PARNELL, Sir John, 2nd Bt. (1744-1801), of Rathleague, Queen's Co.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 25 Dec. 1744, o.s. of Sir John Parnell, 1st Bt., MP [I], of Rathleague, Queen’s Co. by Anne, da. of Michael Ward, MP [I], of Castle Ward, co. Down, j.KB [I]. educ. Eton 1759-60; Trinity, Dublin 1762; Magdalene, Camb. 1764; L. Inn 1766; bencher, King’s Inn 1786. m. 19 July 1774, Letitia Charlotte, da. and coh. of Sir Arthur Brooke, 1st Bt., MP [I], of Colebrook, co. Fermanagh, 5s. 1da. suc. fa. as 2nd Bt. 14 Apr. 1782.
MP [I] 1767-8, 1776-1800.
Commr. of revenue [I] Dec. 1780; chancellor of exchequer [I] Sept. 1785-Jan. 1799; PC [I] 24 Jan. 1786, [GB] 27 Oct. 1786; commr. of treasury [I] Dec. 1793-99.
Capt. Maryborough cav. 1796.
Parnell, ‘a man of business and a useful speaker’, first obtained office at the Irish revenue board under the aegis of John Foster*, to whom he was ‘much attached’.1 From 1785 he displayed his abilities as Irish chancellor of the exchequer with Pitt’s full confidence until he was dismissed from office in January 1799, whereupon he led the opposition to the Union. Ironically, had Castlereagh been prepared to replace him in office a few months before, he was to have been compensated with a peerage and the sinecure signet office. He had shown in the interlude of Earl Fitzwilliam’s Irish administration in 1795 that he was not intractable, and if, as alleged, he became so disillusioned with his anti-Union coadjutors that he would have liked to retract his stand but for his pledge to the cause, he did not waver, though his family were unprovided for.2
Parnell, who might, but for this, have received £7,500 compensation for his moiety of the disfranchised borough of Maryborough, was returned to Westminster for the Queen’s County, for which he had been Member since 1783. He was prominent in Irish financial debates, treating the House, 19 Feb. 1801, to a disquisition on Irish public accountancy and contradicting Castlereagh on the question, while on 23 Feb. he raised questions about the application of the Irish public loan. On 12 Mar., when he criticized the voting of Irish duties ‘in a lump’, Pitt smothered him with compliments and every respect was paid to his suggestion of 16 Mar. that the Irish famine should be met by allowing direct importation of rice. On 16 and 20 Mar. he gave a reluctant suppor