The dominant interest was that of William, 4th Earl Fitzwilliam, the Whig grandee who owned about a sixth of the county and was landlord to a third, in 1795, and a half, in 1815, of the registered electorate. Despite this, as Morley Saunders put it in 1815: ‘For some years past it has been understood by the gentlemen of the county that your lordship’s wishes were confined to the return of one representative, and you were pleased to say, you would leave the return of the other to their choice’. On the other hand, it was not to be supposed that Fitzwilliam would allow the free choice he thus bestowed largely on his own tenantry to be usurped by his political opponents among the lesser interests of Wicklow, which comprised Lords Carysfort, Aldborough, Powerscourt, Meath and Wicklow.
When Nicholas Westby died, 30 Nov. 1800, Fitzwilliam decided to replace him with his wife’s cousin George Ponsonby, the leading Irish Whig, owing to ‘the expediency and necessity’ of bringing him into Westminster. He accordingly declined to support Powerscourt’s brother Capt. John Wingfield or Morley Saunders, and they declined, as did William Howard and William Westby. Two opponents emerged, John Stratford and Lord Proby, but owing to Aldborough’s death on 2 Jan. 1801, the former, having succeeded to the title, was replaced by his younger brother Benjamin O’Neale Stratford. In the event, Proby and Stratford drew lots and Proby won, whereupon Stratford nominated him, though it would appear that he did not receive wholehearted support from Stratford’s family. Stratford would perhaps have been a stronger candidate: Proby’s father was absent in Berlin and, thinking it better for Proby to wait for a general election and take on Hume, was unhappy about his candidature, which owing to his own defective registration relied to his displeasure on the Powerscourt interest. Moreover, Proby did not have the crucial support of Hume, which Stratford would have had, because of a prior engagement which prevented Fitzwilliam from forming an electoral alliance with Hume until the election was over. As it was, Hume supported Ponsonby against Proby, with the assurance of Fitzwilliam’s future support, even in preference, at the latter’s insistence, to Ponsonby, and resisted attempts by Proby to buy him. George Ponsonby alleged ‘they were so sure at the Castle of corrupting him that they offered large bets that he would vote against me’. Ponsonby, after trailing at first, succeeded in an expensive contest and assured Fitzwilliam that he was now ‘perfectly sure of both seats with proper care both now and hereafter’. Although his son muttered about the county becoming a ‘close borough’, Carysfort resolved never to clash with Fitzwilliam’s big battalions again.
On the eve of the election of 1802, it was rumoured that Fitzwilliam would bring Henry Grattan in for Wicklow in place of Hume, but he did not go so far. Proby wished to stand again, but found the prime minister Addington lukewarm in his support, owing to his father’s connexion with Lord Grenville, a critic of the ministry. He therefore declined. So did Benjamin O’Neale Stratford, who had also talked of standing. In case of a contest, Fitzwilliam assured Hume of £3,000 lodged in his Dublin bank for mutual support, but none materialized.
At the election of 1806 Carysfort was induced by government not to persevere in his intention of putting up Lord Proby lest it irritate Fitzwilliam, and invited Fitzwilliam to support Proby in Huntingdonshire instead. Tighe, though an ailing Member, and Hume, though a financially embarrassed one who was prepared to consider vacating his seat for a place, were unopposed. Fitzwilliam was confident that even if there were a contest, and provided placeholders like Aldborough and Col. William Howard were thereby neutralized, the county was ‘as safe as Old Sarum’.
There was no opposition in 1812, but in April 1813 Fitzwilliam’s agent warned him to expect it from Col. John Wingfield Stratford at a dissolution, without thinking much of his prospects. In 1814 Hume was in such financial straits that he was prepared to vacate his seat if provided for, but a windfall relieved him, and in February 1815, when Carysfort solicited Fitzwilliam’s support for his son Capt. Granville Proby RN, in expectation of a vacancy, Fitzwilliam replied that Hume was not retiring. Hume died on 5 Nov. 1815, whereupon there was keen competition for Fitzwilliam’s support. William Parnell of Avondale, whose father had supported Fitzwilliam’s interest, applied for it, urged on by Wicklow’s brother Col. William Howard, who was his brother-in-law. So did Morley Saunders on behalf of his son Robert, for whom his uncle Aldborough also applied, alleging government and independent support for him. George Ponsonby’s name was mentioned, but he did not apply. Fitzwilliam’s preference went to Carysfort’s son, despite Ponsonby’s and Henry Grattan’s advising him to support Parnell rather than Proby. Ponsonby wrote, 24 Nov. 1815, ‘it is a choice more likely to be injurious to your interest in the county than any you could have made’, reminding Fitzwilliam that it was Proby’s brother who had opposed Fitzwilliam in 1801 and that it might happen again. He also remarked that Fitzwilliam could only ignore accusations of monopolizing the county representation as long as he could not be vanquished. On 6 Dec. 1815 Fitzwilliam informed Carysfort that he would support Proby, but, to safeguard his interest, insisted that his own friends should sponsor Proby’s candidature and that Proby should not sport the same election colours as in 1801. George Ponsonby approved this step, suggesting that Grattan should nominate Proby. Parnell had assured Fitzwilliam that he would not be hurt by a refusal, and only Morley Saunders and Aldborough were.
No sooner had Proby been returned unopposed than William Tighe died. Carysfort at once offered to support Fitzwilliam’s choice, which fell on George Ponsonby, who this time assented. Had he not done so, Fitzwilliam would have supported William Parnell, who had again applied to him, stating that he could rely on the backing of the ministerial interests of Wicklow and Powerscourt, which would prevent a contest. Other unsuccessful aspirants included Tighe’s son, whose claims were urged by Lord Darnley, and Grattan’s son, whose claims were urged by his mother, without his father’s knowledge. Morley Saunders also applied on behalf of his son Robert, but the Castle doubted his prospects in view of the coalition of Fitzwilliam and Carysfort. Fitzwilliam’s refusal to support Saunders again irritated his family. Col. Joseph Hardy, one of his relatives, warned Fitzwilliam that although he and Carysfort might return ‘your own butlers’ at present, they must consult the feelings of the resident gentry in future, or they would be challenged by an independent federation. Aldborough accused Fitzwilliam of turning the county into a close borough, but as he requested Fitzwilliam’s support for his own nominee in future in exchange for his support of Ponsonby at present, Fitzwilliam was able to return the accusation. Ponsonby was returned unopposed.
On Ponsonby’s death in July 1817 Fitzwilliam did not sponsor his nephew the Hon. George Ponsonby, as some Whig pundits expected, or Henry Grattan’s son, but the patient William Parnell, on whose behalf his brother Sir Henry canvassed Fitzwilliam on the day Ponsonby died. Carysfort concurred, and Parnell, who had the support of the three largest ministerial interest—Powerscourt’s, Wicklow’s and Kemmis’s—had no contest to fear. Robert Francis Saunders was again disappointed, and as report had it that he would have benefited from the defective state of Fitzwilliam’s registration, Parnell urged Fitzwilliam to remedy this, with a view to bringing in his grandson in due course. In 1818 Proby and Parnell, now brothers-in-law, were unopposed and Carysfort, who wished his son to be able to indicate that he was ‘joined with Parnell’, remarked to Fitzwilliam, ‘They both owe their election to you’. He added that he was sure the county would take no exception to Fitzwilliam’s ‘liberal’ conduct towards it.
Number of voters: about 3,000 in 1803 reduced to 1,676 in 1815