---

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 James II (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 town.⁴ 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 Ardristm. 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 town.

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.

The Thomond’s and the Bindon’s 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 — 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 had 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 Lieutenant MacCallaghan was married to Anne the grand-daughter of his commanding officer Sir 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 connection.

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 estate’.³³ During these years rents were collected by Edmond Bray (£1,185), Emmanuel 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.

The O'Briens were very anxious to know how much had been paid to Tyrconnell’s 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 Jones 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 Baron Worth 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

Although the annual rent was £60 John Browne set it for £30 to Charles 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 Tyrconnell’s receivers.⁴⁵ By 1691 their under-tenant Dennis Nowland was operating the mill and he was set the premises until 1694 by Mr 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 concern.

The manor finances were also affected by brass and pewter money which was issued in the late 1680s but which was valueless after 1691,⁴⁷ 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

The 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 Thomond’s 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 rents’. 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 Thomond’s seemed to live in urgent need of frequent injections of cash. Lady Bindon wrote to Bray in 1695^I ... 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 Bindon’s 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 town.

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 money).⁶⁰

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.

Thomas 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

Thomas 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 — to build on them which they are doing to great perfection1.⁶⁷

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

In 1712 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 Humphry’s 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: HMC Historical Manascript Commission IMC Irish Manuscripts Commossion NA National Archives Dublin NLI National Library Ireland PHA is Petworth House Archives, West Sussex Record Office, England RD Registry of Deeds, Henritta Street, Dublin RCB Representative Church Body Library, Dublin RSFHL Reglious Society of Friends Historical :obrary, Swanbrook House, Morehampton Road, Donnybrook, Dublin4. 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 & 222—31. 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 (Dublin, 1872). 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. 1. 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 (1660—1760) (Shannon, 1969) originally printed Waterford, 1914], P-324. 21         Carlow County Library, Burton papers: Indenture between Robert Burton and Richard Henegan, March 1742. 22         Burke, Irish priests, pp 325—7; 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, MS 3071. 26         NLI, MS3071. 27         H.M.C. Ormonde Manuscripts, (old series), ii, p. 479. 28         'Extracts from the journal of Thomas Dineley', p. 39. 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 [1709]. 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 1704]. 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 1694/5. 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 May 1726. 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 April 1728. 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, 60/464/41959, 64/379/442. 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.