THE UNION
I am determined not to submit to the insertion of any clause
that shall make the exclusion of the Catholics a fundamental
part of the Union, as I am fully convinced that, until the
Catholics are admitted into a general participation of rights
(which, when incorporated with the British Government, they
cannot abuse) there will be no peace or safety in
Ireland.--CORNWALLIS TO ROSS, _30th September 1798_.
The fairest method of dealing with the Act of Union of the British and
Irish Parliaments seems to be, firstly, to trace the development of
Pitt's thoughts on that subject; secondly, to survey the state of
affairs in Ireland after the Rebellion of 1798; and thirdly, to trace
the course of the negotiations whereby the new Lord Lieutenant,
Cornwallis, succeeded in carrying through the measure itself.
Firstly, it is clear that Pitt had long felt the need of closer
commercial ties between the two islands. As was shown in Chapter XI of
the former part of this work, he sought to prepare the way for such a
measure in the session of 1785. The importance which he attached to the
freeing of inter-insular trade appears in a phrase of his letter of 6th
January 1785 to the Duke of Rutland as to Great Britain and Ireland
becoming "one country in effect, though for local concerns under
distinct legislatures," This represents his first thoughts on the
subject. Obviously they were then limited to a commercial union. If the
two Parliaments and the two nations could have shaken off their
commercial jealousies, Pitt would probably have been satisfied with
fostering the prosperity of both islands, while leaving their
legislative machinery intact. But, being thwarted by the stupidity of
British traders and the nagging tactics adopted at Dublin, he wrote to
Rutland that his plan was not discredited by failure and they must
"await times and seasons for carrying it into effect."
Times and seasons brought, not peace and quiet, but the French
Revolution. With it there came an increase of racial and religious
feuds, which, however, did but strengthen his conviction of the need of
a closer connection between the two islands; witness his letter of 18th
November 1792 to the Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Westmorland:
The idea of the present fermentation gradually bringing both
parties to think of an Union with this country has long been in
my mind. I hardly dare flatter myself with the hope of its
taking place; but I believe it, tho' itself not easy to be
accomplished, to be the only solution for other and greater
difficulties. The admission of Catholics to a share of suffrage
could not then be dangerous. The Protestant interest, in point
of power, property and Church Establishment, would be secure
because the decided majority of the supreme Legislature would
necessarily be Protestant; and the great ground of argument on
the part of the Catholics would be done away, as, compared with
the rest of the Empire, they would become a minority. You will
judge when and to whom this idea can be confided. It must
certainly require great delicacy and management; but I am
heartily glad that it is at least in your thoughts.[530]
These words show why Pitt allowed proposals so imperfect as the
Franchise Bill of 1793 to become law. It enfranchised most of the Irish
peasantry, the great majority of whom were Catholics, though men of
their creed were excluded from Parliament. But he hoped in the future to
supplement it by a far greater measure which would render the admission
of Catholics to Parliament innocuous, namely, by the formation of a
united Parliament in which they would command only a small minority of
votes. Pitt's words open up a vista which receded far away amidst the
smoke of war and the mirage of bigotry, and did not come into sight
until the second decade of the period of peace, when Canning, Pitt's
disciple, was the chief champion of the measure here first clearly
outlined. Pitt, then, desired a Union as the sole means of ending
commercial disputes, otherwise as insoluble as those between England and
Scotland previous to the year 1707; but also for an even weightier
reason, because only so could the religious discords of Irishmen be
ended; only so could the chafing of the majority against the rule of a
cramping caste cease. By the formation of an Imperial Parliament, the
Irish Protestants would have solid guarantees against the subversion of
all that they held most dear.
The full realization of these aims was impossible. Early in 1793 came
war with France, with its sequel, the heating of nationalist and
religious feeling in Ireland; and while the officials of Dublin Castle
embarked on a policy of repression, the United Irishmen looked for help
to Paris. The results appeared in the Rebellion of 1798. The
oft-repeated assertion that Pitt and Camden brought about the revolt in
order to force on the Union is at variance with all the available
evidence. They sought by all possible means to prevent a rising, which,
with a reasonable amount of help from France, must have shaken the
British Empire to its base. When the rebellion came and developed into a
bloody religious feud, they saw that the time for a Union had come.
The best means of checking hasty generalizations is to peruse letters
written at the time, before ingenious theories could be spun. Now, the
definite proposal of a Union very rarely occurs before the month of June
1798. One of the first references is in a letter of the Lord Chancellor,
Loughborough, to Pitt, dated 13th June 1798. After approving the
appointment of Cornwallis as the best means of quelling the revolt in
Ireland, he adds: "Every reasonable man in that country must feel that
their preservation depends on their connection with England, and it
ought [to] be their first wish to make it more entire. It would be very
rash to make any such suggestion from hence: but we should be prepared
to receive it and to impose the idea whenever it begins to appear in
Ireland."[531]
More important, as showing the impossibility of continuing the present
chaotic administration at Dublin, is the following letter from the Earl
of Carlisle, formerly Lord Lieutenant, to Pitt. It is undated, but
probably belongs to 2nd June 1798:[532]
... It may perhaps be but a weak apology for this interruption
to own I cannot help looking at that country [Ireland] with a
sort of affection, like an old house which one has once
inhabited, not disliking the antient arrangement of its
interior, and perhaps unreasonably prejudiced against many of
its modern innovations. The innovation that has long given me
uneasiness, and which now seems most seriously to perplex the
Irish Government, was the fatal institution of an Irish Cabinet,
which has worked itself into being, considered almost as a
component part of that deputed authority. A Government composed
of Lords Justices, natives of that country, as a permanent
establishment, absurd as such an expedient might be, would not
have at least that radical defect of authority disjoined from
responsibility. We now feel all the bad effects of a power which
should never have been confer'd, and which is strengthen'd from
hence by many acting with you, so as to make it impossible for
the Lord Lieutenant to manage with it or without it.
You have, in my poor judgment, an opportunity offer'd to crush
at one blow this defective system. Ireland, I scruple not to
say, cannot be saved if you permit an hour longer almost the
military defence of that country to depend upon the tactical
dictates of Chancellors, Speaker of the House of Commons, etc. I
mean to speak with no disrespect of Lord Camden; I never heard
anything but to his honour; but I maintain under the present
circumstances the best soldier would make the best
Lord-Lieutenant; one on whom no Junto there would presume to
fling their shackles, and one who would cut them short if they
presumed to talk of what they did not understand. With this
idea, I confess, Ld Cornwallis naturally occurs to me. Next to
this, but not so efficacious, would be sending some one equal to
the military duties, freed from all control, saving that, for
form's sake, good sense would acquiesce under to [_sic_] the
King's Deputy. But I cannot doubt but a deeper change would be
most advisable. The disaffected to our Government (and I fear it
is too general) may perhaps have their degrees and divisions of
animosity against it, and some possibly may be changed by a
change of men more than by a professed change of measures, which
perhaps they think little about. I know they are taught to
believe a particular set of men are their enemies; in truth I
question if, in tyrannising over and thwarting the Castle, and
talking so injudiciously, they ought to be considered as our
friends....
Thus the man to whom in 1795 Earl Fitzwilliam poured forth his
grievances against Pitt, now advised him to end the mischievous dualism
at Dublin, which enabled Lords Justices and the Speaker of the Irish
House of Commons to paralyse the Executive. There, as at Berlin,
advisers who had great influence but no official responsibility, often
intervened with disastrous results; and not until Stein took the tiller
after Tilsit did the Prussian ship of State pursue a straight course. At
Dublin the crisis of 1798 revealed the weakness of the Irish Executive,
and naturally led to a complete break with the past.[533]
* * * * *
Amidst the mass of Pitt's papers relating to Ireland there is no sign of
his intention to press on an Act of Union before the middle of the
month of June 1798, that is, in the midst of the Rebellion. The first
reference to it occurs in a memorandum endorsed by Pitt "received June
19, 1798," and obviously drawn up by Camden a few days before he
resigned the Viceroyalty in favour of Cornwallis. Pitt's letter of
inquiry is missing. Camden's reply is too long for quotation, but may be
thus summarized:
The plan of a Union should be detailed as far as possible before
it is attempted. The King's Cabinet should be at once consulted,
also leading persons in both islands. If their opinion is
favourable, the measure should then be brought forward. If the
Catholic claims are to be met, the advice of their leading men,
as for instance Lords Fingal and Kenmare, should be sought. The
legal attainments of the Irish Chancellor, the Earl of Clare,
and the parliamentary and commercial connections of the Speaker,
Foster, entitle their opinions to great weight. Foster may
perhaps be won over by the offer of an English peerage. The
Irish Bar, as also Lords Shannon and Ely, will probably oppose a
Union. Some persons will object to the admission of Catholics
even to the United Parliament, though that measure cannot do
harm. The Scottish Catholics should have the same privileges
accorded to them, and a provision should be made for the
Dissenting clergy. Parliamentary Reform must be considered, but
it will not be dangerous now. The French will never make peace
until Great Britain is weakened. The religious difficulty of a
Union will not be great, for the Protestants will always form
the majority in the United Parliament. Legal expenses in the
case of Irish suits will be little more than in Scottish suits.
As Dublin will suffer from the removal of the Parliament, the
Lord Lieutenant's Court must be kept up in great splendour, the
residence of influential persons in Ireland being encouraged in
every possible way. The communications between the two islands
must be improved, free packet-boats being provided. In a
postscript Camden adds that he hopes Cornwallis will continue
the present repressive policy, which otherwise must appear
unduly harsh by contrast.[534]
The most significant passages are those in which Camden refers to the
plan of a Union as so unformed as to require preliminary inquiries, and
in which he presumes that after the Union Dissenters and Catholics will
have "the same advantages as are bestowed upon the rest of the
inhabitants of the three kingdoms." Clearly, then, Pitt and Camden had
come to no decision on the Union; but Camden, from what he knew of
Pitt's views, believed that he favoured a broad and inclusive policy,
not a Union framed on a narrowly Protestant basis. Neither of them seems
to have anticipated serious resistance on the religious question, even
though the King, at the time of the Fitzwilliam crisis of 1795, had
declared the admission of Catholics to the Irish Parliament to be a
matter which concerned his conscience, not his Cabinet.
It is also obvious that the question of the Union was forced to the
front by the cumbrous dualism of the Irish Executive, which proved to be
utterly unable to cope with the crisis of the Rebellion. The King, as we
have seen, shrewdly suggested that Cornwallis ought to make use of the
fears of Irish loyalists in order to frighten the Dublin Parliament into
acquiescence in an Act of Union. The same opinion was gaining ground;
but several of Pitt's supporters doubted the advisability of so
far-reaching a measure. Thus, on 4th July 1798, Hatsell, Clerk of the
House of Commons, wrote to Auckland that of all possible plans a Union
was the worst, "full of difficulties, to be brought about by errant
jobs; and, when done, not answering the purpose. You must take out the
teeth, or give the Catholics sops to eat. One or other; but the
half-measure won't do." Better balanced was the judgement of the Earl of
Carlisle, as stated to Auckland some time in September. After asking
whether the recurrence of local risings in Ireland did not prove the
unwisdom of the policy of lenience pursued by Cornwallis, he added these
significant words: "In this distress it is not strange that we should
turn to the expedient of Union; but this is running in a dark night for
a port we are little acquainted with.... If you did not satisfy Ireland
by the measure and take off some part of those ill-disposed to England,
you would only make matters worse. But in truth something must be done,
or we must fight for Ireland once a week."[535]
That the activity of the rebels varied according to the prospects of aid
from France was manifest. Thus, on 25th July Beresford wrote to Auckland
that the people seemed tired of rebellion, which would die out unless
the French landed. But on 22nd August, after the arrival of Humbert's
little force in Killala Bay, he described the whole country as in
revolt. The State prisoners, O'Connor, McNevin, and Addis Emmett, sent
to the papers a denial of their former pacific assurances;[536] and
even after the surrender of Humbert's force, Beresford wrote to Auckland
on 15th September: "... Should the French or the Dutch get out an
armament and land, there will be a very general rising. I have it from a
man on whose veracity I can depend, and who was on the spot in Mayo,
during the French invasion, that the Catholics of the country ran to
join them with eagerness, and that they had more than they could arm;
that, as they moved on, they were constantly joined; but he says the
Irish behaved so ill that the French made use of discipline, which
thinned their ranks; however, they had 4,000 of them when they were
attacked by Colonel Vereker, and about 200 of the Limerick militia. By
our late accounts there are said to be in Mayo and Roscommon 10,000
rebels up: they are destroying the country."[537] Beresford then blames
the Viceroy's proclamation, offering pardon to rebels who come in within
a month, and he says their leaders tell them that 20,000 French will
soon land. Equally significant is the statement of George Rose in a
letter of 23rd September. Referring to the fact that two French warships
had got away from Brest towards the Irish coast, he writes: "If they
land, the struggle may be more serious. The truth is that it will be
nearly impossible to keep Ireland as a conquered country. Union is
become more urgent than ever." This was also the opinion of Lord
Sheffield. Writing on 29th September from Rottingdean to Auckland, he
remarks on the disquieting ease with which the French squadrons reach
Ireland. He has had a long argument with the Irish Judge, Sir William
Downes, and proved to him the necessity of a Union with Ireland. But (he
proceeds) it will never take place, if it is set about publicly.
Irish loyalists united in decrying the comparatively lenient methods of
Cornwallis; but, despite the urgent advice of Camden to Pitt, the change
of system met with approval at Downing Street. This is the more
remarkable as letters from Dublin were full of invectives against
Cornwallis. Buckingham wrote almost daily to his brother, Grenville,
foretelling ruin from the weakness and vacillation of the Lord
Lieutenant. Still more furious were Beresford, Cooke, and Lees. Their
correspondence with Auckland, Postmaster-General at London, was so
systematic as to imply design. Probably they sought to procure the
dismissal of Cornwallis and the nomination of Auckland in his place.
There can be little doubt that Auckland lent himself to the scheme with
a view to maintaining the Protestant ascendancy unimpaired; for he wrote
to Beresford that public opinion in England favoured the maintenance of
the existing order of things in Church and State in both kingdoms. The
following extracts from the letters which he received from Cooke and
Lees are typical. On 4th October Lees writes: "I am afraid Lord
Cornwallis is not devil enough to deal with the devils he has to contend
with in this country.... The profligacy of the murderous malignant
disposition of Paddy soars too high for his humane and merciful
principles at this crisis." Cooke was less flowery but equally emphatic:
"If," he wrote on 22nd October, "your Union is to be Protestant, we have
100,000 Protestants who are connected by Orange Lodges, and they might
be made a great instrument.... Our robberies and murders continue; and
the depredations of the mountain rebels increase."[538]
Nevertheless Cornwallis held on his way. In the period 22nd August 1798
to the end of February 1799, he reprieved as many as 41 rebels out of
131 on whom sentence of death had been passed, and he commuted to
banishment heavy sentences passed on 78 others. It is clear, then, that,
despite the efforts of Buckingham and the officials of Dublin Castle,
Pitt continued to uphold a policy of clemency. But it is equally clear
that the reliance of Irish malcontents on French aid, the persistent
efforts of the Brest squadron to send that aid, and the savage reprisals
demanded, and when possible enforced, by the loyal minority of Irishmen,
brought about a situation in which Ireland could not stand alone.[539]
Preliminary inquiries respecting the Act of Union were set on foot, and
the results were summarized in Memoranda of the summer and autumn of
1798. One of them, comprised among the Pelham manuscripts, is annotated
by Pitt. The compiler thus referred to the question of Catholic
Emancipation: "Catholics to be eligible to all offices, civil and
military, taking the present oath. Such as shall take the Oath of
Supremacy in the Bill of Rights may sit in Parliament without
subscribing the Abjuration. Corporation offices to be Protestant." On
this Pitt wrote the following note: "The first part seems
unexceptionable, and is exactly what I wish ... but if this oath is
sufficient for office, why require a different one for Parliament? And
why are Corporation offices to be exclusively Protestant, when those of
the State may be Catholic?"[540] Well might Pitt ask these questions,
for the whole system of exclusion by religious tests was condemned so
soon as admission to Parliament ceased to depend on them. Other
Memoranda dealt mainly with the difficult question of compensation to
the borough-holders and placemen who would suffer by the proposed
change. But for the present it will be well to deal with the question of
the abolition of religious tests.
The procedure of Pitt in regard to this difficult subject was eminently
cautious. As was the case before dealing with the fiscal problem in
1785, so now he invited over certain leading Irishmen in order to
discuss details. About the middle of October he had two interviews with
the Earl of Clare, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. These important
conferences took place at Holwood, where he was then occupied in marking
out a new road; for his pastime every autumn was to indulge his
favourite pursuit of planting trees and otherwise improving his grounds.
The two ablest men in the sister kingdoms must have regarded one another
with interest. They were not unlike in figure except that Clare was
short. His frame was as slight as Pitt's; his features were thin and
finely chiselled. Neither frame nor features bespoke the haughty spirit
and dauntless will that enabled him at times to turn the current of
events and overbear the decisions of Lords Lieutenant. In forcefulness
and narrowness, in bravery and bigotry, he was a fit spokesman of the
British garrison, which was resolved to hold every outwork of the
citadel.
The particulars of their converse are unknown. Probably Clare had the
advantage which a man of narrow views but expert knowledge enjoys over
an antagonist who trusts in lofty principles and cherishes generous
hopes. Clare, knowing his ground thoroughly, must have triumphed. Pitt
did not confess his defeat. Indeed, on 16th October, he wrote
reassuringly to Grenville: "I have had two very full conversations with
Lord Clare. What he says is very encouraging to the great question of
the Union, in which I do not think we shall have much difficulty; I
mean, in proportion to the magnitude of the subject. At his desire I
have written to press the Speaker [Foster] to come over, which he seems
to think may be of great importance." Here is Clare's version of the
interviews in a letter of the same day to his fellow countryman,
Castlereagh: "I have seen Mr. Pitt, the Chancellor, and the Duke of
Portland, who seem to feel very sensibly the critical situation of our
damnable country, and that the Union alone can save it. I should have
hoped that what has passed would have opened the eyes of every man in
England to the insanity of their past conduct with respect to the
Papists of Ireland; but I can very plainly perceive that they were as
full of their popish projects as ever. I trust, and I hope I am not
deceived, that they are fairly inclined to give them up, and to bring
the measure forward unencumbered with the doctrine of Emancipation. Lord
Cornwallis has intimated his acquiescence in this point; Mr. Pitt is
decided upon it, and I think he will keep his colleagues steady."[541]
The mention of Castlereagh seems to call for a short account of one who,
after assisting in carrying the Act of Union, was destined to win a
European reputation as a disciple of Pitt. Robert Stewart, Viscount
Castlereagh, and second Marquis of Londonderry (1769-1822), was the son
of Robert Stewart of Ballylawn in County Londonderry by his first
marriage, that with the daughter of the Earl of Hertford. Educated at
Armagh and at St. John's College, Cambridge, he soon returned to contest
the seat of County Down with Lord Downshire, and succeeded by dint of
hard work and the expenditure of £60,000. He entered the Irish
Parliament as a representative of the freeholders as against the
aristocracy; but the second marriage of his father (now Marquis of
Londonderry) with the eldest daughter of the late Earl Camden brought
the family into close connection with the second Earl, who, on becoming
Lord Lieutenant in 1795, soon succeeded in detaching young Stewart from
the popular party, already, from its many indiscretions, distasteful to
his cool and cautious nature. Stewart had recently married Lady Emily
Hobart, the daughter of the late Earl of Buckinghamshire, and became
Viscount Castlereagh in October 1795. Though continuing to support the
claims of the Catholics, he upheld Camden's policy of coercion; and his
firm and resolute character made his support valuable in Parliament.
The sagacity of his advice in committee, and the straightforward
boldness of his action as an administrator, are in marked contrast to
his rambling and laboured speeches, in whose incongruous phrases alone
there lurked signs of Hibernian humour. "The features of the clause";
"sets of circumstances coming up and circumstances going down"; "men
turning their backs upon themselves"; "the constitutional principle
wound up in the bowels of the monarchy"; "the Herculean labour of the
honourable member, who will find himself quite disappointed when he has
at last brought forth his Hercules"--such are a few of the rhetorical
gems which occasionally sparkled in the dull quartz of his plentiful
output. Nevertheless, so manly was his bearing, so dogged his defence,
that he always gained a respectful hearing; and supporters of the
Government plucked up heart when, after a display of dazzling rhetoric
by Grattan or Plunket, the young aristocrat drew up his tall figure,
squared his chest, flung open his coat, and plunged into the unequal
contest. Courage and tenacity win their reward; and in these qualities
Castlereagh had no superior. It is said that on one occasion he
determined to end a fight between two mastiffs, and, though badly
bitten, he effected his purpose. These virile powers marked him out for
promotion; and during the illness of Pelham, Chief Secretary at Dublin,
Castlereagh discharged his duties. Cornwallis urged that he should have
the appointment; and to the King's initial objection that a Briton ought
to hold it, Cornwallis successfully replied that Castlereagh was "so
very unlike an Irishman" that the office would be safe in his hands.
Castlereagh received the appointment early in November 1798. He, the
first Irishman to hold it, was destined to overthrow the Irish
Parliament.[542]
We must now revert to the negotiations between Pitt and Clare. It is
surprising to find Clare convinced that the Prime Minister would keep
faithful to the Protestant cause its unfaithful champion, Loughborough,
also that Cornwallis had acquiesced in the shelving of Catholic
Emancipation. Probably Clare had the faculty, not uncommon in
strong-willed men, of reading his thoughts into the words of others. For
Cornwallis, writing to Pitt on 8th October, just after saying farewell
to Clare at Dublin, describes him as a well-intentioned man, but blind
to the absolute dependence of Irish Protestants on British support and
resolutely opposed to the admission of Romanists to the united
Parliament. As to himself, Cornwallis pens these noble words: "I
certainly wish that England could now make a Union with the Irish
nation, instead of making it with a party in Ireland"; and he expresses
the hope that with fair treatment the Roman Catholics will soon become
loyal subjects. Writing to the Duke of Portland in the same sense,
Cornwallis shows a slight diffidence in his ability to judge of the
chief question at issue.
Probably the solution of the riddle is here to be found. It seems that
the Lord Lieutenant was politely deferential to Clare; that at Holwood
Clare represented him as a convert to the ultra-Protestant tenets; and
that Pitt accepted the statements of the Irish Chancellor. William
Elliot, Under-Secretary at War at Dublin, who saw Pitt a week later,
found him disinclined to further the Catholic claims at the present
juncture, though equally resolved not to bar the way for the future.
Possibly the King now intervened. It is a significant fact that Clare
expected to have an interview with him before returning to Ireland. If
so, he must have strengthened his earlier resolve. Pitt, then, gave way
on the question of the admission of Dissenters and Catholics to the
Irish Parliament. But he kept open the more important question of the
admission of Catholics to the United Parliament. Obviously, the latter
comprised the former; and it was likely to arouse the fears of the Irish
Protestants far less. On tactical grounds alone the change of procedure
was desirable. It is therefore difficult to see why Elliot so deeply
deplored his surrender to the ultra-Protestants. Pitt had the approval
of Grenville, who, owing to the religious feuds embittered by the
Rebellion, deprecated the imposition of the Catholic claims on the
fiercely Protestant Assembly at Dublin.[543] Yet he warmly supported
them in the United Parliament, both in 1801 and 1807.
The next of the Protestant champions whom Pitt saw was Foster, Speaker
of the Irish House of Commons, whose forceful will, narrow but resolute
religious beliefs, and mercantile connections gave him an influence
second only to that of Clare. In the course of a long conversation with
him about 15th November, Pitt found him frank in his opinions,
decidedly opposed to the Union, but not so fixedly as to preclude all
hope of arrangement. On this topic Pitt dilated in a "private" letter of
17th November, to Cornwallis:
... I think I may venture to say that he [Foster] will not
obstruct the measure; and I rather hope if it can be made
palatable to him personally (which I believe it may) that he
will give it fair support. It would, as it seems to me, be worth
while for this purpose, to hold out to him the prospect of a
British peerage, with (if possible) some ostensible situation,
and a provision for life to which he would be naturally entitled
on quitting the Chair. Beresford and Parnell do not say much on
the general measure, but I think both, or at least the former
against trying it, but both disposed to concur when they
understand it is finally resolved on. They all seem clearly (and
I believe sincerely) of opinion that it will not be wise to
announce it as a decided measure from authority, till time has
been given for communication to all leading individuals and for
disposing the public mind. On this account we have omitted all
reference to the subject in the King's Speech; and the
communication may in all respects be more conveniently made by a
separate message when the Irish Parliament is sitting, and it
can be announced to them at the same time. In the interval
previous to your Session there will, I trust, be full
opportunity for communication and arrangement with individuals,
on which I am inclined to believe the success of the measure
will wholly depend. You will observe that in what relates to the
oaths to be taken by members of the United Parliament, the plan
which we have sent copies the precedent I mentioned in a former
letter of the Scotch Union; and on the grounds I before
mentioned, I own I think this leaves the Catholic Question on
the only footing on which it can safely be placed. Mr. Elliott
when he brought me your letter, stated very strongly all the
arguments which he thought ought to induce us to admit the
Catholics to Parliament, and office; but I confess he did not
satisfy me of the practicability of such a measure at this time,
or of the propriety of attempting it. With respect to a
provision for the Catholic clergy, and some arrangement
respecting tithes, I am happy to find an uniform opinion in
favor of the proposal, among all the Irish I have seen; and I am
more and more convinced that those measures, with some effectual
mode to enforce the residence of _all_ ranks of the Protestant
clergy, offer the best chance of gradually putting an end to the
evils most felt in Ireland.[544]
The suggestion that Foster's opposition might be obviated by the
promise of a peerage emanated first from Camden. Its adoption by Pitt
marks the first step in the by-paths of bribery on which he now entered.
In this case his action is not indefensible; for the abolition of the
Speakership at Dublin naturally involved some indemnity. Besides, in
that Parliament no important measure passed without bribery. That eager
democrat, Hamilton Rowan, foresaw in the Union "the downfall of one of
the most corrupt assemblies I believe ever existed." The proprietors of
the pocket-boroughs were needy and grasping, some of them living by the
sale of presentation of seats. Government generally managed to control
them, but only on condition of dispensing favours proportionate to the
importance of the suitor and the corruptness of the occasion. As
Beresford remarked with unconscious humour, the borough-mongers "cannot
be expected to give up their interest for nothing; and those who bought
their seats cannot be expected to give up their term for nothing." Here
he expressed the general conviction of that age, which Pitt recognized
in his Reform Bill of 1785 by seeking to indemnify the borough-holders
of Great Britain.
A typical specimen of the borough-owner was that "ill-tempered, violent
fellow," Lord Downshire, who controlled the Crown patronage in the North
by virtue of his seven borough seats. Lord Ely had six seats; and the
Duke of Devonshire, and Lords Abercorn, Belmore, Clifden, Granard, and
Shannon, four apiece. In the counties, Downshire, the Ponsonbys, and the
Beresfords controlled about twenty seats. Camden, writing to Pitt on
11th August 1799, thus described Downshire: "He is not personally
corrupt; but the larger the compensation for the boroughs is to be, the
more readily will he listen to you or Lord Castlereagh."[545] Lord
Longueville, a borough-owner of great influence in County Cork, wrote as
follows to Pitt on 3rd December, 1798:
... Long attached to you, and confirmed in that attachment for
life by the direction and advice of Lord Westmorland, I have now
no object to look up to, to prevent my falling a sacrifice to my
political enemies, but to you. When Lord Shannon opposed your
measures, I spent £30,000 of my own money to frustrate his
intentions and support your measures. I shall now act by your
advice and opinion on this great business of a Union with Great
Britain. My friends are numerous and firm; they look up to you
for decision on every occasion. My interest in Ireland is
extensive. I wish to be a British peer before the measure of a
Union takes place, or after. I wish the city of Cork to have two
members, Bantry one and Mallow one.
Longueville gained his desire and the patronage of the Revenue offices
in Cork City.[546] From Pitt's letter to Cornwallis it is clear that he
believed that the promise of Government stipends for the Catholic
clergy, and a reform in tithes would induce them to support the Union.
But it seems impossible to reconcile his statement as to Beresford's
opposition to the Union with the assertion of the latter, that, in an
interview of 12th November, he pressed Pitt to take immediate steps to
ensure the success of the measure, which otherwise would have to
struggle against unfair odds at Dublin. The curious tendency of
Hibernian affairs towards confusion also appears in Cornwallis's
statement, on 15th November, that he had urged Pitt not to close the
door to the Catholics in the United Parliament. Whereas Pitt was
resolved to admit them at an early opportunity.[547]
On the various interests at stake there is in the Pretyman archives a
long but undated Memorandum, with notes at the side by Pitt, or perhaps
by Grenville; for their writing, when cramped, was similar. It
recommends that the precedent of the Union with the Scottish Parliament
shall be followed where possible; that few changes shall be made in the
Irish legal system, appeals being allowed to the Irish Lord Chancellor
and three chief judges, who may also deal with evidence for
parliamentary and private Bills affecting Ireland. The general aim
should be to lessen the expense of resort to the United Parliament for
private business. Pitt here added at the side--"Particularly in divorces
and exchange of lands in settlement," also in certain "private" Bills.
The compiler then refers to the difficulty of assessing or equalizing
the Revenues, National Debts, and the fiscal systems of the two islands,
but suggests that on the last topic Pitt's Irish proposals of 1785 shall
be followed. To this Pitt assents, suggesting also that the proportions
of Revenue and Debt may soon be arranged provisionally, Commissioners
being appointed to discuss the future and definitive quotas. Further,
Pitt expresses the desire to model the election of Irish peers on that
of Scottish peers. The compiler of the plan advises a delegation of 40
Irish peers, and not less than 120 Commoners to Westminster; but, as
electoral changes are highly dangerous to both countries, he drafts a
scheme by which either 125 or 138 Irish Commoners will sit in the United
Parliament.[548]
Here Pitt and his colleagues differed from their adviser. Probably they
heard rumours of the fears aroused by the advent of Irish members. The
repose of Lord Sheffield was troubled by thoughts of the irruption of
"100 wild Irishmen"; and he deemed the arrival of 75 quite sufficient,
if staid country gentlemen were not to be scared away from St.
Stephen's. By way of compromise the Cabinet fixed the number at 100 on
or before 25th November 1798.[549] At that date Portland also informed
Cornwallis that the number of Irish Peers at Westminster must not exceed
32.
Meanwhile, the tangle at Dublin was becoming hopeless. There, as
Beresford warned Pitt, the report of the proposed Union was the letting
out of water. Captain Saurin, an eminent counsel who was commander of a
corps of lawyers nick-named the Devil's Own, insisted on parading his
battalion in order to harangue them on the insult to Ireland and the
injury to their profession. His example was widely followed. On 9th
December the Dublin Bar, by 168 votes to 32, protested strongly against
the proposal to extinguish the Irish Parliament. Eloquent speakers like
Plunket warned that body that suicide was the supreme act of cowardice,
besides being _ultra vires_. The neighbouring towns and counties joined
in the clamour. The somnolence of Cornwallis, his neglect to win over
opponents by tact or material inducements, and the absence of any
Ministerial declaration on the subject, left all initiative to the
Opposition. On 24th December Cooke wrote to Auckland in these doleful
terms:[550]
... Our Union politics are not at present very thriving.
Pamphlets are in shoals, in general against a Union; a few for
it; but I do not yet see anything of superior talent and effect.
The tide in Dublin is difficult to stem. In the country
hitherto, indifference. We have no account from the North, and
that is the quarter I apprehend. The South will not be very
hostile. The Bar is most impetuous and active, and I cannot be
surprized at it. The Corporation have not sense to see that by
an Union alone the Corporation can be preserved. Most of the
best merchants are, I know, not averse. The proprietors of
Dublin and the county are violent, and shopkeepers, etc. The
Catholics hold back. They are on the watch to make the most of
the game, and will intrigue with both parties.... In the North
they expect the Dutch fleet. If we had a more able active
conciliating Chief, we might do; but the _vis inertiae_ is
incredible. There is an amazing disgust among the friends of
Government. The tone of loyalty is declining, for want of being
cherished. Do not be surprized at a dreadful parliamentary
opposition and a personal opposition.
Cooke's reference to the mediocrity of the pamphlets for the Union is a
curious piece of _finesse_; for he was known to be the author of an able
pamphlet, "Arguments for and against an Union between Great Britain and
Ireland." In it he dilated on the benefits gained by Wales and Scotland
from a Union with England. He dwelt on the recent increase of strength
in France consequent on the concentration of political power at Paris,
and demonstrated the unreality of the boasted independence of the Dublin
Parliament, seeing that Irish enactments must be sealed by the Seal of
Great Britain. After touching on the dangerous divergence of policy at
Westminster and Dublin during the Regency crisis of 1789, he showed that
peace and prosperity must increase under a more comprehensive system,
which would both guarantee the existence of the Established Church, and
accord civic recognition to Catholics. At present, said he, it would be
dangerous to admit Catholics to the Irish Parliament; but in the United
Parliament such a step would be practicable. This semi-official
pronouncement caused a sensation, and before the end of the year
twenty-four replies appeared. In one of the counterblasts the anonymous
author offers "the reflections of a plain and humble mind," by stating
forthwith that the policy of the British Government had been to foment
discontent, to excite jealousies, to connive at insurrections, and
finally to "amnestize" those rebellions, for the purpose of promoting
its favourite and now avowed object of a Union.[551]
Far abler is the "Reply" to Cooke by Richard Jebb, who afterwards became
a Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland. He showed that only in regard
to the Regency had any serious difference arisen between the two
Parliaments; he scoffed at the notion of Ireland's needs finding
satisfaction at Westminster. Would Pitt, he asked, who whirled out of
the Cabinet the gigantic Thurlow, ever attend to Irish affairs? Jebb
then quoted with effect Clare's assertion that the Irish Parliament
alone was competent to deal with the business of the island. He admitted
the directing power of the British Cabinet over Ireland's concerns; but
he averred that under the new system the Lord Lieutenant would be little
more than a Great Contractor. As to the satisfaction to be granted to
Catholics, the Under-Secretary had done well not to be too explicit,
lest he should offend jealous Protestants. But, asked Jebb, would the
Catholics have much influence in the United Kingdom, where they would
be, not three to one as in Ireland, but three to fourteen? Nature
herself had intended England and Scotland to be one country; she had
proclaimed the need of some degree of independence in Ireland. Finally,
he deprecated in the mouth of an official a reference to the success
attending the policy of annexation pursued by France, which Pitt had
always reprobated. The effect produced by these replies appears in a
letter of Lees to Auckland on 29th December. Dublin, he writes, is in a
frenzy against the Union. As for Cornwallis, he was as apathetic as
usual: "We are asleep, while the disaffected are working amain."[552]
Not until 21st December did Pitt and his colleagues come to a final
decision to press on the Act of Union at all costs. On that day he held
a Cabinet meeting in Downing Street, all being present, as well as the
Earl of Liverpool and Earl Camden. The following Minute of their
resolution was taken by Lord Grenville.
That the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be instructed to
state without delay to all persons with whom he may have
communication on this subject, that His Majesty's Government is
decided to press the measure of an Union as essential to the
well-being of both countries and particularly to the security
and peace of Ireland as dependent on its connection with Great
Britain: that this object will now be urged to the utmost, and
will even in the case (if it should happen) of any present
failure, be renewed on every occasion till it succeed; and that
the conduct of individuals on this subject will be considered as
the test of their disposition to support the King's
Government.[553]
Portland forthwith informed the Lord-Lieutenant, Cornwallis, of the
purport of this resolution. Drastic proceedings were now inevitable; for
mischievous rumours were rife at Dublin that nobody would suffer for his
vote against the Union.
A brief Declaration as to the essentials of the Government plan was
issued at Dublin on 5th January 1799. It stated that twenty-eight
temporal peers elected for life would be delegated to Westminster, and
four Protestant bishops, taken in rotation. Irish peers not elected
might sit for British counties and boroughs, as before. The Crown
retained the right of creating Irish peers. As to the delegation of the
Commons of Ireland, each county or large town now returning two members
could send only one to Westminster, except Dublin and Cork, each of
which would return two members. Of the 108 small boroughs, one half
would return members for one Parliament, the other half for the next
Parliament. In the sphere of commerce Ireland would enjoy the same
advantages as Great Britain, the duties between the two islands being
equalized, the linen manufacturers retaining their special privileges.
The Exchequer and National Debt of each island were to continue
separate, the quota paid by Ireland into the Imperial Exchequer being
reserved for future consideration, it being understood that when the
Irish Revenue exceeded its expenses, the excess must be applied to local
purposes, the taxes producing the excess being duly modified.
Apart from the inevitable vagueness as to the proportion of Ireland's
quota, the Declaration was calculated to reassure Irishmen. The
borough-mongers lost only one half of their lucrative patronage. True,
the change bore hard upon the 180 Irish peers, of whom only one in six
would enter the House of Lords at Westminster. But commerce was certain
to thrive now that the British Empire unreservedly threw open its
markets to Irish products; and in the political sphere the Act of Union,
by shattering the Irish pocket-borough system, assigned an influence to
the larger towns such as those of Great Britain did not enjoy until the
time of the Reform Bill. Nothing, it is true, was said to encourage the
Catholics; but in Cooke's semi-official pamphlet they had been led to
hope for justice in the United Parliament.
The following letter of Cooke to Castlereagh (6th January) is
interesting:
We shall have difficult work; but there is no need to despair. I
do not hear of anything formidable from the country. Armagh is
stirred by Lord Charlemont; Louth, I suppose, by the Speaker;
Lord Enniskillen will move Fermanagh; Queen's County will be
against [us]. I hear Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Limerick is [_sic_]
with us. Sir Edward O'Brien in Clare is against and is stirring.
Derry will be quiet, if not favourable. The North is so in
general at present. The sketch of terms thrown out is much
relished. I cannot tell you how our numbers will stand on the
22nd. The Catholics will wait upon the question, and will not
declare till they think they can act with effect. Many persons
are anxious to make them part of the measure. Grattan is come. I
know not yet what he is doing. I hope all friends in London will
be sent over. The first burst is everything. It would be
decisive if the Prince of Wales would declare publicly in favour
and hoist his banner for the Union.[554]
Apart from this enigmatical reference, there were few grounds for hope.
The landlords and traders of Dublin naturally opposed a measure certain
to lessen the importance of that city. Trinity College, the Corporation
of Dublin, and the gentry and freeholders of County Dublin all protested
against Union. Equally hostile were most Irish Protestants. In their
pride as a dominant Order, they scorned the thought of subordination to
Great Britain. Sixteen years of almost complete legislative independence
had quickened their national feelings; and many of them undoubtedly set
love of country before the promptings of caste. How was it possible,
they asked, that the claims of Ireland should receive due attention
amidst the clash of worldwide interests at Westminster?
Doubts like these should have been set at rest. Surely Pitt missed a
great opportunity in not promising the appointment of a perpetual
committee at Westminster, elected by the Irish members for the
consideration of their local affairs. A similar committee for Scottish
business would also have been a statesmanlike proposal, in view of the
increase of work certain to result from the Union. Doubtless those
committees would have interfered with the functions of the Lord
Lieutenant at Dublin, and the Scottish patronage controlled by Henry
Dundas. But some such measure would have appeased the discontent rife in
both kingdoms, and, while easing the strain on the Imperial Parliament,
would have nurtured the growth of that wider patriotism which has its
roots in local affections.
A survey of the facts passed under review must, I think, lead to the
conclusion that the conduct of Pitt in preparing for the Act of Union
was halting and ineffective. It is true that Camden had advised him to
make careful preliminary inquiries; but they were not instituted until
October 1798, and they dragged on to the end of the year, by which time
the fear of a French invasion had subsided. There were but two
satisfactory ways of carrying the Act of Union through the hostile
Parliament at Dublin. In June-October, during the panic caused by the
Rebellion and the French raids, Pitt might have intimated secretly
though officially to the leading loyalists that Great Britain could not
again pour forth her blood and treasure for an unworkable system, and
that the acceptance of that help must imply acquiescence in a Union.
Such a compact would of course be termed unchivalrous by the
rhetoricians at St. Stephen's Green; but it would have prevented the
unchivalrous conduct of many so-called loyalists, who, after triumphing
by England's aid, then, relying upon that aid for the future, thwarted
Pitt's remedial policy. Prudence should have enjoined the adoption of
some such precaution in the case of men whose behaviour was exacting
towards England and exasperating towards the majority of Irishmen. In
neglecting to take it, Pitt evinced a strange lack of foresight. At this
point George III showed himself the shrewder tactician; for he urged
that Cornwallis must take steps to frighten the loyal minority into
accepting an Act of Union.
But there was an alternative course of action. Failing to come to an
understanding with the ultra-Protestant zealots of Dublin, Pitt might
have elicited a strong declaration from the many Irishmen who were in
favour of Union. He seems to have taken no such step. Though aware that
Cornwallis was in civil affairs a figure-head, he neglected to send
over a spokesman capable of giving a decided lead. In the ensuing
debates at Dublin, Castlereagh showed the toughness, energy, and
resourcefulness which, despite his halting cumbrous style, made him a
power in Parliament; but his youth and his stiff un-Hibernian ways told
against him. Beresford was detained by illness in London; and Clare,
after his return to Dublin, did strangely little for the cause. Thus, at
this critical time the Unionists were without a lead and without a
leader. The autumn of 1798 was frittered away in interviews in London,
the purport of which ought to have clearly appeared two or three months
earlier. The passive attitude and tardy action of Pitt and Portland in
these critical weeks offer a strange contrast to the habits of clear
thinking and forceful action characteristic of Napoleon. It is painful
to compare their procedure with the action of the First Consul in
speedily bringing ecclesiastical bigots and fanatical atheists to the
working compromise summed up in the Concordat. In the case of the Union,
the initiative, energy, and zeal, which count for much among a Celtic
people, passed to the side of Pitt's opponents. Thenceforth that measure
could be carried through the Irish Parliament only by coercion or
bribery.
FOOTNOTES:
[530] Salomon, "Pitt," 599. See, too, the similar letter of Richmond to
his sister, Lady Conolly, in June 1795 (Lecky, vii, 134).
[531] Pitt MSS., 328.
[532] _Ibid._, 169.
[533] Porritt, ii, ch. iii; Seeley, "Stein," i, 267-82.
[534] Pitt MSS., 326. For the text in full see "Pitt and Napoleon
Miscellanies."
[535] B.M. Add. MSS., 34454.
[536] See my article in the "Eng. Hist. Rev." for October 1910.
[537] B.M. Add. MSS., 34454.
[538] B.M. Add. MSS., 34455.
[539] _Ibid._; "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 13.
[540] Lecky, viii, 328 note.
[541] "Dropmore P.," iv, 344; "Castlereagh Corresp.," i, 393.
[542] "Castlereagh Corresp.," i, 424 _et seq._; "Cornwallis Corresp.,"
ii, 439-441; Brougham, "Statesmen of George III"; Lecky, viii, 311;
Wilberforce ("Life," iii, 178) calls Castlereagh "a cold-blooded
creature."
[543] "Castlereagh Corresp.," ii, 29; "Buckingham P.," ii, 411, 412.
[544] Pitt MSS., 325; "Cornwallis Corresp.," ii, 441-3.
[545] Pretyman MSS.
[546] Pretyman MSS. "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 3; Macdonagh, "The
Viceroy's Post Bag," 19.
[547] "Beresford Corresp.," ii, 189; "Cornwallis Corresp.," ii, 436;
"Castlereagh Corresp.," i, 404.
[548] For the plan and notes, see "Pitt and Napoleon Miscellanies."
[549] "Cornwallis Corresp.," ii, 456, 457.
[550] B.M. Add. MSS., 34455. William C. Plunket (1764-1854), born in co.
Fermanagh, was called to the Irish Bar in 1787, and entered Parliament
in 1798. He speedily made his mark, and in 1803 was State Prosecutor of
Emmett. In Pitt's second Administration (1804) he was Solicitor-General:
he was created Baron Plunket in 1827 and was Lord Chancellor of Ireland
in 1830-41. William Saurin sat in the Irish Parliament as a nominee of
Lord Downshire ("Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 212).
[551] "Strictures on a Pamphlet, etc.," 5 (Dublin, 1798).
[552] B.M. Add. MSS., 34455. The term "Contractor" used above is
equivalent to "Undertaker," _i.e._, one who undertook to get business
through the Irish Parliament for certain rewards (Lecky, iv, 353).
[553] Pretyman MSS.
[554] Pretyman MSS.; also in Pitt MSS., 327.