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
In 1765 a major decision was taken in London which amounted to the formulation of a new English policy towards Ireland: viceroys in future were to reside constantly in Dublin and the old system of undertakers was to be overthrown. But it was not until 1767 that British government found in Viscount Townsend a nobleman prepared to carry out the new policy. By May of 1768 Townsend had reached the crisis point in his relations with the undertakers. They had just behaved in an utterly intolerable manner in the viceroy’s eyes by using their influence as the principal servants of the crown to secure the rejection in the house of commons of the crown’s scheme to increase the number of troops on the Irish establishment, on which the king’s ministers in London had set very great store. The augmentation was the principal issue over which the fierce struggle between the viceroy and the undertakers was fought, but the true question to be settled, as Townsend insisted over and over again with characteristic vehemence, was of deeper significance. Was the undertaker system, which had allowed a considerable measure of autonomy to a small oligarchy in Ireland, to be allowed to continue? Or was a bold policy to be pursued of re-establishing once and for all the power of the king’s representative in Ireland, especially in the control of patronage, thus administering a serious check to the self-governing aspirations of the Anglo-Irish gentry, and emphasising Ireland’s subordination to England?
1 J. L. McCracken, ‘The Irish viceroyalty, 1760-73’, in H. A. Cronne, T. W. Moody and D. B. Quinn (ed.), Essays in British and Irish history, pp. 152-68.
2 I have to thank Colonel H. T. W. Clements of Kiladoon, Celbridge, for his kindness in allowing me to examine and print the document. It was no. 23993 in Sir Thomas Phillipps’s collection and remained uncatalogued at his death. I owe the information about the provenance of the list to Mr A. N. L. Munby, librarian of King’s College, Cambridge, whose assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
3 Townsend to Macartney, 20 May 1769 (P.R.O.N.I., Macartney Letter books, ii).
4 Drogheda and Ponsonby to Bristol, 22 July, 7 Aug. 1767 (P.R.O.I., MS 2446, Irish correspondence, 1697-1798).
5 T. Waite to Macartney, July 1769 (H. H. Robbins, Our first ambassador to China, p. 67).
6 Jackson’s character is briefly described in the three lists of members for 1773, 1775 and 1782 edited by Rev. M. Bodkin, William Hunt and G. O. Sayles respectively and referred to later. A little additional biographical material is in Alumni Dubl., p. 433, Lodge (ed. Archdall), Peerage, v. 169, and Vicars, Prerog. wills.
7 Weymouth to Townsend, 9 June 1769 (Cal. H.O., papers, 1766-9, pp. 475-6).
8 Townsend to Macartney, 20 May 1769 (P.R.O.N.I., Macartney Letter books, ii).
9 King to Grafton, 29 Nov. 1769 (The correspondence of King George III, ed. Sir John Fortescue, ii. 60-1).
10 Townsend to Weymouth, 24 June 1769 (Cal. H.O. papers, 1766-9, pp. 478-80).
11 Townsend to Macartney, 19 June 1769 (P.R.O.N.I., Macartney Letter books, ii).
12 Weymouth to Townsend, 8 July 1769 (Cal. H.O. papers, 1766-9, pp. 484-5).
13 Townsend to Weymouth, 17 Aug., 13 Sept. 1769 (Cal. H.O. papers, 1766-9, pp. 488-92, 496-7).
14 Weymouth to Townsend, 23 Sept. 1769 (Cal. H.O. papers, 1766-9, p. 500).
15 Bodkin, M., ‘Notes on the Irish parliament in 1773’, in R.I.A. Proc., xlviii-xlix (1942-44), C, pp. 145-232Google Scholar; The Irish parliament, 1775, ed. William Hunt.
16 J. R. Fisher, The end of the Irish parliament, pp. 58-9.
17 Cornelius Bolton, Barry Denny, Edward Denny, William Hull, John Lloyd, and Thomas Moore should have been marked as new to parliament, while Henry Alcock, John Cramer, William Gore and Robert Ross should not have been thus marked.
18 Ponsonby, of course, is only described by Jackson as ‘late speaker’ because parliament had been dissolved and had not yet reassembled when Jackson was writing.
19 The 36 referred to by Jackson appear to be those in his list numbered 2, 7, 8, 15, 29, 30, 48, 53, 63, 67, 73, 88, 89, 96, 104, 121, 127, 129, 130, 151, 164, 168, 184, 203, 205, 209, 2l6, 230, 231, 247, 256, 259, 261, 262, 267, 268.
20 See no. 26 in the list. This is a case in which Jackson’s information about a member’s behaviour in the Townsend administration is repeated in a later list (see The Irish parliament, 1775, ed William Hunt, p. 5).
21 The 21 are those numbered by Jackson 14, 19, 23, 26, 33, 40, 45, 50, 54, 68, 70, 75, 102, 133, 138, 172, 178, 219, 237, 238, 241.
22 e.g. nos 1, 10, 64, 71, 84, etc.
23 Typical examples are nos 1, 3, 17, 18, 24, 34, 47, 52, 57, 61, 64, etc.
24 They appear to be nos 25, 27, 39, 46, 58, 59, 77, 80, 86, 100, 113, 116, 119, 122, 123, 128, 131, 132, 135, 144, 146, 153, 154, 155, 156, 161, 162, 163, 167, 171, 175, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 199, 217, 218, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 260, 265, 266.
25 The 16 are nos 25, 77, 100, 116, 119, 123, 144, 153, 156, 161, 175, 218, 250, 251, 252, 265.
26 The form used on the first appearance in Commons’ jn. Ire. has been followed for M.P.s’ narries and that used by G.E.C., Peerage, for peers’ names.
27 The petition resulted in Henry Alcock being declared not duly elected and Shapland Carew was returned as member for Waterford city. The decision had not taken place before the list was compiled, hence Shapland Carew’s name does not appear in it.
