Killeen’s father, a leading Catholic in the campaign for emancipation, succeeded to his family’s Irish peerage and estates in 1793 and took an active part in suppressing the rebellion of 1798. Killeen joined Brooks’s, 19 May 1812, sponsored by Lord King. The following month, at a meeting of the Catholics of Ireland in Dublin, he proposed resolutions regretting the failure of the relief bill.
the only legal disposal of the Catholic rent that can now be made is by vesting it in some one individual of such integrity and honour as to be a sufficient assurance of the faithful and delicate execution of the confidential character which such a donation naturally requires. It is perfectly plain that if Lord Killeen will accept this donation we shall have such an individual as we could desire.
In October O’Connell described him as ‘the proper person’ to ‘be applied to with respect to any disposal’ of the rent.
clear from the conduct of Lord Killeen, Mr. [Thomas] Wyse* and others of the Catholics that they felt as we all do, how much harm to the cause the violent members of the Association do, and how impossible it is to control them unless the Protestants will come forward and give their weight to those Catholics who ... oppose the violence we so much lament.
Ibid. 24, 31 Jan. 1829; PRO NI, Downshire mss D671/C/12/379.
At an Association meeting on 23 Jan. Killeen offered his services to O’Connell, saying that he would ‘gladly attend him to London’, but at another held on 7 Mar. he questioned the ‘prudence’ of his proposal to petition against the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders. He was a member of the committee established for the O’Connell testimonial, 25 Mar. 1829.
In November 1829 he came forward for a vacancy in Meath, prompting the duke of Wellington, the premier, to comment that if he ‘would keep clear of radical Roman Catholic politics he would make a suitable Member’, and Peel, the home secretary, to ‘hope’ that Naper would offer and defeat him. Wellington advised the duke of Northumberland, the viceroy, not to support him, but he obtained Anglesey’s backing as a counter-weight to O’Connell, Charles Hare observing that his return might help to ‘detach the real gentry from among the Roman Catholics, from the upstart pretenders’.
He stood as a ‘friend to parliamentary reform’ who had ‘endeavoured to pursue a course of strict independence’ and was returned unopposed.
one of the first ... to sign the declaration against the repeal of the Union (which neither Fingall nor his son have signed to this day) ... [and] therefore no Jesuit, or indirect abettor of O’Connell, which is more than I would venture to assert of others. In a word, I think the appointment of Lord Killeen would only add to the blunders already made by government in that land of blunders.
Add. 51572.
Darnley’s hostility was evidently not shared by ministers, for on learning of his death the following month the Irish secretary Smith Stanley informed Anglesey, the viceroy, that it had removed ‘a difficulty’ and he hoped ‘to give the lieutenancy to Killeen, who is the right man’.
At the ensuing general election he again cited his support for reform and retrenchment and was returned at the head of the poll.
opposing the government, if their views of the policy fit to be pursued in ... Ireland were not adopted. The measure they pressed most was that of regulating the yeomanry, with a view to its gradual reduction, admitting, at least several of them and amongst others Lord Killeen ... that an immediate suppression ... was not to be expected. This, however, certainly is not to be admitted by O’Connell who, before the meeting, pressed for the immediate suppression; but gave it up on Lord Killeen’s stating that he would not attend if this was insisted on ... With respect to their future conduct in Parliament I told them plainly that they might by going into opposition, very probably furnish the adversaries of the present government with the means of overturning it [and] that I should find much less difficulty in relinquishing than I had done in accepting my present office ... I thought it best to meet their threat.
Anglesey mss 28A-B/71.
According to William Holmes*, the opposition whip, two days later Lord Althorp* and Smith Stanley met with the Irish Members and ‘submitted a plan for reorganizing the Irish yeomanry’, but ‘the radicals with Lord Killeen at their head, refused any measure short of a total disbanding’ and ‘they separated, all parties abusing the government’.
Killeen voted for the second reading of the revised reform bill, 17 Dec. 1831, and for going into committee on it, 20 Feb. 1832, and again gave general support to its details. He divided for the third reading, 22 Mar., but was absent from the division on the address calling on the king to appoint only ministers who would carry reform unimpaired, 10 May. He presented and endorsed petitions for an increase in the number of Irish Members, 31 Jan., 15 Mar., obtained returns of the ten largest unenfranchised Irish towns, 27 Feb., and presented a Catholic petition for provision for the peculiar franchise of Galway, 15 Mar. He voted for the second reading of the Irish reform bill, 25 May, and against a Conservative amendment to increase Scottish county representation, 1 June, but asked ‘why a measure equally efficient with that for England should not be passed for Ireland’, 8 June. He called for the ‘bad system’ of Irish voter registration to be assimilated with that of England, 4 July. He welcomed the ‘great convenience’ of having three or four polling places in large counties, 6 July, but predicted that the proposed method of describing voter qualifications would prove ‘exceedingly inconvenient’ in Ireland, where ‘many voters live in no street at all’, 9 July, and objected to Catholics being obliged to take an oath on registering, while Protestants were exempt, 18 July 1832.
He voted with ministers on relations with Portugal, 9 Feb., but was in the minority for printing the Woollen Grange petition for the abolition of Irish tithes, 16 Feb. 1832. Next day he warned that the proposed subletting bill would fail to ‘produce that satisfaction and concord in Ireland which is expected’. He voted against the Irish tithes bill, 8, 27, 30 Mar., 6 Apr., 13, 24 July, but denied that his opposition was ‘factious’, saying that it was activated by a wish to defeat a measure which would be ‘disastrous to the popularity of the present government in Ireland’, 13 Mar. According to Denis Le Marchant†, that month Sheil commented that his opposition to the ministry was ‘quite different from Lord Killeen, Sir Patrick Bellew and others who have received favours’, as ‘the government have no claim upon us’.
At the 1832 dissolution Killeen retired from the Commons. He succeeded to the peerage in 1836 and sat in the Lords as a Liberal.
