NEWPORT, Sir Simon John, 1st bt. (1756-1843), of New Park, co. Waterford

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press



7 Dec. 1803 - 1832

Family and Education

b. 24 Oct. 1756, 1st s. of Simon Newport, merchant and banker, of Waterford and Elizabeth, da. of William Riall of Clonmel, co. Tipperary. educ. Eton 1768-74; M. Temple 1770; Queen’s, Oxf. 1773; L. Inn 1779; King’s Inns 1780, called [I] 1780. m. 1 Oct. 1784, Ellen, da. of Shapland Carew, MP [I], of Castleborough, co. Wexford, s.p. cr. bt. 25 Aug. 1789; suc. fa. 1817. d. 9 Feb. 1843.

Offices Held

Chan. of exch. [I] Feb. 1806-Mar. 1807; commr. of treasury [I] Apr. 1806-Mar. 1807; PC [GB] 12 Mar. 1806, [I] 25 July 1806; comptroller gen. of exch. [UK] Oct. 1834-Sept. 1839.


Dubbed the ‘Nestor of the Irish Whigs’ by Richard Sheil*, Newport, who had joined Brooks’s, sponsored by Lord Fitzwilliam, 11 June 1812, was considered by Lord Holland to be ‘the best informed and most upright Irish politician (with the sole exception of Grattan) that we have had in Parliament since the Union’.1 A small, asthmatic ‘old man’, noted for his gentlemanlike and agreeable manner, he remained an extremely active, if not very prominent, member of the moderate Whig opposition, despite increasing infirmity.2 ‘Your constitution is not like that of any man I know, and I have known you to get health and spirits from increasing exertions’, observed his friend William Plunket* after a particularly severe asthma attack in 1821.3 His frequent (sometimes daily) speeches were ‘principally confined to Irish affairs’ and ‘characterized by good sense’, but as George Agar Ellis* once griped, he ‘goes rather too much into detail’.4 ‘If Sir John Newport be not a man of the very first-rate ability, his talents, and still more his industry and information are such as to command respect’, noted The Times in 1829.5 Although he continued to vote against the Liverpool ministry on most major issues, especially economy, retrenchment and reduced taxation, he maintained close personal connections with some of its senior figures, and had lifelong friendships with the former prime minister Lord Grenville, whose seat at Dropmore he regularly visited, and Richard, 1st Marquess Wellesley, Irish viceroy, 1821-8, who in a letter of 1840 about his ‘early obligations’ to Newport declared, ‘You are the foundation of my public character’ and ‘were to me what my father might have been’. In reply, Newport recounted how, ‘under Mrs. Young’s great tree at Eton, the brotherhood, for such it truly was, of Wellesley, Grenville and Newport commenced, and lasted undiminished even to the latest years ... through every vicissitude of political life’.6

At the 1820 general election Newport was again returned unopposed for his native Waterford under the terms of an 1818 compact between his family and the other leading members of its corporation carving up the local patronage. On the hustings he gave an ‘animated speech’ justifying his political conduct and reiterated his ‘determination to support’ Catholic emancipation.7 He condemned the appointment of an additional Scottish baron of exchequer, 2, 15 May, and demanded an inquiry, 4 May 1820. He was appointed to the select committee on Irish election expenses, 3 May, and pressed for more time to be allowed for Irish election petitioners to enter into recognizances, 25 May. He advocated reduction of the Irish viceroy’s household allowances, 17 May. He called for the transfer of Grampound’s seats to Yorkshire, 19 May. He spoke against the introduction of a system of Irish poor laws, but conceded the necessity of ‘some temporary measure’ of relief, 7 June. On 12 June he criticized the ‘extremely oppressive’ customs duties imposed on Ireland at the Union and pressed for their annual reduction by one per cent. That day he was granted a week’s leave on account of the death of his only brother William, head of the family’s Waterford bank, who, following the disastrous run on their notes in May, had committed suicide, 6 June, precipitating the bank’s total failure. Although he repudiated any personal liability, Newport later contributed at least £5,000 towards numerous local compensation claims.8 He demanded measures to redress the deficiency of Irish education, 28 June. On 30 June he argued and moved successfully for a clause to be added to the Irish chancery bill preventing masters in chancery from sitting in Parliament. He welcomed the government’s Irish tithes bill as a ‘conciliatory measure’, which would ‘allay much of the discontent’, 5 July. Next day he was a minority teller against the third reading of the female offenders bill. He objected to the use of public funds for repairs to Westminster Abbey, citing its ‘scandalous and disgraceful’ neglect by the dean and chapter, 12 July. He contended that encouraging breweries in Ireland would ‘root out the pernicious system of drinking spirits’, 14 July. Reporting from Dropmore that November, Grenville’s brother Thomas Grenville† noted:

He has lately had several grievous misfortunes which have pressed heavily upon him; he was very much attached to his wife (who was by the bye as disagreeable and vulgar a woman as I ever saw) but he was very fond of her and she died; then his brother failed as a Waterford banker, shot himself and left ... Sir John to settle the embarrassments of the house as he could; he had then no relation left but a nephew in the dragoons, and he is rendered incapable by a paralytic seizure at 35. Sir John is come to end his asthmatic days in England.9

Writing to Holland, 4 Dec. 1820, he added, ‘Newport is ... much out of spirits’ but ‘says all is quiet in Ireland’.10

Newport condemned the removal of Queen Caroline’s name from the liturgy, 26 Jan., and spoke and voted steadily in the opposition campaign on her behalf, deprecating the ‘entanglement of political prejudices’ and ‘established religion’, 13 Feb. 1821. He protested that an address to the king in the London Gazette complaining of the ‘insolence’ of the opposition was a breach of privilege, 1 Feb., and secured the concurrence of the House next day. (He had been appointed to the select committee on privileges, 24 Jan.) That February he spoke regularly against the Irish estimates and repeatedly berated ministers for their failure to produce detailed accounts. He warned the House that if they ‘refused’ to disfranchise Grampound ‘they would inflict a greater injury upon their own character in the eyes of the people, than could be effected by any other means’, 12 Feb., and voted in favour of Leeds becoming a scot and lot borough if it received Grampound’s seats, 2 Mar. He divided for parliamentary reform, 9 May 1821, 25 Apr. 1822, 24 Apr. 1823, 27 Apr. 1826, reform of the Scottish electoral system, 2 June 1823, and of Edinburgh’s representation, 26 Feb. 1824, 13 Apr. 1826. On 22 Feb. 1821 he condemned the military dispersal of a county meeting by the Dublin sheriff as a ‘gross outrage’ and voted for inquiry. He voted for Catholic claims, 28 Feb. 1821 (as a pair), 1 Mar. 1825, 21 Apr., 10 May 1825, and moved the order of the day for going into committee on the relief bill, 23, 27 Mar. 1821, when he drew attention to the lack of ‘invidious distinctions’ of religion abroad. On 29 Mar. Joseph Phillimore* informed the marquess of Buckingham that he had been ‘shut up all the morning with Sir John Newport and co. on the subject of the clauses relating to the securities’, and that to counter the anticipated opposition to the third reading, he was going to meet Newport at Lord Castlereagh’s* ‘to consider the propriety of some alterations which have been suggested as expedient’.11 Newport paired for repeal of the additional malt duty, 21 Mar., 3 Apr. He endorsed a petition complaining of the interference of Lord Westmorland in the Lyme Regis election, denouncing the existing resolutions against peers’ involvement as ‘a mere farce’, 12 Apr. He spoke and voted for repeal of the Blasphemous and Seditious Libel Acts, 8 May. Next day he moved and was in the minority for a ‘string of resolutions’ condemning the ‘excessive’ delays of the commission of inquiry into the courts of justice.12 He spoke in favour of a local assembly for Newfoundland, 28 May. Criticizing the Irish budget, 1 June, he warned that ‘taxation, augmented beyond a certain extent’ would ‘produce not an increased but a diminished revenue’. On 13 June he was a teller in the minority of 13 for a motion to allow Catholics to hold senior positions in the Bank of Ireland. He welcomed inquiry into abuses in Irish revenue collection, 15 June. On 20 June 1821 he was sent ‘to sleep in the gallery’ by a debate on the burning of Hindu widows and was unable to ask an intended question about the duke of York’s association with Orange lodges.13 That December Henry Brougham* observed that whilst at Dropmore Newport had ‘passed some time with Wellesley’, who had just accepted the Irish viceroyalty, and had ‘come back in the highest glee’.14

Newport gave a ‘gloomy account’ of the state of rebellion in Ireland at Holland House, 2 Feb. 1822, when he told Sir James Mackintosh* that he ‘believed that Lord Liverpool is about to resign, that the duke of Wellington, who is said to be a convert to Catholic emancipation, is to succeed him, and that Catholic emancipation is to be carried’.15 He refused to endorse the government’s ‘repressive’ Irish insurrection bill unless accompanied by an inquiry into the causes of the unrest, 5 Feb., and spoke and voted against it that day and 7 Feb. Next day, however, he cautioned against any modifications that would make it ‘inoperative’. ‘I confess myself a little surprised at the conduct of some of the Irish Members ... especially Newport’, Goulburn, the Irish secretary, complained to Wellesley that day, noting that he had previously ‘voted for the ... Act in times which he admits to have not so much required extraordinary exertion’.16 On 13 Feb. Newport dissented from an opposition motion for inquiry into Sir Robert Wilson’s* dismissal from the army, citing the ‘fatal error of a former period’ of bringing the army and committees of the House ‘into too close a communication’. He welcomed and was appointed to the select committee on agricultural distress, 18 Feb. He implored ministers not to treat demands for retrenchment as ‘idle, unfounded clamour’ and spoke and voted for abolition of one of the joint-postmasterships, 13 Mar., 2 May. He supported calls for an inquiry into the public accounts, 14 Mar., and was appointed to the ensuing select committee, 18 Apr. He asserted that ‘no time ought to be lost’ in introducing another measure of Catholic relief, 29 Mar., but privately ‘admitted that the question ... could not now be agitated with advantage’ that year at a meeting of the Commons’ ‘friends of emancipation’ with Canning, Charles Williams Wynn and Plunket, the newly appointed Irish attorney-general, 16 Apr.17 Next day Agar Ellis described how Newport ‘came and detailed to me some of his plans for a commutation of tithes and other ameliorations in Ireland’.18 On 22 Apr., in a speech described by Williams Wynn as ‘very poor’ and by Mackintosh as ‘feeble’, he moved for an address to the king urging the necessity of an inquiry into the causes of Irish disturbances, observing that he had ‘never risen under feelings of greater embarrassment’ on account of ‘not being favoured’ on this occasion with Plunket’s support. (Shortly beforehand, Mackintosh had observed that he was ‘very anxious’ because of the ‘expectation’ that he was to be ‘attacked by his old friend’, who in the event turned his fire elsewhere.)19 After a ‘long debate’ and assurances from Plunket that measures for Irish relief were in hand, he agreed not to press his motion to a division, adding that he had not intended ‘any reflection’ upon the present Irish government and had the ‘fullest confidence’ in Wellesley, ‘but it did not necessarily follow that he must place the same implicit confidence in all the other members of the cabinet’.20 Reporting to Wellesley, Richard Wellesley* commented:

Newport repelled in the strongest terms the accusation of any intention to impute blame to the present government of Ireland, and he told me privately that he was very sorry to hear that great pains were taken to impress you with an opinion that he had intended to cast some reflection on your government and I really believe that the fear of incurring this charge was one of his principal motives for not pressing his proposed address to a division.21

He denounced the ‘dreadful’ imposition of tithes on Irish potatoes and demanded their commutation, warning that their collection would produce ‘tumult and insurrection’, 15 May. ‘Newport ... sees his way very clearly’ but ‘I doubt his being fully aware of the obstacles’, Plunket advised Holland, 18 May.22 On the 21st he obtained leave to introduce a bill making Irish landlords contribute to the parochial assessments of their tenants, which went no further. He welcomed proposals to repeal the window and hearth taxes, 24 May. He spoke and voted for reception of the Greenhoe petition for parliamentary reform, 3 June, and against the aliens bill, 5 June. He complained that the Irish constables bill would ‘drive many of the most respectable magistrates out of the commission’ and divided against its second reading, 7 June. He protested that the Irish tithes leasing bill ‘only put off that evil day’ of payment rather than offering commutation, 13 June, and was in the minority for his own amendment for a proposed inquiry to examine alternative sources of funding for the Irish church, 19 June. He urged the necessity of measures to employ the starving population of Ireland, 17 June, and argued and was in the minority of 37 for his own amendment to limit the duration of the Irish repressive legislation, 8 July 1822.

On 4 Jan. 1823 Lord Donoughmore reported hearing from Newport on the Catholic question, which its supporters ‘all agree ... should be brought on as soon as possible’ and ‘disposed of before the commencement of the spring circuits’.23 Newport called for the suppression of all Irish secret societies, 5 Mar. He congratulated ministers on their Irish tithes compensation bill, believing it would ‘do great good’ in alleviating the Irish church’s ‘unwarrantable encroachment’ on the poor, 6 Mar. ‘I have always wanted to see the abuses of the Irish church in good hands. They are not so in Newport’s’, remarked the duke of Bedford next day.24 On 21 Mar. Newport, hitherto an outspoken protectionist, announced his conversion to free trade, by which Irish commerce ‘would be greatly improved’.25 Concerned at obstructing ‘the course of justice’, he voted with ministers against the production of papers on the supposed plot to murder Wellesley, 24 Mar., and was widely expected to support Plunket’s controversial use of ex-officio informations against the Orangemen alleged to have been involved and oppose Brownlow’s censure motion on 15 Apr. (At Dropmore Williams Wynn had ‘found him much alarmed’ that the ‘great body of opposition’ would ‘vote against Plunket from personal animosity’.)26 ‘I am surprised that Newport ... should be disposed to support Plunket in his unconstitutional conduct about the Dublin rioters’, Bedford carped to Holland, 27 Mar.27 He argued and was in the majority for the compromise motion for inquiry into the conduct of the Dublin sheriff, 22 Apr., and put frequent questions to witnesses during its sittings next month, when he repeatedly reproached the Orangemen for refusing to reveal their ‘rules and regulations’. He welcomed improvements to the Newfoundland judicature, 25 Mar. On 10 Apr., in what became a regular hobby horse, he moved and was a minority teller for a ‘just and true valuation’ of the Irish first fruits fund, which would lessen the ‘need for public grants to the Irish church’ and the burden of its church rates. He was in the minority of 19 against the grant for Irish churches and glebe houses next day. He called for a reform of Irish education grants, 11 Apr., and moved but eventually withdrew a resolution for inquiry into a nondenomination education system, 25 June. He was in the minority of 14 (as a teller) for a clause in the Irish county treasurers bill preventing the reappointment of insolvent collectors, 2 May. He reaffirmed his opposition to renewal of the Insurrection Act without a ‘full inquiry’ into Irish disturbances and divided accordingly, 12 May, 24 June. On 21 May he urged the necessity of Irish tithe reform, which Bedford privately doubted his ability to promote, noting that Irish churchmen ‘have a perfect horror of Newport and look upon him as their most determined enemy’.28 On 27 May he welcomed the Irish joint tenancy bill, observing that ‘nothing had brought greater misery to Ireland than the subdivision of land among such a large multitude of tenants’. He demanded inquiry into the excessive fees charged by the Irish chief baron, Standish O’Grady†, 13 June. He objected to calls for the abolition of the Irish viceroyalty, asserting that nothing would be ‘more injurious’ and ‘degrading’ to the people of Ireland, 25 June. He voted to refer the Catholic petition against the administration of justice in Ireland to the grand judicial committee, 26 June. He obtained leave for a bill to enable Catholics to make gifts and grants for charitable purposes, which went no further, 3 July 1823.29 That December he was ‘warned off’ going to Dropmore whilst Liverpool visited.30

Newport spoke and was a minority teller for his own motion for information on the legality of Catholic burials, 6 Feb. 1824. ‘If Newport would have left it alone it would have been best, but having mooted it ... we must deal with it’, remarked Williams Wynn.31 He seconded a motion for leave to introduce a bill to prevent Irish landlords from seizing unharvested crops in settlement of rental arrears and welcomed another to compel the residence of the Irish clergy, 16 Feb. He recommended extending the jury laws consolidation bill to Ireland and spoke and voted for returns on Catholic office- holders, 19 Feb. Speaking for reform of Edinburgh’s representation, 26 Feb., he warned that the ‘Irish Parliament had accelerated its own downfall by separating itself from the feelings and interests of the people they professed to represent, and it was not improbable that in the case of England the same cause would lead to the same effect’. That day he demanded an ‘extensive amendment’ of the ‘mischievous’ Irish Church Rates Act. He complained that the survey and valuation of Ireland was taking too long, 27 Feb., and was appointed to the ensuing select committee, 10 Mar. He praised ministers for their recent tax cuts, 5 Mar., but advocated further Irish reductions, 12 Mar. He spoke and divided against the grant for Protestant Irish charter schools, 15 Mar., and on the 25th moved successfully for an inquiry into Irish education. Next month he was part of the Irish delegation to Robinson, chancellor of the exchequer, which pressed unsuccessfully for a five-year extension of the Irish linen bounties.32 He feared that the bill to amend the Irish Tithes Composition Act would merely ‘augment all the evils’ of the original measure, 3 May. Next day he spoke and was in the minority of 33 for an advance of capital to Ireland. He endorsed a petition against Orange lodges, towards which the government should ‘declare its hostility’, 4 May, and had such petitions referred to the inquiry on the state of Ireland, 10 June. He moved the second reading of the Irish Royal Mining Company bill but withdrew it in the face of objections, 6 May. He voted for inquiries into the Irish church that day, and the state of Ireland, to which he was appointed, 11 May. He welcomed proposals to repeal the leather tax and urged their extension to Ireland, 17 May. On the 25th he reintroduced his motion against the ‘improper collection’ of Irish first fruits revenues and again was a minority teller for inquiry. He argued and was a minority teller for his own amendment to the Irish clergy residence bill prohibiting pluralities, 27 May. He feared that an abolition of the Irish butter trade regulations would encourage ‘every description of fraud’ by butter makers, 31 May. He denied that repeal of the Test Acts would endanger the Protestant church, citing the example of their brief suspension in Ireland before the Union, 4 June 1824.

Newport attacked ministers for their ‘system of coercion’ towards Ireland, 4 Feb. 1825. He cautioned against suppression of the Catholic Association, citing the ‘fearful dangers’ of attempting to stifle discontent and the lesson of the American war of independence, 15 Feb., and voted accordingly that day and 21, 25 Feb. He presented petitions in the Association’s support and divided for it to be heard at the bar of the House, 18 Feb., and was one of the Members who met the deputation of its leaders, 20 Feb.33 He welcomed a bill to alter the Irish Subletting Act, 22 Feb. That day he obtained leave for a bill to amend the levy of church rates in Ireland, stressing the burden of taxation imposed by a Protestant minority and the necessity of allowing Catholics to attend financial vestry meetings, which was read a third time, 13 June. After a number of amendments by the Lords, which in his absence were accepted by the Commons, it received royal assent as 6 Geo. IV, c. 130, 6 July. Writing to Holland from Milford Haven, where had been ‘detained’ by another ‘asthmatic attack’, 17 July 1825, Newport protested that the bill had been

most artfully passed through several of its stages at unreasonable hours and finally, although I had again and again announced to Goulburn my intention of laying before the House ... my decided opposition to it, the last stages were delayed until circumstances had compelled me to quit London, and then it was expedited on its progress ... I shall most certainly take an early opportunity of urging ... next session the reconsideration of the entire subject.34

True to his word, on 16 Feb. 1826 he protested at the Lords’ removal of the ‘principal clauses’ limiting expenditure and enabling parishioners to appeal against burdensome rates, and unsuccessfully moved a series of resolutions condemning their actions. He spoke in favour of the Liverpool and Manchester railway bill, saying it was the duty of the legislature to ‘increase the facilities of conveyance’, 2 Mar. 1825. During the negotiations over the Catholic relief bill that month, he agreed to introduce the accompanying bills for provision for the Catholic clergy and regulation of the Irish freeholder franchise.35 On 26 Mar., however, Agar Ellis reported that he had been ‘obliged to give up ... bringing forward the question of the elective franchise, in consequence of being so abused by some of his own friends’, and that he believed the relief bill and ‘measures connected with it’ would ‘all fail in consequence of the foolish dissensions among the Whigs’.36 He defended the franchise bill as a material ‘aid’ to the ‘more important one of emancipation’, 22 Apr., denied that it would ‘disfranchise one single individual’ as it ‘preserved existing rights to all’, 26 Apr., and argued that it would ‘put down fictitious votes’, 12 May. He defended the inclusion of the Catholic oath in the relief bill, 6 May, and following its third reading stood in for Sir Francis Burdett, who had absented himself, and took it up to the Lords, 11 May.37 He was appointed to the select committee on the Irish linen trade, 14 Apr. That day he obtained leave for a bill to limit Irish church pluralities and abolish episcopal unions, noting the existence of some parish unions that were ‘forty miles long’. (It was introduced, 20 May, but made no progress.) He welcomed the assimilation of Irish and Scottish spirit duties, 22 Apr., and a proposal to unify Irish and English currencies, though he feared that it might cause ‘alarm’, 12 May. He supported the production of papers submitted to Wellesley on religious animosities, 26 May. He successfully moved for legal action to be taken against the abuses in Irish charter schools that had been revealed by the education commissioners, 9 June 1825, when he was in a minority of 23 for the abolition of naval flogging.

Newport declined to attend the Association dinner for the ‘friends of civil and religious liberty’, 2 Feb. 1826.38 He approved ministerial proposals to suppress the circulation of Irish small notes, which from his ‘personal knowledge’ were injurious to ‘both the recipients and the issuing banks’, 13 Feb., and was named to the ensuing select committee, 16 Mar. He welcomed inquiry into Irish tolls and customs levied by corporations, 16 Feb., and was appointed to it, 21 Feb. He secured papers on Irish education grants, 7 Mar., was in the minority of 19 for his amendment to reduce the grant to Protestant charter schools, 20 Mar., and denied Protestant claims that the Catholic church ‘absolutely refused the Bible to its members’, saying that they ‘merely objected’ to its use by young persons ‘without note or comment’, 14 Apr. In a day of much activity, even by his standards, 9 Mar., he moved and was in the minority for bringing in a measure to disfranchise non-resident Irish borough voters, introduced a bill with Spring Rice to alter Irish local jurisdictions (which passed later that session), and obtained leave to reintroduce his bill against the formation of further episcopal unions, which again lapsed after its first reading, 17 Mar. On 13 Mar. he congratulated ministers on their ‘considerable’ tax reductions, hoping they would be carried ‘still further’. Resuming his call for the proper use of Irish first fruit revenues, 21 Mar., he ignored protests by Goulburn that it had already been ‘under discussion four different times’, vowed to persist with it ‘as long as he had a seat in this House’ and was a minority teller for his motion for inquiry. ‘He seems to pursue the church establishment in every way and in every place’, Sir Robert Inglis* informed the bishop of Limerick that month.39 On 25 Apr. he moved unsuccessfully for abolition of the ‘tyrannical’ power of Irish parish vestries to collect church rates from neighbouring parishes without a church. He called for the relief of distressed manufacturers, 2 May 1826.

At the 1826 general election he was again returned for Waterford unopposed. On the hustings he declared that ‘increasing years were making him somewhat feeble, and he could not be expected to be as active as before, but in zeal for the benefit of his constituents he would yield to none’. He concluded by appealing for the Catholic question to be forwarded with ‘temperance’ as well as ‘firmness’.40 In late August 1826 he spoke in similar terms at an Association dinner in Waterford attended by Henry Crabb Robinson, who described him as an ‘old man ... in full possession of his faculties’, with a countenance that was ‘sharp, even somewhat quizzical’.41 He argued against the impressment of seamen, 13 Feb. 1827. He was appointed to the select committee on communications with Ireland, 21 Feb. He supported a motion for inquiry into electoral bribery, saying that ‘some alteration was absolutely necessary’, 26 Feb. He berated George Dawson, Member for county Londonderry, for his ‘intemperate remarks’ against the Catholic Association, 2 Mar. Next day he attended a meeting at Norfolk House to assess the strength of support for Catholic claims, for which he duly voted, 6 Mar.42 He contended that a reduction of the Irish tobacco duties would result in ‘increased consumption’ and ‘augmented’ tax revenues, 26 Mar. That month Goulburn informed his wife that he intended to ‘combat Newport’ and ‘take an opportunity of paying him off for some of those absurd speeches which he had made in my absence’.43 On 3 Apr. Newport secured papers on the use of Irish first fruits and obtained leave to reintroduce his bill amending the levy of Irish church rates, noting the unfair burden imposed on Catholic taxpayers. ‘Newport indulges us ... with his annual resolution about the building of churches’, Goulburn commented to Wellesley beforehand.44 The bill was read a first time, 16 May, but withdrawn, 1 June. He moved unsuccessfully for inquiry into the Irish estimates, 5 Apr. 1827. Following the appointment of the pro-Catholic Canning as prime minister later that month, Newport took a seat on the third row on the treasury side of the Commons, 1 May. Next day he asserted that the Irish Catholics would ‘never be satisfied until they were placed on an equality with the people of England’. He recommended that Penryn’s seats be transferred to an unrepresented wealthy town and voted for its disfranchisement, 28 May. He welcomed the appointment of the finance committee, which would result in a diminution of public expenditure, 1 June, and proposals to repeal the corn law, 18 June. On news reaching Ireland of Canning’s death in August, Newport agreed with Holland in approving of the ‘cordial acquiescence’ of Lord Lansdowne, the home secretary, in the succession of Lord Goderich as premier and the continuation of William Lamb as Irish secretary, who he believed had ‘gained much credit by his readiness of access and conciliating manners, in both of which qualities (exclusive of his narrow minded bigotry) Goulburn was pointedly deficient’.45 He disagreed with those who thought the Whigs should leave office following the provocative appointment of John Herries* as the new chancellor, informing Holland, 9 Sept., that Lord Duncannon*

tells me that many of our friends feel and express great dissatisfaction. One in particular wrote him that he supposed Peel would be the next person introduced into the cabinet. Was there ever more exaggerated prejudice than that of not seeing the distinction between Peel and Herries?46

In October 1827 Sir James Macdonald* informed Lansdowne that Goderich was ‘warmly disposed towards Newport’ becoming Irish vice-treasurer on the retirement of Sir George Hill*, who was anxious to leave office, but nothing came of it.47

After the collapse of the ministry, Newport told Holland that he and Duncannon had ‘for some time’ believed ‘that poor Goderich ... was so absolutely deficient in the nerve and firmness of a statesman as to be wholly unsuited to take the lead in times like the present, and that the fabric disjointed by his vacillation must soon fall to pieces’, 15 Jan. 1828.48 Remarking on the duke of Wellington’s appointment as premier, 6 Feb., he opined that the ‘qualifications of a statesman and a general have seldom been united in the same individual’, but promised to judge ministers ‘by their acts’. He presented and endorsed petitions for Catholic claims, 12, 21 Feb., 18 Mar., and voted thus, 12 May 1828. He secured papers on the ‘mismanagement’ of the Irish admiralty court, 12 Feb., brought up and endorsed petitions against its ‘abuses’, 18 Feb., 2 May, and welcomed the government’s announcement of an investigation by the Irish commissioners, 22 Apr., when he withdrew his tabled motion for inquiry. (On 2 Feb. John Croker*, the admiralty secretary, had advised Peel, again home secretary, that ‘something must be done’ about Newport’s motion as ‘the matter properly belongs to the government and should not, I think, be left in the hands of an opposition Member’.)49 Newport obtained papers on the operation of the Irish Vestry Acts, 12 Feb., and Irish corn exports, 15 Feb. That day he was appointed to the finance committee, apparently against the advice of Herries, who had informed Peel that he ‘preferred [Spring] Rice to Newport because I think he is less mischievous and may be more useful’. ‘I confess I am a little uneasy about the composition of the committee’, Wellington told Peel a few days later, naming Newport as one of the members who were ‘likely’ to vote for Lord Althorp to be its chairman.50 Newport defended the committee’s slow progress, 24 Mar., insisting that the production of a ‘hasty report’ would be misleading to both Parliament and the country, 16 May. He resumed his protests against the taxation of Irish Catholics for the rebuilding of Protestant churches, 19 Feb., secured papers on Irish unbeneficed curates, 26 Feb., and demanded abolition of the Irish Vestry Act, by which bishops could tax ‘to any extent they think proper’ for church maintenance, 20 Mar. He voted for repeal of the Test Acts, 26 Feb. Next day he supported a motion for inquiry into the salaries of the Irish militia, in which ‘very great reforms were required’. He opposed the Killiney chapel bill, 4 Mar., complaining that the money advanced would have to be repaid by parochial taxes, 14 Mar. He endorsed a petition against Irish Protestant education societies next day and welcomed the select committee on Irish education grants, to which he was appointed, 11 Mar. He advocated inquiry into parliamentary representation, 11 Mar., and voted to disfranchise East Retford in favour of a large unrepresented town, 21 Mar., 27 June. He welcomed a bill for the registration of English freeholders, without which ‘it would be perfectly impossible to go through a contested election’ in Ireland, 25 Mar., suggested that the bribery oath in the Manchester enfranchisement bill be included in a ‘general measure of reform’, 28 Mar., and called for the disfranchisement of all non-resident borough electors, 15 May. On 18 Mar. he opposed the passengers regulation bill, fearing it would restrict Irish emigration. He supported a bill to render Irish lessors liable for parish and county assessments, 20 Mar., and voted accordingly, 12 June. He condemned ministers for failing to abolish the office of the keeper of the general register of hornings in Scotland, 21 Mar., and demanded an inquiry prior to their filling up the vacancy, 28 Mar. He welcomed bills for the lighting, cleansing and watching of Irish towns, 25 Mar., and the correction of abuses in Irish public offices, 27 Mar. On 2 Apr. he ridiculed government proposals to lower the duty on cards and dice rather than articles of ‘great public interest’ and supported a bill amending the laws relating to testators and executors. That day the newly appointed Irish viceroy Lord Anglesey told Holland, ‘I wish I had my little Sir John Newport at my elbow ... He was adverse to my going [to Ireland] but that was under an impression that my government might be considered by the Catholics as likely to be hostile to them, whereas the very reverse is the case, and ... I wish you would take the trouble to reconcile him’.51 Newport attacked the ‘great and unnecessary expense’ of the new post office building and the ‘impropriety’ of using departmental funds without parliamentary approval, 15 Apr. He secured accounts of Irish revenue collection that day. He feared that the friendly societies bill would damage benefit societies, 17 Apr. He warned against ‘interested parties’ being appointed to the select committee on the Irish stock exchange bill, to which he was added, 6 May. Reiterating his opposition to the introduction of Irish poor laws that day, he drew attention to the difficulty of ensuring ‘the fair distribution of poor rates’. On 22 May he spoke in support of the proposed grant to the family of Canning, to whom the country were ‘indebted’ for his stand against the Holy Alliance. He deplored the post office’s rejection of the Liverpool Steam Navigation Company’s offer to transport mail from Liverpool to Dublin, 30 May, and condemned the ‘public expense’ of their separate steam packets, 6, 25 June. He presented and endorsed a petition against the collection of Irish tithes by the episcopal courts, 2 June. He insisted that some measure was ‘absolutely necessary’ to alleviate Irish distress, 5 June. He obtained information on financial abuses in the Irish police, 12 June, and presented and endorsed a petition against the misuse of their funds, 20 June. He spoke in support of the small debts bill, 23 June. On 24 June 1828 he moved unsuccessfully for an inquiry into Irish church pluralities.

Following Anglesey’s recall Newport chaired a Waterford meeting in his support, 15 Jan. 1829.52 In the House, 6 Feb., he expressed ‘joy’ at the Wellington ministry’s concession of emancipation and urged the Catholic Association to dissolve immediately ‘without waiting for any legislative acts’. He presented favourable petitions, 16 Feb., and voted thus, 6 Mar., when he praised Peel for putting the ‘interests of the country first’ and defended the Irish franchise bill as a necessary sacrifice, and 30 Mar. (as a pair). He divided for O’Connell to be allowed to take his seat unimpaired, 18 May. Next month Wellington received an anonymous application from the ‘people of Ireland’ for an honour to be bestowed upon Newport, who was ‘renowned for his adherence to his political conscience’ and since the failure of his family’s bank had ‘been on the verge of financial ruin’.53 No other parliamentary activity for Newport has been found for the rest of that year, of which he later recalled: ‘1829. Very ill of fever and asthma nearly whole session’.54 He presented a constituency petition against the monopoly of the East India Company, 22 Feb. 1830. He warned that increases in Irish spirit duties would ‘revive illicit distillation’, 23 Feb. He voted for the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester that day, and paired for the transfer of East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 5 Mar., and parliamentary reform, 28 May. On 4 Mar. he revived his campaign against Irish church pluralities, but agreed to withdraw his motion for inquiry. He attended a meeting of ‘the party’ at Althorp’s, 6 Mar., but ‘objected strongly’ to the issue of ‘some sort of communication’ announcing they were acting together for a reduction of taxation, in which the others ‘agreed with him’.55 He voted steadily with the revived Whig opposition for economy and tax cuts thereafter. He was appointed to the select committee on the Irish poor, 11 Mar. He criticized the ‘annoying’ tax on Irish seaborne coals, 17 Mar., and presented and endorsed a Dublin petition for its abolition, 30 Mar. He opposed calls for repeal of the Union, warning that it would lead to a ‘speedy destruction of one of the countries, and ultimately to that of the other’, 22 Mar. He voted for Jewish emancipation, 5 Apr. He presented and endorsed petitions against the proposed increase of Irish stamp duties, 7, 26 Apr., 6, 27 May, and berated ministers for failing to provide more details, 28 Apr., and attempting to ‘clog’ the freedom of the Irish press, 17 May. He secured papers on the advances made by the Irish first fruits commissioners, 27 Apr., and unsuccessfully reintroduced his motion for their proper implementation, regretting that at present ‘neither my health nor my strength’ enabled him to speak ‘at great length’, 18 May. He argued and voted for amendment of the Irish Vestry Act, 27 Apr., and brought up a petition for its repeal, 25 May. He called for the estimates to be referred to a select committee, 3 May, and recommended revising the allowances of retired public officers, 14 May. That month he was entrusted by the Irish Members with presenting their resolutions against tax increases to Wellington and Goulburn.56 He supported calls for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington from the Irish admiralty court for embezzlement, 25 May. He secured papers on the drawback on soap and candles, citing the damage to Irish manufacturers, 27 May 1830.

At the 1830 general election it was rumoured that he would retire from Waterford, where the recently ‘opened’ corporation had renounced any further involvement in the representation. In the event, however, he offered again, stressing his 26 years’ political service and opposition to O’Connell’s campaign for repeal of the Union. ‘For God’s sake will nobody rid us of this nominee’, protested the Waterford Mail, adding, ‘Little Johnny is an alderman and he is at the very bottom of those humbug new rules ... of the corporation ... He is an excursive patriot and disdains to point to any services he ... has performed near home’. Attempts to get up an opposition came to nothing, however, and he was again returned.57 On 3 Nov. 1830 he implored ministers to redress the grievances of Ireland, complaining of the delays to Irish legislation caused by the dissolution. Next day he presented and endorsed a petition for the abolition of slavery. He recommended that copies of the estimates be given to every Member, 8 Nov., and was appointed to the select committee on the Irish poor, 11 Nov. He of course had been listed by the Irish agent Pierce Mahony† as a ‘contra’ and by the ministry as one of their ‘foes’, but he was absent from the crucial division for inquiry into the civil list (to which he was nevertheless appointed) 15 Nov. On 19 Nov. he asserted that O’Connell’s repeal campaign would have the ‘most lamentable consequences’ and recalled the system of ‘misgovernment’ carried out by the Irish Parliament. He acknowledged that on this issue he was ‘opposed’ to a respectable portion of his constituents, 6 Dec., and dissented from their favourable petitions, which he presented, 8 Dec. 1830, 11 Feb. 1831. On 9 Dec. 1830, in what Sir John Walsh* considered ‘a feeble speech’, he moved but agreed to withdraw a ‘string of resolutions’ for reform of the ‘grossly defective’ Irish grand jury system.58 Sending Lansdowne details of his proposals, which included more regular meetings and a limited period of service and property qualification for grand jurors, 25 Dec., he explained that he had acted

rather with the object of eliciting discussion than any idea of taking on myself the task far too heavy for me ... of planning or carrying through the necessary reforms ... I withdrew [the resolutions] on Althorp’s declaration that the subject was under consideration of the government ... and on Peel’s objection to coming to a vote upon them without their remaining for a time before the House ... In almost every county of Ireland the inequality of the assessment is severely felt and ... I consider it vicious in its foundation.59

He was appointed to the select committee on reducing the salaries of office-holders, 9 Dec., and secured information on the Irish civil list, 15 Dec. He called for repeal of the Irish seaborne coal tax, 17 Dec. 1830, 8 Feb. 1831. On 20 Dec. 1830 he rebutted criticism of the Grey ministry’s Irish appointments, remarking on the ‘hardship that an administration but three weeks in existence should be thus arraigned’.60 ‘Little Newport was charming. I wish we had a dozen such, so honest and so clever and so bold’, observed William Ord*.61 He implored ministers not to ‘resist the wishes of the people’ over parliamentary reform, citing Wellington’s recent fall ‘from popularity’, 21 Dec. 1830, and presented a petition for additional Irish Members, 4 Feb. 1831, when he announced his conversion to the secret ballot. Regretting that he could no longer speak at length owing to ‘age and increasing infirmities’, 2 Mar., he contended that reform was essential to prevent revolution and recommended the enfranchisement of all householders. On 14 Mar. he reintroduced his resolutions for the proper use of Irish first fruits, and after agreeing to modifications by Smith Stanley, the Irish secretary, successfully moved for inquiry. He supported proposed amendments to the Irish Vestry Act and secured an inquiry into the Irish prerogative courts, to which he was appointed, 16 Mar. He dismissed allegations that the ministry’s plan of reform was ‘corporate robbery’, noting Waterford corporation’s willingness to ‘waive’ their privileges for the ‘public benefit’, 19 Mar., paired for the second reading of the English bill, 22 Mar., when he welcomed the destruction of the ‘close borough system’, and presented a favourable constituency petition, insisting that reform afforded the best means to preserve the Union, 29 Mar. He countered denials that close boroughs had been ‘bought and sold’, detailing their barter in marriage settlements, 18 Apr. 1831, and paired against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment next day.

At the ensuing general election he again defied local expectations that he would retire and stood for re-election as a supporter of the ‘whole’ reform bill, regretting that ‘advanced age and infirm health’ would ‘wholly disable’ him from attending in person. Following the last minute withdrawal of an opponent he was returned unopposed, with his nephew William Newport, ‘a barrister’, acting as his representative.62 ‘He is 75’, reported Sheil that month, ‘but his heart still beats with a vigorous passion for his country, though I am sorry to perceive that his hand has begun to tremble and his fine eyes have lost their lustre’.63 Passing on an application from Newport, Grey observed to Anglesey, ‘There is really nothing that would give me more pleasure than to have it in my power to do anything that might be for the service of good old Newport’, 17 May 1831.64 On 12 June Newport sent Holland a copy of a ‘little statement’ he had prepared for Duncannon on the first fruits question, which he hoped would be printed for those Members who ‘would want patience to go through the details’, adding:

The bishop of Cork is dead and this vacancy would afford as I think a signal opportunity for Lord Grey to commence an admirable reform of the Irish church establishment, by uniting the diocese with Cloyne ... and appropriating the revenues either to the first fruits fund or other public uses. I anxiously wish that ... the cabinet would consider this well before you decided on filling it up.65

He cautioned against discussing the Newtownbarry massacre prior to inquiry, 23 June, but spoke and voted for printing the Waterford petition for disarming the Irish yeomanry, 11 Aug. ‘It is lamentable that even Newport ... divided against government’, observed Holland.66 He paired for the second reading of the reintroduced English reform bill, 6 July, and gave generally steady support to its details (usually as a pair). He paired for the bill’s passage, 21 Sept. He called for a reform of Irish education, 15 July, defended the grant to Maynooth College, 5 Aug., 26 Sept., and after being prevented by ‘a severe attack’ of asthma from attending the House, wrote to congratulate Smith Stanley on his announcement of the new plan of Irish education, which he promised to assist ‘as far as health and age will allow’, 10 Sept.67 He contended that it was ‘quite time’ to suppress Orange processions, 18 July. He obtained information on the Irish admiralty court, 21 July. On the 27th, in an acknowledged volte face, he conceded the necessity of ‘permanent provision’ for the Irish poor, though he remained concerned about giving a ‘premium to idlers’, 26 Sept. He secured papers on the progress of the revaluation of Irish first fruits, 9 Aug. He welcomed the appointment of lord lieutenants to Irish counties, 20 Aug., and defended the selection of Henry Villiers Stuart* for county Waterford, stressing his non-political credentials, 6 Oct. He divided with ministers on the Dublin election controversy, 23 Aug. He protested that under the Irish Vestry Act the building of churches had become a ‘complete job’ and demanded its repeal, 29 Aug. He opposed calls for the abolition of the Irish lord lieutenancy, 31 Aug. He welcomed the establishment of an Irish board of public works, 16 Sept. On 19 Sept. he was discharged from further attendance of the select committee on malt drawback, to which he had been appointed, 5 Sept. That month he and O’Connell, acting as a ‘deputation from the Irish Members’, met with ministers to demand additional Irish representatives and other improvements to the Irish reform bill, which they had jointly agreed in a paper.68 He renewed his call for the repeal of the drawback on English soap sold in Ireland, 11 Oct., and commended the bankruptcy court bill as ‘economical and efficient’, 14 Oct. On 17 Oct. 1831 he disputed complaints by Hunt* that Ireland was subsidized by England and failed to pay her ‘fair share of taxation’.

Newport was appointed to the select committee on Irish tithes, 15 Dec. 1831. He was absent from the division on the second reading of the revised English reform bill, 17 Dec. 1831, but presented and endorsed a favourable constituency petition, 23 Jan., and paired for the enfranchisement of Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb., and the third reading, 22 Mar. 1832. On 10 Feb. a colleague postponed his tabled motion on Irish first fruits on account of his ‘indisposition’. That month Holland noted that Newport and others ‘of our best Irish friends’ were satisfied that Smith Stanley’s Irish tithes legislation was ‘safe’.69 Newport supported calls for a full inquiry into Irish education, 2 Mar., but rejected claims by the Protestant proselytiser James Gordon that the new plan was ‘purely exclusive and Catholic’, 8 June. He presented a Waterford petition for repeal of the Irish Vestry Act, 8 May. He spoke in support of Lord Ebrington’s planned motion for an address calling on the king to appoint only ministers who would carry reform unimpaired, 9 May, and paired accordingly next day. On 22 May he was appointed to the select committee on the Bank of England’s charter. He paired for the second reading of the Irish reform bill, 25 May, having given Smith Stanley advance warning that he was ‘much indisposed with asthma ... in addition to a cold and cough’, but complained that the Irish 40s. freeholders ‘in fee’ should have been restored to the ‘same privileges’ as their English counterparts and that the proposed ‘mode of registration’ was ‘highly defective’, 13 June.70 He agreed with other Irish Members that the £10 household qualification was ‘too high’, but appealed for the Irish measure to be allowed to pass ‘contemporaneously with the English and Scottish bills’, as its ‘great point’ was the ‘abolition of nomination boroughs’, 18 June. That month, in what the Morning Chronicle deemed a ‘valuable contingent to the history of corruption’, Newport published a pamphlet on the state of Irish borough representation before the Union dedicated to Grey. ‘On the eve of terminating my political life’, he wrote, ‘I offer to public inspection a document connected with its commencement’.71 Citing his imminent retirement ‘from Parliament and England’ and ‘strong and direct claims’ on government, Holland, at Newport’s request, that month pressed Anglesey for a deputy clerkship at the Irish hanaper court for his nephew William, only to learn that the position had already been filled and was not in his gift. On 25 June Holland reported that Newport had ‘called, not without some chagrin, natural enough, that his nephew’s claim ... has been hitherto neglected. Few deserve more from the Whigs than Newport. None can have got less, and the old man feels it’.72 ‘I was really touched at the parting visit of ... poor little Newport this morning’, he wrote to Anglesey that day:

He hardly means to return to England again and it is at least a painful consequence of retrenchment if it be not some reproach upon us all that so able, steadfast and honest a member of our party should retire to poverty in his old age without having been able to procure an employment however small for his only nephew and I believe heir, if he has enough to entitle those who come after him to any such appellation.

‘You ought to know that dear little Johnny has not been overlooked’, Anglesey corrected, 1 July, observing that he had ‘already ... at his request, appointed one of his nephews to the situation of stipendiary magistrate, worth £500 a year, and another relation to a living of more than £300 a year’.73 In Newport’s last known spoken intervention, 2 July, he doubted that legislation would prevent frauds in the sale of flax or corn seeds used for sowing. He was granted six weeks’ leave on urgent business that day. Following his return to Ireland, 17 July, he advised Holland that his ‘strong conviction’ against the tithes system had been ‘decidedly confirmed’:

Depend on it the landed proprietors of the country cannot if they would and will not if they could generally undertake the perilous responsibility of the collection of either the tithe or its substitute ... The settlement can in my mind only be effected by the state becoming paymasters of the church and indemnify itself by a land tax during the continuance of the outstanding bishop’s leases so as to provide for existing interests of bishops and clergy. This is I believe now practicable. How long it will remain so I cannot so easily foresee, but in this as in former instances procrastination will I fear prove the curse of Ireland.74

Writing in similar terms to Lansdowne, with whom he claimed to have acted ‘in perfect unison’ for ‘so many years’, 30 Sept. 1832, he explained that in his resignation address to his constituents:

I felt myself bound ... to impress on my countrymen my conviction of the unjustifiable and perilous extent to which O’Connell and other agitators desire for their own depraved and selfish objects to commit the people of Ireland ... to ... wild and ruinous proceedings.75

At the 1832 dissolution he duly retired from Waterford on account of ‘advanced age and infirm health’, and in the ensuing election publicly supported the unsuccessful candidature of Thomas Wyse* against a local Repealer.76 Shortly after the accession of Lord Melbourne as premier in 1834, he was appointed to the newly created comptroller-generalship of the exchequer, a salaried auditorship which he retained until 1839, when he retired with a pension of £1,000. (He was reportedly ‘ready and eager to retire’ in November 1838, having come close to death through illness the previous month.) He resigned his seat on Waterford corporation, 5 Nov. 1834.77

Newport died in February 1843, aged 87, the ‘infirmities natural to an advanced age’ having had ‘so gradual an effect on his constitution’ that his friends ‘scarcely noticed the slow but sure symptoms of decay’. He was succeeded in the baronetcy by his brother’s only surviving son, the Rev. John Newport (1800-59).78

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: Philip Salmon


  • 1. R. Sheil, Sketches, Legal and Political ed. M.W. Savage, ii. 339; Add. 51783, Holland to C.R. Fox, 28 June 1823.
  • 2. Black Bk. (1823), 179; Session of Parl. 1825, p. 477; Life of Campbell, i. 398.
  • 3. D. Plunket, Life, Letters, and Speeches of Lord Plunket, i. 394.
  • 4. Northants. RO, Agar Ellis diary, 17 Apr. 1822.
  • 5. The Times, 11 Nov. 1829.
  • 6. Wellesley to Newport, 28 Feb., with reply, 23 Mar. 1840, cited in Plunket, ii. 131-3.
  • 7. PP (1835), xxxiv. 149; T. Power, ‘Electoral Politics in Waterford City, 1692-1832’, in Waterford Hist. and Society ed. W. Noland and T. Power, 254; Ramsey’s Waterford Chron. 21 Mar. 1820.
  • 8. The Times, 13 June, 28 July 1820; W.P. Burke, ‘Newport’s Waterford Bank’, Jnl. Cork Hist. and Arch. Soc. (1878), iv. 279, 284.
  • 9. Add. 75962, Grenville to Spencer, 30 Nov. 1820.
  • 10. Add. 51534, f. 83.
  • 11. Buckingham, Mems. Geo. IV, i. 145.
  • 12. HLRO, Hist. Coll. 379, Grey Bennet diary, 9 May 1821.
  • 13. Lonsdale mss, Beckett to Lord Lowther, 20 June 1821.
  • 14. Lansdowne mss, Brougham to Lansdowne [n.d.].
  • 15. Add. 52445, ff. 25-26.
  • 16. Add. 37298, f. 158.
  • 17. NLW, Coedymaen mss 633; Buckingham, i. 314; Add. 51586, Tierney to Lady Holland, 16 Apr. 1822.
  • 18. Agar Ellis diary, 17 Apr. 1822.
  • 19. Coedymaen mss 636; Add. 52445, f. 78.
  • 20. Arbuthnot Jnl. i. 157; The Times, 23 Apr. 1822.
  • 21. Add. 37315, Richard Wellesley to Wellesley, 25 Apr. 1822.
  • 22. Add. 51832.
  • 23. TCD, Donoughmore mss D/28/8.
  • 24. Add. 51667, Bedford to Lady Holland, 7 Mar. 1823.
  • 25. HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 666.
  • 26. Add. 40329, f. 62; Buckingham, i. 446; Harewood mss Har/GC/85, Williams Wynn to Canning, 7 Apr. 1823.
  • 27. Add. 51663, Bedford to Holland, 27 Mar. 1823.
  • 28. Add. 51663, same to same, undated.
  • 29. O’Connell Corresp. ii. 1012.
  • 30. Add. 51574, Abercromby to Holland, 30 Dec. 1823.
  • 31. Buckingham, i. 314.
  • 32. Agar Ellis diary, 8 Apr. 1824.
  • 33. O’Connell Corresp. iii. 1172.
  • 34. Add. 51832, Newport to Holland, 17 July 1825.
  • 35. Brougham mss, Mackintosh to Brougham, 17 Mar. 1825; Lonsdale mss, Long to Lonsdale, 23 Mar. 1825.
  • 36. Agar Ellis diary, 26 Mar. 1825.
  • 37. The Times, 12 May 1825; TNA 30/29/9/2/30.
  • 38. O’Connell Corresp. iii. 1278.
  • 39. TCD, Jebb mss 6396/249.
  • 40. The Mail, 10, 17 June 1826.
  • 41. Crabb Robinson Diary, i. 34; O’Connell Corresp. iii. 1337.
  • 42. Canning’s Ministry, 40.
  • 43. Surr. Hist. Cent. Goulburn mss Acc 304/66A, Goulburn to wife, 14 Mar. 1827.
  • 44. Add. 37305, f. 53.
  • 45. Add. 51833, Newport to Holland, 15 Aug. [1827].
  • 46. Add. 51833.
  • 47. Lansdowne mss, Macdonald to Lansdowne, 21 Oct. [1827].
  • 48. Add. 51834.
  • 49. Add. 40320, f. 1.
  • 50. Add. 40395, ff. 219, 221; 40307, f. 50.
  • 51. Add. 51567, Anglesey to Holland, 2 Apr. 1828.
  • 52. Dublin Evening Post, 24 Jan. 1829.
  • 53. Wellington mss WP1/1024/5.
  • 54. NAI, Newport mss M. 483/17.
  • 55. Add. 56554, ff. 71-72.
  • 56. O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1672, 1677.
  • 57. Waterford Mail, 3, 7, 14 July, 7 Aug. 1830.
  • 58. NLW, Ormathwaite mss FG/1/6.
  • 59. Lansdowne mss.
  • 60. The Times, 21 Dec. 1830.
  • 61. Add. 51569, Ord to Holland, 21 Dec. 1830.
  • 62. Waterford Mail, 9, 13, 27 Apr., 7 May 1831.
  • 63. Sheil, ii. 339.
  • 64. PRO NI, Anglesey mss D619/28A-B/57.
  • 65. Add. 51836, Newport to Holland [12 June 1831].
  • 66. Holland House Diaries, 28.
  • 67. Derby mss 920 Der (14) 128/1.
  • 68. A. Macintyre, The Liberator, 32; O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1836; Holland House Diaries, 94.
  • 69. Holland House Diaries, 130.
  • 70. Derby mss 920 Der (14) 128/1, Newport to Smith Stanley [n.d.].
  • 71. Morning Chron. 12 June 1832; The State of the Borough Representation of Ireland in 1783 and 1800.
  • 72. Holland House Diaries, 195.
  • 73. Anglesey mss 27A/165, 167, 168; 27B/110-12.
  • 74. Add. 51837, Newport to Holland, 17 July [1832].
  • 75. Lansdowne mss, Newport to Lansdowne, 30 Sept. 1832.
  • 76. Macintyre, 56.
  • 77. Walpole, Russell, i. 308, 312; Holland House Diaries, 389; Newport mss M. 482/7.
  • 78. Gent. Mag. (1843), i. 653; Oxford DNB.