Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:04:24.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The house of lords and Ireland in the age of Peel, 1832–50

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

David Large
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before considering the manner in which the house of lords handled Irish questions in the age of Peel a brief examination of the ties between the United Kingdom upper house and Ireland is necessary A striking fact that requires emphasis is the growth between 1783 and 1832 of the ‘Irish interest’ in the lords. In the eighteenth century, when the British house of lords was a relatively small body of little over 200 members, the number of peers with a stake in Irish land was only about one eighth of the whole body. Several of these, too, owned wide lands in England and their main interests lay there. But by the time the first reformed parliament was opened on 29 January 1833 the Irish interest’ in the lords had become a formidable body In a house that had doubled in numbers since 1783 virtually one peer out of every four had a stake in Ireland through the ownership of land, and the majority of these were men whose economic interests were exclusively centred on their Irish estates. Moreover this ‘Irish interest’ maintained its strength in the lords right down to the formation of Gladstone's first ministry as the table below makes clear.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 36 , September 1955 , pp. 367 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I have to thank his grace the duke of Wellington for kind permission to examine and quote from the Wellington MSS at Apsley house.

2 This table has been compiled by using the works listed below for references to peers owning estates in Ireland :— Campbell, T., A philosophical survey of the south of Ireland (Dublin, 1778)Google Scholar; Young, A., A tour in Ireland (Dublin, 1780)Google Scholar; Wilson, W., The post chaise companion (Dublin, 1784; 3rd ed., Dublin, 1805)Google Scholar; Annual Reg., 1797, p. 31; the Statistical surveys prepared for the Royal Dublin Society for counties Antrim, Armagh, Cavan, Clare, Cork, Donegal, Down, Dublin, Galway, Kildare, Kilkenny, Leitrim, Londonderry, Mayo, Meath, Monaghan, Roscommon, Sligo, Tyrone, Wicklow, and Wexford, and King's County and Queen's County; Wakefield, E., An account of Ireland, statistical and political (London, 1812)Google Scholar; Mason, W. S., A statistical account or parochial survey of Ireland (Dublin, 1814–19 Google ScholarPubMed); Lewis, , Topog. diet. Ire.; The parliamentary gazetteer of Ireland (Dublin, 1844)Google Scholar; A list of petitions filed in the incumbered estates court in Ireland, 1849–53 (Dublin, 1854)Google Scholar; Owners of land (Ireland), (C 1097) H.L. & H.C., 1874, lxxii; Owners of land (Ireland), H.C. 1876, (422), lxxx; Bateman, J., The great landowners of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1878 and 1883)Google Scholar.

3 B.M., Add. MS 38260, ff. 95–8.

4 The total from 13 Jan. 1801 to 29 Jan. 1833 was 34. In addition, of course, there were some United Kingdom titles conferred during this period on commoners whose principal estates were in Ireland (e.g. W. B. Ponsonby who was created a baron in 1806), which helped to swell the ‘Irish interest’ in the lords.

5 Rosslyn to Wellington, 14 Dec. 1836, gives evidence of party organization in the lords, and Melville to Wellington, 15 Jan. 1836, shows the rôle of Melville in Scottish business (Wellington MSS); cf. Aberdeen to Peel, 14, 25 Nov 1838 (B.M., Add. MS 40312), and Wellington to Aberdeen, 30 Oct., 26 Nov. 1838 (B.M., Add. MS 43060).

6 Lord Langford, A letter to Viscount Melbourne on the peerage (1837), P. 7.

7 Lord Downes to Wellington, 7, 18, 22, 23, 29 Jan., 7, 23, 27 Feb., 30 Mar. 1833 (Wellington MSS).

8 Belmore to Wellington, 9 Jan. 1833 (Wellington MSS).

9 Wellington to Peel, 5 Mar. 1842 (B.M., Add. MS 40459); Peel to Wellington, 20, 22 May 1845, 2 May 1846 (B.M., Add. MS 40461); Peel to Wellington, 17 Aug. 1836 (Wellington MSS).

10 Peel to Wellington, 31 Aug. 1836 (Wellington MSS).

11 Wellington to Peel, 2 Sept. 1836 (Wellington MSS).

12 Part, deb., xxx, cols 715–45, 872–934; xxxv, cols 435–43, 446–515; Kitson Clark, G., Peel and the conservative party, p. 284 Google Scholar; The correspondence and diaries of J. W. Croker, ed. Jennings, L. J., ii 282–3Google Scholar.

13 Moneypenny, W. F. and Buckle, G. E., Life of Disraeli, i. 328 Google Scholar for Disraeli's account of the conservative plan, in which he exaggerates Lyndhurst's part. Peel's anxiety to win over Wellington, and his loyalty to him, once the duke was committed, in spite of pressure from Stanley for the lords to adopt less drastic amendments to the corporation bill, is shown in Peel to Wellington, 10 Jan., 12 Feb., 11, 12 Mar. 1836, and Rosslyn to Wellington, 9, 10 Feb. 1836 (Wellington MSS); Part. deb., xxxii, cols 1119–66; xxxiii, cols 233–306, 704–37, 1043–62.

14 For the negotiations leading to the compromise plan see Kitson Clark, G., Peel and the conservative party, pp. 332–59Google Scholar.

15 Parl. deb., xliv, cols 150–67, 276–83, 702–16; xlix, cols 597–620, 747–63, 1143–5; liii, cols 1160–80; lv, cols 438–51.

16 Hardinge to Wellington, 9 Nov. 1836, indicating Peel's opinion (Wellington MSS).

17 Northumberland to Wellington, 25 Jan. 1833 (Wellington MSS); Parl. deb., xv, cols 719–58.

18 Charles Arbuthnot to his son, 2O Aug. 1833 (The correspondence of Charles Arbuthnot, ed. A. Aspinall, Camden third series, lxv. 175); for the duke's estrangement from Peel see Aberdeen to Peel, 5 May 1834, Peel's memo, of 10 May 1834 and Arbuthnot to Aberdeen, 2 May 1834 (B.M., Add. MS 40312); cf. Wellington to Aberdeen, 23 May 1834 (B.M., Add. MS 43060); Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, Memoirs of the courts and cabinets of William IV and Victoria, ii. 94–9.

19 Wellington to Aberdeen, 4 Sept. 1834 (B.M., Add. MS 43060).

20 Twiss, H., Life of Eldon, iii. 195 Google Scholar; The Standard, 13, 14 Feb., 12, 14, 16, 23 Mar. 1833; Blackwood's Magazine, xxxiii, no. 205 (Mar. 1833), p. 366 Google Scholar; Fraser’s Magazine, vii, no. 60, pp. 419–20Google Scholar; Parl. deb., xvi, cols 778–88, 995–7, 1323–5; xvii, cols 380–4; xix, cols 302, 718; Brougham, Lord, Life and times by himself, iii. 273–4Google Scholar.

21 Phillpotts to Wellington, 8, 13 Feb. 1833 (Wellington MSS).

22 Whately, E. J., Life of Archbishop Whately, i. 195, 237–41Google Scholar.

23 van Thai, H., Ernest Augustus, duke of Cumberland and king of Hanover, appendix iv, pp. 277–89Google Scholar; Viscount Beresford to Wellington, 22 Feb. 1833, enclosing a letter from the archbishop of Armagh (Wellington MSS).

24 E. Hughes, ‘The bishops and reform, 1831–33, some fresh correspondence’, in E.H.R., lvi (July 1941). 479; Rosslyn to Wellington, 12 Mar. 1833 (Wellington MSS).

25 Cumberland to Wellington, 5 Mar. 1833, also enclosing his correspondence with the archbishop of Armagh (Wellington MSS).

26 Rosslyn to Wellington, 12 Mar. 1833 (Wellington MSS).

27 Camden to Wellington, 28 Mar. 1833 (Wellington MSS); Ellenborough's diary, 10 Mar. 1833, in Three early nineteenth century diaries, ed. A. Aspinall, p. 315.

28 Ellenborough's diary, 13 July 1833, in Three early nineteenth century diaries, pp. 347∼8.

29 Buckingham to Wellington, 13 July 1833, in which he asserted that the ultras ‘neither can or will retreat’ and, ‘should Sir Robert Peel … decline to co-operate in government in the house of commons, there are many who feel their duty calls upon them to rescue the country out of the hands in which it is placed with the least possible delay, although he may shrink from that duty ‘(Wellington MSS).

30 Parl. deb., xix, cols 725–82, 807–82, 918–1018; the division figures were ministerialists 157; ultra tories 98; Rosslyn to Mrs Arbuthnot, 20 July 1833 (The correspondence of Charles Arbuthnot, as above, lxv 171).

31 Peel to Wellington, 20 July 1833 (Wellington MSS).

32 The Globe, 24 July 1833; E. J. Littleton's diary, 23 July 1833, in Three early nineteenth century diaries, ed. Aspinall, A., pp. 350–1Google Scholar ; Pad. deb. xix, cols 1084–1103.

33 The chief members of the group of Irish ultra tory peers were Roden, Londonderry, Glengall, Lorton, Downshire, Westmeath, Farnham, Enniskillen and Thomond. Pad. deb., xxvii, cols 1118–25; xxviii, cols 340–65; xxxix, cols 212–24, 339–54; xlii, cols 33–9, 264–9; xliii, cols 746–57, 989–1043; xlv, cols 601–8, 907–16; xlvi, cols 10–25.

34 O'Brien, R. B., Life and letters of Thomas Drummond, pp. 327–33, 339–53Google Scholar.

35 Frasers Magazine, xv, no. 85 (Jan. 1837), p. 94 Google Scholar.

36 Pad. deb., xxxix, cols 339–54.

37 Kitson Clark, G., Peel and the conservative party, pp. 412–5Google Scholar.

38 Winchilsea to Wellington, 29 Feb., 3 Mar. 1836, Wellington to Winchilsea, 2 Mar. 1836, and Rosslyn to Wellington, 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 Mar. 1836 (Wellington MSS); Parl. deb., xxxi, cols 861–3, 930–9, 1173–5, 125 8–1300.

39 Phillpotts to Wellington, 15, 17 Feb., 14 Mar. 1836 (Wellington MSS); Pad. deb., xxviii. cols 129–50, 1206–29; xxix, cols 172, 603–16, 725–9; xxxi, cols 246–71; xxxii, cols 274–308, and passim.

40 Correspondence of the Princess Lieven and Earl Grey, ed. Le Strange, G., iii. 3–5 Google Scholar; Hobhouse, J. C., Recollections of a long life, ed. Dorchester, Lady, iv. 362 Google Scholar.

41 Only Russell seems to have been uneasy and all that this led to was a proposal for the creations of a small number of new peers ( Walpole, Spencer, Life of Lord John Russell, i. 250 Google Scholar).

42 Ibid., i. 266–7; J. C. Hobhouse, Recollections, v 57; Parl. deb., xxxiv, cols 874–85, 960–3.

43 Melbourne to Russell, 4 Sept. 1837 (Russell papers, P.R.O., 30/22/2).

44 The Pilot, 21, 31 Aug., 14, 18, 21, 25, 30 Sept. 1835; The correspondence of D. O'Connell, ed. Fitzpatrick, W. J., ii. 33–4, 48, 57–9, 70Google Scholar.

45 Parl. deb., lxi, cols 411–3; lxii, cols 458–9; lxiii, cols 964–73; lxiv, cols 272, 547–50; lxv, cols 171–4; lxvi, cols 317–22.

46 Parl. deb., lxix, cols 1–12, 319–30, 922–38, 1224–6; lxx, cols 470–2, 1099–1189.

47 Malmesbury, Lord, Memoirs of an ex-minister, i. 145 Google Scholar.

48 Parl. deb., lxxii, cols 602–80; The Greville memoirs, ed. Strachey, G. L. and Fulford, R., v. 188 Google Scholar; The correspondence and diaries of J. W. Croker, ed. Jennings, L. J., iii. 21–3Google Scholar; Blackwood's Magazine, lvi, no. 344 (Nov. 1844), pp. 539–69Google Scholar; The letters of C. C. F. Greville and H. Reeve, 1836–55, ed. Johnson, A. H., pp. 92–4Google Scholar.

49 Parker, C. S., Sir Robert Peel from his private correspondence, iii. 154–6Google Scholar; The Times, 7 June 1845.

50 Parker, C. S., Peel, iii. 116–7Google Scholar.

51 Peel to Heytesbury, 4 Feb. 1845, and Heytesbury to Peel, 6 Feb. 1845 (B.M., Add. MS 40479).

52 Graham to Peel, 11 Jan. 1845 (B.M., Add. MS 40451).

53 Heytesbury to Peel, 14 Feb. 1845 (B.M., Add. MS 40479).

54 Captain Edward Htenry A’Court to Peel enclosing the circular and petition form (B.M., Add. MS 40566 f. 47).

55 The Times, 7 June 1845.

56 Parl. deb., lxxx, cols 1160–1231, 1298–1374; Ixxxi, 6–120. The Times, 7 June 1845, where the names of four pairs are given; Graham to Peel, 5 June 1845 (B.M., Add. MS 40451).

57 Parl. deb., Ixxxi, cols 632–63; The Times, 18, 19 June 1845.

58 The Times, 11 June 1845.

59 ParI'. deb., lxxxi, cols 1116–52, 1195–1205; lxxxii, col. 493; The Times, 7, 27 June 1845; Salisbury to Wellington, 20 June 1845 (B.M., Add. MS 40461); Parker, C. S., Peel iii. 178 Google Scholar.

60 ParI. deb., lxxxii, cols 729–90, 887–9; Illustrated London News, vii. 54; The Times, 4 June 1845.

61 Graham to Peel, 11 Nov. 1845 (B.M., Add. MS 40452).

62 The Times, 21, 26 Jan. 1847.

63 ParI. deb., lxxxix, cols 355–423; The Times, 2 Jan. 1847 (report of Richmond's speech at a Sussex protection meeting).

64 Part. deb., xliii, cols 1–71, 352–61, 472–501, 563–6, 895–8, 962–3; xliv, cols 11–30; knight of Kerry's fragmentary diary, 23 May 1838 (N.L.I., MS 2077).

65 N.L.I., Monteagle papers, unsorted collection in box no. 81 ; Annual Reg., 1847, p. 40; Spencer Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, i. 445.

66 Parl. deb., lxxxix, cols 501–3, 597–602, 612–4, 770–1, 1323–4; xc, cols 1004–12, 1133–4, 1228–35; xci, cols 544–5, 810–11.

67 The Times, 1, 2, 3, 5 Feb. 1847; Londonderry complained of the paper and clashed with Brougham in the lords on the subject (Parl. deb., xc, cols 387–91, 1004–12, 1073–9).

68 e.g. Fitzwilliam, Mountcashel and Monteagle in a debate on the state of Ireland (Parl. deb., lxxxix, cols 355–423).

69 Parl. deb., lxxxix, cols 1324–53.

70 Ibid., lxxxix, cols 848–58, 932–7; xc, cols 665–76.

71 Ibid., xcii, cols 504–7.

72 ParL deb., xcii, cols 60–126.

73 The Times, 7, 8 May 1847. The conflict of views over the union rating clause showed most clearly that the struggle in the lords over the poor relief bill was part of the lengthy battle between landlords and factory lords. The bill proposed that when poor rates reached 2s. 6d. in the pound in an electoral district, the excess was to be taxed not only on the district concerned but on the whole union. In the lords, Stanley argued the injustice of this, by citing his own case as an owner of lands in Ireland. He possessed, he said, an estate of about 4000 acres which formed half of an electoral division rated at about £8,000-£9,000 of which he paid on about half. The pauperism on his lands however, so he said, amounted to only about one-fifteenth of all the pauperism in the division. Under the union rating clause he would be paying rates not only to support paupers in the rest of the electoral division but also in an additional area covering some 200,000–300,000 acres. What incentive was there in such circumstances for a landlord to keep down destitution on his own estate? The Times replied that Stanley's ‘ refusal to countenance the union rating principle amounted to sanctioning an express law for human drainage so that in every union there will be one or more great sinks of misery answering for the whole body of proprietors, which will then come on the treasury as had happened at Skibbereen. England would be saddled with paying taxes to relieve 130 Skibbereens’ (Parl. deb., xcii, cols 507–11; The Times, 15 May 1847).

74 Parl. deb., xcii, cols 555–98; during the debate Stanley objected to the circulation of the message from Lincoln.

75 Parl deb., xcii, cols 794–820; the government mustered 101 votes, the opposition 88; for the proxies see The Times, 17 May 1847.

76 Parl deb., xcv, cols 594–7, 1123, 1182–1230, 1341–2; xcviii, cols 485–507, 534–7; c, cols 743–56; cii, cols 174–81, 1203–4; cvi, cols 158–63.

77 Parl. deb., xcix, cols 1057–1073.

78 The bill was called the evicted destitute poor bill (Parl. deb., xcix, cols 82–5, 996–1019, 1165–7; c, cols 1016–19). The government was beaten on its motion on the third reading by 78 votes to 67, including pairs.

79 Spencer Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, ii. 82–3; Parl. deb., ciii, cols 234–5, 747–8, 1178–88; cv, cols 258–323; The Times, 14 May 1849, claimed that the ministers, however, had ‘an overpowering reserve of proxies’ which may have been true as proxies were not called.

80 The Times, 14 May 1849.

81 The Times, 18 July 1849, ‘just what was to be expected’, it commented, and ‘unless ft is a mere formal protest we must consider Irish poverty a permanent charge on the imperial treasury’; Part. deb., cvii, cols 290–323, 364–397, 1120–28; Spencer Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, ii. 83–4.

82 Parl. deb., xcvi, cols 1242–53; xcviii, col. 758; c, cols 1019–41; cv, cols 1336–67; cvi, cols 709–14, 1040–2; The Times, 13 June 1849.