O'DONNELL AND THE SEE OF RAPHOE (these are referred to in preceding paragraphs) they be granted for their territories, or rather that the jus patronatus, which their predecessors poss~ssed, be restored to them.' I A few months later Hugh O'Neill writing from Donegal again appealed to Clement VIII to concede to him the 'right of patronage' which his forebears possessed. 2 Did the Holy See.· accede to the wishes of the Ulster chieftains? In other words, did O'Neill and O'Donnell exercise any effective control over episcopal appointments in the .provinces of Ulster and Connacht? Archbi°shop Lombard tells us in a memorandum written in 1612 that Hugh O'Neill after three years soliciting and negotiating did succeed in having two of his nominees appointed to archbishoprics, one to Tuam, and one to Dublin. The latter had been nominated to Clogher, but O'Neill had him translated to Dublin. But Lombard statesand this, he says, was well know,n to O'Neill-that the 'Pope reluctantly yielded to the wishes of the Urster -chieftain. 3 The whole tenor of Archbishop Lombard's memorandum makes it quite Clear that he is, at this date1612-·totally opposed to O'Neill's having any voice in the appointment of bishops. Indeed he goes so far as to assert that his interference in episcopal nominations has had disastrous re;. sults. 4: expressly exclude the Arch/bishop of Armagh - Dr. Lombard - rrom any voice in these appointments. Though the chieftain.s ask tnat their own opinion or that of the Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam be followed, it seems plain enough that they are still trying to assert their right to some control over episcopal appointme.nts in these provinces; and the reason they put forward in support of their claim is the loyalty of their forebears as well as their owr:i loyalty to the Holy See. 5 It is worthy of note that thi·s petition elicited from PoPe Paul V the .promise that he would keep in mind the wishes of the northern chieftains when filling vacant "Sees in Ulster and Connacht.6 Though space does not permit of a reference ,to each of the many occasions on which the northern chieftains appealed to the Holy See in the matter of episcopal appointments in Ulster and Connacht, it is quite clear that regularly during the first half of the seventeenth century, O,Neills and O'Donnells, whether at home or in exile, pressed their claim to a sort of a right of pa,tronage in these two pro- \'."ince.s.7 When, it may be asked, did the Ulster leaders cease to press this claim? We do not know exactly. But it may safely be inferred that after It does seem certain that in mak- 1 Arch. Hib. III, p.310. ing appointments to vacant sees in 2 Ibid, .p..241. Ulster and Connacht the Pope was 3 Arch. Hib. III, p. 286. loth k· be :guided by the wi~hes. ~f 4 Ibid. p. 296, p. 297. According to O'Neill and O'Donnell; otherwise it is hard to account for their persistent Lombard 0 Neill's action led to the c. colonisation of Ulster after his flight appeals to him in this matter. In lvl 7, that is, five years after Archbishop from Ireland, and to the pe.rsecution Lombard's memorandum we find Ty- of Catholics in Dublin. (Arch. HLb. III, ~one and Tyrconnell petitioning Pope p. 297) Neither reason see.ms sound. Paul v to have due regard to the views 5Arch. Hib., IV~ pp. 293-295. In art. of the natives of Ulster and Connacht 6 & 7 of this document (op. cit. p.296) when providing bi'Shops to sees in these O'Neill and O'Donnell staie thefr 1reastwo provinces. On this occasion they ons for their attitude to Lombard. 472.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzQxNzU3