The Book of Trinity College Dublin 1591-1891

by Ireland) Trinity College (Dublin

The usual form at Commencements at that time was, that the Proctor should first supplicate for the Degrees to be conferred, and obtain the suffrages of the Senate, after which being done, the oath and the declaration were read. On this occasion the Vice-Chancellor called on the Proctor to commence by reading the statutable oath. So far no objection was made; but when that officer proceeded to recite the declaration as of old, Miller immediately interfered, and reminded Lord Clare that this declaration had been abrogated by Act of Parliament, and assured him that if it were then insisted on he would, in his capacity as a member of the Caput, prevent any Degrees from being conferred.

Lord Clare was unprepared for this proceeding, and threatened to adjourn the Comitia. However, after referring to the Act, which Mr. Miller had by him, and after a consultation with Mr. Wolfe, the Attorney-General, who was present in the Hall for the purpose of taking the Degree of Doctor of Laws, Lord Clare soon saw that the clause in question, although conditional in the preamble, was peremptory in its enactment, and that the Senior Master Non-Regent was right in point of law. The declaration was not read, and the Commencement proceeded. Letters Patent were shortly afterwards passed making the necessary alteration in the College Statutes, and from that time Roman Catholics have taken lay Degrees without restriction.

It may therefore well be imagined that Lord Clare came in no very good humour to visit the College, and that he probably desired to show to the public that the Act of 1793 had been followed by the consequences which the old ascendency party had foreseen, and therefore urged against it. The second Visitor was Dr. Duigenan, a man intimate with the College in former years, and a very good judge of the characters of the Fellows, now that the old quarrels and animosities with the late Provost and his party had been superseded by far graver questions. I will let Dr. Stubbs narrate the proceedings in his own words.

The Vice-Chancellor, on opening the proceedings, intimated that the object of the Visitors was to inquire whether the disaffection imputed to the College was founded in reality, or was a mere rumour or surmise; and he announced his intention to punish with severity any of the members of the College who should be proved to be encouragers or abettors of treason or sedition. The roll of the College was called, and to every member, as he answered his name, an oath was tendered, and when sworn he was examined as to his knowledge of unlawful societies existing in College. Dr. Browne was asked as to his vote at the Board in the case of Ardagh and Power, and he acknowledged that he had considered expulsion too severe a measure, and therefore had, with two other Senior Fellows, voted for the rustication of the two Students for a year as a suitable punishment, and that he had publicly stated his opinion after the meeting of the Governing Body had terminated. For this open criticism of the decision of the Board he was strongly rebuked by Lord Clare.

Whitley Stokes, when questioned by the Vice-Chancellor, denied that he knew of the existence of societies of United Irishmen in the College, or of any illegal or secret societies within the walls. He admitted that he had been a member of the Society of United Irishmen in 1791, before their revolutionary tendencies had been developed; but he stated that from that period he had altogether dissociated himself from them. He admitted that he had professionally visited, as a physician, a man who was well known for his treasonable proclivities, but who was very ill and very poor, but always in company of a third person, lest his action might be misrepresented. He had also subscribed to a fund which was formed to relieve the necessities of two members of the United Irishmen who were in prison. The most reliable evidence was given on Dr. Stokes’ behalf that he had used his influence among the Students, which was considerable, to induce some of them to withdraw from treasonable associations, and to enroll their names among the members of the College corps, and that his efforts had been successful. In fact, Lord Clare was forced to admit the concurring testimony of so many respectable and independent witnesses in Dr. Stokes’ favour; at the same time he stated that he was a well-meaning man who had been led into great indiscretions.

The Students soon appeared to be reluctant to take the oath, partly because they declined to implicate others, partly because they were unwilling to make admissions which would criminate themselves. At the end of the first day there were fifty who had refused to be sworn. In consequence of this, Lord Clare intimated on the following day that if any of the Students who had been themselves implicated in the proceedings of these treasonable societies would come forward and admit the fact, and would promise that in future they would separate themselves from them, the Visitors would pass over their previous complicity with these associations. Among those who had first refused to take the oath was Thomas Moore. However, when the Vice-Chancellor had explained the matter to the Students, Moore complied, and denied that he had any knowledge of treasonable practices or societies in College. Many of the other Students who had at first declined to be sworn, on the second and third days of the Visitation came forward and confessed their errors. The result of the inquiry of the Visitors was the establishment of the fact that there were four committees of United Irishmen in the College, the secretaries of which were Robert Emmett, Peter M‘Laughlin, the younger Corbett, and Flynn. The sentence of the Visitors was to the effect that Thomas Robinson, Scholar, who had lent his rooms for the meetings of the United Irishmen, and who had in his sworn evidence before the Visitors prevaricated in his answers, was expelled from the College.

William Corbett, Dacre Hamilton, John Carroll, and David Shea, Scholars; and Thomas Corbett, Peter M‘Laughlin, Arthur Newport, John Browne, and George Keough, Students, were also expelled for contumacy in refusing to be sworn, and because they had fallen into the gravest suspicion, in the opinion of the Visitors, of being acquainted with, and partakers in, a seditious conspiracy.

Robert Emmett, Thomas Flynn, John Penefather Lamphier, Michael Farrall, Edward Barry, Thomas Bennett, Bernard Killen, and Patrick Fitzgerald, were expelled for contumacy in refusing to appear before the Visitors, and because there was the gravest suspicion that they were acquainted with, and had been partakers in, the conspiracy.

Martin John Ferrall was expelled because he admitted that he was acquainted with, and had been engaged in, this conspiracy, and because he had not informed the authorities of it, nor had been willing to do so.