Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:22:54.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fitzwilliam episode, 1795: a reinterpretation of the role of the duke of Portland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

David Wilkinson
David Wilkinson*
Affiliation:
History of Parliament, Institute of Historical Research, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

    This doggerel vindication of Fitzwilliam’s Irish viceroyalty of 1795 gave one contemporary interpretation of this controversial episode. Such a favourable verdict was far from universal at the time and subsequently has been seriously questioned by historians. In one respect, however, this verse succinctly highlighted one of the most striking features of the Fitzwilliam episode. It appeared that the lord lieutenant had been recalled before ‘he scarcely could explain himself’. The English minister principally responsible for initiating the swift recall was the home secretary, the duke of Portland. Since Portland was a close friend and longstanding political ally of Fitzwilliam, this seeming betrayal excited widespread comment and, in certain circles, gave rise to heartsearching consternation. Yet Portland’s motives have never been satisfactorily explained by historians. Attention has repeatedly been paid to the motives of Fitzwilliam himself, and the conduct of the prime minister, the Younger Pitt, has been carefully scrutinised. Explanations of Portland’s behaviour have been left rather on the sidelines. He is usually portrayed as a weak-minded dupe and traitor to his own avowed principles. A re-examination of the evidence permits a more rounded characterisation. Portland’s attitude was complex but coherent. Instead of the conventional picture of a weak man with weak views, Portland emerges as a man with strong views and some failings.

    Type
    Research Article
    Information
    Irish Historical Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 115 , May 1995 , pp. 315 - 339
    Copyright
    Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1995

    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 Quidam, ‘A scrap of truth’ for the London Chronicle [3 Mar. 1795] (Sheffield Archives, Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments (henceforth W.W.M.), F29/63).

    2 The Fitzwilliam episode has been analysed in McDowell, R. B., ‘The Fitzwilliam episode’ in I.H.S., xvi, no. 58 (Sept. 1966), pp 115-30Google Scholar; Smith, E.A., Whig principles and party politics: Earl Fitzwilliam and the Whig Party, 1748–1833 (Manchester, 1975), pp 175–218 Google Scholar (henceforth Smith, Fitzwilliam); Ehrman, John, The Younger Pitt (2 vols, London, 1969-83), ii, 402–40Google Scholar; O’Gorman, Frank, The Whig Party and the French Revolution (London, 1967), pp 218–32 Google Scholar; Mahoney, T.H.D., Edmund Burke and Ireland (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), pp 217–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartlett, Thomas, The fall and rise of the Irish nation: the Catholic question, 1690–1830 (Dublin, 1992), pp 193–201 Google Scholar (henceforth Bartlett, Catholic question); Lindsay, Deirdre, ‘The Fitzwilliam episode revisited’ in David Dickson, Keogh, Dáire and Whelan, Kevin (eds), The United Irishmen: republicanism, radicalism and rebellion (Dublin, 1993), pp 197–208 Google Scholar. The following older works also contain useful material: Stanhope, Lord, Miscellanies (London, 1863), pp 11–24 Google Scholar; Lecky, W. E. H., A history of Ireland in the eighteenth century (5 vols, London, 1892), iii, 238–324Google Scholar; Ashbourne, Lord, Pitt: some chapters of his life and times (London, 1898), pp 180–229 Google Scholar; Rose, J.Holland, Pitt and Napoleon (London, 1912), pp 20–36 Google Scholar; Turberville, A. S., A history of Welbeck Abbey and its owners (2 vols, London, 1938-9), ii, 259–78Google Scholar.

    3 William Ponsonby to Fitzwilliam,4 May 1795, and enclosure ‘Report on the original proposition of the Duke of Portland in June 1794’ (W.W.M., F29/55; F29/60); Grattan to Burke, 11, 14 Mar. 1795, printed in The correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed. T. W. Copeland et al. (10 vols, Cambridge & Chicago, 1958–78), viii, 185–7,196-7. The arguments presented in this article demonstrate why I consider these retrospectives to be misrepresentations of Portland’s actual opinions. They may, nevertheless, accurately reflect what Portland’s opinions were believed to be, without being objectively true. It is also possible to accept them at face value; this remains a question of interpretation. Cf. McDowell,’Fitzwilliam episode’, pp 117–18; Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 179–80.

    4 Portland to Pelham,4 May 1795 (B.L., Add. MS 33101, ff 185–6).

    5 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 16 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/50). For a discussion of the eventual foundation of St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, see Bartlett, Catholic question, pp 208–10.

    6 Portland to French Laurence, 14 Sept. 1789 (Nottingham University Library, Portland Collection (henceforth Portland MSS), PwF 6238). He thought these acts produced no ‘real injury’ to Dissenters, who were to be found in ‘almost every corporation and in every office both political and judicial’.

    7 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 16 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/51).

    8 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 17 Oct 1792 (ibid., F31/3). For examples of misleading use of this evidence see Smith, Fitzwilliam, p. 179; McDowell, ‘Fitzwilliam episode’, pp 117–19. For the abortive negotiations of 1792, to which Portland refers, see O’Gorman, Whig Party, pp 90–97.

    9 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 17 Oct. 1792 (W.W.M., F31/3).

    10 For the relief acts of 1792 and 1793 see Bartlett, Catholic question, pp 121–72.The most important feature of the 1793 act was the admission of Catholics to the franchise; the right to sit as M.P.s continued to be withheld. Portland’s fears about military commissions, which foreshadow his resistance to Fitzwilliam’s yeomanry scheme (discussed below) would hardly have been assuaged by Catholics now being permitted to hold commissions below the rank of general on the staff.

    11 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 23 Jan. 1793 (W.W.M., F31/7).

    12 Portland to Windham, 11 Jan. 1794 (B.L., Add. MS 37845, f. 17. printed with serious inaccuracies in The Windham papers, ed. Benjamin, L.S. (2 vols, London, 1913). ii, 199–209)Google Scholar. For the political context of these remarks see Portland to Fitzwilliam, 31 Dec 1794 (W.W.M., F31/11); Ehrman, Pitt, ii, 405–7.

    13 Detailed analysis is provided in O’Gorman, Whig Party; Mitchell, L. G., Charles James Fox and the disintegration of the Whig Party (London, 1971).Google Scholar

    14 Smith, Fitzwilliam, p. 165.

    15 Portland regarded Burke’s hypersensitivity as an integral factor in the initial disagreement. He also disapproved of the divisive effects of Burke’s pamphleteering and withheld from public comment. (Portland to Fitzwilliam, 21, 26 Apr. 1791 (W.W.M., Fl 15/54, 56); Portland to French Laurence, 30 Aug. 1791 (Portland MSS, PwF6241))

    16 Smith, Fitzwilliam, p. 165.

    17 Windham to Pitt (copy), 20 Jan. 1794 (B.L., Add. MS 37844, f. 19).

    18 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 23 June 1794 (Portland MSS, PwF 3765).

    19 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 14, 19, 25 June 1794 (W.W.M., F31/15,19,21).

    20 The formation of the coalition was complicated by a last-minute crisis over Pitt’s insistence that the conduct of the war should remain under the control of Dundas. After refusing Pitt’s offer of the Foreign Office as an alternative to accepting a reduced Home Department, Portland finally accepted the post of home secretary, but insisted on retaining supervision of Ireland and the colonies. Dundas at first accepted the new arrangement, then recanted, finally giving in under intense pressure from Pitt and George III. The new ministers kissed hands on 11 July. The five Whigs who joined the cabinet were Portland, Fitzwilliam, Spencer (lord president), Windham (war secretary), Mansfield (without portfolio). Ehrman, Pitt, ii, 411–14, gives a detailed account.

    21 Portland to Windham, 8 Oct. 1794 (B.L., Add. MS 37845, f. 70; printed in Windham papers, ii, 256). According to Mansfield, Portland considered Ireland so important that, in the period before the final round of negotiations, he had toyed with the idea of assuming the viceroyalty himself. Mansfield had, however, pressed the necessity of Portland entering the cabinet. (Mansfield to Windham, 12 Oct. 1794 (B.L., Add. MS 37874, f. 88; printed in Windham papers, ii, 259–60))

    22 For the invitations see Portland to Fitzwilliam, 14 Aug. 1794 (W.W.M., F31/27); Fitzwilliam to Grattan (draft), 23 Aug. 1794 (W.W.M., F29/2A; also printed from the original in Memoirs of the life and times of the Rt Hon. Henry Grattan, ed. Grattan, Henry (5 vols, London, 1839-46), iv, 173Google Scholar). On 8 September 1794 Portland told Fitzwilliam that he had conversed with William Ponsonby till one o’clock the previous morning and that George Ponsonby was expected to arrive soon (W.W.M., F31/30). The Ponsonbys had a complex relationship with Portland, who at times envisaged them as the potential nucleus of an Irish Whig party; they were related by marriage to Fitzwilliam and Portland: Lady Charlotte Fitzwilliam (née Ponsonby) and the duchess of Portland (née Dorothy Cavendish) were both cousins of the Ponsonbys.

    23 See, for example, Edward Cooke’s memorandum, 16 Nov. 1794; printed in The later correspondence of George III, ed. Aspinall, Arthur (5 vols, 1962-71), ii, 1158Google Scholar.

    24 After returning to Ireland on 13 December 1794, Grattan supposedly urged leading Catholics to ‘pour in petitions to parliament’ (Fitzgibbon to Westmorland, 25 Mar. 1795, quoted in McDowell, ‘Fitzwilliam episode’, p. 122; see also Bartlett, Catholic question, p. 195; Lindsay, ‘Fitzwilliam episode’, p. 199).

    25 Substantiated by Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 178–9.

    26 For example, Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 179–80,198-200,205; McDowell, ‘Fitzwilliam episode’, pp 117–18; Rose, Pitt & Napoleon, p. 23; Mahoney, Burke & Ireland, pp 266–71.

    27 Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 181–4; Ehrman, Pitt, ii, 421–4; Mahoney, Burke & Ireland, pp 233–40.

    28 Pitt to Windham, 16 Oct. 1794 (two letters) (B.L., Add. MS 37844, ff 78, 80; printed in Windham papers, ii, 274–5). One of Fitzwilliam’s reasons for accepting the new conditions was that Grattan and the Ponsonbys desired him to accept (Fitzwilliam to Burke, 18 Nov. 1794 (Burke corr., vii, 78)).

    29 These were an agreement concerning the vacant provostship of Trinity College and an inconclusive discussion about removing certain revenue posts. Fitzwilliam did not stay in Ireland long enough to initiate any changes on this latter question and he later denied that the dismissal of John Beresford, first commissioner of the revenue, was a prelude to ‘a systematic change in these boards’ (Fitzwilliam to Grenville, 9 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/47-8)).

    30 The outline of the meeting is recorded in Fitzwilliam’s brief contemporary notes, entitled ‘Heads of a Conversation at Pitt’s, November 15, 1794—shewn to him after the conversation—shewn afterwards to Grattan and the Ponsonbys’ (W.W.M., F29/64). Sometime after the meeting Grenville wrote his own draft summary, which was circulated to Pitt, Portland, Spencer and Windham in March 1795. An amended copy was then agreed at a meeting held on 21 March at Grenville’s, thus ‘finally settling the minute of the conversation which passed at Mr Pitt’s sometime previous to Lord Fitzwilliam’s departure’ (Portland to Pelham, 21 Mar. 1795 (B.L., Add. MS 33101, ff 159–60)). Grenville’s draft is printed in H.M.C., Fortescue MSS, iii, 35–8; the finalised text is in P.R.O., HO 100/46, ff 312–19, with a copy in B.L., Add. MS 31118, f. 268, from which it has been partly printed in Lecky, Ireland, iii, 309–10, and Ashbourne, Pitt, pp 187–90. Ehrman points out that in the final version of the ‘minute’ the emphasis was shifted even more firmly on to the need for proper consultation in all areas (Pitt, ii, 424 n. 1, 425 n. 4, 426–7,436).

    31 That there was to be no permanent proscription was acknowledged by Pittites outside the cabinet, such as Canning, who drew the following conclusion: ‘[Fitzwilliam] turned out at once all the old supporters of Mr Pitt’s administration, whom though it was understood he was to fill up places with his own friends by degrees as they retired— yet he was by no means authorised to drive out bag and baggage, immediately upon his arrival’ ( The letter journal of George Canning, 1793–5, ed. Jupp, Peter (Camden Society, 4th ser., vol. 41, London, 1991), p. 218 Google Scholar (3 Mar. 1795)).

    32 This would require the removal, on generous terms, of John Toler, the current incumbent. For the details of the arrangements made for this compensation see Smith, Fitzwilliam, p. 191.

    33 For the delays see Rose, Pitt & Napoleon, pp 31–2; Mahoney, Burke & Ireland, p. 396 n. 78. The military situation became very serious after the French invaded Holland in December 1794. By the end of February 1795 there was a possibility of the French launching an invasion with the additional advantage of a fleet seized from the Dutch.

    34 There are numerous unflattering verdicts on Portland, including ‘dilatory and fussy’ (McDowell,’Fitzwilliam episode’, p. 129);’a man whose natural response to a crisis [was] to hope if he did nothing it would go away’ (Smith, Fitzwilliam, p. 198); ‘one of the most easily influenced men who ever rose to the high offices, which he held’, and who was ‘usually influenced by the last person who had his ear’ (Mahoney, Burke & Ireland, p. 270).

    35 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 21 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/54).

    36 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 7 Jan. 1795 (two letters) (ibid., F5/2-4, F4B/2-4). W.W.M., F5 comprises Fitzwilliam’s copies of letters relating to his Irish viceroyalty. Many of the originals are in P.R.O., Home Office Papers (Ireland); however, to avoid a proliferation of references I have cited the W.W.M. copies throughout.

    37 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 13 Jan. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/37).

    38 Portland promised Parkyns an Irish peerage in the summer of 1794. In December, following a reminder from Parkyns, the promise was repeated. Portland informed Parkyns that he had apprised Fitzwilliam and stated that ‘no English Gentleman will be admitted to that dignity’ unless Parkyns was also included. He asked Parkyns to be patient and to keep the matter secret. In July 1795, after further prompting, Portland pressed the arrangement on Camden, the new lord lieutenant, and described Parkyns as ‘very much my friend ever since he came into public life and whose family and mine have been connected for several successive generations in Nottinghamshire’. Parkyns was created Baron Rancliffe in October 1795. (Parkyns to Portland, 6, 14, Dec. 1794, 12 July 1795 (Portland MSS, PwF 7348–50); Portland to Parkyns (copy), 14 Dec. 1794 (ibid., PwV 108, ff 216–17); Portland to Camden, 20 July 1795 (P.R.O., HO 100/58, ff 143–6); Portland to George III, 15 Aug. 1795 (Geo. III later corr., ii, 1283); Portland to Parkyns (draft), 9 Sept. 1795 (Portland MSS, PwF 7355))

    39 For the king’s views see Geo. III later corr, ii, 1190, 1192.

    40 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 14 Jan. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/38; partly printed in Geo. III later corr., ii, 1190 n.2).

    41 Portland’s motives and actions have been oversimplified in Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 191–2. His assertion that Portland gave ‘tacit consent’ is misleading (ibid., p. 191).

    42 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 2 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/40). This was a reply to . Fitzwilliam’s letter of 24 Jan. 1759 (ibid., F5/27-9).

    43 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 21 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/54).

    44 For Pitt’s complaints and Fitzwilliam’s excuses see Pitt to Fitzwilliam, 9 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/49); Fitzwilliam to Pitt, 14 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F5/58-64).The Beresford affair is examined in Ehrman, Pitt, ii, 434–5,439; Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 191–4,210-22.

    45 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 21 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/54).

    46 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 4, 7 Dec. 1794 (ibid., F31/35,36).

    47 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 10 Jan. 1795 (ibid., F5/7-10); the complaint is repeated in Portland to Fitzwilliam, 23 Jan. (ibid., F5/23-7). For the pressure on Fitzwilliam for places and preferments see Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 188–90.

    48 Pitt to Fitzwilliam, 9 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/49; Pitt’s copy is printed in Stanhope, Miscellanies, pp 19–23).

    49 FitzwiHiam to Pitt, 7 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/43-6).

    50 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 15 Jan. 1795 (ibid., F5/11-16). McDowell mistakenly identified Fitzwilliam’s proposal as relating to George Ponsonby (‘Fitzwilliam episode’, p. 121); subsequently corrected in the same author’s Ireland in the age of imperialism and revolution, 1760–1801 (Oxford, 1979), p. 449 Google Scholar.

    51 Canning journal, p. 235 (10 Apr. 1795).

    52 The correspondence of the Rt Hon. John Beresford, ed. Beresford, William (2 vols, London, 1854), ii, 49–52Google Scholar; Cook to Nepean, 27 Jan. 1795, cited in McDowell, ‘Fitzwilliam episode’, p. 124; Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 192–3.

    53 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 8 Jan. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/5-7).

    54 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 15 Jan. 1795 (ibid., F5/11-16).

    55 Fitzwilliam to Portland, dated 23 Jan. 1795, but this quotation comes from the beginning of the letter which Fitzwilliam recorded ‘was writ three days ago’ (ibid., F5/23-7).

    56 Beresford corn, ii, 65.

    57 When the English Whigs dropped the demand for Fitzgibbon’s removal prior to Fitzwilliam’s appointment (discussed above), Grattan declined to accept office, but pressed Fitzwilliam to accept the viceroyalty. Grattan thereby acquired freedom for manoeuvre, while retaining the impression of being in the confidence of government.

    58 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 15 Jan. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/11-16).

    59 Smith argues that it ‘took Portland a week to reply to the letter of 15 January’ (Fitzwilliam, p. 214 n. 31. However, Portland’s letter of 2 February was not a response to that letter in any meaningful sense of the term. This fact can be seen as either further damning his conduct (since he did not give any individual reaction to the letter of 15 January), or as slightly mitigating the criticism (since he responded quickly to what he saw as the serious problems raised by Fitzwilliam’s continued attachment to the scheme involving Wolfe).

    60 Portland felt that Fitzwilliam should have waited for positive instructions: ‘It is surely going a little too far to infer from anything I have said that it is a task you are desired to undertake’ (Portland to Fitzwilliam, 18 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/52; printed in Geo. III later corr., ii, 1205 n. 2)).

    61 Grattan memoirs, iv, 177.

    62 Ehrman, Pitt, ii, 425 n. 2. For analysis of Pitt’s views see ibid., pp 425, 436–40; O’Brien, Gerard, Anglo-Irish politics in the age of Grattan and Pitt (Dublin, 1987), pp. 146–73 Google Scholar; Schweitzer, D.R., ‘Viceregal vignettes: lords lieutenant of Ireland under William Pitt the Younger, 1784–1801’ in Canadian Journal of History, xxi (1986), pp 37–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

    63 Grattan to Burke, 11 Mar. 1795 (Burke corn, viii, 185–7).

    64 Portland to Pelham, 4 May 1795 (B.L., Add. MS 33101, ff 185–6).

    65 George III to Pitt, 6 Feb. 1795 (printed with minor inaccuracies in Stanhope, Lord, Life ofRt Hon. William Pitt (4 vols, London, 1861-2), ii, app., pp xxiii-xxvGoogle Scholar; also partly printed in English Historical Documents, xi, 158–9).

    66 For Fitzwilliam’s views see Fitzwilliam to Portland, 10, 15, 29 Jan. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/7-10,11-16,30-33). Fitzwilliam and Portland also discussed the strength and size of the conventional army. Portland felt that the deployment of troops to trouble spots would provide a workable solution. Fitzwilliam feared that the need for such internal policing was weakening external defence.

    67 George III to Pitt, 6 Feb. 1795 (as above, n. 65).

    68 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 16 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/51).

    69 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 29 Jan. 1795 (ibid., F5/30-33).

    70 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 8 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/48; partly printed in Geo. III later con., ii, 1201 n.2).

    71 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 14 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/64-5). A subsequent letter also demonstrated that he had misunderstood: Fitzwilliam simply repeated his own views, adding tetchily that he felt this to be unnecessary since he had already made his points clearly (Fitzwilliam to Portland, 20 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F5/68-73)).

    72 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 18 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/52). Three letters were sent together: (i) F31/50: an official letter which Fitzwilliam was empowered to show those from whom he was to request information; (ii) F31/51: an official but secret letter detailing the reservations of the cabinet (both of these had been shown to the cabinet and were dated 16 February); (iii) F31/52: a private and secret letter sent by Portland himself as a covering letter to the official despatches; this is printed in Geo. III later corr., ii, 1205 n. 2.

    73 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 8 Jan. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/5-7).

    74 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 29 Jan. 1795 (ibid., F5/30-33).

    75 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 16 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/50).

    76 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 10 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F5/48-54).

    77 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 18 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/52).

    78 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 12/13 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F5/54-7). Fitzwilliam clung doggedly to this spurious reasoning, writing to Burke on 4 March: ‘I am ordered to suspend the Catholic bill (which bye the bye had never been introduced, leave only had been asked to bring it in, and it would not have been brought in till the opinion of the cabinet had been returned)’ (Burke corr., viii, 169–72). He therefore failed to comprehend the seriousness of the offence of pre-empting the cabinet’s decision as to whether any proceedings were to be sanctioned by government during the current session.

    79 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 18 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/52).

    80 Fitzwilliam to Pitt, 14 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F5/58-64).

    81 Fitzwilliam to Portland, 14 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F5/64-5).This evidence undermines Smith’s claim that Fitzwilliam only insisted on the acceptance of his personnel changes (and not Catholic relief) as a condition of continuing in office (Smith, Fitzwilliam, p. 205).

    82 There were two cabinet meetings: (i) on 20 February, at which it was decided to instruct Fitzwilliam ‘to take the most effectual means in your power to prevent any further proceeding’ on Grattan’s bill (Portland to Fitzwilliam, 20 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/53)); (ii) on 21 February a further meeting decided on his recall.

    83 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 21 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/54).This letter and the previous one arrived on the same day, 25 February.

    84 Adair to Fitzwilliam, 14 Mar. 1795 (ibid., F32/13); Grenville to Fitzwilliam, 22 Mar. 1795 (ibid., F31 /85).

    85 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 21 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/54).

    86 Portland to Fitzwilliam, 23 Feb. 1795 (ibid., F31/55).

    87 Fitzwilliam to Grenville, 3 Apr. 1795 (ibid., F31/87). There was some confusion over whether Fitzwilliam had actually been recalled. Burke informed Fitzwilliam that Lord Grenville (and possibly Mansfield) were deliberately muddying the waters by ‘declaring that you were not recalled at all.. . and that this [your return] is among your rash acts’ (Burke corn, viii, 230 [c. 12 Apr. 1795]). Establishing the fact of his recall was one of the aims of Fitzwilliam’s defence of his conduct, including the famous ‘Letters to Carlisle’ which found their way into print. For the history of these letters see Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 201–5. They are printed from the originals in H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, pp 704–21.

    88 George III to Portland, 5 Mar. 1795 (Geo. III later con., ii, 1211).

    89 Fitzwilliam to Grenville, 3 Apr. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/87).

    90 Tor example, Smith, Fitzwilliam, pp 194–5; Mahoney, Burke & Ireland, pp 244–5.

    91 Burke to Fitzwilliam, [c. 26 Sept.] 1794 (Burke corn, viii, 21–2).

    92 Tortland to Fitzwilliam, 16 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/51). Boroughs comprised 234 out of 300 seats in the Irish Commons. This issue is also discussed in Bartlett, Catholic question, p. 199.

    93 Tor other examples of Portland’s hostility to parliamentary reform see Portland to Sir Robert Clayton, 26 May 1780 (W.W.M., R1-1898);G. M. Ditchfield/The House of Lords and parliamentary reform’ in Jones, Clyve and Jones, David Lewis (eds), Peers, politics and power: the House of Lords, 1603–1911 (London, 1986), p. 330 Google Scholar.

    94 Tor a discussion of the complexities of the tithe system see Edward Brynn, The Church of Ireland in the age of Catholic emancipation (New York & London, 1982), pp 1–29, 99–100,138-43; McDowell, Ireland in the age of imperialism & revolution, pp 78–83,165-9,462-4.

    95 Portland may be inferring both: (i) the commonplace Protestant perception that Catholicism stressed participation in ritual over the propagation of the Gospel; (ii) the perceived connexion between Catholicism and absolutism, which had created the conditions which prompted the French Revolution.

    96 McDowell, Ireland in the age of imperialism & revolution, p. 169.

    97 Portland to Fitzwilliam,21 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/54).

    98 Windham, for example, pointed out that a great part of Fitzwilliam’s measures “were not conformable to what I had understood to be agreed upon, either decidedly or by implication’. He specified the aberrations: the offices proposed for the Ponsonbys, the removal of Beresford, and the bringing forward of the Catholic question—all of which had been done ‘before a communication could be had with this government’ (Windham to Fitzwilliam,5 Mar. 1795 (ibid., F31/84)).

    99 The bill was introduced on 12 February 1795 and defeated on its second reading on 4 May by 155 votes to 84 (Commons’ jn. Ire., xvi, 55, 220; cited in Burke corr., viii, 192 n. 2).

    100 Portland to Pelham, 20 Apr. 1795 (B.L., Add. MS 33101, ff 177–8).

    101 For an analysis of the influence of the Fitzwilliam episode on the development of Irish radicalism see Lindsay,’Fitzwilliam episode’, pp 206–8.

    102 Portland to Wickham, 17 July 1798 (Hampshire Record Office, Wickham MSS, 38M49/1/39/10).

    103 While lord lieutenant in 1782, he had countenanced William Ogilvie’s abortive scheme for a ‘foederal union’ (for which sec Kelly, James, Prelude to union: Anglo-Irish politics in the 1780s (Cork, 1992), pp 46–9 Google Scholar). Portland now considered the legislative union as completing the “final adjustment’ which had proved so elusive in 1782 (Portland to Cornwallis, 26 Jan. 1799 ( Memoirs and correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh, ed. Marquess of Londonderry (12 vols. London, 1848-53), ii, 134–7Google Scholar)).

    104 No formal discussions took place at this time on the subject of union, and Portland’s allusion was cryptic. If Catholic relief ‘could possibly be deferred’, he argued, this ‘might afford the means of doing a greater service to the British empire than it has been capable of receiving since the Union [with Scotland]’ (Portland to Fitzwilliam, 8 Feb. 1795 (W.W.M., F31/48)).

    105 Portland to Cornwallis, 3 Feb. 1799 (Castlereagh corn, ii, 154–60).

    106 Portland to Castlereagh, 29 Jan. 1799 (ibid., ii. 145–8).

    107 Bolton, G. C., The passing of the Irish Act of Union: a study in parliamentary politics (London, 1966), pp 207–9 Google Scholar; Fedorak, C. J., ‘Catholic emancipation and the resignation of William Pitt in 1801’ in Albion, xxiv (1992), pp 52-3Google Scholar.

    108 We shall then be an Empire in reality and have it so much the more in our power to give stability and security to .. . the other powers in Europe and to hold that balance which cannot be safely held by any other hands than our own’ (Portland to Wickham, 29 Apr. 1800 (Hampshire Record Office, Wickham MSS. 38M49/8/21/1)).

    109 Portland’s decision not to resign was influenced by other factors which are too complicated to be discussed here. On the specific issue of emancipation, the opinions of Loughborough were reported to be influential on Portland ( The journal and correspondence of William, Lord Auckland, ed. Hogge, George (4 vols, London, 1860-2), iv, 115Google Scholar). For analysis of Pitt’s motives see Fedorak, , ‘Catholic emancipation’, pp 49–64; R. E.Willis,’William Pitt’s resignation in 1801: re-examination and document’ in Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xliv (1971), pp 239–57 Google Scholar.

    110 This article is based on my current doctoral research on ‘The political career of William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, third duke of Portland, 1738–1809’ (for Ph.D., University of Wales). I wish to thank Professors P. D. G. Thomas, J. A. Cannon and H. T. Dickinson, and also the reader for Irish Historical Studies, for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. I gratefully acknowledge permission to publish from: Olive, Countess Fitzwilliam, the Wentworth Settlement Trustees, and the Director of Sheffield Libraries and Information Services for the Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments at Sheffield Archives; the Keeper of Manuscripts, Nottingham University Library, for the Portland collection; the County Archivist, Hampshire Record Office, for the Wickham papers.