John Machale and John Macevilly: Conflict in the Nineteenth Century Catholic Hierarchy

John Machale and John Macevilly: Conflict in the Nineteenth Century Catholic HierarchyAuthor(s): Liam BaneSource: Archivium Hibernicum, Vol. 39 (1984), pp. 45-52Published by: Catholic Historical Society of IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487453 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 20:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Catholic Historical Society of Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchivium Hibernicum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.121 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:39:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chsi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487453?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Liam Bane

JOHN MACHALE AND JOHN MACEVILLY: CONFLICT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY CATHOLIC HIERARCHY

John MacHale was certainly the best known and most popular mem

ber of the nineteenth century catholic hierarchy. An examination of MacHale's career, however, reveals that his reputation rests really on the activities and achievements of the earlier part of his career ? as

professor at Maynooth, as bishop at Killala and the early years of his

episcopate at Tuam. Still his popularity endured, so that it can truly be said of MacHale that he was a legend in his lifetime. If anything, the

legend grew, so that what now remains to be done is to separate legend and myth from historical fact. It is an interesting but extemely tricky task, as so much of the biographical work on MacHale runs close to

hagiography, always based on the assumptions that MacHale was the one true nationalist and a saintly figure among nineteenth century catholic bishops. Both of these arguments would certainly have been

strongly contested by his contemporary, Dr John MacEvilly, bishop of

Galway and, later, archbishop of Tuam.

A mention of the name of MacEvilly is not one that is likely to

strike a responsive chord in many minds, even those-whose special study is history. He lived his life in the shadow of MacHale but it is

quite remarkable that one who was involved to such an extent in the

social and political questions of his time is now so little known.

MacHale and MacEvilly in fact had much in common. Both were

sons of Mayo tenant farmers, both were Maynooth educated and

indeed very typical products of nineteenth century Maynooth in

attitudes and views. Also both were bishops for a large part of the

nineteenth century ? MacHale from 1825, when he became coadjutor

bishop of Killala, moving to Tuam nine years later, until his death in

1881; MacEvilly from 1857, when he became bishop of Galway, suc

ceeding MacHale as archbishop of Tuam in 1881, until he died in 1902.

45



John MacEvilly began his career as a priest of Tuam diocese with

MacHale as archbishop and no one could have predicted at that stage the animosity and outright hostility that was to exist between the two

men, until at the end MacHale would not even allow MacEvilly into his

presence. As an illustration of the feelings that MacEvilly entertained

towards MacHale*, he speaks of MacHale resisting those placed over

him, 'if they chanced to differ from him, and urged others to do so, and he trampled on those under him, if they did not perfectly adopt his

views, whether they really coincided with him in their own minds or

not'.1 Or again, MacEvilly says 'From the first day I knew him, now

nearly 38 years since, I know it to be his habit to speak and write in the

most dignified style in public and convey the opposite meaning through others supposed to be in his confidence. Indeed, the Russian system of

boldly asserting and denying is not altogether confined to Russia'.2

As a young priest, though, MacEvilly was a trusted lieutenant of

MacHale and a rising star in the diocese of Tuam, as is borne out by the facts that MacEvilly was peritus or theological adviser to MacHale at

the Synod of Thurles in 1850,3 that he became president of the dioce san seminary, St. Jarlath's,

4 and that he was a principal speaker at the

great Tenant League banquet in Tuam town on 18 January 1854.5 But from the time MacEvilly became bishop of Galway in 1857, defeat

ing in the process MacHale's candidate, his nephew Thomas, it is a

story of repeated arguments, intrigue and bitter dispute. In almost all

of his troubles, whether within his diocese or outside of it, MacEvilly saw the hand of MacHale ? and in fairness, one would have to say that

his suspicions were generally well founded.

On almost every issue, the two men were found on opposite sides

and one is given the impression that MacHale's stance on any particular issue was determined mostly by the stance taken by MacEvilly. Even in

questions where the two might have been expected to stand together,

they were in opposition. This was true at elections, except in the case

of the 1872 Galway by-election, when they found it necessary to unite

behind Philip Nolan against the landlord's candidate, Le Poer Trench.

But even then, as the evidence clearly shows, the unity was more cos

metic than real. At the First Vatican Council, they were at odds over

the question of papal infallibility and one must suspect that MacHale's

famous opposition on that occasion had as much to do with the per sonalities on the other side as it had to do with any doctrinal difficul

ties he might have felt.

What, then, had happened to bring such a drastic change in the

relationships between MacHale and MacEvilly? The answer is that

Paul Cullen had arrived in Ireland, as archbishop of Armagh in 1850

and archbishop of Dublin in 1852. The beginnings of the conflict between Cullen and MacHale are usually sited in the late 1850's and

early 1860's but the seeds were already sown as far back as 1840,

46



when Paul Cullen, then Rector of the Irish College in Rome, came to

Ireland to investigate the National Schools dispute.6 Cullen's evidence was very important on that occasion and the decision went against MacHale and his supporters. When, then, this same Paul Cullen arrived

in Ireland in 1850 with his mission of disciplining the Irish church and

fashioning a more centralised Roman church, it was fairly inevitable that there would be clashes with the independent-minded MacHale.

How much this clash was due to ideological differences and how much to personality and attitudinal differences is not easy to say. On the question of ideology, the Cullen-MacHale conflict has sometimes been presented

as a Gallican ? Ultramontane struggle in the Irish

context but the John MacHale that I have perceived does not appear as the leader of the Irish Gallicans. He stood for a more independent Irish church and certainly for greater autonomy for the bishop within his own diocese. However much MacHale may have resented the inter ference of Rome in what he saw as his domain, he resented that inter ference all the more when it came, as it generally did, through the

person of Paul Cullen.

That Paul Cullen would ultimately triumph, at least in the battle for the minds of the people, was never really in doubt, since he did hold all the aces. He had Rome on his side, so that once a dispute was

referred there for resolution, it immediately meant advantage to Cullen. As a consequence of his personal standing and influence at Rome, Cullen became the bishop-maker and, as the nineteenth century wore

on, he was able to fashion a hierarchy which would carry out his poli cies and programmes and faithfully reflect his thinking. It was no doubt

in pursuance of this policy that Cullen strongly supported MacEvilly for the vacant see of Galway,7 and did so more positively when the

alternative was Thomas MacHale. From MacEvilly's appointment to

Galway until Cullen's death in 1878, the archbishop of Dublin was to

MacEvilly friend, confidant and adviser on all problems, ranging from

diocesan administration to national issues. MacEvilly hitched his star

well and truly to the Cullen waggon, and this found him favour at

Rome and made him the lifelong enemy of John MacHale.

MacEvilly was an important capture for Cullen, strategically placed in the heart of alien territory, and the Bishop of Galway kept his

mentor plied with information on the activities of his neighbour, MacHale, who alone was offering any serious threat to Cullen's ambi

tions for the Irish church. The various MacHale-MacEvilly disputes were but battles in the Cullen-MacHale war, but because of the prox

imity of MacEvilly to MacHale and because it was a relationship that

had soured, there was an added bitterness in all their exchanges.

Very shortly after MacEvilly arrived in Galway as bishop, his author

ity was challenged by Peter Daly, a parish priest of considerable wealth

and influence in Galway city and one whose episcopal ambitions

47



had been dashed by the appointment of MacEvilly. There followed a

long and complicated dispute, in the course of which Daly appealed to

MacHale as metropolitan and he received firm support and advice there.

So strained were relations between the two bishops that at one point,

MacEvilly complained to Cullen: 'Matters have gone so far in certain

quarters, I really, don't know why, that I find it inconvenient to visit

my relatives near Westport, lest it might be made a crime for the priests there to see me'.8 At the end, however, despite MacHale's efforts, the

matter was resolved at Rome and, of course, the verdict was in MacEvilly's favour. This intervention by MacHale in the internal affairs of a suf

fragan bishop was to be repeated in other disputes that arose between

MacEvilly and his clergy. Any opponent of MacEvilly, clerical or lay, knew that he had a friend in Tuam.

An example of MacEvilly's usefulness to Cullen was demonstrated

in the case of the so-called Fenian priest, Patrick Lavelle of Partry in

the diocese of Tuam. Cullen was deeply offended when Lavelle delivered an oration at the funeral of Terence Bellew McManus in November

1861 in direct defiance of Cullen's ban. It was the start of a long saga as Cullen attempted to bring pressure on MacHale to discipline his

Fenian priest and MacHale dallied and delayed, frustrating all Cullen's

efforts.

McEvilly's role in the Lavelle affair was that* of chief reporter and

informant on what was, or more significantly was not, happening in

Tuam. His letters to Cullen over these years contain regular bulletins on Lavelle's latest outbursts against Cullen and on the various strata

gems being employed by MacHale to avoid putting Rome's censures

into effect. For instance, when the Irish bishops demanded that Lavelle

apologize publicly, the priest simply wrote a letter to Cullen defending his actions.9 When Rome ordered MacHale to suspend Lavelle and have

him retire to a monastery, MacEvilly predicted ?

correctly ? that

MacHale would suspend Lavelle privately and give him a week's vaca

tion.10 MacEvilly did not have much respect for Lavelle and indeed

was much more anxious to lay the blame on the Archbishop rather

than on the priest. He described Lavelle as the mouthpiece of MacHale,

being used by the Archbishop to reveal his own true feelings and

attitudes.11 The game continued and when Rome ordered that Lavelle's

suspension be renewed, MacHale sent Lavelle off to Glasgow and in

formed Rome that the troublesome cleric was on retreat.12

The Lavelle battle ended inconclusively, though whatever victory there was went to MacHale, who, partly by the tactics of evasion but

mostly by sheer stubbornness, kept Rome at bay and Lavelle in the

ministry. MacHale's stand in this case is often taken as evidence of his

nationalist sympathies.13 It was more than that. MacHale resented what

he considered unnecessary Roman interference in the internal affairs

of his diocese and above all else, there was the Archbishop's dislike and

48



resentment of Cullen and MacEvilly and his determination to resist them.

So bitterly opposed were MacHale and MacEvilly that it seemed that there was no matter or which they could not haye sharply dis

agree. The proposed union of the dioceses of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora with Galway brought the two in conflict again. MacEvilly was com

missioned by Rome to investigate the position in Kilmacduagh and

Kilfenora where there were charges of serious maladministration.14

MacEvilly in his report recommended the union of the two dioceses with his own Galway, something that had been mooted in earlier

years.15 MacHale predictably enough opposed the union and MacEvilly then suggested a way out for Rome, namely, that the dioceses be

administered jointly.16 This suggestion was accepted by Rome and,

mainly through the advocacy of Paul Cullen, MacEvilly was appointed apostolic administrator of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora. MacHale was

left in the impossible, though familiar, situation of fighting a decision that had been taken. But fight it he did, mainly by organizing a group

of the clergy of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora to protest against, the

decision.17 It remained a losing battle as there was never any hope that Rome would reverse such a decision. This was another victory in the growing list for the Cullen-MacEvilly axis.

John MacEvilly had taken such a keen interest in the affairs of Tuam

diocese over a long period of years that it is fair to assume that his

interest was not purely in the cause of religion and the church but that

he saw himself as a likely successor to MacHale. Needless to say, John MacHale would have been equally aware of this possibility. It was

this ambition on MacEvilly's part, and the attempts of MacHale to

frustrate it that caused the last and most bitter row between the two

bishops, a row that centred on the question of the appointment of a.

coadjutor bishop for Tuam.

In 1875, MacHale, then 85 years of age, requested a coadjutor. The request, however, was very specific in that he asked that his nephew, Dr Thomas MacHale of the Irish College Paris, be appointed.18 At the

same time, the aging Archbishop, now at last facing the reality that

Paul Cullen was the bishop-maker, sought the support of the Arch

bishop of Dublin ? with predictable results.19 Rome refused the ap

plication on the grounds that the Archbishop was still in vigorous

health,20 whereupon MacHale applied a second time.

As was the custom of the time, the clergy of the diocese gathered at Tuam to select the three men that they considered most suitable

for the position of coadjutor. On the evening before the voting was

to take place, MacHale took the unusual step of calling the priests

together and addressing them on the question of a coadjutor. The

whole thrust in his speech, which even more unusually he had published in the Freeman's Journal, was to the effect that he would not accept as

49



a coadjutor one who had opposed him all his life and who had many times made his opposition know publicly. He urged the priests to

choose one from among their own ranks. He also announced that

Thomas MacHale would not be in contention.21 This did not mean that

the Archbishop no longer wished his nephew to succeed him. It was

simply a tactical move, lest MacEvilly be clearly seen to be preferred

by the priests to his nephew. As it transpired, MacEvilly was the first

choice of the priests.

MacEvilly meantime was busy corresponding with Paul Cullen and

with his friend at Rome, Tobias Kirby, Rector of the Irish College,

pointing out how disastrous for religion the appointment of Thomas

MacHale would be.22 After much toing and froing, Propaganda finally decided to appoint MacEvilly but with the proviso that the appoint

ment whould not be made known or published during the Archbishop's lifetime.23 It was not a decision that could easily be consealed and

soon, the rumours were flying.

MacEvilly was anxious and sent stories of neglect and maladministra

tion to Rome, some of them quite ridiculous. Cullen, too, was striving

mightily on his friend's behalf and Rome decided to use these charges

against MacHale as a pretext for making public the appointment of

MacEvilly. MacHale absolutely refused to accept MacEvilly as coadjutor. As the month went by, and Rome made no further move, MacEvilly's

complaints became more frequent and more hysterical. If one were to

give credence to his stories, Fenianism was rife in Tuam, theproselytizers had made spectacular advances in Connemara and Achill and the Tuam

priests were drunken, indisciplined and wholly demoralized.

MacHale was ordered by the Cardinal Prefect to invite MacEvilly to

begin work in Tuam but MacHale took up the case anew at Rome

where there was a change of Pope.24 The primate, Dr Daniel McGettigan, was then enlisted as persuader but MacHale's response was to appoint his nephew Vicar General of the diocese.25 As Rome continued to

pressurize him, MacHale was down to his last card, which he now pro ceeded to play. He informed Rome that if MacEvilly were to receive

special faculties to enable him to function in Tuam, then he (MacHale) would have no choice but to resign. Since it was obvious that his resig nation would create a storm, MacHale threatened to make public all

the documents connected with the affair. 'Historical truth and the

necessity of my own reputation require that I should also make public

everything in those letters which throw light on this momentous trans

action' were the Archbishop's words.26 If this was a bluff on MacHale's

part, it was a bluff that Rome was not prepared to call. Any action

from Rome would be taken as a personal insult to a man who had given a long life of service to the church but also at this particularly sensitive

time, it could be seen as further proof of the success of English influ ence at Rome. MacEvilly went to Tuam to take up residence but MacHale

50



refused to receive him or to recognize his existence in any way.27 So the situation remained and all the squabbling and MacEvilly's

long wait were ended only by the death of John MacHale in November

1881. MacEvilly's wry comment is eloquent: Tt is now all over and

Heaven knows all I suffered in silence to prevent scandal and exposure which was threatened. Since the poor old man's death, I have acted

as if he were my greatest friend and mean to do so ? till after the

month's mind'.28

After the month's mind, the rancour and bad feeling did not end, as

MacEvilly set about dismantling the MacHale regime and replacing it

with his own. MacHale men were urged to seek positions elsewhere

and if they refused, they were appointed to parishes which offered

the thinnest existence.29 One direct consequence of this conflict was

most unfortunate for students of Irish history, as Thomas MacHale left the diocese and brought with him all of his uncle's corresponded dence and documents, which meant the disappearance of a valuable slice of nineteenth century historical data.

The battle for supremacy which was waged in the Irish Catholic

church between Cullen and MacHale was not one which presented itself as crucial to an Irish peasantry struggling to exist. Cullen was

the spokesman for the emerging Catholic middle class and the fact that MacHale was able to sustain his opposition to the very end was

due not to any innate appeal that his cause might offer but to the

force of his personality, the immense personal standing that he enjoyed with .the people and the appeal of his uncompromising nationalism as

contrasted in the popular mind with the suspect 'castle' mentality of

Cullen and MacEvilly

REFERENCES

1. MacEvilly to Cullen, 30 Aug. 1878, Dublin Diocesan Archives. 2. MacEvilly to Cullen, Ascension Thursday, 1878, DDA. 3. Tuam Herald, 24 Aug. 1850. 4. Tuam Herald, 3 Sept 1842. 5. The Nation, 28 Jan 1854. 6. Ignatius Murphy, 'Primary Education', v4 History of Irish Catholicism, Vol. 6, Ed. P.J.

Corish, pp. 16-17. 7. Cullen to Kirby, 13 Dec 1856, Archivum Hibernicum, XXXI 1973. 8. MacEvilly to Cullen, 6 Jan 1682, DDA. 9. PJ. Corish, 'Political Problems 1860-1878', A History of Irish Catholicism, Vol. 5, p. 10.

10. MacEvilly to Cullen, 18 Oct 1863, DDA. 11. e.g. MacEvilly to Cullen, 11 Dec 1863, DDA.

12. MacEvilly to Cullen, 29 April 1864, DDA; Corish, 'Political Problems', pp. 18-19. 13. cf. The Patriot Priest of Partry: Patrick Lavelle, 1825-1886', Tomas O Fiaich, Journal

of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, Vol. 35, 1976. 14. MacEvilly to Cullen, 4 Aug 1863, DDA. 15. Draft Letter of Relatio Status, Diocese of Galway, MacEvilly to Cardinal Prefect of

propaganda, 1862, Gal way Diocesan Archives. 16. MacEvilly to Cullen, 30 Jan 1865, DDA. 17. Mortimer Brennan CC, to MacEvilly, 7 Sep 1866, GDA. 18. Bernard O'Reilly, John MacHale, Vol II, p. 598.

19. O'Reilly, op. cit, II, p. 602.

5\



20. O'Reilly, op. cit, II, p. 600. 21. Freeman's Journal, 17 Aug 1976. 22. Cullen to Kirby, 12 Nov 1876, 5 Dec 1876, et al., Arch. Hib, XXXII, 1974; MacEvilly

to Cullen, 16 Jan 1877, DDA; MacEvilly to Kirby, 22 Oct 1877, Arch. Hib., XXX, 1972. 23. O'Reilly, op. cit, II, p. 612. 24. O'Reilly, op. cit, II, p. 617. 25. O'Reilly, op. cit, II, p. 621. 26. MacHale to Simeoni, quoted in O'Reilly, op. cit, II, pp. 626-7. 27. MacEvilly to Kirby, 11 Dec 1879, Arch. Hib., XXX, 1972. 28. MacEvilly to Kirby, 19 Nov 1881, Irish College Archives, Rome.

29. E. A. D'Alton, History of the Archdiocese of Tuam, II, pp. 112-114.

52



Documents

John Machale and John Macevilly: Conflict in the Nineteenth Century Catholic Hierarchy