County Wicklow

CO. WICKLOW – 67%, [56,532] c. 900,73 [c. 3,000 (1803), c. 1,500 (1815)]
BOROUGH	TYPE	PATRON	ELECTORATE
Baltinglass	Corporation	Earl of Aldborough	12 burgesses plus 20 freemen
Blessington	Corporation	Charles Dunbar and heirs	12 burgesses plus 6 freemen
		(Earl of Hillsborough / Marquess of Downshire)
Carysfort	Corporation	Viscount Allen and heir	13 burgesses, all non-resident
		Lord Carysfort
Wicklow	Corporation	William Tighe	13 burgesses

Co. Wicklow - Constituency

In Co. Wicklow the largest landowners were successively the great Whig grandees, the Marquesses of Rockingham and the nephew and heir of the 2nd Marquess, who died in 1782, Earl Fitzwilliam. The Wentworth estates amounted to about a sixth of the county and in 1795 Lord Lieutenant Fitzwilliam was landlord to about a third of the electorate, rising to a half by 1815. Both Lord Rockingham and Lord Fitzwilliam had Irish peerages and both were absentees.

On the eve of the 1761 election the Marquess of Rockingham, who was also Earl Malton in the peerage of Ireland, wrote the following letter to Lord Charlemont illustrating the influence of the absentee proprietors on the returns for the county:

I shall beg leave to trouble your lordship, as an old friend and acquaintance, with my particular situation in regard to the county of Wicklow and shall also beg for your assistance in the plan I would propose. Mr Wentworth, who is both my friend and relation, has long had a great desire to offer himself candidate for the county of Wicklow … the situation one is in is very delicate … the reason which makes me disinclined to follow Mr Wentworth’s inclinations arises from a consideration which I know your Lordship will approve of. For though I think the Qualification Bill as it stands in England is a very absurd one, yet I must think that a member for a county ought to be a gentleman of that county and possessed of an estate within that county.

Mr Stratford (2025) in his letter to me informs me that he can be chosen for a borough of his own, but prefers representing the county of Wicklow. I have, therefore, wrote to Mr Wentworth and have also wrote to Mr Stratford in order to try whether Mr Stratford will answer Mr Wentworth’s inclinations of being in parliament by bringing him in for his borough and to offer Mr Stratford my interest for the county. I have heard an excellent character of Mr Howard and if Mr Stratford assists Mr Wentworth in the borough, Lord Carysfort has authorised me to say that his interest in Wicklow shall be for Mr Stratford and Mr Howard, which I do not doubt with the addition of their respective interests and mine will make their election very safe and easy for the county.

Mr Wentworth was to be disappointed, and in a subsequent letter Lord Rockingham continued to outline his election plans, remarking that:

Upon the death of the late king, I mentioned to Lord Bessborough (1707) that I imagined that Mr Brabazon did not intend standing again for Wicklow, and that Mr Whately [sic - Whaley] was not likely to be re-elected, and wished him to give me some insight into the personal character and inclinations of those who might offer for the county; as in truth, not having been able to take a trip to my estate in Ireland, I had not the advantage of being personally acquainted with any gentleman in the county.

His lordship was so obliging to write at my request to Mr Ponsonby (1702); but as yet I have not heard from Lord Bessborough only that he believed Mr Ponsonby wished well to Mr Whately, and I had before declared that Mr Whately should not have any assistance from me. If I am at liberty, Lord Carysfort and I shall unite in supporting Mr Wingfield and Mr Howard’s interest. I shall be very anxious to hear what has been done.

This correspondence reflects the ‘real’ interest of the great absentee landlords at elections, which was to be not only represented but vocal in the Irish parliament, while its possessor was frequently to be found in one or other House of the concurrent British parliament. By requiring MPs to be re-elected every eight years, the Octennial Act tightened and strengthened this type of permanent authority, which undoubtedly contributed to the British administration’s acquiescence in that ostensibly popular measure. Their powerful interest, led by Rockingham, was behind the lobby against the 1773 Absentee Tax and subsequent attempts to introduce a similar tax.

Lord Fitzwilliam could control both seats for Co. Wicklow, but he allowed his tenants to use their second vote as they chose, asking only for their first vote. Apart from the dominant Rockingham-Fitzwilliam interest there were the resident interests of Lord Aldborough (Stratford) (2024), Lord Meath (Brabazon) (0221), Edward Tighe (2064), Samuel Hayes (0995) (whose interest passed to the Parnells (1633) in 1795), and Nicholas Westby (2217).

The Allen family died out and their interest passed through an heiress, Elizabeth, daughter of Joshua, 2nd Viscount Allen (0036), to John Proby, Lord Carysfort. In fact Lord Carysfort wrote to Lord Lieutenant Bedford that:

The past parliamentary interest of my wife’s family is the power of choosing two members for the borough of Carysfort, and the interest in the county is such as to give a turn to that side which the family espouses. Mr Whalley, one of the present representatives of the county, was chosed entirely by my Lady’s Allen interest.

The Whitshed interest, which was mainly in Wicklow town, also died out with the death, in 1771, of William Whitshed (2234), who lived in England. Little is known about the Hoeys although they appear from time to time until the 1780s, and in 1778 were said to have ‘a good interest’ in the county.

The Wicklow interests remained fairly stable throughout the century. Lord Fitzwilliam had a connection with the Ponsonbys (1699, 1709), which had considerable political ramifications during his brief viceroyalty. His first wife was Lady Charlotte Ponsonby, a daughter of William, 2nd Earl of Bessborough (1707) and Lady Caroline Cavendish; his second wife was Louisa Molesworth, the widow of W. B. Ponsonby (1709).

In 1783 it was said that ‘Earl FitzWilliam has so considerable [an] interest in this County, he can bring in one member and generally decide the election of the other. He did so in the last election at the desire of Mr Ponsonby (1702).’ Following the death in November 1800 of Nicholas Westby, who had been returned with Fitzwilliam’s support, Fitzwilliam returned George Ponsonby (1699), who had been sitting for Galway town, which lost an MP at the Union.

The electorate was small, probably under 1,000. In the by-election of October 1745 the voting was as follows: Anthony Brabazon 172, Richard Chapel Whaley 165. At the close of the poll Whaley voted for Brabazon, whose supporters included Sir Richard Wolseley (2247), James Tynte (2118) and Sir William Fownes (0812). Whaley’s included Edward Hayes and John Stratford (2025). Brabazon appears to have had the Rockingham interest.

In 1746 Dean Francis Corbet and Lord Chief Justice Singleton both advised Ralph Howard not to stand for the county, on account of:

Your minority, the uncertainty if not the improbability of your success at this time, when you have not as yet had it in your power to make any great personal interest in the county, the shame of defeat and the prejudice it might do you as to future elections, the many obligations you must lay yourself under to persons whom you do not care for and to whom you must always be a kind of slave, the great fatigue you must necessarily undergo, the bad company you must submit to or else lose your interest with great numbers of the freeholders, also there was the consideration of expense.

At the election of 1761 about 1,150 votes were cast: Ralph Howard received 48[?], Richard Wingfield 355, Richard Chapel Whaley 314. At the general election in 1776, 1,645 votes were cast: William Brabazon 726, John Stratford 497, Robert Hoey 422. In 1790 the gross poll was 1,157, and on this occasion the voting was: John Stratford 499, Nicholas Westby 628, William Hume 582. Westby and Hume were returned.

John Stratford had been the sitting member, and before the election Lord Aldborough (Stratford) had issued 400 tickets worth 2s to his freeholders to be spent in three pubs in Baltinglass (each pub to be supervised by one of his brothers or Morley Saunders, a nephew), and 400 for them, their wives and children for a ball.

Aldborough’s expenses were estimated to be at least £522. Lords Fitzwilliam’s and Wicklow’s tenants voted for Westby and Hume; Carysfort’s, Powerscourt’s and Tynte’s all voted for Stratford. But expenditure was no guarantee of a favourable outcome. The number of voters was thought to be about 3,000 in 1803; it fell to 1,676 in 1815.

Wicklow had four parliamentary boroughs – Baltinglass, Blessington, Carysfort and Wicklow town – all of which were disfranchised by the Act of Union.

ID	County	Year	Type	Ref. No.	Name
1	Co. Wicklow	1692	Election	2027	Robert Stratford
2	Co. Wicklow	1692	Election	1736	John Price
3	Co. Wicklow	1695	Election	692	Richard Edwards
4	Co. Wicklow	1695	Election	1736	John Price
5	Co. Wicklow	1703	Election	692	Richard Edwards
6	Co. Wicklow	1703	Election	2233	William Whitshed
7	Co. Wicklow	1713	Election	33	John Allen
8	Co. Wicklow	1713	Election	2233	William Whitshed
9	Co. Wicklow	1715	Election	39	Robert Allen
10	Co. Wicklow	1715	Election	1669	Henry Percy
11	Co. Wicklow	1725	By Election	1030	William Hoey
12	Co. Wicklow	1727	Election	39	Robert Allen
13	Co. Wicklow	1727	Election	1030	William Hoey
14	Co. Wicklow	1742	By Election	35	John Allen
15	Co. Wicklow	1745	By Election	221	Anthony Brabazon
16	Co. Wicklow	1747	By Election	2225	Richard Chapel Whaley
17	Co. Wicklow	1761	Election	2242	Richard Wingfield
18	Co. Wicklow	1761	Election	1044	Ralph Howard
19	Co. Wicklow	1765	By Election	225	William Brabazon
20	Co. Wicklow	1768	Election	225	William Brabazon
21	Co. Wicklow	1768	Election	1044	Ralph Howard
22	Co. Wicklow	1776	Election	225	William Brabazon
23	Co. Wicklow	1776	Election	2026	John Stratford
24	Co. Wicklow	1783	Election	2217	Nicholas Westby
25	Co. Wicklow	1783	Election	2026	John Stratford
26	Co. Wicklow	1790	Election	2217	Nicholas Westby
27	Co. Wicklow	1790	Election	1053	William Hume
28	Co. Wicklow	1797	Election	2217	Nicholas Westby (d. 30 Nov. 1800)
29	Co. Wicklow	1797	Election	1053	William Hume
30	Co. Wicklow	1799	By Election	1054	William Hoare Hume
31	Co. Wicklow	1801	UK	1054	William Hoare Hume
32	Co. Wicklow	1801	UK	1699	George Ponsonby
33	Co. Wicklow	1802	Election	1054	William Hoare Hume
34	Co. Wicklow	1802	Election	1699	George Ponsonby

Co. Wicklow - Boroughs

Baltinglass was incorporated by a 1663/4 charter of 15 Chas II with a corporation comprising a sovereign, 12 free burgesses and a commonalty. It appears from its establishment to have been controlled by the Aldborough family, who appear to have quarrelled over almost everything, including the borough of Baltinglass. In 1783 it comprised a ‘Sovereign, 12 Burgesses. Freemen unlimited, 20 at present. 2,000 inhabitants, nearly one half Protestants. Patron and Proprietor, Earl of Aldborough (2024). Only 3 resident electors.’

In 1783 Lord Aldborough decided to sell the seats to Warden Flood (0766), and when his brother John Stratford (2026) was elected for the county, he then attempted to return James Somerville (1958) but this return was successfully petitioned against. Lord Aldborough then returned Sir John Allen Johnston (1108), but

Several of the electors disdaining to be sold, but yet preserving an attachment to the family, endeavoured to elect his brother, the Hon. Benjamin O’Neale Stratford (2022), and his nephew Morley Saunders, Esq. but after two petitions to the House of Commons, Mr Flood and Sir Allen Johnston were declared duly elected by a majority of one.

This statement condenses the result of about four different petitions, one of which came before a committee of the House on 10 November 1783 when Benjamin O’Neale Stratford and James Somerville petitioned against the return of the Hon. John Stratford and Warden Flood.

Benjamin O’Neale Stratford’s arguments were that the MP must be a burgess of the town, that undue influence had been exercised by Lord Aldborough, who claimed the patronage of the borough, that a sum of money had been paid to Lord Aldborough to procure his influence, and that by these corrupt means the sitting members were returned.

James Somerville claimed that the deputy sovereign, Mason Gerard, had admitted several persons unqualified to vote and disfranchised others: Gerard had employed Robert Warren actually to take the poll, and Gerard told him that he was apprehensive of a riot and therefore it would be better to return Stratford and Flood, as Stratford was likely to be elected to the county. In the meantime Gerard had died. The election was held in the house of one Rowan, an innkeeper. In 1781 there had been a short-lived reconciliation between the Stratford brothers. Evidence was then produced of bribery, undue influence and threats.

At this point the sister, Lady Hannah Saunders née Stratford, appeared and declared that Lord Aldborough had owed her money, which had been paid her about a year previously. She had had no conversation with him as to when or where he had got the money; she had told no person that Lord Aldborough had paid her out of money he had received for the borough or that Mr Benjamin O’Neale Stratford had said that he would not petition if Aldborough would give him a certain sum of money.

Two electors then declared that they regarded themselves as trustees of the borough and would vote as Lord Aldborough requested. At the election there had been 7 votes for Mr Flood and 6 for Mr Somerville; the Returning Officer had voted as a burgess. The committee determined that the sitting members, Warden Flood and John Stratford, were duly elected.

This, however, was more of an impasse than a solution, as although Lord Aldborough appeared to have vindicated his claim the brothers continued to demand their rights. Even in 1799 it was described as ‘a close Borough, patron, Earl of Aldborough but frequently contested by his brothers’. Baltinglass was disfranchised in 1800 and the Commissioners, after receiving memorials from all sides, divided the £15,000 equally between the four brothers. By the time the money was paid the Earl was dead, having alienated everything that was not entailed to his nephew, the son of his sister Amelia, Viscountess Powerscourt.

Blessington was incorporated by a 1670 charter, 21 Chas II. The corporation comprised a sovereign, two bailiffs and 12 burgesses and as many freemen as they thought fit. In 1783 the borough was described as follows:

12 Burgesses, choose a Portrieve, 2 Bailiffs and Registrar out of themselves. There are 5 Freemen who vote at elections. Election, by Charter, in the Hall of Blessington House. Patron and proprietor, Lord Hillsborough. 240 inhabitants. Power to make Freemen which is not exercised. All electors are non-resident, except for the sovereign and bailiffs. A corrupt, venal and rotten Borough at the absolute command of the Patron.

In 1790 Blessington was a ‘neat little town, built and ornamented by Primate (1679–1702) Boyle, was long possessed by his descendants in the female line, who derived the title of Earls from it but is now, by various devolutions, the property of the Marquess of Downshire (1016). As the electors here consist only of the twelve Burgesses, who are uniformly chosen agreeably to his Lordship’s pleasure, it is evident that the Marquess is the appointer of its nominal representatives.’

Primate Boyle was succeeded by his son Murrough, created Viscount Blessington, and from him it descended through his daughter to Charles Dunbar (0666) who, dying childless in 1778, bequeathed his estates to the descendants of Primate Boyle, one of whose great-great-grandsons was Lord Hillsborough. Other beneficiaries were Lords Longford and De Vesci, but the Blessington estate came to Lord Hillsborough, later 1st Marquess of Downshire. Blessington was disfranchised by the Act of Union and the £15,000 was paid to the estate of Arthur, 2nd Marquess of Downshire.

Carysfort was enfranchised by a 1629 charter of 4 Chas I. It was to have a sovereign, 12 burgesses and a free commonalty. At the beginning of the century it belonged to the Allen family. In 1750 Elizabeth Allen, daughter of the 2nd Viscount Allen (0036), married John Proby, 1st Baron Carysfort. This line of the Allen family died out with the 3rd Viscount (0034), and their interest and the major part of their estates (her co-heiress sister, Lady Mayne, died childless) passed through Elizabeth to Proby.

In 1757 Lord Carysfort wrote to Lord Lieutenant Bedford that ‘The past parliamentary interest of my wife’s family is the power of choosing two members for the borough of Carysfort.’ In 1783 it had a ‘Sovereign, 12 Burgesses, several Freemen without franchise. Patron and Proprietor, Lord Carysfort. Gone entirely to ruin and decay. All electors, of course, non-resident.’ In 1790 the borough and its owner were described as follows:

This Borough, of which but one house remains to mark the spot where once a village stood, is the property of the Earl of Carysfort, who appointing the twelve Burgesses, the only electors remaining to it, through the medium of them, constantly nominates its representatives, Though almost invariably an absentee, for many years past he has not sold it, but returned two of his connections for it. The noble Earl having found by experience that he can traffic with the minister more advantageously by wholesale, than by retail. An elevation of title and a considerable sinecure employment, both recently acquired, evince his skill in political calculation.

John Joshua, the son and heir of the 1st Lord Carysfort and Elizabeth, Lady Carysfort née Allen, was created Earl of Carysfort in 1789. Carysfort was disfranchised by the Act of Union; the £15,000 compensation was duly paid to the Earl of Carysfort.

Wicklow town was enfranchised by a 1614 charter of 11 James I in the usual pattern. It was incorporated with a sovereign and 12 burgesses; it had an uncertain number of freemen but these were immaterial as they could not vote. By 1773 the borough belonged entirely to the Tighes, although earlier the Whitsheds had some interest in it. It was a seaport of about 800 inhabitants, but in 1790 it was regarded as:

An inconsiderable place neither eminent for the beauty of its buildings, nor the wealth of its inhabitants. And agreeable to these circumstances, though not arising from them, is the state of its representation, for it is a close Borough, the sole property of the Tighe family the head of which nominates at pleasure the twelve Burgesses, its only electors and consequently dictates their apparent choice of representatives. At different times its fate is various, for sometimes it is sold and sometimes the Tighe family themselves represent it, but in either case, the chances are pretty equal that the minister of the day commands the support of the Members for the town of Wicklow.

William Tighe (2073), to whom the borough belonged, was a relative of the Ponsonbys and probably his greatest claim to fame was ensuring its last-minute return of Grattan (0895) to make his final dramatic entrance and stand against the Union on 16 January 1800. Wicklow was disfranchised by the Act of Union, and Tighe received the £15,000 compensation.

Constituencies and Elections

County Wicklow

Co. Wicklow - Constituency

Co. Wicklow - Boroughs