Ireland under the Stuarts and During the Interregnum, Vol. 3 (of 3), 1660-1690

by Richard Bagwell

which is discountenanced at Rome.

Primate O’Reilly was summoned to Rome in 1660, and arrived there at the end of 1661 soon after the Remonstrance was signed. He stayed three years, so that he knew, even if he did not inspire, the proceedings of the Roman Court in the matter. As a partisan of Rinuccini and opponent of the peace of 1648 he had been accused of being a firebrand, and the clergy of his province now testified in his favour as an earnest and devoted priest, who had suffered many things for denying the royal supremacy. Ever since his arrival in Ireland in October 1659 he had ‘lurked in woods, mountain caves, and similar hiding-places, with no bed but straw or hay and a cloak thrown over it, without comforts, contented with coarse bread, butter and flesh, drinking beer, water or milk, without wine except for the sacrament, and all day without a fire.’ He was careful not to commit himself by public utterances at Rome, but the action of the Curia was not long delayed. In July 1662, just as Ormonde was starting to assume the government of Ireland, Jerome de Vecchiis, the internuncio at Brussels, who had authority in the Irish Church, wrote to Bishop Darcy and to Friar Duff, who had also signed the Remonstrance, declaring that it contained propositions already condemned by the Holy See. Both letters fell into Clarendon’s hands. Still more strongly, and on the same ground, did Francesco Barberini blame the Irish gentlemen in the name of Pope and Propaganda. Before the year was out the theological faculty at Louvain condemned the Remonstrance, declaring that the guilt of sacrilege would rest alike on those who signed it in future or refused to revoke signatures already given. And this was significantly dated ‘on the day consecrated to the martyrdom of the glorious pontiff Thomas of Canterbury,’ formerly Primate of England.[53]

The Remonstrance hangs fire.

Royal and papal claims found incompatible.

Out of more than two thousand priests in Ireland, only seventy signed the Remonstrance, and but sixteen of these were of the secular clergy. Among the fifty-four Regulars all but ten were Franciscans. The lay signatures were 164. Even in his own order the majority soon appeared to be against Walsh, and ultimately agreed to a much weaker declaration of their own, which contained no definite mention of the Pope and was at once rejected by Ormonde as inadequate. Having made but little progress in Ireland, Walsh went to London in August 1664, and shortly afterwards heard that the internuncio had come there secretly. A meeting was arranged ‘in the back-yard at Somerset House,’ De Vecchiis being accompanied by Patrick Maginn, one of the Queen’s chaplains, and Walsh by his friend Caron. In argument the Roman representative was perhaps no match for the two learned Franciscans, but he took his stand on the fact of the Remonstrance being condemned by the Pope. To the assertion that His Holiness had been misinformed, he answered angrily that he was the informant—ego informavi. Caron continuing to urge that the Remonstrance contained nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine; he answered, ‘so you think, but the Apostolic See thinks differently.’ He seems nevertheless to have really wished for some accommodation, and suggested that a papal bull might be issued ordering the Irish to obey the King on pain of excommunication. This was plainly inadmissible as it made civil allegiance depend on the Pope; and the internuncio then proposed that His Holiness should create as many bishops as the King chose to name, and that these prelates should have power to banish from Ireland all clergymen whom they found disobedient to their Sovereign. Walsh liked this idea better than the other, but objected that the King, if he was a Catholic, could appoint what bishops he liked, but that he was in fact a Protestant and that the Pope had condemned the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, while the clergy had to swear fidelity to him. Moreover, the King could banish rebellious subjects without any help from Rome, and the total result of the proposed concordat would be to make ecclesiastics wholly independent of the Crown. The conference, which lasted three hours, ended in nothing as such encounters usually do, and De Vecchiis soon returned to Brussels, but afterwards made another effort in which he was assisted by Aubigny who still hoped for the red hat. Walsh and Caron were verbally invited over to Flanders, and to the latter a letter was sent inviting him to discuss the matter in dispute with his brethren at Brussels and Louvain, and describing the Remonstrance as a rock of offence (lapis scandali). Caron, who was ill and busy with controversial writing, refused to go, telling his colleague that he would not have done so in any case, for that the Court of Rome required a blind submission and no debate. Walsh was anxious to accept the invitation, and extracted Ormonde’s unwilling consent, but the King forbade him to stir, and Clarendon reminded him that he was a marked man on account of his opposition to Rinuccini, that safe conducts might not be regarded in such a case, and that the fate of Huss might be his. Walsh then restated his case in two very long letters, and to these he received no answer.[54]

A congregation summoned

Ormonde landed at Waterford on September 3, 1665, bringing the Act of Explanation with him. Father Maginn, who had been at the Somerset House interview, travelled with him, and went on to Dublin; while the Lord Lieutenant stayed at Kilkenny looking after his own affairs and waiting for the momentous law to be printed. Walsh had crossed by Holyhead and met Maginn, who offered to solicit subscriptions to the Remonstrance among his friends in the North, and went to Ulster for that purpose. He had but little success, and Walsh made up his mind that the only chance was a national congregation which he had opposed in 1662, chiefly on the ground that all previous assemblies of the clergy had ended badly for the Crown. The reasons which now weighed with him were the evident wish of O’Reilly and others to revisit Ireland, the prospect of war with France and Holland, and the probability that dangerous intrigues in Ireland would be defeated if the clergy could be induced to make a declaration of loyalty. Moreover, he fancied that he had himself gained influence and popularity by his answer to Orrery’s pamphlet. Bishop Darcy was now dead, but Patrick Plunket, Bishop of Ardagh, who lived in Dublin with his brother Sir Nicholas, was willing to sign the letter of invitation, along with Patrick Daly, Oliver Dease, and James Dempsey, vicars-general of Armagh, Meath, and Dublin. Dempsey was very reluctant, but his letters demanding a national congregation in 1662 were produced and he submitted. There was a general desire to postpone the day of meeting, and this did not promise success. Walsh suggested February, but the winter was objected to. After Easter the clergy would be collecting their revenue for the year, and ‘because horse-meat would be then scarce, they insisted upon the 11th of June as a time when the weather being warm and grass of some growth they might travel with more conveniency.’ Walsh had to accept the date, though he foresaw that time would thus be given to the enemies of his policy at Rome. The letters of invitation were signed on November 18 but not sent out until February, and Archbishop Burke of Tuam, who was in Ireland but refused to attend, observed sarcastically that his summons had been a long time on the road.[55]

Ormonde, Walsh, and O’Reilly.

Walsh had offered to intercede with Ormonde for Archbishop O’Reilly. This was soon after the Restoration, and the Primate reminded the friar of his promise when he left Rome in 1665. After some correspondence O’Reilly addressed the Lord Lieutenant in a very submissive tone. He ‘was the publican standing far off and not daring to lift his eyes to heaven, who begged for a share of His Majesty’s unparalleled mercies and solemnly promised compliance with his will as became a faithful subject.’ If otherwise, he concluded, ‘who am I? but a worm, the reproach of mankind, the vilitie of the people, a dead dog, a flea.’ This was written before the Congregation was decided on, and after the invitations had gone out Ormonde gave leave to Walsh to let the Archbishop know that he might come home safely provided that he would sign the Remonstrance. Walsh transmitted this assurance in four separate letters, but only in the second did he mention the condition. O’Reilly expressly says that this second missive was never received by him, otherwise he would not have come to Ireland. As it was he wrote to Walsh wishing success to the expected gathering and enclosing a letter to the members. The latter was purposely left open, and Walsh never presented it, for it avoided any approval of the Remonstrance and suggested that they should devise a fresh one. Walsh, he said, nevertheless deserved thanks for his pains, and he proposed to subscribe 13l. towards the expenses out of his slender revenue.[56]