,AMES CAULFEILD

THE EARL OF CHARLEMONT

PORTRAIT

o FAN

IRISH WHIG PEER

by Janice C. Vaudry Dcpartment of History, McGi 11 University

Montrea l

July, 1988

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research

in partial fulfi11ment of the requirements for the degree of r~astet' of Arts

@ Janice C. Vaudry, 1988.

/

THE EARL OF CHARLEMONT

PORTRAIT OF AN IRISH WHIG PEER

l

l

ABSIRACT

This work is an attempt to give a more complete understanding of James

Caul fei 1 d, the earl of Charl emont. Hi stori ans have tended to ei ther mi ni-

mize his role as commander-in-chief of the Irish volunteers or to blame him

for their fa:lure to achieve parliamentary reform in 1783. He has been

presented as a two-dimensional, and at times almost comic, figure of eight-

eenth century Ireland. In examining his memoirs and correspondence, his

biography, various manuscript materiai, as well as other secondary sources,

it is possible to see Charlemont as the complex man he was and as an able

and apt leader of the volunteers. By gaining a more complete picture of

this man, wc in turn achieve greater knowledge of this period of Anglo-

Irish relations.

II

. .. RESUME

Cette oeuvre tente de donner une compréhension plus complète de James

Caulfeild, le comte de Charlemont. La plupart des historiens ont eu la

tendance de parler de son role comme chef des volontaires Irlandais au

minimum, ou bien de rejeter le blâme sur lui pour avoir inachève en 1783 les

réformes parlementaires. Charlemont a été presenté comme un Irlandais à

seulement deux dimensions ou un personnage comique du dix-huitième siècle.

En utilisant ses mémoires et sa correspondance, sa biographie et divers

manuscrits et autres sources seconda ires, il est possible de voir le comte

en totalité comme l 1 homme complet qu'il était et le chef capable et le choix

propre des volonta~res. Avec 1 'obtention d'un portrait plus complet de

cette homme, nous acquérons ainsi une connaissance plus entip.re de cette

époque des rélations Anglo-Irlandaises.

... .. TABLE OF CONTENTS

PrefaCf and Acknowledgements.

Chapter One - Charlemont1s Background, Early Life, and Grand Tour.

Chapter Two - Return to Ireland and England.

Chapter Three - Involvement in Ireland and the Volunteers.

Chapter Four - The Dungannon Convention.

Chapter Five - The Dublin Convention.

Conclusion.

Appendix l - A Select List of Books in CharlerlOnt l s Library.

Appendix II - A List of the Members of The Club, 1764-1784.

Appendix III - The Monks of the Order of St. Patrick.

Appendix IV - The Dungannon Convention.

Appendix V - Delegates to the Dublin Convention.

Appendix VI - Charlemont on Edmund Burke.

Bibliography.

III

, PREFACE

(

..­..

l

v

The year 1782 is of critical importance to the history of Ireland.

It was the year when legislative independence from England was gained. In-

extricably linked with this achievement was an organization of armed citi­

zens known as the volunteers. James Caulfeild, the first earl of Charle-

mont, was chos,en as their commander-in-chief. Despite this eminent position,

his substantial contributions to the political and social affairs of Ire­

land in the second half of the eighteen century have been largely overlooked.

Historians have tended to concentra te on the more vlsib1è men of his time,

in particular Henry Flood and Henry Grattan. In order more fully to under-

stand the volunteers, their successes and failures, it is necessary to

examine the character and actions of the man behind t1em 'Ilho was their

chosen leader.

The first biograohical study of Charlemont, by Francis Hardy, was oub-

lished in 1810. As Hardy knew the earl, this is an invaluable aid in under­

standing him. liardy vias openly sympathetic to Charlemont and this bias is

obvious to the reader. The other work on Charl emont \'Jas vwitten sorne fort y

years ago by Maurice Craig. While this author also covers the span of

Charlemont's life, he spends a great deal of time in discussing the archi-

tecture of the period and Char1emont's contribution to this through his own

residences. The \'Jorks by Hardy and Craig are the only biographies of

Char1emont to have appeared.

The eighteenth century 'I:as a period of transition, a century of flux,

political1y, socia11y and to sorne extent philosophically. This is reflected

in the men of the period -- in their actions and writing -- men like Edmund

Burke, Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, William Hogarth and Henry Grattan.

(

f'

VI

Charlemont knew each of these men anà corresponded with most of them as

well as with others. In his knowledge and interests he reflected the age

in which he lived. Although it is often the nineteenth and twentieth cen­

turies that are ewphasized in Irish history with the eighteenth regdrded

as a period cf calm before the storm, these years were not without their

turmoil. lt is to this century that historians may look for the beginnings

of Irish nationalism as expressed by Dean Swift and later by the volunteers.

The character of the volunteers and their conventions, held in Dungannon and

Dublin in 1782 and 1783 respectively, l'las shaper.! '/argely by Charlemont and

hi s fa 11 D'vers.

By examining the biogl"aphies, his correspandence and memoirs and the

pa pers of some of his contemporaries, it is possible to gain a more

thorough knowledge of this man and by extension the political and social

circles in which he travelled. This work pulls together these sources

which combine to produce a three-dimensional character. What follows is

an attempt to explain Charlemontls tenure as chief of the volunteers ip

light of his diverse talents, his friends and his knowledge, and above all

his character traits. Here was a man who represented Irelandls interests

and whig politics at their purest. Charlemont has a place in the politic­

al history of Ireland which grew out of I-Jis soclal position. By gaining a

greater understanding of him we add to our understanding of the Ireland of

the eightee~th century.

The Studies in Irish Hist0!1. is used as a model for forme Therefore

peerage titles and the houses of parliament, for example, are not capitali­

zed unless used in a quotation which does so.

.. ... VII

Any work of historical research ;s dependent on the assistance of

manyothers. 1 would like ta expr'=ss my appreciation for that given me by

the Head Librarian at the Royal Iris'"' Academy, by the staff at the National

Library of Ireland and at the British Library and its r1anuscript Depart­

ment. Many times the Reference Librarians at i.JcGill University helped in

tracking down elusive sources and the staff at ~1cGill's Inter-L ibrary Loan

\'1ere able to obtain them.

1 would like also to ackno\lJledge the inspiration of Dr. Brian Jenkins

who gave me my fi rst taste of Iri sh hi story \'1hi ch prompted me to pursue

this interest. He, along with Dr. Karl Schvveizer encouraged me along the

way. Dr. Schvveizer also read parts of the thesis and gave useful comments.

My tllesis supervisor, Dr. Herel'Iard Senior, is owed a great debt of thanks.

He has guided me in this project over the years. 1 have learned much from

his example as a scholar.

Last, but not least, 1 wish ta express my gratitude to my parents

and family for their support, encouragement and understanding throughout.

CHAPTER 1

;'

(

l 1.

The earl of Crarlemont has been neglected by Irish historians for two

re~sons' his unobtrusive character, and the brilliance of his contempora­

ries -- Henry Grattan, Henry Flood and Edmund Burke. Edmond Malone, the

Shakespearian critic and a contemporary of James Caulfeild, the earl of

Charlemont, called him "the politest man lever knew." While this I,rIould

perhaps be expected of a man of Charlemont's social position, the earl dif­

fers from the general pattern of his peers in other aspects of hi s character.

He \\las generally recognized by contemporaries as a major personage in the

Ireland of his day.

He succeeded hi s fa ther to the rank of vi scount a t the age of seven.

A succession of tutors were employed to instruct Caulfeild until finally the

Rev. E. I~urphy assumed the pos; ti on permanently. Shortly thereafter Caul­

feild embarked on the prescribed grand tour. After travelling abroad he

returned to Endland ana from there to Ireland where he assumed his seat in

the house of lords. The public careers of many of his contemporaries did

not move beyond this poi"t. A cursory examination of the earl's own public

record would, except for his role with the volunteers, also appear routine.

For a man who was silent in the bouse of I~rds, however, the earl is

credited by the historian W.E.H. Lecky as exercising "a very great influence

in l ri sh po 1 i ti cs. Il 1 He was the patron of Henry Grc}ttan and fri end of Henry

Flood and Edmund Burke. However this alone would not give a man widespread

i nfl uence in the a ffa i rs of hi s country. From where then, di d hi s i nfl u-

en ce come? It may be suggested that the private character of the earl of

Char~emont was a stronger guide for his contemporaries than his voiee in

the hOIJse of lords would have been. A man's personality is molded and shap­

ed ta a great extent by those around him, by his geographical surroundings

and by his formal education. These factors must be taken int.o account in

(

J

(

.---------------------------------------------------------

2.

assessing the formation of Charlemont's character and, in turn, his public

actions.

James Caulfeild, fourth viscount and first earl of Charlemont, spanned

the eighteenth century, dying in 1799 at the age of 71 on the eve of the

union between Ireland and Great Britain. It is natural to aSSUlTle therefore,

that he was a man of the Enlightenment, a product of his times. His career

reached its climax in 1782 at the zenith of both the Enlightenment and the

Anglo-Irish ascendency.

The ei ghteenth century ~'Jas not rea lly an age of revol ution even though

it ended with two. It was, rather, an age of optimism on the part of the

intellectuals and middle-class public. "Rtformism might slowly make head-

way, but revolution was only likely to come by accident." 2 It was the age

of the salons ir rror,ce and the literary circles in England: a period of in­

tellectual ferment. 3 This ferment produced the French Encyclopédie, Mon­

tesquieu's L'esprit ces lois and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

ln Ireland a period of internal peace prevalled. The landlords ' posi­

tion and power was underpinned by the increasing number of lower and middle­

class protestants. 4 The year 1731 saw the establishment of the Dublin

Soci et y , set up ta promote agriculture, ITlanufactures and the useful arts.

It was a reflection of the widespread concern ta imprave the Irish economy.5

The eighteenth century in Ireland was alsa the apex of the Anglo-Irish

ascendency who felt sufficiently secure to achieve the legislative independ­

ence of their country.

However, ta understand Ireland ar.d England politically during this time

is nat to unders:i1lld trie earl. His sphere of interest extended beyand poli­

ti cs and i ndeed beyond bath the cauntri es menti aned abave. Hi s trave 1 s i n­

cluded the Continent, Ita1y, Greece, Turkey and Egypt. He also carried

. ,

i

-

3.

on an extensive correspondence with Edmond Malone, the Shakespearian critic.

Apart from this he was a member of Dr. Samuel Johnsonls literary circle and

his interests embraced architecture and classical antiquities. Far from be­

ing a two-dimensional product of his age, the earl was a complex amalgama­

tion of the various intell ectual and cul tural currents of the eighteenth

century which lent a depth of character making him something more than a

mere man of hi 5 times.

The last quarter of the eighteenth century was an age of revol uti on­

aries and orators, but the earl was neither of these. Instead Charlemont

was the mOderating and stabilizing influence on the politics of his day.

His social position a110wed him access to the peers of both realms and his

private interests brought him into contact with a broad range of men. In

spite of his social eminence and acknowledged influence in the political

circles of Dublin, ilÏstorians have at best acknowledged in passing the de­

ference pa id to him by hi s contemporari es. An extended grand tour whi ch

took him as Îar east as Constantinople, a keen literary and artistic in-

terest and an intense love of Ireland combined to produce in the figure of

Charl emont. a man tt~usted by a 11 and respected for hi 5 good wi 11 and 50 li d

judgement.

The Caulfeild family began its association with Ireland when Toby Caul-

feild came to Ireland with the ear1 of Essex and, as commander of a troop of

horse, he was at Kinsale when it was taken from the Spaniards in 1601 6 when

Spain sent four thousand troops in support of the Irish rebels led by Hugh

o Neill and Hugh OIConne11 J That same year, Toby Caulfeild was placed in

charge of Fort Charlemont in the county of Armagh by lord deputy Mountjoy.

Knighted in 1603, he became governor of the counties of Tyrone and Armagh

in 1608. He received one thousand acres of the estate of the rebel earl of

c

4.

Tyrone in 1610 and in 1620 was created baron Gharlemont.

William Caulfeild, grandfather of James, \'las attainted by King James'

parliament in 1689 which naturally was reversed by that of King William in

1692. The latter monarch a1so gave Caulfei1d the governorship of Armagh and

Tyrone, the command of a regiment of foot and the governorship of Charle­

mont. He continued his career in the armed services in the West Indies in

1702, under Peterborough in Spain in 1705 and by 1708 had reached the rank

of major-general. At his death in 1726 in Dublin, he was the oldest noble­

man in the dominions of King George. S The third viscount, a1so James Cau1-

feild, married Elizabeth, only daughter of Francis Bernard of Castle Bernard

in county Cork. 9 The viscount appears to have taken his role as a member of

the Ang1o-Irish ascendency serious1y, as a count for the parliament of 1727

shows him to have been in attendance at fifty-one of sixty-five meetings.

Only seventeen of the thi rty-three peers \'Jere present for a th; rd or more of

the meetings, and only John Dillon, the earl of Roscommon attended more. 10

From this beginning James Caulfeild succeeded to his place in the ascendency,

when in 1734 at the age of six, he became the fourth viscount and eighth

baron of Charlemont.

Little is known about James Cau1feild from the time of his birth in

Dublin on August 18, 1728 until just prior to his embarking on his grand

tour in 1746. His memoirs are clear1y stated as being his political memoirs,

and as such, rare mention is made of his chi1dhood. Even his biographer,

Francis Hardy, \'witing shortly after the ear1's death, is unable to shed

more light on his youth.

As was commoll in the eighteenth century, Caulfeild \'Ias privately educat­

ed. Three tutors, including an anglican clergyman, Philip Skelton, passed

rapidly through their ro1es between 1742 and 1744, when another member of

5.

the estab1ished cnurch, Edward Murphy, assumed the position of tutor and

friend to Caulfeild. He wou1d remain a friend until his death, sometime

after 1744. 11 Caulfeild ' s mother married again in 1740 to her cousin,

Thc,mas Adderley. He was a country squire, and as a smalT landlord, exem­

plary in establishing and encouraging local industries. The re1ationship

between him and Caulfeil d was not however, one of father and son. Ra ther,

Caulfeild seems to have looked to Adderley, as his legal guardian, for ad­

vice and entrusted his estate management to him while abroad. Aclderley ' s

tone of address in thei r l etters i s one of deference and recognitlOn of hi s

being his step-son's social lnferior. Later in their relationship Caulfeild

was to break with his guardian.

Adderley was, to sorne degree, responsible for the resignation of Skel­

ton from his position as tutor. When Adderley sought to ensure his position

in the event of Lady Charlemont's death, he asked for Skelton's assistance.

Skelton's connections at the Bank of Fede and Wilcox would have made this

possible. Adderley had ln the meantime been offered security by the Bank

of Mr. Dawson, whose offer he accepted. This annoyed Skelton who felt he

had been i mposed u pon and humil i a ted. Adderl ey himse 1f was opposed to some

advice Skelton had given his pupil Caulfeild. After these disagreements

Skelton resigned his position. Yet he retained a high opinion of his pupil

and in 1743 dedicated Truth in a Mask, a volume of allusions to religious

truth, to Caulfeild. At the beginning of this work he wrote IIIIt was for

many and weighty reasons, which in charity he forbears to mention, that he

chose to qu i t hirn 50 soon.'" 12

Caulfeild wou1d later prove himse1f to be a good scholar. Indeed he

would include among his friends sorne of the greatest literary, philosophical

( 6.

and political minds of his time. However, in 1744 when f4urphy took over his

tutorship. Caulfeild was virtually a tabula rasa. Despite the time apparent­

ly wasted with hi s previous tutors, Caulfeild made up lost ground under

Murphy, a former headmas ter who had been persuaded to 1 eave the publ i c aca­

derny for a private position. r'lurphy was a classical scholar. having pub­

lished, among other works, an edition of Lucian. 13 Writing ta Caulfeild in

1747 of hi s progress as a pupi l he says:

you had for two years so app1ied yourse1f ta your studies that, cansidering the 1itt1e or next ta no knowl edge with whi ch you set out. you really did wonders not on1y as to the quanti ty you read, but as to the manner in \'Ihich you understood it, general1y ectualling and sometimes even surpassing men 9f celebrat­ed learning and great penetration. 4

Despite an auspicious beginning under his new tutor, it seems Caul-

feild's interest in his studies had begun to wane. f1urphy believed a grand

tour was the required remedy and in the autumn of 1746 Cau1feild went

abroad. In a more extensive explanation for arranging the tour, r~urphy

\vrote his pupil from The Hague in 1747.

Your love of cards and sitting up to late haurs \lIas noticed and sorely regretted by every one that keeps your constant company. Strong expres­si ons of thei r fears and concerns for you have l had from their mouths, and more than once. l softened the thing by urging that you were unwell and wanted amusement, al1d defied cards or dice ever tG get the better of such sense and caution as you were mas ter of ... 15

Cùulfeild had begun to abandon ideas of university and was neglecting his

books. As Murphy feared that the young man woul d take up with the "young

profligates of (his) country", flight from Ireland seemed the only safe re­

course. Murphy continued his reasons for urging the tour by saying:

Had you remained at home but to this day, even in the innocent play and indolence with which you have spent your time here, your character were, even this day, gone. --For, my lord, you cannot abroad, much less at home, escape t"e busy sharp looks of men. A l ittl e man may for awhile, but you, not possibly.16

ï.

Caulfeild left Ireland for the Continent at the age of eighteen to begin his

travel s.

fv1urphy ' s solution to Charlemont's apparent problem of indolence was

not a newone. The first traceable reference to a grand tour is found in

Richard Lassels ' , An Italian Voyage, or a Compleat Journey Through Italy,

published in 1679. The idea itself is older. 17 The eighteenth century saw

a rise in the number of travellers to the Continent. This increase in

tourism was not restricted to the British, but included Europeans generally,

in particular though the French and Germans. The grand tour itself however

was principally the domain of the British. 1B The main destinations for

these tourists were Paris and then the major Ital ian cHies of Rome, Venice,

Florence and Naples. There were variations on this depending on the in-

terests of the traveller and the conditions prevailing on the Continert at

the time.

Charlemont left to begin his tour when the War of the Austrian Succes­

sion was nearing its end, and while the Jacobites, under Charles Edward,

were attempting ta establish James as king. Lord Charlemont's real educa-

tian can be said ta have begun when he went abroad in 1746. The normal

lergth of a grand tour was two years, but he was away from Ire1and for nine

years, returning ta England only in 1755.

I\s Francis Bacon put it, "When a Travailer returneth, let him not

leave the Countries, where he hath Travailed, altogether behind him."

Charlemont noted in his memoirs that he had dwelt too long in foreign lands19

J

(

but \'Iould !lever regret the experience he acquired abroad. Edmund Burke,

writing to Sir Charles Bingham in October 1773, cited Lord Charlemont as

evidence against imposing an absentee land tax.

Suppose a ~uardian, under the authority or pretence of such a tax of police, had pre­vented our dear frlend Lord Charlemont, from going abroad, would he have lost no satisfac­tion? Would his friends have lost nothing in the companion? Would hlS country have lost nothing in the cultivated taste, with which he had adorned lt in so many ways? His natural elegance of mlnd would undoubtedly do a great deal; but 1 will venture to assert, without the danger of belng contradicted, that he adorns his present residence in Ireland much the2~ore for having resided a long time out of it.

8.

It is during these years of travel that Charlemont formed and strength­

ened his beliefs and philosophies, both social and political, and expanded

his general knowledge of people and places. Although required by social

custom to frequent the English society circles of the foreign countries he

visited and resided in, Charlemont also pursued his own inquiries beyond

the "English Colonies" in the places he visited.

Upon leaving Ireland in 1746, Charlemont proceeded to Holland, where

he \'1itnessed the "revolution" which saw the Prince of Orange established as

the stadtholder. The Orange party under William IV l'las re-established in

pmver. 21

From Holland Charlemont next travelled to the English camp in Germany

where he spent sorne time with William, duke of Cumberland. 22 Charlemont

does not seem to have remained there until the end of the War of the Aus-

trian Succession for in 1747 Murphy wrote to remind his pupil of, and urge

him to take, the adv i ce proffered by John r1ontague, Lord Sand\'Ji ch to the

young man to continue on to Turin in Italy. Murphy quotes Lord Sandwich as

saying, !lThere you have a polite and friendly court, where both French and

.. .. 9 .

Italian are well spoken, and there you have good academies of all kinds." 23

It was believed that Turin was the best place for Charlemont, and 50 he took

the advice, entering an academy for one year.

The academies in their modern form were socities devoted to the study

and promotion of literature, science and art, either singly or in combina-

tion. From the time of the Italian Renaissance the academies enjoyed a

period of great growth and encouragement. While the precise academy which

Lord Charlemont attended is not known -- in 1737 there \'!ere seven in Turin

it is possible that it may ha'Je been the Royal Academy of Savoy. Dating

from 1719 it was one of the academies of Belles Lettres. This would be

congenial to his love for, and great knmvledge of, classical literature.

Al though he al so s hOI'!ed sorne i nteres tin sci ence, the Roya 1 Academy of

Sciences was not founded in Turin until 1757, after Charlemont hdd returned

home. 24 Turin appears to have continued as a prominent centre for the arts

and sciences, as in 1778 an academy for painting and sculpture vIas establish-

ed there. It is probable therefore that while resident in Turin Charlemont

\'Jas given ample opportunity to broaden his knowledge in various fields,

something of which he seems to have taken advantage.

Charlemont's place in the hierarchy of society was enough to assist him

in meeting the notables of Italian society, as well as other interesting and

important forei gners abroad. He met and began a fri endshi p with The Pri nce

Royal of the House of Savoy which included the rest of the Sardinian family.

British tourists in Italy were often presented to the Pope, the kings of

Naples and Sardinia and the grand duke of Tuscany. With the exception of

the Sardinian court at Turin, these and other Italian courts did not domin­

ate the pastimes of the British resident there. 25 Charlemont was also in­

timate with the marquis St. Germain, who in 1749 was sent as ambassador from

(

10.

Turin to France. It was in Tut"in as \'1ell that he met David Hume, the Scot­

tish historian and philosopher, who was to remain a friend for years to

come. Charlemont was greatly attached to Hume's society, but considered

tha t he \'Jas not overly i nfl uenced by the phil osopher si nce he, un li ke Hume,

\vas "ever a sincere Christian and devout Whig." Charlemont go es on to sQy

in ev en stronger terms that he believed Hume's philosophical essays to "have

done 50 much mi schief ta manki nd. 1126

On October 27, 1748 Charl emont 1 eft Turi n and travell ed by 'tlay of

Balogna to Rome. 11is time that wintel~ l'Jas spent between Rome and Naples.

Although he was away from life in Ireland, Charlemont was not out of touch

""ith it. Thomas Adderley, Charlemont's stepfather and r,1.p. for Bandonbridge,

l'la!:. in c.harge of the young manls affairs while the latter was abroad. In a

letter ta Charlemont dated 1748, Adderley first noted that. his stepson \'Jas

highly regarded ;n Ireland. He then infonned his v/arri that he had gone ta

the lords justices to ensure that Charlernont \vould succeed Arthur Acheson

in the government of Armagh county on the latter's recent death. 27 This

correspondence between the two continued during the time Charlemont was

away, with Adderley keeping him aware of social and political news as well

as giving him brief, general managerial reports.

In the spri ng of 1749 Cha rl emont sa iled from Leghorn on the coast of

Italy. His destination \'/aS the city of Constantinople. While most travel­

lers confined themselves to the usual routes within the Continent, a few

ventured beyond thern. Some like Lady r'1ary ~~ortley Montagu, were "simply"

travellers, others were more specifie in their purposes, often travelling

because of an interest in classical architecture and archeology, and Charle­

mont was one of these latter. He was accompanied by Mr. Francis Pierpont

Burton, later baron Conyngham, ~1r. Scott, and the tutor Murphy; they were

11.

joined later by Mr. Richard Dalton, a painter \ ... ho went as draughtsman.

Murphy and Charlemont had heeded the advice of the earl of Sandwich pre­

viously and it is possible that he had inspired the young man in this trip.

Montague, the fourth earl of Sandwlch, had toured the Mediterranean, includ­

ing in his travels SlClly, Egypt, Cyprus, Greece and Turkey.28 A similar

itinerary was follm'Jed by Charlemont which took up most of 1749; he did not

return to Ita 1y until 1750.

The extent of his trave1s -- the Greek main1and and islands, Egypt and

Turkey -- coup1ed with the fact that Charlemont kept a record of this in­

cluding his observations and thouqhts, makes this a critical time in under­

standing the deve10pment of his character. He came of age in Constantinople.

The fact that he undertook such a journey suggests an adventurous spirit.

Obviously curious about other sites beyond the normal bounds of western

Europe, Charlemont was intent on observing the manners and customs of the

countries he visited sa that he could supplement his available sources.

This is especia11y evident in his account of Turkey.

Francis Hardy, in his narrative of Char1emont's life, gives us a brief

description of these travels. Obviously though the best account is that of

Charlemont hirnself. The first stop on the excurS~on was Messina soon fol­

lowed by j-laHa which they revisited on their return. From thel'e the party

went on to sorne of the Greek iSlands, then north to the Dardanelles and Con­

stantinople. Here they remained for about one month. Charlemont was aided

ir his investigations there by the resident English doctor -- Dr. r'lordack

t~acKenzie. Upon leaving the city they travelled down the coast of the

Aegean, visiting more of the ls1ands on their way to Alexandria. Although

Charlemont's acco~nt of his time in Egypt has not survived, we do know that

he visited there fram references he has made to it in his other journa1s

f , . ..

(

J

(

12.

and from the fact that in later life he continually told one particular

story of his adventures there \I/hich all of his friends knew. 29 From Egypt

he \"as forced by winds to go ta Rhodes and then to Athens. He visited many

of the islands closer to the Greek mainland as well ~s numerous cities on the

mainland itself. He returned to Rhodes and from there sailed Lo Malta where

he spent fort y days.

Charlemont's journal of his trip to Greece and Turkey is not a dav Lo

day account, but is rather a collection of essays written partly at the time.

and added to throughout his lifetime. The title of his essay on the Turks

is in itself enlightening: An Essay! towards a new Method of Travel writ-

ing! Seing a succinct Relatlon! of several! Miscellanious Occurrences!

during my Travels./ Pri ncipally relative to the Character of the! Several

Nations II/ith v/hom l hadj Intercourse.! With S0me observations,! Homosum,

hUl1larlÏ nihil a me alienum puto!! The proper study of mankind is Man.; Haec

olilll memenisse juvabit. 30 He is interested, not 50 much in the countryls

history, but in the people themselves. \1.B. Stanford, in his book on

Charlemont's travels, considers him to be more a sociologist than an his­

torian. 3l

At the outset of hi s essay on the Turks, Cha rl emont goes to ureat

lengths to describe his purpose in writing. He states that we, as Western-

ers, tend ta regard nations whose civil izations differ from ours as bar-

barians. Thi sis wllat has happened to the Turks. Charl emont comes to the

defense 0'= the Turk by enumerati ng the sources of our information on him and

why they should be considered as unreliable.

The fir5t source Charlemont discussed was the missionaries and other

"Ramite" oriests, \vho, either thraugh reliaious zeal or resentment of the

way the Turks treated them, were hostile ta the Turkish customs and so

13.

misrepresented them. These missionaries and priests have tried to persuade

us, says Char1emont, that it 1S impossible for an unbeliever to be an honest

man, which lIill grounded Notion joined to their inveterate Prejudices, r.;ust

surely render their Testimony of 1 i ttl e wei ght .. 1132

Another obvious source of prej udi ced information was the Greeks, \'/ho,

being conquered by the Turks, could not be relied upon as impartial witnesses.

Charlemont points out a third dubious source -- the Christian merchants in

Constantinople and the other Turkish cities. They had taken up residence in

Turkey a,ld other foreign countries solely to make their fortunes. Buyers

and sell~~s tend naturally to disagree, and Charlemont reminds us that the

Turk is IIno~ al1ways (sic) \"Irong ll in these disputes. 33 The public ministers

of the West at the Porte were also to share in the blame for the injustice

done to the Turks. The Turkish officials at the Porte had a natural feeling

of superiority \'Ihich caused them to treat foreign ministers in a rnanner \'Jhich

the latter felt was less than their due. The Turkish court lIis a little too

apt to look upon all Envoys rather in the light of honourahle Spys, than \'/ith

that profound Respect, which they naturally suppose is due ta their nation. 1I34

Our only remaining source of information was the traveller, but here

too Charlemont hesitated to accept these accounts verbatim and noted his

reasons for this. rlost travellers, he argued, were resident for only a

short time and were not primarily concerned with obtaining an accurate pic-

ture of the Turks. As vlell many Turks \\fere inaccessible to ~~esterners dnd

little attemp-t: was made by the latter to make Turkish acquaintances. The

language barrier \Vas another obvious hindrance to open communication. The

travellers' information came, not from original sources, but often From the

aforementioned unreliable ones and was therefore further distorted. Charle-

mont asserted that if we stopped to consider how little travellers know of

(

J

(

their neighbouring countries where information is easier to obtain, we

would not expect much of them elsewhere.

14.

Charlemont believed that the task of discovering the true nature and

custom of a people was too difficu1t a task for the average traveller.

This information \"as obtained only by careful and accurate observation,

directed by the soundest judgement and further assisted by a long residence

accompanied by close connections \'/ith people of al1 ranks. 35

This lengthy introduction ~ontinues before Charlemont begins his first

Turkish essay. He suggests that we misrepresent the manners of those we

are observi ng because \lJe l ack the background know1 edge whi ch wou1 d hel p to

explain a particular action. As an example of this he cites the expecta-

tion of gifts on the parr of the Turks, \'ihich was resenteL~ to sorne deyree by

the Westerners. It is seen by Lnem as simply t;le anticipation of a bribe,

whereas, Charlemont argues, it l'las an ancient custom dating back to bibli-

cal times. He goes on to provide several examples and states that this

offering shifted from its L'se in rel igious practices to become an offering

given to monarchs, who were viewed as being divine. Charlemont's sole p~r­

pose in discussing this particular custom was "to shew how very precarious-

ly They judge, \llho presume paremtorily (sic) to decide upon and to infer

national Characters f,'om r,ational Customs ... "36 In order to emphasize his

point he orfered several Western practices which might be viewed as bar­

barous hy thl~ Turks. He did l'ot claim ta be writing an apology for the

Turks; his qualifications would not admit that, nor did he feel that the

Turks ~ere totally free of the defects of character charged to them. Charle­

mont was indeed an acute student of human nature and champion of fair play

when he stated that among both nations and individuals "perfect Depravity

is as seldom to be found as perfect Virtue." 37

,.........-------------------------------

15.

Charlemont was very much a c1assical historian or "antiquarian" a!: he

sty1ed himself. His avowed purpose in his travels was to study at first

hand the Greek antiquities \'1hich remained. His opinion of historians was

that they "perpetually copy each other, and view the world from their Closet

1138

says.

His remarkable knowledge of the classical writers perrr::ütec; both es­

He was not content to make conj~l..i.lÀr~~ about cdstoms or the ruirls he

was examining; he traced their histories back through the classical authors

and compa red thei r information with hi s findi ngs.

Apart from the interest in th2 ruins, monuments and inscriptions found

on the group's travels, there é.re several recurring themes in the essays.

Charlemont discusses the virtue of tolerance as practised by the Turks; he

also refers to such concepts as 1 iberty and patriotism. There are times

when he seems ta imply similarities be"tween the Turks and the Anglo-Irish

ascendancy; he also brings ta mind the rule of the Castle in Ireland.

Each of these bei ng a mi nority rul ing a majori ty.

Charlemont noted in particular the treatment of their slaves by the

Turks. In general they were \l/ell treated and allowed to practise their reli­

gion. The Turks, in their actions towards thei" slaves l'/ere following what

was set down in the Koran, and were practising 1 -t:hat noble Principle of

Toleration ... "39 The Greeks, conquered and ruled by the Turks at this time,

were allowed by the latter to enjoy ilL iberty of Conscience and Freedom of

worship in the highest Perfection Il This attitude was not restricted to

Constantinople, Charlemont points out, but was also found in other Turkish

cities in Europe, Asia and even Egypt. He faund that the Turks treated

their slaves better than the French, Italians and Maltese.

He continues his comments in an aside ta his main narrative. While

perusing the notes to a late editian of Shakespeare, he had come across a

(

1

)

(

16.

passage by Doctor Johnson. It showed IIhow sadly the Turks are misrepresent­

ed Even at this Day, in these en1ighten 1d Times and byone of the most en­

lighten1d r~en of the most en1ighten 1d Nation of Europe ... " Johnson stated

that if it was part of the r~ahometan religion to exterminate Christians, th en

they in turn were justified in making war on them in self defense. Char1e­

mont comments that "It is plain that this wise, devout, and 1earned Man is

wholly ignorant that the Turks are .•. the People of all others most inc1in­

ed ta To1eration .... It is somewhat whimsical to see such a Man as John­

son at thi s day impersonating St. Bernard, and preaching a Cru sade ... 40

Although Charlemont makes much of re1igious toleration, he nevertheless ap­

plauds the Turks for prohibiting roman catho1ics fram prose1ytizing: lias in

al1 well regulated Governments it ought to be 1141

Llberty is dnother theme repeated in the essays. In the context of

discussing how ~ small islanà such as rJaxos could keep a large standing

army, Charlemont concludes IIBut what will not Liberty enable Men ta perform,

when accompanied by every physical Advantage? Even in the 1ess genial clim-

ates of the North She can raise the frozen inhabitants to Heros!1I42 In

this sentiment he perhaps presages the volunteers.

In the same vein, he contemplates the scene of the Athenians under

Themistac1es hastily building the city walls for their defense. He sees

them as working II VJÎ ~h all the a1acrity and zeal of freemen who labour for

their own security. Hastily, vigorously, and cheerfully they Execute the

task assigned them, and, sacrificing their prejudices on behalf of their

patriotism. 1I43 Here again his thoughts could be app1ied to the Irish situa­

tion, as indeed there are moments in his narrative when Char1emont compares

a situation under discussion directly to that of the Irish. One such example

...,..

17.

is that of the Athenian system of magistrates. They were given limited

power by the Turks, but l'e argues that if the Athenians wou1d allow the ar­

chans to properly decide their cases th en appeals ta the Turkish officials

would be unnecessary. The Athenians wauld then retain their civil power and

would be able to regulate their awn affairs. He says however, that "(a)

wisdom of this sort is scarcely to be expected from any people whatsoever,

as we Irishmen have long known to our cost ... ,,44 Obviously he saw a

parallel to the judicial, and legislative systems then operating in his own

country.

If Charlemont's patriotism as an Iris~nan is evident in his narrative,

50 too is his affinity for England. In Athens he had several interviews

and conversations v/ith the vaivode there. 45 "One in particular in which he

desired from us some account of the English constitution and Govermnent

when his surprise at the liberty, \'Jhich we enjoy, was truly characteristic

and ridiculous.,,46 While Charlemont l'las obviously quick to point out the

benefits of the English system, he also recognized its weaknesses and was

willing to learn from the Turkish system. He noted that their judicial sys­

tem might appear summary when compared to that of the Eng1ish, but that it

had its advantages. In a SUlt, the loser IIlos es nothing but his cause, and

success cornes unattended by ruin." There were no pleadings, oratories, de­

murrers or writs of error in the Turkish court. Charlemont's sense of

humour cornes through when he states that the "cl ient has not here the

satisfaction of paying to hear his cause ably defended, nor the pleasure of

being able to delay from term to term the doubtful sentence.,,47

The legal system continued to occupy Charlemont's thoughts. On one

occasion he disguised himself as a Greek and accompanied, as his attendant,

(

(

18.

the principal interpreter to the English in the city, in order to gain ac-

cess ta the Porte. As such, he was able ta go about undisturbed, making his

observations before his presence was detected. On passing the Great Hall

where the Divan, or court, had Just been held he noticed several Turks at

prayer. Charlemont reflected on the effect of the Hall being thought con­

secrated and holy by the Turks. He admired the

striking propriety of this ldea and the sound policy of imprinting upon the minds of the people such an opimon, as nothing surely could ever be devised more proper or more likely to procure respect and venerati1n for the laws than that the Hall of Justlce, thl supreme seat of judicature, should be venerated and revered as sacrcd and holy ~round. 48

For all that, he still recognized that the Turkish judicial system was

not without its faults. It fell t0 the level of a trade, he believed, when

the Judges allowed themselves to profit from their positions. He commented

that his readers should not find it difficult to lmagine the effects of

this "when we consider the usual consequences of the sale of parliamentary

seats among us." This attitude \'/as not confined to the Turkish judges, but

was also to be found among the French and even the English, he noted. Des-

pite the fact that a judgeship was supposedly given for merit, it was often-

times bought, if not directly with money then "more dearly and infamously

purchased by the sacrifice and by the barter of reason and of conscience in

parl iamentary proceedings. 1149 Whil e Charl emont obviously had respect for

positions of authority, including that of the king, he remarked on the man­

ner in which the sultan was shielded from the people's view when in public.

This idea he believed probably came from II-chat slavish and impious opinion

that kings in all respects are gods on earth and should resemble the

divinity as well in his invisibility as in his other attributes." 50

.­...

... ..

19 •

Continuing his discussion of the social and political conditions of the

states he was visiting, Charlemont laments the decline of Athens -- its in-

habitants having been reduced to being "slaves to a slave of the slave of an

emasculated negro \'/ho is himself a slave!" This 1S a far cry from \~hen

I\thens \lIas "renowned and revered through al1 ages -- the boast of Europe!

the nurse of demigods! monorolist of learning, of arts, of arms! "

He adds, "Blest as citizens of the \'1orld, your fello\'! citizens still are

free, and Britons are no\·, Atflenians!/I As a student of classical history and

living at a time when there l'las a renewed interest in the Classical Age of

Greece and Rome, Charlemont's lamentations are understandable.

Seing a man with connections in the political and social circles of

bath England and Jreland, his investigations duriny his tour in the Medi-

terranean into these same spheres should be viewed as a natural expression

of his intellectual curiosity. The comments which Charlemont added to his

essays at later dates are as revealing as his original thoughts. On his

compari son of 8ritons as Atheni ans, he noted tha t "Thi s \I:as wri tten in the

reign of George II \'Ihen England was a free country."51 Although vJe do not

have an exact date for sorne of these later addendums, from their content

they apoear ta have been \'fritten after the probl ems \'Iith the American colon-

ists and Ireland. His despair and criticism of what England had become is

obvious in his writings.

Cities, kingdoms, empires, as well as men, though the period of their existence be somewhat longer, ... finally perish and fall to decay; and the huge skeleton alone d~nonstrates the vastness of the once tremendous giant! .. \'Jhat \'Jas the British Em­pire under the administration of William Pitt? Alas, vJhat is it nov!? Dying dying - dying - and, which is \~orse, a prey to ignorant quacks her on1y physicians, who greedy of fees, study only to make the mast of their patient, without ever aiming at

(

1

(

her cure ~ .•. Bri ta i n ~ the Greece, the l ta ly of latter Times! The illustrious daughter of the Ocean - the Queen of Commcrce~ The Patroness of Science - the mother of Philosophy! Invin­cible in war -- unrivalled in the arts of peaee! The Arbitress of Europe ~ ~lay more. the Asyl um of Free 1·1en, the Assertor of 1 iberty, and tlle Seourge of Tyrants! Sad reverse! ~;hat is she now! She deserted her maxilllS. 5he turned to folly. She became tyrannie. She is fallen! l find in my note book the following fantastical flight on rny first eonter.lOlatinq the ruins of Athens, \'Jhieh, ~ith the ass~stane~ of a 1ittle superstition, might be exalted into something prophetie, and therefore on1y 1 have copied it: Ils this the re­nowned Athens? How melancholy would be the re­f1ection should we suppose, what certainly must come to pass, that in a fe\'! ages het~ce, London, the Carthage, the fviemphis, the Athens or" the pre­sent \'Jorld, shall be reduced to a stdte like this, and travellers shal1 come, perhaps froril Americ~, to view its ruins. 152

20.

His vie\~ on tyranny and liberty and his belief in the fallen state of

England reflected his position as a whig in opposition. Using the analogy

of the restrictions placed on Turkish women, Charlemont comments on tyranny

in general. "The anxiety by which tyranny is always accompanied surpassed

the vain and unnatural pleasure of depotism, and their tyrants, like poli­

tical despots, are eonsequently strangers ta the delight of governing sub-

jects who are free and haopy ... Il and further. Il i n proportion as the tyrant

is degraded the lot of the slave becomes still more abject." 53 It is not

difficult to project these sentiments on to the relationship between England

and her American colonies as well as Ireland.

Tt should be remembered that these travel journals are the end product

of many yea rs 1 work on the part of Charl emont. Ir them we have the observa-

tions and opinions of the young man, combined with his more mature reflections.

Charlemontls rereading and commenting on his previous writings allows his

reader ta see the consistency in his beliefs which he maintained to a great

... .. 21.

extent throughout his life .

An adventurous spirit coupled \Vith an inquisitive mind 1ed him away

from the usual track of the Hestern traveller. Although forced by custom

to make the required social contacts l'Iith the members of the English com-

munit y in each major city, he also atteillpted to meet the ordinary citizens

and 50 gain a tr'uer picture of his surroundings. he regretted that in Con-

stantinople much of his time was "necessarily, though foolish1y, taken up

with ceremonious visits ta Ambassadors etc. __ ,,54 He did not generally re-

cord in deta il any of the converSd ti ons he had wi th the Turks or Greeks he

met. This is regrettable as he did meet notables like the archbishop of

Athens. He did hm'/ever recount one conversation with lia sensible Turk".

but makes the comment that "r.1Y questions (\>Jere not) in every respect such as

l 1 d . 1 h h d b 1155 wou nOloJ Wl s l t ey a een. .. . Ar.lOng other things, he \'/as in-

terested in knovling from this Turk the contents of the Grand Signor's lib-

rary, hoping to discover missing parts of Tacitus. Char1emont ' s interests

a1so lay in discovering ëlnd preservinl] inscriptions on the ruins he visited.

As his stated purpose for the journals was to provide his readers \Vith

an account of his travels, he has, for the most part, done so. He has also

justified his self-imposed title of antiquarian. On1y rare1y does he allow

himself to make direct references to current events in England and Ireland.

Presumably this was because he intended to allow only a limited circulation

of hi s fini shed \·wrk. He states cl ear1y on the tit1e page of the Greek

essays: "Hri tten for my OVin Amusement/ And for that of my Fri ends/ On1y

... No she1f, in open Stall, displays my Works,j Begrimed by Paws of Shoe:

Boys, (sic) of Jack Burkls."

Despite their l imited scope, these essays revefll Char1emont 1 s admi ration

( 22.

for such virtues as religious tolerance and freedofll of conscience. They also

demonstrate his openmindedness ln dealing with places and people unfamiliar

to himself. He appears willing to incorporate the beneficial aspects of

their various institutions into those of his o~m country. Charlemont also

shows himself to be sensitive to foreign customs, and quick to accuse ~Jester­

ners of neglecting to understand people and customs beyond their immediate

ci rc 1 e.

The man who was to become the commander-in-chief of the Irish volunteers

is also the man of these journals. /\lthough ternpered by re-writing and

maturity, the steady and moderating character is perceptible in the pages of

his essays even at the young age of t~/enty-one. This continuity of character

is not a negative quality, fOI' here, as in later life, Charlemontls diverse

interests added to his appeal.

Cha rl emont returned to Ita ly a fter th; s ra ther l engthy tour. The ac­

count of his time in Italy, as previous1y noted, ;s extreme1y sketchy. In

keeping \'Jith his penchant for journa1s it ~vould seem most probable that he

di d keep SOllle sort of record or notebook of observa t i ons on hi s 1; fe there.

His biographer Hardy states that such an account cannot be found. This,

a10ng with the 10ss of his Egyptian journal ~ is to be regretted.

Seing fluent in Italian, Charlernont v/as able to circulate with ease

among those whom Hardy descri bes as bei ng of "rank and fashlon. Il Charl e­

montls love of literature is evident ,=ven at this time, as he included among

his social circle eminent !talian literary figures. At Turin, he renewed

his friendship with the Prince Royal of the House of Savoy and attended his

marriage. One of his c10sest friends in Italy \'Ias Lord Bruce with whom he

made short excursions, notably to Sienna and Lucca. Sometime in 1751

... ..

23.

Charlemont appears ta have moved his residence from Turin ta Rome, where

he spent the next two years. Hardy notes that he \<las one of the earliest

examples of an Englishrnan keeping a house for himself in that city.

Among the acquaintances Charlemont had while in Rome were the Car-

dinals Albani and Passionel and Pope Benedict the Fourteenth. There was

considerable intercourse between the Pope and himself in the course of

which each ac~uired an admiration and respect for the other. Charlemont

also met the French ambassador then resident, the duc de Nivernais. During

this time he developed a lasting friendshio with the marquis of Rockingham. 56

Their common political ground was a natural bond and this friendship was

one of the more important benefits which Charlemont took home to Ireland

with him. Towards the en~ of 1753 Charlemont was confined to Rome by a

"l ong and serious indisJosition." Throughout his life f,e vias periodically

incapacitated by variou'.i illnesses, but most profoundly by rheuillatism. By

t1arch 1754 he was able to travel again and spent the months until July

bet\Jeen Turin and Florence.

It appears that Charlemont had decided by now ta return home -- per-

haps because of his recent illness. His guardian, Adderley, wrote him at

Turin in early 1754 ta info'l:1 his ward that sorne of the boxes he had sent

ahead \Vere waiting for him at the customs house in Dublin. Hhile Charle-

mont was naturally concerned with the wcll-being of his goods, including

various artifacts he had collected, he was most likely Just as interested

in Adderley's ne~vs that Dublin had been in a turmail all that past \'JÏnter

wi th the governiTIen t be i ng Il pe l ted wi th li be l s . 1157

Charl emont l eft !ta ly sarnetime after July 1754 and travell ed ta France

by way of Spain. His travelling companion in France was Mr. Edward Elliott •

later Lord. They proceeded to Bordeaux intent on meeting j·;ontesquieu and

( 24.

indeed stayed at his estate for three days. Although still relatively

young, being on1y tvJenty-six Charl emont must have favourably impressed the

philosopher as the blo saI" each other frequently in Paris. In this city, as

in the other major cities he visited, Charlemont was in the company of the

foreign as well as native nobility. Among them here l'Jere Lord Albemarle who

had served under the duke of Cwnberland and l'las M.P. for Chichester, count

Poniatowski of Poland, il. de Nivernais, II/hom he had met in Italy along \I/ith

his father, the duc de Nevers, St. Palaye, He1vetius and the marquis de

!1irabeau. His stay in Paris \/as brief as he was back in England in 1755.

Almost immediately upon his return his involvement in politics began as he

assumed the role of negotiator, which role, a10ng with that of advocate, he

l'las ta repeat several times.

=

.. ..

NOT E S

26.

1W.E. H. Lecky, A History of Ire1and in the Eighteenth Century New Edi-tian, London, 1892, p. 202.

2R•J . v:hite, Europe in the Eighteenth Century, New York, 1965, p. 23.

3\~hite, p. 129.

4J .C. Beckett, The Anglo-Irish Tradition, London, 1976~ p. 65.

5Seckett, p. 75.

60ictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 1959-60 reprint, Volume III, p. 1237.

7La\'wence J. rkCaffrey, lrcland: From Colony to !~ation State, Engle­wood Cliffs. Ne\'! Jersey, 1979, pp. 5, 6.

8r'laurice Crais, The Vo1unteer Earl, London, 1948, pp. 17,18.

9Cra i g, p. 24.

10Franci~ GoditJin James, lreland in the Empire, 1688-1770, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973, p. 98 note 35.

11 Cra i 9, pp. 28, 29.

l2Samuel Burdy, Life of Philip Skelton, reprinted from the edition of 1792 with an introduction 6y Norman /.loore, Oxford, 1914, pp. 85,86.

13Francis Hardy, t'lemoirs of the Po1itica1 and Private Life of James Cau1feild, Earl of Charlernont, London, 1810, p. 6.

14Historical r·1anuscripts COlTimission, ;lemoirs and Carres ondence the Earl of Char1en:ont, Report 12, Appendix X. H,r,1.C. Rep. 2, p.

l51-U1. C. Rep. 1 2, p. 1 78.

16H•H•C• Rep. 12, p. 179.

17 Geoffrey Trease, The Grand Tour, London, 1967, p. 1.

18Jeremy Black, The British and The Grand Tour, London, 1985, p. 1.

19 5 H. M. C. Rep. 12, p. .

20Thomas \~. Copeland, ed., The Correspondence of EdlTlund Burke, Cambridge, 1960, volume II, p. 479.

21petrus Johannes Blok, 1\ History of the People of the r~etherlands, New York, 1970, volume 5, p. 114 and Bernard H.r·1. Vlekke, Evolution of the Outch Nation, New York, 1945, p. 264.

--------------

22Hardy, pp. 6,7.

23 H .r1. C. Rep. 12, p. 179.

24Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1910, volume l, pp. 97-105.

25S1ack, p. 166.

26Ha rdy, p. 7.

27 H • M • C. Rep. 1 3, p. 180.

28S1ack, p. 23.

27.

29John W. Croker, ed., The Life of Samuel Johnson, by James Boswell, New York, 1833, volume 2, p. 194.

30Ro:r'al Irish Academy, Chal~lemont r~anuscripts 12R5, (R.I.A. 12R5), volume 1, tit1e page of Char1emont ' s r~emoirs of the Turks.

31 W•8• Stanford and E.J. Finopou1os, eds., The T,'avels of Lord Char1e­mont in Gr~ece and Turkey, 1749, London, 1984, p. 3.

32 R. I.A. 12R5, ~. l.

33 R. I.A. 12R5, p. 2.

34 R. I.A. 12R5, p. 3.

35R• I.A. 12R5, p. 4.

36 R. I.A. 12R5, p. 7.

37 R.I.A. 12R5, p. 133.

38 R.I.A. 12R5, p. 121.

39Roya1 Irish Academy, Charlemont Hanuscripts 12-2-6,(R.I.A. 12-2-61, p. 20.

40 R. I.A. 12-2-6, p. 22 verso.

41 R. I.A. 12-2-6, p. 24.

42 R. I.A. 12-2-6, p. 46

43Stanford, p. 108.

44Stanford, p. 113.

45The terrn 1 Va i vade 1 or 1 Hay\'lode 1 referred to a 1 eader of an a rmy. Ori­ginallya Slavic title it was also given to sorne inferior Turkish officers.

f '1

! ,

} 28.

f 46Stanford, p. 129.

47Stanford, p. 165.

48S t'll1ford, p. 170.

49Stanford, p. 21 b.

50Sta nford, p. 181.

G1 Stanford, P!J • 192, 193.

52Stanford, pp. 134, 135.

53Stanford, pp. 201, 202.

54Stan ford, p. 176.

55Sta nford, p. 177.

56Hardy, p. 26.

57 H.r1. C. Rep. 12, p. 191.

/

(

-

CHAPTER II

t

c

{

30.

Political events in Dublin during the l750s played an important role

in solidifying Charlemont's predisposition towards whig politics. A con­

flict arose within the government of Ireland beginning in the autumn of 1753

which centred around Henry Boyle, speaker of the house of commons. The

primate of Ireland, George Stone, was intent on using his influence with

the other faction in the house, under the leadership of John Ponsonby, to

oust Boyl e from the speakershi p. Hi s purpose was to replace Boyl e with

Ponsonby and then, wi th the a; d of the Ponsonby' s, manage the commons.

Boyle was determined to defend his position and took his stand on the issue

of the commons' control over finance.

Although precedent supported the right of the king to claim any sur­

plus from the treasury, Boyle and his backers succeeded in having the bill

with the clause of consent to the crown defeated. The result of this was

the dismissal of the leading placeholders who had defeated the bill, and

the eventual installation of Ponsonby as speaker. Dublin had reacted

favourably to the bill's defeat and the king wanted to be assured of the

new gover'nment's ability to obtain a majority in parliament. The lord­

lieutenant. the duke of Dorset, who had supported Stone, was replaced.

Boy1 e and the others \;,ho had been di smi ssed were compensated; and Stone,

whom Henry Fox described as "a fa1se, artful, meddl il1g priest" was dropped

frolll favour. 1

The biographer Hardy ascribes to Charlemont the role of mediator be­

tween Boyle, who was Charlemont's cousin, and primate Stone subsequent to

this play for power. Charlemont thus assumed the role of mediator which

he continued to play for the rest of his life. It proved to be a role

31.

suited to his temperament and his long time abroad had kept him apart fram

the feuds and animosities of recent years He could rise above the "evil

tendency of these i nterested broil s. Il Noreover, he !lad interests on both

sides. Charlemont believed that although Boyle appeared ta have been in

opposition to the government out of a feeling of patriotism, his actions

stemmed ";n fact from the private motive of keeping out of the hands of

Stone ,,2 Yet Charlemont l'las only involved as intermediary at a per-

sonal rather than a political level in this affair, as he claims that he was

unaware of the emoluments which were negotiated as compensation at the same

time. This event convinced him that "the mas" of patriotism is often as­

sumed ta disguise self-interest and ambition, and that the paths of violent

oppositions are tao frequently trod as the nearest and surest road to office

and emol ument. 113

Charlemont reflected in his diary that the events of 1753 had shawn

that the government might be opposed and with success. The people, he be­

lieved, had begun ta think about the difference between political freedom

and servitude -- "a reflection which for many years had been overlooked, or

wholly absorbed in the mobbish misconception of Whig principle."4 The Irish

had been taught that there \~as more in the character of a whig than "implicit

loyalty to king George, a destation of the Pretender, and a fervent zeal for

the Hanover succession .... In a word, Irishmen were taught to think, a

lesson which is the first and most necessary step to the acquirement of

liberty."5 Charlemont then, If:;ry soon after his return from the Continent,

confirmed his opiniop. t~~t in Ireland a permanent and respectable opposition

to fjovernment was neLessary to i ts pol; ti ca 1 we ll-bei ng.

Although he had returned to Eng1and by 1755, Charlemont did not go

(

(

32.

immediately to Ireland. In March of 1755 Adderley informed Charlemont of

his opinion that if his \'Jard intended to remain in England for any length of

time, he would do well ta cultivate friendships with the 1I\'lOrthy and ingenu­

ous men there. 1I6 Maintaining a residence in both Dublin and London gave

Charlemont access to the men of politica1 anJ artistic importance in Eng­

land and Ireland. While his social position guaranteed hinl a certain level

of acceptance, it was his own character and merits that maintained and en-

hanced that level and upon which his friendships were based.

One such friendship was with the artist William Hogarth. It is not

known when they first met, but Hogarth was commis51oned to paint two por­

traits of Charlemont. The first, shows the then viscount at the age of

thirteen with his mother. 7 The second portrait, begun after Charlemont's

return from his travels, is unfinished. Of this latter portrait Charlemont

wrote to Hogarth in 1759 from his house in Mount Street expressing his re­

gret that he was too busy to sit for the artist as he was leaving shortly

for Ireland. He expected to be back in London early in the new year. He

also informed the artist that he was unable to pay him for another work he

was doing, but that if Hogarth was in need of it he would arrange for the

money to be sent from Ireland. 8 In January Charlemont wrote again send;ng

100 pounds in payment. He realized that the sum was not adequate but sug­

gested that the artist consider it representative of Charlemont's ability to

pay and not of Hogarth's artistic merits. IIImagine that you have made me a

Present of the Picture, for 11tterally (sic) as such 1 take it, and that 1

have beg'd your Acceptance of the inclosed Trifle -- As this is really the

case 119

The relationship between the two men was not limited to this exchange.

-.....

33.

Presumab1y Hogarth p1ayed a part in advising Char1emont on his purchases of

art. Late in November 1758 Char1emont bought a painting attributed to

Rubens -- 1I01d Man's Head" -- of which Hogarth, upon seeing it, seemed to

approve. The next day however he sent his friend a 1etter declaring his be-

1 ief that the painting was a forgery. Char1 emont kept thi s letter because

he bel i eved it i llustrated "the singular Humour of that great and truely

(sic) original Genius Il ...

Novbr 26 1758

My Lord,

1 endeavour'd in vain last night to get the Tradigy 1 promis'd to send or bring your (lord)ship this morning however 1 will try for the Authors consent ta bring it. and 1 do not absolutely despair of success. 1 do not think there is any kind of i11 nature in Enjoying su ch a mans fo11ies. by the way my Lord 1 have Something upon my conscience to disburthen if that head l saw yesterday 1S not done as follows 1 am mistaken. Recipe an old bit of coarse cloth and Portray an old bearded Beggars head upon it with the features much in shaddow make the eye red and row some slurrs of the Pencill by way of freedom in the card and band clap a vast spash of light upon tne forehead from which gradate by degrees from the Blacking ~ot, varnish it well, and lt will do for Langford of Pre­stage. 1 scarce ever knew a fizmonger who did not succeed in one of these masterpieces. one old Peters famous for 01d Picture making, used to say, even ln comtempt of those easiest parts of Rubens productions that he could sh-t old mens Heads with ease consider my lord he was a dutch­man.

1 am my Lord your rnost obd humble Svt. W: Hogarth lO

Hogarth, besides advising Charlemont on his purchases, also chose a

folio of his own prints which Charlemont desired to pu~chase.ll In February

1757 Hogarth had announced his intention to abandon painting comie histories.

Charlemont approach hirn some time after this and co~vinced him ta accept a

commisslon to paint one more of these for himself. He left the theme and

/

34.

priee to Hogarth. The result was IIThe Lad,yls Last Stake. 1I Although Charle­

mont was either unwilling or unable to pay Hogarth its true value -- the

latter is more probable -- he retained the artistls respect. Years later

r1rs. Hogarth wrote to Lord Charlemont stating that her husband "a1ways used

to mention, with the greatest pleasure and gratitude, the honour of that

friendship your lordship eonferred on him, with that ease, and politeness,

peculiar to yourself; and 1 ean say with the greatest truth, that, the kind

manner you always behaved to him, was the highest pleasure he felt, in the

close of his 1ife."12

While Charlemont was indeed financially secure, his inability ta pay

Hogarth more than 100 pounds suggests that cash \"as not always ready at

hand. Certainly he had the means ta travel and to pursue his passion for

collecting artistic and literary warks. Perhaps Charlement is to be believ­

ed when he says that this \"as a case of his l'having \'Jrong calculated my

expenses Il ra ther than hi s bei n9 pars imonious.

Charlemont took great pleasure in pursuing his literary interests.

This included collecting books for his library. He did not hesitate ta ask

his friends to make purchases on his behalf if they came upon volumes which

he was looking for. Charlemont appealed frequently to one friend in par­

ticular, Edmond Malone. Besides the comnon interest in rare volumes they

enjoyed discussing Shakespeare.

In a letter ta Charlemont dated London April 5, 1779 Malone writes

that he nad been busy buying ald plays for him and had approximately 120

"rare old quartos tl \'/hich he \'/ould have bound and sent oVt::r to Dublin. He

adds that he is continuing his own works on Shakespeare, and goes on to

discuss sorne of the works ~/hich he credits to the Elizabethan author and

l

35.

points out some that he bel ieves \'1ere written by others. "~Jhen l come to

print 'Pericles', l shall avail myself of your conjecture in the last act,

and 1 hope you will allow me ta have the credit of mentioning to whom 1 am

indebted for 50 happy an illustration. ,,13 Previous to this Charlemont had

written his "dear i~edll, praising his work. IIThe history of man is on all

hands allovJed to be the most important study of the human mind, and what

is your chronological account of the writings of Shakespeare other than the

history of the progress of the greatest genius that ever honoured and de-

l ighted human nature?1I14 He notes that he had IIl ong since" read Robert

Greene's play, published in 1598, but was unable to see any resemblance to

"/\ T1idsummer Night's Dream." Charlemont requested that t1alone look for

first quartas of specifie works of Spenser, which would then make his edi­

tion comolete.

Charlemont's literary interests went beyond Spenser and Shakespeare.

His library \'Jas sold in 1865 by Sotheby's after the death of his son, the

second earl of Charlemont. It seems as though sorne of the library remained

or was not included at this time as there is a record of a second sale in

1892 after the third earl's death. This second sale included many presenta­

tion books to the first earl from his literary contemporaries like Piranesi,

Horace ~!alpole, Edmond Malone, Leland, and Henry Brooke. 14 The catalogue

for the sale, which began on la July 1865 and continued for the next seven

days, lists 2477 items. 16

As was common during the eighteenth century, Charlemont belonged to

several clubs in London. One of these was the Society of the Dilettanti.

Another \'/hich also reflected his interests was simp1y cal1ed "The Club."

It was founded in 1764 by sir Joshua Reynolds and Dr. Samuel Johnson. In

(

(

36.

1772 the members agreed to dine together once every two weeks while parlia­

ment was sitting. It was a sInall group, originally twelve, whose numbers

increased only gradually until in 1780 it had thirty-five members and it

was resol ved never ta exceed fort y . They met origina 11y at the Turk' s Head

in Gerrard Street until 1783. After this they occupied a succession of

places unti1 finally they sett1ed at the Thatched House in St. James' Street

in 1799. 17

On Friday April 30, 1773 Boswe11 dined with Dr. Johnson at Topham Eeau­

clerk's where he met Charlemant, Reynolds and other members of this

"L iterary Club. Il Boswell was being voted upon that evening as a candidate

to join their society. Later tilat year Beauclerk wrote Charlemont lament­

ing the fact that the club \A/as in a "miserable state of decay" in the lat­

ter's absence and that it would most likely expire unless he came saon ta

relieve it. Beauclerk sounded as though he believed Charlemont had his

priorities confused l'ihen he \'Jrote in his letter, "1 suppose your confounded

Irish politics take ur your \'Jhole attention at present." 18

The discussion at these dinners must have been interesting if not stimu­

lating \'Iith such a variety of talents represented. Indeed Boswell suggested

that if their club could form a university in St. Andrew's and each was to

teach his specialty, then they would rebuild that city and dra\'J a "wonder­

ful concourse of students." 19 While Charlemont enjoyed the meals and their

accompanying conversations, he believed that what was said during the even­

ing should go no further. Boswell had published a conversation between Dr.

Johnson and Charlemont and the earl was far from pleased even though it was

on a trivial matter. He IIthought the whole plan of r~r. Boswell's l'JOrk in­

compatible with the freedom and indeed sacredness of social intercourse.,,20

This response on the part of Charlemont is characteristic of his sense of

37.

propriety.

Along with his interest in art and 1iterature Char1emont was a1so ex­

panding his po1itica1 know1edge at this time. When not attending the par1ia­

mentary debates in person, either in Dublin or London, he always remained

informed through the attendance and correspondence of his friends. Char1e­

mont may have wanted to return to Dublin during this period of the late

1750s, but ill-health kept him from so doing. He was repeatedly stricken

with rheumatism and upon his return to England in 1755 was virtually in­

capacitated for two and a hdlf years. After suffering through a succession

of physicians and treatments he made the acquaintance of Dr. Charles Lucas

who was to serve him for many years.

Lucas was a fervent Irish patriot who began his career as such in 1735

when he published a pamphlet attacking the fraud in pharmaceutica1s which

led to the passage of an inspection act. He continued in the se1f-appointed

ro1e of ombudsman when he accused the board of a1dermen of usurping the

pm'lers of the council of Dublin. In 1748 he was proclaimed an enemy of his

country; he fled to London, and from there to the Continent. His disen­

franchisement was lifted in 1760. Although he was neither a great orator,

nor a great pamphleteer, his importance lay in his ability to keep matters

of general importance before the public. 2l

Charlemont blamed his own reluctance to speak in the house of lords

from this period of illness. It had kept hirn from attending the debates,

and th en when able he found that he had lost the youthful nerve to speak in

public. As proof of his willingness to make his views on important issues

known, 'as well as of his early desire to achieve constitutional elnancipation

from England, Char1emont makes a point in his memoirs of describing a scheme

(

38.

he had devised to bring these matters to a head. He and an unnamed friend

had formulated a fictitious la\" suit which Charlemont was to appeal to the

lords of Ireland. He foresaw its coming to trial because the lords had

never relinquished their right of judicature, but rather "had strongly and

nobly protested against (its) abrogation." 22 This law suit would force

the issue of who had judicial authority in Ireland. The plan was never car­

ried out and Charlemont acknowledged in retrospect that the time had not

been right for such a move.

When George III ascended the throne in 1760 England was in the midst

of the Seven Years' War, and the tide had begun to turn in her favour. A

little closer to home, other matters were claiming the attention of the new

monarch. He had decided on the necessity of rnarriage and had chosen

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Stre1itz as his wife.

The occasion of the royal \'Jedding gave Char1emont a vehic1e by which

he could demonstrate his \'Jillingness to act on Ireland's behalf. It was

an instance of appare~t triviality but of great imoortance in princip1e,

involving the right of the Irish peerage ta walk in the procession at the

marriage of George III. This right was to be denied them and the peeresses

in London appealed to CharlenJont. He was sensible to the fact that "any

degradation of her oeerage \lias in effect a dishonour to Ireland .. ,,,23

Charlemont first tried to engage the other Irish peers then in London

to assist in this task but found them unwilling ta risk alienating the

king. On1y George Brodrick, viscount r~id1eton rallied to the cause. They

took the matter to the ear1 of Halifax who had recent1y been appointed

lord-lieutenant of Ireland, who in turn presented the affair to the king.

George III was wi11ing to allow the right, provided precedent could be

39.

found; he gave them until the following morning to do 50, when the argu-

ment would be presented ta a eounei1 for its deeision. Char1emont then was

pressed to provide sueh arguments as wou1d convince the opponents. He de­

cided to apply to John Perceval, earl of Egmont with whom he was well ac­

quainted. Egmont, despite the early morning visit of Charlemont, was

pleased to assist him. Char1emont had chosen an able ally. Egmont had

written a pamphlet on the precedency of t~e Irish peerage in England and

thus was able to suppl y him with a strong list of instances. The matter

was finally settled in favour of the Irish peeresses only after a division

in the council referred the ~atter back to the king. 24

In 1764 Charlemont wrote to an unidentified lady that he had been i11

again and longed to be able to pursue a more active life. He asserted

that action, even turbulent acticn, \'1as better than inaction. Inactivity,

he continued, leads to a dead calm in which "the soul loses the pleasure of

exercising its principal function." The influence of En1ightenment tbought

is evident when he declared bis belief to ber that frequent storms are

needed to purify the air and that ~lature had not intended man to be content,

but rather co look ever on, to hope for qreater perfection. 25 This desire

to be active continued throughout Charlemont's life, and when periodically

unable to be 50 because of recurring attacks of rheumatism, he maintained

his involvement in Irish affairs and life in general through correspandence

with his friends.

ft was not uncommon in the eighteenth century for the Irish nobility

to movt= ta Eng1 and permanent1y and Cha rl emont woul d have appeared justifi ed

in fo l1'm'li ng tne examp le of others. He di d keep ares i dence in London un-I

til 1773 .. Up until that point he usually spent the manths between sessions

of the Irish parliament in London. Charlp~ont admitted that the idea of

40.

residing permanently outside of his native country was appealing simply

because, with the exception of Richard Marlay, all his friends and acquaint­

ances were Englishmen. This is a slight exaggeration but certainly he did

have a large circle of friends in England whose company he missed.

Realizing how strongly he was pulled towards England, Charlemont was

determined to provide an excuse for a more direct attachment to Ireland and

subsequently began to improve his new estate at Marino on the outskirts of

Dublin. It was purchased about 1755 on advice from 11r. Adderley.

Charlemont was quite adamant in stating his belief that residence in

his O\'m country l'las the first of all political duties, without which the

others were impractical. "Let it not be said that Ireland can be served

in England. It never l'las ... The Irishman in London, long before he has

lost his brogue, loses or casts away all Irish ideas, and from a natural

wish to obtain the goodwill of those with whom he associates, becomes in

effect, a partial Englishman./I He continued to elucidate his views on

this. One must act for the universal good, he conceded, but, he argued,

this l'las usually accomplished by contributing to the prosperity of one's

own country from \'Iithin that country. /l1~hat can the unconnected Irishman

perform in England? Whatever his consequence mRy be at home, it is lost

in the vast circle of English importance. The resident Irishman may be of

consequence even in England. The Engl ish Irishman never can./l26 With this

as his credo, it comes as no surprise that Charlement chose to make Ire­

land his permanent home and to involve himself in her affairs.

NOT E S

{

1

(

'J.C. Beckbtt, A History of Modern Ireland, 2nd edition, London, 1981, pp. 193, 194.

2Historical ilanuscripts Commi s~; on, Reeort 12, AEpendix X, (H J~. C. Rep. 12), p. 5.

3 H.t1. C. Rer· 12, p. 6.

4 H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 7.

5 H.~1.C. Rep. 12, p. 7.

6 H.H.C. Rep. 12, p. 208.

42.

7r'laurice Craig, The Volunteer Earl, London, 1948, pp.23, 36 note 9.

8Sritish Library, Additional r~anuscripts (Add. r'1ss.) 22,394, Sub­scribers Names to Hogarth's Four Prints of an Election Ec. 1754, Folio 33. Letter from Charlemont to Hogarth, Mount Street, 19th August, 1753.

9British Library, Add. f/1ss. 22, 394, Folio 35. Letter from Charle-mont to Hogarth, Dublin 29th January 1760.

10Sritish Library, Add. r'~ss. 40, 015 D, r1iscel1aneous Letters and Papers.

11Ronald Paulson, Hogarth: His l ife, Art and Times, New Haven Connecti­cut, 1971, p. 266. One of the major collections of Hogarth's work is at the Fitzwi 11 iam fv1u seum, Cambridge. The twenty-four vo l urnes of mounted prints, including an immense collection of piratings and copies, are the collection of J.R. Joly of Dub1;n. The f1V'st two volumes are Lord Charlel:lOnt's Collection, formeà by Hogarth himself, with not very accurate data in Charlemont's handvJriting. (Paulson, p. 73).

12paulson, p. 279. Quoted from H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 388, 1etter dated 30th Ju1y 1781.

13H.i~.C. Rep. 12, p. 343.

14 H.t~.C. Rep. 12, p. 339.

15The Irish Book Lover, volume (13-14), August 1921 - December 1924.

16See Appendix l for some of the items listed for sale.

17James Croker, ed., The Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell, New York 1833, p. 533.

18 Croker. p. 227.

43.

19Croker, p. 357. Boswell suggested the following rnernbers teach what he considered to be tlleir specialties at their university. Boswell wou1d teach civil and Scottish law; Burke - Po1iticks (sic) and eloquence; Langton - Greek; Colman - Latin; Nugent - Physick (sic); lord Chdr1e­mont - modern history; Beauclerk - natural philosophy; Vesey - Irish antiquities and Ce1tick (sic) learning; Jones - Oriental 1earning; Gold­smith - poetry and ancient history; Charnier - commercial politicks (sie); Reynolds - painting and the arts which have beauty for their object; Percy - practical divinity and British antiquities; Chambers - Eng1ish law; and Dr. Johnson would teach logick (sic), metaphysicks (sie), scholas­tick (sic) divinity. Bos\'Jell noted that they were 1acking only a m~the-mati ci an.

20Francis Hardy, ~·lemoirs of the po1itical and private lire of James Cau1feild, 1810, p. 401.

2l0ictionaryof National Biography, Oxford, 1959-60 reprint, vol. XII, pr. 231-234.

22 C R 12 8 H.M.. ep. ,p. .

23 H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 16.

24H.t~. C. Rep. 1 2, p. 1 7 .

2SChar1emont Correspondence, arranged by Edward Groves, 1825, Series I, 1 etter no. 3.

26 H. r~. C. Rep. 12, p. 1 5.

(

CHAPTER 1 1 1

)

(

... .. 45 •

Charlemont, at the age of 50, was a man who enjoyed a wide circle of

friends, both in the social and political worlds of the time. He included

among his friends such men as Edmund Burke, Dr. Samuel Johnson, and the

artist William Hogarth. Despite associating with these and other very public

figures, he preferred ta maintain a certain amount of anonymity. This was

especially so in politics where he allowed others to become the focus of

attention. Perhaps this was because he was quite aware of his position in

Ireland and wanted to preserve a sense of interested neutrallty. He may be

considered Ireland's first gentleman; certainly the knowledge gained from

his travels, his character and his friends had combined ta give him a place

of respect in Treland.

However much he may have wished to remain in the background of Irish

affairs, Charlemont found himself taking a central role in political events

when, in 1778, he was made titular head of a military association. For at

least the next hülf-decade this position was to occupy his energies almost

entirely. The occasion which pulled him into this role was the reappearance

of the Irish volunteers in the third year of the American War of Independence.

The English garrisons stationed in Ireland had been sent overseas to

fight. Although this left Ireland without a defensive force there were no

imminent threats to its security. This situation changed when France,

Spain and then Holland entered the war on the American side. Ireland was

ob',liously vulnerable to invasion; this was a condition which Britain did

not pave the manpower to rectify. Thi s was not an unprecedented occurrence

for t:le Irish. They had faced similar circumstances during the War of the

Austrian Succession. The people of Ulster had organized themselves into

)

(

-

46.

volunteer companies against a rumoured attack by Charles, the Pretender

to the British throne. 1 A more serious threat presented itself during the

Seven Ye~rs' War.

There had been rumours of a French invasion in 1756. Samuel B1acker,

a correspondent of Charlemont's, wrote him frow Tandragee, county Armagh

in April of that year stating that now was the time to show patriotism in

the protection of king and country against the French. He a150 expre5sed

his opinion that if Ireland were to be attacked it would be by enemies

from withi n the cou ntry "who are bred up with the not i ons of Eternù 1 Sa 1-

vation by the Utter annihilation of Protestants. lts (sic) against these

home Enemies we are to arm ... 2 Three years later the war \'Jith France \'/as

continuing ta have its effect on Ireland. ~Jriting from Whitehall in June

1759 Richard Rigby informed Charlemont of the duke of Bedford's plan ta

augment some of the foot battalions ta be kept in Ulster for three years

or until the end of the war. He a1so lnquired whether or not Charlemont

was one of the noblemen willing to undertake the expense (of raising a

troop).3

Farrell, an Irishman in the service of the French who had assumed

the name of Thurot, made an invasion attempt upon Ire1and in 1760. ~e

landed at Carrickfergus and forced the garrison there to surrender. He

then demanded and received an indemnity of food and money from Belfast.

Encouraged by thi s he decided to i nvade tha t city and extort a ransom.

His plans were thwarted by the arrival of some 3,000 volunteer troops.

These were joined by others to make a total fc,rce of 5,420 from the

counties of Antrim, Dawn and Armagh and were successful in forcing Thurot

ta beat a retreat and depart the port. The account of the invasion in

',. '.,

-

47.

the Annual Register for 1760 eulogized the French commander. "This sole in-

sult in our coasts was severely punished; and not a vessel concerned in it

excaped. The public indeed lamented the death of the brave Thuret, who

even whilst he commanded a privateer, fought less for plunder than honour;

whose behaviour was on all occasions full of humanity and generosity; and

whose undaunted courage raised him te rank, and merited distinctien." 4

The ability of the protestants to raise troops so quickly demonstrated

their willingness to come to Ireland's dpfense when needed. These were

local men, armed and equipped at their own expense. When Lord Charlemont

arrived in Carrickfergus after Belfast had been successfully defended, the

assembled companies were drawn into formation and paraded before him. Some

carried as arms old firelocks, but most were armed only with a Lochaber

axe, which was made by affixing a scythe to the end of a pole.

Charlemont had felt it incumbent upon him as lieutenant of Armagh to

proceed to Belfast from his residence in Dublin to help ageinst the in­

vasion threat. There he was given the task of acting as escort for one of

the French prisoners. The wounded leader Flobert had been entrusted to

Charlemont's care while he was transported to England. The earl's opinion

of the people's reaction ta the threat to their security was a positive

one. He believed that they showed an ability to be formed into organized

troops and to abey commands with loyalty.5 Althou9~ these volunteer as­

sociations may not have looked like effective defensive forces, they had

proven themsel ves on thi s occasion. Of equa l importance was the fact that

the framework was in position to ceunter any further invaSlon threats.

Therèfore in 1778 when Ireland found itself again without adequate protec-

tian from the Crown's forces, these associations were able to fill the void

48.

wh en Cà 11 ed upon to do so by thei r commanders.

In 1763 there were disturbances again in the North, but this time

caused by int~rnal problems. In Ulster, the protestants and dissenters,

or presbyterians, led insurrections in protest of the way the clergy of the

establ ished church were collecting their tit~E:S c'\nd of the heavy taxes im­

posed to pay for the construct ;cp and upkeep of the roads. 6 Cha rl emont in

his memoii's, explains the situation and supports the feelings of the

-:en,:;Iro:r.y \,I-iel- rotivated them to action. While he did not deny the need

fcr collecting tithes and taxes, he believed the (eaple should be properly

informed of decisions made on their t/?!/t;lf and that the tenilnts should see

their money beir.g put to proper use.

Ri ots had broken out under the l eadershi li of thr- pfctestant Oakboys

and Charlemont again felt it his c.:uty as li~utero(l't of the county of Armagh

to go to the area and attempt to assist in quelling the actioi1. From

Newry he wrote George Stone, the archbishop of .A.rmagh requesting further

aid in the form of troops. TI11S show of force coupled with the arrest of

the ringleaders succeeded in quietening the atmosphere in the North. In

recognition of t.he role played uJ C;Iè.I·lc:ront, the new lord-lieutenant,

the Earl of Nortll'l'1lJeY'l(.1r,c! 1 cminated him for Elevation from viscount to

Earl of Charlemont. Charlemont thought that the services he had rendered

had only been his dut Y to perform. In accepting, he "'él!tl:d it to be made

part of the patent for the promotion that it was given in recognition of

service and was not a favour C0nler.r~,: I_~. the government. "I thought i t

indispensably ·le':t!~(" ... "-_: ~(, ~.t:pulate with the lord lieutenant that my

acceptance should not be construed hto the smallest intention OT SlIfrl')-­

-.t;~ rT,y parliamentary conduct to be in any degree influenced, which 1

t, 49.

positively declared shou1d be as free as ever." 7

The political atmosphere of Ireland in the latter half of the eigh­

teenth century had begun ta shift tm'/ards greater activity. The decade

beginning in 1760 sa~" a growing concreteness ta the d~mands of the patriots.

They had three major polltical aims: a greater control of the budget by

the Irish house of commons, more frequent par1iamentary electians, and ta

reduce the patronage of the Castle and the number of crown pensions

given. 8 From 1763 onwards the Irish house of commons began to press for a

Habeas Corpus Act and a bill limiting the length of par1iament. In 1765

a bill securing the tenure of Irish judges during good behaviour was added.

As the Irish parliament had no fixed period of tenure, save the life of

the king, an Octennial Act was passed in 1768 which secured an election for

the Iri sh parl i ament every ei ght yea rs.

Since Lord Charlemont and hlS friends kept each other apprised of

par1 iamentary debates and affa i rs through thei r correspondence, it was not

unnatural -For him to write Her''-j Flood and include a report on a recent de­

bate in the English house of commons he1d on 12 March 1766. The matter

under discussion was a bill limiting the number of Irish ports from which

wool could be exported and limiting the number in England through which it

could be imported. "Burke supported the cause of Ireland in the ITIost mas­

terly manner and the bill was rejected. ,,8 This issue of free trade was

one which \'las later taken up by the volunteers. Ireland's economy was suf­

fering under the restrictions imposed upon her by England. Even more ga1-

ling v-Ias Englùnd's apparent inability to realize that what benefitted Ire­

land benefitted her as well.

A money bill in 1769 was rejected by the Irish house of commons because

( 50.

it had not originated with them. Lord Townshend, the lord-lieutenant,

wanted par1iament prorogued because of this breach of Poyning's Law, which

declared that no bill could be brought into the Irish parliament without

the consent of its Eng1 ish courterpart through the office of the lord­

lieutenant. Over the centuri es this 1 aiV had become more symbo1 ic than ac­

tua1, because the Irish parliament was able to 1egis1ate quite freely on

internal matters. 10 Lord Char1emont with Flood and the lords Louth, ~lount­

morres, Powerscourt and Longford signed a protest to the lord-1ieutenant ' s

proposal. Despite the opposition to the move, par1 iament was prorogued

until 26 February 1771." The action on the part of the hou~ê of commons

was indicative of the growing desire to be 1egislative1y independent of

Britain. This independence was to be acquired de jure and not simp1y ac­

cepted without 1egal backing.

The growing turmoil in the American colonies, although distant, was

not totally removed from the experience of many of the Irish. Benjamin

Franklin vislted Dublin in 1771 and expressed his hope that "our growing

weight might in time be thrO\'In into their scale, by joining our interest

to theirs(there) might be obtained for them as well as for us, a more

equitable treatment from (England).,d2 The American conflict still in­

vo1ved litt1e more than the sympathies of the Irish protestants who, see­

ing similarities to their own relationship with Britain were inclined to

favour the American cause. Char1emont ' s views were much like those of

the Rockingham whigs with whom he associated. His corrl?spondence with

Burke and Rocklngham kept him apprised of their sentiments. 13 In his

memoirs, Charlemont notes that the major objective of Lord Townshend's

vi ceroya 1 ty was to get parl i amentary approva 1 to i ncrease the standi ng

51.

army. Despite the support within Ireland for the colonies, the Irish

parliament voted money to aid Britain in its efforts there. Char1emont did

not support using Britlsh troops to fight in America because he was not con­

vinced that the co10nists ' cause was wrong. 14

The American Revolution and the increasing unrest in Ire1and gave the

whigs in opposition sufficient power so that the government was forced to

1isten and to begin to make concessions, especially to Ireland. Yet Lord

North's ministry made an effort to treat the Irish in a generous manner.

North's wi11ingness to negotiate was amp1ified by a fear of a repetition of

the Ar.lericùn examp1e, and a fear of an invasion \'Jhen France open1y support­

ed the Americans beginning in 1778. It was evident that the opposition

in England was willing to support the Irish in their demands and to keep

the issues before the house. The marquis of Rockingham drew the para11~1

between the American and Irish situations wh en in 1779 he said that the

American war had started with addresses and petitions fo1lowed by non­

importation agreements. He stated further that many were of the opinion

that Ire1and had been p1aced in a situation that justified resistance.

Meanwhile the danger of a French invasion gave rise to a force 1ike

that which had greeted Thurot in 1760. With the regu1ar forces out of the

country, and being without an adequate militia, the Irish responded by form­

ing volun~eers of Home Guards. The Irish had taken up arms for home de­

fense, but having done so, as Rockingham found out, they might be engaged

"for the purpose of resisting the oppressions of the British government." 15

The volunteer movement began a1most simu1taneous1y in Wexford and Bel­

fast in 1779. They divided themselves into companies, each with its own

uniform, munitions and commanders. The various guilds and professional

(

)

(

-

52.

classes, including the lawyers of Dublin, formed companies. Many were com­

posed of tenants, with their landlords serving as officers. A1though the

roman catholics were not permitted by the penal laws to bear arms, they did

contribute financia11y to the movement, and later some even joined the ranks.

The roman catholics of Limerick presented 800 pounds to the volunteers '

treasury.16

The need for a resident defensive force had become ap~arent again in

1778-79. Charlemont was one of the few members of the aristocracy who gave

their support to the movement before it gained any degree of government ap­

probation. After 1779 the movement spread quickly and gained popular appeal.

Char1emont ' s invo1v~~ent at its earliest stages is indicative of his desire

to act for Ireland's benefit. He believed strongly in his country's right

to defend itself and did not hesitate to involve himself. 17 In May 1779

the lord-lieutenant estimated the volunteer numbers as being less than

8000, and sorne of these were without arms. 18 From thp beginning ot this

stage of volunteering, the desire to be seen as the de facto defense of

Ireland was evident. As the corps assumed uniforms they were trained in

military manoeuvres. The leaders of the various units were assisted in

training by Irishmen returning from fighting in America. 19

It was a natural progression for the volunteers to take up tne cause

of the patriot party. The belief in th~ necessity to defend Ireland was one

that was easily expanded to include, not simply a physica1 defense, but one

of honour as well. In certain regions of Ireland the political character of

the volunteers was apparent almost from it5 emergence in 1778-79. This was

particularly 50 in the areas with pockets of protestant inhabitants, notably

Wexford, Cork and Ulster.

A society was formed in Dublin in 1779 which hld uùvious political

l

-

53.

overtones, considering its membership. It went by the title of the IIMonks

of the Order of St. Patrick ll or more commonly, IIThe r~onks of the Screw. 1I

Although it was still in existence after the conventions at Dungannon and

Dublin, like the volunteers themselves its membership soon dwindled. From

what little is known of this organization it appears to have been a hybrid

of Francis Dashwood's IIHell Fire Club" and of those who met at the "Thatched

House" in London.

The Hell Fire Club with its meeting-place of Î'ledmenham Abbey has long

given rise to rumours of its activities. These allegedly ranged from devil

worship to the ravishing of virgins. No such imaginlngs exist of the Nonks

of the Screw. Similarities with the Hell Fire Club are limited to the use

of monk's garb for the meetings and a liberal attitude toward the consump­

tion of alcohol. Charlemont, a member of the Monks of the Screw, knew Dash-

wood from another social ensemble the Dilettanti Soc1ety -- which lS

still in existence. 20 Membership in this latter circle was based on having

travelled in Italy. It \'/as formed in 1734 by a group of gentlemen essen­

tially as a dining club. Over the next two years it developed into a club

with the aim of fostering a love of art. The majority of its or1ginal mem­

bers were young noblemen or men of wealth and position who had recently re­

turned from their Continental travels. Sorne of these were: Charles Sack­

ville, the duke of Dorset, t~e honourable William Ponsonby, Richard Gren­

ville, the earl of Temple, Rev. Arthur Smith, archbishop of Dublin, Mr.

William Fauquier, a banker and director of the South Sea Company, Henry

Harris, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in Ireland, Peter Delme, the

lord mayor of London and sir Hugh Stimson, the duke of Northumberland and

l ord-l i eutenant of 1 re 1 and. On thei r return to London they \'Jere eager Il not

only to compare notes of their experiences and acquisitions, but also to be

( 54.

regarded as arbiters of taste and culture in thei r native country. 1121

The Thatched House is a 1 ittle more difficul t ta document. There was

a tavern on St. James street in London known as the Thatched House taverne

It was frequented by Dashwood and hi!> circle. 22 It was also a meeting place

for a number of Char1emont ' s friends. From his correspondence it appears

that many of the opposition in Westminster met at this tavern to discuss

parliamentary affairs and strategies. On Tuesday May 8, 1769 Edmund Burke

wrote ta Lord Charl emont informing him of a recent debate in the house and

concluded by saying that all of the minority \'/ere dining together at the

Thatched House. Burke 1 isted sorne of those who had spoken against the

motion. These included Lord John Cavendish, Dowdeswel1, vJedderburn, G1ynn,

Cornewall, Seymour, Beckford. Barre, Grenville, sir G. Saville, Edmund

Burke and Whitworth. Lord t~ountmorres wrote Charl emant on the foll owing

Saturday, ;'1ay 11, at the request of Lord Rockingham also to inform him of

the recent proceedings in the house. r'1ountmorres mentions as well that he

would be dining at the Thatched House and that he hoped to do the same on

the day preceding the meeting next session. He further expressed his hope

that the subdivisions of the minority would be "consolidated into one grand

constitutional party .1123

The f~onks of the Screw have been credited wi th hel ping to spread the

spirit of volunteering. Among its ranks were many of Ireland's leading

political figures. Others were judges and members of the Irish bar. They

met every Saturday during the law term at a house on Kevin street in

DUblin. 24 As Patrick was the Manks ' patron saint, it may be inferred that

the members considered themselves to be loyal Irishmen with Ireland's wel­

fare among their chief concerns. It would be unlikely that these men (25)

could gather in Dublin at this time and not have the discussion turn to

55.

the political and economic future of their country.

Although the volunteers were needed as a defensive force, the govern­

ment would not at first recognize them or give them the necessary arms.

Moreover the arms that could be attained were often in a state of disrepair.

A series of letters between Charlemont and William Brownlow, who was organiz­

ing volunteer companies in Armagh, il1ustrates their spirit and a1so the

restrictions they faced. Brownlow wrote requesting a grant of arms for the

volunteers. Charlemont believed the ones stored at Charlemont castle were

functional, but Brownlow corrected him saying that he had possession of one

hundred IImusquets and bayonets since the year 1760" which were unserviceable

and the arms at Charlemont vIere no better. 26 Prior to this the earl had

written that he had arms for nine hundred in storage and that they were in­

spected frequently. A month later, September 1779, Brownlow again wrote to

Charle:mont informing him that he had petitioned the government for permis-

sion to use the arms in his possession and had received a "quibbl ing answer ll

from the lord-lieutenant stating that although arl11s had been issued to the

governors for the preservation of peace, he had II no t i ssued any for the

purpose of armi ng any Vol unteer campan; es ... . Il

The lord-lieutenant went on to say that he relied on Brownlowls judge­

ment tha t the a rms "w; 11 be made use of in the mos t proper manner for the

public service. 1I Brownlow commented to Charlemont that this IIdistinction

1 confess, i s too nice for me ta comprehend." 27 It appeared as though the

government was playing él game of semantics; by not using the term 'militia'

to refer to the volunteers, they denied them official status, yet were con-

tent to allow them to be Ireland's homeguard.

The vo1unteering spirit spread gradually but persistently. The

(

(

56.

government watched the movement carefully, not wanting to support it or to

provoke any confrontations. The vo1unteers had enough manpower and arms by

1780 to have posed a serious mil itary threat to the Castle had that been

their intention. They made it known that their military potential was held

in abeyance only awaîting the right provocation. Since the removal of most

of the troops garrisoned in Ireland to fight in the American colonies. the

vo1unteers had been its only significant military presence and they could

easily have attained their political desires sooner with a use of force.

The majority of the volunteers were conservative and preferred to pursue

a constitutional route first. As the "Army of the People" they pledged not

to support "insurrectionary force or agrarian tumult." They did not give

credence to any anarchic, levelling or republican ideas as embodied later

in the rhetoric of the French Revolution.

The rea1 threat and power of the vo1unteers derived fram the fact that

they l'lere seen as representing the po1itica1 will of the people. Tlleir

leadership \'/as drawn from among the great opposition men of the day and

thelr ranks included representatives from virtually every level of Irish

society. Writing te England towards the end of 1779 the lord-lieutenant ex­

pressed his belief that the numbers of volunteers were growing because the

public held the vie\'1 that they were \oJorking to attain desirable and justifi­

able palitical rights for Ireland. 28

'fi" .... NOT E S

(

'R.N. Sibbett, Orangeism in Ireland and Thraughout the Empire, London, p. 202.

58.

2Roya1 Irish Academy, Original Corres ondence of James late of Char1emont, arranged by the ev. war lroves, First senes, Volume l, letter number 56.

3 R.I.A. Groves, letter number 74.

4Annual Reglster, 1760, (Belfast), p. 57.

5Historical Manuserlpts Commission, Manuscripts and Correspondence of the Earl of Charlemont, Report 12, Appendix X, (R.M.C. Rep. 12). pp. 12, 13.

6 H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 137.

7 H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 142.

8Franeis Godwin James, Ireland in the Empire, 1688-1770, Cambridge, r1assachusetts, 1973. p. 262.

9Thomas W. Cope1and, ed., The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, Cambridge, 1958, Volume I, p. 193 note.

10R.R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratie Revolution, Princeton, New Jersey, 1959, p. 288.

11 H. M. C. Rep. 12, p. 28.

12 Ian R. Christie, Wars and Revolutions: Britain 1760-1815, London, 1982, p. 99.

13For 4~mples of this correspondence see The Correspondence of Edmund BUI Re, Copeland, ed.

14 H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 31.

15Herbert Butterfield, George III, Lord North and the People, 1779-1780, London, 1949, p. 88.

16Thomas MaeNevin, History of the Volunteers of 1782, Dublin, 1845 p. 84.

17Charlemont went to the North again in 1763. He took his roles as lieutenant of the county and as landowner very seriously. He believed that the problems faced by the tenants of high tithes and taxes and 10w incornes refleeted the general economic problem facing Ireland at that time.

18MaeNevin, p. 12.

19MacNevin, p. 88.

20Eric Towers, Dashwood; the Man and the My th (London), 1986, p. 61.

21Sidney Calvin, ec., History of the Society of Di1ettanti, London, 1914, p. 4.

22T 63 owers, p. .

59.

23H• M. C. Rep. 12, pp. 293, 294. The deba te appea rs ta have been over the question of whether the House had the right to debate a cause once the judlcature had decided upon it.

24Char1es Phillips, Curran and His Contemporaries, New York, 1851, p. 64.

25See Appendix III for a 1ist of members.

26H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 352.

27 H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 355.

28MaCNevin, p. 88.

(

CHAPTER 1 V

j

(

61.

There are two major events in the history of the volunteers of 1782

which i11ustrate both their power and their weakness. Two conventions were

he1d, in 1782 and 1783, each with its own distinct outcome.

The first convention was he1d at the church of Dungannon in February

1782. Two hundred delegates were chosen to represent 25,000 men from Ul­

ster. Jonah Barrington believed that the site for their assembly was

chosen for its sanctity, in order "to give the greater solemnity to this

memorable proceeding. 1I1 This was indeed a memorable proceeding and the

delegates realized it. They marched to the church, b/o by two, dressed in

the uniforms of their respective regiments and can'ylng thelr regimental

coats of arms. They represented a combination of rales that were usually

kept distinct, that of IIthe armed soldier and the deliberative citlZen." 2

These men had come together to demonstrate their wi 11 ingness to protect

lreland against an external force. They were equally determined ta present

their demands for the redress of the grievances.

Such an occurrence was not without precedence. It had its counterpart

in the continental congresses held in the American colonies. There too,

men had assembled to discuss the position of the colonies and to formulate

a petition to George III enumerating their grievances and outlining the

course of acti on they woul d pursue.

The fact that Britain had not yet solved its problems with the American

colonies meant that she could not afford to risk exacerbating those cl oser

to home. Had the volunteers not been determined ta achieve their goals

through constitutional means they could have posed a very rea1 threat to

Britain. They had shown that they were able to organize and arm themselves.

Furthermore they had popular support behind them which meant that they could

)

(

-

62.

swell their ranks in a short time. Barrington estimates that within one

week the volunteers cou1d have raised a force which England did not have the

means with which to cope.

The initiative for calling a general convention of the Ulster regiments

was taken by the southern battalion of the lst Ulster Regiment which was

eommanded by the earl of Char1emont. Its officers and delegates met on 28

Deeember 1781. After "having declared that they beheld with the utmost con­

cern the little attention paid to the constitutional rights of Ireland. by

the majority of those, whose dut Y it was to establ ish and preserve them,

Il they invited every volunteer regiment in Ulster to send thelr delegates

to a convention called for February 15, 1782 at which time Ireland's situa­

tion would be their topie of discussion. 3

Prior to this meeting Charlemont had \'/ritten to his friend Edmond

11alone describing the present situation of "Politicks" in Ireland. This

letter, dated Dublin Oecember 17, 1781, inc1uded a protest which Charlemont

was desirous of having printed in a London paper. While we do not kno\'1

either the author or the protest's contents, it may be speculated that

Char1emont or one close to him was responsible -- perhaps Francis Dobbs.

Considering Charlemont's concerns at this time its theme was most likely

centered upon those grievances which were to be discussed at Dungannon. In

his cursory description of Irish politics Char1emont presented a picture of

a determined people struggl ing against an unsympathetic government. He

wrote, liA strong Poeple (sic) -- a weak Minority, weak, l mean in numbers,

but in Abilities transcendent a Secretary ... frequently provoking at-

tacks, and little able to sustain or repel them -- Flood, whose incomparable

conduct stdnds unrival 'd thro ' all the annals of Parliamentary History, more

-

63.

active, and, if possible, more able than ever -- The Court is however, for

the present triumphant, and Poeple extremely dissatisfied __ "4 Charlemont

was indeed correct in his assessment of the people's temperament. They

were unwilling to maintain the present state of affairs.

Henry Flood and Henry Grattan were the main political spokesmen of the

volunteers. Grattan sat in the Irish house of commons as a member from

Charlemont's borough from which he had been returned in 1775. 5 Bath of

these men had what they believed to be Ireland's best interest at heart, but

became divided over what this involved. The final break came after the Dun­

gannon convention in 1782 and was most obvious at the Dublin convention held

in 1783. Upon Flood's election to the English house of commons after the

defeat of his reform bill in 1783, Charlemont also broke with hlm. He felt

that Flood had betrayed himself and Ireland and showed this by removing him

from the position of eventual guardian of his children. 6

Both of these men, Flood and Grattan, were necessary for the political

development of the volunteer movement. It was not any mil itary expertise

that they might have possessed that made them invaluable, rather it was

their political beliefs and their willingness to work to achieve independ­

ence for Ireland. They provided the opposition within the house to balance

their out-of-doors counterpart embodied in the armed citizenry of the volun­

teers.

One of the other leading figures in the volunteer movement was the earl/

bi shop of Derry. Here was a man who loved the fl amboyance of the mil ita ry

uniform and gloried in his ecclesiastical dignity and did not hesitate in us­

ing them to create an entrance. He was vociferous in making his presence

and his views known. Charlemont tolerated him, but barely, characterizing

(.

1

(

64.

him in his memoirs as lia shallow stream, rapid, noisy, diverting, but use­

less. 1I7 He had long been known as an eccentric of unepiscopal habits. Af­

ter the convention of 1783, the earl/bishop tried to sustain the movement

for a wholly independent Ireland and gained support from a northern bat­

talion of volunteers. The historian Froude noted the irony of this that

IIThe emancipators of their country (would choose) for their favourite leader

a Britlsh Earl and a Bishop of the Irish Established Church. 1I8

Along with being tltular commander-in-chief of the volunteers, Charle-

mont was also colonel of the southern battalion of Armagh volunteers. His

major fOt' this force \'Jas Francis Dobbs. Dobbs, a somewhat eccentric man,

was a leading member in Dublin society in the last quarter of the eighteenth

century noted for hi s wi t and poetry. He became a member of a vo l unteer

corps and took a keen interest in the political future of Ireland. Later he

was returned as a member for Chariemont's borough and spoke passionately

against the proposed union in 1800. In his days as a volunteer major he

published several noteworthy pamphlets on the political situation. 9

After tak i ng hi s degree from Tri nit y Co 11 ege Dobbs was ca 11 ed to the

Irish bar. Like most contemporaries his sympathies during the American Re-

volution lay with the colonists, even though his brother represented the

Crown as governor of North Carolina. In his publication liA Letter to the

Right Honourable Lord North, on his propositions in favour of Ireland"

(Dublin, 1780) he urged Britain to give legislative independence to Ireland

before the volunteers felt the necessity of taking it for themselves. Dobbs

was among the delegates to the Dungannon convention in 1782 and met with

Charlemont, Grattan, Flood and a Mr. Stewart to draw up their resolutions

prior to the general meeting. 1 0

Although Charlemont differed in personality and political views from

t

......

65.

sorne of the leading volunteers, the earl was an obvious choice to head this

movement. As he represented the middleground of the patriots and volunteers,

he was possessed of the qua1ities needed ta draw the disparate elements to­

gether. He was respected by the executive in the Castle, and had a network

of connections in British aristocratic and literary circ1es and was re-

presented by Gratta~ in the Irish hou se of commons. He was well read and

had travelled extensively. Above all he was trusted and respected by all

the parties and persons concerned with Irish affairs.

There were understandably differences among the volunteers on the

cathollc question. The official view of the volunteers was that the en-

franchisement of roman catholics was not to be among their immediate demands.

Henry Flood and the earl of Charlemont opposed the motion to enfranchise the

catholics, while the bishop of Derry was one of its most ardent supporters.

Derry had long been a proponert of giving catholics an active role in Irish

politics. He had worked to promote a spirit of toleration amongst the

Irish and played a prominent part in getting the relief act passed through

parliament which exempted roman catholics from taking the odth of supremacy.

Charlemontls own stance on the Irish catholics changed over the years.

His attitude and those of other members of the Anglo-Irish ascendency should

be divided into personal and political views. During his stay in Italy he

naturally associated with those of rank and fashion. As noted, he included

among his circle of friends the cardinals Albani and Passionei. He a1so be-

came known to Pope Benedict XIV. There were a number of informa1 audiences

l' between the two and Charlemont greatly admired the man. 1

In 1772 Charlemont had tried but failed to get a bill passed through

the Irish house of lords giving catholics ninety year leases on their cabins

(

1

(

66.

and an amount of land on which to cultivate potatoes. He was censored by

his peers for this. He mentions this incident in his memoirs as a contrast

to the spirit of to1eration which had become more prevalent a few years 1ater.

He described the Penal Code as 'IlThe oppressive disabilities under which the

Catho1ics of Ireland had long groaned ... '" and which were '''harsh and tyr-·

ranica1. II ,12 Perhaps his long residence abroad had ë<ided in fostering this

spirit of to1eration which the earl possessed. On returning to Ireland, he

hmlever did not find a similar attitude prevailing among his peers. "'1 can­

not so far flatter my contemporaries as to ascribe their change (in attitude

towards the Penal Code) in any great degree to so honourable and virtuous a

cause as the spirit of toleration.".13

At the time of the Dungannon convention Char1emont did not support

catholic emancipation. He later softened his stance and became an advocate

for their enfrancl1isement. 14 Although \'lilling to grant concessions to the

catholics, Charlemont, as in most things, be1ieved that moderation shou1d be

employed. In retrospect he believed that had a more gradual approach been

fo1lowed the relationship between the two groups wou1d have been 1ess tense. 15

A spirit of to1eration for the roman catho1ics had been spreading across

protestant Europe and had moved into Ireland by the 1780's. Grattan cer­

tainly supported enfranchisement and 50 too did many in the north of Ire­

land. The dissenters were a majority of the population there, and they tended

to promote reform. Shortly after the vo1unteer conventions had been he1d,

Lord Carysfort wrote to Charlemont from St. Petersburg. He stated that the

question of voting for roman catho1ic enfranchisement had nothing to do

with toleration, but was "mere1y a Question of political Expediency."l6

This echoes the earl's view and his stance at the conventions, notably at

Dublin, must be seen in this light. He did not be1ieve that it was the

l 67.

appropriate time to demand the vote for the catho1ics. He did be1ieve that

it shou1d be given therr., but not in 1783 and only on a gradual basis.

Like most men of the Enlightenment, Charlemont had pride in his tolera­

tien. Illustrations of his attitude to those of other faiths are given in

his journal of his travels in the Turkish empire. In his journal he gives

a brief commentary on the history of the relations between the West and

this Islamic country. In recounting the history of the Crusades and thp

general Western approach to the Turks he states that much cf o~r information

is prejudiced, built upcn successive biasea accounts. He refers to the Crll­

sades as "that frantick and disgraceful period of our History ... (when) the

8arbarians of Europe lured by the spoils of Asia made Religion a Bawd to the

worst of Purposes. 1I 17 He continued to argue that although the West calls

the Turk a barbarian, the term is in the eye of the beholder. In order to

impress hi s poi nt upon the reader he recounts severa l soc i a l practi ces com­

mon to western society \'/hich would be termed 'barbarian ' by the Turk.

Charlemont saw himself as being liberal, broadminded and tolerant towards

other cultures. It must be emphasized that Charlemont, like others, was able

to separate his political from his religious or cultural feelings of tolera­

tion.

Compari.:.Gt", hève been and will continue to be made between Ireland and

the situation in the American colonies during the period from 1760-1785.

Certainly the volunteers of 1782 owed their existence to the fact of the

American Revolution. n:€ example of the colonists did not prompt the Irish

to rise in arms against British rule, but the removal of troops from Ire­

land to help fight over the water did result in the formation of volunteer

companies, as we have noted. Their origir,al intention had not been to act

as an out-of-doors pol itical opf:'ositicr,. This was a role that was gradually

(

(

68.

assumed.

The bond of sympathy between Ireland and the American colonies cannot

be denied. Many Irish protestants emigrated to the colonies and their link

with the homeland remained strong. In 1775 the Irish par1iament committed

itself to the support of Britain in fighting the rebe11ing co10nists. The

motion di d not pass wi thaut appos iti on. At thi s time Henry Fl aod had accept­

ed the position of vice-treasurer and therefore had to side with the gavern-

ment. He described the Irish troops sent te America as "armed negotia­

tors.,,18 It was a phrase which eventually caused Flood politica1 embarrass­

ment. Char1emont described the colonists as oItermed rebels for their heroic

struggles ;n vindication of their natural l'ights.,,19 Other than this state­

ment Charlemont was oddly quiet on the subject of the American cause. His

support for, and i nterest in it may be i nferred from crypti c comments Ile

made in letters. Among his cerrespondents who openly voiced their support

for the American colonists were William Drennan and Francis Dobbs.

It is remarkab1e by its absence that Charlemont never recorded a meet­

ing between himself and Benjamin Franklin. Franklin addressed the Irish

parliament and met with prominent figures in Dublin society during his visit.

Char1emont was in Dublin at the time and would certainly have been inc1uded

among those whom Dr. Frankli~ would have met. A letter from sir Edward

Newenham, M.P. te Charlemont dated December 31, 1789 wou1d tend to support

the probability of Franklin and Charlemont having met. Newenham writes:

"Knowing your esteem for rea1 patriots, l would not omit this opportunity

of acquainting your lordship that l had a letter this day ... 7rom the

venerable Franklin at Philadelphia .... He very patheticaly inquires how

'Charlemont, the general of the Irish Volunteers, does' ... ,,,20 While the

leaders of the patriot party supported the American cause, it was not part

-.....

69.

of their platform and they would not have considered leading Ireland along

the path marked by their American cousins. They could empathize with their

grievances only too \'le l l, but the Ameri cans 1 methods of redress were not

those of Charlemont and Grattan.

Although the volunteers did not realize it, they were at the zenith

of their power at the time of the Dungannon convention. It was the positive

reception to their demands which encouraged some of them to press for more

concessions from Britain when they later met in Dublin. The situation had

changed by then, without the volunteers really being aware of the subtle

shift in the political atmosphere and this had a profound effect on their

future existence. The immediate outcome of the Dungannon convention was

much more propitious. Twenty resolutions were passed by the delegates. 2l

These were concerned with several important rights which the delegates be­

lieved had been transgressed by Britain.

One of these rights was that of free trade. Jonah Barrington says

that this was the watchword of the volunteers. Indeed, they took the cause

of free trade as symbolizing the infringement upon their liberties by the

British government. The Dublin volunteer artillery undcr the command of

James Napper Tandy had gone on parade with placards on their cannons stating

IIIFree Trade or speedy Revolution. 11I Britain had imposed trade embargoes on

Irish goods in order to protect its own markets and to keep the Irish pro­

ducts out of American hands. This had s€verely hurt the Irish ecollomy. To

illustrate their loyalty to Ireland many volunteer associations passed reso­

lutions declaring that they would not use non-Irish goods. Barrington gives

a stanza from a favourite march of the volunteers which illustrates their

sentiments on the subject. "Was she not a fool,/ Wl,en she took of our wool ,f

To leave us 50 much of the/ leather, the leather?f It re1er entered i,er

1

)

(

•

70.

pate,! That a sheep's skin, well beat,! Would draw a whole nation! To­

gether, Together. 1122

Besides the issue of free trade there was that of achieving legislative

independence from Britain. It was realized that if Britain granted conces­

sions on the question of Ireland's trading markE..ts that they would be made

for the good of the empire as a whole and not solely for that of Ireland.

The Ulster volunteers and their supporters wanted legislation to originate

and pass in Ireland without it having to be sent to Westminster where it

was often altered. Su ch a move \'lOuld help to ensure that Ireland's welfare

was the paramount concern. Further, it would affirm her position as a

separate nation with her own interest:s.

Prior to the convention Grattan and the patriots in opposition had at­

tempted to have Poyning's Law repealed. Poyning's Law had been originally

passed in 1494 and amended under the reign of Philip and Mary. It stated

that a 11 Iri sh bill s had to be submitted by the chi ef governor and council

in Ireland to the king and council in England where they might be approved

as they stood, modified or suppressed. Only those bills which had thus been

approved in England could return to Ireland for passage through the Irish

parliament. 23 The attempt at repeal by Grattan had failed to pass in the

legislature the previous year, 1781. As a result an appeal had been made

for the support of the volunteers. The convention declared Poyning's Law

to be '~nconstitutional and a grievance." They further demanded the inde­

pendence of Irish judges 50 that the administration of justice would be im-

pa rt i al.

The final reso1ution adopted by the delegates was one respecting the

relaxation of the penal laws. They supported a greater tolerance of the

roman cathol ics and stated that "we conceive the measure to be fraught with

-

-

71.

the happiest consequences to the union and prosperity of the i nhabitants of

Ireland." 24 The historian J.C. Beckett attributes its inclusion to the work

of Grattan. 25 Whether true or not certainly it must have been discussed by

the 1 eaders and agreed upon before putti ng i t to the del egates. The reso-

1ution's wording is something of a compromise because although there was a

spirit of toleration prevai1ing among the vo1unteers, its degree varied.

As stated, sorne supported immediate enfranchisement while others, including

Charlemont, advocated a more gradua1 appraach ta political equallty.

The volunteer delegates had met at Dungannon on 15 February 1782. The

earl of Charlemont WdS not in attendance. Oespite this, his influence over

the affairs was still felt. Charlemont, and sorne of his leaders, Grattan

and DobDS included, had met before the convention assemb1ed to discuss the

issues and had decided upon the resolutions to be put fOr\'/ard. The ear1

did not attend on the fifteenth for Ü/O reasons: he di d not want to a rouse

the criticism that the sentiments expressed in th= volunteers 1 resolutions

were not thei rs but hi s, and further, he di d not want ta have ta defend

parliament if it were attacked. He feh such a c:efense on his part might

precipitate a spl i t in the ranks. 26

Char1emont ' s first reason for not attending seems weak upon considera-

tion. It must have been obvious to those who knew the men and the issues

that the earl was i nvolved in the drafting of the ideas put forward. lt is

apparent that he had faith in the abilities of men such as Dobbs and just as

importantly, in the mood of the volunteers, to be assured that the intent

and tone of the resolutions would not be altered by any ensuing debate.

His second reason is consistent \'Jith his character. While the conventions,

at Dungannon and more 50 at Dubl in may be seen as threats to the authority

of the Irish parliament, Charlemont would never have tulerated a usurpation

(

72.

of its power. Such a move \'Jould have been viewed as being unconstitutional

and disloyal to the king. SA in this matter he chose ta avoid any possible

confrontation which would have had a deleter;ou~ effect on the delegates and

on the volunteers as a \'Ihale.

The volunteers had cammitted themselves to Ireland's cause and had de­

monstrated the means by which they would attain the;r goals. This resolve

to pursuo .'eform by constitutional avenues was praof of the;r layalty ta the

king. They believed that Ireland could achieve legislative independence

fram Britain \'Iithout resorting to revolutionary means, unlike the American

calonists. This desire ta demonstrate or emphasize their allegiance to the

crown was shown in the language of the document 1 isting their resolutions.

The Dungannon conventi on shoul d be seen as marki ng the 1 imit of the vol un­

teersl

pO\'Ier. It stands in stark contrast ta that held in Dublin the

following year. Much of the reason for this lay with the changing political

conditions at home and abroad. The outcome of February 1782 was a positive

one but unfortunately gave the volunteers a false sense of their own power.

NOT E S

(

(

lJohan Barrington, The Rise and Fall of the Irish Natio~, London, 1844, p. 1 02.

2Barrington, p. 105.

74.

3Francis Hardy, Memoirs of the Political and Private Life of James Ca u lf e il d, 181 0, p. 21 2 .

4Royal Irish Academy, Ori inal Corres ondence of James late earl of Charlemont, arranged by John P. Prendergast. Prendergast, Volume II, letter number 32.

50ictionar* of National Biography, (O.N.B.), Oxford, 1959-69 reprint, Vol. VIII, pp. 18-425.

60.N. B., Vol. VII, pp. 331-335. also Prendergast, Volume X, 1etter number-1~

7Historlca1 Hanuscripts Commission, Manuscri ts and Corres ondence of the Earl of Charlemont, Report 12, Appendix X, H.M.C. Rep. 12 ,p. 2.

8James Anthony Froude, The Eng1ish in Ire1and, London, 1872, p. 393.

9D.N•B., Vol. V, pp. 1037-1038.

1 00avi d Smyth, "The Vol unteer I~ovement in U1 ster: Background and Deve1opment, 1745-85 11

, unpub1ished Ph.D. dissertation, Queen's University, Belfast, 1974, p. 105. This Mr. Stewart is most 1ike1y colonel James Stewart of Ki11ymoon who was among the leaders who cooperated with Charle­mont. H.t·1.C., Rep. 12, p. 68.

11 Ha rdy, p. 26.

120ona1 j'lacEgan, "Charlemont and the Penal Cade ll in The Catho1ic Bulletin, Volume 19, 1929, p. 611.

13MacEgan, p. 612.

14(Henry McDaugall), Sketches of Irish Pa1itica1 Characters, London, 1799. p. 37.

15 H. r~. C., Rep. 12, pp. 44, 48.

16prendergast, Volume III, letter number 20.

17Royal Irish Academy, Charlemont Manuscripts, 12R5, (R.I.A. 12R5), Vo 1 ume 1, p. 9.

18Les1ie Hale, John Philpott Curran, London, 1958, p. 49.

19 H.M.C., Rep. 12, p. 42.

'.'

::..

75. 20Historical Manuscripts Commission, Manuscripts and Correspondence of

the Earl of Char1emont, Report 13, Appendix vtt!, (H.M.C., Rep. 13), p. 113.

21See Appendix IV.

22Barrington, p. 76n.

23J.C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ire1and, London, 1966, new edition, 1981, p. 51.

24Thomas MacNevin, History of the Vo1unteers of 1782, Dublin, 1845, pp. l 56-160.

25Seckett, p. 222.

26 H.1~. C ., Rep. 12, p. 68.

CHAPTER y

(

77.

"This day, sacred to the glorious institution of the Volunteers of Ire­

land, was observed with brilliancy and zeal./I Thus began a description in

The Morning Herald and Dail;~_Advertiser for Friday, November 14, 1783 of an

event ten days previous in Dubl in. The account continued wi th a description

of the troopsl mustering led by "the General Lord Charlemont" and of them

marching from St. Stephen's Green to College Green where they circled the

statue of King William. Around this rnemorial "were labels in large charac­

ters, with the following inscription: The Vo;unteers of Ireland. overturned

the Cadaverous Simple Repeal, must now effectuate an equal Representation of

the People."

This newspaper did not hesitate to recount the arrival of the volun-

te ers in its city and to express its opinion of how the political situation

stood and what results the vol unteers mlght expect. On Tuesday November 11

it had written: "The great object of the associated corps, in Illeddling with

the parl ialllentary representat;on is obvious. The mob in general having arms

in their hands, v·Jish to secure priveleges, which at present they do not pos­

sess. If, as they \'Iill do, they get the electlve power \'Iithin the;r in-

fl uence, and command, thei r offi cers w; 11 form the House of COllllllons, and

then no fear of their voting ample pay to themselves and electors, and Ire­

land will at one stroke be converted ;nto a military republic! Its connec­

tion wlth England will be totally cut off, and we must either attack her with

a force that shall at once crush her efforts, or see her in as close a

connection with as Illuch greater dependance on France. Everything is driving

speedily to this issue and those republican zealots in England who have by

their correspondence, tried what they could to inflame this spirit, should

be hung out to the worl d as objects of contempt and destati on! Il Much had

1

•

78.

happened in the intervening months to bring the volunteers to this demon­

stration in Dublin. A cursory look at the general political events and

more specifically the successe5 of the volunteers would lead one ta be-

l ieve that in November 1783 there \'las no further reason for their existence.

ln the time between the Dungannon convention and November 1783 when a

similar meeting l'las held in Dublin, the American colonists and Great Bri­

tain had succeeded in negotiating and signing a peace treaty in Paris.

The ending of the war effected a change in Britainls ability to deal with

matters in Ireland. British troops would now be available to quell any dis­

turbances in 1 rel and. The vol unteers were no longer necessa ry as a defen­

sive force. The American Revolution had allowed the patriots a bargaining

tool. Britain was not wi1l1ng to risk a repetition of the events across

the Atlantic. Therefare concessions had been made to the demands of the

volunteers and the patriot party.

The resolutions passed by the volunteers at Dungannon had been sent

ta the government and had been accepted. This accession on the part of the

government can be attributed to Rockinghamls having succeeded Lord North.

With whigs in power in Britain, the whigs in lreland could expect a certain

degree of sympathy for their goals; they were not disappointed. Perhaps

the most important desire of the patriots at this time had been to achieve

legislative independence. This had been granted, but some questions of

ul timate authority sti 11 relllained. The primary contention had to do with

the repeal of the ISixth of George Il. While the question of its power

was a legitimate concern, the debate over its repeal reflected a rift

between Grattan and ilood. Flood had lost sorne of the support of the volun­

teers and saI." himself as now living in Grattanls political shadow. By seiz­

ing upon the issue of the repeal of 16 George Il he was attempting to

regain credibility and to show that he had Irelandls best interests at

heart.

79.

Henry Grattan believed that a simple repeal of 16 George Il was suffi­

cient to restore to Ireland its full rights. Flood argued that a total re­

nunciation was necessary to negate its legal intent. Charlemont wrote that

the country had been divided into two parties over this issue. He vlewed

renunciation lias the offspring of envy and disappointed ambition,lI He saw

it as an issue springing from Flood's frustrated rivalry with Grattan.

Grattan himself was convinced that repeal was sufficient, yet at the same

time renunciation was Floodls idea and Grattan "detested the child for the

sake of the parent. Il Grattan fel t himself pledged to supporting the Port-

land administration and to maintaining Ireland's connection with England.

50 Charlemont writes: "thus his private credit and his private animosities

uniting themselvEs witr. party principle, he became in effect, perhaps ev en

unknown to himself, a party man." 2 To Charlemont, becoming è Iparty man l

or one \'iho sacrificed his own principles to those of -che ~arty, was not

something to be admired. Ingratiating oneself to either the government or

to a particular party was, to the earl, an objectionable practice. It did

not trouble him when he was out of favour at the Castle. He wrote that

"in Ireland, as in a country governed by delegated authority, court favour,

and that kind of half-confidence, which is a11 that an honest man can ever

enjoy, ought to be despised and avoided as injurious to its possessor, and

no way serviceable to the public. 1I3

The issue of repeal versus renunciation die not restrict itself to the

debates within the hou ses of parliament. Public opinion became involved

and the people were worried about Irelandls position. Originally Charlemont

-

80.

subscribed to Grattanls viewpoint. He hoped that when the 'obnoxious ' act

\</as repealed it would be preeeded by a preamble or clause formally renounc­

ing "all righ J• and claim to the usurped pOI'/er of binding Ireland ll by Bri­

tish acts of parliament. Although the declaration of Ireland's inderendence

had been made in April 1782 and had been supported by 5ritain. the people

of Ireland had become uneasy about the constitution's security. It \'l'as be­

cause of this that Charlemont changed his position and felt that renunciation

hùc t'ecome a necessity, not legally, but in order to calm J,he pur-lie.

"(T)hough in my private opinion enough had beer done, rer.unciation on the

part of England was now become ab50 1utely neeessary, and that the country

't'JOuld never be quiet without it."4 The lord-lieutenant Temple became con­

vinced of this necessity as well. Acting upon this adviee a renunciation

bill was passed ear1y in 1783. 5

At this point it appears as though the patriots had achieved what they

had estat1ished as their aim -- name1y the independence of Irela1d. As

Led': ,'_ i 1'~!.. out "Much had i ndeed been ga i ned - the i ndependence of the

judges, the control of the army, the appe11ate jurisdiction of the Irish

House of Lcrds, the extinction of the power of the Privy Counei1 to origin-

ate, suppres~, or a1ter Irish 1egislation, the renunciation of the power of

the bri~ish Parliament to legislate for Ireland, the full and repeated

acknowledgment of the doctrine that the Klng, Lords anc Commons of Ireland

had alone the right to make her laVis." 6 Britain and Ireland shared a

monarchy but their legi~.l,'tl,;rcs ~!(:re distinct.

Although their presence was no longer required there was no move to

disband the various volunt~~r regiments. However there was a plan put for­

ward to create fencible regiments and to appeal to the volunteers to jaïn

01 v,.

these new ranks. This would have created a militia under government con­

trol. Chdrlemont did not approve of such an inti;gration. In a lett::!r d~L­

:-rl1rrr' Dublin, September 27, 1?82 he writes: liA rr:eas~lI"e r.as ce en 1ately

pursued, totally contrary to my opinion ann early a(:vice, which has, as

indeed 1 expectea, given universal offe~ce - 1 mean the rai5ing (of) regi­

ments of 'Fencible' IT,en." Sorne of the volunteer units felt 50 strongly

about ~h:·~!= fErcibles that they had dec1ared that they would nct cooperr.tE:

with them against any invaders. The earl felt [h3: t~i~ ~~~ tee extreme a

stance and placed Ircland in darI9PI~. fi C(tn~prollise \\'luld be to issue a re­

solution stating that in the event of an invasion the volunteers would cc­

opera te '1litr' t.he fencibles although they did not approve of them. His re­

gard for the role of the volunteers is evident when he states that "This,

... 1 am sure is necessary, as the safety of thi,:: t,lr!'llf' [,çainst in-

vasion depends entirely upon the. upiili'w fcrmed by foreigners of the

strength of the Volur,tN.:YS, and cf t~,eir hearty determination at every risk

to defend the;r country."? Charlemont would naturally want te maï"~Clln

He irotegri~y of his beloved volunteers. 8y rema;ning ê. distinct corps

they would reta;n their identity as I~·21.1I-,c'!:- ~f'cple standing for her de-

fense. What was just as vital was their ability to remain independent of

any government, \<!hich they would be unable to do as members of a fencible

iorce r)UHI("o"i..:ro by the government. The volunteers stood fol' \.!,I> l:tfense

of Ireland and her people; they were noc :,leC:qed to the maintenance of

any one particular party in power.

Charlemont asserted his belief that "Every man who leaves the Volun­

teers for this new service will become odiQ~s, ?~~ th( plan itself will be

detested as the cause of desertion." Furthermore he did not think that

the risk of having sorne of the more moderates leave the volunteers should

(

82.

be taken because it \'las they, along with Charlemont, who had kept the regi­

ments in check. Charlemont had communicated these sentiments to the duke

of Portland, then lord-lieutenant in the hopes of averting disturbances at

a time wh en Ireland could least afford them. Despite this, fencible regi­

ments were established with some of their officers being taken from the

volunteers. The earl's predictions came true. "Riots were everywhere fre­

quent ... The very cbildren were taught to lisp scurrility; and 'Fencible'

was the universal l'lord of reproach .... (The) Government lost its popularity;

the country lost its peace .... "8 Desnl Le this apparent attack upon the

s~rength and unitJ cd" the volunteers they remained together with Charlemont

at their head.

After 1782 the volunteers could have disbanded until su ch future date

l'Ihen they might again be called to assist in defending Ireland from invasion.

However fram that date they had taken on her political independence as their

goal. The suc cesses of 1782 had given the volunteers new momentum and in­

stead of basking in the glory, they beliE"/t::'::! lt'dt t",(: 1:;p,e was ripe for

more benefits for Ireland.

Sorne of the volunteers were of this mind while others were indeed con­

tent with the progress made. Flood was the obvious leader of those who

wanted further reform. The debate over renunciation versus repeal had

swung popular opinion to his side. With the English government's renouncing

the '5ixth of George l' Flood and his supporters among the volunteers were

entrusted with serving the Irish constitution. This raised the further

question of who truly represented the interests of the Irisn people; given

the character of the borough franchises the volunteers might clainl to be

more representative than parliament. 9 Parliamentary reform was not a ne\'l

idea in either Ireland or England particularly in the second half of the

l

-

eighteenth century. The volunteers under Flood were not prepared to put

it in their agenda.

83.

During the spring and summer of 1783 meetings were held by various of

the volunteer corps to discuss reform and a meeting was called for Septem­

ber, again at Dungannon, to discuss ways of obtaining equal parliamentary

representation. Among their pronouncements was that the "elective franchise

shall ex tend to those, and those only, who will exercise it for the public

good. 1I10 They then proceeded to draw up a list of reforms and a motion

limiting supplies to the government until an adequate response was made to

their grievances. They also agreed to call a convention of delegates from

the four provinces who would meet in Dublin on November lOth. This body

was tû assemble shortly after parliament I,,,,j itself assembled. The conven­

tion's purpose was to draw up a plan for parliamentary reforme

Flood, Grattan, Charlemont and the bishop of Derry sought parliamentary

reform as a legitimate goal, but were understandably divided on the means

by \'/hich it could be achieved. The dispute over renunciation had sharpened

the antagonisms between Grattan and Flood but there was more involved than

a personal quarrel. Grattan felt indebted towards the English whigs, par­

ticularly Charles James Fox and the duke of Portland. These men had pushed

through the British parliament the legislation giving Ireland legislative

independence. They were not in a mood ta make further concessions dt the

moment and Grattan w~s determined to keep their good will.

Flood, who did not share Grattanls connections and felt that hp. still

had a reputation to make, had little to lose by pressing for further reform.

Consequently parliament became a battleground between the two men, provid­

ing entertainment for the galleries and the press.

... .. 84 .

Flood called Grattan a IImendicant patriot ll and GY'attan called into

question Flood's honesty as an lrishman and patriot. Eventual1y the two

walk~d out of the house and a duel was arranged. At this point the sergeant-

at-arms intervened and it was prevented. Froude wrote that lia Parliament in

which two leading members could rate each other 1ike fishwomen was l~n1ikely

to command authority in Ireland, or confidence in the sister country.lIll

80th Flood and Derry were determined ta achi Eve reform. But they tao

were divided. Derry, who once described roman catholicism as a "silly but

harmless religion" wanted to enfranchize the catholics. Flood would not go

along with this, but like Derry was prepared to use the volunteers to secure

reform.

They cannot have gauged the changed political climé'te both in Eng1and

and Ireland or they would hi"ve rea1ized that their chances for success were

small. Derry's stance on the issue was contradictory to what one would have

expected of a member of the estab li shed church and as a member of the Bri-

tish peerage. He was not one known to fo 11 ow the norm. By a 11 accounts he

was an eccentric who delighted in flamboyant displays of his position.

Froude maintains that it was "ra ther from love of excitement and vanity than

from personal interest in Ireland, (that) he assumed the character of a war­

like prelate of the: middle ages." 12 Another contemporary stated that "he

was certainly one of the most turbulent of those turbulent times." In 1784

the Irish cabinet threatened him with imprisonment for his violent agitating

spirit. 13 Charlemont himself had little good to say of Del'ry. He agreed

with Lord Chesterfield's saying that Illat the beginning God created three

different species, men, women, and Herveys.'11 -- Hervey being the family

name of the bi shop of Derry. Charl emont further accused him of creati ng

chaos in Ire1and, motivated by des ire to have revenge for disappointed

f

/

(

•

85.

ambition. He alludes to Derry's having been denied the see of Durham and

the 1 ord-1 ieutenantcy of Ireland. 14 Whether the earl/bishop was moti vated

to seek the enfranehisement of the roman eathol ies because of a firm belief

in their right to this or because he saw an opportunity to foment division

between England and Ireland while drawing attention to hi01self, it is diffi­

cult to say. Whichever, the government in Ireland certainly saw him as a

tnreat and did not wan~ to see him take the cha i r at the Dubl i n ~onvention.

Derry deserves some eredi t for bei ng the fi rst emi nent member of the

Irish establishment ta champion enfranchisement of the cathol ies. It would

heneeforth be a political issue and Grattan would bec orne one of its advocates.

Yet everythi ng Derry did appeared to be an aspect of hi s persona l eccentri­

cities; his insatiable appetite for publicity, and his reluctélnce to dis­

tinguish between the possib"'e and the impossible. Flood had better judge­

ment, but he was an ambi t i ous ma n prepared to gamble for the sake of power.

Nei ther man was prepared to face facts.

The facts were that the Engl ish garrison had returned to Ireland and

that neither the English whigs nor English publie opinion was prepared to

make further concessions. Moreover, the eonservative land owners who finane­

ed and led most of the volunteer corps were not prepared for eivil war.

For all that rnuch depended upon who ocr:upied the chair at the Dubl;n

convention. Derry wanted the chair ând expected to get it.

If Cha rl emont, 1 ike Grattan, had refused to have anythi ng to do with

the volunteers, Derry \'/ould certainly have been chairman. While this rnay

not have led to civil war it might have led ta unpleasant incidents, and

minor disorder. Yet Derry was not the obviaus candidate. The volunteers

would gain credibility by putting Charlernont in the chair, while his

presence gave the proceedi ng dignity and importance .

86.

Charlemont has never explained his reasons for letting his name stand

for president of the convention. He was looked on as the father of the

volunteers, and he was not prepared to desert his children. Apart from this,

as presiding officer he could exercise the role most consistent with his

temperament, that of mediator. In his own words IIl moderating and guiding

those measures which 1 coul d not with effi cacy oppose, anà directing that

torrent which might otherwise have swept down all before it. 1I15

Charlemont and the volunteers understood that the viceroy Lord North­

ington was supported by general Burgoyne who had at his disposal a sufficient

force to keep the assembled volunteers under control.

At the time of the Dungannon convention the volunteers represented the

sum total of the physical force in Ireland. They were now in essence a

moral force, capable of impressive armed demonstrations but \~ithout effect­

ive means of standing up to the regulars. They could no~ stage a success­

ful coup dl éta t. The mora l force whi ch they represented was much di spersed

by internal divisions. In this respect Derry underlined the divisions by

raising I.he catholic question and demanding total separation between Bri­

tain and Ireland. A letter signed Lucius published in the !i~rning Herald

and Daily Advertiser on 27 October 1783 compared Derry to Harlequin, acting

under the three disguises of earl, bishop and general. He then accused him

of not acting in a manner which would support either Ireland or the British

consti tution. Furthermore Derry was said to have opposed the motion at

Dungannol1 to insert the word 'constitutional l in the proposal that the as-

sembly would support their resolutions IIlby every means in their power. III

"Lucius ll asserted that this implied Derry was will ing to take up arms

against parl iament "if it refused to obey the mandate of an unconstitutional

~ssembly.1I This writer was at a l')$s to explain why Derry was given a

1

)

(

87.

position of leadel'ship among the volunteers, as in his opinion he did not

in any way help Ireland's cause. 16

Until such time as the volunteers used their arms against the gavern­

ment it wauld nat provoke an attack. Parliament had twice voted thanks to

the volunteers for their service to Ireland. Parliamentarians realized that

their best safeguard was to have Charlemont in the chair at the convention.

Few among the volunteer ranks would dare to challenge his autharity.

The delegates who met at Dublin were there to seek a refarm in parlia­

mentary representation. They attempted to justify their assembling by

adopting a resolution which said "That the Protestant inhabitants of this

country are required by the statute law to carry arms and ta learn the use

of them, and are nat by t.heir compliance of tne legis1ature excluded from

the exercise of their civil rights." 17 They be1ieved that they weY'e within

the law, both in being armed and in meeting to discuss their rights as

Irishmen. The meeting went on to make the usual pronouncements of loyalty

to the king before they moved on ta the business at hand. The earl/bishop

of Derry moved that a commi ttee be set up composed of one member from each

county which would draw up a reform proposal to be submitted to the assemb1y

as a who1e for its approva1. Flood l'Jas not originally inc1uded on this com­

mittee unti1 Derry put forward his name. Much of the resu1ting plan of

reform took shape under Flood's guidance. The earl/bishop's proposal

favourable to the roman catho1ics was opposed by Char1ernont, Flood and their

supporters. 18

An event occurred at the convention which created sorne amount of con-

fusion amongst the delegates. Sir Boyle Roche rose, saying he was commis-

sioned to speak on behalf of Lord Kenmare through whom the catholics

-

.. .. 88 .

usually made their views known. Roche stated that the roman catholics did

not want ta press for reform at this time; "their OYlly desire, at this

time, was ta enjoy (the favours ~iven them by parliament) in peace, without

seeking in the present distracted state of affairs, to raise jealousies and

farther embarass the nation by asking for new ones." 19 This statement was

received with surprise by the de1egates. Derry rose to denounce Roche's

statement and to reassert that the catholic community did indeed seek a re­

dress of its po1itical situation. Froude attributes sir Boyle Roche's ac­

tions to the des i re on the part of the 1 ord-1 i eutenant ta work on the divi­

sions amongst the delegates in arder ta weaken their unit y and influence the

autcome of the convention. Lecky pravi des further support for thi s, quoti ng

a l etter of North; ngton to Char1 es James Fox dated Navember 17, 1783 in

whi ch the l ord-l i eutenant says, Il 1 The next step '/'Jas ta try by means of our

friends in this assembîy ta perp1ex its proceedings and ta create confusion

in their deliberations, in order ta bring their meeting into contempt and to

create a necessity of its dissolving itself. '1I20

The attempt by the government to exert some degree of clandestine con-

trol over the convention's proceedings failed to achieve its goal. On

Saturday November 29 Flood proposed to the assembled delegates that he and

the other members of the hause of commons present shou1d to go the house and

move for leave to bring in a bill, which was his plan of reform. He also

moved that the convention shou1d not adjourn until the result of the motion

in the house of commons shauld be known. Although this motion passed,

Charlemont did eventua1ly persuade the delegates to adjourn until the follow-

ing Monday. He feH that Flood' s motion of non-adjournment was improper

in that it implied that the convention had a co-extensive authority with the

houses of lords and commons. 21 Charlemont did nat want the possibility to

1

)

(

89.

arise for arly direct linkage between the houses and the convention. It had

been his idea thar any plan of reform agr2ed upon at that time would not be

presented to parl iament without first being circulated to the volunteer

corps about the country who woul d meet to either approve it or to suggest

alternatives. He hoped that this \'/ould avoid direct conflict with the

government. 22

Charlemont's more cautious approach was not fol1owed this time however

and a group, dressed in their volunteer uniforms and headed by Flood, took

the convention' 5 plan to the house of commons. It was met with hasti 1 i ty

and the confrontation l'!hi ch Charl emont had feared came about. The issue,

while ostensibly that of reform, was which of the assemblies -- the house

of commons or the convention of volunteers represented Ireland; where did

Ireland's legislating power lie? If the house passed a mot i on a 11 owi ng the

proposal to be presented in the form of a bill then it was iidmitting that

the volunteers and not itself represented the will of the people. The ac­

ceptance of the proposed bill from an assembly of armed men would be seen

as an acknowledgement by parliament that it had a tenuous hold on its own

power and on its r;ght to sit as the country's representat;ves and legis·

lators. The bill itself, was not one of the more extreme examples of re­

form bi 11 s then bei n9 ci reul ated in Engl and. Yet it woul d have affected at

least two-thirds of the men sitting in the Irish house of commons at that

time, and it was naive ta assume that they would willingly assume the sacri­

fices of money and place which would have been demanded. 23

The debate whieh ensued was not concerned prinlarily with the merits of

the bill, but, as mentioned~ with the fact that it originated fram a mili­

tary asseflÎbly, and one which had publicly encouraged the comparison of

-

90.

itself to the legally constituted parliament of Ireland. Barry Yelverton

was one of those who ably stated the situation when he said, "We sit not

here to register the edicts of another Assembly, or receive propositions at

the point of a bayonet. I~hen the Volunteers forrn themselves into a debating

society, and with that rude instrument, the bayonet, probe and explore the

Conc;titutiùn, my respect for them is destroyed." 24 Another speaker. John

Fitzgibbon, the earl of Clare, called for the bill's rejection saying, III

have also heard that a House of Parliament is to be built at Dungannon, and

that we are to have annual sessions of conventions to regulate the business

of the nation. Gentlemen may call this liberty if they please. 1 call it

the worst kind of tyrrany."25 The motion for accepting the blll for debate

was overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 159-77.

On Sunday a meeting was held at Charlemont House in Dublin attended by

some of the earl 's closest fri ends to di scuss the si tuation. They agreed

that the public peace should be maintained. Flood had threatened violence

if parl i ament opposed the vol unteers. Charl emont was therefore prepared on

Nonday wh en a delegate arose at the reconvened assembly and began to critic­

i ze the house of commons. The earl would not allo\'l this sentiment to take

hold amongst those assembled. In the end two resolutions were passed:

the first was Charlemont's original idea that meetings should be held in

the country ta di scuss reform and to urge it on the parliam~nt; and second­

ly "That the necessity of a Parl iamentary reform is manifest, and that we

do exhort the nation, by every constitutional effort, to effectuate such

Reforrr. ,,26

What had started out with a triumphal march into Dublin and a determin­

ed effort to bring about parliamentary reform ended quietly and without

(

91.

achieving its goals. It is not surprising that the vo1unteers failed in

their attempt at reform in 1783. The convention was doomed even before it

began. It did not have the support of Grattan. Char1emont did not approve

of its convening and only participated in order to prevent the more radical

members from taking charge. The government did not want the convention ta

succeed and \'lOrked to maintain the dissension already existing among the

volunteers. It was also unclear as ta whether the roman catholics support­

ed this move for reform. Certainly there were volunteers, Charlemont and

Flood among them, who did not be1ieve the time was right to extend the

franchise. The volunteers had overextenderl their mandate and in 50 doing

had ended on a note of defeat.

-NOT E S

(

93.

lThe ISixth of George Il was an act of jurisdiction passed in March 1720. It came about because of a law suit where one of the parties ap­pealed successfully ta the I;'ish house of lords and the other party then appPnled to the lords at Westminster. He too was successful. The Irish lords did not wa~t ta execute the decision of their English counterparts. They asserted their rlght of flnal jurisdiction in .reland and asked the king for his support. However the British parllament dld not consider this a matter open for debate and passed "I an act for the better secur­ing the dependency of the Kingdom of Ireland on the crown of Great Bri­tain. III It fun:.hel declared IIthat lt had full authority to make laws lof sufficient force and valldity to blnd the klngdom and people of Ire­land'II and it denied IIthat the Irish house of lords had any appellate Jurisdiction. 1I The nght to legislate for Irc1and was nct a new claim

for the British parliament, but this formalization of that claim was resisted by the IrIsh and became one of its st~nding grievarces against

Britain. See J.C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ireland, second edition, London,

1981, p. 164.

2Hlstorical Manuscripts Commission, Memoirs and Correspondence of the Earl of Charlemont, Report 12, Appendix X, (H.M.C. Rep. 12), pp.

79, 80.

3 H.M.C. Rep. 12, p. 78. Char1emont ls support was needed by the government. In 1783 hi s name was put forward as a rnember of the pri vy

council. He would not accept unless Grattan was inc1uded as l'Iell. His views did not always follow those of the government and he was not in­

cluded among the meetings at the Castle. It was important for the Cast1e to hold periodic informal interviews with the earl as this helped them ta keep abreast of the sentiments of the Volunteers and the general Irish populus. Charlemont supported the viceroyalty of Temple and evep pro­vided J Voïunteer escort when he left his post. Tt is l'lot surprising

that the government \IIould work to ensure that Charlemont presided at the Dublin convention. Charlemont was the 10gica1 canaidate for the chair and had the support of the majority of the Volunteers as well as the confidence of those outside of it. As their commander-in-chief it

t 94.

was natural for them to elect him to the chair and for him to see it as

his dut y to ensure the ongoing integrity of the Vo1unteers by protect­ing the proceedings of the convention from its more radical members.

4 H . M . C . Rep. 12, p. 80.

5W.E.H. Lecky, A History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, Lon­don, 1892, pp. 333, 334.

6Lecky, p. 334.

7 H. M. C . Rep. 12, p. 419.

8 H.M.C. Rep. 12, pp. 72-76.

9Lecky, p. 344 ff.

10James Anthony Froude, The English in Ireland, London, 1872, Book VII, pp. 369-371.

11 Froude, p. 379.

12Froude, p. 381.

13 (Henry McDouga 11 ) . Sketches of l ri sh Po 1 it i ca 1 Cha rac ters, London, 1799, pp. 65, 67.

14 H.f~.C. Rep. 12, pp. 121-123.

15Francis Hardy, The Memoirs of the Political and Private Life of

James Caulfei1d, 1810, p. 264.

16British Library, Burney Collection, Volume 735, The Morning

Herald and The Dai1y Advertiser, Monday, October 27, 1783.

17Thomas McNevin, History of the Volunteers of 1782, Dublin, 1845, p. 192.

18Hardy, pp. 265 ff.; Lecky, pp. 370 ff.

J.

/

(

1

19Burney Collection~ Tuesday, NLvember 25, 1783.

20Lecky, p. 370n.

21 Ha rdy, pp. 268, 271.

22Hardy, p. 270.

23LeckY, p. 373.

95.

24F~aud2, p. 388. By wearing their Vo1unteer unifarms, Flood and

thase who accompanied him were reinforcing the image of themselves as

a military force and as an opposition ta the hauses of par1iament.

25 Fraude, p. 391.

26 Hardy, pp. 271,272.

CONCLUSION

-.....

(

(

_ C 2 _

97.

The earl of Charl emont was more esteemed by hi s contemporari es than

he has been by historians. Moderates and mediators like the earl do not

stand out as men of positive achievement. They appear to be leaders who

ei ther 1 ea'/e achi evements to others or prevent others from achievi ng.

This perhaps is the substance of Charlemont's role in the vo1unteers, but

one not to be despised.

Charlemont was chosen chief of the volunteers and remained in effec­

tive control thrGlJghout the years of their stormy existence. The first

question i5 \vhy he was chosen as their chi(~f as this c1early had little

to do with his previous role in politics.

He was, to be sure, a confirmed whig with good connectiors in Eng­

land. He was (1150 the patron of Grattan, the most able man in the Irish

parliament. But it was not his cautious support of the patriot cause

VJhich put him on the stage of history. First of a11 Charlernont had the

support and trust of most Irishmen. These were qualities rarely found in

contemporary Ireland, but they were not sufficient in themselves. Charle­

mont had gocd judgement and was rarely deceived by men or mi sl ed by

events.

Apart from respect, trust and good judgement Charlemont had a pres­

tige which was noc merely the consequence of his eminence as a peer, but

was acquired over the years by long acquaintances with literary lions and

some links with the politically important like the marquis of Rockingham.

Charlemont started out with many advantages as a peer and as a man

of wealth. It provided an entry into the best of circles, but did not in

itself guarantee acceptance, or a close association with the great. His

good manners were undoubtedly an asset but they went beyond the soc i al

98.

polish which Chesterfield so much admired. Charlemont was an intelligent,

serious and well read young man, who was a good listener and possessed of

an independent mind. Above all he wanted nothing for himself save wisdom

and good company. He did not come to ask favours of statesmen or exploit

artists and literary men. (hey could talk freely to him without fear Jf

the consequences.

Although a moderate, who shunned rash moves, Charl emont was adven-

turous, hence his journey to the near East. Like many men of the late

Enlightenment, he prided himself on his ability to sympathize with strange

people like the Turks. This may have helped him sorne in his attitude to­

wards the cathol i cs but not a great dea 1.

The qualities possessed by Charlemont were also found in the marquis

of Rockingham and George ~Jashington. They vIere not qualities which can

be eas ily acqui red by those v/ho have to make thei r way in the worl d as

self-made men. They are nevertheless essential in a society which abounds

with ambitious men eager to mùke a name for themselves. vJhile drive and

energy have their useful ness, they often run amuck.

Perhaps the most attractive quality about Charlemont was that he

coul d not be domi nated by flatterers. He was too much the student of

human nature for that. Al though he prefened to think well of his con-

temporari es, there Wa~ no stai n of gull i bil ity in hi s make up.

As the volunteers starteù as a movement independent of governrr:ent

their first need was for respectability and prestige. They needed a man

of some prominence without political enemies, who was trusted by the

Castlt:!, and who better than a senior peer who was a friend of Edmond

Malone, Samuel Johnson and the marquis of Rockingham.

99.

Once appointed. Charlemont had to manage as best he could a network

of military societies which included among their leaders ambitious poli­

ticians and irresponsib1e adventurers. From the beginning Charlemont was

on the side of moderation, but did not permit his moderate view to a1ien­

ate the men of drive and energy like the bishop of Derry and Flood. They

were part of the spirit of the movement, essential to its existence.

Keeping the volunteers in order was a major task, and Cha~lemont

drove with a light rein, avoiding commitments which could weaken his role

as a moderètor. Hence his absence from the Dungannon conventions, most

notably that of 1782, whose programme he approved and had he1ped to for­

mulate prior to its assembling. Throughout he was able to maintain the

po1itical integrity of the Rockingham whigs and if he was guided at al1

it was by Grattan.

It is significant that the death of Rockingham in 1782 opened the

door to schism in the English whig party, which led u1timate1y to its

po1itical eclipse. The sudden removal of Charlemont at any stage might

we1l have fragmented the volunteers.

If Charlemont had doubts about Dungannon, he had more over the folly

of the Dublin convention. He saw it as the consequence of the unfulfi11ed

ambitions of Derry a~d Flood. Like his friend Dr. Johnson, Charlemont

did not take idealism or patriotism at face value. Charlemont saw c1ear­

ly that the British government could not be b1uffed into further conces­

sions and that the majority of the vo1unteers 1acked the will and the

entire nrovement lacked the strength to wage civil war. He kept the move­

ment together while the bluff of Flood and Derry was ca11ed by Grattan.

Just as Charlemont had let the volunteers come into being and go into

... , " ..

.­..

100 .

politics, he let them dissolve as a political force.

Irish history has heroes and martyrs in abundance and they have

played their parts welle But it has also men of moderation like Grattan

and Dani el 01 Connell who knew when to stop. Charl emont, duri ng the bri ef

years of his influence belongs with the moderates. Although not much

honoured by Irish nationalists of today, Charlemont nevertheless headed a

movement which used the threat of force without breaking the law to as sert

the existence of an Irish nation as an independent entity.

The "Revolution of 1782" is a moral victory for Irish nationalism,

an event which is recognized as a milestone along the road to independence.

It was Charlemont's tactful guidance which made this possible and in so

doing demonstrated the usefulness of the gentleman amateur in politics .

( APPENDIX l

A Select List of Books in Charlemont's library.

)

(British Library, SC 2608)

-

102.

The works listed in this sales catalogue reveal a varied interest in

literature, history, politics and religion. While it is impossible to de­

termine if Charlemont read all of the books in his library, certainly some

titles show that they were acquired for their reading value and not as col­

lector's items. Charlemont House contained three libraries: the Principal

Library; the Venus Library; and the Rockingham Library. The latter was de­

signed by Gandon. A selection of the 2477 items listed for sale by Sothe­

by's is provided below along with the comments v/hich accompanied them.

Catalogue/ of the/ t10st Important and Valuable/ L ibrary/ of a/

Nobleman of Great Literary and Artistic Taste,/ Particularly Rich in/

Early English and Italian Literature,/ comprising/ Remarkably Fine

Specimens/ of / Caxton, Wynkyn de Horde, Pynson,/ and other Typographers./

A Beautiful Copy of the First Edition of Shakespeare's Plays,/ And Several

of the Early Quartos of Shakespeare's/ Dramatic Pieces./ A Most Remarkable

and Extensive Collection of Old Plays,/ Rare Volum~s of English Poetry./

Black-Letter Romances and Jest Books,/ The First COI plete Edition of

Aristo, printed upon Vellum,/ Fine Illuminated Manuscripts,/ including/

A Splendid copy of the Evangelists in Greek,/ A Beautiful Roman de la

:{ose,/ Magnificent Volumes by Gower, Lydgate and Ha\'Ies/ etc. &c. &c./ to­

gether \'1ith/ Rare Works on Irish History,/ Very Curious Pamphlets of the

Time of Charles 1,/ Lycophronis Cassandra, with the autograph of John Mil­

ton;/ Early Voyages and Travels, and/ Works in General Literature.

A rare volume of Ariosto (L.) Orlando Furioso. One of five copies known

printed on vellum.

------------------------------------------------,--

103.

At\'Iood n~) History of Reasons of the Dependency of Ireland (against)

Molyneux), 1698.

Annals of James and Charles r (from 1612 to 1642), 1681.

Arnold (Richards) Chronic1e. ,

Il 1 n th i s boo ke i s con teyned the names

of ye baylifs Custos mairs and Sherefs of the Cite of London .... " Black

letter, very rare, but slight1y \'Iormed. 1521.

Co1den (Hon. C.) Historyof the five Indian Nations of Canada. 1755.

Three volumes of Edmund Burke·s Works, 1792.

(Burnet (Bp.) 1 Comp1eat Collection of Papers, in 12 parts, relating

to the Great Revolutions in England and Scot1and, 1689. The 6th collection

contains a Narrative of the r'liseries of rlew England by reason of an Arbi-

trary Government created tl1ere.

Bhagva t-Geeta, 1784 edition.

Works on America: Acts of Dr.Bray·s Visitdtion held at Annapo1is in

i.Jaryland, 1700 -- j·1ernorial of Reli9ion in N(lY'Lh America byT. Bray, 1701;

other Tracts in volume.

Bermuda Acts of Assembly from 1690-1713-14.

New York Acts of Assembly from 1691-1718.

i1ary1and Acts of Assembly (1692-1715).

Grose (F.) f1assica1 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, manuscript

additions by Viscount Charlemont. 1788.

Henrici VIII Assertio Septem Sacramentorum udversus M. Lutherum.

Very rare. 1521.

Graves (Rev. E.) Bib1iotheca Cau1fie1diana, or A1phabetical Catalogue

of the Books in the Cau1field Library, Char1emont House, Dublin, manuscript.

1824.

104.

Herbert (T.) D~scription of the Persian Monarchy. 1634

---------- Sorne yeares Trave1s into divers Parts of Asia and Afrique.

with a Revivall of the first Discoverer of America. 1638.

Hay1yn (P.) Aerius redivivus or History of the Presbyterians. 1670.

---------- Cyprianus Anglicus; or the History of the Life and Death

of Archbi shop Laud. 1671 .

Ionian Antiquities. pub1ished by the Society of the Dilettanti. 1769.

Various 1etters, papers relating to Ireland including: Two His­

tories of Ireland, the one written by Edmund Campion, the other by Meredith

Hammer (with Henry Mar1eburrough ' s Chronicle of Ireland, Dublin, 1633).

Spenser (E.) View of the State of Ireland. ib.1633. (rare).

Leland (T.) on the Principle of Human Eloquence. presentation copy

from author. Dublin, 1765.

Lennox (Charlotte) Philander, a Dramatic Pastoral. Dedication copy

to Viscount Charlemont. 1758.

Mackintosh, (Sir J.) Vindiciae Gallicae, with manuscript notes by

Earl of Char1emont, 1791.

Milton (J.) Poems, Eng1ish, Italian, Latin and Translations with

Notes by T. Warton. Manuscript notes by Earl of Charlemont. 1785.

Misce11anea in Prose and Verse (by D. Swift and A. Pope) 1728.

Molyneux (W.) Care of Ire1and s being bound by Acts of Par1iament in

Eng1and stated. To which is added the Case of Tenures 1720 (Carew).

Answer to Molyneux. 1698.

r~acaulay (C.) Histor'y- of England volumes I-V, 1763-71.

Massachusetts Laws and Liberties, scarce. Cambridge (U.S.) 1672.

Orrery (J. Earl of) Rernarks on the L ife and Writings of Dr. J. Swift.

/

(

105.

with manuscript verses by Lord Char1ernont. Dublin 1752.

Dedication copy of Truth in a r~ask by P. Skelton. 1744.

Collection of Shakespeare, Shakespeariana, inc1uding works by Malone.

Voltaire Oeuvres avec un Commentaire sur la Henriade par de la

Beaume11e. Geneve 1768-77, Berlin 1775.

A P PEN DIX 1 1

A List of the Members of the Club, 1764-1784.

(John W. Croker, ed., The Life of Samuel Johnson, by James Boswell, New York, 1833, volume 2, p. 533.)

107.

C· Original 11embers Died

1764 Sir Joshua Reynolds Feb. 28, 1792 Il Dr. Silmuel Johnson Dec. 13, 1784 Il Rt. Hon. Emd. Burke July 9, 1797 Il Christlr Nugent, M.D. Nov. 12, 1775 Il Dennet Langton, Esq. Dec. 18, 1801 Il Topham Beauclerck, Esq. rv1a r. 11, 1780 Il Oliver Goldsmith, M.D. Apr. 4, 1774 Il Anthony Chamier, Esq. Oct. 12, 1780 Il Sir John Hawkins, who saon vii thdrew f1ay 21, 1789

Elected

1764 Samuel Dyer, Esq. Sep. 14, 1772

1765 Dr. Thomas Percy, Bishop of Dromore Sep. 30, 1811

1765 Sir Robert Chambers r'lay 9, 1 803

1768 George Colman, Esq. Aug. 14, 1794

1773 Earl of Charlemont Aug. 4, 1799

1773 David Garrick, lsq. Jan. 20, 1779

1773 Sir William Jones Apr. 17, 1794

1773 Agmondesham Vesey, Esq. Aug. 11, 1785

1773 James Boswe11, Esq. j/ay 19,1795

1774 Rt. Hon. Chas. James Fox Sep. 13, 1806

1774 Sir Charles Bunbury, Bart. r~ar. 31 , 1821

1774 Dr. George Fordyce r~ay 27, 1802

1774 George Stevens, Esq. Jan. 22, 1800

C 1774 Edward Gibbon, Esq. Jan. 26, 1794

1775 Adam Smith, Esq. Ju1y 17, 1790

-

Elected Original Died

1775 Dr. Thomas Bernard, Bishop of Limerick Ju1y 7, 1806

1777 Rev. Dr. Joseph ~iarton Feb. 23, 1800

1777 Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Esq. July 7, 1816

1777 Earl of Upper ossory Feb. 1, 1818

1777 Rt. Rev. Dr. Richard r'lar1ey, Bishop of t-J:'lterford Ju1y 2, 1802

1777 John Dunning, Lord Ashburton Aug. 28, 1783

1778 Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Banks, P.R.S. June 19, 1820

1778 Rt. Hon. William Windham June 4, 1810

1778 Rt. Hon. William Scott, Lord Sto\lJell

1778 The Earl Spencer

1780

1782

1782

1782

1782

17f.Z

1784

1784

1784

Dr. J. Ship1ey, Bishop of St. Asaph

Lord Eliot

Edmond Malone, Esq.

Rev. ThomBs Warton

The Earl of Lucan

f\ i c!1~ rd Burke, Esq.

Sir William Hamiltcr

viscount Pn1mersont

Chas. Burney, Mus. D.

Richard Warren, ~.L.

Dec. 9, 1788

Fer.. 17,1804

i'lay 2~, 1812

:~ay 21, 1790

:1ar. 29, 1799

Aug. 2, 1794

Apr. 6, 1803

J\pr. 16,1802

/\pr. 12, ~e1L'.

~une 22, 1797

108.

{

/

(

•

APPENDIX III

The ~·lonks of the Order of St. Patri ck.

(Thomas Davis, ed., T~e Speeches of the Rt. Hon. John Philpot Curran, London, 1847.)

-110.

"The Monks of the Order of Saint PHtrick, commonly called The Monks cf

the Screw, assembled at their ~onvent, in Saint Kevin-street, Dublin, on

and after September the 3rd, 1779. Il The Society was at its height until

1785, when it begar to lose its importance, attraction and membership.

that:

John Philpot Curran wrote its charter song. The following is part of

The Monks of the Screw

When Saint Patrick our arder created, And c~lled us The Monks of the Screw, Good rui~~ he revealed to our Abbot,

To guide us in what ~e should do.

But first he replenished his fountain W~th liquor the best in the sky;

And he S~'iare by the ward of his Saintship, That fauntain should never run dry!

t·1y children. be chaste ~- Itill you1re tempted; While sober. be \lÏse and discreet; And hu,oble y()ur bodies with fasting ~heneler yau have nothing te eôt.

Then be nct a glass in the Canvent, Except on a festival found;

And this rule ta enforce, 1 ordain it A festival all the year round!

While this charter song would tend to sugge~t that the ~onks of the

SCt"'ew had a ~'iholly social raison d1etre, there were political overtones.

The years wh en it vvas at its height of popularity among the members re­

inforces the idea that political discussion and action were also a part

of its appea l .

(

(

111.

*LIST OF ME~1BERS OF THE ST. P,lHRICK 1 S SOCIETY

Founder -- +Barry Yelverton, M. P. afterwards Lord Viscount Avonmore, Lord Chief Baron.

Abbot -- +William Doyle, r~aster in Chancery.

Prior -- +John Philpot Curran, afterwards N.P., Privy Councillor, and Master of the Rolls.

Proecentor -- Rev. \1m. Doy, S.F.T.C.D.

Bllrsar -- Edl1Jard Hud':ion, M.D.

Sacri stan -- +Robert Johnson, 1,1. P., afterwards a Judge.

(Thus marked (*) \-'Jere Honorary Members: thus marked (+) were Barristers.)

Arran, the Earl of

*Barry, James, Painter, never joined.

+Brown, Arthur, M.P., and F.T.C.D.

+Burgh, Halter Hussey, Right Hon., and "".P.; aftenJards Chief Baron.

+Burton, Beresford, R.C.

Ca rhampton. (the) Earl of.

+Caldbeck, William, ICC.

+Chamberlayne, ~:. Tankerville, f4.P.; afterwards a Judge.

Charlemont, (the) Earl of.

Corry, Right Hon. Isaac, t·1.P.; afterwards Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oaly, Right Hon. Denis, r·1.p.

+Day, Robert, M.P.; afterwards a Judge.

+Dobbs, Robert.

Doyle, John, M.P., afterwards a General in the Army, and a Baronet.

+Dunki n, James.

+Duquery, Henry, M.P.

+Emmet, Temple.

+Finucane, Matthew; afterwards a Judge.

+Fitton, Richard.

+Forbes, John, [·1. P •

+Frankland, Richard, ICC.

+Grattan, Rt. Hon. Henry, t1.P.

+Hacket, Thomas.

+Hardy, Francis, r1.p. (Lord Charlemontls biogr'apher).

Harstonge, Sir Henry, Baronet, and r,1.p.

+Herbert, Richard, N.P.

+Hunt, John.

+Hussey, Dudley, M.P., and Recorder of Dublin.

Jebb, Frederi c, 11.0.

KinÇlsborough, Lord Viscount, f~.P.

+Mocawen,

+Martin, Richard, M.P.

+Metge, Peter, r~.p. ; afterwards a Judge.

Nornington, (the) Earl of.

+~1uloch, Thomas.

Newenham, Sir Edward, 1~.P.

Ogle, Right Hon. George, ~1.P.

*OILeary, Rev. Arthur.

+OINeill, Charles, K.C., t~.P.

Palliser, Rev. Dr., Chaplain.

+Pollo.:k, Joseph.

112.

+Ponsonby, Rt. Hon. George, M.P.; afterwards Chancellor of Ireland.

c

113.

+Preston, William.

Ross, Lieut-Colonel, M.

+Sheridan, Charles Francis, rl.p., Secretary at War.

+Smith, Sir f1ichael, Baronet, M.P.; afterwards Master of the Rolls.

+Stawell, William.

Stack, Rev. Richard, F.T.C.D.

Townshend, j~arquess of, (Elected, professed, and joined on his visit to Dublin, after his Vice-royalty),

+Wolfe, Arthur, M.P,; aftei'\,Jards Lord Viscount Kilwarden, Chief Justice of the Ki ng 1 s Bench,

A P PEN DIX 1 V

The Dungannon Convention.

(Th0mas McNevin, History of the Volunteers of 1782, Dublin, 1845.)

(

115.

Resolutions passed at tne Dungannon Convention, February 25, 1782

Whereas, it has been asserted that Volunteers, as such. cannat with

propriety debate, or publish their opinions on political subjeets, or on

the conduct of parliament of political men.

Resolved, unanimously, That a citizen by learning the use of arms

does not abandon any of his civil rights.

Resolved, unanimously, That a claim of any body of men, other than the

King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, tu make laws ta bind this kingdom, is

unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance.

Resolved, vlith one dissenting voiee only, That the powers exerciseo by

the privy councils of bath kingdoms, under, or under colour, or pretence

of, the law of poyning's are unconstitutional, and a grievance.

Resolved, unanimously, That the ports of this country are by right

open to all foreign countries not at war with the King; and that any burden

thereupon, or obstruction thereto. save only by the Parliament of Ireland,

àre unconstitutional, illegal, and ù grievance.

Resolved, with one dissenting voiee only, That a Mutiny Bill not limit­

ed in point of duration, fram session ta session, is uncanstitutional and

a grievance.

Resolved, unanimously, That the independence of judges is equally

essential ta the impartial administration of justice in Ireland as in Eng­

land, and that the refusal or delay of this right to Ireland, makes a dis­

tinction where there should be no distinction, may excite jealousy where

perfeet union should prevail, and is in itself unconstitutional and a

grievance.

.. .. 116 .

Resolved, with eleven dissenting voices only, That it is our decided

and unalterable determinatior. to seek a redress of these grievances, and we

pledge ourselves to each other and to our country, as freeholders, fellow~

citizens, and men of honour, that we will, at every ensuing election, sup-

port those only who have supported and will support us therein, and that

we will use all constitutional means to make such our pursuit of redress

speedy dnd effectual.

Resolved, with one dissenting voice only, That the right honourable

and honourable the Minority in parliament, \'1ho have supported these our con-

stitutional rights, are entitled to our rnost grateful thanks, and that the

annexed address be signed by the chairlpdn, and published It/ith these resolu-

tions.

Resol ved, unanimously, That four rnelilbers from each county of the pro­

vince of Ulster, eleven ta be a quorum, be and are hereby appointed a com­

mittee, till the next general meeting, to act for the Volunteer corps here

represented, and, as occasion shall require, to call general meetings of

the province. (Here followed a list of thirty-tv/o names, including Lieut.­

Col. A. Stewart and Major Francis Dobbs.)

Resolved, unanimously, That said committee do appoint nine of their

members to be a committee in Dublin, in order to communicate with such

ûther Volunteer associations in the other provinces as may think proper to

come to similar resolutions, and to deliberate with them on the most consti-

tutional means of carrying them into effect.

:n consequence of the above resolution, the committee have appointed

the following gentlemen for said committee, three to be a quorum. (Here

followed a list of nine names, including twlajor Francis Dobbs.)

117.

Resolved, unanimously, That the committee be, and are hereby instruct­

ed to call a general meeting of the province, within twelve months from

this day, or in fourteen days after thc' dissolution of the present parlia­

ment, should such an event sooner take r31ace.

Resolved, unanimously, That the court of Portugal have acted tO\'/ards

this kingdom, being a part of the British Empire, in such a manner as ta

call upon us to declare, and p1edge ourselves to each other, that we will

not consume any 't/ine of the gro\'Jth of Portugal, and that we will, to the

extent of our influence, prev~nt the use of said wine, save and exeept the

\'Jine at present in thi s ki ngdom, until such time as our exports shall be

reeeived in the kingdom of Portugal, as the manufact.ures of part of the

British empire.

Reso1ved, with two dissenting voices only to this and the following

resolution. That \'Je hold the right of private judgment, in matters of re­

ligion, to be sacred in others as ourselves.

Resolved, therefore, That, as men and as Irishmen, as Christians and

as Protestants, \'Je rejoiee in the relaxation of the penal 1aws against our

Roman Catholic fello~,,-subjects, and that we eonceive the measure to be

fraught with the happi est consequences ta the uni on and prosperi ty of the

inhabitants of Ireland.

(The meeting ended with the adoption of an address to the patriot minori­

ties in the Houses of Lords and Commons.)

My Lords and Gentlemen. -- We thank you for vour noble and spirited,

tllough hitherto ineffectual efforts, in defenee of the great constitutional

and commercial rights of your country. Go on. The almost unanimous voiee

of the people i s with you; and in a free country the voi ce of the people

must prevail. l'Je know our dut y to our Sovereign, and are loyal. We know

118.

our dut Y to ourselves, and are resolved to be free. He seek for our rights,

and no more than our rights; and, in 50 just a pursuit, we should doubt of

the being of a Providence if we doubted of success.

Si qned by order,

~Ji11im Irvine, Chairman.

<1

(

119.

Abstract of the Effective Men in the different Volunteer Corps, whose

Delegates met at Dungannon, and those who acceded to their Resolutions, and

to the Requisitions of the House of Commons of Ireland, the 16th of April,

1782.

COW~AND[R IN CHIEF

Earl of Charlemont.

Genera l s

Duke of Leinster. Sir James Tynte.

Earl oF Tyrone. Earl of C1anric.:lrde.

Earl of Aldborough. Earl of ~1uskerry.

Lord De Vesci. Sir William Parsons.

Sir B. Denny. Honourable J. Butler

Right Hon. George Oqle. Right Hon. Henry King.*

Province of ll1 ster

Du ngannon Heet i ng, 153 Corps

Twenty-one Corps since acceded

Infantry since acceded, Two Battalions

Six Corps of Cavalry

Eight Corps of Artillery

26,280

3,938

1,250

200

420

32,088

*Besides the se -- the Volunteers at their Provincial Reviews, e1ected their Reviewing Ge:lera1s.

-- U1 s ter Corps wh; ch have acceded si nce

the 1 st of April, 35 of lnfantry

and one Batallion

T\'Jo of Ca va l ry

Tota l of Ul ster

Six Pounders.

Three Pounders.

Howitzers.

Total Pieces of Jl.rtlllery

firti 11 ery.

Province of Connaught.

Ba 11 i nas 1 oe t~eet i ng, 59 Corps

Thi rty-one Corp: of lnfd ntry

who si nce acceded

Cava1ry, eight Corps

Arti 11ery

Acceded since 1st of April,

four Corps of lnfantry and one of Cava 1 ry

Tota l of Connaught

120.

1,972

92

34,152

16

10

6

32

6,897

5,781

421

250

13,349

987

14,336

(

(

(Connaught continued)

Six Pounders.

Three Pounders.

Artillery.

Total Pieces of Artillery

Province of Munster

City and County of Cork

68 other Corps of Infantry in the Province

Cavalry of the Province returned, 15 Corps

Arti11er)~9 Corps

Acce~2d since lst April, 15 Corps of Infant y

Two Corps of Cavalry

Total of r~unster

Si x Pounders.

Three Pounders.

HO\'Ii tzers .

Total Pieces of Arti11ery

Artillery.

121.

la

la

20

5,123

7,987

710

221

14,041

3,921

94

18,056

14

14

4

32

- Province of Leinster.

139 Corps whose delegates met at Dublin, April 1 7, 1782

10 Corps of Cavalry who before acceded and no delegates sent

19 di tto of Infantry

Art il1 ery, 9 Corps

Arti 11 ery.

Nine Pounders.

Six Pounders.

Three Pound ers .

Howi tzers.

Total Pieces of Arti11ery

Tota 1 NUr.1bers

Ulster

r'1unster

Connaught

Leins ter

Tata 1

22 Corps have al 50 accedecl but made no returns: estimated at

i~aking in all nearly a general grand Total of Art; 11 ery, 130 pieces.

122.

16,983

580

4,398

322

22,283

2

16

14

6

38

~:4, 152

18, 056

14,336

22,283

88,827

12, 000

100,000

{ APPENDIX V

Delegates to the Grand National Convention, Dublin.

(Thomas i~cNevin, Historyof the Volunteers of 1782, Dublin, 1845.)

c

List of Delegates

who composed the

GRAND W\TIONAL CONVENTION

124.

Those r~embers who never took their seats in the Convention are underlined.

Thus marked * \'/ere confined by illness, and could not attend their dut y

in the Convention.

Thus r.larked + opposed the Plan of Reform in the Convention.

Thus marked # appeared luke-warm in the Convention.

Thus marked ** relinquished their patronage of rotten boroughs for the

pub 1; c benefit.

Province of Ulster.

County of Antrim.

~{ight Hon. Colonel John O'fleill

Honourable Col. Rowley

Lieutenant-Col. Sharman

Co 1. T. r10rri s Jones

Capt. Todd Jones

County of the Tovin of Carrickfergus

Rev. tk. Bruce

County of Armagh

General Earl of Charlemont**

Col. Right Hon. Sir Capel Molyneaux, Baronet

rk. Henry Joy, junior

Lieut.-Col. Right Hon. Hilliam Brm'lnlo\'1

Lieut.-Col. Sir William Synnott

Cap. James Dawson

( County of Derry.

Lord Bi shop of Derry

Col. Right Hon. Thomas Conolly

Capt. Leckey

Captain F. Saunderson

Lord Farnhilm+

Genera 1 r,. ~1ontgomp.ry

Cüunty of Cavan.

County of DO\'m.

Colonel Right Hon. Robert Stewart

Captain t/latthe\'J Farde, junior

125.

Col. Right Hon. Edward Carey

Captain Ferguson

Hon. J. J. Maxwell

Captain Henry Cl ements

~1ajor Crawford

Colonel Patrick Savage

Captain Gavin Ham; 1 ton

County of Fermanagll.

Co l one 1 l rwi ne

Colonel Sir A. Brüoke, St.

Captain A.C. Hamilton

Jason Hazard, Esq.

Captain James Armstrong

County of Donegal.

Colonel A. t1ontgomery

Colonel John Hamilton

Lieut.-Col. A. Stewart

Col. Charles Pow. Lesl ie

Col. Francis Lucas

Co 1. J. t1ontgomery

Co 1. Robert W Cl i ntock

Lieut.-Col. Charles Nesbitt

County of Monaghan

Captain William Forster

Captain James Hami lton

.....

126.

County of Tyrone

Colonel Stewart Lieutenant-Col. Charleton

L ieut.-Col. Nontgomery Capta in Eccl es

Colonel James Alexander

Provi nce of Conl1aught

Colonel Perse

Edmond Kirwan, Esq.

Peter D'Arcy, Esq.

Co l one l La touche

Colonel Teneson

Colonel Pey ton

County of Galway

County of Leitrim

County of ~1ayo

Col. Sir H.L. Blosse, Bart.

Col. Dominick G. Brmme

Valentia Blake, Esq.

County of Roscommon

Colonel Arthur French

Caotain Edward Crofton

Colonel Maurice Mahon

r~ajor i~i 11 i am Burke

Colonel i~alter Lambert

Colonel Cullen

Colonel Crofton

Colonel Edmond Jordan

Col. Patrick Randell t1'Donnell

Col. Christopher Lyster

Counsellor Dennis Kelly

f

c

County of Sl igo

Right Hon. General Henry King

Righi: Hcn. Joshua Cooper

Colonel Q1Hara#

Robert Lyons. Esq.

r4ajor George Dod\'.Je11

127.

County of the Tovm of Galway

Colonel F1ood**

Counse110r Blossett

Lieutenant-Col. French

Colonel Bagena1

Prov i nce of Lei ns ter

County of Carl 0\'1

Lieut.-Co1. Sir Charles Burton, Bart.

Countyof the City of Dublin

Colonel Sir Edward Newenham, Knt.

Lieut.-Co1. Graydon

Countyof Dublin

Col. Sir J.A. Johnston. Bart.

Col. Sir J.S. Tynte, Bart.

County of the Town of Drogheda

Col. William Meade Ogle

fvlajor Browne

Cou nse 11 or r~a l'ti n Ki n'la n

Colonel Rochfort

Captain Stewart

Rev. r1r. Ryan

Captain (...arren

Captain Cornwall

Benjalldn Wills. Esq.

Colonel Joseph Deans

Captain Baker

r~ajor Ve rschoyl e

Colonel H.M. Lyons

1

-

John Wolfe, Esq.

Hon. John Bourke

Richard Neville, Esq.

General George Ogle#

County of Kildare

County of Wexford

Sir Vesey Colclough, Bt.**

Lord Viscount Valentia

R.L. Edgeworth, Esq.

ftlajor Sandys*

f-lajor Fox

County of Longford

Ki ng 1 s County

General Sir bï Iliam Parsons, Bart.

Colonel John Lloyd

Colonel C.\:J. Bury

County of Kilkenny

Lieut.-Colonel Knaresborough

:'1ajor i'Jemys

Counse 11 or Locki ngton

County of the City of Kilkenny

Colonel Thomas Butler

128.

i1aurir:e Kectting, Esq.

ilichael ,lI.ylmer, Esq.

Richard Neville, Esq.

Co l one 1 Ha ttonf-

Col. Sir William Gleadowe Newcomen, Bart.

Colonel r~esbitt

Colonel Johnston Darby

Colonel James Francis Roleston

Ca p ta in He l 5 ham

Captain Elliott

Lieut.-Colonel Mossom

/

(

-

Prov; nce of Munster

County of Cork

Right Hon. Lark Kingsborough

Fr. Bernùrd. Esq.**

Co l one l Roche

129.

Sir Ja~n Conway Colthurst, Bart.

Major Thomas Fitzgerald

Caunty of the Ci ty of Cork

Co 10 n e 1 Bo u s fie 1 d

Colonel Bag\'/ell

Ri cha rd l'laare, Esq.

County of Clare

Col. Sir H. Dillon j·lassey, Bart.

Col. Edward Fitzgerald

Col. rrancis f1acnamara

County of Derry

General Sir Barry Denny, Bart.

nichard TOImsend Herbert, Esq.

Co l one l l,la hony

Hon. Cal. Hugh i1assey**

Colonel Richard Bourke

Co l one l John Fitzgera 1 d

County of Limerick

Richard Fitton, Esq.

Colonel R. Longfield

Colonel 6lood

Hajor Stackpole

Colonel Gunn

Robert Day, Esq.#

t1ajor Powell

~laj or C rD ker

130.

County of the Ci ty of L imeri ck

Colonel Thomas Smyth

Colonel Edmond H. Pery

Colonel Prendergast

Thomas Hackett, Esq.

Colonel Daniel Taler

Major Edward Moore

John Congreve, Esq.

Sir Richard Musgrave

Thomas Christmas, Esq.

County of Tipperary

County of ~~aterford

Court y of the City of waterford

Captain Robert S. Carew

Captain H. Alcock

Capta i n Bo lton

r,~ajor Hart*

Henry D1Esterre, E~q.

Col. Sir William 6arker

Capta in A 11 eyn

S.J. Newport, Esq.

John Kaine, Esq.

Counsellor W~lliam Morris

Capta i n Dobbyn

( APPENDIX VI

Cha r1 emont on Edmund Burke

(ilistorical t1anuscripts Commission, Report 12, Appendix X.)

(

-132.

Observations on Edmund Burke

"This most amiable and ingenious man \tlas pr i late secretary to lord

Rockingham, a situation wllich was procured for him by the just attestation

of all \'1ho knev.J him in behalf of his worth and abilities. Tt may not be

superf1uous to relate the following anecdote, the truth of which 1 can as­

sert, and vlhich does honour both to him and to his noble patron. Saon

after lurd Rockingham, upon the ~~arm recommendation of many friends, had

appointed Burke his secretary, the duke of NeVlcastle, vJÏshing probably to

procure the place for SGme dependant of his own, with a view which in an old

ministerial statesman will be easily guessed, and instigated by the ener.lles

of Burke and of merit, waited on lord Rockingham, over \IJhom 111S age, party

dignity, and ancient family connection had given him much influence, and

ev en sorne degree of authority, dnd informed hiin that he had um'Jarily taken

into his service a man of dangerou:; pnnciples, and one who was by birtll

and educJtion a Papist and a Jacobite; a calumny founded upon Burkels Irish

connections, which were most of them of that persuasion, and upon sorne

juvenile follies arising from tlJOse connections. The marquis, \·,hose genu­

ine vlhiqgism was easily alarrned, immediately sent for Burke, dnd fait'ly

told him \'/hat he had heard. It l'JaS easy for 8urke, \',1110 !lad been educated

at the university of Dublin, to bring testimonies to his Protestantism, and

with regard to the second accusation, which was wholly founded upon the

fomer, it was saon dane a"Jay, and lard :\ockinaham, readily and wi11ing1y

disabused, declared that he was perfect1y satisfied of the falsehood of

the in."ormation he had received, and that he no longer harboured the

smallest doubt of the integrity of his princip1es; when Burke, with an

1

J

•

133.

honest and disinterested boldness, told his lordship that it wa5 now no

longer possible for him to be his secretary; that the reports that he had

heard would probably, Even unknown to himself, create in his mind such

suspicions as might prevent his thoroughly confiding in him, and that no

earthly consideration should induce him to stand in that relation with a

man who did not place entire confidence in him. The marquis, struck with

this manliness of sentiment, which 50 exactly corresponded with the feel­

ings of his own heart, frankly and positively assured him that what had

passed, far from leaving any bad impression on his mind, had only served

to fortify his good opinion, and that, if from no other reason, he might

rest assured tl1at froln bis conduct upon this occasion alone he should ever

esteem, and place in him the most unreserved confidence and trust, a pro­

mise which he most faithfully performed; neither had he at any time, nor

his friends after his deJth, the least reason to repent of that confidence,

Burke having ever acted towards his surviving friends with a constant and

disinterested fidelity, which \'Jas proof against his mm indigent circum­

stances, and the magnificent offers of those in power; a fidelity \'Ihich,

during the short-lived administration of the duke of Portland, was re\'Iard­

ed \'Iith the office oF paymaster-general. It must however be confessed

that hlS early habits and connections, thou0h they could never make him

swerve from his dut y, had given his rnind an almost constitutional bent to­

wards the Poplsh party, as plainly appeared from his very imprudent conduct

respecting that party in Ireland. Prudence is indeed the only v irtue he

does not possess; from a total want of which, and from the amiable \'Ieak­

nesses of an excellent heart, his estimation in England, though still

great, is certainly diminished. What it was at this period will appear

-y.

134.

from the following fact, which, however trifling, 1 here relate as a

proof of the opil1ion formed of hiJ1l by his party. Having dined at lord

Rockingham's, in company with him and sir Charles Saunders. this latter

gentleman carried me in his coach to AllOack's. In the \lay, Burke i'Jas the

subject of our conversation, when the admiral, lamenting the declined state

of the empire, earnestly and solemnly declared that, if it could be savEd,

it must be by the virtue and abilities oF that \'JOndet'ful man."

{ B l B LIa G R A P H Y

(

136

I. Introduction to the Bibliography

The bulk of the manuscript material pertinenent to the earl of Charle­

mont is divided amongst three locations: The National L ibrary of Ireland,

Dublin; the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin; and the British Library, London.

The material available at the National Li brary of Ireland (N.L. 1.) is of

limited use. The F.S. Bourke collection contains little of relevance. The

Dobbs manuscripts are somewhat better. These consist of letters written by

Charlemont to Dobbs, who was in charge of sorne of the northern Volunteers.

This correspondence discusses Volunteer affairs and points out various

views Charlemont held on current government policies. The Flood letters

as edited by Thomas Rodd are a disappointment. There is little of rele-

vance to Charlemont and the Volunteer question. The material at the Royal

Irish Academy is of greater use. The Academy holds the Charlemont collec-

tion which consists of the earlls correspondence and sorne of his literary

endeavours. Some of the correspondence has been arranged into two series

by the Rev. Edward Groves and ~lr. John Prendergast. These arrangements do

not include commentary; they are a chronological compilation of Charle-

montls letters. The various manuscript collections consulted at the B.L.

help augment the picture of the earl despite the fact that many contain

only a few pieces of his correspondence. By far the most valuable are the

Flood papers. These covered important years in both Floodls and Charle­

montls lives - from 1765-82. There was also a single reference to Charle-

mont' and Flood in the Shelburne Pa pers located in the William L. Clements

Librai\y. While each piece of information has its O\'1n value, it can be

stated that the Flood Papers, in their several locations, and the Charlemont

(

137.

collection are of the greater value.

Although many of the contemporary and modern secondary sources for

Irish history make reference to the earl of Charlemont, there is little dis­

cussion of him or of his life apart from his connection with the volunteers

of 1782. T\'IO biographies of the ear1, by Francis Hardy and Maurice Craig,

exist which help to fi11 this void of information. Both are openly sym­

pathetic to Charlemont and portray him in a favourab1e manner. As contempor­

ary and friend of his subject Hardy \'lOu1d hardly be expected to do other­

wise, writing so soon after Charlemontls death and while many of the other

characters were still living.

The most important sources available are the Memoirs and Correspondence

of the Earl of Charlemont collected and edited by the Historical Manu­

scripts Commission and his correspondence compiled separately by Edward

Groves and John Prendergast. Charlemont proves to be a reliable and con­

sistent source and his personal impressions of sorne of the important

figures of his time are substantiated by other contemporaries and by 1ater

historians. The Memoirs and Correspondence is contained in t\'/o volumes,

the majority of which is correspondence. Charlemont begins his memoirs by

stating that they were intended for the education of his sons and not for

public consumption. This may or may not have been his intent. Certain1y

the r'lemoirs differ in style to Chesterfieldls advice given to his son.

Charlemont a1so does not provide much background on his early life, rr~fer­

ring to concentrate on his entry into and role in Irish politics. Charle­

montls Memoirs establish a framework which the several collections of

correspondence complement. The two - memoirs and correspondenre - must be

used in conjunction with each other in order to produce a mûre complete

-

138.

picture of the earl's life.

The Travels of Lord Charlemont in Greece and Turkey, edited by W.B.

Stanford and E.J. Finopoulos is principally a printed version of the manu-

script account of the earl's travels in the Mediterranean. This is a

limited convenience ta the reader. The editors have chosen to omit Charle-

mont's introductory essays and many of his views 0,' the region and its cul-

ture. They have also changed the order of the Journals for the sake of

literary style. However, the editors ' explanatory notes of various sites

and classical references commented on by the earl are usefuï.

The secondary works which deal specifically with the earl are limited

ta the two aforementioned biographies. Maurice Craig's work, being the

more recent, relies heavily on the information provided by Hardy's bio-

graphy. In addition ta his discussion of Charlemont's life, Craig spends

a substantial amount of tirne describing the earl's tovm property as well as

the estate outside of Dublin and the architectural contribution of Sir

William Chambers to these sites. Hardy provides a general survey of Charle­

mont's lengthy grand tour and includes anecdotes of the trave1s. His con­

centration however, is upon the later social and political life of the earl.

As biographers of the ea rl, both Hardy and Cra i 9 are hi ndered by a 1 ack of

information concerning his early life. As well, neither the journal of his

excursion ta Egypt, nor the account of his time on the Continent, especially

his residence in Italy, is extant. Information on his Italian residency

must be obtained from his correspondence.

The grand tour was often a significant addition ta a person's formal

education. It proved to be the formation or ruin of many characters. Al­

though it was primarily the young men of the time who embarked on the tour

(.

1

(

-

139.

there are notable exceptions. Perhaps the best known is Lady Mary Montague

~/ortley, whose account of her extensive travels is an interesting narrative.

Travell ing to the Turkish Empire c'n~1 beyond to the Levant was not a common

practice of the time and so the few accounts of such travels provide useful

comparisons to Charlemont's accounts and impressions.

The standard \vorks on England and Ireland for the period under con­

sideration establish a \vider context \'/ithin which the reader may view the

earl. Two which are invaluable are J.A. Froude's The English in Ireland in

the Eïghteenth Century and A History of Ireland in the Eighteent:-, Century

by \~.E.H. Lecky. Again, these \'1orks need ta be used together in arder to

produce a well-rounded picture of the events and people of the eighteenth

century. \':hile they are dealing with the same subjects, the authars pre­

sent slightly differing views. In describing the earl, Froude does not

hesitate te point out what he considers to be his shortcomings. At the

same tlme thouqh he is not unduly harsh in his presentation of Charlemont,

Lecky gives a lengthier sketch of Charlemont's background and character

than daes Froude. Lecky also tends to omit certain details of the politi­

cal and social environment which Fraude includes. His style tends to be

more anecdota l .

A contemporary vie~ of the periad is provided by Sir Jonah Barringtan's

several histories which are interesting, if not useful.

J.C. Beckett's The Anglo-Irish Tradition and E.M. Johnston's Ireland

on the Eighteenth Century è.re modern \>lOrks which provide good surveys and

discussions of the century. ~~odern historians acknowledge Charlemant's

role as commander-in-chief of the volunteers but do not develop his charac­

ter beyond saying that he was a cautious leader who did not believe the

l

-.....

140.

time was right for the emancipation of the roman catholics. To set Charle­

mont in his wider context of the Anglo-Irish ascendancy and then the general

political and social world of the eighteenth century the reader may look to

several modern works. Among these are Irish public opinion, 1750-1800 by

R.B. McDowell; Francis James' Ire1and;n the Empire 1688-1770; and Irish

Politics and Social Conflict in the Age of the American Revolution by Maurice

O'Connell. A.P.W. Malcomson discusses the period through an examination of

the political career of another member of the ascendancy who also lacks re­

cognition today in John Foster: the Politics of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy.

Other books concentrating on the reigns and political administrations of

this century provide wider frameworks for the reader.

As mentioned above, the grand tour was generally l imited to the Con­

tinent. There are numerous books on this subject. One of the more helpful

is a recent werk by Jeremy Black,The British and the Grand Tour. Black

covers a range of topics fram transportation to the political and social

theught which was often a product of the tour. He has a1so inc1uded a

selective but useful bibliography.

Char1emont's notoriety has come mainly from his role as commander-in­

chief of the volunteers. There is not an abundance of information avail­

able on them solely. General works of Irish history in this period must be

relied upon. The information from the various secondary sources must be

checked against each ether as details vary, especially in regards to numbers

of men involved. The volunteers were not an officially recognized militia.

Altho~gh headed by a commander-in-chief the various corps rnaintained their

autonOl.iy. Their autonomous, as well as spontaneous, nature contributed to

the lack of detailed records on them. Their interest was in attaining

(

1

(

141.

their political goal, not "in preserving information for future historians.

Having said this though there are a fel." work~ availab1e which shed light on

this extra-parliamentary force. One sucll is Thomas l~acNevin's A History of

the Volunteers of 1782. This srnall book is a good narrôtive account of

the volunteers. As well it contains a useful appendix detailing the colours

of the corps and the nailles of the leaders and de1egates ta the cOJ1vention.

I-Iereward Senior's OrangeisPi in Ireland and Britain discusses the:! volunteers

in the context of their being the forerunners oi' 'che Orange Lodges in Ire­

land. Besides analyzing their role as a political movement, Senior's \'JOrk

places the volunteE:rs ir, c. \'dder Anglo-Irish perspective. David Smythe's

PILP. dlssertation "The Volunteer f~ovelJ1elH: in Ulster" argues thé't they

should be seen as a continuation of the Irish Illili~ia tradition.

The works cited in this Introduction represent the major divisions in

Charlernont's life. They are intended as a guide for those interested in any

or an aspects of his life and his time. Charlemont's circle of friends en­

COl11Vlssec both the political and artistic worlds. This allo\/ed r.im to come

into contact with many pf!op1e, including sorne l'/ho have retained their notori­

et y . The aurpose of this ; s then ta alle,vi LhE' reader to find hi 5 way through

the maze of figLnoes - élcquaintances, friends and opponents-who feature in

the earl's life.

II. Bibliography

British Library~ London

A. Original Sources

l. Manuscript Material

142.

Additional Manuscripts (Add. Mss.) 22,394 - Subscribers Names to Hogarth's Four Prints of an Election Ec. 1754. Folios 33, 35.

Add. Mss. 22,930 - Flood Pa pers .

Add. Mss. 32,690 - Newcastle Pa pers , Vol. V, Folio 255.

Add. Mss. 34,418 - Auckl and Papers, Vol. VII.

Add. t~ss . 35,126 - Correspondence of Arthur Young, Vol. I.

Add. Mss. 39,168 - Miscellaneous Letters & Papers, XVII-XIX, Centt. 1.5 Pa pers of George Ca tcott.

Add. Mss. 35,593 - Hardwicke Papers, Vol. CCXLV, Folio 92.

Add. r~ss . 40,015 0- Miscellaneous Letters and Papers.

Stowe Manuscripts 259: 261 - Phelps Correspondence.

National Library of Ireland, Dublin

Dobbs Mss. 2251.

F.S. Bourke Collection. Mss. 10,713 (1); 10,756.

Ori~inal Letters, principally from Lord Charlemont .•. to Hel~ry Flood. dited 5y Tho~as Rodd.

Royal Iri sh Academy, Dubl in

Char1emont t1ss. 12 R 5; 12 R 6.

Original Correspondence of James, late earl of Charlemont Arranged by the Rev. Edward Groves, 1825. First series, Vols. 1-II1.

143.

Original Correspondence of James, late ear1 of Char1emont Arranged by John Prendergast, 1867. Second series, Vols. l, II.

II. Pri nted Ma ter; al

Barrington, Jonah. Persona1 Sketches of His Own Time. 2 vols. London 1830.

-----, Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation. Dublin, 1853.

Boswell, James, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LLO., inc1uding A Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides. A New Edition, with Numerous Additions and Notes by John Wilson Croker. 2 vols. New York, 1833.

Burdy, Samuel, The Life of Philip Skelton. 1792, Oxford, 1914.

Burton, John Hill, Life and Correspondence of David Hume. 2 vols. Originally published Edinburgh, 1846. New York (1967).

Copeland, Thomas W., ed., The Correspondence of Edmund Burke. Cambridge 1958.

Davis, Thomas. The Speeches of the ~ight Honourable John Phi1pot Curran. Dub11n,1845.

Flood, Warden, Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of the Right Honorable Henry Flood, i~.p .. Dublin, 1838.

Hardy, Francis. r~emoirs of the political and Private Life of James Caulfeild. 1810.

Hi storica 1 r~anuscrl pts Commi ssion. Egmont. Vol. II.

FGrtesgue, Vol. IV.

James Stewart of Killymoon (Papers).

Lothian.

Memoirs and Correspondence of James, ear1 of Charlemont. Report 12. appendix X, Vol. 1.; Report 13, appendix VIII, Vol. 11.

Portland.

-

--

Various Collections. Report 15, Vol. 8.

5th Report...:..

Madden, Daniel Owen, The Select Speeches of the Right Honourable Henry Grattan. Dublin, 1845.

144.

Phil1ips, Charles, Recollections of Curran, and Sorne of His Contemporaries. London, 1822.

Stanford, W.B. and E.J. Finopoulos, eds., The Travels of Lord Charlemont in Greece and Turkey, 1749. London, l~

II 1. Newspapers

Dub 1 in Journa l

Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser, The Burrey Collection, Vol. 735. (British Library).

Public Register, or, Freeman's Journal.

B. Seconda ry Sources

1. Books

Beckett, J.C., The Anglo-Irish Tradition. Ithaca, New York, 1976.

____ , The ~laking of Modern Ireland. 2nd edition. London, 1981.

Black, Jeremy, The British and the Grand Tour. London, 1985.

Block, Petrus Johannes, Historyof the People of the Netherlands. New York, 1970.

Butterfield, Herbert, George III, Lord North and the People, 1779-1780. London, 1949.

Christ:e, Ian R., Wars and Revolutions. London, 1982.

Craig, r·;?urice, Dublin. London, 1952.

)

(

•

, The Vo1unteer Earl. London, 1948. -----Fa1kiner, C. Litton, Studies in Irish History and Biography. London,

1902.

145.

Froude, James Anthony, The Englisil in Ire1and in the Eighteenth Century. 3 vols. 1872-1874.

Gwynn, Stephen, Henry Grattan and His Times. Freeport, Ne\'J York, 1939, 1971 .

Halsband, Robert, Lord Hervey: Eighteenth-Century Courtier. Oxford, 1973.

Huggett, Frank C. The Modern Nether1ands. London, 1971.

James, Francis Godwin, Ireland in the Empire. 1688-1770. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973.

Johnston, Edith Mary, Ireland, in the Eighteenth Century. The Gill History of Ire1and, Vol. 8. Dub11n, 1974.

Lambert, R.S., ed., Grand Tour. London, 1935.

Lecky, W.E.H., fI History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century. 5 vols. London, 1903.

Malcomson, A.P.vJ., John Foster: The Politics of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy. Oxford, 1978.

MacNevin, Thomas, History of the Volunteers of 1782. Dublin, 1845.

Maxwell, Constantia, Country and Town in Ireland under the Georges. Dunda i k, 1949.

McOowell, R.B., Irish Public Opinion, 1750-1800. London, 1944.

r1ead, William, Edward, The Grand Tour in the Eighteenth Century. New Yo r k, 1914.

Mossner, Ernest Campbell, The Life of David Hume. 2nd edition, Oxford, 1980.

O'Connell, Maurice R., Irish Pol itics and Social Conn ict in the Age of the American Revolution. Phi1adelphlJ, 1965.

Prior, James, Life of Edmond r~a1one. London, 1860.

Somerville-Large, Peter, Irish Eccentrics. London, 1975.

Towers, Eric, Oashwood: The Man and the r~yth. N.P., 1986.

-- ---------------------

146.

Vlekke, Bernard H.M., Evolution of the Dutch Nation. New York, 1945.

Wood, Alfred C., A History of the Levant Company._ Oxford, 1935.

Zimmern, Alfred Fq Henry Grattan. Oxford, 1902.

II. Articles

Conne 11, Bri an. IIPortra it of a Whi 9 Peer" in Hi story Today. 1957.

The Dublin University r~agazine, IIGallery of Illustrious Irishmen - James, Earl of Charlemont." 1836-1837.

Dunthorne, Hugh, IIBritish Travellers in Eighteenth-Century Holland: Tourism and the Appreciation of Dutch Culture" in British Journal for Eighteenth Century Studies..:... Vol. 5, 1982.

Fahy, Conor, "Notes on Charlemont and Baretti " ln Royal Society of Antiguaries of Ireland. Journal. Vol. (91-93), 1961-1963.

The Gentleman's Magazine. Vol. 52, 1982.

Harris, John, "Sir William Chambers, Friend of Charlemont" in Quarterly Bulletin of the Irish Georgian Society. Vol. VIII, no. 3,-1965.

The Irish ~cok Lover. Vol. (13-14), Aug. 1921- DeL. ~924.

The Irish Builder. IIMarino and the Charlemont Papers. 1I June 15, 1882.

Jupp, P.J., "Earl Temple's viceroyalty and the renunciation question, 1782-3 11 in Irish Historical Studies. Vol. XVII.

Kilkenny Archaeological Society Journal. "Cunningham Prize Medal of R.I.A." 4th series, Vol. 7,1885-1886.

MacEgan, Donal, "Char1emont and Catholic C1aims" in The Catholic Bulletin. Vol. 19, Sept. 1929 .

• "Charlemont and the Penal Code ll in The Catholic Bulletin. -~V'--o"""l. 19 , J u 1 y l 929 .

r~ahony, T.H.D., IIBurke's Imperial Mentality" in Canadian Historica1 Rev i eW_ i

o Snodaigh, pâdraig, "The Volunteers of '82: a citizen army or armed citizens -- a bicentennial retrospect" in The Irish Sword. Vol. XV, Summer 1983. no. 60.

1

(

Powell, John Stocks, History Today.

"Henry Grattan: Enl i.ghtenment i.n Ire1and" in Vol. XXVII, no. 3, Harch 1977.

Smith, E.A., "Lord Fitz\AJilliam 1 s lGrand Tour 1, 1764-6911 in History

Today. Vol. 17, no. 6, June 1967.

147.

stanford, W.B., IIThe r'1anuscripts of Lord Charlemont 1 s Eastern Travels" in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol. 80, C, 5.

III. Theses

Smyth, David, "The Volunteer ~1ovement in Ulster: Background and Develop­ment, 1745-1785. 11 Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Queen 1 s Univer­sity, Belfast, 1974.