No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
The case of Connelly v Connelly on the face of it simply concerned a suit by a husband for the restitution of conjugal rights. It became interlocked, however, with wider and deeper issues in Victorian England at a time when the Roman Catholic hierarchy was restored in 1850 and there was an upsurge in anti-Catholic sentiment. Both litigants were extraordinary and led eventful lives, and the cause of canonisation of the wife (Cornelia Connelly) is in progress. In a broad context, this article examines in detail the litigation between the spouses first at the Court of Arches in 1849–1850, and then on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1851. The litigation was inconclusive, and the case was eventually abandoned by the husband.
1 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 85 (1993) 82–85;Google Scholar translation in Woestman, W H (ed), Canonization. Theology, History, Process (Ottawa, 2002), pp 261–263.Google Scholar
2 Paz, D G, Popular Anti-Catholicism in Mid-Victorian England (Stanford, 1992).Google Scholar
3 Ker, I, John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford, 1988), pp 372–375, 397–399.Google Scholar
4 Acta Apostolicate Sedis 83 (1991) 365–369.Google Scholar
5 McCarthy, C, The Spirituality of Cornelia Connelly: In God. For God, with God (Lewiston, 1986).Google Scholar
6 Wadham, J, The Case of Cornelia Connelly (London, 1956), pp 308–309, lists Pierce's publications.Google Scholar
7 Wadham, p 151.Google Scholar
8 A few days later, Ullathorne wrote: ‘I shall do nothing with reference to Mr C until canonically obliged to do so’: Wadham, p 154.Google Scholar
9 After the litigation was over, see Petition of Pierce Connelly, Clerk (Requesting that the House of Commons order the suppression of convents. With special reference to Cardinal Wiseman and Cornelia Augusta Connelly) 1852; Wadham, pp 308–309.Google Scholar
10 Wadham, pp 159–160.Google Scholar
11 There is a lengthy report of the case in The English Reports CLXIII, Ecclesiatical, Admiralty, and Probate and Divorce III, pp. 1291–1314 [2 Rob Eccl 203], and page numbers refer to these Reports.Google Scholar
12 M Barber, ‘Records of the Court of Arches in Lambeth Palace Library’ (1993) 3 Ecc LJ 10–19 at p 10;Google ScholarPhillimore, R, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (London, 1873) vol II, pp 1278–1279.Google Scholar
13 Cox, J., Hatred Pursued Beyond the Grave (London, 1993) p 10;Google ScholarSquibb, G. D., Doctors' Commons (Oxford, 1977) p 36.Google Scholar
14 ‘And so much was and is well known to the Judges and Advocates presiding or practising in Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Courts, and others of reputation for their skill and knowledge of the law as there administered, and is also laid down by divers authors of eminence and authority on that subject’: p 1296 in the Court of Arches, and p 954 at the Privy Council, Regrettably the report gives no details for the canonical sources and authorities, beyond a generic reference to the Title De conversione conjugatorum (X 3.32) in Gregory IX's Decretals. For such a separation to be allowed when the spouses had young children seems unusual.Google Scholar
15 Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (10 Geo 4, c 7).Google Scholar
16 Addams and Robertson are mentioned as appearing for the wife (p 1303).Google Scholar
17 The full report in The English Reports XIII, Privy Council II, pp 949–966 [7 Moore 437] has been used and its pagination referred to.Google Scholar
18 Baker, J H, Monuments of Endlesse Labours: English Canonists and their Work, 1300–1900 (London, 1998), pp 129–130;Google ScholarPhillimore, R., The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (London, 1873) vol II, pp 1268ff.Google Scholar
19 ‘These Decretals are accessible, and the Court is as capable of forming an opinion on the law, as any advocates in Europe. But the law, as laid down in the allegation, is not borne out by the Decretals’ (p 964).Google Scholar
20 J H Baker, Monuments of Endlesse Labours, ch 15, on Phillimore.Google Scholar
21 There is an interesting parallel in this line of argument with medieval English practice. When the defendant in a suit for restitution asserted a reason for his or her action, the suit often became one for judicial separation, the canonical divorce a mensa et thoro: Helmholz, R H, The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford, 2004), p 536.Google Scholar
22 Waddams, S M, Law, Politics and the Church of England. The Career of Stephen Lushington 1782–1873 (Cambridge, 1992).Google Scholar
23 Thérèse, M, Cornelia Connelly: A Study in Fidelity (London, 1961), p 108.Google Scholar
24 Jordan, A, ‘George Cornelius Gorham, Clerk v Henry Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter. A Case of Anglican Anxieties’ (1998) 5 Ecc LJ 104–111.Google Scholar
25 Pierce wrote to Lord Shrewsbury on 21 December 1848 that the lawyers‘ … I fear are over-anxious to have such a novel and exciting case to try where they are sure of success’: M Thérèse, Cornelia Connelly, pp 100–101.Google Scholar
26 S M Waddams, Law, Politics and the Church of England, p 271.Google Scholar
27 Wadham, J, The Case of Cornelia Connelly (London, 1956), pp 153–4; Wiseman to Lord Shrewsbury on 22 December 1848.Google Scholar
28 Phillimore did not favour giving a tolerated religion all the consequences flowing from it, and spoke of ‘the present disturbed state of religious parties in this country’ (p 965).Google Scholar
29 Doe, N, The Legal Framework of the Church of England (Oxford, 1996), pp 25–26 and 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Phillimore then (p 965) refers to Fulham v M'Carthy (1847) 1 HL Cas 721.Google Scholar
31 Cheshire, and North's, Private International Law (13th edn) (London, 1999), pp 13–19. The Connelly case is referred to as a rare example of extrajudicial separation coming before the English courts (p 798).Google Scholar See also North, P M, The Private Internatinal Law of Matrimonial Causes in the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland (Oxford, 1977), pp 292–293, 396.Google Scholar
32 Soon after the Connelly case, Phillimore started to publish the volumes of a treatise that as well as public international law referred to private international law or Jus gentium privatum: Phillimore, R, Commentaries upon International Law (London, 1854) I, 12–13.Google Scholar
33 Phillimore, R, The Law of Domicil (London, 1847), p 2. He considered the law on domicile to be an important branch of private international law.Google Scholar
34 Walsh, J, ‘The Vocation of Cornelia Connelly’ The Month 20 (1958) 261–273, 21 (1959) 19–33 at p 20.Google Scholar
35 Pierce to Lord Shrewsbury, 22 December 1848: ‘I do not know if Cornelia is satisfied that I do not consider her a free agent and never will do so, nor hold communication with her until she is out of all control’: J Wadham, The Case of Cornelia Connelly, p 158.Google Scholar
36 Case of the Rev Pierce Connelly (London, 1853), p 11.Google Scholar
37 Connelly, P, The Coming Struggle with Rome, Not Religious but Political (London, 1852), p 11.Google Scholar
38 Paz, D G, The Priesthoods and Apostasies of Pierce Connelly: A Study Of Victorian Conversion and Anticatholicism (Lewiston, 1986) gives the text of Pierce's petition (28.04.1851) at pp 302–319.Google Scholar
39 Butler, C, The Life and Times of Bishop Ullathorne (2 vols) (London, 1926) I, 169.Google Scholar
40 J H Baker, Monuments of Endless Labours; Kemp, E W, An Introduction to Canon Law in the Church of England (London, 1957).Google Scholar
You have
Access