Carew, who acquired a reputation as an ‘old fox’ for his electioneering intrigues, had sat from 1812 as an ‘independent’ for county Wexford, where it was allegedly ‘well understood’ that he ‘held the representation merely to gratify his father’, who had been its Member, 1806-7.
At that year’s general election his coalition with ‘an Orangeman’ against the Whig Arthur Chichester II* was criticized by the Catholic press, who warned that if he had ‘renounced his faith’, the ‘day will come when it will take upon him tremendous vengeance’, but Chichester withdrew and he was returned unopposed.
At the 1830 dissolution Carew, who had succeeded his father the previous year, retired, despite being ‘certain of his return’, citing the incompatibility of his family obligations with the ‘more sustained and exclusive attendance’ in Parliament which the times required.
During the 1831 general election Carew obtained a grant of £500 from the Reform Fund Committee to assist the return of Henry Lambert, whom he proposed.
Carew voted for Lord Ebrington’s motion of confidence in ministers, 10 Oct. 1831. During the crisis of that month he sent Grey details of his ‘family and personal claims’ to a peerage if there were new creations:
My family have been in Parliament for above 150 years and since there was anything like public opinion in Ireland, always supported popular and constitutional principles. My grandfather was offered a peerage in 1772, but declined to accept any favour from a Tory administration. My father was offered a peerage and any other patronage he pleased in 1800, but declined on similar grounds and because he was then as opposed to the Union as he was subsequently friendly to the measure. I might now have been a peer of 50 years’ standing, but I can assure your lordship that I am much more proud of having inherited the political honesty of my ancestors. For myself I have been 20 years in Parliament and I need not say what has been my political conduct while many who now prefer claims to a Whig administration were the supporters of every antecedent ministry.
Carew, who did not ‘expect any immediate answer’ and hoped to be ‘excused this egotism’, suggested that ‘should there be a change of ministry’, an ‘attempt will be made to deprive me of the lord lieutenancy, on the score of my being a commoner’.
Carew, who certainly is no ultra liberal ... and does not despise either the Castle or its aristocratic minions, will be raised to the peerage and his apathy to say the least has annihilated his popularity. A vacancy takes place and not an honest straightforward man qualified can be found to come forward to the hustings.
O’Connell Corresp. iv. 1885.
That month Carew disclaimed any part in an anti-tithes meeting at Newtownbarry held in his name, about which he was ‘extremely annoyed’.
be in London (please God) on Friday in time for the Irish reform, for as you say we shall be hard pushed. I had written to Ellice to get me a pair till Monday, but have now written to say I will be over. Nothing could be more injurious or more secure O’Connell’s projects than defeat on the Irish reform. I fully expect that if we can settle the tithes and church cess creation all will be well, but everything will depend upon that.
Ibid. 30 Apr. 1832.
He was absent from the division on Ebrington’s motion for an address calling on the king to appoint only ministers who would carry reform unimpaired, 10 May, but was present on the 25th to vote for the second reading of the Irish bill, in support of which he brought up numerous petitions. Four days earlier he had warned Smith Stanley that he had been reading his tithes report ‘carefully by myself, and am sorry to say there is much of which I cannot approve, and when I say so, I fear others will be much more unmanageable’.
