In October 1714, upon the accession of George I, Conolly was reappointed to the revenue board. He would remain a revenue commissioner until his death, combining his position at the Custom House with the speakership of the house of commons and occasional service as a lord justice. The importance to his political ascendancy of his position as a commissioner of the revenue was noted both by contemporaries and later historians. It has been argued that during Conolly’s time in office the revenue administration became more politicised and an integral part of the system of political management that emerged after 1715. Much of the credit for this politicisation of the revenue system has been ascribed to Conolly, without any thorough examination of his role. This chapter examines his role at the Custom House in terms of the increasing political role of the commission. His relationship with the other commissioners will be examined in detail, to determine whether he was actually the dominant figure and, if so, how this dominance was achieved. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Conolly’s disposal of revenue patronage, focusing on two questions: did Conolly’s time at the Custom House see the increased politicisation of the revenue service? and if so, whether this occurred at the expense of professionalisation.

Conolly was first appointed a revenue commissioner in 1709. His elevation seems to have been primarily motivated by political considerations. He had emerged as one of the leading members of the Whig interest in parliament in the previous two sessions, particularly in relation to financial issues, exemplified by his chairmanship of the committee of public accounts. This aptitude for the politics of finance earned Conolly the approbation of the Dublin Castle administration. Thus he was a likely candidate for promotion: in December 1709 he was appointed to the revenue commission at the instigation of the earl of Wharton, who was anxious to reward one of his principal parliamentary managers. There appears to be little truth in Jonathan Swift’s assertion that Conolly paid the lord lieutenant £3,000 for the place. This accusation derived in part from Swift’s noted antipathy to Wharton, came upon Conolly’s removal from office, when Swift claimed ‘that employment cost Conolly three thousand pounds … so he made one ill bargain in his life’.