The Irish Reform Association is established in the early 20th century, a time when Ireland is under British rule and political reform movements are gaining momentum. Lord Dunraven, known for his role in the 1902 Land Conference and his advocacy for Irish interests, seeks to promote reformist policies that will address land tenure, political representation, and constitutional rights for Ireland.
The association aims to support legislative reforms benefiting Irish tenants and landowners, encourage greater political participation and representation for Irish voices in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and counterbalance more radical nationalist or unionist positions with a moderate, reformist platform.
Lord Dunraven has a long career in British politics, serving as Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies under Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, in the 1880s and later as a Senator of the Irish Free State from 1922 to 1926. His background as a journalist, soldier, and sportsman give him a broad public profile, and his formation of the Irish Reform Association reflects his interest in bridging political divides and advancing pragmatic reform.
While the Irish Reform Association does not achieve the same long-term prominence as other reform movements, its creation marks Lord Dunraven’s active role in shaping Irish political discourse at a critical juncture. It aligns with his broader efforts to influence Irish policy through both legislative engagement and public advocacy.
In summary, the founding of the Irish Reform Association on August 26, 1904, is a deliberate political move by Lord Dunraven to advance reformist causes in Ireland, reflecting his commitment to balanced, constructive change within the constitutional framework of the time.
Foster serves as Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland three times — in 1784–1785, 1804–1806, and 1807–1811 — and is the last Speaker of the Irish House of Commons from 1785 until the Acts of Union 1800. He is a prominent figure in Irish politics, representing County Louth for most of his career, and is known for his opposition to the Union, which he sees as politically and personally damaging.
Foster’s tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Speaker is marked by significant financial legislation, including measures that transform Ireland’s agricultural economy by promoting arable farming over pasture. His refusal to surrender the Speaker’s mace after the Union becomes a symbolic act of resistance.
Foster dies on August 23, 1828, leaving behind a legacy as one of the most influential Anglo-Irish statesmen of his era.
(Pictured: The Right Honorable John Foster by Gilbert Stuart, c. 1790-1791 – Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art)
On May 28, 1914, Childers and Figgis travel to Hamburg, Germany, to buy 1,500 Mauser rifles and 49,000 rounds from arms dealer Moritz Magnus, Jr. The rifles, though obsolete, are still serviceable and fire a high-caliber round. To transport them, Childers offers his yacht Asgard to carry 900 rifles, while Conor O’Brien takes the rest on the Kelpie.
The Asgard, a 50-foot gaff ketch built by Colin Archer, leaves Conwy, North Wales, on July 3. The outward journey is uneventful, but the return is stormy, with the rifles filling the cabin and crew sleeping on them. On July 12, the yacht meets the German tug Gladiator at the mouth of the Scheldt, loading the arms.
On July 26, the Asgard reaches Howth. The unloading in daylight draws a crowd, prompting police and military intervention. A riot erupts, and the King’s Own Scottish Borderers are ambushed at Bachelor’s Walk, resulting in the Bachelor’s Walk massacre — four civilians killed and at least 38 wounded. Despite the violence, the guns are secured.
The Howth gun-running is the first major military operation in Ireland’s 20th-century independence movement. The rifles are later used in the Easter Rising of 1916, including at the General Post Office. The event underscores the role of Anglo-Irish republicans in arming the Volunteers and foreshadows the armed struggle that follows.
In short, July 26, 1914, marks the arrival of a critical arms shipment in Howth, a bold act of defiance against British control and a direct response to Ulster’s gun-running, with lasting consequences for Irish history.
(Pictured: Erskine Childers at Asgard’s wheel on her 1914 gun-running voyage)
Charles is the eldest surviving son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria of France. His early years are unremarkable, but before he is twenty his conventional education has been completely overshadowed by the harsh lessons of defeat in the English Civil War against the Puritans and subsequent isolation and poverty. Thus he emerges into precocious maturity, cynical, self-indulgent, skilled in the sort of moral evasions that make life comfortable even in adversity.
Though the early years of tawdry dissipation tarnish the romance of Charles’s adventures, not all his actions are discreditable. He tries to fight his father’s battles in the west of England in 1645. He resists the attempts of his mother and his sister Henrietta Anne to convert him to Catholicism and remains openly loyal to his Protestant faith. In 1648, he makes strenuous efforts to save his father, and when, after Charles I’s execution in 1649, he is proclaimed Charles II by the Scots in defiance of the English republic. He is prepared to go to Scotland and swallow the stringently anti-Catholic and anti-Anglican Presbyterian Covenant as the price for alliance. But the sacrifice of friends and principles was futile and leaves him deeply embittered. The Scottish army is routed by the English under Oliver Cromwell at Dunbar in September 1650, and in 1651 Charles’s invasion of England ends in defeat at Worcester. The young king becomes a fugitive, hunted through England for forty days but protected by a handful of his loyal subjects until he escapes to France in October 1651.
Charles’s safety is comfortless, however. He is destitute and friendless, unable to bring pressure against an increasingly powerful England. France and the Dutch Republic are closed to him by Cromwell’s diplomacy, and he turns to Spain, with whom he concludes a treaty in April 1656. He persuades his brother James to relinquish his command in the French army and gives him some regiments of Anglo-Irish troops in Spanish service, but poverty dooms this nucleus of a royalist army to impotence. European princes take little interest in Charles and his cause, and his proffers of marriage are declined. Even Cromwell’s death does little to improve his prospects. But George Monck, one of Cromwell’s leading generals, realized that under Cromwell’s successors the country is in danger of being torn apart and with his formidable army creates the situation favourable to Charles’s restoration in 1660.
Most Englishmen now favour a return to a stable and legitimate monarchy, and, although more is known of Charles II’s vices than his virtues, he has, under the steadying influence of Edward Hyde, his chief adviser, avoided any damaging compromise of his religion or constitutional principles. With Hyde’s help, Charles issues in April 1660 his Declaration of Breda, expressing his personal desire for a general amnesty, liberty of conscience, an equitable settlement of land disputes, and full payment of arrears to the army. The actual terms are left to a free parliament, and on this provisional basis Charles is proclaimed king in May 1660. Landing at Dover on May 25, he reaches a rejoicing London on his 30th birthday.
The unconditional nature of the settlement that takes shape between 1660 and 1662 owes little to Charles’s intervention and likely exceeds his expectations. He is bound by the concessions made by his father in 1640 and 1641, but the Parliament elected in 1661 is determined on an uncompromising Anglican and royalist settlement. The Militia Act of 1661 gives Charles unprecedented authority to maintain a standing army, and the Corporation Act 1661 allows him to purge the boroughs of dissident officials. Other legislation places strict limits on the press and on public assembly, and the Act of Uniformity 1662 creates controls of education. An exclusive body of Anglican clergy and a well-armed landed gentry are the principal beneficiaries of Charles II’s restoration.
But within this narrow structure of upper-class loyalism there are irksome limitations on Charles’s independence. His efforts to extend religious toleration to his Nonconformist and Roman Catholic subjects are sharply rebuffed in 1663, and throughout his reign the House of Commons thwarts the more generous impulses of his religious policy. A more pervasive and damaging limitation is on his financial independence. Although the Parliament votes the king an estimated annual income of £1,200,000, Charles has to wait many years before his revenues produce such a sum, and by then the damage of debt and discredit is irreparable. He is incapable of thrift and finds it painful to refuse petitioners. With the expensive disasters of the Second Anglo-Dutch War of 1665–67 the reputation of the restored king sinks to its lowest level. His vigorous attempts to save London during the Great Fire of September 1666 cannot make up for the negligence and maladministration that leads to England’s naval defeat in June 1667.
Charles clears himself by dismissing his old adviser, Edward Hyde, and tries to assert himself through a more adventurous foreign policy. So far, his reign has made only modest contributions to England’s commercial advancement. The Navigation Acts of 1660 and 1663, which are prompted by the threat to British shipping by the rise of the Dutch carrying trade, are valuable extensions of Cromwellian policies, and the capture of New York in 1664 is one of his few gains from the Dutch. Although marriage to Princess Catherine of Braganza of Portugal in 1662 brings him the possession of Tangier and Bombay, they are of less strategic value than Dunkirk, which he sells to Louis XIV in 1662. He Is, however, prepared to sacrifice much for the alliance of his young cousin. Through his sister Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, he has direct contact with the French court, and it is through her that he negotiates the startling reversal of the Protestant Triple Alliance (England, the Dutch Republic, Sweden) of 1668. By the terms of the so-called Secret Treaty of Dover of May 1670, not only does England and France join in an offensive alliance against the Dutch, but Charles promises to announce his conversion to Roman Catholicism. If this provokes trouble from his subjects, he is assured of French military and financial support. He sees to it that the conversion clause of the treaty is not made public.
This clause, which is the most controversial act of Charles II’s reign, can be explained as a shortsighted bid for Louis XIV’s confidence. In this, however, it fails. Louis neither welcomes Charles’s intentions nor believes in them, and, in the event, it is only upon his deathbed that Charles is received into the Roman Catholic Church. But he has now fatally compromised himself. Although he subsequently attempts to pursue policies independent of Louis, he remains bound to him by inclination as well as by the fear of blackmail. More seriously, he has lost the confidence of his subjects, who deplore the French alliance and distrust the whole tendency of his policies.
Other circumstances deepen Englishmen’s discontent with their king. By the 1670s the miscarriages of the queen have reduced hopes that Charles will have a legitimate heir, and in 1673 the second marriage of his brother James, Duke of York, to Mary of Modena, increases the possibility of the Catholic line of succession, for James’s conversion to the Roman church is well known. But it is for his autocratic character as much as for his religion that James is feared as his brother is not, and it is on his brother’s behalf that Charles eventually has to face the severest political storm of his reign.
The Popish Plot of 1678 is an elaborate tissue of fictions built around a skeleton of even stranger truths. The allegations of Titus Oates, a former Anglican cleric who has been expelled from a Jesuit seminary, that Roman Catholics plan to murder Charles to make James king, seem to be confirmed by scraps of evidence of which Charles is justifiably skeptical. But he is obliged to bow before the gusts of national hysteria that seek to bar his brother from the line of succession. Between 1679 and 1681, Charles very nearly loses control of his government. Deprived of his chief minister, the Earl of Danby, who has been compromised by his negotiations with France, he has to allow Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 2nd Earl of Shaftesbury, and his Whig supporters, who uphold the power of the Parliament—men whom he detests—to occupy positions of power in central and local government. Three general elections produce three equally unmanageable parliaments, and, although Charles publicly denies the legitimacy of his first son, the Protestant Duke of Monmouth, he has to send his Catholic brother James out of the country and offer a plan of limitations that will bind James if he comes to the throne. The plan proves to be unacceptable both to the Whigs and to James, and, when Charles falls seriously ill in the summer of 1679, there is real danger of civil conflict.
But Charles keeps his nerve. He defends his queen against slanders, dismisses the intractable parliaments, and recovers control of his government. His subjects’ dread of republican anarchy proves stronger than their suspicion of James, and from March 1681, when he dissolves his last Parliament, Charles enjoys a nationwide surge of loyalty almost as fervent as that of 1660. He has made yet another secret treaty with France and in addition to a French subsidy can now count upon a healthy public revenue. Reforms at the Treasury, which he inaugurates in 1667, provide the crown with a firm basis of administrative control that is among Charles II’s most valuable legacies to English government.
As a result of these actions, Charles, who dies on February 6, 1685, at Whitehall in London, is able to end his reign in the kind of tranquil prosperity he has always sought.
Milligan is the son of an Irish father, Leo Alphonso Milligan, a regimental sergeant major in the British Indian Army, and English mother, Florence Mary Winifred (née Kettleband). He is raised in India and Burma (Myanmar). He is educated at the Convent of Jesus and Mary, Poona, and later at St. Paul’s High School, Rangoon. He moves to England with his family in 1933. He serves in the army during World War II and, when he is wounded in combat, begins a struggle with manic-depressive illness that lasts the rest of his life. Toward the end of the war, he meets Harry Secombe, and they work together entertaining the troops. After the war the pair, along with Peter Sellers and Michael Bentine, begin spending time at the Grafton Arms pub, where they develope their comedy routines. BBC radio begins broadcasting the group’s work in 1951, as Crazy People, and in 1952 it is renamed The Goon Show. As such it continues until early 1960 (though Bentine soon leaves the show) and becomes a cult classic.
Milligan later acts onstage and in small parts in movies—including Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)—and writes numerous books of poems, war memoirs, the play The Bedsitting Room (with John Antrobus; first performed 1962), and a number of television series. He also supports a multitude of causes, especially those involving the environment. Because his father is Irish and he is born in India—and despite his years of military service—the British government does not consider him a citizen. Rather than take an oath of allegiance, he takes Irish citizenship. Nonetheless, he is made an honorary Commander of the British Empire in 1992 and is given an honorary knighthood in 2000.
Milligan dies from kidney failure, at the age of 83, on February 27, 2002, at his home on Dumb Woman’s Lane near Rye, East Sussex. On the day of his funeral, March 8, 2002, his coffin is carried to St. Thomas Church in Winchelsea, East Sussex, and is draped in the flag of Ireland. He had once quipped that he wanted his headstone to bear the words: “I told you I was ill.” He is buried at St. Thomas’ churchyard but the Chichester diocese refuses to allow this epitaph. A compromise is reached with the Gaelic translation of “I told you I was ill,” Dúirt mé leat go mé breoite, and in English, “Love, light, peace.” The additional epitaph Grá mhór ort Shelagh can be read as “Great love for you Shelagh.”
According to a letter published in the Rye and Battle Observer in 2011, Milligan’s headstone is removed from St. Thomas’ churchyard in Winchelsea and moved to be alongside the grave of his wife, but is later returned.
Walker is born in Dublin, son of Cooper Walker, merchant, and educated by Thomas Ball. He suffers from asthma, which prevents him from attending college. Instead he travels to Italy, where he possibly receives some private tuition in Latin, Greek, French, Italian, and Spanish. He takes a special interest in Italian literature and Irish antiquities, and on his return to Ireland (where he is employed in the Irish treasury as third clerk in the upper department) resides in an Italianate villa, St. Valerie, on the road from Bray to Enniskerry.
In 1785, Walker is elected one of the original members of the Royal Irish Academy (RIA) and on March 17, 1786, is requested to sit on its committee of antiquities. In this capacity he submits several essays to the Academy’s Transactions. However, his best-known work is Historical Memoirs of the Irish Bards (1786). His interest in poetry, and in eighteenth-century vernacular survivals of the ancient bardic tradition, suggests important new contemporary and literary dimensions for what had previously been antiquarian and scholarly pursuits. He also breaks new ground by considering modern as well as historical Irish culture, and introduces it to an Anglo-Irish audience by providing English translations of Gaelic songs and poems.
The authorities Walker cites covers the entire range of Irish and Anglo-Irish scholarship on Irish antiquities. He includes excerpts from his correspondence with Charles O’Conor, Charles Vallancey, and Sylvester O’Halloran and carries out an extensive correspondence with Thomas Percy after he becomes Bishop of Dromore in 1782. He focuses on both poetry and music, which according to the popular eighteenth-century view has been the two traditional pursuits of the Irish bards. He presents a historical outline of their progress from the earliest times to the eighteenth century and ends with nine appendices, which are almost as lengthy as the main text. In these, his appreciation of what he considers to be the contemporary survivals of the ancient Irish bardic tradition is apparent in his including an account of Cormac Common, a blind eighteenth-century poet from Mayo, as well as a lengthy biographical notice of Turlough O’Carolan, together with translations of several of his songs. The book brings together many of the literary, scholarly, popular, Celtic, antiquarian, political, and musical dimensions of eighteenth-century Irish culture and prefigures the synthesis of literary modes, cultural theories, and musical styles that would occur in the literary productions of the United Irishmen.
Despite his linguistic skills, Walker has little knowledge of the Irish language, yet he (a member of the Anglo-Irish elite) is consistent in his praise of Gaelic culture, portraying it as sophisticated and literate and, although he highly romanticises his work, he does help to challenge negative appraisals of the Irish character. By the standards of the time it is a work of great erudition. However, today the book is judged to be of limited academic merit as Walker is severely hampered by a shortage of primary documents and by his limited grasp of the Irish language. This is illustrated by his ambiguous use of James Macpherson‘s volumes of Ossianic poems, published in the 1760s, which he quotes as authentic in the text while hinting in the footnotes that they are unreliable.
Charlotte Brooke translates three poems, and in return Walker encourages her to produce her Reliques of Irish Poetry (1789). Her work reflects Walker’s influence and she thanks him in the preface for affording her “every assistance which zeal, judgment and extensive knowledge, could give” as well as for prevailing on people to subscribe to her work and for being a subscriber himself. He is part of a literary circle that includes Edward Ledwich, Charles O’Conor, Edward Berwick, John Philpot Curran, and Henry Grattan. He also writes Historical essay on the dress of the ancient and modern Irish (1788), dedicated to his friend James Caulfeild, 1st Earl of Charlemont, for which he interviews the older generation, consults manuscripts, and even visits tombs to examine the clothing of corpses, and admits he has received copious aid from Elizabeth Rawdon, Countess of Moira. The English Review receives it warmly but Richard Gough, the reviewer for TheGentleman’s Magazine, states he is “much disappointed in the perusal of this high priced history.” Other works by Walker include “an historical essay on the Irish stage,” RIA Trans., ii (1788), Historical Memoir on Italian Tragedy (1799) and contributions to Vallancey’s Collectanea de rebus Hibernicis (Dublin, 1770–1804). In the 1790s he subscribes to Anthologia Hibernica: a monthly collection of science, belles lettres and history and in December 1794 submits an “Historical essay on the Irish stage” which surveys Irish drama from bardic times through to contemporary folk plays.
Walker dies on April 12, 1810, in Enniskerry, County Wicklow, leaving a fine gallery of pictures, a library containing Irish manuscripts, and a collection of antiquities. He is buried on April 14 in St. Mary’s Churchyard, Dublin. His memoirs of Alessandro Tassoni are published posthumously in London in 1815 (with a lengthy preface by his brother Samuel), as is the second edition of Historical Memoirs of the Irish Bards (2 vols., Dublin, 1818).
(From: “Walker, Joseph Cooper” by Rosemary Ritchie, Dictionary of Irish Biography, http://www.dib.ie, October 2009)
George Johnstone StoneyFRS, Irish physicist, is born on February 15, 1826, at Oakley Park, near Birr, County Offaly, in the Irish Midlands. He is most famous for introducing the term “electron” as the “fundamental unit quantity of electricity.” He introduces the concept, though not the word, as early as 1874, initially naming it “electrine,” and the word itself comes in 1891. He publishes around 75 scientific papers during his lifetime.
Stoney is the son of George Stoney and Anne (née Bindon Blood). His only brother is Bindon Blood Stoney, who becomes chief engineer of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Stoney family is an old-established Anglo-Irish family. During the time of the famine (1845–52), when land prices plummet, the family property is sold to support his widowed mother and family. He attends Trinity College Dublin (TCD), graduating with a BA degree in 1848. From 1848 to 1852 he works as an astronomy assistant to William Parsons, 3rd Earl of Rosse, at Birr Castle, County Offaly, where Parsons had built the world’s largest telescope, the 72-inch Leviathan of Parsonstown. Simultaneously he continues to study physics and mathematics and is awarded an MA by TCD in 1852.
From 1852 to 1857, Stoney is professor of physics at Queen’s College Galway. From 1857 to 1882, he is employed as Secretary of the Queen’s University of Ireland, an administrative job based in Dublin. In the early 1880s, he moves to the post of superintendent of Civil Service Examinations in Ireland, a post he holds until his retirement in 1893. He continues his independent scientific research throughout his decades of non-scientific employment duties in Dublin. He also serves for decades as honorary secretary and then vice-president of the Royal Dublin Society (RDS), a scientific society modeled after the Royal Society of London and, after his move to London in 1893, he serves on the council of that society as well. Additionally, he intermittently serves on scientific review committees of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from the early 1860s.
Stoney publishes seventy-five scientific papers in a variety of journals, but chiefly in the journals of the Royal Dublin Society. He makes significant contributions to cosmic physics and to the theory of gases. He estimates the number of molecules in a cubic millimeter of gas, at room temperature and pressure, from data obtained from the kinetic theory of gases. His most important scientific work is the conception and calculation of the magnitude of the “atom of electricity.” In 1891, he proposes the term “electron” to describe the fundamental unit of electrical charge, and his contributions to research in this area lays the foundations for the eventual discovery of the particle by J. J. Thomson in 1897.
Stoney proposes the first system of natural units in 1881. He realizes that a fixed amount of charge is transferred per chemical bond affected during electrolysis, the elementary chargee, which can serve as a unit of charge, and that combined with other known universal constants, namely the speed of lightc and the Newtonian constant of gravitationG, a complete system of units can be derived. He shows how to derive units of mass, length, time and electric charge as base units. Due to the form in which Coulomb’s law is expressed, the constant 4πε0 is implicitly included, ε0 being the vacuum permittivity.
Like Stoney, Max Planck independently derives a system of natural units (of similar scale) some decades after him, using different constants of nature.
Hermann Weyl makes a notable attempt to construct a unified theory by associating a gravitational unit of charge with the Stoney length. Weyl’s theory leads to significant mathematical innovations, but his theory is generally thought to lack physical significance.
Stoney marries his cousin, Margaret Sophia Stoney, by whom he has had two sons and three daughters. One of his sons, George Gerald Stoney FRS, is a scientist. His daughter Florence StoneyOBE is a radiologist while his daughter Edith is considered to be the first woman medical physicist. His most scientifically notable relative is his nephew, the Dublin-based physicist George Francis FitzGerald. He is second cousin of the grandfather of Ethel Sara Turing, mother of Alan Turing.
After moving to London, Stoney lives first at Hornsey Rise, north London, before moving to 30 Chepstow Crescent, Notting Hill, West London. In his later years illness confines him to a single floor of the house, which is filled with books, papers, and scientific instruments, often self-made. He dies at his home in Notting Hill, on July 5, 1911. His cremated ashes are buried in St. Nahi’s Church, Dundrum, Dublin.
Spring Rice is educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and later studies law at Lincoln’s Inn, but is not called to the Bar. His family is politically well-connected, both in Ireland and Great Britain, and he is encouraged to stand for Parliament by his father-in-law, Lord Limerick.
Spring Rice first stands for election in Limerick City in 1818 but is defeated by the Tory incumbent, John Vereker, by 300 votes. He wins the seat in 1820 and enters the House of Commons. He positions himself as a moderate unionist reformer who opposes the radical nationalist politics of Daniel O’Connell and becomes known for his expertise on Irish and economic affairs. In 1824 he leads the committee which establishes the Ordnance Survey in Ireland.
Spring Rice’s fluent debating style in the Commons brings him to the attention of leading Whigs and he comes under the patronage of the Marquess of Lansdowne. As a result, he is made Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department under George Canning and Lord Goderich in 1827, with responsibility for Irish affairs. This requires him to accept deferral of Catholic emancipation, a policy which he strongly supports. He then serves as joint Secretary to the Treasury from 1830 to 1834 under Lord Grey. Following the Reform Act 1832, he is elected to represent Cambridge from 1832 to 1839. In June 1834, Grey appoints him Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, with a seat in the cabinet, a post he retains when Lord Melbourne becomes Prime Minister in July. A strong and vocal unionist throughout his life, he leads the Parliamentary opposition to Daniel O’Connell’s 1834 attempt to repeal the Acts of Union 1800. In a six-hour speech in the House of Commons on April 23, 1834, he suggests that Ireland should be renamed “West Britain.” In the Commons, he also champions causes such as the worldwide abolition of slavery and the introduction of state-supported education.
The Whig government falls in November 1834, after which Spring Rice attempts to be elected Speaker of the House of Commons in early 1835. When the Whigs return to power under Melbourne in April 1835, he is made Chancellor of the Exchequer. As Chancellor, he has to deal with crop failures, a depression and rebellion in North America, all of which create large deficits and put considerable strain on the government. His Church Rate Bill of 1837 is quickly abandoned and his attempt to revise the charter of the Bank of Ireland ends in humiliation. Unhappy as Chancellor, he again tries to be elected as Speaker but fails. He is a dogmatic figure, described by Lord Melbourne as “too much given to details and possessed of no broad views.” Upon his departure from office in 1839, he has become a scapegoat for the government’s many problems. That same year he is raised to the peerage as Baron Monteagle of Brandon, in the County of Kerry, a title intended earlier for his ancestor Sir Stephen Rice. He is also Comptroller General of the Exchequer from 1835 to 1865, despite Lord Howick‘s initial opposition to the maintenance of the office. He differs from the government regarding the exchequer control over the treasury, and the abolition of the old exchequer is already determined upon when he dies.
From 1839 Spring Rice largely retires from public life, although he occasionally speaks in the House of Lords on matters generally relating to government finance and Ireland. He vehemently opposes John Russell, 1st Earl Russell‘s policy regarding the Irish famine, giving a speech in the Lords in which he says the government had “degraded our people, and you, English, now shrink from your responsibilities.”
Spring Rice is well regarded in Limerick, where he is seen as a compassionate landlord and a good politician. An advocate of traditional Whiggism, he strongly believes in ensuring society is protected from conflict between the upper and lower classes. Although a pious Anglican, his support for Catholic emancipation wins him the favour of many Irishmen, most of whom are Roman Catholic. He leads the campaign for better county government in Ireland at a time when many Irish nationalists are indifferent to the cause. During the Great Famine of the 1840s, he responds to the plight of his tenants with benevolence. The ameliorative measures he implements on his estates almost bankrupts the family and only the dowry from his second marriage saves his financial situation. A monument in honour of him still stands in the People’s Park in Limerick.
Even so, Spring Rice’s reputation in Ireland is not entirely favourable. In a book regarding assisted emigration from Ireland, a process in which a landlord pays for their tenants’ passage to the United States or Australia, Moran suggests that Spring Rice was engaged in the practice. In 1838, he is recorded as having “helped” a boat load of his tenants depart for North America, thereby allowing himself the use of their land. However, he is also recorded as being in support of state-assisted emigration across the British Isles, suggesting that his motivation is not necessarily selfish.
Fitzgibbon is an early and extremely militant opponent of Catholic emancipation. The Earl is possibly the first person to suggest to King George III that granting royal assent to any form of Catholic Emancipation will violate his coronation oath.
FitzGibbon is born in 1748 near Donnybrook, Dublin, the son of John FitzGibbon of Ballysheedy, County Limerick, and his wife Isabella Grove, daughter of John Grove, of Ballyhimmock, County Cork. His father is born a Catholic but converts to the state religion in order to become a lawyer, and amasses a large fortune. He has three sisters, Arabella, Elizabeth, and Eleanor.
When appointed Lord Chancellor for Ireland in 1789, FitzGibbon is granted his first peerage as Baron FitzGibbon, of Connello Lower in County Limerick, in the peerage of Ireland that year. This does not entitle him to a seat in the British House of Lords, only in the Irish House of Lords. His later promotions come mostly in the peerage of Ireland, being advanced to a Viscountcy (1793) and the Earldom of Clare in 1795. He finally achieves a seat in the British House of Lords in 1799 when created Baron FitzGibbon, of Sidbury in the County of Devon, in the Peerage of Great Britain.
FitzGibbon is a renowned champion of the Protestant Ascendancy and an opponent of Catholic emancipation. He despises the Parliament of Ireland‘s popular independent Constitution of 1782. He is also personally and politically opposed to the Irish politician Henry Grattan who urges a moderate course in the Irish Parliament, and is responsible for defeating Grattan’s efforts to reform the Irish land tithe system (1787–1789) under which Irish Catholic farmers (and all non-Anglican farmers) are forced to financially support the minority Anglican Church of Ireland. These are not fully repealed until 1869 when the Church of Ireland is finally disestablished, although Irish tithes are commuted after the Tithe War (1831–1836).
FitzGibbon opposes the Irish Roman Catholic Relief Act 1793, for which, in a “magnificently controlled vituperation in vigorous, colloquial heroic couplets,” The Gibbonade, he is pilloried by the satirist Henrietta Battier. But acceding to pressure exerted through the Irish executive by government of William Pitt in London, intent, in advance of war with the new French Republic, to placate Catholic opinion, he is persuaded to recommend its acceptance in the Irish House of Lords. Pitt, and King George III, who had been petitioned by delegates from the Catholic Committee in Dublin, expects Ireland to follow the British Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791 and admit Catholics to the parliamentary franchise (although not to Parliament itself), enter the professions and assume public office.
FitzGibbon’s role in the recall, soon after his arrival, of the popular pro-Emancipation Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, William Fitzwilliam, 4th Earl Fitzwilliam, is debatable. Although he is probably politically opposed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Fitzwilliam is recalled, apparently due to his own independent actions. Fitzwilliam is known to be friendly to the Ponsonby family (he is married to one of their daughters), and is generally a Foxite liberal Whig. His close association with and patronage of Irish Whigs led by Grattan and Ponsonby during his short tenure, along with his alleged support of an immediate effort to secure Catholic emancipation in a manner not authorized by the British cabinet is probably what leads to his recall. Thus, if any is to blame in the short-lived “Fitzwilliam episode” it is the great Irish politician Henry Grattan and the Ponsonby brothers – presumably William Ponsonby, later Lord Imokilly, and his brother John Ponsonby—not to mention Lord Fitzwilliam himself. Irish Catholics at the time and later naturally see things very differently and blame hardline Protestants such as FitzGibbon.
Irish Catholics and FitzGibbon agree on one point apparently – Irish political and economic union with Great Britain, which eventually takes place in 1801. Pitt wants Union with Ireland concomitantly with Catholic emancipation, commutation of tithes, and the endowment of the Irish Catholic priesthood. Union is opposed by most hardline Irish Protestants, as well as liberals such as Grattan. FitzGibbon has been a strong supporter of the Union since 1793 but refuses to have Catholic emancipation with the Union.
In a speech to the Irish House of Lords on February 10, 1800, FitzGibbon elucidates his point of view on union: “I hope and feel as becomes a true Irishman, for the dignity and independence of my country, and therefore I would elevate her to her proper station, in the rank of civilised nations. I wish to advance her from the degraded post of mercenary province, to the proud station of an integral and governing member of the greatest empire in the world.”
In the end, FitzGibbon’s views win out, leading to the Union of Ireland with Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland without any concessions for Ireland’s Catholic majority (or for that matter, Catholics in the rest of the new United Kingdom). He later claims that he had been duped by the way in which the Act was passed with the new Viceroy Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis, promising reforms to Irish Catholics, and is bitterly opposed to any concessions during the short remainder of his life.
The role of the Earl of Clare (as FitzGibbon becomes in 1795) as Lord Chancellor of Ireland during the period of the Irish Rebellion of 1798 is questionable. According to some, he supports a hardline policy which uses torture, murder and massacre to crush the rebellion, or that as Lord Chancellor, he has considerable influence on military affairs, and that martial law cannot be imposed without his consent. Others allege that as Lord Chancellor, he has no say in military affairs and the Encyclopædia Britannica states that he is “neither cruel nor immoderate and was inclined to mercy when dealing with individuals.” However, the same source also states that “(FitzGibbon)… was a powerful supporter of a repressive policy toward Irish Catholics”. His former side is displayed by sparing the lives of the captured United Irish leaders, “State prisoners,” in return for their confession of complicity and provision of information relating to the planning of the rebellion. However, this willingness of the prisoners to partake of the agreement is spurred by the execution of the brothers John and Henry Sheares on July 14, 1798.
In contrast to the leniency shown to the largely upper-class leadership, the full weight of military repression is inflicted upon the common people throughout the years 1797–98 with untold thousands suffering imprisonment, torture, transportation and death. FitzGibbon is inclined to show no mercy to unrepentant rebels and, in October 1798, he expresses his disgust upon the capture of Wolfe Tone that he has been granted a trial, and his belief that Tone should be hanged as soon as he set foot on land.
FitzGibbon is quick to recognise that sectarianism is a useful ally to divide the rebels and prevent the United Irishmen from achieving their goal of uniting Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, writing in June 1798, “In the North nothing will keep the rebels quiet but the conviction that where treason has broken out the rebellion is merely popish.”
Another anecdote is to the effect of FitzGibbon’s callousness. Supposedly, upon being informed during a debate in the Irish Parliament that innocent as well as guilty are suffering atrocities during the repression, he replies, “Well suppose it were so…,” his callous reply purportedly shocking William Pitt.
FitzGibbon is noted by some as a good, improving landlord to both his Protestant and Catholic tenants. Some claim that the tenants of his Mountshannon estate call him “Black Jack” FitzGibbon. There is, however, no evidence to support this claim, although there is little to no evidence on his dealings as a landlord. Irish nationalists and others point out that while he might be interested in the welfare of his own tenants on his own estate, he treats other Irish Catholics very differently. Without further evidence, his role as a Protestant landowner in mainly Catholic Ireland is of little importance against his known dealings as Lord Chancellor.
FitzGibbon dies at home, 6 Ely Place near St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, on January 28, 1802, and is buried in St. Peter’s Churchyard. A hero to Protestant hardliners, but despised by the majority Catholic population, his funeral cortege is the cause of a riot and, according to a widespread story, a number of dead cats are thrown at his coffin as it departs Ely Place.
Babington is born on September 1, 1804, to the Rev. Richard Babington and his wife Mary Boyle, both members of the Anglo-Irishlanded gentry. His father, the rector of Lower Comber (Diocese of Derry), leads an extravagant lifestyle and leaves debts of £40,000 on his death in 1831, aged 66, equivalent to some £4.1 million as of 2019. His father’s debt is paid off by his two brothers Richard (1795-1870) and Anthony of Creevagh (1800-1869). Another brother is Major GeneralWilliam Babington. He is educated at Trinity College Dublin (TCD).
Babington begins his career as a curate of Lower Cumber, where his father is rector, in 1827. He becomes rector of Moviddy in 1833, at the age of 29. As rector, he carries out improvements worth the equivalent of £166,766 in 2019. As a clergyman he is part of a wave toward secular education in Ireland in the 1800s. In this capacity he is remembered as a “very forward thinking individual.” He is one of the signatories of a progressive booklet titled Declaration in Favour of United Secular Education in Ireland in 1866. The declaration notes, on behalf of the united Church of England and Ireland, “We entirely admit the justice and policy of the rule which protects scholars from interference with their religious principles and thus enables members of different denominations, to receive together in harmony and peace, the benefits of a good education.”
Babington is also, notably, in 1843, an addressee of the “Crookstown letter,” a famous incident at the time covered by The Cork Examiner and Cork Commercial Courier. He publishes, in the Cork Constitution, the contents of a threatening letter he had received in which it threatens him, among others, with murder if he does not become a repealer of the Acts of Union 1800 and with making a bonfire of hay in his farmyard if he does not show the letter to its other addresses. The letter is allegedly to have been written by a Roman Catholic resident of Crookstown, County Cork. The Roman Catholic parish priest, Fr. Daly, and parishioners refute the allegation that the letter had been authored by a Roman Catholic and claim that, conversely, the letter is an invention of a local Protestant who wrote “repeal or die” on the Crookstown Bridge. A local magistrate, J. B. Warren, to whom the letter has also been addressed, pledges to carry out an investigation but Babington does not hand over the original letter, causing the local Roman Catholic population to regard his publication of the letter in the press as “prejudiced, premature and defamatory of the character of the people whose industry he derives his income.” Babington states that he has always been on friendly terms with the Roman Catholic parish priest and his Roman Catholic parishioners and has no intention of offending them but is in fact pushing to publish it by local magistrates. He continues as rector of Moviddy for another 43 years following this incident.
Babington is also involved with the Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor of Ireland.
In 1836, Babington marries Esther, daughter of Richard Nettles, Esq., JP, of Nettleville, County Cork, with whom he has five sons and eight daughters.
Babington dies at the age of 81 on January 23, 1886, at Moviddy Rectory, County Cork. He is buried with his wife, Esther, who died at the age of 70 on August 29, 1878.
seamus dubhghaill 