Co. Sligo


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:

5,036 in 1829; 610 in 1830

Number of voters:

1,723 in Dec. 1822; 514 in 1830[i]

[i] PP (1830-1), x. 206.


20 Mar. 1820CHARLES O'HARA 
4 Dec. 1822HON. HENRY KING vice O’Hara, deceased929
 Alexander Perceval794
20 June 1826HON. HENRY KING 
 Fitzstephen French116

Main Article

Sligo was ‘one of the most independent Protestant counties in Ireland’.1 It produced mainly potatoes and oats and had an ‘extensive’ but declining linen industry. There were several market towns, including Ballymote, Collooney, Coolaney, Dromore and the parliamentary borough of Sligo, the venue for county elections and an important fishery.2 The representation had long been dominated by Charles O’Hara of Nymphsfield, who had sat as nominal head of the ‘independent interest’ since before the Union, and Edward Synge Cooper of Markree Castle, who had replaced his incapacitated elder brother as Member and head of his family interest in 1806. As opponents of Catholic claims they had encountered no opposition from the predominantly Protestant landowners, whose leaders included Owen Wynne of Hazelwood, patron of Sligo borough and its Tory Member, the 3rd earl of Kingston, who had ‘considerable property’, and his brother Viscount Lorton, and the Percevals of Temple House, Ballymote.3

At the 1820 general election O’Hara, who had failed to attend Parliament for many years, declined a request from some of the proprietors, including Lorton and Colonel Henry Irwin, to make way for his son Charles King O’Hara, the county’s collector of excises. He and Cooper were again returned unopposed, but O’Hara’s advanced age and ‘extreme state of debility’ made it probable that there would soon be a vacancy.4 On 26 Aug. 1821 Charles King O’Hara, on hearing that Alexander Perceval had declared himself ‘a conditional candidate’, sought to dissuade him from standing:

I feel it due to the friendship that has ever existed between us ... to declare that I will not in any measure give my assistance in promoting what I conceive must lead to your ruin. In this opinion I am not singular ... What did I hear at Hazelwood? ‘He would be the maddest man on earth to attempt it’. What says Irwin? That he ... would ... dissuade you ... What says Cooper? Will he vote for you? ... Where then is the encouragement to your coming forward? I cannot discover it.5

Petitions were presented to the Commons for protection of the Irish butter trade, 6 May, and against the imposition of tithes on potatoes, 15 May 1822. One against Catholic claims reached the Lords, 20 June.6 During O’Hara’s final illness that September, Charles was pressed repeatedly by the leading proprietors to stand as his successor, but he declined, citing his financial ‘circumstances’. The day after O’Hara’s death, his ‘old friend’ Lorton applied to Charles for support on behalf of his brother, Henry King. It was supposed that he would be returned unopposed, but with the backing of Wynne, Lord Palmerston* and Irwin, now high sheriff, Perceval persisted and came forward as the friend of ‘real independence’. ‘In politics he is exactly the man you would wish to assist, a steady supporter of government and a staunch Protestant’, observed George Dawson*, home office under-secretary, to Peel, his chief.7 On 30 Sept. O’Hara, who had insisted on ‘consulting’ with his father’s friends before answering Lorton, was warned by Irwin that ‘once admitted’ there would be ‘no likelihood’ of the Kings ‘being ever dismounted and dispossessed except by a struggle’:

I foresee the loss of the independence of our county. We shall ... become dependent on and subservient to the ambition and aggrandizement of a proud family, whose head is without principle and who possesses an indefatigable perseverance and assurance which will engulf all the patronage of the county and, when we consider human nature ... the independent interest ... Adieu with Cooper and all. He will become but a secondary object, from having the control of nearly everything.

On 13 Oct. O’Hara explained his position to Daniel Webber†:

Cooper and myself ... have long been decided on the impolicy of Perceval’s becoming a candidate, and to the last refused him support. He has notwithstanding come forward and it must be admitted the public feeling is with him ... Cooper, I believe, stands neuter. I have not pledged myself to any party, though I admit the difficulty of the game I am now playing. You know my sincere regard and friendship for Perceval and indeed for Lord Lorton ... and I hope it will not come to a poll ... If upon a fair canvass of the county there shall appear to be ... an equality of votes for Perceval, I do not think that King’s interest on a future occasion could be better served than by giving way ... to ... the wish of the people, both Protestant and Catholic ... This row has distressed me much. I did my best to prevent it.8

Finding that Perceval was erroneously relying on being able to poll all of Cooper’s tenants and ‘most of yours’, 19 Oct., Webber recommended that in order to prevent ‘a struggle’ which would be ‘ruinous to Perceval and to the peace of the county’, O’Hara should take ‘a decided part’ on ‘one side or the other’. O’Hara, however, refused, being determined to hold back so long as there was the possibility of using his interest to prevent a contest.9 On 1 Nov. Richard Gethin of Auburn implored him to back Perceval for the sake of the ‘independence’ of the county, which ‘the wealth and numbers of the King family’, an ‘alien ... aristocratic family’, would ‘extinguish ... unless their exertions be met and put down before they fasten their fangs upon us’. ‘I would rather you continued your perfect neutrality to the end’, he added, ‘than throw your weight ... into the same scale with the coronets’. In an attempt to ‘rescue the county’ from the ‘mischief of a contest’, on 8 Nov. O’Hara proposed to Perceval that a ‘strict and impartial scrutiny of the registry’ be conducted, ‘counting on Cooper’s and my neutrality’, by ‘three gentlemen, one a supporter of King’, and that if ‘you have a majority ... I will declare for you’, but ‘if they find that there is a decided majority on the other side, you relinquish the contest’. Rejecting the proposal, 11 Nov., Perceval contended that Kingston ‘never would submit a fair statement’ and complained of being ‘most cruelly treated by Cooper’, as a result of which ‘I feel ... I must persevere’. Reaffirming the ‘impracticability’ of the scheme the next day, he declared:

I cannot for a moment doubt that I shall have your support. It is the only chance left of putting an end to the contest. Had I declared myself in time, which delicacy towards you and Mr. Cooper prevented, I should have ... had on my side the heaviest interest that is now arranged against me as well as most of the minor interests. This is well known to yourself.10

On 11 Nov. O’Hara, who two days before had received an imploring letter from Perceval’s wife, reluctantly advised Lorton that in the event of a contest he would feel ‘bound’ to prefer his ‘most intimate friend and neighbour’ to the ‘brother of my friend’. Next day he wrote to King:

To save my friend Perceval and the county from an angry contest ... I judge it necessary to give him my support ... My high regard and respect for Lorton ... has placed me in a most painful and distressing situation and ... I have done everything in my power short of declaring against Perceval to stop his proceeding and, with some reason, he attaches to my interference and remonstrances delays which have prevented him being now far at the head of the canvass ... Lorton ... called on me to declare for that candidate who had the greater number of my father’s warm friends on his side. Of the ten distinguished friends ... who signed a most flattering address ... proposing to place me in the representation of this county, now only his Lordship and Webber support you, the remaining eight are with Perceval. I will not trouble you further with a subject most painful to me and which cannot be agreeable to you.

King, in reply, insisted that O’Hara was ‘mistaken’ about the strength of his support and refused to be ‘deterred’, whereupon O’Hara informed Lorton, 18 Nov. 1822, that he had undertaken ‘the strictest scrutiny of the registry’ with Perceval, who ‘appeared to stand at least on an equality’. ‘How far he has been deceived in his calculated strength’, he added, ‘the result will prove, but I cannot ... doubt the truth and sincerity of his belief in it’.11

At the nomination Perceval, whose carriage was drawn into Sligo by a large crowd of Orangemen, was proposed by Wynne. King was proposed by his kinsman Sir Robert King of Charlestown, county Roscommon, which his family had intermittently represented for ‘many years’. Cooper joined O’Hara in backing Perceval, stressing the ‘non-residence’ of King, who protested that his long army service, in which he had ‘bled in the service of his county’, had prevented him from settling. A violent seven-day contest ensued, in which King, who secured an early lead, was supported by the Catholic priests and many of Perceval’s supporters were allegedly ‘severely beaten’, despite the presence of the military. (Kingston, however, later complained to Lord Wellesley, the Irish viceroy, that the ‘Orangemen had behaved most outrageously during the election and severely wounded and maimed those who they could catch who supported my brother’.) On the seventh day Perceval resigned and King was returned, whereupon a ‘great deal of rioting took place’ and there was a fatal affray.12 Recalling the election in 1824, Richard Westenra remarked that ‘Kingston came to Sligo and induced the priests to support his brother, and caused a great deal of perjury’, adding, ‘he is a man of no principle and has shown the county and the priests themselves that he is a bad man. They have determined from Kingston and King’s conduct to support Perceval next time’.13 King ‘let himself be put in nomination by a junto of Popish priests and their partizans, whereupon ensued one of the earlier but no less striking ... struggle[s] for ascendancy in which the ... Catholics have involved themselves’, commented a subsequent Conservative publication.14 Goulburn, the Irish secretary, later feared that there would be many other contests conducted on the ‘same principles’ as Sligo, ‘namely that of bringing the influence of the priesthood in opposition to that of the gentry’.15

A petition against the return from ‘several electors’, alleging that King was guilty of the ‘grossest and most glaring bribery’ and intimidation of his opponents, was presented, 11 Feb., but discharged, 13 Mar. 1823. A second from one Thomas Flanagan of Sligo, complaining that Kingston had personally interfered with the proceedings and induced the freeholders to vote for King, was presented, 28 Feb., but went no further. Another from Flanagan against the discharge of the first petition and for more time to be given to petitioners to enter into recognizances from remote parts of Ireland was presented, 13 Mar. One in similar terms from the county against the ‘great expense and exorbitant fees’ involved in the trial of Irish election petitions reached the Commons, 3 June 1823.16 Petitions were presented to the Commons against the restrictions on river fishing imposed by the Salmon Fisheries Act, 4 June 1823, and delays and expenses in county courts, 23 Feb. 1824. One against abolition of the linen bounties and duties on foreign yarn and flax reached the Commons, 24 May.17 Both Members voted against Catholic relief, for which a petition from the ‘Separatists’ of Sligo and Leith was presented to the Commons, 12 May 1824.18 By June 1825 there were 6,582 registered electors (5,936 registered at 40s., 288 at £20 and 358 at £50).19

At the 1826 general election Cooper and King offered again. Rumours that Perceval would stand came to nothing, it being reported that King had ‘amply proved himself’ to his former opponents, and the Members were returned unopposed.20 They continued to oppose Catholic claims, against which Protestant petitions reached the Lords, 23 Feb., 8 Mar. 1827, 8 May 1828, and the Commons, 5, 6 Mar. 1827, 25 Apr. 1828.21 Favourable petitions were presented to the Lords, 19 Feb. 1827, and the Commons, 21 Feb., 1 Mar. 1827, 6, 12, 14 Feb., 31 Mar., 24 Apr. 1828.22 One from the Catholics for a ‘just and liberal application’ of funds for the education of the Irish poor reached the Lords, 19 Feb. 1827.23 On 25 Mar. 1828 Lorton informed O’Hara that there was ‘no foundation whatever’ for the rumours ‘industriously spreading’ of King’s intention to retire in consequence of a foreign posting, adding, ‘he looks forward with confidence to the support of all his Protestant friends (whenever a general election may take place) and I trust we may look upon you as one of their number’.24 That August a Liberal and Independent Club was established with Charles Joseph MacDermot, hereditary prince of Coolavin, as its president and Joseph Myles McDonnell of Doo Castle, county Mayo, as vice-president, to promote the return of ‘liberal and enlightened representatives’ and ‘watch over the 40s. freeholders’. At a crowded meeting, 30 Oct., one of the club’s committee members, Fitzstephen French of French Park, county Roscommon, younger brother of Arthur French, Member for Roscommon, announced his candidacy, avowing his support for emancipation and attachment ‘not to the principles of Whig or Tory, but to the principles of Irishmen’. After a speech of endorsement from the O’Conor Don* a registration drive ‘to carry into effect’ his return was started. Meanwhile, Brunswick Clubs were formed at Coolaney by O’Hara, 22 Sept., at Castleconnor and other places by William Parke of Dunally, 24 Sept., and at Drumcliffe by Sir Robert Gore Booth of Lissadell, 26 Sept., when ‘four hundred Protestant gentry’ enrolled. With the support of Wynne, chairman of the Sligo Brunswickers, a county club was launched in October under the presidency of Lorton, who subscribed £100. On 15 Nov. 1828 the Dublin Evening Post reported that the Protestants in the neighbourhood of Carrick-on-Shannon were arming to defend themselves against an uprising of the peasantry.25 Both Members, of course, opposed the Wellington ministry’s concession of emancipation, against which Protestant county meetings were convened, 2 Jan., 2, 9 Mar., and petitions reached the Commons, 13, 19 Feb., 4, 16 Mar., and the Lords, 19 Feb., 3 Mar. 1829.26 Favourable petitions from the Catholics were presented to the Commons, 20 Feb., 27 Mar., and the Lords, 27 Feb.27 By the accompanying alteration of the franchise the registered electorate of 1829 was reduced from 5,036 to 610, of whom 109 qualified at the new minimum freehold value of £10, 261 at £20, 230 at £50 and 10 at £100.28 In April 1830 King, anticipating that a dissolution would ‘speedily take place’ and ‘that an opposition is in contemplation in consequence of my firm attachment to the constitution as it was’, applied to O’Hara for support, citing his parliamentary conduct. Regretting that his reply would ‘not be as satisfactory as you anticipate’, O’Hara explained that many of his tenants had lost their votes ‘by the expiration of their leases’ and the Disfranchisement Act:

As you call for an avowal of my sentiments, I must say they are unchanged [since] you first asked [for] my vote ... Your non-residence alone prevents my paying you, as the brother of Lorton, my hearty support ... The improvement and prosperity of this country is to be effected not so much by parliamentary enactments, than by the residence, and individual ... exertions of the clergy and landed proprietors.29

At the 1830 general election Cooper retired in favour of his eldest son Edward Joshua Cooper, who promised to lay aside his ‘habits of retirement’ and follow his father’s political conduct. King stood again as a supporter of ‘all measures calculated to secure the prosperity of Ireland’, claiming to be ‘divested of all party bias’. French came forward on the ‘popular interest’, advocating economy, tax reductions and the ‘liberties of the press’ and, in response to charges of non-residence, his possession of property in the county worth £5,000 a year. Rumours that Cooper had ‘pawned his honour’ to French about a ‘month ago’ and was ‘determined not to support King’ were dismissed by the Sligo Journal. At the nomination Cooper was proposed by O’Hara and seconded by his father-in-law Wynne. French, who was proposed by one Captain Hiddas, denounced the ‘system of oppression’ in Sligo town carried out by the Wynnes. ‘Can you tamely submit to have your ... county degraded into as close and hereditary a borough as the spot you stand on?’, he asked. Responding to complaints by the independents that French was the only candidate to have given ‘distinct pledges’, King, who was proposed by his kinsman Edward Wingfield, accepted the ‘alteration’ of emancipation and promised to oppose ‘oppressive’ taxation and ‘uphold the liberty of the press’, despite being ‘taunted as the old general and the lame old pensioner’ by the Sligo Observer. A three-day contest ensued in which French, who was second at the end of the first day but third thereafter, had ‘no chance of success’. Owing to the death of his father during the contest, Cooper was returned in absentia with King. Wynne acted as his deputy at the declaration and one John Armstrong of Chaffpool took his place for the chairing, when his chair was ‘dressed in the deepest mourning’, and following which an affray broke out. Both Members contributed £50 towards charitable institutions in Sligo.30

Anti-slavery petitions reached the Commons, 18 Nov., 23 Nov. 1830.31 A petition against the grant to the Kildare Place Society reached the Commons, 10 Dec. 1830. Favourable petitions were presented there, 14 Apr., and to the Lords, 21 Apr. 1831.32 Petitions reached the Commons for a reform of Irish education, 10 Dec. 1830, 30 Mar. 1831, and for relief from distress, 13 Apr.33 King supported and Cooper opposed the Grey ministry’s reform bill, against which petitions were presented to the Commons, 13, 18 Apr., and the Lords, 21 Apr. 1831.34 At the ensuing general election King offered again as a reformer attached to the ‘preservation of established institutions’, but the reappearance of an ‘old wound’ prevented him from leaving London. Reports that his brother ‘Saint Lorton’ had refused him ‘assistance’ prompted speculation that he would withdraw, but at a meeting of his supporters chaired by Parke, 4 May, it was resolved to go on and £1,000 was subscribed towards his return. Cooper stood again as an anti-reformer, denouncing ministers for having dissolved because the Commons had ‘refused to diminish’ the number of English Members. It was rumoured that his brother-in-law John Wynne*, former Member for Sligo, would join him, fearing the ‘opening of the borough’, but at a ‘secret conclave’ of the two families this was ‘deemed rather calculated to alarm the electors’ and rejected in favour of finding someone to ‘keep the seat warm’. On 2 May Perceval came forward with their backing as an opponent of the reform ‘contemplated by ministers’, allegedly armed with £5,000 from the Tory’s ‘secret committee’ in London, and more ‘if needed’.35 (On 6 May Charles Arbuthnot*, who was responsible for the Tory opposition’s election fund, informed Lord Farnham that he had been applied to by Lord Beresford to assist Perceval, who he did not believe would ‘require a great deal’ but would be provided with ‘£1,000 beyond the sum named in the letter by Mr. Robinson’.)36 At the nomination King was proposed in absentia by Sir James Crofton and seconded by John Gore Jones, who praised his reforming credentials and demanded of the electors, ‘Are you the advocates of rotten boroughs?’ Cooper, who was again proposed by O’Hara, denied any connection with the other candidates and condemned the reform bill’s ‘popular’ principle, use of the 1821 census, division of counties and low voting qualifications. Perceval, who was proposed by Owen Wynne*, professed the same principles as 1822, adding that he was favourable to an ‘amendment’ of the voting system but ‘decidedly opposed’ to the ‘most obnoxious and destructive’ ministerial measure. In an ‘extraordinary’ speech his seconder, Irwin, warned that he had punished those ‘tenants who had voted against Perceval in 1822 and would do so now if they went against his wish’. At the last minute one Captain James Sodon was put in nomination to ‘prevent the other two candidates from having two tallies to the reformer’s one’ and to lend support to the man ‘now lying on a sick bed’. A ‘lively and animated’ two-day contest ensued, in which King trailed throughout and Sodon failed to secure a single vote, prompting ‘loud laughter’ at the declaration. Shocked at the return of Cooper and Perceval, the Dublin Evening Post declared, ‘County Sligo has proved itself unworthy of the benefits of reform in having voluntarily placed itself under the domination of the boroughmongers, at the will and pleasure of the Wynne family’.37 Perceval complained in the House, 6 July 1832, that Sodon had been ‘proposed as a candidate, when there was not the least chance of his being elected’, adding that ‘as it was impossible to prove that he had authorized his proposers’, the sheriff had been unable to ‘recover one farthing of the expenses’ from him.

The appointment of Sligo’s first lord lieutenant ‘puzzled’ the Irish secretary Smith Stanley, who in September 1831 observed to the premier Lord Grey, ‘I fear there are no liberal men in that county’. Lord Anglesey, the viceroy, wished he ‘could have persuaded Lorton to have taken Sligo instead of Roscommon’ and, in an attempt to ‘avoid’ Wynne, ‘an incorrigible bag-man’, suggested Lord Kirkwood, but Smith Stanley thought he would ‘never do’, as he was non-resident, had no ‘consideration in the county’ and was ‘as regular an opponent as Wynne’. Anglesey then recommended Colonel Arthur Knox Gore of Ballina House, county Mayo, a ‘liberal’ and a ‘grand juror of Sligo’, who, although a non-resident, was ‘building a mansion on the bank of the river which divides the counties of Mayo and Sligo’. Another contender, Gore Booth, was ruled out as ‘harmless but also weak and helpless’ and Knox Gore was soon in place.38 His ‘non-residence’ was condemned by Perceval in the House, 7 Feb. 1832. Petitions against the new plan of Irish education reached the Commons, 7 Mar., 20 June, 11 July.39

By the Irish Reform Act, five leaseholders (three registered at £10, one at £20, and one at £50) and 18 rent-chargers (15 at £20 and three at £50) were added to the freeholders, who had increased to 672 (367 registered at £10, 141 at £20 and 164 at £50), giving a reformed constituency of 695.40 Attempts by the ‘Radical party’ to ‘get up a contest’ came to nothing at the 1832 general election, when Cooper and Perceval were again returned as Conservatives.41 They were re-elected unopposed in 1835 and survived a Liberal challenge and petition in 1837. Cooper retired in 1841 and Perceval shortly afterwards, following his appointment to office on the accession of the Peel ministry.


  • 1. Roscommon and Leitrim Gazette, 17 June 1826.
  • 2. S. Lewis, Top. Dict. of Ireland (1837), ii. 563-5.
  • 3. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 684; Portraits of Eminent Conservatives ed. H. Ryall (ser. 2), 2; NLI, O’Hara mss 20316, Gethin to O’Hara, 1 Nov. 1822; Add. 37301, f. 202.
  • 4. O’Hara mss 338 [n.d.]; 20331 (2), Lorton to C.K. O’Hara, 20 Sept. 1822.
  • 5. Ibid. 20316, C.K. O’Hara to Perceval, 26 Aug. 1821.
  • 6. CJ, lxxvii. 239, 269; LJ, lv. 255.
  • 7. O’Hara mss 20316, Verschoyle to O’Hara, 20 Sept., ‘draft address’ [n.d.]; 20331 (2), Lorton to O’Hara, 20 Sept.; The Times, 12 Oct. 1822; Add. 40352, f. 30.
  • 8. O’Hara mss 20316.
  • 9. Ibid. 20316, Webber to O’Hara, 19 Oct., reply 20 Oct. 1822.
  • 10. Ibid.
  • 11. Ibid. 20316, Jane Perceval to O’Hara, 9 Nov., O’Hara to Lorton, 11 Nov.; 20331 (2), O’Hara to King, 12 Nov., replies, 13, 14 Nov., O’Hara to Lorton, 18 Nov. 1822.
  • 12. Ibid. 20316, ‘printed broadsheet’ [n.d.]; Roscommon and Leitrim Gazette, 23, 30 Nov., 7 Dec.; Dublin Evening Post, 28, 30, 3 Dec. 1822; The Times, 10 Dec. 1822; Add. 37300, f. 280.
  • 13. PRO NI, Rossmore mss T2929/3/1, Westenra to Rossmore, 12 June 1824.
  • 14. Portraits, 2.
  • 15. Add. 40331, f. 147.
  • 16. CJ, lxxviii. 14, 80, 114, 362.
  • 17. Ibid. 362; lxxix. 82, 404.
  • 18. Ibid. lxxix. 353.
  • 19. PP (1825), xxii. 105.
  • 20. Dublin Evening Post, 15, 17, 22 June; Roscommon and Leitrim Gazette, 17, 24 June 1826.
  • 21. LJ, lix. 100, 143; lx. 364; CJ, lxxxi. 270, 284; lxxxiii. 269.
  • 22. LJ, lix. 83; CJ, lxxxii. 208, 245; lxxxiii. 19, 41, 56, 216, 264.
  • 23. LJ, lix. 83.
  • 24. O’Hara mss 20331 (2).
  • 25. Sligo Jnl. 30 Sept., 3, 24, 31 Oct., 4 Nov.; Dublin Evening Post, 13, 15, 18 Nov. 1828.
  • 26. Sligo Jnl. 6 Jan., 3, 13 Mar. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 28, 59, 103, 141; LJ, lxi. 56, 107-8.
  • 27. CJ, lxxxiv. 72, 177; LJ, lxi. 86.
  • 28. PP (1830), xxix. 472.
  • 29. O’Hara mss 20308 (7), King to O’Hara, 19 Apr. 1830, reply [n.d.].
  • 30. Sligo Jnl. 23 July, 20, 27 Aug.; Dublin Evening Post, 3, 19 Aug. 1830.
  • 31. CJ, lxxxvi. 107, 130.
  • 32. Ibid. 164, 487; LJ, lxiii. 505.
  • 33. CJ, lxxxvi. 164, 465, 483.
  • 34. Ibid. 483, 500; LJ, lxiii. 506.
  • 35. Sligo Jnl. 29 Apr., 6 May; Dublin Evening Post, 10, 12 May 1831.
  • 36. NLI, Farnham mss 18606 (1).
  • 37. Dublin Evening Post, 17, 21 May; Sligo Jnl. 20 May 1831.
  • 38. Derby mss 920 Der (14) 119/1/2, Anglesey to Smith Stanley, 13, 16, 18, 21, 30 Sept., 10 Oct., 1 Dec. 1831; Grey mss, Smith Stanley to Grey, 18 Sept.; PRO NI, Anglesey mss D619/31D/65.
  • 39. CJ, lxxxvii. 171, 420, 481.
  • 40. PP (1833), xxvii. 306.
  • 41. The Times, 25 Dec. 1832.