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
