No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
The Irish act of 21 George III, cap. 10, and more particularly its eighth clause, derived its nickname from the borough of Newtown, now Newtownards, Co. Down, which was then and for a decade thereafter in dispute between the families of Ponsonby and Stewart. According to the wording of its preamble, the eighth clause was designed merely ‘ … for the more effectual quieting of corporations and securing the rights of persons who have been or shall be elected into the offices of aldermen and burgesses’; yet historians have attributed to it purposes more sinister and consequences more dire than this innocent, conservative wording would ever suggest. (The wording of preambles and titles should not of course always be taken at face value: it was after all an act ‘ … for the further regulating the election of members of parliament and preventing the irregular proceedings of sheriffs and other officers in electing and returning such members’ which in 1728 provided for the automatic disfranchisement of all Roman Catholics.) The preamble to the eighth clause of the Newtown act goes on to state that, owing to a dearth of protestant inhabitants of appropriate standing, many corporations have been forced, in violation of their charters, to elect as burgesses and other officers persons who are not resident within their precincts; and the clause purports only to be giving legal authority to an existing situation, by ‘quieting’ such persons in the possession of their offices. Historians, on the other hand, have seen the dispensing with the residence qualification as a pernicious innovation, not as a legalisation of the status quo. Accordingly they have blamed the Newtown act for strengthening the hands of borough patrons and curtailing still further the independence of the corporations, and all this merely to gratify the particular local ambitions of one over-powerful family, the Ponsonbys, at the expense of their rivals, the Stewarts.
l I Geo. III. c. 9, sect. 8; Simms, J.G., ‘Irish catholics and the parliamentary franchise, 1692–1728’ in I.H.S., 12 (1960–1), pp 28–37 Google Scholar
2 H.M.C., Charlemont papers, i, 111.
3 Ibid., p. 5.
4 Hyde, H. Montgomery, The rise of Castlereagh (London, 1933), pp 9–15.Google Scholar
5 Lord Limerick ’to Hon. Robert Jocelyn, 3 Nov. 1754 (Foster/Massereene papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.562/1792).
6 Stewart to Bruce, 4 July 1754 (Bruce papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2673), Belfast Newsletter, 29 June and 5 Oct. 1756; Stewart to Hamilton McClure, 18 Mar 1756 (Londonderry papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.654/G.1/4).
7 Bernard Ward to Judge Ward, 10 Nov. 1744 (Castle Ward papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2092/1/6/94).
8 William Macartney to his son. Arthur, [1745–7] (Ellison-Macartney papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2873/1).
9 Ibid.
10 Legal notes by Anthony Foster on a case, probably concerning Colvill’s will, c. June 1749 (Foster/Massereene papers, P.R.O.N.I.. D.562/1681).
11 Ibid.; Dickson, J.M., ‘The Golville [sic] family in Ulster’ in U.J.A., 6 (1899), pp 144–5Google Scholar; and anon., ‘The Colvill family’ in U J.A., vi (1900), pp 14–15; William to Arthur Macartney, [1745–7] (Ellison-Macartney papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2873/1), indenture between Bessbo rough and Stewart to secure £18,581 advanced by the former to Colvill, 18 Oct. 1744 (Londonderry papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.654/E.1 /7).
12 William to Arthur Macartney, [1745–7] (Ellison-Macartney papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2873/1).
13 Deed of sale of the manor of Mount Alexander from Colvill to Stewart, 9 July 1744 (Londonderry papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.654/C.1/1 M.A.); Hyde, , Castlereagh, pp 9–15.Google Scholar
14 Nathaniel Nisbitt to Lord Abercorn, 3 Oct. 1755 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2541/I.A.1/3/108).
15 McCracken, J.L., ‘The struggle between the Irish administration and parliament, 1753–6’ in I.H.S., 3 (1942–3), pp 159–79.Google Scholar
16 Letter from a . prime sergeant to a high priest [Stone] (Dublin, 1754), p. 5. Bessborough was soon to part company with Speaker Boyle, but at the time of the passing of the Newtown act his hand was greatly strengthened by the fact that they were still in uneasy alliance.
17 Primate Stone to Lord George Sackville, 18 Jan. 1747/8 (Sackville papers, Kent Archives Office, photocopy in P.R.O.N.I., ref. T.2760/6).
18 It is not immediately clear how many boroughs were in fact within the scope of the Newtown act. The preamble to clause eight refers only to ‘corporate towns and boroughs, not being cities’, but this may be taken as excluding all eight of the county boroughs, even though they are not specifically excluded. Six of them, being cities, would be excluded in any case ‘two—Galway and Drogheda—would not. However, a legal case paper .in a dispute over Galway in 1774 (Shannon papers, P.R.O.N.I, D.2707, temporary bundle 55) shows that Galway lay outside the operation of the act, and so presumably did Drogheda. Besides the six county boroughs which were cities, there were six ordinary boroughs with pretensions to that status : Armagh, Cashel, Clogher, Londonderry, Old Leighlin and St Canice. None but Londonderry lived up to it in terms of size, and only Londonderry and Cashel are so described in the Commons’ journals, Clogher being unhelpfully described as a ‘city or borough’. All the same, the whole six must be deemed cities according to Blackstone’s definition of a city as ‘a town incorporated which is or hath been the seat of a bishop’ (Mun. corp. Ire., rep., app. I, p. 671). Confusingly, Clogher later in the century became a manor borough, making seven such boroughs in all; but as they, in common with the twelve potwalloping boroughs, were unincorporated, they lay outside the terms of the act. This leaves 85 within its terms. Of these, 52 were corporation boroughs, where only the burgesses enjoyed the parliamentary7 franchise, and 33 were freemen boroughs, where the freemen too enjoyed it. The act was of course more immediately and directly relevant to the former than the latter. Yet, since in the great majority of freemen boroughs the burgesses had by a variety of devices obtained control over elections to the freedom, the act was almost as effective there as in the corporation boroughs.
19 Commons’ jn., Ire. (1796–1800), iv, 565.
20 21 Geo. II, c. 10, sect. 8. The italics are mine.
21 Brief for defendants in the king ν John Ponsonby and others, to be heard in the British H.L., 21 Feb. 1758 (Londonderry papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.654/G.1/8).
22 Nelson to Abercorn, ι Nov- 1755 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2541/I.A.1/3/108).
23 Commons’ jn. Ire., iv, pp 533, 535, 546 and 559.
24 Bessborough to Dorset, 29 Mar. 1748 (Sackville papers, Κ.ΑΧ).. photocopy in P.R.O.N.I., ref. T.2670/7).
25 Brief for defendants in the king ν Ponsonby etc., pre-21 Feb. 1758 (Londonderry papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.654/G.1 /8), rough notes by Godfrey Lill on the same, probably when it was heard before the British K.B. in 1755 (Foster/Massereene papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.562/1097).
26 Nelson to Abercorn, 16 Dec. 1755 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2541/I.A.1/3/119).
27 Of Dorset.
28 Lord Newport.
29 Of the king’s bench and common pleas, Thomas Marlay and Henry Singleton respectively. Chief Justice Marlay’s opposition to the Newtown bill has no bearing on the decision of the Irish king’s bench in the case over Newtown a rds in 1755, as Ma ria ν retired in 1751.
30 Of the exchequer, John Bowes.
31 Lord Hardwicke.
32 Lord Harrington.
33 Stone to Sackville, 18 Jan. 1747/8 (Sackville papers, K.A.O.; photocopy in P.R.O.N.I., ref. T.2670/6). Stone’s arguments are reiterated, and the facts stated in his letter confirmed, in a roughly contemporary memorandum drawn up apparently for the enlightenment of the British privy council and preserved among the papers of Sir Robert Wilmot, ist ht, secretary in the Irish office in London (Catton Hall collection, Derby Borough Library).
34 Legal notes by Anthony Foster on the case of the borough of Fethard, c. late 1740s/early 1750s (Foster/Massereene papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.562/918).
35 I am indebted for this information to Miss Géraldine Hume. The trouble with the Commons’ journals of this period is that they are often unspecific about the causes of complaint in election petitions, and refer unhelpfully to ‘persons unqualified to vote’ etc. Besides, it could be argued from the silence of the; Commons’ journals on the subject that there were no non-resident burgesses during the period.
36 Newtownards corporation book for the period 1741–75 (B.M., Add. MSS 19,997).
37 William to Arthur Macartney, [1745–7] (Ellison-Macartney papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2873/1).
38 Other boroughs which I have in mind are Charleviile (Co. Cork), Dunleer (Co. Louth), Lifford (Co. Donegal), Naas (Co. Kilclare), Port-arlington (Queen’s Co.) and Strabane (Co. Tyrone). The case of Lifford is particularly striking. In 1728 one of the joint patrons of the borough, Col. Alexander Montgomery, wrote to the other, Abraham Creichton : ‘I can by no means think Mr William Creichton a proper burgess for Lifford …, for his distant situation from the place . will render him entirely useless. You know there has been great want of members [i.e. burgesses] near the place to discharge the necessary trust annexed to the borough, and therefore I think some person should be chose who resides near the place and can attend upon occasions’ (Montgomery to Creichton, 6 June 1728, Erne papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.1939/21/3).
39 Lord Midleton to bp of Clonfert, 13 July 1795 (Midleton papers, N.L.L, MS 88915); Thomas Knox to Lord Abercorn, 28 April 1790 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I.s, T.2541 / I.B.1/1/8).
40 First of the ‘new rules’ promulgated on 16 Sept. 1672 (25 Chas. II) under 17 & 18 Chas. II, c. 2, 2 Anne, c. 6, sect. 16.
41 In the case of the decayed cities of Clogher, Old Leighlin and St Canice there must have been a dearth of suitable lay churchmen; however, since the patrons of these three boroughs were the local bishops, they would have been able to fill the corporation with the cathedral clergy. This in fact was the practice in Clogher even at the end of the century.
42 Malcomson, A.P.W., ‘The Foster family and the parliamentary borough of Dunleer, 1683–1800’ in Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., 17, no. 3 (1971), p. 158.Google Scholar In Naas, Co. Kildare, another borough with complicated boundaries, a bye-law enjoining that half of the burgesses were to be resident was followed by another providing for a five-yearly ‘riding’ (or tracing) of the ‘franchises’ (or boundaries)—entry of 24 Aug. 1721 in the Naas corporation hook, T.C.D.
43 In manor boroughs the franchise lay in the forty-shilling freeholders of the manor, provided they either resided on their freeholds or farmed them; in potwalloping boroughs it lay in the inhabitant householders, until 1795 without regard to the annual value of their property
44 Commons’ jn. Ire., ii, 962; Jer. Coghlan to Henry Boyle, 6 Oct. 1727 (Shannon papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2707, temporary bundle 2); minutes of the evidence heard before the committee on a Lismore election petition, Feb. 1791 (B.M., Egerton MSS 264); substance of the evidence of Adam Kennedy re a Clogher election petition, Apr. 1800 (S.P.O., Official Papers, 515/85/5).
45 David Ker to Richard G. Ker, 6 Nov. 1791 (Ker papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2651/2/57). A Naas bye-law of 8 Jan. 1716 sought to strike a balance by laying it down that half of the burgesses should be residents and the other half ‘gentlemen of fortune in the county’ (Naas corporation book, T.C.D.).
46 Quoted in McCracken, J.L., ‘Central and local administration in Ireland under George II’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast, 1948), pp 81–2.Google Scholar
47 See Malcomson, , ‘The struggle for control of Dundalk borough, 1782–92’ in Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., 17, no. 1 (1969), p. 34.Google Scholar
48 Conolly McCausland to Conolly, 10 June 1781 (Conolly papers, T.C.D, /731).
49 The Newtownlimavady and Lifford corporation books are to be found in the Trelawney-Ross and Erne papers, R.R.O.N.I., ref. D.663/2–5 and D.1939/18/6/9 respectively.
50 Adderley to Charlemont, 12 Mar. 1750, printed in H.M.C. Charlemont, i, 181.
51 Sir Annesley Stewart to Charlemont, 10 Apr. 1790 (Gharlemont papers, R.I.A., 2nd ser., vii, 13).
52 Abercorn to Thomas Knox, 17 Apr. 1790 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2541/LK./11, p. 25), Lord Midleton to bp of Clonfert, 13 July 1795 (Midleton papers N.L.L, MS 889/15).
53 Richard Purcell to Lord Orrery, 24 June 1740 (Orrery papers, N.L.L, Mic. p. 789, vii, p. 23). I am indebted to Mr David Dickson for drawing my attention to these and other papers used in this article.
54 Same to same, 27 June 1740 (ibid., p. 24).
55 Barrymore to [Judge Ward?], 10 Jan. 1737/8? (Castle Ward papers, PJR.O.N.I., D.2092/1/4/149 B).
56 James Shiel to Aldborough, 29 Oct. 1777 (Stratford papers, N.L.I).
57 This expressive phrase was coined by Hugh Dickson, M.P for Cork city 1727–38, in a letter to Henry Boyle, 17 July 1728 (Shannon papers, N.L.I, MS 13,296/14).
58 Godwin Swift, a decayed gentleman and a burgess of Inistiogue. Co. Kilkenny, is a good illustration of this; though originally introduced into the borough by the Deane family he felt that recently he had been slighted by them and transferred his allegiance, at a price, to their rival, Sir William Fownes. Most of N.L.I, MS 3,889 (Tighe papers), is taken up with Fownes’s difficulties with Swift and the Swift family, 1756–68. It is an excellent object-lesson in borough management.
59 For instance, the disputants for the patronage of Dunleer, the Tenison and Foster families, both held a sizeable area of land within the borough, as did the Beresford and Jackson families, Lord Antrim, the Irish Society and other disputants in the borough of Coleraine.
60 The Abercorn papers in P.R.O.N.I. abound in letters about Strabane; for present purposes, one will suffice: James Hamilton to Abercorn, 7 Aug. 1764 (T.2541 /I.A.1/6C/47).
61 The case of Youghall is complicated. The lords of the soil were the earls of Burlington and, after 1753, the dukes of Devonshire, for whom successively the Boyles, earls of Shannon, managed the corporation, in the end (although they denied this) taking advantage of their position as the men on the spot to gain control of the borough in their own right. After prolonged litigation in the period 1816–22 they were ousted by the Devonshires. These seem to be the facts, but confirmation must come from the papers recently deposited by the present Lord Shannon in P.R.O.N.I.
62 Young, M.F., ‘The La Touche family of Harristown’ in Kildare Arch. Soc. Jn., 7 (1912–14), pp 37–40.Google Scholar
63 Porritt, E., The unreformed house of commons (London, 1903), 2, 305.Google Scholar
64 Rental of lands in the town and manor of Clonakilty, 1737 (Shannon papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2707, temporary bundle 9); Jonathan Burward to Boyle, 15 and 23 Dec. 1738 (Shannon papers, N.L.I, MS 13,297/44 and 5).
65 Thomas Knox to Abercorn, 7, 21 and 28 Apr., and 15 May 1790 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2541/I.B.1/6, 8, 9 and 11). Those who trot out the cliché that borough patronage was bought and sold ‘with impunity’ would do well to read these letters and consider the precautions which Abercorn and Knox, his political manager, took to prevent their names being mentioned in the transaction.
66 Mrs Tighe to William Tighe, 8 Feb. 1790 (Tighe papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2685/1/16). If the £3,000 related to one seat only, it was a generous price; if to both, it was niggardly- Those with a taste for irony will note that Mrs Tighe was, maternally, a Ponsonby Another patron with conscientious objections to selling seats was the not-normally-so-squeamish 2nd earl of Mornington, who ‘ . could not reconcile such a transaction to my notions of propriety, and therefore, however convenient the scheme might have proved [financially], I rejected it as being incorrect in principle’ (Mornington to General John Pomeroy, 13 Jan. 1790; Pomeroy papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2954/5/22). For an interesting discussion of the niceties of convention regarding the sale of seats, see Dean Graves to Lord Glandore, 1 Mar 1787 (Talbot-Grosbie papers, N.L.I).
67 Before the Ponsonbys swapped the borough patronage of Newtown-ards for that of Banagher, King’s Co., in 1788, the other party had fortified himself with a legal opinion on their title (opinion of John Toler, 2 Mar. 1787; Caledon papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2433/28); however, this was probably in consequence of the exceptionally long and important case history which surrounded Newtownards.
68 Thomas Knox to Lord Abercorn, 10 June 1790 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2541/I.B.1/2/21).
69 Rental of lands in the town and manor of Clonakilty, 1737 (Shannon papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.2707, temporary bundle 9). I am not competent to say to what extent the comparison is rendered unfair by the inflation which took place over the intervening period.
70 See note 47.
71 William Burton to Conolly, 12 Nov 1765 (Conolly papers in the possession of the Hon. Desmond Guinness, Leixlip Castle, Co. Kildare), Conyngham to Conolly, 6 Feb. 1764, W Burton to same, 30 June 1771 (Conolly papers, T.C.D., /163 and /359). The history of Newtown-limavady is a confused one, so much so that neither Conolly nor Conyngham was clear about their respective rights in the corporation and estate under Speaker Conolly’s will. In my ‘ Election politics in the borough of Antrim, 1750–1800’ in I.H.S., xvii, no. 65 (1970), p. 56, I assumed erroneously that Conyngham had not been in possession of the estate as well as the borough in the period 1729–81. In the same article (pp 55–6) I fell into most of the standard errors in my interpretation of the Newtown act.
72 Mrs McTier to Dr William Drennan, post-March 1787 (Drennan papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.591/237).
73 The journal of the Rev. John Wesley (London, 1827), ii, 484.
74 Garrick is said to have been sold to the Rt Hon. Nathaniel Clements by ‘the late General St George’. If this is correct, the sale must have taken place prior to 1755, when General St George died; however, since his illegitimate son unsuccessfully contested the by-election for Garrick occasioned by his death, the General is unlikely to have been the seller. In any case, the borough appears to have belonged to another branch of the St George family, who continued to represent it into the 1760s. The member elected at a by-election in 1763 is a known connection of the Clements family, so it is probable that the sale had taken place by then. See SirBurke, Bernard, Dormant, abeyant, forfeited and extinct peerages (London, 1883), p. 465 Google Scholar; Johnston, G.B. & Ire., p. 173; and ‘The case of Richard St George Esq., petitioner’, c. Jan. 1756 (Foster/ Massereene papers, T.2519/4/234).
75 Johnston, , G.B. & Ire., p. 174 Google Scholar; ‘Falkland’ [Rev. Scott, John], The parliamentary representation of Ireland (Dublin, 1790), pp 13, 33Google Scholar; Cooper, A.D. (ed.), An eighteenth century antiquary (Dublin, 1942), p. 47.Google Scholar The 1783 price would have been higher, except that the seller stipulated that he should fill both seats for Belturbet at the general election of that year.
76 Bolton, Ir. act of union, pp 32, 158; list of the Irish parliament, [Jan. 1788] (Hobart papers, Buckinghamshire Record Office; photocopy in P.R.O.N.I., ref. T.2627/1/1); Thomas Knox to Lord Abercorn, 21 Apr. 1790, and James Galbraith to same, 2 Nov. 1797 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T. 2541 /I.B.I/1/8 and I.A.5/1/16); Trainor, B. and Crawford, W.H. (ed.), Aspects of Irish social history 1750–1800 (Belfast, 1969), no. 56Google Scholar; Dr William Drennan to Samuel McTier, [May 1792?] (Drennan letters, P.R.O.N.I., D.591/375); R. R. Rowan to Lord Downshire, 14 Jan. 1796 (Downshire papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.607/619), entry in the Newtownlimavady corporation book, 29 Sept. 1796 (Trelawney-Ross papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.663/5); David Babington to Thomas Conolly, 3 May 1797 (Conolly papers, T.G.D., /1,147); Public characters of 1799–1800 (London, 1799), p. 334; Bp Percy to his wife, 25 Jan. and 1 Aug. 1799 (Percy papers, B.M., Add. MS 32,335, ff 130, 183).
77 Bolton, Ir. act of union, p. 33 ; James Galbraith to Lord Abercorn, 26 Sept., 2 Nov., 15 Dec. 1797 (Abercorn papers, P.R.O.N.I., T.2541 / I.A.5/1 /14, 16 and 17).
78 James Cottingham to [Rt Hon. John Pomeroy], 22 Apr. 1780 (Lanesborough papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.1908/2/1); George Jackson to Rev R. Hezlett, 13 Oct. 1799 (Hezlett papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.668/23/ 1/60); rental of the estates of Abel Ram, 1810 (Ram papers, N.L.I., MS 8238/16); Robert Livingstone to Jonathan Richardson, 26 Sept. 1806, and Sir William Richardson to same (Richardson of Bessbrook papers, P.R.O.N.I., D.1006/1); Bolton, Ir act of union, p. 183. Thomas Conolly, the seller of Newtownlimavady and Ballyshannon, cannot really be described as being in financial difficulties, since he was the richest commoner in Ireland at the time; however, he had run up more debts than he could pay off out of the vast rental from his estates.
79 The seller of Newcastle, Lord Lanesborough, drew his territorial strength from the Cavan-Fermanagh border area, and does not seem to have owned land in Co. Dublin. The seller of Harristown, the duke of Leinster, may have owned some land in the borough, but the lord of the soil was in fact the purchaser, John La Touche, whose house and demesne lay within the borough’s boundaries. The 1792 sale of Harristown is therefore a case where borough patronage and land ownership were united instead of divorced.
80 The seller of Carlingford, Col. Robert Ross, sold to his friend and political patron, Lord Downshire, under whose auspices Ross sat as M.P. for Newry, Thomas Conolly, a childless man, ensured that his two boroughs did not go out of his family by selling them to his kinsmen, Lords Londonderry and Belmore, possibly at a price below par. Later still in 1800, he went to great trouble to ensure that a member of Lord Londonderry’s family would succeed him as M.P. for Co. Londonderry, much to the fury of the Ponsonbys, who had expected that his influence would be exerted on their behalf.
81 In addition to those repositories and individuals referred to in the footnotes, I wish to express my thanks to the following for their co-operation and permission in connection with material drawn on in this article the duke of Abercorn, the Lady Mairi Bury, the earl of Caledon, Lord Carew, Mrs M. P L. Cooper, the marquess of Downshire, the Misses Duffin, J. A. M. Ellison-Macartney Esq., the earl of Erne, Capt. D. J. R. Ker, the earl of Lanesborough, Viscount Massereene and Ferrard, D. W. H. Neilson Esq., Major the Hon. R. W. Pomeroy, J. S. W. Richardson Esq., Viscount Sackville, Rear-Admiral W. S. G. Tighe and the late Rev. W. T. Trelawney-Ross. I should also like to thank Dr E. M. Johnston and Professor J. L. McCracken for their help and encouragement during the writing of this article.