Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:39:09.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Irish-Portuguese trade dispute, 1770-90

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

David Lammey
David Lammey*
Affiliation:
History of the Irish Parliament, Public Record Office of Northern Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One dispute in Irish history which has not been given the attention it deserves is that which involved Britain, Ireland and Portugal during the years 1780-87 Authors of outline Irish histories, Lecky, Murray, George O’Brien and McDowell only mention the dispute briefly in their respective narratives, though it is clear they understood its importance to some degree at least. Maurice O’Connell, who has produced the only specialist study for the period in question, makes no reference to the dispute at all. This dispute has indeed been more substantially treated by the British historian, John Ehrman, within the general context of an analysis of the British government’s commercial negotiations from 1783 to 1793. However, the perspective he draws relates purely to Britain and Portugal, which, in itself, narrows the true significance of an episode which was important in that it completely undermined the benefits Ireland hoped to accrue from the free-trade legislation of 1779-80, and also because it raised a number of interesting questions relative to Ireland’s constitutional status vis-à-vis of Great Britain.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 97 , May 1986 , pp. 29 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1986

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 Lecky, Ire. (1892), ii, 267–8; Murray, A.E., A history of the commercial and financial relations between England and Ireland from the period of the Restoration (London, 1903), p. 220 Google Scholar; O’Brien, , Econ. hist. Ire., 18th cent. (1918), p. 242 Google Scholar; McDowell, R.B., Ireland in the age of imperialism and revolution, 1760–1801 (Oxford, 1979), p. 291 Google Scholar

2 O’Connell, M.R., Irish politics and social conflict in the age of the American revolution (Philadelphia, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Ehrman, John, The British government and commercial negotiations with Europe 1783–1793 (Cambridge, 1962), passim.Google Scholar

4 10 & 11 Will. III, c.10.

5 Cullen, L.M., An economic history of Ireland since 1660 (London, 1972), p. 65.Google Scholar

6 Boxer, C.R., The Portuguese seaborne empire, 1415–1825 (London, 1969), pp 179–80.Google Scholar

7 Belfast Newsletter (hereafter B.N.L.), 18 Jan. 1780.

8 Walpole to Hort, 26 Feb. 1781, Walpole to Hillsborough, 10 Oct. 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/1, 2).

9 Hillsborough to Eden, 18 Aug. 1781 (B.L., Auckland papers, Add. MS 34418, ff 40–41).

10 Hort to Hillsborough, 5 Aug. 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/2).

11 Sir Lucius O'Brien to Lord Carlisle, 8 Apr. 1781 (N.L.I., Bolton papers, MS 15869/2).

12 de Oliveira Marques, A.H., History of Portugal (2 vols, New York, 1972), 1, 383–9Google Scholar; Boxer, , Portuguese seaborne empire, pp 181–4.Google Scholar

13 B.N.L, 6 Nov 1781.

14 Knox to [Broghill Newburgh], 2 May 1780 (N.L.I., Bolton papers, MS 15869/1).

15 Luís Pinto de Souza to Ay res de Sá e Mello, 17 Jan. 1780 (Legação de Portugal em Inglaterra, Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, box no. 15, 1780-81).

16 Walpole to Hillsborough, 10 Oct. 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/2). Walpole was envoy-extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Portugal, 1771–1800.

17 See above, n. 9.

18 Hillsborough to Walpole, 13 June 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/1).

19 Hillsborough to Eden, 29 Aug. 1781 (B.L., Auckland papers, Add. MS 34418, ff 73–4).

20 Hort to Hillsborough, 5 Aug. 1781, same to same, 23 Dec. 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/2).

21 Hillsborough to Hort, 5 Nov 1781, Hillsborough to Walpole, 5 Nov 1781 (ibid.).

22 Except the release of the original Irish goods seized at the outset of the dispute. See Hort to Fox, 25 Apr 1782 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/3).

23 Walpole to Hillsborough, 22 Dec. 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/2).

24 Hort to Hillsborough, 23 Sept. 1781, De Mello to Walpole, 2 Oct. 1781, Hillsborough to Walpole, 5 Nov 1781, Hillsborough to Hort, 5 Nov 1781, Walpole to Hillsborough, 16 Nov 1781; Hillsborough to Walpole, 5 Dec. 1781; Walpole to Hillsborough, 22 Dec. 1781 (ibid.); Hillsborough to Walpole, 19 Feb. 1782 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/3).

25 Walpole to Hillsborough, 10 Oct. 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/2); Hillsborough to Hort, 5 Nov 1781 (ibid.); Fawkener to Carmarthen, 11 Nov 1786 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/8).

26 Parl. Reg. Ire., i, 15.

27 Ibid., i, 27–9.

28 Ibid., i, 27–8; B.N.L., 19 Oct. 1781. The legislation referred to by Forbes was the Portuguese neutral goods import act (21 Geo. III, c. 27).

29 Hillsborough to Pinto de Souza, 21 July 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/2).

30 Horn, D.B. (ed.), English historical documents, 1714–1783 (London, 1957), pp 694–7Google Scholar

31 Foster to [Sir Lucius O’Brien?], 3 Apr 1782 (P.R.O.N.I., Foster/Massereene papers, D. 562/8571).

32 B.N.L, 7 Mar. 1780.

33 Ibid., 16 Oct. 1781, ibid., 2 Nov 1781.

34 Parl. Reg. Ire., i, 24–30; Carlisle to North, 2 Nov 1781 ( The correspondence of the Right Hon. John Beresford, ed. William Beresford (2 vols, London, 1854), 1, 176–9).Google Scholar

35 See Lammey, David, ‘study of Anglo-Irish relations between 1772 and 1782, with particular reference to the “free trade” movement’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University of Belfast, 1984), pp 294–333.Google Scholar

36 Parl. Reg. Ire., i, 199; Eden to Hillsborough, 28 Oct. 1781 (B.L. Auckland papers, Add. MS 34418, ff 150–52).

37 Pari. Reg. Ire., ii, 47 Thomas Pelham was chief secretary during the Northington viceroyalty (June 1783-Feb. 1784).

38 Ibid., i, 211–31, Commons’ jn. Ire. (3rd ed.), xx (for 1781-2), pp 286–7; Lords’ jn. Ire., v, 275–8.

39 ‘Propositions of trade supposed to come from Portugal, July 1783’ (P.R.O.N.I., Foster/Massereene papers, D. 562/8568A).

40 ‘Copy of a letter to Mr [William] Hawkeshaw from his friends in Lisbon, dated 10 Jan. [17]81’ (ibid., D. 562/8584).

4l B.N.L., 6 Nov 1781

42 Walpole to Hillsborough, 20 Jan. 1782 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/3); same to same, 23 Feb. 1782 (ibid.).

43 Hort to Hillsborough, 20 Jan. 1782 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/3).

44 B.N.L., 24 Oct. 1780; Walpole to Hillsborough, 31 Oct. 1781 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/2); same to same, 22 Dec. 1781 (ibid.). A treaty of commerce between Portugal and Russia was eventually signed at St Petersburg, 9 Dec. 1787 ( Parry, Clive (ed.), The consolidated treaty series (New York, 1969), 1, 253–76).Google Scholar

45 ‘Remarks by a Portuguese merchant on the trade with Ireland, translated by Mr [Hugh] Skeys, Oct. 1783’ (P.R.O.N.I., Foster/Massereene papers, D. 562/8580B).

46 In 1781 William Burton changed his name to Conyngham on inheriting the greater part of the estate of his uncle, Henry, Earl Conyngham of Mount Charles, Co. Donegal. He was M.P for Ennis, 1776-83, and Killybegs, 1783–90.

47 ‘Nature of woollens for Portuguese market by Colonel Conyngham sent to me [John Foster] from Caldas, May 1783’ (P.R.O.N.I., Foster/Massereene papers, D.562/8575).

48 Conyngham to Foster, 12 May 1783 (ibid., D.562/8574).

49 Conyngham to Foster, 29 June 1783 (ibid., D.562/8576); same to same, 10 Nov 1783 (ibid., D.562/8583).

50 ‘Mr Skeys on the Portugal trade, Oct. 1783’ (ibid., D.562/8580A).

51 Warre to John Whitehead, British consul in Oporto, 24 Nov 1784 (ibid., D.562/8586).

52 Parl. Reg. Ire., ii, 45–8, 141–3.

53 Joseph Perry to James Lecky, 22 Aug. 1783 (P.R.O.N.I., Foster/Massereene papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.562/8577). Attached to this letter is a sheet on which comments relative to the trade dispute have been written. The author is most likely to have been Foster, and the handwriting appears to be his. The document is dated 29 Dec. 1783.

54 Lecky, Ire., ii, 431.

55 See above, n. 12.

56 See above, n. 9.

57 Parl. Reg. Ire., ii, 27–9. Two days after Newenham’s speech in the committee appointed upon John Foster’s motion, John Toler (later Lord Norbury), M.P for Philipstown, 1783–89, asserted that ‘Ireland had a right to trade with Portugal by the law of nations. It was a right founded in justice, and which she would not give up. It was therefore an affair of the greatest consequence to Ireland, and particularly at the present crisis, when a new treaty [that of Versailles] had to be ratified.’ (Pari. Reg. Ire., ii, 46.)

58 McDowell, , Ir public opinion, p. 79 Google Scholar; Malcomson, A.P W, ‘The treaty of Paris and Ireland’ in Gifford, Prosser (ed.), The treaty of Paris (1783) in a changing states system (Washington, 1985), pp 93–4.Google Scholar

59 The duke of Rutland in his speech from the throne on 20 January 1785 underlined this point when he remarked that ’a common interest in treaties with foreign states form a sure bond of mutual connection and attachment between Great Britain and Ireland’ (Ann. Reg., xxvii, 352).

60 Rutland to Pitt, 24 Aug. 1786 (H.M.C., Rutland MSS, iii, 338–9); Ann. Reg., xxviii, 272–3.

6l Parl. Reg. Ire., iv, 303–9 The additional duty of £30 per ton on Portuguese wine was accompanied by additional duties on cork, lemons and oranges the growth of Portugal or its dominions. These duties were put into operation by 25 Geo. ΙΠ, c. 1, sees 2, 21.

62 Pinto de Souza to Carmarthen, 7 Dec. 1785 (P.R.O., Chatham papers, 30/8/342).

63 Pinto de Souza to Carmarthen, 11 Dec. 1785 (ibid.).

64 Ehrman, , Brit, government & commercial negotiations, pp 14–15.Google Scholar

65 Carmarthen to Pinto de Souza, 27 Sept. 1786; Carmarthen to Walpole, 30 Sept. 1786 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/7).

66 Ehrman, , Brit, government & commercial negotiations, p. 16.Google Scholar

67 Horn, D.B. (ed.), British diplomatic representatives, 1689–1789 (London, 1932), 46, 101.Google Scholar

68 Fawkener & Walpole to Carmarthen, 16 Dec. 1786 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/8).

69 Walpole to Hillsborough, 8 Apr. 1782 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/3); Warre to Foster, 2 Feb. 1784 (P.R.O.N.I., Foster/Massereene papers, D.562/8585); Pinto de Souza to Carmarthen, 11 Dec. 1786 (P.R.O., Chatham papers, 30/8/342).

70 Fawkener & Walpole to Carmarthen, 27 Dec. 1786 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/8).

71 It was not until 19 February 1810 that Anglo-Portuguese commercial relations were formally revised by way of a treaty. On that date a treaty of commerce and navigation was signed at Rio de Janeiro. ( Hertslet, Lewis (ed.), A complete collection of the treaties and conventions and reciprocal regulations at present subsisting between Great Britain and foreign powers.. (London, repr., 1905), 2, 27–65.)Google Scholar

72 Walpole to Carmarthen, 5 May 1787; same to same, 30 June 1787 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/9).

73 Walpole to Carmarthen, 21 July 1787 (P.R.O., F.O. 63/10). The statute which authorised the lifting of the retaliatory duties on Portuguese wines was 27 Geo. III, c. 33, sees 1, 2, 3.

74 Lammey, , ‘Study of Anglo-Irish relations between 1772 and 1782’, pp 238–40.Google Scholar

75 I should like to thank Dr A.P W Malcomson for reading and commenting upon an earlier draft of this article.