Charles James Fox and Ireland

Charles James Fox and Ireland
Author(s): Martyn J. Powell

Source: Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 33, No. 130 (Nov., 2002), pp. 169-190
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30006939
Accessed: 11-01-2016 14:39 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Irish Historical Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Irish Historical Studies, xxxiii, no. 130 (Nov. 2002)
Charles JamesFox and Ireland

I
n 1783 Henry Grattan complimented Charles James Fox by describing his
I views as 'liberal to Ireland and just to those lately concerned in her
redemption'. He also claimed that 'Fox wished sincerely for the liberty of
Ireland without reserve.' Sir James Mackintosh's draft inscription for
Westmacott's statue of Fox in Westminster Abbey stated that he had 'contended for the rights of the people of America and Ireland'.' Whiggish historians subsequently built upon this notion of Fox and his followers as great
friends of Ireland.2For the most part, modern scholars have avoided passing judgement on Fox's views on Ireland, but a few authors have challenged
early assumptions, depicting Fox as unprincipled in his use of Irish politics
as a stick to beat the North and Pitt ministries. Christopher Hobhouse, commenting on Fox's commitment to Catholic relief, claims that he 'gave himself away' and that 'the House could distinguish by this time between Fox
the religious liberator and Fox the artful dodger'. John Derry asserts that
Fox 'ruthlessly and irresponsibly exploited anti-Irish prejudice in England'
during the controversy over Pitt's trade proposals of 1785. L. G. Mitchell
notes that 'his sympathy for American patriots had had real limits, and so
had his concern for Ireland', and that 'Irish patriots were never sure of Fox,
and their doubt was entirely justified.'3There is a good deal of substance in
these comments, and in this article I also intend to argue that Fox was first
and foremost a British parliamentarian. However, his conduct towards
Ireland was not solely ruled by this stance. Free from the shackles of government, Fox was disposed to be generous to Irish patriotism and his friends
and relatives in the Irish opposition.
Close links between the British Whigs and the Irish political 61ite were
forged through a double marriage between the Devonshire and Ponsonby
families in the mid-eighteenth century. This connexion was reinforced by
1Grattanto Fitzpatrick,5 Jan. 1783 (B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47582,f. 149);

Grattanto Sir JonahBarrington,2 Mar.1818 (HenryGrattan,Memoirsof the life
and times of the Rt Hon. Henry Grattan by his son Henry Grattan (5 vols, London,
1839-46),ii, 362);J.R. Dinwiddy,'CharlesJamesFox andthe people' in History,lv

(1970),p. 355.
2FrancisHardywrotethatthe IrishWhigs'restedwithpeculiarsecurityon MrFox
and the RockinghamParty,underwhose powerand with whose aid,Irishfreedom
was established in 1782' (Francis Hardy, Memoirs of the political and private life of
James Caulfield, earl of Charlemont (2nd ed., 2 vols, 1812), ii, 202.
Hobhouse,Fox (London,1934),p. 301;John Derry,CharlesJames

3Christopher
Fox (London,1972),p. 231;L. G.Mitchell,CharlesJamesFox (Oxford,1992),p.252.
169
170
IrishHistoricalStudies
the marriageof EmilyLennox,daughterof the duke of Richmond,to Lord

Kildare.As HenryFox,fatherof CharlesJames,marriedCarolineLennox,
Emily'ssister,this meantthat Fox had a close familyrelationshipwith one
of Ireland'sseniorlandholders.In the IrishparliamentKildareand his son,
who becamethe firstand second dukes of Leinster,had 'patriot'leanings,
whichgaveFox accessto the leadersof the independentoppositionincluding Henry Grattanand Lord Charlemont.Fox'srelativesowned extensive
Irishlands,as did manyof his politicalallies,most notablyRockinghamand
Devonshire.At the same time two of the Whigs' most able speakers,
EdmundBurke and RichardBrinsleySheridan,were both of Irish origin
and took a keen interestin Irishaffairs.Clearly,then, given these multiple
connectingstrands,politicalalliancesbetweenIrishandEnglishpoliticians,
or sympathyfor IrishcausesamongBritishM.P.sandpeers,wouldnot have
been unexpected.
Yet Fox'spersonalambitionoften led himto focuson Irishissuesin a less
than consistentmanner:allies among the Irish 'patriots'were supported
onlywhenit suitedhim,andhis attitudetowardsIreland'scommercialinterests andparliamentary
reformmovementwas equallymercurial.Moreover,
once in governmentFox shiftedto become a staunchadvocateof Ireland's
subjectionto Britishimperialcontrol.
Suchviewslocate Fox withina widerconsensuson Britishparliamentary
supremacyover Ireland.However,a numberof otherfactorstendedto place
him outside this consensus:most notably,his consistent sympathyfor
Catholicrelief,his discomfortat the impositionof martiallawin Ireland,and
his friendshipwithIrishpatriots,radicalsandrebels.Theseattitudesandconnexionsmeantthathis viewson Ireland,andin particularon the rebellionof
1798,wereratherdifferentfromthoseof manyof his contemporaries,
leaving
the historianwiththe taskof judgingwhetherFoxwasfriendof Ireland,even
traitor,or partypoliticianandupholderof Britishparliamentary
supremacy.
I wouldcontendthatFox'sattitudetowardsIrelandand Irishpolicycan
be dividedinto two fairlydistinctchronologicalsections,thoughin some
areashis viewsremainconsistentandspanthe whole of his politicalcareer.
But generally,before the outbreakof the FrenchRevolutionhis interestin
Irelandfocused largelyon maintainingIreland'ssubordinaterelationship
withBritain.In the radical1790shis prioritiesalteredandhe becamemore
concernedwithCatholicemancipationandthe abusesof Britishpowerover
Ireland.The focal point of this secondperiodis, of course,the rebellionof
1798.Yet it is vitalthatthisevent is viewedwithinthe widersweepof Fox's
relationshipwith Ireland.
II
In 1779Fox spentsix weeks in Ireland,wherehe met HenryGrattanand
severalotherIrishpatriotM.P.sandwas saidto have sat in 'the body of the
House'.4Thisyear witnessedthe peak of the campaignfor an extensionof
4Grattan,Grattan,i, 285.
- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

POWELL
171
Irish trading rights and saw Fox make his name as a friend of Ireland.5The
Rockinghamites and Chathamites encouraged Irish agitation when they
saw that this issue was embarrassing the government, and Fox, Burke,
Thomas Townshend and James Adair all lobbied prominent Irish patriots.
They were convinced that it was possible and desirable to foster a union
between the two opposition groups. But Fox and his opposition colleagues
had no detailed knowledge of the system of Irish government, and they overestimated the common ground between British Whigs and Irish patriots.
John Forbes, an Irish patriot M.P.and a correspondent of Adair, argued that,
in spite of the efforts of Fox, Burke and Townshend, the Irish and British
oppositions would 'always stand on different grounds', as 'in Ireland where
no genuine spirit of Whiggism prevails, nor the least idea of a systematic
opposition, an operative or effectual opposition can only originate from a
jealousy conceived against Great Britain at large'.6
Fox and the British opposition parties were ultimately outflanked by the
harassed North ministry when, in December 1779, it conceded a substantial
degree of commercial relief to Ireland. Opposition M.P.s remained silent
when North announced in the Commons his intention to grant trade concessions. Fox claimed that he wanted to wait before giving his approbation
to the concessions until it was clear that the Irish were contented.' But the
Irish opposition, which had been edging closer to its British counterpart,
was far from satisfied with his conduct. Fox, mortified by his sudden unpopularity in Ireland, reassured his Irish friends that the views of the British
opposition had been misrepresented.s Yet Fox's behaviour in 1785, during
the furore over Pitt's commercial propositions, must cast some doubt over
his protestations. Indeed, it is clear that Fox had a fundamental dislike for
new economic theories, and throughout his life he remained wedded to protectionist policies, as was shown by his opposition to Pitt's free trade treaty
with France of 1787.
In a brief analysis of Fox's speeches given in late 1779, Thomas
McLoughlin suggests that his rhetorical style gave away his ultimate goal,
which was to embarrass the North ministry rather than secure concessions
for Ireland. Fox, he says, 'mocks without suggesting remedies', using language 'free of a moral vocabulary'.9There is perhaps something in this, but
whatever the truth of the matter, it is certain that Fox had reservations
about the methods used by Ireland to gain commercial relief. He claimed
that 'the arguments of Pery [Speaker of the Irish Commons] and his crew
consisted of 42,000 bayonets'. This was a reference to Ireland's armed
Volunteer societies. Initially formed for protection against Freach invasion,
5Hehadmadehis firstinterventionin Irishaffairsin the BritishCommonsdebate
of 3 May1769on LordTownshend'sdecisionto proroguethe Irishparliamentafter
the rejectionof a moneybill (B.L.,Eg. MS 222,p. 186).
6[Forbes]to Adair,6 July1780(B.L.,Adairpapers,Add. MS 53802,ff 1-6).
7WilliamCobbett, Parliamentary history of England from...
1066 to . . . 1803 (36
vols,London,1806-20),xx, 1284(13 Dec. 1779).

i, 369-70).
8Foxto Leinster,4 Jan.1780(H.M.C.,Charlemont,
9T.O. McLaughlin, Contesting Ireland: Irish voices against England in the eighteenthcentury(Dublin,1999),p. 176.
172
they had developed into a political movement dominated by a patriot

agenda. Fox rather rashly added that, legal or illegal, he approved of them
and of the way they 'flew to arms in order to obtain deliverance'. Here it
seems that he had a sneaking admiration for the Volunteers, but this must
be linked to his sympathy for the struggle of the oppressed individual. He
was certainly not enamoured of the consequences of the proliferation of
Volunteering, for otherwise he would not have used it to attack the North
ministry. He claimed that 'it was the incapacity and negligence of government that had rendered ... [Ireland] bold and daring'.lo
Fox was less equivocal when considering Irish encroachments on British
parliamentary supremacy.In February 1781 he criticised the North ministry
for allowing the Irish parliament to draw up its own mutiny bill rather than
be included within the general British Mutiny Act. Fox argued that the bill
'directly overturned the constitution of this country, and gave up all right to
supremacy over Ireland'.11Ultimately he refrained from challenging the
British ministry's actions, although he stated that 'in better times than these,
he should have talked about the superintending power of the British parliament over Ireland'.'2Fox took a similar line as foreign secretary in the second Rockingham ministry when on 8 April 1782 William Eden, formerly
Irish chief secretary, proposed a motion repealing the Declaratory Act. Fox
described Eden's motion as 'nothing less than a declaration of unconditional submission on the part of Great Britain'. To Fox, the motion 'was of a
dangerous complexion'. But 'he hoped that if he opposed it, the people of
Ireland would give him credit that it was only to gain time to form a system
... [for] a lasting and permanent.., political connexion ... between the two
countries'.13
Irish affairs lay outside the remit of the foreign secretary, but Fox's keen
interest in Ireland ensured his constant interference. Throughout the
Rockingham ministry's tenure of office Fox corresponded with both
Portland, the viceroy, and Richard Fitzpatrick, the chief secretary, on Irish
issues. His priorities were domestic security and the need to concede as little as possible to the Irish patriots in the long term. Fox was hostile towards
any encroachment by the Irish on the direction by the British ministry of the
empire's foreign policy and trade. He argued that the purpose of concessions was 'to secure us from further demands' and establish 'what we are to
expect from Ireland, in return for the protection and assistance which she
receives from those fleets which cost us such enormous sums, and her nothing'; in other words, a 'final adjustment' to the Anglo-Irish connexion.'4 As
the senior cabinet member in the British Commons, Fox was responsible for
piloting the 1782 settlement through parliament. But his announcement on
17 May of the repeal of the Declaratory Act and the modification of
Poynings' Law was far from a personal triumph. Irish unwillingness to nego'0Cobbett,Parl.hist.,xx, 1197-1242(6 Dec. 1779).
lIbid., xxi, 1292(20 Feb.1781).
12lbid.,pp 1293-1305(23 Feb.1781).
xxii,1247-52(8 Apr.1782).
13Ibid.,
14Foxto Fitzpatrick,28 Apr.1782(B. L., Fox papers,Add. MS 47580,f. 93).
POWELL-
173
tiate resulted in a settlement that did not address external legislation,

Ireland's contribution to empire, or an acknowledgement of satisfaction.
Nevertheless, despite his obvious frustration, from this point onwards Fox
appeared to regard the 1782 constitution as hermetically sealed.
From the start of the Rockingham administrationFox gave tacit support to
the Irish politicians who were eventually responsible for browbeating the
British government into making precipitate concessions. Indeed, he approved
of Portland's bid to establish an Irish Whig party by replacing Castle officeholders with patriots.'5 Before Portland's arrival Fox had asked Lord
Charlemontto support the new viceroy and outlined his own views on an Irish
Whig party. He inquired: 'Why should not those who used to compose the
opposition in Ireland become the principal supporters of the new administration there upon the very grounds upon which they opposed the old ones?'16At
a time when the Rockinghams were seeking to distance themselves from Irish
patriotism and avoid making major concessions, Fox's support for an Irish
Whig party dominated by patriots may, at first,appear surprising.He seemed
to be advocating a revolution in Irish politics, as the Irish government and
opposition personnel had remained remarkablyconstant for much of the century,and changes in the British ministry had not altered this situation.
However, Fox's motives are not difficult to fathom. First, he regarded the
leading members of the Castle party as his enemies, as they were closely
connected with the North ministry;to Fox, the Castle was staffed by unprincipled place-hunters, bent on subverting the true will of the Irish parliament.
Secondly, it is probable that an Irish Whig party would have been expected
to comply with the wishes of its sister party in England. Thus an Irish Whig
party might alter the focus of Irish patriotism and damp the desire for
constitutional concessions. Thirdly, although Henry Grattan and Lord
Charlemont would presumably have been welcomed into this group, Fox
continued to look to his relatives in the Ponsonby and Fitzgerald families,
and to the 'ministerial patriots', as the focal point of such a party. Planning
to form a government on the basis of disaffected undertakers and former
government office-holders was hardly a major departure, or proof of Fox's
conversion to Irish patriotism. Finally, it is clear that any such restructuring
of the Irish government would come a very poor second to British ministerial wrangling in the list of Fox's priorities. In fact Fox urged his
Rockingham colleagues to agree to the choice of his friend Lord Robert
Spencer" as vice-treasurer of Ireland, part of a campaign to prevent
Shelburne from dominating appointments.'8 Far from bolstering an Irish
Whig party, this measure would have enraged Irish patriots and damaged
the credibility of the Rockingham ministry.
Ultimately any plans that Fox might have had for an Irish Whig party
were frustrated by the death of Rockingham and the formation of the
"Ibid.,ff 93-8.
4 Apr. 1782(H.M.C.,Charlemont,i, 57).
16Fox to Charlemont,
was a partnerin Fox'sfarobankat Brooks's.
17Spencer
"8L.G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox and the disintegration of the Whig Party,
1782-1794(Oxford,1971),p. 12.
174
Shelburneministry,whichsaw him returnto the securityof the opposition

benches.He was thereforerelievedof the responsibilityfor quellingpatriot
agitationfor a renunciationof Britain'sright to legislate for Ireland.Fox
toyed with supportingthe renunciationcampaign,probablymotivatedby
the desire to embarrassShelburne.But he eventually took the side of
Grattanandhis followers,who arguedthatthe 1782settlementgaveIreland
sufficientsecurityagainstBritishtreachery.Speakingin supportof Grattan
and Portland'sIrishWhigfriends,he arguedthat the renunciationbill 'was
a desertionof those who had actedupon real principle,and an adoptionof
those whose viewswere merelyto confound,and to gainby a tricka popularitythey hadjustlyforfeited'.19
Fox was said to have 'abusedFlood most
Yet thoughhe was moved to defend his Irishallies,he was also
bitterly'.20
motivatedby his determinationto see no furthererosionof Britishparliamentarysupremacyover Ireland.Fox observedthat'a renunciation,stating
it to be a rightwhichwe never legallypossessed,was whatEnglandwould
not be broughtto agree to'.21He thoughtthat it was time for ministers
to come to 'the resolutionof makinga standsomewhere'.22
The lackof support for renunciationfrom the leadersof the FoxiteWhigstarnishedtheir
popularityin Ireland.HenryFlood, his followersand extra-parliamentary
opinionlooked insteadto WilliamPitt.
III
The concessionof the RenunciationAct in 1783 did not, as the British
governmenthoped,resultin the disbandingof politicisedVolunteercompanies or mark an end to patriot agitation.Fox had formerlyexpressed
mercurialopinions on the Irish Volunteers.He tended to follow a line
that basicallyallowed the Volunteersto be a beneficent,but ultimately
misguidedand badly led force.He claimedthat Grattanhad 'employeda
dangerousinstrumentfor honourablepurposes'.But when they shifted
their attentionto parliamentaryreform,he appearedto decide that their
influence was perniciousand that dealing with the Volunteerswhen in
government,in the new Fox-North coalition, was a lot less pleasant
than encouragingthem from the opposition benches.He fulminatedto
Northington,the new viceroy:'Unless they dissolve in a reasonabletime,
governmentand even the name of it must be at an end.'Fox claimedthat
'Volunteers,andsoon possiblyVolunteerswithoutproperty,willbe the only
governmentin Ireland,unlesstheyarefacedthisyearin a manfulmanner.'23
Clearlyat this point Fox was alarmedas much by the threatto Ireland's
propertiedoligarchyas to the Anglo-Irishconstitutionalrelationship.
'9'Reportof the debate in the English House of Commons,sent by Lord
Morningtonto MrGrattan'(Grattan,Grattan,iii, 52).
to Grattan,24 Jan.1783(ibid.,pp 54-5).
20Mornington
21JohnDebrett, Theparliamentaryregister... 1780to... 1796 (45 vols,1781-96),
ix, 128 (19 Dec. 1782).
22Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxiii,339 (22 Jan.1783).
23Foxto Northington,1 Nov.1783(B.L.,Foxpapers,Add. MS 47567,ff 21-3).

POWELL
175
Fox believed that the British government had to take a stand against the
Volunteers and further concessions. When a separate Irish foreign policy was
mooted,North, supported by Fox, refused to lay imperialpeace treaties before
the Irish parliament.24Fox was also unwilling - despite his campaigning in
Britain - to consider allowing Ireland a degree of parliamentaryreform. He
was alarmed at the increasing clamour out-of-doors in Ireland,insisting that if
'parliamentaryreform, in any shape, however modified, or any other point
claimed by the bishop of Derry and the Volunteers, be conceded, Ireland is
irretrievablylost forever'.25He protested:'Did they not make that very round
in 1782,and did not England make that ample and correspondent concession,
for the direct and avowed purpose of precluding the necessity of future
demands and concessions?' Fox believed 'that a proper spirit exerted now, is
the only possible chance of saving us from a total separation, or civil war'.26
This is clearly another example of a situation in which Fox placed his
concern for Britain's parliamentary supremacy over Ireland above his
reformist zeal.
Fox, despite his general empathy with Ireland, was frustrated by the
unceasing demands made by the Irish parliament. Although he had held an
Irish sinecure himself until 1775, the clerkship of the pells, he also succumbed to the commonplace prejudices against Ireland's supposedly rapacious politicians. He had sympathy for Northington, 'situated as you are
among Irishmen who next to a job for themselves love nothing so well as a
job for their country'. The demands of the country as a whole were, in his
view, simply an extension of the selfish ambitions of individuals such as the
notorious place-hunter John Hely-Hutchinson:
Irelandappearsto me now to be like one of hermosteminentjobberswho afterhaving obtainedthe primeserjeancy,the secretaryshipof state and twentyother great
places,insisteduponthe l[or]dlieu[tenan]t'saddinga major'shalf pay to the rest of
his emoluments.27
This statement demonstrates that Fox shared the view held by many British
commentators that the vast majority of Irish politicians were motivated by
avarice rather than principle. Indeed, despite Fox's Irish family connexions,
he was liable to indulge in more general abuse. After Burke refused to grant
him a final interview Fox lamented: 'I have always found that every
Irishman has a piece of potato in his head.'28His prejudices regarding Irish
jobbery lasted until the year of his death. During the Talents ministry he
warned the lord lieutenant never to forget that he was dealing 'with the
most rapacious and unreasonable people on the face of the earth, the Scotch
themselves not excepted; to be importunate, and successful in jobs is not
their shame but their glory'.29
ff 24-5.
24Ibid.,
25Foxto Burgoyne,7 Nov.1783(Grattan,Grattan,iii, 112).
26Ibid.,
p. 114.
27Foxto Northington,1 Nov.1783(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47567,f. 27).
2Quoted in Hobhouse,Fox,p.237.
29Quotedin A. P.W. Malcomson, John Foster:the politics of the Anglo-Irish ascen-
dancy(Oxford,1978),p.245.
176
This is not to say that a friendly relationship between the British opposition and the Irish patriots disappeared after the 1782 settlement. Relations
remained cordial, but became increasingly strained as the two sides pulled
in different directions. Richard Brinsley Sheridan complained to his brother
Charles, an Irish M.P.:'You are all so void of principle in Ireland that you
cannot enter into our situation.'30However, John Forbes and Sheridan
remained friendly, and Burke was on good terms with Forbes and Francis
Hardy. In July 1784 the radical patriot Sir Edward Newenham claimed that
Fox's popularity in Ireland was recovering,31and Grattan was reputed to
have been well received when he visited Carlton House, home of the prince
of Wales, in 1788.32Even at the height of the unrest in Ireland over parliamentary reform, Fox castigated the viceroy, Northington, for favouring the
traditional supporters of government over the leading members of
Portland's nascent Irish Whig party. Fox warned the viceroy to 'take care
... that you do not strengthen an enemy instead of gaining a friend'.33This
was in spite of the fact that Fox's supposed allies, Grattan, Forbes and
George Ogle, were regularly voting against the government.
James Kelly concludes that 'overall, the authority of the British government in Ireland was in a much healthier position on the fall of the Fox-North
coalition than when it was formed'.34But Fox's role in the Irish government's
success is debatable. He accepted the reality of the 1782 settlement and
staunchly refused to make any further concessions. But if it had not been
for Northington's determination to cultivate capable administrators over
patriots, in other words the rebuilding of the Castle party, the story might
have been very different. Fox was far from comfortable with Northington's
actions. He still had visions of an Irish Whig party, the most prominent
members of which had given ample proof that they were not willing or able
to represent the British government in the Commons.Therefore,although Fox
remained wedded to upholding parliamentary supremacy over Ireland in
principle, his commitment to his friends in the Irish parliament, and his
hostility to what he believed was an overmighty Irish executive, prevented
him from taking any positive action to bolster Britain's interests.
IV
The short-lived Fox-North coalition was replaced by a ministry led by
William Pitt that was far more willing to make further concessions to
Ireland - albeit as part of a rationalisation of imperial economic policy. Fox
rather cynically saw Pitt's trade proposals as an ideal opportunity to cause
30R.B. Sheridan to C. F. Sheridan, [Feb. 1784] (The letters of Richard Brinsley
Sheridan,ed. CecilPrice(3 vols,Oxford,1966),i, 158).

to Miles,3 July1784(H.M.C.,Rutland,iii, 117-18).
31Newenham
32Gerard O'Brien, Anglo-Irish politics in the age of Grattan and Pitt (Dublin,
1987),p. 118.
33Foxto Northington,1 Nov.1783(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47567,f.27).
34JamesKelly, Prelude to union:Anglo-Irish politics in the 1780s (Cork, 1992), p.74.

POWELL
177
discomfort for the ministry.This was to be 'his harvest from Ireland'.35He

argued that 'unless Pitt can carry the Irish propositions in the course of this
session he must be undone, and .. . his administration cannot stand'.36Fox's
opposition, however, was not wholly unprincipled, as it is clear that he was
unswayed by Adam Smith and free trade and that he remained committed
to mercantilism. In 1783, when the Volunteers were exerting pressure on the
Fox-North coalition to make further concessions, Fox implied that Britain's
position as the regulator of the empire's mercantilist system made Irish
demands unrealistic and futile. He claimed that Ireland 'has more to fear
from us than we from her' and that 'her linen trade, which is her staple,
depends entirely upon the protection of this country'. Although he did not
believe that this 'menace ought to be used', he saw no need for Britain 'to
pay her too much court'.37John Derry, however, is sceptical of Fox's motives,
claiming that 'for partisan political purposes he fanned the flames of jealousy, suspicion and fear'.38
Fox attacked the trade proposals on the grounds that they were detrimental to the economic interest of Britain. He and his followers encouraged
British towns to petition the Commons against the admission of Irish cotton. Fox promised not to falter in his opposition to the scheme. In the British
Commons on 22 February 1785 he claimed that the propositions appointed
'Ireland the sole guardian of the laws of navigation, and grand arbitress of
all the commercial interests of the empire, a trust which he felt no sort of
inclination to part with out of our own hands'. He sarcastically acknowledged that Ireland would be perfectly satisfied with these concessions and
would not demand anything further from Britain, but only 'because this
country would then have nothing left to concede'.39
Pitt was forced to give way to pressure from the opposition and British
manufacturers and water down the concessions. But Fox and his followers
were not going to let go of the issue that easily. In a speech in the British
Commons on 12 May Fox altered the angle of his attack. He softened his
comments on Britain's Irish competitors and argued that 'it would be false
and injurious to allege, that the people of Ireland had forced the British
Minister into a tame surrender of the manufacturers and commerce of our
country'. He claimed that the new resolutions were 'the reverse of the former' and made 'the present system far more palatable to Englishmen'.40The
Foxites' renewed indignation focused on a proposal stipulating that in order
to ensure uniform commercial legislation in Britain and Ireland, the Irish
parliament was required to ratify all commercial laws made in Britain. In
the Commons Fox said that the altered clause forced Ireland to 'relinquish
her legislative independence' and 'in commercial laws and external legisla-
to duke [of Rutland],31 May 1784(H.M.C.,Rutland,iii, 99).

33Mornington
36Quotedin Kelly,Prelude to union, p. 121.
37Foxto Northington, 1 Nov. 1783 (Lord John Russell (ed.), Memorials and correspondence of Charles James Fox (4 vols, London, 1853-7) ii, 169).
38Derry,Fox, p. 230.
39Cobbett,
Par. hist.,xxv,333 (22 Feb.1785).
pp 593,599 (12 May1785).
4"Ibid.,
178
tion be governed by Britain'.41According to Daniel Pulteney, an opponent,

Fox 'made one of the most barefaced party speeches I ever heard' and 'frequently set the House a laughing'.42Fox and his allies were castigating the
pre-1782 situation that they had only unwillingly conceded. Fox, however,
was quick to gloss over this point and in an emotive outburst asserted:'I will
not barter English commerce for Irish slavery; that is not the price I would
pay, nor is this the thing I would purchase.'43
Fox had made clear his 'reluctance' when conceding control over 'imperial legislation' in 1782, and the need for 'one general and superintending
authority to embrace the whole system of the navigation of the empire'. But
at the same time it seems as if he genuinely believed that the carefully contrived settlement of 1782 should be regarded as a cut-off point, an 'inviolable compact'.44 Therefore he felt free to extol its virtues despite his
reservations at the time.This change of tack came at an opportune moment
as his actions on behalf of British manufacturers had damaged his credibility among Irish patriots. Lord Mornington stated that 'Nothing can equal
the universal indignation which has arisen against Fox, Lord North and
Eden.'45
Pitt succeeded in forcing the measure through the Commons. But Fox's
performance deserves some credit. He was undoubtedly correct in his assertion that there was a clear division between the claims of Pitt and the Irish
chief secretary,Thomas Orde. Pitt stressed that the reforms would be beneficial to British manufacturers, whereas Orde understandably tended to
emphasise the advantages that would accrue to Ireland. Fox, however,
feared for British manufacturers and Irish liberties, and he pursued both
strands of his attack at the same time. Ignoring charges of hypocrisy, Fox
boldly reconciled his views by claiming that he deserved to be called both
an English and an Irish patriot.46
The debates over Pitt's commercial propositions saw Fox recover his concern for the personal well-being and liberty of the Irish, which had been
somewhat shaken by the increased threat posed by the Volunteers during
the Fox-North coalition. Yet Fox always believed that there was an important difference between national security and the liberty of the subject, and
he followed this line from the late 1770s to his death. He pointed towards
heavy-handed tactics by the ministry and Castle government as an explanation for Irish resentment, citing 'attacks on the liberty of the press','endeavours to prevent the legal and quiet meetings of counties' and 'their
proceeding against men by summary attachment'.47Fox was also prepared
to raise the spectre of a violent popular reaction in Ireland. He argued that
41Ibid.,
pp 689 (24 May 1785),610 (12 May 1785).
42DanielPulteney to duke [of Rutland],24 May [1785] (H.M.C.,Rutland,iii,
208).
43Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxv,778 (30 May 1785).
pp 966 (25 July1785).
44Ibid.,
to W.W.Grenville,2 Mar.1785(H.M.C.,Fortescue,i, 247).
45Mornington
46Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxv,777 (30 May1785).
47Ibid.,
p. 622 (12 May 1785).

POWELL
179
it was unwise to conclude 'that even if their parliament should make a surrender of their legislative independence, the people at large would agree to
it, or remain quiet under such a sacrifice'. He added, with an equal measure
of bitterness and foreboding, that 'there were recent historical facts which
proved that the acquiescence of the Irish House of Commons was not conclusive'.48In this case, however, the Irish Commons forestalled popular outrage by rejecting the propositions. This was a notable triumph for Fox. His
artful stance ensured that he achieved a rare victory over Pitt and secured
the approbation of the British commercial interests without offending the
Irish opposition.
V
The revolutionary 1790s heralded a shift in Fox's views on Ireland.
Following the departure of Portland and the more conservative Whig
grandees in 1794, he was able to adopt a more radical stance without concerning himself with party unity. His relationship with Irish patriotism was
also radically altered. As Grattan and moderate parliamentary patriotism
faded into the background, Fox was drawn closer to a group of Irish radicals,
many of them United Irishmen, dominated by his cousin Lord Edward
Fitzgerald and friend Arthur O'Connor. Ireland's parliamentary patriots
had been alienated by Fox's stance on a number of controversial issues.
First, although he saw in the Regency Crisis an opportunity to remodel the
Irish government, suggesting that it might 'be proper to make what we do
there a model of what we intend to do here when we have the power',49it is
clear that he had reservations over the Irish parliament's determination to
take the initiative on this issue. Fox, in marked contrast to his Irish friends,
argued that the prince of Wales had to be regent of Great Britain before he
accepted the Irish regency. He observed: 'The fact is our friends have gone
too fast in Dublin.'5so
The main cause of disaffection, however, was Fox's shift towards radicalism. As the revolution progressed, and France became more bellicose, Irish
opposition M.P.s and peers began to gravitate towards the government
benches. Fox found it difficult to secure the support of some of his closest
Irish allies following his split with Burke. Grattan insisted that he would not
take sides, but other members of the Irish opposition were less equivocal. In
December 1792 Fox was criticised by Edmund Malone, friend of Lord
Charlemont, for his unrestrained support of parliamentary reform."'
Malone claimed that Fox and Lord Lansdowne,'for the comparatively small
object of assailing ministry ... are driven to try what can be done by inflaming the Catholics of Ireland'.52Ponsonby was also'much dissatisfied with Mr
4Ibid.,p. 694 (24 May 1785).
49Foxto [Portland], 12 Feb. 1789 (B.L., Fox papers, Add. MS 47561, f. 108).
5OFoxto Fitzpatrick, 17 Feb. 1789 (ibid., Add. MS 47580, f. 137).
to Charlemont,3 Dec. 1792(H.M.C.,Charlemont,

ii, 204).
51Malone
to Charlemont,14 Dec. 1792(ibid.,p. 207).
52Malone
180
Fox's language'.53 In essence, parliamentary reform and Catholic relief

meant the same thing to the leaders of the Protestant interest: a challenge
to their privileged position.
Fox might also have offended moderate Irish opposition M.P.s, and for
that matter many in the British Commons, through his speech in defence of
Lord Edward Fitzgerald following Fitzgerald's dismissal from the British
army. Fox admitted that there might be good grounds for cashiering his
cousin, but 'they were unknown because they were undeclared'. He continued:
LordEdwardFitzgeraldwashis nearrelationandof himhe wouldsay,fromhis personal knowledge,that the service did not possess a more zealous,meritoriousor
promisingmember;- he had served his countryin actualservice,and bled in its
service.54
According to one commentator, Fox censured 'that Act as unjust and
oppressive, and tending to make officers bad citizens'.55Ties of kinship
prompted Fox to speak on behalf of his cousin on this occasion. But it is
clear that as the Irish Protestant interest united against the radical threat,
Fox's allies in Ireland were diminishing and only the militant radicals continued to sympathise with his views.
After the outbreak of war with France in February 1793 British men of
property united against the threat of political radicalism and revolution.The
Irish Protestant interest in Ireland closed ranks in a similar fashion. But
Catholicism in both countries remained in a somewhat ambiguous position.
The persecution of priests by the French revolutionary government led
many in Britain to feel a greater degree of sympathy towards Catholicism.
This was no doubt reinforced by the fact that in Ireland Presbyterians were
in the vanguard of the republican movement. Therefore many M.P.s and
peers continued to support additional Catholic relief measures. Fox was particularly aware of the restrictions that Irish Catholics continued to labour
under, and he welcomed the Irish relief act of 1793, though he criticised the
Irish administration for giving way only when the threat of war loomed.56
Fox was understandably sympathetic when his friend and former colleague
Lord Fitzwilliam attempted to introduce Catholic emancipation, in defiance
of the instructions issued to him by Pitt and Portland when he was
appointed as viceroy. Fitzwilliam was recalled following the furore over the
question of emancipation and the dismissal of some of the most prominent
members of the Castle government, most notably John Beresford. In the
absence of support from his fellow Portland Whigs, the Foxites rallied to
Fitzwilliam's defence. Fox later claimed that Fitzwilliam's recall was a
turning-point in the history of Ireland:
to LordGrenville,14 Mar.1791(H.M.C.,Fortescue,ii, 40).
53Westmorland
"Quotedin ThomasMoore,Thelife and deathof LordEdwardFitzgerald(2 vols,
London,1832),i, 183-4.
on the Conductof the Minority,particularlyin
Burke?],'Observations
SS[Edmund
the last Session of Parliament,1793' (NottinghamUniversityLibrary,MS 2100,ff
4-5).
"6Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxxiii,144 (23 Mar.1797).

POWELL
181
I calluponanycandidmanto deny,if he is able ... thatthe systemintroducedby that

noble lord would not, if then adopted,have preventedthose dreadfulscenes of
havoc,murderanddevastation,whichhaveever sincedesolatedthatwretchedcountry.57
By 'system', of course, Fox was referring to Catholic emancipation and the

dismissal of Castle office-holders.
In the Commons on 19 May 1795 Fox attacked the British ministry for
their treatment of Fitzwilliam and made clear his own support for Catholic
emancipation. He argued that 'At all times, in all countries, and upon all
occasions, there should be no distinctions in political rights, on account of
religious opinions.'" The blame for Fitzwilliam's recall he placed firmly on
the pernicious influence of 'Mr Beresford and two or three more'.'59
The corruption of the Castle government and Irish politicians, and the need for parliamentary reform, was a subject to which Fox was to return again and again.
He referred to the Protestant aristocracy as 'that miserable monopolising
minority' and advocated the dismissal of selected individuals from the Irish
government. Furthermore, he doubted their ability to cope with serious civil
dissension, as most 'could not bring so many men into the field, as they bring
members into parliament'.? His hostility towards Beresford and the
Protestant office-holders acting on behalf of the Castle may have been influenced by his own lengthy period in opposition in Britain. Unable as he was
to dent the majorities of first North and then Pitt, it was all too easy to
believe in secret influence and administrative corruption, and the information he was provided with by his Irish friends made it seem that the Irish
government was in greater need of reform than its British counterpart.
There is no doubt that Fox was genuinely troubled by disquiet in Ireland,
which had been inflamed by the French Revolution, the rise of the United
Irishmen and sectarian protest movements, and divisions over Catholic
relief. Fox had political and personal motives, most notably his implacable
opposition to the Pitt ministry, kinship with Irish radicals and opposition
members, antipathy towards the Castle government, and support for
Catholic emancipation. On 23 March 1797 he moved that the government
consider the disturbed state of Ireland and 'adopt such healing and lenient
measures . . . best calculated to restore tranquillity'. His speech touched
upon a number of issues: the failure to grant Catholic emancipation, the
frustration shown by northern radicals at the corruption of the Irish parliament and the impact of the war on the northern economy, and the failure of
legislative independence to alter the Castle's dominance of the Irish
Commons.61
Fox was always ready to criticise the Pitt ministry's Irish policy, but, in
fairness, he was not without his own alternative proposals. The war with
57Quoted in E. A. Smith, Whig principles and party politics: Earl Fitzwilliam and
the Whig Party,1748-1833 (Manchester, 1975), p. 263.
'5Cobbett, Parl. hist., xxxi, 1543 (19 May 1795).
p. 1544.
59Ibid.,
6Ibid.,xxxiii,155,170 (23 Mar.1797).
"1Ibid.,
pp 141-2.
182
Americaandthe Irishcrisisof 1782illustratedthatFoxfavouredconcession

as the surestrecipe for peace,and his views on Catholicemancipationand
reformensuredthatthis wouldremainhis favouredsolution
parliamentary
to the Irishproblem:'I wouldthereforeconcede;and if I found I had not
concededenough,I wouldconcedemore.'Echoingthe frustrationof many
Britishpoliticiansbeforeandsince,he added:'Youcan only governIreland
by lettingher haveherownway.'Moregenerously,though,Foxinsistedthat
'I would have the whole Irishgovernmentregulatedby Irishnotions and
Irishprejudices.'He was convincedthat 'The more she is underthe Irish
Thismeanta
governmentthe moreshe willbe boundto Englishinterests.'62
reducedrole for the Britishexecutiveand increasedpower for a reconstituted Irishparliament.Fox was puttingforwarda dual solutionto the crisis
in Irish government,which combinedpoliticalpragmatismwith his own
prejudices.He saw the wayforwardas Catholicemancipationaccompanied
by a greatermeasureof politicalindependence.
VI
As Fox was intimatelyconnectedwith knownIrishradicals,whose lives
were beingdisruptedby the implementationof emergencymeasures,it was
only to be expectedthat he would dwell upon this issue.But at the same
time he was clearlyplayinginto the handsof satiristsand the hostile press.
He referredto 'men of considerableproperty,unimpeachedcharacter,and
undoubtedloyalty'who 'weretakenup underchargesof high treason;and
when acquitted,it appearedthat no groundof suspicioncould ever have
been entertainedagainstthem'.He complainedthat 'a rigourbeyond any
formermeasurehas been employedin disarmingthe people' and asserted
that the 'severityof despotismhas been let loose'.Fox made a tellingcomparisonwith the situationin Americain 1774and sardonicallyquestioned:
'Canyou demonstrateto them by martiallaw that they enjoythe blessings
of a free constitution?'63
As a resultof his unsuccessfulmotionof March1797,Foxwasofferedthe
thanksof the IrishWhigClub.However,he wasroundlycondemnedby the
Castlesupportersin the IrishCommons.PatrickDuigenandenouncedFox's
speech as a false,seditiousand maliciouslibel on the Irishparliamentand
an attemptto arousetreasonand rebellionin the country.64
Fox was unrepentantand called for 'a generalexpression,on the part of the people of
Ireland,of their wish for the removalof ministers,or perhapsof Pitt personally,as firststep to reformof abuses'.He arguedthat withouta change
of ministry'youcannothavereform;norrealindependence'andaddedthat
'I see enoughof the stateof thingshere to be persuadedthatno changewill
take place withouta determinedexpressionof the sense of the people.'65
62Ibid.,
pp153-4.
63Ibid.,
pp146-51.
"Grattan,
Grattan,
iv,277.
65Ibid.,
pp315-16.

POWELL
183
There were, therefore, clear signs that Fox saw Irish grievances in the same
light as British campaigners for parliamentary reform and peace with
France. Of course, in the case of the former issue, his version of parliamentary reform, and indeed his interpretation of 'the people', had a very limited
definition, which was essentially aristocratic. He no doubt envisaged little
change in an Irish governing class that was dominated by his friends and
relations in the Protestant landholding e1ite. Nineteenth-century reformers
were quite justified in suspecting that Fox 'had really belonged less to the
people than to his friends'. As J. R. Dinwiddy has argued, his primary concern was the protection of the people's existing rights rather than any kind
of extension.66
Following this outburst there was a hiatus in Fox's public interventions on
behalf of Ireland. He seceded from parliament in May 1797 and did not
attend the Commons debate on the arrest of Arthur O'Connor. It was left
to Sheridan, Sir Francis Burdett and George Tierney to voice the Foxites'
concerns. However, in February 1798 Fox's involvement in Irish affairs
became more personal when O'Connor was put on trial for treason.
O'Connor was represented by the Foxite lawyer Thomas Erskine and
received support in the courtroom from Fox himself, Sheridan and Charles
Grey.Also in attendance were Samuel Whitbread, Lord John Russell, Lord
Thanet, Lord Oxford, Lord Suffolk and Lord Moira. But it is perhaps
unwise to view the Whiggish supporters of O'Connor as an homogeneous
entity. Fox and Grey seemed to have some concerns about testifying. Grey
stated anxiously: 'Nobody I hope who knows us, can suspect either Fox or
myself, or any of those with whom we are most immediately connected on
public principles, of any design hostile to the country, but the generality will
not distinguish.'67
Fox's own evidence was given under subpoena, not freely offered, and in
his testimony he did not touch upon O'Connor's politics. He was eager to
spend as little time as possible at the trial, and appeared to have no sympathy for his fellow Whigs who wished to stay for the whole duration. Fox was,
then, perhaps only guilty of loyalty to his friends. During the trial he wrote
uneasily to Fitzpatrick:'I earnestly hope ... they have got nothing against
him.'68But in the climate of political and social unrest it was understandable
that his enemies should think otherwise. As L. G. Mitchell has argued,'Fox
was not a radical, but contemporaries had good grounds for suspecting that
he was.'69Members of the Irish government certainly connected Fox with
the United Irishmen. Lord Clare relished the 'reversal to all the Foxs,
Sheridans etc' which would result from the practice of offering United
Irishmen pardons if they would inform on their brother members.70Fox's
andthe people',p. 358.

66Dinwiddy,'Fox
67Quotedin Mitchell,Fox,p. 155.
6Quoted in Stanley Ayling, Fox: the life of Charles James Fox (London, 1991),
p. 199.
Fox,p. 156.
69Mitchell,
70Quoted in Marianne Elliott, Partners in revolution: the United Irishmen and
France(New Haven,1982),p. 209.
184
erstwhile friend Edmund Burke claimed that Fox acted 'in concert with and
on the principles of the Jacobins in England and Ireland'. He added:'I know
that O'Connor lived in very close connexion with him and his friends whilst
he stayed in England; I am far from sure, that Keogh is not at this instant in
the same cabal.'71Satirists,most notably James Gillray,viciously lampooned
Fox's friendship with these 'traitors'.In May 1797 The Times openly accused
Fox of inciting rebellion in Ireland.72
It is difficult to judge the degree of Fox's complicity, but it is very unlikely
that he was guilty of treason. Fox had no sympathy with Irish separatism.
Presumably only ties of friendship and kinship prevented him from informing the authorities. Similarly,Wolfe Tone, at least, had no love of Fox. He
attacked the Irish Whig Club for its close relationship with Fox, as 'nothing
short of an indispensable necessity could warrant the volunteering of an
English attachment'.73The extent to which Fox was aware of the United
Irishmen's intentions is unclear. The late 1790s saw Fox frustrated by parliamentary politics and Pitt's unassailable majority.Yet this did not mean
that he was prepared to subvert parliament or encourage revolution. It is
true that in 1797 O'Connor, Fox, Burdett, Erskine and Lord Wycombe corresponded openly about the aims of the United Irishmen. But in the context
of these letters, the aims were principally directed towards radical reform.74
The leaders of the United Irishmen claimed that this was the extent of
Fox's involvement, and that he was not party to their treasonable activities.
But clearly Fox was no fool, and if the testimony of United Irishman
Edward Lewins is credible, then Fox knew of the contacts with revolutionary France, if not the details. When Fitzgerald admitted that their plans
involved Irish independence, Fox replied:'Good God... do nothing without
being certain.'75Even after the rebellion Fox continued to sympathise and
associate with O'Connor. He protested:'I have not a heart to meet a man in
distress whom I once knew when he was worthy of esteem and not take
notice of him.'76
The outbreak of the rebellion and the involvement of Fitzgerald and
O'Connor did not dissuade Fox from continuing to embroil himself in Irish
affairs.Although technically Fox had seceded from parliament, he made a
number of Commons speeches in 1798 that were harshly critical of Pitt's
repressive Irish policy. He also sought to intercede on behalf of the imprisoned Lord Edward Fitzgerald. But his pleas and the intervention of the
prince of Wales and Richmond were ineffectual, and Fitzgerald died in custody. The Foxite opposition did not raise in the Commons the issue of
71Burketo Fitzwilliam, 20 Nov. 1796 (The correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed.
T.W.Copelandet al. (10 vols,Cambridge,1958-78),ix, 123).

Fox,p. 197.
72Ayling,
73Quoted in R. B. McDowell, Irish public opinion, 1750-1800 (London, 1944),
p. 139.
74Elliott,Partners in revolution, p. 211.
75Quotedibid.,p. 212.
1 Jan.1803(Thecorrespon76ColonelMcMahonto the dukeof Northumberland,
dence of George, prince of Wales, 1770-1812, ed. Arthur Aspinall (8 vols, London,
1963-71),iv,354).Fox wasalso saidto have dinedwith O'Connorin Paris(ibid).

POWELL
185
Fitzgerald's death, but they did attack Pitt on the more general issue of the
rebellion, which they argued had been caused by Pitt's 'tyranny'. Fox later
claimed that no approaches were made by the Irish to France, nor were
there proposals for separation 'until every petition for peaceful redress of
grievances was spurned and rejected'.77He also attacked the brutal tactics
used to stifle the rebellion. On 22 June 1798 Fox introduced a motion calling for an immediate halt to'the system of coercion ...enforced in Ireland,
with a rigour shocking to humanity'. He referred in particular to the
employment of 'scourges and other tortures ... for the purpose of extorting
confession, a practice justly held in abhorrence in every civilised part of the
world'.78His correspondence indicates that he continued to have some sympathy for the captured leaders Oliver Bond, Thomas Addis Emmet and
Arthur O'Connor.79
The Foxites' reaction to the rebellion was not welcomed in the Irish parliament. The British opposition's insinuation that the Irish government had
been to blame for the rebellion made Fox, Moira and Holland distinctly
unpopular. Fox, of course, had been careful to distinguish the Irish government from the parliament. Indeed, he praised the post-1782 Irish parliament, arguing that its pacification of the country had not been completely
successful because its benign influence was being 'counteracted by the influence of the executive government and of the British cabinet'80
Yet popular opinion did not differentiate between attacks on Pitt's
repression and sympathy for the United Irishmen. British politicians - perhaps justifiably - jumped to similar conclusions. Edward Cooke argued for
clemency for the leaders of the United Irishmen, on the grounds that,
when all the CapitalTraitors,Emmet,O'Connor,MacNevin[sic]etc. were to come
forward,confess themselvesconspiratorsand traitorsand engagedfor above two
yearsin a correspondencewithFrance.Whatan overthrowwouldsucha confession
be to all the Lord Moiras,Mr Foxes,Duke of Bedfords,JudgeBullers,Maidstone
Juriesetc.81
In fairness, Fox was more interested in justice than Irish radicalism.At the
same time, the rebellion pushed him closer to Grattan and the moderate
Irish Whigs.He gave a speech in the Whig Club in late 1798 in which he compared himself to Grattan and proposed a toast to 'Henry Grattan, and the
friends of liberty and moderation in Ireland'.82But perhaps his best defence
at this point was his disinterest. Fox had not flung himself fully into the
debate. Apart from his appearance as a witness for O'Connor, and his isolated Commons speeches, he was content to remain on the sidelines. In spite
of the critical situation in Ireland, he was unwilling to abandon his commit77Quotedin Smith, Whig principles, p. 263.
78Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxxiii,1516(22 June1798).
79Foxto Denis O'Bryen,2 Sept.1798(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS47566,f.21);Fox
to O'Bryen,Sept.1798(ibid.,f.22).
80The speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox in the House of
Commons(London,1848),p. 634 (23 Mar.1797).

81Cooketo Pelham,9 Aug. 1798(B.L.,Pelhampapers,Add. MS 33106,f. 48).
82Grattan,
Grattan,iv,428.
186
ment to stayingawayfromparliament.He told Grey that allowingIreland

to be an 'exceptionwill furnishan argumentfor attendanceupon some
other question, and thus the whole plan of my secession completely
destroyed'.83
VII
As hasbeen noted,Foxwasa proponentof Catholicemancipation,but he
had no real conceptof the antagonismbetweenthe religiouscommunities
of Ireland.In 1797he claimedthat there were 'no inconsistentpretensions,
no clashinginterests'betweenCatholicsand northerndissentingradicals."
Thusthe savageryof 1798cameas somethingas a shock.But even afterthe
violenceof 1798he continuedto believethatthe 1782settlementcreatedby
his administration
was the wayforward,ratherthana union.Foxvigorously
opposedthe unionbetweenBritainand Ireland,althoughin previousyears
he had seemed less sureof his mind.Duringhis assaulton Pitt'stradeproposals in 1785 he 'mentionedthe circumstanceof an union as extremely
desirable,but whatcouldscarcelybe obtained,andwas thrownat a greater
distance than ever by the provisionsof this arrangement'.85
In 1798 he
observed:'I do not know whether one ought to be glad or sorry at the
scheme of union with Irelandbeing dropped;and yet one mightperhaps
suppose that whateverFoster [Speakerof the Irish Commons]opposed
musthave some good in it.'"
Althoughrumourscontinuedto circulate,Fox'soccasionalflirtationwith
the notionwas not repeatedin 1800-1,andin a speechin the WhigClubon
6 May 1800he deniedthat'he was ratherfriendlythan adverseto the measure'." Fox also vigorouslydisassociatedthe currentplans from earlier
schemesput forwardduringthe Rockinghamministry.He arguedthateven
if 'theministersandlordlieutenantof thatdayhadactuallygiventheiropinion of the necessityof a unionof legislatures',thiswas irrelevant,as nothing
had been proposedsincethen.Therefore'whatwas actuallyratifiedin 1782
and 1783mustbe consideredas a finalsettlement'.He describedthe union
as 'the mostmonstrouspropositionthateverwasmade',andbecauseof the
government'sfailure to canvass the opinions of the people on this
subject,'oneof the mostunequivocalattemptsat establishingthe principles,
as well as the practice,of despotism,that has been made in our times'.88
The tactics utilised to secure parliamentaryapprovalfor the union it is clear that the governmentdid bend the law to secure extra fundsfor
the purchasingof votes, compensatingborough M.P.s and rewarding
to CharlesGrey,1800(B.L.,Foxpapers,
Add.MS47565, 23).
83Fox
Part hist.,xxxiii,152(23 Mar.1797).
84Cobbett,
aIbid.,xxv,660 (19 May1785).
86Foxto Fitzpatrick,'1798'(Foxcorr.,iii, 281).
Grattan,v, 196.
"87Grattan,
8Foxto LordHolland,18Feb.1799(Foxcorr.,iii, 154);Foxto Holland,19Jan.

1799(ibid.,p.150);Foxto Grattan,
4 Feb.1799(Grattan,
Grattan,
iv,435).

POWELL
187
- gaveFoxan additionalreasonto dislikethe measure.His oppoloyalists89

sitionto corruptionin the Castlegovernmentultimatelycombinedwithhis
concernfor the libertyof the individualto persuadehimto standagainstthe
union,but it was to no availand the Act of Unionwas passed.
Betweenthe passageof the Act of Union andhis deathFox continuedto
interesthimselfin Irishaffairs.His concernfor Irelandduringthis period
focused on three particularissues:the treatmentof those involvedin the
rebellion,the structureof Irish government,and Catholicemancipation.
Fox was a vigorous campaignerfor clemency for the Irish rebels. In
February1800he indicatedhis reluctanceto commithimselfto measures
designedto counteractthe threatof invasionon the groundsthat it might
enable'the ministryto send more murderersto Ireland'.90
In Marchof the
followingyear Fox urged the governmentto 'changeyour systemtowards
thatcountry... Let impartiality,
justiceandclemency,takethe placeof prejudice,oppression,and vengeance,and you will not want the aid of martial
He wasmoreconvincedthanever
law,or the terrorof militaryexecution.'91
that the way forwardlay throughconciliationand concessionratherthan
repression.However,Fox'sreturnto governmentas partof the Talentsministry tempered his sympathy for former Irish radicals.When Arthur
O'Connor sent word that he had formulateda scheme to overthrow
Napoleon and thereby bringa faction to power in Francethat would be
more amenableto peace,Fox did not receiveO'Connor'semissarywarmly.
He was clearlyembarrassedby his past associations,and the fact that his
governmenthadalreadyopenednegotiationswithFrancedidnot makethis
plan anymore attractive."
The continuanceof martiallaw in Irelandimpressedon Fox the urgency
of a changein Irishgovernment.He arguedthat 'Theremust be a fundamentalchangein the systemof governingIreland,to give even a chanceof
futurequiet there.'93
On 6 January1804he observedto Grey that the fact
that Irelandis 'in sucha state as to call for martiallaw andso repeatedly,is
of itselfgroundfor consideringat leastthe systemby whichit is governed'.94
Thiswasnot the firsttimeFoxhadponderedthe possibilityof reformingthe
systemof governingIrelandsince the union.In August1803he had raised
the possibilitythat the princeof Walesshouldtake personalresponsibility
for the governmentof Ireland.He commentedto the prince:'Iunderstand
thatif it were necessaryyou wouldyourselfcondescendto take the government of it, and I am convincedthatyourdoingso wouldaffordfarthe best
chance of any good being done there.'95However,the prince's'personal
governmentof Ireland'was not somethingto be implementedimmediately,
89DavidWilkinson,'"How did they pass the union?"Secretserviceexpenditure
in Ireland,1799-1804'in History,lxxxii(1997),223-51.
90Foxto Grey,[1 Feb.1800](B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS47565,f. 3).
9tQuotedin Smith,Whigprinciples,p. 264.
92Elliott,Partners in revolution, pp 348-9.
93Foxto Grey, 8 Aug. 1803 (B.L., Fox papers, Add. MS 47565, f. 90).
"Fox to Grey, 6 Jan. 1804 (ibid., f. 108).
95Foxto the prince of Wales, 18 Aug. 1803 (Prince of Wales corr., iv, 405).
188
as 'a motion for that purpose in parliamentmight be objectionable',

althoughFox acknowledgedthat progresscould be made by 'proposing
measureswhichmightbe knownto makea partof yourroyalhighness'ssystem'.96It is also possiblethatFox was humouringthe prince,as he hadbeen
distancedfromhim andhis new favourite,Sheridan,since the 1790s.
Fox remainedconvincedthatat the root of the Irishproblemlay the failure to grantCatholicemancipation.Indeed,his plansfor the futureof Irish
governmentand his desireto see Catholicemancipationwere indivisible.
Catholicemancipationand solvingthe Irishproblembecamea centralunifyingpolicyin his alliancein oppositionwiththe Grenvilles.Foxfelt thatthe
king'spersonalantipathyto emancipationcouldnot be directlychallenged,
but that insteadan effort shouldbe made to create a partyin Britainseen
as sympathetictowardsIreland.In October1803Fox observedto Greythat
'Theappearanceof anythinglike a strongpartyin favourof the Irishmight
be very useful in regainingthe affectionsof some, and retainingthose of
othersto this country.'"He suggestedthat Grattanmightbe a suitablecandidateas its leader.98
These sentimentswere obviouslya starting-point,
but
theydid not providea planor indeeda basisfor action,andFox andhis supportersweredividedoverwhetherthe thornyquestionof Irelandshouldbe
raisedonce againin the BritishCommons.Sheridan,it seems,vehemently
opposedraisinga questionthatwouldembarrasshimself.Accordingto Fox,
Sheridansaid 'that we shall exasperatethe Orangistsby the attempt,and
drivethe Catholicsto despairby the failureof it'."9Fox andFitzwilliamwere
moreoptimistic,hoping'thatby showingthe Catholicsthattherearemen of
name at least in this countrywho espouse theircause,we shall teach them
to look to other quartersthanBonapartefor redress'.""
They also had the
supportof RichardFitzpatrickand SamuelWhitbread.However,the most
prominentIrishFoxites,Grattanand Ponsonby,eventuallyadvisednot to
bringon the Catholicquestion.Fox, however,was not discouraged,as his
Grenvilliteallies were happyto let him take the lead on Irish issues.In
March1804 he presenteda Catholicpetition,and in May he put forward,
a motionfor Catholicrelief
unsuccessfully,
The Talents ministry saw Fox enter government with Grenville.
Parliamentaryreform still stood between them, but Fox had on several
occasions- not least as regardsIreland- been lukewarmin its support.
His attitudeto the union mighthave been problematic,as when speaking
privatelywith friendsit seems that Fox indicatedhis willingnessto support
the repealof the act.'0'However,as in 1782and 1783-4,his commitmentto
96Ibid.
97Foxto Grey,19 Oct. 1803(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47565, 97).

"Grattan,Grattan,v,252.
9Fox to Grey,27 Nov.1803(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47565,f. 102).
100Ibid.
"101On
18February
1806Foxhadto denyin theCommons
thatit washisintention
to undo the union.The suspicionsof M.P.shad been raised by commentshe had

made during a debate on honoursto be given to the late Lord Cornwallis.See
Hansard 1, vi, 173-4.
POWELL-
189
reform dipped sharply once he had gained access to government. As L. G.

Mitchell has observed,'Whenever parliamentary reform was in question, or
whenever there was a suggestion that the constitutional relationship
between England and Ireland might be amended, Fox's response was so
hedged about with equivocation that contemporary reformers were
inclined to give him up.'102
Although the ministry held no cabinet meeting on Irish affairs, Fox was
able to secure minor changes in Irish government. He ensured that the duke
of Bedford was appointed as viceroy, and that a number of Foxites, including the pro-Catholic Newport and Elliot, were included in the Irish administration. At the same time habeas corpus was restored and a Catholic was
appointed to the revenue board, which had a number of sinecures abolished
as part of a wider series of reforms. Yet this did not prevent the ministry
from being attacked by Grattan over its decision to appoint George Tierney
as chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland. More seriously, the Talents ministry failed to address the Catholic question. Fox actively dissuaded Irish
reformers from holding meetings and bringing forward petitions on the
Catholic issue. However, he can be admired for his consistent advocacy of
Catholic emancipation, even in the absence of any more solid achievement.
VIII
At first glance, Fox's attitude towards Ireland throughout the course of
his political career seems to have been governed by a combination of cynical opportunism and naive idealism. L. G. Mitchell does not stray far from
this view, arguing that 'on the great issues of the constitutional relationship
between England and Ireland and the cause of parliamentary reform, it is
hard to see any real depth of concern. They were problems which could easily be subordinated to other worries, and which never engaged Fox's deep
sympathy.'He adds:'If Fox is to be hailed as a liberal, there were many areas
where this liberalism was barely visible.'"3Yet though this is true, it is also
rather unfair. Fox's behaviour towards Ireland, while not always consistent,
had a degree of logical predictability about it. He had a number of fixed
views, and only his ambition persuaded him to divert from them. His primary concern was for British parliamentary sovereignty and the strength of
the hub of the empire; thus he was not particularly sympathetic to Irish free
trade or legislative independence. Indeed, he marked as a minor triumph
the constitution of 1782, which at the time he had only reluctantly accepted,
and he fought to keep it both undiluted and unexpanded.
Fox's fears for the future of the balanced constitution were also influential. In his view, the encroachment by the crown on the powers of the British
parliament was mirrored in the Irish context. It was George III, of course,
who was blocking Catholic emancipation, which in Fox's eyes was the solution to Ireland's problems. At the same time, Fox's attitude to the Irish
102Mitchell,Fox, p. 242.
103Ibid.,p. 250.
190
administrationwas governedby many of the same feelings,that underpinnedhis suspicionof GeorgeIII and the double-cabinetthat supposedly
consisted of CharlesJenkinson,John Robinson and Lord Mansfield.In
otherwords,he blamedthe Castlefor the apparenterosionof the independent power of parliament.Indeed,it is surelynot a coincidencethat Fox's
betenoire of Irishpolitics,JohnBeresford,was a regularcorrespondentof
Jenkinsonand Robinson.Justas the removalof the double-cabinetwas a
cure-allfor the Rockinghams,
so Fox saw the malignancyat the heartof the
Castleas the explanationfor the failureof Catholicemancipationand parliamentaryreform,the cause of publicdisaffection,and ultimatelythe key
factorin explainingthe rebellionof 1798.
Consistency,even a kind of linear development,was not absent from
Fox's thinkingon Ireland.The FrenchRevolution,a momentousevent in
Fox'spoliticallife, did not so muchmarka shift in his views as a shrinking
of the numberof his obviouspoliticalallies.In Irelandtherewerefew membeis of the Protestantinterestwho were willingto associatewithhim as the
leader of a minorityoppositionpartythat backed Catholicemancipation.
Thushe becameincreasinglyconnectedwithIrishradicalsandrepublicans.
His almost unswervingcommitmentto Catholicrelief - so offensive to
manyProtestants,particularlyafter 1798 - was one of the few elementsof
Fox'sIrishthinkingthat was unaffectedby his ambitionand opportunism.
His suspicionof the arbitrarypowerof the stateandhis loyaltyto hisfriends
andrelativescan be includedin the samecategory,leadinghimto take a far
more sympatheticview of the rebelsof 1798thandid manyof his allies.
Alexander Haliday,a representativeof the Irish patriot leader Lord
Charlemontin Belfast,assertedthat 'An EnglishWhigis only a Whigfor
England,but a Torywithrespectto all her dependencysand connections.'104
However,the rathermore complexpicturepresentedhere indicatesthat
Fox was, strictly speaking,neither a Whig for England nor a Whig for
Ireland.In facthe took a muchbroaderview.He was a Whigforparliament
and for the libertyof the individual.More important,he was a Whig for
empire,and as such his policies were dominatedby concernboth for the
superintendingpowerof the metropolisandfor the welfareof its colonies.
MARTYNJ. POWELL
Departmentof HistoryandWelshHistory,Universityof Wales,Aberystwyth
in Kelly,Preludeto union,p. 162.

104Quoted

Charles James Fox and Ireland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles James Fox and Ireland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles James Fox and Ireland

Author(s): Martyn J. Powell

Irish Historical Studies, xxxiii, no. 130 (Nov. 2002)

Charles JamesFox and Ireland

1Grattanto Fitzpatrick,5 Jan. 1783 (B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47582,f. 149);

1839-46),ii, 362);J.R. Dinwiddy,'CharlesJamesFox andthe people' in History,lv

Hobhouse,Fox (London,1934),p. 301;John Derry,CharlesJames

the marriageof EmilyLennox,daughterof the duke of Richmond,to Lord

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

1066 to . . . 1803 (36

vols,London,1806-20),xx, 1284(13 Dec. 1779).

they had developed into a political movement dominated by a patriot

Charles James Fox and Ireland

tiate resulted in a settlement that did not address external legislation,

Shelburneministry,whichsaw him returnto the securityof the opposition

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

29Quotedin A. P.W. Malcomson, John Foster:the politics of the Anglo-Irish ascen-

Sheridan,ed. CecilPrice(3 vols,Oxford,1966),i, 158).

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

discomfort for the ministry.This was to be 'his harvest from Ireland'.35He

to duke [of Rutland],31 May 1784(H.M.C.,Rutland,iii, 99).

tion be governed by Britain'.41According to Daniel Pulteney, an opponent,

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

to Charlemont,3 Dec. 1792(H.M.C.,Charlemont,

Fox's language'.53 In essence, parliamentary reform and Catholic relief

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

I calluponanycandidmanto deny,if he is able ... thatthe systemintroducedby that

By 'system', of course, Fox was referring to Catholic emancipation and the

Americaandthe Irishcrisisof 1782illustratedthatFoxfavouredconcession

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

andthe people',p. 358.

70Quoted in Marianne Elliott, Partners in revolution: the United Irishmen and

France(New Haven,1982),p. 209.

T.W.Copelandet al. (10 vols,Cambridge,1958-78),ix, 123).

73Quoted in R. B. McDowell, Irish public opinion, 1750-1800 (London, 1944),

1963-71),iv,354).Fox wasalso saidto have dinedwith O'Connorin Paris(ibid).

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

Commons(London,1848),p. 634 (23 Mar.1797).

ment to stayingawayfromparliament.He told Grey that allowingIreland

8Foxto LordHolland,18Feb.1799(Foxcorr.,iii, 154);Foxto Holland,19Jan.

- CharlesJames Fox and Ireland

- gaveFoxan additionalreasonto dislikethe measure.His oppoloyalists89

as 'a motion for that purpose in parliamentmight be objectionable',

97Foxto Grey,19 Oct. 1803(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47565, 97).

to undo the union.The suspicionsof M.P.shad been raised by commentshe had

Charles James Fox and Ireland

reform dipped sharply once he had gained access to government. As L. G.

Departmentof HistoryandWelshHistory,Universityof Wales,Aberystwyth

in Kelly,Preludeto union,p. 162.

You might also like