Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-15T02:24:38.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. The No-Popery Movement in Britain in 1828–9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

G. I. T. Machin
G. I. T. Machin
Affiliation:
University of Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The passage of Catholic emancipation in April 1829 was resisted, in the name of the inviolability of the Protestant Constitution, by a group of ‘ultra’ anti-catholics.1 The principles and personnel of this group have already been well described, 2 but its political activities have been inadequately explored. Since 1824, when they criticized Lord Liverpool's Government for dilatoriness in prosecuting O’Connell's Catholic Association, these ultras had tended to form a distinct group on the right wing of the anti-catholic Tories, and had been the most aggressive opponents of Canning's short-lived ministry in 1827. The emergence of an Irish demand for Catholic emancipation, of unprecedented force, was shown in O’Connell's victory at the County Clare by-election in July 1828 and in the ensuing months. This produced a determined resistance by the Irish anti-catholics, which had its counterpart in a British no-popery movement led by the ultras. Most of the leading ultras were peers, and the most prominent among them were the dukes of Cumberland and Newcastle, the marquess of Chandos, the earl of Winchilsea and Lords Colchester and Kenyon. For nine months before the passage of the relief bill they sought to counteract the immense fervour of the Irish Catholics by stimulating the ingrained anti-catholic feelings which had characterized the English masses since the sixteenth century. Their efforts, however, were of no avail against Wellington's decision to carry a Government emancipation measure. It is the object of this study to investigate the no-popery movement and to account for its failure.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1963 , pp. 193 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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 I have given them the name ‘ ultras’ to distinguish them from those anti-catholic Tories who were converted to Catholic emancipation in 1828 and 1829.

2 By G. F. A. Best in his article ‘The Protestant Constitution and its Supporters’, Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. 5th series, viii (1958), 105–27.

3 25 June 1828; Colchester's Diary and Correspondence, III, 574–5.

4 These were the earl of Harewood and Lords Feversham, Malmesbury and Skelmersdale. Colchester to Kenyon, 26 June 1828; Kfenyon’ P‘apers’, at Gredington Hall, Flintshire.

5 Colchester wrote: ‘We all think it safer & also more effectual to see what course public Events take between this time & the time of petitioning— & nothing will be more easy when the Re-assembling of Parlt approaches, than for all & each of us, in our respective Counties & Neighbourhood, to urge the propriety & necessity of expressing these Sentiments by public meetings & Petitions to any extent’ (ibid.).

6 Colchester, III, 578–9.

7 Birmingham Gazette, 14 July 1828; Liverpool Mercury, 25 July 1828.

8 Colchester, III, 582.

9 Princess Lieven to Countess Cowper. Lord, Sudley (ed.), Correspondence of Princess Lieven and Lord Palmerston, 1828—56 (London, 1943), p. 3. This account is endorsed in the Journal of Mrs Arbuthnot, 11, 212.Google Scholar

10 Cumberland to Kenyon, 6 August 1828 (KP).

11 The Pitt Club was named after the younger Pitt, but reversed his pro-catholic inclinations.

12 Spectator, 27 September 1828.

13 Winchilsea to Newcastle, 8 November 1828; Newcastle’ Pfapers’, Nottingham University.

14 According to my calculations, there was an anti-catholic gain of 16 seats at the elections in Great Britain (excluding Ireland).

15 26 August 1828; Wfinchilsea’ Pfapers’, in Northamptonshire Record Office.

16 Chandos to Kenyon, 27 August 1828 ‘KP’.

17 Standard, 1 September 1828; John Bull, 8 September 1828. Kenyon's subsequent letters in similar vein, were dated 10 September and 1 October 1828 and 13 February 1829.

18 Standard, 22 September 1828. Reprinted in Newcastle's Thoughts in times past tested by subsequent events (London, 1837), 69–81.Google Scholar

19 Thoughts in Times Past, 77.

20 Ibid. 75–6.

21 Eldon to Lady Elizabeth Repton, 31 August 1828 (KP).

22 Newcastle's Thoughts, 77.

23 Ibid. 80.

24 Ibid. 77.

25 Chandos wrote to Winchilsea on 28 August that he was pleased that the latter intended to form a ‘Kent Protestant Club’ and said: ‘I am doing the same here’ (WP).

26 Lord Sydney to Winchilsea, 2 September 1828 (WP).

27 Camden to Winchilsea, 31 August 1828 (WP).

28 Ibid.

29 Bexley to Winchilsea, 2 September 1829 (WP).

30 Earl Stanhope to Winchilsea, 3 September 1828 (WP).

31 Romney to Winchilsea, 7 September 1828 (WP). In reply to this letter, Winchilsea defended the Brunswick clubs as being the very opposite of a factious organization: ‘ I perfectly agree with you’, he wrote, ‘as to the general objection to political Clubs, where they are intended to support any party question, but surely a Club established to guard against the attempt of Associations, formed for the avowed purpose of subverting our Protestant Constitution, cannot be liable to that objection.’ Winchilsea to Romney, n.d. 1828 (WP).

32 Winchilsea to Newcastle, September 1828 (NP).

33 This was John Wells, M.P. for Maidstone: speech reported in The Times, 18 September 1828. The Brunswick clubs were later called ‘up to the knees in blood clubs’ by the pro-catholic press.

34 The Times, 29 September 1828.

35 The Times, 29 September 1828; Leeds Intelligencer, 2 October 1828.

36 See, e.g., the Standard, 17 September, 6 October and 8 November 1828.

37 Leeds Intelligencer, 13 November 1828.

38 Spectator, 15 November 1828.

39 Spectator, 22 November 1828.

40 See Birmingham Gazette, 1 and 8 December 1828.

41 16 October 1828.

42 The Times, 19 September 1828.

43 Spectator, 22 November 1828.

44 Thus Lord Kenyon, whose seat was in Flintshire, was asked to become president of a Brunswick club at Wrexham (Kenyon to Hon. Lloyd Kenyon, 14 October 1828; KP); and his brother, the Hon. Thomas Kenyon, was prominent in the Salopian Brunswick club (Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 November 1828). Since family estates were often in more than one county, the leading ultra peers were sometimes asked to lead more than one county Brunswick organization. Thus, Winchilsea was asked to become patron of the Northampton club; but he replied that after the prominent part he had taken in Kent, it was ‘by no means expedient’ that he should take the lead in another county (Winchilsea to R. G. Stanton, 2 November 1828; WP).

45 Liverpool Mercury, 21 November 1828.

46 Althorp to Brougham, 30 September 1828; Althorp Papers, Northants.

47 Redesdale to Colchester, 25 November 1828; Colchester, III, 589.

48 17 November 1828.

49 Letter published in the Birmingham Gazette, 17 November 1828.

50 Letter published in John Bull, 30 March 1829.

51 Eldon to Lord Howe, 1828 (probably October); Twiss, H., Eldon, III, 58.Google Scholar

52 Eldon to Lord Stowell, post-mark 28 November 1828; ibid. 61.

53 Northumberland to Newcastle, 3 November 1828 (NP).

54 For an account of this concourse, see Sheil, R. L., Sketches, Legal and Political (2 vols., London, 1855), II, 193–218.Google Scholar

55 Goderich to E. J. Littleton, 28 October 1828; Hatherton MSS., Staffordshire Record Office.

56 Harrowby to E. J. Littleton, 15 December 1828; Hatherton MSS.

57 1 January 1829.

58 West Briton, 2 January 1829.

59 The Cornish anti-catholic movement is summarized in an unpublished thesis by W. B. Elvins: The Reform Movement and County Politics in Cornwall, 1809–52 (Birmingham M.A.).

60 Hon. G. M. Fortescue to Ralph Sneyd; Sneyd MSS., University College of North Staffordshire.

61 John Bull, 26 January 1829.

62 Hon. G. M. Fortescue to Ralph Sneyd, 21 January 1829; Sneyd MSS.

63 North Wales Chronicle, 9 April 1829.

64 .One at Bristol was said by the anti-catholics to have been carried by 100:1 (Spectator, 14 February 1829); others at Birmingham were said to have obtained 36,000 signatures (Birmingham Gazette, 9 March 1829); and one at Sheffield was said to have been signed by 15,000 people in two days (John Bull, 2 March 1829).

65 Leeds Intelligencer, 11 December 1828.

66 Nottingham Mercury, 7 February 1829. It seems, however, that this willingness was not based completely on altruistic support of Catholic relief. A subsequent meeting made clear that a division existed between the anti-catholic corporation of Leicester and a large number of pro-catholic citizens (Nottingham Mercury, 28 February 1829).It is possible that a pro-catholic attitude symbolized opposition to the power of the corporation.

67 Journal of Sir Walter Scott (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1939—46), III, 33.Google Scholar

68 See the extracts given in Hanna, W., Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Chalmers (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1849–1852), III, 231–4. Lord Jeffrey afterwards said of this speech that never had eloquence produced a greater effect upon a popular assembly.Google Scholar

69 Edinburgh Courant, 23 March 1829.

70 Henry, Cockburn, Memorials of his Time (new ed., Edinburgh, 1909), p. 428.Google Scholar

71 Spectator, 11 October 1828.

72 This was the Association's first public meeting. According to Hunt, it was founded in response to a deputation from the Catholic Association, which wanted to discover the effect produced in England by O’Connell's declaration in favour of Parliamentary Reform. There is a full report of the meeting in Cobbett's Political Register, LXVI, 119–28, 155–60.

73 Edinburgh Courant, 21 February 1829.

74 Manchester Chronicle, 18 October 1828.

75 Stanley to Lord John Russell, 22 October 1828; Rollo Russell, Early Correspondence of Lord John Russell (2 vols., London, 1913), 1, 282–3.

76 Grey to Russell, 28 October 1828; Walpole, S., Life of Russell, 1, 153–4.Google Scholar

77 Ellenborough's Political Diary, 1, 266–7.

78 Edinburgh Courant, 25 October 1828.

79 A pro-catholic petition came from the archdeaconry of Norwich, in the diocese of one of the two pro-catholic bishops {Part. Deb. n.s. xiii, 20–1); but in the diocese of the anti-catholic bishop of Exeter a curate who presented a pro-catholic petition was said to have had his preferment checked on account of his pro-catholic views (Part. Deb. n.s. xii, 1328—33). See my article, ‘The Catholic Emancipation Crisis of 1825’, English Hist. Rev. (1963).

80 Part. Deb. n.s. xx, 134.

81 Part. Deb. n.s. xx, 598.

83 John Bull, 30 March 1829.

83 Part. Deb. n.s. xx, 161, 572, 1105–6; John Bull, 30 March 1829.

84 Part. Deb. n.s. xx, 245–6.

85 Ibid. 579, 645–6.

86 Ibid. 904–5.

87 13 March 1829; Fitzwilliam MSS., Northamptonshire Record Office. Not all such placards were anti-catholic: one extolling the virtues of mediaeval Catholicism in England was said to have been posted on the walls of Stourbridge, Worcs. (Birmingham Monthly Argus 1 April 1829).

88 Parl. Deb. n.s. xx, 704.

89 See my article, ‘Catholic Emancipation as an Issue in North Welsh Politics, 1825—9’, Trans, of the Cymmrodorion Society (1962).

90 The pro-catholic Lord Brudenell was succeeded by the anti-catholic W. J. Bankes, and the pro-catholic Earl Bruce was replaced by the anti-catholic T. H. S. B. Estcourt.

91 Ellenborough's Political Diary, 1, 355.

92 Sadler had made a celebrated speech before the Leeds Pitt Club in May 1828, which the anti-catholic Robert Southey said would have ‘ told well in the House of Commons’; Southey to John Rickman, i March 1829 (NP). Sadler had also written a two-volume treatise entitled Ireland: Its Evils and their Remedies (London, 1828), which insisted that the only satisfactory cures for Ireland were economic and social, not religious or political.

93 Peel's Memoirs, 1, 317; Morley, Gladstone (1903 ed.), 1, 53.

94 Peel to the vice-chancellor of Oxford University, 4 February 1829; Memoirs, 1, 312–15.

95 The process of persuasion and consent may be followed in Gash, N., Mr Secretary Peel (London, 1961), 546 ff.Google Scholar

96 Among the Extracts of the election, in the Bodleian Library.

97 Dr Charles Lloyd to Peel, 10 February 1829; Peel Papers, British Museum Add. MSS. 40343, fo. 355.

98 Newman to his sister Harriet, 17 February 1829. Anne, Mozley, Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman during his life in the English Church (2 vols., London, 1891), I, 200–1.Google Scholar

99 Calculated from the lists in the poll-book of the election (Extracts, no. 118).

100 Bishop Lloyd to Peel, 12 February 1829; Peel Papers, Add. MSS. 40343, fos. 362–3.

101 23 February 1829.

102 For example, a large number of clergy left Liverpool to vote for Inglis, but only one to vote for Peel (North Wales Chronicle, 25 February 1829). Inglis was an evangelical, and it is ironical that he was also supported by most of the future leaders of the Oxford Movement. Newman and Keble supported Inglis, as did Hurrell Froude and Robert Wilberforce. Only Pusey supported Peel (H. P. Liddon, Pusey, 1, 198 f.).

103 H. Hobhouse to J. C. Hobhouse, 27 February 1829; Broughton Papers, Add. MSS. 36465, fo. 76.

104 1 March 1829; Peel Papers, Add. MSS. 40399, fos. 11–12. Peel was also supported by twice as many First Class men as Inglis, and by 24 out of 28 prizemen (Memoirs, 1, 338).

105 For this affair see Hoskins, W. G. and Finberg, H. P. R., Devonshire Studies (London, 1952). 414-I7.Google Scholar

106 John Bull, 16 February 1829.

107 Broughton, Recollections, III, 305.

108 1 March 1829.

109 Ibid.

110 Part. Deb. n.s. XXI, 424.

111 ‘The franchise should be given back to the people, in order that they may decide this question’, said Winchilsea on 13 February. ‘ I will never suffer the rights of the people to be trampled upon’ (Parl. Deb. n.s. xx, 303).

112 See Winchilsea's speech in the Lords on 10 March (Parl. Deb. n.s. xx, 931–2). On this occasion Richmond and Falmouth both dissented from his remarks about Parliamentary Reform, and said they only agreed with him in his opposition to the relief bill (ibid. 941). During the debate on the second reading in the Lords, on 3 April, Falmouth and Mansfield thought it necessary to deny that they had become parliamentary reformers (Parl. Deb. n.s. XXI, 143 ff.).

113 John Bull, 16 February 1829.

114 For this struggle, see WND, v, 513 ff.; Ellenborough, I, 366 ff.; Mrs Arbuthnot, II, 243 ff.; Willis, G. M., Ernest Augustus (London, 1954), 185 ff.Google Scholar

115 The king saw Newcastle for two hours at an uncertain date (an account of this interview is given in Ellenborough, I, 389–90, 394–5); he saw Mansfield for two hours on 26 March and Eldon for four hours on the 28th (Lord Kenyon's diary, 28 March 1829; KP).

116 Lord Kenyon's diary, 27 and 30 March 1829 (KP); Ellenborough, I, 410.

117 Ellenborough, 1, 412.

118 Mrs Arbuthnot, II, 254.

119 Ellenborough, 1, 413–14; Mrs Arbuthnot, II, 262–3.

120 Ellenborough, 11, 9.

121 Ibid. Nevertheless, the authorities took the precaution of locking all the gates of Hyde Park. Charlotte, Lady Williams Wynn to Henry Williams Wynn, 9 April 1829 (Williams Wynn Papers, National Library of Wales).

122 Ellenborough, 11, 11.

123 Wellington to the king, 9 April 1829; WND, v, 577–8.

124 Ellenborough, II, 11.

125 For example, after the relief bill had been carried, the young W. E. Gladstone noted the opinion of his 'scout’ at Christ Church, who ‘declared himself much troubled for the king's conscience, observing that if we make an oath at baptism, we ought to hold by it’; of his bed-maker, who asked him ‘ whether it would not be a very good thing if we were to give (the Irish) a king and a parliament of their own, and so to have no more to do with them’; and of an egg-woman, who wondered ‘how Mr Peel, who was always such a well-behaved man here, can be so foolish as to think of letting in the Roman Catholics’ (Morley, Gladstone (1903 ed.), I, 53–4).

126 Take, for instance, the popular furore over the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in 1851. Today a running feud still persists between Orangemen and Catholics in Liverpool, although its manifestations appear to be only of token significance.

127 On 2 June 1829 the ultra marquess of Blandford moved two resolutions in the Commons for the extinction of rotten boroughs, saying that he wished to prevent the Catholics from using the system of nomination and patronage to become a powerful party in the House. But Blandford's fellow-ultras would not support him: he obtained only 40 votes, and nearly all these were Whig (Parl. Deb. n.s. xxi, 1674 ff.).