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: 09 December 2010
During the early years of the nineteenth century the distribution of patronage n i Ireland—‘the spoils system’—reflected current English practice, but with peculiarly Irish overtones. The duke of Wellington's observation in 1830 that the government was losing its control of patronage to private members of Parliament may well have been applied to the Irish scene at any time after the Union. The men who benefited from the Irish system were drawn almost exclusively from the Ascendency party, that group of upper class Anglo-Irish Protestants long favoured by law and custom. Their pre-eminence had been assured during the negotiations prior to the Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. In the same manner that Pitt and Castlereagh had achieved their objective by exploiting Irish ambitions for titles, pensions and sinecures, Ascendency politicians established themselves as the dominating force in domestic politics. Commonly referred to as ‘Irish tones’, these men consistently exalted their special religious and economic needs far above any comprehensive British tory interests. Within the permanent Castle staff their influence was all pervasive. They shared a sense of power and the overriding confidence which characterized generations of Anglo-Irish families. Their satisfaction with ‘Orange’ politics served to compliment their pre-occupation with their own self-interests and the maintenance of the status quo.
1 Gash, Norman, Mr Secretary Peel (London, 1961), p. 109.Google Scholar
2 Add. MSS. 40332, fo. 10. Professor Kitson Clark describes Peel's attitude toward patronage, Irish in Peel and the Conservative Party (London, 1929), p. 11Google Scholar.
3 40286, fo. 193; see also 40285, fo. 147; 40286, fos. 28 and 193.
4 40288, fo. 49.
5 40282, fos. 29 and 92. Peel feared that the Commons might adopt the immediate tactics of refusing funds for the Irish Board of Works.
6 40287, fo. 92.
7 40284, fo. 133.
8 40286, fo. 182.
9 40287, fo.92.
10 40291, fo.64; see also 40290, fo. 224.
11 40291, fos. 92 and 121.
12 40203, fo. 234.
13 Peel described him as an ‘indefatigable’ applicant for patronage; Gregory simply urged that they ‘muzzle’ him (40201, fo. 264).
14 40290, fo. 134.
15 40290, fo. 64.
16 40198, fo. 31; 40280, fo. 67.
17 40200, fos. 3 and 21.
18 40288, fos. 87 and 111. See Wellesey's report on Parliamentary representation in Ireland ( Aspinall, A., Smith, E. Anthony (eds.), English Historical Documents, 1873-1832, London, 1959, XI, p. 269)Google Scholar.
19 40285, fo. 28.
20 40197, fo. 228; 40198, fo. 97.
21 See correspondence:40216, fos.80, 208, 251, 263, 283; 40285, fos. 180 and 187; 40289, fo. 207; 40290, fo. 38.
22 40285, fo. 168.
23 40216, fos. 286 and 303.
24 40288, fo. 139; 40284, fo. 130.
25 40290, fo. 152.
26 40195, fo. 125.
27 40281, fo. 55.
28 40182, fo. 63; see correspondence: 40182, fos. 5 and 7; 40287, fo. 213; 40290, fo. 173.
29 40197, fo. 217.
30 40200, fo. 178; 40202, fo. 124; 40203, fo. 70.
31 40198, fo. 283; 40202, fos. 16 and 297. One of Crosbie's candidates was vetoed because his ability was ‘not proportionate to his inclination’ (40287, fo. 140).
32 40296, passim.
33 40291, fo. 46.
34 40292, fos. 129 and 144; see also 40290, fo. 160.
35 40294, fo. 40.
36 40290, fo.159.
37 40294, fo.40.
38 40284, fo.132.
39 40295, fo. 32.
40 40291, fo. 153.
41 40186, fo. 101. Liverpool reiterated this sentiment to Lord Talbot six years later. See Aspinall, A. (ed.), English Historical Documents, XI, p. 650Google Scholar.
42 40284, fo. 132.
43 40280, fo. 135; 40281, fo. 98; 40284, fo. 127. Gregory observed that the son ‘must not be placed in the way of money temptation’ (40195, fo. 113).
44 40294, fo. 152.
45 40296, passim.
46 40211, fo. 267.
47 40203, fo. 234.
48 See Torrens correspondence: 40181, fo. 148; 40220, fo. 36, fo. 189, fos. 201 and 207.
49 40294, fo. 153.
50 40210, fo. 167; 40220, fo. 208.
51 40206, fo. 10.
52 40211, fo. 16. 4-2
53 See correspondence: 40188, fo. 30; 40189, fo. 121; 40286, fos. 120 and 146.
54 40281, fo. 54; 40291, fo. 69. Foster became baron of the Exchequer in 1830 and chief justice of the Common Pleas in 1842.
55 40202, fo. 18.
56 See correspondence: 40202, fos. 22, 47, 61; 40191, fo. 28; 40290, fos. 63, 65, 78, 116, 148, 156, 162.
57 40211, fo. 291.
58 Peel wrote: ‘If I suspect that my servant has defrauded me-and he partly admits it-and partly perjures himself in attempting to deny it, I should never hesitate about… dismissing him…though a court of law would demand new proceedings and further evidence’ (40293, fo. 49; see correspondence: 40201, fo. 109; 40204, fos. 31, 48, 124, 316; 40293, fos. 46 and 59).
59 See 40287, fos. 158, 160, 179, 188.
60 40200, fo. 68; Liverpool had been scarcely willing to credit his information when informed of the practice (40290, fo. 204: see also 40290, fos. 200 and 202; 40292, fo. 200). Peel admitted to the Commons tha t the procedure had been popularly despised, but he argued at the same time that it had not worked out so badly in practice as had been made to appear (1 Hansard, v. 34, col. 32).
61 40293, fo. 135; 40294, fo. 105. Gregory observed that th e government' s power to fine had led to fewer refusals to serve (40205, fo. 34).
62 McDowell, R. B., Public Opinion and Government Policy in Ireland 1801-1846 (London, 1952). p. 83.Google Scholar
63 40284, fo. 100.
64 40289, fo. 158.
65 See correspondence: 40182, fo. 65; 40199, fos. 247, 268, 283; 40285, fo. 65.
66 Gregory's correspondence is particularly helpful in following Hawthorne's career. See 40199, fos. 247, 264, 268, 283; 40200, fo. 25; 40205, fo. 213. See also 40294, fo. 148.
67 Halevy, Elie, The Liberal Awakening, 1815-1830 (2nd rev. ed. London, 1949), p. 138.Google Scholar
68 McCarthy, Justin, A History of Our Own Times (New York, 1895), 1, 23.Google Scholar
