Decline and Revival
In the seventeenth century
elements of religion, law and local government were closely aligned.
Quasi local government functions were assigned to the vestry in the
case of tree planting and providing overseers for the highways in
the parish.1 The sovereign of the corporation was
provided with a special seat in the parish church. Receipts relating
to repairs of the session house and the house of correction were
included in the manor receipts, indicating that the manor had
responsibility for their upkeep. Very often the same individuals
participated in a number of bodies governing various aspects of the
life of the local community. A range of taxes were collected locally
for the upkeep of the church, and other public buildings.
The borough of Carlow was the
subject of three charters in the seventeenth century, granted
successively by James I (1613), Charles II (1674) and
(1689).2 The first of these, under
James I, was almost
denied because there was not a town in the county of Carlow deemed
important enough to merit elevation to borough status.3
The charter of 1674 was drawn up mainly for the encouragement of
trade and manufacture and the better planting and improvement of the
Robert Brown, one of the wealthier tenants of the
manor, was named as sovereign who was also to be clerk of the market
and the twelve burgesses were to be of the 'better and more discreet
inhabitants of the town'.5 But some of those named in the
charter were not residents of the town like Sir John Devaliere who
lived at Cloghrenan, John Tench of Staplestown,
John Warren who
lived at Ballymoyleran and Digby Berkeley who lived at
This was to be a matter of contention later when it was argued that
non-resident burgesses 'make all persons who are dealers in the town
freemen on purpose to deprive my lord [Thomond] of the customs'6
and thereby contributed to the decline in the economic fortunes of
The relatively small scale of the estate and its
fragmented nature, divided between the jurisdictions of the counties
Carlow and Queen's county, may also have contributed to a weakening
of authority. It was claimed that Thomond's receivers were prevented
from collecting tolls and customs in Graigue by the justice of the
peace in Queen's county.7 Encroachments like these, on
the rights of the manor, echoed earlier disputes between Sir Barnaby
O'Brien and the corporation of Carlow led by Nicholas Harman in
1626.8 Such disputes could be motivated politically,
especially during periods of religious or political tension. Quakers
were imprisoned by John Masters, the portrieve of Carlow, in the
16505 and the refusal of Quakers to pay tithes led to ongoing
seizures of property from Friends into the eighteenth century,9
The 1674 charter named six additional people who were 'to be of the
community of said borough'10 but were not burgesses.
There was provision for a merchants' guild to be set up.
Thomondís and the Bindonís
spent much of their time in England and left the running of their
Irish estates to a body of commissioners, who had overall
responsibility, and to receivers who took a closer interest in the
day to day operation of affairs. Thomas Spaight was the receiver at
Carlow in the 16705 and 1680s and did much to build up the town.11
Edmond Bray, a Dublin attorney, succeeded him and looked after the
manor of Carlow from at least 1690 to 1705. His keeping of accounts
came under suspicion after 1700 and he appears to have been
discharged around 1705.12 His tenure coincided with the
precipitous decline in the manor's economic fortunes.
The job of
receiver was a varied one, involving frequent correspondence with
the employers in England. In 1703 Bray was asked to help in the
election of Charles Howard -a relative of the earl's wife - for the
borough of Carlow.13 He also represented his employer in
various litigations with his tenants as well as ensuring that the
rent was paid and seeing it got to its destination in Dublin ó six
men were regularly hired to guard the large sums of money sent from
Carlow to Dublin.14
Thomas Moland became steward at
Carlow about 1710.I5
James Hamilton was appointed chief
agent for the earl's estates in Ireland in 1719, and was given full
power to examine all vouchers, books, deeds and writings 'anywise'
concerning the revenue or management of the estate. He was also to
oversee, order and direct all stewards, receivers, bailiffs and
servants employed in and about the estates.16
With the passing of the penal laws
there was the possibility of Catholics coming into conflict with the
authorities at local level. The parliamentary election of 1703 was
marred by a dispute over the exclusion of Catholics from the vote
because of the new anti-popery act. One of the candidates, Thomas
Burdett, saw it as a delaying tactic, but later in the campaign the
sheriff refused the votes of all Catholic and Quaker freeholders.17
In the previous year over fifty Protestants signed a petition on the
issue of the act of resumption.18 Of the ten first
signatories eight had been churchwardens of St Mary's parish church
in the previous twelve years.19 On his way to being sworn
in as sovereign in 1713 Thomas Burdett was gravely affronted to find
a priest with a cross addressing a crowd on the public highway,
which was in open 'defiance of the law and the magistracy'.20
Yet there was a Catholic mass-house located in the town in the early
eighteenth century in Chapel or Masshouse lane (now College Street)
and referred to as such in indentures.21 The attitude of
the authorities to the enforcement of penal legislation was
therefore ambivalent because the high sheriff or the sovereign were
involved in the arrest of priests until as late as 1752. Priests
were lodged in jail and some died there. Catholics were known to
free forcibly priests being taken to jail as Benjamin Burton
cause to report in 1739, when a priest was rescued by a crowd of 500
people. Philip Bernard tried unsuccessfully to arrest John Taafe,
parish priest of Carlow in 1743. He was eventually arrested seven
years later but was again rescued by a large crowd; a proclamation
for the apprehension of the culprits was issued by the lord
lieutenant but Taafe gave himself up soon afterward. He was tried at
a general assize, lodged in jail and later transported to France.22
Almost contemporary with these
references we find Patrick Rogers and Callaghan MacCallaghan, both
Catholics, tenants of the earl of Thomond. Rogers was explicitly
referred to as a Catholic tenant in an appendix to Thomond's case
against James Hamilton in I73I.23
was married to Anne the grand-daughter of his commanding officer
John Devaliere, who fought under Charles I and commanded a garrison
at Carlow in the 1670s.24 Devaliere was also a member of
the corporation and a churchwarden. When he died MacCallaghan became
his assignee for the properties of Crossneen and the Tobacco
Meadows. MacCallaghan quickly fell into arrears around the time of
the war in the 1690s and fought a running battle with the receivers
for the next thirty years. After his death the fight was taken up by
his wife and his son John and carried on into the 1730s without a
satisfactory resolution. As early as 1695 Edmond Bray was expressing
reservations about Callaghan's good faith.
In 1701 Thomond
petitioned the council of officers against him, while in 1702 Bray
complained that he would 'never be got out of possession of the farm
at Crossneen without an ejectment. He was the subject of an outlawry
in 1704 and twenty-six head of his black cattle were distrained in
the same year. In 1706 a Mr Smith, the clerk of parliament, was paid
£3.11s.od. for getting Callaghan's privileges set aside.25
What those privileges were is not related. But he had recourse to
the law himself and there are many references to the landlord having
to answer his bills. By 1708 the arrears stood at £738, which was
reckoned to mean he was insolvent.26 In spite of his high
profile in the courts Callaghan, by now a lieutenant colonel, was
one of only three Catholics in County Carlow to be granted a licence
to carry weapons in 1712.27 What may have enabled him to
survive, and to some extent thrive, in a era of punitive
anti-Catholic laws was his military background. His son John was
reported providing some of the stone for the construction of a new
barrack in the town in 1746, thereby maintaining the military
There is clear evidence for the
decline of Carlow after 1690. While Thomas Dineley could describe
Carlow as a' fair thriving, flourishing town'28 in 1680,
a report in 1709 said 'there is not above three or four houses in
the whole town [of Carlow] that are sufficient defence against wind
and weather, and if effectual care be not taken soon for the
improvement of the town the reversion will be worth no more than the
ground it stands on.'29 The decline would appear to have
set in soon after Dineley s visit as prices generally fell in
Ireland in the second half of the 1680s and economic advance was
halted.30 This was compounded by the local effects of
'war in Ireland and several fires in the said town [Carlow]'.31
Important tenants like Scooly, Curtis, Reynolds and Jones had
dwelling houses in the town in the early 1680s.32 The
power struggle that developed after James II came to the throne may
also have had an impact locally, by driving some people out of power
after the setting up of a new corporation in 1689.
The impact of the fire on the town
has already been examined at the beginning of this essay but some
areas outside the immediate town suffered as well. A particular
difficulty arose during the war when a number of individuals were
collecting rents, some on behalf of Richard Talbot, earl of
Tyrconnell. Old Lord Thomond, the seventh earl, was taken aback to
discover that Mark Baggot was entrusted with collecting rents; as he
expressed it 'to my wide wonder I have been advised from Carlow that
the Duke of Tyrconnell employed on[e] Mark Baggot to receive the
rents there last July and to set the estateí.33 During
these years rents were collected by Edmond Bray (£1,185),
Hodges (£670), John Browne (£504), Captain O'Brien (£275) and as we
have seen Mark Baggot and Edmond O'Carroll
for the earl of Tyrconnell.34
John Warren also seems to have had a hand in setting lands
in the manor and was later penalised by the
commissioners acting for the landlord on account of his actions
during this volatile period.
O'Briens were very anxious to know
how much had been paid to Tyrconnellís receivers and for many years
afterward tenants made claims that they had paid Tyrconnell,
producing 'aquittances' (a form of receipt) to prove it. In 1694
commissioners spent seven days in Carlow trying to restore order to
the manor's finances in the aftermath of the war35 but it
took some time before all outstanding matters were resolved
satisfactorily. Petitions for abatements of rent on account of war
or fire damage varied from an abatement of half a year awarded to
Quigley (which he thought was insufficient and sought to have
increased), to a possible two year abatement almost awarded to
for severe damage to his 101 acre meadow in Graigue, but the
commissioners failed to agree before being disbanded and Jones had
received nothing by 1695.36 As late as 1699 the receiver
wrote 'the heir of this tenant [Jones] ought to be sued to bring him
to accept a reasonable abatement'.37 The total amount
abated in 1694 amounted to £834.18s.6d.38
visited Carlow in the late 1690s to try and resolve outstanding
case, notably Callaghans arrears.39
The situation of the large farms
like Mortlestown, Crossneen and Ballymoyleran, which formed large
elements of the rental, during the war years can shed light on the
impact of the various upheavals on the manors finances. William
Bernard waived his lease to the 120-acre Mortlestown farm in 1689
and in 1695 be refused to 'intermeddle there with because of' the
depredations of the army'.40 It had lain waste for a
number of years until Baron Worth set it for £35 in 1695 but at its
pre-war level of £60 in 1696, 1697 and 1698. But arrears had
increased to £300 on the property by 1704. By 1721 Thomas Moland
rented Mortlestown at £75. Sir John Davaliere's assignee, Callaghan
MacCallaghan, made no payment for Crossneen in 1690 because of the
war when it was 'grazed by the armies'.41
annual rent was £60 John Browne set it for £30 to
Willington. Rents were paid erratically over the following years to
a number of receivers. By 1694 Callaghan was back in possession in
spite of the reservations of Edmond Bray. But arrears on the
property continued to rise, and eventually totalled £799 m 1709.John
Warren of Ballymoyleran, who was on the losing side after 1691, was
described thus in 1694: 'the tenant is very poor and now in gaol who
as yet has [had] no abatement on account of the troubles [,] he
having dealt very unfaithfully with my lord during the troubles'.42
He seems to have suffered on account of his actions during the war
when he was accused of having discovered the estate to Tyrconnell
which made him ineligible for an abatement of £34 in 1693 'because
of his unkindness to the family of Thomond'.43 Arrears
amounted to £150 in 1699 but was reduced to about £100 by 1702. By
1704 the hard-line attitude seemed to have softened when one of
Thomond's officials recommended that 'Mr Warren will clear this
arrear, if your honour will allow him the year and a half abatement
for the war, which has not yet been made good'.44 By 1709
the arrears on the farm were about £5.What these examples show is
that property was left idle in the early 1690s when the original
tenants refused to work them. There was then an effort to set them
on short leases at lower rents.
By 1709 most of the properties had
regained the pre-war levels. The mills were a case in point. William
Crutchley leased the mills for £80 per annum in 1681 but after his
death in 1688 none of his relatives thought it worthwhile to
continue working them. John Warren then set them to
E. Carroll and J. Dooling in 1689 for twenty-one years at £60, £20 less than the
original lease and they claimed to have paid rent to Tyrconnellís
receivers.45 By 1691 their under-tenant
Dennis Nowland was operating the mill and he was set the premises until 1694 by
Hodges and claimed to have paid out £100 on repairs. Finally they
were set to John Curtis in 1694 for the original rent of £80 per
year, which would suggest that they had been repaired in the
meantime.46 In a period of six years the mills had
changed hands four times, with payments and claims of payments made
to several different receivers. As the mills were worth 7 per cent
of the annual rental of the manor any shortfall was of grave
The manor finances were also affected by brass and pewter
money which was issued in the late 1680s but which was valueless
Lady Henrietta Somerset, daughter of the
duke of Beaufort, on her marriage to Henry Horatio Lord O'Brien was
entitled, according to the terms of the marriage settlement, to
£1200 annually from the manor of Carlow should she survive her
husband. Therefore the death of Lord O'Brien in 1690 to 25 March
1705, fifteen years later, Lady Henrietta, now countess of Bindon,
should have received £18,000 from Carlow. In reality she received
only £9,944, which left a shortfall of £8,056 during the period of
her jointure.48 She was, consequently, reluctant to spend
£100 a year over seven years to help finance the linen proposal
because the benefit would be reaped, not by her, as she was only
tenant for life, but by the earl of Thomond when he came of age. But
it was reported that 'her honour did seem willing to contribute a
quarter part of the expense of setting up a linen manufactory
believing it a due proportion ... but my lord Thomond not being of
age, nothing could be done'.49 This is a further example
of how improvements were halted or not undertaken because of the
confused and uncertain future ownership of the estate.
Waste and abandoned plots in the
town also contributed their share to the losses suffered by the
manor. But there was a view among receivers that many tenants could
afford to pay rent but were simply avoiding their responsibilities.
To tackle this problem the landlord had to resort to law and
re-enter the properties. The problem was compounded by a policy
pursued at receiver level in the early 1690s of going easy on
tenants with rent problems because of the series of disasters that
befell the town and manor.
Edmond Bray, in particular, feared that
tenants would go elsewhere and new tenants were not easy to find. He
wrote to England 'no receiver has slighted to make advantage to
himself as I have done and that partly for fear of disobliging the
tenants who are much invited to live upon the waste lands in the
kingdom at very easy rents'.50 Another letter (possibly
by Bray) says 'I have kept most of your tenants of Carlow from
leaving their holdings in 1693, 1694 and 1695 when lands were
untenanted and great bargains were to be had'.51
policy at that time was to keep the tenants on their holdings as
much as possible, Bray claiming 'I have always been very tender
[towards the tenants of Carlow] else many of them had either removed
or been beggars in these years past'. The landlord eventually had to
take tenants to court to enforce payment of rent. But recourse to
law was only partly successful because the tenants were able to
invoke a clause in the marriage settlement of Henry, seventh earl of
Thomond. The gist of this was that in any action to be brought
against tenants the original deeds, which were kept in England, had
to be produced and proved in court but the Thomondís preferred to
keep them there for reasons of safe-keeping. The tenants, however,
'well knowing [this] take advantage thereof and for this reason
often refuse to pay the respective rentsí. An act of parliament was
proposed as one way of overcoming this impediment to the effective
prosecution of claims against tenants.52
Coupled with the poor state of the
finances the receivers had to contend with demands for cash from
their employer in England. The Thomondís seemed to live in urgent
need of frequent injections of cash. Lady Bindon wrote to Bray in
1695I ... would have you do your utmost to get in money as fast as
you can',53 and in 1699 'I would never have my tenants
harassed yet as soon as may be send over the money'.54
The situation had not improved by 1702, when Lady Bindon put further
pressure on Bray by writing 'I received your last ... I writ[e] to
desire £400 of £500 - but this £260 will do at present'.55
The need to take action was plain.
The landlord made a number of attempts to improve the manor although
not all of the initiatives came from above or with official
sanction. John Curtis, one of the tenants, took it upon himself in
1694 to build two mills without getting prior approval as to their
location. Bray acknowledged that this was a breach of correct
procedure but nevertheless seemed to condone it by saying 'there is
much to be said against the tenant [Curtis] in this particular
though what he has done is an improvement'.56 This is
further evidence of a lack of leadership and control when tenants
could flout basic procedures and take what they wanted without
reference to, or sanction from higher authority But several efforts
to effect change began with the mapping of the estate by Thomas
Moland in 1703. He was behind the attempts to establish a linen
manufacture in the town in 1708 which was discussed above. In order
that the Bindon's could make leases for three lives an act of
parliament was required and work continued on this in the first
decade of the eighteenth century.
The case for a new act was
graphically described in the act itself. It said that Carlow 'by
fire and other casualties, now is, and for many years past has been
partly destroyed, and became very much decayed, so that the rents
formerly reserved are considerably sunk in value' in spite of the
fact that the 'town is commodiously situated for trade and
manufacture'. It went on to claim that as the Bindonís could not
grant longer leases 'the tenants have no encouragement to build and
improve'.57 Another act of parliament to enable Henry,
earl of Thomond, to make leases for three lives with covenants for
renewal forever, passed in 1711, resulted in sixty-four leases being
granted, mostly in 1712.58
The possibility of a new
charter for the town was also considered (if successful it would
have been the fourth in less than a hundred years) to remedy defects
in the old charter whereby burgesses were not necessarily residents
of the town. Nothing seems to have come of this as Thomas Burdett
was sovereign of the town in 1713 although he lived at Garryhill.
The new charter would insist that the sovereign and the burgesses be
residents of the town. A new fair for Graigue was also seen as a way
of increasing the profits of the customs and tolls on trade in the
With the passage of the act
enabling Henry, Earl of Thomond, to make leases for three lives
there was a large scale setting of properties in leases forever in
1712. In most cases the yearly rent was hardly increased and the
benefit to the manor was only short term. By 1719 James Hamilton, an
attorney in Dublin, was appointed the earl's chief agent and manager
of all his estates in Ireland on the recommendation of Hamilton's
uncle, Brigadier Hans Hamilton.59 By 1721 Thomond was
heavily indebted to several people on account of speculative South
Sea contracts, particularly Bulstrode Peachy. Under pressure from
his creditors he sought purchasers for his Limerick and Holmpatrick,
county Dublin estates but eventually he offered the Carlow estate to
James Hamilton at twenty years purchase (twenty times the value of
the yearly rental which was £1,169 which gave a total purchase price
of £24,858). But this sum was eroded by £1,000 because the mills
were said to be in a ruinous condition, and by other reductions
which lowered the total to £23,000 Irish money (£20,900 English
Thomond argued later that the true
condition of the manor was misrepresented to him by Hamilton who had
access to inside information. He claimed that he was told that
because the manor lands were granted in fee farm and upon leases for
lives renewable forever (most of them dating from 1712) that the
estate could not be improved. Whereas he was subsequently informed
that part of the estate, although let on lives, was set to tenants
who, upon the fall of some of the lives did not apply for renewal
within the tune limit prescribed in the leases and that therefore
they were not entitled to a renewal. And consequently when all the
lives determined - ended - the leases would have a much greater
value. The example given was of Richard Scooly who held several
lands for his own life only, and died during the negotiations on the
sale of the estate. His brother Samuel informed Hamilton that he
proposed to lease the properties at a much higher rent.
Moland wrote to Thomond that he had 'always abominated' the sale and
wished he could 'contribute to get it into my lords hands again'61
suggesting that the yearly rental would have increased from £1,169
to £1,350 with new setting of Scooly's lands after his death.62
James Hamilton, according to Thomond, wanted to keep the sale of the
estate secret in Ireland but it became known soon afterward and
several people in Ireland wrote to Thomond expressing the view that
the actual value of the estate was fourteen or fifteen thousand
pounds greater than Hamilton had paid for it.63
Cooper, one of the earl's informants, reported an atmosphere of fear
and recrimination around Carlow after Thomond exhibited a bill in
the court of chancery in Ireland against James Hamilton and his
brother John in 1727 to set aside the purchase of Carlow as it had
been got through fraud, misrepresentation and circumvention.
According to Cooper 'James Hamilton was here [Carlow, 1728] ... he
says he has found out his enemies in this country and particularly
Mr Scooly who is the chief person who discovers against him ... Mr
Hamilton and his friends are declaring against him ... I am told
they whisper against me'.64
James Hamilton countered Thomond's
claims by pointing to the substantial sums of money he had spent on
improving the estate, particularly £2,500 in building five new mills
and a market house in the town of Carlow. The consequent rise of
£150 in the annual rental was largely due to the increased rents
from the mills. He also secured a grant to hold an additional Monday
market, and two additional fairs on 23 April and 11 June.65
Several tenants who rebuilt their houses in the town were allowed
one year's rent.66 Another indication of how Hamilton set
about improving the estate comes from Thomas Cooper who reported in
1728 that 'Mr Hamilton ... encourages persons as he has set Mr
Scooly's late concerns to ó to build on them which they are doing to
Although he was a hostile with
regard to Hamilton his admiration for what Hamilton had achieved in
a short space of time comes through when he writes that the mills
which 'were newly built by Mr Hamilton' had been set for £200 and
were only worth £90 under Thomond.68 There is further
evidence of new house building during the 1720s from memorials in
the Registry of Deeds69 and the number of new leases
taken out after Hamilton took over is an indication of the rate of
change after 1722. Between 1724 and 1730 twenty-seven leases were
registered in the Registry of Deeds, seventeen of these were in 1724
and seven in 1726. Another eight were taken out in 1735.70
Benjamin Burton, the banker, bought the townland of
Ballinakill (Burton Hall) three miles from Carlow town from the
Trustees for Forfeited Estates.71 For many years he had
acted as banker to Thomond and was regularly forwarded money by the
receivers. Burton began to speculate in property at this time and
merchants, such as Thomas Conyers, were encouraged to build a market
house73 and others like Humphryís to set up a linen
industry. Taken as a whole these developments heralded the end of
the long period of stagnation after 1690.
- Decline and Revival references:
Historical Manascript Commission
Irish Manuscripts Commossion
National Archives Dublin
National Library Ireland
is Petworth House Archives, West Sussex Record
Registry of Deeds, Henritta Street, Dublin
Representative Church Body Library, Dublin
Reglious Society of Friends Historical :obrary,
Swanbrook House, Morehampton Road, Donnybrook,
- 1 RCB, MS 317/5/1: Vestry book, 24 August 1702.
- 2 Liber munerum publicorum Hiberniae, I, pt. II, p.
4; see also Ryan, History of Carlow, pp 134-9, 209-18 & 222ó31.
- 3 Calendar of state papers, Ireland, 1611-4, p.333.
- 4 Liber munerum, p. 4. (27 Car, 2, 2a pars d. 17).
- 5 Ryan, History of Carlow, pp 211-12.
- 6 PHA, MS B11/34: Rent roll, 1709.
- 7 PHA, MS B11/34: Rent roll, 1709.
- 8 PHA, MS C1/2: Sir Barnaby O'Brien: Corporation of
Carlow: defendant; to set aside charter of incorporation as
infringing on plaintiffs rights, 1626, f. 1.
- 9 Malcolmson, 'Merchants tokens' pp 247-8.
- 10 Ryan, History of Carlow, p. 212.
- 11 Ciaran O Murchadha. 'The unfaithful steward' in
The Other Clare xi (1984), p. 20.
- 12 PHA, MSB: 1/32b: Rent roll ending 25/3/1704.
- 13 PHA, MS C6/5b: H. O'Brien to Edmond Bray, 28
April 1703; Robert Malcolmson, The Carlow parliamentary roll
- 14 PHA, MS B11/32b: Account current, 1674,1702,1704.
- 15 [House of lords], Thomond v. Hamilton, the
appellant's case, p. 4.
- 16 [House of lords], Thomond v. Hamilton, the
appellant's case, p. 1.
- 17 The case of Thomas Burdett... (Dublin, 1703), p.
- 18 British Library, MS Add. Charter 19533(2).
- 19 British Library, MS Add. Charter 19533(2).
- 20 William P. Burke, The Irish priests in the penal
times (1660ó1760) (Shannon, 1969) originally printed Waterford,
- 21 Carlow County Library, Burton papers: Indenture
between Robert Burton and Richard Henegan, March 1742.
- 22 Burke, Irish priests, pp 325ó7; John Brady,
Catholics and Catholicism in the eighteenth century press
(Maynooth, 1965), pp 79-80; Patrick Pagan, (ed.), Ireland in the
Stuart papers, (2 vols Dublin, 1995) ii, pp i69n, 227, 231.
- 23 [House of Lords], Thomond v. Hamilton, the
account mentioned and referred to in the earl of Thomond's case
hereunto annexed (Dublin, 1731), p. 1; see also PHA, MS B11/32b:
Rent roll, 1699, plot 54, f. 4.
- 24 John O'Hart, The Irish and Anglo-Irish gentry
(Shannon, 1969), p. 381.
- 25 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent rolls, 1701,1702, 1704; NLI,
- 26 NLI, MS3071.
- 27 H.M.C. Ormonde Manuscripts, (old series), ii, p.
- 28 'Extracts from the journal of Thomas Dineley', p.
- 29 PHA,MS B11/34: Rent roll, 1709.
- 30 L. M. Cullen, 'Economic trends, 1660-90' in T.W.
Moody, F. X. martin, F.J. Byrne (eds), A New History of Ireland,
iii: early modern Ireland, 1534-1691 (Oxford, 1976), p. 406.
- 31 PHA, MS B11/34: 1709.
- 32 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1684, ff 1, 3, 4 & 6.
- 33 PHA, MS C6/5b: Thomond to Bray, 8/1/1690/1.
- 34 PHA, MS B11/32b: Accounts current, 1694.
- 35 PHA, MS B11/32b: Accounts current, 1694.
- 36 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1695.
- 37 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1699, plot 88, f. 7.
- 38 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1695.
- 39 PHA, MS C6/5b: H O'Brien to Bray, 17/4/1699.
- 40 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1695.
- 41 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1695.
- 42 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1694.
- 43 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1702, plot 63, f. 6.
- 44 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll, 1704, plot 65.
- 45 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll 1695.
- 46 PHA, MS B11/32b: Rent roll 1695.
- 47 PHA, MS B11/32b: Accounts current, 1694 and 1700.
- 48 PHA, MS B11/34; The state of the lordship of
Carlow now in jointure to the Rt. Honble. Henrietta countess of
Bindon. f. 1
- 49 PHA, MS B11/32: Thestateofthe lordship of Carlow
- 50 PHA, MS BC6/5b: Edmond Bray to H. O'Brien, 10
Sept. 1694. f. i.
- 51 PHA, MS B11/32b: [Loose sheet at front of rental
- 52 PHA, MS C14/A1: An act to enable ... countess of
Bindon etc. to make leases of the manor and town of Carlow ...
and for the evidencing of settlements made by Henry, late earl
of Thomond, p. 3.
- 53 PHA, MS C6/5b: H. O'Brien to Mr Bray, 27 February
- 54 PHA, MS C6/5b: H. O'Brien to Bray, 17 April 1699.
- 55 PHA, MS C6/5b: H. O'Brien to Bray, Feb. 1701/2.
- 56 PHA, MS C6/5b: Edmond Bray to Lady J. O'Brien, 10
Sept. 1694, f. 2.
- 57 PHA, MSC14/A1: An to make leases in the town of
Carlow, p. 1.
- 58 VHA, MS C14/A2:An act to enable Henry earl of
Thomond to make leases for three lives with covenants for
renewal forever of the leases comprised in his marriage
settlement; PHA, MS C25/18a: A rental of the estate of the late
Henry earl of Thomond in the county of Carlow etc. sold by deeds
13, 14 February 1721 to James Hamilton, plots 2, 5,6,7,16,17,18,
21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48. 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67,68,
70, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 91,92, 93, 94,
95, 101 also 25, 26, 104, 109 and two unnumbered properties
belonging to Lackey and Burdett.
- 59 [House of Lords], Henry earl of Thomond,
appellant. James Hamilton, & al., respondents: The appellant's
case ([Dublin], 1733), p. 1.
- 60 Thomond v. Hamilton: Appelant's case, p. 3
- 61 PHA, MS 6/8: No. 23, Thomas Moland to Thomond, 6
- 62 PHA, MS 6/8: Moland to Thomond, 6 May 1726.
- 63 Thomond v. Hamilton: The appellant's case, p. 3.
- 64 PHA, MS 6/8: No 24, Thomas Cooper to Thomond, 14
- 65 Liber munerum publicorum Hiberniae, I, pt. I, p.
4; Thomond v, Hamilton: The respondent's case, p. 2.
- 66 Thomond v. Hamilton: The respondent's case, p. 2.
- 67 PHA, MS C6/8: Cooper to Thomond, 14 April 1728.
- 68 PHA, MS C6/8: Cooper to Thomond, 14 April 1728.
- 69 RD, Memorials: 45/171/30086, 49/542/3312,
- 70 PHA, MS C2 5 /18a: Leases of the manor of Carlow.
- 71 L. G. Pine, Burkes landed gentry of Ireland, (4th
edition, London, 1958), p. 127.
- 72 RD, Memorial: 14/95/5253.
Source: 'Carlow, the
Manor and the Town' by Thomas King (1997). p. 33-41.
Transcribed by M
Brennan Jul 2009
Please report any links or images which do not open to
- The information contained in these
pages is provided solely for the purpose of sharing with others
researching their ancestors in Ireland.
- © 2001 County Carlow
TOP OF PAGE