Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:56:12.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Repercussions of the Act of Union on the Church of Ireland, 1801–1820

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Edward Brynn
Edward Brynn
Affiliation:
Mr. Brynn is associate professor of history in the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

William Pitt's decision to seek the abolition of the independent Irish parliament and the union of the established churches in Ireland and England ended a quarter century experiment in Irish legislative independence. During this brief period the penal system had been substantially modified, and the traditional Protestant ascendancy partially dismantled by liberal Protestants themselves. The Church of Ireland, however, had not shared in the enthusiasm of this Irish “renaissance”; parliamentary spokesmen had demanded abolition of the tithe, enforcement of clerical residence, endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy and elimination of abuses in ecclesiastical patronage. Anticlericalism had increased, tithe resistance had infected even Protestant tenants, and pamphlets condemning the Church of Ireland as the unholy wonder of Christendom were penned by Protestants themselves. The alarm of Irish churchmen only too aware of the fundamental weaknesses of the established church, the clamor of British peers with large Irish landholdings and the outbreak of rebellion in 1797, finally convinced British statesmen that the crisis could be relieved only by the abolition of the Irish legislature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 1971 , pp. 284 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. “Protestant” genereally referred only to members of the established church in this period; this terminology will be employed in this paper.

2. For a more detailed discussion of these developments see Burns, R. E., “Parsons, Priests, and People: The Rise of Irish Anti-Clericalism 1785–1789,” Church History 31 (1962), 151–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. MacDonagh, Michael, The Viceroy's Post-Bag: Correspondence Hitherto Unpublished of the Earl of Hardwicke, First Lord Lieutenant of Ireland after the Union (London: John Murray, 1904)Google Scholar; Bolton, G. C., The Passing of the Irish Act of Union (London: Oxford University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

4. Edward Cooke to Castlereagh, June 17, 1801, Thomas O'Beirne, bishop of Meath, to Castlereagh, June 23, 1800, memorandum, n. d., memorandum, Sept. 1800, Stewart, Robert, Castlereagh, Viscount, Correspondence, Despatches and Other Papers (First series; London: Longmans and Co., 1848-1853) IV, 110, III, 360, II, 70–71, IV, 193–98, 206–10.Google Scholar

5. O'Beirne to Castlereagh, May 10, 1800, Castlereagh, , Correspondence, III, 1–9Google Scholar. Only two bishops continued to oppose the union after Castlereagh had applied pressure and promised rewards. But opposition to the administrative union of the two churches remained strong. Alexander Knox, bishop of Derry, noted the Church of Ireland's exposed position as a result of its continued autonomy: “The union between the countries has been substantiated by effective arrangements. But in ecclesiastical matters the Churches are regarded as separate institutions when it is convenient to attack one part and not another; they are regarded as a single Church when it is desired to attack the entire Church for an abuse which exists in only one portion.” Knox to the Irish administration, June 4, 1816, National Library of Ireland, MS 13,385, “Fiften Documents Relating to Tithes, c. 1837.”

6. MacDonagh, , Post-Bag, pp. 94–95Google Scholar; Agar to Hardwicke, Oct. 26, 1801, B[ritish] M[useum], Hardwicke MSS, 37531/131.

7. Butson to Cooke, June 25, 1799, Ireland, P. R. 0., Calendar of State Papers, Vol. 513, No. 73/3, quoted in Bolton, , Union, p. 150Google Scholar; Agar to Hardwicke, Oct. 26, 1801, Feb. 23, 1805, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35731/131, 35756/235; MacDonagh, , Post-Bag, pp. 43–46.Google Scholar

8. William Stuart to Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth, Nov. 27, 1801, quoted in MacDonagh, , Post-Bag, pp. 98–100.Google Scholar

9. Hardwicke to Stuart, Dec. 22, 1801, Charles Abbot, Irish chief secretary, to Stuart, Dec. 23, 1801, quoted in MacDonagh, , Post-Bag, pp. 100–104.Google Scholar

10. Hardwicke to Addington, Dec. 28, 1801, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35771/163.

11. Hardwicke to Addington, Dec. 29, 1801, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35771/166; Charles Lindsay, secretary to Hardwicke, to Hardwicke, Jan. 5, 1802, quoted in MacDonagh, , Post-Bag, p. 112Google Scholar; Stuart to Addington, Jan. 14, 1802, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35771/181.

12. Ely to Addington, Sept. 30, 1803, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35774/255.

13. Hawkesbury to Hardwicke, May 20, 1804, quoted in MacDonagh, , Post-Bag, pp. 136–37.Google Scholar

14. Cleaver to Hardwicke, July 14, 1807, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35767/115.

15. Stock to Hardwicke, Jan. 11, 806, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35764/221.

16. Warburton to Stuart, April 2, 1810, N[ational] L[ibrary] of I[reland], Richmond MSS, 63/60.

17. Stuart to Richmond, April 18, 1810, April 25, 1810, NLI, Richmond MSS, 63/900, 902.

18. Liverpool to Marquis Wellesley, Aug. 19, 1826, BM, Liverpool MSS, 37304/177–8.

19. As noted by Warburton to George Nugent-Temple, 1st Marquess of Buckingham, Jan. 12, 1798, Great Britain, Historical Manuscripts Commission, “Report on the Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue Preserved at Dropmore,” IV, 55–56.Google Scholar

20. Stock to Hardwicke, Oct. 31, 1805; Knox to Hardwicke, Oct. 26, 1802; Knox to W. Wickham, Aug. 19, 1803; Lindsay to Hardwicke, Oct. 13, 1805; Butson to Hardwicke, Sept. 10, 1805, March 1806, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35763/78, 35736/258, 35741/284, 35762/237, 42, 35766/344.

21. Butson to Hardwicke, Sept. 10, 1805, March 1806, BM, Hardwicke MSS 35762/42, 35766/344.

22. Lindsay to Hardwicke, Oct. 13, 1805; Knox to Hardwicke, Oct. 26, 1802, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35862/237; 35736/258.

23. The Clarke correspondence and the Mayne papers, housed in the Northern Ireland Public Record Office, comprise a rich record of parochial developments in the Church of Ireland between 1800 and 1815. I have outlined the major themes of absenteeism, tithe litigation and conflicts between lay magnates and a reforming bishop for control of church patronage in an article entitled “A Church of Ireland Diocese in the Age of Catholic Emancipation,” scheduled for September 1971 publication in The Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

24. Brodrick to Stuart, Nov. 25, 1802, NLI Brodrick MSS, 8869/1; Brodrick to Hardwicke, Nov. 11, 1804, BM, Hardwicke MSS, 35753/200.

25. O'Beirne to Abbot, Jan. 11, 1802, March 8, 1802, cited in Abbot, Charles, Colchester, Baron, Diary and Correspondence (London: John Murray, 1861), I, 345, 404–5.Google Scholar

26. Ibid.

27. Brodrick to Stuart, Nov. 25, 1802, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/1; Great Britain, Parliament, Sessional Papers, Vol. I (1802–1803), pp. 371–87, 529–37, “Bill to enable the Commissioners of First Fruits in Ireland to lend certain sums of Money to Incumbents of Benefices there…” The bill as enacted into law allowed trustees and commissioners of the Board of First Fruits to lend funds up to a percentage in excess of the income of the benefice. The incumbent and his successors were obliged to take a bond noting this obligation. Failure to repay as stipulated allowed bishops to sequester whatever parish revenues were available until the deficit was eliminated.

28. Stuart to Brodrick, March 15, 1803, June 19, 1803, June 26, 1803, Jan. 29, 1804, Feb. 27, 1804, Feb. 18, 1804, March 12, 1804, May 8, 1804, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/1, 2.

29. Stuart to Brodrick, Aug 21, 1804, Brodrick MSS, 8869/3.

30. Ibid., April 19, 1805, Brodrick MSS, 8869/3.

31. Stuart to Elliott, April 8, 1806, Hist. Manus. Com., Fortescue MSS, VIII, 90.Google Scholar

32. Ibid.

33. Earl Spencer to the Duke of Bedford, June 18, 1806; Bedford to the Irish Archbishops, July 16, 1806; Great Britain, Parliament, British Sessional Papers, Vol. V (1807), pp. 61ffGoogle Scholar. The reports, extending to 300 pages, provide information on the size and annual income of benefices, the number and extent of unions, the condition of churches, glebe houses and glebe lands, the resident or non-resident status of beneficed clergy and curates and reasons for absence. Bishops were requested to add observations on the need for further legislation to enforce residence, accelerate construction of Church facilities and discourage further unions of parishes; most believed existing legislation sufficient, if enforced vigorously. Many of the returns were unsatisfactory, as Archbishop Stuart was quick to note. In several dioceses no attempt was made to account for the absence of some beneficed clergymen, to ascertain the condition of churches, or even to resolve inconsistencies in parochial summaries.

34. British Sessional Papers, Vol. V (1807), pp. 55ff.Google Scholar

35. Ibid.

36. Great Britain, Parliament, Sessional Papers, “A bill for enforcing the residence of spiritual persons on their benefices, in Ireland,” Vol. I (1806), pp. 13–20Google Scholar. Resubmitted in 1808 in Vol. I (1808), pp. 279–85.

37. Stuart to Brodrick, April 29, 1806, July 1, 1806, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/1.

38. Ibid., March 24, 1808, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/5.

39. Duke of Bedford to Grenville, May 2, 1806, Hist. Manus. Com., Fortescue MSS. VIII, 128–29.Google Scholar

40. Perceval to Richmond, n. d., NLI, Richmond MSS, 63/900.

41. Wellesley to O'Beirne, May 25, 1808, cited in Wellington, , Civil Correspondence, p. 442.Google Scholar

42. Stuart to Brodrick, April 24, 1806, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/4; Grenville to Elliot, April 16, 1806; and Bedford to Grenville, April 4, 1806, April 14, 1806, Hist. Manus. Com., Fortescue MSS, VIII, 100, 97.Google Scholar

43. Stuart to Brodrick, March 24, 1808, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/5; Stuart to Brodrick, April 8, 1806; Grenville to Bedford, April 18, 1806; Stuart to Bedford, April 27, 1806, Hist. Manus. Com., Fortescue MSS, VIII, 90, 105, 130–31.Google Scholar

44. See, for example, Stuart's correspondence with Brodrick on the following dates: July 9, 1809; Dec. 11, 1809; June 10, 1810; June 18, 1810; June 28, 1810; March 1, 1812; April 24, 1812; May 10, 1812; March 21, 1814; April 14, 1814; Feb. 20, 1816; Brodrick MSS, 8869/3, 4, 5.

45. Stuart to Brodrick, March 24, 1808, July 9, 1809, Dec. 11, 1809, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/5.

46. Condon, Mary, “The Irish Church and the Reform Ministries,” Journal of British Studies, Vol. I (1964), PP. 120–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kriegel, A. D., “The Politics of the Whigs in Opposition 1834–35,” J. Br. Studies, Vol. 7 (1968), pp. 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. British Sessional Papers, Vol. V (1807), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar; Vol. IX (1820), pp. 100ff.

48. Some ancient parishes encompassed only a few acres; one in Munster was graced by a single building, a decayed warehouse devoted, it was determined on a close examination, to the storage of illegally distilled spirits.

49. Stuart to Brodrick, March 21, April 14, 1814, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/7.

50. Ibid., July 5, 1819, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8869/8.

51. Bishop of Cloyne to Brodrick, Oct. 2, 1819, NLI, Brodrick MSS, 8892/1.

52. See Madden, Samuel, Memoir of the Life of the Late Rev. Peter Roe (Dublin, 1842).Google Scholar

53. Liverpool to Earl Talbot, Sept. 19, 1819, BM, Liverpool MSS, 38279/323.

54. Liverpool to the Marquis Wellesley, Aug. 19, 1826, BM, Liverpool MSS, 37304/177–8.

55. This is brought out in Brose, Olive Johnson, Church and Parliament: The Reshaping of the Church of England 1828–1860 (Stanford: University Press, 1959).Google Scholar