Advertisement

Opposing Emancipation, 1813–29

  • Stuart Andrews
Chapter
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

In 1816 Robert Peel, who would exert a major influence on Britain’s Irish policy for the next 30 years, boasted to Lord Sidmouth: ‘We have no Catholic Board — nor any factious association under any denomination — no aggregate meetings — no itinerant orators and what is much better — there is no disposition to receive them with any sort of applause or encouragement/1 That same year, the British Critic began a 20-page review on a similarly self-congratulatory note: ‘It must be a source of much satisfaction to every thinking mind, that the great question of CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION, which has now for so many years agitated and divided the British nation, is no longer a rallying point of political animosity or a watch-word of contending factions’. The reviewer contrasted this happy state of affairs with May 1813 ‘when Mr Grattane bill with Mr Canning’s amendment, was expected to have been carried through the House with a triumphant majority’.2

Keywords

Parliamentary Committee Catholic Bishop Habeas Corpus Irish Language Monthly Magazine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 7.
    See F. C. Mather, High Church Prophet: Bishop Samuel Horssley (1733–1806) and the Caroline tradition in the late Georgian Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) pp. 113–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 12.
    G. Burgess, Remarks on the leading arguments in favour of Catholic Emancipation 2nd edn (London, Cambridge, Norwich etc, 1813) in AJR 45 (July 1813) p. 37.Google Scholar
  3. 17.
    F. Plowden, History of Ireland, from its invasion under Henry II to its union with Great Britain (1812).Google Scholar
  4. 22.
    See R. Dunlop, Daniel O’Connell and the revival of national life in Ireland (London and New York, 1900) pp. 81–5.Google Scholar
  5. 28.
    H. Marsh, Comparative view of the churches of England and Rome (London and Cambridge, 1814) in BC 2nd series 3 (May 1815) p. 516.Google Scholar
  6. 31.
    J. L. Sack, ‘Memory of Burke and the memory of Pitt’ in Historical Journal 39 (Sep. 1987) pp. 636–7.Google Scholar
  7. 35.
    R. Mant, Charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Killaloe, at the primary visitation, Thursday August 8, 1820 (1821); 15 (Apr. 1821) p. 403.Google Scholar
  8. 36.
    C. Butler, Book of the Roman Catholic Church; in a series of letters addressed to Robt Southey, Esq., LL.D on his ‘Book of the Church’ (1825).Google Scholar
  9. 49.
    Rev. Dr H. Philpotts, Letters to Charles Butler, Esq., on the theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church, with remarks on certain works of Dr Milner and Dr Lingard, and on some parts of the evidence of Dr Doyle before the two committees of the houses of parliament (1825).Google Scholar
  10. 51.
    W. Phelan and M. O’Sullivan, Digest of the evidence taken before select committees of both houses of parliament, appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland… (1826).Google Scholar
  11. 54.
    J. K. L. [James Doyle] to the late charge of the Most Reverend Doctor Magee (Dublin, 1827).Google Scholar
  12. Cashel’s Charge delivered at the triennial visitation of the province of Munster in the year 1826 (Dublin and London, 1826).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stuart Andrews 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Andrews

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations