the van of the advancing people.” Most important however, was the intended purpose of the Nation:

The necessities of the country seem to demand a Journal able to aid and organize the new movement going on amongst us; to make their growth deeper and their fruit more “racy of the soil;” and above all, to direct the popular mind and the sympathies of educated men of all parties to the great end of Nationality. Such a journal should be free from the quarrels, the interest, the wrongs, and even the gratitude of the past. It should be free to apply its [strength] where it deems best; free to praise; free to censure; unshackled by sect or party – able, Irish, and independent.

The paper was going to be a new nationalist journal intended to reinvigorate the campaign for repeal and to maintain the spirit of nationalism, which they considered

“their great object.”5 There does appear to have been one minor error in the prospectus.

“Vol. 1 – No. 1” of the Nation did not hit the streets of Ireland until the third Saturday in

4 Quinn, Young Ireland, 26; Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier, August 27, 1842; Northern Standard, August 27, 1842; Cork Examiner, August 29, 1842; Limerick Reporter, August 30, 1842; Dublin Evening Post, September 1, 1842; Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser, September 3, 1842; Newry Telegraph, September 3, 1842; Tipperary Free Press, September 3, 1842; Vindicator, September 3, 1842.

5 Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier, August 27, 1842; Northern Standard, August 27, 1842; Cork Examiner, August 29, 1842; Limerick Reporter, August 30, 1842; Dublin Evening Post, September 1, 1842; Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser, September 3, 1842; Newry Telegraph, September 3, 1842; Tipperary Free Press, September 3, 1842; Vindicator, September 3, 1842. 30 October.6 Regardless, within less than a year of that first publication on October 15,

1842, the Nation had indeed become the “LARGEST WEEKLY PAPER IN

IRELAND.”7

As for the success of the Nation, Anne Andrews, in her recent book Newspaper and Newsmakers: The Dublin Nationalist Press in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, has compiled useful data regarding the circulation of prominent Dublin newspapers based on stamps returned each quarter. Duffy provided some clarity on the importance of this data:

“Every copy of a newspaper bore a penny stamp, which carried it free through the post, and the quarterly return of stamps issued from the Custom House showed the quantity of each paper printed.”8 Thus, Andrews’ research is a strong indicator of the average circulation of the Nation and other prominent Dublin papers. She has shown that by the end of the fourth quarter of 1842 the Nation averaged a circulation of 4,583 issues, while the next largest publication, the Freeman, averaged 2,962. By the end of the fourth quarter of 1843, the Nation had reached a massive average weekly circulation of 10,730, while the Freeman still averaged below this figure with a circulation of only 7,231.9 This trend continued through 1847, a period during which the Nation was consistently the most circulated paper in Ireland.10 Regarding the actual readership of the Nation, Duffy

6 Nation, October 15, 1842.

7 Ibid.

8 Duffy, Young Ireland, 387.

9 Andrews, Newspapers and Newsmakers, 24.

10 Ibid., 27.

31 was incredibly optimistic. He estimated that, between reading rooms and shared copies, the Nation exceeded a quarter of a million readers each week.11

The Nation was indeed popular, with evidence of its circulation in all four of the

Irish provinces, but while the circulation of the paper was undoubtedly important, so too was its content. The Nation’s success began with its open support of the Loyal National

Repeal Association, which campaigned for the repeal of the Act of Union, and was among myriad papers to do so. It joined the ranks of papers such as the Freeman, the

Dublin Morning Register, the Cork Examiner, and the Belfast Vindicator, of which Duffy had previously served as editor. Considering the rapid rise of the Nation, and other nationalist journals, there is certainly an intimate connection between the wider dissemination of newspapers and the rise of nationalist sentiment in Ireland. Douglas

Kanter has observed, in his article “Post-Famine Politics, 1850-1879,” that politics were

“central to the post-Famine press,” and further noted that the editors of these politically charged journals “embraced partisan affiliations” by publishing their opinions of contemporary politicians and political leaders, and occasionally using their journals as a vehicle for organizing political campaigns.12 This was equally true of the 1840s.

The Nation, however, soon stood apart from the other papers in the Dublin repeal press. Not only did it strive to draw the middle and upper classes into the Repeal

Association, but it also targeted the lower class by establishing Repeal reading rooms, at which free copies of the paper were available on a weekly basis. Increases in literacy rates, which grew alongside an increase in English as a spoken language beginning in the

11 Duffy, Young Ireland, 387.

12 Douglas Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics,” in The Cambridge History of Ireland, vol. 3, ed. James Kelly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 691. 32 late eighteenth century, only fueled the Nation’s popularity and subsequent spread of nationalism. Literacy in Ireland was, essentially, achieved in English. By 1841 forty- seven per cent of the Irish population was literate, and adult literacy in Ireland was

“considered average” when compared to England and mainland Europe.13 Sullivan also noted the spike in literacy when he expressed his amazement at the progress of Irish schools in the early nineteenth century: “there is now scarcely a farm-house or working- man’s home in all the land in which the boy or girl of fifteen, or the young man or woman of twenty-five, cannot read the newspaper for ‘the old people,’ and transact their correspondence.”14 Under Duffy’s editorship, the Nation’s success waxed and waned with the rise and fall of Irish political movements, all the while providing a platform for the political ideals of Young Ireland, due its close relationship with the Repeal

Association. Ultimately, as Andrews has stated, “there is no doubt that the Nation was both promoting and reflecting Irish public opinion.15 The Nation under Duffy’s editorship proved to be a remarkable success, and having achieved a measure of the paper’s intended purpose, Duffy continued to conduct the Nation in concordance with its goal of nationality, though it would land him in a Newgate Prison cell and result in the seizure of the Nation offices in the summer of 1848.

The outbreak of the French Revolution of February 1848, which inspired Irish nationalists of all persuasions, prompted an increase in the number of Confederate Clubs throughout Ireland. The Irish Confederation, founded one year prior by the members of

13 Andrews, Newspapers and Newsmakers, 15.

14 Sullivan, New Ireland, 28.

15 Ibid., 25-6, 74, 188. 33 Young Ireland, established and utilized these clubs as meeting places for those who shared and supported their nationalist ideas. The resulting uptick in activity surrounding many Confederate Clubs, particularly those in southern and eastern Ireland, prompted

Parliament to pass the Treason Felony Act in an effort to combat their popularity. The rapidity with which the act was passed was quite remarkable, taking only fifteen days to receive the royal assent on April 22. Duffy described it as passing with “the speed of an express train.” He believed that the act “suppressed liberty of speech and liberty of the

Press in controversies on the Irish Question.”16 In fact, Duffy and the Nation were a matter of discussion within the House of Commons during the first few days that the act was reviewed.17 The Treason Felony Act, while not limited to the suppression of

Confederate Club meetings and the Irish nationalist press, was aimed at stifling nationalism, and was enacted with leading members of Young Ireland in mind.

Keenly aware of the act, and the crisis he believed would ensue, Duffy determined to express the Nation’s core beliefs by publishing a lengthy article titled

“Creed of the Nation.” The article, which echoed the prospectus, was circulated as a sort of Confederate tract after its initial publication. O’Brien, who also read the article, was roused from a period of political inactivity. O’Brien wrote to Duffy, announcing his reentry into politics, and asked that his letter be published.18 Alarmed by the growth of revolutionary sentiment in Ireland, the British government resolved to strike pre- emptively. On the night of July 9, 1848 Duffy was arrested by a Lower Castle Yard

16 Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 1 (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1903), 271.

17 Hansard, 3rd series, vol. 98, cc 20-59 (April 7, 1848), 73-135 (April 10, 1848), 152-75 (April 11, 1848), 223-59 (April 12, 1848), 340-79 (April 14, 1848).

18 Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 1, 275; Nation, April 29, 1848, May 6, 1848. 34 detective while walking home. During his processing at the College Street Police Office he learned that the Nation office was also in police possession.19

After much tribulation Duffy was finally released from prison in early summer

1849 – but the Nation was in need of rebuilding. As Duffy recalled, he needed to “fill the gap disaster had left in the ranks of my friends.” Once Duffy recovered from his internment he set out to revive the Nation under a new policy. With his Young Ireland colleagues exiled or imprisoned, he felt that little could be done for nationality at the present – save to “keep alive its traditions.” Rather, Duffy believed, “Ireland lay in ruins and needed to be rebuilt, beginning with the foundations.” In the first number of the revived Nation, and throughout many more, Duffy outlined a series of projects that aimed to “save the people and restore the certainty of daily bread and shelter, without which national courage or ambition was not to be hoped.” After receiving general praise and approval for the revival of the Nation, and the projects that accompanied it, Duffy resolved to fill the ranks of the Nation once again. He published an editorial in the paper, titled “Wanted a Few Workmen,” on September 29, 1849, which attracted several notable recruits, among them Maurice Leyne and John Cashel-Hoey.20 This was to be the revived

Nation; the Nation that A.M. Sullivan would come to own and operate.

Ultimately Duffy’s projects, which included the Tenant Right movement and the establishment of an Irish parliamentary party responsive to the concerns of tenant farmers and the Catholic Church, failed to come to fruition.21 Amidst the “quietude that comes of

19 Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 1, 279-282.

20 Ibid., vol. 2, 7-9; Sullivan, Memoir, 11-12; Nation, September 29, 1849.

21 Nation, August 18, 1855; Sullivan, Recollections, 8-13; Sullivan, Memoir, 12. 35 baffled hopes and defeated endeavor” Duffy, at last, gave up. Of Ireland and the nationalist cause he remarked, on the day of his announcement to leave, “there seems to me no more hope for the Irish Cause than for the corpse on the dissecting table.” In

Duffy’s opinion, a “preternatural apathy” had firmly planted itself within the Irish people, and he could no longer tolerate their disposition. Reflecting upon his decision years later,

Duffy expressed a more solemn sentiment regarding his departure: “I could no longer promise the suffering people relief, and to witness injustice without curb and wrong without remedy would render life too painful.” Sullivan too recalled the day of Duffy’s announcement, and how “the news chilled the country like a signal of despair,” but T.D. identified a more pressing issue concerning Duffy’s announcement. Duffy had spoken as if the battle was lost, and in doing so, “did not present a very encouraging prospect for the new proprietors of the Nation.”22

And so, while Sullivan hurried home to Dublin in 1855 at the news of Duffy’s plans to quit public life and leave Ireland, the founder of the Nation was beginning his preparations to set sail for his new home in Australia. Having only divulged his plans to

“a few intimate friends,” and after selling his shares of the Nation to Sullivan and Clery,

Duffy wrote his farewell address, which was published in the Nation on August 18, 1855.

Regarding the new proprietors, and Hoey who remained on as editor, Duffy stated:

My property in the Nation will pass into the hands of two young Irishmen, bred up in its doctrines—Messrs. Sullivan and Clery—one of them associated with Maurice Leyne in his latest projects, and both eager to serve or suffer in the National cause. The editorship will remain with my late partner—the comrade and colleague who, since the Nation was revived, has shared all my labours, and possessed my entire confidence, John Cashel Hoey. He has been substantially editor for three years; and in his hands one of my dearest wishes, that its character may be unalterably maintained, will be accomplished. May he be the herald of a

22 Sullivan, Recollections, 12; Nation, August 18, 1855; Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 2, 106; Sullivan, New Ireland, 234; Sullivan, Memoir, 12. 36 generation destined to take up anew the hereditary task of our race, and the Nation a tripod to preserve the sacred fire.23

The doctrines of the Nation, to which Duffy referred, were succinctly summarized by

T.D., who noted “that a re-establishment of the Irish Parliament could be won by constitutional agitation” and that regardless of war, “there should be no recourse to secret conspiracy.”24 Regarding the sale of the Nation, it is not clear whether Duffy had at some previous point vetted Sullivan for proprietorship, but he was certainly in favor of Sullivan succeeding Leyne as editor of the Tipperary Leader only one year prior. Years later, while writing My Life in Two Hemispheres, Duffy remembered Sullivan as “a man who proved to be a brilliant journalist, and in the end an accomplished orator.”25 Regardless,

Duffy believed Sullivan to be a nationalist who had grown up in the spirit of the Young

Ireland movement, via the Nation, which Sullivan had aspired to join since he left Bantry.

Duffy set sail for Australia on October 5, and he would soon have “as little control of the

Nation as of the Times,” although Sullivan occasionally wrote to Duffy seeking his opinion on Irish matters.26

With Duffy’s departure, Sullivan, Clery, and Hoey faced enormous difficulties as the new caretakers of the Nation, for the paper’s problems did not leave Ireland with

Duffy. Many of the more radical members of the Young Ireland movement, associated with the exiled John Mitchel, resented the policy of the revived Nation, which began to endorse, in their eyes, problematic grievance politics. While the Nation was unpopular

23 Nation, August 18, 1855.

24 Sullivan, Recollections, 14.

25 Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 2, 88.

26 Ibid., 200. 37 with advanced nationalists, it had also alienated Catholic Liberals, as William Keogh and

John Sadleir also brought the full weight of their journals to bear against the Nation. In

1852 Keogh and Sadleir, who had traded their loyalty to the new Irish parliamentary party for government appointments, found themselves questioned and criticized by the national press, the Nation included. In response, Sadleir, being both a banker and a politician, poured money into his Catholic journal, the Weekly Telegraph, which “swept the island” at half the price of existing papers. In Sullivan’s partisan recolletion, it

“pandered to the fiercest bigotry” and accused Duffy of being a “bad Catholic.” The

Nation could do little to respond and was “almost fatally crippled in the unequal struggle.”27 Three years later the Nation was still recovering, primarily from its conflict with Sadleir’s Weekly Telegraph, and was overwhelmed with substantial debts. The

Nation was for three years, indeed, bested by the Weekly Telegraph, which reached an average weekly circulation of 18,320 papers between 1852 and 1854, while the Nation lagged behind at an average of 3,373 papers.28 Although Sullivan claimed to be flourishing as the Nation’s new co-editor, likely due to his new-found freedom at the head of one of Dublin’s most successful weekly journals, as one of its proprietors he admitted to many sleepless nights.29

One related cause of Sullivan’s anxiety was the financial state of the journal he had purchased. When Sullivan joined the Nation, it was indebted some £1,500, and had owing to it roughly £900. Sullivan, Clery, and Hoey resolved to call in that £900, but

27 Sullivan, New Ireland, 342-3; Andrews, Newspapers and Newsmakers, 166-7.

28 Andrews, Newspapers and Newsmakers, 170. These numbers are calculated from Andrews’ yearly averages provided for the above-mentioned years.

29 Sullivan to John, June 14, 1856, Sullivan Letters and Papers, NLI, MS 46546. 38 Duffy’s departure made the task exceedingly difficult. It filled the Nation’s creditors with

“apprehension or uncertainty,” and the debtors, in Sullivan’s opinion, were “just as oblivious” to the predicament of the new proprietors. Nonetheless, the Nation was well supported, and roughly a year after its initial purchase the paper made a full recovery, at the end of which Sullivan felt he could “give … a lecture on financing that would do honour to Gladstone,” the notoriously scrupulous former chancellor of the exchequer.30

From the outset Sullivan, Clery, and Hoey were beset on all sides by difficulties not of their own doing. The intense rivalry between Ireland’s nationalist papers detracted from the cause of nationality itself, and the pressure of the Nation’s financial troubles almost, as Sullivan phrased it, “smashed us to atoms.” It was trying work, and nearly brought about the loss of the Nation, “but the young men proved equal to the strain” and the

Nation survived its turbulent transition into the hands of its new owners.31

For roughly two years Sullivan, Clery, and Hoey worked together in the Nation office, although it was the efforts of Sullivan and Hoey that produced the weekly paper.

Clery, while deeply interested in the Nation, served as business manager. Duffy’s wish for the Nation’s character to be “unalterably maintained,” especially in the hands of

Hoey, was very well placed. In fact, it was Hoey who clung strongest to the old Nation policy, which advocated a more agitative stance regarding the pursuit of Irish independence. Hoey promoted the O’Connellite belief that “England’s difficulty is

Ireland’s opportunity,” jumping at any opportunity to attack the British government whenever it seemed to falter, and breathed new life into the Nation with his impressive

30 Ibid.

31 Sullivan, New Ireland, 13; Sullivan, Memoir, 12-13; Sullivan to John, June 14, 1856, Sullivan Letters and Papers, NLI, MS 46546. 39 literary style. In Duffy’s own words, Hoey “had gifts amounting to genius, and a safer judgement than any of his colleagues.”32 T.D., as well, praised Hoey when he remarked,

“Mr. Hoey’s literary style was at once solid and sparkling; in the volumes of the Nation from its first number there is nothing superior to many of his contributions.”33 But it was also Hoey who, perhaps best of all, captured the spirit of Irish politics during this time when he stated, “I know too well that whatever national feeling exists in Ireland at present is merely in the nature of passive resistance – that the opportunity does not tempt insurrection – that we are all very blasé about politics, and content, for the present, to watch the way the funds fall and the siege of Sebastopol goes on.” Hoey understood

Duffy’s frustration with the moribund state of Irish nationalism, and he shared those feelings. Shortly after Duffy’s farewell address first appeared in the Nation, Hoey published something of a companion piece. He mourned Duffy’s decision to leave

Ireland and, drawing upon Duffy’s disappointment at the lack of momentum behind the nationalist cause, proclaimed it as “the worst reproach of a shameless time.”34

While it is not difficult to determine what Sullivan, Hoey, and Clery were engaged in during this time – as the product of their endeavors appeared in the pages of the Nation – it is no easy task to determine what exactly Sullivan occupied his time with during his shared proprietorship. Little of Sullivan’s personal correspondence exists between 1855 and 1857, and neither he nor T.D. detailed that period of time in their later writings. What is clear is that Sullivan maintained a very discrete role alongside Hoey at

32 Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 2, 9.

33 Sullivan, Memoir, 15.

34 Nation, September 8, 1855. 40 the Nation offices. In fact, early in their ownership of the Nation, Hoey described

Sullivan’s involvement as earnest and silent, and that was very much the trend that

Sullivan maintained.35 Hoey was certainly a prolific writer during his time with the

Nation, and he was also the recipient of many letters which saw publication. There exist myriad articles and printed letters authored by or addressed to Hoey. Sullivan, however, published, or had attributed to his hand, very little in the pages of the Nation. That being said, regardless of what Sullivan’s internal contributions to the Nation may have been between 1855 and 1857, he was by no means a public force that poked and prodded Irish nationalism along its dreary path, at least not in the pages of the Nation.

The partnership, in any case, proved to be rather short-lived. Hoey and Clery were with the Nation for a period of roughly two years before Sullivan became the sole proprietor and editor. Hoey, surprisingly, was the first to leave. The exact date and nature of Hoey’s retirement from the Nation is not entirely clear, but it appears Hoey’s involvement with the paper ended in late October 1857. The recurring instruction “To

Correspondents,” which was always listed above the Nation’s primary article each

Saturday, changed between October 24, 1857 and October 31, 1857. During Hoey’s editorship the instruction read: “Letters on public and literary business to be addressed to

John Cashel Hoey, Editor; [or] to Alexander M. Sullivan, Corresponding Editor,” with

October 24 being the last time it appeared in this format. On October 31 correspondents received a slightly different instruction, which read: “Letters on public and literary business to be addressed ‘to the Editor.’” Those instructions had not been altered during

Hoey’s editorship, and given that all accounts date Hoey’s departure occurring from late

35 Ibid. 41 1857, it is likely that the end of October marked the end of Hoey’s career with the

Nation.36

As for the reason behind Hoey’s departure, there are a few conflicting accounts, and none of them were provided by the Nation. The first of these can be found in the

Dundalk Democrat. The weekly paper lampooned Hoey for joining with the ailing

Tenant League in advising Irish constituencies to elect new members to the Independent

Irish party, and then “presenting himself in Dundalk, to oppose that counsel, and resist the policy he recommended to the country” during the 1857 general election. “Such conduct as that,” the Democrat continued, “was enough to destroy his political character

… and he very wisely retired from political life.”37 Sullivan denied this a week later in the Nation, but did so rather vaguely, and offered no alternative explanation for Hoey’s conduct.38 Later Duffy recalled that Hoey left for London to join the English bar, while

T.D. simply stated that Hoey “abandoned” the Nation because it was “weary and ill- requited work.”39

Sullivan too felt the bitter pangs of their weary and ill-requited work, which he later admitted to Duffy in a private letter in 1863: “I did not seek it I did not ambition it when in 1857 I took sole charge of the Nation. I had decided on quitting journalism when

Hoey strongly urged and prevailed on me that I should remain and he retire.” Sullivan described Irish politics at that time as chaotic, so much so that “no one could see an inch ahead,” but he also believed that he had done good at the Nation, and asserted that he

36 Nation, October 24, 1857, October 31, 1857; Sullivan, New Ireland, 234; Sullivan, Memoir, 15.

37 Dundalk Democrat, April 17, 1858.

38 Nation, April 24, 1858.

39 Sullivan, Memoir, 15; Duffy, My Life in Two Hemispheres, vol. 2, 339. 42 “succeeded to a dispiriting and difficult if not hopeless task.”40 Regardless, by the end of

1857 Sullivan was the sole editor of the Nation, while Clery remained on as the business manager and silent partner. Clery, however, did not remain with the Nation long after

Hoey. Sullivan later recalled that both Hoey and Clery retired in 1857, but Clery was apparently still involved with the paper until at least early March 1858.41 T.D.’s account suggests that Clery remained with the paper for a period of “some six months” following

Hoey’s departure. Sullivan decided to purchase Clery’s remaining shares of the Nation in the first quarter of 1858, thus making him sole proprietor and editor until 1876.42

So, what then of Sullivan? How is he to be characterized during his shared proprietorship with Hoey and Clery, and how did he occupy his time? Sullivan, considering his own limited experience, later described himself as “Young, little known, and devoid of [Duffy’s] great experience and influence.”43 These were the years in which

Sullivan gained the crucial experience that he lacked at the outset of his proprietorship.

With regard to the direction of correspondent letters, it would not be farfetched to say that

Sullivan was undoubtedly quite busy in the Nation offices. Although his name was not printed under the leading articles, Sullivan must have been deeply involved in the editorial processes of the Nation. More than likely, he would have spent this time learning the trade, perhaps serving as sub-editor to Hoey, as he was clearly prepared to do, considering he accepted a similar position under Leyne one year prior. One can only

40 Alexander Martin Sullivan to Charles Gavan Duffy, May 10, 1863, Four Letters by A.M. Sullivan, NLI, MS 10489.

41 Nation, March 6, 1858; Sullivan, New Ireland, 234. The March 6, 1858 issue of the Nation was the last issue in which Clery was included in correspondent instructions.

42 Sullivan, New Ireland, 234; Sullivan, Memoir, 15.

43 Sullivan, New Ireland, 265. 43 imagine the many hours spent aiding Hoey and working with other members of the paper.

Despite Sullivan’s initial lack of published material, he was quite interested in tenant right and actively engaged with the Tenant League between 1855 and 1856. Sullivan never detailed his early involvement with the Tenant League, though he did write about the League extensively in New Ireland.44 Beginning roughly in November 1855, shortly after acquiring a portion of the Nation, Sullivan occasionally chaired the Dublin Council of the Tenant League. He remained, however, fairly passive – serving more as a conductor for the council’s discussion – rather than taking part in the discussion himself.45 In October 1856 George Henry Moore, MP for County Mayo and a “fearless friend of the Irish tenant,” began to chair the Dublin Council of the Tenant League while

Sullivan turned his attention elsewhere.46

In January 1857 Sullivan respectfully declined an invitation to attend a banquet in honor of Moore. Prior to receiving the invitation, he had made plans to travel to the

United States. Sullivan had developed an interest in, or rather a concern for, the 65,412 families who were evicted from their homes between 1849 to 1854 during the Famine clearances.47 Although eviction rates in Bantry were relatively low, Sullivan vividly remembered watching dispossessed farmers “march in like sorrowful procession on their way to the emigrant-ship.” Although he was traveling “on private business,” he assured his readers that after visiting the “adopted home” of millions of Irish men and women, he would “return impressed with the necessity of labouring still more earnestly to terminate

44 Ibid., 158-230, and passim.

45 Nation, November 3, 1855, February 23, 1856, October 4, 1856.

46 Ibid., October 11, 1856, January 24, 1857.

47 Donnelly, The Great Irish Potato Famine, 140. 44 the deplorable state of things” in Ireland.48 Indeed, Sullivan took up the cause of the Irish emigrant, “a subject which had long occupied [his] mind,” quite enthusiastically. He was concerned with the well-being of Irish emigrants, from the moment they left their homes until they had reached their destinations. Sullivan believed them “helpless to cope with the dangers that dog their every step,” and imposed it upon himself to seek out an alternative for the “heartless system.”49

While visiting the United States Sullivan had the pleasure of meeting with

Rudolph Garrigue, president of the New York State Commission of Emigration, and John

Alexander Kennedy, superintendent of Castle Garden. Both Garrigue and Kennedy shared Sullivan’s desire to improve conditions for emigrants, and in Sullivan’s opinion, had “thrown themselves into their mission with all the earnestness and devotion of men whose hearts are in the cause.” Garrigue and Kennedy were kind enough to devote the better part of a day to helping Sullivan become intimately acquainted with the debarkation process at Castle Garden. Although he was delighted with the entire system, finding it much more favorable than conditions he had observed in Liverpool, Sullivan was most impressed with the fact that immigrants were afforded legal protections. Much to his surprise, Sullivan learned from Garrigue that Das Auswanderer Haus in Germany had already implemented similar measures, which only fanned his ambitions. Satisfied with his visit, Sullivan left New York on July 22 aboard the Arabia, and arrived in

Liverpool on August 2. He had reportedly secured the support and cooperation of the

New York State Commissioners of Emigration, who allegedly desired to see similar

48 Sullivan, New Ireland, 157; Nation, January 24, 1857.

49 Nation, October 24, 1857. 45 reforms implemented in Liverpool, which would supplement “their efforts for the protection of the emigrants sailing from that port.”50

Once Sullivan arrived safely back in Liverpool, he immediately wrote to the editor of the Liverpool Chronicle, Vere Foster, whom Sullivan sought as an ally in his desire to see Irish emigrants protected. Foster had, for some time, been publishing articles covering the “Frauds on Emigrants,” and devoting his own time and money to safeguarding emigrants in Liverpool. Foster, who shared Sullivan’s concerns for the safety of emigrants in Liverpool, pledged his support.51 With the backing of those

Sullivan had rallied to the cause, and seeking still more support within the Irish community, Sullivan published a call to action in the October 24, 1857 Nation:

The “emigrants,” who are the victims of the astounding “frauds” exposed, are, alas! our countrymen. Our young women are ruined and rendered outcasts, and our simple and unsophisticated peasants are first swindled, then abused and ill- used. No one who has not seen the usage of Irish emigrants in Liverpool, can fully estimate the importance of the subject here described. We ask now for it the attention of all whose love for, and interest in, the Irish emigrant does not cease the moment he has bade adieu to the home of his affections.52

He urged the cooperation of the clergy and anyone else who would “preserve our emigrant countrymen,” and included his correspondence with Foster to show that there was already an existing support base. Sullivan’s article, at three quarters of an entire page, was also his longest contribution to the Nation to date.53 Significantly, this piece was published on Hoey’s last day with the Nation. Thus Sullivan’s essay on the

50 Ibid., October 24, 1857, August 8, 1857.

51 Ibid., October 24, 1857, August 22, 1856.

52 Ibid., October 24, 1857.

53 Ibid. 46 deplorable conditions faced by emigrants in Liverpool was his first major article as lead editor of the Nation.

Sullivan and Foster were persistent. They continued to raise support for Irish emigrants, with Sullivan working through the pages of the Nation, and Foster through his own philanthropic efforts, though their activities did not yield results quickly. From June

5, 1858 to July 10, 1858, in his pursuit of protections for emigrants, and to raise awareness of the issue, Sullivan published a six-part article titled “FRAUDS IN PORT

AND CRIMES ON BOARD: A Statement of the Sufferings of Emigrants from defects in the Law and its Administration in England and the United States.” The primary goal of these articles, which were aimed at Irish M.P.s, was to elicit a reform of the Passenger

Act of 1855. Sullivan also promised that until reform had been achieved, he would attempt to “compel those who are entrusted with the administration of the existing law

(such as it is) to exert it to the utmost in suppressing fraud and bringing to justice those who may again render themselves amenable.”54 Although Sullivan and Foster continued to work for the betterment of conditions for Irish emigrants in Liverpool, it would be some time before their case gained any official traction. Indeed, the pursuit of a reformed

Passenger Act would carry Sullivan well into the 1860s. In the meantime, Sullivan had gained in Foster an immensely valuable friend.

Sullivan’s political and religious development during his first two years with the

Nation, remains obscure. His Catholicism remained a distant rather than prominent influence on his journalism. Although he informed his brother John that, “I am not insensible of what God has done for me nor of the victories which amidst all those trials

54 Ibid., June 5, 1858, June 12, 1858, June 19, 1858, June 26, 1858, July 3, 1858, July 10, 1858, July 24, 1858. 47 He enabled me to win,” very little of his faith found its way into the Nation.55 It would also be safe to assume that Sullivan developed a certain determination and a hopeful outlook during this time. Sullivan remained immune to whatever malaise afflicted Hoey.

Perhaps his trip to the United States had reinvigorated him. As a holiday of sorts, it certainly came at just the right time. The struggle to restore the Nation had left its mark on him, so much so that Sullivan described it as a “petrifying process” during which “the man of years ago has been sobered down.” Even those who knew Sullivan claimed he was “greatly changed in appearance and manner.”56 At any rate, Sullivan returned from the United States full of zeal. Sullivan never disclosed why, exactly, he chose to purchase the entirety of the Nation, but the decision alone speaks volumes for his ambitions and symbolizes his resilience as he moved forward. While in the United States Sullivan seems to have recovered his “old self.”57

Ultimately, the need to pay off the Nation’s debt proved to be the most pressing, time-consuming, and exhausting effort for the new proprietors. When this had been accomplished Sullivan turned his efforts towards tenant right, and then to the plight of the

Irish emigrant. The ill-treatment of Irish emigrants was a personal cause for Sullivan. He had witnessed the Famine clearances and sympathized not only with those who had been forced to leave, but also with those who remained behind to suffer. Although no immediate solution arose, Sullivan certainly invested his personal and professional time and energy, as well as his own money, into raising the alarm in an attempt to alleviate

55 Sullivan to John, June 14, 1856, Sullivan Letters and Papers, NLI, MS 46546.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid. 48 some of the suffering. Sullivan’s time was primarily occupied with maintaining the

Nation and advocating for Irish emigrants, but it is also worth noting that, in 1857-8, the

Nation provided extensive coverage of the India Mutiny-Rebellion. But the rhetoric of these articles was of the sort that echoed “England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity,” and, on a more nuanced note, drew parallels between the Irish and Indian conflicts with

Britain. Matthew Kelly has argued, for example, that when the Nation reported that a blow for Indian nationality had been struck, “any Irish nationalist reading this would think of the desire to ‘strike a blow for Ireland,’ the most commonly stated aspiration of advanced nationalists.”58 Simultaneously, alongside its criticism of the British government, the Nation satisfied the curiosity of its readers with general coverage of the conflict. Although Sullivan had undoubtedly experienced a series of great difficulties after leaving Bantry, his troubles were far from over. A secret society, antithetical to

Sullivan’s idea of Irish political activism, had sprung up in Skibbereen under the direction of a radical Irish nationalist named James Stephens. Unfortunately for Sullivan,

Stephens believed that the proprietor of the Nation could swell the ranks of conspiratorial republicanism, and he was determined to win his cooperation.

58 Matthew Kelly, “Irish Nationalist Opinion and the British Empire in the 1850s and 1860s,” Past & Present, no. 204 (2009): 137. 49 Chapter Three

Awkward Footing: Dealing with James Stephens and the Phoenix Society, 1858 –

1861

Sullivan entered fully into Irish political life in 1858. But the political world that

Sullivan emerged into was marked by sectional politics and independent opposition, a political affiliation which, though not explicitly nationalist, refused cooperation with any

British political party unless concessions could be made for Ireland. The death of

O’Connell, the collapse of the Young Ireland rebellion, the commitment of the British elite to the maintenance of the Union, and the Traumatic experience of the Famine has made nationalist agitation appear, to many, untenable.1 In the absence of nationalist leaders, Irish politics became engrossed in issues of land and religion. For much of the decade, moderate nationalists chose to press for reforms that could meet the needs of both tenant farmers and the Catholic Church, rather than push for repeal.2 On his own, as the sole owner and editor of the Nation, Sullivan began to pursue his nationalist goals at a broader level. He sought to revive the abandoned politics of Young Ireland, and through the instrument of the Nation he was able to able to effect Irish political activism and aid in the revival of nationalism.

At the onset of 1858 Sullivan began to entertain the idea of resuscitating the nationalist party with the goal of seeking legislative independence for Ireland. Dr. Robert

1 Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics,” 693-4.

2 Ibid. 50 Cane, an old friend of Duffy’s and a former member of O’Connell’s Repeal Association, shared Sullivan’s ideals concerning the direction of nationalism. Like Sullivan and many others since 1848, Cane believed that apathy had pervaded Ireland for the past decade, and that the country was in “a sort of cataleptic or mesmeric sleep.” In March 1858 Cane published “Ireland United” in the Celt, a monthly journal for “men loving Ireland and everything Irish,” which he had established in 1857. He spoke to the difficulties that the national party suffered prior to 1848, and pleaded that nationalist differences be put aside in favor of a new party. He envisioned a confederation of the “various shades of nationalists,” which would include representatives for “the absolute repealer, the federalist, the nationalist going further still, the tenant righter, poor law amendment, industrial advancement, parliamentary opposition.” In short, Cane called for a new national party composed of “all who recognise Ireland’s misfortunes, and have devoted themselves to any rational mode of amelioration.” But, as Cane argued, this new party would have to be “strictly open and constitutional,” beyond reproach of the law, and led by men capable of being both flexible and reasonable. Having missed, entirely, two chances to make England’s difficulty Ireland’s opportunity during both the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, Cane believed that a national party was “needed, feasible, and practicable,” and perhaps most importantly, that with the possibility of conflict between

England and France, “the time is opportune.”3 Sullivan found Cane’s proposal to be very much in line with his own thinking, and consequently discovered a scaffold for the revival of the nationalist party. Sullivan republished Cane’s article in the Nation, calling it to “the earnest and serious attention” of his readers. He also provided his own

3 Robert Cane, “Ireland United,” The Celt 1, no. 1 (March 1858): 1-5. 51 commentary on the piece in an essay, “Is the Old Cause Lost,” published on March 13,

1858.

Where Cane focused on past problems and how to overcome them so that a new nationalist party might be organized, Sullivan addressed the lack of action among the

Irish people. He spoke to a kind of imagined nationality that was lying dormant in the

Irish people, “like watchers waiting for the dawn … but never doubting the coming day.”

If the Irish people could be “wisely organised and well directed,” he believed that the possibility of legislative independence could be restored. Sullivan was, essentially, refining Cane’s argument and addressing the minor details only glanced at in “Ireland

United.” He claimed that a new patriotic spirit had grown up in the youth of Ireland, and that it was “more than sufficient to neutralise the apathy of our fallen state.” Sullivan harped on the lethargic nature of Irish nationalism, labeling it “criminal, mad, [and] fatal,” and enjoined readers to earn the respect of Ireland’s posterity, rather than its curses.4 While Cane had raised concern and posited a method for reviving the national party, Sullivan sounded the alarm and attempted to awaken what he believed to be a dormant nationalist spirit in the Irish people. And so, Sullivan’s answer to “Is the old cause lost?” was along the lines of: No, the old cause is not lost. It has only been idle, but for far too long.

Sullivan alone would not be able to rouse the Irish people to action. He required a rallying point – some famous nationalist to strike up the cause – and so in March 1858 he sought out William Smith O’Brien. The former rebel, having received an unconditional pardon to return from exile only two years prior, was also lacking national vigor. Initially

4 Nation, March 6, 1858, March 13, 1858. 52 O’Brien wrote, in a first draft of an address to the Irish people in early March, that he did not believe that an effort towards reviving the national party ought to be made, but

Sullivan was not willing to accept such a passive attitude from so potent a symbol of nationalism. Undeterred, he wrote to O’Brien on March 17, 1858, hoping to secure a more positive response, and expressed his concerns with O’Brien’s lack of confidence in the revival of the national party. Sullivan’s letter demonstrated not only a concern to seize what he perceived to be an opportune time to push for a restoration of the nationalist party, but also reflected an underlying sense of frustration, and a willingness to manipulate those who could aid the renewal of the party.

Sullivan desperately wished both to secure O’Brien as a representative of the nascent nationalist party, and to publish a statement from O’Brien regarding the state of nationalist politics – hopefully one that would inspire the Irish people. At the same time, he was gravely concerned with O’Brien’s apathy and its possible effect on nationalist morale. Sullivan thoroughly expressed his concerns in his letter to O’Brien, arguing that the Irish people would, after reading both Cane and his own article, be anxiously awaiting his opinion on the subject. Sullivan sought to pressure O’Brien by warning him that his dismal attitude very well could “extinguish the prospect of revival.” So concerned was

Sullivan that he pleaded with O’Brien: “Not as editor of the Nation, but simply as a nationalist, I respectfully but earnestly ask of you not to utterly crush the idea – for that I firmly believe, is certain to be the effect of the passage in your address.” He further expressed his remorse for O’Brien’s doubt, almost as if attempting to instill guilt, when he wrote, “I wish you felt warranted in looking encouragingly upon our effort,” and more so when he asserted, “every nationalist will regret as I do that you were not of opinion

53 that the effort ought to be made.” Sullivan, believing that readers would be most concerned with the feasibility of reconstructing a party for legislative independence, still sought to publish O’Brien’s address, but he refrained from doing so until O’Brien made the suggested corrections, as they would surely “give [the effort] as effective an impulse as your silence will the contrary.”5 The first part of O’Brien’s revised address came swiftly, and appeared in the March 20 issue of the Nation, only three days after Sullivan requested the alterations.

The leading Nation article on March 20 featured a piece on the “Celtic Tongue” and its significance to Irish nationality, and proposed the addition of a new section in the

Nation that would feature literature in the Gaelic language. The article, however, was rather short when compared to past articles, and was also quite different in subject, which was perhaps intentional, so as not to detract from O’Brien’s address on the following page. This proved to be the first of a ten-part essay, “Mr. S. O’Brien’s Address to the

People of Ireland.” Sullivan had ensured that O’Brien’s articles would promote the reemergence of the national party.6 Pleased with the revision, Sullivan wrote to O’Brien a second time on March 23 to express his gratitude for the changes, claiming that “the alteration removed all my fears,” and reiterating that the original address would have caused “pain and disappointment.” Sullivan was also careful to forward clippings from the Morning Herald, Morning Star, and Times, of which only the Morning Herald offered its support for O’Brien and included a full copy of the first part of his address.

The Morning Star paid little attention, but the Times, a notorious critic of Irish

5 Alexander Martin Sullivan to William Smith O’Brien, March 17, 1858, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1857-59, NLI, MS 446/3013.

6 Nation, March 20, 1858. 54 nationalism, was predictably hostile, mocking O’Brien as a poor substitute for O’Connell and dismissing the address as “long and rather dreary.”7

Sullivan’s letter was a remarkable, if subtle, production. Ramón, who has underestimated Sullivan in her biography of James Stephens, has characterized him as

“only too willing to provide [O’Brien] with a platform” and “urging him to lend his public support,” but she has neglected to consider the revisions Sullivan had demanded before he printed the address.8 Sullivan was the gate-keeper at the helm of the Nation, which he thoroughly understood, and his letters to O’Brien display a more cunning and shrewd nationalist than has hitherto been acknowledged. Sullivan saw O’Brien as a national icon, and believed his writings to be of real importance. Keenly aware of the lethargy that gripped Irish nationalism, as well as the influence of his position with the

Nation, he pressured his adolescent hero into writing an address that would support a revival of the national party, even going so far as to tell O’Brien that, in effect, his address was not good enough for the cause.

Sullivan’s subsequent letter to O’Brien was composed with an apologetic and almost self-deprecating tone, but it certainly demonstrated his awareness of O’Brien’s importance in the revival of nationalism. Perhaps, also, Sullivan had, in hindsight, realized that he may have been too harsh with the recently returned and still fragile

O’Brien. Nevertheless, he wrote to O’Brien hoping to smooth over any of his previously harsh words. “I hope my note of last week,” wrote Sullivan, “did not convey the idea that

I imagined for a moment you would willingly throw any obstacle in the way of our

7 Sullivan to O’Brien, March 23, 1858, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1857-59, NLI, MS 446/3015.

8 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 78. 55 people taking up once more the question of ‘legislative independence.’” He thanked

O’Brien again for his “readiness to avoid a danger which probably you thought existed only in my imagination.” Sullivan had pressed O’Brien for the necessary revisions, but also wanted to secure O’Brien for the national party, and therefore needed to stay in his favor.9 Later, while writing New Ireland, Sullivan explained that O’Brien “did not, indeed, take any very active part by personal presence in public affairs; but he was recognized and referred to as the chief of the National party.”10 In this way, Sullivan took full advantage of O’Brien’s political clout, delicately manipulating the reclusive O’Brien, in order to use him as a rallying point for the national party.

Having secured O’Brien’s support, and with it a ten-part address, Sullivan continued to publish installments over the course of the next two months, until May 1858.

Alongside O’Brien’s contribution, the Nation ran an article titled, “The Duties of

Nationalists,” which boldly touted the significance of O’Brien’s address and how it ought to be received, having come from a statesman whose life had, it claimed, been spent pursuing Irish independence.11 The article, after introducing the subject, read:

We believe we only faintly echo the verdict of public opinion when we say that no political address has appeared within our time dealing with so wide a range of subjects of National interest, so statesmanlike in its views, so calm and dispassionate in tone, so ably and beautifully written, and so extensively read.12

Most significant, however, was the claim that national legislation was necessary for peace and prosperity in Ireland, and that the state of Ireland was proof that the English

9 Sullivan to O’Brien, March 23, 1858, NLI, MS 446/3015.

10 Sullivan, New Ireland, 325.

11 Nation, May 29, 1858.

12 Ibid. 56 themselves did not believe in the Union. The Nation called upon Irish nationalists to rally behind O’Brien.13 Though the Nation had addressed O’Brien’s piece, Sullivan, believing

O’Brien’s addresses to be “one of the most important & useful of Irish State Papers embodying the creed of nationality,” claimed to have abstained from adding any personal additions to the them. He believed it spoke “too plainly [and] forcibly” to warrant any input on his part. Writing to O’Brien, Sullivan expressed his joy at the success of the address and predicted that “good must come of its appearance,” despite the gloomy state of Irish nationalism.

Sullivan claimed that the first part of the address became the most widely reproduced document to have been published in Ireland within his memory, and that it was even popular at Trinity College. To be sure, O’Brien’s contributions were beyond reproach for Sullivan. He was certain that they “carried convictions home to sink deep into the minds of all thinking Irishmen,” and would soon be acted upon. For Sullivan, the ten-part address was a huge success. It signaled to him that the Irish people were, perhaps, ready to awaken from their political slumber. As an Irishman, Sullivan thanked

O’Brien “for their appearance at all.” As an editor, however, he thanked O’Brien for publishing in the Nation, though this may be read as flattery, considering he commissioned the address.14 For Sullivan, the revival of a constitutional nationalist party was undoubtedly underway, but he would not have long to enjoy the success of O’Brien’s address. While Cane, Sullivan, and O’Brien were sounding their clarion call to nationalists, James Stephens had been traversing Ireland, and he had formed his own

13 Ibid.

14 Sullivan to O’Brien, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1857-59, May 25, 1858, NLI, MS 446/3041. 57 opinion of the readiness of the Irish people, as well as the direction that nationalism ought to take.

Stephens was yet another character with whom Sullivan could almost claim to have encountered some years back. Sullivan and Stephens never met, but they came close enough in July 1848. Stephens was with O’Brien during the Young Ireland Rebellion at

Ballingary, County Tipperary, which Sullivan, it will be recalled from chapter one, had run off in the night to join. While Sullivan was eventually persuaded to return home,

Stephens was spirited away to the mountains for recovery after a bullet shattered one of his legs. At the time they shared an ideal, but over the course of the next ten years they developed drastically different philosophies on how to win Irish independence. Sullivan subscribed to the ideals of the moderate wing of the Young Ireland movement, established in the Nation under Duffy’s editorship, which favored constitutional action

“vigorously and wisely carried on” in public view. Stephens, in contrast, embraced the more extreme Young Ireland school of thought, which involved revolutionary action as expressed in John Mitchel’s writings. True, the 1848 Young Ireland Rebellion flew in the face of his constitutional ideals, but T.D. dismissed that episode as an aberration, arguing that those doctrines were “temporarily abandoned” at the time.15

Unfortunately for Sullivan, his attempt to revive the constitutional nationalist movement was marred by the coincidental emergence of James Stephens’ Phoenix

Society. Sullivan and Stephens were, for all intents and purposes, destined to wrestle over the direction of nationalism. Their struggle for the hearts and minds of Irish nationalists consumed the next five years of Sullivan’s life. Their conflict is perhaps the most well

15 Sullivan, Recollections, 14. 58 documented and duly researched aspect of Sullivan’s history. More importantly, however, it occurred at a time when Sullivan was engaged in the revival of constitutional nationalist activity in cooperation with the remnants of Young Ireland. Stephens, in contrast, believed in the potential strength of secret societies. Hoping to perhaps reignite the spirit of the Young Ireland rebellion, he founded the Phoenix Society, and as Sullivan recalled, “such was the start of Fenianism.”16 With O’Brien out of the public eye and

Duffy in Australia, Sullivan remained as one of the most influential voices of Irish constitutional nationalism. Stephens sought to harness Sullivan’s influence, but after his failure to recruit Sullivan to his cause a bitter conflict grew up between the two men. This conflict, which came to a head in 1861, was one of the most troublesome episodes in

Sullivan’s life. To borrow Sullivan’s own expression from earlier in life, their very public dispute ultimately climaxed in a kind of “Black ’61” for Sullivan.

But why did Stephens’ movement arise in the late 1850s? Sullivan thought it was, in part, because the Nation was then in a relatively weak position and incapable of successfully repelling the rise of any such movement. Although Sullivan believed that in its prime, during the 1840s, the Nation was the gatekeeper of Irish political movements, he felt that his own inexperience and the collapse of Duffy’s parliamentary policy (not to mention his departure from Ireland) had severely weakened the paper’s influence.

Undoubtedly these factors had diluted the Nation’s influence, but the reason for the establishment of the Phoenix Society is not so simple as a nationalist paper failing to prevent the rise of Fenianism. The Famine and the resulting diaspora provided crucial support for revolutionary conspiracy, and the “gloomy scenes of special commissions,

16 Sullivan, New Ireland, 264-5. 59 state trials, and death-sentences” in the aftermath of the failed Young Ireland uprising only added to the internal pressure.17 Kanter has noted, in his study of post-Famine politics, that although “Irish separatism was in disarray,” pockets of advanced nationalism, bent on separatism, survived well into the mid-1850s. Furthermore, exiled

Young Irelanders and Irish emigrants in the United States, those who fled the Famine,

“nurtured a smoldering hatred of British Government” in an American hotbed of advanced nationalism.18 All of these factors lent support to the rise of Stephens’ republican conspiracy.

Sullivan, in New Ireland, described the time accordingly:

’Forty-eight’ cost Ireland dearly, - not alone in the sacrifice of some of her best and noblest sons, led to immolate themselves in such desperate enterprise as revolution, but in the terrible reaction, the prostration, the terrorism, the disorganization that ensued. Through many a long and dreary year the country suffered for the delirium of that time.19

Furthermore, Stephens and his ilk had not been lying in wait for some contrived version of “the Nation’s difficulty is Fenianism’s opportunity.” Rather, while hiding in France during the aftermath of the failed Young Ireland Rebellion, and for several years after,

Stephens became restless with a desire for revolutionary politics. Eventually Stephens’ emotions, as he explained, got the better of him in 1855, and just as Sullivan was then returning to Ireland from England, so too did Stephens return from France at the end of the year. But, while Sullivan spent his time rekindling the Nation, Stephens took to traveling throughout Ireland to gauge the national feelings amongst its denizens, wherein

17 Ibid., 125.

18 Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics,” 701-2.

19 Sullivan, New Ireland, 125. 60 he likely gathered inspiration as he came into contact with the existing pockets of Irish separatists.20 As Sullivan’s earlier biographer, Martin, has observed, the core difference between Sullivan and Stephens lay in their perception of the “feeling of the county.” Both believed that the Irish people were once again primed for a political movement but held radically different conceptions of the form it ought to take.21

The reasoning behind Stephens’ return to Ireland in 1855 is somewhat unclear. By his own account he had grown tired of “the sedentary life of the litterateur” in Paris, and desired to become once more engaged in revolutionary politics. R.V. Comerford, however, has attributed Stephens’ return only partly to the allure of the Crimean War and the opportunities it may have provided for Irish revolutionaries. Both Comerford and

Ramón have asserted that Stephens’ return, and subsequent journey throughout Ireland, was more closely related to a book Stephens was planning to write.22 Ramón has argued further that Stephens’ original intent was to influence public opinion – not to form a secret organization – and that although he concluded at the end of his journey that

“Ireland was ripe for revolution,” he did not immediately set out to begin one. Having learned of O’Brien’s pardon, Stephens decided to visit him at Cahirmoyle in the summer of 1856. His visit was not to recruit O’Brien, nor was it political to any extent. Stephens was suspicious of a rumor that O’Brien had done nothing to prevent his near lynching in

Urlington, and he was determined to get to the truth of the matter.23 Based on a rather

20 Ibid., 265; Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 65; Weekly Freeman’s Journal, October 6, 1883.

21 Martin, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 50.

22 Richard Vincent Comerford, The Fenians in Context: Irish Politics and Society, 1848-82 (Dublin, Wolfhound Press, 1985), 40; Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 65.

23 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 66-7. 61 vague conversation with O’Brien, Stephens jumped to the conclusion that the rumor was indeed true, and from that moment decided he would have nothing to do with his former comrade-in-arms. Ramón has noted that the eight-year divide between Stephens and

O’Brien had produced a vast difference in political opinion between the two men, and as she has quite accurately stated, “No two people had fewer reasons to be on speaking terms.”24

So much then for re-kindling old political alliances. From Cahirmoyle Stephens continued to journey throughout Ireland until, in late 1857, he arrived in Dublin, where he was approached by a correspondent for a group of Irish-Americans who inquired as to the feasibility of organizing a revolution in Ireland, and asked Stephens to manage the entire affair. Stephens, having recently arrived at the conclusion that Ireland was ready to rebel, and believing that he would be sufficiently supported by the Irish-American organizers, accepted the proposal. After making a few stipulations with his Irish-

American supporters, Stephens gave himself three months to organize 10,000 men on a total budget of no more than £300. Like Sullivan, Stephens also believed that the national cause was not dead, but had lain dormant for too long, which infused a certain amount of haste into his planning. Then, on March 17, 1858 in Stephens’ Dublin residence, while

Sullivan was writing to O’Brien in preparation for printing his address, Stephens, Thomas

Clarke Luby, Joseph Denieffe, Peter Langan, Owen Considine, and Garrett

O’Shaughnessy founded what would in time become the Irish Republican Brotherhood.25

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., 73-6. 62 Before it became known as the IRB, their organization existed for a time as the Phoenix

National and Literary Society of Skibbereen, or simply, the “Phoenix Society.”

While working with O’Brien to restore the nationalist spirit in Ireland in the spring of 1858, Sullivan was approached with an offer to join a different kind of national movement from the one he sought to revive. A man, whom he “long had reason to believe, from himself and others, was largely engaged in establishing Secret Societies throughout Ireland,” attempted to secure Sullivan’s membership in the Phoenix Society.

After a brief exchange the recruiter noticed his failure to win Sullivan’s support or approval. At first he tried to bind Sullivan to a promise to act as though their meeting had never happened and feign ignorance of its occurance. Sullivan was less than enamored of the idea. He swore never to reveal information regarding the existence of the society, or make any allusions to it, under two conditions: first, that he never received actionable information from a third party, and second, that the society never use his name or the

Nation to further its ends. Sullivan’s visitor was not at all satisfied with the conditions and responded much more harshly than before. Sullivan remembered it vividly:

“You will not dare allude to us openly, in any case,” said he, and he laughed sardonically. “If you say there are secret societies, we will contradict you, or persuade some one not in the secret to contradict you – and what will you do then? You must stand before the public having made a false charge, or else divulge facts which the Government can subpoena you to prove. You daren’t. We’ll defy you to it.” I saw the difficulty, and frankly confessed it. “Pause and consider well, then,” he continued, following up his advantage – “before you take your course. A secret organisation could crush a newspaper or destroy a man in your position, without the possibility of you making a single retort – for you daren’t avow you knew them. They could do their ends aginst you, up to your teeth and before your eyes, and you be obliged to keep silent and blind about them all the while.”26

26 Nation, April 19, 1862. 63 Ramón has suggested that the anonymous visitor was “probably none other than

Stephens,” and though the stranger’s identity remains unknown, this is a plausible supposition. This was, after all, the same manner in which Stephens approached and recruited Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa, who quickly became one of his most effective recruiters.27

The timeline would also fit the occasion. Rossa was approached by Stephens in early May 1858, and though Sullivan never specified when he was approached, he did mention that it was in early 1858, and Stephens did indeed have lodgings in Dublin at the time. Furthermore, Stephens desired Sullivan’s cooperation, so it seems unlikely that

Stephens would have sent a lackey, or some other unknown representative of the Phoenix

Society, to recruit him. Most profoundly though, Stephens’ explosive outrage towards

Sullivan after he published a vague warning to members of all secret societies (although it was intended specifically for members of the Phoenix Society), becomes much more comprehensible if it is assumed that Stephens personally enjoined Sullivan to secrecy.28

Regardless of who tried to recruit Sullivan that night, he recognized the difficulty of his position. Sullivan was, after all, the sole editor and proprietor of the Nation, which he had recently helped to restore, and he had only just begun to see a rise in its popularity with the publication of O’Brien’s address. If Sullivan or the Nation were to come under fire, it could very well undermine his efforts at reviving the nationalist party.

Sullivan was, unbeknownst to him, standing at the cross-roads of his future in nationalist politics. With little practical experience to be had during a time of political

27 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 79; Sullivan, New Ireland, 264.

28 Nation, April 19, 1862; Sullivan, New Ireland, 264. 64 inactivity, and lacking much in the way of a public profile, he was ill-prepared for the coming conflict that would consume a great deal of his career for the next five years. But his descent into that bitter feud was not immediate, nor could it be argued that Sullivan expected it. Rather, the next few months after Sullivan’s encounter with the Phoenix

Society recruiter were calm, and for the most part normal. However, in and around

Skibbereen, Bantry, and Kenmare, where the Phoenix Society had established itself,

“whispers began to go about in national circles.” In fact, by several accounts the members of the Phoenix Society were absolutely terrible at keeping it a secret. In the summer of

1858 Sullivan began to receive letters from correspondents which held “vague allusions that bore but one interpretation.” Sullivan later claimed that he ignored the letters at first, but by late August the implication that he was an initiated member of the Phoenix Society had become too troublesome to ignore. Furthermore, articles in the Nation, Sullivan subsequently claimed, were being regularly misrepresented as endorsements of the

Phoenix Society’s ideology. But rather than refute these beliefs publicly, as he was still very conscious of the threat made against him, Sullivan resolved to investigate the matter himself.29 As he had a habit of doing, such as with the Bantry workhouse in his younger years, and his recent investigation into the protection of Irish emigrants, Sullivan left

Dublin on August 20, and was in Bantry by the following day.30

Sullivan arrived in Bantry under the guise of being on vacation. Admittedly, he spent the majority of his time “cruising round the coast in a small pleasure yacht,” as it was his “first holiday for some years.” He hoped to avoid unnecessary attention regarding

29 Sullivan to O’Brien, October 25, 1858, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1857-59, NLI, MS 446/3074; Nation, April 19, 1862; Sullivan, Memoir, 17.

30 Nation, April 19, 1862. 65 the Phoenix Society so that he could publicly investigate the organization himself. Much to Sullivan’s bemusement, many of the Phoenix Society members were “boys whom [he] had left in short clothes” when he departed for Dublin in 1853. More surprising, however, was the utter lack of discretion among the members. T.D. referred to their secrecy as being “far from … perfect,” noting that both the society and its plans for an armed rebellion were known to the townsfolk and the police. Sullivan recalled that he had not even been home for two days before a “sworn member of the Secret Society” discussed the entirety of the subject with him for hours. Eventually Sullivan confirmed that his name was indeed being used to lure new members into the society, but all of his attempts to refute his membership were met with disbelief – or rather, a conviction that he was merely keeping his membership secret. But perhaps the most striking discovery for

Sullivan was that William Smith O’Brien’s name was being used in similar fashion, and that his previous tour of Ireland in 1848 was, quite successfully, construed as being related to the organization of the Phoenix Society.31 It was the use of O’Brien’s name, and not his own, which appears to have prompted Sullivan to act. He very well could have denied the claims regarding his own involvement in the Phoenix Society almost immediately, yet he chose to wait. O’Brien, the face of Sullivan’s evolving effort towards a revival of the national party, was potentially compromised. Having learned what he could of the Phoenix Society in Bantry, Sullivan finished his month long vacation while being careful not to engage in any further conversations regarding the conspiracy. Upon his return to Dublin Sullivan resolved to address the matter, but appears to have struggled with how to proceed, and hesitated for nearly a month before finally turning to O’Brien.

31 Ibid.; Sullivan, Memoir, 17. 66 In between his return from Bantry and eventual decision to write to O’Brien, Rev.

Dr. Moriarty, the Bishop of Kerry, called on Sullivan at the Nation office. Moriarty, among the most politically conservative bishops in the Catholic hierarchy, had been at

Dublin Castle earlier that day. He sought out Sullivan to inform him that the chief secretary, Lord Naas, had revealed that the authorities were “preparing to treat [the

Phoenix Society] seriously, and are in possession of full information.” The government had, in fact, carefully documented the activities of the organization throughout County

Cork nearly since its inception. With the aid of an informant named Daniel Sullivan (no relation to A.M. Sullivan), the government had more than enough information to act.

Moriarty urged Sullivan to take action. He pressed him on many fronts, arguing that his silence could be interpreted as sympathy, that it was his patriotic duty to “put himself right before the public,” and that he had an obligation to “bring these young men back to reason.” Sullivan did not, however, immediately heed Bishop Moriarty’s suggestion, stating that he “disliked the role of “alarmist.” The thought weighed heavy on Sullivan, and so he turned to O’Brien.32

“For some time past,” Sullivan confessed to O’Brien on October 25, 1858, “I have been considering how best to act with reference to a matter which has seemed to me to demand notice in the Nation.” “I felt,” he continued, bringing O’Brien into his confidence, “that I ought not allude to it until I had first consulted you.” Sullivan summarized his trip to Bantry, succinctly and rather sarcastically, calling the Phoenix

Society a subject of “public conversation,” but also explained his delay. The existence of

32 Sullivan, New Ireland, 265; Sullivan, Memoir, 20; Sixty-Eight Letters and Other Papers Concerning the Phoenix Society, 1858-9, Mayo Papers, NLI, MS 11187. The “Sixty-Eight Letters and Other Papers” are a log of the events of the Phoenix Society, seemingly from the date it was founded. It chronicles the society’s progress in an investigative fashion. 67 a secret society deeply bothered Sullivan, particularly because it utilized O’Brien’s name and deeds to increase its membership, which ultimately undercut the national party that

Sullivan was trying to nurture into existence. Sullivan had not discussed any aspect of the

Phoenix Society with O’Brien up to this point, and though he believed their claims to be

“foreign to [O’Brien’s] character,” Sullivan felt that it would be inappropriate for him to assume the nature of O’Brien’s role, let alone speak for him. Before writing to O’Brien,

Sullivan cleared any uncertainties he had with John Dillon, who in turn assured him that he “need not fear to write.”33 But here, again, Sullivan seems to have hesitated about how to proceed. He believed O’Brien’s actions alone ought to be “sufficient contradictions of such representations,” but ultimately left the matter in O’Brien’s hands. Perhaps uncertain of O’Brien’s sympathies, he stayed his hand at overtly pressing O’Brien for a particular response, choosing instead to take a subtler approach – a tactic which he likely remembered from their earlier correspondence. “For my own part whatever my opinions on the subject,” he began, “I shall imitate your mode of dealing with the entire affair; or at least not move in the matter if you think it not worth notice by the Nation.” Sullivan’s concern here was two-fold: He was anxious about O’Brien’s reputation and the immediate danger posed to the revival of the nationalist party, and aware of the need to secure an official condemnation of the Phoenix Society. But he was not without concern for himself; as T.D. noted, the fact that the Phoenix Society was using his name “was hard on him,” particularly given that denying his membership might prove unavailing.34

33 Sullivan to O’Brien, October 25, 1858, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1857-59, NLI, MS 446/3074. Sullivan misrepresents himself here in New Ireland, 265: He writes of O’Brien and the Phoenix Society, “of Smith O’Brien especially – I well knew to be utterly averse to anything of the kind.”

34 Sullivan to O’Brien, October 25, 1858, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1857-59, NLI, MS 446/3074; Sullivan, Memoir, 21. 68 Not long after writing to O’Brien, Sullivan received the response he had hoped for – one that would both reaffirm O’Brien’s association with constitutional nationalism and denounce the Phoenix Society. O’Brien asserted that nationalists “were bound to reprehend all attempts to identify the Irish national cause with such an organization.”

Having received his prized response, Sullivan “hesitated no longer.” Later, when reflecting upon his decision to publish, Sullivan recalled that “No action of all my life bore consequences more full of suffering and sacrifice for me than did this throughout subsequent years.”35

On October 30, 1858, Sullivan published his “friendly warning” to the members of the Phoenix Society, as Moriarty had suggested, and as O’Brien had deemed a duty.

Sullivan’s article, simply titled “Secret Societies,” made no mention of the Phoenix

Society or the men presumably involved. Instead, it espoused the dangers of secret societies, arguing that they “afford pretexts for governmental tyranny and ‘law-and- order’ spouting on the part of Whig priests.” But the core of Sullivan’s piece was the

Nation’s firm stance against secret societies, and it reiterated the intentions of moderate nationalists to fight for Ireland by constitutional means, stating: “There is one thing we will never do – become members of a secret society.” Sullivan firmly believed these sentiments, which he never had cause to regret. Years later, when writing New Ireland, he recalled those same feelings of disgust towards secret societies. It was not, however, only

Sullivan’s writing that appeared in the Nation of that day. Sullivan also published

O’Brien’s response, which strongly denounced the need for secret societies, as they

“become known almost immediately to the government, and furnish a pretext for

35 Sullivan, New Ireland, 266-7. 69 invasions upon public liberty.” More importantly, however, O’Brien towed the party line of fighting for Irish independence by constitutional means, despite his rebellious past. “I do not think it all probable,” wrote O’Brien, “that I shall ever invite my fellow countrymen to connect themselves with me in any proceeding which requires concealment.”36

With the October 30 article Sullivan had managed to clear his name, and

O’Brien’s, from any involvement with the Phoenix Society. They hoped to dissuade impressionable nationalists from joining or remaining in the society. Sullivan certainly believed that to have been the effect of the article, later claiming that “enrollment was stopped, and it seemed for a while as if the movement had been relinquished. So great had been the effect of the firm but friendly remonstrances addressed to the people, that I verily believed we should hear no more of the Phoenix Society.” That proved, however, to be an overly optimistic assessment. On December 3 a viceregal proclamation declared the Phoenix Society to be a public danger.37 Two days later, a series of simultaneous raids saw Rossa and his co-conspirators in Cork jail. As Rossa remembered it, “About four o’clock on the morning of the 5th of December (1858), I was roused out of bed, and I found my house surrounded by police. I was taken to the station, and there I met some twenty others of my acquaintance.”38 The subsequent Phoenix Trials were incredibly drawn out. The first trial, March 14, 1859, was ultimately abortive, and ended with a jury that could not agree. The second trial, on March 30, also proved to be troublesome,

36 Nation, October 30, 1858.

37 Sullivan, New Ireland¸ 267.

38 Sullivan, Recollections, 40. 70 because Daniel Sullivan, the original informant, refused to testify. After remaining in jail for some eight months, and following a string of articles against the poor conduct of the government’s lawyers in both Irish and British papers, the Phoenix men were persuaded by both their lawyers and their friends to plead guilty. The government agreed to compromise, and expressed that it would be satisfied with simply recording their conviction and setting the men free, so long as they undertook “to appear when called on.” On July 26, 1859 Rossa and his acquaintances were released, with help, surprisingly, from Sullivan.39

Some attempts were made to intervene on behalf of the Phoenix men, such as one by Father John O’Sullivan, who begged the Chief Secretary to liberate “those foolish boys – for boys they are.” O’Sullivan’s plea was ignored. Sullivan, however, inspired by a letter he received from a correspondent in Cork on January 17, 1859, determined that

“[the prisoners] needed a first-class legal defence” and began the Fair Trial Fund, which he promoted in the Nation beginning on January 29.40 Sullivan asserted that the prisoners

“may be guilty, or they may be innocent; but guilty or innocent it is incumbent upon all who love justice, manliness, and honour to see that they fall not victim to foul play which to-morrow may menace our own lives.”41 It is certainly strange that Sullivan would engage in such tortuous behavior – first denouncing the organization outright, and then following up with a defense fund. Sullivan’s reaction here was likely influenced by two considerations. First, Stephens had not yet blamed Sullivan for the arrests, providing

39 Sullivan, New Ireland, 267-269; Sullivan, Recollections, 41-3.

40 Sullivan, Memoir, 24-5; Sullivan, Recollections, 41; Nation, January 22, 1859.

41 Nation, January 29, 1859. 71 Sullivan with a very small window of time in which to insulate himself from any potential fall-out. Second, Sullivan held a distrust for the British authorities, and probably believed the prosecutions would serve as an open invitation for a more repressive response from the government – a belief which he had previously expressed in the

Nation.

At any rate, the announcement of the Fair Trial Fund was very well received, and was responded to with both haste and generosity. The most notable contribution came from Sullivan’s old philanthropic friend, Vere Foster, who donated £100 to the fund in late March.42 By February 5 a Fair Trial Committee had been formed in Cork to act as

“the chief guardianship of the interests at stake,” and by February 12 the organization of that committee had been completed.43 With the success of the Fair Trial Fund, and a committee in place, Sullivan set out for Tralee to offer his assistance and cover the proceedings of the trials while M’Carthy Downing was placed in charge of the cases, and

Thomas O’Hagan, a distinguished lawyer, was kept on retainer for the defense of the prisoners.44

As for Stephens, he was conveniently out of the country at the time, having left

Rossa in charge. Nonetheless, the fact that Sullivan had said anything at all, despite prior condemnations of the society by many clergy and other lesser-known journals, was enough to incur his wrath. He accused Sullivan of “felon-setting,” and even coined a derogatory nickname for Sullivan, “Sullivan Goulah,” which had originally been given to

42 Ibid., April 2, 1859.

43 Ibid., February 5, 1859, February 12, 1859.

44 Sullivan, Memoir, 26. 72 the Phoenix Trials’ original informer, Daniel Sullivan. Thus, he became a target for the entire movement.45 Martin has questioned whether Sullivan was truly responsible for the arrest of the Phoenix members, but it is unlikely.46 Dublin Castle’s extensive notes on the society suggest otherwise. The government was fully aware of the conspiracy, and had already planned to strike. Sullivan knew full well that he would likely face some backlash for his article, but he could not have anticipated the magnitude of the hostility that followed.

Sullivan, though not speaking of himself directly, was certainly speaking from experience when in New Ireland he wrote: “The public man marked out for [a secret society’s] hostility can be struck without the power of returning a blow. He can feel that he is being assailed, yet may not see or grapple with his adversaries.” T.D. too remembered the “merciless persecution to which Alexander Sullivan was subjected for many a long year of his life.”47 Ramón has offered a rather lackluster explanation for

Stephens’ reaction, arguing that it may have been “a very natural” mistake if Stephens had attributed the arrests to the Nation article. If so, Stephens certainly made no attempt to correct it. Instead, the accusation persisted, and eventually became the crutch for all of

Stephens’ and the radical nationalist press’ attacks on Sullivan. Simultaneously, Ramón has also posited that Stephens’ failure to recruit Sullivan may have convinced him of the need to crush the Nation as a potential enemy. That being said, Sullivan was not among

Stephens’ top priorities at the time.48

45 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 92.

46 Martin, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 46.

47 Sullivan, Memoir, 21.

48 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 92. 73 While writing his brother’s memoir, T.D. reflected upon the nature of Sullivan’s torment at the hands of the Phoenix Society, despite his role in organizing the Fair Trial

Fund for those effected by the Phoenix trials, which was only construed by radical nationalists as Sullivan playing both the felon-setter and the savior. By T.D.’s account, the entire affair was based upon a “system of deliberate misrepresentation.” Despite

O’Brien’s prominence, and the popularity of the Nation during the ongoing publication of his address, T.D. argued that Sullivan was, at the time, “really the representative man of the constitutional section of the national party.” As the sole proprietor and editor of the

Nation, the constitutional nationalist organ, and being “influential with the priests and people of Ireland,” T.D. maintained that the Fenian leaders viewed Sullivan as “the chief obstacle to the spread of their movement.” Sullivan came to a similar conclusion, though he reserved a few choice words for Stephens in New Ireland.49

Sullivan would later say of Stephens, that “he was a man who always blamed somebody else – never himself – for anything that befel his plans. … He very cleverly averted reproach from himself as to the fate of his first endeavor by steadily inculcating the story that it was Sullivan and the Nation that did it all.” He believed that Stephens, by his own faulty reasoning, concluded that “Sullivan and the Nation, and indeed the whole nuisance of constitutional politics, must be put down.” Sullivan was, therefore, at

Stephens’ behest, to be discredited through a vicious campaign of false accusations – contrived on the contention that Sullivan himself had set the government upon the

Phoenix Society.50 While Sullivan endured this public ridicule, Stephens remained in

49 Sullivan, Memoir, 31-2.

50 Sullivan, New Ireland, 306-7. 74 Paris where he oversaw the formation and management of the Irish Republican

Brotherhood, which replaced the Phoenix Society. Two years later, in early 1861,

Stephens returned to Ireland, and as Ramón phrased it, “1861 was to be the time to settle his 1859 scores with A.M. Sullivan and ‘the National Party.’”51

Sullivan’s conflict with Stephens ultimately climaxed during the MacManus

Funeral, but it began with the IRB’s infiltration and eventual control of the National

Brotherhood of St. Patrick. Despite the initial brush with Stephens and the Phoenix

Society, Sullivan continued to develop the idea of a national organization, which would include all classes of patriots with the aim of unifying towards the common goal of Irish independence through constitutional means. Sullivan came to believe that a great national mood had awoken in Ireland, and that the young men of Ireland would seek out an organization to direct their political energies. Sullivan’s fear, then, was that if no public organization existed in the country, they would most certainly align themselves with secret ones. Andrews has asserted that “Sullivan’s resistance to the IRB was not because it was revolutionary, but because the group was secret.”52 Sullivan’s attempt at participating in the 1848 Young Ireland Rebellion certainly lends credence to the notion that Sullivan was not uniformly opposed to the use of revolutionary force, but that would not be an accurate depiction of Sullivan at this point. Being even marginally in support of revolutionary nationalism would have placed Sullivan in dangerous proximity to

Stephens, from whom he was trying to distance himself. Moran has, more plausibly, argued that Sullivan sympathized with the rebellious patriots of the past, but made a clear

51 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 108.

52 Andrews, Newspapers and Newsmakers, 182. 75 distinction between their methods and the accepted methods of his time.53 Furthermore,

Sullivan later confessed to O’Brien that he would sooner take the oath of allegiance than

“raise a finger in rebellion.”54 Aside from his disdain for secret societies, which he felt would only injure the cause, he believed that the British government was simply too powerful for such organizations to contend with in Ireland.55

Eventually, through proposals submitted by Rossa and Thomas Neilson

Underwood, the concept of a national organization gained enough momentum to come to fruition in the National Brotherhood. Sullivan supported the new organization in both the

Nation and his new paper, established in 1859, the Morning News. Unfortunately for

Sullivan, the group that formed was not at all what he had in mind. Those involved, who were largely connected to the IRB, ostracized Sullivan from the organization, and prevented any similar organization from forming. The National Brotherhood of St.

Patrick was, in theory, exactly the sort of organization Sullivan wished to create, but he would have rather seen John Dillon or William Smith O’Brien as its leader. However,

Sullivan was in no position to oppose the creation of the National Brotherhood. It was, after all, an idea which he had promoted in the Nation. Indeed, Sullivan was among those appointed to speak during its inaugural celebration.56

The founding of the National Brotherhood of St. Patrick took place, rather unconventionally, on Monday, March 18, 1861 at the Rotunda in Dublin. Several

53 Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 48.

54 Sullivan to O’Brien, August 14, 1860, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1860-62, NLI, MS 447/3170.

55 Sullivan, Memoir, 47.

56 Ibid., 48-9; Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 110-11. 76 hundred men were gathered for a St. Patrick’s Day banquet, and an evening of nationalist speeches. The event quickly became uncomfortable for Sullivan, as well as many of the other guests. Although Sullivan had been appointed as a speaker, the organizers of the event deliberately ignored him. The O’Donoghue, another leading nationalist, intervened, and Sullivan was eventually able to speak, but not without experiencing a bit of embarrassment. “The plain truth of the matter,” explained T.D., was that the organizers of the event “were no friends of [Sullivan’s] or of the policy of the Nation,” and had intentionally set out to discredit him. T.D. recalled the general atmosphere of the banquet, which he claimed was rather crude and staged, with audience members behaving in a particularly disruptive fashion during speeches, most notably by hissing O’Brien’s name.

All of this was, however, the least of Sullivan’s concerns that evening. At one point,

Underwood, the chairman of the event, took to the stage and read aloud the constitution of the National Brotherhood of St. Patrick. Although the proposal for a new organization came as a surprise to many of the guests that evening, the organization was founded at once by a majority show of hands. Appalled by the events of that evening, Sullivan harshly criticized the National Brotherhood in the following issue of the Nation:

We know that all our countrymen have for some time past been led to expect that a strong political organisation, designed for strong political action, would soon be formed in Ireland – we ourselves in this journal have been giving our readers to understand that such an organisation was contemplated by men in whom the people of Ireland have confidence – we know that the Brotherhood of St. Patrick is not that organisation.57

Sullivan was, however, unable to stunt the growth or popularity of the National

Brotherhood. It proved to be immensely successful, but it was also susceptible to manipulation. Due to the autonomy afforded to each of the branches, the IRB was able to

57 Nation, March 23, 1861. 77 infiltrate individual branches and eventually capture the National Brotherhood. As T.D. remarked, it “disrupted, for a time, the plans of the constitutional party – cut the ground, so to say, from under their feet.”58

With the possibility of forming his own national organization apparently forestalled, Sullivan’s ability to contend with Stephens was undermined. The MacManus funeral, a watershed moment for the IRB, marked Sullivan’s defeat on this front. The body of Terence Bellew MacManus, who had participated in the 1848 Young Ireland

Rebellion and ultimately fled to California, where he died in 1861, was set to be returned to Ireland for a symbolic and public ceremony. A conflict quickly emerged over which brand of nationalism the funeral would symbolize. The IRB was determined to gain complete control of the funeral arrangements, using the National Brotherhood as a front organization. On May 25, 1861, the National Brotherhood convened to appoint the

MacManus Internment Committee, composed almost entirely of IRB members, in order to coordinate MacManus’ funeral. The Internment Committee was, in truth, very secretive, and refrained from revealing its plans for the funeral until shortly before it took place.59 Having experienced defeat at the Rotunda earlier in the year, Sullivan wrote doubtfully in the Nation on May 25 that “We feel confident that the patriots of Ireland will receive his honoured remains with a suitable demonstration,” although he knew full- well that the IRB had compromised the Internment Committee.60 The affair quickly became unpleasant for Sullivan, O’Brien, and the other Young Irelanders. They could not

58 Sullivan, Memoir, 48-9; Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 110-11.

59 R.F. Foster, Vivid Faces: The Revolutionary Generation in Ireland, 1890-1923 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2014), 78; Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 112-14.

60 Nation, May 25, 1861. 78 refrain from honoring MacMacus, but the capture of the funeral arrangements by the

IRB, and the committee’s refusal to publish its program, left them powerless.

On October 13 Sullivan vented his frustrations to O’Brien over the secrecy of the funeral program:

Last night the internment committee indignantly declined to modify their private programme of political display; or to publish it (as yet) such as it is. A proposition to rest controlling powers (with reference to the funeral) in P.J. Smyth, Mr. Cartwell, Mr. Plunkett, T.C., John Martin, & others, was received in an angry manner, and, I must state, with observation of a very disrespectful kind on the part of some members of the committee towards you & Mr. Martin for having “held back till they had the work done.” … On the other hand, silence towards these mismanagers has already permitted unsuspecting men to be misled. If they mean a political demonstration (be it Phoenix or otherwise) let them say it honestly by a published statement. If it is not a political demonstration they intend, it is due to men like you, myself, & others, that they should state it accurately, defining what they really propose to do. … I greatly fear the whole affair will be ruined.61

To challenge the Internment Committee, however, would have proved disastrous, as

Sullivan believed that the committee would have responded with accusations of “enmity to the dead,” or worse yet, “hostility to love of country.” Despite the attempt of Sullivan and other moderate nationalists to gain control of MacManus’ funeral, the IRB held firm and maintained total autonomy over the event. Sullivan later recalled that the funeral procession was genuinely a “great display,” but he lamented that the entire ordeal “gave the Fenian chiefs a command of Ireland which they had never been able to obtain before.” Some years later, those very leaders claimed that MacManus’ funeral had indeed enabled them firmly to establish their movement.62

61 Sullivan to O’Brien, October 13, 1861, Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, 1860-62, NLI, MS 447/3250.

62 Sullivan, New Ireland, 322. 79 Shortly after the MacManus funeral, a diplomatic crisis between the United States and Britain quickly unfolded towards the close of 1861, and filled Sullivan with hope that he might yet establish a national organization despite the existence of the National

Brotherhood of St. Patrick. A British mail steamer, the R.M.S. Trent, was boarded by members of the Union navy, who promptly detained two men on their way to England as representatives of the Confederate States of America. The resulting outrage from the

British government, which excited British and Irish alike, provided Sullivan with a reason for the foundation of a national organization – to rally nationalist support for the United

States in the event of a war with Britain. Sullivan advocated a very liberal gathering of both moderate and advanced nationalist leaders, including T.N. Underwood, the vice- president of the National Brotherhood. Sullivan was likely attempting to absorb the

National Brotherhood into a larger organization, but his plan ultimately backfired. The selected leaders met on December 5 to discuss the prospect of such an organization, but

IRB members were previously instructed to subvert the meeting, as they had done with the National Brotherhood. A committee was eventually formed, but it was composed of primarily IRB members, and as T.D. recalled, “the whole scheme was merely a contrivance to baffle the efforts of the men who were seeking to place an open constitutional association in charge of Irish political affairs.”63 Given the circumstances,

Sullivan could, in truth, no longer compete with Stephens and the IRB, who had (as

Ramón has so convincingly argued), “entered into full-scale competition with the whole of constitutional nationalism.”64 But the MacManus funeral did not mark the end of

63 Sullivan, Memoir, 53-7.

64 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 123. 80 Sullivan’s career or signal any kind of faltering in the effectiveness of the Nation. It does, however, denote a kind of plateau regarding Sullivan’s influence solely in the realm of non-sectarian politics. If Sullivan was going to keep alive the spirit of constitutional nationalism in the face of a rapidly growing revolutionary organization, he would need to reorient his approach to the preservation of constitutional nationalism.

By and large, Sullivan had come into adulthood during a period of nationalist malaise in post-Famine Ireland. He carried with him recollections of the Famine and the

Young Ireland Rebellion, but the extent of his early experiences afforded him no real advantage in Irish politics. More importantly, however, Sullivan’s recent endeavors as a proprietor of the Nation did not provide much experience for dealing with such an aggressive opponent. A great majority of his time was spent ensuring the financial survival of the paper, while his other initiatives failed to gain much traction. By 1858

Sullivan was sole proprietor and editor when Cane’s article provided an opportunity to reconnect with William Smith O’Brien and pursue a renewal of the national party.

Sullivan clearly demonstrated a decisive attitude towards reviving the national party, though he lacked any real experience as a political organizer. Ultimately, Sullivan’s actions by this time demonstrate both hesitation and a cunning shrewdness.

Between 1858 and 1861 Sullivan was coming into his own. He had pursued not only nationalist goals but private ones too. Amazingly, between running the Nation and fending off advanced nationalists, in 1861 Sullivan married Frances G. Donovan, a native of Louisiana born to Irish parents, with whom he soon began a family. During this time

Sullivan sought to become a voice of constitutional nationalism in Ireland by rebuilding and harnessing the influence of the Nation, as well as capturing O’Brien for the rebirth of

81 the national party. Simultaneously, he wrestled with his own uncertainties and perhaps a lack of confidence. This was the period of time that crystalized Sullivan’s public personality. This brush with Stephens and conspiratorial nationalism essentially represents Sullivan’s first encounter with the polarity of Irish politics. He had, prior to this point, been relatively hidden from the public eye. But Stephens’ fervor for a more subversive approach to politics dragged Sullivan into a very public and damaging affair, which he was not at all prepared to handle.

82 Chapter Four

The Two Lamps of His Soul: Uniting Nationalism and Catholicism, 1858 –

1870

T.D., when reflecting on his younger brother’s life, once called nationalism and

Catholicism the “two lamps” of Sullivan’s soul. “By their light,” T.D. continued, “he walked and worked during all the time given him in the world.”1 Although Sullivan and the other moderate nationalists had lost ground to Stephens and the IRB with the founding of the National Brotherhood of St. Patrick and the subsequent capture of the

MacManus funeral, it was not the end of Sullivan’s pursuit of an independent Ireland.

Having lost his non-sectarian footing to Stephens and the advanced nationalists, Sullivan sought to embrace his Catholicity and pivoted towards a faith and fatherland nationalism.

T.D. claimed that nationalism and Catholicity “ruled the whole career of A.M. Sullivan,” yet those traits did not emerge together until after his brush with the advanced nationalists. By the early 1860s Sullivan reoriented his sense of nationalism, and began to blend nationalism and Catholicism to further his constitutional nationalist agenda. This chapter explores Sullivan’s Catholic-nationalist turn while following his continual support of constitutional nationalism until the advent of the Home Rule movement in

1870.

1 Sullivan, Memoir, 7. 83 While the conflict with Stephens was developing, Sullivan was fast at work on a new, and rather expensive, endeavor: the launch of two new daily papers – the Evening

News and the Morning News – with the Weekly News following not long after. In starting these new journals, Sullivan was required to establish separate registrations and bonds, and pay sureties in the amount of £4,800 to the crown, which he grieved, stating that the amount was “unparalleled amongst all the newspaper proprietors of the British Empire.”2

The Evening News, of which Sullivan was both proprietor and editor, was advertised every week, for one month, beginning December 18, 1858, until its first number appeared on January 18, 1859. It was advertised as “the cheapest newspaper ever published in

Ireland … fully commensurate with, and worthy of, the advanced position of the Irish

Catholic People.”3 It is not entirely clear why Sullivan started the Evening News, although T.D. explained that he began the paper because “the weekly issue of the Nation did not give sufficient scope for his energies.”4 Ambitious as Sullivan was, T.D. actually took over the editorship of the Nation so that Sullivan could devote himself to his three new papers.5

A few short months after establishing the Evening News, the Morning News was published for the first time on April 26. It served as a partner paper to the Evening News, both in its content and audience. Interestingly enough, the Morning News had a much

2 Nation, August 17, 1861.

3 Ibid., December 18, 1858, December 25, 1858, January 1, 1859, January 8, 1859, January 15, 1859.

4 Sullivan, Memoir, 33.

5 Andrews, Newspapers and Newsmakers, 188. 84 softer release than the Evening News, and was not advertised in the Nation.6 It was, however, advertised in the Freeman’s Journal as being available for one penny at 6,

Lower Abbey Street, Dublin (the Nation office) on the day of its release. In 1860 the

Weekly News followed in similar fashion. Aimed at Ireland’s working class, it was advertised as cheaper than its weekly contemporaries, and intent on providing “healthy

Irish and Catholic intelligence” as an alternative to the “cheap infidel ‘gutter literature’ of

London.”7 Regarding the scope of these papers, Sullivan was likely borrowing from the earlier example of Sadleir’s Weekly Telegraph, both in the relatively low cost of the paper, as well as its popular style. At any rate, the Nation and these three new papers had taken a decidedly more Catholic turn by 1860 under the direction of both A.M. and T.D.

Sullivan, which T.D. believed “rendered inestimable service” to both the nationalist and

Catholic causes.8 Sullivan now sought to preserve constitutional nationalism by associating it with the most reliably counter-revolutionary non-British institution in

Ireland – the Catholic Church. And though Sullivan began to merge Catholicism with nationalism, for instance by alluding to the interchangeability of “Catholic” and “Irish,” he was emphatic that Ireland’s conflict was, first and foremost, one between nationalities.9

This was not the first time Sullivan had attempted to associate with the Irish

Catholic clergy for the nationalist cause, but he did alter his approach. Prior to 1859,

6 See Nation issues of April 2, 9, 16, and 23 of 1859. None contain advertisements for the Morning News, unlike the Evening News, which was prominently advertised.

7 Freeman’s Journal, July 28, 1860.

8 Andrews, Newspapers and Newsmaker, 188; Sullivan, Memoir, 33.

9 Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 76-7. 85 particularly when attempting to tackle the emigrant issues in Liverpool, Sullivan had tried to align the Irish Catholic clergy with constitutional nationalism, whereas now Sullivan was moving to align constitutional nationalism with Catholicism. The perfect opportunity came in 1860, when Archbishop Paul Cullen, who had spent his formative years in

Rome, became gravely concerned for Pope Pius IX’s territories during the Risorgimento.

In January he delivered a passion speech at St. Mary’s Pro-Cathedral in Dublin,

“pleading that Pius IX would be delivered from his enemies.” Cullen’s speech roused

Irish Catholics, but as Anne O’Connor has explained, “the critical challenge was to translate such vocal endorsement into financial aid.” With Sullivan and the Nation group of papers turn towards Catholicism, Cullen had been very much front-and-center in the national press beginning in late 1859.10 Here was another national icon, like O’Brien, who Sullivan could prop up in the pages of the Nation. Cullen was in the process, as

Emmet Larkin has posited, of reforming the Catholic Church in Ireland, which initiated a

“devotional revolution” within the Irish Catholic community. Within a generation, Larkin has claimed, “the great mass of Irish people became practicing Catholics.” Cullen went to great lengths to resolve the pre-Famine shortage of clergy and places of worship, and to improve the conduct and the pastoral commitment of the clergy. Thus, previously passive

Irish Catholics, many of whom only attended mass on holy days, or saw a priest for their final rites, became devout Catholics.11

10 Anne O’Connor, “The Pope, the Prelate, the Soldiers and the Controversy: Paul Cullen and the Irish Papal Brigade,” in Cardinal Paul Cullen and His World, ed. Dáire Keogh and Albert McDonnell (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2011), 329.

11 Emmet Larkin, “The Devotional Revolution in Ireland, 1850-75,” The American Historical Review 77, no. 3 (1872): 626-27, 638. 86 The first Saturday after Cullen’s speech, on January 14, the Nation published a detailed account. Consuming the entirety of two pages, it was certainly an indicator of the importance of the matter to the Sullivan brothers.12 By the end of the month Cullen had taken steps to solve the issue of providing financial aid to Pius IX. As the apostolic delegate to Ireland he issued a letter calling for a pontifical collection. The letter, inevitably published in the Nation, announced that the collection would begin on the first

Sunday of Lent, and raised an incredible £80,000 over the course of five months.13

Sullivan and the Nation, seeking to lend further aid in defense of the pope, began to suggest that able-bodied Irishmen ought, rather than emigrating to America or elsewhere, to emigrate to Italy so that they might bolster the ranks of the small army formed in defense of the Pope’s territories. The Nation could not, however, write openly in support of the topic, for fear of contravening the Foreign Enlistment Act, so Sullivan kept the language vague – often utilizing the phrases emigrant or emigrate in reference to Italy.

Despite these subtleties, with Sullivan as the chief architect the Nation office quickly became an informal headquarters for the entire movement, which generated an Irish

Brigade in defense of the pope. T.D., who was employed on the Nation by this time, claimed that Sullivan received “scores of applications” by post, many more dropped by the Nation office “day after day.”14 So popular was the “recruitment” of Irish Catholics that Sullivan, who remarked on the “crowds who thronged our office,” became frustrated

12 Nation, January 14, 1860.

13 O’Connor, “The Pope, the Prelate, the Soldiers, and the Controversy,” 329; Nation, February 4, 1860. 14 O’Connor, “The Pope, the Prelate, the Soldiers, and the Controversy,” 329; Sullivan, Memoir, 39-40. 87 with the number of questions directed at the Nation office, and redirected readers to previous issues of the Nation for the answers to their questions.15

The effort did, however, attract some unwanted attention from anti-Catholic parties in Dublin, who sought out Dublin Castle’s aid in an attempt to stifle the movement.16 John O’Farrell, Commissioner of Police, issued a statement on May 16 reminding prospective recruits that enlisting in foreign armies, without license from the crown, was a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and was “punishable by fine and imprisonment.” In an article titled “CAUTION – FOREIGN ENLISMENT,” the Nation tauntingly introduced the notice: “The Lion and the Unicorn have been in excited condition for several days. Lo! a Proclamation has been brought forth!” But Sullivan and the Nation did more than taunt the government – they responded with strongly anti-

British sentiments. The Nation accused the authorities of wanting to “foully strangle the emigration to Italy” by drudging up “an old Act of George the Third.” But, against whom was the act levelled, the Nation sarcastically enquired in its criticism of the recent notice.

After exhausting all satirical reasons for invoking the Foreign Enlistment Act, Sullivan asserted that,

The laws, the acts, and the statutes, of Georges and Williams, are really operative only to prohibit the idea of sympathizing with, or possibly aiding a rightful, legitimate, national sovereign, maintaining peace, order, and security within his realm. This proclamation has appeared at the call of lawlessness, at the back of revolution. It is not the instrument of legality, though it is a legal document; it speaks with the voice of constituted government, but its false tones deceive no one. It is the utterance of a deadly animosity to the cause of sacred authority, order, liberty, justice, and right.17

15 Nation, May 19, 1860.

16 Sullivan, Memoir, 40.

17 Nation, May 19, 1860. 88

Sullivan continued to lampoon the act, denouncing it as “uncalled for,” and suggesting that the government would likely “follow up one foolish step by another.” But it was

Sullivan’s final statement, a thinly veiled threat, that best demonstrated the renewed vigor with which the Nation was prepared to attack the authorities. “We very deliberately and seriously tell the Government,” Sullivan declared, “… that the only course still better calculated than this Proclamation, to make the emigration flourish, would be an attempt to put these threats of unjust and illegal violence into force.”18 Thus began the Nation’s renewal of strongly anti-British rhetoric blended with its constitutional nationalist agenda.

Without addressing the details of Irish involvement in the Risorgimento, it suffices to note that the conflict ended tragically for the Irish who went abroad in defense of the Papal States. They were ill-prepared, and the conflict was over in a matter of days.

“But,” T.D. asserted, “Ireland had nothing to be ashamed of in the whole affair.”19

Indeed, as one Nation correspondent wrote from Rome, “Under the banner of St. Patrick and the Blessed Virgin [the Irish soldiers] will do honour to their country and keep up the ancient fame of the Celtic race,” and that was very much the manner in which the Irish

Brigade was portrayed in the Nation.20 But the Brigade provided much more than cultural pride. It demonstrated that Irish Catholics, especially those who read the Nation, subscribed to Young Ireland’s brand of constitutional nationalism, and were ready to take up arms in defense of what they held dear. In this way the Irish Brigade allowed the

18 Ibid.

19 Sullivan, Memoir, 42-4.

20 Nation, July 3, 1860. 89 Nation to adopt a quasi-militant rhetoric without moving too far in a radical nationalist direction. Perhaps equally important was the government response to the recruitment effort. In accordance with its Catholic turn, it provided the Nation with a means to blend nationalism and Catholicity into a new rhetoric, which helped carry constitutional nationalism through the 1860s and into the Home Rule movement.

Sullivan’s support of Cullen and Pius IX through his organization of the Irish

Brigade, in turn, earned him the respect of Ireland’s clergy. This proved invaluable in late

1861, and further embedded Sullivan and the Nation with Catholic nationalists. But the success of the Morning News, the Nation’s turn towards Catholic-nationalism, and

Sullivan’s ability to bring Catholics into the moderate nationalist fold, ought to be viewed as more of a partnership, rather than an achievement on Sullivan’s part. Cullen, along with many priests, despite their “dim view of clerical electioneering” were beginning to express an interest in the political influence that their spiritual authority could affect.21

Although Sullivan was instrumental in the process, between moderate nationalists and advanced nationalists, the Catholic Church in Ireland had traditionally proven to be anti- rebellion. Naturally, Sullivan’s widely popular Catholic and constitutional approach to nationalism, via the Nation, was a beneficial program to support.

While Sullivan was trying desperately to establish a constitutional organization in response to the formation of the National Brotherhood of St. Patrick, he also found himself in trouble with the sub-sheriff of Armagh. In late July 1861 the Morning News, which dealt primarily with Catholic issues, published a letter to the editor titled “Juggling of the Jury Panel.” The pseudonymous author, “A Catholic,” accused the sub-sheriff of

21 Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics, 1850-1879,” 690. 90 Armagh, William Hardy, of routinely denying Catholics seats on juries – a practice which the author claimed was rampant in Armagh – and announced that “it may be useful for

Catholics to know that their lives and liberties are at the mercy of such men as Hardy.”22

Hardy, feeling that he had been a victim of libel, brought a case against Sullivan as proprietor of the Morning News.

The resulting charges were two-part: the first was libel, “stated with innuendoes,” and the second was for those innuendoes being published.23 Hardy was seeking heavy damages, and a defense fund, organized through the Catholic Rights Defence Committee, was quickly arranged to ensure that the Morning News survived the trial, which began on

December 11, 1861. Three days later the trial was over, and it was determined that the

Morning News was to pay £50 for the damages to Hardy’s reputation. The legal costs, however, “amounted to a very large total,” T.D. recalled, which he believed was not fully covered by the amount collected for the defense fund. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, the episode deepened Catholic ties to Sullivan and the Morning News. Most of

Ireland’s bishops had subscribed to the defense fund. In fact, some 229 members of the clergy, who collectively donated over £100, were reported in the Nation as contributers just four days before the start of the trial.24 Many of them also wrote letters of commendation that praised Sullivan for “[grappling] with and [exposing] the gross injustice” of religious bigotry in the practice of jury-packing.25 The most notable contributors included Cullen, John MacHale (Archbishop of Tuam), Joseph Dixon

22 Nation, November 23, 1861, December 14, 1861.

23 Ibid.

24 Nation, December 7, 1861.

25 Sullivan, Memoir, 58-60. 91 (Archbishop of Armagh), and Patrick Leahy (Archbishop of Cashel). Writing to the

Defence Committee, Cullen said of Sullivan,

That gentleman has already rendered, as you observe, able and valuable services to the Catholic cause, and I trust nothing will occur to prevent him from continuing his labours in the same sphere. … we cannot afford to dispense with the services rendered to us by the Morning News. I congratulate you on the determination you have come to, to support it, and I am sure your call will meet with a generous response from every Liberal man in Ireland.26

By the conclusion of the trial, it was evident that Sullivan and his papers were supported by the Catholic clergy, particularly the Morning News, which continued to address

Catholic and national issues alike. Sullivan, who believed Ireland was the most ultramontene of all the Catholic nations, later reflected on the duality of Irish Catholic nationalism while writing New Ireland: “It is … a fact which ought to be intelligently contemplated, that this people, so strongly Papal, so intensely Catholic, so violently opposed to ‘liberalism’ or religious indifference, is, in civil affairs, perhaps the most liberal and tolerant in the world.”27

By the end of 1861 Sullivan had endured some two years of harassment at the hands of radical nationalists, and it was the Fenians’ disruption of Sullivan’s last attempt to found a constitutional organization, in 1861, that ultimately ended Sullivan’s campaign on this front for the time being. Thus, he pivoted towards a more Catholic bent of nationalism – a move which he was able accomplish seamlessly due to the prior establishment of the Evening News and Morning News. The maneuver was an astute one for a number of reasons. Like the Weekly Telegraph, Sullivan’s popular Catholic paper experienced tremendous success catering to the Catholic masses, helping to subsidize the

26 Nation, October 19, 1861.

27 Sullivan, New Ireland, 284-85. 92 less profitable but politically vital Nation. Furthermore, an alliance with the Catholic

Church provided the constitutional nationalist cause with a deeply rooted defense against both liberal unionism and radical nationalism. Sullivan had effectively achieved a political merger with Irish Catholicism, the clergy included, through the organization of the Irish Brigade, and the prosecution of the Morning News. The sheer volume of harassment that Sullivan continued to experience at the hands of the Fenians and their papers, however, remained constant. Their antagonism was relentless - they dogged

Sullivan at every corner – and attempted to turn every success, or potential project, into a failure or an embarrassment. T.D. best captured the hopelessness of Sullivan’s position with the Fenians in his Memoir of Sullivan:

He might vindicate himself a thousand times over for all they cared; he might disprove their charges every day in the week if he so pleased; he might shy facts and dates at their heads as long as he liked, but they would stick to their own story nevertheless. Nothing on earth could induce them to give it up.28

Such were the circumstances of Sullivan’s never-ending conflict with the radical nationalists. Though they endeavored to sabotage him at every turn, Sullivan continued to make progress towards the formation of a national organization that could press for an independent Ireland.

Sullivan did not immediately realize the success of his shift towards Catholic nationalism. In late January 1862, he remarked, “Just now the Secret Society and West

Britons have the field pretty much to themselves.”29 This was, however, not even two months after his foiled speech at the Rotunda and only a month after the prosecution of

28 Sullivan, Memoir, 64.

29 Alexander Martin Sullivan to My Dear Doyle, January 25, 1862, Four Letters by A.M. Sullivan, NLI, MS 10489. 93 the Morning News. Though the clergy and many other supporters had come out en masse to fund the defense of his trial, the insufficiency of the sum raised perhaps left him wanting, and not wholly sure of his position with the Catholic Church. After a rather uneventful spring, Sullivan announced at the end of May that “on the 1st June next the

Morning News will enter upon a new epoch in its career.” Sullivan had, for reasons that remain obscure, relinquished control of the Morning News to the Irish Catholic

Publishing company.30 Sullivan’s tone suggested that he had little choice in the loss of the Morning News, yet he provided no explanation for its severance from the Nation, except for the assertion that it was time for the paper to “stand on its own ground and its own resources.”31 For Sullivan, 1862 had thus far proved to be not only uneventful, but also somewhat disappointing. Towards the end of November, however, he was met with a new and promising proposition – one which certainly reflected the attention he had garnered through his recent endeavors.

Hugh Tarpey, an Irish liberal who sat on Dublin’s Town Council, was elected in

November as an alderman of the Dublin Corporation, opening his old seat on the council.

The Burgesses of Dublin were charged with electing “fit and proper persons to represent them,” a decision that was hotly contested. In late November 116 Burgesses of the Royal

Exchange Ward, Tarpey included, requisitioned Sullivan, requesting that he allow himself to be added to the list of nominees for the office of Town Councilor. Sullivan accepted, and the request was published and celebrated in the Nation. At the time of his nomination Sullivan had only one opponent, a Mr. Clarke, who reportedly resigned his

30 Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 28.

31 Nation, May 31, 1862. 94 candidacy upon learning that Sullivan would be his challenger. During the course of the election a new candidate emerged, John Chambers, who was favored by the Conservative party over “an editor of the Nation.” Sullivan proved to be the marginally more popular candidate, and defeated Chambers by four votes.32 Despite a year largely barren of achievement, Sullivan found himself in a position to lend aid and legitimacy to the constitutional nationalist cause. He now held a position of authority from which he could speak to the goals of the national party in an official capacity.

In the following number of the Nation, December 6, 1862, amidst self- congratulatory articles, Sullivan outlined and established what he believed to be the true and proper goals of the national party moving forward, in an article titled “Nationalism in

Our Civic Parliament.” Sullivan, who rather self-servingly argued that a nationalist could affect more change in the Dublin Corporation than in the British Parliament, declared:

We hold that, wherever a voice can be raised, or a vote given for Ireland, there – if the speakers or the voters proceed by election from the people – that National party should seek to be represented. In the Parliament, in the Corporation, in the Poor Law Board, the National Cause should have its friends. They could be useful everywhere – their presence would, at least, be a testimony to the political faith of the people, and a protest against the foreign rule imposed on the country. Much may be said for the policy of sending representatives of the national feeling into the British Parliament, but reasons no less powerful may, with perfect fairness, be urged in favor of rendering those little home parliaments of ours racy of the soil, and true to the interests and the wishes of the Irish people.33

With those four words, “racy of the soil,” which the Nation had touted in its prospectus some thirty years earlier, and printed under every leading article, Sullivan directly associated his position as Town Councilor with Young Ireland and the Nation’s nationalist goals. The editorial symbolized the forward momentum of Young Ireland,

32 Ibid., November 29, 1862, December 6, 1862; Sullivan, Memoir, 66.

33 Nation, December 6, 1862. 95 which had appeared to falter under the weight of rising Fenianism. Furthermore, the excitement with which Sullivan’s election was followed indicated that constitutional nationalism was gaining traction amongst the Irish people.

Another distinguished member of Young Ireland was soon in harness alongside

Sullivan. On February 14, 1863 the Nation announced that John Blake Dillon, an old friend and associate of Gavan Duffy, and one of the original founders of the Nation and

Young Ireland, was to be nominated for the vacant seat in the Wood Quay Ward of the

Dublin Corporation. The Nation congratulated the representatives of the ward for their choice, and correctly predicted that Dillon would be elected without contest. As T.D. remarked, Dillon’s election, following closely on Sullivan’s, suggested that “nationality was looking up in the Dublin Corporation.”34

Sullivan and Dillon wasted no time in airing nationalist grievances. On April 21 a special meeting of the Dublin Corporation was held for the consideration of a special committee, introduced by Dillon, to “inquire and report to the Council as to the state of the public accounts between Ireland and Great Britain.” At the conclusion of a lengthy discussion, the motion was passed unanimously.35 In October 1863, the committee presented its findings, concluding that Ireland was paying “more than a fair proportion” of taxes, half of which were not spent at home, and insisting that “Ireland owes no debt to

Britain, and she has the right which every country has to have her own money mainly spent within her own borders.”36

34 Ibid., February 14, 1863; Sullivan, Memoir, 67.

35 Nation, April 25, 1863; Sullivan, Memoir, 67.

36 Sullivan, Memoir, 67-8. 96 Surprised by Dillon’s renewed activism, John Martin, yet another veteran Young

Irelander, friend of Sullivan’s, and frequent contributor to the Nation, began to reengage with nationalist politics. Dillon’s initial proposal to form a special committee interested

Martin, yet he felt that it was not sufficiently focused on national independence. He began to submit articles to the Nation, as he had often done in the past, to express his opinion. “Now, if Ireland were independent,” Martin suggested, “she would have the exclusive use of her own revenue.” Martin continued to outline the benefits of domestic industrialization in an independent Ireland, and though he wrote fancifully, he confessed that “so great a change could not take place all at one upon the attainment of self- government, but it would immediately begin to take place.”37 This led Martin to a renewed advocacy of the repeal movement. He continued to develop his plan in the pages of the Nation throughout 1863, even going so far as to provide an outline for the establishment of a new repeal organization, which earned a spot as a leading article.38 By

June 1863 Sullivan and the Nation had endorsed Martin’s plan, and the Nation’s coverage of Ireland’s taxation problem helped to strengthen Martin’s proposal.39

With several new methods of pursuing constitutional nationalism, all of which manifested rather suddenly, 1864 proved to be an exceedingly busy year for Sullivan.

Following the development of his outline for the renewal of a repeal movement, Martin established the Irish National League in February 1864 with the aid of The O’Donoghue, who had proven to be a reliable ally of Young Ireland. Sullivan was not a “chief mover”

37 Nation, May 9, 1863.

38 Ibid., June 20, 1863.

39 Ibid. 97 in the organization, though he vigorously promoted the League in the Nation.40 When the enthusiasm of The O’Donoghue waned, he withdrew from the National League. But

Martin remained, and worked hard at the task of promoting the restoration of a separate and independent Irish Parliament.41 The National League was, Sullivan explained, “an open and non-Fenian National organization” which appealed to public opinion. Naturally, of course, the Fenians took great offense and promptly attended the League’s meetings, seeking to disrupt them in their usual fashion, shouting for war policies and rifles.42

Ultimately the League was a failure. Between the watchful eye of the British Government and the Fenian harassment, new members rarely joined, and eventually their ranks dwindled. By late 1866 Martin found it nearly impossible to conduct meetings, and the

National League was dissolved.43

Shortly after promoting Martin’s National League, another unexpected opportunity to improve nationalist morale appeared. Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince

Albert, had died on December 14 of the previous year, and although T.D. claimed that he had “not been very popular,” a committee was formed and charged with creating a memorial. On February 8 the Prince Albert Memorial Committee applied to the Dublin

Corporation to reserve a spot on College Green for the erection of a monument in

Albert’s memory. Despite the committee’s preparations, Sullivan, Dillon, and a few of their moderate nationalist allies resolved to thwart the application, with Sullivan later

40 Ibid., January 23, 1864; Sullivan, Memoir, 92.

41 Sullivan, Memoir, 92.

42 Sullivan, New Ireland, 328.

43 Ibid.; Sullivan, Memoir, 95-6. 98 claiming to have taken “a leading part.”44 They were able to defer the application to a separate committee for review, but it was ultimately approved on February 13, and was scheduled to be adopted by the Coporation two days later.45

During those eight days Sullivan was fast at work. An article was run in the

Nation, which outlined the proceedings of the proposal for the Albert statue, but also detailed Sullivan’s and his cohorts more nationalist alternative – a statue of Henry

Grattan, the eighteenth-century Irish M.P. who had opposed the Act of Union and campaigned for Irish legislative independence.46 Sullivan also managed to form the

Grattan Memorial Committee, and as the chairman he had a draft of the memorial created, which he presented to the Dublin Corporation on February 15. Sullivan’s proposal, moreover, called for the Grattan statue to be situated on the very spot that the

Prince Albert Memorial Committee had selected for their monument. When introducing his proposal, Sullivan gave a speech which T.D. described as “brilliant and forcible.”

Sullivan appealed to the Protestant members of the Corporation, urging them to “Claim

Grattan proudly as [their] co-religionist,” and asking, “can you not be emulators of his patriotism?” But the project failed. For fear of appearing disloyal, many members of the

Town Council voted in favor of the Albert monument. Turning his attention to the

Catholic councilors, Sullivan responded fiercely to those that had opposed the Grattan monument, pointing and shouting: “You degenerate and ungrateful race! … Good work it was for Henry Grattan to strive as he strove for men like you, who weigh your debt of

44 Sullivan, New Ireland, 328.

45 Sullivan, Memoir, 68-9.

46 Nation, February 13, 1864. 99 gratitude to him so lightly.” By T.D.’s account, Sullivan’s rebuttal was met with great applause by those who supported the Grattan monument.47 Although Sullivan’s committee had lost its bid for a statue of Grattan, his fiery retort and defense of nationalism had made him the “hero of the occasion.”48 Inevitably, the following number of the Nation was replete with articles detailing Sullivan’s speech and the unfortunate loss of the Grattan monument, but also announced a plan for reversing the vote.49

Invigorated by the response to his defense of Grattan, Sullivan believed that “the people of Dublin would back him up in an endeavor to get this obnoxious vote rescinded.” On the front page of the February 20 issue of the Nation, Sullivan called for a

“Public Protest” and a “MONSTER MEETING” in the Round Room of the Rotunda on

February 22. He announced the appearance of “The O’Donoghue and several other distinguished Irishmen” as speakers at the event.50 This maneuver, however, displeased

Fenian leaders, who were uncomfortable with the amount of attention that Sullivan had garnered. Stephens was to play a lead role in dashing Sullivan’s nationalist plans once again. Stephens had launched the Irish People in 1863, an organ of the advanced nationalist press which catered to the IRB. He used his paper to announce the very same meeting and urged its readers to attend.51

When the meeting convened, it was packed with Fenians intent upon disrupting the proceedings. Their taunts became increasingly hostile, and the members of the IRB

47 Sullivan, Memoir, 70-1.

48 Ibid., 74.

49 Nation, February 20, 1864.

50 Ibid.

51 Irish People, February 20, 1864. 100 eventually stormed the stage, effectively ending the meeting at once.52 Sullivan was eventually able to organize a more controlled meeting, as well as secure an official request to reconsider the vote on the Grattan and Albert statues. Sullivan’s motion passed, just barely, but the conservatives in the Dublin Cooperation still opposed the

Grattan statue. Out of the debates came the decision to form a committee within the

Corporation, which was tasked with resolving the disagreemnt with the Prince Albert

Memorial Committee. The decision of that committee proved favorable to Sullivan, and the spot on College Green, which had previously been reserved for a statue of Prince

Albert, was turned over to the Grattan Memorial Committee and reserved for a statue of

Grattan.53 By this time the excitement of Grattan’s memorial had died down. The initial fervor, however, had placed Sullivan at the forefront of nationalism for several days, and afforded both he and the Nation a great deal of positive exposure.

Meanwhile, the Irish People continued its regular course of attacks on moderate nationalists, particularly those associated with the Nation. Stephens, who had seemingly failed to learn from his mistake when organizing the Phoenix Society, conducted the Irish

People with the same disregard for discretion. T.D. later joked about the state of the Irish

People’s offices when he noted that its leading lights appeared to conduct themselves as if “the Government were either blind and deaf, or excessively stupid.”54 In the summer of

1865 the Dublin police acquired a letter, written in Stephens’ hand, which had been pilfered from one of his messengers. The letter, Ramón has noted, “did not make any

52 Sullivan, New Ireland, 329-30; Sullivan, Memoir, 76-7.

53 Sullivan, Memoir, 82-5.

54 Ibid., 100. 101 astounding revelations,” but it provided proof of Stephens’ activities, and confirmed suspicions about 1865 being the “year of action” for the IRB. Its discovery led to a raid of the Irish People’s offices in Dublin.55 Due to the abundance of revolutionary material left lying around carelessly in a center of conspiracy, the police acquired a large quantity of personal information on members of the Brotherhood and arrested 187 suspects between

September and October.56 Though Stephens evaded capture, the Irish People ceased publication. Sullivan remembered the day quite well, having been abruptly awoken by

T.D., who appeared exuberant with new of the arrests. When reflecting on Stephens and his decision to start the Irish People, Sullivan found it odd that Stephens never anticipated the government becoming aware of the paper’s contents, or the potential for financial loss.57

Stephens’ “year of action” was postponed, but the loss of the Irish People had no great effect on the IRB’s journalistic crusade against moderate nationalists. Its patrons quickly turned to the Irishman, which had recently come under the proprietorship of

Richard Pigott. An Irish nationalist who had earlier worked on the Nation, Pigott now supported advanced nationalism by “running his paper as nearly as possible on the lines of the suppressed Irish People,” particularly in its criticisms of Sullivan.58 Slowly, with the help of the Irishman, the IRB managed to reorganize. Towards the end of 1866 “the imminence of a Fenian rising was recognised by everyone.” For Sullivan, a new opportunity to promote constitutional nationalism arose, unexpectedly, as a result of the

55 Ramón, A Provisional Dictator, 177.

56 Ibid., 178; Sullivan, Memoir, 101.

57 Sullivan, New Ireland, 327, 338.

58 Sullivan, Memoir, 104. 102 failed Fenian rising of March 5, 1867. The abortive rebellion landed scores of radical nationalists, who had conspired in secret, in Irish jails. The Nation of the following

Saturday was teeming with news of the rising, which prompted headlines such as “Once

More, Rebellion!” and “Insurrection Again!”59 But, as he had done with the Phoenix

Trials, Sullivan once again defended the prisoners. Strangely enough, in the following number of the Nation, Sullivan published a justification of the Fenians’ motives and a defense of their moral character.60

On the nature of Sullivan’s article, T.D. reminded readers, “this article was written not in the heyday of their power, but at the moment when they were sore stricken, defeated, and humiliated, and when an ignoble nature might have gloried in their misfortune.” But, on Sullivan’s opinion of the Fenians as a whole, T.D. argued that although their political ideals were diametrically opposed, Sullivan was “ever ready to recognise and to bear testimony to the fact that their inspiration was the spirit of patriotism, and that their politics were the natural product of the long-continued and heartless misgovernment of the country.”61 That is certainly plausible, but it is more likely that Sullivan now sought to improve his tumultuous relationship with advanced nationalists while also maintaining his reputation with constitutional nationalists. This is particularly evident given the similar pattern of denounce-and-defend that Sullivan employed during the Phoenix Trials. Regardless of Sullivan’s feeling towards the

Fenians, he was well aware of the fact that further inciting the Fenian leadership would

59 Nation, March 9, 1867.

60 Ibid., March 16, 1867; Sullivan, Memoir, 108.

61 Sullivan, Memoir, 106, 109. 103 only intensify their feud – a complication which Sullivan had sought to escape for some time. Here, then, Sullivan had to adopt both an anti-Fenian and anti-British position which would not raise suspicions to either party, yet also maintain his reputation as a legitimate moderate nationalist voice.

Later in the year, on September 18, 1867, a prisoner transport van moving several

Irish republican prisoners to a jail in Manchester was attacked by a group of Fenians with the express goal of freeing two of the Fenian leaders who were held inside. One of the leaders, Thomas Kelly, had recently replaced Stephens as the head of the Fenian movement. In their attempts to break open the van, the Fenians shot and fatally wounded one of the officers guarding Kelly, Sergeant Brett. The rescue was successful, but the

Fenians who conducted the break-out were swiftly arrested, charged with murder, and sentenced to death.62 The event made the leading article in the Nation on September 21, but here Sullivan’s approach to Fenianism was remarkably cool, and perhaps compromised his integrity as a constitutional nationalist journalist. Sullivan commended the rescue for “showing not only a bold front but a strong hand, in the very midst of

England,” and redirected the discussion towards a frightening description of the potential

British response. Most remarkable, however, was Sullivan’s failure to report the death of one of the officers during the attempt.63 Sullivan later reflected on the rescue of the

Fenian leaders, and on the death of Sergeant Brett he remarked, “that [his life] was lost by misadventure, not sacrificed by design, those best qualified to know assert, and the

Irish people fervently believe.”64 While Sullivan may have attempted to insulate himself

62 Sullivan, New Ireland, 374-76; Sullivan, Memoir, 109-10; Sullivan, Recollections, 176.

63 Nation, September 21, 1867.

104 from advanced nationalist aggressions in the past, and more recently began to close the gap between the moderate and advanced nationalists, he was now publishing in the

Nation an article which excused, at least on one notorious occasion, Fenian violence.

Sullivan’s seeming Fenian sympathies, however, quickly caught the attention of the authorities, who were on high alert in light of recent events.

The men charged with Sergeant Brett’s murder were hanged on November 23,

1867, and in the following days both Sullivan and Pigott published articles which were deemed “inflammatory” and “seditious.” Both were accordingly prosecuted, with their trials commencing in February 1868. Sullivan was convicted and sentenced to six months in Richmond prison, upon which Martin “congratulated him on having received from the

British Crown one of the distinctions usually accorded to Irish patriots.” 65 Sullivan, however, only served three of those months, as did Pigott. He did not recount the reasoning behind his early release, but T.D. speculated that the government believed it would be in their best interest, particularly considering the “strong feeling of the country.”66 As with the prosecution of the Morning News, Sullivan’s imprisonment earned him something of the status of a martyr. Indeed, scores of individuals, from all classes and creeds, visited the prison almost daily to sign their names in a book which was kept for him near the prison gate.67 During his internment Sullivan made advances to befriend Pigott, or at least neutralize Pigott’s disdain for him. He loathed the idea of

64 Sullivan, New Ireland, 374.

65 Sullivan, Memoir, 110-11.

66 Ibid., 113.

67 Ibid., 112; “Visitors. A.M. Sullivan. Prisoner No. 197. Richmond Jail. 1868,” Visitors Book of A.M. Sullivan, Prisoner in Richmond Jail, Dublin, 1868, NLI, MS 4496. 105 Dublin Castle joking about two Irish nationalist journalists who would not speak to one another while sharing a prison sentence, but he also wished to negate the constant battery of personal attacks on his character. Sullivan’s efforts were wasted. Almost immediately upon his release Pigott resumed his usual assault on Sullivan in the Irishman.

One good thing had, however, resulted from his time in Richmond prison.

Sullivan’s friends and associates began a collection for him, raising £300, and presenting it to him upon his release. Sullivan, perhaps seeking to ride the fame of his Richmond martyrdom, immediately poured the money into the erection of the Grattan statue, a decision which was praised by nationalists throughout Ireland and the Irish in North

America.68 Sullivan capitalized on the approval of his decision to fund the Grattan monument, and announced that the Nation would gladly forward any donations to the

Grattan Monument Fund. The popularity of the Grattan monument amongst all classes and creeds delighted Sullivan. “Every sign and symptom of union between Protestants and Catholics for nationalist purposes,” T.D. reminisced, “was like an air from

Paradise.”69

While Sullivan was pleased by the success of the Grattan monument, he also decided to settle his scores with the advanced nationalists, and to vindicate himself from the myriad libels thrown against him in the Irishman. In 1869 Sullivan brought a case against Pigott, as proprietor of the Irishman, for every libel that had been used to tarnish his reputation since 1858. Because the Irishman had brazenly perpetuated those original accusations, Sullivan sought to clear his name of every false charge. The result of the trial

68 Sullivan, Memoir, 118-19; Nation, February 27, 1869.

69 Sullivan, Memoir, 119. 106 was a “complete and thorough exoneration of Mr. Sullivan from every charge and imputation against him,” in part due to the fact that Pigott was unable to verify the facts behind the accusations which the Irishman had echoed. Thus ended “a painful chapter in

[Sullivan’s] personal history.”70 With Stephens having been deposed from leadership of the IRB, and with many of the Fenians in jail, Sullivan’s vindication from advanced nationalist libel cleared the way for the reestablishment of a new constitutional association.

While Sullivan walked the fine line between defending Fenian prisoners and condemning Fenian journalists from 1867 to 1869, the Protestant lawyer and former M.P.

Isaac Butt had begun to reengage with nationalist politics. Butt had long believed that the

Union was only useful to Ireland inasmuch as its social and economic policies benefitted

Ireland, which he no longer found to be the case.71 The Fenian rising, F.S.L Lyons has asserted, had convinced Butt that federalism was the only possible solution to Ireland’s mismanagement.72 His reemergence into popular politics ultimately signaled the coming of the Home Government Association, which marked the culmination of Sullivan’s long sought-after goal. Seeking a middle-ground between the advanced and moderate nationalists, Butt had returned to defend the Fenian leaders during their trials and take a leading role in the amnesty movement, which sought an official pardon for the Fenians who had reportedly been mistreated during their internment. Sullivan also defended the

Fenians, albeit in the Nation, and lent equal support to the amnesty movement, promoting

70 Ibid, 114-18.

71 Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics,” 708.

72 F.S.L Lyons, Charles Stewart Parnell (London: Fontana/Collins, 1978), 42. 107 the creation of the Amnesty Association and the Amnesty Fund. Sullivan’s participation in the amnesty movement reflected his desire to end the feud between advanced and moderate nationalists – an end that was facilitated by the imprisonment of the most extreme members of the IRB.73

One sign of constitutional nationalism’s reviving prospects was a renewed interest in nationalist electioneering. The Longford election of 1869, which saw Martin contend against Reginald Greville Nugent, was ultimately a powerful symbolic victory for nationalism. Martin had become the popular choice for nationalists of all creeds, who strongly favored him over the younger and less experienced Nugent, the Whiggish son of the previous M.P. for Longford. Nationalists fought fiercely to elect Martin, but he was defeated by what was alleged to be foul play on the part of Nugent’s father, who intervened and was said to have bought the majority vote. Despite Martin’s loss, the battle for the Longford seat rallied Ireland’s disparate nationalists under one cause, which they soon applied to a wider agenda: Home Rule.74 While the Nation became crowded with articles and letters espousing the necessity of Home Rule, a “private meeting” was convened at the Bilton Hotel on May 19, 1870. By Sullivan’s account, it was “one of those meetings axiomatically held to be ‘impossible’ in Ireland,” and both he and Butt were in attendance. Indeed, it was an unlikely gathering of “the Orangemen and the

Ultramontane, the stanch Conservative and the sturdy Liberal, the Nationalist Repealer and the Imperial Unionist, [and] the Fenian sympathizer and the devoted loyalist.”75 As

73 Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics,” 708; Nation, November 23, 1868, December 12, 1868, December 19, 1868, January 23, 1869.

74 Sullivan, New Ireland, 429-443; Sullivan, Memoir, 120-23.

75 Sullivan, New Ireland, 444. 108 Kanter has noted, the meeting was composed of “forty-nine alienated Protestants and disaffected nationalists,” all of whom sought to establish a Home Rule campaign.76 The

“prime mover and chief organizer” of the meeting, which led to the establishment of the

Home Government Association, was none other than Butt, whose Protestant reputation drew in “a very respectable array of the Protestant gentry” and merchants of Dublin.

Although Sullivan held no primary role in the meeting, he staunchly supported Butt and propagandized the Home Government Association to the fullest of his abilities, which brought his Catholic nationalist audience into its fold.77 The founding of the Home

Government Association effectively marked the end of Sullivan’s struggle to launch a constitutional nationalist organization via the Nation, and freed him to pursue other ambitions after nearly a quarter century of toil in journalism.

By uniting nationalism with Catholicism Sullivan had managed to keep constitutional nationalism in the running, despite the machinations of the Irish Republic

Brotherhood and the enmity of Stephens. But for all of the Fenian malice Sullivan experienced, he was ultimately able to capitalize on the IRB’s slipshod and overzealous methods of conspiracy, which often landed its members in prison. Throughout the various crackdowns on Fenianism, Sullivan persisted with a kind of denounce-and-defend approach, which served his cause in multiple ways. During the Fenians’ extended internment in the later 1860s, Sullivan seems to have decided that a more sympathetic approach to the advanced nationalist cause might not only insulate him from potential attacks, but also serve to close the divide between the two long estranged branches of

76 Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics,” 709.

77 Sullivan, Memoir, 123. 109 Young Ireland. Sullivan’s Catholic nationalist papers, the Morning News and the Evening

News, allowed Sullivan to maintain the less profitable Nation, which served as his primary organ for the constitutional nationalist ideals of Young Ireland. They also enabled him to attract new Catholic readers. Sullivan’s nationalist and Catholic supporters helped to elect him to the Dublin Cooperation, which lent legitimacy to his nationalist pursuits and provided a platform from which he could speak with authority.

This position allowed Sullivan to broaden his reach, as he sought not only to propagate symbols of nationalism, such as the Grattan statue, but also to form constitutional nationalist associations. Ultimately, Butt’s return to popular politics after the Fenian

Rising heralded the rise of the Home Government Association, into which Sullivan zealously poured the remainder of his journalistic spirit, believing it to be the association he had for so long fought to create.

110 Conclusion

Ireland’s Faithful Servant

By 1870 Sullivan had finally helped to achieve what he set out to accomplish in

1858, when he resolved to revive the national party with William Smith O’Brien. Having entered Irish politics at a time when nationalism was at a low ebb, Sullivan managed to manipulate and co-opt the recently returned and cautious O’Brien, whom he propped up as the head of a new national party. But Sullivan encountered numerous difficulties in his efforts, the most serious of which related to James Stephens’ Phoenix Society, which was diametrically opposed to constitutional nationalist methods, despite broad agreement on the shared goal of establishing an independent Ireland. With its vehement desire to crush constitutional nationalism, Stephens’ conspiracy seriously threatened to smother

Sullivan’s fledgling revival of the national party. Amidst the constant harassment of the

Phoenix Society and its successor, the IRB, Sullivan managed to keep both himself and the Nation relevant by pivoting towards a more Catholic blend of nationalism. The key to his success lay in the establishment of the Evening News and the Morning News, which rapidly gained popularity among both the Catholic laity and the clergy.

Sullivan’s new Catholic direction also earned him the support of Archbishop

Cullen, with whom Sullivan played a critical role in the organization of the Irish Brigade.

By the 1860s, therefore, Sullivan had come through the initial Fenian assault – not unscathed – and evermore popular amongst the Catholic and moderate nationalist denizens of Ireland. His national prominence enabled him to win the position of Town

111 Councilor, which gave Young Ireland’s nationalist agenda new legitimacy. With the assistance of John Dillon, a fellow Young Irelander and Town Councilor, Sullivan was able to inspire a revival of political interest, though the Fenian movement still managed to dampen some of his efforts. Ironically, the aftermath of the failed Fenian rising of

1867 saw the emergence of Isaac Butt as a national leader, though Butt’s checkered personal and political life, to say nothing of his Protestantism, made him an unlikely nationalist hero. Yet, Sullivan was more than willing to support him up as the head of the nascent Home Rule movement. Ultimately, Butt helped to ensure the movement would not stall, allowing Sullivan to step away from the tiring pursuit of establishing a national organization and focus on the growth of one.

The establishment of the Home Government Association did not, however, signal the end of Sullivan’s involvement in popular politics, though it does mark the point at which Sullivan’s importance began to wane. Sullivan continued to champion the Home

Rule movement and those who represented it. As Moran has noted, he was one of the most notable propagandists of Home Rule.265 Indeed, between the foundation of the

Home Government Association in 1870 and Sullivan’s own election as M.P. for Louth in

1874, he provided crucial support for the successful election bids of two Protestant Home

Rulers, John Martin in January 1871, and Rowland Ponsonby Blennerhassett in January

1872.266 The following year marked the decline of the Sullivan’s role as a significant voice in Irish nationalist politics. In 1873 he made the surprising decision to enroll at the

King’s Inns, Dublin, as a law student. Additionally, the Home Government Association

265 Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 162.

266 Sullivan, Memoir, 123-25. 112 had, in the same year, restructured itself as the Home Rule League, an electioneering body, which allowed Sullivan to step further away from his role as a propagandist and focus more on a career in law. Furthermore, Sullivan’s own election as M.P. in 1874 was less a matter of hard-fought politics and more the result of a mad-dash for Home Rule candidates in the wake of Gladstone’s unexpected dissolution of Parliament in January

1874. Sullivan was one of 60 from the new Home Rule Party, one of the first significant third parties to sit in Parliament, though he served as more a skilled orator and back-up vote than a primary organizer of the Home Rule constituents.267

Both A.M. and T.D. suggested that he had apparently considered becoming a barrister for some time, but there was some controversy surrounding Sullivan’s decision to take up law. There seems to have been some concern about Sullivan’s decision to study law, as five years later he was still discussing it in personal correspondences. At the time Sullivan privately insisted that “Our friends who contend, as you tell me, that I

‘never contemplated joining the Irish Bar,’ are fully entitled to their opinion. But then there is the awkward fact that I not only ‘contemplated’ so doing, but have so done. I am a ‘Barrister-at-Law’ of the Irish Bar.”268 T.D. later asserted that Sullivan chose to pursue law because it would better qualify him as a Home Rule advocate, and that “he should be able to obtain some more adequate reward for his talents than was afforded by the profession of Irish journalism.”269 The latter reasoning was likely the primary driving force behind Sullivan’s decision, as by now, with a wife and at least one ten-year-old

267 Ibid., 128.

268 Alexander Martin Sullivan to C.F. McNally, Autographed Letters from A.M. Sullivan, December 21, 1878, NLI, MS 15714.

269 Sullivan, Memoir, 128.

113 daughter, Annie (though he appears to have had other children), his familial duties were mounting. Sullivan firmly believed that even a fraction of the energies expended in running a national journal would “result in the acquirement of fortune” if dedicated to any other profession. Ultimately, however, the Irish Bar proved troublesome for Sullivan.

His election to Parliament in 1874 came in the middle of his law studies, and many of the sitting barristers at the time held a grudge against him. Sullivan was, after some trouble, called to the Irish Bar on November 9, 1876. Six days later he took his leave of the

Nation offices, whose ownership passed into the hands of his older brother, T.D.

Sullivan. However, since T.D. had taken on the majority of the editorial duties by this time, this was little more than a formality.270

Sullivan’s most influential years were behind him. His difficulty in being called to the Irish Bar had diminished any hopes of actually practicing in Ireland, and a year later he was called to the English Bar.271 As Sullivan became more closely involved in

Parliament and the English Bar, his popular influence began to wane. As both Martin and

Moran have argued, Sullivan was a second-rate politician despite his reputation as an effective orator.272 Although T.D. noted that Sullivan was overjoyed at times of Catholic-

Protestant cooperation, this appears to have been a sentiment reserved specially for his national and religious aspirations. In the realm of politics, Sullivan strictly adhered to the policies of the Independent Opposition party. His unwillingness to work with either the conservative or liberal M.P.s quickly alienated him from those parties and further

270 Ibid., 130-31.

271 Ibid., 130.

272 Martin, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 87, 185; Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 360. 114 weakened his effectiveness as a politician.273 His role as an M.P. ultimately served as a supporting vote for Home Rule while Isaac Butt lead the movement, though he was later replaced by the more effective Charles Stewart Parnell.

Sullivan was reelected for Louth in 1880, but he chose not to sit for that county, as he found himself at great odds with Philip Callan, the senior M.P. for the constituency.

Sullivan was not, however, without a seat on Parliament. Charles Stewart Parnell, who had very emerged as the new face of the Home Rule movement, had won seats for Meath,

Cork, and Mayo. Parnell chose to sit for Cork, and in turn endorsed Sullivan for Meath, for which he was elected.274 Unfortunately, Sullivan was not to be active for long. In

March of the following year, Sullivan’s mental and physical health began to decline, primarily as a result of stress he endured in Parliament. It truly was, as Sullivan wrote,

“killing work,” and T.D. believed, when thinking back, that “It was killing A.M.

Sullivan. ... For him it was too much. His health was giving way under the strain.”275

In the summer of 1881 Sullivan collapsed while attending mass with his family at the Church of the Redemptorist Fathers at Clapham. He was kept at the church for two days, and moved to his home when he was well enough. But in this time Sullivan decided that it was time to retire from politics. Though his health improved, the damage was already done. While visiting Bantry in September 1884, Sullivan’s health again began to fail. Eventually he was moved to Dublin where, on October 17, 1884, “the final summons came to him, and he resignedly yielded up his spirit to God.”276

273 Moran, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 360.

274 Sullivan, Memoir, 134-36.

275 Ibid., 145-46.

276 Sullivan, Memoir, 147-49, 157-58; 115 Through the Nation, Sullivan served as a bridge between the constitutional nationalism of the late 1840s and the early 1870s, at which point he ceded pride of place to Butt, who emerged as the foremost voice of constitutional nationalism following the establishment of the Home Government Association. When not recalled as the foil of

James Stephens, Sullivan is often remembered for his minor part in Butt’s movement, and this has tended to overshadow the significant role he played in Irish politics between

1858 and 1870. His two modern biographers, Martin and Moran, both reflect this rather anachronistic perspective, albeit from different angles.277 As a journalist, and later an

M.P., Sullivan played distinctly different roles. Here, perhaps, Martin has depicted

Sullivan’s life as ultimately leading to the goal of becoming an M.P., rather than assessing Sullivan’s career in journalism on its own terms. In consequence, he has been too dismissive of Sullivan’s importance as proprietor and editor of the Nation.

When summarizing Sullivan’s role in post-Famine politics, Moran asserted that

Sullivan’s early endeavors as the editor of the Nation, namely his attempts to found a constitutional organization, ultimately proved to be failures. Though the organizations

Sullivan had endorsed or founded often came to naught, it is unlikely that Butt’s Home

Government Association would have managed to survive its fledgling days without the

Nation’s assistance. The popularity of the Nation, when considered with Sullivan’s early attempts at popular organization, proved that a moderate nationalist interest, large enough to constitute an organization, did indeed exist in the post-Famine period. The problem, however, was the absence of a leader who could foster interest in such an association.

Butt served as a mediocre, yet sufficient, ally in Sullivan’s pursuit of gathering moderate

277 Martin, “Alexander Martin Sullivan,” 185. 116 nationalists (and occasionally nationalists of all creeds) under one organization that could lobby for Irish interests. The key to the success of the association, however, was the noted decline of Fenianism, as well as the declining popularity of the Liberal prime minister, William Gladstone, whose promise to deliver reforms in the interest of Irish

Catholics was never satisfactorily redeemed. Perhaps, also, Sullivan’s persistence in keeping alive moderate nationalist values in the pursuit of an independent Ireland also played a role.

Sullivan never sought to be the face of constitutional nationalism, though he labored endlessly towards the goal of establishing a durable nationalist organization. This was clear from the moment he sought out O’Brien. Sullivan shifted from one prospective national leader to another, utilizing, in the Nation, prominent Irish figures as living symbols of the moderate nationalist movement, so long as they championed Irish national or cultural rights and avoided advanced nationalist rhetoric. In some ways Sullivan’s approach to politics could be understood as being rather inconsistent. But his political flexibility was in keeping with the broader nature of post-Famine politics. As Kanter has observed, in the post-Famine period political “boundaries were permeable, and ideologies overlapped.” Sullivan consistently supported Irish nationalism though he was also opportunistic in his willingness to use the most convenient movement or figurehead available at any given time. Kanter has, again, perhaps best summarized this phenomenon when he noted that “post-Famine political identities were fluid, relational and contextual, rather than rigid and fixed. … Political developments were contingent rather than foreordained, and appeared as such to contemporaries.”278

278 Kanter, “Post-Famine Politics, 1850-1879,” 692-3. 117 Sullivan’s aim while he oversaw the Nation was to ensure the continuity of constitutional nationalist modes of thought, and to do so in a manner that would strengthen the position and resolve of constitutional nationalists. Sullivan’s intimate involvement in the moderate nationalist movement of the 1850s to 1870s clearly demonstrates a significance which has been largely ignored in favor of the more traditional histories of rebellion and oppression. His devotion to the survival of nationalism during a lull in popular politics certainly warrants more consideration than has previously been afforded him as an historical figure. Additionally, Sullivan’s later involvement in politics was a natural extension of his concerns for Irish independence, and ought not to be viewed as a grab for power or a bid to take center stage, as has been suggested by both Martin and Moran.

Sullivan sought the most effective means to rouse enthusiasm in Ireland’s nationalists. He pursued neither fame nor power – rather he was most concerned with aiding Ireland and pushing those who could effect change into their necessary positions of leadership. In the end, he was content to be Ireland’s faithful servant. Given the formative influences on his political development, it is fitting that Sullivan’s “mortal remains” were “laid to rest. … near the mortuary church of Glasnevin and the O’Connell

Monument; in a right line between the two. The sound of the holy offices reaches to where his relics are laid; the shadow of the round tower falls upon his grave. No more befitting spot for the purpose to which it is dedicated could be found in all Ireland”279

279 Sullivan, Memoir, 7. 118 Bibliography

Primary Sources

1 – Books

Duffy, Charles Gavan. My Life in Two Hemispheres. 2 Vols. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1898 & London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1898.

——. Young Ireland: A Fragment of Irish History, 1840-1850. London: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co., 1880.

Sproule, John, ed. The Irish Industrial Exhibition of 1853: A Detailed Catalogue of Its Contents, with Critical Dissertations, Statistical Information, and Accounts of Manufacturing Processes in the Different Departments. Dublin: James McGlashan, 1854.

Sullivan, Alexander Martin. New Ireland. New York: Peter F. Collier, 1878.

——. The Phoenix Societies in Ireland and America, 1858 and 1862: A Letter, Etc., Etc. By Alexander M. Sullivan, Editor of “The Nation.” Dublin: Alexander M. Sullivan, 1862.

Sullivan, Timothy Daniel. A.M. Sullivan: A Memoir. Dublin: T.D. Sullivan, 1885.

——. Recollections of Troubled Times in Irish Politics. Dublin: Sealy, Bryers & Walker, 1905.

——. Bantry, Berehaven and the O’Sullivan Sept. Dublin: Sealy, Bryers & Walker, 1908.

2 – Journals

Cane, Robert. “Ireland United.” The Celt 1, no. 1 (March 1858): 1-5.

3 – Manuscripts

Autographed Letters from A.M. Sullivan, National Library of Ireland MS 15714.

Correspondence of William Smith O’Brien, National Library of Ireland MSS 446-447.

Four Letters by A.M. Sullivan, National Library of Ireland MS 10489.

119 Mayo Papers, National Library of Ireland, 11187.

Seamus ÓCasaide Papers, National Library of Ireland MS 10670.

Sullivan Letters and Papers, National Library of Ireland MS 46546.

Visitors Book of A.M. Sullivan, Prisoner in Richmond Jail, Dublin, 1868, National Library of Ireland, MS 4496.

4 – Newspapers

Advocate

Carlow Post

Commercial Journal

Cork Examiner

Dublin Evening Post

Dundalk Democrat

Freeman's Journal

Irish People

Kerry Evening Post

Kilkenny Journal, and Leinster Commercial and Literary Advertiser

Limerick and Clare Examiner

Limerick Reporter

London Daily News

Morning Post

Nation

Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser

Newry Telegraph

Northern Standard

120 Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier

Tipperary Free Press

Vindicator

Waterford News

5 – Government Documents

Hansard, 3rd series, volume 98.

Secondary Sources

Andrews, Ann. Newspapers and Newsmakers: The Dublin Nationalist Press in the Mid- Nineteenth Century. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014.

Comerford, Richard Vincent. “Churchmen, tenants, and independent opposition 1850­56.” In A New History of Ireland. Vol. 5, Ireland Under the Union, I, 1801- 1870, edited by W.E. Vaughan, 396-414. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

——. “Conspiring brotherhoods and contending elites, 1857­63.” In A New History of Ireland. Vol. 5, Ireland Under the Union, I, 1801-1870, edited by W.E. Vaughan, 415-29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

——. The Fenians in Context: Irish Politics and Society, 1848-82. Dublin: Wolfhound Press, 1985.

Donnelly Jr., James S. The Great Irish Potato Famine. UK: Sutton Publishing, 2001.

——. “Landlords and Tenants.” In A New History of Ireland. Vol. 5, Ireland Under the Union, I, 1801-1870, edited by W.E. Vaughan, 332-48. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Foster, R.F. Vivid Faces: The Revolutionary Generation in Ireland, 1890-1923. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2014.

Geoghegan, Patrick M. The Irish Act of Union: A Study in High Politics, 1798-1801. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan Ltd., 1999.

Kanter, Douglas. “Post-Famine Politics.” In The Cambridge History of Ireland, vol. 3. edited by James Kelly, 688-715. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Kelly, Matthew. “Irish Nationalist Opinion and the British Empire in the 1850s and 1860s.” Past & Present, no. 204 (2009): 127-154.

121

——. “Languages of Radicalism, Race, and Religion in Irish Nationalism: The French Affinity, 1848-1871.” Journal of British Studies 49, no. 4 (October 2010): 801- 825.

Larkin, Emmet. “The Devotional Revolution in Ireland, 1850-75.” The American Historical Review 77, no. 3 (1872): 625-652.

Lyons, F.S.L. Ireland Since the Famine. London: Morrison & Gibb Ltd., 1971.

——. Charles Stewart Parnell. London: Fontana/Collins, 1978.

MacDonagh, Oliver. The Emancipist: Daniel O’Connell, 1830-47. London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd., 1989.

Martin, T. F. “Alexander Martin Sullivan, 1829-1884.” MA Thesis. University College Cork, 1981.

McCaffrey, Lawrence J. The Irish Question, 1800-1922. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1968.

Moran, Ray. “Alexander Martin Sullivan (1829-1884) and Irish Cultural Nationalism.” MA Thesis. University College Cork, 1993.

Murphy, J.H. Ireland’s Czar: Gladstonian Government and the Lord Lieutenancies of the Red Earl Spencer, 1868-86. Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2014.

O’Connor, Anne. “The Pope, the Prelate, the Soldiers and the Controversy: Paul Cullen and the Irish Papal Brigade.” In Cardinal Paul Cullen and His World, edited by Dáire Keogh and Albert McDonnell, 329-49. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2011.

O’Hegarty, Patrick Sarsfield. A History of Ireland Under the Union, 1801-1922. London: Methuen, 1952.

Ramón, Marta. A Provisional Dictator: James Stephens and the Fenian Movement. Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2008.

Quinn, James. Young Ireland and the Writing of Irish History. Dublin: UCD Press, 2015.

Thompson, William Irwin. The Imagination of an Insurrection: Dublin, Easter 1916, A Study of an Ideological Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

122