“I promise you, that unless you yourselves become the murders of your Infant Constitution its mature years will afford unto yourselves and to you children the blessing of a free people,” (Goold, 28-29) this fiery line from Thomas Goold’s speech to the Irish Parliament in February of 1800 marks the extreme sentiment that surrounded the yearlong debate on the floors of the Irish Parliament, over the Irish Acts of Union. With the passage of the Irish Acts of Union just a few short months after Goold’s speech, the short tenure of the Irish Parliament was ended, and it gave Britain greater legislative control over Ireland. Those who opposed the Acts of Union openly, like Goold, were paired with other members of the Irish Parliament like Eyre Coote, who while still opposed the Union were unable to vote in opposition (Fleming, 194), formed the opposition to the British government’s attempts to tighten their control over Ireland. Goold’s, Coote’s lives and experiences, and those of the other members of the Irish Parliament during this pivotal moment in Irish history shows that there was resistance to British rule in the colonies as they did not passively accept British rule as well as pressure by Britain to accept their rule in order to further their interests.
Ireland in the latter half of the eighteenth century went through a brief period of legislative independence, what was coupled with a push by the British to establish firmer control over the island, setting up the debate that would take place in 1799. The Irish parliament and Constitution was established in 1782-1793 (Kanter, 332) and marked a short period of time where Ireland had a legislative body. However, during this span of time several key events happen that caused the British government under the ministry of William Pitt to want to solidify control over Ireland. French Revolution posed threats to Britain control in Ireland (Jupp, 217), and the threat of war with France made the British government afraid that they would be in a precarious position if Ireland were to slip from their control (Jupp, 198). Pitt saw a need to more closely monitor Ireland so that it would not threaten the welfare of the British empire. The final event that served as a catalyst for the Acts of Union was the Wolfe Tone and the United Irish Rebellion in 1798, resulting in Pitt deciding that Ireland needed to be in firmer British control (Kanter, 332). The Acts of Union would then be introduced to the Irish parliament with a surprisingly, to Pitt and his colleagues, close margin, 107 seats to 105 seats (Fleming, 207), and a fierce debate would ensue.
Echoing the idea of the Enlightenment that were at the core of other revolution during this century, those who opposed the Acts of Union worried that the loss of the Irish Parliament would be damaging to the nation of Ireland and its people. Goold, Coote, and the other members of the opposition group to the Acts of Union who were mainly wealthy Protestant members of Irish society, as the Catholic population were in favor of the Union as they believed they would be give full citizenship, (Kearney, 7), was based around the ideas of self-governance. Goold was especially vocal about his opposition, laying out a number of points of why he thought that the Union would be damaging to Ireland such as the idea of Ireland’s taxes being collected and used by the Irish (Goold, 7), something reminiscent of the American Revolution's cry of “no taxation without representation,” as well as ideas that the Acts of Union would curtail the rights of the Irish people such as the right to free speech (Goold, 9-10). Coote also echoed the ideas that the Union would be detrimental to Ireland believe that due to the recent unrest in the country the landowners should spend more time there (Fleming, 219), which would inform his decision not to vote and resign his seat as well as not wishing to vote against his brother (Fleming, 212). Ideas of self-governance surrounded this groups opposition to the Acts of Union, and fears over what might happened to this if Britain were to be in greater control caused this group to fight for the future of the Irish Parliament and its legislative independence.
During this period of uncertainty about the future of Irish governance, the work of the opposition to prevent the British from increasing their control over Ireland shows that there was resistance, as opposed to passive acceptance to British rule in the Empire. “This nation hates the Union, and it will not pass,” (Goold, 3) this sentiment again from Goold’s speech speaks to the spirit of the resistance to British rule. Couple this sentiment with the fears that the members of the opposition group expressed about British rule points to strong resistance that existed in Ireland toward British rule a sentiment that can to expanded to other parts of the empire. Also given the surprising closeness of the first vote for the Acts of Union (Fleming, 207), shows that there was limited approval for more British rule in Ireland, pointing to resistance to British attempts to consolidate their power in the Empire. The lives then of these people were marked by resistance to the British Empire, not just passive acceptance of their rule which can been seen across the Empire.
The ultimate passage of the Acts of Union also shows how the British government was willing to overlook opposition in their colonies in order to further their own interests. Goold in his speech accused Pitt of using military coercion to gain a favorable vote for the Acts of Union, (Goold, 3), it shows that the British were willing to use any methods to gain what they wanted, not taking into account the wants of those at the opposite end. Similar charges of corruption and coercion have been level against Pitt and the British government (Kanter, 339), suggesting the same thing and that it was not just the belief of one individual. Modern scholarship has supported these claims of corruption with the discovery of new documents about the matter, suggesting that there was indeed bribery, but it may have served only to aid the passage of the Acts of Union instead of being the decisive factor in its passage (Geoghegan, 26). Regardless of this the mere suggestion that the British government would be willing to use these types of methods to further their interests suggest that they cared more about their interests than the interests of the colonized.
After the year long debate marked by tension between brothers and fierce debate on the floor of the Irish Parliament, would have lasting effects on Ireland as the Acts of Union would remain in place and be a topic of debate until the creation of the Irish Free State in the 1920’s. Members of this group like Thomas Goold greatly feared the loss of Irish legislative independence citing fears of taxation and the suppression of the rights of the Irish people, and he was quite open to expressing this view. Other members of the opposition faced a more difficult decision for example the case of Eyre Coote who opposed the Union but was unable to vote against it due to familial ties and his position in the British army. The lives of these people provide another example of how there was resistance to British rule and attempts by the British to consolidate their rule throughout the empire. Going hand in hand with this the debate over the Irish Acts of Union shows how the British government were willing to go to any lengths to further their own interests, despite resistance by the population. This would not be the only time that there was resistance to British rule it would be a constant in the British Empire, but the lives of men like Thomas Goold, Eyre Coote and the other members of the opposition group to the Irish Acts of Union provides one example of this resistance.
Bibliography:
British Cartoon Print Collection. "An Irish Union." Digital image. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_Irish_union_LCCN2004670132.jpg.
Fleming, David. "The Correspondence of Eyre Coote with His Brother, Charles Henry Coote, and Others on the Irish Act of Union, 1799-1800." Analecta Hibernica, no. 40 (2007): 189-228. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20519928.
Goold, Thomas. “The Speech of Thomas Goold in the Irish House of Commons on the Subject of an Incorporate Union of Great Britain and Ireland.” Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields: Wilson & Co, 1800.
Geoghegan, Patrick M. "'An Act of Power & Corruption'? The Union Debate." History Ireland 8, no. 2 (2000): 22-26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27724771.
Kearney, Hugh. "Contested Ideas of Nationhood 1800-1995." The Irish Review (1986-), no. 20 (1997): 1-22. doi:10.2307/29735833.
Kanter, Douglas. "The Foxite Whigs, Irish Legislative Independence and the Act of Union, 1785-1806." Irish Historical Studies 36, no. 143 (2009): 332-48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20720317.
Jupp, Peter. "Britain and the Union, 1797-1801." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 10 (2000): 197-219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679379.