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, 3rd Baron Carpenter [I], 1st Earl of Tyrconnel [I]. educ. Westminster 1764-5; Ch. Ch. Oxf. 1767. m. (1) 9 July 1772, Frances, da. of John Manners, Mq. of Granby; she was divorced Oct. 1777, having eloped with Charles Loraine Smith, (2) 3 June 1780, Sarah Hussey, da. of John Hussey Delaval, 1 surv. da. suc. fa. as 2nd Earl of Tyrconnel [I] 9 Mar. 1762.
Tyrconnel was returned on the interest which his father-in-law, Lord Granby, had established at Scarborough. The election, though uncontested, seems to have been fairly expensive: in a memorandum, dated 1772, by John Calcraft, who was connected with the Manners family, there is an entry: ‘Sent £2,500 Scarborough’.1 In the House Tyrconnel voted steadily with the Opposition, whom Granby had joined shortly before his death, and to whom his son adhered as soon as he entered the House. Tyrconnel’s attendance seems to have been regular as his name appears in most of the extant division lists. Robinson in his survey of 1780 considered the question of putting up Sir Hugh Palliser, who had a considerable following at Scarborough, in opposition to Tyrconnel, but feared that this might end by Constantine Phipps being knocked out; and apparently the idea was dropped. Tyrconnel, following the Duke of Rutland, voted for Shelburne’s peace preliminaries, 18 Feb. 1783; but he was absent from the divisions on Fox’s East India bill. In 1784 Tyrconnel came out top in a contested election at Scarborough. On 16 June 1784, when parliamentary reform was put off by the previous question, Tyrconnel voted with the majority;2 but having received Rutland’s ‘sentiments respecting Pitt’s reform’,3 on 18 Apr. 1785 voted for it. Daniel Pulteney wrote to Rutland on 15 July 1784:4
I really think your Grace’s Members are the most useful in the House, for I don’t believe Pochin, Sutton, or myself have ever missed a single day, and Lord Tyrconnel is seldom or never absent at any expected business.
He voted for Richmond’s fortifications plan, 27 Feb. 1786, and with Pitt over the Regency 1788-9. In May when the question of the Prince of Wales’s debts was brought before Parliament, Pulteney informed Tyrconnel about the letter he had received from Rutland, and Tyrconnel was going to vote accordingly ‘for the Prince.’5 And Tyrconnel was returned on the Manners intere