The Fenian Movement: A reflection on threat to Church and State in mid-nineteenth century Ireland
‘Fenianism’, as a political creed, was embodied in two principal organisations in the mid-Victorian period. In Ireland, it was vested in a secret oath-bound society which, although originally deliberately nameless, eventually adopted the moniker of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, generally referred to as the I.R.B., and sometimes referred to by its members as the Revolutionary Brotherhood.[1] While in the USA, ‘fenianism’ was instituted into an organisation known as: the Fenian Brotherhood.[2] Thus, bestowing “Fenians” as the overarching label for both bodies.[3] From their earliest activities, Fenians — on both sides of the Atlantic — caused concern and disquiet for both the British state and Catholic Church. From their conspiratorial nature, active preparation for open rebellion, secularist dogma, and interaction — and ultimately cooperation — with constitutionalism; the Fenian Movement presented the most viable and dangerous threat to the traditional power structures in Ireland.
Fenianism’s ‘founding-fathers’, James Stephens and John O’Mahony, had spent significant time exiled in Paris. While both Comerford and Ramón correctly reject the false notion that they were key-players in the Parisian secret societies of that time, it is noteworthy that the I.R.B. imitated many of the characteristics of the Société des familles, specifically its cellular structure.[4] Once established, the I.R.B. consisted of:
circles each headed by a centre, or A, known only to the officers immediately below him, nine Bs; each B would command nine Cs and would be known to them alone; each C would be responsible for and known only to nine Ds; the rank and file.[5]
However, this watertight composition ultimately failed and proved unworkable. Too often ‘circles’ would exceed or even fail to meet their necessary number. Moreover the provision that members only know those in their own circle was flagrantly ignored.[6] While it naturally remains difficult to calculate the I.R.B.’s exact membership number, Ó Concubhair estimates that in total roughly 50,000 men joined.[7] Nolan rises this estimate to 80,000, once membership in Britain is taken into account.[8]
The I.R.B. principally operated as an infiltrator of other organisations. Such entryism can be seen in the case of the National Brotherhood of Saint Patrick. This was an organisation which hosted and arranged banquets on the feast day of St Patrick.[9] As instructed by national leadership, I.R.B. members joined the NBSP en masse and it soon became a useful front organisation for the movement. It was through the NBSP that the I.R.B. took control of the funeral of, the Young Irelander, Terence Bellew MacManus. McManus’ funeral represented one of the first occasions in decades where constitutional Nationalists were deliberately excluded and prevented from organising a public Irish Nationalist event.[10] It was a considerable coup for the Fenian Movement. As, the journalist, Richard Pigott remarked the funeral was:
organized by the people themselves, not without the aid of the ostensible leaders of public opinion of the day and the catholic clergy, but really in opposition to them.[11]
It is unsurprising, therefore, that paranoia of I.R.B. infiltration soon became commonplace within Irish Nationalist organisations. Even the British Army was not immune to infiltration. Indeed, John Devoy would claim that up to 8,000 of the soldiers stationed in Ireland were actually I.R.B. men. Although few historians now accept this as a wholly figure, the fear was considerable enough that when the British got wind of a potential rising in 1865; many of the Irish regiments in the British army “suddenly found themselves transferred”.[12] Although, as with any revolutionary organisation, it must be noted that the I.R.B. was itself infiltrated by informers and agent provocateurs from its foundation, it nonetheless continued to present a lurking threat to the establishment. As Rynne explains, even today it remains inherent difficulty to assess the scope of the I.R.B. as “a great deal of the organisation’s business remained secret.”[13]
It would be impossible to assess the Fenian Movement’s impact within Ireland without also looking at its activities in the USA. Many struggling Irish immigrants found psychological refuge in “demonstrative nationalism-in-exile”.[14] Irish-America soon came to the fore in the campaign of rejuvenating Republicanism in Ireland. As Ramón outlines:
Irish-American nationalists first took the initiative in making a proposal to Stephens in 1857, and then provided the necessary support to make it feasible.[15]
In America they established the Fenian Brotherhood and set about utilising the USA’s State militia system for training a revolutionary army to return home with.[16] The American Civil War had provided invaluable experience and by the spring of 1865 released “thousands of Irish officers and men from both armies” determined for “action in Ireland.”[17] Ex-army officers began returning to Ireland in such numbers that British government spies reported a worrying surge in “American accents”.[18] Beyond its role as a reserve of military talent, the Fenian Brotherhood also played a considerable role within the American political scene. Indeed, during the 1867 rising in Ireland, the Fenian Brotherhood openly lobbied congress for support.[19]
Unfortunately, in 1865, the Fenian Brotherhood underwent an acrimonious split. One side known as ‘the Senate’ sought an immediate invasion of Canada. While the other side, still led by the movement’s founder John O’Mahony, continued to advocate for rebellion in Ireland as the key focus.[20] In the summer of 1866 ‘the Senate’ launched its invasion into Ontario, Canada.[21] Despite a short-lived victory in Fort Erie, the invasion was swiftly supressed and defeated.[22] US politicians, many who had publicly advocated for the Fenian cause, were very quick to distance themselves from the escapade.[23] Ultimately, the Canadian excursion caused slight embarrassment for Anglo-American relations, but achieved little else besides and was soon forgotten. Subsequently, Irish-American Fenians regrouped and came to rally around a new organisation: Clan na Gael.[24] But the truth remained that, all too often, Irish-American Fenian activity became more preoccupied and concerned with the domestic situation in the US. Often failing to appreciate the delicacy and precariousness of the situation back home in Ireland.
The 1867 Rising is often overlooked in the telling of Irish history. It is often treated as a footnote or a passing reference. However, it is deserving of far greater attention and appreciation. Although short-lived, pitiful in execution, and ultimately a failure; it had a lasting impact on the operation of British policy and rule in Ireland that cannot be discounted. From the early days of the Fenian Movement, James Stephens, the I.R.B.’s founder, had set 21 September 1865 as the fixed-date for an uprising in Ireland.[25] While Stephens was undoubtedly a genius when it came to political organising, he possessed “few of the other qualifications of a successful leader of rebellion.”[26] Accordingly, and likely on the word of a paid informer, on 14 September 1865 the entire Fenian leadership was arrested in a police raid on their newspaper office.[27] Stephens himself was caught separately and following a dramatic rescue on 25 November fled to America.[28] As a consequence of this round-up there was no rebellion in 1865. This series of events is typically presented as a missed opportunity. As Nowlan writes, “Whatever slender prospects existed for a successful revolution they were at their most promising in 1865.”[29] Moody concurs, claiming that: “it would have probably been a serious […] challenge to British rule in Ireland.[30] Although, Comerford dissents from such assumptions, acknowledging that 1865 did represent the peak strength of the I.R.B., he notes that it was still nevertheless: “a loose, undisciplined social organisation rather than a tight military one”.[31]
When a rebellion did eventually take shape two years later, in 1867, it was a woeful display. Over the intervening years, there had been little effort to arm the I.R.B. and, as a consequence, the rebels were left with an “armoury of just pikes and little over one thousand antiquated rifles”.[32] Whilst the rebellion was initially planned as a February nation-wide uprising it had to be postponed following an abortive (and as noted, much needed) arms-raid on Chester Castle, England.[33] However, February cancellation order failed to reach the men of Cahersiveen, Co. Kerry, who assembled as planned on 11 February and staged an uprising.[34] Following some brief skirmishes and exchanges with the local constabulary, the Kerry rising was soon quelled. Despite these set-backs, the plan proceeded and the rising was re-set for March.[35] Accordingly, on 5 March, Fenians assembled and rose in counties Dublin, Cork, Tipperary, Kilkenny, Clare, Limerick, Laois, and Louth.[36] In the event, the rising proved a dismal failure and coincided with the worse snowstorm Ireland had seen in twenty years.[37] The small-scale nature of the rising was reflected in an official police estimate which put the total of fatal losses on both sides at “about twelve.”[38] The 1867 rising did not present a substantial threat to the British occupation of Ireland by any means. However, it did remind British authorities that there remained a considerable body of people in Ireland, although admittedly within a minority, who were prepared to expel the British presence by forces of arms. Awareness of this reality would have a considerable effect on the nature of British rule in Ireland.
Alongside the British State, the threat the Fenian Movement presented to the authority of the Church is also of note. Indeed, the manner in which ‘Fenians’ received and met “the hostility of the catholic church” has been called one their “most distinctive characteristics”.[39] The most famous denunciation of the Fenians followed the small Kerry rising of February 1867, when Bishop Moriarty preached: “eternity is not long enough nor hell hot enough to punish such miscreants.”[40] The Church had certainly always been avowedly opposed to secret societies and the threat they presented to the Church’s authority. Members of such societies faced immediate excommunication and would be refused absolution at confession.[41] Although, it should be said, the relationship between Fenianism and the Church was not always the same as that which might have existed on a local basis between Fenians and certain individual priests. As Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich wrote: “it is not to be expected that twenty-seven bishops and 3,000 priests would be of the same mind over such an issue [Fenians].”[42] Indeed, some priests could be said to have been covert — or even overt — “Fenian sympathisers.”[43] Such was the case in the aftermath of the execution of the Manchester Martyrs in November 1867. The martyrs being three men who were hanged following the rescue of a Fenian leader, Thomas Kelly, from a prison van in Manchester, England.[44] Comerford explains how following the executions: “From top to bottom Irish catholic opinion was outraged.”[45] At a mass in Listowel, Co. Kerry, Bishop Moriarty, who had at the beginning of the year castigated Fenianism from the pulpit, asked his congregation: “Who were the martyrs of the early church?” He was surprised that the answer he received was: “Allen, Larkin and O’Brien! [The Manchester Martyrs]”[46] Boyce articulates how the Manchester Martyrs “opened the way for reconciliation between the Catholic hierarchy and Fenians, with the saying of masses for the souls of dead Fenians.”[47] Indeed, the truth remained that the bulk of I.R.B. members were still practising Catholics.[48] While the movement was prescriptively secularist in its worldview, it was far from being openly anti-clerical. Indeed, I.R.B. men said to be some of the earliest recruits into the Papal Brigade of 1860.[49]
Certainly, among its leadership there was no love for the Church. Thomas Clarke Luby was a Protestant, John O’Leary was an agnostic, and James Stephens, whilst holding strong religious convictions, felt no particular attachment to any confessional orthodoxy. These men were however, keenly aware that they addressed “a predominantly Catholic body of followers” and accordingly they did not seek to interfere with the religious convictions of their followers.[50] It was for this reason that the I.R.B. oath was deliberately amended to avoid direct conflict with individual religious faith. The clause invoking ‘secrecy’ was removed. However, an I.R.B. recruit was still bound to obey all orders of superior I.R.B. officers and conveniently the first order would often be to maintain secrecy.[51] The Fenian leadership did certainly seek the ultimate a separation of church and state, as enshrined in the Fenian proclamation of 1867.[52] However, beyond this, Fenians Movement sought little direct confrontation with the Church. The common opinion was that one could act “independently in the sphere of political life while accepting the remit of the church in the realm of morality.”[53] Or as Michael Davitt once articulated: “Catholic as Ireland is she is not going to take her politics from Rome.”[54]
Fenians did engage intermittently with constitutional politics. During its formative years, the I.R.B. had engaged with the constitutional National Petition movement and, in 1861, James Stephens approached The O’Donoghue, a constitutional nationalist, to explore the potential for mutual co-operation.[55] However, 1861 was not 1879, and this early incarnation of the “new departure” never got off the ground.[56] The 1869 Amnesty Association for Fenian prisoners provided the “perfect common ground” for the physical force and constitutional Nationalist movements in Ireland.[57] Whilst Isaac Butt was its nominal leader, its true guiding-hand was the Association’s secretary, John Nolan, who was also a member of the I.R.B.’s supreme council.[58] Fenians also stood candidates for the first time during this time; with the imprisoned fenian Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa being elected MP for Tipperary in November 1869.[59] However, there was a subsequent lull in cooperation and, indeed, a hardening of antagonistic attitudes. In 1877, Joseph Biggar and John O’Connor Power were expelled from the I.R.B.’s supreme council after entering parliament in support of Charles Stewart Parnell’s Irish Party. John Barry and Patrick Egan, also Parnell sympathisers, subsequently resigned.[60] In 1879, John Devoy and Michael Davitt launched the famous ‘new departure’ strategy, a coalition between separatists and parliamentarians through which they hoped to co-operate to secure concessions from England. The proposal was rejected by the I.R.B.’s supreme council.[61] However, it proceeded on an individual rather than organisational basis.
Ultimately, the Land League represented the most successful “compact” between Fenians and Parnell’s parliamentary followers.[62] Michael Davitt, although expelled from the supreme council in 1880, became the key driver and director of the Land League’s strategy.[63] The Land War essentially served as a test of the “the efficiency of the Fenian organisation at the grassroots”.[64] Moody writes that the mass body of Fenians in Ireland “rendered indispensable help” in its ultimately success.[65] Patrick Pearse would subsequently celebrate the ‘new departure’ initiative, arguing that “the Fenians compromised nothing” and that “their support were to mean (and did mean) the wining of the land war.”[66] Ultimately, Fenian attitude and opinion toward constitutionalism was nuanced and evolving and should not be misconstrued with the I.R.B.’s institutional, and almost theological, opposition towards it.
As a political movement ‘Fenianism’ represented a threat to the establishment on a number of different fronts. Firstly, it was perceived as a sinister, multifaceted, conspiracy. Its nefarious tentacles were often thought to have reached into the heart various institutions and organisations, and in some instances they had done so. In this guise it became, what Comerford terms, “the token of imponderable threat.”[67] Secondly, the Fenian Movement exhibited the ability to launch military operations which, although most resulted in failure, delivered far-reaching psychological blows to the establishment. In what Moody calls “one of his moments of appalling frankness”, Gladstone would later concede that: “‘The Fenian outrages had a very important influence on the time for moving the great questions of policy for Ireland.”[68] An opinion corroborated by John Devoy, who boasted: “He [Gladstone] was driven to disestablishmentarianism by the intensity of Fenianism”.[69] Thirdly, the Fenian embrace, although not on a structural-corporate level, of the ‘new departure’ policy saw Fenians play a “vital role” in mobilising for and securing considerable concessions from British Government.[70] And finally, and perhaps most importantly, Fenianism posed a threat because of what it ultimately stood for. Both the Church and the State taught Irishmen and Irishwomen, from an early age, “not to concern themselves with the arbitrary powers of interference held by the state, or the lack of definition to their liberties”.[71] Fenianism, at its core, challenged this. Fenianism nurtured and spread the doctrines of separatism and Republicanism throughout Ireland. It comes as little surprise, therefore, that when the kind of insurrection James Stephens and his contemporaries envisioned, but never realised, did finally come into fruition in 1916: “it was planned by Fenians.”[72] Such continuity, such endurance, and such longevity was Fenianism’s greatest threat.
Bibliography:
Books
Boyce, G. D. (2005) ‘Nineteenth Century Ireland’ Hume Avenue, Park West, Dublin 12: Gill & MacMillan
Comerford, R. V. (1998) ‘The Fenians in Context: Irish Politics & Society 1848–82’ Dublin: Wolfhound Press
Marley, L. (2010) ‘Michael Davitt: Freelance Radical and Frondeur’ Dublin: Four Courts Press
McGarry, F. & McConnel, J. eds. (2009) ‘The Black Hand of Republicanism: Fenianism in Modern Ireland’ Dublin: Irish Academic Press
- Comerford, R. V. ‘Fenianism: The Scope and Limitations of a Concept’
- Ramón, M. ‘National Brotherhoods and National Leagues: The IRB and its Constitutional Rivals during the 1860s’
- Rynne, F. ‘Permanent Revolutionaries: The IRB and the Land War in West Cork’
McGee, Owen. (2005) ‘The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Land League to Sinn Féin’ Dublin: Four Courts Press
Moody, T. W. ed. (1968) ‘The Fenian Movement’ Dublin & Cork: The Mercier Press
- Green, E. R. R. ‘The Beginnings of Fenianism’
- Lyons, F. S. L. ‘Fenianism. 1867–1916’
- Moody, T. W. ‘The Fenian Movement in Irish History’
- Nowlan, K. B. ‘The Fenian Rising of 1867’
Ó Concubhair, P. ‘The Fenians were dreadful men: The 1867 Rising’ Cork: Mercier Press (2011)
Pearse, Patrick. (2012) ‘The Coming Revolution: The Political Writings and Speeches of Patrick Pearse’ Cork: Mercier Press
Ramón, M. (2007) ‘A Provisional Dictator: James Stephens and the Fenian Movement’ Dublin: University College Dublin Press
[1] Comerford, R. V. (1998) ‘The Fenians in Context: Irish Politics & Society 1848–82’ Dublin: Wolfhound Press pp. 47–48 & Comerford, R. V. ‘Fenianism: The Scope and Limitations of a Concept’ in McGarry, Fearghal & McConnel, James. Eds. (2009) ‘The Black Hand of Republicanism: Fenianism in Modern Ireland’ Dublin: Irish Academic Press p. 179
[2] Comerford. (1998) pp. 51–53
[3] Ó Concubhair, P. (2011) ‘The Fenians were dreadful men: The 1867 Rising’ Cork: Mercier Press p. 21
[4] Comerford. (1998) pp. 38–39 & Ramón, M. (2007) ‘A Provisional Dictator: James Stephens and the Fenian Movement’ Dublin: University College Dublin Press p. 59
[5] Comerford. (1998) pp. 47–48
[6] Green, E. R. R. ‘The Beginnings of Fenianism’ in Moody, T. W. ed. (1968) ‘The Fenian Movement’ Dublin & Cork: The Mercier Press p. 17
[7] Ó Concubhair. (2011) p. 185
[8] Nowlan, K. B. ‘The Fenian Rising of 1867’ in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 23
[9] Ramón, M. ‘National Brotherhoods and National Leagues: The IRB and its Constitutional Rivals during the 1860s’ in McGarry & McConnel eds. (2009) p. 23
[10] Ibid. p. 24
[11] Pigott, Richard. (1883) ‘Personal Recollections of an Irish Nationalist Journalist’ Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co. p. 115 referenced in Ramón in McGarry & McConnel eds. (2009) p. 25
[12] Comerford. (1998) p. 125 and Ó Concubhair. (2011) pp. 32–33
[13] Rynne, Frank. ‘Permanent Revolutionaries: The IRB and the Land War in West Cork’ in McGarry & McConnel eds. (2009) p. 55
[14] Comerford. (1998) p. 33
[15] Ramón. (2007) p. 249
[16] Comerford. (1998) p. 33
[17] Green. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 22 & Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 27
[18] Ó Concubhair. (2011) p. 29
[19] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 33
[20] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 24 & Ramón. (2007) p. 197
[21] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 25
[22] Ramón. (2007) p. 212
[23] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 25
[24] Lyons, F. S. L. ‘Fenianism. 1867–1916’ in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 39
[25] Ó Concubhair. (2011) p. 40
[26] Moody, T. W. ‘The Fenian Movement in Irish History’ in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 103
[27] Ó Concubhair. (2011) p. 40
[28] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 24
[29] Ibid. p. 23
[30] Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) pp. 103–104
[31] Comerford. (1998) p. 127
[32] McGee, Owen. (2005) ‘The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Land League to Sinn Féin’ Dublin: Four Courts Press p. 32
[33] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 29
[34] Ó Concubhair. (2011) pp. 86–87
[35] Ibid. p. 137
[36] Ibid. p. 138
[37] Ibid. p. 141
[38] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 33
[39] Nowlan. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 108
[40] Ó Concubhair. (2011) pp. 97–97
[41] Ramón. (2007) p. 98 and Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 108
[42] Ó Concubhair. (2011) p. 99
[43] Boyce, G. D. ‘Nineteenth Century Ireland’ Hume Avenue, Park West, Dublin 12: Gill & MacMillan (2005) p. 156
[44] Ó Concubhair. (2011) p. 147
[45] Comerford. (1998) p. 148
[46] Ibid. p. 150
[47] Boyce. (2005) p. 160
[48] Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 108
[49] Ramón. in McGarry & McConnel. eds. (2009) p. 19 & Ó Concubhair. (2011) p. 78
[50] Ramón. (2007) pp. 157–158
[51] Ibid. p. 98
[52] Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 109
[53] Marley, Laurence. (2010) ‘Michael Davitt: Freelance Radical and Frondeur’ Dublin: Four Courts Press p. 119
[54] Freeman’s Journal, 30 April, 1888 referenced in Marley. (2010) p. 119
[55] Ramón. in McGarry & McConnel. eds. (2009) p. 22
[56] Ibid. p. 27
[57] Ibid. p. 31
[58] Marley. (2010) pp. 28–29
[59] Boyce. (2005) p. 160
[60] Lyons. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 40
[61] Boyce. (2005) p. 177; Marley. (2010) p. 38–39; & Lyons. in Moody. ed. (1968) pp. 40–41
[62] Rynne. in McGarry & McConnel. eds. (2009) p. 55
[63] Lyons. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 41
[64] Rynne. in McGarry & McConnel. eds. (2009) p. 55
[65] Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 105
[66] Pearse, P. (2012) ‘Donovan Rossa, A Character Study’ in ‘The Coming Revolution: The Political Writings and Speeches of Patrick Pearse’ Cork: Mercier Press p. 107
[67] Comerford. in McGarry & McConnel. eds. (2009) p. 180
[68] Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 111
[69] Ó Concubhair. (2011) pp. 183–184
[70] Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 111
[71] McGee. (2005) p. 26
[72] Moody. in Moody. ed. (1968) p. 110
