CARPENTER, George, 2nd Earl of Tyrconnel [I] (1750-1805), of Homme House, nr. Hereford.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 30 June 1750, 1st s. of George Carpenter† 1st Earl of Tyrconnel [I], and bro. of Hon. Charles Carpenter*. educ. Westminster c. 1764; Christ Church, Oxf. 1767. m. (1) 9 July 1772, Frances (div. Oct. 1777), da. of John Manners, Mq. of Granby†, s.p.; (2) 3 June 1780, Sarah Hussey, da. of John Hussey Delaval† of Seaton Delaval, Northumb., 1s. d.v.p. 1 da. surv. suc. fa. as 2nd Earl of Tyrconnel [I] 9 Mar. 1762.
Tyrconnel owed his seats at Westminster to his wives. Both his marriages collapsed, but he remained Member for Scarborough on the Rutland interest for 19 years after his divorce, and came in for Berwick on Lord Delaval’s interest five years after his second wife (Delaval’s daughter) had left him for the Earl of Strathmore. (There was no divorce.) Before 1790 he attended regularly, and silently followed the Rutland line in politics. He thus supported Pitt’s administration. The Duke of York’s conduct towards Lady Tyrconnel was alleged by Sir Gilbert Elliot to have confirmed him in this line.1 In April 1791 he was listed hostile to the repeal of the Test Act in Scotland. On 29 May 1791 he renewed an application to Pitt to place his sister Lady Almeria Carpenter on the pension list, in view of her ‘scanty income’.2 He made no mark in that Parliament, except for his pleas for a fair hearing for his ‘relation’ John Fenton Cawthorne*, who was threatened with expulsion, 8, 25 Apr. 1796. He might have come in at Berwiek in 1790, but declined.3 His brother Charles did so, but by October 1792 it was already determined that Tyrconnel should replace him at the next election, and a year later the Duchess of Rutland was clear that he would not again be nominated at Scarborough.4
Tyrconnel came in unopposed in 1796, but by 1799 had resolved not to stand again at Berwick, where a contest loomed.5 He left no further evidence of parliamentary activity and retired in 1802. He died 15 Apr. 1805. Despite his marital misfortunes, he was ‘universally beloved’.6