Daniel O’Connell, Marquess Wellesley and the politics of Dublin Castle in the 1820s

Dr Síle McGuckian

In 1829 Daniel O’Connell stood at the pinnacle of his career. He was one of the most powerful men in , having achieved his life time goal of as well as his election as a member of parliament. However, only nine years earlier in 1820 O’Connell had had virtually nothing to show for more than a decade of political sacrifice and agitation. The 1820s were to prove to be the crucial decade of O’Connell’s career. He pursued every possible means of achieving his goals, and although his success when it came appeared to have been achieved far from the corridors of power in Dublin Castle, his interactions with the members of the Irish Administration were an integral part of his successful campaign. The years following the Act of Union in 1801 had been very barren ground for the Irish Catholic movement with successive British governments taking a hard line on any Catholic claims. In 1820 the Irish movement was split. In London the prime minister, Lord Liverpool, and the majority of his cabinet was strongly opposed to Emancipation, while in Dublin an uncompromising Protestant administration remained in charge in the Castle. The independent Irish parliament had been abolished in 1801, and replaced by a separate Irish administration in Dublin Castle that was overseen by London. The lord lieutenant, or viceroy, remained the head of the Irish administration and the Crown’s representative in Ireland. He dealt directly with the prime minister and the . Both of whom dealt with parliament and the King. The Chief Secretary was the cabinet member who was specifically responsible for Ireland. He divided his time between Dublin where he acted as chief administrator of Irish domestic affairs, and London where he was a member of the cabinet. For most of the period 1810-20, the conservative MP had been chief secretary. Under his tenure the members of the Irish administration had been united in their goal of protecting the interests of the Protestant ascendancy and opposing Catholic advances. The attorney general, William Saurin, the , Lord Manners, and the under-secretary William Gregory were all staunchly anti-Catholic. Indeed, all three were members of the Orange party. From O’Connell’s point of view there had been little to be gained from any dealings with the Irish administration. In 1820 O’Connell had determined to try a new approach, that of conciliation. George IV had finally succeeded his father as king, and while the early indications that he might have been sympathetic to the Catholic cause had taken a knock when he became regent, O’Connell was optimistic that he might yet prove less intransigent on the issue than his father. The announcement of the King’s proposed visit to Ireland in the summer of 1821 provided O’Connell with a direct opportunity to put his new plan into effect. Somewhat

1 unexpectedly, George IV was very warmly received throughout Ireland and O’Connell had been at the fore front of those welcoming him. Although O’Connell was criticised for his actions, he responded that he had always been, and remained, loyal to the crown as King or Queen of Ireland. He argued that Irish Protestants should have no monopoly on loyalism; Irish Catholics should also be viewed as full loyal subjects, and not under a cloud of constant suspicion. In the autumn of 1821 the prime minister announced that he intended to make a ‘clean sweep’ of the Irish administration. He announced that he was appointing the pro-Catholic politicians Marquess Wellesley as lord lieutenant and William Plunket as attorney general. However, their influence was greatly limited by the appointment of two pro- Protestant politicians, Henry Goulburn as chief secretary, and Peel in the role of home secretary. Richard, Marquess Wellesley was aged 62 at the time of his appointment and had been a highly successful Governor General in India, of Britain and had come tantalisingly close to becoming prime minister a decade earlier. Not only was he the first Irish born lord lieutenant to be appointed in over a century, he was also proud of his Irish birth and had taken a keen interest in Irish affairs throughout his life. Wellesley, like O’Connell, had consistently espoused many liberal views and although these beliefs had proved no impediment to his highly successful career as an imperialist in India, his life- long support for Catholic emancipation had proved extremely costly when in 1812 it had been one of the chief reasons that he had failed to become prime minister. Wellesley was sympathetic to the situation of the Irish Catholic population. He had supported the Union because he believed that it was likely to prove the best form of government for the Catholic majority. In Wellesley’s view equality and prosperity held the key to solving Ireland’s problems. Although on first appearances, O’Connell seemed to have little in common with the new viceroy, in fact the two shared a surprising number of similarities. Both were eighteenth century Enlightenment liberals and, certainly in 1821, both believed that under fair circumstances, Irish Catholics could be loyal subjects to the King and equal members of society. However, their commonalities were closer than their political outlook. Both were the eldest sons of precarious Irish families who had bet on their talents to safeguard their families’ futures. Wellesley’s Irish peerage was fairly recent, and his father had died when Wellesley was only 21 leaving no money, a mountain of debts and five younger siblings to look after. His family had made the financial sacrifice to send Wellesley to boarding school at Eton in England and the gamble had paid off. Wellesley had made close friendships among influential families and this allied with his sharp intelligence had allowed him to rise far in British politics. At the same time, he had closely supported his younger siblings. Although four of the Wellesley brothers eventually managed to win peerages in their own right (and his middle brother Arthur had become the Duke of Wellington) many members of the British establishment continued to regard the Wellesleys as Irish parvenus, and Marquess Wellesley, in particular, as very difficult to deal with. To O’Connell however, it appeared that he was someone with whom he could work. He wrote optimistically that

2 ‘Lord Wellesley is, I conceive the harbinger of Emancipation and is determined to put down the Orange faction.’ As far as the new attorney general, William Plunket was concerned, O’Connell was more ambivalent. Plunket had replaced the hard-line Orange supporter, William Saurin whom O’Connell had described as his ‘mortal foe’. However, Plunket was essentially a political rival of O’Connell’s. The previous year, on the death of Henry Grattan, and much to O’Connell’s disappointment, Plunket had been appointed spokesman for the Irish delegation to parliament, beating O’Connell’s friend, Maurice Fitzgerald, the Knight of Kerry to the position. O’Connell had also been strongly opposed to the Catholic Relief Bill that Plunket had brought to parliament earlier in 1821. His initial comments to his uncle Hunting Cap on Plunket’s appointment reflect his misgivings: ‘Mr. Plunket and I have had many meetings’ … I have got him to give up much of his obnoxious securities and I strongly hope that he will completely accede to our wishes’. As far as the rest of the administration was concerned, O’Connell disliked them all, both politically and personally. Robert Peel had been appointed home secretary in early 1822. O’Connell and Peel loathed each other. Throughout Peel’s tenure as chief secretary they had been strong and vocal opponents. O’Connell is credited with fixing Peel with his soubriquet ‘Orange Peel’ and in 1813 described him in a speech to the Catholic Board as a raw youth squeezed out of the workings of I know not what factory in England, and sent over to Ireland before he had got rid of the foppery of perfumed handkerchiefs and thin shoes, upon the simple ground that, having vindicated the murderous Walcherin expedition, he was thought to be a lad ready to vindicate anything and everything. O’Connell’s invective against Peel was as inventive as it was heartfelt. It was also highly effective. As a result of some incendiary comments O’Connell made about Peel in 1815 they had chased each other across Britain attempting to fight a duel. They were essentially rescued by O’Connell’s wife Mary, who horrified on learning of their plans, had alerted the authorities who called a halt to the affair. However, surprisingly, they appear to have had a degree of mutual respect. Peel recognised O’Connell’s exceptional ability as a politician and a lawyer. When O’Connell was described to Peel as a ‘low, broguing fellow’, Peel had responded that there was no one whom he would prefer as a counsel in a case in which he had a heavy interest. Correspondingly, in 1825 when O’Connell had made an apology to Peel for the events that had almost led to a duel, one of the reasons that he gave was that he had come to respect Peel for the reforms he had made as home secretary. As far as the chief secretary Henry Goulburn was concerned, O’Connell had no time for him or his policies. He described him as ‘as rancorous a supporter of all the abuses in the Church and in the Corporations and above all, in the Orange Lodges,’ concluding ‘He is a man of miserable intellect and only the more virulent on that account.’ Goulburn, in return, despised O’Connell considering him to be underhand and craven.

3 Lord Manners the lord chancellor hated O’Connell and O’Connell hated him back. Manners was a hard core Orange supporter who frequently clashed with Plunket and Wellesley, but he reserved his venom for O’Connell. As long as he remained lord chancellor there was never any chance that O’Connell would receive any advancement or his long desired patent of precedence. Although he too had to acknowledge O’Connell’s brilliance as a lawyer. In 1824 O’Connell wrote to his wife that you will be surprised to hear that the Lord Chancellor [Manners] at the last dinner given by the Lord-Lieutenant …. spoke of My talents in strong language. He said that in a [case] before him … I had made one of the best arguments he had heard since he came to Ireland. What do you think of that, darling? In January 1822, in spite of his misgivings about members of the Irish administration O’Connell moved an address of welcome to Wellesley proclaiming him to be ‘representative, not only of the person, but also of the kindly disposition of our beloved sovereign.’ He also intended to take advantage of Wellesley’s new policy of openly welcoming Catholics at vice-regal events, declaring that he proposed to ‘attend his levees as it will cost me nothing and will afford me perhaps some advantages.’ However, O’Connell was soon to be disappointed by the policies of the new administration. Throughout 1822 agrarian violence flared, and although there were outbreaks on his own estate in Kerry, O’Connell remained resolutely opposed to the Insurrection Act and suspension of habeas corpus which the government introduced. At the same time Plunket had made it clear to O’Connell that there was to be no petition to parliament on behalf of Catholic claims that year. O’Connell was also beginning to question Wellesley’s publicly stated intention to challenge the power of the Orange faction. Wellesley had talked up how he proposed to put an end to the violent Orange celebrations in July and November. In July he had quietly made arrangements with senior members of the Orange faction to voluntarily forgo the July celebrations in Dublin. O’Connell had not been informed and in frustration wrote an angry public letter on 11 July demanding that Wellesley enforce the law the next day by prohibiting the celebrations. Unfortunately, the result of the letter was to cause the Orange leaders to repudiate their agreement and the celebrations went ahead with a high degree of disorder and disturbance. The misunderstanding and failure of communication, was particularly unfortunate as all parties, O’Connell, the Orange faction and Wellesley felt hard done by. However, Wellesley didn’t give up. He convinced a reluctant Peel that it was absolutely necessary that the November Orange celebrations should be prohibited and finally succeeded with the aid of Dublin Lord Mayor. Members of the Orange faction were outraged. Angry demonstrations culminated in a ‘riot’ when Wellesley attended the Theatre Royal. Hyped up Orangemen shouted at and insulted the lord-lieutenant before pelting his party with fruit, bottles and pieces of wood.

4 While many moderate Protestants were appalled, O’Connell was delighted. On 20 December he addressed an aggregate meeting called by the lord Mayor and exulted to his wife that There never was such a meeting in Ireland. The Exchange was crowded to the greatest excess. I was the only person who made himself heard throughout. … The turn politics are taking in this town is really surprising. ... I never thought the Orangemen would have committed themselves as they have done. … You may imagine what a curious revolution it is in Dublin when the Catholics are admitted to be the only genuine loyalists. Several days later Christmas Eve members of the Catholic committee including O’Connell attended a levee at Dublin Castle where they presented Wellesley with a loyal address. In the months that followed, Wellesley and Plunket’s attempts to have the ring-leaders tried failed due to Orange collusion, and a number of well-connected Orange supporters who worked at the Castle were dismissed for insulting Wellesley. Other members of the Orange party had founded a newspaper called the Dublin Evening Mail in the spring of 1823. Although its professed object was to defend the Protestant ascendency, an observer noted that its real purpose had been ‘writing down Lord Wellesley’s government, and not a single number of that paper has been published without a personal attack upon his private or public conduct.’ Within a year of its publication the Mail had a circulation nearly three times as large as any other Dublin newspaper and Protestant juries were refusing to return any convictions for libels on Wellesley or his administration.

O’Connell had a ring side view of all of these developments. On 11 January 1823 he had dined at the lord lieutenant’s official residence in the Phoenix Park and noted to his wife that ‘I never abused the Orangemen in my days of what they called intemperance with half the violence with which they are now abused at the Castle. It is a delight to see these changes.’ A couple of weeks later O’Connell was part of the delegation that presented Wellesley with another loyal address. O’Connell offered to ‘raise a regiment of a 1000 men for them in Dublin’ to oppose Orange aggression and he wrote wistfully to his wife ‘How my poor troops would be delighted to be hunting Orangemen. I confess it would amuse me to have one good day’s running after the rascals.’ In the months that followed O’Connell remained positive about the possibilities that might come from Wellesley’s administration. However, by April he was becoming discouraged, writing that Politics are grown quieter here… Lord Wellesley is, I think, yielding to the Orange scoundrels. He cannot help it. He is not supported by anybody, but he will remain. That is the only comfort.

5 In April of that year O’Connell founded the . Even with its creation he was not completely finished with his conciliation. In June 1823 he wrote to Mary that he was still hopeful of obtaining a patent of precedence, as he had been told that Wellesley and the Irish administration had agreed that it should be granted to him when the timing was right.

At the end of December O’Connell made one last attempt at conciliation. At the annual dinner in aid of the Orphan’s Friend Society he spoke of ‘his Excellency’s excellent intentions with regard to Ireland’ but acknowledged that ‘they were rendered of no avail by the circumstances in which he was placed.’ The only thing that this last attempt earned him was a rebuke from Mary who wrote ‘I was amused love at your undeserved encomium on [Wellesley]. Surely, heart, if he was well inclined towards the Irish what was to prevent him from showing it by more than words.’ O’Connell was finally done with his attempts to conciliate the Castle. At the end of January he reassured Mary that while ‘the Lord-Lieutenant had a grand levee.’ … ‘I did not go near the old dotard,’ and that he would no longer waste any time ‘throwing away my countenance upon him.’ The Catholic Association was the subject of attention from the Castle but they were initially not too worried. Goulburn wrote to Wellesley in May 1823 I have no doubt that the body will be so carefully formed as to avoid the legal objection to which it was on former occasions liable and to throw any obstacle in the way of proving its illegality even if it should be illegally formed. Wellesley agreed writing ‘that no steps should be taken, without a strong necessity, and very mature deliberation.’

Throughout 1824 the Catholic Association continued to grow in influence. However, as it had managed to remain within the letter of law, the government looked for other ways to attack the movement. When O’Connell in a speech called for an Irish leader such as Simon Bolivar this was felt to be potentially actionable as seditious libel, and the government struck, seeking to initiate a prosecution against him. At the same time, they were obliged to bring a similar action against a hard-line Protestant agitator called Sir Harcourt Lees who was calling on Protestants to take up arms against the Catholics. Both actions failed much to the embarrassment of the government. In O’Connell’s case, no witness would swear to having heard the offending words, and in Harcourt’s case it was believed that no jury would convict a Protestant in a case brought on behalf of Wellesley and Plunket.

At the beginning of 1825 the government finally decided to take direct action to outlaw the Catholic Association and passed the Unlawful Societies Act. Peel had wished merely to ban the Catholic Association but Wellesley was adamant that both the Catholic and Orange parties should be banned. In March both organisations were disbanded.

6 Attention now turned from Dublin Castle to Westminster where that March another Catholic Relief Bill was before Parliament. In spite of the fact that the Bill contained ‘securities’ similar to those which O’Connell had previously rejected, he gave the Bill his support along with Plunket. Although it passed the House of Commons, it was once again rejected in the Lords. Back to Dublin and back to the drawing board for O’Connell. In July he founded the New Catholic Association. The members of the Castle administration were not initially overly concerned. They believed that O’Connell had lost a large degree of his authority through his actions of abandoning his previous strong objections to ‘securities’ and that this was compounded by the fact that the Bill had then failed to pass. O’Connell’s attentions were to be turned to the Castle once again in the Autumn of 1825 when Wellesley announced that he was to marry for a second time and that his new wife was a devout Catholic, the beautiful American widow Marianne Caton Patterson. O’Connell wrote to Mary The only [thing] talked of is the marriage of Lord Wellesley with Mrs Patterson who is the sister in law of the lady who married Jerome Bonaparte. She is a Catholic and a strict one. If you come up before she leaves you must go to the castle, but they say this marriage will hasten the removal of Lord Wellesley. Mary’s response was a little acerbic. ‘How found of rank and title the lady must be,’ she wondered. However, ever optimistic she mused that ‘Now that our Vice-Queen is a Catholic, perhaps your application to government will be listened to with a favourable ear.’ And she concluded ‘I hope she may have sufficient influence over the old Marquis to induce him to become a papist even in secret.’ The announcement of Wellesley’s engagement was completely unexpected, not least to Wellesley’s brother, the Duke of Wellington, who had been in love with Mrs Patterson for a number of years and was appalled at the news. The wedding required two ceremonies, the first by the Protestant Primate, Lord John Beresford, and the second privately in the viceroy’s residence in the Phoenix Park, by the Catholic , Dr . The King was reported to have been angry at the thought of a Catholic mass being celebrated in what was a Royal Lodge, but he sanctioned the marriage. The anti-Wellesley press had a field day. The Dublin Evening Mail swung between personal insults and mockery of Catholic ceremonies in the Castle. Noting that ‘at sixty- six, love will make an old man that has more toes than teeth attempt even a more foolish thing than dancing.’ A parody of a vice-regal levee announcement, declared ‘There will be a Rosary at the [vice-regal] lodge…. The ladies and gentlemen who attend are requested to bring their own beads.’ Goulburn fulminated ‘The thing is absurd enough in itself … Her being a Roman Catholic and a bigoted one will prove a serious inconvenience’. O’Connell wrote gleefully to Mary, that

7 ‘This marriage has, you may imagine, given some mortification to the Orangists. I wish the Marquis may be left here another year or two. It would be pleasant to observe the discountenance which a Catholic vice-queen would necessarily throw upon the ribaldry of the opposing faction.’ He regaled her with a tale of how She dined some days ago with Saurin and someone introduced Catholic politics. Saurin at once damned Pope and Popery to the lowest pit of Hell. She said nothing at the time, but before dinner was quite over she took the occasion to mention her being a Catholic just as a matter of course. You may judge Saurin’s confusion. He said nothing but next day she got from him a long apology which of course she disregarded. In the Election of 1826 O’Connell and the New Catholic Association performed very well, exceeding all expectations. However, Liverpool’s government was returned to power and, much to O’Connell’s frustration, there was initially no change in the Irish administration. Then in February 1827 Liverpool suffered a stroke. In May the liberal tory who had long been a strong supporter of Catholic emancipation became prime minister. However, Canning made it clear that while his administration was sympathetic to the Catholic cause, his cabinet would continue Liverpool’s policy of neutrality. Peel and Goulburn both resigned their positions, to be replaced by the liberals Lord Lansdowne as home secretary, and William Lambe, the future lord Melbourne, as chief secretary. Plunket was appointed chief justice. Wellesley was to remain in place but be replaced in the new year by the Marquess of Anglesey, who was at the time regarded as being sympathetic to the ‘Protestant’ cause. O’Connell had had an agreement with Canning that the New Catholic Association would maintain a quiet profile in order to give space to a government that was more sympathetic to the Catholic cause. Canning died suddenly in August and was succeeded as prime minister by Lord Goderich. Although O’Connell continued to uphold his end of the agreement, by the end of 1827 he was thoroughly disillusioned with the new administration noting that ‘All the acts of the Administration convince me that they are determined to give us good words as long as they can delude, but their acts, their acts are unequivocal.’ He was now very critical of Wellesley writing to Mary The old Marquis is going. His friends are very anxious to get for him some tribute of popular applause at his departure but I do not agree. He did nothing for the Catholics. As to myself he was remarkably inattentive to me …. Wellesley was replaced by Lord Anglesey in February 1828. O’Connell had no great hopes for Anglesey whom he believed would be overwhelmed by the members of the Orange party. However, he continued to exercise forbearance on the new administration. Goderich’s government fell in December 1827 and the Duke of Wellington was appointed prime minister in January 1828. He initially left Lord Anglesey in place, who in spite of O’Connell’s concerns, had proved to be such a strong supporter of the Catholic

8 cause, that Wellington accused him of having been ‘bitten by a mad papist’ and ordered his return to London in early 1829. Events then moved far beyond the influence of Dublin castle. O’Connell was elected as MP for Clare and the sheer scale of his support finally convinced Wellington that he had no option but to grant Emancipation. The Catholic Relief Act was passed in April 1829 and O’Connell was elected for a second time on 30th July; he was once again MP for Clare, but this time he was able to take his seat in Parliament. Throughout the 1820s, O’Connell had waged his campaign on every possible front, and although his ultimate success appeared to have been achieved far from the corridors of Dublin Castle, his interactions with the members of the Irish administration had played an important role in his over-all strategy. Not least because it had afforded him the opportunity to take the measure of his opponents, and, conversely, it had allowed them to realise his implacable determination to achieve his goal. As the 1820s ended O’Connell’s attention moved far from Dublin Castle and focussed on the centre of power in Westminster.

Dr Síle McGuckian is an independent scholar and is currently writing a biography of Richard Marquess Wellesley.

9