No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
Few periods of Irish history have been more extensively written about than the later eighteenth century: a mere list of books and papers dealing with the Volunteer movement, ‘Grattan's parliament’, the insurrection of 1798 and the legislative union of 1800 would make up a moderate-sized volume. Most of these writings are concerned, directly or indirectly, with the constitutional relationship between Ireland and Great Britain. Indeed, it might be said that this relationship is the basic theme in the Irish history of the period, even for social and economic historians; and the pattern is so well-established that it may well seem rash to assume that it can be substantially modified, or even made significantly clearer, except, perhaps, by the production of new and hitherto unsuspected evidence. Yet there is something to be said for looking again at the whole subject on the basis of our existing knowledge, not simply, as Irish historians are inclined to do, from the standpoint of Ireland, nor yet as if events in Ireland were a mere appendage to British history, but rather, as Professor Butterfield has done for one brief period in his George III, Lord North and the people, to consider Anglo-Irish constitutional relations during the late eighteenth century as part of the general political history of the British Isles.
1 Beckett, J.G., Protestant dissent in Ireland, 1687–1780, pp. 91–5.Google Scholar
2 See Beckett, J.G. and Donaldson, A.G., ‘The Irish parliament in the eighteenth century’ in Proceedings of the Belfast Natural History and Philosophical Society, 2nd series, 4. 30–31.Google Scholar
3 But cf. Harcourt to Rochford, 24 March 1774 (Cal. H.O Papers, 1773–5, 198); Irish parliamentary register, i. 392.
4 P.R.O., P.G. 1. 15/50.
5 The committee of council for Irish bills sometimes took further advice on particular points : e.g. the tillage bill of 1766 was referred to the commissioners of customs (P.R.O, P.C. 1 15/30); and in 1780 the question of the sugar duty was referred to the committee of trade (ibid, 1. 31/78).
6 E.g. in December 1773 (Harcourt to Rochford, 30 Dec. 1773, ( Cal. H.O. papers, 1773–5, pp. 121–3), where reference is also made to earlier instances).
7 E.g. Granville to Bedford, 7 Dec. 1759; Granville to Hallifax, 5 Dec. 1761, Winchilsea to Hertford, 10 Dec. 1765 (P.R.O, P.G. 1. 31/78).
8 Bathurst to Buckinghamshire, 16 Dec. 1779, 8 Aug. 1780 (ibid.); cf. Shelburne to Portland, 11 Apr. 1782 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/1, fo. 40).
9 Stormont to Northington, 12 Dec. 1783 ; Fawkener to Pelham, 20 Oct. 1796 (P.R.O, P.C. 1. 31/78).
10 [Nepean] to Orde, 18 Feb. 1786 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/18, ff. 64–7).
11 For the period Jan.-May 1784 there are formal reports of this kind on 61 bills; the only critical report during the period is that referred to in the text (P.R.O, P.C. 1. 16/12).
12 Ibid.
13 Lecky, , Ireland, 2. 335–6.Google Scholar I have found only two bills that were ‘respited’ during the period, both in August 1785 : one for granting bounties on gunpowder, one relating to the demise of the crown (P.R.O, P.C. 1. 31/78). But the subject requires further investigation.
14 Irish parliamentary register, i. 386 ff.
15 Shelburne to Portland, 29 Apr. 1782; Portland to Shelburne, 6 May 1782 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/1, ff. 144–144v, 179–179v).
16 Shelburne to Portland, i8 May 1782 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/1, fo. 218).
17 Same to same, 8 June 1782 (ibid, H.O. 100/2, ff. 7v–8).
18 Pitt, to Rutland, , 28 July 1784 (Correspondence of Pitt and Rutland, 1781–1787 (London, 1890), pp. 31–2).Google Scholar
19 Pitt to Rutland, 6 Jan. 1785 (ibid., p. 72).
20 Pitt to Orde, 12 Jan. 1784 (ibid, pp. 87–8).
21 [Pelham] to Portland [1783] (B.M., Add. MS 33100, ff. 431–5).
22 Ibid.
23 ‘I do not the less esteem the soundness of whig principles in England because that I despise the false profession of them in this country.’ (Same to same, 24 Oct. 1783 (ibid, ff. 372–4).)
24 Portland to Northington, 18 Sept. 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 38716, ff. I02v, IO4).
25 W. Eden to Northington, 19 Nov- [1783] (B.M, Add. MS 33100, ff. 391–2).
26 Portland to Pelham, 27 Oct. 1783 (ibid, ff. 381–3).
27 Rutland, to Sydney, , 4 July 1785; Sydney to Rutland, 16 July 1785 (H.M.C, Rutland, 3. 221, 225).Google Scholar Gf. John Beresford to John Robinson, 11 Apr. 1784 [on the arrival of Rutland] ‘Mr Ponsonby waited for orders from the duke of Portland’ ( Beresford, W. (ed.), Correspondence of the Rt Hon. John Beresford (London, 1854), 1. 253.)Google Scholar
28 Portland to Northington, 18 Sept. 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 38716, fo. 102).
29 Portland to Shelburne, 24 Apr. 1782 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/1, fo. 135).
30 Same to Northington, 27 Dec. 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 38716, ff. 148v-9v).
31 Hillsborough to Northington, 26 Dec. 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 33100, ff. 496–7).
32 Pelham to Northington, [Dec. 1783] (ibid. ff. 527–30).
33 Northington to Sydney, 28 Dec. 1783 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/12, ff. 5-6). Portland, though he was now trying to induce Northington to remain in office, had a few months earlier laid even greater stress on the absolute necessity of confidence and co-operation between Dublin and London (Portland to Pelham, 2 Aug. 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 33100, ff. 237–8)).
34 Northington to Pelham, 10 Sept. 1783; same to Fox, 17 & 18 Nov 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 38716, ff. 88, 131v–132); Northington to Pelham, 7 Sept. 1783; Pelham [?] to Windham, 14 Sept. 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 33100, ff. 304–5, 318–9).
35 E.g. over the duty on sugar (Northington to Fox, 17 & 18 Nov-1783 (B.M, Add. MS 38716, ff. 129–129v)).
36 Northington to North, 23 Sept. 1783 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/10, fo. 106v).
37 Orde, to Rutland, , 9 June 1784 (H.M.C, Rutland, 3. 105).Google Scholar
38 Northington to North, 23 Sept. 1783 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/10, f. 107v); North to Northington, 2 Dec. 1783 (B.M., Add. MS 38716, ff. 141–2).
39 Orde to Nepean, 9 Feb. 1786; Thurlow to [Sydney], 16 Feb. 1786; [Nepean] to Orde, 18 Feb. 1786 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/18, ff. 60–61, 432–33v, 64–7).
40 There was, for example, some demand for the appointment of Irish diplomatic representatives abroad. (P.R.O, H.O. 100/5, ff- 55–9, H.O. 100/10, f. 104). In 1783 the question was raised whether the peace treaties should be laid before the Irish parliament. Northington to North, 29 Sept. 1783, North to Northington, 3 Nov. 1783 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/10, ff. 128–9, 208).
41 Fox to Northington, 1 Nov. 1783 (B.M, Add. MS 38716, ff. 136–136v); Pitt, to Rutland, , 4 Dec. 1784 (Correspondence of Pitt’and Rutland, 1781–1787, p. 51).Google Scholar
42 >Mornington, to Rutland, , 31 May 1784 (H.M.C., Rutland, 3. 99)Google Scholar; Rutland, to Pitt, , 16 June 1784 (Correspondence of Pitt and Rutland, 1781–1787, p. 22).Google Scholar
43 Rutland to Pitt, 4 July 1785 ; same to same, 17 Aug. 1785 (ibid, pp. 108–9, 122–3).
44 Pitt to Rutland, 21 May 1785 (ibid, pp. 104–7).
45 Pulteney, Daniel to Rutland, , 20 Feb. 1787 (H.M.C., Rutland, 3, 373).Google Scholar
46 Same to same, 10 Feb. 1787 (ibid, iii. 371).
47 Rutland to Sydney, 11 Mar, 4 Nov- 1786 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/18, ff- 131–5, 403. Edents Beresford, 20 Apr, 15 Sept, 3 Oct. 1786 (Correspondence of J. Beresford, i. 303, 312, 313).
48 Pulteney, Daniel to Rutland, , 22 Feb. 1787 (H.M.G., Rutland, 3, 374).Google Scholar Mr M. J. Barnes has drawn my attention to a relevant passage in Sheridan, Speeches (ed. 1842), i. 254.
49 Portland to Shelburne, 5 May 1782 (P.R.O, H.O. 100/1, fo. l82v).
50 Rutland to Sydney, 27 Feb. 1784 (P.R.O., H.O. 100/12, fo. 125v).
51 Rutland, to Sydney, , 30 Aug. 1785 (H.M.C., Rutland, 3. 238).Google Scholar
52 Johnston, Edith M. ‘The state of the Irish house of commons in 1791’ in R.I.A. Proc.y lix.,Google Scholar sect. C. This paper was written before the publication of Dr Johnston’s book Great Britain and Ireland, 1760–1800, which is, however, only indirectly concerned with the main issue here discussed.