Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/489

 TALBOT

433

TALBOT

younger brother, Colonel Richard Talbot, was also remarkable for his devotedness to the cause of the exiled monarch and stood high in royal favour. Under James II he became Duke of Tyrconnell and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Dr. Talbot himself was constantly in attendance on the king and his Court. On accoimt of his knowledge of the con- tinental languages he was repeatedly dispatched on private embassies to Lisbon, Madiid, and Paris, and in all of them gave abundant proof of ability and fideUty to the royal cause. It appears unques- tionable that during his exile in Cologne, Charles II received instruction in the Catholic faith, and was privately received into the Church by Dr. Talbot. It used to be said of the king by his friends that whene\ cr he was in a serious mood he was a Cathohc, but when he was in a merry mood he bade adieu to all religion. Unfortunately this second mood gen- erally prevailed, especially after the Restoration, and this explains why he needed to be again received into the Church on his death-bed by Father Hudle- stone, O.S.B. On the return of the king to London, Dr. Talbot received an appointment as Queen's Almoner, but the Clarendon and Ormond faction, that was then predominant, feared his influence with the king. A plot was devised against him. He was even accused of conspiring with the aid of four Jesuits to assassinate the Duke of Ormond, and BO fierce was the persecutiop stirred up against him that he was forced to seek safety by resigning his position at Court and retiring to the Continent. The king allowed him a pension of three hundred pounds a year. Before his return to England Dr. Talbot had, with the approval of the General of the Jesuits, dissevered his connexion with the Society. He was appointed Archbishop of Dublin on 11 Jan- uary, 1669, and was consecrated at Antwerp on 9 May the same year, by the Bishop of Antwerp, as- sisted by the Bishops of Ghent and Ferns. It was a propitious time for appointments to the Irish sees. Lord Ormond was no longer in favour and was soon after removed from the Viceroj-alty, and those who succeeded him were supposed not to be so hostile to the religious interests of Ireland; they were even said to have received instructions from the king to be lenient in their dealings with his Irish Catholic subjects, and to show special favour to Dr. Talbot. The archbishop entered with great zeal on the ad- ministration of the diocese and was untiring in his efforts to promote the interests of his long persecuted flock. In the month of August, 1670, he held his first diocesan synod in Dublin. It was a memorable event that gave joy to the Catholic body. It was opened with High Miiss, which for forty years many of the faithful had not witnessed. To add to the solem- nity, rich embroiderj- and other ornaments were sent from the \iceregal castle to adorn the altar. One of the abuses that called for remedy tella of the dif- ficulties that pressed upon the priests of those days in their endeavour to meet the wants of the faithful. On week days they had been accustomed to duplicate, whilst on Sundays they had to celebrate holy Mass three times. In the same year an assembly of the archbishops and bishops and representatives of the clergy was held in Dublin, having for its main purpose the consideration of a form or Declaration of Alle- giance which was drawn up by Father Peter Walsh and his associate Remonstrants, and which was urged on the bishops for general acceptance by the Onnondist party, the better to sow dissensions among the Irish CathoUcs. The as-sembled bishops and clergy re- jected the proposed form of allcgiaiuc but, to prove that this W!us not done through any lack of loyalty, they drew up another Declaration (•xprcssive of their due allegianie, but omitting some phrases otTen,'<ive to Catholics that hail been cunningly inserted in the rejected Declaration. A fierce (hscussion was in XIV.— 2S

consequence raised by the Remonstrants backed by the Ormondists, that distracted the country for several years. At this assembly the question of precedence and of the primatial authority gave rise to considerable discussion and led to an embittered controversy between the Archbishop of Dublin and Ven. Oliver Plunkett, Archbishop of Armagh. Both prelates considered that they were asserting the rights of their respective sees, and each published a learned treatise on the subject. Whilst this controversy lasteii Dr. Talbot wrote some se\'ore censures regarding the Archbishop of Armagh, but when in prison for the Faith in later years, he addressed to the Arch- bishop of Armagh, then a brother prisoner, an ample apologj' asking his forgiveness for the harsh things that had been formerly written, and the Ven. Oliver Plunkett, as we will just now see, showed in a most practical manner how sincerely and affectionately he w:is reconciled to his former opponent. Another meeting of the Catholic gentrj', convened by Dr. Talbot, at which it was resolved to send to the Court at London a representative who would seek redress for some of the grievances to which the Catholics of Ireland were subjected, gave great alarm to the Cromwellian settlers and to the Ormondists. It was an attempt, they said, to reverse the Act of Set- tlement and to foster a fresh irhcllion. An address from Parliament was pn'sciitcd to the king praying that by royal edict all the Cat linlic prelates and clergy, and in particular "Peter Talbot, pretended Arch- bishop of Dublin", be banished from the kingdom, and further "that all convents, seminaries, and popish public schools be suppressed; that no Irish papist be admitted to inhabit in any corporation of that kingdom; that all the Irish Papists might be dis- armed, and no Papist be either continued or admitted to be a commander or soldier in that Kingdom". The king knew full well how groundless and absurd were the pretences for such a royal edict, but he wag too weak to offer any resistance, and thus, in 1673, a fierce storm of persecution was let loose against the whole Catholic body in Ireland, and Dr. Talbot was compelled to seek safety in exile. During his ban- ishment he resided generally in Paris; but by pas- toral letters and written instructions he continued to do all that was in his power to guide and comfort his flock. In 1675 Dr. Talbot, worn out with infirmities, obtained permission to return to England only, and for two years he resided with a family friend at Poole Hall in Cheshire. Towards the close of 1677, he petitioned the Crown for leave "to come to Ire- land to die in his own country", and through the in- fluence of the Duke of York his petition was granted. Just then the "Popish Plot" was being organized by Lord Shaftesburj- and Titus Oates, and verj- soon information w:is forwarded to the Lord-Lieutenant, the Duke of Ormond, to the effect that a rebelhon was being planned in Ireland, that Peter Talbot, Archbishop of Dublin, was one of the accomplices, and that iissassins were hired to murder the duke himself. Ormond rei)lied that he had no appre- hension whatever on these heads, and that as regards Peter Talbot there could be no foundation for them, as he was in a dying state. Nevertheless as it was necessary to give some colour to the existence of such a plot, on S October, 167S, he signed a warrant for the archbishop's arrest, and he writes on the same day to the Council in Ixindon: "I have sent a squad- ron of his Majesty's guard of horse to apprehend Peter Talbot, the Titular Archbishop of Dublin". He was arrested at Cartown near M.aynooth at the hou.se of his brother, (Colonel Richard Talbot, and, as Carte attests, w;is removed to Dublin "in a chair, and committed rlo.se prisoner to the Ciwtle with a person to attend him in his miserable and helpless condition, the violence of his disteinper being scarce supportable and threatening his death at every