Co. Monaghan


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:

12,860 in 1829; 1,148 in 1830

Number of voters:

852 in 1830; about 3,500 in 1826


 Charles Powell Leslie1240
 Walter Tyler170
 Hon. Henry Robert Westenra405
 Hon. John Craven Westenra78
 Arthur Gamble Lewis48

Main Article

Monaghan, a largely undeveloped county of hills and lakes, contained an almost equal population of Protestants and Catholics, so that both communities had to be wooed at elections, which took place in the county town of the same name. None of the major landlords, who were mostly absentees and therefore usually exercised their influence through powerful agents, had a predominating interest and since the Union, when the borough of Monaghan was disfranchised, they had wrangled over the representation without coming to a contest.1 The intensification of their struggles in the 1820s derived from the increased divisiveness of the Catholic question and the intervention or re-emergence of rival interests, though the outcome of the two violent polls held during this period had as much to do with electoral duplicity between the candidates as religious or ideological differences. The leading magnate was the 2nd Baron Cremorne of Dawson Grove, who (like his father Richard Dawson before him) had held one of the seats before succeeding to his great-uncle’s Irish peerage in 1813. Although he had apparently supported Lord Liverpool’s administration in the Commons, he favoured the Whigs and Catholic relief, and, in default of an eligible family member, tried to find a like-minded ally to back. His principal opponent in county politics was the Tory and Orangeman Charles Powell Leslie of Glasslough, who had sat since 1801, was a governor of the county and held the colonelcy of the local militia. He was looked to as a champion of the Protestant cause by other peers, such as the 11th Baron Blayney of Castleblayney and the 1st Viscount Templetown of Castle Upton, Antrim, and most of the resident gentry. A typical example of the latter was Thomas Charles Stewart Corry of Rockcorry Castle, ministerialist Member for Monaghan from 1807 to 1812 and, again, from 1813. His withdrawal in 1818 provided an opening for Henry Robert Westenra, the eldest (and now of age) son of the 2nd Baron Rossmore of Cortolvin Hills and Rossmore Park, who had unsuccessfully put forward his brother Colonel Henry Westenra of Camla in 1813. Rossmore, the county’s other governor and its custos rotulorum, supported Catholic relief and so strengthened his son’s position by securing Cremorne’s support. But Westenra, although sympathetic to opposition, voted just as often with government and, having given a public undertaking to abide by the county’s anti-Catholic resolutions (formulated at a meeting in October 1812), was obliged to vote in this sense in the House, despite Cremorne’s disapproval.2

At the general election of 1820, in which year 1,436 freeholders were registered, Rossmore and Cremorne made an arrangement placing county considerations above national politics: they agreed, as Westenra later recalled, to ‘our co-operating with him for one grand purpose. The engagement was simple and concise and divested of all conditions, except the one that I was to be considered the first object’.3 Thought to be certain of success, Westenra, whose father wanted a representative peerage but had to settle for a pension of £400 a year, and Leslie were returned unopposed, ostensibly as government supporters.4 Yet Westenra was as determined to hold himself free of the minor interests in Monaghan as he was to act independently in the Commons, and in May he informed his father that he scorned the pretensions of such men as the pro-Catholic Thomas Barrett Lennard* of Belhus, Essex, or of the just as independently minded anti-Catholic Edward Lucas† of Castle Shane. Aware of the need not to estrange the Catholics, who were particularly numerous among the 40s. freeholders, he wanted to put off agitating that issue for as long as possible, and emphasized to Rossmore that ‘if you will only be satisfied to leave well alone, the county is now quiet, and if we can keep Cremorne quiet everyone else will be so too’. In the autumn of 1820, when Cremorne was again dissatisfied with his conduct, Westenra urged his father not to connive at his interference: ‘if you court a contest, I know not where the money is to come from ... and even if I had it, I ask you candidly, would it be worth £5,000 to put Colonel Leslie out of the county representation?’5

During the early 1820s Westenra offered constant advice to his father on how to consolidate the family’s position in Monaghan. For instance, he argued that George IV should be welcomed by him to the county during his visit to Ireland; at least his brother Richard Westenra, as sheriff, was able to chair a meeting on 3 Aug. 1821 to approve a loyal address.6 For his own part, in making claims for local patronage he ensured that government knew that he often voted with them despite the hostility of his principal backer. He also continued to press his father to limit the ambitions of Cremorne, whose preparations had already alerted their opponent to the risk of a challenge, reasoning that

our families going together must in the end return the two Members. If he breaks off the connection now, God knows when it may be brought to unite again. If he makes a disturbance now, God knows what interests he may force into action against us, which are now favourably inclined towards us and would not act against us but on the strongest emergency.7

Rossmore certainly sought reassurances from Cremorne in the spring of 1822, but his son, whom he regarded as just as obstinate in the other extreme as their ally, persisted in following his own line at Westminster and believed that he could retrieve his fortunes in Monaghan. Far from despairing at Cremorne’s apparent betrayal, Westenra counted on a defensive alliance with Leslie (or ‘Shrug’, as he referred to him), which would see off the possibility of Cremorne’s introducing Barrett Lennard and prevent Lucas (who had always expected the reversion) picking up the other seat in the event of Leslie’s death or elevation to the peerage. The Members reached a provisional understanding when they met in May 1822, sharing a joke over the mutual misfortunes which would result from the rumoured candidacy of one of the Grattans. Yet it was that month that the first prescient suggestions emerged of the possible entry of Evelyn Shirley of Ettington, Warwickshire, and Blayney’s army officer son Cadwallader Blayney.8

The inhabitants’ anti-Catholic petition was presented by Leslie, 16 Apr. 1823, while others from the Catholics for their claims were brought up in the Commons, 17 June 1824 (by Barrett Lennard), 26 May 1826 (by James Grattan), and the Lords, 15 June 1824 (by Lord Darnley), 26 May 1826 (by Lord Londonderry).9 Westenra continued to be wary of the religious question, insisting in March 1823 that by remaining independent he retained the respect of such secondary figures as George Forster† (son of the Rev. Sir Thomas Forster of Coolderry), but that the result of provoking their anti-Catholic sentiments would be to ‘throw a considerable weight into Leslie’s scale again, and he would infallibly return two Members - I mean that interest would, that accession of interest would’. He was also concerned that

if this business of the 40s. freeholders being abolished is to take place ... every freeholder in the county Monaghan (with the exception of 10 perhaps at most) will be a stiff, uncompromising Protestant or one of the unco gude and reegidly righteous [sic] descendants of the John Presbyters of the north.

In that case, to declare in favour of relief would inevitably lead to his defeat.10 His brother Richard, on moving out of Rossmore Park that year, informed their father that ‘if you intend representing this county for the future, your attendance both now and hereafter must be more regular’, but no family member was prepared to undertake the constant residence that they recognized was needed to underpin their interest, especially in overseeing the registration process.11 In October 1823 it was said that Lord Blayney intended to register 800 freeholders, but it was unknown whether his son would oppose Catholic relief, throwing in his lot with Leslie, or would support it and so obtain Cremorne’s approval. Even to pre-empt the latter, Westenra refused to act with opposition and thereby ‘humour’ Cremorne, angrily asking his father whether he was ‘to be at the inconvenience, trouble and expense of keeping up the name and the family interest in the county, and to be made a political shuttlecock of into the bargain’. In addition, stressing that he had always refused to be considered Cremorne’s Member, he rebutted Rossmore’s accusation that he was responsible for the breach that had apparently occurred between them and their patron.12

In his optimistic ‘observations on Monaghan politics’, prepared for his son in early March 1824, Rossmore argued that the Westenras, who had several potential candidates for the representation within the family, could best consolidate their authority by a renewed alliance with Cremorne, whose heir would not reach his majority until 1838, rather than by joining the unpopular Leslie, whose sons were also very young. This would be better achieved by steering Cremorne away from Lucas, who was likely to prove a capable public speaker and man of business, and towards the youthful and untried Cadwallader Blayney, who would have no relative ready to take over the seat in the event of his expected imminent succession to his father’s peerage. Thus, even if a junction between Cremorne and Rossmore failed to defeat Leslie, whose friends would rally to him in the event of a challenge, Westenra could return at the next vacancy.13 Westenra, who felt there were too many imponderables to settle on any particular political line or tactical option, nevertheless replied in the summer that his father should bring Cremorne to the point and even make an approach to Shirley, who, having come into residence at Coolderry (and later at Lough Fea) to act as sheriff, had started to register hundreds of his tenants in the barony of Farney.14 In October 1824, when Blayney and Shirley were said to be ready to contest the county, Rossmore and his son corresponded over their relationship with Cremorne, at whose insistence Westenra, who only stayed in on condition that he was free to vote as he wished, sought to extract himself from his apparent pledge against Catholic relief. Some thought was given to preparing a statement of his views, on which he was privately almost as favourable as his father, but Westenra was ultimately against making it public.15 Having sought out Barrett Lennard and purchased the significant Gore estate, the Westenras made efforts to register their friends’ voters in order ‘to show Shirley our importance in the county’, as the latter was ‘evidently waiting upon his arms till the last moment’ to see with whom he could ‘most wisely make a permanent coalition’.16 Writing to Cremorne in June 1825 about his support for Catholic relief, Rossmore reiterated that his son’s hostile votes had ‘split the Protestant interest in the county, which would otherwise have declared for Leslie to a man’, but acknowledged that the passage of any measure would ‘probably be brought into the field against Henry in Monaghan, where you know so strong a Protestant feeling exists’.17

Shirley was supposed to be certain of success in September 1825, when Blayney also offered in expectation of a dissolution, and although he contacted Leslie for a deal to tie up the representation between them, he was deemed to favour Catholic relief and Cremorne was mentioned as his more likely partner.18 He seems to have secured Cremorne’s backing, but by January 1826 he had also made an alliance with Leslie and considered that their united forces would make them invincible. Westenra, who was nevertheless determined to defend his seat, launched an attack on this junction, claiming and receiving support as an upholder of the independent interest of lesser proprietors. Although Blayney and others gave their support to Leslie and Shirley, Cremorne was disgusted by the arrangement and insisted that his tenants’ second votes would be given to Westenra, while Barrett Lennard’s father was among several landlords who, out of loyalty, promised to continue to support both sitting Members.19 The interests were therefore aligned for a contest when the general election took place in the summer of 1826, but confusion surrounded the attitudes of two of the candidates towards the Catholics.20 Leslie, who offered again on the basis of his past conduct, was of course known to be hostile, but Shirley, whose address mentioned his long-held desire to represent the county while remaining silent on the religious issue, was assumed to be favourable to the granting of their claims. Indeed, in his circular to the Catholic clergy, Daniel O’Connell*, whose Catholic Association was very active in Monaghan, endorsed Shirley as a self-professed liberal, along with Westenra, who was given credit for Rossmore’s conduct on the question. However, Westenra, who had again voted against relief in 1825, was reluctant to risk his standing with the Protestants by making any overt statement and preferred to argue privately that if he gained support from the Catholic voters he could consider himself released him from what, as he made clear in a published letter to John Singleton of Castle Singleton, he had never really regarded as a firm pledge.21

With Shirley safe, the battle was between Westenra and Leslie, whose supporters clashed violently before the opening of the proceedings, 24 June 1826, when one Tanner met his death. Leslie, proposed by his brother-in-law Colonel John Madden of Hilton, spoke in defence of his record, but Westenra, nominated by Lucas, and Shirley, introduced by William Tennison of Ballycromer, did not attempt to gain a hearing. On the hustings, as in the many published addresses and squibs, Leslie was accused of being a domineering landlord and Westenra was branded as duplicitous, but it was Shirley who was regarded with most suspicion, being labelled an unscrupulous interloper. The priests, led by the Catholic bishop of Clogher, Edward Kernan, preached openly for Westenra, and in response to a demand that his ‘Cossacks’, as his Farney tenants were called, should support Leslie, Shirley was met by a defiant statement promising their second votes to Westenra. Having held second place for two of the four days of the poll, Leslie slipped into third position on 28 June, when there were again fatal disturbances, and finally resigned on the 30th, when it was claimed that his opponents had another 3,000 voters, out of an electorate of over 7,000, unpolled.22 He finished 649 adrift of Shirley, who had led from the start, but only 262 short of Westenra, while the local gentleman Walter Tyler, who was put up as a safeguard, received a token 170 votes.23 According to a list of the 627 ‘Shirley tenants who voted at the election in 1826’, 253 (or 40 per cent) plumped for Shirley, 242 (39 per cent) split for him and Westenra, and only 112 (18 per cent) split, as instructed, between their landlord and Leslie, while another eight plumped for Westenra and 12 votes were void.24 Therefore, as in counties Louth, Waterford and Westmeath, the victory of at least one sympathetic candidate was rightly hailed as a decisive triumph for the Catholic cause against the proprietorial interests, although the representation remained in the hands of the leading Monaghan families.25

In the acrimonious aftermath of the election, Westenra, who was widely blamed for the first day’s unrest, fought an inconsequential duel with Madden, and other members of his family were embroiled in aspects of this controversy.26 Having treated on a large scale, especially in Shirley’s stronghold of Carrickmacross, Westenra, who bragged of his success as an independent, was criticized for failing to pay his debts, leading to damaging murmurs of disapproval; Rossmore later claimed that the contest had cost him £17,000.27 Shirley, who had run up expenses of at least £3,000 during his joint canvassing with Leslie, became even more unpopular, however, as he evicted over 150 rebellious tenants. Although he noted in his pocket book that he gave a sovereign to a tenant whose horse had died during the disturbances (‘the man voted for me only’) and forgave another who ‘expressed his sorrow for having voted for Westenra’, he ignored a contrite petition from his Farney tenants and sanctioned an excessive level of retribution through his hated agent Alexander (‘Sandy the Cook’) Mitchell, who replaced the late Humphrey Evatt of Mount Louise.28 Observing that ‘persecution rages to a great degree’ in Monaghan, O’Connell ordered part of the ‘Catholic rent’ to be used for relieving distress there, which helped to consolidate the momentum of his cause.29 Priests like Father Charles MacDermott, administrator of Errigal Truagh, who gave the name Election Hill to the house he afterwards obtained on favourable terms from the Westenras, were instrumental in Leslie’s defeat. The latter’s supporters, notably in a public address of condolence, were quick to emphasize this point, which the Catholics boasted of at meetings, chaired by Kernan, in July and September.30 Leslie had a petition lodged against Westenra’s return, 4 Dec. 1826, alleging intimidation by the Catholic priesthood and illegal interference by Rossmore, but as he was advised that he could not overturn the result and merely wished to give the affair an airing in the Commons, he allowed it to lapse.31

The eclipse of the Dawson interest on the death of Cremorne in March 1827 presumably gave greater freedom of action both to Westenra, who voted for Catholic claims that month, and to Shirley, who abstained then but later voted consistently against relief. The county’s Presbyterians, specifically citing the role of the priests in the recent contest, and the sheriff, grand jurors and Protestant gentlemen, had their petitions brought up, 5 Mar., 11 June, and the Catholics’ petition in their favour was presented to the Commons, 6 Mar., and the Lords, 16 Mar. 1827. The anti-Catholic petitions of the grand jury and of Monaghan parish were brought up in the Commons by Shirley, 21, 28 Apr., and the Lords by Lord Roden, 28 Apr. 1828, but at a dinner for Rossmore in the county town that month considerable praise was lavished on Westenra for his votes on the question and a Liberal Club was formed in his support.32 Although the agent Nicholas Ellis of Lisnaroe attempted to calm the agitation on the Barrett Lennard estate at Clones, sectarian unrest disturbed most of Monaghan that autumn. Tension peaked when O’Connell’s lieutenant John Lawless arrived in the county with a mass Catholic procession and attempted to enter the Presbyterian stronghold of Ballybay. The Orangemen, mustered by Samuel Gray, gathered in force and a major confrontation was only narrowly avoided, although minor incidents resulted in casualties.33 At a large county meeting, 10 Oct., Shirley, Sir Thomas Forster, Leslie, Corry and others moved resolutions for the establishment of a Brunswick Club, of which Lord Blayney was to be president, and an address thanking Shirley for his conduct was agreed. Among additional clubs set up were those at Clones (under the presidency of Corry), Glasslough (Leslie), Ballybay (Colonel Charles Albert Leslie) and Smithborough (John Johnson of Thornhill).34 Rossmore, whose son refused to join the Brunswickers but was alarmed by their potential electoral influence, made an energetic attack on the handling of the disturbances and of the blatantly partial proceedings at the county meeting in an address, 15 Oct. The magistrates, chaired by Lord Blayney, approved resolutions criticizing his actions, 30 Oct. 1828, and a public controversy ensued, but the Irish government, appealed to by Leslie, refused to discipline him.35

The Catholics again met in Monaghan in November 1828 to petition for their claims, while the following month a requisition was got up for another anti-Catholic county meeting.36 On 9 Feb. 1829 Shirley presented two hostile petitions from the county (Lord Farnham brought them up in the Lords, 23 Mar., 8 Apr.), while on 16 Mar. Westenra presented another favourable one (which was brought up in the Lords, 6 Apr.).37 By the start of that year, when the prevailing religious unrest greatly declined, the electorate had risen to 12,860. This included 12,453 40s. freeholders, who were now disfranchised, but active registration began again in earnest that summer, and by 1 Jan. 1830 there were 1,148 voters. Westenra had gained credit for his efforts in defence of the lowest class of electors but, like Barrett Lennard and his father in Clones, he was thought to have benefited from the family having large holdings in Monaghan town, where land values were higher.38 By contrast, Shirley’s interest was weakened by the disfranchisement of many of his poorer Catholic tenants, and the death of Lady Skipwith (wife of his Warwickshire neighbour Sir Gray Skipwith*), whose name figured on many of his leases, allegedly crippled his standing during the following summer. According to one newspaper analysis, he retained only 140 votes, compared with 195 for Rossmore (who also counted on Cremorne’s 75, Lucas’s 71 and Barrett Lennard’s 29), 148 for Blayney and 39 for Leslie.39 The county’s petition against the increased Irish stamp and spirit duties was presented to the Lords by Lord Ormonde, 6 July, and the Commons by Westenra, 7 July 1830.40

Already in 1829 speculation had arisen about Westenra’s future, to Rossmore’s annoyance, and Corry had agreed to stand in defence of the remnants of the constitution. He did so again at the general election of 1830, acting for the ‘preservation of our menaced independence’, but soon retired to avoid dividing the Tory interest.41 The ailing Leslie was not a candidate either, as he found a berth at New Ross, and Lucas declined to offer, so Westenra, who also claimed the mantle of independence, stood alone in the expected contest against Shirley, who was attacked as an inactive but slavish ministerialist, and Cadwallader Blayney, whose father’s interest had been strengthened by alliance with the minority Cremorne one.42 It was at first understood, given their distant family connection, that the Blayneys had thrown in their lot with the Westenras in order to exclude Shirley, and this was the promise made by Lord Blayney. Yet his son, a supporter of the Wellington administration, broke the arrangement by joining Shirley, for whom his tenants had a preference.43 Faced with this coalition, and the opposition of Leslie and his friends, Westenra wrote to his ally Barrett Lennard’s father that ‘I fear they will succeed in their machinations. The majority over me however will be but trifling, and had each stood on his own ground, I must have been returned’.44 On the hustings, Colonel Henry Westenra explained his nephew’s change of heart on the Catholic question, Shirley vindicated his position as a resident and improving landlord and Blayney blithely avoided making any statement of his principles. Amid rumours of his desertion by Lord Blayney, Westenra, whose brother John and agent Arthur Lewis were also nominated, remained in third place throughout the five days of the poll. He finished 67 short of Shirley, who trailed Blayney by 159 votes; according to a later reply to a home office circular, only 852 freeholders had been polled. Blayney ended considerably ahead because, as Colonel Westenra alleged in his angry closing speech, Lord Blayney had held back his tenants until Rossmore’s had given their second votes to Cadwallader, and had then instructed them to give their second votes not to Westenra but to Shirley. The contest was accompanied by much unrest, in which the Farney tenants again figured heavily, and such was the resentment of the eventual outcome that several freeholders refused to sign their names to the official return. The success of two government supporters, plus the obvious weakness of the Catholic clergy, was greatly to the satisfaction of Corry and other Tory gentlemen, while Shirley gloated that he had dealt with ‘every trick and subterfuge that a wily adversary could suggest’. In fact, Westenra was evidently punished for the unpopularity of his father: as Ellis put it, ‘Rossmore by his publications, his speeches, his squibs and so forth has so galled the feelings of almost all the gentry of this country, that hostility to him much more than any favour to Mr. Shirley was the actuating principle’. It was apparent that Westenra intended to prepare a petition, but none was forthcoming, perhaps for fear of the inevitable expense or because Lord Blayney was not expected to outlive the winter.45

The county’s Orangemen met under Corry’s chairmanship, 22 Jan. 1831, to pass resolutions in defence of the Protestant constitution. They were presumably satisfied with Blayney and Shirley, who both voted against the Grey ministry’s reform bill and offered again at the general election that spring. Westenra started, without uttering on the reform question, but O’Connell thought he might succeed as a supporter of the bill, while Lucas, endorsing the sitting Members, declined to offer and addressed the electors against the evils of another contest.46 The Westenras, who were also contesting King’s County, were concerned at the cost of another electoral struggle, but once a deal was done with the Blayneys it was calculated that they could defeat Shirley by at least 50 votes. Perhaps also concerned at the likely expense, and falling behind in the registration battle, Shirley resigned, complaining of a coalition between the two leading interests. Despite the annoyance of the independent gentry, Blayney and Westenra were therefore returned unopposed.47 Blayney remained in opposition, but Westenra now acted openly with ministers, from whom Rossmore managed to secure the lord lieutenancy of Monaghan, having emphasized, among other factors, the party spirit levelled against him locally and the expenditure of £20,000 on two Monaghan and one (unsuccessful) King’s County contests.48 About a magistrates’ memorial ‘against his being appointed lord lieutenant for that county, with a threat of their resignation’, Rossmore informed the Irish secretary Smith Stanley, 29 Aug., that it originated with ‘Brunswick friends’ of the previous administration:

If they carried their threat into execution, the public would lose nothing by it, as they are generally speaking useless magistrates as absentees or non-effectives from age, infirmity and inability, and ... the other magistrates, the resident gentry and the clergy of all denominations are disgusted with their conduct as tending to perpetuate discord and want of harmony in our county.49

Resentment was expressed about Lord Blayney being passed over, but in November 1831 there was an illumination in Monaghan town on the swearing-in of Rossmore, who sought to end the rancorous politics of the county by appointing Madden to succeed as colonel of the Monaghan militia on Leslie’s death.50

The petitions of the inhabitants of the borough and its vicinity against the ministerial plan for Irish national education and for making the Irish reform bill as extensive as the English measure were presented to the Lords, 22 Mar., 28 June, and to the Commons (by Westenra), 3 July 1832.51 These were consonant with the aims of the revived Monaghan Independent Club, which, under the presidency of the Monaghan attorney Thomas Reilly, issued a manifesto that summer in support of economic improvements and further reforms. Turning against Rossmore, who took the credit for turning out Shirley, but siding with the Conservative Blayneys, it was the intervention of this Club in introducing the Liberal barrister Louis Perrin, former Member for Dublin, that led to Westenra’s defeat at the general election of 1832, when there were 2,139 registered electors.52 Westenra was returned as a Liberal in 1835 after Perrin’s withdrawal, sitting until he inherited the Rossmore title in 1842, and Lucas, a Conservative, came in at a by-election caused by Blayney succeeding to his father’s peerage in 1834. The county continued to be represented by members of its leading families, including Cremorne’s younger son Thomas Vesey Dawson and his grandson Viscount Cremorne (later 2nd earl of Dartrey), who were the Conservative Members, 1847-52 and 1865-8.

Author: Stephen Farrell


Partly based on the extract from an untraced thesis by C. McGimpsey on ‘Co. Monaghan Elections, 1800-68’ in PRO NI ENV5/HP/23/1, pt. 1.

  • 1. S. Lewis, Top. Dict. of Ireland (1837), ii. 378-9; Oldfield, Rep. Hist. (1816), vi. 248; A.P.W. Malcomson, John Foster, 209-10; K.T. Hoppen, Elections, Politics and Society in Ireland, 142-3; Hist. Irish Parl. iii. 307-9; HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 678-9.
  • 2. PRO NI, Rossmore mss T2929/3/2, 74, 86.
  • 3. Ibid. 3/87; PP (1824), xxi. 692.
  • 4. Belfast News Letter, 7 Mar. 1820; Add. 38283, f. 75; 40298, ff. 33-34.
  • 5. Rossmore mss 3/3, 4; Malcomson, 155-6.
  • 6. Rossmore mss 3/9, 10; D. C. Rushe, Hist. Monaghan, 171-2.
  • 7. Rossmore mss 3/14.
  • 8. Ibid. 3/15-21, 39, 104.
  • 9. CJ, lxxviii. 204; lxxix. 509; lxxxi. 383; LJ, lvi. 408; lviii. 824; The Times, 17 Apr. 1823, 16, 18 June 1824, 27 May 1826.
  • 10. Rossmore mss 3/25, 27, 29, 41.
  • 11. Ibid. 3/29-33, 37, 43, 44, 46.
  • 12. Ibid. 3/36, 37, 40, 42.
  • 13. Ibid. 3/49.
  • 14. Ibid. 3/50-54, 68.
  • 15. Ibid. 3/69-71, 74-76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 121; 4/8, 9; 10A/114A, B; Belfast News Letter, 21 Sept. 1824.
  • 16. Rossmore mss 3/91, 99-102.
  • 17. Ibid. 9/8.
  • 18. Impartial Reporter, 15 Sept. 1825; PRO NI, Leslie mss MIC606/3/J/7/14/11, 12.
  • 19. Leslie mss 3/J/7/14/31-32, 35-36, 37-39, 48, 53-54, 56, 58-59, 61-63, 66-67, 108-9, 114-15, 117-19, 120-1, 123-4; P. Livingstone, Monaghan Story, 193-4.
  • 20. For this and the following two paragraphs, see Rev. M. Cahill, ‘1826 General Election in Co. Monaghan’, Clogher Record, v (1964), 161-83; Livingstone, 184-7; Rushe, 185-90.
  • 21. Leslie mss 3/J/7/14/81-82, 84-85, 87-89, 104; PRO NI, Clogher Diocesan mss DIO(RC)1/6/2; Dublin Evening Post, 8, 17, 24 June; Belfast Commercial Chron. 10 June; Newry Commercial Telegraph, 16 June 1826.
  • 22. Add. 43087, f. 212; Rossmore mss 10B/1, 14-20; Leslie mss 3/J/7/14/84-85, 111-12, 125, 126, 130-1; PRO NI, Foster mss D562/400; Belfast Commercial Chron. 26, 28 June, 1, 3 July; Dublin Evening Post, 29 June, 1 July; Newry Commercial Telegraph, 30 June, 4 July 1826; PP (1825), xxii. 100.
  • 23. Variant figures are given in PP (1829), xxii. 19; CJ, lxxxi. 67.
  • 24. PRO NI, Shirley mss D3531/E/1.
  • 25. G.I.T. Machin, Catholic Question in English Politics, 84.
  • 26. The Times, 15 July; Enniskillen Chron. 24 Aug., 16 Nov. 1826.
  • 27. Rossmore mss 10A/100, 114, 124-30; PRO NI, Anglesey mss D619/32A/4/7.
  • 28. Warws. RO, Shirley mss CR 229/174, Shirley diary, 12, 29, 30 June, 17, 18 Aug.; Belfast Commercial Chron. 30 Aug. 1826; L. Ó Mearáin, ‘Estate Agents in Farney’, Clogher Record, x (1981), 406-10.
  • 29. O’Connell Corresp. iii. 1333; J.A. Reynolds, Catholic Emancipation Crisis in Ireland, 100-1.
  • 30. Cahill, 180-1; Newry Commercial Telegraph, 11 July; Dublin Evening Post, 11, 25 July; Enniskillen Chron. 3 Aug., 21 Sept. 1826.
  • 31. CJ, lxxxii. 67-68, 124; PRO NI, Madden mss D3465/J/7/5-7; Leslie mss 3/J/7/14/90-91, 147-8, 158-9, 161-2, 167-8.
  • 32. CJ, lxxxii. 273, 285, 541; lxxxiii. 254, 277; LJ, 166; lx. 249; Enniskillen Chron. 24 Apr., 1 May 1828; Leslie mss 2/J/6/4/40.
  • 33. P. Ó Mórdha, ‘Some Notes on Monaghan Hist.’, Clogher Record, ix (1976), 30, 38-41; Enniskillen Chron. 2, 9 Oct. 1828; Rushe, 196-8; J. Bardon, Hist. Ulster, 245-6.
  • 34. Belfast Guardian, 17 Oct., 11 Nov.; Impartial Reporter, 23 Oct., 6 Nov.; Enniskillen Chron. 30 Oct., 6 Nov. 1828.
  • 35. Rossmore mss 4/20-22, 24; 9/13-20; 10B/4A, 5A; 23/174; Ó Mórdha, 30-31, 41-44; PRO NI, Barrett Lennard mss MIC170/3, Ellis to Barrett Lennard, 15 Oct., Westenra to same, 2 Nov.; Newry Commercial Telegraph, 28 Oct.; The Times, 17 Dec. 1828; O’Connell Corresp. iii. 1503.
  • 36. Enniskillen Chron. 27 Nov.; Drogheda Jnl. 20 Dec. 1828.
  • 37. CJ, lxxxiv. 14, 141; LJ, lxi. 250, 352, 371.
  • 38. PP (1830), xxix. 471; Rossmore mss 4/25; Ó Mórdha, 32, 44-46; Barrett Lennard mss 3, Ellis to Barrett Lennard, 13 Apr. 1829.
  • 39. Impartial Reporter, 14, 21 May, 25 June, 2 July, 17, 24 Sept., 17, 24 Dec. 1829; Dublin Evening Post, 10 July 1830.
  • 40. LJ, lxii. 833; CJ, lxxxv. 628.
  • 41. Louth Free Press, 24 June; Belfast Guardian, 18 Aug. 1829, 23 July 1830.
  • 42. Rossmore mss 10B/8, 21A; Leslie mss 3/J/17/4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14; Ó Mórdha, 33; Barrett Lennard mss 3, Ellis to Barrett Lennard, 1, 3 July, Westenra to same, 7, 9 July; Louth Free Press, 3, 7, 10, 24 July, 7 Aug. 1830.
  • 43. Rossmore mss 9/28, 30, 31; Leslie mss 3/J/17/15-18, 26-27, 28-29, 31-33, 35-36, 37.
  • 44. Ó Mórdha, 33-34; Barrett Lennard mss 3, Ellis to Barrett Lennard, 3 Aug., Westenra to same, 17 Aug. 1830.
  • 45. Rossmore mss 10B/6B, 22A; Leslie mss 3/J/17/39-40, 42, 44, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, 58-60, 61; Louth Free Press, 14, 21 Aug.; Enniskillen Chron. 19, 26 Aug.; Impartial Reporter, 19 Aug.; Belfast Guardian, 7 Sept.; Barrett Lennard mss 3, Ellis to Barrett Lennard, 20 Aug., 4 Nov. 1830; Ó Mórdha, 34-35, 47; PP (1830-1), x. 205.
  • 46. Belfast News Letter, 1 Feb.; Newry Commercial Telegraph, 29 Apr., 3 May 1831; O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1799.
  • 47. Rossmore mss 4/31; Impartial Reporter, 5 May; Newry Commercial Telegraph, 10, 17 May 1831.
  • 48. Rossmore mss 6/6-10; Anglesey mss 32A/4/7; W. Suss. RO, Goodwood mss 1434, f. 248; Derby mss 920 Der (14) 117/5, Grey to Smith Stanley, 5 July; 119/1/1, Anglesey to same, 5 July; 119/2, Rossmore to same, 25 July, 20 Sept., to Anglesey, 20 Sept. 1831.
  • 49. Derby mss 122/2.
  • 50. Enniskillener, 14 Sept.; Enniskillen Chron. 10 Nov. 1831; Madden mss D3465/J/7/11.
  • 51. LJ, lxiv. 113, 330; CJ, lxxxvii. 455.
  • 52. Clogher Diocesan mss 1/6/16-19; Rossmore mss 4/33-37; 7/24-27; Derby mss 920 Der (14) 122/2, Rossmore to Smith Stanley, 13 July; Newry Examiner, 2 June, 11 Aug., 5 Sept., 22, 26 Dec. 1832, 5, 19 Jan. 1833; Rushe, 267-8.