Co. Wexford


Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press

Background Information

Number of registered freeholders:

6,180 in 1829; 1,066 in 1830


 Henry Lambert300
 John Rowe289
 George Arthur Annesley, Visct. Valentia440
 Darcy Talbot17
27 Sept. 1831ROBERT SHAPLAND CAREW vice Chichester, called to the Upper House 

Main Article

Wexford had a thriving fishing industry and was heavily agricultural, producing mainly barley for export. There were several market towns, including the disfranchised boroughs of Bannow, Clonmines, Enniscorthy, Fethard, Gorey, and Taghmon, the parliamentary boroughs of New Ross and Wexford, the venue for the county elections, and Newtownbarry.1 The representation had long been dominated by the 2nd marquess of Ely, the absentee 3rd earl of Portsmouth, the 3rd earl of Courtown and the 2nd earl of Mountnorris, but a bid by the latter two to bring in their respective heirs Lords Stopford and Valentia in 1818 had failed, amidst accusations of a lack of mutual support.2 Two pro-Catholics, Robert Shapland Carew of Castleborough, who had sat on his family interest since 1812, and Caesar Colclough of Tintern Abbey, were returned instead for a county in which a ‘very formidable’ Protestant party increasingly looked to Ely and Courtown for leadership.3

At the 1820 general election Carew and Colclough stood again. Stopford mounted another challenge, alleging that a ‘monstrous coalition’ had been formed against him by the sitting Members which threatened the ‘independence’ of the county and the ‘free election’ of its representatives. A week before the election Colclough retired in favour of Valentia, whom the Catholic press believed to be a supporter of emancipation. Urging Lord Liverpool, the premier, to support Valentia in preference to Stopford, Mountnorris explained that Courtown had rejected his offer of a junction with Valentia and he had ‘therefore accepted the offer of support from Colclough and Carew’. ‘It is not ... my fault if the opposition return one Member’, he declared. On the eve of the poll Valentia withdrew. Stopford, who it later emerged had been prepared to resign if Valentia had ‘continued another day’, and Carew were returned unopposed.4 In the House Carew supported and Stopford opposed Catholic claims, against which Protestant petitions reached the Commons, 16 Apr. 1823, and the Lords, 9 July 1823, 16 May 1825. Favourable petitions were presented to the Commons, 1 June 1824, 21 Apr. 1826.5 A petition from the grand jury complaining of agricultural distress reached the Commons, 29 Apr. 1822.6 One against the unlawful societies bill was presented to the Lords, 28 Feb. 1825.7

In February 1822 Stopford was warned that preparations were being made by ‘a party’ to turn him out at the next election.8 The following year rumours started by the ‘old fox’ Carew of a ‘junction’ between himself and Stopford prompted an angry response from Stopford’s supporters and Mountnorris’s brother-in-law Sir Frederick Flood, Member from 1812-18, who had high hopes of coming in again. Stopford was warned that Flood would ‘poll every man in the county as soon as you join against him’ and advised to consider coalescing with him against Carew.9 In 1824 the Catholic press commented that they ‘should not be surprised if Stopford was put out’ at the next election as he could not ‘calculate on his Catholic tenantry’, and hoped that Colclough ‘could be brought to the hustings’.10 Warned that his opponents were ‘particularly active at this moment’, Stopford’s agents ‘arranged ... to have a registry, with as little delay as possible’.11 Their earlier ‘election estimates’ had revealed that 8,295 (72 per cent) of the 11,487 freeholder registrations would ‘expire in 1823’.12 During the rumours of an impending dissolution in 1825, Stopford secured the support of Ely, who hoped that he would ‘not have any opposition, notwithstanding the violent speeches of the Popish leaders’, 4 Aug.13 Arthur Chichester of Dunbrody Park, Arthurstown was reported to have declared his intention of standing as a pro-Catholic, but on 13 Sept. 1825 an agent assured Stopford that he would ‘never stand, for if he ever does it will only bring forward stories that may as well remain in the dark’.14 At the end of the year, however, Colonel Jones Sankey informed Stopford that he had ‘just learned from the very best authority’ that it was ‘Chichester’s intention to stand’, but that Carew would ‘form no connection with him’.15 Ongoing rumours of a coalition were also dismissed by John Bruen, brother of the Member for County Carlow, who on 27 Jan. 1826 advised Stopford that even

if Carew is forced to join Chichester against his will, you will find that the old fox, if he lives long enough, will put his finger in Chichester’s eye when we come to the hustings and laugh at him afterwards. He is a deep one and will never have peace or be secure from intrigue until he goes the way of all flesh.16

Carew’s refusal to form a junction convinced Sankey that Chichester would decline the ‘hazard and expense of a contest’, especially after it was rumoured that he had failed to gain the support of Mountnorris, despite Valentia’s candidature being considered ‘most improbable’.17 Hints to Chichester that he should avoid ‘putting himself into the hands’ of the ‘violent’ Catholic faction and that ‘forbearance on the present occasion would ensure his return on a future and probably not very distant period, without opposition, as it was well understood Carew held the representation merely to gratify his father’, appeared to have settled the matter.18 On 3 Feb. 1826, however, Sankey informed Stopford of

a letter from Chichester to Mr. Kennedy dated from Lord Mountnorris’s, stating that he had obtained his lordship’s interest on the pledge to fight it out to the last, and that he was to set out for Ireland the following day accompanied by Lord Churchill and ... the brother or son of Lord Portsmouth, who was to assist him in canvassing the county ... I also had a letter this day from Waterford, in which the writer observes ... that Carew has joined Chichester [whose] father had always been his most strenuous supporter ... How to reconcile all these contradictions I don’t know. But I think it is clear that Chichester has set his heart upon trying his fortune.19

On 18 Feb. Chichester, with whom Carew continued to reject a union, declared, denouncing the exclusion of Catholics ‘from their just constitutional rights’ and the ‘state of the representation by which the vote of one Member is neutralized by the vote of the other’.20 Stopford was assured that the ‘state of the late registries’ gave him little chance of success, but was also warned that many of his own supporters had ‘much neglected’ the registers in previous years, not least, as one of them reminded him, because ‘more than a year since ... you seemed to say there was no appearance of a contest and that the 40s. freeholders would be disfranchised’.21 On realizing the extent of this ‘unpardonable neglect’ and ‘great omission of registries on estates’ Stopford, who only the previous month had dismissed ‘any compact’ with Carew as likely to give ‘offence to the friends of either side’, consented to a union of their interests.22 This was welcomed by many of the leading proprietors, who, in a public statement, expressed their

extreme concern that the peace and tranquillity of their county is likely to be interrupted by the offer of a third candidate ... a circumstance fraught with so much danger both to the higher and lower orders, as to induce us to lay aside all our own political feelings and to support with our own united exertions our present representatives.

Chichester’s claims, they hinted, would ‘be much strengthened by his withdrawing himself at this time’.23 On 15 Mar. Stopford was informed that Portsmouth’s trustees were also ‘anxious’ to prevent a contest and had directed their tenants to support the sitting Members.24 News of the coalition provoked an angry response from the Catholic press, who condemned the ‘disgrace of sending two Members to Parliament’, one of whom had ‘said aye, the other no, to the ... liberty of your country’, and warned Carew that if he had ‘renounced his plighted faith’, the ‘day will come when it will take upon him tremendous vengeance’. Praising Mountnorris, a ‘dominant interest’, for his support of Chichester and Carew, ‘who in turn will be supported by all the Catholics in the county’, they ‘hoped and believed’ that Stopford would be ‘compelled to resign’.25

At the 1826 general election, however, both the sitting Members offered again and it was Chichester who withdrew, saying that his expectations of support from ‘several pro-Catholic independent landed proprietors’ had ‘not been realized’. At the nomination Carew defied ‘anyone to say that I ever gave one vote against the interest of my country’, and Stopford explained that he was opposed to Catholic relief ‘solely on principle’ and had ‘no enmity to Catholics’. They were returned unopposed. On the advice of the Wexford Evening Post they declined the chairing ceremony and each donated £100 towards the town’s charities.26 At a meeting of the Catholics held that day the chairman James Esmonde expressed his ‘surprise and regret’ at Chichester’s withdrawal, which he blamed on the ‘badly prepared state of the Catholic registries and independent interests’. Resolutions were passed urging the Catholic and ‘liberal Protestant freeholders’ to ‘register their freeholds forthwith, that they may be fully prepared to support any two candidates at the next opportunity’, and a vote of thanks was given to Colclough for his support of Chichester.27 The Catholic press also asked the ‘Catholic gentlemen and freeholders’ to ‘lose no time in registering’, so that at the next opportunity they could ‘imitate the examples of Waterford and expel the hereditary enemy of their claims’.28 Dismayed at the lack of a contest, the local press observed, ‘Shame, Shame, Shame! Independence of the county, spirit of 1818, whither have you fled? Where are now the men that lived at that time? It is a race of women that is fainting in the county now’.29

The Members continued to take opposite sides on Catholic relief, in support of which petitions reached the Commons, 1 Dec. 1826, 16, 19 Feb., 2, 5 Mar. 1827, 5, 25 Feb., 21 Apr., 2, 8 May 1828, and the Lords, 27 Feb. 15, 16 Mar., 31 May 1827. Hostile Protestant petitions were presented to the Commons, 5 Mar., 6 Apr. 1827, 24 Apr. 1828, and the Lords, 15 Mar. 1827.30 Petitions for repeal of the Irish Vestries Act were presented to the Commons, 25 Feb., 2 May 1828, when Carew brought up one for repeal of the Irish Subletting Act.31 That autumn, under the leadership of Courtown, Stopford and Ely, a Brunswick Constitutional Club was established for the county with branches at Enniscorthy, Gorey, Newtownbarry, Shelburne and Wexford. Valentia was a vice-president of the one established at Ballycarew, 13 Oct. 1828. On 5 Jan. 1829 the Gorey Brunswick Club, of which Courtown was president and Stopford secretary, issued a declaration promising to ‘resist all attempts to disorganize society’, if ‘necessary, at the expense of our lives’.32 That month the secretary of the newly formed Liberal Club, R. W. Ryan, unsuccessfully invited Daniel O’Connell* to attend a ‘great meeting’ of the ‘friends of civil and religious liberty’, 26 Jan., which was held at Wexford under the chairmanship of Carew in support of emancipation and Lord Anglesey, the recalled viceroy. The speakers included Henry Lambert of Carnagh, Cadwallader Waddy of Kilmacoe, and Thomas Boyse, president of the County of Wexford Independent Club. A similar Catholic meeting was held at Sherburne under the chairmanship of Lambert.33 Stopford was absent from the divisions on Catholic emancipation, for which Carew voted, and in favour of which petitions were presented to the Commons, 20, 27 Feb., 4, 20 Mar., and the Lords, 17, 26 Feb., 17 Mar. Hostile ones from the Protestants reached the Commons, 11, 16, 23 Feb., and the Lords, 20, 30 Mar.34 By the accompanying alteration of the franchise the registered electorate of 1829 was reduced from 6,180 to 1,066, of whom 224 qualified at the new minimum freehold value of £10, 288 at £20 and 554 at £50.35 Early the following year a commentator noted that as a result politics had ‘died a sudden death ... in the county of Wexford’.36 A petition for repeal of the Irish Subletting Act was presented to the Lords, 26 Feb. 1829.37 One for repeal of the Vestry Act reached the Lords that day and the Commons, 13 May 1830.38 Carew presented petitions for the abolition of tithes, 5 Apr., and against increased stamp and spirit duties, 14 May, 30 June 1830.39

At the 1830 general election Carew, though said to be ‘certain of his return’, retired, citing the ‘increased duties’ of representation and ‘family obligations’. Stopford also stood down.40 At least six candidates entered the field, all of whom claimed to be opposed to increased taxation. Chichester, who, according to one observer, ‘chiefly owed the position he now holds in the county’ to the work of his ‘best friend’ Lambert, came forward, denying that he was an absentee. Lambert, who complained that the ‘unaccountable resignation of my friend Carew has left a horrible hiatus in our representation’, joined him as the ‘representative of an old Catholic family’ and a ‘thorough-going radical’, stressing his ‘active part in the politics of this country for twenty years’ and support for reform of Parliament and the church. Waddy also offered, condemning the monopolization of the representation by a ‘vain and venal aristocracy’, who ‘the moment a general election is spoken of ... meet together to consider in what way they can best defeat the wishes of the people’, and lamenting the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, who were ‘found too honest’ and ‘too independent for their masters’. Valentia, who denied having formed a ‘junction’ with Stopford in 1820, came forward on the ‘high church’ Protestant interest with the support of Ely, his uncle Lord Farnham and the bishop of Ferns, promising to ‘not be an absentee’. He was joined by John Rowe of Ballycross, a ‘resident landed proprietor’, who, as O’Connell was later advised, had previously supported the ‘liberal party’, but along with the Grogan Morgans of Johnstown Castle had now become ‘high church’. Boyse, the former president of the Independent Club, Sir Thomas Esmonde of Ballynastragh, and O’Connell himself were also rumoured.41 On 12 July O’Connell was informed that Esmonde had offered to ‘yield any claims of his own and use his best exertions for you’, but advised that

success ... would be very doubtful and certainly under present circumstances very expensive ... The independent interests here, per se, are not strong, the landlords, chiefly Protestant, having great influence and power ... There is still much of the leaven of Brunswickism and much high Protestant feeling, all of which Esmonde fears would be arrayed against you. He also thinks the county is in some degree pledged to Chichester unless the latter renders those pledges void by not openly declaring himself on the political questions now affecting Ireland.42

Asked by Peel, the home secretary, if the Irish government had ‘declared in favour of anyone’, 26 July, Lord Francis Leveson Gower, the Irish secretary, was ‘not aware that that any candidate’ had applied, but saw ‘no reason to suppose’ that Valentia would not support them.43 Two days later the Independent Club, at the urging of Waddy, met to decide whom to support, and under the chairmanship of Esmonde, who had decided not to stand, selected Boyse. Waddy promptly withdrew, but Boyse then declined on account of ill health. J.E. Devereux of London, possibly a kinsman of Nicholas Devereux of Ballyrankin, a Club member, now came forward on the ‘principles of my venerated friend, the late Edmund Burke†’, but a second meeting agreed to support Lambert, for whom a subscription was started. Devereux therefore withdrew, explaining that the conditions on which he had been ‘induced’ to stand had not been fulfilled.44 On 3 Aug. it was reported to Thomas Wyse*, a candidate for county Tipperary, that Lambert had made ‘a most successful canvass’, but that Chichester, with whom he was to have coalesced, was ‘preparing to betray him’ and ‘to save his purse a few pounds’ would ‘willingly sacrifice’ him and ‘let an Orange lordship in’.45 On 7 Aug. Lambert complained that Colclough, whom he had ‘supported with a powerful body of freeholders in 1818’, had given his interest to his relative Rowe.46 Three days later he also ‘lost’ the Portsmouth interest, which he described as a ‘tremendous blow’.47 On the eve of the election Carew predicted that Chichester would be ‘safe’ and that the contest would be between Valentia and Lambert, whom he urged Wyse to assist.48

At the nomination Chichester was proposed by Carew, Lambert by Esmonde, Rowe by Colclough and Valentia by a clergyman. Waddy, who backed Lambert, mocked the ‘enormous number of 900 votes to be polled’ and asserted that the county had ‘resolved itself into a select committee, composed of about one lord, one bishop, and two esquires’. A ‘severe and desperately fought contest’ ensued. At the end of the second day Chichester had secured 191 votes, Rowe 121, Valentia 108 and Lambert 103. Thereafter Valentia gained ground and he and Chichester, who led throughout, were returned on the fourth day. At the declaration Lambert blamed the ‘desertion of supposed friends, the neglect of our registries, and the influence of the clergy’ for his defeat and promised to offer again at the next opportunity.49 ‘Certain friendships’, he explained to Wyse, turned out to be a ‘matter of farce when put to trial’, adding, ‘I do not think that either of the successful candidates have the least idea of being again returned’ as neither of them ‘ventured to undergo a chairing, rather an unusual omission after a secure contest’. Urging Wyse him to help him secure the support of Newton Fellowes† and his Portsmouth interest at the next election, he contended that it was

in consequence of his having been prevailed on to support thorough-going Tories that our unfortunate county has undergone such complete humiliation and disgrace. A slight sketch of the present state of the Wexford representation from your pen would, I am convinced, obtain for me at once ... the open declaration of Mr. Fellowes in my favour ... [and] induce many who opposed me hither to come over to us.50

Petitions for repeal of the Union reached the Commons, 17 Dec. 1830, and the Lords, 7 Mar. 1831.51 Chichester supported and Valentia opposed the Grey ministry’s reform bill, against which a petition from the Protestants was presented to the Lords, 21 Apr. 1831.52 A request by Carew for a county meeting to get up a petition in favour was ‘refused’, however, whereupon Newton Fellowes, possessing ‘so large a stake’ in the county, was urged to call his own, rather than ‘submit to the dictation’ of a ‘Tory high sheriff’ and allow his ‘tenantry remain in their present torpid state’.53 At the 1831 general election Chichester offered again as ‘a steady and determined’ supporter of ‘extensive reform’ and ‘every possible retrenchment’. Valentia also stood firm, warning that the proposed bill would not ‘serve the country’ or ‘clothe or feed the poor’ but offering to support ‘a more moderate reform’. Lambert came forward again as a firm supporter of the ‘enlightened ministers’ and their efforts to ‘reform abuses’.54 Rowe was rumoured but declined. On 25 Apr. Carew informed Smith Stanley, the Irish secretary, that they had every expectation of returning Lambert as ‘a second reform as well as government Member’ in place of Valentia, but that ‘we shall require every exertion’ against the ‘Tory and high church party’, to whom the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders had given ‘a great relative power’, and that a ‘general letter’ expressing the ‘good wishes of ministers’ would be ‘of much use both with them and others’.55 Five days later Lord Althorp, leader of the House, told Carew that he was ‘very pleased’ to hear that Wexford had ‘such good candidates as Lambert and Chichester’.56 On 27 Apr. O’Connell assured the whip Lord Duncannon* that Valentia had ‘no chance’ and boasted of being able to ‘put a spoke in his wheel’.57 At a meeting of his supporters, 4 May, Lambert predicted that the ‘Tory spiders’ would be ‘driven from their shelves’, but the following day he privately warned Smith Stanley that he dreaded the ‘opposition of the clergy and the established church’, led by the bishop of Ferns, and requested a ‘remonstrance from the Castle, or a strong hint ... on behalf of the ministerial candidates’. Five days later he reported to Smith Stanley that the ‘yeomanry corps have been most active in ... reviving in its utmost virulence, the spirit of Orange Toryism’ and again called for a ‘remonstrance’ to Ferns, ‘who looks for translation to a richer see’. He continued:

I fear only that our funds may fail. I am willing to make great sacrifices myself but ... I am quite unable to meet the whole of the heavy expense which must attend the contest, especially as Lord Valentia is largely supplied by his uncle Lord Farnham and the Tory fund. Carew, who is to propose me, and ... Newton Fellowes have both written to various influential persons in England and Wales to obtain supplies from the reform subscriptions there. Hitherto they have received no answer, and yet, tomorrow the struggle begins.58

On 13 May Carew was informed that the ‘Reform Fund Committee’ had placed £500 at their disposal, and shortly afterwards Smith Stanley noted that Ely had ‘promised me to be neutral’.59 At the nomination Chichester was proposed by Charles Walker, Member for Wexford, Valentia by Stopford, his former opponent, and Lambert by Carew. One Darcy Talbot, possibly a kinsman of William Talbot of Castle Talbot, was also nominated. In the ensuing contest Newton Fellowes arrived to ‘tender the Portsmouth interest’ to Chichester and Lambert, who led throughout. The sheriff’s decision to send for the cavalry on the fifth day was condemned by the reformers as a ‘pretext of preserving the freedom of election’, which ‘deterred’ many from going to the poll. Next day Valentia gave up, alleging ‘intimidation and obstruction’ of his supporters by ‘ruffian mobs of hired strangers’. Chichester and Lambert were returned. The ‘confederated forces of an expiring junta’, declared the Wexford Independent, ‘have been dispersed and signally defeated’.60 On 21 May the Tory Charles Arbuthnot* informed Farnham that Stopford had lost ‘under circumstances which will authorize a petition’, but claims in the London Standard that Valentia’s supporters had been ‘confined’ and ‘nearly murdered’ and that with ‘fair play’ he would have been returned with a 200 majority were dismissed by the local press.61 A petition on similar grounds against the return of Chichester and Lambert was presented, 5 July, but discharged, 20 July. Another alleging that Lambert had ‘illegally obtained a nominal majority’ over Valentia was presented, 8 July, but lapsed, 25 July 1831.62 Both Members supported the reintroduced reform bill, for which a petition was presented to the Lords, 4 Oct. 1831, and the Irish measure.63 Petitions for an Irish bill as ‘liberal and efficient’ as the English one reached the Commons, 13 June, 2 July 1832.64

On 18 June 1831, in an incident which provoked widespread ‘outrage’, the yeomanry fired on a crowd of men, women and children at Newtownbarry, killing 14 and wounding 23. In the calls for action that followed, in which the Members took a lead, it emerged that three heifers belonging to a Patrick Doyle had been seized for non-payment of tithe at the local market. Fearing a ‘rescue’, the magistrates had summoned about 150 yeomanry and police, who on escorting the cattle to the pound had stones thrown at them by a crowd and opened fire. According to the Dublin Evening Post they ‘continued firing in small parties for nearly quarter of an hour’, and the ‘people who came to buy on market day were the innocent victims of this horrible butchery’. A petition from Newtownbarry demanding action reached the viceroy Anglesey, who sent a king’s counsel to investigate the following month.65 Constituency petitions condemning the ‘massacre’ and for punishment of the offenders were presented to the Lords, 13 Sept. 1831, and the Commons, 13 June 1832. Others for disbanding the yeomanry reached the Lords, 13 Sept., and the Commons, 3, 13 Oct. 1831.66

In September 1831 Carew was appointed the first lord lieutenant of the county, much to the consternation of Courtown, who was ‘very angry’ and considered it ‘an affront to the respectable gentlemen of the county’.67 Chichester’s elevation to the peerage as Lord Templemore that month created a vacancy, for which Grey requested Carew’s ‘most active exertions to secure the return of a good representative’.68 Finding that the Tories were making ‘great exertions to return an anti-reformer’, Carew, sensing that he ‘possessed the confidence of all parties’, came out of retirement and offered in order to prevent ‘if possible, a contested election, which would be most calamitous in the present excited state of the county’.69 As Chichester explained, ‘he is sure to be returned and probably without opposition, but if the Ultra Tories should dare to attempt one they have not an iota of a chance. I hope that ... the government will approve of this arrangement, which I really consider a most important and essential one’.70 The Tories declined to put up a candidate and Carew, whom Grey thanked for coming forward in the ‘present emergency’, was returned unopposed.71 According to Courtown, ‘civil war’ in the county was prevented ‘only by the patience of the independent Protestant party’, who did not oppose Carew. ‘In short’, he told the duke of Wellington, ‘there is a complete bouleversement in this once loyal, Protestant and peaceable county’.72

In April 1832 O’Connell was advised by a local correspondent that Carew would ‘be raised to the peerage’, creating another vacancy, for which ‘not an honest, straightforward man qualified can be found to come forward’, so that Valentia or Rowe would

walk over the course and ... get a footing that if suffered to go by ... without a powerful struggle, ultimately will unseat Lambert ... Esmonde is spoken of but ... it [is] very doubtful ... he would be by the people supported. Talbot will not [stand] ... Boyse neither has strength of body nor would anything induce him ... Under these circumstances I am induced by our little Liberal knot here to implore you to address the county through the medium of the Pilot.73

In the event no vacancy occurred. That month Carew reported that the Protestants, led by Courtown and Valentia, were attempting to get up petitions against the Irish government, but that ‘many magistrates ... formerly Brunswickers’ had refused to sign. On 1 June an anti-tithes meeting was held at Newtownbarry, to Carew’s annoyance under the names of Carew, Lambert and Walker, but it ‘passed off without any trouble’. Another was held in August, after which Carew observed that ‘the people seem much better inclined and in much better humour than they were last winter’.74 Petitions for the abolition of tithes reached the Commons, 14 Feb., 10 Apr., 13 June, 5 July, and the Lords, 30 May.75 Petitions were presented to the Commons for a tax on Irish absentee landlords, 13 June, and in support of the new plan of Irish education, 17 July 1832.76

By the Irish Reform Act 175 leaseholders (163 registered at £10 and 12 at £20) and 22 rent-chargers (20 at £20 and 2 at £50) were added to the freeholders, who had increased in number to 2,710 (1,996 registered at £10, 218 at £20, and 496 at £50), giving a reformed constituency of 2,907.77 Carew’s belief that if he offered again there would ‘probably be no contest’ proved false at the 1832 general election, when he and Lambert stood successfully as Liberals against the Repealer Waddy, Rowe and two other Conservatives, in a contest in which 2,193 polled.78 Waddy replaced Carew on his elevation to the peerage in 1834, but retired the following year, when two Liberals were returned. The Liberals continued to hold both seats until 1852.

Author: Philip Salmon


  • 1. S. Lewis, Top. Dict. of Ireland (1837), ii. 700-2.
  • 2. TCD, Shapland Carew mss 4020/13; Add. 38283, f. 241.
  • 3. O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1934.
  • 4. The Times, 12 Feb.; Dublin Evening Post, 9, 11, 14, 21, 25 Mar. 1820; TCD, Courtown mss P33/14/1, 35; Add. 38283, f. 241.
  • 5. CJ, lxxviii. 208; lxxix. 446, lxxxi. 270; LJ, lv. 859, lvii. 809.
  • 6. CJ, lxxvii. 213.
  • 7. LJ, lvii. 62.
  • 8. Courtown mss 14/5.
  • 9. Ibid. 14/5, 6.
  • 10. Ibid. 14/11; undated cutting from The Pilot, Sept. 1824.
  • 11. Courtown mss 14/10, 12.
  • 12. Ibid. 14/8.
  • 13. Ibid. 14/21.
  • 14. Ibid. 14/31.
  • 15. Ibid. 14/14, 32.
  • 16. Ibid. 14/44.
  • 17. Ibid. 14/33-36.
  • 18. Ibid. 14/35.
  • 19. Ibid. 14/52.
  • 20. Ibid. 14/52; Wexford Evening Post, 19 May 1826.
  • 21. Courtown mss 14/60, 64, 73.
  • 22. Ibid. 14/37, 88, 105, 115.
  • 23. Ibid. 14/135.
  • 24. Ibid. 14/101.
  • 25. Wexford Evening Post, 19, 30 May; Dublin Evening Post, 1 June 1826.
  • 26. Wexford Evening Post, 16 June; Dublin Evening Post, 17, 20 June 1826.
  • 27. Wexford Evening Post, 20 June 1826.
  • 28. Dublin Evening Post, 17 June 1826.
  • 29. Wexford Evening Post, 23 June 1826.
  • 30. CJ, lxxxii. 52, 181, 190, 264, 272, 276, 394; lxxxiii. 17, 101, 254, 265, 303, 304, 332; LJ, lix. 113, 160, 161, 168, 370.
  • 31. CJ, lxxxiii. 101, 304.
  • 32. Wexford Herald, 17, 20, 24 Sept., 1, 11, 15 Oct., 12, 22, 29 Nov., 6 Dec. 1828, 10, 28 Jan. 1829.
  • 33. Wexford Evening Post, 9, 23, 27, 30 Jan. 1829.
  • 34. CJ, lxxxiv. 22, 34, 72, 76, 89, 103, 154; LJ, lxi. 48, 82, 213, 238, 309, 312, 313.
  • 35. PP (1830), xxix. 474.
  • 36. PRO NI, Barrett Lennard mss MIC170/3, Ellis to Barrett Lennard, 22 Jan. 1830.
  • 37. LJ, lxi. 83.
  • 38. Ibid.; CJ, lxxxv. 416.
  • 39. CJ, lxxxv. 263, 423, 596.
  • 40. PRO NI, Pack-Beresford mss D664/A/151; Wexford Herald, 7 July 1830.
  • 41. NLI, Wyse mss 15024 (10), Anthony to Wyse, 3 Aug.; 15024 (1), Lambert to Wyse, 6 July, 7 Aug.; O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1934; Wexford Herald, 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 28 July 1830.
  • 42. O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1694.
  • 43. Add. 40338, ff. 248, 250.
  • 44. Wexford Herald, 31 July, 4, 7, 14 Aug. 1830.
  • 45. Wyse mss (10), Anthony to Wyse, 3 Aug. 1830.
  • 46. Ibid. (1), Lambert to Wyse, 7 Aug. 1830.
  • 47. Ibid. (10), 10 Aug. 1830.
  • 48. Ibid. (5), Carew to Wyse, 20 Aug. 1830.
  • 49. Wexford Herald, 18, 21, 25 Aug.; Dublin Evening Post, 17, 19, 21 Aug. 1830.
  • 50. Wyse mss (7), Lambert to Wyse, 26 Aug., 13 Sept. 1830.
  • 51. CJ, lxxxvi. 184; LJ, lxiii. 299.
  • 52. LJ, lxiii. 506.
  • 53. Hants RO 15M84/5/5/26.
  • 54. Wexford Independent, 29 Apr., 3, 17 May 1831.
  • 55. Derby mss 920 Der (14) 128/15.
  • 56. Shapland Carew mss 25.
  • 57. O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1800.
  • 58. Wexford Independent, 10 May 1831; Derby mss 125/11.
  • 59. Shapland Carew mss 26; Derby mss 125/11, Lambert to Smith Stanley, 12 May 1831.
  • 60. Courtown mss 14/136; Wexford Independent, 13, 17, 20, 24 May; Wexford Herald, 14, 21 May; Dublin Evening News, 17, 19, 26 May 1831.
  • 61. NLI, Farnham mss 18606 (2); Wexford Herald, 25 May 1831.
  • 62. CJ, lxxxvi. 617-9, 626-8, 677, 689.
  • 63. LJ, lxiii. 1047.
  • 64. CJ, lxxxvii. 396, 448.
  • 65. Wexford Independent, 21 June; Dublin Evening Post, 23, 25 June 1831.
  • 66. LJ, lxiii. 975; CJ, lxxxvi. 885, 910, lxxxvii. 396.
  • 67. Shapland Carew mss 27, 29; Wellington mss WP1/1195/13.
  • 68. Shapland Carew mss 29.
  • 69. Ibid. 31; Wexford Independent, 17 Sept. 1831.
  • 70. W. Suss. RO, Goodwood mss 1434, f. 166.
  • 71. Wexford Independent, 28 Sept.; Dublin Evening Post, 29 Sept. 1831; Shapland Carew mss 30.
  • 72. Wellington mss WP1/1195/13.
  • 73. O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1885.
  • 74. Derby mss 128/15, Carew to Smith Stanley, 1, 30 Apr., 19 June, 10 Aug. 1832.
  • 75. CJ, lxxxvii. 103, 265, 396, 461; LJ, lxiv. 244.
  • 76. CJ, lxxxvii. 396, 497.
  • 77. PP (1833), xxvii. 309.
  • 78. Ibid.; Derby mss 128/15, Carew to Smith Stanley, 5 Sept. 1832.